Cigré 468 - Review of Disturbance Emission Assessment Techniques

468
Review of Disturbance Emission

Assessment Techniques
Working Group
C4.109
June 2011
Review of Disturbance Emission
Assessment Techniques
CIGRE/CIRED
Working Group
C4.109
Members
D. Arlt (DE), H. Bronzeado (BR), R. Cai (NL/CN), E. De Jaeger (convenor, BE), Z. Emin (GB),
M. Halpin (US), F. Klein (FR), I. Papic (SI), P. Paranavithana (AU), S. Perera (AU),
H. Renner (AT), F. Zavoda (CA)
Copyright © 2011
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of
use for personal purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial
reproduction of the publication for use other than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation
on any intranet or other company network is forbidden”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any
responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and
conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”.
ISBN: 978- 2- 85873- 158-9

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2 BASIC EMC CONCEPTS ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Compatibility levels .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Planning levels ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Individual emission limits ...................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Illustration of EMC concepts ................................................................................................... 6
3 General guidelines for the assessment of emission levels ................................................................ 7
3.1 Point of Evaluation (POE) ........................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Assessment conditions ............................................................................................................. 7
3.2.1 First step: does the installation under consideration effectively increase the disturbance
level ? 7
3.2.2 Second step: effective assessment of the emission levels ..................................................... 8
3.2.3 Approximate assessment ....................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Measurement standards and statistical results .................................................................... 9
4 Harmonic emissions level compliance assessment ........................................................................... 9
4.1 Definition of harmonic emission level ................................................................................. 9
4.2 Harmonic emission evaluation without switching the installation under
consideration ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2.1 Dominant disturber: simple statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of voltage
harmonics and power consumption .................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and current:
studying the correlation between the harmonic current and voltage at the POE ................................ 12
4.2.3 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and current as
phasors 14
4.2.4 Comparison of two methods based on long duration simultaneous measurements – case
study 15
4.3 “One‐shot” harmonic emission evaluation with switching of the installation under
consideration ........................................................................................................................................ 19
4.4 Importance of the network harmonic impedance ............................................................. 20
4.5 Comparison of harmonic emission assessment methods ................................................ 20
4.6 Summary: Recommended practical procedure / workflow for harmonic emission
level compliance assessment ............................................................................................................ 21
5 Flicker emissions level compliance assessment .............................................................................. 23
5.1 Emission level evaluation with switching of the installation under consideration ... 23
5.1.1 Application of the general summation law .......................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Statistical approach based on normality assumption ........................................................... 24
5.2 Statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of flicker and power
consumption ......................................................................................................................................... 25
2
5.3 Direct on‐line measurement of flicker emission level ..................................................... 28
5.3.1 The effect of the commonly neglected network resistance on the flicker emission level ... 28
5.3.2 Method 1 : simplified approach ........................................................................................... 29
5.3.3 Method 2 : difference method ............................................................................................. 30
5.3.4 Method 3 : load current approach ........................................................................................ 31
5.3.5 Method based on rms measurement and simulation ............................................................ 33
5.4 Comparative analysis of the methods (the pros and the cons) ....................................... 34
5.5 Summary: Recommended procedure / workflow for flicker emission level
compliance assessment ...................................................................................................................... 36
6 Unbalance emissions level compliance assessment ........................................................................ 38
6.1 Brief overview on unbalance ................................................................................................. 38
6.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 38
6.2.1 Definition of voltage and current unbalance ....................................................................... 38
6.2.2 Application of symmetrical components to network impedance ........................................ 39
6.2.3 General approach for unbalance level at the POE ............................................................... 41
6.2.4 System inherent unbalance , ( , ) ....................................................... 42
6.2.5 Load unbalance , ( , )........................................................................ 43
6.3 IEC/TR 61000‐3‐13 definition of emission level ................................................................ 45
6.4 Emission level assessment techniques ................................................................................ 45
6.4.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 45
6.4.2 Total emission level assessment , based on measurement before and after connection 46
6.4.3 Assessment of the emission , , due to the installation ...................................... 46
6.4.4 Further work ........................................................................................................................ 48
6.5 Comparative analysis of the methods (the pros and the cons) ....................................... 48
6.6 Summary: Recommended procedure / workflow for voltage unbalance emission
level compliance assessment ............................................................................................................ 49
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 51
ANNEX A - Methods used for harmonic impedance assessment ........................................................ 53
A.1. Non invasive methods ............................................................................................................ 53
A.1.1. Harmonic currents from existing non-linear installations ................................................... 53
A.1.2. Switching transients or natural variations ........................................................................... 55
A.2. Invasive Methods .................................................................................................................... 59
A.2.1. Direct injection of harmonic currents .................................................................................. 59
A.2.2. Use of (inter)harmonic current generators........................................................................... 62
A.2.2.1. LV harmonic current generator ....................................................................................... 62
A.3. Comparative Analysis of the Methods for harmonic impedance assessment (pros and cons) .. 67
A.3. References for Annex A.................................................................................................................... 68
ANNEX B - Estimating the location of flicker sources ......................................................................... 70
B.1. Estimation based on simultaneous flicker and power measurements .......................... 70
3
B.2. Estimation based on simultaneous flicker emission and global level measurements71
B.3. Locating flicker sources using the concept of “flicker power” [B‐1] ............................ 72
B.4. References for Annex B .......................................................................................................... 73
ANNEX C - Annexes on voltage unbalance ......................................................................................... 74
C.1. Indicative impedance values of untransposed lines ........................................................ 74
C.3. Voltage unbalance due to line asymmetry and coupling between circuits.................. 77
C.4 An approach for voltage unbalance emission assessment in interconnected networks
[C‐1, C‐2] ............................................................................................................................................... 78
C.4.1 Line asymmetries ................................................................................................................ 78
C.4.2 Load asymmetries................................................................................................................ 80
C.4.3 Combined voltage unbalance behavior of line and load asymmetries ................................ 81
C.5. Meaning of the kuE factor (IEC 61000‐3‐13) ......................................................................... 82
C.6. References for Annex B .......................................................................................................... 84
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Guidance on principles which can be used as the basis for determining the requirements for the connection
of distorting, fluctuating or unbalanced installations to MV, HV and EHV public power systems is
provided in the technical reports IEC/TR 61000-3-6, 61000-3-7 and 61000-3-13 [1], [2], [3].
At post-connection stage, three major aspects referring to disturbance emission are regularly discussed and
debated:
 the location of disturbances sources,
 the discrimination between the network and the customer contribution to the emission level and
 the evaluation or the assessment of the individual emission levels.
This report focuses mainly on the last aspect. Experience with the application of emission level
assessment guidelines in the context of post-connection investigations, in order to check if the actual
disturbance emission levels of a given installation comply with the limits established according to IEC/TR
61000-3-6, -3-7 and -3-13, are reviewed and documented.
However, the last two aspects are closely related and namely the second could be treated as a particular
case of the last.
2 BASIC EMC CONCEPTS
The development of emission limits (voltage or current) for individual equipment or a customer’s
installation are based on the effect that these emissions will have on the quality of the voltage. Some basic
concepts are used to evaluate voltage quality. In order for these concepts to be used for evaluation at
specific locations, they are defined in terms of where they apply (locations), how they are measured
(measurement duration, sampling rate, averaging durations, statistics), and how they are calculated. These
concepts are described hereafter.
2.1 Compatibility levels
These are reference values for co-ordinating the emission and immunity of equipment which is part of, or
supplied by, a supply system in order to ensure the EMC in the whole system (including system and
connected equipment). Compatibility levels are generally based on the 95 % probability levels of entire
systems, using statistical distributions which represent both time and space variations of disturbances.
There is allowance for the fact that the system operator or owner cannot control all points of a system at
all times. Therefore, evaluation with respect to compatibility levels should be made on a system-wide
basis and no assessment method is provided for evaluation at a specific location.
These compatibility levels must be understood to relate to quasi-stationary or steady-state voltage

disturbances (harmonics, flicker, unbalance), and are given as reference values for both long-term effects
and very-short-term effects.
2.2 Planning levels
These are voltage disturbances levels that can be used for the purpose of establishing emission limits,
taking into consideration all disturbing installations present in a given system. Planning levels are
specified by the system operator or owner for all system voltage levels. They can be considered as internal
quality objectives of the system operator or owner and may be made available to individual customers on
request.
5
Planning levels for voltage harmonics, flicker or unbalance are equal to or lower than compatibility levels
and they should allow co-ordination of voltage disturbances between different voltage levels. Only
indicative values may be given because planning levels will differ from case to case, depending on system
structure and circumstances.
2.3 Individual emission limits
Resulting from an apportioning of the planning levels among the various disturbers present in a given
system, individual disturbance emission limits (related to harmonics, flicker or unbalance) are defined as
the maximum emission levels allowed for a particular disturbing installation as a whole.
2.4 Illustration of EMC concepts
The basic concepts of planning and compatibility levels are illustrated in Figure 1, together with
individual limits, for a specific disturbance. Although not mathematically rigorous, this figure is intended
to emphasize the most important relationships between the basic variables and is for illustration only.
Within an entire power system it is inevitable that some level of interference will occur on some
occasions, hence there is a risk of overlapping between the distributions of disturbance levels and
immunity levels (see Figure 1). Immunity test levels are specified by relevant standards or agreed upon
between manufacturers and customers.
Emission limits result from an apportioning of the planning levels among the various disturbers.
Figure 1 - Illustration of basic voltage quality concepts with time statistics relevant to one site within the
whole system
6
3 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF EMISSION LEVELS
3.1 Point of Evaluation (POE)
The assessment of emission levels from disturbing installations is done at the point of evaluation (POE)
which is defined as the point where the emission levels of a given customer’s installation are assessed for
compliance with the emission limits. This point could be the point of connection (POC) or the point of
common coupling (PCC) of the disturbing installation or any other point specified by the system operator
or owner or agreed upon.
Depending on the complexity of the system structure and the customer’s installation characteristics it
might sometimes be necessary to consider more than one point of evaluation.
The following definitions are provided in the IEC 61000-3-6, -3-7 and -3-13 reports:
 PCC– Point in the public supply system, which is electrically closest to the installation concerned,
at which other installations are, or could be, connected. The PCC is a point located upstream of
the installation under consideration.
 POC – Point on a public power supply system where the installation under consideration is, or can
be, connected.
 POE – Point on a public power supply system where the emission levels of a given installation are
to be assessed against the emission limits. This point can be the PCC or the POC or any other
point specified by the system operator or owner or agreed upon.
3.2 Assessment conditions
The emission assessment procedure consists of two principal parts.
3.2.1 First step: does the installation under consideration effectively increase the
disturbance level ?
As a first step it has to be determined whether the total voltage disturbance level in the post-connection
state is (a) decreased or (b) increased compared to the pre-connection state (also known as background or
existing disturbance level without the installation under consideration).
Strictly speaking, this comparison must be made on a statistical basis. The disturbance levels must be
measured for a sufficiently long period (typically one week) and statistical indices must be obtained for
both pre- and post-connection states. The recommended statistical indices are described in the reference
documents IEC 61000-3-6, -3-7 and 3-13 and summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Recommended statistical indices for the disturbance levels assessment at the POE (for both pre-
and post-connection states)
Disturbance Recommended index Reference document
Harmonics Weekly 95th percentile of the IEC 61000-3-6
voltage harmonics measured on a
10-min basis
Flicker Weekly 99th percentile of the IEC 61000-3-7
voltage flicker Pst
Unbalance Weekly 95th percentile of the IEC 61000-3-13
voltage unbalance measured on
10-min basis
7
In case (a) (where the total voltage disturbance level in the post-connection state has decreased compared
to the pre-connection state or background disturbance), the installation is deemed to be acceptable and no
further investigations are necessary (although measured current might be distorted, fluctuating or
unbalanced).
In case (b), as a second step the emission of the installation under consideration must be determined and
compared to the individual emission limits.
In situations where it is not easy or even possible to shut down the installation for a significantly long
period of time and consequently evaluate the pre-connection situation, a simple approach as described in
the next paragraph should be used to estimate if the disturbance level is increased or not due to the
installation under consideration.
The disturbances must be measured and their correlation with the power drawn by the installation must be
assessed. If there is a clear correlation (positive or negative) between the disturbance levels and the power
demand of the installation under consideration, one should conclude that the installation under
consideration is undoubtedly influencing the disturbance level and further investigations must be carried
out (even if the correlation is negative). Such a typical case is illustrated in Figure 4 (chapter 4.2.1). Note
that a quantitative criteria should be agreed upon to assess the significance of the (positive or negative)
correlation.
It is important to perform the statistical evaluations with the same network topology.
3.2.2 Second step: effective assessment of the emission levels
The determination of the emission levels is based on one or more of the basic methods that are described
in detail in the chapters to follow.
It should be emphasized that the assessment conditions for emission levels must be agreed upon between
the system operator or owner and the customer.
The assessment period should be at least one week of normal business activity including some periods of
expected maximum disturbance levels from the disturbing installation.
The network topology should include contingencies that were considered at planning stage when
developing emission limits
Capacitor or inductor banks can play an important role in the sense that they modify significantly the
network impedance. Their various operating modes should be considered with care when defining the
reference network topologies.
3.2.3 Approximate assessment
In some cases, it may not be possible to have the necessary data available for the methods described in the
previous steps. In these cases, various approximations must be considered.
In general, these approximations involve using shorter periods of time where the assessed installation is
not operating to approximate a longer (one week) period that would be used in a pre-connection
8
assessment. The intention is to approximate longer-term conditions using shorter intervals, possibly
combining multiple short intervals together in the determination of statistical values.
It is necessary to ensure that any included shorter intervals accurately represent the system and installation
conditions and operating patterns that would be normally expected.
3.3 Measurement standards and statistical results
All electrical measurements for the assessment of emission levels must be performed according to IEC
61000-4-30 [4]. This standard defines three classes of measurement performance. The most appropriate
class for emission levels assessment is Class A.
Harmonics are measured up to the 40th or 50th order. In practice, taking the possible limitations introduced
by the transducers into account, harmonic measurements can be limited to the 25th order, except if some
resonances are anticipated at higher frequencies. (It is out of the scope of this report to deal with the
influence of measurement transducers; a detailed analysis and further references can be found in [26].)
Flagged data according to IEC 61000-4-30 should not be considered and consequently should be removed
from the assessment process.
As already stated, the monitoring period should be at least one week of normal business activity including
periods of expected maximum disturbance levels from the disturbing installation. One or more statistical
indices must be used for comparing the actual emission level with the emission limits. These indices can
be
 The 95% weekly value of the emission level evaluated over “short” 10 min periods, according to
IEC 61000-4-30,
 The greatest 99% probability daily value of the emission level evaluated over “very short” 150 or
180 cycle periods, according to IEC 61000-4-30.
4 HARMONIC EMISSIONS LEVEL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
4.1 Definition of harmonic emission level
The equivalent scheme of Figure 2, (where h is the harmonic voltage phasor at the POE, h is the
harmonic current phasor, h0 is the phasor of background harmonic voltage, h and hc are the complex
network and consumer’s harmonic impedances, respectively, and hc, are the harmonic sources present in
the consumer’s installation) established at the POE can be used for the purpose of assessing harmonic
emission.
Zh Ih
Eh 0 Uh Z hc Ihc
Grid Consumer’s installation

Figure 2 - Equivalent scheme for the definition of individual harmonic emission level
9
IEC 61000-3-6 defines the harmonic voltage emission level from an installation into the power system as
the magnitude of the harmonic voltage phasor hc (see Figure 3) at each harmonic frequency, which is
caused by the installation under consideration at the POE.
Uh
E hc
Voltage emission level
E h0
Ih
Figure 3 - Definition of harmonic emission level from the customer installation
Before connecting the customer’s installation to the grid there is only the grid contribution h0. The grid
characteristic harmonic impedance h (reference impedance) is either known or has to be calculated.
When the customer installation is connected to the grid, the current h circulates through the grid harmonic
impedance h. This current is defined in IEC 61000-3-6 as the harmonic current emission level of the
installation under consideration. The value of the current harmonic emission Ih can be calculated using (1)
(1)
where the first term corresponds to harmonic sources present in the installation under consideration. The
second term reflects the interaction between harmonic sources present elsewhere in the grid and the
harmonic impedance of the installation under consideration.
It is important to note that, considering this approach, even an installation without any harmonic source
can have harmonic emission levels specified. This could happen, for example, if it includes capacitor
banks that interact with the network, leading to resonance.
Using the value of h, it is possible to calculate the harmonic voltage emission level hc using (2)
(2)
The harmonic voltage emission level is clearly dependent on the harmonic impedance h of the network at
the POE (as ).
As explained in Section 3.2.1of IEC 61000-3-6, harmonic emission is taken into consideration if and only
if the resulting h has a greater magnitude than the background h0. Only in this case do the emission
levels (current or voltage) have to be compared with the assigned limits. This comparison is made through
a statistical assessment procedure.
10
4.2 Harmonic emission evaluation without switching the installation under
consideration
The assessment of the harmonic emission level without switching is based on the following methods,
ranging from the most simple to the most sophisticated:
 Statistical comparison between situations “with” and “without” the disturbing installation in
operation based on the use of summation laws,
 Modelling of disturbing loads based on long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic
voltage and current magnitudes and
 Modelling of disturbing loads based on long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic
voltage and current as phasors, i.e. assuming phase angle measurement.
It should be noted that these three approaches are consistent with the definition given in 4.1.
4.2.1 Dominant disturber: simple statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of

voltage harmonics and power consumption
In the case of a dominant distorting installation, results from simultaneous measurement of voltage
harmonics and apparent power drawn by the installation can be used to determine the harmonic emission
level. The variation of the magnitude of the harmonic voltage with the power demand for a given
harmonic is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 - Emission level evaluation from simultaneous measurement of voltage harmonics and power
consumption
The background harmonic voltage is evaluated by extrapolation of the harmonic voltage to the situation
where S = 0 (installation switched off).
Assuming that the background harmonic voltage does not vary significantly, the magnitude of the voltage
emission level, Ehc, can be simply calculated using the statistical summation law given in (3)
⁄
(3)
where  is an exponent depending mainly upon 2 factors according to IEC 61000-3-6:

– the chosen value of the probability for the actual value not to exceed the calculated value;
– the degree to which individual harmonic voltages vary randomly in terms of magnitude and phase.
The major disadvantage of this approach is that it gives acceptable results in practice only when the
installation under consideration brings a significant contribution to the global distortion at the PCC. The
11
main advantage is that it intrinsically takes into account the natural variations of the harmonic impedance
h.
If the background harmonic voltage cannot be considered as constant, (3) can still be used with a
statistical value of Eh0 (for example, the one resulting from the pre-connection assessment).
4.2.2 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and

current: studying the correlation between the harmonic current and voltage at the
POE
Simultaneous harmonic current and voltage measurement at the POE during long periods of time is by far
a better method for the assessment of harmonic emission levels. Several methods based on this principle
have been used so far.
Referring to the definition of harmonic emission, the parameters to be measured should at least include the
harmonic currents at the POE. However, simultaneous measurement of the harmonic voltages brings
interesting complementary information.
A typical plot area of the magnitude of harmonic voltage vs. the magnitude of harmonic current for an
industrial customer is shown in Figure 5. The slopes of the straight lines indicate the magnitude of the
harmonic impedance of the network (Zh) at the POE, for the lowest, and the magnitude of the harmonic
impedance of the installation under consideration (Zhc), for the highest. In the practice, a lower boundary
of this harmonic impedance is considered (usually the impedance of the main transformer of the
installation under consideration).
Slope
Slope
Figure 5 - Typical plot area of measured harmonic voltage vs. harmonic current at the POE, with
indication of the grid and consumer’s installation harmonic impedances
According to Section 3.3, the harmonic current emission level is the 95th percentile of the values of the
harmonic current magnitude, evaluated over one week, as suggested in IEC 61000-3-6. The corresponding
harmonic voltage emission level is equal to this value multiplied by the modulus of the grid harmonic
impedance, Zh (see Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Practical examples of such diagrams are given in Figure 6 to Figure 8 in which are shown 10-minute rms
values (the so-called “short” values) measured according to IEC 61000-4-30 over one week. In these
figures, the value of the harmonic impedance of the network is a calculated quantity, obtained from
simulation of the network.
12
Figure 6 - Example of 5th harmonic voltage vs. current (130 MVA arc furnace installation connected to
220 kV network)
Figure 7 - Example of 3rd harmonic voltage vs. current (150 MVA arc furnace installations connected at
220 kV)
In Figure 6, the measurement data points are spread over the area delimited by the two straight lines. This
means that the harmonic current and the resulting voltage are due to the combined influence of the
background level and the distorting installation under consideration without any prevalence of one or the
other. In the case of Figure 7, however, the installation acts clearly as a rather dominant emitter at the
POE; the points are mostly grouped along the straight line the slope of which is equal to Zh. This means
that the influence of the installation under consideration is greater than the background harmonic level.
Note that the measured points are not perfectly aligned but somewhat dispersed, due to the temporal
fluctuation of the grid impedance, together with fluctuations of the background harmonic voltage Eh0.
13
Figure 8 - Example of 5th harmonic voltage vs. current (100 MVA arc furnace installation connected at
220 kV)
In Figure 8, the points are more or less aligned along the second straight line with a slope equal to the
modulus Zhc (approximately equal to the transformer impedance). The 5th harmonic current is essentially
made of current being absorbed from the grid into the 5th harmonic filter of the installation under study. In
this case the grid is the dominant harmonic source.
The major advantage of this approach is that it provides interesting information about the behaviour of the
distorting installation and its increasing or decreasing effect when combined with the network background
disturbance level.
4.2.3 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and

current as phasors
The harmonic emission level in IEC 61000-3-6 is defined as the magnitude of the harmonic voltage (or
current) phasor at each harmonic frequency, which is caused by the installation under consideration at the
POE. The harmonic emission phasor is the difference between the harmonic voltage phasors before and
after the installation under consideration is connected to the network. Assuming that the network
measured quantities at the POE. As the actual impedance determination is a difficult task the reference
network impedance could be used [5], [6], [7], [8]. The network reference impedance determination can
be based on the network data or can be a subject of a contractual agreement.
(4)
The voltage represents the harmonic voltage before the installation under consideration is connected
to the network while the measured voltage represents the voltage conditions after the installation is
connected. The impedance is the reference value of the harmonic network impedance. The voltage
harmonic emission phasor can be calculated using (5).
(5)
14
The proposed definition of the harmonic emission level is illustrated in Figure 9, where presents the
voltage emission phasor at a particular harmonic order h, the phasor of the background harmonic
voltage and the harmonic voltage at the POE.
Figure 9 - Determination of harmonic emission levels.
The harmonic emission level is defined in (6).
(6)
The harmonic emission level is taken into consideration only if the magnitude of the measured voltage
is greater than the magnitude of the background voltage , i.e. .
4.2.4 Comparison of two methods based on long duration simultaneous measurements –

case study
The comparison is based on two methods which use simultaneous measurements of voltage and current at
the POE. The first method is based on simple correlation between the measured harmonic voltage and
current magnitudes while the second method uses measured voltage and current phasors at the POE.
The measurements were carried out at a 10/0.4 kV substation feeding the customer (public building) with
a large share of nonlinear loads. An equivalent circuit of the network is presented in Figure 10. The
customer is connected to the network through a 10/0.4 kV transformer (Transformer 1: Sn = 0.4 MVA, usc
= 4.9 %). A capacitor bank (40 kvar) for reactive-power compensation is installed on the 0.4 kV side of
the transformer. The short-circuit power of the network was estimated at 50 MVA at the 10 kV bus.
The 10-minute measurements at the POE were carried out over one week. A window of 10 cycles was
used for the FFT and resulting values were corrected for frequency deviations. The sampling rate was set
to 128 samples/cycle. Harmonic emission levels were calculated as phasors for every successive FFT
value. Harmonic magnitudes and harmonic emission levels were averaged over successive 10-minute
intervals.
10 kV 0.4 kV
POE
 Y
U net ZCap. ZL
Figure 10 - Case study network - public building
The results for the 5th and 7th harmonics are presented as these were dominant in the customer's network.
15
4.2.4.1 Simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and current magnitudes
Plots of harmonic voltage vs. harmonic current magnitudes, showing 10-minute rms values measured over
one week, are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12. The slopes of the straight lines indicate the harmonic
impedance of the network ( ) and the customer harmonic impedance ( ). The network harmonic
impedance is calculated as the sum of the short-circuit network impedance and the transformer impedance.
The straight line Zhc represents the minimum value of the measured (estimated) customer harmonic
impedance. The harmonic current emission level is the 95th percentile of the values evaluated over one
week. The harmonic voltage emission level is the value of the harmonic current emission level multiplied
by the network harmonic impedance. The 5th order harmonic emission levels are presented in Figure 11.
12
10 Zhc
8
U5 (V)
4
voltage
emisson level Zh
2
current
emisson level
0
0 5 10 15 20
I5 (A)
Figure 11 - 5th-order harmonic emission level - public building
The 5th harmonic voltage emission level (95th percentile) of the considered customer is 1.96 V and the
corresponding harmonic current emission level 17.8 A. The average value of the 5th harmonic voltage
emission level is 1.18 V and the corresponding current emission level is 10.7 A respectively.
The emission levels for the 7th harmonic are presented in Figure 12.
16
5
4.5
3.5
Zhc
3
U7 (V)
2.5
1.5 voltage
emisson level Zh
1
current
0.5 emisson level
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I7 (A)
The 7th harmonic voltage emission level (95th percentile) of the considered customer is 1 V and the
harmonic current emission level 6.46 A. The average value of the 7th harmonic voltage emission level is
0.79 V and current emission level 5.15 A respectively.
4.2.4.2 Simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and current phasors
The harmonic voltage emission levels are calculated employing simultaneous measurements of voltage
and current phasors at the POE. The presented results are based on consideration of the harmonic voltage
emissions only in cases when the resulting harmonic voltage has a greater magnitude than the
harmonic background voltage .
The 5th harmonic voltage emission level of the installation under consideration is presented in Figure 13. If
the points where | | | | are considered as zero emissions, the 95th percentile value of the 5th
harmonic voltage emission level evaluated over one week is 1.96 V. The average value of the 5th harmonic
voltage emission level over one week is 1.06 V.
17
2.5
1.5
|E5c| (V)
0.5
The 7th harmonic voltage emission level of the installation under consideration is presented in Figure 14. If
the points where | | | | are considered as zero emissions, the 95th percentile value of the 7th
harmonic voltage emission level evaluated over one week is 0.94 V. The average value of the 7th harmonic
voltage emission level over one week is 0.21 V.
1.2
0.8
|E7c| (V)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 14 - 7th-order harmonic emission level - public building.
18
The results of harmonic voltage emission levels determined from long duration measurements of voltage
and current magnitudes/phasors are compared in Table 2.
Table 2 - Direct comparison of the harmonic emission levels determined with the long duration
measurements of voltage and current magnitudes and phasors.
Long duration simultaneous measurements

Harmonic voltage and current magnitudes Harmonic voltage and current phasors
Voltage emission levels Voltage emission levels
th th
Harmonic 95 percentile value 95 percentile value
order average (V) average (V)
(V) (V)
5 1.96 1.18 1.96 1.06
7 1 0.79 0.94 0.21
4.3 “One-shot” harmonic emission evaluation with switching of the installation under
consideration
This approach of harmonic emission level assessment is based on the comparison of two sets of
measurements which are taken in sequence with the consumer’s installation switched off and on,
respectively. When the installation is switched off, the measurement of the harmonic voltage at the POE
gives the background h0 while the harmonic current emission is obviously equal to zero.
Zh Zh Ih
S1 S1
Eh 0 U h0 Z hc Ihc Eh 0 Uh Z hc Ihc
Figure 15 - Emission level evaluation with switching of the installation under consideration
When switch S1 (Figure 15) is open, the measurement of the harmonic voltage at the POE gives (7).
(7)
When it is closed, (8) can be written.
(8)
Substituting (7) into (8) results in (9) which gives the harmonic voltage emission level
(9)
The harmonic current emission level defined by (1) is obviously equal to the current flowing in the
connection after switching on the installation. This method requires the measurement at different times of
19
two harmonic voltage phasors that are derived from two different circuits. Consequently, a measure of the
current h (when switch S1 is closed) is needed in order to determine the phase difference between h and
h0, by use of (9).
The advantage of the approach is its simplicity where it provides “instantaneous” results, but they are only
valid at the time of the switching operation. It gives no statistical behaviour of the harmonic emission of
the installation. Rigorously, it must be recognized that the method relies on the following assumptions:
 The background level remains constant during the switching operation (magnitude as well as
phase angle), which is not guaranteed at all in every circumstance and
 The emission level can be considered as constant, so that the measured value is sufficiently
indicative
Extrapolation can eventually be done and justified on the basis of engineering judgement.
4.4 Importance of the network harmonic impedance
The grid harmonic impedance is seen to be a key parameter in the quantification process of the harmonic
voltage emission [9]. Several options exist:
 The ideal practice should be the use of the actual measured value of this impedance (with the
obvious difficulty in establishing it on-line) and
 The use of an agreed “contractual” value (either calculated or measured as a one-shot or as a
statistical value).
The option taken with regard to Figure 6 to 8 is the second approach using a calculated value (based on a
simulation model of the network at the POE). On the other hand, the option chosen in the context of the
harmonic phasor method with reference impedances is to simply take the network short-circuit impedance
as reference for the grid impedance.
The assessment is based on power system parameters, but in most cases poor knowledge of those
parameters could lead to a significant error.
Nevertheless, information on the system harmonic impedance is a prerequisite both for the system
operator or owner for assessing emission limits and also for the customer in order to assess the emission
levels of the installation under consideration.
4.5 Comparison of harmonic emission assessment methods
Advantages Disadvantages
One-shot harmonic emission
 Very simple measurement  Non simultaneous
evaluation with switching of the
procedure (when switching is measurements; risk of changes
installation under consideration
a common operation) in network topologies and load
(cf. 4.3)
conditions
 Instantaneous values (no
statistical validity)
Dominant disturber: Simple  Very simple measurement  Non simultaneous

statistical approach from procedure (comparison “with measurements; risk of changes
simultaneous measurement of vs. without” or “before vs. in network topologies and load
voltage harmonics and power after connection”) conditions
consumption.
20
 Measurement of only  Difficulty in choosing the
Emission assessment based on
harmonic voltages magnitudes summation exponent ()
summation laws
needed
(cf. 4.2.1)
Processing long duration  Only harmonic voltage and

 Quantification of voltage
simultaneous measurements of current magnitudes needed (no
harmonic emission level needs
harmonic voltage and current: phase measurement)
the value of the network
studying the correlation between  Gives an indication of the
harmonic impedance to be
the harmonic current and dominant elements from the
fixed
voltage at the POE harmonic point of view
(cf. 4.2.2)
Processing long duration  No requirement of customer  Requirement of the phase

simultaneous measurements of impedance. angle between the harmonic
harmonic voltage and current as  No requirement of the actual current and the corresponding
phasors network impedance data. harmonic voltage.
(cf. 4.2.3)
4.6 Summary: Recommended practical procedure / workflow for harmonic emission

level compliance assessment
The total recommended procedure for compliance assessment is summarized in the following series of
points and the accompanying workflow diagram:
 Choice of the point of evaluation: see 3.1.

 Measurement campaign duration: the harmonic levels must be measured for a sufficiently long
period and statistical indices must be obtained for both pre- and post-connection states (typically
one week of “normal” business activity for each state); see 3.2.1 and 3.3.
 Measurement method and typical indices: refer to IEC 61000-4-30; use very-short (150/180-cycle
values) or short values, depending on the acceptance criteria to be met.
 The choice of an assessment method can be made on the basis of the following workflow
diagram:
21

Pre-connection
Statistical Analysis : Eh0
(cf. 3.2.1)

Post-connection
Statistical Analysis : Uh
(cf. 3.2.1)

N No further
investigation
Uh  Eh0 ?
required

Y

N Emission
Harmonic currents assessment based on
Ih measured at the summation laws
post-connection (cf. 4.2.1)
stage ?

Y

Y Phase angles N
measured at post-
connection stage ?

Emission
Harmonic
assessment
vector by Study
Emission
of the
assessment
correlation
by

harmonic vector
approach studying
between the amplitudes
correlation
approach between
of the amplitudes
h and h

(cf. 4.2.3) of h and h
(cf. 4.2.2)

22
5 FLICKER EMISSIONS LEVEL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
5.1 Emission level evaluation with switching of the installation under consideration
Simple voltage measurements provide only the global effect of all the disturbers present in the network.
However, comparative measurements with and without the concerned disturbing load can be useful in
order to assess its emission level, provided that some assumptions are made.
5.1.1 Application of the general summation law
5.1.1.1 Summation effects
A general summation law for short-term flicker severity level caused by various fluctuating loads has been
established in the form shown in (10) (IEC 61000-3-7), where Psti are the various individual flicker
emissions to be combined.
∑ ⁄
( 10 )
The value of the exponent  depends upon the characteristics of the sources of fluctuation and is generally
chosen between 1 (where there is a very high occurrence of coincident voltage changes) and 4 (e.g.
summation of voltage changes due to arc furnaces specifically run to avoid coincident melts).
The value  = 3 is used for most types of voltage changes where the risk of coincident voltage changes is
limited. The vast majority of studies combining unrelated disturbances will fall into this category and the
use of this value is recommended whenever there is doubt over the degree of risk of coincident voltage
changes occurring.
In fact, recent empirical studies have shown that the summation law which best fits measurement results
depends on the Pst percentile which is chosen for the evaluation. In a two arc furnaces case, for example,
it appeared that the summation is practically linear up to a probability (P) of 50 %; it becomes quadratic
for P  75 % and cubic for P  90 %. For P  95 % it is practically difficult to identify a summation law,
the measured flicker level being almost entirely caused by the most disturbing load (  4).
In general, for voltage quality characterising purposes (95 % or 99 % probabilities), the cubic summation
thus gives a conservative evaluation but may be close to what is observed in practice. It seems justified to
keep it as a general approach for planning stage studies and emission limits assessment.
5.1.1.2 Application to comparative measurements
The general summation law based on exponent  = 3 can be applied to comparative measurements with
and without the concerned disturbing load (i.e. comparison between pre- and post-connection states) as
shown in (11) in order to evaluate its emission level [10].
⁄
( 11 )
Evaluation resulting from this method is rather uncertain, mainly due to two reasons :
- measurements are not performed simultaneously and the result is influenced by possible changes in the
operating conditions of other disturbing loads and / or changes of the network topology (influencing
particularly the short-circuit level) and
23
- the use of the exponent  = 3 may not be adequate for each type of fluctuating load; this can be solved
by using a better fitted exponent.
5.1.2 Statistical approach based on normality assumption
If the flicker distributions (i.e. distributions of the measured Pst values) respectively with and without the
considered fluctuating load (respectively post- and pre-connection states) can be considered as normal
(Gaussian), the emission level distribution is also normal and its characteristic parameters can be deduced
as shown in (12) [10]
( 12 )
where  represents the mean and  the standard deviation of the distribution.
An example of such a calculation of the flicker emission level of a DC arc furnace is shown in Figure 16.
100%
Cumulative
distr. DC furnace
90%
10%
Background
20%
95% 99%
value value
30%
40%
50%
60%
Backgr. and
DC furnace DC furnace
70%
80%
0%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Flicker, Pst (10 min)
Figure 16 - Statistical deduction of the emission level of a DC arc furnace, based on the assumption that
flicker distributions are normal
The major disadvantages of the method are:

- The normality assumption is generally valid for the “background” flicker level, i.e. the flicker level
resulting from various slightly fluctuating loads (central limit theorem), or in certain situations with
only one important disturbing consumer. However, the assumption may not be valid in situations
where two or three dominating loads are operating simultaneously (this situation usually leads to
multimodal distributions).
- Even if the normality assumption is globally acceptable, the actual 95 % and 99 % percentiles of the
emission level Pst emission distribution (which are the interesting parameters for emission level
24
assessments) may differ significantly from those obtained with this method. If the actual distribution
does not fit perfectly to the normal case, even small discrepancies lead to significant differences for the
95 % or 99 % of the cumulative function due to the very small slope of the curve in the high
probability region.
- Measurements are not performed simultaneously and the result is influenced by possible changes in the
operating conditions and / or the network topology.
5.2 Statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of flicker and power

consumption
If the flicker level is continuously recorded at the PCC for a sufficiently long period of time, together
with the power consumption of the different consumers, a clear distinction can be made between situations
with 0, 1 or more furnaces (for instance, each furnace is considered as continuously working as long as no
interruption longer than 2h occurs; a longer interruption being considered as an OFF period). For each of
the possible combinations, all the Pst results are put together and statistics (such as Pst 95% or Pst 99%) are
calculated. An example of such measurements (one day) is shown in Figure 17 for a 3-furnaces case [11],
[12].
Figure 17 - One day flicker measurements in a HV network (individual Pst values and sliding Plt curve)
in a 3-furnaces case
........... furnace A (AC, 100 MVA)
______ furnace B (AC, 100 MVA)
 furnace C (DC, 95 MVA)
Selection of the Pst values according to the energy demand record of the different arc furnaces seems to
be an efficient method to assess the contribution from each individual furnace. A drawback of this is that a
substantial period of time is necessary before being able to establish reliable results. The measurement
period leading to an equivalent of one-week results (1008 Pst values) may in fact be very long. For
instance, in one case of a DC furnace, two and a half months were necessary.
The statistics of the flicker levels running from the start of the measurements up to the considered point in
time, with each point giving an additional period of 2 weeks, are given in Figure 18. Note that for the
overall flicker level (Figure 18.a), the first point corresponds to a period of 2 weeks and the 14th point
corresponds to a period of 7 months (14 × 2 weeks). For furnace C (Figure 18.d), there are 13 points
instead of 14 because there was a 2 week period during which no Pst values were available. A comparison
25
of Figure 18.a and Figure 18.d can be seen to produce an unexpected result where for roughly the first half
of the measurement period the global flicker level is lower than that from the most disturbing furnace. The
explanation for this anomaly is that the number of Pst values available is much more significant (about ten
times) when determining the overall level; a greater number of high Pst values were eliminated when
assessing Pst99%.
26
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Pst, Plt (pu)

1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Pst99% Pst95% Plt99% Plt95%
0.6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Number of Pst values
(a) Continuous measurement (overall flicker level)

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Pst, Plt (pu)
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
(b) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace A (AC) was alone

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Pst, Plt (pu)
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(c) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace B (AC) was alone

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Pst, Plt (pu)
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(d) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace C (DC) was alone
Figure 18 - Flicker measurements in an HV network at the PCC of a DC furnace (95 MVA)located not
far from two other AC furnaces (100 MVA each). Statistics shown for periods of 0.5, 1, 1.5, ... , 7 months
27
Another disadvantage of the method, linked to the rather long measurement period, is the risk of changes
in network topology which could possibly lead to significantly different short-circuit levels. The obtained
individual emission values (Pst emission) are then no longer related to a constant short-circuit capacity.
However, should a reliable value of the short-circuit level be known for each data, the results could be re-
processed in order to be related to a fixed reference short-circuit capacity (e.g. the contractual value).
5.3 Direct on-line measurement of flicker emission level
5.3.1 The effect of the commonly neglected network resistance on the flicker emission level
The network resistance is often neglected in flicker emission assessments. The voltage drop U provoked
by a load switching with a load current change I can be described as shown in (13).
∆ cos sin ( 13 )
When the resistive component of the network impedance is neglected, the voltage drop U’ becomes as
shown in (14).
∆ sin ( 14 )
Compairing (13) and (14) reveals the relative error given in (15).
( 15 )
The following definitions apply to (13)-(15):

  is the network impedance angle and
  is the load current angle (cos  being the load power factor).
This relative error relationship is represented in Figure 19.
0,5
0,4 load current

lagging
=60° =70° =80° =85°
0,3
0,2
0,1
Relative error 
-0,1
=85
-0,2
=80°
load current =70°
-0,3 =60°
leading
-0,4
-0,5
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
cos  of load
Figure 19 - Relative error when the network resistance is neglected, given as a function of the load
power factor cos and the network impedance angle θ
28
It is shown that neglecting the network resistance can lead to an important underestimation or
overestimation of the voltage drop (or flicker emission) when the active power variations are important
and when the network impedance angle, for instance, is smaller than 85°.
5.3.2 Method 1 : simplified approach
The typical configuration for individual flicker emission level assessment is given in Figure 20. The
installation under consideration is connected at point A. This point is connected to the PCC (point B)
through an impedance 2 (transformer, line). Other fluctuating loads are possibly connected at B.
Typically, when other fluctuating loads are operating in the electrical vicinity, the background flicker at
the PCC (point B) cannot be neglected. However, on the secondary side of the transformer (A) the
dominance of the emission Pst emission (A) of the investigated installation in the global flicker level Pst(A)
increases and the influence of other sources can often be neglected [13], especially when the 95th or 99th
percentile of Pst are considered (IEC 61000-3-7).
B ( PCC )
Other installations
Z1
Z2 A
ITOT ILOAD
Installation under
consideration
UN
U (B) U (A)
Figure 20 - Network configuration for the application of the "simplified approach"
The simplified approach consists in measuring the flicker level on the secondary side (A) of the
transformer and to transpose it to the primary side (B), by simply using the impedance ratio in (16).
A A
Z ,A
B P A A ( 16 )
Z Z ,B
The following definitions apply to (16):

o 1 is the network impedance,
o 2 is the transformer / line impedance,
o Pst (A) is the global flicker level at A,
o Pst emission (A) is the flicker emission level of the installation under consideration, at A,
o Pst emission (B) is the flicker emission level of the installation under consideration, at B (PCC),
o SSC,A is the short-circuit power at A and
o SSC,B is the short-circuit power at B (PCC).
The above derivation is strictly valid only in the case of and having the same impedance angle .
29
5.3.3 Method 2 : difference method
5.3.3.1 Description
A known impedance, in most cases the transformer impedance feeding the particular load, between points
A (= installation under consideration) and B (= PCC) is used to assess the emission of the fluctuating load
[14], [15]. Simultaneous voltage measurements at points A and B have to be made to calculate the
emission level (U(A) and U(B) in Figure 21).
B ( PCC )
Other installations
Z1
Z2 A
ITOT ILOAD
Installation under
consideration
UN
U (B) U (A)
Figure 21 – Network configuration for the application of the “difference approach”

Both measured voltages are evaluated according to the first part of the flickermeter (i.e. blocks 1 and 2 of
the IEC flickermeter: gain control and demodulation) to obtain the per-unit in-phase voltage fluctuations
U(A) and U(B). Voltage fluctuations – but not flicker – may be superposed in a linear manner as shown
in (17).
∆ A ∆ A ∆ A
( 17 )
∆ B ∆ B ∆ B
In (17),
o U(A) is the measured voltage fluctuation at A,
o U(B) is the measured voltage fluctuation at B,
o Ubg(A) is the background voltage fluctuation at A,
o Ubg(B) is the background voltage fluctuation at B,
o Ui(A) is the voltage fluctuation caused by the investigated load (emission) at A and
o Ui(B) is the voltage fluctuation caused by investigated load (emission) at B.
With a voltage fluctuation transfer factor of unity from “upstream to downstream" for a passive load and
a voltage transfer factor of from "downstream to upstream," (18) can be written.
∆ A ∆ B
SC,A ( 18 )
∆ B ∆ A
,B
Calculating the difference U(AB) of the measured voltage fluctuation leads to (19).
∆ AB ∆ A ∆ B ∆ A ∆ A ∆ B ∆ B
( 19 )
∆ B ∆ B ∆ B ∆ B ∆ B
U(AB) is the voltage fluctuation caused by the investigated load with the sole impedance Z2 and the
background voltage fluctuations eliminated.
30
Therefore the flicker emission level of the installation under consideration at the POE (assumed to be the
PCC, point B) is shown in (20)
B AB ( 20 )
with Pst (AB) being calculated using U(AB), as defined in (19).
Further processing of this voltage fluctuation U(AB) occurs in the normal way with the weighting filter,
squaring and statistical evaluation (i.e. blocks 3, 4 and 5 of the IEC flickermeter).
5.3.3.2 First Approximation : the impedance angle of the transformer is supposed to be

the same as the impedance angle of the network
The flicker emission obtained with the “difference method” is related to the chosen reference impedance.
In most cases the reference impedance is a transformer, which is almost purely inductive. The
consequence is that only the reactive power variations are visible. The active power variations remain
invisible, although they will cause a voltage drop over the network resistance and influence the emission
level at the PCC. When relating the emission level to the network impedance at the PCC, the assumption
has to be made that the resistance of the network can be neglected. Depending on the phase angle of the
current variations and the network impedance angle this will result in an error as illustrated in Figure 19
[13].
5.3.3.3 Second Approximation : Unity upstream to downstream voltage transfer factor

Application of (19) is valid under the assumption of a unity voltage transfer factor from B to A.
5.3.4 Method 3 : load current approach
This approach requires waveform measurements of the load current [iLOAD(t)] and the voltage [uB(t)] at the
PCC [13], [16]. The calculation of the emission level of the fluctuating load is achieved in two steps.
5.3.4.1 Step 1: simulation of voltage ue(t) (elimination of background fluctuations)
The measured load current iLOAD(t) is injected by calculation into the ideal grid model of Figure 22 to
determine the emission voltage ue(t), which would be obtained at the PCC if the load (installation) under
consideration was the only fluctuating load in the grid. In this figure, R1 and L1 are the resistance and the
inductance of the grid, respectively, as seen from the PCC, while the voltage source uN(t) represents the
grid voltage.
31
PCC
PCC
Other loads (R1 , L1)
(R1 , L1)
iLOAD (t)
iTOT (t)
uN(t) uN(t) ue(t)
uB(t)
(a) Real situation (b) Simulated situation

(all disturbing loads are present) (the disturbing load under consideration is the
only one present)
Figure 22 - Configurations for assessing the emission level with the ‘load current approach’
(a) measurement configuration and (b) simulation configuration
The phase angle of the simulated voltage ue(t) at every moment has to be the same as the one of the
measured voltage uB(t), to preserve the correct phase angle with the load current iLOAD(t), thus representing
correctly the reactive and active power demand of the load at the PCC.
As a result, the voltage source uN(t) modelling the grid should have:
1) the same phase angle as the first harmonic (fundamental) of (21)
LOAD
B LOAD ( 21 )
obtained by calculation from the measured voltage and current waveforms at the point of the
connection of the installation under consideration (respectively uB(t) and iLOAD(t))
√
2) a constant amplitude that is equal to U , Un being the nominal or reference voltage of the grid.
√
The grid voltage uN(t) represents an ideal voltage source, without any disturbances or fluctuations (i.e.
flicker and disturbances on the voltage source should be completely eliminated to obtain a perfect
sinusoidal source) in the form of (22).
√
N U sin ω ( 22 )
√
Knowing the instantaneous voltage of the grid voltage source uN(t) and the instantaneous current iLOAD(t),
the emission voltage ue(t) can finally be calculated as shown in (23).
LOAD
N LOAD ( 23 )
5.3.4.2 Step 2 : digital flickermeter
A digital flickermeter algorithm is used to deduce the instantaneous flicker Pinst and the statistical values
Pst and Plt of the voltage waveform ue(t).
32
5.3.5 Method based on rms measurement and simulation
This method can determine customer contribution to flicker level at PCC by means of site measurement
and simulation. The method requires on-site rms power measurements (P and Q in every cycle or half
cycle) and an IEC flickermeter software emulation in a phasor or frequency domain [17].
The method is based on the following assumptions:
 No resonance with grid at flicker frequencies (< 35Hz).
 Background flicker level does not cause significant variations in customer P and Q levels
(background voltage fluctuations are normally low).
 Flicker at the PCC arises solely as a result of customer power variations.
The principle of the method is illustrated in Figure 23. Firstly, an equivalent grid has to be built in a
simulation platform. The measured power levels (P and Q) are injected into the equivalent grid. The
customer flicker contribution is calculated using an IEC flickermeter emulator connected at PCC.
Pst_ct : customer flicker

PCC contribution
R X
E Z
Customer load modelled
Grid model Flicker meter by measured voltage U,
Pst emulator power P and power Q
every cycle or half cycle
values
Figure 23 – Principle of the method based on rms measurement and simulation
The following steps detail the procedure to be adopted in applying the method :
 The first key step is to establish customer power variation profiles. Record power variations P and
Q (for every cycle or every half cycle) over a significant period. For slow phenomenon such as
motor starting, sampling rate of P and Q can be reduced; one or several cycles of fundamental
frequency is sufficient. Customer load power variations can in general be established either
through on-site measurements or by manufacturer’s data.
 On the simulation platform, develop a model of the grid by a sinusoidal voltage source and an
impedance calculated using the short-circuit power (fault level) at PCC.
 Develop a customer dynamic load model by means of measured power levels P and Q. The
equivalent load impedance will be calculated at each time step using P, Q and rated grid voltage.
 Connect an IEC flickermeter emulator at the PCC. The method uses an IEC flickermeter emulator
which is composed of all blocks as described in IEC61000-4-15. The input of the emulator should
be either voltage waveform or rms voltage values.
 The flickermeter emulator directly calculates the flicker level Pst emission caused by customer power
variations at PCC.
The main advantages and benefits of this method are:

 The calculations are simple,
 It takes into account both customer active power P and reactive power Q variations and
 It takes into account both X and R of the grid impedance.
33
Flicker assessment error may become important in cases where there is an inaccuracy in the grid
impedance estimation.
As an additional comment, it is possible to calculate the grid background flicker level by means of the
cubic summation law as shown in (24):
( 24 )
where
o Pst emission is the flicker contribution of customer at PCC obtained by simulation,
o Pst is the actual flicker level at PCC recorded by an on-site power quality meter,
o Pst bg is the grid background flicker.
Here follows an example of the application of this method in order to calculate the flicker contribution
caused by a welding machine of an LV customer.
The relevant data are:

o Short-circuit power at PCC = 80 MVA,
o Customer load: welding machine of 700 kVA and
o On-site measurements over 10 min where P and Q values have been recorded every 20 ms.
Portions of the on-site measured P and Q levels and simulated voltage at PCC are shown in Figure 24.
Measured customer power

P(kW) Simulated voltage at PCC
in Volt
Measured customer power

Q(kVAr)
Figure 24 – Example : flicker contribution caused by an LV welding machine
Simulation result: The Pst at the PCC obtained using the flickermeter emulator: Pst emission = 1.0494
5.4 Comparative analysis of the methods (the pros and the cons)
Assessment based on the  Very simple measurement  Non simultaneous

application of the summation procedure (comparison “with measurements; risk of changes
law vs. without” or “before vs. in network topologies and load
34
(cf. 5.1.1.2) after connection”) conditions
 Only one flickermeter needed  Difficulty in choosing the
at the PCC summation exponent ( = 3 ?)
Statistical approach based on  Very simple measurement  Limited validity of the

the assumption that the flicker procedure (comparison “with normality assumption
statistical distribution is normal vs. without” or “before vs.
 Non simultaneous
after connection”)
(cf. 5.2) measurements; risk of changes
 Only one flickermeter needed in network topologies and load
at the PCC conditions
Full statistical assessment based  Simple measurement  Need for very long
on simultaneous flicker and procedure measurement periods, in order
power consumption (load to establish sufficient
 No assumption made on the
profile) measurements statistical validity (at least one
type of statistical distribution
equivalent week for each
(cf. 5.2) nor validity of summation
functioning mode)
laws
 Only one flickermeter needed  Risk of changes in network
at the PCC (but knowledge of topologies and load conditions
the load profile during the
measurement period is
needed)
 Only one flickermeter needed
Direct on-line measurement:  Valid only in the case of
at the secondary side of the
simplified approach reactive power fluctuations in
transformer feeding the
a purely inductive network
(cf. 5.3.2) fluctuating load under study
 Limited measurement duration  Possible difficulties in
(one week) assessment when other
significant fluctuating loads
are operating in the vicinity
Direct on-line measurement:  Allows elimination of the  Simultaneous voltage

difference method influence of other significant measurements required at both
fluctuating loads sides of the transformer
(cf. 5.3.3)
 Allows elimination of the  Non standard processing
possible changes in the grid
 The method is valid only in the
topology
case of Z1 and Z2 having the
 Limited measurement duration
same impedance angle  and a
(one week)
unity upstream to downstream
voltage transfer factor (i.e.
negligible mains connected
induction motor loads at
downstream)
Direct on-line measurement:  Allows elimination of the  Simultaneous voltage and
35
load current approach influence of other significant current needed at the PCC
fluctuating loads
(cf. 5.3.4)  Non standard processing
 Allows elimination of the  Method based on the
possible changes in the assumption that the fluctuating
network topology and load load profile (current signature)
conditions is independent of the network
 Takes into account the topology and load conditions.
fluctuations of active as well
as reactive power, together
with the full characteristics of
the network impedance
(including resistance)
 Limited measurement duration
(one week)
 Simple calculation  Inaccuracy for flicker

Method based on rms
 Takes into account both frequencies > 25Hz if rms
measurements and simulation
customer active power P and values are recorded every
(cf. 5.3.5) reactive power Q. cycle.
 Flicker assessment error may
 Takes into account both X and
become important if there is
R of the grid impedance.
inaccuracy in the estimation
of the grid impedance
5.5 Summary: Recommended procedure / workflow for flicker emission level

compliance assessment
The total recommended procedure for compliance assessment is summarized in the following series
of points and the accompanying workflow diagram:
 Choice of the point of evaluation: See 3.1.

 Measurement campaign duration: The flicker level must be measured for a sufficiently long
one week of “normal” business activity for each state); see 3.2.1 and 3.3.
 Measurement method and typical indices: Refer to IEC 61000-4-30 and IEC 61000-4-15; use Pst
or Plt values, depending on the acceptance criteria to be met.
diagram:
36

Pre-connection
Statistical Analysis : Pst pre-connection
(cf. 3.2.1)

Post-connection
Statistical Analysis : Pst post-connection
(cf. 3.2.1)

No further
N
Pst post  Pst pre ? investigation
required

Y

Flicker
Y N
measured at one
single point?

Flicker measured at Flicker measured at Flicker measured at

point B (Figure 20) point A (Figure 20) points A & B
(Figure 20)

Assessment based on the
simplified approach Assessment based on the
Current N (cf. 5.3.2) “Difference method”
measured
(cf. 5.3.3)
at B?

Assessment based on the

summation laws
Y
(cf. 5.1.1)

Load current rms measurements
approach approach
(cf. 5.3.4) (cf. 5.3.5)
37
6 UNBALANCE EMISSIONS LEVEL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
6.1 Brief overview on unbalance
Fundamental frequency voltage or current unbalance refers to situations where the rms
voltages/currents and/or the phase angles of the consecutive phases are not equal. Unbalance can exist
in two forms in three-phase power systems: zero and negative sequence unbalance. As the negative
sequence voltage/current propagates through all power system components similar to the positive
sequence voltage/current, it is the parameter of significant concern. Thus, it is common in practice to
associate unbalance with the negative sequence.
Unbalanced currents are usually caused by asymmetrical three phase loads and/or uneven distribution
of single phase loads. These unbalanced currents which flow through line impedances can lead to
voltage unbalance along the line even if the line impedances are symmetrical. On the other hand, a
perfectly balanced three phase voltage source supplying a perfectly symmetrical load through an
asymmetrical line (e.g. untransposed line) can lead to voltage unbalance at the terminals of the load
because of the unequal voltage drops along the line.
The voltage unbalance is of primary concern to three phase rotating machines where additional heat is
produced in the windings leading to a reduction in efficiency thus demanding de-rating of the
machines. Noise and vibration are also issues of concern.
Three phase diode rectifier systems also can draw unbalanced currents and also lead to
uncharacteristic harmonics when supplied by unbalanced voltages.
6.2 Definitions
6.2.1 Definition of voltage and current unbalance
For determination of unbalanced currents and voltages in a three-phase-current system, the concept of
symmetrical components is used. From the theory of the symmetrical components follows that each
unbalanced mono frequency three-phase system can be composed of
o a positive sequence system, defined as the symmetrical vector system derived by application of
Fortescue’s transformation matrix that rotates in the same direction as the power frequency
voltage (or current),
o a negative sequence system defined as the symmetrical vector system derived by application of
Fortescue’s transformation matrix that rotates in the opposite direction to the power frequency
voltage (or current) and
o a zero sequence system, defined as the in-phase symmetrical component vector system derived by
application of Fortescue’s transformation matrix.
Fortescue’s transformation matrix S and the corresponding inverse transformation matrix T are defined as
shown in (25).
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 a a 1 a a a e ( 25 )
1 a a 1 a a
The symmetrical components are obtained as shown in (26).
38
or ( 26 )
The complex unbalance factor for voltages and currents can be calculated from the symmetrical
components. This factor is defined as the ratio of the negative sequence component to the positive
sequence component as shown in (27). Unbalance due to the zero sequence component has no practical
relevance in this context and therefore is not taken into consideration.
and ( 27 )
Typically only the magnitude of the unbalance factors is determined. It is worthwhile noting that
unbalance is also associated with a phase angle.
6.2.2 Application of symmetrical components to network impedance
With the following procedure, symmetrical impedances are obtained from the impedances of three-phase
systems with magnetic coupling between the phases.
According to Figure 25, a system of equations can be written as shown in (28).
L L L L L L L
L L L L L L L ( 28 )
L L L L L L L
Figure 25 - Three-phase system of the line

Rewriting (28) in matrix form results in (29) which is simplified in (30).
( 29 )
( 30 )
Transformation to symmetrical components gives (31).
( 31 )
Diagonal elements of the square impedance matrix Z are self-impedances while the off-diagonal elements
are mutual impedances in the phase domain. To determine the symmetrical impedance matrix Z012, the
39
matrix Z is first multiplied from the right by the transformation matrix T. Multiplying the obtained
product from the left by the transformation matrix S gives (32).
( 32 )
The definitions in (33) apply to (32).
1
L L L 2 L L L
3
1
L L L L L L
3
L a L a L L a L a L
L a L a L L a L a L ( 33 )
L a L a L 2 L a L a L
1
L a L a L 2 L a L a L
3
Assumption of equal mutual and self-impedances in the phase domain (ideal network impedance)
Assuming ideal network impedances, the simplifications of (34) can be written.
L L L , L L L ( 34 )
In this case, the sequence impedances according to (33) are shown in (35).
L 2 L 2
L L ( 35 )
0
Equation (35) can be expressed in matrix form as shown in (36).
2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ( 36 )
0 0 0 0
The sequence impedances , and are often denoted simply as , and .
Consideration of untransposed lines (non- ideal network impedance)
Taking into account unsymmetrical network impedances, e.g. due to untransposed lines, the
simplifications according to (34) are no longer valid. Instead of the simplified sparse matrix (36) one has
40
to use the generic dense matrix according to (32). Nevertheless, the off diagonal elements are still small
compared to the diagonal elements, but not zero.
6.2.3 General approach for unbalance level at the POE
Generally, the voltage at the POE can be described as a function of the connected installation i.e. with the
help of the impedance matrices of the positive-, negative- and zero sequence systems as:
, ,
, , ( 37 )
, ,
,
The vector , stands for the open-circuit voltage, including from pre-existing loads (“background
,
unbalance”). In EHV and HV systems, the background unbalance is usually almost zero. All quantities
( , , ) are complex values with amplitude and angle. It is assumed that the currents drawn by the
installation are independent of the bus voltage, which is usually true in practice. The impedance matrix Z
represents the network impedance as seen from the point of evaluation.
POE POE
Z012 Uabc,oc
Z012 Uabc Iabc,i
U012,oc U012 I012,i
Figure 26 - Network with pre-existing unbalance (pre-existing unbalanced loads) and unbalance level at
the point of evaluation
Hence, the negative sequence voltage at POE can be written as shown in (38).
, , , , ( 38 )
The following points are to be noted in relation to (38):
1. The product of the coupling impedance between zero sequence system and negative sequence system
and the zero sequence currents , can be disregarded, due to the fact that the coupling impedance
is usually very small.
2. The product of the coupling impedance between positive and negative sequence systems and the
currents of the positive sequence system , can be of significance, as the positive sequence current is
usually large. The angle of the portion of the voltage emission given by , can be usually
41
considered to be nearly constant assuming (a) the angle of the positive sequence load current will vary
only in a limited range (which is usually the case) and (b) the coupling impedance is time invariant.
3. The product of the negative sequence impedance and the current , of the installation can be of
significance. The angle of the voltage emission given by , will vary according to the variation of
the angle of , .
Because the unbalance emission , of installation is defined as the part of which is caused by this
installation, it can be expressed as in (39).
, , , , , ( 39 )
The two terms , and , are further discussed in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5.
(post-connection)

(pre-connection)
Figure 27 - Unbalance level and unbalance emission at the POE
The impedance or is the same as the impedance for the positive sequence system in case of
lines, cables and transformers. In the case of rotating machines corresponds to the subtransient
impedance for synchronous machines and to the locked-rotor (starting) impedance for induction machines.
For the supply grid, the magnitude of the positive and negative sequence impedances are nearly equal and
can be calculated using the short circuit impedance given by (40).
( 40 )
SC
The following definitions apply to (40):

Ur is the rated voltage of the system under consideration (line to line),
Z1 is the magnitude of the positive sequence impedance at the point of evaluation,
Z2 is the magnitude of the negative sequence impedance at the point of evaluation and
Ssc is the short circuit capacity at the POE.
6.2.4 System inherent unbalance , ( , )
It can be clearly seen that the first term of (39) is related to unbalanced impedance of lines. The coupling
impedance between positive and negative sequence systems can be of significance in the case of long
untransposed lines. Annex C gives indicative values for untransposed lines in MV and HV systems.
References [24] and [25] report cases where system inherent asymmetries have been seen to play a vital
role in relation to voltage unbalance. The 66kV network discussed in [25] is characterised by an upstream
part (ie. closer to the bulk supply point) that is densely interconnected whereas the downstream part of the
42
network has a radial structure. Some of the lines are more than 80 km in length as indicated in Table C.2.
In this network line asymmetries were seen to be responsible for 65%-70% of the total unbalance levels
arising at various bus bars.
In the case of untransposed double circuit lines, the coupling between the circuits has to be taken into
account. An example of the full double circuit impedance matrix is given in Tables C.3. and C.4. in Annex
C.A practical problem in an EHV system concerning the influence of assigning different phasing to
conductor arrangements of double circuit lines on voltage unbalance is discussed in Annex C.2.
The angle of the voltage emission given by , can be usually considered to be nearly constant
assuming (a) the angle of the positive sequence load current will vary only in a limited range (which is
usually the case) and (b) the coupling impedance is time invariant. As an example, the variation (as seen
from unbalanced load flow analysis), corresponding to a selected time stamp, of phase angles of negative
sequence voltages caused by individual lines (A-N: described in Annex C, Table C.2.) at various bus bars
(S2-S9) of an interconnected sub-transmission system supplying PQ loads is shown in Figure 28.
200
A
B
Phase angle (deg.)
100 C
D
F
0
I
J
-100 L
M
N
-200
S2 S4 S6 S7 S8 S9
Busbar
Figure 28 – Variation of phase angles of negative sequence voltages caused by individual lines (A-N,
described in Annex C, Table C.2.) at various bus bars of an interconnected sub-transmission system
6.2.5 Load unbalance , ( , )
The second term of (39) is related to the unbalanced current of the installation. This may originate from
unbalanced connection of the load or from unbalanced operation (e.g. electric arc furnace). In the case of
an unbalanced load connection, the angle of the emission can be also considered to be nearly constant and
dependent on the mode of connection. As an example, the variation (as seen from unbalanced load flow
analysis), corresponding to a selected time stamp, of phase angles of negative sequence voltages caused by
individual load centers (S2-S9) at various busbars (S2-S9) of an interconnected sub-transmission system
supplying PQ loads is shown in Figure 29. In the case of unbalanced operation, the angle of the emission
will vary in a stochastic manner.
43
250
200
Phase angle (deg.)
Load at S2
150
Load at S4
Load at S7
100 Load at S8
Load at S9
50
S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Busbar
Figure 29 – Variation of phase angles of negative sequence voltages caused by individual load centres at
various busbars of an interconnected sub-transmission system supplying PQ loads
Some examples for the unbalanced current emission expressed as a ratio of the negative to positive
sequence currents of a number of load connection configurations are given in Table 3.
Table 3 - Unbalanced currents drawn by various load connection configurations
current
symmetrical ci
circuit phase currents
components
I
conection with
1 1
1-phase
neutral
0 1 | | 1
3
0 1
I
connection with
1 a
2-phase
a² I
neutral
a 2 | | 0.5
3 a
0
without neutral
I
1 0
connection
1-phase
a 1 a | | 1
3
0 1 a
44
without neutral
connection I
(V-circuit)
2-phase
1 0 | | 0.5
-a2 I
a 1 3 j√3
a 3
j√3
6.3 IEC/TR 61000-3-13 definition of emission level
According IEC/TR61000-3-13 the unbalance emission level from an installation into the power system is
,
the magnitude of the voltage unbalance factor (i.e. ) which the installation under consideration gives
rise to at the POE.
Considerations to be given in emission assessment at the point of connection (POC) based on the
Notes given in IEC/TR61000-3-13 (in Section 5.2) and further work completed recently [19]:
a. It is evident that the voltage unbalance at the point of connection (POC) can decrease once a load
is connected. This is particularly true when three-phase rotating machines are used as loads which
act to compensate the voltage unbalance at the POC by drawing unbalanced currents (of course
impacting on these rotating machines).
b. Even a perfectly balanced load when supplied through an untransposed line can lead to voltage
unbalance at the POC. Since the voltage unbalance emission here is caused by the line it should
not be counted as a part of the emission of the load.
c. IEC/TR 61000-3-13 refers to an unbalanced installation as a complete three-phase installation, i.e.
including both balanced and unbalanced parts, causing voltage unbalance. Connection of single-
phase and dual-phase installations is not specifically addressed and the distribution of these loads
evenly across the three phases is considered a responsibility of the system operator.
6.4 Emission level assessment techniques
6.4.1 Assumptions
 A1: The POE is considered to be dedicated to the unbalanced load under consideration (a simple
scenario).
 A2: The negative sequence current flowing in the network impedances can be caused by three
sources:
o background unbalance,
o network impedance asymmetry and
o load asymmetry.
It is assumed that the influence of the negative sequence current components arising as a result of
the background unbalance and the network impedance asymmetry on the negative sequence
voltage at the POE is negligible compared to that of the load asymmetry.
 A3: It is assumed that the connection of the installation does not influence the background
unbalance.
45
6.4.2 Total emission level assessment , based on measurement before and after
connection
Connection of an installation to the system can lead to an increase (see Figure 30a) or decrease (see Figure
30b) of the resultant unbalance level (i.e. ). This can be investigated by measuring the unbalance levels
at the POE before (i.e. the unbalance level = , and labelled as , ) and after (i.e. the
unbalance level = and labelled as , ) the connection. The increase or decrease of the
resultant unbalance level is determined by the phase angle of the emission , caused by the connection
of the load.

(a) (b)
Figure 30 – Comparison of the voltage unbalance level before and after the connection of an installation
Following the definition of unbalance emission given in 6.3, this is the first step which leads to one of the
following procedures:
 If a decrease of the resultant unbalance level is caused by the connection of the installation, no
emission limit is allocated to the installation and no further action is necessary.
 If an increase of the resultant unbalance level is caused by the connection of the installation, the
fraction of the emission level which the installation is responsible for (i.e. , ) has to be
determined for the purpose of comparison against the emission limit allocated based on the
IEC/TR 61000-3-13 approach. This procedure is explained in the following sections.
In the case of measuring instruments providing the phase angle information and when it is known that the
vectors , and , are likely to be in-phase, the total emission , caused by
the connection of the load can be determined by (41).
, , , ( 41 )
In the case where the above information is unavailable, as directed in IEC/TR 61000-3-13, the summation
law (α = 1.4) can be applied to determine the emission U2,i = , as shown in (42).
/
, , , ( 42 )
6.4.3 Assessment of the emission , , due to the installation
The unbalance arising as a result of system inherent asymmetries as a responsibility of the system
owner/operator in IEC/TR 61000-3-13 and is therefore allocated to the system. The fraction , ,
which the installation is responsible for, is set in relation to the allowable individual emission limit Eu,i
46
determined based on the methodologies of IEC/TR 61000-3-13. In the following sections, different
methods for assessment of the emission , are given.
6.4.3.1 Consideration of system inherent unbalance and load unbalance – Approaches of

IEC/TR 61000-3-13
The issue of system inherent asymmetries is addressed in IEC/TR 61000-3-13 by introducing a new factor
kuE in the process of allocating emission limits. The factor kuE represents the fraction of the global
emission allowance that can be allocated to installations. Conversely, the factor (1-kuE) represents the
fraction of the global emission allowance that accounts for the emission arising as a result of system
inherent asymmetries.
As the emission , includes the part , , which the system is responsible for, , itself cannot be
used to assess against the emission limit.
See annex C.5 for correlation between kuE and network / load parameters.
6.4.3.2 Consideration of known system inherent unbalance
In the case of known contribution from the system’s inherent unbalance , , the emission
, , which the installation is responsible for, can be determined using (43) when phase angle
information is available, or (44) when phase angle information is unavailable.
, , , ( 43 )
/
, , , ( 44 )
, can be estimated using the system short-circuit capacity Ssc, the installation’s apparent power
demand Si and the typical grid asymmetry | ⁄ | at the POE, using (45).
,
( 45 )
SC
6.4.3.3 Emission level assessment based on current measurement
The voltage unbalance , arising at the POE, for which the installation i is responsible, can be
derived using (46) based on (39).
, , ( 46 )
Noting that the positive sequence network impedance is approximately equal to the negative sequence
network impedance, (46) can be rewritten as in (47).
,
, ( 47 )
In (47),
Si is the apparent power consumption (MVA) of the installation,
47
Ssc is the short-circuit capacity (in MVA) at the POE and
Ci-load is the negative sequence current emission (in terms of the current unbalance factor) of the
installation under consideration.
Thus, if the connection of the installation results in an increase of the resultant unbalance level, the
emission level calculated as per (47) can be used to compare against the emission limit.
6.4.4 Further work
 The validity of the assumption A3 is questionable even in the simple cases considered. In practice,
the connection of an unbalanced load may influence the unbalance in the upstream systems, e.g.
an unbalanced MV load may cause a flow of negative sequence current in the upstream HV
system influencing the HV unbalance. A case where the negative sequence current arising as a
result of untransposed MV lines supplying three-phase induction motor loads at the LV level
significantly influencing the HV unbalance is given in Annex C.3. This has to be verified using
measurements or an improved approach has to be developed taking this into account in
assessment.
 Assumption A2 has been seen to be acceptable as far as the POE supplies mainly passive loads
[19,20,21,22,23], thus valid for the considered scenario. However, negative sequence current
arising as a result of line asymmetries when the system supplies a considerable proportion of
three-phase induction motor loads can make significant influences on voltage unbalance levels
[19,20]. Furthermore, upstream or background unbalance levels are subjected to attenuation when
they propagate to downstream systems in the presence of large motor load bases [19,21,22,23].
Generalized approaches for evaluating the emission arising as a result of line asymmetries and the
propagation of unbalance, taking the effects of motor loads into account, are given in [19]. Thus,
the validity of the emission level assessment methods given in Section 6.4.3 has to be investigated
if the POE supplies large proportions of motor loads together with the installation under
consideration.
6.5 Comparative analysis of the methods (the pros and the cons)
Total emission level assessment
 Very simple measurement  This method gives the total
, based on measurement procedure (comparison of emission level without
before and after connection “with vs. without” or “before distinction between the part
(cf. 6.4.2) vs. after connection”) due to the network and the one
due to the load itself
 Only one voltage
measurement needed at the  Non simultaneous
POE measurements; risk of changes
in network topologies and load
conditions
Consideration of known system

 Very simple measurement  Quantification of voltage
inherent unbalance
procedure unbalance emission level
(cf. 6.4.3.2)
needs the values of the
48
 Only one voltage network sequence impedances
measurement needed at the to be fixed (| ⁄ |, Ssc)
POE
 Lack of experience about the
value of the exponent =1.4
used in the summation law
Emission level assessment based  Simple measurement  Measurement of both voltage

on current measurement procedure and current needed
(cf. 6.4.3.3)
 Quantification of voltage
unbalance emission level
needs values of the network
sequence impedances to be
fixed ( , Ssc)
6.6 Summary: Recommended procedure / workflow for voltage unbalance emission level
compliance assessment
The total recommended procedure for compliance assessment is summarized in the following series of
points and the accompanying workflow diagram:
 Choice of the point of evaluation: see 3.1

 Measurement campaign duration: the unbalance level must be measured for a sufficiently long
one week of “normal” business activity for each state); see 3.2.1 and 3.3
 Measurement method and typical indices: refer to IEC 61000-4-30; use very-short (150/180-cycle
values) or short values, depending on the acceptance criteria to be met
diagram:
49

Pre-connection
Statistical Analysis : U2, pre-connection
(cf. 3.2.1)

Post-connection
Statistical Analysis : U2, post-connection
(cf. 3.2.1)

No further
N
U2, post  U2, pre ? investigation
required
Y
Y

Emission
Current measured Y assessment based on
at post-connection current
stage ? (cf. 6.4.3.3)
N
Unbalance
Y phase angle N
measured at post-
connection stage ?

Emission assessment by Emission assessment by the summation law

Harmonic vector Study of the correlation
(cf. 6.4.2)
approach between the amplitudes
(cf. 6.4.2)
of h and h

(cf. 6.4.3.2)
(cf. 6.4.3.2)
50
REFERENCES
[1] “Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) – Part 3-6: Limits – Assessment of emission limits for the
connection of distorting installations to MV, HV and EHV power systems”, IEC/TR 61000-3-6,
Edition 2.0, Feb. 2008.
connection of fluctuating installations to MV, HV and EHV power systems”, IEC/TR 61000-3-7,
connection of unbalanced installations to MV, HV and EHV power systems”, IEC/TR 61000-3-13,
[4] “Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-30: Testing and measurement techniques – Power
Quality measurement methods”, IEC 61000-4-30, Edition 2.0, Oct. 2008.
[5] T. Pfajfar, B. Blažič, I. Papič, “Harmonic Contributions Evaluation with the Harmonic Current
Vector Method,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 23, pp. 425-433, Jan. 2008.
[6] T. Pfajfar, B. Blažič, I. Papič, “Managing the Responsibility for Harmonic Distortion in Power
Networks,” Energy Conversion and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49, pp. 2538-2545, Oct. 2008.
[7] W. Xu, Y. Liu, “A method for Determining Customer and Utility Harmonic Contributions at the
point of Common Coupling,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 804-811, Apr. 2000.
[8] T. Pfajfar, B. Blažič, I. Papič, “Methods for Estimating Customer Voltage Harmonic Emission
Levels,” in Proc. ICHQP 2008, Wollongong, Australia, 2008.
[9] E. De Jaeger, “Disturbance Emission Level Assessment Techniques (CIGRE-CIRED Joint Working
Group C4.109”, paper 0470 in Proc. CIRED 2009, Prague, Jun. 2009.
[10] T. Gustafsson, “Evaluation of summation coefficient”, Danieli Centro Met, Technical Report, 96-
02-06.
[11] A. Robert, M. Couvreur, “Arc Furnace Flicker Assessment and Mitigation”, PQA 94, Amsterdam,
paper B-1.08.
[12] A. Robert, M. Couvreur, “Recent Experience of Connection of Big Arc Furnaces with Reference to
Flicker Level”, CIGRE 1994, paper 36-305.
[13] M. Couvreur, E. De Jaeger, P. Goossens, A. Robert, “The Concept of Short-Circuit Power and the
Assessment of Flicker Emission Level ”, CIRED 2001, Amsterdam.
[14] M. Sakulin, H. Renner “Field Experience with the Austrian UIE/IEC Flicker Analysis System”,
Proceedings of the XIIth UIE Congress, Electrotech 92, Montreal Canada, 1992, pp. 842-851.
[15] 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, 1997.
[16] International Electrotechnical Commission, “Wind turbine generator systems: Measurement and
assessment of power quality characteristics of grid connected wind turbines”, IEC Standard 61400-
21, Ed. 1.0, 2001.
[17] X. Yang, M. Kratz, “Power System Flicker Analysis and Numeric Flicker Meter Emulation”, IEEE
PES Conference PowerTech 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland, Jul. 2007.
[18] Math H.J. Bollen and Irene Gu. Signal Processing of Power Quality Disturbances. John Wiley and
Sons, 2006.
[19] Prabodha Paranavithana, “Contributions Towards the Development of the Technical Report IEC/TR
61000-3-13 on Voltage Unbalance Emission Allocation” PhD thesis, School of Electrical,
Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong,
Australia, March 2009.
[20] P. Paranavithana, S. Perera, R. Koch, and Z. Emin, “Global Voltage Unbalance in MV Power
Systems due to Line Asymmetries”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 24, issue 4, Oct. 2009,
pp. 2353-2360.
51
[21] Prabodha Paranavithana, Sarath Perera, and Robert Koch, “An Improved Methodology for
Determining MV to LV Voltage Unbalance Transfer Coefficient”, in Proc. 13th IEEE International
Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power (ICHQP 2008), Wollongong, Australia,
September-October 2008.
[22] Prabodha Paranavithana, Sarath Perera, and Robert Koch, “Propagation of Voltage Unbalance from
HV to MV Power Systems”, in Proc. 21st International Conference on Electricity Distribution
(CIRED 2009), paper 0497, Prague, June 2009.
[23] Prabodha Paranavithana, Sarath Perera, and Robert Koch, “A Generalised Methodology for
Evaluating Voltage Unbalance Influence Coefficients”, in Proc. 21st International Conference on
Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2009), paper 0500, Prague, June 2009.
[24] Z. Emin and D.S. Crisford, “Negative phase-sequence voltages on E&W transmission system”,
IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, 21(3) pp. 1607–1612, July 2006.
[25] Prabodha Paranavithana, Sarath Perera, Danny Sutanto, and Robert Koch, “A Systematic Approach
Towards Evaluating Voltage Unbalance Problem in Interconnected Sub-transmission Networks:
Separation of Contribution by Lines, Loads And Mitigation” in Proc. 13th IEEE International
Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power (ICHQP 2008),Wollongong, Australia, September-
October 2008.
[26] J. Arrilaga, N.R. Watson, “Power Systems Harmonics”, J. Wiley, 2003
52
ANNEX A - METHODS USED FOR HARMONIC IMPEDANCE ASSESSMENT
The main body of the technical report includes:
 Examples of methods to assess the harmonic emission level which are used by a large number of
utilities;
 Recently proposed methods that the Working Group considered very promising.
Some methods proposed and used for harmonic impedance assessment in order to calculate the customer
harmonic emission level are presented in this annex.
The harmonic impedance assessment techniques can be classified in the following categories [A-1]:
 Non invasive methods

o Use of (inter)harmonic currents from existing non-linear installations (on-line non-
invasive methods);
o Analysis of transients during the switching operation of grid equipment;
 Invasive methods
o Direct injection of (inter)harmonic currents.
A.1. Non invasive methods
A.1.1. Harmonic currents from existing non-linear installations
A large number of non-linear loads such as six-pulse rectifiers, adjustable-speed drives (ASD), arc
furnaces, computer equipment, etc. inject harmonic currents into the power system. An example of a
typical harmonic current spectrum for a TV station control room is given in Figure A-1.
Figure A-1 - Typical current spectrum of a non-linear installation

In order to avoid an eventual error due to the existent harmonic background; the harmonic disturbance
introduced by the non-linear load should be distinguishable from the background level of disturbance. It is
53
the case of arc furnaces that usually generate high levels of inter harmonics which greatly exceed existing
background levels.
There is no need, in this case, to disconnect and reconnect the disturbing load. It is sufficient to change its
operating mode and record the variations in harmonic currents and voltages.
Based on these facts, the harmonic impedance can be calculated very simply with (A-1).
Uh
Zh  (A-1)
Ih
Advantages of the method:

 Utilization of an existing harmonic source;
 Injection of large magnitudes;
 Non-invasive test.
Disadvantages:
 The presence of a large disturbing load is required;
 Influence of other sources present;
 Limited frequency range.
When the harmonic sources present in the network play a more important role, they should be taken into
account and the method of assessment changes a little.
Zh Ih
Eh 0 Uh Z hc Ihc

Figure A-2 - Harmonic impedance measurement taking account of pre-existing harmonic sources
Before connecting the disturbing load, the voltage at its terminals is equal to Eh0 (see Figure A-2) [A-2,
A-3]. When the load is connected, a harmonic current Ih will flow from the network to the load and the
harmonic voltage at the terminals becomes U h . The complex harmonic impedance Z h is then given by
equation (A-2):
E Uh
Z h  h0 (A-2)
Ih

 Non-linear loads are widespread and their switching is a common operation.
54
 The background distortion is used in a positive way instead of being an obstacle.
Disadvantages:
 Uh and Ih being complex numbers, the phase shift must be evaluated between signals, which are
measured at different moments.
 The presence of a large non-linear load is necessary.
 Results are only significant at frequencies for which background sources are present.
A.1.2. Switching transients or natural variations
Several methods proposed for harmonic impedance evaluation are based on switching transients that are
generated by the switching operations of capacitor banks and transformers connected to the power grid.
A.1.2.1. Switching of capacitor banks
This method is based on an operation frequently used on distribution power systems to control the voltage
level at the end of the feeders and for power factor control.
Switching on and off capacitor banks causes a phenomenon similar to an instantaneous short-circuit and
the resulting current has a rich harmonic spectrum that can be used for harmonic impedance evaluation
and then for harmonic emission evaluation as well [A-4].

 Rich spectrum with inter-harmonic frequencies;
 Capacitor banks are widespread and their switching is a common operation.
Disadvantages:
 Very short duration of the signals;
 The presence of a capacitor bank is required;
 The currents are unsymmetrical and depend on the switching moment;
 Pre-existing harmonic voltages influence measurements and method accuracy.
A.1.2.2. Switching of transformers
The switching of a transformer creates transformer saturation levels depending on the remanence and on
the time when the switching operation is conducted. The phenomenon includes transient in-rush currents,
different on three phases, which are characterized by a high aperiodic component, rich spectrum content
and significant amplitude. They can be used for harmonic impedance measurement [A-5].

 Very high current levels in comparison to existing harmonics;
 The switching current spectrum contains all harmonic orders up to 700 – 1000 Hz.
Disadvantages:
 The currents are highly unsymmetrical and depend on the switching moment;
 The currents' wave shapes must be analyzed to detect any saturation (with high aperiodic
components) of current transformers used for measurements. In that situation, the measurements
should be discarded.
 Pre-existing harmonic voltages influence measurements and method accuracy.
55
A.1.2.3. Natural variations
Another way to calculate the harmonic impedance is to make use of natural variations of voltages and
currents in the power system.
U h
Method using the sign of ℜeal( )
I h
Ih
Zh
Ih 0 Uh Z hc Ihc
Figure A-3 - Equivalent circuit for the definition of the emission level of a particular consumer
The harmonic impedances, either Z h or Z hc , can be determined using the natural fluctuation in harmonic
currents, within a given time interval, generated by a predominant disturbing load [A-6, A-7]. The
knowledge of these quantities, together with measurements of the harmonic voltage and current, leads
then to the assessment of the emission level of the particular consumer.
Considering Figure A-3 and successively the left and right side of the PCC, the harmonic voltage U h can
be written as shown in (A-3).
U h  Z h * ( I h0  I h )  Z hc * ( I hc  I h ) (A-3)
The following assumptions:

 Z h and Z hc are constant during the time interval between successive measurements,
 The phase angle of the fundamental voltage remains constant,
allow the consideration of fluctuating harmonic components superimposed alternatively on either the
current sources modeling the system background harmonics or the consumer’s disturbing load.
1. Considering  I h0 ( I hc remaining constant):

The harmonic voltage at the PCC will be given by (A-4).
U h  U h  Z hc * [ I hc  ( I h   I h )] (A-4)
Note that (A-4) leads to U h   Z hc  I h which can be written as shown in (A-5).
U h
Z hc   (A-5)
I h
56
2. Considering  I hc ( I h0 remaining constant):
The harmonic voltage at the PCC will be given by (A-6).
U h  U h  Z h * [ I h0  ( I h   I h )] (A-6)
Note that (A-6) leads to ∆Uh = Zh ∆Ih which can be written in the form of (A-7).
U h
Zh  (A-7)
I h
Due to the physical constitution of impedances Z h and Z c , their real part is positive (Re( Z h ) ≥ 0 and
U h
Re( Z c ) ≥ 0). Depending on the sign of the ratio either a Zhc or Zh value is established:
I h
U h
 if Re( ) < 0 → Zhc;
I h
U h
 if Re( ) > 0 → Zh, (A-8)
I h
Figure A-4 - Zh and Zhc impedance domain

 Gives fairly accurate results.
Disadvantages:
 Need parameter variations upstream and downstream but not at the same time.
 Requires significant harmonic level variation.
Example: Measurements at the PCC of an installation connected to the transmission network
U h
The method using the sign of ℜeal( ) was used by EDF [A-8] to assess the harmonic emission level
I h
of a 21 MW arc furnace with 29 Mvar of reactive compensation belonging to a customer connected at 42
kV (see Figure A-5).
57
Figure A-5 - Consumer supplying single line diagram
U h
The application of the method using the sign of ℜeal( ) gave fairly accurate results. An example of
I h
the application algorithm when a harmonic variation occurred is given in the charts shown in Figure A-6.
Figure A-6 - Algorithm with three recording windows

U h5 U h
In particular, for the 5th and 7th harmonics the estimation was = –0.35 + 14.9i and = –0.16 +
 I h5 I h
8.9i, respectively (in this case, obtained from 10-cycle voltage and current values). In Figure A-7 is shown
a comparison between the estimated impedance values on the installation side and those obtained by
simulation. It can be noticed that the values of estimated harmonic impedances are very close to those
obtained by simulation.
The shape of the impedance curve is due to the fact that 29 Mvar capacitor banks were directly connected
to the 42 kV.
58
Figure A-7 - Comparison of impedance values obtained by estimation based on measurements and
simulation
A.2. Invasive Methods
A.2.1. Direct injection of harmonic currents
An interesting group of methods uses harmonic currents injected into the system in order to measure the
harmonic impedance, which then is used to assess the harmonic emission level. The harmonic currents can
be generated either by harmonic producing equipment or by dedicated harmonic generators. The
applications based on the injection of harmonic currents cover HV, MV and LV levels.
Different types of equipment which can be used as harmonic generators include:

 Electric railways,
 LV capacitors and MV/LV transformers and
 Saturated transformers.
Electric railway
An example of harmonic impedance assessment using harmonic currents injected by a traction rectifier of
a single phase 50 Hz locomotive is given in [A-9]. It was modified to operate in a half-wave mode to
obtain even harmonics in addition to the odd ones. The harmonic currents were injected into the 110 V
network through the 110/27 V railway transformer allowing the harmonic impedance measurement of the
110 V, 220 V and 400 V networks up to 20th order.
The results of harmonic measurements at the 132 kV primary side and at the 25 kV secondary side of a
Scott connected transformer feeding a 25 kV electric railway network for a study on the impact of railway
locomotives on harmonic supply voltage distortion are presented in [A-10].
The time plot of the harmonic current on the primary side of the transformer is shown in Figure A-8.
(given in %)
59
Figure A-8 - Current Harmonics Time Plot (primary side 132 kV)
The harmonic current emissions injected by the electric locomotives in the 25 kV electric railway network
are illustrated in Figure A-9.
Figure A-9 - Current Harmonics Time Plot (secondary side 25 kV)

The time plot of the harmonic voltage (in %) on the secondary side of the transformer is shown in Figure
A-10.
60
Figure A-10 - Voltage Harmonics Time Plot (secondary side 25 kV)
LV capacitor and MV/LV transformer
The principle of measuring harmonic impedance by switching capacitors has been discussed in a previous
section. A single phase LV capacitor coupled with a MV/LV transformer may be used as a
(inter)harmonic current source for harmonic impedance measurements in MV networks.
Saturated transformers
Another possible strong harmonic source is a power transformer saturated by injecting DC current in its
neutral connection [A-5]. This technique was used in Finland 10 to 15 years ago. Resulting harmonic
currents are not symmetrical due to transformer asymmetry.

 Generates harmonic currents up to over 1000 Hz,
 Strong currents are generated during periods up to 20 minutes and
 Can provide result for a long period of time, allowing thus for the assessment of statistical values
to be compared with the emission limits (see IEC 61000-3-6).
61
Disadvantages:
 A transformer with saturable zero sequence path is needed, i.e. 5-legs or single-phase units,
 Large arrangements are needed with a powerful DC source and blocking series capacitors in the
neutral connection of all neighbouring saturable transformers,
 Injected currents are strongly asymmetrical although the connection is symmetrical; in the case of
grounded wye connections on both sides, zero sequence harmonic currents are also present and
 Pre-existing harmonics must be taken into consideration.
A.2.2. Use of (inter)harmonic current generators
Inter-harmonic current generators have been specially designed for the measurement of harmonic
impedances at LV, MV and even at HV levels
Two interesting methods based on (inter)harmonic current generators were proposed and tested by Hydro-
Quebec. One method was used for measurement tests of harmonic impedances at LV level and the second
for measurement tests of harmonic impedances at HV level.
A.2.2.1. LV harmonic current generator
U h
An original method, based on the ratio, was developed by IREQ to determine the harmonic
I h
impedance of an LV system feeding residential customers [A-11]. It requires finding a characteristic
voltage fluctuation which may not exist on the network without the contribution of the current fluctuation
it is usually associated with. It consists of taking samples of the voltage magnitude of an h order harmonic
voltage every 50 ms, for a total of 2048 samples. Applying the Fourier Transform on these samples gives
the voltage fluctuation spectrum (an indication of how the h-order harmonic voltage changes over time) in
the range of 0.01 Hz to 10 Hz. The same type of analysis is also performed on the current. It is necessary
to repeat the measurement several times in order to try to establish a correlation between the voltage and
the measured current for every fluctuation frequency. The fluctuation frequency which produces the
highest correlation is chosen to calculate the ΔUh and ΔIh parameters used to estimate the harmonic
network impedance. However, in several cases this correlation is not possible because the load current
does not contain a fluctuation at a measurable characteristic frequency. It therefore may be necessary to
generate a current fluctuating at a frequency which does not exist in the voltage spectrum.
Figure A-11 - Phasor rotation in order to eliminate the imaginary part of the measured current
62
The impedance measurement procedure includes following steps:
1. Perform a DFT (Discreet Fourier Transform) on the voltage signal over consecutive three-cycle
windows (50 ms) to accumulate 2048 samples in an interval of 102.4 seconds. Obtain the
magnitude for every harmonic order.
2. Perform a DFT on the 2048 magnitudes of every harmonic order. This DFT produces the
fluctuation spectrum for each harmonic order.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 three times and get the sum of the three results for every harmonic order.
Find the fluctuation with the minimal value to establish a characteristic frequency.
4. Generate a harmonic current modulated at the characteristic frequency that was previously
determined (step 3) to have the lowest magnitude.
5. Perform a DFT of the current and voltage in 50 ms windows over 102.4 s to obtain the real and
imaginary values of every harmonic order.
U h  U h   U h cos   jU h sin 
(A-9)
I h  I h   I h cos   jI h sin 
6. Subtract the current phase angle from the voltage phase angle for every harmonic order in every
window in order to obtain a real value for the current and a complex number for the voltage (see
Figure A-11).
U h  U h     U h cos(    )  jU h sin(    )
(A-10)
I h  I h     I h 0  I h
7. Perform a DFT for the characteristic frequency found in step 3 for the current, the real part of the
voltage and the imaginary part of the voltage for every harmonic order.
8. Based on the result of step 7, calculate the ratio of the real voltage absolute value and the current
absolute value in order to determine the real part of the network impedance.
U Rh
Z Rh  (A-11)
I h
9. Based on the result of step 7, calculate the ratio of the imaginary voltage absolute value and the
current absolute value in order to determine the imaginary part of the network impedance.
U Ih
Z Ih  (A-12)
I h
The complex value of the harmonic impedance is given by (A-13).
Z h  Z Rh  jZ Ih (A-13)

 Not affected by the normal harmonic fluctuation in the network
Disadvantages:
 Requires a special design measuring instrument (4 voltage channels, 2 regular and 2 with the
fundamental filtered) and corresponding software.
A.2.2.2. HV harmonic current generator
IREQ also developed a harmonic impedance measurement system that was implemented and tested for
use at the HV level [A-12]. It mainly consists of an electronically commutated single-phase load. It can be
coupled to the HV system through a series capacitor. Two different modes of IGBT commutation allow
optimizing the energy of the injected signal. The system measures the harmonic impedance over the whole
spectrum including (inter)harmonics which is useful for interpolating impedance values when the
63
coherence is low due to background noise at some frequencies. Test results have shown the capacity of the
system to assess satisfactorily the impedance in the presence of other sources of harmonics.
For connecting large distorting loads at high and extra-high voltages (HV-EHV), it is particularly
important to consider the harmonic impedance of the network. Because of the continuous changes of the
supply network characteristics either due to load changes or to various system configurations, the
harmonic impedance cannot be defined by a single value, but rather by means of a so-called harmonic
impedance locus. This is usually obtained from simulations. The validity of simulation data used for
defining the harmonic impedance can have an impact on filter design and on the compliance of the user’s
installation with the harmonic emission limits.
Conceptually, the harmonic impedance ZR(f) of a single-phase supply system as shown in Figure A-12
can be obtained at a given location P by injecting a current I(f) at that point, and solving (A-14) when
assuming a Thévenin equivalent (voltage source UR(f) behind the system impedance ZR(f)) :
U(f) = ZR(f)*I(f) + UR(f) (A-14)
Figure A-12 - Single-phase equivalent for computing harmonic system impedance
Similarly the same calculation can be made for the three-phase system shown in Figure A-13, using
equation (A-15):
Figure A-13 - Three-phase equivalent for computing harmonic system impedance

UABC(f) = ZRABC(f) * IABC(f) + URABC(f) (A-15)
The following definitions apply to (A-15):
64
U A ( f ) ZR AA ( f ) ZR AB ( f ) ZR AC ( f )  I A ( f )
     
U ABC ( f )  U B ( f ) ; Z ABC ( f )   ZRBA ( f ) ZRBB ( f ) ZRBC ( f ) ; I ABC ( f )   I B ( f )
U C ( f )  ZRCA ( f ) ZRCB ( f ) ZRCC ( f )  I C ( f )
Although the voltage source URABC(f) can be important at the fundamental frequency and for dominant
harmonics as well, it often can be neglected when considering that interharmonic current injections will be
used for evaluating the harmonic system impedance. So, when only considering the interharmonic part of
the spectrum, simplification of (A-15) into (A-16) is possible.
UABC(f) = ZRABC(f)*IABC(f) (A-16)
Once the impedance ZRABC(f) has been characterized for interharmonics, the harmonic impedance can be
determined by using interpolation techniques. The scheme for measuring the system impedance ZRABC(f)
can be further simplified by using a single-phase current source connected to each phase in turn. For
instance, injection on phase A allows determining the values in the first column of the impedance matrix
ZRABC(f). Values corresponding to the two other columns are determined in the same way by injecting
currents into phases B and C. Using spectral analysis techniques, impedances ZRij(f) are calculated using
(A-17):
SIjVi
ZR ij (f )  for i and j varying from A to C. (A-17)
SIjIj
where SIjUi and SIjIj are respectively the averages of the cross-spectrum and of the auto-spectrum of the
voltages UA, UB, UC and of the injected current I.

 Almost all spectrum (0 – 2.5 kHz) can be measured. Harmonic frequencies are obtained by
interpolation.
 Pre-existing harmonics have very little effect on the measurements at interharmonic frequencies
so that the level of the generated signal can be quite low
Disadvantages:
 The signal generators required for higher voltages levels should be very powerful
 Connecting transformers with low reactance are needed. The distribution MV/LV transformers are
suitable for MV measurements.
 Injected currents are sometimes not symmetrical depending on the generator.
A.2.2.3. Interharmonic voltage generator
The evaluation of existing interharmonic voltages originating from ripple control systems can be used to
measure the harmonic impedance of a customer installation. Using these voltage signals U h together with
the corresponding interharmonics currents I h flowing into the installation and assuming that the
installation itself will not emit interharmonics, the (inter)harmonic impedance can be calculated with
equation (A-18).
Uh
Zh  (A-18)
Ih
65
Besides the actual signal frequency additional side frequencies appear due to interaction with nonlinear
devices in the grid.
In the case study [A-17], the ripple control signals and their side frequencies were available with sufficient
magnitude and they are shown in Table A-1.
Table A-1 - Ripple control and side frequencies

Ripple control Side frequency [Hz]
frequency [Hz]
216 416, 516
283 -
316 516
387 287,587,687
In Figure A-14 a comparison of the calculated and measured impedance of an installation as seen from
110 kV is given. Filters for the 2nd and 3rd harmonic are installed on the MV side.
750
Zih (
500
250
Simulation
Measurement
0
0 200 400 600 Hz 800
Figure A-14 - Comparison between measured and calculated impedance values
66
A.3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METHODS FOR HARMONIC
IMPEDANCE ASSESSMENT (PROS AND CONS)
Methods Advantages Disadvantages

Non invasive
Switching of capacitor banks  Rich spectrum with  Very short duration of
(A.1.2.1) interharmonic frequencies. the signals.
 Capacitor banks are  The presence of a
widespread and their switching capacitor bank is required.
is a common operation.  The currents are
unsymmetrical and depend on
the switching moment.
 Pre-existing harmonic
voltages influence
measurements and method
accuracy.
Switching of transformers  Very high current  The currents are highly
(A.1.2.2) levels compared to background unsymmetrical and depend on
harmonics. the switching moment.
 The switching current  The current waveshape
spectrum contains all must be analyzed to detect any
harmonics orders up to 700 – saturation (with high aperiodic
1000 Hz. components) of current
transformers used for
measurements. In that case, the
measurements should be
discarded.
 Pre-existing harmonic
voltages influence
measurements and method
accuracy.
Natural variations (A.1.2.3)  Fully non-invasive.  A good precision is

 Sign of ℜeal(∆Vh/∆Ih)  Can be applied difficult to achieve in the
anywhere. absence of predominant
 Gives fairly accurate disturbing loads.
results.  Judgment is required
when interpreting the results.
 Requires significant
harmonic level variation.
Invasive
Special use of equipment as  A transformer with
(inter)harmonic current  Generates harmonic
saturable zero sequence path is
generators (A.2.1): currents up to over 1000 Hz.
needed, i.e. 5-legs or single-
 Electric railways  Large currents are
phase units.
 LV capacitors and generated during periods up to
 Large arrangements
MV/LV transformers 20 minutes.
are needed with a powerful DC
 Saturated transformers  The method can
source and blocking series
provide result for a long period
capacitors in the neutral
67
of time, allowing thus for the connection of all neighbouring
assessment of statistical values saturable transformers.
to be compared with the  Despite a symmetrical
emission limits (see IEC connection, injected currents
61000-3-6). are strongly asymmetrical; in
case of grounded wye
connections on both sides, zero
sequence harmonic currents
are also present.
 Pre-existing harmonics
must be taken into
consideration.
Use of inter-harmonic current  Almost all the  The signal generators
generators (A.2.2) spectrum (0 – 2.5 kHz) can be required for higher voltages
measured. Harmonic levels should be very powerful.
frequencies are obtained by  Connecting
interpolation. transformers with low
 Pre-existing harmonics reactance are needed.
have very little effect on the  Injected currents are
measurements at inter- sometimes not symmetrical
harmonic frequencies so that depending on the generator.
the level of the generated
signal can be quite low.
A.4. REFERENCES FOR ANNEX A
[A-1] A. Robert, T Deflandre on behalf of WG CC02, “Guide for assessing the network harmonic
impedance”, CIGRE Electra no167, August 1996.
[A-2] R.E. Morrison et al, “A non-invasive technique for the measurement of power system
harmonic impedance”, CIRED 1991, Paper 2.02.
[A-3] J. Bergeal et al, “Analysis of the spectrum impedance of a network, Use of digital methods”,
CIRED 1983, Paper c.05.
[A-4] AA Girgis et al, “Frequency domain techniques for modeling distribution or transmission
networks using capacitor switching induced transients”, IEEE Trans Power Delivery, Vol 4,
N°3, July 1989, pp 1882-1890.
[A-5] M Lahtinen et al, “Harmonic impedance of the high voltage transmission network”, CIGRE
1982, Paper 36-04.
[A-6] H. Yang, P. Pirotte, A. Robert, “Assessing the Harmonic Emission Level from one Particular
Customer”, PQA 94, Amsterdam, Paper B-2.08.
[A-7] H. Yang, P. Pirotte, A. Robert, “Comparison between emission limit and emission level after
commissioning of a non linear load”, CIRED 1995, Paper 2.18.
[A-8] O. Gonbeau, L. Berthe, Jean-Louis Javerzac, D. Boudou, “Methods to Determine
Contribution of the Customer and the Power System to the Harmonic Disturbance”, CIRED
Conference, Barcelona, May 2003.
[A-9] I. Kabrhel, J. Smid “Harmonic impedance of 220 kV and 400 kV network”, WG CC02,
Internal Working Document 8605, 1986.
[A-10] B.E. Kushare, A.A. Gatol, A.M. Jain, “Survey of Harmonic Distorsion in Indian Railway
Electric Supply System: Results and Remedial Actions”, Australasian Universities Power
Engineering Conference 25-28th Sept.2005.
68
[A-11] F. Zavoda, “Measurement of the Harmonic Impedance of LV Distribution Supply System
(120/240 V)”, CIRED Conference, Vienna, May 2007.
[A-12] G. Moreau, H.H. Le, G. Croteau, G. Beaulieu, E. Portales “Measurement System for
Harmonic Impedance of the Network and Validation Steps”, CIGRE/IEEE PES International
Symposium on quality and security of electric power delivery systems, Montreal, October
2003
[A-13] C. Gopalakrishnan, S. Prabhu, K. Kumar, “Practical implementation of CIGRE 36.05/CIRED
2 Joint WG CC02 for assessment of harmonic emission level of AC arc furnaces connected to
the Tamil Nadu distribution network” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, July 2006
[A-14] X. Yonghai, H. Shun, L. Yingying, “Partial Least-Squares Regression Based Harmonic
Emission Level Assessing at the Point of Common Coupling”, International Conference on
Power System Technology, 2006.
[A-15] W. Xu, Y. Liu “A method for Determining Customer and Utility Harmonic Contributions at
the point of Common Coupling,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 804-811, Apr.
2000.
[A-16] M. Tsukamoto & others “Advanced Method to Identify Harmonics Characteristic Between
Utility Grid and Harmonic Current Sources”, IEEE 1998
[A-17] H. Renner, “Determination of the Harmonic Emission of Industrial Installations”,
Proceedings of 5th SONT, Porec/Croatia, Sept. 1995, pp.265-268
69
ANNEX B - ESTIMATING THE LOCATION OF FLICKER SOURCES
B.1. Estimation based on simultaneous flicker and power measurements
Simultaneous measurements of flicker and additional parameters such as current, active or reactive power
can be used in order to detect the main flicker sources through correlation analysis.
The following example illustrates how such an analysis can be done.
Two different disturbing consumers A and B (steel plants with arc furnaces of 15 MW and 25 MW
respectively) are causing flicker at the substation C (110 kV). Correlation analysis has been performed in
order to determine which consumer was the main source of the flicker level measured in C. The flicker
level (Pst) is plotted against fluctuations of reactive powers of consumers in A and B. A strong dependence
of the flicker on plant A operation is observed (good correlation) while there is weak correlation with the
operation of plant B.

2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
P st
0,8
0,6
0,4
correlation coefficient = 0.90
0,2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Q(A)

2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
P st
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
correlation coefficient = 0.33
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Q(B)
Figure B-1 - Example of correlation analysis showing the determination of the dominating flicker source
(Pst vs. reactive power fluctuation of load A and load B, respectively)
70
B.2. Estimation based on simultaneous flicker emission and global level measurements
Simultaneous measurements of the flicker emission on the one hand - either using the difference approach
(cf. 5.3.3) or the load current method (cf. 5.3.4) – and the global flicker level on the other hand, can be
useful in order to locate the dominant flicker sources.
This is illustrated in Figure B-2, giving the flicker emission of a 150 MVA DC arc furnace (estimated by
the load current method), plotted versus the global level. Three furnaces are operating electrically close to
each other and connected at 220 kV.
Individual Flicker Emission Level
Global Flicker Level
Figure B-2 – Flicker emission vs. global flicker level (measurement results on 3 phases); furnace I
It can be seen from Figure B.2 that the global flicker level (x-axis) rarely exceeds Pst = 2, when the
concerned furnace is not operating (points aligned at the bottom of the figure, corresponding to zero
emission). However, a fairly good correlation can be observed between the highest measured global
flicker levels and the emission level of this particular furnace.
This illustrates its dominant character and its responsibility regarding the highest global flicker levels (up
to Pst = 5) during the whole measurement survey.
A similar graphical illustration is given in Figure B-3 for another furnace (150 MVA DC furnace) out of
the three furnaces. Note that the y-scale is slightly different from that of Figure B-2.
71
Individual Flicker Emission Level
Global Flicker Level
Figure B-3 - Flicker emission vs. global flicker level (3 phases); furnace II
It can be observed from Figure B-3 that the highest global Pst values are not correlated with the emission
level of the concerned furnace. On the other hand, when it is not operating (points aligned at the bottom of
the figure, corresponding to zero emission), global flicker levels up to Pst = 3 are measured.
The points bordering the upper part of the set of points correspond to situations where the global flicker
level is the lowest, while the considered furnace is operating. They correspond to situations for which the
furnace is the dominant source (even, perhaps, the only flicker source in operation). The global flicker
level measured under those circumstances does not exceed Pst = 2.5.
B.3. Locating flicker sources using the concept of “flicker power” [B-1]
Using simultaneous measurements of voltage and current at the common point of connection of
fluctuating loads, it is possible to identify the dominant flicker source, for example, in the case of the
situation illustrated by the circuit model given in Figure B-4.
Figure B-4 – Power system model for multiple flicker sources

The voltage and current waveforms are demodulated and the quantity of flicker power is obtained as the
product of the two modulating signals, after filtering. This process is illustrated in Figure B-5
72
Figure B-5 – Block diagram for calculating the flicker power
The magnitude of flicker power shows the degree of correlation between the voltage and current
modulating signals. This implies, by calculating the flicker power on several outgoing lines
simultaneously with the same voltage signal as reference, that the outgoing line that contributes most to
the actual flicker level (i.e. high correlation between current and voltage modulation signals) is
immediately identified as the one with the highest flicker power magnitude.
It is also worthwhile noting that the flicker power has a flow direction. A positive sign means the same
flow direction as the fundamental power flow, while a negative sign implies an opposite flow direction
with respect to the fundamental power flow. Hence, the sign of flicker power gives information whether a
flicker source is placed upstream or downstream with respect to the monitoring point.
Referring to Figure B-4, it can be shown that the flicker power flowing in the incoming line depends on
the phase differences between the carrier currents from all outgoing lines. According to this result, flicker
sources connected to different outgoing lines can either increase or decrease the actual flicker level at the
PCC, depending on the load characteristics of the individual flicker sources. This conclusion also
emphasizes the importance of the phase angles, as already discussed in chapter 5.3.
B.4. References for Annex B
[B-1] P. Axelberg, M. Bollen and I. Yu-Hua Gu, “Trace of Flicker Sources by Using the Quantity of
Flicker Power”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 465-471
73
ANNEX C - ANNEXES ON VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
C.1. Indicative impedance values of untransposed lines
Table C-1 - Indicative values for the coupling impedance Z12 between positive and negative
sequence networks, related to the positive sequence impedance Z1
Z12/Z1 < 0.03
Z12/Z1 = 0.07 - 0.09
Z12/Z1 = 0.06 - 0.09
Z12/Z1 = 0.03 – 0.05
Table C-2 – Example coupling impedances Z12 between positive and negative sequence networks and
positive sequence impedances Z1 of an existing 66kV sub-transmission network
Length (km) Z12 (Ω) Z1 (Ω) Z12/Z1

67.65 0.62840 24.09730 0.025
19.16 0.52300 8.36530 0.062
17.83 0.253360 6.37720 0.039
71.49 0.741780 24.81710 0.030
19.59 0.27650 9.63480 0.028
45.37 1.25300 22.81450 0.054
74
66.29 0.14340 32.50450 0.004
56.46 0.03470 28.80450 0.001
55.32 1.40300 18.98720 0.074
11.40 0.311480 4.01720 0.077
15.57 0.081210 5.47730 0.014
80.65 0.301310 41.00450 0.007
83.20 1.91550 29.90640 0.063
21.16 0.45230 9.23590 0.048
Table C-3 - Example for self and coupling sequence impedances (Ω / km) of an untransposed double
circuit 400 kV line, phase arrangement ABC/CBA
0.256 86 0.027 135 0.025 108 0.013 101 0.015 31 0.010 76

0.027 43 0.256 86 0.023 78 0.015 151 0.013 81 0.010 125
0.023 78 0.025 108 0.778 82 0.010 43 0.010 114 0.436 78
0.013 81 0.015 31 0.010 114 0.256 86 0.027 163 0.023 161
0.015 151 0.013 101 0.010 43 0.027 15 0.256 86 0.025 11
0.010 125 0.010 76 0.436 78 0.025 11 0.023 161 0.778 82
Table C-4 - Example for self and coupling sequence impedances (Ω / km) of an untransposed double
circuit 400 kV line, phase arrangement ABC/ABC
0.256 86 0.027 135 0.025 108 0.013 89 0.015 138 0.010 77

0.027 43 0.256 86 0.023 78 0.015 39 0.013 89 0.010 125
0.023 78 0.025 108 0.778 82 0.010 125 0.010 77 0.436 78
0.013 88 0.015 138 0.010 77 0.256 86 0.027 135 0.023 108
0.015 38 0.013 88 0.010 125 0.027 43 0.256 86 0.025 78
0.010 125 0.010 77 0.436 78 0.025 78 0.023 108 0.778 82
75
C.2. Test system

Motor
loads
PQ+Z
loads
Figure C-1 – Test system
66kV HV lines (untransposed): positive sequence impedance = 0.4136750Ω/km, negative-positive

coupling impedance = 0.0349300Ω/km.
MV lines (untransposed): positive sequence impedance = 0.4372640Ω/km, negative-positive coupling
impedance = 0.03491500Ω/km.
Caused only by
HV lines Caused
(i.e. MV lines are both by HV
ideally transposed) and MV lines
Figure C-2 - VUF values at the HV busbars arising as a result of line asymmetries (balanced loads)
76
C.3. Voltage unbalance due to line asymmetry and coupling between circuits
Field measurements were taken on a system with a configuration shown in Figure C-3. Measurements
were taken over a long period of time but only a day’s worth of the data is shown in Figure C-4. The
power flow measurements are 5-minute spot values taken from the telemetered records at the Grid Control
Centre. Being taken using a single-phase transducer with a noticeable telemeter resolution, these are not of
high accuracy.
A B
maintenance
C outage
Figure C-3 - Loop in of a generation point creating opposite flows
1000 1.00%
outage of C - B
900 line taken at this 0.90%
point flow from A to B
800 0.80%
voltage unbalance (% of fundamental)

700 0.70%
power flow (MW)
600 0.60%
voltage unbalance at C
500 0.50%
400 0.40%
300 0.30%
200 flow from A to C 0.20%
100 0.10%
flow from C to B
0 0.00%
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00
time (hr)
Figure C-4 - Field measurements
Voltage unbalance measurements were taken at point C employing a 3 phase set of voltage transformers at
400 kV that had been calibrated against a set of high accuracy tariff metering voltage transformers at the
77
substation. The combinations of unbalance arising from within the transmission system and that from
unbalanced loads under intact system conditions amount to about 0.33% at point C. However, following
the switching out of circuit from C to B, the overall voltage unbalance at substation C reaches a value in
excess of 0.5%. Whilst the instantaneous change in amplitude on switching was about 0.15, the vector
change was greater than 0.38% due to the change in the angle of the voltage unbalance. This instantaneous
increase in voltage unbalance is due to the unbalance introduced by the overhead line and more
specifically due to the mismatch of power flows in the lines from A to B and A to C. Although the flow on
the A to C circuit stays relatively constant (as it is feeding a large load group), the flow from A to B is
fluctuating. The profile of voltage unbalance at substation C follows the profile of the flow from A to B.
Measured unbalance voltages were calculated by the use of multiphase unbalanced simulation software.
The midday from the graph of Figure C-4. was chosen for the simulation and it was recreated for the
system of Figure C-3. A power flow of 718 MW was calculated from A to B and 183MW from A to C as
opposed to the recorded values of 720 and 180 MW, respectively. With these power flows the voltage
unbalance at substation C was calculated to be 0.62% compared to the recorded value of 0.6%. With this
disparity in flow magnitudes, the greater part of the voltage unbalance at C is caused by the flow from A
to B. The flow was only about 36% of the thermal rating of the circuit, confirming that phase selection
studies were required for the circuits supplying location C. Based on the simulation studies the unbalanced
currents flowing in the two circuits are 60 A (from A to B) and 8 A (from A to C).
C.4 An approach for voltage unbalance emission assessment in interconnected networks [C-
1, C-2]
C.4.1 Line asymmetries
Results of analysis work carried out on an interconnected sub-transmission (66kV) system, which
experiences excessive unbalance levels, reveal the following:
 An untransposed line of an interconnected network exhibits a voltage unbalance behaviour which

is vectorial in nature.
 This behaviour, in a global sense, can be ascertained by a single vector (referred to as ‘global
emission vector’) of which:
a) The magnitude can be approximately assessed by referring to the product | | of the line
and the location of that line (i.e. whether or not the line is in the direct path connecting the
bulk supply point and central part and/or the downstream portion) in the network.
b) The phase angle, as illustrated in Figure 28 for the lines of the study system, can be
established using the term .
 The behaviour of negative sequence variables is known to be linear. That is, a resultant negative
sequence voltage at a busbar, which arises as a result of the interaction of various sources of
unbalance, is equal to the vector summation of negative sequence voltage components caused by
individual sources at the considered busbar. Thus, the integration of global emission vectors of
individual lines, as illustrated in Figure C-5 for the lines (A-N) of study system, establishes a
basis that provides a comprehensive knowledge of the manner in which various asymmetrical
78
lines interact with each other to form the resultant influence. This basis can be used to derive the
following:
a) The resultant influence of the interaction of all lines in terms of a single vector which can be
established by the summation of individual global emission vectors. This, for the study
system, is illustrated by the vector Rlines in Figure C-5.
b) Significant contributing lines to the resultant influence. Referring to Figure C-5, lines A and F
can be identified as dominant contributors as the respective global emission vectors lie in
close proximity of the resultant vector. Although the global emission vector of line I is
displaced slightly away from the resultant vector, it, being the line which introduces the
highest level of emission on its own, can also make a significant contribution. The phase
deviation close to 900 of the vector corresponding to line J with respect to the resultant vector
can make line J less of a contributor. The positioning of the vector of line D with respect to
the resultant vector suggests that it can make a negative contribution, or in other words it
assists in counterbalancing some of the emissions caused by the other lines. These
assessments made on the study system using the proposed technique have been seen to be in
agreement with the results obtained using unbalanced load flow analysis.
c) Transposition options for better managing the emission arising as a result of line asymmetries.
Referring to Figure C-6 (I), which is deduced using Figure C-5 by representing the smaller
global emission vectors of lines B, C, L, M and N using a single vector (labelled
‘B+C+L+M+N’), the most effective option to correct the network through the transposition of
a single line is seen to be the selection of line F as it is being represented by the largest vector
among the group of vectors (i.e. B+C+L+M+N, A and F) clustered together. Further
correction can be introduced to the network effectively by transposing lines A and F. This
results in the vectors B+C+L+M+N, D, I and J to remain, out of which the vectors
B+C+L+M+N and I lie in close proximity. This is the case with the vectors D and J as well.
The phase difference close to 900 between these two groups (i.e. B+C+L+M+N and I, and D
and J) suggests that the emissions arising as a result of lines B, C, I and L - N assist in
counterbalancing some of the emissions of lines D and J. The effects of the transposition of
line F only and lines A and F together are illustrated in Figure C-6 (II) and (III) respectively.
The conclusion is that the transposition of line F can introduce approximately 30% reduction
in the resultant influence, whereas approximately 50% reduction in the resultant influence can
be expected by transposing both lines A and F.
79
Figure C-5 – Resultant influence of the interaction of all asymmetrical lines (drawn approximately to a
scale)
Figure C-6 – (I) Deduced from Figure C-5; (II) Effect of the transposition of line F only; (III) Effect of
the transposition of lines A and F together (drawn approximately to a scale)
C.4.2 Load asymmetries
It also has been revealed that, as in the case of an asymmetrical line, the voltage unbalance behaviour
exhibited by an unbalanced load of an interconnected network can be represented using a global emission
vector of which the:
a) magnitude can be approximately assessed by referring to the degree of asymmetry associated

with the load and the location of that load (i.e. upstream, central part, downstream) in the
network.
80
b) phase angle, as illustrated in Figure C-5 for the lines of the study system, can be
approximately derived by referring to the order of the distribution of power of the load across
the three phases, and the X/R ratio associated with lines of the network.
Employing linearity of negative sequence variables, as for line asymmetries, the global emission vectors
of individual loads can be integrated to establish a basis that provides a comprehensive understanding of
the manner in which various unbalanced loads interact with each other to form the resultant influence.
This resultant influence for the study system using a single vector (Rloads) which is obtained by the
summation of the individual global emission vectors is illustrated in Figure C-7.
Figure C-7 - Resultant influence of the interaction of all unbalanced loads (drawn approximately to a
scale)
C.4.3 Combined voltage unbalance behavior of line and load asymmetries
Employing linearity of negative sequence variables, the global emission vectors of individual sources of
unbalance (i.e. individual lines and loads) can be integrated to establish a basis that provides a
comprehensive knowledge of the manner in which various untransposed lines and unbalanced loads
interact with each other to form the overall influence. This overall influence is illustrated in Figure C-8 for
the study system using a single vector (Rsystem) which is obtained by the summation of the individual
global emission vectors shown in Figure C-5 (for lines) and Figure C-7 (for loads). Also shown in Figure
C-8 are the vectors Rlines and Rloads where Rsystem = Rlines + Rloads.
81
Figure C-8 - Resultant influence of the interaction of all lines and loads (drawn approximately to a scale)
This basis can be used to derive the following:
a) Referring to the vectors Rsystem, Rlines and Rloads, the component of Rlines which is in-phase with
Rsystem accounts approximately for 60% of the magnitude of Rsystem, whereas that of Rloads is
approximately 30%. That is, the asymmetry associated with the lines is the dominant contributor
to the problem, whereas the load asymmetries play only a secondary role.
b) Observation of the global emission vectors of the individual lines and loads together with the
vector Rsystem (shown in Figure C-8) suggests that, among all sources of unbalance, lines F and I
(these being represented by the largest and the closest vectors to Rsystem) can be identified as the
major contributors to the overall voltage unbalance levels. In addition, the vectors of line A and
the loads supplied by S2 and S4, having relatively large magnitudes and being closer to Rsystem,
can contribute significantly to the problem supporting the two major contributors (i.e. lines F and
I). The phase deviation close to 900 of the vector of the load supplied by S8 with respect to Rsystem
can make it less of a contributor. The positioning of the vectors of lines D and J and the load
supplied by S7 with respect to Rsystem suggests that they can make negative contributions.
C.5. Meaning of the kuE factor (IEC 61000-3-13)
IEC/TR 61000-3-13 addresses the issue of system inherent asymmetries by introducing a factor kuE in the
process of allocating the emission limits. The maximum allowable global contribution is derived from the
unbalance planning level and includes system inherent asymmetries as well as contributions from
unbalanced loads.
The emission limit for individual installations Eu,i (respectively the maximum allowable unbalance
emission U2,i-load) is allocated according to the individual agreed power of the installation i, as indicated in
equation (C-1). In this equation, kuE represents the fraction of the global emission allowance that can be
allocated to installations.
82
, k E . . , (C-1)
Si corresponds to installation's agreed power and St represents the total supply capacity of the considered
system.
On the other hand, (1 - kue) represents the fraction that accounts for system inherent voltage unbalance.
Based on the general summation formula, the allowable individual system inherent part of the unbalance
emission can be expressed as in equation (C-2).
, 1 k E . . 1 k E. . (C-2)
Alternatively, U2,i-line can also be expressed as shown in (C-3).
,
(C-3)
and in the same way U2,i-load can be expressed as shown in (C-4).
, ,
(C-4)
,
Hence the ratio between U2,i-line and U2,i-load can be expressed using (C-1) and (C-2) on the one hand and
(C-3) and (C-4) on the other hand.
Consequently kuE can be expressed as a function of the ratio Z12/Z1 and the current unbalance factor
ci=I2,i/I1,i.
E
, , E
(C-5)
, , E
E
The obtained expression of kuE is given in (C-6).
k (C-6)
Equation (C-6) can be used by grid operators to determine an appropriate value for kuE, taking into
account the typical current unbalance factor ci of connected and expected loads as well as the asymmetry
of the grid, expressed as ratio Z12/Z1.
In Table C-5, values of kuE are calculated for different grid conditions and a tolerable mean current
unbalance factor of 10% for the total load. These values are also compared to the values given in the
annex of 61000-3-13.
83
Table C-5 - Example of values of the kuE factor, computed for various grid conditions (assuming a mean
current unbalance equal to 10%)
Highly meshed Mix of meshed Long transmission

classification in system, generation system with some lines generally
61000-3-13 near load centres, radial lines, local and transposed,
transmission lines remote generation mostly
fully transposed, generation, fully or remote, generally
otherwise very short partly transposed, radial
(few km), distribution distribution systems subtransmission lines
systems supplying supplying a mix of partly transposed or
high density load area high density untransposed,
with short lines or and suburban area distribution systems
cables and meshed with relatively short supplying a mix of
systems. lines medium and low
density load area with
relatively long lines
ci 0.1 0.1 0.1
Z12/Z1 0.02 0,05 0.08
 1.4 1.4 1.4
kuE from (C-6) 0.90 0.73 0.58
(1-kuE) from (C-6) 0.10 0.27 0.42
(1-kuE) from 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.5
61000-3-13
C.6. References for Annex C
[C-1] Prabodha Paranavithana, “Contributions Towards the Development of the Technical

Report IEC/TR 61000-3-13 on Voltage Unbalance Emission Allocation” PhD thesis,
School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of
Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, March 2009.
[C-2] Prabodha Paranavithana, Sarath Perera, Danny Sutanto, and Robert Koch, “A Systematic
Approach Towards Evaluating Voltage Unbalance Problem in Interconnected Sub-
transmission Networks: Separation of Contribution by Lines, Loads And Mitigation” in
Proc. 13th IEEE International Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power (ICHQP
2008),Wollongong, Australia, September-October 2008.
84

Cigré 468 - Review of Disturbance Emission Assessment Techniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cigré 468 - Review of Disturbance Emission Assessment Techniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

468

Review of Disturbance Emission

ISBN: 978- 2- 85873- 158-9

2 BASIC EMC CONCEPTS

2.1 Compatibility levels

These compatibility levels must be understood to relate to quasi-stationary or steady-state voltage

2.2 Planning levels

2.3 Individual emission limits

2.4 Illustration of EMC concepts

3.1 Point of Evaluation (POE)

3.2 Assessment conditions

The emission assessment procedure consists of two principal parts.

3.2.2 Second step: effective assessment of the emission levels

3.2.3 Approximate assessment

3.3 Measurement standards and statistical results

4 HARMONIC EMISSIONS LEVEL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT

4.1 Definition of harmonic emission level

Grid Consumer’s installation

4.2.1 Dominant disturber: simple statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of

where  is an exponent depending mainly upon 2 factors according to IEC 61000-3-6:

4.2.2 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and

4.2.3 Processing long duration simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and

Figure 9 - Determination of harmonic emission levels.

The harmonic emission level is defined in (6).

4.2.4 Comparison of two methods based on long duration simultaneous measurements –

Figure 10 - Case study network - public building

Figure 11 - 5th-order harmonic emission level - public building

Figure 12 - 7th-order harmonic emission level - public building

4.2.4.2 Simultaneous measurements of harmonic voltage and current phasors

Figure 13 - 5th-order harmonic emission level - public building

Figure 14 - 7th-order harmonic emission level - public building.

Long duration simultaneous measurements

7 1 0.79 0.94 0.21

When it is closed, (8) can be written.

4.4 Importance of the network harmonic impedance

4.5 Comparison of harmonic emission assessment methods

Dominant disturber: Simple  Very simple measurement  Non simultaneous

Processing long duration  Only harmonic voltage and

Processing long duration  No requirement of customer  Requirement of the phase

4.6 Summary: Recommended practical procedure / workflow for harmonic emission

 Choice of the point of evaluation: see 3.1.

5.1.1 Application of the general summation law

5.1.1.1 Summation effects

5.1.1.2 Application to comparative measurements

5.1.2 Statistical approach based on normality assumption

The major disadvantages of the method are:

5.2 Statistical approach from simultaneous measurement of flicker and power

Pst, Plt (pu)

(a) Continuous measurement (overall flicker level)

(b) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace A (AC) was alone

(c) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace B (AC) was alone

(d) Discontinuous measurements: periods when furnace C (DC) was alone

5.3 Direct on-line measurement of flicker emission level

The following definitions apply to (13)-(15):

This relative error relationship is represented in Figure 19.

0,4 load current

5.3.2 Method 1 : simplified approach

Figure 20 - Network configuration for the application of the "simplified approach"

The following definitions apply to (16):

Figure 21 – Network configuration for the application of the “difference approach”

with Pst (AB) being calculated using U(AB), as defined in (19).

5.3.3.2 First Approximation : the impedance angle of the transformer is supposed to be

5.3.3.3 Second Approximation : Unity upstream to downstream voltage transfer factor