Load Flow Control in Power Systems Using SSSC and UPFC Devices

Constantin BULAC Mircea EREMIA Ion TRIŞTIU Lucian TOMA Andreea ERBAŞU
University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest
Department of Electrical Power Engineering

Abstract: The electric power industry is currently undergoing an unprecedented worldwide reform. The
deregulation of electricity supply industry has introduced new opportunity for competition to reduce the cost
and cut the price. It is a tremendous challenge for utilities to maintain an economical and reliable supply in
such an environment. New technologies have been developed for best operating the system in a competitive
environment. The FACTS technology makes it possible to use circuit reactance, voltage magnitude and angle
as controls to redistribute line flow and regulate nodal voltages.

1. Introduction
As the energy market is becoming increasingly free, and there are more and more open access power
systems, load flow and congestions management is becoming of more importance as well. Under these
circumstances, the paper proposes the implementation of SSSC (Synchronous Static Series Compensator),
and UPFC (Unified Power Flow Controller), which are the most efficient FACTS devices in this kind of
applications.
The first part presents the steady-state models of the two devices and their implementation in the
PFAC (Power Flow Analysis and Control) software, developed in Visual C++, using the OOP technology
and the Newton-Raphson method.
In the second part, this program has been used on the 220kV - 400kV network of the Romanian
Power Grid (SEN). Thus, starting from a base case (a steady-state power flow), we have examined 5 other
operating modes that could appear in the current operation. Besides, for each new case, we have considered a
few incidents that should lead to congestions related to nodal power release and, respectively, power supply
for a deficient part of the system.
The results obtained by using the SSSC and UPFC devices, which function as real “electronically
controlled locks”, prove the fact that we can redistribute power flow in order to eliminate congestions, thus
keeping SEN in function in normal parameters.
In conclusion one may say that using the latest generation FACTS devices such as SSSC and UPFC is
a viable alternative to load flow and congestions management in electric power systems and to increasing
reliability and flexibility.

2. Steady-state models of SSSC and UPFC

Since the concept of FACTS was introduced [1], a family of electronic equipment has emerged for
controlling and optimizing the flow of electric power in power transmission lines. The last generation of
these equipments makes use of large rating gate turn-off thyristors (GTOs) in high power converter
configurations that can be controlled to behave as three-phase sinusoidal voltage sources. These electronic
generators are operated synchronously with the transmission line and may be connected either in parallel,
producing controllable shunt reactive current for voltage regulation, or in series with line, for controlling the
flow of power directly [2].
The models used in this paper assume pulse width modulation – PWM control techniques for converters. In
these conditions, during steady-state operations, when the fundamental frequency components under balanced
operating conditions are concerned, the converter is modeled as a controllable voltage source [3] [4].

1
 2.1. SSSC Steady-state model
The Static Synchronous Series Compensator – SSSC is a solid-state voltage source converter – VSI that
injects a voltage in series with a transmission line via a transformer (Figure 1). To do this, a source of energy
is needed to provide the DC voltage across the capacitor C and to supply the losses of VSI. In principle, by
means of SSSC controller the injected voltage could be controlled in magnitude and phase if sufficient
energy is provided. Hence, an SSSC is capable of interchanging both active and reactive power with the
power system [2], [3].
The steady-state equivalent circuit of SSSC (Figure 2) consists of an ideal voltage source US representing
the fundamental Fourier series component of the switched voltage waveforms at the alternative current
terminal. The source impedance included in the model represents the positive sequence leakage inductance
and resistance of coupling transformer.
Uk Ui Pref+jQref
Iki
k i j
ZS US ZL
Transmission Ik Iki S Ii
k i Line j

YL YL
SSSC Uk Ui
VSI Controller 2 2

C
+ - Transmission ligne
Energy
Source

Fig. 1. Block diagram of a SSSC device Fig.2. Steady-state model of SSSC

The general transfer admittance matrix for the SSSC is obtained by applying Kirchhoff current and
voltage laws to the dipole k i shown in Fig.2 and is given by:
⎡U k ⎤
⎡ I k ⎤ ⎡Y kk Y ki Y kS ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ I ⎥ = ⎢Y ⎥ Ui (1)
⎣ i ⎦ ⎣ ik Y ii Y iS ⎦ ⎢⎢U ⎥⎥
⎣ S⎦
where: Y kk = Y ii = Y iS = y S , Y ki = Y ik = Y kS = − y S and y S = GS + jBS = 1 Z S (2)
Hence, the active and reactive power equations are:
• at node k:
[ ] [
Pk , SSSC = GkkU k2 + U k U i Gki cos(θ k − θ i ) + Bki sin (θ k − θ i ) + U k U S GkS cos(θ k − θ S ) + BkS sin(θ k − θ S ) ]
(3)
[ ] [
Qk , SSSC = − Bkk U k2 + U k U i Gki sin (θ k − θ i ) − Bki cos(θ k − θ i ) + U kU S GkS sin(θ k − θ S ) − BkS cos(θ k − θ S ) ]
• at node i:
Pi , SSSC = GiiU i2 + U iU k [Gik cos(θ i − θ k ) + Bik sin (θ i − θ k )] + U iU S [GiS cos(θ i − θ S ) + BiS sin (θ i − θ S )]
(4)
Qi , SSSC = − BiiU i2 + U iU k [Gik sin(θ i − θ k ) − Bik cos(θ i − θ k )] + U iU S [GiS sin (θ i − θ S ) − BiS cos(θ i − θ S )]
2.2. UPFC Steady-state model
The Unified Power Flow Controller is the most versatile and complex power electronic equipment that
has emerged for the control and optimization of power flow and voltage in electric power transmission
systems. It consists of two back-to-back, self-commutated, voltage source converters, sharing a shunt
capacitor on the DC side [2]. One converter is coupled to the AC system via a shunt transformer and the
other is coupled to the AC system via a series transformer (Figure. 3). The series converter is controlled to
inject a synchronous voltage in series with the transmission line. In the process of doing this, the series
2
converter will exchange real and reactive power with the line. The series inverter electronically provides the
reactive power and the real power is transmitted to the DC terminals. The shunt inverter is operated in such a
way as to demand this DC terminal power (positive or negative) from the line, thereby regulating the voltage
of the DC bus. The net real power absorbed from the line by the UPFC is thus equal to the losses of the two
converters and their transformers. Assuming a free loss converter operation, the UPFC neither absorbs nor
injects active power with respect to the AC system. Hence, the active power supplied to the shunt converter
PD, must satisfy the active power demanded by the series converter, PS. [4][5][7].
The equivalent circuit consists of two ideal voltage sources US and UD representing the fundamental Fourier
series component of the switched voltage waveforms at the AC converter terminals (Figure 4). The source
impedances included in the model represent the positive sequence leakage inductances and resistances of the
coupling UPFC transformers.
Although the UPFC has many possible operating modes, we will consider that the shunt converter will be
operated in automatic voltage control – AVC mode and the series converter will be in automatic power flow
control – APFC mode [6]. In these modes the shunt converter reactive current is automatically regulated to
maintain the transmission line voltage at the point of connection (bus k) to a reference value, while the series
injected voltage is determined automatically and continuously by a vector control system to ensure that the
desired active and reactive powers are maintained despite system changes.
Uk Ui Pref+jQref
k i j
ZS US ZL
Transmission Ik Iki S Ii
k i Line j
ID
ZD
PD+PS=0 YL YL
C Uk Ui
D 2 2
UD

UPFC Controller Transmission ligne

Fig. 3. Block diagram of a UPFC device Fig. 4. Steady-state model of UPFC

The general transfer admittance matrix for the UPFC is obtained by applying Kirchhoff current and voltage
laws to the electric circuit k i shown in Fig.4 and is given by:
⎡U k ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎡ I k ⎤ ⎡Y kk Y ki Y kS Y kD ⎤ ⎢ U i ⎥
⎢ I ⎥ = ⎢Y ⎥ (5)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣
i ik Y ii Y iS 0 ⎦ ⎢U S ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ D⎦
U
where:
Y kk = y S + y D , Y ki = Y ik = Y kS = − y S , Y k D = − y D Y ii = Y iS = y S
(6)
y S = G S + jBS = 1 Z S and y D = G D + jBD = 1 Z D
Hence, the active and reactive power equations are:
• at bus k:

3
Pk ,UPFC = GkkU k2 + U kU i [Gki cos(θ k − θ i ) + Bki sin(θ k − θ i )] +
+ U kU S [GkS cos(θ k − θ S ) + BkS sin(θ k − θ S )] +
+ U kU D [GkD cos(θ k − θ D ) + BkD sin(θ k − θ D )]
(7)
Qk ,UPFC = − BkkU k2 + U kU i [Gki sin(θ k − θ i ) − Bki cos(θ k − θ i )] +
+ U kU S [GkS sin(θ k − θ S ) − BkS cos(θ k − θ S )] +
+ U kU D [GkD sin(θ k − θ D ) − BkD cos(θ k − θ D )]
• at bus i:
Pi ,UPFC = GiiU i2 + U iU k [Gik cos(θ i − θ k ) + Bik sin(θ i − θ k )] +
+ U iU S [GiS cos(θ i − θ S ) + BiS sin(θ i − θ S )]
(8)
Qi ,UPFC = − BiiU i2 + U iU k [Gik sin(θ i − θ k ) − Bik cos(θ i − θ k )] +
+ U iU S [GiS sin(θ i − θ S ) − BiS cos(θ i − θ S )]
• active power supplied by the shunt inverter
( )
PD = Re U D I D = U DU k [G D cos (θ D − θ k ) + BD sin (θ D − θ k )] − U D2 G D
*
(9)
• active power supplied by the series inverter
( )
PS = Re U S I S = U SU k [G S cos (θ S − θ k ) + BS sin (θ S − θ k )] −
*

(10)
− U SU i [G S cos (θ S − θ i ) + BS sin (θ S − θ i )] − U S2 G S

3. Implementing SSSC and UPFC models in Newton – Raphson algorithm for power flow
solution.

For power flow analysis each SSSC and UPFC device is modeled by means of two loads as shown in
Figure 5. In this model, a fictitious bus i (the sending end of controller) is introduced to force Pijref + jQijref to
flow in the transmission line. This auxiliary nod is handled as a PQ bus, whilst the bus k (the receiving end of
controller) is handled according to the type of device. Thus, if the FACTS controller is an UPFC that operate
in AVC mode, the bus k is converted to a PU bus. Otherwise the type of bus is not changed.

Power System Power System

k i j k i Pijref+jQijref j
Transmission
line

Pk,FACTS Pi,FACTS= - Pijref

FACTS Qk,FACTS Qi,FACTS= - Qijref
Fig. 5. SSSC and UPFC power flow model
Furthermore, each SSSC device introduces two auxiliary unknowns (the angle and magnitude of
series voltage), and each UPFC device introduces four auxiliary unknowns (the angle and magnitude of
series and derivation voltage), which once they have been determined, make possible to find the other
electrical measurements and to program parameters of the control and command system, respectively.
In these conditions, the mathematical model for determining the steady-state of an SEE in which there
are FACTS devices of the SSSC and UPFC type meant to control power flow is obtained starting from the
standard model of the steady-state (equations of nodal powers balance) as follows:

4
 (i) The equations of nodal power balance at i and k buses, between which we have connected the
converter, are changed as fallow:
f Pk ( [X Bus ] , [X FACTS ] ) = Pkref − Pk , FACTS − Pk = 0
f Qk ( [X Bus ] , [X FACTS ] ) = Qkref − Qk ,FACTS − Qk = 0
(11)
f Pi ( [X Bus ] , [X FACTS ] ) = Pi ref − Pi ,FACTS − Pi = 0
f Qi ( [X Bus ] , [X FACTS ] ) = Qiref − Qi , FACTS − Qi = 0
where [X Bus ] = [θ , U ] is the steady-state variables vector (amplitude and modulus of nodal
voltages), [X FACTS ] is the vector of state variables that have been added by the SSSC and UPFC
devices (the modulus and the amplitude of derivation and series voltages), and
Pk ,FACTS , Qk ,FACTS , Pi ,FACTS and Qi , FACTS are the powers at these terminals that can be determined by
applying (3) and (4), in SSSC, and (7) and (8) for UPFC.
(ii) For each SSSC device we introduce the following supplementary equations corresponding to the
control strategy:
Pi ,SSSC = − Pijref
(12)
Qi ,SSSC = −Qijref
completed by the inequality constraints imposed by the acceptable limits of the angle and
magnitude of series voltage:
U Smin ≤ U S ≤ U Smax
(13)
0 ≤ θ S ≤ 2π
where Pi ,SSSC and Qi ,SSSC are the nodal powers at i of the device, and they can be determined by
means of (4).
(iii) For each UPFC device we introduce the following supplementary equations:
• Equations corresponding to control strategy
Pi ,UPFC = − Pijref
Qi ,UPFC = −Qijref (14)
Uk = U ref
k
completed by the inequality constraints imposed by the acceptable limits of the angle and
magnitude of series and derivation voltage, respectively:
U Smin ≤ U S ≤ U Smax and U Dmin ≤ U D ≤ U Dmax
(15)
0 ≤ θ S ≤ 2π and 0 ≤ θ D ≤ 2π
where Pi ,UPFC and Qi ,UPFC are nodal powers at i bus of the device, which can be determined
with equation (8).
• Active powers balance equation at inverters’ level
PD = PS (16)
where PD and PS are given by equations (9) and (10).
Therefore, we can determine the steady-state operation of power systems containing SSSC and UPFC
devices by solving the non-linear equations system:
f ([X Bus ] , [X FACTS ]) = 0
(17)
g ([X Bus ] , [X FACTS ]) = 0

5
which included the equations of the nodal powers balance modified according with equation (11), and the strategy
of control equations, with respect to unknowns [X ] = [[X Bus ][X FACTS ]] . We can determine the nodal state
T

variables [X Bus ] , and the SSSC and UPFC devices state variables [X FACTS ] either simultaneously or alternatively.
In simultaneous determination method the Newton-Raphson algorithm is applied to equations system (17) [7].
The alternative method uses the principle of decoupled state variables [X FACTS ] from the buses’ variables [X Bus ] ,
and it consists in two steps [4], [8]. In the first step, knowing the components of the vector [X Bus ] , we can
determine the components of the vector [X FACTS ]. Therefore, we use the Newton method in order to solve the
system of non-linear equations g ([X Bus ] , [X FACTS ]) = 0 . In the second step, we consider the values of [X FACTS ] as
known, and we determine the angle and magnitude of voltages using the Newton-Raphson algorithm in order to
solve the system of equations f ([X Bus ] , [X FACTS ]) = 0 . Thus, each FACTS device is represented by the terminal
powers that have been determined using the [X FACTS ] values in the first step. The alternative method has been
implemented in the program PFAC (Power Flow Analysis and Control) that has been developed in Visual C++
using the OOP (Orientated Object Programming) technology [8], [9].
4. Case Studies
In order to verify the possibility of using the SSSC and UPFC devices in load flow and congestions
management, we used the 220kV - 400kV network of the Romanian Power Grid. In this respect, starting
from an operating mode R0, defined as base case, we considered 5 other operating modes that may appear in
the current operation. Furthermore, for each new case we envisaged several incidents that may lead to
congestions concerning energy release from a power plant (cases R1, R2, and R3) and energy supply of a
deficitary area (cases R4 and R5), respectively. These operating modes, as well as congestions that may
appear, have been determined by means of the PFAC program, and they are described in Table 1 in short.
Table 1. Analysed Operating Modes and Contingencies
Case Changes from R0 case Incident Load flow/Congestion
R0 Normal operating scheme with Overloading of the operating
power flow in acceptable limits. circuit of transmission line 24-
57 by 0.8%
R1 Production increases by approx. 210 Overloading of the operating
MW in bus 24. circuit of transmission line 24-
57 by 5%
R2 400kV transmission line 14-15 is Overloading of the operating
tripped. Tripp of one circuit from circuit of transmission line 24-
220kV power line 24-57 57 by 3.5%
R3 Importing approx. 140MW from the Overloading of the operating
neighbour system (bus 423), circuit of transmission line 24-
following the withdrawal of a local 57 by 14.2%
power generator. 400kV
transmission line 14-15 is tripped.
R4 Deficit of 390MW in critical area Overloading of the 220kV
Tripp of 400kV power line transmission line 94-77 by
5-6. 7.16%
R5 Deficit of 390MW in critical area, Overloading of the 220kV
and 400kV transmission line 6-8 is transmission line 94-77 by
tripped. 17.3%, and of the 220kV
transmission line 77-43 by
2.08%

6
In order to control congestions that may appear in operating modes R1, R2, and R3 following the tripping of
a circuit from the transmission line 24-57 (fig.6), it is necessary to add a FACTS device on this line, which
should redistribute power flow. Thus, the device controls the power flow on the operating line so that it stays
the same as the standard values (table 2) imposed on the one hand by the necessity to eliminate the
congestion, and on the other hand, by the necessity to prevent other congestions. We find out that the least
favourable situation is in R1 state, when the limitation of the power flow on the still operating line may lead
to overloading of the autotransformer 14-24.
57 57 57 57

332.9+j63.4
180.4+j8.7
180.4+j8.7

326+j46.7

355.5+j67
(105.%)

(103.5%)
(62.3%)

(62.3%)

(114.2%)
15 15 15 15

178.2-j52.11
4

206.7-j30.7
5.

3.
366+j23.6
172.5-j9.7

(52.72%)

(47.21%)
(43.25%)

j3

j2
(91.7%)

) )
9-

2-
7% %
4.

2. 3. .2
33

42
3 1
( (4

371.9+j21.1 428-j13 606.4+j1.9 672.1+j19.3

135.8+j171.2
181.3+j40.1

142.7+j63.6

41.7+j135.1
(13.65%)

(12.36%)

(19.11%)
(36.7%) (41.6%) (58.9%) (65.32%)
(16.2%)

9 9 9 9

423 423 423 423

R0 R1 R2 R3
Fig. 6. Power flow (MW-MVAr) in the neighbourhood of buse 24.
57 57 57
250+j60

250+j60
(96.43%)

(76.11%)

(76.11%)
310+j60

15 15 283.7+-j16.8 15
388.8-j10.5

66

283.7-j17.3

(71.46%)
(97.8%)

3.

(71.5%)
j2

)
4-

1%
43

2 .2
(4

434-j12.8 650.1+j9.6 732.34+j32

8.64+j138.3

90.9+j160.2
136.8+j101
(14.92%)

(16.17%)

(42.17%) (63.16%) (71.21%)

(12.2%)

9 9 9

423 423 423

R1 R2 R3
Fig. 7. Power flow (MW-MVAr) in the neighbourhood of buse 24 the presence of an UPFC

The results that we have obtained with the SSSC and UPFC devices are shown in table 2 and figure 7.
Table 2.
Controller Regime Scheduled line power Load [%] Steady state of FACTS controller
P[MW] Q[MVAr] Line 24-57 AT 14-24 US [p.u] θS [deg] UD [p.u] θD [deg]
R1 310 60 96.40 97.40 0.2465 -106.88 - -
SSSC R2 250 60 76.00 77.00 0.1734 -187.79 - -
R3 250 60 76.60 79.00 0.2052 146.87 - -
R1 310 60 96.40 97.30 0.2488 -108.69 0.9295 5.16
UPFC R2 250 60 76.11 71.50 0.1514 -188.70 1.0760 2.48
R3 250 60 76.50 71.50 0.1825 142.3744 1.0942 2.08

7
In order to control congestions that may appear in operating modes R4 and R5 following the tripping of the
400kV transmission line 5-6, it is necessary to add a FACTS device on the 220kV transmission line 94-77 in
order to restrict the power flow toward the deficit area. The results obtained when using the SSSC and the
UPFC devices, which also regulate nodal voltage in 94 to a value of 1 p.u., show the fact that power flow
limitation on line 94-77 leads to an increase of power flow on 220kV transmission lines going through 42,
50, 81, 88, 75, and 119 buses. Thus we have a redistribution of power flow, which leads to congestion
eliminations. Figure 8 shows power flow for operating mode R5 on the transmission lines that supply the
deficit area when there is, and when there is not an UPFC device to regulate power flow on transmission line
94-77 at (250+j60) MVA.
119 75 88 119 75 88

21-j11 57+j2.4 96.+j10 78-j38 159-j29 202-j4.8

Critical (7.7.3%) (18.3%) (38.7%) Critical (27.6%) (51.4%) (70.1%)
Zone 81 Zone 81
102 5 110-j21 102 5 206-j42
(38.7%) (73.1%)
43 6 50 43 6 50
150-j34 263-j37
307-j21 8 (48.1%) 196+j23 8 (84.2%)
(102.1%) (60.4%)
77 42 77 42
250+j60
(74.6%)
371+j74.6
(117.3%)
10 FACTS 10
94 94

Fig.8. Power flow (MW-MVAr) on 220kV lines for operating mode R5

5. Conclusions

In this paper we have analysed the possibility of using flexible SSSC and UPFC devices in controlling
power flow and congestions that may appear in power systems when certain equipments are not available. In
this respect, we have developed the steady-state models of the two devices that have been implemented in the
PFAC program. This program, based on the Newton-Raphson method, is meant to analyse power flow in
power systems and it has been tested on the 220kV-400kV network of the Romanian Power Grid. We have
taken into consideration several possible scenarios, leading to two types of congestions. The first type of
congestion is related to nodal power release, and the second to the supply of a deficit area. Simulations prove
the fact that in both cases we can regulate power flow so that to reduce and eliminate congestions if we use
the SSSC and the UPFC devices.
Similarly, the FACTS devices can be installed on interconnection lines in order to redistribute power flows
thorough the SEN interconnection interface to a second synchronous area, and in the future with UCTE, in
order to avoid congestions in the internal network, in the interconnection interface or in the neighbour
networks.
Bearing in mind the achievements of these two analysed devices, and also their high price, a lot of
research is needed before deciding whether to install these devices. It requires economical research as well as
a complete analysis of the FACTS effects on the steady-state and on the dynamic behaviour of the power
system.
We may conclude that using the SSSC and UPFC devices, if we leave aside the high costs or the
technical details, is a viable alternative to load flow and congestions management in power systems, as well
as for increasing their reliability and their flexibility.

8
Bibliography:
1. Hingorani N.G. – High Power Electronics and Flexible AC Transmission System. IEEE Power
Engineering Review, July 1988.
2. Hingorani N.G., Gyugyi L. – Understanding FACTS : Concepts and technology of flexible AC
transmission systems. IEEE Press Inc., New York 2000.
3. Song Y. H. and Johns A. – Flexible ac transmission systems - FACTS. The Institution of Electrical
Engineers, London, 1999.
4. Nabavi-Niaki A., Iravani M.R. – Steady State and Dynamic Models of UPFC for Power System
Studies. IEEE Trans. PWRS Vol. 11, No.4, November 1996.
5. Cañizares C.A. – Power Flow and Transient Stability Models of FACTS Controllers for Voltage and
Angle Stability Studies. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE-PES Winter Meeting, Singapore, January
2000.
6. Schauder C.D., Gyugyi L., Lund M.R., Hamai D.M., Rietman T.R., Torgerson D.R. and Edris A. –
Operation of the Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) under Practical Constraints ”. IEEE Trans.
on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No.2, April 1998.
7. Fuerte-Esquivel C.R., Acha E., Ambriez-Perez – A Comprehensive Newton-Raphson UPFC Model
for the Quadratic Power Flow Solution of Practical Power Networks. IEEE Trans. PWRS Vol. 15,
No.1, February 2000.
8. Eremia M. Bulac C. Triştiu I. ş.a. – Dezvoltarea de tehnici avansate în sistemele electroenergetice
restructurate şi interconectate. Fazele 1 şi 2 /2001 Concepte şi modele performante pentru modelarea
sistemului electro-energetic în vederea dezvoltării de produse informatice avansate. Programul PFAC
pentru controlul circulaţiei de putere în SEE cu FACTS. Contract de cercetare ştiinţifică cu C.N.
TRANSELECTRICA S.A., iunie 2001.
9. Bulac C., Eremia M., Triştiu I. - Modele statice şi dinamice ale dispozitivelor FACTS. Revista
Energetica, Vol. 50, Nr.3, 2002.
10. Eremia M., Trecat J., Germond A. – Reseaux electriques. Aspects actuels. Edition Technique,
Bucarest, 2000.