See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267600111

Energy Savings With Reversible Thyristor

Controlled Rectifier
Conference Paper January 2009
DOI: 10.1115/JRC2009-63013

CITATIONS

READS

54

1 author:
Vitaly Gelman
vg controls
9 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Vitaly Gelman

Retrieved on: 01 September 2016

Proceedings of the 2009 ASME Joint Rail Conference

JRC2009
March 35, 2009, Pueblo, Colorado, USA

JRC200963013

ENERGY SAVINGS WITH REVERSIBLE THYRISTOR CONTROLLED RECTIFIER

Vitaly Gelman
VG Controls, Inc.
Vernon, New Jersey, USA
Tel: (973)7646500; Fax:(973)7646603;
vgelman@vgcontrols.com

ABSTRACT

TCR AND SDR BASICS

The paper deals with energy savings in Traction Systems available

with Thyristor Controlled Rectifiers (TCR) and Reversible TCR
(RTCR). TCR provides active voltage control, RTCR in addition has
power recuperation into AC line. The energy balance of the TCR and
diode rectifier systems are calculated, including losses in the rails,
cars power train and friction losses. The TCR advantages over diode
rectifiers: better voltage regulation and fault current limiting allow us
to reduce the number of substations and increase their service life.
Major energy savings are through recuperation back to AC line using
RTCR, with additional savings through increased DC bus voltage.
The estimated energy savings depending on the system parameters,
train speed profile, etc. can be as high as 50%.

SDRs output characteristics are determined by rectifier transformer

parameters and to a lesser extent system impedance. Transportation
agencies have accumulated enough experience with SDR so they can
specify the transformer and thus assure the desired voltage regulation
curve, fault current, etc. The SDR does not require controller.

INTRODUCTION

Proper design of the regulator requires the use of feedback, typically

multi-loop arrangements (we need to regulate two parameters
voltage and current). Moreover, the operation of the TCR is nonlinear: there is a voltage regulation operating region, a voltagestarving region (the firing angle is minimal, the operation is similar to
SDR) and a current regulation region. Such design necessitates
application of control theory.

Silicon diode rectifiers (SDR) used in the majority of the US traction

systems is a 40 years old technology; it provides no active voltage
control and doesnt allow for power recuperation into AC line. New
technology thyristor controlled rectifiers (TCR) provide active
voltage control, and reversible TCR (RTCR) also allows for power
recuperation into AC line.
The first US traction TCR was put into revenue service in Dallas in
1996. Dallas system was expanded in 2001 and Phoenix recently
started TCR revenue service as well. In the early nineties much
attention was drawn to the TCR but then the interest faded away
returning now when energy saving became a priority.

The TCR consists of two parts power circuit and controller with
regulator. RTCR is a TCR with an additional power module to
conduct the current in reverse direction. It is the job of the regulators
to send a firing pulse (also called gating signal) to each silicon
controlled rectifier (SCR) to achieve desirable voltage control
resulting in: voltage regulation, current limiting and proper inverter
operation.

It had been field proven in DART that TCRs with proper regulator
works reliably and without oscillations; they provide voltage/current
within power circuit limitations. While specifying the TCRs
transportation agencies need to characterize both static and dynamic
regulator performance along with power circuit parameters. It is
important to request and check USA field references; other locations
often have different requirements and standards.

TCR VOLTAGE GAIN OVER SDR

TRAIN RUN SIMULATION

Electric trains are specified to have 20% over-voltage margin, i.e.

trains with 750V DC rated voltage are specified to operate reliably at
900 V. If the voltage exceeds 900 V the train converters shut down.
These are the parameters of the M7 trains used by Long Island Rail
Road, Metro North and others.
With SDR system we have to select operating voltage around 700750 V. With rated voltage of 700 V and 6% regulation we have
no-load voltage 745 VDC (12 pulse rectifier will have no-load
voltage higher by additional 3%). The incoming AC line voltage
increase of 10% gives us no-load voltage of 820 VDC. This leaves us
just enough margins to provide the system receptivity for
regenerative braking (the current needs to travel to the accelerating
train).
With TCR we can select the constant voltage region from 0% to
150% load to be 825 V; TCR will adjust the firing angle to
compensate for any AC voltage variation.

850
800
750
700
650

Diode Rect
TCR

600
550
500

Simulation assumption
To simulate energy flow we use the following assumptions:
1. The substations are located at 1 mile intervals
2. The passenger stations are located at the substations
3. The distance between the passenger stations is 2 miles
4. The train operates in power mode, the power level P is
determined by the acceleration profile and friction losses; the
power (or acceleration) is set by the train controller and the
current is determined by the available voltage I=P/V
where I is the current, P is power and V is voltage.
5. The train is 10 cars M7, each car is 145,000 Lbs
6. The acceleration is 2 mph/s to 20 mph, then inversely
proportional to the speed up to 60 mph
7. The deceleration is inversely proportional to speed; at 60 mph it
is 0.667 mph/s, increases to 2 mph/s at 20 mph, and stays 2
mph/s to zero speed.
8. The train accelerates to 60 mph, coasts and then decelerates to
stop at the 2nd substation 2 miles away
9. The rail impedance is 56 mOhm/mile (10 mOhm/1000 ft)
10. Both SDR and TCR are 6 MW units
11. The TCR rectifier voltage is 825 V DC at all loads
12. The SDR has 700V rated load voltage and 6% regulation (745V
no load voltage, Rrect=5.25 mOhm)
13. To account for the losses in the car power train and the rectifiertransformer we assume: (a) the efficiency train of the car power
train is constant 80% both for acceleration and braking, and (b)
the efficiency rect of the rectifier-transformer is 98.5%.

Calculations

450
400
0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

Figure 1 TCR and SDR voltage regulation curves

Figure 1 shows regulation curves for both TCR and SDR. We can see
that TCR provides 125 VDC voltage gain at 100% load and 150 VDC
at 150% load. If we assume as design criteria a minimum voltage at
the train 500 VDC at 100% load, then for SDR we have voltage
margin to spend on the rails (both running and power rails) voltage
drop to be 700 - 500=200 VDC. For the TCR we have under the same
condition the margin of 825-500=325 VDC, or 60% gain and even
higher if we compare the voltages at 150% load. This voltage gain
directly translates into potential increase of substation spacing (and
lower number of substations). In the existing SDR system we can
increase the load by 60% by converting to TCR/RTCR without
adding new substations.
We can select smaller increase in the distances or load (say 30%) to
optimize other parameters: running rail voltage, losses in the rails,
etc. In a Phoenix project the number of substations was reduced 28%
from 18 (SDR) to 14 (TCR), right along with above estimates.
Some systems (e.g. DART and Phoenix) opted for even higher
voltage of 845-850 VDC. Though this optimizes substation spacing
and rail losses, it does not leave enough room to provide regenerative
current rails voltage drop (see below Figure 7, train voltage).
Though the TCRs are more expensive than SDRs, they comprise only
a small portion, about 5 to 10% of installed cost of the substation.
The reduced number of substations translates into substantial capital
cost savings, see Table 4 below.

The losses in the rails are calculated based on the train position and
current.
The friction force in pounds is calculated using Davis formula:
M
M

FDAV ( v ) = ( 0.0025 + ( N 1) 0.00034 ) 140 v 2 + v 0.03

+ 29 4 N + 1.3
1000
1000

(1)
there:
M is total train mass in kg,
N is number of cars (10), each car has 4 axels
v is the train speed in mph.
The friction force converted to metric units is
1.6 0.454

F frict ( v ) = FDAV vmph

3.6 0.102

there:

(2)

F frict ( v ) is a friction force in N,

v is speed in m/s
We further assume the train to be x meter from the left
substation (rectifier 1) and L-x meters from right substation
(rectifier 2), the distance L between the substations is 1
mile (1600 m) and the rails impedance between the
substations RLL=0.056 Ohm (see [1]). The currents from
rectifiers 1 and 2 are I1 and I2, respectively.
Figure 2 shows the equivalent circuit of our system. The rectifiers
here are presented as a series connection of voltage source and
equivalent resistance Rrect. For the SDR V1=V2=745V, Rrect=5.25
mOhm; for the TCR we assume V1=V2=825 VDC and Rrect=0

Emech = Mav =
Train
Voltage
Rrect

RLL*x/L

RLL*(L-x)/L

Vtrain

I1

Rrect

ERail = Loss
Etot =

Train
Current
I

V2

For the train braking the equations are very similar, except the current
and friction losses have opposite polarity and where we multiplied by
efficiency we need to divide and vice versa to account for opposite
energy flow
(6)

Ptrain = Pmech = I Vtrain = I (V + I Req )

1
1
1
=
+
Lx
Req R + x R
Rrect +
RLL
rect
LL
L
L
dv
dx
a= ; v=
dt
dt
Vtrain = V + I Req

Train
Voltage
RLL*x/L

Vtrain

Train
Current
I

V1

I added an equation for the train voltage

Etot = rect I1 (V + Rrect I1 ) + I 2 (V + Rrect I 2 )

We can now write the equations to calculate the required variables

train

( Ma + F ( v ) ) v
frict

Ptrain = Pmech = I Vtrain = I (V I Req )

1
1
1
=
+
x
L
x
Req R + R
Rrect +
RLL
rect
LL
L
L
dv
dx
a= ; v=
dt
dt
where:

Vtrain , we need to make sure

that it will not exceed 900 V. The energy equations are the same
except the one for total energy returned:

Figure 3 Converted equivalent circuit

train

Emech mechanical energy of the train

Ptrain = train Pmech = train ( Ma + Ffrict ( v ) ) v

I1

Ptrain =

I ) + I 2 (V Rrect I 2 )

rect 1

Etot total energy consumed from AC source

RLL*(L-x)/L

I2

Pmech

Erail energy lost in the rails and OCS resistance

Since V1=V2 the potential of their top terminals is the same and we
can replace them by a single voltage source V1 and then we arrive at
equivalent circuit on Figure 3.

Rrect

I (V R

E frict energy spent on friction and drag

Figure 2 System circuit

Rrect

rect

where:

Rectifier2

Rectifier1

(5)

E frict = Ffrict ( v ) v

I2

V1

Mv 2
2

(3)

(7)

We have to keep in mind that regeneration into AC line is possible

only with RTCR.
The simulation was performed using the MathCad12 program. The
speed and position were obtained by integrating the acceleration.
Power, voltages and currents were obtained from equations (3) and
(4), for regeneration the equations (6) and (4). Finally, the integrals
(5) and (7) were calculated to get energy balance and savings.

Train acceleration

M is total train mass,

v train speed,
a train acceleration.
L distance between substations
x distance from the train to substation

Figure 4 shows the results of train acceleration simulation traveled

distance, speed, acceleration and train power during train accelerating
from passenger substation to 60 mph for both SDR and TCR/RTCR.
The acceleration (mph/s) and distance (km) use the right Y scale.

To find out the losses in the rails we need to find the currents from
each substation I1 and I2 and finally calculate the losses in left and
right segments of the rail, see the equations below:

x
Lx

I1 Rrect + RLL = I 2 Rrect +

RLL
L
L

I1 + I 2 = I
Loss =

(4)

x
Lx
RLL I12 +
RLL I 22
L
L

The last step is to calculate the energies: mechanical energy of the

train, energy spent on friction and drag, energy lost in the rails
resistance and total energy consumed from AC source.

Figure 4 Train acceleration with SDR and TCR/RTCR

The speed and train power use left scale, the X scale is time in
seconds. We assume here the train controller sets the acceleration and
through it indirectly sets the speed, position and the train power, so
they will be the same for both SDR and TCR. However, the train
current, rail losses and total energy will be different because TCR has
higher voltage.
We can see that initially at constant acceleration the train current and
power increase linearly with time as expected the force is constant,
so the power is proportional to the speed. Above 20 mph the
acceleration is inversely proportional to the speed, corresponding to
constant power. Actually power increases slightly because the
friction force increases with speed.
Figure 5 shows the results of simulation: train current and rail losses
during train acceleration from passenger substation to 60 mph for
both SDR and TCR. The current follows the power, with TCR
current substantially lower than SDR, due to higher TCR voltage.

a TCR/RTCR is shown in Table 1. All values are in Mega Joules

(MJ). Mechanical energy, friction losses and car power train losses
are the same for both cases because train moves identically in both
cases. However, the rail losses are much lower for the TCR because
of the lower current. Since we assume transfomer/rectifier efficiency
the same for SDR and TCR, those losses are lower for the TCR also.
Total energy is lower by about 6% (355 vs. 378) for the TCR. This is
similar to reducing losses in a transmission line by increasing the
voltage and thus lowering the current.

Train deceleration
Figure 6 shows the results of train deceleration simulation traveled
distance, speed, acceleration and train power during train decelerating
from 60 mph to a stop at passenger station.

Figure 6 Train deceleration

Figure 5 Train acceleration with SDR and TCR/RTCR

Two traces on the bottom show rail losses for TCR and SDR. Since
in both cases the train moves identically, equivalent rail impedance is
the same for both cases, and the rail losses are proportional to the
square of currents. While the train is close to the substation (first 10
sec) the rail losses are very small despite the high current. It happens
because the distance x is small and rail impedance is small also (see
equation (4)). Once the train moves further away the rail losses rise
rapidly; they reach maximum in the middle point between the
substations and decline to zero once the train approaches the next
substation. We reach set speed of 60 mph at 800m (1/2 mile) from the
original substation or at the middle point.

We assume here again the train controller sets the deceleration and
through it indirectly sets the speed, position and the train power; so
they will be the same for both SDR and TCR/RTCR.
Figure 7 shows the simulation results for train decelerating from 60
mph to zero to stop at the passenger station with substation. Since
SDR and TCR cant absorb energy, there are only results for RTCR.

Once the train gets close to the middle point, the SDR current rises
disproportionably due to higher voltage drop in the rails higher
current is needed to provide the power. At the middle point the SDR
train voltage is about 500 V DC, for the TCR and RTCR the train
voltage is about 624 V. The TCR/RTCR provides higher train voltage
leading to lower train current and lower rail losses.

TCR and SDR Energy balance for train acceleration

Energy balance for acceleration for the same train using an SDR and
Table 1 Energy balance (MJ) for acceleration to 60 mph
Rect.
type
SDR
TCR

Mech. Frict
energy losses
234

16.9

Power
train
losses
62.7

Rail
losses
59.1
35.7

Rect/
Total
Xfmer
energy
losses
5.7
378.4
5.3

354.6

Figure 7 Train deceleration with RTCR

The power and current are about half of values for acceleration due to
losses in the cars power train and also friction losses. At efficiency of
0.8 passing the energy in both directions leaves us only 0.82 = 0.64 of
the initial energy, the rail losses and friction take their toll also. So
about 50% seems to be right. The train power increases while its
speed goes down because of lower friction force at lower speed. The
4

current increases faster than the power because of additional effect of

rail loses reduction.

Total energy consumption for the same train run is lower for the TCR
comparing to SDR by about 6% (408 vs. 432 MJ). This is mostly due
to reduced rail loss.

RTCR and SDR Energy balance for train deceleration

Table 2 shows the energy balance for the deceleration. The train
mechanical energy is the same as in Table 1 (it depends only on mass
and speed). The energy recovered into AC line is the difference
between the mechanical energy and sum of all losses: friction, power
train losses, rail losses and rectifier transformer losses.
Table 2 Energy balance (MJ) for deceleration from 60 mph
to 0

Rect.
type

Mech.
energ

Frict.
losses

RTCR

234
234

16.9

SDR

Car
power
train
losses
43.4

Rails
losses

Rectifr/
Xfmer
losses

Total
recovrd
energy

6.8
0

2.5
0

165.3
0

With RTCR we can recover 165 out of 234 MJ, which is about 70%
of mechanical energy. With SDR all this energy is wasted as heat.

Figure 9 TCR/RTCR Energy balance

RTCR recovers mechanical energy of the train. The small circle on
Figure 9 shows the energy balance for recuperating mechanical
energy into AC line by RTCR during train deceleration (see Table 2).

CAPITAL COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS WITH RTCR

RTCR and SDR total Energy balance
We can see that the train travels 800 m (1/2 mile) during both
acceleration and deceleration. Since the distance between the
passenger stations in our case is 2 miles, the train needs to travel one
mile at 60 mph; it will take 60 sec. The constant speed power is 890
kW (friction losses from Davis formula, power train losses and
rectifier transformer losses), this gives constant speed energy of 54.2
MJ.
Table 3 shows energy balance for a train moving between two
passenger stations 2 miles apart. Net energy is a sum of acceleration
plus constant speed energies minus recovered energy. RTCR has a
little lower acceleration energy due to lower rails losses (higher
voltage, lower current), constant speed energy is the same in both
cases. SDR doesnt recover any energy. We can see from the table
that RTCR offers 243.6 versus 432.6 MJ, or 44% propulsion energy
savings.
Table 3 Net Energy comparison for SDR and TCR (MJ)

The results are compiled in Table 4. From the Table 4 we can see that
as an alternatives to SDR, TCR and RTCR provide both lower capital
cost and energy savings. The RTCR is a little higher in capital cost
($0.4 Mln), but the payback time is just 5 months.
Table 4 Capital cost and energy savings

Rect.
type

Accel.
Energy

Const.
speed
Energy

RTCR

354.7

54.2

165.3

243.6

44%

SDR

378.4

54.2

432.6

Recovered
Net
Energy
Energy

To estimate RTCR cost savings we use data from Table 3. Lets

consider short line with six SDR substations. Assuming moderate
distance gain of 20% we can substitute them with five TCR or RTCR
substations. We assume at 3 MW power level the SDR cost of
$150K, RTCR with recuperation to AC line $350K, TCR without
recuperation $270K, and the installed cost of SDR substation $3
Millions (Mln). Let us further assume we have average load of the
SDR substation at 25% of rated capacity (0.75 MW for 24 hours) and
the cost of energy is $100/MWh. We can expect energy savings of
about 3% for regular TCR and 30% for RTCR with recuperation;
here I reduced the energy savings from 6% to 3% for regular TCR
and from 44% to 30% for regeneration RTCR to account for longer
spacing between the TCR substations. These estimates are very
conservative.

Savings
Rectifier type

Figures 8 and 9 show pie charts representing SDR and TCR/RTCR

energy balances, respectively (see Table 1, 2 and 3).

RTCR

TCR

SDR

Energy savings ($Mln/yr)

$1.2

$0.1

Capital savings ($Mln)

$2.0

$2.4

Total Savings after 6

years ($Mln)

$9.1

$3.1

Total Savings after 12

years ($Mln)

$16.2

$3.8

Total capital ($Mln)

$16.0

$15.6

$18.0

Total Energy $Mln / year

$2.759

$3.824

$3.942

Installed substation cost

($M)

$3.20

$3.12

$3.00

Rectifier cost $

$350k

$270k

$150k

Number of substations

Figure 8 SDR energy balance

5

RTCR versus SDR savings: initial (capital) cost is 10% lower with
substantial energy savings.

Figure 11 SDR to RTCR substation upgrade savings

Figure 10 Costs of ownership with different rectifi

Figure 10 shows total cost and saving over the 30 years period. After
12 years of running the savings will exceed the initial cost of RTCR
substations.

SAVINGS FOR THE RTCR UPGRADE

Table 5 Costs of upgrade to the RTCR

RTCR

SDR

Energy savings, $Mln per year

$1.58

Equipment&installation cost, $Mln

$3.66

2.3

Total savings after 10 years, $Mln

$12.1

Total savings after 20 years, $Mln

$27.9

Total Energy cost, $Mln per year

$2.365

$3.942

Number of substations

Capital expenditures with pay-back period of less than two

years,
Substantial energy savings,
The performance improvement up to 60% is a free benefit.

The Figure 11 shows the savings of the substation upgrade from SDR
to the RTCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Let us consider an upgrade of the existing SDR system to the RTCR.

Let us use for an example the same system with six SDR substations
with rated power 3 MW each and consider the effect of upgrading it
to RTCRs. We will assume the number of the substations stays the
same. To simplify the analysis we further assume that both rectifier
and rectifier transformer to be replaced, the old units discarded with
no re-sell values. The cost of new RTCR is $350K, the cost of new
transformer is $160k and the installation cost is $100K. We will
assume the same energy cost for the SDR system as before ($.942
Mln/year) and the savings due to RTCR energy recuperation into AC
line of 40% (we use higher number than in Table 4 because there is
no spacing increase). Table 5 contains cost of upgrade data.

Pay back period, years

New Rectifier cost

$350k

New Transformer cost

$160k

Installation cost, per substation

$100k

As we see from Table 5 the payback period for the upgrade to the
RTCR is less than 2.5 years. The additional advantage of the upgrade
system throughput and train performance improvements due to
increased DC bus voltage and consequently increased train voltage
(see TCR VOLTAGE GAIN OVER SDR above).

This paper estimates energy savings through braking energy

recuperation and capital cost savings through increased substation
spacing. The thyristor-controlled rectifiers provide advantages over
diode rectifiers: better voltage regulation and fault current limiting
translating into some operational savings (energy savings through
increased DC bus voltage, improved service life) and capital savings
(reduced number of the substations).
Assuming just 15% spacing increase in the new substation
installations, capital savings with TCR are over 10%. The additional
savings with RTCR over SDR are through braking energy
recuperation back to AC line. Energy savings can be as high as 50%,
depending on train speed profile, train car efficiency, rail resistance,
etc.
Upgrading existing SDR substations to RTCR gives substantial
energy savings, has a payback of 2 - 2.5 years, improving throughput
up to 60% without incurring additional real estate and construction
expenses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Tom Young of Reuel for emphasizing the subject of TCR energy
recuperation; Bob Puciloski and Asha Handa-Pierre from LIRR, and
Gordon Yu from SYSTRA for supplying application data on M7
trains operation; to Chuck Ross of PGH Wong Engineering, John
Frederick of PPST, Steve Sims of BART and Raymond Stritmatter of
Parsons for supplying equipment and installation data and helpful
discussions on the subject.

REFERENCES
[1] Vitaly Gelman, Sergo Sagareli; IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW
TECHNOLOGIES IN TRACTION POWER SYSTEMS.
Proceedings of JRC 2004: 2004 ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conferences

In a situation where reduced headway or heavier trains necessitate an

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

No new substations with related real estate cost,