740

IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 5, No.4, December 1990

A THREE TRANSFER FUNCTIONSn APPROACH FOR THE STANDSTILL FREQUENCY RESPONSE TEST OF SYNCHRONOUS MACHINES
Y. Jin A. M. El-Serafi, Senior Member Power Systems Research Group Department of Electrical Engineering University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

network theory is employed for the explanation of the One of the factors which affect the accuracy of the three-function approach. The verification of the approach is obtained through simulations and an application to an determination of synchronous machine parameters from the SSFR test on a 3 KVA laboratory microalternator. Standstill Frequency Response (SSFR) tests is the number of transfer functions involved in the d-axis model fitting. D-Axis Synchronous Machine Models This paper proposes to use three transfer functions instead of the commonly used two transfer functions for the The d-axis synchronous machine model can be fitting. Simulation studies and experimental investigations expressed by two operational equations 171: on a 3KVA microalternator have indicated that this Lthree u d ( s ) = -Zd(s)id(s) woLq(s)iq(s) sG(s)uf(s) transfer functions approach 1 1 1 can enhance the accuracy of the synchronous machine parameter determination from if(s)= s G ( 8 ) i d ( s ) L~ (8) Zf0(4f the SSFR test. where s is the Laplace operator, Zd(s) the d-axis KEYWORDS operational impedance, G ( s ) the field-tearmature transfer Synchronous machine parameters, standstill frequency function, Zf0(s) the field operational impedance, and Lq(u) response test, model fitting using two and three transfer the q-axis operational inductance. The quantities u d ( u ) , functions approaches. uf(s), id(8), i q ( s ) and i f ( s ) are the voltages and currents of the d-axis equivalent circuit. Introduction Generally, Zd(s), G ( s ) and Zfo(s) of Eqs. 1 and 2 are In recent years, the Standstill Frequency Response called transfer functions. They are all functions of complex (SSFR) test [2-5] has been accepted as a powerful tool for frequency s, resistances Rs and inductances Ls. The the determination of synchronous machine parameters, expressions of these functions are model dependent. If particularly those of the improved synchronous machine these functions are measured through frequency response models [2] in which unequal mutual inductances and more tests, all of the synchronous machine parameters (Rs and damping effect are included. However, the existing Ls) can be determined. techniques of the SSFR test still have a number of At standstill ( w o = O ) , Eq. 1 becomes: shortcomings IS] which affect the accuracy of the test measurement and the derived machine parameters. In this u ~ ( s= ) -Zd(s)id(s) s G ( u ) u ~ ( s ) (3) respect, the number of transfer functions involved in the dEquations 2 and 3 can be written in matrix notation as: axis model fitting has a nonnegligible effect. In the initial stage of the development of the SSFR test, only one d-axis transfer function ( L d ( s ) ) was measured and used in the fitting. Later, the field-tearmature transfer function ( G ( u ) ) was introduced into the fitting. The use of the two functions ( L d ( u ) and G ( s ) ) has really improved the rotor representation of the derived models. so it has been recommended in the IEEE standard (IEEE Std 115A) [2]. (5) However, the adequacy of this two-function approach is still in question 151. This paper suggests to use three transfer functions in the d-axis model determination instead of the two transfer which includes only three independent matrix elements: functions. It is expected that such a three transfer Zd(s),sG(8) and l/Zfo(s). All are functions of frequency. functions approach would provide better results than the It is obvious that the synchronous machine d-axis two transfer functions approach. In this paper, the operational equation (Eq. 4) is a typical two-port network equation. According to the network theory 181, a passive two-port network can be uniquely characterized by and only by three independent functions in the characteristic matrix. This means that three functions are essential to 89 S M 755-0 EC A paper recommended and approved characterize the d-axis two-port network of synchronous by the IEEE Rotating Machinery Committee of the IEEE machines. This situation is similar to the case of the Power Engineering Society f o r presentation a t the IEEEj transmission line network with a characteristic matrix PES 1989 Summer Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 9 - 14, 1989. Manuscript submitted January 25, 1989; in which three of the four elements are independent.

ABSTRACT

0)

made available f o r printing June 7 , 1989.

;1 il,

0885-8%9/90/1200-0740$01.00 0 1990 IEEE

741

Because of the independence of the three functions, the third one can not be derived from or expressed by the other two. Thus, it is doubted that the model fitting using only two functions could correctly determine all machine parameters. In other words, the machine parameters derived from two functions could not adequately represent the property of the third independent function and, thus, could not adequately represent the whole properties of the characteristic matrix of the network. Therefore, it is logical to consider the use of three transfer functions in the d-axis machine model determination. All of the three transfer functions in the matrix of Eq. 4 can be defined and determined by the external measurement of the network. The operational impedance z d ( 8 ) is defined [2] by
ud(8) zd(8) = -7 Iv =O ad(8) f

Thus, Eq. 4 can be modified into a new form as

which contains again three transfer functions z d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L a f o ( u ) in its characteristic matrix. It is obvious that the machine model can be fully and uniquely determined if these three transfer functions are measured and used for the model fitting.

(6)

which is the ratio of the Laplace transform of the d-axis voltage to the Laplace transform of the d-axis current when all rotor windings are short-circuited. The other transfer functions can be similarly defined.
if(4
8G(8)=-lu
U

*d

;==+rLad

add(8) f

--o

(7)
(8)

I t
0

Lkd

I
I

I
I

Z f o M =l i =o If(#) d

f(4

F i g u r e 1:

Equivalent Circuit of Model-D7

To determine the parameters of a tested synchronous machine, these transfer functions are measured by an SSFR test and used in the model fitting (or often called curve fitting). In the standard procedure of the SSFR test [Z],two functions ( Z d ( s ) and s G ( s ) ) are measured and involved in the model fitting. In practice, the measurements of Z d ( s ) are used to obtain the values of the operational inductance L d ( s ) , and then, Ld(8) is used in the fitting. In contrast to this approach, a &threetransfer functions approach is suggested in this paper.

Physical explanation of the function Z ,

The function Zafo(u) for any of the d-axis equivalent circuits is the armature-to-field transfer impedance when the field winding is open-circuited. For example, the function Z O f o ( 8 ) for Model-D7 (a d-axis model with 7 parameters) of Fig. 1 is given by

The Third Function

In considering the involvement of a third function in the model fitting, a straightforward choice is to use the field operational impedance Z f o ( s ) , which is identified by Eq. 8. However, another function, the armature-to-field transfer inductance L a f o ( s ) , is selected in this paper as the third function for the d-axis model fitting. This function is related to the measurable armature-to-field transfer impedance Z a f o ( s ) . The measurements of Z a f o ( 8 ) can be obtained easily from an SSFR test with the field winding open-circuited, which requires a few changes from the setup of the SSFR test with the field winding short-circuited. The armature-to-field impedance Za,,,(8) has been defined in the IEEE Std 115A [2] as
Vf(4

where Lad is the d-axis magnetizing inductance, Rkd and Lkd are the resistance and inductance of the d-axis equivalent damper circuit, and Lkf is the rotor local mutual inductance*. All of the quantities are in per-unit. The function Zafo(s) is exactly the transfer impedance of the network included in the dashed box of Fig. 1. It is obvious that the function Z a f o ( s ) is only related to the remaining part of the d-axis equivalent circuit when excluding the armature branch (L,) and the field branch ( R f and L f ) . In other words, the function zafo(8) depends only on the mutual inductance Lad, the damper branch parameters Rkd and Lkd, and the rotor local mutual inductance L k f This implies that the inclusion of Z a f o ( s ) in the d-axis model fitting would help the identification of the parameters within the dashed box of Fig. 1, particularly the damper branch parameters. Therefore, utilizing the third function L,+,(s) together with Ld(8) and G(B) i n the d-axis model fitting would improve the overall solution of the fitting. In the classical synchronous machine theory, the rotor local mutual inductance L k f is omitted in the d-axis

z of0 ( 8 ) = - - l a i d(8)

f-0

(9)

The data of L a f o ( s ) can be easily derived from the measurements of Z , f o ( s ) by the equation:

The selection of L p f o ( 8 ) as the third function can be *In this paper, the parameter Lk, is simply referred to as a validated, since there is an analytic relationship between rotor local mutual inductance since it is related only with the L a f o ( 8 ) and l/Zfo(s). As shown in Appendix A, the local flux linkage between rotor circuits (the damper and the function 1/Zfo(8) can be replaced by - G ( u ) / L a f o ( 8 ) . field). This name describes the physical situation more clearly.

142

model. Equation 12 can then be rewritten following form:

into the

which is identical to the equivalent impedance of the two parallel branches Lad and Zkd=Rkd+8Lkd Of Fig. 1 if Lkf is deleted. The above discussion can also be extended to the models with more parameters, e.g. 10-parameter model. The transfer inductance L.f0(8) would be still related to the remaining part of circuits when excluding the armature and field branches, i.e. related mainly to the damper circuits. The expression of La f0(.9) becomes, however, more complicated than Eq. 12.

noise n2 has a standard deviation of 0.007, which is equivalent to a deviation of 0.4 degree. Such added noises make the simulation closer to a real test. These generated data are treated as measurementsn in the simulations. In the following discussion, the noise with the above deviations is called Noise-1

2. Simulation results

Simulations
To examine the effect of the number of transfer functions used in the d-axis model fitting and to verify the three-function approach, a number of simulations have been carried out. In the following discussion, only the simulations for the d-axis 7-parameter model (Model-D7 of Fig. 1) are presented. The three-function and two-function approaches, as well as the one-function approach, are compared.
1. Simulation data generation

The model fitting program with the Marquardt algorithm [l,lO] has been applied to identify the parameters of Model-D7 by fitting to the simulation data (as measurements with Noiee-l) of three cases: (1) one set of data, Ld(8) only; (2) two sets of data, Ld(8) and G ( 8 ) ; and (3) three sets of data, L d ( 8 ) , G(8) and Laf0(8). The initial settings of the parameters are calculated [l,lO] by using inputted values of L,/L,d from 0.06 to 0.15. This program applies an iteration process to yield the find estimates. The estimated parameters are listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4, corresponding to these three cases of fitting approaches. In order to obtain an intuitive idea of the model fitting, the simulated data with Noise1 (as measurements) are drawn in Figs. 2 and 3, with symbols + for their magnitudes and A for their phase angles. The estimated parameters listed in Tables 2 to 4 are used to produce corresponding frequency response characteristic curves, that are drawn in these figures as well. Based on these results, the following analyses and conclusions can be drawn: (1) One-function approach: The fitting in this case, where only Ld(8) is involved, can not determine the As shown in Table 2, model parameters correctly. different initial settings of &,/Lad result in different sets of parameters, neither of which is close to the Monticello model parameters of Table 1. Even using the exact Monticello parameters as the initial setting (Setting (A)) for the fitting program still can not result in an accurate estimated model. This indicates obviously that onefunction approach is inadequate in the model determination of synchronous machines. All of the models determined by this approach do not represent the frequency response characteristics of the twoport d-axis network of the Monticello generator. Figure 2 displays the frequency response characteristics of the estimated model listed in the second column of Tabh 2. This model is obtained from initial setting (A). Although

The simulated model parameters, which are obtained by an SSFR test conducted by Ontario Hydro [4] on a Monticello turbogenerator, are listed in Table 1. In the simulation, these parameters are used to compute the data of the frequency response characteristics of the three transfer functions L d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L a f o ( 8 ) . The expressions of these three transfer functions for Model-D7

Table 1:

Parameters of the Monticello Maehine

I Parameters I
Rf
Rkd

Values (pu) 0.000811 0.00727 0.2090 1.6910 0.0171 0.0051 0.1258

Ll
Lad

Lf
Lkd

kf

are given in Appendix B. Each function has 61 data points with frequencies from 1 mHz to 1 KHz. Random noises are added to these produced simulation data in a way that is expressed by the following equations.

Table 2:

Model Parameters by Fitting Model-D7 to the Simulated Data of Ld(8) With Noise-l (Initial Settings: (A) exact parameters of Table 1; (B) Ll/Lad=o.07-o.15, L k F 0 . 1 2 )

IT(8i)l* = IY8i)I*(1+ nli)

(14) (15)

where IT(a)I* and lT(8)I are the magnitudes of the transfer functions with and without noise respectively; B* and B are the phase angles with and without noise respectively; nl and nZ are random noises produced by a GAUSS subroutine of the Scientific Subroutine Package (SSP) (91. The noise ral added to Ld(8), G ( 8 ) and L a f o ( 8 ) has a standard deviation of 0.015, 0.025 and 0.015 respectively. In fact, noise nl appears as a relative error. The random

Rf
Rkd

Ll
Lad

-Lf
Lkd

LY

L1
Setting (B)

Ll/L,d = 0.15
0.0011103 0.0019198 0.2375254 1.6755010 0.0167364 -0.0003679 0.1014148

0.0008161 0.0067738 0.208 1299 1.7048966 0.0216999 0.0192925 0.1243133

0.0013177 0.0017832 0.1740746 1,7389518 0.0183916 -0.0016422 0.1764928

143

setting (A) is the "best" setting in this case of simulation and its estimated model is expected to be the "best" one among the models determined by the one-function approach, this model does not fit well to the data of d ( 8 ) and Zafo(8), as shown in Fig. 2. Moreover, it has been found that the models obtained from initial setting (B) can produce much poorer fitting to the data of 8 G ( 8 ) and ZafO(8) than that of the curves in Fig. 2, though all of them can fit well to the data of L d ( 8 ) .
(2) T w d " t i o n G(8) as well as

approach: In this case, where are involved, the fitting implementation is greatly improved. Table 3 demonstrates

Ld(8)

--IO

.-20

=
Y

W A

--30

4
U w )

0.6-

YuLWREIIENlS

--40

I
Parameters

Estimated 0.0007845 0.0053785 0.2607326 1.6515949 0.0130064 0.0038237 0.0715908

Values (pu) 0.0007845 0.0053785 0.2607328 1.6515946 0.0130064 0.0038237 0.0715907

Errors

L,/L,d = 0.07 &,/to, = 0.15 '

(%)
-3.268 -26.017 24.752 -2.330 -23.939 -25.025 -43.091

o.2-

'

404

401 'lb """'4d' FREQUENCY lHZ1

"""'4d 1 " ' "

Rf
Rkd

LI
Lad

Lf
Lkd
Lkf

Estimated Parameters
I

Values (pu)

Errors

~ 0.15 ~ ' L1/Lad = 0.07 L , / L =

0.0008069 0.0072718 0.2109984 1.6981270 0.0169154 0.0051504 0.1246777

Rf
Rkd

LI
Lad

Lf
Lkd

I . " ,

..

'kf
Y

0 3

c
W

S
I

0.6'

0.2-

.+
-0.2-

UWME

--so
.-70

Y U v)

, ,,,,,,

RUSEWsLE
I

, ,,,,
I

io-' ' """48 ' ""'rid' ""'"98 "'? d

FREQUENCY (HZ)

-90

Figure 2:

"Measurements" with Noise-l and Frequency Response Characteristics of the Estimated Model by Fitting Model-D7 to the Data of Ld(8) for the Case of Initial Setting (A)

(3) Three-function approach: Involving the three transfer functions, Ld(8), G ( 8 ) and L a f 0 ( 8 ) ,can yield best results among these three approaches of fitting. This is clearly demonstrated by Table 4, where all the parameters have much less errors than those of Table 3. The model obtained from this three-function approach can duplicate precisely the original Monticello model. Besides, the model determination is also independent of the initial settings. As expected, the model derived by the three-function approach has frequency response characteristics which can fit very well to the "measurements". The solid lies in Fig. 3 correspond to this model. Thie verifmi the theoretical analysis given previously that three t r a d e r

(%)
-0.506 0.025 0.956 0.421 -1.080
0.988

0.0008069 0.0072718 0.2 109986 1.6981270 0.0169154 0.0051504 0.1246775

-0.893

744

functions are necessary in determining the characteristic parameters of the d-axis two-port network of synchronous machines. The involvement of the third function, L a f o ( # ) , Can help to identify L a , Rkd, Lkd and Lkj accurately. This, in turn, helps to identify all other parameters of the d-axis equivalent circuit accurately. 3. Effect of the accuracy of measurements

In order to explore the effect of the accuracy of the measurements, random noise with larger deviations are

OPERATIONAL INDUCTANCE Ld (9)

ISIWULATION OATA FROM WONTICELLO M A C H I N E 1

added to the simulated frequency response data of the Monticello model of Table 1. It is obvious that the larger the deviations of the added noise, the less the accuracy of the generated measurement data. As a result, it is expected that the models determined by any of the fitting approaches would be less accurate. In the following discussion, only one case of noise is reported. In this case, the noise n l (Eq. 14) added to L d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L q f 0 ( 8 ) has a standard deviation 0.03, 0.05 and 0.03 respectively. These are twice the deviations of the noise in the simulations previously discussed. The noise 9 (Eq. 15) has the same standard deviation (0.007)as in the previous simulations. This means that the magnitudes of the noise in the data of L d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L a f 0 ( 8 ) are doubled, while the angles of the data remain unchanged. This higher noise is simply referred to as Noise-2 in this paper.

Table 5:

Model Parameters by Fitting Model-D7 to the Simulated Data of L d ( 8 ) and G ( 8 ) with Noise-2 (Two-Function Approach) Estimated
0.0007427 0.0034914 0.3492703 1.5739334 0.0089515 0.0024853 -0.0168483 0.0007427 0.0034914 0.3492702 1.5739335 0.0089515 0.0024853 -0.0168482

Errors

(%I
Rf

(4
TRANSFER FUNGTION sG

Rkd

(SI

Li
Lad

Lf
Lkd

Lkf

-8.422 -51.975 67.115 -6.923 -47.652 -51.269 -1 13.393

The models derived by the two-function approach from the data with Noi-2 are listed in Table 5. Comparing this table with Table 3, it can be seen that due to the higher noise all the parameters of the models are identified poorly. The errors in this case are twice the errors in the case of Table 3. All rotor inductances and resistances become smaller. The rotor local inductance L k f becomes even negative. This shows that the two-function approach is very sensitive to the level of the noise added to the magnitude data. In other words, this approach is very sensitive to the accuracy of the measurements. On the other hand, the results of the three-function approach have indicated, as shown in Table 6, that thia approach is practically insensitive to the level of the noise added to the magnitude data. Although the added noise is higher, the estimated models in Table 6 are still very accurate, and the errors between the estimated models and the original Monticello model (Table 1) are still considerably small. Table 6: Model Parameters by Fitting Model-D7 to Simulated Data of L d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L a f o ( s ) with Noise-2 (Three-Function Approach)
FREQUENCY (HZ)

(4
Figure 3:
Measurements with Noisel and Frequency Response Characteristics of the Estimated Models by Fitting Model-D7 to the Data of L d ( 8 ) and G ( s ) and by Fitting to the Data of L d ( d ) , G(8) and L a f 0 ( 8 ) (solid lines: three-function approach; dashed lines: two-function approach) (Note: The dashed lines merge into the solid lines if there are no dashed lines shown in the plots.)

Parameters

Estimated Ll/Lad = 0.07

0.0008052 0.0072776 0.2103343 1.7048321 0.0167640 0.0051946 0.1262187 0.0008052 0.0072776 0.2103343 1.7048322 0.0167640 0.0051946 0.1262186

Errors

(%I
-0.715 0.105 0.639 0.818 -1.965 1.855 0.333

Rf
Rkd

Ll
Lad

Lf
Lkd

LY

745

As shown in Fig. 4, the fitness o f the frequency response characteristics of the estimated models from the two approaches confirms the advantage of the threefunction approach. By comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 3, it can be seen that the models derived by the two-function approach in the case of Noise2 have more deviations on their curves of Zaf0(8) (dashed lines) than those in the

case of Noise-l, while the models derived by the threefunction approach still keep a good curve fitness. This simulation study increases confidence in the use of the three-function approach for the determination of the d-axis parameters of synchronous machines.

An SSFR Test on a Microalternator

1
OPERATIONAL INDUCTANCE Ld
ISIMIUTIOH M T A

(5)

FRon Y W I I C E U O MACHINE1

An SSFR test on a 3 KVA microalternator has been carried out. It provides a further confirmation for the three-function approach proposed in this paper. The nominal ratings of the microalternator are: 3 KVA, 220/127 V , 7.9 A, 60 Hz, 1800 rpm, and 0.8 pf. The stator has a t p h a s e , 4-wire, star-connected winding, while the salient-pole rotor has a field winding on the daxis and two wound damper windings, one on each axis. The used rotor is completely laminated.

Table 7:

Microalternator Parameters of Model-D7 Obtained from an SSFR Test

OJ

- 8.
-16. -

-70

W w

-40

0 c 3

a W Y m

W 1

-24-

-10

U U v)
Y

0.004311 0.048480 0.106265 0.889739 0.321319 0.389799 -0.092149

0.004545 0.062007 0.074126 0.926512 0.354234 0.468788 -0.080757

-32-

,
-40

YEASuRD(ENT3

.-20
E

t
A
,1,,,,,

LU8NfTUY
W M L

o*

40* ' """40"

""'46 ' """4d'

' ' ""'4

''

FREQUENCY (HZ)

(b) TRANSFER INDUCTANCE L a f o

(SI

1
'-10

3
a

W 0

0.

.
-30
-

=
Ir*
W

I-

0.6.

.-so
.-70
YABNITWE PHASE AN6LE

W 4

0.2'

m-TS

VI w

t
A -0.2-

,,,,,,

-90 d * ,,,,,,,4c' ' """4f' """4 d' ' """4f ""T

FREQUENCY IHz)

(4
Figure 4:
"Measurements" with Noise2 and Frequency Response Characteristics of the Estimated Models by Fitting Model-D7 to the Data of L d ( 8 ) and G(8) and by Fitting to the Data of L d ( 8 ) , G(8) and L a f o ( 8 ) (solid lines: Three-function approach; dashed lines: Two-function approach) (Note: The dashed lines merge into the solid lines if there are no dashed lines shown in the plots.)

The test on the microaltemator was carried out for both the d- and q-axis. In the case of the d-axis test, the field winding was short-circuited and open-circuited for measuring the different transfer functions. Sinusoidal signals of 61 discrete frequencies were applied. The recorded signals were processed by a VAX 11/780 computer to obtain the estimates of the transfer functions. These estimated data were transformed into their appropriate per unit forms. Finally, the model fitting programs were applied to determine the microalternator's parameters. The determined microalternator parameters of ModelD7 are listed in Table 7, where Model (A) is obtained by fitting to three functions ( L d ( 8 ) , G ( 8 ) and L a f y ( 8 ) ) , while Model (B) is obtained by fitting to two functions ( L d ( 8 ) and G ( 8 ) ) . It is clear that the two sets of parameters o f these two models are different from each other, particularly the armature leakage inductance L, which is unreasonably small in Model (B). However, it is difficult to judge these two models directly from the parameter values themselves. A way to evaluate these two models is to produce their frequency response characteristics and compare with the test measurements. To do this, the frequency response characteristics of these two models are computed and drawn together with the measurements in Fig. 5. The measurements are drawn with the symbols " +" and " A " for the magnitude and phase angle respectively. The solid lines correspond to Model (A), while the dashed lines to Model (B). These plots demonstrate clearly that both Models (A) and (B) can fit well to the measurements of the functions L d ( 8 ) and G ( 8 ) , but Model (B) can not fit to

746

the measurements of the function Lafo(8) as well as Model (A) does. Thus, Model (A) is considered to be more accurate than Model (B) in producing the frequency characteristics of the microalternator. This confirms further that three transfer functions should be involved in the daxis model fitting process for obtaining an accurate parameter determination.

Conclusion
This paper has proposed a three transfer functions approach for the SSFR test of synchronous machines. The simulations and the test on a microalternator have verified that the accuracy of the determined d-axis model parameters, particularly of the rotor circuits, can be improved by the use of the suggested third transfer function (Lafo(8)) together with the two transfer functions ( L d ( 8 ) and G(8)). This requires that the measurements of the three transfer functions be taken in the SSFR test and be involved in the d-axis model fitting- instead of the common practice that only two transfer functions (Ld(8) and G(8)) are involved.

!O.Pv
1.1

OPERATIONAL INDUCTANCE
I YICRO-4LTERIAT(R

Ld (s)

DATA, LE3 METHOD1

0.7

c-20 w

0.5

tI
-30

APPENDIX A Relationship of the Function l/Zfo(s) with L,(s) and G ( s )

In order to determine the machines characteristic matrix of Eq. 4, three transfer functions (Ld(8), 8G(8) and l/Zfo(8)) are needed. Among them, the function l/Zfo(b) is not usually measured in the SSFR test. However, this function can be replaced by the measured functions Lafo(8) and G(a). The relationship of the function l/Zfo(8) with
LOf0(8) and G(a) can be derived as follows. Equation 4 has the same form as one of the hybrid parameter equations used in the general reciprocal two-port network analysis (81. This is given by

MADNITWE PUhSE L W L E

(4
TRANSFER FUNCTION SG ( 9 )

where
t
-55
MADllITWf

[>]
hll

=[

:: 1:: ] [
h22

(16)

-.

Yo-b

rm 0- -rYu- Y FREQUENCY (Hzl

(b)
TRANSFER INDUCTANCE

Lafo (9) I MICRO-4LTERN4TOR D 4 T L LES nut

E1 F I E 2 = 0 = -zd(8) 1 12 E1 h12 = h21 = T 1 E 2 = 0 = 2 1 12 h22 = e l 1 = o - z (*) 2 1 fo

= o = 8G(8)

[ [
=
of

The inverse form of Eq. 16 is given by

412

-h21

h,,

][

z]

31

MEASUREMENTS

Tseo*/%;

16
A

0. 1

0-b $o+

MIINITWE PW3E AN=

L
6 4ct k d 48 , FREQUENCY IHzI
I 1

-50

(4
Figure 5: D-axis Measurements and Frequency Characteristics of Model-D7 of Microalternator (Solid lines -- Model (A), Three-function approach; Dashed lines -- Model (B), Two-function approach) (Note: The dashed lines merge into the solid lines if there are no dashed lines shown in the plots.) D =

1I

hll

h12

h21

h22

1I

= h,, h22- h I 2 h2,

By using the definition of ZaIo(8) given by Eq. (Q), the relationship between the functions l/Zfo(8), Lafo(8) and G(8) can be found:

747

1/Zj0(S) =

-- G ( 8 )

Lo j o b )

APPENDIX B Expressions of L,(s), G(s) and L,(s) of Model-D7

The transfer functions L d ( s ) , G(s) and Z j o ( s ) of Model-D7 shown in Fig. 1 are expressed as follows:

L e
d(

+ Cs + D s 2
Lkd

6. A. M. El-Serdi and Y. Jin, Sources of Errors in the Standstill Frequency Response Testing of Synchronous Machines, Proceeding of International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM88), vo1.3, Pisa, Italy, September 12-14, 1988, pp.417-22. 7. B. Adkins and R. Harley, The General Theory of Alternating Current Machines, Application to Practical Problems, Chapman & Hall, 1975. 8. J. B. Murdoch, Network Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. 9. DEC, Scientific Subroutines Programmers Reference . Manual, AA-1101C-TC, Digital Equipment Co., June, 1980. 10. Y. Jin, and A. M. El-Serafi. Application of Marquardt Algorithm to the Determination of Synchronous Machine Parameters from their Frequency Response Data, Paper No. B12, Proceedings of Beijing International Conference on Electrical Machines, (BICEMW), Beijing, August 10-14, 1987, pp.218-21.

Ld1+Aa+Ba2
-(l+s-)

G(8) =

Rj

Rkd

1+ A a +B s 2
1

where A = ( L a d + L k j ) (R

1 Lkd Lj + R)+ -+ j kd Rkd Rj

Yusun Jin was born in Shanghai, China in February 1945. He graduated from the Department of Electrical Engineering, Qinghua University, Beijing, China in 1968, and received the M.Sc. degree from the University of Saskatchewan, Canada in 1988. From 1968 to 1978, he worked as an engineer in the First Refinery, China. From 1978 to 1983, he WBS an instructor in the NorthChina College of Water Conservancy and Hydro-power. From 1983 to 1985, he joined the Power Systems Research Group of the University of Saskatchewan as a visiting scholar. His research interest is signal processing and application of digital techniques in power systems.
Ahmed M. El-Serafi (AM54M56-SM70) was born in Cairo, Egypt in March 1929. He received the B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from Cairo University, Egypt in 1950, the Ph.D degree from the Manchester College of Science and Technology, England in 1955 and the Dr.-Ing. from the Technical University (T.H.) Darmstadt, W. Germany in 1964. He w a s with Cairo University from 1950 to 1953 and from 1957 to 1961, with the Manchester College of Science and Technology, England from 1953 to 1957, with the Technical University (T.H.) Darmstadt, W. Germany from 1961 to 1965 and with the University of Libya from 1965 to 1968. From 1957 to 1961, he was also a Consultant for the Egyptian Commission of Electricity. In 1968, he joined the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada where he is presently Professor of Electrical Engineering and member of the Power Systems Research Group. From 1986 to 1988, he was the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chairman of the Research Committee of the Department of Electrical Engineering. Dr. El-Serafi is a member of the Canadian Electrical Association, the Engineering Institute of Canada, the Institution of Electrical Engineers in England, the VDE in W. Germany and of CIGRE; and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Saskatchewan.

1+

Rtd

REFERENCES
1. Y. Jin, A Study of the Standstill Frequency Response Test for Synchronous Machines, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 1988. 2. IEEE Std 115A-1987, Standard Procedures for Obtaining Synchronous Machine Parameters by Standstill Frequency Reuponse Testing (Supplement to ANSI/IEEE Std 115-1085), 1987. 3. IEEE Joint Working Group on Determination of Synchronous Machine Stability Constants, Supplementary Definition and Associated Test Methods for Obtaining Parameters for Synchronous Machine Stability Study Simulations IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, 1980, pp. 1625-30. 4. Ontario Hydro, Determination of Synchronous Machine Stability Study Constants, EPRI Report EL-1424, Vol. 2, Dec. 1980. J. A. Mallick, and G. L. Wilson, 5. S. D. Umans, Modeling of Solid Rotor Turbogenerators, Part 1: Theory and Techniques, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, 1978, pp. 269-77.

748

DISCUSSION
ROBERT M. SAUNDERS, (University of California, Irvine): The frequency response t e s t has been used i n many instances t o obtain a l i n e a r model which w i l l yield useful r e s u l t s over a limited range. This technique of modeling has been employed i n such diverse areas as t h e dynamics of a i r c r a f t and chemical processes a l l of which a r e a l s o inherently nonliear. It i s always helpful i f one can pinpoint t h e physical reasons f o r the r e s u l t i n g poles, zeros, and gain factors. However, i n t h e case of a synchronous machine, (and the processes mentioned above), we have a process which is inherently nonlinear without any manufacturing or operating tolerances or defects such a s e l l i p t i c a l r o t o r s , out-of-alignment s h a f t s , o r , i n t h e case of salient-pole machines, uneven airgaps around t h e circumference taken i n t o consideration. These mitigate against finding t r a n s f e r functions t h a t w i l l reconcile closely with theory. Thus it is best t o set t h e theory i n t o t h e background and take w h a t you get and f i t a l i n e a r model t o t h a t s e t of test data. The authors reaction t o these comments might be useful f o r those who must model synchronous machines f o r use i n system analysis.
Manuscript received J u l y 31, 1989.

solution will be obtained regardless of the equation which is discarded in the solution process. However, when the measured dat,a are used, the rquations would be inconsistent because of the inherent noise in the data, and multiple solutions are obtained depending on which equation is ignored in the solution process [l].Adding a third function, will not solve the problem of inherent noise in the data and will increase the number of nonlinear equations wit.h only seven unknown parameters. The authors generated their noise-corrupted data by adding noise to the magnitude and phase of operational inductances (see Eq. 14 and 15 of the paper). The operational inductances cannot be measured directly. For study purposes, the noise should be added to the operational d-axis impedance Zd(s). If the authors add their noise to the Z d ( 3 ) rather than L d ( $ ) , then they will obtain a set of overdet,ermined nonlinear and inconsistent equations (eight equations and seven parameters) which will result in multiple solutions for the parameters. The authors comments concerning t,he above points will be appreciated.

[l] A. Keyhani, S. Hao, G. Dayal, The Effects of Noise on Frequency-Domain Parameter Estimation of Synchronous

A. Keyhani (The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio): The

authors are to be commended for the study of noise effects and the use of three-transfer functions in estimating machine parameters. At the Ohio State University, we have studied t,he same problem, and our result,s were reported in references (1,2]. Some of our findings report,ed in reference [l], are contrary to the results reported in this paper. I would appreciate the authors comments on the following points:

Machine Models, IEEE Paper 89WM228-SEC. Presented at the IEEE/PES 1989 Winter Meeting, New York, NY. [2] A. Keyhani, S. Hao, G. Dayal, Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Solid-Rotor Synchronous Machine Parameters from SSFR Test Data, IEEE paper 89WM224-7EC, presented at the IEEE/PES 1989 Winter Meeting, New York, NY.
Manuscript received J u l y 2 4 , 1989.

1. The d-axis operational impedance &(s)

is highly noisy at low frequencies, and the armature resistance cannot be accurately estimated from Zd(s).

2. The d-axis operational inductance is calculated from &(s) using an estimated R,. Namely, & ( S ) = (&(s) R,)/s.The results reported in [l]indicate that even a half percent change in the value of R, results in wide variations of L d ( 8 ) . The estimated d-axis parameters will vary widely depending on the value of R, used in the study [l]. 3. The equations which relate the d-axis parameters to the time constants of Ld(s) and sG(s) can be obtained from Eq. 11 of the paper. These relationships are complex and nonlinear (see Ref. (11)and can be written as
fi(E)

Y. J I N AND A.M. EL-SERAFI: The authors would l i k e t o thank t h e discussers for the i n t e r e s t they have shown i n this paper and for the cormnents and t h e relevant questions they have asked.

= gi

+ g;(z,g) +

ti

=0

where i = 1,..., 8. The g is a known vector, and it is given in terms of the estimated time constants and the gain of & ( 8 ) and sG(s). The Z is an unknown vector which represents the seven parameters of the d-axis circuit model (see Fig. 1 of the paper). These equations are nonlinear in nature and are not consistent with each other. This is due to the noise imbedded in vector 3. Naturally, these equations would be consistent if simulated noise-free data are used in the analysis. A unique

Concerning the points raised by Prof. A. Keyhani, it would be appropriate here t o emphasize t h a t t h e main objective of our paper is t o demonstrate that three t r a n s f e r functions, instead of t h e comonly used two functions, a r e needed i n t h e d-axis model f i t t i n g of the SSFR test to represent completely and accurately the nature of the d-axis two-port network. With t h i s approach, a set of machine parameters i n terms of resistances and inductances, including the armature leakage inductance, can be uniquely determined. In f a c t , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these parameters i n the SSER test depends on many factors, e.g. t h e order of the model used , t h e choice of the number of t h e t r a n s f e r functions used i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and t h e accuracy of the measured frequency response data. I n our paper and i n reference 1 of Prof. Keyhanis discussion, it has been c l e a r l y shown that t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the parameters of the d-axis model of synchronous machines by using two t r a n s f e r functions is strongly affected by t h e noise i n t h e frequency response data. Having more noise i n these d a t a r e s u l t s i n that the used f i t t i n g program w i l l converge a t another set of parameters. A l l the sets of parameters derived from data with d i f f e r e n t noise

749

levels can fit well to the frequency response data of the two transfer functions used in the fitting and could be accepted as a solution from this point of view. However, among these sets, only one set of parameters can fit also to the data of the third function. This set of parameters is truly the most accurate one. In order to determine this set, the "Three Transfer Functions" approach is proposed in our paper. By applying this three-function approach, the identification becomes less sensitive to the measured noise level in the simulated data or to the accuracy of the measured data. It is well-known that the equations involved in a model fitting or curve fitting are always redundant in comparison to the number of the unknowns. In our investigations, we have used 102 equations in the case of the two-function approach, i.e. 51 points for each transfer function. In the case of the three-function approach, 153 equations are used. We do not think that there is any need to limit the number of equations to the number of the unknown parameters as stated by Prof. Keyhani. We agree with Dr. Keyhani that the d-axis operational impedance Z (s) is highly noisy at low frequencies. Many difdculties are encountered in conducting the SSE'R test and particularly in this low frequency range (reference 6 of the paper). The problem of the calculation of the d-axis operational inductance, L (s) in this low frequency range could be overcome bgvarious techniques. one way, which we have used with success in our experimental investigation on the microalternator, is to apply the fitting technique to the measurements of the low frequency part of the transfer function in order to obtain an approximate fitted function for Ld(s) in

this range. Another practical method is to elminate R directly during the measurement process [l]. dwever, in the simulations investigated in our paper, the noise was added to the data of Ld(s) a s just to instead of 2 (s) since the objective w verify the ne& of a third transfer function for the complete and accurate identification of the d-axis model. Professor R.M. Saunders has made some interesting comments concerning the models of synchronous machines which are obtained by the SSE'R tests and asked for our reaction to them. In the SSFR tests, the frequency response measurements are incremental in nature. Thus, the parameters obtained from them are likely to give more accurate results in the theoretical analysis of small disturbance situations than it can be expected from the parameters obtained by the standard short-circuit tests. In the case of small disturbance situations, the models of synchronous machines are linear. The accuracy of these models depends on the various assumptions which have to be introduced to develop them from the theory of synchronous machines. However, the effect of any manufacturing tolerances or defects on these models will be taken care of in the measured data of the SSFR test.
REFERENCES

[l] International Electrotechnical Comnission (IEC), "First Supplement to Publication 34-4 (1967): Unconfirmed Test Methods for Determining Synchronous Machine Quantities", Publication NO. 34-4Ar 1972.
Manuscript received September 1 , 1989.