ISSN: 2277 9043

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering

Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

50
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE

Abstract Due to the rapid technological progress, the
consumption of electric energy increases continuously. But the
transmission systems are not extended to the same extent because
building of new lines is difficult for environmental as well as
political reasons. Hence, the systems are driven closer to their limits
resulting in congestions and critical situations endangering the
system security.Power Flow Control devices such as Flexible AC
Transmission Systems (FACTS) provide the opportunity to
inuence power ows and voltages and therefore to enhance system
security, e.g. by resolving congestions and improving the voltage
prole. Even though the focus lies on Static Var Compensators
(SVC), Thyristor-Controlled Series Compensators (TCSC) and
Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifting Transformers (TCPST), the
developed methods can also be applied to any arbitrary controllable
devices. In order to benet from these devices, an appropriate
control is necessary. In this thesis, an Optimal Power Flow problem
is formulated and solved to nd the optimal device settings. Two
types of FACTS devices, SVC and TCSC, can be installed on buses
and transmission lines to enhance the transmission loadability (TL)
of power systems, respectively through injecting reactive power and
changing line reactance. In this paper, there are three main steps in
the FACTS devices installation strategy proposed. In step 1, based
on the peak-load state, the CPF technique is used to formulate the
maximum transmission loadability (MTL) problem to maximize the
TL increased from the peak-load through installation of the FACTS
devices. Here, the MTL without FACTS device installed is first
calculated. While in step 2, based on the power flow solution for the
MTL obtained in step 1, the positions proper to place SVCs and
TCSCs are determined using the tangent vector technique and real
power flow performance index (PI) sensitivity factors, respectively.
Various FACTS devices installation schemes are then built with
these candidate positions and, for each scheme, the MTL is solved
by determining the ratings for the SVCs and TCSCs installed.
Finally in step 3, by comparing the ratios of the investment costs to
the TLs increased between various schemes, a correspondingly most
advantageous scheme is suggested. Also, to further validate the
effectiveness of the proposed method, a static voltage stability
analysis is given.

Index Terms FACTS Devices, Transmission Loadability,
Continuation Power Flow, Tangent Vector Technique, Real
Power Flow Performance Index Sensitivity Factor.




I. INTRODUCTION
The evolution of power systems began at the end of the 19th
century when the rst transmission lines were built. Over the years,
the systems were extended and a growing number of generators and
loads were connected. Due to the rapidly increased consumption,
the need to transmit larger amounts of electric power over longer
distances emerged which was met by raising the voltage levels of
the power lines. Furthermore, in order to enable exchanges between
dierent utilities and to improve security, neighboring systems
were connected. Hence, power systems are the products of a long
lasting building process resulting in very large and complex
systems. Outages in a power system aect everydays life severely
and may paralyze entire countries. Moreover, extensive failures
cause enormous economical losses. The blackouts in the past years
have shown this impressively In August 2003, the blackout in the
United States and Canada left around 50 million people without
electricity for more than four days in some areas and the costs are
estimated to 4 to 10 billion U.S. dollars . In September of the same
year, a line trip between Switzerland and Italy initiated a major
blackout in Italy aecting 56 million people. Therefore, a secure
and reliable operation of power systems is crucial. But the electrical
energy demand increases continuously leading to an augmented
stress on the transmission system and higher risks for outages. In
addition, electric power trades across borders have enhanced due to
the liberalization of electricity markets. The resulting regularly
changing load-ow patterns require a transmission grid which is
able to cope with daily modied generation and load distributions.
In several areas in Europe, the grid is not able to meet these demands
any more and as a consequence, particular lines are often driven
close to or even beyond their limits. But the extension of the system
required to further guarantee secure transmission is dicult for
environmental and political reasons. A promising and competitive
alternative option is the usage of FACTS devices. These devices are
able to inuence power ows and voltages and therefore provide the
possibility to enhance the security of the system in manifold ways:
increase of the transfer capacity, resolution of congestions by
relieving overloaded lines, improvement of the voltage prole,
reduction of power losses, enhancement of damping, etc.. In order to
benet from such devices, their control settings have to be chosen
appropriately. Nowadays, the determination of these values is
generally based on local objectives. The eects of the FACTS
devices on the rest of the power system are not taken into account.
This may lead to mutual inuences among multiple FACTS devices
or other control devices and to a deteriorated control performance.
Hence, a coordination of the control is essential.
Optimal set values for any controllable devices in a system with
An approach towards FACTS Devices
Installation Strategy for Transmission
Loadability Enhancement Using Fuzzy Logic
Controller
Dr. K.T. Chaturvedi, Assistant Professor Dept. of Electrical Engineering UIT RGPV Bhopal,
Rohit Kumar Gupta UIT RGPV Bhopal

ISSN: 2277 9043
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

51
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE

respect to various objectives can be obtained by formulating and
solving an optimization problem. In the area of power systems, this
optimization problem corresponds to an Optimal Power Flow
problem. Typical objective functions include the minimization of
active power losses, the minimization of active power generation
costs, the maximization of transfer capacity, etc.. An Optimal Power
Flow problem can also be for- mulated in order to determine the
optimal control settings of FACTS devices in a power system with
the objective to enhance the security of the system reducing the risk
for system outages.
THE power systems are complex non-linear systems, which are
often subjected to low frequency oscillations. The application of
power system stabilizers for improving dynamic stability of
power systems and damping out the low frequency oscillations due
to disturbances has received much attention. Power system is a
highly nonlinear system and it is difficult to obtain exact
mathematical model of the system. In recent years, adaptive
self tuning, variable structure, artificial neural network based
PSS, fuzzy logic based PSS have been proposed to provide
optimum damping to the system oscillations under wide variations
in operating conditions and system parameters. Recently, fuzzy
logic power system stabilizers have been proposed for effective
damping of power system oscillations due to their robustness. Fuzzy
logic controllers (FLC) are suitable for systems that are structurally
difficult to model due to naturally existing non-linearities and other
model complexities. Exact mathematical model is not required in
designing a fuzzy logic controller. In contrast to conventional
power system stabilizer, which is designed in frequency domain, a
fuzzy logic power system stabilizer is designed in the time domain.
Fuzzy logic controllers have successfully applied in control
applications, they are subjective and heuristic. Although, fuzzy
logic control introduces a good tool to deal with complex,
non-linear and ill-defined systems, it suffers from the drawback of
tuning of parameters of FLPSS. The generation of membership
functions (MFs) and the tuning of scaling factors for FLC are done
either iteratively by trial and error or by human expert. Therefore,
the tuning of the FLPSS parameters is a time consuming task. It
necessitates the need for an effective method for tuning the
parameters of FLPSS.

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A SVC can be installed on a bus through providing reactive power
to control the magnitudes of bus voltages, while a TCSC can be
installed on a transmission line through regulating the line reactance
to control the power flows on the grid. To maintain system operating
in security as well as stability states, the two FACTS devices are
adopted in the FACTS devices installation strategy proposed.
Let xij be a regulable reactance for the TCSC installed on
transmission line i-j. The range of xij is set within compensation
levels: -0.8xij < xij < 0.2 xij, where xij is the line reactance. Then,
the real and reactive power flows can be

and let Qci be a regulable reactive power for the SVC
installed on bus i and its rating is set within limits:
-Qc < Qci < Qc . Employing the CPF technique to formulate
the MTL problem, let , > 0 , be the loading factor, = 0
for the base load, and involving in (1) and (2) the real and
reactive power balance equations on bus i can be expressed as:

where Pio = Pgio + Plio and Qio = Qgio +Qlio are the real and
reactive power injections for the base peak-load, Pli and Qli the
real and reactive power increments for load i to increase, control
variable Pgi the increment of the real power generation for
generator i to increase; as bus i has a SVC on, the rating Qci = 0 .
The balance equations of the power system can be expressed in a
functional vector as follows:

f (x,v) = 0 (5)

In (5), vector x denotes the state variables including all buses
voltage magnitudes and phase angles, vector v the control variables
including the reactive powers and reactance compensation levels
provided by the installed SVCs and TCSCs, the settings of the shunt
capacitors (SC), the on load tap changing (OLTC) transformers and
the automatic voltage regulators (AVR), and the generation
increments and loading factor. In addition, the security constraints
considered in system operating are represented by a functional
vector as:

g(x,v) < 0 (6)

Equation (6) includes all generation limits, for generator i,
Pgio = Pgio +Pgi < Pgi and Qgi < Qgi ; line flow limits, if for real
power, for line i-j, Pij < Pij ; bus voltage magnitudes, for bus i,
0.9pu. < Vi < 1.1pu. and for all installed SVCs and TCSCs and the
loading factor shown above. Besides, the investment cost [12] for
the FACTS devices to install is limited by:

h(v) < C (7)

Finally, the MTL problem with both technical and economic
concerns is shown as follows:

Min (8)

III. DETERMINATION OF INSTALLATION POSITIONS
In order for the installed FACTS devices to obtain high utilization
performance, as specified by the ratio of the increased TL to the
investment cost, it is necessary to install the FACTS devices on
proper positions with appropriate ratings. In the proposed method,
the positions for SVCs and TCSCs to install are first determined and
by solving the MTL problem the ratings of the installed devices are
then determined.
When system load increased, the SVCs can provide reactive power
to maintain bus voltage in security. Therefore, evaluated by the
tangent vector technique, if voltage security of a bus being violated
in a larger degree, it is considered necessary to install a SVC on the
bus. On the other hand, by changing the lines reactance with the
TCSCs installed, the transmission congestion can be released; the PI
sensitivity factor calculated being negative for a TCSC installed on
a line indicates that the transmission congestion can be released due
to the installed TCSC. Therefore, a line can be more proper to install
a TCSC as the PI sensitivity factor obtained is more negative than a
TCSC installed on some other lines.
The following criteria are used to determine the positions proper to
install SVCs and TCSCs from technical concerns.
ISSN: 2277 9043
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

52
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE
Determination of proper buses for SVCs to install

First, solve (8) to obtain the MTL state without FACTS installed,
and based on the Jacobian matrix obtained, the tangent vector
technique is then used to evaluate the changes of the state variables
due to the increased system load [13]:

In (9), vectors Pg , Pl and Ql include all real and reactive
increments of the PV and PQ buses; vectors g , l and Vl
represent all changes of the system bus angles and voltage
magnitudes. Generally, the changes of the voltage magnitudes
should be negative due to system load increases.
The ratio Vi /Vi is used to evaluate how proper bus i is to
install a SVC. In principle, the more the ratio Vi /Vi is negative, the
more the bus i can be a proper position.

Determination of proper lines for TCSCs to install

Based on the MTL state without FACTS device installed,
the congestion level of the transmission system can be
evaluated by index PI as below [14]:


where P
L
is the real power flow on line L and P
L
the capacity; w
L
is
a weight to reflect the importance of the line, in the paper w
L
= 2 P
L

/ PL for line L ; exponent n is set to 2.
As a TCSC installed on line k, the PI sensitivity factor can
be calculated by:

where Xk > 0 is the value of the reactance -Xk , as provided by the
TCSC installed on line k.
Equation (11) indicates that the more the PI sensitivity factor is
negative, the more the chance to reduce transmission congestion by
the installed TCSC has, and thus, the TL can be increased by the
installation. Accordingly, by calculating the PI sensitivity factor in
turn for each line individually installed with a TCSC, the lines with
more negative PI sensitivity factors when installed with TCSCs can
be proper choices to install TCSCs.
Various installation schemes are then built by the combination of
the proper positions for installing SVCs and TCSCs determined, and
then the MTL problem is solved in turn for each scheme. The
scheme with larger utilization performance derived from the MTL
solutions is considered to be the correspondingly most
advantageous scheme for the installation.
IV. SOLUTION METHOD AND INSTALLATION STRATEGY
A particle swarm optimization (PSO) based OPF method is
used to solve the MTL problem. In the population, each particle
represents a candidate solution for the control variables, as denoted
in vector form, for the ith particle:


where particle xi includes the vectors of all generation increments
iPg , all reactive power injections icQ for the installed SVCs and
all compensation reactances ikX for the installed TCSC.
Neglecting the controls to the SCs, OLTCs and AVRs, as
been set for the MTL state without FACTS devices installed,
the strategy proposed to suggest a correspondingly most
advantageous FACTS devices installation scheme is shown in
Fig. 1.


The utilization performance (up) of the installed FACTS
devices for scheme i is defined as:
upi = (TL increased) /(Investment Cost) (13)
The scheme with the minimum up is considered as the
correspondingly most advantageous scheme.
V. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A modified IEEE-14bus system shown in Fig. 2 is used to test the
proposed method. The existing control units include: four sets of
AVRs respectively on buses 1, 2, 3 and 8, one SC on bus 9 and three
OLTCs on lines 8, 9 and 10 respectively.
The base case power flow for the base peak-load is shown in Table
1. As shown in Table 1, the loading level is set as the real and
reactive powers of the peak-load.


ISSN: 2277 9043
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

53
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE





As seen in Table 6, it can be found that the schemes in the shadow
area, which obviously have more increased TLs,involve
simultaneously installing TCSCs on lines 2 and 10 or on lines 2, 9
and 10, no matter on which buses SVCs are installed. While related
to the same area in Table 7, it can be found that 4.71(MUS$) for
scheme 5 is the minimum investment cost of the schemes in the area
and its cost rate (the ratio of investment cost to TL increased) is the
least in all schemes. In other words, scheme 5 has the highest
utilization performance for the FACTS devices installation. It can
also be verified from Fig. 3 through comparison between the eight
schemes with higher utilization performances. As seen in Fig.3,
although scheme 49 can increase TL the most, its investment cost
(9.22MUS$) is also the highest due to need to install FACTS
devices on all candidate positions. Accordingly, scheme 5 is
suggested as the correspondingly most advantageous scheme.









For schemes 5 and 9, as system operating on the MTL states
respectively with the individually installed FACTS devices, the
ratings of the FACTS devices installed for each scheme are
determined and shown in Table 8. It can be seen in Table 8 that, the
ratings of the same FACTS devices (one SVC on bus 12 and two
individual TCSCs on lines 2 and 10 respectively) installed for
schemes 5 and 49, are very close to each other. While for scheme 49,
it needs to extra install two SVCs respectively on buses 13 and 14
with ratings 0.12pu. and 0.13pu. and one TCSC on line 9 with
compensation level of reactance -0.27, the investment cost thus
raises largely.


For scheme 5, while system operating on the MTL state with the
FACTS devices installed, the load flow and power flows on the lines
are shown in Tables 9 and 10, respectively.
Comparing Tables 9 and 2, it can be found that the bus voltage
magnitudes are obviously raised due to the FACTS devices
installed. For examples, the voltage magnitude on bus 14 is raised
from 0.9004pu. to 0.9135pu., and in addition, observed from the
shadow area of Table 10 the flow limits of lines 2, 4, 5 and 6 are all
reached. Obviously, corresponding to the system with no FACTS
device installed, the FACTS devices installed for scheme 5 can
operate effectively in improving transmission network utilization.

ISSN: 2277 9043
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

54
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE


A study of three cases, with no FACTS device installed, schemes 5
and 49, is implemented and the results when system operating on the
MTLs states for the three cases shown in Fig.4 are compared. As
seen in Fig. 4, due to the installed SVCs for the two installation
schemes, the voltage magnitudes are raised, and thus, system
security increased from the case with no FACTS device installed.
Besides, to further validate the proposed strategy, applying the CPF
analysis to the study the P-V curves (as referred to as voltage
stability margin, VSM) for the three cases are shown in Fig. 5. It can
be found from Fig. 5 that the static voltage stabilities for the two
schemes are much larger than the one with no FACTS device
installed. Therefore, if determined based on static voltage stability,
scheme 49 will be the best choice; however, a tradeoff should be
concerned because its investment cost is much higher than scheme
5.




VI. CONCLUSIONS
Under the existing transmission grids, to enhance TL for
power systems while maintaining transmission security and
further more avoiding voltage collapse, to install FACTS
devices on proper positions with appropriate ratings can be a better
substitute for constructing more transmission lines. In the paper, the
proposed FACTS devices installation strategy first determines the
buses and lines suitable for SVCs and TCSCs to install, respectively
evaluated by the tangent vector technique and PI sensitivity factors.
These candidate positions are then combined into various schemes
for installation of FACTS devices. Then, the MTL problem is
solved in turn for each scheme by using the PSO-OPF method
through
determining the ratings of the FACTS devices installed. Comparing
and analyzing the utilization performances of all schemes, the
scheme with the highest utilization performance is then suggested as
the correspondingly most advantageous installation scheme.
Finally, the efficiency of the proposed method is further validated
by a static voltage stability analysis, proven that the VSM can also
be largely improved.

VII FUTURE WORK
There are many types of FACT devices available presently and each
one has their advantages and disadvantages or limitation hence surly
no one is perfect solution for every type of problem in my present
work I tried to compare the performance (peak fluctuation, settling
time, power flow etc.) for each device like (STATCOM, TCSC etc.)
and for different conditions (like earth fault, changing load,
generator fluctuation etc.) and proposed a fuzzy based controller for
the STATCOM to smoothly handle all problems.
Since present approach gives better results than traditional
controllers, in future the hybrid fact devices could be designed and a
neuro-fuzzy approach can also be designed to control the designed
devices. This will definitely improve the stability and voltage
profile of the system.

REFERENCES

[1] A. A. Athamneh, W. J. Lee, Benefits of FACTS devices for
power exchange among Jordanian Interconnection with other
Countries, Power Engineering Society General Meeting, June
2006.
[2] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui, A. J. Germond, Optimal location of
multitype FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic
algorithms, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, Aug.
2001, pp. 537-544.
[3] A. R. Messina, M. A. Pe`rez, E. Herna`ndez, Coordinated
application of FACTS devices to enhance steady-state voltage
stability, Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2003, pp. 259-267.
[4] W. Shao, V. Vijay, LP-based OPF for corrective FACTS
control to relieve overloads and voltage violations, IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems, Vol. 21, No. 4, Nov. 2006, pp. 1832-1839.
[5] L. J. Cai, I. Erlich, G. Stamtsis, Optimal choice and allocation
of FACTS devices in deregulated electricity market using genetic
algorithms, Proc. 2004 IEEE Power Engineering Society Power
Systems Conference and Exposition, pp. 201-207.
[6] T. S. Chung, Y. Z. Li, A hybrid GA approach for OPF with
consideration of FACTS devices, IEEE Power Engineering
Review, Feb. 2001, pp. 47-50.
[7] Y. Matsuo, A. Yokoyama, Optimization of installation of
FACTS devices in power system planning by both tabu search and
nonlinear programming methods, Proc. 1999 Intelligent System
Application to Power System Conference, pp. 250-254.
[8] S. N. Singh, A. K. David, A new approach for placement of
FACTS devices in open power markets, IEEE Power Engineering
Review, Vol. 21, No. 9, Sept. 2001, pp. 58-60.
[9] P. Bhasaputra, W. Ongsakul, Optimal power flow with
multi-type of FACTS devices by hybrid TS/SA approach, IEEE
Proc. on International Conference on Industrial Technology, Vol. 1,
Dec. 2002, pp. 285-290.

ISSN: 2277 9043
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2012

55
All Rights Reserved 2012 IJARCSEE

[10] H. A. Abdelsalam, G. E. M. Aly, M. Abdelkrim, K. M. Shebl,
Optimal location of the unified power flow controller in electrical
power system, IEEE Proc. on Large Engineering Systems
Conference on Power Engineering, July 2004, pp. 41-46.
[11] D. Radu, Y. Besanger, A multi-objective genetic algorithm
approach to optimal allocation of multi-type FACTS devices for
power systems security, Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, 2006 IEEE, June 2006.
[12] M. Saravanan, et. al., Application of PSO technique for
optimal location of FACTS devices considering system loadability
and cost of installation, Power Engineering Conference, 2005.
IPEC 2005. The 7th International, Vol. 2, Dec. 2005, pp. 716-721.
[13] A. A. A. Esmin, G. L. Torres, A. C. Z. Souza, A hybrid
particle swarm optimization applied to loss power minimization,
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2005, pp.
859-866.
[14] R. S. Fang, A. K. David, Transmission congestion
management in an electricity market, IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, August 1999, pp. 877-883.