IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO.

5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 3579

Loss-of-Excitation Protection and Underexcitation

Controls Correlation for Synchronous Generators
in a Real-Time Digital Simulator
Aurlio L. M. Coelho, Carlos E. B. Carrer, Carlos A. V. Guerrero, and Paulo M. Silveira

AbstractThis paper presents the results of a study that ana- partial or the total loss-of-excitation (LOE) state. Because of
lyzes the relationship between the excitation system of a synchro- this abnormal operation condition, as well as the resultant
nous machine and the settings of the loss-of-excitation (LOE) relay damage of the machine caused by overheating on the stator
applied to protect this machine. A complete generation system
taking into account all the physical components was modeled in windings, the power system could become unstable and even
a real-time digital simulator, including a new excitation system reach a voltage collapse [1], [2].
model (ST7B). By considering a method to protect the generator The LOE occurs when the magnetic field produced by the
against partial and total LOE, the settings of the LOE protec- rotor windings undergoes sudden reduction. This change occurs
tion were made taking into account the technical data of the when there is a reduction of the dc current in the rotor windings,
synchronous machine. A hardware-in-the-loop simulation using a
numeric relay was implemented in a laboratory. Thus, several tests
usually caused by the following:
were performed in order to evaluate the coordination between the breaker shutdown of the field;
protective relay and the limits of the modeled excitation system a short circuit or a fault in the control system excitation;
during underexcited operation.
poor contact in the exciter brushes;
Index TermsHardware in the loop (HIL), loss of excitation failure to supply the excitation system [3][6].
(LOE), protection, real-time digital simulator (RTDS), steady-
state stability limit (SSSL), synchronous generator, underexcita- Underexcitation of the generator results in an increase of
tion limiter (UEL). currents that circulate through the stator winding and a voltage
drop across its terminals, reducing the impedance seen at the
N OMENCLATURE machine terminals during abnormal conditions. When a syn-
CTR Current transformer ratio. chronous generator loses excitation, the machine absorbs reac-
Ef Field voltage. tive power and generates active power, placing the impedance
RX Resistancereactance (diagram). in the fourth quadrant of the RX diagram [7].
PQ Activereactive power (diagram). When the synchronous generator operates at low excitation
PTR Potential transformer ratio. levels, a control action is taken by the underexcitation limiter
Xd Direct-axis synchronous reactance. (UEL), which is part of the machine excitation system. This
Xd Direct-axis transient reactance. limiter controls the excitation level by pushing the automatic
Xs Equivalent reactance. voltage regulator (AVR); as a result, the generator returns to
Xt Transformer reactance. operate within safe values. Fig. 1 shows an example of the gen-
Xsys System reactance. erator capability curve for a typical cylindrical rotor machine
Zref Reference impedance. [8]. This curve shows the operating limits within which the
machine can operate safely. The generator capability curve also
shows how the AVR controls the steady-state operation limits.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Beyond the control action provided by generator excitation

A MONG all the abnormal operation conditions that occur

for a generator, special attention should be given to the
limiters, the system must be equipped with protective relays
(ANSI 40) to ensure that the system will operate correctly in
case of an LOE condition, preventing machine damage and
Manuscript received July 5, 2014; revised January 23, 2015; accepted
adverse effects on the system. These relays should not operate
March 21, 2015. Date of publication April 21, 2015; date of current ver- for stable power swings (SPSs).
sion September 16, 2015. Paper 2014-PSPC-0485.R1, presented at the 2014 A recurring problem for the protection system is that several
IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
October 59, and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
improper shutdowns can occur if there is no careful coordination
I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Power Systems Protection Committee of the between LOE protection and the UEL, as well as the steady-
IEEE Industry Applications Society. This work was supported in part by the state stability limit (SSSL), which avoid the generator lose
Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior and in part by synchronism [2], [8]. For some power system disturbances,
the Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa de Minas Gerais.
The authors are with Itajuba Federal University, 1303 Itajuba, underexcited generator operation can cause a conflict between
Brazil (e-mail: aurelio.coelho@unifei.edu.br; carlos.carrer7@gmail.com; UEL (which controls the voltage regulator to prevent exceeding
carlosvillegasguerrero@unifei.edu.br; pmsilveira@unifei.edu.br). permanent stability limit) and LOE protection. Depending on
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. the resultant underexcitation level, machine shutdown could
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2015.2424884 occur.
0093-9994 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
3580 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
Fig. 1. Typical generator capability curve and operating limits [8].
The typical adjustment of ANSI 40 protection found in
the literature and relays instruction manuals [9][16] suggests
applying protection against total LOE, warning that the adjust-
ment for partial LOE can generate improper shutdown. How-
ever, these documents do not emphasize that typical settings
leave the generator vulnerable to severe damage caused by
the partial LOE. Moreover, partial LOE affects power system
stability. For proper operation of this relay, the coordination
between the protection settings and the generator limits [2], [8],
[17] is necessary. Proper coordination avoids conflicts and lack
of coordination during disturbances.
In this sense, this paper provides insight about setting the
LOE protection (ANSI 40) and the generator limits (UEL and
SSSL), to act in a coordinated and secure way. A method to pro-
tect the generator against partial and total LOE using two offset
mho characteristics, with positive offset in the second zone, and
combined with directional element has been presented. To co-
ordinate the generator limits with the LOE protection, the data
from the generator PQ capability curve are converted to the
RX plane. The excitation system controls and the protective
relay are coordinated with regard to booth pick-up magnitudes
and time delays.
This study is performed in a real-time digital simulator (RTDS)
[18] that uses a model of the synchronous generator and respec-
tive controls for protection analysis [19][21]. The generators
are parameterized with actual data from a Brazilian hydroelec-
tric power plant (HPP). The excitation systems of these machines
are modeled using the basic control components available in
the RTDS library to perform this coordination study.
A hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation using a numeric
protection relay was implemented in a laboratory. Thus, several
tests were performed in order to evaluate the coordination
between the protective relay and the limits of the implemented
excitation system.
II. LOE P ROTECTION C ONCEPTS
The most widely applied method to detect a generator LOE
condition is the use of distance relays to sense the variation of
Fig. 2. Positive-offset mho characteristic: two zones, directional element and
generator limiters.
impedance as viewed from the generator terminals [8]. There
are several LOE protection schemes that use mho distance
characteristic (ANSI 40Z). The most common methods are
the negative-offset mho elements, initially proposed by Mason
[10], and with modifications by Berdy [11], and the positive-
offset mho elements. There are other methods used for this type
of protection, which can be found in [2], [6], [7], and [12][16].
The ANSI 40Z function can provide protection only against
total LOE, and it leaves the generator vulnerable to a partial
LOE. The term partial LOE refers to the situation where the
field current is reduced below the value that keeps synchronous
generator operation within its stability limit. For partial LOE,
the field current is not null, i.e., there is dc current passing in
the rotor windings.
Some literature [14], [15] recommends applying two negative-
offset mho impedance circles, stating that this method is more
reliable. However, even two negative-offset mho elements do
not protect against partial LOE. According to these authors, the
positive-offset mho element can cause an improper operation
of the power system during transients. However, the relays can
also provide protection against partial LOE. Two offset mho
elements are needed, with a positive-offset mho element in the
second zone [6], [12], [13]. Adopting the necessary precautions,
such as timing and coordination of the second zone with the
generator limits (UEL and SSSL), this adjustment prevents
undue operations and protects the generator against partial and
total LOE [2], [8], [12], [13].
A. Positive-Offset MHO Elements
This method uses a combination of two mho zones character-
istics and a directional element applied to the generator terminal
to detect the LOE, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The first zone of this mho characteristic has a negative offset
equal to half the machine transient reactance (Xd /2) and a
diameter equal to 110% of the machine reactance minus its
offset (1.1 Xd (Xd /2)). Usually, this zone is instantaneous
and protects the generator against total LOE. The second zone
is coordinated with the AVR limiters (SSSL and UEL) to avoid
a reactive power flow in the protection operational region [8].
This Zone 2 has a diameter equal to (1.1 Xd + Xs ) and an
COELHO et al.: LOE PROTECTION AND UNDEREXCITATION CONTROLS CORRELATION FOR GENERATORS 3581

offset equal to Xs , where Xs is the sum of the transformer

reactance Xt and the system reactance Xsys . Consider adding
a delay, typically between 0.25 and 1.0 s [16].
Additionally, a directional element blocks this protection
during normal operating conditions and power transient swings.
Typically, this element is adjusted to operate at less than 87% of
the nominal voltage in multimachine systems. The directional
element is typically set at an angle between 10 and 20 . The
angle is adjusted equal to the arccosine of the minimum rated
power factor of the machine [16].

B. Coordination Between UEL and SSSL Limits With

LOE Protection
Fig. 3. RX diagram plot for SSSL limit.
Excitation systems rarely operate at the extremes of their
capabilities until the system voltage attempts to rise or fall
outside its normal operating range. During voltage transients,
excitation controls allow short-term operation of the excitation System dynamic characteristics can be stated, as well as the
system and generator beyond the SSSL limit [8]. currents and voltages applied to a real-time protection system in
The synchronous machine operation analysis within the un- many different operation conditions. This way, it is possible to
derexcitation region is done in the capability curve of the define system performances, as well as to detect failures while
generator, built in PQ diagram, such as that illustrated in monitoring the real-time response [22].
Fig. 1. However, in cases where the machine operation analysis This synchronous machine protection study employs spe-
in this region requires a study of LOE protection, it is necessary cific generator model from the RTDS software library [Real
to represent the machine operation limits and the relay mho Time Simulation Computer Aided Design Software (RSCAD)]
characteristic in the same plane, either in the PQ or the RX [19][21]. This component allows access to each one of the
planes. For this, it is necessary to establish the equations to generator terminals (A, B, and C), making it possible to apply
coordinate the points represented in both planes, as respectively faults at the internal windings, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Further-
shown in the following [2]: more, with this model, the user manipulates the machine field
circuit to control variables such as the machine excitation and
PV2 QV2 field voltage Ef , to analyze the LOE protection (ANSI 40).
R= X= (1)
P2 + Q2 P2 + Q2 Part of this system is depicted in Fig. 4 (see the data system
in the Appendix). Note that the synchronous generator is asso-
RV2 XV2
P= Q= (2) ciated with a transformer. In addition, this system has generator
R + X2
2
R + X2
2
controls: the speed regulator (governor) and the power system
where R, X, P, Q, and V are the resistance, the reactance, stabilizer (PSS). Models available in the RSCAD library were
the active power, the reactive power, and the terminal voltage, used to represent these components. Several excitation systems
respectively. are also available in this library. However, the ST7B static
Fig. 2 shows an example of the RX plane and protection excitation model [24] used in this study is not available.
settings coordinated with the values of the PQ curve reflected The IEEE 421.5 ST7B [24] model was chosen because it
into this plane. is a full control system, containing many loops, such as the
The setting of the UEL should be coordinated with the UEL loop, that allows doing coordination studies between the
SSSL limit of the generator, which is a function of the genera- underexcitation limits and the LOE protection. For this reason,
tors voltage and the generators impedances (Xd ), the step-up it was necessary to model this excitation system using basic
transformer impedance (Xt ), and the system impedance (Xsys ) control components (transfer functions, gain, comparators, lim-
typically calculated with the strongest source out of service [8]. iters, etc.) available in the RSCAD library.
To represent the SSSL limit in the RX plane, the following is
used, as shown in Fig. 3:
A. ST7B Static Excitation System
Xd Xs Xd + Xs
Center = Radius = . (3) The IEEE 421.5 ST7B [24] is representative of static poten-
2 2
tial source excitation systems. In this system, the AVR consists
of a proportionalintegral voltage regulator. A phase leadlag
III. M ODELING IN RTDS
filter in series allows introduction of a derivative function, typi-
The RTDS is a tool to analyze electromagnetic transient cally used with brushless excitation systems. The AVR includes
disturbances. It consists of a digital simulator system to analyze the appropriate inputs on its reference for the overexcitation
power systems, which operates continually in real time and limiter (OEL), the UEL, and the stator current limiter (SCL).
allows conducting closed-loop tests with protection and control All these elements, when they work at voltage reference level,
equipment [21][23]. keep the PSS in operation [24].
3582 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
Fig. 4. Power system implemented on RSCAD for protection studies.
Fig. 5. UEL loop of the ST7B excitation system implemented on RSCAD [1].
The UEL maintains the excitation values within limits that
provide system stability and avoid field deterioration and the ab-
sorption of reactive power that exceeds the overheating limits of
the stator armature [8]. Operation of the UEL loop should avoid
activating LOE protection during acceptable underexcitation
conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to establish coordination
between the control limits and the LOE protection settings [8].
Because the goal of this study is to analyze the UEL limits of
the excitation system and coordinate these limits with the LOE
protection, this paper does not focus upon the task of modeling
the ST7B excitation system (the overall modeling can be found
in [1]). The UEL control loop of the ST7B implemented on
RSCAD is illustrated in Fig. 5.
As illustrated in Fig. 5, the UEL loop defines the underexci-
tation limit (output node m5G1) that controls the reactive power
signal (input node QMAC), overcoming the minimum negative
reference (node QREF). This limit can be established through
two PQ characteristic models defined in [24]:
circular characteristic (Type UEL1);
characteristic composed by multiple line segments
(Type UEL2).
In this paper, the reactive power limit is implemented by
means of a PQ characteristic composed of many adjustable
line segments (Type UEL2), arranged according to the geome-
try of the generator capability curve.
COELHO et al.: LOE PROTECTION AND UNDEREXCITATION CONTROLS CORRELATION FOR GENERATORS
Fig. 6. Reference limiter loop of the ST7B excitation system implemented on RSCAD [1].
In the UEL model in Fig. 5, the active power (input node P) is
normalized applying the appropriate effect of terminal voltage
(input node m1G1). The active power normalized value is an
input of the PQ limitation characteristic (Y=F(X) block).
This block determines the reactive power normalized given
by the UEL limit characteristic (Type UEL 2). The output
of this block is multiplied by the square of terminal voltage
(input node m1G1) to calculate the UEL limit reference
(node QREF). This value is compared with the machine reactive
power (input node Q) for determining the underexcitation limit
(output node m5G1).
Under normal conditions when the UEL is not limiting, the
UEL error signal is negative, since the reactive power (input
node Q) will be greater than the limit value (node QREF). When
conditions are such that the UEL limit is exceeded, the UEL
error signal becomes positive. This will drive the UEL output
in the positive direction, and if the gain is sufficient, the UEL
output will take over control of the voltage regulator to boost
excitation to move the operating point back toward the UEL
limit [24].
The output signal of the UEL loop (m5G1) is an input signal
in the AVR reference limiter, as illustrated in Fig. 6.
This control loop has the main purpose of limiting the
reference voltage. As depicted in Fig. 6, the AVR reference
loop has several limiters and error signals that change the ref-
erence voltage. These limiter signals are the OEL and the UEL
(input nodes m4AG1 and m5G1, respectively). maxca1 and
min_u are also considered as the boundary values (0.95 and
1.05, respectively). On the other hand, the correction signals are
the input node m2G1 (from the SCL) and the signal VS (from
the PSSPSS2A model). The PSS component of the RSCAD
library contains within itself its respective loop or mathematical
model, and therefore, it was not necessary to model a PSS for
this study.
B. Power System Studied
To perform this study, part of a real power system is im-
plemented on RSCAD. This system is the generating units of
the HPP of So Simo (HPP SS), operated by the National
Interconnected System of Brazil (SIN). The HPP SS location
within SIN was defined as the portion of this system for this
3583
study. The portion of the system was determined based on the
capacity of the RTDS hardware used in this research.
Fig. 7 shows a single-line diagram of the power system
implemented on RSCAD. This plant operates with six syn-
chronous machines of 16.5 kV, each one generating 283 MVA.
These machines and their associated controls were imple-
mented according to the diagram shown in Fig. 4. The generator
voltage is increased to 500-kV level by the transformer con-
nected at the machine terminals. At this voltage, the generated
power is transmitted to the So Simo substation (SE SS), and
from this point, it is carried to SIN.
The model represents the following:
the six generating units of HPP SS with respective
transformers;
the transmission lines (TLs) that carry the generated
power to SE SS;
the transmission from this point to SIN by principal and
adjacent TLs.
Principal TLs are those directly connected to SE SS (SE
Itaguau, SE Itumbiara, SE Jaguara, S Maribondo, and SE
gua Vermelha), and adjacent TLs are those connected be-
tween other substations (SE Jaguara to SE Maribondo and SE
gua Vermelha to SE Maribondo). In addition, represented
are the reactors used for reactive compensation in some TLs
of this system (just a simple model of shunt inductance was
used). Finally, to represent the So Simo system ahead of the
principal bus, the components behind each of these buses are
modeled by equivalent sources (named ES1, ES2, ES3, ES4,
and ES5). The equivalent source obtained from the components
behind SE Itumbiara (ES2) is considered as the reference bus
because of the large power flow contribution.
C. Test Method
The LOE protection evaluation of the system studied is
performed from HIL tests with a physical numeric relay, as
shown in Fig. 8. The frequency of the current measurements
is 60 Hz, and the sampling interval is 100 s.
Secondary voltage and current signals, normally originated
from power system transducers cts and pts, are simulated in
RSCAD and are sent to digital-to-analog converters in the
3584 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

Fig. 7. Single-line diagram of the power system.

IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

This section presents simulation results and analysis. The
results of the LOE protection response of the generator are
organized in the following manner.
ANSI 40 protection settings for the relay under test and
the correlation with the generator limits.
Field voltage (Ef ) sags simulate underexcitation scenarios
and evaluate the LOE protection response.
Partial LOE shows when the protection settings are unco-
ordinated with UEL limits.

A. ANSI 40 Settings and Correlation With Generator Limits

Only Generator 1 was used to perform the LOE protection
study of HPP SS. The positive-offset mho characteristic is de-
scribed in Section III (see Fig. 2). Relay settings are according
to the generator data and the system under study, as follows.
Fig. 8. HIL scheme in the RTDS. Xd = 0.948 p.u. = 0.912 .
Xd = 0.25 p.u. = 0.240 .
RTDS. To extract these signals for the tested relay, the GTAO Xt = 0.0138 p.u. = 0.013 .
card (analog output card) is used. In this low-level signal card, Xsys = 0.5 p.u. = 0.481 .
the secondary signals are reproduced in proportional voltage Xs = Xsys + Xt = 0.5138 p.u. = 0.494 .
values of 10 V ac [24]. These signals are applied to an The impedances were converted to the same megavoltampere
amplifier (3250 V3 25 A), to send the correct magnitude base (generator base). The impedance reference value Zref was
of the simulated pt and ct signals to relay. The amplifier outputs used to convert the reactance to ohm value (see the Appendix).
(analog signals) are connected to the relay inputs. The relay The settings of the protection zones are as follows:
responds to the secondary signals coming from the simulated  
system. If some fault occurs, the relay sends a trip signal to x
Zone 1 Diameter = 1.1 Xd d K = 12.31 (4)
the simulated circuit breakers in the power system modeled on    2
RSCAD, interrupting the fault progression. Trip signals from xd
Zone 1 Offset = K = 1.67 (5)
the relay are interfaced to the RTDS via digital input ports. 2
In this research, the GTFPI card (front panel interface card) Zone 2 Diameter = (1.1 Xd + Xs ) K = 20.86 (6)
performs this function. Zone 2 Offset = Xs = (Xt + Xsys ) K = 6.88 (7)
COELHO et al.: LOE PROTECTION AND UNDEREXCITATION CONTROLS CORRELATION FOR GENERATORS 3585

TABLE I
C ONVERSION OF PQ P OINTS TO RX P ROTECTION P LAN

where K is the constant to represent the reactance in secondary

values: K = (CTR/PTR) = (2000/143.5) = 13.937.
In relation to timing, Zone 1 is set instantaneously, and Zone
2 is set with a delay of 1 s. The directional element is set with
an angle of 18.19, which is equal to the arccosine of the
minimum rated power factor (0.95) of the machine, i.e.,

DIR = arccosine(0.95) = 18.19. (8)

To coordinate the UEL limits with the LOE protection, the

data from the generator PQ capability curve are converted to
the RX diagram using (1). Six points of the PQ capability
curve represent this curve in the RX diagram. The results of
this conversion are shown in Table I. A terminal voltage of 1
per unit p.u. was considered in the conversion.
As shown in Section III, the setting of the UEL limit should
be coordinated with the SSSL limit. The graphical method
shown in Fig. 3 is widely used in the industry to display
the SSSL on RX diagrams [8]. Equation (3) was used to
calculate the points on the RX diagram to determine the
SSSL. The impedances that have been used in (3) are converted
considering the base values of the generator.
Fig. 9 shows the protection zones in the RX plane, defined
from the parameters developed in (4)(8) and simulated in the
RTDS with the same settings for the relay under test.
It is shown in Fig. 9 that the curve that represents the
generator limits (UEL and SSSL) plotted in the RX plane are
in accord with the impedances and data presented in Table I.
In normal operation condition, the generator provides the
active and reactive power to the system, which means that both
R and X are positive and the terminal impedance is located in
Fig. 9. Impedance trajectory when the system is operating in normal condi-
the first quadrant in the RX plane, as illustrated in Fig. 9. tions and converting the generator limits for the RX plane.
Fig. 10 illustrates the behavior of the active and reactive
power in steady-state condition, and Fig. 11 depicts the behav-
ior of the terminal voltage, field voltage, and field current in
this state.

B. Protection Analysis for Partial LOE

Here, underexcitation conditions were simulated, and the
partial LOE protection response was evaluated. The underex-
citation is generated by applying sags in the field voltage Ef
that feed the field circuit of machine, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
For these cases, some variables of the generator under analy-
sis are observed: the field current and voltage, the terminal
voltage, the active and reactive power, and the impedance Fig. 10. Active and reactive power when the system is operating in normal
trajectory for the response of the protective relay under test. conditions.
3586 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
Fig. 11. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current when the system is
operating in normal conditions.
Fig. 12. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current for underexcitation
caused by a sag of 85% in Ef during 4 s.
1) Application of 85% Sag in Ef : This scenario analyzed
the LOE protection when applying a permanent sag of 85%
in the field voltage Ef during 4 s, i.e., this voltage is multiplied
by a gain of 0.15 in the input of the generator field circuit, thus
simulating an underexcitation condition, as shown in Fig. 12.
Figs. 12 and 13 show that, when an underexcitation is ap-
plied, the machine absorbs reactive power but remains stable.
The excitation system helps the generator to maintain power
system voltage within acceptable limits by supplying reactive
power. The excitation system helps the generator to remain in
synchronism with the system.
Fig. 13. Active and reactive power for a sag of 85% in Ef during 4 s.
Fig. 14. Impedance trajectory for an underexcitation condition caused by a
sag of 85% in Ef during 4 s.
Fig. 14 shows the impedance trajectory in the RX plane.
Note that the impedance remains close to the UEL limit, which
characterizes the proper operation of the AVR, not entering
inside the protection zones limits.
2) Application of 88% Sag in Ef : This case evaluates the
LOE protection when applying a sag of 88% in the field voltage
during 4 s, i.e., this voltage is multiplied by a gain of 0.12 in the
input of the generator field circuit, simulating a more severe
underexcitation condition, as illustrated in Fig. 15.
It can be observed in Fig. 16 that the machine absorbs
more reactive power with respect to the previous case. Note in
Figs. 15 and 16 that, although a most severe underexcitation is
applied, the machine can be maintained in acceptable levels of
stability, because it is a temporary SPS.
The excitation system maintains the terminal voltage within
acceptable limits by supplying reactive power. The UEL pre-
vents reduction of field current to a level where the generator
loss-of-field protection may operate.
Fig. 17 shows the impedance trajectory in the RX plane.
Although the impedance penetrates the second zone, the delay
(timing of 1 s) of Zone 2 prevents relay operation for this case.
Next, the response of LOE protection is analyzed when
applying a sag of 88% in the field voltage, but with duration
of 5 s, as depicted in Fig. 18. Note that, in the impedance
trajectory in the RX plane, which is illustrated in Fig. 20,
COELHO et al.: LOE PROTECTION AND UNDEREXCITATION CONTROLS CORRELATION FOR GENERATORS
Fig. 15. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current for underexcitation
caused by a sag of 88% in Ef during 4 s.
Fig. 16. Active and reactive power for a sag of 88% in Ef during 4 s.
Fig. 17. Impedance trajectory for an underexcitation condition caused by a
sag of 88% in Ef during 4 s.
the impedance goes into Zone 2, causing relay operation. This
happens because the power swing reaches the SSSL limit and
remains in this zone for a period of time longer than the
3587
Fig. 18. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current for underexcitation
caused by a sag of 88% in Ef during 5 s.
Fig. 19. Active and reactive power for a sag of 88% in Ef during 5 s.
adjustment delay setting (1 s) for this zone. The generator
cannot be operated beyond the SSSL limit.
It can be observed in Fig. 18 that the field voltage and the
field current are reduced during the disturbance and increase
suddenly after the operation of the protection relay. This hap-
pens because, after the disturbance, the resulting oscillations of
the generator rotor speed with respect to the system frequency
provoke voltage fluctuation above and below the AVR set point.
The active and reactive power reached the zero value because
of the shutdown caused by relay operation, as observed in
Fig. 19. The impedance trajectory is shown in Fig. 20.
C. Protection Analysis for Total LOE
In this scenario, the generator protection is evaluated for a
total LOE, i.e., when the field voltage becomes null.
To evaluate the dynamic simulation in this scenario, the
variables analyzed in the previous cases are verified without
considering the relay operation.
When the excitation is lost, the generator starts to draws
reactive power from the system, and the reactance becomes
negative from the LOE relay point of view. As a result, the
impedance in the RX plane moves to the fourth quadrant.
3588 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
Fig. 20. Impedance trajectory for an underexcitation condition caused by a
sag of 88% in Ef during 5 s.
Fig. 21. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current for total LOE
(without considering the relay operation).
Fig. 22. Active and reactive power for a total LOE (without considering the
relay operation).
It can be observed in Figs. 21 and 22 that the machine loses
stability completely because there is no magnetic coupling of
the rotor to the stator. It is also noted in Fig. 22 that both the
Fig. 23. Impedance trajectory for a total LOE (without considering the relay
operation).
Fig. 24. Impedance trajectory for a total LOE (considering the relay
operation).
active and reactive power oscillate in an unacceptable manner
for system stability. In Fig. 21, the resulting oscillations of
the generator with respect to the system frequency cause the
terminal voltage to fluctuate above and below the generator
controls. Similar behaviors are noted in the field voltage and
the field current.
It is observed in Fig. 23 that the impedance trajectory invades
Zone 1 due to the machine synchronism loss. Considering the
protection operation, the relay operates instantly, isolating the
generator from the system, as depicted in Fig. 24.
D. Protection Analysis When the ANSI 40 Settings Are
Uncoordinated With UEL Limits
In this scenario, the LOE protection is the same as the case
in Section IV-B1, i.e., applying a permanent sag of 85% in the
field voltage. However, the second zone offset was increased
in six units, and it was uncoordinated with the UEL limit, as
observed in Fig. 27. For this case, the impedance trajectory
invades Zone 2, causing relay misoperation.
The field current, field voltage, terminal voltage, active
power, and reactive power shown in Section IV-B1 presented
COELHO et al.: LOE PROTECTION AND UNDEREXCITATION CONTROLS CORRELATION FOR GENERATORS 3589

TABLE II
G ENERATOR PARAMETERS

TABLE III
T RANSFORMER PARAMETERS
Fig. 25. Field voltage, terminal voltage, and field current for an underexcita-
tion condition caused by a sag of 85% in Ef when Zone 2 is uncoordinated with
UEL limit.

Fig. 26. Active and reactive power for an underexcitation condition caused by
a sag of 85% in Ef when Zone 2 is uncoordinated with UEL limit.
V. C ONCLUSION
From the results obtained, it has been found that the relay
under test presented a satisfactory response for the protection
philosophy adopted, offset-positive mho characteristic, against
the partial and total LOE for the synchronous machine ana-
lyzed. However, it is noteworthy that the UEL and the SSSL
were properly coordinated with the LOE protection settings
in the same plane, so that there was no operational conflict
between these limits and the LOE settings, as shown in the
simulated results.
In addition to the presented results, this paper presents the
following contributions.
Demonstrates that a virtual system, simulated in real time,
can help in commissioning tests of actual generating units.
Analyze real-time performance of a real protection de-
vice using HIL testing schemes, including checking the
dynamics of the power system.
Modeling of an excitation system (IEEE ST7B) not avail-
able in the RTDS software library.

A PPENDIX
Generator parameters (see Table II)
Transformer parameters (see Table III)
Fig. 27. Impedance trajectory for an underexcitation condition caused by a Governor model: IEEE Type I [18]
sag of 85% in Ef when Zone 2 is uncoordinated with UEL limit. Exciter model: IEEE ST7B [1], [24]
PSS model: PSS 2A [18]
similar behavior for this case, except in the moment that the CTR: 2000
protection relay operates, as depicted in Figs 25 and 26. The PTR: 143.5
impedance trajectory is shown in Fig. 27. Impedance reference: Zref = (16.52 /283) = 0.962 .
3590 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank ALSTOM for providing the
data of generating units.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. A. V. Guerrero, A. L. M. Coelho, and P. M. Silveira, R. Miquelino,
P. A. G. Lopes, Modeling and performance tests of ALSTOM Alspa
Controgen V3 excitation system in real time digital simulation envi-
ronment, in Proc. Latin-Amer. CLAGTEE, Via del Mar, Chile, 2013,
pp. 110
[2] J. C. M. Lima, Protection and control aspects of the underexcited gen-
erator, M.S. thesis, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica de Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2002.
[3] IEEE PES, IEEE Guide for AC Generator Protection, IEEE Std.
7.102TM, 2006.
[4] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power System Protection. Piscataway,
NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 1999.
[5] D. Reimert, Protective Relaying for Power Generation Systems. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2006, pp. 321354.
[6] A. G. Leite and P. M. Silveira, Using of loss-of-excitation protection
of generating units as systemic protection: Tomato curve, in Proc. 19th
SNPTE, 2007, pp. 18.
[7] R. V. Carrasco, Performance assessment schemes of synchronous ma-
chine protection against loss of excitation, M.S. thesis, Universidade
Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.
[8] C. J. Mozina et al., Coordination of generator protection with generator
excitation control and generator capability; Working group J-5 of the
rotating machinery subcommittee, power system relay committee, in
Proc. IEEE/PES Gen. Meet., Tampa, FL, USA, 2007, pp. 117.
[9] M. F. Dias and M. M. Elkateb, Case study into loss-of-excitation relays
during simultaneous faultsPart II, in Proc. 3rd Conf. AFRICON, 1992,
pp. 430433.
[10] C. R. Mason, A New loss-of-excitation relay for synchronous genera-
tors, Trans. Amer. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 68, pp. 12401245, Jul. 1949.
[11] J. Berdy, Loss of excitation protection for modern synchronous genera-
tors. IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-94, no. 5, pp. 14571463,
Sep. 1975.
[12] A. P. de Morais, G. Cardoso Jr., and L. Mariotto, Performance evalua-
tion of methods for protection against loss of excitation in synchronous
generators, Control Autom. Mag., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 526545, 2009.
[13] A. P. Morais, G. CardosoJr., L. Mariotto, and L. N. Canha, Performance
evaluation of the adaptive loss of field protection in synchronous gener-
ators by means of the positive offset method, IEEE Latin Amer. Trans.,
vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 643649, Dec. 2009.
[14] Z. P. Shi, J. P. Wang, Z. Gajic, C. Sao, and M. Ghandhari, The Comparison
and Analysis for Loss of Excitation Protection Schemes in Generator
Protection. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Inst. Technol., 2010.
[15] J. C. M. Lima, M. P. Delboni, and J. C. B. Andrade, Critical review of
philosophy protection against loss of excitation in synchronous genera-
tors, in Proc. 7th STPC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2003, pp. 16.
[16] Multifunction generator relay, in SEL-300G Instruction Manual,
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA, USA, 2010.
[17] Tutorial on the protection of synchronous generators: Special publication
of the IEEE PSRC, IEEE Power Syst. Relaying Committee, Baltimore,
MD, USA, Tech. Presentation, 2011.
[18] Real Time Digital Simulator Power System and Control User Manual,
RTDS Technologies, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2009.
[19] A. B. Dehkordi, P. Neti, A. M. Gole, and T. L. Maguire, Development and
validation of a comprehensive synchronous machine model for a real-time
environment, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3448,
Mar. 2010.
[20] A. B. Dehkordi, D. S. Ouellette, and P. A. Forsyth, Protection testing
of a 100% stator ground fault scheme using a phase domain synchronous
machine model in real-time, in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. DPSP, Manchester,
U.K., 2010, pp. 15.
[21] Y. T. Huang, B. S. Rigby and A. B. Dehkordi, Using a new faulted
synchronous machine model for hardware-in-loop testing of a generator
protection relay, in Proc. Southern African Power Syst. Protection Conf.,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 2012, pp. 110.
[22] A. L. M. Coelho, Current transformer transient analysis and the impact
on overcurrent numeric relays, 2011, M.S. thesis, Universidade Federal
de Itajub, Itajub, Brazil, 2011.
[23] A. L. M. Coelho and P. M. Silveira, CT saturation effects on performance
of digital overcurrent relays, in Proc. Adv. Power Syst. Autom. Protect.
Conf., 2011, pp. 637642.
[24] IEEE Power Engineering Society, IEEE Recommended Practice for Ex-
citation System Models for Power System Stability Studies, IEEE Std.
421.5-2005, 2005.
Aurlio L. M. Coelho received the B.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from the Federal Univer-
sity of Maranhao (UFMA), So Lus, Brazil, in
2010 and the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering
from Itajuba Federal University (UNIFEI), Itajuba,
Brazil, in 2011. He is currently working toward the
Ph.D. degree in the Excellence Center of Smart Grid
(CERIn), UNIFEI.
He is also currently a Researcher in CERIn and
an Assistant Professor with UNIFEI. His interests
are power systems protection, electromagnetic tran-
sients, and digital signal processing applied in electrical systems.
Carlos E. B. Carrer received the B.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from Itajuba Federal Univer-
sity (UNIFEI), Itajuba, Brazil, in 2013.
He is currently with UNIFEI. He has researched
industrial and distribution electrical system faults
and synchronous generators in real-time digital sim-
ulators. His areas of interest include power system
protection and synchronous machines.
Carlos A. V. Guerrero received the B.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from the Escuela Supe-
rior Politcnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil,
Ecuador, in 2009, and the M.Sc. degree from Ita-
juba Federal University (UNIFEI), Itajuba, Brazil,
in 2011. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in the Excellence Center of Smart Grid
(CERIn), UNIFEI.
He is also currently a Researcher with CERIn,
UNIFEI. His research interests include protection,
automation and control of electrical systems, real-
time digital simulation, electromagnetic transient analysis, and digital signal
processing applied in electrical systems.
Paulo M. Silveira received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. de-
grees from the Federal School of Engineering of Ita-
juba, Itajuba, Brazil, in 1984 and 1998, respectively,
and the D.Sc. degree from the Federal University
of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil, in 2001, all in
electrical engineering.
In 2007, he was a Visiting Researcher with the
Center for Advanced Power Systems, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. He is currently
an Associate Professor and the Coordinator of the
Excellence Center of Smart Grid (CERIn) with Ita-
juba Federal University (UNIFEI), Itajuba. His interests are power system
protection, energy quality, and signal processing for fault identification.