Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999

Coursework Title: PSA ERACS

Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114
Date: 03-Dec-2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This network modelling assignment in ERACS was performed as part of Power Analysis
coursework by the student at University of Southampton1 (fall semester 2013, Master’s degree
in Energy and Sustainability). ERACS is an advance electrical power analysis simulation software
developed by ERA Technology, UK.
The work comprised building up a typical plant power network, which is fed by 11 kV grid and 3.3
kV synchronous generators. Consumption load is made up of group of induction motors at
different voltage levels (3.3 kV and 415 V), which are regulated by a multitude of transformers
separating various busbar sections. All equipment parameters were preset (PSA Library Keys).
In first part of simulation, normal loadflow was assessed for the baseline network. Additional
loads were then added at a pre-determined busbar (Point D) in form of heavy induction motor
and a stationary shunt with similar consumption rating. Comparison loadflows were re-simulated
to compare with baseline configurations. Findings have been tabulated and commented upon to
bring out the various power flow aspects of generation, consumption and losses. In doing so,
focus was kept on real power (P), reactive power (Q), current (I), load angle and power factor.
Relevant observations were also documented for cable loading and voltage drops. Every finding
is backed up by technical reasoning.
In the second part of assignment, fault scenarios were created at a pre-determined busbar (Point
B) for the basic and upgraded networks. Four types of faults were investigated, namely 3-phase,
phase to phase, 2-phase to earth and 1-phase to earth. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations
have been made to compare the different types of faults (for example, in terms of severity and
symmetry), as well as the different network configurations (for example, to see if additional
rotating load produces a difference in fault levels).
The effect on fault current, of changing NGR values was also looked into. Finally, manual
calculations were performed by circuit reduction in a step-by-step manner, for 3-phase fault in
the basic network. The difference in values between manual and ERACS calculation was explained
in detail by examining various assumptions made.
At various sections in the report, economic implications of system upgrade, protection and
efficiency maintenance are discussed additionally for consideration during network design.
Report format excluding executive summary:
Word count [6,389]
No. of tables
Page count
[15]
No. of figures
Line spacing [1.0]
No. of schematics
Font size
[12]
No. of appendices
1

Highfield Campus, UK

[3]
[9]
[16]
[3]

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999
Coursework Title: PSA ERACS

Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114
Date: 03-Dec-2013

Table of Contents
A.

B.

C.

D.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
A.1.

Aims of Coursework ...................................................................................................................... 1

A.2.

Network Element Assumptions .................................................................................................... 1

A.3.

Note to Instructor on Value-Sets .................................................................................................. 1

Part 1: OPERATIONAL LOADFLOW ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 2
B.1.

Basic Network Loadflow................................................................................................................ 3

B.2.

Rotational Load Incremental Loadflow ......................................................................................... 5

B.3.

Non-Rotational Load Incremental Loadflow ................................................................................. 6

B.4.

Economic Aspects of Network Loading......................................................................................... 7

Part 2: FAULT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 8
C.1.

General Observations on all Faults ............................................................................................. 10

C.2.

3 Phase Faults ............................................................................................................................. 11

C.3.

Phase to Phase Faults ................................................................................................................. 11

C.4.

Two Phases to Earth Faults ......................................................................................................... 11

C.5.

Single Phase to Earth Faults ........................................................................................................ 12

C.6.

Manual Fault Calculation ............................................................................................................ 12

C.7.

Comparison of Manual Result with ERACS ................................................................................. 14

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 14

References ..................................................................................................................................................... i
Appendix 1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics ..................................................................................................... ii
Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics ................................................................................................... v
Appendix 3: Manual Fault Calculation ...................................................................................................... xviii

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999
Coursework Title: PSA ERACS

Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114
Date: 03-Dec-2013

A. INTRODUCTION
Electrical network systems are in a process of continual evolution. This is especially true over the
past decade, where the concept of conventional generation and transmission are being challenged
by the concepts of non-dispatchable generation and smart grid distributions. While the first ever
generating stations supplied local specialized loads at DC, electricity system matured quickly into a
decentralized scheme of interconnecting stations known as the Grid in Britain [1]. In recent times,
focus on network losses and greenhouse emissions would continue to push the development of
power generation and transmission systems.
In real-life systems, often generation levels and points are at a considerable distance from the
consumption levels and points, and a number of transmission cables, regulation transformers and
interconnecting busbars are required to complete a feasible power network. In addition to this is the
fact that loads can be reactive (generally rotating) or resistive (such as heating and lighting). The
complexity of interwoven elements therefore means that a careful modelling of operating and
potential fault characteristics is needed before a system can be commissioned.

A.1.

Aims of Coursework

The purpose and goals of this coursework are understood by the student as follows:
 To gain an understanding of normal operational loadflows of a real-life network
 To observe how addition of rotating and non-rotating loads interfere with system
characteristics, and require modifications for protection and continued operation
 To model different types of faults and their effect on a network
 To supplement software modelling by manual fault calculations for comparison

A.2.

Network Element Assumptions

The power network was constructed according to the given schematic. For individual elements, the
specialized library with rating parameters already provided by supervisor was used; any missing
components were imported from ERACS standard reference keys as required. Any other default
values supplied by ERACS were accepted in the basic network configuration.
Neutral-earthing resistor (NGR) values were chosen according to standard industry practice and
schematic inference, as follows:
1. For intake transformer and generators, NGR = 6 Ω [2], with 0 reactance
2. For load-side transformers, NGR = 0 Ω, with 0 reactance
The network base rating was set to 100 MVA at 50 Hz.

A.3.

Note to Instructor on Value-Sets

All observations are derived from the total results data exported from ERACS in Excel CSV format.
Although network diagrams are listed in the appendix, they carry only selected result values.
Therefore if a comment cannot be matched to the appendix diagram due to what appears missing
data, it is simply the case of consulting the more detailed Excel files imported from ERACS after each
study; these are available electronically upon request.

Page | 1

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999
Coursework Title: PSA ERACS

Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114
Date: 03-Dec-2013

B. Part 1: OPERATIONAL LOADFLOW ANALYSIS
Here I shall comment on my observations from running load flow simulations on the normal network,
with basic and loaded configurations. Throughout this section, the reader should refer to 0Appendix
1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics). The basic equations demonstrating relationship between power
flows and busbar voltages are as follows (assuming R is negligible compared to X) [1]: 𝑃𝐺
= 𝑉𝐺

𝑉𝐿 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛿 𝑋

and 𝑄𝐺

= 𝑉𝐺

2 𝑉𝐺 𝑉𝐿
− 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛿 𝑋 𝑋

where
PG
generated real power
QG
generated reactive power
VG
generated voltage
VL
load voltage
X
equivalent reactance between source and sink
δ
load angle
ERACS uses more complex version that accounts for resistive components R; hence X will be replace
by Z, where Z = R + jX. For easy reference during qualitative comments that will now be given on
loadflows run in ERACS, a selected summary of the results from these three loadflow scenarios is
tabulated below.
Network Component
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Generators
Generators
Generators
Generators
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total

Quantity
PG
QG
I
pf
PG
QG
I
pf
PG
QG
PL
QL
PLO
QLO
PLO/PG
QLO/QG

Busbar

Max AV

Cable

Max 1%I

Meaning
Generated real power
Generated reactive power
Current
Power factor
Generated real power
Generated reactive power
Current
Power factor
Generated real power
Generated reactive power
Load real power consumed
Load reactive power consumed
Real power loss
Reactive power loss
Fraction of real power waste
Fraction of reactive power
waste
Busbar with max load voltage
angle
Cable with max current loading

Units
MW
MVAr
kA
MW
MVAr
kA
MW
MVAr
MW
MVAr
MW
MVAr
%
%

LF1: Basic
0.469
0.096
0.025
0.980
2.280
1.680
0.496
0.805
2.749
1.776
2.720
1.729
0.029
0.047
1.1%
2.6%

LF2: Rot. Load
1.293
0.825
0.081
0.843
2.280
1.680
0.503
0.805
3.573
2.505
3.520
2.403
0.053
0.102
1.5%
4.1%

LF3: Stat. Load
1.292
0.825
0.080
0.843
2.280
1.680
0.503
0.805
3.572
2.505
3.519
2.403
0.053
0.102
1.5%
4.1%

-1.80o
415-2
59.2%
L3

-2.66o
415-2
84.8%
L3

-2.66o
415-2
84.8%
L3

deg
ID
%
ID

Table 1 Summary of Loadflow Results

Page | 2

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS B.u. possibly due to voltage tap regulation (see Figure 2).1.72 MW and 1. 6. with maximum current loading at 59% for the one connecting buses 3.28 MW). Cable Loading: The network displays cable stability. where the transformers tend to increase voltage profile to above 1.78 MVAr to the network. on the 3.05 MVAr (2.u. and 0. Reactive Gain: It is seen that cables add small quantity of reactive power to the system 3. of which the vast majority comes from plant generators (2.3-2 and 3. It is therefore to be noted that ERACS prefers transformer output to busbar capacity when performing per-unit calculations. whereas long cable transmission and/or loads tend to decrease it by reduction of real component.0 p. This is also confirmed by the results as we move across the network after loadflow display (see Figure 1). nowhere is overvoltage limit of 10% crossed [3]. A higher current component will then tend to increase the IX swing in the phasor diagram. 2 Values described to 2 d. 1. This is logically explained by the fact that current flows increase at feed-in points of network (where V is higher).999 p. No other cable experiences such high service requirement. this can be explained by the postulation that lower V needs higher I for producing same amount of power.8% of total) reactive power is lost mainly due to transformers. A similar pattern is seen on 415 V busbars. However. the grid and generators now supply 2.749 MW and 1.03 MW (1% of total) real power is lost primarily due to cables and 0. 7. known as Zs or driving-point impedance.u. this is obviously explained by the fact that the latter pulls power for supplying a group of 3 induction motors (total 1. Bus Voltage Angles: The load angles (AV) at the busbars show a pattern in that they are higher for lower voltages (415 V) even when loads (IM or shunt) are comparable in terms of P and Q components.3 MW) through this very cable. 5. Driving-point Impedance: The transfer function driving through-source (current) into network from the across-source. Voltage Drops: The phase voltage (pV) starts at 1 p. on intake busbar (11 kV) but drops slightly to between 0. It was noted that no errors were reported by ERACS at this stage (see Appendix 1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics.73 MVAr2. Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 Basic Network Loadflow A loadflow was conducted on the basic network constructed (without the additional test-point loads or induced fault conditions). here Page | 3 . Fault Levels: The maximum fault levels with full plant connected and operating in basic configuration gives a pattern that corresponds with general understanding that higher bus levels carry higher fault levels [1] as we move from 11 kV to 415 V (see Figure 3).3-3 (L3).3 kV busbars.988 p. as well as the fact that library keys used for these transformers raise secondary side to 433 V (even though the busbars are rated at 415 V). and decrease at consumption points (where V is lower) due to limited load values when compared to whole system. is seen to be low for higher voltage busbars and vice versa. generally it is seen that presence of a nearby transformer raises the value slightly by introduction of reactive component. Some major observations are as follows. Power Losses: In all.u. 2.p. Therefore 0. 4. The system loads absorb in all 2.

Note: Observe the loss in reactive power from primary (1) to secondary (2) of transformer Note: Observe the loss in real power but gain in reactive power from takeoff (1) to destination (2) of cable Figure 1 Basic load flow (upper-left section of network) Busbar Voltage Profile (pu) 1.97 0.04 1.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 8.9 with the exception of IM2 (0. average range of 0.99 0. leading to a greater reactive component during its fully loaded operation.02 1. It is seen from library data that the busbars in ERACS are floating kind.01 1 0. with voltage specified but any losses accounted for purely by power sources (grid and generators).f. this same behaviour is seen in motor IM8. this is because it is the motor with lowest ratio between real power capacity and rated MVA.96 Busbar Fault Profile (MVA) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 2 Voltage profile of selected busbars (pV) Figure 3 Fault profile of selected busbars (MVA) Page | 4 .05 1.98 0.03 1. Power Factor: The induction motors operate in p. To a lower extent.75).

this appears to be significantly lower than other motors. voltages rise slightly further on LV busbars at 415 V (hence addition of MVAr). It was noted that power flow through the respective busbar rose from 0 to 0. 3.89. This is in line with the theory of generators. The real losses can be confirmed by moving across the network cables and reactive losses by moving across transformers. Although no over-current is seen. 1.8 MW and 0. the p. Page | 5 . the grid and generators now supply 3.u. as the current flow in overall system has increased due to addition of IM group. this is because higher flows mean more I2R losses. Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 Rotational Load Incremental Loadflow An additional 0. and this would therefore not be economically considerable for the plant.8 MW induction motor at 3. the voltage drops across cables increase (hence loss of MW). this time however. taking into account a slight raise in losses (0. The length of this cable is only 100 m. Firstly. which is point D of induction motor attachment. Load Angle: The terminal δ (AV) shows an increase from a mean – 0. this is the cable which was earlier commented upon to supply 3 induction motors as well. this network configuration if left unchanged could result in excessive heating of the cable (as carriage capacity decreases with temperature).f. Although the network remains stable leading to the conclusion that the system is big enough to absorb this addition. which operate around 0.505 MVAr to the network.69 MVAr (see Appendix 1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics.75. the component from grid makes a greater percentage of the pie than before.6oat the busbars. 2.573 MW and 2. a few differences from the basic configuration are indeed seen. Power Changes: In all. The added motor draws 191 A at power factor 0. which aligns neatly with the P/Q components introduced by the motor. It may therefore be recommended that a parallel cable of same size be installed to take half the current.403 MVAr. The system loads absorb in all 3.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS B. This is because a larger current would produce a greater capacitive effect.3-4.m. Voltage Drops: Some interesting and contradictory results are seen in this area. As can be seen from the phasor diagram. as the generators are already working at full capacity (0. where addition of great load pulls the terminal voltage further away from generated e.2. This is because current flows in from both sides of the network in an attempt to deliver the requisite power flow. as illustrated below in Figure 4.053 MW PLO being 1. One reason could be the higher power rating causing it to draw larger current and therefore a greater VAr component.3 V (rated 2 MVA) was added at point D. 4.8o to – 1. a greater induction load will lead to greater current and hence higher ∆Vx.76 MW). and loadflow performed again. Cable Loading: The percentage current loading increases significantly bilaterally around the busbar 3.52 MW and 2. Secondly.3-3.3-2 and 3.4% of total). and return loading to around 45%. It may be the case that during summer time. the maximum loading is observed around 84% for cable L3 connecting busbars 3. which would be in the same range as basic configuration.

84.3-4 (point D) was taken as injection source and the busbar to its adjacent left (3. It can be read from these graphs that the stationary shunt provides a greater harmonic impedance at every frequency. This has implications in a real Page | 6 . this leads student to believe that simple loadflow calculation in ERACS is not affected by mechanical performance of load as long as real and reactive components of power remain same. While detailed analysis to this effect is out of scope of current project. this has implications for compensatory equipment which shall be further discussed in economic section. The results are plotted below for comparison (see Error! Reference source not found.7 MVAr. appears to be a software iterative differential. the grid supply experiences a loss of power factor from 0. On the contrary. this corresponds to a very small rise in current. with the real power also comes the reactive component required by the system. however the P. this however. Non-Rotational Load Incremental Loadflow The rotating load at point X was replaced by a non-rotating shunt load (see Appendix 1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics.98 to 0. a very slight power factor gain is seen in nearly all of the induction motors in the overall system. but this does not appear to be the reason in this network. because there is no practical reason why introduction of a large inductive load should encourage greater current flows in other parallel loads.3-3) was taken as transfer source. B. compared to the motor load (by reading the y-axis. Q values were kept same as the previous motor at P = 0.8 MW and Q = 0. and Figure 6 below). The reason for this fall is that now a significant portion of power is being drawn from grid as referred earlier. the impedance values for shunt are higher at corresponding frequencies compared to motor). It could well be that if ground-neutral paths are not correctly set up that current unbalances can swirl in the network.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 δ (load angle) Figure 4 Formation of load angle swing 5. harmonic impedance for two scenarios (rotating and non-rotating loads) was plotted on per-unit basis. due to addition of motor group. which has all its neutral points earthed. Power Factor: While the plant generating units retain their power factors without observable change.3. between rotating and non-rotating load. It may be interesting to analyse the differences in harmonics however. busbar 3. The resulting loadflow simulation gave exactly same results as that of the motor.

that cable L3 carries 84% loading (at 402 A) with addition of load at point D. It is therefore recommended that it be supplemented with one in parallel (240 mm2.u. We have seen from the stability flows above. This will prove to be minimal in terms of cost. 3 core). be not loaded near 100% current value at normal load flow. Reactive Power: Introduction of additional loads draws out VAr’s that pose several problems. requiring installation of cleaning filters. especially if the motors are variable speed drives. As current rises. If the power supply company charges a Page | 7 . at rotating induction load Secondly. Firstly.u. system heating and need for bigger transmission components such as thicker cables. a few considerations arise on economical side of network design and planning. Economic Aspects of Network Loading From above load-flow analysis and load additions. These are as below: 1. so do I2R losses. an increase of reactive component means rise of possible peak kVA in the system without having an effect on real work being done. translating into greater voltage drops. Figure 5 Harmonic Z p. especially cables being the weakest link normally. B.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 system where distortion may become a problem at distributed loads. Current Loading: It is important that system links. and increase in reactive power causes a rise in overall system current as is immediately evident by comparing current flows at grid feeder. at stationary induction load Figure 6 Harmonic Z p. This is because with hotter weather it could well lead to overcurrent. 2.4.

larger kVA rating also means a greater equipment kVA capacity in terms of design. Harmonics: Having variable speed drives and advanced electronic loads on a network can also inject undesirable pollutants (harmonics). sub-transient reactance of generators was used in fault simulations of ERACS as is standard practice. then the plant will face higher consumption charges without any increase in real consumption. This requires installation of corrective capacitors. Thirdly. or whether existing system should be optimized to improve ratio of real to inductive power components. Qualitative observations on these findings will now be made. giving a total of 12 fault scenarios. in addition. A summary of the fault results is tabulated below (see Table 2). 3 4 Motor reactance Non-rotating reactance Page | 8 . C. the positive sequence components (Ip) of each fault scenario are graphically charted for comparison. 3. Fourthly. additional motor (Xm) 3 and additional shunt (Xnr) 4. reactive power can cause a bad power factor on the grid feeder. which need to be cleaned up with expensive RLC filters. due to quick operation (within 2 cycles) of modern circuit breakers [1]. 2 phase to earth (2P-to-E) d. These faults were: a. without achieving real increase in power efficiency. 3 phase (3P) b. incurring capital cost. Phase to phase (P-to-P) c. 4.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 two-part tariff containing a portion proportional to maximum kVA. Single phase to earth (1P-to-E) For all fault types. Generation Capacity: By introducing extra induction loads. This consideration must be kept in mind when introducing such loads to evaluate whether any benefit can be derived from such addition. The fault flow study schematics can be seen in Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics). greater generation capacity is often required to compensate for the greater VAr drawn with respect to real power being added into the system. which in some parts of the world is penalized. Part 2: FAULT ANALYSIS Four fault types were simulated at Point B on each of the 3 networks denoted basic. planning and purchase.

8052 -5.6647 6.4089 0.9642 0.742 15.1027 13.9453 0.8476 0 0 0 11.2073 0.742 15.1739 0 0 0 0 0 11.742 15.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Point B: Bus3.8828 2.0908 3.6874 -78.8275 2.4473 -79.4017 N/A 7.6295 6.9033 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1.7362 0 6.8928 6.205 11.0765 Ip (deg) -79.1045 3.744 7.3891 6.2572 0 0 13.8876 Table 2 Summary of fault values for 12 scenarios Type of Fault Positive Sequence Fault Currents at Point B Legend 1P to E: Single phase to earth 2P to E: Two phase to earth P to P: Phase to phase 3P: Three phase Xm: Additional rotating load Xnr: Additional shunt load 1P to E: Xnr 1P to E: Xm 1P to E: Basic 2P to E: Xnr 2P to E: Xm 2P to E: Basic P to P: Xnr P to P: Xm P to P: Basic 3P: Xnr 3P: Xm 3P: Basic 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 kA (through 3.2426 0 0 0 0 1.4963 0 0.2551 3.7181 7.6103 In (kA) 0 0 3P: Xnr P-to-P: Basic P-to-P: Xm P-to-P: Xnr 2P-to-E: Basic 2P-to-E: Xm 13.7983 11.7983 11.2114 0.946 13.636 12.9453 0.3402 -80.4089 0.5327 -79.3-2 3P: Basic 3P: Xm Ip (kA) 13.8906 1.9474 0 0.9042 6.3673 2P-to-E: Xnr 1P-to-E: Basic 1P-to-E: Xm 1P-to-E: Xnr 6.8034 -79.6414 0.691 0.329 12.4017 -78.0765 IL3 (kA) 13.6952 7.6647 6.3891 6.742 15.2079 1.4017 Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 Iz (kA) 0 IL1 (kA) 13.6295 11.6295 13.5806 -5.4089 0.0765 IL2 (kA) 13.4026 0.9642 0.5436 11.5464 86.2077 0.7181 7.4026 0.6295 0 0 0 0.636 12.3 kV bus) Figure 7 Comparison of various faults Page | 9 .9474 0 0 0 0 77.0107 6.5436 11.4134 -79.2266 1.8322 0 0 0 0 0 3.9285 1.0765 VL1 (kV) 0 0 VL2 (kV) 0 0 VL3 (kV) 0 0 MVA 78.4471 -80.3161 3.8947 2.1256 -5.1448 3.4026 0.

Highest for 3P ii. where rotating and equivalent non-rotating loads did not show cause any differences. 2P-to-E – emergence of small zero-sequence components. this means all fault current is being routed through failing phases. P-to-P – positive and negative-sequence components equal. this is also in part due to power limitations imposed by upstream components5 (such as generators). the busbar voltages drop compared to respective normal loadflow. that make up for difference between positive and slightly smaller negative components iv. this is confirmed by a rise in their power output. the level of asymmetry in the system increases while the severity of fault (current level) decreases. we can see from Table 2 that phase resolution becomes more complex as we proceed in this order: i. Generators and grid obviously act as the sources of fault current due to the sudden drop in voltage at busbars. Again. the total current flowing through all network elements increases drastically compared to normal loadflow.   5 For same type of fault. Lowest for 1P-to-E The above order can be deduced from noting the fact that as more phases of the system are involved in a fault. This could be explained by the fact that rotating equipment is more prone to transients due to core damage or reactive interaction. 1P-to-E – equal positive. The phase lines experiencing the fault show 0 V on busbar if fault flow is toward earth or neutral. negative and zero-sequence components in magnitude The foregoing demonstrates that as we move down this order of faults. but it appears to be the case. It can be seen that in general for the 4 types of faults.e. Conversely to the above. the severity increases as current is produced from increasing potential difference. no zero-sequence components iii. the fault current levels in descending order are: i. network with rotating load experiences highest current components and positive-sequence angle swing compared to basic or non-rotating loads. which equal phase currents ii. the phase(s) not experiencing fault show 0 A current. which are nearly equal to each other iii. and offers less damping of fault current than stationary reactance.1. this is true in all 4 types of faults except P-to-P. This is because voltage levels will go down in short-circuit situation when current inrush increases over shorted terminals (i. by nearly the same order as current rises. More lines/cables of a system also get affected. By method of symmetrical components. I was unable to confirm if the frequency dropped during fault conditions. but different from phase currents due to swing angle.       Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 General Observations on all Faults In all fault situations. This makes a very interesting comparison with normal loadflow. As power is generally product of voltage and current Page | 10 . since that is 0 potential point. the inverse relation between V and I holds as discussed above. In all fault situations. 3P – only positive sequence-components. This leads to a very high cable loading. power conversion from potential to kinetic electricity). Medium for 2P-to-E and P-to-P.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS C.

(while positive components nearly half). momentarily acting as generators at time of fault. This time however. on phases L2 and L3 of busbar. it was seen that fault currents increased. C. This is again because shorted terminals experience a momentary loss of potential accompanied by high currents. This occurs because induction motors store flywheel energy. The level of currents. Also. they do not supply as confirmed by direction on ERACS fault-flow diagrams.3 kV. whether taken per phase total or just the positive sequence component. 3 Phase Faults (Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics to FF1.4). The positive sequence component is equal to individual phase fault level. as expected. C. and it was observed that both phases showed an equal current flow between them. were also the highest in this type of fault compared to all other types. which were equal.8 from 3.3) The P to P simulation in ERACS was achieved on phases L2 and L3 of the busbar. it can again be noted that the one with added rotating load produces highest current components. Non-rotating loads continue to consume power during fault. in that positive and negative-sequence currents are equal (and zero-sequence has 0 value) in magnitude.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS    Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 because fault flows show current surge being supplied by induction motors (outgoing flow). there was a slight inequality in current between the two phases. symmetrical in 3 phases (compare IL1. Also interesting is the observation that the two faulted phases show equality of symmetrical components.4) The 2P to E simulation in ERACS was executed once again as above. This is further discussed below (see Section C. Phase to Phase Faults (Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics to F2. IL3 in Table 2 above) in terms of current level. L1 registered 0 current like before and busbar VL1 was lowered to 2. it may be recommended that fault current limiters be installed in some of the interconnecting busbar cables for system protection.3. the one with added rotating load produces highest current components as explained above.3) The 3-phase fault currents in all 3 network configurations were. which dropped to 0 V during fault. In view of large current faults.2. the 2P-to-E scenario was retested for basic network by setting NGR to 0 instead of 6 Ω. with L3 allowing slightly higher current flow. This keeps the system completely symmetrical without need for further phasor resolution. the voltage level on non-fault phase was higher than the levels on faulted lines. The unbalance comes from introduction of Page | 11 . To test the role of NGR values in fault situation. C. IL2. whereas there was 0 flow on L1. Although the current levels are slightly smaller for lines than 3-phase faults.4. whereas negative and zero-sequence components have 0 value. Between the 3 network scenarios. Two Phases to Earth Faults (Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics to F3.

C. it was seen that fault currents increased by a significant margin (Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics2). but high enough to limit short-circuit currents in fault situations. C. with positive. Component Reactances Power Conversions Network Reduction •Equivalent inductances for each element •p.e. The fault is simulated on L1 of busbar. two phase lines (and not three) are involved in failure. In addition. they are less than 3phase fault however. Also observable is a very low current swing angle compared to other types of faults. For example.5.94 to 14.71 kA. the 2P-to-E scenario was retested for basic network by setting NGR to 0 instead of 6 Ω for all three generators and grid feeder transformer T1. the other two lines of busbar retain a value close to 3. This is because in both these situations (i. A flowchart of stages involved is outlined below. fault calculation was done by manual method for basic network configuration (without additional loads) with 3-phase symmetrical failure at point B (see Appendix 3: Manual Fault Calculation). Manual Fault Calculation For theoretical comparison. this is in line with expectations as a lower current magnitude will cause a lower loading angle in terms of reactive power as well as terminal voltage drop. which arise due to involvement of earth/neutral path impedance (as NGR’s have been used in network). from old to new base rating for each element •Parallel reduction •Series addition •∆-Y conversions Figure 8 Activity flow for manual fault calculation Page | 12 . negative and zero-sequence vectors being nearly equal in magnitude. Therefore. the role that NGR values can play in short-circuit situations. It also seen that zero components cause unbalance between positive and negative components. so that it is small enough to allow lowimpedance return path during normal operations.6.3) As only a single phase is involved. the 2P-to-E fault scenario for basic network configuration was selected as a test candidate to explore in general.3 kV. whose potential drops to 0. which is about 23%. the current in L2 rose from 11.u. Single Phase to Earth Faults (Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics to FF4. The current levels are quite comparable to the P-to-P fault analysed earlier.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 zero-sequence components. this situation as expected. Its level of asymmetry is highest however. causes the least stress to the network in terms of current rise and voltage drops. P-to-P and 2P-to-E). It is therefore vital to understand that a compromise value of NGR should be chosen in networks.

8. value by comparing 𝑆 its individual power rating SR with that of network as 𝑋𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑝. Each element’s equivalent resistance was converted to adjusted p.1354 p.u. shunt loads were not included as their presence is assumed to be similar to an open circuit.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 The reader is advised to refer to Appendix 3: Manual Fault Calculation for circuit reduction. motors) and transmission equipment (grid. (𝑆𝑏 ) 𝑅 7. as Vp. 𝑢.u.8807 𝑝. and Vb was taken as rated voltage of each busbar in question. This may lead to over-simplification of element models.) Xttd X Xs + Xrr X0 Grid Explanation sub-transient reactance zero-sequence reactance stator reactance + running rotor reactance zero-sequence reactance per km so Xeq = X0 * l / Zb where l is length (km) and is Zb = Vb2 / Sb Sb / SR where SR is rated power of grid Xeq Table 3 Equivalent inductance parameters from library keys 5. Finally. Circuit reductions were successively performed to obtain one Zeq (see Appendix 3A): 1 1 1 a. this is not actually the case in software network. Series inductors 𝑋𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑋1 + 𝑋2 … c. 𝑉 This means 𝐼𝑆𝐶 = 𝑝. as Vb at point B is 3.u. = 𝑋𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑝. transformers.3 × 103 = 15. Neutral points of all rotating machinery (motors. 3. 2. As base current 𝐼𝑏 = 𝑆𝑏 √3 × 𝑉𝑏 = 100 × 106 √3 × 3. Parameters for modelling equivalent (p. All circuit components were considered as inductive reactances.1354 = 0. any resistance or capacitive effects including NGR’s were ignored.) inductance of each component were taken from ERACS library keys as follows: Component Generator Transformer Induction Motor Cable Key Parameter (p.⁄𝑍 = 1⁄𝑍 = 1⁄1.𝑢. as seen between common neutral and point B resulted to 1. with equivalent impedance Zeq known.u. 4.3 kV Page | 13 . The steps and underlying assumptions are detailed hereunder. Network base power Sb was set at 100 MVA.u. is assumed 1 𝑒𝑞 𝑒𝑞 10. Parallel inductors = 𝑋 + 𝑋 … 𝑋 1 𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 b.𝑢. All calculations were performed and tabulated using Excel (see Appendix 3B). cables) were modelled. and Appendix 3: Manual Fault CalculationB for calculated values table. Only rotating machinery (generators. 6. 1. ∆ to Y conversion 𝑋𝐴 = 𝑋1 𝑋3 𝑋1 +𝑋2 + 𝑋3 etc.𝑢. .41 𝑘𝐴. 9. generators) and grid source were assumed to be common.

Busbar pre-fault base voltage is taken as 1 p.7. therefore resistive. the following most significant findings are presented as a concluding list of remarks. Equivalent network diagram was obtained by causing a common neutral connection of all source and load equipment.41 kA. but added (albeit slightly) due to capacitive effect of cables. Such oversimplification in manual calculation leads to a difference.226 kA ∠ -0. Operational Loadflow  During normal loadflow. which is why it is lower. in final calculation.74 kA. whereas in reality it is slightly lower at 0. For example. This will again cause a slight lowering of fault current. This reasonably comparable within limits.99. Similar argument holds for all other components. this in reality is not true. D. Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 Comparison of Manual Result with ERACS The phase fault current in ERACS for the basic network 3-phase fault at Point B is 13.u.51o). as the zero points are not commonly linked. capacitive and even additional sub-inductive items are ignored. reactive power is mainly wasted by transformer core magnetization and hysteresis. CONCLUSION From the foregoing electrical network simulation analysis. 4. Not only do they have intervening cables between them. whereas in reality it exists by normal loadflow (1. Again this will lead to a lower Isc. 3. Page | 14 .e. because ERACS considers each component’s detailed circuit model (i. as discussed here: 1. ERACS considers it and so it does not contribute to the fault current value. No pre-fault current is considered in manual calculation. Detailed equivalent circuits of network elements are not taken. but also NGR’s are present at neutral points of generators and transformers. a cable is assumed to be simply an inductor whereas in reality it possesses a resistance in series to inductance and a capacitive shunt in parallel.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS C. several reasons emerge as possible candidates for causing this decrease of actual fault current when compared with manual calculation. which is what we see with ERACS result. Upon review. decreasing actual current flow due to introduction of further impedance).  Major real power losses occur due to resistive component of cables in form of I2R. to manual result of 15. Figure 9 Detailed equivalent model of cable 2.

A large current component naturally causes a greater phasor swing due to IX. by nearly the same order as current rises (i. the stationary load seems to limit current better than rotating one.  During fault situation. this is because the load components exist at such points. Load angles are greater at low voltage busbars. Fault Analysis  Under fault. Additionally. as this poses several problems e. during fault scenarios. is inversely proportional to busbar’s voltage rating. busbar voltages drop compared to respective normal loadflow. This is seen by current flowing out of motors. but it serves to limit fault currents. potential drop is converted into kinetic energy). For addition into a system. This is because current flows increase at feed-in points of network (where V is higher).e. and decrease at consumption points (where V is lower).Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS     Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 Addition of rotating loads can cause deterioration of power factor.  Rise in peak kVA can lead to a higher fixed annual bill or penalty. care must be taken to check how the incremental reactive component distorts power factor.g.  Fault current levels in descending order are 3P > 2P (interphase or E) > 1P (to E)  Fault symmetry level in descending order are 3P > P-to-P > 2P-to-E > 1P-to-E  Increasing equipment NGR values is not beneficial for normal operations. Driving-point impedance of connected network as seen by a busbar. the flywheel energy of an induction motor can temporarily cause it also to act as supplier of power. as is seen for lower pf at busbars with more induction motors attached. any phase not experiencing fault shows 0 A current as all fault current is being routed through failing phases. Upgrade Economics  When adding loads into a network. whereas impedance follows a converse relation to current. Q rating as a rotating load. where greater current flows (whereas higher busbars are involved in transmission at lower currents). a stationary load having same P. Page | 15 . without an increase of real work done. isolated neutral points and pre-fault currents are ignored. Conversely. although main power deficit is made up by generating sources. rise in current causing I2R losses.  Simplified fault calculation by manual method delivers a greater current value than actual because detailed impedance. will not cause any reasonable loadflow differences but offers superior harmonic impedance.  The phase lines experiencing the fault show 0 V on busbar if fault flow is toward earth or neutral. greater voltage drops and cable overloading by heating.

Saini. J. Strbac. Mustafa and M. R. Sultan. Ekanayake and G. Weedy. J. pp. N.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA ERACS Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Date: 03-Dec-2013 References [1] B. “Directive 2006/95/EC on Electrical Harmonisation. 2012. Strasbourg. B. [2] A.” Council of Dec-2006. 136-140. M. Electric Power Systems. [3] European Parliament. Cory. i .” IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ISIEA). 2012. “Ground fault currents in unit generator-transformer at various NGR configurations. Jenkins. W. 2006. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. B. M.

Appendix 1: ERACS Loadflow Schematics ERACS Schematics from Loadflow Studies (x3) Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram LF1 Loadflow at Basic Configuration ii .

3-4) iii .Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram LF2 Loadflow with Rotating Load (induction motor group) at Point D (bus 3.

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram LF3 Loadflow with Non-rotating Load (PQ shunt) at Point D (bus 3.3-4) iv .

1 3-Phase Fault in Basic Network at Point B (bus 3.Appendix 2: ERACS Fault-flow Schematics ERACS Schematics from Fault-flow Studies (x12) Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF1.32) v .

3-4) vi . with additional Rotating Load at Point D (bus 3.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF1.3-2).2 3-Phase Fault at Point B (bus 3.

with additional Non-rotating Load at Point D (bus 3.3-2).Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF1.3 3-Phase Fault at Point B (bus 3.3-4) vii .

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF2.3-2) viii .1 Phase-to-Phase Fault in Basic Network at Point B (bus 3.

2 Phase-to-Phase Fault at Point B with Rotating Load at Point D ix .Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF2.

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF2.3 Phase-to-Phase Fault at Point B with Non-rotating Load at Point D x .

1 2 Phase-to-Earth Fault in Basic Network at Point B xi .Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF3.

2 2 Phase-to-Earth Fault in Basic Network at Point B.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF3. with NGR values set to 0 instead of 6 Ω xii .

3 2 Phase-to-Earth Fault at Point B. with additional Rotating Load at Point D xiii .Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF3.

with additional Non-rotating Load at Point D xiv .Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF3.4 2 Phase-to-Earth Fault at Point B.

Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF4.1 1 Phase-to-Earth Fault in Basic Network at Point B xv .

with additional Rotating Load at Point D xvi .2 1 Phase-to-Earth Fault at Point B.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF4.

with additional Non-rotating Load at Point D xvii .3 1 Phase-to-Earth Fault at Point B.Student Name/ID: Muhammad Ali Qaiser/26561999 Coursework Title: PSA Coursework ERACS (Dec-2013) Module: Power Systems Analysis ELEC6114 Diagram FF4.

Appendix 3: Manual Fault Calculation Appendix 3A: Handwritten circuit diagram reductions and calculations Appendix 3B: Calculations tabulation for confirmation and reference using MS Excel xviii .

.

.

.

.

142 199.15493 0.50689 l is 0.0207 0.01035 0.76 32.92400 0.11111 (X per km) * l / Zb 0.161 1.2263 0.0069 0.119 237.1089 L3 0.25 1.21 L1 0.07692 .28571 0.1 0.092 0.161 1.344444 0.191 0.92400 0.2828 0.64198 Xeq / Zb 1.10927 0.069 0.66667 0.15 0.92400 0.25 1.75 3.5 16.2 but 2 in // so eff 0.8 0.15 0.092 0.02363 0.0069 0. 0.161 Xttd 1.02405 1.76 32.1 0.02405 1. Comments Rated MVA New X p.64706 0.1 0.89474 0.0552 0.1089 L2 0.15493 0.03234 X 3.196 144.1 0.0119 0.142 199.Appendix 3B: Sbase (MVA) = Zb Device G1 G2 G3 Grid 1.25 1.06336 0.175 0.2828 0.863 8.64198 0.5 0.15 0.068 l (km) 0.6 but 2 in // so eff 0.10927 0.092 0.2828 0.2828 0.191 0.191 0.1089 T1 T2 T4 T6 IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4 IM5 IM6 IM7 IM8 100 X/km 0.19008 0.1 0.191 0.25 Xs + Xrr 0.115 0.1089 L4 0.111 Old X p.069 0.u.0119 0.3 0.15 0.068 0.25 0.1 0.06336 0.069 0.u.863 8.1089 L6 0.1089 L5 0.069 0.3 0.175 Xeq Manual Fault Calculation Parameters Xs Xrr 1.13 174.092 0.89474 0.1089 L7 0.069 0.15067 0.863 8.64198 0.09504 l is 0.

1810812 ∆ Branch 2 T6 + IM8 176.1810812 Branch A' 0.192485 Step 3: ∆ to Y conversion of top-left triangle of reduced circuit Branch 1 X1 1.u.09770 7. 4 Effective inductance in series is Xeff = X1 + X2… 5 ∆ to Y conversion is done as XA = X1X3 / (X1 + X2 + X3) etc.66044 Step 5: ∆ to Y conversion of top triangle of further reduced circuit Branch 1 A 1.2781 70. resistive effects are ignored 2 Shunt loads are ignored as open circuits 3 Effective inductance in parallel is 1/Xeff = 1/X1 + 1/X2.1737 72.9463807 ∆ Branch 2 X2 7.00092 Y Branch B 0.880711 Since Ib (kA) = 17.8807 Xb = IM4 + T2 = 147.8801 Xf = Grid + T1 = 2. Step 1: Reduction of left half of circuit Step 2: Reduction of bottom right half of circuit Xa = G1 // G2 // G3 = Xg = IM1 // IM2 // IM3 = 2.19348 B + L4 + L5 0.Circuit reduction is done as follows: 1 Only inductive reactances are considered (XL).40844 8.425555 .0034015 Step 4: Addition of Y components in series of existing circuit Giving A 1.825454 Xi = T4 + Xh X2 = Xd = Xg // Xi = L6 // L7 = 0.1924851 Branch A 1.5020396 Branch 3 L1 0.66044 Branch C' 0.59256 = Xk Step 7: Final equivalent resistance (p.181081 C + L2 0.50689 Branch C 0..49546 Isc (kA) = 15.0841727 Step 6: Addition of new Y components in series of existing circuit Giving C' + C + L2 0..135447 And Isc (p.) = 1/Xeq = 0.u.529201 Branch 3 B + L4 + L5 0.) as seen from point of fault Xeq = (Xj // Xk) + XA'= 1.03511 X1 = Xe // Xf = 1.42555 Y Branch B' 0.27766 = Xj B' + L3 0.43638 Xh = IM5 // IM6 // IM7 = Xc = Xa // Xb = 2.0546 Xe = Xc + Xd = 2.