0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

35 просмотров10 страницThis paper introduces an offline deterministic method for identification of inertia moment, mechanical losses, and electrical parameters for large induction machines, based on direct-on-line starting and natural slowdown 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 four-pole 7500-kW machine are presented. The method brings significant cost savings for testing large induction machines.

Feb 21, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

This paper introduces an offline deterministic method for identification of inertia moment, mechanical losses, and electrical parameters for large induction machines, based on direct-on-line starting and natural slowdown 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 four-pole 7500-kW machine are presented. The method brings significant cost savings for testing large induction machines.

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

35 просмотров10 страницThis paper introduces an offline deterministic method for identification of inertia moment, mechanical losses, and electrical parameters for large induction machines, based on direct-on-line starting and natural slowdown 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 four-pole 7500-kW machine are presented. The method brings significant cost savings for testing large induction machines.

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

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].

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)

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)

amount stored in rotor as kinetic energy, seeking the

inertia moment. Common data processing techniques

are invoked.

Speed

1600

1400

1200

rpm

1000

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

500

Pfe

10

sec.

15

20

Abs. power

4500

4000

P1 = Pcu1 + Pfe + Pi

(3)

Pcu1 = 3 R1I 2

(4)

(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

1000

500

0

-500

0

5

10

sec.

15

20

Pi - air-gap power

Phase current

2000

1800

1600

Pc - kinetic power

1400

1200

1000

s = (n1 n) / n1 - slip

800

600

400

200

0

10

sec.

15

20

start-up duration, we will get the total amount of

energy which has been converted into kinetic energy:

t

E c = Pc dt

(8)

[kgm2]

(9)

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 )

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

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

P1

2000

1500

1000

Pcu2

500

Pc

0

-500

0

10

sec.

12

14

16

18

values of J (fig. 5):

P

Pc

J = c =

(14)

2

d Ec

4

dn

n

dt

3600 d t

Pmec = ( 1 s ) * PmecN

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:

(10)

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

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

a precise interval, disconsidering the pendulation

phenomenon occured:

1 N ( n=nnom)

J=

Ji

(15)

N 1(n= 0)

800

600

5000

400

4000

200

0

3000

500

1000

1500

P kW

sec.

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

error of 0.45%.

50

kW

40

30

20

dt

dt

3600

dt

10

0

0

500

1000

1500

sec

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

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

1800

4

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

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

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

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

(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.

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

180

160

120

P1-Pcu1 [kW]

140

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

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.

15

20

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.

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):

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)

(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.

and calculated

1 N

2

(nreal ncalc )

N i =1

n = 100

= 3. 62[%]

1 N

n real

N i =1

speed.

(26)

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

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' =

U R'

X 2' = e' 1 2

I2 s

(29)

R2prim=f(s)

0.16

0.14

0.12

ohm

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

0.2

X2prim=f(s)

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

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

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

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

M, M_calc=f(s)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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).

as the critical slip, where the procedure proves its

limitations.

R23/s

X23

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

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

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

10

## 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.