Novel cable traction power supply can eliminate phase splits and improve regenerative energy utilization in metro systems. However, the cable-based traction network has a relatively complex structure, making internal energy consumption and train-network line loss evaluation insufficiently studied.
Methods
To quantify train-network line losses, an equivalent solid-circuit model of the traction power supply system is established using an external cascade strategy. Combined with actual train operation load modeling, the traction transformer output power and network losses are computed and compared under both traction and regenerative braking operating conditions.
Results
The proposed modeling-and-calculation framework enables accurate evaluation of power output and line losses across operating modes, and effectively captures the electrical characteristics of the cable traction energy supply system.
Discussion
The developed theoretical line-loss calculation approach provides a quantitative basis for energy-consumption assessment and operational analysis of cable traction networks, supporting performance evaluation and planning of metro traction power supply systems.
cable traction networkdistribution networklineloss calculationsubway systemstransformer output powerThe author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was financially supported by the key Science and Technology Project of China Southern Power Grid Co., Ltd. (Research and Application of Key Technologies of Theoretical Line Loss Calculation and Analysis Software for Distribution Network Considering Multi-node Distributed Energy Accesses, 030100KC22120004/030100KC22120006/ 030100KC22120008/030100KC22120010). China Southern Power Grid Co., Ltd. was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.section-at-acceptanceGrid EfficiencyIntroduction
Conventional DC power supply systems in urban rail transit, although capable of supporting frequent start-stop operations, face persistent challenges such as stray currents causing infrastructure corrosion, low efficiency in regenerative braking energy utilization, negative sequence currents affecting power quality, and phase splits that limit train speed (Dolara et al., 2012). To overcome these issues, a novel AC traction power supply scheme has been proposed. This scheme integrates new contact supply devices, AC-DC-AC locomotives, and co-phase compensation devices, thereby eliminating phase splits and stray currents, reducing construction costs, and improving the utilization of regenerative braking energy (Steczek et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2016).
For the effective operation of this system, accurate theoretical line loss calculation is essential (Cai et al., 1996; Goodman and Kulworawanichpong, 2002). It provides the basis for optimizing operational strategies, planning network upgrades, and guiding equipment maintenance. However, in metro systems the stochastic and dynamic nature of train loads has a significant impact on line losses. As trains accelerate, decelerate, and run at constant speed across different substations, the traction load continuously shifts along the network, complicating the loss evaluation (Zhang Y. et al., 2025).
Existing research has addressed traction power supply in various forms, including direct supply, BT supply, and AT supply (Kulworawanichpong, 2015), with equivalent circuit models often employed for engineering analysis (Al-Khalidi and Kalam, 2008). Line loss calculation methods in distribution networks can be broadly categorized into: (1) traditional approaches based on substation output data, which are simple but neglect time-domain characteristics (Li et al., 2020); (2) methods using FTU/TTU measurements, which are convenient but cannot directly capture the effect of load variations (Zhang W. et al., 2025; Ni et al., 2019); (3) real-time data-driven methods, which improve timeliness but remain limited in analyzing dynamic load impacts (Gulakhmadov et al., 2022).
This paper aims to extend these studies to urban rail traction networks by explicitly considering the dynamic characteristics of AC-DC-AC locomotives. By combining traction characteristic curves with train operation diagram is established. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (1) A traction-oriented cascade equivalent model is established, covering the substation–feeder–section–train structure of metro AC traction networks. (2) An improved impedance aggregation method for multi-core cables and traction transformers is proposed, enabling position-dependent equivalent impedance evaluation. (3) A time-sequential loss calculation framework is developed, coupling dynamic train load, nodal-voltage iteration, and component-level loss decomposition along the line.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. System structure and network circuit equivalence process are introduced in Section 2. Section 3 presents a power distribution calculation model. Under the condition that load is in traction and regenerative braking while single train and multi-train are working, power distribution in system is explored in Section 4. At last, corresponding conclusions are induced in Section 5.
Traction power supply systemSystem structure
As illustrated in Figure 1, the traction power supply system consists of a central substation (SS), traction cables, single-phase traction transformers, an overhead contact system (OCS), and a current return line (CRL). The central substation connects to the 110 kV three-phase grid and delivers 35 kV single-phase power through traction cables. Each traction substation is equipped with a single-phase transformer (Til1, Til2, Til3), stepping down the voltage to the catenary level for train operation (Li, 2016).
Schematic of traction power supply system.
Schematic diagram showing a power grid distributing electricity through a substation labeled SS to multiple transformers Ti1, Ti2, and Ti3, which supply power to three parallel railway trains labeled PSS via overhead contact system OCS and current return line CRL.
The central substation employs combined co-phase power supply technology, consisting of a traction transformer and a back-to-back negative sequence compensation device (NCD). The NCD transfers active power from the grid side to the traction side while compensating harmonics and reactive power (Shu et al., 2013). In practice, 35 kV two-core cables are used for traction power, while three-core cables are reserved for auxiliary supply (Huang et al., 2023). The traction network supplies locomotives with same-phase power along the entire line, improving supply reliability and reducing the installed capacity of traction transformers.
Network equivalent circuitTraction cables
Urban rail AC traction systems typically employ 35 kV cables, either two single-core or one double-core type. A single-core armored cable can be modeled as a linear passive element at the operating frequency, and a uniform line segment is equivalent to a Π-type circuit, as shown in Figure 2.
Equivalent Π-type circuit.
Block diagram showing a central impedance matrix Z_L connected between two nodes, each node connected to ground via identical admittance matrices Y_L divided by two, representing a symmetrical multi-port network with matrix notations.
The impedance and admittance matrices of the cable are expressed as
ZL=[Z11⋯Z1m⋮⋱⋮Zm1⋯Zmm],YL2=[Y11⋯Y1m⋮⋱⋮Ym1⋯Ymm].
Here, Zii and Yii denote the self-impedance and self-admittance of phase i, while Zij represents mutual impedance. Due to shielding, Yij = 0. The capacitances Cics, Cisa, Ciae describe coupling between core–shield, shield–armor, and armor–ground (Ghassemi, 2019). These parameters allow calculation of impedance for arbitrary line length and configuration, enabling accurate current and voltage distribution analysis in traction networks. This equivalent model also provides the basis for subsequent power flow and line loss calculations.
Central substation
As shown in Figure 3, the traction port consists of the traction transformer and the co-phase compensation device (CPD), which share the load and ideally eliminate the negative-sequence current. The cable-side current satisfies
IL=IT+IC,IC=KNIL2,IT=IL(1-KN2),
where KN∈[0, 1] is the compensation factor.
Power supply structure of the traction port.
Diagram showing two parallel electrical lines entering a block labeled “CPD.” Voltages u_r and u_c are marked on the left and right, with currents i_r and i_c flowing toward the block, and corresponding negative currents flowing away. Current i_L branches downward at two points along the lines, connecting to terminals labeled PS and PR below.
Applying Thevenin's theorem, the traction port has open-circuit voltage equal to the rated secondary voltage, and equivalent resistance
Z0=(1-KN)ZS+ZT,
which depends only on transformer and system short-circuit capacity, and is independent of cable and load.
Traction supply system equivalent model
The AC traction power network of urban rail transit is essentially a 35 kV cable-fed system. The central substation connects to the contact line through single-phase traction transformers in parallel, supplying locomotives. Since the network involves multiple voltage levels, all circuits are converted to a unified 35 kV voltage level for modeling purposes.
As shown in Figure 4, the traction network can be represented by a multi-loop equivalent circuit. The central substation is modeled by an ideal voltage source Ẽ0 with internal impedance Zs. The line is divided into two parts: - a local loop, which contains the locomotive and the nearby traction substations, and - a distal loop, which represents the remaining sections equivalently.
Equivalent traction supply circuit.
Single-line schematic diagram illustrating a traction power supply system for railway electrification, including a central substation, local and distal loops, electrical impedances, current paths, catenary and rail conductors, and a train represented with relevant current and distance parameters.
In the local loop, each traction substation is represented by its transformer impedance (ZT1, ZT3, ZT4, …). The catenary and return conductors are represented by impedances ZOCS and ZCS. The locomotive is modeled as a current source in located at position x, with the distance between adjacent substations denoted as D and the total line length as L. The distal loop is reduced to an equivalent impedance ZT′ obtained by recursive parallel conversion of the remote sections.
This equivalent model explicitly describes the current distribution across substations (I1, I2, …) and forms the basis for subsequent derivation of line loss equations.
Line loss calculation method
Consider n traction substations uniformly distributed along the line. Let D denote the spacing between two adjacent substations along the track. Let l be the longitudinal position of the locomotive measured from the line origin (0 ≤ l ≤ nD). Thus the locomotive lies within the m-th supply section, where m = ⌈l/D⌉, and the relative position inside this section is x = l−(m−1)D, satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ D.
Let [I1, I2, …, In] be the vector of substation currents. The current distribution coefficient is defined as
ki=IiIL,[k1,k2,…,kn],
where IL is the total traction load current. The distal loop can be equivalently reduced to ZT′, obtained by recursive parallel conversion of transformer and contact-line impedances (Kim et al., 2010).
The nodal equations of the system can be expressed compactly as
A·[I1,I2,…,Im+1]T=[0,0,…,0,IL]T,
where matrix A is determined by system parameters and locomotive position l. Normalizing by IL yields the current distribution vector
A·[k1,k2,…,km+1]T=[0,0,…,0,1]T.
Given locomotive position l, the local circuit index m and distance x within that circuit are obtained from
m=⌈l/D⌉,x=l-(m-1)D,
with D the spacing between substations. Thus the equivalent impedance at the locomotive is
Z=Z0+ZCS∑h=1N∑i=h+1nki+ZTkN+1+xDZOCS∑i=1N+1ki,
and the corresponding load voltage
Ul=E0-ILZ.
Finally, the line loss is obtained as the sum of resistive losses of cables and transformers and reactive losses due to power factor. The procedure is summarized as:
Obtain phasors of three-phase voltage and current from transformer measurements and convert to the HV side;
Compute equivalent impedance Z from network parameters and locomotive position l;
Determine current distribution {ki} and calculate losses of each load;
Sum all load losses to obtain the total network loss and the contribution of each substation.
Dynamic traction load modeling based on train operation diagramsMethodology for establishing a traction load model
This section establishes a dynamic traction load model by describing the forces acting on the locomotive and converting them into power demand on the contact wire side.
Traction and braking forces
Locomotives are subject to traction, braking, and resistance forces (Figure 5), where traction and braking do not occur simultaneously. For the CRH2 locomotive (Huang et al., 2016), the traction force TE (kN) and regenerative braking force Fb are
Diagram showing forces on a vehicle moving uphill and downhill on inclined planes. Labeled vectors indicate gravitational forces, velocity, angle theta, normal force, and driving or resisting forces for both uphill and downhill directions.Resistance
The running resistance consists of a basic term and additional terms due to gradients, curves, and tunnels:
w=(A+Bv+Cv2)+wg+wc+wt,
with wg = 1000tan(θ), wc = Kc/R, and wt = 0.00013Lt. Thus the net force on the locomotive is
F=TE-Fb-w.Power calculation for locomotive operation
The wheelset output power is
P=F·v·10003.6.
and the equivalent power on the contact line side, considering transmission efficiency η, auxiliary load Paux, and power factor angle φT, is
Using the train operation diagram, the dynamic load profile is obtained by:
Integrating operational and locomotive data (traction/braking curves, power factor, Paux, η, running time and speed).
Determining position Xn and speed vn at time Tn, then computing force F.
Calculating active power Pn and apparent power Sn using Equation 13, forming data rows [Tn, Xn, vn, Pn, Sn].
This process yields the time-varying traction load along the line.
Example calculation of metro distribution network line lossesCalculation procedure of line losses
At each sampling instant Tn, the algorithm proceeds as follows:
Input and preprocessing. The equivalent impedance parameters are imported, including the main substation impedance, cable unit-length impedance, transformer equivalent impedance, and contact-line impedance. Based on Section 2, the branch-coefficient matrices [X, K] and the equivalent impedance matrix [X, Z] are generated.
Time-step initialization. The simulation clock is initialized at T0. For the current locomotive position Xn, the corresponding complex traction power Sn is obtained from the load model.
Equivalent-impedance extraction. Using the position Xn and the matrix [X, Z], the equivalent impedance Zn seen from the locomotive is computed.
Initialization of nodal voltage and current. The voltage and current are initialized as
Un(0)=35000V,In(0)=(SnUn(0))*.
Iterative voltage update. For iteration index k:
Un(k+1)=35000-ZnIn(k).
If k = kmax, the point is marked as not convergent and the algorithm proceeds to the next time step. Otherwise, if
max(|ℜ(Un(k+1)-Un(k))|,|ℑ(Un(k+1)-Un(k))|)<ε,
convergence is declared.
Current update. Once Un(k+1) converges, the current is updated as
In(k+1)=(SnUn(k+1))*.
Acquisition of additional nodal information. Using the converged voltage and current, the voltages, currents, and losses of all other target nodes along the line are computed. These are used for the loss-calculation steps described in Section 4.2.
Time advancement. The simulation time is updated by
Tn+1=Tn+ΔT.
If Tn+1>T, the simulation terminates; otherwise, the next time step is computed.
Raw data
This section selects a line from that in Section 2 for validation. Based on the model of the traction power supply system, Figure 6 shows the traction load distribution at a specific moment on a particular substation along the line. In this system, the primary side of the traction substation is connected to a 220kV grid, with the system short-circuit capacity at the connection point being 4,000 MVA. The secondary side voltage level is 35kV. The traction transformer adopts a Vv connection, with the phase sequence connected as ABC. The transformer capacity is 80 MVA, and the percentage of short-circuit impedance is 10.5%. Each individual traction transformer has a capacity of 10 MVA, with a percentage impedance of 8.5%. In this simulation, the contact wire is selected as the power supply device, and the voltage level is set to 3.5kV. To ensure that the traction power supply system meets operational requirements, the local circuit length is set to 5 km. Considering various on-site factors, the simulation parameters are set as shown in Table 1, with traction transformers placed at intervals of 0 km, 5 km, 10 km, 15 km, and 20 km.
Traction load speed-time diagram.
Line graph showing train speed in kilometers per hour versus time in seconds. Speed fluctuates repeatedly between near zero and approximately eighty-five kilometers per hour in a repeated pattern throughout the timeline.
Line parameters.
Item
Parameter
Equivalent external power voltage
36 kV
Main substation equivalent impedance
0.05+j0.31 Ω
Cable unit length impedance
0.1137+j0.8117 Ω/km
Traction transformer equivalent impedance
0.48+j7.75 Ω
Contact supply device equivalent impedance
0.1635+j0.7443 Ω/km
At present, there is a lack of actual data on the AC traction power supply systems of urban rail transit. Therefore, this paper selects the CJ6 locomotive as the operating locomotive, adopts the operation curve of the locomotive on this line calculating line losses. The speed-time curve of a single load operation on this line is shown in Figure 6. Validation is performed for both traction and braking conditions.
Calculation of losses generated by the load
When the resistance and power supply model are determined, the branch coefficients of each traction substation are obtained based on the method from Section 2. The variation of branch coefficients with train position is shown in Figure 7. By combining line information, the equivalent impedance Z between each position and the 35 kV external power supply is calculated according to (7). After obtaining the distribution of Z, the power flow is solved using the equivalent load model from Section 3, considering the train's operation along the entire line. Based on the locomotive voltage obtained from the power flow analysis, the power characteristics of the main substation and traction substations, as well as the system losses, are evaluated.
Power distribution among traction substations along the line.
Line graph showing the output percentages of five traction transformers, each peaking sequentially and symmetrically along the locomotive position axis from zero to approximately seventeen kilometers, with overlapping triangular patterns for each transformer.
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 2, traction substations mainly supply power to their adjacent local loops during train operation. The power distribution exhibits a Gaussian-like pattern, being higher in the middle and lower at both ends, with maximum output when the train passes near a substation. Since substations 1 and 5 only feed one adjacent section, while substations 2–4 supply two neighboring sections, the average output power of substations 2–4 is nearly twice that of substations 1 and 5. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 8, because the reactance of the traction network equivalent impedance is much larger than its resistance, reactive power losses dominate over active power losses.
Statistical power characteristics of each traction substation.
Metric
Substation 1
Substation 2
Substation 3
Substation 4
Substation 5
Average Apparent Power (kVA)
180.5
455.2
318.6
248.7
132.1
Maximum Apparent Power (kVA)
4,050.7
4,690.3
3,790.4
3,980.5
3,885.7
Minimum Apparent Power (VA)
46.2
0.521
21.8
0.310
0.005
Average Active Power (kW)
75.8
172.4
160.9
112.7
40.2
Maximum Active Power (kW)
3,988.6
4,620.5
3,720.1
3,815.8
3,779.4
Minimum Active Power (kW)
–2,950.2
–4,420.6
–3,215.8
–3,720.4
–3,490.2
Average Reactive Power (kVar)
20.3
38.7
33.5
24.1
9.3
Maximum Reactive Power (kVar)
850.2
927.5
772.6
761.8
95.2
Minimum Reactive Power (kVar)
–570.8
–830.4
–590.7
–720.2
–670.1
Distribution of active power losses with varying load positions.
Line graph illustrating system losses in kilowatts versus metro location in kilometers, with multiple sharp peaks and valleys. System losses range from 0 to 80 kilowatts across the 0 to 18 kilometer span.
The loss calculation follows the definitions in Equations 14, 15. At each simulation step i, the system loss is obtained as
ΔSi=35000·I*-Si=ΔPi+jΔQi,
where Si is the complex power delivered to the locomotive load, and I* is the conjugate of the source current from the equivalent circuit. The relative loss level is then expressed as
δi=|ΔSi||35000·I*|×100%.
These equations are applied to compute the active loss ΔPi, reactive loss ΔQi, and total loss ratio δi during train operation. The results under different train positions are presented in Figures 8, 9.
Daily active power losses at different voltage levels vs. the number of traction substations.
Line graph showing the relationship between the number of traction substations and daily active power loss in kilowatt-hours for six voltage levels ranging from three kilovolts to eleven kilovolts. Power loss decreases as the number of substations increases, with higher voltage levels exhibiting lower power losses throughout.
The supply capability of the traction system is mainly constrained by the permissible voltage range of locomotives. By defining the ratios of maximum and minimum line voltages to the nominal level, the acceptable range is set as [0.76, 1.16]. Simulation results show that as voltage level increases, the minimum number of traction substations required decreases. For instance, when the voltage is no less than 5 kV, two substations are sufficient to cover the entire line. Conversely, for a fixed number of substations, the minimum feasible voltage level decreases as more substations are added.
In terms of efficiency, the daily active power losses between the main substation and traction loads decrease with both higher voltage levels and more substations, as illustrated in Figure 9. Note that the calculation in this section is purely mechanism-based. The accuracy of the results depends on the correctness of cable and transformer parameters. In real systems, measurement-based or data-driven models can be used to calibrate uncertain parameters, and thus can serve as a complementary tool to enhance the accuracy of the proposed mechanism-based method.
In summary, increasing the supply voltage and adding more traction substations are both effective strategies for reducing system losses. Higher voltage levels reduce the required number of substations, lowering construction costs, while fewer substations may increase overall losses. This highlights the essential role of theoretical line loss calculations, which directly reflect system mechanisms and provide a reliable foundation for planning and optimization of metro traction networks.
Conclusion
This paper investigates a theoretical line loss calculation method for metro traction distribution networks, using actual metro load data as the case study. The research highlights how theoretical line loss models, rather than statistical methods, directly capture the mechanisms of losses and thus provide a solid foundation for system evaluation and planning. The main findings are as follows:
By analyzing the operational characteristics of the traction network, the line loss calculation formula was derived using the loop current method. This clarified the composition of losses and explained their relationship with dynamic metro loads.
Considering the network's structural features, a method was established to allocate the cross terms of line loss to individual loads, enabling more precise loss attribution across substations and circuits.
Future work can be expanded in the following directions:
Develop optimization schemes for targeted loss reduction indicators, thereby providing actionable strategies for system operation and planning.
Explore the long-term relationship between line losses and load curve characteristics, building line loss models expressed through curve parameters and comparing them with traditional statistical approaches.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The authors would like to thank the colleagues from Guangzhou Power Supply Bureau and CSG Electric Power Research Institute for their valuable technical support and insightful discussions during the course of this research.
Conflict of interest
YiZ, ZC, and ZZ were employed by Guangdong Power Grid Co., Ltd.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesAl-KhalidiH.KalamA. (2008). “Reduction in sub-transmission loss using underground power cables,” in 2008 Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (IEEE), 1–6.CaiY.IrvingM.CaseS. (1996). Compound matrix partitioning and modification for the solution of branched autotransformer traction feeds. IEE Proc. Electr. Power Applic. 143, 251–257. doi: 10.1049/ip-epa:19960375ChenM.LiQ.RobertsC.HillmansenS.TricoliP.ZhaoN.. (2016). Modelling and performance analysis of advanced combined co-phase traction power supply system in electrified railway. IET Gener. Trans. Distr. 10, 906–916. doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0513DolaraA.GualdoniM.LevaS. (2012). Impact of high-voltage primary supply lines in the 2 × 25 kv–50 hz railway system on the equivalent impedance at pantograph terminals. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 27, 164–175. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2167635GhassemiM. (2019). High surge impedance loading (hsil) lines: a review identifying opportunities, challenges, and future research needs. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 34, 1909–1924. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2019.2910210GoodmanC.KulworawanichpongT. (2002). Sequential linear power flow solution for ac electric railway power supply systems. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 61:10.GulakhmadovA.AsanovaS.AsanovaD.SafaralievM.TavlintsevA.LyukhanovE.. (2022). Power flows and losses calculation in radial networks by representing the network topology in the hierarchical structure form. Energies15:765. doi: 10.3390/en15030765HuangS.HemidaH.YangM. (2016). “Numerical calculation of the slipstream generated by a crh2 high-speed train,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 103–116. doi: 10.1177/0954409714528891HuangX.WangH.LiQ.. (2023). Electrical characteristics of new three-phase traction power supply system for rail transit. Rail. Eng. Sci.31, 75–88. doi: 10.1007/s40534-022-00290-1KimM.-K.KimM.-S.KimD.-H.LeeJ.-W. (2010). A study on the impedance calculation by using equivalent model in catenary system. Int. J. Railway3, 46–53.KulworawanichpongT. (2015). Multi-train modeling and simulation integrated with traction power supply solver using simplified newton-raphson method. J. Modern Transport. 23, 241–251. doi: 10.1007/s40534-015-0086-yLiF.SongL.CongB. (2020). “Power line loss analysis and loss reduction measures,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2019 (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 972–980. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31129-2_90LiQ.-z. (2016). Industrial frequency single-phase ac traction power supply system for urban rail transit and its key technologies. Journal of Modern Transp.24, 103–113. doi: 10.1007/s40534-016-0097-3NiL.YaoL.WangZ.ZhangJ.YuanJ.ZhouY. (2019). “A review of line loss analysis of the low-voltage distribution system,” in 2019 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Circuits, Systems and Devices (ICCSD), 111–114. doi: 10.1109/ICCSD.2019.8843146ShuZ.XieS.LuK.ZhaoY.NanX.QiuD.. (2013). Digital detection, control, and distribution system for co-phase traction power supply application. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electr. 60, 1831–1839. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2012.2190959SteczekM.JefimowskiW.MaciokT.BarańskiS. (2023). Analysis of energy losses in the novel distributed power supply system for trams. IEEE Trans. Transport. Electrific. 9, 1498–1508. doi: 10.1109/TTE.2022.3165702ZhangW.XianR.LiuH.XianR.ZhengX.LiuX.. (2025). “Impact of outlet short-circuit fault on the electrical-thermal characteristics of distribution transformer windings,” in Southern Power System Technology, 1–9.ZhangY.QinS.SunJ.ShiX.LiuT.LeiY.. (2025). “Research review on transparent technology of low-voltage substation area,” in Southern Power System Technology, Southern Power System Technology (南方电网技术) (Guangzhou: Editorial Department of Southern Power System Technology), 1–12.
Edited by: Chengxi Liu, Wuhan University, China
Reviewed by: Lijun Yang, Yanshan University, China
Thai Nguyen, Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam
Dong Doan Van, Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam
Jian Zhang, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States