1

Power Quality Practical Training: Long-duration

voltage variations
Capilla, Carlos.
carlos.1_5@hotmail.com
Escuela Politcnica Nacional

Abstract This report studies for different conditions the
long-duration voltage variations in specific points within a
distribution feeder so that different voltage profiles can be
analyzed and commented.
Index Terms Long-duration voltage variation,
power quality, profile curve.
I. INTRODUCTION
Long-duration variations encompass root-mean-
square (rms) deviations at power frequencies for
longer than 1 min. ANSI C84.1 specifies the steady-
state voltage tolerances expected on a power system.
A volt age variation is considered to be long duration
when the ANSI limits are exceeded for greater than
1 min.
II. CASE 1
A distribution feeder is going to be designed in
order to supply 2 small cities and a medium-sized
factory through an overhead line of 22.8kV - 60Hz.
The following map shows the location of said usage
points, including the expected full power demand
and the location of the substation from which the
feeder starts. The substation is connected to a 138kV-
60Hz electric transmission system (Scc=lGVA,
X/R=5) through a transformer. Table 1 shows the
parameters of this transformer.

Long-duration variations can be either

overvoltages or undervoltages. Overvoltages and
undervoltages generally are not the result of system
faults, but are caused by load variations on the
system and system switching operations. Such
variations are typically displayed as plots of rms Fig. 1. Practical training scenario
voltage versus time.
TABLE I
TRANSFORMER PARAMETERS
An overvoltage is an increase in the rms ac voltage
greater than 110 percent at the power frequency for a Sn (MVA) 20
duration longer than 1 min. Overvoltages are usually Connection YgD1
the result of load switching (e.g., switching off a Winding 1 resistance (pu) 0.003
large load or energizing a capacitor bank). The Winding 1 leakage reactance (pu) 0.06
overvoltages result because either the system is too Winding 2 resistance (pu) 0.003
weak for the desired voltage regulation or voltage Winding 2 leakage reactance (pu) 0.06
controls are inadequate. Incorrect tap settings on Iron losses resistance equivalent (pu) 500
transformers can also result in system overvoltages. Magnetizing reactance (pu) 300

The overhead line will be modeled using section

lines. Table 2 shows the characteristic parameters.
 2

TABLE II TABLE III

OVERHEAD LINE PARAMETERS VOLTAGES AT THE DIFFERENT NODES FOR CASE I

Positive sequence resistance (m/km) 50 Nodes Distance from Voltages

Zero sequence resistance (m/km) 100 Transformer [km] [p.u.]
Positive sequence inductance (mH/km) 0.003 Transformer 0 0.9450
Zero sequence inductance (mH/km) 0.06 City A 5 0.9176
Positive sequence capacitance (pF/km) 0.003 Factory 11 0.8904
Zero sequence inductance (pF/km) 0.06 City B 23 0.8717

Calculate the voltage profile at the different nodes

of the feeder (including voltage at the primary side
of the transformer referred to the secondary side)
and determine if it is compliant with regulations.
Show this voltage profile in a graph (distance vs. rms
voltage). Model the electric system by means of
three-phase elements using Simulink from Matlab.
Use a discrete solver and a time step of 5s.

The studied electrical system from Figure 1 was

simulated in Simulink from Matlab as Figure 2 states
for analyze. There it can be seen the system's
topology including generator, transformer, pi
transmission lines and loads

Fig. 3: Voltage profile for Case 1 scenario.

The voltage at the last node of the system at City B

(0.8717 p.u.) is below the accepted value that the EN
50160 standard states during normal operation, this
is why a solution must be considered to overcome
this power quality issue.

Fig. 2: Studied electrical systems topology
With the previous model, the voltages in per unit
obtained at the different nodes are detailed below.
III. CASE II
Taken into account the recults of CASE 1, a LTC
transformer (-14% with 17 positions) with the same
parameters showed in table 1. will be used in the
substation. The tapped regulating winding has the
same pu impedance values than the other windings
of the machine.
There has been no time to implement a voltage drop
strategy' into the LTC so it has been configured to
maintain the output voltage at the maximum
accepted (+5%). Calculate the voltage profile along
the feeder both at full load and at 20% (considering
that all of them behave in the same manner). Show
both profiles in the same figure. Take note of the final
tap position of the LTC in each case.
 3

In order to overcome the under voltage at City B
node, this time instead of using a conventional
transformer, an on-load tap-changers transformer
(LTCs) will be considered (See Figure 4). As it is
requested, the LTC will be setup to maintain the
voltage output at 105%. Table IV shows the voltages
at the different nodes for 100% and 20% of the total
load obtained by simulation.
As we can check in Table IV, when using the LTC
with the load at its 100%, the voltages at the output
of the transformer and at City B are 1.0477 and
0.9669 p.u. respectively. This implies that the total
system is now complying with the EN 50160
regulations. However, a disadvantage occurs with
this method when the load is considerably below its
nominal value as in 20% for example. This drawback
is clearly visible in Figure 5 where with 20% load
condition all the voltages are considerably above 1
p.u. meaning an increased power demand and thus
reduced energy efficiency.

IV. CASE III

Consider that a voltage sensor is located at the
Factory with a direct telecommunication with the
LTC at the substation. Configure the LTC to
maintain a constant voltage of 1 pu at this location.
Show a figure with the voltage profile along the
feeder both at 20% load and at full load. Take note
Fig. 4: Electrical systems topology with an LTC. of the final tap position of the LTC in each case.
TABLE IV
VOLTAGES AT THE DIFFERENT NODES FOR CASE II Now the reference voltage to be fixed at 1 p.u. will
be tracked at the Factory's PCC as Figure 5 implies.
Voltages [p.u.]
Nodes Distance from 100% 20%
Transformer Load Load
[km]
Transformer 0 1.0477 1.0435
City A 5 1.0173 1.0376
Factory 11 0.9873 1.0316
City B 23 0.9669 1.0274
Final Tap charger position -6 -3

Fig. 6: Electrical systems topology with an LTC regulating the

voltage at the Factory.

For this condition, the voltages a: the nodes of the

system are detailed in the following Table. There it
can be checked that the objective of having the
voltage at the Factory at 1 p.u. was fulfilled in
practical terms, being equal to 0.9873 and 1.0316
p.u. for 100% and 20% load respectively.

Fig. 5:Voltage profiles for Case 2 scenario

 4

TABLE V V. CASE IV
VOLTAGES AT THE DIFFERENT NODES FOR CASE III

Voltages [p.u.] Implement the load-center method in the controller

Nodes Distance from 100% 20% of the LTC. Show a figure with the voltage profile
Transformer Load Load along the feeder both at 20% load and at full load.
[km] Take note of the final tap position of the LTC in each
Transformer 0 1.0865 1.0628 case.
City A 5 1.0550 1.0568
Factory 11 1.0239 1.0507 The load-center method (See Figure 8) consists on
City B 23 1.0027 1.0464 assuming that the totality of the system's load is
Final Tap charger position -8 -4 placed at the mid-point of the whole feeder longitude
so that the voltage at the regulation point can be
Thus, the voltage profiles would be: assumed with equation (1) and then this value is used
as a feedback reference to the LTC.

= ( + ) (1)

Ill the previous equation R and X represent the

resistance and reactance of the distribution line until
it's mid-point. This is why for the LTC controller
implemented in Simulink, these resistance and
reactance to find the voltage at the regulation point
were obtained by multiplying the per kilometer
resistance of the transmission line times its middle
distance (11.5 km).

Fig. 7: Voltage profiles for Case 3 scenario.

Fig. 8: Load center method topology [1]

In the Figure 7, we can observe that with 20% load
the curve profile for this case behaves much better In Simulink. the LTC controller has been
than with full load condition where in order to implemented as Figure 9 specifies.
comply the requirement, the output voltage of the
transformer is put to 1.0865; implying a substantial
power excess in City A. This is why this solution
needs to be deeply studied to conclude if it is
appropriate or not as it has different implications in
different scenarios. However, it must be also
mentioned that the use of voltage sensors with all the
related telecommunication system is an expensive
solution that utilities usually don't implement.
 5

Fig. 9: Load center method implemented in Simulink.

The voltage; throughout the system and the

corresponding voltage profiles are shown in Table VI
and Figure 9 respectively. There it can be checked as
Fig. 10: Voltage profiles for Case 4 scenario
it was intended. that very close to the mid-point of
the system at 19 km from the transformer: this is at
the Factory's PCC, the voltage is again fixed m VI. CASE IV
practical terms to the demanded 1 p.u.
The LTC is now supplying the feeder at full load by
TABLE VI using the load-center method. An unexpected electric
VOLTAGES AT THE DIFFERENT NODES FOR CASE IV failure causes the trip of the protections at the
factory, removing this entire load from the system.
Voltages [p.u.] Show a figure with the voltage profile along the
Nodes Distance from 100% 20% feeder just before and after the event.
Transformer Load Load
[km] As a consequence of the factory being removed from
Transformer 0 1.0865 1.1479 the system, all the voltages at the different nodes
City A 5 1.0550 1.1414 rapidly increase in a few milliseconds as Figure 10
Factory 11 1.0239 1.1348 details. There, the factory- is removed at 5 seconds
City B 23 1.0027 1.1301 on simulation. Table VII details the voltages just
Final Tap charger position -8 -8 before and after this removal.

Fig. 11: Voltage profiles transition when removing the Factory.

 6

TABLE VII
VOLTAGES AT THE DIFFERENT NODES FOR CASE IV

Voltages [p.u.]
Nodes Distance from 100% 20%
Transformer Load Load
[km]
Transformer 0 1.0855 1.0505
City A 5 1.0744 1.0488
Factory 11 1.0645 1.0471
City B 23 1.0378 1.0417

Fig. 12: Voltage profile change when removing Factory.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] Dominguez X, Power Quality Long-duration voltage
variation.