Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10


3, AUGUST 2007


Re-examination of Synchronous Machine Modeling Techniques for Electromagnetic Transient Simulations

Liwei Wang, Student Member, IEEE, Juri Jatskevich, Member, IEEE, and Hermann W. Dommel, Life Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis paper re-examines the three synchronous machine modeling techniques used for electromagnetic transient simmodel, phase-domain model, and voltageulations, namely, the behind-reactance model. Contrary to the claims made in several recent publications, these models are all equivalent in the continuous-time domain, as their corresponding differential equations can be algebraically derived from each other. Computer studies of a single-machine innite-bus system demonstrate that all of these models can be used for unsymmetrical operation of power systems. The conversion of machine parameters is also discussed and is shown to have some impact on simulation accuracy, which is acceptable for most cases. When the models are discretized and interfaced with an EMTP-type network solution, the voltage-behind-reactance model is shown to be the most accurate due to its advanced structure. Index TermsElectromagnetic Transient Programs (EMTP), phase-domain model, synchronous machine, unbalanced fault, voltage-behind-reactance model.


ODELING of synchronous machines has been an active research subject for quite a long time. Depending on the objective of studies and the required level of delity, the modeling approaches may be roughly divided into three categories: nite element (or difference) method [1]; equivalent magnetic circuit approach [2], [3]; and coupled electric circuit approach. This paper mainly considers the last approach, which leads to a relatively small number of equations and has been very often utilized for predicting the dynamic responses of electrical machines in power system operations. To further simplify the coupled electric circuit approach, the machine physical variables are often transformed into quadrature and direct magnetic modrotor axes [4][7]. This approach is also known as the eling of rotating machines, which is widely used in Electromagnetic Transient Programs (EMTP) [8] for power system transient simulations and analysis. Currently, there are many EMTPtype programs that use general purpose synchronous machine

Manuscript received August 29, 2006; revised December 8, 2006. This work was supported in part by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under the Discovery Grant and in part by the Power Engineering Grant-In-Aid from BC Hydro and Powertech Labs, Inc. Paper no. TPWRS-00563-2006. The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada (e-mail:;; Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online at Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.901308

transformation. These models include models based on the the Type-50 machine model in MicroTran (MT) [9], the Type-59 machine model in EPRI/DCG EMTP [10] and ATP [11], and the synchronous machine model in PSCAD/EMTDC [12]. The validity of these models for both balanced and unbalanced power system operations has been conrmed by academic and industrial applications [13], [14]. The so-called phase-domain (PD) models, as the original form of the coupled electric circuit machine models, were proposed in [15] and [16] for the nodal analysis approach. These models achieved simultaneous solution of the machine electrical variables and the network equations, they and improve numerical accuracy and stability [17], [18]. However, the time variant self and mutual inductances of the PD model stator and rotor circuits complicate the modeling and increase the computational cost. To integrate the advantages of the PD model with the benet transformation, the voltage-behind-reactance (VBR) of the machine model was introduced in [19] for the state variable approach and extended for the EMTP-type solution in [20]. In the VBR model structure, the stator circuit is represented in phase coordinates while the rotor equations are expressed rotor reference frame. Similar to the PD model, simultain neous solution of the network and machine electrical variables is achieved, and numerical accuracy and simulation efciency are further improved upon. Although all of the above-mentioned models rely on the same set of assumptions [21][23], some researchers have questioned model to unbalanced conditions. In the applicability of the machine model as[24][26], the authors claim that the sumes perfectly balanced operation conditions in machine and cannot accurately describe the transient and steady-state unbalanced operation of the synchronous machine. The authors of [27] and [28] made similar conclusions by comparing the simand PD models under unbalanced opulation results of the eration. These results seem to contradict the existing machine modeling theories and undermine the long-established validity of the machine model for power system transient simulations. In this paper, computer studies are conducted using the same synchronous machine as in [24][26] to demonstrate that the machine model, PD model, and VBR model all give identical simulation results for unbalanced operation, provided that is sufciently small. This result is the simulation time-step expected as all of these models can be derived from each other and are therefore equivalent in the continuous time domain. The claims made in [24][28] that the machine model cannot represent unbalanced operations are unfounded. The difference in

0885-8950/$25.00 2007 IEEE



A. The


The voltage equations of the machine model can be represented in terms of transformed variables as (3) where (4) (5) (6) (7) Here, and are the winding voltages and currents, rerotor reference frame; is the eld winding spectively, in voltage; is the speed voltage vector; and is the stator and rotor resistance matrix. The ux linkage equations are given as (8) where the machine self and mutual inductance matrix constant, due to Parks transformation. The electromagnetic torque is expressed as is

Fig. 1 Coupled-circuits model of a synchronous machine.

simulation results, however, may possibly arise from inconsistent machine parameters, problems with user interfaces, and/or model implementation. We also show that the use of equivalent circuit parameters versus the manufacturers data (transient/subtransient inductances and time constants) should not in general lead to signicant differences in simulation results. However, one should be aware of existing procedures for parameter conversion and apply them with care. This paper also shows that numerical properties of the considered machine models differ when their respective differential equations are discretized and interfaced with the network solution. The VBR model is shown to be more accurate, even for sufciently large integration time steps. II. MACHINE MODELS Prior to comparing the results, it is instructive to briey review the various models discussed in this paper. According to the commonly used assumptions [21][23], a general purpose three-phase synchronous machine may be represented as a coupled circuit, depicted in Fig. 1. For the purpose of discussion and without loss of generality, the stator circuit consists of three armature windings, and the rotor circuit includes one eld winding and one damper winding in axis and two damper windings in axis, respectively. The axis is assumed to be leading the axis by 90 [23]. Motor convention is used in the machines voltage equations so that the stator currents owing into the machine have a positive sign in the voltage equations. The ux linkage of each winding is assumed to have the same sign as the current owing in that winding. The mechanical subsystem is assumed to be represented as (1) (2) Here, the operator , is the number of poles, is the are the developed electromagnetic moment of inertia, and torque and the mechanical torque, and and are the rotor position and speed, respectively. Although the models considered herein all are assumed to have the same mechanical subsystem represented by (1) and (2), the electromagnetic torque is expressed differently in each case.


B. Phase-Domain Model The PD model is commonly expressed in terms of the machines physical variables and phase coordinates. In particular, the voltage equation is expressed as (10) and the ux linkages are represented as (11) where the stator and rotor self and mutual inductance matrix depends on the rotor position . The electromagnetic torque is expressed in the machine variables as (12)

C. Voltage-Behind-Reactance Model The VBR machine model represents the stator variables in phase coordinates and the rotor variables in transformed coordinates [19]. Here, the stator voltage equation is expressed as





(14) (15) (16) (17)

denotes the rotor winding ux linkages; and Here, are the magnetizing ux linkages in the and axes, respectively. The equations for rotor speed and position in the VBR machine model are identical to (1) and (2). However, the electromagnetic torque is calculated as [23]

(31) D. Relationship Among Models

(18) The inductances and are calculated as (19) (20) The voltage-behind-reactance term in (13) is dened as (21) where the rotor reference frame transformation matrix is (22)


(24) with (25) (26) The rotor state equations are represented as (27) (28) where (29) (30)

Although the PD model is based on straightforward state equations describing the coupled circuit depicted in Fig. 1, its implementation in digital programs is complicated by the presence of the rotor-position-dependent self and mutual inmodel is algebraically ductances represented in (11). The derived from the PD model using Parks transformation with model results no approximations [22], [23]. Because the in equations with constant coefcients, its implementation is relatively simple, which explains the wide use of this model. model is its interface with However, the disadvantage of the EMTP network solutions, which was shown to result in a loss of numerical accuracy and stability for large time steps [20]. The VBR model was originally derived from PD and models without any approximation by appropriately applying the rotor reference frame only to selected terms [19]. Therefore, the model, the PD model, and the VBR model can be derived from each other and are all equivalent in the continuous time domain. However, the numerical properties of these models differ when their equations are discretized using a particular integration scheme. A detailed analysis of these models in [19] and [20] shows that the VBR model is more accurate than the PD model due to rescaled and improved eigenvalues. To make a fair comparison among the models here, (1) and (2) have been discretized in the same way using implicit trapezoidal rule, and the mechanical variables and are predicted using linear extrapolation to avoid the solution of the machine nonlinear equations. This method is commonly used in EMTP-type programs and is justied on the facts that the time constant of the mechanical system is much larger than that of the electrical system. III. INPUT DATA CONVERSION For most EMTP-type programs the self and mutual inductances of stator and rotor circuits are internally utilized to calculate the equivalent circuit parameters and solve the machine equations [22]. However, these internal circuit parameters are not directly determined from the test measurements. Instead, the transient and subtransient inductances and time constants are rst dened to t the eld test data (manufacturers data) with acceptable accuracy, from which the corresponding internal circuit parameters are calculated using a parameter conversion procedure. There are several commonly used parameter conversion methods in the literature [29][32]. In [29], a classical (approximate) parameter conversion procedure is presented that assumes that the ux linkages do not change instantly following



a short-circuit test, and that and are much larger than and , respectively, so that the subtransient period elapses much faster than the transient period. Based on these assumptions, the classical parameter conversion is summarized in Appendix A. The conversion is quite straightforward and has been widely used, although the possibility of a noticeable error was reported in [30]. A more accurate parameter conversion method proposed by Canay [30] and Dommel [31] (a renement of Canays data conversion) is given in Appendix B. This method is based on a set of more accurate denitions of transient and subtransient inductances and time constants in terms of machine circuit parameters. For consistency, a brief review of these denitions is included here. The detailed derivations can be found in [22, Appendix]. The transient and subtransient inductances and time constants are derived using an eigenvalue and eigenvector approach to the machines differential equations. Without loss of generality, the procedure of deriving short-circuit time constants is given below. A similar procedure is used with the open-circuit time constants. If the armature resistance is assumed to be zero, the stator state equations for the short-circuit test can be expressed as [31] (32) and (33) The solution of (32) and (33) is given by (34) and

and are expressed in terms of , , and , After the nal equation has the following form [22, Appendix VI.11]

(41) where is system matrix and is the forcing function vector. are obtained as the The short-circuit time constants , negative reciprocals of the eigenvalues of the matrix [22, Apand can be obpendix VI.11]. The short-circuit currents and tained by solving (41) analytically. The solutions of include three parts: the steady state, the transient associated with , and the subtransient associated with . Therefore, the solution for also contains three parts, since (42) After substituting the analytical solutions of (42), the transient part of associated with sented as [22, Appendix VI.27a] and into can be repre-

Using (35), the transient part of

(43) can be further expressed as

(44) which can then be matched with the amplitude of the transient part of as read from the short-circuit measurement. Therefore, the transient inductance can be obtained from (45)

(35) is dened by the initial condition . Here where the solution is slightly different from [22, Appendix VI], as the motor convention is used in the machine voltage equations. The rotor state equations for the axis are formulated as (36) and (37) Similarly, the subtransient inductance is obtained from

(46) , is much larger than the period of oscillation of (i.e., , ), the transient and subtransient inductances may be approximated as If (47) (48) When only the open-circuit or short-circuit time constants are known, the other pair can be calculated using the solution of (47) and (48) or (45) and (46), which correspond to Canays data conversion [30] and its renement [31], respectively. Both of these approaches are explicit and neglect the armature winding resistance to decouple the denitions of test parameters in the direct

where (38) (39) (40)



Fig. 3. Damper winding current i

using different data conversion methods.

Fig. 2. Simulation results with time-step of 50 s. Fig. 4. Magnied plot of i using different data conversion methods.

and quadrature axes. In [32], the researchers removed this assumption and proposed an implicit procedure for calculating the axes transient and subcircuit parameters from the known transient time constants and eigenvalues. However, the calculation results in [32] show that Canays data conversion is quite accurate for typical machine data. IV. CASE STUDIES In this paper, we used two EMTP software packages, MicroTran and ATP, both with the build-in synchronous model. The machine models based on the traditional PD and VBR models were also implemented using a nodal analysis approach in order to compare their performances. A single-machine innite-bus system is used in which the synchronous machine parameters were obtained from [21] and are summarized in Appendix C. In this section, the machine reference circuit parameters were used for all machine models in Sections IV-A and IV-C. Different parameter conversion methods are used in Section IV-B, and the results are compared with the reference circuit parameters. In the following transient study, the synchronous machine ini, a single-phase-totially operates at no load. At ground fault is applied at the machine terminals (phase ). The transient responses produced by the various models are plotted in Figs. 29. The transient studies of balanced operation have

Fig. 5. Stator current i

with time step of 1 ms.

been previously considered in [20] and are not included here due to space limitations. A. Small Time-Step Study The considered study of an unbalanced fault is rst sim. The ulated using a relatively small time step, resulting transients of the stator currents , , eld current



Fig. 9. Magnied plot of i Fig. 6. Stator current i with time step of 1 ms.

with time step of 1 ms.

This clearly demonstrates that these models are all equivalent and predict the unbalanced operations with acceptable accuracy for the given time step, which is contrary to the conclusions made in [24][28]. B. Impact of Parameter Conversion Methods The authors of [24][26] suggested that the different simulation results obtained by the and PD models may be caused by different data based on their frames of reference [24] and listed the machines internal circuit data and test data in the Appendices of [24], [25]. However, these two sets of data are equivalent, as is shown in [21]. To investigate this point further, we implemented the same system using MicroTran with the input of the test parameters and reference circuit parameters. Internally, MicroTran converts the test parameters into the circuit parameters using one of the three conversion methods as described in Section III. As expected, the deviation among the nal circuit parameters was not very signicant. The most noticeable difference was observed in the axis parameters, which are summarized in Table I. The corresponding transient responses are visibly the same as in Fig. 2 and are not shown here due to space limitations. As Table I reveals, the most noticeable differences winding. Therefore, the tranexists in the parameters of is shown in Fig. 3. A magnied sient observed in current fragment of Fig. 3 is also shown in Fig. 4 for better comparison. As can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4, the impact of various data conversion methods is small, and all transients are reasonably close to the reference solution obtained using the original circuit parameters. The classical method (dashed line) gives the most deviation from the reference (solid line), with successive improvements by Canays method (dash-dotted line) and its minor renement (long-dashed line), all consistent with the accuracy of the parameters summarized in Table I. Therefore, the impact of parameter conversion methods on the transient responses is insignicant. The different simulation results in [24][26] obmodel and the phase-domain model may be tained using the caused by inconsistent data or problematic model implementation. C. Large Time-Step Study To further compare the numerical properties and robustness is apof the machine models, a larger time step

Fig. 7. Field current i

with time step of 1 ms.

Fig. 8. Electromagnetic torque T with time step of 1 ms.

, and electromagnetic torque are depicted in Fig. 2. machine The reference solutions were obtained using the model implemented in MATLAB/Simulink and solved with the RungeKutta fourth-order method using a time step of 1 . The simulation results obtained by the MicroTran, ATP, PD, and VBR models are overlaid with the reference solutions. As can be observed from Fig. 2, the transient responses produced by all models coincide and converge to the reference solutions.




As can be seen in Fig. 10, the solutions of all models are convergent to the reference solution when the time step is sufciently small. However, the simulation accuracy degrades rapidly when the time step is increased. A similar trend is , MicroTrans observed with other variables. For model results in a cumulative error of about 35%, whereas ATPs Type-59 model was not convergent with a time step larger than 300 (under default error tolerance). Based on these studies, it appears that models may be used with acceptable accuracy with a time-step as large as 100 to 200 s. Although the PD and VBR models considered here use prediction of mechanical variables in the same way as traditional models (e.g., Type-50 model in MicroTran, Type-59, and Universal Machine models in ATP), these models achieve simultaneous solution of machine electrical variables and network variables and therefore produce stable and more accurate results. The VBR model achieves higher numerical accuracy, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. This improved numerical accuracy is attributed to better-scaled eigenvalues of this model formulation [19], [20]. In particular, the eigenvalues of the discretized model determine the behavior and/or propagations of local errors. Interested readers may nd a more detailed analysis of numerical accuracy and system eigenvalues in [34] and [35]. V. DISCUSSION

Fig. 10. Propagation of numerical error in i

for different time steps.

plied to the same test case as in Sections IV-A and IV-B. The same variables are plotted in Figs. 58. As can be observed in Figs. 58, the results produced by the various models visibly diverge from the reference solution. The transient responses obtained by MicroTrans machine model Type-50 (dotted line, MT legend) diverge from the reference solutions with the largest error among the considered models, whereas ATPs machine model Type-59 was found not convergent at such a large time models step. The problem of convergence and accuracy of is attributed to their interface with the external network and is discussed in detail in [17], [18], and [20]. At the same time, the VBR and PD models still produce reasonably accurate and convergent simulation results. A more detailed fragment of the is shown in Fig. 9, which is a magnitransient observed in ed plot of Fig. 6. As Fig. 9 (and Figs. 58) shows, the VBR model produces the most accurate results among the considered models, due to its advanced model structure [19], [20]. D. Error Behavior In order to show the numerical accuracy of machine models at different time steps, the same study was simulated several times using integration time steps from 10 to 1 ms. Herein, without is considered due loss of generality, only the phase current to space limitation. The relative error between the reference so(as dened in Section IV-A) and a given numerical lution solution trajectory is calculated using the 2-norm [33] as

(49) The errors are calculated for different time-step sizes, and the results are shown in Fig. 10.

The models discussed in this paper belong to a group of general-purpose, lumped-parameter models that may be used with various EMTP-type packages to carry out simulations of typical power system transient studies with balanced and/or unbalanced conditions on the system side. However, sometimes there is a need to model and implement more detailed and/or internal phenomena, such as stator inter-turn and/or inter-windings faults. The general purpose models (e.g., , PD, and VBR) are all based on the circuits that assume symmetrical stator phase windings as depicted in Fig. 1. These models are therefore not directly suitable for studying internal faults, since special consideration of the type of fault being examined is required. To model the transient phenomena associated with internal faults in a single phase, at least one of the stator windings must be represented in more detail; that is, this phase must be partitioned into smaller sections such that the fault is then applied to an appropriate portion of the winding. If the internal fault involves more than one phase, then the affected windings must be partitioned accordingly to implement the required phenomena. For example, the authors of [36] use a partitioning of the stator windings into interior and exterior sections in order to study the stator winding internal faults. Since the PD model formulation does not require any symmetry among the phases, this model formulation can be readily extended to represent the synchronous machines internal faults, as proposed in [37][39], at the expense of including the required winding subsections and increasing the dimensions of the inductance matrix accordingly. When the stator phase windings are not symmetric, the main advantage of applying the transformation, which previously resulted in constant matrices, is no longer present, and the transformed inductance and resistance matrices will depend on the rotor position [23]. Thereafter, straightforward transformation of stator equations into the rotor reference frame may offer



little if any advantage over the direct coupled circuit formulation (i.e., the PD model). It might be possible to partition all three stator phases into several equal subsections and still obtain some benet by transforming the stator equations into the rotor reference frame. The authors have not seen this reported in the literature, however, and more research is required to conrm this possibility. Incorporating the effect of magnetic saturation is another important aspect of improving the accuracy and range of application of synchronous machines models. Using the machine models, magnetic saturation may be represented with accuracy acceptable for power-system transient analysis [21][23], [40][43]. For EMTP-type solutions, a piece-wise linear approximation is often used to represent the magnetic models [22], [40]. The saturation characteristics of the necessary machine parameters may be obtained using the standstill frequency response (SSFR) and/or online frequency response (OLFR) measurements [41]. Higher-order machine models have been proposed to fairly accurately represent the distributed-parameter nature of the rotor and saturation effects [43], with the model parameters derived from the measured saturation characteristics and the SSFR. The model proposed in [43] offers more accuracy than is typically required for studying power system transients at low frequencies, which comes at the expense of additional complexity. The PD model proposed in [16] also provides a exible and potentially accurate way to represent variable reluctance and saturation effects along different ux paths. However, the complexity of representing magnetic saturation in PD formulation is in general much higher than it is in models. Implementation of magnetic saturation with the VBR model has been previously considered in [44], where the authors have shown that incorporating the saturation in the axis only may provide an adequate match with the hardware measurements. The VBR model formulation may provide different options for including magnetic saturation, with accuracy similar to that of conventional and PD models. However, this subject requires more thorough consideration that is beyond the scope of this paper and deserves a dedicated publication, which the authors will pursue in the near future. On the other hand, the nite-element-based and/or magnetic-equivalent-circuit-based models are naturally much better suited for studying internal machine details from the initial design stage. Various internal faults and magnetic saturation, including very ne structural/material details, can be studied using these models. These approaches should be used instead of low-order models (i.e., the , PD, and VBR) whenever very high delity simulations of a single machine are required. The resulting models, however, are computationally very expensive. For typical power system transient simulations, however, the accuracy achieved by low-order models has been generally considered acceptable [21]. Even a more accurate model [43] may appear too complex and expensive when more than one machine is being considered in the system. VI. CONCLUSION Several full-order synchronous machine models used for EMTP-type solutions are investigated in this paper. Presented computer studies of a single-phase-to-ground fault show that

model, PD model, and VBR model are all equivalent in the the continuous time domain. They can therefore all be used for studying power system transients with unbalanced (as well as is sufciently balanced) operation, provided the time step small. For large time steps, the VBR model is shown to have good stability property and to provide the most accurate results. The input data conversion procedures discussed are shown to have a noticeable but minor impact on simulation accuracy, with results equivalent and/or acceptable for most applications. The conclusions stated in [24][28] with regard to the unsuitability of the machine model for unbalanced operations have not been conrmed. APPENDIX A Classical data conversion [45, equations (15)(28)]: The muis assumed to be known, or is tual inductance in the axis, calculated by (A1) The unknown circuit parameters in the axis can be calculated from the transient and subtransient inductances and time constants as (A2) (A3) (A4) (A5) APPENDIX B Canays data conversion [22]: Two time constants, are dened as and ,

(B1) (B2) Assuming is known, the time constants calculated using the following equations: and can be

(B3) (B4) where

(B5) The parallel combination of as and can then be calculated




The circuit parameters can be determined as

(B7) (B8) (B9) (B10) Similar procedures apply to axis parameters.

APPENDIX C Synchronous machine parameters [21]: 555 MVA, 24 kV, 0.9 pf, 2 poles, 3600 r/min, Reference circuit parameters (p.u.):

Test parameters (p.u.):

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank their friends and colleagues in the UBC Power Group as well as the reviewers for providing valuable comments. REFERENCES
[1] S. J. Salon, Finite Element Analysis of Electrical Machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1995. [2] G. R. Slemon, An equivalent circuit approach to analysis of synchronous machines with saliency and saturation, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 538545, Sep. 1990. [3] Y. Xiao, G. R. Slemon, and M. R. Iravani, Implementation of an equivalent circuit approach to the analysis of synchronous machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 717723, Dec. 1994. [4] R. H. Park, Two-reaction theory of synchronous machines-generalized method of analysis, AIEE Trans., vol. 48, pp. 716727, Jul. 1929. [5] H. C. Stanley, An analysis of the induction motor, AIEE Trans., vol. 57, pp. 751755, 1938. [6] G. Kron, Equivalent Circuits of Electric Machinery. New York: Wiley, 1951. [7] P. C. Krause and C. H. Thomas, Simulation of symmetrical induction machinery, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-84, pp. 10381053, Nov. 1965. [8] H. W. Dommel, Digital computer solution of electromagnetic transients in single- and multiphase networks, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-88, no. 4, pp. 388399, Apr. 1969. [9] MicroTran Reference Manual, MicroTran Power System Analysis Corp., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1997. [10] Electromagnetic Transient Programs (EMTP96) Rule Book I, EMTP Development Coordination Group (DCG) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc., 1999.

[11] Alternative Transients Program (ATP) Rule Book, Can/Am EMTP user group, Jul. 1987. [12] EMTDC Users Guide, Manitoba HVDC Research Center, Inc., Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2004, ch. 8. [13] Y. Cui, H. W. Dommel, and W. Xu, A comparative study of two synchronous machine modeling techniques for EMTP simulation, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 462463, Jun. 2004. [14] E. Kyriakides, G. T. Heydt, and V. Vittal, On-line estimation of synchronous generator parameters using a damper current observer and a graphic user interface, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 499507, Sep. 2004. [15] J. R. Marti and T. O. Myers, Phase-domain induction motor model for power system simulators, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Communications, Power, and Computing, May 1995, vol. 2, pp. 276282. [16] J. R. Marti and K. W. Louie, A phase-domain synchronous generator model including saturation effects, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 222229, Feb. 1997. [17] X. Cao, A. Kurita, H. Mitsuma, Y. Tada, and H. Okamoto, Improvements of numerical stability of electromagnetic transient simulation by use of phase-domain synchronous machine models, Elect. Eng. Jpn., vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 5362, Apr. 1999. [18] A. B. Dehkordi, A. M. Gole, and T. L. Maguire, Permanent magnet synchronous machine model for real-time simulation, in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Systems Transients (IPST05), Montreal, QC, Canada, Jun. 2005. [19] S. D. Pekarek, O. Wasynczuk, and H. J. Hegner, An efcient and accurate model for the simulation and analysis of synchronous machine/converter systems, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 4248, Mar. 1998. [20] L. Wang and J. Jatskevich, A voltage-behind-reactance synchronous machine model for the EMTP-type solution, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 15391549, Nov. 2006. [21] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGrawHill, 1994, ch. 4. [22] H. W. Dommel, EMTP Theory Book. Vancouver, BC, Canada: MicroTran Power System Analysis Corporation, May 1992, ch. 8. [23] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, and S. D. Sudhoff, Analysis of Electric Machinery and Drive Systems, 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2002. [24] O. Rodriguez and A. Medina, Synchronous machine stability analysis using an efcient time domain methodology: Unbalanced operation analysis, in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 677681. [25] O. Rodriguez and A. Medina, Efcient methodology for stability analysis of synchronous machines, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 150, no. 4, pp. 405412, Jul. 2003. [26] O. Rodriguez and A. Medina, Efcient methodology for the transient and periodic steady-state analysis of the synchronous machine using a phase coordinates model, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 464466, Jun. 2004. [27] K. H. Chan, E. Acha, M. Madrigal, and J. A. Parle, The use of direct time-phase domain synchronous generator model in standard EMTPtype industrial packages, IEEE Power Eng. Rev., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 6365, Jun. 2001. [28] K. H. Chan, J. A. Parle, and E. Acha, Real-time transient simulation of multimachine power system networks in the phase domain, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 192200, Mar. 2004. [29] B. Adkins, The General Theory of Electrical Machines. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 1957. [30] I. M. Canay, Determination of model parameters of synchronous machines, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. B, vol. 130, pp. 8694, Mar. 1983. [31] H. W. Dommel and I. I. Dommel, Discussion to Synchronous machine parameters from sudden-short tests by back-solving, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 232233, Jun. 1989. [32] F. L. Alvarado and C. Canizares, Synchronous machine parameters from sudden-short tests by back-solving, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 224231, Jun. 1989. [33] W. Gautchi, Numerical Analysis: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1997. [34] U. Ascher and L. R. Petzold, Computer Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations and Differential-algebraic Equations. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1998, ch. 2.



[35] L. O. Chua and P.-M. Lin, Computer Aided Analysis of Electronic Circuit: Algorithms and Computational Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975. [36] P. P. Reichmeider, D. Querrey, C. A. Gross, D. Novosel, and S. Salon, Partitioning of synchronous machine windings for internal fault analysis, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 372375, Dec. 2000. [37] A. I. Megahed and O. P. Malik, Simulation of internal faults in synchronous generators, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 13061311, Dec. 1999. [38] P. P. Reichmeider, C. A. Gross, D. Querrey, D. Novosel, and S. Salon, Internal faults in synchronous machines. I. The machine model, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 376379, Dec. 2000. [39] D. Muthumuni, P. G. McLaren, E. Dirks, and V. Pathirana, A synchronous machine model to analyze internal faults, in Conf. Rec. IEEE Industry Application Conf., 36th IAS Annual Meeting, Sep./Oct. 2001, vol. 3, no. 30, pp. 15951600. [40] V. Brandwajn, Representation of magnetic saturation in the synchronous machine model in an electro-magnetic transients program, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 19962002, Sep./Oct. 1980. [41] N. J. Bacalao, P. de Arizon, and L. R. O. Sanche, A model for the synchronous machine using frequency response measurements, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 457464, Feb. 1995. [42] E. Levi, Saturation modeling in D-Q axis models of salient pole synchronous machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4450, Mar. 1999. [43] D. C. Aliprantis, S. D. Sudhoff, and B. T. Kuhn, A synchronous machine model with saturation and arbitrary rotor network representation, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 584594, Sep. 2005. [44] S. D. Pekarek, E. A. Walters, and B. T. Kuhn, An efcient and accurate method of representing magnetic saturation in physical-variable models of synchronous machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 7279, Mar. 1999. [45] IEEE Subsynchronous Resonance Task Force of the Dynamic System Performance Working Group, Power System Engineering Committee, First benchmark model for computer simulation of subsynchronous resonance, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-96, pp. 15651570, Sep./Oct. 1977.

Liwei Wang (S04) received the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, in 2004. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. His research interests include electrical machines, power, and power electronic systems simulation.

Juri Jatskevich (M99) received the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, in 1997 and 1999, respectively. He stayed at Purdue, as well as consulting for PC Krause and Associates, Inc., until 2002. Since 2002, he has been an Assistant Professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. His research interests include electrical machines, power electronic systems, and simulation.

Hermann W. Dommel (LF01) was born in Germany in 1933. He received the Dipl.-Ing. and Dr.-Ing. degrees in electrical engineering from the Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany, in 1959 and 1962, respectively. From 1959 to 1966, he was with the Technical University Munich and, from 1966 to 1973, with Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Since 1973, he has been with the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.