IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.PAS-98, No.

2 tlarch/April 1979

643

SINGLE-PHASE SWITCHING PARAMETERS

FOR UNTRANSPOSED EHV TRANSMISSION LINES
A. FAKHERI, MEMBER, IEEE

B. R. SHPERLING, SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION

2 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10004

Abstract - Single-phase switching compensation schemes are presented and analyzed for untransposed EHV transmission lines having one, two
or three shunt reactor banks. For this purpose modified and simple four-legged
shunt reactor banks are utilized. A general method is developed to optimize the
neutral reactor values in order to minimize the secondary arc current for different
arrangements of the modified and simple four-legged reactors. As an example, a
large range of 765kV lines is used and single-phase switching parameters are obtained and analyzed for different ratios between the capacities of simple and
modified reactor banks. The optimum neutral reactances as well as the secondary
arc current, recovery voltage and neutral reactor voltages are presented as functions of the compensation factor which is varied from 0.6 to 1.0.

SECONDARY ARC CURRENT MINIMIZATION

A simplified technique for getting neutral reactor values Xmn and
for modified and simple four-legged reactor banks (Fig. 1) which ensure the
secondary arc current to be less than a given value was presented in a previous
paper.3 The technique was used to prove the effectiveness of this compensation scheme in reducing the secondary arc current and the recovery voltage during SPS.
Xsn

INTRODU CTION
The most frequent type of fault on EHV transmission lines is the
transitory single phase-to-ground. For such faults, high-speed single-phase
switching (SPS), if successful, effectively improves system stability and reduces
overvo Itages.
In single-phase switching, the circuit breakers open at both ends of
the faulted phase to clear the fault. The opened phase, however, is coupled, both
capacitively and inductively to the two healthy load carrying phases. To compensate this coupling and therefore, to ensure successful SPS on EHV transmission lines, special schemes have been suggested. The compensation schemes
limit the secondary arc current If in the path of the primary arc after the faulted
phase breakers open, and reduce the opened phase recovery voltage Vr after the
arc extinguishes. Most of these schemes are proposed to be used in conjunction
with the line shunt reactors which frequently are present on long EHV lines.
For transposed transmission lines the simple four-legged reactor bank consisting
of three shunt reactors with elevated neutrals and a neutral reactor was suggested.1,2 For untransposed EHV lines the modified four-legged reactor bank which
has four switches applied to the neutral of a simple four-legged reactor bank, was
developed.3 The four switches assume a different configuration depending on
which phase is faulted and their operation is coordinated with the line breakers.
Various shunt reactor arrangements, with both types of the four-legged
reactor banks, are analyzed and compared in this paper. A general method is
developed to optimize the neutral reactor values in order to minimize the secondary arc current in the schemes with different reactor arrangements. A modified
four-legged reactor bank in conjunction with a simple four-legged bank is considered as a base case. The modified four-legged reactor banks application is analyzed for SPS on relatively short lines where only one shunt reactor bank is required. In addition their application is extended to lines which are compensated
by three shunt reactor banks.
The SPS parameters are obtained and analyzed for the various reactor
arrangements, using, as an example, a large range of 765kV lines. The optimum
neutral reactances as well as the secondary arc current, recovery voltage and
neutral reactor voltages, are presented as functions of the compensation factor
which is varied from 0.6 to 1.0 for each scheme.

3I

FAULTED
PHASE

S2

S3

S4

CI

- SWITCH OPENS
C z SWITCH CLOSED

FIG. 1. A SYSTEM DIAGRAM WITH A SIMPLE AND A MODIFIED FOUR-LEGGED

SHUNT REACTOR BANK.

Optimization of neutral reactor values Xmn and Xsn and generalization

of the modified four-legged reactor application for untransposed transmission
lines with different shunt reactor arrangements is the main purpose of this paper.
Secondary Arc Current Equations
To generalize the secondary arc current equations to be used in an
optimization procedure for different shunt reactor arrangements on a transmission
line, expressions for If derived in a previous paper3 are modified. Instead of
assuming the load currents in the healthy phases to be of equal magnitude and
120 degrees apart during SPS, their actual magnitudes and angles are used. This
modification becomes important for the minimization of If, especially, for lines
t
with a relatively low compensation factor hq. With this in mind and ignoring fe
self inductances and active losses, the general equation3 for the secondary arc
cuirent If on a line represented by an equivalent pi-section, can be written as

lf(i) = Yeq(i,h)

vh

exp

(ji/h) + Yeq(i,k) vk exp(ij,k)

-iYeq(i,g) [Xi,hihexp(jvh) +Xi, k ikexp(j' k)]

F 78 691-8. A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE

Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Summer
Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, July 16-21, 1978. Manuscript submitted
January 30, 1978; made available for printing April 25, 1978.

SWITCH OPERATIONS

where

(1)

faulted phase;
h and k healthy phases;
-

Yeq(i,h)

and

Yeq(i,k)

healthy phases;

0018-9510/79/0300-0643$00. 75 @ 1979 IEEE

equivalent admittances between faulted and

644

Yeq(i,g)

TABLE 1. SHUNT REACTOR ARRANGEMENTS ON

TRANSMISSION LINES

- equivalent phase-to-ground admittance at the line terminal

opposite to the fault location;

Xh and Xik - equivalent line mutual reactances between faulted and

healthy phases;

AMRERANGE-

REACTOR

LOCATIONS*

v, i, y - healthy phase voltage and current magnitudes with corresponding angles in the middle of the line.

It is assumed that the outer phases "1" and "3" are symmetrical
with respect to the middle phase, "2". Phase-to-ground voltages Vh and Vk in
the middle of the line are assumed to be equal in magnitudes (vh =vk =va) and
120 degrees apart (8k =,sh + 1200) according to the results obtained in a complete system. On the other hand, the angle difference between the healthy phase
currents (1h and Ik) is usually larger than 1200 and may reach as high as 1500.
Applying these considerations to Eq. (1), the secondary arc current can be expressed as follows:

If(1) =[(Yeq(1,2)
If( 2 )

If(3)

a2Yeq(1,3))va -yeq(1,g) (d1, 1-jd1,2)] exp(jn/2)

[(Yeq(1,2) +aYeq(1,3))va -Yeq(l,g) (d3,1 +jd3,2)]exp(j8/2)

(4)

where a = exp(jI200), 8 is the phase angle difference between the bus voltages,
the equivalent admittances are the same as in Eq.(1), and the coefficients di 1
and di, 2' which depend on the healthy phase currents are defined in Appendix 1.

Minimization Procedure for Different Shunt Reactor Arrangements

The main goal for a SPS compensation scheme is to reduce the magnitude of the secondary arc current if to a given value ilim which will ensure the
arc extinction during the SPS dead time. To solve this problem the following
system of inequalities must be satisfied:
i

1, 2, 3

)RM

(3)

ilim;

RM

(2)

I -Yeq( 1 ,2) va + Yeq(2,g) (d2, 1 + jd2,2) ] exp(j 8/2)

if(i) <

RRSM

(5)

RM2) jRS

RMi

NOTE:
* RM- MODIFIED FOUR - LEGGED REACTOR BANK
RS = SIMPLE FOUR - LEGGED REACTOR BANK

are defined in Appendix 11. Substituting these admittances in (6), each inequality
can be rewritten as a function of Xmn, Xsn and ilim as follows:

Pi,j(as, ilim) am + Qi,j (as) am + Rij (as) <

0
(7)

i =1.2.3

j=1,2,3,4

where "i" is the faulted phase index and current if(i) is to be obtained for different values of power flow through the line and various fault locations.

where am and as are direct functions of Xmn and Xsn respectively and
Qi, j(as) and Ri, j(as) are second order functions of as.

Calculations in complete systems verified that the above conditions

are met if the set of inequalities (5) is satisfied only for the faults at the line
terminals and for the limit values of power flow P, i.e., Pmax and fmin where
Pmin < 0 refers to power flow in the opposite direction to Pmax-

All functions in (7) are defined in Appendix Ill. A solution for each of
the inequalities with a given value ilim geometrically represents an area on the
(Xmn Xsn) plane. The intersection of these areas is a final solution for the set
of inequalities (7) with the chosen value ilim The size of this intersection diminishes with the reduction of ilim This current can be minimized to ifm for
which a solution of the set (7) still exists or, in other words, it reduces into a
point on (Xmn, Xsn) plane. The neutral reactances Xmn and Xsn corresponding
to the current ifm are defined as the optimum neutral reactances.

For a given system, therefore, a complete set of inequalities (5) consists of 12 inequalities:

if(iji) S ilim
= 1, 2,3
j 1, 2, 3, 4

(6)

where "i" is the faulted phase index, "j" is the index of fault location and power
flow value, namely,
1 - fault at the
2 - fault at the
3 - fault at the
4 - fault at the
3

and current

if(i,j)

sending end, P-- Pmax

receiving end, P = Pmax
sending end, P = Pmin
receiving end, P = Pmin

is defined by Eqs. (2) - (4).

In SPS compensation schemes with modified and simple four-legged

reactor banks, practically, only neutral reactances, Xmn and Xsn can be varied
to satisfy (6). The solution of (6), obviously, depends on the number and type
of shunt reactors and their location on the line since the equivalent admittances
in Eqs. (2) - (4) are functions of reactor parameters. The most frequent reactor
arrangements are given in Table 1 and investigated below.

Pi,j (as,ilim),

B. Modified Reactor Bank at One of the Line Terminals

A modified four-legged reactor bank can be used to reduce the secondary arc current if on relatively short lines which require only one shunt reactor for
normal system conditions. The equivalent admittances in Eqs. (2) - (4) can be
obtained from expressions in Appendix 11 assuming Y2S = 0. Utilizing the same
procedure as before, inequalities (6) can be presented as follows:

Pi,j(ilim) a2 + qi,jam

ri,j <

=1, 2, 3
i 1,2, 3,4

(8)

where ilim and am have the same meaning as in (7) and Pi,j(ilim), qi, j and
are defined in Appendix lV.

rij

A solution for each of the inequalities (8) geometrically, represents

an area on (Xmn ilim) plane. The final solution (8) therefore, is an intersection
of these areas. 'rhe minimum value of ilim which belongs to this intersection and
named, as before, ifm defines the optimum neutral reactance Xmn.

A. Modified and Simple Reactor Banks at the Line Terminals

C. Three Shunt Reactor Banks at the Line Terminals

Equivalent admittances Yeq(1,2), Yeq(1l3) and Yeq(i F in Eqs. (2) (4) for this, the most typical and therefore the most Important reac or arrangement,

Long EHV transmission lines may be compensated by three sbunt

reactor banks. A modified four-legged reactor bank at one line terminal and the

645
second modified bank with a simple four-legged reactor at the other terminal can
be used in this compensation scheme. In this case the optimum neutral reactances
are obtained assuming that the relative impedances Xmn/Xm for both modified
reactor banks are equal.
The equivalent admittances for this scheme can be derived using expressions in Appendix 11 (Table 11.1) with the following changes: Y2m and Y2m
in Yeq(i,h) and Yeq(i,k) terms are substituted by similar equivalent admittances
for both modified reactors, and Yeq(i,g) for a fault at the modified reactor bank
location are similar to Yeq(i,g) for a fault at the other line terminal with the
addition of (Y1s-2Y2s). Substituting these admittances in Eqs. (2) - (4) a system
of inequalities similar to (7) was derived and the same method as described above
was used to solve this system.
The procedures employed to obtain optimum neutral reactances for
all of the reactor arrangements described above were programmed and proved to
be very efficient.

a)
Cn
w
u
z
4t

w
n

z
C:
w
-C

a.

U)
a
z
4
2

OPTIMUM NEUTRAL REACTANCES FOR 765kV LINES

System Parameters

A large range of 765kV transmission lines with shunt reactor arrangements presented in Table 1 was analyzed. The system parameters were selected
using the present and future development of the AEP 765kV network as well as
735kV and 750kV networks in other countries. The main parameters for the reactor arrangements under consideration are summarized in Table 2, where QRM and
QRS refer to the modified and simple four-legged reactor banks MVAr capacity
during system normal operation.

).7
0.8
0.9
COMPENSATION FACTOR
w

TABLE 2. SHUNT REACTOR AND LINE PARAMETERS

ARRANGE-

LINE
LENGTH

FROM
TABLE 1

L
km

REACTOR

MENTS

B
C

1
2
3
1
2

105-175
155-260
210-350
50-105
105-210
210-350

SHUNT

REACTOR

CAPACITY
QR

H Q RS

RM

MVAr

MVAr

150
300
300
150
300

150

150
300

112

300+150

COMPENSATION
FACTOR

hqq

1
0
0

0.6-1.0
0.6-1.0
0.6-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0

150

1/3

0.6-1.0

The compensation factor hq for these reactor arrangements was varied from 0.5 or
0.6 to 1.0 by changing line length in each case for a given total shunt reactors
capacity. The three phase capacity of each shunt reactor bank was assumed to
be equal to 150 or 300 MVAr. All calculations were performed for typical 765kV
untransposed line parameters with power flow along the line equal to surge impedance loading (SIL) in each direction during normal system conditions. Each
equivalent source reactance was assumed to be "20 percent of the line surge
impedance with its resistive part equal to 10 percent of the reactance value.

Optimum Neutral Reactor Values

Using the above described optimization technique, the neutral reactXmn and Xsn were obtained for the schemes listed in Table 2 with reactor
arrangements according to Table 1. These reactances versus compensation factor
hq are given in Fig. 2.
ances

The reactance Xmn for all of the schemes, as it can be seen from
Fig. 2, decreases with the increase of compensation factor hq. At the same
time the Xmn/Xm values for a given h as well as rate of change for Xmn versus
hq depend on the ratio H between simple and modified shunt reactor banks capacities (H = QRS/QRM). Thus, the values of Xmn/Xm decrease with the reduction
of H for a given h For instance, Xmn/Xm for h = 0.8 decreases from -'0.55
in schemes Al andA3 with H = 1 to -0.35 in schemes A2 and C with H = 1/2
and 1/3 respectively and to -0.^ in schemes Bi and B2 with H = 0. At the same
time,the neutral reactances Xmn/Xm are practically the samein different schemes
with equal hq and H (compare Xmn/Xm for schemes Al and A3).

b)

a9u C

%A

-J

4
'-C

w
w
a
ll

n;

_________

0.6

_________hq

0.7
0.8
0.9
COMPENSATION FACTOR

1.0

FIG. 2. OPTIMUM NEUTRAL REACTANCES VERSUS COMPENSATION FACTOR:

a) SCHEMES A AND C
b) SCHEME B
The reactance Xsn depends on hq much less than Xmn (Fig. 2). For
all of the studied schemes with the modified and simple four-legged reactor banks
Xsn/Xs is less than the corresponding reactances Xmn/Xm. Fig. 2 also shows
that the difference between Xmn/X and Xsn/Xs for a given h decreases with
the reduction of H. For,instance, the ratio (Xmn/Xm) / (Xsn/1s) for h = 0-7
decreases from -3.8 for H = 1.0 (schemes Al and A3) to 1.4 for H = 1/3 (scheme
C). The neutral reactance ratio decreases also with the increase of hq and for the
scheme C reduces to 1.0 for hq >0.8.

SINGLE-PHASE SWITCHING PARAMETERS

The main SPS parameters, namely, the secondary arc current if the
the faulted phase, and the neutral reactor voltages, vmn
for the reactor arrangements listed in Table 2, using the
optimum neutral reactances from Fig. 2. Two computer programs were employed
in these calculations. Steady-state parameters were computed with a program
developed by the authors. Transient recovery voltage on the opened phase after
the arc extinguishes was calculated using the BPA program. 4 Transmission lines
in both programs were modelled by a series of pi-sections. Other elements were
assumed to be the same as those used above. For each reactor configuration,
fault location and power flow were varied within the above described limits and
the maximum values of if, vr, vmn, and vsn are analyzed.
recovery voltage Vr on
and vsn were studied

646

Secondary Arc Current

compensation factor hq with the trend opposite to the if,

dependency on hq,
namely, vrs,
increases with the increase of hq. Similar to if,
the sustained voltage vrs,
depends on line length and ratio H. Thus, for given hq
and H, vrs max increases with the line length (compare schemes Al and A3 with
H = 1 and Bi and B2 with H = 0). The vrs
dependency on H for given hq
and L is more complicated: at first vrs,
decreases with the reduction of H
(compare schemes A3 and C with H 1 and 1/3 respectively) and then increases
again (compare schemes Al and B2 with H = 1 and zero respectively). Comparing
the last results with the data analyzed above for the secondary arc current, it can
be concluded that f, max and vrs, max dependencies on H (for given hq and L)
are similar.
max

The dependency of the maximum secondary arc current if, max on the
compensation factor is presented in Fig. 3. All of the curves in this figure show
one common trend: if max decreases with the increase of h (for hq< 1.0). Two
other important parameters which effect the secondary arc cu?rent if max are line
length L and the ratio H. Thus,for given hq and H the'current if,
decreases
with the reduction of L, which is more or less obvious: compare if, max in schemes
Al and A3 with H = 1.0 or Bi and B2 with H = 0. On the other hand, for given
hq and L the secondary arc current decreases with the reduction of H, at least for
H>1/3: compare schemes A3 and C with H = 1 and 1/3 respectively. The further reduction of H eventually leads to the increase of if max: compare schemes
Al and B2 with H = 1 and zero respectively. Note, that'H = 0 implies that there
is no outer-to-outer phase compensation, and no phase-to-ground compensation at
the end opposite to the reactor location. The last results should be considered
important. They show a practical way to reduce the secondary arc current on long
transmission lines with a given compensation factor hq.
max

A.f,mox

max

max

max

max

max

0.5

a)
Vrs, max
Vnom

0.4

4t

-J
0

4a

30

-0/,

z
cr

cr

W.

A3

LU

n4

20

U,

10
z

Ali

4t

02
0O

I-

<

B-

co
____

____

____

____

____

0.E ;

0.7

0.8

____hq
0.9

0.6

1.0

0.8
0.9
COMPENSATION FACTOR

0.7

1.0

0.7

1.0

COMPENSATION FACTOR
w

FIG. 3. THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SECONDARY ARC CURRENT VERSUS

COMPENSATION FACTOR.

t5

0.10

cr

Summing up the data given in Fig. 3 and keeping in mind the above
analysis, the following conclusion can be drawn: the secondary arc current on
765kV lines with shunt reactors of 150 MVAr and 300 MVAr can be reduced to
if, max <2OArms for hq>0.7 (L<280km) and to if, max <15Arms for hq >0.8

(L <260km).
on

Recovery Voltage

on the

Opened Phase

The phase-to-ground voltage Vr on the opened phase builds up in a

transient process after the arc extinguishes. The lowest natural frequency for
this process is close to 60 Hz for all of the reactor arrangements under consideration. Steady-state recovery'voltage or sustained voltage, therefore, is established in a beating process rather slowly depending on hq and the shunt reactor
arrangement. In addition to the steady-state recovery voltage which indicates
the general trend for the transient process, the first peak of the recovery voltage
is important in the possibility of the secondary arc restrike. Both voltages,
therefore, are analyzed and the maximum values of steady state (vrs, max) and
first peaks (vrl, max) of the recovery voltage in each scheme are presented.
Sustained voltage vrs, max versus hq for each of the reactor arrangements listed in Table 2 is plotted in Fig. 4a. This voltage correlates to the

.05

z
w

c5
z

The minimum value of the secondary arc current if depends only

line parameters and shunt reactor arrangements and does not exceed
5A for the above schemes. Taking into account, therefore, a large range of If
for some of the schemes, the use of probability methods in determining its distribution may be suggested.

slightly

>
U,'

0O

0.8
0.9
COMPENSATION FACTOR

FIG. 4. THE MAXIMUM VALUES OF THE RECOVERY VOLTAGE VERSUS

COMPENSATION FACTOR:
a) STEADY-STATE VALUES
b) TRANSIENT PROCESS, FIRST PEAK VALUES.

The transient recovery voltage and, in particular, the first peak of Vr

contrary to vrs reduces with the increase of hq The maximum values of vrl, max
versus hq for the schemes A3 and B2 are presented in Fig. 4b. The recovery voltage on the opened phase builds up slower for larger hq which corresponds to a
smaller difference between the lowest natural frequency and 60 Hz. This results
in a larger envelope period and, therefore, a smaller first peak of the recovery
voltage. The voltage vrl, max for all[of the schemes does not exceed -0.OIvnom
or -45kVrms The schemes which are not presented in Fig. 4b result in lower
vrl, max than the scheme A3. The minimum value of vrl does not exceed 0.02vnom
or -10kV for 765kV transmission lines and is practically independent of the reactor arrangements given in Table 1.

647

Neutral Reactor Voltages

The voltages, vmn and vsn across neutral reactors in modified and
simple four-legged reactor banks respectively, dictate the insulation requirements for the shunt reactor neutrals as well as for neutral reactors. The maximum
steady-state neutral voltages, vmn,max and vsn,max are presented in Fig. 5 for
all of the schemes shown in Table 2. The dependency of the neutral voltages on
the compensation factor match the curves for neutral reactances Xmn and Xsn
versus hq with one exception: the relative neutral voltage difference between the
schemes is less than their neutral reactance difference. Thus, vmn,max for the
schemes Al and A3 as well as vsn,max for the schemes Al, A2 and A3practically
do not differ from each other (Fig. 5). The analysis, therefore, which was presented above for the optimum neutral reactor values, is also valid for the curves
in Fig. 5.
1-

0.4

w
0

0.3

0
4
-

0.2

z
4
0

0.1

1. Single-phase switching compensation schemes using the modified four-legged

reactor banks with or without the simple four-legged banks, were proposed and
investigated for untransposed EHV transmission lines. A general method is developed to optimize neutral reactor values in order to minimize the secondary
arc current.

2. Single-phase switching parameters, for schemes with different ratios (H)

between the simple and modified reactor banks capacities, and for compensation
factor (hq) ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 were studied. It has been proven that the
reactor arrangement has a considerable effect on the single-phase switching
parameters.

4. The secondary arc current on untransposed 765kV transmission lines, using

the developed compensation schemes can be reduced to 2OArms for the compensation factor hq>O07 and line length L<280km, and to 15Arms for hq > 0.8 and
L < 260km.

0.8

0.7

0.9
R
COMPENSATION FACTOI

0.2

1.0

b)

vsn.max

4t

5. The first peak of the recovery voltage reduces with the increase of compensation factor hq and did not exceed O.lVnom for the schemes with hq> 06. The
steady-state value of the recovery voltage, in contrast, increases with the in-

hq

0.6

Z'

Iw

rA2

CONCLUSIONS

3. Optimum neutral reactance value in a modified reactor bank decreases with

the increase of hq and the reduction of H. The optimum neutral reactance value
in a simple reactor bank is not highly dependent on hq and increases with the
reduction of H.

4t

-I

It can be noted that if the insulation level for the neutral reactors and
the shunt reactor neutrals is selected in accordance with the data given above,
surge arresters can be used in parallel with neutral reactors to protect them
against possible transient overvoltages.

crease of hq.
6. The steady-state neutral reactor voltages in the modified and simple fourlegged reactor bank did not exceed O.3Vnom and 018Vnom respectively for the
schemes with if <2OArms.

APP END ICES

Vnm

--A

APPENDIX 1: Load Currents and Line Voltages for Secondary Arc Current Calculations.

z E. 0.1

4c

:E

z 0
wI
4
-

C') 0
> 0

hq

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

The healthy phase currents and voltages in the middle of an untransposed line, interconnecting two systems, are obtained with the following assumptions:

1. Line is represented by its equivalent self and mutual impedances.

1.0

2. Equivalent source impedances for the sending and receiving systems are represented by their positive and zero sequence values.

COMPENSATION FACTOR
FIG. 5. THE MAXIMUM NEUTRAL VOLTAGES VERSUS COMPENSATION
FACTOR:
a) MODIFIED FOUR-LEGGED BANK
b) SIMPLE FOUR-LEGGED BANK

The voltage vmn max does notexceed 0.3vnom for hq>O.65 for all of
the schemes except Al and A3 for hq<O.8. Scheme A3 with hq<0.8 is hardly
practical from the secondary arc current point of view since it exceeds 25Arms
Scheme C for the same line parameters and total capacity of shunt reactors results in ifmax <2OArms for. hq>0.75 and is much more suitable for SPS purposes
on the lines longer than 280km. As for scheme Al, it results in a relatively low
secondary arc current (if,max <15A) and, therefore, vmn can be lowered for hq<O.8
by reducing Xmn value slightly from the optimum values given in Fig. 2. Taking
into account the last two remarks, a conclusion can be drawn that the steadystate voltage across modified neutral reactors and, therefore, the neutral voltage
for shunt reactors in all of the schemes under consideration can be limited to
-0.3vnom or 135kVrms for 765kV lines during SPS dead time.

Steady-state voltage vsn across the neutral reactors in the simple

four-legged reactor banks depends only slightly on hq and does not exceed 0.18vnom
or 8OkVrms for all of the schemes.

3. The presence of the shunt reactors and the opened phase are

neglected.

4. Voltage at the line terminals are assumed equal to 1.0.

Validity of these assumptions was verified by calculations on complete systems

and proved to have no practical importance on the secondary arc current values.
The healthy phase currents Ih = ihexp(jyb) and Ik
middle of the line, therefore, can be expressed as follows:
+ Zg)
(Z1 + Zg) Ek-ZgEh
= (Zi
Eh-ZgEk; Ik
=

ESh

ESh' ERh

ERh,

and

ZSg

ZSg= ZSO

Ek - ESk

ESk, ERk

Zl = ZS1 + ZRI
Zg

ikexp(jyk) in the

Zl (Zl +2Zg)

Zl(ZI +2Zg)

where Eh

+ ZL

ERk

sending

and

receiving

Zh,k

+ ZRg + Zh,k

ZS1

ZRg

= ZRO

ZR1

end

system voltages

(1.1)

648

y22
3Ys + Ysn
y2

ZL and Zh k - line self and mutual equivalent impedances

ZS,, ZSO and ZRI, ZRO equivalent positive and zero sequence
-

impedances for the sending and receiving systems.

Using Eq. (N1) the healthy phase voltages Vh

in the middle of the line are equal to

Vh ERh Zph Ih

ZA lk;

vhexp(j,8h) and Vk = vkexp(j,Ik)

Vk ERk Zph lk
where Zph = ZL/2 + ZRI + ZRg and ZA Zh,k/2 + ZRg
+

ZA Ih,

Letting the angle differences between healthy phase currents and voltages to be
- 83h and ak

the coefficients

dij1 and

7k

di,2 in

dj

ihXl, 2 sincLh

ihXl, cosah

-ikXl, 3 cos(ak -300)

+ikX1, 3sin(ak -300)

[ihcos(ah -300)

[ihsin(ah -300)

-ikcos(ak +300)] X1,2

-iksin(ak + 300) ] X1,2

Q(as)
R(as)

Ysn Ym and Ymn are shunt and neutral reactor admittances according

2 [(k2k3+n2n3) -

(k2 + n2) a2
3
3 s

where as

Yeq(i,h), Yeq(i,k)

and

Yeq(i,g)

(111.1)
)

+3.

TABLE 111.1. PARAMETERS FOR OUTER PHASE FAULTS

Parameters

are defined in Table

11.1.

TABLE 11.1. EQUIVALENT ADMITTANCES

n1

At the Modified Reactor Bank

Terminal (j = s)

~~~~~~Xmn/Xm
.m]++ 2

am

Simple

Fault

At the Simple Reactor Bank

Terminal (j = m)

am

k
a Line with a Modified and a

(klk3+ nln3) as] as

Xsn/Xs
The parameters in Eqs.(111.1) are defined in Tables 111.1 and 111.2 for outer and
middle phase faults respectively.

ihXl,3sin(ah + 300)
-ikXl ,2cosak

ikXl,2 sinak

The equivalent admittances

Ym Ymn

2Ym + Ymn

gm

APPENDIX II: Equivalent Admittances for

Four-legged Reactor Bank (Scheme A)

y,

P(asiilim) (k2 + n2 2im) a2 -2(kjk2 + njn2)as + (k + nA)

di 2

ihX1,3c"s(ah + 300)
3

where Ys
to Fig. 1.

Ym Ymn

gm3Ym + Ymn

Expressions for P(as ilim), Q(as) and R(as) in inequalities (6) are
derived using Eqs. (2) - (4) and Appendices I and 11 and are presented below:

(4) are given in Table 1.1.

TABLE 1.1. COEFFICIENTS d1, 1 AND d , 2

FAULTED
PHASE
(I)

Ym2

=Ys Ysn

APPENDIX III. Functions P, Q and R for Scheme A.

3k,

Eqs. (2)

mn

2m = 2Ym+Ymn

(1.2)

ah

Ygs

a(BC(1 2) - 2 Bc(l, 3)) + di ,1 1+ Sc(l,g) -Bj)

iWva BC(1 3) + d 2 (4.Bc (1, g) - Bj)
3

vaBs

(vva-3di)
B3

n2

va Bs

(Va - 3di,2) Bs

k3

(va -2d,i ) Bm

va Bm

n3

-2di,2 Bm

k2n2

TABLE 111.2. PARAMETERS FOR MIDPHASE FAULTS

Parameters

s)

n1

d2,1(+Bc(2,g) -Bj)
d2,24Bc(2,g) Bj)

k2

VaBs

(va-3d2, 1) Bs

n2

-3d2, 2Bs

kl

Equivalent phase-to-phase (subscript 2') and phase-to-ground (subscript "g')admittances for simple (subscript "s") and modified (subscript "m") four-legged
reactor banks can be defined as follows:

Terminal (j

Xmn/Xm'

am

Admittances Yc(1,2) and YC(l 3) represent equivalent outer-to-middle and outerto-outer phase line capacitive admittances respectively. Admittances Yc(i,g)
are equivalent faulted phase-to-ground line capacitive admittances.

Fault
At the Modified Reactor Bank

At the Simple Reactor Bank

Terminal (j = m)

vaBc(1,2)

k3

(va -3dl,2)Bm

va Bm

n3

-3d2, 2Bm

649

The coefficients

di,j

and

di,2

vmn ,max

are given in Appendix 1.

Expressions for P(ilim), q and r in inequalities (8) are derived from

expressions P, Q and R in Appendix Ill with Bs = 0 as follows:

P(ilim)

k2

n21 i2lim)

Xh,k

= total line interphase mutual reactance between the healthy phases.,

Xm,Xs

= shunt reactances of the modified and simple banks (phase-to-neutral).

Xmn,Xsn = neutral reactances of the modified and simple banks.

q =-2(k1k3 + n1n3)

(IV.1)

r-k2 +n2

~3

maximum values of vmn and vsn for the optimum neutral reactances.
mnmaimu

vsn,max

APPENDIX IV. Functions p, q and r for Scheme B.

Coefficients am k3 and n3 for Eqs. (IV.1) and (8) are given in Tables 111.1 and
111.2. Coefficients k1 and n1 can be obtained from the same tables with the condition Bs = 0. The coefficients dij1 and di,2 are given in Appendix 1.
NOMENCLATURE

YC

Ym,Ys

= shunt reactor admittances of the modified and simple banks (phaseto-neutra 1).

total line capacitive admittance.

imnnYsn
ZL,Zh,k
ZSI,ZSO

= positive and zero sequence impedances for a sending system.

ZRI,ZRO

= positive and zero sequence impedances for a receiving system.

= phase angle difference between the current and the voltage in

the middle of a line.

neutral reactor admittances of the modified and simple banks.

= total self and mutual line impedances.

Bc

= total line capacitive susceptance.

Bm,Bs

= modified and simple reactor banks susceptance (phase-to-neutral).

ES,ER

= sending and receiving end source voltages.

hq

= line compensation factor during normal system conditions.

,/

= phase angle of a healthy phase voltage in the middle of a line.

= MVAr capacity ratio between the simple and modified reactor banks.

= phase angle of a healthy phase current in the middle of a line.

I,i

= healthy phase current vector and magnitude respectively (in the

middle of a line).

= phase angle difference between

if.if

= secondary arc current vector and magnitude respectively.

iiim

fm

= minimized value of If.

'f,max

=maximum value of if with the optimum neutral reactances.

= line length.

QRM

= total MVAr capacity of the modified shunt reactors.

QRS

= total MVAr capacity of the simple shunt reactors.

= power flow along a line during normal system conditions.

V,v

= healthy phase voltage vectors and magnitudes respectively (in the

middle of a line).

VS,VR

= voltages at the line terminals.

vnom

= nominal system voltage (phase-to-qround).

Vr

= recovery voltage on the opened phase at the fault location.

Vrs

vrs,max

= maximum value of vrs with the optimum neutral reactances.

vrl

chosen limit value of

if.

steady state value of vr.

first peak of vr.

v ri max = maximum value of vrl with the optimum neutral reactances.

vmn,vsn = neutral voltages for the modified and simple reactor banks
respectively.

Vs and VR.

Subscripts
a

= average value
= faulted phase

h and k = healthy phases

= ground

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Mr. C. Skalba who assisted this effort by developing the computer programs. Appreciation is also expressed to Messrs. B. J. Ware
and S. H. Horowitz for their encouragement, and J. C. Haahr and E. Reid for
interesting discussions and helpful comments.

REFERENCES
1. N. Knudsen, "Single-Phase Switching on Transmission Lines Using Reactors
for Extinction of the Secondary Arc", Paper No. 310, CIGRE, Paris, 1962.

2. E. W. Kimbark, "Supression of Ground-Fault Arcs on Single-Pole-Switched

EHV Lines by Shunt Reactors", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-83, March 1964, pp. 285-290.
3. B. R. Shperling,A. Fakheri, B. J. Ware, "Compensation Scheme for Single-Pole
Switching on Untransposed Transmission Lines", IEEE Transaction on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, July/August 1978, pp. 1421-1429.

4. H. W. Dommel, "Digital Computer Solution of Electromagnetic Transients in

Single and Multiphase Networks", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-88, No. 4, 1969, pp. 388-398.

650

f k,

BETSALEL R. SHPERLING (SM'76) received

the Dipl.-Eng. Degree (eq to M.Sc.) in Electrical
Engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of
Leningrad (USSR) in 1960. He finished special
post-graduate courses in mathematics (University
of Leningrad, 1960-1964) and in Electrical Engineering (Leningrad Direct Current Research Institute, 1964-1968). He received the Science Degree
(eq to Ph.D.) in Electrical Engineering from the
Polytechnic Institute of Leningrad in 1968.

He joined the Leningrad Direct Current Research Institute in 1960 where he worked as a senior research engineer in High
Voltage Laboratory till 1976. He was involved in research programs such as
EHV and UHV Transmission Lines, Steady State and Transient Overvoltages,
Single-Pole Switching, etc. He has written 15 papers in these areas. In 1976,
B. R. Shperling was employed by the American Electric Power Service Corporation,where he is presently working in the Electrical Research Section, Research
and Development Division. He is mainly engaged in studies connected with EHV
and UHV transmission lines.

ALBERT FAKHERI (M'76) was born in Shiraz,

on March 1, 1947. He received his B.S.E.E.
degree in August 1969, and his Ph. D. degree in
electrical power engineering in August 1972, from
the University of Missouri in Columbia.

Iran,

From 1972 to 1974, he was with the System

Protection and Control Division of the American
Electric Power Service Corporation in New York.
He then joined the Electrical Research Section of
AEP where he has been involved with overvoltages,
field tests and TNA studies, single pole switching,
current limiting devices and design of the UHV Station.

part-time basis, he also teaches power and electrical engineering

Polytechnic Institute of New York. Dr. Fakheri is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York and is a member of IEEE, Eta Kappa
Nu, and Tau Beta Pi.
On a
courses at

Dr. Shperling is a senior member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society.

Discussion
R. G. Rocamora, W. D. Niebuhr, W. E. Reid (McGraw-Edison Company, Cannonsburg, PA): V. Koschik (Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada): F. Plourde (Northern States Power Company,
Minneapolis, MN); and J. Kappenman (Minnesota Power and Light
Company, Duluth, MN): The optimization technique used in this
analysis appears to be a very efficient method of selecting neutral reactor values. The large amount of information, which has been derived
using that technique, should prove very useful to the utility engineer in a
preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of this SPS scheme on his
system.
The effect of unbalanced current magnitudes and angles in the
healthy phases is quite interesting. This raises the question of the sensitivity of current unbalance to source strength. Did the authors do any
--sensitivity analysis in this area? Are secondary arc currents increased by
weaker or stronger sources? Are optimun neutral reactor values
significantly affected by source strength?
In Table 2, the authors considered H to be between 0 and 1. Would
any benefit result for H > I? For example, what is the effect of H = 2
for QRM = 150 MVAR and QRS = 300 MVAR?
In the authors' discussion of "Recovery Voltage on the Opened
Phase," there appears to be a misprint. Where it says "compare
schemes A3 and B2", we believe it should be "compare schemes Al and
B2" since schemes are being compared for given hq and L.
In determining the maximums in Figures (5a) and (5b), what conditions in the single-pole switching sequence produced the values given?
Did a particular switching arrangement for the modified reactor bank
typically produce the maximum neutral voltage? In the authors'
previous paper (authors' reference 3), it was noted that vacuum
switches could be used for the modified reactor scheme if neutral
voltages were kept below 100 kV and currents below 230 amps. In
Figure (5a), it is evident that 100 kV is exceeded for schemes Al and A3
over the entire range and for schemes A2 and C over most of the range.
Do the authors anticipate any significant added expense to meet these

equipment specifications?
Interpreting the data presented in this paper for the two standard
shunt reactor banks, it appears that a simple four-legged reactor bank
can be combined with one modified four-legged reactor bank to reduce
the secondary arc current below 20 amps for lines up to approximately
240 km, and below 30 amps for lines up to approximately 280 km. It
was demonstrated in scheme C that if two modified reactor banks are
used, the secondary arc current could be reduced even more. From this,

it appears that for longer lines, it would be necessary to have more than
one reactor bank with a switched neutral scheme to keep secondary arc
currents below 20 to 30 amps. Although it is good to know that such a
scheme could significantly reduce secondary arc currents for long lines,
the reliability of using a scheme which includes two switched reactor

Fault At Forbes End

Fault At Line Middle

Fault At Dorsey End

7-1

25/63/63 A/Div.
5 ms/Div.
Fig. 1. Secondary arc current for faults at various line positions.
banks could well reduce its effectiveness. In addition, the added costs
for reactor switches and for increased neutral insulation levels for the
modified banks, as well as the complexity of this scheme, may not make
it as economical as transposing a long line and using simple four-legged
reactor banks. Transpositions may not be expensive, especially if they
are done in-span or at locations in the line which would require angle or
dead-end structures anyway.
We have made numerous investigations of single pole switching [1]
and have found that the harmonics can contribute significantly to the
secondary arc current magnitudes. Recently, the system described in
our previous paper [1] was reinvestigated. One of the differences from
the previous study was that the transformer at Dorsey was modeled with
a much lower saturation curve. In investigating the secondary arc currents on the North Line, the magnitudes were found to be significantly
higher than those observed with a higher transformer knee point (100
amps for faults in the middle of the line). Removing the saturation
branches from the transformer model eliminated the harmonic component of the secondary arc current. Figure I shows the secondary arc current for faults at the Dorsey end, the middle of the line, and the Forbes

651

Dorsey 500 kv

Forbes 500 kv
Chisago 500 kv
|
240 km
I

547 km

0-

FLT

Fig. 2. System simulation for frequency analysis.

10.
c

.is

I
.1.

100

200

300 400 500

Frequency Hz

600

700

Fig. 3. Secondary arc current vs frequency.

100

90
80

70 1

-i

cs 2
I

_ 60 1

50

U,

40
30 L
0.5

0.6

Fig. 4. Secondary
kV line).

arc

0.7
COMPENSATION FACTOR

0.8

0.9

current vs compensation factor (for north 500

end of the line that was recorded in this recent study. Note that when in
the middle of the line, the secondary arc current is almost entirely third
harmonic.
To develop a better understanding of the harmonic phenomena in
secondary arc currents, the system was setup as shown in Figure 2. All

saturation branches were removed from the transformer models. The

secondary arc current was measured for a fault in the middle of the line
as a function of frequency and the relative magnitudes over the frequency spectrum were measured. Figure 3 shows the results of the investigation, clearly indicating the transmission line will significantly amplify

652
the third harmonic component of the secondary arc current. It is believed that changing the fault position slightly could tune the system exactly
at 180 Hz. From Figure 1 it can be seen that the third harmonic content
is higher at the middle of the line than at either end.
From this it can be concluded that the system can amplify the harmonics generated by the nonlinear elements and this can have a significant influence on the magnitude of the secondary arc currents.
This problem seems more likely to occur when single pole switching
is being implemented on long transmission lines. It would appear
unrealistic to neglect the consideration of secondary arc current harmonic resonance in any single pole switching analysis. The question is,
"What effect will it have on successful arc extinction?". We would appreciate any comments the authors might have on this subject.
In conclusion, we find the results shown in Figure 3 to be quite interesting. For our recently completed studies for single pole switching
using a simple four-legged reactor scheme, the results that we have obtained are similar to the results shown by the authors in Figure 3. Our
results of secondary arc current versus compensation factor are shown
in Figure 4.

1.

The second suggestion is to adopt an arrangement of conductors

which, without transposition, would give equal or almost equal phaseto-phase shunt capacitances, again permitting the use of symmetrical

four-legged shunt

reactor banks.

In a cross section of such a line, the conductors are at the corners

of an isosceles, almost equilateral, triangle with outer conductors at
equal elevations and the middle conductor at a higher elevation. Lines
so designed also have smaller IPR loss than do untransposed lines of flat
construction. In addition, they occupy narrower rights of way. Bonneville Power Administration has extensively used lines of this configuration in its 500-kV network and also has built a short 1200-kV test
line of this configuration at Lyons, Oregon.
The third suggestion is to "pad" the low capacitance between
outer conductors by connection of one or more shunt capacitors between those conductors so as to make the total distributed and lumped
capacitance equal to the distributed capacitance of each of the other
pairs of phases.
The same stratagem is applicable to a line of isosceles-triangular
configuration except that the added lumped capacitance would be
smaller. It would be applicable also to a line having three different
phase-to-phase capacitances by adding appropriate capacitances beREFERENCE
tween two pairs of phases so that the total capacitance of each of those
S. R. Lambert, V. Koschik, C. E. Wood, G. Worner, R. G. pairs would equal that of the pair having the highest capacitance.
An alternative method of shunt-compensating a completely unRocamora, "Long-Line Single-Phase Switching Transients and
Their Effect On Station Equipment", IEEE Transactions on symmetrical line would have three shunt reactors connected in delta,
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, May/June 1978, pp each resonating with the associated phase-to-phase capacitance. This
method has the serious shortcoming of unbalanced charging currents
857-863.

during normal operation.

Although all of the above-mentioned schemes compensate for the
shunt capacitive coupling between the isolated faulted phase and the
sound, energized phases, none of them compensate for the series
Edward W. Kimbark (Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, resistive and inductive coupling. Did the authors make an effort to proOR): The first part of this discussion explains why simple four-legged vide compensation of the series coupling? Of course, the method
reactor banks cannot be used alone for offsetting the residual fault cur- adopted for simulation of the transmission line and for minimizing the
rent and the recovery voltage caused by capacitive coupling between the

Manuscript received August 7, 1978.

open phase and the energized phases of untransposed lines of the commonly used "flat" arrangement. (In this arrangement the three conductors are at equal elevations and have equal separations between adjacent
conductors.) The simple symmetrical four-legged reactor bank can correctly compensate only equal phase-to-phase capacitances. Because the
series impedances of all phases of such a line are very nearly equal,
some engineers may not realize that the phase-to-phase capacitances can
be very unequal. The capacitance between two outer conductors of a
flat line is only about one-fourth of the capacitance between the middle
conductor and either outer conductor. This inequality can be explained
by reference to the definition of the capacitance between any two conductors of a multiconductor group. The definition requires that all conductors except those two be grounded. Thus, in the condition for defining the capacitance between the two outer conductors, the middle conductor is grounded. Much of the dielectric flux between the outer conductors is then intercepted by the middle conductor, but only that flux
going directly from one outer conductor to the other is counted in the
definition. The grounded middle conductor can be said to act as a partial shield between the two outers. If an outer conductor is grounded, it
intercepts much less of the flux between the two remaining conductors.
The second part of this discussion suggests some alternatives to the
methods proposed in the paper for obtaining prompt extinction of
residual fault arcs when single-pole switching is employed on an untransposed 765-kV single-circuit 3-phase line.
The first suggestion may sound like a contradiction: it is to
transpose the line. This equalizes the three phase-to-phase shunt
capacitances and thus makes it feasible to use simple four-legged banks
of shunt reactors. Admittedly, transposition increases the cost of the
line but not very much. An estimate of the additional cost of transposing 500-kV single-circuit lines has been made, based on the following
assumption: in every 100 miles (161 km) of line, two transposition
towers would be used in place of one dead-end tower and one suspension tower. The additional weight of steel required was 0.5601/o. The cost
of towers may be assumed proportional to the weight of steel. The cost
of conductors, insulators, and right of way would be unchanged. The
total cost would be increased a smaller amount, perhaps half as much.
This is certainly much less than the probable error of the estimated cost
of the line.
Another advantage of transposing the line is to reduce its 12R loss.
The reduction of loss depends upon the length of the line and the degree
of series compensation, assuming the latter to be well balanced.
Can the authors state the percent increase of cost attributable to
transposing a 765-kV flat line?

partial compensation of that

In a paper on long double-circuit EHV lines [1], I suggested one
way of decreasing the effects of such coupling, namely, by temporarily
sectionalizing the isolated, faulted conductor. The sectionalizing
switches would open and close with residual currents only but would
carry high currents normally.
I am curious about the nature of the reasoning used to arrive at the
compensation schemes described in the paper. I was not able to deduce
such schemes, even after reading this paper and the previous one; and I
wonder whether you might care to enlighten us on this.
fault current would inherently produce

coupling.

REFERENCE

1.

E. W. Kimbark, "Selective-Pole Switching of Long DoubleCircuit EHV Line," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Syst.,
Vol. PAS-95, No. 1, pp. 219-230, Jan./Feb. 1976.

Manuscript received July 31, 1978.

L. Roy (Dept. of Electrical Eng., I.I.T., Kharagpur, India): This has
been a very interesting paper to read as it provides answer to some of
my questions asked in the earlier work [3]. The authors have developed
a method for calculating the optimum value of neutral reactors for different length of line and reactor configuration in order to reduce the
secondary arc current and recovery voltage to the acceptable minimum
value. The approach is going to be very useful in designing the EHV
transmission lines for single-pole-switching. This would enable safe
supply of power through the healthy phases, enhancing the reliability of
supply and reducing generation cost. This, in fact, is extension and
generalization of their previous work [3]. They have done excellent and
useful work and should be highly commended.
They have made following assumptions in the development of their
model:
(a) Phase-to-ground voltages in the healthy phases at the middle of
the line are assumed to be equal in magnitude and 120 degree apart.
(b) Angle difference between the healthy phase currents is assumed to
be 1500.
(c) The relative impedance x,,,,,/x,.. for both the modified reactor
banks are equal.
(d) Line series impedance is neglected.
The discussor has developed an unified method for calculating
recovery voltage, neutral reactor value, neutral reactor voltage, etc., in

which no assumption is required to be made. Test results suggest that

the assumption (a) of the author is correct for voltage magnitude only.
The remaining assumptions, used for simplifying the mathematical
model, introduce some error affecting the optimal parameters of the
Single-Pole-Switching Scheme.
The authors opinion on the following points would be highly appreciated:
(1) The authors, in their observations, have said that, if the system inequalities
I, SIlim
(5)
are satisfied for the faults at the line terminals, the effect of external circuit would be insignificant. Would it be true in case of unbalancing in the external circuit? How would the optimal
parameters get affected?
(2) For the acceptable secondary arc current and recovery voltage,
how does the value of optimum neutral reactors get affected, if the
ground wire is included?
(3) For the same value of QRS and line length, how are the SPS
parameters affected?
In conclusion, the authors have done very good and useful work.
They are thanked for providing a copy of the paper.
Manuscript received July 31, 1978.

B. R. Shperling and A. Fakheri: The authors wish to thank all

discussants for their detailed contributions.
We agree with Dr. Kimbark that line transposition in connection
with the use of simple four-legged reactor banks is a very attractive
solution for reducing the secondary arc current. The additional cost attributable to one transposition cycle of a 765 kV line, however, is approximately $500,000 which is far higher than the cost of the switches in
the modified four-legged reactor bank. At the same time, we have to
underline that the proposed compensation scheme was not conceived as
an alternative to line transposition. Our understanding is that the choice
of line configuration has to be based on a set of factors, both technical
and economical, such as tower type and cost, corona effects, field
strength at the ground level, etc. Single phase switching requirements in
this analysis are important but not the only ones to be considered.
Complete analysis of different line configurations has led AEP to a
decision to use untransposed lines of flat or close to flat configuration
for its EHV system. The need for single phase switching on our future
765 kV lines which also are being planned as untransposed, was the main
incentive in developing the modified compensation scheme. With this
scheme, transmission lines are not restricted to a specific line geometry
if single phase switching is a necessity.
Two of the methods listed in Dr. Kimbark's discussion deal with
additional high voltage phase-to-phase capacitances to symmetrize line
interphase capacitances or phase-to-phase inductances to compensate
existing interphase capacitances. Evidently, the first of these methods
requires the simple four-legged reactors and the second is to be used
with conventional phase-to-ground shunt reactors to compensate the
electromagnetic component of the secondary arc current. Both of these
methods have a serious shortcoming in addition to the one mentioned
by Dr. Kimbark. They require development and installation of new high
voltage equipment (capacitors or reactors) with accompanying switches
between phases which are usually undesirable. The same comment can
be related to the proposed line sectionalizing which requires additional
substations along the line. We think that these schemes may be considered only if other solutions are not applicable.
In regard to the question about compensation of the series inductive coupling we would like to underline that the neutral reactances for
the modified and simple four-legged reactor banks were optimized by
compensating both the electromagnetic and the electrostatic components of the secondary arc current.
Before answering Dr. Roy's questions we have to clarify that we
did not assume the angle between healthy phase currents to be 1500.
The correct angle difference was calculated in each optimization procedure according to Eq. (I.1). In the full steady-state program which
was developed to calculate single phase switching parameters, we did
not consider any of the assumptions listed in Dr. Roy's discussion.
Regarding the influence of unbalancing in external circuits, we can
state that the set of inequalities (5), in their general form, does not depend on the system boundary conditions. The external circuits may affect the optimal neutral reactor values for transmission lines with low
compensation factor. This was the main reason to include the external

653
circuit parameters in the optimization procedure. In addition, the practical unbalancing in the external circuits affects optimal reactor values
and the secondary arc current insignificantly.
The status of ground wires-grounded or isolated-changes the
equivalent line parameters. For example, isolating the ground wires of a
typical 765 kV line with flat configuration results in the increase of
phase-to-phase capacitances (v- 15% between middle and outer phases
and - 4007o between outer phases) and phase-to-phase inductances ("'
30% between middle and outer phases and ,- 407o between outer
phases) in equivalent 3 x 3 matrices. In addition, isolating the ground
wires decreases the ratio between outer-to-middle and outer-to-outer
phase capacitances from - 3.7 to - 3.0. These changes lead to slightly
larger optimal neutral reactor values in the simple and modified fourlegged reactor banks. For example, for a line 200 km with the reactor
arrangement A2 (see Tables 1 and 2 in the paper) both optimal neutral
reactances increase by 15% when ground wires are isolated. The main
single phase switching parameters for this line using optimal neutral
reactors for grounded and isolated ground wires are given in Table A.
TABLE A

Single-Phase Switching Parameters

Status of
ground wires
grounded
isolated

Secondary arc current, A Recovery voltage, p.u.

16
.135
18.5
.175

Regarding the application of the simple four-legged reactor banks

on untransposed lines, it was found to be impractical since the secondary arc current increases with the line length very fast.
Mr. Rocamora et al. raised a question regarding sensitivity of current unbalance to source strength. We have performed sensitivity
analysis of source strength to single phase switching parameters and
concluded that this dependency is not significant. For example, in a
system with two 300 MVA shunt reactor banks (scheme A3) the source
strength was varied from 10,000 MVA to infinity. This variation
resulted in less than 10% change in the secondary arc current. However,
we would like to underline that data presented in the paper corresponds
to typical 765 kV line parameters and source strengths and serves as an
indication to the whole class of EHV and, partially, UHV lines. At the
same time, this data does not exclude additional calculations using the
optimization technique described in the paper.
Optimal value of coefficient H, representing the ratio between simple and modified shunt reactor bank capacities, is close to the ratio between equivalent outer-to-outer and outer-to-middle phase capacitances.
This optimal H ensures minimum secondary arc current as well as
neutral reactances and thereby neutral voltages for both simple and
modified reactor banks.
Mr. Rocamora with coauthors raised a question about maximum
overvoltages across neutral reactors. Transient studies which we performed indicated that maximum transient overvoltages across the
neutral reactor in the modified four-legged bank occur during switch
opening. Transient overvoltages across the neutral reactor in the simple
four-legged bank reach maximum values during fault application or
normal three phase operations. These overvoltages can be easily
limited, if necessary, with the use of surge arresters.
Regarding the specification and cost of the neutral switches, we can
state that the switches do not add any significant expense regardless of
their parameters. For example, a switch with 60 Hz rating of 133 kV
and 600 A costs $9,000.
We would like, also, to thank the discussants for noticing a
misprint which was corrected in the final printing.
In regard to the effect of the harmonic content in the secondary arc
current on arc extinction time we feel that, in the absence of field and
laboratory data, it may be estimated through the energy concept. That
is, knowing the secondary arc current waveshape one can calculate the
energy which has to be dissipated in a given period. The extinction time
then can be estimated by converting the energy in its 60 Hz equivalent
and using the existing 60 Hz data [5, 6]. Mr. Rocamora's et al. question
in this regard is due to the harmonics which they detected in the secondary arc current during a TNA study. However during a TNA study
which we performed the harmonics content in the secondary arc was
negligible (less than 5%7o). The field tests on a 500 kV line [6] also indicate that the harmonics content during the initial part of the secondary arc currents (before the arc resistance comes into effect) is also
negligible.

654

The discussants compared their Fig. 4 with Fig. 3 in the paper. We

disagree with the discussants viewpoint that the results shown in the two
figures are similar. For example, Fig. 3 of the paper shows that using
the proposed compensation scheme for a 765 kV line the largest secondary arc current is 24 A for 0.8 compensation factor. The Fig. 4 of the
discussants, however, shows that the respective secondary arc current
by transposing the 500 kV line and using simple four-legged banks is
about twice as large. The same tendency also holds for the other compensation factors.
In conclusion, we would like to discuss Dr. Kimbark's question
about the reasoning used to deduce the modified compensation scheme.
First of all, a simple four-legged bank supplies equal interphase reactive
var to compensate the interphase capacitances. It, alone, can not compensate all interphase capacitances of an untransposed line properly
since middle-to-outer phase capacitance is three to four times larger
than outer-to-outer phase capacitance in a line of flat configuration, for
example. At the same time, the simple four-legged banks can be used to
compensate mainly the outer-to-outer phase capacitances and,
therefore, partially the middle-to-outer phase capacitances. The additional capacitances can be compensated differently for outer and
middle phase faults. For single phase switching we do not need to compensate the capacitance between healthy phases. During outer phase
faults, for example, it is enough to compensate the additional
capacitance between the faulted phase and the middle phase. This can

be fulfilled if the neutral reactor is connected to the neutrals of the

faulted and the middle phase shunt reactors. For middle phase faults it
is only necessary to compensate two additional and equal capacitances
between the middle and outer phases regardless of the compensation
between the outer phases. All of the aforementioned requirements are
satisfied with the help of four neutral switches connected accordingly to
Fig. 1. It is important to underline that minimum values of the secondary arc current on outer or middle phases for different power flows
correspond to different neutral reactances which has led us to the
development of the optimization procedure.
REFERENCES

5.
6.

H. J. Haubrich, G. Hosemann, R. Thomas, "Single-Phase AutoReclosing in EHV Systems", Paper No. 31-09, CIGRE, Paris,
1974.
L. Edwards, J. W. Chadwick, Jr., H. A. Riech, L. E. Smith,
"Single-Pole Switching on TVA's Paradise-Davidson 500 kV
Line. Design Concepts and Staged Fault Test Results", IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-90, No.
6, 1971, pp. 2436-2450.

Manuscript received October 26, 1978.