ENHANCED TIME DOMAIN METHODOLOGY FOR USE IN POWER SYSTEMS HARMONIC ANALYSIS
J. Arrillaga, N.R. Watson University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract Two alternative ways of using the Electromagnetic Transient programs for the solution of power system harmonics are discussed. One is a hybrid algorithm with the EMTP as an ancillary of the Frequency Domain solution. The alternative is the exclusive use of the EMTP method, complemented by an accurate frequency dependent ac system equivalent to derive the steady state waveforms and with them the harmonic spectra.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Power System harmonic simulation is normally performed in two separate stages. The harmonic source injections(normally currents) are first derived from a particular load flow operating condition. Then a harmonic flow study is carried out for each of the required harmonic frequencies independently. In practice, however, these two stages are closely coupled and an iterative solution is required. An early sequential solution[1], referred to as IHA (for Iterative Harmonic Analysis), was developed to analyse the harmonic interaction of acdc power systems, whereby the converter response at each iteration was obtained from knowledge of the converter terminal voltage waveforms (which could be unbalanced and distorted). The resulting converter currents were then expressed in terms of harmonic current injections to be used in a new iteration of the ac system harmonic flow. This method, based on the fixed point iteration (or Gauss) concept, had convergence problems under weak ac system conditions. An alternative IHA based on Newton's method[2], provided higher reliability at the expense of greatly increased analytical complexity. However the solution accuracy achieved with these early methods was very limited due to the oversimplified modelling of the converter (in particular the idealised
1
representation of the converter switching instants). An important step in solution accuracy was made with the appearance of the so called Harmonic Domain[3], a full Newton solution that took into account the modulating effect of ac voltage and dc current distortion on the switching instants and converter control functions. This method performs a linearization around the operating point, that provides sufficient accuracy. In the present state of the Harmonic Domain development the Jacobian matrix equation combines the system fundamental frequency threephase load flow and the system harmonic balance in the presence of multiple acdc converters. Although in principle any other type of nonlinear component can be accommodated, the formulation of each new component requires considerable skill and effort. Accordingly a program for the calculation of the nonsinusoidal periodic steady state may be of very high dimension and complexity. The EMTP method, although designed for the simulation of transients, is an ideal tool for the derivation of voltage and current waveforms taking into account all the system nonlinearities and control functions. Its extension to the steady state solution should therefore simplify the calculation of power system harmonics. This paper describes modelling requirements to make the EMTP method a suitable alternative for harmonic analysis. Two different modelling philosophies have been proposed for this
purpose. One is a basically Frequency Domain solution with periodic excursions into the Time Domain to update the contribution of the nonlinear components. The alternative is a basically Time Domain solution to the steady state followed by FFT processing of the resulting waveforms.
2.
ANCILLARY CAPACITY
THE
TIME
DOMAIN
IN
AN
2.1. Iterative Solution for Time Invariant
NonLinear Components
The ideal current source is the simplest model, as no linearised information is required, but degrades the solution convergence of the iterative scheme or the accuracy of the direct solution. Instead, the Time Domain can be used at every iteration of the Frequency Domain solution to derive a Norton equivalent (shown in Figure 1) for the nonlinear component(s). The Norton admittance represents a linearization, possibly approximate, of the component response to variations in the terminal voltage harmonics. For devices that can be described by the static (time invariant) voltagecurrent relationship, i(t) = f(v(t)) (1)
in the time domain, both the current injection and the Norton admittance can be calculated by an elegant procedure involving an excursion into the time domain[4]. At each iteration, the applied voltage harmonics are inverse Fourier transformed to yield the voltage waveshape. The voltage waveshape is then applied point by point to the static voltage/current characteristic, to yield the current waveshape. By calculating the voltage and current waveshapes at 2n equi spaced points, a FFT is readily applied to the
current waveshape, to yield the total harmonic injection. To derive the Norton admittance, the waveshape of the total derivative
dI 
= 
di t ( ) 
dt 
= 
di ( t 
) / 
dt 

dV 
dt 
dv t ( ) 
dv ( t 
) / 
dt 
, 
(2)
is calculated by dividing the point by point changes in the voltage and current waveshapes. Fourier transforming the total derivative yields columns of the Norton admittance matrix; in this matrix all the elements on any diagonal are equal, i.e. it has a Toeplitz structure. The Norton admittance calculated in this manner is actually the Jacobian for the source. A typical non linearity of this type is the transformer magnetising characteristic.
A
problem
with
the
representation
of
nonlinear devices is the presence of an
in their
linearisation [5][6], which requires a complex conjugation notation using positive and negative frequencies, i.e.
inherent phase dependency
I
2
−
I
−
1
I
0
I
1
I
2
=
where
c 0
c
c
c
c
1
−
− 2
− 3
− 4
I
− f
c
c
1
0
c
c
1
−
−
2
−
3
c
=
I
*
+ f
c
c
c
2
1
0
c
c
1
−
−
2
c
c
c
c
3
2
1
0
c
−
1
c
c
c
c
c
4
3
2
1
0
V
V
− 2
−
1
V
0
V
1
V
2
(3)
for a real valued waveform.
However the model can be modified for use with realvalued positive frequency phasors as follows
2
I
+
=
(4)
YV
1
+
+
*
Y V
2
+
^{V} node
iteratively updated. The computational burden is thus further increased in direct proportion with the size of the system and the number of harmonics represented. To extend the iterative algorithm to any type of nonlinearity, a more generally applicable time domain solution (such as the State Variable or the EMTP method) must be used to represent the behaviour of the non linear components in a hybrid Frequency/Time domain solution[7][8]. The input voltages and currents at the device terminals will, in general, contain
harmonics. The iterative solution proceeds in
two stages. First the periodic steady state of
the individual components is initially derived from a load flow program and then updated using voltage corrections from the second stage. The calculations are performed in the frequency domain where appropriate(e.g. in the case of transmission lines) and in the time domain otherwise. In stage (ii) the currents obtained in stage (i) are used to derive the current mismatches ∆i, expressed in the frequency domain. These become injections into a systemwide incremental harmonic admittance matrix Y, calculated in advance from such matrices for all the individual components. The equation ∆i = Y∆v is then solved for ∆v to be used in stage (i) to update all bus voltages. In the first stage the approach is modular, but in the second stage the voltage
corrections are calculated globally, for the
whole system. However, convergence is only
^{I} N
Fig. 1. Norton equivalent circuit.
Equation (4) is then decomposed into real and imaginary positive frequency components and leads to the matrix equation:

I 
r 
= 
Y 1 
r 
− 
Y 1 
i 
+ 
Y 2 
r 
− Y 2 i V r 


I (5) 
i 
Y 1 
i 
Y 1 r 

Y 2 
i 
Y 2 r 
V i 

2.2. 
Iterative Solution for General Non 
Linear Components
Timevariant nonlinear components, such as power electronic devices, do not fall in the category defined by equation (1). Instead their voltagecurrent relationships result from many interdependent factors, such as phase and magnitude of each of the ac voltage and current harmonic components, control system functions, firing angle constraints, etc. The model developed in section 2.1. can also be used to construct the realvalued positive frequency Jacobian. By observing the structure of Equation 3 and remembering
that
and Y can be obtained in terms of
c
2
−
k
= c
k
, the complex admittances
c
k
, i.e.
*
Y
1
(
(6)
Y
1
h k
,
) =
c
, Y
2
(
h k
,
) =
c
for I
h
and V . The Jacobian term can then be
k
constructed using Equation 5. However the converter Norton admittance matrix is no longer Toeplitz and is also nonsymmetric. Furthermore it contains of the order of n ^{2} different elements, as opposed to the n elements obtained from the FFT. Thus, not only is the calculation of a harmonic Norton equivalent computationally difficult but, for accurate results, it has to be
* achieved linearly, because of the
approximations made on the accuracy of ∆v. A separate iterative procedure is needed to model the controllers of active nonlinear devices, such as acdc converters, and this procedure relies entirely on information from the previous iteration.
2.3. Acceleration Techniques
Time Domain simulation, whether performed by the EMTP , state variable or any other method, may require large computation times to reach steady state and,
3
thus the use of accelerating techniques[9][10] has been advocated to speed up the solution. A concise version of the Poincare method reported in reference[7] is given here. A nonlinear system of state equations is expressed as
x&
= g(x,u)
x(t _{o} ) = x _{o}
(7)
where u = u(t) is the input, and x _{o} the vector of state variables at t = t _{o} close to the periodic steady state. This state is characterised by the condition
f(x _{o} ) = x(t _{o} + T)  x(t _{o} )(8)
where x(t _{o} +T ) is derived by numerical integration over the period t _{o} to t _{o} + T of the state equations (7). Equation (8) represents a system of n nonlinear algebraic equations with n unknowns x and can thus be solved by the NewtonRaphson method. The linearised form of equation (8)
around an approximation solution is
(
(9)
where J ^{(}^{k}^{)} is the Jacobian (the matrix of partial derivatives of f(x _{o} ) with respect to x _{o} ,
evaluated at
each iteration k, using its very definition: in addition to the mapping
o
)
≅
f
(
x
(
o
k
)
)
+
(9)
J
(
k
)
x
(
o
x
(k) at step k of its
o
k +
1)
−
x
(
o
k
)
)
=
0
x
(k)
o
). By approximating
^{(}^{k}^{)} , at
J
f x
(
x
(
o
k
)
→ f
(
x
(k)
o
)
(10)
the mappings are
x
(
o
k
)
(11)
+ εe → f ( x + εe
i
o
(
k
)
i
)
i
=
1,…,n
where e _{i} are the columns of the unity matrix
and ε is a small scalar. assembled from the vectors
J ^{(}^{k}^{)}
i
is then 

= 
1,…,n 
1
ε
(
f
(
x
(
o
k
)
+εe − f x
i
)
(
(k)
o
)
)
(12)
obtained in equations (10) and (11).
4
Finally, using the above approximation
J ^{(}^{k}^{)} of the Jacobian, the updated value
for x _{o} is obtained from equation (9). The process described above is quasi Newton but its convergence is close to quadratic. Therefore, as in a conventional Newton power flow program, only three to five iterations are needed for convergence to a highly accurate solution, depending on the closeness of the initial state x _{o} to the converged solution.
x
(k+1)
o
3.
PRIMARY ROLE
THE
TIME
DOMAIN
IN
THE
3.1. Basic Time Domain algorithm
Starting from standstill, the basic Time Domain uses a "brute force" solution, i.e. the system equations are integrated until the steady state is reached within a specified tolerance. The voltage and current
waveforms, represented by sets of discrete
values at equally spaced intervals (corresponding with the integration steps),
are subjected to FFT processing to derive the harmonic spectra. This is a very simple method but can be slow when the network has components with light damping. The use of acceleration techniques
proposed in section 2.3. for the hybrid solution is not recommended here for the following reason. The number of periods to be processed in the time domain required by the acceleration technique is almost directly proportional to the number of state variables multiplied by the number of Newton iterations[9]. Therefore the solution
efficiency reduces very rapidly as the ac system size increases. This is not a problem in the case of the hybrid algorithm, because in that case the time domain solutions require no explicit representation of the ac network. On the other hand, when the solution is carried out entirely in the time domain, the ac system components are included in the formulation and thus the number of state variables is always large. Moreover, as the time domain algorithm requires only a single
transient simulation to steady state run, the advantage of the acceleration technique is questionable in this case, due to the additional complexity.
3.2. Special Considerations for Harmonic
Analysis
3.2.1. Time Step
The time step selection is critical to model accurately the resonant conditions when converters are involved. A resonant system modelled with 100 or 50 µS steps can miss a resonance, while the use of a 10 µS does not. Moreover, the higher the resonant frequency the smaller the step should be. A possible way of checking the effectiveness of a given time step is to reduce the step and then compare the results with those obtained in the previous run. If there is a significant change around the resonant frequency, then the time step is too large. The main reason for the small time step requirement is the need to pinpoint the commutation instants very accurately, as these have great influence on the positive feedback that appears to occur between the ac harmonic voltages and the corresponding driven converter currents.
3.2.2. AC System Representation
The main requirement of a harmonic solution is the use of an accurate frequency dependent model for the system components. This is
Figure 2. 
Comparison of depth of system 
representation 
5
best achieved in the frequency domain and has been the main reason for the development of the hybrid algorithms. The next important question is the size of detailed system representation. To illustrate this point Figure 2 shows the effect of the extent of system representation on the harmonic impedances. The solid line indicates a representation of the entire transmission system (11 kV and above) of the New Zealand South Island system. Th dashdotted line relates to a system reduced down to the local 220kV network and only significant loads and generators represented. The dashed line represents the case of the 220kV transmission network without generators, transformers or loads. The differences between these cases are very pronounced.
3.2.3. Frequency Dependent Equivalents The use of a frequency dependent equivalent avoids the need to model any significant part of the ac system in detail, yet can still provide an accurate picture of the system impedance across the selected range
of harmonic frequencies.
An early proposal [11]used the resonant points of the network frequency response to derive a set of tuned branches that can be easily incorporated in the EMTP program. Although the synthesis of those branches is direct, this method first ignores the losses to determine the L and C values for the required resonant frequencies and then determines the
R values to match the response at minima
points. In practice an iterative optimisation procedure is necessary after this process to improve the fit. The equivalents of multiterminal circuits, such as a threephase system with mutual couplings between phases, requires the fitting of admittance matrices instead of scalar admittances [12]. A criticism of the above technique for general transients use is that it can not model
an arbitrary response. An alternative approach is to fit a rational function to a response and implement it directly in the transients program without the need for an
Fig. 3. Test system at the rectifier end of a dc link.
equivalent circuit. In the latter, however, the parameters are functions of the time step and hence the fitting must be performed again when the time step is altered. Moreover the stability of the fit, without which the system can not be simulated, is still a problem with the rational function methods. Thus the greater simplicity and reliability of the Parallel branches equivalent is still the preferred method for (steady state) harmonic studies, as in these cases the response is not arbitrary. The application of this technique is illustrated here with reference to the system
of Figure 3. This system includes part of the
transmission system connected to the rectifier end of the New Zealand dc link. The necessary information for harmonic simulation studies can be found in appendix
III of reference [12].
The corresponding frequency dependent equivalent circuit is shown in Fig.
4 and its component values in Table 1. A graph of the impedance magnitude of the actual rectifier ac system based on its modelled parameters, and the frequency
dependent equivalent is given in Fig. 5. It can
be seen that this equivalent provides a very
good match for the impedance of the actual system up to about the 17 ^{t}^{h} harmonic. Of course the use of extra parallel branches in the equivalent circuit will extend the range of frequency matching further. On completion of the Time Domain simulation, the FFTderived harmonic current spectrum at the converter terminals needs to be injected into the full ac system to determine the harmonic flows throughout the actual system components.
Table 1. Frequency dependent equivalent circuit parameters for the circuit of Figure 4
R (Ω) 
L (H) 
C (µF) 

Arm 1 
17.0 
0.092674 
 
Arm 2 
0.50 
0.079359 
1.8988 
Arm 3 
25.1 
0.388620 
0.1369 
Arm 4 
6.02 
0.048338 
0.7987 
Arm 5 
13.6 
0.030883 
0.3031 
Series R 
1.2 
 
 
4.
DISCUSSION
Three different approaches are possible for the simulation of power system harmonics. These are the Harmonic Domain, the Time Domain and a Hybrid combination of the conventional Frequency and Time Domains. The Harmonic Domain includes a linearized representation of the nonlinear
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 5. Impedance (ohms) versus frequency plot for the circuit of Fig. 4.
components around the operating point in a full Newton solution. The fundamental frequency load flow is also incorporated in
the Newton solution and , thus, provides the ideal tool for general steady state assessment. However the complexity of the formulation to derive the system Jacobian may well prevent its final acceptability.
The Hybrid proposal takes advantage of
the characteristics of the Frequency and Time Domains for the linear and nonlinear
components respectively. The hybrid algorithm is conceptually simpler and more flexible than the Harmonic Domain but it is not a full Newton solution and therefore not
as reliable under weak system conditions.
A direct Time Domain solution,
particularly with the EMTP method, is the simplest and most reliable, but the least accurate due to inadequate representation of
the linear network components at harmonic frequencies. The latter can be overcome with the use of frequency dependent equivalents.
A preliminary frequency domain study of the
linear part of the network can provide a reduced equivalent circuit to any required matching accuracy. Then all is needed is a single "brute force" transient to steady state run followed by FFT processing of the resulting waveforms. It can thus be confidently predicted that the incorporation of a suitable frequency dependent equivalent will place the Electromagnetic Transient alternative in the driving seat for the assessment of power system harmonics.
of the acdc converter in the harmonic domain', Proc.IEE on Gener.Transm.and Distrib., V142(2), 109118.
4. Semlyen,A, Acha,E. and
Arrillaga,J.(1992), 'Newtontype algorithms for the harmonic phasor analysis of non
linear power circuits in periodical steady
state with special reference to magnetic non linearities', Trans.IEEE on Power Delivery, PWRD7(3), 10901098.
5. Acha,E. (1988), 'Modelling of power
system transformers in the complex conjugate harmonic space', Ph.D Thesis,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
6. Smith, B.C. (1996), 'A harmonic
domain model for the interaction of the HVdc converter with ac and dc systems',
Ph.D Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
7. Semlyen, A. and Medina,A.(1995),
'Computation of the periodic steady state in
system with nonlinear components using a hybrid time and frequency domain methodology', Trans IEEE on Power Systems,V10(3), 14981504.
8. Usaola, J. and Mayordomo,J.G.(1994),
'Multifrequency analysis with time domain
simulation', ETEP V6(1), 5359.
9. Semlyen, A. and Shlash,M.(2000),
'Principles of modular harmonic power flow
methodology', Proc.IEE on Gener.Trans.and Distrib. V147(1), 16.
10. Usaola,J. and Mayordomo,J.G.(1990),
'Fast steady state technique for harmonic
analysis', ITCHES IV, Budapest, 336342.
11. Hingorani, N.G. and Burbury
M.(1970), 'Simulation of ac system
5. 
REFERENCES 
impedance in HVdc system studies', IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, V89(5/6), 820828. 

1. 
Yacamini,R. and De Oliveira,J.C. 
12. 
Watson N.R. and Arrillaga,J. (1988), 
(1980), 'Harmonics in multiple converter systems: a generalised approach', Proc.IEE,
V127(2),96106.
'Frequencydependent ac system equivalents
for harmonic studies and transient converter simulation', Trans.IEEE,PD3,(3), 1196
2. 
Smith,B.C.,Arrillaga,J.,Wood,A.R. 
1203. 

and Watson,N.R.(1996), A review of 
13. 
Arrillaga, J. and Smith, B.C., 'ACDC 

iterative harmonic analysis for acdc power systems, ICHQP, Las Vegas, 314319. 3. Smith,B.C.,Watson,N.R.,Wood,A.R. and Arrillaga,J.,(1995), 'Steady state model 
Power System Analysis',(1998) IEE Power and Energy Series 27, London. 
7
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.