You are on page 1of 9

IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 8, No.

3, September 1993 433

MODELING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS


IN AN 800 MEGAWATT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
K.E. Yeager, Member IEEE J.R. Willis, Member IEEE
Consumers Power Company Power Technologies, Inc.
Jackson, Michigan Schenectady, New York

Abstract - Computer models have been developed of trip) during remaining motor starting
emergency diesel generators and their associated transients.
emergency core cooling system induction motors during
se uencing and results compared with field tests. 3. To verify that 480 volt ac contactors will
Molels required to perform studies of emergency diesel have adequate voltage to pickup when required
generators in a nuclear plant are presented. Field and will not drop out during motor starting
measurements indicating different response of two transients.
seemingly identical generator excitation systems are
discussed. Results of 480 volt ac contactor dropout 4. To assess whether electrical modifications and
testin are provided for determining voltage limits in load additions to the ori inal EDGS and
the 48! volt system during motor starting transients. associated ECCS systems wi 1 7 exceed diesel
generator capabilities.
Kevwords - Diesel Generators, Induction Motors.
5. To verify that ECCS induction motor sequencing
INTRODUCTION steps do not "overlap", resulting in excessive
motor starting transients and potential
Design requirements of nuclear plants include tripping of critical loads required during a
backup power su plies provided by emergency diesel LOCA .
generators (EDGS!. These generators provide the sole
source of power to large emer ency core cooling system 6. To provide simulations of the EDG and
(ECCS) loads during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) associated ECCS system loads during postulated
coincident with a loss of off-site power via the utility LOCA conditions that cannot be duplicated
transmission network. through field tests.
Digital computer software and hardware technology EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEMS
make it possible for a utility to develop and maintain
accurate models of these critical power supplies to Two independent EDG systems, each capable of
assess their adequacy due to electrical modifications supplying power to ECCS motors for safely shutting down
and load additions over the life of the plant. The the reactor following a LOCA, are provided for the 800
models also make it possible to simulate LOCA scenarios me awatt nuclear plant presented in this paper. The
and verify the capability of the EDGS to provide a safe ED& and associated ECCS induction motors used in the
and reliable source of power to critical loads during an studies are summarized in Figures 1 and 2. Each
accident. generator is rated 2400 volts, 3.125 .MVA, and uses
automatic sequencers to start the ECCS induction motor
This paper summarizes the efforts of one utility to loads. The table provided in each figure summarizes the
develop and maintain computer models of the EDGS and starting times o f the ECCS induction motor loads during
their associated ECCS loads in an 800 megawatt nuclear field tests associated wlth required EDG testing as art
power plant. The models are compared to field test data of a recent plant refuellng outage. As can be seen, ICCS
from routine testing of the EDGS following a refueling motor loads such as containment spray are not started
outage. Additional discussion is provided concerning during routine EDG testing. Such loads are.included,
voltage limits in 480 volt systems through field testin however, in the final computer simulations
of ac contactors. Finally, differences in response o! representative of LOCA conditions.
two supposedly identical EDG excitation control systems
are presented. INDUCTION MOTOR MODELS
THE NEED FOR MODELING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL The electrical and mechanical characteristics of
GENERATOR .SYSTEMS the ECCS induction motors for each EDG system summarized
in Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1.
The need for developing and maintaining accurate Manufacturers' speed versus torque and current curves,
models of EDGS and their associated systems in nuclear as well as motor and load inertias, were available.
power plants can be summarized as follows: These motor starting characteristics are critical when
developing the models of the overall ECCS systems fed by
1. To verify that all ECCS induction motors will the EDGS.
start and accelerate durin a LOCA when fed
from the EDGS, which are wealer power supplies Figure 3 summarizes the model chosen by the authors
than the off-site power supply via the utility to represent the induction motors summarized in Table I
transmission network. and Figures 1 and 2. It is a double-cage representation
used successfully to represent deep-bar rotor effects in
2. To verify that ECCS motors already running and. squirrel-cage induction motors during starting [1,21.
loaded to LOCA conditions will continue to
operate (e.g., not slow down and possibly The model parameters were determined,through trial
and error by using the manufacturers data and a
software package to interactively select parameters
until the model reasonably duplicated the motor torque,
92 SM 561-1 EC A paper recommended and approved current and power factor duriFg starting. Table I1
by the IEEE Electric Machinery Committee of the summarizes the equivalent circuit parameters found for
IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation the ECCS induction motors using this method. Figyres 4
at the IEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA, and 5 present a comparison of the manufacturers data
July 12-16, 1992. Manuscript submitted October and model results for the 400 horsepower LPSI and HPSI
17, 1990; made available for printing motors. As can be seen in the figures, the double cage
April 16, 1992. induction motor model duplicates the manufacturers' data
quite closely. Similar results were obtained for the
remaining ECCS induction motor models used in the
studies.
0885-8969/93$03.000 1992 IEEE
434
Table I
Summary of Induction Motor Characteristics
PI-'

Motor I I 1 1
Horse
power
rspYmnc KVA H(sec)

%!i B'c"\kW

6.110
8.98
MCC 11 ncc 251
13. I 1
NOT STRRTEO

R I R HRNOLINC

" ' d [ C R C I O P5bB

Figure 1. EDG 1-1 System

2qOO VOLT BUS IO

-- -- --
IYI
SERV Y T R
181
SERV WTR
151
LPSI
131
wsi
171
COUP C L C
I91
RUX F E E D
--
IZI
P7R P7C Pb7A PbbR
p52B CONT(?P)PRAI
I I
STEP1 I T I M E 15ECI
'180 VOLT
LOR0 Table II
CENTER 1 2
Summary of Induction Motor Double Cage Equivalent
UCC 26
Circuit Parameters (per unit on motor base)
8
13.00
19.52
22.Bb
25.83
I l l
9 bO.Ob
C H R R G CHARG CCF CCF CCF
P55R PSSB VIR V2R V3R

Figure 2. EDG 1-2 System

Figure 3. Double Cage Induction Motor Model


435

I Current (Manuf.)
I 7 I . I
1 id

Torque (Manuf.) Figure 6. Electromagnetic Model of Salient Pole Generator


Table 111
Sulanarv of Generator Parameters
0.0 SPEED (pu) 1.0 Inductances Machi ne
(per unit) Constants Saturation
Figure 4. Manufacturer Versus Doublr Cage Motor Model (sec) Data
for LPSl Motor Ld= 1.56 Lq= 1.06 Tdo'= 3.7 S(1.0)- 0.1724
Ld'=.296 Lq"= 0.177 Tdo"= 0.05 S(1.2)~ 0.6034
Ld"= 0.177 Tqo"= 0.05
L1= 0.088 H= 1.0716

Note: Ld" and L Io adjusted to 0.15 and Ld' to 0.26


based on Tield tests. All arameters in per-
unit on machine base of 3.1!5 MVA, 2400 volts.
EXCITATION SYSTEM MODEL
A static excitation system (similar to the IEEE
type ST2 model [31), having both generator current and
voltage as inputs is used for the excitation control
system for each EDG. No manufacturer's data, however,
was available to develop such a model. A control system
block diagram of the excitation system could have been
developed by the manufacturer by removing the excitation
system and performing bench tests. This option did not
meet plant approval. A suitable excitation control
system model, however, had to be found which would
approximate the generator terminal voltage response
during the motor starting transients.
Figure 7 summarizes the excitation control system
chosen by the authors, one which has been used
I I I I I I I I I
gg successfully by others 141. The time constants and
exciter gain were adjusted until a reasonable match was
0.0 SPEED (pu) 1.o obtained between the model and field tests for generator
terminal voltage response during motor starting
conditions for each EDG. (The motor starting conditions
Figure 5. Manufacturer Versus Double Cage Motor Model provided the response of the EDG with both voltage and
for HPSl Motor current feedback.) Table IV summarizes the final values
used in the studies.
GENERATOR MODEL E MAX

The generators are modeled using a salient pole


representation and include the effects of the
amortisseur windings. Figure 6 summarizes the block EC ..
I I
diagram of the model. Generator equivalent circuit and 1 + TBs 1 + TEs
saturation data were obtained from the manufacturer and p.u.
are presented in Table 111. A minor reduction of the
subtransient and transient reactances provided a better I
fit between the model and field measurements of the
motor starting transients. The reduction of these Other E MIN
parameters may indicate additional machine saturation Signals
during the large motor starts not represented in the
original machine data. Figure 7. Excitation System Model
436
Table IV in accelerating times lon er than those from field tests
and thus give conservatfve results, are used in the
final studies for each EDG when representing LOCA
Generator TA TB K TE EFDmax EFDmin
.
cond i t i ons
(sec) (sec) (sec) CPU) CPU) .
EDC 1-1 3.0 6.0 77.5 2.0 6.0 0.0

EDG 1-2 3.0 6.0 77.5 1.0 6.0 0.0


- Y
Determining the time constants and gains in Figure
7 (through trial and error) to match response of .the
generator during motor starting was time consuming.
While the model matched the motor starting transients,
additional voltage oscillations were found in the model
7
Model 1
following the motor starts that were not evident in the
field measurements.
It is of the authors1 opinion that further
investigation is needed in the area of developing field
testing methods for excitation systems which use both
current and voltage as feedback. Such field testing
would enable the engineer to determine model parameters
for a more complete and accurate excitation system
representation for EDGS such as the IEEE type ST2 model.
It would also avoid removal of the excitation system for
bench tests which is usually unacceptable to plant

-
operations.
GOVERNOR MODEL Start
HPSl
The governor model chosen b the authors was also
used successfully in reference 147. Figure 8 summarizes
the control system and associated parameters used in the
studies. The gains and time constants used in the
governor model were adjusted until a reasonable match 5.0 TIME (sec) 10.0
was obtained between the model and the results from
field measurements of generator speed during motor
starting . Figure 9. EDG 1-1 Terminal Voltage Response Doring
HPSl and Service Water Motor Startup
1 + Speed

H a - a T D P H
1 T1 S T2T1 S *
Electric Control Box T~~~ Engine
U
Actuator

Ti = .01 K = 40
T2 = .02 TD = .024
T3 = .2 Tmax = 1.1
T4 = e25 Tmjn = 0
T5 = .009
T6 = .0384
P
Figure 8. lovernor Model b I I2
wL
/ /

RESULTS OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS VERSUS COMPUTER


SIMULATIONS DURING MOTOR SEOUENCING
Computer simulations of the ECCS motor sequencing
Model
I'
on each EDG, as summarized in Figures 1 and 2, were
completed and compared to field measurements of EDG
terminal voltage and changes in speed. Figures 9
through 12 summarize the generator terminal voltage
response of EDG 1-1 while startin the HPSI, Service
Water, LPSI , Component Cooling \Slater and Auxil'iary
Feedwater motors. As can be seen in the figures, the
model is quite close to field test measurements durin 12.0 TIME (sec) 16.0
the motor starting transients and i s somewha?
conservative in terms of initial voltage drop and
recovery time above 1.0 per-unit operating voltage. Figure 10. ED6 1-1 Terminal Voltage Response During
Table V summarizes the motor acceleration times measured
during the field tests and from the computer LPSI Motor Startup
simulations. Reductions in several motor inertias were
required to obtain acceleration times near those
measured in the field. However, the original motor
manufacturer I s inertia constants , which general ly result
t i
L i

Y 12.0 TIME (aec) 16.0


I I I I I l l ] 1 0
Figure 13. EDG 1-1 Speed Fluctuations During
22.0 TIME (sec) 26.0 LPSI Motor Startup
Figure 11. EDG 1-1 Terminal Voltage Response During ;
CCW Motor Startup
t
11

I
48.0
I I I I I
TIME (a)
Model

1 I I I
520
I

la
22.0 TIME (SM)

Figure 14. ED6 1-1 Speed Fluctuations During


I CCW M;tor Staryp I I , I ,
26.0

4
U)

Figure 12. ED6 1-1 Terminal Voltage Response During


Auxiliary Feedwater Motor Startup
Figures 13 through 15 summarize the speed
I
t 4
fluctuations found in the actual field measurements and
through computer simulations during the starting of the
LPSI, Component Cooling Water, and Auxiliary Feedwater
Pumps on EDG 1-1. As can be seen in these figures, the
com uter model matches the field measurements reasonably
wel! and is slightly conservative. The speed
fluctuations are very minimal (less than 1 percent)
indicatingthe EDG governor essentially maintains system
base frequency during the motor starting transients.
cI
Figures 16 and 17 summarize the generator terminal
voltage response of EDG 1-2 while starting the H P S I ,
t
Service Water, and Auxiliary Feedwater pumps. As can be
seen in the Figures, the model is quite close to field t I I I I I I I I I
9
Gi
test measurements durin the motor starting transients
and, similar to EDG 1-9, is somewhat conservative in 47.0 TIME (MC) 52.5
terms of initial volta e drop and recovery time above 1
per-unit operating voytage. Table V summarizes the Figure 15. EDG 1-1 Speed Fluctuations During
motor acceleration times measured during the field tests Auxiliary Feedwater Motor Startup
versus the simulations.
I I l l l I I I I
Y
.-
- -
The excitation systems used by the two EDGS are
identical in vintage, size and field settin S. NO
changes have been made since original instaglation.
Field testing revealed, however, a much slower generator
terminal voltage response on EDG 1-1 than EDG 1-2 when
starting similar induction motor loads. Thls difference
in response can be seen by examinlng Figures 18 and 19,
which compare field measurements of terminal voltage of
each EDG when starting the 400 hp HPSI and 400 hp LPSI
motors. No explanation could be found as to why the
responses were different. Field adjustments of the
voltage regulator on EDG 1-1 did not Improve the
response. This is offered as a caution to others who
may assume the response of the excitation systems on
- -
identical EDGs is the same after testing only one EDG.
The excitation system on EDG must be tested for

-
-
I yI. 1E;;;
-

-
reSDonse todetermine its characteristics for performing
motbr starting studies.

I I I I I I I 2~ ~

t
1
i
l- EDG 1 - 1 -1
1
I -.I
0.0 TIME (m)
t I
Figure 18. EDG 1-1 Versus ED6 1-2 Terminal Voltage
Responses During HPSl Motor Startup

I I I I I
TIME (-1
I " I la
63.0
59.0

Figure 17. ED6 1-2 Terminal Voltage Response During


Auxiliary Feedwater Motor Startup
t
Table V
Summary of Motor Acceleration Times During Sequencing

1
0.0
I I I , I
TIME (SOC)
, I I

Figure 19. EDG 1-1 Versus EDG 1-2 Terminal Voltage


Response During LPSl Motor Startup
60-
IO
439

LIMITS IMPOSED BY 480 VOLT SYSTEMS Based on these results, an ac contactor dropout
voltage of 0.65 per unit (for conservatism) was assumed
In order to determine limits imposed by the 480 as the limit in the studies. Figure 20 summarizes the
volt systems, field testing of ac contactors was lowest voltage transient seen by 480 volt motor control
erformed to determine pickup and dropout voltages. center 2 fed by EDG 1-2 during the starting of the HPSI
5!
able VI summarizes the results of field tests performed
on all contactors fed by 480 volt Motor Control Centers
.and Service Water Motors. As can be seen in the figure,
the minimum voltage is 0.78 per unit, whlch is well
1 and 2. As can be seen in the Table, the highest ac above the contactor dropout limit of 0.65 per unit.
contactor dropout voltage was 0.625 per unit (480 volt
base). CONCLUSIONS
Table VI . Models of EDGS and their ECCS induction motor loads
Results of ac Contactor Field Tests on 480 Volt during sequencing have been developed for an 800
Motor Control Centers 1 and 2 megawatt nuclear plant. The models were developed using
digital computer software and hardware. Field tests and
corresponding simulations using the models indi.cate a
Contactor Minimum Pickup Maximum Dropout close correlation during motor se uencing. Additional
Size Volts (per unit) Volts (per unit) testing of ac contactors in 410 volt systems to
1 .725 ,425 establish contactor pickup and dropout voltages have
been presented to provide limits when performing EDG
1 .692 .375 sequencing studies .
1 .692 .400 Field tests have been presented which indicate the
response on two seemingly identical EDG excitation
1 .692 .367 systems can be different. To avoid potential problems,
1 .692 .400 separate field testin is recommended when developing
models of multiple ED&.
1 .692 .450
Additional work is needed in the area o f excitation
1 .725 .383 control system field testing for systems employing both
generator terminal voltage and current feedback. Such
1 .725 .367 testin methods could be used to develop more accurate
1 .708 .383 controg system models representative of static
excitation systems.
1 .708 .383
REFERENCES
1 .650 .358
1
B.J. Chalmers, A,S. Mulki:I "Design Synthesis
.717 .358 Double-Ca e Induction Motors, Proc IEE, Vol. 117,
1 .700 .358 No. 7, Jufy 1970.
r
S.S. Waters, R.D. Willough!;y, "Modeling Induction
Motors for System Studies, IEEE Transactions on
Industry ADolications, Vol. IA-19, No. 5,
September/October, 1983.
IEEE Committee Report, "Excitation Systfm Models
for Power System Stability Studies, -
IEEE
.725 .525 Transactions on Power ADDaratus and Systems, Vol.
PAS-100, No. 2, February 1981.

3 L.N. Hanytt, F.P. de Mello, G.H. Tylinski, W.H.


.750 .525 Becker, Validation ,,of Nuclear Plant Auxiliary
3 .675 .508 Power Supply by Test, IEEE Transactions on Power
AoDaratus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No. 9,
September, 1982.
BIOGRAPHIES
Kenneth E. Yeaper received the BSEE from Michigan
Technological University in 1976. He was employed by
Goodyear Atomic Corporation, Piketon, Ohio from 1976 to
/- ' 1978. He then joined Consumers Power Company and is
currently responsible for the desi n and analysis of
nuclear and fossil power plant auxiyiary systems. Mr.
Yeager is a member of IEEE and Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Michigan.
Johnn R. Willi received the B.S.E. and M.S.E de Pees
from :he UniversSity of Alabama in Birmingham in 1971 and
1978, and E.E. de ree from the University of Michigan in
1985. He was empyoyed by Rust Engineering, Birmingham,,
I -

\/' AL from 1974 to 1979 and Consumers Power ComDanv from


1982 to 1987. H e then joined Power Technologies-, Inc.
'as a Senior Engineer where he conducts studies related
to ower system dynamics. Mr. Willis is a member of-
IEEg and a Registered Professional Engineer in Alabama
and New York.

Figure 20. 480 Volt Minimum Voltage Versus AC


Contactor Dropout Voltage
440
Discussion tem of an emergency diesel generator with both potential
and current power supplies. The effect of the current
W. G. Bloethe, N. I. Deeb and S. S. Shah (Sargent & Lundy, power supply is most important during the initial recovery
Chicago, IL): The authors are to be congratulated on their from the voltage dip. This may explain why the initial
timely paper. While the NRC has not yet taken an official recovery given by the authors model tends to be slower
position on the subject, the question of the dynamic perfor- than that shown in the test data. The addition of the
mance. of the emergency diesel generators has been raised current power supply to the model may allow the voltage
during some Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspec- regulator loop of the excitation system model to be revised
tions (EDSFIs).Therefore, other stations may be required to to reduce or eliminate the oscillatory behavior during the
perform an analysis similar to that described in the paper. latter part of the recovery described by the authors.
We would appreciate the authors comments on the following 5. We agree with the authors that additional work is needed
concerns which arise from our experience in performing such in modeling and determining the model parameters for
studies: emergency diesel generator excitation systems. In addition,
we feel that there is room for improving the modeling of
1. The authors state that their induction motor models are governor systems for the same reasons given by the au-
based on the manufacturers data. However, a recent paper thors. Also, when we have had modeling information from
indicates that the performance of the motors in the field the governor manufacturer, the form of the model did not
can be considerably different from that indicated by the match the standard models given by the IEEE committee.
manufacturers data. Could the authors comment on the 6. Obtaining adequate test data in a power plant environment
significance of comparing the actual performance of the is not a simple task. Could the authors describe their
motors with the manufacturers data used in the modeling? testing program and the methods used to acquire the test
The authors also indicate that the effective moment of data? What techniques were used to minimize the effects
inertia for the motors differ from the values given by the of noise during data collection?
manufacturers. We agree with the authors use of the more
Manuscript received August 7, 1992.
conservative values given by the manufacturers. Neverthe-
less, we would be interested in any comments that the
authors may have on what might cause the manufacturers
moments of inertia to vary from the values observed in the
field tests.
2. The authors also stated that the induction machine param- I. D. Hassan, R. Weronick, and R. M. Bucci
eters were selected so that the model reasonably duplicates (Ebasco Services Incorporated, Pew York, New
the motor torque, current, and power factor during start- York) : The authors present a dynamic
ing. However, the authors indicated previously that only simulation which appears to correlate with
the manufacturers speed versus torque and speed versus field tests. However, some additional
information would be helpful to us and, we
current curves as well as the motor and load moment of believe, other interested readers, to compare
inertia were available for the study. The results of the the authors approach with the approach
motor modeling shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the LPSI and described in [l].
HPSI pump motors show the speed versus torque and
speed versus current characteristics only. Our own experi- Could the authors comment on the type of
ence in induction motor modeling has shown the difficulty software that was used and its accessibility
to nuclear utilities? Has the software been
of matching all three characteristics of a motor, i.e., speed verified in accordance with nuclear quality
versus torque, speed versus current, and speed versus power assurance standards?
factor. The authors did not reflect the speed versus power
factor characteristics of their motor models in their paper. In [l] it is stated that the EMTP program was
We would appreciate the authors comments on the signifi- used for the diesel generator simulations, and
cance of matching the motor speed versus power factor the appropriate modules were verified for
nuclear applications. The EMTP program has
characteristics. If speed versus power factor information is wide availability and accessibility to
available, can the authors provide a comparison of the potential users (various versions are
speed versus power factor characteristics of the LPSI and available through EPRI and EMTP user groups).
HPSI pump motor models with the actual motor character- Also, the user can model virtually any
istics? electromechanical device represented in a
3. Numerical techniques have been used to assist in the transfer function form by use of the
appropriate EMTP modules. We have found that
matching of the motor model parameters to the motor commercially marketed dynamic programs of the
characteristics. Have the authors used any such techniques kind typically used for transient stability
to reduce the amount of trial and error required to model analysis generally have fixed control system
an induction motor? models. These require recompiling (which may
4. The authors state that the generator excitation system used require the intervention of the software
both a potential and a current power supply. Could the developer) to develop customized control
system arrangements that closely match the
authors provide additional information on the excitation performance of in service voltage regulators
systems? We have successfully used the IEEE type ST2 and engine governors. Could the authors
(former type 3) model for representing the excitation sys- comment on the relative ease in applying their
software to develop customized models?

Hassan, I. D.; Weronick, R.; Bucci, R. M.; and Busch, W.Evaluating the Also, it would be helpful if the simulated
Transient Performance of Standby Diesel-Generator Units by Simulation. EDGs terminal voltage response during the
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conuersion. September, 1992, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. load application in Step 2 is included in the
470-477. paper.
441

[l] I . D . Hassan, R. Weronick, R.M. Bucci and recorders. However, PTI has been successful using its PC-based Dynamic
W. Busch. ggEvaluating the Transient System Monitor for recording transient data for the main generator at
Performance of Standby Diesel-Generator Units power plants for later use in model derivation. This instrument should also
by Simulationgg,IEEE Paper 92 WM 078-6 Ec. be applicable to diesel sequencing measurements as well.
Next we address the points raised by Messrs. Hassan, Weronick and
Manuscript received August 14, 1992. Bacci.
The software used for the study was the PSS/E program, which is
commercially available to nuclear utilities. For several studies, the
software with accompanying model data has been verified with nuclear
K.E. Yeager, J.R. Wlllls: The authors appreciate the eflorts and com- quality assurance procedures by comparison of simulated response
ments of the discussers. We feel that by sharing experiences in this area, versus field measurements, as was the case in the discussers' referenced
all contributors can benefit.We first address the points raised by Messrs. work.
Bloethe, Deeb and Shah: With regard to developing customized dynamic models for the PSS/E
1) Although the manufacturefsdata has been used to develop the motor program, the software design requires the user to develop computer code
models, experiences with motor starting studies at other plants have which can be linked into the main program. While this is more involved and
indicated that manufacturer data is usually accurate in terms of locked requires a higher level of program familiarity of the user than model
rotor current and power factor. Actual acceleration times, however, are building from transfer functions, it is also more flexible. Each method has
more difficult to match, indicating inaccuracies in (1) the manufacturer's its strengths and weaknesses.
motor speed-toque characteristics, (2) motor and/or pump inertias, or (3) The simulated terminal vollage response of the EDGs during Step 2
the pump speed-torque characteristics (flow configurations due to valving load application is shown in Figure 21.
of piping systems during testing).
It may improve motor modeling accuracy to record actual motor [A] B.K. Johnson, J.R. Willis, "Tailoring Induction Motor Analytical Models
performance when started from the normal power supply. This would to Fit Known Motor Performance Characteristics and Satisfy Particular
provide data which could be compared to motor starting simulations of Study Needs," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3,
August 1991, p ~959-965.
.
each individual motor and would guide adjustments of the motor model
prior to using it in diesel sequencing studies. Unfortunately, performing
additional individual induction motor starting tests and measurements in
an operating nuclear plant can be a formidable task. In addition, setting up
pump conditions which represent actual LOCA flow conditions during
motor starting may not be possible. I I I I I I I I I
The authors chose to limit the testing configurations, measurements,
and engineering analysis to sequencing conditions via the emergency
diesel generators and used the results to adjust the motor inertias to match 7EDGI-1
motor acceleration times. It is believed that the changes to the Plant
system due to various valving configurations, etc., affected the
acceleration times of the motors during testing (the motors were started
unloaded or at some other pump conditiofl). Adjustments in the inertias
were made instead of pump speed-torque characteristics only as a matter
of choice. Use of worst case inertias and pump speed-torque conditions
during LOCA sequencing studies assures conservative results.
2) Locked rotor power factors were available from the manufacturer for a
few of the motors. If not, a value of .25 was assumed. During the L EDGI-2
development of the motor models, adjustments in the motor stator
equivalent circuit parameters were made for each motor until a relatively
accurate match was obtained between the given or assumed (.25) locked
rotor power factor. Once the locked rotor power factor was matched, the
general shape of the speed - power factor curve was dependent on the
equivalent circuit of the motor and its response during starting. The authors
experience indicates that this technique will provide an adequate model of
motor power factor for motor starting studies.
3) The authors have noted technical publications for applying numerical I I I I I I I I I
method to aid to matching induction motor characteristics, and have
contributed to this effort [A]. For this study, however, trial and error a TIME (sec) 5
techniques were used.
4) The authors plan to improve the excitation system model using an
IEEE type ST2 (former type 3).
5) Nocomment. Figure 21. Step 2 Diesel Generator Voltages.
6 Due lo long data gathering time (approximately 1 minute)
oscillographs have provided a dependable source of acquiring test data
during diesel sequencing and have been used as a backup to digital
recording instruments. We have had problemswith noise on several digital Manuscript received September 22, 1992.