IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-104, No.

5, May 1985 1057

SECOND BENCHMARK MODEL FOR COMPUTER SIMULATION OF SUBSYNCHRONOUS RESONANCE

IEEE Subsynchronous Resonance Working Group of the
Dynamic System Performance Subcommittee
Power System Engineering Commitee

Abstract Case 3: For SYS-l, the effect of torque am-

Two turbine-generator models and two system models
are presented for the study of subsynchronous reso-
nance. The turbine-generator models have a common
torsional mode. The analytic results of three cases
are presented where the analysis has been performed
by various computer programs. Both self-excitation
and torque amplification study results are provided.
The machine and system data are presented in such
detail that others can apply their analytic techniques
and compare results.
INTRODUCTION
The first benchmark model for computer simulation
of subsynchronous resonance (SSR) was published in
19771. This provided the simplest possible model
with a single turbine-generator connected to a single
radial series compensated transmission line. The
model has been used extensively for comparing study
techniques and investigating different types of SSR
countermeasures. The simple type of system employed
in the First Benchmark Model, with its single series
plification is calculated for the
system tuned to the first subsynch-
ronous mode.
,Different SSR analytic techniques require input
data in different formats. Data in the most common
formats are provided for use by the reader. Study re-
sults from some of the most generally used programs
are provided for comparison.
ELECTRICAL NETWORK PRESENTATION
Figures 1 and 2 show the electrical representation
for System 1 and System 2 respectively.
Gen #1
(Study Generator)
A/
22kV/500kV r IV

resonance would rarely be encountered in actual oper- R = 0.0002 X = 0.020 _

ation of a power system. Therefore, a more common
type of system is presented in this Second Benchmark
Bus2 1 1
Model which deals with the so-calleed "parallel reso- R1= 0.0074
nance" and interaction between turbine-generators with R1 = 0.0067
>o 0. 022
a common mode. Specifically, the following two system R0 = 0.0186 =
configurations are provided as benchmark models.
SYS-l. A single generator connected to two
lines, one of which is series com- X1= 0.0739 X1 0. 0800
=
pensated. XO= 0.210 XO 0.240
SYS-2. Two different generators, having a Bus C
common torsional mode connected to a
single series compensated trans-
mission line. Xc varied from 10%
to 90% of X1 4-
The following benchmark cases are defined and P.Rii 1
study results from various computer programs are docu-
mented and compared.
Case 1: For SYS-l the negative damping due to R = R0 = 0.0014
self-excitation is calculated as a
function of compensation in the com-
pensated line for each active subsyn-
chronous turbine-generator mode.
Case 2: For SYS-2 the negative damping due to
X = X0 = 0.030
common mode interaction of the two
turbine-generators is calculated and
compared, as a function of compen- Bus 0
sation. 7777777J/777777777 Infinite Bus
84 SM 563-3 A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1984 Summer Meeting, Seattle,
Washington, July 15 - 20, 1984. Manuscript submit-
ted March 2, 1984; made available for printing May
22, 1984. All data in pu on 100 MVA 500 KV base.
Line charging and shunt reactors neglected.
Fig. 1 Electrical Network Representation
for System-l

0018-9510/85/0005-1057$01.00© 1985 IEEE

1058
Table IA - Mechanical Data For Untt 1
Gen 1 Gen 2
MACHINE A 600 MVA, 2 pole, 22 kV unit
22kV/5OGkV
R
X K K LP K

d1 J3 J4
R 1=00R = 0.0120 Inertia Damping Spring Constant
Mass lbm-ft2 lbf-ft-sec/rad in lbf-ft/rad

Exc 1383 4.3

4.39 x 106
X1= 0.0540 X0= 0.120 Gen 176204 547.9
97.97 x 10-
LP 310729 966.2
50.12 x 106
Xc varied from 10% to
90% of X1 HP 49912 155.2
Bus 1
Mode Shapes
Rotor Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
R, = Ro = 0.0014
Exciter 1.307 1.683 -102.6
Generator 1.00 1.00 1.00

XI = X0= 0.030 LP-Turbine -0.354 -1.345 - 0.118

HP -
Turbine -1. 365 4.813 0.0544
The calculated modal quantities follow:
ihite Bus
Mode fn n Hn
All impedances in pu on 100 MVA 500KV base. 1 24.65 Hz .05 rad/sec. 1.55 pu
Line charging and shunt reactors neglected.
2 32.39 Hz .05 rad/sec. 9.39 pu
Fig. 2 Electrical Network Representation 3 51.10 Hz .05 rad/sec. 74.80 pu
for System-2
GENERATOR DATA
Where H
n
= 2.31 x 101 {E VkVg 2 M
J k (V/V )2 ~rm/V
-2
The generator data for Units 1 and 2 are given in Where Jk = Inertia in lbm ft
Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The data for both units
are treated similarly but only the data for Unit 1 are The rotor circuit models of Tables 1C and 2C are
explained in detail. converted to produce passive stator resistance and
reactance versus frequency models by the method shown
The mechanical data for units 1 and 2 are shown in in Table 1D. The R-X versus frequency models derived
Tables 1A and 2A respectively. The inertia, damping by this method are shown in Tables 1D and 2D for gen-
and spring constants are given in the indicated physi- erators 1 and 2 respectively. It should not be con-
cal units. The dampings have been chosen proportional strued that this method provides the most accurate
to inertia so that each mode has the same torsional rotor circuit model or R-X versus frequency model.
dampi ng in rad/sec. Therefore, the modal dampings The approach has only been applied here to make the 3
are directly related to the viscous dampings of the sets of data compatible for comparison of the various
elements. programs.
Generator electrical data are provided in conven- Table lB - Electrical Data in
tional stability format in Tables 1B and 2B. Some Conventional Stability Form For Unit 1
programs accept generator data in this form directly,
whereas others accept data in the form of rotor cir- Generator Rated at 600 MVA, 22KV
cuits or in the form of stator R and X as a function
of statot current frequency. For the purpose of pro- X = 0.14 pu Ra = 0.0045 pu
viding generator data in all 3 forms that are compat-
ible, the conventional stability data in Tables 1B x = 1.65 pu X
q
= 1.59 pu
and 2B is used as the basic data. The conventional XId = 0.25 pu X = 0.46 pu
stability data is converted to Park's two axis, two q
rotor circuit model by the approximate technique Xdd = 0. 20 pu X = 0.20 pu
q
shown in Table 1C. The rotor circuit models derived Tdo = 4.5 s T'qo =
0.55 s
by this technique are given in Tables IC and 2C for
generators 1 and 2, respectively. Equations given in T"do = 0.040 s T" = 0. 09 s
qo
the appendix of Reference 1 can be used to provide
more accurate conversion from conventional stability
to a rotor circuit model, if necessary. Vt = 1.0 6 = 0 (unloaded unit)
 1059

Table lC - Two Axis Rotor Circuit Model Table 1D - R-X vs. Frequency Model for Unit 1
Derived From Conventional Stability Data Using
Approximate Approach for Unit 1 The following model is derived from the rotor circuit
model of Table 1C using the following equations.
d-axis
Z (f s ) + Z ave (fr)
= Req +x
+
jxeq = R a
S
g
ad -
fr Where: S = fs - f
0
0 f
s

f = stator current frequency f f

Rfd Rkd s
=
0
-
r

Zd(fr) afkd f
fr 'f
fs RReq x eq
f f
PI r 10.0 0.0034 0.0334
fd kd fr
0 15.0 0.0026 0.0501
ff
fo 20.0 0.0017 0.0668
fo= Frequency corresponding to Average Rotor Speed 25.0 0.0004 0.0836
f r = Rotor current frequency 30.0 -0.0012 0.1004
35.0 -0.0034 0.1173
40.0 -0.0067 0.1344
45.0 -0.0121 0.1521
ad =£ = 0.14 pu 50.0 -0.0223 0.1716
55.0 -0.0473 0.2002
= 1.51 pu 65.0 0.0658 0.2366
IafkdXd - X9. 70.0 0.0421 0.2403
75.0 0.0322 0. 2535
fd afkd (xg-x2)/ (Xd -
dX = 0.1186 pu 80.0 0.0269 0.2688
85.0 0.0237 0.2848
Ikd = Qafkd *fd (Xd X1) = 0.132 pu 90.0 0.0215 0.3011
95.0 0.0199 0.3175
kd fkd * fd ( afkd fd'(d) -d X) 100.0 0.0187 0.3340
105.0 0.0178 0.3505
I
Rfdf= fd + I afkd = 0.00096 pu 110.0 0.0170 0.3671
w T" 115.0 0.0164 0.3837
o do 120.0 0.0159 0.4003

Table 2A - Mechanical Data for Unit 2

Rkd 1 V lkd Iafkd fd = 0.016 pu MACHINE B 700 MVA, 2 pole, 22 kV unit

o T?o
o do -... afkd fd J

K P K
q-axis GM 12 23 H
f 1 12 3
aq T Inertia Damping Spring Constant
0
Mass lbm-ft2 lbf-ft-sec/rad lbf-ft/rad
Rfq Rkq Gen 334914 208.2
f 156.1 x 106
zq(f r) Qafkq fr f LP 370483 230.4
qr§ f
0 ,
fq
r {kt
kq "O
r
HP -09922 68.38
198.7 x 106

Mode Shapes

Rotor Mode 1 Mode 2

Generator 1.0 1.0
LP Turbine -0.601 -4.33
Using similar equations as for d-axis case
HP Turbine -1.023 11.56

aq= 0.14 pu, afkq= 1.45 pu, Ifq= 0.411 pu, kq = .0738. pu The calculated modal quantities follow.
f a H
Mode n n n

Rfq = 0.00898 pu, Rkq = 0.0116 pu

1 24.65 .025 2.495

2 44.99 .025 93.960
1060

Table 2B - Electrical Data in

Table 2D - R-X vs. Frequency Model for Unit 2
Conventional Stability Form for Unit 2
The following model is derived from the rotor circuit
model of Table 2C using the equations given in Table
Generator Rated at 700MVA and 22KV ID.

X = 0.12 pu R = 0.0045 pu f R x
a eq
xd = 1.54 pu X
q
= 1.50 pu
10.0 0.0031 0.0301
Xd = 0.23 pu Xt = .0. 42 pu 15.0 0.0021 0.0451
d q 20.0 0. 0009 0.0602
X'td = 0.18 pu X'= 0. 18 Pu 25.0 -0.0006 0. 0753
q 30.0 -0.0026 0.0906
T' = 3.70 s T'qo = 0.43 s
35.0 -0.0055 0. 1059
do 40.0 -0.0095 0.1217
T" = 0.04 s T" = 0.06 5
45.0 -0.0163 0.1383
do qo 50.0 -0.0288 0.1576
55.0 -0.0569 0.1896
Vt = 1.0 =0 (unloaded unit) 65.0
70.0
0. 0771
0.0511
0.2240
0.2207
75.0 0.0392 0.2304
80.0 0.0328 0.2433
Table 2C - Two Axis Rotor Circuit Model 85.0 0.0287 0.2573
Derived'From Conventional Stability Data for Unit 2 90.0 0.0259 0.2717
(See Table 1C for Conversion Method) 95.0 0.0240 0.2863
100.0 0.0225 0.3010
105.0 0.0213 0.3158
d-axis 110.0 0.0203 0.3307
ffr 115.0 0.0196 0.3456
0.12 r 120.0 0.0189 0.3605
0
Frequency Scanning
Frequency scan program (FSP) study resul ts are
based upon the following approximate relationship
from Ref. 3.
R
CT
n =
60- fn an 60 + fn Rbn
8 f H R2 + X2 60 - f
n n an an n n n

=Kn [sub -Cn Gsup] (1)

q-axi s Where Z = R + jX is the impedance as viewed
f an an an

0.12 r from behind the study generator at the

f0 frequency of 60 - f
n

Rb
Zbn = +
i is the
impedance as viewed
0.00949 0.0166 from behind the study generator at the
f
frequency of 60 + f
Zq(fr ) 1.38
f0
rL
f fr
n

C = minimum mechanical system damping

required for stability and is approximately
equal to AGi when small.
All data on machine base AGn= undamping or negative damping in rad/sec.
Parameters are given below for the two units under
study.
f H K C
Gen. # Mode n n n n

1 1 24.65 1.55 0.1157 2.395

STUDY TECHNIQUES
2 32.39 9.39 0.0113 3.346
Three study techniques, incorporated in computer
programs, have been applied to calculate the negative 3 51.10 74.80 0.00029 12.48
damping due to self excitation. One of the programs
has been applied to simulate the effect of torque
amplification. Following is a brief description of 2 1 24.65 2.50 0.0717 2.395
the three study techniques and how each has been
appl ied. 2 44.90 93.96 0.00045 6.947
 1061
The program calculates Zan and Zbn from the appro- The EVP accounts for the torsional interaction
priate electrical network model of Figure 1 or Figure between the modes of all units. Si'nce the first two
2 and the appropriate R-X versus frequency generator modes of both units are close to each other, higher
model of Table lD or Table 2D. undampings are obtained than if there was no inter-
action between the units as seen in Figure 4 between
Eigenvalue 68% and 78% compensation.
Table 3 - Comparison of Results*
Eigenvalue study results are based upon the cal- for Case 1, Modes 1 and 2
culation of all eigenvalues of the coupled electric
system and mechanical spring-mass-damper system. The
negative damping due to self-excitation can be identi- MODE 1 AG FROM MODE 2 As FROM
fied from the real part of the eigenvalue correspond- COMP FSP EVP EMTP FSP EVP EMTP
ing to the turbine-generator torsional modes if- the
mechanical damping is set to zero. 0 0.004 0.002
For the specific eigenvalue program (EVP) used 20 0.013 0.006 0.008 0.006
for the case studies reported in this paper the gen- 25 0.020 0.011 0.021 0.016
erator electrical data was input in the form of
classical stability data from Tables lB and 2B. The 30 0.033 0.021 0.073** 0.045 0.040 0.073**
inertia and stiffness data is shown in Tables lA and 35 0.062 0.042 0.044 0.037
2A. The electric network models are shown in Figures
1 and 2. 40 0.130 0.089 0.024 0.018
Time Simulation 45 0.295 0.205 0.164 0.013 0.010
50 0.455 0.402 0.382 0.008 0.007
Time simulation of electrical and mechanical
quantities of turbine-generators can be made using an 55 0.448 0.383 0.434 0.006 0.005
electromagnetic transient program (EMTP) which in- 60 0.285 0.218 0.202 0.004 0.004
cludes turbine-generator mechanical and electrical
representation. Negative damping due to self-excita- 65 0.157 0.124 0.004 0.003
tion can be determined from measuring the growth rate 70 0.095 0.078 0.003 0.003
of velocity deviation if the mechanical damping is
set to zero and the initiating disturbance is small. 80 0.046 0.002
Time simulation by the use of EMTP can also be used 85 0.035
to determine torque amplification if the initiating
disturbance is large enough to produce significant
periodic energy exchange between the series capacitors *The following notes apply
and the spring-mass system at, or near, the complement
of one of the torsional frequencies. 1. Undamping or damping required for stability
measured in rad/sec.
For the specific EMTP used for the case studies
reported in this paper the generator electrical data 2. No mechanical damping represented in studies.
was input in the form of conventional stability data
from Tables lB and 2B. The program converts this data 3. FSP values account for supersynchronous effect.
to rotor circuit data using the approximate techniques
shown in Table 1C. The inertia and stiffness data are **Multimodal oscillations
shown in Tables lA and 2A. For negative damping cases
the mechanical damping has been set to zero, whereas From EMTP
for torque amplification, sufficient mechanical damp- .40
ing has been represented to provide stability.
LU From FSP
SELF-EXCITATION CASE COMPARISON C-

Table 3 compares the calculated negative damping .20

(undamping) from the three programs for modes 1 and 2 From EVP
respectively for Case 1 (Fig. 1). The calculated un- 1-,
damping is tabulated as a function of compensation in
line 2. The undamping as a function of compensation 0
is also shown in Fig. 2 for modes 1 and 2. Because of
the negligible undamping in mode 3, mode 3 results are 20 40 60 80
not presented.
Undamping calculation for Case 2 (Fig. 2) have
been compared in Table 4. This case has two units
operating in parallel on the same bus. The first .04
torsional modes of both units are nearly equal, thereby
creating the possibility of interaction between units. LL

Only the results for this common torsional mode are From FSP
compared here. Figure 4 shows a plot of the results
from Table 4. C- .02 - From EVP
The FSP cannot represent the torsional interaction H-4'
C9

between the units and hence undamping for each unit MODE 2
has been calculated by representing the other unit as 0
a passive element by their respective R-X data of 40
20 60 80
Table lD for Unit 1 and Table 2D for Unit 2. Fig. 3 Undamping Vs. % Compensation Due
To Self-Excitation For Case 1
1062
Undamping vs Additional Damping Required for Stability
Table 4 - Comparisons of Results* for Case 2 Mode 1
Near the stability boundary, undamping is nearly
equal to the additional damping required for stabil-
FROM ity. However, as the undamping values increase, the
FSP MINIMUM Ac FROM EVP FOR AVERAGE difference between undamping and the additional damp-
ol REQUIRED MOST Aa ing required for the stability may not be negligible.
% UNIT UNIT UNDAMPED REMAINING FROM
COMP 1 2 MODE MODE EMTP The frequency scanning program performs an ap-
proximate calculation of the mechanical system damping
0 -0.013 -0.007 required for insipient stability. The eigenvalue pro-
gram, on the other hand, calculates the negative damp-
20 -0.005 -0.004 ing (undamping). Undamping is obtained from the EMTP
program by measuring the growth rate of the pertinent
40 0.024 0.006 variables. Other programs, such as Nyquist and Boun-
dary Eigenvalue, do not provi.de undamping as an out-
50 0.077 0.025 0.063 -0.0070 put. Therefore, to provide a conmnon basis for com-
paring results from various programs, damping for in-
55 0.143 0.048 0.091 0.0259 sipient stability is reported below for one specific
system condition.
60 0.287 0.099 0.133 0.1106 0.27

65 0.612 0.123 0.440 0.0863 Mechanical Damping Required for Insipient Stability
for Mode 1, Case 1 at 55% Compensation Level
70 0.887 0.308 0.951 0.0187 0.87
Program Damping Required in Red/Sec.
75 0.890 0.309 1.030 -0.0073
FSP 0.448*
80 0.650 0.224 0.622 -0.0201 0.62 EVP O.399**
EMTP 0.374**
85 0.313 0.106
* The value is directly from Table 3.
90 0.156 0.051 0. 1706 -0. 0316
** These values are obtained by representing just
enough mechanical damping in the respective
programs to obtain insipient instability.
*The following notes apply:
1. Undamping or damping required for stability Comparing these with values in Table 3 it is seen
measured in rad/sec. that they are slightly different for EVP and EMTP. Of
course, they are exactly the same for FSP since FSP
2. No mechanical damping represented in studies. gives the damping required for insipient stability.
3. FSP values account for supersynchronous effect. TORQUE AMPLIFICATION STUDY RESULTS
Torque Amplification has been studied using Case 1
as an example. A compensation value of 55% in line 2
1.5 is used since it produces the best tuning for EMTP
simulation. However, in order to separate the self-
excitation and torque amplification phenomena, the
mechanical system damping is represented. A damping
H-1
LL
of 0.4 radians/sec was chosen in order to keep the
1.2 unit steady-state stable for this case. This is
simply done by multiplying the self damping coeffi-
0- cients in Table IA by a factor of 8. Since the damp-
--J ing of 0.4 rad/sec is small compared to the first
LL
cc 0.9 mode torsional frequency of 155 rad/sec, the damped
natural frequency will be almost the same as the un-
cL damped natural frequency.
ct A 3-phase fault is applied on the high side of
P-
0.6 generator step-up (GSU) transformer and the faul t
clearing time is varied from 1 cycle to 4 cycles.
LL
cCD The resultant torques vary greatly with the faul t
clearing time. Table 5 shows a tabulation of perti-
<-1 nent torques, capacitor voltages, electrical torques,
0-
tD
etc., as a function of fault clearing time.
cr- The peak Gen-LP turbine torque vs. the fault
2- clearing time is plotted in Figure 5. The impact of
0 - fault clearing time on the peak torque is seen to be
40 50 60 70 8( very significant. The time simulation plots for cases
lA, lE and lR from Table 5 are shown in Figures 6, 7
% COMPENSATION and 8 respectively.
Fig. 4 Undamping Vs. % Compensation Due To
Self-Excitation For Case 2
 1063
Table 5 - EMTP Torque Amplification Cases Results Summary

FAULT Toraues in P.U. (P-P/2N4 Peak Capacitor Voltages Peak Velocity Deviatior
CLEARING EX GEN LP in Kv in % on 377 rad/sec bas FAULT FAULT
CASE TIME IN TO TO TO PHASE PHASE PHASE CLEARING CURRENT
S# | SECONDS GEN LP HP A B C EX GEN HP SEQUENCE AMPS
1A 0.017 0.101 4.02 1.97 409 464 346 3.32 1.51 2.42 C,B,A 9,254
B 0.020 0.115 3.50 1.52 412 437 384 3.32 1.37 1.93 A,C,B 11,193
C 0.023 0.139 3.09 1.21 410 437 362 3.78 1.27 1.67 C,B,A 9,903
D 0.030 0.144 2.98 1.15 410 437 362 3.90 1.23 1.62 B,A,C 9,903
E 0.040 0.141 1.16 0.69 410 437 362 3.209 0.90 0.91 C,B,A 9.903
F | 0.050 O0.148 1.44 0.82 410 437 362 3.50 0.90 1.04 C,B,A 9,903
G 0.060 0.145 3.00 1.29 410 437 362 3.89 1.21 1.71 B,A,C 9,903
H 0.067 0.147 13.06 1.37 j 410 437 362 4.00 1.24 1.81 C,B,A 9,903

LR # 0.017 0.091 1.73 1.02 0 0 0 2.42 0.80 1.24 C,B,A 9,928

NOTE: The following applies to all cases.
1. Phase A qenerator terminal voltaqe was at peak value at the time of fault aiml ication.
2. ZERO MW load on the machine at the time of fault application.
3. 3-0. 0.1 mH fault applied and a peak electrical torque of 3.06 pu obtained.
4. P-P/2 is one half of the peak-to-peak value.
C .- SBM TR CRSE#1R, 55/ COMP. .017 SEC FLT

IT
,2

CYCLES OF MODE 1 FREQUENCY

1/2 1.0 1.5
z 'O\. o(
AA 1 1 l
loi

A
00 10/18/82 v1V1 8J1 2 \I3\
4.0 PLOT TYPE 9
GEN-LP TORQUE IN P.U. Fi.0 NODE NRMES MRCH 1 T442V2
Fig . 6 GEN-LP Torque For 55% Compensation and .017
sec. Fault Clearinq Time
2.0 *

t SBM TR CRSE#1IE, 55% COMP., . 040 SEC FLT

0
ENSATIONIICASE TORQ E I I I
X:
>-('\J
0

.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 C

01 20 A
0 0.5

FAULT CLEARING TIME IN SECONDS 10/ 18/82 1 0 35.10 3 SECOND

.D PLOT TYPE 9
Fig. 5 Peak GEN-LP Shaft Torque Vs. Fault CL_
NODE NRMES MRCH I TOR 2
Clearing Time
Fig. 7 GEN-LP Torque For 55% Compensation and .040
sec. Fault Clearing Time
C

Case 1R in Table 5 is the reference case which has C,

C .- SBM TO CRSE#1R, 00% COMP. . .017 SEC FL.T

0% compensation in the system. Comparing this case

with Case 1A shows the impact of torque amplification.
The maximum value of Gen-LP shaft torque increased
from 1.73 pu for no capacitor case to 4.05 pu for this
worst torque amplification case. Figures 6 and 7 show C-
\ 0(0 0.10
AtAtAAAAiAArf
2
the results of two EMTP cases which are identical ex-
cept for the fault clearing time. This shows that the
torque magnitude and dominant frequency is greatly
,0' PLOT
NODE NRMES
TYPE~ MRCH 1 TOR 2
affected by fault clearing time.
Fig . 8 GEN-LP Torque For 0% Compensation and .017
sec. Fault Clearing Time
1064
CONCLUSIONS Charles Concordia
Consulting Engineer
Models have been prepared for turbine-generators
and systems to compare self-excitation and torque John W. Dorney
amplification analytic techniques. The systems have Public Service Co. of NM
only been made complex enough to provitde for "parallel
resonance" and interaction between turbine-generators Edward J. Grebel
having comiion torsional modes. Torque amplification Southern California Edison
for a test case with parallel resonance has been pre-
sented, including the effect of fault clearing time A. E. Hammad
variations. The models and cases provided in the Brown, Boveri & Co., Ltd.
paper should provide a basis for comparison of other
analytic techniques and the evaluation of proposed M. Shawky Hamman
SSR countermeasures. Clarkson College of Technology
R. G. Harl ey
CHAIRMAN'S NOTE University of Natal
The Chairman wishes to acknowledge the contribu- Ronald A. Hedin
tion of Baj Agrawal who provided the major portion of Si emans-Al 1 i s
the effort in the preparation of the benchmark models
and comparison of case studies. Professor Francesco Iliceto
University di Roma
REFERENCES Eli Katz
Los Angeles Dept. of W & P
1. "First Benchmark Model for Computer Simulation of
Subsynchronous Resonance", by IEEE Subsynchronous Lee Kilgore
Resonance Task Force of the Dynamic System Perfor- Westinghouse Electric Corp.
mance Working Group, Power System Engineering Com-
mittee; IEEE Trans on PAS Sept/Oct 1977. James F. Luini
Pacific Gas & Electric
2. "First Supplement to a Bibliography for The Study
of Subsynchronous Resonance Between Rotating Donald G. Ramey
Machines and Power Systems", by IEEE Subsynchro- Westinghouse Electric Corp.
nous Working Group of the System Dynamic Perfor-
mance Subcommittee; IEEE Trans. on PAS Nov/Dec Audrey J. Smith
1979. Bechtel Power Corp.
3. Kilgore, L.A., D.G. Ramey, and M.C. Hall, "Simpli- Josef Spiegel
fied Transmission and Generating System Analysis". Utility Power Corporation
IEEE Trans on PAS, March/April 1979.
James Tang
Salt River Project
IEEE SUBSYNCHRONOUS RESONANCE WORKING GROUP
Edgar R. Taylor, Jr.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Richard G. Farmer, Chairman
Arizona Public Service Co. Hemesh L. Thanwala
GEC Switchgear Ltd.
Charles V. Childers, Secretary
Idaho Power Company John M. Undrill
Power Technologies, Inc.
Baj L. Agrawal
Arizona Public Service Co. Duncan N. Walker
General Electric Co.
Daniel H. Baker
General Electric Co. Colin E. J. Bowler
General Electric Co.
 1065
Discussion Damping (with SEDC)
A. E. Hammad (BBC Brown Boveri & Co., 5401 Baden, Switzerland):
The Working Group is to be congratulated for providing the power in- Log Dec
dustry and research with a practical benchmark model for assessing and .04 -
studying the SSR phenomena. It is anticipated that this second model
would gain the same type of wide acceptance and use as the first bench-
mark model.
Similar to the First benchmark model, the authors have used (for syn- \NO D
M
1 (19 Hz)
chronous generators) the classical two-axis rotor circuit model that is
usually used for conventional transient stability studies. A more adequate
model for the d-axis equivalent circuit for SSR studies would be as shown
in Fig. Dl. In this model the coupling impedance between rotor body .03
and field circuit is represented [Ref. Al]. Such a mutual impedance can
have a considerable impact on the machine performance especially when
field circuit is in question, e.g., when using excitation damping controls.
The simplest form for this coupling impedance is a coupling induc- \ MODE 2 (30 Hz)
tance Lrc as shown in Fig. D2. In some round rotor machines there is
a certain relationship between Lrc and Lkd. Fig. D3 shows the effect N%
of Lrc on the damping of torsional modes for the 472 MVA generator N
at Springerville when a Supplementary Excitation Damping Control .02- I

(SEDC) is used. Lrc in such a case deteriorates the damping achieved

by the SEDC compared to the case when Lrc is ignored.
For those programs using the simplified model shown in this paper,
there are several approximation methods to incorporate the rotor body
field circuit mutual impedance by modifying the parameters of the d-
axis model [A2 & A3J.
It seems difficult to correlate Table 4 to Fig. 4 unless the percent series
compensation axis of Fig. 4 is increased by 10. That is from 50-90 per- .0.1-
cent instead of 40-80 percent. Also by inserting the values of A' (average)
from the EMTP simulations on Fig. 4, a good matching between the
results of all programs could be apparent.

MODE 3 (35 Hz)

REFERENCES ..........................

L
[Al] P. Dandeno, et al., "Recent Trends and process in Synchronous
machines Modeling in the Electric Utility Industry," Proc. IEEE, .0 .04 .06 p"
vol. 62, pp. 941-950, July 1974. .02

[A2] I. Canay, "Causes of discrepancies on Calculation of Rotor Quan- actual value

tities and Exact Equivalent Diagrams of the Synchronous Fig. D3. Effect of rotor body to field mutual impedance on SEDC damp-
Machine," IEEE Trans., vol. PAS-88, No. 7, pp. 1114-1120, July ing of torsional modes.
1969.
[A3] R. Schultz, et al., "Dynamic Models of Turbine Generators Derived Manuscript received August 13, 1984.
from Solid Rotor Equivalent Circuits," IEEE Trans, vol. PAS-92,
pp. 926-933, May/June 1973.
sL
rc

s = fr/fo

Fig. D1. D-axis equivalent circuit for solid iron rotor synchronou.S
machines. R. G. Farmer: On behalf of the SSR Working Group, I wish to thank
Mr. Hammad for his discussion which makes a valuable contribution
to the working group paper.
We agree with Mr. Hammad that the classical two-axis rotor circuit
model may not be ideally suited for SSR analysis. A model containing
the coupling impedance between the rotor body and field circuit may
improve the model for SSR studies. However, the generator models for
efd the second benchmark model paper were selected to provide compatible
models for the various programs normally used for SSR. This was best
accomplished by the classidal fotor circuit model since EMTP and some
eigenvalue programs do not have provision for the rotor body-field cir-
cuit coupling term. Mr. Hammad's point here is quite valid and the SSR
Working Group will address the question of rotor circuit models for SSR
s = fr/fo analysis. If it is found that there are more suitable models, the working
group will encourage that these models be incorporated into programs
Fig. D2. Simplified d axis circuit.
-
used for SSR analysis.
1066
The discusser has correctly pointed out that Fig. 4 cannot be correlated
with Table 4 due to an error in the horizontal scale of Fig. 4. A cor-
rected Fig. 4R is included with this closure, and in accordance with Mr.
Hammad's suggestion the average damping from the EMTP studies has
been added to Fig. 4R.
Once again we want to thank Mr. Hammad for his valuable discussion.

1.5
0 AVERAGE UNDAMPING FROM EMTP
LUi
LU-

FJ
C) 1.2 MOST UNDAMPED EV
FROM EVP. TI
ry
-,
REPRESENTED
LJ
LUI
0.9
L.)
CC MODE 1 UNIT 1
FROM FSP
0-
0.6

CD
r-

0.3
QD

50 60 70 80 90
% COMPENSATION

Fig. 4R. Undamping vs. percent Compensation Due to Self-Excitation

for Case 2
Manuscript received October 15, 1984.