Reliability Improvement of Composite Electric Power
System using Unified Power Flow Controller
T. Suresh Kumar
Member IEEE, Associate Professor, EEE Dept.,
Vishnu Institute of Technology (VIT)
Bhimavaram, India,
sureshkumar255@gmail.com
Abstract— FACTS technologies can have major positive
impacts on power system reliability performance and the actual
benefits obtained can be assessed using suitable models and
practice. Emerging techniques for composite power system
reliability evaluation mainly focus on conventional generation
and transmission facilities. In this paper, improvement of
Reliability in composite electric power system is examined by
incorporating Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC). Two test
systems, Reliability Test System (RTS) and Roy Billinton Test
System (RBTS) are considered to show major improvement in
reliability. A state space reliability model of multi-module UPFC
has been developed and incorporated in the system. Load point &
System indices performances are presented to examine the
impact of UPFC on the composite electric power system
reliability. Investigation results show a significant improvement
in the Load point & system indices when utilizing UPFC.
Keywords- Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC), Load Point
Indices, System Indices, Composite Power System Reliability.
I. INTRODUCTION
F lexible AC transmission system (FACTS) technology is
the ultimate tool for getting the most out of existing
equipment via faster control action and new capabilities.
The most striking feature is the ability to directly control
transmission line flows by structurally changing parameters of
the fast switching.
Unified Power Flow Controllers [1] is the most versatile
FACTS [2] device that has emerged for the control and
optimization of power flow in electrical power transmission
systems [3-5]. It offers major potential advantages for static
and dynamic operation [6-8] of transmission lines since it
combines the features of both the Static Synchronous
Compensator (STATCOM) and the Static Synchronous Series
Compensator (SSSC).
Distribution system capacity additions required to serve
load growth are generally accommodate in one of two ways
[9-10]; either additional feeders can be extended, or load can
be transferred to a new substation and its associated feeders.
Although substation capacity upgrades are the preferable
option, in some cases, severely it limits to existing circuit
breaker interrupting capability.
V. Sankar
Senior Member IEEE: Professor, EEE Dept.,
JNTUCEA (A)
Anantapur, India
vs.eee.jntucea@gmail.com
Non-traditional enhancements are needed to accomplish the
following conflicting objectives: (1) Provide additional
transmission infeed capacity to distribution substations, (2)
Not to add capacity which will raise the existing fault current
levels. Normally, the addition of transmission lines to a
substation will lower the infeed impedance and raise the fault
current levels.
In this paper, the impact of UPFC on composite electric
power system reliability is examined. UPFCs are employed in a
system to adjust the transmission infeed impedances and
therefore, increase the transmission system capacity without
increasing the system fault current levels. Load point & system
indices performances are presented to examine the impact of
UPFC on the two test systems via 24 bus IEEE RTS and 6 bus
RBTS.
II. UNIFIED POWER FLOW CONTROLLERS
A UPFC consists of two switching converters where each
converter is a voltage source inverter using gate turn off
thyristor valves as shown in Fig. 1. UPFC functions as an ideal
AC to AC power converter in which the real power can flow
freely in either direction between the AC terminals of the two
inverters and each inverter can independently generate
reactive power at its own AC output terminals.
Fig. 1: UPFC Model with a simple transmission line
Inverter 2 provides the main function of the UPFC by
injecting an AC voltage V1 with controllable magnitude &
phase angle α at the power frequency, in series with the line
can be considered essentially as a synchronous [1] AC voltage
source. The real power exchanged at the AC terminal is
converted by the inverter into DC power which appears at the In reliability studies, the UPFC itself is represented by a
DC link as positive & negative real power demand. two state model. In the UP state, the UPFC is capable of
The basic function of converter 1 is to supply or absorb the providing load flow control and maximum transmission
real power demanded by converter 2 at the common DC link capacity. In the DOWN state, the UPFC is bypassed by a fully
to support the real power exchange resulting from the series reliable circuit breaker and the system operates as a normal
voltage injection [8]. This DC link power demand of converter transmission line as shown in Fig. 2.
2 is converted back to AC by converter 1 and coupled to the The probability and frequency values associated with each
transmission line bus via a shunt connected transformer. state are derived, but due to lack of space it is not shown here.
Obviously, there can be no reactive power flow through the A
UPFC DC link [6]. P (up) = (4)
D
The transmitted power P and the reactive power –jQ,
B
supplied by the receiving end, can be expressed [9] as follows: P (derated) = (5)
* D
⎛ VS + Vpq − Vr ⎞
P − jQ = Vr ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1)
P (down ) =
C
(6)
⎝ jX ⎠ D
where: P = Active Power, Q = Reactive Power
Vr = Receiving end terminal voltage
Vs = Sending end terminal voltage
Vpq = Injected voltage
X = Reactance of the line
The transmittable real power P is
VVpq max VVpq max (2)
PO (δ) − ≤ PO (δ) ≤ PO (δ) +
X X Fig. 2: State Space Model of the transmission element with
Reactive Power Q is derated state
VVpq max VVpq max (3)
Q O ( δ) − ≤ Q O (δ) ≤ QO (δ) +
X X F(up) = P(up) ∗ (λ l + λ u ) (7)
Where δ = Transmission Angle F(derated) = P(derated) ∗ μ u (8)
Po (δ) = Normalized transmitted Power
Qo (δ) = Normalized reactive Power F(down ) = P (down ) ∗ μ l (9)
Where,
UPFC has the unique capability of independently
controlling both real power flow (P) on a transmission line & A = μuμl
the reactive power (Q) [6] at a specified point. The B = λuμl
transmission line containing the UPFC thus appears to the rest C = λlμu
of the power system as a high impedance power source or sink.
This is an extremely powerful mode of operation that has not D = A+ B+C
previously been achievable with conventional line λ l , μ l , λ u & μ u are the failure and repair rate of the
compensating equipment. transmission line and UPFC respectively.
In Fig. 3, the state space representation of single module
III. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UPFC
UPFC is shown. In Fig. 3 each state is represented by
The reliability evaluation of a composite power system rectangle block which enclosed left side number which is state
involves four key steps: number. Emergency state, state 3 is a transition state between
1. Reliability modeling of the generation & transmission states 1, 2 & 4. The number of states is increased as the
units number of modules increases.
2. Enumeration of all possible system contingencies
3. Determination of load curtailment under each
contingency and
4. Calculation of the reliability indices at each load point.
First & third steps have been extended in order to
incorporate FACTS in the overall evaluation.
The reliability of the composite power system is
determined by System & Load indices which mainly
concentrated on the increased capacity of UPFC [4] in the
literature available so far. In this paper, it is mainly
concentrated on the state space representation of the test
system which has not been carried out in the literature so far. Fig. 3: State Space Representation of UPFC
 A control circuit is present in the UPFC model so that all Fig. 7 shows the state space diagram of 5 modules UPFC
the components are controlled by using the controller. If the with bypass and emergency states.
controller fails the UPFC goes into bypass [1] state. The entire
system may be in state 3 when the bypass (i.e. tripping
circuits, relays etc.) fails, where the component is replaced by
using a spare component. As one module is insufficient for
power transmission, analysis is carried out for different
modules like 2, 3 etc.
Fig. 4 shows the state space diagram of 2 modules UPFC
with bypass and emergency states.

Fig. 7: State space diagram of 5 modules UPFC

The state space representation diagram of 6 modules UPFC

with bypass and emergency states is shown in Fig. 8

Fig. 4: State space diagram of 2 modules UPFC

Fig. 5 shows the state space diagram of 3 modules UPFC

with bypass and emergency states.

Fig. 8: State space diagram of 6 modules UPFC

The state space representation of seven modules UPFC

with emergency & bypass is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 5: State space diagram of 3 modules UPFC

Fig. 6 shows the state space diagram of 4 modules UPFC

with bypass and emergency states.

Fig. 9: State space representation of 7 Modules UPFC

The transition rates i.e., λ and μ are considered as 0.7 f/yr
and 150hr respectively [3]. Availability & unavailability of
Fig. 6: State space diagram of 4 modules UPFC different modules of UPFC is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Availability & Unavailability of different Modules V. RELIABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Modules Availability Unavailability
2 0.99818 0.00182 Reliability study results were conducted on 6 Bus Roy
Billinton Test System (RBTS) & 24 bus Reliability Test
3 0.99623 0.00377 System (RTS). RBTS consists of 6 Buses, 9 transmission
4 0.99462 0.00538 lines, 11 generating units and 5 load points, where as RTS
5 0.99374 0.00626 consists of 24 Buses, 38 transmission lines and 32 generating
units. The failure rate and repair rate are assumed to be
6 0.99246 0.00754 0.02f/yr and 60hours respectively [4]. In the reliability studies,
7 0.99164 0.00836 the transmission lines 1 & 2 of RBTS and the transmission
8 0.98254 0.01746 lines 25 & 26 in the RTS were replaced with UPFC of
different modules.
The availability of different modules is decreasing as the System Indices comparison via BPSD, BPII & BPECI of 6
number of elements in the state is increasing. Depending on the bus RBTS and 24 bus IEEE RTS with original scheme are
capacity of the transmission line it is justified to use 7 modules shown in Table 2.
UPFC depending on the Limiting state probabilities which are
calculated but not presented here. Table 2: System Indices for RBTS & RTS - original scheme

System
IV. RELIABILITY INDICES RBTS RTS
Indices
Load Point Indices: BPSD 19.71 817.62
The following are the expressions [4] to determine the load BPII 0.367 2.72
point indices of the given system BPECI 331.16 2211.6
Probability of Failure = ∑ P j Pkj System Indices (SI) of 6 bus RBTS and 24 bus RTS are
j
determined for different modules (Mo) of UPFC are shown in
Frequency of Failure = ∑ Fj Pkj
j
Table 3.
Expected Load Curtailed = ∑ L kj Fj (MW ) Table 3: Comparison of System Indices of 6 bus RBTS and 24
j
bus RTS with different modules of UPFC
Expected Energy Not Supplied (EENS)
= ∑ L kj P j ∗ 8760(MWh ) SI BPSD BPII BPECI
j
Mo RBTS RTS RBTS RTS RBTS RTS
Where:
2 19.69 817.49 0.3642 2.673 331.14 2211.14
j is an outage condition in the network
Pj is the state probability of the outage event j 3 19.58 817.41 0.363 2.655 331.11 2211.02
Fj is frequency of occurrence of the outage event j 4 19.47 817.32 0.3622 2.641 331.08 2210.94
Pkj is the probability of load curtailment at bus k 5 19.39 817.25 0.3612 2.647 331.04 2210.92
during outage event j 6 19.31 817.13 0.361 2.651 330.91 2210.89
Lkj is the load curtailment at bus k during outage
7 19.26 817.11 0.359 2.562 330.69 2210.82
event j
Dkj is the duration in hours of load curtailment at bus 8 19.38 817.26 0.364 2.648 331.01 2210.91
k during outage event j. The probability of failure & EENS of the original 6 bus
RBTS is shown in Table 4 & compared with different modules
System Indices:
of UPFC is shown in Table 5 & Table 6.
Bulk Power Supply Disturbances (BPSD) = ∑ ∑ Fj
k j Table 4: Probability of Failure & EENS of 6 bus RBTS
Bulk Power Interruption Index (BPII)
Bus Probability of
∑ ∑ L kj Fj EENS
=
k j
(MW / MW − Year) No. Failure
Ls 1 0.0081547 124.64
Bulk Power Energy Curtailment Index (BPECI) (Severity 2 0.0082665 88.082
Index)
3 0.0083131 377.731
∑ ∑ 60 ∗ L kj D kj Fj 4 0.0083139 177.28
k j
= (system min)
Ls 5 0.0083145 88.86
where Ls is the total system load 6 0.0094512 288.36
Table 5: Probability of Failure for 6 bus RBTS vs Number of The reliability indices increase, as the generation capacity
Modules of UPFC and load demand increase, and the transmission system
Mo Bus No. becomes more heavily utilized. The study examines the impact
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 of the location of UPFC device in 6 bus RBTS [4]. UPFCs
2 0.00823 0.00836 0.00814 0.00813 0.00814 0.0087 were applied to transmission lines 1 and 6 in the modified
RBTS i.e., generation capacity and load demand are at 150%
3 0.00821 0.00834 0.00816 0.00816 0.00817 0.0088
base values. The UPFC capacity was varied from 100MW to
4 0.00819 0.00833 0.00824 0.00824 0.00825 0.0089 180MW and compared with system indices which is shown in
5 0.00817 0.00831 0.00828 0.00827 0.00828 0.0090 Table 8
6 0.00815 0.00829 0.00830 0.00830 0.00830 0.0092 Table 8: System Indices for Modified 6 bus RBTS
7 0.00815 0.00826 0.00831 0.00831 0.00831 0.0094 UPFC Severity
BPSD BPII
8 0.00816 0.00829 0.00830 0.00830 0.00830 0.0091 Capacity Index
100 36.79 0.462 377.18
Table 6: Probability of EENS (MWh) for 6 bus RBTS vs
120 23.81 0.385 338.79
Number of Modules of UPFC
140 23.81 0.380 337.34
Mo Bus No.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 160 23.80 0.375 335.91
2 126.21 89.21 377.86 178.38 90.68 290.34 180 23.54 0.371 334.72
3 125.94 88.81 377.35 177.97 90.31 289.97 It can be observed from Table 8 & Figs. 7, 8 & 9 that the
incremental benefit in the system severity index with UPFC
4 125.54 88.39 376.94 177.69 89.81 289.34
device investment becomes relatively small after a certain
5 125.12 88.12 376.61 177.26 89.42 288.94 point
6 124.65 87.88 376.21 176.94 88.93 288.56
7 123.97 87.68 375.92 176.54 88.49 287.99
8 124.21 87.91 376.14 176.85 88.81 288.31
System Indices via BPSD, BPII, and Severity Index of 6
bus RBTS are compared with Generation Capacity & Load
Demand without using UPFC in Table 7 and with using 7
Module UPFC in Table 8.

Table 7: System Indices of 6 Bus RBTS vs Generation

Capacity & Load Demand – without UPFC

Generation Load
Severity
Capacity Demand BPSD BPII
Index
(MW) (MW)
240 185 19.834 0.364 329.642
270 203.5 19.897 0.372 331.246 Fig. 7: BPSD vs UPFC device capacity for Modified 6 bus
300 222 20.653 0.379 333.201 RBTS
330 240.5 21.842 0.389 336.721
345 259 34.197 0.465 371.264
360 277.5 78.673 0.913 615.259

Table 8: System Indices of 6 bus RBTS vs Generation

Capacity & Load Demand – with 7 modules UPFC
Generation Load
Severity
Capacity Demand BPSD BPII
Index
(MW) (MW)
240 185 19.428 0.324 328.521
270 203.5 19.679 0.334 330.125
300 222 20.315 0.351 331.921
330 240.5 21.242 0.360 332.671
345 259 23.157 0.378 333.164
360 277.5 29.736 0.389 334.259 Fig. 8: BPII vs UPFC device capacity for Modified 6 bus
RBTS
 Table A2: Generation data of 6 Bus RBTS
Bus No. of Rating MTTF MTTR
No. Units MW h h
2 40 1460 45
1 1 10 1752 45
1 20 4380 45
4 20 3650 55
2 2 5 4380 45
1 40 2920 60

APPENDIX B: Generation data of IEEE 24 Bus RTS.

Table B1: Generation data of IEEE-RTS
No. of Rating MTTF MTTR
Units MW h h
5 12 2940 60
Fig. 9: Severity Index vs UPFC device capacity for 4 20 450 50
Modified 6 bus RBTS 6 50 1980 20
4 76 1960 40
3 100 1200 50
VI. CONCLUSIONS 4 155 960 40
3 197 950 50
In this paper, the results of studies conducted on a 1 350 1150 100
composite electric power system model to investigate the 2 400 1100 150
impact of a Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) on the
system reliability are presented. A comparison has been made REFERENCES
between the RBTS & RTS for the system indices by [1] T. Suresh Kumar, V. Sankar, “Reliability Analysis of Unified
incorporating UPFC in different transmission lines of the two Power Flow Controllers & Series Compensator for a
test systems. The investigation shows that under some Transmission system”, i-manager’s journal on Electrical
circumstances, the installation of UPFC device has Engineering Vol. 2, No. 2, Oct-Dec 2008, pp: 47-52.
considerable positive impact on overall system reliability. [2] Armando M. Leite da Silva, Leonidas Chaves de Resende, Luiz
Finally, the UPFC capacities are increased and incorporated in Antonio da Fonseca Manso, Roy Billinton, “Well-Being Analysis
6 bus RBTS which shows the incremental benefit in the system for Composite Generation and Transmission Systems”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Nov-2004, pp:
severity index, BPII & BPSD. Studies are analyzed to help 1763-1770.
optimize FACTS devices to be used in a system. [3] Armando M Leite da Silva, luiz A da Fonseca Manso, George J
Anders, “Composite reliability evaluation for large scale Power
APPENDICES Systems”, IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference, June 23rd – 26th
2003, Bologna, Italy.
[4] Roy Billinton, Yu Cui “Reliability Evaluation of Composite
APPENDIX A: Branch & Generation data of 6 Bus RBTS. Electric Power Systems Incorporating FACTS”, IEEE Canadian
Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering, 2002.
[5] Roy Billinton, Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad, Sherif Omar Faried,
Table A1: Branch data of 6 Bus RBTS Saleh Aboresshaid “Impact of Unified Power Flow Controllers
on Power System Reliability”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Failure System, Vol. 15, No. 1, Feb 2000, pp 410-415.
MTTR
No. R pu X pu B pu Rate [6] M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, R. Billinton, S. O. Faried, S. Aboreshaid,
h “Power System Reliability using Unified Power Flow
f/yr Controllers”, IEEE, 2000, pp: 745-750.
1,6 0.0342 0.18 0.0212 1.5 10 [7] L Goel, C Feng “Well-being framework for composite generation
and transmission system reliability evaluation”, IEE Proceedings
2,7 0.114 0.6 0.0704 5 10 on Generation, Transmission, Distribution, vol. 146, No. 5, Sept
3 0.0456 0.24 0.0282 2 10 1999, pp: 528-534.
[8] Roy Billinton, Ronald N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power
4 0.0228 0.12 0.0141 1 10 Systems, 2nd Edition, Plenum Press, New York, 1996. Reprinted
5 0.0228 0.12 0.0141 1 10 in India, B.S. Publications 2007.
[9] Roy Billinton, Ronald N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of
8 0.0228 0.12 0.0141 1 10 Engineering Systems, Plenum Press, New York, 1994. Reprinted
9 0.0023 0.08 0 0.1 768 in India, B.S. Publications, 2007.
[10] N. Hingorani, Guygui, Understanding FACTS, IEEE Press,
Standard Publications.