Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

COMPREHENSIVE TESTING OF LARGE INDUCTION MACHINES

FROM A NO-LOAD ACCELERATION-DECELERATION TEST


Radu BABAU,
VARSPEED Hydro Ltd., Timisoara, Romania, e-mail: rbabau@rdslink.ro
Ion Boldea,
University Politehnica of Timisoara, Romania, email: boldea@lselinux.utt.ro
T.J.E. Milller,
Glasgow University, U.K., email: t.miller@elec.gla.ac.uk
Abstract: The paper introduces an off-line deterministic
method for identification of inertia moment, mechanical
losses and electrical parameters for large induction
machines, based on Direct On Line (DOL) starting and
natural slow-down tests, performed under no-load
conditions. The static characteristic of absorbed power is
used for the validation of results. Complete experimental
results for a 6 kV, 4 poles, 7,500 kW machine are
presented. The method brings significant cost savings for
testing large induction machines.
Key words: Testing, Large induction machines, Parameter
identification, IEC Standards.

1. Introduction.
Parameter identification for large induction machines
involves heavy efforts, in terms of manpower and
equipment.
Even though the moment of inertia for large machines
is very seldom asked for, it's identification may be
required in the prototype phase, as well as for
estimating the dynamic behaviour of the machine-load
assembly.
The basic way of finding out the inertia moment is
through analytic calculation, based on the rotor
drawing and materials. Modern design rules take full
benefit of the powerful capabilities of CAD tools, and,
once the rotor is entirely defined geometrically and
material-wise, automatic calculation of the inertia
moment for the rotating parts may be easily achieved.
Among the experimental methods, the literature
reveals a grapho-analytic method based on the speed
acquisition during a no-load slow-down test, the
pendulum and the auxiliary pendulum method, the
vertical and horizontal torsional oscillations method
and the acceleration at constant torque method [1-4].

All these are characterised by various experimental


costs, covering basically the requirements to couple
the machine rotor to some other moving part. Few of
them can be applied without dismantling the rotor,
therefore they are not practical for large machines
(102-104 kW). Due to multiple reasons, J identification
error for some of the above methods is up to 30%,
which makes them unacceptable in practice.
Based on the accurate measurements brought by the
modern digital data acquisition tools, the moment of
inertia can be obtained in a different manner.
2. No-load DOL start-up analysis.
The no-load start-up is the transient process during
which the machine reaches a steady speed and
electric status. If we refer to large machines, it is a
fact that the mechanical time constant overcomes the
electric ones by the hundreds at least. For this paper,
we will use the assumption that a large machine startup is a succession of steady-state speed and electric
regimes, with all the inherent consequences.
During no-load start-up (see fig. 1), a fraction of the
energy supplied by the electric network goes to
machine losses, while the rest of it stacks as rotor
kinetic energy. The later quantity is also achievable
using:
Ec = J

2
2

(1)

where is the rotor speed [rad/sec.].


This corresponds to the power that contributes to the
rotor speed-up (hereafter called kinetic power - Pc ),
which voids after the speed reaches its steady state.
Pc =

d Ec
dt

(2)

The proposed method identifies the total energy


amount stored in rotor as kinetic energy, seeking the
inertia moment. Common data processing techniques
are invoked.

Speed
1600
1400
1200

rpm

1000

3. Identification of the inertia moment.


When segregating the machine losses, the kinetic
power can be reached, as follows:

800
600
400

Pc

Pi

200

10
sec.

15

20

P1

Phase voltage
2500

2000

1500
V

Pcu1
1000

Pcu2

Pmec

Fig. 2. Loss segregation.

500

Pfe

10
sec.

15

20

Abs. power
4500
4000

P1 = Pcu1 + Pfe + Pi

(3)

Pcu1 = 3 R1I 2

(4)

Pi = Pcu 2 + Pmec + Pc = P1 Pcu1 Pfe

(5)

Pcu2 = sPi

(6)

3500
3000

s 1

Pc = Pi sPi Pmec =

kW

2500

n
(P1 Pcu1 Pfe ) Pmec
n1

(7)

2000

s 0

1500

, where: P1 - power absorbed from the network

1000

Pcu1 , Pcu 2 - stator & rotor copper losses

500
0
-500
0

Pfe - iron losses


5

10
sec.

15

20

Pi - air-gap power

Phase current
2000

Pmec - mechanical losses

1800
1600

Pc - kinetic power

1400

1200

n, n1 - speed and synchronous speed, respectively

1000

s = (n1 n) / n1 - slip

800
600
400
200
0

10
sec.

15

20

Fig. 1. I, n, U, P versus time at no-load DOL start-up

Consequently, by integrating the kinetic power along


start-up duration, we will get the total amount of
energy which has been converted into kinetic energy:
t

E c = Pc dt

(8)

Using (1) and (8), we can calculate the inertia as:

[kgm2]

Iron, stator copper & mech. losses vs. time

(9)

Experimentally, a full set of data acquisitions (fig. 1),


consisting of U, I, P, n versus time is needed. In our
case study, this set was achieved through a common
no-load DOL start-up test, performed on a induction
motor produced by U.C.M. Resita, type TIS
1520/1120-4, 7,500 kW, 6 kV, 800 A, 1490 rpm, 50
Hz, Yo connection, R1=0.0174. The data set
covering the start-up duration consisted of 85
measuring points, at a sample rate of 5 measuring
points per second. Each measuring point considered
U A ,B ,C , I A ,B ,C , n = f ( t ) , along 50 msec "flashes", on 8
acquisition channels, at an average acquisition time of
50 sec/channel. Due to network power limitations,
we were only allowed to perform the no-load start-up
at reduced supply voltage (through a 6/10 kV step-up
trafo backwards connected). However, a peak of 4
MW instant power was absorbed at around critical
slip.
Based on the final no-load regime ( s 0 , at the end
of the starting duration, when the machine has
reached it's rated speed, see fig. 1), we have
preliminary assesed the iron losses PfeNr (at reduced
voltage) and mechanical losses PmecN :
PfeNr = 0. 25* ( P0 Pcu1 )

PmecN = 0.75* ( P0 Pcu1 )

Pfe = PfeSr + PfeRr =


D2 Di2
U 2
)* (
)
De2 D 2
U0

(11)

Pcu1

200

150

100

50

Pmec
Pfe

0
0

d Ec J d 2
d 4 2
dn
Pc =
=
= J
=
Jn
dt
2 dt
d t 3600
dt

(13)

10
12
sec.

14

16

18

Abs.power P1, Pcu2 & Pc => kinetic energy


4500
4000
3500
3000
2500

P1

2000
1500
1000

Pcu2

500

Pc
0
-500
0

10
sec.

12

14

16

18

Fig. 4. Segregation of kinetic power.

If we derive the speed numerically, we get the instant


values of J (fig. 5):
P
Pc
J = c =
(14)
2
d Ec
4
dn
n
dt
3600 d t

Pmec = ( 1 s ) * PmecN

Calculated J=Pc/(dEc/dt) vs. time


10000
8000
6000
4000
kg m2

(12)
where Di , D, De are the rotor inner, air-gap and stator
outer iron core diameters, respectively.
By integrating the kinetic power (7, fig. 4) along the
start-up time (till the machine reaches the rated
speed), we get the kinetic energy (8) stored in the
rotor during the acceleration process. The inertia can
be now calculated using expression (7,8,9), and
represents a global value.
Since we have the kinetic power, we are able to
write:

Fig. 3. Copper, iron and mechanical losses during start-up.

(10)

Moreover, the segregation of the kinetic power (7)


during the start-up uses the following assumptions:
= PfeNr * ( 1 + s *

250

P [kW]

2E c

P kW

J=

2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
0

10
sec.

12

14

16

18

Fig. 5. Instant moment of inertia.

By comparing the kinetic power calculated by (7)


with the one calculated by introducing (9) into (13),
we actually see (fig. 6) the difference between the J
values obtained by (15) and (9):

If we know how speed is decaying while slowingdown (fig. 7), we will be able to compute the
mechanical losses at any speed below the rated one
(fig. 8,9).
Natural slow-down at no-load
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

rpm

The final J can be calculated as an average value on


a precise interval, disconsidering the pendulation
phenomenon occured:
1 N ( n=nnom)
J=
Ji
(15)
N 1(n= 0)

800

dEc/dt=4*pi*pi/3600*J*n*dn/dt (-) & Pc (- -) vs. time


600

5000

400

4000
200
0

3000

500

1000

1500

P kW

sec.

Fig. 7. Natural slow-down at no load.

2000

1000

dEc/dt=4*pi*pi/3600*J*n*dn/dt=Pmec(t)
100

90
80

-1000
0

10
sec.

12

14

16

18

70
60

The comparison shows an average square relative


error of 0.45%.

50

kW

Fig. 6. Comparison of methods.

40
30
20

dt

dt

3600

dt

10
0
0

500

1000

1500

sec

Fig. 8. Mechanical losses versus time.

The 7,500 kW machine was launched, under natural


slow-down conditions, from 1,800 rpm (60 Hz
supply). Numeric derivation is used in order to
calculate the speed derivative component.
We can draw the mechanical losses versus speed
curve (fig. 9), and use regression methods in order to
obtain a polynomial expression for Pmec = f ( n ) .
100
90
80
70
Pmec kW

4. Identification of mechanical losses.


The rated value of the mechanical losses can be
determined using the no-load test (fig. 3). If we come
to how the mechanical losses depend on speed, the
only available method implies repeating the no-load
test at various supply frequencies (speeds), which is
time consuming and error-wise unreliable.
Our proposal uses the natural slow-down at no-load.
We would like to point out that, traditionally, the
natural slow-down test at no-load was used in order
to determine the moment of inertia. By comparation,
the proposed method uses the natural slow-down test
at no-load in order to determine the variation of
mechanical losses with speed Pmec = f (n ) , taking the
J moment of inertia as already known.
During the slow-down process, the kinetic energy
already built in the rotor is gradually dissipating,
mainly into mechanical losses. Since the machine is
disconnected from the network, the only electric
losses are those in the rotor copper and stator core
during the rotor flux decaying, assumed to be
quantitatively unsignificant. We can therefore write:
d Ec
d
2
4 2
dn
(16)
=
(J
)=
Jn
= Pmec ( t )

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000
rpm

1200 1400 1600

1800

Fig. 9. Mechanical losses versus speed.


4

5. Combined cyclic algorithm.


During any DOL no-load test, the start-up and natural
slow-down test are inherently performed. Therefore,
these two tests can be combined into a single one,
aiming the experimental determination of the moment
of inertia and mechanical losses versus speed.
As we already saw, if we talk about no-load start-up
and inertia determination, we have initially assumed a
liniar variation of mechanical losses versus speed
(11). This assumption means that the J value obtained
by (9) or (15) already contains built-in errors. On the
other hand, the analysis of the no-load slow-down test
takes the inertia J as input data, and calculates the
variation Pmec = f ( n ) , which can act as refined input
data for the start-up calculation procedure.
No-load start-up
Preliminary data:
P, U, I, n = f(t)
Pfe,Pmec - (eq. 10-12)
Input:
Pmec=f(n)

No-load slow-down
Preliminary data:
n=f(t)

Input:
J

Since the calculation involves energetic type


variables, J and Pmec = f ( n ) acts as stable attractors
within this cycle, which has a high stability. Even if
the initial PmecN is taken totally wrong, the final
variation of J and Pmec = f ( n ) will be reached in
max. 10-20 cycles (fig. 11-12).
64.8
64.6
64.4
64.2
kW

For this machine, the best fit was reached using the
following polynomial:
Pmec = n2.4 [W],
= 0.001533
(17)

64
63.8
63.6
63.4
63.2
63
1

5
6
Iteration index

Fig. 12. PmecN versus iteration index.

6. Why the classical no-load test anymore ?


Since we have now the Pmec = f ( n ) variation, we
can point out precisely the mechanical losses PmecN at
rated speed, and, consequently, based on the regime
that concludes the start-up test ( s 0 ), the iron losses
PfeN at rated voltage:
PfeNr = P0 3 R1 I 02 PmecN

Output:
J

Output:
Pmec=f(n)

U
PfeN = PfeNr N
U0

Fig. 10. Cyclic diagram.

These observations allows us to define a iterative


cycle which will aim to reach stabilised values for J
and Pmec = f (n ) with improving accuracy (fig. 10).
940

kgm2

935

930

925

920

915
1

5
6
Iteration index

Fig. 11. J moment versus iteration index.

(18)

Compared to the results obtained from a classic noload test performed separately (fig. 13), the
mechanical losses identified by the proposed method
seems to be significantly lower (tab. 1), a trend which
was noticed at all the machines tested (several
thousands kW each). We can only presume that this
difference comes from the errors induced by the fact
that the classical no-load test extracts the mechanical
losses using a polynomial regression based on data
achieved in a voltage range of (0.3-1.1)xUn, and
gives numerical results no more valid at very low
voltage. Moreover, the no-load slow-down test
involves lack of voltage and currents in the machine,
thus making the determination of mechanical losses
apparently more accurate then from the clasical noload test, where supplemental stray-load losses are
present in the machine, but incorporated partly in the
mechanical losses, partly in the iron losses.

Part of this energy heats the rotor copper, and the


rest of it stacks in the rotor, as kinetic energy.

No load characteristic P1-Pcu1=f(Uo)

180
160

120
P1-Pcu1 [kW]

Ei = 0Pi dt = Pcu2 dt + Pc dt = E cu2 + Ec

140

Considering the entire duration of the start-up, the


literature shows that these two energetic quantities
are equal. We can therefore write:

Pfe

100
80
60

Ei = 2Ec = J 2

Pmec

40

2
U
Ei
1 t
2

J = 2 = 2 P1 3 R1 I PfeN
dt

0
Un

20
0
0

2000

4000
Uo

[V]

6000

8000

Fig. 13. No-load characteristic.

PmecN
[kW]
60
78.6

(23)

M=f(t)
30

PfeN
[kW]

25
20
15
kNm

J[kgm2
]
Design stage
850
No-load test (fig.
13)
Natural slow-down
780
(graphic method)
Proposed method
938

(22)

44.6

10
5

64.6

65.9

-5
0

10
sec.

Table 1. Final results of the cyclic algorithm.

15

20

Fig. 14. Static torque characteristic.

Here we come to the fact that the presented method


allows us to reach the rated iron and mechanical
losses (even in slightly changed ratio), usually
obtained through the standard no-load test. We will
need the same no-load start-up and slow-down, and
this is much cheaper and available compared to the
variable voltage power source needed for the
standard no-load test.

If we invoke the finite elements kinematic equation:


2 n
M=
J
(24)
60 t
, we will be able to calculate the speed derivative
elements, which will finally give the speed evolution in
time n=f(t):

7. Getting rid of the speed sensor !


Let's simply assume that the speed information is
lacking, but we still have U , I , P = f ( t ) along the
start-up duration. We can write:
2f
p

p
p
Pi =
2f
2f

P 3R I 2 P U
1
1
feN

U n

60Mt
2 J

(25)
n=f(t)

1400
1200
1000

(20)

Ei = Pi dt

1600

(19)

where the iron losses Pfe can be calculated using


(10,11).
We can thus calculate the electromagnetic torque M
developed by the machine during start-up, and
simultaneously, the energy which crosses the air-gap:
M =

800
rpm

Pi = P1 Pcu 1 Pfe = M 1 = M

ni = n =

(21)

600
400
200
0
-200
0

10

12

14

16

18

sec.

Fig. 15. Real


and calculated
1 N
2
(nreal ncalc )
N i =1
n = 100
= 3. 62[%]
1 N
n real

N i =1

speed.

(26)

Finally, as described in the above procedure, it is


actually possible to "restore" the speed information
only from the electric and time data, with no speed
sensor. This fact is very usefull for testing large
machines with vertical shaft.
8. Identification of the electric parameters
We will remind the assumption that the starting of a
large machine is a succession of steady-state
mechanical and electric regimes.
Using the data set U , I , P , n = f ( t ) acquired from the
no-load DOL start-up test (fig. 1), we will invoke the
standard single cage with variable rotor parameters
equivalent electric layout of the machine:
R1

X1

X2

a tan(
jX 1 I 1
U1

R1
)
X1

R 1 I1
1

jX '2 I '2

I1
U e1

R '2 '
I2
s

I '2

I 01

Fig. 17. Phasor diagram for the IM

Since we have already achieved or calculated (i.e.


the electromagnetic torque by segregating the stator
losses) the relevant numerical data, we are now able
to reach the variation of the rotor parameters vs.
rotor slip (fig.18).

R2/s

Xm

R2' =

Fig. 16. The equivalent electric layout for the IM

U R'
X 2' = e' 1 2
I2 s

(29)
R2prim=f(s)

0.16
0.14
0.12
ohm

Further more, we assume that Rm = 0 , and


R1 , X 1 , Xm = ct. all along the starting duration. The
stator
resistance
was
measured
directly
R1 = 0. 0174 .
The main reactances are to be determined using the
short-circuit ( s 1 ) and the no-load ( s 0 ) regimes
(see fig. 1). By assuming that Z 1 Z 2' , thus Z k 2Z 1 ,
we come to:

M 1 s
pm1 I '22

0.1
0.08
0.06

Z
Z
I
c1 = 1 + 1 1 + k 1 + 0
Zm
2Zm
2 Ik

0.04
0.02

U
P
X 0 = X 1 + Xm = 02
(27)
I 0 3I 0
X
c1 1
Xm = 0 = 29.085 and X 1 =
X 0 = 0.628
c1
c1

0
0

I 01 =

U e1
Xm

I
sin = 1
U e1

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.3
0.25

0.2
ohm

U e21= U 12 + I12 R12 + X 12 2U 1 I 1

0.2

X2prim=f(s)

In order to identify the rotor parameters, we will use


the standard phasor motor diagram, as in fig. 17.

R
R12 + X 12 cos 1 a tan 1
X1
2

0.1

0.15

0.1
0.05

R
R12 + X 12 sin 1 a tan 1
X1
2

2
I 2' 2 = I 01
+ I 12 2I 01 I 1 cos 1 +
2

(28)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 18. R2', X2'=f(s)

The significant variation of the rotor parameters


confirms the deep bar rotor construction
( b / h = 1 / 10 ). However, this parameter variation
incorporates the errors brought by the simplifying
hypothesis previously assumed: neglecting the
saturation and the iron losses.
How perfect does this newly "identified" machine
matches the real one ?
The availability of the electric equivalent parameters
allows us to calculate M , I , cos , P = f ( s ) , while
applying the measured voltage U = f ( s ) , thus
simulating the behaviour of this ideal machine during
start-up. The comparison between the calculated and
measured data used a average error defined as:
Y = 100

1
n

(Y
n

Y calc

)2

1
n

[% ]

x 104

Instead of using several data sets R2',X2'=f(s),


especially for simulation purposes, it is sometimes
more suitable to work with rotor models consisting of
multiple elementary rotor cages with constant
parameters vs. slip (fig. 20).

(30)

R21/s

R22/s

R2N/s

jX21

jX22

jX2N

Fig. 20. Equivalent circuits for the rotor cages.

The error between the virtual and the real machines,


indicates a very good match (fig. 19, tabel 2).
We point out that the mentioned procedures are of a
deterministic type, not involving any regression
techniques or so.
3

9. Rotor circuit decomposition.

M, M_calc=f(s)

Invoking these models (eq. 22), and using the already


known parameter variations vs. slip (see fig. 19), we
aim to identify the resistances and reactances for
each cage, so we could finally get a good match
between the model and the real machine.
N =2

2.5

'
R2e
=

X 2' e =

1.5

R '2e , X 2' e = ct .( s )

N =1

(X
(X

'2 '
21R 22

(X
(

N =3
0.5

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

I1, I1calc=f(s)

2000

'

'

'

'2 2
'2 '
'
'2
+ X '21X 22
s + R21
X 22 + X 21
R22

' 2 2
X 22
s
2

'
'
+ R21
+ R22

as + bs + c
ds 4 + es 2 + f
gs 4 + hs 2 + k
ds 4 + es 2 + f

(31)

where a , b, c , d , e , f , g , h, k are constants:

1800

'
a = R21
X '222 X '232 + R'22 X '212 X '232 + R'23 X '212 X '222

1600

'2 '2
'
b = R'21 R '222 X '232 + R'21 X 22
R 23 + R'22 R '212 X '232 + R22
X '212 R '232 +

1400

'2 '2
+ R '23 R '212 X '222 + R '23 X 21
R22

1200

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
c = R21
R22
R23
R21
R22
+ R21
R23
+ R22
R23

1000

'
d = X '21 X 22
+ X '21 X '23 + X '22 X '23

800

600

'
'2
e = X R +2X R R + X R +2X22
X '21R'223 + X '221R23
+

400

'2
+ R'221X '222 + 2X'222R'21R'23 + R22
X '223 +2X'23R'221X '22 +R'221X '223 +

'2 '2
22 23

200
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fig. 19. Comparison between the virtual and real


machine.
calculated
measured

R2' e =

2 2

+ X 22 s + R21 + R22

'
X 21
+
4

X '2e =

'
21

'2 '
21 X 22

2
'2 '
'
'2
+ R '21 X '2
22 s + R21 R22 + R21 R22

'2 '
'
21 22 23

'2 '2
21 22

'
+ 2X'223R'21R22
+2X'23R'222X '21

'
f = R'21 R'22 + R'21R23
+ R'22 R'23

(32)

'
'
g = X '21 X 22
X '23 X '21 X '22 + X '21 X '23 + X 22
X '23

h=R X X

+X X R +

'2
'
22
21
'
'2
23 21

+X X R +R X X

'2
23
'2
22

'
21
'
23

+X R X

'2 '2
22 23
'2 '2
21 22

'2
21

'
22

'2
23

'
22

'2
21

'2
23

+X X R

'
k = X R R + R'212 X '22 R'232 + X 23
R'212 R'222
'
'2
21 22

'2
23

Based on these known type models, by using a


standard Levenberg-Marquandt regression tool, we
have assessed these constant parameters, for each
model.
In order to find out the relevant R '2 , X '2
1 ,2 ,3

0.16
0.15

R2prim
0.1
R2_prim_1
R2prim_calc_2
R2prim_calc
e, v
0.05

0
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.7
0.6
X2prim
X2_prim_1

0.4

X2prim_calc_2
X2prim_calc
e, v

0.2

0
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
s

R21/s

0.8
1

Fig. 21. Comparing the identified parameters R2prim,


X2prim=f(s) (fig. 19) and the equivalent values for
multiple cage models: N=1 (R2_prim_1,X2_prim_1),
N=2 (R2prim_calc_2, X2prim_calc_2) and N=3
(R2prim_calce,v,X2prim_calce,v)

The presented method shows reasonable results, both


for 2 and 3 cage models. The errors listed in table 1
can be explained by the fact that the considered
simplified models have disregarded the influence of
the mutual reactances between the cages (fig. 22),
thus influencing the accuracy of the results.
Regarding the rotor reactance, the errors are strongly

R21/s

X21
X21

R22/s

R22/s
X22

X22
X23 R23/s

1 ,2 ,3

parameters, we have then succeeded in solving the


equivalent non-linear equation systems. A certain
number of refining criteria were used along the
numerical process. The results are presented in
graphical and numerical format (fig. 21 & table 2).

affected by the fact that we went with the slip as low


as the critical slip, where the procedure proves its
limitations.

R23/s
X23

Fig. 22. Realistic equivalent circuit for the rotor cages.

These influences mostly affect the reactance of the


upper cage, which apparently has only a
mathematical meaning, especially for the model
with 3 cages. However, the model presented in fig.
22 cannot be used due to mathematical complications
introduced.
Finally, as a conclusion after performing similar tests
for machines rated at 1000, 2200, 2800, 3200 kW, for
most practical applications in the large machines area,
the use of the 2-cage model is more appropriate for
simulation purposes.
All the introduced procedures have been implemented
on MathCAD & MatLab support, as universal tools
nowadays available in the hand of any testing
engineer. Moreover, since computer data acquisition
measuring sets are a common today, the practicality
of the introduced method is obvious.
9. Renewal of the existing testing standards
Based on a common, single probe (no-load DOL
start-up & slow-down test), the method presented
hereby allows the assesment of:
- inertia moment;
- mechanical losses vs. speed and rated
mechanical losses;
- rated iron losses;
- static torque characteristic;
- the complete set of equivalent electric
parameters,
The test can be performed at rated voltage, using the
available supply network. No other variable
frequency and/or voltage sources are necessary. It
can replace:
- the standard no-load characteristic;
- the no-load test at different frequencies;
9

short-circuit at rated current (reduced voltage)


and frequency
- short-circuit at rated current and low frequency
(5-10 Hz);
- various load tests aiming the torque
characteristic;
- various separate tests aiming determination of the
electric parameters;
- identification of potentially hazardous malfunction
risks (broken rotor bar) from routine tests only.
These are the main reasons which makes us to
propose this test to be implemented within the usual
routine test. It is proposed to be a independent &
unitary test, and will allow the producer or the enduser of any medium to large machine to find out a
complete set of data about the tested machine.
The saving of the testing costs will be important. The
entire start-up and slow-down test for the 7,500 kW
machine mentioned above lasted 26 minutes, during
which the machine absorbed from the network (and
then dissipated in heat) a total amount of energy of 12
kWh. The computer processing can take minutes,
depending on the requested results complexity and
available hardware & software tools. The tested
machine was not coupled.
10. Conclusions
The presented combined method maximises the utility
of start-up and slow-down tests, which are currently
performed, but very seldom comprehensively
analysed. The turning point of this proposal is actually
the inovation in identification of the inertia moment,
which reveals a entire new set of possibilities towards
different testing purposes. The stability of the
presented cyclic processing technique insures reliable
results, in accordance with experimental facts.
R1 =0.0174
X 1 =0.6287
Xm =29.085
1 cage, variable parameters
1 cage, constant parameters
2 cages, constant parameters

8. Acknowledgements.
We address our gratitude to Mr. Gh. Liuba, Ph.D.,
UCM Resita, for the support during tests.
9. References .
1. Babau, R.: Contributions to the identification of the
inertia moment, mechanical losses and electrical
parameters in testing large induction machines, Ph.D.
thesis, University Politehnica Timisoara, 2001
2. Boldea, I., Nasar, S.A.: Induction Machine Handbook,
CRCR Press, Florida, 2001
3. IEEE Standard 112-1991: Test procedures for
Polyphased Induction Motors and Generators
4. Grantham, C., McKinnon, D.J.: A novel method for load
testing and efficiency measurement of three-phase
induction machines, record of IEEE-ICMDC-2003, vol. 2, p.
769-775
5. Dymond, D.H.: Locked-rotor and acceleration testing
of large indusction machines - methods, problems and
interpretation of the results, IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, July/August 2000, p.
958-964
6. Eigenmann, M.: A new parameter identification
method for induction machines, In: ICEM 1998, p. 408-416.
7. Gastli, A.: Identification of induction motor equivalent
circuit parameters using the single-phase test, IEEE Trans.
on Energy Conversion, vol. 14, no. 1, March 1999, p. 51-56
8. Macek-Kaminska, K.: Estimation of induction motor
parameters. El. Machines & Power Systems, 23:329-344,
1995.
X'
M
I
cos
P

R'2

R'

X '2

fig. 15
0.0894

30.9
6.5

fig. 15
0.1729

416
31.1

0.06
31.47
5.78

0.02
10.99
1.56

0.15
35.26
10.95

0.05
28.6
5.27

26.9

15.72

2.83

13.09

14.4

R'21 =0.257

R'22 =0.052
3 cages, constant parameters

A full electric parameter identification methodology


for medium and large machines is developed, based
on the no-load start-up and slow-down test. Testing
stand engineers could have this as basic software tool
for common testing of induction motors.However,
supplemental experimental tests on different medium
to large machines would be necessary to offer a
statistical ground to the present proposal.

R'21 =1.22

X '21 =0.079

X '22 =0.327
10.57

X '21 =6.1

R'22 =0.173

X '22 =0.105

R'23 =0.032

X '23 =0.522

Tab. 2. Comparative results for multiple cage electric parameter models.

10