CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO.

4, DECEMBER 2015

101

A DC Grid Benchmark Model for Studies of

Interconnection of Power Systems
Ting An, Xiaoxin Zhou, Fellow, CSEE, Fellow, IEEE, Congda Han, Yanan Wu,
Zhiyuan He, Hui Pang, and Guangfu Tang, Member, IEEE

AbstractA DC grid benchmark model can provide a common

reference and study platform for researchers to compare the
performance and characteristics of different DC control functions
and protection strategies. It can also provide reference cases for
testing simulators and digital programs. This paper presents a
DC grid benchmark model for system studies of the interconnection of two AC power systems. The topology, configuration and
functions of the benchmark model are described in detail. The
basic system data of the model for load flow studies are provided.
Finally, load flow simulation studies with PEE/S program for the
model are undertaken and the corresponding results under three
operating conditions are presented and analyzed in the paper.
The load flow results confirm the steady-state operations of the
benchmark model.
Index TermsAC power system, benchmark model, DC grid,
interconnection.

I. I NTRODUCTION

HE interconnection of inter-regional power systems is

important for the balance, exchange, and sharing of
power supply and demand between different regions. The
interconnection has temporal and spatial complementarities
that are useful in peak load shifting; significant benefits
include reducing system reserve capacity, enhancing system
ability to withstand faults and large disturbances, improving
system safety and reliability, and increasing economic savings.
Generally, the interconnection can be achieved via AC or DC
in the form of AC or DC interconnections [1][3]. The AC
interconnection is a conventional method, requiring relatively
low construction costs and investment. However, an AC interconnection always causes increase of short circuit current
and can only be used for the interconnection of AC systems
having the same frequency.
The DC interconnection system, on the other hand, has
several advantages over its AC counterpart. While it offers
Manuscript received July 27, 2015; revised September 28, 2015; accepted
October 20, 2015. Date of publication December 30, 2015; date of current
version November 5, 2015. This work was supported in part by the EPSRC
UK and the NSFC, through the ERIFT project (51261130471).
T. An (corresponding author), G. F. Tang, Z. Y. He, H. Pang, Y.
N. Wu, and C. D. Han are with Smart Grid Research Institute (SGRI)
of State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), Beijing 102211, China. (email: anting@sgri.sgcc.com.cn; gftang@sgri.sgcc.com.cn; hezhiyuan@sgri.
sgcc.com.cn; panghui@sgri.sgcc.com.cn; wuyanan@sgri.sgcc.com.cn; hancongda@sgri.sgcc.com.cn).
X. X. Zhou is with China Electric Power Research Institute (CEPRI),
Beijing 100192, China. (e-mail: xxzhou@epri.sgcc.com.cn).
Digital Object Identifier 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2015.00053

relatively the same performance level as the AC interconnection, it overcomes the disadvantages in being able to realize
the interconnection of AC systems with different frequencies.
In addition, the VSC (voltage-source converter) HVDC interconnection can control the active and reactive power flow
independently and provide dynamic reactive power support
to improve controllability, stability, and fault-ride through the
capabilities of the AC systems [4], [5].
A DC grid is a network that contains multiple AC/DC
converter terminals that are interconnected with DC lines and
DC/DC converters in meshes and radials. Though DC/DC
converters and DC circuit breakers are expensive, from a
systems point of view, the advantages of a DC grid are that
it increases system flexibility and reliability, and provides
redundancy by sharing resources that result in lower power
losses and interference. Therefore, DC grids are considered to
be the most effective and promising technical solutions for a
range of technologies, including the collection and integration
of renewable onshore and offshore wind generation, collection
and transmission of remote renewable energy resources to load
centers, ocean archipelago power supplies, the construction of
new types of urban/distribution power networks, and interconnections of AC systems [6][13]. Thus, the development and
application of DC grids for interconnection of AC systems
between different regions has become an important direction
for the future development of smart grids and the energy
internet.
Currently, researchers are undertaking HVDC grid related
R&D work with their own developed models, which are
different in configuration and data, because currently there is
no HVDC grid benchmark model/test system available that
meets the requirements for different research purposes [9]
[16]. The research results even for the same study scenario
could be different and cannot be compared directly and shared
effectively if they are not obtained on the same basis. On the
other hand, nowadays, the research funding for large research
projects tends to be provided by large organizations, such as
by the European Commission, EU Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), UK Energy Research
Centre, UK and China Natural Environment Research Council,
the Chinese government, and the State Grid Corporation of
China (SGCC). Typically, these large projects involve national
or international collaborations. Therefore, it is very critical to
establish HVDC grid benchmark models that provide unified
study platforms and common references for the researchers

c 2015 CSEE
2096-0042

102

CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

2 DC voltage levels (400 kV and 200 kV), and 2 AC

voltage levels (380 kV and 145 kV). The main purpose of
the test system is to provide a common basis for all CIGRE
SC B4 WGs for conducting research on DC grids. As it
is designed mainly for offshore wind farm collection and
integration, it is difficult to apply the test system for studying
other DC grid applications, such as collection and integration
of onshore renewable power generation and energy storage,
long-distance power transmission, LCC-HVDC commutation
failure investigations, LCC-VSC hybrid HVDC grids, urban
power supply, and interconnection of AC systems.
In order to provide unified study platforms to meet the
different HVDC grid study purposes and needs, based on
the literature research, State Grid Smart Grid Research Institute (SGRI) has established a large HVDC grid preliminary
benchmark model called DCS-M, as shown in Fig. 1. The
benchmark model contains 19 AC/DC converter terminals, 5
DC/DC convertors, and 5 voltage levels (800 kV, 500 kV,
400 kV, 320 kV and 200 kV). It consists of four subbenchmark models (SBMs), from DCS-A to DCS-D. DCS-A
with one DC mesh and two radial branches is designed for
the integration of large onshore renewable power generation.
DCS-B with one DC mesh is for an LCC-HVDC grid. DCS-C
is a multi-terminal DC (MTDC) system for the integration of

undertaking HVDC grid studies. Researchers and organizations from different countries can use these models for sharing
and comparing research results, as well as for formulating
standards for DC grid equipment and operations.
II. D ESCRIPTION OF E XISTING HVDC
B ENCHMARK M ODELS
The Working Group 14.02 of the CIGRE Study Committee
(SC) 14 in 1991 established the first HVDC benchmark model
for studies of different HVDC control strategies [17][20]. The
model is a point-to-point HVDC system based on the conventional line commutated converter (LCC) technology. Its main
purpose is to encourage comparisons of the performance and
characteristics of DC control and protection strategies from
various manufacturers and institutes using digital simulators
or computer studies, and to provide reference cases for testing
of simulators and digital programs.
The CIGRE B4 DC grid test system was proposed by
Working Groups B4-58 and B4-57 of CIGRE in 2013 [21].
This is a VSC based DC grid test system with 3 VSC-DC
systems, i.e., a 2-terminal HVDC link, a 4-terminal HVDC
radial system, and a 5-terminal HVDC meshed grid. The test
system has 11 AC/DC VSC converters, 2 DC/DC converters,

DCS-M
Bb-E2

800 km
Bb-A1

Ba-A1

Bb-E1

300 km

300 km

Ba-B5 Cb-E2
200 km
Cb-B5
Ba-B3 Bb-B3

400 km

200 km

Cb-A2

Ba-B1
50 km

VSC

Cd-A1

100 km

1500 km

150 km

LCC

Ba-B4

DC/DC

GE-1

150 km

AC GEN

1500 km

400 km
100 km

Ba-A3

Bb-B1

1500 km

Cb-B1

Cb-B3

100 km
Bb-A2

Bb-B5

Ba-B0
Ba-A2

Bb-A4

750 kV
500 kV
220 kV
200 kV
320 kV
400 kV
500 kV
800 kV

Ba-E2

500 km

Ba-E1
Cb-E1

Cb-A1

OHL
Cable

Bb-B4

Cb-B4
Bb-A2s

Bb-B2

2000 km

PV

200 km

DCS-A

300 km

DC load
Power Flow
Controller

Bb-D6s

GE-2

400 km

DC ES

500 km

500 km

Cb-B6

DCS-B

WF

Cb-B2
300 km

Ba-B6

Bb-B6

Bb-A3
Cb-A3

AC Grid
Equivalent (GE)

Ba-B2

Cd-D1

Ba-A0

Cm-D6
Bb-C4s

Ba-D6 Bm-D6

Cm-C4

100 km

1200 km
Bm-C4

Bm-C1

Cm-C1

Cd-C1
200 km

200 km

Bm-D7

1200 km

200 km
Bm-D2

Cm-D1

100 km

Cm-D2

Bm-D3

200 km

100 km

Bo-D3
Cm-D3
Bm-D8

Cd-D2

Bm-C2
Bo-D4

100 km

Bo-D2

Bm-C1s
150 km

Bm-C3

Bo-D1

300 km

Ba-C1

Cd-C2

Ba-C4

Bm-D1

DCS-C

Fig. 1. HVDC grid preliminary benchmark models.

DCS-D

Cm-D4

Bm-D4
100 km

Bm-D8s Bm-D5
100 km

Bo-D5

Cm-D5

AN et al.: A DC GRID BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STUDIES OF INTERCONNECTION OF POWER SYSTEMS

small onshore power generation into AC power network. DCSD with two DC meshes and a radial branch is for the collection
and integration of large offshore wind farm generation. DCSA to DCS-C are suitable for electromagnetic transient studies
with the converters modeled in detail for designing and verifying the control functions and protection strategies of DC grids.
DCS-D is a larger size of HVDC grid and can be used for both
electromagnetic and electromechanical transient studies. Any
of these four SBMs can be used separately for tasks with any
specific needs or where the DCS-M is too complex. The basic
system data and load flow study results of the models are not
available in this paper. Please contact the authors for details
if necessary.
The large benchmark model DCS-M is a large-scale DC
grid and is not suitable for electromagnetic studies. It is designed for electromechanical studies with simplified converters
that are modeled with their control functions and protection
strategies. It can be used for (but not limited to) a range
of capabilities, such as DC grid planning study, design and
verification of power flow controllers and DC grid system
coordination control functions, studying the effect between AC
systems and DC grids, and for designing and verifying DC
grid fault protection strategies. In addition, these models can
be used for any purpose, provided the configurations match
the specific needs of the study.
Although the large and sub-benchmark models as shown in
Fig. 1 can meet most DC grid applications, they are not suitable for the system studies for the DC interconnection of two
AC power systems. In order to provide a universal platform,
this paper presents a benchmark model for the application of
DC grids for interconnection of two different AC systems for
the corresponding system studies. The configuration, including
topology, functions, and features of the benchmark model, is
detailed in section II. The proposed basic system data for load
flow studies for the model are given in section III. The load
flow simulation with PSS/E for the model with the proposed

103

data has been undertaken and the corresponding results under

three different operating conditions are presented in section
IV, which confirms the steady state operation of the model.
Conclusions are provided in section V.
III. C ONFIGURATION OF THE B ENCHMARK M ODEL FOR
I NTERCONNECTION OF AC S YSTEMS
A. Topology and Functions
The proposed topology of the DC grid benchmark model
for the interconnection of AC power systems is represented
as a single line diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The two
independent AC systems (highlighted in red on both sides of
the diagram) are interconnected in the middle by a DC grid.
The AC system on the right-hand side is referred to as AC
system A and is formed by five AC buses, from Ba-A0 to BaA5, except Ba-A4, which is an AC bus of a wind power plant.
Ba-A0 is the slack bus and is connected to the corresponding
AC grid equivalent of the rest of the AC system. The AC
system on the left-hand side is named as AC system B and is
formed by five AC buses marked as Ba-B0 to Ba-B5, except
Ba-B3, which is an AC bus of a wind power plant. Ba-B0 is the
slack bus for the system and connected to the corresponding
AC grid equivalents of the rest of the AC system. The rated
voltage is designed as 500 kV for AC system A and 750 kV
for AC system B. The frequencies of the AC systems can be
the same, e.g., 50 Hz or 60 Hz, or different, e.g. 50 Hz for
one system and 60 Hz for the other.
The DC grid in the middle of the model is of 13 AC/DC
converters, three DC/DC converters to interconnect the three
different DC voltage levels of 800 kV, 500 kV and 400
kV, and 18 DC buses. The DC grid is formed by three
different DC systems, i.e., two local DC systems and a DC
interconnection system. The local DC system at the bottom
right-hand side is a 400 kV multi-terminal DC system
highlighted in light blue and consists of three buses of Bb-A2,
Bb-A3, and Bb-A4. The other local DC system on the left is a
Ba-C1

Bb-B4

Bb-C1

200 km

Ba-B0

200 km

Ba-B1
Cb-B1

Ba-B2

Bb-B1

Bb-B3

Cb-B3
300 km

300 km

DCB2

300 km

200 km

100 km
Cb-B2 Bb-B2
Cb-B5
Ba-B5

Ba-C3

Bb-B5

Cb-C3
300 km

Bb-C2

WF

AC GE
DC breaker

200 km
100 km

Cb-A5
Ba-C2

Bb-A1

Cb-C2
1000 km

Ba-A1

Cb-A1

Ba-A4 Cb-A4

Cd-B1
Bb-C3

VSC

Ba-A5

1000 km

Bb-B6 Bb-B6s

DC/DC
PV

Bb-B3s

Cd-B2

DCB1

200 km

500 km

1000 km

Cb-B4

Ba-B3

Bb-A5

Cb-C1

200 km

DCB3

Bb-A4 Bb-A2

1200 km
Bb-C4
Bb-A4s Cd-A1

300 km

300 km

500 kV
750 kV
400 kV
500 kV
800 kV

Fig. 2. Topology of the benchmark model for the interconnection of AC systems.

200 km 100 km

Ba-B4
200 km

Ba-A2
Cb-A2

200 km
Ba-A3

Bb-A3
Cb-A3

300 km

Ba-A0

104

CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

4-terminal meshed DC system (Bb-B1, Bb-B2, Bb-B3 and BbB6) highlighted in dark blue and rated as 500 kV. The DC
interconnection system in the middle highlighted as green and
rated at 800 kV provides four DC power transmission routes
between the two AC/DC hybrid systems, as shown in Fig. 2.
The top route is formed by three buses of Bb-B4, Bb-C1, and
Bb-A5, and is independent from the other three routes. The
middle two routes are interconnected on the left via the local
500 kV DC system. The bottom route is teed off at Bb-C4
for connecting to the left side AC system B.
Local renewable power generation is considered and connected at Bb-A4 (wind power) for AC system A and at Bb-B3
(wind power) and Bb-B6 (solar power) for AC system B. The
large wind power generators connected at Bb-C1 to Bb-C3
represent the renewable energy centers on the routes of the
interconnection.

TABLE I
S YSTEM VOLTAGES
System
AC
DC

IV. BASIC S YSTEM DATA FOR L OAD F LOW S TUDIES OF

THE B ENCHMARK M ODEL FOR I NTERCONNECTION OF
AC S YSTEMS
The basic system data proposed for load flow studies is
summarized in Table I through Table VII.

Voltage (kV)
500
750
400
500
800

TABLE II
DC L INE DATA
DC Line
800 kV
500 kV
400 kV

Resistance
RDC (/km)
0.006
0.008
0.008

Rated Current
(kA)
5
4
4

TABLE III
AC/DC C ONVERTER DATA

B. Features
The design concept for the model is to use DC circuit breakers as less as possible to clear DC side faults. Although DC
breakers have been invented by several manufacturers, such
as hybrid DC breakers by ABB [22] and H-bridge cascaded
DC breakers by SGRI [23], the commercially available DC
breakers are still bottlenecks in the development of DC grids
due to their large sizes and expensive costs. In order to provide
a platform for researchers to study different arrangement
of DC breakers to protect the DC system under different
configurations, the benchmark model is designed such that
different DC system configurations are included with the least
requirement for the DC breakers.
The top DC transmission route is an HVDC point-to-point
configuration. Normally, AC side circuit breakers of an HVDC
point-to-point scheme are used to clear any DC side faults
without need of DC circuit breakers. Therefore, the AC side
circuit breakers at Ba-A5 and Ba-B4 are required to clear
any faults on top of the DC transmission route. In such
arrangements, no DC breakers are required for clearing any
DC faults on the route. Two DC breakers can be installed
at either end of the 500 kV DC transmission lines, crosslinking the middle transmission routes DCB1 and DCB2, as
shown in Fig. 2. Tripping the DC breakers together with the
trip of the AC breakers at Ba-A1 and Ba-B1 can clear any
faults on the second top DC transmission route without need
of any other DC breakers installed on the DC route. If a further
DC breaker i.e., DCB3 is installed at one end of the 800 kV
transmission line between Bb-C4 and Bb-A4s, all of these
three DC breakers (DCB1 to DCB3) plus the associated AC
breakers can clear faults on either side of the bottom two DC
transmission routes. Therefore, the benchmark model proposed
in this paper needs only three DC breakers, plus the associated
AC breakers to clear any faults on the DC systems.

Color
Red
Dark red
Light blue
Dark blue
Green

Name Type Con.a

Cb-A1 VSC Bi
Cb-A2 VSC Bi
Cb-A3 VSC Bi
Cb-A4 VSC Bi
Cb-A5 VSC Bi
Cb-B1 VSC Bi
Cb-B2 VSC Bi
Cb-B3 VSC Bi
Cb-B4 VSC Bi
Cb-B5 VSC Bi
Cb-C1 VSC Bi
Cb-C2 VSC Bi
Cb-C3 VSC Bi
a

Rating Control
(MW) (Mode 1)
Q=0 MVar
7,000
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
3,200
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
3,200
P =3000 MW
VAC =1.0 p.u.
1,500
fAC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
7,000
P =6000 MW
Q=0 MVar
7,000
P =6000 MW
Q=0 MVar
7,000
VDC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
1,000
fAC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
7,000
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
7,000
P =1000 MW
V =1.0 p.u.
14,000 AC
fAC =1.0 p.u.
V =1.0 p.u.
14,000 AC
fAC =1.0 p.u.
V =1.0 p.u.
14,000 AC
fAC =1.0 p.u.

Control
(Mode 2)
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =3000 MW
VAC =1.0 p.u.
fAC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =6000 MW
Q=0 MVar
P =4000 MW
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
fAC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =1000 MW
VAC =1.0 p.u.
fAC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
fAC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
fAC =1.0 p.u.

Control
(Mode 3)
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =3000 MW
VAC =1.0 p.u.
f AC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =6000 MW
Q=0 MVar
P =3500 MW
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
f AC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
VDC =1.0 p.u.
Q=0 MVar
P =4500 MW
VAC =1.0 p.u.
f AC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
f AC =1.0 p.u.
VAC =1.0 p.u.
f AC =1.0 p.u.

Con. = Converter

TABLE IV
AC L INE DATA
AC Line (50 Hz)
500 kV OHL
750 kV OHL

Resistance
RAC (/km)
0.019
0.013

Reactance
XAC (/km)
0.281
0.273

Susceptance
BAC /2 (S/km)
2.03 106
2.21 106

TABLE V
DC/DC C ONVERTER DATA
Rating Voltage (kV) Control
Control
Control
(MVA) HV LV
(Mode 1)
(Mode 2)
(Mode 3)
Cd-A1 7000 800 400 P =6000 MW P =5000 MW P =5000 MW
V (HV) =
VDC (HV) =
VDC (HV) =
Cd-B1 7000 800 500 DC
1.0 p.u.
1.0 p.u.
1.0 p.u.
Cd-B2 7000 800 500 P =6000 MW P =6000 MW P =5000 MW
Name

AN et al.: A DC GRID BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STUDIES OF INTERCONNECTION OF POWER SYSTEMS

TABLE VI
F IXED S HUNT DATA
Mode

Mode 1

Mode 2
Mode 3

Bus
Ba-A1
Ba-A2
Ba-A3
Ba-A5
Ba-B1
Ba-B4
Ba-B5
Ba-B1
Ba-B4
Ba-B1
Ba-B4

Setting (MVar)a
1,000
200
500
800
400
300
200
200
300
700
400

Positive MVar figures mean generating (capacitive) reactive power to the system; negative MVar figures mean
absorbing (inductive) reactive power from the system.

This model is designed for studying inter-regional interconnections between two different AC systems. Since the AC
systems can be at different regions, different countries or
different continents, the transmission line lengths are designed
between hundreds of kilometers and 2000 kilometers.
Based on the relationship between DC voltages and economic transmission distances, the DC voltage level for the
DC interconnection system in the middle of the model is
selected as 800 kV to realize large power transmission over
long distances [24]. The 800 kV DC transmission line is
rated as 8000 MW, which is the maximum power that can be
economically transmitted up to 2500 km. As shown in Fig. 2,
each of the two 500 kV DC circuits on the left are connected to
each of the two 800 kV DC circuits via two DC/DC converters
(Cd-B1 and Cd-B2); thus the transfer capacity of a 500 kV
circuit is designed as 4000 MW to match the capacity of an
800 kV circuit.
The voltage level of the local DC system on the right is
designed as 400 kV to reflect differences from the left side
DC system. The 800 kV circuit between Bb-C4 and Bb-A4s
is connected to the two 400 kV DC circuits and a wind
generation at Bb-A4. Applying similar logic, the 400 kV DC
circuits are designed as 3200 MW capacity each, together with
the output of the wind generation, to match the capacity of
the 800 kV DC circuit. The maximum power flowing through
the AC/DC and DC/DC converters are determined by the
capacities of the associated DC circuits as described above, so
that the ratings of the converters can be derived accordingly.
Please note that by taking into account the future development,
the DC voltage levels and converter ratings selected for the
benchmark model are higher than that of the existing practical
VSC-HVDC schemes. As the 500 kV VSC-HVDC monopole
scheme from Norway (Kristiansand) to Denmark (Tjele) has
now been commissioned in Europe and several symmetrical
monopole schemes at 320 kV (e.g., 320 kV/1000 MW
Xiamen VSC-HVDC scheme) inherently have a 640 kV converter, an 800 kV bi-pole solution is achievable by adding
more modular multilevel converters (MMCs).
Since the power transmission between the two AC systems
through each AC system circuit is a few gigawatts (GW) and
in line with the voltage levels of the Chinese AC grid, the
AC voltage levels for the model are selected as 500 kV for
the right AC system A and 750 kV for the left AC system

105

TABLE VII
S YSTEM B US DATA
AC Bus
Bus
Generation (MW)
Name Type Rating Setting
Slack
Ba-A0

Bus
Ba-A1 PQ 0
0
Ba-A2 PQ 0
0
Ba-A3 PQ 0
0
Ba-A4 PQ 1,500 1,000
Ba-A5 PQ 0
0
Slack
Ba-B0

Bus
0
Mode 1 Ba-B1 PQ 0
Ba-B2 PQ 0
0
Ba-B3 PQ 1,000 500
Ba-B4 PQ 0
0
Ba-B5 PQ 0
0
Ba-C1 PQ 14,000 0
Ba-C2 PQ 14,000 0
Ba-C3 PQ 14,000 0
Mode

Ba-A0
Ba-A1
Ba-A2
Ba-A3
Ba-A4
Ba-A5
Ba-B0
Mode 2 Ba-B1
Ba-B2
Ba-B3
Ba-B4
Ba-B5
Ba-C1
Ba-C2
Ba-C3

Ba-A0
Ba-A1
Ba-A2
Ba-A3
Ba-A4
Ba-A5
Ba-B0
Mode 3 Ba-B1
Ba-B2
Ba-B3
Ba-B4
Ba-B5
Ba-C1
Ba-C2
Ba-C3

Slack
Bus
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
Slack
Bus
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ

Slack
Bus
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
Slack
Bus
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ

DC Bus
Load
Bus
Gen./Load
(MW) Name Type (MW)

Bb-A1 V

0/0

300
500
300
0
500

Bb-A2
Bb-A3
Bb-A4
Bb-A5
Bb-A4s

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

V
P
P
P
P

Bb-B1 P

0/0

2,000
2,000
0
1,000
300
0
0
0

Bb-B2
Bb-B3
Bb-B4
Bb-B5
Bb-B6
Bb-B3s
Bb-B6s
Bb-C1
Bb-C2
Bb-C3
Bb-C4

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
500/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

V
P
V
P
P
P
V
P
P
P
P

Bb-A1 V

0/0

0
0
0
1,500
0

0
0
0
1,000
0

1,000
1,000
1,000
0
2,000

Bb-A2
Bb-A3
Bb-A4
Bb-A5
Bb-A4s

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

V
P
P
P
P

Bb-B1 P

0/0

0
0
1,000
0
0
14,000
14,000
14,000

0
0
500
0
0
0
0
0

300
300
0
500
300
0
0
0

Bb-B2
Bb-B3
Bb-B4
Bb-B5
Bb-B6
Bb-B3s
Bb-B6s
Bb-C1
Bb-C2
Bb-C3
Bb-C4

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
500/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

Bb-A1 V

0/0

0
0
0
1,500
0

0
0
0
1,000
0

1,000
1,000
1,000
0
2,000

Bb-A2
Bb-A3
Bb-A4
Bb-A5
Bb-A4s

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

V
P
V
P
P
P
V
P
P
P
P

V
P
P
P
P

Bb-B1 P

0/0

0
0
1,000
0
0
14,000
14,000
14,000

0
0
500
0
0
12,000
11,000
10,500

500
500
0
1,000
1,000
0
0
0

Bb-B2
Bb-B3
Bb-B4
Bb-B5
Bb-B6
Bb-B3s
Bb-B6s
Bb-C1
Bb-C2
Bb-C3
Bb-C4

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
500/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

V
P
V
P
P
P
V
P
P
P
P

B. The selected AC voltage levels of 500 kV and 750 kV

are also close to their corresponding local DC voltages of
400 kV and 500 kV, respectively, as normally there is a
converter transformer between the AC and DC systems. The
required AC voltage for a certain DC voltage can be achieved
by correctly specifying the AC voltage at the converter side of

106

CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

the converter transformer. The power factor of the AC loads

is assumed as 0.95 and the losses of the converters are 1% of
their ratings. The direction of the power is defined as positive
when it flows from DC to AC of the AC/DC converters, and
from high voltage to low voltage of the DC/DC converters.
The system data proposed are initially for load flow calculations and can be altered to match the requirements for any
specific research purpose.
According to the possible power flow directions in the
system, three system operating modes were considered for the
load flow simulations performed in this paper:
Mode 1: Power is transferred from the right AC system A to
the left AC system B via the middle interconnection
DC system with the power output of the wind power
generators at Bb-C1, Bb-C2 and Bb-C3 set as zero.
Mode 2: Power is transferred from AC system B to AC
system A with the power output of the wind power
generators at Bb-C1 to Bb-C3 set as zero.
Mode 3: Power output of the large wind farms at Bb-C1
to Bb-C3 on the routes of the interconnection is
transferred to both AC systems A and B via the
middle interconnection DC system.
The corresponding settings of the generators and loads for
the different operating modes are given in Table VII.
V. L OAD F LOW S TUDY OF THE B ENCHMARK M ODEL FOR
I NTERCONNECTION OF AC S YSTEMS
A load flow study is an analysis of the electric power
flow in an interconnected system. It focuses on the magnitude
and phase angle of the voltage at each busbar, the real and
reactive power flowing in each line for an AC system, or on
the voltage and real power for a DC system. It analyzes the
power system in normal steady-state operation and provides
the initial conditions for dynamic simulations, if needed. The
load flow results are important for planning future expansion

of power systems as well as in determining the best operation

of existing systems.
PSS/E (Power System Simulator/Engineering) is a widely
used analysis software for electrical power engineering oriented simulations. Its load flow calculation engine can only
be directly used for load flow calculations of AC systems and
point-to-point DC systems, but it is not suitable for direct load
flow calculations of DC of a DC grid.
This paper uses the AC equivalent method for AC load flow
calculations of the PSSE to indirectly calculate the DC load
flow of a DC grid, i.e., the use of AC components to build an
equivalent DC grid system and to calculate the corresponding
power flows. The equivalent AC power flow calculated results
reflect the DC power flow distributions of the DC grid, as a
way to realize the function of DC load flow calculations. This
method has been verified by modeling the CIGRE B4 DC
grid test system mentioned in Section I, and the same load
flow results were obtained as those in the test system given
in [21].
The benchmark model with the corresponding system data
listed in Table I through VII was modeled with the PSS/E
program. The load flow results of the three operating modes
as described above are shown in Fig. 3 through Fig. 5.
The load flow results shown in Fig. 3 are for the operating
mode 1, i.e., power flows from the right AC system A to the
left AC system B with the power output of the wind power
generators at Bb-C1 to Bb-C3 set as zero. The total AC load
was set as 1600 MW for AC system A and 5300 MW for AC
system B. The results show that the power transferred from
AC system A to AC system B is approximately 18.5 GW. The
loading factors are within the reasonable range of 60% to 94%
in the DC circuits and DC/DC converters, except the loading
factor is approximately 12.5% of the circuits ratings for the
circuits between Bb-C4 and Bb-B5. Apart from the output of
the wind power generators connected at 800 kV DC buses,
which are set as zero, the power flowing through the AC/DC
0 Ba-C1

4*1658

Ba-B2
Cb-B2

2000

5467 Bb-B2
500.0

Ba-B5 1000

300

2675
Bb-B6
504.2

500
Ba-C3 0
Bb-B5
801.3

Cb-B5

Cb-C3
1001

DC/DC

VSC

WF

AC GE

PV

6000

Cb-A5
0

Bb-B3
506.8

Bb-B3s
752.0

2*822

500

Ba-C2

Bb-A1
Ba-A1
300
800.0 6447

Cb-C2

6191

6000
Cd-B2

6383

Cb-A1

1000
Ba-A4 Cb-A4

4731 Bb-B6s
800.0
Cd-B1

Bb-C2
776.0

4*1255

5940

4752 Bb-C4
803.6

Bb-C3
802.4

Cd-A1

Bb-A4s 6000
829.4

Bb-A4 Bb-A2
393.7 400.0 2108 Ba-A2

2087

Bb-A3
399.7

500 kV
750 kV
400 kV
500 kV
800 kV

19588

500

3030 Ba-A3
1002

Ba-A0

Cb-A2

3000

2*345

2*989

12638

3581

Cb-B1

4*1345

Ba-B0

Cb-B3

Bb-A5
832.5 6060 Ba-A5

Cb-C1

5921

Cb-B4
Ba-B3 500
2000 Ba-B1
Bb-B1
6000 498.3

Bb-C1
821.7

5*1700

3*1569

3*881

Bb-B4
Ba-B4
5765 800.0
1000

Cb-A3

3*1140

300

Fig. 3. Load flow results for benchmark model in operating mode 1 (power flow from right to left: AC system A to AC system B).

AN et al.: A DC GRID BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STUDIES OF INTERCONNECTION OF POWER SYSTEMS

107

0 Ba-C1
Ba-B4 6340 Bb-B4
800.0
500

6277

Cb-B4

6092

Ba-B3 500

4*2062
2*657

18501

2666

Cb-B1

2*1211

4*2234

Ba-B0

2459
Bb-B6
496.1

Cb-B2 Bb-B2
500.0

300

Cb-B5

300

4265 Bb-B6s
800.0

1000
VSC

WF

AC GE

Bb-C2
821.4

Ba-A1 1000
Bb-A1
800.0 5695

Cb-C2

5847

Cb-A1

Ba-A4 1000

Cd-B1 4223
500
Ba-C3 Cb-C3
Bb-C3
Bb-B5
798.0
799.1
0

DC/DC

2000

Cb-A4
Cd-A1

5204

Bb-A4 Bb-A2
408.6 400.0 2883 Ba-A2

2945

Bb-A4s 5050
773.3

Bb-C4
796.8

3044

Ba-B5 1010

2*436

6000

6060
Cd-B2

Ba-B25488

Cb-A5

0 Ba-C2
Bb-B3s
842.8

Bb-B3
Cb-B3 492.9

Bb-B1
499.3

4*766

5*1101

300 Ba-B1
4040

Bb-A5
764.6 6000 Ba-A5

Cb-A2

3000 Ba-A3

Bb-A3
402.7
Cb-A3

998

3*618

3*2304

Bb-C1
776.4 Cb-C1

Ba-A0

12269

1000
3*656

1000

500 kV
750 kV
400 kV
500 kV
800 kV

PV

Fig. 4. Load flow results for benchmark model in operating mode 2 (power flow from left to right: AC system B to AC system A).

VSCs are between 50% and 92% of their ratings. The voltages
at all the DC buses are between 0.940 p.u. and 1.041 p.u.
The load flow results shown in Fig. 4 are for the operating
mode 2, i.e., power flows from left AC system B to right AC
system A with the power output of the wind power generators
at Bb-C1 to Bb-C3 set as zero. The total AC load was set as
5000 MW for AC system A and 1400 MW for AC system B.
The results show that the power transferred from AC system
B to AC system A is approximately 17.7 GW. The loading
factors are within the range of 33% to 95% in the DC circuits
and DC/DC converters, excepting for the circuits between Bb-

C4 and Bb-B5. Apart from the output of the wind power

generators connected at 800 kV DC buses, which is set as
zero, the power flowing through the AC/DC VSCs is between
50% and 91% of the converters ratings. The voltages at all
the DC buses are between 0.956 p.u. and 1.054 p.u.
The load flow results shown in Fig. 5 are for the operating
mode 3, i.e., power output of the large wind farms at Bb-C1 to
Bb-C3 on the routes of the DC interconnection is transferred
to both AC systems A and B. The total AC load was set as
5000 MW for AC system A and 3000 MW for AC system
B. The results show that the power transferred from the large
12000 Ba-C1

Ba-B4 5647 Bb-B4

800.0
1000
5797

Cb-B4

6082

Ba-B3 500

4*1074
2*1727

13398

2884

Cb-B1

2*901

4*1430

Ba-B0

Ba-B23034

Bb-B6
500.8

Cb-B2 Bb-B2
500.0

500

Cb-B5

DC/DC

VSC

WF

AC GE

PV

Ba-A1 1000
Bb-A1
800.0 5624

Cb-C2
5773

Cb-A1

Ba-A4 1000

669 Bb-B6s
800.0

5866

Bb-C2
821.1
5116

5000
Cd-B2

Cd-B1
500
Ba-C3 Cb-C3
Bb-C3
Bb-B5
807.1
802.0
10500
4528

2*442

2000

669

5149

Bb-C4
800.5

Cb-A4
Cd-A1
Bb-A4s 5000
777.3

Bb-A4 Bb-A2
408.5 400.0 2835 Ba-A2
2895

3044

Ba-B5 4500

1000

505

Cb-A5
11000 Ba-C2

Bb-B3s
802.4

Bb-B3
Cb-B3 506.1

Bb-B1
499.2

4*763

5*1089

500 Ba-B1
3500

Bb-A5
810.1 6000 Ba-A5

Cb-A2

3000 Ba-A3

Bb-A3
402.5

Cb-A3

3*602

3*1530

Bb-C1
821.2 Cb-C1

Ba-A0

12152

1000

3*656

1000

500 kV
750 kV
400 kV
500 kV
800 kV

Fig. 5. Load flow results for benchmark model in operating mode 3 (power flow from middle to both sides: large wind farms to AC systems A&B).

108

CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

wind farms to both AC systems A and B is approximately

33.5 GW. The loading factors of most DC circuits and DC/DC
converters are within the range of 57% to 95%. The power
flowing through the AC/DC VSCs is between 43% and 94%
of the converters ratings. The voltages at all the DC buses
are between 0.972 p.u. and 1.027 p.u.
In summary, the load flow results for all three operating
modes show that the capacities of the most lines and converters
are utilized sufficiently and all power flows through the
lines are within their ratings. There are also certain margins
remaining for regulating the fluctuations of renewable power
especially from wind. Some lines or converters are loaded
lightly (lower than 50%) under certain operating modes, which
give the opportunity for the application of DC power flow
controllers.

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
The DC grid benchmark model for the interconnection of
two AC power systems has been proposed in this paper. The
benchmark model can be used for the investigation of interconnection of AC power systems between regions, countries
or continentals with or without renewable energy resources
along the DC routes. The suitability and feasibility of the
proposed configurations and basic system data as a reference
for load flow studies in three different power interchange
modes for the benchmark model have been verified by PSS/E
load flow studies. The study results are presented, which
confirm the steady-state operations of the benchmark model.
The proposed benchmark model will promote formation of
topology design principles of DC grids for interconnection
of AC power systems and provide a supporting platform for
mastering key technologies of DC grids for interconnection of
AC power systems.

R EFERENCES
[1] F. Zhu, H. G. Zhao, Z. H. Liu, and H. Z. Kou, The influence of
large power grid interconnected on power system dynamic stability,
Proceedings of the CSEE, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 17, Jan. 2007.
[2] Y. X. Yu, and P. Li, The impact of weak interconnection of bulk power
grids to damping and dynamic stability of power systems, Proceedings
of the CSEE, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 611, Jun. 2005.
[3] X. H. Hu and G. Y. Ding, Adopting HVDC transmission scheme in
nation-wide power network interconnection with reference to experiences of other countries, Power System Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp.
6467, 70, May1998.
[4] Working Group B4-52, HVDC Grid Feasibility Study, CIGRE Technical Brochure 533, Apr. 2013.
[5] L. D. Zhang, L. Harnefors, and H. P. Nee, Interconnection of two very
weak AC systems by VSC-HVDC links using power-synchronization
control, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 344
355, Feb. 2011.
[6] T. M. Haileselassie and K. Uhlen, Power system security in a meshed
North Sea HVDC grid, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 101, no. 4, pp.
978990, Apr. 2013.
[7] A. A. Egea, F. Bianchi, F. A. Junyent, G. Gross, and B. O. Gomis,
Voltage control of multiterminal VSC-HVDC transmission systems for
offshore wind power plants: design and implementation in a scaled
platform, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 6,
pp. 23812391, Jun. 2013.

[8] B. Silva, C. L. Moreira, H. Leite, and J. A. P. Lopes, Control

strategies for AC fault ride through in multiterminal HVDC grids, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 395405, Feb. 2014.
[9] K. Bell, D. Cirio, and A. M. Denis, Economic and technical criteria for
designing future off-shore HVDC grids, in Proceedings of IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe),
Oct. 2010, pp. 18.
[10] V. Akhmatov, M. Callavik, C. M. Franck, S. E. Rye, T. Ahndorf, M.
K. Bucher, H. Muller, F. Schettler, and R. Wiget, Technical guidelines
and prestandardization work for first HVDC grids, IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 327335, Feb. 2014.
[11] W. Leterme, P. Tielens, S. De Boeck, and D. V. Hertem, Overview of
grounding and configuration options for meshed HVDC Grids, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 24672475, Dec.
2014.
[12] J. Beerten, S. Cole, and R. Belmans, Modeling of multi-terminal VSC
HVDC systems with distributed DC voltage control, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3442, Jan. 2014.
[13] R. Wiget and G. Andersson, Optimal power flow for combined AC and
multi-terminal HVDC grids based on VSC converters, in Proceedings
of IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2012, pp. 18.
[14] E. Veilleux and T. O. Boon, Power flow analysis in MT HVDC grid, in
Proceedings of IEEE Power Systems Conference & Exposition (PSCE),
Mar. 2011, pp. 17.
[15] C. D. Barker and R. S. Whitehouse, A current flow controller for use
in HVDC grids, in Proceedings of 10th International Conference on
AC-DC Power Transmission, London, U.K., Dec. 2012, pp. 15.
[16] W. Y. Wang and M. Barnes, Power flow algorithms for multi-terminal
VSC-HVDC with droop control, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 17211730, Jul. 2014.
[17] M. Szechtman, T. Wess, and C. V. Thio, First benchmark model for
HVDC control studies, Electra, vol. 135, no. 4, pp. 5473, Apr. 1991.
[18] M. Szechtman, T. Wess, and C. V. Thio, A benchmark model for HVDC
system studies, in Proceedings of International Conference on AC-DC
Power Transmission, Sep. 1720, 1991, pp. 374378.
[19] M. Szechtman, T. Margaard, and J.-P. Bowles, The CIGRE HVDC
benchmark modela new proposal with revised parameters, Electra,
vol. 157, pp. 6166, Dec. 1994.
[20] H. Atighechi, S. Chiniforoosh, J. Jatskevich, A. Davoudi, J. A. Martinez,
M. O. Faruque, V. Sood, M. Saeedifard, J. M. Cano, J. Mahseredjian,
D. C. Aliprantis, and K. Strunz, Dynamic average-value modeling
of CIGRE HVDC benchmark system, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 20462054, Oct. 2014.
[21] T. K. Vrana, Y. T. Yang, and D. Jovcic, The CIGRE B4 DC grid test
system, Electra, vol. 270, pp. 1019, Oct. 2013.
[22] R. Derakhshanfar, T. U. Jonsson, U. Steiger, and M. Habert, Hybrid
HVDC breakera solution for future HVDC system, presented at
CIGRE 2014 Session, Aug. 2014.
[23] X. G. Wei, C. Gao, X. Luo, W. D. Zhou, and Y. N. Wu, A novel design
of high-voltage DC circuit breaker in HVDC flexible transmission grid,
Automation of Electric Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 15, pp. 95102, Aug.
2013.
[24] Z. Y. Liu, Electric Power and Energy in China. Beijing, China: China
Electric Power Press, 2012, pp. 161172.

Ting An received her B.Sc. degree from Xian

Jiaotong University, China in 1982, the M.Sc.
degree from Graduator School of China Electric
Power Research Institute (CEPRI) in 1985, and the
Ph.D. degree from University of Manchester (former
UMIST), United Kingdom in 2000. Currently, she is
a Chief Expert in system design for smart equipment
at Smart Grid Research Institute (SGRI) of State
Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), recruited under
Chinas 1000-Elite Program.
She is a chartered engineer in the UK, a fellow
of the IET and a fellowship assessor for the IET. She is a member of CIGRE
B4/C1.65 WG and a Guest Professor of Institute of Electrical Engineering,
Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests are R&D on VSCHVDC and HVDC grids.

AN et al.: A DC GRID BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STUDIES OF INTERCONNECTION OF POWER SYSTEMS

Xiaoxin Zhou (F95) graduated from Tsinghua University, China, in 1965. He is a member of Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CAS), a Fellow of IEEE
and Academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Currently he also serves as the Honorary President
of China Electric Power Research Institute (CEPRI),
Executive Director of China Society of Electrical
Engineering (CSEE), Director of the Study Committee, and the Executive Director of China Electrotechnical Society (CES).
Professor Zhou has devoted himself to research
on power system analysis and computation methods for decades. He has led
his research group and successfully developed the Power System Analysis
Software Package (PSASP), the first large-sale power system analysis software
in China, which has been widely applied in the Chinese power utilities.
Since the 1990s, he has committed to research on power electronics, digital
simulation technology, and power system security and stability monitoring
and control theory. Additionally, he has managed a national basic research
program, Research on the fundamental theory of improving operation reliability of the large-scale interconnected power systems, as the chief scientist.
Professor Zhou won the top-grade national science and technology progress
award for three times in 1985, 2008 and 2009, respectively. He also won
the IEEE PES Nari Hingorani FACTS Award in 2008 and the Prize of Ho
Leung Ho Lee Foundation for Scientific and Technological Progress in 2009.
His main research interests include power system analysis and control, power
system digital simulation, flexible AC transmission system (FACTS).

Congda Han received his B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Tsinghua University in 2010,
the M.Sc. degree in power electronics from China
Electric Power Research Institute in 2014. Currently,
he is an electrical Engineer of SGRI of SGCC. His
research interests include the system modeling and
analysis of DC grids.

Yanan Wu received her B.S. degree in electrical

engineering from Zhengzhou University, in 2004,
the M.Sc. degree from Beijing Jiao Tong University
in 2007, and the Ph.D. degree from China Electric
Power Research Institute in 2012, both in power
electronics.
Currently, she is an electrical engineer of SGRI
of SGCC. Her research interests include the system
design and analysis of DC grids in particular.

Zhiyuan He received the B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from Sichuan University, China, in
2000, and the M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from CEPRI, Beijing, in 2003 and 2006,
respectively.
In 2006, he joined CEPRI, where he led the VSCHVDC Transmission Systems Group. From 2008
to 2009, he was the Manager for CEPRI in the
areas of HVDC technology. Since January 2010, he
has been the Manager and Chief Engineer for CLP
Power Engineering CO., LTD PURELL of CEPRI.
His research fields include flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS), the
converter valve of high voltage and ultra-high voltage in DC transmission
system, the voltage source converter based high voltage DC (VSC-HVDC)
transmission systems, and DC grid.

109

Hui Pang received the B.Eng. degree and the

M.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from Hefei
University of Technology, P.R. China, in 2002 and
2005, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from China Electric Power Research
Institute (CEPRI) in 2010.
In 2010, he joined CEPRI conducting research
on voltage-source converter based high voltage DC
(VSC-HVDC) transmission systems R&D department. From 2011 to 2012, he was the Project Manager in the areas of VSC-HVDC electrical design.
Since 2013, he has been the R&D Manager in the HVDC technology research
department at the Smart Grid Research Institute of SGCC.

Guangfu Tang received the B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from Xian Jiao Tong University,
Shanxi, P.R. China, in 1990, and the M.Eng. degree
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
Institute of Plasma Physics, The Chinese Academy
of Sciences (ASIPP), in 1993 and 1996, respectively.
From 1996 to 1998, he held a postdoctoral position with China Electric Power Research Institute (CEPRI), Beijing, China after which he joined
CEPRI. His research focus is on high power electronics technology for power system application, including FACTS (flexible
AC transmission system), HVDC (high direct current transmission), UHVDC
(ultra HVDC), VSC (voltage sourced converter) HVDC, and DC grid. Since
2002, he has been a professor level Senior Engineer. In 2012, he joined
State Grid Smart Grid Research Institute (SGSGRI). Currently, he is a Vice
President of SGSGRI.
He has published more than 120 papers, and won 70 patents in his
research field. He was a regular member of B4 (HVDC and power electronics)
study committee of CIGRE (International Council on Large Electric Systems)
between 2006 and 2008, and was the convenor of the B4.48 working group in
CIGRE during 20072011. He is now a member of B4.AG4 (HVDC system
performance strategy advisor group) in CIGRE, and obtained the distinguished
member status of CIGRE in 2012. Dr. Tang is a member of the IEEE/PES N.
Hingorani FACTS committee as well as the custom power award committee.