IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 8, No.
3, September 1993
MODELING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS
IN AN 800 MEGAWATT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
K.E. Yeager, Member IEEE
Consumers Power Company
Jackson, Michigan
Abstract - Computer models have been developed of
emergency diesel generators and their associated
emergency core cooling system induction motors during
se uencing and results compared with field tests.
Molels required to perform studies of emergency diesel
generators in a nuclear plant are presented. Field
measurements indicating different response of two
seemingly identical generator excitation systems are
discussed. Results of 480 volt ac contactor dropout
testin are provided for determining voltage limits in
the 48! volt system during motor starting transients.
Kevwords - Diesel Generators, Induction Motors.
INTRODUCTION
Design requirements of nuclear plants include
backup power su plies provided by emergency diesel
generators (EDGS!. These generators provide the sole
source of power to large emer ency core cooling system
(ECCS) loads during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)
coincident with a loss of off-site power via the utility
transmission network.
Digital computer software and hardware technology
make it possible for a utility to develop and maintain
accurate models of these critical power supplies to
assess their adequacy due to electrical modifications
and load additions over the life of the plant. The
models also make it possible to simulate LOCA scenarios
and verify the capability of the EDGS to provide a safe
and reliable source of power to critical loads during an
accident.
This paper summarizes the efforts of one utility to
develop and maintain computer models of the EDGS and
their associated ECCS loads in an 800 megawatt nuclear
power plant. The models are compared to field test data
from routine testing of the EDGS following a refueling
outage. Additional discussion is provided concerning
voltage limits in 480 volt systems through field testin
of ac contactors. Finally, differences in response o!
two supposedly identical EDG excitation control systems
are presented.
THE NEED FOR MODELING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL
GENERATOR .SYSTEMS
The need for developing and maintaining accurate
models of EDGS and their associated systems in nuclear
power plants can be summarized as follows:
1. To verify that all ECCS induction motors will
start and accelerate durin a LOCA when fed
from the EDGS, which are wealer power supplies
than the off-site power supply via the utility
transmission network.
2. To verify that ECCS motors already running and.
loaded to LOCA conditions will continue to
operate (e.g., not slow down and possibly
92 SM 561-1 EC A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Electric Machinery Committee of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA,
July 12-16, 1992. Manuscript submitted October
17, 1990; made available for printing
April 16, 1992.
0885-8969/93$03.000 1992 IEEE
433
J.R. Willis, Member IEEE
Power Technologies, Inc.
Schenectady, New York
trip) during remaining motor starting
transients.
3. To verify that 480 volt ac contactors will
have adequate voltage to pickup when required
and will not drop out during motor starting
transients.
4. To assess whether electrical modifications and
load additions to the ori inal EDGS and
associated ECCS systems wi 1 7 exceed diesel
generator capabilities.
5. To verify that ECCS induction motor sequencing
steps do not "overlap", resulting in excessive
motor starting transients and potential
tripping of critical loads required during a
LOCA .
6. To provide simulations of the EDG and
associated ECCS system loads during postulated
LOCA conditions that cannot be duplicated
through field tests.
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEMS
Two independent EDG systems, each capable of
supplying power to ECCS motors for safely shutting down
the reactor following a LOCA, are provided for the 800
me awatt nuclear plant presented in this paper. The
ED& and associated ECCS induction motors used in the
studies are summarized in Figures 1 and 2. Each
generator is rated 2400 volts, 3.125 .MVA, and uses
automatic sequencers to start the ECCS induction motor
loads. The table provided in each figure summarizes the
starting times o f the ECCS induction motor loads during
field tests associated wlth required EDG testing as art
of a recent plant refuellng outage. As can be seen, ICCS
motor loads such as containment spray are not started
during routine EDG testing. Such loads are.included,
however, in the final computer simulations
representative of LOCA conditions.
INDUCTION MOTOR MODELS
The electrical and mechanical characteristics of
the ECCS induction motors for each EDG system summarized
in Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1.
Manufacturers' speed versus torque and current curves,
as well as motor and load inertias, were available.
These motor starting characteristics are critical when
developing the models of the overall ECCS systems fed by
the EDGS.
Figure 3 summarizes the model chosen by the authors
to represent the induction motors summarized in Table I
and Figures 1 and 2. It is a double-cage representation
used successfully to represent deep-bar rotor effects in
squirrel-cage induction motors during starting [1,21.
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,
current and power factor duriFg starting. Table I1
summarizes the equivalent circuit parameters found for
the ECCS induction motors using this method. Figyres 4
and 5 present a comparison of the manufacturers data
and model results for the 400 horsepower LPSI and HPSI
motors. As can be seen in the figures, the double cage
induction motor model duplicates the manufacturers' data
quite closely. Similar results were obtained for the
remaining ECCS induction motor models used in the
studies.
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
W. G. Bloethe, N. I. Deeb and S. S. Shah (Sargent & Lundy,
Chicago, IL): The authors are to be congratulated on their
timely paper. While the NRC has not yet taken an official
position on the subject, the question of the dynamic perfor-
mance. of the emergency diesel generators has been raised
during some Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspec-
tions (EDSFIs).Therefore, other stations may be required to
perform an analysis similar to that described in the paper.
We would appreciate the authors comments on the following
concerns which arise from our experience in performing such
studies:
1. The authors state that their induction motor models are
based on the manufacturers data. However, a recent paper
indicates that the performance of the motors in the field
can be considerably different from that indicated by the
manufacturers data. Could the authors comment on the
significance of comparing the actual performance of the
motors with the manufacturers data used in the modeling?
The authors also indicate that the effective moment of
inertia for the motors differ from the values given by the
manufacturers. We agree with the authors use of the more
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-
eters were selected so that the model reasonably duplicates
the motor torque, current, and power factor during start-
ing. However, the authors indicated previously that only
the manufacturers speed versus torque and speed versus
current curves as well as the motor and load moment of
inertia were available for the study. The results of the
motor modeling shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the LPSI and
HPSI pump motors show the speed versus torque and
speed versus current characteristics only. Our own experi-
ence in induction motor modeling has shown the difficulty
of matching all three characteristics of a motor, i.e., speed
versus torque, speed versus current, and speed versus power
factor. The authors did not reflect the speed versus power
factor characteristics of their motor models in their paper.
We would appreciate the authors comments on the signifi-
cance of matching the motor speed versus power factor
characteristics. If speed versus power factor information is
available, can the authors provide a comparison of the
speed versus power factor characteristics of the LPSI and
HPSI pump motor models with the actual motor character-
istics?
3. Numerical techniques have been used to assist in the
matching of the motor model parameters to the motor
characteristics. Have the authors used any such techniques
to reduce the amount of trial and error required to model
an induction motor?
4. The authors state that the generator excitation system used
both a potential and a current power supply. Could the
authors provide additional information on the excitation
systems? We have successfully used the IEEE type ST2
(former type 3) model for representing the excitation sys-
Hassan, I. D.; Weronick, R.; Bucci, R. M.; and Busch, W.Evaluating the
Transient Performance of Standby Diesel-Generator Units by Simulation.
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conuersion. September, 1992, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.
470-477.
tem of an emergency diesel generator with both potential
and current power supplies. The effect of the current
power supply is most important during the initial recovery
from the voltage dip. This may explain why the initial
recovery given by the authors model tends to be slower
than that shown in the test data. The addition of the
current power supply to the model may allow the voltage
regulator loop of the excitation system model to be revised
to reduce or eliminate the oscillatory behavior during the
latter part of the recovery described by the authors.
5. We agree with the authors that additional work is needed
in modeling and determining the model parameters for
emergency diesel generator excitation systems. In addition,
we feel that there is room for improving the modeling of
governor systems for the same reasons given by the au-
thors. Also, when we have had modeling information from
the governor manufacturer, the form of the model did not
match the standard models given by the IEEE committee.
6. Obtaining adequate test data in a power plant environment
is not a simple task. Could the authors describe their
testing program and the methods used to acquire the test
data? What techniques were used to minimize the effects
of noise during data collection?
Manuscript received August 7, 1992.
I. D. Hassan, R. Weronick, and R. M. Bucci
(Ebasco Services Incorporated, Pew York, New
York) : The authors present a dynamic
simulation which appears to correlate with
field tests. However, some additional
information would be helpful to us and, we
believe, other interested readers, to compare
the authors approach with the approach
described in [l].
Could the authors comment on the type of
software that was used and its accessibility
to nuclear utilities? Has the software been
verified in accordance with nuclear quality
assurance standards?
In [l] it is stated that the EMTP program was
used for the diesel generator simulations, and
the appropriate modules were verified for
nuclear applications. The EMTP program has
wide availability and accessibility to
potential users (various versions are
available through EPRI and EMTP user groups).
Also, the user can model virtually any
electromechanical device represented in a
transfer function form by use of the
appropriate EMTP modules. We have found that
commercially marketed dynamic programs of the
kind typically used for transient stability
analysis generally have fixed control system
models. These require recompiling (which may
require the intervention of the software
developer) to develop customized control
system arrangements that closely match the
performance of in service voltage regulators
and engine governors. Could the authors
comment on the relative ease in applying their
software to develop customized models?
Also, it would be helpful if the simulated
EDGs terminal voltage response during the
load application in Step 2 is included in the
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.