IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.

2, February 1981 837

EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS OF POWER SYSTEM

REACTIVE POWER AND VOLTAGE CONTROL PROBLEMS

W.J. Smolinski, Senior Member, IEEE

Electrical Engineering Department
University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, NB, Canada

Abstract - The paper presents a method of EQUIVALENT CIRCUITS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
analysis of power system reactive power and voltage
control problems by means of known equivalent circuits Thevenin Equivalent Circuit of a Power System
of power systems and of power transformers with tap-
changers. The method yields insight into the physical Fi gure 1 depicts the Thevenin equivalent
effects of tap-changer operations on system reactive circuit of a power systematany bus B. Impedance 2 is
power flows and voltage changes and enables one to get the driving point or short circuit impedance of the
reasonably good quantitative estimates ofthe magnitude power system when viewed at bus B. Power systems are
of these changes. The method also yields insight into typically highly reactive with an X/R ratio of say 4
"optimum" strategies for tap-changer controllers in or greater. A useful first approximation that is often
order tooptimize transformer operation and enables one used in power system analysis, andthat will be used in
to determine tap-changer requirements for system con- this paper, is to consider the power system purely re-
trol problems such as reactive power transfers between active and 2 = jX. The emf E in figure 1 is the emf
systems. at a highly regulated bus which has an automatic volt-
age regulator (AVR) capable of holding the emf E con-
INTRODUCTION stant regardless of any internal impedance in the
synchronous machines whose terminal voltage is repre-
Various analytic techniques exist for the sented by E. Z then represents the external impedance
analysis of power flows, both real and reactive, on of any transformers and/or transmission lines between
large scale power systems and for the determination of the source of E and bus B.
all power flows, as well as voltages and phase angles,
in all branches of the system. Inevitably such large
scale problems require solution on digital computers
and insight is often obscured, as to the effects of
system parameter variations on system variables, by Z=R+jX
the 1 arge amounts of output associ ated wi th such di gi tal
solutions. Design of systems, andthe specification of
parameter ranges, as well as the selection of device E=ELO QIVV
characteristics and operating principles, however re-
quires that this insight be available. In such cases
one sometimes relies on methods other than digital to
provide the necessary insight.
In the case of power system reactive power
and voltage control problems, the author has found that
known equivalent circuits ofpower systems and of power
transformers can be used to provide a good deal of in- Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of a power system.
sight into the nature of these problems and into the
relationships between changes in system variables such
as reactive powerandvoltage and the system parameters
which influence them. This equivalent circuit -method
also yeilds reasonably good quantitative estimates of
the aforementioned changes in system variables for Real and reactive power flow, P and Q, at
given changes of system parameters, and it enables one bus B can be shown tobe given by equations 1 and 2 for
to examine strategies for the "optimum" control of re- the special case of Z = jX. Rates of change of P and Q
active power and voltage as well. Precise quantitative with V, and the inverse of these rates of change, are
evaluation of the designed system can always be con- given by the partial derivatives in equations 3 to 6
firmed by complete digital simulation and study if and respecti vely.
when necessary. The details of this equivalent circuit
nethod of analysis are presented hereunder. VE sine
p =
x l

Q = VE cose
- V
- - 2

aP = E sine 3
80 SM 571-0 A paper recomnmended and approved by the
IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society for presentation at the aQ E cose - 2V 4
IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
July 13-18, 1980. Manuscript submitted December 5,
1979; made available for printing May 1, 1980. av- Esine 5
P sine
(D© 1981 IEEE
838

its equivalent circuit. The short circuit impedance

av -x of the transformer, jX, is taken to be purely reactive
aQ 2V - E cose 6 as a first approximation. The shunt admittancesY1 and

The latter two rates of change are also known as the Y'2 of the equivalent circuit can be shown to have the
sensitivity coefficients relating changes in bus volt- significance described in statements 7, 8 and 9.
age magnitude, V, to changes in P and Q respectively,
[1J,[2], and they have been used as the basis of real- n>l, Y1 is inductive, Y2 i s capaci tati ve 7
time reactive power and voltage control of power sys-
tems. n = 1, Y1 = Y2 = 0 8
The short circuit capacity, (31, sometimes n<l, Y1 is capacitative, Y2 is inductive 9
referred to as the stiffness or the strength, of a bus
is also a measure of the voltage change or the voltage Upon correlating the preceding statements with the off-
regulation to be expected at any bus. Two extremes of nominal turns ratio l:n it is evident that the equiva-
bus short circuit capacity arethe"infinite bus" (X=O, lent circuit of the transformer always places a capaci-
infinite short circuit current) and the "infinitely tor at the bus whose voltage is to be raised by the
weak bus" ( X=o, zero short circuit current). From tap changer and a reactor at the other transformer bus.
figure 1, and from equations 5 and 6, it is evident Furthermore, the reactive power produced/absorbed by
that X=O, zero voltage regulation at bus B, zero volt- this added capacitor/reactor combination is a function
age sensitivity to P and Q, and infinite short circuit of n as described by the equations for ?1 and Y2, and
current at bus B are all equivalent definitions of an this reactive power generally increases, either quad-
"infinite bus". Voltage regulation or strength of any ratically or linearly respectively for Y1 and Y29 as
"finite bus" can be similarly defined in a variety of
equivalent ways. the size of the tap n increases above unity, or de-
creases below unity, as depicted in Table I.
Equivalent Circuit of a Tapped Transformer
TABLE I
Figure 2 depicts the equivalent circuit of a
two-winding transformer with a tap-changer, whose off- Effect of n on Y1 and Y2
nominal tap has a turns ration of 1 to n, [3],[4],con-
nected to bus 1 of a power system, as represented by n yY1 /Y 2/YL
1.25 .31 -.25
1.20 .24 -.20
1.15 .17 -.15
1.10 .11 -.10
1.05 .05 -.05
1.00 0 0
.95 -.05 .05
L .90 -.09 .10
.
QIU _.
_-. 1I,_ . 1i v
._
.80 -.16 .20
t .~~~~~~75-.19 .25
For values of n near unity, and asa first approximation
(A) Schematic for larger values of n, the amount of reactive power
produced by Il and Y2 can be regarded as approximately
equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign.
Some idea of the magnitude of the reactive
power produced by Y1 and Y2 can be obtained by con-
sidering, asan example, a transformer with a 10% short
circuit impedance. In this case jX=jO.l per unit, Y=
pL -jlO per unit, and, for a ±10% off-nominal tap (n=l.l
or 0.9), Y1 z -'2 z+jl.0 per unit. At rated transformer
voltage such a reactor/capacitor would absorb/produce
a reactive power equal approximately to the KVA rating
of the transformer (one per unit). Similarly the re-
YE=n(n-vle C r 2=(u-n)? actor/capacitor combination represented by admit-
tances Y1,Y2 would carryareactive powerequal approxi-
( B) Eq ui val ent Ci rcui t mately to twice the KVA rating of the transformer for
an off-nominal tap of ±20%, or n=1.2 or 0.8.
The foregoing properties of tap-changers in
conjunction with the facts that:
1) Capacitors are sources of reactive power
Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of a power transformer and reactors are sinks forreactive power,
with an off-nominal tap. and that 2) Reactive power flow in a purely reactive
circuit requires a voltage gradient and
flows from high voltage to low voltage
often enable one to obtain a reasonably accurate quan-
titative picture of the consequences fora power system
 839
of transformer tap-changes under various circumstances, tively transferring the reactive part of the load from
some of which are considered hereunder. bus 2 to bus 1, and eliminating the 10% voltage drop in
the transformer caused by this reactive load. If a 20%
Tap-changers on power transformers may be voltage boost were used instead of a 10% voltage boost
either manual orautomatic. The latter, usually called in the foregoing analysis, the load at bus 2 would be
under load tap-changers (ULTC's) are usually arranged overcorrected from 70.7% lagging power factor to 70.7%
to regulate one of the transformer bus voltages (the leading power factor, bus 2 would have approximately 10%
regulated bus) in order to keep the operating voltage overvoltage and the transformer would still be over-
of the regulated bus within some acceptable pre-set loaded 41%. Current and load in branch n?, bus 1 to 2,
limits. This paper will also discuss the questions of are thus seen to go through minima near unity power
the best choice of the regulated bus and whether or not factor load, as the tap-changer varies its taps through
bus voltage regulation by means of automatic tap- a range from maximum buck to maximum boost, much like
changers should even be attempted. Other questions
which the foregoing properties of power systems and tap-
changers can be helpful in solving include the best
operating principle (or control criterion) for the
automatic tap-changerandwhether it is possible or not
0
to use automatic tap-changers as merely local bus volt- E2
age controllers or whether they could be employed in
some manner as system voltage controllers.
SOME CONFIGURATIONS OF AUTOMATIC
TAP-CHANGERS IN POWER SYSTEMS
Figures 2 and 3 depict automatictapchangers
in various configurations in power systems including (A)
the supply of radial loads (figure 2) and service as
"tie-transformers" between different power system
transmission voltage levels with various short circuit
capacities (figure 3). In all cases considered, the
foregoing questions will be considered by means of the
properties of the equivalent circuits developed-earlier.
0D 0)
E2
Each of several cases will now be considered separately.
Case I. Voltage Control of a Radial Load.
i
Figure 2 depicts the supply of a passive
radial load at bus 2, through a power transformer with
an automatic tap-changer connected between busses 1
and 2, from a source system connected to bus 1. In (B)
such a system bus 1 would normally be a high voltage
transmission level bus and bus 2 wouldbea low voltage
utilization bus, but a voltage step-up from bus 1 to
bus 2 would also be possible, although rare. Normally
also, the load at bus 2 would be of a lagging power
factor although, in a few minority cases, leading or 0 0D
unity power factor loads would also be possible. The
strength of the source system at bus 1 could vary over
a wide range from case to case. Control criteria for
the voltage at bus 2 may varybuttypically, the objec-
tive of tap-changer control would be to keep the bus 2
voltage at its rated value (or as near i,t as possible)
regardless of the magnitude andthe power factor of the
load.
As a first example consider the supply of a (C)
lagging power factor load from an infinite bus supply
through a power transformer with 10% leakage (short
circuit) impedance which is purely reactive. At rated
unity power factor load through thetransformer voltage
regulation in the transformer would be approximately ½°%.
This condition can be considered to be "optimal" load- Fig. 3. Several configurations of power system
ing of the transformer. With lagging reactive load tie-transformers.
equal to transformer rating added, bus 2 voltage would
drop an additional 10% from its unity power factor the "V" curves of a synchronous machine as its excita-
voltage and the transformer would have a 41% overload tion is varied from underexcited to overexcited opera-
as well. Boosting bus 2 voltage bymeans of a 10% tap-
change woul d restore unity power factor load voltage. tion. This minimum branch n? loading condition can
In terms of the equivalent circuit of the tap-changer, be considered to be an optimum operating strategy for
the tap-changer achieves this voltage correction by the controller of the automatic tap-changer, and this
adding a shunt capacitor (?2 of figure 2 and Table I) optimum strategy could be achieved most conveniently
by the addition of a "minimum ( branch nY ) current
at bus 2 to cancel the reactive part of the load, thus detector" to be added to the conventional "out-of-volt-
restoring unity power factor 'branch nY loading. At age-range-detector", and to take over control of the
the same time an almost equally rated shunt reactor tap-changer once an out-of-voltage-range-condition is
(Y1 of figure 2 and Table I) is added at bus 1, effec- detected, until minimuiM branch n? current is achieved.
840
In this case it is clearly bus 2 which should be the
regulated bus because the voltage of bus 1 cannot vary.
In practice the supply system at bus 1 of
figure 2 will not be an infinite bus but one of some
finite short circuit capacityandthe foregoing effects
will be somewhat modified. The shunt capacitor Y2 will,
however, be identical to what it was before, since it
depends only on the short circuit impedance of the
transformer and the tap-changer turns ratio n, and its
effects on load compensation will be exactly as they
were in the infinite supply bus example. Similarly,
shunt reactor Y1 will be identical to what it was in
the infinite bus case. Any difference between the
reactive power in Y1 and ?2 (see Table I) will now how-
ever be supplied from the finite system behind bus 1
and there will therefore be some additional voltage
regulation at both busses 1 and 2, due to this differ-
ence between the reactive power of Y1 and Y2 that must
be supplied through impedance jX1 (which is now non-
zero). For most moderately strong systems, this latter
effect will be secondary in terms of voltage regulation
(say regulation of about 1%) compared to the 10% change
in voltage at bus 2 for a 10% tap-change there. The
minimum ( branch n? ) current phenomenon near unity
power factor transformer loading still prevails, and
can still be considered an "optimum" tap-changing
strategy.
Case II. Tie-Transformer Between Systems of Various
Strengths
Figure 3 depicts a power transformer with an
automatic tap-changer when used as a "tie-transformer"
between two different systems, or between twodifferent
transmission levels within a system. The strength or
short circuit capacity of the two systems varies in the
three cases considered, and a load is shown connected
to bus 2 as well. These several systems will be con-
sidered individually to reveal their differences.
Two Very Strong Systems (figure 3A)
If the systems back of busses 1 and 2 are
both very strong, or infinite in the limit as depicted
in figure 3A, bus voltages V1 and V2 cannot vary, and
any off-nominal turns ratios n achieved by tap-changer
action will only result in reactive power circulation,
as depicted in figure 3A by the loops for Q1 and Q2.
The direction of the reactive power circulation would
depend on which of Y1 and Y2 was asource and which was
a sink for reactive power, which in turn depends on
whether n>l or n<l, as described instatements 7 and 9.
Reactive power between Y1 and Y2 cannot flow through
the branch nY itself because such a reactive
power flow would require a voltage change and the
potential difference between busses 1 and 2 cannot
change with infinite busses atbusses 1 and 2. Whether
or not one wanted such reactive power circulation as
depicted in figure 3A would depend on the reactive
power capabilities of systems 1 and 2 and other such
ci rcumstances.
For example, if one wished to send reactive
power from system 1 to system 2, or vice versa, as de-
pected in figure 3A, this could be easily achieved by
tie-transformer tap-changer control, much in the same
manner as phase-shifting transformers achieve real
power transfer between such systems. The amount of
reactive power transferable between systems 1 and 2 in
this manner can bedetermined from the values of Y1 and
Y2 as summarized in Table I. This type of reactive
power transfer can be regarded as a form of system
voltage control as opposed to local bus voltage control.
On the other hand, if the tap-changer was
used in an attempt to regulate the voltage of bus 1 or
bus 2, it could have undesirable consequences. For
example, if bus 1 voltage suddenly dropped out-of-range
due to a failure of a voltage regulator in a generating
plant in system 1, the tap-changer would respond by
attempting to boost bus 1 voltage by causing Y1 to be-
come capacitative and the system 1 machines to become
underexcited. Sincethetap-changer would be unable to
raise bus 1 voltage, itwould continue changing taps to
the extreme boost position thus making the system 1
machines severally underexcited, and possible causing
them to fall out of synchronism, to the detriment of
the entire system. This is clearly an undesirable type
of tap-changing action, and one might well conclude
that tap-changers on tie-transformers between very
strong busses should not be used to attempt to regulate
the voltage of such busses.
In practice, the systems in figure 3A cannot
have infinite short circuit capacities, only very large,
but finite, short circuit capacities. In this case,
there can be changes in potential difference across
busses 1 and 2, and there can be some reactive power
circulation between Y1 and Y2 through the transformer,
as depicted in figure 3B, in addition to the reactive
power flow between systems 1 and 2, as depicted in
figure 3A. In the extreme case of infinitely weak
systems 1 and 2, as depicted in figure 3B, all the
reactive power between Y1 and Y2 circulates within the
transformer itself and none of it flows between systems
1 and 2, because of the infinite impedances of these
systems.
Two Very Weak Systems (figure 3B)
The system configuration depicted in figure
3B is largely of academic interest because there is no
point in installing a "tie-transformer" between two
systems which are incapable, because of their infinite
impedance, of transferringanyload between themselves.
Figure 3B has been included because it reveals the
reactive power flow loop between Y1 and Y 2 through the
transformer itself. This is essentially the same path
of reactive power circulation as exists in Case I, the
transformer supplying a radial load.
One Very Strong, One Very Weak System (figure 3C)
In the limiting case, with X2=, as depicted
in figure 3C, this system is identical to the first
example of the supplytoa radial load (Case I) and the
reactive power circulation depicted in figure 3C is
identical to that describedinCase I. With X2 finite,
however, one has the additional possibility of using
the tie-transformer to transfer load between systems I
and 2, theoretically in both directions, but probably
always from the stronger to the weaker system (bus 1
to bus 2), except perhaps under certain exceptional
circumstances or emergencies, in addition to supplying
radial loads at bus 2. Under normal circumstances
therefore, with power transfer from system 1 to system
2, in addition to load at bus 2, the configuration in
figure 3C is effectively the same as that in Case I,
except that now it is the total load at bus 2 pl-us the
power transfer to system whose power factor must be
compensated by the tap-changer in order to minimize
branch nY current and loading, in accordance with
the "optimum" control strategy described for Case I.

With some power transferred from system 2 to
system 1, and with load at bus 2, it is only the net
transformer load whose power factor would be compen-
sated by the tap-changer, as in the foregoing example.
The tap-changer would, however, still operate on the
same "optimum" strategy.
CONCLUS IONS
Equivalent circuits of power systems and tap-
changing power transformers have been used to analyze
certain reactive power and voltage control problems
associated with power system operation. It has been
shown that these equi val ent ci rcui t methods gi ve i ns i ght
into, and yield reasonably good quantitative expecta-
tions of, certain phenomena associated with reactive
power and voltage control of power systems.
By using these techniques it has also been
shown that a supplementary "minimum (branch nY )
current detector", in addition to the conventional
"out-of-voltage-range" detector, can enable the con-
troller of an automatic tap-changer to "optimize" or
to minimize branch nV loading for any given load
connected to the transformer. This "optimum" condition
is near unity power factor branch nY load.
By using these techniques, it has also been
shown that tap-changers on tie-transformers between
strong systems can be used for such system reactive
power and voltage control strategies as the transfer
of reactive power from one system to another. Quan-
titative estimates of the amount of reactive power
which can be transferred in this manner have been
presented.
REFERENCES
11] I. Hano, Y. Tamura, S. Narita and K. Matsumoto,
"Real time control of system voltage and reactive
power, " IEEE Transactions of Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-88, Number 10, Oct. 1969, pp.
1544-1558.
[2] S. Narita, M.S.A.A. Hanniman, "Multicomputer con-
trol of system voltage and reactive power on a
real-time basis", 1971 PICA Conference Proceedings
pp. 453-460.
[3] O.I. Elgerd, "Electric Engergy Systems Theory"
(Book), McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
[4] J.B. Ward and H.W. Hale, "Digital computer solu-
tion of power flow problems", ALEE Transactions
(Power Apparatus and Systems), Vol . 75, June 1956
pp. 398-404'.
Walter J. Smolinski (M' - SM'74) was born in Ituna,
Saskatchewan, Canada, on October 18, 1929. He re-
ceived his B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Toronto in 1952 and
1964 respectively.
From 1952 to 1954, he worked in the Planning
Division of the Ontario Hydro. Since 1955 he has been
with the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
University of New Brunswick and he is currently a Pro-
fessor in that department. He has also worked for the
New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and other uti-
1ities since 1959 on various assignments related to
power system engineering and he has published several
papers in this area.
Professor Smolinski is a member of the As-
sociation of Professional Engineers of the Provinces of
Ontario and New Brunswick, a former member of the
841
Board of Examiners of the Association of Professional
Engineers of New Brunswick, and a member since 1964 of
the Committee on Analytical Methods in Power System
Planning of the Canadian Electrical Association. He
has served as Chairman of the New Brunswick Section
of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engin-
eers.
Discussion
R. E. Burridge, (University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB,
Canada): The author has presented an interesting paper on an
equivalent circuit approach for the analysis of power system reactive
power an,d voltage control problems. It would also be interesting to
know how the author proposes to implement a "minimum current"
controller for power transformer tap-changers.
Manuscript received June 17, 1980.
W.J. Smolinski: The author is grateful for this opportunity to
elaborate on the paper in response to its discussion.
With regard to the matter of implementing the minimum current
controller it must be noted that the author envisages an intelligent
microprocessor-based controller for the tap-changer; an analogue
hardware controller which minimizes current is difficult to conceive
and may be extremely difficult to implement but it is easy to imple-
ment a minimization routine in a computer program. The details of
such a minimum current controller would be as follows.
Consider the transformer in Figure 2 to be supplying a load PL + jQL,
as depicted, at a voltage V2= V2,& which is chosen as the voltage
reference. Current I in branch nY of the equivalent circuit of
the transformer is then given by equations 10, 11, 12 and 13. The
magnitude of this current, I, is a minimum when the condition of
equation 14 is satisfied, which results when the reactive component of
current I is minimized. It should also be noted that the voltage AV
across branch nY, which is given by equation 15 or 16, also has a
minimum real component of voltage (in-phase with V2) under the
same condition of equation 14. It must also be noted however, that
minimum voltage magnitude, AV, is obtained under a different con-
dition described by equations 17, 18 and 19.
Although the condition of equation 14 yields minimum current in
branch nY, it must be noted that branch nY itself if merely a branch of
an equivalent circuit and does not exist in hardware. Current I is
therefore not measurable and it cannot be utilized by a
microprocessor based controller for minimization. Voltage AV is
however a real voltage, the difference of V1 and V2, and its magnitude
AV can be approximated by the difference V1- V2 or it can be obtain-
ed exactly as the magnitude of phasor difference V1 - V2. Alternative-
ly, the phasor difference V1 -V2 can be obtained exactly and its "in-
phase component with V2" can be obtained by a digital "in-phase
component filter". The microprocessor-based controller can then
minimize this "in-phase component of AV" and in so doing, as noted
earlier, it will also be minimizing current I, even though it is not
measurable, and it will also satisy the minimum current condition of
equation 14.
I = L I2 10
where IL= (P - jQ)/V2 11
and I2= V2(1 - nY 12
and Y = -j 1/X (assuming a lossless transformner) 13
n = 1 + QX/V2 14
AV= I/nY 15
V2(1 n)/n 16
= -jPX/nV + QX/nV2 + -
n = 1 + A/B 17
where A = QX + X2(P2 +Q2)/V2 18
and =V2 +QX
Ban + QX 19
842
A minumum voltage controller which minimizes the magnitude AV
could also be realized and it would satisfy the condition of equation
17, which is different from the condition of equation 14. To get an
idea of the order of magnitude of the difference in these two results,
condsider the case of V2 = 1.0 per unit, PL = 1.0 per unit, QL = 0.5
per unit and X = 0.1 per unit. Equation 14 yields n = 1.05 (a 5 %
boost toward bus 2) and equation 17 yields n = 1.06 (a 6 % boost).
The minimum current condition is however preferred because it
minimizes IPR and P2X losses in the transformer.
Manuscript received September 2, 1980.