FACTS models for stability studies in DIgSILENT
Power Factory
Esteban D. Agüero Jaime C. Cepeda
Instituto de Energía Eléctrica (IEE) Corporación Centro Nacional de
Universidad Nacional de San Juan Control de Energía
(UNSJ) - CONICET CENACE
San Juan, Argentina Quito, Ecuador
eaguero@iee.unsj.edu.ar jcepeda@cenace.org.ec
Abstract—This work describes a methodology to including the
following FACTS models devices: SVC, TCSC, SSSC,
STATCOM and POD, in DIgSILENT Power Factory program,
for its application in electric power systems stability studies. The
implementation methodology included four stages. In the first
stage those models used to represent FACTS in stability studies
were selected. In the second stage, a dynamic behavior expressed
in state space was programmed through the simulation language
DSL. In a third stage, was determined the mathematical
formulation to calculate the initial state value. The fourth stage
consist in determining those mathematical expressions that relate
the physical magnitudes of the system, which are wanted to
modify with parameters or control signal from the FACTS
model. The results obtained confirmed the correct
implementation of models in Power Factory program and showed
in which way FACTS devices contribute to improve power
system stability.
Index Terms—Stability, FACTS, model implementation, Power
Factory, power system.
I. INTRODUCTION
An electric power system (EPS) properly designed and
operated must meet certain requirements that allow a
continuous supply of demand at minimum cost and with the
least environmental impact. In addition, the power supply must
be made under satisfaction of generalized quality standards
regarding frequency, voltage and reliability. In order to achieve
the required standards, complex arrangements of control
devices are required. These system controllers, among which
stand out the Flexible Alternating Current Transmission
System (FACTS) devices that individually operate on the bulk
power system elements and should be included as part of the
power system modeling in simulation programs.
The addition of a new device in the transmission grid
requires several studies to verify the technical and economic
feasibility of its implementation. These studies should consider
the analysis of the system under normal operation and under
contingencies, for a wide variety of operating conditions,
including maintenance situations.
Thus, for the installation of FACTS devices in the
transmission network, dynamic analysis concerning stability
978-1-4799-6251-8/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
Delia G. Colomé
Instituto de Energía Eléctrica (IEE)
Universidad Nacional de San Juan
(UNSJ) - CONICET
San Juan, Argentina
colome@iee.unsj.edu.ar
simulation has to be carried out as part of the mentioned
studies. These dynamic studies are important for proper system
planning and operation, and the obtained results allow taking
the right steps to prevent the system from operating in unstable
conditions that might eventually push the system to a partial or
total collapse [1].
Stability studies evaluate the impact of disturbances on the
dynamic behavior of power systems using simulation
programs, among which stand out DIgSILENT Power Factory,
which additionally presents the particularity to simulate the
dynamics via instantaneous values (EMT) and RMS values.
Although Power Factory has several dynamic models
belonging to a number of power system components, its model
library does not include a sufficient variety of dynamic models
of FACTS devices. Only the model of the Static Var System
(SVS) is already included in its library [2].
However, in addition to typical functions for power system
analysis, DIgSILENT Power Factory offers versatility to model
new components by using its programming language DSL
(DIgSILENT Simulation Language) [2].
In this connection, the objective of this paper is to
implement the dynamic models of some of those FACTS
devices currently in extended use around the world. These
include: SVC (Static Var Compensator) [3], TCSC (Thyristor
Controlled Series Compensator) [4], SSSC (Static Synchronous
Series Compensator) [4], STATCOM (Static Synchronous
Compensator) [4]. Additionally, POD (power oscillation
damper) is also incorporated into the models in order to
improve oscillatory conditions [5]. The models that will be
described correspond to the so called simplified models that are
designed to be used in stability studies of electric power
systems (i.e. electromechanical transients).
The outline of the paper is as follows: Section II details the
principal programming characteristics through use of
simulation language DSL. Section III undertakes the most
complex task of implementation, to resolve the link between
the electric component that represents the FACTS devices in
the system and the control model. Finally Section IV tests the
correct functioning of the models programmed through the
simulations in the time domain and steady-state analysis of the
WSCC 3-machine, 9-bus, 60 Hz test system.
 II. MODELING IN POWER FACTORY
DIgSILENT Simulation Language allows programming
control models of any power system element, including
protection devices, as well as it permits developing other
components or routines oriented to run together with the time
domain simulations.
DSL language uses the modeling of block diagrams (or
transfer functions in terms of Laplace or frequency domain) in
order to develop a DSL model, since this is the most common
way to find information regarding control devices.
There are two ways of developing a DSL model [2]:
 Through DSL simulation language code.
 Via graphical interface using predefined blocks in the
program.
The basic difference between the two methods is that in the
second case, there is no direct contact with the DSL language,
since the equations and language are immersed in the
predefined blocks in the program library.
To generate the model of a controller of some device or
element of a power system, capable of running inside the time-
domain simulation, it is vital to bear in mind the scheme
observed in Fig. 1.
A Composite Model is a “mask” used to administrate the
models associated to a machine or a system which selects all of
the models and elements wanting to be related. The Composite
Model is represented by means of a Composite Frame, which is
a block diagram that interrelate the distinct objects of the
control system defined by the composite model. On the other
hand, the composite model can be formed by a “Common
Model”, measuring devices and the network objects requiring
control.
A Common Model combines general models in the time
domain or equations with a set of parameters and creates an
integrated model in the time domain. The Common Model is
graphically represented by means of a “Block Diagram” that
includes the transfer functions and control system equations to
be implemented. The Block Diagram must also be composed
by “Macros” representing the distinct control system transfer
functions.
These Macros allow for definition of: input signals, output
signals, parameters, internal variables, state equations, state
variables, and minimum/maximum limits.
In the Macros, contrary to the Composite Block Diagram,
the initial conditions remain undefined.
III. FACTS IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of FACTS models requires resolving the
link between the electric component representing the FACTS
devices and the corresponding control model. This adaptation
consists in determining the mathematical expressions which
relate the physical magnitudes of the system that are modified
by the parameters or control signals of each FACTS model
[6].
Composite Composite
Frame Model
Block Diagram
Common Measurement
EPS Objects
Model Device
Fig. 1. DSL scheme
The FACTS controllers for stability studies are represented
by simplified models that capture the correct controller
response to the fundamental frequency. This type of modeling
assumes simplifications, such as: not modeling the power
electronics converter and not modeling the converter firing-
control systems [7] y [8]. These types of simplified models are
implemented via DSL.
The selection of the models representing FACTS in
stability studies is firstly necessary to be specified in order to
study the main features of each device and analyze the
improvements introduced to the system [9-13].
TCSC Implementation
The TCSC operates as a series controlled reactance, whose
objective is to compensate the transmission line impedance. In
this connection, the TCSC acts on specific dynamic problems
in transmission systems. First, it allows increasing the
damping in the interconnection of large power systems.
Furthermore, it is able to overcome the problem of sub-
synchronous resonance, which involves the interaction of large
thermal generation units with series compensated transmission
systems. The high switching speed of the TCSC provides a
mechanism to control the power flow in the transmission lines,
which allows increasing the load with the existing grid, and
also provides the possibility of quick power flow adjustment
in response to several contingencies that may occur in the
system. The TCSC can also regulate the steady-state power
flow to keep it within the system physical limits [11] y [13].
The TCSC can be modeled as a variable reactance (XTCSC)
in series with the transmission line. The variation of XTCSC
allows regulating the active power flow through the line and
increasing the damping of power oscillations.
The modeling of a TCSC can be composed by different
control types which allow the following functions:
 Control of active power flow through the line and
enhance the small signal stability of the system.
 Improvement of transient stability.
 Decrease of line short circuit currents.
From these types of control strategies, the controller that
allows the power flow control is modelled in this work [4].
Fig. 2 illustrates a block diagram for controlling power flows
and possible oscillatory conditions. This diagram consists of a
PI (Proportional-Integral) controller and a first order delay.
The purpose of this control is to modify the reactance of the
line to maintain a constant power flow.
 x cmax uk um
Pkm u_POD TCSC xkm
KI  UR 1 xc bTCSC ik im
Pref  Kp  
bTCSC  xc 
s 1  sTr

x cmin
Fig. 2. TCSC control block diagram
The output signal of the block diagram of the TCSC is the
susceptance (bTCSC), whose expression is [4]:
xc
xkm
bTCSC  xc   
 x
xkm  1  c
 xkm 
where Pref is the active power reference, Pkm is the active
power transmitted by the line between nodes k and m, u_POD
is the power oscillation damper (POD) signal, b TCSC is the
susceptance of the TCSC, xc is the control signal (output of the
first order delay), xkm is the line reactance between nodes k
and m, Kp is the proportional gain of the PI controller, K I is the
integral gain of the PI controller, T r is the first order delay time
constant, and Kr is the POD loop gain.
The operation of the TCSC control system permits
measuring the active power flow through the line (P km) and
comparing it with the active power reference (P ref). Thus,
when Pkm is higher than Pref, the control reactance xc is
negative, which means that b TCSC is positive. This means that
the equivalent reactance of the line increases, causing a
decrease of the transmitted active power (simulating the effect
of increasing the line length). On the contrary if P km is lower
than Pref, then xc is positive, which means that bTCSC is
negative; therefore, the equivalent reactance of the line
decreases causing an increase in the transmitted power
(behaves as if the line length be shortened).
TCSC implementation in DIgSILENT Power Factory is
performed through a fixed series capacitor in parallel with a
controlled series reactor (Thyristor Controlled Reactor-TCR).
For this configuration, the variable to be controlled is the
value of the input reactance of the series reactor ElmSind (xin)
given in ohm [14]. Fig. 3 shows the TCSC scheme in series
with the line.
Keeping in mind the configuration in Fig. 3, the reactance
total (xT) is:
xT  xkm  xTCSC
Fig. 3. Line and the TCSC
From (3), and considering that xcap is a-priori defined (i.e.
the fixed capacitor does not change its reactance, which is
appropriately chosen depending on typical available values), it
is possible to determine the expression that relates xin as a
function of bTCSC.
(1)
 xcap
xin   (4)
bTCSC  xcap  1
Since the reactor in parallel with the fixed capacitor might
eventually make up together a resonance circuit, it is necessary
to ensure that the xTCSC does not surpass determined minimum
and maximum thresholds. For instance, Fig. 4 shows the plot
xTCSC = f(xin), considering that the fixed capacitor presents a
capacitance of 2,000 F (xcap = -1.3263 ). See the existence
of a “not-allowed operating zone”, where xTCSC acquires
extremely high values (i.e. parallel resonance).
From Fig. 4, it is possible to appreciate the necessity of
limiting the TCSC operating zone so that xTCSC  [xTCSCmin,
xTCSCmax]. This fact highlights the requirement of specifying a
limit of line compensation.
In this connection, and in order to ensure the system
stability, it is recommended to compensate up to a maximum
compensating fraction (C) of the line reactance nominal value
(xkm), both in the capacitive (Ccap) and inductive (Cind) TCSC
operating zones. Therefore, xTCSC will be in the range given by
(5).
Ccap  xkm  xTCSC  Cind  xkm (5)
Based on system experiences, a rational compensating
fraction might be 0.3 (30% of xkm).
From (5), it is easy to determine that the TCSC
susceptance bTCSC will satisfy the following relations:
1 1
bTCSC    bTCSC  (6)
Cind  xkm Ccap  xkm
300
(2)
Reactance of TCSC [ohm]

200
Moreover, the xTCSC reactance is the parallel equivalent
between the capacitor and the reactor reactances, and its 100
expression is: Not-allowed
operating zone

j  xTCSC  j
1

 j  x   j  x  
cap in xcap  x in
j
xcap  x in
0
(3)
bTCSC j  xin  j  xcap j  xin  xcap  x in  xcap 
-100

where xcap is the reactance of the fixed capacitor ElmScap, xin

-200
is the controlled reactance of variable reactor ElmSind, and 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
bTCSC is the total TCSC susceptance (bTCSC = 1/xTCSC) Reactance of Reactor [ohm]

Fig. 4. TCSC operating zone

 Replacing (1) in (6), and after solving the inequations, the Furthermore, a control loop belonging to the Power
range of xc (output of the first order delay) can be determined Oscillation Damper (POD) is also depicted in TCSC controller
as follows: (i.e. u_POD input). The POD function is to allow the power
oscillations’ damping increase during the dynamic response.
xkm xkm
 xC  (7) The POD employed in this paper is a simple linear
1  Cind 1  Ccap
controller which consists of a washout filter, a dynamic lead-
Therefore, the limits of the first order delay x cmax and xcmin lag compensator of one or more stages, and a static limiter [5].
are: The washout filter serves to prevent the controller to
response in the face of steady-state variations of input signal,
xkm xkm
xc min   xC max  (8) i.e. to allow the controller only acts when there are transient
1  Cind 1  Ccap
perturbations. The washout filter used in this controller is a
These last presented limits allow ensuring the line high-pass filter. The dynamic compensator consists of one or
compensation does not exceed the pre-defined thresholds, and more lead-lag blocks providing the necessary phase lead to
also the TCSC actually operates outside the not-allowed zone. increase the synchronizing and damping torques. Finally, the
As explained beforehand, in DIgSILENT Power Factory, static limiter restricts the control signal within the permissible
the TCSC is implemented via the adequate control of the input range of the equipment operation.
reactance of the series reactor ElmSind (xin) [14]. Thus, xin is For the TCSC case, the POD input signal is the active
the signal to be controlled (i.e. the required output of the DSL power transmitted by the line.
model of the controllers). Then, it is necessary to replace the Initialization equations representing the POD model are:
last block of the controllers (i.e. the block that computes b TCSC inc( x1 )  p
from the control signal xc, shown in Fig. 2) by a block that
inc( x2 )  0
allows establishing the relationship between the control signal (12)
xc and xin (i.e. the available signal to be controlled in the inc( x3 )  0
Power Factory object ElmSind). For this purpose, the existence inc(u _ POD)  0
equivalency between (1) and the inverse of (3) can be used, as
shown by (9). Fig. 5 shows the Composite Frame that allows the TCSC
control. It is composed by slots representing the line power
xc measurements, the DSL block diagrams of TCSC and POD
xkm xin  xcap
  (9) controllers, and the controlled reactor.
xkm  1  c
x  xcap  x in Finally, the corresponding TCSC composite model is
 xkm 
structured and each EPS object, power measurement devices
After several simplifications, it is possible to obtain from (StaPqmea) and DSL common models ElmDsl (belonging to
(9) the expression that relates xin with the control signal xc, as TCSC and POD block diagrams) are adequately addressed.
follows:
IV. SIMULATIONS
xcap  xkm  xcap  xc In order to test the correct functioning of the programmed
xin 
xcap  xc (10) the FACTS devices, dynamic and steady-state analysis in the
 xkm  xc
xkm WSCC 3-machine, 9-bus, 60 Hz test system [15], were
This last expression will be introduced in a block that performed. The test system consists of 3 synchronous
replaces the last block presented in Fig. 2, i.e. bTCSC(xc). It is generators equipped with automatic voltage regulators (AVRs)
worth mentioning that, while xcap, xkm and xc are in per unit, xin and governors (GOVs).
has to be in ohm (since it is the signal specification of the A. Voltage stability analysis
reactor ElmSind reactance in Power Factory); thus, (10) has to An interesting aspect to analyze is the incorporation of a
be additionally multiplied by the base impedance (zbase). shunt-type FACTS device to improve the voltage stability.
This block diagram includes an additional Filter whose Therefore, a STATCOM or SVC is considered to be installed
function is to prevent the problems of numerical integration at Bus 5. In this event, the FACTS controller injects reactive
errors occur during the search for steady-state value. power in order to compensate the voltage drop at Bus 5.
Initialization equations representing the TCSC model
(included in the DSL block) are:
xin  xcap
  xcap  xkm
zbase
inc( x1 ) 
x x x
xcap  in cap  in
zbase  xkm zbase (11)
inc( x2 )   x1
inc( p _ ref )  p
inc(u _ POD)  0 Fig. 5. Composite Frame
 1.1
The voltage stability over the long-term is verified by
means of calculation of the PV curves for each of the bus in 1

the system (except for the generation bus), increasing the load 0.9
with the constant power factor.

Voltage [pu]
0.8
Fig. 6 presents the PV curves for Bus 5 without
compensation devices, and with the SVC and the STATCOM. 0.7

See that shunt compensator incorporation improves the bus 0.6

Without Compensator
voltage substantially, increasing voltage stability margin (70 0.5 FACTS with POD
MW with SVC and 90 MW with STATCOM). In addition, it FACTS without POD
0.4
improves voltage level in the other system bus. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
Subsequently, it examines the voltage stability in the short-
term by simulating three-phase short circuit applied in Line 5- Fig. 7. Bus 5 voltage
7 at 1 s, followed by the opening of the line at 1.1 s.
Fig. 7 shows the FACTS compensation after the D. Small signal stability analysis
occurrence of the short circuit. Note how the STATCOM About small signal stability, modal analysis was used to
controls the voltage of the connection bus in order to recover determine the eigenvalues and identify the oscillatory modes.
the initial voltage level. In addition, the POD allows The only oscillation modes analyzed were between 0.1 and
controlling the oscillations that actually occur after the 3 Hz. The simulation with FACT device is observed that all of
contingency. the modes analyzed are stable because the real part of the
B. Transient stability analysis eigenvalue (σ) is negative.
Afterwards, to analyze the transient stability of the system This is also verified by inclusion of the POD FACTS
with the incorporation of FACTS devices, it simulated a three- controllers resulting in an increase in the oscillation mode
phase short circuit in t=1 s. The fault is produced at Line 5-7 damping rate.
varying the critical fault-clearing time of the breaker to E. Power flow control
analyze the performance of the system without compensation Moreover, a TCSC or SSSC has been implemented in
and with FACTS devices. series with Line 7-8 at Bus 7. The considered contingency is a
C. Transient stability analysis load event consisting on increasing 3% of load C at Bus 8,
Afterwards, to analyze the transient stability of the system applied at 1 s.
with the incorporation of FACTS devices, it simulated a three- Fig. 9 shows the active power flow response after the load
phase short circuit in t=1 s. The fault is produced at Line 5-7 event. It can be shown how the TCSC allow controlling the
varying the critical fault-clearing time of the breaker to power flow through the line in order to keep the same pre-
analyze the performance of the system without compensation contingency power flow. Moreover, the action of the POD is
and with FACTS devices. also highlighted provoking more damped oscillations and with
Fig. 8 shows the response Generator 2 rotor angle after the lower amplitudes.
short circuit. In the system with some FACTS devices In order to compare the TCSC and SSSC behavior, it can
connected, the machine does not lose synchronism while in the be noted that SSSC presents a faster response than TCSC to
uncompensated system, it presents instability in the presence compensate the power transfer in the line. This quick response
of some faults. is due to the fact that SSSC is based on GTO converters and
The improvement obtained in transient stability with series direct current (DC) energy storage, which give a quicker
devices, TCSC and SSSC, is notably greater than that obtained response than the commutation of reactors or capacitors
with shunt devices, allowing for a critical clearing time (which are the base of a TCSC).
3
increase in the opening of the line breaker. 2.5
Without Compensation
1.02
FACTS
1 2
Rotor Angle [rad]

0.98 1.5

0.96
Voltage [pu]

1
0.94
0.5
0.92
0
0.9
20 MW
Without Compensator 70 MW -0.5
0.88
SVC
0.86 -1
STATCOM 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.84 Time [s]
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Active Power [MW] Fig. 8. Generator 2 rotor angle
Fig. 6. PV curves for Bus 5
 78.5
Some simulations have also been presented in order to
show the dynamic behavior of the implemented controllers
78
with the objective of improving the system security considering
two types of contingencies, that is a load event, and a three-
Active Power [MW]

77.5
Without Compensation phase short circuit. The results obtained confirm that the
With TCSC and POD
With TCSC
models have been correctly implemented within the Power
77
Factory program and clearly demonstrate how the FACTS
devices contribute to improve the security levels of the system.
76.5

76
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time[s]
Fig. 9. Line 7-8 active power
F. Short-circuit currents limitations
Finally, this research work examines the capacity of the
series compensations to reduce the short circuit currents. To
do so, it analyzed a three-phase short circuit in Line 7-8,
followed by the line opening.
Fig. 10 shows the instant short circuit phase A current for
Line 7-8. The attenuation of the short circuit currents is
achieved through the increase of the reactance equivalent of
the line in the case of TCSC, and by means of the increase of
tension injected by the SSSC.
It can be observe that with SSSC a greater reduction of the
short circuit current is obtained, in regard to the TCSC, due to
its greater compensation capacity.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The methodology to incorporate new control system models
in DIgSILENT Power Factory offers great versatility and
simplicity. This type of programming offers the option of
controlling different available library objects in order to model
other components of the system that are not actually included
in Power Factory, such as FACTS devices, wind generation, or
photovoltaic generators (as in the case of the Static Generator).
In this paper, guideline to implement the simplified model
of TCSC has been described in detail. The FACTS devices
correspond to thyristor-based controllers or power converter-
based controllers, such as SVC, TCSC, SSSC and STATCOM.
For illustrative purposes, the implemented controllers
correspond to those simple models presented by [4].
Nevertheless, the presented guidelines can be used in order to
incorporate whatever controllers, even those of commercial
devices.
600
Without Compensation
400 TCSC
SSSC
200
0 REALISEGRID, pp. 1-109, August 2010.
Current [A]
REFERENCES
6 7 8 9 10 [1] J. J. Paserba, "How FACTS controllers benefit AC transmission
systems – phases of power system studies," IEEE Power
Systems Conference and Exposition, pp. 1-4, March 2009.
[2] DIgSILENT GmbH (2011) DIgSILENT Power Factory Version
14.1 User’s Manual V1, Gomaringen, Germany, May.
[3] F. Milano, “Power System Modelling and Scripting,” Springer-
Verlag London Limited, 2010.
[4] F. Milano, “Power System Analysis Toolbox Documentation for
PSAT,” version 2.0.0, February, 2008.
[5] A. Del Rosso, “Estrategias para el mejoramiento de la seguridad
dinámica de sistemas eléctricos,” Ph.D. Tesis, Universidad
Nacional de San Juan - Instituto de Energía Eléctrica, January
2002.
[6] E. D. Agüero, J. C. Cepeda, and D. G. Colomé, “Implementation
of FACTS models to carry out stability studies in Power Factory
program of DIgSILENT,” Book of Abstracts and Proceedings of
10th Latin American Congress on Electricity Generation and
Transmission, October 2013.
[7] Shan Jiang, U. D. Annakkage, and A. M. Gole, "A platform for
validation of FACTS models," IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol.21, no.1, pp. 484- 491, January 2006.
[8] D. Povh, “Modeling of FACTS in power system studies,” Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 1435-1439,
January 2000.
[9] A. A. Edris, Chair of Task force et al.: "proposed terms and
definitions for flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS),"
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1848-
1853, October 1997.
[10] W. Freitas, and A. Morelato, “A generalised current injection
approach for modelling of FACTS in power system dynamic
simulation,” AC-DC Power Transmission. Seventh International
Conference on, pp. 175-180, November 2001.
[11] X.-P. Zhang, C. Rehtanz, and B. Pal, ”Flexible AC transmission
systems: modelling and control,” Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, 2006.
[12] K. R. Padiyar, “FACTS controllers in power transmission and
distribution,” 1st ed. New Age International Publishers, 2007.
[13] S. Rüberg, et al., “Improving network controllability by Flexible
Alternating Current Transmission System (FACTS) and by High
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission systems,”

-200 [14] DIgSILENT GmbH (2007) Series Reactor TechRef ElmSind

-400
V1, Gomaringen, Germany, March.
-600
[15] P. M. Anderson, and A. A. Fouad, “Power system control and
stability,” 2nd ed. A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, 2003.
-800

-1000
0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08
Time [s]

Fig. 10. Short circuit phase A currents for Line 7-8