Você está na página 1de 36
2-1 2. LINEAR, UNCOUPLED LUMPED ELEMENTS Linear, uncoupled lumped elements are resistances R, self inductances L, and capacitances C. They usually appear as parts of equivalent circuits, which may represent generators, transformers, short sections of transmission lines, or other components of an electric power system, or they may represent ‘a component by itself. 2.1 Resistance R Resistance elements are used to represent, among other things, (a) closing and opening resistors in circuit breakers, () tower footing resistance (as a crude approximation [8] of a compli- cated, frequency-dependent grounding impedance), (ce) resistance grounding of transformer and generator neutrals, (a) “metering” - resistance in places where currents or branch voltages cannot be obtained in other ways by the EMTP, (e) as parts of equivalent networks, e.g., in parallel with inductances to produce proper frequency-dependent damping (see Section 2.2.2). (£) for the representation of long lines in lightning surge studies if no reflection comes back from the remote end during the duration tuax of the study. Example (f) 1s easily derived from Eq. (1.6a) if it 1s assumed that the initial conditions on the line are zero. In that case, hist ,.(t-1)=0 for t) Ce) (a) (e) (f) Among other things, self inductances are used to represent single-phase shunt reactors and neutral reactors in shunt compensa~ tion schemes (Fig. 2.4), part of discharge circuits in series-capacitor stations, equipment in HVDC converter stations, such as smoothing reactors, anode reactors, parts of filters on the ac and dc side, Inductive part of source impedances in Thevenin equivalent circuits for the “rest of the system” when positive and zero sequence para~ meters are identical (Fig. 2.5), Inductive part of single-phase nominal circuits in the single- phase representation of balanced (positive or negative sequence) operation or of zero sequence operation (Fig. 2.6), part of equivalent circuit for loads (Fig. 2.7), even though load modelling at higher frequencies is a very complicated topic [9], and loads are therefore, or for other reasons, often ignored, Fig. 2.5 ~ Thevenin equivalent circuit with Z,, os neg zero an ye generator trans~ Line as cascade connection of shunt former poninal tclreuits reactor Fig. 2.6 - Typical positive sequence network representation Fig. 2.7 - Load model for harmonics studies [9] (g) part of surge arrester models to simulate the dynamic characteristics of the arrester [10], (hn) parts of electronic circuits. 2-8 Choke coils used for power-line carrier communications are normally ignored in switching surge studies, but may have to be modelled in studies involving higher frequencies. Current transformers are usually ignored, un~ less the current transformer itself is part of the investigation (e.g., in studying the distortion of the secondary current through saturation effects). ‘The equation of a self inductance L between nodes k and m is solved accurately in the ac steady-state solution with Eq. (1.11). The only pre~ caution to observe is that ab, should not be extremely small, for the same reasons as explained in section 2.1.1 for the case of small resistance values. For the transient simulation, the exact differential equation at, ken % a ae (2.2) is replaced by the approximate central difference equation F———— TS z a ‘The same difference equation is obtained if the trapezoidal rule of integra~ 5 (2.3) tion is applied to the integral in it tygit? *tyg(t-ae +E fo [yy(u) - v,(w) Jee, (2.4) tar siving tyg(t) = Ayg(t—de) + FE fu Ct) ~ vaCe) + vj (eae) ~ vy(t~ae) J. (2.5) Eq. (2.3) and (2.5) can be rewritten into the desired branch equation at Syg(t) = Ze (y(t) ~ vale} + hist, (t-Ar), (2.6) with the “history term” hist,,(t-st) known from the solution at the preceding time step, ae hist, (t-ae) = dp a(ende) + oF fy, (tm de) - vy (e—at) je 7 Eq. (2.6) can conveniently be represented as an equivalent resistance R 2L equiv = =F, in parallel with a known current source histy,(t~At), as shown in Fig. 2.8. Once all the node voltages have been found at a particular time step at instant t, the history term of Eq. (2.7) must be updated for each hist, (t-Ae) Fig. 2.8 - Equivalent resistive circuit for transient solution of lumped inductance inductive branch for use in the next time step at t + At. To do this, the branch current mist first be found from Eq. (2.6), or alternatively, if both equations are combined, the recursive updating formula hist (t) = TE {u(t) - va(t)} + hist, (e-ae) (2.8) can be used. If branch current output is requested, then Eq. (2.6) is used. 2.24 Since the differential equation (2.2) is only solved approximately, it 4s important to have some understanding about the errors caused by the appli- cation of the trapezoidal rule of integration. As explained in Section 1-4 of Appendix I, the trapezoidal rule is numerically stable, and the solution does therefore not “run away” (see Fig. I.4 in Appendix I). Fortunately, there is also a physical interpretation of the error, because Eq. (2-5) resulting from the trapezoidal rule 1s identical with the exact solution of the short-circuited lossless line in the arrangenent of Fig. 2.9. This vas first pointed out to the writer by H. Maier, Technical University Stuttgart, Germany, in a personal communication in 1968, for the case of a shunt inductance. From a paper by P.B. Johns [12], it became obvious that this identity is valid for any connection of the inductance. To derive the parameters of such a “stub-line” representation, it is reasonable to start with the requirement that the distributed inductance L', multiplied by the 2-10 etub-line length 2, should be equal to the value of the lumped inductance : 2 Legere «<< a =f tttt - _— _ ay iy —e = ¢ Fig. 2.9 - lumped inductance rgplaced by short-circuited stub-line with 2 = 24 and t= ft With L'g known, the next parameter to be determined is the travel time 1 of the etub-line. Since = TDD, (2.10) the shorter the travel time, the smaller will be the value of the “parasitic” but unavoidable capacitance C't. The shortest possible travel time for a transient simulation with step size at is + Qa) with thts value, conditions at terminal 1 at £ ~ dt arrive at the shorted end at t= HE and got reflected back to terminal 1 at t. Therefore, the best possible stub-line representation has 2b be zeB wrk (2.12) Assume that the smoothing reactor on a de line has L = 0.SH, and that the step size is 100 js. Then Z = 10 000 9, and the unavoidable total capacitance C'£ becomes 5 nF, which appears to be negligible, at least if the reactor has a shunt capacitor of 1.2 uF connected to it anyhow, as in the case of the HVDC Pacific Intertie [11]. Now it remains to be shown that the exact solution for the lossless stub-line with parameters from Eq. (2.12) is identical with Eq. (2.5). As explained in Section 1, the expression (v + Zi) along a lossless line for a ficticious observer riding on the line with wave 2a speed remains constant, or going from 1 to 2 in Fig. 2.9, ae w(t - a) + 24g (e = at) = zig(e - , and travelling back again from 2 to 1, ae waig(e - AE) = vy(e) - 2, C0), which, combined, yields 1 AC) = Zvy(O + ( Z vyCeraey + Cea}, (2.13) which is indeed identical with Eq. (2.5). This identity explains the numeri- cal stability of the solution process: The chosen step size may be too large, and thereby create a fairly inaccurate stub-line with too much para~ sitic capacitance cory? on = Ge (2.14) * from Eq. (2.10), but since the wave equation 18 still solved accurately”), the solution will not run away. The "mathematical oscillations” sometimes seen on voltages across inductances, and further explained in Section 2.2.2, are undamped wave oscillations travelling back and forth between terminals 1 and 2 (Fig. 2-9). The identity of the trapezoidal rule solution with the exact stub-line solution makes it easy to assess the error as a function of frequency [13]- Assume that an inductance L is connected to a voltage source of angular frequency w, through some resistance R for damping purposes. The transient simulation of this case will eventually lead to the correct steady-state solution of the stub-line (or not drift away from the steady-state answer if the simulation starts from correct steady-state initial conditions). This steady-state solution at any angular frequency w is known from the exact equivalent n-circuit of Fig. 1-2. By short-circuiting terminal 5, the input impedance becomes * except for round-off errors caused by the finiteness of the word length in digital computers, which are normally negligible. There is no interpolation error, which occurs in the simulation of real transmission lines whenever + is not an integer multiple of At (see Section 2-12 1 ZLaput ies 5 (2.15) eries * 7 “shunt or with Eq. (1-16), a tanwo $5) gape 7 BL (2.16) z Therefore, the ratio between the apparent inductance resulting from the stub-line representation or from the trapezoidal rule solution, and the exact inductance becomes be ‘rapezoidal z 5 (2.17) ‘The phase error is zero over the entire frequency range. Since power systems are basically operated as constant voltage networks, it makes sense in many cases to assume that the voltage V,(jw) across the inductance is more or less fixed, and that the current 1, (jo) follows from it. If we compare this current of the stub-line representation or trapezoidal rule solution with the current of the exact solution for the lumped inductance, then we obtain the frequency response of Fig- 2.10, where the ratio (the reciprocal of Eq. (2.17)) is shown as a function of the Nyquist frequency fyyquise ~ 260" a This frequency is the theoretically highest frequency of interest for a step size At, amounting to 2 samples/cycle. From a practical standpoint, at least 4 to 8 samples/cycle are needed to reproduce @ particular frequency even crudely. From Fig. 2.10 or from Eq. (217) it can be seen that the error in the current will be -5.2% at a crude sampling rate of 8 samples/cycle, or -0.8% at a more reasonable sampling rate of 20 samples/cycle. Furthermore, Fig. 2.10 also shows that the trapezoidal rule filters out the higher fre~ 2-13 Terapezoidal Texact 1.0 ! 0.0 0.5 1.0 /fyvauist ed 2 samples/cycle Fig. 2-10 - Amplitude ratio I through an trapezoidal! Texact Inductance as a function of frequency quency currents, since the curve goes dow as the frequency increases, as pointed out by R.W. Hamming [14]. Because of the error ia Eq. (2.17), there is a anall discrepancy between the initial conditions found with Eq. (1-11), and the response to power frequency in the tine step loop. For 60 liz, this error would be 0.012% with At=100 ps, or 1.2% with At*l ms. It is debatable whether Eq. (2.17) should be used for the steady-state solution, instead of Eq. (1-11), to match both solutions perfectly. This issue appears with other network elements as well If a perfect match is desired, then it may be best to have two options for steady-state solutions, one intended for inittalization (using Eq. (2.17) ta this exanple), and the other one intended for steady-state answers at one or nore frequencies (using Eq. (1-11) im this example). Very large values of L are acceptable as long as (oL)? or FE 48 not larger than the Largest floating point nuaber which the conputer can handle. To obtain flux | =f vat across a branch, a large inductance can be added in parallel and current output be requested. The need for this may arise {f 2 2-14 flux-current plot is required for a nonlinear inductance. With L = 1010 n, 1010 ~ times the current would be the flux. way as small resistances (see Section 2.1.1). 2.2.2 Damping of. a While the trapezoidal rule filters out high-frequency currents in induc- tances connected to voltage sources, it unfortunately also amplifies high~ frequency voltages across inductances in situations where currents are forced into them. In the first case, the trapezoidal rule works as an integrator, for which it performs well, whereas in the second case it works as a differ- entiator for which it performs badly. The problem shows up as “numerical oscillations” in cases where the derivative of the current changes abruptly, e-g+, when a current is interrupted in a circuit breaker (Fig. 2.11). The exact solution for v, is shown as a solid line, with a sudden jump to zero zest of network Fig. 2.11 - Voltage after current interruption 2-15 at the instant of current interruption, whereas the EMTP solution is shown as a dotted line. Since vce) = ZE (ace) - dceaey) - vp (tae), (2.19) and assuming that the voltage solution was correct prior to current interrup- tion, it follows that v(t) = -v,(t - At) in points 2, 3, 4,... as soon as the currents at t - At and t both become zero; therefore, the solution for v; will oscillate around zero with the amplitude of the pre-interruption value. ‘There are cases where the sudden jump would be an unacceptable answer anyhow, and would indicate improper modelling of the real system. An example would be the calculation of transient recovery voltages, since any circuit breaker would reignite if the voltage were to rise with an infinite rate of rise immediately after current interruption. For a transient recovery vol- tage calculation, the cure would be to include the proper stray capacitance from node 1 to ground (and possibly also from 1 to 2 and from 2 to ground). On the other hand, there are cases where the user is not interested in the details of the rapid voltage change, and would be happy to accept answers with a sudden jump. A typical example would be sudden voltage changes caused by transformer saturation with two-slope inductance models for the nonlinear- ity, as indicated in Fig. 2.12, It should be pointed out that these "numeri- Fig. 2.12 - Voltage jumps caused by transformer saturation 2-16 cal oscillations” always oscillate around the correct answer (around zero in Fig. 2.11) and plots produced with a smoothing option would produce the correct curves. Nonetheless, it would be nice to get rid of them, especially since they can cause numerical problems in other parts of the network, as has happened occasionally in turbine-generator models [26, p- 45]. The “textbook answer” would be re-initialization of variables at the instant of the jump. This would be fairly easy if the equations were written in state-variable form [dx/at]*[A][x]- With nodal equations as used in the EMTP, re-{nitialization was thought to be very tricky, until B. Kulicke showed how to do it [15]. His method is summarized in Appendix II. Whether re-initialization should be implemented is debatable, since the damping method described next seems to cure this problem, and also seems to have a physical basis as shown in Section 2.2.3. V. Brandwaja [16] and F. Alvarado [17] both describe a method for damp- ing these “numerical oscillations” with parallel damping resistances (Fig. 2.13). For a given current injection, the trapezoidal rule solution of the parallel circuit of Fig. 2.13 becomes 2L R - 2 vee) = gb {ace ~ t¢eraey} - RFE vee-aey. (2.20) Cr rs Ry the Fig. 2-13 - Parallel damping Téa current impulse is injected into this circuit (in a form which the EMTP can handle, e-g-, as a “hat, with 1 rising linearly to I,,, between 0 and 217 At, dropping linearly back to zero between At and 2At, and staying at zero thereafter), then, after the impulse has dropped back to zero, the first term in Eq. (2.20) will disappear, and we are left with the second term which causes the numerical oscillations, v(t) = -a + v(t-at), with a-2t_y (2.21) K+ pt ae being the reciprocal of the damping factor. This oscillating term will be danped if a <1; Lt 18 shom in Fig. 2.14 for R= 10 + Zor a= ty, and for 8, 72 2 or a= 5. The osciilation would disappear in one time step for * R,~ Hor a= 0 (critically damped case)". If R, 18 too large, then the poe damping effect 1s too sual. On the other hand, if R, 1s reduced until it approaches the value 2% (1deal value for damping), then too auch of an error 1s Introduced into the inductance representation. Fig. 215 shows the magnitude and phase error of the impedance for R, = 4 7¢ and R= 8 ZF, as well as the magnitude error from &q- (2-17) which already exists for the Inductance alone with the trapezoidal rule. It is interesting that che magnitude error with a parallel resistance is actually slightly smaller Fig. 2.14 - Oscillating term [17]. Reprinted by permission of F. Alvarado “\the critically damped trapezoidal rule with R, = 2L/at ts identical with the backward Euler method, as explained in Appendix 1.9. 2-18 = no phase error for R, 2L, . “ phase ame Rea error (°) o “ ‘ 2L I 8 ae 16 magnitude error (4) o “yquist Fig. 2.15 - Phase and magnitude error with parallel resistance [16] than the error which already exists for the inductance alone because of the trapezoidal rule. Therefore, the parallel resistance has no detrimental effect on the magnitude frequency response. It does introduce losses, however, as expressed by the phase error. As shown in the next section, these losses are often not far off from those which actually occur in equipment modelled with inductances. From a purely numerical standpoint, a 2-19 good compromise between reasonable damping (R, as low as possible) and acceptable phase error (R, as high as possible) leads to values of R, ‘series t 20 000 1 (2) ! ! | trapezoidal 5000 Yseries ™ 2.0, Hyyauise | ' Fig. 2.16 - Apparent series resistance and series inductance for the paratlel connection of Fig. 2.13, with e au region to the right of f/fy, Ste of ae practical interest because Ue S. SSepling rate would be too low to show these frequencies adequately 2-20 2L 2L 5.4 ESR, < 9.4 FF according to Brandwaja [16] (2.22) 20 | 2L or pt Te according to Alvarado [17], (2.23) with Brandwajn's lower limit determined by a specified acceptable phase error at power frequency. The errors introduced into the parallel connection of Fig. 2.13 through +x . series * series R,(5/(R, + $0 {8 show for the exact solution with X= ul, and for the trapezoidal rule solution with obj oezoigai fom Bas (2617). Whether the EMTP will be changed to include parallel resistances the trapezoidal rule are seen in Fig. 2.16, in which R automatically remains to be seen. It is interesting to note that the electronic analysis program SYSCAP of Rockwell International Corp., which Seems to use techniques very similar to the EMTP, has R, and R, of Fig. 2.18 butlt into the inductor model, with default values of R,=0-10 and B,=10!29 [22, p. 715]. The possibility of numerical oscillations is mentioned as well, in cases where the time constants of the inductor model of Fig. 2.18 are small compared with At (22, p. 773]. 2.2.3 Physi lel Rest There are many situations in which inductances should have parallel 1_Rei resistances for physical reasons. In some cases, the values of these resistances will be lover than those of Eq. (2.22) or (2.23), which will make the damping of the numerical noise even better. Typical applications of damping resistances are described next. These examples may not cover all applications, but should at least be representative. (a) Short-cireuit impedance of transformers The short-circuit impedance of transformers does not have a constant L/R-rati 3 Instead, the L/R-ratio decreases with an increase in frequency, as shown in Fig. 2.17 taken from [18]. If we use the curve for the 100 MVA transformer, and assume L = 1H (or mH, or p.u-) as well as At = 100 us, then a value of R, = 163 000 @ (or a, of prs) will produce the proper L/R-ratio at 1 kHz. This value ltes nicely in between the limits of 108 000 @ and 188 000 @ recommended in Eq. (2-22). 2-21 L E (as) 1 t | | poo ot : oo ‘ ° t | 3 : + : ' tot | oos sof 4923 5 10 0* > £ nz) Fig. 2.17 - L/R-ratio of the short-circuit impedance of typical transformers [18]. Reprinted by per- mission of CIGRE Fig. 2.18 - Equivalent circuit for the short-circuit impedance of a transformer A series resistance of R, = 9.4 9 (or Q, or peu.) can then be added to obtain the correct L/R-ratio at 50 Hz, which leads to the equivalent circuit of Fig. 2-18 for the short-circuit impedance of the transformer. 2-22 Wh Zigpue fom Eq. (2-16), thE Heegpezoigan/RFatt© of thts equivalent circuit is shown as a dotted Line in Fig. 2.19, which ts a reasonably good match for the experimental curve (solid line), and mich better than a constant L/R-ratio without R,*), It 1s interesting that a CIGRE Working Group on Interference Problems recommends the sane equivalent circuit of Fig. 2.18 for the analysis of haraonics [9], with ya . 13< ed < 30 (2.26) 8 0.002 0.0002 50 100 1000 "10 000 £(Hz) Fig. 2.19 - L/R-ratio of the short-circuit impedance of a 100 MVA transformer (dotted line from equivalent circuit of Fig. 2.18 with L being solved by trapezoidal rule, solid line from [18]). Reprinted by permission of CIGRE ")In the EMIP, the L/R-ratio without R, would actually increase with Frequency, since Loe oigay Of #4: (2-17) increases with frequency. and (b) (e) (4) 2-23 <0, (2.25) where Sy is the rated power and Vy the rated voltage of the transformer. +05 to 0-10 pu. at 50 Hz ([9] talks about ve ee cere hor eeetreuie 50 Hz), then Eq. (2.24) becomes with ul=(0.05 to 0.10)+——, N (40 841 to 81 6B1)+L ¥,) «ck (2.27) te replaced by the approximate central difference equation Ce) # 1 (ena) {v(t) ~ vCe) Joy, (eae = vg (t-at)} ee 2.28) aE which gives the desired branch equation 4 (e) = 25 fv (ey - vat} + nist, (e-ae) (2.29) a me f en p with the “history term” hist, (t-At) known from the solution at the preceding time step, hist, (t-at) [=] ob: be Requiv ~ 2¢ Fig. 2.22 - Equivalent resistive circuit for transient solution of lumped capacitance 2c bhet (EB) - ty Ce=Be) — FE (wy(erae) - vy(e-at)}- (2-30) Again, analogous to the inductance, identical results would be obtained from an integration of Eq. (2.27) with the trapezoidal rule. Eq. (2-29) can be at represented as an equivalent resistance 8,44;, "77 in parallel with a know current source hist, (t-At), as shown in Fig. 2.22. Once all the node 2-28 voltages have been found at a particular time step at instant t, the history term of Eq. (2.30) mist be updated for each capacitive branch for use in the next time step at tt\t. To do this, one must first find the current from Eq. (2-29). Alternatively, the recursive updating formula nto (2) = — Fe (ye) - vy(td} = nist, (eae) (2.31) can be used, which is the same as Eq. (2.8) for the inductance if followed by a sign reversal. Fig. 2.23 - Lumped capacitance replaced by stub-line with Zeat/2C and r=At/2 ys! Not surprisingly, the error analysis is analogous to that of the inductance. For a physical interpretation of the errors, the stub-line representation of Fig. 2.23 1s used, in which the lumped capacitance ts replaced by an open-ended lossless line. To obtain the parameters, it is reasonable to make the total distributed capacitance equal to the lumped capacitance, c= c. (2.32) With C'R known, the next parameter to be determined is travel time t. Eq. (2.10) shows that the shorter the travel time, the smaller will be the value of the "parasitic" but unavoidable inductance L't. For a step size At, the shortest possible travel time ts (2.33) utten Bq. (2.32) and (2.33) the surge tnpedance becones 2=88, 2-29 Without going through the details, let it simply be said that the exact solution for the stub-line of Fig. 2.23 is identical with the trapezoidal tule solution of Eq. (2-29) and (2.30). This identity will again be used to assess the error as a function of frequency. Assume that a capacitance C is connected to a source with angular frequency w, through some network with damping. The transient simulation will then settle down to the correct steady-state solution of the stub-line of Fig. 2.23, or not drift away from it {f the simulation was started from correct steady-state initial conditions. This steady-state solution is known from the exact equivalent n- circuit of Fig. 1.2, with terminal 5 being open-ended, 2 Ls Yeeries Yioput 7 series * 7 ‘shunt? ~ Hae tg eee 2.34) eries ~ Z ‘shunt or after sone manipulations with Eq. (1-16), tan(ap*) Yygput 7 S86 * (2.35) or This is analogous with Eq. (2-16) for the inductance, except that the analogous error now applies to the capacitance C rather than to the inductance L, or 1.0 Verapezoidal exact 0k 0.5 0.0 0.5 10 /fyauist . 8 4 2 samples/cycle Fig. 2.24 - Amplitude ratio Virapezoidal/Vexact Of a capacitance as a function of frequency 2-30 ae ¢, eancuft erapezotdar _ tay) ae + (2.36) mia Again, the phase error is zero over the entire frequency range. If we force a current I,(Ju) into the capacitance, then the voltage across the stub-line, compared with the exact solution, will have the frequency response of Fig. 2.24, which is identical with Fig. 2-10 if the current ratio is replaced by the voltage ratio. ‘The trapezoidal rule filters out the higher frequency voltages. Again, there 1s a small discrepancy between the initial conditions found with Eq. (1.12), and the response to power frequency from Eq. (2-35) in the time step loop (at 60 Hz, 0.012% error with At=100 ys, or 1.2% with At=l ms). Whether it should be eliminated has already been discussed in the second- paragraph of Section 2.2.1. Very small values of C are acceptable as long as (2p)° or $5 ta not larger than the largest floating point nunber vhich the computer can handle. —————— restetances (see Section 2.11), but they are unlikely to occur in practice. 2.3.2 While the trapezoidal rule filters out high-frequency voltages across capacitances for given current injections, it also auplifies high-frequency currents for given voltages across C. The nunerical oscillations discussed for the inductance in Section 2.2-2 would appear in capacitance currents 1f there 1s an abrupt change in dv,/at. For sone reason, numerical oscillations have seldom been a problem in capacitances, either because there are very few situations where they would appear, or simply because currents through Fig. 2.25 - Series damping resistance 2-31 capacitances are seldom included in the output. Analogous to the inductance, these numerical oscillations could be damped with series resistances R, (Fig- 2.25). Using Alvarado's arguments [17], the trapezoidal rule solution for a voltage impulse applied to the circuit of Fig. 2.25 would be ae £(¢) = pet {w(e) - veeraey} = FE * sce-aey. (2.37) +R, +R wt, wt After the voltage impulse v has dropped back to zero, we are left with the second term, which causes the numerical oscillations, A(t) = -a + A(t-At), At (2.38) - 8, witha = Zs wt, In analogy to Eq- (2.23), a reasonable value for the damping resistance would be e At R= 0.15 55 (2.39) 2.3.3 Physical Reasons for Series Resistance None are known to the writer at this time which would justify a series resistance as high as that of Eq. (2-39). G.W-A- Dummer [23] suggests the equivalent circuit of Fig. 2.26, and says that R, is dominant at very high frequencies, while R, te dominant at very low frequencies, but his comments Fig. 2.26 - Equivalent circuit for capacitor with losses 2-32 refer to capacttors used in electronics. ‘The typical textbook circuit has no series resistance, vhich would imply that the loss factor decreases inversely proportional with frequency. This contradicts the curve in Fig. 2.27 given by A. Roth for high-voltage capacitors [24]. Assuming C=1 uF and At=100 ys and using Ceraperoidar Umstead of C to duplicate the EMTP behaviour, value of RS =0.344 Q (ignoring R ‘> would more or less match tané at 50 Hz, while a value of cele .85+1077 § (ignoring Rg. ‘) would more or less match tan6 at 2 kHz, as shown in Fig. 2.27. Note that this value of R, is one order of magnitude tané (°/o9) 10 100 1000 —> £ (Hz) experimental ---- with R, and R P 's Fig. 2.27 - Loss factor [24]. Reprinted by permission of Springer-Verlag and A.W. Roth lower than the recommended damping resistance of Eq- (2.39). SYSCAP, an electronic analysis program with solution techniques similar to the ENTP, has R, and R, of Fig. 2.26 butte toto the capacitor model, with default values of Ro. _ prlol2 2 122, p 725]- Note that capacitors which may be subjected to short-circuits often have series resistors built in. Similarly, the overvoltage protection of series capacitors with spark gaps (Fig. 2.28) includes current-limiting R-L elements in the discharge circuit, with a typical “ringing” frequency of 400 Hz during discharge. 2 33 Fig. 2.28 - Spark gap protection of series capacitor 2.3.4 Example Nets ork with Capacitences Let us modify the fault current study of Section 2.2.4 for a case in which the transmission line is series 2.29). Let us further re compensated with capacitors (Fig. jeune that L, in Section 2.2.4 represented the net etance X,,,nul-1/uC at 60 Hz, to make both results directly comparable. With R, = 0.18 piu, X, © 1-0833 pus, uC = 2-695 peu. and at = 100 us, the fault current of Fig. 2.30 is obtained (data taken from [74], with connection from fault location to infinite bus left off). For comparison purposes, the done in Section 2.2.4, 46 shown as well; it differs appreciably from the more accurate solution with the circuit model of Fig. 2.29. This difference may fault current with the net reactance represented by L,, , 5 c closes Vax Sin (ot) { at to = + Fig. 2-29 - Single-phé -to-ground fault in a system with a series capacitor have some consequences for the accuracy of stability simulations, since net reactances are practically always used in stability studies. Fig, 2.32 compares the swing curves obtained with a net reactance and an L-C representation for a case similar to the IEEE benchmark model for sub- synchronous resonance studies (Fig. 2.31 differs from the figure shown in 1211). As can be seen, the differences are minor, possibly because there are many other reactances besides the line reactance in practical cases, which reduces the influence of the series capacitor. —t (ns) 2.0 Fig. 2.30 - Fault current in series-compensated network of Fig. 2.29 (line without symbols). For comparison, results fron Fig. 2.21 with met reactance are shown as well (1ine with ‘syabols) TEEE Subsynchronous Resonance Benchnark 4.09 | Scale 1000¢1) 4 mach 4) BETA 2 nacH | BETA 3.09. ee RL circuit RI-C circuit 1.00. 0.60 6.28 6.40 6.60 6.00 1.00 1.20 1.40" 1.68 Time scale: 18-0(8) 5. Fig. 2.31 - Swing curves with R-L and R-L-C representations 2-35 2.4 Series Connection of R, L, © Té lumped elements R, L, C frequently occur in pairs as series connections of R-L, R-C, or L-C, or as a series connection of all three elements R-L-C, then it becomes more efficient to treat the series connection as a single branch, thereby reducing the number of nodes and nodal equations. This has been tmplemented in the EMIP for the series connection of R-L-C (Fig. 2.32). For the steady-state solution, the branch equation is simply 1 Tea" RERGE STRY n?* k OA SIN Fig. 2-32 - Series connection of R, L, C To derive the branch equation for the transient simulation, add the three voltage drops across R, L, and C ‘6 - vy Rt yt Yer with the voltage drops expressed as a function of the current with Eq. (2.1), (2.6) and (2-29), QL , at 2 oe 7 v(t) ~ vyle) = OR + FE + FE) ty t) ~ AE hist, (e-we) — ye hhste(e-ae)- (2.40) After replacing the history terms hist, and hist, with the expressions of Eq. (2.7) and (2-30), this leads to the branch equation Syl) * ScrpenlMeCtVQCE] + MEE sores ESE» (2-414) L with eries ~ WE (2.41b) + 2-36 and the combined history term DLS, tog (t~SE“Cectog l(FE Re GE)MCt-at)+y, (tAt)=v, (tH AL)=2vg (EAE) } + (2.42) For updating this history term, the new current is first calculated from Eq. (2.41a), and the new capacitor voltage ve from volt) = vg(t-ae) + FE{i(e) + 1Ct-at)}. Eq. (2.42) is not the only way of expressing the combined history term, but it is the one being used in the EMTP. 2.5 Single-Phase Nominal n-Circuit This ts a special case of the M-phase nominal x-circuit discussed in Section 3.4. Earlier EMTP versions recognize the special case of M-l, and use scalar equations in place of matrix equations, whereas newer EMTP versions go through the matrix manipulations with M=l. Since single phase n-circuits are seldom used, it is reasonable to eliminate the special code for the scalar case.