Category: Iacdrive_blog

Home  ›  Iacdrive_blog  ›  Page 17

Cross regulation for multiple outputs

Cross regulation is a very important component of multiple outputs. This can be done in several ways: transformer coupling, mutually coupled output filter chokes (forward-mode) and/or shared output sensing voltages/currents. All, of which, are impossible to model. I have tried them all.

I have sort of written of the first two off, since it is under the control of external vendors, which make their own decisions as to their most cost effective solutions. At best, transformer solutions yield a +/- 5 percent regulation, and can be many times much worse. .Coupled inductors yield a much better cross regulation, but the turns ratio is critically important. If you are off by one turn, you loose a percentage of efficiency.

Shared current/voltage cross sensing is so much more common sense. First, choose the respective weighing of the percentage of sense currents from each outputs approximately in proportion to their respective output powers. Keep in mind that, without cross-sensing, the unsensed outputs can be as much +/- 12 % out of regulation. Decide your sense current through you lower sense resistor. Then multiply your percentages by this sense current from your positive outputs. Calculate each output’s resistance to provide that respective current. Try it, you will be amazed. The negative outputs will also improve immensely.

One can visualize this by, if one senses only one output, only the load of that output influences the feedback loop, which, for example, increases the pulsewidth for each increase in load of the heavily loaded output. The lighter, unsensed loads go crazy. By cross sensing, the lighter loads are more under control and the percent of regulation of the primary load is loosened somewhat.
By sharing the current through the lower sense resistor, you can improve the regulation of every output voltage in a multiple output power supply.

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.

Switching frequency selection

Switching frequency selection is actually a tradeoff, and follows the below guidelines:

  1. Lower frequency (Eg 30kHz) means bulkier magnetics and capacitors; Higher frequency (Eg 1Mhz)) means smaller parts, hence more compact PSU.
  2. Stay away from exact 150kHz as this is the low end of any EMI compliance; So, if your frequency happens to be exactly 150kHz, then your PSU will be a strong emitter; For many commercial low cost PSUs, 100 KHz has been used for many years, which is why many inductors and capacitors are specified at 100kHz.
  3. Higher frequency >/= 1MHz converters provide for better transient response. Obviously, the control IC should be capable of supporting. There are plenty of resonant converters available.
  4. Higher frequency results in higher switching losses; To control that, you will need faster switching FETs, Diodes, capacitors, magnetics and control ICs.
  5. Higher frequency MAY result in more broadband noise; its not always true, since noise can be controlled by good PCB layout and good magnetics designs.

Board power DC/DC converters are commonly built using 1MHz switchers.
Chassis power Telecom/Server PSUs seem to stay with 100-300KHz range.

Manufacturers are able to achieve exceptional density by virtue of High frequency resonant topologies, but they have to achieve high efficiencies too; Else, they will generate so much heat that they cannot meet UL/IEC safety requirements.
In some cases, they will leave the thermal problem to the user.  Usually, the first few paragraphs of any reference design discusses the tradeoffs.

Determine coefficient of grounding

Determination of required grounding impedance is based on determination of coefficient of grounding which represents ratio of maximum phase voltage at phases which aren’t exposed by fault and line voltage of power network:

kuz=(1/(sqrt(3)))*max{|e(-j*2*π/3)+(1-z)/(2+z)|; |e(+j*2*π/3)+(1-z)/(2+z)|}
z=Z0e/Zde

where are:

kuz-coefficient of grounding,
z-ratio of equivalent zero sequence impedance viewed from angle of place of fault and equivalent direct sequence impedance viewed from angle of place of fault,
Z0e-equivalent zero sequence impedance viewed from angle of place of fault,
Zde-equivalent direct sequence impedance viewed from angle of place of fault.

So, after this explanation, you can get next conclusions:
if kuz=1 then power network is ungrounded because Z0e→∞, which is a consequence of existing more (auto) transformers with ungrounded neutral point than (auto) transformers with grounded neutral point (when kuz=1 then there aren’t (auto) transformers with grounded neutral point),
if kuz≤0,8 then power network is grounded because Z0e=Zde, which is a consequence of of existing more (auto) transformers with grounded neutral point than (auto) transformers with ungrounded neutral point.

Fault current in grounded power networks is higher than fault current in ungrounded power networks. By other side, in case of ungrounded power networks we have overvoltages at phases which aren’t exposed by fault, so insulation of this conductors could be seriously damaged or in best case it could become older in shorter time than it is provided by design what is the main reason for grounding of power networks.
Coefficient of grounding is very important in aspect of selecting of insulation of lighting arresters and breaking power of breakers, because of two next reasons:
1. in grounded power networks insulation level is lower than insulation level in ungrounded power networks,
2. in grounded power networks value of short circuit current is higher than value of short circuit current in ungrounded power networks.