A Review on FACTS Devices

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of FACTS devices. The value of these
FACTS is the improvement of security and efficiency of power transmission
networks. Fast controllability in emergency situation provides increased flexibility
and therefore stability and security advantages. The flexibility in control allows
operating closer to stability limits and improve the efficiency of existing networks.

1.INTRODUCTION: One of the major causes of voltage instability is the reactive

power limits of the power systems. The many literatures have proposed solutions for
this problem, by using suitable location of Flexible AC Transmission Systems
(FACTS) and proper coordination between FACTS controllers to improve voltage
stability of the power systems. Hence, improving the systems reactive power handling
capacity via Flexible AC transmission System (FACTS) device is a remedy for
prevention of voltage instability and hence voltage collapse. The several literatures
are proposed the different methods/techniques for enhancement of power system
stability by placement of FACTS controllers, and coordination of FACTS controllers,
one of the shortcomings of such methods is that they only consider the normal state of
system. However, voltage collapses are mostly initiated by a disturbance (e.g. the
outage of a line, or fault on system or generation unit, or increased in load demand).
So to locate FACTS devices, consideration of contingency conditions is more
important than consideration of normal state of system and some approaches are
proposed to locate of FACTS devices with consideration of contingencies.

2.Benefits of utilizing FACTS devices:

The benefits of utilizing FACTS devices in electrical transmission systems can be
summarized as follows [1]:
•Better utilization of existing transmission system assets.
•Increased transmission system reliability and availability.
•Increased dynamic and transient grid stability and reduction of loop flows.
•Increased quality of supply for sensitive industries.
•Environmental benefits Better utilization of existing transmission system assets.

Devices Load Flow VoltageTransient Dynamic

Control Control Stability Stability
SVC good best good better
STATCOM good best better better
TCSC better good best better
UPFC best best better better
3.Classification: There are different classifications for the FACTS devices:
Depending on the type of connection to the network FACTS devices can differentiate
four categories
• series controllers
• shunt controllers
• series- series controllers
• series- shunt controllers
Depending on technological features, the FACTS devices can be divided into two
generations
• first generation: used thyristors with ignition controlled by gate(SCR).
• second generation: semiconductors with ignition and extinction controlled by gate
(GTO´s , MCTS , IGBTS , IGCTS , etc).
These two classifications are independent, existing for example, devices of a group of
the first classification that can belong to various groups of the second classification.
The main difference between first and second generation devices is the capacity to
generate reactive power and to interchange active power. The first generation FACTS
devices work like passive elements using impedance or tap changer transformers
controlled by thyristors. The second generation FACTS devices work like angle and
module controlled voltage sources and without inertia, based in converters, employing
electronic tension sources(three-phase inverters, auto-switched voltage sources,
synchronous voltage sources, voltage source control) fast proportioned and
controllable and static synchronous voltage and current sources.
3.1 FIRST GENERATION OF FACTS
3.1.1 Static VAR Compensator (SVC) ;
A static VAR compensator (or SVC) is an electrical device for providing fast-acting
reactive power on high-voltage electricity transmission networks. SVCs are part of the
Flexible AC transmission system device family, regulating voltage and stabilising the
system. The term "static" refers to the fact that the SVC has no moving parts (other
than circuit breakers and disconnects, which do not move under normal SVC
operation). Prior to the invention of the SVC, power factor compensation was the
preserve of large rotating machines such as synchronous condensers.
 Figure . Circuit for a Static Var Compensator (SVC)

The SVC is an automated impedance matching device, designed to bring the system
closer to unity power factor. If the power system's reactive load is capacitive
(leading), the SVC will use reactors (usually in the form of Thyristor-Controlled
Reactors) to consume VARs from the system, lowering the system voltage. Under
inductive (lagging) conditions, the capacitor banks are automatically switched in, thus
providing a higher system voltage. They also may be placed near high and rapidly
varying loads, such as arc furnaces, where they can smooth flicker voltage. It is
known that the SVCs with an auxiliary injection of a suitable signal can considerably
improve the dynamic stability performance of a power system . It is observed that
SVC controls can significantly influence nonlinear system behavior especially under
high-stress operating conditions and increased SVC gains.

Fig. 1. FACTS devices: (a) TCSC, (b) SVC, and (c) UPFC

3.1.2.Thyristor-Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) TCSC controllers use

thyristor-controlled reactor (TCR) in parallel with capacitor segments of series
capacitor bank. The combination of TCR and capacitor allow the capacitive reactance
to be smoothly controlled over a wide range and switched upon command to a
condition where the bi-directional thyristor pairs conduct continuously and insert an
inductive reactance into the line. TCSC is an effective and economical means of
solving problems of transient stability, dynamic stability, steady state stability and
voltage stability in long transmission lines. TCSC, the first generation of FACTS, can
control the
line impedance through the introduction of a thyristor controlled capacitor in series
with the transmission line. A TCSC is a series controlled capacitive reactance that can
provide continuous control of power on the ac line over a wide range. The functioning
of TCSC can be comprehended by analyzing the behavior of a variable inductor
connected in series with a fixed capacitor
3.1.3. Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifter (TCPS) In a TCPS control technique the
phase shift angle is determined as a nonlinear function of rotor angle and speed.
However, in real-life power system with a large number of generators, the rotor angle
of a single generator measured with respect to the system reference will not be very
meaningful.
3.2 SECOND GENERATION OF FACTS
3.2.1 Static Compensator
The emergence of FACTS devices and in particular GTO thyristor-based STATCOM
has enabled such technology to be proposed as serious competitive alternatives to
conventional SVC [21] A static synchronous compensator (STATCOM) is a regulating
device used on alternating current electricity transmission networks. It is based on a
power electronics voltage-source converter and can act as either a source or sink of
reactive AC power to an electricity network. If connected to a source of power it can
also provide active AC power. It is a member of the FACTS family of devices.
Usually a STATCOM is installed to support electricity networks that have a poor
power factor and often poor voltage regulation. There are however, other uses, the
most common use is for voltage stability.
From the power system dynamic stability viewpoint, the STATCOM provides better
damping characteristics than the SVC as it is able to transiently exchange active
power with the system.
3.2.2 Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC) This device work the same
way as the STATCOM. It has a voltage source converter serially connected to a
transmission line through a transformer. It is necessary an energy source to provide a
continuous voltage through a condenser and to compensate the losses of the VSC. A
SSSC is able to exchange active and reactive power with the transmission system. But
if our only aim is to balance the reactive power, the energy source could be quite
small. The injected voltage can be controlled in phase and magnitude if we have an
energy source that is big enough for the purpose. With reactive power compensation
only the voltage is controllable, because the voltage vector forms 90º degrees with the
line intensity. In this case the serial injected voltage can delay or advanced the line
current. This means that the SSSC can be uniformly controlled in any value, in the
VSC working slot.
3.2.3. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) A unified power flow controller
(UPFC) is the most promising device in the FACTS concept. It has the ability to
adjust the three control parameters, i.e. the bus voltage, transmission line reactance,
and phase angle between two buses, either simultaneously or independently. A UPFC
performs this through the control of the in-phase voltage, quadrature voltage, and
shunt compensation. The UPFC is the most versatile and complex power electronic
equipment that has emerged for the control and optimization of power flow
in electrical power transmission systems. It offers major potential advantages for the
static and dynamic operation of transmission lines. The UPFC was devised for the
real-time control and dynamic compensation of ac transmission systems, providing
multifunctional flexibility required to solve many of the problems facing the power
industry. Within the framework of traditional power transmission concepts, the UPFC
is able to control, simultaneously or selectively, all the parameters affecting power
flow in the transmission line. Alternatively, it can independently control both the real
and reactive power flow in the line unlike all other controllers.
 Figure: Unified Power Flow Controller

5. FACTS INSTALLATION ISSUES

For the maximum effectiveness of the controllers, the selection of installing locations
and feedback signals of FACTS-based stabilizers must be investigated. On the other
hand, the robustness of the stabilizers to the variations of power system operation
conditions is equally important factor to be considered. Also, the coordination among
different stabilizers is a vital issue to avoid the adverse effects. Additionally,
performance comparison is an important factor that helps in selection of a specific
FACTS device.
5.1. Location and Feedback Signals:
Generally, the location of FACTS devices depends on the objective of the installation.
The optimal location can be governed by increasing system load ability [118–120],
minimizing the total generation cost [121], and enhancing voltage stability [122].
Wang et al. [123] presented two indices for selecting the optimal location of PSSs or
FACTS-based stabilizers. The first index was based on the residue method while the
second index was based on damping torque analysis. This work has been further
developed in [124] where a new method independent of the eigen solution to identify
the optimal locations and feedback signals of FACTS-based stabilizers was proposed.
The new method avoids difficulty of eigen solution and reduces the computation cost.
Yang et al. [125] applied the residue method to the linearized power system model to
determine the location and the feedback signal of TCSC in a multi machine power
system. It was concluded that the tie line power signal is more effective than the speed
difference as the input of TCSC and enhances greatly the damping characteristics of
TCSC. Kulkarni and Padiyar [126] proposed a location index based on circuit analogy
for the series FACTS controllers. The feedback signals used were synthesized using
local measurements. The method is validated on two different multi machine power
systems and very important comments have been highlighted in this work. Rosso et
al. [127] presented a detailed analysis of TCSC control performance for improving
system stability with different input signals. Namely, the line active power and the
line current magnitude were considered. The simulation results demonstrated that the
TCSC damping capability is more effective with line current input signal. Farsangi et
al. [128] presented the minimum singular value, the right half plane zeros, the relative
gain array, and the Hankel singular values as indicators to find the stabilizing signals
of FACTS devices for damping interarea oscillations. Different input–output
controllability analyses were used to assess the most appropriate input signals for
SVC, SSSC, and UPFC. Ramirez and Coronado [129] presented a technique based on
the frequency response to select the best location of FACTS devices and the best input
control signal in order to get the major impact on the damping of electromechanical
modes of concern. Chaudhuri et al. [130; 131] demonstrated that the use of global
stabilizing signals for effective damping of multiple swing modes through single
FACTS device is one of the potential options worth exploring. Fan et al. [132]
presented two residue-based indices to identify an effective local signal that can be
used by a TCSC as a supplementary controller to dampen interarea oscillations for
multiple power system operating conditions. The first index is to identify the most
effective signal to feedback for different operating points and the second index is to
assess the interaction of the controller with other oscillation modes.
5.2. Coordination among Different Control Schemes
Mahran et al. [133] presented a coordinated PSS and SVC controller for a
synchronous generator. However, the proposed approach uses recursive least squares
identification which reduces its effectiveness for on-line applications. Various
approaches for coordinated design of PSS and SVC are also presented in [134–136].
The coordinated design of several TCSCs [137–139], several SVCs [140,141], TCSC
and SVC [142–144], HVDC and SVC [145], and PSS and different FACTS
stabilizers [146–150] has been discussed. Hiyama et al. [151] presented a coordinated
fuzzy logic-based scheme for PSS and switched series capacitor modules to enhance
overall power system stability. Wang [152] have discussed the issue of selection of
typical operating conditions for robust design of multiple stabilizers in coordinated
manner to damp multimode oscillations in multi machine power systems. In other
work, Wang and Swift [153; 154] presented a phase compensation based approach to
coordinated setting of TCSC-based stabilizer and PSS. The results were promising
and encourage further research in this direction. However, all controllers were
assumed proportional and no efforts have been done towards the controller design.
Abido and Abdel-Magid [155–157] presented coordinated design of control schemes
for the excitation and different FACTS controllers. Several operating conditions and
parameter uncertainties have been considered in the design process of different
stabilizers to ensure the robustness over a wide range of operating conditions.
The coordination between the AC and DC voltage PI controllers of the STATCOM
was investigated using a multivariable design approach [158]. However, the structural
complexity of the presented multivariable PI controllers with different channels
reduces their applicability. Ramirez et al. [159] presented a technique to design and
coordinate PSSs and STATCOM-based stabilizers to enhance the system stability and
avoid the adverse interaction among stabilizers. Ramirez et al. [160] extended the
work to coordinate among three different types of stabilizers, namely, PSSs, TCSC,
and UPFC. The results exhibit a meritorious performance of the coordinated
stabilizers. A systematic approach to establish the dynamic model of a multimachine
power system installed with multiple SVCs, TCSCs, TCPSs, STATCOMs, and UPFCs
was presented [161]. The adverse interactions among these stabilizers, which may
lead to the loss of the system stability, has been examined. Control systems for
FACTS controllers may have to be designed by using intelligent, adaptive digital
controllers based on information obtained from wide-area measurement networks. For
systems using FACTS controllers, aiming for high levels of damping may not be a
safe design goal for wide-area control. Adequate damping over the largest realistic
range of operating conditions may be a more desirable criterion to fulfill [162]. The
coordination of multiple FACTS controllers in the same system as well as in the
adjacent systems must be investigated extensively and implemented to ensure the
security of power-system operation.

6.1. FACTS Applications to Optimal Power Flow In the last two decades,
researchers developed new algorithms for solving the optimal power flow problem
incorporating various FACTS devices [11]. Generally in power flow studies, the
thyristor controlled FACTS devices, such as SVC and TCSC, are usually modeled as
controllable impedance [4, 9, 10, 12-14]. However, VSC-based FACTS devices,
including IPFC and SSSC, shunt devices like STATCOM, and combined devices like
UPFC, are more complex and usually modeled as controllable sources [4, 9,13-17,
20]. The Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC) is one of the voltage source
converter(VSC) based FACTS Controllers which can effectively manage the power
flow via multi-line Transmission System.
6.2. FACTS Applications to Deregulated Electricity Market
Nowadays, electricity demand is rapidly increasing without major reinforcement
projects to enhance power transmission networks. Also, the electricity market is going
toward open market and deregulation creating an environment for forces of
competition and bargaining. FACTS devices can be an alternative to reduce the flows
in heavily loaded lines, resulting in an increased load ability, low system loss,
improved stability of the network, reduced cost of production, and fulfilled
contractual requirements by controlling the power flows in the network. Generally,
the changing nature of the electricity supply industry is introducing many new
subjects into power system operation related to trading in a deregulated competitive
market. Commercial pressures on obtaining greater returns from existing assets
suggests an increasingly important role for dynamic network management using
FACTS devices and energy storage as an important resource in generation,
transmission, distribution, and customer service. There has been an increased use of
the FACTS devices applications in an electricity market having pool and contractual
dispatches.
Application of FACTS in Indian Power System:
In India at the time of independence, the power supply was essentially locally oriented
and the highest system voltage was 132 kV. Subsequently, it rose to 220 kV and
finally to 400 kV level. Also 800 kV transmission system has been constructed, but
charged at 400 kV level for operation at present. in India, a FACTS project has been
undertaken in September 2000 which is an in-house development effort on 400 kV
line between Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) and Ballabgarh (Haryana) in the Northern Grid.
The project is proposed to be implemented in two phases. Phase-I covers
commissioning of 35% Fixed Series Compensation (FSC) consisting of two banks of
27% and 8%. Phase-I1 covers commissioning of Thyristor ControlledSeries Capacitor
(TCSC), under an R&D project.
By judiciously applying series compensation, active power transfer and reactive
power consumption of the transmission lines can be controlled.
application of series compensation on following 400 kV corridors were considered.
i) Itarsi-Indore double circuit line
ii) Satpura-Indore line
iii) Bhilai-Satpura line
iv) Bhilai-Chandrapur double circuit line
v) Bhilai-Satpura and Satpura-Koradi lines
vi) Vindhyachal-Jabalpur double circuit line
vii) Dadri-Malerkotla line
viii) Kanpur-Ballabhgarh line

Conclusion:
FACTS device properly, the load ability of system increases, also there is always a
maximum number of FACTS devices beyond which the system load ability can not be
increased any further. When only one type of FACTS devices is used, the UPFC has
the best performance and after it, SVC and TCSC respectively. Using two different
types of FACTS devices , the pair of SVC- UPFC has the best performance and after
it, TCSCUPFC and TCSC- SVC, respectively. Simultaneous use of these three
FACTS devices is the best option.
The most studied cases from the viewpoint of application are:
Voltage Control: SVC, UPFC, STATCOM, TCSC and TCPST/PST.
Assets Optimization: SVC, UPFC, STATCOM, TCSC, TCPST/PST and SSSC
Line Overload Limiting: UPFC, TCSC and TCPST/PST.
Avoid congestion and re-dispatch: UPFC, TCSC and SVC.
Voltage stability and collapse: STATCOM, UPFC, TCSC and SVC.
Angle stability: UPFC, TCSC, SVC and SSSC.
N-1 Contingency criteria fulfillment: UPFC, TCSC, SVC and STATCOM.
Transmission cost minimization: UPFC, TCSC, SVC, TCPST/PST, SSSC and
STATCOM.
References:
[ I ] N.G.Hingorani, “Flexible AC transmission”, IEEE Spectrum, vol. 30, no. 4, Apr.
1993.
[2] N.G.Hingorani, and L. Gyugyi, “Understanding FACTS concepts and technology
of flexible AC transmission system”, Piscataway: IEEE Press, 1999.
[3] R.Adapa, “Summary of EPRl’s FACTS system Studies”, CERE SC 14
International colloquium on HVDC & FACTS, Montreal, September, 199s.
[4] N.G.Hingorani, “Power Electronics in AC Transmission System“, CIGRE special
Report 1996.
[SI K.R.Padiyar, and A.M.Kulkarni, “Application of static condenser for enhancing
power transfer in. long ,AC lines”, CERE Symposium on Power Electronics in
Electric Power System, Tokyo, May 1995.
[118] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui, and A. J. Germond, “Optimal Location of Multi-Type
FACTS Devices in a Power System by Means of Genetic Algorithms”, IEEE Trans.
PWRS, 16(3)(2001), pp. 537–544.
[119] J. Hao, L. B. Shi, and Ch. Chen, “Optimizing Location of Unified Power Flow
Controllers by Means of Improved Evolutionary Programming”, IEE Proc. Genet.
Transm. Distrib., 151(6)(2004), pp. 705–712.
[120] F. G. M. Lima, D. Galiana, I. Kockar, and J. Munoz, “Phase Shifter Placement
in Large-Scale Systems via Mixed Integer Linear Programming”, IEEE Trans. PWRS,
18(3)(2003), pp. 1029–1034.
[121] L. Ippolito and P. Siano, “Selection of Optimal Number and Location of
Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifters Using Genetic Algorithms”, IEE Proc. Genet.
Transm. Distrib., 151(5)(2004), pp. 630–637
[122] N. K. Sharma, A. Ghosh, and R. K. Varma, “A Novel Placement Strategy for
FACTS Controllers”, IEEE Trans. PWRD, 18(3)(2003), pp. 982–987.
[123] H. F. Wang, F. J. Swift, and M. Li, “Indices for Selecting the Best Location of
PSSs or FACTS-Based Stabilizers in Multimachine Power Systems: A Comparative
Study”, IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 144(2)(1997), pp. 155–159.
[124] H. F. Wang, “An Eigensolution Free Method of Reduced-Order Modal Analysis
to Select the Installing Locations and Feedback Signals of FACTS-Based Stabilizers”,
Int. Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 21(1999), pp. 547–554.
[125] N. Yang, Q. Liu, and J. D. McCalley, “TCSC Controller Design for Damping
Interarea Oscillations”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 13(4)(1998), pp. 1304–1310.
[126] A. M. Kulkarni and K. R. Padiyar, “Damping of Power Swings Using Series
FACTS Controllers”, Int. Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 21(1999),
pp. 475–495.
[127] A. D. Rosso, C. A. Conizares, and V. M. Dona, “A Study of TCSC Controller
Design for Power System Stability Improvement”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 18(4)(2003),
pp. 1487–1496.
[128] M. M. Farsangi, Y. H. Song, and K. Y. Lee, “Choice of FACTS Device Control
Inputs for Damping Interarea Oscillations”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 19(2)(2004), pp.
1135–1143.
[129] J. M. Ramirez and I. Coronado, “Allocation of the UPFC to Enhance the
Damping of Power Oscillations”, Int. Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, 24(2002), pp. 355–362.
[130] B. Chaudhuri, B. C. Pal, A. C. Zolotas, I. M. Jaimoukha, and T. C. Green,
“Mixed-Sensitivity Approach to H Control of Power System Oscillations Employing
Multiple FACTS Devices”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 18(3)(2003), pp. 1149–1156.
[131] B. Chaudhuri and B. C. Pal, “Robust Damping of Multiple Swing Modes
Employing Global Stabilizing Signals with a TCSC”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 19(1)
(2004), pp. 499–506.
[132] L. Fan, A. Feliachi, and K. Schoder, “Selection and Design of a TCSC Control
Signal in Damping Power System Interarea Oscillations for Multiple Operating
Conditions”, Electric Power Systems Research, 62(1)(2002), pp. 127– 137.
[133] A. R. Mahran, B. W. Hogg, and M. L. El-Sayed, “Coordinated Control of
Synchronous Generator Excitation and Static VAR Compensator”, IEEE Trans.
Energy Conversion, 7(4)(1992), pp. 615–622.
[134] Y. Wang, Y. Tan, and G. Guo, “Robust Nonlinear Coordinated Generator
Excitation and SVC Control for Power Systems”, Int. J. Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 22(2000), pp. 187–195.
[135] R. M. Hamouda, M. R. Iravani, and R. Hackam, “Coordinated Static VAR
Compensators and Power System Stabilizers for Damping Power System
Oscillations”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 2(4)(1987), pp. 1059–1067.
[136] C. H. Cheng and Y. Y. Hsu, “Application of a Power System Stabilizer and a
Static VAR Controller to a Multimachine Power System”, IEE Proc. Pt C, 137(1)
(1990), pp. 8–12.
[137] G. Li, T. Lie, G. Shrestha, and K. Lo, “Real-Time Coordinated Optimal FACTS
Controllers”, Electric Power Systems Research, 52(1999), pp. 273–286.
[138] G. Li, T. Lie, G. Shrestha, and K. Lo, “Implementation of Coordinated multiple
FACTS Controllers for Damping Oscillations”, Int. J. Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 22(2000), pp. 79–92.
[139] G. Li, T. Lie, G. Shrestha, and K. Lo, “Design and Application of Coordinated
Multiple FACTS Controllers”, IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 147(2)(2000), pp.
112–120.
[140] A. R. Messina, O. Begovich, J. H. Lopez, and E. N. Reyes, “Design of Multiple
FACTS Controllers for Damping Interarea Oscillations: a Decentralized Control
Approach”, Int. J. of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 26(1)(2004), pp. 19–29.
[141] A. R. Messina, H. Hernandez, E. Barocio, M. Ochoa, and J. Arroyo,
“Coordinated Application of FACTS Controllers to Damp Out Interarea Oscillations”,
Electric Power Systems Research, 62(1)(2002), pp. 43–53.
[142] G. N. Taranto, J. K. Shiau, J. H. Chow, and H. A. Othman, “Robust
Decentralized Design for Multiple FACTS Damping Controllers”, IEE Proc. Genet.
Transm. Distrib., 144(1)(1997), pp. 61–67..
[143] S. K. Tso, J. Liang, and X. X. Zhou, “Coordination of TCSC and SVC for
Improvement of Power System Performance with NN-based Parameter Adaptation”,
Int. J. Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 21(1999), pp. 235–244.
[144] M. Noroozian and G. Anderson, “Damping of Power System Oscillations by
Use of Controllable Components”, IEEE Trans. PWRD, 9(4)(1994), pp. 2046–2054.
[145] S. Arabi, G. Rogers, D. Wong, P. Kundur, and M. Lauby, “Small Signal Stability
Program Analysis of SVC and HVDC in AC Power Systems”, IEEE Trans. PWRS,
6(3)(1991), pp. 1147–1153.
[146] L. Rouco, “Coordinated Design of Multiple Controllers for Damping Power
System Oscillations”, Electric Power Systems Research, 23(2001), pp. 517–530.
[147] X. Lie, E. N. Lerch, and D. Povh, “Optimization and Coordination of Damping
Controls for Improving System Dynamic Performance”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 16(3)
(2001), pp. 473–480.
[148] Li-Jun Cai and I. Erlich, “Simultaneous Coordinated Tuning of PSS and FACTS
Damping Controllers in Large Power Systems”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, 20(1)(2005), pp.
294–300.
[149] Y. Wang, A. A. Hashmani, and T. T. Lie, “Nonlinear Coordinated Excitation and
TCPS Controller for Multimachine Power System Transient Stability Enhancement”,
IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 148(2)(2001), pp. 133–141.
[150] L. Cong, Y. Wang, and D. J. Hill, “Transient Stability and Voltage Regulation
Enhancement via Coordinated Control of Generator Excitation and SVC”, Int. J. of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 27(1)(2005), pp. 121–130.
[151] T. Hiyama, M. Mishiro, H. Kihara, and T. H. Ortmeyer, “Coordinated Fuzzy
Logic Control for Series Capacitor Modules and PSS to Enhance Stability of Power
System”, IEEE Trans. PWRD, 10(2)(1995), pp. 1098–1104.
[152] H. F. Wang, “Selection of Operating Conditions for the Coordinated Setting of
Robust Fixed-Parameter Stabilizers”, IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 145(2)
(1998), pp. 111–116.
[153] H. F. Wang and F. J. Swift, “Multiple Stabilizer Setting in Multimachine Power
Systems by the Phase Compensation Method”, Int. J. Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 20(4)(1998), pp. 241–246.
[154] H. F. Wang, F. J. Swift, and M. Li, “A Unified Model for the Analysis of
FACTS Devices in Damping Power System Oscillations Part II: Multi-machine Power
Systems”, IEEE Trans. PWRD, 13(4)(1998), pp. 1355–1362.
[155] M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid, “Coordinated Design of a PSS and an
SVC-Based Controller to Enhance Power System Stability”, Int. Journal of Electrical
Powers & Energy Systems, 25(9)(2003), pp. 695–704.
[156] M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid, “Analysis of Power System Stability
Enhancement via Excitation and FACTS-Based Stabilizers”, Electric Power
Components & Systems, 32(1)(2004), pp. 75–91.
[157] Y. L. Abdel-Magid and M. A. Abido, “Robust Coordinated Design of Excitation
and TCSC-Based Stabilizers Using genetic algorithms”, Electric Power Systems
Research, 69(2–3)(2004), pp. 129–141.
[158] H. F. Wang, “Interactions and Multivariable Design of STATCOM AC and DC
Voltage Control”, Int. J. Of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 25(2003), pp. 387–
394.
[159] J. M. Ramirez, R. J. Davalos, and I. Coronado, “Use of an Optimal Criterion for
Coordinating FACTS-based Stabilizers”, IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 149(3)
(2002), pp. 345–351.
[160] J. M. Ramirez and I. Castillo, “PSS and FDS Simultaneous Tuning”, Electric
Power Systems Research, 68(1)(2004), pp. 33–40.
[161] H. F. Wang, “Modeling Multiple FACTS Devices into Multimachine Power
Systems and Applications”, Int. Journal of Electrical Powers & Energy Systems,
25(3)(2003), pp. 227–237.
[162] CIGRE Task Force 38.02.16, Impact of Interactions Among Power System
Controls. CIGRE Technical Brochure No. 166, Paris, August 2000.