Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

CIRED 18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005

THE COST OF HARMONIC LOSSES AND MITIGATIONS IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Mohamed Ashour Kamelia Youssef Salah El Sobki


Alexandria Electricity Distribution Company Cairo University-Egypt
Email:fpis@globalnet.com.eg

INTRODUCTION

The increasingly high concentration of modern electronic HARMONIC SURVEY AND HARMONIC
devices can be a major headache for the power industry. It
LOSSES
has greatly increased the flow of harmonic currents on
The measurement program was based on the use of energy
distribution systems and has given rise to a host of related
and harmonic analyzers, at low voltage side of distribution
problems.
transformers. These are feeding customer plants. The
The harmonic limits have to be assigned on the basis of instruments were performed in order to obtain information
harmonic effects, which differ substantially depending on concerning: voltage, current, PF, power and harmonics. To
the characteristics of the affected devices. There are long- calculate the harmonic losses in distribution grid customer
term effects such as the component aging which is the plants, ten case studies are selected, as sample, TABLE1
accumulated result of harmonic levels over time, and gives parameters for these cases.
instantaneous effects such as the maloperation of modern The normal sinusoidal power losses for transformers (PNT),
electronic devices caused by only one short burst of high motors (PNM) and capacitors (PNCa) are calculated of case
harmonic level. studies and summarized in TABLE 2.
Harmonic distortions cause significant cost in supply This paper uses published equations by Emanuel A.E (IEEE)
networks as well as at end-user levels. [1] to estimate the harmonic losses for electrical equipment.
Estimated harmonic costs consist of costs related to power The equations are used to build up the software program to
survey: harmonic energy losses, premature aging of calculate the harmonic losses, at maximum load and at
electrical equipment and derating of equipment. maximum THDI%, as shown in Fig (1).
The actual spenditure on harmonic mitigations are The total energy losses for 10 case studies vary between 9.8
derating. Filters, lowering the impedance for zero sequence, and 54.7 MWH/year.
phase shift, or moving the load to a dedicated feeder.
This paper uses published equations by Emanuel TABLE 1_ Some Parameters for 10 case studies
Total
A.E.(IEEE) to estimate the harmonic losses for electrical Case
Max.
Max.
Total
length
(1) (2)
equipment . The integrated harmonic losses software to KVA PF Load Motor
Study THDI% of cable
(Amp) (HP)
build up the total harmonic losses is carried out. (Km)
The paper presents: 1 1000 0.8 392 41.0 650 0.4
2 1000 0.67 406 12.88 612 0.45
 Harmonic survey, power and energy 3 1000 0.58 545 11.7 1286 0.6
losses for case studies which evaluate the 4 1000 0.7 410 6.15 595.4 0.5
harmonic costs. 5 1000 0.72 373 27.13 207.6 0.5
 Evaluated costs of harmonic mitigations. 6 800 0.69 207 10.14 303.4 0.45
 The benefit /cost ratio for polluted 7 800 0.6 160 3.48 130 0.4
8 500 0.6 358 15.65 381.5 0.25
customers. 9 500 0.64 387 9 180 0.2
10 300 0.45 200 8.9 515.5 0.2
BACKGROUND (1) Transformer rating.
(2) Annual power factor.

The increasing penetration of electronic – based Loads is TABLE 2_ Nominal sinusoidal Power Losses
creating a growing concern for harmonic and poor power Case Nominal power losses (watt)
factor (PF) in the power supply system. Then, power quality study PNT PNM PNCa
is a major issue for supply side and end – users, and both are 1 10672 48490 37.5
very adopting the philosophy and the standard limits.AEDC 2 10672 45652 162.5
3 10672 95935 -
regulation imposes a penalty upon low power factor which 4 10672 44416 -
forces the customer to improve it. To eliminate or absorb 5 10672 15489 -
harmonic distortion and improve power factor the use of 6 8715 22634 -
suitable mitigation is used. As a result, harmonic mitigation 7 10672 15489 -
equipment is becoming more important for utilities and end- 8 6160 28460 -
9 6160 28460 -
users. 10 4391 38456 -

CIRED2005

Session No 2
CIRED 18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005

A computer program has been developed for grouping or TABLE 4_ Comparison of methods for resolving harmonic distortion
(according to TABLE3)
clustering all the customer plants in clusters around the
selected case studies (samples).The final result of the total Treatment
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Item
energy harmonic losses in Alexandria, due to distribution
a
grids for industrial plants, vary between 20 and 65 million : χ χ χ √
Neutral
KWH/year. c
d
Electrical : χ χ χ √
HARMONIC MITIGATION EQUIPMENT parameters
h
i,j slight slight may be
There are a number of mitigation solutions available, some system √
k χ χ χ
better than others. Most of them are of the passive type: l χ slight slight

Harmonics
transformer, tuned (or detuned) filters. More advanced m may be may be may be
Transformer N √ √ χ √
solutions include active filters which inject compensation
Cost o χ χ χ √
current onto the system to cancel out a major portion of the
1- K-Rated transformer 3- Doubling the neutrals
Harmonic current. Selection of mitigation solutions depend
2- Derated transformer 4- Harmonic Filter.
on requirement features as shown in TABLE 3, 4.
Harmonic filter directly corrects the harmonic problem TABLE 5_ Pricing for 440:480 V &3-phase harmonic mitigation
providing high quality power for modern electronic Mitigation Rating Cost
machines. 50 Arms (42 KVAR)

Active
The most practical way to correct the power factor without

Filter
$200:300 per
100 Arms (83 KVAR)
causing problems is the use of capacitor bank provided by Amp.(rms)
harmonic inspection automatic relay in addition to 300 Arms(250 KVAR)
overvoltage protective relay.
K-Rated
transfor
The pricing for mitigation is based on publically available list mer
Up to 750 KVA $ 220/KVA
price information available at the time of the research. In the
future; these prices may fluctuate based on market forces. A
summary of costs given in TABLE 5. Detuned
Passive
Filter

For 10 case studies, the real-time measurement estimated the $40/KVAR


 100 KVAR
value of reactive poor power factor. TABLE 6 represents the Tuned
$120/KVAR
pricing of mitigation for case studies.
ment power
Automatic
improve-

TABLE 3_ Requirement features for mitigation methods


factor

50KVAR $15/KVAR
Item Feature
a Reduces neutral current
Neutral

b Reduces neutral to ground voltage


TABLE 6_ Pricing for mitigation (in$)
c Safeguards neutral conductors
Pricing for mitigation
d Reduces peak phase current Case KVAR
study Active Passive filter required
K-rated Capacitor
e Reduces average phase current filter
Parameters

d e t u n e d tuned
Electrical

f Improves phase current balance 1 20000 - 4000 12000 - 100


g Improves phase voltage balance 2 50000 - 10000 30000 - 250
3 - - - - 750 50
h Improves power factor
4 - - - - 3750 250
i Improves system protection 5 40000 - 8000 24000 - 200
6 30000 176000 6000 18000 - 150
j Reduces system losses
7 - - - - 1500 100
Harmonic

k Reduces system capacity 8 - - - - 3000 200


system

l Reduces THD 9 - - - - 3750 250


10 - - - - 750 50
m Harmonic overload capacity

ESTIMATION OF HARMONIC COST:


Transforme

n Reduces transformer overload


The unit costs refer to distribution, transmission and
production costs adjusted for power plants, the KWH value of
r

which was estimated at $0.05.


Cost

o Cost effective solution The final result of the maximum harmonic losses costs in
Alexandria, due to distribution grids for industrial plants, is
3.25 million dollars/year.

CIRED2005

Session No 2
CIRED 18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005

TABLE8_ B/C Ratio for case studies


B/C Ratio
Case B/C Ratio
Study Active filter K-rated Detuned Tuned Power
It is the ratio between discounted total benefits and mitigation filter filter capacitor
cost. The main purpose of Benefit Cost ratio (B/C) analysis is 1 0.186 - 0.93 0.31 -
to look at project performance over time. 2 0.172 - 0.86 0.29 -
All the solution alternative were compared using B/C 3 - - - - 4.588
4 - - - - 0.828
analysis alternative with B/C ratio greater than 1 are 5 0.132 - 0.657 0.219 -
economically viable, but less than 1 cannot be justified based 6 0.302 0.052 1.51 0.503 -
on economics. Obviously, the higher the B/C ratio, the better 7 - - - - 1.34
the alternative economically. 8 - - - - 0.577
The benefit is summation of operating cost, aging cost and PF 9 - - - - 0.344
10 - - - - 3.078
penalty.
The operating costs (CW) are the cost of only the incremental
energy losses caused by harmonic flow in each component. CONCLUSION
 Cw=harmonic energy cost*$/Kwh
The summation of the present worth expected values of Cw Harmonic are probably more strongly associated with "power
taking place in each year n. quality" than any other disturbances.
CWn Harmonics have increased significantly over the past two
Cw=  (1  a)
n
n 1 decades due to increased use of non-linear loads. The
prospect of a rapid return to linear-load conditions will
Where "a" is present worth discount rate. As expected, under remain a dream. Recent studies show that the consumption on
non-linear loading, the transformer was led to higher non – linear load will sharply increase in the year to come.
temperature rise and this is of major concern in considering There are a number of ways to deal with harmonics. In some
life expectancy .Distribution transformers are built with tight cases, it's best to simply treat the symptoms; such as doubling
insulation tolerance and are consequently subject to various the neutrals, k-rated transformer, redistribute or relocate
severe aging stresses. In organic insulation, the eventual harmonic producing loads and zigzag transformer. Another
damage is due to a chemical reaction. This aging reaction solution involves reducing the level of harmonics produced
grows as temperature increases. Over a specific range, a rule by equipment; such as detuned filter, tuned filter and active
of thumb indicates reduction in life by 1/2with each filter.
additional 10°C in temperature rise.[4] The results of this paper are:
The aging costs are referred to the incremental investment  B/C >1 means economically viable and
costs caused by premature aging of the component due to payback period < one year
harmonic distortion.  B/C <1 means payback period > one year.
Of =final top oil rise of temperature.  Detuned filter and power capacitor are
(total harmonic losses ) 0.8 dominated mitigation solution to reduce
= * ambient temp. harmonics and to improve power factor.
(total losses )
They are economically viable for case
TABLE 7 summarizes the operating cost, aging cost, penalty studies.
for poor power factor and benefit values for case studies.  The energy harmonic losses in Alexandria,
(n=20 years &a=0.083). due to distribution grids for industrial
TABLE 8 represents B/C ratio for case studies, and the plants are significant.
figures hatched represent the selected mitigation.  In general, global energy harmonic losses
Then, for each case study, the mitigation is separate and do not match with B/C
chosen according to the feature of mitigation.

TABLE7_ Benefit values for case studies (in $) REFERENCES


Operating Aging
Case Penalty Benefit
study
Cost Cost [1] Emanuel A.E Yang M. Peleggi D.J.
"The engineering economics of power systems harmonics in
1(1) 120 2105 1500 3725 subdistribution feeders." A preliminary study.IEEE Trans.On
2 119 4196 4260 8575
3 41 1780 1620 3441
power system Vol.6, No.3, August 1991.
4 6 276 2820 3105 [2]Oury Ba, Rager Bergeron"Harmonic Costs on Distribution
5 41 1788 3430 5259 Power System"ISSN 1234-6799 Electrical Power Quality
6 253 8050 755 9058 and Utilisation Vol.5 Number 2 – 1999
7 2 153 1855 2010 [3] William J.MCDONALD,
8 5 406 1320 1731
9 2 196 1090 1288
Energy Losses in Electrical Power System.IEEE Transaction
10 13 676 1620 2309 on industry applications,Vol.IA-21,No.4.May/June 1985
(1)
Another customer shares in aging cost [4]http:/www.hitrancorp.com

CIRED2005

Session No 2
CIRED 18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005

Input :
P NT, P NM, P Nca, h
V h, I h at Imax
V h, I h at THDI% max
L, rh, L sF

Transformer : Motor : Cable : Capacitor :


calculate : Calculate : calculate : Calculate :
 
K h1 = (-0.78) + (3.853 x h 1/2 ) - (2.263 x h)
  V 
Ph .c  L  rh I h Ph. ca  PNca  h V h
2
Ph . M =  2 2
 . V h  2 
+ (0.1058 x h 1.5) + (0.2337 x h 2 ) – 1
P1  PNm 35 1
(0.06478 x h 2.5 ) + (0.0052535 x h 3)
  V N  h 2 h  h 1 h
 
Pht  P N
 I  2
 K w  (hI h ) . K h1 
2

(1  K
h 1   P hm1 = P hm - P NM
h ( I h )
2
w) h  
 

P ht1 = P ht - P Nt

Total harmonic power losses


Where: Ph = Pht1 + Phm1 + Phc + Phca
h =harmonic order
Ih =current of harmonic order h (in p.u)
P l =losses due to fundamental voltageV 1
V l =fundamental voltage Total annual harmonic energy losses
V h =voltage of harmonic order h (in p.u) Eh = LsF * 8760 * Ph
rh =resistance of cable to harmonic order h
Il =fundamental current value
K w= iron loss coefficient = 0.04 Harmonic energy costs
V N =nominal voltage
L =length of a cable O utput report
LsF=Loss Factor = 0.3
Fig
Fig (1)
(1) The
The procedure
procedure scheme
scheme for
for harmonic
harmonic losses
losses and
and costs
costs estimation
estimation
CIRED2005

Session No 2