3.8 Article

Simulation of medium voltage electrical power segments: Which model to use?

期刊

出版社

UNIV PASSO FUNDO
DOI: 10.5335/rbca.v13i1.10962

关键词

Comparative analysis; mathematical modeling; real data; transmission lines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to provide subsidies for choosing an appropriate mathematical model to represent urban and rural segments of the medium voltage electrical power network through simulation, validation, and comparative analysis. It was found that the PI model is the best choice as it requires fewer parameters compared to other models.
The mathematical modeling of electrical power transmission lines is an important tool for planning the operation and expansion of electrical systems, especially given the transformation of current electrical networks into smart grids. The literature presents different mathematical models and electrical circuits for transmission lines simulation. In this context, this paper aims to provide subsidies to choose an appropriate mathematical model for the representation of urban and rural segments of the medium voltage electrical power network, from the realization of the simulation, validation and comparative analysis of the models from real data. The data were obtained from measurements performed on two short lines of the electrical network of two utility companies of the southern region of Brazil. Mathematical modeling of the transmission lines is performed from PI, Bergeron, J. Marti (modal domain) and Universal Line Model (phase domain) models in software PSCAD. The simulations results allow the validation, determination of accuracy and comparative analysis of the models for electrical segments (urban and rural). From the analysis of the simulations results it is possible to observe that all models accurately represent the output voltage prediction of a short medium voltage line. Therefore, the PI model is indicated because it requires fewer parameters when compared to other models of electrical power transmission lines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据