17th International Conference on

Electrical, Electronics and Systems

Engineering
ICEESE 2015
December 21 22 , 2015
Istanbul , Turkey

Transient Stability
Improvement in multimachine system with using
power system stabilizer (PSS)
and Static Var compensator
presented by : Khoshnaw
(SVC) Khalid HAMA
SALEH

Prof Dr. Ergun Ercelebi

University of Gaziantep, Dept. Of Electrical and Electronics Eng., 2015

Outline

INTRODUCTION
POWER SYSTEM STATES
SYSTEM STABILITY
TRANSIENT STABILITY
METHODS FOR IMPROVEMENT TRANSIENT STABILITY
POWER SYSTEM STABILIZER (PSS)
TYPES OF FACTS CONTROLLER
STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR (SVC)
SIMULINK AND MATLAB SOFTWARE
SIMULATION AND RESULTS
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION
Modern power system is a complex non linear interconnected network. It
consists of inter connected transmission lines, generating plants
transformers and a variety of loads. With the increase in power demand
nowadays some transmission lines are more loaded than their normal
limits. With the increased loading of long transmission lines, the problem
of transient stability has become a serious limiting factor.
The modern power system is complex that it becomes interest to power
system stability, especially transient stability and small disturbance.
Transient stability plays more effect role in stability of power system,
during fault and large disturbance.
In this study proposes comparative of power system stabilizer PSS and
static Var compensator SVC with to improve damping oscillation and
enhance transient stability.
The effectiveness of a power system stabilizer PSS connected to the
exciter and/or governor in damping electromechanical oscillations of

POWER SYSTEM STATES

The power system is a highly nonlinear system that
operates in a constantly changing environment; loads,
generator outputs and key operating parameters change
continually .
When subjected to a disturbance, the stability of the system
depends on the initial operating condition as well as the
nature of the disturbance.
Stability of an electric power system is thus a property of
the system motion around an equilibrium set, i.e., the initial
Power system
operating condition.

states

Steady
state

Dynamic
state

Transient
state

POWER SYSTEM STATES

STEADY STATE

In an interconnected power system, the rotors of each synchronous machine in the system rotate at the same
average electrical speed. The power delivered by the generator to the power system is equal to the
mechanical power applied by the prime mover, neglecting losses. During steady state operation, the
electrical power out balances the mechanical power in.
DYNAMIC STATE
Dynamic instability is more probable than steady state stability. Small disturbances are continually occurring
in a power system (variations in loadings, changes in turbine speeds, etc.) which are small enough not to
cause the system to lose synchronism but do excite the system into the state of natural oscillations. In a
dynamically unstable system, the oscillation amplitude is large and these persist for a long time (i.e., the
system is under damped)
TRANSIENT STATE
For a large disturbance, changes in angular differences may be so large as to cause the machines to fall out
of step. This type of instability is known as transient stability and is a fast phenomenon usually occurring
within 1sec for a generator close to the cause of disturbance .

SYSTEM STABILITY

SYSTEM
STABILITY
STEADY
STATE
STABILITY
Small- signal
stability is the
ability of the system
to return to a
normal operating
state following a

DYNAMIC
STABILIT
Y
Dynamic stability
refers to the ability
of a power system
subject to a
relatively small and
sudden disturbance

TRANSIE
NT
STABILIT
Y

VOLTAGE
STABILITY

Transient stability is
Voltage stability is
the ability of power
concerned with the ability
system to maintain
of a power system to
synchronism when it is
maintain steady acceptable
suddenly subjected to
voltages at all buses
a severe transient
disturbance

TRANSIENT STABILITY

Transient stability is the ability of the power grid

system to maintain synchronism when subjected to
severe disturbances.
Transient stability analysis is considered with large
disturbances like :
1.Suddenly change in load.
2.Generation or transmission system configuration due
to fault.
3.Switching.

METHODS FOR IMPROVEMENT TRANSIENT

STABILITY

Regulated shunt compensation

Generator tripping
Rotor size and transfer reactance of line
Dynamic braking resistor
High Voltage DC (HVDC)
Single- pole switching
Fast excitation Control
Fast governor action
Independent-pole operation of circuit
breaker
SCR (Short Circuit Ratio)

POWER SYSTEM
STABILIZER
(PSS)
Power system stabilizer
PSS are generator
control used in fed back to enhance
the damping of rotor oscillation due to signal disturbance. The disturbance may
be caused by the even small change in the reference voltage regulator exciter
which results in ever increasing rotor oscillations.

The generic power system stabilizer PSS can be used to add damping to the
rotor oscillation of the synchronous machine by controlling its excitation. To
remain the power system in stability must be damped the electromechanical
oscillation and also called power swing.
The input signal of PSS is machine speed division (dw)
The output signal is additional input (Vstab) to the excitation system .
The generic power system stabilizer is modeled by the nonlinear system as
shown in figure 1

Figure 1 block diagram of the PSS

OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF PSS

PSS is the most excessively prevalence
damping controller.
PSSused in all synchronous generators
because it has low cost.
power system stabilizer PSS is used to
this important function damp these
oscillation.
Its operates by adding a signal to the
reference voltage signal, based on the
automatic voltage regulator (AVR) and
using power deviation, speed deviation,
or frequency deviation with additional
torque coaxial, for this reason, PSS is
prepared, thus, it can increase the
damping of low frequencies and

Generator Voltage
AVR

Excit
er
PSS

Generator
and Power
Network

Figure 2 Structure of power system stabilizer (PSS)

TYPES FACTS CONTROLLS

Generally FACTS controllers are classified
as:
Series Controllers
Shunt Controllers
Combined Series-Series Controllers
Combined Series -Shunt Controllers
power
Bus
1
Are
a1

Sending end

Series
FACTs
device

power
Bus 1

Bus 2
Are
a2
receiving end

Bus 2

Are
a1
Sending end

Are
a2

receiving e

Shunt FACTs
device

Figure 3 Two-area power system with series FACTS

Figure 4 Two-area power system with shunt FACTS device

STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR (SVC)

The Static VAR Compensator (SVC) is one of the
shunt connected FACTS devices, which is based
on power electronics.
It helps in :
1.voltage regulation,
2.reactive power control and improving the
transient stability of the system.
The voltage regulation by SVC is done, by
controlling the amount of reactive power injected
into or absorbed from the power system.

Figure 5 SVC structure

STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR (SVC)

MODE

when the system voltage is

low the SVC generates
reactive power (capacitive
mode).

Leading
current
Vinput

ystem

Figure 6 Capacitive Mode

of SVC

when the system voltage is

high the SVC absorbs
reactive power (inductive
mode).

Lagging
current
Vinput

vsystem

Figure 7 Inductive Mode

TYPES OF SVC
There are two basic types of SVCs, each having a different combination of the
components

1.SVC of the TCR-FC type

As its name indicates, the
SVC of the TCR-FC type
consists of a TCR, which
absorbs reactive power
from the ac power system
to which the SVC is
connected, and several
FCs, which supply reactive
power to the system
connected to the SVC.

Figure 8 diagram of an SVC of the TCR-FC type

TYPES OF SVC

2.SVC of the TCR-TSC type

As its name indicates, the
SVC of the TCR-TSC type
consists of a TCR, which
absorbs reactive power from
the ac power system
connected to the SVC, and
several TSCs, which supply
reactive power to the ac
power system connected to
the SVC.

Figure 9 diagram of an SVC of the TCR-TSC typ

MODELS OF SVC
MODELS OF SVC
PHASOR MODEL

It is more simple and simplified to

described the SVC principle operation
It is use with phasor simulation of
powergui
It is use for studying dynamic
performance and transient stability of
power system
Requires simulation times of 3040
seconds or more

DETAILED MODEL

It is not simple like phasor model

It is use with discrete simulation of
powergui
Typical applications include optimizing
of the control system, impact of
harmonics, transients and stresses on
power components during faults.
Smaller time range (a few seconds)

CONTROL SYSTEM OF SVC

The control system of SVC is
shown in Figure 10. It consists of a
measurement system, voltage
regulator and synchronizing
system.
The measurement system
measures the positive-sequence
voltage to be controlled. A
measurement system based on
Fourier transformation is used.
A voltage regulator that uses the
voltage error i.e the difference
between the measured voltage
Vm and the reference voltage Vref
is used to determine the SVC
susceptance B, which is needed to
keep the system voltage constant.
The TSCs (and eventually TSRs)
which are to be switched in and
out, are determined by a
distribution unit that computes the
firing angle of TCRs.

Figure 10 Control System of SVC

TRANSIENT STABILITY
MODEL OF SVC

The SVC model for transient stability can be obtained by

assuming balanced, fundamental frequency operation
with sinusoidal voltages . It can be represented by the
set of equations:
following
=

0=

Filters

Magnitude

Controller

Most of the variables used in the above two equation

are clearly defined on Figure 11
The control system variables and equations are
represented by xc and fc(Xc,,V,Vref),respectively.
These equations are used to represent limits not only
on the firing angle, but also on the current I, the control
voltage V and the capacitor voltage Vi, as well as
control variables other types of controllers such as a
reactive power Q control scheme .

Figure 11 Transient stability model of

SVC

SIMULINK AND MATLAB

SOFTWARE
Simulink provides a graphical editor,
customizable block libraries, and solvers for
modeling and simulating dynamic systems

It is integrated with MATLAB, enabling you to

incorporate MATLAB algorithms into models and
export simulation results to MATLAB for further
analysis.
In this study used MATLAB 2014b

SIMULATION TEST
SYSTEM
The comparison between
PSS and SVC was conducted
in a multi-machine system,
as shown in figure 12. This
system consists of 4
machines and 6 buses.
The system was originally
available in Matlab with two
machines and three buses,
but in order to consider
more cases in this work, the
number of machines and
buses were increased.
The disturbance applied is
three phase fault to ground
near a generator 1 on bus 1
at t= 5s
SVC is used as a controller
is phaser type, connected to

Figure 12 4 machine 6 bus test system modeled in

Case 1:

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS

Comparison between using only PSS and PSS with SVC at maximum
critical clearing time

When comparing between using only PSS and PSS with SVC
for a critical clearing time (tc =148 ms),
the results show that the system loses stability when utilizing
PSS alone, while it remains stable using both SVC and PSS.
Fig. 13-16 show the rotor angle difference of G1 of the test
system, rotor angle difference of G3, the terminal voltage on
B1 and transmission line active power of G1

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
300
PSS
PSS + SVC

At tc = 148 ms
With only PSS the system
lost
stability but
with SVC stay in stability

200
Rotor Angle of G1 (degree)

This Figure show the Rotor

angle difference between
generator 1 and generator
2

250

150

100

50

0
0

5
Time (s)

Figure 13 Rotor angle difference of G1 to G2

10

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS

At tc = 148 ms
With only PSS the system
lost stability but with SVC
stay in stability

250

200

Rotor Angle of G2 (degree)

This Figure show the

Rotor angle difference
between generator 3 and
generator 4

PSS
PSS + SVC

150

100

50

-50
0

5
Time (s)

Figure 14 Rotor angle difference of G3 to G4

10

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1.8

PSS
PSS + SVC

1.6

At tc = 148 ms
With only PSS the system
lost
stability but
with SVC stay in stability

1.4

1.2
Terminal Voltage on B1 (p.u)

This Figure show the

Terminal Voltage of
Generator 1 on B1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

Figure 15 Terminal Voltage on B1

18

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
2000

This Figure show the

Transmission line power of
generator 1

1500

1000

Active Power of G1 (MW)

At tc = 148 ms
With only PSS the system
lost
stability but
with SVC stay in stability

PSS
PSS + SVC

500

-500

-1000

-1500
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 16 Transmission Line Active Power of G1

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS

Case 2:
Comparison between using only PSS and PSS with SVC at clearing
147solely
ms and PSS with SVC (to enhance transient stability and
time
Using=PSS
dampen the oscillation), the system remained stable ,at clearing
time(tc = 147 ms).
Table 1 lists the performance comparison between using (PSS) and
(PSS with SVC). Furthermore, Fig. 17 and 18 shows the rotor angle
difference of G1 and rotor angle difference of G3; SVC settled faster
with settling time is (11s and 10.3s) than with only PSS (13s and
12.3s), and the peak amplitude of both rotor angle with SVC reduced
with value is 118 and 93 degrees, respectively. With only PSS, the
corresponding values are 130 and 128 degrees. Fig. 19 and 20 show
that the terminal voltage on B1 and B6 with SVC oscillated less and
stabilized with peak amplitudes of 1.115 p.u and 1.18 p.u, and settling
times of 10s and 10s, compared to only PSS with peak amplitudes of

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
140

This Figure show the Rotor

angle difference between
generator 1 and generator 2

PSS
PSS + SVC

120

100

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and SVC

Rotor Angle of G1 (degree)

80

60

40

20

-20

-40
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 17 Rotor angle difference of G1 to G2

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
140

PSS
PSS + SVC

120

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and SVC

100

80
Rotor Angle of G3 (degree)

This Figure show the Rotor

angle difference between
generator 3 and generator 4

60

40

20

-20

-40
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 18 Rotor angle difference of G3 to G4

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1.4

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and SVC

1.2

1
Terminal Voltage on B1 (p.u)

This Figure show the

Terminal Voltage 0f
Generator 1 on B1

PSS
PSS + SVC

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

Figure 19 Terminal Voltage on B1

16

18

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1.4

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is
stabilized quickly with PSS
and SVC

1.2

Terminal Voltage on B6 (p.u)

This Figure show the

Terminal Voltage 0f
Generator 3 on B6

PSS
PSS + SVC

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

Figure 20 Terminal Voltage on B6

18

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1800

1600

This Figure show the

Transmission Line Active
Power of Generator 1

1400

1200
Active Power of G1 (MW)

At tc = 147 ms
The Active power is stabilized
quickly with PSS and SVC

PSS
PSS + SVC

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 21 Transmission Line Active Power of G1

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1400

At tc = 147 ms
The Active power is stabilized
quickly with PSS and SVC

1200

1000

Active Power G3 (degree)

This Figure show the

Transmission Line Active
Power of Generator 3

PSS
PSS + SVC

800

600

400

200

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 22 Transmission Line Active Power of G3

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
Table 1
Comparison between PSS and PSS with SVC
Param
eters

Rotor angle
of G1

Rotor angle
of G3

Terminal
Voltage on
Bus 1

Terminal
Voltage on
Bus 6

Active power
of G1

Active
power of
G3

Pea
(deg.)

Ts
(s)

Peak
(deg.)

Ts
(s)

Peak
(p.u.)

Ts
(s)

Peak
(p.u.)

Ts
(s)

Peak
(MW)

Ts
(s)

Peak
(MW

Ts
(s
)

PSS

130

13

128

12.3

1.27
5

12

1.25

12

1470

12

1470

1
2

PSS +
SVC

118

11

93

10.3

1.15

10

1.18

10

1700

10

1350

1
0

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS

Case 3:
Comparison between using only PSS and PSS with SVC at clearing
147 ms
time
In this=case
the comparison between using PSS alone and two SVC with
PSS in two different locations was made. The first SVC was connected to
the system in a location the same as the previous one, and the second
was connected near G3 with bus 6.
The results show that using two SVCs is better than using only one; Table
2 lists comparison data between PSS and two SVC. Additionally, Fig. 23
and 24 show that rotor angle difference of G1 and rotor angle difference
of G3 with SVC settled faster with settling time is (10s and 10s) than
with only PSS (13s and 12.3s), and the peak amplitude of both rotor
angle with SVC reduced with values of 115 and 85 degrees. With only
PSS the settling time is 13 and 12.3s and the peak amplitude is 130 and
128 degrees. Fig. 25 and 26 show that the terminal voltage on B1and
terminal voltage on B6 with SVC oscillates less and stabilizes with peak
amplitude (1.175p.u and 1.16p.u) and settling time (10s and 9s)
compared to only PSS, where the peak amplitude is (1.275p.u and

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
140

This Figure show the Rotor

angle difference between
generator 1 and generator 2

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

120

100

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

Rotor Angle of G1 (degree)

80

60

40

20

-20

-40
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

Figure 23 Rotor angle difference of G1 to G2

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
140

120

This Figure show the Rotor

angle difference between
generator 3 and generator 4

100

80
Rotor Angle of G3 (degree)

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

60

40

20

-20

-40
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

Figure 24 Rotor angle difference of G3 to G4

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1.4

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

1.2

Terminal Voltage on B1 (p.u)

This Figure show the

Terminal Voltage 0f
Generator 1 on B1

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

Figure 25 Terminal Voltage on B1

18

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1.4

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

1.2

Terminal Voltage on B6

This Figure show the

Terminal Voltage 0f
Generator 3 on B6

0.8

0.6

0.4

At tc = 147 ms
The rotor angle is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

0.2

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

Figure 26 Terminal Voltage on B6

16

18

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
2500

This Figure show the

Transmission Line Active
Power of Generator 1

2000

Active Power of G1 (MW)

At tc = 147 ms
The Active power is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

1500

1000

500

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

Figure 27 Transmission Line Active Power of G1

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
1400

1200

This Figure show the

Transmission Line Active
Power of Generator 3

1000

Active Power of G3 (MW)

At tc = 147 ms
The Active power is stabilized
quickly with PSS and 2 SVC

PSS
PSS + 2 SVC

800

600

400

200

0
0

10
Time (s)

12

14

16

18

Figure 28 Transmission Line Active Power of G3

20

SIMULATION AND
RESULTS
Table 1
Comparison between PSS and PSS with SVC
paramet Rotor
ers
angle of
G1
Pea Ts
(deg (s)
.)

Rotor angle
of G3
Peak
(deg.)

Ts
(s)

Terminal
Voltage on
Bus 1
Peak
Ts
(p.u.)
(s)

Terminal
Voltage on Bus
6
Peak
Ts
(p.u.)
(s)

Active
power of
G1
Peak Ts
(MW) (s)

Active
power of
G3
Peak Ts
(s)
(MW

PSS

130

13

128

12.3 1.275

12

1.25

12

1470

12

1470 12

PSS +
2SVC

115

10

85

10

10

1.16

2000

8.5

1300 10

1.175

CONCLUSION
This study discussed and investigated the transient stability enhancement by using a power
system stabilizer PSS and static Var compensator SVC. The work shows a comparison
between applied power system stabilizer PSS independently and combined with Static Var
compensator SVC. The comparison examined test system, multi-machine consists of 4
machine 6 buses of MATLAB Simulink for studying, when occurred the three phases to
ground fault on generator 1 and taking three cases ,first with at the critical clearing time the
system lost the synchronism with only PSS and its remain synchronism with connected
SVC with system as a controller. A second case at clearing time 147 ms the system in
stable with both only PSS and PSS with SVC but the result is more better with used SVC
for damping oscillation and final case is used two SVC and comparison with previous case
the results shows better for improved transient stability and damping oscillation of several
parameters such as Rotor angle and terminal voltage and transmission lines active power.

APPENDIX
The transmission System nominal voltage is 500 KV
Rotor type (silent pole)
Power rating of SVC = 200 MVAR

The generator parameters in per unit on the rated MVA and kV base are:

Xd = 1.305

Xd = 0.296

Xd = 0.252

Xq = 0.474

Xq = 0.243

Xl = 0.18

Td = 1.01

Td = 0.053

Tq = 0.1

H = 3.7

the parameters of the lines in

per unit :
Resistance per unit length
(Ohms/km)

Inductance per unit length

(H/km)

Capacitance per unit length

(F/km)

0.01755

0.8737e-3

13.33e-9

APPENDIX
Distance of transmission lines :
M1 & M2

M3 & M4

M1 & M3

M2 & M4

700 km

700 km

400 km

400 km

The loads on system for cases

(Resistive Load) :
Bus 2

Bus 3

Bus 4

Bus 5

Bus 6

PL = 100 MW

PL = 4900 MW

PL = 100 MW

PL = 100 MW

PL = 4900 MW

REFFERENCES
[1] G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS, Concepts, and Technology of Flexible AC Transmission
Systems, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2000.
[2] A. A Edris, R Aapa, M H Baker, L Bohman, K Clark, Proposed terms and definitions for flexible ac
transmission system (FACTS), IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No.
4, 1997, pp. 1848-1853.
[3]
P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, New York: McGraw Hill, 1994.
[4] Dash. P. K, Selta Morris and Mishra. S, Design of a nonlinear Variable Controller for FACTS Devices, IEEE
Transactions on Control System Technology, Vol. 12. No. 3, May
2004.
[5] Patel, H. D,Majmudar, C,Fuzzy logic application to single machine power system stabilizer, Power Nirma
University International Conference on Engineering, IEEE, Vol. 2, pp. 669- 674, Dec 2011.
[6] M. A. Abido, Analysis and assessment of STATCOM based damping stabilizers for Power system stability
enhancement Electric Power System Research,73, 177- 185,2005
[7] Mohan Mathur, Rajiv K. Varma , Thyristor-Based Facts Controllers for Electrical Transmission Systems,
John Wiley &Sons, Inc. Publication, 2002, pp 93-138.
[8] B T Ooi, M Kazerrani, R Marcean, Z Wolanski, F D Galiana, D. Megillis, G. Joos, Mid point sitting of FACTS
devices in transmission lines, IEEE Tran. On Power Delivery, Vol. 1 No. 4, 1997, pp. 1717-1722.
[9] S. M. Barakati, S. Khanmohamadi, S. H. Hosseini, Improving the Power Stability using Fuzzy Logic
Controlled Static Var Compensator, The 4th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering, ICEE-97, 1996.
[10] Mitsubishi Electric. (2010). Power system stabilizer PSS
[11] Samuelsson, O. (1997). Power system damping-structural aspects of controlling active power. Lund
University.
[12] Liu, F. , Yokoyama, R. , Zhou, Y. , & Wu, M. Study on Oscillation Damping Effects of Power System Stabilizer
with Eigenvalue Analysis Method for the
Stability of Power Systems.
[13] E. Z. Zhou, Application of Static Var Compensators to Increase Power System Damping, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 8, NO. 2, 1993.
[14] M. H. Hague, Improvement of first stability limit by utilizing full benefit of shunt FACTS devices, IEEE
Transactions On Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1894 1902, 2004.
[15] Arunkumar, Priya G, Power System Stability Enhancement using FACTS Controllers, IEEE, 2012.
[16] Claudio A. canizares, Power Flow and Transient Stability Models of FACTS Controllers for Voltage and

Thanks
for your
attention