IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 14, No.
1, March 1999
44
Saturation Modelling in DQ Axis Models of
Salient Pole Synchronous Machines
E.Levi, Member IEEE
Liverpool John Moores University
School of El. Eng., Elec. & Physics
Liverpool L3 3 A F , UK
Abstract  Presently available transient dq axis models of
saturated salient pole synchronous machines are derived by
selecting either all the winding currents o r all the winding flux
linkages as statespace variables. This paper presents a number
of novel models where statespace variables are selected in
various different ways. The idea originates in the generalised
flux and generalised inductance concept, which has recently
been successfully developed and applied in derivation of
numerous models of saturated smooth airgap a.c. machines.
The concept is here extended to salient pole synchronous
machines. Saturation itself is accounted for by means of single
saturation factor approach and conversion of anisotropic to
isotropic machine is executed in the usual way. The new models,
presented in the paper, yield the same accuracy as the existing
models that are based on single saturation factor approach. This
statement is confirmed by a simulation study and a sample of
simulation results is included. However, a number of new
models are considerably simpler than the existing ones and thus
more convenient for application in simulations.
I. INTRODUCTION
Magnetic saturation in orthogonal dq axis models of
salient pole synchronous machines is traditionally modelled
by selecting either all the winding currents as statespace
variables [l71, or all the winding flux linkages as statespace
variables [1,8111. Most of the research in conjunction with
saturation representation in salient pole synchronous machine
models has been directed towards investigation of the crosssaturation impact on accuracy of the simulation results and
towards accurate representation of the qaxis saturation. The
trend in the past was to ignore completely crosssaturation
and account for the saturation at first in the daxis only [8],
PE095EC1091997 A paper recommended and approved by the
IEEE Electric Machinery Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion. Manuscript submitted May 21, 1997; made available for
printing October 3, 1997.
and then in both d and qaxes [3,12]. The importance of
accounting for crosssaturation was recognised later and the
current statespace models that are used nowadays [1,2 471
include both the qaxis saturation and the crosssaturation
representation in an explicit form. The current statespace
model appears to be more popular for two reasons: winding
currents are of interest rather than flux linkages, and it
explicitly accounts for crosssaturation so that the effects of
self and crosssaturation can be separated.
An intrinsic difficulty in saturation representation in dq
axis models of salient pole synchronous machines appears to
be determination of the qaxis saturation curve. Magnetising
curve for the daxis is always available as it is given with
opencircuit (noload) daxis characteristic. If the machine is
such that the qaxis magnetising curve can be determined
experimentally or if it is determined by means of finite
element analysis, then twosaturation factor approach to
saturation representation may be utilised [ 14,6,7,13].
However, in most practical cases qaxis magnetising curve is
not available and one then assumes that the degree of qaxis
and daxis saturation is the same. As discussed in [ 121, qaxis
saturation effects are adequately accounted for with the use of
open circuit daxis saturation curve. This approach leads to
single saturation factor representation of saturation
[3 ,5,10,11,13,14].
In order to represent saturation by means of a single
saturation factor, an anisotropic salient pole machine is
converted into an equivalent isotropic machine [5,7,10,14].
Single saturation factor method is adopted here and
conversion of anisotropic to isotropic machine is performed as
defined in [14].
The aim of this paper is to extend recently introduced idea
of arbitrary selection of statespace variables in saturated a.c.
machine modelling, based on the generalised flux and
generalised inductance concept [ 151, to the modelling of
saturated salient pole synchronous machines. The procedure,
originally developed for singlecage induction machines [ 151,
has already been successfully applied in modelling of
saturated doublecage and deepbar induction machines
[16,17], and smooth airgap synchronous machines [ 181. As
shown in [15171, it is possible to derive an appropriate
model for singlecage and doublecage induction machines,
08858969/99/$10.00 0 1997 IEEE
45
for any set of selected statespace variables, using the
generalised flux concept. In the case of a smooth airgap
synchronous machine, the majority of possible models can be
obtained as well, using the same procedure: however, three
models cannot be derived due to the absence of the qaxis
excitation winding [18], so that the total number of obtainable
models equals 37. In the case of a salient pole synchronous
machine, the total number of available models reduces further
due to saliency, so that 34 models can be derived (including
the two existing models).
The derivation procedure is described in the paper and
three novel models are presented in developed form. Some of
the models are considerably simpler than the existing two
models. A simulation study is performed and it is verified that
the novel models yield the same results as the existing ones.
A sample of simulation results is included. The accuracy of
all the possible models of a salient pole saturated synchronous
machine is thus the same, as long as the single saturation
factor approach is used.
The paper is organised as follows. Salient pole synchronous
machine model, single saturation factor approach and an
overview of the concept of the generalised flux and
generalised inductance are provided in Section 11. The
extension of the procedure to the saturated salient pole
synchronous machine modelling and the classification of the
models are contained in Section 111. Derivation procedure is
discussed and three complete models are given in Section IV.
Section V presents simulation results, Section VI discusses
properties and applicability of the novel models, while
Section VI1 summarises conclusions.
11. SALIENT POLE SYNCHRONOUSMACHINE
MODELAND THE
APPROACH
TO MAINFLUXSATURATION MODELLING
A. Basic Salient Pole Synchronous Machine Model
The model of a salient pole synchronous machine may be
given in the rotor reference frame (rotor electrical speed is o)
with the following set of equations:
where v, i and denote voltage, current and flux linkage,
respectively. Indices s, f and r stand for stator, excitation and
damper winding. Torque and mechanical equations are of no
interest and are omitted. There is one damper winding in qaxis and leakage flux between the two rotor windings in daxis is zero. It is assumed that leakage flux saturation and
main flux saturation may be treated independently, as
indicated by (4). Index m denotes parameters and variables
associated with the magnetising flux, while index CT describes
constant leakage inductances. As the machine is of salient
structure, damper winding parameters hffer for the two axes.
For the same reason, space vectors of magnetising flux and
magnetising current are spatially displaced. The open circuit
daxis magnetising curve of the machine is assumed to be a
known nonlinear function: generator open circuit test is
performed and dmrete data are approximated with a
continuous function using, say, leastsquares fitting.
Inductance terms Ldm and L, denote saturated values of
mutual inductances along d and qaxis.
B. Single Saturation Factor Approach
Let the unsaturated and saturated values of mutual d and
qaxis inductances be Ldmo,L,,
and Ldm , L,, , respectively.
Saliency factor is defined as
/,
= JL9,IL.,= const.
m=
(5)
and is, according to (3, assumed to be constant at all
saturation levels. It is hence assumed that d and qaxis
saturate to the same degree.
The anisotropic salient pole machine is further converted
into an equivalent isotropic machine, in which newly defined
values of magnetising flux and magnetising current space
vectors are aligned. Magnetising flux and magnetising
current equivalents in an isotropic machine are defined by
means of saliency ratio as
~,=,/w
i p = , / M ,
(6)
so that it becomes possible to define a unique mutual
(magnetising) inductance,
L, =w,/i,
vf = Rfif + d y f / d t
0 = Rdridv+ d V d r / d t
0 = Rqriq,+ d V q y l d t
Vds = Ld'ds
'Vdm
+ Vdm
(7)
(2)
The open circuit daxis magnetising curve is used as function
y , = f(iJ and magnetising flux components of (4) are now
(3)
Vdm = Ldmidm = L p
(ip)idm
Vqm = Lqmiqm = ~ , (i,u)mziqm
u
Vqs = Ldqs + Vqm
V f = Lofif 'Vdm
Vdv = LDdridr
C. Generalised Flux and Generalised Inductance Concepts
Vqv =
Lcrqjqv + Vqm
Vdm = L d J d m
Vqm = LqJqm
idm= ids + i f +idr
iqm= i,, +iqr
(4)
Generalised flux space vector is defined for a smooth airgap a x . machine as a flux space vector that has to satisfy two
criteria [15171. It is required to be aligned with magnetising
46
flux space vector (or, which is the same in a smooth airgap
machine, with magnetising current space vector) and it must
be possible to express generalised flux as a linear combination
of the selected statespace variables. Correlation between
generalised flux space vector and the magnetising current
space vector is established by means of the generalised
inductance A, that depends on the level of main flux
saturation. Generalised inductance is always a physically
definable inductance of the machine for a singlecage
induction machine, while generalised flux may or may not
exist physically in the machine [15]. For a doublecage
induction machine and a smooth airgap synchronous
machine, there are cases when neither generalised inductance
nor the generalised flux physically exist in the machine [ 16181. However, classification of all the models and their
derivation can always be based on the need to find the time
derivative of the generalised inductance, the time derivative
of the inverse of the generalised inductance or neither of the
two [15181. In the case of the smooth airgap synchronous
machine three models cannot be derived because of the
absence of the qaxis excitation windmg.
111. MAINFLUXSATURATION MODELLING
IN SALIENT POLE
SYNCHRONOUS
MACHINES
A . Application of the Generalised Flux Concept
Space vector notation (underlined variables) is used in
what follows for all the quantities that possess both d and qaxis components, for the sake of abbreviated writing. The set
of space vectors that may be selected as statespace variables
is given with
It
:
(9)
Three space vectors are to be selected from this set of eight.
Let the selected ones be denoted as x1,x2,x3.The
generalised flux space vector definition, used in [15181 for
smooth airgap machines, has to be modified for a salient
pole machine. Generalised flux is now required to be aligned
with magnetising current space vector equivalent
in the
[XI
=[is
if
I,
!r
ys
Yff
y r y,
f,
isotropic machine (or, which is the same, with magnetising
flux equivalent I,U ) and can be expressed as a linear
Generalised inductance A, defined in (1 l), depends on the
main flux saturation level (i.e., it is function of L,). As shown
in [15181, all the models of singlecage and doublecage
induction machines and all except three models of smooth
airgap synchronous machines, obtainable using the
generalised flux concept, can be classified into three groups.
The groups encompass models where dA/dt, d(l/A)/dt or none
of the two, respectively, is required in the model derivation.
B. Classi'cation
The total number of models, obtainable using the
generalised flux concept, is in the case of a smooth airgap
synchronous machine equal to 37, [NI. Generalised flux and
generalised inductance can be made equal to magnetising flux
and magnetising inductance in 34 models while in the three
remaining either generalised flux or both generalised flux and
generalised inductance do not exist physically in the machine.
In the case of salient pole synchronous machine it turns out
that the only obtainable models are those for which
generalised flux Y and generalised inductance A can be made
and magnetising
equal to magnetising flux equivalent ~f,,
inductance L, , respectively, defined in (G)(7). Hence the
total number of models that can be derived utilising the
generalised flux concept reduces from 37 for smooth airgap
to 34 for salient pole synchronous machine.
A consequence of nonexistence of the qaxis excitation
winding is that a number of statespace variable selections in
terms of space vectors lead to, apparently, selection of six real
statespace variables. However, for each of these cases only
two statespace variables for the qaxis are required, so that
one has to be omitted. The issue is discussed in detail in [ 181.
The available 34 models can be classified into three groups,
encompassing all the models that require d N d t , d(l/A)/dt or
neither of the two, respectively, during the model derivation.
(As already pointed out, A = L,, for all the models.) Content
of each of the three groups is as follows.
A Models (dMdt required). The group contains 13 models:
0
P
combination of the selected statespace variables in the form:
Y = (axdl +bx,,
+ c x d 3 ) + j ( l / m ) ( a x q+bxq2
l
+cxq3) . (10)
One or more of the coefficients a, b, c in (10) may take
different values for d and qaxis in the salient pole
synchronous machme, as discussed later on. As the
generalised flux space vector is aligned with magnetising
current space vector equivalent , then
of the Models
pure current models (four models);
models with magnetising current and any two flux
linkage space vectors (three models);
models with two currents (one of which is magnetising
current) and one flux linkage space vector (six models).
1/A Models (d(l/A)/dt required). There are 20 models:
models with two currents (none of which is magnetising
current) and one flux linkage space vector, excluding the
. .
.
.
L s > L r , Y f f; V / s > ' f
,if ,is
models
(seven
v,
models);
models with two flux linkages and one current which is
y s , i r ,y f ,
not magnetising current, excluding ~f
SIY
IY
,
,if
and
~f
r
,is,iyf
models (ten models).
47
models with magnetising flux and any other two flux
linkages (three models);
For all the models of this group, the coefficients a, b, c of (IO)
must be saturation independent, as explained in [ 1518].
For the remaining eight models of this group it is again
possible to obtain generalised inductance and generalised flux
as equal to L, and K, , by proper selection of the coefficients
. .
in (10). For z s , L s ,V+,!~,L,;
i~;
y s , L s , v ~ ;, , f s ,
Neither dMdt nor d(l/A)/dt required. This 'group' contains
once more a single, already available, model:
0
all the flux linkages of dq axis windings.
models coefficients a, 6, c are to be set to 1, L, and 0,
respectively.
For
the
remaining
four
models,
. .
v r 7 ! , , i J i y r $ ~ r ~, / ~
, , L s, , Y;J ; y r , ! r , y s> a = 1, c = O
and b takes the values of Ldr and LTr for d and qaxis,
respectively (for all the models with, apparently, three statespace variables for the qaxis, the qaxis components of the
first two space vectors are selected) .
For all the 1/A models, time derivative d(l/L,J/dt is
required in the process of the model derivation. This time
derivative now equals
In all except one of the A models, magnetising current
space vector is one of the three space vector statespace
variables. For all these models, coefficient (say, ad) that
multiplies magnetising current daxis component in (10) is to
be set to the saturated daxis mutual inductance,
correspondmg coefficient that multiplies qaxis magnetising
current component (a4)to saturated qaxis mutual inductance,
while the other two coefficients (b,c) in (IO) are to be set to
zero (it is assumed that both d and qaxis components of the
magnetising current are selected as statespace variables). For
the remaining A model with all the winding currents as statespace variables, all the three coefficients of (10) are to be set
to the saturated d and qaxis mutual inductances for d and
qaxis variables. By performing such a choice of coefficients
in (lo), the generalised inductance and generalised flux of
(11) become equal to saturated magnetising inductance L,
and magnetising flux equivalent v,,respectively. During the
process of model derivation for any of the A models, time
derivative of L , will be required. This time derivative equals
dL
dt =
 L p ) ;(idm
L = d y, /dip
1
diqm
+m2j
qm
L,=v,/i,
dt
2
and the resulting saturation dependent inductances in system
matrix for all the models will be found in the form
Ldd = L cos2 p + L, sin2 L,d
L,, = m2 ( L , cos2 p + L sin2 p )
Ld, = L,d = m L  L
$1cospsinp
COS^ = idm/ip
s i n p = miqmJi, .
The inductances of (13) are identical to those that are present
in the available pure winding current statespace model based
on single saturation factor approach [5].
As far as the l/A models are concerned, twelve out of 20
models contain magnetising flux space vector as statespace
variable and, assuming that both d and qaxis component of
this vector are selected as statespace variables, the coefficient
in (10) that multiples magnetising flux space vector is to be
set to 1 while the other two coefficients are to be set to zero.
Thus for all the 12 models generalised inductance and
generalised flux in (IO)( 11) become equal to the magnetising
inductance L,, and the magnetising flux equivalent y , .
1/L = d i p / d v p
1/L,=ip/vjl
(14)
The saturation dependent terms (inverse inductances) in the
system matrix for all the 1/12 models are obtained in the form
1
=
Ldd
1 =
L,,
1
1
cos2 p+sin2
LP
(
1 cos2
1
m 2 L,
p +sin2
1
1  1
1 1
 = Ldq
Lqd
$1
sin p cos p
cosp=v d m / v p
Sinp=(l/m)(vqm/vp)
.
Derivation procedure is described and three models in full
developed form are given in the next Section.
Iv. DERIVATION
AND DEVELOPED
FORM OF THE MODELS
A . Model with f , , i J , f m as StateSpace Variables
This model, according to the classification given in the
previous Section, is the A type model. It is derived from basic
model (1)(4) by eliminating stator, excitation and damper
flux linkages, and damper currents from (1)(3), using (4)
and (12)(13). The resulting model of a saturated salient pole
synchronous machine can be expressed in matrix form as
PI = [Ald[xl/dt
b]=['ds
'qs
[x]=[ids
iqs
[BI[xl
'J
idm
1' '
Zqm]'
(16)
7
where matrices [A] and [B] are given with:
yr
48
I

L,
0
L,
0
0
L@
Rs
@L,
W~'L,
wL,
R,
0
0
Rf
COL,
0
0
Rdr
[B]=
Rdr
Rdr
Rqr
PI =
Rdr
Saturation dependent coefficients in [A] are given with (13).

B. Model with f ,, i f ,
m
V d s = Lmids + V d m
+Vdm
Vdr =
(ids + i f
) (
Vqs = Lmiqs +V q m
/Lp)Vdm
)vqm
vqr=L
aqr i 4s + l + L q r m L,
id,. = ids  i f
0
0
w
Rf
Rdr
Rqr
Rdr/Lp
R q r /(m"Lp
as StateSpace Variables
Derivation procedure of this model, which is of 1/A type,
closely parallels the procedure presented in detail (for the
same model) for smooth airgap synchronous machine in
1181. It is nevertheless presented here again, in order to
emphasise differences introduced by saliency. All the flux
linkages and damper currents are at first expressed in terms
of statespace variables, using (4):
Vf = L o f i f
R,
uL~
COL,
R,
0
0
+y d m / ~ ,
iqr = iqs
(19)
+ y q m / m2 L
This particular model is selected for presentation as an
example of an 1/A model for which, in order to make
generalised inductance and generalised flux equal to L, and
y,, respectively, coefficient b of (10) has to be equated to the
negative value of the stator leakage inductance, as explained
in Section 111. Derivation procedure closely follows the one of
the precedmg subsection. By selecting vector of statespace
variables as
[x]=[Vds
Vqs
ids
iqs
(24)
if]f
~ .
Time derivatives of damper flux linkages of (19) are found
next,
(20)
Substitution of (14) into (20), followed by substitution of (19)
and (20) into (1)(3) enables formulation of the model in the
matrix form of (16). As the model is of 1/A type, saturation
dependent coefficients of matrix [A] become now as given in
(15). Vector of statespace variables and matrices [A] and [B]
are now
Rdr/Lp
where 1, = L ,
[x]=[i&
iqs
'f
Vdm
Vqm]'
(2 1)
Rf
 Rdr
Rdr(l+Lm/Lp)
+ L,d,. , 1,
= L,
+ L,
and saturation
dependent coefficients in [A] are again given with (15 ) .
49
V. SIMULATION
RESULTS
The following simulation study is performed in order to
verify the derived salient pole synchronous machine models.
A generator, whose perunit parameters and the daxis
magnetising curve are given in Appendix, is initially operated
in steadystate with terminal stator current and voltage equal
to 1 P.u., with turbine torque of 0.9 p.u. and with power factor
of 0.9 in overexcited mode. Power invariant transformation is
applied and the equations are formed using motoring
convention for positive powers. Machine torque, load angle
and stator qaxis current are therefore all negative. The
transient selected for investigation is a step change of
terminal voltage from 1 p.u. to 1.1 P.u.. Turbine governor and
excitation voltage controller are not included. This is a
transient during which impact of main flux saturation is
undoubtedly pronounced. Simulation is at first performed
using the wellknown winding current statespace model of a
saturated synchronous machine [5], which is obtainable in
identical form using the procedure outlined in this paper.
Next, the same transient is simulated using constant
parameter synchronous machine model (unsaturated model),
with magnetising inductance set to the constant value that
corresponds to the previous steadystate (0.638 P.u.). All the
variables in the two models have therefore identical values in
the previous steadystate. A sample of results is given in Fig.
1, where variations of load angle and stator d and qaxis
currents are shown (transient is initiated at t = 12.5 s).
As the next step, the same transient is simulated using the
models of Section IV instead of the winding current statespace model. It is found that all the saturated machine models
yield the same results. As an example, Fig. 2 shows
comparison of traces obtained with winding current statespace model and with the mixed currentflux state space
model given in subsection B of Section IV. No observable
difference is present in the results. The derivation procedure
and the presented models are thus verified.
VI.DISCUSSION
Saturation modelling procedure, described in the paper,
relies on the standard dq axis model of a salient pole
synchronous machine, requires knowledge of the machines
open circuit daxis magnetising curve and is based around the
single saturation factor method. The two already available
models are derived using the same assumptions and the same
initial model; moreover, these two models can be derived by
means of the procedure elaborated here. If all the winding
currents are selected as statespace variables, the model that is
derived is identical to the model given in [ 5 ] . Hence the
accuracy of saturation representation in all the models
presented in the paper, as well as in all the other models that
can be derived (including the two already available models),
is the same as long as single saturation factor approach is
used. Simulation study, whose results are presented in Section
V, confirms this statement. The novel models are thus neither
less nor more accurate than the already existing two models.
The advantage of a number of novel models is reduced
complexity of the system matrix, enabling faster simulations,
when compared with the available current statespace model.
For example, in system matrix of the model given in subsection A of Section IV, 9 out of 25 elements are zero and
only 10 elements depend on saturation (in the current statespace model all 25 elements have nonzero values and depend
on saturation). The situation is even more favourable in the
model presented in subsection B of Section IV where 12
20.5
12
12.5
(Saturated
SG model
0.2
13.5
14
14.5
15
Time (s)
Unsaturated SG model
12
12.5
Saturated
13
13
SG model
13.5
14
14.5
15
Time (s)
Unsaturated SG model
0.8,
8 1.8 L
2l
Saturated
SG model
Unsaturated SG model
50
VIII. APPENDIX: SYNCHRONOUS
GENERATOR
DATA
Perunit parameters and magnetising curve approximation:
R, = 0.0062 R f = 0.000152 Rd,. = 0.0254 R,, = 0.055
L, = 0.14
= 0.91
L,
20.54
12
lds,lqs,lf,ldr.lqr
0.8,
12.5
:
13
model
: : :
13.5
14
Time (s)
!
:
14.5
lds,lqs.lf,Fdm,Fqm
I
15
y,
131
daxis
[41
[51
12
12.5
13
13.5 14
Time (s)
14.5
15
[71
Fig. 2. Comparison of results obtained with two different statespace
models of a saturated salient pole synchronous machine (F ly).
elements of the system matrix are equal to zero and only four
elements are saturation dependent. Statespace variables in
both of these models are those that are usually of interest, i.e.,
stator current components and excitation current (which is
not the case in pure winding flux linkage model, where
currents have to be recalculated using statespace variables)
with considerably simpler structure of the system matrix
compared with pure dq winding current model.
All the models (except for the pure winding flux linkage
model) contain explicit terms that describe dynamic crosssaturation. However, the number of these terms differs for
various models. All the models are easily adaptable to a
smooth airgap synchronous machine.
VII. CONCLUSION
Application of generalised flux concept for saturation
modelling in salient pole synchronous machines is discussed
and a number of novel models are derived. The models differ
with respect to the selected statespace variable set. Relatively
simple overall model structure is arrived at in a number of
cases. The accuracy of saturation representation in all the
novel models is the same as in the two already existing
models, as verified by simulation. It is believed that the
models will find application in synchronous machine
simulation.
= 0.3426
Lqmn= 0.53
m2 = 0.58242
L,,
= 0.242
OB =
120n
IX. REFERENCES
model
1.6
L,
= 1.1212 *0.8029ivei,
= 2.7093
0.2
I
Ld = 0.2244
[81
[91
P.Vas, Electrical machines and drives, A spacevector theory
approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
LBoldea, S.A.Nasar, A unified analysis of magnetic saturation in
orthogonal axis models of electric machines, Electric Machines and
Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, 1987, pp. 195204.
R.G.Harley, D.J.N.Limebeer, E.Chirricozzi, Comparative study of
saturation methods in synchronous machine models, IEE Proceedings,
Pf. B, vol. 127, no. 1, 1980, pp. 17.
G.Xie, R.S.Ramshaw, Nonlinear model of synchronous machines with
saliency,IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 1 , no. 3, 1986, pp. 198204.
I.Iglesias, L.GarciaTabares, J.Tamarit, A DQ model for the selfcommutated synchronous machine considering the effects of magnetic
saturation, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. I,no. 4, 1992, pp. 768776.
S.A.Tahan, LKamwa, A twofactor saturation model for synchronous
machines with multiple rotor circuits, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol.
10, no. 4, 1995, pp. 609616.
S.A.Tahan, I.Kamwa, P.Viarouge, M.Ferfa, A generalised model of
saturated synchronous machines, IMACS Journal on Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation. vol. 38, 1995, pp. 425435.
P.M.Anderson, AAFouad, Power system control and stability,
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1994.
J.O.Ojo, T.A.Lipo, An improved model for saturated salient pole
synchronous motors,lEEE Trans. Energy Conv.. vol. 4, no. 1, 1989, pp.
135 142.
R.Wamkeue, LKamwa, X.DaiDo, A detailed model of grounded
synchronous machines for saturated unsymmetrical transients, Proc. of
Int. Conf ELECTRIMACS96. St. Nazaire, France, 1996, pp. 333340.
V.Brandwajn, Representation of magnetic saturation in the synchronous
machine model in an electromagnetic transients program, IEEE Trans.
PowerApp. andSysf., vol. 99, no. 5, 1980, pp. 19962001.
F.P.de Mello, L.N.IIannett, Representation of saturation in synchronous
machines,IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, 1986, pp. 814.
A.M.ElSerafi, J.Wu, Saturation representation in synchronous machine
models, Elec. Machines &Power Sysfems, vol. 20, 1992, pp. 355369.
L.Pierrat, E.Dejaeger, M.S.Garrido, Models unification for the saturated
synchronous machines, Proc. Int. Con$ on Evolution and Modern
Aspects ofSynch. Machines, Zurich, Switzerland, 1991, pp. 4448.
E.Levi, A unified approach to main flux saturation modelling in DQ
axis models of induction machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 10,
no. 3, 1995, pp. 455461.
E.Levi, Main flux saturation modelling in doublecage and deepbar
induction machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 11, no. 2, 1996,
pp. 30531 1.
E.Levi, General method of magnetising flux saturation modelling in dq
axis models of doublecage induction machines, IEE Proc.  Elecfr.
PowerAppl., vol. 144, no. 2, 1997, pp. 101109.
E.Levi, Modelling of magnetic saturation in smooth airgap synchronous
machines, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Denver, CO, 1996, Paper No.
96SM 3640 EC.
Emil Levi (M1992) received his PhD from the University of Belgrade,
Yugoslavia in 1990. From 1982 till 1992 he was with the University of Novi
Sad, Yugoslavia. Since 1992 he is with Liverpool John Moores Ilniversity,
Liverpool, UK, where he is currently Reader in Electrical Power Engineering.