Magnetically Controlled Reactors Enhance Transmission Capability &

Save Energy Especially in Compact Increased Surge-Impedance-

Loading Power Lines
Prof. Alexander M. Bryantsev, Moscow Power Institute, Smolensk; Mark D. Galperin, PhD, Expanding Edge LLC,
San Francisco; Prof. George A. Evdokunin, St. Petersburg State Technical University, St. Petersburg

Benefits of Controllable Reactors

AC distribution grids usually do not require shunt reactors, but do require capacitor banks (i.e.
capacitive shunt compensation). These capacitor banks need to be controlled because of
changing load conditions. Yet the manual or thyristor switching operations typically used for
capacitor bank control are not really efficient and wear out both switching equipment and power
transformers. And they do not actually meet reactive power load and voltage control
requirements efficiently, since the step control they provide does not really fit the load smoothly.
Intrinsic line capacitance in long AC grids of 400 kV or higher must be compensated to
decrease reactive load losses, which can quickly become unacceptably large because they are
proportional to the square of line voltage. Compensation must also ease the Ferranti effect,
when load conditions are changing. Usually this is accomplished with shunt reactors, and some
of these need to be controlled as well.
Studies conducted during last decade by Prof. George A. Evdokunin and his colleagues in
Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, India, and China show that in 500 kV grids the optimum ratio of
controllable to non-controllable shunt reactors is about 1:3, in order to dampen all significant
voltage surges and to improve power stability limits. With compensation at this level, higher
voltage can be transmitted even through extended power lines. This also saves energy. In
extreme cases, power transmission losses can be decreased by about 30% in this way. In US
grids where power transmission loss is about 4% (G.J. Molteni, 2001), power transmission
savings would be 1 to 2 percent.
Flexible control of reactive power and voltage in both lower and higher voltage grids is usually
realized by static var compensators (SVCs) or more sophisticated static synchronous
compensators (STATCOMs) or by controllable reactors as separate units.
In SVCs, controllable reactors are used with capacitor banks to control reactive power load, to
dampen voltage surges and to decrease power transmission loss by decreasing reactive current
circulation.
Nowadays the most common controllable shunt reactors are thyristor controlled reactors
(TCRs).
A New Type of Controlled Reactor
However, utilities in Russia and the other CIS countries are beginning to use extremely highly
saturated magnetically controlled shunt reactors (MCRs), and these are proving to be more
efficient and reliable and more cost effective, as well.
Magnetic reactor control is based on low-power magnetic biasing, and does not require a high-
rated thyristor system which, as is well known, is the main cause of the unreliability of TCRs.
MCRs also do not need step-down transformers to decrease grid voltage to rated thyristor
voltage, which must be less than 35 kV.
Advantages of the MCR
MCRs are as reliable and simple to operate and maintain as ordinary transformers.
In more than 20 years field operation of what is now 40 installations, no MCR has ever
needed replacement.
MCRs can sustain 50% overload for 20 minutes and 100% overload for 20 seconds.
The overvoltage limitation of an MCR is 2.3 times rated voltage.
The current-distortion coefficient of the MCR, without filters, is less than 3%. Thus, fewer
filters are required.
MCRs require no additional operation and maintenance substation personnel.
MCRs require about 10 sq.ft / Mvar of the substation open space.
MCRs have low external magnetic field, requiring no shielding.
MCRs experience about half the internal power loss of TCRs: 0.05% kW per kvar of rated
reactive power (rkvar) in standby no-load mode, and 0.5% kW per rkvar in rated reactive
power load mode.
MCRs can be designed to respond like TCRs, in as little as 0.02 second. But unlike TCRs,
the price of an MCR is related to response time and thus although MCRs of the shortest
response time would cost about the same as equivalent TCRs approximately $20/kvar
for more typical grid requirements of 1 second, they cost only half as much as TCRs, or
about $10-11/kvar (ex works price).
MCRs cost half as much as TCRs to install, operate, and maintain.
More important than this cost differential, though, is the sheer reliability of this new
technology.
Economy, reliability, and maintenance simplicity are the features that utilities most desire from
power equipment.
Field Experience with MCRs
In Russia, at Permenergos 80 MVA Kudymkar substation, which was equipped with capacitor
banks, power fluctuations required over 800 manual switching events per year, with
corresponding serious capital outlay for labor and rapid depreciation of attached switching and
transformer equipment. An MCR was installed in 1999, and the system immediately stabilized,
with only twelve manual switching events per year since then. The substation saved 7.3 GW-
hours over the first year of usage, and construction of a planned new power line has become
unnecessary for at least 10 more years saving the utility well in excess of $25M. And in two
short years, the utility has already all but recovered the cost of installing the MCR.
ISIL increases transmission distance and saves construction costs
One important application of MCRs is their use with compact increased surge-impedance-
loading (ISIL) power lines [A.M.Bryantsev et al, Power Quality 2000].
Transmission capability in AC overhead lines is limited by inductive impedance. Series
capacitors are used to compensate inductive impedance, but such compensation is costly and
creates difficulties for system operation.
Transfer distance and/or capacity could be increased in the following ways:
1. Increase the effective conductor diameter, employing several subconductors in each line
phase: The greater the transmitted power or line length, the greater the number of
subconductors required.
2. Optimize the spacing of subconductors in split phases so as to provide maximum
permissible field strength in each subconductor.
3. In order to obviate undesirable increase of phase dimensions due to the increased number
of subconductors, the following can be employed:
modify the tower structure to exclude its grounded elements from the interphase space;
find the optimum phase spacing;
allow larger interphase overvoltage limitations to decrease interphase air gaps; and
use interphase insulation spacers to decrease wind-induced interphase distance
changes.
There are currently 5 compact ISIL lines in operation and 2 more are projected, specifically:
220 kV line of about 30 km with 4 subconductors per phase in China;
220 kV line of about 150 km with 2 subconductors per phase in Russia;
330 kV line of about 150 km with 4 subconductors per phase in Russia;
500 kV line of about 750 km with 4 subconductors per phase in Brazil;
500 kV line of about 83 km with 6 subconductors per phase in China;
500 kV line of about 500 km with 6 subconductors per phase in Russia (projected);
500 kV line of about 500 km with 6 subconductors per phase in Kazakhstan (projected).
For 220 kV, a 60Hz line with three subconductors per phase inductive impedance of 0.28 to
0.33 Ohm/mi was achieved, as compared to 0.77 Ohm/mi for a standard 60 Hz line. For a 500
kV line with 6 or 7 subconductors, inductive impedance can be lowered by half, in comparison
with lines of the usual design.
Lowering the inductive impedance of long distance transmission lines decreases the power
angle between the line terminals and improves steady-state stability limits without series
capacitive compensation. Series capacitive compensation is usually about 1/3 of the cost of line
construction and eliminating this requirement would result in significant savings.
Also, along with the interphase dimensions, for guyed power transmission line support, both the
tower mass and the width of line right-of-way decrease as well, saving on construction and land
costs.
When the power load becomes lower than the surge-impedance loading of the line, long-line
reactive power and voltage can most efficiently be managed by means of controllable electric
shunt reactors. For ISIL applications the most cost effective and energy saving type of
controllable reactors is magnetically controlled reactors (MCRs).
Results might differ somewhat in different economic and technical environments, but for
example in a 330 kV line located in Russia, which had four subconductors per phase, placing
more subconductors in the ISIL line phases translated into a 5% increase in line construction
costs per each three additional subconductors. But since ISIL lines do not require series
capacitive compensation, there was a 35% decrease. Because the ISIL structure generally
decreases linear inductive impedance while increasing linear capacitive impedance, it was
desirable to install MCRs for compensation of the latter, and this added 5%. But as can be seen,
the net result of these several modifications was a savings of 15% over ordinary transmission
line construction.
Whats the bottom line?
Decade of experience in Russia, China and Brasil, have shown the extreme reliability and
considerable cost and energy savings with both MCRs and ISIL lines.
We believe that todays energy and energy policy climate positively demand MCR-ISIL
technology. A pilot installation of an MCR and compact ISIL line in the US would show that it
this technology is the most simple, efficient, and reliable path to enhanced transmission and
significant savings in both power and cost.
________________________________________________________

Transparencies (following pages)

1. Steep dependence of differential magnetic permeability of MCR core on magnetic field
strength facilitates very effective control of MCR inductance.
2. Principles of operation, schematic of a shunt MCR, and example of transient process in an
MCR.
3. General schematics of 6-35 kV Arc-Quenching MCRs, MCRs for distribution substations,
and MCRs for 100-500 kV grids.
4. Field experience with MCR-based SVC: 32c/25i Mvar, 110 kV at Kudymkar Substation in
Northeastern European Russia (PermEnergo).
5. Magnetically Controlled Reactor MCR 25/110, 3-Phase, 110kV, 25MVA.
6. Arc-Quenching Magnetically Controlled Reactor (AQMCR) 190 kvar, 11/3 kV
Transparency 1:
Steep dependence of differential magnetic permeability of MCR core on magnetic field
strength facilitates very effective control of MCR inductance.
In any transformer steel, magnetic-flux density B in teslas (T) is quasi-piecewise-linear dependent
on magnetic field strength H, in amperes per meter (A/m). The differential magnetic permeability
of the MCR core steel is very steeply dependent on H (H) = dB(H) / dH.
An increase of H from 5 A/m to 25 kA/m results in a decrease of of about 10,000 times to the
constant value 0, (permeability of vacuum). does not change at higher values of H (saturation).
This facilitates very effective control of MCR inductance.
Increasing direct current in the MCR control winding increases H. This increase of H decreases
as described above. Decreasing decreases MCR inductance. Decrease of MCR inductance
decreases shunt MCR reactance, and decreasing reactance increases the reactive power
consumed by shunt MCR. Thus current in the MCR control winding switches the MCR on and off.
Transparency 2:
Principles of operation, schematic, and example of transient process in an MCR.

1. Principles of Operation
Changes of inductance in magnetically controlled reactors (MCRs) are achieved through
controlled changes of magnetic field strength in the magnetic core. Control is realized only by
changes in the unidirectiona component of the magnetic field strength. Such changes move the
magnetic core of the MCR into saturation. The period in which the core is saturated is finally the
principal parameter of the control.
The MCRs consumed power is regulated within 0.01 to 1.00 of its rated power. For different
types of MCR, short-term 40% overloading during periods of up to 20 minutes is allowed. Long-
term 20% overloading is allowed without time limitations.

2. General schematic of an MCR

1. Reactor phases
2. Thyristor converter with matching
transformer
3. Control and safety system
4. TT is current transformer
5. TH is voltage transformer

3. Example of Transient Process in an MCR

Sec
 Transparency 3:
Basic Schematics of 6-35 kV Arc-Quenching MCRs (1), MCRs for distribution substa-
tions (2), and MCRs for 110-500 kV grids (3).

Schematics of magnetically controlled shunt reactors

1. 6-35 kV Arc-Quenching MCRs 2. Shunt MCRs for power supply of enterprise

at 35 kV or less

3. Shunt MCRs for 110-500 kV electric networks

Transparency 4a:
Field experience with MCR-based SVC: 32c/25i Mvar, 110 kV at Kudymkar Substation in
Northeastern European Russia (PermEnergo).

Fragment of network schematic

Experimental voltage and MCR current due to changing network load

conditions over 17-hour period:
Transparency 4b:
Field experience with MCR-based SVC: 32c/25i Mvar, 110 kV at Kudymkar Substation in
Northeastern European Russia (PermEnergo) [continued].

Network voltage deviation under different load and capacitor bank states
prior to MCR installation:

Power System State of Deviation from Power losses, MW

Operational Condition Capacitor Bank Rated Voltage (for all systems)
Winter load Off -13% 6.9
Winter load On ~0% 67.7
Summer load Off +6% 8.2
Summer load On +17% 12.0

Benefits realized after MCR installation:

1. Capacitor bank circuit breaker switching events decreased from 800 to 12
commutations per year.
2. Voltage deviation swing at automatic on/off switching of capacitor bank is lowered.
3. Number of voltage control tap changes is decreased
Transparency 5:
Magnetically Controlled Reactor MCR 25/110, 3-Phase, 110kV, 25MVA
Transparency 6:
3 kV
Arc-Quenching Magnetically Controlled Reactor (AQMCR) 190 kvar, 11/
_____________________________________________

This presentation was delivered October 11, 2001 by Mark D. Galperin, PhD, at the NSF/EPRI Workshop,
Urgent Opportunities for Transmission System Enhancement Workshop, in Palo Alto, CA at the session
entitled, Enhancement of Transmission Capability, moderated by Dr. Abu Aty Edris (EPRI).

Please address correspondence to

Mark D. Galperin, PhD

General Manager
EXPANDING EDGE LLC
508 San Anselmo Avenue, Suite 1B
San Anselmo, Calfiornia 94960 USA
Tel (415) 256-2512; Fax (415) 256-9268
MDGalperin@expandingedge.com