Probabilistic Contingency Severity Index for Dynamic

Reactive Power Planning

Carolina Villegas, Mario A. Ríos
Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Electronics
Universidad de los Andes
Bogotá, Colombia
mrios@uniandes.edu.co

Abstract— Planning of Flexible AC Transmission systems
(FACTS) and other reactive power sources has traditionally
been done considering steady state conditions. The strength of
FACTS is mainly seen when considering the dynamic behavior
after the occurrence of any disturbance like when a fault occurs,
because they can stabilize the system voltage and control power
flow. At the same time, transient voltage dips and slow voltage
recovery issues are most effectively addressed by fast responding
dynamic VAR sources. So, this paper proposes a probabilistic
contingency severity index based on the probability of
occurrence of the faults and the dynamic impacts on the
network measured in trajectory voltage deviations that can be
included as a dynamic constraint for reactive power planning. In
this way, the objective of dynamic reactive power planning is to
determine where and with what capacity shunt-FACTS should
be located to obtain a voltage profile within acceptable limits.
The proposed probabilistic contingency severity index shows its
effectiveness as dynamic criteria for optimization of location and
sizing of shunt-FACTS devices by testing on the IEEE 9 nodes
system and on the IEEE 39 nodes system.
Index Terms— FACTS, Power system dynamics, Power system
planning, Power system simulation, Reactive power planning.
I. INTRODUCTION
The reactive power planning (RPP) has been developed
has a task included in the transmission expansion planning
(TEP) of power systems, whose objective is to place VAr
sources in weak nodes of the transmission system. As result of
the RPP, the performance of the system is improved, taking
into account aspects such as voltage profile, losses reduction
and increment of reactive stability margins [1].
Previous research in RPP involves a cost optimization
problem. Normally, capacitors and inductors are placed and
dimensioned based on normal operating conditions, and
analysis of steady state of contingency conditions [2]. There
are different optimization techniques applied to solve this
problem [1].
However, it is recognized that FACTS improves the
performance of the system not only in steady state conditions
but also in the dynamic behavior of the system [3]. Thus, the
strength of FACTS is mainly seen when considering the
dynamic behavior after the occurrence of any disturbance like
when a fault occurs, because they can stabilize the system
voltage and control power flow [4]. So, it has been proposed
techniques that include FACTS devices in the RPP, where
each additional FACTS has a cost function of its size [3];
however, many of these techniques are based on analysis of
steady state conditions [1] or under N-1 contingencies [2].
Some of proposed dynamic RPP considers voltage stability
margins or conditions where excessive transient voltage dip
occurs after contingencies in order to rank contingencies and
to find candidate locations for dynamic reactive power sources
[5]. In [4], a complex methodology considering dynamic
aspects is proposed, while in [6] an approach considering and
objective voltage defined by a continuous function is
developed. In the existing research, all contingencies are
studied, achieving results that might place FACTS devices for
contingencies that have a low probability of occurrence or a
low impact, thus obtaining a solution that is expensive for the
real needs of the system.
This paper proposes a probabilistic Contingency Severity
Index (CSI) based on the probability of occurrence of the
faults and the dynamic impacts on the network measured in
trajectory voltage deviations that can be included as a dynamic
constraint for RPP. In this way, the objective of dynamic RPP
is to determine where and with what capacity shunt-FACTS
should be located to lower to obtain a voltage profile within
acceptable limits associated to the dynamic transient response.
With this CSI, location of the FACTS is determined and
the minimum size of the FACTS devices is established. Two
different scenarios are studied, one with peak load and the
other with a reduced load and disconnection of generators,
where the reactive power support by FACTS might be even
more necessary.
The effectiveness of the proposed probabilistic CSI as
dynamic criteria for optimization placement and sizing of
FACTS devices in RPP is tested on the IEEE 39 nodes
system.

978-1-5386-5844-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 II. CONTINGENCY SEVERITY INDEX (CSI) So, the CSI for a node k is the sum of the voltage violation
The CSI as defined here calculates, for each line associated of that node evaluated for each contingency with its
to a node, the probability of occurrence of a fault and the probability. The CSI is calculated for both scenarios and the
dynamic impact of that fault on the system measured as result for each node added. Indexes for all nodes are added up
trajectory voltage deviations. and a total value is obtained.

The probability of occurrence of a fault on a line can be As, (2) shows, the computation of TVIk requires a time
computed from statistical data of any transmission power domain simulation of a fault in each line for each node k, and
system [7]; and normally it is calculated based on the length of the voltage value for all nodes is used to obtain the index.
the line [8]. Considering only N-1 contingencies, the FACTS dynamic models were implemented in the
probability of occurrence of a fault of connected lines at node i dynamic simulation using the time constant model used by [9].
is given by: The models used are:
nl − j
( )
bsvc = K r Vref − V − bsvc Tr (6)
PCij = U j ∏ (1 − U k ) (1)
k =1 istatcom = K r (Vref − V )− istatcom Tr (7)
Where PCij is the probability of occurrence of a fault of
line j of node i, Uj,k is the probability of a fault on line j or k Where bsvc is the susceptance of the SVC and istatcom is the
and ni is the number of lines connected to node i. PCij is injected current by STATCOM. Typical values for Tr and Kr
calculated for non-generating nodes, only nodes that have are used for time domain simulations for both SVC and
connected lines to other nodes are considered. STATCOM devices [9].
On the other hand, when a disturbance occurs, like a fault;
III. DYNAMIC RPP METHODOLOGY
the dynamic transient response of the system will show
transient excursions of bus voltages including voltage dips and The used RPP methodology considers the proposed risk
swells. So, the dynamic performance of the system under index CSI, which combines the probability of occurrence and
contingencies can be measured as the voltage deviations the impact of the contingency in the system, in the time
outside permissible limits defined by an upper boundary and a domain. With this CSI, location of shunt-FACTS is
lower boundary. These boundaries define the voltage range, determined and the minimum size of the shunt-FACTS
over time, where the voltages of all nodes are expected to be devices is established. Three basic steps are followed:
found [5], [6]. i. Determine the candidate nodes for reactive power
Hence, for the impact of a fault the Trajectory Violation support by calculating the CSI.
Integral (TVI) definition given in [6] is used. A function is ii. Choose nodes to place the FACTS.
defined that is the desired behavior of the voltage for all nodes
after a fault is cleared and the areas of voltage curves outside iii. Determine size of each FACTS device.
the reference function are added. For any given node k, the
TVI is defined as: As the CSI is based on the impact caused by
contingencies, the proposed methodology uses the following
t end premises: N-1 contingencies are simulated where there is an
TVI k =  tf
uk (t ) dt (2) earth fault on a line and then the line remains disconnected
when the fault is cleared; a scenario with peak load and peak
generation is simulated and then a scenario with reduced load
 Linf (t ) − vk (t ) if vk (t ) < Linf (t ) (3)
 and disconnected generation is considered. The CSI is
uk (t ) = vk (t ) − Lsup (t ) if vk (t ) > Lsup (t ) calculated after the fault has been cleared.
0 otherwise

A. Selection of Candidate Nodes
The lower voltage limit (lower boundary) is given by: Candidate nodes for installation of reactive power sources
β are chosen as those with the highest CSI value, among nodes
 t  with lines connected. Since the objective of the CSI is to
 t t sim 
 t e  (4) obtain candidate nodes for shunt-FACTS placement, only PQ-
[ ]
sim type nodes are considered. The steps for make the list of
Linf (t ) = vst   ∀ t ∈ t f , t sim candidate nodes are:
eβ
The upper voltage limit is Lsup(t)=2-Linf(t). Values of i. Compute CSI for all PQ-type nodes without FACTS
β=0.05 p.u. and vst=0.9 p.u. were used [6]. For each node in devices instaled in the system.
each scenario the CSI is given by: ii. Add to the list of candidate nodes the node with the
Nn nl highest CSI value (node k).
CSI k =  P
i =1 j =1
Cij × TVI k (5) iii. Place a FACTS shunt device at the candidate node k,
added previously.
 iv. Compute a new CSI with the shunt FACTS device cos t (x ) = 0.27 x 3 − 265.17 x 2 + 123432 x (10)
placed at k. If the CSI value is acceptable, the step is
completed. If the new CSI values are not lower than cos t ( x ) = 0.23 x 3 − 218.36 x 2 + 149692 x (11)
the previous ones, i.e. there is no improvement in the
CSI, no additional FACTS devices are added. Where x is the capacity of the FACTS in MVAr. Cost in
Otherwise, go to step ii. USD$. Note that the cost function is monotonically increasing
Acceptable CSI is considered to be less than a γ (e.g. 3%) for both STATCOM and SVC with the capacity of the FACTS
of the initial CSI (CSI0) value with no FACTS devices. Fig. 1 device; therefore the optimal cost will be achieved when the
shows the general algorithm to compute the optimal shunt- FACTS device has the minimum value, that is the capacity
FACTS to be placed at the system in order to improve CSI. just to respond to the contingencies after the fault has been
Each step CSI computation involves the dynamic simulation cleared.
of the faults of all lines associated to all nodes to find TVIs The optimal capacity value is obtained from the maximum
and nodes CSIs and through addition the system CSI. value needed by the system after the fault has been cleared for
Calculate Base
each FACTS device.
CSI
(Total CSI of
system without IV. TEST RESULTS
FACTS)
In both test cases, dynamic simulation was done using
MatDyn [11], considering a fault at 0.1 s and a clearance of
the fault at 0.2 s, using the modified Euler solver. Fourth order
Choose candidate
node (Node with generators were simulated to take into account transient and
the highest
individual CSI)
No subtransient behavior of generators after the fault [4].
and place SVC Excitations were modeled as IEEE DC1A excitation system
implemented in MatDyn. Turbine models were not
considered. The methodology is implemented in Matlab and
uses Matpower [10] for power flows and Matdyn [11] for
Calculate CSI
dynamic transient stability simulation.

A. IEEE 9 nodes System

Fig. 2 shows the IEEE 9 system with the initial generation
and loads considered. In blue, on top, the settings for the peak
CSI ≤ 3% of No
Place STATCOM
instead of SVC CSI ≤ 3% of load scenario, below in green information for the reduced load
Base CSI and calculate CSI Base CSI scenario. In parenthesis is the reactive power demanded by the
loads. Line length for failure probability was taken from [12].
Yes 2 8 7 6 3

Get optimal 163.2 MW 108.8 MW

163 MW 210 MW
capacity value and Yes (25 MVAR)
---
calculate cost 100 MW
(30 MVAR)

Figure 1. General algorithm for shunt-FACTS placement 9 5

130 MW 170 MW
(25 MVAR) (15 MVAR)
B. FACTS Sizing 125 MW
(35 MVAR)
4 90 MW
(30 MVAR)

An optimization cost problem is formulated for sizing

FACTS devices, given by: 1

f = min  cos t (x ) i
(8)
Subject to
 CSI ≤ γ CSI 0 (9)
Where xi is the shunt-FACTS is placed at node i, (9) gives
the CSI objective after FACTS placement. If instead of SVC
the STATCOM are placed, (9) changes to include STATCOM
limits expressed in current injections.
The costs are defined for a range of SVCs and
STATCOMs, though FACTS with larger and smaller capacity
can be commercially found. From [3], the cost function for
SVCs and STATCOMs was extrapolated and are given by:
Figure 2. IEEE 9 bus system - Peak load scenario (blue) and reduced load
scenario (green).
Simulation was carried out for 3 s. As the first step, the
CSI is calculated for the case without FACTS devices and the
results are shown in Fig. 3 with a total value of 19.65 x 10-3.
As a representative case, a fault at node 8 in line 7-8 is
simulated, and the dynamic behavior of the voltage in all
nodes can be seen in Fig. 4.
Node 7 is the non-generating node with the highest CSI,
and thus the first candidate to place a FACTS device. After
placing an SVC on node 7 with the maximum capacity, the
new CSI is 3.08 x 10-4 which is a 1.57% of the value with no
FACTS in the network, which is an acceptable value.
Dynamic behavior for a fault at node 8 in line 7-8 is shown in
Fig. 5.

Figure 5. Sample dynamic behavior IEEE 9 bus case - one SVC in node 7.

B. IEEE 39 nodes System

The methodology was tested also on the IEEE 39 test case,
with line length taken from [13]. Two scenarios are used, the
Figure 3. CSI for IEEE 9 bus case (base case, without FACTS).
first one is the peak load condition, and the second one take
off G5 and G10 and the load is reduced. Time domain
simulations was carried out for 3 s for computing TVI. As the
first step, the CSI0 is calculated for the case without FACTS
devices and the results are shown in Fig. 6 with a total value
of 0.0291.
Voltage [pu]

Figure 4. Sample dynamic behavior IEEE 9 bus case without FACTS.

The test using STATCOM or SVC produces the same

impact on the CSI value. The capacity needed for the SVCs is
shown in Table I. The cost of this solution (SVC) is
USD$2.11 Million. Figure 6. CSI for IEEE 39 bus case (base case, without FACTS).

In [4] case IEEE 9 is used to test the methodology, giving As a representative case for the dynamic behavior, a fault
as a result SVCs on nodes 5 and 6 with no reactive in node 24 at line 23-24 is simulated, and the dynamic
compensation and a capacitive compensation of 0.7687 p.u. behavior of the voltage in all nodes can be seen in Fig. 7. As,
and 0.4883 respectively. Considering a base of 100 p.u the it is shown, the system is unstable.
results obtained in [4] are more expensive than the ones shown
previously. Node 29 is the non-generating node with the highest CSI
(Fig. 6), and thus the first candidate to place a FACTS device.
After placing an SVC on node 29 with the maximum capacity,
TABLE I. OPTIMAL CAPACITY OF SVC DEVICES - IEEE 9 SYSTEM the new CSI is 0.0047 which is a 16.2% of the value without
Node 7 FACTS in the network. Dynamic behavior for a fault in line
Reactive compensation (MVAr) 13.61 from node 23 to 24 shows the system unstable.
Capacitive Compensation (MVAr) -4.22
 V. CONCLUSIONS
1.5

This paper presents contributions in the strategy to install

FACTS devices in the electrical system with the objective of
improving the dynamic performance, different from the
traditional methods in which the FACTS devices are allocated
1 based in normal operation conditions and analysis of steady
state of contingency conditions
This paper had proposed a risk index called Contingency
Severity Index (CSI) that weights trajectory voltage deviations
0.5 outside limits according to the probability of occurrence of the
contingency that provokes these voltage deviations. The index
CSI had shown that is useful as a dynamic constraint for RPP
taking into account the objective of computing where and with
what capacity shunt-FACTS should be located to obtain a
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 voltage profile within acceptable limits.
Time [s]

Figure 7. Sample dynamic behavior IEEE 39 bus case without FACTS.
As, the CSI value with one SVC in node 29 is still high
(larger than γ), and not acceptable, the node 20 is included as
the second candidate node taking into account that its CSI is
the highest in the new set of CSI indexes. With two SVC, one
in node 29 and one in node 20, the total value is 5.8 x 10-4
which is a 2% of the CSI0 value and is an acceptable value.
The system is stable for this condition as shown Fig. 9 when a
fault in line 23-24 occurs.
The test using STATCOM or SVC produces the same
impact on the CSI value. The capacity needed for the SVCs is
shown in Table II.
Figure 8. Dynamic behavior IEEE 39 bus case - Two SVC nodes 29 and 20.
TABLE II. OPTIMAL CAPACITY OF SVC DEVICES – IEEE 39 SYSTEM
Node 29 Node 20
Reactive Compensation (MVAr) 309.06 800
Capacitive Compensation (MVAr) -410.97 -350.2
The results obtained give the optimal amount of reactive
dynamic compensation from SVC or STATCOM for cases
that have a high probability of occurrence or a high impact on
the system. Finally, the contingency severity index (CSI) has
shown its effectiveness as dynamic criteria for optimization
FACTS devices by testing on the IEEE 39 nodes systems.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Bhattacharyya and S. Raj, "Swarm intelligence based algorithms for
reactive power planning with Flexible AC transmission system
devices," International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, vol. 78, pp. 158-164, 2016.
[2] H. Seifi and S. Sepasian, Electric Power System Planning, Berlin:
Springer Verlag, 2011.
[3] K. Habur and D. O'Leary, "FACTS - Flexible Alternating Current
Transmission Systems For Cost Effective and Reliable Transmission of
Electrical Energy," [Online]. Available:
http://www.rds.ontarioenergyboard.ca/WEBDRAWER/WEBDRAWE
R.DLL/webdrawer/rec/176620/view/Pappas_EVD_Set%201_Part%202
_facts_siemens_20080411.PDF. [Accessed 28 05 2017].
[4] Y. Wang, H. Chen and F. Li, "Reactive Power Planning with Transient
Process Stability Constraint," in 2015 IEEE/PES General Meeting,
Denver, USA, 2015.
[5] H. Liu, V. Krishnan, J. D. McCalley and A. Chowdhury, "Optimal
planning of static and dynamic reactive power resources," IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1916-1927, 2014.
[6] S. Wildenhues, J. L. Rueda and I. Erlich, "Optimal Allocation and
Sizing of Dynamic Var Sources Using Heuristic Optimization," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2538-2546, Sept.
2015.
[7] W. Li, Probabilistic Transmission System Planning, J. Wiley & Sons
Inc., 2011.
[8] P. M. Subcommittee, "IEEE Reliability Test System," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vols. PAS-98, no. 6,
pp. 2047-2054, Noviembre 1979.
[9] F. Milano, "Power System Analysis Toolbox, Documentation for PSAT
version 2.0.0," 2008.
[10] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sánchez and R. J. Thomas,
"MATPOWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning, and Analysis Tools
for Power Systems Research and Education," IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12-19, Feb 2011.
[11] S. Cole, and R. Belmans, “MatDyn, A New Matlab-Based Toolbox for
Power System Dynamic Simulation,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1129-1136, Aug. 2011.
[12] Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, "IEEE 09 Bus System," Manitoba
HVDC Research Centre, Dec. 2014.
[13] Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, "IEEE 39 Bus System", Manitoba
HVDC Research Centre, Dec. 2014.