×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

(OP)
We have 132/11KV substation .One meter of EB is connected at sending end of 132KV voltage and our meter is connected at receiveing end 132KV voltage .Even though we are maintaining average power factor of receiveing end 132KV voltage around 0.92 but the average power factor of sending end is low around 0.84 .Why such huge difference in average power factor occurs .We have already checked both end meters but no fault found .I am not able to understand why such difference is coming .Also during running condition running power factor on both side is same .

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Please explain what "Also during running condition running power factor on both side is same" means in context with the rest of the question.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

(OP)
Means instantaneous power factor on both meter are same but average power factor in sending end and receiving end meter differs.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

It means the phase angles at the sending and receiveing end are different...

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

The line is a capacitor, the power factor won't be the same at both ends. The lower the charging current, relative to the load current, the greater the difference between the power factors at each end. At heavy load there may not be much difference, but at a load at the receiving end just large enough to calculate power factor they will be quite different; the sending end will probably be a leading power factor even.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Davidbeach is spot on. The line has capacitance which add reactive components (current). Most people think of transmission lines as simple I2R in terms of losses, however reactive components add currents (MVAR) which changes power factor and even voltage (Ferranti rise for example) at the receiving/sending ends.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

I agree with davidbeach, of course. In my opinion a long transmission line is less inductive and sometime even capacitive so the sending power factor could be better -less lagging- even. But a short transmission it is more inductive. I am not involved in power factor measurements. However, in my opinion, the average difference from sending end to receiving ,in this case, is huge. It could be other reactive elements like reactors or else?

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

7another4,

That could be explained by a relatively small active power component.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Thank you, Scotty. However, in my opinion, if the load increases the power factor decreases, theoretically at least.ponder

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

If the active load increases and the reactive components remain constant then the PF improves, i.e it gets closer to unity.

Is this a cable circuit or a line?

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

You are right, Scotty: my experience it is only with cables and not with overhead lines. So, do you think it is a shunt [lumped] reactance in an overhead transmission line? In this case, of course, part of the reactive power could be constant [depending only on supply voltage].If it is only a series reactance then the [ lost] reactive power depends on current [in my opinion].

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

"So, do you think it is a shunt [lumped] reactance in an overhead transmission line?"

My crystal ball is broken. The OP needs to provide more detail. smile

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

(OP)
Davidbeach answer is quite matching .But I want to know that how to resolve this issue as EB meter is at sending end and due to lower power factor we have to pay heavy penalty in every month.Please explain.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

masinha2,
It is a clear maths. The penalty what you pay could be due to a loophole in the power agreement. Normally, when the EB (Electricity Board?, Utility supplier)supplies you the bulk power at EHV, you shall define the location of Point of Common Coupling (PCC). Normally, it is in the customer premises. If you have agreed the PCC somewhere far away from your premises, you are getting penalised, which could be avoidable, by reviewing the tariff metering location and moving the same to PCC.

I am sure presently you are also paying for for the line losses.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

OP doesn't say if the PF is capacitive or inductive (the latter seems to be assumed), but he says: "Even though we are maintaining average power factor of receiveing end 132KV voltage around 0.92 but the average power factor of sending end is low around 0.84"

If there's a capacitance involved, cable or overhead or otherwise, and very low load, this makes sense. But, if this is a line with normal load, it doesn't make sense at all if there is not a rather high reactive component in the transmission line.

My questions: Is the PF capacitive or inductive? How heavily is the line loaded?

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

The parameters of the line and load have not given by the OP. I have tried to guess the parameters, as

Load: 111 MVA, pf 0.92
Line: 100 km, modeled in 10 sections. X = 0.44 Ohm/km, R = 0.09 Ohm/km, B = 7.7e-5/Ohm km (realistic, or typical ? )

With these parameters the pf = 0.84 at the source and pf = 0.92 at the load.
See the attached picture.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

The line is a capacitive load.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

There will be I²X reactive losses that will result in a lower sending end power factor. If the line capacitance load V²/XC was higher than the reactive losses, then the sending end power factor would be higher than the receiving end.

The question is - why is the instantaneous pf the same, but the sending end average pf lower? Could be explained by the average load being higher on average than when the instantaneous metering was read.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

If I'm understanding the OP and follow-up comments correctly, the customer is being [unfairly] billed for reactive power it is not consuming.

Is it not the case that customer charges are always calculated at the point of common coupling? If so, the customer's power factor [iow @ the receiving end] should be the determinant; providing the customer can prove it, being billed for reactive power that flows into said [express?] circuit without the customer's consuming it would provide legal grounds upon which the customer could IMHO take the supplier to court for overcharging.

CR

"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." [Proverbs 27:17, NIV]

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

I'm not sure why it would necessarily be wrong for a customer to pay for the reactive losses necessary to serve his load. In the end, someone needs to pay. It all depends on the local regulations, rate class, terms of contract, etc.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

If the OP has access to the "Power Agreement" document, he shall first read the document and understand the clauses. The subject issue shall be addressed based on the "Power Agreement". Otherwise, the whole exercise will be futile.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

I agree with krisys.
From “Transformer Costing with Customers” by HydroOttawa co.
“Section 3, of the Distribution System Code, allows for the LDC (local distribution company) to charge for dedicated distribution transformer(s) for commercial and primary supplied residential services. This procedure focuses on the costing details associated with distribution transformer(s) and their sole use by a customer. This discussion does not apply to Hydro Ottawa owned transformers for multiple customers on the public road right-of-way or easements. Rental of Hydro Ottawa substation class transformers shall be reviewed separately on a case-by-case basis.”
So, if the transformer it is your property then the kWh-and power factor-has to be measured at high voltage supply side of the transformer[132 KV].If the load at 11 KV it will presents 0.92 power factor at 132KV will be 0.84.[Let’s take a 100 MVA transformer, 12.5% impedance, 60% loaded]

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

you may want to provide the 132kV line length fro sending end to the receiving end,line parameters, peak load at your substation in MW and MVA, sending end voltage, and receiveing end voltage and other network topology information. Then it would be easy to figure out what happened.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

if teh point of coupling is at the sending end not at your receiving end, then you have to pay the loss at the POC including the radial line losses.

RE: Difference in power factor in sending end and receiveing end

Quote:

I'm not sure why it would necessarily be wrong for a customer to pay for the reactive losses necessary to serve his load.

I'm not saying it would be wrong, either; there is however a difference between what the quote describes and being unfairly gouged by one's supplier...and it is unclear to me based on the info provided whether or not that's what's happening in this case...which is what civil courts are helpful with.

CR

"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." [Proverbs 27:17, NIV]

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources