21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris
http://www.cigre.org 13/14/36-08
VOLTAGE FLUCTUATIONS AND THE CONCEPT OF SHORT-CIRCUIT POWER
M. Couvreur, E. De Jaeger,
(UCL) (Laborelec)
Belgium
SUMMARY
Short-circuit power is a very important concept in
Power Quality. It is often specified or referred to as a
contractual value, as far as voltage fluctuations or
flicker emission levels are concerned, in MV or HV
power systems. Due to the presence of loads, the
network often exhibits, in the presence of fluctuating
currents, a virtual internal impedance different from the
classical short-circuit impedance. This question is
illustrated through some empirical findings and a
simple analytical study is proposed, for the switching of
a capacitor bank. It is also shown how it is possible to
deal with it, in a purely heuristic way, in the context of
flicker emission level assessment.
Key words
Short-circuit power – Flicker - Arc furnace – Emission
level
1. INTRODUCTION
The voltage fluctuations and flicker caused by
fluctuating loads are strongly depending on the
impedance of the network at the Point of Common
Coupling (PCC), which is classically related to the
concept of fault level or short-circuit power. The
purpose of this paper is to highlight the fact that care
must be taken for the interpretation and the practical use
of this concept.
The question is illustrated through some experimental
findings, presented in the first part of the paper: flicker
measurements and assessment of short-circuit levels by
* couvreur@lei.ucl.ac.be, emmanuel.dejaeger@laborelec.be, alain.robert@electrabel.be
Session 2000
© CIGRÉ
A. Robert*
(CPTE)
capacitor bank switching tests. A simple analytical
model of the loads in power systems as well as their
impact on the assessment of the internal impedance of a
network, for rapid voltage fluctuation problems, is
proposed in the second part. Finally, the difficult
problem of assessing individual flicker emission level is
discussed in the third part of the paper.
2. STANDARD AND EFFECTIVE SHORT-
CIRCUIT POWER
2.1. IEC standard short-circuit power
The basic definitions of short-circuit conditions are
given in the IEC Standard 909 [1]. This standard is
based on the calculation of symmetrical initial short-
circuit current (I"sc), for unloaded networks, i.e., in the
absence of passive loads and any shunt capacitance. In
order to calculate I″sc, the Thévenin’s Theorem is
applied to the unloaded network with a source voltage
equal to cUn (Un being the nominal voltage).
IEC specifies two standard values for factor c. The
« maximum value » is to be used for apparatus rating
purposes and it is fixed at 1.1 for HV systems. The
« minimum value » is to be used for other purposes such
as the control of motor starting conditions (Article 2),
which is typical of voltage fluctuations problems, and it
is fixed at 1.0 for HV systems.
Based on this approach, the IEC defines, in balanced 3-
phase conditions, the initial symmetrical apparent short-
circuit power by the formula : S″sc = √3 Un I″sc. In this
formula, c is not coupled to Un. Anyway, c is not used
when its standard value is 1.0, which means that it may
be ignored in voltage fluctuations problems.
The IEC approach perfectly suits, either for equipment
rating purposes (I″sc alone is derived from the above
Standard, because it is used in conjunction with the
equipment’s assigned voltage rating as defined in other
IEC Standards), or for non-critical voltage fluctuations
problems.
2.2. Effective short-circuit power in operating
conditions
Purpose of a deeper analysis. For voltage fluctuations
problems that are critical in terms of acceptability, there
is room for a second approximation of short-circuit
power, either aiming at a reliable assessment of power
system ability to supply a big industrial plant at the stage
of design or site selection, or in order to check field
measurements against pre-assessed calculations.
Application of Thevenin’s Theorem. In the course of
the ongoing discussion, there will be a need for an
indisputable reference to the Thévenin’s Theorem. An
English reading thereof is taken from a world-wide
accessible reference book : « With respect to any single
external circuit connected to any given pair of terminals
of a network, the network can be replaced by a single
branch having an impedance, Z, equal to the impedance
measured at these terminals looking into the network
(when all the network emfs are made equal to zero) and
containing a single emf, Eo, equal to the open-circuit
voltage of the network across the given pair of
terminals » [2].
In all calculations based on the Thévenin’s Theorem, all
impedances are supposed to behave as constant
impedance at system frequency (linear or linearized
model).
Loaded versus unloaded network. The unloaded
network corresponds to the conditions of the IEC
Standard. The system emf is set at Un. At the considered
substation terminals (STo), Eo is equal to Un,
independently of Z.
The loaded network is now investigated. Suppose that
the overall load is inductive as usual. In steady-state
operating conditions in the presence of to the loads, the
voltage Eo is lower than the source emf Un, i.e., µUn,
with µ<1 (µ is still undetermined but, in normal
operating conditions in strong power systems as
considered, the reduction effect corresponds to several
percent). In the loaded system, the magnitude of the
short-circuit current as derived from the Thévenin
method for Eo=µUn is necessarily the same as which is
physically flowing into the short-circuit from the system
emf at Un. The physical short-circuit current is an
intense inductive current, the magnitude (modulus) of
which is practically not influenced by the loads
alongside the major part of the common impedance
trunk (because these load currents are much smaller by
nature, deeply depressed during the short-circuit voltage
dip, and basically resistive). This implies that the
magnitude of the Thévenin impedance is lower than Z in
the same proportion as the voltage at engineering
precision,, which yields µZ 1.
From unloaded to loaded conditions, the gap may be
bridged as follows. On the one hand, the magnitude of
the short-circuit current flowing into STo in loaded
conditions, i.e. µUn/(√3µZ), cannot differ in practice
from the standard I″sc in unloaded conditions, i.e .
Un/(√3Z). On the other hand, as S″sc needs to be
calculated by combining I″sc and the nominal voltage
Un according to Standard 909, the determination of I″sc
in the loaded system yields the value of S"sc as in the
standard unloaded network. Thus, coherence with IEC is
achieved.
Assessment of actual operating conditions. The above
analysis brings about two advantages : at first, to get rid
of the hypothesis of the unloaded system ; second, to be
able to make further calculations following the
theoretical definition of physical short-circuit power,
based on the actual voltage contrarily to the IEC voltage
rating.
Iload
Un/µ ~ ZSTo
Un
a
Un/µ ~ Isc"/µ
ZSTo
b
Figure 1 : Increase in short-circuit current in a loaded
network operated at Un at the load side (µ<1)
a: initial situation with loaded network
b: short-circuit situation
In normal operating conditions (see Figure 1), the
network is loaded. When STo corresponds to a supply
substation to a major industrial site, the substation
voltage is at least equal to the nominal value. To get Un
at the substation, the setting of the source emf needs to
be put at Un/µ. Because of the increase in voltage, the
1
The above reasoning starts from steady-state conditions.
Nevertheless, as µ is used as a corrective factor close to 1, an
estimate thereof does not require a 1% accuracy. This facts
allows not to enter presently in cumbersome refinements on
the time evolution of generator impedance, which holds more
especially when considering a supply substation that is distant
from generators. This is in compliance with Standard 909,
Article 5, with respect to « most practical cases ».
physical short-circuit current also increases by the same
factor. Then, the physical short-circuit power increases
pro-rata to 1/µ², in compliance with theory.
If the voltage at the industrial substation is higher than
Un, which is common practice in operating conditions,
the increase is still more important.
(Incidentally, the emf setting at Un/µ yields an empirical
means to assess a practical estimate of µ. As a
conservative example, consider a fully-loaded generator
operated at unity power factor and Un at the HV step-up
transformer terminals ; usual equipment impedances
results in an increase around several percent in source
voltage, shared between generator emf and transformer
turn-ratio).
Effective short-circuit power in operating conditions.
The above analysis leads to propose the concept of ef-
fective short-circuit power in operating conditions, defi-
ning it as the physical short-circuit power on the loaded
network and at the actual voltage at the substation.
The approach yields information to be used
complementarily to the IEC Standard in special
discussions and measurements.
3. SOME EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS
3.1. Simultaneous flicker measurements at both sides
of the transformer feeding an important
fluctuating load
Flicker measurements are systematically carried out
when big industrial fluctuating loads are to be connected
to power grids [3]. In this context, it is necessary to rely
on suitable methods to assess the individual contribution
of a particular load, when multiple flicker sources are
operating simultaneously in the electrical vicinity.
Therefore, it has been suggested that measurements
could be made simultaneously at the HV and MV sides
of the transformer feeding the given load [4].
Figure 2 : Typical configuration for the assessment of
flicker emission level of consumer A
The typical configuration of Figure 2 is considered,
where A and B are respectively the MV and HV sides,
ZAB being the transformer impedance.
As a first step, some simplified situations were
investigated, where only one fluctuating load (A) was
connected to the grid (i.e. the other significant
fluctuating loads connected at B, in Figure 2, are at still
stand). From a theoretical point of view, there should be
a flicker attenuation between MV and HV, equal to the
ratio of the short-circuit levels:
P st ( B ) Zsc
= (1)
P st ( A ) Zsc + Z AB
However, in several cases the measured attenuation
between MV and HV flicker was significantly higher
than the theoretically expected value, based on known
HV short-circuit power and transformer impedance.
A numerical example follows, for a 120 MVA DC arc
furnace installation, connected at 220 kV through a 150
MVA transformer. The numerical parameters are:
Apparent 220 kV short-circuit level : 3300 MVA (at 220
kV)
Step-down transformer : 239,8 kV / 33 kV, 150 MVA,
ucc = 15 %
Zsc
That leads to = 0,2
Zsc + ZAB
while measurements give an average of
Pst ( B ) P ( HV )
= st = 0,17
Pst ( A ) Pst ( MV )
These values correspond to the slopes of the straight
lines in Figure 3.
The average experimental Pst ratio is 15 % lower than
the theoretically expected one. It corresponds to a
virtual short-circuit level equal to 4070 MVA at 220 kV,
instead of the theoretical 3300 MVA.
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pst ( MV )
Figure 3 : Simultaneous flicker measurement at the MV and
HV sides of the transformer feeding an electrical arc furnace,
when the other disturbing loads are at still stand
(upper line: ratio 0,2 - lower line: ratio 0,17)
3.2. Capacitor bank switching on and off: a classical where Xsc is the reactive part of Zsc, the short-circuit
way of assessing short-circuit power impedance in B.
The preceding equation can then be transformed into
Switching on and off capacitor banks produce voltage
changes in the network, which are often used for the ∆U
=
( )
U 2 I 2 − I1
≅
∆Q
(3)
assessment of the short-circuit power. However, it will 2
U2 U2 Ssc
be shown that the estimated value may be significantly
greater than theoretically expected. This is consistent X sc
with the results described in 3.1.
and the reactive part of the short-circuit power 2, Ssc, is
Figure 4 shows a typical example of the time evolution obtained by dividing the reactive power variation by the
of the r.m.s. voltage, recorded during successive 33 kV relative voltage variation.
capacitor bank switching operations. The tests were
carried out at the location of the above mentioned arc Repeating the test several times and averaging the
furnace installation, this one being out of service. results led to Ssc = 3900 MVA at 220 kV. This value is
consistent with the one deduced from the flicker
239
measurements given in 3.1, which is obviously greater
238
than the theoretical value (3300 MVA).
237
4. THE INFLUENCE OF THE LOADS
236

It has been explained in 2.2 how the loads can be taken

into account as linear elements, i.e. represented by
235

234 constant impedances.

233

However, it has been established in the past that the

232
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
loads do usually not behave as constant impedances
Time ( s )
[5,6]. They may exhibit voltage dependent
Figure 4 : r.m.s. voltage recorded during successive characteristics, leading for instance to reactive power-
capacitor bank switchings on and off voltage functions very different from the classical
second degree relationship. The general form is as
The corresponding test sequence was: follows:
switching on a 45 Mvar capacitor bank (in point A of
Figure 2, i.e. at 33 kV level), α
switching on a 25 Mvar capacitor bank, after 20 s (still Q æ U ö
=ç ÷ (4)
in A), Q o çè U o ÷ø
switching off the 25 Mvar capacitor bank, after another
20 s,
Exponents α between 0,5 and 18 are found in the
and, finally, resuming to the initial conditions by
literature, depending on the type of loads.
switching off the 45 Mvar capacitor bank.
In the presence of reactive power fluctuations, this non-
Accurate voltage and current measurements were
linear behaviour may influence significantly the voltage
performed on each phase at both 220 kV and 33 kV
fluctuations.
levels, in order to deduce the exact voltage and reactive
power variations and, therefrom, the short-circuit level
This can be shown analytically
in B (220 kV). In fact, it was found that in the described
S sc? in a simplified configuration,
test conditions, the load fluctuations seen from the HV
where some loads are
network in B were purely reactive. Without any
connected in parallel with the
capacitor bank, the only load current is the magnetising
switched capacitor bank, so
current of the step-down transformer. In the presence of Qcap Qload that they can influence the
capacitor banks, the load is obviously almost purely
voltage change [7].
capacitive.

Comparing the voltage before and after a switching

operation (referenced respectively by indices 1 and 2)
one has:
∆ U = U 2 − U1 = X sc (I 2 − I1 )
2
Only the reactive part of the short-circuit power is deduced
by this technique. In the case of capacitor bank switching, the
(2) active component is obviously negligible. It might be different
in other situations, e.g. in the case of a fluctuating load of
which the reactive power fluctuations are well compensated.
Assuming that the capacitor bank is switched on in order
to assess the short-circuit power (as in 3.2) :
Calling S*sc the “virtual” short-circuit power deduced
roughly from the initial approach, (see 3.2), this
equation can be rewritten:
∆U ∆Q tot
= (5)
U Ssc
Ssc = S*sc − ( α − 2 )Qload ( 12 )
with

∆ Q tot = ∆ Qcap − ∆ Q0 (6) We observe immediately that the error may be

Where ∆Qtot = total change in reactive power exchanged
with the network,
∆Qcap = reactive power of the capacitor bank,
∆Q0 = supplementary reactive power consumed by the
loads, beyond the supplement resulting from a constant
impedance.
All these quantities are considered in absolute value.
∆Q0 is subtracted because this reactive power variation
is in the opposite direction with respect to ∆Qcap, if the
loads are globally inductive (usual situation).
If the loads were acting as constant impedances, we
should have approximately, for small variations:
significant if the last term of the equation is ignored.
With α greater than 2, the assessed short-circuit power
value is systematically higher, when the loads are
globally inductive (which is by far the most usual
situation). On the contrary, if α is less than 2, the
assessed value can be too low.
Moreover, in the simple configuration studied here, it is
easy to quantify the relative error: it is simply
proportional to (α - 2) and the ratio Qload / Ssc.
Numerical examples are shown in Figure 5 giving the
relative error, calculated in function of Qload (note that
Qload is expressed in % of Ssc). For instance, if Ssc =
5000 MVA and Qload = 100 Mvar, the error may go up
to 22 % or even higher, depending on the value of α.

∆Qload ∆U 35

=2 (7)
Qload U 30

25

(∆Q0 = 0) and the load impedances should be included 20

Relative Error ( % )

Alpha=0,5

in the Thévenin equivalent scheme of the network. 15 Alpha=1

Alpha=3
Alpha=5
10 Alpha=9
Alpha=13

In fact, as already mentioned above, the reality is such 5

that 0

-5

∆Qload ∆U
=α (8) -10

Qload U
0 1 2 3
Q load ( in % of Ssc )

Figure 5 : Relative error on the assessment of short-circuit

We can thus write: level when neglecting the influence of the loads

∆Q 0 ∆U From a practical point of view, it may be argued that the

= (α − 2 ) (9) usefulness of equation (12) is quite limited for different
Q load U
reasons. On the one hand, this simple approach is
founded on a simplified configuration, for the purpose
From these equations, we deduce: of the study. It is not evident that any actual network can
be reduced to such a simple scheme. On the other hand,
∆U the knowledge of Qload and α is required and these are
Ssc = ∆ Q tot = ∆ Q cap − ∆ Q 0
U rather unusual data. Straightforward application is also
∆U made complicated by the fact that both Qload and α may
= ∆Q cap − (α − 2) Q load ( 10 )
U fluctuate with time.

and, finally However, in the next paragraph, we will show how it is

possible to exploit the major conclusions of this
∆ Q cap analysis, in the context of assessing the flicker emission
Ssc = − ( α − 2 ) Qload ( 11 ) level of one particular fluctuating load.
∆U
U
5. EVALUATION OF THE FLICKER EMISSION When there is no other significant flicker source in the
LEVEL FROM A PARTICULAR neighbouring network, Sakulin’s method leads to the
FLUCTUATING LOAD following relationship between Pst emiss, Pst(HV) and
Pst(MV):
5.1. General problem
P st (MV ) = P st (HV ) + P st emiss ( 13 )
The flicker emission level from a particular fluctuating
load is defined as the flicker level which would be Moreover, there is usually a good correlation between
produced by this load at the PCC, if no other fluctuating Pst (MV) and Pst emiss :
load was present.

The technical report IEC 61000-3-7 [3] proposes P st (MV ) = k P st emiss ( 14 )

guidelines to stipulate voltage fluctuations and flicker
emission limits for fluctuating loads. The aim is to avoid so that we also have, in that particular situation :
exceeding the planning levels in the power system when
all disturbing loads are working simultaneously. Pst (HV ) = ( k − 1 ) Pst emiss ( 15 )
However, checking a posteriori whether the limits are
In a most general situation where other flicker sources
fulfilled is a very difficult task. A report specifically
are present in the network, there is no obvious
dedicated to that topic is currently under consideration
correlation between the HV flicker and the flicker
within WG CIGRE/CIRED CC02. Due to the presence
emission level as given by Sakulin. However, at the MV
of other significant disturbing loads of comparable size,
side of the transformer, the influence of other flicker
a simple flicker measurement in HV at the PCC is
sources is negligible with respect to the flicker produced
generally not sufficient to determine the individual
by the load of which we want to measure the emission
emission level of a given particular disturbing load.
and equation (13) is still valid - at least for values
Selecting the Pst values according to the energy demand
satisfying Pst(MV) > Pst(HV).
record of the different loads could be an efficient
method to assess the contribution from each one. The
The measured MV flicker plotted versus the emission
major drawback is that time is necessary before getting
level according to Sakulin looks like in Figure 6.
reliable results. The measurement period leading to the
equivalent of one-week results (± 1000 Pst values) may
in fact be very long. This illustrates the need for more
direct assessment techniques.

5.2. Direct on-line measurement of flicker emission

level

An original direct on-line measurement method has been

developed by Prof. Dr M. Sakulin, (University of
Technology, Graz, Austria) [4,8].

The typical configuration of Figure 2 is considered.

There must be a known impedance ZAB between the
measuring points A (consumer) and B (point of common
coupling with other possible disturbing loads). For
instance, this impedance may be the HV-MV Figure 6 : Measured MV flicker vs emission level
transformer feeding the considered load: ZAB ≅ Xtfo. as given by Sakulin’s method
The method consists in measuring the flicker related to
the difference of the fluctuations in the two points A and
On the other hand, the measured HV flicker plotted
B. This has been proven to be an image of the emission
versus the emission level as given by Sakulin’s method
level of the fluctuating load connected in A, Pst emiss.
looks like in Figure 7. The straight line indicates the
lowest measured levels in HV, corresponding to
The resulting measured flicker emission level Pst emiss is
situations where no other significant disturbing load is
related to the chosen reference impedance Xtfo (i.e. to a
connected to the PCC.
defined short-circuit level Ssc emiss = U2 / Xtfo). After-
wards, it must be transposed to the actual or contractual
HV short-circuit level, as usually specified.
 This formula relies on the knowledge of the parameters
Qload and α and on the assumption that these can be
considered as almost constant. If this is verified, we
have, according to equation (12):

X*sc S*sc
P st contract ( HV ) = P st emiss *
X tfo Ssc contract

X*sc Ssc + (α − 2 ) Q load

= P st emiss ( 18 )
X tfo Ssc contract + (α − 2 ) Q load

In this equation, Ssc is the short-circuit power

corresponding to the actual operating conditions, while
Figure 7 : Measured HV flicker vs emission level Ssc contract is the one corresponding to the contractual
as given by Sakulin’s method specifications.

The slope of this line is equal to k-1 and if the network In first approximation, we suggest to neglect the terms
impedances were perfectly voltage independent, it containing Qload and α:
should theoretically be equal to the ratio Xsc / Xtfo(where
Xsc is the short-circuit impedance of the HV network X*sc Ssc
and Xtfo, the transformer reactance). In fact, it may be P st contract ( HV ) = P st emiss (19)
significantly different, due to the voltage dependence of X tfo Ssc contract
the loads in the network. As described above, the
influence of the loads results in a virtual internal For practical purpose, equation (19) is generally
impedance of the network X*sc , different from the sufficient because of the uncertainty concerning the
parameters and also because the numerical difference
standardised short-circuit impedance. (the virtual
with equation (15) is negligible.
internal impedance X*sc is lower than Xsc when the
reactive power coefficient of the loads α is greater than 5.4. Difficult cases
2; it is greater than Xsc when α < 2).
Situations may be found where the correlation between
Knowing this, the flicker emission level at HV is Pst emiss and Pst (MV) is not as good as pictured in Figure
deduced from the emission level resulting from 6, leading to uncertainty in the determination of the
Sakulin’s method by: coefficient k and, consequently, the identification of
X*sc.
X*sc
P st ( HV ) = P st emiss ( 16 )
X tfo We experienced lately such a difficult case, see Figure 8
and Figure 9.
where X*sc is the empirical value of the virtual network
reactance, identified from Figure 7 (X*sc/Xtfo = k-1) or -
more easily - from Figure 6 (where k is given by the
slope of the least square straight line). This approach
relies upon the assumption that this impedance is not too
much varying (it is in fact depending on the loads) and
that it makes sense to use an average value.

5.3. Relating the result to the reference short-circuit

power

A further step is necessary in order to relate this result to

the reference short-circuit power as usually specified in
contracts. The most rigorous approach should be based
on the concept of virtual short-circuit level S*sc :
Figure 8 : Measured MV flicker vs emission level
X*sc S*sc as given by Sakulin’s method
P st contract ( HV ) = P st emiss ( 17 )
X tfo S*sc contract

Figure 9 : Measured HV flicker vs emission level
as given by Sakulin’s method
An additional problem was brought about by these
results : contrarily to the previously studied cases, we
got X*sc > Xsc, i.e. the virtual short-circuit power is
lower than the calculated value which results in a higher
than expected flicker level.
The first ideas we had to explain the results were related
to the neighbouring loads :
• the loads might be characterised by α < 2, which
would explain the high value of X*sc,
• they might be varying, which would explain the
spread in Figure 8.
New measurements were planned in order to verify
those assumptions. However, at the time of the writing
of this report, the results do not seem to confirm them.
Another possible explanation would be related to the
resistive part of the network impedance and to the active
part of the load fluctuations (see footnote 2) :
• the spread around the least square line in Figure 8
would be due to this component (which is poorly
correlated with Pst emiss),
• the higher than expected flicker level in the HV
network would be due to the same reason.
Additional measurements are necessary before reaching
a conclusion.
5.5. How to handle future practical cases
At each critical case 3 we had to handle so far, we found
out that the problem was more complex than we
expected :
• when it appeared that the actual flicker level in the
HV system was lower than expected from the original
Sakulin's method, we developed the method of 5.2
giving a "corrected Sakulin's value" (see equation (16)) ;
3 Assessment of Emission Limits for Fluctuating Loads in
We consider as "critical" a case were it is not obvious
whether an emission limit is fulfilled or not.
• when it appeared that the corrected value could be
higher than the original one, it was considered that the
manufacturer could not bear the responsibility for the
behaviour of the power system and that we should come
back to the original Sakulin's method ; in other words,
the flicker emission limit would be only related to the
well known reactance of the step down transformer of
the steel factory (which is comparable to the frequent
practice with harmonics : the emission limits are
expressed in terms of harmonic currents and the
manufacturer does not bear the responsibility for
unexpected resonance conditions) ;
• if the ongoing study confirms that the active power
fluctuations may bring about a significant contribution
to the flicker level, when the reactive power fluctuations
are well compensated, the consequence will be that it is
not sufficient to assess a flicker emission level across a
purely reactive impedance ; a more refined method will
have to be set up.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Calculating the short-circuit power of the system
according to IEC 909 gives conservative results. More
realistic values may be obtained by taking into account
the presence of the loads and the actual operation
voltage.
However, in the context of flicker emission level
assessment, we found out that the "virtual short-circuit
impedance" may be significantly different from the
calculated value. This may be due to neighbouring loads
with voltage dependent impedance and to the influence
of active power fluctuations. As a consequence, the
actual flicker level may be different from the expected
one, creating difficult situations for acceptance of new
installations in critical cases.
We have proposed a simple analytical model for the
problem caused by varying impedance loads and shown
how it was possible to deal with that question, in a
purely heuristic way.
However, additional investigations are needed in order
to understand all encountered problems and to get a
general method allowing to handle critical cases.
References
1. International Electrotechnical Commission, Short-
circuit current calculation in three-phase a.c. systems
(IEC Standard 909, 1st edition, 1988)
2. E.L. Harder, Steady-State Performance of Systems
Including Methods of Network Solution » (Chapter 10,
Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference
Book, p.309, Westinghouse, Fourth Edition, 1950)
3. International Electrotechnical Commission,
MV and HV Power Systems (IEC Technical Report
61000-3-7, 1st edition, 1996)
4. M. Sakulin, T. Key, UIE/IEC Flicker Standard for
Use in North America. Measuring Techniques and
Practical Applications (Proceedings of the PQA ‘97
North America Conference, Columbus OH, USA, March
1997)
5. T. Gentile, S. Ihara, A. Murdoch, N. Simons,
Determining Load Characteristics for Transient
Performance (EPRI EL-850, Research Project 849-1,
Final Report, March 1981)
6. C. Concordia, S. Ihara, Load Representation in
Power System Stability Studies (IEEE Trans. on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, n° 4 April 1982,
pp.969-977)
7. A. Robert, Raccordement des Charges Déformantes
ou Fluctuantes dans les Réseaux à Moyenne et Haute
Tension (Ph.D. Thesis, UCL, 1998)
8. M. Sakulin, H. Renner, Field Experience with the
Austrian UIE / IEC Flicker Analysis System
(Proceedings of the XIIth UIE Congress, Electrotech 92,
Montréal Canada, 1992, pp. 842 – 85)