Carter TE

Studies on motor bus transfer challenges for the
ancillary equipment of a large thermal power

station
TE Carter
orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5396-9243
Dissertation accepted in fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree Master of Engineering in Electrical and Electronic
Engineering at the North West University
Supervisor: Prof J de Kock
Graduation: June 2021

Student number: 25877070
STUDIES ON MOTOR BUS TRANSFER CHALLENGES FOR THE ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT OF A LARGE THERMAL POWER
STATION
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank and acknowledge the following individuals for their contribution and expertise,
which has enabled me to successfully complete my study:
 My study leader Prof Jan de Kock for supporting and guiding me through this process, as
well as relaying some of your knowledge to me.
 Mrs de Kock for correcting the language and grammatical errors in my dissertation.
 My parents Teresa and Greg Carter for all the love and support you gave me during this time.
 As well as my friends and family for all their love and support.
 Machiel Viljoen for bringing our attention to this study and organizing access to the power
station.
 The team at Kendal (Jan Meyer, Pieter Rabe, Johan Geldenhuys, Johan van Niekerk,
Prishen Pather, Niven Moodley, Nathi Mkhize, Dayalan Govender, Jon Maloney, Victor
Skhosa, Murray van Niekerk, Hasie Haasbroek, Tose Msingathi, Ayanda Mahlobo, Mohamed
Khan, John Boy and to anyone else who helped me during my time at Kendal that I have
forgotten to mention) thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to share
information with me, walk me through the power station to show me the motors and
transformers, being hospitable and assisting me during my visits to Kendal and via email
during the course of this study.
“You obey the law of Christ when you offer each other a helping hand” Galatians 6:2 CEV
i
STATION
Abstract
This study considers the high-speed motor bus transfer system at Kendal Power Station. A high-
speed motor bus transfer system is used to transfer motors from one source to another source under
controlled or emergency conditions. There are two types of transfers, i.e. closed and open transfers.
A closed motor bus transfer is done during controlled conditions and is not suitable for fault
conditions. An open transfer is done during fault conditions and has four methods namely a fast
transfer, in-phase transfer, residual voltage transfer and fixed time transfer. Kendal implemented a
fast transfer system at their common plant. The crucial part of the common plant is the eight
induction motors and their pumps that supply cooling to the generators at Kendal power station. For
this reason, Kendal identified the need to have a fast transfer device to ensure that those motors are
always operational to prevent multiple unit trips at the power station. However, in 2014 the fast
transfer device failed and it is the purpose of this study to provide answers as to why this device
might have failed on that specific day in 2014.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the dynamic response of the power system by constructing
a simulated model of the power station. This was done by designing a model to characterize the
motors’ parameters. Two methods were considered and it was found that motor characterization by
making use of error optimization yielded the best results. This method entailed torque vs speed and
current vs speed curve fitting of the calculated results with that of the manufacturers’ data sheets.
The next step was to accurately model the cables and transformers in the system and to add the
lump loads for the low voltage boards. The developed model was verified against two other models
of the power plant. The results obtained from the short-circuit tests done on all three models were
close in value, meaning that the studies model is accurate.
Accurate simulations were done to determine why the system failed in 2014 and what type of motor
bus transfer methods would work for the existing system. It was found that the system most likely
failed due to it being an older and technically limited transfer relay, that the system’s inertia is too
low for fast transfer to safely take place and incorrect settings were applied to the transfer relay.
Simulations showed that the only possible transfer methods would work are an in-phase transfer and
residual voltage transfer. From this study, it is recommended that Kendal install a new motor bus
transfer device with the option of disabling the fast transfer option. New settings for the transfer relay
are recommended and Kendal should also consider a motor re-acceleration scheme with a fixed
time transfer as a backup to the motor bus transfer system.
Keywords – motor bus transfer, induction motors, parameter estimation, thermal power station
ii
STATION
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... i
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xiv
List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................ xvii
List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... xxii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Possible hypotheses as to why the FTS failed at Kendal Power Station ........................... 6
1.4 Project objectives.............................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Motor bus transfer and methods ....................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Hot parallel transfer / closed transfer ......................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Open transfer methods ............................................................................................ 10
2.2.3 Fast transfer (an open transfer method) ................................................................... 14
2.2.4 Delayed in-phase transfer (an open transfer method) .............................................. 15
2.2.5 Residual voltage transfer (an open transfer method) ............................................... 16
2.2.6 Fixed time transfer ................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Consequences of negligent motor bus transfers ............................................................. 17
2.3.1 High currents during starting and reconnection ........................................................ 17
2.3.2 Shaft Torque and Negative Transient Torque .......................................................... 20
2.4 Considerations to be made before initiating a motor bus transfer .................................... 29
2.4.1 Motor size ................................................................................................................ 29
2.4.2 Inertia ...................................................................................................................... 29
2.4.3 Combinations of induction and synchronous motors ................................................ 29
2.4.4 The V/Hz pu ratio during transfer ............................................................................. 30
2.4.5 The response of the relays involved in the motor bus transfer system ..................... 31
iii
STATION
2.4.6 Bases for shedding load during a motor bus transfer ............................................... 31
2.5 Problems with motor bus transfer methods ..................................................................... 32
2.5.1 Impact of a motor bus transfer on the transformers .................................................. 32
2.5.2 Impact of motor bus transfer on synchronous motors .............................................. 32
2.5.3 Damaging impacts of motor bus transfers and resulting voltage dips ....................... 32
2.5.4 The performance of VSDs during a motor bus transfer ............................................ 34
2.6 Characterisation of an induction motor ............................................................................ 35
2.6.1 Clarke and Park Transform ...................................................................................... 35
2.6.2 Single cage model of an induction motor ................................................................. 37
2.6.3 Dynamic or static motor models ............................................................................... 38
2.6.4 Standard tests ......................................................................................................... 39
2.6.5 Double cage model of an induction motor ................................................................ 40
2.6.6 DigSilent™ Model of a double cage induction motor ................................................ 43
2.6.7 Parameter identification by using Pedra’s method ................................................... 43
2.6.8 Parameter identification by using the error elimination method ................................ 44
2.6.9 Other methods to determine induction motor parameters ........................................ 46
2.6.10 Load torque model ................................................................................................... 46
2.7 Starting of mechanical loads such as pumps and compressors ...................................... 48
2.8 Using hydraulic couplings for conveyor belt starting ........................................................ 51
2.9 Transformers .................................................................................................................. 56
2.9.1 Zero-sequence reactance............................................................................................ 56
2.9.2 Transformer losses and no-load current ...................................................................... 59
2.10 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 61
Chapter 3: Characterisation of electrical machines ....................................................................... 63
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 63
3.2 Motor characterization .................................................................................................... 63
3.2.1 Pedra’s method of identifying induction motor parameters .......................................... 69
3.2.2 8* Optimization method on identifying induction motor parameters ............................. 73
3.2.3 Pedra’s Method compared to the Optimization method ............................................... 89
3.2.4 Defining the mechanical loads driven by the induction motors ..................................... 90
iv
STATION
3.2.5 Simulink model of the mechanical part of the induction motor model ........................... 92
3.3 Modelling the transformers.............................................................................................. 96
3.3.1 Modelling the zero-sequence reactance ...................................................................... 97
3.3.2 Modelling the transformer losses and no-load current ................................................. 97
3.4 Comparing SANS780-2009 Edition 4 with ABB’s estimated transformer losses ............ 101
3.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 105
Chapter 4: Design and simulation of DIgSILENT™ model .......................................................... 106
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 106
4.2 Motor modelling in DigSilent™ ...................................................................................... 106
4.3 Defining the mechanical loads driven by the induction motors in DigSilent™ ................ 127
4.4 Modelling the generator and HV-yard ........................................................................... 136
4.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 140
Chapter 5: Verifying the accuracy of the DigSilent™ model with data provided by Eskom .......... 141
5.1 Three-phase short-circuit current .................................................................................. 141
5.2 Trip Report.................................................................................................................... 160
5.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 167
Chapter 6: Testing each Hypothesis and MBT method with the DigSilent™ model ..................... 168
6.1 The existing Beckwith device and set-up ...................................................................... 168
6.2 Hypotheses................................................................................................................... 175
6.2.1 Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................................................... 176
6.2.2 Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................................................... 180
6.2.3 Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................................................... 180
6.2.4 Hypothesis 4 .......................................................................................................... 181
6.2.5 Limitations on the existing Beckwith system .......................................................... 181
6.2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 182
6.3 Motor bus transfer methods for the existing system ...................................................... 182
6.3.1 Fast transfer .............................................................................................................. 182
6.3.2 In-phase transfer ....................................................................................................... 202
6.3.3 Residual voltage transfer ........................................................................................... 213
6.3.4 Findings .................................................................................................................... 226

v
STATION
6.4 Events triggering a motor bus transfer .......................................................................... 227
6.4.1 Faults on Unit Board busbar ...................................................................................... 228
6.4.1.1 Three-phase faults on Unit Board ....................................................................... 228
6.4.2 Earth faults on Unit Board ...................................................................................... 239
6.4.3 Buchholz trip on Unit Transformer ......................................................................... 243
6.5 Other considerations to contribute to a successful MBT................................................ 247
6.5.1 Adding inertia to initiate a fast transfer or in-phase transfer ................................... 247
6.5.2 Adding synchronous motors to the system............................................................. 256
6.5.3 Load shedding non-critical loads and reaccelerating them after the transfer .......... 257
6.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 260
Chapter 7: Conclusion and recommendations............................................................................. 261
7.1 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 261
7.2 Project Recommendations ............................................................................................ 262
7.3 Future studies ............................................................................................................... 263
7.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 263
References ................................................................................................................................. 265
Appendix A: Transformer Database ............................................................................................ 271
vi
STATION
List of Figures
Figure 1: A simplied single-line diagram of the Kendal Power Station supply to the common plant . 3
Figure 2: The sequence of a closed transfer [10]. ......................................................................... 10
Figure 3: The sequence of an open transfer [10] ........................................................................... 11
Figure 4: A graph illustrating the motor bus transfer zones [14]..................................................... 12
Figure 5: The voltage-phase angle locus illustrating the different open transfer methods zones [16]
..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6: The approximate per-phase equivalent circuit of a single squirrel cage induction motor [19]
..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: The torque versus slip relationship of an induction motor [19]. ....................................... 22
Figure 8: The difference between the phase-angle of the residual voltage and the sources' voltage
a) before disconnection and b) once disconnected from the old source [23]. ................................ 24
Figure 9: A graph illustrating the motors shaft and electrical torque during a power interruption ... 26
Figure 10: The effect the motor bus voltage and phase angle difference have on the negative
transient peak [25]. ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11: The effect the total inertia has on the negative transient torque [25]. ............................ 28
Figure 12: The resultant V/Hz pu phasor before a motor bus transfer [15] .................................... 30
Figure 13: The stator current in an abc-reference frame are transformed to a 𝛽𝛼-reference frame
and then further transformed to dq-reference frame [32] ............................................................... 35
Figure 14: The combined vector group of all the reference frames [32] ......................................... 36
Figure 15: The approximate per-phase equivalent circuit of a single squirrel cage induction motor
[19] ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 16: The torque-speed curve of a double cage induction motor [12] .................................... 40
Figure 17: The per-phase approximate equivalent circuit of a double cage induction motor [19] ... 40
Figure 18: DigSilent™ rotor part of a double cage induction motor [38]......................................... 43
Figure 19: The per-phase equivalent model used in Pedra's research [37] ................................... 43
Figure 20: The torque-speed relations of different type of motor loads [41] ................................... 47
Figure 21: The mechanical model of an induction motor ............................................................... 48
Figure 22: Example of the torque of a motor vs speed curve plotted against a pumps torque vs speed
curve [42] ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 23: Torque vs speed curve of the motor plotted against a constant torque vs speed curve of
a mechanical load ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 24: A layout of the screw compressor at Kendal Power Station [43] ................................... 50
Figure 25: The construction of a fluid coupling [45] ....................................................................... 52
Figure 26: The moving of fluid in a hydraulic coupling [46] ............................................................ 53
Figure 27: The Construction of a basic fluid coupling [45] ............................................................. 55
vii
STATION
Figure 28: The construction of a more advanced fluid coupling [45] .............................................. 55
Figure 29: Transformer losses and no-load current plotted against different transformer ratings [49]
..................................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 30: The torque vs speed curve of the east auxiliary cooling pump motor [52]..................... 65
Figure 31: The current vs speed curve of the East auxiliary cooling pump motor [52] ................... 66
Figure 32: The torque vs speed curve of the service air compressors [53] .................................... 68
Figure 33: The current vs speed curve of the service air compressors [53] ................................... 68
Figure 34: The Torque vs Speed Curve for the parameters obtained from Pedra's Method .......... 72
Figure 35: The Current vs Speed Curve for the parameters obtained from Pedra's Method .......... 72
Figure 36: The loop used to calculate the speed curves for different values of the outer cage rotor
resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 37: The error function loop for optimizing the outer cage rotor resistance .......................... 76
Figure 38: The normal error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor
resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 39: The absolute error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor
resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 40: The squared error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor
resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 41: A flowchart illustrating how the optimization method works. ......................................... 79
Figure 42: The calculated electrical torque vs speed plotted with the actual torque vs speed curve
for different voltage values for the east auxiliary cooling pump...................................................... 80
Figure 43: The calculated current vs speed plotted with the actual current vs speed curve for the
east auxiliary cooling pump ........................................................................................................... 81
Figure 44: The calculated electrical torque vs speed plotted with the actual torque vs speed curve
for different voltage values for the service air compressor............................................................. 82
Figure 45: The calculated current vs speed plotted with the actual current vs speed curve for the
service air compressor .................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 46: The torque error functions for parameter 𝑋21 of the S5 and S6 conveyor motors ........ 84
Figure 47: The Torque vs Speed Curve for the optimized values for the S5 and S6 conveyor ...... 85
Figure 48: The torque vs speed curve for the two different models for conveyor S5 and S6 ......... 86
Figure 49: Current vs Speed Curve for estimating parameter values entered for conveyor motors S5
and S6 .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 50: The torque vs speed curve for the estimating values plotted against the actual and
optimized values for conveyor motors S5 and S6.......................................................................... 88
Figure 51: The manufacturer's torque vs speed curve plotted against the two methods for estimated
values of the motor’s parameters for the East auxiliary cooling pump ........................................... 89
Figure 52: The torque vs speed curve for Voith's fluid couplings [45] ............................................ 90
viii
STATION
Figure 53: The estimated torque vs speed curve for the pumps .................................................... 91
Figure 54: The estimated torque vs speed curve for the compressors .......................................... 92
Figure 55: The mechanical model of the East Auxiliary Cooling Pump motors .............................. 93
Figure 56: The modelled speed of the East auxiliary cooling pumps for a maximum moment of inertia
..................................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 57: The modelled speed of the East auxiliary cooling pumps ............................................. 95
Figure 58: The no-load losses and current curve for different transformer ratings ......................... 98
Figure 59: The impedance losses curve for different transformer ratings ...................................... 99
Figure 60: SANS780-2009 Edition 4 Transformer Losses for the 3.3 kV /11 kV to the 380 V [51] . 99
Figure 61: SANS780-2009 Edition 4 Transformer Losses for the 11 kV to 3.3 kV [51] ................ 100
Figure 62: Rating plate of East Substation Transformer .............................................................. 101
Figure 63: Rating Plate of Station Service Transformer 11 kV to 3.3 kV...................................... 102
Figure 64: Rating Plate of Coal Stockyard Line 1 Transformer 11 kV to 22 kV ............................ 103
Figure 65: The DigSilent™ and manufacturer’s torque vs speed curve for the parameters specified
in Table 1 .................................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 66: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 1 ........ 108
Figure 67: The manufacturer’s current vs speed curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps ....... 109
Figure 68: The DigSilent™ and Manufacturers Torque vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™
parameters for the East Auxiliary Pumps .................................................................................... 110
Figure 69: The DigSilent™ Current vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the East
auxiliary pumps ........................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 70: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ motor models for the East auxiliary
pumps ......................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 71: The torque vs time curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps ................................... 112
Figure 72: The current vs time curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps .................................. 113
Figure 73: The DigSilent™ and manufacturer’s torque vs speed curve for the parameters specified
in Table 3 .................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 74: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 3 ........ 115
Figure 75: The manufacturers current vs speed curve for the service air compressors ............... 115
Figure 76: The DigSilent™ and Manufacturers Torque vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™
parameters for the Service Air Compressor Motors..................................................................... 116
Figure 77: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the service air
compressor motors ..................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 78: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the Service air
compressor motors ..................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 79: The torque vs time curve for the service air compressor motors................................. 118
Figure 80: The current vs time curve for the service air compressor motors................................ 119
ix
STATION
Figure 81: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the S5 conveyor
motors......................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 82: The torque vs time curve for the S5 conveyor motors ................................................ 122
Figure 83: The current vs time curve for the S5 conveyor motors ............................................... 123
Figure 84: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the S6 conveyor
motors......................................................................................................................................... 124
Figure 85: The torque vs time curve for the S6 conveyor motors ................................................ 125
Figure 86: The current vs time curve for the S6 conveyor motors ............................................... 126
Figure 87: The estimated torque vs speed curve for coupling type TVVS ................................... 127
Figure 88: The estimated torque vs speed curve for coupling type TVV ...................................... 128
Figure 89: Mechanical load curves used in DigSilent during motor start-up and running of the motor
................................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 90: The torque vs speed curves for all the motors at the common plant ........................... 135
Figure 91: The modelling of the HV-yard and generator .............................................................. 138
Figure 92: The voltage of the Unit Board 1 after disconnecting the 11 kV Station Board 1 .......... 139
Figure 93: The voltage of the Unit Board 1A after disconnecting the 11 kV Station Board 1 for the
new layout................................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 94: The datasheet for the auxiliary cooling pumps ........................................................... 162
Figure 95: The Pump Curves for the auxiliary cooling pumps ..................................................... 163
Figure 96: The RMS Simulation curves from DigSilent™ for the west auxiliary cooling pump motor
................................................................................................................................................... 164
Figure 97: The RMS Simulation curves from DigSilent™ for the east auxiliary cooling pump motor
................................................................................................................................................... 165
Figure 98: The sequence of events for when a transfer is initiated for the current Beckwith model at
Kendal ........................................................................................................................................ 169
Figure 99: The Kendal time windows for the motor bus transfer shown on the Station Board 1 motor
bus transfer graph ....................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 100: The Kendal time windows for the motor bus transfer shown on the Station Board 2 motor
bus transfer graph ....................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 101: The Delta Frequency vs Time for Station Board 1 .................................................... 173
Figure 102: The Delta Frequency vs Time for Station Board 2 .................................................... 174
Figure 103: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s. ............. 177
Figure 104: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s .......................... 178
Figure 105: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 2 for a trip of 1.5 s .............. 179
Figure 106: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a trip of 1.5 s .......................... 179
Figure 107: The Resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 2 for a 50 ms trip183
Figure 108: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 for a 50 ms trip .. 184
x
STATION
Figure 109: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 2 during
disconnection and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a trip of 50 ms ........................................ 185
Figure 110: The Resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 2 for a 200 ms trip
................................................................................................................................................... 189
Figure 111: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 for a 200 ms trip 190
disconnection and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a trip of 200 ms ...................................... 192
Figure 113: The Resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 1 for a 50 ms trip194
Figure 114: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 1 for a 50 ms trip .. 195
disconnection and reconnection of Station Board 1 for a trip of 50 ms ........................................ 196
................................................................................................................................................... 198
................................................................................................................................................... 203
Figure 122: The voltage of the nine busbars before an in-phase transfer .................................... 206
Figure 123: The voltage phase angle of the nine busbars before an in-phase transfer ................ 207
................................................................................................................................................... 209
................................................................................................................................................... 214
Figure 130: The voltage of the nine busbars before a residual voltage transfer ........................... 218
Figure 131: The voltage phase-angle of the nine busbars before a residual voltage transfer ...... 219
Figure 132: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 2 for a 350 ms trip
................................................................................................................................................... 221
xi
STATION
Figure 135: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a three-phase fault on the unit
Board and a trip of 1.5 s .............................................................................................................. 229
Figure 136: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 1 during a three-phase
fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and 5, and a delay of 80 ms ................................................................... 230
Figure 137: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 1 during a three-phase
Figure 138: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 1 during a
three-phase fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and 5, and a trip of 80 ms................................................... 232
Figure 139: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 1 during a three-phase
fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and5, and a delay of 210 ms .................................................................. 234
Figure 140: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 1 during a three-phase
fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and 5, and a delay of 210 ms ................................................................. 235
three-phase fault on Unit Board 1,3,5 and a trip of 210 ms ........................................................ 236
Figure 142: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a three-phase fault on the Unit
Board and a trip of 1.5 s .............................................................................................................. 238
Figure 143: The motor bus transfer graph for Phase A of Station Board 2 for an earth fault on Phase
A on the Unit Board and a delay of 1.5 s ..................................................................................... 239
Figure 144: The motor bus transfer graph for Phase B and C of Station Board 2 for an earth fault on
Phase A on the Unit Board and a trip of 1.5 s ............................................................................. 240
Figure 145: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 during an earth fault
on phase A on the Unit Board and a delay of 1.5 s ..................................................................... 241
an earth fault on phase A on the Unit Board and a delay of 1.5 s ................................................ 242
Figure 147: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a Buchholz trip on the Unit
Transformer and a trip of 1.5 s ................................................................................................... 244
Figure 148: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 during a Buchholz trip
on the Unit Transformer and a trip of 1.5 s .................................................................................. 245
Buchholz trip on the Unit Transformer and a delay of 1.5 s ......................................................... 246
Figure 150: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a Buchholz trip on the Unit
Transformer and a trip of 1.5 s ................................................................................................ 247
Figure 151: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase
in inertia for motors without gearboxes........................................................................................ 251
xii
STATION
Figure 152: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase inertia
for motors without gearboxes. ..................................................................................................... 251
Figure 153: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase
in all the motors inertia. ............................................................................................................... 254
Figure 154: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase in all
the motors inertia. ....................................................................................................................... 254
Figure 155: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with the addition
of an 11 kV motor used to create more inertia in the system. ...................................................... 255
Figure 156: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with the addition of an
11 kV motor used to create more inertia in the system. ............................................................... 256
Figure 157: The voltage vs time graphs for the synchronous motors in the network and out of the
network ....................................................................................................................................... 257
Figure 158: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s and the load
shedding of a non-critical load..................................................................................................... 258
Figure 159: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s and the load shedding
of a non-critical load. ................................................................................................................... 259
Figure 160: The voltage decay for the normal network and the loadshedded network ................ 259
Figure 161: The current of the standby feeder for the current network and for the loadshedded
network ....................................................................................................................................... 260
xiii
STATION
List of Tables
Table 1: The minimum scheduled routine tests as stipulated by SANS standards [36] .................. 39
Table 2: A list of equations Pedra developed in his research [37] ................................................. 44
Table 3: Typical range of values identified for parameters of induction motors [35] ....................... 45
Table 4: The group number of different mechanical loads [41] ...................................................... 47
Table 5: A product list of Voith Fluid Couplings [45] ...................................................................... 54
Table 6: The Fortescue transform [47] .......................................................................................... 56
Table 7: Per-unit sequence networks for different vector groups of two winding transformers [47] 57
Table 8: ABB Reference values of 𝑋0 /𝑋 + for three-phase transformers [48] .............................. 58
Table 9: Typical values for eddy current losses for certain transformer types [50] ......................... 60
Table 10: Standard Power ratings and component losses for dual-ratio transformers [51] ............ 61
Table 11: Ratings of a 3.3 kV East Auxiliary Cooling Pump Induction Motor ................................. 64
Table 12: Ratings of a 3.3 kV Service Air Compressor Induction Motor ........................................ 67
Table 13: Ratings of a 3.3 kV S5 and S6 Conveyor Induction Motor ............................................. 67
Table 14: Calculated value's obtained by Pedra's method for the parameters of the east auxiliary
cooling pump motor ...................................................................................................................... 69
Table 15: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the east auxiliary
cooling pump motor ...................................................................................................................... 80
Table 16: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the service air
compressor ................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 17: The manufacturer’s information given for conveyor motor's S5 and S6 ......................... 83
Table 18: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the conveyor
motors S5 and S6 ......................................................................................................................... 85
Table 19: Values obtained for the parameters for the Conveyor Motors S5 and S6 ...................... 87
Table 20: The different starting currents for the different modelling methods for conveyors motors S5
and S6 .......................................................................................................................................... 87
Table 21: Estimated parameters entered into DigSilent™ for conveyor motors S5 and S6 ........... 88
Table 22: The Simulink models determined mechanical parameters for the motors at Kendal Power
Station .......................................................................................................................................... 96
Table 23: The values of the ratio 𝑋0/𝑋 for certain transformer vector group ................................. 97
Table 24: The rating of the station transformer. ........................................................................... 102
Table 25: A summary of results obtained by equations based on ABB and SANS780-2009 Edition 4
for four different transformers at Kendal ...................................................................................... 104
Table 26: Parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump determined from the Matlab™ and
Simulink™ model ........................................................................................................................ 107
xiv
STATION
Table 27: Parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump determined from the DigSilent™ model
................................................................................................................................................... 109
Table 28: Parameters of the Service Air Compressor determined from the Matlab™ and Simulink™
model .......................................................................................................................................... 114
Table 29: Parameters of the service air compressors determined from the DigSilent™ model .... 116
Table 30: Parameters of the S5 conveyor motors determined from the DigSilent™ model.......... 120
Table 31: Transformer losses obtained de Kock's database [57] ................................................ 142
Table 32: The three-phase short circuit currents for the protection settings and two models ....... 144
Table 33: The possible reasons for the error margin between the protection settings and the studies
model .......................................................................................................................................... 157
Table 34: The reasons for the error margin between Kendal’s model and the studies model ...... 159
Table 35: The sequence of events that unfolded in the trip report [4]. ......................................... 161
Table 36: The speed and head to time for the West Auxiliary cooling pump for when the 5 s trip
occurs ......................................................................................................................................... 166
Table 37: The specified and actual settings on the Beckwith device at Kendal [59] [2] ................ 170
Table 38: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 2 during disconnection
and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a 50 ms trip................................................................... 187
and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a 200 ms trip................................................................. 193
and reconnection of Station Board 1 for a 50 ms trip................................................................... 197
Table 46: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 1 during a three-phase
Table 47: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 1 during a three-phase
fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and 5, and a delay of 210 ms ................................................................. 237
Table 48: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 for the current system... 248
xv
STATION
Table 49: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 if the inertia of motors without
gearboxes is increased ............................................................................................................... 250
Table 50: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 if the inertia of all the motors
is increased................................................................................................................................. 253
xvi
STATION
List of Symbols
Symbol Meaning
𝜽 The total phase shift of the induction motor over a certain time, measured in degrees.
𝝎(𝒕) The frequency shift for the induction motor that may vary as a function of time,
measure in Hz.
𝑯 The per-unit inertia of the rotating mass, measured in s
𝜶 The rotational acceleration of the load, measured in pu.
𝜼 The efficiency of an induction motor, measured in percentage
𝒇 The frequency, measured in Hz
𝒕 The current time while the motor is still disconnected, measured in s
𝒑 The number of poles of the motor
𝒈 The gear ratio of the induction motor to the load
𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒕𝒐𝒕 Is total acceleration time, measured in s
𝜷 The phase angle between the motor’s residual voltage and the source voltage once
disconnected from the power supply, measured in radians.
𝜷𝟎 The phase angle between the motor’s residual voltage and the source voltage while
the motor is still connected to the old power supply, measured in radians.
𝜺 The normal error function, whose measure is relative to the index
𝜺𝒂𝒃𝒔 The absolute error function, whose measure is relative to the index
𝜺𝑺𝑸𝑹 The squared error function, whose measure is relative to the index
𝝎𝒔 The synchronous speed of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝝎 The rotor speed of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝝎𝑵 The rated speed of an induction motor, measured in pu
𝝎𝒎𝒊 The mechanical angular frequency of the motor during the interruption, measured in
rad/s
xvii
STATION
Symbol Meaning
𝝎𝒔𝒚𝒔 The angular frequency of the whole system, measured in rad/s
𝝎𝒏𝒆𝒘 The new radial speed of the pumps impeller, measured in rpm
𝝎𝒐𝒍𝒅 The old radial speed of the pumps impeller, measured in rpm
𝑬𝒎 The V/Hz ratio of the motor residual voltage and frequency, measured in pu
𝑬𝒔 The V/Hz ratio of the new source’s voltage and frequency, measured in pu
𝑬𝒓 The V/Hz ratio of the resultant input voltage and frequency of the motor, measured
in pu
𝑰𝟏𝒔 The transient current during starting of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑰𝟏 The supplied current to the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑰𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 The core-loss current of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑰𝒎 The magnetization current of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑰𝟐 The rotor current of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑰𝑵 The nominal current of an induction motor, measured in A
𝑰𝒔𝒕 The starting current of the induction motor, measured in A
𝑰𝒂 The standard a-phase current of a three-phase system, measured in pu
𝑰𝒃 The standard b-phase current of a three-phase system, measured in pu
𝑰𝑪 The standard c-phase current of a three-phase system, measured in pu
𝑰𝜶 The transformed three phase current to the 𝛼-axis orthangonal current, measured in
pu
𝑰𝜷 The transformed three phase current to the 𝛽-axis orthangonal current, measured in
pu
𝑰𝒅 The transformed orthogonal current to Park’s Theorem d-axis current, measured in

pu
𝑰𝒒 The transformed orthogonal current to Park’s Theorem q-axis current, measured in

pu
xviii
STATION
Symbol Meaning
𝑰𝒔𝒄 The maximum through fault current of the transformer, measured in A.
𝑱 The total moment of inertia (motor and loads inertia), measured in kg.m2
𝑱𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒓 The moment of inertia of the induction motor, measured in kg.m2
𝑱𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅 The moment of inertia of the load, measured in kg.m2
𝑻𝒎𝒆𝒄𝒉 The mechanical load torque, measured in pu
𝑻𝒆 The electrical torque developed by the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒊 The inner rotor cage torque of a double cage induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒐 The outer rotor cage torque of a double cage induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒔𝒕 The starting torque or locked rotor torque of an induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒃𝒓 The breakdown torque of an induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒔𝒂𝒅 The saddle point torque of an induction motor, measured in pu
𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 The rated torque of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑼𝟏 The applied voltage to the motor, measured in pu
𝑬𝟏 The induced emf in the stator windings of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑷𝒐𝒖𝒕 The developed (output) power of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑷𝑵 The nominal power of an induction motor, measured in kW
𝑷𝒔𝒍 The stray load losses of a transformer, measured in W
𝑺𝒓 The rated apparent power of the transformer, measured in VA
𝑺𝑵 The nominal apparent power of the induction motor, measured in VA
𝑺𝒔𝒄 The rated short-circuit apparent power of the transformer, measured in VA
𝑼𝒓𝒆𝒔 The residual voltage of the motor, measured in pu
𝑼𝒏𝒆𝒘 The applied voltage of the new source, measured in pu
𝑼𝒎 The motor residual voltage, measured in pu
xix
STATION
Symbol Meaning
𝑼𝒔 The new source’s voltage, measured in pu
𝑼𝒓 The resultant input voltage of the motor, measured in pu
𝑼𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 The rated voltage of an induction motor, measured in kV
𝑼𝒓 The rated apparent voltage of the secondary winding of the transformer, measured
in V
𝒔 The slip of the induction motor, when the motor is at standstill the slip is equal to one
𝒔𝑵 The rated slip of an induction motor
𝑹𝒆 The equivalent resistance of the stator and rotor of an induction motor, measured in
pu
𝑹𝟏 The stator resistance of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑹𝟐 The rotor resistance for a single cage induction motor, measured in pu
𝑹𝒊 𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝟏𝟐 The inner cages resistance of the rotor for a double cage induction motor, measured
in pu
𝑹𝒐 𝒐𝒓 𝑹𝟐𝟐 The outer cages resistance of the rotor for a double cage induction motor, measured
in pu
𝑿𝒆 The equivalent reactance of the stator and the rotor of an induction motor, measured
in pu
𝑿𝟏 The leakage inductance of the stator of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑿𝒎 The magnetization reactance of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑿𝟐 The rotor reactance for a single cage induction motor, measured in pu
𝑿𝒊 𝒐𝒓 𝑿𝟏𝟐 The inner cages reactance of the rotor for a double cage induction motor, measured
in pu
𝑿𝒐 𝒐𝒓 𝑿𝟐𝟐 The outer cages reactance of the rotor for a double cage induction motor, measured
in pu
𝑿𝒓𝒎 The rotor leakage reactance of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝑿𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒐 The impedance of the transformer found on the rating plate, measured in percentage
xx
STATION
Symbol Meaning
𝑯𝒏𝒆𝒘 The new head developed by the pump, measured in m.
𝑯𝒐𝒍𝒅 The old head developed by the pump, measured in m.
xxi
STATION
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
FTS Fast Transfer System
MBT Motor Bus Transfer
kV Kilo Volts
pu Per-unit
V/Hz Volts per Hertz Per-unit
HV High Voltage
MV Medium Voltage
LV Low Voltage
SC Short-Circuit
VSD Variable Speed Drive
GSU Transformer Generator Step-Up Transformer
CSY Coal Stockyard
AVR Automatic Voltage Regulator
PSS Power System Stabilizer
xxii
STATION
Chapter 1: Introduction
The importance of a continuous power supply within a power station is of the utmost importance, as
this ensures that the power station is operational and continuously generating power to the grid.
Power stations consist of different sections namely the generating section and the auxiliary section.
The generating section generates power to the grid. The auxiliary section keeps the power station
operational by supplying cooling to the generators, transporting the coal and ash to and from the
boilers, and supplying power and lights to the buildings. Most of these assisting functions in the
auxiliary sections are driven by electric motors and are referred to as motor-driven systems. These
motor-driven systems are used to drive pumps, compressors, fans, conveyors, small generators,
and other electrical machinery [1]. Should something occur and cause these motor-driven systems
to come to a standstill, the power station would stop generating power and could cause a partial or
even total blackouts in the power system. Thus, this study considers the transfer of motors and their
loads at Kendal Power Station to keep the auxiliary section operational should a loss of supply occur
from the main source.
1.1 Background
In a power station, the components in the power station must be fully operational at all times. At
Kendal Power Station the motors are required to drive fans, pumps, conveyors, and compressors in
different parts of the power station to make sure the power station is continuously operational. Kendal
Power Station consist of different sections namely:
 Six generating units that supply Eskom’s Northern Region Grid and the station’s internal /
auxiliary load with power. The units consist of the mills, boilers, turbines and generators that
make use of the burning of finely crushed coal to produce steam, which then turns the
turbine’s rotor that turns the generator to produce electrical power.
 The coal plant is responsible for transporting coal from the mines to the power station. The
coal quality is tested here and then either stored or transported to the mills.
 The ash dump is responsible for transporting the ash from the boilers to the ash dump. The
ash is a by-product of the burnt coal.
 The common plant is tasked with keeping the power station operational by assisting the other
sections of the power station. For example, the common plant ensures that there is cooling
water flowing to the generators in the units, coal is transported from the coal plant to the unit
plant, and that ash is transported from the unit plant to the ash dump. The common plant
gets its power supply from the units (this will be described in more detail below).
 Khutala substation and the gas turbines at Kendal Power Station are there to provide a
backup supply to the common plant. Khutala substation is connected through other
1
STATION
substations to Eskom’s Northern Region. Should the units at Kendal be unable to supply the
common plant with power, the common plant can be switched to receive power from Khutala
substation or local gas turbines in case the Khutala supply is not available, or a black start is
required.
Figure 1 is a simplied single-line diagram showing the basic layout of the Kendal Power Station
power system.
2
STATION
Eskom’s Northern Region
Figure 1: A simplied single-line diagram of the Kendal Power Station supply to the common plant
3
STATION
For this study, the common plant at Kendal Power Station is considered. The common plant (also
known as the auxiliary plant) at Kendal Power Station is the support plant of the power station, it is
responsible for supplying cooling water to the generators, supplying compressed service air to the
power station, transporting the coal via conveyors from the mine to the power station, transporting
the ash from the boilers to the ash dumping fields via conveyors, and providing power to office
buildings and workshops at the power station. Although the coal does not always need to be fed to
the mills and ash does not always need to be collected from the boilers, the auxiliary cooling pumps
do need to be kept operational at all times. If the common plant experiences a trip or has no power
supply supplying it, it will cause the units to trip at the power station, as the generators will overheat.
It is for this reason that the motors responsible for driving the pumps (which in turn pump water to
and from the auxiliary cooling tower), the electrical service air compressors, and the coal and ash
conveyors should be kept operational continuously. Thus, these motor-driven conveyors will also be
considered in this study.
The common plant consists of the two main station boards (11 kV Station Board 1 and 11 kV Station
Board 2), which are tasked with supplying the power to the motor-driven systems mentioned above,
as well as the office buildings and workshops [2]. The 11 kV Station Board 1 is supplied by Unit 1
and the 11 kV Station Board 2 is supplied by Unit 2. Unit 1 is then looped with Unit 3 and Unit 5, so
if Unit 1 is experiencing an outage, then the 11 kV Station Board can still then be supplied by either
Unit 3 or Unit 5. Unit 2 is also looped with Unit 4 and Unit 6 for the same reason [2].
As already mentioned, the most crucial part of the common plant is the service air compressors and
the auxiliary cooling pumps. Four west auxiliary cooling pumps are supplying three of the units on
the west side of the Power Station, and four east auxiliary cooling pumps supplying the three units
on the east side of the Power Station. The west auxiliary cooling pumps along with the turbine
compressor and the service air compressors are connected to the 3.3 kV Station Service Boards 1A
and 1B. The east auxiliary cooling pumps are connected to the 3.3 kV Station Service Boards 2A
and 2B.
The 11 kV Station Board 1 is connected through a feeder to 3.3 kV Station Service Board 1A, and
the 11 kV Station Board 2 is then connected through a feeder to 3.3 kV Station Service Board 1B
[2]. The 3.3 kV Station Service Board 2A is connected to the 11 kV East Substation Board A, and
the 11 kV East Substation Board A is connected to the 11 kV Station Board 1 [2]. The 3.3 kV Station
Service Board 2B is connected to the 11 kV East Substation Board B, and the 11 kV East Substation
Board B is connected to the 11 kV Station Board 2 [2]. All the connections are done with an A and
B side to make sure that if one of the 11 kV Station Boards were to fail, the one half of the common
plant would be unaffected [2]. Since the critical motor driven loads are found on the 3.3 kV Station
Service Boards 1A and 1B, and the 3.3 kV Station Service Boards 2A and 2B these boards will need
a constant power supply. If one of the sides of the 3.3 kV Station Service Boards 1A and 1B, and
4
STATION
the 3.3 kV Station Service Boards 2A and 2B were to be disconnected, one or more of the six units
could trip depending on how long the board is disconnected. It is for this very reason crucial that
Eskom makes use of a motor bus transfer (MBT) system to ensure no multiple unit trips occur.
An MBT occurs when the motor power supply is switched from the main power supply to a backup
power supply due to maintenance or a fault [3]. The four most common MBT methods are fast
transfer, delayed in-phase transfer, residual voltage transfer, and parallel transfer. These four MBT
transfer methods will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this report [3]. However, these 3.3 kV
Station Service Boards are supplied by the 11 kV Station Boards, therefore the MBT system will
have to be placed between the 11 kV Unit Board supply to the 11 kV Station Boards and an 11 kV
backup supply to the 11 kV Station Boards. It is for this reason that not only the 3.3 kV Station
Service Boards and their respective loads, but the complete common plant has to be considered.
On 10 September 1996 engineers at Kendal Power Station wrote up a philosophy for a Fast Transfer
System (FTS) to be implemented at Kendal Power Station [2]. The FTS was set up to provide a
backup source to the two 11 kV Station Boards (1 and 2) should maintenance need to be done or
should a fault occur somewhere between the main supply and the Station Board [2]. The FTS would
be expected to switch from the 11 kV Unit Boards supply to the 132 kV Khutala substation supply,
which is step-down to 11 kV through the station transformer [2].
However, on 6 June 2014 just before 8 a.m. this FTS system at Kendal failed, which resulted in a
multiple unit trip (4 units tripped while the other 2 were off at the time) [4]. The FTS system
malfunctioned and opened the breakers between the 11 kV Unit Board supply and the 11 kV Station
Boards, and did not initiate the command to close the breakers for the backup supply, which is
between the station transformer (connected to Khutala substation) and the 11 kV Station Boards.
This then resulted in four units tripping within seconds of one another [4]. Units 2 and 4 were out for
maintenance and unit 5 was the first unit to trip approximately three minutes after all the circuit
breakers were opened, with the other three units tripping in less than a minute after unit 5 [4]. The
units tripped due to the generators overheating as no cooling water was being suplied to the
generators [4]. The reason for the failure was not clear, so Eskom suspected the system failed due
to it being old and obsolete. The engineers fixed the system but were not permitted to test whether
the transfer system is still operational. This was because testing the FTS could result in the tripping
of multiple units. Thus, the FTS was disabled from the backup and main power sources to the 11 kV
Station Boards, leaving the 11 kV Station Boards without a backup supply should a fault occur.
It is therefore crucial, that the power station keeps the auxiliary cooling pump motors operational at
all time to prevent multiple units from tripping. This is the main reason why the motor bus transfer
(MBT) system must be fully operational to prevent these trips from occurring.
5
STATION
1.2 Problem statement

The motor-driven systems at Kendal Power Station must be continuously operational. Should a fault
occur between one of the units and the 11 kV Station Boards, one of the many motor-driven systems
in the common plant will be halted and this would impact the operation of the units at Kendal Power
Station. One way to overcome such scenarios is by implementing a motor bus transfer (MBT)
system. Kendal Power Station used to make use of a Fast Transfer System (FTS) to transfer the
motors and their loads from source A to source B should maintenance need to be done or should a
fault occur on the supply to the motor bus or between the supply and motor bus. However, the system
is no longer operational and failed due to an unknown cause. This project aims to simulate Kendal
Power Station in a power systems simulation package, and to use the simulations to determine the
cause of the FTS failure. These simulations can then be used to provide a recommendation for the
best MBT method in order to prevent multiple unit trips at Kendal Power Station.
1.3 Possible hypotheses as to why the FTS failed at Kendal

Power Station
One part of this project is to determine why the transfer system did not work as intended, which
resulted in a multiple unit trip of four units in 2014 at Kendal Power Station. Unfortunately, Eskom
could never determine the cause of the FTS failure. This is because running tests on the FTS could
result in a trip of three of the six units. As a result, the FTS has been disabled. There are however
numerous hypotheses as to why the FTS failed.
These hypotheses include:

a Hypothesis 1 - The FTS failed due to low inertia loads, thus, resulting in motors coasting and
decelerating too quickly before a transfer could occur.
b Hypothesis 2 - The Beckwith high-speed transfer system was not set correctly, thus, resulting
in motor bus transferring during incorrect conditions, which in the end resulted in the failure
of the complete FTS.
c Hypothesis 3 - The incorrect triggering events were used to trigger the Beckwith high-speed
transfer system, which in the end resulted in the failure of the complete FTS.
d Hypothesis 4 - The FTS failed due to hardware problems. These hardware problems could
be due to age and damage during the time the system was in operation.
6
STATION
1.4 Project objectives

The objectives of this research project are to:
a Collect data and information from Kendal Power Station to help parametrising the motors,
pumps, generators and other electrical machines that are responsible for the operating and
generating of electrical power at Kendal Power Station.
b Design and simulate a model of Kendal Power Station in DigSILENT™. The parameters
obtained in the first step is used to make the model more accurate and to determine what
parameters still need to be obtained or calculated.
c Once the model is working correctly, simulate the tripping and restoration of the 11 kV Station
Boards to test the hypothesis (mentioned in section 1.3) in order to determine the reason as
to why the fast transfer system failed.
d Once the cause of the failure of the fast transfer system has been determined, analyse and
simulate new ways in which the load can be transferred during maintenance or a fault.
e Recommend a method that is most efficient and is also easy to remove from the system
should components need to be replaced.
During this project it is extremely important to keep in mind that the power station will always be
required to produce power, thus, parameters will need to be calculated and determined from
datasheets and rating plates. No real-time measurements could be taken (especially for the motor’s
and their starting times), as the relays at Eskom are old and safety procedures and procedures to
run tests on the equipment at Eskom is extremely difficult to either get permission for or to schedule
a test. As mentioned in point (d) the continuous operation of the power station must also be
considered when proposing an alternate FTS. The ease of replacement must also be taken into
account, should the new FTS system eventually fail due to old age.
7
STATION
Chapter 2: Literature review

This chapter provides insight on motor bus transfers and the different methods that can be used for
a motor bus transfer, as well as the modelling of transformers and motors (including the motor loads).
From discussing a closed transfer, which takes place in a controlled environment to discussing an
open transfer, which occurs mostly during emergency conditions, the advantages and limitations of
motor bus transfer methods, will be discussed in the chapter. The possible damage to components
is also assessed should a motor bus transfer not be successful. Things that impact the success of a
transfer such as motor size, inertia, and the type of motors in a system will be considered as this can
predict whether the system will have a successful motor bus transfer or not. Once all the components
and impacts of a motor bus transfer have been studied, the modelling of motors, motor loads, and
transformers will be discussed to ensure an accurate model with realistic parameters is built in
DigSilent™.
2.1 Motor bus transfer and methods

As mentioned briefly in Chapter 1 a motor bus transfer (MBT) is done to ensure continuity of the
supply in a motor-driven system. Motor bus transfers occur when a motor is transferred from one
source to another because the main source must be disconnected whether it be for maintenance
reasons (planned transfer) or fault reasons (emergency transfer) [5]. If the motor bus transfer is not
carried out correctly, the motors can experience high inrush current and high shaft torques [6]. The
high inrush current and high shaft torques are due to the magnitude of the residual voltage, the
phase angle between the residual voltage and the backup power supplies’ voltage, and the phase
relation of the shaft torques and electrical transient torque during switching [6]. Thus, there are
usually three types of motor bus transfer methods to reduce these negative effects, namely hot
parallel transfer (also known as closed transfer), fast transfer, and delayed transfer (both known as
open transfer) [7]. The delayed transfer can further be divided into three categories namely in-phase
transfer and residual voltage transfer and fixed time transfer [7]. Devices that can initiate motor bus
transfers are either referred to as high-speed switching devices or motor bus transfer devices. These
devices include the Beckwith M-4272 and earlier models, and ABB SUE 3000 [8], [9]. Other devices
such as feeder protection and bay controllers, and multifunction protection devices can also be used
to initiate motor bus transfers (although this is not their primary purpose). Companies such as
General Electric (Multilin F65 and Multilin 850), Siemens (Siprotec 6MD86) and ABB supply such
devices.
8
STATION
2.2.1 Hot parallel transfer / closed transfer

A parallel or closed transfer occurs when the new source is connected to the motor bus network
while the old bus is still connected. Once the new source has been connected the old source will be
tripped [3]. Thus, for a brief period, the new source and the old source are in parallel with each other.
Before the new source is connected to the motor bus, the new source’s voltage and phase angle
must be synchronised to the motor bus’s phase angle and voltage [3]. The high-speed switching
devices used to initiate motor bus transfers have built in sync-check functions, which ensure the old
and new source’s phase angle and voltage are similar [8]. A closed transfer is usually executed in
controlled conditions and during a planned transfer [5].
Advantages of this method are [10]:

 There are no disruptions in the plant during transfer;
 With a sync-check relay supervising the new source breaker, this method is easy to
implement, and
 During this transfer, there is no transient torque on the motor.
Disadvantages of this method are [10] [11]:

 This method will not work during emergency transfer conditions. If the new source is
connected when the old source experiences has a fault, the fault could damage the new
source upon connection.
 Exposure to any motor fault during this method could cause damage to the equipment used
to connect the bus and could exceed the ratings of the circuit breakers and source
transformers.
 When this method of transfer is executed, the paralleling of the old and new source must only
be temporary. As the fault levels may exceed the equipment ratings when the two sources
are paralleled.
 In some instances, the old and the new sources will not be derived from the same primary
source, and this might lead to large phase angle differences which could prevent a closed
transfer from being executed. This only happens when the synch-check function does not
work, or this transfer take place without a high-speed switching device or a synch-check
relay.
 Once the phase angle is within the acceptable limits for a closed transfer to take place, the
two sources will be paralleled and the currents flowing to and through the bus might be high
and may exceed the rating of the circuit breakers and the source transformer that could cause
tripping of the relevant equipment.
To better understand how a closed transfer is done, Figure 2 is used to illustrate the sequence of
operation of a closed transfer. Take note that a red block means that the breaker is closed.
9
STATION
Figure 2: The sequence of a closed transfer [10].
2.2.2 Open transfer methods

An open transfer occurs when the new source is only connected once the old source has been
disconnected [10]. Therefore, for a brief amount of time, the motor drive is disconnected from all
power sources. For an open transfer, there are four types of transfer methods, namely fast transfer,
delayed in-phase transfer, residual voltage transfer and a fixed time transfer [10]. The details of each
open transfer method will be discussed below. The focus of this section is to determine which method
would be best to use during a fault condition on the old source. Figure 3 illustrates the sequence of
operation of an open transfer. Take note that a red block means that the breaker is closed.
10
STATION
Figure 3: The sequence of an open transfer [10]
As illustrated in Figure 3 the new source is only connected once the old source has been
disconnected. The challenge is to know when the correct time is to connect the new source. During
any type of open transfer method, the inrush current and shaft torque of the motors need to be
considered. The goal should be to monitor the magnitude of the residual voltage and the new source
voltage, the phase angle between the residual voltage and the new source voltage, and the phase
relation between the shaft torques and electrical transient torque during switching [6]. The electrical
frequency of the motor’s back EMF and backup source must also be monitored, as shown in (1)
there is a relationship between the electrical frequency of an element and the phase angle of the
element [12].
𝜃= 𝜔(𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 (1)
11
STATION
Where [12];
𝜃: Is the total phase shift over a certain time, measured in degrees.
𝜔(𝑡): is the frequency shift that may vary as a function of time, measured in Hz.
Since the phase angle of an element can be depicted as the area under a frequency vs time graph
(due to the integral relationship between the phase angle and the frequency), it would be wise to
monitor the electrical frequency of the power sources [13].
This is why zones are usually used in open transfers; the zones help the motor bus transfer relays
and equipment to determine which type of open transfer method would result in a lower transient
shaft torque and inrush current for the stalling state the motors are in after being disconnected from
the old source [10]. Two types of graphs illustrate the zones graphically. For this report, the graph
illustrated in Figure 4 will be referred to as the motor bus transfer graph, and the spiralling graph in
Figure 5 will be referred to as the voltage-phase angle locus [14].
Figure 4: A graph illustrating the motor bus transfer zones [14].
As shown in Figure 4 two y-axes variables are plotted as a function of time (x-axis). One y-axis is
the phase angle plotted in degrees and the other y-axis is the residual voltage of the motor plotted
in per-unit (pu).
12
STATION
By plotting these two variables as a function of time, it is illustrated how the motor’s phase angle and
voltage change once the motor has been disconnected from the old source, and this is then used to
determine which open transfer method should be used. In Figure 4 the following criteria are shown
for each method:
 A fast transfer takes into account the voltage and phase angle between the motor bus and
the new source. A fast transfer can only take place if the phase angle difference is between
zero to ± 20 ⁰, the residual voltage is between 1 pu to 0.8 pu and the V/Hz pu criteria are
met.
 A delayed in-phase transfer only takes the phase angle between the residual voltage and
the source into account. For an in-phase transfer to be successful the phase angle difference
must be between -30 ⁰ to +30 ⁰ and the V/Hz pu criteria are met.
 A residual voltage transfer only takes the residual voltage of the motor into account. For a
residual voltage transfer to be successful the residual voltage must be between 0.3 pu to
0.1 pu and
 A long-time (fixed time) transfer happens when the voltage is below the residual voltage limit,
similar to the residual transfer the phase angle is not taken into account as the V/Hz pu ratio
will be lower than 1.33 V/Hz pu [15]. This transfer however can be risky and could hamper
plant continuity, as certain motors might need to be restarted [15].
Figure 5: The voltage-phase angle locus illustrating the different open transfer methods zones [16]
13
STATION
Figure 5 illustrates the same concept as Figure 4. However, Figure 5 just illustrates how by reducing
the voltage and the continuous change in the phase-angle results in a downward spiral. Another way
that can be used to determine if the motor bus can be transferred is by calculating the volts/hertz
(V/Hz) per-unit ratio. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) used to state that if a motor bus has a V/Hz pu ratio of less than
1.33 per-unit V/Hz the bus could be transferred [3]. However, ten years after this standard was
established, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) no longer accepted this limit
as numerous studies proved that the 1.33 V/Hz pu ratio did nothing to limit the transient shaft torque
[17]. Although one of the most effective methods to limit the transient torque is by a delayed residual
voltage transfer, this is not a viable option for many plants as it would result in a huge loss in
production specifically for nuclear power plants that rely on fast transfers [17].
2.2.3 Fast transfer (an open transfer method)

The fast transfer method is one of the open transfer methods [10]. A fast transfer takes place when
the old source is completely disconnected before connecting the new source [7]. For a brief period,
both sources are disconnected from the motor bus, and this time is kept as short as possible to
prevent motors from coasting down [3].
There are two ways in which a fast transfer can be carried out namely a sequential fast transfer and
a simultaneous fast transfer. A sequential fast transfer occurs when the old source is first tripped
before a command is sent to close the circuit breaker connecting the new source to the motor bus,
so the command to trip the old source is first sent before the command to close the circuit breaker
of the new source is sent [3]. A simultaneous fast transfer occurs when the command is sent to close
the circuit breaker connecting the new source to the motor bus the moment the old source trip signal
is sent, so the tripping command and closing command of the old and new source happens at the
same time [3].
Advantages of a sequential fast transfer are [10]:

 The switching time (switching from the old source to the new source) is extremely fast and
Beckwith claims their device can inniate a transfer 4 ms after the breaker is opened for
Beckwith M-4272 [8]. Breaker opening times can be as quick as 50 ms for newer breakers,
and as slow as 100 ms for older breakers.
 Due to the extremely fast transfer from one source to another, the transient torques are
reduced.
 Due to the high speed of transfer, there is a small interruption in the power supply to the
motor-driven systems.
 It avoids the problems a closed transfer presents.
 This method also prevents the motor bus and load being exposed to the effects of breaker
failures.
14
STATION
Advantages of a simultaneous fast transfer are [10]:

 This method is much faster than the above method and the dead time for a motor bus is
claimed to be anywhere from 20 ms for ABB SUE 3000 and 10 ms for Beckwith M-4272 [9]
[8].
 If the system operates correctly, there is also less transient torque on the motor shaft.
 Similar to the above method there is very little interruption to the motor-driven system due to
the fast transfer time.
 This method also avoids the problems presented during a closed transfer.
Although there are no disadvantages for when these two types of transfers take place, there are
however, disadvantages should this method take place in a zone where the phase angle and voltage
does not meet the requirements, this is specifically true for a sequential fast transfer. Aspects that
must be considered and monitored during both types of fast transfers are discussed below [10]:
 For a sequential fast transfer, a fault could occur on one of the two sources (the new or the
old source), which may then affect the phase-angle at the time the transfer sequence starts.
 A fault could occur on the motor bus during the transfer.
 The phase angle difference between the new and the old sources changes and could be
greater in magnitude once the old source is disconnected.
 The motors’ deceleration characteristics have not been studied properly, thus, the motors’
decelerate quicker than thought and a rapid change in phase angle is caused. This would be
due to a lower combined motor and load inertia.
For both types of fast transfer systems, the phase angle just before and after the old source is tripped
must be monitored, and this can be done with the use of high-speed sync-check relays [10]. For the
simultaneous fast transfer method a breaker failure scheme is critical should one of the circuit
breakers remain closed when a command has been issued to open, or vice versa [10].
2.2.4 Delayed in-phase transfer (an open transfer method)

A delayed in-phase transfer (a method of delayed transfer) occurs when the old source supplying
the motor bus is tripped and the new source is only connected once the phase angle of the residual
voltage and the new source is in an acceptable window of being in-phase with one another [3]. This
method is usually done if it was not possible to do a fast transfer and is the second fastest open
transfer method [3].
Advantages of this method are [10]:

 It is considerably faster than the residual voltage method, thus, resulting in a shorter motor
run-down time.
 By using this method, the V/Hz pu ratio is significantly smaller due to synchronous closing.
 It is an excellent back up in a case where a fast transfer could not be executed.
15
STATION
 A transfer will never occur when the two voltages are out of phase, thus, preventing damage
that could be caused due to a large phase angle difference.
2.2.5 Residual voltage transfer (an open transfer method)

This is the second slowest open transfer method, a method of a delayed transfer. A residual voltage
transfer occurs when the residual voltage of the motor drops below the residual voltage limit during
transfer, this limit window is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 [10]. As shown in Figure 4 the limit is
usually set below 0.25 pu. The advantages of a residual voltage transfer are [10]:
 This technique is very familiar as it is widely used;

 This technique is very simple to implement with undervoltage relays, and
 This technique can work during transient conditions while disregarding the loss of
synchronism and the magnitude of the difference in phase angles due to the small voltage
magnitude.
The disadvantages of a residual voltage transfer method are [10]:
 This is the second slowest method and results in a longer motor run-down time than
previously discussed methods;
 This method can result in load shedding as the new source cannot reaccelerate all the motors
simultaneously, due to possible voltage collapse during the re-acceleration phase of the
motors;
 The plant's process also has to be carefully analysed for this method to understand the effect
a long loss of supply period will have on the plant;
 Some of the motors’ loads might result in the motors or a motor bus coming to a standstill
quicker, thus, resulting in the motor or motor bus required to be restarted (a re-acceleration
program can prevent this from happening when this method is being executed);
 If a unit or bus must be started a transfer cannot occur from the new source to the present
source;
 For this method there is a risk that there will be a transfer to a dead source if the new source
is not continuously monitored;
 If the motor restart is not properly executed and the correct motor bus is not re-energized at
the correct time the plant could experience a serious voltage dip or even a voltage collapse;
 High starting current experienced by the incomer that may trip the incoming circuit breaker
because of the high current;
 Depending on the supply interruption time on the motor an analysis might need to be done
to limit the transient torque on the motor during starting, and
 The motor contactors need to be designed to stay closed for a residual voltage transfer,
otherwise, they drop out.
16
STATION
2.2.6 Fixed time transfer

Similar to a residual voltage transfer this transfer can only take place after the voltage has decayed,
however, this method does not focus on the phase angle differences, frequency differences, and the
motor bus voltage magnitude but instead on the set time delay [18]. This transfer occurs by setting
a time delay, for instance, the new Beckwith device only allows the user to set the time delay longer
than 30 cycles (600 ms). The system’s voltage would have decayed quite a bit and the effect of a
large phase difference would not have such a huge impact on the motors during a transfer [18]. The
problem with a fixed time transfer is that process continuity will not be maintained, as some motors
may have to be restarted [11]. The advantages and disadvantages of this technique are the same
as mentioned above for a residual voltage transfer.
2.3 Consequences of negligent motor bus transfers

As mentioned above the main goal of a motor bus transfer is to switch a motor bus from its old source
to a new source as fast as possible. The reason the old source is no longer available to the motor
bus could be due to a fault occurring somewhere between the old source and the motor bus, or the
old source could be removed for maintenance reasons. However, during a motor bus transfer, the
inrush current and shaft torque could cause electrical or mechanical damage to the motor, or both
electrical and mechanical damage to the motor, or damage to the shaft coupling, or damage to the
motors’ load. The following inrush current and shaft torque, which will be discussed below, are
relevant to only induction motors since they are usually the motors used in motor-driven systems.
Take note that the equations and calculations done during this study will be in the per-unit (pu)
system.
2.3.1 High currents during starting and reconnection

For the purpose of this study only three-phase induction motors will be considered. During motor
start-up conditions the motor experiences motor starting current. This high current (starting current)
can be divided into two categories namely sub-transient (inrush current) and transient conditions
[12].
17
STATION
Figure 6 shows the approximate per-phase equivalent circuit of a single squirrel cage induction
motor. The left side of the circuit represented in Figure 6 represents the stator’s parameters of the
induction motor, where 𝑅 represent the stator resistance in ohms and 𝑗𝑋 the stator reactance in
ohms [19]. The centre parallel part of the circuit represents the core-loss resistance (𝑅 ) of the motor
and the magnetization reactance (𝑗𝑋 ) of the motor [19]. The far right part of the circuit shown in
Figure 6 represent the parameters of the rotor, i.e. the rotor resistance (𝑅 ) and rotor reactance (𝑗𝑋 )
[19].
From Figure 6 it can be seen that the motor can be divided up into two branches; one being the
excitation circuit and the other being the rotor circuit [20]. For this reason, two types of high currents
are experienced during motor starting or motor switching. The current due to the excitation in the
motor is proportional to the applied voltage and is not affected by the motor’s load [20]. This current
is known as inrush current, inrush current is the result of fluxing the air gap between the stator and
the rotor and could be as high as 20 times the motor’s full load current [20]. The inrush current usually
only lasts for half a cycle [21].
The second type of high current the motor experiences is the transient current, this occurs after the
inrush current. This current is dependent on the slip of the motor [19]. During starting the transient
current is usually 5 to 8 times the motor’s full load current, due to the speed of the rotor being zero
and the slip of the motor being one. To better understand how the transient current is calculated,
one must consider the approximate per-phase equivalent circuit of an induction motor shown in
Figure 6. In Figure 6 the rotor resistance 𝑅 is depicted as having an inversely proportional relation
with the slip (𝑠) of the motor. The slip of the motor is the difference between the main flux’s speed
(the rotation of the magnetic field in the stator) and the rotor’s mechanical speed. So, if the motor is
at standstill the slip will have a magnitude of one (as there is no rotating magnetic field on the rotor),
and 𝑅 will be at its lowest value due to the fact that 𝑅 is divided by the slip. When the motor is at
rated speed and in turn at rated slip, 𝑅 will be at its maximum value as the division of 𝑅 with a small
slip value will result in a greater rotor resistance.
Thus, upon motor starting or interference in the supply to the motor, the motor would first have to
experience an applied current that would be able to magnetize the air gap between the stator and
rotor. Only once this has been overcome the rotor of the motor will start to rotate, however, the
current will still be high due to the high slip value and the current will only start to decrease once the
slip starts to decrease.
Now that the approximate per-phase equivalent circuit of a single squirrel-cage induction motor and
the two types of high currents that are experienced during motor starting has been explained, the
calculation of the high starting current can be explained. To calculate the high starting current it is
important to first get the equivalent resistance (𝑅 ) and reactance (𝑗𝑋 ) of the motor, this is obtained
with (2) and (3) [19].
18
STATION
1 1
𝑅 =𝑅 + + (2)
𝑅 𝑅
𝑠
1 1
𝑗𝑋 = 𝑗𝑋 + + (3)
𝑗𝑋 𝑗𝑋
𝑠
By making use of these two calculated parameters the starting current of the motor can be calculated
with (4) [19]
𝑈
𝐼 = (4)
𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋
Where [19]:
𝐼 : Is the transient current during starting, measured in pu
𝑈: Is the applied voltage to the motor, measured in pu
𝑅 : Is the equivalent resistance of the stator and rotor, measured in pu
𝑋 : Is the equivalent reactance of the stator and the rotor, measured in pu
As can be seen in (4) the starting current is proportional to the applied voltage (𝑈 ), and inversely
proportional to the resistance (𝑅 ) and reactance (𝑗𝑋 ) [13]. However, the equivalent resistance (𝑅 )
of the motor is the sum of the stator resistance (𝑅 ) and the rotor resistance (𝑅 ), and the rotor
resistance (𝑅 ) is only at its maximum value at rated slip.
When the motor is disconnected from the old source, whether it be for maintenance reasons or due
to a fault, there will still be a current (if connected to other loads at this time) and flux in the motor.
Only after a certain period will the residual voltage, current and flux become zero. Therefore, (5) was
formed to calculate the inrush current the motor will experience if it is to be connected with the new
source [22].
𝑈 −𝑈
𝐼 = (5)
𝑋
Where [22]:
𝑈 : Is the residual voltage of the motor, measured in pu
𝑈 : Is the applied voltage of the new source, measured in pu
𝑋: Is the leakage inductance of the stator, measured in pu
In (5) the inrush current is directly proportional to the difference between the residual voltage and
new sources’ voltage, and inversely proportional to the leakage reactance of the stator. Therefore,
19
STATION
from (5) it can be deduced that the larger the difference between the two voltages, and/or the larger
the difference between the phase angle of the two voltages the greater the inrush current will be if
the leakage inductance of the stator is assumed to remain constant. For example, if both the residual
voltage and sources’ voltage are equal to 1 pu, while, the source is out-of-phase with the residual
voltage the inrush current will be equal to 2/𝑋 pu (this is the worst-case scenario) [22]. Therefore,
during a motor bus transfer the magnitude of inrush current is dependent on the [6]:
 The magnitude of the residual voltage and the new source’s voltage, and
 The phase angle between the new sources’ voltage and the residual voltage.
2.3.2 Shaft Torque and Negative Transient Torque

As mentioned above the limit of the V/Hz pu ratio used by the ANSI and IEEE, does not affect limiting
the transient torque experienced on the shaft during the motor bus transfer [17]. Thus, the magnitude
of the shaft torque is more complex to reduce than the magnitude of the inrush current. This is
because the acceleration torque the shaft will experience will be the difference between the
developed electrical torque (produced by the motor) and the mechanical load torque (the torque
used to drive the load). These two torques and their characteristics must be discussed separately,
as each of the torques has different contributing factors as to why they would increase the overall
transient torque on the shaft.
The mechanical load torque of the motor is dependent on the load and the rotating mass’s inertia
[23]. The relationship between torque and inertia is best explained by using Newton’s Second Law
equation for rotational motion (6) [23]
𝑇 = 𝐻𝛼 (6)
Where [23]:
𝑇 : Is the mechanical load torque, measured in pu
𝐻: Is the per-unit inertia of the rotating mass, measured in s.
𝛼: Is the rotational acceleration of the load, measured in pu.
If the deceleration rate of the load (𝛼) is assumed to be constant, then from (6) it is shown that the
torque is directly proportional to the per-unit inertia, thus if the load’s inertia is high then the
mechanical load’s torque will be high.
During the starting of an induction motor, the mechanical speed of the rotor is zero and the slip of
the motor is one. The two equations can be used to calculate the electrical torque of an induction
motor. (7) calculates the torque of the motor when the slip is still one (meaning the motor is at
20
STATION
standstill) and (8) is used to calculate the electrical torque of the motor when the motor is running
(slip is no longer one).
𝑈 (𝑅 /𝑠)
𝑇 = (7)
𝜔 [𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 ]
Where [19]:
𝑇: Is the electrical torque developed by the motor, measured in pu;
𝑠: Is the slip of the motor, when the motor is at standstill the slip is equal to one.
𝑅 : Is the rotor resistance (since the slip is one, = 𝑅 ), measured in pu;
𝜔: Is the synchronous speed of the motor, measured in pu (if measured in pu 𝜔 = 1, as it is the

rated speed).
As can be seen in (7) the developed electrical torque is proportional to the square of the applied
voltage (𝑈 ) and the rotor resistance (𝑅 ), and inversely proportional to the synchronous speed of
the motor, and the sum of the square of the equivalent resistance (𝑅 ) and reactance (𝑋 ) [19].
However, the synchronous speed is a constant value, therefore the electrical torque is inversely
proportional to the sum of the squared equivalent resistance (𝑅 ) and reactance (𝑋 ) of the induction
motor. During starting these are the only values that influence the magnitude of the starting torque,
however, once the motor is running the rotor’s resistance begins to change which in turn effects the
current and the speed of the motor (the rated speed can no longer be used), and this then effects
the torque’s magnitude, which is why (7) is only used when the slip is at one. A mathematical
explanation of why (7) cannot be used is to follow. Since the motor is at standstill and the slip has a
value of one, the rotor resistances (𝑅 ), is at its minimum value. To understand the effect that the
rotor resistance and the slip have on the torque lets for a moment consider a motor at standstill (slip
is one). The voltage applied to the motor to get it to start moving is 1 pu value, and it assumes that
all the other parameters are set to zero except for the rotor resistance, which has a value of 0.05 𝑝𝑢.
Then by making use of (7) this would then give the following torque:
𝑈 𝑅 1 × 0.05
𝑇 = = = 20 𝑝𝑢
𝜔 [𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 ] 1 × 0.05
If the motor is then to start turning and the above parameters are to stay the same except for the slip
now having a value of 0.8, the torque would then be
0.05
𝑈 (𝑅 /𝑠) 1 × ( 0.8 )
𝑇 = = = 16 𝑝𝑢
𝜔 [𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 ] 1 × (0.05)
0.8
By comparing the answers obtained from using (7) for a unity slip and a slip of 0.8, it can be seen
that the torque decreases as the slip decrease. Figure 7 shows a typical torque versus speed
21
STATION
characteristic for an induction motor and it can be seen that the torque gradually increases till it
reaches the breakdown torque value and then it only starts to decrease and becomes zero once the
slip is at its rated value. For this reason, (8) is used to calculate the electrical torque of the motor
while it is running (meaning the slip is less than unity slip).
Figure 7: The torque versus slip relationship of an induction motor [19].
𝑃
𝑇 = (8)
𝜔
Where [19]:
𝑃 : Is the developed (output) power of the induction motor, measured in pu
𝜔: Is the rotor speed of the motor, measured in pu
𝑃 is calculated using (9),
𝑅
𝑃 = 𝑈 𝐼 cos(∅) − 𝐼 𝑅 − 𝐼 𝑅 − 𝐼 (9)
𝑠
Where [19]:
𝐼: Is the supplied current, measured in pu
∅: Is the phase angle between the applied voltage and the stator current, measured in degrees.
𝐼: Is the core-loss current, measured in pu
𝐼 : Is the rotor current, measured in pu
The rotor speed of the motor 𝜔 is calculated using (10) [19]
𝜔 = (1 − 𝑠)𝜔 (10)
Since 𝜔 is 1 in the per-unit system, (10) can be further reduced to (11) [19]
22
STATION
𝜔 = (1 − 𝑠) (11)
Now that it is known how to calculate the rotor speed and the output power of the induction motor, it
can be seen that the only constant values in (9) is the core-loss resistance and the stator resistance.
It is shown below in (21) and (25) the rotor current and the core-loss current is dependent on 𝐼 , an
increase in 𝐼 results in an increase in 𝐼 and a decrease in 𝐼 . However, it was shown in section
“2.3.1 High Starting Current” that 𝐼 is affected by the slip. 𝐼 is the supplied current and when the
motor is starting, 𝐼 will also be the inrush current. Similarly, it was shown that the rotor speed is
affected by the slip, as the slip decreases the rotor speed increases. These relations result in the
curve shown in Figure 7, as well as the effect a motor bus transfer could have on the motor.
As mentioned above, (8) is best to use once the motor is running, as the torque is dependent on the
rotor speed, and a rotating shaft would no longer result in a unity slip which would result in the other
factors in (7) being more or less constant.
Another point to consider is if there is more than one motor on a busbar, the motors that are
disconnected from the old source would have residual rotor current and flux. This results in a back
emf, which influences the electrical torque developed by the motor [23]. The back emf of the motor
decreases at an exponential rate proportional to the open circuit time constant of the motor [23].
Thus, the effect of the back emf on the residual voltage must be considered, in other words, the
effect more than one motor on a busbar has on the residual voltage of the busbar [23].
The next contributing factor is better explained if (8) is considered. When the motor is disconnected
from its supply, the shaft speed will start to decrease and if the motor and loads combined inertia is
low, the motor will lose its rotational speed quicker, and in some cases might be required to be re-
accelerated which could cause high currents and shaft torques upon reconnection. If (8) is
considered it can be seen that the electrical torque is inversely proportional to speed and directly
proportional to the output power, which is in turn proportional to the square of the voltage. If the shaft
speed were to be reduced and the motor was to receive a high resultant input voltage the electrical
torque would be very high. It is important to remember that the transient (acceleration) torque is the
difference between the mechanical load torque and the electrical developed torque by the motor and
if the transient torque changes rapidly it could result in the shearing of the shaft and damaging the
coupling and the connected load of the motor.
The other concern should be the difference in phase angle between the new source and the residual
voltage. As shown with the inrush current if the phase angle difference is large, the resulting voltage
on the motor would be high [23]. This resultant applied voltage can be calculated by using the
findings of Daughtry [23]. By referring to Figure 8, Daughtry found while the motor was connected
the phase angle between the motor residual voltage (𝑉 ) and the new source’s voltage (𝑉 ) resulted
in a very small difference in voltage (𝑉 ) [part a) in Figure 8]. However, once the source was
23
STATION
disconnected it was of great importance to calculate the phase angle as it changed very quickly as
shown in Figure 8 part b), and this resulted in a greater voltage difference which resulted in a greater
voltage being subjected onto the motor [23]. In Daughtry’s studies, the symbol V was used to define
the voltage, however, for this study, the symbol U will be used to define the voltage.
Figure 8: The difference between the phase-angle of the residual voltage and the sources' voltage a) before
disconnection and b) once disconnected from the old source [23].
To calculate the phase angle 𝛽, the mechanical load torque must also be taken into consideration,
specifically (6). As (6) shows that the mechanical load torque is not dependent on the speed of the
shaft, as constant deceleration is assumed [23]. Then (12) can be used to approximate the phase
angle 𝛽
𝑡𝛼
𝛽 = 𝛽 + 𝑡𝑝 (𝜔 − 𝜔) + (12)
2
Where [23]:
𝛽: Is the phase angle between the motor’s residual voltage and the source voltage once
disconnected from the power supply, measured in radians.
𝛽: Is the phase angle between the motor’s residual voltage and the source voltage while the
motor is still connected to the old power supply, measured in radians.
𝑡: Is the current time while the motor is still disconnected, measured in s.
𝑝: Is the number of poles of the motor.
𝜔 : Is the mechanical angular frequency of the motor during the interruption, measured in rad/s.
𝜔 : Is the angular frequency of the whole system, measured in rad/s.
Once the phase angle has been determined the resultant input voltage (𝑈 ) can be calculated by
[23]
𝑈 = (𝑈 − 𝑈 cos(𝛽)) + (𝑈 sin(𝛽)) (13)
24
STATION
𝑜𝑟
𝑈 = 𝑈 + 𝑈 − 2𝑈 𝑈 cos(𝛽) (14)
Where [23]:
𝑈: Is the resultant input voltage of the motor, measured in pu
𝑈 : Is the residual voltage of the motor, measured in pu
𝑈: Is the source’s voltage, measured in pu
This determines the magnitude of the resultant voltage at different phase angles and the potential
threat it could pose on the transient torque.
It can be seen that during a motor bus transfer the developed electrical torque will depend on five
parameters:
 The magnitude of the residual voltage and the new source’s voltage;
 The electric flux remaining in the motor at the time of disconnection from the old source;
 The phase angle difference between the new sources’ voltage and the residual voltage;
 The speed of the motor, or in other terms the effect an increasing slip can have on the speed
of the motor, and
 The frequency of the residual voltage.
As discussed the transient torque on an induction motor occurs during motor starting and if a
disturbance occurs (such as being disconnected and reconnected to a source). The transient torque
for the motor’s shaft and electrical torque can be seen in Figure 9. The motor is disconnected at the
beginning of this graph and reconnected at 0.15 s. When the motor is reconnected at 0.15 s it can
be seen that both the torques have large magnitudes and only at the end of the graph does it seem
to start stabilising. This large magnitude of torque upon reconnection is known as the transient
torque.
25
STATION
Figure 9: A graph illustrating the motors shaft and electrical torque during a power interruption
Unfortunately, there is no limiting amount specified for the transient torques a motor shaft and its
coupling can be subjected to. ANSI standard C50.41 states that transient torques can range from 2
pu to 20 pu and that all transient torque values should be avoided to prevent the shortening of the
motors shaft and loads life expectancy [24]. In 2007, Carvoc published his dissertation, which was
based on studying the effects the worst-case scenario transient current and torque have on motors.
In his studies he had three motors of different ratings, one was 10 hp, 50 hp, and 75 hp, he connected
a flywheel to the shaft to simulate a load inertia, and a power absorber to simulate a load. From his
research, Carvoc hypothesized that the couplings’ key is the part of the motor and load that takes
the most damage due to transient torques, thus he kept a careful watch on the couplings’ key and
the motors shaft [24]. After 10000 tests on each of the three motors, his results showed that only the
shaft deformed slightly on the two larger motors and he predicted it to be due to the consistent testing
on these motors, the coupling key had no damage what so ever [24]. The instantaneous transient
torques that were found on these three motors and their shafts were greater than 20 pu. Carvoc
concluded that motors can handle higher transient torque values then led to believe, however, he
did mention that his studies were not done in industry and were not done with various motor loads
found in the industry [24]. It will be kept in mind that although Carvoc showed that the transient torque
on motors shafts and the couplings is not as damaging as it is led to believe due to his studies not
being performed in the industry it would be good practice to consider the recommendations made
by ANSI standard C50.41.
Another concerning factor is the negative transient torque upon reconnection; both Daughtry and
Carvoc mentioned it in their studies and is seen in the electrical torque transient in Figure 9. When
the motor is first disconnected, it experiences a negative torque and this is due to the motor shifting
to a generating mode [23]. However, when the motor is reconnected with the new source the torque
developed by the motor is reduced substantially and could even have a negative value (i.e.
26
STATION
generating mode), followed by a large positive value (i.e. motor mode). Both Daughtry and Carvoc
owed this negative transient torque upon reconnection to the total inertia and the phase angle
difference between the source and the motor bus [23] [24]. However, Flynn and Wood found in their
studies that the negative transient torque was due to the motor bus voltage, phase angle difference,
and the inertia [25]. Flynn and Wood stated that the negative transient torque occurred during
reconnecting of induction motor due to “transient generator action caused by the rotation in the
transient magnetic field” [25].
For a 5 hp squirrel cage induction motor, it was found that the higher the voltage and the greater the
phase angle difference upon reconnection the higher the negative transient torque peak as shown
in Figure 10. It was also noted that the highest transient peak for when the two sources are in phase
occurs when the motor bus voltage is at its lowest, and it was predicted that this could occur due to
the motor bus voltage trying to oppose the supplied voltage [25]. In Figure 10 it can be seen for a
motor bus voltage of any magnitude the greatest negative torque peak occurs around a phase angle
difference of 200⁰, one would expect the maximum negative torque peak would occur around 180⁰.
However, the equation Flynn and Wood used to model the negative torque peak had components of
sin and cos and for this reason, the maximum negative torque peak occurs at 200⁰ and not at 180⁰
as expected [25]. It can be deduced that the difference in phase angle must be kept as small as
possible upon reconnection. By doing this, the negative transient torque peak is limited for a voltage
of any magnitude, as the smallest negative transient peak for any voltage magnitude occurs at the
point where the two phase angles are close to being in-phase with one another. The effects of a
small voltage opposing the new supply upon reconnection during when the phase angle difference
is zero must be kept under consideration during the transfer.
Figure 10: The effect the motor bus voltage and phase angle difference have on the negative transient peak [25].
27
STATION
The next contributing factor to the negative torque peak was found to be the total inertia meaning
the sum of the motor and the motor’s load inertia. Flynn and Wood used a 100 hp squirrel cage
motor to test the effects the inertia had on the motor. The higher the total inertia the longer it takes
for the speed of the rotor to decrease, and for the phase angle difference between the motor and the
new source to move out of phase [24]. Flynn and Wood found as shown in Figure 11 that motors
with lower total inertias resulted in higher negative transient torque peaks than motors with higher
total inertias. The gaps between the a, b and c curve shown in Figure 11 are the time delays for
when the torque is not in the negative region.
Figure 11: The effect the total inertia has on the negative transient torque [25].
It is important to limit the negative transient torque peak as this will result in a smaller transient torque
upon reconnection. This is why it will be important to consider the magnitude of the voltage, phase
angle differences, and the total inertia when initiating the different motor bus transfer methods and
the effect the methods have on the transient torque to prevent damage to the motor and its connected
load.
28
STATION
2.4 Considerations to be made before initiating a motor bus

transfer
As discussed above during a motor bus transfer the inrush current and shaft torque must be kept as
low as possible. The main contributing factors are
 The magnitude of the residual voltage;

 The electric flux remaining in the motor from the disconnection from the old source;
 The phase angle between the new source’s voltage and the residual voltage, and
 The effect the increasing motor slip has on the speed of the motor’s rotor and the stator
frequency.
The following either have a direct or indirect influence on these factors or should also be taken into
consideration to avoid high inrush current and shaft torque.
2.4.1 Motor size

When disconnected from a source, the voltage decay rate is slower for a larger motor, due to longer
time constants of the electrical parameters of larger motors compared to smaller motors [15] . Larger
motors also have bigger inertia values, which result in a slower decrease in speed. During the period
of disconnection, the larger motors might also act as induction generators to supply the smaller
motors [14]. Larger induction and synchronous motors have greater success at a fast transfer due
to the slow decay in voltage [15].
2.4.2 Inertia
The larger the load’s inertia the slower the frequency and the speed of the induction motor bus will
decay once disconnected from the old source [15]. The frequency’s decaying rate has an impact on
the rate of change of the phase angle between the residual voltage and the new source’s voltage
[16]. A low inertia load will result in a fast-changing phase angle, which means that a fast transfer
might be too risky to execute [15]. If the system inertia is low as in the Carvoc studies a flywheel can
be added to the motor and its load to add more inertia as a rotating energy storage device. During a
voltage dip, the flywheel will try to maintain the rotating mass’s speed by releasing the stored energy
[26].
2.4.3 Combinations of induction and synchronous motors

On a motor bus only containing induction motors, the voltage will decay more rapidly [15]. However,
on a motor bus containing a mixture of induction motors and synchronous motors the synchronous
motors will act as generators and boost the voltage to the induction motors thus reducing the voltage
decay rate of the motor bus [15].
29
STATION
2.4.4 The V/Hz pu ratio during transfer

Although it was proven that the limit on the V/Hz pu ratio does not determine the shaft torque, it is a
useful tool to have to monitor the frequency, phase angle and voltage changes during transferring
the motor bus [15]. The phase angle referred to here is the difference between the tripped board
(motor bus) and the new source, and the voltage is the resultant input voltage which was calculated
in (13). 𝐸 is used to represent the V/Hz pu ratio of the new source’s voltage and frequency; it is
therefore, the source’s voltage divided by the source’s frequency. 𝐸 is used to represent the V/Hz
pu ratio of the motor’s residual voltage and frequency; it is therefore, the motors residual voltage
divided by the motors residual frequency. The V/Hz pu ratio can help to graphically represent the
condition the motor is in at a certain time. If Figure 8 is compared with Figure 12, it can be seen that
they are both scalene triangles and that the cosine rule can be used to determine the resultant
voltage in the case of Figure 8, and the resultant V/Hz pu ratio (𝐸 ) in the Figure 12 case. The voltage
parameters in (14) can be substituted with V/Hz pu values to form (15) to determine the residual
V/Hz pu.
Figure 12: The resultant V/Hz pu phasor before a motor bus transfer [15]
Then (14) can be rewritten with the E values, which have an SI unit of V/Hz pu but still have the
same meaning, to form (15).
𝐸 = 𝐸 + 𝐸 − 2𝐸 𝐸 cos(𝛽) (15)
30
STATION
2.4.5 The response of the relays involved in the motor bus transfer
system
The relays chosen to conduct synch checks and voltage conditions during a motor bus transfer
should undergo standardised testing such as an output dropout and pickup test and blocking phase
angle test [5]. These tests were put in place to ensure that the high-speed sync-check relays that
were developed are accurate and fast enough to detect any changes in the phase angle or
voltage during a motor bus transfer, specifically for a fast transfer [5].
It is Kendal’s philosophy to have overcurrent protection relays on all their MV motors, the
purpose of these relays is to protect the motor against phase-to-phase faults [27]. However,
these relays use current and time limits to ensure the motor is protected. Sometimes these
current or time limits are exceeded during motor bus transfers, specifically in situations where
the motors must be reaccelerated. The current can be higher for a longer time than the applied
protection settings on the relay. If these limits are exceeded the motor trips and the plant shuts
down. For this reason, it is important to consider if the current and time limits of the relay are set
correctly for a motor bus transfer, specifically for a residual voltage or fixed time transfer where
the motors will require to be reaccelerated for longer.
2.4.6 Bases for shedding load during a motor bus transfer

During a motor bus transfer, it is at times favourable to shed non-vital loads as this could result in a
successful bus transfer [5]. Sometimes the new source is not capable of supplying the total load of
the motor bus, especially if the new source is already supplying another load before the transfer
occurs [5]. If a large number of motors is transferred to the new source at the same time, this could
cause high voltage and current transients to take place on the new source while it is trying to
compensate for the new load. These transient voltages and currents will in turn affect the
performance of the loads and could even result in some contactors opening if the transient voltage
level drops below 80% for three cycles [5]. The undervoltage settings of motor contactors can be set
longer in order to give the motor’s voltage dip ride through capability, for example, the motors at
Kendal are tripped if the voltage is at or below 70% for longer than 3 s [27]. Thus, load-shedding in
certain circumstances might be recommended as it could reduce the magnitude and duration of the
transient voltage, and by only allowing for a few motor-driven systems to operate you could be saving
the complete system from being offline for a long period [5]. In this case, a motor reacceleration
program might need to be considered, this entails programmed or staged restarting of motor drives.
For example, the motors that have been shed will need to be automatically restarted, this can take
place at 10 s or 20 s intervals until all the motors are running again.
31
STATION
2.5 Problems with motor bus transfer methods

2.5.1 Impact of a motor bus transfer on the transformers
For most motor buses there are transformers that connect the supply and the motor bus. IEC 60076-
5:2006 and IEEE C57.12.00-2006 stipulated that these transformers must be able to withstand
the maximum through fault current that would be present for a three-phase bolted fault for 2 s,
a thermal limitation [28] [29]. With all the motors re-accelerating at the same time the thermal
limit of the transformers may be reached and this must be checked during simulations of the
system.
2.5.2 Impact of motor bus transfer on synchronous motors

In the case of a delayed motor bus transfer, there is a time where the bus is disconnected from any
source. In this time, the motors and their loads start to decelerate and the synchronous motors act
as generators and try maintain the voltage, and when the new source is connected to the motor bus
and its load, the motors will re-accelerate [3]. However, an issue arises with the synchronous motors
as they can go out of step with the new source due to the transfer, this is because the synchronous
motor is no longer at the synchronous speed [5]. The new source must be capable of reaccelerating
the synchronous motor back to synchronous speed before pole slipping occurs [5]. After connecting
the synchronous motor with the new source, the angle between the motor and the supply may
continue to increase until the synchronous speed of the motor is reached. If the synchronous motor
is not brought up to speed correctly the angle could be so great that the electrical developed torque
is less than the load torque, then the motor might experience mechanical damage to the coupling or
the load rotor [3]. Pole slipping or out-of-step protection can be applied to the synchronous motor to
help limit damage during slipping. However, this protection does not prevent slipping it is only
activated once the synchronous motor has slipped, it limits the damage that could be caused by
further pole slipping.
2.5.3 Damaging impacts of motor bus transfers and resulting voltage

dips
During a motor bus transfer, the protection settings of the control equipment that is attached to the
motor bus being transferred must be taken into account [5]. During an open transfer, the motor bus
will momentarily be disconnected from a power source, and, for a short period, a loss of voltage will
occur [5]. This gives way to issues with the protection relays, magnetically held contactors with
control relays, and the transformer feeders [5]. Electrically held contactors are used for motor starting
and stopping on the LV circuits in the power station; the power supplying these contactors comes
from the associated busbar the contactor is connected to [27]. Although the main focus of this study
is the MV motors, electrically held contactors must be considered as a voltage dip could cause the
32
STATION
contactors to drop out which will result in an interruption in the common plant and potentially the
complete power station [27].
To prevent the protection relays from tripping anything on the bus, these settings must be compared
with the motor bus transfer systems settings so that during the transfer the system can behave as it
should [5]. Unfortunately in Kendal Power Station’s case old RAMDA relays are used for the motor’s
protection, these relays only protect against [30]:
 Overload - this setting’s purpose is to protect the motor against thermal overloading for a
prolonged starting time.
 Overcurrent - this setting’s purpose is set to protect the motor against high currents for
extended periods and contains two steps. This setting allows for a low range step and a high
range step. The high range step allows the current to be set between 4 to 8 times greater
than the motor’s rated full-load current, with a built-in fixed delay of 50 ms. The high range
step also has a blocking relay which is used to quickly block any other overcurrent relays in
the upstream network used to supply the motor. The low range step allows for a current
between 2 to 5 times the motor’s rated full-load current for a settable delay time of 0.1 to 1 s.
 Earth-fault protection detects any earth faults in the motor or the cables connected to the
motor.
 Negative-sequence current protection detects any prolonged unbalance in the supply
system, should an unbalance be detected the motor is tripped after a time delay.
 Long-starting time protection protects the motor during starting and checks whether the rotor
of the motor is being accelerated. During this time the current is allowed to exceed some of
the overcurrent protection parameters and once the rotor has started to turn the current is
allowed to be 1.2 times greater than the full load current for a set time.
 Repeated-starts protection prevents damage to the motor by ensuring that the sum of the
time for each starting attempt of the motor does not exceed the set time if the motor is to be
repeatedly started as the motor could be damaged by overheating.
 Locked-rotor conditions could be caused by loads that prevent the motor from turning. This
could happen before or after the motor is started and could be due to a damaged load (e.g.
pump) that inhibits the motor from turning. When the motor is in a locked-rotor condition it
draws its starting current and this if is not stopped could cause thermal damage to the motor.
That is why locked-rotor protection is used to prevent damage to damage to the motor’s rotor
and stator from experiencing higher currents than normal for a set time; these high currents
are due to a stalled or locked rotor during operation.
IEEE Standard 242 Buff Book recommends that most of the modern protection relays have a setting
that allows for undervoltage protection [31]. Eskom’s philosophy as already mentioned is to trip the
MV motors if the voltage is lower than 70% of the nominal for longer than 3 s.
33
STATION
The voltage dip ride through capability of the contactors needs to be kept in mind when doing the
MBT, as the contactors may drop out and limit the success of a transfer. That is why it is important
to ensure that the voltage dip ride through capability time of the contactor is long enough and does
not cause the motor to trip during the MBT transfer [2]. According to the IEC 60947-1 standard of
2007 and an analysis performed by H.J. van Staden a DC electromagnetic relay should only drop
out or open at a voltage of 75% to 10 % of the rated supply voltage [27]. However, the time may vary
between relays. If the new source is connected within the correct time the main interposing relay can
re-energize the main coil resulting in the main contactor remaining closed [5]. Otherwise, if the new
source is not connected timeously the motors might have to be restarted [5].
If the motor bus transfer has to connect the motor bus to a power transformer (which is connected
to the source), the secondary loads must be analysed to understand what will happen during transfer
[5]. The addition of a transformer during transfer will result in the transformer and cable adding
additional impedance to the system, resulting in a greater overall voltage drop than at the medium
voltage bus [5].
2.5.4 The performance of VSDs during a motor bus transfer

Variable speed drives (VSDs) have become very popular as they are more energy-efficient as a
drive train, have a soft-start capability, and reduce the VSD motors contribution to short-circuit
currents [5]. However, the addition of a VSD during a motor bus transfer can complicate the transfer
and for this reason, the team tasked with conducting the transfer must decide whether they want the
transfer to occur with the VSDs or without the VSD. There are three schemes that can be used when
conducting a transfer with VSDs [5];
a The VSD is still connected to the system during transfer. This results in a faster deceleration
rate for the motor as the VSD draws current from the motor bus (current that could be used
to maintain the motor’s residual voltage);
b The VSD is disconnected from the system at the beginning of the bus transfer and is only
reconnected once the transfer is complete and the system is restored.
c The VSD is still connected to the system but instead is programmed to make the convertors
transfer energy from the rotating mass of the motor and its load to the auxiliary system. This
is known as regenerative braking mode and helps force the mechanical equipment to
decelerate.
Depending on whether the power station would want the bus to stay operation or not, a call must be
made as to which of the three schemes are more suitable during a motor bus transfer [5].
34
STATION
2.6 Characterisation of an induction motor

To simulate different MBT methods in DigSilent™ for Kendal Power Station, an accurate model of
the common plant must be developed. Since the motor-driven systems are the main focus, it is
important to determine how to correctly characterize the motors. The common plant only consists of
induction motors, thus, the performance of the induction motors are key to a successful MBT. Since
the motor model will be undergoing a simulated MBT it is important to consider the torque-speed
curves of the motors and their driven loads to accurately predict the drive train performance during
the MBT. For this, a dynamic model of the motor and its driven load is required using a dq-reference
frame.
2.6.1 Clarke and Park Transform

The Clarke transforms converts balanced three-phase quantities (the abc reference frame) into
balanced two-phase quadrature quantities (a 𝛽 and 𝛼 reference frame) [32].
The Park’s Theorem then further converts these quadrature quantities (the 𝛽 and 𝛼 reference frame)
to an orthogonal rotating reference frame (a d and q reference frame) [32].
Figure 13 illustrates the different reference frames, as can be seen, the stator current (𝐼 , 𝐼 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼 )
in the standard reference frame abc, where phasors are 120⁰ displaced and time-varying at 50 Hz
as is illustrated in the left column of Figure 13. Then the middle phasor group and plot illustrates the
βα-reference frame (where the three phases are transformed to 𝐼 and 𝐼 ) and it can be seen that
this reference frame has a β, which is perpendicular to the α [32]. Then lastly on the right side of
Figure 13, the dq-reference frame is depicted, where it can be seen that 𝐼 is at a rotational angle 𝜃
to the α −axis and that 𝐼 is perpendicular to 𝐼 , which lies along the d-axis [32]. If these different
transformations of the three currents were to be drawn in a phasor group, the illustration shown in
Figure 14 would be achieved.
Figure 13: The stator current in an abc-reference frame are transformed to a 𝛽𝛼-reference frame and then further
transformed to dq-reference frame [32]
35
STATION
Figure 14: The combined vector group of all the reference frames [32]
To transform the standard three currents 𝐼 , 𝐼 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼 (the abc three-phase reference frame) to the
stationary orthogonal reference frame (𝐼 and 𝐼 ) using the Clarke transformation, (16) can be used
to obtain 𝐼 and (17) for 𝐼 [32].
2 1
𝐼 = (𝐼 ) − (𝐼 − 𝐼 ) (16)
3 3
2
𝐼 = (𝐼 − 𝐼 ) (17)
√3
The Park transformation can then be used to further transform the stationary orthogonal reference
frame currents (𝐼 and 𝐼 ) to the rotating reference frame currents, by using (18) to obtain 𝐼 and (19)
to obtain 𝐼 [32].
𝐼 = 𝐼 × cos(𝜃) + 𝐼 × sin (𝜃) (18)
𝐼 = 𝐼 × cos(𝜃) − 𝐼 × sin (𝜃) (19)
Where 𝜃 in (18) and (19) is the rotational angle [32].
The three-phase reference frame quantities are converted to the Clarke transformation and then
from the Clarke transformation to the Park transformation to make calculations and modelling of an
induction motor easier [33]. It also allows for easier control of the active (d-axis) and reactive (q-axis)
components of currents [33]. Many motor simulation models make use of Park’s transformation, for
example, the motor model in Simulink™ uses Park’s transformation [34]. Although this study might
not actively transform the currents from one reference frame to the other it is good to know how
Park’s transformation works to better understand the workings of potential models that will be used
during the modelling of the motor phase of the study.
36
STATION
2.6.2 Single cage model of an induction motor

All induction motor models in various simulation packages consider the approximate per-phase
equivalent circuit of the induction motor. Since most induction motors in the industry are single
squirrel cage induction motors, the single squirrel cage approximate per-phase circuit can be
considered, this circuit was already represented in Figure 6, and can be seen again below.
The following parameters can be seen in Figure 15 [19];
𝑅 : The stator resistance, measured in pu
𝑗𝑋 : The stator reactance, measured in pu
𝐸: The induced emf in the stator windings, measured in pu
𝑅 : The core-loss resistance, measured in pu
𝐼 : The magnetization current, measured in pu
𝑗𝑋 : The magnetization reactance, measured in pu
𝑗𝑋 : The rotor reactance, measured in pu
These parameters are used to calculate the starting current and the starting torque, and the torque-
speed curve. The current 𝐼 is the inrush current at start-up of the motor, thus, 𝐼 can be calculated
by using (4). (20) then shows how the current can be used to calculate the induced emf in the stators
windings (𝐸 ) [19].
𝐸 = 𝑈 − 𝐼 (𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 ) (20)
The core-loss current, magnetization current and excitation current can then be calculated as seen
in (21) to (23) [19].
𝐸
𝐼 = (21)
𝑅
37
STATION
𝐸
𝐼 = (22)
𝑗𝑋
𝐼 =𝐼 +𝐼 (23)
The rotor current can then be calculated by either using (24) to (25) [19].
𝐼 =𝐼 −𝐼 (24)
𝐸
𝐼 = (25)
𝑅
𝑠 + 𝑗𝑋
Once all these currents have been calculated the output power can be calculated as shown in (9)
[19].
From these values, the electrical torque of the motor is calculated as shown in (8) [19].
The circuit parameters help to determine how the induction motor will act during start-up and while
running. It is therefore important that the correct parameters are chosen to model the motor.
However, if the parameters of an induction motor are not given they must be calculated.
2.6.3 Dynamic or static motor models

The first step in modelling an induction motor is to determine if the motor must be modelled
dynamically or statically. This is important as modelling the motor incorrectly could lead to highly
inaccurate results. Static motor models are generally used when not much information is available
on the motor or its driven load [35]. These models usually make use of constant impedance models,
constant current models and constant apparent power models [35]. Static models are generally only
used in load flow studies where it is not required to make use of a dynamic model or in dynamic
power system studies in cases where no information is available on the motor or its driven load [35].
Dynamic models make use of the electrical and mechanical time-varying quantities with the use of
mathematical modelling to represent the motor and its load [35]. For this study, a dynamic model will
have to be used as the motor’s load must be considered to correctly simulate a motor bus transfer.
38
STATION
2.6.4 Standard tests

The SANS 60034-1:2010 standard stipulates routine tests that induction motors should undergo
when they have been sent in for repairs or after they have been manufactured [36]. Table 1 lists
these tests.
Table 1: The minimum scheduled routine tests as stipulated by SANS standards [36]
For the induction motors, tests in column 3 of Table 1 is of importance. The resistance test is a
simple test where the resistance of each phase of the stator winding is measured. The next test is
the no-load losses test and this can be used to help determine the core-loss resistance and
magnetization reactance, through the recorded no-load current, voltage and power [19]. The other
three circuit parameters can be determined using a locked rotor test, however, as can be seen in
Table 1 this test is not mandatory, so finding the other three parameters can prove to be more difficult
[19]. From the standard tests, the stator resistance, and the core-loss resistance and magnetization
reactance can be determined. If the locked rotor test is done, the other three parameters can be
determined as the equivalent resistance and reactance are obtained from this test. However,
accurately determining the contribution of a double cage resistance and reactance values to the
equivalent parameters does not always result in an accurate representation of the motor. The same
is true for a single cage motor model too.
It should be noted that none of these tests can be used to determine the inertia of the motor or the
motor’s load. This proves problematic for a motor bus transfer study as the inertia is an important
39
STATION
property in knowing how the motor will act once disconnected from the old source, as was discussed
above [23]. Studies by de Kock and Pedra have also shown that by making use of the single cage
parameters calculated using the tests discussed above, incorrectly represents the motor’s starting
and stalling conditions [35] [37]. Pedra noted that deep, narrow rotor bars for single squirrel cage
induction motors have similar torque-speed curve characteristics to double cage induction motors
and for this reason single cage induction motors should be dynamically modelled as double cage
induction motor [37].
2.6.5 Double cage model of an induction motor

Double cage rotors are used for motors that need high starting torque with low starting current [12].
Although the construction of the rotor is not known it is important to know that deep bar rotors also
have a high starting torque with low starting current [12]. The purpose of the circuit parameters is to
determine the torque-speed curve of the motor, and as already mentioned previous studies found
the torque-speed curve of a single cage motor model to be an inaccurate representation of the motor.
For this reason, it would be best to dynamically model the motor as a double cage motor. The torque-
speed characteristics, as well as the per-phase approximate equivalent circuit of a double cage
motor, can be seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17.
Figure 16: The torque-speed curve of a double cage induction motor [12]
𝑹𝟏 𝒋𝑿𝟏
Figure 17: The per-phase approximate equivalent circuit of a double cage induction motor [19]
40
STATION
The outer cage of the rotor has a high resistance and low reactance whereas the inner cage has a
low resistance and a high reactance [12]. This ensures that during the motor’s start-up the outer
cage bears most of the burden and once the motor is semi-running the inner cage starts to bear the
burden [12]. Figure 16 shows the two separate torque-speed curves produced by the outer and inner
cage. From Figure 16 the outer cage can be seen to have a more logarithmic torque-speed curve.
When the motor is at standstill (i.e. slip = 1 in Figure 16), the outer cage’s torque is at its highest
value, and as the motor’s speed starts to gain and the slip starts to decrease the torque starts to
steadily decline until the torque becomes zero at a slip of zero. Whereas, the inner cage starts with
low torque and slowly starts to increase till the break-down torque is achieved, and only at this point
does the torque start to decrease. Figure 16 also illustrates the effect the two cages have on the
torque-speed curve. When the effects of the outer and inner cages’ torque vs speed curves are
considered together, it can be seen that the combined effect of the two cages results in a higher
starting torque than the outer cages starting torque alone. The breakdown torque of the combined
effect of the two cages is also higher than the breakdown torque of the inner cage’s curve alone.
Thus, the effect of the outer cage allows for a greater starting torque, which is more in line with the
torque vs speed curves received from motor manufacturers.
By using Figure 17, the equations for a double cage induction motor can be formed. As with the
single cage model the first step is to calculate the equivalent resistance and equivalent reactance of
the circuit, this is done in (26) and (27).
1 1 1
𝑅 =𝑅 + + + (26)
𝑅 𝑅 𝑅
𝑠 𝑠
1 1 1
𝑗𝑋 = 𝑗𝑋 + + + (27)
𝑗𝑋 𝑗𝑋 𝑗𝑋
𝑠 𝑠
Where [12];
𝑅: Is the inner cages resistance, measured in pu
𝑅 : Is the outer cages resistance, measured in pu
𝑋: Is the inner cages reactance, measured in pu
𝑋 : Is the outer cages reactance, measured in pu
(4) can still be used to calculate the applied current (𝐼 ) [19].
𝑈
𝐼 = (4)
𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋
(20) can also still be used to calculate the induced emf in the stator’s windings (𝐸 ) [19].
41
STATION
𝐸 = 𝑈 − 𝐼 (𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 ) (20)
The core-loss current, magnetization current and excitation current can also still be calculated by
using (21) to (23) [19].
𝐸
𝐼 = (21)
𝑅
𝐸
𝐼 = (22)
𝑗𝑋
𝐼 =𝐼 +𝐼 (23)
The difference now comes in with the rotor current, there are now two rotor currents namely the inner
rotor current (𝐼 ) and the outer rotor current (𝐼 ). These two currents are calculated by using (28)
and (29).
𝐸
𝐼 = (28)
𝑅
𝑠 + 𝑗𝑋
𝐸
𝐼 = (29)
𝑅
𝑠 + 𝑗𝑋
This then changes the developed (output) power’s equation to (30).
𝑅 𝑅
𝑃 = 𝑈 𝐼 cos(𝜃) − 𝐼 𝑅 − 𝐼 𝑅 − 𝐼 −𝐼 (30)
𝑠 𝑠
The combined torque of the double cage motor can be calculated with (8), which is shown again
below [19].
𝑃
𝑇 = (8)
𝑆
The outer cage (𝑇 ) and inner cage (𝑇 ) torque can be calculated by using (31) and (32).
𝑅
𝐼 𝑠
𝑇 = (31)
𝑆
𝑅
𝐼 𝑠
𝑇 = (32)
𝑆
42
STATION
2.6.6 DigSilent™ Model of a double cage induction motor

The DigSilent™ double cage induction motor model is similar to Figure 17, however, there is no 𝑅
(core-loss resistance) and the rotor part of the circuit looks different as shown in Figure 18. The 𝑋
in Figure 18 refers to the magnetization reactance of the rotor, and is in series with the outer and
inner cage resistance and reactance [38].
Figure 18: DigSilent™ rotor part of a double cage induction motor [38].
2.6.7 Parameter identification by using Pedra’s method

As discussed above the circuit parameters are crucial for determining the profile of the torque-speed
curve. However, how does one ensure that the correct parameters have been chosen to determine
the torque-speed curve of the motor? Pedra proposed a method in his studies. Pedra obtains the
circuit parameters by using the information of the full-load torque and the maximum torque [37].
Before Pedra’s method is unpacked it is important to note that the core-loss resistance is not present
in his model, which can be seen in Figure 19. This is not crucial as DigSilent™ makes use of the
same model as Pedra and even references his work. Most models do not contain a core-loss
resistance as it has a high value of the resistance and the fact that very little current flows through
this resistance is considered negligible in most models.
Figure 19: The per-phase equivalent model used in Pedra's research [37]
43
STATION
From this model, Pedra then developed equations, which can be used to determine the circuit
parameter shown in Figure 19. These equations are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: A list of equations Pedra developed in his research [37]
Where [37]:
𝑃: Is the rated power, measured in kW
𝑟: Is the stator resistance, measured in pu
𝑟 : Is the outer cage resistance, measured in pu
𝑥 : Is the stator reactance, measured in pu
𝑥 : Is the outer cage reactance, measured in pu
𝑟 : Is the inner cage resistance, measured in pu
𝑥 : Is the magnetization reactance, measured in pu
𝑥 : Is the inner cage reactance, measured in pu
𝑟 : Is the mechanical and iron losses, measured in pu. This does not have to be included in the
users’ model.
2.6.8 Parameter identification by using the error elimination method

Another method that can be used is de Kock’s parameter identification through error elimination
method, or in other words, curve fitting by using an error formula [35]. Although this modelling will
not be as in-depth as the modelling de Kock used where fifth and third-order motor models were
used, the method of curve fitting through error elimination will be used [35].
The first step in this method is to plot the torque-speed curve and current speed curve obtained by
the motor’s manufacturing or repair company. Although this is not one of the minimum required tests
stipulated by SANS60034, most manufactures do these tests or at least give the starting current,
starting torque, breakdown slip, and breakdown torque values [36].
44
STATION
Once this curve has been plotted the parameters for the double cage model must be calculated.
These parameters can first be calculated using the test done or a value can be guessed [35]. Table
3 shows the typical values for each parameter.
Table 3: Typical range of values identified for parameters of induction motors [35]
Parameter Range Typical

Stator resistance 0,01 to 0,15 0,03
Stator leakage reactance 0,05 to 0,15 0,10
Magnetization reactance 1,50 to 4,00 2,50
Rotor leakage reactance 0,05 to 0,15 0,10
Rotor resistance 0,003 to 0,10 0,03
Inertia constant (s) 0,05 to 10,0 1,00
Starting current 4,0 to 7,0 6,00
Pull-out torque 1,50 to 3,00 2,20
By using the values in Table 3 it is important to remember to keep the outer rotor cage’s resistance
higher than the inner cage, and its reactance lower than the inner cage [12].
In de Kock’s research, it was found that the rotor resistance was the most influential parameter. For
this reason, the first step would be to optimize the outer rotor resistance while keeping the other
circuit parameters constant and then the inner rotor resistance while keeping the other circuit
parameters constant [35]. The rotor resistance’s can be optimized by using three error functions,
these three error functions will identify how far off the calculated torque and the calculated current
are from the actual current and actual torque value at different rotor resistance values [35]. These
error functions will be plotted against different values of the rotor resistance, and where the error
function has a minimum value will indicate what rotor resistance value best represents this particular
machine [35]. Once the outer rotor resistance and inner resistance have been optimized separately,
this will then systematically be done for each circuit parameter, with the stator resistance being last
as it was shown to have the least effect on the two above mentioned curves [35]. The three error
functions that will be used are a standard error function (𝜀) shown in (33), an absolute error function
(𝜀 ) shown in (34), and a squared error function (𝜀 ) shown in (35) [35].
𝜀 = 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (33)
𝜀 = |𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 | (34)
𝜀 = (𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒) (35)
Three error functions are used to get the best-optimized parameter.
45
STATION
2.6.9 Other methods to determine induction motor parameters

There are many journal articles based on induction motor modelling. Some articles use a reference
frame approach like studies done by Rai and Debra [39]. In their studies, they make use of Park’s
Theorem to test if models coded in Matlab™ and Simulink™ can accurately predict the behaviour of
an induction motor. Unfortunately, a single cage model was used in their studies and the model's
results were not compared with an actual induction motor in the industry, thus, this technique was
not considered.
A group from Venezuela compared two types of motor modelling methods where each method
includes the induction motor’s saturation at different times [40]. The two methods were parameter
identification, which is similar to the optimization method, and a flux model where the flux is used as
a state variable to solve the model. The accuracy of their modelling was compared to the starting
current curve of the motor. A single cage induction motor model was used for this study.
It was noted that most studies either use a parameter identification approach through errors, flux
models with numerical analysis techniques or a rotating reference frame method was used to
accurately model induction motors. Most of these methods test their accuracy by comparing the
starting torque or current with the manufacturers starting torque or current. However, the two studies
above only consider single cage induction motor models.
2.6.10 Load torque model

Since the V/Hz pu ratio does not account for the torque, a model will have to be developed for the
motor’s shaft torque characteristics. Until this point, several different methods were considered for
characterising the motor's torque-speed curve accurately. However, the effect or the characterization
of the torque-speed curve for the motor’s mechanical load has not been discussed. Most mechanical
loads do not come with torque-speed curves, so the common motor loads have torque vs speed
curves as defined in Figure 20.
46
STATION
Figure 20: The torque-speed relations of different type of motor loads [41]
Figure 20 illustrates a group and symbol for each motor load, Table 4 identifies the specific
mechanical load in each group.
Table 4: The group number of different mechanical loads [41]
Group From Figure 20 Mechanical Loads Found in the Group

Group 1 Veneer cutting machines
Winder
Main spindle drives
Stirrers, mills, saws, coilers
Test stands
Group 2 Conveyor belts
Feed drives
Elevators
Cranes
Positive displacement pumps
Screw Compressors
Group 3 Hydraulic pumps
Rollers
Smoothing machines
Group 4 Centrifugal pumps
Centrifugal loads
Fans
47
STATION
Since the mechanical loads at Kendal Power Station common plant are centrifugal pumps,
conveyors and compressors, the relationships of Groups 2 and 4 in Figure 20 will be considered.
Once the mechanical load and the electrical load have been characterized, the transient torque must
be determined. The transient torque is affected by the electrical torque of the motor and the load
torque [23]. However, the inertia of the motor and the inertia of the mechanical load affect the speed
of the motor as well, which then affects the load and electrical torque [35]. Therefore, a closed control
loop can be used to consider the mechanical effects of the motor, Figure 21 depicts this [35].
Electrical Acceleration 1
𝜔
torque torque 2𝐻𝑠
Mechanical
torque
Figure 21: The mechanical model of an induction motor
The 𝐻 in Figure 21 is the combined motor and load inertia in, measured in s.
2.7 Starting of mechanical loads such as pumps and compressors

To select the correct motor for the load application the torque vs speed curve of the load and motor
are usually plotted on the same axis to determine if the motor has adequate acceleration torque to
drive the load during start-up [42]. In Kendal's case, the motors were either bought in the late 1980s
so the records of the load’s torque vs speed curves don’t exist or the manufacturer of the loads
already preselected the motors as is the case with the new service air compressors (screw
compressor). This means that Kendal bought screw compressors from a certain supplier and the
supplier already selected Siemens™ motors to be partnered with their product. In short, this means
that the torque vs speed curve for the new service air compressors is not available to Kendal, as the
mechanical manufacturer does not want to share them with Kendal.
In Figure 22 it can be seen that the pump’s torque curve intersects the motor’s curve and continues
onto a higher torque value, this means that the motor in this graph will not accelerate beyond this
point [42]. Often the motor’s torque vs speed curve at lower voltage values are also plotted to
determine if the motor at a lower voltage value will be able to accelerate the load. As long as the
pump curve remains in the pink region in Figure 22 the motor will have adequate accelerating torque
available to drive the pump. However, the moment the pump exceeds the motor torque at speeds
above rated speed that motor will experience a running stall [42].
48
STATION
Figure 22: Example of the torque of a motor vs speed curve plotted against a pumps torque vs speed curve [42]
If motor loads from group 2 in Figure 20 and Table 4 are to be considered the torque vs speed curve
of the motor and load would look like that of Figure 23. In Figure 23 it can be seen that the load curve
starts above the motor curve, meaning the motor does not have a sufficient amount of torque to
accelerate this load. For this reason, it is common that in the industry that valves and fluid couplings
are used to assist in the start-up of such loads.
Figure 23: Torque vs speed curve of the motor plotted against a constant torque vs speed curve of a mechanical load
49
STATION
Before considering how the compressor is started with the motor, let's consider how the screw
compressor at Kendal works. Figure 24 shows a basic layout of the new service air compressors, by
considering Figure 24 we can understand how the air flows through the compressor and then gets
compressed [43]:
a The ambient air first flows through the filters (point 8 in Figure 24)
b Once filtered the air flows through the inlet valve (point 1 in Figure 24)
c The air is then compressed by the airend (point 5 in Figure 24), the electric motor drives the
airend (point 3 in Figure 24).
d The airend is kept cool with cooling oil, which is injected into it, this oil sometimes mixes
with the compressed air and is separated from the compressed air in the oil separator tank
(point 7 in Figure 24). The separated compressed air flows through the minimum
pressure/check valve (point 2 in Figure 24) into the air cooler (point 9 in Figure 24). The
minimum pressure/check valve (point 2 in Figure 24) ensures that minimum internal
pressure is obtained that is sufficient for circulating the cooling oil.
e Once separated the oil is cooled in the oil cooler (point 9 Figure 24)
f The oil is then put through a filter (point 4 in Figure 24) before being reinjected in the airend.
The oil uses the pressure within the machine to circulate, and for this reason, no pump is
used.
Figure 24: A layout of the screw compressor at Kendal Power Station [43]
50
STATION
During start-up, the inlet valve is closed (point 2 in Figure 24), the minimum pressure/check valve
(point 2 in Figure 24) isolates the oil separator tank (point 7 in Figure 24) and the venting valve is
opened [43]. The venting valve is not shown in Figure 24, this valve is used to depressurize the
compressor [43]. Once the motor is at operating speed, the inlet valve is opened, the venting valve
is closed and the minimum pressure/check valve (point 2 in Figure 24) reconnects the oil separator
tank (point 7 in Figure 24) [43]. Once this happens the airend begins to compress air and the machine
begins to work as specified above. Take note that the motor will only start once the system pressure
is lower than the setpoint pressure; this is why the venting valve is opened [43].
Similarly to compressors, pumps also make use of valves. Valves are used in pumps to reduce the
high starting torques. Pumps make use of discharge valves, these valves if closed or partially closed
create a lower loading on the motor during starting [44]. The motor drives the pump and the discharge
valve controls the flow through the pump; this is why it is important not to leave the discharge valve
partially or fully closed for too long as it will result in the pump overheating [44].
For this purpose, we can consider the run-up of a compressor to be similar to that of a pump since
both make use of valves during start-up. Therefore, during this study, the torque vs speed curve of
the compressor will be considered to be a square relation just like the pump, as a valve is used to
reduce the motor load during the run-up.
2.8 Using hydraulic couplings for conveyor belt starting

The conveyor belt loads also form part of group 2 shown in Figure 20 and Table 4, meaning that
conveyor belts also have a constant speed vs torque curve. Unlike screw compressors, conveyor
belts don’t work with moving fluids so valves cannot be used during start-up. However, instead of
valves, fluid or hydraulic couplings are used. Couplings are used to connect the motor shaft to the
mechanical load’s shaft. A fluid coupling can be divided into a primary and secondary part as seen
in Figure 25. The primary part acts like a pump and the secondary part like a turbine, this is because
the primary part drives the fluid like a pump and the secondary part is driven by the fluid like a turbine
[45].
51
STATION
Figure 25: The construction of a fluid coupling [45]
The coupling contains two vane wheels, which can be considered as the pump impeller for the
primary part and the turbine wheel for the secondary part [45]. The torque is created through the
change in the directional flow of the rotating fluid [45]. These vane wheels are placed in a housing
so that the fluid will flow through all wheels sequentially, meaning that they do not come into contact
with one another and that fluid flowing through these wheels creates the torque transmission
between the wheels [45]. Similar to a motor, a fluid coupling also has slip as the output speed is
always less than the input speed [45]. Similar to the motor at standstill, the speed will be zero and
the fluid will be stationary in the coupling. However, as the motor starts to turn and the speed starts
to increase, the primary side of the coupling will begin to turn the vane wheel or pump impeller,
resulting in a centrifugal force which starts to move the fluid to the secondary vane wheel or turbine
wheel. Once the turbine wheel starts to turn the load is engaged and starts turning as well, however,
this only happens when the motor is at rated speed, this phenomena can be seen in Figure 25 and
Figure 26. As the speed of the motor and therefore the speed of the pump impeller increases the
fluid will be pumped more rapidly to the turbine resulting in the turning of the turbine and in turn the
driving of the mechanical load [45].
52
STATION
Figure 26: The moving of fluid in a hydraulic coupling [46]
There are different types of couplings, some fluid couplings are more advanced than others. This
section describes the basic working of a fluid coupling. Some fluid couplings for examples have delay
chambers which result in a slower start-up and for this reason, it is important to find out what type of
couplings Kendal uses for the Ash Plant and Coal Stockyard. Table 5 contains a list of fluid couplings
Voith offers and the special functions some of them have.
53
STATION
Table 5: A product list of Voith Fluid Couplings [45]
In Table 5 a working chamber is mentioned, the working chamber is the section where the fluid flows
from the primary to the secondary part as shown in Figure 27.
54
STATION
Figure 27: The Construction of a basic fluid coupling [45]
In the more complex type couplings mentioned in Table 5, extra chambers or valves are added to
reduce the torque vs speed curve during start-up as shown in Figure 28. The exact function of the
added chamber or valve is explained in Table 5.
Figure 28: The construction of a more advanced fluid coupling [45]
55
STATION
2.9 Transformers
Most of the transformers’ characteristics can be found on the rating plate of the transformer,
however, some characteristics can’t be found and for this reason methods used to determine these
characteristics are discussed below:
2.9.1 Zero-sequence reactance

Just like Park’s transform was developed to simplify motor calculations, Fortescue created a set of
symmetrical components, which help to simplify calculations for an unbalanced three-phase power
systems [47]. The standard voltage, current and impedance parameters are transformed to
sequence components, which consist of the zero- sequence, positive- sequence, and negative
sequence values [47] (see Table 6). The “a” in Table 6 is equal to 1∠120° and a² is equal to 1∠240⁰
[47].
Table 6: The Fortescue transform [47]
Zero Sequence 1
V = (V + V + V )
3
1
I = (I + I + I )
3
Positive Sequence 1
V = (V + aV + a V )
3
1
I = (I + aI + a I )
3
Negative Sequence 1
V = (V + a V + aV )
3
1
I = (I + a I + aI )
3
To determine the sequence components for a transformer is complex as the transformer has an
equivalent sequence circuit for the zero- sequence, positive- sequence, and negative sequence,
these equivalent circuits can be seen in Table 7.
56
STATION
Table 7: Per-unit sequence networks for different vector groups of two winding transformers [47]
The voltage sequence values in these circuits are obtained by using the unbalanced voltage
sequence values of the source connected to the transformer [47]. From this point, the sequence
impedances of the source, line and transformer must be considered to determine the sequence
impedance [47]. Since this information might be quite complex to calculate or not available at all it
would be easier to use Table 8, which ABB uses to determine the zero sequence impedance of a
transformer [48].
57
STATION
Table 8: ABB Reference values of 𝑋 /𝑋 + for three-phase transformers [48]
The X referred to in Table 8’s heading is the rated reactance of the transformer found on the rating
plate. Two winding transformers are usually three-limb transformers. For example, if the transformer
is connected in star/delta the ratio of the zero-sequence reactance to the rated reactance would be
between 0.7 to 1. Therefore, a typical value of 0.85 can be selected and the ratio can be adjusted
until the correct single-phase short-circuit current is given.
58
STATION
2.9.2 Transformer losses and no-load current

Transformer losses are usually determined by doing tests, however where there are no datasheets
for the transformers available, typical values can be used. Fortunately, ABB has characterized a
graph where the losses and no-load current of a transformer are plotted against different transformer
ratings [49].
Figure 29: Transformer losses and no-load current plotted against different transformer ratings [49]
In Figure 29 the 𝑝 symbol represents the no-load losses, the 𝑝 symbol is the load losses, and the
𝑖 symbol is for the excitation current [49]. The load losses consist of copper losses (I2R), stray load
losses and eddy current losses [49]. The eddy current losses are difficult to determine, thus Table 9
can be used as a guideline to determine these losses. The eddy current losses in Table 9 are
expressed as a percentage of the load losses.
59
STATION
Table 9: Typical values for eddy current losses for certain transformer types [50]
Type Transformer power Voltage (V) Eddy current losses (%)

rating (MVA)
Dry ≤1 − 3−8
≥ 1.5 5 𝑘𝑉 12 − 20
≤ 1.5 15 𝑘𝑉 9 − 15
Oil-filled ≤ 2.5 480 𝑉 1
2.5 − 5 480 𝑉 1−5

>5 480 𝑉 9 − 15
Most of the smaller transformers in the common plant at Kendal are dry-type with a power rating
greater than 1.5 MVA, thus the eddy current losses in these transformers will account for 12% to
20% of the total losses. The oil-immersed transformers at Kendal have a voltage greater than
480 V, thus this table cannot be used for them and a standard rule of 10 % eddy current losses will
be used for them. The stray load losses can be calculated by using (36) and (37), for transformers
with an apparent power rating of less than 10 MVA [50]
𝑃 = 𝑘 .𝑆 (36)
Where [50]:
𝑃 : Is the stray load losses, measured in W.
𝑆 : Is the rated power of the transformer, measured in kVA, and
𝑘 : Is a coefficient which is calculated using (37).
𝑆
𝑘 = 0.1 + (37)
20000
For transformers with power ratings greater than 10 MVA, a stray load loss of 10% will be applied.
The highlighted part of the graph shown in Figure 29 is the upper and lower limit for 𝑝 . The upper
limit of 𝑝 is the top curve in the highlighted area and is for a voltage rating of 123 kV, the lower limit
of 𝑝 is the lower curve in the highlighted region and is at a voltage rating of 36 kV. Since most of
the transformers at Kendal are 3.3 kV, it will provide some indication of the stray losses. SANS780-
2009 Edition 4 has a table containing the standard power rating, and iron and load losses for
transformers of this size, Table 10 will be used to as the these transformers.
60
STATION
Table 10: Standard Power ratings and component losses for dual-ratio transformers [51]
2.10 Summary
The main focus of this study is to successfully transfer motors from one source to a backup source
should a fault occur between the main source and its feeder to the motors. However, MBT transfers
if not carried out correctly can damage the motor’s windings or sheer the shaft between the rotor and
the load. These damages occur due to high currents during transfers and voltage dips, and the
transient torques that are experienced due to these high currents. It is for this reason that the
contribution of the motor’s size, inertia, load’s inertia, and the mix of synchronous and induction
motors on a busbar must be taken into account.
61
STATION
These factors will determine what type of MBT method would be best suited to the system and when
it would be best to shed load and rather reaccelerate the motors. If these contributing factors are not
taken into consideration the MBT transfer could be unsuccessful and detrimental to the plant's
operation.
Modelling the motors correctly is of utmost importance. Choosing the best way in which to model the
motor i.e. statically or dynamically is crucial, as static models neglect the load and make use of
constant currents and impedances, whereas dynamic models consider the load and changes the
motor undergoes during dynamic operation of the plant. For this study, it is best to model the motor
dynamically instead of statically as the motor’s load must be considered to accurately identify how
the motor would react during an MBT. Since a dynamic motor model will be used it is then important
to determine how an accurate motor model will be designed. Studies done by de Kock and Pedra
will be considered and from their methods of torque vs speed curve fitting the best way in which to
model a motor will be determined in the following chapter [37] [35].
As mentioned it is also important to accurately model the motor’s loads, and for this reason, the
torque vs speed curve, and inertia of the motor’s loads must be considered. Different types of
mechanical loads have different torque vs speed characteristics which contribute to different starting
conditions for the loads, for example, pumps and compressors start at a third of their running torque
vs speed curve and conveyors make use of fluid couplings during starting. Thus, it is important to
not only consider the impact of the mechanical inertia the load has on the motor but also the impact
the load's torque vs speed curve has on the motor during start-up and running.
The motors are not the only ones affected during an MBT. It is therefore important to consider the
effects an MBT can have on the motors’ protection equipment, the transformers supplying the
motors, and in the case where the motor has a VSD what affect it has during the transfer. For this
reason, it is not only important to accurately model the motors and their loads that will be expected
to be transferred, but the transformers involved in the transfer, as well as taking into consideration
the protection settings and philosophies used for the motor’s protection equipment. If these
components are neglected during MBT studies, a trip could occur which would then result in an
unsuccessful transfer and a disruption of the plant's operation.
62
STATION
Chapter 3: Characterisation of electrical machines

3.1 Introduction
To accurately model Kendal Power Station and accurately predict how the common plant would
react firstly to a trip and secondly to an MBT, the electrical components that make up the common
plant must be defined. In chapter 2 methods to characterize induction motors were already
considered and these methods will be used and their accuracy discussed below in this chapter.
However, other components such as transformers must be characterized to a certain degree and
this will also be evaluated in this chapter. Fortunately, most of the data DigSilent™ requires on
overhead lines and cables can either be found in the manufacturers' catalogues and datasheets.
Another benefit is that Eskom have detailed information to characterize the generator and external
grids than any of the other components in the grid, which makes the modelling of these two
components easier. For this reason, only the induction motors and transformers must be
characterized.
3.2 Motor characterization

From Chapter 2 it was determined that a double cage model will be used to characterize the
parameters of the induction motors at Kendal Power Station’s Common Plant. This part of the
chapter evaluates which method (Pedra’s or de Kock’s method) would be most accurate and easier
to use to determine the values of the double cage induction motor parameters. The accuracy of the
parameters obtained by each method is verified by comparing the torque vs speed curves obtained
from the method with that of the manufacturers. One of the auxiliary cooling east pump motors at
the common plant and its data was used as an example. The ratings of the motor can be seen in
Table 11. All motors at the common plant are connected in star.
63
STATION
Table 11: Ratings of a 3.3 kV East Auxiliary Cooling Pump Induction Motor
Parameter Symbol SI Unit Value
Nominal power 𝑃 kW 400
Rated voltage 𝑈 kV 3.3
Number of poles 𝑝 - 4
Nominal current 𝐼 A 87
Efficiency 𝜂 % 95
Frequency 𝑓 Hz 50
Starting current 𝐼 A 522
Locked rotor torque 𝑇 pu 0.9
Breakdown torque 𝑇 pu 2.5
Synchronous speed 𝜔 rpm 1500
Rated speed 𝜔 rpm 1482
Rated slip 𝑠 - 0.012
Both of the methods chosen to characterize the motor make use of curve fitting. Both these methods
try to fit the torque-speed and current-speed curves of the motor. This is why it is important to
consider the torque-speed and current-speed curve of the auxiliary cooling east pump motors. The
torque-speed curve from the manufacturer can be seen in Figure 30, and the current-speed curve
can be seen in Figure 31.
64
STATION
Figure 30: The torque vs speed curve of the east auxiliary cooling pump motor [52]
65
STATION
Figure 31: The current vs speed curve of the East auxiliary cooling pump motor [52]
These two curves will be used to measure the accuracy of the characterization of the double cage
motor parameters. It must be noted that to achieve an accurate torque vs speed curve the Current
vs Speed curve might not be as accurate, however, it is important to have an error margin below
10% to ensure the model does not become inaccurate. Although only the East auxiliary cooling motor
66
STATION
will be studied in detail, two other motors will be evaluated in the optimization section. These two
motors are the service air compressor motors, and S5 and S6 conveyor coal stockyard motors. The
motors that drive the S5 and S6 conveyor have the same ratings and for this reason, are considered
as one set of motors. The ratings of these two sets of motors can be seen in Table 12 and Table
13.
Table 12: Ratings of a 3.3 kV Service Air Compressor Induction Motor
Efficiency 𝜂 % 95
Starting current 𝐼 A 443.67
Table 13: Ratings of a 3.3 kV S5 and S6 Conveyor Induction Motor
Starting current 𝐼 A 390.4
67
STATION
There is no torque vs speed or current vs speed for the conveyor motors. The manufacturer’s torque-
speed curve and current-speed curve for the new service air compressors are shown in Figure 32
and Figure 33.
Figure 32: The torque vs speed curve of the service air compressors [53]
Figure 33: The current vs speed curve of the service air compressors [53]
68
STATION
3.2.1 Pedra’s method of identifying induction motor parameters

The first method used to determine the parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump motor was
Pedra’s method. By using Table 2 from chapter 2, the parameters of the auxiliary cooling east pump
motor can be determined from the equations shown in Table 2.
By making use of the circuit that Pedra uses to define the parameters of a double cage induction
motor (see Figure 17 from chapter 2) the parameters can be estimated [37]. Although DigSilent™
has a rotor leakage reactance in their model (𝑋 ) as discussed in chapter 2, Pedra’s circuit does
not have such a reactance thus, the rotor leakage reactance in the DigSilent™ model must be made
zero. Table 14 lists the calculated values obtained via Pedra’s method.
Table 14: Calculated value's obtained by Pedra's method for the parameters of the east auxiliary cooling pump motor
Stator Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.003
Stator Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.071
Magnetization Reactance 𝑋 pu 2.71
Inner Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.007
Inner Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.129
Outer Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.076
Outer Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.071
As can be seen, the outer cage has a higher resistance and a lower reactance, which is expected.
From these parameters the electrical torque can be calculated using (38), the equation Pedra used
[37].
𝑋
𝑇 =𝑃 (𝑖 (𝑖 +𝑖 )−𝑖 𝑖 +𝑖 ) (38)
𝜔
Where [37]:
𝑇: Is the electrical torque, measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the stator resistance on the q-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the stator resistance on the d-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the inner rotor resistance on the q-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the inner rotor resistance on the d-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the outer rotor resistance on the q-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
𝑖 : Is the outer rotor resistance on the d-axis (Park Transform), measured in pu
69
STATION
To convert the abc–reference frame to the dq-reference frame (Park’s transforms) (16) to (19) must
be considered from chapter 2 [32].
Remember from chapter 2 that 𝜃 is the rotational angle and is equal to 𝜔𝑡, which is the specific
speed of the induction motor at a specific time. Although the exact time at each point cannot be
determined the overall acceleration time of the motor or the moment of inertia of the motor is often
given in the datasheets. For this specific motor, the motor moment of inertia is 10 𝑘𝑔𝑚 and the load
moment of inertia is 190 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . The motor’s protection relay also has a set time of 5.45 s. From these
parameters the acceleration time can be estimated for the East auxiliary cooling pump motor.
Even though Pedra’s calculated values are within the range of values identified for the parameters
of an induction motor (see Table 3, which was illustrated in chapter 2), the method was made
complicated by continuously joining the mechanical and electrical part of the model. As Pedra does
not make use of (16) through to (19) to determine the Park’s transform (as the 𝜔𝑡 value is not
obtainable), instead a matrix is used for the Park’s transformation shown in (39) [37].
(39)
Where [37]:
𝑝: Is the derivative operator, determined with (40)
1
𝑝= (𝑇 − 𝑇 ) (40)
𝐽𝜔
Where [37]:
𝐽: Is the combined inertia of the motor and load, measured in 𝑘𝑔𝑚
𝜔: Is the speed of the motor at a certain point, measured in 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠
𝑇 : Is the transient torque, measured in 𝑁. 𝑚
70
STATION
In (39) variables such as 𝑀 and 𝐿 , are the coefficients of the dynamic equation shown in (39) and
the steady-state star equivalent circuit [37]. (41) to (44) show how these variables are calculated
[37].
𝑋
𝑀= (41)
𝜔
𝑋 +𝑋
𝐿 = (42)
𝜔
𝑋 +𝑋
𝐿 = (43)
𝜔
𝑋 +𝑋
𝐿 = (44)
𝜔
As can be seen, Pedra’s method is quite complex and the constant cross-referencing to the
mechanical and electrical parts of the induction motor model makes for a cumbersome solution. For
this reason, Pedra’s method will not be used to model the motor, as the purpose of this study is to
find a simple and accurate modelling method to accurately simulate a fast transfer, not to use a
complex model and compare its accuracy with that of a simpler model.
Although it is quite complex to obtain the electrical torque vs speed by using Pedra’s method, the
values that can be obtained from Pedra’s method, which are shown in Table 14, can be entered
straight into DigSilent™ to see if an accurate torque vs speed curve can be obtained from these
parameter values. Figure 34 and Figure 35 shows the torque vs speed and current vs speed curve
obtain in DigSilent™ by using Pedra’s method. From the manufacturer’s curve in Figure 30 it can be
seen that the breakdown torque for the East auxiliary cooling pump is 2.5 pu, however, by using
Pedra’s values the breakdown torque in Figure 34 appears to be higher than 2.5 pu. The shape of
the curve in Figure 30 is also different to the shape of the curve in Figure 34; this will be better seen
later on when the two torque vs speed curves are plotted against one another.
If the current vs speed curve from Pedra’s parameter values (Figure 35) is to be compared with the
manufacturer’s current vs speed curve (Figure 31) it can be seen that the starting current in Figure
31 is 6 pu and that the starting current in Figure 35 is just below 8 pu. This big difference in starting
current shows that the DigSilent™ motor has not accurately been modelled.
71
STATION
Figure 34: The Torque vs Speed Curve for the parameters obtained from Pedra's Method
Figure 35: The Current vs Speed Curve for the parameters obtained from Pedra's Method
72
STATION
3.2.2 Optimization method on identifying induction motor

parameters
The optimization method only considers the electrical modelling of the induction motor, and once the
electrical part is correct the mechanical model of the induction motor and load can be considered.
The calculation of the electrical torque has been discussed in chapter 2. From (7) and (8) it is
important to remember that the electrical torque of the motor is dependent on the slip of the motor,
and as the motor’s slip changes so does the torque. It is for this reason that a loop will must be
programmed to plot the change in electrical torque from unity slip to rated slip. However, the
optimization of a specific parameter in the circuit shown in Figure 15 combined with DigSilent’s™
double cage rotor side shown in Figure 18 will also need to take place, so two loops will be created
to determine the best value for the said parameter. The optimization model was done in Matlab™
and Figure 36 through to Figure 38 shows how the model works, take note this loop is created for
the optimization of the outer rotor cage and that the other circuit parameters worked in the same
way.
73
STATION
X ,
R = m × 0.01
Figure 36: The loop used to calculate the speed curves for different values of the outer cage rotor resistance
74
STATION
Once the loops in Figure 36 are completed, the data given by the manufacturer in Figure 30 (torque
vs speed curve) and Figure 31 (current vs speed curve) along with the different values for 𝑇 and 𝐼
must be compared with one another. The loop in Figure 37 contains the different error functions used
to optimize the outer cage rotor resistance. Before the loop in Figure 37 was used a test loop was
used. This test loop made use of a Matlab™ function that looks for values where the calculated
speed and the actual speed are the same and then returns positions in an array the magnitude of
the calculated speeds array. These positions are then used to record the actual torque and current
at these specific positions in order to form an array of the same magnitude as the calculated torque
and current arrays. The position in the array of the actual torque and current matters, because this
needs to be in the same position as the calculated current and torque at the calculated speed found
to match the manufacturers speed, in order to calculate an accurate error function. The reason for a
test loop is so that the program can systematically go through each value where the manufacturer’s
speed is the same as the calculated speed in order to obtain the manufacturer’s and the calculated
current and torque in those position. This array is then used in the error function to see at what value
of the outer cage rotor resistance the calculated torque and current is closes to the actual torque and
current. The test value referred to in Figure 37, is the function used in Matlab™ to return an array
where if the two speed values (manufacturer and calculated speed) are found to be equal there will
be a one in that position in the array, otherwise, if the values are not equal it will have a zero in that
position in the array.
75
STATION
Test where actual speed =

calculated speed and stores the
value of the actual current / torque
in an array at the specific position.
Use the error function (33) to

(35) to calculate the
difference between the
calculated torque and current
at position (c,g) and actual
torque and current at position
(c) store in an error function
array
Figure 37: The error function loop for optimizing the outer cage rotor resistance
76
STATION
Once the two loops in Figure 37 are complete a sum value of each error function is obtained for the
error function at a specific outer rotor resistance value. This summed error function for the torque
and the current is then plotted against the different values of outer rotor resistance as shown in
Figure 38 through to Figure 40.
Figure 38: The normal error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor resistance
Figure 39: The absolute error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor resistance
77
STATION
Figure 40: The squared error function plotted against different values for the outer cage rotor resistance
Figure 38 to Figure 40 show the region where the error function reaches a minimum. For the error
function of the current, a minimum is reached at an outer rotor cage resistance value of 0.06 pu. For
the normal and absolute error function of the torque a minimum is reached at an outer rotor cage
resistance value of 0.09 pu, and for the squared error function at a value of 0.08 pu. Since 0.06 pu
is the value the error function of the current forms a minimum, the outer cage rotor resistance will be
set to a value of 0.06 pu. Once the outer cage rotor resistance has been set then the next parameter
must be optimized. Figure 41 shows a flow chart of how the optimization process works for each
parameter of the double cage induction motor model. The optimization will continue until the error
function continuously points toward the same value for the parameter no matter the change in value
for the other parameters because as each parameter’s value changes so does the error functions
peak of the current parameter being optimized.
78
STATION
Figure 41: A flowchart illustrating how the optimization method works.

79
STATION
Once the optimization has been completed, the optimized values of the parameters is used to plot a
torque-speed curve and current-speed curve. Table 15 contains the values that were obtained after
the optimization.
Table 15: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the east auxiliary cooling pump motor
Magnetization Reactance 𝑋 pu 4
Rotor Leakage Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.02
Points were taken from the graphs shown in Figure 30 and Figure 31 and then used in Matlab™ to
plot the actual torque vs speed and current vs speed curves against the calculated torque vs speed
curve and the calculated current vs speed curve, as shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43.
Figure 42: The calculated electrical torque vs speed plotted with the actual torque vs speed curve for different voltage
values for the east auxiliary cooling pump
80
STATION
Figure 43: The calculated current vs speed plotted with the actual current vs speed curve for the east auxiliary cooling
pump
For the parameters used in Table 15, the calculated torque vs speed curves for a voltage of 1 pu
compare favourably with the manufacturer's curve as shown in Figure 42. For a voltage of 0.75 pu,
the curve for the calculated torque is slightly higher than the actual torque curve, this could be due
to characteristics of the actual motor that are not considered in the model and for this reason, that
curve can be deemed acceptable. Similarly, in Figure 43, the calculated current is slightly higher
than the actual current, and just like the torque at 0.75 pu voltage, this could be due to characteristic
of the actual motor that are not considered in the model. For this reason, it must be remembered
that to accurately optimize one curve (in this example the torque vs speed curve at rated voltage)
sacrifices might have to be made and for this reason, the current vs speed and torque vs speed
curve at 0.75 pu voltage are accepted, thus, meaning the parameters in Table 15 are sufficient to
use to characterize the electrical part of the motor.
The optimization method will not be discussed in detail again, only the circuit parameters obtained
from the method will be shown below for the air service compressors (the screw compressor), and
the parameters for conveyor S5 and S6 motors at the coal stockyard. Inadequate data was given for
the conveyor motors mentioned therefore, an estimated torque vs speed curve had to be calculated
and will be discussed below in more detail.
Table 16 shows the parameters obtained for the service air compressors by making use of the
optimization method.
81
STATION
Table 16: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the service air compressor
By using the parameters in Table 16 the torque vs speed, and current vs speed curve can be seen
in Figure 44 and Figure 45. Only a torque versus speed curve with rated voltage was plotted in Figure
44. The two torque vs speed curves are closely matched in Figure 44. In Figure 45, the calculated
current is slightly higher than the actual current, this could be due to changes that occur in the motor
that does not occur in the model. It must be remembered that to optimize one curve (in this example
the torque vs speed curve at rated voltage) sacrifices might have to be made and for this reason the
current vs speed is accepted, thus, meaning the parameters in Figure 45 are sufficient to use to
characterize the electrical part of the model.
Figure 44: The calculated electrical torque vs speed plotted with the actual torque vs speed curve for different voltage
values for the service air compressor
82
STATION
Figure 45: The calculated current vs speed plotted with the actual current vs speed curve for the service air compressor
As mentioned above a torque vs speed curve for the two conveyor motors was not given. Table 17
shows the information that was given by the manufacturer for S5 and S6 conveyor motors.
Table 17: The manufacturer’s information given for conveyor motor's S5 and S6
Starting Torque 𝑇 pu 1.35
Starting Current 𝐼 pu 6.1
Saddle Torque 𝑇 pu 1.15
Breakdown Torque 𝑇 pu 2.22
The saddle torque in Table 17 is the point in the torque vs speed graph where the torque is a
minimum before it reaches the breakdown torque point and usually occurs at around about a slip of
0.5. Not even the slip or speed of the motor was given at each torque parameter. Therefore, the slip
or speed at each torque parameter had to be estimated. For the starting torque, it is obvious that the
slip will be 1 and the speed zero, for the saddle torque an estimated speed of 0.55 pu is used
(however, it was noticed that this value varies from 0.4 pu to 0.65 pu), and for the breakdown torque,
it is estimated that it could occur anywhere between a speed of 0.9 pu to 0.95 pu. Since there was
no current vs speed curve available, the current error function had to be neglected. Only a torque
error function was used. Below Figure 46 shows the torque error functions for the first cage rotor
reactance. Although there are not a lot of values to compare to and the position of the torque value
relative to the speed is not accurate, it can be seen in Figure 46 that the optimization method still
works.
83
STATION
Figure 46: The torque error functions for parameter 𝑋 of the S5 and S6 conveyor motors
Although the optimization process helped to find starting values for the parameters of the conveyor
motors S5 and S6, it was difficult to get the Matlab™ model to create a saddle torque. For this
reason, the values were optimized in Matlab™ then entered into DigSilent™ to get a reasonable
torque vs speed curve as well as a starting current. It is important to do the optimization process in
Matlab™ first and then use DigSilent™ because if values are just entered into DigSilent™ often the
torque vs speed curve is accurate but the starting current is not accurate. Figure 47 shows the torque
vs speed curve for the S5 and S6 conveyor motors, although modelling could continue in Matlab™,
it is difficult to model an estimated curve and this is also why DigSilent™ was used to continue
modelling the conveyor motors. If the blue curve in Figure 47 is considered, it can be seen that the
curve does not dip like the estimated curve (the red curve). If there was a torque vs speed curve,
more points would be available that would make the optimization process easier. Even though the
optimization process does still work here, it does take longer to fit the curves and considering there
is a saddle torque present this makes modelling the unknown curve even more difficult.
84
STATION
Figure 47: The Torque vs Speed Curve for the optimized values for the S5 and S6 conveyor
Table 18 shows the values obtained from optimization in the Matlab™ model, unfortunately, these
values need to be optimised in DigSilent™ to create the saddle torque. That is why unlike the
previous two motors these Matlab™ values might be drastically different from the ones used in
DigSilent™.
Table 18: Values obtained for the parameters by using the optimization method for the conveyor motors S5 and S6
Since there is no torque vs speed or current vs speed curve for the conveyor motors, speed positions
need to be estimated for the given torque. The four blue dots in Figure 48 show where each point is
predicted to be at a defined torque value. The two dots at a torque value of 2.22 pu have been
repeated twice, so the model's breakdown torque either must lie on one of the two dots or between
the two dots, however, it should not lie before the first dot or after the last dot.
85
STATION
2.5
2
Torque (pu)
Actual Torque
1.5
DigSilent Torque obtained from the
Matlab Optimization
1
0.5
0
Speed (pu)
Figure 48: The torque vs speed curve for the two different models for conveyor S5 and S6
Figure 48 shows the DigSilent™ curve obtained from the Matlab™ parameters. As can be seen by
the grey curve in Figure 48 the curve does not have a saddle torque. The Matlab™ parameters also
have a much higher breakdown torque as seen in the grey curve. The optimized values must be
optimised to obtain a torque vs speed curve with a saddle torque and a lower breakdown torque,
however, the addition of a saddle torque might result in a decrease in the breakdown torque. The
parameters that played a key role in obtaining the saddle torque and correct starting torque, and
breakdown torque were the outer and inner rotor resistance and reactance, the other values
remained the same as the optimized Matlab™ model’s values. Table 19 shows the values that were
obtained in DigSilent™, as can be seen, the outer and inner rotor resistance and reactance differ
drastically from the values in Table 18. These were the only parameters that changed the curve
substantially enough to fit the estimated torque vs speed curve shown in Figure 48. The orange
curve in Figure 48 lies on the second blue square, meaning the breakdown torque is within the
correct range. The saddle torque also covers the second blue square in Figure 48 meaning the
DigSilent™ curve fits well with the estimated curve.
86
STATION
Table 19: Values obtained for the parameters for the Conveyor Motors S5 and S6
Another parameter that must be considered is the starting current. The rated starting current as well
as the starting currents obtained from DigSilent™ with the Matlab™ values, and then with the
optimised DigSilent™ values can be seen in Table 20. It was noticed that due to there being a saddle
torque and a high starting torque with a low breakdown torque the starting current could not be as
high as it should be, this is the case for all the conveyor motors in the model. It was found that by
first optimizing the motor in Matlab™ and then going to DigSilent™ to optimize the motor model
resulted in higher starting currents than by randomly guessing values that would give the correct
torque. This is why it is important to still use the Matlab™ model even if it does not account for the
saddle torque point, as just assuming the values could result in a drastically low starting current for
the motor.
Table 20: The different starting currents for the different modelling methods for conveyors motors S5 and S6
Parameter SI Unit Value
Manufacturer’s starting current pu 6.1
Starting current from Matlab™ parameters pu 6.06
Starting current from DigSilent™ parameters pu 5.04
If Figure 49 is considered it can be seen that the starting current is around 4.5 pu. This was obtained
by estimating values for conveyor S5 and S6, the estimated values can be seen in Table 21. The
torque vs speed curve for these estimating values plotted against the values that were first optimized
in Matlab™ and then optimised in DigSilent™ can be seen in Figure 50. Although the optimized
values and the estimated values curves lie on top of one another the current is 0.54 pu higher. That
is why it is important to optimize the parameters first and then change them in DigSilent™, as this
yields better results, and if the values are carefully analysed in Table 21 it will be seen that some of
these values for these parameters don’t lie within the range specified in Table 3 of chapter 2.
87
STATION
Figure 49: Current vs Speed Curve for estimating parameter values entered for conveyor motors S5 and S6
Table 21: Estimated parameters entered into DigSilent™ for conveyor motors S5 and S6
Magnetization Reactance 𝑋 pu 3.7831
Rotor Leakage Reactance 𝑋 pu 0
2.5
2
Torque (pu)
1.5
Actual Torque
1
DigSilent Torque
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 50: The torque vs speed curve for the estimating values plotted against the actual and optimized values for
conveyor motors S5 and S6
88
STATION
All the conveyor motors have saddle torques, and not one of these conveyor motors have torque vs
speed curves. Some of the conveyor motors and the turbine forced-air cooling motor did not even
have torque or current parameters, while the only data that could be retrieved for them was the data
on their rating plates. Unfortunately, the only way to characterize the starting torque, breakdown
torque, saddle point torque (only if the motor is a conveyor motor), and starting current of these
motors was by searching for motors of similar ratings within the common plant. If a motor of a similar
rating was not found within the common plant, then the WEG electric motor selection catalogues
were used to find parameters for the different torque values and starting current [54].
3.2.3 Pedra’s Method compared to the Optimization method

The values calculated from the equations Pedra specified in Table 2 in chapter 2 were entered into
the DigSilent Model. Figure 34 and Figure 35 already showed the torque vs speed curve for the East
auxiliary cooling pump and the current vs speed for the east auxiliary cooling pump. The torque and
current values obtained from Pedra’s method were very high. Unfortunately, DigSilent™ does not
allow one to export the current vs speed curve. Figure 51 will only show the torque vs speed curve
obtained for Pedra’s method plotted against the torque vs speed curve obtained from the
optimization method, and the manufacturer's torque vs speed curve for the East auxiliary cooling
pumps. From Figure 51 it can be seen that the manufacturer's torque vs speed curve verifies the
accuracy of the optimization method, however, for Pedra’s method, this is not the case and the
parameters obtained from Pedra’s method does not accurately represent the motor.
Figure 51: The manufacturer's torque vs speed curve plotted against the two methods for estimated values of the motor’s
parameters for the East auxiliary cooling pump
89
STATION
In Figure 51, it can be seen that the optimized torque vs speed curve lies very close to the
manufacturer's torque vs speed curve. The torque vs speed curve obtained from Pedra’s method
differs substantially from the manufacturer's curve. For this reason, Pedra’s method was not used to
model the motors, as it did not give an accurate representation of the motor’s torque vs speed curve.
3.2.4 Defining the mechanical loads driven by the induction

motors
For the common plant at Kendal Power Station, there are three types of mechanical loads, namely
conveyors, compressors and pumps. In chapter 2, it was mentioned that the torque vs speed curve
for mechanical loads are not readily available. Therefore, common relationships for this type of
mechanical load will have to be used. As shown in Figure 20 and Table 4 in chapter 2, screw
compressors and conveyors have constant torque vs speed curves. However, when motors are
started, it will take time to reach operating speed, due to the inertia of the motor and its load, and the
available accelerating torque. Some motors are connected to loads by fluid couplings or variable
speed controllers, and as a result, the estimated torque-speed curves for this equipment must be
analysed. For the conveyors, all the motors are connected to the conveyors via fluid couplings. The
torque-speed curve for the fluid coupling was obtained from Voith [45]. Although there are different
types of couplings used in Kendal’s Ash Plant and Coal Stockyard, torque vs speed curves for only
two couplings were found and it is for this reason that the TVVS coupling’s torque vs speed curve
will be used for the Ash Plant. The torque vs speed curve for the TVV coupling will be used for the
Coal Stockyard. Figure 52 shows the different torque vs speed curves for Voith’s fluid couplings.
Figure 52: The torque vs speed curve for Voith's fluid couplings [45]
90
STATION
The plot on the left in Figure 52 shows the start-up of the motor as well as the torque vs speed of
the couplings while the motor is starting up. The middle plot in Figure 52 shows how the coupling
stabilizes after the motor is run up to operating speed. The plot on the right in Figure 52 shows the
complete run-up from the time the motor starts to when it runs at operating speed, as well as from
the time the fluid couplings start to engage up until the slowest fluid coupling stabilizes. As already
mentioned, the TVV and TVVS will be used in characterizing the conveyor loads. This is the grey
and red curve in Figure 52, on the plot on the left side.
For a pump, the relationship for torque vs speed was a square relationship, as shown in Figure 15
and Table 4 in chapter 2. However, the square relationship does not start at zero, for this reason, an
equation was developed with a shift of 0.14 pu for the starting torque. Figure 53 shows the estimated
torque vs speed curve for the West and East auxiliary cooling pumps in the common plant.
1.2
1 y = 1.2939x2 - 0.45x + 0.14

R² = 1
0.8
Torque (pu)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 53: The estimated torque vs speed curve for the pumps
As discussed in chapter 2 both the screw and turbo compressors use valves to help during start-up,
and therefore a square relationship is assumed as pumps also make use of valves during start-up.
Figure 54 shows the estimated torque vs speed curve for the screw compressors and turbo
compressor in the common plant.
91
STATION
1.2
y = x2 - 0.14x + 0.14
1 R² = 1
0.8
Torque (pu)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed(pu)
Figure 54: The estimated torque vs speed curve for the compressors
Note that the curves that are shown in Figure 53 and Figure 54 are typical torque-speed curves for
pumps and compressors and show the torque vs speed curves for the pumps and compressors at
Kendal.
3.2.5 Simulink model of the mechanical part of the induction

motor model
The Simulink model in Figure 55 is for the parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump at the
common plant. As already mentioned the motor moment of inertia is 10 𝑘𝑔𝑚 and has a maximum
load moment of inertia of 190 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . The relay set time of 5.45 s must be kept in mind when
simulating the mechanical part of the motor, as the maximum rated mechanical inertia of the
combined motor and pump will most likely exceed this set time resulting in an inaccurate
representation of the actual load’s inertia and the motor during starting.
The mechanical torque function block in Figure 55 makes use of the equation shown in Figure 53,
however, this complete function is first multiplied by a third as the pumps and compressors only start
at a third of their torque vs speed as already explained in chapter 2.
92
STATION
Figure 55: The mechanical model of the East Auxiliary Cooling Pump motors
Before the motor inertia is modelled the value must be converted to the H-value for inertia, this can
be done by using (45)
0.5𝐽𝜔
𝐻= (45)
𝑆
Where [35]:
𝐽: Is the total moment of inertia (motor and loads inertia), measured in 𝑘𝑔𝑚
𝑆 : Is the nominal apparent power of the motor, measured in 𝑉𝐴
4𝜋𝑓
𝜔 = (46)
𝑝
Although this is the standard equation for converting inertia to the inertia time constant it must be
noted that DigSilent does not use the base apparent power or the base torque to calculate the inertia
time constant. Digsilent also does not calculate the inertia time constant but instead calculates the
acceleration time constant (𝑡 ), which is equal to two times the inertia time constant (𝐻). DigSilent
uses the rated torque as the base torque, therefore (47) is used to determine the inertia of the load
and the total acceleration time constant.
𝐽𝜔
𝑡 = 2𝐻 = (47)
𝑇
93
STATION
Where [55]:
𝑡 : Is total acceleration time, measured in s
𝑇 : Is the rated torque of the motor and is calculated using (48), measured in pu [55]
𝑃
𝑇 = (48)
𝜔 (1 − 𝑠 )
By using (47) and (48)
(200)(157.08)
𝑡 = 2𝐻 = = 12.188 𝑠
400 × 10
157.08(1 − 0.01209)
The inertia constant used for the calculated speed of the East auxiliary cooling pump motor in Figure
56 is 5.079s. The modelled speed vs time graph shows the time it takes for the motor to run up. As
can be seen, the motor takes 13.6 s to reach rated speed, meaning that the maximum inertia value
is not an accurate representation of the East auxiliary cooling pump motors, as the relay starting
time limit is exceeded.
Figure 56: The modelled speed of the East auxiliary cooling pumps for a maximum moment of inertia
By keeping the motors moment of inertia at 10 𝑘𝑔𝑚 , and through an estimation process, an H value
of 2.25 s was found to yield an acceptable acceleration time, which is below the relay set time of
5.45 s as shown in Figure 57. This inertia time constant yields an acceleration time of 4.657 s, and
if (47) is used a load inertia of 63.84 𝑘𝑔𝑚 is obtained, which gives an inertia constant of 2.33 s.
Pumps typically have an inertia constant of about 2 s. This shows the value calculated is an accurate
description of a pump’s inertia constant.
94
STATION
Figure 57: The modelled speed of the East auxiliary cooling pumps
The total inertia is calculated in DigSilent by using (49). If there is no gearbox connecting the motor
and the load a g-value of one must be used. There is no gearbox connecting the motor to the East
auxiliary cooling pump.
𝐽=𝐽 +𝐽 𝑔 (49)
Where [55]:
𝐽 : Is the motor’s inertia, measured in 𝑘𝑔𝑚
𝐽 : Is the load’s inertia, measured in 𝑘𝑔𝑚
𝑔: Is the gear ratio of the motor to the load
The same model was used for the rest of the motors, as well as the same technique. Table 22 shows
the acceleration time constant, gear ratio, motor inertia, load inertia and acceleration time (𝑇 )
obtained in Simulink. Take note that the forced air turbine compressor, service air compressor, and
West auxiliary cooling pump were all started at a third of their actual load torque vs speed curves.
95
STATION
Table 22: The Simulink models determined mechanical parameters for the motors at Kendal Power Station
𝑱𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝑱𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒕𝒐𝒕 𝑻𝒂𝒄𝒄

Motor (𝒌𝒈𝒎𝟐 ) (𝒌𝒈𝒎𝟐 ) (s) 𝒈 (s)
Auxiliary Cooling Pump
West 14.3 55.67 4 1 5.39
Service Air Compressor 5 62.05 5.2 1 4.56
Turbine Air Compressor 11.07 129.52 11 1 11.81
Conveyor T5 13.23 16599.17 3.51 0.04 5.35
Conveyor T1 14.98 11098.76 5 0.09 5.35
Conveyor CS2 10.5 12192.84 3.6 0.04 5.19
Conveyor S8 8.17 21395.34 5 0.06 5.19
Boom Conveyor 8.17 4.13 1.2 Not Sure 1.2
Intermediate Conveyor 8.17 4.13 1.2 Not Sure 1.2
Conveyor S6 11.07 14026.69 5.3 0.06 7.09
Conveyor S5 11.07 10519.94 4.2 0.06 5
Conveyor S4A 8.17 17625.89 4 0.04 5.17
Conveyor S2 9.99 28204.49 3.8 0.05 5.39
Conveyor S1 9.99 28204.49 3.8 0.05 5.39
Conveyor S4B 10.5 11697.57 3.5 0.04 5.17
Conveyor CS1 6.19 10943.89 3 0.04 5.39
Auxiliary Cooling Pump
East 10 63.84 4.5 1 4.66
Overland Ash Conveyor 9.45 16189.16 10 0.06 13.42
Standby Shift Ash
Conveyor 10.5 5581.46 3.8 0.07 5.36
Standby Extendable Ash
Conveyor 10.5 5796.99 3.8 0.06 5.36
Shiftable Ash Conveyor 11.07 9622.6 4 0.06 5.31
Not much information was available on the Boom and Intermediate conveyor motors in Table 22, so
the starting time was assumed to be 2 seconds as these motors are not always operational and need
to start up fairly quickly. A gear ratio of one was also used as there was no gear ratio specified for
these motors.
3.3 Modelling the transformers

As mentioned most of the transformer parameters can be found on the transformer’s rating plate.
However, the parameters not found on the rating plate of the transformer were estimated by using
ABB Switchgear Manual and SANS780 [48] [51] as guidelines.
96
STATION
3.3.1 Modelling the zero-sequence reactance

In Table 6 shown in chapter 2 ratios of zero-sequence reactance to the rated reactance are given
for certain transformer vector groups and active part configurations [56]. Two winding transformers
usually have a three-limbed core, for this reason only the ratio values for a three-limbed transformer
will be considered. Table 23 below shows the selected ratio values from the range provided by ABB
[56] as per the vector group notation in BS171 Appendix D of 1970 [56], i.e. from the HV to LV
windings. If the connection is delta (D/d) or an ungrounded star (Y/y) meaning there is no external
neutral, then the Xo/X ratio is ∞.
Table 23: The values of the ratio 𝑋 /𝑋 for certain transformer vector group
Vector Group Range of Values for 𝑿𝟎 /𝑿 Selected Value

Dyn ∞ Not considered in DigSilent Model
0.7 − 1 0.85
Ynd 0.7 – 1 0.85
∞ Not considered in DigSilent Model
YNyn 3 – 10 3
3 − 10 3
YNy 0.7 – 1 0.85
∞ Not considered in DigSilent Model
Yyn ∞ Not considered in DigSilent Model
0.7 – 1 0.85
3.3.2 Modelling the transformer losses and no-load current

ABB provided a curve where the losses and no-load current of a transformer are plotted for different
transformer ratings [48]. SANS780-2009 edition 4 provided a table for maximum losses for
transformers rated smaller than 3150 kVA (see Table 10 in chapter 2) [51]. Points were then taken
from this curve and plotted in Excel to get an equation which can be used to find the losses and no-
load current of the transformers. The equations used to calculate the no-load losses and current can
be seen in Figure 58 taken from points in Figure 29 in chapter 2 [48].
97
STATION
3.5 0.3
3
0.25
2.5
0.2
No-Load Current %
No-Load Losses %
2
i_o
0.15
P_o
1.5
Power (i_o)
0.1 Power (P_o)

y = 0.1406x-0.268
1 R² = 0.9916
0.05
0.5
y = 0.9732x-0.491
R² = 1
0 0
0.1 1 10 100
MVA Rating
Figure 58: The no-load losses and current curve for different transformer ratings
The copper losses are a bit more difficult to determine from the two ABB curves, one of the curves
was for transformers with a primary voltage of 123 kV and the other for transformers with a primary
voltage of 32 kV. For this reasons the table obtained from SANS7800-2009 edition 4 (Table 10 in
Chapter 2) will be used to determine the no-load losses for the 11 kV / 3.3 kV to 380 V transformers,
and for the 11 kV to 3.3 kV transformers.
98
STATION
2.5
2
Impedance Losses (%)
1.5
Upper Limit
Voltage
y = 1.3231x-0.236 Lower Limit
1 Voltage
R² = 0.9914
0.5
y = 0.916x-0.224
R² = 0.9908
0
0.1 1 10 100
MVA Rating
Figure 59: The impedance losses curve for different transformer ratings
As already mentioned, points from Table 10 in chapter 2 were also plotted in Excel. Since SANS780-
2009 edition 4 divides the transformers into different secondary voltage classes, the graph below will
only pertain to a certain transformer rating. The graph shown in Figure 60 is for the transformer’s
losses with a voltage rating of 11 kV or 3.3 kV to 380 V.
3.5 18
16
3 y = -0.2535x2 + 2.0783x + 0.0866
R² = 0.9996 14
2.5
No-Load Losses (kW)
12
Load Losses (kW)
2 10
No-Load
y = -1.2848x2 + 10.238x + 0.5133 8 Losses
1.5 Load Losses
R² = 0.9988
6
1
4
0.5
2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
MVA Rating of Tranformer
Figure 60: SANS780-2009 Edition 4 Transformer Losses for the 3.3 kV /11 kV to the 380 V [51]
Unfortunately, transformers with a voltage ratio of 11 kV to 3.3 kV are limited in Table 10, which
makes it difficult to define a relationship between the transformer’s rating and losses. For this reason,
99
STATION
a linear relationship was assumed and the two equations shown in Figure 61 will be used to
determine the losses for certain MVA ratings of transformers with a voltage of 11 kV to 3.3 kV.
4.6 22.5
4.5 y = 1.0769x + 1.1077 22

R² = 1
4.4
21.5
No-Load Losses (kW)
4.3
Load Losses (kW)

21
No-Load Losses
4.2
20.5
4.1 Load-Losses
20
4
19.5
3.9
y = 4.6154x + 7.4615 19
3.8 R² = 1
3.7 18.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
MVA Rating
Figure 61: SANS780-2009 Edition 4 Transformer Losses for the 11 kV to 3.3 kV [51]
Once the load losses were estimated the copper losses can be found by subtracting the eddy current
and stray load losses from the load losses. Table 9 in chapter 2 can be used to estimate the eddy
current losses; for this transformer the eddy current losses will be assumed to be 10% of the load
losses, and (36) and (37) can be used to determine the stray load losses.
100
STATION
3.4 Comparing SANS780-2009 Edition 4 with ABB’s estimated

transformer losses
Figure 62 shows the rating plate for the East substation transformer at Kendal. Most of the 11 kV to
400 V transformers have the same power rating as the one shown in Figure 62.
Figure 62: Rating plate of East Substation Transformer
The first part is to identify the losses in the transformer. For the transformer in Figure 62, we can use
the no-load loss equations in Figure 58 and Figure 60, being 1.98 kW and 2.83 kW respectively.
The next parameter to be determined is the no-load current, which is obtained from the equation in
Figure 58 as the SANS780-2009 standard had no values for no-load currents. The value obtained
for the no-load current for the transformer in Figure 62 is 0.773%.
Since the impedances losses (also known as load losses) upper and lower limit from Figure 59 does
not fit within this transformer’s parameters, load losses of 14.85 kW from SANS780-2009 were used
(see Figure 60). With 10% of the load losses accounting for the eddy current losses and by using
(36) and (37) in chapter 2 the stray load losses are 288 W, which results in copper losses of 13.077
kW. Refer to Table 25 for the summarised results for this transformer.
101
STATION
The next transformer that is characterized is the station transformer, this is the transformer that
connects the 11 kV Station Boards 1 and 2 to the backup source should a fault occur at one of the
units supplying the 11 kV Station Boards 1 and 2. Unfortunately, the rating plate is faded and for this
reason, the parameters for this transformer will be shown in table form in Table 24.
Table 24: The rating of the station transformer.
Rating Values
Primary Voltage 132 kV
Secondary Voltage 11 kV
Apparent Power Rating 45 MVA
Vector Group YNd1
Impedance 6.76% for minimum tap
6.47% for nominal tap
6.44% for maximum tap
From [48] and [51] the losses for the station transformer are estimated in Table 25.
The next transformer is the station service transformer 1A, this transformer supplies the board that
supplies the west auxiliary cooling pumps, the service air compressors, and the turbine forced air
cooling compressor. Figure 63 is the rating plate for this transformer. From [48] and [51] the losses
for the station service transformer are also estimated in Table 25.
Figure 63: Rating Plate of Station Service Transformer 11 kV to 3.3 kV
102
STATION
The next transformers are step-up transformers, from the 11 kV Station Board 1 to a 22 kV line,
which supplies the coal stockyards. Figure 64 shows the rating plate for an 11 kV to 22 kV step-up
transformer. From [48] and [51] the losses for the step-up transformers to the coal yards are also
estimated in Table 25.
Figure 64: Rating Plate of Coal Stockyard Line 1 Transformer 11 kV to 22 kV
103
STATION
Table 25: A summary of results obtained by equations based on ABB and SANS780-2009 Edition 4 for four different
transformers at Kendal
Ratings Substation East Station Transformer Station Service Step-up

Transformer Transformer 1A Transformer for
Coal Stockyard Line
1
Primary Voltage 11 kV 132 kV 11 kV 11 kV
Secondary Voltage 400 V 11 kV 3.3 kV 22 kV
MVA Rating 1.6 45 5 7
Impedance 5.44% 6.76% for minimum 6.77% 6.73%
tap
6.47% for nominal
tap
6.44% for maximum
tap
No-Load Losses 2.83 kW - 6.492 kW -
(SANS780-2009)
No-Load Losses (ABB) 1.98 kW 22.81 kW 4.567 kW 5.85 kW
Load Losses (ABB) - 242.55 kW - 41.44 kW
Load Losses 14.85 kW - 30.54 kW -
(SANS780-2009)
No-Load Current (de 0.773% (ABB 0.314% 0.666% 0.612%
Kock Database) Database)
Copper Losses 13.077 kW - 25.736 kW -
(SANS780-2009)
Copper Losses (ABB) - 194.04 kW - 34.15 kW
As can be seen in Table 25 some of the transformers losses are calculated using the ABB data and
some the transformers losses are based on the SANS780-2009 data, depending on their size and
rating. In the case where the transformer had a value from the ABB data and the SANS780-2009
standard, the standard was used to characterize the transformer. The values were also compared
to a transformer database designed by de Kock, and if the values seemed to high or too low (in the
case of the no-load current) the values obtained from de Kock’s database were used [57]. The only
no-load loss current that was obtained from the ABB data base is the Substation East Transformer
as shown in Table 25. DigSilent™ also requires a value for the zero-sequence resistance. This value
was obtained by multiplying the copper losses with 0.85 and dividing the product by the kVA rating
of the transformer [48].
104
STATION
3.5 Summary
As already discussed in chapter 2 the accurate modelling of the motors, the motor’s load and the
transformer supplying the busbar the motor is connected to, is crucial as it can determine the success
or failure of an MBT and the type of MBT method.
The motor modelling was divided into two parts, one being the electrical part of the motor and the
other being the mechanical part of the motor.
The modelling methods used by Pedra and de Kock were considered and compared in this chapter
in order to determine the electrical parameters of the motor. It was found that Pedra’s method was
not only complex but when the parameters obtained from his method were entered into DigSilent™
the torque vs speed curve did not fit the manufacturers torque vs speed curve at all. It was thus
decided that the optimization method used by de Kock was a better fit especially when compared to
that of Pedra.
The next step was determining the inertia of the load, this was done by making use of the mechanical
model designed for the motor in Simulink™. By obtaining equations for the mechanical loads and
parameters for the electrical part of the motors circuit, these where then used to determine the
electrical torque and mechanical torque. The mechanical torque was then subtracted from electrical
torque in order to obtain the acceleration torque, which was then integrated with the acceleration
constants as a constant to determine the motors speed and starting time. The motor had to reach
rated speed before the relay set time. This was used to estimate the load’s inertia value.
The modelling of the transformers was also considered in this chapter. Data from ABB and SANS780
were used to model the losses in the transformers. For transformers of higher voltage ratings the
ABB standard was applied, and transformers with lower voltage ratings the SANS780 standard was
used.
The accuracy of the motors modelling techniques will be tested in the next chapter. The transformers
losses were verified by comparing them with the values that were obtained from de Kock’s database,
and if they were found to be too high or too low the value obtained from de Kock’s database was
used [57].
105
A REVIEW OF TRANSFER FAILURES AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE FAST TRANSFER SYSTEM AT KENDAL POWER STATION
Chapter 4: Design and simulation of DIgSILENT™

model
4.1 Introduction
Although the motors have been characterized in Matlab™ and Simulink™ the models used in
Matlab™ and Simulink™ might not be the exact same models that DigSilent™ uses to model their
induction motors. Therefore, the values in these models serve as a starting point in determining the
best value for the parameters so that the DigSilent™ model will have a torque vs speed curve and
current vs speed curve similar to the manufacture’s torque vs speed curve and current vs speed
curve. Thus, this part of the study looks at a manual manipulation of values to obtain the correct
torque vs speed curve and current vs speed curve. It is more complex to check the accuracy of the
transformers modelling, however, the accurate input of the rating of the transformers can be checked
with a short-circuit test. Although the losses of the transformer do not impact the fault levels, if the
transformers’ ratings from the rating plates are entered incorrectly into DigSilent™ the fault levels
obtained could be higher than the rated short-circuit fault level of the transformer. However, it can
be checked if the correct values were used for the transformers’ ratings by performing a three-phase
short-circuit test and comparing the answers with the rated short-circuit current. The short-circuit
tests will only be done in the next chapter as this helps to validate the model. In this chapter the
modelling of the transformers, the generator and the HV yard will be covered. However, detailed
data from Eskom is available for the HV yard and the generators.
4.2 Motor modelling in DigSilent™

For simplicity, only the East auxiliary cooling pump motors, the Service air-cooling motors, and
conveyor motors S5 and S6 from the Coal Stockyard will be considered below again. Table 26
identifies the parameters that were obtained for the East auxiliary cooling pumps in Matlab™ and
Simulink™.
106
Table 26: Parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump determined from the Matlab™ and Simulink™ model

Total Inertia of motor and load 𝐽 𝑘𝑔𝑚 73.84
Total Inertia of motor and load 𝐻 s 2.25
The values in Table 26 were then entered into DigSilent and the torque vs speed graph of the
DigSilent model plotted against the torque vs speed graph of the manufacturers model can be seen
in Figure 65. From Figure 65 it can be seen that the torque vs speed curve produced by DigSilent
has a higher starting torque and breakdown torque than the data given by the manufacturer for a
voltage of 1 pu and 0.75 pu, and, that in general, the curve is higher. The parameters must be
adjusted to align the curves.
2.5
2
Torque (pu)
Actual Torque @ 1 pu
1.5
Actual Torque @ 0.75pu
DigSilent Torque @ 1pu
1 DigSilent Torque @ 0.75pu
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Speed (pu)
Figure 65: The DigSilent™ and manufacturer’s torque vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 1
107
Unfortunately, the current vs speed curve from DigSilent™ cannot be exported like the torque vs
speed curve and for this reason, two separate current vs speed curves can be seen below. Figure
64 is the current vs speed curve produced from DigSilent™, and Figure 65 is the current vs speed
curve obtained from the manufacturer. If Figure 64 is compared with Figure 65 it can be seen that
the starting current is slightly higher than that in Figure 65, as the starting current in Figure 64 is
above 6 pu (it is 6.095 pu in DigSilent™), and the starting current in Figure 65 is precisely at 6 pu.
Thus, the parameters in Table 26 must be adjusted to accommodate the current as well. However,
it was already stated in chapter 3 that both the current and torque vs speed curves will not be an
exact match and that compromises must be made to get both curves as accurate as possible. The
DigSilent™ model does not calculate the torque and current of the motors the same way as the
Matlab™ model. DigSilent™ makes use of rotor fluxes as state variables, which then results in flux
linkage equations that make use of matrices to solve for the motor currents and torque [55]. Whereas
the Matlab™ model bases the varying starting current and torque on the slip, not the rotor’s change
in flux. The model is simpler as it uses slip instead of the rotor flux.
Figure 66: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 1
108
Manufacturer Current vs Speed Curve

7
5
Current (p.u)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (p.u)
Figure 67: The manufacturer’s current vs speed curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps
Table 27 shows the parameter values that were used in DigSilent™. The difference between these
two values should not be greater than 10%.
Table 27: Parameters of the East auxiliary cooling pump determined from the DigSilent™ model
Parameter Symbol SI Unit Value (pu) Difference

Stator Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.015 6.667%
Stator Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.096 9.375%
Magnetization Reactance 𝑋 pu 4 0%
Inner Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.0134 0%
Inner Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.099 9.091%
Outer Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.12 8.333%
Outer Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.095 5.263%
Rotor Leakage Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.022 9.091%
From the parameters obtained in Table 27, the torque vs speed curve obtained from DigSilent™ can
be seen in Figure 68. The curves in Figure 68 fit the manufacturer's torque vs speed curve better for
1 pu and 0.75 pu of voltage. This means that the parameters accurately predict the motor’s starting
characteristics.
109
2.5
2
Torque (pu)
Actual Torque @ 1 pu
1.5
Actual Torque @ 0.75pu
DigSilent Torque @ 1pu
1
DigSilent Torque @ 0.75pu
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Speed (pu)
Figure 68: The DigSilent™ and Manufacturers Torque vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the East
Auxiliary Pumps
Figure 69 shows the DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the change in the stator resistance value.
As predicted the current came down slightly and the starting current is now at 5.546 pu where the
starting current in Figure 67 is 6 pu. This only gives an error percentage of 7.66% and can be
considered acceptable.
Figure 69: The DigSilent™ Current vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the East auxiliary pumps
110
(46) to (48) were used in chapter 3 to discuss how DigSilent™ calculates their inertia and
acceleration constant. The calculated acceleration time constant was then put in the Simulink model
(this model was illustrated in Figure 55 in chapter 3) and a value of 73.84 𝑘𝑔𝑚 for the total moment
of inertia was obtained. Figure 70 shows the time it takes for the motor to reach the rated speed for
the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ motor models. As can be seen, the DigSilent™ model reaches rated
speed quicker than the Simulink™ model, the difference in acceleration time between the two models
is 7.6%. Thus, a total moment of inertia value of 73.84 𝑘𝑔𝑚 can be used.
Figure 70: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ motor models for the East auxiliary pumps
Figure 71 and Figure 72 show the torque vs time curve and the current vs time curve. The electrical
torque in Figure 71 is slightly lower than electrical torque in Figure 68 because of a slightly lower
supply voltage. The transient part in the beginning of Figure 71 and Figure 72, contains the inrush
torque and current, which lasts about 100 ms.
111
Figure 71: The torque vs time curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps
112
Figure 72: The current vs time curve for the East auxiliary cooling pumps
113
Table 28 identifies the parameters that were obtained for the service air compressors in Matlab™
and Simulink™.
Table 28: Parameters of the Service Air Compressor determined from the Matlab™ and Simulink™ model

Table 28 are the values that were obtained from the model in Matlab™ for the service air compressor,
these values were entered into DigSilent. The same process as previously was used to fine-tune the
parameters for the DigSilent™ model.
3.5
2.5
Torque (pu)
Manufacturers Data
1.5
DigSilent Torque
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 73: The DigSilent™ and manufacturer’s torque vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 3
Figure 74 is the current vs speed curve produced from DigSilent™, and Figure 75 is the current vs
speed curve obtained from the manufacturer. If Figure 74 is compared with Figure 75 it can be seen
that the starting current is slightly higher than that in Figure 75, as the starting current in Figure 74
114
is above 6.5 pu (it is 6.998 pu in DigSilent™), and the starting current in Figure 75 is precisely at
6.43 pu. Thus, the parameters in Table 28 need to be adjusted to accommodate the current as well.
Figure 74: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the parameters specified in Table 3
Manufacturer Current vs Speed Curve

1.2
0.8
Current (pu)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 75: The manufacturers current vs speed curve for the service air compressors
Table 29 shows the parameter values that were used in DigSilent™ as well as the difference between
the Matlab™ values and the DigSilent™ values.
115
Table 29: Parameters of the service air compressors determined from the DigSilent™ model
Parameter Symbol SI Unit Value (pu) Difference

Stator Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.0088 0%
Stator Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.075 6.7%
Magnetization Reactance 𝑋 pu 3.2 6.3%
Inner Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.011 9.1%
Inner Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.097 9.3%
Outer Rotor Resistance 𝑅 pu 0.144 9.7%
Outer Rotor Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.05 0%
Rotor Leakage Reactance 𝑋 pu 0.025 0%
From the parameters obtained in Table 29, the torque vs speed curve obtained from DigSilent™ can
be seen in Figure 76. The curves in Figure 76 better fit the manufacturer’s torque vs speed curve,
this means that the parameters accurately predict the motors starting characteristics.
2.5
2
Torque (pu)
1.5
Manufactures
Torque
1
DigSilent Torque
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 76: The DigSilent™ and Manufacturers Torque vs Speed Curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the Service Air
Compressor Motors
Figure 77 shows the DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the change in the stator resistance value.
As predicted the current came down slightly and the starting current is now at 6.15 pu where the
starting current in Figure 75 is 6.43 pu. This only gives an error percentage of 4.4% and can be
considered acceptable.
116
Figure 77: The DigSilent™ current vs speed curve for the DigSilent™ parameters for the service air compressor motors
For the service air compressor motors, a total moment of inertia of 67.045 𝑘𝑔𝑚 was determined.
By placing this value in the DigSilent™ an acceleration time of 4.551 s was achieved as can be seen
in Figure 78, which shows the time it takes for the motor to reach the rated speed for the DigSilent™
and Simulink™ motor models.
Figure 78: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the Service air compressor motors
Figure 79 and Figure 80 show the torque vs time curve and the current vs time curve.
117
Figure 79: The torque vs time curve for the service air compressor motors
118
Figure 80: The current vs time curve for the service air compressor motors
119
As already mentioned in chapter 3 DigSilent™ had to be used to help characterize the S5 and S6
conveyor motors. This was because the Matlab™ model would not allow the modelling of a saddle
torque profile. Therefore, the torque vs speed curve for the DigSilent parameters can be seen in
Figure 50 in chapter 3. Table 30 shows the parameters obtained for the S5 conveyor motors.
Table 30: Parameters of the S5 conveyor motors determined from the DigSilent™ model
The inertia of the S5 and S6 conveyor motor was still determined by using the Simulink™ model, the
only difference is the DigSilent parameters were used in the Simulink™ model and not the Matlab™
parameters like the other motors. The relay set time for S5 and S6 conveyor motors differ, thus,
there will be two sections to this part. The first sections and graphs will be conveyor S5 that has a
relay set time of 5.45 s. From Table 22 in chapter 3 the load inertia was 10520 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . The load inertia
for the conveyors is high because the conveyors have gearboxes, (49) in chapter 3 shows how the
gear ratio is calculated into the total inertia. For motor S5 the gear ratio is 0.062, and by using (49)
the motor’s inertia and the load’s inertia obtains a total inertia of 51.65 𝑘𝑔𝑚 , this gives an
acceleration constant of 4.2 s. Figure 81 shows the time it takes for the motor to reach the rated
speed for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ motor models. In this case, the DigSilent™ model reaches
rated speed slightly quicker with a starting time of 4.976 s, while the Simulink™ model takes 5.001
s to reach the rated speed. This gives an error margin of 0.5%. Thus, the inertia obtained from the
Simulink™ model can be used in the DigSilent™ model.
120
Figure 81: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the S5 conveyor motors
Figure 82 and Figure 83 shows the torque vs time curve and the current vs time curve.
121
Figure 82: The torque vs time curve for the S5 conveyor motors
122
Figure 83: The current vs time curve for the S5 conveyor motors
123
For the S6 conveyor motors, the estimated starting time used in the relay is 7.27 s, for this reason,
the inertia of the S6 Conveyor motors differs from that of the S5 conveyors. The electrical parameters
are identical for the S5 and S6 conveyor motors (shown in Table 30), however the inertia and the
inertia constant differs.
Figure 84 shows the time it takes for the motor to reach the rated speed for the DigSilent™ and
Simulink™ motor models. The Simulink™ model reaches rated speed slightly quicker with a starting
time of 6.014 s, while the DigSilent™ model takes 6.137 s to reach the rated speed. This gives an
error margin of 2%. Thus, the inertia obtained from the Simulink™ model can be used in the
DigSilent™ model.
Figure 84: The speed vs time for the DigSilent™ and Simulink™ Motor models for the S6 conveyor motors
Figure 85 and Figure 86 shows the torque vs time curve and the current vs time curve.
124
Figure 85: The torque vs time curve for the S6 conveyor motors
125
Figure 86: The current vs time curve for the S6 conveyor motors
126
STATION
All the motors used the inertia values that were determined in the Simulink™ model, these values
can be seen in Table 22 in chapter 3.
4.3 Defining the mechanical loads driven by the induction motors

in DigSilent™
The pump load curve was determined by using (50), which was shown in Figure 38 in chapter 3.
Take note that in chapter 2 it was discovered that pumps and compressors are not started at full
load during the motor run-up and that the discharge valve or inlet valve is only partially opened or
completely closed. For this reason, the mechanical load for the pumps and compressors will be
modelled at a third of their load during start-up, and only once the motor is running at full speed will
the full load be used.
𝑇 = 1.2939 𝜔 − 0.45 𝜔 + 0.14 (50)
The compressor load curve makes use of (51) which was shown in chapter 3 Figure 39.
𝑇 = 𝜔 − 0.14 𝜔 + 0.14 (51)
For the Ash Plant conveyors, which make use of the graph for the TVVS fluid coupling, and the Coal
Stockyard, which will make use of the TVV fluid coupling, points were taken from the graph on the
left in Figure 37 in Chapter 3 and plotted in Excel to obtain a curve and an equation. Figure 87 shows
the curve used for the TVVS torque vs speed curve, and (52) shows the equation used to create the
torque vs speed curve. Figure 88 shows the curve used for the TVV torque vs speed curve, and (53)
shows the equation used to create the torque vs speed curve.
1
0.9 y = 0.9617x2 - 0.0509x + 0.0169
0.8 R² = 0.9997
0.7
Torque (pu)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 87: The estimated torque vs speed curve for coupling type TVVS
𝑇 = 0.9617 𝜔 − 0.0509 𝜔 + 0.0169 (52)
127
1.6
y = x2 + 0.4x + 2E-15
1.4
R² = 1
1.2
1
Torque (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Speed (pu)
Figure 88: The estimated torque vs speed curve for coupling type TVV
𝑇 = 𝜔 + 0.4 𝜔 + (2 × 10 ) (53)
The fluid couplings start at almost no load as they are used to make starting easier, therefore, (52)
and (53) will not be divided by 3 under starting conditions like the pumps and compressors. The
constant in (53) is so small that it can be made zero. In DigSilent™ a “motor-driven machine” must
be defined if the user wants to create a unique curve for the mechanical load. Unfortunately, an
equation is not used to define the mechanical load, but instead, data points are. So the values from
(50) to (53) are copied into DigSilent™ to define the curves. Figure 89 shows the curves used in
DigSilent™ for each mechanical load during the motors start-up and running conditions.
128
Pump start-up Pump running conditions
Compressor start-up Compressor running conditions
TVV Start-up and running conditions TVVS Start-up and running conditions
Figure 89: Mechanical load curves used in DigSilent during motor start-up and running of the motor
As already mentioned in chapter 2 the mechanical load curve should not intersect and exceed the
motor’s torque vs speed curve, otherwise, the motor does not have enough accelerating torque to
drive the load. Figure 90 shows all the motors torque vs speed curves plotted against the mechanical
load torque vs speed curves.
129
East Auxiliary Cooling Pump
West Auxiliary Cooling Pump
Service Air Compressor Motors (Screw Compressor)
130
Turbo Compressor
Overland Ash Conveyor
Standby Shiftable Ash Conveyor and Standby Extendable Ash

Conveyor
131
Shiftable Ash Conveyor
Incline Conveyor T5 (Terrace Coal Plant part of Coal Stockyard)
Incline Conveyor T1 (Terrace Coal Plant part of Coal Stockyard)
132
Conveyor CS2 (Coal Stockyard)
Conveyor S8 (Coal Stockyard)
Intermediate and Boom Conveyor (Coal Stockyard)
133
Conveyor S6 and S5 (Coal Stockyard)
Conveyor S2 and S1 (Coal Stockyard)
Conveyor S4A (Coal Stockyard)
134
Conveyor S4B (Coal Stockyard)
Conveyor CS1 (Coal Stockyard)
Figure 90: The torque vs speed curves for all the motors at the common plant
From Figure 90 it can be seen that all the loads can be driven by the motors at rated voltage,
however, the T5 conveyor, boom conveyor, intermediate conveyor, and S4A conveyor cannot drive
the motor load if the voltage drops to 75%. None of the motors can drive the load if the voltage is
50%. Therefore, this must be considered when doing the transfer, and it must be kept in mind that
Kendal’s philosophy is to trip the medium voltage motors whenever the voltage dips below 70% for
3 s.
135
4.4 Modelling the generator and HV-yard

The generator nodes in the power station connect to three transformers to other boards:
 The generator step-up (GSU) transformer, which steps up the 22 kV from the generator to
400 kV, this is then used to supplies the high voltage yard which supplies the Eskom’s
Northern Region;
 Unit transformer A - this transformer supplies the unit auxiliary loads, e.g. mills, fans and feed
water pumps, and the 11 kV Station Board 1 or 2, and
 Unit transformer B - this transformer supplies the unit auxiliary loads, e.g. mills, fans and
feedwater pumps.
To create a simpler unit model the GSU transformers and Unit transformers were the only other
connections on the unit generators busbar. Six units were also not modelled instead they were
grouped into the odd or even unit board, since only one of the odd unit boards supply the 11 kV
Station Board 1 and one of the even unit boards supply the 11 kV Station Board 2. The loop supply
works by connecting all the unit boards for the odd numbers in parallel with one another and then
from this a main loop supply cable is connected to Station Board 1. Each cable going from the odd
unit board has a circuit breaker attached to ensure only one unit board supplies Station Board 1.
The odd unit board that supplies Station Board 1 is determined by checking which of the odd unit
boards are currently not in an outage. The odd unit generator with the highest generated power
output is used to supply the common plant. The even units boards loop supply to Station Board 2
works the same.
Unit transformer A was connected directly to Station Board 1 (for odd numbers) or 2 (for even
numbers). Figure 91 shows how the generator is connected. In Figure 91 Unit 1, 3 and 5 represents
the odd units in the form of one generator, and the same is done for the even number units. As was
discussed in chapter 1 the units are looped to ensure a continuous supply to the station board.
Instead of modelling all six units, only two units were modelled, representing either the odd unit
numbers (depending on which generator is supplying the 11 kV Station Board 1 for the day) and the
even unit numbers (depending on which generator is supplying the 11 kV Station Board 2 for the
day).
The other two transformers (the Generator Step-Up (GSU) transformer and Unit Transformer B) in
Figure 91 were used to create a bigger loading for the generator, as the generator does not only
supply the Station Board. The GSU transformer was connected to an external grid labelled Eskom’s
Northern Region as shown in Figure 91.
The external grid was then connected to Grootpan substation using a dummy transformer (not an
existing transformer in the system), which is a three-winding autotransformer. The autotransformer
136
is used to ensure the phase angle at the 11 kV Gas Turbine Board is the same as the phase angle
of the 11 kV Station Boards 1 and 2. The vector group of this transformer was YNa0d1. The LV
terminals of the transformer were connected to a dummy bus. Eskom’s Northern Region is also
supplied by other power stations in the area. Eskom’s Northern Region is then connected to
substations, which are used to supply households, industrial loads, other substations, and power
stations in case of the power station trips and requires power from an external source.
Should a fault occur at Kendal, then Eskom’s Northern Region through connections to other
substations will be used as the backup supply to Kendal to make sure it is operational at all time. As
can be seen in Figure 91 Eskom’s Northern Region supplies Grootpan substation, which then
branches off and supplies other substations, which then connect back to Khutala that provides the
alternative supply to the station transformer. It is important to remember from chapter 1 and 2 that
the station transformer is the backup supply the 11 kV Station Board 1 and 2 are switched to should
a fault occur at or between a Unit Board and two Station Boards. This configuration was used to
simplify the external grid that is highly interconnected. It is important to remember that Eskom’s
Northern Region is not only supplied by Kendal Power Station and that other power stations in the
area also contribute towards it.
137
Eskom Northern Region
GSU 1,3,5 Transformer
GSU 2,4,6 Transformer

Unit 2A,4A,6A Transformer
Even Unit
Generator
Figure 91: The modelling of the HV-yard and generator
The main goal of this study is to disconnect the 11 kV Station Board from the Unit Board and then to
connect the 11 kV Station Board to the 11 kV Gas Turbine Board. For the graph shown in Figure 92,
the connection to Unit Board 1, 3 and 5 is opened at 1 s and after 500 ms the 11 kV Station Board
1 is connected to the 11 kV Gas Turbine Board. As can be seen in Figure 92 the generator
accelerates and its voltage rises when the 11 kV Station Board 1 is disconnected. This was not a
138
true reflection of the system and for this reason, the GSU transformer and Unit Board B was added
to load the generator more.
Figure 92: The voltage of the Unit Board 1 after disconnecting the 11 kV Station Board 1
An AVR was also added to the generator to limit the voltage rise when the 11 kV Station Board is
disconnected. For the graph shown in Figure 92, the connection to Unit Board 1, 3 and 5 is opened
at 1 s and after 500 ms the 11 kV Station Board 1 is connected to the 11 kV Gas Turbine Board. The
graph in Figure 93 shows how the generator’s voltage response has improved once the 11 kV Station
Board has been disconnected.
139
Figure 93: The voltage of the Unit Board 1A after disconnecting the 11 kV Station Board 1 for the new layout
4.5 Summary
Although the DigSilent™ model makes use of the rotor’s flux as the state variable and the Matlab™
and Simulink™models makes use of the slip the difference in machine output values remained within
10% of the Matlab™ values. All the motors used the inertia and inertia constants determined in
Simulink™. The initial problem of the generator’s voltage climbing when Unit Board 1A, 3A, 5A was
disconnected from the 11 kV Station Board 1 was also fixed. The generator was loaded more and
an AVR was connected. Although connecting everything to one external grid might seem
problematic, the external grid is connected through so many substations that the effect it will have
on the rest of the network will be very small.
140
Chapter 5: Verifying the accuracy of the DigSilent™

model with data provided by Eskom
The previous chapter looked at the accurate modelling of the motors and their acceleration times,
this part of the study evaluated the modelling of the transformers and the accuracy of the complete
model in general. The DigSilent™ model will be verified by comparing the fault currents obtained by
the model designed for this study with the fault currents specified in the protection settings study at
Kendal. Kendal Power Station also has its own DigSilent™ model, this model will also be used to
verify the results obtained from the DigSilent™ model designed for this study. The first step will be
to calculate the three-phase short circuit currents and compare them with the Kendal protection
settings and the Kendal DigSilent™ model. Another way to analyse the accuracy of a model is by
comparing tripping events that occurred at the power station and how the common plant reacted to
them with a similar simulated tripping event in DigSilent™ and how the studies model reacts to it.
The goal is to have the simulated model react very similar to how the common plant reacted when
this event occurred.
5.1 Three-phase short-circuit current

In chapter 3, the transformer losses were calculated. In chapter 4 it was mentioned that the only way
to test whether transformer losses are accurate or not is to perform a three-phase short circuit study.
Thus, the first part of testing the accuracy of the transformers’ parameters, losses and zero sequence
impedance is to perform a short-circuit study and determine whether the results obtained are similar
to those obtained from Kendal’s Protection Settings and their DigSilent™ model.
Another way to test whether the short-circuit fault is accurate is by calculating the secondary
windings maximum through fault current of each transformer and ensuring that the short-circuit
current obtained by the transformer in the DigSilent™ model is below this value. (54) can be used to
calculate the rated short-circuit apparent power, and from this (55) can be used to calculate the rated
short-circuit current [47].
𝑆
𝑆 = (54)
𝑋
Where [47]:
𝑆 : Is the rated short-circuit apparent power, measured in VA
𝑆 : Is the rated apparent power of the transformer, measured in VA
𝑋 : Is the impedance of the transformer found on the rating plate, measured in %
141
𝑆
𝐼 = (55)
√3 𝑈
Where [47]:
𝐼 : Is the rated maximum through fault current, measured in A.
𝑈: Is the rated apparent voltage of the secondary winding of the transformer, measured in V.
These calculated values will help to serve as a guideline as to whether the power rating, impedance
percentage and voltage rating of the transformer are correct.
In Appendix A the losses of the transformers can be found. For the larger transformers such as the
station transformer, a database by de Kock was used to calculate the copper losses, no-load losses,
and no-load current [57]. Table 31 below shows the values obtained from this database. The losses
shown in Appendix A are losses calculated by the ABB and SANS 780 data, for the transformers
having a secondary voltage of 380 V or 3.3 kV the SANS 780 standard was used in the DigSilent™
model instead of the ABB data. For the larger transformers that have a voltage rating above 11 kV
and for transformers that had losses that were either too high or too low, de Kock’s database was
used instead of the ABB or SANS 780 values as the short circuit currents are closer to the protection
setting model values and the Kendal DigSilent™ model.
Table 31: Transformer losses obtained de Kock's database [57]
Description Rating Primary Secondary Copper No-Load No Load

(MVA) Voltage Voltage Losses Losses Current in
(kV) (kV) (kW) (kW) %
Station Transformers 45 132 11 176 24.8 0.31
Unit Transformers 1, 3, 5A & 5B 63 22 11.5 228.3 31.1 0.26
Unit Transformers 2, 4, 6A & 6B 63 22 11.5 228.3 31.1 0.26
GSU Transformers 1 & 2 730 22 0.42 1484.7 166.1 0.03
22 kV OHL 1 & 2 Transformers 7 11 22 34.05 6.95 0.61
Table 32 contains the three-phase short circuit current obtained from the protection settings, the
Kendal DigSilent™ model and this studies’ model. In Table 32 there are eleven rows with red text,
this red text shows that the fault current values differ. If all three values are not the same the
calculated values shown in the fifth column were used. It is important to note that sometimes the
protection settings model does not have short-circuit current values for transformers and lines.
The Kendal DigSilent™ model has undergone updates as the power station has changed. For this
reason, the short-circuit currents obtained from the protection settings model might differ slightly.
The Kendal DigSilent™ model only has the three service air compressors as the new service air
142
compressors were only scheduled to be commissioned in September 2020. However, this does not
create a huge difference between Kendal’s model and the studies’ model. The Kendal DigSilent™
model at times did not use the rating plate impedance of a transformer but instead, they used the
default 6% impedance rating for the transformers. The difference in impedances used for the
transformers will cause a difference in the short-circuit current values.
The Kendal DigSilent™ model and the studies’ DigSilent™ model used the same IEC 60909-2016
standard during the short-circuit simulation, where the maximum short-circuit currents were
calculated by DigSilent™ for a break time of 20 ms and a fault clearing time of 1 s. The standards
used for the protection setting document provided by Eskom was not specified.
The last three columns in Table 32 are used to determine the accuracy of this studies’ model when
compared to the Kendal model and the Eskom protection settings model. The sixth column
calculates the percentage error between the values obtained from the protection settings model and
the values obtained from the studies’ DigSilent™ model. The seventh column calculated the
percentage error between Kendal’s DigSilent™ model and this studies’ DigSilent™ model. The
values in column six and seven have to be less than 10% for agreement between the models. If the
answer exceeds 10% the studies’ model is analysed to see why there is such a significant difference
in value. These differences may be the result of
 Different standards being used during the short circuit simulations

 Different ratings used for the transformers or absence of an element
 If the studies’ model does not agree with both the Kendal DigSilent™ model and the
protection settings, then the studies’ model is most likely wrong and will be updated to reflect
the correct results.
The last column takes the transformer values obtained by this studies’ DigSilent model and divides
it with the calculated maximum through fault current. This percentage should lie between 70% and
100%. All the transformers in the coal stockyard have very low short-circuit current values and they
range from 20% to 69% of the rated short-circuit current, however, this is in order as the other models
give similar results. The small Ash Dump transformers A and B have similar results.
143
Table 32: The three-phase short circuit currents for the protection settings and two models
The % error
Kendal’s studies’ Maximum between % error
The studies’
Protection Digsilent™ Digsilent™ through fault the between
fault current
settings model model current studies’ the
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
3 phase 3-phase protection and
fault current
Terminal / fault level 3 phase fault fault level 3-phase fault settings Kendal's
Component (kA) level (kA) (kA) level (kA) model model
Grootpan 10,80 10,80 0%
132 kV Busbar
before Station
Transformer 5,37 5,50 5,30 1% 4%
11 kV Busbar after
Station Transformer 26,83 25,03 24,70 36,51 8% 1% 68%
11 kV Unit
Transformer 1A 23,50 20,65 23,03 24,71 2% 10% 93%
11 kV Unit Board 1A
@ 11 kV Station
Board incomer 26,79 26,47 25,30 6% 4%
11 kV Unit
Transformer 2A 21,02 23,34 24,90 10% 94%
11 KV Unit Board 2A
@ 11 kV Station
Board incomer 26,79 26,77 25,40 5% 5%
11 kV Station Board
1 26,79 25,13 25,00 7% 1%
11 kV Sub South
Board 1A 26,22 23,32 23,10 12% 1%
380 V Dirty Drain
Recovery Pump
House Transformer 11,83 11,29 11,31 5% 100%
380 V Dirty Drain
Recovery Pump
House Board 9,23 9,68 9,30 1% 4%
380 V Terrace Coal
Plant Transformer
1A 43,83 41,46 43,33 5% 96%
380 V Terrace Coal

Plant Board 1A 39,86 41,86 39,60 1% 5%
380 V Boiler 1 Coal
Feed Transformer 38,91 37,08 38,49 5% 96%
380 V Boiler 1 Coal
Feed Board 34,32 34,58 33,00 4% 5%
380 V Boiler 3 Coal
380 V Boiler 3 Coal
Feed Board 34,19 34,49 32,90 4% 5%
380 V Workshop
Transformer A 43,35 41,31 43,41 5% 95%
380 V Workshop
Board A 33,13 34,70 33,10 0% 5%
380 V Common Fuel
Oil Plant
Transformer A 44,11 42,03 44,24 5% 95%
380 V Common Fuel

Oil Plant Board A 35,80 37,33 35,60 1% 5%
380 V Unit 4
Standby Transformer 38,94 37,11 38,49 5% 96%
380 V Unit 4
Standby Board 34,10 35,95 34,30 1% 5%
144
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Unit 4 Lighting
Transformer 39,04 37,21 38,49 5% 97%
Board 34,82 36,75 35,00 1% 5%
11 kV Sub South
Board 2A 25,26 22,68 22,50 11% 1%
380 V Security Mini-
Sub Z Transformer 10,82 10,33 10,36 5% 100%
380 V Security Mini -
Sub Z Board 10,24 10,82 10,30 1% 5%
Transformer 38,97 37,14 38,49 5% 96%
Board 34,74 36,69 35,00 1% 5%
380 V Unit 6
Standby Lighting
Transformer 38,88 37,05 38,49 5% 96%
380 V Unit 6
Standby Lighting
Board 34,00 35,89 34,20 1% 5%
380 V Canteen Mini-
Sub (Horticulture)
Transformer 44,50 42,47 44,58 5% 95%
380 V Canteen Mini-
Sub (Horticulture)
Board 21,50 22,39 21,40 0% 4%
380 V Terrace Coal
Plant Transformer
2A 43,95 41,88 43,90 5% 95%
380 V Terrace Coal

Plant Board 2A 38,91 40,87 38,90 0% 5%
380 V Boiler 5 Coal
380 V Boiler 5 Coal
Feed Board 33,50 35,35 33,70 1% 5%
3,3 kV Terrace Coal

Plant Transformer A 5,49 5,10 6,35 7% 80%
3,3 kV Terrace Coal
Plant Board A 7,23 6,66 6,30 13% 5%
T5E (Motor terminal) 5,10 4,79 4,52 11% 6%
T5C (Motor terminal) 5,10 4,79 4,52 11% 6%
T5A (Motor terminal) 5,04 4,74 4,47 11% 6%
T1A (Motor terminal) 6,50 5,54 5,27 19% 5%
11/22 kV Coal
Stockyard OHL
Transformer 1 1,67 1,66 3,49 1% 47%
11/22 kV Coal
Stockyard OHL Line
1 1,67 1,67 0%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
Distribution Board 1 2,37 2,07 2,10 11% 1%
145
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 1A 8,34 8,28 29,11 1% 28%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 1A 10,99 9,43 9,50 14% 1%
S6A Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 7,67 7,15 7,13 7% 0%
S6A Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 7,64 7,13 7,11 7% 0%
S5A Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 8,03 7,42 7,40 8% 0%
S5A Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 8,05 7,43 7,41 8% 0%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 1A 25,84 24,60 36,83 5% 67%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 1A 24,31 24,48 23,30 4% 5%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer Board 1 5,74 5,69 5,70 1% 0%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 1 Boom
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 4,73 4,67 1%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 1
Intermediate
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 4,89 4,83 1%
0.4 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 1
Transformer 12,72 12,17 15,68 4% 78%
0.4 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 1 Board 11,44 12,33 11,80 3% 4%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 2A 9,38 9,44 29,11 1% 32%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 2A 10,61 9,93 10,00 6% 1%
S8 A CONVEYOR
DRIVE (MOTOR) 3,76 3,76 3,70 2% 2%
CS2A Conveyor
Drive (Motor
terminal) 9,12 8,63 8,64 5% 0%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 2A 26,68 25,36 36,77 5% 69%
146
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 2A 24,86 25,95 24,70 1% 5%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 3A 7,84 7,81 29,45 0% 27%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 3A 10,27 8,71 8,70 15% 0%
S4 A Conveyor Drive
(Motor terminal) 6,38 6,11 6,06 5% 1%
S2 A Conveyor Drive
(Motor terminal) 7,63 6,86 6,84 10% 0%
S1A Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 5,80 5,41 5,35 8% 1%
S1A Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 5,80 5,43 5,37 7% 1%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 3A 25,09 24,00 36,83 4% 65%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 3A 24,12 24,43 23,40 3% 4%
380 V Mini-Sub A
Transformer 8,13 7,81 9,50 4% 82%
380 V Mini-Sub A
Board 7,23 8,12 7,81 7% 4%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 4A 3,82 3,81 5,74 0% 66%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 4A 3,90 3,98 4,00 3% 1%
CS1A Conveyor
Drive (Motor
terminal) 3,69 3,67 0%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Services
Transformer 4A 17,53 16,74 36,66 4% 46%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Services
Board 4A 16,01 16,89 16,10 1% 5%
11 kV Sub East
Board A 21,72 19,95 22,10 2% 10%
380 V SubStation
East Transformer A 42,13 40,47 42,45 4% 95%
380 V Sub Station
East Board A 32,73 34,30 32,90 1% 4%
3,3 kV Station
Transformer 2A 8,33 8,37 9,72 1% 86%
147
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
3,3 kV Station Board
2A 9,23 8,96 9,10 1% 2%
East Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 1
(Motor terminal) 8,76 8,17 8,24 6% 1%
East Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 2
(Motor terminal) 8,76 8,17 8,24 6% 1%
380 V Lighting Mini-
Sub Transformer 11,40 10,90 10,93 4% 100%
380 V Lighting Mini-
Sub Board 10,81 11,40 10,90 1% 4%
380 V Access
Control Mini-Sub
Transformer 15,69 15,02 15,10 4% 99%
380 V Access
Control Mini-Sub
Board 31,99 15,69 15,02 53% 4%
300 V Photovoltaic
Power Transformer 22,19 21,18 19,25 5% 110%
300 V Photovoltaic
Power Plant 19,53 22,19 21,18 8% 5%
11 kV Ash Dump
Board 1 5,83 5,73 5,70 2% 1%
3,3 kV Ash Dump
Transformer A 7,74 7,58 13,00 2% 58%
3,3 kV Ash Dump
Board A 8,98 8,60 8,60 4% 0%
Overland Conveyor
1B (Motor terminal) 7,74 7,41 7,38 5% 0%
Overland Conveyor
1A (Motor terminal) 7,74 7,41 7,38 5% 0%
Standby Extendable
Ash Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 8,51 8,05 8,01 6% 1%
Standby Shiftable
Ash B Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 8,04 7,64 7,60 5% 1%
Standby Shiftable
Ash A Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 8,18 7,76 7,72 6% 1%
380 V Ash Spreader
Transfer
Transformer 7,52 7,16 7,84 5% 91%
380 V Ash Spreader

Transfer Board 6,42 6,88 6,60 3% 4%
380 V Standby
Shiftable Ash
Conveyor
Transformer 2,81 2,53 2,58 10% 98%
380 V Standby
Shiftable Ash
Conveyor Board 2,48 2,81 2,40 3% 15%
148
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Standby
Extendable Ash
Conveyor
Transformer 2,81 2,53 2,58 10% 98%
380 V Standby
Extendable Ash
Conveyor Board 2,48 2,81 2,40 3% 15%
380 V Ash Dump
Transformer A 22,85 21,80 24,41 5% 89%
380 V Ash Dump
Board A 20,62 21,69 20,70 0% 5%
380 V Clean Water

Dam Transformer A 36,88 35,16 44,50 5% 79%
380 V Clean Water

Dam Board A 32,28 34,05 32,50 1% 5%
11 kV Transfer
House Board A 16,23 15,23 15,10 7% 1%
380 V Ash Transfer
House Transformer
A 41,12 39,18 42,14 5% 93%
380 V Ash Transfer

House Board A 36,75 38,71 36,90 0% 5%
380 V Mini-Sub Y
Transformer 11,91 11,37 11,51 5% 99%
380 V Mini-Sub Y
Board 11,29 11,91 11,40 1% 4%
380 V Unit 2
Standby Lighting
Transformer 39,10 37,26 38,49 5% 97%
380 V Unit 2
Standby Lighting
Board 34,21 36,09 32,70 4% 9%
Transformer 39,15 37,31 38,49 5% 97%
Board 35,32 37,28 35,50 1% 5%
3,3 kV Station
Transformer 1A 9,86 9,55 12,92 3% 74%
1A 13,76 12,02 12,00 13% 0%
West Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 2
(Motor terminal) 13,28 11,36 11,31 15% 0%
West Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 1
(Motor terminal) 13,28 11,36 11,31 15% 0%
Air Compressor 1
(Motor terminal) 13,33 11,46 11,41 14% 0%
Turbine Forced
Cooling Compressor
(Motor terminal) 12,93 10,03 9,48 27% 5%
149
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
NOT IN
Air Compressor 4 DIGSILENT™
(Motor terminal) 13,33 MODEL 11,41 14% 0%
380 V Station
Distribution
Transformer 1A 39,24 37,40 38,49 5% 97%
380 V Station
Distribution Board
1A 35,00 36,93 35,20 1% 5%
380 V HV-Yard
Transformer A 12,07 11,41 11,40 5% 100%
380 V HV-Yard
Board A 10,96 11,53 10,70 2% 7%
380 V Hydrogen
Plant Transformer 11,95 11,41 11,40 5% 100%
380 V Hydrogen
Plant 10,57 11,11 10,60 0% 5%
380 V Water Plant
Transformer 1A 44,01 41,93 43,66 5% 96%
380 V Water Plant
Board 1A 34,07 35,68 34,00 0% 5%
380 V Station
Service Building
Transformer A 44,03 41,95 43,66 5% 96%
380 V Station
Service Building
Board A 38,81 40,23 38,30 1% 5%
380 V LP Service
Transformer 1A 39,25 37,40 38,49 5% 97%
380 V LP Service
Board 1A 32,18 36,59 34,90 8% 5%
380 V Chemical
Service Mini-Sub 7,99 - 0%
11 kV Station Board
2 26,79 26,35 25,00 7% 5%
11 kV Sub South
Board 1B 26,22 24,33 23,10 12% 5%
380 V Terrace Coal
Plant Transformer
1B 43,73 41,55 43,41 5% 96%
380 V Terrace Coal

Plant Board 1B 39,86 40,86 38,80 3% 5%
380 V Boiler 2 Coal
380 V Boiler 2 Coal
Feed Board 34,32 36,30 34,50 1% 5%
380 V Boiler 4 Coal
380 V Boiler 4 Coal
Feed Board 34,19 36,15 34,40 1% 5%
380 V Workshop
Transformer B 43,92 41,73 43,90 5% 95%
150
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Workshop
Board B 33,13 34,26 32,60 2% 5%
380 V Common Fuel
Oil Plant
Transformer B 44,25 41,96 44,16 5% 95%
380 V Common Fuel

Oil Plant Board B 35,80 37,59 35,70 0% 5%
380 V Classify &
Dispatch Plant
Transformer 39,14 36,92 38,49 6% 96%
380 V Classify &

Dispatch Plant Board 34,82 36,84 36,90 6% 0%
380 V Unit 3
Standby Transformer 39,04 37,11 38,49 5% 96%
380 V Unit 3
Standby Board 34,10 36,04 34,30 1% 5%
Transformer 39,14 37,21 38,49 5% 97%
Board 34,82 36,84 35,00 1% 5%
11 kV Sub South
Board 2B 25,56 23,67 22,60 12% 5%
Transformer 39,08 37,15 38,49 5% 97%
Board 34,74 36,78 35,00 1% 5%
380 V Unit 5
Standby Lighting
Transformer 38,98 37,05 38,49 5% 96%
380 V Unit 5
Standby Lighting
Board 34,00 35,98 34,20 1% 5%
380 V Terrace Coal
Plant Transformer
2B 42,90 40,79 42,61 5% 96%
380 V Terrace Coal

Plant Board 2B 38,91 40,13 38,10 2% 5%
380 V Boiler 6 Coal
380 V Boiler 6 Coal
Feed Board 33,50 34,64 32,90 2% 5%
3,3 kV Terrace Coal

Plant Transformer B 5,10 5,10 6,35 0% 80%
3,3 kV Terrace Coal
Plant Board B 6,30 6,25 6,20 2% 1%
T5F Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 5,10 4,60 4,51 12% 2%
T5D Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 5,10 4,60 4,51 12% 2%
T5B Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 5,04 4,50 4,41 13% 2%
T1B Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 6,50 5,25 5,30 19% 1%
151
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
11/22 kV Coal
Stockyard OHL
Transformer 2 1,69 1,73 2,87 2% 60%
11/22 kV Coal
Stockyard OHL Line
2 1,69 1,74 3%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 1B 8,34 8,43 28,68 1% 29%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 1B 10,99 9,67 9,90 10% 2%
S6B Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 8,13 7,65 7,63 6% 0%
S6B Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 8,10 7,54 7,60 6% 1%
S5B Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 9,79 8,68 8,82 10% 2%
S5B Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 9,91 8,75 8,90 10% 2%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 1B 26,59 25,44 36,83 4% 69%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 1B 24,31 25,16 24,10 1% 4%
380 V Mini-Sub B
Transformer 9,15 8,80 11,66 4% 75%
380 V Mini-Sub B
Board 9,15 8,80 4%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer Board 2 6,21 6,15 6,20 0% 1%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 2 Boom
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 5,19 5,16 1%
3.3 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 2
Intermediate
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 5,04 5,01 1%
0.4 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 2
Transformer 12,26 11,75 15,68 4% 75%
0.4 kV Stacker /
Reclaimer 2 Board 11,02 11,90 11,40 3% 4%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 2B 9,49 9,71 29,50 2% 33%
152
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
3.3 KV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 2B 10,61 10,03 10,20 4% 2%
S8 B Conveyor Drive
(Motor terminal) 3,78 3,80 3,75 1% 1%
CS2B Conveyor
Drive (Motor
terminal) 8,69 8,38 8,49 2% 1%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 2B 26,75 25,52 36,72 5% 70%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 2B 24,86 26,01 24,80 0% 5%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 3B 7,82 7,93 29,26 1% 27%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 3B 10,27 9,06 9,20 10% 2%
380 V Mini-Sub C
Transformer 8,16 7,86 9,50 4% 83%
380 V Mini-Sub C
Board 7,23 8,16 7,86 8% 4%
S4 B Conveyor Drive
(Motor terminal) 5,52 5,47 5,22 6% 5%
S2 B Conveyor Drive
(Motor terminal) 8,02 7,20 7,26 10% 1%
S1B Conveyor Drive
2 (Motor terminal) 8,02 7,20 7,26 10% 1%
S1B Conveyor Drive
1 (Motor terminal) 5,82 5,49 5,46 6% 1%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 3B 25,88 25,59 38,62 1% 66%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 3B 24,12 25,18 24,90 3% 1%
22 kV Coal
Stockyard
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Transformer 4B 3,82 3,84 5,74 1% 67%
3.3 kV Coal
Stockyard Service
Board 4B 3,90 3,97 4,00 3% 1%
CS1B Conveyor
Drive (Motor
terminal) 2,10 2,08 1%
380 V Coal
Stockyard Services
Transformer 4B 17,52 16,80 36,66 4% 46%
153
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Coal
Stockyard Services
Board 4B 16,01 16,88 16,20 1% 4%
11 kV Sub East
Board B 21,72 20,73 19,80 9% 4%
380 V Sewage Mini-
Sub 10,15 10,76 10,50 11,31 3% 2% 93%
380 V Sub Station
East Transformer B 41,98 39,89 42,14 5% 95%
380 V Sub Station
East Board B 32,73 34,21 32,50 1% 5%
3,3 kV Station
Transformer 2B 8,38 8,24 9,72 2% 85%
2B 9,23 9,00 8,90 4% 1%
East Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 3
(Motor terminal) 8,76 8,21 8,12 7% 1%
East Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 4
(Motor terminal) 8,76 8,21 8,12 7% 1%
11 kV Ash Dump
Board 2 5,83 5,83 5,80 1% 1%
3,3 kV Ash Dump
Transformer B 7,58 7,39 12,79 3% 58%
3,3 kV Ash Dump
Board B 8,98 8,58 8,50 5% 1%
Overland Conveyor
2A (Motor terminal) 7,77 7,38 7,32 6% 1%
Overland Conveyor
2B (Motor terminal) 7,76 7,37 7,32 6% 1%
Standby Extendable
Ash Conveyor
(Motor terminal) 8,57 8,03 7,96 7% 1%
Shiftable Ash A
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 8,06 7,52 7,45 8% 1%
Shiftable Ash B
Conveyor (Motor
terminal) 8,06 7,52 7,45 8% 1%
380 V Ash Stacker
Transformer 12,41 10,69 12,44 14% 86%
380 V Ash Stacker

Board 10,57 11,87 10,30 3% 13%
380 V Shiftable Ash
Conveyor
Transformer 2,94 2,53 2,58 14% 98%
380 V Shiftable Ash

Conveyor Board 2,48 2,81 2,40 3% 15%
380 V Extendable
Ash Conveyor
Transformer 2,94 2,53 2,58 14% 98%
154
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
380 V Extendable
Ash Conveyor Board 2,48 2,81 2,40 3% 15%
380 V Ash Dump
Transformer B 23,04 21,95 24,62 5% 89%
380 V Ash Dump
Board B 20,62 21,97 20,90 1% 5%
380 V Clean Water
Dam Transformer B 36,84 35,05 44,24 5% 79%
380 V Clean Water

Dam Board B 32,28 33,76 32,10 1% 5%
11 kV Transfer
House Board B 16,23 16,07 15,50 4% 4%
380 V Ash Transfer
House B
Transformer 41,32 39,27 42,14 5% 93%
380 V Ash Transfer
House B 36,75 38,72 36,80 0% 5%
3,3 kV Station
Transformer 1B 10,47 10,40 12,86 1% 81%
1B 13,76 12,00 11,90 14% 1%
West Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 4
(Motor terminal) 10,91 9,43 9,30 15% 1%
West Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 3
(Motor terminal) 10,02 9,38 9,25 8% 1%
Air Compressor 2
(Motor terminal) 12,05 11,04 10,89 10% 1%
Air Compressor 3
(Motor terminal) 12,31 11,24 11,09 10% 1%
380 V Water Plant
Transformer 1B 44,12 41,91 43,66 5% 96%
380 V Water Plant
Board 1B 34,07 35,61 33,90 0% 5%
380 V Electrical
Workshop
Transformer 39,59 11,42 11,40 71% 100%
380 V Electrical
Workshop Board 19,02 36,36 11,10 42% 69%
380 V HV-Yard
Transformer B 12,06 11,50 11,51 5% 100%
380 V HV-Yard
Board B 10,96 11,51 11,00 0% 4%
380 V Station
Distribution
Transformer 1B 39,36 37,41 38,49 5% 97%
380 V Station
Distribution Board
1B 35,00 37,03 35,20 1% 5%
Transformer 39,35 37,40 37,86 5% 99%
155
The % error
The studies’
fault current
divided by
model studies’
Maximum
and the model
through
fault current
Board 35,69 37,77 35,90 1% 5%
380 V Unit 1
Standby Lighting
Transformer 39,24 37,30 37,86 5% 99%
380 V Unit 1
Standby Lighting
Board 34,64 36,63 34,80 0% 5%
OHL TO 380 V
Sewage Mini-Sub 4,08 4,40 3,96 3% 10%
380 V Security
Lighting Mini-Sub X
Transformer 10,42 8,97 9,02 14% 99%
380 V Security
Lighting Mini-Sub X
Board 9,44 10,42 9,00 5% 14%
380 V Station
Service Building
Transformer B 44,74 42,50 44,24 5% 96%
380 V Station
Service Building
Board B 38,81 40,81 38,80 0% 5%
380 V LP Service
Transformer 1B 39,38 37,43 38,49 5% 97%
380 V LP Service
Board 1B 32,18 36,16 34,40 6% 5%
In Table 32 there are rows with red text, blue text, and bold maroon text. The red text represents a
major difference between the protection settings model and this studies’ DigSilent™ model, the blue
texts represents a major difference between Kendal’s DigSilent™ model and this studies’ DigSilent™
model, and the maroon represents a major difference between this studies’ model and both Kendal’s
DigSilent™ model and the protection settings model. In Table 33 the possible reasons for the
differences between the protection settings ratings and the studies DigSilent™ model are discussed.
156
Table 33: The possible reasons for the error margin between the protection settings and the studies model
Studies’
Protection DigSilent™
Settings Model
3 phase 3 phase
fault level fault level
Terminal / Component (kA) (kA) Possible reasons for differences
A different standard is used to perform the

fault studies could result in these
11 kV Sub South Board 1A 26,22 23,10
differences, as the Kendal DigSilent™
model gave similar values to the studies
model as shown in Table 32
11 kV Sub South Board 2A 25,26 22,50
Transformer Impedance Difference
Protection Settings - 4,1%
3.3 kV Terrace Coal Plant
Studies Model - 4,41%
Board A 7,23 6,30
T5E (Motor Terminal) 5,10 4,52
T5C (Motor Terminal) 5,10 4,52 Carried over from the transformer
impedance difference
T5A (Motor Terminal) 5,04 4,47
T1A (Motor Terminal) 6,50 5,27
22 kV Coal Stockyard
Distribution Board 1 2,37 2,10
3.3 kV Coal Stockyard Service

Board 1A 10,99 9,50 A different standard is used to perform the
fault studies could result in these
22 kV Coal Stockyard differences, as the Kendal DigSilent™
Distribution Board 3 2,43 2,10 model gave similar values to the studies
22 kV Coal Stockyard
Distribution Board 5 4,42 1,90
3.3 kV Coal Stockyard Service

Board 3A 10,27 8,70
The lumped loads on this board could

380 V Access Control Mini Sub have been modelled inaccurately in the
Transformer 15,02 protection settings model used. Thus,
contributing to the high short-circuit
current on the busbar.
380 V Access Control Mini Sub 31,99 15,02
3,3 kV Station Board 1A 13,76 12,00
West Aux Cooling Pump 2 A different standard is used to perform the

(Motor Terminal) 13,28 11,31 fault studies could result in these
West Aux Cooling Pump 1 model gave similar values to the studies
(Motor Terminal) 13,28 11,31 model as shown in Table 32
Turbine Forced Cooling
Compressor (Motor Terminal) 12,93 9,48
157
Studies’
Protection DigSilent™
Settings Model
3 phase 3 phase
fault level fault level
Terminal / Component (kA) (kA) Possible reasons for differences
The new service air compressors are 315

kW where the older service air
Air Compressor 1 (Motor compressors were 350 kW. Smaller
Terminal) 13,33 11,41 motors result in smaller short-circuit fault
currents. An additional motor was added
to this board which could also result in a
lower short-circuit voltage.
ir Compressor 4 (Motor
Terminal) 13,33 11,41
A different standard is used to perform the

11 kV Sub South Board 1B 26,22 23,10 fault studies could result in these
11 kV Sub South Board 2B 25,56 22,60
T5F (Motor Terminal) 5,10 4,51
T5D (Motor Terminal) 5,10 4,51 Carried over from the transformers
impedance difference
T5B (Motor Terminal) 5,04 4,41
T1B (Motor Terminal) 6,50 5,30
22 kV Coal Stockyard A different standard is used to perform the

Distribution Board 6 4,42 1,90 fault studies could result in these
3.3 kV Station Board 1B 13,76 11,90 differences, as the Kendal DigSilent™
West Aux Cooling Pump 4 model as shown in Table 32
(Motor Terminal) 10,91 9,30
The lumped loads on this board could

380 V Electrical Workshop have been modelled inaccuratly in the
Transformer 11,42 protection settings model used. Thus,
contributing to the high short-circuit
current on the busbar
380 V Electrical Workshop
Board 19,02 11,10
In Table 34 the possible reasons for the differences between Kendal’s DigSilent™ model and the
studies DigSilent™ model are discussed. The main contributing factor to the differences is due to
the transformer LV winding ratings being different.
158
Table 34: The reasons for the error margin between Kendal’s model and the studies model
Rated
Kendal’s Studies’ Short
DigSilent™ DigSilent™ Circuit
Model Model Current
3-phase
3-phase 3-phase fault
fault level fault level level
Terminal / Component (kA) (kA) (kA) Reasons for differences
380 V Standby Shift

Ash Conv Transformer 2,81 2,53 2,58
380 V Standby Shift

Ash Conv Board 2,81 2,40
380 V Standby
Extendable Ash Conv
Transformer 2,81 2,53 2,58
380 V Standby
Extendable Ash Conv
Board 2,81 2,40
Low Voltage values differ
380 V Ash Stacker Kendal - 0,38 kV
Transformer 12,41 10,69 12,44 Studies - 0,4 kV
380 V Ash Stacker

Transformer Board 11,87 10,30
380 V Shiftable Ash

Conv Transformer 2,94 2,53 2,58
380 V Shiftable Ash

Conv Board 2,81 2,40
380 V Extendable Ash

Conv Transformer 2,94 2,53 2,58
380 V Extendable Ash

Conv Board 2,81 2,40
380 V Electrical
Workshop Transformer 39,59 11,42 11,40
380 V Electrical Kendal - 0,22 kV
Workshop Board 36,36 11,10 Studies - 0,4 kV
380 V Electrical And if the Kendal rating is
Workshop Transformer used the short-circuit rating of
39,5899 37,737 20,72
(Same rating as Kendal the transformer is exceeded.
Model)
380 V Electrical
36,36 34,6
Workshop Board
380 V Security Lighting

Mini Sub X Transformer 10,42 8,97 9,02
Kendal - 0,38 kV
380 V Security Lighting Studies - 0,4 kV
Mini Sub X 10,42 9,00
159
The only instance where all three models differ is for the electrical workshop. For the electrical
workshop, the protection settings model values were used as the studies model obtained a short-
circuit current greater than the maximum through fault current, and the transformer was connected
to a 0.38 kV busbar. If the electrical workshop step-down voltage rating of 0.22 kV (like the Kendal
DigSilent™ model) is used the transformer will not deliver the required voltage to the busbar.
However, the studies electrical workshop board short-circuit value was still not close to the protection
settings value, however, this was explained in Table 33. If the low voltage rating of Kendal’s model
was used in the study the rated short-circuit value would be exceeded for the transformer as the
electrical workshop board is rated at 0.38 kV, this was shown in Table 34 in column 13 and 14.
5.2 Trip Report

Another way to test the accuracy of this studies’ model is by evaluating the trip report for the common
plant. A trip report documents the events that took place when a trip occurred at the common plant.
Unfortunately, the relays at the common plant are very old and there is only one trip report for the
common plant (see chapter 1). Therefore, only one event along with the short-circuit tests can be
used to measure the accuracy of this studies’ model. This report pertains to the day the fast transfer
system issued a command to open the loop supply circuit breakers for the odd and even number
loops without issuing a command to close the circuit breaker by the station transformer, resulting in
both Station Board 1 and 2 without a power source [4]. Unit 3 was supplying Station Board 1 through
the loop supply, and Unit 6 Station Board 2 for that day [4]. Units 2 and 4 were on an outage and
currently being maintained. Only Units 1, 3, 5 and 6 were operational that day [4].
Now that the circumstances behind the event have been explained in more detail, how the event can
be used to help determine the model's accuracy can be discussed. In the trip report, times were
given from the moment the circuit breakers were opened to how long it took for the four operational
units to trip [4]. Unfortunately, not every unit is modelled in the studies model, and DigSilent™ also
does not take into consideration generators tripping due to overheating because their cooling
systems were disconnected [4]. The auxiliary cooling pumps are used to pump cooling water to the
generators and through a heat exchanger used to cool the hydrogen gas that is used to cool the
generators [4]. Thus, if a simulation is run that disconnects both Station Boards from their power
source for a period of more than 5 s and the East and West auxiliary cooling pump motors coasted
down within the time it took the first unit to trip then it can be seen that the model accurately
represents the events that occurred that day [4].
Table 35 shows the time it took for each of the four Units to trip the day of the event.
160
Table 35: The sequence of events that unfolded in the trip report [4].
Event that occurred Time when the event occurred

Both of the loops circuit breakers were opened 07:51:20
Unit 5 tripped 07:54:43
Unit 3 tripped Time not specified it is only said this unit tripped shortly
after unit 6
As can be seen from Table 35 it took 3.23 s for the first unit to trip. This shows that the motor and
pump coast down very quickly as the time it takes for hot hydrogen and cool water to enter and leave
the heat exchanger would probably be within in a second or two. The pump would stop quickly as
the pump has a very low inertia. Thus, the studies’ model requires a motor and load that coast down
quickly for the East and West auxiliary cooling pumps. The approximate time it takes for the pump
to become inefficient can be calculated and determined with the pump’s datasheet and curves, as
well as the motor’s results obtained from DigSilent™.
The East auxiliary cooling pumps supply units 4 and 6, and the West auxiliary cooling pump supplies
units 1 and 3. Each set contains four pumps while only three of the four are in service. Only one
datasheet was supplied for the pumps so it is assumed that the pumps are the same for both auxiliary
cooling systems, Figure 94 shows the datasheet for the pumps and Figure 95 shows the pump
curves for these pumps.
In DigSilent™ an RMS simulation was performed where both Station Board 1 and Station Board 2
were disconnected from the Unit Boards and the trip lasted 5 s. The event is simulated for 6 s in
total. In Figure 96 shows the results obtained from the simulation for the West auxiliary cooling motor,
and Figure 97 shows the results for the East auxiliary cooling motors. The reason only these motors
are being considered and not the other motors and their loads is because these are the only two
sets of motors that impact the generators’ cooling that led to the tripping of the generators. A trip
occurs at 1 s in Figure 96 and lasts for 5 s.
161
Figure 94: The datasheet for the auxiliary cooling pumps
162
Figure 95: The Pump Curves for the auxiliary cooling pumps
163
Figure 96: The RMS Simulation curves from DigSilent™ for the west auxiliary cooling pump motor
164
Figure 97: The RMS Simulation curves from DigSilent™ for the east auxiliary cooling pump motor
165
STATION
From Figure 94 it can be seen that the pump has a nominal (rated) water head of 43 m [42]. The
nominal speed of the pump is 1430 rpm, and the flow rate is 2520 m³/h (see purple lines in Figure
95). It is also worth noting that the pump nominal power requirement is 352 kW, but the East motors
are rated at 400 kW and the west motors 425 kW. The nominal speed of the motors is also faster
than that of the pumps, with the East motors having a nominal speed of 1482 rpm, and the West
motors a nominal speed of 1477 rpm.
Figure 96 and Figure 97 and the nominal head determine how long the pump will be able to maintain
a specific head.
The head developed by the pump is said to be directly proportional to the square of the speed of the
pump impeller [58]. The pump is driven by the motor, thus, the motor speed can be used in Figure
96 and Figure 97 to determine the reduction in the head due to the speed decreasing due to the trip.
(56) can be used to determine the new head [58].
𝜔
𝐻 =𝐻 (56)
𝜔
Where [58];
𝐻 : Is the new head developed by the pump, measured in m.
𝐻 : Is the old head developed by the pump, measured in m.
𝜔 : Is the new radial speed of the pumps impeller, measured in rpm.
𝜔 : Is the old radial speed of the pumps impeller, measured in rpm.
In Table 36 the speed at different time intervals is shown. From this speed, the head developed by
the pump was determined by using (56).
Table 36: The speed and head to time for the West Auxiliary cooling pump for when the 5 s trip occurs
West Auxiliary Cooling Pump

Time (s) Speed (rpm) Head (m)
0 1477,00 43,00
0,6 1477,00 43,00
1,2 1422,35 39,88
1,8 1237,73 30,20
2,4 1144,68 25,83
3 1053,10 21,86
3,6 967,44 18,45
4,2 914,26 16,48
4,8 868,48 14,87
5,4 821,21 13,29
6 768,04 11,63
166
By evaluating the motors’ curves in Figure 96 and Figure 97, it can be seen that the motor voltage
became zero at 1.8 s for pumps 1 and 2 for the East and West auxiliary cooling pumps, and at about
3 s for pump 3 and 4 for the East and West auxiliary cooling pumps. The electrical torque of all these
motors was also negative for a period of 500 ms. This means that all the motors were in generating
mode for 500 ms and therefore not developing electrical torque to drive the pumps. Table 36 shows
that the pumps will almost immediately stop to supply the required head the moment the output
power from the motor starts to drop.
From the simulations performed and calculations done it can be concluded that the DigSilent™
model is accurate because the motors and pumps for the East and West auxiliary cooling coast
down quickly, making a unit trip occur within 3 s plausible.
5.3 Summary
When comparing the three models, differences were found between the the fault current results
obtained from the three models. This is because of different standards being used, different ratings
for some motors, different lumped loads being classified, and different transformer being modelled
(see Table 33 and Table 34).
Another test for the accuracy of the studies’ model was by evaluating the trip report of the day that
the fast transfer system opened all the breakers that supply the two station boards causing the units
to trip. The first unit tripped within 3 s, and from the simulations were done in DigSilent™ it can be
shown why this occurred. When the cooling pumps lose their supply, the active power output of the
motors immediately drops, resulting in the inability of the pumps to continue delivering the cooling
water to the generators' cooling system.
167
Chapter 6: Testing each Hypothesis and MBT method

with the DigSilent™ model
The main aim of this study is to validate the hypotheses stated in chapter 1 and determine which
motor bus transfer methods are best suited for the common plant at Kendal Power Station. In chapter
2 the different motor bus transfer methods were discussed, as well as considering the size of the
motors, the inertia of the system, and the mixture of synchronous and induction motors. Kendal
would like to have more than one motor bus transfer option to choose from when the supply to the
station boards are interrupted. This chapter will not only evaluate the possibility of each hypothesis
and the best motor bus transfer method for the system but, it will also investigate chances of
increasing the success of other motor bus transfer methods and when it will be applicable for Kendal
to consider load shedding. In this chapter, it is also important to remember Eskom’s philosophy on
MV motors, which is that motors are tripped if the voltage drops below 70% for 3 s.
6.1 The existing Beckwith device and set-up

The existing Beckwith device at Kendal has two parts, the first part is the Transfer Logic Controller
(M-0272), that allows for fast transfers and residual voltage transfers. If the company wishes to
initiate a delayed in-phase then the second part can be added, the Power Transfer Relay (M-0236)
has to be bought as an add-on to the device. Kendal has both components connected at the common
plant. In chapter 2 two transfer modes for a fast transfer were identified, viz. the simultaneous and
sequential transfers. The existing Beckwith relays at Kendal are old and only allows for a sequential
fast transfer. Although Kendal stated that the time window for a fast transfer is 0.2 s, this Beckwith
device specifically states that the fast transfer has a fixed time window of 0.17 s from the moment
the source breaker is tripped [2] [59]. The sequence of events for the existing Beckwith model can
be seen in Figure 98.
168
Figure 98: The sequence of events for when a transfer is initiated for the current Beckwith model at Kendal
The first signal in Figure 98 shows a command is sent to the Beckwith system to initiate a transfer,
and after 10 ms delay a second signal shows that a trip command is sent to the breaker. From the
moment the trip signal is sent (signal 1 in Figure 98) a delay of 20 ms is applied before the device
starts to initiate and immediately attempts all three motor bus transfer methods (signal 4 to signal 6
in Figure 98). The phase angle time is settable from 0.1 s (100 ms after the trip command) to 2 s
[59]. The residual voltage transfer is activated as soon as the trip is sent for a period of 30 s.
If certain lockouts occur the device will not be able to initiate a transfer [59]. There are four lockout
conditions on the existing Beckwith device [59];
 Master Lockout: The voltage on the backup supply is not within the set range. This will
prohibit a transfer.
 Auto Lockout: blocks a transfer initiated by a protective relay of the source in order to
prevent the motor bus from transferring to a faulty source.
 “Both Breakers” Lockout: If both the breakers are open at the start of the transfer then the
sequence is inhibited. If both the breakers are closed then the auto trip contact is open and
the start of the transfer is stopped.
169
 Transfer-in-Process Lockout: once a transfer has been initiated all the transfer triggering
inputs will be ignored.
 Lockout after Transfer: any additional transfers are blocked for 10 s after the first transfer
occurs.
There are different transfer modes as identified in chapter 2, manual transfer and automatic transfer.
Closed transfers are usually executed in an environment where the busbar containing the motors is
transferred from the main source to the backup source so that maintenance can be done on the main
source. This type of condition usually occurs as a manual transfer on a motor bus transfer device.
Open transfers are more likely to occur because a fault occurred on the main source and therefore
the busbar containing the motors must be transferred to the backup source as soon as possible to
ensure continuity of the plant. This type of condition usually occurs as an automatic transfer on a
motor bus transfer device. For the existing Beckwith device, there is an auto-transfer logic that
initiates the transfer, this is initiated by making sure the voltage is below the auto-transfer voltage
limit for a period longer than the auto-transfer time delay limit [59]. The voltage is monitored by the
means of a voltage transformer connected to one of the phases of the source, the same is done for
the backup source, and busbars. The voltage is stepped down to 110 V so that the Beckwith relays
obtain this voltage as an input and uses it to determine if a transfer should be initiated (in the case
of the voltage obtained by the main source). If the backup source is healthy a transfer can be initiated
(in the case of the voltage input for the backup source). The device also determines what type of
transfer would be best for the system.
Now that some key aspects about the existing Beckwith device at Kendal has been discussed, the
device settings and settings ranges are shown in Table 37, the existing settings Eskom uses. Kendal
has both the Transfer Logic (M-0272) and the Power Transfer Relay (M-0236) to be able to initiate
all three transfer modes.
Table 37: The specified and actual settings on the Beckwith device at Kendal [59] [2]
Beckwith Device Recommended Settings Kendal’s Settings on the Device
Auto Transfer Time Delay Limit 0.1 s to 2 s Auto Transfer Time Delay Limit 0.5 s
Auto Transfer Voltage Limit 60 to 120 V rms Auto Transfer Voltage Limit 90 V (82%)
Phase Angle Limit 0⁰ to 45⁰ Phase Angle Limit 15⁰
Residual Voltage Limit 0 to 60 V rms Residual Voltage Limit 33 V (30%)
Upper Voltage Limit Backup Source 110 to 140 V ac Upper Voltage Limit Backup Source 120 V (110%)
Lower Voltage Limit Backup Source 90 to 120 V ac Lower Voltage Limit Backup Source 92 V (84%)
Delta Frequency 0.5 to 5 Hz Delta Frequency 4.5 Hz
170
If a trip is simulated in DigSilent™ and Station Board 1 or 2 is only connected to the backup source
after 1.5 s then the settings from Table 37 can be used to determine the time windows for a fast
transfer and residual voltage transfer. Figure 99 and Figure 100 show the following time windows
that exist for Station Board 1 and 2 for a fast transfer and residual voltage transfer. The phase
difference graph is only shown for a short period as the in-phase transfer is not discussed here and
the phase difference after the trip is what is of interest in the section. For a fast transfer to occur the
voltage must be within the correct limit, (the correct limit is not stated here), however fast transfers
usually occur between 1 pu to 0.8 pu voltage, and the phase-angle difference between the two
sources must be less than 15⁰. Although the device will only initiate a transfer if the voltage drops
below 0.82 pu, a voltage of 0.84 pu was used as the fast transfer limit as it allows for a phase angle
just below 15⁰ as set in the settings, only the beginning portion of the phase difference was plotted
as the in-phase transfer will not be studied here. From Figure 99 and Figure 100 it can be seen that
a fast transfer is not possible for Kendal’s existing settings.
The residual voltage transfer time window is initiated the moment the breaker open signal is received,
and lasts for a period of 30 s, the voltage can be set anywhere from 0 % to 55% of the rated voltage,
with Kendal's setting set at 30%. This means that if the voltage drops below 30% for one of the
Station Boards the device should execute a residual voltage transfer. When a residual voltage
transfer is initiated a load shedding contact for non-critical loads is also activated. The importance of
load-shedding non-critical loads during a residual voltage transfer was discussed in chapter 2. Figure
99 and Figure 100 show the time a residual voltage transfer is possible for Station Board 1 and 2,
the time begins at about 170 ms for Station Board 1 and lasts till the end of the simulation. The time
begins at 161 ms for Station Board 2 and lasts till the end of the simulation. The problem with allowing
a residual voltage transfer to occur even when the voltage of the busbar is zero is that all the motors
are started or re-accelerated simultaneously, resulting in high current required to be supplied by the
new source. This could result in voltage collapse of the system. In addition, protection settings could
also be activated that will result in the tripping of the supply.
171
60.00 1.05
45.00 1
0.95
30.00 0.9
15.00 Fast Transfer Zone 0.85
0.00 0.8
0.75
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0.7
-30.00 0.65
Phase (Degrees)
Voltage (pu)
-45.00 0.6
0.55
-60.00
0.5
-75.00 0.45
-90.00 0.4
-105.00 Residual Voltage Transfer Zone 0.35
1.169167; 0.298251 0.3
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 0.15
0.1
-165.00 0.05
-180.00 0
Time (s)
Phase Difference Voltage
Figure 99: The Kendal time windows for the motor bus transfer shown on the Station Board 1 motor bus transfer graph
60.00 1.05
45.00 1
0.95
30.00 0.9
15.00 Fast Transfer Zone 0.85
0.00 0.8
0.75
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0.7
-30.00 0.65
Phase (Degrees)
Voltage (pu)
-45.00 0.6
0.55
-60.00
0.5
-75.00 0.45
-90.00 0.4
1.161167; 0.29997 0.3
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 0.15
0.1
-165.00 0.05
-180.00 0
Time (s)
Phase Angle Difference Voltage
Figure 100: The Kendal time windows for the motor bus transfer shown on the Station Board 2 motor bus transfer graph
The next parameter to consider is the delta frequency, this parameter forms part of the additional M-
0236 Power Transfer Relay which allows for an in-phase transfer. If just the M-0272 Transfer logic
relay is used then the device will only be able to perform a residual voltage transfer. Delta frequency
172
is the frequency difference between the backup supply and the disconnected busbar. By using the
delta frequency the device decides when it is safe to initiate a delayed in-phase transfer, the delta
frequency is set at 4.5 Hz meaning that an in-phase transfer can occur 100 ms after the breaker is
opened and the delta frequency must be below 4.5 Hz and the phase angle needs to be within
± 15⁰ for the Power Transfer Relay to initiate an in-phase transfer. The delta frequency for Station
Board 1 and 2 can be seen in Figure 101 and Figure 102. If an in-phase transfer is initiated for Station
Board 1, the transfer would occur between 1.102 to 1.232 s as shown in Figure 101. In Figure 102
the transfer would occur between 1.1 s to 1.208 s for Station Board 2.
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
Delta Frequency (Hz)
8.00
6.00
1.232167; 4.48
4.00
1.102167; 2.93
2.00
0.00
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
-2.00
Time (s)
Figure 101: The Delta Frequency vs Time for Station Board 1
173
16.00
14.00
12.00
Delta Frequency (Hz)
10.00
8.00
6.00
1.208167; 4.5
4.00
1.100167; 3.08
2.00
0.00
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Time (s)
Figure 102: The Delta Frequency vs Time for Station Board 2
To determine if the Beckwith high-speed transfer system was set and triggered correctly it is
important to consider all the protection devices involved in the fast transfer system and their role [2]:
 Beckwith high-speed motor bus transfer system - This is the device that determines the safest
motor bus transfer mode for the system at a specific time. For Kendal, the Beckwith system
can perform a fast transfer in both directions manually and remotely, and only in one direction
if the breaker protection scheme triggers it. Change-over relays are used to perform a bi-
directional initiated transfer.
 The change-over relays are tasked with changing the inputs to and the outputs from of the
Beckwith system transfer scheme so that the Beckwith system recognizes the Station Board
as the default configuration at all times.
 The interlock and control programmable logic controller (there are two programmable logic
controllers (PLCs) in the system) control and monitor the change-over function of the change-
over relays. The PLCs monitors the input signals such as the loop supply, the backup supply
voltage and the busbar voltage. These input supplies are connected via the input change-
over relays to the Beckwith scheme. The Beckwith system’s outputs are then connected to
the output change over relays and the MOA rotary switch to the circuit breakers’ open and
close command circuitry (the MOA rotary switch is a rotating selector switch used to select
the manual or automatic function of a particular system or for disabling the above functions).
174
 The PLCs also monitor the trip coil supervision circuit of the circuit breakers and it also serves
as one of the interlocking inputs for the PLCs interlocking function. The interlocking function
in a PLC is the function that monitors conditions and should a certain condition occur prevents
the condition from damaging the system, for example, the interlocking function here would
be used to monitor if any faults have occurred or circuit breakers have been tripped on one
of the loop supplies and should a fault occur initiate a command to disconnect the Station
Board and allow the Beckwith system to perform a motor bus transfer.
 The Beckwith system is either activated by a circuit breaker opening or by a command from
the PLCs. The PLCs are used as controlling modules for the transfer scheme, meaning the
PLCs will coordinate and decide on the transfer scheme. There are four transfer schemes
the PLCs can decide from namely bright chop-over, dark chop-over, Beckwith transfer and
energising the cable. The bright chop-over is a closed transfer and only happens when both
supplies are healthy. A dark chop-over is when the healthy old supply is disconnected and a
healthy backup supply is connected in its place, like an open transfer. The Beckwith system
consists of the three motor bus transfer methods that could be used during a trip. These
commands can also be initiated by the man-machine interface device in the case of bright
and dark chop-overs.
 There are also synchronising check relays which checks the magnitude of the voltage and
the phase angle between the old and new source and determines whether a dark or bright
chop-over is possible.
6.2 Hypotheses
By making use of RMS simulations performed in DigSilent™ three of the four hypotheses can either
be proven or disproven. The fourth hypothesis is difficult to prove and can only be discussed and
theorized from the information at hand. The loop supply incomer from the unit boards to the station
boards has an overcurrent trip time of 1.56 s; this caters for the slowest downstream breaker opening
at 1.53 s. Thus, the Station Boards will be tripped at 1 s and at 1.5 s will be connected to the station
transformers busbar (the backup supply). Each station board was tripped separately, meaning
station board 1 was tripped at 1 s (in the simulation) for 1.5 s interruption and then reconnected to
the station transformer (backup source), while station board 2 remained connected to the even
number unit board. The same was done when station board 2 was tripped.
175
6.2.1 Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 is the FTS failed due to low inertia loads, thus, resulting in motors coasting down to
quick before a transfer can occur. To validate that the inertia of the common plant is too low for a
fast transfer or in-phase transfer to take place Station Board 1 will first be disconnected from the Unit
boards 1, 3 and 5 (which as discussed in chapter 4 is the odd units connected via a loop supply to
Station Board 1) at 1 s. After a period of 1.5 s (thus making the total elapsed time 2.5 s) Station
Board 1 will be connected to the backup source (the station transformer). During the time that Station
Board 1 is islanded data can be extracted from DigSilent™ to form the voltage-phase angle locus
graph (Figure 4 in chapter 2), and the motor bus transfer graph (shown in Figure 3 in chapter 2).
Figure 103 shows the voltage–-phase angle locus for Station Board 1 during a 1.5 s trip. The transfer
zones are also depicted in Figure 103, a fast transfer cannot take place for this system as the graph
shows a drop in the voltage and a change in phase angle that happens too fast. An in-phase transfer
can take place, as shown with the blue dashed rectangle in Figure 103, however, the spiral is moving
to the residual voltage zone before an in-phase transfer is possible. Meaning a residual voltage
transfer would be the best transfer method. Referring to Figure 102 the first opportunity for an in-
phase transfer occurs at 270 ms and if this opportunity is missed the next one is just before 500 ms,
however for the residual voltage transfer the first opportunity occurs just before 200 ms and it would
be recommended not exceed 598 ms, as both the new Beckwith system and the ABB SUE 3000
limit their residual voltage transfer to about 5% rated voltage [9] [18]. Otherwise, the device could
initiate a transfer to a dead bus, which could result in the tripping of circuit breakers as the motors
would need to be reaccelerated and this would result in the motors requiring high currents from the
backup source which would trip the relays. It is safer to systematically reaccelerate a certain group
of motors at a certain time, for example reaccelerating the two west auxiliary cooling pumps and then
moving on to the east auxiliary cooling pumps once the west auxiliary cooling pump motors are
running, in this way the system is not over-burdened. The window of opportunity for a residual voltage
transfer is still longer than that of an in-phase transfer making it 429 ms, which is longer than the
window of opportunity for an in-phase transfer, referring to Figure 102. Both an in-phase transfer and
a residual voltage transfer are possible, however, due to there being a longer window of opportunity
for a residual voltage transfer it might be best to only allow for the device to have one opportunity at
performing an in-phase transfer. The reason the curve spirals down so quickly is because the motors
and their loads mechanical inertia (stored energy) is very low, which validates the hypothesis of a
fast transfer not being possible due to low inertia loads. The low inertia makes it impossible to have
a successful fast transfer.
176
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
1
0.8
In-Phase Transfer Zone

0.6
Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
Residual Voltage Transfer Zone 300 ms

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
400 ms
-0.2 100 ms
200 ms
-0.4
Voltage (pu)
Figure 103: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s.
The spiral depicts how quickly the system winds down, however, it does not show how quickly the
voltage and phase-angle drop vs time when the Station Board 1 is tripped. Figure 104 depicts how
quickly the voltage and phase-angle drop once Station Board 1 is disconnected from the unit board.
The transfer zones are also depicted in Figure 104. Since it was shown in Figure 99 that a fast
transfer zone is not possible, the fast transfer zone is not illustrated in Figure 104. It can be seen
that as soon as the Station Board 1 is disconnected both the voltage drops to just below 0.7 pu and
the phase angle to below -20⁰ making it impossible to perform a fast transfer, and for this reason, a
fast transfer is not even considered in Figure 104. Similar in Figure 103, the in-phase transfer time
window occurs during the residual voltage-time window. However, in Figure 104, it can be seen that
the in-phase transfer only has a window of opportunity that lasts for about 17 ms. If Figure 101 is
considered for Station Board 1 it will be seen that the delta frequency at the time the in-phase transfer
can occur in Figure 104, is greater than the delta frequency limit of 4.5 Hz, thus, an in-phase transfer
will not be able to occur with the existing Beckwith system. In Figure 104 it can be seen more clearly
that the time window for the residual voltage transfer is initiated first. If the Beckwith system is
unsuccessful at executing an in-phase transfer there is at least an extended period that it can attempt
a residual voltage transfer. It would not be recommended to try to initiate a second attempt at an in-
phase transfer as the voltage has already dropped substantially (even though voltage is not
monitored for an in-phase transfer) it would be wiser to initiate a residual voltage transfer due to the
load-shedding contact.
177
205.00 1.05
190.00 1
175.00 0.95
160.00
145.00 0.9
130.00 0.85
115.00 0.8
100.00 0.75
85.00
70.00 0.7
55.00 0.65
40.00 In-Phase Transfer Zone
Voltage (pu)
Phase (Degrees)
0.6
25.00
10.00 1.270167; 14.69 0.55
-5.00 0.5
-20.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.45
-35.00 1.287167; -15.82
-50.00 0.4
-65.00 0.35
-80.00 1.169167; 0.298251 0.3
-95.00 0.25
-110.00
-125.00 0.2
-140.00 0.15
-155.00 0.1
-170.00
-185.00 1.558167; 0.040521 Residual Voltage Transfer Zone 0.05
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 104: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s
From Figure 103 it can be seen that the motors and their loads coast down too quickly for a fast
transfer and that the window period for the in-phase transfer occurs in the same window period for
the residual voltage transfer, this is due to the system’s low inertia, therefore, proving this hypothesis.
Station Board 2 has an identical setup to Station Board 1, thus, the voltage phase-angle locus spiral
down to zero. The motor bus transfer graph for Station Boards 2 trip (also a trip of 1.5 s) will be very
similar. To avoid repetition the voltage phase-angle locus spiral and motor bus transfer graph for
Station Board 2 will not be discussed but can be seen in Figure 105 and Figure 106.
178
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
0.8

0.6
Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
Residual Voltage Transfer Zone
400 ms 300 ms
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
200-0.2
ms 100 ms
-0.4
Voltage (pu)
Figure 105: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 2 for a trip of 1.5 s
205.00 1.05
190.00 1
175.00 0.95
160.00
145.00 0.9
130.00 0.85
115.00 0.8
100.00 0.75
85.00
70.00 0.7
55.00 0.65
Phase (Degrees)
40.00
Voltage (pu)
1.25; 15
0.6
10.00 0.55
-5.00 1.272167; -9.80 0.5
-20.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.45
-35.00
-50.00 0.4
-65.00 0.35
-80.00 0.3
-95.00 0.25
-110.00
-125.00 0.2
-140.00 0.15
-155.00 0.1
-170.00 Residual Voltage Transfer Zone
-185.00 1.600167; 0.034676 0.05
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 106: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a trip of 1.5 s
179
6.2.2 Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 is the Beckwith high-speed transfer system was not set correctly, thus, resulting in
motor bus transferring during incorrect conditions, which in the end resulted in the failure of the whole
FTS. It was already shown in Figure 99, Figure 100, Figure 103, and Figure 105 that a fast transfer
is not possible. For Station Board 1 Figure 104 showed the time window for when the Beckwith
system will perform an in-phase transfer, however, the delta frequency limit was exceeded and for
this reason the existing Beckwith system will not be able to perform an in-phase transfer. The delta
frequency limit of 4.5 Hz and the phase angle difference limit of ±15⁰ is used to determine when an
in-phase transfer should be performed, when both these conditions are not met then an in-phase
transfer will not be performed. The ±15⁰ was selected as a safety threshold for the in-phase transfer
because it is the value that Kendal set their phase angle limit to on the Beckwith system. The new
Beckwith system allows for a larger range for the delta frequency with 10 Hz being the highest
possible setting for the delta frequency, and they have a fixed phase angle difference of ±10⁰ for
these settings an in-phase transfer will be possible [18].
The only problem with the existing Beckwith settings is the range set for the in-phase transfer
settings, however, this limit prohibits an in-phase transfer from occurring, however, there is still an
opportunity for a residual voltage transfer and this was most likely not the cause for the incident in
2014.
6.2.3 Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 is the incorrect triggering events were used to trigger the Beckwith high-speed transfer
system, which in the end resulted in the failure of the complete FTS. As mentioned above the
triggering inputs for the transfers to take place are the positions of the circuit breakers connected to
the loop supplies and the PLCs. Should a fault occur and one of the circuit breakers in one of the
loop supplies open, the Beckwith system will initiate a motor bus transfer. However, these circuit
breakers are also connected as inputs to the PLC, so the PLC would also initiate a command to the
Beckwith system should the Beckwith for some reason not receive a signal from the circuit breakers.
All the voltage transducer inputs for the loop, backup supply, and station board busbar are connected
to the PLC and the synchronising relays. The voltage transformer is used to transform the backup
sources voltage to 110 V and this is connected as an input to the Beckwith relays so that the Beckwith
relays can monitor one of the phases of the backup source, the main source and the busbar being
transferred. The existing system at Kendal either tells the Beckwith system when the old source is
tripped or tells the Beckwith system through the PLC when to trip the old source. The change-over
relays which are used to configure the inputs and outputs of the Beckwith system are monitored by
the PLC, however, if they are not correctly monitored this could cause problems. The existing system
configuration (which was described above) appears to be monitoring the correct areas. However, by
180
only monitoring one phase for the backup supply, main supply, and motor bus could be problematic.
If the Beckwith system detects an earth fault on the motor busbar then the system will go into the
“Both Breakers” Lockout condition which would result in the system opening the incomer circuit
breaker from the main supply and prevent it from initiating a transfer. This could have occurred on
the day the event occurred in 2014.
6.2.4 Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 is the FTS failed due to hardware problems. These hardware problems could be due
to age and damage during the time of the system being in operation. As already mentioned this
hypothesis is difficult to prove. This Beckwith system was commissioned in 1996 making the device
18 years old in 2014. The two PLCs controlling the system are of the same age and are still in use
today. In the Eskom Multiple Unit Trip report, it was noted that both the circuit breakers connected
both loop supplies to Station Board 1 and 2 were opened [4]. It is not known what caused these
breakers to open. All that is known is that the Beckwith system failed to execute a transfer. It was
already stated that a transfer would not have been possible as the time for the first two transfer
methods was not set correctly. The only way to determine whether it was age or the incorrect set
points that caused the Beckwith system to fail that day would be to test the Beckwith system to see
if it still works, however, Kendal does not want to take that risk.
6.2.5 Limitations on the existing Beckwith system

The existing limitations on the Beckwith device at Kendal are:
 The device only measures one of the three phases’ voltage for the main source, backup
source, and busbar. Should a single-phase fault occur this could be problematic, for example,
if a phase-to-phase fault occurs the device could not detect it and recognize the need to
transfer, or if an earth fault occurs on the monitored phase then the device would not
recognize the two healthy phases and could initiate a transfer. Another limit to this is the
accuracy for measuring the delta frequency value, the new Beckwith device measures the
voltage of all three phases the accuracy of measuring delta frequency is ±0.1 Hz, whereas
by measuring only one of the voltages of the three phases the accuracy is ±0.4 Hz. The
three-phase measurements are therefore preferred and could mean the difference between
executing an in-phase transfer or not.
 The device does not measure current on either of the two supplies which prevents the device
from detecting any overcurrent conditions or loss of current conditions due to a fault on the
source or motor busbar.
 The range of the delta frequency for the in-phase transfer is also too small and should be
extended as the correct in-phase transfer window occurs at a delta frequency more than
5 Hz, thus, prohibiting an in-phase transfer from occurring in the existing Beckwith system.
181
6.2.6 Conclusion
Although the inertia of the common plant is low and the in-phase transfer limit was not set correctly,
the damage this would have caused would not have been that same as what occurred in 2014. It
would have been more likely that the Beckwith system picked up a fault on the motor busbar and as
the healthy phases were not connected to the system, it resulted in the system tripping the motor
busbar and deeming it not safe to transfer due to the fault occurring on this the one line. Furthermore,
the PLCs and relays in the fast transfer system are still operational today but have not worked in
more than 6 years and can therefore only be proven by testing the device. For this reason, the most
likely cause of the problem and incident in 2014 is hypothesis 1 and 2.
6.3 Motor bus transfer methods for the existing system

From Figure 103 to Figure 106 it is clear that for the existing common plant that only a residual
voltage transfer is possible. In this section, the three criteria used to determine if a motor bus transfer
method is safe to execute will be discussed, and the impact the transfer would have on the V/Hz pu
ratio, current, and motor torque will be analysed should a transfer take place.
6.3.1 Fast transfer

For a fast transfer, there are two transfer methods (sequential and simultaneous). The simultaneous
fast transfer is faster than the sequential fast transfer. Different high-speed motor bus transfer relays
have different time limits for their simultaneous and sequential fast transfers. ABB claims anywhere
from 20 ms for a simultaneous fast transfer to be initiated and Beckwith system claims anywhere
from 10 ms [9] [18]. To initiate a simultaneous fast transfer in DigSilent™ 50 ms will be used, as the
Beckwith system device at Kendal is slightly older than the two models mentioned above. Both
model’s catalogues were published in 2004 or 2005, where the Beckwith system at Kendal was
commissioned in 1996. For the sequential fast transfer, a time window of 200 ms will be used as this
is the time window used for the fast transfer in Kendal’s report [2]. Since Station Board 1 and 2 have
an identical setup, only one Station Board will be discussed in detail and then the graphs for the
second Station Board will be shown at the end of the section. Previously Station Board 1 was
discussed in detail so for this section Station Board 2 will be discussed in detail and the graphs for
Station Board 1 shown at the end of this section.
The first criteria to ensure the fast transfer does not damage the equipment is the V/Hz pu ratio,
although it was mentioned in chapter 2 that this method was not always proven helpful, it can still be
used as a tool to ensure that the fast transfer does not occur in a danger zone. If the V/Hz pu ratio
during the time window leading up to the fast transfer is higher than 1.33 V/Hz pu then a fast transfer
is not possible. In Figure 107 the V/Hz pu ratio leading up to the connection of the new source at 50
ms can be seen, as well as the V/Hz pu ratio after Station Board 2 is reconnected at 1.05 s. In Figure
182
107 it can be seen that the V/Hz pu ratio never exceeds 1.33 V/Hz pu and thus, it is safe for a
simultaneous fast transfer.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
The next criteria to analyse is the current. Nine boards on Station Board 2 side and nine boards on
Station Board 1 side each supply MV motors. Figure 108 shows the current vs time curves for each
of these nine boards supplied by Station Board 2. When Station Board 2 is connected to the Kuthalu
supply the current upon reclosure ranges from 2.4 pu to 3.8 pu. This high current will not cause the
protection relays to trip. This high current can cause high transient torque on the motors’ shafts which
could result in the damaging of the shafts.
183
4.5
4 3.8
3.5
Statation Service Board 1B
3 Station Service Board 2B
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board B

2.5
Terrace Coal Plant Board B
2
Coal Stockyard Board 1B
1.5 Coal Stockyard Board 2B

1
0.5 Stacker/ Reclaimer Board B
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 108: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 for a 50 ms trip
Six MV motors and their electrical and mechanical torque vs time graphs can be seen in Figure 109.
The service air compressor motor 2 is connected to the station service board 1B, the overland ash
conveyor is connected to the Ash Dump Board B, the East auxiliary cooling pump 3 is connected to
the station service board 2B, the incline conveyor T5B is connected to the Terrace Coal plant board
B, the boom conveyor is connected to the Stacker / Reclaimer board, and conveyor CS1B is
connected to the Coal Stockyard Board 4B. As can be seen in Figure 109 upon disconnection all
six motors, torque drops to just above -1 pu (this being the lowest value) and then once reconnected
increases to above 2 pu (this being the highest value). The torque values obtained from DigSilent ™
are RMS torque values, the transient torque values for each motor can be seen in Table 38.
As mentioned in chapter 2 when the motors are first disconnected there is a negative torque due to
the motors becoming generators, and when the motors are connected to the backup source there is
a possibility that the motors will experience a negative torque peak again due to the generation action
caused by rotation in the transient magnetic field of the motor [25]. The contributing factors to this
were found to be the magnitude of the motor bus voltage, the magnitude of the phase angle
difference between the new source and the motor bus, and the size of the total inertia. If the motors
in Figure 109 are to be considered it can be seen that all the motors have negative transient peaks.
At this point, the phase angle difference is about 305⁰ (as shown in Figure 106) and the motor bus
voltage is 0.5 pu. The system has low inertias as validated above, thus, high negative transient peaks
can be expected on all the motors.
184
Figure 109: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 2 during disconnection and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a trip of 50 ms
185
The rest of the motors and their transient torques, as well as which board they are connected to, can
be seen in Table 38. All the motors have a torque dip upon disconnection to near – 1 pu and upon
reconnection the torque increases to more than 2 pu. The transient torques range from 2.5 pu to
3.36 pu. This reversal in torque direction can cause problems for the motor shafts and couplings.
Although no standard gives a guideline to an acceptable transient torque magnitude, ANSI C50.41
states that transient torques can range from 2 pu to 20 pu and that all transient torque values should
be avoided as far as possible to prevent the shortening of the motors’ shaft and loads life expectancy
[24]. In 2007 Cavaroc did studies on motors and worse-case transient torques and currents, and the
damage they can cause to the motor and its load. In this study, he used three motors of different
ratings (10 hp, 50 hp, 75 hp) and from these studies, he found that although the transient torques
were high and in some cases exceeded 20 pu they did not cause excessive damage to the motors
after running 10 000 tests [24]. There was only slight deformation on the shaft of the 50 hp and 75
hp motor and he suspected it was due to the continuous tests and not the transients, however, he
did state that no industry loads were used during testing, only a flywheel device for inertia and a
power absorption unit for the load [24]. Although Cavaroc’s studies show that motors and their shafts
can handle higher transient torques for longer periods, his test did not consider motors and the loads
found in industry and for this reason, the best way to judge if it is in the motors best interest to do a
transfer would be by considering the standards set out by the ANSI C50.41 standard.
Each transfer method and the magnitude of the RMS transient torque will be considered and a
recommendation of the best transfer method will be based on which method obtains the lowest
transient torque. As each transient torque, in the long run, will affect the life expectancy of the motor
and its shaft, the method that limits this effect would be the best method to use when a motor bus
transfer must be executed.
186
Table 38: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 2 during disconnection and reconnection of
Station Board 2 for a 50 ms trip
3.3 kV Station Service Board 1B

Torque Dip Torque Peak Transient Torque
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
West auxiliary cooling pump 3 -0.91 2.03 2.50
Service Air Compressor 2 -1.09 2.57 3.33
3.3 kV Ash Dump Board B
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
Overland Ash Conveyor 2A -1.28 2.45 3.32
Overland Ash Conveyor 2B -1.28 2.45 3.32
Standby Extendable Ash Conveyor B -1.27 2.7 3.36
Shiftable Ash Conveyor A -1.12 2.5 3.15
Shiftable Ash Conveyor B -1.12 2.5 3.15
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
East Auxiliary Cooling Pump 3 -1.03 2.23 2.88
3.3 kV Terrace Coal Plant B
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
Conveyor T1B -1.03 2.31 2.63
T5B Incline Conveyor -0.99 2.38 2.99
T5D Incline Conveyor -0.99 2.39 2.99
T5F Incline Conveyor -0.99 2.39 2.99
3.3 kV Coal Stockyard Board 3B
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
Conveyor S1B Drive 1 -0.87 2.16 2.65
Conveyor S2B -0.87 2.2 2.69
Conveyor S4B -0.86 2.14 2.76
187

Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
3.3 kV Stacker Reclaimer Board B
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
Intermediate Conveyor -0.92 2.68 2.72
Boom Conveyor -0.91 2.69 2.72
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
CS1B Conveyor -0.92 2.41 3.01
Motor Name
(pu) (pu) (pu)
CS2B Conveyor -1.35 2.09 2.98
S8B Conveyor -1.37 2.25 2.74
As already mentioned for a sequential fast transfer a trip of 200 ms will be initiated in DigSilent™.
The V/Hz pu ratio vs time for Station Board 2 can be seen in Figure 110. The red line in Figure 110
represents the 1.33 V/Hz pu limit set out by the IEEE standard. The only time 1.33 V/Hz pu is
exceeded is between 1.127 s and 1.167 s. During this time a sequential fast transfer would not be
safe according to the standard, but this time is very short and the exceedance is small.
188
1.4
1,127; 1,33 1,167; 1,33

1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 111 shows the current on the motors’ busbars during the 200 ms trip of Station Board 2. It
can be seen that the lowest current value on a busbar (Stacker / Reclaimer Busbar B) is 3.695 pu
and the highest current value on a busbar is 6.605 pu (Ash Dump Busbar B). The lowest value for
the Stacker / Reclaimer is the current after 10 ms of being reconnected to the Station Transformer
Board. Depending on the settings selected for the motor relay, which was discussed in chapter 2,
the currents that are greater than 5 pu could cause the motors’ relay to trip if only the low range step
is selected for the relay. The low range step allows for a motor current between 2 pu to 5 pu for a
delay time of 0.1 to 1 s, and the high range step allows the current to be set between 4 pu to 8 pu,
with a built-in fixed delay of 50 ms to prevent the motor from tripping at faults in the source’s network
when the motor supplies current to the fault location. However, if the high range step is selected the
motors’ relay should not trip. The boards that will be tripped should the high range step not be
selected are:
 Station Service Board 2B

 Ash Dump B
 Terrace Coal Plant B
 Coal Stockyard 1B
 Coal Stockyard 2B
Although most of these boards are used to supply conveyor motors, the station service board 2B will
create a problem if it trips as it supplies the east auxiliary cooling units, which supplies cooling to the
189
generators. Thus, the sequential fast transfer could create a trip which could result in multiple units
tripping.
7
6,62
5 Statation Service Board 1B

Station Service Board 2B
Current (pu)
4 Ash Dump Board B

3 Coal Stockyard Board 1B
1 Stacker/ Reclaimer Board B
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
The maximum torque for the six MV motors upon reconnection is lower than the maximum torque
during the simultaneous fast transfer simulated by causing a 50 ms trip as can be seen in Figure
112. However, the torque does dip twice, once upon disconnection and a second time upon
reconnection. Although these values have maximum peaks of less than 2.5 pu and minimum peaks
just a little bit less than –1 pu, with the exception of the Overland Ash Conveyor. The magnitude of
the transient torque is greater than the transient torques experienced during a simultaneous fast
transfer (with the exception of the Overland Ash Conveyor) as can be seen in Table 39.
190
Table 39 shows the minimum torque dip and maximum peak, as well as the transient torque during
the disconnection and reconnection of Station Board 2 for a 200 ms trip. The highest RMS transient
torque is 4.01 pu and the lowest transient torque is 2.76 pu. If this is compared with the simultaneous
fast transfer it can be seen that in a period of 150 ms the transient torque increased by 0.65 pu. All
the motors had two torque dips as shown for the six motors in Figure 112. The simultaneous fast
transfer results in lower transient torque value. For this reason, this method would be better for the
motors. However, the voltage and phase angle decays too quick for a simultaneous and sequential
fast transfer (as shown in Figure 105 and Figure 106) and do not even lie within the limits set on the
Beckwith relays. For this reason these two fast transfer methods will not be possible.
From the studies discussed in chapter 2 on negative transient torque peaks it was found that the
inertia, phase-angle difference, and the voltage magnitude effects the magnitude of the peak. The
inertia of most of the loads is around the same value, most of them have an inertia constant around
2 s. Thus, the main difference between the motors will be seen in the phase angle difference and
voltage magnitude. The motors shown in Figure 112 have higher negative transient torque peaks
upon reconnection for a sequential fast transfer than for a simultaneous fast transfer, this is because
the phase angle difference during this transfer is around 129⁰. The motor bus voltage during this
instant is only 0.26 pu however, the huge magnitude in the phase angle difference causes higher
negative transient torque peak values during the transfer.
191
192

Motor Name Torque Dip (pu) Torque Peak (pu) Transient Torque (pu)
Conveyor T1B -1.55 1.57 3.11
Conveyor S2B -1.53 1.64 3.17
Conveyor S4B -1.62 1.83 3.46
193

CS1B Conveyor -1.76 1.95 3.72
CS2B Conveyor -1.59 1.82 3.41
S8B Conveyor -1.49 1.28 2.76
Similar conclusions were made for Station Board 1 when a 50 ms trip was applied. Although the
V/Hz pu ratio did spike upon reconnection as seen in Figure 113, it did not exceed the 1.33 V/Hz pu
thus, making a simultaneous fast transfer safe to perform.
0.9
0.8
0.7
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
The same was seen with the current on the busbars that supplied the motors (Figure 114), once
Station Board 1 was reconnected the current upon reconnection ranged from around 2.4 pu to 3.6
pu. This would not cause a trip on the relays used for the motors, and thus makes a simultaneous
fast transfer safe.
194
4
3.62
3.5
3
Statation Service Board 1A
Station Service Board 2A
2.5
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board A

2 Terrace Coal Plant Board A
Coal Stockyard Board 1A
1.5
1
0.5 Stacker/ Reclaimer Board A
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 115 and Table 40 show the similar magnitude currents for the motors supplied by Station
Board 1 as those supplied by Station Board 2. The minimum values during the torque drop are
around -1 pu and the maximum values of the torque during the peak when the Station Board is
connected to the backup source was around 2 pu. The transient torque for the motors can be seen
in Table 40. The transient torque for the motors connected to Station Board 1 is lower than the
motor’s transient torque when connected to Station Board 2, as the highest transient torque is 3.31
pu and the lowest is 2.11 pu. The magnitude of these transient torques will be compared with other
transfer methods transient torques as mentioned above to see which method obtains the lowest
transient torque and therefore is the safest method.
195
196

West Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 -0.73 1.84 2.26
Turbine Forced Air Cooling Compressor -0.55 1.74 2.11
Standby Extendable Ash Conveyor A -1.25 2.69 3.31
Standby Shiftable Ash Conveyor A -1.25 2.69 3.31
Standby Shiftable Ash Conveyor B -1.25 2.69 3.31
Conveyor T1A -1.08 2.39 2.71
T5A Incline Conveyor -1.04 2.46 3.07
T5C Incline Conveyor -1.04 2.46 3.07
T5E Incline Conveyor -1.04 2.46 3.07
Conveyor S1A Drive 1 -0.89 2.20 2.69
Conveyor S2A -0.89 2.23 2.72
Conveyor S4A -0.94 2.04 2.76
197

CS1A Conveyor -0.83 2.39 2.93
CS2A Conveyor -1.30 2.04 2.89
S8A Conveyor -1.31 2.20 2.66
For a sequential fast transfer, a fast transfer is not possible between 1.133 s and 1.174 s as Station
Board 1 exceeds the 1.33 V/Hz pu limit for a brief moment and only slightly as is shown in Figure
116.
1.4
1,133; 1.33 1,174; 1.33

1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
198
For Station Board 1 more currents exceed the 5 pu limit should only a low range step be enabled on
the motor protection relays as shown in Figure 117. The boards that could be tripped, should a low
range step be enabled are:
 Station Service Board 2A

 Ash Dump A
 Terrace Coal Plant 2
 Coal Stockyard 1A
This will only leave two busbars operational, and the Station Service Board 2A carriers a critical load,
thus, a sequential fast transfer is not recommended.
7
6.48
5 Statation Service Board 1A

Current (pu)
4 Ash Dump Board A

Terrace Coal Plant Board A
3 Coal Stockyard Board 1A
2 Coal Stockyard Board 3A
1 Stacker/ Reclaimer Board A
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
The motors’ torque characteristics for the sequential fast transfer of Station Board 1 are similar to
those motors connected to Station Board 2 as shown in Figure 118 and Table 41. Similar to Station
Board 2 the results of the sequential fast transfer has transient torques of greater magnitude than
the simultaneous fast transfer, with the highest magnitude being 3.9 pu. Thus, if a fast transfer were
possible (the voltage and phase angle were within the limits) a simultaneous fast transfer would be
more desirable than a sequential fast transfer.
199
200

Conveyor T1A -1.53 1.61 3.15
Conveyor S2A -1.50 1.67 3.17
Conveyor S4A -1.51 1.78 3.30
201

CS1A Conveyor -1.61 1.98 3.59
CS2A Conveyor -1.44 1.78 3.22
S8A Conveyor -1.37 1.24 2.61
6.3.2 In-phase transfer

The time window for an in-phase transfer for Station Board 1 is between 1.27 s to 1.28 s as shown
in Figure 104, and the in-phase transfer for Station Board 2 is between 1.25 s to 1.272s. Therefore,
a period of 270 ms will be used to simulate an in-phase transfer in DigSilent™ to determine if the
three criteria can be met for an in-phase transfer. Since Station Board 2 was discussed in detail for
the fast transfer, Station Board 1 will be discussed in detail for the in-phase transfer with only a brief
discussion on Station Board 2 at the end of the section due to the similarities.
The V/Hz pu ratio as a function of time for the in-phase transfer can be seen below in Figure 119,
the blue block in Figure 119 is the time window for an in-phase transfer. The highest V/Hz pu ratio
for an in-phase transfer is just above 0.8 pu. Thus, an in-phase transfer is possible as it does not
exceed the limit of 1.33 V/Hz pu.
202
1.4
1,174; 1.33
1,133; 1.33
1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
The next criteria is the currents. The current for the nine boards supplying the MV motors via Station
Board 1 is shown in Figure 120. The highest current is 3.96 pu on the Ash Dump board, this value
is lower than the magnitudes of the currents experienced during the sequential fast transfer.
However, the highest current magnitude for the simultaneous fast transfer is 3.6 pu. This value is
only slightly smaller than the currents experienced during an in-phase transfer. The in-phase
transfers current will not cause any of the motors relays to trip.
4.5
3.96
4
3.5
3 Station Service Board 2A
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board A

2.5
2
1.5 Coal Stockyard Board 2A
1
0.5
Stacker/ Reclaimer Board A
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
203
Due to the voltage being low and the difference in-phase angle between the new source and Station
Board 1 small, the transient torques during the in-phase transfer can be expected to be smaller than
that of the fast transfer transient torques (the low voltage and phase angle at 270 ms is illustrated in
Figure 104). Figure 121 shows the torque vs time curves for six MV motors connected to Station
Board 1. Similar to the sequential transfer there are also two dips, however, the maximum torque
upon reconnection is less than the motors shown in Figure 118 (the sequential fast transfer
reconnection). The transient torque of most of the motors in Figure 118 were either close to 2 pu or
was just below 2 pu, whereas Figure 121 shows the motors’ torque vary between 1 pu and 2 pu,
except for the East Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 motor. If the torque vs time curves for the simultaneous
fast transfer is considered in Figure 115, all six motors have maximum peaks above 2 pu. The
transient torque for the motors connected to Station Board 1 can be seen in Table 42. The maximum
transient torque for the in-phase transfer is 2.99 pu. This is lower than both the sequential (3.9 pu)
and simultaneous (3.31) fast transfer. Therefore, an in-phase transfer would be better as it would
cause less damage to the motor shafts in the long run.
Only the top three motors have a negative transient torque peak for an in-phase transfer. If we are
to consider the phase angle and the voltage of the nine busbars supplying the motors, then we can
better understand why this is the case. Figure 122 shows the voltage during an in-phase transfer
for the nine busbars supplying the motors, and Figure 123 shows the voltage phase angle for the
nine busbars supplying the motors.
As shown in Figure 122 the boards with the lowest voltages are the Station Service Board 1A, the
Ash Dump Board A, and the Station Service Board 2A. In Figure 123 these boards are also the
boards with the closest phase angle to 30 ⁰, these three boards also supply the top three motors in
Figure 121. It can be deduced that these three boards experience higher negative transient torque
peaks because of the low voltage and nearly in-phase angle. As mentioned in chapter 2 Flynn and
Wood found that motors with less voltage and smaller phase angles result in the motor bus voltage
opposing the supplies’ voltage [23]. The bottom three motors in Figure 121 are supplied by the
Stacker Reclaimer Board 1, Coal Stockyard Board 4A, and the Terrace Coal Plant Board A. The
voltage for the Stacker Reclaimer Board 1 and Coal Stockyard Board 4A is slightly higher and slightly
more out of phase than the three boards mentioned above and for this reason, it seems the first two
bottom motors in Figure 121 do not go into the negative transient torque zone. However, the Terrace
Coal Plant Board is the fourth board with the lowest voltage and closest phase angle and for this
reason, it seems the third motor at the bottom row in Figure 121 goes into the negative transient
torque zone slightly.
204
205
Figure 122: The voltage of the nine busbars before an in-phase transfer
206
Figure 123: The voltage phase angle of the nine busbars before an in-phase transfer
207

Conveyor T1A -1.08 1.61 1.83
Conveyor S2A -0.89 1.58 1.76
Conveyor S4A -0.94 1.69 1.98
208

CS1A Conveyor -0.83 1.66 1.55
CS2A Conveyor -1.30 1.73 2.21
S8A Conveyor -1.31 1.26 1.69
The V/Hz pu ratio vs time for Station Board 2 can be seen in Figure 124, similar to Figure 119 the
blue block represents the time window for the in-phase transfer. The highest V/Hz pu value for
Station Board 2 during the in-phase transfer is just above 0.8, which makes it safe to do the transfer.
1.4
1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 (s)
Time 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
The current for the boards supplying the MV motors via Station Board 2 can be seen in Figure 125.
The highest current value is 4.52 pu, this is lower than the sequential fast transfer where the highest
current value is 6.61 pu, but lower than the highest current value for the simultaneous transfer which
is 3.8 pu. This current value, however, will not cause the relay to trip.
209
5
4.52
4.5
4
3.5
3
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board B

2.5 Terrace Coal Plant Board B
2
1.5
Stacker/ Reclaimer Board B
0.5
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 126 shows the torque vs time curves for six MV motors connected to Station Board 1. The
motors in Figure 126 have maximum torque values just below 2 pu (except for the East Auxiliary
Cooling Pump 3 motor) or just above 2 pu, where most of the motors in Figure 112 were near 2 pu.
The maximum torque values for the torque vs time curves for the simultaneous fast transfer are
considered in Figure 112, where the six motors have maximum peaks above 2 pu. Table 43 contains
the transient torque values for the motors connected to Station Board 2, the maximum transient
torque for the in-phase transfer is 2.49 pu. This is lower than both the sequential (4.01 pu) and
simultaneous (3.36 pu) fast transfer. Therefore, just like Station Board 1, an in-phase transfer would
be better as it would cause less damage to the motors shaft in the long run.
The same reasoning can be applied for the negative transient torque peaks shown for the six motors
shown in Figure 126, the nine boards yielded similar results to those shown and discussed in detail
for Station Board 1.
210
211

Motor Name (pu) (pu) (pu)
Conveyor T1B -1.03 1.52 1.64
Conveyor S2B -0.87 1.49 1.61
Conveyor S4B -0.86 1.59 1.68
212

CS1B Conveyor -0.92 1.52 1.59
CS2B Conveyor -1.35 1.71 1.93
S8B Conveyor -1.37 1.26 1.45
6.3.3 Residual voltage transfer

The residual voltage-time window for both Station Board 1 and 2 is from 1.16 s until 1.598 s as
shown in both Figure 104 and Figure 106. However, since the in-phase transfer falls within the
residual voltage-time window, it would be recommended to determine if an in-phase transfer can be
given only one opportunity, and then set the residual voltage transfer so that it can be carried out
after an attempt is made to initiate the in-phase transfers and this transfer is unsuccessful. This
means that the residual voltage-time window should start after 1.28 s for Station Board 2 and 1.29 s
for Station Board 1. Residual voltage transfers can often result in high transient torques due to the
phase angle difference, as the residual voltage settings do not monitor the magnitude of the phase
angle [23]. For this reason, the two Station Boards will not be reconnected at a certain time interval,
but instead at a time interval after the time window for the delayed in-phase transfer has passed,
and where the phase angle is the most out of phase with the backup supply. It would have been of
interest to reconnect the Station Board at a voltage magnitude of 0.3 pu at a high phase difference.
After the in-phase transfer time window the voltage has already decayed to below 0.18 pu, however,
213
the busbar and the backup source have a small phase difference so looking at the transient torque
at this point would not reflect the worst-case scenario. This is why for the residual voltage transfer
Station Board 1 is only connected to the backup source after 370 ms, as the phase angle difference
is 180⁰ and the voltage is 0.115 pu. Station Board 2 is connected to the backup source after 350 ms,
as the phase angle difference here is 180⁰ and the voltage is 0.122 pu. The worst-case scenario for
a residual voltage transfer is analysed here, in order to determine if the V/Hz pu ratio, current, and
transient torque is low enough to consider the residual voltage transfer safe.
The V/Hz pu ratio as a function of time for Station Board 1 can be seen in Figure 127. After 300 ms
the V/Hz pu ratio is within acceptable limits to perform a residual voltage transfer.
1.4
1,133; 1.33 1,174; 1.33

1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Time (s)
The current for the nine boards can be seen in Figure 128. The highest current value is 5.947 pu for
the Ash Dump Board A, this value is higher than the current value obtained for a simultaneous fast
transfer and in-phase transfer. The boards with current values higher than 5 pu could trip the motors
relay should the low step range of the relay be active. The boards that could be tripped are:
 Station Service Board 2A

 Ash Dump Board A
This could cause a problem as Station Service Board 2A carries a critical load.
214
5.95
6
5
4
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board A

3
2
1 Stacker/ Reclaimer Board A
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 129 shows the torque vs speed curve for six motors supplied by Station Board 1 via other
boards. The magnitude of the torque peak upon reconnection is smaller than the other two motor
bus transfer methods discussed above. However, the motors at the coal stockyard and terrace coal
plant (the bottom three motors in Figure 129) have two distinct positive peaks, with the second
positive torque peak for the Boom Conveyor and Conveyor CS1 bigger than initial positive peak.
However, for the other motors the second peak is not as distinct and it is lower than the initial peak.
The transient torque for all the motors supplied by Station Board 1 can be seen in Table 44. The
maximum transient torque is 2.05 pu, thus, the residual voltage transfer results in the lowest transient
torque for Station Board 1, however, the V/Hz pu ratio and current magnitude for this method are the
highest and the impact the current has on the system will also need to be considered.
For the results for the residual voltage transfer, the three motors at the top of Figure 129 are slightly
in the negative torque side. In Figure 130 the voltage of the nine busbars supplying the motors and
in Figure 131 the voltage phase angle of these busbars it was seen that the lowest voltages occur
at the Station Service Board 1A, Ash Dump A, and the Station Service Board 2A. The phase-angle
is shown in Figure 131. The voltage phase-angle for this section is fairly close in value for most of
the boards, however, the lower voltage for the three boards mentioned above resulted in a smaller
negative transient torque peak for the top three motors shown in Figure 129. The bottom motors in
Figure 129, are supplied by the Stacker Reclaimer Board 1, Coal Stockyard Board 4A, and the
Terrace Coal Plant Board A. If the voltage and phase angle for the CS1A Conveyor motor is
215
considered in Figure 130 and Figure 131, then it can be seen that the largest voltage and phase-
angle occurs at the Coal Stockyard Board 4A, it would therefore be expected that the greatest
negative transient torque peak would occur at this motor which it does as shown in Figure 129. The
voltage values at the Stacker Reclaimer Board 1 and the Terrace Coal Plant Board A are slightly
higher than the voltage values for the Station Service Board 1A, Ash Dump A, and the Station Service
Board 2A, and for this reason, the first and last motor at the bottom of Figure 129 have higher
negative transient torques than the three top motors in Figure 129.
216
217
Figure 130: The voltage of the nine busbars before a residual voltage transfer
218
Figure 131: The voltage phase-angle of the nine busbars before a residual voltage transfer
219

Conveyor T1A -1.08 1.60 1.72
Conveyor S2A -0.89 1.40 1.55
Conveyor S4A -0.94 1.45 1.55
220

CS1A Conveyor -0.83 1.43 1.80
CS2A Conveyor -1.30 1.54 1.66
S8A Conveyor -1.31 1.27 1.38
For Station Board 2 the board is only connected to the backup source after 350 ms. The V/Hz pu
ratio for the period that Station Board 2 is disconnected and then connected to the backup source
can be seen in Figure 132. Similar to Station Board 1 this is the highest V/Hz pu ratio value upon
connecting the board, however, it is still below 1.33 V/Hz pu making it acceptable to initiate a transfer
at this time.
1.4
1.126167; 1.33 1.165167; 1.33

1.2
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 (s)
Time 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Figure 132: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 2 for a 350 ms trip
221
Figure 133 shows the current for the nine boards supplying the MV motors via Station Board 2. The
highest current magnitude is 5.434 pu at Ash Dump Board B, this is higher than the current
experienced during an in-phase transfer and the simultaneous fast transfer. As already mentioned
above for Station Board 1 if the low range step on the motors relays is activated then the boards that
have currents greater than 5 pu will most likely trip, the boards are:
 Station Service Board 2B

 Ash Dump B
 Terrace Coal Plant B
 Coal Stockyard Board 2B
Although the three of the four boards only supply conveyor motors, Station Service Board 2B
supplies the east auxiliary cooling pumps, which supply cooling to the generator. Thus, the trip of
this board could cause the generators at the units to trip which would then result in multiple units
tripping.
6
5.43

4
Ash Dump Board B
Current (pu)

1
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
-1
Time (s)
222
The torque vs speed curves for six motors supplied by Station Board 1 via other boards is shown in
Figure 134. Similar to Station Board 1, Station Board 2 also has lower magnitudes for the torque
peak upon reconnection, and the coal stockyard motors and terrace coal plant motors have two
distinct peaks (the bottom three motors in Figure 134). The second peak for the bottom first two
motors is greater than the initial peak, however, the overall magnitude is not large and the maximum
transient torque still occurs upon reconnection. Table 45 contains the transient torque for all the
motors supplied by Station Board 2. The maximum transient torque is 2.17 pu, thus, the residual
voltage transfer results in the lowest transient torque for Station Board 2 as well, however, the V/Hz
pu ratio and current magnitude for this method are the highest and the impact the current has on the
system will also need to be considered.
The same conclusions that were made for the six motors for Station Board 1 in Figure 129 for a
residual voltage transfer can be deduced for the negative transient torque peaks shown in Figure
134, as the nine boards that supply the six motors shown in Figure 134 yield identical results to those
obtained for the nine boards supplying the motors via Station Board 1.
223
224

Conveyor T1B -1.03 1.54 1.66
Conveyor S2B -0.87 1.36 1.48
Conveyor S4B -0.86 1.45 1.62
225

CS1B Conveyor -0.92 1.39 1.78
CS2B Conveyor -1.35 1.56 1.79
S8B Conveyor -1.37 1.29 1.47
6.3.4 Findings
Since a fast transfer is not possible because the voltage and phase angle is not within the set limits,
the results obtained from the sequential and simultaneous fast transfer will not be discussed. The
two possible motor bus transfer methods for this system are a delayed in-phase transfer and residual
voltage transfer. The best transfer for the system is a residual voltage transfer as it results in low
transient torques, although the in-phase transfer has significantly lower values for the V/Hz pu ratio
and current, most of the motors in the common plant can withstand 6 pu current during starting, and
the greatest current magnitude for residual voltage transfer is on Station Board 1 at 5.55 pu for less
than 5 ms. This should not cause too much damage to the motor if it can withstand 6 pu during
starting. However, the long term effects the transient torque might have on the motor is not certain
and for this reason, a residual voltage transfer would be better as it results in smaller transient
torques. This could result in extending the motors shaft and couplings life. However, an in-phase
transfer cannot completely be ruled out as it is best to give the system two opportunities to initiate a
transfer than one, and for this reason, an in-phase transfer should also be considered by the system.
226
Due to the in-phase transfer having such a short time window for the first opportunity, and with the
next opportunity only presenting itself when the voltage is less than 0.1 pu the device should be set
such that only one opportunity is allowed for an in-phase transfer. Thus, the new device or existing
device must be set to only attempt an in-phase transfer once and should it not succeed it should
then focus on a residual voltage transfer. It must also be ensured that the high step range on the
motors relays is enabled or upgraded for a residual voltage transfer, as the high current upon
connecting the Station Board with the backup source could result in the tripping of a critical load.
Another consideration for Kendal is a fixed time transfer. The new Beckwith device has a setting that
allows for a fixed time transfer, this transfer is possible in case it is not possible to monitor the bus
voltage [8]. The fixed time transfer is only enabled after a set delayed time and is only dependant on
time as it does not consider the phase angle, frequency or voltage during this transfer [8]. A load
shedding option can be enabled to shed non-critical loads during this transfer [8]. It would be
beneficial for Kendal to consider this method of transfer in case the device fails to execute an in-
phase or residual voltage transfer, this type of transfer can be set to take place maybe after the
voltage is below 0.3 pu and can form part of a motor reacceleration program, as was discussed in
chapter 2 under the heading “Bases for load-shedding”.
6.4 Events triggering a motor bus transfer

From the above two sections, the three motor bus transfer methods were analysed and it was found
that only an in-phase and residual voltage transfer are possible for the existing system. However, in
the above simulation, both Station Board 1 and 2 were just disconnected from the unit board and
after a certain period elapsed reconnected to the station transformer (backup source). The events
that could trigger the Motor Bus Transfer device is:
 A loss of supply  A fault on the feeder cables to the

 A fault on the unit board (earth fault, three Station Boards or even the cables
phase) before that (earth fault, three phase)
 A fault on the unit transformer (earth fault,  A Buchholz trip on the transformer
three phase)  A unit generators protection trips
The loss of voltage will not always be the reason as to why a motor bus transfer is initiated, and a
loss of supply is probably one of the least damaging events that could occur when a motor bus
transfer is initiated. In this section, the effect of earth faults, three-phase faults on the unit board and
transformer, as well as a Buchholz trips on transformers will be investigated and the safety of a motor
bus transfer during these conditions analysed. Other trip signals, e.g. the bus zone protection of the
generator, turbine and instrumentation trips, and other transformer trips will have similar effects on
the Station Boards.The simulations here will be set out differently from previous simulations, the fault
will occur and after 100 ms of the fault occurring the Station Board will be disconnected from the Unit
227
board and the transfer will commence. The 100 ms delay is there to allow for relay and breaker
tripping times and for the Beckwith system to receive the trip signal and act upon it. Although the
power system at Kendal is large, the three main areas that will be focused on for this study will be
the Unit Board that supplies the Station Board, and the Unit transformer connected to the Unit Board.
6.4.1 Faults on Unit Board busbar

The Unit Board is the board that suplies the Station Board through the loop supply as mentioned
previously. Units 1, 3, and 5 supply Station Board 1 through the loop supply and Units 2, 4 and 6
feed Station Board 2 through the loop supply. In this section the impact of two types of faults will
have in initiating the motor bus transfer system will be studied. The fault will occur on either Unit
Board 1, 3 and 5 or Unit 2, 4 and 6 and after 100 ms the Station Board will be tripped from the Unit
Board’s supply and after the correct time window, the Station Board will be reconnected via an in-
phase or residual voltage transfer, as these were the only two possible transfers as discussed in the
above two sections. Other non-arcing faults will have similar effects as discussed previously and will
not be repeated.
6.4.1.1 Three-phase faults on Unit Board

The three-phase fault on the Unit Board could be due to a three-phase fault on the low voltage side
of the transformer, three-phase faults on a cable, or due to the fault occurring somewhere on the
board or upstream of the board. For Station Board 1 a three-phase fault occurs at 1 s on Unit Board
1, 3 or 5 and after 100 ms (i.e. at 1.1 s) the switch between the Unit Board 1, 3 or 5 and the Station
Board 1 is opened. The voltage and phase angle for Station Board 1 as a function of time can be
seen in Figure 135, note that for the in-phase transfer a phase angle limit of ±30⁰ is used, as this is
the maximum angular limit for an in-phase transfer. From Figure 135 it can be seen that the voltage
is very low and that the period for a residual voltage transfer happens just before the in-phase
transfer and starts from the time the Station Board is disconnected and ends after 100 ms. The time
window for an in-phase transfer is still 30 ms and occurs in the residual voltage-time frame. This
changes the sequence of events as the Beckwith relays will first have to try to perform a residual
voltage transfer and then an in-phase transfer. If this is not successful, this goes to show that setting
the residual voltage transfer that it is only initiated after the fast transfer and in-phase transfer would
be incorrect as the residual voltage transfer occurs before the in-phase transfer if there is a three-
phase fault on the unit board. Although the existing Beckwith system does not allow the user to
defined a minimum voltage for an in-phase transfer, it would be wise to invest in a new device that
has this feature. The residual voltage transfer is the better option since it results in lower transient
torque than the in-phase transfer as shown above.
228
300.00 1
250.00 0.9
200.00 0.8
150.00 0.7
Phase Angle (Degrees)
100.00 0.6
Voltage (pu)
50.00 0.5
1.283167; 28.47
0.00 0.4
1.1 1.3 1.316167;
1.5-27.58 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
-50.00 0.3
-100.00 0.2
-150.00 1.193167; 0.102468 0.1
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 135: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a three-phase fault on the unit Board and a trip of 1.5 s
For Station Board 1 a residual voltage transfer will be simulated in DigSilent™ by connecting the
Station Board 1 to the backup supply at 1.18 s (i.e. after 80 ms of being tripped), as this is when the
phase angle difference is at 180⁰ and the voltage at 0.109 pu (this is the worst-case scenario for a
residual voltage transfer). The in-phase transfer for Station Board 1 will be simulated in DigSilent™
by connecting the Station Board 1 to the backup supply at 1.31 s (i.e. after 210 ms of being tripped).
The V/Hz pu ratio shown in Figure 136 is 1.12 pu upon reconnection, although it is high it is not
above the 1.33 V/Hz pu limit. The current magnitude of the nine boards used to supply the MV motors
via Station Board 1 can be seen in Figure 136. In Figure 136 there are two current peaks, once
during the three-phase fault on the Unit Board and a second time upon connecting the Station Board
to the backup supply. The motor relays will need to have the low-step range deactivated as the
Station Service Board 2A and the Ash Dump Board A both have current magnitudes above 5 pu,
which could cause the motor relays to trip before the transfer is even initiated. Upon connecting the
Station Board 1 to the backup source the Coal Stockyard Board 4A will also trip as its current
magnitude upon connecting Station Board 1 to the backup supply is greater than 5 pu.
229
1.4
1.2
1.18; 1.11547979
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.37; 0.002786299
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Time (s)
Figure 136: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board
1, 3 and 5, and a delay of 80 ms
6
5.729866
5.545817
5
4
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board A

3
2
1
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 137: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1,
3 and 5, and a delay of 80 ms
230
The torque vs time curves for six of the MV motors can be seen in Figure 138. When the three-phase
fault occurs the torque of the motors dips to below -1 pu in some cases, this is due to the fault.
However, the magnitude of the motors’ torque peaks upon connecting Station Board 1 to the backup
source is relatively small as they all lie below 2 pu, thus, a small transient torque can be expected
upon reclosure as the largest transient torque occurred when the fault occurred. Table 46 shows
the transient torque for all the motors supplied by Station Board 1, the maximum transient torque
upon reconnection is 1.88 pu. Although the transient torque is small and the current and V/Hz pu
ratio magnitudes are not too severe, performing a residual voltage transfer under these fault
conditions might be impossible as the residual voltage-time period falls well within the fixed period
for the fast transfer, while the existing Beckwith system at Kendal recognizes low inertia loads and
allows the system to initiate a residual voltage transfer from when the trip command is sent [59].
231
Figure 138: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1, 3 and 5, and a trip of 80 ms
232
Table 46: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1, 3
and 5, and a delay of 80 ms

Conveyor T1A -1.60 1.42 1.42
Conveyor S2A -1.20 1.47 0.37
Conveyor S4A -1.20 1.53 0.61
233

CS1A Conveyor -0.69 1.60 0.64
CS2A Conveyor -1.30 1.31 0.76
S8A Conveyor -1.57 0.98 0.28
The V/Hz pu ratio magnitude upon connecting the Station Board 1 to the backup source is 0.93 pu
which is significantly lower than the residual voltage transfers V/Hz pu ratio as shown in Figure 139.
The current for the nine boards supplying the MV motors via Station Board 1 can be seen in Figure
140. Although the in-phase transfer’s current magnitude upon reconnection is lower than the residual
voltages, the current magnitude that occurs at the fault could cause the relays to trip if the high step
range on the relays is not activated as mentioned above.
1.4
1.2
1.180167; 1.115447253
1
V/Hz Ratio (pu)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.37; 0.002718509
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 Time
1.3 (s) 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Figure 139: The resultant V/Hz pu ratio plotted against time for Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board
1, 3 and5, and a delay of 210 ms
234
6
5.545817
5
4.617456 Statation Service Board 1A
4
Current (pu)
Ash Dump Board A

3
2
1
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s)
Figure 140: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1,
3 and 5, and a delay of 210 ms
Figure 141 shows the torque vs time curves for six of the MV motors supplied by Station Board 1,
the two pump motors ( the west and east auxiliary cooling pump motors, which is graph 1 and 3 in
Figure 141) have larger transient torques upon reconnection than when the fault occurs. The
conveyor motor CS1A also has two large transient torque pulses that are similar in magnitude. The
other conveyor motors have a large transient torque at the fault and then a smaller one upon
reconnection, however, the smaller transient torque upon reconnection is still larger than the residual
voltages transient torque. The aim is to limit the amount and magnitude of the transient torques
placed on the motor, that is why a residual voltage transfer would be preferred. However, the short
time frame could make this transfer method impossible to execute in such a short time frame. Table
47 shows the transient torque upon connecting Station Board 1 to the backup supply for all the
motors supplied by Station Board 1, the maximum transient torque for this instance is 2.18 pu.
235
Figure 141: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1,3,5 and a trip of 210 ms
236
Table 47: The transient torque of all the motor’s supplied by Station Board 1 during a three-phase fault on Unit Board 1, 3
and 5, and a delay of 210 ms

Conveyor T1A -1.60 1.50 1.51
Conveyor S2A -1.20 1.41 1.41
Conveyor S4A -1.20 1.49 1.50
237

CS1A Conveyor -0.69 1.43 1.41
CS2A Conveyor -1.30 1.47 1.59
S8A Conveyor -1.57 1.10 1.17
The values for the V/Hz pu, current, and transient torque for the two motor bus transfer methods for
Station Board 2 will be very similar to Station Board 1, and for this reason on the voltage and phase
angle vs time will be shown for Station Board 2. Figure 142 shows the motor bus transfer graph for
Station Board 2 for when a three-phase fault occurs on Unit Board 2,4, and 6. Similar to Station
Board 1, the residual voltage transfers time window is from 1.1 s to 1.19 s, as the voltage decays
quickly due to the fault. The in-phase transfer’s time window is from 1.28 s to 1.31 s, which gives the
device 30 ms to initiate an in-phase transfer, as other in-phase transfer opportunities occur when the
voltage is too low.
300.00 1
250.00 0.9
200.00 0.8
150.00 0.7
100.00 0.6
Voltage (pu)

50.00 0.5 Phase Angle
1.283167; 28.47 Difference
0.00 0.4
Voltage
1.1 1.3 1.316167;
1.5 -27.58
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
-50.00 0.3
-100.00 0.2

1.193167; 0.102468
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 142: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a three-phase fault on the Unit Board and a trip of 1.5 s
238
6.4.2 Earth faults on Unit Board

An earth fault on the Unit Board could be caused by an earth fault on the low voltage side of the unit
transformer, an earth fault on the board or an earth fault on the cable. For this fault an earth fault
was simulated on one of the unit boards at 1 s, and after 100 ms (i.e. at 1.1 s) the Station Board was
disconnected from the Unit Board by opening the switch connecting the two boards. The Station
Board was only reconnected to the backup supply after 1.5 s (i.e. at 2.6 s) to determine the best time
for an in-phase and residual voltage transfer. Since Station Board 1 was discussed in detail for the
three-phase fault, Station Board 2 will be discussed in detail for an earth fault. The motor bus transfer
graph for Station Board 2 for phase A where the earth fault occurs can be seen in Figure 143. The
earth fault is shown from the time the fault occurs to the time the breaker opens, phase B and C
voltages remain healthy during the time phase A experiences the fault as shown in Figure 144, since
phase B and C voltage is 120⁰ and 240⁰ out of phase their phase difference will not be considered.
The residual voltage-time window for phase B and C is longer than for A, however the residual
voltage-time window for phase A fits within phase B and C time window.
300.00 1
250.00 0.9
200.00 0.8
A-Phase Phase Angle (Degrees)
150.00 0.7
100.00 0.6
Voltage (pu)
50.00 1.352167; 26.43 0.5
0.00 1.380167; -25.66 0.4

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
-50.00 0.3
1.267167; 0.291744
-100.00 0.2
-150.00 1.619167; 0.053798 0.1
-200.00 Residual Voltage Transfer Zone 0

Time (s)
A Phase Angle Difference A Phase Voltage
Figure 143: The motor bus transfer graph for Phase A of Station Board 2 for an earth fault on Phase A on the Unit Board
and a delay of 1.5 s
239
1.2
0.8
Voltage (pu)
0.6
1.146167; 0.294260421
0.4
1.519167; 0.051699985 0.2
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
Time (s)
B Voltage C Voltage
Figure 144: The motor bus transfer graph for Phase B and C of Station Board 2 for an earth fault on Phase A on the Unit
Board and a trip of 1.5 s
It has already been deduced from the above fault and from the testing of the three methods that the
residual voltage transfer results in less transient torque on the motor, however, it is also important to
attempt an in-phase transfer to give the device a better chance at transferring the load. For an earth
fault, the following current magnitudes are seen on the nine busbars used to supply the MV motors
via Station Board 2 in Figure 145. DigSilent™ only allows the phase current of the busbar to be seen
via the motor it is connected to, thus, Table 47 can be used as a guide to see which motor is
connected to which board. The second current peak upon reconnection in Figure 145 can be ignored,
it just shows if the time is left for too long the motors will need more current to start driving their loads
again. The first current peak is the one of interest. It can be seen that the current peaked below 2
pu, which means no motors will be tripped as this is well below the motors low step range and high
step range setting on the motor relays.
The torque vs time curve for nine motors each connected to one of the nine boards used to supply
the motors can be seen in Figure 146. The second torque peak upon connecting Station Board 2 to
the backup supply is not of interest, only the first peak is of interest. For all the motors except for
conveyor motor CS2B and the Overland Ash Conveyor 2A the torque drops to just above -1 pu,
conveyor CS2B motor is the only motor that goes beyond -1 pu torque during an earth fault. This
transient torque upon the earth fault is relatively small.
240
Figure 145: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 during an earth fault on phase A on the Unit Board and a delay of 1.5 s
241
Figure 146: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 2 during an earth fault on phase A on the Unit Board and a delay of 1.5 s
242
The faults that could occur on the transformer that will affect the Station Board and will result in the
initiating of the motor bus transfer device are trips intiated by the transformers’ Buchholz relay, a
three-phase fault on the transformer’s LV side, and an earth fault on the transformer’s LV side. A
three-phase fault occurring on the low voltage side of the transformer can be simulated in DigSilent™
by simulating a three-phase fault on the Unit Board. This was done in the above section for both
Station Board 1 and Station Board 2, therefore, it will not be redone in this section. An earth fault on
the low voltage side of the transformer is also simulated in DigSilent™ by using the Unit Board. This
was also done in the above section for Station Board 1 and 2 and can be analysed there. For this
reason, only a Buchholz trip on a transformer will be considered in this section.
6.4.3 Buchholz trip on Unit Transformer

A Buchholz relay is a protection device used for oil-immersed transformers, the relay is used to
detect faults occurring inside the transformer. This relay is connected between the transformer and
its oil conservator. If a fault occurs inside a transformer the oil is transformed into gas, and
transformer’s Buchholz relay will detect this and trip the transformer [60]. The tripping of a
transformer due to the Buchholz relay can be simulated in DigSilent™ by opening the Unit
Transformer’s circuit breaker to the Unit Board at 1 s, and then after 100 ms opening the switch
between the Unit Board and Station Board (at 1.1 s). The Station Board will then be connected to
the backup supply after 1.5 s to use the motor bus transfer graphs to determine when the in-phase
or residual voltage transfer can occur.
Figure 147 shows the motor bus transfer graph for a Buchholz trip on the unit transformer. The same
result could be expected if the generator’s protection trips the unit transformer that is used to supply
the Station Board, thus no simulation will be done for this type of fault and these results can be
considered for that type of fault too. The residual voltage for this method has a longer time window,
starting at 1.1 s and ending at 1.32 s. This gives the device 220 ms to perform a residual voltage
transfer. The in-phase transfer can occur between 1.25 s to about 1.28 s, which again gives a time
window of 30 ms. It was previously shown that the residual voltage method is the better option as it
results in a lower transient torque on the motor than the in-phase transfer. However, it is also crucial
that the device be allowed to try to initiate both methods instead of just one of the methods. The
simulation of a residual voltage transfer and the in-phase transfer will not be performed as it was
shown above that even during fault conditions the residual voltage transfer yields smaller transient
torques on the motors, and that the in-phase transfer results in smaller V/Hz pu ratios and current
magnitudes. It would also be recommended to use a device where the voltage can be limited for
when a delayed in-phase transfer is to be performed.
243
300.00 1
250.00 0.9
200.00 0.8
150.00 0.7
100.00 0.6
Voltage (pu)
50.00 In-Phase Transfer Zone 0.5
1.250167; 27.84
0.00 0.4
1.1 1.31.281167; -27.44
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
-50.00 0.3
-100.00 0.2
1.324167; 0.103772
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 147: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 2 for a Buchholz trip on the Unit Transformer and a trip of
1.5 s
The impact of tripping the transformer, due to the Buchholz relay, has on the nine boards supplying
the motors via Station Board 2 can be seen in Figure 148. Unfortunately, the current of the busbar
the motor is connected to can only be seen from the motor in DigSilent™, thus, Table 47 can be
used as a guide to determine which motor is connected to which board. The second current peak
upon reconnection in Figure 148 can be ignored, it just shows that if the time is left for too long the
motors will need more current to start driving their loads again. The first current in Figure 148 is the
one of interest. The current peak at the time the transformer is tripped has a maximum peak of 3.125
pu on the Ash Dump Board B.
The torque vs time curve for nine motors each connected to one of the nine boards used to supply
the motors can be seen in Figure 149. The second torque peak upon connecting Station Board 2 to
the backup supply is not of interest, only the first peak is of interest. The first peak is when the fault
occurs, and it can be seen that the torque drops to below -1 pu for the nine motors. Thus, the first
transient torque the motor will experience upon the fault occurring will be above 1 pu, and that is
why the residual voltage method would be the best method of transfer as it would result in a smaller
second transient torque.
244
Figure 148: The current vs time of the busbars with motors at Station Board 2 during a Buchholz trip on the Unit Transformer and a trip of 1.5 s
245
Figure 149: The electrical torque vs time graph for six motors connected to Station Board 2 during a Buchholz trip on the Unit Transformer and a delay of 1.5 s
246
The current and torque magnitude for when the transformer is tripped by the Buchholz relay will not
be discussed for Station Board 1, as the values will be similar to that of Station Board 2. In Figure
150 the motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 can be seen. Similar to Station Board 2 the
residual voltage transfer window has extended to 230 ms, and the in-phase transfer occurs between
1.26 s to 1.29 s, which gives a 30 ms period to perform this transfer.
300.00 1
250.00 0.9
200.00 0.8
150.00 0.7
100.00 0.6
Voltage (pu)
1.258167; 28.90
0.00 0.4
1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
-50.00 1.291167; -28.14 0.3
-100.00 1.334167; 0.102239 0.2
-150.00 0.1
-200.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 150: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a Buchholz trip on the Unit Transformer and a trip of
1.5 s
6.5 Other considerations to contribute to a successful MBT

Another question to ask is how can the system be improved to make a fast transfer possible, or to
increase the time window for an in-phase transfer. In chapter 2 it was mentioned that by adding a
flywheel the inertia of the motor and its load can be increased, or by having a system with a mixture
of induction motors and synchronous motors the voltage will decay at a slower rate, or by load
shedding non-critical loads the chance of a successful transfer could be increased. This will be
analysed in this section.
6.5.1 Adding inertia to initiate a fast transfer or in-phase transfer

As mentioned in chapter 2 flywheels can be used to add inertia to a system. The flywheel does not
have to be connected to every single motor in the system, it does not even have to be connected to
a motor connected to each of the nine boards mentioned above, but to a separate motor that will be
used for this purpose only. There just needs to be enough inertia added to the system so that the
voltage locus spiral changes and winds down slower. To add inertia to the system only Station Board
247
1 will be considered here. The total inertia of both Station Boards is 3236.5 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . Table 48 shows
the inertia values of each motor connected to Station Board 1. There are two ways in which inertia
can be added to the system, firstly by adding flywheels to the existing motors and secondly by adding
a motor with a high inertia load, on the same bus, where this motor’s only purpose is to increase the
inertia of the system.
Table 48: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 for the current system
Motor Total
inertia Load inertia Gear box inertia Total tag
Motor (kgm2) (kgm2) ratio (kgm2) (s)
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 West 14.30 55.67 1 69.97 4.00
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 West 14.30 55.67 1 69.97 4.00
Service Air Compressor 1 5.00 62.05 1 67.05 5.20
Service Air Compressor 4 5.00 62.05 1 67.05 5.20
Forced Air Cooling Turbine Compressor 11.07 129.52 1 140.59 11.00
T5A Incline Conveyor 13.23 16599.17 0.040 39.58 3.51
T5C Incline Conveyor 13.23 16599.17 0.040 39.58 3.51
T5E Incline Conveyor 13.23 16599.17 0.040 39.58 3.51
Conveyor Drive CS2A 10.50 12192.84 0.043 33.21 3.60
Conveyor S8A Drive 8.17 21395.34 0.055 73.48 5.00
Boom Conveyor 1 8.17 4.13 1 12.30 1.20
Intermediate Conveyor 1 8.17 4.13 1 12.30 1.20
Conveyor drive 2 S6A 11.07 14026.69 0.062 65.18 5.30
Conveyor drive S4A 8.17 17625.89 0.043 41.00 4.00
Conveyor drive CS1A 6.19 10943.89 0.038 22.09 3.00
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 East 10.00 63.84 1 73.84 4.50
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 East 10.00 63.84 1 73.84 4.50
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1A 9.45 16189.16 0.064 75.85 10.00
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1B 9.45 16189.16 0.064 75.85 10.00
Standby Shift Ash Conveyor drive A 10.50 5581.46 0.065 34.28 3.80
Standby Shift Ash Conveyor drive B 10.50 5581.46 0.065 34.28 3.80
Standby Extendable Ash Conveyor drive A 10.50 5796.99 0.064 34.28 3.80
2
Total Inertia (kgm ) 1677.98
Total Inertia Constant (s) 66.87
248
For the first method where inertia is added to the motors via a flywheel, it is important to remember
the motors’ maximum rated inertia value specified by the manufacturers. Unfortunately, only
maximum inertia values are given for the service air compressor motors and the east auxiliary
cooling pump motor. For the service air compressor a maximum load inertia of 297 𝑘𝑔𝑚 is specified
and for the east auxiliary cooling motors a maximum load inertia of 190 𝑘𝑔𝑚 is specified. To make
sure the other motors are not over-burdened with load inertia the maximum load inertia for the east
auxiliary cooling motor will be used as their maximum load inertia limit. For the first part of this study,
a scenario will be considered where all the motors without gearboxes will have load inertias below
190 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . This is done to determine if this is enough to raise the inertia of the system. With these
changes made the inertia of Station Board 1 is now 2706.36 𝑘𝑔𝑚 .
Table 49 shows the inertia value of each motor if the inertia of the motors without gearboxes are
increased. Figure 151 shows the voltage – phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 when inertia
is added to the motors without gearboxes. If Figure 151 is compared with Figure 103, it minimizes
the time window for a residual voltage transfers, this can be seen clearly when Figure 152, the motor
bus transfer graph is considered. The conditions for the in-phase transfer was that the angle must
be between ±15 ⁰, as can be seen, this only gives a 17 ms opportunity for a transfer, this is the same
window of oppurtunity for that in Figure 104. As mentioned above the old Beckwith system initiates
a residual voltage transfer from 0.3 pu till the voltage reaches zero. The residual voltage transfer
was limited to a lower voltage of 0.04 pu. If this limit is applied the residual voltage transfer window
is from 1.15 s to 1.45 s which is slightly shorter than in Figure 104. In Figure 104 the voltage is at
0.4 pu at 1.558 s which gives a window of oppurtunity of 389 ms. The purpose of adding more inertia
to the system is to reduce the frequency decay and therefore also the phase angle diffence. In this
case (see Figure 152) the phase shifted slightly to the right and the in-phase transfer window now
occurs slightly later in time. Thus, the frequency decay of the current system is similar to the
frequency decay for when the inertia of only a few motors is increased.
249
Table 49: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 if the inertia of motors without gearboxes is
increased
Motor Load Total

Inertia Inertia Inertia Total tag
Motor (kgm2) (kgm2) Gear Box (kgm2) (s)
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 West 14.3 187 1 201.3 11.51
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 West 14.3 187 1 201.3 11.51
Service Air Compressor 1 5 293 1 302 23.42
Service Air Compressor 4 5 293 1 302 23.42
Forced Air Cooling Turbine Compressor 11.07 187 1 198.07 15.5
T1A Incline Conveyor 14.98 11098.76 0.089 103.46 5
Conveyor S8A Drive 8.17 21395.34 0.055 73.48 5
Boom Conveyor 1 8.17 4.13 1 12.3 1.2
Intermediate Conveyor 1 8.17 4.13 1 12.3 1.2
Conveyor drive S4A 8.17 17625.89 0.043 41 4
Conveyor drive CS1A 6.19 10943.89 0.038 22.09 3
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 East 10 187 1 197 12.01
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 East 10 187 1 197 12.01
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1A 9.45 16189.16 0.064 75.85 10
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1B 9.45 16189.16 0.064 75.85 10
Total Inertia (kgm2) 2706.36
250
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
1
0.8

0.6
Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
Residual Voltage Transfer Zone 300 ms

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
400 ms 100 ms
-0.2
200 ms
-0.4
Voltage (pu)
Figure 151: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase in inertia for motors
without gearboxes.
210.00 1.1
195.00 1.05
180.00
165.00 1
150.00 0.95
135.00 0.9
120.00 0.85
105.00
90.00 0.8
75.00 0.75
60.00 0.7
Phase (Degrees)

Voltage (pu)
30.00
15.00 1.288167; 14.75 0.6
0.00 0.55
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 0.5
-30.00 1.305167; -14.291.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
-45.00 0.45
-60.00 0.4
-75.00 0.35
-90.00 0.3
-105.00
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 0.15
-165.00 0.1
-195.00 0.05
-210.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 152: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase inertia for motors without
gearboxes.
251
By adding inertia to all the motors so that the motors with gearboxes have a total inertia below
190 𝑘𝑔𝑚 and the other motors’ inertia remains the same as the above scenario, results in the total
inertia of Station Board 1 being 5697 𝑘𝑔𝑚 . Take note that increasing all the motors’ inertia is not a
practical solution as in some areas it will be required for motors (such as the boom and intermediate
motors) to start quickly, and with large inertia values this will not be possible. This is just done to
determine if the system will indeed improve if the inertia of the system is increased. Table 50 shows
the new inertia values for all the motors and the total inertia for Station Board 1. Figure 154 shows
the voltage-phase angle locus, it can still be seen that even with the inertia being increased that a
fast transfer is not possible. Figure 158 shows the motor bus transfer graph for an increase in all the
motors’ inertia, the same limits were used for the in-phase and residual voltage transfer as the above
scenario where only the inertia of motors without gearboxes was increased. The in-phase transfer
time window does occur later if compared with the time window in Figure 104. The residual voltage
window of opportunity also increases when inertia is added to all the motors. A residual voltage
transfer can start at 1.17 s and ends around1.82 s, which gives 650 ms to initiate a residual voltage
transfer. By increasing the inertia the frequency decay is slower, the in-phase transfer window time
increases and so does the residual voltages window of opportunity. The slower voltage decay is
unexpected for a network where the total system’s inertia has been increased, when compared to
the other three cases of increasing the network’s inertia. This is the only scenario where the voltage
decays slower and may require further investigation. Another option is adding a motor that’s sole
purpose would be to increase the inertia of the system, it would most likely be best to add larger
motors, thus, adding an 11 kV motor, preferably a synchronous motor, with high inertia to boost the
inertia of the system.
252
Table 50: The inertia value of the motors connected to Station Board 1 if the inertia of all the motors is increased.
Motor Total
Inertia Load Inertia Gear Inertia Total tag
Motor (kgm2) (kgm2) Box (kgm2) (s)
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 West 14.30 187.00 1.000 201.30 11.51
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 West 14.30 187.00 1.000 201.30 11.51
Service Air Compressor 1 5.00 293.00 1.000 298.00 23.11
Service Air Compressor 4 5.00 293.00 1.000 298.00 23.11
Forced Air Cooling Turbine Compressor 11.07 187.00 1.000 198.07 15.50
Conveyor S8A Drive 8.17 58000.00 0.055 185.21 12.60
Boom Conveyor 1 8.17 179.00 1.000 187.17 18.26
Intermediate Conveyor 1 8.17 179.00 1.000 187.17 18.26
Conveyor drive CS1A 6.19 124000.00 0.038 186.39 25.31
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 1 East 10.00 187.00 1.000 197.00 12.01
Auxiliary Cooling Pump 2 East 10.00 187.00 1.000 197.00 12.01
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1A 9.45 43500.00 0.064 187.88 24.77
Overland Ash Conveyor drive 1B 9.45 43500.00 0.064 187.88 24.77
Total Inertia (kgm2) 5697.37
253
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
1
0.8

0.6
Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
300 ms
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
400 ms 100 ms
-0.2
200 ms
-0.4
Voltage (pu)
Figure 153: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase in all the motors
inertia.
210.00 1.1
195.00 1.05
180.00 1
165.00
150.00 0.95
135.00 0.9
120.00 0.85
105.00
90.00 0.8
75.00 0.75
60.00 0.7
Phase (Degrees)
45.00 0.65
Voltage (pu)
30.00 1.427167; 15.07
15.00 0.6
0.00 0.55
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.5
-30.00 0.45
-45.00 1.455167; -13.76
-60.00 0.4
-75.00 0.35
-90.00 0.3
-105.00
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 0.15
-165.00
-195.00 0.05
-210.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 154: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with an increase in all the motors inertia.
254
In this scenario all the motors’ inertias remain the same and an 11 kV 400 kW four-pole squirrel cage
induction motor with an inertia of 5000 𝑘𝑔𝑚 is added to the 11 kV Station Board 1. The resulting
changes in the voltage-phase angle locus and motor bus transfer graph are shown in Figure 155
and Figure 156. If Figure 156 is compared with Figure 104 the window of opportunity for an in-phase
transfer is the same. The window of opportunity for a residual voltage transfer in Figure 156 is 353
ms, which is less than the window of opportunity in Figure 104. The voltage curve in Figure 104
reaches 0.04 pu at 1.558 s and the time a residual voltage transfer can be initiated starts at 1.169 s,
making the window of opportunity 389 ms. The motor in this scenario has an inertia of 5000 𝑘𝑔𝑚 ,
compared to the previous case where all the motors’ inertia was increased to a total inertia of 5697.37
𝑘𝑔𝑚 . By increasing all the motors’ inertia, an advantage was gained compared to only increasing
one motor’s inertia, but these are all theoretical cases to demonstrate what is possible.
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
1
0.8
In-Phase Transfer Zone0.6

Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
300 ms
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
400 ms 100 ms
-0.2
200 ms
Voltage (pu)
Figure 155: The voltage-phase angle locus spiral for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with the addition of an 11 kV motor
used to create more inertia in the system.
255
210.00 1.1
195.00 1.05
180.00
165.00 1
150.00 0.95
135.00 0.9
120.00 0.85
105.00
90.00 0.8
75.00 0.75
60.00 0.7
Phase (Degrees)
0.65
Voltage (pu)
30.00 1.277167; 14.90
15.00 0.6
0.00 0.55
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.5
-30.00
-45.00 1.294167; -15.19 0.45
-60.00 0.4
-75.00 1.180167; 0.283182 0.35
-90.00 0.3
-105.00
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 0.15
-165.00 0.1
-195.00 1.533167; 0.042636 0.05
-210.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 156: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a 1.5 s trip with the addition of an 11 kV motor used to
create more inertia in the system.
6.5.2 Adding synchronous motors to the system

By adding synchronous motors to the system the synchronous motors will reduce the voltage decay
as they have active excitation systems. However, upon reconnecting the Station Board this could
cause problems as the synchronous motor could go out of step during a transfer. This will be
considered when adding the synchronous motors to the system. First, four synchronous motors
were added to the 3.3 kV Station Service Board 1A and 2A. Two of the synchronous motors replaced
the new service air compressor motors and the other two replaced the East auxiliary cooling pump
motors. The synchronous motors were modelled to replace the induction motors while the loads
remained the same.
Figure 157 shows the voltages of the network under three different conditions. The first condition is
that the four synchronous motors are added to the system with AVRs, the second is that the four
synchronous motors are added to the system without AVRs, and the third is the current network with
no synchronous motors (see Figure 157). The synchronous machines only offer additional voltage
support when the residual voltage drops below 20% and only after 0.3 s, which in this case does not
offer any real advantages. The synchronous motors also become overloaded upon reconnection
resulting in them going out of step (pole slipping) and may be damaged when the voltage is restored.
256
By adding pole slipping protection the motor could be tripped and this would then defeat the purpose
of the synchronous motors, as it will not be allowed to uphold the networks voltage.
0.8
Voltage (pu)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Time (s)
Synchronous Motor without AVR Voltage of Network

Synchronous Motor with AVR Voltage of Network
Voltage of Current Network
Figure 157: The voltage vs time graphs for the synchronous motors in the network and out of the network
6.5.3 Load shedding non-critical loads and reaccelerating them after the
transfer
Load shedding can be implemented if there are too many motors on the system and the new source
fails to re-accellerate all these motors simultaneously. The disconnection of the Coal Stockyard
supplied by Station Board 1 was simulated in DigSilent™. The breaker between Unit Board 1, 3 and
5 was tripped at 1 s and after 100 ms the coal stockyard 22 kV distribution line was disconnected
from its board that is supplied by Station Board 1. The reason the coal stockyard was selected is
that it contains conveyor motors that are not classified as critical loads. If the load shedding of the
coal stockyard was not enough the Ash Dump Board A could also be disconnected. Figure 158
shows the voltage locus spiral for when the coal stockyard is shed. If the point at 100 ms is
considered it can be seen that the spiral jumps slightly and winds down quicker when the coal
stockyard is shed. When the coal stockyard is shed the residual voltage on the Station Board is
slightly reduced therefore, not offering any advantage (see Figure 159 and Figure 160). Although
the voltage for the loadshedded network is slightly higher than the voltage for the complete network
when the Station Board is connected to the backup supply (Figure 160), the network’s demand is
not of a magnitude that would result in the backup supply failing to maintain the network’s continuity.
257
The lower current somewhat aids the recovery of the Station Board voltage (see Figure 161).
However, neither of the currents are so high that they could cause the relay of the station transformer
to trip. For this reason, it is not recommended to shed any loads and rather keep all loads online as
all the motors take around the same time to deaccelerate as shown in the torque vs time graphs.
1.2
Fast Transfer Zone
1
0.8
In-Phase Transfer Zone 0.6

Voltage (pu)
0.4
0.2
300 ms
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.2400 ms 100 ms
200 ms
Voltage (pu)
Figure 158: The voltage-phase angle locus graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s and the load shedding of a non-
critical load.
258
210.00 1.1
195.00 1.05
180.00
165.00 1
150.00 0.95
135.00 0.9
120.00 0.85
105.00
90.00 0.8
75.00 0.75
60.00 0.7
45.00
Phase (Degrees)
In-Phase Transfer Zone 0.65
Voltage (pu)
30.00
15.00 1.276167; 12.82 0.6
0.00 0.55
-15.00 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0.5
-30.00
-45.00 1.291167; -13.61 0.45
-60.00 0.4
-75.00 0.35
-90.00 1.135167; 0.300712 0.3
-105.00
-120.00 0.25
-135.00 0.2
-150.00 1.302167; 0.107987 0.15
-165.00 0.1
-195.00 0.05
-210.00 0
Time (s)
Figure 159: The motor bus transfer graph for Station Board 1 for a trip of 1.5 s and the load shedding of a non-critical
load.
1.2
0.8
Voltage (pu)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.2
Time (s)
Voltage of the loadshedded Network Voltage of Current Network
Figure 160: The voltage decay for the normal network and the loadshedded network
259
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Current (kA)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.1
Time (s)
Current Station Board 1 for Normal Network Current Station Board 1 for Loadshedding Network
Figure 161: The current of the standby feeder for the current network and for the loadshedded network
6.6 Summary
From this chapter, it was discovered that the existing Beckwith device has limited capability due to
its functionality, a technology limit at the time. It was also validated that the existing network of the
common plant has a relatively small inertia for a fast transfer to occur and that the option to use a
fast transfer is not possible for the existing system. From additional studies and simulations, it was
then discovered that the best method of transfer for any type of fault on the system would be a
residual voltage transfer as it results in the lowest transient torque magnitude upon reconnection.
However, it is still recommended that the system is configured to initiate an in-phase transfer as this
creates additional opportunities for successful transfers. If Kendal were to invest in the new Beckwith
device it would be recommended to include a fixed time transfer in the high-speed motor bus transfer
scheme, as this gives the system three opportunities to initiate a transfer. It was also discovered that
not only is the inertia of the system relatively small but the ratings of the motors as well, because by
adding inertia the voltage spiral does not decay slower. It only extends the time window for a residual
voltage transfer in the case where all the motors’ inertia were increased and in the case where a
motor is added just for the sole purpose of adding inertia to the system. It does not stop the voltage
from decaying too much but instead acts as an induction generator. The same was seen if
synchronous motors were added to the system. By load-shedding non-critical loads, the system is
left worse off as the voltage decays quicker. It is recommended that the system be left as is, as the
size and inertia of the motors make it difficult to improve. It is recommended to consider a transfer
device with the option to disable the fast transfer option, and an option to add a fixed time transfer
as the existing system cannot be improved.
260
STATION
Chapter 7: Conclusion and recommendations

7.1 Project Objectives
The objectives of this research project were to:
a Do a literature study on motor bus transfer methods, what could go wrong during motors bus
transfer methods, and how to improve a MBT transfer system to aim for successful motor
bus transfer methods. In addition, to consider methods to accurately model an induction
motor dynamically, including the loads driven by the induction motors.
b Collect data and information on Kendal Power Station to help parameterise the motors,
pumps, generators and other electrical machines that are responsible for the operating and
generating of electrical power at Kendal Power Station. Chapter 3 discusses how the
manufacturers’ data for the motors were used to characterize the motors. The Kendal
DigSilent™ model, switchgear schedules, and transformer rating plates were obtained from
Kendal and used to characterize the transformers and the cables.
c Build a model of Kendal Power Station and perform simulations in DigSILENT™. The
calculated parameters were used to build the model accurately and to determine what
parameters still need to be obtained or calculated. The building and populating of the
DigSilent™ model was discussed in chapter 4, and in chapter 5 the model was verified by
comparing it with Kendal’s model, the protection settings model of Kendal, and a protection
trip report.
d Once the model was working correctly, simulate the tripping and restoration of the 11 kV
Station Boards to test the hypothesis to determine the reason as to why the fast transfer
system failed. In chapter 6 the hypotheses were validated and the modelling of tripping
events was discussed to determine what transfer method is best suited for the system.
e Once the cause of the failure of the fast transfer system was found, analyse and simulate
new ways in which the load can be transferred during maintenance or a fault. In chapter 6 it
was found that only an in-phase transfer and residual voltage transfer is possible for the
existing system. Different scenarios were simulated to determine what could trigger a tripping
event, and how the system can be improved to initiate successful motor bus transfers.
f Make sure a transfer method is recommended that is most efficient using devices that are
easy to remove from the system should components need to be replaced. In chapter 6 it was
recommended that the existing Beckwith system be upgraded due to its limitations. The
recommendation for a future system will be discussed in the next section.
261
7.2 Project Recommendations

The findings were found in 6.3.4 Findings and are briefly discussed below in order to understand
why the recommendation is being made.
The latest Beckwith device monitors the current and voltage on the primary supply, backup supply
and motor busbar, where the existing Beckwith system only monitors the voltage on one phase. This
is a limiting factor and it is recommended that Kendal invest in a device that does both and measures
nine voltages and at least two (preferably six) currents. The setup and settings range on the existing
Beckwith device also posed problems as the device waits for the supply voltage to drop below 0.84
pu for more than 500 ms before initiating a transfer, although, the time delay can be set to 100 ms it
is better not to have this time delay function. The new Beckwith device does not have this limitation.
The time delay in the new Beckwith system is only used under simultaneous fast transfer conditions.
The delta frequency limit on the existing Beckwith system is also too small and would prohibit an in-
phase transfer. It is recommended to select a higher delta frequency limit and use a predictive
algorithm for the zero crossing for the in-phase transfer angle, thus, giving the new device a better
chance of executing an in-phase transfer with lower torque transients.
The existing relays on the motor protection need to be upgraded or the low step range needs to be
disabled as the current might exceed the current specified by the low step range, which would then
cause the motor to trip. The time interval of the high-step range on the relay could also be a problem,
as the 50 ms delay for the high step range can be a too short period, and could cause the motor to
trip during a transfer.
It is recommended that Kendal invest in a new transfer device to initiate the transfer and that the fast
transfer window be disabled as a fast transfer will not be successful for this system. It is also
recommended that the device be set for only one opportunity for an in-phase transfer while the
Station board voltage is above 30%, while the residual voltage transfer has the highest probability of
being successful.
It is recommended that Kendal improve the motor and associated load models in their DigSilent™
model for better understanding of the system and to be able to perform motor bus transfer studies
for various conditions.
By referring to the event that occurred in 2014, it took the first generator 3 s to trip due to overheating.
For the cooling gas of the generator to heat up within less than 3 s is suspicious and it can be
assumed this is due to the cooling gas not being cooled sufficiently, meaning that the temperature
the gas is cooled to is very close to the temperature that would cause the generator to trip due to
overheating. In other words operating close to the limits. Thus, Kendal should investigate this and
262
maybe see if the difference between the cooled gas and the overheating limit can be increased as
this might provide the plant with more time should the critical motors trip.
7.3 Future studies

The dynamic modelling of the motors was accurate in terms of what was used in DigSilent™ when
compared to the manufacturers’ torque vs speed curves. However, further studies could be done on
the optimization method and how to write a code or formula that makes the method quicker to use.
During the motor bus transfer simulations, it was difficult to find specific limits for the transient torques
exerted on a motor, its shaft and load. Since specific limits are not given for the transient torques
that motors, their shafts and loads can withstand, a study should be performed on motors in an
industry setting driving different loads for better understanding of the possible long term damage the
transient torque can have on driven systems.
As was mentioned in chapter 2 the IEEE standard of transfers only allows transfers to occur at V/Hz
pu values lower than 1.33 pu. This is not the best guideline, as was proven in chapter 6. The
magnitude of the V/Hz pu ratio might affect the currents but it does not affect the transient torque.
Therefore, studies should be done in finding new criteria that take the torque and current into
consideration.
It is also recommended that motors with larger inertias be added to system when changes are made
as this will reduce the frequency decay during the time of a possible transfer.
7.4 Summary
The purpose of this study was to accurately model the common plant at Kendal Power Station and
to determine which motor bus transfer method is best for the system, and validate what could have
happened in 2014 when the Beckwith system opened all the circuit breakers and caused a multiple
unit trip.
By verifying the dynamic motor model coded in Matlab™ with the manufacturers’ torque vs speed
curves, allowed for an accurate motor model to be characterized in DigSilent™. Although DigSilent™
did use a different modelling technique from the one used in Matlab™ the difference in parameters
remained within less than 10% from the manufacturer’s data.
By viewing the rating plates of the transformers at Kendal this also allowed for an improved accurate
representation of the common plant in DigSilent™ and this was noticed when the three-phase fault
simulations of Kendal DigSilent™ model and protection settings were used to verify the study’s
263
DigSilent™ model. It was found that where there were differences it was because the protection
settings model or the Kendal DigSilent™ model did not use the transformers rating plate data.
A trip report was also used to verify the study’s model, although, this method was not as accurate
as comparing the three-phase fault currents of Kendal's protection settings and model with the
studies model. However, the goal was to prove that the auxiliary cooling pump motors would coast
down before the end of 3 s. This was done to see if the studies model could simulate the events that
occurred in 2014.
Once all the modelling was done and the model’s accuracy was verified, the hypotheses stated in
chapter 1 were tested. From the four hypotheses, it was shown that the system’s inertia is too low
for a fast transfer, and speculated that the auto transfer time delay could have resulted in an
extended time delay before initiating a fast transfer, therefore, making one of the three transfer
methods impossible to execute and resulting in the Beckwith device going in a lockout mode.
It was also found that for the existing system that an in-phase and residual voltage transfer are the
only possible transfer methods. The residual voltage method is the preferred method due to the low
transient torques obtained during any conditions where the supply is interrupted.
264
STATION
References
[1] Institute for Industrial Productivity, “Motor Systems,” 30 November 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/motor-systems. [Accessed 23 May 2019].
[2] S. Przybysz and F. Holmes, “Philosophy of the Fast Transfer System for Kendal P/S 11 kV
Station Board Supply,” Eskom (Kendal PowerStation), 1996.
[3] T. R. Beckwith and W. G. Hartmann, “Motor Bus Transfer: Considerations and Methods,”
IEEE Transactions on industry applications, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 602-611, 2006.
[4] Kendal Power Station Protection Department, “Eskom's Multiple Unit Trips,” Eskom, Kendal,
2014.
[5] J. Gardell and D. Fredrickson, “Motor Bus Transfer Applications Issues and Considerations,”
IEEE-Power System Relay Committee, 2012.
[6] K. E. Yeager, ““Bus transfer of multiple induction motor loads in a 400 Megawatt fossil
power plant,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 451-457, 1988.
[7] A. P. Gabba and J. D. Hill, “Make automatic power source transfers a success for your
plants,” IEEE Transactions on industry applications, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 423-433, 2001.
[8] Beckwith, “M-4272 Instruction Book,” November 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://www.chipkin.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/docs-books-M-4272-IB.pdf.
[Accessed 5 November 2020].
[9] ABB, “High Speed Transfer Device SUE 3000,” ABB, Mannheim, 2005.
[10] Beckwith Electric, “Motor Bus Transfer Considerations and Methods,” Beckwith Electric.Inc.
[11] G. Hunswadkar and E. Reyrolle, “Considerations and Methods for an Effective Fast Bus
Transfer System,” in Power System Protection and Automation, New Delhi, 2010.
[12] M. G. Say, “Induction Machines: Theory and Performance,” in Alternating Current Machines,
London, Pitman Publishing Limited, 1976, pp. 250-350.
[13] A. D. Elster, “Magnetic Resonance Imaging Questions,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://mriquestions.com/phase-v-frequency.html. [Accessed 30 August 2020].
[14] J. Piorkowski and J. de Kock, “Ensuring a continuous power supply to a large petro-
chemical plant by installing a fast transfer system,” Elektron, pp. 40-42, 1992.
265
[15] C. Mozina, “Automatic High-Speed Transfer of Power Plant Auxiliary System Load-Theory
and Application,” in Inaugural IEEE PES 2005 Conference and Exposition in Africa , Durban,
South Africa, 2005.
[16] B. Kasztenny, “Robust Technique for Fast and Safe Transfer of Power Plant Auxiliaries,”
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 541-551, 2006.
[17] J. W. Kolodziej, “Induction motor torque during fast bus transfers,” University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, 2012.
[18] Beckwith, M-4272 Digital Motor Bus Transfer System, Beckwith Electric Co.: Florida, 2004.
[19] B. Guru and H. Hiziroglu, “Polyphase Induction Motors,” in Electric Machinery and
Transformers, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 509-559.
[20] Inst Tools, “Why Starting Current of Induction Motor is High,” Inst Tools, 2020. [Online].
Available: https://instrumentationtools.com/starting-current-induction-motor-high/. [Accessed
1 October 2020].
[21] M. Habyarimana and D. G. Dorrell, “Methods to Reduce the Starting Current of an Induction
Motor,” in IEEE International Conference on Power, Control, Signals and Instrumentation
Engineering, Durban, 2017.
[22] M. Mc Culloch, “The Effect of Voltage Dips on Induction Motor,” DPI Binder, vol. 1, pp. 1-9,
1992.
[23] R. H. Daugherty, “Analysis of transient electrical torques and shaft torques in induction
motors as a result of power supply disturbances,,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vols. PAS-101, pp. 2826-2836, 1982.
[24] J. P. Cavaroc, “Assessment of stresses on induction motors due to momentary service

interruptions,” North Carolina State University, North Carolina, 2007.
[25] F. P. Flynn and W. S. Wood, “Transient negative torques in induction motors due to rapid
reconnection of the supply,” PROC. IEE, vol. 116, no. 12, pp. 37-41, 1969.
[26] C. Woodford, “ExplainThatStuff,” 10 March 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/flywheels.html. [Accessed 21 November 2020].
[27] H. van Staden, “Benchmarking power station voltage dip performance to meet the grid code
requirements,” North-West University, Potchefstroom, 2018.
266
[28] SANS 60076-5:2006, “Power transformers Part 5: Ability to withstand short circuit,” SABS,
Groenkloof, 2006.
[29] IEEE, “IEEE Standard for Standard General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed Distribution,
Power, and Regulating Transformers,” IEEE, New York, 2007.
[30] asea, “Motor Protection Type RAMDA,” 1981.
[31] M. Proctor, “Application of Undervoltage Protection to Critical Motors,” Boston, 2018.
[32] Microsemi, “Park, Inverse Park and Clarke, Inverse Clarke Transformation MSS Software
Implementation User Guide,” 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/132799-park-inverse-park-and-
clarke-inverse-clarke-transformations-mss-software-implementation-user-guide. [Accessed
1 September 2020].
[33] ResearchGate, “What is the advantage of using Park transformation?,” 11 April 2020.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_advantage_of_using_Park_transformation#
:~:text=The%20fundamental%20reason%20to%20transform,axis)%20components%20of%2
0the%20currents. [Accessed 1 September 2020].
[34] Mathworks, “Dynamic Modeling of Induction Motor in Simulink,” 4 May 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/67214-dyanamic-
modeling-of-induction-motor-in-
simulink#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20Simulink%20simulation,motor%20in%20state%20sp
ace%20form.&text=The%20required%20equations%20are%20stated,designing%20an%20.
[Accessed 1 September 2020].
[35] J. A. de Kock, “Parameter Identification applied to induction motors,” University of

Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 1993.
[36] SANS 60034-1:2010, “South African National Standard Rotating electrical machines Part 1:
Rating and Performance,” ISBN 978-0-626-24670-9, 2010.
[37] J. Pedra, “Estimation of typical squirrel-cage induction motor parameters for dynamic
performance simulation,” IEE Proc.-Generation,. Transmission and. Distribution, vol. 153,
no. 2, 2006.
[38] DigSilent, “Technical Reference Asynchronous Machine,” DIgSILENT GmbH, Gomaringen,

2020.
267
[39] T. Rai and P. Debre, “Generalized Modeling Model Of three phase Induction Motor,” IEEE,
Vols. 978-1-4673-9925, pp. 927-931, 2016.
[40] A. Millán, C. Villanueva, J. Restrepo, J. Aller, V. Guzmán, M. Giménez and J. Viola,

“Comparing Parameter Identification Strategies for a Saturated Model of an Induction
Motor,” in Andean Region International Conference, Venezuela, 2012.
[41] Electric Motor Systems EMSA, “Load Types,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.motorsystems.org/task-b/motor-and-load/load-types. [Accessed 2 September
2020].
[42] Pump Works, “Understanding centrifugal pump and motor torque-speed curves,” Pump
Works, 15 October 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.pumpworks.com/centrifugal-pump-
motor-torque-speed-curves/. [Accessed 11 September 2020].
[43] Kaeser , “Assembly and operating Manual Screw Compressor,” KAESER

KOMPRESSOREN SE, Coburg.
[44] A. Budris, “Power Precautions: analyzing pump start-up and shutdown best practices,” 2
August 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.waterworld.com/technologies/valves/article/16190928/power-precautions-
analyzing-pump-startup-and-shutdown-best-practices. [Accessed 11 September 2020].
[45] Voith, “Hydrodynamic Couplings Principles | Features | Benefits,” Voith, Crailsheim, 2015.
[46] Mecholic, “Fluid Coupling / Fluid Clutch Construction, Working And Power Transmission,”
Mecholic, [Online]. Available: https://www.mecholic.com/2017/06/fluid-coupling-fluid-
clutch.html. [Accessed 11 September 2020].
[47] D. J. Glover, T. J. Overbye and M. S. Sarma, “Symmetrical Components,” in Power System

Analysis and Design, Boston, Cengage Learning, 2017, pp. 475-525.
[48] ABB, “Calculation of Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase Systems,” in ABB Switchgear

Manual, ABB, 2004, pp. 69-112.
[49] ABB, “Transformers and other Equipment for Switchgear Installation,” in ABB Switchgear
Manual, ABB, 2004, pp. 551-586.
[50] G. Pop, M. Chindris, C. Gecan and R. Bindiu, “Power Losses Evaluation Method in
Transformers Operated in Harmonic Polluted Systems,” in Third International Conference on
Modern Power Systems, Cluj-Napoca, 2010.
268
[51] SANS 780:2009 Edition 4, “Distribution Transformers,” SABS, Groenkloof, 2009.
[52] Actom Large Motors, “Eskom Kendal PS East Aux Cooling East,” Benoni, 2015.
[53] Siemens, “Three-Phase-Induction Motor with Squirrel Cage Rotor,” Siemens, 2017.
[54] WEG, “Electric Motor Selection,” WEG, 2008. [Online]. Available:

http://ecatalog.weg.net/TEC_CAT/tech_motor_sel_web.asp?cd_produto=33&CD_CATEGO
RIA_PRODUTO=5&cd_mercado=000I&cd_idioma_cat=EN&cd_empresa=110#. [Accessed
30 June 2020].
[55] DigSilent, “Asynchronous Motor Model Manual,” Power Factory, 2019.
[56] ABB, “ Transformers and other Equipment for Switchgear Installation,” in ABB Switchgear
Manual, ABB, 2004, pp. 551-586.
[57] J. de Kock, “Database used to indentify transformer losses and no-load current,” J.A de
Kock, Potchefstroom, 2019.
[58] Engineering Libary, “DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and
Fluid Flow,” June 1992. [Online]. Available:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/centrifugal-pumps-fluid-flow-doe-handbook.
[Accessed 29 October 2020].
[59] Beckwith, “Instruction Book M-0272 Transfer Logic Controller,” Beckwith Electric Co.,
Florida, 2003.
[60] J. C. Osbert, “Owlcation,” 28 Febuary 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://owlcation.com/stem/How-does-a-Buchholz-relay-work. [Accessed 21 November
2020].
[61] M. Mothapo, “Kendal Power Station: Switchgear Replacement Project Operating Scenarios,”
Eskom Generation, Witbank, 2014.
[62] H. J. Holley, T. A. Higgins, E. L. Young and W. L. Snider, “A COMPARISON OF

INDUCTION MOTOR MODELS FOR BUS TRANSFER STUDIES,” IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 310-319, 1990.
[63] D. J. Glover, T. J. Overbye and M. S. Sarma, “Transformers in Distribution Systems,” in

Power Systems Analysis and Design, Boston, Cenagage Learning, 2017, pp. 890-899.
269
[64] D. Bender, “ScienceDirect,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/flywheels. [Accessed 21 November 2020].
[65] Pump Fundamentals, “Pump Fundamentals,” Pump Fundamentals, 2019. [Online].

Available:
https://www.pumpfundamentals.com/what%20is%20head.htm#:~:text=Head%20is%20the%
20one%20term,talking%20about%20how%20pumps%20work.&text=Head%20is%20the%2
0height%20at,the%20head%20of%20the%20pump.. [Accessed 29 October 2020].
[66] Power Factory, “Power Factory User Manual,” Power Factory, Gomaringen, 2020.
[67] ASEA, “Motor protection type RAMDA,” Catalogue RK 64-50 E, no. 1, pp. 7445-7453, 1978.
[68] ANSI/NEMA C50.41-2012, “American National Standard Polyphase Induction Motors for
Power Generating Stations,” ANSI, 2012, 2012.
270
Appendix A: Transformer Database

SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT
PRIMARY SECONDARY CIRCUIT NO-
MVA APPARENT
DESCRIPTION VOLTAGE VOLTAGE CURRENT LOAD LOAD LOAD NO-LOAD
RATING POWER
(KV) (KV) RATING LOSSES LOSSES LOSSES LOSSES
RATING
% (KA) 0% ABB SANS780 COPPER (KW) (KW) NO LOAD
(MVA)
IMPEDANCE IMPEDANCES (KW) (KW) LOSSES ABB SANS780 CURRENT
1 - 5.474%
STATION TRANSFORMER 45 132 11 5 -
1 - 6.44% 5.4995%
5 - 6.47% 17 -
17 -6.76% 695,52 36,51 5.746% 242,46 - 193,97 22,83 - 0,15
STATION SERVICE
5 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER 1A 6,77 77,28 13,52 9,35 - 30,54 25,73 4,57 6,49 0,44
STATION SERVICE
5 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER 1B 6,80 77,28 13,52 9,35 - 30,54 25,73 4,57 6,49 0,44
UNIT TRANSFORMER
63 22 11,5
1,3,5A&B 12,80 973,72 48,89 18,70 228,13 - 182,50 29,20 - 0,13
UNIT TRANSFORMER
63 22 11,5
2,4,6A&B 12,70 973,72 48,89 12,70 228,13 - 182,50 29,20 - 0,13
HV YARD TRANSFORMER
730 420 22
1 12,60 11282,84 296,10 12,60 1526,98 - 1221,59 175,49 - 0,04
HV YARD TRANSFORMER
730 420 22
2 12,50 11282,84 296,10 12,50 1526,98 - 1221,59 175,49 - 0,04
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER A 4,41 24,73 4,33 9,35 - 14,85 13,07 1,98 2,83 0,77
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER B 4,41 24,73 4,33 9,35 - 14,85 13,07 1,98 2,83 0,77
7
22 KV, OHL 1 11 22 6,73 108,19 2,84 71,50 41,47 - 34,17 5,85 - 0,37
271
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
PRIMARY SECONDARY CIRCUIT
MVA APPARENT LOAD LOAD LOAD NO-LOAD
DESCRIPTION VOLTAGE VOLTAGE CURRENT
RATING POWER LOSSES LOSSES LOSSES LOSSES
(KV) (KV) RATING
% RATING 0% ABB SANS780 COPPER (KW) (KW) NO LOAD
(KA)
IMPEDANCE (MVA) IMPEDANCES (KW) (KW) LOSSES ABB SANS780 CURRENT
22 KV, OHL 2 7 11 22 6,40 108,19 2,84 71,50 41,47 - 34,17 5,85 - 0,37
22 KV COAL STOCKYARD
10
DISTRIBUTION BOARD 3 22 3,3 6,01 154,56 27,04 18,70 - 53,62 42,25 7,59 11,88 0,31
10
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 2A 3,3 0,4 6,28 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 2B 3,3 0,4 6,29 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
10
10
10
10
380 V STACKER
0,63 3,3 0,4
RECLAIMER BOARD 1 5,80 9,74 14,05 2,81 - 6,45 5,73 1,00 1,295315 1,22
380 V STACKER
0,63 3,3 0,4
RECLAIMER BOARD 2 5,80 9,74 14,05 2,81 - 6,45 5,73 1,00 1,295315 1,22
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6 0,4
SERVICE BOARD 1A 3,3 6,27 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6 0,4
SERVICE BOARD 1B 3,3 6,27 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
MINI SUB B 0,315 3,3 0,4 3,90 4,87 7,03 2,81 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
MINI SUB A & C 0,2 3,3 0,38 3,20 3,09 4,70 2,81 - 2,51 2,24 0,43 0,49212 2,14
272
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 3A 3,3 0,4 6,27 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 3B 3,3 0,4 5,98 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
2 22 3,3
DISTRIBUTION BOARD 7 6,10 30,91 5,41 18,70 - 16,69 14,62 2,34 3,26 0,69
2 22 3,3
DISTRIBUTION BOARD 8 6,10 30,91 5,41 18,70 - 16,69 14,62 2,34 3,26 0,69
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 4A 3,3 0,4 6,30 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COAL STOCKYARD
1,6
SERVICE BOARD 4B 3,3 0,4 6,30 24,73 35,69 2,81 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
KOPANONG HALL MINI
0,315 11
SUB 14 0,4 3,95 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
SUBSTATION EAST
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER A 5,44 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
SUBSTATION EAST
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER B 5,48 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
STATION SERVICE
3,15 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER 2A 5,67 48,69 8,52 9,35 - 22,00 18,99 3,26 4,50 0,55
STATION SERVICE
3,15 11 3,3
TRANSFORMER 2B 5,67 48,69 8,52 9,35 - 22,00 18,99 3,26 4,50 0,55
380 V ACCESS CONTROL
0,5 11
MINI SUB 0,4 4,78 7,73 11,15 9,35 - 5,31 4,72 0,85 1,062375 1,37
380 V SECURITY
0,315 11
LIGHTING MINI SUB 0,4 4,16 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
SECURITY LIGHTING
MINI SUB ’Y’ 0,315 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 3,95 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
273
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
ASH TRANSFER HOUSE
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER A 5,48 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
ASH TRANSFER HOUSE
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER B 5,48 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
ASH DUMP TRANSFORMER
0,8 11 0,4
A 4,73 12,36 17,85 9,35 - 7,88 6,98 1,19 1,587 1,09
0,8 11 0,4
B 4,69 12,36 17,85 9,35 - 7,88 6,98 1,19 1,587 1,09
CLEAN WATER DAM
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER A 5,19 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
CLEAN WATER DAM
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER B 5,22 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
5 11 3,3
A 6,73 77,28 13,52 9,35 - 30,54 25,73 4,57 6,49 0,44
5 11 3,3
B 6,84 77,28 13,52 9,35 - 30,54 25,73 4,57 6,49 0,44
STANDBY EXTENDABLE
ASH CONVEYOR 0,075 3,3 0,4
TRANSFORMER 4,20 1,16 1,67 2,81 - 1,27 1,14 0,21 0,241047 3,47
STANDBY SHIFTABLE
ASH CONVEYOR 0,075 3,3 0,4
TRANSFORMER 4,20 1,16 1,67 2,81 - 1,27 1,14 0,21 0,241047 3,47
ASH SPREADER
0,315 3,3 0,4
TRANSFORMER 5,8 4,87 7,03 2,81 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
ASH STACKER
0,5 3,3 0,4
TRANSFORMER 5,8 7,73 11,15 2,81 - 5,31 4,72 0,85 1,062375 1,37
SHIFTABLE ASH
0,075 3,3 0,4
CONVEYOR TRANSFORMER 4,2 1,16 1,67 2,81 - 1,27 1,14 0,21 0,241047 3,47
EXTENDABLE ASH
0,075 3,3 0,4
CONVEYOR TRANSFORMER 4,20 1,16 1,67 2,81 - 1,27 1,14 0,21 0,241047 3,47
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER A 5,33 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
274
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER B 5,32 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
BOILER L COAL FEEDER
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
BOILER 2 COAL FEEDER
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
WORKSHOP
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER1A 5,32 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
WORKSHOP TRANSFORMER
1,6 11 0,4
1B 5,26 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COMMON FUEL OIL
1,6 11 0,4
PLANT TRANSFORMER A 5,22 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
COMMON FUEL OIL
1,6 11 0,4
PLANT TRANSFORMER B 5,23 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
DIRTY DRAIN RECOVERY
PUMP HOUSE 0,315 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 4,02 4,87 7,03 9,350 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
UNIT 4 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
STANBY TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
UNIT 4 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
380 V CLASSIFY AND
1,6 11 0,4
DISPATCH PLNT 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
380 V CANTEEN MINI
0,315 11 0,4
SUB 4,16 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
275
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
380 V SIMULATOR
PROJECTS COMPLEX 0,315 11 0,4
MINI SUB 3,95 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
UNIT 3
1,6 11 0,4
LIGHTINGTRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
UNIT 3 STANDBY
1,6 11 0,4
LIGHTING TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
SECURITY LIGHTING
MINI SUB ’Z’ 0,315 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 4,39 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
UNIT 6 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
UNIT 6 STANDBY
1,6 11 0,4
380 V KHUTALA
RESERVOIR FEED PUMP 0,1 22 0,4
STATION 3,50 1,55 2,23 18,70 - 1,52 1,36 0,26 0,291895 3,01
380 V DIRTY DAM PUMP
0,5 22 0,4
HOUSE BOARD 6,10 7,73 11,15 18,70 - 5,31 4,72 0,85 1,062375 1,37
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 2A 5,26 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 2B 5,42 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER. 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 2A 5,26 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
276
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
TERRACE COAL PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 2B 5,42 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
HORTICULTURE 1,6 11 0,4 5,18 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
ELECTRICAL WORKSHOP
0,315 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 3,99 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
HV YARD TRANSFORMER
0,315 11 0,4
A 3,99 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
HV YARD TRANSFORMER
0,315 11 0,4
B 3,95 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
STATION
DISTRIBUTIONRIBUTION 1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 1A 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
STATION
DISTRIBUTIONRIBUTION 1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 1B 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
HYDROGEN PLANT 0,315 11 0,4 3,99 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
MINI SUB SEWAGE 0,315 11 0,4 4,02 4,87 7,03 9,35 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
S.S.B. TRANSFORMER
1,6 11 0,4
1A 5,29 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
S.S.B. TRANSFORMER
1,6 11 0,4
1B 5,22 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
WATER PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 1A 5,29 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
WATER PLANT
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 1B 5,29 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
L.P.SERVICE
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER.’A’ 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
L.P.SERVICE
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER.’B’ 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
UNIT 1 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 6,10 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
277
SHORT-
SHORT-
CIRCUIT NO-
(KV) (KV) RATING
(KA)
UNIT 1 STANDBY
1,6 11 0,4
UNIT 2 STANDBY
1,6 11 0,4
UNIT 2 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
SECURITY LIGHTING
MINI SUB ’X’ 0,2 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 3,20 3,09 4,46 9,35 - 2,51 2,24 0,43 0,49212 2,14
500KVA MINI SUB 15 0,5 11 0,4 3,86 7,73 11,15 3,474 - 5,31 4,72 0,85 1,062375 1,37
315KVA MINI SUB 19
0,315 11 0,4
(14B) 4,57 4,87 7,03 4,11 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
315KVA MINI SUB 14A 0,315 11 0,4 4,00 4,87 7,03 3,60 - 3,61 3,21 0,60 0,716111 1,72
500KVA MINI SUB 14 0,5 11 0,4 4,00 7,73 11,15 3,60 - 5,31 4,72 0,85 1,062375 1,37
25KVA PHOTOVOLTAIC
AUXILIARY 0,025 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 4,00 0,39 0,56 3,60 - 0,77 0,69 0,09 0,138399 5,95
630KVA PHOTOVOLTAIC
0,63 11 0,3
INVERTER TRANSFORMER 6,00 9,74 18,74 5,40 - 6,45 5,73 1,00 1,295315 1,22
UNIT 5 STANDBY
1,6 11 0,4
UNIT 5 LIGHTING
1,6 11 0,4
TRANSFORMER 6,00 24,73 35,69 9,35 - 13,61 11,96 1,98 2,76292 0,77
278

Carter TE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carter TE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies on motor bus transfer challenges for the

ancillary equipment of a large thermal power

Dissertation accepted in fulfilment of the requirements for the

Supervisor: Prof J de Kock

Graduation: June 2021

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xiv

List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................ xvii

List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... xxii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................ 6

1.4 Project objectives.............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Motor bus transfer and methods ....................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Hot parallel transfer / closed transfer ......................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Open transfer methods ............................................................................................ 10

2.2.3 Fast transfer (an open transfer method) ................................................................... 14

2.2.4 Delayed in-phase transfer (an open transfer method) .............................................. 15

2.2.5 Residual voltage transfer (an open transfer method) ............................................... 16

2.2.6 Fixed time transfer ................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Consequences of negligent motor bus transfers ............................................................. 17

2.3.1 High currents during starting and reconnection ........................................................ 17

2.3.2 Shaft Torque and Negative Transient Torque .......................................................... 20

2.4 Considerations to be made before initiating a motor bus transfer .................................... 29

2.4.1 Motor size ................................................................................................................ 29

2.4.2 Inertia ...................................................................................................................... 29

2.4.3 Combinations of induction and synchronous motors ................................................ 29

2.4.4 The V/Hz pu ratio during transfer ............................................................................. 30

2.5 Problems with motor bus transfer methods ..................................................................... 32

2.5.1 Impact of a motor bus transfer on the transformers .................................................. 32

2.5.2 Impact of motor bus transfer on synchronous motors .............................................. 32

2.5.4 The performance of VSDs during a motor bus transfer ............................................ 34

2.6 Characterisation of an induction motor ............................................................................ 35

2.6.1 Clarke and Park Transform ...................................................................................... 35

2.6.2 Single cage model of an induction motor ................................................................. 37

2.6.3 Dynamic or static motor models ............................................................................... 38

2.6.4 Standard tests ......................................................................................................... 39

2.6.5 Double cage model of an induction motor ................................................................ 40

2.6.6 DigSilent™ Model of a double cage induction motor ................................................ 43

2.6.7 Parameter identification by using Pedra’s method ................................................... 43

2.6.8 Parameter identification by using the error elimination method ................................ 44

2.6.9 Other methods to determine induction motor parameters ........................................ 46

2.6.10 Load torque model ................................................................................................... 46

2.7 Starting of mechanical loads such as pumps and compressors ...................................... 48

2.8 Using hydraulic couplings for conveyor belt starting ........................................................ 51

2.9 Transformers .................................................................................................................. 56

2.9.1 Zero-sequence reactance............................................................................................ 56

2.9.2 Transformer losses and no-load current ...................................................................... 59

2.10 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 61

Chapter 3: Characterisation of electrical machines ....................................................................... 63

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 63

3.2 Motor characterization .................................................................................................... 63

3.2.1 Pedra’s method of identifying induction motor parameters .......................................... 69

3.2.2 8* Optimization method on identifying induction motor parameters ............................. 73

3.2.3 Pedra’s Method compared to the Optimization method ............................................... 89

3.3 Modelling the transformers.............................................................................................. 96

3.3.1 Modelling the zero-sequence reactance ...................................................................... 97

3.3.2 Modelling the transformer losses and no-load current ................................................. 97

3.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 105

Chapter 4: Design and simulation of DIgSILENT™ model .......................................................... 106

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 106