462 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 19, NO.

2, JUNE 2004

A Comparative Study of Two Synchronous Machine

Modeling Techniques for EMTP Simulation
Yu Cui, Hermann W. Dommel, Fellow, IEEE, and Wilsun Xu, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Modeling and simulation of synchronous machines II. MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION

are traditionally based on the -axis model. An alternative
method that uses direct phase-domain representation has been The -axis and phase-domain machine models are both de-
proposed [1]–[4] over the past 30 years. One of the recent contri- rived from the relationships between the machine terminal volt-
butions [5], which is published as a letter in the June 2001 edition ages, currents and flux linkages [3], [6]
of Power Engineering Review, claims that the -axis model will
give erroneous results in some cases, while the phase-domain (1)
model does not have such problems. This is a very bold claim. The
purpose of this letter is to verify the conclusions of that Letter. Our (2)
simulation results indicate that both modeling methods produce
very similar results. The letter’s conclusion might have resulted where, , , and are the stator and rotor coil voltage, cur-
from a misuse of the PSCAD/EMTDC software. rent, and flux linkage vector, respectively.
Index Terms— -axis model, EMTP analysis, phase-domain
Matrix is a diagonal matrix of the coil resistances and
synchronous generator model. matrix is a symmetrical matrix of the coil self and mutual
inductances. is a function of the rotor position and is thus a
time-variant matrix.
I. INTRODUCTION With the phase-domain model, the above equations are solved
directly by discretizing (1) with the trapezoidal rule of integra-
T HE THEORY of the phase-domain synchronous gener-
ator model has been established for quite a long time. It
has been proposed that this model can provide an accurate rep-
tion [4].
The most difficult part of the phase-domain method is caused
resentation of internal machine phenomena, and has therefore by the time-variant nature of matrix . If the saturation and
harmonic effects are not considered, matrix can be trans-
advantages in modeling magnetic saturation [3] and simulating
formed to a constant matrix by applying Park’s transformation
machine internal faults [4]. It can also reduce the difficulties in
[6], [7]
interfacing generator models with the power system network.
The drawbacks of this method are also significant. One of them
is that the phase-domain method requires the self and mutual (3)
inductance data of the various machine windings in order to
(4)
perform the simulation. These sets of data are usually not avail-
able. There is also a general lack of rigorous verifications on where
the performance of this model. Because of these considerations, is identical for and ,
machine models adopted in most EMTP-type software pack- ,
ages are still based on -axis representations. and is Park’s transformation matrix.
In a letter published in the June 2001 edition of Power En- Equations (3) and (4) are the -axis model of the syn-
gineering Review [5], the authors made a radical conclusion by chronous machine. Park’s transformation is always valid,
suggesting that the -axis model will not give correct simula- although it will be much more complicated when machine
tion results for asymmetrical faults. The phase-domain model, saturation and harmonic effects are included. The machine
on the other hand, does not have this problem. This is a serious operating conditions (i.e., symmetrical or asymmetrical), will
challenge to the theoretical foundation of the -axis model, not affect Park’s transformation. The assumption in [5] that the
and it should therefore be carefully evaluated. In response to -axis model is only valid for balanced working conditions is
this need, we conducted simulation studies using different soft- not correct.
ware packages on two different cases. This letter reports our
findings. III. CASE STUDIES
In this letter, two widely used EMTP-type software packages,
the MicroTran version of the EMTP and PSCAD/EMTDC,
were used to compare the simulation results with the phase-do-
Manuscript received May 27, 2003.
Y. Cui and W. Xu are with the Department of Electrical and Computer main modeling results. For this purpose, we programmed the
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2V4, Canada (e-mail: phase-domain model of [5] using the Matlab code.
[email protected]; [email protected]). The first case study is conducted using the sample system of
H. W. Dommel is with the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z4, Canada (e-mail: [email protected]). [5]. Both the -axis data and the phase-domain data are pro-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2004.827047 vided in [2]. The synchronous generator is operating initially at
0885-8969/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 19, NO. 2, JUNE 2004 463

Fig. 1. Stator currents for a three-phase fault for the first sample system.
Fig. 3. Stator currents for a three-phase fault in the second sample system.

Fig. 4. Phase A current for a single-phase-to-ground fault in the second sample

system.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 2. Stator currents for a single-phase-to-ground fault for the first sample This letter compared the -axis model and the phase-domain
system. model of a synchronous generator. The results show that the
suggestion of [5] that the -axis model gives erroneous results
a load of and p.u., when a three-phase fault for asymmetrical fault conditions is unfounded. Both models are
and a single-phase-to-ground fault happen at the generator ter- capable of simulating any kind of generator working conditions.
minals, respectively. Both models have their advantages and disadvantages.
It can be observed from Figs. 1 and 2 that the results from
the phase-domain model and from MicroTran are very close.
The results from PSCAD have some differences with those from REFERENCES
MicroTran and the phase-domain model. It is hard to pinpoint [1] P. Subramaniam and O. P. Malik, “Digital simulation of a synchronous
the source for the difference in the PSCAD program, since no generator in the direct-phase quantities,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 118,
no. 1, pp. 153–160, Jan. 1971.
detailed information is available on how the machine model is [2] M. Rafian and M. A. Laughton, “Determination of synchronous machine
implemented in PSCAD. The difference, however, cannot dis- phase coordinate parameters,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 123, no. 8, pp.
qualify the validity of the -axis model. 818–824, Aug. 1976.
[3] J. R. Marti and K. W. Louie, “A phase-domain synchronous generator
The PSCAD results shown in Fig. 2 are significantly different model including saturation effects,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12,
from those shown in Fig. 3 of [5]. The main conclusion of [5], pp. 222–229, Feb. 1997.
namely that the -axis model does not give correct results, is [4] A. I. Megahed and O. P. Malik, “Synchronous generator internal fault
computation and experimental verification,” in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.,
based on this figure. We found that the results shown in Fig. 3 Gen. Transm. Dist., vol. 145, Sept. 1998, pp. 604–610.
of the Letter are not correct. The problem is very likely caused [5] K. H. Chan, E. Acha, M. Madrigal, and J. A. Parle, “The use of
by the use of a default neutral resistance value in the simulation direct time-phase domain synchronous generator model in standard
EMTP-type industrial packages,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., pp. 63–65,
by the authors. If the resistance value is set to zero, the results June 2001.
become those shown in Fig. 2. [6] H. W. Dommel, EMTP Theory Book. Vancouver, Canada: Microtran
To further verify the validity of the -axis model, another Power System Analysis Corporation, 1992.
[7] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-
case study was conducted, using the generator parameters from Hill, 1994.
the first IEEE subsynchronous resonance benchmark model [8]. [8] IEEE Subsynchronous Resonance Task Force of the Dynamic System
In this system, the generator has no load before the fault. Figs. 3 Performance Working Group, Power System Engineering Committee,
“First benchmark model for computer simulation of subsynchronous res-
and 4 indicate the simulation results of the -axis model and onance,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-96, pp. 1565–1570,
of the phase-domain model are very close. Sept./Oct. 1977.