MODELING OF MULTI-PULSE TRANSFORMER RECTIFIER UNITS IN POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Carl T. Tinsley, III

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulllment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Electrical Engineering

Dr. Dushan Boroyevich, Chair Dr. Jason Lai Dr. William Baumann

August 5, 2003 Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: Average Model, Multi-pulse transformer, Small-Signal Stability Copyright 2003, Carl T. Tinsley, III

This page is left intentionally blank.

ii

Modeling of Multi-Pulse Transformer Rectier Units in Power Distribution Systems

by Carl T. Tinsley, III Dushan Boroyevich, Chairman Electrical Engineering (ABSTRACT)

Multi-pulse transformer/rectier units are becoming increasingly popular in power distribution systems. These topologies can be found in aircraft power systems, motor drives, and other applications that require low total harmonic distortion (THD) of the input line current. This increase in the use of multi-pulse transformer topologies has led to the need to study large systems composed of said units and their interactions within the system. There is also an interest in developing small-signal models so that stability issues can be studied. This thesis presents a procedure for developing the average model of multi-pulse transformer/rectier topologies. The dq rotating reference frame was used to develop the average model and parameter estimation is incorporated through the use of polynomial ts. The average model is composed of nonlinear dependent sources and linear passive components. A direct benet from this approach is a reduction in simulation time by two orders of magnitude. The average model concept demonstrates that it accurately predicts the dynamics of the system being studied. In particular, two specic topologies are studied, the 12-pulse hexagon transformer/rectier (hex t/r) and the 18-pulse autotransformer rectier unit (ATRU). In both cases, detailed switching model results are used to verify the operation of the average model. In the case of the hex t/r, the average model is further validated with experimental data from an 11 kVA prototype. The hex t/r output impedance, obtained from the linearized average model, has also been veried experimentally.

This page is left intentionally blank.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I graciously thank my advisor, Dr. Dushan Boroyevich, for the time and eort that he has devoted to all his students over the last two years. I am very grateful to Dr. Boroyevich, who aorded me the opportunity to start my research in power electronics, while I was still an undergraduate student. I also extend my gratitude to him for the generous guidance that he has provided to me over the last three years as my research and graduate advisor. Thanks to my other committee members, Dr. Jason Lai and Dr. William Baumann, for their commitment to serving as dedicated committee members. Dr. Lais undergraduate courses initially sparked my interest in power electronics. Dr. Baumanns controls course gave me a strong foundation in classical control systems. I would like to take this time to thank the many students that I have worked with during my time at CPES. Thanks and appreciation is given to my team members on the Thales project: Rolando Burgos, Chong Han, Frederic Lacaux, Konstantin Louganski, Xiangfei Ma, Sebastian Rosado, Alexander Uan-Zo-li, and Dr. Fred Wang. I also want to thank my other friends at CPES: Julie Zhu, Bing Lu, Bass Sock, Joe Barnette, Jerry Francis and Josh Hawley. I have enjoyed spending time with you guys inside and outside of the lab. I would like to thank Steve Chen, Jaime Evans, Marianne Hawthorne, Dan Hu, Bob Martin, Trish Rose, Theresa Shaw, Elizabeth Tranter, and the rest of the CPES sta for their support during the last two years. Their dedication makes CPES what it is today. Special thanks goes to my family and friends for the support that they have provided to me during my educational career. Your love, encouragement and motivation has been a godsend to me during the last two years. To my mom - Sheila Tinsley, my dad - Carl v

Tinsley, Jr., my brother - DeAnthony Tinsley, my nephew, my grandparents, my aunts, and my uncles: thank you for having faith in me and being there for me as I pursued my goals. I would like to acknowledge that there is a power greater than me that made all of this possible. Thank God for all his wonderful blessings, without Him, none of what I have achieved would exist.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Multi-pulse transformer/rectier overview . . . . . 1.2.1 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Dierent types of models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Switching models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Average models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

PAGE ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 3 3 6 6 6 7 7 9 9 9 11 11 13 13 19 19 19 19 20 21 23 24 24 27 29 29 31 31

2 HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Operation of the hexagon transformer and rectier . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.1 Transformer conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Development of the switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Simulation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Switching model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 HEX T/R AVERAGE MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Average model concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Denition of average model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 General approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Hex t/r average model development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Average model equation formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.1 Initial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.2 Revised model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 1st harmonic assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Switching model analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Parameter extraction and estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4.1 Parameter extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

3.5

3.6

3.4.4.2 Commutation inductor value estimation Average model verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Steady-state results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Transient results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............. ............. ............. ............. .............

32 37 38 39 39 45 45 45 45 47 47 47 48 53 53 57 59 59 59 60 61 63 63 68 68 68 70 72 73

4 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Experimental hardware/test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Description of hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Description of measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3.1 Time-domain measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3.2 Output impedance measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Time-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Output impedance results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MODELING OF AN 18-PULSE AUTOTRANSFORMER AND RECTIFIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Operation of autotransformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Transformer conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Switching model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Switching model analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Average model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Equation formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Average model verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 APPENDIX A 11 kVA HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL OPERATING POINT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.1 MATLAB les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.1.1 The polynomial t m-le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 viii

B.1.2 The kv polynomial t m-le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B.1.3 The ki polynomial t m-le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B.1.4 Linear approximation of the variables , kv , and ki m-le . . . . . . . 87 APPENDIX C SABER SCHEMATIC MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1 SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.1 Hex t/r SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.2 ATRU SABER schematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2 SABER MAST code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.1 The polynomial saber mast le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.2 The kv polynomial saber mast le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.3 The linear saber mast le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.4 The kv linear saber mast le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 91 91 91 91 99 99 100 100

VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

ix

This page is left intentionally blank.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Page Simplied aircraft power system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aircraft maintenance frequency changer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-pulse transformer rectier system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagon transformer/rectier topology: (a) hexagon transformer and (b) 12-pulse rectier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Switching model schematic of hexagon transformer/rectier . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r input voltage and current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output voltage and current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output current at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harmonic spectrum of hex t/r input current, ia , at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r input voltage and current at 4.9 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r output voltage and current at 4.9 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black box model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generator/rectier space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagon transformer/ rectier space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial average model schematic (steady state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial average model schematic (steady state) with cross-coupling terms . Average model schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex T/R abc to dq transformation: (a) hex t/r dq voltages and (b) hex t/r dq currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model parameters plotted over the operating range of the hex t/r: (a) vs. the load current, idc , (b) kv vs. the load current, idc , and (c) ki vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv vs. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv v. the load current, idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transient response of output voltage, vdc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 2 2 5 10 12 15 15 16 16 17 17 21 22 25 26 27 28 30

3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13

33 34 34 35 36 37

3.14 Transient Response of Output Current, idc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 10.6 kVA under steady-state conditions . . . 3.16 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5.1 kVA under steady-state conditions . . . 3.17 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 10.6 kVA under steady-state conditions . . . 3.18 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 5.1 kVA under steady-state conditions . . . . 3.19 Hex T/R Output Voltage, vdc , under transient conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.20 Hex T/R Output Current, idc , under transient conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 5 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 5 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 5 A/div . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 8 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . Hex t/r 8 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 10 A/div . . . . . . . . . Output impedance block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance measurement board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental output impedance at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r output impedance at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-pulse ATRU topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-pulse autotransformer vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Switching model schematic of ATRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU input current, ia , and input voltage, va , at 100 kVA this is a test to make this really long i hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU input line current, ia , harmonic spectrum at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage rails with respect to the input voltage neutral, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU bridge rectier dc currents at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . abc to dq transformation of ATRU rectier bridge to currents: (a) abc currents and (b) dq currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU space vector diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-Pulse ATRU average model block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average model circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . ATRU 270 V output voltage rails, vdc,minus and vdc,plus , at 100 kVA . . . . ATRU bridge current, idc,Br , at 100 kVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

38 40 40 41 41 42 42 46 48 49 49 50 50 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 58 60 62 62 64 64 65 65 66 67 69 71 71 72 74 74 75

5.17 ATRU Bridge 1 output voltage rails, vdcplus,Br1 and vdcminus,Br1 , at 100 kVA 75 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 Hex t/r switching model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . Hex t/r average model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU switching model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU average model SABER schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . ATRU average model block SABER schematic . . . . . . . ATRU bridge rectier average model SABER schematic . ATRU Bridge 1 average model SABER schematic . . . . . Average model circuit SABER schematic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 93 94 95 96 96 97 98

xiii

This page is left intentionally blank.

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3

Page 12-pulse hex t/r switching model parameter values at 10.6 kVA . . . . . . . . 14 The The The The The Hex dq rotating coordinates average values . . . polynomial terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv polynomial terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . linear terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kv linear terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t/r average model circuit parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32 33 35 35 39 46 51 55 56 57

11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype specications . . . . . Audio amplier, Jensen XA2150, specications . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r results at 5 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of hex t/r results at 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output impedance measurement system characterization

..... ..... ..... ..... .....

...... ...... ...... ...... ......

.. .. .. .. ..

Input/output specications for 100 kVA 18-pulse ATRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 100 kVA 18-pulse ATRU switching model parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ATRU average model circuit parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

A.1 Hex t/r switching model operating point data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

xv

This page is left intentionally blank.

xvi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

Motivation

This work was motivated by the need to simulate large power distribution systems and to study interactions between the individual subsystems. Aircraft power system is one of the applications in which these large scale power distribution simulation models prove useful [1]. As the move towards the More Electric Aircraft (MEA) continues, there is a desire to eectively model these systems in both the time domain and the frequency domain [1], [2], [3]. A simplied aircraft power distribution system is presented in Figure 1.1 [2]. This system diers from the traditional aircraft power system in that the aircraft starter/generator supplies a variable frequency. One of the main components of this system is the AC/DC converter that provides the 270 V dc bus voltage. It has been shown in literature that one possible solution is the 18-pulse autotransformer rectier unit (ATRU) [4]. This ATRU topology has the advantages of reduced kVA ratings and improved line current harmonics [4]. Aircraft maintenance frequency changers, such as the one shown in Figure 1.2, are commonly connected in parallel at the input to service several aircrafts at one time. This frequency changer converts the 60 Hz ground supply to 400 Hz so that the avionics in the aircraft can be serviced [5]. The step-down isolation transformer and 12-pulse diode rectier, commonly referred to as the 12-pulse hexagon transformer/rectier (hex t/r), is the front-end to the system. The hex t/r recties the ac input and provides a stable dc 1

Main DC Bus 270 V

270 V Load

Aircraft Engine

Starter/ Generator

AC/DC Converter
270 V Load

Figure 1.1 Simplied aircraft power system supply for the 4-leg inverter. In order to study the stability of the entire system, smallsignal models of the individual subsystems are needed. For this particular application, the system being studied is the hex t/r. This topology greatly reduces the harmonics in the input line current [6].
12-pulse Diode Rectifier DC Link 4-Leg Inverter 3-phase Variable Frequency

3-phase 60 Hz

Step-Down Isolation Hexagon Transformer

Controller

Figure 1.2 Aircraft maintenance frequency changer Two examples of multi-pulse transformer/rectier units operating in power distribution systems have been presented. One of the aims of this work is to eectively develop models of these multi-pulse topologies that can be used in the large system simulation models. It should be noted that the term stability refers to small-signal stability. In most cases, the small-signal model is obtained by linearizing about an operating point. In this thesis, the average model of the multi-pulse transformer topologies is derived for use in small-signal analysis. The derived model is continuous and non-linear in nature. Software is used to linearize the system about an operating point. While literature shows that average models of 6-pulse bridge rectiers have been developed which are suitable 2

for small-signal analysis, [7] and [8], there is little information on the average models of multi-pulse transformer/rectier units. The next sections will describe the operation of multi-pulse transformer/rectier units, and will discuss the dierent types of models that could be used in the simulation of large power distribution systems.

1.2

Multi-pulse transformer/rectier overview

This section will provide an overview of multi-pulse transformer/rectier systems. The operation of the 12-pulse transformer rectier will be reviewed, and some applications of these circuits will be provided.

1.2.1

Operation

Literature on multi-pulse transformer/rectier topology has existed for several years [9]. The term multi-pulse is dened as any number of n 6-pulse bridge rectiers connected in series or parallel, where n is greater than 1. The two main advantages to using multi-pulse transformer/rectier topologies are a reduction in the ac input line current harmonics and a reduction in the dc output voltage ripple [6]. The input current harmonics are reduced through the use of phase-shifting transformers. The expressions

Harm = 6kn 1 M ag =

(1.1) (1.2) (1.3) (1.4)

k = any positive integer n = number of six pulse converters

1 6kn 1

provide a simple way to calculate the frequency and magnitude of harmonics that will be present in the ac input line current when multi-pulse topologies are implemented [6]. The 3

frequencies at which the harmonics will appear for an n-pulse converter are computed by multiplying 1.1 by the fundamental frequency of the system. The magnitude of the harmonics are calculated by multiplying 1.2 by the amplitude of the signal at the fundamental frequency. For example, if a 12-pulse transformer/rectier system were to be implemented, the rst harmonics to contribute to the total harmonic distortion (THD) of the input line current would be the 11th and 13th . It can be seen that by using a phase-shifting transformer and adding and additional 6-pulse diode rectier bridge, the harmonic content in the supply current is attenuated up to the 11th harmonic as opposed to the 5th for the traditional 6-pulse bridge rectier.

The 12-pulse transformer/rectier system shown in Figure 1.3 is a topology commonly found in existing literature [10] - [11]. The system shown in Figure 1.3 has the two diode bridges connected in parallel. For this particular type of connection, interphase transformers are required. The interphase transformers absorb the dierence in the instantaneous voltage produced by the two 6-pulse rectiers [9]. The interphase transformers prevent the two bridges from interacting with one another and allow the conduction angle of the diode to remain at 120 . For this particular topology, each bridge rectier processes 50% of the load power.

The cancellation of harmonics in the ac input line current is achieved through the use of phase-shifting transformers. For this example, the phase shift employed by the transformer is 30 . The primary side of the transformer is connected in a delta, while the secondary is connected in delta and wye. The phase shift produced by the delta and wye secondary voltages is what allows for the cancellation of the current harmonics. One of the issues associated with this topology is that the turns ratio in the secondary must approximate an irrational number ( 3). This approximation can lead to voltage imbalance between the two bridges which will reduce the attenuation of harmonics in the ac input line current. 4

Bridge 1 ia,Br1

idc,Br1 +

Interphase Transformer

idc +

ib,Br1 ia ic,Br1

vdc,Br1

Bridge 2 idc,Br2 + L o a d vdc

ib ic ia,Br2

ib,Br2 ic,Br2

vdc,Br2

Figure 1.3 12-pulse transformer rectier system

1.2.2

Applications

The multi-pulse transformer topology generally acts as an interface between the power electronics load and the utility supply. Some of the most common applications for multipulse transformer/rectier systems include motor drives, interruptible power supplies (UPS) systems, aircraft variable speed constant frequency (VSCF) systems, and frequency changer systems [10], [12]. In other work [13], the author develops an 18-pulse autotransformer rectier system that does not require the use of interphase transformers. He instead takes advantage of the unequal current sharing in the three bridges. He is able to reduce the system size by eliminating the interphase transformers, and also achieves a harmonic current that is reduced as compared with that of a 12-pulse system. Some other applications of multi-pulse transformer topologies involve adding switching circuitry to the interphase transformers to improve the pulse number of the line current [11], [14].

1.3

Dierent types of models

This section will provide some background information on the dierent types of models available for analyses. For this work, the focus will be directed toward switching models and average models.

1.3.1

Switching models

Simulation models that account for the turning on and o of semiconductor switches are commonly referred to as switching models. These detailed computer simulation models are used to observe the operation of the converter during steady-state and transient operation. Computer simulation programs such as SABER and MATLAB can be used to simulate these complex circuits [15], [16], [17], [18]. Some of the disadvantages to using switching models include numerical instability, long simulation time, convergence errors, 6

and huge computational loads [19] - [20]. These issues, along with the need for a model that can be used for small-signal analyses, has led to the development of average models.

1.3.2

Average models

Some of the advantages of average models include reduced simulation time, ability to simulate transient conditions, and the ability to perform small-signal analyses [20]. Some of the functions related to small-signal analysis include assessment of stability and design of closed-loop controllers. Average models have been used to simulate large dc power systems [20]. There, the results have been compared with test data to demonstrate that the modeling approach is valid.

1.4

Objectives

This thesis presents a detailed procedure for developing the average model of multipulse transformer/rectier units. An average model of the 12-pulse hex t/r is presented and veried through simulation and experimental data. The average model concept developed for the 12-pulse hex t/r is then extended to the more complex 18-pulse ATRU. The ATRU results are validated through a comparison with the detailed switching model. The presented procedures and concepts are adopted from previous results for 6-pulse transformer/rectiers and are applied here to 12-pule and 18-pulse units for the rst time. Chapter 2 will discuss the switching model of the 12-pulse hex t/r. A general review of the topology is presented, and the issues encountered during simulation are discussed. Simulation results obtained under steady-state conditions are provided for reference. The average model of the hex t/r is the main focus of Chapter 3. The development of the average model from conception to implementation is discussed. Issues such as accounting for commutation inductance and accounting for the variation in parameters is presented. Results are compared with the switching model under steady-state and transient conditions. Chapter 4 presents experimental results that were collected from a 7

11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype. The data from the hardware testing is compared with the average model and switching model simulations under steady-state conditions. The small-signal validity of the average model is veried by experimentally measuring the output impedance. The average model concept is extended to the 18-pulse ATRU topology in Chapter 5. A detailed switching model is provided to verify the results generated by the 18-pulse ATRU average model. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes this work by summarizing the main points covered and providing a few nal comments.

CHAPTER 2 HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL

2.1

Introduction

This chapter will provide detailed information about the switching model of the hex t/r. The switching model is dened as the detailed computer simulation that models the commutation and conduction of the diodes in the rectier bridge. The hexagon transformer windings are also included in the switching model. Since diodes are used in this topology, the switching is uncontrolled. The following sections will provide insight into the operation of the hex t/r as well as some simulation results. Issues encountered during the development of the switching model will also be discussed.

2.1.1

Operation of the hexagon transformer and rectier

The hex t/r topology, shown in Figure 2.1, is used as the front-end to the frequency changer. The hex t/r function is similar to that of the standard wye-delta-wye 12-pulse transformer/rectier. As mentioned in the introduction, the harmonics in the line current are reduced due to the multi-pulse concept. Some other advantages gained by using the hex t/r topology include well-matched voltage and leakage reactances and the elimination of the interphase reactor [21]. The windings of the hexagon transformer are discussed in the following section. 9

Primary Winding X11 X12 Virtual Neutral X9 X10 C1 B2

X2 A1 A

X1 Secondary Winding X4 C2 X3

B B1 A2 X5 Taps X8
(a)

X6

X7

Lfilter Lc Lc Lc +

X2 X8 X6 X12 X4 X10 X1 X7 X5 X11 X3 X9

Cfilter

vdc

Lc

Lc

Lc (b)

Figure 2.1 Hexagon transformer/rectier topology: (a) hexagon transformer and (b) 12-pulse rectier

10

2.1.1.1

Transformer conguration

The primary of the hexagon transformer is connected in delta. The hexagon shape is formed by connecting the secondary windings end to end. Each primary winding has two associated secondary windings. The secondary windings are tapped such that the output voltages are phased 30 apart with respect to the virtual neutral, , which is located in the center of the hexagon. The twelve taps are connected to diodes, where two 6-pulse midpoint converters are formed. One of the converters provides the positive dc voltage potential, while the other provides the negative dc voltage potential [21]. The turns ratio between the secondary windings and the tap windings is tan 15 . Although this number is dicult to reproduce, it can be approximated easier than the 3 in the delta-wye-delta conguration, particularly at low voltages. The leakage reactances in the system are well matched due to the fact that each primary winding can be sandwiched between two secondary windings [21]. In this particular application, commutation inductors are used to improve the current harmonics. The commutation inductors adjust the commutation overlap angle of the diodes by interacting with the leakage inductances of the transformer [22]. By compensating the line reactance in the transformer, the 11th harmonic can be reduced to less that 3% [6].

2.2

Development of the switching model

The switching model of the hex t/r consists of a three-phase delta connected power supply, a transformer core consisting of twelve secondary legs, a rectier bridge containing 12 diodes, and an output lter. The switching model was constructed using the SABER simulation program [15], [17]. The model as it appears in SABER is shown in Figure 2.2. The transformer models used in the switching model are linear and only account for magnetizing inductance. The switching model does not take into account the parasitics such as leakage inductance and winding resistance. The diode models that are used are piecewise linear models. An on and o conductance, as well as an on voltage, can be 11

Three-Phase Input Source Va Vb X1 Vc X5 Va X9 Vb Vc Va X2 Vb X6 Vc X10

Hexagon Transformer c1 c3 c5

c2 c4 c6

c4

c6 c2

Vb Va X7 Vb X11

X8 Vc

X12

Va Vc

X4

X3

Figure 2.2 Switching model schematic of hexagon transformer/rectier

c5 c1 c3

12
12-pulse Bridge Rectifier Lc X2 X8 Lc

Lfilter Lc Lc idc +

X1 X7 X5 X11 X3 X9 Cfilter X6 X12 X4 X10 R

vdc

Lc

Lc

specied for the diode model. A series resistance is included in both the lter inductor and lter capacitor to make the circuit more realizable.

2.2.1

Simulation issues

Some of the issues encountered while simulating the switching model include convergence and numerical instability. Due to the complexity of the topology, ramp functions were used to soft start the system to aid with convergence. These soft starts are required partly due to the commutation inductors used in the topology. The commutation inductors are connected in series with the switching elements (diodes) and in series with the output lter inductor. This conguration makes it dicult for the solver to calculate the steady-state operating point. Initial conditions, other than zero, are unhelpful because it is practically impossible to precisely match the values of all the inductor currents and all the diode conductor states. Due to the complex circuitry, the range of the time step required for convergence is generally very large. The maximum time step is on the order of hundreds of microseconds while the smallest time step is in the nanosecond to picosecond range. As the operating point of the hex t/r moves into the light load range, the range of the time step becomes more reasonable. There is signicant numerical instability that shows up the in the switching model waveforms. This numerical instability is addressed in the next section.

2.3

Switching model results

The switching model of the hex t/r is simulated at various load conditions (full load and half load) in order to illustrate some the issues listed in the previous section and to verify the operation of the hex t/r. The parameters used in the simulation are shown in Table 2.1. The on voltage and the on and o resistance of the diodes are represented as von , Ron and Rof f , respectively. The magnitizing inductance used in the hex t/r simulation is labeled as Lmag . The line frequency of the system is listed as fline . The full 13

load operating point of the hex t/r corresponds to an output power of 10.6 kVA (R = 4.05 ), while the half load operating point is 5.1 kVA (R = 10 ). The results shown in Figures 2.3 - 2.8 demonstrate the operation of the hex t/r system. Table 2.1 12-pulse hex t/r switching model parameter values at 10.6 kVA Parameter Value Vab (rms) 440.0 V Lf ilter 1124 H RLf ilter,esr 200 m Cf ilter 2400 F RCf ilter,esr 50 m Lc 675.0 H R 4.050 Von 1.25 V Ron 1 Rof f 1 T Lmag 3H fline 60 Hz

The input voltage and current waveforms are shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.7 at full load and half load, respectively. The clean input voltage waveforms can be attributed to the ideal voltage source used. The input current, ia , has nearly sinusoidal shape. This nice waveform can be attributed to the 12-pulse topology. The output voltage and the output current of the hex t/r at full load and half load are shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.8. The output voltage, vdc , has very little ripple, due to the large lter capacitor used in the simulation. The output current, idc , has been plotted over one 60 Hz line cycle in Figure 2.5. It can be observed that there are 12 ripples in one line cycle. The harmonic spectrum of the line current, ia is shown in Figure 2.6. The magnitude of the harmonics is plotted as a percentage of the fundamental. The bottom half of the gure zooms in on the harmonic content, specically focusing on the high orders such as the 11th , 13th , 23rd , 25th and so on. It can be observed that the harmonic content is extremely low. This is in agreement with the the claims of the hex t/r topology. 14

600 Input Voltage (Volts) 400 200 0 200 400 600 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09

ab

0.1

30 Input Current (Amps) 20 10 0 10 20 30 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09 0.1 ia

Figure 2.3 Hex t/r input voltage and current at 10.6 kVA

210 Output Voltage (Volts) v 209 208 207 206 205 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08
dc

55 Output Current (Amps)

50

i 45 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075

dc

0.08

Figure 2.4 Hex t/r output voltage and current at 10.6 kVA

15

55 idc 54 53 52 Output Current (Amps) 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 0.04

0.042

0.044

0.046

0.048 0.05 Time (sec)

0.052

0.054

0.056

Figure 2.5 Hex t/r output current at 10.6 kVA

100 i 80 % Magnitude 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 Frequency (Hz) 2000 2500 3000
a

5 4 % Magnitude 3 2 1 0 500 1000 ia

11th th 13 23
th

25

th

35

th

37

th

1500 2000 Frequency (Hz)

2500

3000

Figure 2.6 Harmonic spectrum of hex t/r input current, ia , at 10.6 kVA

16

600 Input Voltage (Volts) 400 200 0 200 400 600 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09

ab

0.1

15 Input Current (Amps) 10 5 0 5 10 15 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Time (sec) 0.08 0.09 0.1 ia

Figure 2.7 Hex t/r input voltage and current at 4.9 kVA

230 Output Voltage (Volts) 229 228 227 226 225 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07 Time (sec) 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09 vdc

25 Output Current (Amps) i 24 23 22 21 20 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07 Time (sec) 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09
dc

Figure 2.8 Hex t/r output voltage and current at 4.9 kVA

17

Some of the convergence issues associated with this model can be seen in Figure 2.7. Large spikes can be observed in the line current, ia . These spikes can be attributed to the complexity of the hex t/r topology, as discussed in the previous section. In Chapter 4, it will be shown that this error is nothing more than numerical instability.

18

CHAPTER 3 HEX T/R AVERAGE MODEL

3.1

Introduction

For the analyses of a large system, the average model satises three purposes. First, the average model is needed to provide accurate steady-state and transient results so that the computational expenses and numerical instabilities can be eliminated. Second, the average model of the hex t/r is required so that the stability of the system can be assessed on both global and local scales. Finally, the average model can be used to perform parametric studies.

3.2
sections.

Average model concept

The concept of the average model of the hex t/r will be described in the following

3.2.1

Denition of average model

The switching model waveforms presented in Chapter 2, such as those given in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, contain high-order harmonics in both the ac and dc variables. In terms of assessing the steady-state operation of the system, the higher-order terms can be neglected since only the average and root mean square (rms) values of the rst harmonic are of interest. Because of this, the average model needs only to consider the fundamental 19

frequency. The assumptions made when working with the fundamental frequency will be formally presented in Section 3.4.2. In most switching systems, the average model is obtained by calculating the average over one switching interval. During this switching interval, the high-frequency switching content is removed or averaged out. This averaging function, sometimes referred to as a moving average is described in other work [23] and is shown in (3.1). The value computed by (3.1) will change from switching period to switching period as low-frequency perturbations are encountered by the system.

x(t) =

1 Ts

x( )d
tTs

(3.1)

The multi-pulse transformer/rectier diode commutations occur 6n times every line period, so that Ts = 6n/fline , where n is the number of 6-pulse rectiers in the unit. The average models of three-phase bridge rectiers have already been proposed [7], [24], [25], and [8]. In all of these cases, the topology of the bridge rectier diers from the one described in this application. In particular, the topologies studied were 6-pulse, not 12pulse as is the case of the hex t/r. Also, there are no commutation inductors immediately following the diodes in the bridge. It will be shown in Section 3.4.4.2 that the value of the commutation inductance used in the average model greatly aects transient response. One attribute that is similar in all the proposed solutions is that the average model is derived in the dq0 reference frame, so the three-phase abc input can be directly related to the dc output through the use of scaling constants. This concept will be used in the derivation of the hex t/r average model.

3.2.2

General approach

The switching model provides information important to the creation of a reducedorder model with which the system can be modeled using a black box approach, as shown in Figure 3.1. By linearizing about several operating points, equations do not need to be developed that detail the exact relationship between the input and the output. 20

Therefore, there is sucient experimental and simulation data to describe the system empirically. In this way, any system can be described as long as its basic operating principles are understood. Naturally, for the system shown in Figure 2.2 and other similar congurations, the basic principle is to relate the magnitude of the input vector to the output. This methodology can produce accurate models, but these models are only valid for a specic operating range. However, more general approaches normally do not take into account second order eects such as operating temperature, core saturation, etc. The switching model automatically includes these because it is based upon experimental data. Likewise, the resulting average model should also capture these dynamics. The trade-o is between a mathematical model that is accurate throughout all possible operating points and an empirical model that is very accurate but only for a certain range of operating points.

Inputs

System Experimental and Simulation Data

Outputs

Figure 3.1 Black box model

3.3

Previous work

The average model of the hex t/r evolved from previous research conducted by Ivan Jadric [26]. Jadric was interested in designing a dc-link controller for a synchronous generator set. This generator set included two separate 6-pulse diode rectiers. In order to design the controller, Jadric needed small-signal models of all of the subsystems in the generator set, which included the two diode rectiers. This led him to develop an average model of a 6-pulse diode rectier. 21

In the derivation of the 6-pulse diode rectier model, Jadric develops a relationship between the fundamental frequency of the ac variables and the average value of the dc variables. The magnitudes of the fundamental harmonics of the generators voltage and current are assumed to be proportional to the dc components of the rectied voltage and current,
vdc kv dc i , ki

and

respectively. The space vector diagram for this system is shown in

Figure 3.2.

id

idc/ki

vd

vdc/kv vq
q

iq

Figure 3.2 Generator/rectier space vector diagram

Using the information shown in Figure 3.2, equations can be derived that describe the operation of the average model of the diode rectier. The equations shown in (3.2) - (3.7) can be used to model the 6-pulse diode rectier. The angle represents the generators rotor angle, while accounts for the phase shift between the fundamental harmonic of the generators voltage and current. The quantities vd , vq , d , and q are the generators i i voltage and current transformed to the dq reference frame. 22

vdc = kv (d sin + vq cos) v dc = ki (d sin( + ) + q cos( + )) i i i d = idc sin( + ) i ki dc i q = i cos( + ) ki vd = tan1 vq d i vd = tan1 tan1 iq vq

(3.2) (3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6) (3.7)

The average model presented by Jadric requires some general comments. During the development of the model, a rst harmonic assumption is made. This means the model is only valid at the fundamental frequency of the generators voltage and current. The second assumption that is made is that the energy transfer occurs at the fundamental frequency. The equations governing the power balance of the system are shown in (3.8) and (3.9). Equation (3.10) is valid only when the diode rectier is assumed to be lossless.

pin = vdd + vqq i i pout = vdcdc i pin = pout

(3.8) (3.9) (3.10)

3.4

Hex t/r average model development

The average model of the hex t/r is an extension of the model developed by Jadric. This model diers from his in that the diode bridge includes 12 diodes in one bridge instead of six in Jadrics case. The hex t/r topology also contains commutation inductors that can not be neglected. These factors must be taken into account during model development. The development of the average model of the hex t/r in the dq0 reference frame 23

will be discussed in this section. The proposed model is divided into three subsections: equation formulation, rst harmonic assumptions, and parameter extraction.

3.4.1

Average model equation formulation

The development of the hex t/r average model can be broken down into several steps. The initial model that was developed was revised several times, leading to its present form. This section will describe in detail the initial model and the subsequent revisions.

3.4.1.1

Initial model

The rst step in developing the hex t/r average model involves generating a space vector diagram similar to the one depicted in Figure 3.2. The space vector diagram in Figure 3.3 diers from Jadrics in that the input voltage is aligned solely with the d-channel. In this case, the Parks transform is aligned with the line-to-neutral voltage vector vln to force the vq component to zero. A direct result of a zero value for vq is that the angle is zero and can removed from the diagram. The vector |dc | represents the v output voltage of the rectier prior to ltering. The angle represents the phase shift between the fundamental harmonic of the hex t/rs input voltage and input current. The vectors d and q represent the input current of the hex t/r in the dq coordinate system. i i The output current is represented by dc . The variables kv and ki are used to develop a i relationship between the ac and dc quantities of the voltages and currents. The next step in the development process of the hex t/r average model is to write equations that describe the geometry of the space vector diagram. These equations, shown in (3.11) - (3.15), are continuous in nature and describe the operation of the hex t/r. These equations are valid at any operating point. Now that the space vector diagram and resulting equations have been explained in detail, the circuit model can be introduced. 24

iq

iin-abc=idc,Br/ki id

d vd=vin-abc=vdc,Br/kv

Figure 3.3 Hexagon transformer/ rectier space vector diagram

|dc | = kv v

vd + v q 2 2

(3.11) (3.12) (3.13) (3.14) (3.15)

vq = 0 d = idc cos() i ki dc q = i sin() i ki q i = tan1 id

The third step in developing the average model of the hex t/r involves developing a circuit model. This average model circuit is composed of dependent sources and a passive lter. The circuit of the average model of the hex t/r is presented in Figure 3.5. The resistor Rw is used to approximate the losses. This value is computed by using the eciency data from the switching model or measurements. The lter components, Lf ilter and Cf ilter have the same value as in the real circuit. The dq currents and dc link voltage, vdc , are represented by dependent current and voltage sources, respectively. Using the set of continuous equations provided in (3.11) - (3.15) and the circuit model shown in Figure 3.4, the average model can be used to simulate the steady-state operation of the hex t/r at any operating point. For this model to work properly, operating point 25

vd

id Rw vdc + idc C R Lfilter + vdc -

vq +

iq

Figure 3.4 Initial average model schematic (steady state)

data must be collected from either a detailed switching model or actual hardware. When considering the validity of this average model during transient conditions, other factors must be considered, such as variations in the parameters , kv and ki . This is discussed in detail in Section 3.4.4. One of the key features of the hex t/r topology is the commutation inductance on the dc side of the unit. This commutation inductance is used to adjust the leakage reactance in the transformer. It is known that these commutation inductors aect the dynamics of the system and incur a voltage drop. In an eort to include the voltage drop in the average model circuit, cross-coupling terms were added to the circuit. The circuit model shown in Figure 3.5 uses the product Lc multiplied by the current to account for the voltage drop. The term represents the electrical frequency of the rectiers input voltage, , which is a variable that is computed at each operating point to adjust the output voltage to its correct value, and Lc represents the value of one of the coils in the commutation inductor. New equations governing the operation of the hex t/r must be derived due to the inclusion of the cross-coupling terms. The equations shown in (3.13) - (3.14) and (3.16) - (3.18) describe the operation of the hex t/r circuit presented in Figure 3.5. For this system, there are more equations than unknowns, therefore at any operating point all of the unknown variables can be solved for. When comparing this model at steady state and in its transient period, it is 26

Lciq + vd + + vd Lcid + vq + + vq vdc + iq id Rw idc C R Lfilter + vdc -

Figure 3.5 Initial average model schematic (steady state) with cross-coupling terms

observed that the transient results are not within desirable limits. The output current transients match very closely, yet there is an appreciable steady-state error in the voltage transient simulations. To correct this phenomenon, the inclusion of inductance on the ac side of the average model is considered.

vd = vd Lcq i vq = vq + Lcd i |dc | = kv v 2 2 vd+vq

(3.16) (3.17) (3.18)

Adding inductance to the ac side of the average model circuit did not improve the dynamic response of the output voltage during transient periods. Convergence errors were encountered in software, and this approach was abandoned. 3.4.1.2 Revised model

It has previously been discussed that the dynamic response of the average model of the hex t/r requires modications. The revisions are executed in order to improve the response and to simplify some of the mathematics. This revised system simplies the equations and strictly follows the space vector diagram shown in Figure 3.3. 27

The rst step in revising the model involves dropping the cross-coupling terms from the ac side of the hex t/r average model. These cross-coupling terms did not provide any insight into the system. Initially, the goal was to model the voltage drop associated with the commutation inductance. Due to the complexity of the design, this voltage drop can not be measured in simulation or in the hardware, so it was decided to remove these terms from the average model. This reduces the number of equations from six to four, and (3.11)-(3.15) can be used to describe the operation of the hex t/r. With the reduction in equations, there are now three variables, , kv and ki , that must be calculated at every operating point. It will be shown that some of these variables vary over the entire load range and require some polynomial ts to improve the overall accuracy of the hex t/r model. The use of the polynomial ts will be discussed in detail in section 3.4.4.1. The second improvement that was made to the average model involved adding inductance on the dc side of the circuit model to account for the commutation inductance. This addition of inductance greatly improved the transient response of the system, and will be discussed in further detail in Section 3.4.4.2. The revised average model of the hex t/r is shown in Figure 3.6. The equations governing the operation of the revised hex t/r average model are presented for completeness in (3.19) - (3.23). The use of the
2 inductor 3 Lc is discussed in Section 3.4.4.2.

vd

id Rw vdc + idc C R 2/3*Lc Lfilter + vdc -

vq +

iq

Figure 3.6 Average model schematic

28

|dc | = kv v

vd + v q 2 2

(3.19) (3.20) (3.21) (3.22) (3.23)

vq = 0 d = idc cos() i ki dc q = i sin() i ki q i = tan1 id

3.4.2

1st harmonic assumption

In section 3.2.1 it was stated that a 1st harmonic assumption was taken in developing the model. This implies that power transfer occurs only at the fundamental frequency. It is also assumed that the average model is valid only at the fundamental frequency. Based on the previous two assumptions the Parks transformation is used to eliminate the time-varying nature of the ac voltages and currents at the fundamental frequency.

3.4.3

Switching model analysis

In the next section, the estimation of three parameters , kv and ki will be discussed. Prior to calculating these parameters, certain operating point data must be extracted from the switching model. At this time, the only operating point data from the switching model that has not been discussed is the transformation of the hex t/rs input voltage and input current into the dq rotating reference frame. The d-channel of the Parks transformation is aligned with the line-to-neutral voltage vector. A result of this alignment is that the voltage in the q-channel is zero. The abc-to-dq0 transformation is shown in (3.24). Since this is a balanced three-phase system, the 0-channel does not exist. The waveforms of the hex t/r input voltages and currents obtained from the switching model in Section 2.3 at 10.6 kVA and transformed to rotating coordinates are shown in Figure 3.7. 29

Tabc/dq0 =

sin() sin( 2 cos() cos( 3

1 2 1 2
30
vd v

2 ) 3 2 ) 3

sin( +
1 2

2 ) 3

cos( +

2 ) 3

(3.24)

450
q

400

25
350

300

dq Current (Amps)

dq Voltage (Volts)

20

250

200

15

150

100

10
50

0 0.04

id iq
0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 Time (sec) 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08

5 0.04

0.045

0.05

0.055

0.06 Time (sec)

0.065

0.07

0.075

0.08

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.7 Hex T/R abc to dq transformation: (a) hex t/r dq voltages and (b) hex t/r dq currents It can be observed that a ripple only exists in the dq currents and not the dq voltages. This can be explained by the fact that the voltage sources used in the simulation are nearly ideal, therefore all harmonics other than the fundamental are negligible. Since only the rst harmonic is present, there is no ripple in the dq voltages. This also explains why a ripple appears in the dq current. When viewing the time-domain and frequency-domain waveforms of the line current, ia , in Figures 2.3 and 2.6, respectively, it is observed that harmonics other than the fundamental are present and can not be neglected. Since Parks Transformation only considers the fundamental frequency, the additional harmonics generate the ripple that is seen in the Figure 3.7(a). The average values of the waveforms presented in Figure 3.7 are listed in Table 3.1 for reference. This information will be used in the following chapter to aid in computing the parameters , kv and ki . 30

Table 3.1 The dq rotating coordinates average values Parameter vd vq id iq Average Value 440.0 V 0.000 V 25.75 A 11.74 A

3.4.4

Parameter extraction and estimation

As mentioned previously, there are three parameters, , kv and ki , that must be calculated at each operating point. The average model of the hex t/r needs to be valid over the entire operating range of the hex t/r. This requirement exists since the average model needs to also be valid during transient conditions. Due to variations in the parameters, polynomial ts are required to improve the accuracy of the model. This section will describe the methods used to calculate the parameters and the polynomial ts used during transient periods.

3.4.4.1

Parameter extraction

The parameters extracted from the switching model are , ki and kv . They are extracted by post-processing the operating point data, vd , vq , id , iq , idc , vdc and vdc . The average value of the operating point data is applied to equations (3.11) - (3.15) to compute , kv and ki . This process is repeated at each desired operating point. One of the goals of the average model is for it to be valid during transient periods. For this to be true, the parameters at each operating point are calculated to determine how they vary with the load. The results are shown in Figure 3.8. It can be observed that and kv vary greatly over the load range. In order to remedy this problem, polynomial ts of these parameters are generated. These polynomial ts are third order in nature, and are used to improve the accuracy of the average model during transient periods. 31

In observing the data shown in Figure 3.8(c), it is clear that the variation in k i over the load range is very small compared to the other parameters. Using this information, ki is replaced with a constant value. The polynomial ts used to map the parameters and kv are given by the equations = 3 i3 + 2 i2 + 1 idc + 0 dc dc kv = kv,3 i3 + kv,2 i2 + kv,1 idc + kv,0 dc dc (3.25) (3.26)

and the coecient values are shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. A comparison between the polynomial t and the original data is displayed in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. The MATLAB script used to compute the polynomial terms is provided in Appendix B. If accuracy is the goal, then computational time will increase in proportion to accuracy. By relaxing the accuracy constraint, the polynomial ts can be reduced. In order to determine the sensitivity of the hex t/r average model, the parameters and kv were also tted with linear polynomials. The idea is that additional computational time can be reduced if the parameters are tted with simple approximations rather than the more complicated polynomial equations. A comparison between the two average models is discussed in Section 3.5. The linear approximation and the original data for and kv can be compared in Figure 3.11 and 3.12. The terms used in the linear approximation are shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. Table 3.2 The polynomial terms Term Value 3 -.00000025876793 2 0.00001196916142 1 0.00578832204852 0 0.12933829713806

3.4.4.2

Commutation inductor value estimation

In order to assess the transient response of the average model, the circuit shown in 3.4 was simulated under transient conditions (load-step) for comparison with the switching 32

0.55

0.56 0.55 0.54

0.5

0.45

0.53
0.4 (Radians)

0.52 kv 0.51 0.5 0.49

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.48
0.2

0.47 0.46 10

0.15 10

20

30

40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)

60

70

80

20

30

40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)

60

70

80

(a)
0.56

(b)

0.558

0.556

0.554

ki

0.552

0.55

0.548 10

20

30

40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)

60

70

80

(c)

Figure 3.8 Average model parameters plotted over the operating range of the hex t/r: (a) vs. the load current, idc , (b) kv vs. the load current, idc , and (c) ki vs. the load current, idc Table 3.3 The kv polynomial terms Term Value kv,3 0.00000007802294 kv,2 -0.00001258358603 kv,1 -0.00055547151970 kv,0 0.54735932166799

33

0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0 Original Data Polynomial Fit

(radians)

10

20

30 40 Load Current, i

dc

50 (Amps)

60

70

80

Figure 3.9 vs. the load current, idc

0.56 Original Data Polynomial Fit

0.54

0.52 kv 0.5 0.48 0.46 0

10

20

30 40 50 Load Current, idc (Amps)

60

70

80

Figure 3.10 kv vs. the load current, idc

34

Table 3.4 The linear terms Term Value 1 0.00501938363468 0 0.14266271303755

Table 3.5 The kv linear terms Term Value kv,1 -0.00113560905579 kv,0 0.55323646705100

0.55 Original Data Linear App. 0.5

0.45

0.4 (Radians)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15 10

20

30

40 50 Load Current, i (Amps)

dc

60

70

80

Figure 3.11 v. the load current, idc

35

0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 kv 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 10 Original Data Linear App.

20

30

40 50 Load Current, i (Amps)

dc

60

70

80

Figure 3.12 kv v. the load current, idc

model. This model neglects to account for the commutation inductance, which must be known so that its eect on the dynamic operation of the system can be determined. The polynomial ts discussed in Section 3.4.4.1 are used for the parameters kv and . The output voltage and output current are shown in Figures 3.13(a) and 3.14(a). It can be seen that the average model poorly tracks the transient response of the switching model for both the output voltage and the output current. In examining the results shown in Figures 3.13(a) and 3.14(a), it is apparent that the dynamic response of the average model needs to be improved. This can be achieved by changing the values of the energy-storage elements in the circuit. In comparing the circuit in Figure 3.4 to the circuit shown in Figure 2.2, it can be seen that the commutation inductance in the switching model is not represented in the average model. This discovery justies increasing the inductance on the dc side of the average model. Diculty arises in modeling the commutation inductors because they are connected in parallel and series in the rectier bridge as shown in Figure 2.2. At any given time, it is known that the diodes will have two inductors in series: one inductor in the positive 36

rail and one inductor in the negative rail. Each inductor represents one-third of the total commutation inductance. By adding these two together, the 2 Lc ratio is produced. 3 These two inductors in series represent two-thirds of the total commutation inductance in the circuit. This information can be translated to the average model in order to produce the circuit schematic shown in Figure 3.6. The results from a load-step simulation for the output voltage and output current, using the circuit in Figure 3.6, are shown in Figures 3.13(b) and 3.14(b). It can be observed that the transient response of the average model tracks more accurately than the switching model.
240 vdc (Switching) vdc (Average) 240 vdc (Switching) vdc (Average)

235

235

230 Output Voltage (Volts) Output Voltage (Volts) 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Time (sec) 0.2 0.22 0.24

230

225

225

220

220

215

215

210

210

205

205

200 0.08

200 0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16 0.18 Time (sec)

0.2

0.22

0.24

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.13 Transient response of output voltage, vdc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance

3.5

Average model verication

The hex t/r average model circuit in Figure 3.6 is veried by comparing its steadystate and transient responses with those of the detailed switching model. The comparison involves simulating the models at dierent load points and verifying the average value of the dc output voltage and the dc load current. The circuit parameters that were used to simulate the average and the switching models are shown in Tables 2.1 and 3.6, 37

60 55 50 45 Output Current (Amps) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0.08 Output Current (Amps) idc (Switching) i (Average)
dc

60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0.08 idc (Switching) i (Average)

dc

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16 0.18 Time (sec)

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16 0.18 Time (sec)

0.2

0.22

0.24

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.14 Transient Response of Output Current, idc : (a) without Commutation Inductance and (b) with Commutation Inductance respectively. The results of the simulations are shown in Figures 3.15 - 3.19. In each of the gures, there are three curves plotted. One curve is the response of the switching model, while the two other curves represent the response of two dierent average models. The dierence in the two models lies in the method used to compute the parameters kv and . One of the average models uses a linear approximation while the other uses a polynomial t.

3.5.1

Steady-state results

The results show good agreement between the average model and the switching model during steady-state and transient conditions. In observing the dc voltages in Figures 3.15 and 3.16, it can be seen that the dierence between the three models is less than 1 V. If greater accuracy is required at steady state, the mathematical expressions can be replaced with the actual value of the parameter. The output current under steady-state conditions is shown in Figures 3.17 and 3.18. In both gures, it can be seen that the average models accurately predict the steady-state value of the switching model current. Based on the results presented, the linear approximation works just as well as the polynomial t. 38

Table 3.6 Hex t/r average model circuit parameter values Parameter Vd Vq Id Iq Lc Rw Lf ilter C R kv ki Value 440.0 V 0V 23.90 A 10.22 A 430.0 H 0.1960 1125 H 2400 F 4.050 23.17 0.5018 1.807

Depending on the accuracy desired from the model, the more complex polynomial t can be replaced with the simpler linear approximation.

3.5.2

Transient results

The switching and average models are simulated under transient conditions at various load points. A comparison of the results for the dc output voltage, vdc , and the dc output current, idc , are shown in Figures 3.19 and 3.20. In both plots, the average model accurately predicts the transient response of the switching model. Transient characteristics such as rise time, overshoot, and settling time are almost identical between the switching and average models. There is a small error that appears in the voltage transient waveform in Figure 3.19. If this error is undesirable then more terms can be added to the polynomial t to improve the accuracy.

3.6

Average Model Summary

The development of the average model of a hexagon transformer/rectier has been presented. The process of revising the model to improve the transient response has 39

210 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model

209.5

209 Output Voltage (Volts)

208.5

208

207.5

207

206.5

206 0.06

0.062

0.064

0.066

0.068

0.07 0.072 Time(sec)

0.074

0.076

0.078

0.08

Figure 3.15 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 10.6 kVA under steady-state conditions

230 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model 229.5

Output Voltage (Volts)

229

228.5

228

227.5

227 0.06

0.062

0.064

0.066

0.068

0.07 0.072 Time(sec)

0.074

0.076

0.078

0.08

Figure 3.16 Hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5.1 kVA under steady-state conditions

40

53 52.5 52 51.5 Output Current (Amps) 51 50.5 50 49.5 49 48.5 48 0.06 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time(sec) 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.08

Figure 3.17 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 10.6 kVA under steady-state conditions

25 Linear Approximation Polynomial Fit Switching Model

24.5

24 Output Current (Amps)

23.5

23

22.5

22

21.5

21 0.06

0.062

0.064

0.066

0.068

0.07 0.072 Time(sec)

0.074

0.076

0.078

0.08

Figure 3.18 Hex t/r output current, idc , at 5.1 kVA under steady-state conditions

41

250

240

230 Output Voltage (Volts)

220

210

200

190

v (Switching) dc v (Average) dc vdc (Lin. App.) 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Time (sec) 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

180 0.05

Figure 3.19 Hex T/R Output Voltage, vdc , under transient conditions

80 i (Switching) dc i (Average) dc idc (Lin. App.)

70

60 Output Current (Amps)

50

40

30

20

10 0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25 0.3 Time (sec)

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Figure 3.20 Hex T/R Output Current, idc , under transient conditions

42

been discussed in detail. A set of continuous-time equations have been provided, relating directly to the dynamics of the actual system. The use of polynomial ts and the representation of the commutation inductance have also been presented.

43

This page is left intentionally blank.

44

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION

4.1

Introduction

In order to further verify the concept of the average model, experimental data is collected from an 11 kVA hexagon transformer/rectier hardware prototype. This chapter will describe the hardware under test and the procedure used to collect the experimental data. Results from the experimental prototype are directly compared with simulation results obtained from the average and switching models.

4.2
4.2.1

Experimental hardware/test setup

Description of hardware

The average and switching models of the hex t/r were further validated by comparing their results to experimental data collected from the 11 kVA hex t/r hardware setup shown in Figure 4.1. The hex t/r hardware prototype was designed and assembled by a project sponsor. The specications for the 11 kVA hardware prototype are shown in Table 4.1. The hexagon transformer is located inside the wooden box, and the 12-pulse diode rectier is located above it in Figure 4.1. The actual hardware includes RC snubber circuits that are placed across each diode to limit the dv/dt when the diode turns o. The 11 kVA hex t/r prototype requires water-cooling for the transformer core and the 45

diode bridges. The transformer was designed in such a way that one of the windings of the transformer is also used for cooling. A three-phase switching power supply is used to provide a balanced three-phase input voltage to the transformer, and a 30 kW air-cooled resistor bank is used as the load. The load can be congured for various resistor values ranging from 1 to 11 . A 2,400 F capacitor was connected in parallel with the resistive load. The output capacitor had a measured equivalent series resistance (esr) value of approximately 50 m. A 3 F polypropylene capacitor was used to attenuate any high-frequency noise that might be present on the dc bus.

Figure 4.1 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype Table 4.1 11 kVA hex t/r hardware prototype specications Specication Value AC rms Input Voltage 440 V, 3- DC Output Voltage 217 V DC Output Current 49 A Power Rating 10.6 kVA

46

4.2.2

Test setup

The test equipment used to collect experimental data from the hex t/r prototype included a digital oscilloscope, four digital multimeters, two current probes, two dierential voltage probes, and a three-phase power analyzer. A current shunt was added to the experimental setup so that the dc current could be accurately measured. Eight- and 12-guage wires were used to make all of the connections for the hex t/r experimental test setup. Both time-domain and frequency-domain data were collected from the hex t/r during the experimental testing. The next section will describe the procedure used for collecting the dierent types of data.

4.2.3
4.2.3.1

Description of measurements
Time-domain measurements

In order to make a side-by-side comparison, the same variables that were measured in simulation are measured experimentally. The quantities that are measured include both line-to-line and and line-to-neutral input voltages, input current, input current harmonics and THD, output voltage, output current, voltage drop across the lter inductor, and input power. The data collected from the hex t/r can be processed and directly compared to the simulation results of the hex t/r average and switching models. The results collected from the steady-state measurements are presented in Section 4.3. Experimental data from the hex t/r were collected at two dierent load points, 5 kW and 8 kW. Due to the limitations of the power supply, it was not possible to run the hex t/r at its full-load operating point of 10.6 kVA. The experimental input and output waveforms from both the 5 kW and 8 kW tests are shown in Figures 4.2 - 4.5. In both Figures 4.2 and 4.4, it can be observed that the input current, ia , has a sinusoidal wave shape with very low THD. The line-to-line input voltage, v ab , is shown for reference. It can be seen that the input voltage is nearly ideal. The 12-pulse characteristic of the hex t/r can be veried in both Figures 4.3 and 4.5 by counting twelve pulses over 47

one 60 Hz line cycle. There is some low-frequency ripple in the output current. This can be attributed to a possible imbalance in the transformer windings. It can also be observed that as the power level of the hex t/r increases, so does the ripple in the output current. This is an expected characteristic of the topology. The output voltage displayed in Figures 4.3 and 4.5, has a very small ripple due to the use of the large lter capacitor connected to the output of the diode rectier.

Figure 4.2 Hex t/r 5 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div

4.2.3.2

Output impedance measurements

In order to verify the small-signal modeling accuracy of the hex t/r average model, the output impedance of the 11 kVA hardware prototype was experimentally measured using a concept similar to the one described in other work [27]. In theory, the output impedance is measured by perturbing the output current and measuring the output voltage of the system being studied. The general denition of the output impedance is given in (4.1). Due to the conguration of the network analyzer, a voltage source (instead of a current source) generates the perturbation. Some modications to the experiment are required 48

Figure 4.3 Hex t/r 5 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 5 A/div

Figure 4.4 Hex t/r 8 kW ac experimental waveforms, 200 V/div, 10 A/div

49

Figure 4.5 Hex t/r 8 kW dc experimental waveforms, 50 V/div, 10 A/div due to the high power level of the hex t/r hardware prototype. A block diagram describing the approach used to measure the output impedance is shown in Figure 4.6.

vo Zo,gen = io
Output Impedance Board DUT Lwire Hex T/R Cfilter R + vtest Rwire Cblock Audio Amplifer + Network Analyzer

(4.1)

1 +v
ref

Figure 4.6 Output impedance block diagram The maximum output voltage generated by the network analyzer is 1.25 V. In order to perturb the dc bus of the hex t/r, a larger perturbation signal is needed. An audio amplier is used in this experiment to increase the magnitude of the perturbation signal. 50

A dc blocking capacitor, rated at twice the output voltage is used to prevent the dc voltage generated by the hex t/r from harming the network analyzer. A low inductive 1 resistor is used to sense the current in the return path. The impedance of the hex t/r hardware prototype is computed by measuring the output voltage, labeled vtest in Figure 4.6, and dividing it by the voltage measured by the 1 shunt resistor, labeled vref , which is essentially the current o . The output impedance as measured on the 11 kVA hex t/r i prototype is dened in (4.2).

Zo,meas =

vtest vref

(4.2)

A picture of the hardware setup used to measure the output impedance is shown in Figure 4.7. High-voltage dierential probes are used to measure the signals vtest and vref . The network analyzer performs the calculation given in (4.2) and plots the output impedance. Due to the limited band range of the audio amplier, the frequency range of interest for the output impedance measurements is 10 Hz to 10 kHz. The board that was added to the hex t/r test setup to measure the output impedance, along with the audio amplier, is shown in Figure 4.8. The specications of the audio amplier are shown in Table 4.2. Eight-gauge wire is used to connect the output impedance board to the load of the hex t/r. This wire has an associated inductance, Lwire , that will greatly aect the measured results. The inductance of this wire will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2. Table 4.2 Audio amplier, Specication DC Input Voltage Frequency Response RMS Power Rating Jensen XA2150, specications Value 14.4 V 20 Hz - 20 kHz 3 dB 200 W Bridged

The network analyzer generated a perturbation signal of 34 mV that was multiplied by the audio amplier. The audio amplier produced an output voltage of 3.4 V that was used to perturb the dc bus of the hex t./r. The output impedance experiment was 51

Figure 4.7 Output impedance test setup

Figure 4.8 Output impedance measurement board

52

conducted with the hex t/r operating at 5 kW. This corresponds to a resistive load of 10.69 . The measured output impedance plot of the hex t/r prototype is shown in Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9 Experimental output impedance at 5 kW

4.3

Experimental results

This section will compare the experimental data presented in the previous sections with simulation data from the average and switching models.

4.3.1

Time-domain results

The switching and average models of the hex t/r were simulated at 5 kW (R = 5.92 ) and 8 kW(R = 10.69 ), respectively, to compare their data with those of the experimental hex t/r. The output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , are plotted for both cases in Figures 4.10 - 4.13. For both operating points, there is good agreement between the average model, switching model and experimental data. In Figures 4.10 and 53

4.12, the average model accurately predicts the average value of the output current, i dc . In comparing the experimental output current to the switching model results, it can be seen that the switching model does not capture the imbalance present in the experimental output current. This is due to the fact that the switching model does not account for imbalance in the transformer windings. If it was desired to include this imbalance in the model, a less ideal transformer model could be developed for the switching model. The output voltages in Figures 4.11 and 4.13 show that there is good correlation between the average model, switching model and experimental data. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the accuracy of the average model can be improved by adding more terms to the polynomial ts. The rms and average dc values of the results presented in Figures 4.10 - 4.13 are shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. It can be observed that the average model has an error of less than 1%. The THD levels of the line current at 5 kW and 8 kW were 6.170% and 4.043%, respectively.

25 Amplitude (Amps)

20

idcexp 15 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 Time (sec) 25 Amplitude (Amps) 0

20 i dcswitch idcavg 15 0.06 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time (sec) 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.08

Figure 4.10 Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 5 kW

54

240 v Amplitude (Volts) 235 230 225 220 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002
dcexp

240 Amplitude (Volts) 235 230 225 220 0.06 v dcswitch vdcavg

0.062

0.064

0.066

0.068

0.07 0.072 Time (sec)

0.074

0.076

0.078

0.08

Figure 4.11 Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 5 kW

50 Amplitude (Amps) 45 40 35 30 25 0 idcexp

20 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002

50 Amplitude (Amps) 45 40 35 30 25 20 0.06 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07 0.072 Time (sec) 0.074 0.076 i dcswitch idcavg 0.078 0.08

Figure 4.12 Comparison of hex t/r output current, idc , at 8 kW Table 4.3 Comparison of hex t/r results at 5 kW Experimental Switching Average DC Voltage (V) 230.0 228.7 229.0 DC Current (A) 21.50 21.39 21.42 AC rms Current (A) 6.815 6.788 6.865

55

225 vdcexp Amplitude (Volts) 220

215

210 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002

225 Amplitude (Volts)

220

215 vdcswitch v
dcavg

210 0.06

0.062

0.064

0.066

0.068

0.07 0.072 Time (sec)

0.074

0.076

0.078

0.08

Figure 4.13 Comparison of hex t/r output voltage, vdc , at 8 kW

Table 4.4 Comparison of hex t/r results at 8 kW Experimental Switching Average DC Voltage (V) 219.2 218.8 218.6 DC Current (A) 37.00 36.95 36.92 AC rms Current (A) 11.99 11.95 11.83

56

4.3.2

Output impedance results

The output impedance of the average model of the hex t/r was simulated in SABER for comparison with the experimental measurements presented in the previous section. A few comments need to be made about the experimental output impedance presented in Figure 4.9. The plot shown in Figure 4.9 clearly exhibits behavior indicative of an inductor at high frequencies. Upon careful examination of the test setup, it was determined that the inductance present in the experimental output impedance existed due to the wire used to connect the output impedance measurement board to the hex t/r hardware prototype. An impedance analyzer then measured the loop inductance of the wire so that this information could be added to the simulation model. The impedance of the wire was found to have a resistance of 18 m and 2.7 H. To improve the accuracy of the average model, the impedance of each of the components in the test setup was measured so that the information could be added to the average model simulation. The components that were characterized and their impedance values are shown in Table 4.5. After characterizing the test setup, the results in Figure 4.14 were obtained. There is a good match between the magnitude and the phase at all frequencies. There is a slight dierence in the rst resonant frequency. The dc gains and slopes of both the average model and the experimental output impedance are close to one another. Table 4.5 Output impedance measurement system characterization Component Impedance Cblock 2400 F Rblock,esr 50 m Cf ilter 2400 F Rf ilter,esr 50 m Rload 10.69 Lload,ind 95.4 H Lwire 2.70 H Rwire 18.00 m Now that it has been shown that the average model can also be used for smallsignal analysis, some parametric studies can be performed to improve the accuracy of the model. In Chapter 3, one of the issues that was discussed was the representation 57

10 Magnitude (dB) 0 10 20 30 1 10 Experimental Simulation

10

10

10

10

100 50 0 50 100 1 10

Phase (deg)

Experimental Simulation 10
2

10 Freq (Hz)

10

10

Figure 4.14 Comparison of hex t/r output impedance at 5 kW of the commutation inductance in the average model. Now that it has been shown that the experimental output impedance is a good approximation of the simulation model, the commutation inductance in the average model can be adjusted until the resonant frequencies of the experimental output impedance and simulated output impedance are nearly identical. This validation of the output impedance permits the hex t/r average model to be used to study stability. In terms of power distribution systems, several of these average models can be lumped together to simulate a large power network. The proposed average model of the hex t/r would allow for the study of both time-domain and frequency-domain characteristics.

58

CHAPTER 5 MODELING OF AN 18-PULSE AUTOTRANSFORMER AND RECTIFIER

5.1

Introduction

The ATRU is one of many subsystems in an aircraft power system. It is desired to study issues such as transient response, system interactions, and stability for the entire aircraft power system. In order to perform these various analyses, small-signal models of the individual subsystems are needed. This is one of the main driving factors for developing an average model of the 18-pulse ATRU. In this chapter, the average model concept presented in Chapter 3 is extended to the more complex 18-pulse ATRU. A review of the 18-pulse ATRU topology is included, as is a discussion of the issues encountered during the development of the switching and average models.

5.2

Operation of autotransformer

The 18-pulse ATRU topology is shown in Figure 5.1. The ATRU topology is composed of three 6-pulse diode bridges, and uses phase-shifting of the secondary voltages in the autotransformer to eectively attenuate harmonics below the 17th . Ideally, the diode bridges should equally share the power handled by the system. Due to the parallel 59

connection of its diode bridges, this topology requires the use of interphase transformers. The interphase transformers absorb instantaneous voltage dierences between the diode rectiers, and ensure that the conduction angle of the diodes remains at 120 [6]. The load of the ATRU is resistive. The system is rated at 100 kVA. A three-phase 400 Hz voltage source is used to supply power to the ATRU. The input and output specications of the ATRU are listed in Table 5.1. This unit is designed to provide a dc output voltage of 270 V.
Bridge 1 idc,Br1 va va vc va vb + vdc,Br1 Bridge 2 idc,Br2 + vdc,Br2 Bridge 3 vc vc vb vb idc,Br3 + vdc,Br3 R vdc Interphase Transformer idc

va

vb

vc

Figure 5.1 18-pulse ATRU topology

Table 5.1 Input/output specications Specication Input Voltage (RMS) Input Current (RMS) Output Voltage Output Current R fline

for 100 kVA 18-pulse ATRU Value 3- 231.0 V 167.5 A 270.0 V 214.6 A 2.5 400 Hz

5.2.1

Transformer conguration

The autotransformer uses a phase-shifting method to reduce the harmonics in the input line current. The autotransformer has three primary windings and three secondary windings. The secondary windings are tapped in such a way to produce six phase-shifted 60

voltages. These six voltage vectors are connected to two 6-pulse diode bridge rectiers. In order to make the system 18-pulse, another 6-pulse converter is required. This six-pulse converter, labeled Bridge 1 in Figure 5.1, is connected directly to the ac mains. The autotransformer produces two secondary voltages per input line-to-neutral voltage. The two secondary voltages are phase-shifted 40 with respect to the primary voltage vector. A vector diagram depicting the phase shift is shown in Figure 5.2. The windings on the autotransformer are tapped in such a way that the secondary voltage is phaseshifted with respect to the primary voltage vector. Based on the literature, the minimum phase shift required for an 18-pulse converter is 20 [6]. The vectors k1 and k2 , shown in orange in Figure 5.2, represent the secondary tap windings of the autotransformer. The reduction in size of an autotransformer, as compared to other topologies can be attributed to its unique winding structure. The autotransformer design of the 18pulse ATRU allows for reduced kVA sizing as compared to an equivalent multi-pulse transformer topology that employs galvanic isolation [6]. The secondary voltages are produced by continuing to wind the primary windings on the same core and and tapping the windings according to the values of k1 and k2 . By using the same winding, the kVA rating of the entire autotransformer system can be reduced [4] .

5.3

Switching model

The switching model of the 18-pulse ATRU was developed using the SABER simulation program. A schematic of the topology is shown in Figure 5.3. The voltage sources used to provide power to the ATRU are ideal and the autotransformer is constructed using ideal transformer models. The diode models are piecewise linear functions whose on and o conductances, as well as on voltage, can be specied. In order to accurately simulate the interphase transformers, mutual coupling is used in the model. Each inductor has a series resistance of 1 m. Other than the interphase transformers used to ensure equal current sharing, this topology does not include a lter at the output. 61

k1 k1 k2 vc vb k2 k1 vb k1 vc

k2 vc va k2 k1 va 40 deg. k1 va vb k2 k2

Figure 5.2 18-pulse autotransformer vector diagram The simulation issues listed in Chapter 2 for the 12-pulse hex t/r are do not exist for this topology. The maximum time step that is used to simulate the system ranges from 10 to 20 microseconds. Soft starts are not required to help with convergence, and numerical instability has not been observed in any of the waveforms. It should be noted that this topology is very sensitive to asymmetries, which generate imbalances. These asymmetries were not taken into account in the model.

ia,Br1 ib,Br1 ic,Br1 Bridge 1

idc,Br1 + vdc,Br1 idc,Br2 + vdc,Br2

Interphase Transformers

idc + R vdc -

18-Pulse Autotransformer
Voltage Sources

ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2 Bridge 2

idc,Br3 + vdc,Br3

va

vb

vc

ia,Br3 ib,Br3 ic,Br3 Bridge 3

Figure 5.3 Switching model schematic of ATRU

62

5.3.1

Switching model results

The switching model was simulated at full load (100 kW, R = 2.5 ) to demonstrate the 18-pulse characteristics of the topology. The circuit parameters are listed in Table 5.2. The steady-state results of the input and output are shown in Figures 5.4 - 5.8. The input current and input voltage of the ATRU are shown in Figure 5.4. The input voltage is nearly ideal, and the input current has a sinusoidal shape. The harmonic spectrum of the line current, ia , is shown in Figure 5.5. The harmonics are plotted as a percentage of the fundamental. It can be observed that all harmonics below the 17th have been eectively attenuated. The output voltage and output current, vdc and idc , are presented in Figure 5.6. In both waveforms, the ripple voltage and ripple current are less than 1V and 1A, respectively. The 18-pulse characteristic can be veried in Figure 5.6 by counting 18 pulses in idc over one 400 Hz line cycle. The output voltage rails, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , are shown in Figure 5.7. It can be observed in Figure 5.8 that nearly equal current sharing exists among the three rectier bridges. This slight imbalance can be attributed to the transformer topology chosen for the ATRU. Table 5.2 100 kVA 18-pulse ATRU switching model parameter values Parameter Value Va,rms 231.0 V Linterphase 1.500 mH Coupling of Linterphase 0.8500 R 2.500 fline 400.0 Hz Von 0.700 V Ron 1 m Rof f 1 M

5.3.2

Switching model analysis

Prior to developing an average model of the 18-pulse ATRU, some operating point data must be extracted from the switching model. So far, steady-state ac and dc waveforms from the ATRU have been presented. As in Chapter 3, the average model will 63

300 Input Voltage (Volts) 200 100 0 100 200 300 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195

va

0.02

Line Currents (Amps)

200 100 0 100 200 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

ia

0.02

Figure 5.4 ATRU input current, ia , and input voltage, va , at 100 kVA this is a test to make this really long i hope

100 i 80 % Magnitude 60 40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Frequency (Hz) 1.4 1.6 1.8 x 10 i 8 % Magnitude 2
4

10
th

19th 37th

17
6 4 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

35th

0.8 1 1.2 Frequency (Hz)

1.4

1.6

1.8 x 10

2
4

Figure 5.5 ATRU input line current, ia , harmonic spectrum at 100 kVA

64

538 Output Voltage (Volts) 537 536 535 v 534 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195
dc

0.02

216 Output Current (Amps) idc 215.5 215 214.5 214 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

Figure 5.6 ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA

290 Positive DC Rail (Volts) 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 vdc,plus

255 Negative DC Rail (Volts) 260 265 270 275 280 285 v
dc,minus

290 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

Figure 5.7 ATRU output voltage rails with respect to the input voltage neutral, v dc,plus and vdc,minus , at 100 kVA

65

80 78 76 Rectifier Bridge Current (Amps) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) idc,Br1 idc,Br2 idc,Br3

0.02

Figure 5.8 ATRU bridge rectier dc currents at 100 kVA be developed in the dq0 rotating reference frame. Unlike the case of the hex t/r, each 6-pulse rectier bridge will be modeled independently. This approach is taken so that the current-sharing principle can be validated. Three dierent Parks transformations are required to transform the abc input of the bridge rectiers to the dq rotating reference frame. The Parks transformations are phase shifted by 40 , corresponding to the primary and secondary voltages of the autotransformer. The alignment of the Parks transformation is chosen so that the d-channel is aligned with the line-to-neutral input voltage vector. The result is a vq vector with a magnitude of zero. The three Parks transformation matrices, along with their inverses, are:
2 3

Tabc/dq0,Br1 =

2 cos() cos( 3
1 2 1 2

sin()

sin(

2 ) 3 2 ) 3

sin( +
1 2

2 ) 3

cos( +
2 3

Tabc/dq0,Br2 =

sin( + 2 cos( + 3
1 2

2 ) 9

2 ) 9

sin(

2 ) 9 2 ) 9

2 ) 3

(5.1)

sin( +

2 ) 9

cos(

2 3

1 2

cos( +

2 3

1 2

2 ) 9

(5.2)

66

Tabc/dq0,Br3 =

2 cos( 3
1 2

sin(

2 ) 9 2 ) 9

sin(

2 3

cos(

2 3

2 ) 9 2 ) 9

sin( +

2 3

1 2

cos( +

2 3

2 ) 9

1 Tabc/dq0,Br1

1 Tabc/dq0,Br2 =

1 Tabc/dq0,Br3 =

sin() cos() 2 sin( 2 ) cos( 2 ) 3 3 3 2 2 sin( + 3 ) cos( + 3 ) cos( + 2 ) sin( + 2 ) 9 9 2 2 2 2 sin( 3 + 9 ) cos( 3 + 2 ) 9 3 2 2 2 2 sin( + 3 + 9 ) cos( + 3 + 9 ) sin( 2 ) cos( 2 ) 9 9 2 2 2 2 sin( 3 9 ) cos( 3 2 ) 9 3 sin( + 2 2 ) cos( + 2 2 ) 3 9 3 9

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2

2 ) 9

(5.3)

(5.4)

1 2 1 2 1 2

(5.5)

1 2 1 2 1 2

(5.6)

As an example, the ac currents and voltages in Bridge 2 of Figure 5.3 are transformed to the dq rotating reference frame and are plotted in Figures 5.9. The dq currents of Bridge 2 have a ripple due to the shape of the input current shown in 5.9(a).
80 ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2
Rectifier Bridge 2 dq Current (Amps) 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 id,Br2 i
q,Br2

60

Rectifier Bridge 2 Current (Amps)

40

20

20

40

60

80 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.9 abc to dq transformation of ATRU rectier bridge to currents: (a) abc currents and (b) dq currents

67

5.4
5.4.1

Average model
Approach

As mentioned in Section 5.1, an average model of the ATRU is needed so that several of the units can be simulated together as part of a large system model of an aircraft power system. The theory used to develop the average model of the hex t/r is extended to the 18-pulse ATRU topology. There are some fundamental dierences in the two topologies that must be addressed prior to presenting the average model of the ATRU. In the case of the hex t/r, it was decided to couple together the 12-pulse diode bridge and the hexagon transformer into one average model. The hex t/r average model eectively accounts for the transformer and the 12-pulse diode bridge rectier through the constants ki and kv . For the 18-pulse ATRU, the transformer core is not included in the average model. Instead of lumping the entire circuit into one big block, each 6-pulse diode bridge rectier is represented by a set of average model equations. This is done for two reasons. First, one of the main characteristics of the this 18-pulse topology is equal current sharing between the diode bridges. In order to verify that the system is operating correctly, it is necessary to observe the output current in all three rectier bridges. The second reason for choosing this structure for the average model is that parasitics aect the operation of the ATRU. In order to observe the eect of the parasitics, the transformer core is not lumped into the average model.

5.4.2

Equation formulation

The rst step in developing the average model of the ATRU involves creating a space vector diagram. Since we are generating one average model for each bridge rectier, there will be three space vector diagrams created. The dierence between the space vector diagrams is the phase shift added to the Parks transformation to account for the phaseshifted secondary voltages produced by the autotransformer. The space vector diagram for Bridge 1 is shown in Figure 5.10. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the d-channel of the 68

Parks transformation is aligned with the line-to-neutral voltage vector. This alignment produces a vq with a magnitude of zero. The angle is again used to represent the phase dierence between the input voltage and the input current. The output voltage and output current of the rectier are represented by vdc and dc , respectively. The vectors i d , q and vd represent the dq equivalents of the abc voltages and currents. i i

iq

iin-abc=idc,Br/ki id

d vd=vin-abc=vdc,Br/kv

Figure 5.10 ATRU space vector diagram

The next step in developing the average model involves writing equations that dene the geometry of the space vector diagram. These equations are similar to the ones presented in Chapter 3. The equations listed in (5.7) - (5.11) describe the operation of one diode rectier. These same equations can be used for all three diode rectiers. The only dierence that may be encountered is that the value of parameters kv , ki and may vary slightly between the three rectier bridges. 69

|dc,Br | = kv v

vd + v q 2 2

(5.7) (5.8) (5.9) (5.10) (5.11)

vq = 0 d = idc,Br cos() i ki dc,Br q = i sin() i ki q i = tan1 id

For the 18-pulse ATRU average model, constant values are used for the parameters , kv and ki . At the time of development, only an average model that operated at full load was needed. As presented in Chapter 3, the switching model of the ATRU can be simulated at several operating points. If there is a large variation in the parameters, then polynomial ts can be developed, similar to those described in Section 3.4.4. The next step in the average model process involves discussing the actual circuit model.

5.4.3

Model description

The average model of the 18-pulse ATRU has a hierarchal structure. A general block diagram of the 18-pulse ATRU average model is shown in Figure 5.11. As mentioned in Section 5.4.1, the same transformer model used in the switching model is included in the average model. Each 6-pulse bridge rectier is represented by an average model. The average model block is hierarchal in nature and is composed of several subsystems. This structure of the average model is necessary due to the complex topology of the ATRU. The subsystems in each average model block perform dierent functions, such as Parks transformations, evaluating average model equations, and converting phase currents to line currents, as shown in Figure 5.12. In order to enable the mathematical (equations) model of the 6-pulse bridge rectier in dq coordinates to be connected to the circuit model of the rest of the system in stationary coordinates, the line currents, iab , ibc , and ica are calculated and and fed back into the 70

ia,Br1 ib,Br1 ic,Br1

Average Model vdc,Br1 Bridge 1 -

idc,Br1 +

Interphase Transformers

idc + R vdc -

18-Pulse Autotransformer
Voltage Sources

ia,Br2 ib,Br2 ic,Br2 Bridge 2

Average Model vdc,Br2 -

idc,Br2 +

va

vb

vc

ia,Br3 ib,Br3 ic,Br3

idc,Br3 Average + Model vdc,Br3 Bridge 3 -

Figure 5.11 18-Pulse ATRU average model block diagram transformer model. Figure 5.12 shows the block diagram of this concept. Each bridge rectier average model uses a modeling concept similar to the one presented in other work [28].
va vb vc MATHEMATICAL MODEL abc to dq0 Trans. + vd + vq Average Model Equations idc,Br + vdc,Br -

id iq

iab ibc ica

Line to Phase Trans.

ia ib ic

dq0 to abc Trans.

Figure 5.12 Average model breakdown The average model block inputs voltages va , vb and vc . A Parks transformation is used to compute the value of vd and vq . These voltages are then used as the input to the average model circuit shown in Figure 5.13. The average model circuit computes the values of vdc,Br , d and q using the equations presented in (5.7) - (5.11). The output, i i vdc,Br , is connected to the interphase transformers. An inverse Parks transformation is applied to the currents d and q to compute their abc phase current equivalents. The i i 71

phase currents are then transformed to line currents using the equations shown in (5.12) - (5.14). This calculation of the line currents uses the assumption given in (5.15).

+ vd -

id idc,Br + vdc,Br -

vdc,Br + vq -

+ -

iq

Figure 5.13 Average model circuit

1 iab = (ia ib ) 3 1 ibc = (ib ic ) 3 1 ica = (ic ia ) 3 iab + ibc + ica = 0

(5.12) (5.13) (5.14) (5.15)

After the line currents have been calculated, they are connected across the phase terminals as depicted in Figure 5.12. This assures correct loading of the autotransformer. The process described above is identical in all of the average models. The only dierence between the three bridge rectier models is the phase shift of the voltages and currents. Now that the average model has been described in detail, the average model results can be presented.

5.4.4

Average model verication

The average model of the 18-pulse ATRU shown in Figure 5.11 is veried by comparing its response to that of the switching model under steady-state conditions. The parameters 72

shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are used in the ATRU switching model and average model simulations. Table 5.3 ATRU average model circuit parameter values Parameter Value Vd 398.7 VDC Vq 0.000 VDC Id 97.44 A Iq 0.8820 A Linterphase 1.500 H R 2.500 0.3030 kv 1.347 ki 1.390

The average model results are shown in Figures 5.14 - 5.16. The results of the steadystate simulations show good correlation between the average model and switching model results. It can be observed in Figure 5.14 that the average model accurately predicts the value of the output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc . The output voltage rails, vdc,plus and vdc,minus , are correctly predicted by the ATRU average model as shown in Figure 5.15. The dc currents in the three rectier bridges are plotted in Figure 5.16. It can be observed that the average model accurately predicts the value of the current for all three bridges. The accuracy of the average model can be improved by recalculating , kv , and ki for each bridge instead of using the same value for all three models. The switching and average waveforms of the output voltage rails, vdcr,plus and vdcr,minus , of Bridge 1 are plotted in Figure 5.17. It can be seen that the average model correctly predicts the value of the voltages.

5.5

Summary

The modeling of an 18-pulse ATRU has been presented. Simulation results have been provided to validate the operation of the proposed average model. The issues encountered 73

540 Output Voltage (Volts) 539 538 537 536 535 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 vdc,switch v
dc,avg

216 Output Current (Amps) 215.5 215 214.5 214 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) idc,switch idc,avg

0.02

Figure 5.14 ATRU output voltage, vdc , and output current, idc , at 100 kVA

290 Positive DC Rail (Volts) 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 v dcplus,switch vdcplus,avg

255 Negative DC Rail (Volts) 260 265 270 275 280 285 v dcminus,switch v
dcminus,avg

290 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

Figure 5.15 ATRU 270 V output voltage rails, vdc,minus and vdc,plus , at 100 kVA

74

90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 90 Current (Amps) 80 70 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec) 0.02 idc,Br3,switch idc,Br3,avg 0.02 idc,Br2,switch idc,Br2,avg 0.02 i dc,Br1,switch i
dc,Br1,avg

Figure 5.16 ATRU bridge current, idc,Br , at 100 kVA

Bridge 1 Pos. DC Rail (Volts)

500 400 300 200 100 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 v dcplus,Br1,switch vdcplus,Br1,avg

0.02

Bridge 1 Neg. DC Rail (Volts)

100 200 300 400 v dcminus,Br1,switch v

dcminus,Br1,avg

500 0.015 0.0155 0.016 0.0165 0.017 0.0175 0.018 0.0185 0.019 0.0195 Time (sec)

0.02

Figure 5.17 ATRU Bridge 1 output voltage rails, vdcplus,Br1 and vdcminus,Br1 , at 100 kVA

75

during model development have been discussed. This average model is now ready to be linearized so that is can be used to study small-signal stability in aircraft power systems.

76

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1

Conclusions

The research presented in this thesis has focused on the modeling of multi-pulse transformer/rectier units in power distribution systems. Both detailed switching models and reduced-order average models have been analyzed and validated with experimental data. The issues that occur in simulation due to the complex topologies have been addressed, and solutions have been presented. As the role of multi-pulse transformer/rectier units increases in power distribution systems, more attention is directed toward the approach used to model the topologies in large scale systems. The need for particular models is a direct result of the types of analysis that must be performed. Due to the need to study stability, there is a great benet in developing an average model that accurately models the time-domain and frequency-domain characteristics of the actual system. The average models of such systems are of great interest, with the main driving factors being a reduction in simulation time, transient analysis, parametric studies and stability analysis. A general procedure for developing the average model of two multi-pulse transformer/rectier topologies has been presented. The average model develops a relationship between the systems 1st harmonic ac variables and average dc variables. This relationship is made possible through the use of scaling constants, namely , ki and kv . The average models are derived in the dq0 rotating reference frame. A set of continuous 77

equations can be written that describe the operation of a multi-pulse converter from an input/output perspective. These continuous equations can be used to describe the operation of an n-pulse diode rectier. The proposed average model of the 12-pulse hexagon transformer/rectier was veried with detailed switching model data and experimental data. The time-domain and frequency-domain characteristics of the average model were validated with experimental data from an 11 kVA hardware prototype. The time-domain measurements were collected under steady-state conditions. The small-signal properties of the hex t/r average model were veried experimentally by measuring the output impedance and comparing it with the simulation results. Good correlation was shown between the average model and the experimental data for all test cases. The average model concept was extended to the more complex 18-pulse ATRU. For this particular topology, each 6-pulse bridge rectier is represented by an average model. The results are veried against an ATRU switching model under steady-state conditions. Average models can be developed that accurately predict the steady-state and transient responses of actual systems. For the average models presented in this thesis, the error between the average model and the switching model and/or experimental results was less than 1%. The accuracy of the average model is dependent on the constants , ki and kv . The validity of the average model over the entire load range can be achieved by developing polynomial ts that map the variation of the parameters as the load changes. The detail to which the polynomial ts are developed will greatly aect simulation time and accuracy. This research provides the groundwork for developing average models of complex multi-pulse transformer/rectier topologies. The validity of the average model has been veried, and can now be used as a subsystem in the analysis of large-scale power distribution systems.

78

REFERENCES
[1] S. Mollov, A. Forsyth, and M. Bailey, System modeling of advanced electric power distribution architectures for large aircraft, in Proceedings of the SAE Power Systems Conference, no. P-359, 2000. [2] A. Emadi and M. Ehsani, Aircraft power systems: Technology, state of the art, and future trends, IEEE AES Systems Magazine, pp. 2832, Jan. 2000. [3] J. Richard E. Quigley, More electric aircraft, in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 1993, pp. 906911. [4] S. Choi, P. N. Enjeti, and I. J. Pitel, Polyphase transformer arrangements with reduced kVA capacities for harmonic current reduction in rectier-type utility interfaces, IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 11, no. 5, Sept. 1996. [5] C. Tinsley, C. Papenfuss, R. Gannett, E. Hertz, D. Cochrane, D. Chen, and D. Boroyevich, Modeling and control of PEBB-based aircraft electrical service station: Final report, Center for Power Electronics, Tech. Rep., May 2002, prepared for the Oce of Naval Research. [6] D. A. Paice, Power Electronic Converter Harmonics: Multipulse Methods. Press, 1995. IEEE

[7] I. Jadric, D. Borojevic, and M. Jadric, Modeling and control of a synchronous generator with an active dc load, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 30311, March 2000. [8] S. Sudho, K. Corzine, H. Hegner, and D. Delisle, Transient and dynamic averagevalue modeling of synchronous machine fed load-commutated converters, IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 508514, Sept. 1996. [9] J. Schaefer, Rectier Circuits: Theory and Design. John Wiley & Sons, 1965. [10] D. Rendusara, A. V. Jouanne, P. Enjeti, and D. Paice, Design considerations for 12-pulse diode rectier systems operating under voltage unbalance and pre-existing voltage distortion with some corrective measures, IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 12931303, Nov. - Dec. 1996. [11] Y. Nishida and M. Nakaoka, A new harmonic reducing three-phase diode rectier for high voltage and high power applications, in Industry Applications Conference, vol. 2. Industry Applications Society, 1997, pp. 16241632. 79

[12] S. Choi, P. Enjeti, H. Lee, and I. Pitel, A new active interphase reactor for 12-pulse rectiers provides clean power utility interface, in Industry Applications Conference, vol. 3. Industry Applications Society, 1995, pp. 24682474. [13] G. R. Kamath, D. Benson, and R. Wood, A novel autotransformer based 18-pulse rectier circuit, in Applied Power Electonics Conference and Exposition, 2002, pp. 795801. [14] S. Choi, B. S. Lee, and P. N. Enjeti, New 24-pulse diode rectier systems for utility interface of high-power ac motor drives, IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 531541, April/May 1997. [15] S. Chwirka, Using the powerful SABER simulator for simulation, modeling, and analysis of power systems, circuits, and devices, in 7th Workshop on Computers in Power Electronics. COMPEL, July 2000, pp. 172176. [16] O. Ustun, M. Yilmaz, and R. Tuncay, Simulation of power electronic circuits using vissim software: A study on toolbox development, in 7th Workshop on Computers in Power Electronics. COMPEL, July 2000, pp. 183187. [17] Saberbook version 2.8, Avant! Corporation, 2001, Electronic Help Files. [18] D. Hanselman and B. Littleeld, The Student Edition of MATLAB: Version 5 Users Guide. Prentice Hall, 1997, the MathWorks Inc. [19] A. B. Yildiz, B. Cakir, E. Ozdemir, and N. Abut, An analysis method for the simulation of switched-mode converters, in 9th Mederterranean Electrotechnical Conference, vol. 1. MELECON, 1998, pp. 570574. [20] B. R. Needham, P. H. Eckerlin, and K. Siri, Simulation of large distributed dc power systems using averaged modeling techniques and the saber simulator, in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, vol. 2, Feb 1994, pp. 801807. [21] J. Rosa, U.S. patent no. 4,255,784, March 1981. [22] , U.S. patent no. 4,683,527, July 1987. [23] R. W. Erickson, Fundamentals of Power Electronics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. [24] J. Alt and S. Sudho, Average value modeling of nite inertia power systems with harmonic distortion, in Proceedings of SAE Power Systems Conference 2000, no. P-359, 2000, pp. 115. [25] S. Sudho and O. Wasynczuk, Analysis and average value modeling of linecommuted converter-synchronous machine system, IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 9299, March 1993. [26] I. Jadric, Modeling anc control of a synchronous generator with electronic load, Masters Thesis, Virginia Tech, Jan. 1998. 80

[27] D. Boroyevich, Modeling and Control of DC/DC Converters Short Course Lab Manual, Center for Power Electronics Systems, June 2003. [28] K. Louganski, Modeling and analysis of a dc power distribution system in 21st century airliters, Masters thesis, Virginia Tech, Sept. 1999.

81

This page is left intentionally blank.

82

APPENDIX A 11 kVA HEX T/R SWITCHING MODEL OPERATING POINT DATA

This appendix provides a table of steady-state data collected from the 11 kVA hex t/r SABER simulation model.

83

Table A.1 Hex t/r switching model operating point data R () Load (W) Ia , rms (A) Vdc (V) Vdc (V) Idc (A) Id (A) Iq (A) (radians) 2.500 14510 24.11 205.2 190.4 76.20 36.21 20.98 0.5251 3.500 11800 18.57 214.2 203.1 58.07 28.78 14.10 0.4556 4.500 9926 15.10 220.6 211.2 46.99 23.90 10.22 0.4041 5.500 8564 12.73 224.7 217.0 39.46 20.46 7.620 0.3566 6.500 7504 11.01 227.6 220.8 33.98 17.83 6.030 0.3264 7.500 6674 9.690 229.7 223.7 29.84 15.78 4.970 0.3048 8.500 5993 8.660 230.9 225.6 26.57 14.13 4.220 0.2904 9.500 5439 7.820 232.1 227.4 23.92 12.81 3.490 0.2661 10.50 4988 7.150 232.8 228.5 21.83 11.71 3.160 0.2631 11.50 4633 6.520 233.5 229.6 20.18 10.76 2.780 0.2532 12.50 4254 6.070 234.2 230.6 18.45 9.950 2.520 0.2480 13.50 3970 5.650 234.8 231.5 17.15 9.300 2.250 0.2378 14.50 3726 5.450 253.8 232.3 16.04 8.710 1.900 0.2150 15.50 3497 5.090 235.8 232.9 15.01 8.170 1.740 0.2096 16.50 3306 4.810 236.1 233.4 14.16 7.720 1.600 0.2042 17.50 3119 4.44 236.1 233.6 13.36 7.290 1.490 0.2019 18.50 2978 4.24 236.9 234.4 12.71 6.930 1.480 0.2101 19.50 2831 4.03 237.2 234.8 12.06 6.580 1.370 0.2051 20.50 2701 3.86 237.5 235.2 11.49 6.280 1.270 0.2003

1 ki

0.5491 0.5519 0.5532 0.5532 0.5539 0.5545 0.5550 0.5551 0.5556 0.5506 0.5564 0.5581 0.5560 0.5565 0.5565 0.5575 0.5574 0.5575 0.5576

kv 0.4667 0.4871 0.5018 0.5110 0.5177 0.5223 0.5251 0.5279 0.5294 0.5311 0.5328 0.5341 0.5357 0.5364 0.5370 0.5370 0.5389 0.5395 0.5402

84

APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The MATLAB m-les used to compute the polynomial ts of the parameters , kv and ki for the hex t/r are provided in this section. The data that were used to develop the polynomial ts is listed in Table A.1.

B.1
B.1.1
%This %list clear close

MATLAB les
The polynomial t m-le
m-file applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and the polynomials of the function. all; all;

%this section of the script reads the alpha.ascii %file and places the data in arrays load alpha.asc; %alpha=alpha1; x=alpha(:,1); y=alpha(:,2); %curve-fitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_alpha=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_alpha,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial 85

plot(x,y,-o,xi,z,r--) grid xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)) ylabel(\alpha) %title(Polynomial Fit of \alpha with 2 degrees of freedom) legend(original data, polynomial fit); print -depsc2 polyalpha.eps

B.1.2
%This %list clear close

The kv polynomial t m-le

m-file applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and the polynomials of the function. all; all;

%this section of the script reads the kv.ascii %file and places the data in arrays load kv.asc; %alpha=alpha2; x=kv(:,1); y=kv(:,2); %curve-fitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_kv=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_kv,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial plot(x,y,-o,xi,z,r--) grid xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)) ylabel(k_{v}) %title(Polynomial Fit of k_{v} with 3 degrees of freedom) legend(original data, polynomial fit); print -depsc2 polykv.eps

B.1.3

The ki polynomial t m-le

%This m-file applies a curve fit to the datapoints listed for alpha and %list the polynomials of the function. 86

clear all; close all; %this section of the script reads the ki.ascii file %and places the data in arrays load ki.asc; %alpha=alpha2; x=ki(:,1); y=ki(:,2); %curve-fitting %the n is the order of the polynomial n=3; p_ki=polyfit(x,y,n) xi=linspace(0,80,10); z=polyval(p_ki,xi); %plot the original data and calculated polynomial plot(x,y,-o,xi,z,r--) grid xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)) ylabel(k_{i}) %title(Polynomial Fit of k_{i} with 3 degrees of freedom) legend(original data, polynomial fit); print -depsc2 polyki.eps

B.1.4

Linear approximation of the variables , kv , and ki m-le

%Linear Approximation 11kw %This m-file calculates the linear approximations, %ax + b, of the variables alpha, kv, and ki. clear all; close all; load alpha.asc; load kv.asc; load ki.asc; %linear approximation for alpha slope_inta=alpha(1,:)-alpha(19,:); slope_alpha=slope_inta(1,2)/slope_inta(1,1); 87

y_intera=-1*slope_alpha*alpha(1,1) + alpha(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_alpha=slope_alpha*x+y_intera; figure(1);clf; plot(alpha(:,1),alpha(:,2),b-o); hold on; plot(x,y_alpha,r--); grid; axis ([10 80 0.15 0.55]); xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)); ylabel(\alpha (Radians)); %title(\alpha vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)); legend(original data, linear app.,2); print -depsc2 alphalin.eps %linear approximation for kv slope_intkv=kv(1,:)-kv(19,:); slope_kv=slope_intkv(1,2)/slope_intkv(1,1); y_interkv=-1*slope_kv*kv(1,1) + kv(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_kv=slope_kv*x+y_interkv; figure(2);clf; plot(kv(:,1),kv(:,2),b-o); hold on; plot(x,y_kv,r-.); grid; axis ([10 80 0.46 0.56]); xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)); ylabel(k_{v}); %title(k_{v} vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)); legend(original data, linear app.); print -depsc2 kvlin.eps %linear approximation for ki slope_intki=ki(1,:)-ki(19,:); slope_ki=slope_intki(1,2)/slope_intki(1,1); y_interki=-1*slope_ki*ki(1,1) + ki(1,2); x=0:10:80; y_ki=slope_ki*x+y_interki; figure(3);clf; plot(ki(:,1),ki(:,2),b-o); hold on; plot(x,y_ki,r-.);

88

grid; axis ([10 80 0.548 0.56]); xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps)); %xlabel(Load Current, i_{dc} (Amps),FontAngle,italic); ylabel(k_{i}); %title(k_{i} vs. I_{dc} (11 kVA)); legend(actual Data, linear App.); print -depsc2 kilin.eps

89

This page is left intentionally blank.

90

APPENDIX C SABER SCHEMATIC MODELS

This appendix provides a list of all the SABER schematics used for the switching model and average model simulations. The switching model and average model SABER schematics of the hex t/r and ATRu are presented in this section. The MAST Files that were used in the SABER simulations has also been included in this appendix.

C.1

SABER schematics

The SABER schematics used to simulate the hex t/r and ATRU are presented in this section.

C.1.1

Hex t/r SABER schematics

The hex T/R SABER schematics are shown in Figures C.1 - C.2.

C.1.2

ATRU SABER schematics

The ATRU SABER schematics are shown in Figures C.3 - C.8.

C.2

SABER MAST code

The SABER MAST code used in the hex t/r average model SABER schematics are presented in this section. A brief description is provided with the code, as is information stating with which schematic model the le is associated. 91

3phase Source and abc/dqo Coordinate Transformation Hex Transformer

vmult V
Current to Control Interface

a Control DC/DC Model b q p2 DC/DC p2

d DC/DC p2

i2var

abc
n2:8 1meg c m2 m2 p1 p3 o 1meg n2:8

1meg

n2:8 1meg m2 p1 p3

sym3 [0,0,25m,1,500m,1] primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 +

Voltage to Control

dqo
p1 p3 n1:130 1meg m1 m3 p4 v2var p4 m3 m1 1meg n3:14 n1:130 n3:14

n1:130

n3:14 1meg m1 m3 p4

ref:contabc2dqo1 freq:60

Interface

n4:8 1meg vmult m4 m4 0 V

Current to Control Interface

n4:8 1meg m4

n4:8

1.1meg

0 Control Model sym7 i2var 359 +

Voltage to Control

abc
c DC/DC p2 DC/DC p2 o DC/DC p2

sym1 [0,0,25m,1,500m,1] n2:8 v2var primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 359 sym4 p1 p3 p1 1meg n1:130 +

Voltage to Control Interface

dqo
n2:8 1meg m2 m2 p3 p1 1meg m2 p3 n2:8 1meg

359 sym9 ref:sym17 freq:60

n3:14 1meg

n1:130

n3:14 1meg

n1:130

n3:14 1meg m3 p4 m1 m3 p4

0 0 p4 v2var +
Voltage to Control

Interface

m1 m3

m1

n4:8 1meg m4 m4

n4:8 1meg m4

n4:8 1meg

vmult v2var V
Current to Control Interface Control to

Interface

+
Voltage

v2var

Interface

i2var

+
Voltage

sym5
to Control

[0,0,25m,1,500m,1] v2var
Interface

Figure C.1 Hex t/r switching model SABER schematic

Rectifier and DC Load

92
675u 675u pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld pwld 675u 675u 675u

0.1

562u

675u

Current to Control Interface

i2var

+
Voltage to Control

10.69 2400u

Interface

v2var

0.1

562u

0 225u + + 439.68 v2var + 2400u 225u 562u 4.5 0 i var2i Vd

Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface

Current to Control Interface

i2var

562u

.196

lcomm1

lfilter1 +
Voltage to Control Interface

Voltage to Control Interface

v2var
Control to Voltage

v2var

var2v

lcomm2 d Model mcos b

k1=

Control a Cosine Multiplier

q dqo + o abc primitive:contdqo2abc

k2=

lfilter2

c .555

v2var freq:60 1.0 cos

Voltage to Control Interface

Figure C.2 Hex t/r average model SABER schematic

93
d Model angle q dqo + sin
k2=

Control a

alpha map
idc primitive:alphamap

vin

kv map
idc primitive:kvmap vout

b 1.0

o abc primitive:contdqo2abc .555

k1=

v2var freq:60 Sine Multiplier msin

Voltage to Control Interface

+ 0 var2i v2var Vq
Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface

Voltage to Control Interface

v2var

ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l3 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l6 m:1.5m*0.85 m:1.5m*0.85 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l9 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l8

ml

to

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

ATRU ( 231 VAC / 540VDC )

Interphase selfs
1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

1meg

Voltage to Control Interface v2var Vdcplus

1.5m d Control Model q b q b Model 1.5m Voltage to c ml Interface v2var 2.5 Control o c o + Control a d a

abc

abc

dqo
1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l5 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l11 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_4 freq:400 + to 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l2 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l4 m:1.5m*0.85 Control Interface v2var v2var Interface m:1.5m*0.85 Control to Voltage + Voltage ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l1 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l12 freq:400 ml ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_5 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 m:1.5m*0.85

dqo

v2var Voltage to Control + Interface 1.5m Vdcminus

d 1.5m Control Model d Control a q b

abc
b o c

1.5m

1.5m

1meg

Model Voltage + to Control Interface v2var Interface v2var o c Control to + q Voltage

abc dqo
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL240 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_7 freq:400 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL240 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_6 freq:400 ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l7 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l10 m:1.5m*0.85 1.5m

dqo

1.5m

SABER

+ to Control Interface v2var Interface v2var Control to

Voltage +

Voltage

Load

d Control Model q b q b Model Control

abc
o 1m c o c

abc
1m 1m pwld pwld pwld pwld

dqo
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL280 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_8 freq:400 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_9 freq:400 primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL280

dqo

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld

pwld pwld

to

to

to

pwld

Control

Control

Current

Current

Interface i2var

Interface i2var

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

Rectifiers

to

to

i2var

i2var

to

Control

Control

Current

Current

Interface

Interface

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

to

to

i2var

to

Control

Control

Current

Current

Interface

Interface i2var

Current

Control

DC/DC p2 DC/DC p2 n2:Nk2 n2:Nk1 p1 m2 n1:Np p3 m1 n3:Nk1 m3 m3 n3:Nk2 m1 p3 n1:Np m2 p1

to

Current

Control

Control

Model

abc
to Current Control Interface i2var DC/DC DC/DC n2:Nk1 p1 n2:Nk2 m2 p1 m2 p3 n1:Np p3 m1 n3:Nk1 Interface m3 m3 Voltage + to Control Interface v2var v2var n3:Nk2 Voltage + to Control m1 n1:Np p2 p2

dqo

primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_3

freq:400

Control

Model

abc

dqo
Voltage + to Control i2var Current Control Interface Interface DC/DC p2 n2:Nk2 n2:Nk1 Vb amplitude:231*1.41 p1 m2 n1:Np Vc p3 amplitude:231*1.41 m1 n3:Nk1 phase:120 m3 m3 frequency:400 m1 n3:Nk2 n1:Np p3 frequency:400 phase:120 Va amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:*opt* m2 p1 v2var to DC/DC p2

primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_2

Figure C.3 ATRU switching model SABER schematic

freq:400

Interface i2var

Alim

ATRU Windings

Interface

i2var

94

ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l13 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l19 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l15 m:1.5m*0.85 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l22 m:1.5m*0.85

ml
to Current Control Interface

1meg

Interphase selfs
1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

i2var

Voltage to Control

Interface

ATRU ( 231 VAC / 540VDC )

1.5m 1.5m ml

v2var

+ 2.5

Voltage to Control

Interface

v2var 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l23 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l17 m:1.5m*0.85 ml ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l20 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l24 va vdcplus1 0 + vc vdcminus1 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m vdcplus2 0 1.5m 1meg vb m:1.5m*0.85 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l21 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l18 m:1.5m*0.85 v2var
Voltage to Control Interface

_n21
vap vbp vcp vdcminus2

atru avg. model

vdcplus3 0 vdcminus3

vapp vbpp vcpp

1.5m 1.5m

ml 1st_inductor_to_couple:l.l16 2nd_inductor_to_couple:l.l14 m:1.5m*0.85

Load

to

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

to

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

to

Current

Control

Interface

i2var

Figure C.4 ATRU average model SABER schematic

95
DC/DC DC/DC p2 n2:1/6.387 n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 m2 n1:1 p3 p3 m1 n3:1/6.387 n3:1/3.4137 m3 m3 m1 n1:1 p1 p2 DC/DC DC/DC n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 n1:1 p3 m1 n3:1/3.4137 n3:1/6.387 m3 m3 m1 p3 n1:1 m2 p1 n2:1/6.387 p2 p2 DC/DC DC/DC n2:1/6.387 n2:1/3.4137 p1 m2 n1:1 Vc p3 m1 n3:1/3.4137 m3 m3 amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:120 n3:1/6.387 m1 p3 n1:1 m2 p1 p2 p2

Vb

amplitude:231*1.41 frequency:400 phase:120

Va

amplitude:231*1.41

frequency:400 phase:*opt*

Alim

ATRU Windings

va vb vc

vdcplus1 0

atru avg. model

vdcminus1

vap vbp vcp vdcplus2 0 vdcminus2

vapp vbpp vcpp

vdcplus3 0 vdcminus3

Figure C.5 ATRU average model block SABER schematic

va vb vc

va

vb

avg. rect1

vdcplus1

vdcplus1

vc

vdcminus1

vdcminus1

vap

vap

vbp vcp

vbp

avg. rect2

vdcplus2

vdcplus2

vcp

vdcminus2

vdcminus2

vapp

vapp

vbpp

vbpp

avg. rect3

vdcplus3

vdcplus3

vcpp

vcpp

vdcminus3 vdcminus3

Figure C.6 ATRU bridge rectier average model SABER schematic

96

Control

+ vdplus vdcplus vdminus id

+ va
Control to

Voltage

a Control
Voltage to

vdcplus1 d q a Control Model dqo +

Voltage to

sum k:1/3

Model b q

rectifier avg.
iq

Control to Current Interface

v2var c
Control

abc
o + vqplus vqminus var2v
to

var2v

var2i var2i + vb
Control to Voltage Voltage

model

o vdcminus
Control

c vdcminus1 abc
Interface

Control

dqo

sum v2var primitive:contdqo2abc freq:400 k:1/3

to

Current

Interface Control to Current

Figure C.7 ATRU Bridge 1 average model SABER schematic

v2var

97
primitive:contabc2dqoLtoL2 ref:contabc2dqoLtoL2_1 freq:400 var2i + vc
Control to Voltage

Interface

sum k:1/3

v2var

+
Voltage to Control Interface

Control to Current

v2var vp + k:kv vcvs var2v vm

Control to Voltage

var2i

1meg mcos Cosine Multiplier

k1=

ki

Figure C.8 Average model circuit SABER schematic model

k2= Current to Control Interface

i2var

98
cos 1.0 constant alp sin
k2=

sqrt mult sum

Square Root out

in

1.0

ki
k1=

Sine Multiplier msin

mult

+
Control to Current Voltage to Control Interface

v2var

var2i

C.2.1

The polynomial saber mast le

# Polynomial fit for the alpha variable element template alphamap idc angle input nu idc output nu angle { var nu alpha val nu cons3, cons2, cons1, cons0 values { cons3 cons2 cons1 cons0 = = = = -0.00000025876793 0.00001196916142 0.00578832204852 0.12933829713806 } alpha = cons3*idc*idc*idc + cons2*idc*idc + cons1*idc + cons0 angle = alpha }

C.2.2

The kv polynomial saber mast le

# Polynomial fit for the kv variable element template kvmap vin idc vout input nu vin,idc output nu vout { var nu kv val nu cons3, cons2, cons1, cons0 values { cons3 cons2 cons1 cons0 = = = = 0.00000007802294 -0.00001258358603 -0.00055547151970 0.54735932166799 99

} kv = cons3*idc*idc*idc + cons2*idc*idc + cons1*idc + cons0 vout = kv*vin }

C.2.3

The linear saber mast le

# Polynomial fit for the alpha variable element template alphamaplin idc angle input nu idc output nu angle { var nu alpha val nu cons1, cons0 values { cons1 = 0.00501938363468 cons0 = 0.14266271303755 } alpha = cons1*idc + cons0 angle = alpha }

C.2.4

The kv linear saber mast le

# Polynomial fit for the kv variable element template kvmaplin vin idc vout input nu vin,idc output nu vout { var nu kv val nu cons1, cons0 100

values { cons1 = -0.00113560905579 cons0 = 0.55323646705100 } kv = cons1*idc + cons0 vout = kv*vin }

101

This page is left intentionally blank.

102

VITA

Carl Terrie Tinsley, III was born in Camp Lejeune, NC on March 7, 1978. He received his bachelor of science degree from Virginia Tech in May 2001. In 1998 and 1999, he worked as an engineering co-op student with Duke Power Company in Charlotte, North Carolina. In August 2001, he began working as a graduate student at the Center for Power Electronics Systems (CPES) at Virginia Tech. Upon completion of his M.S. degree, the author will begin full-time employment with Lockheed-Martin Corporation in Manassas, VA. He is a member of Eta Kappa Nu Honor Society. His research interests include threephase inverters, control of power electronics, and modeling of multi-pulse transformer rectier systems.

103