462
2, JUNE 2004
A Comparative Study of Two Synchronous Machine
Modeling Techniques for EMTP Simulation
Yu Cui, Hermann W. Dommel, Fellow, IEEE, and Wilsun Xu, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Modeling and simulation of synchronous machines
are traditionally based on the -axis model. An alternative
method that uses direct phase-domain representation has been
proposed [1]–[4] over the past 30 years. One of the recent contri-
butions [5], which is published as a letter in the June 2001 edition
of Power Engineering Review, claims that the -axis model will
give erroneous results in some cases, while the phase-domain
model does not have such problems. This is a very bold claim. The
purpose of this letter is to verify the conclusions of that Letter. Our
simulation results indicate that both modeling methods produce
very similar results. The letter’s conclusion might have resulted
from a misuse of the PSCAD/EMTDC software.
Index Terms— -axis model, EMTP analysis, phase-domain
synchronous generator model.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE THEORY of the phase-domain synchronous gener-
ator model has been established for quite a long time. It
has been proposed that this model can provide an accurate rep-
resentation of internal machine phenomena, and has therefore
advantages in modeling magnetic saturation [3] and simulating
machine internal faults [4]. It can also reduce the difficulties in
interfacing generator models with the power system network.
The drawbacks of this method are also significant. One of them
is that the phase-domain method requires the self and mutual
inductance data of the various machine windings in order to
perform the simulation. These sets of data are usually not avail-
able. There is also a general lack of rigorous verifications on
the performance of this model. Because of these considerations,
machine models adopted in most EMTP-type software pack-
ages are still based on -axis representations.
In a letter published in the June 2001 edition of Power En-
gineering Review [5], the authors made a radical conclusion by
suggesting that the -axis model will not give correct simula-
tion results for asymmetrical faults. The phase-domain model,
on the other hand, does not have this problem. This is a serious
challenge to the theoretical foundation of the -axis model,
and it should therefore be carefully evaluated. In response to
this need, we conducted simulation studies using different soft-
ware packages on two different cases. This letter reports our
findings.
Manuscript received May 27, 2003.
Y. Cui and W. Xu are with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2V4, Canada (e-mail:
yucui@ee.ualberta.ca; wxu@ee.ualberta.ca).
H. W. Dommel is with the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z4, Canada (e-mail: hermannd@ece.ubc.ca).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2004.827047
0885-8969/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 19, NO.
II. MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION
The -axis and phase-domain machine models are both de-
rived from the relationships between the machine terminal volt-
ages, currents and flux linkages [3], [6]
(1)
(2)
where, , , and are the stator and rotor coil voltage, cur-
rent, and flux linkage vector, respectively.
Matrix is a diagonal matrix of the coil resistances and
matrix is a symmetrical matrix of the coil self and mutual
inductances. is a function of the rotor position and is thus a
time-variant matrix.
With the phase-domain model, the above equations are solved
directly by discretizing (1) with the trapezoidal rule of integra-
tion [4].
The most difficult part of the phase-domain method is caused
by the time-variant nature of matrix . If the saturation and
harmonic effects are not considered, matrix can be trans-
formed to a constant matrix by applying Park’s transformation
[6], [7]
(3)
(4)
where
is identical for and ,
,
and is Park’s transformation matrix.
Equations (3) and (4) are the -axis model of the syn-
chronous machine. Park’s transformation is always valid,
although it will be much more complicated when machine
saturation and harmonic effects are included. The machine
operating conditions (i.e., symmetrical or asymmetrical), will
not affect Park’s transformation. The assumption in [5] that the
-axis model is only valid for balanced working conditions is
not correct.
III. CASE STUDIES
In this letter, two widely used EMTP-type software packages,
the MicroTran version of the EMTP and PSCAD/EMTDC,
were used to compare the simulation results with the phase-do-
main modeling results. For this purpose, we programmed the
phase-domain model of [5] using the Matlab code.
The first case study is conducted using the sample system of
[5]. Both the -axis data and the phase-domain data are pro-
vided in [2]. The synchronous generator is operating initially at
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 19, NO. 2, JUNE 2004
Fig. 1. Stator currents for a three-phase fault for the first sample system.
Fig. 2. Stator currents for a single-phase-to-ground fault for the first sample
system.
a load of and p.u., when a three-phase fault
and a single-phase-to-ground fault happen at the generator ter-
minals, respectively.
It can be observed from Figs. 1 and 2 that the results from
the phase-domain model and from MicroTran are very close.
The results from PSCAD have some differences with those from
MicroTran and the phase-domain model. It is hard to pinpoint
the source for the difference in the PSCAD program, since no
detailed information is available on how the machine model is
implemented in PSCAD. The difference, however, cannot dis-
qualify the validity of the -axis model.
The PSCAD results shown in Fig. 2 are significantly different
from those shown in Fig. 3 of [5]. The main conclusion of [5],
namely that the -axis model does not give correct results, is
based on this figure. We found that the results shown in Fig. 3
of the Letter are not correct. The problem is very likely caused
by the use of a default neutral resistance value in the simulation
by the authors. If the resistance value is set to zero, the results
become those shown in Fig. 2.
To further verify the validity of the -axis model, another
case study was conducted, using the generator parameters from
the first IEEE subsynchronous resonance benchmark model [8].
In this system, the generator has no load before the fault. Figs. 3
and 4 indicate the simulation results of the -axis model and
of the phase-domain model are very close.
463
Fig. 3. Stator currents for a three-phase fault in the second sample system.
Fig. 4. Phase A current for a single-phase-to-ground fault in the second sample
system.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This letter compared the -axis model and the phase-domain
model of a synchronous generator. The results show that the
suggestion of [5] that the -axis model gives erroneous results
for asymmetrical fault conditions is unfounded. Both models are
capable of simulating any kind of generator working conditions.
Both models have their advantages and disadvantages.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Subramaniam and O. P. Malik, “Digital simulation of a synchronous
generator in the direct-phase quantities,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 118,
no. 1, pp. 153–160, Jan. 1971.
[2] M. Rafian and M. A. Laughton, “Determination of synchronous machine
phase coordinate parameters,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 123, no. 8, pp.
818–824, Aug. 1976.
[3] J. R. Marti and K. W. Louie, “A phase-domain synchronous generator
model including saturation effects,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12,
pp. 222–229, Feb. 1997.
[4] A. I. Megahed and O. P. Malik, “Synchronous generator internal fault
computation and experimental verification,” in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.,
Gen. Transm. Dist., vol. 145, Sept. 1998, pp. 604–610.
[5] K. H. Chan, E. Acha, M. Madrigal, and J. A. Parle, “The use of
direct time-phase domain synchronous generator model in standard
EMTP-type industrial packages,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., pp. 63–65,
June 2001.
[6] H. W. Dommel, EMTP Theory Book. Vancouver, Canada: Microtran
Power System Analysis Corporation, 1992.
[7] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1994.
[8] IEEE Subsynchronous Resonance Task Force of the Dynamic System
Performance Working Group, Power System Engineering Committee,
“First benchmark model for computer simulation of subsynchronous res-
onance,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-96, pp. 1565–1570,
Sept./Oct. 1977.