Scribd
Upload
8 views

Advanced Controlling of Transformer Paralleling

s

Uploaded by

enzosolar95
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

Advanced Controlling of Transformer Paralleling

s

Uploaded by

enzosolar95
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Advanced Controlling of Transformer Paralleling

With Different Voltage Ratio


Method: MCC (Minimum Circuiting Current)- IEC 61850
Model Validations-Simulink /ETAP

Author: Saman Abbasian


Introduction
When two or more transformers are connected in parallel, any difference in the voltage produced by
the transformers generates a circulating current and the current is proportional to the voltage
difference between the transformers divided by the sum of the impedances around the circulating path
and the circulating currents in each transformer are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Also, they are independent of the load current because, the impedance of a transformer is largely
inductive reactance, the circulating current lags the voltage of the transformer with the highest open
circuit voltage by ~90 degrees.
Ideally the net circulating current flowing through of two parallel transformers should be equal to zero
when parameters are not identical but, in practice always some circulating current exists and for this
reason, a safe paralleling controlling method required to keep as minimum this circulating current as
possible.

Measuring Circulating Current with Different Voltage Ratio


The circulating current is proportional to the open circuit voltage difference between the transformers
divided by the sum of the series impedances and mathematically introduced by formula below:

But, because of different voltage ratios of two transformers, a potential difference will appear between
the secondary windings which creates an equalizing current that follows between the secondary
windings of both transformers, and it requires a ratio compensation due to the potential difference
which is not zero and it can show if paralleling is feasible with considering the tap positions of each
transformer.

Equation1:

Where 𝐾 and 𝐾 are voltage ratios of each transformer and the equalizing current will be:

Equation 2: 𝐼 =

Network Parameters
Table1 shows the network parameters including both transformers which have a non-identical voltage
ratios and feeders, loads, incomers cable lengths and source impedance.
Rating (MVA) T1 T2 Grid (kV) 150
MVA 187.5 187.5 Incomer Lines(km) 2.5
LV (kV Secondary) 36 39 Feeder Lines(km) 1
Impedance (% of rating) 25% 25% Load Lines(km) 8
Number of taps 24 24 Capacitor Line (km) 8
Tap step (%) 1.5 1.5 Source Impedance 0.25(Ω)
Table 1: Network Parameters
Logic Control for Circulating Currents Bias
Most numerical have extensive logic programming capabilities including timers, Boolean and math
variables, latches, and counters. Using a voltage measurement to decide whether to raise or lower the
voltage is a reasonably simple programming exercise.
But the question here arises when T1 and T2 are in parallel, how would the AVR controllers using a
voltage-only algorithm to behave? In this example, T1 is a 36kV and T2 is a 39kV and the bandwidth
of T1 is lower than T2 and it may result in failure of tap operation of T2 and only T1 takes the voltage
regulation.
For this reason, a circulating current controlling algorithm can be placed into service with the voltage
regulating algorithm to bias transformers to change taps effectively.
Therefore, for a two-transformer substation, the circulating currents are equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction as described in introduction section and the voltage deviation will be the same;
by doing so, the current deviations will add to one and subtract from the other.
To add the circulating current bias to the voltage control algorithm, simply include the total deviation,
as follows:
Raisetap = presentcountervalue > timetotap AND voltagedeviation <= –1 AND totaldeviation² >= 1
Lowertap = presentcountervalue > timetotap AND voltagedeviation >= 1 AND totaldeviation² >= 1

The additional variables required to supplement the voltage algorithm with a circulating current bias
are shown in Table 2.

Variable Type T1 T2
Circulating 𝑉 𝑉
Current Math 𝐼 = 𝐼 =
Setpoint √3𝑍 +𝑍 √3𝑍 +𝑍
MVA Math 187.5 187.5
𝑄 𝑄
𝐼 (A) Math 𝐼 = 𝐼 =
√3𝑉 √3𝑉
Current 𝐼 𝐼
Math 𝐼 = 𝐼 =
Deviation 𝐶𝐼𝑅𝐶 𝐶𝐼𝑅𝐶
TOTDeviation= TOTDeviation=
Total deviation Math
voltagedeviation+currentdeviation voltagedeviation+currentdeviation
Table 2: Circulating Current Variables

According to the variables introduced in table 2, logic has been devised to control the tap changing
operation by communicating between two parallel transformers and a transmitting step is required to
using IEC 61850 between AVRs of two transformers to configure an interoperable according to the
local signals and GOOSE message assignments.
Table 3 and Fig 1 shows local signals and configuration arrangements of communication between two
AVRs.
Local Signal
Status of Incomer CBs
Bus Coupler Status
Tap Changer Positions
𝑄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆
Incomer Voltages
Network MVA(SC)

Table 3: Local Signals Fig 1: GOOSE based Messaging

Simulink and ETAP Simulation Results


Model developments in which circulating reactive currents measurements have been implemented in
ETAP (Transient Stability) module and Simulink including logic controlling design to validate MCC
(Minimum Circulating Current Method) to achieve a P.F power factor close as much unity as possible
where transformers have different voltage ratios.
Even though ETAP transient stability is an effective module however, voltage controlling and tap step
variations are very challenging where the circulating reactive current must be determined by
measuring the currents at the infeed of the transformers and shall be minimized by targeted tapping of
the transformers.
Simulink auto logic design monitors difference MVAR between two transformers and communicating
between two AVRs and calculates the equalizing currents using equation2 by interpolating the proper
gains and optimise tap positions automatically following voltage bandwidth to improve power factors
when T1 and T2 are paralleling.
Results are presented following figures where reactive power, three phase currents and power factor
plots validate a reasonable estimation between two methods, however reactive losses are a bit
different due to the RMS calculation method in Simulink compared with ETAP.
Fig 7 shows that P.F (1) has been achieved effectively and plotted in Simulink and presented in ETAP
& Simulink one line diagrams.

Q(MVAR)_TR1_TR2_Infeed
40
20 -0.19324
0
-20
-40
-60

TR-1 - Mvar TR-2 - Mvar

Fig 2: Q(MVAR) T1&T2 ETAP Model Fig 3: Q(MVAR) T1&T2 Simulink Model
I3ph(A)_TR1_TR2
2000

1000 666.914

618.863
0

TR-1 - Amps TR-2 - Amps

Fig 4: I3ph TR1 &TR2 ETAP Model Fig 5: I3ph TR1 & TR2 Simulink Model

Fig 6: Unity P.F(Power Factor) ETAP Model Fig 7: Unity P.F(1) Plot Simulink Model

Fig 8: Unity P.F(Power Factor) Simulink Model


Conclusion
These advanced controlling methods MCC by implementation of simulation models could describe
the operational conditions of two parallel transforms when their parameters are not identical such as
voltage ratios and it fairly demonstrated their parallel operation without affecting their integrity due to
circulation in the secondary of a high value equalization current.
To distinguish the difference between VAR and MW flows in a parallel operation, the MCC method is
capable to bias the operation of the tap changers to offset the flow. This would result in proper
operation at different tap positions for the two transformers and proper sharing of the VAr load from
the source by equalization of voltage difference and minimize circulating whereas the KW flow
cannot be corrected with tap changer operations due to mismatch flow directions between VARs and
KW of two transformers and this condition results in “hunting” between tap changers.

You might also like