0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

17 Ansichten85 SeitenSynthetic Load

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Synthetic Load

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

17 Ansichten85 SeitenSynthetic Load

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 85

Synthetic Loading Technique

for the Degree of M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering (Power)

Submitted by:

Hassab Elrasoul Zain Elabdien Eltigani

Supervised by:

Dr. Abdelaziz Yousif Mohamed Abbas

September 2012

1

Dedication

Mother

To whom he gave me a beautiful pain,

Father

The suns that burn to light for us,

Teachers

To whom I share with them the sorrow and

sweet,

Friends

Whenever commit a fault we will find

forgiveness,

ii

Acknowledgement

All praise is to Allah, the lord of the world, the almighty, with whose

gracious help it is possible to accomplish this work, and my prayers and peace

be upon Mohammed the last of the messengers.

I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor,

Dr. Abdelaziz Yousif Mohamed Abbas, for his patient guidance and his generous

support and encouragement. Also I would like to thank all staff of Electrical

Engineering Department. Also I would like to thank my family and colleagues.

iii

Contents

Dedication... i

Acknowledgement.....ii

Contents ..iii

Abstract ...vi

.............................................................................................................. vii

1.1 Introduction...1

iv

2.1 Introduction...8

2.2 Standard Efficiency Test Methods...8

2.3 Induction Motor Field Efficiency Evaluation Methods...11

2.4 Physical Nature of Basic Methods...13

2.4.1 Nameplate Method..14

2.4.2 Slip Method. 16

2.4.3 Current Method17

2.4.4 Statistical Method.18

2.4.5 Accuracies of Basic Methods19

2.5 Synthetic Loading Method.20

2.5.1 Dual Frequency Method..22

2.5.2 Sweep Frequency Method...23

2.5.3 Constant Speed of Rotating Magnetic Field Method..23

2.5.4 Current Control Method.24

2.6 Summary25

3.2 The Park Transformation Theory.....26

3.3 Mathematical Model....28

3.4 Calculation of Losses32

3.5 Description of Modeling...33

3.6 Summary33

v

4.1 Introduction ....34

4.2 Results.34

4.3 Conventional Method Results.35

4.4 Synthetic Loading Technique.39

4.4.1 Dual Frequency Results.39

4.4.2 Constant Speed of Rotating Magnetic Field Results.....44

4.5 Discussion....48

5.1 Conclusions.53

5.2 Recommendations...54

Appendices................................................................................................55

References .......71

vi

Abstract

This thesis investigates the application of the synthetic loading technique for

efficiency evaluation of induction machines. The standard tests require

specialist test facilities, additional machines, and for large machines, linear

machines, or vertical mounted machine and floor space. Therefore, an

efficiency test method that avoids the need for an external mechanical load is

desirable. Synthetic loading can determine machine losses and eliminates the

need for a mechanical load connected to the test machine. The synthetic loading

technique forces the machine under test to accelerate and decelerate using

power electronics as power source so the machine alternating between motor-

generator actions. If configured correctly the machine, on average over each

synthetic loading cycle, operates at rated rms current, rated rms voltage and

rated speed, thus producing rated copper loss, iron loss and friction and windage

loss. The thesis considers how to properly configure synthetic loading for

induction machines. The simulation results show that the synthetic loading

technique is capable of evaluating the efficiency of the induction machines.

vii

.

.

- .

.

.

viii

ix

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Introduction:

Induction motor is an alternating current motor that the rotor does not receive

electric power by conduction but by induction. It consists of two parts; stator

and rotor. The stator is made up of a number of stampings, which are slotted to

receive the winding. It is wound for a definite number of poles, the exact

number of poles being determined by the requirement of speed. The rotor is

divided into two types; squirrel cage and slip ring. In squirrel cage the rotor has

a cylindrical laminated core with parallel slots for caring the rotor conductors

which consist of heavy bars of copper, aluminium or alloys. The slip ring is

distributed winding consisting of coils and it wound for as many poles as the

number of stator poles. But the squirrel cage is most used because of its

specification like its simplest design [1].

Induction motors are by far the most common consumers of generated

electricity in the developed world today. The three-phase induction motor has

been described as the workhorse of industry and more recently racehorse of

industry when used with power electronic controllers. The induction machine

is produced in a very wide range of outputs from fractional to large multi

megawatts units. The induction machine is used in a wide variety of

applications as a mean of converting electric power to mechanical power, pump,

steel mill and hoist drives are a few applications of large multiphase induction

motors. On smaller scale the two phase servomotor is used in position-follow-

up control systems, and single phase induction motors are widely used in house

hold appliances as well as in hand and bench tools. The induction machine is

extensively used for various kind industrial drives for the following main

advantages:

1

It is very simple, extremely rugged and unbreakable construction.

brushes are needed, hence friction losses are reduced.

And there are also some disadvantages like:

Its speed cannot be varied without sacrificing some of its efficiency

It is speed decreases with increase in load.

When a motor is switched on, there is a high inrush current from the mains

which may appear, especially if the power line section is inadequate, cause a

drop in voltage likely to affect receptor operation. This drop may be severe

enough to be noticeable in lighting equipment. To overcome this, some sector

rules prohibit the use of motors with direct on-line starting systems beyond a

given power. There are several starting systems which differ according to the

motor and load specifications. The choice is governed by electrical, mechanical

and economic factors. The kind of load driven is also important in the choice of

starting system. Main starting modes

Direct on-line starting.

Star-delta starting.

Autotransformer starting.

2

1.2 Problem Statement

Testing of induction machines to determine the energy dissipated as heat and

the resulting temperature rise is important for both users and manufactures.

High temperature cause deterioration of insulation materials and high rates of

power dissipation implies low efficiency values. The power losses of

induction motors are categorised as electrical and mechanical

losses. Some of the electrical losses can be predicted reliably

from the machine design data but some components such as

stray load losses and mechanical losses are less predictable.

Similarly, there is still a substantial amount of uncertainty

attached to the prediction of the cooling properties of the

machine [3].

The efficient use of energy has found new prominence with

environmental agencies raising the awareness of greenhouse

gas emissions predominantly and finite resources as a backup

argument. Previously, it was well understood that an efficient

motor would reduce the running costs of the machine over its

working life, typically a hundred times greater than the

purchase price of the machine. Recently, however, lobbying

has seen government incentives and policies introduced to

encourage the use of energy efficient equipment and

particularly energy efficient motors. Motor manufacturers have

introduced a separate category referred to as energy efficient

motors".

Despite the attractiveness of such energy efficient motors

they are still only used in relatively small numbers. It has been

reported that one of the reasons for the low acceptance of

3

energy efficient motors is poor information on these machines.

Further to this there are no energy efficiency standards for

motors.

A motor labelled as "high efficiency" from one supplier might

be less efficient than the standard motor from another supplier.

To compound the problem, there is no single efficiency

standard test method for induction motors that is used

throughout the industry. And to make matters worse, a recent

article identifies the current problems with existing methods of

measuring induction motor efficiency and stresses the need for

a more accurate method of efficiency measurement.

Losses in an induction motor can be segregated into no load losses and load

losses.

No-Load Losses:

Windage and friction are mechanical losses due to bearing friction and

windage. Core loss constitutes hysteresis and eddy current losses in the iron at

no-load.

Load Losses:

Stator ( ) losses are losses in the stator winding, Rotor ( ) or slip loss

are losses in the rotor winding. (Note: R is a variable with temperature.)

Stray-load losses are additional fundamental and high frequency losses in the

iron, strand and circulating current losses in the stator winding, harmonic losses

in the rotor conductors under load. These losses are proportional to the rotor

current squared [2].

4

As the rotor and stray losses are essentially zero at no-load, the no-load

watts are equal to friction losses, core losses and stator losses. As and and

no-load watts can each be measured, these losses can be separated. The windage

and friction can be separated by taking several tests at reduced voltage so that a

curve can be plotted against voltage squared. If the data is taken from

approximately one third voltage to the point where the current reaches a

minimum value, then the plotted curve should be a straight line and the

intersection with the zero voltage axis will give the windage and friction loss.

For low-slip motors the windage and friction can be considered constant and

the no-load value used. The core loss is a function of the internal or secondary

voltage, although this refinement is included only when equivalent circuit

parameters are available to determine the secondary voltage as a function of

load. When equivalent circuit parameters are not available, the core loss is

assumed constant and the no-load value used. Both of these assumptions are

conservative in that they result in a slight decrease in tested efficiency.

The stator loss is determined by measuring the dc resistance of the

winding at a known temperature, adjusting the resistance for temperature, and

multiplying by either a tested or calculated primary current squared. The rotor

loss is determined by measuring the slip and input watts at the load point

of interest. The formula (input power- stator loss - core loss) times slip in per-

unit (adjusted for temperature as required) yields the rotor losses. Where it is

impractical or impossible to run the machine under load, the rotor losses can be

techniques [2].

5

A stray-load loss is the most difficult loss to measure and perhaps one of the

most variable losses between motors of identical designs. There are direct and

indirect methods of determining stray-load losses. In the indirect test methods,

the stray-load loss is determined as the leftover losses (test loss minus

conventional loss). Test losses are input minus output. Conventional losses are

the sum of stator losses, rotor losses, friction losses and core losses. The stray-

load losses measurement can be improved by forcing it to fit the equation stray

loss equals K( ).

The most common currently used method of carrying out full-

load performance testing of a three-phase induction motor is to

apply full-load torque to the machine's output shaft. To load a

large machine, equally large test equipment or a duplicate

machine is required. The cost of setting up such a test facility,

maintaining the equipment, and the time and setting up

procedures for mechanically coupling the load machine, may

make full load tests prohibitively expensive. Large vertically

mounted machines are extremely difficult to test by applying a

load to the shaft because of the difficulty in finding a suitable

vertical load.

In this thesis a novel method will be described for rapid full load efficiency

evaluation of three phase induction motors using a synthetic loading technique,

without the need to connect a load to the machines drive shaft. The method

proposed considerably reduces the testing time compared with conventional

methods of efficiency measurement and the accuracy of the result is maintained.

The essence of synthetic loading is that while the motor is

running at no-load, the rotor is then oscillated in a motoring-

6

generating cycle such that, on average, over one cycle of the

synthetic loading full load current is drawn from the supply. The

machine under this condition will be producing rated copper

losses. If the average applied voltage over one loading cycle is

also the rated voltage, then the rated iron loss will be present.

Since the machine is also running at close to its operating

speed, then the rated friction and windage losses will be

present. The test is also performed at rated temperature

(synthetic loading was originally designed to produce full load

temperature rise characteristics).

The synthetic loading technique has began first by applying

two voltages of different frequency to the stator winding causes

heating due to alternating motor - generator operation. After that the researcher

found a new way to make the machine alternating between motor-generator

operation, and these methods is using the power electronic device. Sweep

frequency method, dual frequency method and constant speed of rotating

magnetic field (CSORMF) method. But the new method is using the current

control to load the machine [4].

The thesis is organised into five chapters covering analysis and simulation

aspects of synthetic loading as a method of efficiency evaluation for induction

machines.

Chapter two presents background theory and a literature review of efficiency

evaluation of electrical machines. The literature in the areas of machine power

loss and efficiency, the standard efficiency test and the synthetic loading

technique of electrical machines are reviewed. Chapter three develops detailed

mathematical equations for the induction machines in d- and q- axis equivalent

circuits.

7

Chapter four presents simulation results of the synthetic loading technique and

the standard efficiency test for the induction machine under four different

synthetic loading frequencies. The individual losses from the simulation result

of the standard efficiency test are compared with the losses developed during

the simulation of synthetic loading. Chapter five draws general conclusions and

provides suggestions for further research work in this area.

8

Chapter Two

Literature Review and Background Study

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter details relevant background and a literature review of

efficiency evaluation for electrical machines are provided. The literature review

covers research related to power losses, efficiency, standard efficiency

evaluation methods, and synthetic loading for efficiency evaluation for

electrical machines.

Determination of temperature rise as well as power dissipated as heat inside

the electrical machines is a matter of interest for both consumers and

manufacturers. Heat generation affects the insulation materials and the cooling

systems of the machine. In this section, the established methods of full-load

testing for efficiency evaluation and temperature rise tests for induction

machines are reviewed.

Paul, et al. [2] reported that IEEE Standard 112-1977 is a revision of

IEEE Standard 112A-1964 and was prepared by the 112 Working Group of the

IEEE Rotating Machinery Committee. Following is a summary of some general

changes as compared to the 1964 edition that relate to efficiency determination.

The test procedure for the standard method is more specific relative to the

temperature correction for losses and slip for all the various calculation

procedures. For final performance evaluation, the following paragraph has been

added: "When the rated load temperature rise has not been measured, the

resistance of the winding shall be corrected to the temperature. This reference

temperature shall be used for determining losses at all loads. If the rated

8

temperature rise is specified as that of a lower class of insulation system, the

temperature for resistance correction shall be that of the lower insulation class."

The separation of core loss from the no-load losses is now mandatory rather

than optional. Concurrent with this change, the core loss is included in the

separation of stray-load loss under Method C and is added as another branch to

the equivalent circuit in Method F.

IEEE Standard 112, in addition to other types of tests, currently includes five

methods for the determination of motor efficiency. These may be divided into

two parts:

Direct Measurement of output

Method A (brake): normally associated with fractional HP

machines.

Method B (dynamometer)

Method C (duplicate machines)

Determination of Losses Without Output Measurement

Method E (input measurements)

Method F (equivalent circuit)

Grantham, et al. [3] shows the efficiency test standards available for

induction machines. The IEEE Rotating Machinery Committee has produced a

standard IEEE 112-1991 by which efficiency is tested in the United States. In

addition the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC) produced the

IEC-34-2 standard for use in Europe, which is similar to British Standard

BS269, and the Japanese Electro-technical Committee (JEC) produced standard

JEC-37. A comparison shows that these methods are similar differing only in

the details of procedure to be followed in each test [4]. In addition, the IEEE

112 test method B is the most rigorous and more detailed than those that

measure all the motors losses using a dynamometer such as specified in the IEC

or JEC standard.

9

Ghai, [5] shows the Electrical Machinery Committee (EMC) of the Power

Engineering Society (PES) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE) has established a comparison of U.S. standards with

International Standards. It compares IEC 34 series of standards with National

Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards for large induction

motors for general purpose applications. It concludes that a substantial amount

of correspondence exists between NEMA and IEC standards. NEMAs recent

practice of using IEC standards as the starting point for writing additional

standards has increased the degree of correspondence between NEMA and IEC

standards. Furthermore, requirements for any specific design parameter are not

always the same between NEMA and IEC, though the intent is identical. The

inclusion of tolerances on induction machine performance, and the lower stray

load loss allowance in IEC, causes a given design to have better indicated

performance per IEC 34 than for NEMA.

Boglietti, et al. [6, 7] reports motor efficiency measurements

calculated in accordance with international standards. The

standard efficiency tests IEEE 112-B, IEC 34-2 and JEC 37

recommend different measurement procedures, in particular

for the stray loss determination and the temperature

corrections of the copper losses. In these papers, a comparison

of the measurement procedures defined by these international

standards has been reported, together with some comments on

the prescribed methodologies. Furthermore, a comparison is

made based on experimental results obtained by tests on four

general purposes, three phase induction motors. However, the

stray load loss measurement is a critical key step for the

accurate evaluation of induction motor efficiency. Therefore, a

critical analysis of stray losses has been performed. The stray

load loss sensitivity to measurement errors has been analyzed,

10

in order to understand which are the most critical quantities

that influence their evaluation.

Alan K. Wallace, et al. [8] shows the IEEE 112 B as a laboratory

environment testing method, designed to have a maximum of accuracy and

repeatability. According to [8], a well calibrated laboratory, with a well

performed IEEE 112 -B may reach overall accuracies within 1%. As with any

loss segregation method, assumptions have to be made when separating the

different losses. These assumptions are an integral part of the testing standard,

ensuring portability. Since a laboratory is, by definition, a measurement

environment, it permits both, a complex instrumentation setup and also the

performance of tests at operating conditions other than the restricted options

available in an industrial environment. The method IEEE 112 B has been

designed to characterize the capability of the motor under test, at rated voltage

conditions and as a function of load for steady state operation. The standard

describes acceptable unbalance conditions, and acceptable levels of harmonic

distortions. These specifications demand a clean voltage supply, which

translates into both, a best case and also a repeatable scenario. In order to

achieve repeatability, all the calculations must be corrected to a base line

ambient temperature, which has been chosen to be 40C.

Motor-driven systems use two-thirds of the total electricity consumed by

industry. Historically, energy efficiency improvements in these systems have

been important for economic reasons only. However, these improvements have

now assumed an environmental role in meeting the U.S. commitment to reduce

greenhouse emissions. In general, an energy efficiency improvement program

includes development of a motor management plan that focuses on development

of a plant motor inventory and an evaluation of motor performance for large or

11

critical motors. The evaluation of motors focuses on the operating efficiency

and motor load to identify energy efficiency gains and possible reliability

improvements. This requires a reliable method for assessing motor performance

in the field.

John S. Hsu, et al. [9] shows that the majority of motors in the field are

induction motors for which IEEE Standard 112 [10] would be applicable.

However, field evaluation of operating efficiency introduces an environment for

which IEEE Standard 112 is not applicable. For example, IEEE Standard 112

requires that induction motor tests be performed with a voltage unbalance not

exceeding 0.5% (note that this is significantly smaller than the NEMA MG-1

permissible limit of 1% [11] for successful operation of motors). However, field

conditions may exceed this limit by a significant measure. Thus, when

evaluating motor performance in the field, it is important to use a technique that

can accommodate field conditions and yield results of sufficient accuracy for

the evaluation needs.

literature, and new methods are appearing every year. The reader is encouraged

to refer to a survey, Assessment of methods for estimating motor efficiency

and load under field conditions by Kueck et al. [12] for a rather complete list

of references of efficiency estimation available, either commercially or in the

literature. This survey was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,

Bonneville Power Administration, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company

and is available from the Bonneville Power Administration Printing Office.

A field evaluation method can consist of a single basic method or can be built

using a combination of different basic methods. This may help field engineers

select or establish an efficiency evaluation method suited to their need. The

basic methods are as follows:

nameplate method;

12

slip method;

current method;

statistical method;

equivalent circuit method;

segregated loss method;

air-gap torque method;

Shaft torque method.

All methods calculate efficiency according to the definition of:

The shaft output power is the input power minus the losses. How to

assess losses and evaluate output power gives rise to fundamental differences

among the various methods. Consequently, the accuracies of methods are

different. The degree of intrusiveness of a field evaluation method is determined

by what data are required to be measured in the field and the difficulty of

performing the measurements. One or more of the following measurements may

be involved:

nameplate reading;

speed measured by opto-tachometer;

currents measured by clamp-on transducer;

voltages measurement;

input power measurement;

stator winding resistance reading;

winding temperature data;

no-load data measured with uncoupled shaft;

Shaft torque measurement.

13

In this section, the physical basis of some basic method for induction motor

field efficiency evaluation methods is described shortly in terms of how the

efficiency is obtained.

The least intrusive field evaluation method is to obtain motor information from

the nameplate. In this method, it is assumed that the efficiency of the motor is

constant and equal to the nameplate value. This works best when the efficiency

load curve is fairly flat, so that the full-load efficiency is applicable for most

load conditions. The typical load factor of industrial motors is around 75% [13].

Using typical efficiency-versus-load curves for motors having various poles and

horsepower ratings, it can evaluate the potential accuracy of the nameplate

method. Figure 2.1 the efficiency is not a strong function of load for a two-pole

motor between 50% and 100% of load. However, the efficiency of an eight-

pole, 1-HP motor shows a marked decline over that load range. Hence, the

nameplate method may be applicable for some motors, but could result in

substantial inaccuracies for other motor types [13].

14

Figure 2.1 Typical efficiency-versus-load

With this nameplate method, three additional problems may occur. First, the

nameplate data may be given according to a method other than IEEE Standard

112 Method B. Second, the motor may have been rewound. Third, the field

environment pertinent to the voltage unbalance and harmonics content may be

different from that for which the nameplate data is derived.

Nameplate efficiencies of a given motor can be evaluated according to

different standards. The three most frequently used standards are the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) that uses IEEE Standard 112, the

Japanese Electrotechnical Committee (JEC), and the International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). These three standards are not in agreement

[14], [2] and may result in a given motor being stamped with rather different

efficiencies. A typical example given in [15] illustrates the confusing

international nameplate data situation. Rewound motors introduce additional

uncertainty, since the nameplate data may no longer be valid. Core loss of a

rewound motor may or may not be increased, depending upon the lamination

insulation and the cleaning process of the stator. The copper loss depends on the

new coil extension and wire gauges. Certain engineers suggest that, after each

rewinding to the same horsepower and same number of poles, a two percentage

points reduction of efficiency should be considered. However, a different

opinion indicates that the efficiency should not be reduced if the rewinding

follows Electrical Apparatus Service Association (EASA) standards.

The field environment pertinent to the voltage unbalance and harmonics

content is commonly worse than that from which the nameplate data are

derived. The worst situation for a field efficiency evaluation using the

nameplate method is that having a less than 10-HP low speed rewound motor

that was not repaired according to EASA Standards. The motor has data

stamped on the nameplate that is not given according to IEEE Standard 112

Method B and is operated under a polluted supply (voltage unbalance or

15

harmonic distortion). The efficiency can easily be off ten percentage points

from the nameplate efficiency. However, the bottom line is that a nameplate

method is better than no field evaluation at all.

This method presumes that the percentage of load is closely proportional to

the percentage of the ratio of measured slip to full-load slip. The shaft output

power is, thus, approximated using the following relationship:

Where, slip is a function of motor speed given by the ratio between the

difference of synchronous and rotor speed to the synchronous speed. Motor

speed can be measured by an optical tachometer, which has a low intrusion

level. Input power must also be measured, which has a higher degree of

intrusion. The slip method can be an improvement over a pure nameplate

method, especially when the motor efficiency versus load curve is not flat. Any

method that uses slip to estimate percentage of load is related to the slip

method. Once the shaft output power is known, one may use a typical

efficiency-versus-load curve specifically for standard-, high-, or in-between-

efficiency motors. Alternatively, one may combine the basic slip method with

other additional measurements, such as the input power, which has a higher

degree of intrusion, to obtain efficiency through (2.1).

NEMA MG-1 Section 12.46 [11] states that variation from the nameplate

speed of ac integral horsepower induction motors shall not exceed 20% of the

difference between synchronous speed and rated speed when measured at rated

voltage, frequency, and load and with an ambient temperature of 25 C. This

means that the nameplate slip can be 20% inaccurate when the motor is

operating in the field, thus introducing significant inaccuracies in (2.2). The no-

load speed of induction motors is always close to the synchronous speed.

16

Subsequently, the projection of a light load through the basic slip method is

relatively more accurate than the projection of a heavy load.

This method presumes that the percentage of load is closely proportional to

the percentage of the ratio of measured current to full-load current. The shaft

output power is, thus, approximated using the following relationship:

Where, is the nameplate full load current and is the measured current. For

small integral horsepower motors the no-load current may not be greatly

reduced from the full-load current, the assumed load-versus-current curve used

by (2.3) is further apart from the actual curve at light loads. This is opposite to

what the basic slip method is relatively good for. The load is normally

overestimated. The expression of shaft output power defined by (2.4) requires

that the no-load current be known. This may increase the intrusiveness

substantially when a no-load test is required:

The average of the two approaches of (2.3) and (2.4) may give a more

accurate shaft output power. NEMA MG-1, Section 12.47, states that, when

operated at rated voltage, rated frequency, and rated horsepower output, the

input in amperes shall not vary from the nameplate value by more than 10%.

This is another source of errors for the current methods. Motor current

measured by a clamp-on probe corresponds to a relatively low level of

intrusiveness. The insulation of motor leads and terminals is not disturbed. The

measured current is used to estimate the load of a motor. The simple current

17

method does not require a no-load current value. Just as with the slip method, to

obtain efficiency one will have to either use typical efficiency-versus-load

curves or measure input power.

Empirical equations are set up to use minimal numbers of measured data for

input power and efficiency estimations. Usually, application of this method is

restricted to the group of motors for which empirical equations were derived.

If the statistical results are not used for the group of motors that the empirical

equations are based on, significant errors in the efficiency estimation are likely.

The statistical results can be quite different for the same variable. A good

example is the stray load loss estimation. NEMA MG1 [11], paragraph 20.52,

states that, if stray load loss is not measured, the value of stray load loss at rated

load shall be assumed to be 1.2% of the rated output for motors rated less than

2500 hp and 0.9% for motors rated 2500 hp and greater. IEEE Standard 112

[10, Sec. 5.4.4], gives different assumed stray load loss values for motors rated

less than 2500 hp. They are as follows:

1) 1125 HP = 1.8%;

2) 126500 HP = 1.5%;

3) 5012499 HP = 1.2%.

Additionally, certain non-U.S. standards use 0.5% of rated output as the stray

load loss at rated load. The statistical approach is commonly used with other

basic methods. For instance, Ontario Hydro 1 has published a segregated loss

method that simplifies IEEE Standard 112 method E1 much further. As pointed

out in this study, it is not always possible to interrupt a process long enough to

decouple a motor from its load and conduct a no-load test. The study suggests

that one way around this obstacle is to assume a value for the combined

windage, friction, and core losses. This method suggests that these combined

18

losses be set to 3.5% of input rated power. The stray load losses are estimated

based on the IEEE Standard 112 standard assumed values.

This method can be simplified even further by using assumed values for rated

power factor. Approximations can also be made for the temperature rise of the

winding, and the winding resistance can even be estimated by measuring the

line-to-line resistance taken from the circuit breaker and subtracting the

estimated cable resistance. The only other measurements required are power

into the motor and motor speed.

Although more rigid accuracy evaluation of field efficiency measurement is

needed, accuracy estimation of measured efficiency presently is based on

experience. For NEMA frame motors, the nameplate efficiency is commonly

stamped according to Method B of IEEE Standard 112. Bonnett [16] suggests

that with the use of existing technologies, it is unreasonable to expect accuracies

of efficiency for the following items better than the following:

accuracy of calculations: 0.5 points of efficiency;

summation of the three factors that he considered. It is not the square root of the

sum of accuracy squares, which is a commonly used method. For various basic

methods, the best accuracy is provided by the torque gauge method. It may have

accuracies. The rationale is that we know the least accurate method is the

nameplate method; it has the worst accuracy of 10% for loads between half

19

and full. The best accuracy is provided by the torque gauge method. It has an

accuracy of 1%. All the other methods that is partially involved with either

nameplate data and/or statistical values fall in between these two extreme basic

methods. The lesser use of nameplate information and the greater reliance on

direct measurement without assumed values for efficiency evaluation, the better

the accuracy would be. The inaccuracies, in general, are worse below 50% load.

The statistical or empirical method can provide a wide range of accuracy. It

depends on the sample population and the application range. Intuition tells us

that a well-targeted sample range for a small application range normally gives

high accuracy. For example, empirical equations obtained from data of one

specific sample motor can be very accurate when they are applied to the same

specific motor. The accuracy becomes extremely poor when the one sample

conclusion is applied to a totally different motor.

The essence of synthetic loading is that while the motor is running at no-load,

the rotor is then oscillated in a motoring-generating cycle such that, on average,

over one cycle of the synthetic loading full load rms current is drawn from the

supply. The machine under this condition will be producing rated copper losses.

If the average applied voltage over one loading cycle is also the rated rms

voltage, then the rated iron loss will be present. Since the machine is also

running at close to its operating speed, then the rated friction and windage

losses will be present. The test is also performed at rated temperature (synthetic

loading was originally designed to produce full load temperature rise

characteristics).

Each method of synthetic loading is designed to produce these conditions.

The assumption is that if these conditions are met, then the losses during

synthetic loading will be the same as the losses at the machines rated full load

20

operating condition. Therefore, if the input power can be measured accurately

during the loading cycle, then the total full load losses should be able to be

identified and hence, the efficiency of the motor evaluated.

Synthetic loading offers the advantage that the machine

under test is not coupled to a load, thereby negating the need

for a special test bed. Also, the machine could be tested on site

and is not restricted by the axis of mounting.

The only equipment required to do the test is an inverter rated

at the same power rating as the machine under test, current

and voltage sensors and a typical

PC fitted with a DSP card for measurement and control. The

costs associated with this test method would be significantly

reduced.

Soltani, et al. [17] reported that full-load testing of large induction

machines is constrained by the limitations in the power-supply and loading

equipment of the manufacturers facilities, resulting in costly set up time. A new

synthetic loading method is proposed based on a bang-bang phase control

strategy. The rated power oscillation created is routed to an auxiliary system

and the source hydro has to provide only the total losses of the system, without

seeing the excessive power swings observed in other synthetic loading

techniques. In this technique, only induction machines are used which would

enable motor manufacturers to build the test rig in-house. The control stage is

very simple to implement and requires only unregulated dc supplies for the

excitation windings. The method is suitable for any induction machine and does

not requires any set up time. It is possible to strictly maintain constant define

r.m.s voltage and current at rated values for the duration of the heat runs.

In 1921 Ytterberg introduced the two-frequency or mixed-frequency

synthetic loading method for insulation temperature rise test of induction

machines [4]. This method develops the equivalent of a full-load test but is

21

achieved without mechanically loading the induction machine. With this

method there are two possible connection techniques for the two-frequency

synthetic loading method. The two-frequency method connects the machine

under test to two different supplies connected in series. The main supply has

rated voltage and frequency Va and fa. The auxiliary supply has a voltage and

frequency Vb and fb which is lower than rated value and is adjusted until the

induction motor input voltage and the stator current equal the rated values.

The other connection technique for the two-frequency

method is to inject two voltages of two different frequencies

and amplitudes into the machine under test using an isolating

transformer [4]. The main voltage has rated amplitude and

frequency and the auxiliary voltage chosen to be slightly

different from the main voltage, normally less than it. The

auxiliary voltage is generated via a synchronous generator or

an inverter. The two supplies are at different frequencies and

are mixed using a specially designed isolating transformer.

Grantham, et al. [22] reported the essence of the (DF) method is to produce a

supply containing two distinct frequencies; this has the effect of producing two

fields rotating at different speeds. If all quantities are represented as per unit

values, for sinusoidal voltages the flux can be set equal to the supply voltage

divided by the frequency. With two voltages in series, the total flux is the sum

of two flux waves of different magnitude and frequency; the magnitude and

angular velocity given by Schwenk [19] are as follows:

(2.5)

(2.6)

Where:

22

These equations represent a flux wave that varies in magnitude and angular

velocity as a function of time, supply voltages and frequencies. From these

equations it can also be seen that the frequency of oscillation of the flux wave

angular velocity and the frequency of oscillation of the magnitude of the flux

wave are the same and equal to the difference of the main and auxiliary supply

generating action, thus increasing the effective r.m.s current flowing in the

machine.

This method, which currently requires a system of electrical machines to

generate the two frequencies, can be very conveniently implemented using

microprocessor controlled power electronics to generate the necessary voltages

and frequencies for the two supplies.

The Dual-Frequency synthetic loading input voltage is:

Another method of artificially increasing the motor current is to use a single

supply frequency, but to rapidly modulate this frequency over a small range

centred on the rated frequency. This causes alternating induction motor-

generating action. This method is termed the sweep frequency (SF) method.

Because it is not possible to produce the required change of frequency using

electrical machines, this method necessitates the use of microprocessor

controlled power electronics and the method is new. A pulse width modulated

(PWM) inverter is ideal for this purpose. The voltage equation for sweep

frequency is:

23

(2.8)

This voltage produces a flux wave which varies both in magnitude and angular

velocity.

Field Method

M. Sheng, et al. [20] shows the constant speed (CSORMF) method is to

produce a rotating magnetic field whose speed is constant, while its magnitude

varies sinusoidally. This concept departs somewhat from the principles of

synthetic loading using the DF and SF methods, in which the speed of the

rotating magnetic field oscillates about the synchronous speed.

If it is assumed that the rotor winding is running at the same speed as the

rotating magnetic field, the current in the rotor winding would be zero, provided

that the magnitude of the rotating magnetic field is constant. This is because

there is no changing flux linking the rotor winding. Now, if the magnitude of

the rotating magnetic field varies sinusoidally with time, an e.m.f will be

induced and therefore a current will flow in the rotor winding due to the

The direction of the e.m.f is such as to oppose the change of the flux linkage

with the rotor winding. An oscillating torque will therefore be produced due to

the interaction of the rotor current and the resultant rotating magnetic field. This

oscillating torque will accelerate and slow down the rotor of the test machine,

causing the rotor speed to oscillate about the synchronous speed.

This method works in much the same way as a transformer in which the

primary and secondary windings, although stationary, are magnetically

coupled .by varying flux magnitude. The rotor rotates very close to synchronous

speed, thus ensuring that an equivalent cooling condition close to that for

24

conventional loading is achieved. The CSORMF synthetic loading input voltage

per-phase in a three-phase system is:

Where,

V = centre voltage amplitude in each phase,

= main frequency of 50Hz,

Abbas, et al. [21] states the new method used in synthetic

loading is using the current control to mange the current in the

machine to give the rated losses. During this method the

equipment required to the efficiency test is a vector controller

(inverter, controller, appropriate voltage and current sensors,

and position sensor or estimator) and a power analyzer. The

cost and time associated with performing a synthetic loading

test is significantly reduced as the test equipment is portable.

2.6 Summary

This chapter shows the literature review and background study, it describe at

the first the standard efficiency test methods that used in the past and it is still

used. Then the induction motor field efficiency evaluation methods are

presented, and the description of some methods that the electrical engineer is

25

used to evaluate the induction machines efficiency is provided. At last the

synthetic loading technique is described.

Chapter Three

Modeling of Induction Motor

3.1 Introduction

The voltage equations that describe the performance of a three phase

induction machines have six equations, and in these equations it is found that

some of the machine inductances are function of the rotor speed, whereupon the

coefficients of the differential equations that describe the behavior of these

machines are time varying except when the rotor is stalled. Thus a change of

variables is often used to reduce the complexity of these differential equations.

26

This change (transformation) refers machine variables to a frame of reference

that rotates at an arbitrary angular velocity. All known real transformations are

obtained from this transformation by simply assigning the speed of the rotation

of the reference frame.

The substitutions which replace the variables (currents, voltages, and flux

linkages) associated with the stator windings of a synchronous machine with

variables related to fictitious windings rotating with the rotor was first

investigated by Park .This method was further extended by Keyhani and Lipo to

the dynamic analysis of induction machines. By these methods, a machine

winding can be reduced to a set of two phase-windings with their magnetic axes

aligned in quadrature as shown in Figure 3.1. The d-q axis transformation

eliminates the mutual magnetic coupling of the phase-windings, thereby making

the magnetic flux linkage of one winding independent of the current in the other

winding. This system of transformation allows both machine windings in the

stator and rotor of an induction machine to be viewed from a common reference

frame, which may rotate at any angular speed or remain fixed to the stator.

Generally, the reference frame can also be considered to be rotating at any

arbitrary angular speed. The transformation from a three-phase system to a two-

phase system and with the zero-sequence included is shown in the next

equations.

The Park transformation matrix transforms three-phase components, , ,

and , which can be either currents or voltages, from the stationary reference

Park transformation equation

27

(3.1)

(3.2)

In the above equation, f can represent voltage, current, flux linkage or electric

charge.

frame to the dq arbitrary reference frame

3.3 Mathematical Model

A three phase machine with symmetrical windings is assumed. The three

phase abc model is then transformed to a two phase d-q model, which reduces

the complexity in the machine model.

Generally, low order mathematical models are used to represent the induction

machines in simulating and analyzing dynamic behaviour. Four nonlinear

differential equations, based on Parks d-q axis representation are used to

28

represent induction machines. These equations are arranged in a set of first

order differential equations which are derived from the d- and q-axis.

So the mathematical description of an ideal symmetrical squirrel-cage type

induction motor in an arbitrary reference frame is given by the following

matrix. The voltage equations of the induction machine in the d-q frame can be

expressed as:

q

D

d d

= (3.3)

29

: Resistance of stator winding. : Resistance of rotor conductor.

stator, on the other hand the arbitrary reference frame rotate

it is assumed that the effect of saturation due to either the magnetizing

inductance or the leakage inductances is negligible. Using this assumption, the

values of the magnetizing inductance, stator leakage, and rotor leakage

inductances are constant and thus do not vary with the magnetizing current. Re-

arranging the matrix :

30

= + +

(3.5)

(3.6)

31

=

(3.7)

= (3.9)

Where:

32

(3.14)

(3.15)

33

= (

(3.17)

After we make the modeling of the induction motor, we will use the MATLAB

program to show the result for the stator copper losses, rotor copper losses and

friction losses. We will show the result in the next chapter.

(3.18)

(3.19)

(3.20)

loading is an industrial three-phase, four poles, 50Hz, 7.5kW,

415V, delta connected induction motor, rated at 13.8A with

single cage rotor. The following constant parameters were

determined from the usual locked rotor and synchronous speed

tests:

Rs = 2 ; Rr = 2 ;

ls = lr = 6.37 mH;

Rm = 1000 ; Lm = 318 mH;

The dynamic model was used to get the performance of the machine, the four

differential equations and the dynamic equation are the main equations. The

34

for the conventional method will be the full load to get the full load current for

the machine, and when we used the synthetic loading the torque will be zero.

In this thesis the first method that used is the conventional method, was used

the machine data and their parameters that shown above and the input voltage

value:

(3.21)

(3.22)

The second method used is the dual frequency method. Constant speed of

rotating magnetic field method is the third method used in this thesis. The three

methods is used and the results is shown in the next chapter, the comparison

was made to show how is synthetic loading technique is effective in efficiency

evaluation.

3.6 Summary

This chapter in the beginning shows the benefit of using the Park

transformation for the induction machine; this transformation reduces the

complexity in the machine model and that by making four equations instead of

six equations. Then the mathematical model in the arbitrary reference frame is

used to obtain the results. The losses calculated are the stator, rotor and friction

losses and their equations are shown above.

Chapter Four

Results and Discussion

35

4.1 Introduction

Simulation of the synthetic loading technique, with careful selection of the

input conditions is essential in order to evaluate the efficiency of the induction

machines experimentally. Therefore, simulation and computer modeling is used,

based on accurate system parameters, to evaluate the individual loss

components and the input power to the induction machine model. In this chapter

simulation results of the synthetic loading method for efficiency evaluation at

rated speed are presented for constant load torque conditions of the induction

machine. The synthetic loading and the standard efficiency tests, as methods of

efficiency evaluation, are simulated using MATLAB. As the aim of this

research is to determine the suitability of synthetic loading for efficiency

evaluation of induction machines, the individual losses from the simulation

results of the standard efficiency test are compared with the losses developed

during the simulation of the synthetic loading. The main losses in induction

machines are stator copper loss, rotor copper loss, iron loss, and friction and

windage loss.

4.2 Results

The nonlinear differential equations that describe the induction machines are

simulated using MATLAB and the efficiency evaluation of induction motor is

performed. The parameters of the machines are shown in the appendix A. The

machine is a 4-pole, 50-Hz, 3-phase induction motor. The parameters are

expressed in ohms using the 50Hz value of the reactance. The program that

used to evaluate the induction motor efficiency is provided in the appendix B.

The function m-file and the function ode23 is used to solve the differential

equations and the results are discussed.

36

4.3 Conventional Method Results

It is essential to understand that the synthetic loading method is an accurate

method to evaluate the efficiency of induction motor. Therefore, it is vital to

perform the conventional method to calculate the losses and the efficiency of

induction motor and then perform the synthetic loading methods.The

conventional method is used to fully load the three-phase induction machine has

the following rated 7.5kW, 13.9Amps and 415V. The input power and the total

loss of the induction machine at nominal operating conditions will be provided.

It is essential to consider the type of winding connection on that machine if

its delta or star because it will make some different in the calculations. Figure

4.1 shows the current waveforms during the full load condition. The three

phases peak current is 7.9Amps which confirms the machine is fully loaded.

The duration that taken is after a time to make the induction machine reach the

steady state. Figure 4.2 shows the maximum rated voltages waveform during

the full load condition. The peak line to line voltage is 586V.

Figure 4.3 shows the rotor speed. In the program the load torque applied to

the machine is the full load torque so the speed at the steady state is 1448r.p.m.

It can be noted that the rotor speed begins from zero and reach its rated speed.

10

5

Current (A)

-5

-10

1.9 1.91 1.92 1.93 1.94 1.95 1.96 1.97 1.98 1.99 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.1 The three phase currents of the induction motor under full load

torque at rated speed

37

600

400

200

Voltage (V)

-200

-400

-600

1.9 1.91 1.92 1.93 1.94 1.95 1.96 1.97 1.98 1.99 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.2 The three phase line voltages of the induction motor under full-load

torque at rated speed

X: 1.103

Y: 151.6

150

Rotor Speed (rad/s)

100

50

Time (s)

Figure 4.3The rotor speed of induction motor under full-load torque

Figure 4.4 shows the stator copper losses. The induction motor at starting

draw a current about 5 times the full load current. Accordingly, the losses at

starting are much higher than the steady state. Therefore, the induction motor

needs a period of time to reach its steady state condition and that value of the

stator copper loss is about 384.4W. Figure 4.5 depicts the rotor copper losses.

The losses during starting period are varying until the motor reach the steady

state and it is about 280.2W. In the simulation of the induction machine the load

torque applied to the machine is the full load so the speed at the steady state is

the rated value and it is 151.6 rad/s. From equation (3.20) the friction and

windage loss is 126.4W.

38

1000

800

Losses (W)

600

X: 1.082

Y: 384.3

400

200

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.4The stator copper losses of induction motor under full-load torque

1000

800

Losses (W)

600

400 X: 0.9421

Y: 280.3

200

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time(s)

Figure 4.5The rotor copper losses of induction motor under full-load torque

150

X: 1.092

Y: 126.4

100

Losses (W)

50

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.6The friction and losses of induction motor under full-load torque

(4.1)

39

the peak oscillating torque with the field oscillating frequency can be calculated,

standardized with respect to the rated value. Figure 4.7 shows the electrical

torque of the induction machine. Figure 4.8 illustrates the input power to the

induction machine and the sum of the losses that calculated. It can be noticed

that the input power have a maximum value in the starting and that is due to the

higher current that drawn and when the current reach the steady state value the

input power also reach the steady state value. Also the losses are the same; it is

higher in the starting period and reaches its rated value at steady state.

200

150

Torque (N.m)

100

X: 1.162

Y: 51.26

50

-50

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.7The electrical torque of induction motor

4

x 10

8

Input Power & Total Losses (W)

Input Power

Total Losses

6

2 X: 1.129

Y: 8436

X: 1.298

Y: 791

Time (s)

Figure 4.8The input power with the total losses

Based on the dynamic model of induction machine the synthetic loading

process can be modeled and evaluated for use in determining the efficiency of

40

an induction machine. The input voltages, and , are modified in each

method so as to produce the synthetic loading effect. It will be noted that only

one set of permutations has been presented for each method of synthetic

loading.

4.4.1 Dual Frequency Results

The Dual Frequency (DF) method, as the name suggests, relies upon the input

voltage being made up of two sinusoids per phase, each with its own frequency

and peak amplitude. The summation of these two sinusoids per phase is applied

to the machine undergoing synthetic loading. During DF synthetic loading, as

the motor is running, the rotor accelerates and decelerates over a cycle of the

beat frequency. The beat frequency is the difference between the two sinusoidal

frequencies applied per phase.

The main and auxiliary peak line to line voltage amplitudes and frequencies

35Hz, respectively. The resultant r.m.s line to line voltage and current are given

the rated speed of the rotor, rated stator copper losses, rotor copper losses and

friction losses, and this is for the dual frequency method and particular to this

set of machine parameters.

Figure 4.9 shows the three phase current waveforms during the synthetic

loading technique with a main frequency of 50Hz and auxiliary frequency of

35 Hz, and load torque is zero. Figure 4.10 shows the variation of the rated

maximum voltage during synthetic loading with a synthetic main frequency of

50Hz and auxiliary frequency of 35Hz. The phase voltage magnitude during

synthetic loading depends on, main and auxiliary voltages that used. Equation

(2.7) is used as the input voltage in DF method. To calculate the value of the

two voltages that used in the dual frequency the following equation can be used:

41

Any value for the voltage ( can be chosen and then (4.2) is used calculate the

voltage .

20

10

Current (A)

-10

-20

1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.9 The three phase currents of the induction motor for (DF) method

500

Voltage (V)

-500

1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.10 The maximum rated voltages of the induction motor (DF) method

Figure 4.11 shows the variation of speed versus time. It can be noted that

although the machine speed is actually varying with time, the average speed is

1500 rpm and is very close to the rated nominal speed of the machine. The

speed variation illustrated in Figure 4.11 clearly show that during synthetic

loading the machine accelerates as a motor and decelerates as an induction

generator. Consequently the machine can be fully loaded via the repeated

acceleration and deceleration and without the need to connect a mechanical load

to the machine's drive shaft.

42

180

160

150

140

130

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.11The rotor speed of induction motor for (DF) method

Figure 4.12 shows the stator copper losses for induction machine when using

(DF) method. The time taken is from 1.5s to 2s and this period is lies in the

steady state condition. In synthetic loading technique the average is taken for

one cycle and this value must be the rated value. The average for the stator

copper loss is 385.43W. Figure 4.13 shows the variation of rotor copper loss

with time .The loss during synthetic loading is varying the average value for one

synthetic loading cycle is 295.26W. Figure 4.14 shows the friction loss when

DF method is used, the average for one synthetic loading cycle is 136.14W.

1500

1000

Losses (W)

500

0

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.12The stator copper losses of induction motor for (DF) method

43

800

600

Losses (W)

400

200

0

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.13The rotor copper losses of induction motor for (DF) method

170

160

150

Losses (W)

140

130

120

110

100

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.14The friction losses of induction motor for (DF) method

Figure 4.15 shows the variation of electrical torque with respect to time.

Figure 4.15 clearly indicates that the induction machine is heavily loaded by

synthetic loading technique. The machine is acting as a motor for half a cycle of

torque variation and as a generator for the second half cycle. The average value

of torque over a cycle is negative value proportional to the rotational losses and

any other fixed mechanical torque effective on the rotor. This torque cycle is

exactly repeated in the settled down operating condition and can be used to

separate the mechanical losses from the total losses if required.

Figure 4.16 shows the power measured at the input of the motor during the

simulation and the sum of the power losses while undergoing synthetic loading.

The average power at the motor terminals is positive when the rotor is

accelerating and negative when the rotor is decelerating. The sum of power

44

losses is always positive for the input frequency combination shown (main and

auxiliary frequencies at 50Hz and 35Hz respectively).

The results of one such simulation for the DF method of synthetic loading are

shown in Figure 4.16. It can be noted that the peak input average power is less

than the full load rated output power for the machine being modeled, namely a

peak input average power of approximately 6kW, while the rated output power

is 7.5kW.

To confirm the synthetic loading as a technique for evaluating efficiency, the

measured power at the input terminals must equal the sum of the losses during

the synthetic loading. This is a difficult task to establish experimentally since

the segregated losses cannot be measured directly during synthetic loading.

Therefore, simulation and computer modelling is used, based on accurate

parameters to evaluate the individual losses as well as the power that can be

measured at the input of the induction machine.

100

50

Torque (N.m)

-50

-100

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.15The electrical torque of induction motor for (DF) method

4

x 10

1 Input Power

Input Power & Total Loss (W)

Total Losses

0.5

-0.5

-1

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

45

Figure 4.16The input power with the total losses for (DF) method

The constant speed of rotating magnetic field (CSORMF) method of

synthetic loading produces a magnetic field that is rotating at a constant speed.

If the rotor is rotating at the same speed as the magnetic field, no voltage or

current is induced in the rotor because there is no changing flux in the rotor

winding. However, if the magnitude of the flux wave is varying with time, then

an e.m.f will be induced in the rotor conductors and current will flow. The e.m.f

will be established such that it opposes the change of flux in the rotor winding.

The interaction of the induced rotor current and the rotating magnetic field will

produce a torque that causes the rotor to rotate. Since the excitation produces a

magnetic field of constant speed and oscillating magnitude, then the induced

current will also be oscillating, hence producing an oscillating torque, resulting

in synthetic loading of the induction machine.

The frequency is the same in both the primary and secondary windings. In the

same way, the amplitude of the applied per-phase voltage waveform is varied

during the CSORMF method of synthetic loading to produce a stator magnetic

magnetic field and the induced rotor magnetic field produces torque. The torque

reaction causes the rotor to periodically accelerate and decelerate and the

machine becomes synthetically loaded. The modelled CSORMF synthetic

loading results for a main frequency of 50Hz with sweep frequency of 20Hz and

sweep magnitude of 5.5Hz. Figure 4.17 shows the three phase current

46

waveforms during the synthetic loading technique with a main frequency of

50Hz and sweep frequency of 20Hz, and sweep magnitude of 5.5Hz and the

load torque is zero.

Figure 4.18 shows the variation of the maximum rated voltage during

synthetic loading with a synthetic main frequency of 50Hz and sweep frequency

of 20Hz, and sweep magnitude of 5.5Hz and the load torque is zero. The phase

voltage magnitude during synthetic loading depends on, main voltages that used

main frequency, sweep frequency and sweep magnitude. Equation (2.9) is used

as the input voltage in (CSORMF) method.

15

10

5

Current (A)

-5

-10

-15

1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.17 The three phase currents of the induction motor for (CSORMF)

500

Voltage (V)

-500

1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.18 The maximum rated voltage of the induction motor for (CSORMF)

Figure 4.19 shows the variation of speed versus time. It can be note that

although the machine speed is actually varying with time; the average speed of

156.6 rad/sec (1495 rpm) is very close to the rated nominal speed of the

machine. The speed variation illustrates clearly that during synthetic loading the

47

machine accelerates as a motor and decelerates as an induction generator.

Consequently the machine can be fully loaded via the repeated acceleration and

deceleration and without the need to connect a mechanical load to the machine's

drive shaft.

180

170

Rotor Speed (rad / s)

160

150

140

130

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.20 shows the stator copper losses for induction machine when

CSORMF method is used. The time taken to calculate the average is between

1.5s to 2s. This period is lies in the steady state condition. In synthetic loading

technique the average taken for one synthetic loading cycle and this value must

be the rated value. The average for the stator copper loss is 381.18W. Figure

4.20 shows the variation of rotor copper loss with time .The loss during

synthetic loading is varying and the average value for one synthetic loading

cycle is 283.16W. Figure 4.22 shows the friction loss when CSORMF method is

used, the average for one synthetic loading cycle is 134.9W.

48

1200

1000

800

Losses (W)

600

400

200

0

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.20The stator copper losses of induction motor for (CSORMF) method

600

500

400

Losses (W)

300

200

100

0

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.21The rotor copper losses of induction motor for (CSORMF) method

170

160

150

Losses (W)

140

130

120

110

100

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.22The friction and losses of induction motor for (CSORMF) method

Figure 4.23 shows the variation of electrical torque with respect to time. It

clearly indicates that the machine is heavily loaded by synthetic loading

technique, the machine acting as a motor for half a cycle of torque variation and

as a generator for the other half cycle. Figure 4.24 shows the average power

measured at the input of the induction motor and the sum of average power

losses while undergoing synthetic loading. The average power at the motor

49

terminals is positive when the rotor is accelerating and negative when the rotor

is decelerating. The sum of average power losses is always positive for the input

frequency combination.

50

Torque (N.m)

-50

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.23The electrical torque of induction motor for (CSORMF) method

Input Power & Total Loss (W)

Input Power

6000

Total Losses

4000

2000

0

-2000

-4000

-6000

1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Time (s)

Figure 4.24 The input power with the total losses for (CSORMF) method

4.5 Discussions

The synthetic loading technique gives accurate results for efficiency

evaluation of induction motor. The result obtained using conventional method is

compared with that obtained using synthetic loading methods. The comparison

shows that the conventional method results are in consistent with the synthetic

loading results. The efficiency for the Dual-Frequency and CSORMF methods

are calculated from the nameplate output power (7.5kW) divided by the

nameplate output po-wer plus the power losses determined during synthetic

loading (7.5kW + total losses). The efficiency is determined in this way since it

may not be possible to measure either the input or output power at rated load

50

on-site. If the rated steady-state input power is known, then the efficiency is

calculated using the input power minus the power losses divided by the input

power.

And the efficiency using the synthetic loading technique for DF method:

And the efficiency for the synthetic loading technique for CSORMF method:

It can note that the results are very close to each other, there is a small

difference between the power losses but it does not affect result. Therefore, it

can be concluded that the synthetic loading technique is a best method that can

be used for efficiency evaluation of induction motor.

method for efficiency evaluation

51

Synthetic Loading; Voltage & Frequency (Hz)

Standard = 413.2 = 410 = 400 = 390

Efficiency = 38.14 = 64.22 = 110.56 = 141.8

Test = 35 = 39.1 = 42.7 = 44.1

Rms line voltage

415 414.95 414.99 414.98 414.97

(V)

Rms line current

13.83 13.88 13.85 13.85 13.87

(A)

Speed (rpm) 1448 1500.8 1495.7 1495.1 1490.3

Output power(W) 7500 _ _ _ _

Stator copper loss

384.3 385.4 384.01 384.1 384.8

(W)

Rotor copper loss

280.3 295.2 293.28 293.13 288.3

(W)

Friction and

126.4 136.1 135.18 135.1 134.2

windage loss (W)

Total losses 791 816.7 812.4 812.33 807.3

Efficiency % 90.4 90.17 90.22 90.22 90.28

are summarized in Table I for dual frequency method. In each case, we change

rated output power divided by the output power plus total losses measured using

synthetic loading. The stator copper loss, rotor copper loss, friction and windage

loss are the same approximately as the standard efficiency test method. This is

expected because the stator rms currents, the rms voltage and the speed are at

rated values. The synthetic loading technique produces efficiencies between

90.17% and 90.28% when the rated output power of the induction motor is used

to calculate the efficiency. Therefore, synthetic loading underestimates the

efficiency by less than 0.12% at best, 0.23% at worst, and 0.175% on average.

The simulation results show that the losses, rms current, and average speed

52

using the synthetic loading technique are consistent with the standard efficiency

test method, which indicates that synthetic loading could be used for the

evaluation efficiency of the induction motor.

method for efficiency evaluation

Synthetic Loading; Frequency (Hz)

Standard

Fm = 15 Fm = 18 Fm = 19 fm = 20

Efficiency

Sm = 8.7 Sm = 6.75 Sm = 6.15 Sm = 5.5

Test

Rms line voltage

415 415 415 415 415

(V)

Rms line current

13.83 13.9 13.86 13.85 13.81

(A)

Speed (rpm) 1448 1497.13 1496.66 1496.18 1495.3

Stator copper loss

384.3 395.1 384.6 383.7 381.2

(W)

Rotor copper loss

280.3 297.3 287.3 286.1 283.6

(W)

Friction and

126.4 135.2 135.1 135.1 134.9

windage loss (W)

Total loss 791 827.6 807 804.9 799.7

conditions are summarized in Table 4.2 for (CSORMF) method. In the

(CSORMF) method the main voltage and main frequency (equal 50 Hz) are

constant, we have to choose the correct value for and to get the rated

value for the current, voltage and average speed. Efficiency is calculated using

the rated output power divided by the output power plus total losses measured

53

using synthetic loading. As we said the stator copper loss, rotor copper loss,

friction and windage loss are the same approximately as the standard efficiency

test method. The synthetic loading technique produces efficiencies between

90.06% and 90.36% when the output power of the standard efficiency test is

used to calculate the efficiency. Therefore, synthetic loading underestimates the

efficiency by less than 0.04% at best, 0.34% at worst, and 0.19% on average.

The results in table 2 shown that the values for the (CSORMF) method was

found in good agreement for each results.

4.6 Summary

In this chapter the results for the conventional efficiency test methodis

obtained. The three phase currrents, voltages, speed, stator losses, rotor losses,

friction losses, torque and the input power are presented. Then the synthetic

loading technique is performed using the dual frequency and constant speed of

rotating magnetic field methods. The three phase currrents, voltages, speed,

stator losses, rotor losses, friction losses, torque and the input power under

synthetic loading are presented. The induction machine efficiency is calculated

using the total losses and the input power. Synthetic loading simulation results

give excellent agreement with the standard efficiency test method.

Chapter Five

Conclusions and Recommendations

54

5.1 Conclusions

Synthetic loading as a method for evaluating the efficiency of three-phase

induction motors has been confirmed, using computer modeling and simulation

techniques. It is accurate and able to identify the total losses in the machine

under test. The total losses supplied during synthetic loading were shown to be

comparable to the sum of the individual losses of the induction machine being

modeled. As a consequence, when the technique is applied to the real machine,

there can be confidence in the efficiency evaluation result. Previously, there was

uncertainty about the performance of synthetic loading for temperature-rise tests

and efficiency evaluation. However, with accurate computer modeling based on

real parameters, the synthetic loading method has been shown to be a valuable

technique for efficiency evaluation. The new method will enable motors to be

tested virtually at any location, including on site, and with any mounting

arrangement, horizontal or vertical. Efficiency can be established easily and

quickly at normal operating temperature. The required equipment will be easy

to set up, requiring the connection of a three-phase inverter output to the

machines terminals. Synthetic loading requires no external load to be

connected to the test machines drive and thus reducing set-up time and costs.

The equipment will draw only sufficient average power from the mains to

supply its own losses and the losses of the test machine, this total power being

small compared with the full load power of the machine under test, thus

reducing the overall power consumption. One piece of test equipment can

replace a number of large heavy and expensive electrical machines, for the

testing of a complete range of machine frame sizes.

Microprocessor controlled power electronic techniques can be used to

produce the two supply frequencies of the existing dual frequency synthetic

load method. The power electronic method obviates the need for separate MG

55

sets and an isolating transformer. An alternative method of achieving synthetic

loading, the constant speed of rotating magnetic field method, is to directly vary

the supply frequency using microprocessor controlled power electronics.

Measured temperature rises when using both new methods are in good

agreement with those using the conventional load method with a 50 Hz inverter

supply.

5.2 Recommendations

The synthetic loading technique in this thesis is used for an induction

machine, in calculation of the efficiency the iron losses has been neglected so

in more research we have to put the iron losses in consideration. The technique

is used for a small machine which the rated output power is 7.5 kw, it can be

used to evaluate the efficiency of higher rated machine output power.

The microprocessor control power electronic is the basic equipment that can

produce the two supply frequency for the dual frequency method and also can

give the variation of the supply frequency for (CSORMF). Accordingly, to

make synthetic loading technique a useful method for efficiency evaluation

experimentally the inverter should be used to drive the induction machine. With

hardly any additional cost, standard commercial speed control inverters can be

modified to offer the extra features of the new test methods.

Appendix A

56

Induction Machine Data

Rated voltage 415 V

Rated current 13.9 A

Frequency 50Hz

stator resistance, Rs 2

Rotor resistance, Rr 2

Stator leakage inductance, ls 0.00637 H

rotor leakage inductance, lr 0.00637 H

Magnetizing inductance, Lm 0.318 H

Rotor moment of inertia, J 0.05 kg.

Frictional coefficient, D 0.005 Nm.s/rad

Number of poles 4

Appendix B

57

B.1- Program One

function xprime=indmatrix(t,x)

Rs=2; Rr=2;

LM=0.318; Ls=(0.00637)+LM;

D=0.005; Lr=(0.00637)+LM;

F=50; W=2*pi*F;

J=0.05; P=2;

Vd=0; Vq=0;

VM=sqrt(2)*415;

VD=VM*sin(W*t);

VQ=-VM*cos(W*t);

TL=50.5;

B=[Ls LM 0 0;LM Lr 0 0;0 0 Ls LM;0 0 LM Lr];

C=inv(B);

y1=VD-Rs*x(1);

y2=Vd-Rr*x(2)-P*x(5)*(LM*x(3)+Lr*x(4));

y3=VQ-Rs*x(3);

y4=Vq-Rr*x(4)+P*x(5)*(LM*x(1)+Lr*x(2));

y=[y1;y2;y3;y4];

px=C*y;

piD=px(1); pid=px(2);

piQ=px(3);

piq=px(4);

Te=(3/2)*P*(x(2)*LM*x(3)-x(4)*LM*x(1));

pwr=(Te-D*x(5)-TL)/J;

xprime=[piD;pid;piQ;piq;pwr];

58

function xprime=dual(t,x)

Rs=2; Rr=2;

P=2; LM=0.318;

Ls=(0.00637)+LM; Lr=(0.00637)+LM;

D=0.005; J=0.05;

Va=sqrt(2)*413.2; Vb=sqrt(2)*38.14;

wa =2*pi*50; wb=2*pi*35;

Vd=0; Vq=0;

VD=Va*sin(wa*t)+Vb*sin(wb*t);

VQ=-Va*cos(wa*t)-Vb*cos(wb*t);

TL=0;

B=[Ls LM 0 0;LM Lr 0 0;0 0 Ls LM;0 0 LM Lr];

C=inv(B);

y1=VD-Rs*x(1);

y2=Vd-Rr*x(2)-P*x(5)*(LM*x(3)+Lr*x(4));

y3=VQ-Rs*x(3);

y4=Vq-Rr*x(4)+P*x(5)*(LM*x(1)+Lr*x(2));

y=[y1;y2;y3;y4];

px=C*y;

piD=px(1);

pid=px(2);

piQ=px(3);

piq=px(4);

Te=(3/2)*P*(x(2)*LM*x(3)-x(4)*LM*x(1));

pwr=(Te-D*x(5)-TL)/J;

xprime=[piD;pid;piQ;piq;pwr];

59

function xprime=csormf(t,x)

Rs=2; Rr=2;

P=2; LM=0.318;

Ls=(0.00637)+LM; Lr=(0.00637)+LM;

F=50; W=2*pi*F;

D=0.005; J=0.05;

VM=sqrt(2)*415;

Vd=0; Vq=0;

Fm=20; Sm=5.5;

VD=VM*(sin(2*pi*F*t)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F-Fm)*sin((2*pi)*(F-Fm)*t-pi)+(Sm/

(2*F*F))*(F+Fm)*sin((2*pi)*(F+Fm)*t-pi));

VQ=-VM*(cos(2*pi*F*t)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F-Fm)*cos((2*pi)*(F-Fm)*t-pi)+

(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F+Fm)*cos((2*pi)*(F+Fm)*t-pi));

TL=0;

B=[Ls LM 0 0;LM Lr 0 0;0 0 Ls LM;0 0 LM Lr];

C=inv(B);

y1=VD-Rs*x(1);

y2=Vd-Rr*x(2)-P*x(5)*(LM*x(3)+Lr*x(4));

y3=VQ-Rs*x(3);

y4=Vq-Rr*x(4)+P*x(5)*(LM*x(1)+Lr*x(2));

y=[y1;y2;y3;y4];

px=C*y;

piD=px(1); pid=px(2);

piQ=px(3); piq=px(4);

Te=(3/2)*P*(x(2)*LM*x(3)-x(4)*LM*x(1));

pwr=(Te-D*x(5)-TL)/J;

xprime=[piD;pid;piQ;piq;pwr;Te];

t0=0;

tfinal=2;

60

tspan=[t0 tfinal];

x0=[0 0 0 0 0];

[t,x]=ode45('indmatrix',tspan,x0);

ID=x(:,1);

Id=x(:,2);

IQ=x(:,3);

Iq=x(:,4);

wr=x(:,5);

VM=sqrt(2)*415;

F=50;

W=2*pi*F;

LM=0.318;

Rs=2;

Rr=2;

P=2;

D=0.0055;

VD=-VM*sin(W*t);

VQ=VM*cos(W*t);

Te=(3/2)*P*(LM*x(:,2).*x(:,3)-LM*x(:,4).*x(:,1));

figure(1),plot(t,ID),

title('Stator current ID');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(2),plot(t,Id),

title('Rotor current Id');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(3),plot(t,IQ),

title('Stator current IQ');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(4),plot(t,Iq),

title('Rotor current Iq');

xlabel('time(s)');

61

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(5),plot(t,wr),

title('Rotor Speed');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('speed r.p.s');

figure(6),plot(t,Te),

title('Torque');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('torque N.m)');

figure(7),plot(wr,Te),

title('Torque-Speed');

xlabel('Speed,r/min');

ylabel('Torque N.m');

Loss1=(3/2)*Rs*((ID.*ID)+(IQ.*IQ));

Loss2=(3/2)*Rr*((Id.*Id)+(Iq.*Iq));

Loss3=D*(wr.*wr);

figure(8),plot(t,Loss1),

title('Stator Losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(W)');

figure(9),plot(t,Loss2),

title('rotor losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

figure(10),plot(t,Loss3),

title('friction losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

IAs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

ICs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(11),plot(t,IAs),

title('IAs');

xlabel('time(s)');

62

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(12),plot(t,IBs),

title('IBs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(13),plot(t,IAs),

title('ICs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(14),plot(t,IAs,'r',t,IBs,'b',t,ICs,'k'),

title('Is');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

VA=(VQ.*cos(W*t)+VD.*sin(W*t));

VB=(VQ.*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t-2*pi/3));

VC=(VQ.*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t+2*pi/3));

figure(15),plot(t,VA),

title('VA');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(16),plot(t,VB),

title('VB');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(17),plot(t,VC),

title('VC');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(18),plot(t,VA,'r',t,VB,'b',t,VC,'k'),

title('Vs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

IAr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

63

ICr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(19),plot(t,IAr),

title('IAr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(20),plot(t,IBr),

title('IBr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(21),plot(t,ICr),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

tloss=Loss1+Loss2+Loss3;

Pin=(3/2)*(VD.*ID+VQ.*IQ);

figure(22),plot(t,Pin,'r',t,tloss,'b'),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

IDD=(ID.*ID);

IQQ=(IQ.*IQ);

Iss=sqrt((IDD)+(IQQ));

figure(23),plot(t,Iss),

title('Iss');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

t0=0;

tfinal=2;

64

tspan=[t0 tfinal];

x0=[0 0 0 0 0];

[t,x]=ode45('indmatrix',tspan,x0);

ID=x(:,1);

Id=x(:,2);

IQ=x(:,3);

Iq=x(:,4);

wr=x(:,5);

VM=sqrt(2)*415;

F=50;

W=2*pi*F;

LM=0.318;

Rs=2;

Rr=2;

P=2;

D=0.0055;

VD=-VM*sin(W*t);

VQ=VM*cos(W*t);

Te=(3/2)*P*(LM*x(:,2).*x(:,3)-LM*x(:,4).*x(:,1));

figure(1),plot(t,ID),

title('Stator current ID');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(2),plot(t,Id),

title('Rotor current Id');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(3),plot(t,IQ),

title('Stator current IQ');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(4),plot(t,Iq),

title('Rotor current Iq');

xlabel('time(s)');

65

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(5),plot(t,wr),

title('Rotor Speed');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('speed r.p.s');

figure(6),plot(t,Te),

title('Torque');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('torque N.m)');

figure(7),plot(wr,Te),

title('Torque-Speed');

xlabel('Speed,r/min');

ylabel('Torque N.m');

Loss1=(3/2)*Rs*((ID.*ID)+(IQ.*IQ));

Loss2=(3/2)*Rr*((Id.*Id)+(Iq.*Iq));

Loss3=D*(wr.*wr);

figure(8),plot(t,Loss1),

title('Stator Losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(W)');

figure(9),plot(t,Loss2),

title('rotor losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

figure(10),plot(t,Loss3),

title('friction losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

IAs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

ICs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(11),plot(t,IAs),

title('IAs');

xlabel('time(s)');

66

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(12),plot(t,IBs),

title('IBs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(13),plot(t,IAs),

title('ICs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(14),plot(t,IAs,'r',t,IBs,'b',t,ICs,'k'),

title('Is');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

VA=(VQ.*cos(W*t)+VD.*sin(W*t));

VB=(VQ.*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t-2*pi/3));

VC=(VQ.*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t+2*pi/3));

figure(15),plot(t,VA),

title('VA');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(16),plot(t,VB),

title('VB');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(17),plot(t,VC),

title('VC');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(18),plot(t,VA,'r',t,VB,'b',t,VC,'k'),

title('Vs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

IAr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

67

ICr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(19),plot(t,IAr),

title('IAr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(20),plot(t,IBr),

title('IBr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(21),plot(t,ICr),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

tloss=Loss1+Loss2+Loss3;

Pin=(3/2)*(VD.*ID+VQ.*IQ);

figure(22),plot(t,Pin,'r',t,tloss,'b'),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

IDD=(ID.*ID);

IQQ=(IQ.*IQ);

Iss=sqrt((IDD)+(IQQ));

figure(23),plot(t,Iss),

title('Iss');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

t0=0;

tfinal=2;

68

tspan=[t0 tfinal];

x0=[0 0 0 0 0 0];

[t,x]=ode45('csormf',tspan,x0);

ID=x(:,1);

Id=x(:,2);

IQ=x(:,3);

Iq=x(:,4);

wr=x(:,5);

VM=sqrt(2)*415;

F=50;

W=2*pi*F;

LM=0.318;

Rs=2;

Rr=2;

P=2;

D=0.0055;

Sm=5.5;

Fm=20;

VD=VM*(sin(2*pi*F*t)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F-Fm)*sin((2*pi)*(F-Fm)*t-

pi)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F+Fm)*sin((2*pi)*(F+Fm)*t-pi));

VQ=-VM*(cos(2*pi*F*t)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F-Fm)*cos((2*pi)*(F-Fm)*t-

pi)+(Sm/(2*F*F))*(F+Fm)*cos((2*pi)*(F+Fm)*t-pi));

%VD=-VM*sin(W*t);

%VQ=VM*cos(W*t);

Te=(3/2)*P*(LM*x(:,2).*x(:,3)-LM*x(:,4).*x(:,1));

figure(1),plot(t,ID),

title('Stator current ID');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(2),plot(t,Id),

title('Rotor current Id');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(3),plot(t,IQ),

69

title('Stator current IQ');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(4),plot(t,Iq),

title('Rotor current Iq');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(5),plot(t,wr),

title('Rotor Speed');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('speed r.p.s');

figure(6),plot(t,Te),

title('Torque');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('torque N.m)');

figure(7),plot(wr,Te),

title('Torque-Speed');

xlabel('Speed,r/min');

ylabel('Torque N.m');

Loss1=(3/2)*Rs*((ID.*ID)+(IQ.*IQ));

Loss2=(3/2)*Rr*((Id.*Id)+(Iq.*Iq));

Loss3=D*(wr.*wr);

figure(8),plot(t,Loss1),

title('Stator Losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(W)');

figure(9),plot(t,Loss2),

title('rotor losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

figure(10),plot(t,Loss3),

title('friction losses');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('losses(w)');

70

IAs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

ICs=(x(:,3).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,1).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(11),plot(t,IAs),

title('IAs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(12),plot(t,IBs),

title('IBs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(13),plot(t,IAs),

title('ICs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(14),plot(t,IAs,'r',t,IBs,'b',t,ICs,'k'),

title('Is');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

VA=(VQ.*cos(W*t)+VD.*sin(W*t));

VB=(VQ.*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t-2*pi/3));

VC=(VQ.*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+VD.*sin(W*t+2*pi/3));

figure(15),plot(t,VA),

title('VA');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(16),plot(t,VB),

title('VB');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

figure(17),plot(t,VC),

title('VC');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

71

figure(18),plot(t,VA,'r',t,VB,'b',t,VC,'k'),

title('Vs');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('volt(V)');

IAr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t))/sqrt(2);

IBr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t-2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t-2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

ICr=(x(:,4).*cos(W*t+2*pi/3)+x(:,2).*sin(W*t+2*pi/3))/sqrt(2);

figure(19),plot(t,IAr),

title('IAr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(20),plot(t,IBr),

title('IBr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

figure(21),plot(t,ICr),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

tloss=Loss1+Loss2+Loss3;

Pin=(3/2)*(VD.*ID+VQ.*IQ);

figure(22),plot(t,Pin,'r',t,tloss,'b'),

title('ICr');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

IDD=(ID.*ID);

IQQ=(IQ.*IQ);

Iss=sqrt((IDD)+(IQQ));

figure(23),plot(t,Iss),

title('Iss');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('current(A)');

References

72

[1] B.L. Theraja and A.K. Theraja, A Textbook of Electrical Technology,

First Multi Color Edition 2005, S. Chand & Company Ltd.

[2] P.G. Cummings, W. D. Bowers and W.J. Martiny, Induction Motor

Efficiency Test Methods, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,

Vol. IA-17, No. 3, May/June1981.

[3] C. Grantham, H. Tabatabaei-Yazdi and M. F. Rahman, A Novel Method

for Rapid Efficiency Measurement of Three Phase Induction Motors,

IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 14, No. 4, December

1999, pp. 1236-1240.

[4] D. J. McKinnon and C. Grantham, Improved Efficiency Test Methods

for Three Phase Induction Machines, Industry Application Conference,

2005. Fourtieth IAS Anual Meeting. Conference Record of the 2005,

Vol. 1, 2-6 October 2005, pp. 466-473.

[5] N. K. Ghai, IEC And NEMA Standards for Large Squirrel Cage Induc-

tion Motors A Comparison, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,

Vol. 14, No. 3, September 1999, pp.545-552.

[6] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, M. Lazzari and M. Pastorelli, International

Standards for the IM Efficiency Evaluation: A Critical Analysis of the

Stray Load Loss Determination, IEEE Transactions on Industry

Applications, Vol. 40, No. 5, September/October 2004, pp. 1294- 1301.

[7] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, M. Lazzari and M. Pastorelli, IM Efficiency

Measurements in accordance to IEEE 112-B, IEC 34-2 and JEC 37

International Standards, Electric Machines and Drives Conference,

2003, EMDC03, IEEE International, Vol. 3, 1-4 June 2003, pp. 1599-

1605.

G. Wainwright, A Laboratory Assessment of In- Service Motor Efficie-

73

ncy Testing Methods, IEEE IEMDC Proceedings 1997, WC 1.7-1.

[9] J.S. Hsu, J.D. Kueck, M. Olszewski, D.A. Casada, P.J. Otaduy, and L.

M. Tolbrt, Comparison of Induction Motor Field Efficiency Evaluation

Methods, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 34, No. 1,

January/February 1998.

[10] IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and

Generators, IEEE Standard 112-1991, 1991.

[11] NEMA Standard Publication No. MG1, National Electrical Manufacture

Association (NEMA), Washington, D.C., 1993.

[12] J. D. Kueck, M. Olszewski, D. A. Casada, J. S. Hsu, P. J. Otaduy, and

L. M. Tolbert, Assessment of methods for estimating motor efficiency

and load under field conditions, Lockheed Martin Energy Research

Corp., Oak Ridge, TN, Rep. ORNL/TM-13165, Jan. 1996.

[13] Understanding AC motor efficiency, Electrical Apparatus Service

Association, St. Louis, MO.

[14] R. E. Oesterlei, Motor efficiency test methodsApple and oranges,

Power Transmission Design, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 4143, May 1980.

[15] H. Jordan and A. Gatozzi, Efficiency Testing of Induction Machines,

in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, Cleveland, OH, Sept. 30-

Oct. 5, 1979, pp. 284289.

[16] A. H. Bonnett, An update on ac induction motor efficiency, IEEE

Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 30, pp. 13621372, Sept./Oct. 1994.

[17] J. Soltani, B. Szabados and J. Hoolboom, A New Synthetic Loading

for Large Induction Machines with No Feedback into the Power

System, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 17, No. 3,

September 2002, pp. 319- 324.

meter for load testing three-phase induction motors, in Proc. IEEE

74

1999 Int. Conf. Power Electron. Drive Syst. (PEDS ), Jul., Hong

Kong, pp. 579584.

[19] Schwenk, H. R., Equivalent loading of induction machines for temper-

atures tests, Trans IEEE, Vol. PAS-96, No 4, July/August 1977

pp. 1126-1 131.

[20] M. Sheng and C. Grantham, Synthetic loading of three-phase induction

motors by magnetic field magnitude modulation, IEE Proc.-Electronic

Power Appl., Vol. 141, No. 2, March 1994.

[21] Abdelaziz Y. M. Abbas and John E. Fletcher, The Synthetic Loading

Technique Applied to the PM Synchronous Machine, IEEE

Transactions On Energy Conversion, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2011.

[22] P.C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, S.D. Sudhoff , Analysis of Electric Mac-

hinery And Drive Systems, second edition, IEE Press 445 Hoes Lane,

P.O.Box 1331 Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331.

75