Comparative analysis between conventional voltage

control using reactors and continuous voltage control

using TCR in the Romanian Transmission Grid
Mirea Constantin, Mircea Eremia, Lucian Toma
Electrical Power Systems Department
University Politehnica of Bucharest
Bucharest, Romania
Email: qosteen@gmail.com

Abstract This paper deals with voltage regulation issues based
on compensation reactors in the 400 kV network of the
Romanian Transmission Power System. For secure operation
reasons, voltage regulation plays an important role in a power
system. As over- or under-voltages occurs due to the reactive
power surplus or deficit, shunt reactors are employed to
maintain the voltage within admissible limits. Currently, 100
MVAr reactors are switched on/off to regulate the voltage in the
400 kV nodes. However, large voltage spikes are experienced,
causing dangerous stress on the switching equipment. The aim is
to adapt the actual fixed reactors in some power system nodes
with thyristor controlled reactors (TCR) or a combination of a
smaller fixed reactor and a TCR. Dynamic simulations and load
flow calculations have been carried out to show these differences
using Eurostag and Neplan simulation software on the
Romanian Power System database.
Index Termscompensation reactor, thyristor controlled
reactor, transmission grid, voltage control.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Romanian Transmission Network (RTN) is
characterized by large reactive power surplus due to the
decrease in load after 89, from an average load of 10000 MW
to 7000 MW today, by decommissioning large industrial
loads. The transmission network was designed to withstand a
20.000 MVA total load. Voltage control issues have emerged
in time and various regulation methods for voltage
management have been developed in order to maintain the
voltage within acceptable limits [1]. Reactors were introduced
in key substations of the RTN for reactive power
compensation. For economic reasons, uncontrolled reactors of
100 MVAr each were installed.
Currently there are 16 reactors operating in RTN, thus
summing up 1600 MVAr inductive reactive power. By design
there are two types of reactors, single phase and three-phase
type. Single phase units are preferable because maintenance
is easier. The reactors are oil insulated and solidly earthed
neutral. All units are supplied with under-voltage and over-
voltage relays that ensure fast tripping during faults.
The shunt reactors are connected to busbars that link
longer overhead lines (OHL) to compensate the capacitive
currents and reduce steady-state over-voltages. The reactors
are also employed to prevent generators from operating in
under-excitation. They are switched on during off-peak hours
and switched off during peak hours to control voltage on
network areas. This method is effective in most substations
where the short-circuit power is high; however, in substations
with low loads, the reactors produce large voltage spikes
when switched [1].
In areas with low short-circuit power, connection of a
reactor leads to voltage swings, which stress the equipment in
those areas, such as the reactors circuit breakers, which have
specific design and higher costs.
Figure 1 shows the records of voltage variation on a 24
hours window in the Suceava Substation, using the SCADA
system, when the 100 MVAr reactor is switched on or off. A
voltage spike up to 30 kV was experienced when the reactor
was switched on, and a voltage spike up to 25 kV was
experienced when the reactor was switched off.


Figure 1. The voltage recorded in the 400 kV Suceava Substation.
This particular substation experiences the highest voltage
spikes because it is located at the end of a 400 kV radial
configuration network [2].
In this paper the opportunity of using controlled reactors is
studied. Fixed reactance reactors are to be adapted and
transformed into variable reactance ones in order to allow
dynamic reactive power compensation and voltage control as
well as avoiding power swings in the grid.
II. MODELLING OF THE REACTOR AND THE TCR
A fixed capacity shunt reactor can be simply modeled by a
shunt inductive susceptance, of fixed value.
As these fixed capacity compensation reactors (C.R.) are
intended to be replaced by variable capacity reactors,
controlled by an automatic voltage regulator (Figure 2), with
or without in combination with a fixed capacity reactor, the
dynamic modeling of the TCR is of interest [8].


Figure 2. Basic design diagram of a thyristor controlled reactor.
The current through the reactor is controlled by means of a
thyristor valve. The thyristors are connected in antiparallel,
one for each voltage half cycle. By controlling the firing
angle of the thyristors, the TCR is capable of continuously
regulate the absorbed reactive power, in the capability range
from 0 to the maximum value.
The electric current through the reactor can be
continuously modified from zero to the maximum value by
using a phase regulation method. The electric current i()
variation is obtained by controlling the instant at which the
thyristors conduct, thus the duration time in every period. For
an ideal reactor, the current lags behind the voltage by 90.
Thus, if the thyristors conduct when the voltage is at its
highest value, maximum conduction will result in the reactor,
equivalent with bypassing the thyristor blocks [4,5].
If the circuit from Figure 2 is supplied with a voltage
( ) sin

v t V t = e ,

V being the maximum voltage magnitude,

the current can be calculated from the following differential
equation:

d
sin
d
i
L V t
t
= e . By integration, it results
that ( ) cos
V
i t C t
L
= e
e
, where C is the integration
constant. At the limit, we have ( ) 0 i t e = o = , resulting the
expression of the current through the reactor for a fixed firing
angle:
( ) (cos cos )
V
i t t
L
= o e
e

Depending on the firing angle of the thyristors, the
admittance ( ) B o of the TCR can be:
max
2 1
B 1 s n ) i ( B
| |
o
|
t t
\
o
.
= where
max
1
B
L
=
e
.
The thyristor controlled reactor can operate within a
defined V-I characteristic, with borders determined by the
maximum values of admittance, voltage and current as shown
in Figure 3 [5].


Figure 3. V-I operation characteristic of a thyristor controlled reactor [4].
Denoting by the conduction period, the relation between
and is the following:

2
= + or 2( ) = and
considering that X L =e the reactive power output of the
TCR can be calculated with the following formula [2]:
2
sin
Q V
X
o o
=
t

Considering this continuous reactor voltage regulation
concept, an analysis of the effects of these phenomena was
performed using a database of the Romanian Power System
modeled in the Eurostag software [6].
In Eurostag, the fixed capacity reactor was modeled as a
single-step reactor bank, while the TCR was simulated by a
PI (proportional - integral) controller using the model of a
static voltage compensator, but setting zero the capacitive
rating [7,8,9,10]. The block diagram of a SVC modeled in
Eurostag is shown in Figure 4.


Figure 4. The of a SVC in the Eurostag software [4].
III. CASE STUDY
In order to obtain realistic comparison between a fixed
capacity reactor and a TCR, simulations were performed on
the Romanian Power System.
A 100 MVAr fixed capacity reactor bank is actually
connected in the 400 kV Suceava Substation (Figure 5). This
substation in located in the north of Moldova region and also
north-east of the country, and is characterized by small short-
circuit power.


Figure 5. Suceava Substation, SCADA screenshot.
The 400 kV network from Moldova has a radial
configuration, and the Suceava Substation is located at the
end of this network. As it can be seen in Figure 5, low active
and reactive power flows to/from the Suceava Substation.
Table I shows the seasonal average loads for peak and off
peak hours in the Romanian power system.
TABLE I. SEASON LOAD IN THE ROMANIAN POWER SYSTEM.
Summer Winter
peak off peak peak off peak
7800 MW 4500 MW 9300 MW 5500 MW

The loads shown above are smaller than the capacity for
which the network has been designed and therefore large
reactive power surplus occurs mainly during the night.
Furthermore, the average active and reactive load in the
Moldova region and in the Suceava Substation is shown in
Table II.
TABLE II. SIMULATED SCENARIOS IN MOLDOVA AND SUCEAVA.
System Load
[MW]
Moldova
Load [MW]
Suceava P
[MW]
Suceava Q
[MVAr]
L1 = 9000 1380 113 44
L2 = 8900 1365 111 43
L3 = 8700 1334 109 42
L4 = 8400 1288 105 41
L5 = 8300 1273 104 40
L6 = 8200 1257 103 40
L7 = 8100 1242 101 40
L8 = 8000 1227 100 39
L9 = 7700 1181 96 38
L10 = 7100 1089 89 35
L11 = 6600 1012 83 32
L12 = 6500 997 81 32
L13 = 6400 981 80 31
For loads above 9000 MW or under 6400 MW additional
means, besides the compensation with shunt reactors, are
taken at national level, including circuit line switching,
adjusting the set-point voltage at generators, etc.
The Romanian Dispatching Centre performs voltage
related calculations by using the Neplan software. In order to
evaluate the needs for inductive compensation in the Suceava
Substation and nearby, multiple scenarios were considered,
with load varied from peak to off peak values. Shunt reactor
steps were varied from 100 to 0 MVAr in 20 MVAr steps, for
3 reactors, of which one is in the Suceava Substation. Table
III and Figure 6 shows the voltage profile obtained in the
Suceava Substation for the considered scenario.
TABLE III. VOLTAGES, IN KV, IN SUCEAVA SUBSTATION FOR DIFFERENT
LOADS AND SHUNT REACTOR SIZE.
V [kV]
Load
100
MVAr
80
MVAr
60
MVAr
40
MVAr
20
MVAr
0
MVAr
L1 387 391 395 400 404 408
L2 388 392 396 401 405 409
L3 389 393 397 402 406 410
L4 386 391 395 399 404 408
L5 386 391 395 399 403 408
L6 387 391 396 400 404 409
L7 386 391 396 400 404 409
L8 384 390 395 399 403 408
L9 399 404 409 414 419 425
L10 401 406 411 416 421 427
L11 402 407 412 417 424 432
L12 399 405 411 417 425 433
L13 400 405 412 417 424 433

VoltagesinSuceavasubstation
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
9000 8900 8700 8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7700 7100 6600 6500 6400
S1100MVAr S280MVAr S360MVAr S440MVAr
S520MVAr S50MVAr Vref

Figure 6. Voltages in Suceava Substation at different reactor loads
For loads between 9000 and 8000 MW satisfactory voltage
profiles are obtained with all reactors switched off. Below
7000 MW the best voltage profile is obtained by
compensation with large reactors. Usually, in this situation,
the dispatchers connect one or two reactors around the
Suceava Substation.
Furthermore, for loads below 6000 MW, satisfactorily
voltage profile is obtained with all the reactors connected,
while capacitive reactive power surplus still exists in the grid.
From the actual cases presented above, it can be concluded
that daily reactor operation is necessary for voltage control,
while in some areas a reactive power surplus is still
uncompensated. A better and flat voltage profile can be
obtained if the inductive power provided by reactors can be
varied during the whole day, according to Figure 6. In order
to study the technical benefits of a TCR and/or different sizes
of reactors on the power system voltages, five scenarios were
analyzed from dynamic point of view for the normal
operating conditions (with all lines operational) of one winter
generation schedule:
a) Connection of the 100 MVAr reactor in Suceava
Substation, as currently performed;
b) Connection of 250 MVAr reactors in Suceava
Substation;
c) Replacing the fixed reactor with an 100 MVAr TCR;
d) Connecting a 50 MVAr reactor and a 50 MVAr TCR;
e) Successful auto-reclosure of the 400 kV Roman Nord -
Suceava line;
a) Connection of the 100 MVAr reactor in Suceava
Substation
In order to simulate the actual operating conditions in the
Suceava Substation, connection of a shunt reactor with a
fixed capacity of 100 MVAr was considered. Besides the
large voltage excursion from 410 to 392 kV, an 18 kV
voltage spike is experienced in the connection node (Figure
7), which propagates also in the neighboring Substations, i.e.
Bacau Sud, Roman Nord and Gutinas, as shown in Figure 8.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
392
394
396
398
400
402
404
406
408
410
s
kV
[2] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV

Figure 7. Connection of the 100 MVAr reactor in Suceava Substation.
Very important is to note that irrespective of the load,
when such a large shunt reactor is connected, unaccepted
voltage transients are experienced. For this reason, analysis of
various solutions is advisable. Besides mitigation of the
voltage transients, system stability is also of great interest,
taking into account the radial configuration of the
transmission network in the Moldova region.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
398
400
402
404
406
408
s
[2] VOLTAGE AT NODE : ROMN4 Unit : kV
[2] VOLTAGE AT NODE : BACS4 Unit : kV
[2] VOLTAGE AT NODE : GUTI4 Unit : kV

Figure 8. Voltage spikes in Substations nearby Suceava.
b) Connection of 250 MVAr reactors in Suceava Substation
In order to limit the voltage transients, two reactors of 50
MVAr each are considered as a solution to replace the actual
100 MVAr reactor.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
395
400
405
410
s
kV
[7] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV
[7] VOLTAGE AT NODE : GUTI4 Unit : kV
[7] VOLTAGE AT NODE : ROMN4 Unit : kV

Figure 9. Voltage spikes experienced in the Roman Nord, Gutinas and
Bacau Sud Substations.
As expected, smaller voltage spikes are experienced if two
smaller size reactors are successively connected in the
Suceava Substation (Figure 9), and thus less stress is
experienced by the switching equipment. However, still the
stress on the equipment might not be accepted.

c) Replacing the fixed reactor with an 100 MVAr TCR
On solution to eliminate the voltage spikes and other
transients is to refurbish the actual fixed reactor with a TCR
with the same capacity. Simulations were performed on a 60
seconds window by considering that the TCR is controlled in
steps of 2 MVAr/s, from zero to 100 MVAr.
As it can be seen in Figure 10, when small steps of
inductive reactive power compensation is provided, no
harmful voltage transients are experienced. Furthermore, a
desired voltage can be obtained with less reactive power.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
394
396
398
400
402
404
406
408
410
s
kV
[5] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV

Figure 10. Voltage variation following the control by TCR.
Note that if the actual 100 MVAr reactor would be adapted
as TCR, the maximum capacity will be lower, which will be a
disadvantage from economic point of view because additional
reactor, eventually fixed might be required.

d) Connecting a 50 MVAr reactor and a 50 MVAr TCR
Due to the high costs of an 100 MVAr TCR, another
solution considered is to employ a 50 MVAr reactor and a 50
MVAr TCR.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
400
402
404
406
408
410
s
kV
[8] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV

Figure 11. Voltage variations in Suceava Substation.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
-0
s
[8] REACT. POWER : LINE SUCE41 -SUCE4 -0 Unit : Mvar

Figure 12. Progressive reactive power support of the TCR in Suceava
Substation.
In the dynamic simulation, the fixed reactor was assumed
to be connect at the instant t = 5 s, then, after transients
damping, the TCR is activated at the instant t = 10 s. The
reactive provided by the TCR is controlled in 6 MVAr steps.
This solution aims two objectives that is limiting the
voltage spikes and obtaining a voltage level closer to the
nominal value and reducing the costs for investment in a new
TCR.
e) Successful auto-reclosure of the line 400 kV Roman Nord
- Suceava
Connection of an adjacent line to the Suceava Substation
was considered in order to verify if unaccepted voltage
transients might be experienced when a fixed capacity reactor
is connected (Figure 13).
10 15
390
400
s
kV
[1] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV

Figure 13. Voltage profile in the Suceava Substation after successful auto-
reclosure of the line 400 kV Roman Nord Suceava, with shunt reactor
connected.
If the fixed capacity reactor is replaced by a TCR, for the
same scenario, the voltage profile from Figure 14 is obtained.

10 15
390
400
s
[11] VOLTAGE AT NODE : SUCE4 Unit : kV

Figure 14. Voltage profile in the Suceava Substation after successful auto-
reclosure of the line 400 kV Roman Nord Suceava, with TCR connected.
The difference between the two case is not significant but
very important is to observe that the voltage swings are
dampened with TCR, due to the P-I regulator employed.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a comparative analysis between a
conventional reactor and a thyristor controlled reactor has
been realized, on the Romanian Power System topology, and
it has been shown in the dynamic simulations that a TCR can
be safer to use for the equipment in the area.
The voltage regulation is a daily activity in a national
dispatching center because of the large load variation from
daylight to night.
The Romanian Transmission Network is characterized by a
surplus of reactive power produced by the transmission lines
as a consequence of the reduced load. The normal activity
includes connection of shunt compensation reactors during
the night and disconnecting most of them during the day. All
reactors are sized to 100 MVAr. When one reactor unit is
switched on/off large voltage variations and voltage spikes
are experienced in the 400 kV busbars that propagate to the
lower voltage level network.
The simulated scenarios show that for future investments
in the grid the usage of FACTS devices can improve system
reliability and overall operation.
Using several smaller size reactors in combination or not
with a TCR can significantly mitigate the voltage problems in
the whole Romanian Power System.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks are addressed to the Planning Department
of the National Company Transelectrica S.A. and the
Romanian TSO through the National Dispatching Centre.


The work has been funded by the Sectoral Operational
Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013 of
the Romanian Ministry of Labour, Family and Social
Protection through the Financial Agreements
POSDRU/107/1.5/S/76903 and POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62557, As
well as by the Exploratory research project PN-II-ID-PCE-
2011-3-0693. Model Identification and Analysis Using
Synchronized Measurements ActiveDGModel.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Constantin, M. Eremia, V. Ivan, Analysis of using
thyristor controlled reactors in the National Power
System in steady state operation mode, WEC Central
& Eastern Europe Energy Forum FOREN, 17 21
June, 2012, Neptun, Romania, pp. 121 130.
[2] C. Bulac, C. Diaconu, M. Eremia, B. Otomega, I. Pop,
L. Toma, Power Transfer Capacity Enhancement using
SVC, Proceedings of 2009 IEEE Bucharest
PowerTech, Bucharest, 28 June 2 July, 2009.
[3] A. Owegard, K. Walve, G. Waglund. Improvement of
transmission capacity by thyristor controlled reactive
power, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 8, Aug. 1981.
[4] G. Hingorani, L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS.
Concepts and technology of Flexible AC Transmission
Systems, IEEE Press, 2000.
[5] Song, Y.H., Johns, A.T., Flexible AC Transmission
systems (FACTS), IEEE Press, London, 1999.
[6] Eurostag modelling and simulations Users manual.
[7] S. Phichaisawat, Y.H. Song, X.L. Wang, X.F. Wang,
Combined Active and Reactive Congestion
Management with FACTS Devices, Electric Power
Components and Systems, Taylor and Francis, Nov.
2010, pp. 1195-1205.
[8] C.A. Canizares, Modeling of TCR and VSI based
FACTS controllers. University of Waterloo,
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Waterloo, Internal Report for ENEL and POLIMI,
Ontario, Canada, 1999.
[9] CIGRE Task Force 38.01.08 on Modeling of power
electronic equipment (FACTS) in load flow and stability
programs, ELECTRA 145, CIGRE, August 1999.
[10] C.A. Canizares, Power flow and transient stability
models for FACTS controllers for voltage and angle
stability studies, Proc. of IEEE/PES Winter Meeting,
Singapore, January 2000.