IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 6, No.

1, March 1991
MinimumExcitation Limiter Effects on Generator
Response to SystemDisturbances
J.R.Ribeiro, Member
Florida Power & Light Co.
Miami,FL
29
Abstract
Minimumexcitation limiters(MEL) have been in use since the first
applications of voltage regulators to synchronous machines [2] and are
presently in widespread use throughout the power industry. However, a
cursory literature search [l-51 indicated scant examination of the
dynamic behavior of these devices. Although the minimum excitation
liiiter is rarely called into action its effect can be particularly significant
to the final outcome of some severe disturbances. This paper describes
the digital computer modeling of two common MEL devices and
addresses their effect on power systemdynamics.
Key Words: Power System Dynamics, Minimum Excitation Limiter,
URAL, Underexcited Reactive Ampere Limit, Steady State Stability,
Excitation SystemModeling, Underexcitation LimitefiUEL).
INTRODUCTION
Minimum Excitation Limiters (MEL) or Underexcitation Limiters
(UEL) were introduced in the 1940's along with the continuous acting
voltage regulators for two major purposes-
Y
1. Prevent generator operation below some excitation level that
is associated with excessive armature core end heating caused by
leakage flux [6].
2. Prevent generator operation beyond the steady state stabdity
limit [l ,2 ]
Most interconnected systems utilize the limiters for the functions in item
1 above, but there are some instances where the limiter is set with the
aimof preventing loss of synchronismin the under excited region. Some
UEL models act on the voltage emr function of the voltage
regulators.However a large number of UEL devices in use today were
designed to have their output fed into ahigh value gate in the excitation
control, as shown in the block diagrams of figures 1 and 2. When the
UEL set limit is reached the UEL takes over the voltage control until the
generator is within the limits. This paper will focus on two UEL
devices of the gate operating type, supplied by two different
manufacturers. Threedifferent types of excitation systems are examined:
-High Initial Response (HIR) static excitation
-HIR rotating brushless excitation
-Conventional (about 2.0 response) brushless excitation.
The behavior of a plant with two units of different size and
characteristics is al so examined. The scone is limited to two 'pes of
UEL devices, but the results and conclusions are representative o alarge
number of underexcitation limiters in service.
In the next section we will discuss the UEL modeling. Following,
in the Results Section, wewill first discuss scenarios with machine initial
conditions beyond the stability l i i i ts determined by the methods in [l ]
and then examine the UEL effect in conditions of excessive system
reactive as exemplified by islanding scenarios after underfrequency load
shedding.
There are three main objectives in this paper.
1. Illustrate the dynamic behavior of the UEL.
2. Demonstrate that setting the UEL limits to less than what is
required by the rated thermal capability, for stability reasons, is
an unwarranted constraint on the generator reactive
capability.Uti1ities that are in this category can then realize
measurable savings on reactor installations or at least improve
operational flexibility.
3.Demonstrate that representation of the UEL dynamics is vital
5'0 Si4 426-7 EC A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation
Committee of the I EEE Power Engineering Soci ety f or
presentati on at the IEEE/PES 1990 Summer Meeting,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, J ul y 15-19, 1990.
submitted J anuary 19, 1990; made avai l abl e f or
pri nti ng Nay 18, 1990.
Manuscript
to the proper analysis of power systems under degraded
conditions following major disturbances.
MODELS
The UEL models addressed in this paper have not been programmed
for digital computers and made commercially available. Figure 1 shows
ablock diagramfor the model UEL-1 added to a modified IEEE type
AC2 exciter model suitable for representation of high initial response
(HIR) rotating brushless type excitation systems. The Volts/Hz limiter
shown in figure 1 had to be also represented because of its significant
interaction with the UEL. Figure 2 shows the UEL-STl block diagram
added to amodified IEEE type ST1 excitation systemmodel suitable for
representation of static HIR systems. The equations described in the block
diagrams were programmed into a dynamic simulation programpackage
currently in use at Florida Power & Light Co.(FPL). Figure 3 shows a
normalized capability curve with the steady state stability (SSS) limit of
generator B , of figure 4 superimposed. The SSS limit was calculated
following the derivation in the appendix of reference [l]. The current
practice is to set the UEL limit with a 15% margin of the capability
curve or the SSS manual control limit whichever is more restrictive.
Whether the l i i i t is fromthe generator capability or fromstability, the
characteristic is described by the equation of acircle. Both UEL models
compare the radius of the l i i i t circle with an off-set center in the Q-
axis of the P-Q plane with a radius calculated fromthe instantaneous
values of real power and reactive electric power. These values after some
algebraic manipulation are expressed by V, in figure 1 and V, in figure
2 as a function of terminal voltage and current. In figure 1, the limit
radius V, is compared with the instantaneous calculated radius at the
adder. Stabilization, V,, is provided by a take-off from the exciter
feedback loop multiplied by a constant and coming to the same adder
with V, and V,. The same comparison scheme is shown in figure 2,
except that stabilization for the model shown in fig. 2 is provided by the
last block in the UEL-STl block diagram.
The seven machine eleven bus systemshown in figure 4 was used
for all simulations. Most of the analysis could be done with a two-
machine system, but using a more complex system helps assure that
multi-machine effects would not be ignored. This network is not
representative of anormal power systembut the generator or generators
and their connection to bus 1 could be representative of apower system
in a highly deteriorated state at some time during or after a Severe
disturbance that caused loss of several lines. All units were represented
by round rotor generator models with two circuits in the d-axis and two
circuits in the q-axis. The analysis focused on machines labeled A and
B. Machine labeled "W" has a very large MVA rating (30,000) to
represent the rest of the interconnected world. Data for thelines (R,X,B)
is shown in fig. 4. Datafor the computer simulation models are given in
the appendix. The load was represented as:
P= P4(O.1+0.9v)
Q=Qv'
Where v is the bus voltage as a function of time and the subscript
i indicates the initial nominal value of the load. This is a common
representation for USA systems.
RESULTS
For all the results being discussed the generator or generators being
tested are connected through a step up transformer to bus 1 in figure 4.
We will first discuss the cases were the generator is initially operating
beyond the steady state stability limits calculated according to reference
[l]. Then wewill discuss the cases were the generator is initially within
limits set at the UEL. Two generator sizes were tested. The static
excitation systemis associated with a 500 MVA unit(generator B) and
the rotating brushless exciters are associated with a 1000 MVA
unit(generator A). Since the calculated stability limit is only slightly
tighter for the 1000 MVA unit, the samesetting was used for both units.
According to current practice, a radius and center would have to be
calculated such that thelimiting curve would be no less than 15% more
restrictive than the S S S limit curve and the generator underexcited
capability of figure 3. For simplicity and for the purposes of this paper
it was adequate to set the limits equal to the radius and center of the
SSS limit curve shown in the figure.
1
- Underexcitation Limiter rype UELl with modified IEEE type AC2 exciter model.
EPD
F & - Underexcitation Limiter type UEL-STI with modified IEEE type
STI exciter model.
- Normalized typical generator capability curve showing also the
Steady State Stability Limit for Generator B.
_ _ - BUS
TRANSFORHER -- .r
GENERATOR -- 6
CRPRClTOA -- A
m
F a - One line diagram for the network used in the simrrlations.
Table 1 below lists initial conditions for the groups of simulations
Table I- Initial Conditions for the Simulations.
performed.
...................................................
?5FTJ a ANGLE FLOW REF.FIGS.
BUS4- 1
D.U MW MW Mvar
1.57 0.95 450 -174 33.0 588 211 5 thru 10
1.73 0.95 900 -366 34.2 635 256 11 thru 14
1.61 0.95 375 4 44.4 153 39 15 thru 17
1.79 0.95 750 25 46.4 153 42 18 thru 22
1.83 0.95 750 53 38.7 231 58 23 thru 24
1.68 0.95 375 27 35.2 "
11 1, *I
.....................................................
Generator Initiallv Outside of UEL Limits.
For this series of simulations the generator tested is initially operating
at 0.9-j0.34 clearly outside of the calculated stability limit circle shown
in figure 3. Generator B,with static HIR system, in figure 4 is connected
through a step-up transformer and a line to the rest of the system,
enerator A(brushless HIR) is off line for the first three conditions
d. iscussed below. Then two simulations are discussed were generator A
is on line while generator B is off line.
Automatic Voltage RecrulatoHAVR) on Manual:- This simulation is
intended to show that the generator is actually beyond its steady state
stability limit assuming constant excitation. A 3-phase 4-cycle duration
short circuit at bus 1 was simulated at time 4. 1 s (seconds). Figure 5
shows a time plot of P (real power), Q(reactive power), ET (generator
terminal voltage) and EFD (Generator Field Voltage). For this and all
other similar plots, the power is expressed in p.u. of 100 MVA, generator
terminal voltage in p.u. of rated generator voltage and the Field Voltage
in p.u. of field voltage required to generate 1.0 p.u in the air gap with
the generator open circuited. The variable range is indicated in
parenthesis next to the variable symbol. The figure shows that by
approximately 8 s the generator looses synchronism indicated by the
collapse in power and voltage followed by the slip frequency oscillations.
By definition of steady stateinstability the loss of synchronismhas to
occur for any minor disturbance as in fact it would for this case. The
short-circuit simulation was selected to expedite matters.
AVR on Auto, UEL OffStatic HIR Exciter : Figure 6 shows the
same disturbance as figure 5 except that the voltage regulator is on
automatic operation. The power and voltages behavior indicate that the
generator is stable with a comfortable margin. This is an expected result
but clearly contradicts the need to resuict the lead reactive power output
to about 0 p.u. as implied by figure 3.
AVR on Auto, UEL on. Static HIR Exciter: Figure 7 shows the
same disturbance as figures 5 and 6, but for this simulation the AVR is
on automatic mode and the UEL is turned on at time zero-plus with
limits set as shown in figure 5. This is a somewhat contrived situation
designed to illustrate the effect of the UEL since the unit could not be
operating with the same initial conditions if theUEL had been on all
thetime. The plots show that the systemis now not as well behaved as
in the simulation with the UEL off. Further, the type of pulses seen at
about 9.5 s of the simulation illustrate what happens if an operator tries
31
,
to drive the generator into a region beyond the set limits. These pulses
are occurring when the radius calculated from instantaneous terminal
conditions equals the limit radius and a quick transition from UEL
control to voltage control ensues. This fact is portrayed in figure 8
showing time plots of the calculated radius times terminal voltage
(VJ, the limit radius times terminal voltage (V3 and the UEL output
The figure shows clearly that at about 9.5 s the Calculated and the Limit
Radius are equal for a fraction of a second. During that time the UEL
is switched froma positive value to a minimumnegative value. When
+e UEL output goes to minimumcontrol is switched to the voltage error
function. That is reflected by a short pulse on EFD , ET, P and Q as
shown in figure 7.
Figure 9 will provide additional insight on the generator behavior. It
shows the apparent impedance trajectory (Z-locus) in the Z plane where
three circles of interest are shown. Fromthe one with smaller radius to
the larger the circles represent respectively the boundaries of the Zone 1
Loss of Field (LOW protection, Zone 2 LOF and the UEL set limit
corresponding to the one shown in the S-plane of figure 3. Displaying
thetrajectory on the Z-plane has the advantage that the limit circles do
not have to bechanged for different terminal voltages. Conversion from
theS-plane to theZ-plane can be quickly accomplished by the equations
shown in [SI if one does not feel l i e deriving i t Here it can easily be
seen when the apparent impedance goes outside the limits (enters the
circle.) In the S/vz-plane amultitude of circles would have to be drawn
since the limit radius and center are a function of the square of the
voltage. The figure shows that at t =O s the apparent impedance is inside
the largest circle(UEL limits) and that it is settling near the circle as
indicated by the higher concentration of points there. Figure 10, shows
the corresponding plot for the simulation wherethe UEL is off. It shows
that even without the UEL the apparent impedance settles outside of the
LOF circles.
AVR on Auto. UEL on, Brushless HIR Exciter: Generator labeled A
on figure 4 is on and generator B is off line for this simulation. The
operating point is the same in per unit of generator MVA rating as for
the corresponding simulations of the static exciter. Figure 11 shows the
time plots of P,Q,ET and EFD for simulation of a short circuit as
described in association with figure 7, the only difference being that
generator A is equipped with a rotating brushless HIR excitation system
as shown in figure 1. In figure 11 we detect a persistent 1.7 Hz
oscillation which was not present in figure 7. Though the oscillation
might at first be attributed to dynamic instability (power system
stabilizers were not represented), the actual cause of the oscillation is the
interaction of the V/Hz function and the UEL. Figure 12 shows the time
plots of the V/Hz output, theUEL output as well as the CALC-RAD and
LUIIT-RAD where one can verify this phenomena. Because theV/Hz
is set for 1.05 p.u voltage for this sirnulation it will take conmI
whenever voltage goes over this value. The phenomena does not occur
with the static HIR because the particular V/Hz limiter of the static HIR
is inoperative for frequencies aboveabout 56 Hz. For further verification
of this fact we run an aditional simulation setting the V/Hz to an
arbitrarily high value (4.0 P.u.) The resulting behavior, shown in figure
13, clearly verifies this hypothesis.
AVR on auto.UEL on BrusMess Conventional Exciter: Theexciter
model of figure 1 was made to represent a conventional response
excitation systemby use of proper data as shown in the appendix. Then
the sameshort circuit simulation was performed with generator A on line
as described in the previous section. A time plot of powers and voltages
for this simulation is shown in figure 14. When compared with the
Brushless HIR response we notice that the 1.7 Hz oscillation vanishes
after t=5 s. The reason is that the voltage forcing function is not strong
enough to drive the terminal voltage above 1.05 p.u. However the
phenomena of conflicting objectives of the V/Hz and UEL is still present
and could surface under different conditions.
Generator Initially Within UEL Limit - Loss of Load
For this series of simulations the generator is operating initially at
0.75 real power and 0 reactive power in p.u. of generator M V A rating.
At time =0.1s a shunt capacitor of 0.74 p.u of the generator rating is
switched on at bus 1. This simulation is representative of acondition that
the system may be at some time after islanding and associated load
shedding. The resulting unloading of many transmission lines is
associated with a net excess of capacitive reactive power seen by the
generator. Without UEL, if the excess capacitive power is large enough
the voltage regulator will drive the field voltage to zero, or negative
values, depending on the type of equipment The exciters discussed in
this paper will not producenegative voltages. With field voltage very low
loss of synchronismmay occur or the LOF relay may operate. The UEL
I I I I I I I I I
1u.
F &. J - Voltage regulator(VR) on manual control. Short circuit on bus
1. Gen. A off line.
I I I I I I I I I I
13.u
I * O M 2 1 w 1 1 . # I O * T,me,t L * W $
l l l l l I I l I l I I J
0.0
- VR on auto. Skort circuit on bus 1 . Static Hl R exciter. UEL
on. Gen. A off line.
acts to limit the minimumvalue of excitation. Depending on theamount
of excess reactive power the UEL action can cause sustained high
voltages that may also beintolerable and cause over voltage pmtedon
schemes to trip the generator and arresters to exceed their thermal
capabilities. For the type of excitation system in figure 1 -Rotating
32
Brushless Exciters- we will seethat the V/Hz limiter tends to annul the
effect of the UEL. Transformer saturation effects were not represented,
but the size of the capacitor switched was chosen such that final voltages
would not much higher than the knee of typical transformer saturation
curves thereby making saturation effects negligible. The following
discussion and figures will better illustrate these points. For all cases that
follow the AVR is on automatic operation.
Static HIR: Figure 15 shows P,Q,ET and EFD time plots for the
simulation with generator B on line(generator A off line). The response
is very well damped but voltages are settling around 1.15 p.u. due to
UEL action. Figure 16 shows result of the same simulation except that
the UEL limit radius was set to 2.04 p.u and the center to 1.54 p.u
which are the settings appropriate to prevent operation with excessive
rotor end iron heating. It is seen that even here the settling terminal
voltage is not acceptable. If no UEL was present for this disturbance
figure 17 shows that field voltages would stay too long at zero and the
generator was on the verge of voltage collapse. Although we are not
showing a plot here, the apparent impedance trajectory for this case
penetrates zone 2 of the LOF relay for afew cycles and it is clear that
aslightly more stressing condition would cause generator trip.
Rotating HIR: Figure 18 shows P,Q,ET and EFD time plots for the
simulation with Generator A (lo00 MVA) on line. Here we notice an
approximately 0.5 Hz oscillation which was not seen with the static
exciter in figure 15. This oscillation exists even when setting the UEL
limits to a larger radius and center (2.04 and 1.56 p.u. respectively) as
would berecommended by the manufacturer. Again this is caused by the
interaction of the V/Hz limiter with the UEL limits as can beverified by
comparison with figure 19 which shows the samesimulation as in figure
18 with the exception that the V/Hz limiter was made inoperative.
However, in both simulations the terminal voltage is settling at
unacceptably high values. Figure 20 shows the same variables for the
simulation where both the UEL and V/Hz limiters are made inoperative.
The generator terminal voltage collapses and pole slipping occurs as
evidenced by thehigh frequency oscillations around ti me6 s.
Rotating Conventional Excitation: A similar set of simulations to the
ones desc.ribed in the two previous paragraphs were run with Generator
A equipped with aconventional response (ASA response of 2.0) brushless
excitation system. The same model shown in figure 1 was used with
constants modified to represent the non-HIR exciter (see appendix for
values.) Generally comparable overall results were observed as for the
simulations with the Rotating HIR excitation, as shown in figures 21 and
22.
Multide Units at the Same Station: Similar Simulations to the ones
described in the previous paragraphs were run for the following
conditions:
a) Generator A (lo00 MVA) on line with HIR rotating exciter and
Generator B (500 MVA) on l i e with Static HIR exciter.
b) Generator A (lo00 MVA) on line with conventional rotating
exciter and Generator B (500 MVA) on line with Static HIR exciter.
In both sets of simulations the limit radius and center for the UEL setting
were the same for both generators in p.u. of generator rating. It was
observed that the results were similar to simulation of single machine at
the station. However the conditions are aggravated by the interaction of
the V/Hz limiter and UEL of Generator A which propagate the severe
oscillations to Generator B. This behavior is illustrated in Figure 23. The
disrupting oscillations are not as significant when the V/Hz is made
inoperative as shown in figure 24.
In all of the simulations discussed the generators connected to busses
2,3 and 4 showed negligible response. This was expected since the
disturbances simulated were designed to have localized effects.
CONCLUSION
Two UEL models were programmed and merged with a power
systemsimulator packagecommercially available. The effect of the added
models was illustrated in several different scenarios.
Fromthe facts presented abovethe following additional observations
and conclusions can be formulated:
a) Using the UEL to prevent the generator from operating in the
steady state instability region unnecessarily restricts the generator
operating range. The restriction is unnecessary because the current utility
practice for calculation of steady state stability assumes manual control
of voltage. As illustrated in this paper acondition that is unstable under
manual control is comfortably stable when the automatic control of
voltage is active.
b) When agenerator or group of generators is, for whatever reason,
isolated with an excess of capacitive load the effect of the UEL is to
drive the terminal voltage higher than it would go without the UEL.
Depending on the amount of excess capacitive load the voltages might
be intolerably high causing further systemdisruptions. Moreover for some
excitation systems, it would not take much of an excess capacitive load
to drive the voltage to a point where the V/Hz limiter in the excitation
systembecomes active and interacts with the UEL in a disruptive way.
The important message in this paper is that in simulation studies of
islanding conditions or other degraded state scenarios the UEL and V/Hz
must berepresented in order to obtain a more realistic evaluation of the
system. That these effects are not often represented is attested by the
non-existence, until now, of commercially available simulation models of
two relatively common types of underexcitation limiter as the ones
discussed in this paper.
c) The results showed that relying on the corrective action of the
UEL to protect thegenerator during islanding conditions is unwarranted
because if such situation arises it is most likely that the UEL will force
the generator to unacceptably high voltages that will cause other control
or protection to become active and eventually nullify the UEL action.
Therefore, the only uueprotection would be to fmd other solutions to
prevent the generator fromfacing thesestressing systemconditions.
In view of these observations it is proposed that the role of the
underexcitation limiter be reevaluated. It seems that the only
unquestionable need for theunderexcitation limiter is to prevent stator
end iron heating when the rotor field is low. This being athermal effect
it most likely does not require action in the transienvdynamic time
frame. The subject will certainly require further analysis fromthe power
industry community and this paper will have achieve its most important
objective if the community is challenged to additional investigations in
this subject.
1 j I I I I I I I J
" . $om T,me,S , 1010 ' m*n lu.u 2 OPOI
u.0
Fip.8.- Same conditions as in figure 7: Vk, Vc and I UEL 4' output.
I l l 1
X-oworen1
t
1
t
L
i-
I
I
I
F & -Same as figure 7. Apparent impedance trajectory(2-locus.) LOF
=loss of field relay.
I I I I I I I I I :
f
X-OoDorent 0.32 -
i
Fin.lQ - Z-Locus. VR on auto. Short circuit on bus 1. Static HIR
exciter. UEL turned off. Gen. A off line.
, ,
!, ::
, .
L I IjP.(# I 1 Tlrne,s I I I ! .oo'o I :1u.u 1
'1.1100
u.u
Fia.lJ - Same description as jig.11 except here VIHz was made
inactive.
F M - Rotating HIR exciter. VR on auto. 3-phase short
circuit on bus 1. UEL and VIHz on. Generator B off line.
- Rotating Conventional exciter. VR on auto. 3-phase short
circuit on bus 1. UEL and VIHz on. Gen.B off line.
1
t 1
Fin.lZ - Same description as Fig.11. UEL and VlHz output variables.
F M - Static HIR. VR on auto. UEL on. 370 Mvar capacitor
switched on at t=.l s. Gen. A off line.
i -
1 1
/ j
/ I ?.,,
/ /
/ j
, : ; . . . . .,,. .......
................ ! ! ! . l or ...... * ....................
, I ::
".-A 1 : ~., 1
i
ETl U. 5, 1. 51
F M - Same description as fig.15. UEL is on with manufacturer
recommended setting (R=2.0,C=I 5 P.u.)
- Same description as figure 18, except VIHz is off:
1
- 7 - Same description asfig.15 except UEL is off.
F M - Same description as figure 18, except UEL and VIHz are off.
I I I I I I I I I 1
, EFU(-1,9)
0.u I 1100 %OW* Tlw,~ b W P I I . WW 10.
Fin.lS - Rotating HIR. VR on auto. UEL and VI " on. 740 Mvar
capacitor on at t=0.1 s. GenB off line.
Fin21 - Rotating conventional exciter. VR on auto.UEL and VIHz on.
740 Mvar capacitor on at t=0.1 s. GenB off line.
35
1
k
-1
I I I I 1 . 1 I I I J
'-4684 TlmC,S '.U" I.- 10.
I.",,
0.u
- Same description as f i g21 except VIHz is off.
b.u I ! .nw I *.*U I me, s I &.*e* I I A** I 10. '
Flp2j - GenA wizh rotating HIR, UEL and VIHz 0n.Gen.B with Static
HIR, UEL on. VR on auto for both generators. 1110 Mvar capacitor
on at e0. 1 s.
I.
- Same description as figure 23 except VIHz is turned off.
REFERENCES
[l ] W.G.Heffmn, R.A.Phillips,"Effect of a ModemAmplidyne Voltage
Regulator on Undemxcited Operation of Large Turbine Generators",
AIEE Transactions, V01.71,August 1952.pp.692-697,Appendix In.
[21A.S.Rubensteii, M. Temoshok, "Undemxcited Reactive Ampere Limit
for Modem Amplidyne Voltage Regulator.", AIEE Transactions PAS,
P I R.A.F'hillips,A.S.Rubenstein, "Operation of Large Synchronous
Generators in the Dynamic Stability Region with a ModemAmplydine
Voltage Regulator." Part I and II. AIEE Transactions PAS, Vol 75,
[4] I. Nagy,"Analysis of Minimum Excitation Limits of Synchronous
Machines.", I EEETransactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-89, N.6, pp.100~-1008,
July/August 1970.
[5] Applied Protective Relaying (book), Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Relay Instrument Division,Cod Springs=.
[6] S.B.Famam,RW.Swanout, "Field Excitation In Relation to Machine
and SystemOperation"
AIEE paper 53-387, AIEE Fall General MeetingSamas
City&lO,November 24,1953
[7] Benjamin C. Kuo, "Automatic Contml Systems",Pmtice-Hall hG
Englewood Cliffs"., 1967
VO1.73, pp.869-874, August 1954.
pp.762-771, August 1956.
APPENDIX - DATA
Generators A,C,E: Rated lo00 MVA.
Equipped with Rotating Brushless Exciters
T'W T"W T'QO T"QO H D XD
6.54 0.06 0.73 0.070 3.3 0.0 1.8
X'D X'Q X"D XL S(l) S(1.2)
XQ
1.75 0.44 0.57 0.29 0.22 0.08 0.459
-HIR Rotating BNSMWS
With UEL-1 Undemxcitation Limiter and V/Hz limiter.
TRTB TC KA TA VAMAX VAMIN KB
VRMAXVRMIN
100.0 -90.0
TE K L K H K F T F K C K D K E
1 .o 15.0 1.0 0.03 1.0 0.487 0.31 1.00
VLR El S(E1) E2 SG2)
9.95 3.14 0.028 4.19 0.101
0 0 0 400.0 0.05 8.0 -8.0 30.0
. .. .
-UEL-1 data:
CL RL CC K U L K F L T U L WM X V U M N
0.34 0.966 1.0 4.4 3.3 0.050 8.3 -8.3
-v/Hz data:
K1 K2 K3
1.05 82.2 0.93
-Conventional Rotating Brushless (ASA response about 2.0)
With UEL-1 Underexcitation Limiter and V/Hz limiter.
TRTB TC KA TA VAMAX VAMIN KB
VRMAXVRMIN
10.0 -9.0
0 0 0 250.0 0.050 10.0 -9.0 1 .o
TE K L K H K F T F K C K D KE
1 .o 15.0 0 0.030 1.0 0.487 0.311 1 .o
VLR El S(E1) E2 S(E2)
lo00 4.9 0.05 6.5 0.39
-uEL-1 data:
CL RL CC K U L K F L T U L W W
0.34 0.966 1.0 100.0 1.0 0.050 8.30 -8.30 _ _
-v/Hz data:
K1 K2 K3
1.05 82.2 0.93
Generators B,D.F: Rated 500 MVA
T'W T"W T'QO T"QO H D XD XQ X'D
3.70 0.060 0.46 0.060 2.85 0 1.60 1.53 0.25
X'Q X"D XL S(1) S(1.2)
0.45 0.2 0.145 0.093 0.43
36
Static HIR Excitation System(Generators B,D,F)
With UEL-STl Underexcitation Limiter.
TRVIMAX VIMINTC TB KA TA
0 0.20 -0.20 1.0 5.0 200.0 0.010
VRMAX VRMIN KC KF TF
7.0 0 0.12 0 1.Ooo
KRU KCU KF'U KIU T1 T2 T3
0.966 0.34 0.007 10.0 6.4 0.8 0.640
VKMAX VCMAX VUMAX VUMIN KI M
-UEL-ST1 Data:
4.0 4.0 0.2 -0.2 -0.012
Note: V/Hz for Static HIR systemmodifies the voltage reference set
point of the voltage regulator. The frequency setting is
adjustab1e.Manufacturer recommends setting to about 56 Hz. With this
setting the V/Hz would be inactive for all the simulations discussed and
therefore was not represented.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of Messrs.,
M.L.Crenshaw of the General Electric CO and J.D.Hudey of the
Westinghouse Corp. in supplying block diagrams and data for the
underexcitation limiters as well as reviewing some results, and Messrs.
J.W.Shaffer and R.Rey of FPL for helping in the initial debugging and
for estimulating discussions.
j. R. Ribeiro (M'73) was born in Sa0 Paulo, Brazil. He received the
B.S.E.E. degree fromNew York University, New York, in 1973 and the
M.S.E.E. degree fromUnion College, Schenectady, New York in 1974.
He has been employed by the Florida Power & Light Company since
March 1984 where he is a Principal Engineer in the SystemPlanning
Department. Previously he worked in different capacities in the area of
power systemplanning for American Electric Power Service Corp., New
York, New York (1969-1973). Power Technologies, Inc., Schenectady,
New York (1973-1977) and Niagm Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse,
New York (1977-1984).His fields of interest inciude power system
modeling for dynamic and transient analysis, as well as transmission and
generation planning.
Mr. Ribeiro has co-authored several technical papers and is amember
of Tau BetaPi and Eta Kappa Nu. He serves on IEEE working groups
on Excitation Systems and Switching Surges.
He is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York.
31
as s oci t at ed wi t h t hat f unct i on oper at es .
Thus , a MEL s houl d be s et t o coor di nat e
pr oper l y wi t h t he l oss of f i el d pr ot ect i on.
I f t he l oss of f i el d pr ot ect i on i s set based
on t he st eady st at e st abi l i t y l i mi t , t hen an
appr oapr i at e MEL set t i ng woul d al so be based
on t he st eady st at e st abi l i t y l i mi t , wi t h a
r easonabl e amount of separ at i on. I f t he MEL
set t i ng i s sel ect ed based on t he gener at or
under exci t ed capabi l i t y cur ve, i t shoul d be
checked f or pr oper coor di nat i on wi t h t he
l oss of f i el d r el ay.
Manuscr i pt r ecei ved August 10, 1990.
Discussion
F. P. de Mello, B. K. Johnson and L. N. Hannett (Power Technolo-
gies, Inc., Schenectady, New York): The discussers would like to com-
mend the author on a well written and interesting paper.
We agree that representation of the MEL may bevital when operation
in the underexcited region is simulated. We have studied a disturbance
where a loss of excitation relay is known to have tripped a critical unit
even though the steady state characteristic of the MEL suggested that the
relay would not operate. Dynamic simulation of the disturbance with the
MEL represented however indicated that the loss of excitation relay
operated on a swing in spite of the MEL. Representation for maximum
excitation limiters and volts per hertz limiters may also be vital for some
simulations. Fortunately for most simulations these limiters comeinto play
only transiently and thus do not significantly impact the results. However,
in cases of islanding as shown in the paper, they havesignificant influence
on the systems performance.
This paper shows the importance of letting a stability program user
customize dynamic models for particular simulation needs. As the author
points out commercially available stability programs do not provide repre-
sentation of minimumexcitation limiters for all types of excitation sys-
tems. There are however standard models available in the simulation
packagesupplied by the discussers company which represent both maxi-
mumand minimumexcitation limiters for several excitation systemtypes.
There is an industry need for models of minimumand maximumexcitation
limiters and it is hoped that the EEE Excitation Performance and Model-
ing WG will address this need.
The simulated interaction between the minimumexcitation limiter and
the volts per hertz limiter is quite interesting. Havesuch oscillations been
observed for actual equipment?
Finally we agree that in many situations it is preferable to have the
minimumexcitation limiter be an alarmrather than a control override
function. This is particularly the case where load rejection can occur
leaving units charging high voltage lines.
Manuscri pt recei vedAugust 10, 1990.
J OSEPH D. HURLEY ( Wes t i nghous e El ect r i c
Cor p. , Or l ando, FL) : Thi s paper pr ovi des
s ome i nt er es t i ng concept s r egar di ng t he
behavi or of mi ni mum exci t at i on l i mi t er s
( MEL s) dur i ng sever e dynami c condi t i ons. I
st r ongl y agr ee wi t h t he aut hor s concl usi on
t hat s i mul at i on s t udi es r epr esent i ng such
l i mi t er s ar e i mpor t ant when uni t dynami c
o p e r a t i o n f a l l s wi t h i n t he l i mi t e r
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T hi s pa pe r s ho ul d
encour age ot her s t o do s o when appl i cabl e.
The si mul at i ons pr esent ed i n t hi s paper
i ncl ude a ver y hi gh i mpedance t r ansmi ssi on
syst em i n var i ous abnor mal oper at i ng modes.
I n s uch cases i t i s i mpor t ant t o consi der
t he possi be adver se ef f ect s of t he MEL and
i t s s et t i ng i n r es pons e t o t hes e s ever e
condi t i ons.
Howev er , i n mos t power s ys t ems t he
t r ans mi s s i on syst em i s st r onger t han t hi s,
and as a r esul t t he MEL set t i ng i s much l ess
r est r i ct i ve t han t hat shown i n Fi gur e 3 . I n
such cas es , dynami c oper at i on wi t hi n t he MEL
char act er i st i c may not be a maj or concer n.
Does t he aut hor know of MEL appl i cat i ons on
hi s s ys t em wher e t he MEL s et t i ng i s s o
r est r i ct i ve?
One i mpor t ant benef i t t hat a MEL pr ovi des
i s t hat i t pr event s t he i nadver t ent l ower i ng
of exci t at i on ( ei t her by t he oper at or or
vol t age r egul at or mi s oper at i on) bel ow a
l evel whi ch wi l l caus e t he gener at or t o
ei t her l ose synchr oni sm or t r i p due t o l oss
of f i el d pr ot ect i on. Thi s cons i der at i on
makes t he MEL a val uabl e devi ce on mos t
l ar ge gener at or s.
I n sel ect i ng t he set t i ng of any l i mi t er ,
i t i s i mpor t ant t hat t he l i mi t er be al l owed
t o oper at e bef or e t he pr ot ect i ve t r i p devi ce
D.C. LEE, R.E. BEAULIEU, P. KUNDUR, G.J. ROGERS,
Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This paper illustrates
the difficulties which may be encountered when normal and
protective controls interact to the detriment of power system
stability. It is important to design sufficient control and protective
features to ensure that no damage is done to generating units.
However, at the same time these controls should not unnecessarily
restrict operation or adversely affect the performance of the
interconnected power system.
If an Underexcitation Limiter PEL ) is required only to respect
thermal operating limits, then a slow-acting control is all that is
required, preferably one which acts to modify the lower limit of
the voltage setpoint. The same argument applies if the UEL is
designed to prevent an operator from lowering the setpoint into an
unstable operating region when operating on manual control. The
problems with the UEL arise when attempting to apply it as a fast-
acting controller with the voltage regulator in service. A high-
speed voltage regulator, frequently with a power system stabilizer,
normally allows stable operation in the underexcited region well
beyond thermal limits. Consequently, if the limiter is adjusted to
respect thermal and manual control stability limits, it will
unnecessarily restrict operation with the voltage regulator in
service, as shown to a limited degree in this paper. Also, in many
cases if the UEL is designed to prevent the unit from going out of
step during large transients, a much more restrictive limit start
curve may berequired. In some cases that we have examined and
tested (albeit with UEL signals that were summed rather than being
gated), it would have been necessary to set the limit to start near
unity power factor at rated power in order to meet the above
conditions and have a damped response when driving hard into the
limit. Some of our field tests have clearly shown oscillations in
terminal voltage, power, etc., due to inter-actions between the
AVR and the limiter, without a V/Hz limiter to compound the
problem.
Because the UEL limits the ability of the excitation system to keep
the terminal voltage from rising excessively, the overvoltage
experienced under some emergency system conditions may cause
other system problems, some of which are mentioned in the paper.
Could the authors comment on the use of a terminal voltage limiter
set at 1.05 pu? Is it the use of the UEL that dictates the selection
of such a restrictive terminal voltage limit with the unit on line?
Does this not cause operating problems under normal operating
conditions? Are there conditions under which the voltage ratings
of unit breaker could be exceeded if the UEL were employed
without the terminal voltage limiter?
We have examined the use of these controllers several times but
have generally ended up leaving them out of service, particularly
if the excitation system incorporates a power system stabilizer.
We would agree with the author that if high-speed UELs are to be
employed, they should be modelled carefully, with their excitation
38
systems and examined in simulation studies. To the extent possible
models should bevalidated by field testing.
Manuscript recei ved August 3, 1990.
M. L. Crenshaw and M. Cardinal (GE Company, Schenectady, NY): As
observed by Mr. Ribeiro in his opening remarks, scant attention indeed
has been paid to either the steady-state settings or the dynamic perfor-
manceof the control known by many terms but generically as the under
excitation limiter (UEL); even less to the relatively newer V/Hz limiter
controls. During final commissioning at the plant, frantic activity fre-
quently occurs as settings must be selected. Occasionally control instabil-
ity has been encountered, often solved by trial and error until recent
(unpublished) analytical studies haveprovided amore scientific basis. This
paper should help spur someuseful dialogue and industry activity in this
Historically, the UEL was considered as acontrol of last resort whose
function was to prevent operator manipulation or power systemdemands
from:
area.
1. exceeding assigned general operational guidelines.
2. exceeding generator thermal limits.
3. allowing operation in a region of conditions which would result in
loss of stability if the voltage regulator were to be removed from
service.
Considerations 1 and 2 above areobviously warranted for unattended
stations and units which, due to their rating or location, can become
readily overloaded when attempting to hold voltage levels constant. In
light of the results presented in the paper, Item3 abovedeserves further
consideration. Can the author comment on the dilemma facing the plant
operator, i.e., the potential for loss of steady state stability if the automatic
voltage regulator is removed fromservice?
The author has also illustrated an often voiced concern-a power
configuration which results in excess capacitance beyond the UEL setting
of the unit. Unacceptably high voltages can occur as the control changes
fromthe normal voltage regulating mode.
Considering the multitude of types of UEL controls of different vintages
and fromvarious manufacturers, as well as difficulty in obtaining accurate
simulation data, does the author recommend extensive system studies
incorporating detailed control models? It would seemthat recognitation of
UEL operation fromP, Q or R, X plots (where UEL control is not
simulated), leading to subsequent studies and development of relaying and
switching strategies might eliminate, in most cases, the need for detailed
UEL analysis.
Both UEL and V/Hz control performance specification requirements
are suggested as appropriate working group or task force activities.
Manuscript receivedAugust 13, 1990.
J . R. Ribeiro, FPL Co., Miami, FL: I would like to thank each of the
discussers for their enlightening contributions. I will address explicit
questions fromeach discusser and end with comments of amore general
nature.
Messrs. Lee, Beaulieu, Kundur and Rogers indicated that as aresult of
their own analysis and field experience, they havecarried the concepts of
my paper to their logical conclusion-leaving the UEL out of service.
This fact certainly promotes investigation of current applications in other
systems. Concerning the use of V/Hz l i t er set at 1.05 pu., I can say that
this practice is being revised by our SystemProtection Section. It was
based in the concept that the limiter was to be set lower than the
corresponding protective tripping device. Only afew of our units are of
the type modeled by figure 1 of the paper. Theseare the ones morelikely
to enter into undesirable interaction with the AVR, but in our systemthey
also happen to beoperated very close to 1.0 puvoltage. For this reason, I
suspect, we have not experienced frequent operating problems. It is
important to notice that for the model in figure 2, even when the V/Hz is
active, it modifies the reference voltage in the automatic voltage regulator
(AVR) providing a smooth transition. On the contrary, in the model of
figure 1 the V/Hz limiter completely takes over the voltage control
function as soon as it becomes active.
Messrs. Crenshaw and Cardinal voice very important factors in the
evaluation of need for UEL. Let me attempt to answer the two explicit
questions fromthese discussers. First, removing the AVR fromservice is
an absolute last resort measure. When that isdone, operators can beread
limits on a unit P-Q capability curve and follow them. As for the second
question, I do recommend extensive systemstudies incorporating detailed
control models for the UEL. That does not mean that every systemstudy
requires the detailed control model. Recognition of the UEL operation
fromR-X plots is not sufficient because it would not reveal the generator
response to the UEL. TheR-X plots could serve as a screener for cases
requiring detailed simulation but that would require repeating some cases.
Since the major effort is in collecting the data and setting up the models,
one might as well have the models as part of the data base. The
incremental effect of adding the UEL model in the running time of a
stability simulation is negligible. Of course, at the present stage a great
deal of effort would be required to define models and collect data for the
different types of UELs in service. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with
the discussers suggestion for atask force on UEL.
Messrs. de Mello, Johnson and Hannet describe an event that supports
the need for detailed simulations. A simple R-X plot in that casewould
haveindicated UFL operation, but could lead to the erroneous conclusion
that UEL action would prevent operation of the loss of field (LOF) relay.
The question of whether we have observed the oscillations caused by
interaction of UEL with V/Hz I havepartially answered when addressing
Messrs. Leeet al., above. Id like to add that the oscillations may have
occurred with their true cause unrecognized due to the unawareness of that
potential interaction. The fact is that we have no records of oscillations
having occurred specifically caused by the referred interaction. I agree that
the ability to customize standard models in simulation programs is very
helpful when conducting the type of investigations reported in the paper.
Mr. Hurley points out somerelevant considerations in the evaluation of
the UEL. In addition, he states that in most power systems the transmis-
sion systemis stronger than the oneused in the paper and therefore the
UEL setting would be less restrictive. WhileI agree with the first part of
Mr. Hurleys statement the second part does not necessarily follows. The
reason is that the generator connection to astrong transmission systemis
not always strong. There are many systems in this country that evolved
fromlower voltage level systems and for that reason many generators are
weakly connected to the strong part of the system. In addition, the
common method for setting UEL presented by Hefion et al., [l] specifies
steady state stability calculations with voltage regulator on manual and
strongest tie out of service. Using these conditions, several of the units in
the FPL systemwould require even more restrictive limits than the one
used in the paper. Having been involved in determining underexcited
steady state stability limits for other systems I know that this is not a
problemaffecting only FPL. Of course, many engineers end up ignoring
the limits calculated with this method resulting that different companies
adopt different rules for setting the UEL. As for the UEL being effective
in preventing generator trip due to loss of field protection, let merefer to
the discussions of Messrs. de Mello et al., relating an incident wherethe
UEL failed to prevent generator trip due to LOF. This agrees with the fact
implied by Messrs. Leeet al., and also illustrated in the paper, that very
restrictive limits are required if the UEL is to prevent LOF operation
during large transients caused by excessive systemreactive capacitance.
Such limits would interfere with normal operation of the generator.
I will finalize my closure by strongly recommending that engineers
reevaluate the use of UEL in their own companies. When doing so, I
would suggest the following ideas to ponder:
1. Thermal protection of the generator does not require action during
transients therefore the UEL could activate an alarm or be very slow
acting.
2. Stability limits can be implemented by operating rules based on
simulations with the AVR in service.
3. In the event of system overvoltages caused by excess reactive
capacitance, as occurs in islanding conditions, the UEL can be effective in
preventing loss of synchronismprovided that the V/Hz limiter is of the
type shown in figure 2 of the paper. If it is of the type shown in Figure 1
the V/Hz will take over and push the field to zero causing loss of
synchronism. Even in the types where the V/Hz effect can be ignored, a
UEL setting restrictive to normal operation of the systemis required to be
effective in preventing loss of synchronism. In this case the resulting
excessive overvoltage generally leads to generator trip by the overvoltage
relays. Whileit seems preferable to trip on overvoltage protection than on
out of step protection, it is questionable whether it is economically
advisable to restrict normal operation to achieve this objective, particu-
larly given that islanding is an uncommon event.
Manuscript received November 2, 1990.