Upload
kermit
View
81
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Meyer, Jan Schegner, Peter Technische Universitaet Dresden Heidenreich, Kurt Vattenfall Europe Distribution Hamburg GmbH. Harmonic Summation Effects of Modern Lamp Technologies and Small Electronic Household Equipment. Paper-ID: 0755. Harmonic emission of mass-equipment. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011
Paper-ID: 0755
Harmonic Summation Effects of Modern Lamp Technologies and Small Electronic Household Equipment
Meyer, Jan Schegner, Peter Technische Universitaet Dresden
Heidenreich, Kurt Vattenfall Europe Distribution Hamburg GmbH
2Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Harmonic emission of mass-equipment
• Main source in public LV grids: Power electronic converters of mass equipment• Level and frequency spectrum
of emission depends on circuit topology
• Manufacturer interest: Cost-effective production• Used circuit topology
(especially for mass equipment) depends on limits/standards that apply(e.g. IEC 61000-3-2)
Popular circuit topologies:
Costs
THDi no PFC
passive PFC
active PFC
effective control by
standards
interest of manufacturers
3Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Situation in public LV grids
• No or „relaxed“ limitsfor illumination up to 25Welectronic equipment up to 75W
• Tighter limits forillumination above 25Welectronic equipment above 75W
• Public LV grids: Mixture of mass-equipment with different circuit topologies and consequently different harmonic emission
passive PFC
active PFC
no PFC
Probably preferred circuit technology:
Actual status quo of harmonic cancellation in LV grids ?Influence of technology changes or shifts in equipment mixture ?
Survey of individual emission of mass equipment and analysis of cancellation effects for 3rd and 5th harmonic
Small eq.
large eq.
4Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
EE120%
EE212%
EE39%
Lamps59%
Overview of measured equipment (1)
• Total number of equipment:151 pieces
• Lamps:74x CFL (P 25W)5x CFL (P > 25W)11x SSL (P 25W)
• Electronic equipment:EE1 – 30x Office small (P 75W)EE2 – 18x Office large (P > 75W)EE3 – 13x Household small (P < 75W)
• Large household equipment not yet considered
• Scenario with dominating share of modern lamps -> analyse CFL impact
CFL – Compact flourescent lampsSSL – Solid state lamps (LED)EE - (Other) electronic equipment
5Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Overview of measured equipment (2)
• Different circuit topologies -> different waveforms and THDi values
• Clear identification of different groups possible
LampsOffice smallHousehold smallOffice large
0 30 60 90 120 150 180-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
i(t)
/ m
A
Angle / °
Waveforms Total harmonic distortion
0 50 100 1500
50
100
150
200
250
TH
Di /
%
P / W
Type (c)
Type (a)
Type (d)
Type (e)
Type (b)
6Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
No power factor correction (nPFC) – Type (c)
• Small, high current peaks -> high harmonic content• Preferential phase angle of3rd harmonic: 195
5th harmonic: 30
-300 -150 0 150 300-300
-150
0
150
300
Ireal / mA
I imag /
mA
= 5n = 31k
p = 0.98
= 1.01
0 30 60 90 120 150 180-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
i(t)
/ mA
Angle / °
Waveform 5th harmonic current
Office smallHousehold small
7Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Cancellation effect of measured equipment
• Better phase angle diversity for 5th compared to 3rd harmonic
• Different levels of cancellation effect for analysed equipment/lamp mixture at 3rd and 5th harmonic
-400 -200 0 200 400-400
-200
0
200
400
Ireal / mA
I imag /
mA
= 3n = 151k
p = 0.54
= 1.16
-300 -150 0 150 300-300
-150
0
150
300
Ireal / mA I im
ag /
mA
= 5n = 151k
p = 0.17
= 1.75
3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current
LampsOffice small
Household smallOffice large
8Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
-350 -175 0 175 350-350
-175
0
175
350
I real / mA
I imag /
mA
CFL
Impact of changing technologies
• Best cancellation effect for CFL combined with passive PFC equipment
• Virtually no contribution to cancellation effect of 5th harmonic by active PFC equipment
5th harmonic current
No PFC (past)Passive PFC (today)Active PFC (future)
Cancellation effect
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
number CFL
kp(5)
9Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Experiment at single family house
• Expected changes of harmonic vectors for CFL switched ON/OFF• ON/OFF comparison for 5th harmonic: Similar magnitudes (210mA),
different phase angles (-40° -> 148°) -> Influence of CFL only identifiable by phase angle evaluation for this case !
-300 -150 0 150 300-300
-150
0
150
300
Ireal / mA I im
ag /
mA
o – OFF¡ - ON
ISLCFL
Preferential phase angle for CFL
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Ireal
/ mA
I imag
/ m
A
o – OFF¡ - ON
ISLCFL
Preferential phase angle for CFL
3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current
10Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Historical development in one specific public LV grid
• Measurement on Saturdays in 1999 and 2010 for 2 load states: No changes in consumer or network topology Decrease of 5th harmonic, but increase of 3rd harmonic current Phase angle shift: Indication for increased number of passive PFC
equipment (technology change stipulated by 61000-3-2)
3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current
-20 -10 0 10 20-20
-10
0
10
20
Ireal / A
I imag /
A
o - 1999¡ - 2010MorningEvening
passive PFC
no PFC
CFL
-10 -5 0 5 10-10
-5
0
5
10
Ireal / A I im
ag /
A
o - 1999¡ - 2010MorningEvening
passive PFC
no
PFCCFL
11Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Conclusions• Efficiency of cancellation effect differs for different harmonics.
-> overall optimization
• Future changes or adaptions of standards should always ensure a good effectiveness of cancellation effects-> force phase angle diversity
• First grid measurement doesn‘t show dominating influence of modern lamps today (general conclusions not yet possible !).-> further development, installations with single type of equipment
Next steps:
• Long-term monitoring of low order harmonic currents (magnitude and phase angle) in different consumer structures -> identify possible changes in effectiveness of cancellation effect
• Development of web-based database for exchange of measurement data with other research institutions-> improve efficiency of research in this field
Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011
Thank you for your attention !
Contact details:Jan MeyerTechnische Universität DresdenInstitute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engenieering01062 Dresden
tel. +49-351-463 35102fax. +49-351-463 37036
email: [email protected]
13Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755
Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering
Preferential phase angles of measured equipment
3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current
CFLNo PFCPassive PFCActive PFC
-100
100
100
I imag
/ m
A
200-200 0
200
-100
-200
0
Ireal / mA
-200
200
200
I imag
/ m
A
400-400 0
400
-200
-400
0
Ireal / mA
• Good cancellation between no PFC and passive PFC equipment; favorable phase angle of CFL
• Cancellation effect more effective for 5th harmonic