ECEN 667

Power System Stability

Lecture 9: Exciters

Prof. Tom Overbye

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Texas A&M University
overbye@tamu.edu
Special Guest Lecture by TA Hanyue Li!
 Announcements
• Read Chapter 4
• Homework 3 is due on Tuesday October 1
• Exam 1 is Thursday October 10 during class

2
 Why does this even matter?
• GENROU and GENSAL models date from 1970, and
their purpose was to replicate the dynamic response the
synchronous machine
– They have done a great job doing that
• Weaknesses of the GENROU and GENSAL model has
been found to be with matching the field current and
field voltage measurements
– Field Voltage/Current may have been off a little bit, but that
didn’t effect dynamic response
– It just shifted the values and gave them an offset
• Shifted/Offset field voltage/current didn’t matter too
much in the past
3
 Over and Under Excitation Limiters
• Traditionally our industry has not modeled over
excitation limiters (OEL) and under excitation limiters
(UEL) in transient stability simulation
– The Mvar outputs of synchronous machines during transients
likely do go outside these bounds in our existing simulations
– Our Simulation haven’t been modeling limits being hit
anyway, so the overall dynamic response isn’t impacted
• If the industry wants to start modeling OEL and UEL,
then we need to better match the field voltage and
currents
– Otherwise we’re going to be hitting these limits when in real
life we are not
4
 GENTPW, GENQEC
• New models are under development that address
several issues
– Saturation function should be applied to all input
parameters by multiplication
• This also ensures a conservative coupling field assumption of Peter
W. Sauer paper from 1992
– Same multiplication should be applied to both d-axis and q-
axis terms (assume same amount of saturation on both)
• Results in differential equations that are nearly the
same as GENROU
– Scales the inputs and outputs, and effects time constants
• Network Interface Equation is same as GENTPF/J
5
GENTPW and GENQEC Basic Diagram

6
 Comment about all these
Synchronous Machine Models
• The models are improving. However, this does not
mean the old models were useless
• All these models have the same input parameter
names, but that does not mean they are exactly the
same
– Input parameters are tuned for a particular model
– It is NOT appropriate to take the all the parameters for
GENROU and just copy them over to a GENTPJ model
and call that your new model
– When performing a new generator testing study, that is
the time to update the parameters

7
 Dynamic Models
in the Physical Structure: Exciters

Mechanical System Electrical System

Stabilizer Load
Line
Exciter Relay Relay

Supply Pressure Speed Voltage Network Load

control control control Control control control
Fuel Furnace
Turbine Generator Network Loads
Source and Boiler
Machine Load
Char.
Fuel Steam Torque V, I P, Q
Governor

P. Sauer and M. Pai, Power System Dynamics and Stability, Stipes Publishing, 2006.

8
Exciter Models

9
 Exciters, Including AVR
• Exciters are used to control the synchronous machine
field voltage and current
– Usually modeled with automatic voltage regulator included
• A useful reference is IEEE Std 421.5-2016
– Updated from the 2005 edition
– Covers the major types of exciters used in transient stability
– Continuation of standard designs started with "Computer
Representation of Excitation Systems," IEEE Trans. Power
App. and Syst., vol. pas-87, pp. 1460-1464, June 1968
• Another reference is P. Kundur, Power System Stability
and Control, EPRI, McGraw-Hill, 1994
– Exciters are covered in Chapter 8 as are block diagram basics
10
 Functional Block Diagram

Image source: Fig 8.1 of Kundur, Power System Stability and Control
11
 Types of Exciters
• None, which would be the case for a permanent
magnet generator
– primarily used with wind turbines with ac-dc-ac
converters
• DC: Utilize a dc generator as the source of the field
voltage through slip rings
• AC: Use an ac generator on the generator shaft,
with output rectified to produce the dc field
voltage; brushless with a rotating rectifier system
• Static: Exciter is static, with field current supplied
through slip rings
12
 IEEET1 Exciter
• We’ll start with a common exciter model, the IEEET1
based on a dc generator, and develop its structure
– This model was standardized in a 1968 IEEE Committee
Paper with Fig 1. from the paper shown below

13
 Block Diagram Basics
• The following slides will make use of block
diagrams to explain some of the models used in
power system dynamic analysis. The next few
slides cover some of the block diagram basics.
• To simulate a model represented as a block
diagram, the equations need to be represented as a
set of first order differential equations
• Also the initial state variable and reference values
need to be determined

14
 Integrator Block

KI
u y
s
• Equation for an integrator with u as an input and y
as an output is
dy
 KI u
dt
• In steady-state with an initial output of y0, the
initial state is y0 and the initial input is zero

15
 First Order Lag Block

K Input
u y Output of Lag Block
1  Ts
• Equation with u as an input and y as an output is
dy 1
  Ku  y 
dt T
• In steady-state with an initial output of y0, the
initial state is y0 and the initial input is y0/K
• Commonly used for measurement delay (e.g., TR
block with IEEE T1) 16
 Derivative Block

KDs
u y
1  sTD
• Block takes the derivative of the input, with scaling
KD and a first order lag with TD
– Physically we can't take the derivative without some lag
• In steady-state the output of the block is zero
• State equations require a more general approach

17
 State Equations for More
Complicated Functions
• There is not a unique way of obtaining state
equations for more complicated functions with a
general form
du d mu
0 u  1    m m 
dt dt
n 1 n
dy d y d y
 0 y   1     n 1 n 1  n
dt dt dt
• To be physically realizable we need n >= m

18
 General Block Diagram Approach
• One integration approach is illustrated in the below
block diagram

Image source: W.L. Brogan, Modern Control Theory, Prentice Hall, 1991, Figure 3.7
19
 Derivative Example
• Write in form
KD
s
TD
1 TD  s
• Hence b0=0, b1=KD/TD, a0=1/TD
• Define single state variable x, then
dx y Initial value of
 0 u   0 y   x is found by recognizing
dt TD
y is zero so x = -b1u
KD
y  x  1u  x  u
TD
20
 Lead-Lag Block

1  sTA input
u y
1  sTB Output of Lead/Lag

• In exciters such as the EXDC1 the lead-lag block is

used to model time constants inherent in the
exciter; the values are often zero (or equivalently
equal)
• In steady-state the input is equal to the output
• To get equations write 1 TA
s
in form with b0=1/TB, b1=TA/TB, 1  sTA TB TB

a0=1/TB 1  sTB 1 TB  s
21
 Lead-Lag Block
• The equations are with
b0=1/TB, b1=TA/TB,
a0=1/TB
then

dx 1
 0 u   0 y   u  y  The steady-state
dt TB requirement
TA that u = y is
y  x  1u  x  u readily apparent
TB

22
 Brief Review of DC Machines
• Prior to widespread use of machine drives, dc
motors had a important advantage of easy speed
control
• On the stator a dc machine has either a permanent
magnet or a single concentrated winding
• Rotor (armature) currents are supplied through
brushes and commutator The f subscript refers to the field, the a
to the armature; w is the machine's
• Equations are speed, G is a constant. In a permanent
di f magnet machine the field flux is
v f  if Rf  Lf
dt constant, the field equation goes away,
di and the field impact is embedded in a
va  ia Ra  La a  Gmi f equivalent constant to Gif
dt
Taken mostly from M.A. Pai, Power Circuits and Electromechanics 23
 Limits: Windup versus Nonwindup
• When there is integration, how limits are enforced
can have a major impact on simulation results
• Two major flavors: windup and non-windup
• Windup limit for an integrator block The value of v is
Lmax NOT limited, so its
KI value can "windup"
v
u y beyond the limits,
s delaying backing
Lmin off of the limit
dv If Lmin  v  Lmax then y = v
 KI u
dt else If v < Lmin then y = Lmin,
else if v > Lmax then y = Lmax
24
 Limits on First Order Lag
• Windup and non-windup limits are handled in a
similar manner for a first order lag
dv 1
Lmax  ( Ku  v)
dt T
K v
u y If Lmin  v  Lmax then y = v
1  sT
Lmin else If v < Lmin then y = Lmin,
else if v > Lmax then y = Lmax
Again the value of v is NOT
limited, so its value can
"windup" beyond the limits,
delaying backing off of the limit
25
 Non-Windup Limit First Order Lag
• With a non-windup limit, the value of y is prevented
from exceeding its limit
dy 1
Lmax   Ku  y 
dt T
K
u y (except as indicated below)
1  sT
Lmin dy 1
If L min  y  L max then normal   Ku  y 
dt T
dy
If y  L max then y=L max and if u > 0 then 0
dt
dy
If y  L min then y=L min and if u < 0 then 0
dt
26
 Lead-Lag Non-Windup Limits
• There is not a unique way to implement non-windup
limits for a lead-lag.
This is the one from
IEEE 421.5-1995
(Figure E.6)

T2 > T1, T1 > 0, T2 > 0

If y > B, then x = B
If y < A, then x = A
If B y  A, then x = y

27
 Ignored States
• When integrating block diagrams often states are
ignored, such as a measurement delay with TR=0
• In this case the differential equations just become
algebraic constraints
Lmax
• Example: For block at right, K v
as T0, v=Ku u 1  sT y
Lmin
• With lead-lag it is quite common for TA=TB,
resulting in the block being ignored

28
 Types of DC Machines
• If there is a field winding (i.e., not a permanent
magnet machine) then the machine can be
connected in the following ways
– Separately-excited: Field and armature windings are
connected to separate power sources
• For an exciter, control is provided by varying the field current
(which is stationary), which changes the armature voltage
– Series-excited: Field and armature windings are in series
– Shunt-excited: Field and armature windings are in
parallel

29
 Separately Excited DC Exciter

(to sync
mach)

d f 1
ein1  r f 1iin1  N f 1
dt
1
a1   f 1 s1 is coefficient of dispersion,
1 modeling the flux leakage
30
 Separately Excited DC Exciter

• Relate the input voltage, ein1, to vfd

Assuming a constant
f 1 speed w1
v fd  K a11a1  K a11
1
1 Solve above for ff1 which was used
f 1  v fd
K a11 in the previous slide
d f 1  1 dv fd

dt K a11 dt
N f 1 1 dv fd
ein1  iin1 rf 1 
K a11 dt
31
 Separately Excited DC Exciter

• If it was a linear magnetic circuit, then vfd would be

proportional to in1; for a real system we need to
account for saturation v fd
iin1   f sat  v fd v fd
K g1
Without saturation we
can write
K a11
Kg1  L f 1us
N f 1 1
Where L f 1us is the
unsaturated field inductance
32
 Separately Excited DC Exciter
d f 1
ein  r f 1iin1  N f 1
1
dt
Can be written as
rf 1 L f 1us dv fd
ein 
1
K g1
 
v fd  rf 1 f sat v fd v fd 
K g1 dt

This equation is then scaled based on the synchronous

machine base values

X md X md v fd
E fd  V fd 
R fd R fd VBFD
33
 Separately Excited Scaled Values
rf 1 L f 1us
KE  TE 
sep K g1 K g1
X md
VR  ein1
R fd VBFD VR is the scaled
output of the
 
 VBFD R fd 
S E E fd  r f 1 f sat  E fd  voltage regulator
 X 
 md  amplifier
Thus we have

 
dE fd  
TE   KE  S E E fd  E fd  VR
dt  sep 
 
34
 The Self-Excited Exciter
• When the exciter is self-excited, the amplifier
voltage appears in series with the exciter field

Note the
additional
Efd term on
 
dE fd  
TE   KE  S E E fd  E fd  VR  E fd the end
dt  sep 
 

35
Self and Separated Excited Exciters
• The same model can be used for both by just
modifying the value of KE
dE fd
TE
dt
 
  K E  S E  E fd  E fd  VR

 
KE  KE  1  typically K E  .01
self sep  self 
 

36
 Exciter Model IEEET1 KE Values

Example IEEET1 Values from a large system

Ke
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Ke

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15

10 20 30 40 50
Ke

The KE equal 1 are separately excited, and KE close to

zero are self excited
37
 Saturation
• A number of different functions can be used to
represent the saturation
• The quadratic approach is now quite common
S E ( E fd )  B ( E fd  A) 2 This is the
B ( E fd  A) 2 same
An alternative model is S E ( E fd )  function
E fd used with
the machine
• Exponential function could also be used models

S E  E fd   Ax e
Bx E fd

38
 Exponential Saturation

S E  E fd   0.1e
0.5 E fd
KE  1

In Steady state VR  1  .1e
.5 E fd  E
  fd

39
Exponential Saturation Example

Given: K E  .05
 
S E  E fd   0.27
 max 
 
S E  .75 E fd   0.074
 max 
VR  1.0 E fd max  4.6
max

Find: Ax , Bx and E fd max Ax  .0015

Bx E fd
S E  Ax e Bx  1.14

40
 Voltage Regulator Model

Amplifier T dVR  V  K V Modeled

A R A in
dt as a first
VRmin  VR  VRmax order
differential
VR equation
In steady state Vref  Vt  Vin 
KA

As KA is increased K A  Vt  Vref

There is often a droop in regulation

41
 Feedback
• This control system can often exhibit instabilities,
so some type of feedback is used
• One approach is a stabilizing transformer

Designed with a large Lt2 so It2  0

N2 dIt1
VF  Ltm
N1 dt
42
 Feedback
dIt1
E fd  Rt1It1   Lt1  Ltm 
dt

dVF Rt1  N 2 Ltm dE fd 

   VF  
dt  Lt1  Ltm   N1 Rt1 dt 

 
1 KF
TF

43
 IEEET1 Model Evolution
• The original IEEET1, from 1968, evolved into the
EXDC1 in 1981

1968 1981

Note, KE in the feedback is the same in both models

Image Source: Fig 3 of "Excitation System Models for Power Stability Studies,"
IEEE Trans. Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-100, pp. 494-509, February 1981 44
 IEEEX1
• This is from 1979, and is the EXDC1 with the
potential for a measurement delay and inputs for
under or over excitation limiters

45
 IEEET1 Evolution
• In 1992 IEEE Std 421.5-1992 slightly modified the
EXDC1, calling it the DC1A (modeled as
ESDC1A)
VUEL is a
signal
from an
under-
excitation
limiter,
which
we'll
Same model is in 421.5-2005 cover
Image Source: Fig 3 of IEEE Std 421.5-1992 later 46
 IEEET1 Evolution
• Slightly modified in Std 421.5-2016

Note the minimum

limit on EFD

There is also the

addition to the
input of voltages
from a stator
current limiters
(VSCL) or over
excitation limiters
(VOEL)
47
 IEEET1 Example
• Assume previous GENROU case with saturation.
Then add a IEEE T1 exciter with Ka=50, Ta=0.04,
Ke=-0.06, Te=0.6, Vrmax=1.0, Vrmin= -1.0 For
saturation assume Se(2.8) = 0.04, Se(3.73)=0.33
• Saturation function is 0.1621(Efd-2.303)2 (for Efd
> 2.303); otherwise zero
• Efd is initially 3.22
• Se(3.22)*Efd=0.437
• (Vr-Se*Efd)/Ke=Efd
• Vr =0.244 Case B4_GENROU_Sat_IEEET1
• Vref = 0.244/Ka +VT =0.0488 +1.0946=1.09948
48
 IEEE T1 Example
• For 0.1 second fault (from before), plot of Efd and
the terminal voltage is given below
• Initial V4=1.0946, final V4=1.0973
– Steady-state error depends on the value of Ka
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu) Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

1.1
3.5

3.45 1.05

3.4
1
3.35
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu)

0.95
3.3

Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

3.25 0.9

3.2
0.85
3.15

3.1 0.8

3.05 0.75
3
0.7
2.95

2.9 0.65

2.85
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Time Time

Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu) Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

49
 IEEET1 Example
• Same case, except with Ka=500 to decrease steady-
state error, no Vr limits; this case is actually unstable
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu)
Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU
12
11
10 1.15
9
8 1.1
7
6 1.05
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu)

5
4 1

Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

3
2 0.95
1
0 0.9
-1
-2 0.85
-3
-4 0.8
-5
-6 0.75
-7
-8 0.7
-9
0.65
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Time 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Time
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu)
Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

50
 IEEET1 Example
• With Ka=500 and rate feedback, Kf=0.05, Tf=0.5
• Initial V4=1.0946, final V4=1.0957
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu) Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU
8

1.1
7.5

7 1.05

6.5 1
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu)

Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

6 0.95

5.5 0.9

5 0.85

4.5 0.8

4 0.75

3.5 0.7

3 0.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Time Time
Gen Bus 4 #1 Field Voltage (pu) Gen Bus 4 #1 Term. PU

51
 WECC Case Type 1 Exciters
• In a recent WECC case with 3519 exciters, 20 are
modeled with the IEEE T1, 156 with the EXDC1 20
with the ESDC1A (and none with IEEEX1)
• Graph shows KE value for the EXDC1 exciters in case;
about 1/3 are separately 1.4

1.3
Ke

excited, and the rest self

1.2

1.1

excited
0.9

0.8

0.7

Ke
0.6

A value of KE equal zero

0.5

– 0.4

0.3

indicates code should

0.2

0.1

set KE so Vr initializes
-0.1

50 100 150
Ke

to zero; this is used to mimic

the operator action of trimming this value
52
 DC2 Exciters
• Other dc exciters exist, such as the EXDC2, which
is quite similar to the EXDC1

Vr limits are
multiplied by
the terminal
voltage

Image Source: Fig 4 of "Excitation System Models for Power Stability Studies,"
IEEE Trans. Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-100, pp. 494-509, February 1981
53
 ESDC4B
• A newer dc model introduced in 421.5-2005 in which a
PID controller is added; might represent a retrofit

Image Source: Fig 5-4 of IEEE Std 421.5-2005

54
 Desired Performance
• A discussion of the desired performance of exciters is
contained in IEEE Std. 421.2-2014 (update from 1990)
• Concerned with
– large signal performance: large, often discrete change in the
voltage such as due to a fault; nonlinearities are significant
• Limits can play a significant role
– small signal performance: small disturbances in which close to
linear behavior can be assumed
• Increasingly exciters have inputs from power system
stabilizers, so performance with these signals is
important

55
 Transient Response
• Figure shows typical transient response performance to
a step change in input

Image Source: IEEE Std 421.2-1990, Figure 3

56
 Small Signal Performance
• Small signal performance can be assessed by either
the time responses, frequency response, or
eigenvalue analysis
• Figure shows the
typical open loop
performance of
an exciter and
machine in
the frequency
domain

Image Source: IEEE Std 421.2-1990, Figure 4

57