Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Research on Human-Robot Collaboration Method for Parallel Robots Oriented to Segment Docking
Previous Article in Journal
An Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis Method for Three-Level Neutral Point Clamped Inverters Based on Multi-Scale Shuffled Convolutional Neural Network
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 24
Issue 6
10.3390/s24061746
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Validation of a Simplified Method for Estimating the Harmonic Response of Rogowski Coils with the Monte Carlo Method

by
Christian Betti
,
Alessandro Mingotti
,
Roberto Tinarelli
* and
Lorenzo Peretto
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, Guglielmo Marconi Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2024, 24(6), 1746; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24061746
Submission received: 19 February 2024 / Revised: 29 February 2024 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensing and Measurement for Smart Grids and Future Power Systems)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Schematic of the measurement setup.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Ratio error ∆% of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [<a href="#B14-sensors-24-01746" class="html-bibr">14</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Phase displacement <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∆</mo> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">φ</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [<a href="#B14-sensors-24-01746" class="html-bibr">14</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Resistance values vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Phase displacement vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.</p> "> Figure 6
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mo>∆</mo> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">φ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">g</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> at 150 Hz and 250 Hz and at tested temperatures for RUT 1.</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The need to monitor the power network is leading to a significant increase in the number of measurement points. These points consist of intelligent electronic devices and instrument transformers (or more in general sensors). However, as the number of devices increases, so does the demand for their characterization and testing. To this end, the authors formulated a new characterization procedure that offers numerous benefits for manufacturers and system operators. These benefits include: (i) reducing testing time (thus lowering costs), (ii) simplifying the existing procedures, and (iii) increasing the number of tested devices. In this study, to complete the validation of the proposed characterization procedure, the authors performed a comprehensive uncertainty evaluation. This included the identification and analysis of the uncertainty sources, the implementation of the Monte Carlo method to obtain the statistical parameters of the quantities of interest, and the final method assessment according to the obtained results. Each step is described in detail, and the results allow one to (i) replicate the uncertainty analysis on other types of instrument transformers and (ii) implement the proposed harmonic characterization procedure with the confidence that the method is accurate, flexible, and scalable.

1. Introduction

The environmental impact of power grids is influenced by various factors that make solving the problem intricate [1]. Initiatives aimed at reducing the repercussions on the environment are being implemented, such as the transition to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, in order to mitigate the undesired effects of the production and transmission of electricity. However, the concerns of climate change must coexist with the increasing need to monitor the network, as ensuring its reliability and stability is crucial [2].
The power grid consists of numerous interconnected components, including power plants, transformers, transmission lines, and distribution networks. These components must all operate together seamlessly to provide a steady supply of electricity to customers. However, any interruptions or failures within the system can lead to power outages, which can have serious consequences for society, the economy, and public safety [3].
To prevent these issues, power grid operators adopt advanced monitoring systems to examine the grid performance in real time [4,5]. These systems collect data from sensors and other devices installed throughout the grid and employ sophisticated analytics to detect any anomalies or potential problems [6,7]. Therefore, thanks to early identification, grid operators can take corrective actions to avert power outages and ensure the reliability and stability of the grid.
Instrument transformers (ITs) are key elements of the power network, as they enable the measurement of voltages, currents, and consequently power. The importance of ITs has led researchers to produce a vast amount of literature on them. For example, in [8,9] the authors described the design of ITs. In particular, Ref. [8] focuses on the design of ITs for railway applications. Predictive maintenance to prevent IT faults is studied in [10,11]. Finally, IT calibration and characterization are tackled by authors in [12,13].
This paper is a technical extension of [14], which demonstrated the effectiveness of a new characterization procedure based on a previous author’s idea described in [15]. In summary, the method acquires the frequency response of the IT under test with a single measurement. The frequency range is set by the operator and can be changed depending on the application. Therefore, this procedure saves time and is consequently cost-effective compared to other methods, such as frequency sweep or impulse response, which can be time-consuming and technically complex, respectively. It is well known that the characterization of ITs has been addressed by several researchers [16,17] and is partially described in the relevant standards. Specifically, IEC 61869 is fully dedicated to ITs. General requirements can be found in IEC 61869-1 [18] for ITs and in IEC 61869-6 [19] for the low-power version of ITs (LPITs). The testing procedure used in [14], validated on Rogowski coils but extendable in application to any type of IT, is designed to simplify the existing procedures, reducing the testing time and cost. Such benefits were obtained in [14] without affecting the accuracy of the procedure. The aim of this study is to further validate the applicability of the proposed procedure. This has been accomplished by subjecting the method to a complete uncertainty evaluation, considering the existing uncertainty sources, and propagating their effects on the parameters of interest (ratio error/output voltage and phase displacement). This paper describes in detail the considered uncertainty sources; the Monte Carlo method (MCM) is then used to propagate the uncertainty from the waveform level to the output voltage and phase displacement calculated from the current measurements. This study adds value in two main ways: by providing the reader with a simple procedure to propagate uncertainty that can be replicated for any other kind of ITs and by proving the accuracy of the proposed procedure to confirm its applicability. The final user will then be able to adopt the novel characterization method with the certainty that its results are metrologically valid. This last aspect is quite important for a metrologist, and the concept is described elsewhere in the literature [20,21,22,23].
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 recalls the scenario on which [14] was based and describes the novel motivation of the paper. The characterization procedure is briefly described in Section 3. For more details, the reader may refer to [14]. Section 4 is fully dedicated to the uncertainty evaluation. This section includes the uncertainty sources analysis, the implementation of the MCM, and the discussion of the obtained results. Finally, the conclusion is given in Section 5.

2. Scenario

2.1. The Rogowski Coil

Rogowski coils are widely used in power systems for AC current measurements. They are known (i) for their flexibility, making it easy to wrap them around conductors of various sizes and shapes, (ii) for their high accuracy in measuring large currents without saturation or heat generation, and finally (iii) for their non-intrusiveness, avoiding physical connections to the conductor. However, the installation and calibration of Rogowski coils can be challenging, requiring technical expertise. They are also sensitive to external magnetic fields, potentially causing measurement errors if not shielded properly. Despite these challenges, Rogowski coils are still a favored choice for current measurement in power systems due to their unique advantages [24,25].

2.2. Standards

IEC 61869-10 [26] specifically addresses Rogowski coils for measurement purposes. This standard outlines requirements for their construction, accuracy, temperature range, and electromagnetic compatibility. It provides guidelines for manufacturing and testing procedures, as well as specifications for voltage ratings and insulation coordination. Additionally, Refs. [18,19] include general requirements that also apply to Rogowski coils. These standards help ensure consistency and reliability in the use of Rogowski coils across various power systems, facilitating accurate current measurement and system monitoring. Compliance with these standards is crucial for guaranteeing the interoperability and accuracy of Rogowski coils in power system applications. As far as the uncertainty evaluation is concerned, standards do not provide any indication of the method to implement or prefer. This can be explained by the fact that more than one procedure exists, and the user may select one depending on the available information. In the following, the MCM is adopted according to the suggestions given in the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurements (GUM) [27] and its Supplement 1 [28].

2.3. Motivation

The idea behind this study and its companion paper [14] is to simplify the testing procedure for the characterization of Rogowski coils without neglecting metrological aspects. The characterization in [14] was focused on the harmonic components, yet its applicability to other frequency components is easily achievable without further complications. The advantages of a simplified procedure are many: (i) reduction in the testing time and cost, (ii) increase in the number of users capable of implementing the testing technique, (iii) increase in the number of tested devices, etc. The previous study is complemented here by a comprehensive uncertainty evaluation that confirms the performance of the characterization, enabling its implementation in all applications dealing with ITs.

3. Novel Approach

This section recalls the proposed testing approach from [14]. To this end, the measurement setup and the performed tests are presented in dedicated paragraphs.

3.1. The Approach

The foundational elements of the proposed approach were developed in [15] (and other previous articles of the authors); a summary is provided here. The concept involves injecting a windowed sinc signal (WSS) that is specifically designed to test the desired frequency range with the desired frequency resolution. In the frequency domain, the spectrum of the sinc function has a rectangular shape, wherein all frequency components outside this rectangular window are zero.
The response of the Rogowski coil to this signal, referred to as the sinc response (SR), is the frequency response of the Rogowski coils under test (RUTs). According to the theory, the SR encapsulates the Rogowski model. Therefore, this model can then be utilized to estimate the Rogowski coil’s response to any input signal within the frequency range defined during the design of the WSS. The estimate of the Rogowski coil’s output can be obtained either in the time domain y ( t ) , employing the convolution operation, or in the frequency domain Y f , utilizing the product of the frequency components. In this study, the generic input signal X ( f ) and the SR of the Rogowski coil S R ( f ) were convolved as follows:
Y f = X f   ×   S R f
where X ( f ) and S R ( f ) are the input signal and the sinc response in the frequency domain, respectively.
In light of the above, the SR was obtained at different operating temperatures in [12]. In particular, −5 °C, 20 °C, and 40 °C were the selected temperatures (according to the temperature classes given in [18]). Consequently, because the SR approach is a single test method with only three tests, it was possible to obtain the Rogowski harmonic model over three different temperatures. The duration of the single test depended on the target frequency resolution. However, being a harmonics a multiple integers of the 50 Hz component, 20 ms is the minimum suitable length for the acquisition window.

3.2. Measurement Setup

The measurement setup adopted in this study is described in Figure 1.
It consists of a function generator Rigol 1022Z with a frequency resolution of 1 µHz; a transconductance Fluke 52120A in metrological confirmation with a maximum current of 120 A; a reference resistive 1 mΩ-shunt with a maximum uncertainty of 2 × 10−6 Ω; a National Instruments data acquisition board NI-9238 which has the following main features: (i) 4 input channels; (ii) 24 bits; (iii) full scale of ±0.5 mV; (iv) maximum sampling frequency of 50 kS/s/ch; a climatic chamber with an operating temperature range of −40 °C to 180 °C, and a humidity operating range of 10% to 98%. Finally, the setup includes three commercial RUTs, which characteristics are collected in Table 1.
In a nutshell, the function generator and the transconductance were used to generate the desired current signal. The output of the commercial Rogowski coils and the reference shunt were collected by the acquisition system.

3.3. Overview of the Tests

Two sets of tests were performed. One was the implementation of the proposed procedure for testing the devices under test. The other was the reference method.

3.3.1. Proposed Characterization Method

The idea was to measure the SR of the RUTs. The function generator provided a suitable WSS (with the harmonic content of interest), which had a period of 20 ms. Then, the generated voltage signal was amplified and transformed into a current by the transconductance. For each temperature, the WSS was injected, and the output of the RUTs and shunt were measured by the data acquisition board. Each acquisition lasted 1 s. Therefore, 50 SRs were collected to ensure repeatability.
Regarding the test temperatures, the values of −5 °C, 20 °C, and 40 °C were chosen based on the RUT specifications and on the limits given in [18]. Preliminary tests were conducted to estimate the thermal constant of the RUT. The results indicated that a time interval of 3 h was sufficient to achieve thermal stability. The temperature variation rate between any two temperature values was set at 0.1 °C/min.

3.3.2. Reference Method

The chosen reference method was the frequency sweep. This technique requires one measurement for each frequency of interest. Therefore, for each temperature value, measurements up to the number of the many frequencies of interest must be performed. Consequently, the overall duration of the measurements lasts a few minutes in the case of an automatic system or several minutes in the case of a human operator. By contrast, the SR approach requires one measurement that lasts 20 ms for each tested temperature to obtain the desired portion of the frequency response of the IT under test.
For simplicity, only a limited selection of frequencies within the range of 50 Hz to 2500 Hz was tested. The specific frequencies tested are listed in Table 2.
It should be noted that each test utilized a sinusoidal waveform comprising a single frequency component, with the amplitude specified in the table. The measurement setup employed for the reference test is the same as depicted in Figure 1. However, instead of using a function generator, a calibrator was utilized as the reference instrument. Similar to the approach taken in the proposed procedure, (i) an acquisition window of 1 s was set, and (ii) the outputs of shunt and the RUTs were stored.

3.3.3. Analysis of the Results

The results described in [14] were based on the computation of the typical parameters adopted for ITs, i.e., the ratio error and the phase displacement:
∆ % = u E − u R u R ∗ 100
∆ φ = φ E − φ R
u E and φ E are the magnitude and phase estimated by the SR method, while u R and φ R are the magnitude and phase obtained from the reference test. For the sake of brevity, Figure 2 and Figure 3 recall a set of results from [14]. The two graphs contain the ∆ % and ∆ φ of the RUT 1, vs. frequency and vs. temperature, respectively. To facilitate the reader’s comprehension, Table 3 includes some of the limits given in [19] for the accuracy validation vs. harmonic components (the reader may be interested in other documents defining power quality limits as in IEEE Std 519 [29]). From the presented results, two main conclusions were drawn. First, the proposed technique can effectively identify subtle fluctuations in both magnitude and phase. Second, upon closer examination of the frequency, it was noticed that the least desirable outcome occurs at 50 Hz. Note that this frequency component was intentionally included in the designed sinc waveform to enable thorough discussion. However, manufacturers and users frequently need to assess their devices at 50 Hz across different operational scenarios; hence, introducing the 50 Hz component into harmonic testing does not offer any advantages. Therefore, when implementing the suggested approach, it is reasonable to exclude the 50 Hz component from the result evaluation.

4. Uncertainty Evaluation

This section is dedicated to quantifying the effectiveness of the proposed characterization procedure in a rigorous manner, considering all the sources of uncertainty. This process is commonly referred to as uncertainty propagation. Among the techniques for evaluating how uncertainty propagates, the chosen method is the MCM, which is described in Supplement 1 [28] of the GUM. In this paper, the MCM is used for analyzing the propagation of the uncertainty along the measurement setup used for both the proposed characterization procedure and the reference test. After the identification of the sources of uncertainty, this approach allows the calculation of confidence intervals associated with the measurement results.

4.1. Uncertainty Source Analysis

To identify the sources of uncertainty, it is necessary to refer to Figure 1. In the proposed measurement setup, the data acquisition system (DAQ), and the reference shunt resistor are identified as factors contributing to the uncertainty. To quantitatively assess these contributions, Table 4 lists the accuracy parameters of the DAQ and Table 5 summarizes the performance specifications of transconductance when controlled by a single calibrator as a master unit.
Finally, Figure 4 and Figure 5 represent the characterization of the reference shunt resistor in the frequency range of interest. Figure 4 depicts amplitude characterization, whereas Figure 5 presents phase-angle characterization. In detail, 25 single-tone sinusoidal currents were applied to the shunt at different frequencies using the transconductance (driven by the calibrator), and the output voltage of the shunt was then measured by the DAQ. Throughout this characterization process, an additional input from the calibrator was acquired as a reference signal for calculating the phase displacement of the shunt resistor. Therefore, the resistance values and the phase displacement of the shunt were defined at various frequencies using the measured voltage and the knowledge of the input current. As shown in Figure 4, the amplitude behavior was stable across frequencies, whereas Figure 5 shows that the phase displacement exhibited some drift across frequencies. In conclusion, thanks to this characterization, it was possible to compute Equation (4), which made it possible to calculate the WSS generated by the transconductance in the frequency domain.

4.2. MCM Application

Once the sources of uncertainty had been established, the MCM could be implemented. In brief, the approach involved the corruption of the acquired voltage waveforms during the test by means of the instrumentation’s accuracy parameters (see Table 4 and Table 5). Finally, the output voltage and the phase displacement of the RUTs were calculated in both cases—(i) the proposed method and (ii) the reference method—to assess the accuracy of the estimation of the proposed method compared to the reference method.
Firstly, the procedure consisted of the uncertainty propagation of the value of the shunt resistor in the power quality frequency range. Operationally, this was achieved as follows: (i) the primary current was corrupted by the transconductance accuracy parameters, and (ii) the secondary voltage was corrupted by the DAQ accuracy parameters.
Secondly, uncertainty propagation continued by corrupting (i) the secondary voltage of the shunt by means of the resistor values calculated previously (implemented for both methods) and (ii) the secondary voltage of the RUTs via the DAQ accuracy parameters for both methods. In particular, corruption of the secondary voltage of the shunt was performed as follows:
I ˙ p , h = V ˙ s , h Z ˙ h
In Equation (4), the Fourier transform was applied to the various quantities. V ˙ s , h is the frequency spectrum of secondary voltage measured from the shunt at the frequency having order h . Z ˙ h is the value of the shunt resistor at harmonic order h . I ˙ p , h is the frequency spectrum of the primary current measured thanks to the shunt, which also flows through the RUTs. For the sake of clarity, I ˙ p , h represents the components of the WSS frequency spectrum for the proposed method. Meanwhile, for the reference method, I ˙ p , h represents the components of the sinusoidal waveforms’ frequency spectrum listed in Table 2. In addition, for the latter case, I ˙ p , h is also the generic input signal X ( f ) of Equation (1).
In conclusion, 20,000 Monte Carlo iterations were performed to calculate the following quantities from the RUTs: (i) the output voltage V r o g , (ii) the phase displacement ∆ φ r o g , and (iii) their 95% confidence intervals.

4.3. MCM Results and Discussion

In this paper, the MCM was used to evaluate the reliability of the estimate obtained from the proposed method with respect to the reference method. The outputs of all MCM results are listed in Table 6 and Table 7 for RUT 1 (for the sake of completeness and repeatability). For each temperature and frequency, these tables include the estimated (Est.) and reference (Ref.) values in terms of the mean and the standard deviation (std) derived from the 20,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In addition, “Max.” and “Min.” values delineate the upper and lower bounds of the shortest interval containing 95% of the MC results. In particular, Table 6 contains the output voltage V r o g of the RUT 1, while Table 7 contains the phase displacement ∆ φ r o g of the RUT 1. Some of the results are better visualized in a later figure.
The reported results are expressed using the number of significant digits correlating to their associated standard deviation. Considering the amplitudes in Table 6, the values obtained from the proposed method match those from the reference test for all temperatures and frequencies; in fact, the confidence intervals overlap. This guarantees the effectiveness of the method regarding the estimated output voltage V r o g of RUT 1. For the sake of brevity, the results of the other RUTs are not reported, but the same considerations apply. In conclusion, the sinc-response method is valid, accurate, and applicable for evaluating the output voltage of Rogowski coils. The confidence intervals for the phase displacement ∆ φ r o g of the RUT 1 do not quite overlap with those of signals ranging up to 350 Hz. Our initial observation here is that the proposed method demonstrates its validity from 550 Hz to 2500 Hz for all temperatures, while in the 50 Hz–350 Hz range, the effectiveness depends on the temperature. Therefore, our second observation focuses on the link between temperature and the sinc-response method. Specifically, the proposed method appears to be less effective at high temperatures than at low temperatures. This behavior is clearly depicted in Figure 6, where blue dots represent phase displacement estimates, while the red dots represent the results of the reference case. For space reasons, only two frequencies (i.e., 150 and 250 Hz) are reported at three different temperatures (i.e., 20 °C, 40 °C, and −5 °C), but these frequencies are the most significant, as they represent the worst-case scenario. In Figure 6, the error bars are not clearly visible, since the confidence intervals are quite narrow, as evident in Table 7. The results for the output voltage of the other RUTs are likewise not reported, but the same considerations apply.
The issue with the 50 Hz value was already discussed in [12] and in the previous section. In fact, the method was proposed for the evaluation of harmonic components, and the 50 Hz signal was included for the sake of discussion. Two observations can be made regarding the out-of-spec phase angle values: First, the instrumentation adopted is quite accurate, and hence, the resulting confidence intervals are extremely narrow (consider that in the 95% confidence interval, the two intervals overlap). The second observation concerns the significance of the phase angle of the harmonic components. As Table 3 indicates, there is considerable flexibility for estimating the phase angle of the harmonic components. Furthermore, the estimated values obtained from the method are far below those limits.
Overall, the proposed method is highly effective at estimating the amplitude and phase of the harmonic components tested.

5. Conclusions

This paper, serving as a technical extension of the study presented in [14], focuses on the evaluation of uncertainty in a novel characterization method. The method introduces frequency-based characterization through the unique approach suggested by the authors, specifically tailored for testing instrument transformers. The performance of this novel procedure was examined using three commercially available Rogowski coils, each at three distinct temperatures conforming to established standards. In this paper, the method was validated from a metrological perspective and subjected to a comprehensive uncertainty assessment to gauge its accuracy and feasibility. To achieve this, the Monte Carlo method was applied in accordance with the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement and its Supplement 1. The results reveal that the proposed frequency characterization method is not only effective but also highly accurate, demonstrating its suitability for widespread implementation across various applications involving instrument transformers. While minor limitations were found in the phase angle estimation, these did not undermine the performance of the method. It is essential to note that this uncertainty analysis will play a crucial role when considering the method for potential inclusion in future revisions of industry standards.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.; methodology, R.T.; software, C.B.; validation, L.P.; formal analysis, A.M.; investigation, C.B.; resources, L.P.; data curation, C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, R.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cai, L.; He, D.; Dai, N.; Cheng, B.; Gong, X. The impact and countermeasures of large-scale electric vehicle access to power grid on China’s environment. Ekoloji 2019, 28, 3393–3395. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, Y.; You, S.; Yao, W.; Cui, Y.; Wu, L.; Zhou, D.; Liu, Y. A distribution level wide area monitoring system for the electric power grid—FNET/GridEye. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 2329–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Morrissey, K.; Plater, A.; Dean, M. The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach. Appl. Energy 2018, 212, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bartolomei, L.; Mingotti, A.; Peretto, L.; Tinarelli, R.; Rinaldi, P. Performance evaluation and comparison of a low-cost, PLL-based acquisition system under off-nominal conditions. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2020, 69, 2048–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Menke, J.; Bornhorst, N.; Braun, M. Distribution system monitoring for smart power grids with distributed generation using artificial neural networks. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 113, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. ELi, X.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Z. Graph-based detection for false data injection attacks in power grid. Energy 2023, 263, 125865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leng, D.; Qiu, Z. Identification of Anomaly Detection in Power System State Estimation Based on Fuzzy C-Means Algorithm. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2023, 2023, 7553080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Český, L.; Janíček, F.; Skudřík, F.; Zuščak, J. Design and testing of voltage instrument transformers for railway application. In Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Symposium on Electrical Power Engineering, ELEKTROENERGETIKA 2019, Stara Lesna, Slovakia, 16–18 September 2019; pp. 315–318. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lesniewska, E. Modern methods of construction problem solving in designing various types of instrument transformers. Energies 2022, 15, 8199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Campos, O.D.L.; Zhu, H. Condition assessment of 653 instrument transformers with on-line PD testing. In Proceedings of the CMD 2016—International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis 2016, Xi’an, China, 25–28 September 2016; pp. 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Poljak, M.; Bojanić, B. Method for the reduction of in-service instrument transformer explosions. Eur. Trans. Electr. Power 2010, 20, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Santos, J.C.; De Sillos, A.C.; Nascimento, C.G.S. On-field instrument transformers calibration using optical current and voltage transformes. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Workshop on Applied Measurements for Power Systems, AMPS 2014—Proceedings, Aachen, Germany, 24–26 September 2014; pp. 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mingotti, A.; Peretto, L.; Tinarelli, R.; Zhang, J. Use of COMTRADE fault current data to test inductive current transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 and IoT, MetroInd 4.0 and IoT 2019, Naples, Italy, 4–6 June 2019; pp. 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Betti, C.; Mingotti, A.; Tinarelli, R.; Peretto, L. Simplified Test Method for Harmonic Characterization of Rogowski Coils Under Varying Temperatures. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 13th International Workshop on Applied Measurements for Power Systems (AMPS), Bern, Switzerland, 27–29 September 2023; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mingotti, A.; Peretto, L.; Tinarelli, R. Smart characterization of rogowski coils by using a synthetized signal. Sensors 2020, 20, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Faifer, M.; Laurano, C.; Ottoboni, R.; Toscani, S.; Zanoni, M. Characterization of voltage instrument transformers under nonsinusoidal conditions based on the best linear approximation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2018, 67, 2392–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Letizia, P.S.; Crotti, G.; Giordano, D.; Delle Femine, A.; Gallo, D.; Landi, C.; Luiso, M. Low cost procedure for frequency characterization of voltage instrument transformers. In Proceedings of the I2MTC 2019—2019 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 20–23 May 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. IEC 61869–1:2010; Instrument Transformers—Part 1: General Requirements. International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  19. IEC 61869–6; Instrument Transformers—Part 6: Additional General Requirements for Low-Power Instrument Transformers. International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  20. Mou, J.; Su, J.; Miao, L.; Huang, T. Evaluation of Angle Measurement Uncertainty of Fiber Optic Gyroscope Based on Monte Carlo Method. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, 70, 9431168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Teppati, V.; Bolognesi, C.R. Evaluation and reduction of calibration residual uncertainty in load–pull measurements at millimeter-wave frequencies. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2012, 61, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, S.-F.; Amagai, Y.; Maruyama, M.; Kaneko, N.-H. Uncertainty Evaluation of a 10 v RMS Sampling Measurement System Using the AC Programmable Josephson Voltage Standard. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2015, 64, 3308–3314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Souza, L.A.A.; Pinto, M.V.V.; Martins, M.B.; Lima, A.C.S. Modeling of a Resistive Voltage Divider by Rational Functions: Uncertainty Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, 70, 9310699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Samimi, M.H.; Mahari, A.; Farahnakian, M.A.; Mohseni, H. The Rogowski Coil Principles and Applications: A Review. IEEE Sens. J. 2014, 15, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sun, C.; Yan, J.; Geng, Y.; Zhang, K.; Xu, M.; Liu, J. Research on a novel current transducer based on discrete Rogowski coils. In Proceedings of the CMD 2016—International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis, Xi’an, China, 25–28 September 2016; pp. 798–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. IEC 61869–10; Instrument Transformers—Part 10: Additional Requirements for Low–Power Passive Current Transformers. International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  27. ISO/IEC Guide 98—3:2008; GUM Uncertainty of Measurement, Part 3: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM:1995). International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  28. Supplement 1 BIPM JCGM 101:2008; Evaluation of Measurement Data—Supplement 1 to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement—Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method. International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  29. Langella, R.; Testa, A.; Alii, E. IEEE Std 519—2014. IEEE Recommended Practice and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electric Power Systems. IEEE Standard for Harmonic Control in Electric Power Systems. In IEEE Std 519-2022. 5 August 2022. Available online: https://iris.unicampania.it/handle/11591/178750 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
Sensors 24 01746 g001
Figure 1. Schematic of the measurement setup.
Figure 1. Schematic of the measurement setup.
Sensors 24 01746 g001
Sensors 24 01746 g002
Figure 2. Ratio error ∆% of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [14].
Figure 2. Ratio error ∆% of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [14].
Sensors 24 01746 g002
Sensors 24 01746 g003
Figure 3. Phase displacement ∆ φ of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [14].
Figure 3. Phase displacement ∆ φ of RUT 1 for different frequencies and temperatures [14].
Sensors 24 01746 g003
Sensors 24 01746 g004
Figure 4. Resistance values vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.
Figure 4. Resistance values vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.
Sensors 24 01746 g004
Sensors 24 01746 g005
Figure 5. Phase displacement vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.
Figure 5. Phase displacement vs. frequency of the shunt resistor.
Sensors 24 01746 g005
Sensors 24 01746 g006
Figure 6. ∆ φ r o g at 150 Hz and 250 Hz and at tested temperatures for RUT 1.
Figure 6. ∆ φ r o g at 150 Hz and 250 Hz and at tested temperatures for RUT 1.
Sensors 24 01746 g006
Table 1. Main features of the RUTs.
Table 1. Main features of the RUTs.
RUT 1RUT 2RUT 3
Accuracy [%]±0.5±1±1
Output voltage at 50 Hz [mV/kA]85100100
TypeFlexible split coreFlexible split coreFlexible split core
Rated current [A]1000–1000
Inner diameter [mm]10012068
Table 2. Characteristics of the signals used for the reference tests.
Table 2. Characteristics of the signals used for the reference tests.
Frequency [Hz]Amplitude [A]
50100
15050
25050
35050
55050
65050
85050
125036
250036
Table 3. Ratio error and phase error limits given in [19].
Table 3. Ratio error and phase error limits given in [19].
Accuracy ClassRatio Error at Harmonic [%]
2nd to 4th5th and 6th 7th to 9th10th to 13thAbove 13th
0.55102020+20
−100
110202020+20
−100
Phase displacement at harmonic [mrad]
0.587174349349–
1174349349349–
Table 4. Performance specifications of the DAQ.
Table 4. Performance specifications of the DAQ.
Gain Error [%]Offset Error [%]Noise [µV]
0.07 0.0053.9
Table 5. Performance specifications of transconductance.
Table 5. Performance specifications of transconductance.
Frequency [Hz]Output [%]Range [%]Phase Angle Accuracy [°]Distortion [mA]Noise [dB]
10 to 69 0.0110.0030.0062.5−70
69 to 1800.012
180 to 4500.025
450 to 8500.045
850 to 6000 0.0520.005 0.32539.7
Table 6. V r o g for every temperature, frequency, and signal for RUT 1.
Table 6. V r o g for every temperature, frequency, and signal for RUT 1.
Temp. [°C]Freq. [Hz]SignalMin. [mV]Mean [mV]Max. [mV]Std [mV]
2050Est.7.0957.1027.1090.004
Ref.7.0967.1007.1050.003
20150Est.10.65010.65810.6660.004
Ref.10.64510.65210.6590.004
20250Est.17.74717.75917.7710.007
Ref.17.74317.75417.7660.007
20350Est.24.8424.8624.880.01
Ref.24.8424.8624.880.01
20550Est.39.0439.0739.100.02
Ref.39.0439.0739.090.02
20650Est.46.1546.1846.210.02
Ref.46.1446.1746.200.02
20850Est.60.3660.4060.440.02
Ref.60.3460.3860.420.02
201250Est.63.9163.9563.990.03
Ref.63.8963.9463.980.03
202500Est.127.85127.93128.020.05
Ref.127.82127.90127.990.05
4050Est.7.1057.1127.1200.004
Ref.7.1017.1067.1110.003
40150Est.10.65310.66010.6680.004
Ref.10.65310.66010.6670.004
40250Est.17.76217.77417.7870.007
Ref.17.75717.76817.7810.007
40350Est.24.8624.8824.890.01
Ref.24.8624.8824.890.01
40550Est.39.0839.1039.130.02
Ref.39.0739.1039.120.02
40650Est.46.1946.2246.250.02
Ref.46.1846.2146.240.02
40850Est.60.3960.4360.470.02
Ref.60.3960.4360.470.02
401250Est.63.9664.0064.040.03
Ref.63.9563.9964.030.03
402500Est.127.93128.02128.100.05
Ref.127.92128.01128.090.05
−550Est.7.0777.0857.0920.004
Ref.7.0907.0947.0990.003
−5150Est.10.64010.64810.6550.004
Ref.10.63610.64310.6500.004
−5250Est.17.73417.74617.7580.007
Ref.17.72817.74017.7520.007
−5350Est.24.8324.8424.860.01
Ref.24.8224.8424.860.01
−5550Est.39.0239.0439.070.02
Ref.39.0139.0339.060.02
−5650Est.46.1246.1546.180.02
Ref.46.1046.1346.170.02
−5850Est.60.3160.3560.390.02
Ref.60.2960.3360.370.02
−51250Est.63.8663.9163.950.03
Ref.63.8463.8963.930.03
−52500Est.127.77127.86127.940.05
Ref.127.72127.81127.890.05
20 °C50Est.7.0967.1037.1100.004
Ref.7.0957.1007.1050.003
20 °C150Est.10.64110.64810.6560.004
Ref.10.64410.65210.6590.004
20 °C250Est.17.74117.75317.7650.007
Ref.17.74317.75417.7660.007
20 °C350Est.24.8524.8624.880.01
Ref.24.8424.8624.870.01
20 °C550Est.39.0539.0839.100.02
Ref.39.0439.0739.090.02
20 °C650Est.46.1446.1846.210.02
Ref.46.1446.1746.200.02
20 °C850Est.60.3560.3960.430.02
Ref.60.3460.3860.420.02
20 °C1250Est.63.9063.9563.990.03
Ref.63.8963.9463.980.03
20 °C2500Est.127.85127.94128.020.05
Ref.127.82127.91127.990.05
Table 7. ∆ φ r o g for every temperature, frequency, and signal for RUT 1.
Table 7. ∆ φ r o g for every temperature, frequency, and signal for RUT 1.
Temp. [°C]Freq. [Hz]SignalMin [mrad]Mean [mrad]Max [mrad]Std [mrad]
2050Est.−13.1−12.4−11.80.3
Ref.−5.6−5.5−5.40.1
20150Est.−18.5−18.2−17.90.2
Ref.−16.7−16.5−16.30.1
20250Est.−28.9−28.5−28.10.3
Ref.−27.9−27.5−27.10.3
20350Est.−34.6−34.2−33.80.3
Ref.−34.0−33.6−33.20.3
20550Est.−51.7−50.9−50.20.5
Ref.−51.3−50.5−49.80.5
20650Est.−61.2−60.5−59.70.5
Ref.−60.8−60.0−59.30.5
20850Est.−79.6−78.9−78.10.5
Ref.−79.4−78.7−77.90.5
201250Est.−54−49−443
Ref.−54−49−443
202500Est.−103−98−923
Ref.−103−98−923
4050Est.−16.7−16.0−15.40.3
Ref.−5.6−5.5−5.40.1
40150Est.−20.0−19.7−19.40.2
Ref.−16.7−16.5−16.30.1
40250Est.−29.9−29.5−29.10.3
Ref.−28.0−27.6−27.20.3
40350Est.−35.5−35.1−34.60.3
Ref.−34.0−33.6−33.20.3
40550Est.−52.1−51.4−50.70.5
Ref.−51.3−50.6−49.80.5
40650Est.−61.4−60.7−60.00.5
Ref.−60.8−60.1−59.30.5
40850Est.−79.9−79.2−78.40.5
Ref.−79.5−78.8−78.00.5
401250Est.−55−49−443
Ref.−55−49−443
402500Est.−103−98−933
Ref.−103−98−923
−550Est.−9.3−8.6−7.90.3
Ref.−5.6−5.5−5.40.1
−5150Est.−17.5−17.2−16.90.2
Ref.−16.7−16.5−16.30.1
−5250Est.−28.3−27.9−27.40.3
Ref.−27.9−27.5−27.10.3
−5350Est.−34.2−33.8−33.40.3
Ref.−33.9−33.5−33.10.3
−5550Est.−51.1−50.4−49.60.5
Ref.−51.2−50.4−49.70.5
−5650Est.−60.8−60.1−59.30.5
Ref.−60.7−60.0−59.20.5
−5850Est.−79.4−78.6−77.90.5
Ref.−79.4−78.6−77.90.5
−51250Est.−54−49−433
Ref.−54−49−433
−52500Est.−103−98−933
Ref.−103−97−923
20 °C50Est.−13.1−12.5−11.80.3
Ref.−5.6−5.5−5.40.1
20 °C150Est.−18.8−18.5−18.20.2
Ref.−16.7−16.5−16.30.1
20 °C250Est.−29.3−28.9−28.40.3
Ref.−27.9−27.5−27.10.3
20 °C350Est.−34.6−34.2−33.80.3
Ref.−34.0−33.6−33.20.3
20 °C550Est.−51.7−51.0−50.20.5
Ref.−51.3−50.5−49.80.5
20 °C650Est.−61.1−60.4−59.70.5
Ref.−60.8−60.0−59.30.5
20 °C850Est.−79.6−78.9−78.10.5
Ref.−79.5−78.7−78.00.5
20 °C1250Est.−54−49−443
Ref.−54−49−433
20 °C2500Est.−103−98−923
Ref.−103−98−923
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Betti, C.; Mingotti, A.; Tinarelli, R.; Peretto, L. Validation of a Simplified Method for Estimating the Harmonic Response of Rogowski Coils with the Monte Carlo Method. Sensors 2024, 24, 1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24061746

AMA Style

Betti C, Mingotti A, Tinarelli R, Peretto L. Validation of a Simplified Method for Estimating the Harmonic Response of Rogowski Coils with the Monte Carlo Method. Sensors. 2024; 24(6):1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24061746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Betti, Christian, Alessandro Mingotti, Roberto Tinarelli, and Lorenzo Peretto. 2024. "Validation of a Simplified Method for Estimating the Harmonic Response of Rogowski Coils with the Monte Carlo Method" Sensors 24, no. 6: 1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24061746

APA Style

Betti, C., Mingotti, A., Tinarelli, R., & Peretto, L. (2024). Validation of a Simplified Method for Estimating the Harmonic Response of Rogowski Coils with the Monte Carlo Method. Sensors, 24(6), 1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24061746

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop