IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 11, No.
3, September 1996
Computer Models for Representation of Digital-Based Excitation Systems
A paper prepared by the Digital Excitation Task Force of the Equipment Working Group, and jointly
sponsored by the Performance and Modeling Working Group,
of the Excitation System Subcommittee
-
Abstract Computer Models suitable for representation of
newer digital-based excitation systems in transient
stability programs are presented in this paper. These
models are an addendum to the most recent issued IEEE
standard 421.5 (1992) for recommended excitation system
models. It is the intent of the subcommittee to include
these models in standard 421.5 at the time of its next
revision.
1. Introduction
Since the adoption in 1992 of Standard 421.5 - "IEEE
Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for
Power System Stability Studies" [l], there have been many
new excitation systems applied. Most of the new systems
have digital-based controls, that is they use microprocessor
technology to implement the control algorithms. The use of
digital-based controls by itself does not warrant new models if
the controls are simply emulating existing equipment. The
use of the digital-based controls, however, does offer
flexibility and control options which were difficult if not
impossible to have in the previous generations of analog
control systems. The computer models for these new controls
and excitation systems are the subject of this paper. It is
hoped that these models will provide guidance to the industry
and those in planning and operations departments who will
find it necessary to have the best models of the excitation
systems for use in their transient stability studies. These
models, and recent published models on excitation system
limiters [2,3], will form the basis for the next revision of
standard 421.5, now scheduled for 1997.
96 Wh4 03 1-5 EC A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Energy
Development and Power Generation Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the 1996 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting,
January21-25, 1996, Baltimore, MD. Manuscript submitted August 3, 1995;
made available for printing January 5, 1996.
607
2. Scope
The models in this paper are based on the same assumptions
that are contained in the scope section of IEEE Standard
421.5 [l]. In this regard, the models are suitable for
representing the actual excitation equipment performance for
large, severe disturbances as well as for small perturbations.
The model formats are based on the definitions and
conventions established in Standard 421.5. As a reminder,
the excitation systems have as inputs the reference voltage,
VmF, the compensated terminal voltage, Vc, and the stabilizer
(plus discontinuous excitation forcing, if used), Vs. The
stabilizer model inputs are shown as Vsl and are defined in
Appendix B. Also in the tradition of the recent standard,
sample data sets for each of the models are included in
Appendix B to this paper as a user application guide. The
data sets give values for the terminal voltage transducer time
constant, TR,not explictly shown in the model block diagrams
but contained in the formulation of VC [ 11.
All of the models presented in this paper have the suffix
designation "B", which refers to the next designation
sequence after the publication of the Standards document
421.5 (which are "A" suffix designated). Model types will
use the same code designation from the present standards, and
model numbers have been assigned sequentially from those
already in the standards. For purposes of ease of explanation,
any relevant power system stabilizer models are included
together with the basic excitation system models as presented.
3. Type ST -Static Excitation Systems
The computer models representing both potential and
compound source - rectifier excitation systems are given in
this section. The first model is Type ST4B.
The block diagram of the computer model is Figure 1. This
model represents the following types of equipment:
- GE EX2000 Bus Fed Potential Source
- GE EX2000 Static compound Systems
- GE EX2000 Generrex-PPS or -CPS.
608

Figure 1
Type ST4B - Potential or Compound-Source Controlled Rectifier Exciter

The model is also representative of the GE SILCOmatic 5
excitation system. This model is a variation of the type ST3A
model, with a proporticinal plus integral (PI) regulator block
replacing the lag-lead regulator characteristic which was in
the ST3A model. The PI regulator blocks have non-windup
limits which are represented as described in Appendix A in
this paper. The other features of the regulator are a low value
gate for the OEL limit function, and the UEL and V/Hz
control are summed into the input to the regulator. This
means that on a unit with PSS control, the PSS will be active
if the unit goes into UEL limit control, unlike previous
designs which had takeover type limiters. The description of
rectifier regulation, FEx,remains unchanged from Appendix
D in IEEE Standards 421.5. There is flexibility in the power
component model to represent bus fed exciters (KI and XL
both equal to zero), compound static systems (X, = O), and
the GE Generrex potential and compound source systems
where X, is non zero. The appropriate PSS model to use with
the ST4B excitation model is type PSS2B shown in Figure 2,
which is a modified form of the model PSS2A published in
the IEEE Standard 421.5. An additional block with lag time
constant TS and lead time constant Tlo can be used to model
stabilizers which incorporate a more complex phase lead
function. In some applications, designers may choose to
provide additional low-pass filtering at turbine-generator
torsional frequencies, so the model should be structured to
permit the use of a zero lead time constant, Tlo. The other
modification to the model is to add limits to the input signals

VSHMAX \ VSTMAX

Figure 2
Type PSS2B - Dual Input Power System Stabilizer
 609

Figure 3
Type STSB - Potential-Source Controlled Rectifier Exciter

which represent the allowable ranges of the sensed values,
which depend on the specific design parameters. The
resprentation of the input limit values may be important in
some performance studies.
Another ST model is shown in Figure 3 as model type STSB.
This model is representative of the ABB excitation systems
type UNITROL D and UNITROL P. The corresponding PSS
controls which can be used with these models are given in
Figure 4 and Figure 5 as type PSS3B and PSS4B
respectively. Both of these PSS models have dual inputs of
electrical power (Vs11 = PE) and rotor angular frequency
deviation (Vs12 = Ao) . In both models, the time constants
TI and T3 represent the transducer time constants, and the
time constants T2 and T4 represent the wash-out time
constants for electric power and rotor angular speed
measuring, respectively. The PSS3B models is mainly used
with the UNITROL D excitation systems. In this model the
stabilizing signal VST results from the vector summation of
processed signals for electrical power and angular frequency
deviation. The desired amplitude and phase for the
stabilizing signal is obtained by matching the polarity and
magnitude of the gain constants Ksl and Ksz. The maximum
allowed influence of the stabilizing signal on the AVR can be
adjusted with the limit values VSTMAX and VSTMIN.
The PSS4B model is mainly used with the UNITROL P
excitation systems. The formation and limitation of the
stabilizing signal as well as the structure of the angular
frequency variation channel are basically the same as the
PSS3B model. The significant difference in this model is that
the power channel contains a conditioning network
responsible for the reconstruction of an accelerating power
signal instead of the pure electrical power signal used in the
PSS3B model. The conditioning network for accelerating
power requires the system constant To which represents the
characteristic start-up time constant of the synchronous
machine as well as the inertia time constant M (2H) for the
combined turbine-generator shaft system.
The Westinghouse static excitation system with digital-based
controls can be represented by the existing S T l A model, and
the corresponding PSS controls are represented by the
existing PSS2A model. For these systems, no new models are
needed.

Figure 4
Type PSS3B - Dual Input Power System Stabilizer
610

--
1+ST,
4

M sT 1+sTo
,-* A
To i+sTo-)

- 1+sTB

Figure 5
Type PSS4B - Dual Input Power System Stabilizer

4. Type AC - Alternator Supplied Rectifier

Excitation Systems
These excitation systems consists of an ac alternator with
either stationary or rotating rectifiers to produce the dc field
requirements. The Westinghouse brushless excitation
systems fit in this category. The present offering of this
system can be represented by the type AClA model with no
changes required for the digital-based voltage regulator
controls.
Another system of this type is the GE Alterr-ex excitation
system. This system had been modeled by the Type AC3A
model, but the replacement of the controls only as an upgrade
(retaining the ac alternator and diode rectifier bridge) has
resulted in a new model. This system is called the EX2000 -
Alterrex excitation system, and will be represented by model
Type AC7B. The block diagram of this model is shown in
Figure 6. Some of the features of this excitation system

Figure 6
Type AC7B - Alternator-Rectifier Excitation System
 611

Figure 7
Type AC8B - Alternator-Rectifier Excitation System

include a high bandwidth inner loop regulating generator field Appendix A - Limit Model
voltage (VA, KF), a fast exciter current limit, VFEMAX, to
protect the field of the ac alternator, and the PI generator
voltage regulator (V,) which has been previously described in The use of proportional plus integral regulator blocks in the
the Type ST4B model. If a PSS control is supplied, the models ST4B and AC7B requires some definition of the non-
appropriate model is the Type PSS2B model. windup modeling required to implement the computer
models. The following figure is an addendum to the IEEE
Another AC format model is AC8B, which represents the Standard 421.5 - (Appendix E) wherein these models are
Basler DECS voltage regulator as applied to a brushless described.
exciter. The block diagram of the AC8B model is shown in
Figure 7. The AVR in this model consists of PID control, A
with separate constants for the proportional (Kp), integral (KJ r
and derivative (KD) gains. The values for the constants are U ++ +x
chosen for best performance for each particular generator
excitation system. The simplified representation of the
brushless alternator (TE, KE, SE) is similar to the model type
AC5A. Sample data for this model is shown in Appendix B.

5. References
y > Athen x = Aand dddt = 0
y < B then x = 6 and dz/dt = 0
[l] IEEE Standard 421.5, IEEE Recommended Practice for
Excitation System Models for Power System Stability
Studies August 1992.
-
E.4 Non Windup Proportional Integral Block

121 Underexcitation Limiter Models for Power system

Stability Studies, IEEE Task Force on Excitation Limiters, -
Appendix B Sample Data
Paper 95WM050-5-EC, Presented at the 1995 PES-WPM.

[3] Recommended Models for Overexcitation Limiting The following data set are samples, not necessarily typical or
Devices, IEEE Task Force on Excitation Limiters, Paper representative. Unless otherwise stated, time constants have
95WM049-7-EC, Presented at the 1995 PES-WPM units of seconds, and all other parameters are in per unit.
612

ST4B Potential or Compound-Source Controlled Rectifier T9 0.1

Excitation System TlO 0.0
Data Set #1 - Potential Source N 1
M 5
0.0 VSIl Speed pu
10.75 Vsrz Electrical Power pu
10.75 VSIIMAX 0.08 pu
0.02 VSIIMIN -0.08 PU
1.o VSIZMAX 1.25 pu
-0.87 VSI2MIN -1.25 PU
1.o VSTMAX 0.1
0.0 VSTMIN -0.1
99 Tw1=Twz=Tw3 10.0
-99 TW4 0.0
0.0
9.3LQ0 ST5B Potential-Source Controlled Rectifier Excitation
0.0 System
0.124
0.113 6.0
11.63 0.8
0.01
Data Set # 2 - Compound Source 0.08
200.
0.0 0.004
20. 5.0
20. -4.0
0.02 0.004
1.o
-0.87 PSS3B Dual Inout Power System Stabilizer
0.0
14.9 Ks 1 1.o
1.o k52 0.0
-0.87 TI 0.02
1.o T2 1.5
T3 0.02
5.514O
T4 1.5
8.8 0.10
VSTMAX
0.0 -0.10
VSTMIN
1.8 Electrical Power pu
VSIl
8.54
v512 Rotor Angular Speed pu
PSS2B Dual Input Power System Stabilizer PSS4B Dual Input Power System Stabilizer
(Used with Data Set #1 Above - Potential Source)
1.o
20.0 0.0
0.99
0.2
1.o
1.5
0.15
0.02
0.025
1.5
0.15 0.03
0.02
I .5
0.033
0.10
0.0 -0.10
10.0
Electrical Power pu
0.5
Rotor Angular Speed pu
 613
AC7B - Alternator-RectifierExcitation System

TR 0.0
KA 20.0
TA 1.o
VRmax 1.o
VRmm -1.0
KR 12.77
TR 20.0
VAmax 1.o
VAmin -1.0
KP 6.41
KL 26.2
TE 1.945
VFEmax 6.1
KC 0.172
KD 0.567
KE 1.oo
KF 1.oo
SEmax 1.195
VEmax 4.025
SE0.75max 0.097
VEo 75" 3.02

AC8B - Alternator-RectifierExcitation Svstem

170.
130.
60.
0.03
10.
0
1.o
0.0
1.o
1.o
1.5
4.5
1.36
3.38
614
Discussion
I. Trebincevic (Siemens Power Corporation, Fossil Division -
Instrumentation & Controls, 1007-B Mansell Road, Roswell,
GA 30076):
A brief description of functions and constantslgains of
Siemens's "Thyripol-D" Excitation system Model can
be depicted below in the model diagram and described
as follows:
Block #1) Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR)
The terminal voltage input shows a
proportional influence model with a time
delay of approximately 15 msec. All
reference inputs including limitters are
brought to the first summation point.
Exception is the underexcitation limitter
which is fed to AVR via Max Gate. The
model shows AVR with PSS inputs in
normal position and switchable to feed
forward position when chosen by the
COMPUTER REPRESENTATION MODEL OF "THYRIPOL-D"
customer. The last input to AVR is a
building block of field forcing voltages
Vml I VRMm VmIN is brought into
the block as a constant value, generally
at -0.85 V".
Block #2 Power System Stabilizer (PSS)
Siemens PSS is very similar to type
PSS3B, featuring dual inputs for
deviation of power and frequency. The
typical time constants are identified with
every calculation sub-block.
Block #3 Depicts the rectifier & firing gate
amplification influence.
Block #4 Terminal Voltage Influence.
Block#5 Limitation of excitation voltage to zero
when excitation current became zero.
FD
DIGITAL EXCITER SYSTEM
Manuscript received February 20, 1996.
 615
0. P. Malik (The University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, We would like to thank the reviewers who submitted written
Canada, T2N 1N4): It is an excellent paper describing discussions to be included with this paper. First, Mr.
computer models for the representation of digital excitation Trebincevic from Siemens, who has sent details of their
systems in power system simulation studies. The models ThyripoI-D static potential source excitation system. Without
described in this paper are in effect the analog equivalents of extensive review, it appears this system is similar to the STlA
the digital-based systems as they are presumably intended for model, and as mentioned in the discussion, the PSS is similar
use with analog models of the power systems. to the new PSS3B model. Although it was too late to include
this material in the present paper, it is our plan, as mentioned
One of the important aspects relating to the digital-based in the paper, to include this model, together with any other
systems is the sampling rate as it can have a significant effect new models, in the next revision of IEEE Standard 421.5. We
on the performance of the digital system. The gains and time- welcome and encourage other manufacturers participation in
constants to be used in the equivalent continuous (analog) the excitation system subcommittee, to develop new models
model representation of a digital based system are dependent and keep current the standards for use by the industry.
on the sampling frequency. This problem was also highlighted
in a Panel Session presentation at the IEEE PES 1996 Winter The comments by Dr. Malik are also appreciated. The scope
Meeting [A]. This presentation pointed that Ontario Hydro of the paper was digital-based systems, and in this regard,
encountered a problem due to differences between the the issue of sampling time is important in the design and
discretely-implemented transfer function and its continuous modeling of these systems. Given the bandwidth requirements
representation, within the frequency band of interest. It was of excitation systems, todays CPUs have the capability of
also stated that this problem is normally due to the selection providing relatively good representation in the laplace domain.
of emulation technique and sampling rate, which limit the Given that the scope of the models as defined in the IEEE
fidelity of the representation at higher frequencies (e.g. >5 standards (421.5) are in the frequency range up to 3 Hertz, we
Hz). should be able to be comfortable with linear time domain
models. The point is well taken, though, that both
In view of the above, it would be desirable to make some manufacturers and utilities who are engaged in test programs
reference in the paper to the sampling frequency range for need to be reviewing the designs for the control systems to
which the continuous domain models for the representation of insure they in fact meet their objectives. The referenced
digital based excitation system given in the paper are valid. discussion mentioned by Dr. Malik I think occurred at the first
time the symposium was given, the Summer 1995 PES
meeting in Portland, Oregon. It is true that an inappropriate
Reference: choice of sampling time or algorithm can give a poor
representation of a desired transfer function. In most cases, we
[A] L.M. Hajagos and G.R. Berube, Utility experience with should not assume the design is complete without rigorous
digital excitation systems, presented in the Panel Session testing. The use of excitation system models for studying the
Digital Excitation System Applications and Models, behavior at higher frequencies, say 5 Hz and above, generally
IEEE PES 1996 Winter Meeting, Baltimore, Md., January requires special models in which the specific details of the
23, 1996. excitation system are included. These very detailed models
have traditionally been outside the scope of the IEEE
Manuscript received February 12, 1996. standards since they typically involve details which are near
proprietary design level. Perhaps some discussion about the
need and structure for such models might be included in the
subcommittee scope.
A. Murdoch, on behalf of the Digital Excitation Systems Task
Force, sponsored by the Excitation Systems Subcommittee of
theED&PGC : Manuscript received April 2, 1996.