Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011

Paper-ID: 0755

Harmonic Summation Effects of Modern Lamp Technologies and Small Electronic Household Equipment

Meyer, Jan Schegner, Peter Technische Universitaet Dresden

Heidenreich, Kurt Vattenfall Europe Distribution Hamburg GmbH

2Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Harmonic emission of mass-equipment

• Main source in public LV grids: Power electronic converters of mass equipment• Level and frequency spectrum

of emission depends on circuit topology

• Manufacturer interest: Cost-effective production• Used circuit topology

(especially for mass equipment) depends on limits/standards that apply(e.g. IEC 61000-3-2)

Popular circuit topologies:

Costs

THDi no PFC

passive PFC

active PFC

effective control by

standards

interest of manufacturers

3Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Situation in public LV grids

• No or „relaxed“ limitsfor illumination up to 25Welectronic equipment up to 75W

• Tighter limits forillumination above 25Welectronic equipment above 75W

• Public LV grids: Mixture of mass-equipment with different circuit topologies and consequently different harmonic emission

passive PFC

active PFC

no PFC

Probably preferred circuit technology:

Actual status quo of harmonic cancellation in LV grids ?Influence of technology changes or shifts in equipment mixture ?

Survey of individual emission of mass equipment and analysis of cancellation effects for 3rd and 5th harmonic

Small eq.

large eq.

4Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

EE120%

EE212%

EE39%

Lamps59%

Overview of measured equipment (1)

• Total number of equipment:151 pieces

• Lamps:74x CFL (P 25W)5x CFL (P > 25W)11x SSL (P 25W)

• Electronic equipment:EE1 – 30x Office small (P 75W)EE2 – 18x Office large (P > 75W)EE3 – 13x Household small (P < 75W)

• Large household equipment not yet considered

• Scenario with dominating share of modern lamps -> analyse CFL impact

CFL – Compact flourescent lampsSSL – Solid state lamps (LED)EE - (Other) electronic equipment

5Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Overview of measured equipment (2)

• Different circuit topologies -> different waveforms and THDi values

• Clear identification of different groups possible

LampsOffice smallHousehold smallOffice large

0 30 60 90 120 150 180-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

i(t)

/ m

A

Angle / °

Waveforms Total harmonic distortion

0 50 100 1500

50

100

150

200

250

TH

Di /

%

P / W

Type (c)

Type (a)

Type (d)

Type (e)

Type (b)

6Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

No power factor correction (nPFC) – Type (c)

• Small, high current peaks -> high harmonic content• Preferential phase angle of3rd harmonic: 195

5th harmonic: 30

-300 -150 0 150 300-300

-150

0

150

300

Ireal / mA

I imag /

mA

= 5n = 31k

p = 0.98

= 1.01

0 30 60 90 120 150 180-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

i(t)

/ mA

Angle / °

Waveform 5th harmonic current

Office smallHousehold small

7Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Cancellation effect of measured equipment

• Better phase angle diversity for 5th compared to 3rd harmonic

• Different levels of cancellation effect for analysed equipment/lamp mixture at 3rd and 5th harmonic

-400 -200 0 200 400-400

-200

0

200

400

Ireal / mA

I imag /

mA

= 3n = 151k

p = 0.54

= 1.16

-300 -150 0 150 300-300

-150

0

150

300

Ireal / mA I im

ag /

mA

= 5n = 151k

p = 0.17

= 1.75

3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current

LampsOffice small

Household smallOffice large

8Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

-350 -175 0 175 350-350

-175

0

175

350

I real / mA

I imag /

mA

CFL

Impact of changing technologies

• Best cancellation effect for CFL combined with passive PFC equipment

• Virtually no contribution to cancellation effect of 5th harmonic by active PFC equipment

5th harmonic current

No PFC (past)Passive PFC (today)Active PFC (future)

Cancellation effect

0 5 10 15 20 25

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

number CFL

kp(5)

9Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Experiment at single family house

• Expected changes of harmonic vectors for CFL switched ON/OFF• ON/OFF comparison for 5th harmonic: Similar magnitudes (210mA),

different phase angles (-40° -> 148°) -> Influence of CFL only identifiable by phase angle evaluation for this case !

-300 -150 0 150 300-300

-150

0

150

300

Ireal / mA I im

ag /

mA

o – OFF¡ - ON

ISLCFL

Preferential phase angle for CFL

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Ireal

/ mA

I imag

/ m

A

o – OFF¡ - ON

ISLCFL

Preferential phase angle for CFL

3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current

10Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Historical development in one specific public LV grid

• Measurement on Saturdays in 1999 and 2010 for 2 load states: No changes in consumer or network topology Decrease of 5th harmonic, but increase of 3rd harmonic current Phase angle shift: Indication for increased number of passive PFC

equipment (technology change stipulated by 61000-3-2)

3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current

-20 -10 0 10 20-20

-10

0

10

20

Ireal / A

I imag /

A

o - 1999¡ - 2010MorningEvening

passive PFC

no PFC

CFL

-10 -5 0 5 10-10

-5

0

5

10

Ireal / A I im

ag /

A

o - 1999¡ - 2010MorningEvening

passive PFC

no

PFCCFL

11Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Conclusions• Efficiency of cancellation effect differs for different harmonics.

-> overall optimization

• Future changes or adaptions of standards should always ensure a good effectiveness of cancellation effects-> force phase angle diversity

• First grid measurement doesn‘t show dominating influence of modern lamps today (general conclusions not yet possible !).-> further development, installations with single type of equipment

Next steps:

• Long-term monitoring of low order harmonic currents (magnitude and phase angle) in different consumer structures -> identify possible changes in effectiveness of cancellation effect

• Development of web-based database for exchange of measurement data with other research institutions-> improve efficiency of research in this field

Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011

Thank you for your attention !

Contact details:Jan MeyerTechnische Universität DresdenInstitute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engenieering01062 Dresden

tel. +49-351-463 35102fax. +49-351-463 37036

email: jan.meyer@tu-dresden.de

13Meyer, Jan – GERMANY – Session 2 – Paper 0755

Institute of Electrical Power Systems and High Voltage Engineering

Preferential phase angles of measured equipment

3rd harmonic current 5th harmonic current

CFLNo PFCPassive PFCActive PFC

-100

100

100

I imag

/ m

A

200-200 0

200

-100

-200

0

Ireal / mA

-200

200

200

I imag

/ m

A

400-400 0

400

-200

-400

0

Ireal / mA

• Good cancellation between no PFC and passive PFC equipment; favorable phase angle of CFL

• Cancellation effect more effective for 5th harmonic