Proc.of 2010 Intern.Conf. on Power System Technology, Oct.
24-28,2010,Hangzhou, China
A Distributed Control of FACTS Devices
Against Line Tripping
Daniil A. Panasetsky
Energy Systems Institute
Student Member, IEEE
Irkutsk, Russia
E-mail: panasetsky@gmail.com
Abstract— The cascade line tripping is one of the main causes
that can lead to power system breakdown. To avoid line tripping
during the post-disturbance period, new fast algorithms are
required. This paper describes a new approach to distributed
coordination of FACTS which makes it possible to control power
flow during the long-term transients. The proposed algorithm is
based on the sensitivity analysis; it can be realized as a discrete-
time controller and can be applied to different parts of a power
system independently.
Keywords – Distributed control, FACTS, circuit sensitivity
analysis, load flow analysis, load flow control.
I. INTRODUCTION
The cascade line tripping is one of the main causes that can
lead to power system breakdown [1]. Usually power systems
are designed to maintain normal operating state in case of the
N-1 and some of the N-2 contingencies. Thus, a power system
can withstand the first heavy disturbance in EHV transmission
system. The post-disturbance phase represents a deceptively
calm period that lasts several minutes with a normal level of
frequency. During this period, the voltage levels in the vicinity
of the affected region become lower, line currents become
higher and this process can lead to cascade line tripping and to
the collapse of the whole system.
Voltage drop during the post-disturbance period is not the
only cause of the cascade line tripping. Uncontrolled triggering
of the transmission lines can be caused by wrong or untimely
control actions, overlapping of disturbances, etc. It is necessary
to consider two types of overloading:
• Critical overloading. When the affected power system
experiences critical overload of a transmission line,
fast load shedding is usually the only way to prevent
the line tripping and the following collapse of the
whole system [1]. In this case there will be a short-term
transient process, and control actions to be performed
should be fast but not optimal.
• Noncritical overloading. If the transmission line
overload is not too high, we have time to perform
control actions without load shedding procedure being
triggered. These control actions can include
redistribution of generator active outputs and power
The work is supported by the grants of the Federal Agency for Science
and Innovation of the Russian Federation: #1857.2008.8 of the Leading
Scientific School of the Russian Federation and #09-08-91330 of the Russian
Federation for Basic Researches; and by the government contract
#02.527.11.0004.
D. A. Panasetsky and N. I. Voropai are with Energy Systems Institute,
130, Lermontov str., 664033 Irkutsk, Russia ( e-mail: panasetsky@gmail.com;
voropai@ieee.org ).
Nikolai I. Voropai
Energy Systems Institute
Fellow, IEEE
Irkutsk, Russia
E-mail: voropai@ieee.org
flow control by means of different FACTS devices. In
this case we have a long-term transient process that
lasts from tens of seconds to several hours.
Analysis showed that it was noncritical overloading that
occurred before cascade line tripping during the recent
blackouts in different parts of the world. But usually the time
between the first heavy contingency and the voltage collapse,
caused by the following line tripping, is not enough for
centralized control of power flow. Therefore, new fast
algorithms based on distributed principles are needed to avoid
line tripping during the post-disturbance period.
The paper describes a new approach to distributed
coordination of FACTS for power flow control during long-
term transients. The proposed approach is based on the
following assumptions: if a sampling interval of the monitoring
system that collects information on power system operation is
short enough, and if control actions performed by FACTS are
fast enough, the long-term transient process can be represented
by a chain of steady state load flows.
Paper [2] describes the development of strategies capable of
controlling FACTS in combination with load shedding. These
control strategies are based on the sensitivity analysis. They are
mainly intended to eliminate overloads caused by lines outages
in transmission network.
The paper presents the technique that is also based on the
sensitivity analysis. The new technique enables more accurate
analysis of the system topology and power flow. It uses the
optimization procedure of the linearized load flow equations.
This offers the possibility to perform control actions in an
optimal way.
II. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS GENERAL ASPECTS
The area of influence of a FACTS is determined by
analyzing the influence of control action on the nearest
electrical devices.
We considered Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor
(TCSC) as a means for power flow control, but of course, other
types of FACTS that enable active power flow control can also
be considered. The simplified TCSC model is based on the
concept of variable series reactance. The series reactance of
this FACTS device can be adjusted to change the active power
flow transferred through it.
Considering the load flow control problem by means of
TCSCs, we can say that the power flow Si through the i th
transmission line is a function of node voltages and TCSC
reactances:
Si = f ( U, x1 , x2 ,... xk )
where U - vector of the node voltages, x1 , x2 ,...xk - TCSC
reactances.
In the general case, the sensitivity of the S ith power flow to
the change in TCSC reactances can be expressed by the
following equation:
As before, the Si 0 power flow through the i th transmission
line in this steady state load flow is a function of the node
voltages and TCSC reactances:
Si 0 = f ( U 0 ,Y ) (7)
Equation (5) is a linear approximation of the load flow
(1) equations. It describes accurately the power system behavior in
the vicinity of linearity region. The small disturbance Δxn in
the reactance of the n th TCSC leads to the small change in the
voltage vector, and the power flow through the i th
transmission line in the disturbed state Sid is:
Sid = f ( U d ,Yd ) (8)

∂Si ∂S ∂S where U d , Yd are voltage vector and admittance matrix of the

dSi = dx1 + i dx2 + ... + i dxk (2) disturbed state, respectively.
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xk
In the vicinity of the linearity region, the complex
∂Si ∂Si ∂S coefficient of the influence the n th TCSC has on the power
where , ,... i - complex functions of the influence. flow through the i th transmission line is:
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xk
Now consider some area containing generators, loads and
TCSCs. If there is information about generator voltages and Sid − Si 0
αin = (9)
about active and reactive powers, produced by the generators, Δxn
then the current injected by the i th generator is:
Since Re (αin ) Im (αin ) expression (9) can be written as
⎡S ⎤
∗ follows:
Ji = ⎢ i ⎥ (3)
⎣U i ⎦
⎛ Sid − Si 0 ⎞
α in = Re ⎜ ⎟ (10)
If the loads are approximated as constant impedances, the
⎝ Δxn ⎠
equivalent load admittance is:
and expression (2) – as follows:
P Q
YLoad = Load
2
− j Load
2
(4)
U Load U Load ΔPi = α i1 Δx1 + α i 2 Δx2 + ... + α ik Δxk (11)

Include load impedances into the node admittance matrix.

Then linearized load flow equations presented in terms of the III. THE PROPOSED APPROACH
node admittance matrix can be written as follows: To study the influence of the TCSC devices on the
transmission line power flows, the following linear equation
I = Y ⋅ U0 (5) can be proposed:

where I - vector of generator currents, Y - admittance matrix, S d = S 0 + α ⋅ Δx (12)

U0 - vector of node-to-ground voltages. The voltage vector can
be derived from equation (5) as follows:
where S0 = ( S10 , S20 ,..., Sn 0 ) , Sd = ( S1d , S2 d ,..., Snd ) - vectors
T T

of transmission line power flows in normal and disturbed

U 0 = Y −1 ⋅ I (6)
 ⎛ α11 α1k ⎞ strategies. The approximate power flow model provides the
⎜ ⎟ prediction, and the optimization procedure provides the control
states; α = ⎜ ⎟ - matrix of the influence actions.
⎜α α ⎟
⎝ n1 nk ⎠
B. Optimization Procedure
coefficients; Δx = ( Δx1 , Δx2 ,… , Δxk ) - disturbance vector.
T

1) Objective Function: The next linear objective function

A. Algorithm Requirements
A new algorithm for TCSC power flow control has to meet
the following requirements:
• The new algorithm should use only local parameters of
the load flow. This makes it possible to apply the
algorithm to various parts of the grid independently.
For instance, the algorithm can be part of a multi-agent
automation described in [3].
• The algorithm has to work fast enough to provide
power flow control timely. To do this, it should use
some simple principles and work optimally.
• The algorithm should be capable of taking into
consideration different constraints, such as power flow
and TCSC operating constraints.
• The algorithm should be intelligent enough to detect
the situation when the control capabilities of the TCSC
devices have been exhausted. This requirement
guarantees that the other control actions such as load
shedding and rearranging generator MW outputs will
be triggered as soon as possible.
The block diagram that schematically describes the
algorithm and includes all the requirements mentioned above is
presented in Fig.1.
can be proposed for the optimization procedure of the
linearized power flow model:
min ΔP ⋅ λ (13)
where ΔP = ( ΔP1 ', ΔP2 ',..., ΔPk ') - vector, each element of
which is determined by the formula:
⎧ ΔPi if Re ( Si ) ≥ 0;
⎪
ΔPi ' = ⎨ (14)
⎪⎩ −ΔPi if Re ( Si ) < 0.
here ΔPi is given by equation (11); λ = ( λ1 , λ2 ,..., λk ) - vector
T
of the transmission line loads, each element of which is
determined by the function:
λi = g ( Si , S max i ) (15)
where g ( Si , Smax i ) - weighting function, the form of this
function is determined by the following simple rule: the higher
the relation Si / Smax i , the higher the value of the function. On
the one hand, if sensitivity of the weighting function to line
overloading is too low, the obtained control actions are usually
not enough to cope with overloading; on the other hand,
oversensitivity of the weighting function would lead to
unnecessary loop flows and increase of losses. In our research
we used the following weighting function:

⎧ Si Si
⎪10 Smax i − 9 if Smax i
> 1;
⎪
⎪
λi = ⎨2.33 Si S − 1.33 if 0.7 ≤ i
S
Smax i
< 1; (16)
⎪ max i

⎪ Si Si
⎪⎩ 0.43 Smax i if 0 ≤ Smax i < 0.7.

Thus, the objective function always tries to decrease the

power flow through the overloaded transmission lines, and
from the physical point this is possible only owing to increase
of the power flow through the underloaded transmission lines.
2) Constraints: The optimization procedure has to take
into consideration at least two types of constraints:
Figure 1. Block diagram of the algorithm
• Power flow constraints.
The proposed algorithm can be realized as a discrete-time • TCSC operating constraints.
controller - it performs actions at spaced, discrete time instants
and controls power flow by combining prediction and control Power flow constraints are partly considered through the λ
vector of the objective function (13). The objective function
itself prevents increase of power flows to critical limits;
therefore there is no need to consider power flow constraints
explicitly.
Operating conditions of every TCSC have to be taken into
consideration. Operating conditions of the i th TCSC can be
considered by the following set of linear inequality constraints:
⎪⎧if ( xi + Δ i < xi max ) xi < xi + Δ i
⎨ independent subsystems.
⎪⎩otherwise xi < xi max
and
⎧⎪if ( xi − Δ i > xi min ) xi > xi − Δ i
⎨ needs the following set of data:
⎪⎩otherwise xi > xi min
where xi - current reactance of the i th TCSC; Δ i determines
an allowable reactance turndown of the i th TCSC. The
reactance turndown can not be too wide; otherwise equation
(11) will go beyond the linearity region.
IV. THE CONTROL SYSTEM STRUCTURE
Objective function (13) subject to (17) is a simple linear
optimization problem. This simple problem has to be solved
and the obtained control actions have to be performed at each
sampling interval of a monitoring system. We believe that this
formulation enables to create fast power flow control system.
A. System Decomposition:
The proposed control principles can be applied to different
parts of a power system independently. The keystone is how to
decompose the whole system into subsystems. The main
principle of decomposition is that the electrical coupling
between boundary nodes of a subsystem should be minimal.
Figure 2. Explanation of system decomposition principles
Ideal and nonideal cases are presented in Fig.2. In the ideal
case the boundary nodes of subsystems are not coupled among
themselves. In the nonideal case there are the following
electrical couplings between boundary nodes of Subsystem 1:
• Loop 1 – coupling of node 1 and node 2 through
Subsystem 2.
• Loop 2 – coupling of node 1 and node 3 through an
extra transmission line.
The influence of Loop 1 and Loop 2 on Subsystem 1 should
be minimal. Otherwise Subsystem 1 and Subsystem 2 can be
joined together and the extra transmission line can be included
in Subsystem 1. By means of different methods, even a highly
coupled power system can be decomposed into more or less
(17)
B. Measurements and Control System Structure
To build a linearized power flow model the control system
• Synchronized measurements of current at boundary
nodes and at main generator nodes inside a subsystem.
This information can be obtained by means of Power
Measurement Units (PMUs).
• Nonsynchronized measurements of active and reactive
powers at load nodes. These measurements are
required to calculate load admittance (4).
• Information on network topology. It is considered that
the control center of a subsystem has information about
equipment parameters and network topology. This
makes it possible to build the subsystem equivalent.
Thus, the control center needs information only about
topology change.
The structure of the proposed control system can be illustrated
by means of test system, presented in Fig.3.
Figure 3. A 6-bus test system
The control center of this test system obtains the following
information:
• Synchronized measurements of current from PMUs,
installed at boundary nodes Bus 1, Bus 2 and at
internal generator node Bus 3.
• Nonsynchronized measurements of active and reactive
powers at load nodes Bus 4 – Bus 6.
• Information on network topology (line outages)
 V. CASE STUDY B. Simulation results with both power flow and TCSC
In this section we present the result of case study, based on operating constraints
the modified 6-bus test system shown in Fig.3. This 6-bus test The following restrictions were imposed on the reactances
system initially was taken from [4-5] and had no dynamic of the TCSCs:
elements. During modification, the following changes in the
test system structure were made:
X TCSC Bus3-Bus5 ≥ 0.006 p.u.
• The following transmission lines: Bus 1 – Bus 2; Bus 1
– Bus 5; Bus 2 – Bus 3; Bus 3 – Bus 5 were equipped X TCSC Bus2-Bus3 ≥ 0.005 p.u. (18)
with TCSCs. The TCSCs were not equipped with any X TCSC Bus1-Bus5 ≥ 0.003 p.u.
regulators or controllers, during the simulation their
reactances were controlled discretely.
• Generators at nodes Bus 1, Bus 3 were modeled by the
six order dynamic model and were equipped with
Type I Turbine Governor (TG) and Type II Automatic
Voltage Regulator (AVR) [7]. Generator at node Bus 2
is an infinite bus.
• Each load was modeled as 50% constant impedance
and 50% constant current for both active and reactive
components. Besides, the reactive power of the load
depended on the time derivative of the node voltage,
so-called Jimma’s structure [7].
For time domain simulations, we use PSAT [6] that has
been modified to include the proposed algorithm in long-term
transient studies. To test the proposed algorithm, the following
sequence of disturbances was examined:
• 5 seconds. Bus 2 – Bus 4 line outage.
• 10 seconds. Bus 2 – Bus 6 line outage. Figure 4. Changes in power flow. Simulation results with power flow
constraints only
Two types of simulations were carried out:
Changes in power flow through some transmission lines
• Simulation with power flow constraints only. In this during simulation are presented in Fig.5. As before, after
case the minimal reactance of the lines with TCSC can disturbances lines Bus 2 – Bus 5 and Bus 1 – Bus 4 became
be zero, but power flows should be within limits. overloaded. Further joint actions of the TCSCs led to a
• Simulation with both power flow and TCSC operating decrease in power flows through the overloaded lines.
constraints. In this case both power flows and TCSC
reactances should be within limits.

A. Simulation results with power flow constraints only

Changes in power flow through some transmission lines
during simulation are presented in Fig.4. After disturbances
lines Bus 2 – Bus 5 and Bus 1 – Bus 4 became overloaded.
Further joint actions of the TCSCs led to a decrease in power
flows through the overloaded lines. Power flow through line
Bus 2 – Bus 5 became lower than the critical value. Power flow
through line Bus 1 – Bus 4 also became lower but nevertheless
was higher than the critical value. This is due to the fact that if
line Bus 1 – Bus 4 had been unloaded to the subcritical value
this would have led to simultaneous extra loading of lines
Bus 2 – Bus 1, Bus 1 – Bus 5, Bus 5 – Bus 4 and maybe some
others. Therefore from the viewpoint of reliability in this
situation it makes sense to disconnect part of consumers. In
such a manner the proposed algorithm analyzes a situation and
depending on a form of function (15) makes an optimal
decision. Figure 5. Changes in power flow. Simulation results with both power flow
and TCSC operating constraints
 Power flows through both overloaded lines decreased but
nevertheless were higher than the critical value. In this case the
main limiting factor is TCSC operating constraints (18), Fig.6.
Figure 6. Changes in TCSC reactance
Therefore, the proposed algorithm can take into
consideration both a sort of reliability characteristics,
determined by the form of function (15), and different
constraints, such as power flow and TCSC operating
constraints.
VI. CONCLUSION
The cascade line tripping is one of the main causes that can
lead to power system breakdown. In the article the new fast
algorithm for distributed control of FACTS against line
tripping was proposed. The proposed algorithm deals with
noncritical overloading that usually occurred before cascade
line tripping during the recent blackouts in different parts of the
world. The effectiveness of the proposed approach was proved
by numerical simulations.
New technologies such as PMU and FACTS have new
capabilities. Nowadays the central task is development of new
approaches where these capabilities can be efficiently applied.
Increase of the intelligence level of FACTS controllers may be
a step towards the effective use of new technical capabilities. It
is also important that the new principles do not reject the
existing control methodology but complement and improve it.
For instance, in the event of communication failure between a
subsystem and a centralized control center, the proposed
automation can reserve power flow control functions inside the
unobservable subsystem. The distributed control of FACTS can
also be triggered manually by the system operator during a
critical situation. It is also important to mention that the
operation speed of the proposed automation is higher than the
operation speed of a centralized controller. This is because the
efficiency of emergency control strongly depends on signal
delay in communication channels. The higher the number of
communication channels needed for control, the longer the
delay and the longer the time required to make a decision and
perform control actions.
VII. FURTHER WORK
The further work aims to give a clearer explanation of the
following mathematical enunciations:
• How to find the optimal allowable reactance turndown
Δ i of a TCSC in (17). On the one hand, reactance
turndown can not be too narrow, because the work of
the algorithm will be too slow, on the other hand, it can
not be too wide; because equation (11) will go beyond
the boundaries of the linearity region.
• What is the optimal termination criterion of the control
system work process? For instance, absence of
essential change of power flows through overloaded
lines, or the beginning of the oscillatory changes of
TCSC reactances can point to the fact that the control
capabilities of the TCSC devices have been exhausted,
Fig.4-5.
In addition it is important to conduct a detailed study of
mutual influence of subsystems inside a tightly-coupled
network.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE, “Defense Plan Against Extreme Contingencies,” CIGRE Task
Force C2.02.24, April 2007.
[2] P. V. Etingov, A. Oudalov, N. I. Voropai, A. Germond and
R. Cherkaoui, “Coordinated emergency control of load shedding and
FACTS devices,” Proc. of IEEE St. Petersburg PowerTech International
Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2005.
[3] D. A. Panasetsky, N. I. Voropai, “A Multi-Agent Approach to
Coordination of Different Emergency Control Devices Against Voltage
Collapse,” Proc. of IEEE Bucharest PowerTech International
Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 2009.
[4] F. Milano, C. A. Canizares and M. Invernizzi, “Voltage Stability
Constrained OPF Market Models Considering N-1 Contingency
Criteria,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 27-36,
March 2005.
[5] G. B. Shelbe, “Computational Auction Mechanism for Restructured
Power Industry Operation,” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998.
[6] F. Milano, “An Open Source Power System Analysis Toolbox,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol.20, no.3, pp.1199-1206, Aug. 2005.
[7] F. Milano, “Documentation for PSAT version 2.0.0, February 14, 2008”.