Iacdrive|Automation Solution

Motor starting time to reach full speed

It is not easily answered since there are many variables at play which will affect the starting time. For a large medium voltage motor, it is recommended that a motor starting analysis be performed so that proper control and protection of the motor can be set. The motor manufacturer is a good place to start to find a motor data sheet and torque curve responses; that should give you some good starting point data. Such an analysis can provide inrush current, voltage dip, and starting time.

The time that any motor to run up will depend on the actual load on the shaft. In broad terms the larger the load (related to the rated output) the longer it will take to run up. I would have expected 2 – 2.5MW motors to be manufactured to run on 10-11Kv and DoL. The startup times of these motors would typically be between 45 seconds (No Load) and 3 or 4 Minutes (dependent on the type and magnitude of the load).
I also tend to agree if the feed value is shut the motor will not initially see a significant load and should run up quite quickly.

I would start with Te time constant of the motor as the starting time in the worst case. If you intend let your motor live for long, you should design its protection to avoid starting times longer than Te and nor even close to it. As for specific application, it’s always try and error, but the guiding line should be: start at minimum load and increase it gently (some motor protection relays guard load increase rate).

Popularization of SPICE

I am currently writing a bullet point history of the popularization of SPICE in the engineering community. The emphasis is on the path SPICE has taken to arrive on the most engineering desktops. Because of this emphasis, my history begins with the original Berkeley SPICE variants, continues onto PSpice (its limited, but free student version made SPICE ubiquitous) and culminates with LTspice (because, at over three million downloads, it has reached many more users than all other SPICE variants combined).

I have contacted Dr. Laurence Nagel (the father of Berkeley SPICE) and Mike Engelhardt (LTspice) in order to verify the accuracy of the historical account (haven’t had a chance to fold in Dr. Nagel’s corrections yet), but I am lacking solid information about the beginnings of PSpice (I don’t even know who the technical founders of MicroSim were). Ian Wilson was an early technical V.P. Also, I am not sure what the PSpice acronym means. (Seems to me that it started out as uPspice?)

Here is what I have recently found about PSpice (more info appreciated):

User’s Guide to PSpice, Version 4.05, January 1991
From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.1 Overview, starting with paragraph 2 (page 3):

“PSpice is a member of the SPICE family of circuit simulators. The programs in this family come from the SPICE2 circuit simulation program developed at the University of California at Berkeley during the early 1970’s. The algorithms of PSICE2 were considerably more powerful and faster than their predecessors. The generality and speed of SPICE2 led to its becoming the de facto standard for analog circuit simulation. PSpice uses the same numeric algorithms as SPICE2 and also conforms to the SPICE2 format for input and output files. For more information on SPICE2, see the references listed in section 13.2.1.4 (page 427, especially the thesis by Laurence Nagel.

“PSpice, the first SPICE-based simulator available on the IBM-PC, started being delivered in January of 1984.

“Convergence and performance is what sets PSpice apart from all the other ‘alphabet’ SPICEs. Many SPICE programs became available on the IBM-PC around mid-1985, after Microsoft released their FORTRAN complier version 3.0. For the most part, these SPICEs are little modified from the U.C. Berkeley code. Using benchmark circuits, we find that PSpice runs anywhere from 1.3 to 30 times faster than our imitators. In the area of convergence, PSpice has a two-year lead in improving convergence and a customer base that is larger than all of the other SPICE vendors combined (including those SPICEs offered for workstations and mainframes). This larger customer base provides more feedback, sooner, than any other SPICE program is likely to receive.”

From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.4 Standard Features, last paragraph (page 7):

“PSpice, version 3.00 (Dec. 1986) and later, is a complete re-write of the simulator into the ‘C’ pro-gramming language. It is not a version of SPICE3, from U.C. Berkeley, which is also written in ‘C’. MicroSim has overhauled the data structures and code, however the analog simulation algorithms are similar and the numeric results are consistent with SPICE2 and SPICE3. Having the simulator re-written in ‘C’ allows faster development, allowing our team to reliably modify and extend the simulator in sev-eral directions at once.”

From the January 1987 Newsletter: PSpice went from version 2.06 (Fortran) to version 3.00 (C). Speed increased by 20%. PSpice 3.01 (Dec 86) introduced the non-linear Jiles and Atherton core model.

From the April 1987 Newsletter: PSpice 3.03 (Apr 87) introduced ideal switches.

From the July 1991 Newsletter: PSpice announced Schematics at the June 1991 Design Automation Conference. (Became available when PSpice 5.0 shipped in July 91?)

Solving Differential Equations with Mic

High starting torque, synchronous motor, induction motor or DC motor?

It depends on so much more than the simple requirements listed of high starting torque and variable speed. What kind of application are you using it for? Is it on an automobile (where you have DC already), a factory, and do you have the budget and/or space for a variable frequency drive. A synchronous servo motor gives great dynamic control and great starting torque per volume, but its speed range is limited (unless you’re field weakening by the back EMF). Servo-motors are also the most expensive due to their position sensors and more intelligent drives.

With a proper soft drive you can go with an induction motor, but it depends. if power is small you can go to step motor also. But dc series motor’s starting torque is high as expressed others.
DC Series motors have high starting torque but induction motors have wide range of speed control. So, If DC motor is used, then DC drives you can use, although it will be expensive and DC motors are tough to maintain than ac motors due to commutation Problem.

DC series motor would provide both the high starting torque and adjustable speed BUT beware that DC motors have high maintenance cost and also require AC-DC conversion. You could use other available options e.g. double wound induction motors etc, depending upon your requirements.

But today, there is no application where you cannot apply AC motors, asynchronous or synchronous. If the motor and the associated power electronics are correctly rated, you can have any starting torque you want.

The typical application of DC series motors was in locomotives. This technology has been replaced by AC motors since 20 years. The latest generation of high speed trains use synchronous, permanent magnet motors.

Simulator history

Power electronics has always provided a special challenge for simulation. As Hamish mentioned above, one of the problems encountered is inductor cutsets, and capacitor loops that lead to numerical instability in the simulation matrices.

In the 80s, Spice ran so slowly that is was not an option unless you wanted to wait hours or days for results, and frequently it failed to converge anyway. It was never intended to handle the large swings of power circuits, and coupled with the numerical problems above, was just not a feasible approach.

Ideal-switch simulations were used with other software to get rid of many of the nonlinearities of devices that slowed simulation down, but Spice really hated ideal switches as it would try to converge on the infinite slope edges.

Three universities started writing specialized software for converter simulation to address this shortcomings of Spice. Virginia Tech had COSMIR, which I helped write with a grad student, Duke University had the program which later became Simplis, and the University of Lowell had their program, the name of which I don’t recall (anyone remember?).

All of these programs started before Windows came along, and they were fast and efficient. With windows, the programming overhead to maintain programs like these moved beyond the scope of what university research groups in power electronics could handle. Only the Duke program survived, with Ron Wong leading the effort at a private company. The achievements of Simplis are remarkable, but it is a massive effort to keep this program going for a relatively small marketplace (power supply companies are notoriously cheap, so the potential market does not get realized), and that keeps the price quite high. If you can afford it, you should have this program.

Spice now runs at a reasonable pace on the latest PCs, so it is back in the game. LT Spice is leading the charge because it is free, and the models are relatively rugged. Now that speed is less of a factor, you can put real switches in, and Spice can handle them in a reasonable amount of time. (Depending on your definition of “reasonable”.)

PSIM was another ideal switch model, and they eliminated the convergence headaches that plagued all the other programs by not having convergence at all. You just cut the step size down to get the accuracy you needed, and this worked fine for exploring power stages and waveforms, but was not good for fast transient feedback loops. As the digital controller people quickly realized, the resolution on the PWM output needed to avoid numerical oscillations is very fine, and PSIM couldn’t handle that without slowing down too much.

When I left Virginia Tech, I felt the bulk of the industry needed a fast simulation and design solution so engineers did not have to add to their burdens with worrying about convergence and other problems. This is a hardware-driven field, and we all have our hands full dealing with real life blowups that simulation just doesn’t begin to predict.

I have observed in teaching over the years that engineers in a hurry to get to the hardware have very little tolerance for waiting for simulation. If you are building a well-known topology, about 2 seconds is as long as they will wait before they become impatient.

This is the gap that POWER 4-5-6 plugs. The simulation is practically instantaneous, and the program has no convergence issues so you design and simulate rapidly before moving to a breadboard. It is intended for the working engineer who is under severe time pressure, but would like some simulation to verify design integrity.

Power electronics design

If you are interested in power electronics design at the board or system level, I would recommend LTspice (note the correct spelling) by far above all the others. In addition to being superb for IC design (Linear Tech uses LTspice to design all their own ICs), it also has been specifically designed to run board level, switched mode simulations.

Because of its robust, excellent performance and because it is available at zero cost, LTspice has become the de facto standard SPICE with by far more engineers using it than any other flavor of SPICE. LTspice allows 100 percent transportability and work sharing, i.e., anyone, even those who have not been previous users, can open your files and run your simulations (the free download is well under 10Mb, installs very quickly and is very system friendly – not cookies, messy registry alterations, scattering of installation folders, etc. – removal, if you so choose, is easy and complete).

Like most versions of SPICE today, LTspice has a fine user interface, but that feature should be low on your list. Schematic entry is NOT where you will be spending most your time when doing serious design work. Beyond a point, desktop eye-candy does nothing to help you understand your design and see its flaws and weaknesses (in fact, too many layers of hand holding can just get in the way of that).

Personally, I never breadboard a design anymore until it has proven itself in LTspice (unlike with a breadboard, a simulated circuit’s internals are ALL easily viewable – a great boon for understanding tricky operation). For me, first hardware is always a complete layout (and matches the simulation every time). Of course, the old axiom “garbage-in, garbage-out” very much applies, which means I often spend a lot of upfront time verifying (and modifying and/or making) models to match their components’ data sheets. In fact, I would recommend doing that as a very worthwhile exercise and as something that should impress a potential employer.

When developing a design in SPICE, you will want to spend your time debugging your design, not your simulation or your simulator, therefor it is worthwhile to learn what a simulator needs to run smoothly (with LTspice, all that means is that the input has to be realistic). It was years of working with simulators and a lot of sweat and aggravation before the keys to problem-free simulations gradually crept into my understanding.

1. If possible, make all nonlinear circuit elements be functionally continuous with continuous derivatives (this is not possible for some component behaviors), and

2. *always* craft your simulations so that the nonlinear bits become linear at high frequencies (this is always possible). Non linear devices should never be strict voltage sources. They should be Nortonized and be shunted with small capacitances such that the capacitances (which are linear elements) dominate at small time steps.

3. Always verify that the building blocks of your simulation behave realistically (GIGO).

Follow these guidelines and you will never see the “time step too small” message (I have never met a simulation that couldn’t be made to run well). Note that many (if not most) vendor supplied models fail to meet these guidelines and will give you nothing but headaches if you try to use them “as is.”

Calculate current setting of overcurrent relay

You can calculate current setting of overcurrent relay by using next expression:

Isetting ≥ (ks*Imaxopam)/(a*pi)
Imaxopam=kam*Imaxoptr

where are:

Isetting-current setting of overcurrent relay
ks-safety coefficient
Imaxopam-maximum operational current under which overcurrent relay shouldn’t to act
a-coefficient of layoffs overcurrent relay (0,85-0,95)
pi-ratio of current transformer
kam-coefficient which describes influence of common starting of all asynchronous electrical motors in the appropriate power network after elimination of fault (1-6)
Imaxoptr-maximum operational current of power transformer

Besides I have already explained meanings of all appropriate sizes, I would like to underline differentiate between Imaxopam and Imaxoptr.
Imaxoptr is maximum operational current of power transformer in normal conditions while Imaxopam is maximum operational current of power transformer after interruption of fault and mentioned current includes influence of common starting of all asynchronous electrical motors in the appropriate power network after elimination of fault. It is very important to say that appearing of fault in power network leads to significant decreasing of voltage what has a consequence deceleration of all asynchronous electrical motors in appropriate power network. After interruption of fault, it comes to appearing of process during which all asynchronous electrical motors are starting in some parts of power network which are still turned on. This is situation which is significant different from situation where asynchronous electrical motors are starting one by one while in this case all asynchronous electrical motors are starting at the same time. Because of this fact, after elimination of fault, value of current isn’t same as value of current before appearing of fault. After elimination of fault, value of current, which I called Imaxopam, is higher than value of operational current of power transformer, which I called Imaxoptr, but under those conditions there is no fault, so current setting of overcurrent relay should to be set on that value of current and mentioned relay shouldn’t act under those conditions.

After calculation of current setting of overcurrent relay, you need to check coefficient of sensitivity of acting of overcurrent relay by using next expression:

ksens=Ifmin/(Isetting*pi)

where are:

ksens-coefficient of sensitivity of acting of overcurrent relay
Ifmin-minimum fault current (1 phase fault to the earth or 2 phases fault)
Isetting-current setting of overcurrent relay
pi-ratio of current transformer

Value of coefficient of sensitivity of acting of overcurrent relay should to be higher or equal with 1,5 in case when is fault at opposite busbars (busbars where isn’t overcurrent relay) or higher or equal with 1,2 in case when is fault at the end of the longest feeder which begins at those opposite busbars. Time setting should to be selected like that overcurrent relay needs to wait acting of another protection which is on the feeders (for example distance protection).

Insulating resistance measurement

Please remember that Insulating resistance (IR) measurement and associated polarization index tests is just one of the many tools used for insulation system integrity analysis. Its value and repeatability is dependent on the environmental condition at the time it is taken; as mentioned temperature, humidity contaminations all contribute/effect the reading.

The baseline figure should be obtained from either factory or during initial commissioning (as per factory condition). So performing commissioning in the rain, dirty surface, high humidity may result in low values for both dry type and oil filled equipment. Low reading in itself does not indicate bad insulation where the machine cannot be returned to service.

The bottom line is assessment lacking or other data would be:
1. The machine was running at it was running ok before the test.
2. The leakage value at operating voltage will be V/R; therefore the heat loss will be I^2R. Is that OK or warrant some corrective measure.
3. PI may approach 1, is that OK or not? Is this mtruly and indication of wet insulation or of resistive value but will still be OK when energized as per 3. above?

IR, PI measurement along with Cap bridge / dissipation tests, PF test and others are performed to ensure the insulation integrity for maintenance and commissioning.

If cable and equipment have gone through routine maintenance, it is good practice to perform these tests and making sure no ground are left before energizing.

Please read a “a stich in time” by Megger.

It by itself is just a test. The test is meaningful.

Excitation system in generator

The excitation system requires a very small fraction of the total power being generated. If we could simply increase the excitation (a very small amount of power) and increase the generator’s real power output, the world’s energy problems would be solved, because we would have a perpetual motion machine.

In the case of a generator connected to a large grid, the generator will inject any desired amount of power into the grid if its prime-mover is fed the desired power (plus a small additional amount of power to take care of losses). This is true, regardless of the total load on the grid, because the generator’s output is an extremely small fraction of the total grid power, and it alone cannot make drastic changes to the grid’s frequency.

Normally, the load varies by a very small fraction of the total grid power. If the load increases, the frequency of the entire grid (including the generator in question) lowers a very small amount, generally less than one-hundredth of one Hz. The frequency slew (that is, the rate-of-change of frequency) is very low, because there is a massive amount of energy that is stored as the kinetic energy of the rotors of all of the generators. At this point, nothing needs to be done; the system simply runs a little faster or slower.

Over time, as the load changes a greater amount, the frequency moves further from the nominal frequency (50 Hz or 60 Hz). When the difference between the actual frequency and the nominal frequency becomes greater than about 0.01 Hz, action is taken to make changes to the output of the grid’s generators.

The specific action may be determined by the regulating authority (for instance a power pool in the US) and it is usually based on economics, subject to other constraints. If the load has increased (and the frequency is less than the nominal frequency), the generators that have the lowest incremental cost of power will be asked to increase their output, or if all generators are near their limits, new generators (with the lowest incremental cost) are asked come on line. It’s important to note that a generator’s limit is usually 80% or 90% of its rating. The 10% or 20% of unused capacity is the system’s “spinning reserve”, which is used to maintain grid stability for sudden, large power variations.

The same thing happens with a generator connected only to its load or a weak grid with just a few other generators. However, because there is relatively little kinetic energy stored in the rotors of the one or few generators, the change in frequency associated with a load change is much greater, so frequency variations are much greater and corrective actions may not be implemented before the frequency varies by more than a few Hz.

Hysteretic controller

We can see that the hysteretic controller is a special case of other control techniques. For example, “sliding mode control” usually uses two state variables to determine one switching variable (switch ON or OFF). So the hysteretic controller is a special case of “1-dimensional” sliding mode. In general, there are many techniques under the name of “geometric control” that can be used to prove the stability of a general N-state system under a given switching rule. So I believe that you can apply some of these techniques to prove the stability of the hysteretic controller, although I have not tried to do this myself. The book “elements of power electronics” by Krein discusses that in chapter 17.

But I can talk more about one technique that I have used and in my opinion is the most general and elegant technique for non-linear systems. It is based on Lyapunov stability theory. You can use this technique to determine a switching rule to a general circuit with an arbitrary number of switches and state variables. It can be applied to the simple case of the hysteretic controller (i.e. 1 state variable, 1 switching variable) to verify if the system is stable and what are the conditions for stability. I have done this and verified that it is possible to prove the stability of hysteretic controllers, imposing very weak constraints (and, of course, no linearization needed). In a nutshell, to prove the system stable, you have to find a Lyapunov function for it.

What can expand is to go beyond a simple window comparator for hysteretic control.

#1) control bands, or switching limits can be variable and also part of a loop, especially if one wants to guarantee a nearly fixed frequency.

#2) using a latch or double latch after the comparator(s), one can define (remember) the state and define operations such as incorporating fixed Ton or Toff periods for additional time control… this permits the “voltage boost” scenario you previously said could not be done. This also prevents common “chaos” operation and noise susceptibility that others experience with simpler circuits.

#3) additional logic can assure multiphase topologies locked to a system clock and compete very well with typical POL buck regulators for high-end processors that require high di/dt response.

Time or state domain control systems such as this, can have great advantages over typical topologies. There really is no faster control method that provides a quicker load response without complete predictive processing, yet that can also be applied to hysteretic control.

What causes VFD driven motor bearing current?

There are several things involved, all with varying degrees of impact.

Large machines are – generally speaking – made of pieces (segments) because the circle for the stator and/or rotor core is too large to manufacture from a single sheet. This leads to some breaks in the magnetic flux path symmetry, both in the radial (right angles to the shaft) and axial (parallel to the shaft) directions.

For the most part, the windings of large machines are formed and installed by hand. This too can lead to symmetry issues, as the current paths are not identical which in turn will create some differences in the magnetic field flux.

Output waveforms from power electronics are only approximations of true sinusoids. The presence of additional harmonics distorts the sinusoidal nature and results in changes that are not symmetric in the magnetic field strength … which in turn means a non-symmetric flux distribution.

Two other items contribute to potentially damaging bearing currents as well. One of these is the Common Mode Voltage which is present (to some degree) in all drives. Essentially this is a signal that is present at both the drive input and output … I tend to think of it as an offset. It’s not something that traditional grounding addresses, and can create an elevated potential in the shaft which then discharges through the bearing path.

A second item is not related to the presence (or absence) of drives at all; it is related to the mechanical arrangement of the process drive train. For example, a shaft that has a sliding seal (like the felt curtain on a dryer section), or one that turns a blade against a gas or liquid (like a compressor) can generate a static charge at the point of contact. If there is no means of isolating this charge to the portion of the shaft where the sliding is occurring, it can pass through to the motor shaft and thence through the motor bearings.

Lastly – the frequency of the variable frequency drive harmonics in the output waveform is significantly higher than line frequency. This requires specific accommodations for grounding as traditional methods are insufficient due to the attenuation caused by the relatively high resistance ground path.