300 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 18, NO.

1, JANUARY 2003

Comparison of Field Results and Digital Simulation

Results of Voltage-Sourced Converter-Based
FACTS Controllers
Kalyan K. Sen, Senior Member, IEEE, and Albert J. F. Keri, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper compares the field results of

Voltage-Sourced Converter (VSC)-based Flexible Alternating
Current Transmission Systems (FACTS) Controllers, such as
STATic synchronous COMpensator (STATCOM), Static Syn-
chronous Series Compensator (SSSC), and Unified Power Flow
Controller (UPFC) with that obtained from the computer models
of the FACTS controllers using an Electro-Magnetic Transients
Program (EMTP) simulation package. The operational results of
the actual equipment include the control of the line voltage and
the control of the real and reactive power flow in the line. The
correlation of the results establishes the validity of the models.
The protection scheme of the FACTS controllers during faults and
contingencies is also described. The simulation results can be used
to accurately predict the behavior of an actual controller.
Index Terms—Converters, FACTS, load flow control, power elec-
tronics, power system transients, power transmission, power trans-
mission control, UPFC.
I. INTRODUCTION
F LEXIBLE Alternating Current Transmission Systems
(FACTS) controllers, namely STATic synchronous COM-
pensator (STATCOM), Static Synchronous Series Compensator
(SSSC), and Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC), are used
to control the bus voltage and/or the power flow through
an electrical transmission line. The UPFC consists of two
solid-state Voltage-Sourced Converters (VSCs), which are
connected through a common dc link capacitor. Each converter
has a coupling transformer with the utility interface. The VSC1,
known as STATCOM, injects an almost sinusoidal current, of
variable magnitude and in quadrature with the line voltage, at
the point of connection. The VSC2, known as SSSC, injects
an almost sinusoidal voltage, of variable magnitude and in
quadrature with the line current, in series with the transmission
line. When the STATCOM and the SSSC operate as stand-alone
controllers with open dc link switch, they exchange almost
exclusively reactive power at their terminals. When both VSCs
are operating together as a UPFC with closed dc link switch,
the injected voltage in series with the transmission line can
be at any angle with respect to the line current; therefore,
the exchanged power at the terminals of the SSSC can be
reactive as well as real. The real power exchanged by the
Manuscript received February 13, 2002.
K. K. Sen is with the Westinghouse Electro-Mechanical Division Technology
Center, Mount Pleasant, PA 15666 USA (e-mail: kalyan.sen@wxemd.com).
A. J. F. Keri is with American Electric Power, Gahanna, OH 43230 USA
(e-mail: ajkeri@aep.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2002.804012
0885-8977/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
Fig. 1. Unified Power Flow Controller in a simplified network.
SSSC with the line flows bidirectionally to the line through
the STATCOM and the common dc link capacitor. In addition,
the STATCOM carries a reactive current to regulate the bus
voltage independently. The concept of a shared dc link between
a shunt-connected VSC and a series-connected VSC was first
introduced in the Active Power Line Conditioner (APLC) [1],
[2] for distribution power level applications. The same concept
was implemented in the UPFC [3]–[5] for transmission power
level applications.
The objective in this paper is to demonstrate that the simula-
tion results of a VSC-based FACTS controller can be used to ac-
curately predict the behavior of the controller in the field. This
demonstration is substantiated with the comparison of results
from the computer simulation and actual field measurements.
The operation of the model is verified with the model connected
to a simple 2-bus network. Although the simulation and field re-
sults correlate qualitatively, a proper representation of field data
requires, in general, the simulation of 100 or more buses, which
is out of the scope of this paper.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL
A power system network has been set up for simulation in
conjunction with the VSC-based FACTS controllers. The net-
work is a simplified 2-bus model as shown in Fig. 1. The net-
work consists of an equivalent source voltage, , and a source
reactance, , at the Inez substation bus, INEZ, an equivalent
source voltage, , at the Big Sandy bus, and a line reactance,
, between Big Sandy and the bus, BUS05. This model is
used to verify the response of the controller following a step
change in the reference of the control inputs.
The description of the FACTS controller models [6]–[8], in
EMTP and the application of the models in the AEP network
are given below. The objective for this model is to characterize
the behavior of the UPFC as viewed from the network terminals,
especially the dynamic behavior during disturbances and faults
on the power system. The model provides the implementation of
the automatic power flow controller using the series-connected

Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SEN AND KERI: COMPARISON OF FIELD RESULTS AND DIGITAL SIMULATION RESULTS
Fig. 2. Unified Power Flow Controller.
VSC2 and bus voltage control using the shunt-connected VSC1,
including protective limits on series voltage injection, and over-
current and overvoltage limits for both VSCs.
The UPFC model in EMTP is shown in Fig. 2. The
model consists of two multi pulse harmonically neutralized
voltage-sourced converters, VSC1 and VSC2, two magnetic cir-
cuits, MC1 and MC2, shunt coupling transformer, XFSHN, and
series coupling transformer, XFSRS, shunt breaker, SHNBRK,
series breaker, SRSBRK, dc Link Switch, DCLS, bypass breaker,
BYPBRK, line breaker, LBR, current and voltage sensors, and a
control and protection unit.
The model is a virtual representation of the actual UPFC at
its terminals. Two idealized twenty four-pulse three-level VSCs,
each of which is rated at 160 MVA, are connected at their
dc link capacitor terminals. The control unit implements basic
control and protection schemes. The gating signals for the pole
valves are generated “on the fly.” The ideal pole voltages are
mathematically combined to produce two three-phase harmoni-
cally neutralized converter voltage sets, and . The VSC1 is
operated at a fixed “dead angle” to produce a forty eight-pulse
voltage source and the VSC2 is operated as a twenty four-pulse
variable magnitude voltage source. The coupling transformers
include a lumped leakage reactance that is an equivalent of all
the leakage reactances of the intermediate magnetic circuits and
the main transformers. The lumped leakage reactance is 15% of
the converter rating and divided equally on both primary and
secondary sides. The dc link capacitor is modeled by a single
lumped capacitor (14.1 F, 190 kV) sized in accordance with
other model parameters, including the transformer leakage reac-
tance, to preserve the same dynamics in the model as in the real
system. The voltage, , across the dc link capacitor is main-
tained by the instantaneous power balance equation at both AC
and dc sides of the two converters. Special effort has been made
to model the rectifier action that charges the dc link capacitor to
the peak of the AC bus voltage when the VSC1 gating is inhib-
ited. At that moment, the ideal VSC is replaced by a six-pulse
rectifier bridge circuit with appropriate snubber circuits. The dc
link capacitor overcharges until the VSC1 gating begins, which
discharges the dc link capacitor to the normal level. The voltage
variation across the dc link capacitor is correctly represented and
also represented is the operation of the voltage clamp that dis-
charges the dc link capacitor partially when certain overvoltage
Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
301
Fig. 3. Modeling structure of a FACTS controller.
threshold is exceeded. The model does represent the behavior of
the FACTS controller in the presence of negative sequence and
harmonic line voltages and currents.
In the model, the bypass of VSC2 is a representative of an
electronic bypass on the secondary side using the VSC2 valves.
The behavior of the UPFC during disturbances is in large part
determined by a number of threshold levels and delay times.
These numbers determine the current and voltage thresholds and
timing delays associated with protective action and they are set
in the first instance to values that seem reasonable for the ac-
tual equipment. This model is well suited for system transients
studies.
Fig. 3 shows the modeling structure of a FACTS controller.
The inputs from the voltage and current measuring units, the
breaker status and the operator—voltage reference, voltage
slope (also known as droop) and the real and the reactive power
references are fed to the control & protection unit. The output
of the control & protection unit is a set of low voltage optical
signals. These optical signals are fed to the Valve Interface
Circuit, which converts them into electrical gating signals that
turn ON and OFF the semiconductor switches of the high
power VSC, which is connected to the power system network
through its coupling transformer. The output of the control &
protection block is also another set of low voltage electrical
signals that operate the interposing relays, which operate the
high power breakers and disconnect switches that connect the
FACTS controller with the power system network.
Fig. 4 shows the control block diagram of the UPFC, which
can be divided into two parts: the control of the VSC1 as a shunt
compensator and the control of the VSC2 as a series compen-
sator. An instantaneous 3-phase set of transmission line volt-
ages, , at BUS 1 is used to calculate the reference angle, ,
which is phase-locked to the phase of the bus voltage, .
An instantaneous 3-phase set of measured VSC1 currents, , is
decomposed into its real or direct component, , and reactive
or quadrature component, , respectively. An instantaneous
3-phase set of measured line currents, , is decomposed into its
real or direct component, , and reactive or quadrature compo-
nent, , respectively. An instantaneous 3-phase set of measured
line voltages, , at BUS 1 is decomposed into its direct com-
ponent, , and quadrature component, , respectively. The
magnitude of the BUS 1 voltage, , is calculated.
The control for the VSC1 works in such a way that the desired
bus voltage magnitude reference, , (adjusted by the droop
302 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 18, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003

Fig. 4. Control block diagram of a Unified Power Flow Controller.

factor, ) is compared with the BUS 1 voltage magni-
tude, , using an outer voltage control loop and the error
is passed through an error amplifier, which produces the ref-
erence quadrature component, of the VSC1 current. The
droop factor, , is defined as the allowable voltage error
at the rated reactive current flow through the VSC1. The refer-
ence quadrature component, , is compared with the measured
quadrature component, , of the VSC1 current using an inner
reactive current control loop and the error is passed through an
error amplifier, which produces a relative angle, , of the VSC1
voltage with respect to the BUS 1 voltage. The phase angle, ,
of the VSC1 voltage is calculated by adding the relative angle,
, of the VSC1 voltage and the phase-locked-loop angle, .
This is called “Voltage Control” mode of operation. The dc link
capacitor voltage, , is dynamically adjusted in relationship
with the VSC1’s AC terminal voltage. Note that for a particular
bus voltage magnitude demand, , if the reference quadrature
component, , exceeds the rated current of the VSC then
is limited to 1 pu and the bus voltage is regulated to an inter-
mediate value. The controllable range of the bus voltage can
easily be determined by operating the VSC1 with the inner re-
active current control loop and varying from 1 pu to 1 pu.
The reference quadrature component, , of the converter cur-
rent is defined to be either positive if the VSC1 is emulating
an inductive reactance or negative if it is emulating a capacitive
reactance. This is called “Reactive Current Control” mode of
operation. In this case, there is no need for the use of the outer
voltage control loop.
The control for the VSC2 works in such a way that the de-
sired real and reactive power, and , are compared with
the measured real and reactive power, and , using an au-
tomatic power flow control algorithm and the errors are passed
through an error amplifier, which produces, with respect to the
bus voltage, the direct and the quadrature components of the se-
ries injection voltage, and , respectively. Next, the mag-
nitude of the voltage, , at the output of the VSC2 and its rel-
ative angle, , with respect to the reference phase-locked-loop
angle are calculated. The phase angle, , of the VSC2 voltage
is calculated by adding the relative angle, , of the VSC2 voltage
and the phase-locked-loop angle, . This is called “Automatic
Power Flow Control” mode of operation. Note that for a partic-
ular real and reactive power, and , demand, if the magni-
Fig. 5. Protection scheme of a Unified Power Flow Controller.
tude of the voltage, , exceeds the rated voltage of the VSC
then is limited to 1 pu and the real and reactive power flow
are regulated to an intermediate value. The controllable range of
the real and reactive power flow can easily be determined with
the open loop voltage injection by injecting the rated within
its entire 360 range. This is called “Voltage Injection” mode of
operation. In this case, there is no need for the use of the auto-
matic power flow control algorithm.
The general protection scheme of a UPFC is shown in Fig. 5.
When the VSCs are operated as stand-alone compensators, the
basic protection scheme is as follows. The VSC1 stops gating
when the instantaneous overcurrent through it exceeds a set
value or the bus voltage drops below a set value. The VSC2
goes into an electronic bypass mode when the instantaneous
overcurrent through it exceeds a set value. When both VSCs
are operated together as a UPFC, the VSC2 is bypassed when
the VSC1 stops gating for the following reason. Since the real
power exchanged by the VSC2 with the line flows bidirection-
ally through the dc link capacitor and the VSC1, VSC2 must be
bypassed when the VSC1 is stopped. The dc link capacitor is
prevented from being excessively charged by switching on a re-
sistive clamp circuit when the dc voltage rises above a set value
and by switching off when the dc voltage falls below a set value.
III. RESULTS
For the comparison of simulation and field results, step
changes in the reference of the control inputs and the sub-
sequent response have been used. The natural real and the
reactive power flow on the Big Sandy to Inez line (represented
with a reactance ) at the bus, BUS05, flowing toward the
UPFC are 312 MW and 68 Mvar, respectively. The voltage at
the Inez bus, INEZ, is 0.97 pu.
Fig. 6 shows the changes in (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real
and reactive power, and (c) shunt converter reactive power due
to the operation of the 160 MVA, 138 kV rated STATCOM
only while the SSSC is injecting no voltage in series with the
line. The STATCOM is operated in “Reactive Current Control”
mode with a step reference of 1 pu capacitive at 50 ms, 1 pu
inductive at 175 ms, and zero reactive current at 300 ms. The
voltage at the Inez substation bus can be varied between 0.91 pu

Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SEN AND KERI: COMPARISON OF FIELD RESULTS AND DIGITAL SIMULATION RESULTS 303

and 1.02 pu. The real and the reactive power flow on the Big
Sandy to Inez line at the Inez substation bus can be varied from
293 MW to 325 MW and 0 to 132 Mvar, respectively. When the
STATCOM is operated at 1 pu capacitive current control mode,
it delivers 163 Mvar reactive power to the Inez bus. When the
STATCOM is operated at 1 pu inductive current control mode,
it absorbs 145 Mvar reactive power from the Inez bus. Fig. 6(d)
shows the corresponding test results. These test results verify
the computer simulation results on a qualitative basis.
Fig. 7 shows the changes in (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real
and reactive power, and (c) shunt converter reactive power due
(a)
to the operation of the 160 MVA, 138 kV rated STATCOM
and the 160 MVA, 13.33 kV rated SSSC as a UPFC. The
STATCOM is operated in “Voltage Control” mode to hold the
Inez bus voltage at 1 pu level at 50 ms. The real and the reactive
power flow on the Big Sandy to Inez line at the bus, BUS05,
change from 312 MW to 316 MW and from 68 Mvar to 101
Mvar, respectively. At 200 ms, the reactive power flow in the
line is brought to zero. While holding unity power factor load on
the line and bus voltage at 1 pu level, the real power flow in the
line was varied between 266 and 366 MW. The STATCOM ex-
changes an appropriate amount of reactive power with the line
(b)
to hold the bus voltage at 1 pu level. Fig. 7(d) shows the cor-
responding test results. These test results verify the simulation
results on a qualitative basis.
Fig. 8 shows the changes in (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real
and reactive power, and (c) shunt converter reactive power due
to the operation of the 160 MVA, 138 kV rated STATCOM
and the 160 MVA, 13.33 kV rated SSSC as a UPFC. The
STATCOM is operated in “Voltage Control” mode to hold the
Inez bus voltage at 1 pu level at 50 ms. The real and the reactive
power flow on the Big Sandy to Inez line at the bus, BUS05,
change from 312 MW to 316 MW and 68 Mvar to 101 Mvar,
respectively. While holding the reactive power flow in the line
(c) at 101 Mvar and bus voltage at 1 pu level, the real power flow
in the line is varied between 266 and 366 MW. The STATCOM
exchanges appropriate amount of reactive power with the line
to hold the bus voltage at 1 pu level. Fig. 8(d) shows the cor-
responding test results. These test results verify the simulation
results on a qualitative basis.
Fig. 9 shows the changes in (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real
and reactive power, and (c) shunt converter reactive power due
to the operation of the 160 MVA, 138 kV rated STATCOM
and the 160 MVA, 13.33 kV rated SSSC as a UPFC. The
STATCOM is operated in “Voltage Control” mode to hold the
Inez bus voltage at 1 pu level at 50 ms. The real and the reactive
power flow on the Big Sandy to Inez line at the bus, BUS05,
change from 312 MW to 316 MW and 68 Mvar to 101 Mvar,
respectively. While holding the real power flow in the line at
316 MW and bus voltage at 1 pu level, the reactive power flow
in the line is varied between 51 and 151 Mvar. The STATCOM
exchanges appropriate amount of reactive power with the line
to hold the bus voltage at 1 pu level. Fig. 9(d) shows the cor-
(d)
responding test results. These test results verify the simulation
Fig. 6. (a), (b), and (c) STATCOM simulation results—controlling voltage results on a qualitative basis.
at Inez bus—(series converter not operating). (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line
real power and line reactive power, (c) shunt converter reactive power and
Fig. 10 shows the changes in (a) Inez bus voltage and (b) line
(d) STATCOM test results—controlling voltage at Inez bus—(series converter real and reactive power due to the operation of the 160 MVA,
not operating). 13.33 kV rated SSSC. The SSSC is operated in “Reactance

Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
304
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 7. (a), (b), and (c) UPFC simulation results—holding unity power
factor while changing line power. (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real power
and line reactive power, (c) shunt converter reactive power, and (d) UPFC test
results—holding unity power factor while changing line power.
Control” mode [7]. First, a 0.5 pu voltage at 50 ms and an ad-
ditional 0.5 pu voltage at 175 ms are injected in quadrature and
Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 18, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 8. (a), (b), and (c) UPFC simulation results—controlling real power on
Big Sandy—Inez line. (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real power and line reactive
power, (c) shunt converter reactive power and (d) UPFC test results—controlling
real power on Big Sandy—Inez line.
lagging the line current so that a capacitive reactance is emulated
in series with the line. The real and the reactive power flow on
the Big Sandy to Inez line increase. At 300 ms, a 0.5 pu voltage
is injected in quadrature and leading the line current so that an
SEN AND KERI: COMPARISON OF FIELD RESULTS AND DIGITAL SIMULATION RESULTS
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 9. (a), (b), and (c) UPFC simulation results—controlling reactive
power on Big Sandy—Inez line. (a) Inez bus voltage, (b) line real power and
line reactive power, (c) shunt converter reactive power and (d) UPFC test
results—controlling reactive power on Big Sandy—Inez line.
inductive reactance is emulated in series with the line. The real
and the reactive power flow on the line decrease. Since, the
Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
305
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 10. (a) and (b) SSSC simulation results—changing line real and reactive
power—(shunt converter not operating). (a) Inez bus voltage (unregulated),
(b) line real power and line reactive power, and (c) SSSC test results—changing
line real and reactive power—(shunt converter not operating).
STATCOM is not operating, the bus voltage is not regulated.
Fig. 10(c) shows the test results corresponding to a capacitive
reactance emulation. These test results verify the simulation re-
sults on a qualitative basis.
IV. CONCLUSION
FACTS controllers—STATCOM, SSSC, and UPFC, have
been modeled using an EMTP simulation package. The UPFC
consists of two voltage-sourced converters—one injects an
almost sinusoidal current at the point of connection and the
other injects an almost sinusoidal voltage in series with the
transmission line. In the UPFC operation, the dc link switch
is closed. The injected voltage in series with the line can be at
any angle with the prevailing line current, thereby emulating
an impedance in series with the line. The shunt-connected
current source has two components. First, the real component,
which is in phase with the bus voltage, carries real power that is
exchanged by the series-connected voltage source and losses in
the UPFC. Second, the reactive component, which is in quadra-
ture with the bus voltage, emulates an inductive reactance or
a capacitive reactance at the point of connection. When the
306
STATCOM and the SSSC are independently operated, the dc
link switch is open. A STATCOM regulates the bus voltage
and, in turn, regulates the reactive current flow through it. An
SSSC injects a voltage in series with the transmission line and
in quadrature with the line current. The operation of the model
is verified with the model connected to a simple 2-bus network.
Although the simulation and field results correlate qualitatively,
a proper representation of field data requires, in general, the
simulation of many more buses than the 2-bus network.
REFERENCES
[1] E. J. Stacey and M. B. Brennen, “Active Power Conditioner System,”
U.S. Patent 4 651 265, 1987.
[2] M. B. Brennen, “Low cost, high performance active power line condi-
tioners,” in Third Int. Conf. Power Quality: End-Use Applicat. Perspec-
tives, EPRI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 24–27, 1994.
[3] L. Gyugyi, “A unified power flow control concept for flexible ac trans-
mission systems,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. C, vol. 139, no. 4, July 1992.
[4] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS—Concept and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems. New York: IEEE
Press, 2000.
[5] B. A. Renz et al., “AEP unified power flow controller performance,”
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 14, pp. 1374–1381, Oct. 1999.
[6] K. K. Sen, “STATCOM—STATic synchronous COMpensator: Theory,
modeling, and applications,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter
Meeting, 1999, pp. 1177–1183.
[7] , “SSSC—static synchronous series compensator: Theory, mod-
eling, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 13, pp.
241–246, Jan. 1998.
[8] K. K. Sen and E. J. Stacey, “UPFC—Unified power flow controller:
Theory, modeling, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
13, pp. 1453–1460, Oct. 1998.
Authorized licensed use limited to: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 09,2010 at 06:36:32 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 18, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003
Kalyan K. Sen (S’83–M’87–SM’01) was born in
Bankura, WB, India. He received the B.E.E. degree
(with first-class honors), the M.S.E.E. degree, and
the Ph.D. degree from Jadavpur University, Calcutta,
WB, India, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL, and
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, all
in electrical engineering, in 1982, 1983, and 1987,
respectively.
He is currently a Fellow Engineer with the
Westinghouse Electro-Mechanical Division Tech-
nology Center, Mount Pleasant, PA. He spent three
years as an Assistant Professor at Prairie View A&M University, Prairie
View, TX, before joining Westinghouse Electric Corporation’s Science and
Technology Center, as a Senior Engineer, where he was a member of the
FACTS development team for nine years. From 1999 to 2001, he worked at
ABB Power Systems, Västerås, Sweden, and at the Corporate Research Center,
Västerås, Sweden. He is the coinventor of the “Sen” Transformer for FACTS
applications. He is also the cofounder of SEN Engineering Solutions, where he
pursues his interests in affordable power flow controllers. His interests are in
power converters, electrical machines, control, and power system simulations
and studies.
Dr. Sen is an editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY and an
IEEE Distinguished Lecturer from the Power Engineering Society.
Albert J. F. Keri (SM’80) received the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from University of Missouri,
Columbia, in 1972, and the M.B.A. degree from Ohio
University, Athens, in 1985.
He joined American Electric Power, Gahanna,
OH, in 1972 and was involved with protection
and relaying for the first two years. He transferred
to the Research Section in 1974 where he has
been involved with EMTP, insulation coordination
studies, system harmonics investigation, field tests,
single-phase switching techniques, loss reduction
techniques, and equipment failure analysis. In 1999, he transferred to System
Dynamics Analysis where he has been also involved with planning and stability
calculations. He has taught for 14 years a variety of graduate and undergraduate
courses on a part-time basis. He has been a Consultant to power companies in
the U.S., Venezuela, Korea, Brazil, etc. He has authored or co-authored many
technical papers and patents.
Dr. Keri holds a P. E. License and is the chairman of the IEEE General Sys-
tems Subcommittee.