VOLTAGE UNBALANCE IN LOW VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS

Paulo Vinícius Santos Valois – COPEL – Companhia Paranaense de Energia, Brazil

Carlos Márcio Vieira Tahan – University of São Paulo, Brazil
Nelson Kagan – University of São Paulo, Brazil
Hector Arango – EFEI – Federal School of Engineering at Itajuba, Brazil

SUMMARY

This paper presents a methodology for

measuring, monitoring and controlling
voltage unbalance in electrical power
distribution networks. The distribution of
single-phase and double-phase loads
along the network and their random
instant demand values can be considered
as the main causes to voltage unbalance
in three-phase distribution systems.

The work considers voltage unbalance

measurements carried out in a Brazilian
distribution company located in the State
of Paraná, namely COPEL – Companhia
Paranaense de Energia.

Since voltage unbalance gradually affects

equipment, this disturbance should be
dealt with by statistical analysis.
Regarding voltage regulation and voltage
unbalance, a world-wide tendency is to
consider their monitoring and measuring
on 10 minute intervals along a 1 week
period.

Thus, this paper aims at:

- studying the opportunity of using

digital simulations for the analysis of
voltage unbalance disturbances;
- comparing field measurements and
results from simulations;
- proposing preliminary standards
regarding voltage unbalance to be
applied in low and medium voltage
distribution systems in Brazil.
VOLTAGE UNBALANCE IN LOW VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS
Paulo Vinícius Santos Valois – COPEL – Companhia Paranaense de Energia, Brazil
Carlos Márcio Vieira Tahan – University of São Paulo, Brazil
Nelson Kagan – University of São Paulo, Brazil
Hector Arango – EFEI – Federal School of Engineering at Itajuba, Brazil
INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing concern to supply power to
customers mainly when their processes are based on
susceptible loads. In such scenario power quality
becomes extremely relevant. Reliability indices and
voltage levels, for instance, are parameters much more
regulated now. Other power quality phenomena are also
being taken care of in much more detail, such as voltage
sags, harmonic distortion, voltage and current unbalance
and so forth.
This paper presents a methodology for measuring,
monitoring and controlling voltage unbalance in
electrical power distribution networks. The distribution
of single-phase and double-phase loads along the
network and their random instant demand values can be
considered as the main causes to voltage unbalance in
three-phase distribution systems.
Contrary to some other disturbances in electrical power
systems, for which the performance is evident for the
ordinary customer, voltage unbalance belongs to those
disturbances in which their perceptible effects are
produced in the long run.
Voltage unbalance leads to a sharp decrease on the
efficiency of three-phase induction motors. In Brazil,
50% of the electric energy is absorbed by industrial
customers. Since induction motors represent the largest
portion of industrial loads, it is seen that the voltage
unbalance should be carefully studied and controlled.
This work considers voltage unbalance measurements
carried out in a Brazilian distribution company located
in the State of Paraná, namely COPEL – Companhia
Paranaense de Energia.
Since voltage unbalance gradually affects equipment,
this disturbance should be dealt with by statistical
analysis. Regarding voltage regulation and voltage
unbalance, a world-wide tendency is to consider their
monitoring and measuring on 10 minute intervals along
a 1 week period.
OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this paper are as follows:
a) to study the opportunity of using digital simulations
for the analysis of voltage unbalance disturbances;
b) to compare field measurements and results from
simulations;
c) to propose preliminary standards regarding voltage
unbalance to be applied in low and medium voltage
distribution systems in Brazil.
BASIC CONCEPTS
Voltage unbalance in three-phase distribution systems
regards the changing in phase angles and/or in the
magnitude of voltage phasors. The main causes leading
to voltage unbalance are the following ones.
a) Unsymmetrical distribution systems, that is
equipment and phase conductors present different
impedance values.
b) Unsymmetrical loads, such as arc furnaces, single
and double phase loads;
c) Different voltage drops due to differences in mutual
impedances between phase conductors and between
phase conductors and ground. This depends on the
spatial configuration of conductors.
Low voltage distribution networks – the main focus of
this paper – introduce a small amount of voltage
unbalances due to their impedances. The main cause can
be considered as the current unbalance, due to the
distribution of single-phase and double-phase loads
along the network, such as public lighting and
residences.
COMPUTING THE VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
INDEX
The voltage unbalance index is generally related to the
negative symmetrical component system. This is due to
the large number of pieces of equipment that have their
efficiency and life affected, mainly the ones like
generators and motors (based on rotating magnetic
fields), where the major part of electrical energy is
transformed.
Phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground voltage unbalance
indices (DQV2) are equal and given by the following
equation:
V AN 2 V AB 2
DQV 2 = = (1)
V AN 1 V AB1
where V AN1 , V AN 2 are positive and negative sequence
phase-to-ground voltages and V AB1 , V AB 2 are positive
and negative sequence phase-to-phase voltages.
Equation (1) allows for the computation of voltage INFLUENCE OF NETWORK IMPEDANCES ON
unbalance in a system by using phase-to-phase voltages VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
only. Such computation is carried out by utilising
voltage magnitude only whereas methods based on Networks can contribute on voltage unbalance due to
phase-to-ground voltages require the magnitude and the unsymmetrical spatial configuration of conductors.
phase angles. However such method demands lots of This leads to different phase voltage drops due to
arithmetic operations. The CIGRÉ method was chosen different mutual impedances. In order to evaluate this
to be used, since it is derived from the CO-SENOS effect on the voltage unbalance, a number of
method, that keeps the accuracy. The voltage unbalance simulations were carried out on low voltage networks.
index can be readily determined by the following
equation: Voltage drops due to mutual inductances are
proportional to the flowing electric current and to the
1− 3 − 6 ⋅β
DQV (%) = ×100 (2) conductor length. Thus, a typical distribution network
1+ 3 − 6 ⋅β branch was assumed to have the current fixed by the
4 4 4
maximum allowed voltage drop. In order to ensure the
V AB + V AB + V AB current balance, a three-phase balanced resistive load
where: β =
(V AB
2
+ V AB
2
+ V AB
2 2
) was considered to be installed in the receiving bus. Two
different conductor configurations were considered in
the simulations, as shown in figure 1.
A variant of the above method is here named CIGRÉ-2
and is based on the relative deviations in phase-to-phase
voltage magnitudes δAB, δBC and δCA, with respect the
average value VM, given by:

DVQ ′ = 2
3
(δ AB
2
+ δ BC 2 + δ CA 2 ) (3)

where:
V AB − V M V BC − V M
δ AB = , δ BC = ,
VM VM vertical configuration triangle configuration
(A, B and C are phase conductors and N is the ground conductor)
VCA − V M V AB + V BC + VCA
δ CA = and V M = Fig. 1 – Conductor configurations
VM 3
Table 2 presents the computed voltage values and the
Equation 3 is a simpler calculation method as compared corresponding voltage unbalance indices (D%) along
to equation 2, though there is a slight loss in accuracy. the branch, for different distances (L) from the source.

ALLOWED VOLTAGE UNBALANCE INDICES Table 2 – Voltage unbalance due to different conductor
configurations
Brazilian standards do not establish limits for voltage Vertical Configuration Triangle configuration
unbalance indices as yet. There are some references to (a) (b)
those indices in norms that regulate equipment tests and L Vab Vbc Vca D% Vab Vbc Vca D%
standards [7] [8]. Table 1 shows a comparative figure of (m) (V) (V) (V) (V) (V) (V)
adopted limits in world-wide standards. 100 219.10 219.10 219.10 0.00 219.09 219.09 219.09 0.00
150 211.14 212.53 211.80 0.38 211.75 211.75 211.75 0.00
180 206.45 208.68 207.54 0.62 207.47 207.47 207.47 0.00
Table 1 – Voltage unbalance limits 200 203.36 206.15 204.76 0.79 204.67 204.67 204.67 0.00

Voltage Unbalance Compatibility Level Results shown in Table 2 confirm the small influence
Immunity Levels (95% probability from conductor configuration on the voltage unbalance
of not exceeding the indices.
amount)
Standards Normal Majority of
condition single and Sampling Period PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATIONAL MODEL
double phase TO EVALUATE VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
loads
EN50160 2% 3% 10 min 1 week A computational model was developed to evaluate
NRS-048 2% 3% 10 min 1 week(*) voltage unbalance indices in electrical power
(*) this standard considers the maximum daily voltage unbalance index distribution networks. The model considers a three-
phase representation of the network, taking into account Table 3 shows a compilation of the main network
medium and low voltage network branches as well as characteristics taken from COPEL´s data base. The table
distribution transformers (three-phase transformers or also presents the number and monthly energy of
bank of single-phase transformers), capacitor banks, etc. residential (R), commercial (C) and industrial (I)
customers as well as total (T) figures. Table 4 shows the
The load flow method is carried out as many times as most relevant voltage unbalance results obtained from
necessary following a Monte Carlo method that the measurements.
randomly generates scenarios in a given instant along
the load daily curve.
Table 3 – Characteristics of the selected low voltage
Load modelling to support such simulations is the result networks
of an extended load demand measurement campaign CUSTOMERS
carried out in the 90´s to stratify all customers Case Netw. Transf. L Number of Monthly energy (kWh)
connected to distribution networks in Brazil. This customers
method classifies residential customers according to # Code (kVA) (m) R C I T R C I T
different ranges for monthly consumed energy and 1 C0148 75,0 781 126 04 03 133 25314 2636 687 28637
2 C0950 45,0 401 55 0 0 55 12525 0 0 12525
commercial and industrial customers according to their
3 C0994 45,0 399 71 02 03 76 12659 719 674 14052
activities. Other load categories were also considered, 4 C1317 75,0 518 106 03 00 109 16145 810 0 16955
such as public lighting. Each customer is modelled by 5 C3807 45,0 487 97 04 0 101 16229 2179 0 18408
its corresponding typical daily load curve. For every 15 6 C4211 45,0 382 69 02 0 71 10532 2241 0 12773
minute intervals the probability distribution curve is 7 C4835 75,0 694 99 01 03 103 20919 180 563 21662
given to be used by the Monte Carlo simulation method. 8 C4974 75,0 642 118 02 0 120 20722 554 0 21276
9 C5174 45,0 394 26 0 03 29 9583 0 1369 10952
10 C6212 45,0 485 72 0 0 72 12466 0 0 12466
Figure 2 illustrates a typical probability distribution for 7038 3152 3238 13428
11 C9079 112,5 312 35 07 03 45
the demand in residential customers during the peak 12 C4617 112,5 582 68 16 04 88 14502 18584 4298 37384
load period (from 8 to 9 pm).

Consumo 200-400kWh Table 4 – Results from field measurements

hora {20,20:15,20:30,20:45} Voltage Unbalance Index Probability of Voltage
(%) Unbalance
1 Case Net Max. Value 95% Value ≤ 2% ≤ 3%
0.8 # Code Inst. Average Inst. Average Inst. Average Inst. Average
freqüência

0.6 1 C0148 3.7 2.6 1.7 1.4 97.64 99.21 99.82 -

2 C0950 5.5 3.4 2.2 2.0 92.85 95.84 99.05 99.70
0.4
3 C0994 2.9 1.9 1.3 0.9 99.07 - - -
0.2
4 C1317 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.4 83.26 85.87 98.74 99.50
0 5 C3807 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.1 98.98 99.88 99.96 -
0.375

1.125

2.142

10.71
0

0.75

1.5

6 C4211 4.1 3.0 1.8 1.7 97.62 98.91 99.87 100.00

7 C4835 3.9 2.8 1.7 1.5 98.08 99.70 99.94 -
d(t)/dmed 8 C4974 4.3 2.8 1.8 1.5 96.62 98.58 99.55 -
9 C5174 3.0 2.2 1.4 1.3 99.38 99.80 100.0 -
10 C6212 3.9 2.5 1.4 1.1 99.28 99.80 99.95 -
Fig.2 Probability distribution (density and cumulative)
Extreme (*) 5.50 3.50 2.50 2.40 83.26 85.87 98.74 99.50
curves for residential customers, monthly energy (*): maximum voltage unbalance indices and minimum probabilities
ranging from 200 to 400kWh
Results obtained in table 4 lead to the following
preliminary conclusions:
MEASUREMENT RESULTS
a) All low voltage networks meet the criterion that
Since there are too many low voltage networks in the 95% of the measured voltage unbalance indices are
distribution company, network selection criteria to carry less than or equal to 3%;
out measurements were adopted. A criterion was chosen b) Only two low voltage networks do not meet the
to select those networks more likely to have voltage criterion that 95% of the measured voltage
unbalance, such the ones having predominantly single- unbalance indices are less than or equal to 2%;
phase and double-phase loads, having higher c) Maximum instantaneous voltage unbalance indices
transformer loading, voltage drop and dispersion of are less than 5.5%;
loads along the network. The selected networks were d) Such results are a consequence of good network
submitted to simulations by using the developed management procedures.
software and to measurement in the field during one
week and demand values stored on 15 second intervals.
A low cost electronic meter was used to monitor low
and medium voltage networks.
EVALUATION OF VOLTAGE DROPS BY By analysing the maximum values of voltage unbalance
MEASUREMENT AND BY THE DISTRIBUTION indices shown in table 6, one sees that the simulation
NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM method is rather more conservative. However one
should not discard such simulations from a network
The existing distribution management system running at management system. The main causes for such
COPEL does not determine voltage unbalance indices. differences can be explained by the methodology
It only provides the distribution of total power flows in adopted, where 500 possible load unbalance scenarios
each of the three phases of the transformer, estimated were analysed for each selected instant in the daily
from the billed customer energy values. curve. Such a high number of network conditions leads
to the evaluation of extreme cases and thus leading to
However, the system provides the minimum voltage more conservative results. Also, while loads were
level in the distribution network, by considering the modelled by 15 minute measurements, simulations were
nominal voltage (220V) in the low voltage transformer considered in 3 hour intervals
bus. The voltage drops are evaluated at each branch, as
a function of load demands and cable characteristics, Table 6 – Maximum voltage unbalance indices
what leads to the determination of the maximum Case Network Simulation Instantaneous
network voltage drop. # Code Measurement
1 C0148 5.87 3.7
Table 5 shows voltage drop values (∆V%) determined by 2 C0950 6.43 5.5
the distribution management system and obtained from 3 C0994 7.65 2.9
the field measurements. The latter are the voltage drop 4 C1317 5.27 4.5
values considering probability lower than 3%. 5 C3807 8.10 3.5
6 C4211 4.83 4.1
Table 5 – Voltage drop values (measurement and
7 C4835 9.05 3.9
distribution management system)
8 C4974 7.87 4.3
Network Management Field
9 C5174 5.63 3.0
System Measurement
10 C6212 8.58 3.9
Case Net ∆V% V (volt) V (volt)
# Code .
Ideal Actual Ideal Actual Vab Vbc Vca It is seen however that such discrepancies are
1 C0148 6.69 10.05 205.28 197.89 209.00 209.00 208.00 diminished when analysing probabilistic results. Figure
2 C0950 6.16 8.81 206.45 200.62 210.00 209.00 206.00 3 shows results for case #1.
3 C0994 3.32 7.74 212.70 202.97 206.00 207.00 207.00
4 C1317 3.93 10.64 211.35 196.59 218.00 212.00 212.00
5 C3807 4.70 8.50 209.66 201.30 205.00 205.00 205.00 Table 7 shows probabilities associated to voltage
6 C4211 2.20 6.13 215.16 206.51 216.00 212.00 212.00 unbalance indices lower than 2% and 3%, obtained from
7 C4835 6.24 8.41 206.27 201.50 207.00 205.00 205.00 measurements and simulations.
8 C4974 6.91 9.87 204.80 198.29 203.00 201.00 200.00
9 C5174 5.31 8.42 208.32 201.48 211.00 209.00 209.00 If one considers the criterion of 95% of monitored
10 C6212 3.81 10.47 211.62 196.97 214.00 215.00 213.00
values not exceeding 3%, measurement and simulations
for cases shown in table 7 lead to the same conclusions.
It is seen that the network management system provides When adopting the 2% limit, more conservative results
more conservative results, mainly for the values with where obtained when using the simulation method, what
probability lower than 3%. is adequate for network management systems.
Taking case #1, for instance, there was a 199V
instantaneous registered value, closer to the one Table 7 – Probabilistic results – measurements and
evaluated by the network management system. However simulations (probability of voltage unbalance)
such value does not affect negatively customer
Measurement Simulations
equipment due to its low probability (0.0025%). In such Case Net ≤ 2% ≤ 3% ≤ 2% ≤ 3%
location, a 206.5V voltage level corresponds to the 1% # Code Inst. Average Inst. Average
probability whereas 208.5V corresponds to 3% 1 C0148 97.64 99.21 99.82 - 96.00 98.00
probability. 2 C0950 92.85 95.84 99.05 99.70 97.00 99.00
3 C0994 99.07 - - - 95.00 -
4 C1317 83.26 85.87 98.74 99.50 96.00 98.00
5 C3807 98.98 99.88 99.96 - 95.00 97.00
VOLTAGE UNBALANCE INDICES USING THE
6 C4211 97.62 98.91 99.87 100.00 94.90 97.00
MONTE CARLO SIMULATION METHOD 7 C4835 98.08 99.70 99.94 - 94.00 97.00
8 C4974 96.62 98.58 99.55 - 94.00 97.00
Table 6 compares the maximum voltage unbalance 9 C5174 99.38 99.80 100.00 - 98.00 99.50
indices obtained from simulation and from 10 C6212 99.28 99.80 99.95 - 89.50 95.80
measurement.
 Frequency (%)
Fig. 3 – Simulation and field measurement results
CONCLUSIONS
Voltage unbalance indices determined in field
measurements are considered to be low, possibly due
to network management procedures adopted in the
company. In such procedures, load current unbalance
are avoided by an appropriate distribution of single-
phase and double-phase customers along the
distribution network. Simulation results were validated
mainly when considering that 95% of the time the
voltage unbalance index is inferior to 3%. The
probabilistic method should therefore be incorporated
into the company´s network management system. Low
cost measurement instruments were shown to be
effective enough for monitoring voltage unbalance
indices. Although results point out that simulation
should be included in the distribution management
system, when considering the 96 simulations (one
every 15 minute period) throughout a daily cycle (24h)
and the large number of low voltage distribution
networks (COPEL has approximately 250,000
distribution transformers), the computation time could
restrict the application of the method. A very
interesting approach would be to consider techniques
based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). In such
approach, the procedure is divided into two phases:
training and application. The training phase is based on
the data base for load curves and customers connected
to the system, on simulations and on measurement
campaigns. The voltage unbalance indices would be
stored for each type of distribution network, where the
type would be defined by given attributes such as load
balance amongst phases, network length, cable
characteristics, voltage drops, number of customers in
each category, monthly energy, etc.. In the following
phase, having known the network attributes and
corresponding loads, the software would be able to
Simulations
Instantaneous
Average
Voltage Unbalance Index (%)
estimate the resulting voltage unbalance index. A
similar procedure was successfully applied to a
distribution transformer loading management system
[9] [10].
REFERENCES
[1] Brazilian legislation (DNAEE 46 and 47). 1978
[2] CIGRÉ A new simple and effective approximate
formulation for the determination of three-phase
unbalances by the voltmeter method. Belgique,
CIGRÉ, 1986
[3] NEMA Standards Publication n. MG-1-1987
[4] BERNDT, M. M.; SCHMITZ, N. L. Derating of
Polyphase induction motors operated with unbalanced
line voltages.
[5] W. EDWARD REID, O. Power quality issues –
standards and guidelines. IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications. V.32, n.3, p.625-632,
May/June. 1996.
[6] EUROPEAN STANDARD– EN50160. Voltage
characteristics of electricity supplied by public
distribution systems. Brussels, CENELEC, 1994.
[7] NRS 048-1:1996 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY –
QUALITY OF SUPPLY Overview of implementation
of standards and procedures. South Africa. 1996.
[8] EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR
ELECTROTECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION –
CENELEC Voltage caracteristics of Electricity
Supplied by Public Distribution systems.
[9] J. A JARDINI; H. P. SCHMIDT Seleção e
classificação de transformadores de distribuição
utilizando redes neurais. Internal Report – Department
of Electrical Engineering – University of São Paulo.
[10] J. A JARDINI; H. P. SCHMIDT S. U. AHN C. M. V.
TAHAN C. C. B. OLIVEIRA “Distribution
Transformer Loss of Life Evaluation: A Novel
Approach Based on Daily Load Profiles” a ser
publicado no PES Transaction (paper 99WM 402 ).