APPENDIX C

Approximate Multimodal
Decomposition Method for the Design
of FACTS Controllers

C.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix presents a general technique of FACTS controller design used for
damping various power-swing modes simultaneously, as described by Larsen
et al. [C.1]. It is based on well-established concepts of power-system stabilizer
(PSS) design [C.2], [C.3] and assesses the influence of the FACTS controller
on overall system damping by examining the controller’s incremental effect on
each mode of interest. Certain assumptions, however, are made:

1. the low-frequency modes have small damping, and

2. the designed control does not substantially impact the frequency and mode
shape of the relevant mode.

In a single-machine system [C.2], the rotor-inertial mode is modeled in terms

of the damping and synchronizing torques. A similar approach is adopted in
the multimodal decomposition as well.
Let the linearized-system model be represented by the following state equa-
tions:

ẋ c Ax + Bu (C.1)
y c Cx + Du (C.2)

where xc the rearranged state vector

c [Dd 1 Dd 2 · · · Dd n Dq g 1 Dq g 2 · · · Dq gn zT ]T
Dd i c the rotor angle of the ith generator
Dq i c the angular speed of the ith generator
zc the vector of all other system state variables
uc the control-input variables
yc the output-measurement variables
481
482 APPROXIMATE MULTIMODAL DECOMPOSITION METHOD

The system matrices A and B emerge in the following form:

[ ] [ ]
0 q bI 0 0
Ac A21 A22 A23 ; Bc B2 (C.3)
A31 A32 A33 B3

where I c the identity matrix

q b c the system-base frequency (rad/ s)

It is noted that the effect of the swing modes is embedded in the matrices A21
and A22 . The multimodal transformation involves diagonalizing the matrix A21
using the following relationship:

V − 1 A21 V c L (C.4)

where V c the matrix of the right eigenvectors of A21

A21 c an n × n matrix in which n is the number of generators
in the system (Incidentally, the matrix A21 is significantly
smaller—about ten times so—than the total system matrix, A.)

The system-state equations (C.1) and (C.2) are subject to the following modal
transformation:

xm c U − 1x (C.5)

where

Uc  V0 0
V
0
0  (C.6)
0 0 I 
x m c U − 1 AUxm + U − 1 Bu

c Am x m + Bm u (C.7)

y c CUxm + Du

c Cm x m + Du (C.8)

where
 MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE i TH SWING MODE, l i 483

Am c  L0 q bI
Am 22
0
Am 23  (C.9)
A m 31 Am 32 Am 33 
Such a transformation allows an independent study of each swing mode. The
contribution of each swing mode can be later combined to obtain the over-
all system behavior. However, the analysis and the controller-design procedure
enunciated in the forthcoming text correspond to a single swing mode presumed
to be the dominant swing mode.

C.2 MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE i TH SWING MODE, ␭i

The state variables of the transformed state vector are rearranged so that the
modal angle, Dd mi , and modal speed, Dq mi , corresponding to the swing mode,
l i , become the first and second state variables, respectively. Rearranged, the
state equation can then be written as

 DDq̇ḋ  c  − K0
mi
mi mi
qb
− d mi
0
− Ad 23   Dq
Dd
 +  − B0  u
mi
mi d2 (C.10)
 ż   A
mi d 31 Ad 32 Ad 33  z  B 
mi d3

y c [Cd 1 Cd 2 Cd 3 ]  Dq
Dd
 + Du
mi
mi (C.11)
z  mi

where K mi c the approximate modal-synchronizing coefficient

d mi c the approximate modal-damping coefficient
zmi c the balance of the state variables

The foregoing form of the state equation is similar to the single-mode sys-
tem described in ref. [C.2]. Hence the system equations (C.10) and (C.11) can
be represented by the block diagram depicted in Fig. C.1, using the following
appropriate transfer functions:

sDq mi (s) c − (q b / s)K mi (s)Dq mi (s) − K ci (s)U(s) (C.12)

Y(s) c K oi (s)Dq mi (s) + K ILi (s)U(s) (C.13)

The different transfer functions used in the preceding equations are as follows:

• K mi (s) c the modal transfer function relating the modal angle to the modal
torque, and
484 APPROXIMATE MULTIMODAL DECOMPOSITION METHOD

The i th Modal System

∆dmi qb
Kmi (s )
s

Swing Mode of Interest

− .
∆ qmi 1 ∆ qmi
Σ
s
−

Kci (s ) Koi (s )

+ Power System
KILi (s ) Σ (except the i th mode)
+

Inner-Loop
u Feedback y

PSDC
K PSDC(s )

Figure C.1 Multimodal-decomposition block diagram.

c k mi + (s/ q b )d mi + Ad 23 (sI − Ad 33 ) − 1 [Ad 31 + (s/ q b )Ad 32 ]

• K ci (s) c the modal-controllability transfer function relating the control
input, u, to D q̇ mi , and
c Ad 23 (sI − Ad 33 ) − 1 Bd 3 + Bd 2
• K oi (s) c the modal-observability transfer function relating the modal speed
to the specific measurement signal, y, and
c Cd 3 (sI − Ad 33 ) − 1 [Ad 31 (q b / s) + Ad 32 ] + [(q b / s)Cdi + Cd 2 ]
• K ILi (s) c the inner-loop gain transfer function relating the control signal
u to the specific measurement signal y for constant d mi and q mi ,
and
c Cd 3 (sI − Ad 33 ) − 1 Bd 3 + D

All four transfer functions are complex when computed at s c jq. The mag-
nitude and phase data of each provide valuable information for the design
of power-swing damping controllers (PSDCs). An analysis of the transfer
functions—K mi (s), K ci (s), K oi (s), and K ILi (s)—is presented in the text that fol-
lows.
 MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE i TH SWING MODE, l i 485

C.2.1 Effect of the Damping Controller

The effective control action, K ei (s), is expressed by

K PSDC (s)
K ei (s) c K ci (s) K oi (s) (C.14)
1 − K ILi (s)K PSDC (s)

It is assumed that the dominant swing mode, l i , is lightly damped or that its
real part is negligible. Then,

l i ≈ jq i (C.15)

For this dominant swing mode, it can be shown that

q b K mi ( jq i ) ≈ q 2i (C.16)

Following the analysis presented in ref. [C.1], the characteristic polynomial of

the closed-loop system with the PSDC is given by

s2 + K ei (s)s + q b K mi (s) c 0 (C.17)

Let

K ei ( jq i ) c K re + j Kim (C.18)

Also, let the PSDC modify the swing mode from

s c jq i to s c − Dj i + j(q i + Dq i ) (C.19)

Substituting Eqs. (C.18) and (C.19) in Eq. (C.17) gives

{ − Dj i + j(q i + Dq i )}2 + (K re + j Kim ){ − Dj i + j(q i + Dq i )} + q 2i c 0 (C.20)

Neglecting higher-order incremental terms, we get

2Dq i q i + K im q i ≈ 0 (C.21)
− 2Dj i q + K re q i ≈ 0 (C.22)

Solving Eqs. (C.20), (C.21) and (C.22) results in the effective contribution of
the PSDC on the dominant swing mode as

Dl i ≈ − K ei ( jq i )/ 2 (C.23)
Dj i ≈ K re/ 2 c real {K ei ( jq i )/ 2} (C.24)
Dq i ≈ − K im/ 2 c − I m {K ei ( jq i )/ 2} (C.25)
486 APPROXIMATE MULTIMODAL DECOMPOSITION METHOD

C.3 IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT TRANSFER FUNCTIONS

C.3.1 Controllability
The influence of the PSDC on a given ith swing mode is described by the
controllability function, K ci (s). For s c jq i , K ci ( jq i ) indicates how effectively
the ith mode can be controlled by the control signal u. If more than one control
signal is employed, K ci (s) assumes the form of a vector-transfer function; the
effective control action is dependent directly on K ci (s).
The controllability function K ci (s) is one of network structure and loads.
Also, K ci (s) has different values for different swing modes, implying that a
thyristor-controlled series capacitor (TCSC) with a given control input u may
influence one swing mode beneficially and influence another adversely. An
appropriate control signal or a combination of control signals must therefore
be chosen to avoid such an effect.
In addition, K ci (s) also serves as a useful signal for deciding the placement
of a TCSC. For instance, a large value of K ci (s) at a given site suggests that a
TCSC-type PSDC can be used more effectively there.

C.3.2 Observability
The effectiveness of the measured signal y for damping control is obtained from
the observability function, K oi (s). At s c jq i , K oi ( jq i ) expresses the modal con-
tent of the ith swing mode in y. The effective control action, K ei (s), is also a
direct function of K oi (s). Because K oi (s) is defined mainly with respect to modal
speed, any measurements corresponding to machine speeds result in real observ-
ability gains. On the other hand, power-flow signals demonstrate an integral
characteristic that gives an almost 908 lag with respect to speed signals.
In conclusion, an effective input signal for damping control should have a
high value of K oi ( jq i ) for a given mode.

C.3.3 The Inner loop

A highly desirable feature of a damping controller is that the controller output
must have a minimal direct effect on its own input (i.e., the component of mea-
surement signal y that relates to control input u). The controller influence on y
must be largely through the dominant swing mode of interest only—an effect
that is expressed by the inner-loop transfer function, K ILi (s).

C.4 DESIGN OF THE DAMPING CONTROLLER

The TCSC-type PSDC is designed using three key indices: the controller-phase,
maximum damping influence, and natural phase influence indices.
 DESIGN OF THE DAMPING CONTROLLER 487

C.4.1 The Controller-Phase Index (CPI)

If the controller gain is so small that in Eq. (C.14) K ILi ( jq i ) << 1, the effective
control action then becomes directly proportional to the PSDC gain. Equation
(C.23) can then be written as

Dl i c − k ei ( jq i )K PSDC ( jq i )K oi ( jq i )/ 2 (C.26)

The PSDC can impart a pure damping influence if the phase of Dl i is made
zero.
A CPI for the ith mode is defined as

CPI(i) c − /– K ci ( jq i ) + /– K oi ( jq i ) (C.27)

Ideally, pure damping can be achieved if the phase of K PSDC ( jq i ) is made equal
to CPI(i). The actual influence on the ith swing mode is expressed through Eqs.
(C.24)–(C.26) as

Dj i ≈ | K PSDC ( jq i ) || K ci ( jq i ) || K oi ( jq i ) | cos(DJ)/ 2 (C.28)

Dq i ≈ | K PSDC ( jq i ) || K ci ( jq i ) || K oi ( jq i ) | sin(DJ)/ 2 (C.29)

where DJ c /– K PSDC ( jq i ) − CPI(i)

c the difference between the actual achieved phase and the
desired pure damping phase for the damping controller

To achieve damping for all relevant swing modes, the selected measurement
signal must have nearly constant CPI in the same quadrant over the range of
swing-mode frequencies—typically, 0.3–2 Hz.
Having selected an appropriate measurement signal, one can choose (based
on personal experience) the appropriate time constants of lead-lag transfer-func-
tion PSDC(s). More important than phase matching is choosing a suitable band-
width so that high-frequency modes do not influence the performance of the
PSDC. Introducing some phase lag at the swing-mode frequency may be accept-
able, for doing so enhances the synchronizing torque between the machines.

C.4.2 The Maximum Damping Influence (MDI) Index

Even though a high PSDC gain is desirable for enhanced damping, it cannot be
increased beyond a specific limit; otherwise, the inner-loop gain will supersede
the influence of the PSDC, as evident from Eq. (C.14). A gain margin of 10
dB is chosen for the inner loop, restricting the maximum PSDC gain to

1
K PSDC max c f (C.30)
10 K ILi ( jq i )
488 APPROXIMATE MULTIMODAL DECOMPOSITION METHOD

The maximum eigenvalue shift attainable with the specified maximum PSDC
gain of Eq. (C.30) is defined as the MDI index for each swing mode l i ; by
using Eq. (C.26), it is expressed as

MDI(i) c | Kf
ci ( jq i ) || K oi ( jq i ) |
(C.31)
2 10 | K ILi ( jq i ) |

The MDI concept implies that a preferred measured signal must have a mini-
mum inner-loop gain to ensure a high PSDC gain for damping improvement.

C.4.3 The Natural Phase Influence (NPI) Index

Even though the observability and controllability of a selected signal vary with
the operating condition, it is desirable to have a fixed controller for damping the
dominant swing modes. An effective, robust signal should therefore have a large
MDI index and a constant CPI over the expected range of operating conditions.
This is, however, difficult to achieve in real systems, especially when more than
one swing mode must be damped. A new index—the NPI—relates to the inner-
loop phase and is based on the influence of K ILi (s) on the system zeroes.
The frequency response of the closed-loop transfer function between control
signal u and measurement y displays peaks and troughs that correspond to the
poles and zeroes, respectively, of this transfer function. The poles relate to the
eigenvalues of swing modes in which damping must be improved [C.4], [C.5].
If the controller gain is made infinitely large, all swing modes l i move to
their neighboring zeroes, zi , in the s plane, attaining the damping levels of those
zeroes. This activity constitutes the “natural” behavior of closing the loop with
the measurement signal. The path followed by the swing modes is influenced
by the phase compensation of the controller.
When K PSDC b ∞, then l i b zi , and the effective control action given in
Eq. (C.14) modifies to

K ci (s)K oi (s)
K ei (s) c − (C.32)
K ILi (s)

The natural change in the ith swing mode l i is then given by Eqs. (C.23) and
(C.32) as

− K ci ( jq i )K oi ( jq i )
Dl i c zi − l i ≈ (C.33)
2K ILi ( jq i )

The NPI index for each swing mode l i is defined as

NPI(i) c − {CPI(i) + /– K ILi ( jq i )} (C.34)

Substituting from Eq. (C.27),

 REFERENCES 489

NPI(i) c +/– K ci ( jq i ) + /– K oi ( jq i ) − /– K ILi ( jq i ) (C.35)

If NPI(i) c 08 , a pure, positive damping effect will be provided; however,

if NPI(i) c − 908 , a pure, positive synchronizing influence will be imparted.
As a compromise to achieve a natural tendency for both damping- and
synchronizing-torque enhancements, NPI(i) must lie in the range 08 > NPI(i)
> − 908 .
To summarize, the PSDC control design must be based on the following
criteria:

1. The selected measurement signal must, as much as possible, ensure that

the CPI remains nearly constant in the same quadrant for the range of
frequencies spanned by all dominant swing modes.
2. The inner-loop gain K ILi ( jq i ) should be small for the selected measure-
ment signal to ensure a high MDI index.
3. The NPI index for each swing mode l i must lie in the range − 908 <
NPI(i) < 08 .

REFERENCES

[C.1] E. V. Larsen, J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, and J. H. Chow, “Concepts for Design of

FACTS Controllers to Damp Power Swings,” IEEE Transactions on Power Sys-
tems, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 1995, pp. 948–955.
[C.2] F. P. DeMello and C. Concordia, “Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as
Affected by Excitation Control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Applications and
Systems, Vol. PAS–88, 1969, pp. 316–329.
[C.3] E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, “Applying Power System Stabilizers, Parts I–III,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS–100, 1981, pp.
3017–3046.
[C.4] J. H. Chow and J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Pole Placement Design of Power System
Stabilizers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 271–277.
[C.5] J. F. Hauer, “Reactive Power Control as a Means for Enhanced Inter-Area Damp-
ing in the Western Power System—A Frequency Domain Perspective Consider-
ing Robustness Needs,” Application of Static Var Systems for System Dynamic
Performance, IEEE Publication 87TH01875-5-PWR, 1987.
[C.6] N. Martins and L. T. G. Lima, “Eigenvalue and Frequency Domain Analysis
of Small Signal Electromechanical Stability Problems,” Application of Static
Var Systems for System Dynamic Performance, IEEE Publication 87TH01875-
5-PWR, 1987.