See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242567398

Comparison of SVC and STATCOM in static voltage stability margin

enhancement

Article · February 2009

CITATIONS READS

31 1,259

2 authors, including:

Mehrdad Ahmadi Kamarposhti

Islamic Azad University, Jouybar Branch, Jouybar, Iran
44 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehrdad Ahmadi Kamarposhti on 04 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

Comparison of SVC and STATCOM in Static

Voltage Stability Margin Enhancement
Mehrdad Ahmadi Kamarposhti and Mostafa Alinezhad

power supports have to be local and adequate.

Abstract—One of the major causes of voltage instability is the There are two types of voltage stability based on the time
reactive power limit of the system. Improving the system's reactive frame of simulation: static voltage stability and dynamic
power handling capacity via Flexible AC transmission System voltage stability. Static analysis involves only the solution of
(FACTS) devices is a remedy for prevention of voltage instability
algebraic equations and therefore is computationally less
and hence voltage collapse. In this paper, the effects of SVC and
STATCOM in Static Voltage Stability Margin Enhancement will be extensive than dynamic analysis. Static voltage stability is
studied. AC and DC representations of SVC and STATCOM are ideal for the bulk of studies in which voltage stability limit for
used in the continuation power flow process in static voltage stability many pre-contingency and post-contingency cases must be
study. The IEEE-14 bus system is simulated to test the increasing determined.
loadability. It is found that these controllers significantly increase the In static voltage stability, slowly developing changes in the
loadability margin of power systems.
power system occur that eventually lead to a shortage of
reactive power and declining voltage. This phenomenon can
Keywords—SVC, STATCOM, Voltage Collapse, Maximum
Loading Point.
be seen from the plot of the power transferred versus the
voltage at receiving end. The plots are popularly referred to as
I. INTRODUCTION P-V curve or “Nose” curve. As the power transfer increases,
the voltage at the receiving end decreases. Eventually, the
I N recent years, the increase in peak load demand and power
transfers between utilities has elevated concerns about
system voltage security. Voltage collapse has been deemed
critical (nose) point, the point at which the system reactive
power is short in supply, is reached where any further increase
in active power transfer will lead to very rapid decrease in
responsible for several major disturbances and significant
voltage magnitude. Before reaching the critical point, the large
research efforts are under way in an effort to further
voltage drop due to heavy reactive power losses can be
understand voltage phenomena. A large portion of this
observed.
research is concentrated on the steady state aspects of voltage
The only way to save the system from voltage collapse is to
stability. Indeed, numerous authors have proposed voltage
reduce the reactive power load or add additional reactive
stability indexes based upon some type of power flow
power prior to reaching the point of voltage collapse [2].
analysis. A particular dsculty being encountered in such
Voltage collapse phenomena in power systems have
research is that the Jacobian of a Newton-Raphson power flow
become one of the important concerns in the power industry
becomes singular at the steady state voltage stability limit. In
over the last two decades, as this has been the major reason
fact, this stability limit, also called the critical point, is often
for several major blackouts that have occurred throughout the
defined as the point where the power flow Jacobian is
world including the recent Northeast Power outage in North
singular. As a consequence, attempts at power flow solutions
America in August 2003 [3]. Point of collapse method and
near the critical point are prone to divergence and error. For
continuation method are used for voltage collapse studies [4].
this reason, double precision computation and anti divergence
Of these two techniques continuation power flow method is
algorithms have been used in attempts to overcome the
used for voltage analysis. These techniques involve the
numerical instability [1].
identification of the system equilibrium points or voltage
Voltage instability is mainly associated with reactive power
collapse points where the related power flow Jacobian
imbalance. The loadability of a bus in the power system
becomes singular [5, 6].
depends on the reactive power support that the bus can receive
Usually, placing adequate reactive power support at the
from the system. As the system approaches the Maximum
“weakest bus” enhances static-voltage stability margins. The
Loading Point (MLP) or voltage collapse point, both real and
weakest bus is defined as the bus, which is nearest to
reactive power losses increase rapidly. Therefore, the reactive
experiencing a voltage collapse. Equivalently, the weakest bus
is one that has a large ratio of differential change in voltage to
Mehrdad Ahmadi Kamarposhti is with Young Researchers Club, differential change in load ( ∂V / ∂PTotal ). Changes in voltage at
Ghaemshahr Branch, Ghaemshahr, Iran(e-mail:
[email protected]). each bus for a given change in system load is available from
Mostafa Alinezhad is with Mazandaran Regional Electrical Company, Sari, the tangent vector, which can be readily obtained from the
Iran(e-mail: [email protected]).

860
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

predictor steps in the CPF process. In addition to the above margin in P.U., %, MW or MVA depending on how the load
method, the weakest bus could be obtained by looking at right variation are defined. Based on bifurcation theory, two basic
eigenvectors associated with the smallest eigenvalue as well. tools have been defined and applied to computation of this
Reactive power support can be done with FACTS devices. collapse point,namely, direct and continuation methods.
Each FACTS device has different characteristics; some of In voltage collapse studies, the continuation method shows
them may be problematic as far as the static voltage stability is many advantages, so, most of the reaserchers apply this
concerned. Therefore, it is important to study their behaviors technique to trace voltage profile at various buses of the test
in order to use them effectively. power system, with respect to changes of loading level λ,
Canizares and Faur studied the effects of SVC and TCSC namely, Continuation Power Flow (CPF).
on voltage collapse [7]. Study of STATCOM and UPFC In this paper the continuation power flow algorithem with
Controllers for Voltage Stability Evaluated by Saddle-Node smooth changes of loading level at various buses of the
Bifurcation Analysis is carry out in [8]. system, is chossen for simulation purpose.
In this paper is to compare the merits and demerits of two There are two types of FACTS devices considered in this
FACTS devices, namely, SVC and STATCOM in terms of study, namely, SVC and STATCOM. Details including basic
Maximum Loading Point (MLP) in static voltage collapse structures and terminal characteristics of these FACTS devices
study. are presented in the following section.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II briefly
introduces the basic mathematical tools required for the III. MODEL OF FACTS CONTROLLERS
analysis of voltage collapse phenomena. A brief introduction The following general model is proposed for correct
of the stability models including AC and DC representations representation of SVC and STATCOM in voltage collapse
of SVC and STATCOM is presented in Section III. Section studies [10].
IV is depicted to simulation of voltage collapse phenomena on The model includes a set of differential and algebraic
IEEE 14 bus test system with implementing SVC and equations of the form :
STATCOM. Section V reviews the main points discussed in
this paper.
x ⋅c = f c ( x c ,V ,θ , u )

II. VOLTAGE COLLAPSE P = g p ( x c , V ,θ ) (2)

Voltage collapse studies and their related tools are typically Q = g p ( x c ,V ,θ )
based on the following general mathemathical descriptions of Where x represents the control system variables, and the
the system [9]:
C

algebraic variables V and θ denote the voltage magnitudes

x . = f ( x, y , λ , p ) and phases at the buses to which the FACTS devices are
(1)
0 = g ( x, y , λ , p ) connected. Finally, the variables u represent the input control
parameters, such as reference voltages or reference power
Where x ∈ ℜ n represents the system state variables,
flows.
corrosponding to dynamical states of generators, loads, and
Description and terminal characteristics of these FACTS
any other time varying element in the system such as FACTS
devices are given in the next subsections.
devices; y ∈ ℜ corresponds to the algebraic variables, usually
n

associated to the transmission system and steady state element A. SVC

models, such as some generators and loads in the network; The two most popular configuration of this type of shunt
λ ∈ ℜ stands for a set of uncontrolled parameters that drive
k
controller are the fixed capacitor (FC) with a thyristor
the system to voltage collapse, which are typically used to controlled reactor (TCR) and the thyristor switched capacitor
represent system demand. Vector p ∈ ℜ is used here to k (TSC) with TCR. Among these two setups, the second (TSC-
TCR) minimizes stand-by losses; however from a steady-state
represent system parameters that are directly controllable,
point of view, this is equivalent to the FC-TCR. In this paper,
such as shunt and series compensation levels.
the FC-TCR structure is used for analysis of SVC which is
Based on equation (1) the voltaage collapse point may be
shown in figure 1.
defined, under certain assumptions, as the equblirium point
where the related system jacobian is singular, i.e. the point
( x 0 , y 0 , λ 0 , p 0 ) where and D F has a zero eigenvalue. This
x 0

equblirium is typically associated to a saddle-node bifurcation

point.
For a given set of controllable parameters P , voltage 0

collapse studies usually concentrate on determining the

collapse or bifurcation point ( x , y , λ ) , where λ typically
0 0 0 0

corresponds to the maximum loading level or loadability Fig. 1. Equivalent FC-TCR circuit of SVC.

861
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

system [10]. Figures 3 and 4 show the Basic structure and

The TCR consists of a fixed reactor of inductance L and a Typical steady state V–I characteristic of STATCOM,
bi-directional thyristor valve that are fired symmetrically in an respectively. From figure 3, STATCOM is a shunt-connected
angle control range of 90° to 180°, with respect to the SVC device, which controls the voltage at the connected bus to the
voltage. reference value by adjusting voltage and angle of internal
Assuming controller voltage equal to the bus voltage and voltage source. From figure 4, STATCOM exhibits constant
performing a Fourier series analysis on the inductor current current characteristics when the voltage is low/high
wave form, the TCR at fundamental frequency can be under/over the limit. This allows STATCOM to delivers
considered to act like variable inductance given by [7], [9]: constant reactive power at the limits compared to SVC.
π
XV = X L (3)
2(π − α ) + sin 2α

Where, X is the reactance caused by the fundamental

L

frequency without thyristor control and α is the firing angle.

Hence, the total equivalent impedance of the controller can be
represented as:
π / rx
Xe = Xc
1 (4)
sin 2 α − 2 α + π ( 2 − )
rx
Where rx = X C / X L . The limits of the controller are given
by the firing angle limits, which are fixed by design. The
typical steady-state control law of a SVC used here is depicted
Fig. 3. Basic structure of STACOM.
in figure 2, and may be represented by the following voltage-
current characteristic:

V = Vref + X SL I (5)
where V and I stand for the total controller RMS voltage
and current magnitudes, respectively, and Vref represents a
reference voltage.

Fig. 4. Typical steady state V–I characteristic of a STATCOM.

The AC circuit is considered in steady-state, whereas the

DC circuit is described by the following differential equation,
in terms of the voltage Vdc on the capacitor [8]:
P V R( P 2 + Q 2 )
Vdc = − dc − (6)
Fig. 2. Typical steady state V–I characteristic of a SVC. CV dc Rc C CV 2Vde

Typical values for the slope X are in the range of 2 to5 %,

SL The power injection at the AC bus has the form:
with respect to the SVC base; this is needed to avoid hitting P = V 2 G − KV dc VG cos(θ − α )
limits for small variations of the bus voltage. A typical value (7)
for the controlled voltage range is ±5% about V [7]. At the − KV dc VB sin(θ − α )
ref

firing angle limits, the SVC is transformed into a fixed Q = V 2 B − KV dcVB cos(θ − α )
(8)
reactance. − KV dc VG sin(θ − α )
B. STATCOM Where k = 3 / 8m .
STATCOM is the Voltage-Source Inverter (VSI), which
converts a DC input voltage into AC output voltage in order to IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
compensate the active and reactive power needed by the
A IEEE 14-bus test system as shown in figure 5 is used for

862
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

voltage stability studies. The test system consists of five 1.4

Voltage Magnitude Profile

generators and eleven PQ bus (or load bus). The simulation

use a PSAT simulation software [11]. PSAT is a power system 1.2

analysis software, which has many features including power 1

flow and continuation power flow. Using continuation power

flow feature of PSAT, voltage stability of the test system is 0.8

V [p.u.]
investigated. 0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Bus #

Fig. 6. Volatage magnitude profile for 14-bus test system without

FACTS.

1.1

0.9
VBus 04

VBus 05
0.8
VBus 09
Vbus#(p.u.)
VBus 14
0.7

0.6

Fig. 5. The IEEE 14-bus test system

0.5

The behavior of the test system with and without FACTS 0.4

devices under different loading conditions is studied. The

location of the FACTS controllers are determined through 0.5 1 1.5 2
Loading Parameter λ (p.u.)
2.5 3 3.5

bifurcation analysis. A typical PQ model is used for the loads

Fig. 7. PV curves for 14-bus test system without FACTS.
and the generator lirnits are ignored. Voltage stability analysis
is performed by starting from an initial stable operating point
and then increasing the loads by a factor λ until singular A. SVC
point of power flow linearization is reached. The loads are Based on collapse analysis bus 14 is targeted as the first
defined as: location for an SVC. The results of locating the SVC at the
desired bus are depicted in the voltage profile of figure 8. The
PL = PL 0 (1 + λ ) new maximum loading level in this condition is
(8) λ max = 4.08238 p.u. To show that maximum loading margin
Q L = Q L 0 (1 + λ )
doesn’t increase as much when the same SVC is moved to a
where PL 0 and Q L 0 are the active and reactive base loads, bus that doesn’t belong to the critical voltage buses e.g. for
whereas PL , and Q L , are the active and reactive loads at bus bus No. 4 λ max = 4.06984 p.u. drive (figure 9).
L for the current operating point as defined by λ .
1.1

From the continuation power flow results which are shown 1

in the figure 6, the buses 4, 5, 9 and 14 are the critical buses. 0.9

Among these buses, bus 14 has the weakest voltage profile. VBus 04

VBus 05
Figure 7 shows PV curves for 14-bus test system without 0.8
VBus 09

FACTS. The system presents a collapse or Maximum Loading

Vbus#(p.u.)

VBus 14
0.7

Point, where the system Jcobian matrix become singular at

λmax = 3.97295 p.u. Based on largest entries in the right and 0.6

left eigenvectors associated to the zero eigenvalue at the 0.5

collapse point, bus 14 is indicated as the “critical voltage bus” 0.4

needing Q support.
Voltage magnitude in MLP in bus 14 that is known as the 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Loading Parameter λ (p.u.)
3 3.5 4

weakest bus is 0.68833 p.u.

Fig. 8. PV curves for 14-bus test system with SVC at bus 14.

863
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

(without FACTS).
1.1

1 It is obviously from figure 12 that the MLP of the system

0.9
with STATCOM is highest while that without FACTS is
VBus 04 lowest. Voltage reduction is lowest in case of STATCOM.
VBus 05
0.8
VBus 09 From the figure, it is obvious that STATCOM gives the
VBus 14
maximum loading margin compared to other devices.
Vbus#(p.u.)

0.7

1.2

0.6

1
0.5

0.4 0.8

Vbus14(p.u.)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Loading Parameter λ (p.u.) 0.6

Fig. 9. PV curves for 14-bus test system with SVC at bus 4. 0.4
Base Case
SVC
ST AT COM
B. STATCOM 0.2

Then, remove the SVC, and insert the STATCOM at the

0
bus 14 which the lowest the critical point and repeat the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

simulation. When STATCOM is connected at bus 14. We can Loading Parameterλ(p.u.)

observe from figure 10 that bus 14 has a flatter voltage Fig. 11. Voltage profile for bus 14 with and without SVC &
profile. The Maximum Loading Point is increasing further at STATCOM at bus14.
λ max = 4.0892 p.u. It is noticed that bus 5 is the next weakest
4.1
bus if the STATCOM is introduced at bus 14. 4.08
4.06
M aximum Loading Point(p.u.)

1.1
4.04
1 4.02
4
0.9
VBus 04 3.98
VBus 05
0.8
VBus 09
3.96
VBus 14 3.94
Vbus#(p.u.)

0.7
3.92
0.6 3.9
Base Case SVC STATCOM
0.5

Fig. 12. Maximum Loading Point with various FACTS devices.

0.4

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

A snap shot of voltage profile at all the busses with
Loading Parameter λ (p.u.)
different controllers are given in figure 13 at the Maximum
Fig. 10. PV curves for 14-bus test system with STATCOM at bus 14. Loading Point. Notice with SVC, STATCOM keep all busses
within the acceptable voltage range.
1.2
C. Comprisiaon SVC and STATCOM
PV curves of base case and system with SVC and 1
STATCOM, are illustrated in figure 11. it indicates that with
the application of SVC and STATCOM, voltage profile in bus 0.8
Vbus#(p.u.)

14 has improved significantly. At first that system experiences

light load, the voltage profile of this bus with SVC and 0.6

STATCOM is the same. In this condition SVC and

0.4
STATCOM operate in linear region of their V-I Base Case

characteristics. When the load of the system is increased, the 0.2

SVC
STATCOM
effect of STATCOM in improving the voltage is more
adequate than the SVC. When the maximum limit is reached, 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
the SVC behaves exactly like a fixed shunt capacitor. Bus #
In maximum load condition or MLP, the magnitude of the Fig. 13. Voltage profile of each bus at the MLP of system with and
bus no.14 voltage reaches to 0.88987 p.u. (with SVC) and without SVC and STATCOM.
reaches to 0.99237 p.u. (with STATCOM) from 0.68833 p.u.

864
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009

Using of SVC and STATCOM give the view of voltage [9] N. Talebi, M. Ehsan, S.M.T Bathaee, "Effects of SVC and TCSC
Control Strategies on Static Voltage Collapse Phenomena, " IEEE
decline before entering to the collapse point. The SVC and Proceedings, SoutheastCon, pp. 161 - 168, Mar 2004.
STATCOM significantly affects the shape of the PV curve, [10] C. A. Canizares,. "Power Row and Transient Stability Models of FACTS
which improves the critical point without masking the nose controllers. for Voltage and Angle Stability Studies," IEEE/PES WM
Panel on Modeling, Simulation and Applicatfons of FACTS Controllers
point by only shift out the PV curve.
in Angle and Valtage Stability Studies, Singapore, Jan. 2000
From figure 13, STATCOM provides a better voltage [11] F. Milano, “Power System Analysis Toolbox," Version 1.3.4, Software
profile at the collapse point at bus 14 compared to other and Documentation, July 14, 2005.
FACTS devices. This is due to the reason that the STATCOM
is installed at the weakest bus. Reactive power support at the
weakest bus provides better voltage profiles throughout the
system. STATCOM introduces reactive power at bus 14,
which improves voltage profile in its vicinity.
Voltage magnitudes at load buses 4, 5 of the system is
lower in case of STATCOM compared to SVC. Voltage
magnitudes at load buses 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
system is better in case of STATCOM compared to SVC.

V. CONCLUSIONS
A comparison study of SVC and STATCOM in static
voltage stability margin enhancement is presented. SVC and
STATCOM increase static voltage stability margin and power
transfer capability. In this paper adequate models for the SVC
and STATCOM in the steady-state studies are presented and
thoroughly discussed. Hence, a technique to identify the
optimal placement of the FACTS devices and related
equations are derived. The results of simulations on the IEEE
14 bus test system have clearly shown that how SVC and
STATCOM devices increased the buses voltage, power limits,
line powers, and loading capability of the network. The results
of simulations also show that with the insertion of
STATCOM, improving these parameters and steady-state
stability of the system is more than the case when the SVC is
inserted in the system.

REFERENCES
[1] V. Ajjarapu and C. Christy,“The continuation power flow: A tool for
steady state voltage stability analysis, ” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp.426-423, Feb. 1992.
[2] Arthit Sode-Yome, Nadarajah Mithulananthan and Kwang Y. Lee,
“Static Voltage Stability Margin Enhancement Using STATCOM,
TCSC and SSSC,” IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution
Conference & Exhibition, Asia and pacific, Dalian Chine, 2005.
[3] Blackout of 2003: Description and Responses, Available:
http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/.
[4] R. Natesan and G. Radman,“ Effects of STATCOM, SSSC and UPFC on
Voltage Stability,” Proceedings of the system theory thirty- Sixth
southeastern symposium, 2004, pp. 546-550.
[5] Dobson and H. D. Chiang, "Towards a theory of Voltage collapse in
electric power systems," Systems& Control Letters, vol. 13, 1989, pp.
253-262.
[6] C. A. Canizares, F. L. Alvarado, C. L. DeMarco, I. Dobson, and W. F.
Long, "Point of collapse methods applied to acldc power systems," IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, May 1992, pp. 673-683.
[7] C. A. Canlzares, Z. T. Faur, "Analysis SVC and TCSC Controllers in
Voltage Collapse," IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1,
February 1999, pp. 158-165.
[8] A. Kazemi, V. Vahidinasab and A. Mosallanejad,“ Study of STATCOM
and UPFC Controllers for Voltage Stability Evaluated by Saddle-Node
Bifurcation Analysis,” First International Power and Energy Coference
PECon/IEEE, Putrajaya, Malaysia, November 28-29, 2006.

865

View publication stats