1
An Optimal Power Flow Control Method of
Power System by Interline Power Flow
Controller (IPFC)
S. Teerathana, non-Member, A. Yokoyama, Member, IEEE,
Y. Nakachi, non-Member, M. Yasumatsu, non-Member
Abstract-- The FACTS (Flexible AC Transmission System)
devices have been considered as excellent controllers in a power
system for better reliability and transmission capacity on a long-
term and cost-effective basis. Interline Power Flow Controller
(IPFC) is a new concept of the FACTS controller for series
compensation with the unique capability of power flow
management among multiple lines from a substation. Generally,
the IPFC employs multiple dc-to-ac inverters providing series
compensation for a different line respectively. As for the ability
of controlling power flows on multiple transmission lines by using
dc-to-ac inverters through common DC link, any inverters within
IPFC are able to inject active power to the connected
transmission line independently and thereby facilitate active
power transfer among the lines, together with independently
controllable reactive series compensation of each individual line.
This paper proposes the utilization of this apparatus, for
simplicity, which is applied to a test system, 6-machine 22-bus
test system with Optimal Power Flow (OPF) control method to
solve overload problem. The OPF control method for a satisfied
solution of the minimum cost and the entire power flow balance
is also discussed.
Index Terms--Power System, Flexible AC Transmission
Systems (FACTS), Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC),
Optimal Power Flow (OPF), Power Flow Control
I. INTRODUCTION
A pplication of FACTS (Flexible AC Transmission System)
device, a powerful controller, to a transmission system
has been considered as a satisfied solution of some problems
that in many regions it is becoming very difficult to construct
a new transmission line in order to avoid a power transmission
capacity limit of the existing transmission lines when
encountering, for instance, increase of power demand [1].
Voltage Sourced Converters (VSCs) based FACTS devices
compensate for both reactive and active power in term of the
Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM), shunt
compensation, as well as the Static Synchronous Series
Compensator (SSSC), series compensation. Due to
development of power electronics-based power flow controller
S. Teerathana and A. Yokoyama are with the Electrical Engineering
Department, the University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 113-
8656, Japan; (e-mail: yokoyama@syl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Y. Nakachi is with Chubu Electric Power Co. Inc. 20-1 Kitasekiyama
Odaka-cho, Midori-ku Nagoya-shi 459-8522, Japan
M. Yasumatsu is with Kyushu Electric Power Co. Inc. 1-82 Watanabe-
dori 2-chome, Chuo-ku Fukuoka 810-8720, Japan
recently it has been made clear that many problems of power
systems can be solved by combination of STATCOM and
SSSC, namely UPFC installed in a single line. While the
Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC) concept provides a
solution to control power flows in multiple transmission lines
at a given substation [2, 3]. Any converters within the IPFC
are able to transfer active power to any other ones and thereby
facilitate active power transfer among the lines, together
with independently controllable reactive compensation of
each individual line. In this case, the power flow among the
multiple series converters plays a key role to optimize the
required capacity at the minimum cost for overload
management. Here, the simplest model of the IPFC composing
two series converters is proposed. Then, we discuss a satisfied
solution by optimal power flow (OPF) control method, an
excellent tool for coping with power system management
under IPFC operation in a power system. In this paper, the
minimum capacity required for solving the overload problem
in a model of 6-machine 22-bus system is obtained.
II. INTER-LINE POWER CONTROLLER
It is expected that IPFC with two or more converters may
offer excellent voltage and power flow control management
different from the concept of the power flow control by the
well-known two-converter UPFC [4]. As is shown in Fig. 1
generally, IPFC is designed as a power flow controller with
two or more independently controllable static synchronous
series compensators (SSSC) which are solid-state voltage
source converters (VSCs) injecting an almost sinusoidal
voltage at variable magnitude and are linked via a common
DC capacitor. Conventionally, series capacitive compensation
based on fixed, thyristor controlled capacitor or SSSC is
Vi Vj
Static synchronous series
compensator (SSSC)
dc common
link
Static synchronous series
compensator (SSSC)
Vk
Fig. 1. Simplified schematic model of the IPFC
 2

employed to increase the transferable active power on a given 360 degree range, the end of voltage V pq moves along a circle
•

line and to balance the loading of a transmission network. with its center located at the end of voltage Vs . The area within
•

In addition, active power can be exchanged through these this circle defines the operating range of voltage V pq .
•

two series converters via the common DC link in IPFC. It is According to the equivalent circuit of the IPFC shown in
noted that the sum of the active powers outputted from VSCs Fig. 3, the power flow equations can be obtained as follows
to transmission lines should be zero when the losses of the [5]:
converter circuits can be ignored. A combination of the series
n
connected VSC can inject a voltage with controllable Pi = Vi2 g ii − ∑ Vi V j ( g ij cos( θ j − θ i ) + bij sin( θ j − θ i ))
magnitude and phase angle at the fundamental frequency j =1, j ≠ i
(1)
while DC link voltage can be maintained at a desired level. n
− ∑ ViVseij ( g ij cos( θ i − θseij ) + bij sin( θ i − θseij ))
The common dc link is represented by a bidirectional link for j =1, j ≠ i
active power exchange between voltage sources.
As is illustrated in Fig.2, a phasor diagram of voltage, for n
instance, controlled by one converter of IPFC defines the Qi = −Vi2 bii − ∑ ViV j ( g ij sin( θ j − θ i ) − bij cos( θ j − θ i ))
j =1, j ≠ i
relationship between sending end-voltage ( Vs ), receiving end-
•
(2)
n
voltage ( Vr ), the voltage across line impedance X ( V x ) and the
• •
− ∑ ViVseij ( g ij sin( θ i − θseij ) − bij cos( θ i − θseij ))
• j =1, j ≠i
inserted voltage V pq , with controllable magnitude and phase
•
angle. When V pq is added to the sending-end voltage, an
effective sending-end voltage would be received as Vseff = Vs
• • P ji = V j2 g jj − Vi V j ( g ij cos( θ j − θ i ) + bij sin( θ j − θ i ))
(3)
• • •
+ V pq .So the difference Vseff – Vr , sets the compensated + V j Vseij ( g ij cos( θ j − θseij ) + bij sin( θ i − θse ij ))
voltage or V x across reactance X. As ρ is varied over its full
•

Q ji = −V j2b jj − ViV j ( gij sin( θ j − θi ) − bij cos( θ j − θi ))

ρ + V jVseij ( gij sin( θ j − θseij ) − bij cos( θi − θseij ))
(4)

V pq V x According to the operating principle of the IPFC, active

power exchange between series connected inverters via the
common DC link is [6]:
n    
Vs Psum = ∑ Re Vse ij I ji   = 0 (5)
j =1 , j ≠ i    
Vr or
V seff
Psum =
n
 2
( ( 
∑  V seij g ij −V i V seij g in cos θ i −θ se ij − bij sin θ i −θ se ij 
j =1, j ≠ i  
) ( ))
I +
n
( ( )
∑ V j V se ij g in cos θ j −θ seij − bij sin θ j −θ se ij = 0 ( ))
j =1 , j ≠ i
(6)
V s V pq V seff V x
jx I Vr Under boundary constraints of injected voltage source as
− + Tr + − follows:

voltage source
leakage V min ≤ ≤ max
seij V seij V seij
(7)
converter
reactance jxline
θ min ≤ ≤ max
seij θ seij θ seij
(8)
Fig. 2. Phasor diagram of voltage control
where
Z seij V se ij g in + jbin = 1 / Zsein , g nn + jbnn = 1 / Zse nn (9)
V i V
+ − j
g ii = ∑ g in , bii = ∑ bin (10)
I ji n n

P ji + jQ ji and
P i + jQi Pji : active power flow from node j to node i
Re  Vseij I ji + Vseik I ki  = 0 θse : angle of injected voltage
  Vse : magnitude of injected voltage of FACTS controllers
Vk θ : bus angle
+ − V : bus voltage magnitude
I ki
Z seik V seik Pki + jQki

Fig. 3. Equivalent Circuit of the IPFC

 3

III. NONLINEAR OPTIMAL POWER FLOW CONTROL
The optimal power flow (OPF) is a very important
mathematical programming problem in the power engineering
field. In this paper, we propose the concept of OPF control
method for coping with an overload constraint in a
transmission network under IPFC operation. The entire set of
power flow equations are solved simultaneously with
minimization of the total capacity of the installed IPFC
required for solving the overloaded of the transmission lines.
We discuss a method for solving a nonlinear OPF problem
that can be formulated as:
Objective function:
minimize f ( x ) = PQ1 2 + PQ2 2 +
s.t.
hi ( x ) = 0
gi ( x ) ≤ 0
where
PQ : capacity of each VSCs of IPFC
h(x) : equality constraints such as bus power flow equations
under the IPFC operating and control.
g(x) : inequality constraints such as thermal line constraints
and voltage limitation.
x : (e, f)
e : the real part of bus voltage
f : the imaginary part of bus voltage
IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES IN MULTI-MACHINE
POWER SYSTEM
In this paper, the proposed Optimal Power Flow (OPF)
control method is applied to 6-machine 22-bus test system as
shown in Fig.4 for coping with overloaded problems. For
simplicity, IPFC with two converters applied to the test system
are focused and its minimum capacity at some critical
branches is discussed below.
In the simulation, leakage reactance of both two converters
is assigned at 0.01 in the overloaded power system. As a high
demand load, L5 is examined in different three conditions at
6.37[GW], 6.41[GW] and 6.46[GW]. Consequently, G5 is
needed to supply active power of 7.88[GW], 7.92[GW] and
7.97[GW] respectively. Therefore, this leads to the overload
(11) problem at branch 21 between the heavy load bus 21 serving
L5 and bus 20 that the active power flow through the branch
becomes more than its thermal constraint 2.784[GW] per line
(12) when its one circuit is tripped.
(13) When the test system is forced that the active power flow
over branch 21 is more than its thermal constraint 2.784 [GW]
per line by tripping one circuit simultaneously increasing load
demand at bus 5, the overload occurs.
Case 1: Overload occurs at branch no.21 due to its one circuit
trip. Installation of IPFC for a satisfactory solution at the
minimum capacity of two converters (PQ1 & PQ2) depends on
load demand and line current at each branch. Table1 showed
the simulation results by OPF method for the minimum
capacity of IPFC installed at branch no. 15&16, 16&17,
21&22, 17&21 and 17&22 respectively.

In case of IPFC with two converters, we consider simply G4 G3 G2

the sum of PQ1 and PQ2 squared as an objective function
shown below:
L2
2 2
  V −V −V    V −V 
L3
  i seij j    i seik − V k  17 16 15 14
PQ1 2 + PQ2 2 = V seij    + V seik  
[16] [19]

  Z ij    Z ik  [15]

      [19] [17]
G1
(14)
[20] [21] [22] [23]

As for the constraints, equality constraint is referred to (6) 19 20 21 22

while inequality constraints are divided into bus voltage L4

L5 L6
L1

constraint in (15) and transmission line thermal constraint of

the system in (16).
G5 G6
0.95Vi ≤ Vi ≤ 1.05Vi (15)
Fig. 4. 6-machine 22-bus power system model
Pij ≤ Pijmax (16) Table I: Data of generators and loads
Generator. P(GW) Load No. P(GW)
In optimization procedure, to solve the nonlinear problem
by using the successive quadratic algorithm there are 4 control G1 4.40 L1 1.45
variables at which the objective function is evaluated in case G2 3.11 L2 1.56
of IPFC with two converters. The control variables are set G3 0.27 L3 2.96
from the voltage of each of two converters in term of real and G4 1.23 L4 4.36
imaginary part. After all bus voltages reached their 7.88 6.37
convergence by Newton’s recursive algorithm, the process G5 7.92 L5 6.41
would begin to minimize the objective function in (14) until 7.97 6.46
all constraints in (15) and (16) are satisfied.
G6 0.95 L6 0.90
 4

0.27[GW] 0.27[GW]
16 16
0.34[GW]　→　-0.35[GW] 2.80[GW]　→　2.82[GW] 0.34[GW]　→　0.10[GW]
2.80[GW]　→　2.83[GW]

[16] Pex=0.03983[GW] [15] [16] [15]

3.41[GW]　→　3.19[GW]
3.41[GW]　→　2.75[GW]
[17] [17] Pex=000323[GW]
2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] 0.24[GW]　→　0.95[GW] 2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] 0.24[GW]　→　0.49[GW]

[21] [22] [21] [22]

21 21

L5 =6.46[GW]
L5 =6.46[GW]

Fig. 9. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.22 & 17 for
Fig. 5. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.15 & 16 to
overload at branch no.21
overload at branch no.21

0.27[GW]
0.27[GW]
2.79[GW]　→　2.80[GW] 16 0.40[GW]　→　0.20[GW]
16
2.80[GW]　→　2.83[GW] 0.34[GW]　→　0.26[GW]
[16] [15]
[16] [15]
3.41[GW]　→　3.27[GW]
Pex=0.01081[GW] 3.41[GW]　→　3.36[GW] [17]
[17]
2.81[GW]　→　2.784[GW] Pex=0.0089[GW] 0.19[GW]　→　0.41[GW]
2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] 0.24[GW]　→　0.32[GW]
[21] [22]
[21] [22] 21
21

L5 =6.46[GW]
L5 =6.46[GW]
Fig. 10. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.21 & 22 when
Fig. 6. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.16 & 17 for one circuit trip of branch 22 during overload at branch 21
overload at branch no.21

0.27[GW]
0.27[GW]
16
16 2.79[GW]　→　2.81[GW] 0.40[GW]　→　0.27[GW]
2.79[GW]　→　2.82[GW] 0.34[GW]　→　0.099[GW]
[16] [15]
[16] [15]
Pex=0.00625[GW] 3.41[GW]　→　3.35[GW]
3.41[GW]　→　3.18[GW]
[17]
[17] 2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] 0.19[GW]　→　0.33[GW]
2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] Pex=0.00705[GW] 0.24[GW]　→　0.50[GW]
[21] [22]
[21] [22] 21
21
L5 =6.46[GW]
L5 =6.46[GW]
Fig. 11. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.21 & 17 when
Fig. 7. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.21 & 22 for one circuit trip of branch 22 during overload at branch 21
overload at branch no.21
As is shown in Table2, to solve the problem of overload at
branch 21 by using the minimum capacity of IPFC, it would
0.27[GW]
be a great way to install one converter of IPFC at the branch
16
2.80[GW]　→　2.82[GW] 0.34[GW]　→　0.17[GW] 21, the overloaded line. As for the other converter installation,
[15] the total required capacity of IPFC does not make a big
[16]
3.41[GW]　→　3.25[GW]
difference between installations of branches from the same
Pex=0.00473[GW] [17] bus 21, branches 17 and 22.Figs.5 to 9 illustrates only active
2.805[GW]　→　2.784[GW] 0.24[GW]　→　0.43[GW] power flows when IPFC is employed to solve the overload
[21] [22] problem at branch no.21. It can be seen from Figs.5 to 9 that
21 each of converters is adjusted at a proper magnitude and phase
angle of the inserted voltage so that the sum of active powers
L5 =6.46[GW] exchanged between two series converters via the common
DC link becomes zero if we can neglect the losses of the
Fig. 8. Active Power flow controlled by IPFC at branch no.21 & 17 for converter circuits.
overload at branch no.21
 5

As is shown in Fig. 5, to solve the overload problem so that
active power flow in branch 21 become less than 2.784[GW],
the IPFC with two converters installed at branches no.15 and
16 respectively provides a capability to change the direction of
power flow over branch 15 into the inverse direction.
Case2: The same system model as in case 1 is still used here.
One circuit of branch 22 in the other loop is forced to be
tripped one circuit during overload line at branch 21 caused by
its one circuit trip. By the proposed OPF method, the
minimum capacities of IPFC inserted at various branches are
obtained as shown in Table3.
Figures 10 and 11 show the active power flow under IPFC
operation at branch 21&22 and branch 17&21 and the
transferred power between two converters.
It can be seen that to locate one converter of IPFC at
overloaded line should be the first step to solve the problem
before installation of the other converter at another lines from
the same bus. Also, Table 2 shows that one converter should
be installed at branch 21 and then the other one may be at
branch 17or branch22 both of which are underloaded.
Although the total required capacity in case of two converters
installed at branch 17 and branch 21 is smaller than at branch
21 and branch 22, the exchanged power between two series
converters in branch 21 and branch 22 becomes larger at every
load demand at load 5. That the power flow on branch 22 in
normal condition is less than that on branch 17 offers more
transferable power flow on branch 22. In addition to the
condition that the power flow goes worse, for instance, when
one circuit trips, the total required capacity becomes larger as
illustrated in Tables 2 and 3.

Table II: Capacity of IPFC in case of overload at branch 21 Table III: Capacity of IPFC in case of overload at both branches 21 & 22

Branch Converter IPFC exchange Branch Converter IPFC exchange

Load 5 Load 5
IPFC with capacity capacity active power IPFC with capacity capacity active power
(GW) (GW)
IPFC (MVA) (MVA) (MW) IPFC (MVA) (MVA) (MW)
PQ1 15 51.22 PQ1 15 46.71
264.03 32.83 273.52 36.22
PQ2 16 212.81 PQ2 16 226.81
PQ1 16 154.02 PQ1 16 158.66
266.13 9.76 275.3 9.73
PQ2 17 112.11 PQ2 17 116.64
PQ1 21 6.42 PQ1 21 11.17
6.37 9.27 1.74 6.37 16.13 2.95
PQ2 22 2.85 PQ2 22 4.96
PQ1 21 4.99 PQ1 21 8.72
8.76 1.09 15.25 2.04
PQ2 17 3.77 PQ2 17 6.53
PQ1 22 4.32 PQ1 22 7.46
12.79 0.75 22.35 1.02
PQ2 17 8.47 PQ2 17 14.89
PQ1 15 53.95 PQ1 15 48.8
284.09 35.85 294.6 40.58
PQ2 16 230.14 PQ2 16 245.8
PQ1 16 165.37 PQ1 16 170.86
285.77 10.24 296.45 10.1
PQ2 17 120.4 PQ2 17 125.59
PQ1 21 15.11 PQ1 21 20.21
6.41 21.53 4.02 6.41 28.71 5.27
PQ2 22 6.42 PQ2 22 8.5
PQ1 21 11.66 PQ1 21 15.62
20.37 2.61 27.19 3.75
PQ2 17 8.71 PQ2 17 11.57
PQ1 22 9.69 PQ1 22 12.78
29.84 1.78 40.05 1.87
PQ2 17 20.15 PQ2 17 27.27
PQ1 15 57.24 PQ1 15 51
310.32 39.83 322.14 46.31
PQ2 16 253.08 PQ2 16 271.14
PQ1 16 180.25 PQ1 16 186.1
311.59 10.81 323.14 10.56
PQ2 17 131.34 PQ2 17 137.04
PQ1 21 26.59 PQ1 21 32.04
6.46 37.32 7.05 6.46 44.27 8.9
PQ2 22 10.73 PQ2 22 12.23
PQ1 21 20.38 PQ1 21 24.68
35.41 4.73 42.51 6.25
PQ2 17 15.03 PQ2 17 17.83
PQ1 22 16.45 PQ1 22 19.54
52.23 3.23 63.44 3.01
PQ2 17 35.78 PQ2 17 43.9

V. CONCLUSION
A model of Interline Power Flow Controller, a new type of
inverter-based FACTS controllers which is applied for optimal
power flow control was discussed. Similar to the STATCOM,
SSSC, and UPFC, the IPFC also employs the voltage-sourced
converters linked back-to-back through a dc common
capacitor. However, all of FACTS devices aim at
compensation of a single transmission line, while the IPFC is
able to manage power flow for the compensation of multiple
transmission lines. IPFC with two converters installed through
series transformer to compensate for active power between
two lines outward from the same bus is focused on coping
with overload problem. By mean of OPF control method to
obtain the minimum of total required capacity, it is noted that
at first one converter should be inserted into the overloaded
line and then the other one should be located at the loaded line
from the same bus. The severe power flow condition becomes,
the more total required capacity is needed.
6
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Klaus Habur and Donal O’Leary “FACTS for Cost Effective and
Reliable Transmission of Electrical Energy, ” ---
[2] Laszlo Gyugyi, Kalyan k.Sen, Colin D. Schauder, “The Interline Power
Flow Controller Concept: A New Approach to Power Flow Management
in Transmission System,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.14, no.3, pp.
1115-1123, 1999
[3] Jianhong Chen, Tjing T.Lie, D.M. Vilathgamuwa , “Design of An
Interline Power Flow Controller”, 14th PSCC, Sevilla, Spain, June 24-28,
2002
[4] N.G. Hingorani, L. Gyugyi “Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems,” Wiley-IEEE Press,
1999
[5] Xiao-Ping Zhang, Edmund Handschin, “Transfer Capability
Computation of Power Systems with Comprehensive Modeling of Facts
Controllers,” 14th PSCC, Sevilla, Spain, June 24-28, 2002
[6] Xuan Wei, Joe H. Chow, B. Fardanesh, and Abdel-Aty Edris, “A
Dispatch Strategy for An Interline Power Flow Controller Operating at
Rated Capacity,” 14th PSCC, Sevilla, Spain, June 24-28, 2002