Model of generator saturation for use in power  system studies
G. Shackshaft, B.Eng., Ph.D., Mem. I.E.E.E., C.Eng., F.I.E.E., and P.B. Henser, M.Sc, Ph.D., D.I.C., A.C.G.I., C.Eng
M.I.E.E.
Indexing terms:
Electric generators, Electric reactance, Magnetisation, Power systems
Abstract
The representation of magnetic saturation of generators in power system studies is reexamined in the light of new test data obtained on 500 MW and 660 MW units. A new saturation model, of adequate simplicity for use in multi machine studies, is formulated and checked for accuracy. The parameters for use in the model are obtained firstly from noload measurements but later in the paper it is shown that the parameters can be obtained from onload measurements. The primary incentive for the work was to devise a method for the accurate calculation of generator rotor angle when operating at leading power factors. In the event, the model is shown to produce accurate calculation of both rotor angle and excitation requirements over the whole of the normal operating range.
List of symbols
Xdo,Xqo
Xd,Xq
= unsaturated synchronous reactances (i.e. airgapline values) = saturated synchronous reactances
Xado, X _{a} qo = unsaturated mutual reactances
Xad > Xaq X _{a} Xsai
— saturated mutual reactances = armature leakage reactance — X _{d}_{0} ~X _{q} o = saliency reactance
Xi = saturated mutual reactance of intermediate axis
0 = angle between airgap voltage and direct axis (degrees)
5
= rotor angle, degrees — airgapline voltage stator currents
^{=}
V _{a}_{g}
Id. Iq
Suffixes d and q indicate direct and quadratureaxis parameters, respectively. Unless otherwise stated, all parameters are in perunit.
1
Introduction
Accurate calculation of ironsaturation effects in synchronous machines has been the objective of many workers during the last decade. The methods employed have been based on the use of digital computers and have been categorised as finitedifference, ^{1} finite
element ^{2}
problem from the machine designer's point of view, and have been primarily concerned with the accuracy of calculation of excitation requirements, and, hence, very complex models have been solved; in general, computation time has been of secondary importance. In the same period, powersystem analysts have come to under stand the importance of machine saturation in largescale system studies and have been seeking suitable analytical methods. Here, the main concern is to devise a simple model which is very efficient in computing time, bearing in mind that a power system involving many machines is likely to be studied, and yet to have a model which is sufficiently accurate for the purposes for which it is being used. The main problem has recently been identified as that of calculating or measuring the saturation characteristic of the quadrature axis to enable an accurate calculation of generator rotorangle to be made.
methods. All have examined the
and discretereluctance ^{3}
The importance of quadratureaxis saturation was generally recognised as a result of an international exercise organised by CIGRE ^{4} which was based on system fault tests carried out by the CEGB on an underexcited 120 MW generator at Northfleet Power Station. ^{5} The exercise was primarily concerned with comparing the accuracy of calculation of mechanical and electromagnetic transients, but an important byproduct was that it revealed errors in the calculation of the starting rotorangle of the test generator. This led to a further
which sought to collect test evidence on the
saturation characteristics of generators, particularly of the quadrature
CIGRfi investigation
6
axis, and on the models used to represent it in computer programs. On the basis of the test evidence submitted, it was concluded that, for large modern machines, the saturation characteristics of the direct and quadrature axes are quite different, and that the errors in the calcu
Paper 8368P, first 
received 1st December 1978 and in revised form 17th April 
1979 
Dr. Shackshaft and Dr. Henser are with the System Technical Branch, Planning Department, Central Electricity Generating Board, 15 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7A U, England
PROC. IEE, Vol. 126, No. 8, AUGUST
1979
lation of the initial rotorangle in the Northfleet exercise were due to inadequate representation of saturation in the quadrature axis. It was also concluded that none of the saturation models in use could adequately represent all the observed effects, and that further test evidence, involving both noload and onload results on a generator, was required. The CEGB has since carried out a number of such measurements on large generators (two 500 MW and one 660 MW units), and these have enabled a new saturation model to be formulated and validated; the purpose of this paper is to report this work.
2 The representation of saturation
2.1 Mathematical model
The saturation characteristics of the direct and quadrature axes are represented by the following two equations (Fig. 1 refers):
=
(V*W) =
l+m _{d}
l+m _{Q}
0)
(2)
Hence, given the airgap voltage in the axis under consideration, the mutual reactances in the direct and quadrature axes are given by
(3)
(4)
X _{a}_{d} s
X aqs
=
=
excitation current , p.u
Fig.
1
Normalised saturation characteristics
a Airgap line
b Direct axis
c Quadrature axis
00203270/79/080759
759
+ 05 $0150/0
The above representation of saturation characteristics is not new. It is being used in many computer programs for powersystem analysis, but this particular representation is not an important aspect of the model described herein. The first assumption used in the model, which is based on experi mental observation, is that there is a sinusiodal variation of permeance in the airgap between the direct and quadrature axes. Hence, the mutual reactance in any intermediate axis (X _{t} ), for a given airgap voltage is defined by
(5)
The second assumptipn used in the model, which is also based on experimental observation, is that the difference between the saturated values of the direct and quadratureaxis mutual reactances is constant (X _{s}_{a} {), and that these reactances are sinusiodally distributed about the intermediate mutual reactance (X _{t} ) according to the following two equations:
Xi
=
X _{a}_{d}_{s} cos 0 + X _{a}_{q}_{s} sin 6
Jinrl
— A i "•" ^sril
• + Xggi sin
Sin
6
0
(p)
(7)
The saturated values of the corresponding synchronous reactances are given by
X _{a}_{Q}
= .
+ X _{u}_{l} cos ^{2} 6
y
Aq

y
— ^{A} aq
+ X
^{A} a
(9)
^
'
The mutual reactance variations associated with the above assumptions are portrayed in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2
30
9,degrees
60
90
Diagrammatic portrayal of assumed variations of mutual reactances
2.2 Reasons for choice of model
The test information, which led to the choice of the model described above, was obtained somewhat by accident, since it came from tests which were not intended to explore saturation character istics. The tests, which are known as either statordecrement or flux decay tests and are used to obtain transient parameters, were carried out with the initial airgap voltage in various positions between the
760
direct and quadrature axes; each test was carried out from rated stator voltage (hence approximately constant airgap voltage) with the field winding on open circuit, and it is the initial conditions for the test that provide the key information. Such tests were carried out on only one (generator C) of the three generators to be discussed herein. From the measured initial values of active and reactive powers, stator voltage and current and rotor angle, and using the equations given in Appendix 9, values were calculated for the mutual reactance of the axis in which the airgap was positioned (X _{t} ) and also for the mutual reactances in the direct (X _{a}_{d} ) and quadrature (X _{a}_{q} ) axes. These calculated values are shown in Fig. 3, and whereas the curves, drawn using the assumption stated above, do not give a perfect fit, the agreement is sufficient to justify investigation of the assumptions. Two points need be made at this stage regarding the assumptions and the fitted test points shown in Fig. 3:
(i) The sinusoidal variation of the reactance (X _{t} ) is entirely consist ent with Park's original formulation of the 2axis model. ^{7} Park ignored saturation in postulating sinusoidal variations, but the proposed model includes saturation and postulates sinusoidal variations for constant airgap voltage. (ii) The assumption that there is a constant difference between direct and quadratureaxis synchronous reactances (i.e. regardless of load, saturation, etc.) has no sound theoretical basis, and it must be judged on the overall effectiveness of the model.
2.3 Data for the model
The essential data are the saturation characteristics of both direct and quadrature axes. The characteristic of the direct axis presents no problem as this is always measured in the works prior to dispatch to the site. However, owing to repairs, many generator stators are not now associated with the rotors with which they were workstested, and so new open circuit characteristics were measured on site for each of the three generators discussed herein. Additionally, measurements were made of the saturation characteristic using the alternative method, in which the generator is excited from the power system with its rotor angle held at zero and with no field excitation; the stator voltage is varied using the generator transformer taps. Good agreement was obtained
Fig. 3
30
6.degrees
60
90
Measured mutual reactances and fitted curves
x 
Interdediate axis 
o 
Direct axis 
0 Quadrature axis
PROC. IEE, Vol. 126, No. 8, AUGUST 1979
Table 1
Table 2
PARAMETERS FOR SATURATION MODEL
Parameter
Rated MW
Power
factor
m d
I"
10r
Data source 
Generator 
A 

Design 
660 
Design 
085 
Test 
2055 
Calculation 
181 
Calculation 
0185 
Test 
0085 
Test 
70 
Test 
042 
Test 
80 
MEAN
ERRORS IN
Generator 
Generator 
LATIONS 
B 
C 

500 
500 

085 
085 
Number of tests 
277 
271 
Mean rotorangle 
247 
250 
error, degrees 
017 
020 
Mean fieldcurrent 
016 
0095 
error, % 
70 
7 0 

037 
039 

80 
80 
ROTOR
ANGLE
Generator
A
AND
FIELD
CURRENT
CALCU
Generator
B
Generator
C
45 
35 
49 
022 
119 
026 
126 
112 
10 9 
09
D
a.
d,"08 o>
o
05

Fig. 4
02
Measured points
fitted
curve
nfl
0 
5 
10 
_{}_{5} 
_{1}_{5} 

b 

_n 

10 
10 
15 

0 3 
0 4 
05 
06 

quadratureaxi s current , p.u 

on saturation 
characteristic 
of quadrature 
axis and 

_{} _{5} 
10 
_{} _{5} 
active
power,
p
io
Fig. 6 Histograms of rotorangle and fieldcurrent
errors
a, b and c Rotorangle errors for generators A, B and C, respectively d, e and / Fieldcurrent errors for generators A, B and C, respectively
05
lead
reactive power, p.u.
05
lag
10
Fig. 5 

Performance 
chart of generator 
showing 
typical range of test 
points 
(Generator 
A) 
• Normal operating boundary Test point
between the results obtained from the two methods for all three generators, and, thus, some test justification was obtained for the calculated values of the armature leakage reactance (X _{a} ). The saturation characteristic of the quadrature axis presents rather more of a problem. It has to be measured on site with the generator excited from the power system, as described above for the direct axis,
PROC. 1EE, Vol. 126, No. 8, AUGUST
1979
but with the rotor angle held at 90°. The problem lies in extrapolating the measured results, the range of which is limited by the generator transformer taps, to cover the full range of operating flux levels. The points in Fig. 4 show a typical range of test results, and it can be seen that the voltage can neither be reduced sufficiently to allow a check to be made on the calculated position of the airgapline, nor be raised sufficiently to cover the full operating range of flux levels (V _{a}_{g} equal t o abou t 11 p.u . is require d for this , an d u p t o 10 p.u . if th e important leading powerfactor range is to be adequately covered). This problem is discussed further in Section 5.
3 Testing the model
The procedure used to check the validity of the model was to construct it, as described above, using the results of opencircuit and noload tests to obtain parameters, and then to use the model to calculate conditions with the generator on load and compare these with test results. The model parameters for the three generators discussed herein are given in Table 1. It is to be noted that only two of the parameters are obtained from design calculations.
761
The range of a typical set of onload tests is shown in Fig. 5. Generally speaking, the measurements ranged from 25%—100% of the rated load, with the reactive power loading ranging between the rated reactive load and that corresponding to a measured rotor angle of 90°. For each test point, the model was supplied with the measured values of terminal voltage and active and reactive powers, and it used these to calculate values for rotor angle and field current. These calculated values were then compared with the measured values and the errors used to assess the accuracy of the model. The errors are defined by the following equations:
Rotorangle error (degrees) = calculated value — measured value
Fieldcurrent error (%) =
(calculated value — measured value) x 100 _{m}_{e}_{a}_{s}_{u}_{r}_{e}_{d} _{v}_{a}_{l}_{u}_{e}
The errors are plotted in histogram form in Fig. 6, and the mean errors are given in Table 2. The histograms show the number of results obtained in a given error band (1° for rotor angle and 1% for field current); each small square on the histograms represents a test result. It can be seen that in all cases the errors are reasonably distributed about near zero mean error and thus the scatter of the points can be attributed to test measurement errors. As stated earlier, the primary concern is to provide a model which gives a good calculation of rotor angle, particularly at leading power factors, having regard to the fact that in existing models the error tends to increase as operation is changed from lag to lead. To check on this, the errors were plotted against reactive power and an example is shown in Fig. 7. There is a slight, but not really significant, change in the mean rotor angle between lagging and leading operation; similar results were obtained for the other two generators.
4 Comparison with other models
To demonstrate the improved accuracy of the proposed model, the rotorangle errors for various models are shown in histo gram form in Fig. 8. The results used in this comparison are from all the onload leadingpowerfactor tests conducted on Generator A.
•
rotor angle
error,
degrees
4L.
15
field current
error.
•
m
i
•
•
°
i
•
^{1} ^{0}
5
•

• 
• 
• 

5 
* 
* 

06 
0 4 
02 
0 
02 
04 
06 

lead 
reactive power, p.u 
lag 

Fig. 7 
Rotorangle and fieldcurrent errors as affected by reactive power loading (Generator A)
762
Table 3 PARAMETERS AND MEAN ROTORANGLE AND FIELDCURRENT ERRORS OBTAINED USING ONLOAD METHOD (RESULTS FROM NO LOAD METHOD ARE GIVEN IN BRACKETS)
^ q 0
m q
Generator 
Generator 
Generator 
A 
B 
C 
18 
241 
255 
(181) 
(247) 
(250) 
046 
038 
049 
(042) 
(037) 
(039) 
"Q 
95 94 
67 

(80) 
(80) 
(80) 

Mean rotorangle error, degrees 
015 
046 
001 
(All tests) 
022 
119 
026 
Mean rotorangle error, degrees 
025 
056 
015 
(Leading p.f. tests) 
(024) 
(138) 
(074) 
Mean fieldcurrent error, % 
150 
081 
013 
(All tests) 
(126) 
(112) 
(109) 
Mean fieldcurrent error, % 
018 
045 
11 3 
(Lagging p.f. tests) 
(016) 
(039) 
(170) 
Fig. 8a shows the errors using the proposed model, with a mean rotorangle error of —07°. Fig. 8b shows the errors for the model, frequently used by the CEGB and by others, in which the directaxis saturation characteristic is used to saturate both direct and quadrature axes in an equal manner; ^{8} the mean error is +51°. Fig. 8c is for the model in which the directaxis saturation characteristic is used to saturate the direct axis alone; the mean error is +74°. Fig. 8d is for the model used in Fig. 86, except that the measured quadrature axis saturation characteristic is used to saturate both axes; the mean error is —23°. An infrequently used model, which is not shown in Fig. 8, in which both saturation and synchronous saliency are ignored (X _{Q} = X _{d} = constant), gives a mean error of +139°.
5 An alternative approach
Having reached this stage in the work, at which it was considered that the model had been satisfactorily validated, we can pose the question as to what could be done if neither noload test information nor calculated parameters are available on the quadrature axis saturation characteristic: alternatively stated, can a model of the quadrature axis be constructed using onload test information alone? The lack of noload information can arise from one of two reasons:
(i) Some supply authorities are reluctant or unable to carry out the noload tests because of problems of turbine heating caused by noload running. (ii) Some authorities do not fit tap changers to generator trans formers and thus an adequate range of test results cannot be obtained.
The following routine has been devised in an attempt to answer the above question using the proposed model. It is assumed that the saturation characteristic of the direct axis is known.
(i) For each onload test, calculate V _{a}_{g} and 8 from measured data. (ii) For each test, calculate values for X _{d} and X _{Q} using the equations given in Appendix 9 (excluding those points near to 0° and 90° rotor angle because of inaccuracy in the calculation) and then
calculate the mean value of the difference between X _{d} and X _{q} to obtain X _{s}_{a}_{t} .
10 
 5 
10 
5 

H 
n, 

_{} _{5} 
10 
15 
10 
 5 
Fig. 8
_{1}_{0}
15
20
Histograms of rotorangle errors for various saturation models (Gen erator A)
a Model presented herein
b Directaxis characteristic saturating both direct and quadrature axes
c Directaxis characteristic saturating direct axis alone
d Quadratureaxis characteristic saturating both direct and quadrature axes
PROC. IEE, Vol, 126, No. 8, AUGUST 1979
(iii) For each test, calculate X _{a}_{d} (= X _{d} — X _{a} ) and X _{a}_{q} (= X _{q} — X _{a} )
and, using eqns. 6 and 7, calculate a value for X _{t} .
(iv) For each test, calculate a value for X _{a}_{d}_{s} (using the directaxis
saturation characteristic) and use this in eqn. 5 to calculate X _{a}_{q}_{s} .
(v) Using the above calculate values for V _{a}_{g} and X _{a}_{q}_{s} for each test,
together with X _{a}_{q}_{0} (= ^ado ~X _{s}_{a} i), carry out a leastsquareerror fit onto eqn. 4 to obtain values for m _{Q} and n _{q} .
The above routine could have been applied to all the onload test points for each generator to obtain a best fit for all points. However, it was decided to use only those points at nominal full load and thus to simulate the way in which model parameters might be obtained in the future. (There are 9, 8 and 12 test points at nominal full load for Generators A,B and C, respectively). The model data thus obtained were checked by using it, as described in Section 3, to calculate rotor angle and field current for all the onload tests. The results obtained using the above routine (the onload method) are summarised in Table 3, which also contains, in brackets, the corresponding results obtained using the noload method. The first three items in Table 3 define the quadratureaxis saturation characteristic and the last four items indicate the accuracy with which rotor angles and field currents are calculated. Comparison of the noload and onload methods reveals differences between the satu ration characteristics but no significant differences between the mean errors in rotor angle and field current; the standard deviations of the errors for the two methods are very similar. The conclusion to be drawn from this would appear to be that a highly accurate deter mination of the quadratureaxis saturation characteristic is not essential using the proposed model. Overall, it has been demonstrated that a satisfactory model can be obtained from onload measurements. The measurements can be made at the normal operating load of the unit and should cover as large a range of reactive power loading as possible. •
6 Conclusions
The model proposed herein is superior in all respects to any other known model of comparable simplicity, and it is recommended for use in powersystem studies. The examples used to demonstrate its effectiveness have been based on measured data. However, to enable the model to be used in studies of new machine designs, calculated data will be required. This raises the question as to whether or not the saturation curve for the quadrature axis can be predicted accurately at the design stage. Binns ^{9} has shown that modern methods can do this for the direct axis, and there is reason to assume that the same could be done for the quadrature axis. Both noload and onload methods have been used herein to obtain the saturation characteristic of the quadrature axis. Both methods have produced good results and neither has been demonstrated to be superior to the other. However, the onload method is recommended for the following reasons:
(i) It involves minimum disruption to the normal operation of a generator when measurements are made. (ii) The range of airgap voltage over which measurements can be made are those prevailing during normal operation . (09 t o 11 p.u . for onload method compared with 075 to 095 for noload method).
(iii) All the quadratureaxis parameters are obtained, and, in
The model has been applied to turbogenerators alone because no adequate test results are available for hydrogenerators. However, there is evidence ^{6} that the direct and quadratureaxis saturation character istics of hydrogenerators are quite different, and thus the model could also find application for such machines.
7 Acknowledgments
The test results used in this paper are mainly due to the efforts of M.D. Barber and A.T. Poray, who organised the generator tests on which this work is based. The authors are grateful to the Central Electricity Generating Board for permission to publish this paper.
8 
References 
1 
FUCHS, E.F., and ERDELYI, E.A.: 'Nonlinear theory of turboalternators., IEEE Trans., 1972, PAS91 pp. 583599 
2 
CHAR1, M.V.K., and SILVESTER, P.: 'Analysis of turboalternator magnetic fields by finite elements', ibid., 1977, PAS90, pp. 454464 
3 
BINNS, K.J., and SMITH, J.R.: 'Prediction of load characteristics of turbo generators', Proc. IEE, 1978,125, (3), pp. 197202 
4 
CHORLTON, A., and SHACKSHAFT, G.: 'Comparison of accuracy of methods for studying stability. Northfleet exercise', Electra 1972 23, pp. 949 
5 
SHACKSHAFT, G., and NEILSON, R.: 'Results of stability tests on an underexcited 120 MW generator', Proc. IEE, 1972, 119, (2), pp. 175188 
6 
SHACKSHAFT, G.: 'Generator parameters for stability studies', CIGRE, 1967, Paper 3215 
7 
PARK, R.H.: 'Tworeaction theory of synchronous machines; generalised method of analysis — Part V,AIEE Trans., 1929,48, pp. 716730 
8 
SHACKSHAFT, G.: 'Generalpurpose turboalternator model', Proc IEE 1963,110, (4), pp. 703713 
9 
BINNS, K.J.: 'Prediction of the noload magnetisation characteristics of large turbogenerators', ibid., 1965,112, (4), pp. 720730 
9 
Appendix 
Calculation of 2axis reactances
The following perunit equations are used to calculate the synchronous reactances in the direct and quadrature axes from the measured test quantities:
(10)
(11)
X _{d} = iV _{q} +I _{q} R _{a} + I _{f}_{d} X _{a} )l(I _{f}_{d} I _{d} ) X _{q} = (V _{d} +I _{d} R _{a} )/J _{q}
In which 

V _{d} 
= 
V _{t} sin 5 

V _{q} 
= 
V _{t} cos 5 

I _{d} 
= 
/ , sin (5 + 0) 

I _{q} 
= I _{t} COS (5 + 0) 

0 
= tan" ^{1} (Q _{t} /P _{t} ) 
(12)
(13)
(14)
05)
(16)
V _{t} , I _{t} , P _{t} and Q _{t} are the measured stator voltage, stator current,
particular, a design calculation of the unsaturated synchronous reactance is not needed. 
stator active and reactive powers, respectively; I _{f}_{d} field current and 5 is the measured rotor angle. 
is the measured 
PROC. IEE, Vol. 126, No. 8, AUGUST 1979 
763 
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.