INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NOVEL RESEARCH IN

ENGINEERING SCIENCES (IJNRES)

Website: www.ijnres.org

Enhancing Power System Reliability using Multiple FACTS

Devices
Henry Olanga1, a) and Rubesh2, b)
1
Department of Energy Engineering, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe
2
Department of Energy Engineering, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe
a)
holanga@msu.ac.zw
b)
nrubesh@msu.ac.zw

Abstract— This research paper explores different aspects related to the utilization of multiple FACTS devices, specifically fo-
cusing on control modes, settings, and their impact on power system reliability. In the evaluation of power system reliability, two
UPFCs are employed within a test system. By employing multiple UPFCs, it becomes possible to effectively control various pow-
er system parameters, including bus voltages, reactive power, and line flows. However, the influence of UPFC control modes and
settings on power system reliability has not been adequately addressed thus far. To address this gap, the paper proposes various
control modes for UPFC and suggests optimal settings that enhance reliability. Furthermore, a reliability index evaluation is
performed with the objective of minimizing the associated remedial action cost (RAC). The proposed methodology is applied and
tested on the IEEE nine bus system, providing a comprehensive analysis of the performance of multiple UPFCs.

Index Terms— Composite system reliability, optimal control mode and settings, unified power flow controller (UPFC), Reme-
dial Action cost (RAC)

I. INTRODUCTION ponents. The proposed approach focuses on minimizing

The unified power flow controller (UPFC) is a highly versa-
tile device within the flexible AC transmission systems
(FACTS) domain, widely utilized for power flow control
and optimization [1]. Concurrently, the reliability of protec-
tion systems has gained significant importance due to their
critical impact on power system reliability [2]. A novel ap-
proach to analyze protection system reliability has been in-
troduced through the concept of uneasiness probability [3].
While conventional power systems have well-developed
techniques for reliability evaluation [4],[5], where similar
reliability levels and regulated prices are implemented for
customers of the same type, the evaluation typically relies
on AC or DC power flow techniques to identify network
violations during contingency situations[6]. Enhancing
power system performance without requiring generation
rescheduling or topology modifications can be achieved
through the control of power flow within the system. By
utilizing controllable components, line flows can be adjust-
ed to ensure thermal limits are not exceeded, losses are min-
imized, stability margins are increased, and contractual ob-
ligations are met while maintaining economic generation
dispatch [7]. Addressing the need to optimize transmission
capacity while adhering to transmission and security con-
straints, controllable FACTS devices are crucial in minimiz-
ing costs through optimal power system operation [8].
This paper aims to determine the optimal control mode and
settings for UPFC to enhance the composite reliability of
power systems, assuming the availability of all UPFC com-
ESRAC (Equivalent System Remedial Action Cost) as a
means to improve system reliability [9]. A selected set of
contingencies is analyzed, utilizing optimal power flow
(OPF) to minimize RAC and calculate the optimal UPFC
injections, as well as the sensitivity of RAC to UPFC injec-
tions. The contingency analysis results are utilized to deter-
mine post-contingency UPFC injections and estimate the
associated ESRAC for different control modes and settings.
By formulating a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization
problem, the paper seeks to obtain the optimal UPFC con-
trol mode and settings [10].
II. EVALUATION OF POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY
In general, reliability refers to the capacity of a compo-
nent or system to fulfill its intended function. Within the
realm of power systems, reliability evaluation entails as-
sessing the system's capability to meet the load requirements
[11]. Consequently, power system reliability assessment
encompasses two primary domains: system adequacy and
system security. System adequacy evaluates whether the
power system has adequate resources to meet the anticipated
load demand, while system security focuses on ensuring the
system's ability to operate securely and withstand disturb-
ances without compromising its functionality [12].
A. Domains of Reliability Evaluation
A power system can be categorized into three primary func-
tional regions: generation, transmission, and distribution
systems [13]. The concept of system adequacy pertains to
the presence of adequate facilities within the system to ful

Copyright © 2023 Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unre-
stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

fill consumer demand. On the other hand,
system security refers to the system's ability to effectively
respond to disturbances originating within the system.
While these concepts are interrelated, the evaluation of reli-
ability is typically conducted within a specific domain, ei-
ther adequacy or security, with a predominant focus on ade-
quacy [14].
B. Hierarchical levels for reliability evaluation
Reliability evaluation of power systems can be con-
ducted either within each individual functional zone or at
hierarchical levels obtained by combining the functional
regions [15].
HLI analyses involve evaluating the generation systems
and their ability to meet load demands, disregarding the
influence of transmission systems on overall system reliabil-
ity. Adequacy indices at this level include metrics such as
loss of load expectation (LOLE), loss of energy expectation
(LOEE), failure frequency, and relevant duration [16].
HLII studies are employed to assess the adequacy of
existing or proposed systems, considering the impact of
various reinforcement alternatives at both the generation and
transmission levels. The adequacy evaluation in this level
yields two sets of indices, one related to the system load
points and another related to the overall system. Key indices
in this level include failure frequency and its duration.
HLIII evaluation pertains to the analysis of the entire
power system, encompassing all functional zones from gen-
eration units to customer load points. However, due to the
complexity of practical power systems, a comprehensive
assessment of all three functional zones is typically not fea-
sible. Instead, the distribution system, which receives relia-
bility data from the load point indices of HLII, is evaluated.
Common reliability indices in this level include the system
average interruption frequency index (SAIFI), system aver-
age interruption duration index (SAIDI), and customer aver-
age interruption duration index (CAIDI). The reliability
assessment in this thesis work focuses primarily on the
transmission system within the adequacy domain [17].
These analyses encompass various procedures such as
load flow analysis, contingency assessment, generation re-
scheduling, transmission overload alleviation, load curtail-
ment, and more. This thesis work aims to cover all the re-
quired procedures within an analytical approach [18].
C. Indicators for System Reliability Performance
System reliability indices are utilized to gauge the per-
formance of a system, specifically highlighting any defi-
ciencies in terms of undelivered energy, average number of
interruptions, and average outage duration. These indices
generally fall into two categories: customer-weighted and
capacity-weighted.
Customer-weighted indices take into account the im-
pact on individual customers and reflect the level of service
experienced by them. These indices consider factors such as
the number of interruptions each customer experiences and
the duration of outages they encounter. By incorporating the
customer perspective, these indices provide insights into the
quality of service received by the end-users [19].
On the other hand, capacity-weighted indices focus on
the overall system capacity and load served. These indices
consider the amount of energy that remains undelivered due
to interruptions and the average number of interruptions
experienced by the system as a whole. Capacity-weighted
indices offer a broader perspective on the system's reliability
Enhancing Power System Reliability using Multiple FACTS Devices (Henry Olanga and Rubesh)
008
performance by considering the impact on the entire net-
work [20].
Both types of indices are valuable in assessing power
system performance and provide a comprehensive under-
standing of the reliability levels within the system [21].
Aggregated system reliability performance indices are
effective for evaluating the overall performance of a uni-
form system. However, when applying these aggregated
indicators to systems with non-uniform performance, the
mean values can be misleading. Customer-weighted indica-
tors tend to prioritize areas with a large customer base,
while capacity-weighted indicators tend to emphasize areas
with higher energy consumption. As a result, the valuation
between different areas may become relatively uniform.
III. ARCHITECTURE, FUNCTIONALITY, AND
OPTIMIZATION OF CONTROL MODES OF UPFC
The structure of a UPFC comprises two identical in-
verters that are interconnected in parallel and series with
power systems using corresponding power transformers [22].
Assuming negligible power losses in the inverters, the net
active power exchange between them is zero. Each inverter
is equipped with a control unit that receives measured sig-
nals and operates based on the control modes specific to that
inverter [23]. The control unit generates firing commands to
ensure the regulation of designated power system parame-
ters according to their predetermined settings
A. Principle of Operation for UPFC
The essential components of the UPFC consist of two
voltage source inverters (VSIs) that share a common dc
storage capacitor and are connected to the power system
through coupling transformers. One VSI is connected in
parallel (shunt) to the transmission system via a shunt trans-
former, while the other VSI is connected in series to the
transmission line through a series transformer.
The series inverter is responsible for injecting a control-
lable symmetrical three-phase voltage system, with adjusta-
ble magnitude and phase angle, in series with the transmis-
sion line. This allows for active and reactive power flow
control on the transmission line, enabling the exchange of
active and reactive power between the series inverter and
the line.
The reactive power is electronically supplied by the se-
ries inverter, while the active power is transmitted to the dc
terminals. The shunt inverter operates in a manner that it
draws the required dc terminal power (positive or negative)
from the line while maintaining a constant voltage across
the storage capacitor, Vdc. Consequently, the net real power
absorbed from the line by the UPFC is only equal to the
losses incurred by the inverters and transformers.
The remaining capacity of the shunt inverter can be uti-
lized to exchange reactive power with the line, thereby
providing voltage regulation at the connection point.
B. Operating modes
The control modes associated with the series and parallel
inverters offer control over reactive power, voltage, and
phase angle. The two voltage source inverters (VSIs) can
operate independently by isolating the dc side. In this sce-
nario, the shunt inverter functions as a Static Synchronous
Compensator (STATCOM), which generates or absorbs
reactive power to regulate the voltage magnitude at the con-
nection point. On the other hand, the series inverter operates
as a Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC), which
generates or absorbs reactive power to regulate the current

flow and subsequently control power flows on the transmis-
sion line.
The parallel inverter can be configured to operate as a con-
stant reactive power source or as a voltage controller. In
contrast, the series inverter offers different control modes
such as Power Flow Control Mode, Voltage Control Mode,
and Voltage Injection Mode. These control modes provide
various strategies for managing and optimizing power flow
within the system.
Overall, the control modes associated with the UPFC enable
precise control over reactive power, voltage, and phase an-
gle, allowing for effective regulation and optimization of
power system parameters.
Reactive Power Control Mode:
The parallel inverter in the UPFC can function as a constant
source of reactive power. It injects a predetermined positive
or negative reactive power at the point of connection (PB).
The control of the shunt inverter translates the reactive pow-
er reference into a corresponding request for shunt current,
which is then adjusted by controlling the gating of the in-
verter. This control mode utilizes a feedback signal repre-
senting the dc bus voltage to achieve the desired reactive
power injection.
Automatic Voltage Control Mode:
In this mode, the reactive current of the shunt inverter is
automatically regulated to maintain the voltage at the point
of connection on the transmission line at a specified refer-
ence value. Voltage feedback signals from the sending end
bus, which supplies power to the shunt coupling transformer,
are used for control and regulation.
Power Flow Control Mode:
Unlike STATCOM and SSSC, the UPFC has the capability
to independently regulate both real power and reactive pow-
er at their associated settings. This control mode allows the
UPFC to maintain a desired power flow on the transmission
line, regardless of system changes. The reference inputs for
this mode are the desired values of real power (P) and reac-
tive power (Q).
Voltage Injection Mode:
In Voltage Injection Mode, the UPFC determines and main-
tains the voltage magnitude (Vd) at its associated settings by
controlling the voltage and phase angles. The reference in-
puts for this mode directly specify the desired magnitude
and phase angle of the series voltage source inverter. The
series inverter then injects the specified voltage into the sys-
tem as instructed.
These control modes provide the UPFC with versatile capa-
bilities to regulate reactive power, voltage, and power flow,
enabling effective control and optimization of the power
system parameters.
IV. COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
A. Advantages of Probabilistic Methods over
Deterministic Criteria
Probabilistic methods have proven to be significantly
more effective than deterministic criteria in assessing sys-
tem reliability. Unlike percentage reserves and other rule-of-
thumb approaches, probabilistic methods offer an analytical
foundation for consistently evaluating system risk across
different configurations. They take into account crucial fac-
tors that have a substantial impact on system reliability, in-
cluding unit size, failure rates, and load characteristics.
Deterministic criteria, on the other hand, are insensitive
to these influential factors, often leading to inaccurate relia-
Enhancing Power System Reliability using Multiple FACTS Devices (Henry Olanga and Rubesh)
009
bility assessments. In fact, two systems with the same per-
centage reserve but different unit compositions may exhibit
vastly different levels of reliability. Relying solely on per-
centage reserves can be misleading, as it implies that a fixed
amount of reserves can eliminate all risks, which is not the
case in reality.
By employing probabilistic methods, power system
planners and operators gain a more comprehensive under-
standing of system risk and can make informed decisions to
enhance reliability. These methods provide a more accurate
representation of system performance, considering the prob-
abilistic nature of failures and uncertainties, resulting in
more effective reliability evaluations.
B. Measurement of System Energy Reliability
The loss-of-energy approach is a meaningful method for
evaluating system reliability as it quantifies the expected
fraction of unserved energy resulting from capacity outage
events. Unlike other approaches, this method takes into con-
sideration the magnitude of different outage events, making
it more relevant from a physical standpoint.
To determine the life history of a component, we utilize
probability distributions fU(t) and fD(t). Here, fU(t) repre-
sents the density function of up times TU, while fD(t) repre-
sents the density function of down times TD. In this context,
let Xt denote the state of the component at time t. The fol-
lowing definitions are applicable:
Probability of being in the up state:
PU(t) = P[up at t] = P[Xt = U]
Probability of being in the down state:
PD(t) = P[down at t] = P[Xt = D]
By understanding these probabilities, we can gain in-
sights into the operational states of the component and eval-
uate its impact on overall system energy reliability.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To assess the influence of UPFC control modes and set-
tings on system reliability, the IEEE nine-bus test system
(shown in Fig. 1) is employed. In this study, an additional
230 kV transmission line is incorporated, connecting B4 to
B8. Due to the unavailability of specific reliability data for
the IEEE nine-bus test system, the reliability information
from the IEEE reliability test system is utilized as a substi-
tute.
Fig. 1: IEEE 9 bus system with UPFC
A comprehensive reliability evaluation highlights that
the loading of L48 significantly contributes to system unre-

liability. To enhance system reliability, a UPFC is installed
at B4 on L48, aiming to mitigate the loading issues. Fig. 1
illustrates the configuration, where PB is directly linked to
B4, and L48 is positioned between BS and B8. The UPFC
comprises two identical 160 MVA inverters interconnected
by a DC link.
The objective of the UPFC installation is to reduce the
power extraction of L48 from B8, decreasing it from 17-
j8.76 MVA to 12+j6 MVA, thereby reducing the loading on
L48 by 18%. Six different cases are examined, each involv-
ing various combinations of control modes for the parallel
and series inverters. For each case, appropriate settings are
determined to achieve a power extraction of 12+j6 MVA
from B8 to L48. The pre-contingency condition remains
consistent across all cases.
By analyzing the impact of these control modes and set-
tings, valuable insights can be gained regarding the en-
hancement of system reliability through the implementation
of UPFC in the studied scenario.
The study outcomes for the base case (case 1) without
UPFC, as well as the results for the six cases incorporating
UPFC (cases 2 to 7). The influence of UPFC control modes
and settings on the post-contingency scenario, following the
outage of L57, and the injection of line L89 at bus B8 are
presented in Table I. The settings specific to each case are
also provided.
Table I. Optimal UPFC Control Mode and Settings
PS/SS
Inverter Mode Settings
Injections
3.5+j4.2
series VIM .042,20 deg.
MVA
-3.5-j21.3
Parallel RCM -21.3 MVAR
MVA
In cases 2 to 5, the injection of L89 is reduced compared
to its original level in case 1, whereas in cases 6 and 7, it is
increased. This clearly demonstrates that the post-
contingency condition is influenced by the UPFC control
mode selected. Notably, the post-contingency overloads of
L89 in cases 4, 6, and 7 (as shown in Table I) are mitigated
through adjustments to the settings associated with the con-
trol modes employed in those cases. Table II presents the
updated settings and the corresponding L89 injections fol-
lowing the outage of L57 in cases 4, 6, and 7.
To minimize the objective function, the optimal series
injected voltage is determined, and it is observed that the
maximum limit on the magnitude of the series injected volt-
age does not impact the optimal value. However, in these
cases, both the magnitude and angle of the optimal solution
may change when increasing the maximum series injected
voltage.
Table II. RAC With and Without UPFC
Type EUEC(M$) ELC(MW) RAC(M$)
System without
UPFC 0.518 100 728040
System with
UPFC 1.98 90.3 888020
The tables provide valuable insights into the effects of
UPFC control modes and settings on the post-contingency
condition and the injection of line L89, highlighting the role
of UPFC in mitigating overloads and optimizing system
performance in various scenarios.
Enhancing Power System Reliability using Multiple FACTS Devices (Henry Olanga and Rubesh)
010
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper introduces the optimal control mode and set-
tings for Unified Power Flow Controllers (UPFCs). A two-
source power injection model is utilized to analyze the im-
pact of UPFC control modes and settings on reliability indi-
ces. The modified IEEE test system is employed, and relia-
bility indices are calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of
UPFC installation. The application of UPFC results in a
notable 31% improvement in reliability indices in the given
example, with a marginal 4% error in the estimation of Re-
active Assurance Criterion (RAC). Furthermore, the dynam-
ic performance of the power system is assessed to determine
the influence of optimal UPFC settings. Reliability indices
are computed to ascertain the optimal UPFC control mode
and settings, and the estimated costs are subsequently uti-
lized in a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem to
identify the optimal UPFC configuration.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power
Systems,2nd ed. New York: Plenum, 1996.
[2] Lindsay N. Mahiban; K. Nandakumar; Adarsh Vijayan Pillai,
“Power system reliability index assessment by chronological model
with FACTS devices” AIP Conference Proceedings 2452, 040003
2022.
[3] Sayed-Mahdi Moghadasi, Ahad Kazemi, Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad,
“Composite System Reliability Assessment Incorporating an
Interline Power-Flow Controller”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2008.
[4] S. S. Rachakonda, G. Jaya Prakash and N. M. Lindsay, "Modeling
and Simulation of Hybrid Energy Generation for Stand Alone
Application," 2022 8th International Conference on Smart Structures
and Systems (ICSSS), Chennai, India, pp. 1-6, 2022.
[5] Abbas Rajabi-Ghahnavieh; Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad; Muhammad
Othman, “Optimal unified power flow controller application to
enhance total transfer capability”, IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, Volume: 9, Issue: 4, 2015.
[6] N.Mahiban Lindsay and A.K.Parvathy, “Enhancing Power System
Reliability using Multiple FACTS Devices”, IJSER, Volume 4,PP
141-145, March- 2013.
[7] P. Ramesh, M. Damodara Reddy, “Power Transfer Capability &
Reliability Improvement in a Transmission Line using Distributed
Power- Flow Controller,” International Journal of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 553-562, August 2012
[8] N. M. Lindsay, S. Sunder. R, N. Karthy and A. Krishnan, "Smart
Cost-Effective Shopping System using Radio Frequency
Identification Technology," 2023 Third International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Smart Energy (ICAIS), Coimbatore, India,
pp. 747-750, 2023.
[9] Lindsay N. Mahiban; K. Nandakumar; Adarsh Vijayan Pillai,
“Power system reliability index assessment by chronological model
with FACTS devices” AIP Conference Proceedings 2452, 040003
2022.
[10] W. Von Rosenberg, T. Chanwimalueang, V. Goverdovsky, D.
Looney, D. Sharp and D. P. Mandic, "Smart Helmet: Wearable
Multichannel ECG and EEG," in IEEE Journal of Translational
Engineering in Health and Medicine, vol. 4, pp. 1-11, 2016, Art no.
2700111, 2016.
[11] K T Maheswari et al, “Design and Implementation of Intelligent
Head Protective Gear for Accident Detection and Notification,” IOP
Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1084 012082, 2021.
[12] N. M. Lindsay, S. Sunder. R, N. Karthy and A. Krishnan, "Smart
Cost-Effective Shopping System using Radio Frequency
Identification Technology," 2023 Third International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Smart Energy (ICAIS), Coimbatore, India,
pp. 747-750, 2023.
[13] A. T. Jacob and N. Mahiban Lindsay, "Designing EV Harness Using
Autocad Electrical," 2022 8th International Conference on Smart
Structures and Systems (ICSSS), Chennai, India, pp. 1-4, 2022.
[14] S. Katsigiannis, R. Willis and N. Ramzan, "A QoE and Simulator
Sickness Evaluation of a Smart-Exercise-Bike Virtual Reality
System via User Feedback and Physiological Signals," in IEEE
Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 119-127,
Feb. 2019.
[15] D. V. K. Sarma and N. M. Lindsay, "Structural Design and
Harnessing for Electric vehicle Review," 2023 9th International

Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES),
Chennai, India, pp. 107-111, 2023.
[16] B. Shin et al., "Motion Recognition-Based 3D Pedestrian Navigation
System Using Smartphone," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 16, no.
18, pp. 6977-6989, Sept.15, 2016
[17] M. L. N, A. E. Rao and M. P. Kalyan, "Real-Time Object Detection
with Tensorflow Model Using Edge Computing Architecture," 2022
8th International Conference on Smart Structures and Systems
(ICSSS), Chennai, India, pp. 01-04, 2022.
[18] Draper, E. L., “Assessment of Deregulation and Competition,” IEEE
Power Engineering Review, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 17-18, Jul 1998.
[19] N.K. Rayaguru, N. Mahiban Lindsay, Rubén González Crespo, S.P.
Raja, Hybrid bat–grasshopper and bat–modified multiverse
optimization for solar photovoltaics maximum power generation,
Computers and Electrical Engineering, Volume 106, 2023.
Enhancing Power System Reliability using Multiple FACTS Devices (Henry Olanga and Rubesh)
011
[20] NM Lindsay and AK Parvathy, “Governing distributed generators
and FACTS in restructured power system for system adequacy using
genetic algorithm” Int J Recent Technol Eng, Volume-7, Issue-6,
March 2019.
[21] R. Billinton, “Bibliography on the application of probability methods
in power system reliability evaluation,” IEEE Transactions, Vol.
PAS-91, No. 2, pp. 644-660, Mar-Apr 1972.
[22] N. Mahiban Lindsay and A. K. Parvathy, “Power system reliability
assessment in a complex restructured power system,” International
Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE) Vol. 9, No.
4, pp. 2296~2302, August 2019.
[23] S. Surender Reddy, “Optimal Placement of FACTS Controllers for
Congestion Management in the Deregulated Power System,”
International Journal of Electrical and CM.