International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems

IJRCS Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

ISSN 2775-2658
http://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/ijrcs

Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal

Conditions Using Three Different FACTS Devices
Ibram Y. Fawzy a,1, Mahmoud A. Mossa a,2,*, Ahmed M. Elsawy a,3, Ahmed A. Zaki Diab a,4

a Electrical
Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Minia 61111, Egypt
1ibramyehia@yahoo.com; 2 mahmoud_a_mossa@mu.edu.eg; 3 ahmed.elsawy@mu.edu.eg; 4 a.diab@mu.edu.eg
* Corresponding Author

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

In this paper, a comparison between Flexible Alternating Current

Article history Transmission System (FACTS) devices including Static Synchronous
Received October 04, 2023 Compensator (STATCOM), Static Synchronous Series Compensator
Revised November 27, 2023
(SSSC) and Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) for providing a better
Accepted January 02, 2024
adaptation to changing operating conditions and improving the usage of
current systems. The power system using FACTS devices is presented
Keywords
under different conditions such as single phase fault and three phase fault.
Power System;
Flexible Alternating Current
A digital simulation using Matlab/Simulink software package is carried out
Transmission System to demonstrate the better performance including the voltage and the current
(FACTS); of the presented system using FACTS that located between buses B1 and
Static Synchronous B2 under different faults types. The results obtained investigate that the
Compensator (STATCOM); presented system gives better response with FACTS as compared to not
Static Synchronous Series using them under abnormal conditions besides, the UPFC gives better
Compensator (SSSC); performance of power system under several faults as compared to
Unified Power Flow Controller STATCOM or SSSC as It can absorb reactive power in a manner which
(UPFC);
significantly reduced the fault current. It is demonstrated that UPFC can
Faults Types
reduce the peak fault current at bus B1 to 63.85% of its value without using
FACTS devices under line to ground fault and 79.18% under three line to
ground fault whereas STATCOM and SSSC reduce it to (75.21, 94.35%)
and (75.40, 94.68%), respectively.

This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license.

1. Introduction
The power system is getting more multifaceted day by day owing to increase in electric power
demand and the construction of new generating plants and transmission lines. Consequently, the
power system is forced to provide electric power close to their thermal limits [1]. A system that
generates and transfers electric power through a grid of electrical components to the customers is
known as power system. The power system control can be thought of as maintaining a balance
between power generation and load demand [2]. The technologies used in power systems are
continuously advancing so as the power system. The continuously evolving power system earn a more
ideal and beneficial procedure with regard to generation, transmission and distribution system [1].
Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems also known as FACTS technology is announced
by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in the last period of 1980s [3] to progress the system
stability, flow of power and to develop the reliability. Power System Stabilizers (PSS) have played a
spirited part in controlling and damping out fluctuations in power system [1]. Enhanced utilization of

https://doi.org/10.31763/ijrcs.v4i1.1229 ijrcs@ascee.org
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
2 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

the existing power system is provided through the application of FACTS devices which are operative
and capable of increasing the power transmission capacity of transmission lines helping power
systems to operate within comfortable stability margins [4][5]. FACTS devices are used in
transmission system for controlling and utilizing the flexibility and system performance. To
accomplish all, the addition of FACTS devices required in plant to control the main parameters like
voltage, impedance and phase angle, that is affecting AC power transmission. The power transmission
lines could be capable of supporting power transfer with comfortable and stable manner using FACTS
devices [4][5]. FACTS are considered the best solutions for enhancement electrical network's power
quality, reliability and efficiency [6].
The FACTS controllers are based on thyristor devices with only gate turn on ability and no gate
turn off ability [7]. They can be divided into three categories according to their connection: shunt
connected controllers such as Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM), series connected
controllers such as Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC) and combined series and shunt
connected controllers such as Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) [8]. UPFC is a device designed
to provide rapid acting reactive power compensation on the transmission networks. It can be used for
controlling active and reactive power flows in the transmission lines. It employs solid state devices
that offer purposeful flexibility, mostly not attainable by conventional thyristor controlled systems. It
is a combination of STATCOM and SSSC which are coupled through DC voltage link [9].
Fault current is referred to the instantaneous rise in current created by a short circuit or other fault
in the power network. Short circuits regularly happen between the lines together or the lines and the
ground in the three-phase transmission power system. Through a short-circuit fault, the current can
increase by up to 10 times the load currents. This will harmfully influence the power grid’s reliability
and efficiency. Transmission system and distribution network have regularly implemented FACTS
devices in order to improve and regulate reliability of power system [10]-[12].
The reviews of some literatures related to this paper are given as below;
D. Murali, M. Rajaram, and N. Reka (2010) presented dynamic performance of two zone power
system with and without UPFC. In this approach the UPFC is compared with other FACTS devices.
Several types of FACTS controllers and their performance characteristics have been described [13].
R. Somalwar and M. Khemariya (2012) presented FACTS devices for solving instability problems. .
The FACTS controller can also be used for power flow control and stability enhancement control. The
use of FACTS controller is investigated to improve the transient stability of the system [14]. S. T.
FADHIL, M. HAMAD, A. O. Arslan, and A. M. VURAL (2020) introduced the FACTS devices
working principles and control functions in addition to the simulation results of the system with
applying faults [15].
M. P. Donsion, J. Guemes, and J. Rodriguez (2007) studied FACTS devices for power quality
improvement. In this study impedance, current and voltage are improved using FACTS devices to
improve power system performance [16]. S. Panda (2010) introduced modeling and simulation of
SSSC multi-machine system to improve power system stability. In this approach the SSSC controller
is operative in damping a range of disturbance conditions in the power system [17]. S. Akter, A. Saha,
and P. Das (2012) presented modeling and simulation of some FACTS devices such as STATCOM,
SSSC and UPFC for power system stability improvement and enhancement of power transfer
capability [18].
T. U. Okeke and R. G. Zaher (2013) discussed essentially the importance of FACTS devices in
the networks and their technologies which are the earliest technology used-Static VAR Compensator
(SVC), and the most recent technology used-UPFC [19]. M. D. STOCHITOIU and I. UTU (2020)
presented the performance comparison of different FACTS devices as todays electricity demand
increases with the development of transmission networks. It creates an environment of competition
and bargaining power due to open market power and regulation [20]. S. Mirsaeidi, S. Devkota, X.
Wang, D. Tzelepis, G. Abbas, A. Alshahir, et al (2022) introduced a comprehensive review of existing
proposals to improve power system efficiency by adopting FACTS devices [21]. S. Khanchi and V.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 3
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

K. Garg (2013) presented a comprehensive review on UPFC which is one of FACTS devices . The
vital features of UPFC controller and simulation model are illustrated. UPFC controllers allow
transmission lines to deliver power close to their thermal ratings [22].
K. Gupta and Y. Pahariya (2017) studied the relationship between SVC, STATCOM and UPFC
performance in order to improve the transient stability of power systems [23]. M. Rohit and N. K.
Sharma (2022) described the benefits of using FACTS devices to improve the performance of power
systems. Different FACTS controllers have been discussed [24]. H. Joshi and S. Sahay (2017)
presented modeling, controlling of UPFC and studying its influence on the electrical power system.
The simulation results show the improvement of UPFC performance by controlling the power system
voltage. The UPFC can control the flow of active and reactive power in the transmission system [25].
M. R. Wara and A. Rahim (2020) presented a survey of the evolution of STATCOM technology
and its applications in the power industry. This study covers the ability of STATCOM to interact with
energy storage-based solutions and is included to illustrate future directions for this device [26]. A.
Raj and D. Vishwakarma (2023) presented the application of SSSC to control the power flow between
two ends of the transmission line to maintain the phase angle, voltage magnitude and line impedance.
A series-compensated SSSC device that controls the transmission line power flow by changing the
effective reactance of the system is studied [27]. A. Udaratin, K. Loginov, A. Nemirovskiy, N.
Rozhentsova, and E. Gracheva (2020) considered installation of FACTS devices in a 500 kV line of
substation. Three FACTS devices in emergency mode are modelled: STATCOM, SSSC, and UPFC
[28].
B. Musa and M. Mustapha (2015) described the approach of STATCOM, in which the device is
modelled and used for providing controllable bus voltage and reactive power compensation [29]. A.
Singh and A. U. Ahmad (2015) presented comparison of active and reactive power for STATCOM,
SSSC and UPFC at different distances of transmission line using Matlab/Simulink [9]. M. Eslami, H.
Shareef, A. Mohamed, and M. Khajehzadeh (2012) presented a comprehensive analysis of research
and developments in power system stability improvement using FACTS controllers. Several technical
publications related to FACTS devices are highlighted and the performance of various FACTS
controllers is compared [30]. A. S. Shelke and A. A. Bhole (2021) presented a brief description of
different FACTS devices like STATCOM, SVC, SSSC, and UPFC [31]. A. A. Nimje, C. K. Panigrahi,
and A. K. Mohanty (2011) introduced the achievement of the required active and reactive power flow
in a transmission line and increase the power carrying capacity of the transmission using SSSC [32].
R. K. Bindal (2014) presented various types of FACTS devices like STATCOM, SSSC and UPFC
and their benefits for power system transmission [8].
The main contribution of the present paper is the focus on different FACTS devices, their
comparative studies and benefits to the power system under abnormal conditions. The major
drawback is the need to study another faults cases at some positions in the power system using FACTS
devices.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of three different FACTS devices including
STATCOM, SSSC and UPFC for improving power system performance. The presented system is
studied under single phase fault and three phase fault using Matlab/Simulink software package. The
obtained results investigated that the power system performance can be enhanced precisely with
FACTS devices and the UPFC gives the better performance as compared to other FACTS types.

2. Overview of FACTS Devices

2.1. Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)
STATCOM is a shunt attached reactive power compensation controller. The progresses in power
electronics, especially the GTO thyristor, allowed implementation of such technology as a reasonable
alternative to conventional SVC. A schematic arrangement of STATCOM is displayed in Fig. 1.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
4 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 1. Basic configuration of STATCOM

The active power (𝑃) and reactive power (𝑄) of the transmission line are shown as follows:

𝑉1 × 𝑉2
𝑃= 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛿 (1)
𝑋

𝑉12 𝑉1 × 𝑉2
𝑄= − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛿 (2)
𝑋 𝑋
where 𝑉1 and 𝑉2 are the inverter output voltage and the system bus voltage respectively and 𝑋 is the
reactance of the line from the inverter to the system bus [31].
The relations between the AC voltage of the system and the voltage at the STATCOM AC side
terminals provide the reactive power flow control. If the STATCOM terminals voltage is greater than
the system voltage, STATCOM will behave as a capacitor and the reactive power will be injected
from the STATCOM to the system. When the STATCOM voltage is less than the AC voltage,
STATCOM will perform as an inductor and the reactive power flow will be reversed. Both voltages
will be the same and no power exchange will be there between the STATCOM and the system at
normal operating conditions. Fig. 2 displays the STATCOM voltage and current characteristics.
Numerous studies substantiated that STATCOM is able to improve power system dynamics and
system stability for applications of renewable energy [33].

Fig. 2. STATCOM V-I characteristics

2.2. Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)

SSSC is a series connected FACTS device which can supply inductive or capacitive voltage
independent of the current of transmission line up to the rated current limits. Also, SSSC is capable
of exchanging both active and reactive power with the AC system, basically by controlling the injected
voltage angular position [33]. The basic arrangement of SSSC is displayed in Fig. 3. It consists of a
voltage source converter attached to a dc voltage source and coupled with the AC system through a
series transformer.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 5
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 3. Basic configuration of SSSC

The active power (𝑃) and reactive power (𝑄) of the transmission line are shown as follows:

𝑉1 𝑉2 𝑉2
𝑃= 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛿1 − 𝛿2) = 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛿 (3)
𝑋𝑙 𝑋
𝑉1 𝑉2 𝑉1 𝑉2
𝑄= (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛿1 − 𝛿2)) = (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛿) (4)
𝑋𝑙 𝑋
where 𝑉1 and 𝑉2 are the voltage values at the two ends, 𝛿1 and 𝛿2 are the phase angles of the voltage
sources 𝑉1 and 𝑉2 respectively and 𝑋 is the combined reactance of the transmission line and the
SSSC.
In order to simplify these relations, it is taken 𝑉 as the magnitude of the voltage and δ as the
magnitude of the phase difference.
Fig. 4 displays the SSSC voltage and current characteristics during voltage control operation.
During the voltage control mode the SSSC maintains the inductive or capacitive compensating voltage
through the change in the line current from zero to 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 . SSSC has been involved in numerous studies
to investigate its applications for stability enhancement [33].

Fig. 4. SSSC V-I characteristics

2.3. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)

UPFC is a compound power electronic device which was advanced in order to control and
enhance the power flow in power transmission systems. The UPFC as a multipurpose device is
accomplished to control all the parameters affecting the transmission lines power flow, containing
voltage, impedance and phase angle. As displayed in Fig. 5 a UPFC is mostly a blend of STATCOM
and SSSC coupled throughout a common dc link. The UPFC application to power systems has been

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
6 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

broadly considered by the power manufacturing owing to its many benefits, that comprise smooth
control of both system active and reactive power at the point of common coupling (PCC) and its quick
and independent performance [33].

Fig. 5. Basic configuration of UPFC

UPFC is the most functional and FACTS equipment which has developed for the power flow
control and optimization in power transmission system. It has the combining types of both series and
shunt converters founded FACTS devices and is accomplished of appreciating voltage regulation,
series compensation and phase angle regulation simultaneously. Consequently, the UPFC is able to
independently control the active power and reactive power on the compensated transmission lines
[34]-[37].
Through the FACTS devices, the UPFC is the most adaptable and effective [38]-[40]. The
opportunity of installing a UPFC on a 500kV transmission system exploring the application of the
UPFC for active and reactive power flow control. The result displayed that the attainable response of
the control is very fast, nearly instantaneous, and thus the UPFC is operative in handling dynamic
system response [39][40].
The active power (𝑃) and reactive power (𝑄) of the transmission line are shown as follows:

𝑉2 × 𝑉3
𝑃= 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛿 (5)
𝑋

𝑉22 𝑉2 × 𝑉3
𝑄= − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛿 (6)
𝑋 𝑋
where 𝑉2 and 𝑉3 are the voltages at the buses 2, 3 [41].
A fault in a power system is the unintended conducting path (short circuit) or impasse of current
(open circuit). The short-circuit fault is naturally the most common and is typically inferred when
majority use the term fault. A fault happens when one energized electrical component associates
another at a different voltage. This permits the impedance between the two components to fall to near
zero letting current to flow along an undesired pathway from the one initially projected. The short-
circuit fault current could be guidelines of magnitude greater than the normal functional current. The
current from such an occasion can comprise marvelous critical energy, that can harm electrical
apparatus and pose security concerns for both utility and non-utility employees [42].

3. System under Study

A detailed model of a 48-Pulse, GTO-based unified power flow controller (500 kV, 100 MVA)
is shown in Fig. 6. A UPFC is used to control the power flow in a 500 kV transmission system.
The UPFC located at the left end of the 75-km line L2, between the 500 kV buses B1 and B2, is used
to control the active and reactive powers flowing through bus B2 while controlling voltage at bus B1.
It consists of two 100-MVA, three-level, 48-pulse GTO-based converters, one connected in shunt at

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 7
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

bus B1 and one connected in series between buses B1 and B2. The shunt and series converters can
exchange power through a DC bus. The series converter can inject a maximum of 10% of nominal
line-to-ground voltage (28.87 kV) in series with line L2.
This pair of converters can be operated in three modes:
• UPFC mode, when the shunt and series converters are interconnected through the DC bus. When
the disconnect switches between the DC buses of the shunt and series converter are opened, two
additional modes are available:
• Shunt converter operating as STATCOM controlling voltage at bus B1.
• Series converter operating as SSSC controlling injected voltage, while keeping injected voltage
in quadrature with current.

Fig. 6. The proposed model in Matlab/Simulink

When the two converters are operated in UPFC mode, the shunt converter operates as a
STATCOM. It controls the bus B1 voltage by controlling the absorbed or generated reactive power
while also allowing active power transfer to the series converter through the DC bus. The reactive
power variation is obtained by varying the DC bus voltage. The four three-level shunt converters
operate at a constant conduction angle (Sigma= 180-7.5 = 172.5 degrees), thus generating a quasi-
sinusoidal 48-step voltage waveform. When operating in UPFC mode, the magnitude of the series
injected voltage is varied by varying the Sigma conduction angle, therefore generating higher
harmonic contents than the shunt converter.
The natural power flow through bus B2 when zero voltage is generated by the series converter
(zero voltage on converter side of the four converter transformers) is P=+870 MW and Q=-70 Mvar.
In UPFC mode, both the magnitude and phase angle and the series injected voltage can be varied, thus
allowing control of P and Q. The UPFC controllable region is obtained by keeping the injected voltage
to its maximum value (0.1 per unit (pu)) and varying its phase angle from zero to 360 degrees. Table
1 indicates data parameters of FACTS devices in the model under study.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
8 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Table 1. The data of FACTS devices used in this paper

T1 0.3
T2 0.5
STATCOM (Qref)
Q1 +0.8
STATCOM Q2 -0.8
Initial 1
STATCOM Vref (pu) Final 1.005
Step Time 0.3*100
Initial 0.0
SSSC voltage
SSSC Final 0.08
injection (pu)
Step Time 0.3
Initial +8.7
UPFC Pref (pu) Final +10
Step Time 0.25
UPFC
Initial -0.6
UPFC Qref (pu) Final +0.7
Step Time 0.5

The performance of power system with FACTS devices is presented and checked under different
faults. The possible cases for investigation are listed below:
▪ The power system under single line to ground fault and three phases to ground fault was
inserted at load B without using FACTS devices.
▪ The power system under single line to ground fault and three phases to ground fault was
inserted at load B with using STACTOM.
▪ The power system under single line to ground fault and three phases to ground fault was
inserted at load B with using SSSC.
▪ The power system under single line to ground fault and three phases to ground fault was
inserted at load B with using UPFC.

4. Simulation Results
The simulation procedure is prepared using MATLAB/Simulink software package. In this
simulation, a short circuit fault with different faults types is injected at t = 0.5 sec. The fault was
inserted at load B and, the grid parameters are measured in each case. In this arrangement, the fault
current with different FACTS devices was also observed. It is possible to use different FACTS devices
in order to reduce the fault current. Different FACTS devices and their effects are discussed below.
4.1. The Power System under Abnormal Conditions without Using FACTS Devices
4.1.1. Single Line to Ground Fault
The power system performance without FACTS devices under single line to ground fault inserted
at load B is illustrated in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is
highly increased, while, buses voltages are slightly decreases at faulty period. The fault current
increased and reaches to the maximum value (59.42 pu) at bus 1 (B1) whereas the peak fault current
at buses B2, B3, and B4, respectively would be (59.29, 17.88, 25.26 pu).
4.1.2. Three Line to Ground Fault
The power system performance without FACTS devices under three line to ground fault inserted
at load B is displayed in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is
highly increased, while, buses voltages except if bus 3 is slightly decreased at faulty period. The fault
current increased and reaches to the maximum value (84.85 pu) at bus 2 (B2) whereas the peak fault
current at buses B1, B3, and B4, respectively would be (79.83, 41.15, 48.05 pu).

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 9
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 7. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu without FACTS devices for single line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 8. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu without FACTS devices for single line to
ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
10 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 9. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu without FACTS devices for three line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 10. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu without FACTS devices for three line to
ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

4.2. The Power System under Abnormal Conditions with Using STATCOM
4.2.1. Single Line to Ground Fault
The power system performance with using STATCOM under single line to ground fault inserted
at load B is illustrated in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 11
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

is highly increased, while, buses voltages are slightly decreases at faulty period. The fault current
increased and reaches to the maximum value (44.69 pu) at bus 1 (B1) whereas the peak fault current
at buses B2, B3, and B4, respectively would be (42.17, 17.2, 23.69 pu).

Fig. 11. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using STATCOM for single line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 12. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using STATCOM for single line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
12 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 13 to Fig. 16 show the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3, and
B4 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for single line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3 sec.
These figures demonstrated that better performance of power system under single phase fault is
achieved using STATCOM as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current
at bus B1 is decreased from 59.42 pu to 44.69 pu using STATCOM. Similarly, the fault current levels
at other buses are also decreased with using STATCOM.

Fig. 13. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 14. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 15. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 13
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 16. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

4.2.2. Three Line to Ground Fault

The power system performance with STATCOM under three line to ground fault inserted at load
B is displayed in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is highly
increased, while, buses voltages except if bus 3 is slightly decreased at faulty period. The fault current
increased and reaches to the maximum value (80.13 pu) at bus 2 (B2) whereas the peak fault current
at buses B1, B3, and B4, respectively would be (75.23, 40.87, 46.01 pu).

Fig. 17. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using STATCOM for three line to ground fault
in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
14 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

(a) The voltage wave shape of B1 in p.u (b) The voltage wave shape of B2 in p.u

(c) The voltage wave shape of B3 in p.u (d) The voltage wave shape of B4 in p.u
Fig. 18. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using STATCOM for three line to ground fault
in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 19 to Fig. 22 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for three line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3
sec. These figures revealed that STATCOM gives better performance for the power system under
three phase faults as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current at bus B1
is decreased from 79.83 pu to 75.32 pu using STATCOM. Similarly, the fault current levels at other
buses are also decreased with using STATCOM.

Fig. 19. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 15
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 20. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 21. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 22. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using STATCOM for
three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
16 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

4.3. The Power System under Abnormal Conditions with Using SSSC
4.3.1. Single Line to Ground Fault
The power system performance with SSSC under single line to ground fault inserted at load B is
illustrated in Fig. 23 and Fig. 24. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is highly
increased, while, buses voltages are slightly decreases at faulty period. The fault current increased and
reaches to the maximum value (44.96 pu) at bus 1 (B1) whereas the peak fault current at buses B2,
B3 and B4, respectively would be (42.17, 17.15, 23.8 pu).

Fig. 23. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using SSSC for single line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 24. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using SSSC for single line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 17
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 25 to Fig. 28 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for single line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3 sec.
These figures revealed that SSSC gives better performance for the power system under single phase
faults as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current at bus B1 is decreased
from 59.42 pu to 44.8 pu using SSSC. Similarly, the fault current levels at other buses are also
decreased with using SSSC.

Fig. 25. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 26. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 27. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
18 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 28. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

4.3.2. Three Line to Ground Fault

The power system performance with SSSC under three line to ground fault inserted at load B is
displayed in Fig. 29 and Fig. 30. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is highly
increased, while, buses voltages except if bus 3 is slightly decreased at faulty period. The fault current
increased and reaches to the maximum value (80.67 pu) at bus 2 (B2) whereas the peak fault current
at buses B1, B3 and B4, respectively would be (75.58, 40.05, 46.21 pu).
Fig. 31 to Fig. 34 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for three line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3 sec.
These figures illustrated that SSSC gives better performance for the power system under three phase
faults as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current at bus B1 is decreased
from 79.83 pu to 75.58 pu using SSSC. Similarly, the fault current levels at other buses are also
decreased with using SSSC.

Fig. 29. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using SSSC for three line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 19
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 30. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using SSSC for three line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 31. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 32. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
20 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 33. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 34. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using SSSC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

4.4. The Power System under Abnormal Conditions with Using UPFC
4.4.1. Single Line to Ground Fault
The power system performance with UPFC under single line to ground fault inserted at load B is
illustrated in Fig. 35 and Fig. 36. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is highly
increased, while, buses voltages are slightly decreases at faulty period. The fault current increased and
reaches to the maximum value (37.49 pu) at bus 1 (B1) whereas the peak fault current at buses B2,
B3 and B4, respectively would be (35.89, 17.42, 23.69 pu). Moreover, The bus voltage (B1) is
increased from (0.63 pu) without FACTS devices to (0.74 pu) using UPFC.
Fig. 37 to Fig. 40 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3 sec.
These figures illustrated that UPFC gives better performance for the power system under three phase
faults as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current at bus B1 is decreased
from 59.42 pu to 37.94 pu using UPFC. Similarly, the fault current levels at other buses are also
decreased with using UPFC.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 21
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 35. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using UPFC for single line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 36. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using UPFC for single line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
22 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 37. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 38. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 39. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 23
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 40. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for single
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

4.4.2. Three Line to Ground Fault

The power system performance with UPFC under three line to ground fault inserted at load B is
displayed in Fig. 41 and Fig. 42. They show that the fault current at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4 is highly
increased, while, buses voltages except if bus 3 is slightly decreased at faulty period. The fault current
increased and reaches to the maximum value (71.63 pu) at bus 2 (B2) whereas the peak fault current
at buses B1, B3 and B4, respectively would be (63.21, 41.31, 43.5 pu).

Fig. 41. The current wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using UPFC for three line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
24 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 42. The voltage wave shapes of B1, B2, B3 and B4 in pu using UPFC for three line to ground fault in
load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 43 to Fig. 46 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B at t = 0.3 sec.
These figures demonstrated that UPFC gives better performance for the power system under three
phase faults as it is able to reduce fault current of the system as the peak fault current at bus B1 is
decreased from 79.83 pu to 63.21 pu using UPFC. Similarly, the fault current levels at other buses are
also decreased with using UPFC. Furthermore, the bus voltage (B1) is increased from (0.50 pu)
without FACTS devices to (0.60 pu) using UPFC.
Fig. 47 to Fig. 50 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with SSSC and with UPFC for single line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec. These figures demonstrated that STATCOM gives better
performance for the power system under three phase faults than SSSC and UPFC gives the best
performance for reducing the fault current.

Fig. 43. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 25
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 44. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 45. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 46. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS and using UPFC for three
line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
26 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 47. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 48. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 49. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 27
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 50. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for single line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 51 to Fig. 54 display the comparison between the current wave shape of buses B1, B2, B3,
and B4 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with SSSC and with UPFC for three line to ground
fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec. These figures verified that STATCOM gives better performance
for the power system under three phase faults than SSSC and UPFC gives the best performance for
reducing the fault current.

Fig. 51. Comparison between the current wave shape of B1 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 52. Comparison between the current wave shape of B2 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
28 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

Fig. 53. Comparison between the current wave shape of B3 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

Fig. 54. Comparison between the current wave shape of B4 in pu without FACTS, with STATCOM, with
SSSC and with UPFC for three line to ground fault in load B inserted at t = 0.3 sec

UPFC and STATCOM can absorb the reactive power from the presented system in a way which
significantly reduces the fault currents and UPFC can gives better response than STATCOM [10].
Table 2 shows the effect of FACTS devices in peak fault current for different faults. It is noted that
the peak fault current is reduced with FACTS devices and the UPFC gives the best results as compared
to other ones. As the FACTS devices in this study are located between buses B1 and B2 and with
comparing the peak fault current at bus B1 with and without using these devices under different faults.
It is observed that FACTS devices can precisely reduce the peak fault current of bus B1 besides; UPFC
gives the better results than STATCOM or SSSC. The peak fault current is reduced to (63.85, 79.18
%), respectively by using UPFC under line to ground fault and three line to ground fault whereas it is
reduced to (75.21, 94.35%) by using STATCOM and (75.40, 94.68%) by using SSSC.

Table 2. Effect of FACTS devices in peak fault current for different faults
Without
With STATCOM With SSSC With UPFC
FACTS
Fault Bus
Maximum Maximum Percentage Maximum Percentage Maximum
Type ID Percentage reduction
Current Current reduction Current reduction Current
(%)
(pu) (pu) (%) (pu) (%) (pu)
B1 59.42 44.69 75.21 44.8 75.40 37.94 63.85
Line to
B2 59.29 42.17 71.12 42.17 71.12 35.89 60.53
ground
B3 17.88 17.2 96.20 17.15 95.92 17.42 97.43
fault
B4 25.26 23.69 93.78 23.8 94.22 23.69 93.78
Three B1 79.83 75.32 94.35 75.58 94.68 63.21 79.18
line to B2 84.85 80.13 94.43 80.67 95.07 71.63 84.42
ground B3 41.15 40.87 99.32 40.05 97.33 41.31 100.39
fault B4 48.05 46.01 95.75 46.21 96.17 43.5 90.53

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 29
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

5. Conclusion and Further Work

Simulation results of the power system with three different FACTS devices are carried out under
different faults types for enhancing system ability and performance using Matlab/Simulink software
package. The three main aspects of the proposed system are STATCOM, SSSC and UPFC. These
three aspects are interconnected and performing well. UPFC are linked with STATCOM & SSSC and
these are interlinked with the transmission lines with different distances. This paper shows that these
numerous FACTS devices have been assessed as fault current limiters which are capable of decreasing
fault current besides improving voltage. The FACTS devices are presented and compared together in
order to give better performance of power system under unbalanced conditions. The results
demonstrated that the FACTS devices could improve the power system, while STATCOM gives better
performance than SSSC and UPFC gives the best performance as compared to other FACTS types.
The results demonstrated that UPFC which is located between buses B1 and B2 can decrease the peak
fault current at bus B1 to (63.85, 79.18 %), respectively under line to ground fault and three line to
ground fault though STATCOM and SSSC decrease it to (75.21, 94.35%) and (75.40, 94.68%),
respectively. Additionally, The bus voltage (B1) is increased from (0.63, 0.50 pu), respectively under
line to ground fault and three phase fault without FACTS devices to (0.74, 0.60 pu) using UPFC. For
the future works, it is required to study the system with FACTS devices under additional types of
abnormal conditions at different positions of this system.

Author Contribution: All authors contributed equally to the main contributor to this paper. All authors read
and approved the final paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to thank the managers and the members of the “International
Journal of Robotics and Control Systems (IJRCS)”for their precious remarks and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1] T. P. Kumar and A. Jeevanandham, "Analysis of transient stability using UPFC for symmetrical faults,"
in 2017 International Conference on Advances in Electrical Technology for Green Energy (ICAETGT),
pp. 131-134, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAETGT.2017.8341465.
[2] A. S. Mohammed, T. H. Sikiru, I. Bello, A. T. Salawudeen, and U. A. Dodo, "Modified Fractional Order
PID Controller for Load Frequency Control of Four Area Thermal Power System," International Journal
of Robotics and Control Systems, vol. 3, 2023, https://doi.org/10.31763/ijrcs.v3i2.957.
[3] A. Das, S. Dawn, and S. Gope, "A review on optimal placement of FACTS devices," International
Journal of Computational Intelligence & IoT, vol. 2, no. 3, 2019,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3358367#paper-citations-widget.
[4] J. J. Paserba, "How FACTS controllers-benefit AC transmission systems," 2003 IEEE PES Transmission
and Distribution Conference and Exposition, vol. 3, pp. 949-956, 2003,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TDC.2003.1335066.
[5] V. Candrakar, M. Missal, V. Rajderkar, and S. Durve. Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System
(FACTS) for cost effective and reliable transmission of electrical energy. National Power engineering
conference (NPEC-07), 2007.
[6] Y. Esmail and G. M. Dousoky, "Power Quality Improvement in Smart Distribution Grid Using Low-Cost
Two-level Inverter DVR," Journal of Advanced Engineering Trends, vol. 42, pp. 111-120, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.21608/jaet.2021.67681.1098.
[7] S. Verma, "Comparative study of different facts devices," International Journal of Engineering Research
& Technology (IJERT), vol. 3, no. 6, 2014, https://www.ijert.org/comparative-study-of-different-facts-
devices.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
30 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

[8] R. K. Bindal, "A Review of Benefits of FACTS Devices in Power system," International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 105-108, 2014,
https://www.ijeat.org/portfolio-item/d2903043414/.
[9] A. Singh and A. U. Ahmad, "Control Reactive Power Flow with UPFC Connected Using Different
Distance Transmission Line," in International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics
and Instrumentation Engineering, vol. 4, no. 9, 2015,
http://www.ijareeie.com/upload/2015/september/34_4_Control.pdf.
[10] I. M. Mehedi et al., "Reducing fault current by using FACTS devices to improve electrical power flow,"
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, pp. 1-9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8116816.
[11] K. R. Padiyar. FACTS controllers in power transmission and distribution. New Age International (P)
Limited, 2007.
[12] T. Yazawa et al., "Design and test results of 6.6 kV high-Tc superconducting fault current limiter," IEEE
transactions on applied superconductivity, vol. 11, pp. 2511-2514, 2001,
https://doi.org/10.1109/77.920376.
[13] D. Murali, M. Rajaram, and N. Reka, "Comparison of FACTS devices for power system stability
enhancement," International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 8, pp. 30-35, 2010,
https://doi.org/10.5120/1198-1701.
[14] B. B. Adetokun, C. M. Muriithi, and J. O. Ojo, "Voltage stability assessment and enhancement of power
grid with increasing wind energy penetration," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, vol. 120, 105988, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.105988.
[15] S. T. Fadhil, M. Hamad, A. O. Arslan, and A. M. Vural, "Comparison of Dynamic Performances of
Statcom, SSSC, IPFC and UPFC On Inter-Area Oscillation Damping," The International Journal of
Energy and Engineering Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 62-79, 2020,
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijees/issue/56352/755448.
[16] M. P. Donsion, J. Guemes, and J. Rodriguez, "Power Quality. Benefits of Utilizing FACTS Devices in
Electrical Power Systems," in 2007 7th International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility and
Electromagnetic Ecology, pp. 26-29, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1109/EMCECO.2007.4371637.
[17] S. Panda, "Modelling, simulation and optimal tuning of SSSC-based controller in a multi-machine power
system," World Journal of Modelling and simulation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 110-121, 2010,
http://www.wjms.org.uk/wjmsvol06no02paper03.pdf.
[18] S. Akter, A. Saha, and P. Das, "Modelling, simulation and comparison of various FACTS devices in
power system," International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 1, pp. 1-13, 2012,
https://www.ijert.org/modelling-simulation-and-comparison-of-various-facts-devices-in-power-system.
[19] T. U. Okeke and R. G. Zaher, "Flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS)," in 2013 international
conference on new concepts in smart cities: fostering public and private alliances (SmartMILE), pp. 1-4,
2013, https://doi.org/10.1109/SmartMILE.2013.6708208.
[20] M. D. Stochitoiu and I. Utu, "A Brief Review of Approach the Role of Facts Devices," Annals of the
University of Petrosani Electrical Engineering, vol. 21, 2020,
https://www.upet.ro/annals/electrical/doc/2020/L17%20Stochitoiu%20Daniela.pdf.
[21] S. Mirsaeidi et al., "A review on optimization objectives for power system operation improvement using
FACTS devices," Energies, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 161, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010161.
[22] S. Khanchi and V. K. Garg, "Unified Power Flow Controller (FACTS Device): A Review," system, vol.
3, no. 4, pp. 1430-1435, 2013, https://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol3_issue4/HS3414301435.pdf.
[23] K. Gupta and Y. Pahariya, "Simulation Analysis of FACTs Devices for Transient Stability Improvement
in Multi Machine System," Simulation, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, https://www.academia.edu/31142699.
[24] M. Rohit and N. K. Sharma, "Improvement of Transmission Line Voltage Using Facts," International
Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB), vol. 12, no. 3, 2022,
https://www.ijcspub.org/papers/IJCSP22C1179.pdf.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
ISSN 2775-2658 31
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

[25] H. Joshi and S. Sahay, "Performance Analysis of Different Types of Facts Controllers in a Transmission
Line," International Journal on Emerging Technologies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 243-249, 2017,
https://www.researchtrend.net/ijet/pdf/60-F-744.pdf.
[26] M. R. Wara and A. Rahim, " STATCOM in Power Systems: A Review," International Journal of Power
Electronics Controllers and Converters (IJPECC), vol. 6, no. 2, 2020,
https://ecc.journalspub.info/index.php?journal=JPECC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1426.
[27] A. Raj and D. Vishwakarma, "Simulation and Analysis of Static Synchronous Series Compensator for
Power Flow Control in Power System: Review," International Journal of Progressive Research in
Engineering Management and Science (IJPREMS), vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 68-73, 2023,
https://www.ijprems.com/uploadedfiles/paper//issue_4_april_2023/30829/final/fin_ijprems1680765959.
pdf.
[28] A. Udaratin, K. Loginov, A. Nemirovskiy, N. Rozhentsova, and E. Gracheva, "Modelling of emergency
modes with FACTS devices installed," in E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 178, p. 01052, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017801052.
[29] B. Musa and M. Mustapha, "Modelling and simulation of STATCOM for reactive power and voltage
control," Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST), vol. 2, no. 2, 2015,
https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42350466.pdf.
[30] M. Eslami, H. Shareef, A. Mohamed, and M. Khajehzadeh, "A survey on flexible AC transmission
systems (FACTS)," Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, vol. 1, 2012,
http://pe.org.pl/abstract_pl.php?nid=5443&lang=1.
[31] A. S. Shelke and A. A. Bhole, "A Review on Different FACTS Devices used in Electrical Power System,"
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 309-312, 2021,
https://www.ijert.org/a-review-on-different-facts-devices-used-in-electrical-power-system.
[32] A. A. Nimje, C. K. Panigrahi, and A. K. Mohanty, "Enhanced power transfer capability by using SSSC,"
Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 48-56, 2011,
https://academicjournals.org/journal/JMER/article-abstract/40858194983.
[33] S. Bhowmick. Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS): Newton Power-Flow Modeling of Voltage-
Sourced Converter-Based Controllers. CRC Press, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315222431.
[34] S. Bandopadhyay and A. Roy, "Digital Simulation of 48 Pulse GTO Based Statcom and Reactive Power
Compensation," Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 824-827, 2014,
https://www.ijritcc.org/index.php/ijritcc/article/view/3068.
[35] D. Soto and T. C. Green, "A comparison of high-power converter topologies for the implementation of
FACTS controllers," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 49, pp. 1072-1080, 2002,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2002.803217.
[36] C. Dinakaran, "Simulation of 48 Pulse GTO Based STATCOM, SSSC & UPFC Controller," International
Journal of Modern Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 31-40, 2017, http://www.ijmst.co/vol.-2.-
issue-1---jan-2017---paper-6.html.
[37] H. Wang, "A unified model for the analysis of FACTS devices in damping power system oscillations. III.
Unified power flow controller," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 978-983, 2000,
https://doi.org/10.1109/61.871362.
[38] M. S. Rawat and S. Vadhera, "Comparison of FACTS devices for transient stability enhancement of multi
machine power system," in 2016 International Conference on Microelectronics, Computing and
Communications (MicroCom), pp. 1-5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1109/MicroCom.2016.7522419.
[39] S. E. Mubeen, R. Nema, and G. Agnihotri, "Power flow control with UPFC in power transmission
system," International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 2507-2511,
2008, https://publications.waset.org/7733/pdf.
[40] B. O. Anyaka, J. F. Manirakiza, L. U. Omeje, and M. C. Odo, "Voltage profile improvement of a disturbed
electric power system using UPFC compensation," Int. Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering,
vol. 8, pp. 1888-1893, 2020, https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.E6254.018520.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)
 International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems
32 ISSN 2775-2658
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2024, pp. 1-32

[41] V. Gupta, "Study and effects of UPFC and its control system for power flow control and voltage injection
in a power system," International journal of engineering science and technology, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 2558-
2566, 2010, https://www.ijest.info/abstract.php?file=10-02-07-13.
[42] K. Deepak, G. S. Ilango, C. Nagamani, and K. S. Swarup, "Performance of UPFC on system behavior
under fault conditions," in 2005 Annual IEEE India Conference-Indicon, pp. 505-509, 2005,
https://doi.org/10.1109/INDCON.2005.1590222.

Ibram Y. Fawzy (Enhancing the Performance of Power System under Abnormal Conditions Using Three Different
FACTS Devices)