Wound Field Synchronous Generator Out-of-Phase Paralleling Transient Analysis

Licensed to University of Nebraska
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:47:41 PM
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2004-01-3187
Wound Field Synchronous Generator

Out-of-Phase Paralleling Transient Analysis
Albert L. Markunas
Hamilton Sundstrand
Power Systems Conference

Reno, Nevada
November 2-4, 2004
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
Author:Gilligan-SID:13591-GUID:59413614-129.93.16.3
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028
For multiple print copies contact:
SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2004-01-3187
Wound Field Synchronous Generator Out-of-Phase Paralleling

Transient Analysis
Albert L. Markunas
Hamilton Sundstrand
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT bandwidth in modern aircraft generators is nearly two

orders of magnitude higher than the IDG frequency
Paralleling synchronous generators requires a priori controller bandwidth, phase synchronization becomes
voltage matching and frequency synchronization. the limiting factor in the paralleling transient.
Exceeding normal limits can lead to severe electrical
transients. The classical three-phase short circuit During generating system development the NBPT timing
analysis is extended to include the case of two initially and accuracy parameters are determined such that no
unloaded synchronous generators. An analytical solution damage will occur to the generating system under
is developed neglecting winding resistances and specified worst case operating conditions. The rotating
saturation. Of particular interest is the tendency to rectifier assembly factors heavily in development testing.
induce negative field currents that cause inverse The diodes in the rotating rectifier have well defined safe
voltages across the rotating rectifier in a brushless operating regions and fail rapidly if those limits are
design. Typical aircraft generator parameters are used exceeded. As expected, rotating rectifier diodes
to predict the paralleling transient vs. initial rotor occasionally fail in the field. Post failure analysis focuses
electrical angle mismatch. Results are compared to on the operating conditions at the time of the diode
simulation and limited test results. failure(s) and NBPT is usually one of the operational
scenarios that is questioned.
INTRODUCTION In the late 1980s, Hamilton Sundstrand (then

Sundstrand Corporation) initiated a test program to
Modern aircraft electric power systems typically study the effects of out-of-phase paralleling on the peak
incorporate no-break power transfers (NBPTs) between inverse voltages seen across the diodes in the rotating
various electric system buses in order to minimize the rectifier bridge of the Sundstrand 4-pole 75/90 kVA, 115
disruptions caused by break power transfers. During an Vac, 400 Hz aircraft generator. Two separate slip ring
NBPT the two electrical sources are momentarily units, one 4-pole 75/90 kVA and one 4-pole 30/40 kVA
paralleled before the contactor connecting the bus to the generator, were fabricated as part of the test program in
original source is opened, thereby introducing no order to provide access to the rectifier voltages and
disruption of power. For conventional 115 Vac, 400 Hz. currents, and to investigate the effects of different
aircraft electrical systems, the electric power sources are machine ratings. Several different combinations of
predominantly integrated drive generators (IDGs) [1]. production generators were paralleled with these two
The IDG generators are brushless, wound field instrumented units at a priori adjustable out-of-phase
synchronous machines that contain a rectifier assembly conditions. Generator voltages were matched prior to all
on the generator rotor (rotating rectifier) to provide dc paralleling transients.
power to the main generator field [2].
The results of this testing showed that the peak inverse
In order to parallel two synchronous generators (either voltage rating for the diodes used in the 75/90 kVA
momentary for NBPT or true paralleling) the terminal generator at that time could be exceeded if the a priori
voltages must be equalized and the voltage waveforms phase mismatch between two equal 75/90 kVA units
must be phase synchronized before the two machines exceeded the design phase synchronization window by
can be connected [3]. Failure to properly match voltages roughly a two-to-one factor [4]. Additionally it was
or synchronize can result in severe electrical transients. determined that: 1) the leading generator of those being
While it is desirable to precisely match both the voltage paralleled experienced the highest diode voltage stress,
magnitudes and phase angles, there is a trade-off and 2) the higher the rating of the lagging generator(s),
between the time required for precise a priori voltage the higher the voltage stress on the leading generator.
matching and phase synchronization, and the severity of
the paralleling transient. Since the voltage regulator
Momentarily paralleling two synchronous generators can λkq = Lkq ⋅ ikq − Lkqq ⋅ iq (10)
be simulated using any of a number of suitable
simulation programs, however, the simulation only The problem formulation is depicted in Figure 1 along
predicts the transient results for a given design. While it with key variables and signal flow causality.
is certainly possible to iterate the design, checking each
iterate via simulation to determine if the design criteria
have been met, it is desirable to have design rules that
id1
can minimize the number of design iterations and limit ω,φ1
vd1
the range of design parameters investigated. This paper Generator #1
iq1
discusses the derivation of an approximate analytical (leading)
solution to paralleling two synchronous generators that vq1
can provide the basis for a design guide.
MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION
Coordinate
In order to investigate the voltage stress imposed on the Transformation
rotating rectifier diodes during out-of-phase paralleling of
two synchronous generators, the following simplified
problem was considered:
vq2
ω,φ1-θ
1) The two generators are initially unloaded with iq2
Generator #2
nominally 1.0 per unit (PU) terminal voltages. (lagging)
vd2
Unequal voltages are considered. id2
2) The two generators are initially at the same electrical

frequency, but phase displaced by an arbitrary Figure 1. Paralleling block diagram
angle.
Following paralleling continuity is established at the point
3) Winding resistances, saturation, and zero sequence of connection. In order to invoke continuity, the following
components are neglected. coordinate transformation was used:
Under the above simplifications, the dq equations d 2 = cos θ ⋅ d1 − sin θ ⋅ q1 (11)

describing each generator in its own rotor synchronous
reference frame are [5], [6]: q2 = sin θ ⋅ d1 + cos θ ⋅ q1 (12)
λ&d = vd + ω e ⋅ λq (1) and the inverse relation:
λ&q = vq − ω e ⋅ λd (2) d1 = cos θ ⋅ d 2 + sin θ ⋅ q2 (13)
q1 = − sin θ ⋅ d 2 + cos θ ⋅ q2 (14)

λ& f = 0 (3)
where d1, q1 refer to electrical variables in the rotor
λ&kd = 0 (4) synchronous reference frame for generator #1, and d2,
q2 refer to electrical variables in the rotor synchronous
reference frame for generator #2, see Figure 2.
λ&kq = 0 (5)
with the following constitutive relations for the flux

linkages: q1
θ
λd = L fd ⋅ i f + Lkdd ⋅ ikd − Ld ⋅ id (6)
q2
λq = Lkqq ⋅ ikq − Lq ⋅ iq (7)
d2
λ f = L f ⋅ i f + Lkdf ⋅ ikd − L fd ⋅ id (8) d1
λkd = Lkdf ⋅ i f + Lkd ⋅ ikd − Lkdd ⋅ id (9)

Figure 2. Rotor synchronous reference frames
Each generator by itself is a 5th order system. However,

continuity invokes two constraints: Ldf 1 ⋅ Lkd 1 − Lkdf 1 ⋅ Lkdd 1
i f 1 = i f 10 + ⋅ id 1 (29)
L f 1 ⋅ Lkd 1 − Lkdf 12
id 2 = − cos θ ⋅ id 1 + sin θ ⋅ iq1 (15)
L f 1 ⋅ Lkdd 1 − Ldf 1 ⋅ Lkdf 1

iq 2 = − sin θ ⋅ id 1 − cos θ ⋅ iq1 (16) ikd 1 = ⋅ id 1 (30)
L f 1 ⋅ Lkd 1 − Lkdf 12
reducing the nominally 10th order system to 8th order.
Lkqq1
ikq1 = ⋅ iq1 (31)
Substituting equations (15) and (16) into equations (1) Lkq1
and (2) for machine #2, solving these intermediate
equations for vd2,vq2, using equations (13) and (14) to
solve for vd1,vq1, and finally substituting these results in Ldf 2 ⋅ Lkd 2 − Lkdf 2 ⋅ Lkdd 2
i f 2 = i f 20 + ⋅ id 2 (32)
equations (1) and (2) for machine #1 yields: L f 2 ⋅ Lkd 2 − Lkdf 2 2
λ&d* − ω e ⋅ λq* = 0 (17) L f 2 ⋅ Lkdd 2 − Ldf 2 ⋅ Lkdf 2

ikd 2 = ⋅ id 2 (33)
L f 2 ⋅ Lkd 2 − Lkdf 2 2
λ&q* + ω e ⋅ λd* = 0 (18)
Lkqq 2
where: ikq 2 = ⋅ iq 2 (34)
Lkq 2
λd* ≡ λd 1 − cos θ ⋅ λd 2 − sin θ ⋅ λq 2 (19)
Substituting these along with the dq current constraints,
equations (15) and (16), into equations (19) and (20):
λq* ≡ λq1 + sin θ ⋅ λd 2 − cosθ ⋅ λq 2 (20)
λd* = − ( Ld"1 + cos2 θ ⋅ Ld" 2 + sin 2 θ ⋅ Lq"2 ) ⋅ id 1
The solution to equations (17) and (18) is:
− sin θ ⋅ cos θ ⋅ ( Lq"2 − Ld" 2 ) ⋅ iq1 (35)
λ = ( Ldf 1 ⋅ i f 10 − cos θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20 ) ⋅ cos ω e t
*
d + Ldf 1 ⋅ i f 10 − cos θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20
(21)
+ ( sin θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20 ) ⋅ sin ω e t
λq* = − ( Lq"1 + cos2 θ ⋅ Lq"2 + sin 2 θ ⋅ Ld" 2 ) ⋅ iq1

λq* = − ( Ldf 1 ⋅ i f 10 − cos θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20 ) ⋅ sin ω et
(22) − sin θ ⋅ cos θ ⋅ ( Lq"2 − Ld" 2 ) ⋅ id 1 (36)
+ ( sin θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20 ) ⋅ cos ω e t
+ sin θ ⋅ Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20
Invoking the principle of constant flux linkages for
generator #1: where Ld’’ and Lq’’ are the d and q-axis subtransient
inductances, respectively.
λ f 1 = L f 1 ⋅ i f 10 (23)
Letting,
λkd 1 = Lkdf 1 ⋅ i f 10 (24) *

X dd = ω e ⋅ ( Ld"1 + cos2 θ ⋅ Ld" 2 + sin 2 θ ⋅ Lq2
"
) (37)
λkq1 = 0 (25) *
X qq = ω e ⋅ ( Lq"1 + cos2 θ ⋅ Lq"2 + sin 2 θ ⋅ Ld" 2 ) (38)
and similarly for generator #2:
*
X dq = ω e ⋅ sin θ ⋅ cos θ ⋅ ( Lq"2 − Ld" 2 ) (39)
λ f 2 = L f 2 ⋅ i f 20 (26)
recognizing that,
λkd 2 = Lkdf 2 ⋅ i f 20 (27)
ω e Ldf 1 ⋅ i f 10 = 3 ⋅V10 (40)
λkq 2 = 0 (28)
Using the constitutive relations for the flux linkages, ω e Ldf 2 ⋅ i f 20 = 3 ⋅V20 (41)
equations (6) through (10) and the above constant flux
linkages, it is possible to solve for the following currents:
and further letting
Since this analysis is linear the diode bridge is not

VA = 3 ⋅ (V10 − cos θ ⋅V20 ) (42) included. However, under the assumption that the peak
diode stress will occur at peak negative field current, the
worst-case condition is minimum field current, i.e.:
VB = 3 ⋅ sin θ ⋅V20 (43)
 1 
results in the following solution for id1 and iq1:  
 x fl 1 
i f 1 )min = i f 10 + ⋅
 Nf   1 1 1 
id 1 = I d 1c ⋅ (1 − cos ω e t ) − I d 1s ⋅ sin ω e t (44)   ⋅  + + 
 N a 1  xmd 1 x fl1 xkdl1 
(55)
iq1 = − I d 1c ⋅ (1 − cos ω e t ) + I d 1s ⋅ sin ω e t
(I )
(45)
d 1c − I d 1c 2 + I d 1s 2
where:
which occurs at
I d 1c = ( X *
qq ⋅V A − X *
dq ⋅ V B ) det (46)
 I d 1s 
ω e t = tan −1   (56)
I d 1s = ( X dq
*
⋅VA + X qq
*
⋅VB ) det (47)  I d 1c 
and
I q1c = ( X dq
*
⋅VA − X dd
*
⋅VB ) det (48)
 1 
 
 x fl 2 
I q1s = ( X dd
*
⋅VA + X dq
*
⋅VB ) det (49) i f 2 )min = i f 20 − ⋅
 Nf   1 1 1 
  ⋅  + + 
 N a  2  xmd 2 x fl 2 xkdl 2 
− ( X dq )
2
det = X dd
*
⋅ X qq
* *
(50)
(57)
Solving for the two field currents: (I d 2c + I d 2c2 + I d 2 s2 )

 1  which occurs at
 
 x fl1 
i f 1 = i f 10 + ⋅  Id 2s 
 Nf   1 1 1  ω e t = tan −1   +π (58)
  ⋅  + +   I d 2c 
 N a 1  xmd 1 x fl 1 xkdl1 
(51)
CLASSICAL 3-PHASE SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS
  −1  I  
 I d 1c − I d 1c + I d 1s ⋅ cos ω e t − tan  d 1s  
2 2
It is interesting to compare these results to the classical
   I d 1c   3-phase short circuit analysis found in electric machinery
textbooks. Zeroing all the inductances of generator #2
as well as its terminal voltage will force the above
 1  solution to that for a sudden 3-phase short circuit. Under
  these conditions:
if 2 = i f 20 +  x fl 2  ⋅
 Nf   1 1 1  3 ⋅V10 Ldf
  ⋅  + +  I d 1c = = ⋅i (59)
 N a  2  xmd 2 x fl 2 xkdl 2  ω e Ld"1 Ld"1 f 10
(52)
 I d 1s = I q1s = 0 (60)
 −1  I  
 I d 2 c + I d 2 s ⋅ cos ω e t − tan  d 2 s  − I d 2 c 
2 2
   I d 2c  
3 ⋅V10 Ldf
I q1s = = ⋅i (61)
where: ω e ⋅ Lq"1 Lq"1 f 10
I d 2 c = sin θ ⋅ I q1c + cos θ ⋅ I d 1c (53) Equations (44) and (45) become:
I d 2 s = sin θ ⋅ I q1s + cos θ ⋅ I d 1s (54) Ldf

id 1 = ⋅ i f 10 ⋅ (1 − cos ω e t ) (62)
Ld"1
Ldf
iq1 = ⋅ i f 10 ⋅ sin ω e t (63)
Lq"1
and equation (29):
 L ⋅ L − L ⋅ L
i f 1 = i f 10 ⋅ 1 + df 1 kd 1 kdf 1 2kdd 1 ⋅
 L f 1 ⋅ Lkd 1 − Lkdf 1
(64)
Ldf 
⋅ (1 − cos ω e t ) 
Ld"1 
If the damper windings are eliminated, the d-axis

subtransient inductance becomes the transient value
and the q-axis subtransient inductance the synchronous
value. Equations (62), (63) and (64) are the same as Figure 3. Generator 1 stator dq current transients
those given in [5] with the exception of the 3/2 factor in
the field current equation. This is due to using the power
conserving dq transformation as opposed to the
classical dq (Parks) transformation used in the
reference.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The Sundstrand 4-pole 75/90 kVA generator parameters

were used for both machines to study out-of-phase
paralleling. Figure 3 shows the d and q-axis current
transients for an initial phase mismatch of 60°. Figure 4
gives the phase current transients for the same 60°
initial phase mismatch, with phase a aligned with the d-
axis at the moment of paralleling. The phase current
waveforms depend on the position of the rotor at the
initiation of the transient. The approximate 6 per unit
predicted maximum phase current underscores the
potential for severe electrical transients during out-of-
Figure 4. Generator 1 stator phase current transients
phase paralleling. The two field current transient
waveforms for the same initial phase mismatch are
illustrated in Figure 5. The minimum field current for both
generators and the angles at which each occurs are
given in Figure 6. These angles are the phase angle of
the electrical frequency oscillations referenced to the
initiation of the paralleling transient, equations (56) and
(58).
Figure 5. Field current transients
Figure 6. Field current minimum & angle Figure 7. Maximum stator current vs. phase mismatch
Several observations can be made about these results: Even though the calculated field currents don’t agree
very well with test data for large values of initial phase
1. The minimum field currents are the same for both mismatch, the absolute minimum calculated field current
generators due to using identical machines. of roughly 6 A agrees reasonably well with the tested
2. The leading generator reaches its field current
minimum first.
3. Peak reverse current occurs near 60° initial phase
mismatch, not 180° as may be expected.
4. The transients are sinusoidal oscillations at the rotor
electrical frequency.
5. The oscillations are undamped since all winding
resistance has been neglected.
6. The value of minimum field current is symmetrical
about 180°.
7. The value of minimum field current at 180° is equal
to that at 0° and both are equal to the initial value
required to produce the initial open circuit voltage.
COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA
Peak stator phase currents, minimum field currents and

maximum field currents were computed for out-of-phase Figure 8. Minimum field current vs. phase mismatch
paralleling between two identical 4-pole 75/90 kVA, 115
Vac, 400 Hz aircraft generators and compared with
results from the previously mentioned test program
conducted at Sundstrand in the late 1980s. Figure 7
gives the peak stator currents for a range of initial phase
mismatch from 0 to 180°. Minimum and maximum field
currents experienced during the out-of-phase paralleling
transient are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The
analysis agrees fairly well with test results for the peak
stator phase current, somewhat over predicting the
actual currents. The analytically determined minimum
and maximum field currents correlate well with test data
for small values of initial phase mismatch. At higher
values of mismatch the analysis results depart
significantly from test results. Clearly the simplified
analysis doesn’t capture the complex electromagnetic
character of the abnormal transient represented by
significantly out of phase paralleling.
Figure 9. Maximum field current vs. phase mismatch
value of about 7 A. Since the peak electrical over The reason(s) for the poor agreement with test data for
voltage stress on the diodes in the rotating rectifier large phase mismatches goes beyond the simplifications
bridge occurs at minimum field current, the simplified invoked for the sake of mathematical tractability. The
analysis should serve as a design guide to minimize or classical 5-state dq model evolved over the decades to
even eliminate the condition. The value of the closed describe the operation of a wound field synchronous
form solution is that the pertinent generator design machine for steady state operation and during normal
parameters are contained explicitly in the equations and transients. Evidently out-of-phase paralleling at large
can be grouped and/or arranged to derive inequality phase mismatches represents an abnormal transient for
constraints for design purposes. The most logical which the classical dq model is poorly suited to describe.
approach to a design guide would be to determine the Transient FEA with motion would have to be used to
range of generator parameters required to prevent the study the underlying reasons for the inadequacy of the
field current from ever going negative. Once derived, classical 5-state dq equivalent circuit model under such
such a design guide gives the generator designer extreme transient conditions.
significant freedom in realizing a practical design.
CONCLUSION
COMPARISON WITH SIMULATION
A simplified analytical solution to the problem of out-of-
In order to further investigate the degree to which the phase paralleling of two generators was derived.
simplified analytical solution accurately portrays, The solution neglects winding resistances, magnetic
calculated results were compared to simulation results. saturation, and zero sequence components and was
Out-of-phase paralleling transients between a 2-pole shown to reduce to the textbook 3-phase short analysis
75/90 kVA and a 2-pole 90/115 kVA 115 Vac, 400 Hz by zeroing the inductances and terminal voltage for
generator were simulated using the classical 5-state dq generator #2.
model of a wound field synchronous, including
approximate saturation effects based on the no-load Results were calculated for the maximum stator phase
saturation curve. The model was implemented in the currents and both the minimum and maximum field
Saber circuit simulation package and run for a range of currents experienced during the paralleling transient vs.
initial phase mismatches from 0 to 180°, with the 75/90 the initial phase mismatch, with equal terminal voltages.
kVA unit leading. Figure 10 shows the calculated Calculated results were compared with test results for
minimum phase currents and those predicted from out-of-phase paralleling between two 75/90 kVA, 4-pole,
simulation. 115 Vac, 400 Hz. aircraft generators. Calculated results
were also compared with simulation results for out-of-
phase paralleling between a 2-pole 75/90 kVA and a 2-
pole 90/115 kVA unit, both 115 Vac, 400 Hz. aircraft
generators.
The analytical results agree very well with the simulated

results, but depart from test results for minimum and
maximum field currents for large phase mismatches.
The significant departure from test results points to the
inadequacy of the classical 5-state dq model for a
wound field synchronous machine under the abnormal
transient conditions imposed by the out-of-phase
paralleling with large values of initial phase mismatch.
While agreement with test data is poor for large phase

mismatches, the absolute minimum field current and the
phase mismatch at which it occurs both agree
reasonably well with test data. The simplified analytical
Figure 10. Calculated and simulated minimum field solution should serve as the basis for a generator design
current vs. phase mismatch guide to aid in designing equipment to avoid electrically
overstressing the diodes in aircraft brushless designs.
As can be seen the agreement is excellent, even though
the simplified analytical solution neglects saturation and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
winding resistances. Additionally, both the analytical
solution and simulation results predict that the field The author would like to acknowledge the Electric
currents will never become negative for any value of Systems Division and the Applied Research Department
initial phase mismatch, highlighting the fact that proper at Hamilton Sundstrand for providing the test results and
generator design can minimize the susceptibility of a Saber simulation results used for comparison purposes.
machine to electrical over voltage stress on the rotating
rectifier diodes.
REFERENCES NOMENCLATURE
1. Electric Power Generating Systems, Sundstrand Variables

Corporation Publication 9010194/0791, page 7.
2. Ibid, page 16. i current
3. Fink, D. G. & Beaty, H. W., Standard Handbook for I current amplitude
Electrical Engineers, Thirteenth Edition, McGraw L inductance
Hill, 1993, page 3-70. L '' subtransient inductance
4. Nguyen, V. M., “Paralleled 757/767 Generator
Transients”, Sundstrand Corporation Research
λ flux linkage
Report, RE881735.VN, 1988. λ* composite flux linkage
5. Fitzgerald, A. E., Kingsley, C. Jr. and Umans, S. D., N effective number of turns
Electric Machinery, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, t time
1983, Chapter 8. θ rotor electrical angle mismatch
6. White, D. C. & Woodson, H. H., Electromechanical v voltage
Energy Conversion, John Wiley & Sons, 1959, V voltage amplitude
Chapter 9. ω frequency
x per unit reactance
CONTACT
X* composite subtransient reactance
Albert L. Markunas
Hamilton Sundstrand Subscripts
Fellow, Modeling & Simulation
Tel: (815) 394-2831 a armature
E-mail: al.markunas@hs.utc.com. d direct or d-axis self
dd composite d-axis
dq composite dq cross axis
d1c d-axis, generator 1, cosine term
d1 s d-axis, generator 1, sine term
q quadrature or q-axis self
qq composite q-axis
q1 c q-axis, generator 1, cosine term
q1 s q-axis, generator 1, sine term
d2c d-axis, generator 2, cosine term
d2s d-axis, generator 2, sine term
e rotor electrical
f field or field self
fd field to d-axis mutual
fl field leakage
kd d-axis damper or d-axis damper self
kdd d-axis damper to d-axis mutual
kdf d-axis damper to field mutual
kdl d-axis damper leakage
kq q-axis damper or q-axis damper self
kqq q-axis damper to q-axis mutual
md d-axis mutual
1 generator # 1
2 generator # 2
0 initial value

Wound Field Synchronous Generator Out-of-Phase Paralleling Transient Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wound Field Synchronous Generator Out-of-Phase Paralleling Transient Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed to University of Nebraska

Wound Field Synchronous Generator

Power Systems Conference

For permission and licensing requests contact:

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Wound Field Synchronous Generator Out-of-Phase Paralleling

Copyright © 2004 SAE International

ABSTRACT bandwidth in modern aircraft generators is nearly two

INTRODUCTION In the late 1980s, Hamilton Sundstrand (then

2) The two generators are initially at the same electrical

Under the above simplifications, the dq equations d 2 = cos θ ⋅ d1 − sin θ ⋅ q1 (11)

λ&d = vd + ω e ⋅ λq (1) and the inverse relation:

λ&q = vq − ω e ⋅ λd (2) d1 = cos θ ⋅ d 2 + sin θ ⋅ q2 (13)

q1 = − sin θ ⋅ d 2 + cos θ ⋅ q2 (14)

with the following constitutive relations for the flux

λkd = Lkdf ⋅ i f + Lkd ⋅ ikd − Lkdd ⋅ id (9)

Each generator by itself is a 5th order system. However,

L f 1 ⋅ Lkdd 1 − Ldf 1 ⋅ Lkdf 1

λ&d* − ω e ⋅ λq* = 0 (17) L f 2 ⋅ Lkdd 2 − Ldf 2 ⋅ Lkdf 2

λq* = − ( Lq"1 + cos2 θ ⋅ Lq"2 + sin 2 θ ⋅ Ld" 2 ) ⋅ iq1

λkd 1 = Lkdf 1 ⋅ i f 10 (24) *

Since this analysis is linear the diode bridge is not

Solving for the two field currents: (I d 2c + I d 2c2 + I d 2 s2 )

I d 2 c = sin θ ⋅ I q1c + cos θ ⋅ I d 1c (53) Equations (44) and (45) become:

I d 2 s = sin θ ⋅ I q1s + cos θ ⋅ I d 1s (54) Ldf

and equation (29):

If the damper windings are eliminated, the d-axis

The Sundstrand 4-pole 75/90 kVA generator parameters

Figure 5. Field current transients

COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA

Peak stator phase currents, minimum field currents and

The analytical results agree very well with the simulated

While agreement with test data is poor for large phase

1. Electric Power Generating Systems, Sundstrand Variables

You might also like