IEEE Translctions on Power Delivery,

--

Vd. 7, No. 3. Jdy 1992

1601

J. C a r r , Senior Member
Acres International, L M .

L.V. McCall, Fellow

Chtario Hydro

This paper discueses the fact0l.B which a f f e c k d the

evolution of world's distribution systems, and their

divemence, with implications for application in lesser
developed countries. It dwribes the advantages of the
'North American' and '&ropean- style systems, while
remgniaing that neither is intrhically superior.
Finally, it brings into fccm the need for m i t i o n
of legitimate variancea in distribution systems and
their associated equipment, when developing relevant
StandardE.

Different nomenclature is used to describe some

distribution system elemeats in the European and North
American environments. The following table displays the
terms in question. In this paper, North American tern
are wed to avoid confusion.
lpuape

High Voltage
Medium Voltage

x&xax&b
Electric Power distribution system dmigns and practicea
throughout the world have evolved in divergent
directions due to a variety of factom. Most can be
traced back to either the 'European' or 'North Americanapproach. These evolved separately and spread with
colonial ambitions to many other parts of the world
which today include a large number of lesser developed
countries.
For moet pupoeee, the difference in system design,
configuration and practices have been of little concern,
because each haa been eminently suitable for its own
environment. However, divergent practices do become
significant when these are to be considered in the
developnent Of international Standards which mandate
practices and must, therefore, accommodate any
differen-.
The diffemcea in approach are also significant in
lesser developed countries where major electrical
distribution rehabilitation and extension programs are
undernay. The social,economic and technical context for
distribution 13ystenm in these countries can be quite
different than in either &rope or North America which
raises questions about the most appropriate approach.
This Paper describes typical distribution systern8 in
Emwe and in North America, identifies significant
diffemnces, and cutlines soroe aspects of their
divergent evolution. Against this bckground, it then
diacueees ~ o m e of the implications of different
distribution system configuratiom in lesser developed
countries.

Subtransmission Voltage
Primary Voltage

Low Voltage

seconctary Voltage

Earth, Earthing,
Earthed

Ground, Grounding,
Gmded

Generai

All distribution system13 have a number of CORmon

features. For example, all systems are comprised of a
number of primary circuits, as shown in Figure 1, which
supply a rather larger number of eecondary circuite,
thmugh many distribution transformers. The relative
extent of each of the foregoing elements is a function
of the distribution voltage, and the magnitude and
density of the loa& supplied. Further camon features
include:

Primary circuite are nonnally supplied from

subtranemission/priry transfonnation at
a distribution supply station. Supply from
generating stations is unusual.

Primary circuits, eminating from the

distrikution supply station, are generally
three phase. In sorne European systems,
notably in the United Kingdom, some single
phaee (phase-phase)circuits branch off the
main circuit to supply lightly loaded rural
ares. In North America, single phase,
(phase-neutral) extensions from three phase
main circuits are used extensively.

Primary voltage levels art? comparable for

all systems, with a range of 8-34.5kV. Two
particularly popular voltage ranges are
amiuld 12 kV and 25 kV.
The location and rating of distrikution
transformera are selected to provide an
adequate supply of power/energy at the
utilization voltage efficiently and at an
adequate voltage level.

This papex was presented at the Transmission

and Distribution Conference in Dallas, Texas
from September 22-27, 1991 at the Dallas Convention Center. Sponsored by the IEEE Power
Engineering Society.

0885-8977/92/$3.0001992 IEEE

Protective apparatus and gromdhg are

applied as needed to adequately limit the
adverse effects of circuit faulta.

1602

Figure 1 - North American (European) Distribution System Elements

Three phaee, three conductor primary Circuit6 are used

almost exclusively in Ru-wean practice. As shown in
Figure 2,are supplied f m substation transformers
where the load side winding may be wye connected, or

delta comeckd. Where wye connected, the neutral point

of the transformer winding is grounded directly, or
thraagh a resistor or reactor, but the neutral is lrrt
extended out of the station with the primary circuits.
Most of the Becondary circuite are supplied frcm three
phase distribution transformers,typically connected in
a delta-wye configuration to supply 220/380 volts,
230/400 volts, or 240/416 volts.In urban areas, h m e r
capacity unite are employed extensively to supply a
large number of customers. Single phase distribution
t m f o m e r s are used rmch less frequently for s u ~ ~ l y
to naral areas, notably in the United Kingdom.
Generally, domeetic and d l Comnerchl CUStomers are
mpplied with single phase service,at 220 to 240 Volts.
The two amductom providing t h i s connection usually
ampriee one phase, and one neutral conductor. compared
to North America, the secondary systems supplied by each
distribution transformer are typically very extensive
in lhropam practice, due to the higher utilization
voltage, and relatively limited diversified demand Per
customer.

Multi ground& primary distribution systems predominate

in North American practice. As shown in Figure 3 , three
phaee primary feeders comprise three phase conductors,
and a neutral conductor. The neutral conductor is
connected to the neutral of the substation supply
transformer, extended out of the station with the phase
conductors, and connected to ground at frwuent
intervals along its length. Single p h m extensions from
three phase primary feeders, comprising one phase
conductor and a neutral conductor are mch more
extensively used than in Europe.
In most cases, the winding of the m e r transformer
supplying North American distribution primary circuits,
is w e conn-,
with the neutral grounded. A less
cormnon alternative is a delta m e c t i o n with a
to
establieh
-ding - bank
- -~
-~ the system neutral.

Most or m e loads supplied are single phase and

therefore distribution transformers are predominantly
for,and
single phase. For these,theprimary is desconnected frcm phase to neutral, and the secondary
arranged to supply a three wire, 120/240 volt connection
to customers. The center of the secondary winding is
grounded and connected to the Becondary circuit neutral
conductor. Smaller three phaee loader m y be supplied try
banking single phaee transformers.
The limitations imposed by the combination of the lower
utilization voltage, and the relatively higher
diversified demand per custoaer s*ificantly
mtrairi
the dimensions and loadability of North American
secondary system. Cbneeqmtly, relative to m a n
system, a much larger number of distribution
transformers are required to supply an equivalent number
of customers.
V
k
I

The electric power industry was evolving more or less

sirmltanemsly in both Euro= and North America in the
closing years of the last century and in the early years
of this one. This was a period in history when many
areas of the world, now referred to as lesser developed
countries, were colonized by one of the major Europowers. It should be of no surprise,therefore, that the
distribution practices throughout mch of the world tend
to follow European practice.
This practice has been modified in recent decades
coincident with the independence movements that have
swept Africa and Asia and resulted in the elimination
of virtually all colonial rule. Today, a sirplificant
portion of the money required by leseer developed
countries to finance their power utility systems comes
from such international funding agencies as the World
Bank. This results in the worldwide availability of
engineering expertise,materials and e q u i m t from many
donor nations.
While this has resulted in the increasing use of North
American style distribution concepts in some lesser
developed countries, the requirement of m t i b i l i t y
with the existing facilities and standards continues to
provide a strong incentive to retain E u m m style
systems. This is particularly true in urban ares that
have been electrified for many years. However, rural
electrificationprojects sometimesuse four-wireprimary
main feeders that typify the North American appmch.

1603

Figure 2 European Style Distribution System

Figure 3 - North American Style Distribution System

1604

Hi&

cmnfiguration (i.e,multi-groundecl). This is b x m s e

phase-neutral
conne-kd d i s t r i h t i o n trLamformem
i n i t i a l l y f a c i l i t a t e d econmical v o l W e increases, and
because these continue to be more ecrmomical to purchase
and install, p a r t i c u l a r l y with t h e high volume involved

LoadG1.owthandJiklzmm
'n
Load growth resulting from increased electricity use by
e x i s t i n g customers is probably more readily accoarnodated
on North American s t y l e d i s t r i b u t i o n systems. The same
is t r u e f o r accomnodating load growth due to new
"infill" customer that a r e w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g e r v i c e
area. However, t h e European approach may have advantages
in meeting load growth due to new customers outside t h e
service area t h a t therefore require system extensions.
Theses conclusions r e s u l t fm t h e fact t h a t t h e total
l i n e length in a d i s t r i b u t i o n system is determined
primarily by t h e number of customers and t h e geographic
area served and only secondarily by t h e total load.
These concepts can be f u r t h e r described a s follows.

load densities d u c e t h e need f o r extensive

secondary networks since t h e load appropriate f o r a
single d i s t r i b u t i o n transformer w i l l he aggregated over
a r e l a t i v e l y small area. Voltage regulation and losees
a l s o improve with shorter secondary c i r c u i t s , especially
with high load l e v e l s . While t h e differences i r i average
load d e n s i t i e s between Europe and North America m o t
alone account f o r the differences in approach to
e l e c t r i c i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , it is clear t h a t they are
rmtually consistent.

General

I)esjgn of d i s t r i b u t i o n systems is influenced by several

f a c t o r s including:
t h e need to supply customers adequately and
efficiently

t h e need to create a system which can be

operated s a f e l y , w i t h provisions to mitigate
adverse effects to the environment, or t r ~
t h e system i t s e l f

t h e need to select t h e most economic choice

of design a l t e r n a t i v e s available w i t h i n t h e
constraints of s a t i s f y i n g other needs

'

Both European and North American d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m

a r e designed/configured to s a t i s f y t h e forwoing needB
but due to fundamental differences i n t h e total
environment
in
which
each
is
placed,
design/configuration divergence is inevitable. Consider
t h e following:

pactor

EumPe

Customer
density

Hlgher

Utilization
voltage

Higher

Lower

Individual
loads

Lower

Higher

Higher in urban
areas; lower
elsewhere

---

Regulatory
constraints

Higher

General 1y
lower

In Eumpean d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t m 8 , t h e r e is a d i s t i n c t
economic advantage to u t i l i z i n g t,hree phase d i s t r i b u t i o n
transformers to supply t h e secondary system because
individual diversified demands are modest, and are
supplied a t a higher u t i l i z a t i o n voltage. The fact. t h a t
there is a much smaller volume of larger d i s t r i b u t i o n
t r a n s f o m r s supplying extensive secondary systerns means
that these elements have little or no influence on t h e
primary systems to which t.hese a r e connected. The
configuration of European primary system configurations ,
such a s three conductor c i r c u i t s supplied fmi B
g m d e d wye source,are influenced c h i e f l y by needs fm
s a t i s f y protection imperatives, and to conform to
regulatory constraints.
In North America, secondary s y s t e m a r e si&$nificm~tly
limited, in tern of dimensions, and loadability, due
to t h e higher diversified demands, and lower u t i l i z a t i o n
voltage. This r e s u l t s i n a requirement f o r a much higher
number of d i s t r i b u t i o n transformers f o r an equivalent
number of customers. The customer supply f a c i l i t i e s in
North American systems, i n contrast. to the E ~ ~ v p e a n
case, have a signific'ant influence on primary systenl

In North American systems t h e s i z e of the area over

which customers are spread plays a major role i n
determining t h e layout of t h e primary feeder system and
the actual loading level of these feeders is a
subordinate consideration. In contrast., with t h e
European approach, t h e secondary network layout is the
main feature dictated by the physical load area. In
Europe,
load level d i c t a t e s t h e locations of
transformers which, in t u r n , determine t h e layout of t.he
primary system. As a r e s u l t , a European primary system
is optimized around load level while a North American
one is optimized around customer l w a t i o n .

This s u b t l e difference in approaches to system planning

r e s u l t s in an inherent margin of additional load
carrying capacity in t h e North American approach. For
example, in a North American town more streets w i l l have
primary feeders than would be t h e case i f t h e town w e r e
transplanted to Eumpz. In Europe, some of t h e primary
mileage would be replaced with secondary runs w i t h a
resulting reduction in load carrying capacity.
The difference between the two approaches is shown XI
simplified form in Figure 5. Comparative figures f o r t h e
two systerns are as follows.
North American
Europe
17
17
Customers (number)
40
4n
Service Area (size)
Primary c i r c u i t s (length)
18
8
Secondary circuits (length)
10
zn
Transformers (numkr)
6
2
Put another way, f o r a given load area, a Nort3hAmerican
s t y l e d i s t r i h t i o n system w i l l inherently have a g r e a t e r
kW/cimit-krn capability than a European system. To
serve a growing load within t h e e x i s t i n g service area,
it is necessary only to ch,mge c u t individual
transformers or perhaps add an additional transformer
a
and reconnect a few customer service dropB.
European system increasing load is more l i k e l y t o
require adding transformer capacity and rearr,mging the
secondary lines to c r e a t e new secondary subsyetenis.

On t h e other hand, load growth thmugh t.he addition of

new customers and t h e extension of the service area is
typically e a s i e r with t h e European approach. The
secondaw l i n e s a r e simpler to extend than t h e primary
l i n e s and sizable extensions a r e often possible without
t h e need f o r additional transformer capacity. In
c o n t r a s t , on North American systems an extension of any
consequence requires not only additional primary
constniction, but a l s o t h e installat.ion of one o r mre
transformers.

The evolution of the North American fcur conductor,

multi-grounded system is linked to the limitations
imposed on physical dimensions of Becondary systems by
the lower utilization voltage (120/240) and the
generally higher customer loads, with a consequent
requirement for a substantially higher number of
distribution transformers.
In the early decades of this century, three conductor
primary systers, operating at 2400 volts phase to phase,
predominated in North American practice. Single phase
distribution transformers, with 2400 volt primary
windings, were connected phase to phase.
Beginning in the late 1930.8, distribution system loads
increased beyond the capability of the 2400 volt
standard particularly in tenns of maintaining acceptable
voltage regulation. Increashw the primary voltage
withait changing the three conductor configuration was
a logical prcg~eion,but would have entailed the very
substantial expense of replacing the m y distribution
transformers.
It was at this stage that the four wire configuration
became most attractive. As &own in Figure 4 , by
replacing the aubstation transformer to supply 2400/4160
volts to the reconfigured primary circuits, including
distribution
a neutral conduetor, all existtransformers could be retained in service, by
implementing a slmple reconnection. Further econmy was
realized ?JY eliminating one protective fuse, and one
surge arrestor for each distribution transformer. This
conversion provided the increased loadability required
at the lowest possible cost, and was implemented
auccessfilly on a wide scale a c m s the continent.
Multi-grounded neutral, four conductor primary systeme
became the norm in North American practice, and have
been continued into other voltage classes up to and
including 34.5 kV applications. The ~IUF&US continue8
to be the economies realized due to the reduction
achievable in distribution transformer primary winding
insulation, and the reduced requirement for fuse and
surge protection at each transformer. These economies
m magnified by the very large number of distribution
transfomrs involved.

North America is vastly larger than Europe which hae

resulted in a generally lower wpulation density.
Carrying a neutral conductor on main three phase feeders
allows branch single phase feeders to have only a s w l e
phase conductor plus a neutral conductor. Not only does
the neutral conductor not need an insulator, but it can
safely be mwu?ted with less g m d clearance than m
energid phase conductor. The North American approach
to distrihtion therefore allows the use of shorter
poles without c w ~ m m sand half the number of
insulators on single phase feeders. The resulting cost
savings over the European approach are magnified by the
greater distances involved,particularly in rural areas.
In the Western parts of North America, where the grcund
resistance is p a r t i m l a r l y low, it ha8 been FoeBible to
go one step further by eliminating even the neutral
conductor and relying on ground return to cnmplete the
circuit for phase to ground loads. These ground return
systems are reduced further in cost by using tightly
tensioned steel conductors which allows for fewer and
even shorter poles for accepbble mid-span mound
clearance. Ground return systeme are used also in
Australia and on a limited scale in West Africa.
Compared to Europe, North America harr a climate of
extremes. Colder winters and hotter sumers together
with high humidity in areas such as the southeastern USA
and around the Great Lakes oombine to create larger
loads for both heating and cooling. Load densitiee and
energy use per customer are therefore generally higher
in North America than in Europe.
Even in the early years of the utility industry when
electric heating and mechanical air conditioning were
rare, North American load densities tended to be higher
than in Europe. These were the days of mass migration
from Europe to North America. The 'New World' waa
desperately short of people to work in its growmanufacturing industries, and mechanization was the
answer. Such innovations as the assembly line
intensified productivity and forced the use of larger
and faster tools and proceeees with corresponding
increased use of electric power.

1605

Figure 4 Conversion from 3 to CWire Primary Circuits

on North American Distribution Systems

1606

m
/-

-vy

t " I
-

Figure 5 Comparative Feeder Plans

andBecause, as mentimed above, in t h e European approach,

e l e c t r i c i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n r e s u l t s i n a higher proportion
of t h e line mileage being secondinstead of primary,
t h e r e are advantages to t h e overall appearance of the
system.
The most e f f e c t i v e methcd of improving d i s t r i b u t i o n

aesthetics is to u t i l i z e underground construction and

t h i s is simpler and cheaper a t secondary voltage than
a t primary voltage. Cable and equipmsnt are emaller and
safety and ineulation coneiderations are lees onerow.
Coats are also reduced by t h e fact that f a i l u r e s a f f e c t
a r e l a t i v e l y smaller number of cuetomere so that circuit
loopins and switching points. to provide a l t e r n a t i v e
supply are not as necessary.

I l n d e r g m d i n g is a l s o much simpler with European style

d i s t r i b u t i o n systems because there are far. fewer
transformers required resulting i n fewer expensive
v a u l t s o r problem in finding space f o r padmount
equipmsnt. This a l l r e s u l t s in fewer fuses and switches
located out and m
d t h e underground which simplifies
operating requirements both f o r routine switching and
fuse replacement during service restoration.
Even when all-overhead systems a r e compclred, t h e
&ropean approach has a e s t h e t i c advantages. Reflection
w i l l confirm that t h e most unsightly aspects of
d i s t r i b u t i o n systems a r e associated w i t h transformer
i n s t a l l a t i o n s and t h e i r associated surge a r r e s t o r e , fuse
cutouts, and connecting w i r i n g . The s t r a i g h t m of
line between poles, and simple tangent poles without any
equigment do not a s s a u l t t h e eye to the same e x t e a t .
While the extensive three-phase secondary lines on
European s y ~ t e m ehave more conductors t h a t a r e l i k e l y
heavier gauge than t h e corresponding singleprimary that m i g h t serve t h e
customers on North
American systems, t h i s visual disadvantage is often
o f f s e t by the r e l a t i v e absence of transformers and other
equipment.

e v e r s u S r e n m

Distribution engineers i n k s e r D e v e l o d countries

have to comider the economic aspects of their projects
not only i n t e r n s of i n i t i a l cost and ongoing costs but
a l s o i n terms of t h e r e l a t i v e amounts of foreign
exchange and local currency.

Foreign exchange is t y p i c a l l y d i f f i c u l t to acquire

because it is generated by t h e country's
o r its
income from tourism, Meanwhile, foreign exchange is
needed to buy not only e s s e n t i a l d i t i e s such as
o i l , medical supplies and i n d u s t r i a l machinery but a l s o
t h e vast array of modern manufactured consumer goods
that symbolize success and wellbeing to people a l l over
t h e world.
There is therefore a strong incentive i n many Lesser
Developed countriee to maximize t h e local content of
d i s t r i b u t i o n projects in order to minimize foreign
exchange requirements. Most countries can use local
materials f o r line construction to some extent but few,
i f any, a r e self s u f f i c i e n t . A listing of l i n e
m t e r i a l s , in order of decreasing likelihood of local
a v a i l a b i l i t y might be as followe:
untreated poles
milled lumber (crossam)
cxwmon hardware ( n u t s , bolts, angle iron)
h u l a t o r e f o r secondary voltages
treated poles
bare aluminum conductor
Less l i k e l y , but still possible f o r local supply in some
countries are:
special hardware ( i n s u l a t o r s , pins, clamps)
g a l v a n i d steel w i r e
tranef ormers
covered conductors
insulated conductors
Other i t e w are almost. invariably imported including
things such a s fuses, compression connectors and tools
which North American and European u t i l i t i e s take f o r
granted.

Significant new construction therefore requires a

substantial amount of foreign exchange which l i k e l y
requires a loan f r o m an internat,ional funding agency
such a s t h e World Bank. Obtaining such a l a m requires
a s i g n i f i c a n t planning and administrative effort. which
often involves t h e governrent, and is therefore not
undertaken l i g h t l y by t h e u t i l i t y .

1
1607

Difficult as it may be to justify an international loan

for new dietribtion construction, it is even wre
difficult to demonetrate the need for foreign exdyrnee
for maintenance puposes. While govemmenta misfit see
merit in extending the electricity supply b new areas,
they are lees likely to appreciate the we subtle
advantages of improving the quality of service to
existing customers.
The result is that new construction and major
rehabilitation often receives more attention than
routine maintenance. This situation favors a
distribution system that requires little maintenance,
even if such a system requires a higher initial coet.
In general, the European style distribution system fits
this pattern beet. Balancing between phases OCCUI'B at
the lowest voltage level and therefore does not m u i r e
special attention. Grounding is probably lese critical
and certainly require6 nowhere near the amount of care
and attention that is essential for North American
ground return systems. The European style of system also
has less equipment by virtue of using fewer but larger
dietribtion transformers. This translates into fewer
fuses, switches and surge arrestors, all of which are
probably imported and subject to maintenance.
The European system also requiree less foreign exchange
expenditwhen a few new custceaers are added or minor
line extensions undertaken. In the simpleet and most
m m o n cases, all extensions involve only the secondary
circuits. New customers simply increaee the circuit
loading,voltage drop, and losses as well as add to the
load on the dietribtion transformer. If poles, low
voltage insulators and bare conductor are all available
locally, these types of system extensions require no
foreign exchange.
The ability to extend the system so simply is one of the
major pitfalls that result6 in subetandard electricity
service in many lesaer developed countries with Raropean
style distribution systems. It is often impractical to
resist the pressure to connect "just one more customer"
to an already overloaded distribution transformer
thereby reducing the supply voltage for all customers
and Jeopardizing their security of supply by increasing
the likelihood of premature transformer failure. In one
extreme h h c e , cuetomera were found to be
successfully wing 120 volt applianws on a nominal 240
volt supply.

AS can be appreciated, the technical or IZR lossee on

distribution SYStems in lesser developed countries can
be very high. It seem likely that the European syi3tem
is more prone to excessive losses because it is more
subject to overload akue due to the simplicity of
extending it and adding customers.

In contrast, the North American style of dietribtion

system impOsee Bcwe discipline when connecting new
customers because additional transformer installations
are often eesential. Since each transformer is amaller
and serves fewer customers it hae lees load diversity
and therefore crosses the overloading boundary more
decisively. "he effect of adding "one more customer"
will probably be immediate and dramatic and
corresporadhgly less acceptable.
Non-technical losses is the polite euphemism for power
that customers use but do not pay for. In many
situations,non-technical 106- are simply direct theft
by customers with illegal system connections.

The European style of distribution system with its

extensive secondary voltage is more prone to illegal
taps than the North American style systems involving a
higher proportion of primary voltage circuits. Tapping
into a primary circuit not only requires a transformer
which would be difficult to acquire but would also be
more hazardous and consequently attempted less often.
Since bare open conductors are often used for these
secondary rather than insulated triplex,or quadluplex,
illegal taps are particularly simple to install.
CaPclusiaoe

The divergence in electric power distritxltion system

design6 and practices in North America and Europe haa
occurred for good reasons related to the environment of
each. Neither approach is intrinsically superior
although each has definite advantages. When considered
for application in lesser developed countries, the
difference in approach take on added dimensions but the
appropriate choice is no more obvious. This indicates
that, in developing international standards, the
differenbeteween the systems should be adequately
recognized as legitimate variations to insure the widest
possible acceptance.

Jan C a r r

Jan Carr holds degrees in Electrical Engineering from

the University of Toronto and the University of
Waterloo. he has been involved with the electric utility
industry for more than 20 years begiruiing his career at
the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. He has served on the
faculty at the University of Waterloo. He has undertaken
work on distribution syste1m3 both in Canada and oversea6
and has completed investigations on a wide range of
topicer including planning, reeearch and design. He is
presently at Acres Internat.iona1 L i m i t e d , consulting
engineers, where he is Manager of the Power Systems
Division and Head of the Electrical Ensheerins
Department.
IlmmzKz LIccall
Received his E3c.E.E. degree from the University of
Manitoba in 1948, and joined Chtario Hydro the same
year. S h c e that time he has worked in a wide variety
of capacities,all related to dietribtion engineering.
He has been involved in design, protection and control,
and distribution automation. In 1986, and 1988 he
provided consulting services,on Ontario Hydro's behalf,
to the Kenya Ministry of Energy. He is a past chainoan
of the PES Switchgear Ccmnittee, and a member of the
IEEE Standards Board.

DISCUSSION

by Rorano Sironi, Toronto Hydro

Toronto, Ontario

My
discussion
is intended to
support
the Aesthetics and Undergrounding section of this paper, and,
more
specifically,
that
the most
effective method of improving distribution
aesthetics
is
to
utilize
underground construction and this is
simpler and less costly at secondary
voltage than at primary voltagenn.
In support of this statement, I
would like to bring forward a testimony of the living experience of the
limitations
of
the North American
system that I am daily facing while
striving to achieve customer satisfaction and installing an underground
distribution system that provides a
safe working environment for utility
employees.
Toronto Hydro embarked in 1990 on
a
25-year
program to convert the
existing 4 kV overhead distribution
system
to
a partially underground
system.
To allay safety concerns and in
keeping with European trends, Toronto
Hydro decided to install a primary
underground
system
that
is fully
operable from above ground.
It is
needless
to
say
that
padmounted
transformer
installations
are
not
feasible in the fully developed and
underground
utility congested urban
environment of the City of Toronto.
Hence the development of structural
design that fits into narrow sidewalks
or boulevards.
It is very difficult to convince
a
reluctant property owner that a
vault planned to be constructed in the
public allowance in front yards or
sidewalks cannot be relocated to a
nearby parkette.

Carrying further on your observations, with same power consumption

and the same percent voltage drop,
European
secondary
distribution
systems can be 3.35 tines longer than
comparable
Worth
American systems.
Under similar conditions voltage drops
are nearly double (5% of 220 v. is 11
V., while 5% of 120 V. is 6 V.) and
comparable
currents
have the same
ratio.
This
simple
fact allows more
flexibility to the European system in
the
selection of transformer vault
locations.
These can be chosen more
easily
to
avoid driveways, trees,
prized lawns and have the least impact
on the streetscape.

The paper does not bring solace

to the distraught customer, but can be
used as scientific evidence that the
ohms law cannot be bent too easily.
Manuscript r e c e i v e d September 16, 1991.

F. D. Gallagher, (Nova Scotia Power, Halifax, Nova Scotia): The

authors have presented an interesting and historical approach in the
determination of the myriad of factors which delineate the so called
North American and European distribution networks.
While concluding that one system is not intrinsically superior, comparisons of component and system reliability are noticeably absent. Including
data in this regard, along with examples of economic evaluation of costs
for both typical networks, would have been most informative.
With this paper the authors have identified a critical factor requiring
support and resolution by all segments of the power utility industry in that
system divergencies may impede the development of acceptable international standards in the emerging global economy.
Including references and a bibliography within the paper would have
been an asset.
Manuscript received October 3, 1991.

Alf Dwyer, (B. C. Hydro, Vancouver, Canada): This is an interesting

paper which highlights significant differences between the two main
streams of distribution design.
In addition to the factors discussed in the paper, I see two additional
factors which affected evolution.
1. Economic Geography
In Europe patterns of community settlement and development were

substantially complete prior to the development of electric systems and

the age of automobile transportation. European roads are often narrow
and crooked and primary distribution lines must travel cross
country, their secondary overhead distribution wires are often confined to a separate set of poles along the settled portion of roads. North
American patterns of settlement and development have proceeded in
parallel with development of electrical distribution systems and automobile transportation. Hence the coincidence of distribution feeder
routes and roadways in North America.
2. Cost of Materials
The cost of tall poles is relatively higher in Europe, providing an
incentive to carry conductors at the highest possible point on a pole.
There is a noticeable difference in pole heights between Europe, where
many of the primary feeder routes do not also carry secondary, and
Canada.
With regard to technical differences between the systems I have the
following comments:
Transformer Protection
An interesting difference between Europe and North America is the
question of small transformer protection. In North America there are more
small transformers and each transformer is fused on the primary side since
there is normally no secondary protection, in Europe fuses or circuit
breakers are usually provided on the secondary side.
The resulting large number of small primary sized primary side fuses in
North America is more prone to trouble calls in areas of lightning
activity. In Europe fewer transformer primary fuses are required and large
size fuses are used. The number of primary fuses can be further reduced
by the use of group fusing where a group of transformers can be
connected to a single primary fuse. Transformer overload protection is
provided by the secondary fuse, short circuit protection is provided by the
primary group fuse. (Ref. 1.)

Technical Losses
I do not agree that it is likely that the European system is necessarily
more prone to losses due to the simplicity of extending it. The European
systems have fewer transformers and can thus be much more economically
monitored for load management purposes. Their secondary systems are
lengthy and voltage regulation complaints provide an indication of loss or
load problems. The smaller North American transformers will tend to be
protected against winter overload and the resulting high losses by virtue of
being connected to a 120 volt secondary system, so that here too, voltage

1609
regulation problems will normally signal any tendency for overload to
occur.
From personal observation it seems likely that the larger number of
small transformers in North America, when comb& with the natural
tendency of designers to play safe, will result in a higher percentage of
unused capacity, thus increasing no-load losses.
ElectromagneticField
By virtue of the more balanced nature of the European system it will
produce lower levels of electromagnetic field than North American
grounded neutral systems. This may prove to be an advantage.
Reference

[l]

Lightning Protection of Distribution Networks 0 Electricity

Council Research, London, 1973.

Manuscript received September 30, 1991.

J. Csrr and L. V. McCall: We appreciate the thoughtful comments that

have been submitted and would like to make a few observations on the
points raised.
Mr. Dwyers comments on the impact of the relative timing between
establishing geographic infrastructure and electrification are interesting.
We agree that this is indeed a significant factor in shaping the approach
taken to distribution system design. Similarly his comments on transformer protection and electromagnetic fields are interesting insights.

The observations on pole heights are less convincing however. If the

approach to system design provides fewer opportunities for primary and
secondary circuits sharing the same pole, the popularity, and hence
availability, of tall poles will be reduced. The shorter average pole height
evident in Europe could therefore be an effect rather than a cause.
With respect to Mr. Dwyers comments on technical losses, we agree
that the European system is not necessarily prone to higher losses through
system extension and also that transformer monitoring is facilitated by
virtue of there being fewer units. However, we are aware of many
European style systems in lesser developed countries where careless
system extension and a complete lack of transformer monitoring have
resulted in a degree of system overloading that would likely be impossible
had the systems followed the North American approach to design.
Mr. Sironis detailed description of actual experience in dealing with a
real world aesthetic problem provides valuable support to our broad
comments based on generalized observations.
Mr. Gallagher quite correctly points out that the paper lacks quantitative
comparisons between the two approaches to distribution system design.
Analysis of supply reliability would indeed be a worthwhile addition as
also indicated by Mr. Dwyers description of transformer fusing practices.
We feel however, that the present general lack of adequate data on
component reliability would limit such a comparison to being a comparative assessment in which little confidence could be placed.

Manuscript received December 26, 1991.