IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 11, No.
4, November 1996
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF THE IMPACT OF FACTS DEVICES ON
POWER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
F.D. Galiana (Fellow), K.Almeida, M. Toussaint, J. Griffin, D. Atanackovic, B.T. Ooi (Senior Member), D.T. McGillis
Department of Electrical Engineering
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
galiana@pele.ee.mcgil1.ca
ABSTRACT: The concept of security regions is used to systematicallyand
objectively compare the impact of various FACTS devices on the behaviour
of power systems. Scalar measures of the steady-state performance of a power
system with FACTS devices are used to quantify this impact. Such measures
are obtained by solving an optimal power flow within the constraintsof the
security region. The concept of the ideal FACTS device is introduced as a
means to establish a theoretical upper bound on the performance of any
realizable FACTS. Such a device is tested and compared against non-ideal
FACTS including the variable series reactance and the variable phaseshifter.
Simulations on the IEEE 118 and 30 bus networks illustrate the above
concepts.
KEYWORDS: FACTS, steady-state,assessment and control of performance,
ideal FACTS, variable series reactance, variable phaseshifter.
1. INTRODUCTION
FACTS technology is being promoted as a means to extend the
capacity of existing power transmission networks to their limits
without the necessity of adding new transmission lines. This capability
is interesting to the power industry as it is becoming increasingly
diflicult to add new transmission lines due to environmental and right-
of-wayrestrictions[1,21. Other potential advantages of FACTS lie in
their ability to improve damping and to control the flow of power
through selected corridors in a network.
FACTS essentially introduce new degrees of freedom into the
operation of power systems. This extra flexibility permits the
independent adjustment of certain system variables (such as power
flows) which are normally not controllable. FACTS devices can be
differentiated by their controllable parameters and by the manner in
which they are realized electronically. Thus, devices exist which can
control line series or shunt reactance [3], phase-shifting transformer
angle [4] or combinations of these [5]. Other devices inject
controllable voltages in series or in parallel with the line being
compensated [6,71. Notwithstanding the type of FACTS , their
ultimate goal is to provide greater controllability over power flows
and voltage magnitudes. However, in order for FACTS to be accepted
by the power industry, it is clear that this extra flexibility must also
lead to a net increase in economicbenefits compared to the alternative
of transmission or generation expansion.
96 WM 256-8 PWRS A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE
Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society for presentation at the 1996 IEEWPES Winter Meeting, January 21-
25, 1996, Baltimore, MD. Manuscript submitted July 27, 1995; made
available for printing j m ~ 10,q 1996.
0885-8950/96/$05.00 0 1996 IEEE
1931
This paper proposes to systematically evaluate the impact of FACTS
on the steady-state behaviour of power systems through the concept
of generalized security regions and through scalar measures of these
regions obtained from optimal power flow simulations. Furthermore,
the concept of an ideal FACTS is introduced as a theoretical "upper
bound" on the capabilities of arbitrary non-ideal FACTS devices.
Such a device is the most general FACTS possible, that is, one which
can control both its real and reactive input and output powers. Based
on the above concepts, several FACTS devices are compared against
the ideal device. Two measures of performance are used for
assessment and comparison: (a) the maximum system load subject to
operational constraints and (b) the incremental network losses.
Comparisons are made among: (i) the original network, N, (ii) N plus
extra transmission lines, (iii) N plus variable series-reactance, (iv) N
plus variable phase-shifters, (v) N plus ideal FACTS and some of its
equivalent realizations. These tests are performed on the IEEE 118
and 30 bus networks.
2. GENERAL PERFORMANCE OF POWER SYSTEMS
2.1 Security Regions
Power networks are modelled in steady-state by the load flow
equations and by a set of functional inequality constraints imposed by
operational limits. If the vector x represents all decision variables in
a power network including its loads, generations, voltages, line flows
and controllable FACTS parameters, then the combination of load
flow equations and inequalities can be denoted by,
The securily region associated with such a power network is denoted
by S where,
that is, the set of all decision variables or operational states in the
power network which satisfy all equalities and inequalities. Note that,
in its most general form, S also includes the loads as variables. This
then permits one to define performance measures of a network which
include maximizing the load.
General security regions are powerful concepts as they represent all
feasible operating points of a power network and therefore contain all
the information necessary to evaluate a given system. A simple
example of these ideas is the security region of the 3-bus network
shown in Figure 1. This network is assumed to be governed by the DC
load flow so that there is a linear behaviour among powers and phase
angles. Generators 1 and 2 as well as lines 12 and 23 are subject to
limits as shown below. It is assumed that all line reactances are 1 pu.
1932

Then, the relation g(x)>Ois defined by,

Pgl=261 -62 Pg2=262-61 P g 3 = P d - P g l -Pg2
P12 = 61 - 62 P23 = 62 -0.4 <P23< 0.4 (3)
0 <Pgl< 0.5 0 ~ P g 2 50.5 -0.1 5 P 1 2 ~0.1

0.5

Figure 2: Security region of 3-bus example with no FACTS

x’ = [61 , 6 2 , P g l , Pg2, Pg3, P 1 2 , P 2 3 , Pd] The validity of the above can be demonstrated by the fact that any
secure operating point achievable with the FACTS having fewer
Figure 1: Illustrative three-bus network. degrees of freedomwill also be secure with the more general FACTS
apparatus. The inverse is however not necessarily true.

The resulting security region as defined by equation ( 2 ) can be
projected onto the Pgl - Pg2 plane and is shown in Figure 2 for the
case without FACTS. It can be seen that the limits on lines 12 and 23
restrict the possible set of operating points from a maximum possible
rectangle to the smaller enclosed shaded area.
2.2 Security Regions with FACTS
If we denote S(F) as the security region with a FACTS device, F, in
a given line, then it follows that,
To illustratethis notion, if one adds both a variable phase-shifter and
a variable series-capacitor to line 12 of the example, Figure 4 shows
that the new security region has increased and now encloses both the
original region shown in Figure 2 as well as the region of Figure 3.
2 3 Objective Measures of Performance
The statement that the security region of a system encloses that of
another is very powerful since it implies that, in a broad sense, the
system with the larger region peforms “better”than the one with the

S(F) 1 s (4)
that is, the security region with F includes all the feasible operating Variable Phase-Shifter in Line 12
points without such a device. This is evident by the following
argument: Any vector x belonging to the original region S must also
-0.1 2 4 2 0.1
belong to S(F) since it should be possible to adjust the variable
parameters of any FACTS device so as to simulate the original system
without FACTS (e.g. setting the phase shift in a phase-shifting
transformer to zero). Conversely, for most FACTS devices, one can
find at least one operating point, x, which belongs to S(F) but not to
S. In other words, the set of feasible operating points with F typically
contains, not only all the operating points in S but many more. The
question though is how much “larger“ is the security region with a
FACTS device than without? This will be addressed in this paper.
Taking the simple example of Figure I again, the concept behind
relation (4) can be illustrated if a variable phase-shifter is added to
line 12 leading to the wider security region shown in Figure 3.
0.5
Similarly, consider two FACTS devices: F, and F, where the former
has more degrees of freedom than F, which is a special case of F,. If
Figure 3: Security region of 3-bus example with variable phase-
these devices are placed in the same location of a power system, one
at a time, then the corresponding security regions must satisfy, shifter.

S(Fi) 2 WJ (5)
 1933
smaller region for any quantitative measure of performance evaluated In terms of the concept of security regions described in the previous
with respect to S. An objective measure of performance is one that section, this definition implies that the security region of a network
provides a scalar quantitative evaluation of the entire set S and not with an ideal FACTS, S(F,,), must also contain the security region
just of one operating point or sub-set of operating points as is the case of the system with any other type of FACTS, S(F), when both devices
when comparing systems on the basis of case studies. An infinite are at the same network location, that is,
number of objective measures are possible but they all must quantify
the "size"of the securityregion. Some practical objective measures of S(Fl,d 2 S(F) (8)
performance over S are: Maximum load that can be supplied and the The question of physical realizability of the ideal FACTS is not
minimum operational costs or losses for specified load levels. considered here, only its definition and its impact on the steady-state
Denoting byM (x) an arbitrary measure of performance as a function system behaviour.
of x , then the corresponding objective measure is M ( X* ) c!
where X* is the solution of the optimal power flow problem [8, 111,
Minimize M ( x ) Vi Vf Vk

-1
X € S

Clearly if,
s, 1 s,
FACTS
I
p{ Lineik Ik

I I
1 -
(6) I_

then for any measure M ( x ), Bud Busk'

M,s M, (7) I N-bus Power Network I

It is also important to assess a FACTS device not only through the

above objective performance measures but also by the incremental
system transmission losses created by the presence of the FACTS.
Transmission losses are estimatedtoday to cost as much as $4000/kW
and must be factored into the overall cost of the FACTS control. In
addition, the FACTS device itself has a cost closely related to its
voltage and power ratings.
Figure 5: Power network with FACTS in line ik.
In order to define an ideal FACTS, consider a general N-bus network
with an arbitrary FACTS device in line ik as shown in Figure 5. The
FACTS device can be replaced without altering the state of the
network by any of the following equivalents:
(a) Replace the FACTS by two independent complex current sources

T"'
shown in Figure 6.

Vi Vf Vk

Series-C and Phase-shifterin line 12

' xi If
Line i

1
L

nu. i
@ Bus k

N-bus Power Network

Figure 6: Ideal FACTS with independent current sources.

0.5 Pi2
Figure 4: Security region of a 3-bus example with both variable
series-C and phase-shifter. ' achieved with the Unified Power Flow Controller [71 (UPFC).
3. THE IDEAL FACTS
In this section, the concept of an ideal FACTS is introduced. Such a
device can be conceptualized as one whose controllable parameters
can be adjusted so that the behaviour of the network with an ideal
FACTS will exactly reproduce the behaviour of the network with any
other FACTS.
(b) Replace the FACTS device by two independent complex voltage
sources as shown in Figure 7. A realization of this device could be
(c) Replace the FACTS device by two independent complex power
sourm as shown in Figure 8. A realization of this could be achieved
with the general Inter-Phase Power Controller [51 (IPC).
Any of the above three equivalents where the corresponding sources
are arbitrary and independent satisfy the condition for an ideal
FACTS, that is, for any operating point the sources can be adjusted to
reproduce the same network conditions as that of any other FACTS
1934
device.
Vi Vf Vk
Ik
L (e) N + Ideal: The original network plus the ideal FACTS. Note that
1 1 - I 1
N-bus Power N e t w o r k
Figure 7: Ideal FACTS with independent voltage sources.
It is also possible to define an ideal FACTS with combinations of
different types of elements, such as a complex power source at the
input and a complex voltage source at the output. Still other
combinations of devices are possible to define an ideal FACTS
provided that they have at least three independently adjustable
parameters. Normally, FACTS devices obey the condition that the
input real power is equal to the output real power except for internal
losses.
The study of the impact of an ideal FACTS on a power network is
important since it defines the limits of what is achievable. In essence,
this ideal result is a benchmark against which one can compare the
performanceof all other non-ideal FACTS devices. Furthermore, if a
given performance measure of the ideal device is not satisfactory, no
other real device will yield superior results. In the next section,
simulations results are presented which examine and compare the
behaviour of the ideal and other FACTS devices.
vi Vf Vk
I' N-bus Power Network 1 given load which is then progressively increased until its maximum
Figure 8: Ideal FACTS with independent power. sources.
4. SIMULATION RESULTS
4.1 Cases Studied
The impact of FACTS on power networks was assessed by calculating
the maximum system load that a network can supply subject to its
operational constraints(securityregion). These simulations were done
on the IEEE 30 and 118 bus networks. The following cases were
compared:
(a) N: The original network.
(b) N + Line: The original network plus additional lines.
(c) N + 9: The original network plus a variable phase-shifting
transformer.
(d) N + X The original network plus a variable series reactance.
the maximum system load achieved with the Ideal FACTS is the same
as that obtained with either the general IPC [5 ] or the general UPFC
[ 71, two possible realizations of an Ideal FACTS.
4.2 Description of Networks Used in the Studies
The two standard 30-bus and 118-bus IEEE networks [9,10] were
used in these studies. The 30-bus network has 6 generators and 20
pure load buses. The generators and loads of the 30-bus network tend
to be concentrated in two separate parts of the network. In contrast,
the 118-bus system has its generation and load buses much more
uniformly distributed. Both networks were slightly modified for this
study by tightening their transmission capacity thereby revealing
more clearly the impact of FACTS controllers. The modifications
implemented were:
( N l ) Standard IEEE 30-bus network (i) Increase the limits on the
five reactive power sources by 20 times so as to ensure that the
network loadability limit was due to transmission limits only and not
to generation constraints; (ii) Set the line flow limits at all lines
(except line 3) to 0.7Aine reactance. The limit on line 3, which is one
of the most critical lines, was set to 0.43 pu. Both of these changes
created a power flow bottleneck restricting the system loadability.
(N2) Standard 118-bus IEEE network: (i) Remove line 86, (ii) Set
the line flow limits on lines 81 and 107 to 0.7 pu. These changes
ensured that the network loadability was limited by these critical
transmission flow limits.
43 Optimal power flow results
The maximum load was determined for the above two networks
under the various cases defined in section 4.1 by applying a
parametric optimal power flow (OPF) [8] subject to the specified
transmission network limits. Note, however, that any other OPF
package [ l 11 could be used for this purpose by either explicitly
maximizing the load or by maximizing any objective function for a
feasible level. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 .
The second column of Table 1 shows the maximum system load of the
30-bus network for the various cases considered. The third column
inacates the aahonal system load that can be supplied by modfying
the original network, N, as indicated in column one. Finally, column
four presents the incremental transmission losses due to the network
modificabon.
In all cases, one must also examme the incremental losses created by
the exka loading and increasedpower flows. As seen in Table 1, these
losses tend to nse with the extra loading, thereby reducing the net
loadability gams.
In this example, the maximum load of the original network, N, was
found to be 303 MW. This limit was imposed by line 3 reaching its
upper bound of 43 Mw. Various FACTS devices were then placed in

line 3, one at a time,and the corresponding new maximum loads were
computed by running an OPF. In these optimal power flows, the
controllableFACTS parameters (e.g. X, in the case of variable series
reactance) were also optimized within their permissible limits.
The limits on the controllable parameters of the various FACTS
devices tested were defined as follows: (i) The variable series-
reactance was permitted to vary by 250% of the line reactance; (ii)
The variablephaseshifter angle was allowed to vary by 2 0.5 radians.
The ideal FACTS is, in essence, modelled here through its
independent parameters, P, ,the sending real power, Q , the sending
reactivepower, and Q, ,the receiving reactive power. As discussed
in the previous section, these ideal FACTS parameters have several
Table 1. Maximum network loading with various FACTS
devices in the 30-bus network.
equivalent representations including the UPFC consisting of two
independent voltage sources , or the IPC consisting of two
independent current sources. Thus, the system loadability limits
achieved by the ideal FACTS as shown in Tables 1 and 2 are the same
as those found with the general UPFC or IPC.
The highest network load of 488 MW is achieved, as predicted, by the
ideal FACTS and its realizations. The maximum load with the
variable series reactance device is 60 M W (or 20%) more than the
original network can supply. In this case, the optimum value of X
goes to its limit of 50% of the value of the line reactance, in essence
increasing the overall line reactance by 50%. The effect of this
increase in the reactance of line 3 is to force power to flow through
alternative paths which do not saturate as rapidly.
In the case N+Line, an identical line is added in parallel with line 3.
Normally, this a much more expensive solution than adding a FACTS.
The results of Table 1 show that one gets an increase of 101 MW or
about 33%more load compared to the original network, however, this
gain is less than that obtained with the option N+$ which yields an
incremental load of 168 MW or N+Ideal with a AP, of 185 MW.
Note that there is no contradiction between the N+X option which
increases the line reactance and the N+Line option which decreases
the line reactance. In both cases loadability is increased with respect
to case N. In the first case, this occurs by increasing the line reactance
which forces power to follow other paths, while in the second case,
more load can be supplied by increasing the transmssion capacity of
the same corridor by the addition of a second parallel line.
1935
Table 2 summarizes the corresponding set of results for the 118 IEEE
network. As before, the system load of the original network, N, is
maximized subject to all the operational constraints yielding 4543
Mw. This results in two lines (81 and 107) operating at their limits.
FACTS devices are then placed in each of these lines and the system
load is maximized over all variables, including the controllable
parameters of the FACTS elements.
In the case N+X, the optimization forces the variable series-
reactances to their maximum reactive limits so as to force power away
from the saturated lines. This case increases the maximum load by
266 MW relative to the original network.
Whereas the net increase in load in the case N+Lines is 685 MW
Table 2. Maximum network loading with various FACTS devices
in the 118-bus network.
N+X
I 4543
4809
I 0
266
D
N+Line 5228 685 30 I
N+$
N+Ideal
5553
5558
1010
1015
4 76
(15%), one can do even better by adding variable phase-shifters
instead . This alternative yields an incremental load of 1010 MW
(22%) relative to the base case. Finally, the ideal FACTS and its IPC
and UPFC realizations, which represent the best one can do with any
FACTS device, produces a maximum load of 5558 M W , only
marginally more than the case N+4. Once again, the incremental
losses indicated must be accountedfor when evaluating the overall net
gain in load supply capability.
The higher relative effectivenessof FACTS devices on the loadability
of the 30-bus system compared to the 118-bus system can be partially
attributed to the fact that the 30-bus system has its load and generation
essentially grouped in two separate portions of the network connected
by a relatively dense mesh. On the other hand, the 118-bus network
has its generation and loads more evenly distributed with most loads
being close to generation buses. Thus, in the 30-bus network,
bottlenecks can be more effectively avoided by FACTS devices
which exploit alternativepaths in the denser mesh. Similarly, since the
118-bus network contains more generating units [8] which provide
relatively more Var support than the 30-bus system, the effectiveness
of an ideal FACTS is not that much better than a variable phase-
shifter.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The impact on power networks of arbitrary FACTS devices can be
systematically assessed through the concept of steady-state security
regions. Such regions are defined by all the operational equality and
inequality constraints that the system variables must satisfy. The
1936
security region of a network with a FACTS controller, S(F), always
encloses the region without FACTS, S, that is, there exist more
operational states with FACTS than without.
Objective quantitative measures of performance of a network can be
obtained by finding the optimum of quantities such as the system load
over the security region. The evaluation and comparison of this
performance must look not just at the gain in loadability but at the
rating of the devices added and the associated incremental losses. An
economic evaluation of the impact of FACTS could be based on an
estimated rate of 2 to 4 thousand $ per additional kW of extra load
compared to 100 to 200 $ per kVA in the cost of a FACTS device.
The concept of an ideal FACTS is introduced as a device that can
conbrol both its input and output complex powers. The ideal FACTS
imposes a theoretical upper bound on the performance of any other
realizable FACTS. This theoretical upper bound can be reached by
some existing devices.
These ideas are used to evaluate and compare the loadability
performance of two test networks modified by a number of
alternatives, including the addition of lines and of various types of
FACTS devices.
These results support the proposal that FACTS can increase system
lbadability significantly by alleviating feasibility bottlenecks due to
line flow limits. They also suggest that certain FACTS devices can
result in higher loading levels than those achieved by the addition of
transmission lines.
It is also possible to optimize the location and number of FACTS
devices added to a network so as to further increase the maximum
load, however this is an open subject which needs further research.
6. REFERENCES
[ 11 N.G. Hingorani, "Flexible AC Transmission", ZEEE Spectrum,
V01.30, No.4, April 1993, pp.40-45.
[2] A. Le Du, "Pour un rkseau klectrique plus performant: le projet
FACTS", Revue Gknerale de l'Electricit6, No.6/92, June 1992,
pp.105-121.
[3] R.M. Maliszewski,BM. Pasternak, H.N. Scherer, M. Chamia, H.
Frank, L. Paulsson, "Power Flow Control in Highly Interconnected
Transmission Network', Report 37-303, CIGRE, 1990.
[4] B.T. 001,S.Z. Dai, F.D. Galiana, "A Solid-state PWM Phase-
Shifter", ZEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No.2, April
1993, pp.573-579.
[5] F. Beauregard, J. Brochu, G. Morin, P. Pelletier, "Inter-phase
Power Controller with Voltage Injection", ZEEE PES Winter Power
Meeting, February 1994, New York.
[6] B.T. Ooi, S-Z. Dai, X. Wang, "Solid-state Series Capacitive
Reactance Compensators", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
Vo1.7,No.2, April 1992, pp.914-919.
[7] L. Gyugyi, "Unified Power-Flow Control Concept for Flexible AC
Transmission Systems", ZEE Proceedings-C, Vol. 139, No.4, July
1992, pp.323-331.
[8] K. Almeida, F.D. Galiana, "A General Parametric Optimal Power
Flow", Proceedings of the IEEE Power Industry Computer
Applications Conference, May 1993, pp. 66-73.
[91 F. Wu, W. Hsiung, E. Liu, "Detection of topology errors by state
estimation", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1,
February 1989, pp.176-183.
[IO] A. illonticelli, M.V. F. Pereira, S. Granville, "security-
constrained optimal power flow with post-contingency corrective
rescheduling", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 2, No. 1,
February 1987, pp.175-182.
[I I] 0.Alsac, J. Bright, M. Prais, B. Stott, "Further developments in
LP-based optimal power flow", IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 5, No. 3, August 1990, pp.697-711.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We are grateful for the support of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ottawa, the
Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et dAide 5 la Recherche,
Qu6bec and CNPq, Brazil. We also acknowledge some fruitful
discussions with the engineering staff from CITEQ.
BIOGRAPHIES:
Francisco D. Galiana is a professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at McGill University. His research interests are in the
application of analytical and computational methods to power system
planning and operation.
Katia Campos de Almeida received her Ph.D. in electrical engineering
from McGill University in 1995. She is presently at the Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. Her research
interests are in optimization and applications to power system
planning.
Margaret Toussaint received her B.Sc in electrical and computer
engineeringkom the University of the West Indies and the M.Eng. in
electrical engineering from McGiI1 University where she is currently
a research assistant working on FACTS.
Julie Griffin is a graduate student in electrical engineering at McGill
University. Her thesis research is the study of FACTS and their
impact on power system security and economics.
Djordje R. Atanackovic obtained his B.Eng (1987) and M.Sc.A.
(1991) at theuniversity of Belgrade, Yugoslavia. He is presently a
Ph.D. student at McGill University. His present interests include the
application of analytical and computational methods to power
system planning as well as the application of expert systems in
planning and design.
Boon-Teck Ooi is a professor of electrical engineering at McGill
University. One of his fields of interest and research is the study of
forced-commutated power electronicdevices to test and construct new
FACTS controllers.
Donald T. McGillis is an adjunct professor and consultant in the
Department of Electrical Engineenng at McGill University. He has
extensive experience in the design of power networks.