Experimental Verification of Harmonic Load
Models
M. E. Balci, D. Ozturk, O. Karacasu and M. H. Hocaoglu
Abstract--Present day power systems invariably have nonlinear
loads, which inject harmonics into the system and give rise to
nonsinusoidal voltages and currents. Power quality issues are a
prime concern of the power industries as well as of customers.
Thus under these conditions, it becomes imperative to study these
nonlinear loads; their characteristics and effects. Accordingly,
the harmonic analyses have become a regularly used tool in
predicting the effects of harmonic producing loads on power
systems. State of power system can be obtained in respect to the
results of these analyses. The accuracy of these results depends
on the modeling of harmonic producing loads. There are a large
number of harmonic analysis methods that are in widespread
use. In these analyses, the harmonic producing loads are widely
modeled by various techniques namely; Constant Current
Sources, Norton and Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix.
In this paper, the sensitivities of these models are evaluated
for the system, which covers some of the harmonic producing
loads, under the various waveform cases of supply voltages.
Index Terms-- Harmonics; Harmonic analyses; Load
modeling; Constant Current Source model; Norton model;
Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix model.
I. INTRODUCTION
I n the last decades, great interests have been focused on
power quality concepts. This is mainly due to the fact that
customer awareness on the subject has been gradually
increased and also effective utilization of power network has
become largely dependent on successful analysis of the power
quality events. One of the most important quality factors for
power systems is the harmonics, which are primarily caused
by large proliferation of power electronic devices.
Accordingly, harmonic analysis has become one of the most
important studies of power system operation, planning and
design [1]-[4].
Harmonics modeling and simulation is used in three main
ways as follows:
ƒ To estimate the harmonic impact of a new customer
or load equipment,
ƒ To evaluate the harmonic impact of existing
equipment or customers and the supplying utility,
ƒ And to evaluate effectiveness of various harmonic
mitigation techniques.
For power system harmonic analysis, there are largely and
successfully employed number of techniques, which vary in
This work is supported by Turkish Scientific Council under the project
number of 106E132.
M. E. Balci, D. Ozturk, O. Karcasu and M. H. Hocaoglu are with
Department of Electronics Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology, Gebze
41400 Turkey (e-mails: m.balci@gyte.edu.tr, dincer.ozturk@gyte.edu.tr,
karacasu@gyte.edu.tr and hocaoglu@gyte.edu.tr ).
Authorized licensed use limited to: Eindhoven University of Technology. Downloaded on April 14,2021 at 10:30:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
terms of data requirements, modeling complexity, problem
formulation and solution algorithms [1], [2], [5]-[8].
One of the most commonly used harmonic analysis
technique is Frequency Scan [1], [3], which has comparatively
simple structure and requires less data that make the frequency
scan more preferable amongst various harmonic analysis
techniques. In Frequency Scan, loads are generally modelled
as a Constant Current Source (CCS) [1], [3], [9]. On the other
hand, the main disadvantage of CCS model is that it may
produce erroneous results in the cases of the voltage sensitive
loads and for the networks, where large voltage variations are
present. In addition, CCS model is enough to analyze cases
involving typical operating conditions. For power system
cases comprising non-typical spectrum, the accuracy of CCS
model’s result becomes unacceptable. Thus, advanced
harmonic analysis models and methods must be used to
analyze the cases such as partial loading of harmonic-
producing devices, excessive harmonic voltage distortions and
unbalanced network conditions.
In the cases, where the current harmonic spectrums of the
harmonic producing loads are significantly changed by
voltage, their voltage dependency must be considered to
obtain accurate results. The requirement is the primary
motivation for so-called Harmonic Iteration technique [5]-[8].
In this technique, a harmonic-producing device is modelled as
supply voltage-dependent current sources. Some of the voltage
dependent current source models, which are presented as
several types in the literature, are Norton (N) and Crossed
Frequency Admittance Matrix (CFAM) models [10]-[13].
It is also possible time domain models and transient
solution programs such as EMTP be implemented for
harmonic analysis [14], [15]. In the harmonic analysis based
on time domain calculation, the loads are modeled by using
differential state equations. Therefore, time domain models
give much sensitive results than the frequency domain models,
however; they must be implemented by extra computational
efforts. In addition to above mentioned models, Transfer
Function model, which are based on analytical calculations,
exist in the literature [16]-[18]. Harmonic producing load
models used for harmonic studies are usually a compromise
between accuracy required and the data available.
In this study, the sensitivity of Constant Current Source,
Norton and Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix models are
evaluated for the system covers some of harmonic producing
loads under the various waveforms of supply voltages. From
the results, it could be concluded that Norton model is the best
modeling approach for the considered loads and voltage cases.
Furthermore, Constant Current Source model shows better
performance than Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix
model.
II. OUTLINES OF THE ANALYZED MODELS
In this section, the representations of analyzed models,
which CCS, N and CFAM, are briefly summarized below:
A. Constant Current Source Model
In the cases of the loads, which are not much sensitive to
voltage, and for the networks, where small voltage variations
are present, harmonic producing loads are modeled as
Constant Current Source. In addition, this model is usually
placed in the analysis focused on resonance, which does not
take into account the load dynamics. The representation of
CCS model is given in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1: The representation of CCS model.
It can easily be understood from Fig. 1. that harmonic
producing load is modeled as a fixed current source for each
harmonic number. The advantage of this model is that the
current harmonic spectra of numerous harmonic producing
loads are already characterized in the literature; thus, it can be
easily implemented in the harmonic analysis. However, it is
not enough to analyze the interaction between network and
harmonic producing loads for non-typical operating
conditions.
B. Norton Model
For the accurate modeling of harmonic producing loads in
the wider range of operating conditions, which is the lack of
CCS model, N model is proposed in [10], [11]. The
representation of N model is given in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: The representation of Norton model.
In N model, harmonic producing load is modeled as the
parallel connection of Norton impedance and Norton current
source for each harmonic number.
The components of N model, which are hth harmonic
Norton impedance, ZN,h , and hth harmonic Norton current, IN,h ,
can be expressed as;
Authorized licensed use limited to: Eindhoven University of Technology. Downloaded on April 14,2021 at 10:30:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
Vh ∠ 1 α h − 2Vh ∠ 2 α h
Z N , h ∠δ h = 2
(1)
I h ∠ 2 θh − 1I h ∠ 1 θh
1
Vh ∠ 1 α h 2 2
V ∠ 2 αh
I N , h ∠ϕh = 1I h ∠ 1 θh + = I h ∠ 2 θh + h (2)
Z N , h ∠δ h Z N , h ∠δ h
In (1) and (2), 1Vh ∠ 1 α h , 1I h ∠ 1 θh , 2Vh ∠ 2 α h and 2 I h ∠ 2 θh are the
harmonic voltage and currents for two different cases, where
one equipment of the network is connected and not connected
to the network. On the other hand, it is an imperative issue for
finding Norton impedance and Norton current sensitively that
the voltage and current measurements must be referenced to
the phase angle of a common bus voltage, which does not
change with system condition. For the representative system,
given in Fig. 2., the phase angle of VS,1 is a reference point for
arranging the phase angles of voltage and current. However,
this common bus may not exist for all cases; therefore,
Thevenin equivalent voltage of the network side can be used
as an alternative of common bus [10], [11].
Up to now, one can see from (1) and (2) that N Model is
constructed by assuming superposition theorem. This matter
means that load is modeled by ignoring the interaction
between different order harmonics in the Model.
C. Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix Model
For the modeling of harmonic producing loads taking into
account the voltage and current relation between different
harmonic orders, CFAM model is proposed in [12], [13].
Fig. 3: The representation of CFAM model.
It is shown from Fig. 3 that the harmonic producing load
can be modeled as the admittances, which are calculated by
considering not only the same orders but also different orders
of voltage and current harmonics, in CFAM model. On the
other hand, this model could be assumed as the voltage
dependent current source expressed as
I h = f (V1 ,V2 , , Vh ) (3)
where V1 ,V2 , , Vh are the harmonic phasors of the supply
voltage.
CFAM model is experimentally constructed in two steps:
• In the first step of the experiment, when the load is
supplied by pure sinusoidal voltage, the terms of
CFAM related to the fundamental frequency are
calculated by means of the following expression:
 Ik • In the first step of experimental verification, the
Yk 1 = ( k=1… n ) (4) exemplary power system is modeled as CCS, N and
V1
CFAM models.
• In the second step of the experiment, when the load • And then, the current is calculated by means of
is supplied by various voltage waveforms, which models under various voltage wave shapes with %5
have constant fundamental component and THD. The harmonic contents of the source voltage
superimposing one harmonic component at a time. wave shapes are synthesized by randomly selecting
Thus, the other terms of CFAM are calculated as; their magnitudes by keeping highest order harmonics
I k − Yk 1V1 of 11st and total harmonic distortion of %5
Ykj = j = 2… n (5)
• Finally, the current is measured in the case of
Vj
considered voltage and the errors of the models are
During the calculating process, using the same phase reference
calculated as [13]:
must be considered to obtain CFAM model accurately. t +T

∫ (i (t ) − i (t ))
2
m c dt
III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
E= t
t +T
(6)
The system used to identify the sensitivity of CCS, N and im ( t ) dt
∫
2

CFAM models is depicted in Fig. 4. t

As a result of the steps, for one of the hundred test voltages,
whose harmonic spectrum is given in Fig. 6 (a), the measured
current and the estimated currents, obtained with the models,
are given in Fig. 6 (b).

Magnitudes of Voltage Harmonics (% Values of Fundamental Harmonic Voltage)

5

4.5

3.5

2.5
Fig. 4: Experimental system.
2
The experimental system consists of a computer, which is
used for data processing, a data acquisition card and the 1.5

exemplary power system, which comprises linear impedance 1

load, a dimmer controlled impedance load (triac conduction 0.5

angles: 90o-180o) and a number of computer at the same 0

3 5 7 9 11
connection point. Harmonic Numbers

For sinusoidal voltage wave shape, the harmonic spectrums

of the current drawn by the loads are given in Fig. 5. 15
Magnitudes of Current Harmonics (% of Fundamental Harmonic Current)

20
10

18

5
16

14
i(t) (A)

0
12

10 -5

-10
6 Measured
CCS
N
4 CFAM
-15
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
2 t (sn)

0
3 5 7 9 11 Fig. 6: (a) The harmonic spectrum of one of the hundred test voltages and (b)
Harmonic Numbers
the wave shapes of the measured current and the estimated currents, with the
Fig. 5: The harmonic spectrum of the load current under sinusoidal voltage. models.
Fig. 5 shows that the load has 3rd, 5th, 9th and 11th harmonics. From Fig. 6 (b), one can see that the estimated currents,
Furthermore, the THD of the load current is 25% under obtained by N and CFAM models, are much closer to the
sinusoidal supply voltage. measured current than the estimated current with CCS for the
By using the test system above detailed, the experimental voltage harmonic spectrum in Fig. 6 (a). Furthermore, error
verification is done in three steps: values of CCS, N and CFAM models respectively are 0.3264,
0.2620 and 0.2526. Therefore, in this case, it can be concluded
that CFAM has the best approximation to the measured

Authorized licensed use limited to: Eindhoven University of Technology. Downloaded on April 14,2021 at 10:30:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
current. In addition, the approximation of N is better than fundamental voltage harmonic. And also, for all tests cases,
CCS. However, the results in the several test voltage cases the fundamental harmonic of voltage is kept constant. As a
must be considered to give general conclusion about the result, due to the fact that Norton and Constant Current Source
performances of the models. As a result, for a hundred test models have constant current parts, they give much better
voltage cases, the errors of models are calculated and they are results than Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix model,
given as histograms in Fig. 7. identifies the loads as admittances.
50
In the next study, the model performances will be analyzed
CCS
40 by means of larger number test cases and load types. Also
30

20
effects of voltage variation will be undertaken. Thus, the issue
10 above mentioned will be discussed strictly.
0

V. REFERENCES
30
N
Frequency

20
[1] Task Force Harmonic Modeling and Simulation, ‘‘Modeling and
10 Simulation of the Propagation of Harmonics in Electric Power
Networks’’, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 452-465,
0
30 January, 1996.
25
CFAM
[2] Task Force Harmonic Modeling and Simulation, ‘‘Modeling Devices
20 with Nonlinear Voltage-Current Characteristics for Harmonic Studies’’,
15 IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 1802-1811, Oct. 2004.
10
[3] Arrillaga, J., Bradley, D.A., Bodger, P.S.; ‘‘Power System Harmonics’’,
5
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1985.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 [4] G. T. Heydt, ‘’Electric Power Quality’’, Ed. Stars in a Circle
Error
Publication, 1991.
Fig. 7: The histograms of the models errors: (a) CCS, (b) N and (c) CFAM. [5] Smith B. C., Arrillaga J., Wood A.R. and Watson N. R.; ‘‘A Review of
Iterative Harmonic Analysis for AC-DC Power Systems’’, IEEE Trans.
on Power Delivery, Vol.13, No.1, pp.180-185, Jan 1998.
It is shown from Fig. 7 (a) that the error of CCS varies from [6] D. Xia and G. T. Heydt, "Harmonic Power Flow Studies, Part I -
0.3 to 0.42 in 80% of test cases. In 15 % of test cases, its error Formulation and Solution, Part II - Implementation and Practical
is between 0.15 and 0.3. For the rest of the test, it has the Application", IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
101, June 1982, pp. 1257-1270.
errors between 0 and 0.08. On the other hand, Fig. 7 (b) shows [7] Xu, W., Jose, J.R. and Dommel, H.W. ‘‘A Multiphase Harmonic Load
that the error of N varies from 0.3 to 0.45 in 46% of the test Flow Solution Technique’’, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. PS-6,
cases. In the rest of test, its error is between 0.11 and 0.3. February 1991, pp.174-182.
From the results of CFAM given in Fig. 7 (c), it can be [8] Valcárcel M, and Mayordomo JG, “Harmonic Power Flow for
Unbalanced Systems”, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No.4
concluded that its error varies between 0.3 and 0.45 in 59% of PP.2052–2059, 1993.
the test cases. In 31 % of the test cases, CFAM has the errors [9] Xu, W.; ‘‘Component Modeling Issues for Power Quality Assessment’’,
between 0.5 and 0.8. IEEE Power Engineering Review, Vol.21, No.11, Nov. 2001.
For the models, the values of mean, median and standard [10] Thunberg, E. and Söder, L., “A Norton Approach to Distribution
Network Modeling for Harmonic Studies”, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
deviation are given in Table I. Vol.14, No.1, pp. 272-277, January, 1999.
TABLE I: The values of mean, median and standard deviation for the models. [11] Thunberg, E. and Söder, L., “On the Performance of a Distribution
Mean Median Standard Deviation Network Harmonic Norton Model”, ICHQP 2000, Florida, USA, 01-04
October 2000.
CCS 0.3512 0.3823 0.0855 [12] M.Fauri, “Harmonic Modeling of Non-Linear Load by Means of
N 0.2909 0.2843 0.0735 Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix”, IEEE Transactions on Power
CFAM 0.4226 0.4047 0.1211 Systems, Vol.12, No.4, pp.1632-1638, November 1997.
[13] J.A. Fuentes, A. Gabaldon, F.J. Canovas and A. Molina, “Harmonic
Table I shows that expected error of the models is in between Model of Electronically Loads”, Power Engineering Society Summer
0.4226 and 0.2909 for %5 THD. Even if the source voltage Meeting 2000, Vol.13, pp.1805-1810, 16-20 July 2000.
has small amount of harmonic distortion, the estimated model [14] M.E. Balci and M.H. Hocaoglu, “Effects of Source Voltage Harmonic
Distortion on Power Factor Compensation in Triac Controlled AC
current varies significantly. Chopper Circuits”, PEDS 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 28 November
– 01 December 2005.
IV. CONCLUSION
[15] Task Force Harmonic Modeling and Simulation, ‘‘Real-Time Digital
In this paper, the sensitivity of Constant Current Source, Time-Varying Harmonic Modeling and Simulation Techniques’’, IEEE
Norton and Crossed Frequency Admittance Matrix models are Trans. Power Delivery, Vol.22, No.2, pp. 1218-1227, Apr. 2007.
[16] Mollerstedt E., Bernhardsson B.; ‘‘A Harmonic Transfer Function
evaluated for the system covers some of harmonic producing Model for a Diode Converter Train’’, IEEE Power Engineering Society
loads under the various waveform cases of supply voltages. Winter Meeting 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 957 – 962, 23-27 Jan. 2000.
From the results, it could be concluded that Norton model is [17] C. M. Osauskas, A.R. “Wood, A Frequency Domain Model of a
Thyristor Controlled Reactor”, ICHQP’98, Athens, Greece, Vol.2,
the best modeling approach for the considered loads and and pp.923-929,October 14-16, 1998.
voltage cases. Furthermore, Constant Current Source model [18] Yahia Barghouz, “An Accurate Solution to Line Harmonic Distortion
shows better performance than Crossed Frequency Admittance Produced by AC-DC Converters with Overlap and DC Ripple”, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol.29, No.3, May/June 1993.
Matrix model. In other words, Crossed Frequency Admittance
Matrix model is the worst modeling approach for considered
loads and voltage cases although it is the most detailed model.
This matter can be explained that the currents of considered
loads have a considerable large portion, which depends on the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Eindhoven University of Technology. Downloaded on April 14,2021 at 10:30:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.