1

Power Flow Models of Unified Power Flow Controllers in Various Operation Modes
Sheng-Huei Lee, Student Member, IEEE, and Chia-Chi Chu, Member, IEEE

Abstract-- A comprehensive UPFC steady-state model for power flow analysis will be proposed. With considering resistances of coupling transformers and converter losses, this new model can implement any desired control actions, including any combinations of active/reactive power control and voltage magnitude control, within the same framework. The d-q axis decomposition of UPFC control variables will be considered as UPFC unknown variables in conventional Newton-Raphson power flow solvers. An IEEE 118 test system embedded with 2 UPFCs is studied to validate our new model. Performance comparisons between our new model and the Voltage-Source-Based (VSB) model are also performed. Simulation results demonstrate that the quadratic convergence of the Newton-Raphson algorithm is still maintained in our model even under different operation modes. Influence of coupling transformers and converter loss are also studied in detail.

Index Terms-- Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC); Newton-Raphson Iterations; d-q Axis Decomposition

I. INTRODUCTION ith rapid developments in power electronics, Flexible Alternative Current Transmission Systems (FACTS) become more attractive for long distance power system transmissions recently. Various FACTS devices have been successfully installed around the world. Among all existing FACTS devices, the Unified Power Flow Controllers (UPFCs) seem to be the most comprehensive and can provide the greatest possibility for regulating the real and reactive power flow independently with controlling the bus voltage. In order to study UPFC characteristics, the development of UPFC power flow models is fundamentally important. Significant progress has been made during the past few years. Among existing steady-state models, the decoupled model has been adopted for many power flow programs [1]. Unfortunately, this model completely neglects active power losses of coupling transformers. Also, it is only applicable when voltage magnitude, active power, and reactive power are controlled simultaneously. A voltage-source-based (VSB) model is proposed later [2],[3]. Both the series converter and the shunt converter are
The authors are with Department of Electrical Engineering, Chang Gung University, 259 Wen-Hwa First Road, Kwei-San, Tao-Yuan 333, Taiwan, R.O.C. (ccchu@mail.cgu.edu.tw). Sheng-Huei Lee is also with Department of Electrical Engineering, Ching Yun Institute of Technology, Chun-Li, Tao-Yuan 320, Taiwan, R.O.C.

modeled as voltage sources with appropriate impedances. Although it is the most comprehensive one, the VSB model will introduce some difficulties with embedding UPFCs due to the presence of voltage sources. Another disadvantage is that special attentions will be paid on initial conditions selections [3]. In order to resolve this task, a simplified model, called the Power Injection Model (PIM), is proposed later [4]. Although this model is converged rapidly, this PIM model completely ignores the resistance of the coupling transformer. In order to overcome some drawbacks of existing models, a new UPFC steady-state model will be developed in this paper. This new model exhibits the following distinguished features. First, converter losses will be included in our new model. Secondly, the resistance of the coupling transformer is also considered in our new model. Thirdly, In order to simplify the interactions with the conventional power flow solver, all variables related to UPFCs are expressed as two orthogonal components: direct axis component and quadratic axis component. By investigating these orthogonal components of UPFC control variables, this new model is capable for controlling any desired combinations of active powers, reactive powers and voltage magnitude in the same framework. Thus, this new model is very easy to implement in conventional power flow solvers since only 2 mismatch equations and 2 unknown variables are appended for each UPFC. Finally, the Newton-Raphsons quadratic convergence property can also be preserved and the proposed method seems to be insensitive to the initial value of UPFCs. Simulation results will demonstrate that our new model will converge more rapidly than existing VSB models. II. UPFC STEADY-STATE MODEL

sh

Vdc

Fig. 1 Schematic Representation of UPFCs.

In this section, we will focus on the UPFC steady-state model for the Newton-Raphson power flow algorithm. As

0-7803-8110-6/03/$17.00(C)2003 IEEE

Pdc

sh

Pdc

ser

resI

res

V
hs I

Vs s
hs

Fig. 2 Equivalent Circuit Models of UPFCs

In order to study the power flow analysis, an equivalent circuit of the UPFC, shown in Fig. 2, will be considered. The shunt branch and the series branch are modeled as an ideal voltage source in series with an impedance which represents the loss of the coupling transformer. The model is similar to the VSB model developed in [2], except for both converters loss have been taken into considerations. It is well known that that in the VSB model, the bus voltage magnitude and the corresponding phase of each converters voltage are treated as unknown variables. Thus, four mismatch equations and four unknown variables are appended in the conventional power flow solver. However, a new notation, d-q axis decomposition, is proposed in this paper to simplify the modeling complexity. The direct axis component and the quadratic axis component of the shunt current will be treated as unknown variables. Thus, only 2 mismatch equations and 2 unknown variables are needed to be appended. A. D-q Axis Decomposition

Fig. 3 D-q Decomposition of Voltage Variables and Current Variables.

To simplify out notions, both voltage variables and current variables related to UPFCs will be decomposed into two orthogonal components: the direct axis component and the quadratic axis component. As shown in Fig. 3, direct axis components are in-phase with the UPFCs receiving end bus

Rsh + jX sh

Pdc

ser

+ Pdc

sh

= 0

Vr r

B. Equivalent Load Demands at UPFC Buses In our formulation, two equivalent nonlinear loads at terminals will replace each UPFC. The amount of equivalent loads depends upon our control objectives and terminal bus voltages. Using the d-q representations for UPFC variables, the equivalent load demand in the receiving end bus is: D Q Pr + jQ r = V r I ser + jV r I ser (3) In similar fashion, the sending end bus equivalent load demand is: D D Q Q (4) Ps = (I ser I sh )VsD + (I ser I sh )VsQ
D D Q Q (5) Qs = (I ser I sh )VsQ (I ser I sh )VsD If we want to control power flow toward the receiving end bus, the equivalent load demand at the receiving end is equal to the negative amount of the corresponding branch flow control objective. Thus, the UPFC series branch current can be easily obtained by (3) as follows:

D I ser = Pref /Vr Q I ser

= Qref /Vr

Where Pref and Qref are the desired active branch flow and the reactive branch flow toward the receiving end of UPFC. For different operation modes of UPFCs, the series branch current has different relationship with bus voltage variables and UPFC control settings. We will discuss details later. The series converters voltage can also be derived. By applying the KVL and the d-q decomposition, we have: D D Q (8) V ser = V r V sD + R ser I ser X ser I ser
Q Q D V ser = V sQ + R ser I ser + X ser I ser

C. Power Balance Inside the DC Side of the UPFC The active power injected by the series converter at AC side can be expressed as:
D Q D Q Pser = I ser (V r V sD ) I ser V sQ + (I ser + I ser )R ser (10) Similarly, the active power injected by the shunt converter is:
Q D D Psh = I shV sD + I shV sQ + (I sh 2 Q + I sh )Rsh 2

Rser + jX ser
res I

(2) VsQ = Vs sin( s r ) Where symbols with superscript D and Q represent the direct axis component and the quadratic axis component of the specified variable. Symbols with subscript s represent the variable related to sending end bus. Also, symbols with subscript r, ser, sh are variables related to the receiving end bus, the series converter and the shunt converter correspondingly.

shown in Fig. 1, a UPFC consists of two switching GTO converters: one is a shunt-connected while the other one is seriesconnected. Both converters can operate in a rectifier mode, which converts an AC voltage to a DC voltage, or operate in an inverter mode, which converts a DC voltage to an AC voltage. The DC branch links theses two converters by a storage capacitor. The DC voltage V dc will be kept to be a constant by operations of two converters.

voltage while quadratic axis components are leading the receiving end bus voltage by /2 radian. Let the sending end bus voltage phasor and the receiving end bus voltage phasor of UPFC be expressed as = V s s and = Vr r respectively. The direct axis component and the quadratic component of the UPFC sending end bus voltage can be written in the following forms: (1) VsD = Vs cos( s r )

"

"

hs I

(6) (7)

(9)

(11)

By combining (10) and (11), the total power flowing out from the DC side of UPFC can be obtained as follows: Pdc = ser Pser + sh Psh
D Q + sh[I shVsD + I shVsQ + + Where is the ratio of the converters DC side power respect to the AC side. can be obtained in the following way: if the power indeed flows from the AC side to the DC side, the converter is operated in the rectifier mode. is equal to the efficiency of the rectifier. On the other hand, if the power flows from the converters DC side to the AC side, the converter is operated in the inverter mode. is equal to the inverse of the inverters efficiency. In our applications, if Pser is positive, the active power of the series converter flows from the DC side to the AC side and the active power of the shunt converter flows from the AC side to the DC side, the shunt converter will operate as a rectifier and sh is the efficiency of the converter in the rectifier mode. Meanwhile, the series converter works as an inverter and ser is the inverse of the converter in the inverter mode. Since the power balance must be maintained inside the UPFC, (12) must be zero. We will append this constraint in the mismatch vector of the Newton-Raphson iteration.

D. Equivalent Voltage Phasor of Converters Once the Newton-Raphson iteration is converged, the equivalent shunt voltage source can be obtained. This can be accomplished by applying the d-q axis representation. The current of the UPFC shunt branch can be represented as:
(13) R sh + jX sh If we compare the real part and the imaginary part of (13), the direct part and the quadratic part of the shunt voltage can be obtained as follows:
Q D D V sh = V sD + I sh R sh I sh X sh Q Q D V sh = V sQ + I sh R sh + I sh X sh
Q D I sh + jI sh = Q D (V sh V sD ) + j(V sh V sQ )

D V ser

(17)

E. Other Control Modes Since UPFCs are capable for controlling any desired combinations of active powers, reactive powers, and voltage magnitude, it is essential to develop a unified model for various UPFCs operation modes. When the UPFC is operated in the

mismatch and the reactive power mismatch related to the receiving end bus of UPFC respectively. Two additional equations will be included in our new power flow solver. First, since the power exchange between converters are taken into considerations, the total power flow out of the DC side must be set to zero. Thus, (12) must be appended in the mismatch vector. Secondly, another variable

D V ser

Q + V ser (tan 1
2

Q V ser

bus s. Analogously, f P r and f Q

s, and f Q

D V sh Similarly, using (8),(9), the series converters voltage phasor can also be obtained:

D V sh

(16)

Where f P s is the mismatch related to the active power at bus

s

is the mismatch related to the reactive power at

r

Q + V sh (tan 1

Q V sh

fQ
'

= fQ

fP
'

= fP

'

(15) Thus, the corresponding UPFC equivalent shunt voltage phasor can be reconstructed by these two orthogonal components defined in (14),(15).
hs

fQ

= fQ

'

res

D ser [I ser(Vr

Q D Q VsD ) I serVsQ + (I ser + I ser )Rser ] D2 (I sh Q2 I sh )Rsh ]

(12)

D Q other control mode, only variables I ser and I ser will be modified in the above model formulations. All other subsequent equations will not be altered. For instance, if only active D power is our control objective, I ser can be determined by (6).
Q Since the influence of Vser on the active power is more sigD D nificant than that of Vser , Vser will be set to zero. By (8), the quadratic axis current of the series converter can be obtained: D V V sD + R ser I ser Q I ser = r (18) X ser Similarly, if reactive power is our control objective,

Q Q I ser can be determined by (7) and Vser will be set to zero. The direct axis current of the series converter is obtained using (9):
D I ser = Q V sQ R ser I sh

X ser

(19)

D Q If the series converter is by-pass, both V ser and V ser will be set to zero. The direct axis and the quadratic axis current of the series converters can be written as follows:
D I ser = Q I ser =

(VsD Vr )Rser + VsQ X ser Rser 2 + X ser 2 (VsD Vr )X ser + VsQ Rser Rser 2 + X ser 2

(20) (21)

If the control objectives include regulating sending end bus Q voltage magnitude, I sh will be appended in the unknown variable vector of Newton-Raphson iteration. This variable will provide adequate reactive power to maintain the desire Q sending end bus voltage magnitude. Otherwise, I sh will be set to zero.

(14)

F. Incorporate UPFC Variables into Power Flow Solvers For power flow study, each UPFC will be replaced by two nonlinear equivalent load demands at its terminals. In this case, power flow equations will be modified as follows:
fP
s

= fP

s s

+ Ps + Qs + Pr + Qr

(22) (23) (24) (25)

r r

represent the active power

4
D I sh will be appended in the power flow solver for automatic adjustment of active power balancing between the shunt converter and the series converter. If Newton-Raphson power flow solvers are used, the corresponding Jacobian matrix will be modified accordingly. These entries, related to UPFC terminal bus variables are listed as follows: f P,s /Vs , f P,s / s , f P,s /Vr , f P,s / r

f Q,s /Vs , f Q,s / s , f Q,s /Vr , f Q,s / r f P,r /Vs , f P,r / s , f P,r /Vr , f P,r / r f Q,r /Vs , f Q,r / s , f Q,r /Vr , f Q,r / r

Comparison studies about power flow solutions between our new model and the VSB model have been investigated. Power flow solutions using our model are listed in Table 2 which is exactly the same as the result of the VSB model in [6]. In terms of computational complexity, only 5 iterations is needed in our model with zero initial conditions while 6 iterations is needed with the proper choice of initial conditions for UPFC variables described in [3]. Fig. 4 illustrates the quadratic convergence characteristic for Newton Raphson iterative algorithm can also be maintained when incorporating our UPFC steady-state model.
TABLE 2 CONTROL VARIABLES OF UPFCS

An additional row, which is the partial derivative of Pdc respect to unknown variables vector x , will be inserted into the Jacobian matrix. Detailed expressions for partial derivative of (12) are listed in the Appendix. If our control objective includes regulating the sending bus voltage, the sending end bus voltage magnitude V s is set to
Q V ref . A new unknown variable I sh is required to adjust reac-

V ser (pu) ser (Deg) V sh (pu) sh (Deg) Pser (MW)

UPFC1 UPFC2
10 10 10 10
2

Psh (MW)
-0.0658 -3.6824

0.0366 0.1457

-146.1190 -94.6983

1.0280 1.0072

27.5405 13.8793

0.0658 3.6824

-2

-4

|F| inf

tive power adequately and to maintain the desire sending end bus voltage magnitude. Under this situation, V s will be reQ placed by I sh in the unknown variables vector x . The col-

10 10 10 10 10

-6

-8

-10

umn of the Jacobian matrix corresponding to V s is replaced by the partial differential of the mismatch vector respect to
Q I sh .

-12

-14

0.5

1.5

2.5 Iteration

3.5

4.5

Fig. 4 The convergence processes for the infinity norm of mismatch vector

III. CASE STUDY We will provide simulation results here to show the validation of our new UPFC model. A modified version of the package Matpower 2.0 [5] for Matlab has been utilized for implementing our new UPFC models. The IEEE 118 bus test system has been modified to include possible UPFCs installations. The maximum allowable power mismatch tolerance is set to be 10 12 and the flat start condition of bus voltage is applied for the Newton-Rapson iteration. The initial condition Q D for UPFC control variables I sh and I sh are both set to zero.

Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 depict the convergence of UPFC variables in shunt variables and series variables. Simulation results indicate both of them are converged rapidly.
IshD 0.02 0.01 0 pu pu -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0 0 -0.1 UPFC1 UPFC2 IshQ

2 3 Iteration Vsh

2 3 Iteration

sh

A. IEEE 118 Bus System With Two Additional UPFCs In order to validate our new models and compare performances with existing methods, two additional lossless UPFCs are installed in the IEEE 118 bus test system. The first UPFC is installed into the line between the bus 95 and 96. The sending end of UPFC1 is bus 95 and the receiving end is the additional bus 119. The second UPFC is installed into the line between bus 20 and bus 21. The sending end of UPFC2 is bus 20 and the receiving end is at the additional bus 120. Control parameters for UPFCs are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1 CONTROL PARAMETERS FOR UPFCS Pref (MW) Qref (MVAR) Vref (pu) X ser (pu) UPFC1 UPFC2 -4 -50 -20 15 1.0 1.0 0.10 0.02

1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1 0 Deg 1 2 3 Iteration 4 5 pu

40 30 20 10 0 0

2 3 Iteration

Fig. 5 The convergence processes for shunt variables of the UPFC.

X sh (pu)

0.10 0.02

5
VserD 0.01 0 -0.01 pu pu -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 0 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 0 0 -0.05 UPFC1 UPFC2 VserQ

ence of converters efficiency on the power flow solution depends on the power transfer between two converters. Since converters in UPFC2 transfer more power than that in UPFC1, converter efficiency of UPFC2 will affect significantly than that of UPFC1.
5

2 3 Iteration Vser

2 3 Iteration

ser

0.2 0.15

-60 -80 -100

0.1 0.05

Deg

pu

-120 -140 -160

D. Different Operation Modes of UPFCs We have implemented our models in various operation models. Table 5 lists solutions of the UPFCs control variables for different operation modes. Power flow solutions are all converged in 5 iterations. Thus, convergence characteristic remains for different operation modes.
TABLE 5 COMPARISONS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL MODES

0 0

2 3 Iteration

-180 0

2 3 Iteration

V ser

ser

V sh

sh

Pline

Qline

Vs
(pu) 1.000 1.000 0.980 0.958 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Fig. 6 The convergence processes for shunt variables of the UPFC.

B. Impacts of Resistances of Coupling Transformers Since the impedance of the coupling transformer has been taken into account in our model, it is advisable to investigate the influence of coupling transformers resistance on power flow solutions. It is assumed that the corresponding resistances are modified as follows: (1) UPFC1: R ser = 0 02 ;
R sh = 0 02 , and (2) UPFC2: R ser = 0 01 ; R sh = 0 01 Power flow solutions for this new setting are shown in Table 3, Simulation results indicates that the resistance of the coupling transformer has less influence on the power flow solutions.
TABLE 3 VARIOUS RESISTANCES ON COUPLING TRANSFORMERS V ser (pu) ser (Deg) V sh (pu) sh (Deg) Pser (MW) Iter. 0.0372 -152.8620 1.0281 27.1871 0.1564 UPFC1 (1.64%) (4.61%) (0.01%) (-1.28%) 5 0.1476 -96.6938 1.0068 13.5979 3.9708 UPFC2 (1.30%) (2.11%) (-0.04%) (-2.03%) *(1).The value inside parentheses is the variation relative to lossless case shown in Table 2. (2). Iter. is an abbreviation for iteration.

(pu) (Deg) (pu) (Deg) (MW) (MW) Mode1: Control bus voltage magnitude, branchs active and reactive flow UPFC1 0.0366 -146.1190 1.0280 27.5405 -4.000 -20.000 UPFC2 0.1457 -94.6983 1.0072 13.8793 -50.000 15.000 Mode2: Control branchs active and reactive flow UPFC1 0.0211 -127.4716 0.9798 27.8686 -4.000 -20.000 UPFC2 0.1489 -77.8695 0.9582 14.5461 -50.000 15.000 Mode3: Control bus voltage magnitude only UPFC1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0452 27.3763 -0.608 -1.542 UPFC2 0.0000 0.0000 1.0094 11.6230 -29.004 15.338 Mode4: Control bus voltage magnitude and branchs active flow UPFC1 0.0090 -62.7269 1.0446 27.5600 -4.000 -1.048 UPFC2 0.1418 -83.6470 1.0086 13.8854 -50.000 21.953 Mode5: Control bus voltage magnitude and branchs reactive flow UPFC1 0.0359 -152.3943 1.0285 27.4565 -2.477 -20.000 UPFC2 0.0013 -168.0419 1.0094 11.6237 -29.015 15.000

C. Impacts of the Converters Efficiency Converters losses can also be considered in our model. In this case, it is assumed that the efficiency of the converter is 0.9. Both UPFCs can absorb power from shunt converter and inject power into AC system via series converter with identical power transfer ratio ser = 1 . 111 and sh = 0 9 .
TABLE 4 COMPARISONS FOR DIFFERENT CONVERTER LOSSES

ser V sh sh Pser Psh Iter (pu) (Deg) (pu) (Deg) (MW) (MW) No.. 0.0366 -146.1497 1.0280 27.5321 0.0661 -0.0816 UPFC1 (0.00%) (0.02%) (0.00%) (-0.03%) 5 0.1442 -94.9530 1.0073 13.7313 3.6681 -4.5285 UPFC2 (-1.03%) (0.27%) (0.01%) (-1.07%) *The value inside parentheses is the variation relative to lossless cases shown in Table 2. .
V ser

Power flow solutions of UPFCs control variables are shown in Table 4. From this result we can find that the influ-

E. Effects of Initial Conditions We have tested our methods with various initial conditions. The result is shown in Table 6. Power flow solutions are all converged in 5 iterations. The result indicates that our method is insensitive to the selection of initial conditions.
TABLE 6 EFFECTS OF VARIOUS INITIAL CONDITIONS UPFC variable Initial Condition (pu) Final Solution (pu) D I sh (pu) 0.00 -1.00 1.00 -0.0007 UPFC1 Q I sh (pu) 0.00 -1.00 1.00 -0.2803 UPFC2
D I sh (pu) Q I sh (pu)

0.00 0.00 5

-1.00 -1.00 5

1.00 1.00 5

0.0114 -0.3627

Iterations

F. N-1 Contingency Tests N-1 contingency tests have been performed to demonstrate the robustness of our new model. The contingency list contains 171 cases. Without installing any UPFC, all cases will be converged in the desired mismatch tolerance within 5 iterations. However, if the VSB model is used for UPFCs, only one case will converge in 5 iterations. 137 cases need 6 iterations, 22 cases need 7 iterations, 2 cases need 8 iterations, 4 cases need 9 iterations, 2 cases need 10 iterations, and 3 cases need 11 iterations. On the other hand, if our models are used for UPFCs, all cases will be converged within 5 iterations. As a result, our model seems to be more robust than the existing

VSB model. IV. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, a comprehensive UPFC steady-state model is proposed. The proposed new model will consider losses of coupling transformers and converters. By using d-q decompositions in UPFC control variables, various operational modes of UPFCs are be integrated into the conventional NewtonRaphson power flow solvers within the same framework. We have implemented this new model in the Matpower power flow solver. Comparison studies of our new model and the conventional VSB model have been employed. From simulation results, the following conclusions can be made: The influence of the resistance on coupling transformers with respect to the power flow solution is quite insignificant. The impact of converters loss on power flow solutions depends on the amount of power transferred by converter. Quadratic convergence of the Newton-Raphson power flow solutions will also be maintained when UPFCs are operated in different modes. Initial conditions of UPFC control variables have little impact on its convergence rate. The proposed model seems to be more effective and robust than the existing VSB model. V. APPENDIX

Q I sh

The authors gratefully acknowledge finical support of this work from the National Science Council, R.O.C., under Grants NSC 89-2213-E-182-043, and NSC 90-2213-E-182017. VII. REFERENCE
[1] A. I. Nabavi-Niaki, M.R., "Steady-state and dynamic models of unified power flow controller (UPFC) for power system studies," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.11, No.4, pp.1937-1943, 1996. [2] C. R. A. Fuerte-Esquivel, E.; Ambriz-Perez, H., "A comprehensive NewtonRaphson UPFC model for the quadratic power flow solution of practical power networks," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,Vol.15, No.1, pp.102-109, 2000. [3] C. R. A. Fuerte-Esquivel, E., "Unified power flow controller: a critical comparison of Newton-Raphson UPFC algorithms in power flow studies," IEE Proceedings on Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol.144, No.5pp.437-444, 1997. [4] E. Handschin, Lehmkoster, C., "Optimal power flow for deregulated systems with FACTS-devices," 13th Power Systems Computation Conference Proc., Trondheimpp, pp.1270-1276, 1999. [5] R. D. Zimmermann, Gan, D., Matpower A Matlab Power System Simulation Package,Version 2.0, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., Dec. 1997. [6] A. T. L'Abbate, M.; Becker, C.; Handschin, E., "Advanced steady-state models of UPFC for power system studies," Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 2002 IEEE, Vol.1, pp.449-454, 2002.

Partial Derivative of Pdc Respect to Unknown Variables

Pdc = Vs

D I ser I Q D (Vr VsD ) I serVsD /Vs ser VsQ ser [ Vs Vs D Q I ser Q I + 2I ser ser )Rser ] Vs Vs

Q D I serVsQ /Vs + (2I ser

(26)

Q D I serVsD + ( 2 I ser

D ( 2 I ser

Q D + I ser V sD + ( 2 I ser

Q D + sh [I shV sQ I shV sD ] Pdc D = sh [V sD + 2I sh R sh ] D I sh

Pdc = r

Pdc = V r

sh [

D Q I shVsQ + I shVsD ]
ser [ D I ser I Q D (V r V sD ) + I ser ser V sQ V r V r

Pdc = s

D D sh [I shVs /Vs

Q + I shVsQ /Vs ]

ser [

D I ser I Q D (Vr VsD ) + I serVsQ ser VsQ s s Q D I ser Q I + 2 I ser ser )Rser ] s s

(27)

FACTS analysis. Chia-Chi Chu (M91) was born in Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. in 1965. He received the B.S. and M.S. Degrees from the National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan in 1987 and 1989, respectively and the Ph.D. Degree from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. in 1995, all in electrical engineering. From 1995 to 1996, he was a member of technical staff at Avant! Corporation, Fremont, CA. He joined the Chang Gung University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C. in 1996 and currently he is an associate professor at the department of electrical engineering. Dr. Chu was the winner of the Young Author Contest of the 1997 IEEE Control of Oscillations and Chaos Conference (COC97). His research interests focus on power systems stability and control.

D Q I ser Q I + 2 I ser ser )Rser ] V r V r

(28)

ser [

D I ser I Q D (V r V sD ) I ser V sQ ser V sQ r r D Q I ser Q I + 2 I ser ser )Rser ] r r

(29)

(30)

Pdc

Q sh [V s

Q + 2I sh R sh ]

(31)

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Sheng-Huei Lee was born in Tao-Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C. in 1968. He received the B.S. Degree from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), Taipei, Taiwan in 1989, and M.S. Degree from the National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan, in 1991, respectively. He joined the Ching Yun Institute of Technology, TaoYuan, Taiwan, as a Lecture. In 1999, he entered the Ph.D. program of electrical engineering at Chang Gung University. He is presently the Ph.D. Candidate at Chang Gung University. His research interests include power system stability and control, and