See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305676232

Step time response evaluation of different synchronous generator excitation

systems

Conference Paper · April 2016

DOI: 10.1109/ENERGYCON.2016.7513956

CITATIONS READS
4 2,639

2 authors, including:

Jonas Kristiansen Nøland

Norwegian University of Science and Technology
50 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modern Topologies of Wound-Field Synchronous Machines - Developments, Applications and Opportunities View project

High-End Electrical Machines and PECs for More Electric Aircrafts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonas Kristiansen Nøland on 10 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Step time response evaluation of different
synchronous generator excitation systems
Jonas Kristiansen Nøland∗,†
∗ Dept.of Eng., Faculty of Technology and Maritime Science
University College of Southeast Norway, Borre, Norway
Urban Lundin†
† Division
of Electricity, Dept. of Engineering Sciences
Uppsala University, Angstrom Laboratory, Uppsala, Sweden

Abstract—A fast step response of an excitation system is A Stationary Synchronous

+Simple system
critical for a synchronous generator in order to maintain stability Grid Transformer Rectifier Generator Load +Robust construction
+Fast excitation
under disturbances in the interconnected power grid. This is the +Direct control
main reason that the static excitation system has been preferred -Regular maintenance
Voltage
for large synchronous generators. Some transmission system - Sensors
-Grid dependent
operators even have requirements that the excitation system + Reference
Controller
should be static for synchronous generators above a certain size.
The requirement is set in order to fulfill a certain goal for B Stationary Rotating Rotating Synchronous +No carbon dust
the step time response. As technology progresses forward, the Grid Transformer Rectifier Exciter Rectifier Generator Load -Slow excitation
static excitation system will not any longer be the only option -Indirect control
-Negative field voltage
for a fast controllable excitation system. New brushless rotating not possible
excitation systems, with wireless control interfaces, can be even Voltage -Grid dependent
- Sensors
faster than the static excitation system. They also reduce the need
+ Reference
of maintenance of the synchronous generator. With permanent Controller
magnet exciters, the excitation system can be independent from C Stationary Rotating Rotating Synchronous +No carbon dust
the grid, maintaining the excitation response under voltage dips Grid Transformer Rectifier Exciter Rectifier Generator Load +Fast excitation
+Direct control
in the power grid. This paper evaluates the dynamic performance
-Complex system
of the static excitation system compared with different types of -Torque pulsations
brushless rotating excitation systems. Voltage -Remote control
- - Sensors -Grid dependent

Index Terms—Brushless exciters, rotating exciters, syn- Controller 2

+ Controller 1
+ Reference

chronous generators, permanent magnet machines, voltage sta-

bility. D Stationary Stationary Rotating
Chopper
Rotating Synchronous +No carbon dust
Pre-exciter Rectifier Exciter Rectifier Generator Load +Few switches
+No grid dependence
N -Slow excitation
I. I NTRODUCTION S
-Indirect control
-Negative field voltage
Historically, the static excitation system has been preferred -
Voltage
Sensors not possible
because of its transient performance. With a stationary thyris- Controller
+ Reference
-3-stage system

tor bridge rectifier, the excitation voltage over the field winding
E Rotating Rotating Synchronous +No carbon dust
can change over the whole range, even negative voltages, in Exciter Rectifier Generator Load
+Fast excitation
Controller +Direct control
less than 10 milliseconds (at 50Hz) [1]. Both rectification and N
Reference + +No grid dependence
control functions is integrated into the thyristor bridge, which S - -Torque pulsations
-Remote control
makes the solution compact. Even though the static system Voltage
Sensors
is simple, the system also requires brushes, causing the need +No carbon dust
Rotating Rotating Rotating Synchronous
for regular maintenance. The static system looks schematically F Exciter Rectifier Chopper Generator Reference +Fast excitation
Load Controller +Direct control
like configuration A in Fig. 1. N + +Few switches
S - +No grid dependence
The conventional rotating brushless excitation system, con-
-Rotating capacitor
figuration B in Fig. 1, looks similar to the static system, except Voltage
Sensors -Remote control
that it includes an excitation machine and a rotating diode
bridge rectifier. Both systems are controlled by a stationary Fig. 1. Different excitation system topologies - A: Static conventional, B:
thyristor bridge rectifier. Since configuration b is controlled Brushless conventional, C: Brushless dual control, D: PM brushless 3-stage,
indirectly over two stages, the system is slower dynamically. E: PM brushless 2-stage (thyristor) and F: PM brushless 2-stage (IGBT)
The rotating diode bridge is not able to feed the main field
winding with negative voltages, which cause an especially
slow response time during shutdown. This is a problem that silicon diode rectifier is mechanically robust and has shown
has limited the brushless exitation technology. However, the to be able to withstand high centrifugal forces on the rotating
shaft [1].
Work supported by Statkraft AS, Lilleakerveien 6, 0216 Oslo, Norway. If instead a rotating thyristor bridge rectifier is installed on
978-1-4673-8463-6/16/$31.00
c 2016 IEEE the rotating shaft, similar to configuration C, one would need a
wireless interface to control the thyristors from the stationary TABLE II
frame [2]. The step time response will be improved and a S YNCHRONOUS GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS
negative voltage is possible to feed directly over the main field Parameter Description Value Unit
winding. A rotating thyristor bridge rectifier for a brushless
S Apparent power 47 MVA
system is proposed in [1], investigated in [3], and has even cos(φ) Power factor 0.9
been tested in a pilot hydropower unit in Sweden (45MVA U Line-to-line voltage 11 kV
,115rpm). It is currently installed at a power plant in Iceland I Phase current 2467 A
UF Generator field voltage 189 V
(47MVA, 166.67rpm). IF Generator field current 1220 A
Permanent magnet exciters have classically been used as p Number of poles 36
pre-exciters in 3-stage systems (config. D) [4], but it is also f Electrical frequency 50 Hz
n Mechanical speed 166.70 rpm
possible to use them as the main exciter in a 2-stage systems
to improve the dynamic performance (config. E) [5]–[7].
Another option to the rotating thyristor bridge is to extend
A. Data collection
the diode bridge rectifier with a rotating capacitor and a
PWM dual quadrant IGBT chopper (config. F) [8]. With the The standard parameters of the exciter is given in Table
implementation of a buck chopper with IGBTs, less active III. The rotor of the exciter is solid, with no damper bars.
components is needed on the rotating frame. The reliability of Therefore the subtransient time constants are not included in
IGBTs can be even better compared to thyristors [9], [10]. the list of parameters, but they are assumed to be small.
Different types of excitation possibilities are shown in
Fig. 1. In this paper, experimental data from a power plant TABLE III
E XCITER STANDARD PARAMETERS
installed in Iceland (47MVA, 166.67rpm) of configuration
equal to system C is investigated. The step response evalu- Parameter Description Value Unit
ation compares the time it takes to go from 95% to 100% Xd Direct axis synchronous reactance 1.912 pu
of nominal terminal voltage and vice versa under no load Xd0 Transient reactance, direct axis 0.410 pu
conditions (TSO requirement). The Norwegian TSO (Statnett Xd00 Subtransient reactance, direct axis 0.390 pu
Xq Quadrature axis synchronous reactance 0.883 pu
SF) requires the step response to have finnished 90 percent Xq00 Subtransient reactance, quadrature axis 0.883 pu
of the step in less than 0.5 seconds [11]. Different TSO’s has Xad Main reactance, direct axis 1.700 pu
different requirements for the step time response [12]. Under Xaq Main reactance, quadrature axis 0.670 pu
loaded conditions, the required nominal field current in the Xσd Rotor leakage reactance 0.212 pu
Xσq Rotor leakage reactance 0.213 pu
generator will be larger. Measurements from the real power Xc Commutating reactance 0.410 pu
unit are used to tune the parameters used for simulations in ZB Base impedance 0.098 Ω/pu
0
Tdo Open-circuit transient time constant 2.113 s
SimPowerSystems.
Td0 Short-circuit transient time constant 0.453 s
II. M ETHOD Ta Armature winding constant 0.108 s

This section involves the data collection and simulation

methods. Table I and II shows the exciter machine and The classical equations from the standard model is used to
synchronous generator specifications of the power plant under obtain the equivalent circuit parameters [13], yielding
study. As seen, they have the same mechanical speed (n), but Xd0 − Xσd
X̃σf = Xad ≈ 0.224pu (1)
operate with a different electrical frequency (f). Xd − Xd0

TABLE I Xad + X̃σf

R̃f = 0 ≈ 0.003935pu (2)
E XCITER MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS 2πfB Tdo
Parameter Description Value Unit given in Table IV. The reduction factor (kf ) could be used to
S Apparent power 231 kVA find the self inductance of the exciter field winding from the
cos(φ) Power factor 0.919 equivalent circuit parameters, yielding
U Line-to-line voltage 150 V
I Phase current 888 A Lad + L̃σf
UF Generator field voltage 183 V Lf = ≈ 8.27H. (3)
IF Generator field current 1156 A
kf2
Uf Exciter field voltage 109V V
If Exciter field current 21.42 A
Normally, the designed exciters have a large self inductance
p Number of poles 18 in the excitation winding. This is a drawback if one wants
f Electrical frequency 25 Hz to control the generator field winding from the excitation
n Mechanical speed 166.70 rpm
winding, like configuration B and D.

The ratings of the dc output from the exciter (Table I)

is compatible with the field winding specification of the
synchronous generator (Table II).
 TABLE IV given by
E XCITER EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT PARAMETERS  
" # r " # ua
2π 2π
ud 2 − cos(ωt) − cos(ωt + 3 ) − cos(ωt − 3 )  
Parameter Description Value Unit =  ub  .
Lad Main inductance, d-axis 1.061 mH
uq 3 sin(ωt) sin(ωt + 2π
3 ) sin(ωt − 2π
3 )
uc
Laq Main inductance, q-axis 0.418 mH (5)
Lσd Leakage inductance, d-axis 0.132 mH
Lσq Leakage inductance, q-axis 0.133 mH The equivalent circuits in Fig. 3 and 4 computes the dq-
L̃σf Field winding leakage inductance 0.140 mH currents, used to compute the phase currents, yielding
LB Base inductance 0.623 mH/pu    
R̃f Field winding resistance 0.568 mΩ ia r − cos(ωt) sin(ωt) " #
2 id
Rs Phase resistance 2.950 mΩ  ib  = − cos(ωt + 2π 2π
3 ) sin(ωt + 3 ) (6)
  
kf Reduction factor of excitation winding 0.01205 3 iq
ic − cos(ωt − 2π3 ) sin(ωt − 2π
3 )
which are given to the controlled current sources in the 3-phase
B. Simulation model circuit (Fig. 2). The dq-currents also produces an internal
coupling between the equivalent circuits, given by
Fig. 2 shows the circuit used to model the response of the
exciter machine attached to the generator. The synchronous ψd = Lad ĩf − (Lad + Lσd )id (7)
generator is tested under no load operation and the field ψq = −(Laq + Lσq )iq (8)
winding looks electrically as an ideal RL-load. The effects
on the damper windings is only dominant on the stator side
of the synchronous generator. In Fig. 2, the thyristor bridge
Lσd Rs
rectifier is used as the rotating power electronic interface.
Configuration B and D uses a diode bridge rectifier instead. ĩf
Configuration F extends it with a rotating capacitor and an R̃f
IGBT chopper.
+
L̃σf Lad ud −
Rexc

iexc,c +
− ũf
iF
id

−
+
ic
ωψq
Rexc LF
iexc,b Fig. 3. Rotating exciter machine d-axis equivalent circuit

ib Lσq Rs
Rexc
RF
iexc,a
+
ia Laq uq −

Fig. 2. Controlled phase current sources approach [4], the simulation model ωψd
used in Simpowersystems. iq
−
+

A infinite star-connected resistance (Rexc=104 ) is used to

calculate the terminal voltages in the model [14], yielding Fig. 4. Rotating exciter machine q-axis equivalent circuit
   
ua iexc,a Fig. 5 shows the d-equivalent circuit if the exciter machine is
 ub  = Rexc  iexc,b  . (4) replaced with a permanent magnet main exciter with the same
   

uc iexc,c characteristics. The field current produced by the permanent

magnets should be equal to the nominal field current fed to the
A power-invariant dq-transformation is used to obtain the dq- classical field wound exciter machine in the equivalent circuit.
terminal voltages used in the equivalent circuits of the exciter,
 Lσd Rs • Configuration F: The 2-stage PM excitation system,
with a rotating IGBT chopper, is similar to configuration
E. However it could possible change the field voltage
faster, determined by the switching frequency of the
IGBT chopper. Configuration E is able to change the field
Lad ud
+ voltage over the whole range in about 10 milliseconds.
ĩm −
An improvement of this time constant would not affect
the overall step time response of the system significantly.
The investigation of configuration F is not made in this
id paper.
−
+
ωψq III. R ESULTS
A. Experimental no-load test
Fig. 5. Rotating PMG exciter machine d-axis equivalent circuit
A voltage buildup test is made experimentally on the real
power plant, shown in Fig. 6, which is used to obtain the
C. Implementation classical RL-parameters of the generator field winding. During
no-load step response tests, the exciter machine is fed with a
The implementation of the equivalent circuit is different for
field current of 15.1A. The control parameters given for the
the different configurations. Here comes a brief discussion of
step response is given in Table V. During no-load test of the
how the configurations are implemented:
generator, a field current of 594A will produce a 11kV line-
• Configuration A: The static excitation system is similar to-line terminal voltage.
in performance to the brushless system, with a rotating
thyristor bridge, configuration C. As long as the available 200

field winding ceiling voltage is the same, the field voltage Uexp
can change rapidly (less than 10 milliseconds) for both 150 f
Voltage [V]

systems.
100
• Configuration B: The conventional brushless rotating
system, with a rotating diode bridge, is obtained by 50

controlling the exciter field voltage (ûf ) in the d-axis

equivalent circuit in Fig. 3. In reality, the field voltage 0

1
includes voltage ripple from a stationary thyristor bridge,
Current/Voltage [pu]

but with a high exciter field winding inductance, the 0.8

voltage ripple could be neglected. 0.6 Iexp

F
• Configuration C: The improved brushless rotating sys-
tem, with both a stationary and rotating thyristor bridge, 0.4 Isim
F
is the original excitation system of the power plant 0.2
Uexp
t
under study. The stationary thyristor bridge is controlled 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
to sustain a constant exciter field current under both Time [s]
transient and steady state conditions. The voltage ripple
from the stationary thyristor bridge is neglected in the d- Fig. 6. Experimental mean field voltage (Ufexp ), field current (IF exp
) and
exp
axis equivalent circuit model in Fig. 3. The exciter field terminal voltage (Ut ) during no-load voltage buildup, and comparison with
sim ) from classical field winding model with R =
calculated field current (IF F
winding is fed with a voltages in order to sustain the 0.1145Ω and LF = 0.7751H.
exciter field current.
• Configuration D: The conventional 3-stage PMG exci-
tation system has similar performance to configuration b. TABLE V
Both systems has three stage dynamics and the will have R EGULATOR CONTROL PARAMETERS
the same step response as long as the available exciter
Parameter Description Value
field winding ceiling voltage is the same.
UF Generator field voltage 68V
• Configuration E: The 2-stage PM excitation system, IF Generator field current 594A
with a rotating thyristor bridge, is modeled in the same If Exciter field winding current 15.1A
way as configuration C. However the d-axis equivalent Uf Exciter field winding voltage 59V
RF Field winding resistance 0.1145Ω
circuit in Fig. 3 is replaced with the d-axis equivalent LF Field winding inductance 0.7751H
circuit in Fig. 5. The exciter field current from the αmin Minimum firing angle 10◦
magnets should be equal to the exciter field current fed αmax Minimum firing angle 130◦
into the real exciter, to get comparable performance.
B. Simulation results shown in Fig. 9 and 10 becomes different. This in turn makes
Fig. 7 compares the step response of the classical exciter the triggering and control of the rotating thyristor bridge
machine with a rotating thyristor bridge with an equivalent different. However, the produced phase voltages in the rotating
PMG exciter. Both start initially with zero field current in armature winding looks similar.
the synchronous generator. The field current is ramped up to
200

594A, yielding 11kV terminal voltage under no load. They 150

u
a
100 ub
both use 1.875 seconds to reach to the desired field current.

Voltage [V]
50
uc
Both operate at a firing angle of 10 degrees in order utilize 0

-50

the maximum ceiling voltage available. Before the desired -100

-150

generator field current is obtained, the firing angle settles to -200

ia
around 70 degrees in order to avoid overshoot in the field 600

400
ib
current. After 2.5 seconds, a step change from 1.0 per unit

Current [A]
200

0
ic
field current to 0.95 per unit field current is made. A step -200

change vice versa is made at 3.5 seconds. -400

-600

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

150 Time [s]
se
α
Firing angle [deg]

100 αpm Fig. 9. Steady state terminal phase voltages and phase currents of the self-
excited exciter, configuration c) at 1 pu generator field current under no-load
50
conditions.

0
200
600
150
ua
500 100 ub

Voltage [V]
Current [A]

50
400 uc
0
300 se -50
IF -100
200
pm -150
100 IF -200

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
600 ia
Time [s] 400
ib
Current [A]

200

0
ic
Fig. 7. Voltage buildup and step response test of the exciter machine with
-200
a rotating thyristor bridge. Step down response (1.0 pu to 0.95 pu) at 2.5 -400
seconds and step up response (0.95 pu to 1.0 pu) at 3.5 seconds. Response -600

for the classical field wound exciter, configuration C, is given by the generator 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

se ) and compared with the field current (I pm ) of an equivalent

field current (IF
Time [s]
F
PMG exciter, configuration E.
Fig. 10. Steady state terminal phase voltages and phase currents of the
permanent magnet exciter, configuration e) at 1 pu generator field current
A more detailed zoom of the step down response and step under no-load conditions.
up response is shown in Fig. 8. The step down is reached in
0.14 seconds, whereas the step up is reached in 0.2 seconds The internal excitation of the PMG exciter is constant,
for both the permanent magnet and field wound exciter. with If equal to 15.1A. However the interaction between the
1.01
commutation and the field winding in the classical field wound
1
Ise
exciter creates a ripple in the field current of 1.4A from peak
F
0.99
to peak (se Fig. 11), but on average they are equal.
Current [pu]

0.98 Ipm
F
0.97
16

Ise
0.96

0.95 15.8 f
0.94
15.6
Ipm
f
1.01

1
15.4
0.99
Current [pu]

15.2
Current [A]

0.98

0.97
Ise 15

0.96
F
0.95 Ipm 14.8
F
0.94 14.6
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]
14.4

14.2
Fig. 8. Per unit no-load step down (1.0 pu to 0.95 pu) and step up (0.95
se is the generator field current in per unit for for
to 1.0 pu) test, where IF 14
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
pm
configuration C and IF is the field current for configuration E. Time [s]

Since the PMG exciter lack the field winding path in the d- Fig. 11. Ifse is the steady state exciter field winding current for config. c and
Ifpm is the equivalent exciter field winding current for config. e.
axis equivalent circuit (Fig. 5), the produced terminal voltages
 80
The ripple in the exciter field current (Fig. 11) shows that 60
u
a
the exciter field winding in configuration C is utilized as a path 40 ub

Voltage [V]
20
for the current commutation. The exciter field winding helps 0
uc
the commutation process. Normal practice for field wound -20

-40
exciters is to set a maximum firing angle of 150 degrees -60

on the controller, to make sure that the commutation will -80

600 i
not fail. Simulations show that the permanent magnet exciter 400
a
ib
in configuration E cannot be fired with higher firing angles

Current [A]
200
ic
than 130 degrees. In order to make a comparable step down 0

-200
response test, both configuration C and E were simulated with -400

maximum firing angle of 130 degrees (see Fig. 7). -600

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Fig. 12 shows that the voltage buildup and step response of Time [s]

the rotating diode bridge exciter (configuration B or D) is slow.

This is because the generator field current is controlled by the
exciter field winding current, which in turn is controlled by the
exciter field winding voltage. To speed up the voltage buildup,
the exciter machine is operated for a short period with 2 times
the nominal exciter field current. This is because the exciter
field current is proportional to the voltage applied over the
generator field winding. The field winding should be operated
with as high field voltage possible without overshoot in the
field current. The voltage buildup takes about 2.6 seconds for
the rotating diode bridge exciter with available exciter field
winding voltages ranging from 109V to -95V. In the step
down response at 5 seconds, the exciter field current is ramped
down to 0.95 per unit. The synchronous generator field current
follows and 0.95 per unit is reached in 2 seconds.
100
Voltage [V]
Fig. 13. Steady state terminal phase voltages and phase currents with the
exciter of configuration B or D, at 1 pu generator field current under no-load
conditions.
C. Discussion
Configuration B, C, D and E has been studied in three dif-
ferent simulation implementations, but the simulation results
give good insights about configuration A and F as well.
The conventional brushless excitation system (config. B),
with a rotating diode bridge rectifier on the shaft, will hardly
meet the step time response requirement from the TSO’s. How-
ever, the brushless excitation system with a rotating thyristor
bridge rectifier (config. C and E) fulfills the step time response
requirement, with a step up and step down response in less
than 0.5 seconds, under no load operation. The step response
results cannot show any benefit of a permanent magnet exciter

50
0 replacing the classical field wound exciter. The lack of an
-50 Uf
-100
exciter field winding in the permanent magnet exciter, also
1400 creates phase voltage waveforms with less sinusoidal shape.
1200
If a possible short circuit occur in a permanent magnet
exciter (config. E and F), the phase currents in the rotor
1000
cannot be restricted by ramping down the exciter field winding
Current [A]

800 current, as one possible could in a classical field wound exciter.

600
However, a permanent magnet exciter is independent from the
grid, giving a benefit regarding the low voltage ride through
400
IF (LVRT) requirement of the synchronous generator. With a
200
If/kf field wound exciter, voltage dips in the grid could make the
0
available field winding voltage drop, causing a drop in the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s] synchronous generator field current. The drop in the generator
field current would make it easier for the generator to fall out
Fig. 12. Voltage buildup and step response test of the exciter machine with a of synchronism.
rotating diode bridge . Step down response (1.0 pu to 0.95 pu) at 5 seconds.
Plot of the field voltage (Uf ) applied over the exciter field winding, the The main driver for excitation systems with a rotating
I
equivalent circuit exciter field winding current ( kf ) and the generator field permanent magnet exciter as the main exciter (config. E and
f
winding current (IF ). The applied voltage in the exciter field winding could F), is the possibility for the generator to operate with a higher
be obtained by either configuration B or D. electrical power and still fulfill the LVRT requirement. At the
same time, the system becomes simpler, with fewer stages.
The phase voltages of the configuration becomes non- Another driver is that they are brushless and need less regular
sinusoidal because of continuous commutation of the phase maintenance.
currents (see Fig. 13). Configuration F is not studied directly in this paper. Regard-
ing the step response time, the rotating IGBT chopper would
be able to apply the field winding ceiling voltage from the
rotating capacitor bus instantly over the field winding, whereas
the thyristor bridge rectifier (config. C) would need about 10
milliseconds. This improvement would not improve the step
time response significantly much. However, the rotating thyris-
tor bridge has a drawback with high torque ripples at higher
firing angles [6]. This problem would be minimized with an
IGBT chopper on the shaft. Studies show how it is possible
to minimize the torque ripple with the diode bridge rectifier
and a DC/DC converter, as the power electronic interface [15].
Configuration F adds complexity to the system by including a
capacitor bank on the rotating shaft. However, configuration F
includes only a few active switching components on the shaft.
IV. C ONCLUSION
In correspondence with scandinavian practice, the step time
response of both the classical exciter with a rotating thyristor
bridge and the PM exciter with a rotating thyristor bridge,
both fulfill the grid requirements set by Statnett and Svenska
Kraftnett. According to Statnett, 90 percent of the 0.05 per
unit step up and step down response should be fulfilled within
0.5 seconds for conventional static exciters. The conventional
brushless exciter configuration, with a rotating diode bridge,
is not able to withstand this requirement for the given power
unit.
This paper investigates the configurations with excitation
control via the thyristor bridge functionality. The IGBT based
interface with a rotating capacitor could also be investigated.
It would be interesting to check how the step response of the
generator field current acts under loaded operation and how
the configurations will meet the LVRT requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Statkraft for supporting the
work done, and Voith Hydro for valuable technical input.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Wright, R. Hawley, and J. Dinely, “Brushless thyristor excitation
systems.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 5,
no. PAS-91, pp. 1848–1854, 1972.
[2] F. Evestedt, “Wireless control and measurement system for a hydropower
generator with brushless exciter,” M.Sc. thesis, Div. Elect., Angstrom
Lab., Uppsala Univ., Uppsala, Sweden, Jun. 2015.
[3] A. Barakat, S. Tnani, G. Champenois, and E. Mouni, “Output voltage
control of synchronous generator using diode and thyristor excitation
structures combined with multivariable H∞ controllers,” Electric Power
Applications, IET, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 203–213, 2012.
[4] N. Patin, L. Vido, E. Monmasson, J.-P. Louis, M. Gabsi, and
M. Lécrivain, “Control of a hybrid excitation synchronous generator
for aircraft applications,” Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 3772–3783, 2008.
[5] E. Mouni, S. Tnani, and G. Champenois, “Synchronous generator output
voltage real-time feedback control via H∞ strategy,” Energy Conversion,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 329–337, 2009.
[6] J. K. Nøland, K. B. Hjelmervik, and U. Lundin, “Comparison of
thyristor-controlled rectification topologies for a six-phase rotating
brushless permanent magnet exciter,” IEEE Trans. on Energy Convers.,
Oct. 2015.
[7] J. K. Nøland, “Electromagnetic analysis of rotating permanent magnet
exciters for hydroelectric generators,” M.Sc. thesis, Div. Elect. Power
Eng., Chalmers Univ. Technol., Gothenburg, Sweden, Aug. 2013.
[8] F. Bensmaine, A. Barakat, S. Tnani, G. Champenois, and E. Mouni,
“Dual control of synchronous generator for terminal voltage regulation-
comparison with a single control,” Electric Power Systems Research,
vol. 91, pp. 78–86, 2012.
View publication stats
[9] G. Erceg and R. Erceg, “Specific applications of the transistor converter
in excitation systems of synchronous generators,” in Electrical and
Computer Engineering, 2001. Canadian Conference on, vol. 2. IEEE,
2001, pp. 887–890.
[10] S. Bernet, R. Teichmann, A. Zuckerberger, and P. K. Steimer, “Com-
parison of high-power IGBT’s and hard-driven GTO’s for high-power
inverters,” Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 35, no. 2,
pp. 487–495, 1999.
[11] Ø. Kirkeluten and Ø. Breidablik, “Veileder for funksjonskrav i kraftsys-
temet (FIKS) - spesifikasjon for reguleringstekniske krav til magnetiser-
ingssystemer og dempetilsatser,” Norwegian grid codes for transmission
system (Statnett SF), pp. 101–108, 2012.
[12] R. Thornton-Jones, I. Golightly, N. Gutteridge, C. Huizer, and
D. Navratil, “Review of generator and excitation system specification
and test requirements to satisfy multiple international grid code stan-
dards,” in Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012 IEEE.
IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–2.
[13] P. Kundur, N. J. Balu, and M. G. Lauby, Power system stability and
control. McGraw-hill New York, 1994, vol. 7.
[14] A. Barakat, S. Tnani, G. Champenois, and E. Mouni, “Analysis of syn-
chronous machine modeling for simulation and industrial applications,”
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1382–
1396, 2010.
[15] Y. Xia, K. H. Ahmed, and B. W. Williams, “Different torque ripple
reduction methods for wind energy conversion systems using diode
rectifier and boost converter,” in Electric Machines & Drives Conference
(IEMDC), 2011 IEEE International. IEEE, 2011, pp. 729–734.
Jonas Kristiansen Nøland received the graduation degree in energy and
environmental engineering from the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway, in 2010; the B.S. degree in energy and
environmental physics from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås,
Norway, in 2011; and the M.S. degree in electric power engineering from
the Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, in 2013. He
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in the science of electricity
engineering and physics at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Since
August 2013, he has been working 20 percent as an Assistant Professor in
marine electrotechnology and automation at University College of Southeast
Norway (USN), Horten, Norway. Since the beginning of 2013, he has focused
on the study of active brushless rotating exciters for improved voltage
regulation of hydroelectric generators. He is also part of USN’s research group
on Hydropower, Transmission and Distribution and part of the Hydropower
group at Uppsala University.
Urban Lundin received the Ph.D. degree from Uppsala University, Uppsala,
Sweden, in 2000, in condensed matter theory. He spent 2001-2004 as a
Postdoc at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. In 2004, he
joined the Division for Electricity at Uppsala University. He is currently a
Professor in electricity with a specialisation towards hydropower systems at
Uppsala University. His research focuses on synchronous generators and their
interaction with mechanical components and the power system. He leads the
Hydropower Group and has been involved in the industrial implementation
of research projects. His current research interests include excitation systems
and magnetic bearings.