1
New Assessment and Prediction for
Arc Furnace Flicker
J. L. Guan, J. C. Gu, M. T. Yang, and H. H. Chang
Abstract-- This investigation discussed the load
characteristics of EAFs as determined by field measurement and
found that the electrical characteristic of the EAF load doesn’t
totally conform to the Gauss Distribution Probability Mode. This
paper suggest that the scaling factor-1.8, arrived at herein, is
adopted to replace a traditional scaling factor-3.6 when doing the
transformation between ∆Vmax and ∆V10 max . The survey results
demonstrate that variations of active power and reactive power
of EAFs are strongly alike. Meanwhile, an ∆V10 estimate must
account for the effect of active power variation. This paper
proposes the maximum complex apparent power fluctuation
method to overcome the disadvantages of the traditional method.
This revised method reduces the differences between the
estimated voltage flicker and the surveyed value of the actual
EAF operation. Restated, MAPFM can react to the actual voltage
fluctuation during the operation of EAF. Furthermore, surveyed
results reveal that the revised method can yield more accurate
∆V10 estimates than traditional method.
Index Terms-- flicker estimate, ∆V10 , maximum complex
apparent power fluctuation method (MCAPFM)
I. INTRODUCTION
V OLTAGE flicker associated with an EAF is evaluated in
two main ways around the world [1]. The first is flicker
meter, which is the IEC standard and has been established by
the UIE [2]. The other is ∆V10 meter, which is established by
the Japanese Technical Committee [3]. Moreover, ∆V10 is the
method presently used by the Taiwan Power Company (TPC),
and thus is applied herein. Voltage flicker causes sudden
flashes of luminosity in fluorescent lamps and electric lights,
and disturbances in other electrical equipment [4], [5].
Voltage flicker problems have long existed in many of the
distribution areas served by TPC, especially those that include
steel plants that operate arc furnaces [6]-[8].
The trend in recent years has been toward arc furnace
installations of greatly increased capacity. These furnaces
have a correspondingly strong impact on the quality of utility.
The work was supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C.
under grant NSC-93-2213-E-146-004.
J. L. Guan, and H. H. Chang are with the Hwa Hsia Institute of
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail: gjl4127@cc.hwh.edu.tw)
J. C. Gu is with the National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. (jcgu@ mouse.ee.ntust.edu. tw)
M. T. Yang is with the St. John’s & St. Mary’s Institute of Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail:mtyang@mail.sjsmit.edu.tw)
1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.
While EAF operates after installation, the utilities and steel
manufacturers must evaluate the effects of EAF on power
systems. Before the EAF is installed, the capacities of
facilities improved in terms of voltage flicker must be
estimated. Recently, several measuring techniques and EAF
models have been developed to evaluate voltage flicker [9],
[10]. The EAF loads of more than ten steel factories have been
extensively surveyed over the last several years. This study
investigates ac and dc EAFs by making field measurements,
with those results indicate that the estimated ∆V10 value
obtained using the conventional method is significantly lower
than the surveyed value [6]-[8]. The difference of
∆V10 between the estimated value and the actual value is quite
large.
The criteria presently used to estimate the severity of EAF
voltage flicker involve the maximum reactive power
fluctuation method (MRPFM) [3], [11]. The variation in the
load on EAF during steel manufacture is quite violent, so the
melting of scrap iron is clearly non-linear. In estimating the
severity of voltage flicker, part of line and load parameters are
often ignored since the true parameters hard to obtain.
However, steel factories still experience serious voltage
flicker problems even flicker improving facilities has been
installed, and thus this investigation probes into the
differences between the estimated ∆V10 and the survey value
of actual EAF operations. Furthermore, an actual coefficient
of ∆V / ∆V10 related to EAF operation is obtained [12].
This investigation discusses the load characteristics of
EAFs as determined by field measurement. The survey results
demonstrate that significant variations in active power and
reactive power are very alike. Furthermore, the ∆V10 estimate
cannot ignore the effect of active power variation [13].
Restated, the significant active power variation of EAF is an
important cause of voltage flicker. The traditional
compensator is completely unable to supply any fluctuating
real power drawn by the furnace. Real power fluctuation
produces phase variations at the critical bus that do in fact
contribute to flicker.
This study proposes the maximum complex apparent
power fluctuation method (MCAPFM) to overcome the
disadvantages of the traditional method. This revised method
reduces the differences between the estimated voltage flicker
and the surveyed value of the actual EAF operation. Restated,
MCAPFM can react to the actual voltage fluctuation during
the operation of EAF. Furthermore, surveyed results reveal
 2

that the revised method can yield more accurate ∆V10

estimates than traditional method

II. ∆V And ∆V10 OF VOLTAGE FLICKER

This investigation discusses and analyses load Fig. 4. Field voltage measurement result of factory A1
characteristics, such as ∆V and ∆V10 , of six AC (namely A1,
A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6) and three DC (namely D1, D2 and
D3) EAF by field surveying. The statistical method is used to
reveal the contents of the measurement data. The points of
field surveying are shown in Fig. 1
Fig. 5. Field ∆V and ∆V10 measurement result of factory A1
POINTS OF FIELD SURVEYING
FT
The survey results indicate that the variation of the EAF’s
M.TR.1
EAF
voltage is unusually severe. The ten minutes voltage of the
PRIMARY meltdown period from the first section of previous surveying
UTILITY SIDE
FILTERS
is now taken, and the probability density spectrum is obtained
SERVICE
ENTRANCE M.TR.2 via the probability density function (PDF) operation. For
OTHER LOAD
POINT
example, Fig. 6 shows a typical voltage probability density
Fig. 1. Single-line diagram of the steel factory spectrum of factory D1 and A1 respectively during the
Using the continuous model, the data are sampled during meltdown period. Apparently, the normal probability
several days. Furthermore, the frequency spectrums of distribution of the voltage is asymmetrically spread. Owing to
sampled voltage data are undertaken. To help clarify the load intermittent electric arcs during the steel-making period of an
changing conditions and operating characteristics of an EAF AC EAF’s operation, the appearance probability of unusually
load the sampling rate is at a rate of 12 samples/min.. high voltage appears comparatively higher than unusually low
Factories D1 and A1 were selected to plot the curve of line voltage. It is quite obvious that the spread characteristic of the
voltage, ∆V and ∆V10 for a complete steel-making period of EAF voltage is clearly not normal distribution.
the EAF operation. The complete steel-making period mainly
included meltdown period and refining period. Fig. 2 shows
the line voltage curve of D1 factory around the primary side
of F.T.. When an EAF is not operating, that is the time for
feeding the raw metals into the furnace, the filters remain
connected which causes the reactive power to flow to the
service entrance point and voltage remain in 34.96kV. Fig. 3 Fig. 6. Typical voltage probability density distribution of D1 and A1
presents the ∆V and ∆V10 curves. The ∆V10 value is between
0.073%~5.717% while the ∆V value is between Totally, there are fifteen minutes of voltage data during the
0.107%~12.543%. Fig. 4 shows the line voltage curve of meltdown period that are sampled and used to calculate the
factory A1 around the primary side of F.T.. Meanwhile, Fig. 5 frequency spectrum of ∆V . Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show typical
illustrates the ∆V and ∆V10 curves and shows that the ∆V10 frequency spectrums of ∆V near one DC EAF and one AC
value is between 0.138%~6.767%, while the ∆V value is EAF primary side of F.T. respectively . The bold line indicates
between 0.315%~17.081%. the average value while the plain line displays the sum of the
average value and two standard deviations ( σ ). Notably, the
variation of the frequency spectrum is especially severe during
the meltdown period. Clearly, the standard deviation of each
frequency is roughly the same size as its average value,
confirming that the frequency spectrum spread of the EAF is
extremely random.
Fig. 2. Field voltage measurement result of factory D1.

Fig. 7. Typical frequency spectrum of ∆V of the DC EAF

Fig. 3. Field ∆V and ∆V10 measurement result of factory D1

Fig. 8. Typical frequency spectrum of ∆V of the AC EAF

 3

Besides, four seconds of sampled data for different stages in

meltdown period on F.T. of factories D1 and A1 are selected.
∆V10 = ∑(a
n
n × ∆V n )2 (2)

The frequency spectrum curves are plotted in Figs. 9 and 10,

which resemble Figs. 7 and 8, except that the variation is To make it more clear, only the data in meltdown and
comparatively high. From the previous analysis, we already refining period excluding feeding time of the EAF operating,
know that the voltage fluctuation ( ∆Vn ) of an EAF gradually as Figs. 2~5, are chosen for conducting analysis, and the
statistical results are listed in Table I.
decreases with frequency, and the standard deviation of each
Obviously, the σ value in Table I, column 4 is relatively
frequency is extremely high. Careful observation of Figs. 3
small compared with the 3rd column in Table II, particularly
and 5 reveals that ∆V is significantly higher than ∆V10 when
for the DC EAF. Then, the K factor of factory D1 ranges
the moment of electrodes enter or leave the furnace, and also between 1.25~1.60 and the K factor of factory A1 ranges
when the electric arc is suddenly interrupted. Fig. 11 between 1.43~1.73. However, it differs significantly from the
illustrates the frequency spectrum of ∆V when an EAF load Japanese empirical value 3.6.
undergoes a sudden and significant change. Obviously, part of Generally, utilities must examine the possible impact of
the low frequency fluctuation is relatively high. Meanwhile, voltage flicker to the power systems before EAF installation.
part of the comparatively low frequency fluctuation do not Conventionally, the ∆V10 max value is calculated in the way of
respond completely on the ∆V10 since the related sensitivity
∆Vmax / 3.6 [3]. This approach has been applied for many
coefficient of the frequency is quite small. This is the reason
years. The empirical coefficient 3.6 was suggested by CRIEPI
why the ratio of ∆V to ∆V10 is abnormally high. in 1978 from the statistical survey of three small EAFs in
Japan. However, times have changed. The capacities and
operating technology of EAFs have been significantly
improved. It is hereby recognized that the estimating
philosophy of the flicker may need to be modified. On the
other hand, the spread characteristic of the EAF voltage
Fig. 9. Field frequency spectrum of ∆V of the factory D1 (black line: initial doesn’t completely correspond with the Gaussian distribution
stage of meltdown period; pale line: ending stage of meltdown period) Probability Mode as seen in Fig. 6. Consequently, an error is
produced when the maximal voltage fluctuation ( ∆Vmax ) is
calculated directly by using ±3σ ( 6σ ). From Table I, column
7, the statistical results tell us this truth.
Supposing that the voltage fluctuation ( ∆V ) is obtained
using formula (1). From another perspective, the ratio of
Fig. 10. Field frequency spectrum of ∆V of the factory A1 (black line: initial
∆V / ∆V10 can be estimated. Furthermore, a statistical analysis
stage of meltdown period; pale line: ending stage of meltdown period)
was performed using survey data of Figs. 2~5. Table II lists
the statistical results and reveals that the µ value ranged
between 1.703~1.998 (the 3rd column), while the total average
value was 1.789. Comparison of the µ value in Table II with
the K value in Table I clearly reveals that both are very
Fig. 11. Field frequency spectrum of ∆V of the factories A1 and D1 (black consistent.
line: electric arc interrupted suddenly on factory A1; pale line: moment of
TABLE I
electrodes plug-in on factory D1)
Statistical results of the survey data at a rate of 12 samples/min. measured on
the primary side of F.T. of factories D1 and A1.
III. Analysis Of The Scaling Factor Of ∆V To ∆V10 Factory/Period ∆V (%) ∆V10 (%) K value
Vmean σ calculate survey calculate survey 6σ
Although the voltage fluctuation of the EAF does not (kV) (kV)
∆V10 max
6σ ∆Vmax 6σ / 3 . 6 ∆V10 max
conform to the normal distribution characteristics, as with the
First Section
analysis of large numbers of sampled data, a generalized and Boredown
30.909 0.372 7.225 12.543 2.007 5.275 1.370
conformable solution can be sought using statistical methods. D1 Second Section 31.089 0.370 7.140 10.148 1.983 5.717 1.249
This investigation conducts a statistical analysis to utilize Boredown
Boredown
survey data. We assume that the maximal voltage fluctuation Last Section
31.056 0.189 3.661 4.145 1.017 2.291 1.598

∆Vmax within a range of ±3σ . This value is compared with a First Section
21.712 0.425 11.736 17.081 3.260 6.767 1.734
Boredown
real survey value of ∆Vmax from formula (1). The ∆V10 max Second Section
21.711 0.348 9.628 13.185 2.675 6.723 1.432
A1 Boredown
value is obtained based on the maximum ∆V10 found in the Refining
21.815 0.186 5.125 6.791 1.424 3.440 1.490
survey. However, the process of calculating is based on Period
formula (2) and a reasonable scaling factor of ∆V to ∆V10 is TABLE II
sought. The statistical results of ∆V / ∆V10 of factories D1 and A1
(1) σ
ΔV = ∑
(ΔV n ) 2
n
∆V / ∆V10 μ μmax μmin
Factory / Period
 4

First Section Boredown 1.837 0.449 3.998 1.355 Fig. 13. Fields V, P and Q measured results based on a rate of 1sample/cycle
on the primary side of FT of factory A1
D1 Second Section Boredown 1.723 0.286 3.262 1.354
Boredown Last Section 1.720 0.130 2.057 1.454
Figure 12 presents the survey results concerning factory D1,
First Section Boredown 1.754 0.324 3.576 1.105
and reveals that the active power is between 4MW and 57MW
A1 Second Section Boredown 1.703 0.308 2.900 1.089
while the reactive power is between 19MVAR and 72MVAR.
Refining Period 1.998 0.247 2.903 1.641
The survey results also show that load control of dc EAF is
achieved using a constant current. Apparent power is
IV. ANALYSIS OF EAF LOAD maintained almost constant, while active and reactive power
The sampling rate is adjusted to one sample/cycle and a remains complementary. The ranges of variation of P and Q
total of 3600 samples per minute to help clarify the load are almost consistent, so ∆P can increase ∆V quite
changing conditions and operating characteristics of an EAF substantially from that used in formula (3). Thus, the estimate
load. Factories D1 and A1 were selected as examples. Figures of ∆V10 for dc EAF must consider not only ∆Q but also ∆P .
8 and 9 show the survey results concerning the primary side of
furnace transformer (FT). ∆V = X S × ∆P 2 + ∆Q 2 = X S × ∆S (3)
Curves of line voltage, active power and reactive power are
Figure 13 shows the survey results of factory A1, revealing
plotted and data are sampled during the initial stage of
that the active power is between 0 and 28MW while the
meltdown, during which voltage flicker is particularly evident.
reactive power is between 0 and 35MVAR. Clearly, the
Figures 12 and 13 clearly show extreme variations in EAF
estimate of ∆V10 for ac EAF must not ignore the effect of
load.
active power variation. In particular, ∆P is major cause of
voltage flicker when the reactive power has been compensated.
Therefore, this study proposes the MCAPFM of obtaining
the ∆V10 value of EAF to overcome the disadvantages of the
traditional method. The method not only considers the reactive
power variation but also the active power variation in
calculating the estimated ∆V10 value of dc and ac EAFs. Fig.
14 and 15 show the load curve of dc and ac EAF.

Fig. 12. Fields V, P and Q measured results based on a rate of 1sample/cycle

on the primary side of FT of factory D1
Fig. 4. Load curves of dc EAF

Fig. 3. Load curve of ac EAF

V. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED AND SURVEYED

∆V10 VALUES
According to the previous analysis, the original estimates
and survey data of ∆V10 values of the EAF factories differ
 5

significantly, the relationship between voltage fluctuation and X S = 0.00437 pu ； S FT = 82 MVA ； S B = 10 MVA
active power is quite close when EAF factories typically
install reactive power compensation equipment to suppress the ∆Q max = 82 × (1 × 1.0 − Sin 36.87° ) = 3.28 pu
high voltage flicker. Besides, the authors’ investigation found
that the electrical characteristic of the EAF load does not ∆Pmax = 82 × (Cos 36.87° − 1 × Cos( Sin −1 1.0) ) = 6.56 pu
wholly match the Gaussian Distribution Probability Mode.
Therefore, the ∆V10 value can be evaluated using the ∆S max = 6.56 2 + 3.28 2 = 7.334 pu

∆ V max /1.8 [12]. Meanwhile, surveyed results reveal that this ∆V max = 0.00437 × 7.334 = 3.205 %
way can more accurately estimate ∆V10 . Finally, ∆ V max can be
∆V10 max = 3.205 1.8 = 1.781 %
analyzed and studied as follows.
A. The ac EAF Similarly, the ∆V10max values for factories A2, A3, D2 and
D3 are also calculated. Table III compares the original design,
Qmax = 1 X 0 modification and cumulative probability value of the actual
∆Q max
'
≅ Q max × Cos 2θ r (Uncompensated) (4) field surveys of ∆V10 for the ac and dc EAF factories.
TABLE IV
∆Qmax ≅ Qmax
'
× (1 − α %) (Compensated) (5) ORIGINAL DESIGN, MODIFICATION AND CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY VALUE
OF THE ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY OF ∆V10 FOR THE EAF FACTORIES
∆Pmax ≅ Q max × Sinθ r Cosθ r (6) Original Modified Actual Field Survey
Calculation Calculation (Cumulative Probability)
∆S max = ∆Pmax + ∆Qmax
2 2
(7)
∆Q max ∆V ∆S max ∆V10max ∆V10 − 95% ∆V10 − 97.5% ∆V10 − 99.9%
Factory 10max
(MVAR
∆Vmax = X s × ∆Smax = ∆Smax MVAsc (8) )
(%) (MVA) (%) (%) (%) (%)

∆V10 max = ∆Vmax / 1.8 (9) A1 8.58 0.351 18.97 1.552 1.125 1.222 1.546
ac A2 7.41 0.162 19.18 0.837 0.665 0.725 0.929
B. The dc EAF EAF
A3 22.05 0.150 35.90 0.488 0.438 0.476 0.590
∆Qmax
'
≅ S FT ( β × Sinθ s − Sinθ α min ) (10)
D1 32.77 0.398 73.34 1.781 0.820 0.944 1.321
∆Qmax ≅ Q '
max × (1 − α %) (Compensated) (11) dc D2 41.86 0.302 69.98 1.003 0.529 0.616 1.006
EAF
∆Pmax ≅ S FT (Cosθ α min − β × Cosθ s ) (12) D3 38.71 0.350 87.89 1.592 0.948 1.077 1.505

∆S max = ∆Pmax + ∆Qmax

2 2
(13) However, a minor discrepancy exists between the modified
results and those of the actual field survey, probably because
∆Vmax = X s × ∆S max = ∆S max MVAsc (14)
of an abnormality in the operation of circuit elements or an
(15) irregularity in the EAF during the steel-making process.
∆V10 max = ∆Vmax / 1.8
Besides, the assumed PF may be too small to reacting with
the actual ac EAF and the assumed θ αmin and Q max also may
Factory A1 is selected as an example. The ∆V10 max is newly
not match the actual operation of dc EAF. Briefly, the causes
estimated and the modified value is 1.552%.
stated above may lead to differences between the results after
modification and those of the actual field survey. In any case,
S B = 10 MVA ； X S = 0.01473 pu ； X 0 = 0.285588 pu
this study proposes the MAPFM that more accurately
∆Q max
'
= 0.793 2 0.285588 = 2.202 pu (Uncompensated) ∆V10 estimate than the conventional method.

∆Q max = 2.20 × (1 − 0.61) = 0.859 pu (Compensated) VI. CONCLUSIONS

∆Pmax = 0.609 × 0.793 0.285588 = 1.691 pu
∆S max = 1.6912 + 0.859 2 = 1.897 pu
∆V max = 0.01473 × 1.897 = 2.794 %
∆V10 max = 2.794 1.8 = 1.552 %
Factory D1 is selected as an example. The ∆V10 max is newly
estimated and the modified value is 1.781%.
The EAF loads of steel factories have been extensively
surveyed during the past several years. Meanwhile, these
investigations found that the estimated ∆V10 is lower when
the conventional means of estimating criteria is applied than
actual surveyed. The severity of the problem of voltage
flicker caused by EAF loads were under estimated, and so
some factories did not install any flicker compensation
equipment, while others failed to install sufficient
compensation equipment. Both utilities and factories are
confused by this mismatch between the theoretical estimate
 6

and the actual measurement of ∆V10 . The important point is engineering from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
(NTUST), Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1995 and 2003, respectively. Currently,
that the conventional means of estimating ∆V10 is inaccurate. he is an Associate Professor at Hwa Hsia Institute of Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan, R.O.C. His current research intersets lie in electric power quality and
The estimated ∆V10 max would be significantly lower than the power system.
actual value if the ∆V10 max is evaluated by the ∆Vmax /3.6
Jyh-Cherng Gu (M’92) was born in 1958. He
equation. However, we suggest that the scaling factor-1.8, received the B.S.E.E. degree from the NTUST in
arrived at herein, is adopted to replace a traditional scaling 1984. He received the M.S. and Ph.D. degree in
factor-3.6 when utilizing the MCAPFM to do the electrical engineering from the University of Texas
at Arlington in 1987 and 1992, respectively. Since
transformation between ∆Vmax and ∆V10 max . Besides, the then, he joined the NTUST as an Associate
authors’ investigations found that an estimate of ∆V10 for EAF Professor. He has been involved in research on
microcomputer-based relay, protection coordination,
must simultaneously consider the variation in active power electric power quality, and distribution automation
and reactive power. Furthermore, this study proposes for power systems.
MCAPFM to calculate the ∆V10 value for ac and dc EAFs. Ming-Ta Yang (S’04) was born in 1968. He received his B.S.E.E. degree
Meanwhile, the revised method developed here should replace from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology in 1993,
M.S.E.E. degree from the National Yunlin University Science and Technology
the traditional method. However, survey results clearly reveal in 1998. He is currently enrolled in the Ph.D.
that the revised method can more accurately estimate ∆V10 . program in electrical engineering at National
Then, the appropriate equipment for compensating for voltage Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He
has also joined the St. John’s & St. Mary’s Institute
flicker can be installed in advance, effectively improving of Technology as a instructor since 1999. His
problems of voltage flicker. research interests include protection coordination
and power quality.
Hsin-Hung Chang was born in 1962. He received
VII. REFERENCES the B.S and M.S. degrees in electronic engineering
from the National Taiwan University of Science and
[1] Robert A. and M. Couvreur, "Arc Furnace Flicker Assessment and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1985 and 1987. His research
Prediction," CIRED 12th International Conference on Electricity
interests are in the field of automatic measurement
Distribution, no. 373, vol.2, pp2.2.1-6,1993.
on power systems and the microcomputer-based
[2] IEC Publication 868: Flicker-Meter, functional and design specification,
instrument design. Currently, he is an instructor at
1986.
Hwa Hsia Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan,
[3] New trend in supply problems of arc furnace for steel plants, Japanese:
R.O.C.
Elect. Eng. Soc., 1978, vol.2, no.72, pp.3-26.
[4] G. Manchur and C. C. Erven, "Development of A Model for Predicting
Flicker from Electric Arc Furnaces," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 416-426, Jan.1992.
[5] G. C. Montanari, M. Loggini, A. Cavallini, L. Pitti, and D. Zaninelli,
"Arc Furnace Model for The Study of Flicker Compensation in
Electrical Networks," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol.9, no.4,
pp.2026-2036, 1994.
[6] J. C. Gu, C. J. Wu, and J. C. chiang, "Effects of High Voltage Side
Voltage Flicker Sources on Low Voltage Side Customers," Power
Research Institute, Taiwan Power Company, 1994.
[7] C. J. Wu and L. H. Lee, "Electric Power Quality Evaluation of 161kV
Large Size Steel Plants," Power Research Institute, Taiwan Power
Company, 1995.
[8] C. J. Wu and J. C. Gu, "Measurement and Analysis of Voltage Flicker,"
Power Research Institute, Energy Commission, Ministry of Economic
Affairs, Technical Report, 2000.
[9] G. Manchur and C. C. Erven, "Development of A Model for Predicting
Flicker from Electric Arc Furnaces," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 416-426, Jan.1992.
[10] M. D. Cox, A. Mirbod, "A New Static Var Compensator for an Arc
Furnace," IEEE Trans. on Power System, vol. PWRS-1, no.3, Aug. 1986.
[11] The Survey of DC Arc Furnace, Japanese: Nihon Kou-Kan Co., NKK,
Technical Report, 1989.
[12] J. L. Guan, J. C. Gu, and C. J. Wu, " Real-time Measurement Approach
for Tracking the Actual Coefficient of ∆V / ∆V10 of Electric Arc
Furnaces," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 309-315,
Jan. 2004.
[13] J. L. Guan, J. C. Gu, and C. J. Wu, “A Novel Method for Estimating
Voltage Flicker," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 242-
247, Jan. 2005.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Jin-Lung Guan was born in 1967. He received the
B.S.E.E. degree from the National Sun Yat-Sen
University, Kaohsing , Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1990. He
received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical