THYRISTOR TRACTION RECTIFIERS ENGINEERING AND HYPE
Tom Young
Director of Systems 8t Engineering
IMPulse NC, Inc.
Background
Thyristor rectifiers are common in
industry in the United States and the
world and have been for many years.
Functions have included electrolysis,
large drives (such as rolling mills and
hoists), and heating. These units range
from 1OOKW t o over 1OMW and have
been employed for the past 25 years in
large DC applications which required
voltage control. There are dozens of
manufacturers with extensive
experience in manufacturing controllable
rectifiers, and the technology is
thoroughly established. Hundreds of
technical papers have been written
based on operation of these rectifiers
including their characteristics and their
effect on plant and utility systems.
Suddenly, the American transit industry
discovered "Thyristor Rectifiers"
(typically known as controlled rectifiers
or SCR rectifiers in the United States)
and, at least in the press, traction
power engineering changed completely.
Claims of lower energy costs, lower
capital costs increased spacing, lower
maintenance costs, and even elimination
of the need for DC circuit breakers
usher in this "discovery". The facts are
the cost is higher, the maintenance is
higher, the spacing is primarily driven by
other factors, there are many reasons
197
that DC breakers are necessary, and
controllable rectifiers introduce a host of
problems which have had t o be
addressed (usually successfully) in
industry for over twenty years. This is
not to suggest that controllable
rectifiers do not provide advantages, it
is just that they are not magic bullets.
One transit authority in the United
States made the decision to build a
system based on controllable rectifiers.
Some of the claims and compromises
involved in that system will be used in
the evaluations which1 follow.
The first traction supplies were rotary
units, which were usually compound
wound. By design of the series winding
and active control aif the shunt field,
inherent regulation and operational
regulation could be controlled over a
considerable range. General operating
experience resulted in1 the selection of a
negative regulation curve of typically six
percent. This was dlictated by current
sharing between units and system
stability as well as fault current
limitation. Rotary units were replaced
by mercury rectifiers, and again the
regulation was chosen as typically six
percent negative. It: should be noted
that mercury rectifieirs are functionally
equivalent to SCR rectifiers - they are
operated by phase delay firing with
0 1996 IEEE
0-7803-3351-9/'96/%5.00
complete control. The hundreds of
papers written on these units directly
apply t o SCR rectifiers except that the
on voltage drop in a mercury tube is
typically 15 volts compared t o t w o volts
in an SCR. These papers treat of the
issues of power factor, line pollution
and harmonics, transformer heating,
notching, and a major range of other
considerations for operation of these
units. It is against this back drop that
the projections of advertisements,
technical presentations, and simulations
need t o be evaluated.
Regulation
In theory, an SCR rectifier can be
designed t o produce a flat (zero
regulation) curve from no load t o five
hundred percent load. Most units built
for electrolysis and plating are, in fact,
designed t o produce a set voltage
regardless of load. This is possible for a
fixed or very slowly changing load
because stability can be maintained with
very high gain. When this type of
control system is applied t o varying and
especially unpredictable loads, instability
can and usually does occur. This sets a
minimum regulation (maximum gain) a t
which stable operation can be achieved,
probably 2-3 percent in a traction power
system. This also depends on the
propulsion algorithm (almost all are now
actively controlled systems). Typical
loads are controlled by an acceleration
driven control loop, meaning that a t a
location where distribution drop is
significant, they produce a negative
198
resistance characteristic (if the voltage
goes down, the current goes up),
greatly complicating analysis of system
stability and making active system
control very difficult. Aside from
system gain, decisions on other system
parameters are not as straight forward
as they may seem. As stated earlier,
the rectifier can be theoretically
designed t o have flat regulation t o any
load; however, there are significant
negative trade offs.
The transformer size must be increased
not only t o raise voltage t o place the
inherent regulation curve so that it
intersects the design voltage a t the
maximum controlled voltage load, but
also t o allow for the heating caused by
increased K factor associated with the
firing phase delay. This results in
increased losses at load, and also
increases the no load loss, which is a
major energy use in traction units. Also
the higher the load of the transition
voltage chosen, the longer the firing
delay at most operating conditions.
This results in a reduction of power
factor and an increase in harmonics
during most of the unit's operating time.
This can be put in perspective by
observing the operating parameters
during the design stages of a system.
Figure 1 shows the original (as
advertised) intent of the specification -
the break point and inherent slope are
-
speculation but the curve shown was
used t o demonstrate that "the 100 volt
...
gain a t 200% full load current would
allow a further 2/3 mile of OCS t o be
supplied and still achieve the same
voltage at the pantograph as that
obtained with a SDR". Super imposed
on this graph is the (as delivered)
regulation curve of the units after the
design stage. The 100 volt gain at
200% has slipped t o less than 50, and
the 450% operating capability
requirement (a very significant
requirement for contingency operation
with large AC drive vehicles especially
at extended spacing) has apparently
been lost.
The regulation change reflects
appropriate analysis of the loss, power
factor and harmonic penalties
associated with the large firing angle
delays required for a large voltage
reduction. The original curve would
provide a power factor of about 75% a t
50% load, the final curve would result
in around 85% at 50% load and almost
95% (the same as an unregulated
rectifier) at overloads. This makes
engineering sense, but perhaps should
prompt reassessment of the advantages
postulated in the original system
concept. As shown, the projection of
the inherent regulation curve would
result in an open circuit voltage of 900
volts with an unregulated rectifier on
the same transformer, very close t o
meeting the systems maximum voltage.
Another curve appears on Figure 1
showing the curve of a low regulation
rectifier. This will be discussed further
in the alternatives section of this paper.
199
The regulation issue just discussed
drives the justification for regulated
rectifiers. The argument is that
regulated units greatly extend the
distance between sulbstations. In most
conventional systems (especially light
rail systems), the total voltage drop to
the pantograph is 60 t o 90%
distribution drop, ancl it would probably
be more economical t o provide spacing
extension through improvements in that
drop. Aside from drop, there are other
limitations which cannot be ignored.
With extended spaciing, fault detection
becomes a very 1imit:ing factor and we
have a number of systems operating
today with no ability t o detect remote
f auIts. Also about 1/3 of the
distribution drop is in the rail return, and
rail voltage (which is vehicle voltage) is
another limiting factor.
Energy Savings
It is not obvious that a unit that has
lower efficiency and power factor would
be justified on the basis of energy
savings. The basis of this claim is
savings on demand lcharges, and it is
true that in most traction power
systems the demand charge exceeds the
energy cost. The 'theory is that by
"chasing the demand meter" load can
be shifted t o underloaded stations by
altering the voltage 01 adjacent stations.
Certainly, this can be accomplished t o
some extent, but it is neither as easy
nor as predictable as it might appear.
Systems are normally carefully designed
t o provide uniform loading on average
and demand peaks almost always occur
during rush hour, when headway's are
short and loading is uniform. Also, to
make this system work will require a
dynamic interface with the vehicles,
relative t o both the current voltage
characteristics and scheduling. This will
be discussed further in the alternatives
section of this paper.
DC Circuit Breakers
The claim of eliminating DC circuit
breakers by using controllable rectifiers
deserves little discussion. Even if you
could detect an overload and turn off
the voltage, no operating authority
would turn off all outgoing circuits
because of an overload on one. Keeping
all clear circuits alive is always critical t o
operation. This is without even
addressing the problems of remote fault
detection.
Reaeneration
In intracity transit systems, a large
percentage of the energy delivered to
the vehicles is turned into heat in
braking. Efficient recovery of the
braking energy could provide
significant reduction in energy costs.
Rotary units of fifty years ago could put
this energy back into t h e AC line, but at
that time, the propulsion technology
was not available for the vehicles.
Conventional rectifiers cannot convert
this energy, but "four quadrant"
controllable rectifiers can, albeit with
large questions in reliability and power
line pollution. These double bridge units
are used in large drives and hoists in
industry and have evolved t o be in fairly
common use. They are, however,
expensive , are generally slaved t o a
single load to minimize dynamic and
transient problems, and normally have a
very high speed breaker in the reverse
bridge to prevent major damage when
an SCR mis-trigger causes a interbridge
fault. Although there is a lot of work t o
be done to make such a system
workable under the dynamic conditions
of a distributed traction power system,
regeneration reception would appear to
be worth the development of this or
some alternate system.
Alternatives
Before making a decision t o use SCR
rectifiers with the unknowns involved, a
critical analysis should be undertaken
using achievable performance figures,
and alternatives should be evaluated.
Conventional diode rectifiers are well
proven and well behaved. Their
operation and reliability are very well
demonstrated in United States transit
systems. This is very different from
a operation in many other countries where
maintenance procedures and personnel
are vastly different and operations may
be by very different rules.
As previously stated, rectifiers are
historically chosen t o have an inherent
regulation of six percent for system
stability and sharing and t o limit fault
current. Rectifier systems can be
200
designed down t o about t w o to two and full performance with a rectifier out of
one half percent regulation with very service. By literally turning off the high
little problem. Especially in light rail, a demand unit for a short time with
coupled twelve pulse system can equipment already in place, this function
provide three percent inherent regulation could be accomplished nicely.
to over 300% load while holding fault
current well within the capabilities of If any area should be targeted for any of
light rail breakers as defined by ANSI. these functions, the most fruitful area
The curve of such a rectifier is included would have t o be the! vehicle propulsion
in Figure 1 and shows improved voltage systems. The curve! programmed into
through the meaningful range. The these systems can define the spacing,
spacing becomes limited by fault the demand, and even help considerably
detection and return voltage, not the with regeneration. This could even be
rectifier, in any case. Sizing the extended to having these systems
catenary larger would provide similar programmable by operations even by
spacing at lower cost (this has been remote control. We have already paid a
demonstrated by composite third rail) tremendous amount of money t o buy
while improving fault detection these systems which are fully
capability. There is no obvious reason electronically controllable in both
to use SCR rectifiers t o increase acceleration and braking modes, and we
spacing. could use them very much to our
advantage.
Receptivity to regeneration is a different
issue. Conceivably this capability alone
could justify SCR four quadrant References
rectifiers. Other alternatives, however,
should also be considered for this Standard Handbook: for Electrical
function. Specifically, the stored energy Engineers, Seventh Edition, 1941,
necessary t o handle the braking energy Section 9, "Rectifiers and Convertors",
from one vehicle t o the next is relatively McGraw Hill.
small, and battery storage on the DC
side should certainly be considered. Standard Handbook. for Electrical
Battery banks which would undergo Engineers, Eleventh Edition, 1978,
minimal cycling could be quite cost Section 13, "Power Electronics",
effective and could also reduce catenary McGraw Hill.
requirements rather than increase them.
"The Use of Thyristor Controlled
This brings us to chasing the demand Rectifiers for the DART System", Eric
meter. Almost all light rail systems Scotson, APTA Rapid Transit
have the capability t o operate a t almost Conference, 1995.

20 1
 ADVERTISED
=-I
DELIVERED

100 200 300 400 500 AMPS

(X FULL LOAD)

FIG. I

202