3 visualizações

Enviado por Laurence Michael

BreakingEnergy Recuperation

- Substation and Substation equipments
- Electrical Planning and Design Guide Final
- Huawei New Generation Telecom Power Solution MTS9000A
- amrood1-18737
- Sathis Resume
- 1N5400
- industrial training Report
- Americas 4 10 Hitachi
- sakthistabilizer
- 9702_s07_qp_4
- Electrical and Electronics Engineering Lab Manual
- 2
- PD_DPR_4000B_en_Rev.02.pdf
- ELECTRICAL DESIGNER or PROJECT ENGINEER or MAINTENANCE ENGINEER
- Quaries for 220KV Sub Stn
- Intro to Cathodic Protection Systems Maintenance
- Maymar Gadap Grid Station Final Report
- 05294745
- Biodata Format Final
- Front Pages

Você está na página 1de 9

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224585425

Article in IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine October 2009

DOI: 10.1109/MVT.2009.933480 Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS

READS

10

1 author:

Vitaly Gelman

vg controls

9 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 01 September 2016

used in a majority of U.S. traction systems is a 40-year-old

technology; it provides no

active voltage control and does

not allow for power recuperation

into the ac line. New technologies such as thyristor-controlled

rectifiers (TCRs) provide active

voltage control, and reversible

TCRs (RTCRs) allow for power

recuperation into the ac line.

The first U.S. traction TCR

was put into revenue service in

Dallas in 1996. The Dallas system

was expanded in 2001, and Phoenix recently started its TCR revenue service as well. In the early

1990s, much attention was drawn

to the TCR, but then, the interest

faded away, returning now when the

energy savings became a priority.

SDRs output characteristics are determined by rectifier transformer parameters and, to a lesser extent, by system

impedance. Transportation agencies have

accumulated enough experience with SDR so

that they can specify the transformer and, thus,

assure the desired voltage regulation curve, fault

current, etc. The SDR does not require a controller.

The TCR consists of two parts: power circuit and controller with regulator. RTCR is a TCR with an additional power

module to conduct the current in the reverse direction. It is the job

of the regulators to send a firing pulse (also called gating signal) to each

silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) to achieve a desirable voltage control, resulting

in voltage regulation, current limiting, and proper inverter operation.

PHOTO BY SIEMENS

BRAKING ENERGY

RECUPERATION

Reversible Thyristor-Controlled Rectifiers

Vitaly Gelman

82 |||

1556-6072/09/$26.002009IEEE

Proper design of the regulator requires the use of feedback, typically multiloop arrangements (regulation of the

two parameters is needed: voltage and current). Moreover, the operation of the TCR is nonlinear: there is a voltage regulation operating region, a voltage-starving region

(the firing angle is minimal, the operation is similar to

SDR), and a current regulation region. Such design necessitates the application of control theory.

It had been field proven in Dallas Area Rapid Transit

(DART) that TCRs with proper regulator work reliably and

without oscillations; they provide voltage/current within

power circuit limitations. While specifying the TCRs, the

transportation agencies need to characterize both static

and dynamic regulator performance along with power

circuit parameters. It is important to request and check

U.S. field references; other locations often have different

requirements and standards.

Electric trains are specified to have 20% overvoltage margin, i.e., trains with 750-V dc-rated voltage are specified to

operate reliably at 900 V. If the voltage exceeds 900 V, the

train converters shut down. These are the parameters of

the M7 trains used by Long Island Rail Road, Metro North,

and others.

With SDR system, an operating voltage around 700

750 V is selected. With a rated voltage of 700 V and 6% regulation, there is a no-load voltage of 745-V dc (12-pulse rectifier will have no-load voltage higher by additional 3%). The

incoming ac-line voltage increase of 10% gives a no-load

voltage of 820-V dc. This leaves just enough margins to

provide the system receptivity for regenerative braking

(the current needs to travel to the accelerating train).

With TCR, a constant voltage region from 0 to 150% and

a load of 825 V are selected; the TCR will adjust the firing

angle to compensate for any ac-voltage variation.

Figure 1 shows the regulation curves for both TCR and

SDR. We can see that TCR provides a 125-V dc voltage gain

at 100% load and a 150-V dc voltage gain at 150% load. If a

minimum voltage at the train of 500-V dc at 100% load as

design criteria is assumed, then for SDR, a voltage margin

to spend on the rails (both running and power rails) voltage drop is 700500 200-V dc. For the TCR, under the

same condition, the margin of 825500 325-V dc or 60%

gain and even higher if the voltages at 150% load are compared. This voltage gain directly translates into a potential increase of substation spacing (and lower number of

substations). In the existing SDR system, the load is

increased by 60% by converting to TCR/RTCR without

adding new substations.

Smaller increase in the distances or load (say 30%) can

be selected to optimize other parameters: running rail

voltage, losses in the rails, etc. In a Phoenix project, the

number of substations was reduced 28%, from 18 (SDR) to

14 (TCR), right along with the estimates above.

WAS PUT INTO REVENUE SERVICE

IN DALLAS IN 1996.

higher voltage of 845850-V dc. Though this optimizes substation spacing and rail losses, it does not leave enough

room to provide regenerative current rails voltage drop

(see Figure 7, train voltage).

Though the TCRs are more expensive than SDRs, they

comprise only a small portion, about 510% of the installed cost of the substation. The reduced number of substations translates into substantial capital cost savings

(see Table 4).

Simulation Assumption

To simulate energy flow, the following assumptions

are used:

n the substations are located at 1-mi intervals

n the passenger stations are located at the substations

n the distance between the passenger stations is 2 mi

n the train operates in power mode; the power level P

is determined by the acceleration profile and friction

losses; the power (or acceleration) is set by the train

controller, and the current is determined by the available voltage I P=V , where I is the current, P is the

power, and V is the voltage

n the train is 10-car M7, and each car is 145,000 lb

n the acceleration is 2 mi/h/s to 20 mi/h, then inversely

proportional to the speed up to 60 mi/h

850

800

750

700

650

600

550

500

Diode Rect

450

TCR

400

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

||| 83

MODULE TO CONDUCT THE CURRENT IN THE

REVERSE DIRECTION.

Train Voltage

Rrect RLL x /L Vtrain RLL (Lx)/L Rrect

l1

Rectifier 2

n

n

n

n

above 20 mi/h; at 60 mi/h, it is 0.667 mi/h/s, increases

to 2 mi/h/s at 20 mi/h, and stays 2 mi/h/s between 20

mi/h and zero speed

the train accelerates to 60 mi/h, travels at 60 mi/h,

and then decelerates to stop at the second substation

2 mi away

the rail impedance is 56 mX/mi (10 mX/1,000 ft)

both SDR and TCR are 6 MW units

the TCR rectifier voltage is 825-V dc at all loads

the SDR has 700 V rated load voltage and 6% regulation (745 V no load voltage, Rrect 5:25 mX)

to account for the losses in the car power train and

the rectifier transformer, 1) the efficiency gtrain of the

car power train is constant 80%, both for acceleration

and braking and 2) the efficiency grect of the rectifier-

Rrect

"

FDAV (v) (0:0025 (N 1)0:00034)140v2

where M is the total train mass in kilograms, N is the number of cars (10), each car has four axles, and v is the train

speed in miles per hour.

The friction force converted to metric units is

1:6

0:454

Ffrict (v) FDAV v(mi=h)

,

3

3:6

0:102

position and current.

The friction force (in pounds) is calculated using

Davis formula:

V2

Rectifier 1

Calculations

#

M

M

29 3 4 3 N 1:3 3

, (1)

v 3 0:03

1,000

1,000

l2

Train

Current

V1

the effects of other trains on the energy flow.

RLL (Lx)/L

in mi/h.

Assume the train to be x meters from the left substation (rectifier 1), L x meters from the right substation

(rectifier 2), the distance L between the substations is 1 mi

(1,600 m), and the rails impedance between the substations RLL 0:0056 X (see [1]). The currents from rectifiers

1 and 2 are I1 and I2 , respectively.

Figure 2 shows the equivalent circuit of our system.

The rectifiers are presented here as a series connection of

voltage source and equivalent resistance Rrect . For the

SDR, V1 V2 745 V and Rrect 5:25 mX; for the TCR,

assume V1 V2 825-V dc and Rrect 0.

Since V1 V2 , the potentials of their top terminals is

the same and can be replaced by a single voltage source

V1 ; the equivalent circuit is shown in Figure 3.

The equations to calculate the required variables are

as follows:

Ptrain

l2

Rrect

Train Voltage

RLL x /L

Vtrain

Train

Current

V1

84 |||

Pmech

1

gtrain

gtrain

1

1

1

,

Req Rrect xL RLL Rrect Lx

L RLL

a

l1

(2)

dv

;

dt

dx

,

dt

(3)

the train acceleration, L is the distance between substations, and x is the distance from the train to substation.

To find out the losses in the rails, currents from each

substation I1 and I2 and, finally, the losses in the left and

x

Lx

I1 Rrect RLL I2 Rrect

RLL ,

L

L

RECOVERED ENERGY.

I1 I2 I ,

x

Lx

RLL I22 :

Loss RLL I12

L

L

(4)

Train Acceleration

energy of the train, energy spent on friction and drag,

energy lost in the rails resistance, and total energy consumed from the ac source.

Emech

Efrict

Erail

Etot

Mav

Mv2

,

2

Ffrict (v)v,

Z

Loss,

Z

1

I1 (V Rrect I1 ) I2 (V Rrect I2 ),

grect

(5)

energy spent on friction and drag, Erail the energy lost in

the rails and overhead catenary system (OCS) resistance,

and Etot is the total energy consumed from an ac source.

For train braking, the equations are very similar,

except that the current and friction losses have opposite

polarity, and where when multiplied by efficiency we need

to divide, and vice versa, to account for the opposite

energy flow

Ptrain gtrain Pmech gtrain (Ma Ffrict (v))v,

Ptrain Pmech IVtrain I (V IReq ),

traveled distance, speed, acceleration, and train power

during train acceleration from passenger substation to 60

mi/h for both SDR and TCR/RTCR. The acceleration (mi/h/

s) and distance (km) use the right Y scale.

The speed and train power use left scale, and the X

scale is the time in seconds. Assume here that the train

controller sets the acceleration and through it indirectly

sets the speed, position, and train power so that they will

be the same for both SDR and TCR. However, the train current, rail losses, and total energy will be different because

TCR has a higher voltage.

Initially, at constant acceleration, the train current and

power increase linearly with time as expected, the force is

constant, and the power is proportional to speed. Above

20 mi/h, the acceleration is inversely proportional to

speed, corresponding to constant power. Actually, power

increases slightly because the friction force increases

with speed.

Figure 5 shows the results of simulation: train current

and rail losses during train acceleration from passenger

substation to 60 mi/h for both SDR and TCR. The current

follows the power, with the TCR current being substantially lower than SDR because of the higher TCR voltage.

Two traces on the bottom show rail losses for TCR and

SDR. Since in both cases the train moves identically,

1

1

1

,

Req Rrect xL RLL Rrect Lx

L RLL

a

dv

;

dt

dx

,

dt

Vtrain V IReq :

22

20

(6)

needs confirmation that it will not exceed 900 V. The

energy equations are the same, except the one for the total

energy returned:

Z

Etot grect I1 (V Rrect I1 ) I2 (V Rrect I2 ):

(7)

Regeneration into the ac line is possible only with

RTCR. The simulation was performed using the MathCad12 program. The speed and position were obtained by

integrating the acceleration. Power, voltage, and current

were obtained from (3) and (4), and for the regeneration,

from (6) and (4). Finally, the integrals (5) and (7) were calculated to get energy balance and savings.

Acceleration (mi/h/s)

18

16

1.5

14

12

10

Speed (mi/h/10)

4

2

0.5

Distance (km)

0

0

0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

60

t

||| 85

[see (4)]. Once the train moves further away, the rail

losses rise rapidly; they reach a maximum in the middle

point between the substations and decline to zero once

the train approaches the next substation. A set speed of

60 mi/h at 800 m (half a mile) is reached from the original

substation or at the middle point.

Once the train gets closer to the middle point, the SDR

current rises disproportionably because of the higher voltage drop in the railshigher current is needed to provide

the power. At the middle point, the SDR train voltage is

about 500-V dc, and for the TCR and RTCR, the train voltage is about 624 V. The TCR/RTCR provides higher train

voltage leading to lower train current and lower rail losses.

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

Rail Losses

TCR (MW)

Train Acceleration

0

0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

the rail losses are proportional to the square of currents.

While the train is close to the substation (first 10 s), the

rail losses are very small despite the high current. It happens because the distance x and rail impedance are small

Rectifier

Type

SDR

TCR

Mechanical

Energy

Friction

Losses

Power

Train

Losses

234

16.9

62.7

an SDR and a TCR/RTCR is shown in Table 1. All values are

in megajoules (MJ). Mechanical energy, friction losses,

and car power train losses are the same for both cases,

because the train moves identically in both cases. However, the rail losses are much lower for the TCR because of

the lower current. Since the transformer/rectifier efficiency is assumed to be the same for SDR and TCR, those

losses are lower for the TCR also. Total energy is lower by

about 6% (355 versus 378) for the TCR.

This is similar to reducing losses in a

transmission line by increasing the

voltage and thus lowering the current.

Rail

Losses

Rectifier/

Transformer

Losses

Total

Energy

59.1

35.7

5.7

5.3

378.4

354.6

Train Deceleration

Figure 6 shows the results of train

deceleration simulation: traveled distance, speed, acceleration, and train

22

22

Accel (mi/h/s)

20

20

2

18

16

16

1.5

14

10

10

8

Speed (mi/h/10)

6

0.5

2

Distance (km)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

t

86 |||

14

12

12

18

Current (kA)

0

0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

t

TABLE 2 Energy balance (MJ) for deceleration from 60 mi/h to 0.

60 mi/h to a stop at a passenger station.

Assume that the train controller

Car Power

Rectifier/

Total

sets the deceleration and through it

Rectifier Mechanical Friction

Rail

Train

transformer Recovered

Type

Energy

Losses

Losses

Losses

Losses

Energy

indirectly sets the speed, position,

and train power so that they will be

RTCR

234

16.9

43.4

6.8

2.5

165.3

the same for both SDR and TCR/RTCR.

SDR

234

0

0

0

Figure 7 shows the simulation results for the train decelerating from

60 mi/h to zero to stop at the passenger station with substation. Since SDR

TABLE 3 Net energy comparison for SDR and TCR (MJ).

and TCR cannot absorb energy, there

Constant

are only results for RTCR.

Rectifier

Acceleration

Recovered

Net

Speed

The power and current are about

Type

Energy

Energy

Energy

Savings

Energy

half of the values for acceleration

RTCR

354.7

54.2

165.3

243.6

44%

because of the losses in the cars

SDR

378.4

54.2

0

432.6

0

power train and also friction losses. At

an efficiency of 0.8, passing the energy

in both directions leaves only 0:82

lower current), and constant speed energy is the same in

0:64 of the initial energy; the rail losses and friction take

both cases. SDR does not recover any energy. It can be

their toll also. So about 50% seems to be right. The train

seen from the table that RTCR offers 243.6 versus 432.6 MJ

power increases while its speed goes down because of

or 44% propulsion energy savings.

lower friction force at lower speed. The current increases

Figures 8 and 9 show pie charts representing SDR and

faster than the power because of the additional effect of

TCR/RTCR energy balances, respectively (see Tables 13).

rail losses reduction.

Total energy consumption for the same train run is

lower for the TCR compared with that of SDR by about 6%

RTCR and SDR Energy Balance

(408 versus 432 MJ). This is mostly because of the reduced

for Train Deceleration

rail loss.

Table 2 shows the energy balance for the deceleration.

RTCR recovers mechanical energy of the train. The

The train mechanical energy is the same as in Table 1

small circle on Figure 9 shows the energy balance for recu(it depends only on mass and speed). The energy

perating mechanical energy into the ac line by RTCR durrecovered into the ac line is the difference between the

ing train deceleration (see Table 2).

mechanical energy and the sum of all losses: friction,

power train losses, rail losses, and rectifier transformer losses.

Capital Cost and Energy Savings with RTCR

With RTCR, 165 of 234 MJ can be recovered, which is

To estimate RTCR cost savings, the data from Table 3 are

about 70% of the mechanical energy. With SDR, some of

used. Consider a short line with six SDR substations.

this energy can be absorbed by nearby trains, and the rest

is wasted as heat. Since, in our simplified analysis, we do

not consider the effects of other trains, we have zero for

recovered energy in Table 3 for SDR.

Rect/Xfmr

Const

Loss 1%

Speed

13%

The train travels 800 m (half a mile) during both acceleration and deceleration. Because the distance between the

passenger stations, in this case, is 2 mi, the train needs to

travel 1 mi at 60 mi/h; it will take 60 s. The constant speed

power is 890 kW (friction losses from Davis formula,

power train losses, and rectifier transformer losses), this

gives a constant speed energy of 54.2 MJ.

Table 3 shows energy balance for a train moving

between the two passenger stations 2 mi apart. Net energy

is the sum of acceleration plus constant speed energies

minus recovered energy. RTCR has a little lower acceleration energy because of lower rails losses (higher voltage,

Rail Loss

14%

Mech

Energy 54%

Pwr

Train Loss

14%

Friction 4%

||| 87

the TCR substations. These estiRect/Xfmr

Const

mates do not account for energy

Loss 1%

Rect/Xfmr

Speed

absorption by nearby trains.

Loss D 1%

13%

The results are compiled in

Rail Loss

Rail

Table

4. The table shows that, as an

Recovered

9%

Loss D 2%

ac 40%

alternative to SDR, TCR and RTCR

Mech

Pwr

Pwr

Train Loss

Energy 57%

provide both lower capital cost and

Train Loss

11%

15%

energy savings. The RTCR is a little

higher in capital cost (US$0.4 milFriction 4%

lion), but the payback time is just

five months.

Friction 4%

RTCR versus SDR savings: initial

(capital) cost is 10% lower with

FIGURE 9 TCR/RTCR energy balance.

substantial energy savings.

Figure 10 shows the total cost

and saving over the 30-year period. After 12 years of

Assuming a moderate distance gain of 20%, substitute

running, the savings will exceed the initial cost of

them with five TCR or RTCR substations. Assuming at

RTCR substations.

3-MW power level, the costs of SDR, RTCR with recuperation to the ac line, TCR without recuperation, and the

installed cost of SDR substation are US$150,000,

Savings for the RTCR Upgrade

US$350,000, US$270,000, and US$3 million, respectively.

Consider an upgrade of the existing SDR system to the

Further assume that an average load of the SDR substation

RTCR. For example, the same system with six SDR substaat 25% of rated capacity is 0.75 MW for 24 h, and the cost

tions is used with rated power 3 MW each and consider

of energy is US$100/MW h. Energy savings is about 3% for

the effect of upgrading it to RTCRs. The number of substaregular TCR and 30% for RTCR with recuperation; here,

tions is assumed to be the same. To simplify the analysis,

the energy savings was reduced from 6% to 3% for regular

assume that both rectifier and rectifier transformer needs

TCR and from 44% to 30% for regeneration RTCR to

to be replaced, and the old units to be discarded with no

resale values. The costs of the

new RTCR, new transformer, and

their installation are US$350,000,

TABLE 4 Capital cost and energy savings.

US$160,000, and US$100,000, respectively. Assume that the same

Rectifier Type

RTCR

TCR

SDR

energy cost for the SDR system as

Energy savings (US$ million/year)

1.2

0.1

0

before (US$.942 million/year) and

Capital savings (US$ million)

2.0

2.4

0

the savings due to RTCR energy

Total savings after six years (US$ million)

9.1

3.1

0

recuperation into the ac line of 40%

Total savings after 12 years (US$ million)

16.2

3.8

0

Total capital (US$ million)

16.0

15.6

18.0

(a higher number than in Table 4 is

Total energy (US$ million/year)

2.759

3.824

3.942

used because there is no increase

Number of substations

5

5

6

in space). As before, we do not

Installed substation cost (US$ million)

3.20

3.12

3.00

Rectifier cost (US$)

350,000

270,000

150,000

account for energy absorption by

nearby trains. Table 5 contains the

cost of the upgrade data.

From Table 5, the payback peTABLE 5 Costs of upgrade to the RTCR.

riod for the upgrade to the RTCR is

less than three years. The addiRTCR

SDR

tional advantage of the upgrade

Energy savings (US$ million/year)

1.58

0

system throughput and train perEquipment and installation cost (US$ million)

3.66

0

formance improvements due to

Pay-back period (years)

2.3

0

Total savings after ten years (US$ million)

12.1

0

increased dc bus voltage conseTotal savings after 20 years (US$ million)

27.9

0

quently increased the train voltTotal energy cost (US$ million/year)

2.365

3.942

age (see the TCR Voltage Gain

Number of substations

6

6

New rectifier cost (US$)

350,000

0

over SDR section).

New transformer cost (US$)

160,000

0

In a situation where reduced headInstallation cost, per substation (US$)

100,000

0

way or heavier trains necessitate an

88 |||

MAJORITY OF U.S. TRACTION SYSTEMS IS A

40-YEAR-OLD TECHNOLOGY.

RTCR Cost

TSR Cost

SDR Cost

RTCR/SDR Saving

120.0

100.0

80.0

50.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

0

10

15

Years

20

25

30

140.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

5

upgrade of existing SDR system calling for adding additional SDR substations, an upgrade to the RTCR offers an

attractive alternative:

n no new substations with related real estate cost

n capital expenditures with payback period of less than

two years

n substantial energy savings

n the performance improvement up to 60% is a free

benefit.

Figure 11 shows the savings of the substation upgrade

from SDR to RTCR.

Conclusions

This article estimates energy savings through braking

energy recuperation and capital cost savings through

increased substation spacing. The TCRs provide advantages over diode rectifiers: better voltage regulation and

fault current limiting translating into some operational

savings (energy savings through increased dc bus voltage,

improved service life) and capital savings (reduced number of substations).

Assuming just 15% spacing increase in the new substation installations, capital savings with TCR are more than

10%. The additional savings with RTCR over SDR are

through braking energy recuperation back to the ac line.

Energy savings can be as high as 50% depending on the

train speed profile, train car efficiency, rail resistance, etc.

Upgrading existing SDR substations to RTCR gives

substantial energy savings and has a payback of two to two

and a half years, improving throughput up to 60% without

incurring additional real estate and construction expenses.

10

15

Years

20

25

30

10.0

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Tom Young of Reuel for emphasizing the subject of TCR energy recuperation; Bob Puciloski and Asha Handa-Pierre from Long Island Rail Road

(LIRR) and Gordon Yu from SYSTRA for supplying application data on M7 trains operation; Chuck Ross of PGH Wong

Engineering, John Frederick of Precision Power Systems

and Technology (PPST), Steve Sims of Bay Area Rapid

Transit (BART), and Raymond Stritmatter of Parsons for

supplying equipment and installation data and helpful discussions on the subject.

Author Information

Vitaly Gelman (vgelman@vgcontrols.com) received

his M.S.E.E. degree in 1976 from Moscow Power University. He is the president and founder of VG Controls,

which has been providing traction products and other

industrial electronic products since 1984 for companies like Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), BART, LIRR, Powell,

Controlled Power Corporation (CPC), Phelps Dodge,

and others.

Reference

[1] V. Gelman and S. Sagareli, Implementation of new technologies in

traction power systems, in Proc. JRC 2004: 2004 ASME/IEEE Joint Rail

Conf., pp. 141146.

||| 89

- Substation and Substation equipmentsEnviado pordongararamesh
- Electrical Planning and Design Guide FinalEnviado porSundaresan Sabanayagam
- Huawei New Generation Telecom Power Solution MTS9000AEnviado portiennv26
- amrood1-18737Enviado porAbhilash P Paul
- Sathis ResumeEnviado porSathis Kumar
- 1N5400Enviado porRobert Cristobal
- industrial training ReportEnviado porMompati Letsweletse
- Americas 4 10 HitachiEnviado porkannonzk
- sakthistabilizerEnviado porServo Stabilizer
- 9702_s07_qp_4Enviado porapi-3765617
- Electrical and Electronics Engineering Lab ManualEnviado porShabbir Ali
- 2Enviado porPedjaVujic
- PD_DPR_4000B_en_Rev.02.pdfEnviado porNdambuki Dickson
- ELECTRICAL DESIGNER or PROJECT ENGINEER or MAINTENANCE ENGINEEREnviado porapi-78482453
- Quaries for 220KV Sub StnEnviado pormanu_26
- Intro to Cathodic Protection Systems MaintenanceEnviado porjboston123
- Maymar Gadap Grid Station Final ReportEnviado portingtong1
- 05294745Enviado porshirtquitters
- Biodata Format FinalEnviado porsrinathhimanshu
- Front PagesEnviado porKaram Chand
- Simulation of Power Electronic Converter Circuits Using COM3LAB Learning Software in Teaching: A Case StudyEnviado porEditor IJTSRD
- Capacity Projection 2009-2018Enviado porNezih Atuk
- keerthi2Enviado porRamyaChandragiri
- AlSDHFDHEnviado porSyed Zuber Ahmed
- Micom 132 33 Relay Setting Chart (1)Enviado porkra_am
- 370Enviado porpremsony
- Overvoltages in GIS SubstationsEnviado porAhdab Elmorshedy
- dc driveEnviado porkadirov31
- 185152-LMEnviado pornaren_183
- 02PartIEnviado porElias Rizk

- osha2226_Trenching and excavation.pdfEnviado porLaurence Michael
- EPRI Arc Flash Issues in Transmission AndEnviado porLaurence Michael
- EPRI Arc Flash Issues in Transmission AndEnviado porLaurence Michael
- A Systematic Approach for Company Standard Power System SchemesEnviado porLaurence Michael
- IEC 62271-200_2011Enviado porLaurence Michael
- Advances in Low Voltage Motor Control Technology Help reduce arc flash hazards.pdfEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Ieee Ias Meblen Tshort Arc Flash Testing Typical 480V Utility Equipment 2012Enviado porLaurence Michael
- AC vs. DC Over-potential Testing of AC Equipment - IEEE Conference PublicationEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Chapter 27 - Underground Raceway SystemsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- The Effects of System Grounding Bus Insulation and Probability on Arc Flash Hazard Reduction Part 2 TestingEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Resistance of Low Voltage AC ArcsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- ECM Arc Flash Study ResultsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Cable Sizing and Its Effect on Thermal and Ampacity Values in UndEnviado porSofyan Andika
- 480-V Distribution Arc Flash Updates.pdfEnviado porokk chu
- IEEE 979Enviado porLaurence Michael
- 10 Arc Flash Prediction and Prevention MythsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- 10 Arc Flash Prediction and Prevention MythsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- What is Arc FlashEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Arc Free Assembly PCIC 2006 Final PaperEnviado porkhandey_ramesh@yahoo.co.in
- WP_ArcFlash400V_2013.pdfEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Best Practices for Conducting an Arc Flash Risk AssessmentEnviado porLaurence Michael
- New White Paper From Rockwell Automation Examines the Extreme Dangers of Arc Flash and Highlights the Protective Capabilities of Arc-Resistant Motor Control CentersEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Arc Flash Jim Lagree EatonEnviado porLaurence Michael
- 6584_BestPractices_SM_20130501_Web.pdfEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Electrical Arc Flash Protection SolutionsEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Electrical Arc Flash Can Be Deadly for Workers _ Arc Flash SafetyEnviado porLaurence Michael
- Electrical Arc Flash Can Be Deadly for Workers _ Arc Flash SafetyEnviado porLaurence Michael
- 7-Step Arc Flash Hazard AnalysisEnviado porLaurence Michael
- 7-Step Arc Flash Hazard AnalysisEnviado porLaurence Michael
- BUS Ele Preventive Maintenance Reliability Low-Voltage OvercurrentEnviado porLaurence Michael

- The Western FormulaEnviado porangemih
- leadership biography paper gene kranzEnviado porapi-368883407
- Syllabus Kinship and Family in the Global EraEnviado porpluciano3
- The Official Guide Test 8-AnswersEnviado porTrân Gem
- Human-Resource-Management.pptxEnviado porKannan Krishnamurthy
- emotikons skajpEnviado porBranko Subic
- Socio Legal InquiryEnviado porAlan Whaley
- MIL-A-22771D - Aluminum Forgings, Heat TreatedEnviado porklinedavidkline
- Modes of Restructuring (Incl Case Studies)Enviado porSheetal Gupta
- Pretty Michal by Jókai MórEnviado porGábor Erik
- Chapter 1 SalosagcolEnviado porgingeroot
- Nonprofit Law outlineEnviado porAlex Sherman
- PEST Analysis of Cement IndustryEnviado porkumud_nishad
- professional practices increase student engagement learningEnviado porapi-302281095
- Full TextEnviado porSybella Antonucci Antonucci
- Business Law Chapter 4Enviado porSaly Anton
- The Story of Luqman From the QuranEnviado por3-133595
- Economy of BangladeshEnviado porFerdous Hasan
- Auto 2020Enviado porSunil Arora
- Setoff, Recoupment, And BankruptcyEnviado porNikki Cofield
- Indirect QuestionsEnviado porJelena エレナ Мiljanic
- Rockaway Times 11019Enviado porPeter J. Mahon
- outline for policy analysis paper 1 sw 4710 docxEnviado porapi-295520606
- TASAWWUF SHUYUKHEnviado porabantas
- Appearance in PersonEnviado porCamille
- Vintage Airplane Vol.40 No.02 (2012-02)Enviado porDudko210
- +++BhavaniEnviado porAnthony Munoz
- Top 10 Hr Functions Should Not IgnoreEnviado porChintan P. Modi
- SemicolonEnviado porعلی خان
- Pwc EnglishEnviado porAmin Al