414 IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No.

1, January 1994
SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR CAPABILITY
CURVE TESTING AND EVALUATION

by
N. E. Nilsson J. Mercurio
Senior Member

Ohio Edison Company

Akron, Ohio

Abstrucf - In the late 1980s, a variation in system characteristics 750 -

in the Upper Ohio Valley resulted in changes in system
800MVA. 3-PH. 60hz
performance. When the changes in system performance varied n
W
- 75 PSlC
20KV. 75PSIG H2
to a sufficient extent, the utilities in the upper Ohio Valley
decided to perform a voltage coordination study. Some of the
c
0
aspects of this variation in system characteristics have been x Soo-45Pnc
w
reported by others [l]. 1y:
W
>
One facet of this study consisted of conducting MVAR 0
capability range tests on all the synchronous generators
comprising the Ohio Edison System. This study produced some
interesting results relating to the validity of the synchronous
generator capability curves supplied by the manufacturers as
well as operating practices in the plants themselves. Operating
the synchronous generators within limited W A R ranges
masked other problems which were not discovered until the
synchronous generator MVAR capability range tests were
performed.

Key Words - Generator capability curve, MVAR capability

range test, rotor field shorted turns and voltage coordination
study.
-500 J
INTRODUCTION

It has been the practice of manufacturers to supply
capability curves with synchronous generators similar to that
shown in Figure 1. The capability curve contains one or more
boundaries for megawatt (MW) and megavolt-ampere-reactive
(MVAR) limits at different rated gas pressures for hydrogen
(H,) cooled synchronous gcnerators. These pressure ratings are
designed to maintain the synchronous generator temperature at
or below the electrical insulation temperature class limit
described in the American National Standards Institute
requirements for synchronous generators [2].
Figure 1. Typical Synchronous Generator Manufacturer's
Capability Curve
(SCR) in per unit on the negative y axis (the MVAR axis) and
a radius of E!,/X,, where E; is the internal or rotor field excitation
voltage given that the synchronous generator terminal voltage is
one per unit. The right hand boundary is the synchronous
generator stator current limit. The center of the arc defining
this limit is the origin. The lower boundary is the end iron
heating limit which occurs during leading power factor,
underexcited operating conditions [5].

The limiting factors in each region of the capability curve
are well known and are described in previous works [3,4]. By
way of review, the upper boundary of the capability curve at
any H,pressure level is the rotor field thermal limit specified at
a DC current rating. This boundary is often approximated by
an arc with a center at a value equal to the short circuit ratio
93 WM 042-2 PWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Relaying Committee of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at
the IEEE/PES 1993 Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH,
-
January 31 February 5, 1993. Manuscript submitted
Augsut 21, 1992; made available for printing
November 3. 1992.
The utility application engineer will design some additional
limitations in the underexcited region as is illustrated in Figure
2. Every machine will have a steady-state stability limit which
is a function of both the synchronous generator characteristics
and the stiffness of the electrical system to which the machine
is paralleled. A loss-of-field relay can be set to trip the machine
differential auxiliary relay (G-DRX)before this limit is
exceeded. An acceptable margin is computed in order to make
an underexcitation alarm relay setting and additional margin is
provided in order to set either a minimum excitation limiter
(MEL) or underexcitation reactive ampere limiter (URAL) in the
automatic vcdtage regulator [6].

0885-8977/94/$04.00 0 1993 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 415

Shorted Turns in the Rotor Field

800MVA. 3-PH. 60hz
a ZOKV, 75PSIG H2 The effects of a rotor field shorted turn condition has been
W
k reported previously by the authors [7]. The rotor field electrical
0 circuit is designed to carry high DC currents in many turns
X connected in series at relatively low DC voltages. Rotor fields
W
[r often are rated for 125V, 250V, 375V, 5OOV or 650V DC.
W
Accordingly, the rotor field conductor windings are usually
b separated by sheets of electrical insulation rather than having a
fully developed electrical insulation system (multiple layers of
E mica tape) as is the case for,a stator winding electrical insulation
sI system.

a The rotor field conductor winding electrical sheet

W insulation presents the disadvantage of permitting shorted turns
k to occur more easily than is the case in a taped electrical
0
X insulation system. These shorted turns can occur if conducting
LJ -250
E material bridges the electrical sheet insulation between the
W conductors, the sheets slip or the conductors become deformed,
a especially in the end-turn or saddle region.
Z
z)
-500-1 I I Shorted rotor field turns do not result in immediate failure
of the rotor field. Many synchronous generators are shipped
from the factory with one or more shorted turns. Furthermore,
Figure 2. Capability Curve with System Protection Limits it has been the authors' experience that serious rotor field turn
shorting develops slowly over the life of the unit. If the
condition does not create a severe thermally induced rotor field
The significant contributions of this paper are the vibration problem, the synchronous generator can be operated
description of problems that can be encountered when testing the up to the point that the exciter becomes overloaded because of
MVAR capability range predicted by the machine capability the large number of shorted turns in the rotor field. One unit
curves shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 and some of the errors tested during the MVAR range capability test did have a serious
that can exist in these curves themselves. shorted turn problem in the rotor field which resulted in the
reduced capability shown in Figure 3.

MVAR CAPABILITY RANGE TESTING

Testing the MVAR capability range of a synchronous

generator is not a simple task. Coordination is required between
System Control Center personnel, Production Department
personnel, power plant personnel and the General Office
80
1 -
LEGEND
- ORIGINAL
---TEST I
engineering group coordinating the testing. Test Doints have to X 0.5 PSlC
be taken at minimum load as well as rated load. This requires W
switching of electrical auxiliary equipment in the power plant. W
This activity requires sufficient system generating capacity to
accommodate the partial loss of generation due to running the

I--
0.5 PSlC
unit being tested at minimum load. This testing can be costly
as the unit under test is removed from the normal order of
economic dispatch. Tests were often performed in the evening
during "off peak" conditions to minimize the impact of the
testing.

Additional metering is required to verify that no high

voltage or low voltage limits have been exceeded on the
electrical auxiliary system as well as at the generator terminals
during the test. Since metering error (meter accuracy as well as
meter reading accuracy) can be encountered during the testing,
it is normally good engineering practice to confirm the readings
0
x
W
LT
W
n
or
-20

by performing a voltage study using a computer circuit model

-40J
subsequent to the testing. Any erroneous readings can then be 3
identified and adjusted. The following sections describe the
problems that can be expected and the problems that were
actually encountered during the MVAR capability range testing
on synchronous generators in the Ohio Edison System. Figure 3. Reduced Capability of a Synchronous Generator
with Shorted Rotor Field Turns

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 416
Voltaee Considerations
It has been a design practice on the Ohio Edison System
to specify generators with 0.85 power factor capability. This
requirement was established when generating system power
plants were not electrically close to the load center. This
creates a voltage range situation wherein the synchronous
generator terminal voltage at the power factor point is
substantially higher than the synchronous generator terminal
voltage at leading power factor when operating at a certain
system condition.
It has also been a design practice to specify five 2%
percent taps on generator step-up transformers (GSUs) and unit
auxiliary transformers (UATs), two above nominal and two
below nominal. The allowable voltage range for auxiliary
busses is f10 percent and the allowable voltage range at the
generator terminals is I t 5 percent. Given these requirements,
a tap setting study is performed and the tap which best meets
these requirements is selected. Figure 4 illustrates the graph of
an optimum tap.
3 get a test value near the rated lagging power factor point. This
a is necessary because turbine and synchronous generator ratings
Y
w are normally coordinated by designing the generator lagging
(3
4 power factor point to equal the turbine rating.
I-
-I
0 Additional computation is required to verify the top region
>
U of the synchronous generator capability curve. The rotor field
0
I-
d.
I-
o,
MVAR (FOR MW=630)
Figure 4. Voltage Range for the Transformer Tap Selected
A review of Figure 4 reveals that it is difficult to maintain
the f5 percent generator terminal voltage requirement over the
full range of MVAR capability for a 0.85 power factor
synchronous generator. A compromise solution is to permit
operation slightly below 95 percent voltage in the leading power
factor range. This is acceptable because the stator current will
be below rated in this region.
The real problem with off nominal voltage operation is
that the capability curve and protective relaying characteristics
change from those shown in Figure 2. For example, the
underexcitation relay characteristic changes as a function of
voltage squared. Since the synchronous generator terminal
voltage will vary at any particular point on the capability curve
while trying to maintain a scheduled voltage on the system bus,
it is not unreasonable to plot the underexcitation relay curve at
nominal voltage. Therefore, when performing the MVAR
capability range test, the test data must be converted to nominal
voltage in order to effectively document the test results.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The change in system voltage as a function of synchronous
generator reactive operating point can present other testing
problems. Varying the synchronous generator excitation from
the power factor point to the leading power factor region
(underexcited) can violate the system voltage schedule. This is
particularly true for a large synchronous generator on an
electrical system which is not electrically stiff. It was necessary
in some cases involving the testing performed on the Ohio
Edison System to modify the excitation on two or three units so
as not to upset the system voltage schedule. That is to say,
while one unit was operated at the power factor point, the
excitation on other units was adjusted so that these other units
would take in MVARs to counteract the effects of the first
machine on the system voltage schedule.
Actual CaDabilitv at Rated Rotor FieId COndition s
The synchronous generator stator limit is easy to verify at
any particular hydrogen pressure. The synchronous generator
terminal parameters are simply compared against the
temperatures monitored by the stator resistance temperature
devices (RTDs). There are rules for allowable spread in the
RTD readings but a discussion of these rules is beyond the
scope of this paper. The hydrogen gas cooler inlet and outlet
temperatures are also monitored to verify normal operation of
the synchronous generator cooling system. When this limit is
being tested at the highest H2pressure, it is usually necessary to
current, which can be converted to internal voltage, must be
included in the data recorded during the MVAR capability range
test. One of the traditional graphical methods [8] is used to
verify that a constant rotor field current is maintained over the
top region of the synchronous generator capability curve. In
fact, the authors have developed a computer program that
automates one of the graphical methods for the traditional
representation of the machine. Rotor field current and
synchronous generator stator parameters are sampled and
telemeter4 to the System Control Center as ,part of an
experimental program to determine if the synchronous generator
monitored is developing rotor field shorted turns. The sampled
data are then processed by %he computer program and the
percent excess excitation is trended daily. The reason for the
automatic system is to facilitate acquiring all the data
simultaneously. Data errors due to time lapse in manual meter
readings and data logging are eliminated. Nevertheless, there
has been some concern about the accuracy of the results being
obtained as documented by the authors in a discussion of a
recent paper [9].
One fortuitous outcome of the MVAR capability range
testing was the ability to identify the graphical method that most
accurately represents the synchronous generator’s actual or true
capability. The most accurate method was found to be the one
documented by Hunt [IO] with a minor modification. This
modification is the inclusion of the synchronous generator stator
resistance, R,. (See the Appendix for the symbol table.)
By way of review, the synchronous reactance can be
represented by Xd in a cylindrical rotor synchronous generator.
x d is composed of two elements. X, is the leakage reactance
which is not subject to change due to saturation and which is
 417

approximately equal to the Potier reactance. The Potier

reactance can be obtained from the synchronous generator open
circuit and short circuit saturation curves by the triangle method.

7-o
- oK\h
The remainder of the synchronous reactance is subject to n
saturation. This saturation becomes more pronounced the lower U -I--->
the lagging power factor. Accordingly: k
0
X
X, = X, = X,+(Xd-XJ/K (1) I
d
CY
W \ \ \
Then >
0
\

-
Ep = 7 + j+(R, + jXJ (2)
CY
Q
And >
- 2
E, = K$ + j*j(X,-XJ (3)
n
Plugging equation (2) into equation (3), W
t
- 0
E, = K F + i+{ICR, + jKXp + j(Xd-XJ} (4) X
W
CL
This can be represented graphically by the phasor diagram W
shown in Figure 5. n
Z
3

Figure 6. Variation in t.he Tested Rotor Field Capability

Compared with the Manufacturer’s Capability Curve

required. The table of the test result; for this machine is shown
in Table I.

HYDROGEN PRESSURE 75 PSlG 60 P S l G 45 P S l G 30 P S l G

I /
RATED MU 913.750 860.000 785.000 710.000

RATED W A R 566.291 500.425 408.656 322.955

RATED P F 0.850 0.864 0.887 0.910

RATED KV 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00

Figure 5. Phasor Diagram of Internal Machine Voltage RATED F I E L D I 5,671 5,266 4,789 4,253

TESTED F I E L D 1 5,801 5,418 4,932 4.47’6

It was not uncommon to discover after analyzing the test
data that the capability curve issued by the manufacturer might
have a different curvature in the rotor field limited region than
the tested capability at rated H, pressures. Figure 6 illustrates
this result.
A unique problem occurred with regard to one specific
synchronous generator capability curve. The region bounded by
the 30 PSIG H, limit and the 60 PSIG H, limit was defined as
representing a 1 % percent increase in MVA capability with each
one percent increase in H, PSIG. Initially, only the 30 PSIG H,
limit was tested as part of the MVAR capability range test
program. The manufacturer’s 30 PSIG H, capability limit
turned out to be in error. This outcome called into question the
accuracy of the 45, 60 and 75 PSIG H, limits. Surprisingly, it
was discovered that when an expanded test was conducted that
the 45, 60 and 75 PSIG H2capability curve boundaries were
generally correct. This test proved an expanded test program
that would test all the published H, PSIG limits would be
X DIFFERENCE +2.29 +2.89 +2.99 +5.24
Chanae in Steadv-State Stabilitv Limit
Not all the changes noted during the MVAR capability
range testing involved reduction in published capability. Once
the capability curves illustrated in Figure 2 are issued to the
Systems Operation Department and the plants, they are rarely
modified. One synchronous generator on the Ohio Edison
System has been operated for 53 years with no revision in the
published capability curve. Since electrical power systems
generally become stiffer over time as more lines are added to
the transmission grid, the steady-state stability limit moves away
from real power axis in the leading power factor (PF) direction.
Figure 7 illustrates the area in the underexcited region which
can be reclaimed as useful operating region in the capability

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 418

curve due to this phenomenon. There are other limits which

may tend to restrict some of this region such as the minimum *03 LOFFOUND
TRIP LOF
value to which the regulator rheostat can be adjusted.
AS RWISED LOF

20

3
-
I)
U
U
X
w
w
W
>
0

CY
-=f
>
\ \
I 1
E

n
W -20
4 k Y

-
L
U
X
W
w
W
0 'igure 8. Accidental Miscoordination Due to the Missetting of
z
7 a Loss-of-Field Relay
j---- ,-
- 60
Figure 7. Increase in Underexcited Capability Due to Increased
Stiffness in the Electrical System
Other Problems Observed Durine MVAR CaDability Testing
When this testing was undertaken, it was believed that it
would be relatively benign. That is to say, it would be
transparent to the operation of the plant except for electrical
auxiliary switching needed to reach the minimum MW load line.
This was not always the case as a few unexpected tripping event
occurred. The following unexpected problems were
encountered:
3.
1. Incorrect Relay Settings. The loss-of-field relay on
one gas turbine generator was found to have a
setting which did not agree with the published
capability curve with protective device settings.
When the synchronous generator was operated in the
leading power factor region on the rated MW line,
the G-DRX tripped before the MEL limit was
reached. This miscoordination is illustrated in
Figure 8. One of the outcomes of the MVAR
capability range test program was to apply the
intended setting to the loss-of-field relay for this
machine.
4.
2. Incorrect URAL Setting. A related event involved
the incorrect setting of a URAL. The y axis
intercept was set correctly but the polarity was
reversed on the ramp setting. Instead of sloping
upward towards the MW axis with increasing MWs,
it sloped downward. Figure 9 illustrates this
problem. The operator might have detected that
something was amiss but for the fact that the MVAR
chart recorder was not scaled for operation down to
the level where the URAL should have been limiting
excitation. Therefore, this operator didn't know
how many MVARs the synchronous generator was
taking in. Since the operator was instructed to
reduce excitation until the URAL limit was reached,
ultimately the loss-of-field relay tripped. As with
the problem cited above, the URAL was reset for
correct operation. The chart recorder range
anomaly was added to a punchlist requiring follow-
up actinn
Maximum Excitation Limiter Malfunction. A few
of the new synchronous generator voltage regulators
on the Ohio Edison System have maximum
excitation limiters. They are set to prevent
operation above the rotor field lagging power factor
limit. On one synchronous generator, the voltage
began ramping up as soon as this limit was reached.
This malfunction was repeatable and could only be
stopped by putting the voltage regulator in manual.
The problem was that the limiter attempted to
increase excitation rather than decrease it when the
limit was reached. This resulted in the runaway
situation encountered during the testing.
Incorrect Voltage Metering Source. The metering
for one unit at a relatively new plant was designed
for transducer data logging in the plant computer.
From the initial operation of the unit, the metering
function in the plant computer did not provide
accurate data. It wasn't until the MVAR capability
range testing was undertaken that it was discovered

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 900 - 60 PSIG
I
possible three dimensional display with the synchronous
generator terminal voltage as a parameter. MWs are displayed
on the x-axis, stator kV is on the y-axis and MVARs are on the
z-axis. In actual use, a marker would be included to indicate
the parametric values on each axis. Another option would be to
also display these three functions, two at a time, on adjacent two
dimensional graphs on the same computer screen.

In Figure 10, it can be seen that MVA capability in the

stator limited region is constant between 95 and 105 percent
voltage. Operation outside this region is open to speculation
because such operation is not addressed in the standards;
however, the authors suggest that operation between 90 and 95
percent voltage is permissible provided the stator current does
419

illustrated earlier in this paper be displayed,, but a third function

can also be added to the capability curve. Figure 10 shows a

not exceed 1.00/0.95 or 1.0526 per unit. This results in a linear

MW I I II MW derating below 95 percent voltage.

A different effect applies for the rotor field limit curve

Figure 9. Accidental Miscoordination Due to the
Missetting of a URAL.
(top of the capability curve). Since this curve is based upon a
constant value of rated rotor field current, it expands for
decreasing stator voltages and contracts for increasing stator
voltages. This accounts for the apparent slope as a function of
voltage of the upper region of Figure 10. The net effect is that
the rated power factor (intersection of the rotor and stator limits)
varies with voltage. At voltages above 100 percent, the power
factor increases, whereas the power factor decreases at lower
voltages.

that the wattmeter potential source for the 4160V

auxiliary bus metering had been connected to the
synchronous generator 18kV potential transformers.
1
Not only was the metering voltage magnitude
incorrect, the phase angle was off by 30".

These problems were not discovered earlier because the

synchronous generators had not been operated over the full
range of the machine capability curves. While operating point
adjustment has not been as restricted as at some utilities where
the synchronous generators are maintained at one operating point
at all times, the range of operation within the machine capability
curve has been artificially limited to less than the full MVAR
range of these synchronous generators.

There are other factors which have also resulted in this

artificial limitation. One factor is the operation of synchronous
generators at less than the highest rated H, pressure. It is not
uncommon to operate a 75 PSIG H2machine at 60 PSIG H,.
Such operation reduces the windage losses in the synchronous
generator. Albeit there is a tradeoff in higher PR losses in the
rotor field windings and non-water cooled stator windings.
There is also less hydrogen consumption at the lower H,
pressure. H, consumption is a general term for loss of
hydrogen, generally through the bearing seal, measured in units
of cubic feet per day. Lower hydrogen consumption results in
the purchase of less hydrogen which reduces the operating cost
of the synchronous generator.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

There has been a tremendous increase in the capability of

operator displays due to the phenominal growth in available
cornpiiter memory. Not only can the two dimensional graphs Figure 10. Three Dimensional Capability Curve

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 420
CONCLUSION
The MVAR capability range testing on Ohio Edison
System synchronous generators has been a success. With a few
exceptions, the synchronous generators have been shown to have
capability equivalent to what the machine capability curves
would predict. Thus these machines will also be able to
accommodate system changes which will be dictated by the
Upper Ohio Valley voltage coordination study. Specific benefits
from the MVAR capability range testing study &e as follows:
1. Problems that would have been encountered in the
upper region or lower region of the machine
capability curve, most likely during an emergency
situation, have been identified and are in the process
of being corrected.
2. Many of the synchronous generators on the Ohio
Edison System, especially older machines, have
additional underexcited capability available because
the electrical transmission system has become stiffer
since the issuance of the machine capability curves.
3. Plant Operators have gained additional confidence in
their ability to operate over the full range of the
synchronous generator capability curves.
Furthermore, there is a better understanding of what
the machine capability curve represents and how it
is impacted by off-nominal voltage.
4. While it had been known that there is a machine
with significant rotor field shorted turns, the extent
of the problem was fully defined by the MVAR
capability range testing which will facilitate an
informed decision on when to rewind the rotor field.
5. Although not directly related to the testing, the most
accurate graphical method for developing the rotor
field limit region of the machine capability curve has
been identified and will be used to improve the
accuracy of synchronous generator capability curves
as they are reissued.
APPENDIX: SYMBOL TABLE
DC Direct Current
Ee Voltage behind leakage reactance
EP Voltage behind Potier reactance
E, Unsaturated rotor field excitation voltage
EIS Saturated rotor field excitation voltage
GSU Generator step-up transformer
G-DRX Generator differential auxiliary relay
H2 Hydrogen
K Saturation factor
I Per unit armature current per phase
MEL Minimum excitation limiter
MVAR Megavolt-ampere reactive
MW Megawatt
PF Power factor
PSIG Pounds per square inch gauge
R, Synchronous generator stator resistance
RTD Resistance temperature detector
SCR Short circuit ratio
UAT Unit auxiliary transformer
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
URAL Underexcitation reactive ampere limiter
v, Synchronous generator terminal voltage
X, Direct axis unsaturated synchronous reactance
Xe Leakage reactance
X, Potier reactance
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Johnson, P. B., R. D. Bednarz, K. G. Henry and S . L.
Ridenbaugh, "Maximizing the Reactive Capability of
AEP Generating Stations," presented at the American
Power Conference in Chicago, Illinois in April, 1990.
2. ANSI Std. (250.13-1977, Requirements for Cylin-
drical-Rotor Synchronous Generators.
3. Sterrett, C. C. and R. A. Towne, "Operation of
Hydrogen Cooled Turbine Generators," N E E
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.
74, June 1955, pp. 433-439.
4. IEEE Std. 67-1990, IEEE Guide for Operation and
Maintenance of Turbine Generators, p. 20.
5. Kekela, J. and L. Firestone, "Underexcited Operation
of Generators," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and SyStemS, Vol. 83, August 1964, pp. 81 1-817.
6. ANSI/IEEE Std. C37.102-1987, IEEE Guide for AC
Generator Protection, p. 36.
7. Nilsson, N. E. and J. Mercurio, "Evaluating the
Service Degradation of Large Hydrogen Cooled
Generator Rotor Fields, " IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 9,
September 1983, pp. 2950-2958.
8. Westinghouse Electrical Transmission and Distribution
Reference Book, Fourth Edition, Fifth Printing, 1964,
p. 151.
9. El-Serafi, A. M. And I. Wu, " A New Method for
Determining the Armature Leakage Reactance of
Synchronous Machines, " IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, Vol. 6 , No. 1, March 1991, pp. 120-125.
10. Hunt, J. P., "Capability Curves and Excitation
Requirements of Saturated Cylindrical Rotor
Synchronous Machines," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-86, No. 7, July
1967, pp. 855-859.
BIOGRAPHIES
N. E. Nilsson (M-1971, SM-1982) received a BSEE degree
from the University of Cincinnati in 1971, an MSEE degree
from the University of Akron in 1975, and a Juris Doctor
degree from the University of Akron in 1986. Since 1971 he
has been employed by the Ohio Edison Company in Akron,
Ohio where he is the General Plant Electrical Engineer in the
Generating Plant Engineering Department. His work
assignments have included preparation of major equipment
specifications, development of engineering computer programs
 421
to support technical analyses, development of plant electrical
relay protection schemes, and development of specialized testing
programs to evaluate plant equipment and systems.

Mr. Nilsson is a Registered Professional Engineer in Ohio and

Pennsylvania, a member of NSPE, and a member of Eta Kappa
Nu and Tau Beta Pi. He is licensed as an attorney in Ohio and
Washington, D.C., and is a licensed Patent Attorney.

J. Mercurio received his BSEE degree from the Cleveland State

University in 1970. He is a registered Professional Engineer in
Ohio. He has been employed by Ohio Edison Company in
Akron, Ohio since 1970. His work experiences include the
design of transmission and distribution substations, the design of
SCADA installations, the development of computer
specifications, and the analyses of power plant electrical
equipment phenomena. He is currently the Senior Plant
Electrical Engineer in the Generating Plant Engineering
Department.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 A22

DISCUSSION additional capability may not be available in

ALEKSANDAR PROLE, General Electric Company,
Schenectady, New York: The authors ought to
be commended for writing an interesting paper
on a rare subject. It is generally not
appreciated that station testing of large
generators involves numerous difficulties.
This paper makes a significant contribution
to the understanding of these problems and
points towards possible ways out. The data
obtained in such tests, although very
difficult to come by, are, however, very
valuable, not only for operation of the unit,
but for the advancement of the state of the
machine design art as well.
In our discussion we would like
concentrate on the upper portion of the
reactive capability curve. As defined by
standards (Reference 1) and pointed out in
the paper, this part of the capability curve
represents the thermal limit of the field
winding. The curve is usually defined as
constant field current line along which the
field current has the same value as at the
rated point (or capability points for lower
hydrogen pressures), although constant
current does not necessarily mean constant
temperature. Either way, the curve depends
on the accuracy with which the field current,
corresponding to a particular operating
point, can be determined. The initial
evaluation of the field current and
capability curves during the design stage is
based on methods calibrated on past similar
designs. If the new design is significantly
different, this prediction might involve some
uncertainty.
field current
As the machine is built and
tested in the factory the calculation of the
becomes more reliable.
Concurrently, as the time goes on, methods
are upgraded and new ones developed, which
further increases the designers ability to
accurately predict the performance of the
the case that the measured field current
comes out less than calculation predicted.
Such an approach would significantly change
the tested curve for 30 PSIG shown in
Figure 6 of the paper unless a reason other
than calculation tolerances (like shorted
turns) for the higher field current value is
suspected.
The observation of the operating voltage's
effect on the upper part of the reactive
capability curve is very interesting and
useful for proper operation of the machine,
but it must be pointed out that, dependent on
the design of a particular generator, the
effect could be opposite.
to
We would like to thank the authors of the
paper for making their test data available.
This information will prove very valuable in
verifying and calibrating the field current
prediction methods, both the ones in present
use as well as those being developed.
CI
W
c
0
X
LI
[2:
w
s
E
300 -
Resencly Used
9I Calculation Method

machine. This is illustrated in Figure 1. 100-

Figure 1 is Figure 6 of the paper with the Q
curves, determined for the same machine by LI
1 I I ' 1 ' I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 ~ 1
200 40 6m 1
the currently used calculation method, added. k
The improvement is obvious for the three 0 -100- MW
higher hydrogen pressures. The discrepancy X I
at 3 0 PSIG could not be explained.
effect on the difference demonstrated in
The W
CY
w
J I I 1
Table 1 of the paper is equally dramatic. n
Another point worth mentioning is the Z
definition of the field current value that is 3
maintained constant along the upper portion
of the capability curve. This should be the
best value available - from calculation or
test - of the field current that the machine Figure 1. Presently Used Calculation
needs at its rated point, even if it is Method Compared with Original and
different from the manufacturer supplied Tested Curves
value. Manufacturer's current is a value
calculated with some degree of uncertainty
typical for the design methods in use. Manuscript received February 19, 1993.
Proper operation of the generator, within
temperature limits set by industry standards,
is nevertheless guaranteed at the rated point D. 1. Silver 8nd P. 8 . Johnaon, American
even if it later turns out that the generator Electric Power Service C o r p . , Columbus, Ohio:
needs slightly more excitation than The authors are to be commended for their
predicted. This is accounted for by informative discussion on the testing and
appropriate design margins on operating evaluation of synchronous generator reactive
temperatures, so that the reactive capability capability.
does not have to be reduced just because the As documented in Reference [l] of the
measured field current is higher than the paper, AEP also has a program of generator
calculated one. On the other hand, reactive capability testing and analysis. In

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

our studies, we examined the factors limiting
utilization of generator reactive capability
(as defined by the reactive capability curves
and the MEL settings). Limits can be caused by
the auxiliary system, step-up transformer, or
the network to which the generator is
connected.
In our studies, we found that the GSU and
auxiliary transformer voltage ratings and
impedance characteristics often significantly
limited the amount of generator reactive power
delivered to or absorbed fromthe transmission
system. Following are highlights of some of
the reactive capability limitations we
uncovered. Have the authors encountered
similar situations in their testing and
evaluation?
AEP has a policy of setting the GSU
transformer Volts/Hertz relays to alarm at the
lower of 110% of the primary voltage
(generator side) rating of the GSU or 105% of
the generator rated voltage. When the primary
voltage rating is the more restrictive of the
two settings, voltage regulating capability is
constrained due to the reduced operating
voltage range of the generator terminals.
Similar to the situation described in the
paper's discussion of Figure.4, the
characteristics of many of our GSU
transformers do not permit full use of the
WAR capabilities of the generators. In our
experience, to take full advantage of the
generator~s WAR capability would often
require operation significantly above 105% or
below 95% of the generator's rating, depending
on the GSU's tap setting. When tradeoffs were
required, we generally chose the tap that
would allow full overexcited capability to
ensure adequate system voltages during
contingencies at peak load periods.
Other limitations to generator reactive
capability can arise in the unit's auxiliary
power system. Am's plant auxiliary systems
are normally fed from the generator bus.
Therefore, voltage swings on the generator bus
will result in voltage swings on auxiliary
buses. The voltage limits on AEP auxiliary
buses are 959 to 110% of motor voltage
ratings. The 95% limit implicitly assumes no
more than 5 % voltage drop between bus and
motor. As auxiliary equipment has been
modified since the units were originally
placed in service, the voltage limitations on
these auxiliary buses can change and sometimes
constrain the reactive output of the
generators. Again, we have generally chosen
to set the auxiliary transformer taps such
that full overexcited capability is available
to the system at scheduled voltage. In one
particular case, we have allowed the maximum
bus voltage to be 115% of rated to avoid
unnecessary restrictions.
These are a few of the most significant
reactive capability limitations that we have
experienced at AEP. We welcome your comments
on these and other limitations external to the
reactive capability curves. While we have
often found the reactive capability to be less
than expected, we were able to restore a large
portion of the expected capability through
optimization of the GSU and auxiliary systems.
We encourage other systems to undertake
similar investigations. Again we congratulate
the authors.
Manuscript received February 23, 1993.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
423
J. G . Hurley and L. W. Montgomery (Westinghouse Electric
Corp.): The authors describe that for some of the generators
which were tested in this study, the tests which required MVAR
outputs at rated lagging (overexcited) power factor could be
accomplished only by altering excitation on other generators
elsewhere in the system. Do the authors find that the full
reactive power capability of these generators is necessary for
acceptable system performance? If so, under what conditions is
the full reactive power capability required?
Additionally, it would be helpful to the readers if the authors
were to elaborate upon the reasons behind the decision by the
utilities in the upper Ohio valley to extend the underexcited
MVAR capability of their installed power generation capacity.
Manuscript received February 24. lY93
N. E. Nilsson and J. Mercurio (Ohio Edison
Company, Akron, Ohio) : The authors are very
pleased that the discussers from American
Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP),
General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse have
taken the time to prepare formal discussions
of this paper. It should be pointed out that
all the discussers are leaders in the field
and are speaking from years of practical
experience.
With regard to the comments of J. G.
Hurley and L. W. Montgomery of Westinghouse,
the testing phase of the Ohio Edison Reactive
Power Capability Test Program was primarily
implemented to demonstrate the availability of
overexcited and underexcited reactive capa-
bility for a specific generator, compared with
the published operating capability curves for
the unit. Figure 7 was included to demon-
strate that the steady-state stability limit
(and resulting stability margin) are a
function of the strength of the high voltage
system, and as such, subject to change as the
transmission grid is strengthened over the
years. It should not be inferred from this
figure that Ohio Edison, or any other utility
in the Upper Ohio Valley need, or desire to
extend generator underexcited reactive capa-
bility.
With regard to the comments of Aleksandar
Prole of GE, the authors are pleased that the
tested values in the overexcited region
closely match GE's presently used calculation
method. Incidentally, the authors believe
that there are no shorted turns in the rotor
field at the present time in the machine
illustrated in Figure 7 .
It was noted that in the Ohio Edison
Guidelines for this test program, the authors
were not attempting to determine actual
maximum reactive capability based upon
temperature measurements made during sustained
overexcited test points. Indeed, the authors
had difficulty getting System Dispatching
approval to hold test points for even twenty
minutes. Rather, the authors set out to
evaluate the current operating capability
curves. The plant operators use predetermined
limits to maintain safe operation of the
generator. This is typically true f o r gen-
erator and auxiliary bus voltages, as well as
rotor f i e l d currents. In fact, it is not un-
 424
common to see a rotor field current ammeter
red-lined at the manufacturer's maximum, or
rated value of rotor field current. As such,
an operator would be hesitant to exceed this
value, even though the rotor temperature would
seem to allow it. It should also be noted
that the manufacturer's rated rotor field
current is used to base the settings of
protective relays, such as the field forcing
relay.
The significance of this discusser's
comments should not be underestimated. A to determine if transformer tap changes ought
constant rotor field limit might not produce a
purely circular arc, as has become the
standard in the industry, due to differences
in temperature from zero to rated real power
and changes in flux paths within the machine
due to varying power factor (and internal)
angles. The authors would be interested in
seeing more information published by the
discusser on this topic.
With respect to the comments of D. W.
Silver and P. E. Johnson, the true reactive
capability of a generator as seen by the grid
is also dependent on the GSU and Unit
Auxiliary Transformers' (UATs') taps and
impedances. The authors included Figure 4 to
demonstrate this point. Computer load flows,
as well as other analyses can be performed to
optimize generator performance over as much of
the capability area as possible. However,
before these studies are performed on a
system-wide basis, an accurate, and up-to-date
representation of generator reactive capa-
bility is needed.
The authors have also observed the
voltage limitations described by the dis-
cussers. The authors have come to slightly
different conclusions. There is concern about
high magnetizing and excitation currents in
electrical equipment when operating above 110
percent voltage. High volts per hertz
operation result in saturation which results
in distorted waveforms and high losses. To
date, the authors' company has not elected to
operate above 110 percent voltage for these
reasons. On the other hand, the authors
believe that it is acceptable to operate the
generator below 95 percent voltage, provided
that the generator is below rated MVA (less
than 100 percent current in the stator
windings) and provided that the voltage does
not dip too low on the auxiliary electrical
system,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESPIRITO SANTO. Downloaded on February 14,2022 at 20:00:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The outfall of the system analysis is
that shifting industrial, commercial and
residential loads cause changes in the
operating voltage profile of the electrical
system over a period of years. Furthermore,
the stiffening of the electrical system
results in the ability to reclaim underexcited
generator capability, as was pointed out by
the first discussers. These two factors
combine in such fashion as to require periodic
checks to see if the transformer taps
presently in service are still the optimum or
to be made.
There is tremendous interest in the
industry in this subject at this time. It was
discovered that another paper on this topic
was presented at the 1993 Winter Power Meeting
in Columbus, Ohio [ 13. Additionally, there
were a number of questioners at the pre-
sentation of the authors' paper who developed
some additional important issues, but who did
not follow up with formal discussions. At
least a handful of utilities have begun
performing synchronous generator capability
curve testing and it is believed that a number
of others will be doing so in the future. By
now, the reader should be aware that this
testing is not trivial and needs to be well
conceived. No detail should be overlooked in
preparing €or such testing. Even given all
this, occasionally there will be an unexpected
and surprising event during the testing.
Given the information disclosed in the
discussions, it is expected that the ground-
work has been laid for a series of derivative
papers by other authors addressing the issues
of more precisely representing synchronous
generator capability, better graphical dis-
plays of operating data as well as machine
capability for operators and dis- patchers and
the development of more rigorous capability
testing techniques.
' Adibi, M.M. and D.P. Milanicz, "Reactive
Capability Limitation of Synchronous
Machines," paper 93WM203-0-PWRS presented on
February 4 , 1993, at the 1993 Winter Power
Meeting in Columbus, Ohio.
Manuscript received March 22, 1993.