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

net/publication/224618812

Overexcitation limiter modeling for power system studies

Conference Paper · July 2005

DOI: 10.1109/PES.2005.1489739 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
7 889

1 author:

S. Patterson
United States Bureau of Reclamation
11 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by S. Patterson on 22 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Overexcitation Limiter Modeling for Power System
Studies
Shawn Patterson, Member, IEEE1

Abstract – IEEE Standard 421.5 on excitation systems models is was proposed. This model was designed to be suitable for
in the process of being updated. Many additional control transient and small signal studies as well as long term ones,
functions are being added and the existing ones have and incorporated detailed functionality of several types of
experienced significant modifications. This paper outlines the limiters found in operation. Consequently, this model is
model for Over Excitation Limiters.
cumbersome for those responsible for generating model data,
and has not been widely implemented in studies.
Keywords - Excitation Controls, Generator Controls, Computer
Models, Protective Limiters, System Stability.
The OEL model put forth in the latest update of IEEE
Standard 421.5 is the result of a more pragmatic approach of
I. INTRODUCTION the current working group to obtain a model that can be
widely applied with more attainable data from generator
Overexcitation limiters (OELs), also referred to as maximum owners. It differs from most other excitation system models
excitation limiters, and field current limiters, have been [3-6] in that it is designed to impact steady state stability
provided with excitation systems for many years, but until rather than small signal stability.
recently, have not generally been modeled in power system
dynamic simulations. The need to study scenarios of
II. OVEREXCITATION LIMITERS
stressed power system conditions where machines operate at
high levels of excitation for a sustained period, such as
OELs must offer proper protection from overheating due to
during voltage collapse or system-islanding, require modeling
high field current levels while simultaneously allowing
the effects of these limiters. Such events typically occur over
maximum field forcing for power system stability purposes.
a long time frame compared with transient or small-signal
Limiting devices built to prevent field current from
stability simulations, so these models will not be essential in
exceeding the capability are of several forms, but all operate
every system study. However, to perform these large scale,
through the same sequence of events: Detect the
long time frame system studies, it is essential to include
overexcitation condition, allow it to persist for a defined
numerous instances of these limiter models throughout the
time-overload period, and then reduce the excitation to a safe
system model. In order to achieve this goal, the OEL model
level. Although ideally the quantity to measure to determine
and data collection and assignment process must be as simple
an overexcitation condition should be field winding
and straightforward as possible.
temperature, limiters in use today measure field current, field
voltage, or exciter field current or voltage. Therefore the
An OEL model for long term system studies must represent
detection stage of these limiters is a comparison of the
the stable, slowly-changing dynamics associated with long-
measured current or voltage with a defined pickup level. The
term behavior, but not necessarily the fast dynamics [1]
variation in limiter designs appears in the latter two stages.
which must be examined during their design and tuning. In
The allowed overexcitation period may be fixed or vary
simulations of the variable time step or quasi-steady state
inversely with the excitation level. The excitation level may
type, in which the calculation time step may be increased
be reduced by instantaneously lowering the reference set
from a fraction of a cycle to several seconds, differential
point, by ramping or stepping down the reference set point,
equations for fast dynamics may be replaced by algebraic
or by transferring control from the AVR to a lower manually
equations.
controlled field voltage set point.
The development of a standard OEL model began with an
IEEE task force paper [2] in which a recommended model

1
Shawn Patterson is with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 25007,
Denver, CO 80225, USA

Page 1
A simple form of OEL has a fixed pickup point, a fixed time
delay, and instantly reduces the excitation set point to a safe
value. A more common type of overexcitation limiter provided
by many manufacturers combines instantaneous and inverse-
time pickup characteristics and switches from an instantaneous
limiter with a setting of about 160% of rated field current to a
timed limiter with a setting of about 105% of rated field current.
The field current set point is not ramped down, but decreases
almost instantly when this type of limiter switches. The inverse-
time curve, the instantaneous limiter value, and the timed limiter
value are all adjustable on this type of limiter.
Some manufacturers have provided overexcitation limiters that
ramp down the limiter set point from the instantaneous value to
the timed limiter setting. The ramp rate can be constant or
proportional to the level of overexcitation.
Some, typically older, excitation systems do not have
continuously acting overexcitation limiters. These systems
switch from automatic voltage regulation to a fixed field set
point if excitation is high for too long. The excitation set point
may be positioned to produce the maximum continuous field
current, or it may be positioned near the normal unity power
factor position. In these types of systems, the AVR output
signal is permanently overridden.
An attempt to include all these variations in the functionality of
OELs and duplicate how they interact with the rest of the
excitation systems would result in either of two undesirable
positions: The creation of a large number of new OEL models,
or a single or few, unwieldy ones. It is generally considered that
neither case would result in a level of application necessary for
the studies for which they are intended.
III. OVEREXCITATION LIMITER MODEL
The OEL model developed in [2] emphasized the dynamic
characteristics of the model and was represented in the
fashion of control system block diagrams, such as those for
excitation systems, etc. [3-6] Since the salient features of the
OEL model put forth in the updated standard consists mostly
of logical and arithmetic operations, a more meaningful
representation of the computer model can be achieved in the
style of a computer program flow chart. The OEL model is
depicted in this form in Fig. 1.
The model is designed to incorporate the basic functionality
of most of the types of overexcitation limiters installed on
generator units without inundating the engineer responsible
for the OEL data, who may not be a computer modeler. The
data required for the model is usually readily obtainable and
consists of the rated field current level, the limiter pickup
level, the timing information, and how the limit is imposed.
The data requirements are simple enough that typical data
Page 2
may be sufficient for many studies and easily applied on a
wide scale.
A. Sensed/Controlled Variable
An OEL may monitor and limit one of several variables
(main field current or voltage, exciter field current or
voltage, etc). While this design choice affects the fast
dynamic response characteristics of the OEL, it is not of
great concern when examining the long-term response.
Therefore, it is generally sufficient to treat main field current
as the input parameter. Since most simulation programs
assume a constant field resistance, in the steady state the
values of EFD and IFD will be equivalent in a non-reciprocal
per unit system. The model in Fig. 1 assumes that the
measured/limited quantity is main field current, IFD, although
EFD could be used as well. Systems that limit the field of a
rotating exciter can also be based on the corresponding level
of main field current.
The choice of generator field voltage as the limited variable
introduces a dependency on field resistance, which can
change by over 20 percent with temperature changes from
25°C to 75°C. The field voltage limit point should then
reflect a "hot" field temperature, or if field resistance is
included in the model, the generator should be modeled with
a higher field resistance, appropriate for the "hot" field
condition.
In simulation programs, the normalized value of field current
will likely be the field current on the air gap line of the
machine saturation curve at rated terminal voltage. Since
OEL settings are usually based on the field current under
rated MVA, rated voltage conditions, the field current must
be converted to the base value of IRated. This parameter sets
the per unit base for the other variables in the limiter model.
Thus, limiter models for varying sizes and types of machines
can have similar parameters, since the 1.0 per unit base, used
within the OEL model, is based on the rated machine
excitation level and not on the air gap line as used in the
generator model.
B. Detection of Overexcitation and Timing
The limiting characteristic parameters of the model are then
selected. The timed-limit pickup, ITFPU, is usually near 1.05
p.u. of the rated value. The instantaneous limit value, IINST,
is normally near 1.5 p.u. Both values should be available
from commissioning or test data. In some systems, hysteresis
between pickup and dropout is included in the design, so the
value of IFDLIM can be set to the same level as ITFPU. In some
systems, the value of IFDLIM must be set a few percent higher
in order to avoid limit cycling.
Digital systems define the inverse-time limiter characteristic
using an equation with variable parameters, and may adhere
to standard curve definitions, such as Equation 9.1 or those
found in IEEE Std. C37.112 [7]. However, the inverse-time Fig. 1 Overexcitation limiter with selectable pickup and limiting
characteristics of older systems are dependent on the designs characteristics
and may vary in shape. Most types of systems can be
adequately modeled by a curve fit using the characteristic
equation (Equation 1) below: More sophisticated designs incorporate a hysteresis feature,
which will not allow the limiter to drop out until the
excitation level is below a defined amount less than the
Eq.1 time = A/(IFDB-C) A,B,C are constants
pickup level. This helps to prevent limit cycling. The
hysteresis should be initialized to zero, and only set to the
The level of IFD is compared to the pickup level, ITFPU, and if
constant value HYST after the limiter has picked up. It
IFD is less than the pickup level, the OEL will not be active.
should be reset to zero after the limiter has dropped out. A
In this case, the timer should be reset or decremented by the
permanent limit condition, such as transferring to manual
appropriate amount. Some OELs will automatically reset the
control, can be achieved by setting HYST to a sufficiently
timing device after the limiter has dropped out, i.e. the level
large value, such as ITFPU.
of IFD is less than ITFPU. Other designs will slowly reverse the
timer back to zero, to account for the cooling of the field
If an instantaneous maximum limit or ceiling level is
winding. If the limiter picks up again before the timer is fully
represented, the parameter IFDMAX is used. The level of IFD is
reset, the OEL will act much quicker. In the model, the cool
then clamped to the maximum value IFDMAX.
down rate is proportional to the difference between ITFPU and
IFD and a gain set by KCD.
While the level of IFD remains above ITFPU, the limiter timing
IFD = IFD/IRated
KCD is incremented according to the appropriate timing
characteristic. A fixed time limiter should simply increment
the time regardless of the level of overexcitation. For inverse
IFD > ITFPU - hysteresis
Reset or
Set hysteresis = 0 time applications, the time-overexcitation condition should
decrement timing
No be integrated according to the appropriate relationship (e.g.,
Yes Time = 0 Eq. 1) to account for variation in the level of overexcitation
or
Return
while the limiter is timing.
Time=KCD *(ITFPU -IFD)
Set hysteresis = HYST
C. Limiter Action
When the limiter timing reaches timeout, the level of IFD is
reduced to the value IFDLIM. Most limiters accomplish this
IFD > IFDMAX?
Yes
EFD = IFDMAX*IRated quickly, in one step although some limiters will ramp the
excitation down. The ramp rate is set by the parameter
No KRAMP. A one step reduction in field current will result for a
large value, e.g., 10 pu/sec for KRAMP. The value of IFD
Increment should remain at the limited value until system conditions
Timing result in a value of IFD that is less than the pickup level, ITFPU
minus the hysteresis, HYST. Again, as the per unit system of
excitation level of the OEL model is not the same as the
generator and excitation system models, the value of IFDLIM
must be converted to the corresponding level of EFD in the
No generator model by multiplying by IRated. In most cases, wind-
Time > Timeout? Return
up of the limiter is appropriate, as implied in Fig. 1 by
continued time incrementing for high field current.
Yes

This model does not incorporate the necessary stability

No control functions of actual OELs. Therefore, it is not
(Time-Timeout) KRAMP > EFD = IFD (Time-Timeout) KRAMP *IRated
IFD-IFDLIM designed to interact with an excitation system model. It is
intended that the synchronous machine field voltage, EFD, is
Yes altered directly by auctioneering the excitation system model
EFD = IFDLIM*IRated
output with the output signal of this OEL model, as if there
were a low value gate at the output of the excitation system
model. The output signal should not enter any internal point

Page 3
in an excitation system model, as it then would require
additional signal compensation and detailed tuning to match
actual equipment response. These details have been
purposely eliminated from this model. If it is desired to
represent a dynamic OEL signal that impacts the stability of
the excitation control system, a more detailed OEL model
must be used, such as detailed in [2].
Since the action of this limiter model will override the output
of an excitation system model, if the simulated system
voltage conditions improve during an imposed OEL limit to
the point that the OEL may drop out of control, there may be
additional lag time before the excitation system model
resumes control due to windup of the excitation system
model.
[6] IEEE Digital Excitation Systems Task Force, “Computer Models
for Representation of Digital-Based Excitation Systems,” IEEE
Transaction on Energy Conversion, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 607 - 615
[7] IEEE Std. C37.112–1996, IEEE Standard Inverse-Time
Characteristic Equations for Over Current Relays, 1996
Shawn Patterson received his BS and MS degrees in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Colorado in 1985 and 1995. He works for the Bureau of
Reclamation specializing in power system stability, computer modeling,
excitation systems, and governors. He is a registered Professional Engineer in
the state of Colorado and an active member of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society, and involved with several IEEE and WECC working groups.

IV. SUMMARY

An OEL model for use in large scale stability studies has

been presented. The philosophy reflected in its design differs
somewhat from other computer models, such as an
underexcitation limiter (UEL) [5], as it is not typically a
factor in transient or small signal types of studies. It instead
plays a key role in longer term studies, where the effects on
reactive power support and steady state stability are more
important than the dynamic performance of the limiter. The
amount of effort necessary to include the dynamic effects of
most overexcitation limiters would yield very little impact at
a cost great enough to undermine the use of the OEL model.

V. REFERENCES

[1] IEEE Committee Report, “Excitation System Dynamic

Characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS-92, pp. 64-75, Jan/Feb 1973.

[2] IEEE Task Force on Excitation Limiters, “Recommended Models

for Overexcitation Limiting Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 706-713, December 1995.

[3] IEEE Committee Report, “Computer Representation of

Excitation Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS-87, no. 6, pp. 1460-1464, June 1968.

[4] IEEE Committee Report, “Excitation System Models for Power

Systems Stability Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-100, pp. 494-509, Feb. 1981.

[5] IEEE Task Force on Excitation Limiters, “Under excitation

Limiter Models for Power System Stability Studies,” IEEE
Transaction on Energy Conversion, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 524-531,
Sept. 1995.

Page 4

View publication stats