Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Reliability modeling of TCR–FC type SVC using Markov process

AliReza Karami-Horestani ⇑, Mohamad Esmail Hamedani Golshan, Hamze Hajian-Hoseinabadi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Static VAr compensator as a reactive power equipment plays a significant role in power system reliability
Received 17 February 2013 and security. Because in conventional reliability evaluations, reactive power had only been considered as
Received in revised form 10 September a network constraint in analysis, the effect of SVC on reliability evaluation of the system has not been
2013
considered in the existing reliability techniques yet. This paper, at first, analyzes the role of different
Accepted 24 September 2013
components of SVC in availability of the system, and proposes a reliability model for a typical SVC. Next,
Markov process is employed to analyze the proposed model and to present an equivalent three state
model for the SVC. Then, a sensitivity analysis in a practical operating point is carried out to consider
Keywords:
Static VAr compensator
the impact of the failure and repair rates of different components on the availability of the system.
Reliability Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reactive power
Markov model
Sensitivity analysis

1. Introduction a correlation between real and reactive power output from a

With the development of the power industry, more static VAr
compensator (SVC) devices are being utilized to achieve high
flexibility and wide tolerance to load variations [1]. In addition,
SVCs are also being used to minimize power loss, improve voltage
profile, solve voltage instability problems and increase the
maximum transmitted power in cables and transformers [2–6].
Moreover, because the reactive power component of line loading,
during most contingencies, changes significantly more than active
power flow [7], SVC would have a remarkable effect on stability of
the system; therefore, the impact of SVC should be considered in
reliability evaluation techniques [8].
Limited attention, however, has been given to reactive power
equipment’s failure in reliability evaluation of power systems.
Noferi and Paris [9], calculated the expected energy not supplied
and the expected value of voltage irregularity which are due to
the lack of reactive power resources in the network. They
employed a dc power flow technique to investigate the effect of
voltage limits and reactive power constraints on system reliability,
while ignoring the effect of reactive power by using dc load flow in
the evaluation is not an accurate method [10]. Because, there are
three important considerations in the real network: First, all loads
throughout the network are not necessarily resistive; second,
transmission lines in the network cause some limitations in
transmitting power throughout the network, and finally, there is
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.r.karami@ec.iut.ac.ir (A. Karami-Horestani).
generator, which is determined by P–Q curve [8].
The importance of using shunt capacitors to improve the
reliability of distribution system is illustrated in [11]. In this study,
reliability indices are calculated for a distribution system with and
without shunt capacitors, and numerical example indicates that
system reliability is improved, using shunt capacitors. While the
effect of shunt capacitors or any other reactive power resources
on composite power system is not considered in this study, reac-
tive power resources would have a remarkable effect on reliability
evaluation of composite system.
In [8], some new reliability indices are defined to represent the
effect of reactive power shortage on system reliability. In this re-
search, the reliability indices which are due to lack of reactive
power generation were defined and separated with those due to
real power shortages. The proposed technique in this paper is
appropriate to evaluate the reliability of power systems with reac-
tive power shortage, which is due to failures caused by reactive
power sources such as generators, synchronous condensers, and
compensators. Because the focus of this research is definition of
new reliability indices, it considered reactive power sources as a
simple two state up-down model; nevertheless, it is necessary to
analyze these resources and offer an appropriate reliability model
for each of them.
Thus, this paper proposes the reliability modeling of TCR–FC
type SVC as a common reactive power source in power systems,
using Markov process. At first, in Section 2, the different SVC types
are described, and TCR–FC type is selected to be studied here as a
generic SVC. Next, the components of the SVC and their functions
are described. Then, in Section 3, using Markov process, a three

0142-0615/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.09.010
306 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311

Nomenclature

ACF AC filter PSVC,UP probability of residing at up state in SVC equivalent

B equivalent susceptance of SVC Markov model
BACF susceptance of AC filter PSU power-supply unit
BXL susceptance of reactor SAS substation automation system
BFC susceptance of fixed capacitor SDPF sudden death failure period
BCU bay control unit SVC static VAr compensator
FC fixed capacitor SVCCS static var compensator control system
GPG gate pulse generation TCR thyristor controlled reactor
GTO gate turn-off TCRM thyristor controlled reactor module
HL hierarchical level ThV thyristor valve
HMI human–machine interface ThVCS thyristor valve control system
IED intelligent electronic device TSC thyristor switched capacitor
IPC industrial personal computer VR&SS voltage regulator and synchronization system
LlP local microprocessor XL reactor
MS measuring system kDN failure rate of down state in SVC equivalent model
NCC network control center kDR failure rate of derated state in SVC equivalent model
PSVCCS,DN probability of residing at down state in SVCCS equiva- kDRi failure rate of ith derated state in SVC equivalent model
lent Markov model (unavailability) ki failure rate of component i
PSVCCS,UP probability of residing at up state in SVCCS equivalent lDN repair rate of down state in SVC equivalent model
Markov model (availability) lDR repair rate of derated state in SVC equivalent model
PSVC,DN probability of residing at down state in SVC equivalent lDRi repair rate of ith derated state in SVC equivalent model
Markov model li repair rate of component i
PSVC,DR probability of residing at derated state in SVC equivalent
Markov model

state equivalent reliability model for SVC is offered. Finally, in Sec- 1. Fixed Capacitor (FC): The fixed capacitor banks can supply suf-
tion 4, a sensitivity analysis on the failure and repair rates of SVC ficient capacitive reactive power to power grid.
components is performed to consider the impact of these parame- 2. AC Filter (ACF): The AC filter is composed of capacitors, reactors,
ters on availability of SVC. and resistors, providing capacitive reactive power to the entire
system and eliminating harmonics produced by TCR.
3. Reactor (XL): The air-core reactor in SVC has high stability
2. Static VAr compensator and high linearity. It is used to absorb reactive power under
the control of thyristors. Usually, the air-core reactor is con-
Generally, SVC is a shunt connected static VAr generator/load nected in series with the thyristor valve in delta-connection,
whose output is adjusted to exchange capacitive or inductive reac- and then connected to the secondary side of the coupling
tive power so as to maintain or control specific power system vari- transformer.
ables [6,12]. Although those SVCs have been built using a wide
variety of designs, the controllable elements used in most system
are similar [13].
SVCs typically consist of controllable elements such as TCR HV bus
(Thyristor Controlled Reactor) or TSC (Thyristor Switched Capaci-
tor), Fixed Capacitors (FC), and AC filters (ACF). TCR is composed Thyristor Valve
of a fixed reactor in series with a bi-directional thyristor valve. This ThV
SVC bus
composition would continuously control reactive power by varying
the current amplitude flowing through the reactor. FC also supplies
sufficient capacitive reactive power to power grid. TSC, similarly,
consists of a capacitor in series with a bi-directional thyristor valve Reactor
and a damping reactor [13]. Thus by using several TSCs in SVC, the XL
reactive power control can be accomplished in steps by switching
consecutive capacitors in or out. On the other hand, at power fre-
quency, the ACFs are capacitive and produce reactive power of
about 10–30% of TCR MVAr rating, while ACFs also absorb the
harmonic current generated by TCR.
There are two popular configurations of SVC: one is a FC and AC Filter Fixed Capacitor
SVC Control System
TCR configuration (TCR–FC), and the other is a TSC, TCR configura- ACF FC
SVCCS
tion (TCR–TSC) [6,14]. The TCR–FC is the most basic configuration
of SVC; therefore, this type is used here for the basic reliability Thyristor Valve Cooling System
modeling of SVC. A functional on-line diagram of TCR–FC type TCR Module ThVCS
SVC is shown in Fig. 1. TCRM
As shown in Fig. 1, six main components of this SVC are as
below: Fig. 1. The schematic of general TCR–FC type SVC.
 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311 307

4. Thyristor Valves (ThV): The thyristor valve is the main control HV bus
part in a SVC system. It is composed of several series/paralleled
connected thyristors and its auxiliary components. The thyris-
tors are triggered by electrical lighting system, and it adopts
water cooling as the main cooling method. SVC bus
5. Thyristor Valve Cooling System (ThVCS): The purpose of the
thyristor valve cooling system is to remove the heat produced
by the thyristor valve, and generally, two types of thyristor
cooling systems are possible: water-cooled systems or air-
SVC LμP
cooled systems.
6. SVC Control System (SVCCS): This component is the intelligent
part of SVC, which is responsible for generating the control
pulses to the valves at suitable time to fire the thyristors.

As illustrated in Fig. 1 XL, ThV, ThVCS and SVCCS are four main
components known as TCR module (TCRM) in the SVC configura-
tion. TCRM is the part of SVC which is responsible for continuous
generation of reactive power through the reactor.
SVCCS is also composed of five different components, and the
hardware block diagram of SVCCS is shown in Fig. 2.
The first component is measuring system (MS) which provides
the necessary inputs to the SVC controller. The different inputs, re-
quired by an SVC, depend on the function that the SVC controller is
intended to perform [15]. It may consist of PT or CT, or both for mea-
suring line and load current and voltage. Incoming analog measure-
ments often contain noise, which is removed by low-pass filter.
Then, A/D converter samples analog signal into a digital form [16].
In the next component, voltage regulator and synchronization
system (VR&SS), the measured voltage magnitude is compared
with a reference voltage. The obtained error passes through a PI
regulator and presents the primary susceptance. Besides, this com-
ponent as a synchronizing system uses three PLLs synchronized on
line-to-line secondary voltages and a pulse generator that sends
appropriate pulses to the thyristors [20].
After that, gate pulse generation (GPG) unit converts the control
pulses, generated by VR&SS, to electrical pulses to trigger the
appropriate thyristor valve at suitable time [15].
Local microprocessor (LlP) is one of the critical components in
the control process. This microprocessor is responsible for all of the
calculations needed in this control process such as harmonic filter-
ing, arithmetic calculation, and integration.
The last component is substation automation system (SAS).
Fig. 3 shows the relation of a typical SVC with a SAS. A typical
SAS usually comprises a set of components and different levels.
Analog Inputs Output Control Pulses
Measuring Voltage Regulator Gate Pulse
System and Synchronization System Generation
(MS) (VR&SS) (GPG)
Communication
Device
Human Machine Interface
HMI
Human Machine Interface
HMI
Fig. 3. The schematic position of a typical SVC in a SAS.
The main components of a SAS are: human–machine interface
(HMI), industrial personal computer (IPC) and network control
center (NCC) server, various substation IEDs, the bay control unit
(BCU), power-supply unit (PSU), and some communications facili-
ties [22]. In this figure, only the relationships among HMIs and a
typical SVC are shown.
Furthermore, a generic SAS involves three hierarchical levels
(HLs) including the remote control level (HL l), the station control
level (HL 2), as well as the bay control level (HL 3) [22]. Each of
these levels has some duties in control of the different utilities in
the substation. HMI, which is in the station level, is used for setting
internal control parameters such as the reference voltage. But if
there were several SVCs in the network, the optional remote level
which is connected to the SAS by a communication device such as
GPS, fiber optic, or some other wireless communication facilities,
would be responsible for their coordination. Hajian-Hoseinabadi
and Hamedani Golshan [22], proposes a reliability model for four
different architectures of SAS, and finally the results show the
fourth architecture is the most reliable one. Therefore in this paper,
this architecture is assumed for SAS.

3. Reliability modeling of SVC

Local MicroProcessor
(LμP)
There are two assumptions necessary to be considered in
Markov reliability modeling of SVC:

– All of the components are non-redundant.

– Each of the components has two operation states as in service
Substation Automation
System (up) and out of service (down).
(SAS)
For developing a reliability model for SVC, at first, it is necessary
Fig. 2. The hardware block diagram of SVCCS [17–21]. to develop a model for SVCCS.
308 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311

3.1. Reliability modeling of SVCCS SVCCS λ SVCCS SVCCS

Up μ SVCCS Down
SVCCS has five components and they are assumed to be all
mutually exclusive; in other words, when the SVCCS is at its failure Fig. 5. The equivalent two state Markov model of SVCCS.
state, no subsequent component failures can occur until the SVCCS
returns to its operating state. If one of the components fails, all the
system will be out of reach. There, however, may be another ap- μDR1 μDR3
proach that when one of the components of SVCCS fails, the SVC UP
can still remain in service, and the operator can choose to take
the SVC out of service at a more suitable time for the grid opera-
tion, but in this paper, we do not assume this approach for SVCCS,
μDR2
for the sake of simplicity. This means that, from a reliability point
of view, these five components are in series. λ DR1 λ DR2 λ DR3
Fig. 4 illustrates the state space representation of this model.
State 0 is the only up state where all of the components are
working properly, and the other states are representative of five ACF FC TCRM
different possibilities (based on the assumptions) in components’ Down Down Down
failure.
The methodology explained in [23] is used for the steady-state μDR2 μDR1 μDR1
μDR3 μDR3 μDR2
analysis of the system as follows:
!1
kMS kVR&SS kGPG kLlp kSAS
PSVCCS;UP ¼ 1þ þ þ þ þ ð1Þ
lMS lVR&SS lGPG lLlp lSAS
!
kMS kVR&SS kGPG kLlp kSAS
PSVCCS;DN ¼ þ þ þ þ λ DR 2 λ DR1 λ DR 3 λ DR1 λ DR 3 λ DR 2
lMS lVR&SS lGPG lLlp lSAS
!1
kMS kVR&SS kGPG kLlp kSAS ACF ACF FC
1þ þ þ þ þ ð2Þ
lMS lVR&SS lGPG lLlp lSAS Down Down Down
States 1–5 of the Markov model can be merged into one down state
AND AND AND
because they all would result in the SVCCS failure. Fig. 5 shows the FC TCRM TCRM
equivalent two-state model resulted from this reduction. The Down Down Down
parameters of this equivalent model based on [23] are given as:

kSVCCS ¼ kMS þ kVR&SS þ kGPG þ kLlp þ kSAS μDR3 μDR2 μDR1

lSVCCS ¼ ðkMS þ kVR&SS þ kGPG þ kLlp þ kSAS Þ
!1 ð3Þ
kMS kVR&SS kGPG kLlp kSAS λ DR2
þ þ þ þ
lMS lVR&SS lGPG lLlp lSAS
λ DR3 λ DR1
DOWN
3.2. Reliability modeling of SVC
Fig. 6. The Markov model of a typical SVC.

The space state of SVC Markov model is illustrated in Fig. 6. If all
of the six components work properly, SVC will be at working state;
otherwise, if ACF fails, SVC will be at the first derated state. The
failure of FC will result in the second one, and the third one will
be happened when TCRM is out of service. In fact, if one of the
TCRM components (XL, ThV, ThVCS or SVCCS) fails, TCRM will be
down, and it means that these four components are series from a
reliability point of view. In the next stage of the model, if ACF
and FC fail simultaneously, the system will be in the fourth derated
state, and if ACF or FC fails with TCRM, the system will be in
derated 5 or 6, respectively.
The parameters of this model are as follows:

kDR1 ¼ kACF
λ MS ð4Þ
1 MS lDR1 ¼ lACF
Down

2 VR&SS λ VR&SS kDR2 ¼ kFC

μ VR&SS μ MS ð5Þ
Down lDR2 ¼ lFC
3 GPG λ GPG 0 All Components
Down μ GPG Up kDR3 ¼ kXL þ kThV þ kThVCS þ kSVCCS
lDR3 ¼ ðkXL þ kThV þ kThVCS þ kSVCCS Þ
4 L μP λ LμP μL μ P μ SAS  1 ð6Þ
kXL kThV kThVCS kSVCCS
Down þ þ þ
lXL lThV lThVCS lSVCCS
5 SAS λ SAS
Down The first derated state is representative of the case where ACF is out
of service, but FC and the whole variable reactive power generation
Fig. 4. The state space representation of SVCCS. part of the system (TCRM) is in the service; therefore, the system
 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311 309

B = BXL Table 1
Components reliability data.
B = - BACF + BXL
B = - BFC + BXL Components k (failure per year) l (repair per year)
B = - BFC - BACF + BXL MS 0.2 438
B = - BACF - BFC VR&SS 0.02 54.75
GPG 0.0003925 54.75
B = - BFC V LlP 0.018252 52.14
B = - BACF SAS 0.03673 61.18
Up ACF 0.0522050 100
FC 0.0117375 100
Derated 5
XL 0.0152550 100
Derated 6 ThV 0.0722050 100
ThVCS 0.2699550 100

Table 2
Derated 3 Derated 4 SVCCS Components k/l indices.
Derated 1 Component MS VR&SS GPG LlP SAS
Derated 2
k=l 4.56e4 3.65e4 7.17e6 3.50e4 6.00e4
Derated 4

capactive inductive I

Fig. 7. Voltage–current characteristics of 7 different states.

SVC λ DN SVC λ DR SVC

Down μ DN Derated μ DR Up

Fig. 8. The equivalent three state Markov model of TCR–FC.

can yet generate reactive power, but not in the previous range. The
second and fourth derated states have the same situation, but with
different ranges because of failure of FC or simultaneous failure of
FC and ACF, respectively. In derated 3, 5, and 6, the TCRM is out
of service and the characteristic of the remaining system is like a
typical capacitor. Fig. 7 shows the voltage current characteristics
of six derated and one up state of the model.
Fig. 9. Effect of the components failure rate on SVC derated state probability.
By merging six derated states in Fig. 8, the resulted space, which
is an equivalent three-state model, is illustrated. Based on the
methodology in [23], the probabilities of each state in the stea-
dy-state solution are as below:
PSVC;UP ¼ ðlDR1 lDR2 lDR3 ÞðkDR1 kDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 lDR3 þ kDR1 lDR2 lDR3
þlDR1 kDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 kDR3 þ kDR1 lDR2 kDR3
þ kDR1 kDR2 lDR3 Þ1 ð7Þ

PSVC;DR ¼ ðkDR1 lDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 kDR3
þ kDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ kDR1 kDR2 lDR3 ÞðkDR1 kDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 lDR3
þ kDR1 lDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 kDR3
þ kDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ kDR1 kDR2 lDR3 Þ1 ð8Þ

PSVC;DN ¼ ðkDR1 kDR2 kDR3 ÞðkDR1 kDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 lDR3 þ kDR1 lDR2 lDR3
þlDR1 kDR2 lDR3 þ lDR1 lDR2 kDR3 þ lDR1 kDR2 kDR3 þ kDR1 lDR2 kDR3
þkDR1 kDR2 lDR3 Þ1 ð9Þ
And the parameters of the equivalent three-state model are as Fig. 10. Effect of the components repair rate on SVC derated state probability.
follows:
kDR ¼ kDR1 þ kDR2 þ kDR3 kDN ¼ kDR1 þ kDR2 þ kDR3
lDR ¼ ðkDR1 þ kDR2 þ kDR3 Þ lDN ¼ ðkDR1 þ kDR2 þ kDR3 Þ
 1  1
kDR1 kDR2 kDR3 kDR1 kDR2 kDR2 kDR3 kDR1 kDR3 kDR1 kDR2 kDR3 kDR1 kDR2 kDR2 kDR3 kDR1 kDR3
þ þ þ þ þ ð10Þ  þ þ þ þ þ ð11Þ
lDR1 lDR2 lDR3 lDR1 lDR2 lDR2 lDR3 lDR1 lDR3 lDR1 lDR2 lDR3 lDR1 lDR2 lDR2 lDR3 lDR1 lDR3
310 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311

Table 3 Table 5
SVC components k/l indices. Components reliability data.

Component FC ACF ThV ThVCS SVCCS XL Failure type Number

   
k=l 1.17e4 5.22e4 7.22e4 2.70e3 1.80e3 1.53e4 N1 N nþ2
¼ ¼ nþ2
1 1
   
N2 N nþ2
¼ ¼ ðnþ2Þðnþ1Þ
2
2 2
4. Sensitivity analysis .. ..
. .
   
Nn1 N nþ2
¼ ¼nþ2
Determining sensitivity of each state in SVC Markov representa- N1 nþ1
   
tion to variations in the input data is an important stage in analyz- Nn2 N
¼
nþ2
¼1
N nþ2
ing the model. Table 1 shows the numerical data extracted from
[22,24–26] to consider a base operating point for sensitivity
analysis. 4.2. Sensitivity of SVC availability against failure and repair rates of its
Based on these data, the availability of SVCCS is 0.9982, and the components
probability of up and derated states of SVC are 0.99403 and
0.00596, respectively. SVC has six components, and like previous section, the k/l in-
Given the fact that the failure rate of the FACTS increases dex is used for analyzing the impact of each components on avail-
remarkably under adverse system conditions and moreover in ability of SVC as shown in Table 3.
normal conditions it is also related to system power factor, the ThVCS has the lowest and FC has the largest index, among all of
system planners, for considering these dependencies in generating the components. Therefore, the best components for designers to
the input data, would be able to use either the method presented in be improved is ThVCS.
[23,27,28] or the method based on the historical data of failure rate
in real experiences. 4.3. Sensitivity of SVC derated state probability against failure and
In this section, first, the sensitivity analysis of SVCCS’s availabil- repair rates of its components
ity against failure and repair rates of its components is performed.
Next, the effect of failure and repair rates of components in the For the sensitivity analysis of SVC derated state probability it is
probability of up and derated states of SVC is studied. Then, the necessary to change the failure or repair rates of each component
results shown in Table 2 are obtained and analyzed by simulta- while the others are constant. That means; for each of the compo-
neously altering of the equal failure and repair rates of SVC reliabil- nents, the entire components’ failure or repair rates are changed in
ity model in multiples of the previous ones. multiples of the original one, and their impacts on the probability
of derated state are analyzed. The results are shown in Figs. 9 and
4.1. Sensitivity of SVCCS Availability against Failure and Repair Rates 10.
of Its Components As shown in Fig. 9, changing the failure rate of ThVCS, the least
available component, has the highest effect on changing the prob-
As mentioned in Section 3, the SVCCS has five mutually exclu- ability of derated state of SVC; on the contrary, FC cannot change
sive components; therefore, by using the k/l index, it is possible this probability significantly, because it has the highest availability
to analyze the impact of each component on the availability of among the components. Similarly, Fig. 10 shows that the repair
SVCCS; the component with larger value of k/l index, is the one rate of FC has the lowest effect, and the repair rate of ThVCS has
for which the designer or operator needs to take measure to reduce the highest effect on the probability derated state.
the failure rate or increase the repair rate so that the system avail-
ability can be improved most effectively. 4.4. Sensitivity of SVC equivalent reliability model against
Table 2 shows the magnitudes of this index for all of the com- simultaneously change in its failure and repair rates
ponents of SVCCS.
Among the components, GPG has the lowest and SAS has the In this part, the sensitivity of the equivalent reliability model of
largest index. Thus, SAS is the component needs to be improved SVC against the simultaneous altering in its failure and repair rates,
by decreasing failure or increasing repair rate. is analyzed. Eqs. (10) and (11) present the equal failure and repair

Table 4
Effects of the simultaneous change in the equivalent reliability model of SVC’s failure and repair rates (X and Y are multiples of the original repair and failure rates, respectively).

Y
X 103 102 0.05 0.01 1 10
PSVC,UP PSVC,DN PSVC,UP PSVC,DN PSVC,UP PSVC,DN PSVC,UP PSVC,DN PSVC,UP PSVC,DN PSVC,UP PSVC,DN
106 0.0925 0.0304 0.0014 0.4449 1.999e5 0.8198 2.751e6 0.9025 3.016e9 0.9895 3.05e12 0.9989
105 0.6118 2.01e4 0.0925 0.0304 0.0063 0.2578 0.0014 0.4449 2.751e6 0.9025 3.016e9 0.9895
104 0.9431 3.09e07 0.6118 2.01e4 0.2307 0.0084 0.0925 0.0304 0.0014 0.4449 2.751e6 0.9025
103 0.9940 3.26e10 0.9431 3.09e07 0.7643 3.13e05 0.6118 2.01e4 0.0925 0.0304 0.0014 0.4449
102 0.9994 3.28e13 0.9940 3.26e10 0.9708 3.98e08 0.9431 3.09e07 0.6118 2.01e4 0.0925 0.0304
101 0.9999 3.28e16 0.9994 3.28e13 0.9970 4.09e11 0.9940 3.26e10 0.9431 3.09e07 0.6118 2.01e4
0.2 1 4.10e17 0.9997 4.10e14 0.9985 5.12e12 0.9970 4.09e11 0.9708 3.98e08 0.7643 3.13e05
0.5 1 2.62e18 0.9999 2.62e15 0.9994 3.28e13 0.9988 2.62e12 0.9881 2.59e09 0.8919 2.34e06
1 1 3.28e19 0.9999 3.28e16 0.9997 4.10e14 0.9994 3.28e13 0.9940 3.26e10 0.9431 3.09e07
2 1 4.10e20 1 4.10e17 0.9999 5.12e15 0.9997 4.10e14 0.9970 4.09e11 0.9708 3.98e08
5 1 2.62e21 1 2.62e18 0.9999 3.28e16 0.9999 2.62e15 0.9988 2.62e12 0.9881 2.59e09
10 1 3.28e22 1 3.28e19 1 4.10e17 0.9999 3.28e16 0.9994 3.28e13 0.9940 3.26e10
15 1 9.72e23 1 9.72e20 1 1.21e17 1 9.72e17 0.9996 9.72e14 0.9960 9.68e11
 A. Karami-Horestani et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 305–311
rates of each states of SVC model. These relations show that the
reason for change in the equal failure or repair rates can be due
to change in any of failure or repair rates of the internal compo-
nents. But in this part, what is important is the impact of these
simultaneous changes in equal failure and repair rates of the mod-
el, on the probability of different states of SVC model. Table 4
shows the results of this sensitivity analysis.
As shown in Table 4 by increasing repair rate, the availability of
SVC in any value of failure rate, would increase. On the contrary, by
increasing failure rate the availability of SVC in any value of repair
rate, would decrease.
5. Conclusion
Reliability analysis of a composite power system would require
equivalent reliability model for its components. One of the com-
mon components of power system, which has a significant role
in security and reliability, is SVC. This paper proposed a reliability
model for TCR–FC type SVC, using Markov process. First, different
components of this type of SVC were analyzed to consider their ef-
fect on its availability. Next, an equivalent three-state model for
TCR–FC type SVC was proposed. Then, the effect of failure and re-
pair rates of components on probability of up and derated states of
TCR–FC type SVC was studied. Future works can be concentrated
on applying this model in reliability evaluation of a test system
to consider the effect of failure and repair rates of this device on
reliability indices of the whole system.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees, Asso-
ciate Editor, and Managing Editor for their useful comments and
suggestions.
Appendix A. Appendix
In this section, the relations for a TCR–FC with more than one FC
are calculated as below:
If there are ‘‘n’’ FCs, the number of failures in the network will
be as Table 5.
In Table 5, N is the total components of SVC system which is
equal to n + 2.
The probabilities of UP state in the steady-state solution is as:
P SVC;UP ¼ðlACF lTCRM lFC1 lFC2 . . . lFCn ÞðkACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 .. . kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 .. . kFCn þ kACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 .. . kFCn
þ kACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 .. . kFCn þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 .. . kFCn
þ . . . þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . lFCn þ lACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . .. kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 . . . kFCn þ . ..
1
þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 .. . lFCn þ . . . þ lACF lTCRM lFC1 lFC2 . . . lFCn Þ
The probability of N  1 failure type states can be generalized as
below:
P SVC;N1 ¼ðlACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . .kFCn þ kACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . .kFCn
þ kACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 . . . kFCn
þ . . . þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . lFCn ÞðkACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn þ kACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn
þ kACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 . . . kFCn
þ . . . þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . lFCn þ lACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 .. . kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 . . . kFCn þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 . . . kFCn þ .. .
1
þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 . . . lFCn þ . . . þ lACF lTCRM lFC1 lFC2 . . . lFCn Þ ð13Þ
Similarly, the probability of N  2, N  3, . . . , N  n  1 failure types
are easy to be generalized, but for the sake of simplicity, only N  1
is proposed here.Relation (14) shows the probability of down states.
311
PSVC;DN ¼ðkACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn ÞðkACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn þ kACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ... kFCn
þ kACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 ... kFCn
þ .. . þ kACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ... lFCn þ lACF lTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn
þ lACF kTCRM lFC1 kFC2 ...kFCn þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 lFC2 ...kFCn
þ .. . þ lACF kTCRM kFC1 kFC2 ... lFCn þ ... þ lACF lTCRM lFC1 lFC2 ... lFCn Þ1
ð14Þ
References
[1] Zhang LZ, Li Q, Wang W, Siew WH. Electromagnetic interference analysis in HV
substation due to a static var compensator device. IEEE Trans Power Del
2012;27(1):147–55.
[2] Ghorbani A, Khederzadeh M, Mozafari B. Impact of SVC on the protection of
transmission lines. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;42:702–9.
[3] Sirjani R, Mohamed A, Shareef H. Optimal allocation of shunt Var
compensators in power systems using a novel global harmony search
algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;43:562–72.
[4] Subramanian DP, Devi RPK, Saravanaselvan R. A new algorithm for analysis of
SVC’s impact on bifurcations, chaos and voltage collapse in power systems. Int
J Electr Power Energy Syst 2011;33:1194–202.
[5] Martins N, Macedo NJP, Lima LTG, Pinto HJCP. Control strategies for multiple
static var compensators in long distance voltage supported transmission
systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1993;8(4):1107–17.
[6] Zhu J, Cheung K, Hwang D, Sadjadpour A. Operation strategy for improving
voltage profile and reducing system loss. IEEE Trans Power Del
2010;25(1):390–7.
[7] Wang J, Fu C, Zhang Y. SVC control system based on instantaneous reactive
power theory and fuzzy PID. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2008;55(4):1658–65.
[8] Qin W, Wang P, Han X, Du X. Reactive power aspects in reliability assessment
of power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2011;26(1):85–92.
[9] Noferi PL, Paris L. Effects of voltage and reactive power constraints on power
system reliability. IEEE Trans Power Appl Syst 1975;PAS-94(2):482–90.
[10] Moslehi K, Wu FF. Direct method for evaluation of bulk power system
reliability, part 1: theoretical foundation. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
1983;5(1):3–7.
[11] Sallam AA, Desouky M, Desouky H. Shunt capacitor effect on electrical
distribution system reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 1994;43(1):170–6.
[12] Kumar NS, Gokulakrishnan J. Impact of FACTS controllers on the stability of
power systems connected with doubly fed induction generators. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2011;33:1172–84.
[13] Noroozian M. SVC Modeling in Power Systems. Vasteras, Sweden: ABB Power
System AB; 1996.
[14] Lin CE, Chen TC. Real-time optimal reactive power control of static VAr
compensators. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 1991;13(2):103–10.
[15] Mathur RM, Varma RK. Thyristor-based FACTS controllers for electrical
transmission systems. New York: Wiley-IEEE Press; 2002 [chapter 4].
[16] Zima M, Bockarjova M. Operation, monitoring and control technology of power
systems, presented at ITET ETH, Zurich, Swiss, March 2007.
[17] Davarani RZ, Ghazi R, Pariz N. Nonlinear modal analysis of interaction between
torsional modes and SVC controllers. Electric Power Syst Res 2012;91:61–70.
[18] Zhijun E, Fang DZ, Chan KW, Yuan SQ. Hybrid simulation of power systems
with SVC dynamic phasor model. Electr Power Energy Syst 2009;31:175–80.
[19] Sybille G, Giroux P, Gerin-Lajoie L. Effect of sub-synchronous resonances on
hydro-Quebec static var compensators. Math Comput Simulat
1995;38:335–44.
[20] Ghorbani A, Khederzadeh M, Mozafari B. Impact of SVC on the protection of
transmission lines. Math Comput Simulat 2012;42:702–9.
[21] Padiyar KR, Immanuel V. Modeling of SVC for stability evaluation using
structure preserving energy functions. Electric Power Energy Syst
1994;16(5):339–48.
ð12Þ [22] Hajian-Hoseinabadi H, Golshan MEH. Availability, reliability, and component
importance evaluation of various repairable substation automation systems.
IEEE Trans Power Del 2012;27(3):1358–67.
[23] Billinton R, Allan RN. Reliability evaluation of power systems. New
York: Plenum; 1996.
[24] Aminifar F, Bagheri-Shouraki S, Fotuhi-Firuzabad M, Shahidehpour M.
Reliability modeling of PMUs using Fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Power Del
2010;25(4):2384–91.
[25] Hajian-Hoseinabadi H, Hasanifar M, Golshan MEH. Quantitative reliability
assessment of various automated industrial substations and their impacts on
distribution reliability. IEEE Trans Power Del 2012;27(3):1223–33.
[26] Janke A, Mouatt J, Sharp R, Bilodeau H, Nilsson B, Halonen M, et al. ‘‘SVC
Operation & Reliability Experiences’’, presented at the IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
Gen. Meeting; 2010, pp. 1–8.
[27] Wenjian L, Pham H. Reliability modeling of multi-state degraded systems with
multi-competing failures and random shocks. IEEE Trans Reliab
2005;54(2):297–303.
[28] Yaping W, Pham H. Modeling the dependent competing risks with multiple
degradation processes and random shock using time-varying copulas. IEEE
Trans Reliab 2012;61(1):13–22.