440
4, DECEMBER 2000
Excitation System Protective Limiters and Their
Effect on Volt/Var Control—Design, Computer
Modeling, and Field Testing
Alexander Murdoch, Robert W. Delmerico, Sundar Venkataraman, Rodney A. Lawson, James E. Curran, and
William R. Pearson
Abstract—The action of excitation system protective limiters
and var regulation are often not taken into account in planning
studies, and actual units may be quite different than simulations.
This may lead to incorrect predictions of actual stability limita-
tions, or even voltage collapse phenomena. The design of the exci-
tation system protective limiters such as Over Excitation Limiters
(OEL), Under Excitation Limiters (UEL) and Volts/Hertz (V/Hz)
is explained, and models presented. For system events where these
controls and limiters may become active, modeling in transient
stability studies is important to correctly predict volt/var perfor-
mance. Specific models applicable to the GE EX2000 digital-based
control systems are shown for reference, although the general con-
cepts discussed here are applicable to any other excitation equip-
ment. An important aspect of the new digital-based excitation con-
trols is that they allow for more intelligent limiter functions and
protective features not convenient with older equipment. Test pro-
cedures and results are shown to illustrate the limiter performance.
Index Terms—Excitation controls, generator controls, protective
limiters, system stability, voltage stability.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE PRIMARY function of the excitation system is to reg-
ulate voltage and thereby control var flow in the system.
The models for the excitation systems in the current IEEE stan-
dards have focused on the voltage regulation function (including
power system stabilizers). There are a number of protective lim-
iters in the excitation system which are associated with protec-
tion of the generator and excitation system. The three protective
limiters we will focus on in this paper are the Overexcitation
Limiter (OEL), Underexcitation Limiter (UEL), and V/Hz lim-
iter. The generic modeling of these controls have been the sub-
ject of a number of papers, some recently published by the IEEE
Excitation System Subcommittee [1]–[4].
The excitation limiters are designed to act to protect the gen-
erator and excitation system from operation in regions where
there could be overloads and consequent heating, or higher than
allowable flux levels. The goal of designing the best limiter
functions is to allow the maximum transient forcing to support
the power system during disturbance events, while insuring that
generator operation remains within allowable regions per the
Manuscript received March 9, 1999; revised October 14, 1999.
A. Murdoch, R. W. Delmerico, and S. Venkataraman are with GE—Power
Systems Energy Consulting, Schenectady, NY.
R. A. Lawson, J. E. Curran, and W. R. Pearson are with GE—Drive Systems,
Salem, VA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8969(00)11005-8.
0885–8969/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO.
standards. For illustration purposes, we will focus on the lim-
iter designs used in the GE EX2000 excitation system. The input
points for the OEL and UEL limiters are shown in Fig. 1, for the
IEEE ST4B model representing a static potential or compound
source excitation system [3]. The current IEEE standards [2],
[3] do not include limiter models but there is a recent focus to
include limiter models so that their performance can be included
in stability studies [4], [5].
II. OVER EXCITATION LIMITER (OEL)
The purpose of the Over Excitation Limiter (OEL) is to pre-
vent excessive current versus time (heating) in the field circuit
of the generator [3], [5]–[7]. The monitored variable is typically
field current or field voltage. There are a number of ways the
field current can exceed full load levels. The two most common
would be during an overload when the system voltage is re-
duced, and transiently when there is a close in fault on the ma-
chine. The system voltage reduction (collapse) scenario typi-
cally results in long time sustained forcing. The transmission
system fault causes high fault currents and consequent high in-
duced field current which exist only until the fault is cleared. In
the past the OEL protection may have been only a single fixed
level and timer circuit with trip to manual or dc control as a
backup.
A block diagram of the OEL function is given as Fig. 2. The
OEL control is a takeover type function which replaces the AVR
input to the firing circuits. When the OEL is not in control, its
output is fixed at full level, which will insure the AVR signal
will always be in control as it acts through a low value gate.
When the OEL control is active, the primary control regulation
function is a Field Current Regulator (FCR). The OEL is also
active when the unit is off line, with a different set of gains and
setpoints, but this function is not shown in this figure. Only the
normal on-line OEL control is shown here. There are several
situations that result in activation of the OEL (reference Fig. 2).
For close in faults where the induced field current is large, due to
constant flux linkages in the generator with high stator current,
the Signal Level Detector (SLD) will allow unlimited forcing
for field current above 140% IFFL (Full Load Field Current).
This forcing is sustained for a given period of time, usually at
least 1 second but may be set to as high as 10 seconds for com-
pound or brushless excitation systems. After the SLD has timed
out the FCR is activated. The FCR is shown in the bottom of
the figure as a proportional plus integral (PI) regulator. There
MURDOCH et al.: EXCITATION SYSTEM PROTECTIVE LIMITERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON VOLT/VAR CONTROL
Fig. 1. Potential source model (Type ST4B) showing input for OEL and UEL limiters.
Fig. 2. Over excitation limiter block diagram.
are two reference values as input to the FCR, one at 125% times
IFFL, and the second at 100% times IFFL. The FCR is a fast
high bandwidth control which acts to reduce the field current
to its setpoint. It should be noted that when the FCR is active
the integrator in the AVR is disabled to prevent wind-up. This
feature needs to be added to the ST4B model if the OEL is mod-
eled in studies. For brushless excitation systems where the main
generator field current is not accessible, a calculated value based
on the alternator field current and time constant are used as an
approximation.
The second way in which the OEL can be active is an accu-
mulated ( times ) calculation that provides an inverse
time type curve. In the EX2000 system this is described as a
441
Fig. 3. Block diagram showing the protection inverse time calculation used in
the OEL logic.
PRotection Inverse Time (PRIT) module. The PRIT calcula-
tion begins accumulating if the current is above 102% IFFL,
but never reaches a trip point if the current is below 106% IFFL.
This permits operation over the range of permissible generator
voltages and tolerance in the field current calculation. The func-
tion of the calculation is to accumulate through an integrator
(60 seconds time constant) with a small feedback term (what
is termed a leaky integrator). The leaky integrator permits an
alarm to be generated at 102% of IFFL while not permitting a
trip to occur until field current exceeds 106% of IFFL. If the
PRIT module times out then the field current regulator is acti-
vated with setpoint of 100% IFFL. There is additional logic, not
shown in Fig. 2, which assures that the FCR remains in control
if sustained over excitation were to occur (since the 100% IFFL
level is below the 102% IFFL pickup). If the SLD circuit had al-
ready activated the FCR, then the setpoint will be reduced from
125% to 100% when the PRIT module times out. The block dia-
gram of the PRIT model is shown in Fig. 3. A copy of the char-
acteristic curve for the PRIT module as typically set is given
442
Fig. 4. Plot of PRIT function compared to ANSI/IEEE Standards C50.13 field circuit short-time capability.
in Fig. 4. There are two curves given in the figure, one marked
as trip level and the second marked as limit level. The accumu-
lator on field current error in the PRIT module has actually three
comparator circuits on the output, the highest level for the trip
output, a second level (typically 85%) for a transfer output (if
there are two regulators and there is a transfer to a back-up regu-
lator), and the lowest level for activation of the limiter. The lim-
iter level is typically set to somewhere between 50 and 75% of
the trip level. In Fig. 4, a level of 70% was assumed in the plot-
ting of the limit curve. A comparison of the requirements from
the IEEE/ANSI Standards C50.13 [5] is also plotted in Fig. 4.
The design point for the PRIT curve is to have coincidence of the
120 second trip time at 112% IFFL per the IEEE/ANSI curve.
For higher values of field currents the PRIT trip curve (and limit
curve) are conservatively within the requirements set forth in the
ANSI standards.
The OEL limiter, and the UEL limiter which will be described
next, have the capability of modifying their limits based on ei-
ther hydrogen pressure (if the generator is hydrogen cooled) or
inlet air temperature measurement. Also, it should be mentioned
that the OEL is monitoring both the heating and cooling of the
generator field. After an OEL event, the integrator in the OEL re-
mains active and it takes some time for it to decay to zero value.
If a subsequent OEL event occurs before the machine cools to
normal temperature, the time to accumulate to the limit value
will be shorter to account for the fact the machine is hotter than
normal, hence the limiter controls are smarter. The operation of
modern OEL algorithms is a significant improvement over some
previous designs where the excitation control would simply re-
vert to manual control. A well designed OEL control can help
prevent voltage instability/collapse during critical system con-
tingencies [7] by maximizing the transient capability of the exci-
tation system while protecting the generator field winding. Re-
verting to manual control is not a part of modern OEL strategy.
III. UNDER EXCITATION LIMITER (UEL)
The function of the UEL is to protect the generator against op-
erating too far in the underexcited (leading power factor) region.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2000
Increases in the vars absorbed by the machine result in low flux
levels in the machine which tend to decrease both the transient
and dynamic stability margins. Also, the flux distribution leads
to concentration in the end winding region of the stator and re-
sults in eddy currents and heating in the core end region [4],
[8]–[13]. As in the OEL the effects are thermal in nature and
we can tolerate transient penetration of the limits. The steady
state limits are normally set slightly within (or sometimes per-
haps equal to) the generator capability curve. The transient or
dynamic stability may require increasing the settings above the
capability curves in some cases. The UEL limit is re-calibrated
based on square of terminal voltage in the control since the ma-
chine capability is different as the voltage changes.
The UEL control functional block diagram is shown in Fig. 5.
The form of the UEL regulator is a PI control, similar to the AVR
regulator and the OEL field current regulator. The setpoint for
the UEL regulator is a bandwidth limited signal from the user
entered UEL curve, a function of watts level and re-calibrated by
the square of terminal voltage. There is a time constant, , in
the setpoint calculation to minimize interaction of the UEL with
local mode oscillations through the watts signal. The setpoint is
then compared with the VAR output of the generator. Above the
UEL limit line, the regulator will be driven and held at the lower
limit of zero output. After the limit has been reached, there will
be an output of the UEL regulator in a direction to increase the
voltage and raise the VAR output above the limit line. The re-
sponse of the UEL regulator depends on the AVR settings. For
nominal gain AVR (transient gain of 20) the proportional gain
is 0.8, and is reduced by one half if the AVR gain is increased
to 50–100 pu, to keep reasonable gain margins in the UEL con-
trol loop. The UEL control is applied to the input to the AVR as
a summed signal rather than the previous designs which were
based on a takeover type control which replaced the AVR input
through a high value gate. As the UEL acts through the AVR,
it allows the PSS to continue functioning when the UEL is ac-
tive [14]. This has a positive impact on stability margins in the
underexcited region when at limit. The settings for the UEL reg-
ulator are determined based on the UEL control loop stability,
MURDOCH et al.: EXCITATION SYSTEM PROTECTIVE LIMITERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON VOLT/VAR CONTROL 443

Fig. 5. Block diagram of the UEL control.

considering PSS operation as well. Typical settings are given in

the Appendix.
The UEL curve is normally defined to be 10% of generator
MVA above the capability curve for the generator, although it
is sometimes selected to be on the capability curve if maximum
leading power factor operation is required. Factors that should
be considered in determining the UEL settings are the classical
steady state stability limit (if the unit will be operating in manual
control), and coordination of the UEL and loss of excitation
(LOE) protection [15]. With the trend toward lower SCR (Short
Circuit Ratio) generator designs, the machine reactances are in-
creasing which means the LOE relay zone is larger, to provide
complete protection against LOE events. It is recommended that
the LOE relay characteristics be plotted on a – plane to see
how they compare with both the steady state (capability curve
and UEL limit) and transient trajectories during system events
in the underexcited region. The translation into the – plane
is easily accomplished by the equations below:

Fig. 6. LOE trip and transfer curves with mapping of capability/UEL curves
into R–X plane.

The transformation from – plane to the – plane is a

symmetric transform using the above equations where and ,
and and can be interchanged. Note the transformation is
dependent on so the curves will shift as voltage changes. To
illustrate the mapping, Figs. 6 and 7 are shown for an example
machine. The impedance ( – ) plane is more familiar for relay
engineers and the curves for the LOE trip functions (GE type
CEH) are shown as 40_1 and 40_2 in Fig. 6. The trip functions
are in the excitation system with backup by generator protective
relaying. Also plotted is a composite (two intersecting circles)
mho characteristics outside the normal LOE trip region, used to
transfer from the primary regulator to a backup regulator, if there
is one. A transfer is initiated to avoid a trip on a failure in the
primary regulator. The capability curve and the UEL curve are
mapped onto the – plane in this figure. It should be noted
they are dependent on (nominal voltage used in the plot)
and therefore a calculation or test at other than nominal voltage
should reflect the difference in limit as voltage changes. Points
within the capability curve map into the region into the right half
plane region on or to the right of the capability curve. A more
familiar view of the same curves, at least from a generator point
of view, are the plots in Fig. 7. Here we can see the generator
capability and the excitation system UEL curve in the traditional
presentation, and mapping of the LOE trip zones and regulator
transfer functions into the – plane.
IV. VOLTS/HERTZ LIMIT FUNCTION
V/Hz is a measure of the flux level in the machine. Allowable
ranges for continuous operation are between 95% and 105%
V/Hz. For lower than 95% V/Hz there is a derating of the ma-
chine capability and also lower stability margins. The primary
concern from an excitation standpoint is the possibility of ex-
cessive V/Hz and its implication on generator integrity [3], [6],
[15]. Moderate levels of overfluxing (105–110%) result in in-
creased core toss and consequent higher temperatures in the
core. Severe levels of V/Hz can result in large eddy currents,
and inter-laminar voltages in the core stack that are large enough
444
Fig. 7. Generator capability and UEL curve with mapping of LOE trip/transfer
curves into P –Q plane.
Fig. 8. AVR setpoint block (AVRSP) showing V/Hz limiter.
to cause arcing flashovers and local core melting. While these
levels of V/Hz are not likely, there is a need to insure the levels
do not stay significantly above 105% for an extended time.
The design of the V/Hz limiter utilizes a limit function in
the EX2000 excitation system “Setpoint” software block dia-
gram (AVRSP) shown in Fig. 8. First, consider the left side
of this figure which shows all the software blocks used to de-
velop the voltage reference signal. For purposes of definition,
the various inputs are considered as parts of the reference set-
point. The traditional definition of the voltage setpoint is what
is called the voltage ramp. This is equivalent to the setpoint pot
90 ( from the analog systems). The operator inputs of
raise and lower, and a var/pf controller, if used, are the inputs
to the ramp (SETPOINT ADJUST block in Fig. 8). The other
input blocks contain the functions for PSS—the power system
stabilizer, UEL—the under excited limiter, and RCC which is
the reactive current compensation. The RCC function is used to
provide regulation either part way through the generator step up
transformer, or inside the machine (i.e. droop control for mul-
tiple direct bus connected machines, such as cross-compound
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2000
machines). The combined “reference” signal is then limited by
two blocks. One is a fixed high voltage limit which is typically
set to 110%, and the second is the V/Hz limit. This limit is dy-
namically changing as a function of the generator frequency.
The typical value of the V/Hz gain is 110%. This would pro-
vide the same 110% voltage limit at the nominal frequency, but
reduce the voltage reference signal at lower frequencies keeping
generator (and transformer) flux levels at allowable levels. Tran-
siently, flux levels of 110% are allowed to exist for about 60 sec-
onds. External relays for generator protection typically have an
inverse time curve for trip at 45 seconds with 110% V/Hz. and
a fixed 2 second delay with 118% V/Hz. Typical alarm levels
are set at 112% and a V/Hz trip setting of 118% for 2 seconds
is also typical. It is important to coordinate the V/Hz limit gain
with other control inputs notably the PSS which can influence
transient voltage swings up to 10% (depending on how the PSS
output limits are set).
V. TEST METHODOLOGY
The process of testing the excitation limiters begins with un-
derstanding the basic design of the limiter circuits, or algorithms
in the case of today’s newer digital based controls. As the lim-
iters are normally configured to protect the generator and ex-
citation system from operating outside the limits of capability
it may be difficult to arrange tests at these design limits. Such
tests may put the machine and the system in a state of unac-
ceptably high risk. The testing therefore may consist of verifi-
cation of the functionality of the basic components of the lim-
iter using tests done at less extreme operating points. This kind
of functional testing, combined with verification of actual set-
tings is often the best method for insuring the protective limiters
will work correctly when they are needed. It should be recog-
nized that the process of testing may require some settings to be
changed, and careful documentation and resetting of the param-
eters is required to insure correct normal operation. The UEL
and OEL are inherently open loop in the GE EX2000 imple-
mentation during normal operation. A very safe and effective
method of verifying the small signal dynamics of the loops can
be performed using frequency response techniques. The open
loop frequency response of these loops can be estimated using
commercially available dynamic signal analyzer to measure the
linear portion of the loop and then analytically completing the
loop by including those parts of the loop that are non linear (be-
cause the integrator is being held in limit by a negative error
signal) when the loop is open (which is the normal operating
mode). Settings do not require changes nor is the limit actually
placed in service during testing. Operation outside the normal
capability of the generator is not required.
VI. TESTING THE OVER EXCITATION LIMITER (OEL)
The purpose of the OEL is to prevent excessive current versus
time (heating) in the field circuit of the generator [1], [6], [17],
[18]. The monitored variable is typically field current or field
voltage. As operation of the OEL normally requires higher than
full load levels of field current or voltage there is a problem
with the testing of this function at normal limit values. Higher
excitation levels might lead to machine overheating if the limits
MURDOCH et al.: EXCITATION SYSTEM PROTECTIVE LIMITERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON VOLT/VAR CONTROL
Fig. 9. Step test of the FCR during commissioning of a 300 MVA steam-turbine generator.
do not function correctly. Also, since most OEL’s are by na-
ture takeover type controls where they replace the main control
signal while in operation, there is a consequent risk of the ma-
chine not being able to respond if a disturbance occurs during
the time the machine is being tested because the normal volt/var
regulation is disabled.
In the OEL model, described earlier, the functional form of
the OEL is a field current regulator (FCR). The FCR can be ac-
tive if an OEL event is detected either off-line or on-line. Nor-
mally we are concerned about the on-line setting, but the off-line
OEL is in service during startup and is transiently active during
the build up of terminal voltage in AVR because of the large
amortisseur effect on the field current. In this sense the off-line
OEL is really protecting against high V/Hz, and acts as backup
to the normal V/Hz protection, sensing field current rather than
terminal voltage. Because the off-line OEL goes into service for
every start in AVR, the function is verified every time the unit
is started in AVR, sometimes daily for peaking plants.
The on-line OEL circuit is also a FCR but with different set-
tings to correspond to the levels necessary to protect the ma-
chine from overheating. On site testing of the OEL can be done
by step tests to verify the functional response of the FCR or fre-
quency response tests to verify the open loop response of the
FCR. For step tests, it is necessary to change the setpoint in the
logic to make the FCR (OEL) active. While the FCR is active,
steps in reference to the FCR can be programmed in the soft-
ware to demonstrate the stability of the current regulator loop. A
sample recording from a 300 MVA fossil unit taken during com-
missioning testing is shown in Fig. 9. This recording shows gen-
erator terminal voltage, FCR setpoint, and field voltage during
an OEL test. At the left side of the figure is the point at which
the FCR becomes active. This point is obvious by inspection of
the field voltage trace. Since the regulation of field current is
done through a large field time constant, the changes in field
voltage have to be aggressive in order to have a high bandwidth
control of current. The required forcing of field voltage during
the FCR step is also obvious when we consider the step change
445
in the right side of this figure. The response of the FCR to the
step changes shows a stable well damped response verifying the
stability of the FCR control.
Similar results can be obtained using dynamic signal
analyzers to estimate the open loop response of the FCR.
Advantages of this technique are that the measurements can be
done with the unit operating normally with no readjustment of
the limiter characteristics. The dynamic signal analyzer is used
to measure the linear portion of the loop and then analytically
including the settings of the FCR to complete the open loop
response. Fig. 10 shows the estimated open loop frequency
response of the FCR for a generator operating on-line. Loop
crossover is found at the frequency where the loop gain is unity,
at 2.84 Hz, and phase margin is found by estimating the phase at
the unity gain frequency. Because Fig. 10 is an approximation
of the open loop gain rather than the usual “negative” of the
open loop gain, the critical frequency occurs at unity gain and
zero phase shift. Positive phase shift at the unity gain frequency
is interpreted as positive phase margin. The phase margin in
Fig. 10 of about 51 degrees indicates a very stable control loop.
An alternative way to test the OEL control is to actually force
the generator for an extended time to show the response. As this
test has high risk, it is normally not recommended. The plot of
test results from a 250 kVA diesel driven generator in a con-
trolled environment test lab is shown in Fig. 11. These plots
show terminal voltage in per unit, generator var output in per
unit, field voltage in per unit on air-gap base, and field cur-
rent in per unit on full load base. For reference, the full load
field current is 3.73 times the air-gap base for this generator.
The OEL event was simulated by reducing the terminal voltage
feedback to 0.8 pu while the generator was operating at full
rated kW output and connected to the local utility. The sudden
reduction in feedback signal causes the field voltage to reach
ceiling level. Note, as described in the OEL model, full forcing
is available for 1 second, then operation at 125% IFFL for a time
determined by the inverse time curve in the OEL, followed by
operation at 100% IFFL. After about 38 seconds the terminal
446
Fig. 10. Open loop transfer function of the FCR.
voltage feedback signal is restored and the AVR resumes con-
trol. Without the OEL we would expect the stator current to be
maintained at a level of slightly less than 3 pu. This is clearly
well outside the short time thermal limits of field and stator cur-
rent per ANSI C50.13. After the OEL is active the field current
is regulated to 125% of full load field current (IFFL), reaching
its setpoint in the next second. Continued forcing would result
in the field current being regulated to 100% of IFFL after ap-
proximately 30 seconds.
It should be noted that the OEL limiter and the UEL limiter
which will be described next, have the capability in the newer
systems of modifying their limits based on either hydrogen pres-
sure (if the generator is hydrogen cooled) or inlet air tempera-
ture. Also, it should be mentioned that the OEL is monitoring
both the heating and cooling of the generator field. After an OEL
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2000
event, the integrator in the OEL is still active and it takes some
time for it to decay to zero value. If a subsequent OEL event oc-
curs before the machine had cooled to normal temperature the
time to accumulate to the limit value will be shorter (since it still
has a positive value), to account for the fact the machine has ac-
cumulated excess thermal energy. This is one example of how
today’s limiter controls are now made smarter.
VII. TESTING THE UNDER EXCITATION LIMITER (UEL)
The function of the UEL is to protect the generator against
operating too far in the underexcited (leading power factor) re-
gion [5]–[13], [17]. Increases in the vars absorbed by the ma-
chine result in low flux levels in the machine which tend to de-
crease, as a consequence, both the transient and dynamic sta-
bility margins. Also, the flux distribution leads to concentration
in the end winding region of the stator and results in eddy cur-
rents and heating in the core end region. As in the case of the
OEL the effects are thermal in nature and we can tolerate tran-
sient penetration of the limits. The steady state limits are nor-
mally set slightly within (or sometimes perhaps equal to) the
generator capability curve. The transient or dynamic stability
may require increasing the settings above the capability curves
in some cases. The UEL limit is recalibrated based on square of
terminal voltage (inversely proportional) in the control since the
machine capability is different as the voltage changes.
The UEL control is shown in Fig. 1 as input to the AVR
as a summed signal, rather than the older designs which were
based on a takeover type control which replaced the AVR input
through a high value gate. Without a takeover control, the UEL
allows the PSS to continue functioning when the UEL is active
[8]. Therefore the PSS can continue to have a positive impact on
stability margins in the underexcited region when at limit. The
settings for the UEL regulator are determined based on the need
for a fast stable UEL control and minimizing the impact on PSS
operation (if applied).
Unless the system can tolerate the supply of adequate vars or
adjacent units can be used to supply the required vars, it is typ-
ical to test the UEL at a setting which is adjusted to be slightly
below the unit operating point. If, for example the unit is op-
erating near unity power factor then the limit curve
can be adjusted to slightly negative in vars, and a step down in
voltage applied to the voltage reference. In this case the UEL
control will become active as soon as the limit is reached. Ex-
perience has shown that this method of testing can be used to
demonstrate the performance while on-line at any available load
point. Generally the stability of the loop is more critical at full
load, so the test is normally done at as near full load as possible.
If the UEL is not decoupled from the unit local mode oscillation
by filtering either the power or the line current signal the testing
should be done at the least stable condition which is near full
load, weak system tie, and operation in the underexcited region.
Utilizing a nontakeover type UEL permits the PSS to remain
active for those units which experience lightly damped local
mode response. Because the PSS provides significant damping
of local mode oscillations, this configuration generally removes
the requirement to test the UEL in the region of least local mode
MURDOCH et al.: EXCITATION SYSTEM PROTECTIVE LIMITERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON VOLT/VAR CONTROL 447

Fig. 11. Test of OEL on an 250 kva diesel turbine-generator in an Exciter Lab.

the UEL setpoint. The plot of unit Mvar output shows a stable
response with some overshoot as it is slightly underdamped. A
simulation of the same event is plotted in Fig. 13, indicating a
close comparison of the responses from the field test. Valida-
tion of the simulation model allows further study of the UEL
response in situations where testing may be difficult.
There are many situations where a plant engineer may be re-
luctant to force the UEL into service, especially at high load
levels. Since the UEL is open loop during normal operation with
the nontakeover implementation, frequency response testing can
be used to estimate the UEL open loop response without the
requirement for placing the UEL in service. A dynamic signal
analyzer can be used to measure the loop characteristics of the
linear part of the loop, then the remaining part of the loop which
Fig. 12. Field test results for UEL response with a 05% step in terminal is nonlinear (in limit) because the loop is open can be included
voltage reference. analytically. Fig. 14 is a plot of the UEL open loop transfer func-
tion. The crossover occurs at unity gain at a frequency of about
damping. A nontakeover UEL should be tested with the PSS in 1.2 Hz, and the phase margin of 86 degrees indicates a very
operation. stable control loop. It has been the experience of the authors
A recording from a test of the UEL on a 155 MVA gas tur- that a non takeover type UEL which has filtering of the power
bine-generator is shown in Fig. 12. The UEL curve was first signal to decouple from local mode oscillation does not require
readjusted to a limit of 5.0 Mvar, just below the operating tuning on site.
point near unity power factor. At this point a 3% step in ter- Additional factors that should be considered in testing the
minal voltage setpoint is applied. Without the UEL, the var re- UEL are a review of the settings to make sure they take into
sponse would be , where is on unit base. For account the classical steady state stability limit (if the unit will
a relatively strong system with pu, the would be switch to manual control), and coordination of the UEL and loss
0.15 pu times 155 MVA or about 23 Mvar. quite a bit more than of excitation (LOE) protection. If an LOE protection scheme
448 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2000

such as a GE CEH relay with two offset impedance relays is used

then coordination is usually no problem. In some cases a single
zone CEH relay without time delay can be difficult to coordinate
with the UEL which allow transient penetration of the limit. It
should also be noted that the UEL curve is dependent on
and therefore a test at other than nominal voltage or due to a
planned test sequence should reflect the difference in limit due
to the voltage change.

VIII. TESTING THE VOLTS/HERTZ LIMIT FUNCTION

The V/Hz is a measure of the flux level in the machine. Al-
lowable ranges for continuous operation are between 95% and
105% V/Hz. For lower than 95% V/Hz there is a derating of the
machine capability and also lower stability margins. The pri-
mary concern from an excitation standpoint is the possibility
of excessive V/Hz and its implication on generator and trans-
former integrity [9], [10], [15]. Moderate levels of overfluxing
(105–110%) result in increased core loss and consequent higher
temperatures in the core. Severe transient levels of V/Hz can re-
sult in large eddy currents, and interlaminar voltages in the core
stack that are large to cause arcing flashovers and local core
melting. While these levels of V/Hz are not likely, there is a
need to insure the levels do not stay significantly above 105%
for an extended time.
The design of the V/Hz limiter (see Fig. 8) is a limit func-
Fig. 13. Simulation results to compare with the UEL test response in Fig. 12.
tion on the combined AVR “Setpoint.” Since the circuit is not
really a dynamic regulator in the sense of the OEL and UEL, its
functionality can be verified by change of the limit (V/Hz gain)
value while the unit is in normal operation. Setting the limit to
the present operating value (or slightly above) and verifying that
a positive step in voltage reference does not result in a voltage
increase, verifies correct V/Hz limiter action.
It is important to coordinate any testing of the V/Hz limiter
with unit protection schemes. External relays are typically set
with an inverse time characteristic, to trip the unit with 110%
V/Hz after 45 seconds, or a straight time after 2 seconds with
118% V/Hz. Also, the excitation system has internally gener-
ated alarms, transfer to backup regulator (if supplied) by inverse
time curve, and a V/Hz trip setting of 118% after 2 seconds
(backup to external relay). It is important to plan testing to avoid
being near trip levels and having higher consequent risk of un-
planned events on the system from causing an outage.

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has given the rationale and a complete set of lim-
iter models for the EX2000 excitation system representing static
excitation systems—IEEE model type ST4B. The design of the
limiter algorithms have shown that we can approach a goal of
having fast stable limiters while taking best advantage of the
full range of allowable operation. This paper also provides the
methodology for testing the excitation systems limiters. The
need for audit and testing of the limiters is clear from the point
of view of insuring the unit is protected from operating out-
side its capability or design limits. Testing of present day digital
based excitation controls requires detailed verification only on
Fig. 14. UEL open loop transfer function. new designs or excitation system types. Otherwise the focus is
MURDOCH et al.: EXCITATION SYSTEM PROTECTIVE LIMITERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON VOLT/VAR CONTROL 449

not so much on functionality as it is verification of the desired [8] G. R. Berube, L. M. Hajagos, and R. E. Beaulieu, “A utility perspective
settings. Older equipment, which has probably not been tested on under-excitation limiters,” Trans. EC, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 532–537,
Sept. 1995.
since installation, probably requires functional operation testing [9] A. S. Rubenstein and M. Temoshok, “Underexcitation reactive ampere
and settings review on a periodic basis. Increased reliability and limit for modern amplidyne voltage regulator,” AIEE Trans. PAS-15, vol.
capability with newer smart limiters may in fact justify the up- 73, pp. 1433–1438, Dec. 1954.
[10] R. A. Phillips and A. Rubenstein, “Operation of large synchronous
grade of older excitation equipment in today’s power systems. generators in the dynamic stability region with a modem amplidyne
voltage regulator—Part 1: Recommendation for Setting the reactive
APPENDIX ampere limit,” AIEE Trans., Aug. 1956.
[11] J. R. Ribeiro, “Minimum excitation limiter effects on generator response
LIMITER MODEL DATA to system disturbances,” IEEE Trans. EC, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 29–38, Mar.
1991.
The parameters here are representative settings and do not re- [12] S. E. M. de Olivera and M. G dos Santos, “Impact of under-excitation
flect any particular unit, but provide guidelines for adjustments. limit control on power system dynamic performance,” Trans. PWRS, vol.
10, no. 4, pp. 1863–1869, Nov. 1995.
UEL Model Constants [13] C. G. Adams and J. B. McClure, “Underexcited operation of turbogen-
erators,” AIEE Transactions, vol. 67, pp. 521–528, 1948.
[14] J. M. Soares et al., Operational Aspects of the Actuation of Power
Integral Gain pu System Stabilizers: Coordination with Protection and Other Con-
trollers. Recife, Brazil: V. Sepope, May 19–24, 1996.
Proportional Gain pu [15] J. Berdy, M. Crenshaw, and M. Temeshok, “Protection of large steam
(Nominal Gain AVR) turbine generators during abnormal operating conditions,”, CIGRE
pu (High Gain AVR) Paper 11-05, 1972.
[16] S. S. Choi and R. Larkin, “Steady state stability of a remote gas-turbine
Filter Time Constant seconds generating station: Field test and validation of computer simulation re-
Positive Output limit pu sults,” IEEE Trans. PWRS, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1518–1524, Nov. 1993.
[17] N. E. Nilsson and J. Mercurio, “Synchronous generator capability curve
testing and evaluation,” IEEE Trans. PWRD, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 414–424,
UEL Curve (pu MVA) Jan. 1994.
[18] P. O. Bobo, J. W. Skooglund, and C. L. Wagner, “Performance of
excitation systems under abnormal conditions,” IEEE Trans. PAS, vol.
Segment 1 pu MW pu MVAR PAS-87, no. 2, pp. 547–553, Feb. 1968.
Segment 2 pu MW pu MVAR
Segment 3 pu MW pu MVAR
Segment 4 pu MW pu MVAR Alexander Murdoch received his B.S.E.E. from Worcester Polytechnic Insti-
Segment 5 pu MW pu MVAR tute in 1970, and his M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1972 and
1975, respectively. Since 1975 Dr. Murdoch has worked for General Electric,
OEL Model Constants first in Power Systems Energy Consulting (PSEC). In 1996 he joined GE Drive
Systems, and subsequently rejoined PSEC in 1998. His areas of interest include
rotating machine modeling, excitation system design and testing, and advanced
control theory. He is a Member of the Excitation System Subcommittee in the
Integral Gain pu IEEE.
Proportional Gain pu
Positive Output Limit FCRPLN pu
Negative Output limit FCRNLN pu
Robert W. Delmerico received the B.E.E. degree from SUNY Buffalo in 1974,
and the M.E. degree from RPI in 1975. From 1974 to 1985 Mr. Delmerico
AVRSP Model Constants worked for Westinghouse Electric as a Systems Engineer in drives systems for
large ac and dc machines. He was a Senior Project Engineer for United Tech-
nologies Corp. before joining GE in 1985. Until 1990 he worked in GE’s An-
Setpoint Upper Limit pu alytical Engineering Operation on industrial drives and controls, and joined
V/Hz Gain pu GE Power Systems Energy Consulting where he presently performs advances
system development and studies for drive systems, solid state converters, and
synchronous machine controls.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation System Model for Power
System Stability Studies, IEEE Standard 421.5-1992.
[2] “Computer models for representation of digital-based excitation sys- Sundar Venkataraman obtained his B.S.E.E. degree from University of
tems,” Digital Excitation System Task Force of the Equipment Working Madras, India, in 1991 and his M.S.E.E. from Iowa State University in 1994.
Group, Trans. EC, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 607–615, Sept. 1996. He joined GE—Power Systems Energy Consulting in 1994 and has been
[3] “Recommended models for overexcitation limiting devices,” IEEE Task involved in computer simulation studies of excitation systems and power
Force on Excitation Limiters, Trans. EC, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 706–713, system stabilizers. He is currently Program Manager for generator/excitation
Dec. 1995. system testing. His recent work has involved extensive field testing programs
[4] “Underexcitation limiter models for power system stability studies,” on excitation systems/PSS.
IEEE Task Force on Excitation Limiters, Trans. EC, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.
524–531, Sept. 1995.
[5] Requirement for Cylindrical Rotor Synchronous Generators,
IEEE/ANSI Standard C50.13-1989. Rodney A. Lawson received the B.E.E. and M.E.E. degrees from Univ. of Vir-
[6] G. K. Girgis and H. D. Vu, “Verification of limiter performance in ginia in 1966 and 1973, respectively. He joined the GE as Product Engineer
modem excitation control systems,” Trans. EC, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. in 1966 and is presently Senior Application Engineer in the Drive System De-
538–542, Sept. 1995. partment. Mr. Lawson has extensive experience in the design, application and
[7] C. W. Taylor, Optimizing Voltage Stability: Finding Effective Voltage testing of excitation systems. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the
Instability Countermeasures. Recife, Brazil: V. Sepope, May 19–24, State of Virginia, a Member of the IEEE Excitation System Subcommittee, and
1996. has been issued 5 patents.
450 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2000

James E. Curran received his B.Sc. degree in electrical and electronic engi-
neering from the University of Strathclyde, Scotland in 1978. He joined GE as
a Field Engineer in 1980. In 1992 he transferred to GE Drive Systems in Salem,
VA where he is presently a Software Application Engineer in the excitation sys-
tems group. He has accumulated extensive experience in the installation and
testing of excitation systems.
William R. Pearson received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from Queen’s Uni-
versity, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, in 1981 and 1983 respectively. He joined
GE Canada in 1984 as a Development Engineer where he worked on the design
of DC motor drives and excitation systems with digital controllers. Mr. Pearson
is a Registered Professional Engineer in Ontario. He joined GE Drive Systems
in 1990 in Salem, VA and is presently a Senior Design Engineer. He continues
to work on digital controllers for both excitation systems and drive products.