AC Validation Report Rev A TRAIN

Network Rail Mott MacDonald
25kV Traction Power System Modelling - TRAIN AC Validation Report
25kV Traction Power

System Modelling -
TRAIN AC Validation
Report
May 2008
Mott MacDonald
St Anne House
20-26 Wellesley Road
Croydon
Surrey
CR9 2UL
UK
Tel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000
Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706
May 2008
P:\Croydon\MMH\Railways\211197 - Taiwan TRAIN sale\Validation\ac validation\AC Validation Report.doc/KL
Notes to this version

For Issue to Network Rail
iii
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Reference & Bibliography
1. Validation of the TRAIN Program DC Validation, rev A, dated 21/2/06.
2. Network Rail’s Crossrail Simulation Report rev A, Ref TBA
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
AC Alternating Current
BR British Rail
DC, dc Direct Current
EMU Electric Multiple Unit
IECC Integrated Electronic Control Centres
LU London Underground
MPTSC Mid-point Track Sectioning Cabin
NR Network Rail
OCS Overhead Contact System
OHLE Overhead Line Equipment
OOC Old Oak Common
RMS Root Mean Square
TE Tractive Effort
TSC Track Sectioning Cabin
TSL Track Sectioning Location
TRAIN Mott MacDonald’s train simulation program
iv
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Summary
This report compares the outputs of Mott MacDonald’s TRAIN simulation package with that of
Network Rail’s Vision OSLO simulator. This comparison is preceded by a basic system examination
of the AC operational aspect of the TRAIN simulator with a simplified model in Matlab.
In this exercise, TRAIN comparisons with Matlab have demonstrated accuracies of less than 0.5%,
while Vision OSLO comparisons (in areas where like-for-like inputs were noted) showed accuracies
of less than 10%.
v
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Contents
Reference & Bibliography iv
List of Abbreviations iv
Summary v
1 Introduction 1
2 Basic Circuit Comparisons 1

2.1.1 Summary of Simulation Results 3
3 Vision OSLO Comparisons 9

3.1 Description of TRAIN Model 9
3.1.1 Train Types and Services 9
3.1.2 Resistance to motion 9
3.1.3 Stations and Infrastructure 10
3.1.4 Electrical Model 10
3.2 Summary of Simulation Results 11
4 Findings and Conclusions 16

4.1 Basic AC Models – Comparisons with Matlab 16
4.2 Substation Loading – Comparisons with OSLO 16
4.3 Minimum Line Voltage Profile – Comparisons with OSLO 17
4.4 General Comparisons 17
Appendix A: Crossrail Major Feeding Diagram 18
Appendix B: Input Data 19
Appendix C: Graphical Outputs from TRAIN 20
Appendix D: Matlab Calculations for Single train model 21
Appendix E: Outputs from Crossrail Model in TRAIN 23
vi
211197 /02/A May 2008/
1 Introduction
Mott MacDonald’s TRAIN program is a PC based modelling package that allows the assessment of
energy and power consumptions in metro, heavy rail and tram systems.
The program is multi-nodal, enabling the behaviour of a number of rolling stock and electrification
system parameters to be modelled, in the assessments of system performance, or the suitability of
system design. The program requires route information (gradients, stations and signals), electrification
system characteristics, train characteristics, and the timetable (or a specified service headway) to
which the service is run.
The simulation calculates the following variables:
• Busbar voltage at feeder stations;
• Maximum and minimum voltage and current profiles along the route;
• Peak current supplied by each distribution transformer at the feeder station;
• RMS currents supplied by each feeder station over various time periods;
• RMS power supplied by each feeder station over various time periods;
• Current through each OCS feeder;
It should be noted that the above list is by no means comprehensive, but rather a good indication of
some of the key variables that is available in the TRAIN program.
The mechanical and dc electrification part of this program has been validated to +/-10% by London
Underground Limited with the use of measured data; the full details of this exercise are documented in
Ref 1.
The dc validation of the TRAIN program has now been endorsed by Network Rail (NR), the public
body with responsibility (as infrastructure controller) for the majority of the railway (over-ground)
infrastructure in Britain. This endorsement was provided (to MM) after a detailed assessment of
TRAIN simulation results on the Southern Region with the equivalent results from Vision-OSLO (the
principal tool employed for power simulation work on NR infrastructure).
To promote TRAIN’s use as a valid tool for modelling AC traction systems and provide evidence to
third parties such as Network Rail of its capability for modelling with accuracy, an exercise has been
carried out with the AC part of the TRAIN program to demonstrate that the results from TRAIN,
correlate acceptably with:
1. ‘basic AC circuit principles’ and

2. Network Rails Vision-OSLO package.
2 Basic Circuit Comparisons
Two basic AC circuits (see figure 1 and 2) have each been modelled in Matlab and in TRAIN for
comparison.
The Matlab™ package is a commercial tool produced by Mathworks for numerical analysis and
design. The underlying algorithms within the package allow easy matrix manipulation and
implementation of algorithms.
For the two circuits in this exercise, the formulation of a numerical solution in Matlab has been carried
out as follows:
1
211197 /02/A May 2008/
a. All trains have been configured with a stationary constant power load of 7.2MW and a power
factor of 0.95; an iterative process that assumes a starting voltage of 25kV at the train and a
no-load voltage of 26.5kV at the Feeder Station was modelled.
b. The above values are then employed in the first iteration that calculates train current(s) and
the equivalent train impedance(s).
c. These values are then used as the base for further calculations to determine the busbar voltage
and its angle, with respect to the source, as well as the train voltage and angle (with respect,
to the source).
d. Once the above steps are complete, a feedback loop is triggered for a second iteration, using
the outputs from the first iteration as input data.
The iterative process (in the Matlab model) is repeated, until the voltage at the pantograph of the train
converges to 0.1% of the no-load voltage. For simplicity; the calculations in iteration 1 of the single
train model has been replicated in Appendix D
Figure 1: Single train model in Matlab
Notes to Matlab model illustrations in Figures 1& 2:
i) The abbreviations provided in figures 1&2 are fully defined in Appendix B
ii) All resistance values are in ohm, and inductance values are in Henry
iii) The load impedance represents the equivalent train impedance when converged to a solution
2
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Figure 2: Two trains modelled in Matlab
2.1.1 Summary of Simulation Results
The comparison of results between TRAIN and Matlab have been carried out with consideration to the
following variables:
• the source current, and associated angle
• the busbar voltage and associated angle (with respect to the source)
• the train voltage(s) and associated angle(s) (with respect to the source)
• the train current(s) and associated angle(s) (with respect to the source)
From the TRAIN program, the numerical results for the above variables are captured (in Appendix C)
as screen-shots. The outputs from this exercise are also available as plots, on request.
It should be noted that, although the calculation of the above variables occur at each time-step in the
TRAIN program, the Matlab program represents only one-time step (of the TRAIN program)
therefore, the use of a constant load (in TRAIN), allows the nearest comparison between the two
packages.
The exact values (for the above variables) in Matlab and in TRAIN are as followed:
• Busbar Matlab Model - with one stationary Matlab Model - with two stationary
Voltage train trains
Voltage = 25.9552kV Voltage = 25.0903kV
3
211197 /02/A May 2008/
TRAIN Model - with one stationary TRAIN Model - with two stationary
train trains
% difference = 0.0 % difference = 0.01
• Busbar Matlab Model - with one stationary Matlab Model - with two stationary
Voltage Angle train trains
Angle = -2.61280 Angle = -5.47640
train trains
Angle = -2.60000 Angle = -5.50
• Train 1 Matlab Model - with one stationary Matlab Model - with two stationary
train trains
Voltage Angle train train
Angle = -4.7220 Angle = -10.13350
train trains
Angle = -4.70 Angle = -10.10
Voltage = N/A Voltage = 23.2017kV

4
211197 /02/A May 2008/
train trains
Voltage = N/A Voltage = 23.198kV
% difference = N/A % difference = 0.02
Voltage Angle train train
Angle = N/A Angle = -12.64960
train trains
% difference = N/A % difference = -0.40
Current train trains
Current = 298.4107A Current = 318.2081A
train trains
% difference = 0.04 % difference = -0.06
Current Angle train trains
Angle = -22.91690 Angle = -28.32840
train trains
Angle = -22.90 Angle = -28.30
5
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Current = N/A Current = 326.5038A
train trains
Current = N/A Current = 326.7A
train trains
• Source Matlab Model - with one stationary Matlab Model - with two stationary
train trains
% difference = -0.05 % difference = -0.05
• Source Matlab Model - with one stationary Matlab Model - with two stationary
Angle = -29.60260 Angle = -29.60260
train trains
Angle = -29.60 Angle = -29.60
6
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Stationary Train Comparisons [Matlab & TRAIN]
700
600
500
400
300
200 Matlab Model

TRAIN Model
100
-100
Busbar Voltage (kV)
Angle (degrees)
Train Voltage (kV)
Train Voltage Angle
Train Current (A)
Train Current Angle
Source Current (A)
Angle (degrees)
Busbar Voltage
Source Current
(degrees)
(degrees)
Stationary Train Comparisons [Matlab & TRAIN] % Difference
0.10
0.00
-0.10
percentage (%)
-0.20
-0.30 % Difference
-0.40
-0.50
Busbar Voltage (kV)
Angle (degrees)
Train Voltage (kV)
Train Voltage Angle
Train Current (A)
Train Current Angle
Source Current (A)
Angle (degrees)
Busbar Voltage
Source Current
(degrees)
(degrees)
7
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Matlab Model
TRAIN Model
% Difference
Mott MacDonald
Source Current
Angle (degrees)
Source Current
Angle (degrees)
Two Stationary Train Comparison [Matlab & TRAIN] % Difference
Two Stationary Train Comparison [Matlab & TRAIN]
Source Current (A)

Source Current (A)

Train 2 Current
Angle (degrees) Train 2 Current
Angle (degrees)
Train 2 Current (A)
Train 2 Current (A)
Train 1 Current
Angle (degrees) Train 1 Current

Angle (degrees)
Train 1 Current (A)
Train 1 Current (A)
8
Train 2 Voltage
Train 2 Voltage
Angle (degrees)
Angle (degrees)
Train 2 Voltage (kV)
Train 2 Voltage (kV)
Train 1 Voltage Train 1 Voltage
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
Train 1 Voltage (kV) Train 1 Voltage (kV)
Busbar Voltage Busbar Voltage
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
Busbar Voltage (kV) Busbar Voltage (kV)
211197 /02/A May 2008/

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-100
Percentage (%)
Network Rail
3 Vision OSLO Comparisons

The power simulation exercises for Crossrail have presented an opportunity for comparisons of the
outputs of TRAIN with Vision OSLO.
The Vision OSLO simulator has been the tool of choice (for NR) in power simulation modelling. This
package can be traced as far back as the 1970s where earlier versions of this model were employed on
Main frame computers for the design of British Rails' Automatic Route Setting algorithms which later
became a standard part of BR’s Integrated Electronic Control Centres (IECC).
The current version of this package was conceived in 1987 and has been employed in the designs of
almost every upgrade of the 25kV infrastructure in the UK ever since.
The representation of the Crossrail Infrastructure (in TRAIN) has been implemented (as far as
practicable) to mirror the model in OSLO; however, as the original TRAIN model was developed
separately from the OSLO model, with the intention of designing the Traction Power system, using the
most up-to-date information; the following differences have emerged in the two models.
1. With no signalling scheme in place for the Crossrail infrastructure a moving block system has
been used in the TRAIN model, however for the Vision-OSLO model, a fixed block system
has been implemented (based on NR assumptions).
2. The Crossrail alignment for the central section has been implemented in the OSLO model
using alignment J; while the TRAIN model has been implemented with the use of alignment L.
A detailed summary of the inputs to the TRAIN model are provided below.
3.1 Description of TRAIN Model
3.1.1 Train Types and Services
The timetable for the Crossrail service has consisted of approximately 18 individual train types on
differing journeys across the network. These journeys are distributed (between Maidenhead and
Shenfield) over a five and half hour window that commences at 05:30 hours. The lists of train types
that have been modelled have included: the class 92, 313, 315, 321, 221, 253 and 360.
To model the 5MW Crossrail trains, envisaged at the time of the OSLO modelling, for the central
section of the infrastructure, a class 360 train was up-rated from 4MW to 5MW to mirror the model in
Vision OSLO, where the train was configured for a 10-car arrangement.
3.1.2 Resistance to motion
The resistance to motion is given per train through the Davies equation. The coefficients to the Davies
equation for all the train types modelled have been, taken from the OSLO library.
9
211197 /02/A May 2008/
3.1.3 Stations and Infrastructure
In total, the system model consisted of forty stations located in numerous locations along the
infrastructure from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield in the east and Abbeywood in the south-east.
The gradient profiles in the central section have been sourced from the Rail Alignment Report for the
Crossrail scheme (1D300-G0T00-05005/A2).
On the Great Western and Great Eastern Main Lines, the gradient information (on this section of the
network), in the ‘British Rail Gradient Profile’ handbook has been used in the model.
For speed limits, the Rail Alignment Report 1D300-G0T00-05005/A2 has once again provided the
data used in the central section area.
On the Great Western and Great Eastern Mainlines the speed limits information has been taken from
the Sectional Appendixes in NR3001802-03.
3.1.4 Electrical Model
The electrification system simulated consists of thirteen electrical sections fed from eight individual
Feeder Stations. The Major Feeding diagram is provided in Appendix A. The simulation model has
been configured to account for six MPTSCs and eight TSCs. The location of each system and
transformer ratings (for the Feeder Stations) are presented in the tables below, a graphical illustration
of the scheme is provided in Appendix A.
Table 2.2.1 : Feeder stations and transformer ratings
Present transformer rating

Substations (MVA)
Bow 2 * 26.5
Custom House 2 * 80
Crowlands 2 * 26.5
Hayes 1 * 10
Iver 2 * 26.5
Old Oak Common 1 * 26.5
Shenfield 1 * 26.5
Westbourne Park 1 * 80 with another one on standby
Table 2.2.2 : MPTSC and TSC’s
MPTSCs TSCs
Hanwell Maidenhead
Hayes Burnham
Farringdon Hayes
Pudding Mill Ealing
10
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Manor Park Stepney Green

Gidea Park Abbey Wood
- Ilford
- Brentwood
At each of the Feeder stations, the simulation has been configured for a no-load voltage of 26.5kV.
The following source impedance values have been used:
• 0.154 + j4.417 – at Iver; Westbourne Park; Old Oak Common; Bow; Crowlands and Shenfield
• 0.25 + j6.90 – at Hayes
• 0.077 + j4.42 – at Custom House
The source impedance values above have been calculated to ensure that a 6kA fault level is not
exceeded.
The section impedance values on the network were obtained from the NR OSLO library. These values
were provided with the booster transformer impedance value already included.
For this reason the TRAIN simulation model has been configured as a rail return circuit, although this
is representative of a booster transformer system.
3.2 Summary of Simulation Results
A full schedule of results from the TRAIN simulation program is available as an accompaniment to
this report (on request). Extracts of these results are presented in Appendix E.
The results from this exercise which are presented as graphical plots from TRAIN include:
• The 30-minute Rolling RMS Power at every Feeder Station.
• The 1-minutes Rolling RMS Power at every Feeder Station.
• The Instantaneous Power drawn at every Feeder Station
• The 30-minute Rolling RMS Current at every Feeder Station.
• The 1-minutes Rolling RMS Current at every Feeder Station.
• The Instantaneous Current drawn at every Feeder Station
• The Minimum Line Voltage against Chainage Profiles across the infrastructure
Of the numerous outputs listed, the most significant of these for comparisons with the outputs from the
Vision OSLO simulator, have been the Feeder Station Loadings, which are best represented by the
‘30-minute Rolling RMS Power’ for the transformers at the Feeder Stations, and the lowest voltage at
the pantograph, which is shown in the ‘minimum line voltage against chainage’ plots.
11
211197 /02/A May 2008/
For the Feeder Station Loadings the comparable value (at each site) from the two simulators are listed
in the table below.
Feeder Station Loading (MVA)
Name OSLO TRAIN % difference
Iver F1 6.39 7.5 17.37
Iver F2 9.1 9.76 7.25
Hayes FS 4.68 3.58 -23.50
Old Oak Common FS 11.82 15.78 33.50
Westbourne Park FS 21.07 16.81 -20.22
Custom house F1 19.47 18.94 -2.72
Custom house F2 9.46 9.51 0.53
Bow Junction F1 11.55 12.23 5.89
Bow Junction F2 14.36 12.01 -16.36
Crowlands F1 18.65 18.67 0.11
Crowlands F2 9.18 9.8 6.75
Shenfield F1 15.91 15.05 -5.41
Table 1: Feeder Stations Loadings
Feeder Station Loadings (MVA)
25
20
15
10
OSLO
TRAIN
0
Iver F1
Iver F2
Hayes FS
Old Oak Common
Westbourne Park FS
Custom house F1
Custom house F2
Bow Junction F1
Bow Junction F2
Crowlands F1
Crowlands F2
Shenfield F1
FS
12
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Figure 3: Feeder Station Loading with OSLO & TRAIN (1)
OSLO vs TRAIN
25
20
Apparent Power Loading (MVA)
15
OSLO
TRAIN
10
0
F1
F2
F1
F2
F1
F2
FS
F1
FS
FS
F1
F2
s
n
ld
er
er
es
rk
on
nd
nd
us
us
tio
tio
fie
Iv
Iv
Pa
ay
ho
ho
la
nc
nc
la
en
om
H
w
w
ne
Ju
Ju
m
Sh
ro
ro
C
to
to
ou
C
w
w
ak
us
us
Bo
Bo
tb
O
C
es
ld
W
O
Figure 4: Feeder Station Loading with OSLO & TRAIN (2)
The minimum line voltage encountered by a train on the infrastructure is captured at discrete locations
(on the network) from the west (of the infrastructure) to the east (see Appendix A). The profile and
comparisons for the line voltage are presented in the tables and figures below.
Minimum instantaneous Voltage TRAIN OSLO % Difference
(kV)
Maidenhead TSL 25.6 24.9 2.73
Burnham TSL 25.4 25.1 1.18
Iver F1 25.05 25.5 -1.80
Iver F2 25.05 24.7 1.40
Hayes TSL 24 24.1 -0.42
Hayes FS 24.7 25.3 -2.43
Central Terminal 1 25.7 25.1 2.33
Central Terminal 2 25.7 25 2.72
Ealing TSL 24.5 24.7 -0.82
Heathrow Airport 25.8 25 3.10
Old Oak Common 24.7 24.9 -0.81
Heathrow Airport (T5 up) 25.2 25.1 0.40
Heathrow Airport (T5 dn) 25.9 25 3.47
13
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Minimum instantaneous Voltage TRAIN OSLO % Difference

(kV)
Hanwell MPTSC1 24.2 24 0.83
Hanwell MPTSC2 24.2 24.6 -1.65
Westbourne Park MPTSC1 24.4 24.8 -1.64
Westbourne Park Fyover 24.4 24.9 -2.05
Westbourne Park MPTSC2 24.4 24.8 -1.64
Paddington Station Platform 1 24.7 24.8 -0.40
Westbourne Park FS 24.4 23.2 4.92
Farringdon MPTSC 1 23.6 22.8 3.39
Farringdon MPTSC 2 22 22.2 -0.91
Pudding Mill Lane MPTSC 22.4 22.3 0.45
Custom House F1 24.7 22.9 7.29
Custom House F2 24.7 25.4 -2.83
Abbeywood TSL 23.9 24.9 -4.18
Liverpool Street Station Platform 23.6 22.2
2 5.93
Crowlands F1 24.2 23 4.96
Crowlands F2 24.2 24.3 -0.41
Gidea Park MPTSC1 22.9 24.1 -5.24
Gidea Park MPTSC2 22.9 23 -0.44
Brentwood TSL 23.9 23.2 2.93
Shenfield F1 23.6 23.6 0.00
14
211197 /02/A May 2008/
TRAIN
OSLO
Mott MacDonald
Shenfield F1
Brentwood TSL
Gidea Park MPTSC2
Gidea Park MPTSC1
Crowlands F2
Crowlands F1
Liverpool Street Station Platform 2
Abbeywood TSL
Custom House F2
Custom House F1
Pudding Mill Lane MPTSC

Farringdon MPTSC 2
Figure 5: Minimum Line Voltage
Farringdon MPTSC 1
Westbourne Park FS
Minimum Line Voltage Profiles
Paddington Station Platform 11


15
Westbourne Park MPTSC2
Westbourne Park Fyover
Westbourne Park MPTSC1
Hanwell MPTSC2
Hanwell MPTSC1
Heathrow Airport (T5 dn)
Heathrow Airport (T5 up)
Old Oak Common
Heathrow Airport
Ealing TSL
Central Terminal 2
Central Terminal 1
Hayes FS
Hayes TSL
211197 /02/A May 2008/

Iver F2
Iver F1
Burnham TSL
Network Rail
Maidenhead TSL
30
25
20
15
10
0
Voltage (kV)
4 Findings and Conclusions
4.1 Basic AC Models – Comparisons with Matlab
The results, in section 2.1.1 have demonstrated close correlations between the Matlab model and the
TRAIN model, where comparable results were seen to mirror one another with little to no deviations.
With a convergence tolerance of 0.1% in the Matlab model, the TRAIN program has been shown to
obey the basic principles for AC circuit calculations to an accuracy of within 0.5% of the Matlab
results.
4.2 Substation Loading – Comparisons with OSLO
In general the trends in the loadings at the Feeder Station follow a similar pattern in both the TRAIN
and OSLO results (see figure 4).
The areas where the results vary the most is at Hayes FS, Old Oak Common FS and Westbourne Park
FS. At these sites:
The variances in the results are attributed to the differences in input data, for the two
models. This is especially the case for Old Oak Common (OOC) and Westbourne Park
(WBP), where the impact of having two separate signalling systems and two different
gradient profiles, is most evident; from a summation of the loads.
This summation (of 11.8MVA for OOC and 21.07MVA for WBP) results in a value of
32.8MVA (for Vision OSLO) and the equivalent results of 15.78MVA for OOC and
16.81MVA for WBP produces a result of 32.6MVA for TRAIN.
This simple comparison shows that although the two Feeder Stations experience a different
share of the load (in the two models), the loads are still the same when combined; which
suggests that the positioning of the trains are different due to the difference in the signalling
systems and also the difference in gradient.
This difference, in the positioning of the trains for the two models is also seen as a factor
for the disparity (between TRAIN and OSLO) at Hayes Feeder Station.
The areas where the results vary the least is at Crowlands F1 & F2 and Shenfield FS.
The close correlations between the results at these sites are once again attributed to the
input data.
As most of the infrastructure on the Great Eastern is existing, and will remain unaltered for
the Crossrail project (especially gradients); the MM model in TRAIN would be exactly the
same as the OSLO model.
This assertion is supported by the close correlations, in results at Crowlands FS (F1 and
F2) and Shenfield FS.
16
211197 /02/A May 2008/
4.3 Minimum Line Voltage Profile – Comparisons with OSLO
The trend for the Minimum Line Voltage results, in both TRAIN and OSLO show good correlations to
one another with variations of less than 10% in results, even when the signalling systems and track
alignments are not identical.
4.4 General Comparisons
The comparisons of TRAIN with the equivalent models in Matlab and in Vision OSLO have produced
good correlations that endorse the use of TRAIN as a valid and accurate tool for AC Simulation
modelling.
Although the comparisons with the OSLO model, produced disparities in certain locations; in the areas
where the input data for the infrastructure were at the closest; the correlations were most evident.
All of this is reinforced by the Matlab models, which use the same parameters as TRAIN and produce
comparable results to within 0.5%.
It is concluded from this exercise that train is as acceptable as Vision OSLO for AC Power Simulation
modelling.
17
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Appendix A: Crossrail Major Feeding Diagram
18
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Appendix B: Input Data
Input parameters - variable

d1 = 10000; %10km - source to train 1
d2 = 10000; %10km - train 1 to train 2
Ptrn1 = 7.2e6; %Power of train 1 in MW
pf1 = 0.95; %Power factor of train 1
Ptrn2 = 7.2e6; %Power of train2 in MW
pf2 = 0.95; %Power factor of train 2
Input parameters for 25kV infrastructure - constant

Vs = 26500 + 1i*0; %Source voltage in Volts (Reference for all quantities)
Vnom = 25000; %Nominal train pantograph voltage in Volts
f = 50; %frequency of calculation
wo = 2*pi*f; %Angular frequency (rads/sec)
Rs = 0.221; %Source resistance in Ohm
Ls = 0.014; %Source inductance in Henry
Xs = wo*Ls; %Source reactance in Ohm
Rc = 0.05e-3; %Loop resistance of OHLE in Ohm
Lc = 0.923e-6; %Loop inductance of OHLE in Henry
Xc = wo*Lc; %Loop reactance of OHLE in Ohm
Rbt=0.02e-3 %Resistance/m of booster transformer based on booster transformer spacing
of 3km
Lbt=0.223e-6 %Inductance/m of booster transformer (Note: Zbt=0.06 +j0.21 ohm assumed)
Xbt=0.07e-3 %Reactance/m of booster transformer (Note: Zbt=0.06 +j0.21 ohm assumed)
19
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Appendix C: Graphical Outputs from TRAIN
Stationary train in TRAIN:
Two Stationary trains in TRAIN:
20
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Appendix D: Matlab Calculations for Single train model
[Iteration 1]
Step 1: Calculate equivalent train impedance and the source current
• Vtrn = 25kV
• Ptrn = 7.2MW
• p.f = 0.95
VI Cos θ = P
P 7 .2 e 6
I= = = 303.158 A
VCos θ 25e3 * 0.95
Vtrn 25e3∠φ
Ztrn = = = 82.465∠18.19°Ω (an initial estimate)
Itrn 303.158∠ − ϑ
Ztrn = 78.344 + j 25.743Ω (an initial estimate)
Zt = Zs + Zc + Ztrn =
= (0.221 + j 4.3988) + (0.7e − 3 + j 3.6e − 3) + (78.344 + j 25.743)Ω
= 78.5657 + j 30.1454 Ω
= 84.151∠20.99°Ω
Vs = 26.5∠0° kV
Vs 25.5∠0°
Is = = = 304.07∠ − 21° A
Zt 84.151∠20.99°
Step 2: Calculate the busbar voltage and the train voltage
Vbus = Vs − IsZs
= (26500 + j 0) − 304.07∠ − 21° * (0.221 + j 4.3988)
= (26500 + j 0) − (1339.124∠66.12)
= (26500 − 542.107 − j1224.488)
= 25957 .893 − j1224.488
= 25.987 ∠ − 2.7°kV
21
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Vtrn = Vbus − IsZc

= Vbus − 304.07 ∠ − 21° × 3.667 e − 3∠179°
= Vbus − 1.115∠58°
= 25957 .893 − j1224.488 − 0.591 − j 0.946
= 25957 .302 − j1225.434
= 25986 .21∠ − 2.703°kV
[Iteration 2]
Step 3: Calculate equivalent train impedance and the source current -1
P 7 .2 e 6
I= = = 291.653 A
VCos θ 25.98621e3 * 0.95
φ = Cose − 1 pf = Cose − 1(0.95) = 18.195°
Vtrn 25.98621e3∠ − 2.703

Ztrn = = = 82.465∠18.19°Ω
Itrn 291.653∠ − 2.703 − φ
Ztrn = 89.0998∠ − 18.195°Ω
Ztrn = 84.6447 − j 27.8216Ω
Zt = Zs + Zc + Ztrn …………………………………………………
Vs = 26.5∠0° kV
Vs
Is = = .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......
Zt
22
211197 /02/A May 2008/
Appendix E: Outputs from Crossrail Model in TRAIN
23
211197 /02/A May 2008/
24
211197 /02/A May 2008/
25
211197 /02/A May 2008/
26
211197 /02/A May 2008/
27
211197 /02/A May 2008/

AC Validation Report Rev A TRAIN

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AC Validation Report Rev A TRAIN

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Network Rail Mott MacDonald

25kV Traction Power System Modelling - TRAIN AC Validation Report

25kV Traction Power

Notes to this version

Reference & Bibliography

1. Validation of the TRAIN Program DC Validation, rev A, dated 21/2/06.

2. Network Rail’s Crossrail Simulation Report rev A, Ref TBA

Reference & Bibliography iv

2 Basic Circuit Comparisons 1

3 Vision OSLO Comparisons 9

4 Findings and Conclusions 16

Appendix A: Crossrail Major Feeding Diagram 18

Appendix B: Input Data 19

Appendix C: Graphical Outputs from TRAIN 20

Appendix D: Matlab Calculations for Single train model 21

Appendix E: Outputs from Crossrail Model in TRAIN 23

1. ‘basic AC circuit principles’ and

2 Basic Circuit Comparisons

Figure 1: Single train model in Matlab

Notes to Matlab model illustrations in Figures 1& 2:

i) The abbreviations provided in figures 1&2 are fully defined in Appendix B

Figure 2: Two trains modelled in Matlab

2.1.1 Summary of Simulation Results

• the source current, and associated angle

Voltage = 25.9552kV Voltage = 25.0903kV

Voltage = 25.955kV Voltage = 25.089kV

% difference = 0.0 % difference = 0.01

Angle = -2.61280 Angle = -5.47640

Angle = -2.60000 Angle = -5.50

% difference = 0.49 % difference = 0.43

Voltage = 25.4037kV Voltage = 23.8087kV

Voltage = 25.404kV Voltage = 23.806kV

% difference = 0.0 % difference = 0.01

Angle = -4.7220 Angle = -10.13350

Angle = -4.70 Angle = -10.10

% difference = 0.47 % difference = 0.33

Voltage = N/A Voltage = 23.2017kV

Voltage = N/A Voltage = 23.198kV

% difference = N/A % difference = 0.02

Angle = N/A Angle = -12.64960

Angle = N/A Angle = -12.70

% difference = N/A % difference = -0.40

Current = 298.4107A Current = 318.2081A

Current = 298.3A Current = 318.4A

% difference = 0.04 % difference = -0.06

Angle = -22.91690 Angle = -28.32840

Angle = -22.90 Angle = -28.30

% difference = 0.07 % difference = 0.10

Current = N/A Current = 326.5038A

Current = N/A Current = 326.7A

% difference = N/A % difference = -0.06

Angle = N/A Angle = -30.84450

Angle = N/A Angle = -30.90

% difference = N/A % difference = -0.18

Current = 644.5566A Current = 644.5566A

Current = 644.9A Current = 644.9A

% difference = -0.05 % difference = -0.05

Angle = -29.60260 Angle = -29.60260

Angle = -29.60 Angle = -29.60

% difference = 0.01 % difference = 0.01

Stationary Train Comparisons [Matlab & TRAIN]

200 Matlab Model