This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Carl T. Tinsley, III
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering
Dr. Dushan Boroyevich, Chair Dr. Jason Lai Dr. William Baumann
August 5, 2003 Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: Average Model, Multipulse transformer, SmallSignal Stability Copyright 2003, Carl T. Tinsley, III
This page is left intentionally blank.
ii
Modeling of MultiPulse Transformer Rectiﬁer Units in Power Distribution Systems
by Carl T. Tinsley, III Dushan Boroyevich, Chairman Electrical Engineering (ABSTRACT)
Multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units are becoming increasingly popular in power distribution systems. These topologies can be found in aircraft power systems, motor drives, and other applications that require low total harmonic distortion (THD) of the input line current. This increase in the use of multipulse transformer topologies has led to the need to study large systems composed of said units and their interactions within the system. There is also an interest in developing smallsignal models so that stability issues can be studied. This thesis presents a procedure for developing the average model of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer topologies. The dq rotating reference frame was used to develop the average model and parameter estimation is incorporated through the use of polynomial ﬁts. The average model is composed of nonlinear dependent sources and linear passive components. A direct beneﬁt from this approach is a reduction in simulation time by two orders of magnitude. The average model concept demonstrates that it accurately predicts the dynamics of the system being studied. In particular, two speciﬁc topologies are studied, the 12pulse hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer (hex t/r) and the 18pulse autotransformer rectiﬁer unit (ATRU). In both cases, detailed switching model results are used to verify the operation of the average model. In the case of the hex t/r, the average model is further validated with experimental data from an 11 kVA prototype. The hex t/r output impedance, obtained from the linearized average model, has also been veriﬁﬁed experimentally.
This page is left intentionally blank.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I graciously thank my advisor, Dr. Dushan Boroyevich, for the time and eﬀort that he has devoted to all his students over the last two years. I am very grateful to Dr. Boroyevich, who aﬀorded me the opportunity to start my research in power electronics, while I was still an undergraduate student. I also extend my gratitude to him for the generous guidance that he has provided to me over the last three years as my research and graduate advisor. Thanks to my other committee members, Dr. Jason Lai and Dr. William Baumann, for their commitment to serving as dedicated committee members. Dr. Lai’s undergraduate courses initially sparked my interest in power electronics. Dr. Baumann’s controls course gave me a strong foundation in classical control systems. I would like to take this time to thank the many students that I have worked with during my time at CPES. Thanks and appreciation is given to my team members on the Thales project: Rolando Burgos, Chong Han, Frederic Lacaux, Konstantin Louganski, Xiangfei Ma, Sebastian Rosado, Alexander UanZoli, and Dr. Fred Wang. I also want to thank my other friends at CPES: Julie Zhu, Bing Lu, Bass Sock, Joe Barnette, Jerry Francis and Josh Hawley. I have enjoyed spending time with you guys inside and outside of the lab. I would like to thank Steve Chen, Jaime Evans, Marianne Hawthorne, Dan Huﬀ, Bob Martin, Trish Rose, Theresa Shaw, Elizabeth Tranter, and the rest of the CPES staﬀ for their support during the last two years. Their dedication makes CPES what it is today. Special thanks goes to my family and friends for the support that they have provided to me during my educational career. Your love, encouragement and motivation has been a godsend to me during the last two years. To my mom  Sheila Tinsley, my dad  Carl v
Tinsley, Jr., my brother  DeAnthony Tinsley, my nephew, my grandparents, my aunts, and my uncles: thank you for having faith in me and being there for me as I pursued my goals. I would like to acknowledge that there is a power greater than me that made all of this possible. Thank God for all his wonderful blessings, without Him, none of what I have achieved would exist.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer overview . . . . . 1.2.1 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Diﬀerent types of models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Switching models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Average models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
PAGE ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 3 3 6 6 6 7 7 9 9 9 11 11 13 13 19 19 19 19 20 21 23 24 24 27 29 29 31 31
2 HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Operation of the hexagon transformer and rectiﬁer . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.1 Transformer conﬁguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Development of the switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Simulation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Switching model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 HEX T/R AVERAGE MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Average model concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Deﬁnition of average model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 General approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Hex t/r average model development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Average model equation formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.1 Initial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.2 Revised model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 1st harmonic assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Switching model analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Parameter extraction and estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4.1 Parameter extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
3.5
3.6
3.4.4.2 Commutation inductor value estimation Average model veriﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Steadystate results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Transient results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............. ............. ............. ............. .............
32 37 38 39 39 45 45 45 45 47 47 47 48 53 53 57 59 59 59 60 61 63 63 68 68 68 70 72 73
4 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Experimental hardware/test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Description of hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Description of measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3.1 Timedomain measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3.2 Output impedance measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Timedomain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Output impedance results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MODELING OF AN 18PULSE AUTOTRANSFORMER AND RECTIFIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Operation of autotransformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Transformer conﬁguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Switching model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Switching model analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Average model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Equation formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Average model veriﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 APPENDIX A 11 kVA HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL OPERATING POINT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.1 MATLAB ﬁles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.1.1 The α polynomial ﬁt mﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 viii
B.1.2 The kv polynomial ﬁt mﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B.1.3 The ki polynomial ﬁt mﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B.1.4 Linear approximation of the variables α, kv , and ki mﬁle . . . . . . . 87 APPENDIX C SABER SCHEMATIC MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1 SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.1 Hex t/r SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.2 ATRU SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2 SABER MAST code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.1 The α polynomial saber mast ﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.2 The kv polynomial saber mast ﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.3 The α linear saber mast ﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.4 The kv linear saber mast ﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 91 91 91 91 99 99 100 100
VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
ix
This page is left intentionally blank.
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
Page Simpliﬁed aircraft power system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aircraft maintenance frequency changer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12pulse transformer rectiﬁer system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer topology: (a) hexagon transformer and (b) 12pulse rectiﬁer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Switching model schematic of hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r input voltage and current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output voltage and current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harmonic spectrum of hex t/r input current, ia , at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r input voltage and current at 4.9 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output voltage and current at 4.9 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black box model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generator/rectiﬁer space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagon transformer/ rectiﬁer space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial average model schematic (steady state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial average model schematic (steady state) with crosscoupling terms . Average model schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex T/R abc to dq transformation: (a) hex t/r dq voltages and (b) hex t/r dq currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model parameters plotted over the operating range of the hex t/r: (a) α vs. the load current, idc , (b) kv vs. the load current, idc , and (c) ki vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . α vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . α v. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv v. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transient response of output voltage, vdc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 2 2 5 10 12 15 15 16 16 17 17 21 22 25 26 27 28 30
3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13
33 34 34 35 36 37
3.14 Transient Response of Output Current, idc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 10.6 kVA under steadystate conditions . . . 3.16 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5.1 kVA under steadystate conditions . . . 3.17 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 10.6 kVA under steadystate conditions . . . 3.18 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 5.1 kVA under steadystate conditions . . . . 3.19 Hex T/R Output Voltage, vdc , under transient conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.20 Hex T/R Output Current, idc , under transient conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 5 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 5 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 5 A/div . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 8 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 8 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . . Output impedance block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance measurement board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental output impedance at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output impedance at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18pulse ATRU topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18pulse autotransformer vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Switching model schematic of ATRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU input current, ia , and input voltage, va , at 100 kVA this is a test to make this really long i hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU input line current, ia , harmonic spectrum at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage rails with respect to the input voltage neutral, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU bridge rectiﬁer dc currents at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . abc to dq transformation of ATRU rectiﬁer bridge to currents: (a) abc currents and (b) dq currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Pulse ATRU average model block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . ATRU ±270 V output voltage rails, vdc,minus and vdc,plus , at 100 kVA . . . . ATRU bridge current, idc,Br , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
38 40 40 41 41 42 42 46 48 49 49 50 50 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 58 60 62 62 64 64 65 65 66 67 69 71 71 72 74 74 75
5.17 ATRU Bridge 1 output voltage rails, vdcplus,Br1 and vdcminus,Br1 , at 100 kVA 75 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 Hex t/r switching model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r average model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU switching model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU average model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU average model block SABER schematic . . . . . . . ATRU bridge rectiﬁer average model SABER schematic . ATRU Bridge 1 average model SABER schematic . . . . . Average model circuit SABER schematic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 93 94 95 96 96 97 98
xiii
This page is left intentionally blank.
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3
Page 12pulse hex t/r switching model parameter values at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . 14 The The The The The Hex dq rotating coordinates average values . . . α polynomial terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv polynomial terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . α linear terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv linear terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t/r average model circuit parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32 33 35 35 39 46 51 55 56 57
11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype speciﬁcations . . . . . Audio ampliﬁer, Jensen XA2150, speciﬁcations . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r results at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r results at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance measurement system characterization
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
...... ...... ...... ...... ......
.. .. .. .. ..
Input/output speciﬁcations for 100 kVA 18pulse ATRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 100 kVA 18pulse ATRU switching model parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ATRU average model circuit parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.1 Hex t/r switching model operating point data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
xv
This page is left intentionally blank.
xvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Motivation
This work was motivated by the need to simulate large power distribution systems and to study interactions between the individual subsystems. Aircraft power system is one of the applications in which these large scale power distribution simulation models prove useful [1]. As the move towards the More Electric Aircraft (MEA) continues, there is a desire to eﬀectively model these systems in both the time domain and the frequency domain [1], [2], [3]. A simpliﬁed aircraft power distribution system is presented in Figure 1.1 [2]. This system diﬀers from the traditional aircraft power system in that the aircraft starter/generator supplies a variable frequency. One of the main components of this system is the AC/DC converter that provides the 270 V dc bus voltage. It has been shown in literature that one possible solution is the 18pulse autotransformer rectiﬁer unit (ATRU) [4]. This ATRU topology has the advantages of reduced kVA ratings and improved line current harmonics [4]. Aircraft maintenance frequency changers, such as the one shown in Figure 1.2, are commonly connected in parallel at the input to service several aircrafts at one time. This frequency changer converts the 60 Hz ground supply to 400 Hz so that the avionics in the aircraft can be serviced [5]. The stepdown isolation transformer and 12pulse diode rectiﬁer, commonly referred to as the 12pulse hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer (hex t/r), is the frontend to the system. The hex t/r rectiﬁes the ac input and provides a stable dc 1
Main DC Bus 270 V
270 V Load
Aircraft Engine
Starter/ Generator
AC/DC Converter
270 V Load
Figure 1.1 Simpliﬁed aircraft power system supply for the 4leg inverter. In order to study the stability of the entire system, smallsignal models of the individual subsystems are needed. For this particular application, the system being studied is the hex t/r. This topology greatly reduces the harmonics in the input line current [6].
12pulse Diode Rectifier DC Link 4Leg Inverter 3phase Variable Frequency
3phase 60 Hz
StepDown Isolation Hexagon Transformer
Controller
Figure 1.2 Aircraft maintenance frequency changer Two examples of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units operating in power distribution systems have been presented. One of the aims of this work is to eﬀectively develop models of these multipulse topologies that can be used in the large system simulation models. It should be noted that the term stability refers to smallsignal stability. In most cases, the smallsignal model is obtained by linearizing about an operating point. In this thesis, the average model of the multipulse transformer topologies is derived for use in smallsignal analysis. The derived model is continuous and nonlinear in nature. Software is used to linearize the system about an operating point. While literature shows that average models of 6pulse bridge rectiﬁers have been developed which are suitable 2
for smallsignal analysis, [7] and [8], there is little information on the average models of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units. The next sections will describe the operation of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units, and will discuss the diﬀerent types of models that could be used in the simulation of large power distribution systems.
1.2
Multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer overview
This section will provide an overview of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer systems. The operation of the 12pulse transformer rectiﬁer will be reviewed, and some applications of these circuits will be provided.
1.2.1
Operation
Literature on multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer topology has existed for several years [9]. The term multipulse is deﬁned as any number of n 6pulse bridge rectiﬁers connected in series or parallel, where n is greater than 1. The two main advantages to using multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer topologies are a reduction in the ac input line current harmonics and a reduction in the dc output voltage ripple [6]. The input current harmonics are reduced through the use of phaseshifting transformers. The expressions
Harm = 6kn ± 1 M ag =
(1.1) (1.2) (1.3) (1.4)
k = any positive integer n = number of six pulse converters
1 6kn ± 1
provide a simple way to calculate the frequency and magnitude of harmonics that will be present in the ac input line current when multipulse topologies are implemented [6]. The 3
frequencies at which the harmonics will appear for an npulse converter are computed by multiplying 1.1 by the fundamental frequency of the system. The magnitude of the harmonics are calculated by multiplying 1.2 by the amplitude of the signal at the fundamental frequency. For example, if a 12pulse transformer/rectiﬁer system were to be implemented, the ﬁrst harmonics to contribute to the total harmonic distortion (THD) of the input line current would be the 11th and 13th . It can be seen that by using a phaseshifting transformer and adding and additional 6pulse diode rectiﬁer bridge, the harmonic content in the supply current is attenuated up to the 11th harmonic as opposed to the 5th for the traditional 6pulse bridge rectiﬁer.
The 12pulse transformer/rectiﬁer system shown in Figure 1.3 is a topology commonly found in existing literature [10]  [11]. The system shown in Figure 1.3 has the two diode bridges connected in parallel. For this particular type of connection, interphase transformers are required. The interphase transformers absorb the diﬀerence in the instantaneous voltage produced by the two 6pulse rectiﬁers [9]. The interphase transformers prevent the two bridges from interacting with one another and allow the conduction angle of the diode to remain at 120◦ . For this particular topology, each bridge rectiﬁer processes 50% of the load power.
The cancellation of harmonics in the ac input line current is achieved through the use of phaseshifting transformers. For this example, the phase shift employed by the transformer is 30◦ . The primary side of the transformer is connected in a delta, while the secondary is connected in delta and wye. The phase shift produced by the delta and wye secondary voltages is what allows for the cancellation of the current harmonics. One of the issues associated with this topology is that the turns ratio in the secondary √ must approximate an irrational number ( 3). This approximation can lead to voltage imbalance between the two bridges which will reduce the attenuation of harmonics in the ac input line current. 4
Bridge 1 ia,Br1
idc,Br1 +
Interphase Transformer
idc +
ib,Br1 ia ic,Br1
vdc,Br1
Bridge 2 idc,Br2 + L o a d vdc
ib ic ia,Br2
ib,Br2 ic,Br2
vdc,Br2


Figure 1.3 12pulse transformer rectiﬁer system
5
1.2.2
Applications
The multipulse transformer topology generally acts as an interface between the power electronics load and the utility supply. Some of the most common applications for multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer systems include motor drives, interruptible power supplies (UPS) systems, aircraft variable speed constant frequency (VSCF) systems, and frequency changer systems [10], [12]. In other work [13], the author develops an 18pulse autotransformer rectiﬁer system that does not require the use of interphase transformers. He instead takes advantage of the unequal current sharing in the three bridges. He is able to reduce the system size by eliminating the interphase transformers, and also achieves a harmonic current that is reduced as compared with that of a 12pulse system. Some other applications of multipulse transformer topologies involve adding switching circuitry to the interphase transformers to improve the pulse number of the line current [11], [14].
1.3
Diﬀerent types of models
This section will provide some background information on the diﬀerent types of models available for analyses. For this work, the focus will be directed toward switching models and average models.
1.3.1
Switching models
Simulation models that account for the turning on and oﬀ of semiconductor switches are commonly referred to as switching models. These detailed computer simulation models are used to observe the operation of the converter during steadystate and transient operation. Computer simulation programs such as SABER and MATLAB can be used to simulate these complex circuits [15], [16], [17], [18]. Some of the disadvantages to using switching models include numerical instability, long simulation time, convergence errors, 6
and huge computational loads [19]  [20]. These issues, along with the need for a model that can be used for smallsignal analyses, has led to the development of average models.
1.3.2
Average models
Some of the advantages of average models include reduced simulation time, ability to simulate transient conditions, and the ability to perform smallsignal analyses [20]. Some of the functions related to smallsignal analysis include assessment of stability and design of closedloop controllers. Average models have been used to simulate large dc power systems [20]. There, the results have been compared with test data to demonstrate that the modeling approach is valid.
1.4
Objectives
This thesis presents a detailed procedure for developing the average model of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units. An average model of the 12pulse hex t/r is presented and veriﬁed through simulation and experimental data. The average model concept developed for the 12pulse hex t/r is then extended to the more complex 18pulse ATRU. The ATRU results are validated through a comparison with the detailed switching model. The presented procedures and concepts are adopted from previous results for 6pulse transformer/rectiﬁers and are applied here to 12pule and 18pulse units for the ﬁrst time. Chapter 2 will discuss the switching model of the 12pulse hex t/r. A general review of the topology is presented, and the issues encountered during simulation are discussed. Simulation results obtained under steadystate conditions are provided for reference. The average model of the hex t/r is the main focus of Chapter 3. The development of the average model from conception to implementation is discussed. Issues such as accounting for commutation inductance and accounting for the variation in parameters is presented. Results are compared with the switching model under steadystate and transient conditions. Chapter 4 presents experimental results that were collected from a 7
11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype. The data from the hardware testing is compared with the average model and switching model simulations under steadystate conditions. The smallsignal validity of the average model is veriﬁed by experimentally measuring the output impedance. The average model concept is extended to the 18pulse ATRU topology in Chapter 5. A detailed switching model is provided to verify the results generated by the 18pulse ATRU average model. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes this work by summarizing the main points covered and providing a few ﬁnal comments.
8
CHAPTER 2 HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL
2.1
Introduction
This chapter will provide detailed information about the switching model of the hex t/r. The switching model is deﬁned as the detailed computer simulation that models the commutation and conduction of the diodes in the rectiﬁer bridge. The hexagon transformer windings are also included in the switching model. Since diodes are used in this topology, the switching is uncontrolled. The following sections will provide insight into the operation of the hex t/r as well as some simulation results. Issues encountered during the development of the switching model will also be discussed.
2.1.1
Operation of the hexagon transformer and rectiﬁer
The hex t/r topology, shown in Figure 2.1, is used as the frontend to the frequency changer. The hex t/r function is similar to that of the standard wyedeltawye 12pulse transformer/rectiﬁer. As mentioned in the introduction, the harmonics in the line current are reduced due to the multipulse concept. Some other advantages gained by using the hex t/r topology include wellmatched voltage and leakage reactances and the elimination of the interphase reactor [21]. The windings of the hexagon transformer are discussed in the following section. 9
Primary Winding X11 X12 Virtual Neutral X9 X10 C1 B2
X2 A1 A
X1 Secondary Winding X4 C2 X3
C
B B1 A2 X5 Taps X8
(a)
X6
X7
Lfilter Lc Lc Lc +
X2 X8 X6 X12 X4 X10 X1 X7 X5 X11 X3 X9
Cfilter
R
vdc
Lc
Lc
Lc (b)
Figure 2.1 Hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer topology: (a) hexagon transformer and (b) 12pulse rectiﬁer
10
2.1.1.1
Transformer conﬁguration
The primary of the hexagon transformer is connected in delta. The hexagon shape is formed by connecting the secondary windings end to end. Each primary winding has two associated secondary windings. The secondary windings are tapped such that the output voltages are phased 30◦ apart with respect to the virtual neutral, ◦, which is located in the center of the hexagon. The twelve taps are connected to diodes, where two 6pulse midpoint converters are formed. One of the converters provides the positive dc voltage potential, while the other provides the negative dc voltage potential [21]. The turns ratio between the secondary windings and the tap windings is tan 15◦ . Although this number is diﬃcult to reproduce, it can be approximated easier than the √ 3 in the deltawyedelta conﬁguration, particularly at low voltages. The leakage reactances in the system are well matched due to the fact that each primary winding can be sandwiched between two secondary windings [21]. In this particular application, commutation inductors are used to improve the current harmonics. The commutation inductors adjust the commutation overlap angle of the diodes by interacting with the leakage inductances of the transformer [22]. By compensating the line reactance in the transformer, the 11th harmonic can be reduced to less that 3% [6].
2.2
Development of the switching model
The switching model of the hex t/r consists of a threephase delta connected power supply, a transformer core consisting of twelve secondary legs, a rectiﬁer bridge containing 12 diodes, and an output ﬁlter. The switching model was constructed using the SABER simulation program [15], [17]. The model as it appears in SABER is shown in Figure 2.2. The transformer models used in the switching model are linear and only account for magnetizing inductance. The switching model does not take into account the parasitics such as leakage inductance and winding resistance. The diode models that are used are piecewise linear models. An on and oﬀ conductance, as well as an on voltage, can be 11
ThreePhase Input Source Va Vb X1 Vc X5 Va X9 Vb Vc Va X2 Vb X6 Vc X10
Hexagon Transformer c1 c3 c5
c2 c4 c6
c4
c6 c2
Vb Va X7 Vb X11
X8 Vc
X12
Va Vc
X4
X3
Figure 2.2 Switching model schematic of hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer
c5 c1 c3
12
12pulse Bridge Rectifier Lc X2 X8 Lc
Lfilter Lc Lc idc +
X1 X7 X5 X11 X3 X9 Cfilter X6 X12 X4 X10 R
vdc
Lc
Lc

speciﬁed for the diode model. A series resistance is included in both the ﬁlter inductor and ﬁlter capacitor to make the circuit more realizable.
2.2.1
Simulation issues
Some of the issues encountered while simulating the switching model include convergence and numerical instability. Due to the complexity of the topology, ramp functions were used to soft start the system to aid with convergence. These soft starts are required partly due to the commutation inductors used in the topology. The commutation inductors are connected in series with the switching elements (diodes) and in series with the output ﬁlter inductor. This conﬁguration makes it diﬃcult for the solver to calculate the steadystate operating point. Initial conditions, other than zero, are unhelpful because it is practically impossible to precisely match the values of all the inductor currents and all the diode conductor states. Due to the complex circuitry, the range of the time step required for convergence is generally very large. The maximum time step is on the order of hundreds of microseconds while the smallest time step is in the nanosecond to picosecond range. As the operating point of the hex t/r moves into the light load range, the range of the time step becomes more reasonable. There is signiﬁcant numerical instability that shows up the in the switching model waveforms. This numerical instability is addressed in the next section.
2.3
Switching model results
The switching model of the hex t/r is simulated at various load conditions (full load and half load) in order to illustrate some the issues listed in the previous section and to verify the operation of the hex t/r. The parameters used in the simulation are shown in Table 2.1. The on voltage and the on and oﬀ resistance of the diodes are represented as von , Ron and Rof f , respectively. The magnitizing inductance used in the hex t/r simulation is labeled as Lmag . The line frequency of the system is listed as fline . The full 13
load operating point of the hex t/r corresponds to an output power of 10.6 kVA (R = 4.05 Ω), while the half load operating point is 5.1 kVA (R = 10 Ω). The results shown in Figures 2.3  2.8 demonstrate the operation of the hex t/r system. Table 2.1 12pulse hex t/r switching model parameter values at 10.6 kVA Parameter Value Vab (rms) 440.0 V Lf ilter 1124 µH RLf ilter,esr 200 mΩ Cf ilter 2400 µF RCf ilter,esr 50 mΩ Lc 675.0 µH R 4.050 Ω Von 1.25 V Ron 1 µΩ Rof f 1 TΩ Lmag 3H fline 60 Hz
The input voltage and current waveforms are shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.7 at full load and half load, respectively. The clean input voltage waveforms can be attributed to the ideal voltage source used. The input current, ia , has nearly sinusoidal shape. This nice waveform can be attributed to the 12pulse topology. The output voltage and the output current of the hex t/r at full load and half load are shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.8. The output voltage, vdc , has very little ripple, due to the large ﬁlter capacitor used in the simulation. The output current, idc , has been plotted over one 60 Hz line cycle in Figure 2.5. It can be observed that there are 12 ripples in one line cycle. The harmonic spectrum of the line current, ia is shown in Figure 2.6. The magnitude of the harmonics is plotted as a percentage of the fundamental. The bottom half of the ﬁgure zooms in on the harmonic content, speciﬁcally focusing on the high orders such as the 11th , 13th , 23rd , 25th and so on. It can be observed that the harmonic content is extremely low. This is in agreement with the the claims of the hex t/r topology. 14
600 Input Voltage (Volts) 400 200 0 −200 −400 −600 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09
v
ab
0.1
30 Input Current (Amps) 20 10 0 −10 −20 −30 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09 0.1 ia
Figure 2.3 Hex t/r input voltage and current at 10.6 kVA
210 Output Voltage (Volts) v 209 208 207 206 205 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08
dc
55 Output Current (Amps)
50
i 45 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075
dc
0.08
Figure 2.4 Hex t/r output voltage and current at 10.6 kVA
15
55 idc 54 53 52 Output Current (Amps) 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 0.04
0.042
0.044
0.046
0.048 0.05 Time (sec)
0.052
0.054
0.056
Figure 2.5 Hex t/r output current at 10.6 kVA
100 i 80 % Magnitude 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 Frequency (Hz) 2000 2500 3000
a
5 4 % Magnitude 3 2 1 0 500 1000 ia
11th th 13 23
th
25
th
35
th
37
th
1500 2000 Frequency (Hz)
2500
3000
Figure 2.6 Harmonic spectrum of hex t/r input current, ia , at 10.6 kVA
16
600 Input Voltage (Volts) 400 200 0 −200 −400 −600 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09
v
ab
0.1
15 Input Current (Amps) 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09 0.1 ia
Figure 2.7 Hex t/r input voltage and current at 4.9 kVA
230 Output Voltage (Volts) 229 228 227 226 225 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07 Time (sec) 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09 vdc
25 Output Current (Amps) i 24 23 22 21 20 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07 Time (sec) 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09
dc
Figure 2.8 Hex t/r output voltage and current at 4.9 kVA
17
Some of the convergence issues associated with this model can be seen in Figure 2.7. Large spikes can be observed in the line current, ia . These spikes can be attributed to the complexity of the hex t/r topology, as discussed in the previous section. In Chapter 4, it will be shown that this error is nothing more than numerical instability.
18
CHAPTER 3 HEX T/R AVERAGE MODEL
3.1
Introduction
For the analyses of a large system, the average model satisﬁes three purposes. First, the average model is needed to provide accurate steadystate and transient results so that the computational expenses and numerical instabilities can be eliminated. Second, the average model of the hex t/r is required so that the stability of the system can be assessed on both global and local scales. Finally, the average model can be used to perform parametric studies.
3.2
sections.
Average model concept
The concept of the average model of the hex t/r will be described in the following
3.2.1
Deﬁnition of average model
The switching model waveforms presented in Chapter 2, such as those given in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, contain highorder harmonics in both the ac and dc variables. In terms of assessing the steadystate operation of the system, the higherorder terms can be neglected since only the average and root mean square (rms) values of the ﬁrst harmonic are of interest. Because of this, the average model needs only to consider the fundamental 19
frequency. The assumptions made when working with the fundamental frequency will be formally presented in Section 3.4.2. In most switching systems, the average model is obtained by calculating the average over one switching interval. During this switching interval, the highfrequency switching content is removed or averaged out. This averaging function, sometimes referred to as a ’moving average’ is described in other work [23] and is shown in (3.1). The value computed by (3.1) will change from switching period to switching period as lowfrequency perturbations are encountered by the system.
x(t) = ˆ
1 Ts
t
x(τ )dτ
t−Ts
(3.1)
The multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer diode commutations occur 6n times every line period, so that Ts = 6n/fline , where n is the number of 6pulse rectiﬁers in the unit. The average models of threephase bridge rectiﬁers have already been proposed [7], [24], [25], and [8]. In all of these cases, the topology of the bridge rectiﬁer diﬀers from the one described in this application. In particular, the topologies studied were 6pulse, not 12pulse as is the case of the hex t/r. Also, there are no commutation inductors immediately following the diodes in the bridge. It will be shown in Section 3.4.4.2 that the value of the commutation inductance used in the average model greatly aﬀects transient response. One attribute that is similar in all the proposed solutions is that the average model is derived in the dq0 reference frame, so the threephase abc input can be directly related to the dc output through the use of scaling constants. This concept will be used in the derivation of the hex t/r average model.
3.2.2
General approach
The switching model provides information important to the creation of a reducedorder model with which the system can be modeled using a black box approach, as shown in Figure 3.1. By linearizing about several operating points, equations do not need to be developed that detail the exact relationship between the input and the output. 20
Therefore, there is suﬃcient experimental and simulation data to describe the system empirically. In this way, any system can be described as long as its basic operating principles are understood. Naturally, for the system shown in Figure 2.2 and other similar conﬁgurations, the basic principle is to relate the magnitude of the input vector to the output. This methodology can produce accurate models, but these models are only valid for a speciﬁc operating range. However, more general approaches normally do not take into account second order eﬀects such as operating temperature, core saturation, etc. The switching model automatically includes these because it is based upon experimental data. Likewise, the resulting average model should also capture these dynamics. The tradeoﬀ is between a mathematical model that is accurate throughout all possible operating points and an empirical model that is very accurate but only for a certain range of operating points.
Inputs
System Experimental and Simulation Data
Outputs
Figure 3.1 Black box model
3.3
Previous work
The average model of the hex t/r evolved from previous research conducted by Ivan Jadric [26]. Jadric was interested in designing a dclink controller for a synchronous generator set. This generator set included two separate 6pulse diode rectiﬁers. In order to design the controller, Jadric needed smallsignal models of all of the subsystems in the generator set, which included the two diode rectiﬁers. This led him to develop an average model of a 6pulse diode rectiﬁer. 21
In the derivation of the 6pulse diode rectiﬁer model, Jadric develops a relationship between the fundamental frequency of the ac variables and the average value of the dc variables. The magnitudes of the fundamental harmonics of the generator’s voltage and current are assumed to be proportional to the dc components of the rectiﬁed voltage and current,
vdc ¯ kv ¯dc i , ki
and
respectively. The space vector diagram for this system is shown in
Figure 3.2.
d
id φ
idc/ki
vd
vdc/kv δ vq
q
iq
Figure 3.2 Generator/rectiﬁer space vector diagram
Using the information shown in Figure 3.2, equations can be derived that describe the operation of the average model of the diode rectiﬁer. The equations shown in (3.2)  (3.7) can be used to model the 6pulse diode rectiﬁer. The angle δ represents the generator’s rotor angle, while φ accounts for the phase shift between the fundamental harmonic of the generator’s voltage and current. The quantities vd , vq , ¯d , and ¯q are the generator’s ¯ ¯ i i voltage and current transformed to the dq reference frame. 22
vdc = kv (¯d sinδ + vq cosδ) ¯ v ¯ ¯dc = ki (¯d sin(δ + φ) + ¯q cos(δ + φ)) i i i ¯ ¯d = idc sin(δ + φ) i ki ¯dc i ¯q = i cos(δ + φ) ki vd ¯ δ = tan−1 vq ¯ ¯d i vd ¯ φ = tan−1 ¯ − tan−1 iq vq ¯
(3.2) (3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6) (3.7)
The average model presented by Jadric requires some general comments. During the development of the model, a ﬁrst harmonic assumption is made. This means the model is only valid at the fundamental frequency of the generator’s voltage and current. The second assumption that is made is that the energy transfer occurs at the fundamental frequency. The equations governing the power balance of the system are shown in (3.8) and (3.9). Equation (3.10) is valid only when the diode rectiﬁer is assumed to be lossless.
pin = vd¯d + vq¯q ¯ ¯i ¯i pout = vdc¯dc ¯ ¯ i pin = pout ¯ ¯
(3.8) (3.9) (3.10)
3.4
Hex t/r average model development
The average model of the hex t/r is an extension of the model developed by Jadric. This model diﬀers from his in that the diode bridge includes 12 diodes in one bridge instead of six in Jadric’s case. The hex t/r topology also contains commutation inductors that can not be neglected. These factors must be taken into account during model development. The development of the average model of the hex t/r in the dq0 reference frame 23
will be discussed in this section. The proposed model is divided into three subsections: equation formulation, ﬁrst harmonic assumptions, and parameter extraction.
3.4.1
Average model equation formulation
The development of the hex t/r average model can be broken down into several steps. The initial model that was developed was revised several times, leading to its present form. This section will describe in detail the initial model and the subsequent revisions.
3.4.1.1
Initial model
The ﬁrst step in developing the hex t/r average model involves generating a space vector diagram similar to the one depicted in Figure 3.2. The space vector diagram in Figure 3.3 diﬀers from Jadric’s in that the input voltage is aligned solely with the dchannel. In this case, the Park’s transform is aligned with the linetoneutral voltage vector vln to force the vq component to zero. A direct result of a zero value for vq is that ¯ ¯ ¯ the angle δ is zero and can removed from the diagram. The vector ¯dc  represents the v output voltage of the rectiﬁer prior to ﬁltering. The angle α represents the phase shift between the fundamental harmonic of the hex t/r’s input voltage and input current. The vectors ¯d and ¯q represent the input current of the hex t/r in the dq coordinate system. i i The output current is represented by ¯dc . The variables kv and ki are used to develop a i relationship between the ac and dc quantities of the voltages and currents. The next step in the development process of the hex t/r average model is to write equations that describe the geometry of the space vector diagram. These equations, shown in (3.11)  (3.15), are continuous in nature and describe the operation of the hex t/r. These equations are valid at any operating point. Now that the space vector diagram and resulting equations have been explained in detail, the circuit model can be introduced. 24
q
iq
iinabc=idc,Br/ki α id
d vd=vinabc=vdc,Br/kv
Figure 3.3 Hexagon transformer/ rectiﬁer space vector diagram
¯dc  = kv v
vd + v q ¯2 ¯2
(3.11) (3.12) (3.13) (3.14) (3.15)
vq = 0 ¯ ¯ ¯d = idc cos(α) i ki ¯dc ¯q = i sin(α) i ki ¯q i α = tan−1 ¯ id
The third step in developing the average model of the hex t/r involves developing a circuit model. This average model circuit is composed of dependent sources and a passive ﬁlter. The circuit of the average model of the hex t/r is presented in Figure 3.5. The resistor Rw is used to approximate the losses. This value is computed by using the eﬃciency data from the switching model or measurements. The ﬁlter components, Lf ilter and Cf ilter have the same value as in the real circuit. The dq currents and dc link voltage, vdc , are represented by dependent current and voltage sources, respectively. ¯ Using the set of continuous equations provided in (3.11)  (3.15) and the circuit model shown in Figure 3.4, the average model can be used to simulate the steadystate operation of the hex t/r at any operating point. For this model to work properly, operating point 25
vd
+ −
id Rw vdc’ + idc C R Lfilter + vdc 
vq + −
iq
Figure 3.4 Initial average model schematic (steady state)
data must be collected from either a detailed switching model or actual hardware. When considering the validity of this average model during transient conditions, other factors must be considered, such as variations in the parameters α, kv and ki . This is discussed in detail in Section 3.4.4. One of the key features of the hex t/r topology is the commutation inductance on the dc side of the unit. This commutation inductance is used to adjust the leakage reactance in the transformer. It is known that these commutation inductors aﬀect the dynamics of the system and incur a voltage drop. In an eﬀort to include the voltage drop in the average model circuit, crosscoupling terms were added to the circuit. The circuit model shown in Figure 3.5 uses the product βωLc multiplied by the current to account for the voltage drop. The term ω represents the electrical frequency of the rectiﬁer’s input voltage, β, which is a variable that is computed at each operating point to adjust the output voltage to its correct value, and Lc represents the value of one of the coils in the commutation inductor. New equations governing the operation of the hex t/r must be derived due to the inclusion of the crosscoupling terms. The equations shown in (3.13)  (3.14) and (3.16)  (3.18) describe the operation of the hex t/r circuit presented in Figure 3.5. For this system, there are more equations than unknowns, therefore at any operating point all of the unknown variables can be solved for. When comparing this model at steady state and in its transient period, it is 26
βωLciq + vd + − + vd’ βωLcid + vq + − + vq’ vdc’ + iq id Rw idc C R Lfilter + vdc 
Figure 3.5 Initial average model schematic (steady state) with crosscoupling terms
observed that the transient results are not within desirable limits. The output current transients match very closely, yet there is an appreciable steadystate error in the voltage transient simulations. To correct this phenomenon, the inclusion of inductance on the ac side of the average model is considered.
vd = vd − βωLc¯q ¯ ¯ i vq = vq + βωLc¯d ¯ ¯ i ¯dc  = kv v ¯2 ¯2 vd+vq
(3.16) (3.17) (3.18)
Adding inductance to the ac side of the average model circuit did not improve the dynamic response of the output voltage during transient periods. Convergence errors were encountered in software, and this approach was abandoned. 3.4.1.2 Revised model
It has previously been discussed that the dynamic response of the average model of the hex t/r requires modiﬁcations. The revisions are executed in order to improve the response and to simplify some of the mathematics. This revised system simpliﬁes the equations and strictly follows the space vector diagram shown in Figure 3.3. 27
The ﬁrst step in revising the model involves dropping the crosscoupling terms from the ac side of the hex t/r average model. These crosscoupling terms did not provide any insight into the system. Initially, the goal was to model the voltage drop associated with the commutation inductance. Due to the complexity of the design, this voltage drop can not be measured in simulation or in the hardware, so it was decided to remove these terms from the average model. This reduces the number of equations from six to four, and (3.11)(3.15) can be used to describe the operation of the hex t/r. With the reduction in equations, there are now three variables, α, kv and ki , that must be calculated at every operating point. It will be shown that some of these variables vary over the entire load range and require some polynomial ﬁts to improve the overall accuracy of the hex t/r model. The use of the polynomial ﬁts will be discussed in detail in section 3.4.4.1. The second improvement that was made to the average model involved adding inductance on the dc side of the circuit model to account for the commutation inductance. This addition of inductance greatly improved the transient response of the system, and will be discussed in further detail in Section 3.4.4.2. The revised average model of the hex t/r is shown in Figure 3.6. The equations governing the operation of the revised hex t/r average model are presented for completeness in (3.19)  (3.23). The use of the
2 inductor 3 Lc is discussed in Section 3.4.4.2.
vd
+ −
id Rw vdc’ + idc C R 2/3*Lc Lfilter + vdc 
vq + −
iq
Figure 3.6 Average model schematic
28
¯dc  = kv v
vd + v q ¯2 ¯2
(3.19) (3.20) (3.21) (3.22) (3.23)
vq = 0 ¯ ¯ ¯d = idc cos(α) i ki ¯dc ¯q = i sin(α) i ki ¯q i α = tan−1 ¯ id
3.4.2
1st harmonic assumption
In section 3.2.1 it was stated that a 1st harmonic assumption was taken in developing the model. This implies that power transfer occurs only at the fundamental frequency. It is also assumed that the average model is valid only at the fundamental frequency. Based on the previous two assumptions the Park’s transformation is used to eliminate the timevarying nature of the ac voltages and currents at the fundamental frequency.
3.4.3
Switching model analysis
In the next section, the estimation of three parameters α, kv and ki will be discussed. Prior to calculating these parameters, certain operating point data must be extracted from the switching model. At this time, the only operating point data from the switching model that has not been discussed is the transformation of the hex t/r’s input voltage and input current into the dq rotating reference frame. The dchannel of the Park’s transformation is aligned with the linetoneutral voltage vector. A result of this alignment is that the voltage in the qchannel is zero. The abctodq0 transformation is shown in (3.24). Since this is a balanced threephase system, the 0channel does not exist. The waveforms of the hex t/r input voltages and currents obtained from the switching model in Section 2.3 at 10.6 kVA and transformed to rotating coordinates are shown in Figure 3.7. 29
Tabc/dq0 =
sin(θ) sin(θ − 2 − cos(θ) − cos(θ − 3
1 √ 2 1 √ 2
30
vd v
2π ) 3 2π ) 3
sin(θ +
1 √ 2
2π ) 3
− cos(θ +
2π ) 3
(3.24)
450
q
400
25
350
300
dq Current (Amps)
dq Voltage (Volts)
20
250
200
15
150
100
10
50
0 0.04
id iq
0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08
5 0.04
0.045
0.05
0.055
0.06 Time (sec)
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.7 Hex T/R abc to dq transformation: (a) hex t/r dq voltages and (b) hex t/r dq currents It can be observed that a ripple only exists in the dq currents and not the dq voltages. This can be explained by the fact that the voltage sources used in the simulation are nearly ideal, therefore all harmonics other than the fundamental are negligible. Since only the ﬁrst harmonic is present, there is no ripple in the dq voltages. This also explains why a ripple appears in the dq current. When viewing the timedomain and frequencydomain waveforms of the line current, ia , in Figures 2.3 and 2.6, respectively, it is observed that harmonics other than the fundamental are present and can not be neglected. Since Park’s Transformation only considers the fundamental frequency, the additional harmonics generate the ripple that is seen in the Figure 3.7(a). The average values of the waveforms presented in Figure 3.7 are listed in Table 3.1 for reference. This information will be used in the following chapter to aid in computing the parameters α, kv and ki . 30
Table 3.1 The dq rotating coordinates average values Parameter vd vq id iq Average Value 440.0 V 0.000 V 25.75 A 11.74 A
3.4.4
Parameter extraction and estimation
As mentioned previously, there are three parameters, α, kv and ki , that must be calculated at each operating point. The average model of the hex t/r needs to be valid over the entire operating range of the hex t/r. This requirement exists since the average model needs to also be valid during transient conditions. Due to variations in the parameters, polynomial ﬁts are required to improve the accuracy of the model. This section will describe the methods used to calculate the parameters and the polynomial ﬁts used during transient periods.
3.4.4.1
Parameter extraction
The parameters extracted from the switching model are α, ki and kv . They are extracted by postprocessing the operating point data, vd , vq , id , iq , idc , vdc and vdc . The average value of the operating point data is applied to equations (3.11)  (3.15) to compute α, kv and ki . This process is repeated at each desired operating point. One of the goals of the average model is for it to be valid during transient periods. For this to be true, the parameters at each operating point are calculated to determine how they vary with the load. The results are shown in Figure 3.8. It can be observed that α and kv vary greatly over the load range. In order to remedy this problem, polynomial ﬁts of these parameters are generated. These polynomial ﬁts are third order in nature, and are used to improve the accuracy of the average model during transient periods. 31
In observing the data shown in Figure 3.8(c), it is clear that the variation in k i over the load range is very small compared to the other parameters. Using this information, ki is replaced with a constant value. The polynomial ﬁts used to map the parameters α and kv are given by the equations α = α3 i3 + α2 i2 + α1 idc + α0 dc dc kv = kv,3 i3 + kv,2 i2 + kv,1 idc + kv,0 dc dc (3.25) (3.26)
and the coeﬃcient values are shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. A comparison between the polynomial ﬁt and the original data is displayed in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. The MATLAB script used to compute the polynomial terms is provided in Appendix B. If accuracy is the goal, then computational time will increase in proportion to accuracy. By relaxing the accuracy constraint, the polynomial ﬁts can be reduced. In order to determine the sensitivity of the hex t/r average model, the parameters α and kv were also ﬁtted with linear polynomials. The idea is that additional computational time can be reduced if the parameters are ﬁtted with simple approximations rather than the more complicated polynomial equations. A comparison between the two average models is discussed in Section 3.5. The linear approximation and the original data for α and kv can be compared in Figure 3.11 and 3.12. The terms used in the linear approximation are shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. Table 3.2 The α polynomial terms Term Value α3 .00000025876793 α2 0.00001196916142 α1 0.00578832204852 α0 0.12933829713806
3.4.4.2
Commutation inductor value estimation
In order to assess the transient response of the average model, the circuit shown in 3.4 was simulated under transient conditions (loadstep) for comparison with the switching 32
0.55
0.56 0.55 0.54
0.5
0.45
0.53
0.4 α (Radians)
0.52 kv 0.51 0.5 0.49
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.48
0.2
0.47 0.46 10
0.15 10
20
30
40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)
60
70
80
20
30
40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)
60
70
80
(a)
0.56
(b)
0.558
0.556
0.554
ki
0.552
0.55
0.548 10
20
30
40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)
60
70
80
(c)
Figure 3.8 Average model parameters plotted over the operating range of the hex t/r: (a) α vs. the load current, idc , (b) kv vs. the load current, idc , and (c) ki vs. the load current, idc Table 3.3 The kv polynomial terms Term Value kv,3 0.00000007802294 kv,2 0.00001258358603 kv,1 0.00055547151970 kv,0 0.54735932166799
33
0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0 Original Data Polynomial Fit
α (radians)
10
20
30 40 Load Current, i
dc
50 (Amps)
60
70
80
Figure 3.9 α vs. the load current, idc
0.56 Original Data Polynomial Fit
0.54
0.52 kv 0.5 0.48 0.46 0
10
20
30 40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)
60
70
80
Figure 3.10 kv vs. the load current, idc
34
Table 3.4 The α linear terms Term Value α1 0.00501938363468 α0 0.14266271303755
Table 3.5 The kv linear terms Term Value kv,1 0.00113560905579 kv,0 0.55323646705100
0.55 Original Data Linear App. 0.5
0.45
0.4 α (Radians)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 10
20
30
40 50 Load Current, i (Amps)
dc
60
70
80
Figure 3.11 α v. the load current, idc
35
0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 kv 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 10 Original Data Linear App.
20
30
40 50 Load Current, i (Amps)
dc
60
70
80
Figure 3.12 kv v. the load current, idc
model. This model neglects to account for the commutation inductance, which must be known so that its eﬀect on the dynamic operation of the system can be determined. The polynomial ﬁts discussed in Section 3.4.4.1 are used for the parameters kv and α. The output voltage and output current are shown in Figures 3.13(a) and 3.14(a). It can be seen that the average model poorly tracks the transient response of the switching model for both the output voltage and the output current. In examining the results shown in Figures 3.13(a) and 3.14(a), it is apparent that the dynamic response of the average model needs to be improved. This can be achieved by changing the values of the energystorage elements in the circuit. In comparing the circuit in Figure 3.4 to the circuit shown in Figure 2.2, it can be seen that the commutation inductance in the switching model is not represented in the average model. This discovery justiﬁes increasing the inductance on the dc side of the average model. Diﬃculty arises in modeling the commutation inductors because they are connected in parallel and series in the rectiﬁer bridge as shown in Figure 2.2. At any given time, it is known that the diodes will have two inductors in series: one inductor in the positive 36
rail and one inductor in the negative rail. Each inductor represents onethird of the total commutation inductance. By adding these two together, the 2 Lc ratio is produced. 3 These two inductors in series represent twothirds of the total commutation inductance in the circuit. This information can be translated to the average model in order to produce the circuit schematic shown in Figure 3.6. The results from a loadstep simulation for the output voltage and output current, using the circuit in Figure 3.6, are shown in Figures 3.13(b) and 3.14(b). It can be observed that the transient response of the average model tracks more accurately than the switching model.
240 vdc (Switching) vdc (Average) 240 vdc (Switching) vdc (Average)
235
235
230 Output Voltage (Volts) Output Voltage (Volts) 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Time (sec) 0.2 0.22 0.24
230
225
225
220
220
215
215
210
210
205
205
200 0.08
200 0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16 0.18 Time (sec)
0.2
0.22
0.24
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.13 Transient response of output voltage, vdc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance
3.5
Average model veriﬁcation
The hex t/r average model circuit in Figure 3.6 is veriﬁed by comparing its steadystate and transient responses with those of the detailed switching model. The comparison involves simulating the models at diﬀerent load points and verifying the average value of the dc output voltage and the dc load current. The circuit parameters that were used to simulate the average and the switching models are shown in Tables 2.1 and 3.6, 37
60 55 50 45 Output Current (Amps) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0.08 Output Current (Amps) idc (Switching) i (Average)
dc
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0.08 idc (Switching) i (Average)
dc
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16 0.18 Time (sec)
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16 0.18 Time (sec)
0.2
0.22
0.24
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.14 Transient Response of Output Current, idc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance respectively. The results of the simulations are shown in Figures 3.15  3.19. In each of the ﬁgures, there are three curves plotted. One curve is the response of the switching model, while the two other curves represent the response of two diﬀerent average models. The diﬀerence in the two models lies in the method used to compute the parameters kv and α. One of the average models uses a linear approximation while the other uses a polynomial ﬁt.
3.5.1
Steadystate results
The results show good agreement between the average model and the switching model during steadystate and transient conditions. In observing the dc voltages in Figures 3.15 and 3.16, it can be seen that the diﬀerence between the three models is less than 1 V. If greater accuracy is required at steady state, the mathematical expressions can be replaced with the actual value of the parameter. The output current under steadystate conditions is shown in Figures 3.17 and 3.18. In both ﬁgures, it can be seen that the average models accurately predict the steadystate value of the switching model current. Based on the results presented, the linear approximation works just as well as the polynomial ﬁt. 38
Table 3.6 Hex t/r average model circuit parameter values Parameter Vd Vq Id Iq Lc Rw Lf ilter C R α kv ki Value 440.0 V 0V 23.90 A 10.22 A 430.0 µH 0.1960 Ω 1125 µH 2400 µF 4.050 Ω 23.17◦ 0.5018 1.807
Depending on the accuracy desired from the model, the more complex polynomial ﬁt can be replaced with the simpler linear approximation.
3.5.2
Transient results
The switching and average models are simulated under transient conditions at various load points. A comparison of the results for the dc output voltage, vdc , and the dc output current, idc , are shown in Figures 3.19 and 3.20. In both plots, the average model accurately predicts the transient response of the switching model. Transient characteristics such as rise time, overshoot, and settling time are almost identical between the switching and average models. There is a small error that appears in the voltage transient waveform in Figure 3.19. If this error is undesirable then more terms can be added to the polynomial ﬁt to improve the accuracy.
3.6
Average Model Summary
The development of the average model of a hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer has been presented. The process of revising the model to improve the transient response has 39
210 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model
209.5
209 Output Voltage (Volts)
208.5
208
207.5
207
206.5
206 0.06
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.07 0.072 Time(sec)
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.08
Figure 3.15 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 10.6 kVA under steadystate conditions
230 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model 229.5
Output Voltage (Volts)
229
228.5
228
227.5
227 0.06
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.07 0.072 Time(sec)
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.08
Figure 3.16 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5.1 kVA under steadystate conditions
40
53 52.5 52 51.5 Output Current (Amps) 51 50.5 50 49.5 49 48.5 48 0.06 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time(sec) 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.08
Figure 3.17 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 10.6 kVA under steadystate conditions
25 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model
24.5
24 Output Current (Amps)
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21 0.06
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.07 0.072 Time(sec)
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.08
Figure 3.18 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 5.1 kVA under steadystate conditions
41
250
240
230 Output Voltage (Volts)
220
210
200
190
v (Switching) dc v (Average) dc vdc (Lin. App.) 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Time (sec) 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
180 0.05
Figure 3.19 Hex T/R Output Voltage, vdc , under transient conditions
80 i (Switching) dc i (Average) dc idc (Lin. App.)
70
60 Output Current (Amps)
50
40
30
20
10 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25 0.3 Time (sec)
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Figure 3.20 Hex T/R Output Current, idc , under transient conditions
42
been discussed in detail. A set of continuoustime equations have been provided, relating directly to the dynamics of the actual system. The use of polynomial ﬁts and the representation of the commutation inductance have also been presented.
43
This page is left intentionally blank.
44
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
4.1
Introduction
In order to further verify the concept of the average model, experimental data is collected from an 11 kVA hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer hardware prototype. This chapter will describe the hardware under test and the procedure used to collect the experimental data. Results from the experimental prototype are directly compared with simulation results obtained from the average and switching models.
4.2
4.2.1
Experimental hardware/test setup
Description of hardware
The average and switching models of the hex t/r were further validated by comparing their results to experimental data collected from the 11 kVA hex t/r hardware setup shown in Figure 4.1. The hex t/r hardware prototype was designed and assembled by a project sponsor. The speciﬁcations for the 11 kVA hardware prototype are shown in Table 4.1. The hexagon transformer is located inside the wooden box, and the 12pulse diode rectiﬁer is located above it in Figure 4.1. The actual hardware includes RC snubber circuits that are placed across each diode to limit the dv/dt when the diode turns oﬀ. The 11 kVA hex t/r prototype requires watercooling for the transformer core and the 45
diode bridges. The transformer was designed in such a way that one of the windings of the transformer is also used for cooling. A threephase switching power supply is used to provide a balanced threephase input voltage to the transformer, and a 30 kW aircooled resistor bank is used as the load. The load can be conﬁgured for various resistor values ranging from 1 Ω to 11 Ω. A 2,400 µF capacitor was connected in parallel with the resistive load. The output capacitor had a measured equivalent series resistance (esr) value of approximately 50 mΩ. A 3 µF polypropylene capacitor was used to attenuate any highfrequency noise that might be present on the dc bus.
Figure 4.1 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype Table 4.1 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype speciﬁcations Speciﬁcation Value AC rms Input Voltage 440 V, 3φ DC Output Voltage 217 V DC Output Current 49 A Power Rating 10.6 kVA
46
4.2.2
Test setup
The test equipment used to collect experimental data from the hex t/r prototype included a digital oscilloscope, four digital multimeters, two current probes, two diﬀerential voltage probes, and a threephase power analyzer. A current shunt was added to the experimental setup so that the dc current could be accurately measured. Eight and 12guage wires were used to make all of the connections for the hex t/r experimental test setup. Both timedomain and frequencydomain data were collected from the hex t/r during the experimental testing. The next section will describe the procedure used for collecting the diﬀerent types of data.
4.2.3
4.2.3.1
Description of measurements
Timedomain measurements
In order to make a sidebyside comparison, the same variables that were measured in simulation are measured experimentally. The quantities that are measured include both linetoline and and linetoneutral input voltages, input current, input current harmonics and THD, output voltage, output current, voltage drop across the ﬁlter inductor, and input power. The data collected from the hex t/r can be processed and directly compared to the simulation results of the hex t/r average and switching models. The results collected from the steadystate measurements are presented in Section 4.3. Experimental data from the hex t/r were collected at two diﬀerent load points, 5 kW and 8 kW. Due to the limitations of the power supply, it was not possible to run the hex t/r at its fullload operating point of 10.6 kVA. The experimental input and output waveforms from both the 5 kW and 8 kW tests are shown in Figures 4.2  4.5. In both Figures 4.2 and 4.4, it can be observed that the input current, ia , has a sinusoidal wave shape with very low THD. The linetoline input voltage, v ab , is shown for reference. It can be seen that the input voltage is nearly ideal. The 12pulse characteristic of the hex t/r can be veriﬁed in both Figures 4.3 and 4.5 by counting twelve pulses over 47
one 60 Hz line cycle. There is some lowfrequency ripple in the output current. This can be attributed to a possible imbalance in the transformer windings. It can also be observed that as the power level of the hex t/r increases, so does the ripple in the output current. This is an expected characteristic of the topology. The output voltage displayed in Figures 4.3 and 4.5, has a very small ripple due to the use of the large ﬁlter capacitor connected to the output of the diode rectiﬁer.
Figure 4.2 Hex t/r 5 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div
4.2.3.2
Output impedance measurements
In order to verify the smallsignal modeling accuracy of the hex t/r average model, the output impedance of the 11 kVA hardware prototype was experimentally measured using a concept similar to the one described in other work [27]. In theory, the output impedance is measured by perturbing the output current and measuring the output voltage of the system being studied. The general deﬁnition of the output impedance is given in (4.1). Due to the conﬁguration of the network analyzer, a voltage source (instead of a current source) generates the perturbation. Some modiﬁcations to the experiment are required 48
Figure 4.3 Hex t/r 5 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 5 A/div
Figure 4.4 Hex t/r 8 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div
49
Figure 4.5 Hex t/r 8 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 10 A/div due to the high power level of the hex t/r hardware prototype. A block diagram describing the approach used to measure the output impedance is shown in Figure 4.6.
vo ¯ Zo,gen = ¯ io
Output Impedance Board DUT Lwire Hex T/R Cfilter R + vtest Rwire Cblock Audio Amplifer + Network Analyzer
(4.1)
1Ω +v
ref
Figure 4.6 Output impedance block diagram The maximum output voltage generated by the network analyzer is 1.25 V. In order to perturb the dc bus of the hex t/r, a larger perturbation signal is needed. An audio ampliﬁer is used in this experiment to increase the magnitude of the perturbation signal. 50
A dc blocking capacitor, rated at twice the output voltage is used to prevent the dc voltage generated by the hex t/r from harming the network analyzer. A low inductive 1 Ω resistor is used to sense the current in the return path. The impedance of the hex t/r hardware prototype is computed by measuring the output voltage, labeled vtest in Figure 4.6, and dividing it by the voltage measured by the 1 Ω shunt resistor, labeled vref , which is essentially the current ¯o . The output impedance as measured on the 11 kVA hex t/r i prototype is deﬁned in (4.2).
Zo,meas =
vtest vref
(4.2)
A picture of the hardware setup used to measure the output impedance is shown in Figure 4.7. Highvoltage diﬀerential probes are used to measure the signals vtest and vref . The network analyzer performs the calculation given in (4.2) and plots the output impedance. Due to the limited band range of the audio ampliﬁer, the frequency range of interest for the output impedance measurements is 10 Hz to 10 kHz. The board that was added to the hex t/r test setup to measure the output impedance, along with the audio ampliﬁer, is shown in Figure 4.8. The speciﬁcations of the audio ampliﬁer are shown in Table 4.2. Eightgauge wire is used to connect the output impedance board to the load of the hex t/r. This wire has an associated inductance, Lwire , that will greatly aﬀect the measured results. The inductance of this wire will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2. Table 4.2 Audio ampliﬁer, Speciﬁcation DC Input Voltage Frequency Response RMS Power Rating Jensen XA2150, speciﬁcations Value 14.4 V 20 Hz  20 kHz ± 3 dB 200 W Bridged
The network analyzer generated a perturbation signal of 34 mV that was multiplied by the audio ampliﬁer. The audio ampliﬁer produced an output voltage of 3.4 V that was used to perturb the dc bus of the hex t./r. The output impedance experiment was 51
Figure 4.7 Output impedance test setup
Figure 4.8 Output impedance measurement board
52
conducted with the hex t/r operating at 5 kW. This corresponds to a resistive load of 10.69 Ω. The measured output impedance plot of the hex t/r prototype is shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9 Experimental output impedance at 5 kW
4.3
Experimental results
This section will compare the experimental data presented in the previous sections with simulation data from the average and switching models.
4.3.1
Timedomain results
The switching and average models of the hex t/r were simulated at 5 kW (R = 5.92 Ω) and 8 kW(R = 10.69 Ω), respectively, to compare their data with those of the experimental hex t/r. The output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , are plotted for both cases in Figures 4.10  4.13. For both operating points, there is good agreement between the average model, switching model and experimental data. In Figures 4.10 and 53
4.12, the average model accurately predicts the average value of the output current, i dc . In comparing the experimental output current to the switching model results, it can be seen that the switching model does not capture the imbalance present in the experimental output current. This is due to the fact that the switching model does not account for imbalance in the transformer windings. If it was desired to include this imbalance in the model, a less ideal transformer model could be developed for the switching model. The output voltages in Figures 4.11 and 4.13 show that there is good correlation between the average model, switching model and experimental data. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the accuracy of the average model can be improved by adding more terms to the polynomial ﬁts. The rms and average dc values of the results presented in Figures 4.10  4.13 are shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. It can be observed that the average model has an error of less than 1%. The THD levels of the line current at 5 kW and 8 kW were 6.170% and 4.043%, respectively.
25 Amplitude (Amps)
20
idcexp 15 −0.02 −0.018 −0.016 −0.014 −0.012 −0.01 −0.008 −0.006 −0.004 −0.002 Time (sec) 25 Amplitude (Amps) 0
20 i dcswitch idcavg 15 0.06 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time (sec) 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.08
Figure 4.10 Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 5 kW
54
240 v Amplitude (Volts) 235 230 225 220 −0.02 −0.018 −0.016 −0.014 −0.012 −0.01 −0.008 −0.006 −0.004 −0.002
dcexp
0
240 Amplitude (Volts) 235 230 225 220 0.06 v dcswitch vdcavg
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.07 0.072 Time (sec)
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.08
Figure 4.11 Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5 kW
50 Amplitude (Amps) 45 40 35 30 25 0 idcexp
20 −0.02 −0.018 −0.016 −0.014 −0.012 −0.01 −0.008 −0.006 −0.004 −0.002
50 Amplitude (Amps) 45 40 35 30 25 20 0.06 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time (sec) 0.074 0.076 i dcswitch idcavg 0.078 0.08
Figure 4.12 Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 8 kW Table 4.3 Comparison of hex t/r results at 5 kW Experimental Switching Average DC Voltage (V) 230.0 228.7 229.0 DC Current (A) 21.50 21.39 21.42 AC rms Current (A) 6.815 6.788 6.865
55
225 vdcexp Amplitude (Volts) 220
215
210 −0.02 −0.018 −0.016 −0.014 −0.012 −0.01 −0.008 −0.006 −0.004 −0.002
0
225 Amplitude (Volts)
220
215 vdcswitch v
dcavg
210 0.06
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.07 0.072 Time (sec)
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.08
Figure 4.13 Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 8 kW
Table 4.4 Comparison of hex t/r results at 8 kW Experimental Switching Average DC Voltage (V) 219.2 218.8 218.6 DC Current (A) 37.00 36.95 36.92 AC rms Current (A) 11.99 11.95 11.83
56
4.3.2
Output impedance results
The output impedance of the average model of the hex t/r was simulated in SABER for comparison with the experimental measurements presented in the previous section. A few comments need to be made about the experimental output impedance presented in Figure 4.9. The plot shown in Figure 4.9 clearly exhibits behavior indicative of an inductor at high frequencies. Upon careful examination of the test setup, it was determined that the inductance present in the experimental output impedance existed due to the wire used to connect the output impedance measurement board to the hex t/r hardware prototype. An impedance analyzer then measured the loop inductance of the wire so that this information could be added to the simulation model. The impedance of the wire was found to have a resistance of 18 mΩ and 2.7 µH. To improve the accuracy of the average model, the impedance of each of the components in the test setup was measured so that the information could be added to the average model simulation. The components that were characterized and their impedance values are shown in Table 4.5. After characterizing the test setup, the results in Figure 4.14 were obtained. There is a good match between the magnitude and the phase at all frequencies. There is a slight diﬀerence in the ﬁrst resonant frequency. The dc gains and slopes of both the average model and the experimental output impedance are close to one another. Table 4.5 Output impedance measurement system characterization Component Impedance Cblock 2400 µF Rblock,esr 50 mΩ Cf ilter 2400 µF Rf ilter,esr 50 mΩ Rload 10.69 Ω Lload,ind 95.4 µH Lwire 2.70 µH Rwire 18.00 mΩ Now that it has been shown that the average model can also be used for smallsignal analysis, some parametric studies can be performed to improve the accuracy of the model. In Chapter 3, one of the issues that was discussed was the representation 57
10 Magnitude (dBΩ) 0 −10 −20 −30 1 10 Experimental Simulation
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
100 50 0 −50 −100 1 10
Phase (deg)
Experimental Simulation 10
2
10 Freq (Hz)
3
10
4
10
5
Figure 4.14 Comparison of hex t/r output impedance at 5 kW of the commutation inductance in the average model. Now that it has been shown that the experimental output impedance is a good approximation of the simulation model, the commutation inductance in the average model can be adjusted until the resonant frequencies of the experimental output impedance and simulated output impedance are nearly identical. This validation of the output impedance permits the hex t/r average model to be used to study stability. In terms of power distribution systems, several of these average models can be lumped together to simulate a large power network. The proposed average model of the hex t/r would allow for the study of both timedomain and frequencydomain characteristics.
58
CHAPTER 5 MODELING OF AN 18PULSE AUTOTRANSFORMER AND RECTIFIER
5.1
Introduction
The ATRU is one of many subsystems in an aircraft power system. It is desired to study issues such as transient response, system interactions, and stability for the entire aircraft power system. In order to perform these various analyses, smallsignal models of the individual subsystems are needed. This is one of the main driving factors for developing an average model of the 18pulse ATRU. In this chapter, the average model concept presented in Chapter 3 is extended to the more complex 18pulse ATRU. A review of the 18pulse ATRU topology is included, as is a discussion of the issues encountered during the development of the switching and average models.
5.2
Operation of autotransformer
The 18pulse ATRU topology is shown in Figure 5.1. The ATRU topology is composed of three 6pulse diode bridges, and uses phaseshifting of the secondary voltages in the autotransformer to eﬀectively attenuate harmonics below the 17th . Ideally, the diode bridges should equally share the power handled by the system. Due to the parallel 59
connection of its diode bridges, this topology requires the use of interphase transformers. The interphase transformers absorb instantaneous voltage diﬀerences between the diode rectiﬁers, and ensure that the conduction angle of the diodes remains at 120◦ [6]. The load of the ATRU is resistive. The system is rated at 100 kVA. A threephase 400 Hz voltage source is used to supply power to the ATRU. The input and output speciﬁcations of the ATRU are listed in Table 5.1. This unit is designed to provide a dc output voltage of ±270 V.
Bridge 1 idc,Br1 va va’ vc’’ va’’ vb’ + vdc,Br1 Bridge 2 idc,Br2 + vdc,Br2 Bridge 3 vc vc’ vb’’ vb idc,Br3 + vdc,Br3 R vdc Interphase Transformer idc
+
va
vb
vc
Figure 5.1 18pulse ATRU topology
Table 5.1 Input/output speciﬁcations Speciﬁcation Input Voltage (RMS) Input Current (RMS) Output Voltage Output Current R fline
for 100 kVA 18pulse ATRU Value 3φ 231.0 V 167.5 A ±270.0 V 214.6 A 2.5 Ω 400 Hz
5.2.1
Transformer conﬁguration
The autotransformer uses a phaseshifting method to reduce the harmonics in the input line current. The autotransformer has three primary windings and three secondary windings. The secondary windings are tapped in such a way to produce six phaseshifted 60
voltages. These six voltage vectors are connected to two 6pulse diode bridge rectiﬁers. In order to make the system 18pulse, another 6pulse converter is required. This sixpulse converter, labeled Bridge 1 in Figure 5.1, is connected directly to the ac mains. The autotransformer produces two secondary voltages per input linetoneutral voltage. The two secondary voltages are phaseshifted 40◦ with respect to the primary voltage vector. A vector diagram depicting the phase shift is shown in Figure 5.2. The windings on the autotransformer are tapped in such a way that the secondary voltage is phaseshifted with respect to the primary voltage vector. Based on the literature, the minimum phase shift required for an 18pulse converter is 20◦ [6]. The vectors k1 and k2 , shown in orange in Figure 5.2, represent the secondary tap windings of the autotransformer. The reduction in size of an autotransformer, as compared to other topologies can be attributed to its unique winding structure. The autotransformer design of the 18pulse ATRU allows for reduced kVA sizing as compared to an equivalent multipulse transformer topology that employs galvanic isolation [6]. The secondary voltages are produced by continuing to wind the primary windings on the same core and and tapping the windings according to the values of k1 and k2 . By using the same winding, the kVA rating of the entire autotransformer system can be reduced [4] .
5.3
Switching model
The switching model of the 18pulse ATRU was developed using the SABER simulation program. A schematic of the topology is shown in Figure 5.3. The voltage sources used to provide power to the ATRU are ideal and the autotransformer is constructed using ideal transformer models. The diode models are piecewise linear functions whose on and oﬀ conductances, as well as on voltage, can be speciﬁed. In order to accurately simulate the interphase transformers, mutual coupling is used in the model. Each inductor has a series resistance of 1 mΩ. Other than the interphase transformers used to ensure equal current sharing, this topology does not include a ﬁlter at the output. 61
k1 k1 k2 vc’ vb’’ k2 k1 vb k1 vc
k2 vc’’ va’ k2 k1 va 40 deg. k1 va’’ vb’ k2 k2
Figure 5.2 18pulse autotransformer vector diagram The simulation issues listed in Chapter 2 for the 12pulse hex t/r are do not exist for this topology. The maximum time step that is used to simulate the system ranges from 10 to 20 microseconds. Soft starts are not required to help with convergence, and numerical instability has not been observed in any of the waveforms. It should be noted that this topology is very sensitive to asymmetries, which generate imbalances. These asymmetries were not taken into account in the model.
ia,Br1 ib,Br1 ic,Br1 Bridge 1
idc,Br1 + vdc,Br1 idc,Br2 + vdc,Br2
Interphase Transformers
idc + R vdc 
18Pulse Autotransformer
Voltage Sources
ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2 Bridge 2
idc,Br3 + vdc,Br3
va
vb
vc
ia,Br3 ib,Br3 ic,Br3 Bridge 3

Figure 5.3 Switching model schematic of ATRU
62
5.3.1
Switching model results
The switching model was simulated at full load (100 kW, R = 2.5 Ω) to demonstrate the 18pulse characteristics of the topology. The circuit parameters are listed in Table 5.2. The steadystate results of the input and output are shown in Figures 5.4  5.8. The input current and input voltage of the ATRU are shown in Figure 5.4. The input voltage is nearly ideal, and the input current has a sinusoidal shape. The harmonic spectrum of the line current, ia , is shown in Figure 5.5. The harmonics are plotted as a percentage of the fundamental. It can be observed that all harmonics below the 17th have been eﬀectively attenuated. The output voltage and output current, vdc and idc , are presented in Figure 5.6. In both waveforms, the ripple voltage and ripple current are less than 1V and 1A, respectively. The 18pulse characteristic can be veriﬁed in Figure 5.6 by counting 18 pulses in idc over one 400 Hz line cycle. The output voltage rails, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , are shown in Figure 5.7. It can be observed in Figure 5.8 that nearly equal current sharing exists among the three rectiﬁer bridges. This slight imbalance can be attributed to the transformer topology chosen for the ATRU. Table 5.2 100 kVA 18pulse ATRU switching model parameter values Parameter Value Va,rms 231.0 V Linterphase 1.500 mH Coupling of Linterphase 0.8500 R 2.500 Ω fline 400.0 Hz Von 0.700 V Ron 1 mΩ Rof f 1 MΩ
5.3.2
Switching model analysis
Prior to developing an average model of the 18pulse ATRU, some operating point data must be extracted from the switching model. So far, steadystate ac and dc waveforms from the ATRU have been presented. As in Chapter 3, the average model will 63
300 Input Voltage (Volts) 200 100 0 −100 −200 −300 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195
va
0.02
Line Currents (Amps)
200 100 0 −100 −200 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
ia
0.02
Figure 5.4 ATRU input current, ia , and input voltage, va , at 100 kVA this is a test to make this really long i hope
100 i 80 % Magnitude 60 40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Frequency (Hz) 1.4 1.6 1.8 x 10 i 8 % Magnitude 2
4
a
10
th
19th 37th
a
17
6 4 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
35th
0.8 1 1.2 Frequency (Hz)
1.4
1.6
1.8 x 10
2
4
Figure 5.5 ATRU input line current, ia , harmonic spectrum at 100 kVA
64
538 Output Voltage (Volts) 537 536 535 v 534 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195
dc
0.02
216 Output Current (Amps) idc 215.5 215 214.5 214 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
Figure 5.6 ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA
290 Positive DC Rail (Volts) 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 vdc,plus
−255 Negative DC Rail (Volts) −260 −265 −270 −275 −280 −285 v
dc,minus
−290 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
Figure 5.7 ATRU output voltage rails with respect to the input voltage neutral, v dc,plus and vdc,minus , at 100 kVA
65
80 78 76 Rectifier Bridge Current (Amps) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) idc,Br1 idc,Br2 idc,Br3
0.02
Figure 5.8 ATRU bridge rectiﬁer dc currents at 100 kVA be developed in the dq0 rotating reference frame. Unlike the case of the hex t/r, each 6pulse rectiﬁer bridge will be modeled independently. This approach is taken so that the currentsharing principle can be validated. Three diﬀerent Park’s transformations are required to transform the abc input of the bridge rectiﬁers to the dq rotating reference frame. The Park’s transformations are phase shifted by 40◦ , corresponding to the primary and secondary voltages of the autotransformer. The alignment of the Park’s transformation is chosen so that the dchannel is aligned with the linetoneutral input voltage vector. The result is a vq vector with a magnitude of zero. The three Parks ¯ transformation matrices, along with their inverses, are:
2π 3
Tabc/dq0,Br1 =
2 − cos(θ) − cos(θ − 3
1 √ 2 1 √ 2
sin(θ)
sin(θ −
2π ) 3 2π ) 3
sin(θ +
1 √ 2
2π ) 3
− cos(θ +
2π 3
Tabc/dq0,Br2 =
sin(θ + 2 − cos(θ + 3
1 √ 2
2π ) 9
2π ) 9
sin(θ −
+
2π ) 9 2π ) 9
2π ) 3
(5.1)
sin(θ +
+
2π ) 9
− cos(θ −
2π 3
+
1 √ 2
− cos(θ +
2π 3
+
1 √ 2
2π ) 9
(5.2)
66
Tabc/dq0,Br3 =
2 − cos(θ − 3
1 √ 2
sin(θ −
2π ) 9 2π ) 9
sin(θ −
2π 3
− cos(θ −
2π 3
−
2π ) 9 2π ) 9
sin(θ +
2π 3
1 √ 2
−
− cos(θ +
2π 3
−
2π ) 9
−1 Tabc/dq0,Br1
=
−1 Tabc/dq0,Br2 =
−1 Tabc/dq0,Br3 =
sin(θ) − cos(θ) 2 sin(θ − 2π ) − cos(θ − 2π ) 3 3 3 2π 2π sin(θ + 3 ) − cos(θ + 3 ) − cos(θ + 2π ) sin(θ + 2π ) 9 9 2 2π 2π 2π sin(θ − 3 + 9 ) − cos(θ − 3 + 2π ) 9 3 2π 2π 2π 2π sin(θ + 3 + 9 ) − cos(θ + 3 + 9 ) sin(θ − 2π ) − cos(θ − 2π ) 9 9 2 2π 2π 2π sin(θ − 3 − 9 ) − cos(θ − 3 − 2π ) 9 3 sin(θ + 2π − 2π ) − cos(θ + 2π − 2π ) 3 9 3 9
1 √ 2 1 √ 2 1 √ 2
1 √ 2
−
2π ) 9
(5.3)
(5.4)
1 √ 2 1 √ 2 1 √ 2
(5.5)
1 √ 2 1 √ 2 1 √ 2
(5.6)
As an example, the ac currents and voltages in Bridge 2 of Figure 5.3 are transformed to the dq rotating reference frame and are plotted in Figures 5.9. The dq currents of Bridge 2 have a ripple due to the shape of the input current shown in 5.9(a).
80 ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2
Rectifier Bridge 2 dq Current (Amps) 100 80 60 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 id,Br2 i
q,Br2
60
Rectifier Bridge 2 Current (Amps)
40
20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.9 abc to dq transformation of ATRU rectiﬁer bridge to currents: (a) abc currents and (b) dq currents
67
5.4
5.4.1
Average model
Approach
As mentioned in Section 5.1, an average model of the ATRU is needed so that several of the units can be simulated together as part of a large system model of an aircraft power system. The theory used to develop the average model of the hex t/r is extended to the 18pulse ATRU topology. There are some fundamental diﬀerences in the two topologies that must be addressed prior to presenting the average model of the ATRU. In the case of the hex t/r, it was decided to couple together the 12pulse diode bridge and the hexagon transformer into one average model. The hex t/r average model eﬀectively accounts for the transformer and the 12pulse diode bridge rectiﬁer through the constants ki and kv . For the 18pulse ATRU, the transformer core is not included in the average model. Instead of lumping the entire circuit into one big block, each 6pulse diode bridge rectiﬁer is represented by a set of average model equations. This is done for two reasons. First, one of the main characteristics of the this 18pulse topology is equal current sharing between the diode bridges. In order to verify that the system is operating correctly, it is necessary to observe the output current in all three rectiﬁer bridges. The second reason for choosing this structure for the average model is that parasitics aﬀect the operation of the ATRU. In order to observe the eﬀect of the parasitics, the transformer core is not lumped into the average model.
5.4.2
Equation formulation
The ﬁrst step in developing the average model of the ATRU involves creating a space vector diagram. Since we are generating one average model for each bridge rectiﬁer, there will be three space vector diagrams created. The diﬀerence between the space vector diagrams is the phase shift added to the Park’s transformation to account for the phaseshifted secondary voltages produced by the autotransformer. The space vector diagram for Bridge 1 is shown in Figure 5.10. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the dchannel of the 68
Park’s transformation is aligned with the linetoneutral voltage vector. This alignment produces a vq with a magnitude of zero. The angle α is again used to represent the phase ¯ diﬀerence between the input voltage and the input current. The output voltage and output current of the rectiﬁer are represented by vdc and ¯dc , respectively. The vectors ¯ i ¯d , ¯q and vd represent the dq equivalents of the abc voltages and currents. i i ¯
q
iq
iinabc=idc,Br/ki α id
d vd=vinabc=vdc,Br/kv
Figure 5.10 ATRU space vector diagram
The next step in developing the average model involves writing equations that deﬁne the geometry of the space vector diagram. These equations are similar to the ones presented in Chapter 3. The equations listed in (5.7)  (5.11) describe the operation of one diode rectiﬁer. These same equations can be used for all three diode rectiﬁers. The only diﬀerence that may be encountered is that the value of parameters kv , ki and α may vary slightly between the three rectiﬁer bridges. 69
¯dc,Br  = kv v
vd + v q ¯2 ¯2
(5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (5.10) (5.11)
vq = 0 ¯ ¯ ¯d = idc,Br cos(α) i ki ¯dc,Br ¯q = i sin(α) i ki ¯q i α = tan−1 ¯ id
For the 18pulse ATRU average model, constant values are used for the parameters α, kv and ki . At the time of development, only an average model that operated at full load was needed. As presented in Chapter 3, the switching model of the ATRU can be simulated at several operating points. If there is a large variation in the parameters, then polynomial ﬁts can be developed, similar to those described in Section 3.4.4. The next step in the average model process involves discussing the actual circuit model.
5.4.3
Model description
The average model of the 18pulse ATRU has a hierarchal structure. A general block diagram of the 18pulse ATRU average model is shown in Figure 5.11. As mentioned in Section 5.4.1, the same transformer model used in the switching model is included in the average model. Each 6pulse bridge rectiﬁer is represented by an average model. The average model block is hierarchal in nature and is composed of several subsystems. This structure of the average model is necessary due to the complex topology of the ATRU. The subsystems in each average model block perform diﬀerent functions, such as Park’s transformations, evaluating average model equations, and converting phase currents to line currents, as shown in Figure 5.12. In order to enable the mathematical (equations) model of the 6pulse bridge rectiﬁer in dq coordinates to be connected to the circuit model of the rest of the system in stationary coordinates, the line currents, iab , ibc , and ica are calculated and and fed back into the 70
ia,Br1 ib,Br1 ic,Br1
Average Model vdc,Br1 Bridge 1 
idc,Br1 +
Interphase Transformers
idc + R vdc 
18Pulse Autotransformer
Voltage Sources
ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2 Bridge 2
Average Model vdc,Br2 
idc,Br2 +
va
vb
vc
ia,Br3 ib,Br3 ic,Br3
idc,Br3 Average + Model vdc,Br3 Bridge 3 
Figure 5.11 18Pulse ATRU average model block diagram transformer model. Figure 5.12 shows the block diagram of this concept. Each bridge rectiﬁer average model uses a modeling concept similar to the one presented in other work [28].
va vb vc MATHEMATICAL MODEL abc to dq0 Trans. + vd + vq Average Model Equations idc,Br + vdc,Br 
id iq
iab ibc ica
Line to Phase Trans.
ia ib ic
dq0 to abc Trans.
Figure 5.12 Average model breakdown The average model block inputs voltages va , vb and vc . A Park’s transformation is used to compute the value of vd and vq . These voltages are then used as the input to ¯ ¯ the average model circuit shown in Figure 5.13. The average model circuit computes the values of vdc,Br , ¯d and ¯q using the equations presented in (5.7)  (5.11). The output, ¯ i i vdc,Br , is connected to the interphase transformers. An inverse Park’s transformation is ¯ applied to the currents ¯d and ¯q to compute their abc phase current equivalents. The i i 71
phase currents are then transformed to line currents using the equations shown in (5.12)  (5.14). This calculation of the line currents uses the assumption given in (5.15).
+ vd 
id idc,Br + vdc,Br 
vdc,Br + vq 
+ 
iq
Figure 5.13 Average model circuit
1 iab = (ia − ib ) 3 1 ibc = (ib − ic ) 3 1 ica = (ic − ia ) 3 iab + ibc + ica = 0
(5.12) (5.13) (5.14) (5.15)
After the line currents have been calculated, they are connected across the phase terminals as depicted in Figure 5.12. This assures correct loading of the autotransformer. The process described above is identical in all of the average models. The only diﬀerence between the three bridge rectiﬁer models is the phase shift of the voltages and currents. Now that the average model has been described in detail, the average model results can be presented.
5.4.4
Average model veriﬁcation
The average model of the 18pulse ATRU shown in Figure 5.11 is veriﬁed by comparing its response to that of the switching model under steadystate conditions. The parameters 72
shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are used in the ATRU switching model and average model simulations. Table 5.3 ATRU average model circuit parameter values Parameter Value Vd 398.7 VDC Vq 0.000 VDC Id 97.44 A Iq 0.8820 A Linterphase 1.500 H R 2.500 Ω α −0.3030◦ kv 1.347 ki 1.390
The average model results are shown in Figures 5.14  5.16. The results of the steadystate simulations show good correlation between the average model and switching model results. It can be observed in Figure 5.14 that the average model accurately predicts the value of the output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc . The output voltage rails, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , are correctly predicted by the ATRU average model as shown in Figure 5.15. The dc currents in the three rectiﬁer bridges are plotted in Figure 5.16. It can be observed that the average model accurately predicts the value of the current for all three bridges. The accuracy of the average model can be improved by recalculating α, kv , and ki for each bridge instead of using the same value for all three models. The switching and average waveforms of the output voltage rails, vdcr,plus and vdcr,minus , of Bridge 1 are plotted in Figure 5.17. It can be seen that the average model correctly predicts the value of the voltages.
5.5
Summary
The modeling of an 18pulse ATRU has been presented. Simulation results have been provided to validate the operation of the proposed average model. The issues encountered 73
540 Output Voltage (Volts) 539 538 537 536 535 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 vdc,switch v
dc,avg
216 Output Current (Amps) 215.5 215 214.5 214 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) idc,switch idc,avg
0.02
Figure 5.14 ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA
290 Positive DC Rail (Volts) 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 v dcplus,switch vdcplus,avg
−255 Negative DC Rail (Volts) −260 −265 −270 −275 −280 −285 v dcminus,switch v
dcminus,avg
−290 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
Figure 5.15 ATRU ±270 V output voltage rails, vdc,minus and vdc,plus , at 100 kVA
74
90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) 0.02 idc,Br3,switch idc,Br3,avg 0.02 idc,Br2,switch idc,Br2,avg 0.02 i dc,Br1,switch i
dc,Br1,avg
Figure 5.16 ATRU bridge current, idc,Br , at 100 kVA
Bridge 1 Pos. DC Rail (Volts)
500 400 300 200 100 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 v dcplus,Br1,switch vdcplus,Br1,avg
0.02
Bridge 1 Neg. DC Rail (Volts)
−100 −200 −300 −400 v dcminus,Br1,switch v
dcminus,Br1,avg
−500 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)
0.02
Figure 5.17 ATRU Bridge 1 output voltage rails, vdcplus,Br1 and vdcminus,Br1 , at 100 kVA
75
during model development have been discussed. This average model is now ready to be linearized so that is can be used to study smallsignal stability in aircraft power systems.
76
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1
Conclusions
The research presented in this thesis has focused on the modeling of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units in power distribution systems. Both detailed switching models and reducedorder average models have been analyzed and validated with experimental data. The issues that occur in simulation due to the complex topologies have been addressed, and solutions have been presented. As the role of multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer units increases in power distribution systems, more attention is directed toward the approach used to model the topologies in large scale systems. The need for particular models is a direct result of the types of analysis that must be performed. Due to the need to study stability, there is a great beneﬁt in developing an average model that accurately models the timedomain and frequencydomain characteristics of the actual system. The average models of such systems are of great interest, with the main driving factors being a reduction in simulation time, transient analysis, parametric studies and stability analysis. A general procedure for developing the average model of two multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer topologies has been presented. The average model develops a relationship between the system’s 1st harmonic ac variables and average dc variables. This relationship is made possible through the use of scaling constants, namely α, ki and kv . The average models are derived in the dq0 rotating reference frame. A set of continuous 77
equations can be written that describe the operation of a multipulse converter from an input/output perspective. These continuous equations can be used to describe the operation of an npulse diode rectiﬁer. The proposed average model of the 12pulse hexagon transformer/rectiﬁer was veriﬁed with detailed switching model data and experimental data. The timedomain and frequencydomain characteristics of the average model were validated with experimental data from an 11 kVA hardware prototype. The timedomain measurements were collected under steadystate conditions. The smallsignal properties of the hex t/r average model were veriﬁed experimentally by measuring the output impedance and comparing it with the simulation results. Good correlation was shown between the average model and the experimental data for all test cases. The average model concept was extended to the more complex 18pulse ATRU. For this particular topology, each 6pulse bridge rectiﬁer is represented by an average model. The results are veriﬁed against an ATRU switching model under steadystate conditions. Average models can be developed that accurately predict the steadystate and transient responses of actual systems. For the average models presented in this thesis, the error between the average model and the switching model and/or experimental results was less than 1%. The accuracy of the average model is dependent on the constants α, ki and kv . The validity of the average model over the entire load range can be achieved by developing polynomial ﬁts that map the variation of the parameters as the load changes. The detail to which the polynomial ﬁts are developed will greatly aﬀect simulation time and accuracy. This research provides the groundwork for developing average models of complex multipulse transformer/rectiﬁer topologies. The validity of the average model has been veriﬁed, and can now be used as a subsystem in the analysis of largescale power distribution systems.
78
REFERENCES
[1] S. Mollov, A. Forsyth, and M. Bailey, “System modeling of advanced electric power distribution architectures for large aircraft,” in Proceedings of the SAE Power Systems Conference, no. P359, 2000. [2] A. Emadi and M. Ehsani, “Aircraft power systems: Technology, state of the art, and future trends,” IEEE AES Systems Magazine, pp. 28–32, Jan. 2000. [3] J. Richard E. Quigley, “More electric aircraft,” in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 1993, pp. 906–911. [4] S. Choi, P. N. Enjeti, and I. J. Pitel, “Polyphase transformer arrangements with reduced kVA capacities for harmonic current reduction in rectiﬁertype utility interfaces,” IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 11, no. 5, Sept. 1996. [5] C. Tinsley, C. Papenfuss, R. Gannett, E. Hertz, D. Cochrane, D. Chen, and D. Boroyevich, “Modeling and control of PEBBbased aircraft electrical service station: Final report,” Center for Power Electronics, Tech. Rep., May 2002, prepared for the Oﬃce of Naval Research. [6] D. A. Paice, Power Electronic Converter Harmonics: Multipulse Methods. Press, 1995. IEEE
[7] I. Jadric, D. Borojevic, and M. Jadric, “Modeling and control of a synchronous generator with an active dc load,” IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 303–11, March 2000. [8] S. Sudhoﬀ, K. Corzine, H. Hegner, and D. Delisle, “Transient and dynamic averagevalue modeling of synchronous machine fed loadcommutated converters,” IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 508–514, Sept. 1996. [9] J. Schaefer, Rectiﬁer Circuits: Theory and Design. John Wiley & Sons, 1965. [10] D. Rendusara, A. V. Jouanne, P. Enjeti, and D. Paice, “Design considerations for 12pulse diode rectiﬁer systems operating under voltage unbalance and preexisting voltage distortion with some corrective measures,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1293–1303, Nov.  Dec. 1996. [11] Y. Nishida and M. Nakaoka, “A new harmonic reducing threephase diode rectiﬁer for high voltage and high power applications,” in Industry Applications Conference, vol. 2. Industry Applications Society, 1997, pp. 1624–1632. 79
[12] S. Choi, P. Enjeti, H. Lee, and I. Pitel, “A new active interphase reactor for 12pulse rectiﬁers provides clean power utility interface,” in Industry Applications Conference, vol. 3. Industry Applications Society, 1995, pp. 2468–2474. [13] G. R. Kamath, D. Benson, and R. Wood, “A novel autotransformer based 18pulse rectiﬁer circuit,” in Applied Power Electonics Conference and Exposition, 2002, pp. 795–801. [14] S. Choi, B. S. Lee, and P. N. Enjeti, “New 24pulse diode rectiﬁer systems for utility interface of highpower ac motor drives,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 531–541, April/May 1997. [15] S. Chwirka, “Using the powerful SABER simulator for simulation, modeling, and analysis of power systems, circuits, and devices,” in 7th Workshop on Computers in Power Electronics. COMPEL, July 2000, pp. 172–176. [16] O. Ustun, M. Yilmaz, and R. Tuncay, “Simulation of power electronic circuits using vissim software: A study on toolbox development,” in 7th Workshop on Computers in Power Electronics. COMPEL, July 2000, pp. 183–187. [17] “Saberbook version 2.8,” Avant! Corporation, 2001, Electronic Help Files. [18] D. Hanselman and B. Littleﬁeld, The Student Edition of MATLAB: Version 5 User’s Guide. Prentice Hall, 1997, the MathWorks Inc. [19] A. B. Yildiz, B. Cakir, E. Ozdemir, and N. Abut, “An analysis method for the simulation of switchedmode converters,” in 9th Mederterranean Electrotechnical Conference, vol. 1. MELECON, 1998, pp. 570–574. [20] B. R. Needham, P. H. Eckerlin, and K. Siri, “Simulation of large distributed dc power systems using averaged modeling techniques and the saber simulator,” in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, vol. 2, Feb 1994, pp. 801–807. [21] J. Rosa, “U.S. patent no. 4,255,784,” March 1981. [22] ——, “U.S. patent no. 4,683,527,” July 1987. [23] R. W. Erickson, Fundamentals of Power Electronics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. [24] J. Alt and S. Sudhoﬀ, “Average value modeling of ﬁnite inertia power systems with harmonic distortion,” in Proceedings of SAE Power Systems Conference 2000, no. P359, 2000, pp. 1–15. [25] S. Sudhoﬀ and O. Wasynczuk, “Analysis and average value modeling of linecommuted convertersynchronous machine system,” IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 92–99, March 1993. [26] I. Jadric, “Modeling anc control of a synchronous generator with electronic load,” Master’s Thesis, Virginia Tech, Jan. 1998. 80
[27] D. Boroyevich, Modeling and Control of DC/DC Converters Short Course Lab Manual, Center for Power Electronics Systems, June 2003. [28] K. Louganski, “Modeling and analysis of a dc power distribution system in 21st century airliﬁters,” Master’s thesis, Virginia Tech, Sept. 1999.
81
This page is left intentionally blank.
82
APPENDIX A 11 kVA HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL OPERATING POINT DATA
This appendix provides a table of steadystate data collected from the 11 kVA hex t/r SABER simulation model.
83
Table A.1 Hex t/r switching model operating point data R (Ω) Load (W) Ia , rms (A) Vdc (V) Vdc (V) Idc (A) Id (A) Iq (A) α (radians) 2.500 14510 24.11 205.2 190.4 76.20 36.21 20.98 0.5251 3.500 11800 18.57 214.2 203.1 58.07 28.78 14.10 0.4556 4.500 9926 15.10 220.6 211.2 46.99 23.90 10.22 0.4041 5.500 8564 12.73 224.7 217.0 39.46 20.46 7.620 0.3566 6.500 7504 11.01 227.6 220.8 33.98 17.83 6.030 0.3264 7.500 6674 9.690 229.7 223.7 29.84 15.78 4.970 0.3048 8.500 5993 8.660 230.9 225.6 26.57 14.13 4.220 0.2904 9.500 5439 7.820 232.1 227.4 23.92 12.81 3.490 0.2661 10.50 4988 7.150 232.8 228.5 21.83 11.71 3.160 0.2631 11.50 4633 6.520 233.5 229.6 20.18 10.76 2.780 0.2532 12.50 4254 6.070 234.2 230.6 18.45 9.950 2.520 0.2480 13.50 3970 5.650 234.8 231.5 17.15 9.300 2.250 0.2378 14.50 3726 5.450 253.8 232.3 16.04 8.710 1.900 0.2150 15.50 3497 5.090 235.8 232.9 15.01 8.170 1.740 0.2096 16.50 3306 4.810 236.1 233.4 14.16 7.720 1.600 0.2042 17.50 3119 4.44 236.1 233.6 13.36 7.290 1.490 0.2019 18.50 2978 4.24 236.9 234.4 12.71 6.930 1.480 0.2101 19.50 2831 4.03 237.2 234.8 12.06 6.580 1.370 0.2051 20.50 2701 3.86 237.5 235.2 11.49 6.280 1.270 0.2003
1 ki
0.5491 0.5519 0.5532 0.5532 0.5539 0.5545 0.5550 0.5551 0.5556 0.5506 0.5564 0.5581 0.5560 0.5565 0.5565 0.5575 0.5574 0.5575 0.5576
kv 0.4667 0.4871 0.5018 0.5110 0.5177 0.5223 0.5251 0.5279 0.5294 0.5311 0.5328 0.5341 0.5357 0.5364 0.5370 0.5370 0.5389 0.5395 0.5402
84
APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The MATLAB mﬁles used to compute the polynomial ﬁts of the parameters α, kv and ki for the hex t/r are provided in this section. The data that were used to develop the polynomial ﬁts is listed in Table A.1.
B.1
B.1.1
%This %list clear close
MATLAB ﬁles
The α polynomial ﬁt mﬁle
mfile applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and the polynomials of the function. all; all;
%this section of the script reads the alpha.ascii %file and places the data in arrays load alpha.asc; %alpha=alpha1; x=alpha(:,1); y=alpha(:,2); %curvefitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_alpha=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_alpha,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial 85
plot(x,y,’o’,xi,z,’r’) grid xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’) ylabel(’\alpha’) %title(’Polynomial Fit of \alpha with 2 degrees of freedom’) legend(’original data’, ’polynomial fit’); print depsc2 polyalpha.eps
B.1.2
%This %list clear close
The kv polynomial ﬁt mﬁle
mfile applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and the polynomials of the function. all; all;
%this section of the script reads the kv.ascii %file and places the data in arrays load kv.asc; %alpha=alpha2; x=kv(:,1); y=kv(:,2); %curvefitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_kv=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_kv,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial plot(x,y,’o’,xi,z,’r’) grid xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’) ylabel(’k_{v}’) %title(’Polynomial Fit of k_{v} with 3 degrees of freedom’) legend(’original data’, ’polynomial fit’); print depsc2 polykv.eps
B.1.3
The ki polynomial ﬁt mﬁle
%This mfile applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and %list the polynomials of the function. 86
clear all; close all; %this section of the script reads the ki.ascii file %and places the data in arrays load ki.asc; %alpha=alpha2; x=ki(:,1); y=ki(:,2); %curvefitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_ki=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_ki,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial plot(x,y,’o’,xi,z,’r’) grid xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’) ylabel(’k_{i}’) %title(’Polynomial Fit of k_{i} with 3 degrees of freedom’) legend(’original data’, ’polynomial fit’); print depsc2 polyki.eps
B.1.4
Linear approximation of the variables α, kv , and ki mﬁle
%Linear Approximation 11kw %This mfile calculates the linear approximations, %ax + b, of the variables alpha, kv, and ki. clear all; close all; load alpha.asc; load kv.asc; load ki.asc; %linear approximation for alpha slope_inta=alpha(1,:)alpha(19,:); slope_alpha=slope_inta(1,2)/slope_inta(1,1); 87
y_intera=1*slope_alpha*alpha(1,1) + alpha(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_alpha=slope_alpha*x+y_intera; figure(1);clf; plot(alpha(:,1),alpha(:,2),’bo’); hold on; plot(x,y_alpha,’r’); grid; axis ([10 80 0.15 0.55]); xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’); ylabel(’\alpha (Radians)’); %title(’\alpha vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)’); legend(’original data’, ’linear app.’,2); print depsc2 alphalin.eps %linear approximation for kv slope_intkv=kv(1,:)kv(19,:); slope_kv=slope_intkv(1,2)/slope_intkv(1,1); y_interkv=1*slope_kv*kv(1,1) + kv(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_kv=slope_kv*x+y_interkv; figure(2);clf; plot(kv(:,1),kv(:,2),’bo’); hold on; plot(x,y_kv,’r.’); grid; axis ([10 80 0.46 0.56]); xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’); ylabel(’k_{v}’); %title(’k_{v} vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)’); legend(’original data’, ’linear app.’); print depsc2 kvlin.eps %linear approximation for ki slope_intki=ki(1,:)ki(19,:); slope_ki=slope_intki(1,2)/slope_intki(1,1); y_interki=1*slope_ki*ki(1,1) + ki(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_ki=slope_ki*x+y_interki; figure(3);clf; plot(ki(:,1),ki(:,2),’bo’); hold on; plot(x,y_ki,’r.’);
88
grid; axis ([10 80 0.548 0.56]); xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’); %xlabel(’Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)’,’FontAngle’,’italic’); ylabel(’k_{i}’); %title(’k_{i} vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)’); legend(’actual Data’, ’linear App.’); print depsc2 kilin.eps
89
This page is left intentionally blank.
90
APPENDIX C SABER SCHEMATIC MODELS
This appendix provides a list of all the SABER schematics used for the switching model and average model simulations. The switching model and average model SABER schematics of the hex t/r and ATRu are presented in this section. The MAST Files that were used in the SABER simulations has also been included in this appendix.
C.1
SABER schematics
The SABER schematics used to simulate the hex t/r and ATRU are presented in this section.
C.1.1
Hex t/r SABER schematics
The hex T/R SABER schematics are shown in Figures C.1  C.2.
C.1.2
ATRU SABER schematics
The ATRU SABER schematics are shown in Figures C.3  C.8.
C.2
SABER MAST code
The SABER MAST code used in the hex t/r average model SABER schematics are presented in this section. A brief description is provided with the code, as is information stating with which schematic model the ﬁle is associated. 91
3−phase Source and abc/dqo Coordinate Transformation Hex Transformer
vmult V
Current to Control Interface
a Control DC/DC Model b q p2 DC/DC p2
d DC/DC p2
i2var
abc
n2:8 1meg c m2 m2 p1 p3 o 1meg n2:8
1meg
n2:8 1meg m2 p1 p3
sym3 [0,0,25m,1,500m,1] primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 +
Voltage to Control
dqo
p1 p3 n1:130 1meg m1 m3 p4 v2var p4 m3 m1 1meg n3:14 n1:130 n3:14
n1:130
n3:14 1meg m1 m3 p4
ref:contabc2dqo1 freq:60
−
Interface
n4:8 1meg vmult m4 m4 0 V
Current to Control Interface
n4:8 1meg m4
n4:8
1.1meg
0 Control Model sym7 i2var 359 +
Voltage to Control
a
d
b
q
abc
c DC/DC p2 DC/DC p2 o DC/DC p2
sym1 [0,0,25m,1,500m,1] − n2:8 v2var primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 359 sym4 p1 p3 p1 1meg n1:130 +
Voltage to Control Interface
dqo
n2:8 1meg m2 m2 p3 p1 1meg m2 p3 n2:8 1meg
359 sym9 ref:sym17 freq:60
n3:14 1meg
n1:130
n3:14 1meg
n1:130
n3:14 1meg m3 p4 m1 m3 p4
0 0 p4 v2var +
Voltage to Control
−
Interface
m1 m3
m1
n4:8 1meg m4 m4
n4:8 1meg m4
n4:8 1meg
− vmult v2var V
Current to Control Interface Control to
Interface
+
Voltage
− v2var
Interface
i2var
+
Voltage
sym5
to Control
[0,0,25m,1,500m,1] − v2var
Interface
Figure C.1 Hex t/r switching model SABER schematic
Rectifier and DC Load
92
675u 675u pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld 675u 675u 675u
0.1
562u
675u
Current to Control Interface
i2var
+
Voltage to Control
10.69 2400u
−
Interface
v2var
0.1
562u
0 225u + + 439.68 − v2var + 2400u − 225u 562u 4.5 0 i − − var2i Vd
Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface
Current to Control Interface
i2var
562u
.196
lcomm1
lfilter1 +
Voltage to Control Interface
Voltage to Control Interface
v2var
Control to Voltage
v2var
var2v
lcomm2 d Model mcos b
k1=
Control a Cosine Multiplier
q dqo + o abc primitive:contdqo2abc
k2=
lfilter2
c .555
− v2var freq:60 1.0 cos
Voltage to Control Interface
Figure C.2 Hex t/r average model SABER schematic
93
d Model angle q dqo + sin
k2=
Control a
alpha map
idc primitive:alphamap
vin
kv map
idc primitive:kvmap vout
b 1.0
o abc primitive:contdqo2abc .555
k1=
− v2var freq:60 Sine Multiplier msin
Voltage to Control Interface
c
0
+ 0 − var2i v2var − Vq
Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface
Voltage to Control Interface
+
v2var
ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l3 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l6 m:1.5m*0.85 m:1.5m*0.85 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l9 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l8
ml
to
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
ATRU ( 231 VAC / 540VDC )
Interphase selfs
1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m
1meg
+
Voltage to Control − Interface v2var Vdcplus
1.5m d Control Model q b q b Model 1.5m Voltage to c ml Interface v2var − 2.5 Control o c o + Control a d a
abc
abc
dqo
1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l5 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l11 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_4 freq:400 + to 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l2 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l4 m:1.5m*0.85 Control − Interface v2var v2var Interface − m:1.5m*0.85 Control to Voltage + Voltage ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l1 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l12 freq:400 ml ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_5 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 m:1.5m*0.85
dqo
v2var Voltage − to Control + Interface 1.5m Vdcminus
d 1.5m Control Model d Control a q b
a
abc
b o c
1.5m
1.5m
1meg
Model Voltage + to Control − Interface v2var Interface v2var − o c Control to + q Voltage
abc dqo
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL240 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_7 freq:400 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL240 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_6 freq:400 ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l7 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l10 m:1.5m*0.85 1.5m
dqo
1.5m
SABER
+ to Control − Interface v2var Interface v2var − Control to
Voltage +
Voltage
Load
d Control Model q b q b Model Control
a
d
a
abc
o 1m c o c
abc
1m 1m pwld pwld pwld pwld
dqo
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL280 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_8 freq:400 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_9 freq:400 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL280
dqo
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld
pwld pwld
to
to
to
pwld
Control
Control
Current
Current
Interface i2var
Interface i2var
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
Rectifiers
to
to
i2var
i2var
to
Control
Control
Current
Current
Interface
Interface
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
to
to
i2var
to
Control
Control
Current
Current
Interface
Interface i2var
Current
Control
DC/DC p2 DC/DC p2 n2:Nk2 n2:Nk1 p1 m2 n1:Np p3 m1 n3:Nk1 m3 m3 n3:Nk2 m1 p3 n1:Np m2 p1
to
Current
Control
d
a
Control
Model
q
b
abc
to Current Control Interface i2var DC/DC DC/DC n2:Nk1 p1 n2:Nk2 m2 p1 m2 p3 n1:Np p3 m1 n3:Nk1 − Interface m3 m3 Voltage + to Control − Interface v2var v2var n3:Nk2 Voltage + to Control m1 n1:Np p2 p2
o
c
dqo
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_3
freq:400
d
a
Control
Model
q
b
abc
o
c
dqo
Voltage + to Control i2var Current Control Interface Interface DC/DC p2 n2:Nk2 n2:Nk1 Vb amplitude:231*1.41 p1 m2 n1:Np Vc p3 amplitude:231*1.41 m1 n3:Nk1 phase:120 m3 m3 frequency:400 m1 n3:Nk2 n1:Np p3 frequency:400 phase:−120 Va amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:*opt* m2 p1 v2var to − DC/DC p2
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_2
Figure C.3 ATRU switching model SABER schematic
freq:400
Interface i2var
Alim
ATRU Windings
Interface
i2var
94
ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l13 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l19 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l15 m:1.5m*0.85 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l22 m:1.5m*0.85
ml
to Current Control Interface
1meg
Interphase selfs
1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m
i2var
+
Voltage to Control
−
Interface
ATRU ( 231 VAC / 540VDC )
1.5m 1.5m ml
v2var
+ 2.5
Voltage to Control
−
Interface
v2var 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l23 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l17 m:1.5m*0.85 ml ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l20 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l24 va vdcplus1 0 + vc vdcminus1 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m vdcplus2 0 1.5m 1meg vb m:1.5m*0.85 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l21 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l18 m:1.5m*0.85 − v2var
Voltage to Control Interface
_n21
vap vbp vcp vdcminus2
atru avg. model
vdcplus3 0 vdcminus3
vapp vbpp vcpp
1.5m 1.5m
ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l16 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l14 m:1.5m*0.85
Load
to
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
to
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
to
Current
Control
Interface
i2var
Figure C.4 ATRU average model SABER schematic
95
DC/DC DC/DC p2 n2:1/6.387 n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 m2 n1:1 p3 p3 m1 n3:1/6.387 n3:1/3.4137 m3 m3 m1 n1:1 p1 p2 DC/DC DC/DC n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 n1:1 p3 m1 n3:1/3.4137 n3:1/6.387 m3 m3 m1 p3 n1:1 m2 p1 n2:1/6.387 p2 p2 DC/DC DC/DC n2:1/6.387 n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 n1:1 Vc p3 m1 n3:1/3.4137 m3 m3 amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:120 n3:1/6.387 m1 p3 n1:1 m2 p1 p2 p2
Vb
amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:−120
Va
amplitude:231*1.41
frequency:400 phase:*opt*
Alim
ATRU Windings
va vb vc
vdcplus1 0
atru avg. model
vdcminus1
vap vbp vcp vdcplus2 0 vdcminus2
vapp vbpp vcpp
vdcplus3 0 vdcminus3
Figure C.5 ATRU average model block SABER schematic
va vb vc
va
vb
avg. rect1
vdcplus1
vdcplus1
vc
vdcminus1
vdcminus1
vap
vap
vbp vcp
vbp
avg. rect2
vdcplus2
vdcplus2
vcp
vdcminus2
vdcminus2
vapp
vapp
vbpp
vbpp
avg. rect3
vdcplus3
vdcplus3
vcpp
vcpp
vdcminus3 vdcminus3
Figure C.6 ATRU bridge rectiﬁer average model SABER schematic
96
Control
+ vdplus vdcplus − vdminus id
+ va
Control to
Voltage
a Control
Voltage to
d
vdcplus1 d q a Control Model dqo +
Voltage to
sum k:1/3
Model b q
rectifier avg.
iq
−
Control to Current Interface
v2var c
Control
abc
o + vqplus − vqminus var2v
to
var2v
var2i var2i + vb
Control to Voltage Voltage
model
b
o vdcminus
Control
c vdcminus1 − abc
Interface
Control
dqo
sum v2var primitive:contdqo2abc freq:400 k:1/3
to
Current
−
Interface Control to Current
Figure C.7 ATRU Bridge 1 average model SABER schematic
v2var
97
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_1 freq:400 var2i + vc
Control to Voltage
−
Interface
sum k:1/3
v2var
0
+
Voltage to Control Interface
Control to Current
0
− v2var vp + k:kv vcvs − var2v vm
Control to Voltage
var2i
1meg mcos Cosine Multiplier
k1=
ki
Figure C.8 Average model circuit SABER schematic model
k2= Current to Control Interface
i2var
98
cos 1.0 constant alp sin
k2=
sqrt mult sum
Square Root out
in
1.0
ki
k1=
Sine Multiplier msin
mult
0
+
Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface
− v2var
var2i
C.2.1
The α polynomial saber mast ﬁle
# Polynomial fit for the alpha variable element template alphamap idc angle input nu idc output nu angle { var nu alpha val nu cons3, cons2, cons1, cons0 values { cons3 cons2 cons1 cons0 = = = = 0.00000025876793 0.00001196916142 0.00578832204852 0.12933829713806 } alpha = cons3*idc*idc*idc + cons2*idc*idc + cons1*idc + cons0 angle = alpha }
C.2.2
The kv polynomial saber mast ﬁle
# Polynomial fit for the kv variable element template kvmap vin idc vout input nu vin,idc output nu vout { var nu kv val nu cons3, cons2, cons1, cons0 values { cons3 cons2 cons1 cons0 = = = = 0.00000007802294 0.00001258358603 0.00055547151970 0.54735932166799 99
} kv = cons3*idc*idc*idc + cons2*idc*idc + cons1*idc + cons0 vout = kv*vin }
C.2.3
The α linear saber mast ﬁle
# Polynomial fit for the alpha variable element template alphamaplin idc angle input nu idc output nu angle { var nu alpha val nu cons1, cons0 values { cons1 = 0.00501938363468 cons0 = 0.14266271303755 } alpha = cons1*idc + cons0 angle = alpha }
C.2.4
The kv linear saber mast ﬁle
# Polynomial fit for the kv variable element template kvmaplin vin idc vout input nu vin,idc output nu vout { var nu kv val nu cons1, cons0 100
values { cons1 = 0.00113560905579 cons0 = 0.55323646705100 } kv = cons1*idc + cons0 vout = kv*vin }
101
This page is left intentionally blank.
102
VITA
Carl Terrie Tinsley, III was born in Camp Lejeune, NC on March 7, 1978. He received his bachelor of science degree from Virginia Tech in May 2001. In 1998 and 1999, he worked as an engineering coop student with Duke Power Company in Charlotte, North Carolina. In August 2001, he began working as a graduate student at the Center for Power Electronics Systems (CPES) at Virginia Tech. Upon completion of his M.S. degree, the author will begin fulltime employment with LockheedMartin Corporation in Manassas, VA. He is a member of Eta Kappa Nu Honor Society. His research interests include threephase inverters, control of power electronics, and modeling of multipulse transformer rectiﬁer systems.
103