IEEE PES, Panel Session

Digital Simulation of FACTS and Custom-Power controllers

Winter Meeting, New York, January 2002
Simulation of FACTS controllers using the MATLAB Power System Blockset
and Hypersim real-time simulator
Gilbert Sybille, Pierre Giroux
IREQ, Hydro-Qubec
1800 Lionel-Boulet,
Varennes, Qubec, Canada J3X 1S1
Keywords: FACTS, custom power, power electronics, controllers, transients, real-time, Simulink
This presentation explains the simulation tools and the solution methods used in the Hydro-Quebec Power System
Simulation laboratory for the design and real-time testing of FACTS controllers.
1. The Simulation Tools
During the last 20 years IREQ has been extensively using its hybrid (analog/digital) real-time simulator to test conventional FACTS controllers based on line-commutated power electronics (SVC and HVDC) as well as the new generation based on forced-commutated power electronics (AEP Inez UPFC, NYPA Marcy Convertible Static
Compensator (CSC)). In addition to the hybrid simulator, the following digital tools are now currently used:
Matlab/Simulink & Power System Blockset (PSB) for off-line simulation. PSB uses the state variable representation to simulate both power systems and control systems. Specialized PSB libraries contain power elements
as well as control blocks necessary to design FACTS and custom power devices (such as IGBT or GTO bridges,
PLL, square wave or PWM pulse generators).
Matlab Real-Time Workshop (RTW). The Real-Time Workshop is used to generate C code of control systems
developed in the PSB/Simulink environment. The C code is then compiled and interfaced with the Hypersim
real-time platform or with EMTP. Experience with large FACTS controllers has demonstrated that RTW generates highly efcient code that could be embedded in industrial type controllers.
Hypersim real-time simulator. Hypersim is used to simulate large power systems off-line or real-time. It is
based on the EMTP nodal method. Real time is achieved by automatic task mapping on a CC-NUMA multiprocessor system (Origin 3000 SGI computer). The simulator is equipped with fast inputs/outputs for closed-loop
testing of real controls. Its graphical user interface and automatic testing environment allow efcient testing of
FACTS controllers. Although Hypersim has built-in control blocks, the preferred approach for complex controllers is to use Simulink and C code generated by RTW.
The design cycle of a FACTS controller, using these simulation tools, is presented in Figure 1.
PSB
(off line)
Simplied
Power System
+
Detailed
Controls

RTW
for the control system

Hypersim
(real-time or off-line)

Design
Optimization

Detailed
Power System
&
Controls

Figure 1 Typical PSB/Hypersim cycle used in the design of FACTS controllers

The above simulation approach has been successfully applied for the design and testing of FACTS controllers (SVC,
STATCOM, UPFC) and custom power devices (Static transfer switch, D-STATCOM, DVR).
2. The Simulation Methods
Off-line simulation is an important part of the design of FACTS and custom power controllers. In order to optimize
simulation speed, different solution techniques can be used, depending on the maximum frequency of interest. Three
solution methods are currently used in the PSB. They are presented below by increasing oder of frequency ranges.
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00
2002 IEEE
1

488
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

 Phasor solution method. This technique used by transient stability softwares for study of electromechanical
oscillations (in the 0.02Hz - 2 Hz range) is the fastest method. Differential equations are used to represent the
low frequency modes related to generators, prime movers and regulators, whereas the network and voltagesourced converters are simulated by a set of algebraic equations and voltage or current sources at fundamental
frequency. For these low frequencies a time step of one cycle is sufcient.
Average modeling technique. For study of switching transients and interaction of controls with power system
(10 Hz to a few kHz), state-space modelling must be used for the entire system. In addition, each time a switch is
operated the state-space model of the linear system must be reevaluated. One particularity of FACTS and PQ
devices is the large number of switchings required at every cycle, thus increasing the computation load. For
example, a UPFC using two 48-pulse, 3-level GTO converters requires a minimum of 72 switches operated at
every cycle. For custom power devices the converter topology is much simpler but the switching frequency is
relatively high (For example, in an IGBT, PWM, 2-level inverter using 6 switches operated at 1.8 kHz, there are
up to 180 switchings per cycle). If the high order harmonics generated by voltage-sourced converters is not
important, these devices can be replaced by simple voltage sources producing the same average voltage over one
cycle of the switching frequency. This method allows using relatively large time steps (in the order of 50s).
Detailed modelling. The most accurate method requiring simulation of all switches is obtained at the expense of
reduced time step. For example, with a PWM converter using a 2 kHz switching frequency, harmonics are modelled with an acceptable accuracy with ideal switches and 2s time steps. If switching losses have to be simulated precisely, detailed switch models such as those available in PSpice must be used, requiring time steps as
low as 0.1 s.
During this presentation, the three solution methods will be illustrated with a FACTS controller (SVC using the phasor solution method) and with a custom power controller (DSTATCOM using the average and detailed modelling).
3. Example of transient stability study using the Phasor solution method
The PSB diagram of Figure 2 shows a simple 500-kV transmission system with two power plants and a 200-Mvar
SVC providing voltage support at the middle point of the 700-km transmission line.The two hydraulic power plants
are modeled by equivalent machines including detailed representation of turbine, speed regulator, voltage regulator
and power system stabilizer (PSS). The phasor approach has been used to study the transient stability of this system
and to optimize SVC controls and rating.
A

Pm

L1 350 km

Fault
AG

SVC
200 Mvars

C
Vf

Pref

0.9526

2
3

L2 350 km
A
B
C

U(E)
A

B2

M1 1000 MVA

1000 MVA
13.8 kV/500 kV

1
3

V1meas(pu)
C

m_pu

A
A
B
CB
bc
C
bc

Vf

B(pu)

Pm

U(E)

Load
5000 MW
Vabc
Mag & Angle
Pm

Fault Breaker
V SVC (pu)

Pref1

Vf

Turbine &
Regulators M1

B SVC (pu /200 MVA)

w1 w2
Vt1 Vt2

5000MVA
13.8 kV/500 kV

d_theta1_2 (deg)
Vf

w1 w2 (pu)

Pref

0.8110
Pref2

Vt1 Vt2 (pu)

Machines

stop

Machine
Signals

M2 5000 MVA

Pm

d_theta1_2

B
m_pu

SVC

Powergui
Phasors

Turbine &
Regulators M2

STOP
Stop Simulation
if loss of synchronism

Figure 2 PSB diagram of a 500-kV transmission system used for transient stability study
of two power plants with SVC and PSS
Simulation results obtained with SVC and without SVC for a 3-phase, 6-cycle fault applied at the machine 1 side of
the transmission line are compared on Figure 3. Waveforms show that the system is unstable without SVC. In order to
show how the phasor solution dramatically speeds up simulation, the same simulation without SVC has been performed both with the phasor solution method (variable time step with a maximum time step of 1 cycle) and with the
detailed model using discretization (50 s time steps). For simulating 5 seconds on a Pentium III 500 MHz, simulation times are 10 s and 218 s respectively, corresponding to a 22X gain speed for the phasor method.
2
489
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

d theta12 (deg)

200

No SVC ; PSS
(unstable)

Rotor Angle Difference

with SVC

100

0.5

w1 (pu)

1.02

1.5

2.5

No SVC
(unstable)

3.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

Speed of Machine 1

with SVC

0.98

1.5

0.5

3.5

2.5

V SVC (pu)

No SVC
with SVC

B SVC (pu /200 MVA)

Voltage at SVC Bus

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

SVC Susceptance

with SVC

No SVC
0

1.5

0.5

2.5
Time (s)

3.5

Figure 3 Impact of SVC on stability of the two-machine system for a 3-phase fault
4. DSTATCOM simulation using the average and detailed modeling techniques
The second example uses a custom power controller to compare the average and detailed modeling techniques. The
PSB diagram shown in Figure 4 represents a 25-kV distribution network with a load connected at bus B4 (600 V). A
3-Mvar D-STATCOM is connected at bus B3. The D-STATCOM is used to regulate the bus voltage by absorbing or
generating reactive power to the network.The PSB diagram shows the following components:
a 25/2.5-kV coupling transformer which ensures the coupling between the PWM inverter and the network
a voltage-source PWM inverter consisting of two IGBT bridges. This twin inverter conguration produces less
harmonics resulting in smaller lters and improved dynamic response. In this case, the inverter modulation frequency is 1.68 kHz so that the rst harmonics will be around 3.36 kHz.
a group of lters consisting of a series inductance of 800 H connected at the output of Bridge 1 and a capacitor of 100 F in series with a resistance to provide a quality factor of 40 at 60 Hz. This RC lter is connected to
the secondary side of the coupling transformer.
a 10000-F capacitor acting as a DC voltage source for the inverter
a voltage regulator that controls the voltage at Bus B3
a PWM pulse generator using a modulation frequency of 1.68 kHz
anti-aliasing lters used for voltage and current acquisition
D STATCOM
25kV, +/ 3Mvar

Ts=1/60/360/8

B1

B2

Tr1

A A

A A

B B

B B

C C

C C

B3

1 MW

Variable
Load

C1
C C

C2

C1+
B C+

B2
B1
A B

C2+

B1+
C+ B+

A2
A1

B2+

A1+

B+ A

Filter

pulses

pulses

Bridge1

Iabc

Bridge2
VaIa

P2

1
Multimeter
(DC Link)

Load
(Y)

Vabc
P1

Iabc_B3

A+ A+

A2+

3 MW
0.2 Mvar

Vabc_B3

A A
B B
C C

A
B
C

BB

CC

Feeder
2 km

Feeder
21 km

AA

25 kV, 100MVA
System

A
B
C

PSB
Prog. Source

B4
a
b
c
n

A
B
C

Discrete system
Ts=5.787e006

Vdc

DC Link

Va_Inv
Iq_Iqref

Statcom
controller

PQ
Vdc
m

VaIa (pu)
Va Inv (V)

P,Q (MVA)

Vdc (V)
m

Data Acquisition

Figure 4 PSB diagram of a 3 Mvar DSTATCOM on a 25-kV distribution network

3
490
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

Sig1

Iq,Iqref (pu)

Sig2

Waveforms of Figure 5 show the dynamic performance of the DSTATCOM when a voltage step is applied on the 25kV equivalent .The reactive current component Iq and the instantaneous current waveform are shown respectively on
traces 1 and 3. Trace 2 shows the DC bus voltage variation and trace 4 shows the output voltage of the voltage converter. Two simulations have been performed: 1) simulation using the average modeling technique (IGBT converter
simulated by voltage sources, using a 5.8 s time step and 2) detailed simulation including all IGBT switches using a
time step 8 times larger (46.3 or s). Results are compared on each trace of Figure 5. The difference between the two
simulation methods is clearly shown on the last trace showing the PWM chopped voltage superimposed with its average value. Result show no noticeable difference during transients, proving that the average modeling technique provides a substantial speed gain, while preserving the network/control interactions.

Iq (pu)

Vdc (V)

1
0.18
2600

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

0.215

0.22

0.225

0.23

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

0.215

0.22

0.225

0.23

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

0.215

0.22

0.225

0.23

0.185

0.19

0.195

0.2

0.205

0.21

0.215

0.22

0.225

0.23

2400

2200
0.18

Ia STAT

Va Inv (V)

1
0.18
2000

2000

0.18

Figure 5 Comparison of responses to a step change of source voltage

5. Conclusion
This presentation has described the real-time and off-line simulation tools used in Hydro-Quebec Power System Simulation laboratory. Hypersim is the ultimate simulation method because it allows real-time testing of FACTS controllers (either prototypes developed with RTW or industrial controllers) or fast off-line simulation on a multiprocesseur
system. Also, the three simulation methods available in PSB are efcient techniques for design and analysis of complex control systems found in FACTS and custom power controllers.

4
491
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE