0 views

Uploaded by Daniel Sanchez

IEEE400-2

IEEE400-2

© All Rights Reserved

- INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM
- Transmission Line Calculations
- Coroskop Planning Guide
- Investigation of Subsea Power Transmission Cable Technology Rev D
- SCE - TOU-8-S - 2014
- Fea Report
- Feasibility Report Tamakoshi V
- PFC
- Useful Formulas for PS Analysis & PF Calculation
- 1435970
- 3Ch1
- C8-V1-1-ING
- IJAPE071.pdf
- Curriculum Vitae
- Ultimo 18 supch11.pdf
- d 0329091412
- Development_of_Power_Factor_Controller_u.pdf
- k 04931011113
- Advance Energy Meter Power Factor Correction System
- TEP-r3

You are on page 1of 6

rating regime

Leanne Dawson, Andrew M. Knight

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Calgary

Calgary, Canada

generation, dynamic line rating is being investigated as a way to II. BACKGROUND

connect the new intermittent generation to the grid without Presently, the current rating of a transmission line is static and

needing to build additional infrastructure. The number of

is calculated using worst case environmental conditions: high

transmission lines available for dynamic line rating depends on

the length of each transmission line. The St. Clair curve is ambient temperature, high solar radiation and low wind

typically used by industry to determine the length of transmission speed[2]. The typical worst-case values are 30-40°C for

lines that are thermally rated. This paper will extend this curve ambient temperature, 890-1100 W/m2 solar radiation and

by including reactive power in the calculations. This paper will 0.61-1.53 m/s crosswind[3]. Dynamic line rating is the real-

also demonstrate the effect that changing the capacity of the line time carrying capacity of a transmission line based on weather

due to dynamic line rating has on the length of transmission line conditions. The most important factors that influence DTLR

that is thermally rated. are the wind speed and wind direction in the region of the

transmission line. Use of dynamic line rating can potentially

Keywords—dynamic line rating, St. Clair curve, transmission

increase the current rating during favorable weather

line loadability

conditions, and can help prevent conductor aging when the

I. INTRODUCTION weather conditions exceed the predicted worst case scenario.

There has been a lot of research done into investigating the

According to the transmission line loadability curve, otherwise

resulting capacity increase using dynamic line rating. Not

known as the St. Clair curve[1], the maximum length of a

much has been done yet to investigate the practical

transmission line that is thermally limited is 80 km. Medium

implementation of dynamic line rating in a utility

to long lines are limited by the voltage quality limit (voltage

environment. Research has demonstrated that DTLR has the

drop constraint), which will be discussed later in this paper.

potential to increase the capacity of a transmission line under

This curve was developed assuming a lossless line, a power

favorable conditions by almost 200% in the winter and 100%

factor of unity and a constant thermal limit for any voltage

in the summer, with the majority of the time providing an

level. The St. Clair curve is widely accepted by industry as a

increase of 10-40%[4]. What the research did not consider was

guideline for estimating the maximum loading of a

how the increased capacity would impact the transmission line

transmission line. This is important because dynamic thermal

loadability. Traditionally, the St. Clair curve has been used to

line rating (DTLR) can only be used for lines that are

determine the practical line loadability. The St. Clair curve

thermally limited. This paper focuses mainly on short to

was originally derived from empirical data and practical

medium transmission lines with a voltage level of 69 kV or

knowledge[1]. Figure 1 was created using data from [1] to plot

138 kV. Higher voltage levels are not considered because, for

the St. Clair curve.

higher voltage levels, the thermal limit of the line itself is

generally much higher than the thermal limit imposed by the

Looking at Fig. 1, the maximum line length that is thermally

line terminating equipment or substation equipment. This

limited is 80 km. This means that lines over 80 km are limited

paper calculates the St. Clair curve and explains the reasoning

by other factors and would not be relevant for DTLR, which

behind the 80 km limit. Extending the work in the original St.

changes the thermal rating of a transmission line. Therefore,

Clair publication, this paper also investigates the different

DTLR is only applicable for short lines under 80 km. This

thermal limits depending on the voltage level. At lower

would apply for short transmission lines connecting new wind

voltage levels, the resistance per unit length is higher, so the

farms to the existing grid. Using dynamic line rating near wind

effect of resistance cannot be ignored. This paper investigates

farms is beneficial because the power only flows through the

the effect of including resistance and reactive power in the

line when the wind is blowing, which also cools the line,

calculations to form a new transmission line loadability curve.

allowing more power to flow.

Finally, this paper will consider the increased capacity of a

transmission line due to implementing DTLR and will find the

new length of transmission line that is thermally limited.

ܸோ כܫൌ ܲ ݆ܳ

ିொ

ܫൌ

ೃ

ିொ ொ

ܸ௦ ൌ ܸோ ቀ ቁ ݆ܺ ൌ ቀܸோ ቁ ݆ ቀ ቁ (1)

ೃ ೃ ೃ

ொ ଶ ଶ

ܸ௦ ଶ ൌ ቀܸோ ቁ ቀ ቁ (2)

ೃ ೃ

power flowing through the system:

ටೞ మ ିೃ మ

ܲൌ ܸோ (3)

Fig. 1: St. Clair Curve[1] The maximum power transferred is when dP/dVR is equal to

zero. From [5]:

The purpose of this paper is to extend the transmission line

loadability curves by considering different factors. The ೞమ

original St. Clair curve assumed that the transmission line was ̴ܲ௦௧̴௫ ൌ (4)

ଶ

lossless and that there was no reactive power in the system.

This paper will combine the addition of resistance and reactive

power into the calculations to determine the impact on the Where PV_stab_max is the maximum power transferred using the

maximum length of transmission line which is thermally voltage stability limit criterion, Vs is the sending end voltage

limited. Increasing the capacity of a transmission line affects and X is the reactance of the line. The authors of [5] calculated

the thermal limit, which changes the maximum length for a that the maximum power transferred corresponds to when the

thermally limited line. This paper will also investigate the receiving end voltage is equal to approximately 70% of the

maximum length of a thermally limited transmission line after sending end voltage. Plotting P as a function of VR, using (3),

dynamic line rating has been implemented. Finding the assuming Vs is close to unity and the reactance is constant, is

maximum length of a transmission line that is thermally shown in Fig. 3.

limited will help future users of this technology to decide

which lines can be used for dynamic line rating.

The research described in [5] compares three different limits

imposed on transmission lines. These limits are the angular

stability limit, the voltage stability limit and the voltage

quality limit. The first step in calculating each limit is to

consider a simple system, shown in Fig. 2. The angle of the

receiving end voltage is taken as reference and set to zero.

Iסș

R+jX P+jQ

VS סį VR ס0 Fig. 3: Power Transferred as a function of Receiving End Voltage

Fig. 2: System Diagram To include a safety margin, the authors assumed that the

power transferred is 5% less than the maximum possible[5].

The first limit considered is the voltage stability limit. The

maximum voltage stability is calculated using the maximum మ

̴ܲ௦௧ ൌ ͲǤͻͷ כೞ (5)

power transfer theory. The first step is to solve for the power ଶ

transferred in the system shown in Fig. 2. Assuming the line is Where PV_stab is the power transferred using the voltage

lossless: stability limit criterion, with a 5% safety margin.

The second limit considered is the angular stability limit. The

angular stability limit is based on the maximum transfer

capability of the system. The power transferred in this case is

represented by (6).

ೞమ

ܲௌ ൌ ߜ (6)

limit criterion and į is the angle corresponding to the sending

end voltage. The maximum power transferred corresponds to

an angle of 90°. In the original St. Clair curve, a safety margin

of 30% was used, corresponding to an angle of 44°. The same

margin will be used in this derivation.

voltage quality limit is calculated assuming a maximum

Fig. 4: Comparison of Line Loadability Limits

voltage drop of 10%, i.e. the receiving end voltage is 90% of

the sending end voltage. This is compared to the voltage

stability limit, which had a voltage drop of 30% before As shown in Fig. 4, the voltage quality limit is the

including the 5% safety margin. Using (3) and setting the constraining factor for longer lines. For 69 kV, the line is

receiving end voltage to 90% of the sending end voltage: thermally limited up to 87 km, similar to the St. Clair curve.

What is different from the St. Clair curve is that for 138 kV,

ೞమ ೞమ the line is thermally limited up to 120 km. The St. Clair curve

ܲொ ൌ ൌ ͲǤͺͶ כ (7) assumes a thermal limit of 3.0 pu of SIL[1] for all voltage

ଶǤହସଽ ଶ

levels, whereas the thermal limit for 69 kV is 3.46 pu of SIL

Where PVQ is the power transferred using the voltage quality and the thermal limit for 138 kV is 2.50 pu of SIL. Since the

limit criterion. It is demonstrated in (7) that the voltage quality voltage quality limit is the lowest curve, this curve,

limit is 17% lower than the voltage stability limit (including determined from a 10% voltage drop, will be used in all future

the safety margin). The voltage stability limit represents a calculations.

voltage drop close to 30%, compared to 10% voltage drop for

the voltage quality limit. Therefore, as the voltage drop IV. RESISTANCE AND POWER FACTOR

decreases, the line loadability decreases, which concurs with A. Resistance

Fig. 3.

In the previous section, the transmission line was considered

lossless with a power factor of unity. For lower voltage levels,

Each limit is calculated using typical conductor data. The

the resistance per unit length is greater than that of higher

resistance was calculated for an AC transmission line at 75°C.

voltage levels. In this case, since we are focusing on lower

The thermal limit is calculated using a conductor temperature

voltage levels, resistance should be taken into account. The

of 75°C, ambient temperature of 40°C and a wind speed of 0.6

calculations are based on the methodology shown in [5].

m/s. SIL is the surge impedance loading. Table 1 presents the

Modifying (1) to include resistance:

data used in this derivation.

ିொ

TABLE I. TYPICAL LINE DATA ܸ௦ ൌ ܸோ ቀ ቁ ሺܴ ݆ܺሻ

ೃ

Voltage R X SIL Thermal

ோାொ ିொோ

(kV) (ȍ/km) (ȍ/km) (MW) Limit (MVA) ܸ௦ ൌ ቀܸோ ቁ ݆ ቀ ቁ (8)

ೃ ೃ

[6] [7] [7] [8]

69 0.201 0.4808 13 45 Assuming that the power factor is unity at the receiving end of

138 0.172 0.4909 50 125 the line, so Q is set to zero:

Using the data in Table (1), it is possible to plot the power ோ

transfer limit, expressed as per unit SIL, as a function of line ܸ௦ ൌ ቀܸோ ቁ ݆ ቀ ቁ (9)

ೃ ೃ

length. Fig. 4 plots the curves for each of the limits: voltage

stability limit, angular stability limit, voltage quality limit and In this case, the voltage quality limit is a function of voltage

thermal limit for each of 69 kV and 138 kV. level and line length. Fig. 5 shows the impact of resistance,

due to voltage rating, on the maximum length of a thermally

limited transmission line.

1) 69 kV System

performed at four different power factors: 0.95, 0.9, 0.85 and

0.8. Fig. 6 shows the curve for each of the power factors

chosen, using the data from the voltage quality calculations,

taking into account both resistance and reactive power, for 69

kV.

transmission line is thermally limited decreases when

resistance is considered. The maximum length is now 40 km

for 69 kV and 60 km for 138 kV. These are about half of the

length of the original case. This confirms the previous

assumption that resistance has a large effect on the loadability

of lower voltage lines. Fig. 6: Impact of Power Factor on Line Loadability for 69 kV

As the power factor decreases, the maximum length also

decreases, but not as much as compared to adding resistance.

The results from the previous calculations can be further For a power factor of 0.8, the maximum length is 30 km. For a

refined by considering a power factor less than unity. Here, power factor of 0.95, the maximum length is almost the same,

methodology from [5] is extended to include reactive power. around 32 km, because the thermal limit changes along with

At the receiving end of the line, reactive power, Q, is now the voltage quality limit curve. Comparing this result to that of

non-zero and is related to the power transmitted. the previous section, it’s clear that including the resistance has

a much larger effect (87 km to 40 km) than including power

ܳ ൌ ܲ כሺ ିଵ ሺ݂ሻሻ (10) factor (40 km to 30 km).

Where pf is the power factor of the system at the receiving end 2) 138 kV System

of the line.

Using a similar approach for a 138 kV system, the results are

Substituting (10) back into (8): plotted in Fig. 7.

ோା௧ఏ ିோ௧ఏ

ܸ௦ ൌ ቀܸோ ቁ ݆ ቀ ቁ (11) At 138 kV, changing the power factor has a greater effect than

ೃ ೃ

for the 69 kV case. For a power factor of 0.8, the maximum

According to [9], changing the power factor also changes the length is 45 km, a difference of 15 km from when the power

thermal limit. The thermal limit is given in MVA, but the SIL factor was considered to be unity. For a power factor of 0.95,

is given in MW, so the thermal limit has to be converted to the maximum length is 50 km, a difference of 5 km from the

active power. power factor of 0.8. Comparing this result to that of the

previous section, it’s clear that including the resistance has a

ܲ ൌ ܵ ݂ כ (12) much larger effect (120 km to 60 km) than including power

factor (60 km to 45 km), similar to the case for the 69 kV

In the previous calculations, the power factor was equal to system. Table 2 summarizes the results of sections III and IV.

unity, so the active power was equal to the apparent power.

For this case, the active power is equal to the apparent power

divided by the power factor, so the thermal limit changes for

each power factor tested.

7

Thermal Limit

Increase=25%

6

Increase=50%

Increase=75%

5 Increase=100%

VQ Limit-PF=0.8

0

0 50 100 150

Length of Transmission Line (km)

Fig. 7: Impact of Power Factor on Line Loadability for 138 kV Fig. 8: Impact of DTLR on Line Loadability for 69 kV

FACTOR ON LINE LOADABILITY 5

Thermal Limit

Thermal Limit Length (km) 4.5 Increase=25%

Increase=50%

Increase=75%

(kV) changes Line Factor = Factor =

Power Transfer Limit (pu of SIL)

Increase=100%

3.5

Resistance 0.95 0.8 VQ Limit-PF=0.8

69 87 40 32 30 3

power factor of 0.8 was used for both 69 kV and 138 kV.

Previous research done for dynamic rating has shown that it 0

0 50 100 150

can produce a ratings increase of up to 100% during the Length of Transmission Line (km)

summer[4]. When the capacity of the transmission line Fig. 9: Impact of DTLR on Line Loadability for 138 kV

changes, this increased capacity becomes the new thermal

limit. As seen in Fig. 4, a higher thermal limit intersects with

the line loadability curve at a shorter length. Therefore, Table 3 summarizes the results from considering the impact of

increasing the capacity with dynamic line rating impacts the dynamic line rating.

length of transmission line that is thermally limited. The curve

for a power factor of 0.8 from the previous section is TABLE III. IMPACT OF DYNAMIC LINE RATING ON LINE

LOADABILITY

compared against four different capacity increases: 25%, 50%,

75% and 100% increase. Fig. 8 plots the results for 69 kV. Thermal Limit Length (km)

Voltage

P.F. = Increase in Rating using DTLR

(kV)

For 69 kV lines, any increase above 50% decreases the 0.8 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %

maximum line length to less than 20 km. At a 25% increase, 69 30 25 20 18 16

the maximum line length is 25 km, a 5 km difference from the 138 45 36 30 26 23

length with no capacity increase.

Fig. 9 shows the results for 138 kV. For 138 kV lines, any These results demonstrate that in order to get the full capacity

increase above 50% decreases the maximum line length to less of a transmission line using dynamic line rating, the line must

than 30 km. At a 25% increase, the maximum line length is 36 be very short. To reduce the length of a transmission line,

km, 9 km less than with no capacity increase. additional substations can be built to break the line up into

further sections.

and are less expensive, but may require more substations to be

50

Thermal Limit

built, or building a higher capacity line that is more expensive

45 25% Increase but does not rely as much on dynamic line rating. Future work

40

50% Increase still needs to be done to determine the cost difference between

75% Increase

100% Increase

implementing dynamic line rating by adding a substation to

35

reduce the length of the line and building a new, higher

capacity transmission line. Another tradeoff is voltage drop. If

Voltage Drop (%)

30

25

the line length is not shortened, the voltage drop will increase

due to the increased capacity. Transmission facility operators

20

can use this information to implement DTLR at the cost of

15 shorter lines or higher voltage drop. Dynamic line rating is

10

also dependent on the weather conditions in the region of the

transmission line, specifically wind speed and direction. This

5

research can be used in conjunction with future research into

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

the optimal locations for implementing dynamic line rating.

Length (km)

REFERENCES

Fig. 10: Impact of DTLR on Voltage Drop for 69 kV

Fig. 10 plots the voltage drop across the line for each of the [1] H. S. Clair, “Practical Concepts in Capability and

thermal rating increases shown in Figs. 8 and 9, at 69 kV. Fig. Performance of Transmission Lines,” IEEE Trans.

10 further demonstrates the inverse relationship between Power Appar. Syst., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1152–1157,

higher current rating and line length. To maintain a voltage 1953.

drop of 10%, a shorter line is used for a higher capacity. The [2] J. Heckenbergerová, P. Musilek, and K.

alternative is to maintain the line length and accept a higher Filimonenkov, “Quantification of gains and risks of

voltage drop across the line. Future work will be done to static thermal rating based on typical meteorological

investigate the practicality of these results. year,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 44, no.

VI. CONCLUSION 1, pp. 227–235, Jan. 2013.

This paper considers a voltage quality limit with a voltage [3] J. Heckenbergerova, P. Musilek, and K.

drop of 10%. Fig. 3 demonstrates that if the voltage drop is Filimonenkov, “Assessment of Seasonal Static

higher (up to 30%), the power transferred is also greater. To Thermal Ratings of Overhead Transmission

increase the maximum line length that is thermally limited, the Conductors,” in IEEE Power and Energy Society

allowed voltage drop can be increased. The opposite is true for General Meeting, 2011.

lower voltage drops (i.e. 5%). If the voltage drop is less, the [4] J. Gentle and K. S. Myers, “Concurrent Wind Cooling

maximum length decreases. Fig. 10 further emphasizes this in Power Transmission,” in Western Energy Policy

concept in that to achieve a higher current rating, either the Research Conference, 2012.

line length is decreased or the voltage drop is increased.

Future work will be done to evaluate the tradeoff for [5] J. Hao and W. Xu, “Extended transmission line

increasing voltage drop to increase thermal rating. This paper loadability curve by including voltage stability

also investigates the impact of considering resistance and constrains,” in IEEE Electrical Power and Energy

reactive power on the transmission line loadability curves. For Conference, 2008.

lower voltage levels, resistance is a more significant factor [6] Sural, “PRODUCT CATALOG – ACSR ( Aluminum

than reactive power. However, as the voltage level increases, Conductor , Steel Reinforced ),” vol. 58, no. 212. pp.

the effect of resistance lessens and reactive power plays a 1–12.

more significant role in the transmission line loadability

calculations. This paper also investigates the impact of [7] Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Electrical

changing the capacity of a transmission line on its loadability Transmission and Distribution Reference Book. 1964.

curve. Increasing the capacity shortens the length of line that

[8] W. O. B. Kennedy, “Transmission Lines Electricity ’s

is thermally limited. For both 69 kV and 138 kV, increasing

Highways,” presented at the Southern Alberta

the capacity beyond 50% of its thermal limit results in a

IAS/PES Chapter Meeting, Calgary, 2013.

decrease of over a third of its maximum length. Only taking

advantage of an increase of 50% or less could be feasible [9] D. Lauria, G. Mazzanti, and S. Quaia, “The

recognizing that for the majority of the time, dynamic line Loadability of Overhead Transmission Lines — Part

rating only provides an increase of 10-40%[4]. Therefore, the Iௗ: Analysis of Single Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Power

shorter the transmission line, the higher the capacity available Deliv., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 29–37, 2014.

due to dynamic line rating. This represents a tradeoff. Building

shorter, lower capacity lines that rely on dynamic line rating

- INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMUploaded byAmiruddin Mohd Arifuddin
- Transmission Line CalculationsUploaded bySaurav Bhattarai
- Coroskop Planning GuideUploaded byfelipedejpinedoc3564
- Investigation of Subsea Power Transmission Cable Technology Rev DUploaded byStephen McCann
- SCE - TOU-8-S - 2014Uploaded byGenability
- Fea ReportUploaded bysanjeevmeil
- Feasibility Report Tamakoshi VUploaded byI Can
- PFCUploaded byanon_618531799
- Useful Formulas for PS Analysis & PF CalculationUploaded byjannumits
- 1435970Uploaded bySKS_2014
- 3Ch1Uploaded byAwadhesh Singh
- C8-V1-1-INGUploaded byMuhammad Imran Aftab
- IJAPE071.pdfUploaded byFaizan Ahmad
- Curriculum VitaeUploaded byMuhammad Noman
- Ultimo 18 supch11.pdfUploaded bymri_leon
- d 0329091412Uploaded bydasilva6391
- Development_of_Power_Factor_Controller_u.pdfUploaded byZeeshan Khan
- k 04931011113Uploaded byAnonymous gAVMpR0a
- Advance Energy Meter Power Factor Correction SystemUploaded byankush belkar
- TEP-r3Uploaded byTahirAbbas
- 101946-LST-0702_0Uploaded byCarlos
- Trans Sys DesignUploaded bySushil Kumar
- Reactive Power at Voltage VariationsUploaded byAurobindo Mandal
- AppGuide PFCBasic WebUploaded byanshuldce
- Priemysel Kompenzacia Aples Technologies Katalog-GUploaded byAshfaque Ahmed
- LoadingUploaded byasdfrew
- Useful Formulas for PS Analysis & PF CalculationUploaded byjannumits
- ShockingNewsv6-01102004Uploaded byrakeshaec
- Wagir x Kepanjen Lbs BangsriUploaded byDipa Suwidya
- 1520 Data SheetUploaded byLaurent Toumieh

- 39 New EnglandUploaded byadau
- Analytical Development of Loadability CharacteristicsUploaded byDaniel Sanchez
- Gutman 1979Uploaded bycicm1993
- Loadability of 400 KV Four-BundledUploaded byDaniel Sanchez
- 4002_2013-2004_redline.pdfUploaded byDaniel Sanchez
- Diagnostico de InterruptoresUploaded bytoy0481
- Tolerante a FallosUploaded byDaniel Sanchez
- 06813685Uploaded byDaniel Sanchez
- toorchi2013Uploaded byDaniel Sanchez

- Hose Handling Doc ISS-059Uploaded byQHSE Manager
- Jee 2014 Booklet7 Hwt Magnetism & MatterUploaded byvarunkohliin
- How Laser Beam is ProducedUploaded byY Gangadhar
- E5306_CO1Uploaded byardossantos
- Engineering Materials Lab ManualUploaded byHarood Nishat
- detailed design reportUploaded byapi-253426167
- Casing connection selection for geothermal applications using new input from HPHT and thermal wells testing protocols.pdfUploaded byRichard More Leon
- Properties and hydration of blend cements with steelmaking slag.PDFUploaded byTran Huynh Nam
- Surface Modification by Plasma Polymerization-Film Deposition Tailoring of Surface Properties and BiocompatibilityUploaded bythuron
- Manitou MT 732 (EN)Uploaded byManitou
- EDEXCEL IGCSE Chemistry Practice Unit test 1Uploaded byKasunDilshan
- Designation: E1530 − 11Uploaded byLupita Ramirez
- Rounding Off[1]Uploaded byRaj Ramachandran
- Brochure Hemcuvi Sep2016 v17 Uex UvUploaded byLuis Landesa
- Estadistica basica_bkb9.pdfUploaded bylibrospiratas
- AINTIRAMUploaded bymalarvk
- openFoamUserManual_PFMUploaded byLuis Borraz
- GEARCALC-tut-001-E-AGMA2001.pdfUploaded byFernando Rocker
- clay minerals for advanced ceramics by murrayUploaded byJohanna Michelle Ambait
- 1770-um022_-es-pUploaded byRociore Re
- ConverterUnit_56426.docxUploaded byCarlo Gomez
- Cable AmpacityUploaded bygovindarul
- Rynite Pet DupontUploaded bypirom_popirom500
- gas lawsUploaded byapi-322046670
- The Survey Instrument DataSet SPSS SolutionUploaded byPrabhav
- Experiment 8Uploaded byIan Carlos Villamor Lipardo
- HW_Ch10_SolUploaded byMuzamil Shah
- Homework 03 2017 Fall With SolutionUploaded byMd Klazly
- Horizontal Curve DesignUploaded byRajaKuppan
- YoyoUploaded byeeoms