This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Detailed Derivation and Experimental Validation
of a Method for Obtaining Load Conditions for
Salient Pole Synchronous Machine Quadrature
Axis Parameters Determination
Mateus Giesbrecht, Luis Alfredo Esteves Meneses
Abstract—In this paper, a method to determine load
conditions under which the armature current of a salient
pole synchronous machine is on the q-axis is described.
The proposed method allows the determination of a locus in
the P −Q space in which the armature current is completely
on the q-axis. The derivation of these conditions simplifies
the determination of the machine q-axis parameters during
load rejection tests, since it eliminates the necessity for
trial and error procedures or power angle estimation. The
method was tested in a 100 MVA, 13.8 kV, 60 Hz, 40 poles
salient pole synchronous machine installed in a hydro
power plant. Tests results show that loads calculated with
the proposed method are in fact points where the armature
current is on the q-axis.
Index Terms—Hydroelectric Generators, Parameter esti-
mation, Synchronous Machines.
I. I NTRODUCTION
M ODELS of power system components are crucial for
power system stability studies. Generally, those models
have a known parametric structure, which parameters must be
determined to represent a given component. In a first approach,
the parameters from each component may be obtained from
manufacturers’ data. This approach is not recommendable,
since some design data may be inaccurate [1].
In fact, two significant power system outages happened in
Western North American Power System during 1996 and the
power system simulations were unable to reflect the real exten-
sion of those outages, due to inaccurate model parameters [2].
Those events motivated an effort from the Western Systems
Coordinating Council (WSCC) to validate the parameters of
power generation units via field tests [3]. Motivated by the
WSCC efforts, many countries such as Colombia [4] and South
Korea [5] created local standards requiring regular validation
of the model parameters.
Manuscript received Month 04, 2018; revised Month 06, 2018; ac-
cepted Month 07, 2018. This work was supported in part by the Empresa
Energı́a del Pacı́fico S. A
Mateus Giesbrecht is with the School of Electrical and Computing
Engineering FEEC, University of Campinas UNICAMP, Campinas, SP,
Brazil (phone: +55-19-3521-3877; e-mail: mateus@fee.unicamp.br).
Luis A. E. Meneses is with EPSA - Empresa Energı́a del Pacı́fico
S. A. E. S. P. Yumbo, VAC, Colombia (email: laesteves@celsia.com;
esteves.luis@outlook.com).
0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
One of the most important components in a power system
is the synchronous generator. In countries where the elec-
tric power generation is based on hydraulic sources, salient
pole synchronous machines are responsible for generating the
majority of the electric power. For this reason, efforts to
develop tests to model these machines are fundamental to
the determination of accurate parameters, resulting in adequate
power system models.
Many models and parameters determination tests have been
developed across the years to simulate the machines behavior
accurately [6]. Those tests are also part of standards such as [7]
and [8]. Models structures are based on the physical relations
between machine voltages, currents, magnetic fluxes, speed
and torque. In such models it is common to apply the two-
axis theory [9] in order to derive circuits for the machine direct
axis (d-axis) and quadrature axis (q-axis).
Once a model structure is defined, it is necessary to estimate
the parameters for each machine. A first approach to that is
the determination of reluctances, inductances and resistances,
either by analytical calculations or by finite element models
(FEM). A second approach is to execute tests that excite
the machine dynamics. One of the most used tests, which
was suggested by the WSCC to validate generators models
[3], is the load rejection. This test was proposed in [10] and
consists of applying a step to the armature current by tripping
the generator armature circuit breaker while the machine is
delivering appropriate loads. To obtain d-axis parameters, the
appropriate loads are purely reactive and, to obtain q-axis
parameters, the appropriate loads are the ones under which
there is alignment between the armature current and the q-axis.
From the tests results it is possible to estimate synchronous,
transient and sub-transient reactances, as well as the time
constants for both axes.
To reach the pure q-axis armature current, it is possible to
use a trial and error procedure, as proposed in [10]. That pro-
cedure is time consuming and, for that reason, disadvantageous
for power plants operators. Certain alternative procedures have
been developed to replace pure q-axis load rejection. To apply
those methods, it is necessary to either measure or estimate the
power angle (δ) or to use more advanced parameter estimation
procedures.
Another possibility is to use analytical methods to estimate
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
the steady state condition under which the armature current
is on the q-axis. Those methods are based only on estimates
of the machine synchronous reactances and measurements of
its armature voltage. The first author of this paper proposed
analytical methods to determine the load conditions under
which the armature current is on the q-axis for round rotor
machines [11] and for salient pole machines [12]. In that
papers, the methods were validated through simulations.
This paper is an extension of [12]. The main novelty
introduced in both papers is an analytical method to calculate
the load conditions that guarantee pure q-axis armature current.
This allows the execution of load rejection tests to determine
q-axis parameters without the necessity to measure δ or
use more advanced parameter estimation procedures. In this
paper, a detailed derivation of the equations introduced in
[12] is presented and the method is validated with field tests
performed on a 100 MVA, 13.8 kV, 60 Hz, 40 poles salient
pole synchronous machine, confirming the simulation results
obtained in [12].
The paper is structured as follows: In the following sec-
tion, salient pole synchronous machine models are discussed.
Section III briefly reviews methods for synchronous machine
parameters determination. In section IV, the derivation of
the proposed method is explored in a more detailed manner
than in [12]. The section V introduces an example of how
to determine load conditions under which the salient pole
synchronous machine armature current is on the q-axis. A
sensibility analysis to variations on synchronous reactances
estimates is also presented in that section. In section VI, the
tests results are shown and discussed. Finally, in section VII,
the conclusions are presented.
II. S ALIENT POLE SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE MODELS
The behavior of synchronous machines changes depending
on the windings that are under flux variation. In the steady
state condition, the most significant flux variations are on
the armature windings. In salient pole synchronous machines,
due to the rotor salience, the reluctance of the magnetic
circuit seen by the armature fluxes changes depending on the
rotor position. To model this effect, the two-axis theory was
developed during the second quarter of the last century [9],
[13]. The application of this theory to the steady state analysis
of salient pole synchronous machines can be found in standard
textbooks such as [14]–[16].
In transient conditions, the field and the amortisseur win-
dings are under significant flux variations and, to obtain an
accurate mathematical model, it is necessary to consider the
resistances and the inductances of those windings. The resul-
tant model can then be analyzed in the frequency domain with
transfer functions [17] or in the time domain, with state space
models [18], [19]. Those models are parametric, meaning that
their structure is equal for machines with the same constructive
characteristics. Each machine is then differentiated by the
numerical values of its parameters.
Transient multivariable time domain models are flexible and
can be reorganized to simplify the parameter determination
procedure. In [20], a hybrid model is proposed to select as
0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
inputs the values that are subject to changes during the load
rejection tests. In [21], an incremental time domain model
is derived from electrical equations presented in [22] and
mechanical equations deduced by the author of that paper. This
incremental model simplifies on-line parameter identification
since its initial states are always known and equal to zero.
In [23], an incremental model slightly different from the one
presented in [21] is used as a linear approximation for the
non-linear model.
Once the most suitable model structure is chosen, it is
necessary to determine the parameters for a specific machine.
Some methods to execute that task are discussed in the
following section.
III. S YNCHRONOUS MACHINE PARAMETERS
DETERMINATION
Once the model is defined, there are two main approaches
to determine its parameters. The first one, generally used by
manufacturers to predict parameters for a new design, is based
on the calculation of the reluctances of the machine’s magnetic
circuits based on its geometry and materials characteristics.
These calculations may be based on analytical equations, such
as the ones developed in [24]–[26] or finite element models
[27].
The second approach is to determine these parameters from
tests. In that approach, a transient phenomenon that excites the
machine dynamics must occur. This transient is applied to one
of the machine windings and responses are measured on the
other windings, allowing parameters determination through a
classical gray box system identification procedure [28].
One of the first proposed approaches to cause a transient is
to impose a sudden short circuit on armature terminals while
the machine is excited and running at rated speed [29]. This
corresponds to a negative step in the armature voltage. After
the short circuit, the transient armature current is measured,
and the machine d-axis parameters can be determined by
fitting exponential functions to the current waveform envelope.
A disadvantage is that the sudden short circuit test may
introduce hazardous currents and torques to the machine,
which may damage some of its structural components. Another
disadvantage is that it is not possible to determine the q-axis
parameters from the data obtained in sudden short circuits.
Another transient phenomenon that can be used to determine
machine parameters was proposed in [21]. In that paper, a step
in the field voltage is caused by introducing an inductance
connected in parallel with a switch downstream the excitation
transformer. Switch state modifications introduce or bypass the
inductance in the circuit, changing the machine field voltage.
Currents and voltages from the machine windings are mea-
sured during switch changes and then a least-squares algorithm
is used to fit the model parameters to the experimental data.
In [23], the transient is caused by superposing a white noise
to the machine field voltage. Then terminal voltage and active
power are measured, and two transfer functions are estimated.
Parameters from these transfer functions are then related to
certain classical mechanical and electrical parameters of the
machine, completing the identification procedure.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

It is also possible to excite the machine dynamics with angle.

transients applied while the machine is in standstill. In [30], Another approach to obtain the machine q-axis parameters
two standstill tests are proposed based on signal application to via arbitrary load rejection is to estimate the value of δ at the
one of the armature phases, while the other ones remain open. instant of load rejection (generally represented as δ0 ) through
The first test is the sudden application of a DC current and the the same algorithm used for machine parameters estimation
second is the application of a sinusoidal signal with variable [35]. This angle variation after load rejection is then calculated
frequency. The motivation for the second test is found in an using the machine model and the measurements acquired
earlier paper [31], where the application of frequency response during the test. This approach is relatively accurate, but the
tests to model simple magnetic circuits and electric machines data treatment necessary to extract the machine parameters
is proposed. A similar approach is presented in references such from the test is far more complex than the necessary to
as [32] and [33]. calculate the q-axis parameters with the method proposed in
For all standstill tests, the machine response will represent [10].
the electrical dynamics of the rotor axis that is aligned with As an alternative to these approaches, analytical methods
the stator winding during the test execution. For that reason, such as the one proposed by the first author of this paper
it is necessary to align the rotor’s d or q axis with one of the in [12] may be applied. In the following section, a detailed
armature phases, depending on the desired parameters. This derivation of that method is presented.
alignment can be achieved reasonably well for machines with
a small number of poles. On the other hand, low head power IV. D ETERMINATION OF LOAD CONDITIONS FOR PURE
plants generators generally present a heavy rotor with many Q - AXIS STATOR CURRENTS
poles. Consequently, the electrical angle is too small, compli-
cating an accurate alignment process. For example, the rotor For a star connected salient pole synchronous machine
of the machine studied in this paper weights approximately operating in steady state condition, if the armature resistance
190 × 103 Kg and has 40 poles. In that case, 1◦ of mechanical ra is neglected, it is known that the active power P and the
misalignment results in a 20◦ of electrical misalignment. Thus, reactive power Q in p.u. are given by the following equations
accurate alignment of this heavy rotor with a stator phase is [14]–[16]:
a not an easy task.
Another type of transient phenomenon used to determine P (φ) = |Vt ||Ia | cos(φ) (1)
synchronous machine parameters is the load rejection, pro-
posed for the first time in [10] and validated experimentally in
[34]. This transient, which is a negative step in the armature |Vt ||Ef | |Vt |2 (Xd − Xq )
P (δ) = sin(δ) + sin(2δ) (2)
current, is caused by opening the circuit breakers while the Xd 2Xd Xq
machine is running under load. In order to identify all the
machine parameters, two different loads need to be rejected. Q(φ) = |Vt ||Ia | sin(φ) (3)
For the first load, the machine armature currents must have
only d-axis components and for the second one, only q-axis
sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
 
components. After the desired condition is reached, the load |Vt ||Ef |
Q(δ) = cos(δ) − |Vt |2 + (4)
is rejected and then it is possible to determine the machine Xd Xq Xd
synchronous, transient and sub-transient parameters by fitting
where Vt is the line to neutral terminal voltage phasor, Ia is
superposed exponential functions in the stator terminal volta-
the phasor that represents the armature current, φ is the angle
ges waveform envelope.
between the Vt and Ia , Ef is the voltage phasor induced by
To reach the pure q-axis armature current, a trial and error
the poles flux, also defined as internal voltage, Xd and Xq are
procedure was originally proposed. This procedure would be
the synchronous d and q axis reactances, respectively, δ is the
repeated until no variation in the field current was verified
power angle and | ∗ | represents the RMS value of the phasor
during load rejection. Such a proposal is time consuming and,
∗. All the variables are in p.u.
for that reason, disadvantageous for power plants operators.
The method to determine the conditions under which the
An alternative to this trial and error method is to proceed
steady state stator current is on the q-axis is based on equations
with an arbitrary load rejection and measure the power angle
1 to 4. Since in this condition φ = −δ [12], from equations 1
δ. To measure this angle accurately, it is necessary to introduce
and 2 it is possible to obtain:
a system such as the one proposed in [5] to synchronize
armature voltage measurements to the measurements of a shaft
positioning system. This device may not be available in some |Vt ||Ef | |Vt |2 (Xd − Xq )
|Vt ||Ia | cos(−δ) = sin(δ) + sin(2δ)
power plants and its installation may require a machine outage, Xd 2Xd Xq
which is certainly not desirable. Simpler techniques that are (5)
usually applied to machines with a small number of poles, such and from equations 3 and 4:
as attaching a black and white striped paper around the shaft
sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
 
using an optical sensor to detect the angle, are not accurate for |Vt ||Ef |
low head hydrogenerators with a large number of poles, where |Vt ||Ia | sin(−δ) = cos(δ)−|Vt |2 +
Xd Xq Xd
the electrical angle is just a small portion of the mechanical (6)

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Under the desired condition, the armature current Ia is

completely on the q-axis. Thus, according to the machine |Vt |2 −|Ef |2
|Vt |2 Xq2 sin(−δ)2 =
phasor diagram, the following equation is valid [12]:
p
|Vt |2 − |Ef |2 |Vt |2 |Ef |2
 
|Vt ||Ef | sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
|Ia | = (7) = Xd2
cos(δ)2 − 2 Xd cos(δ)|Vt |2 Xq + Xd +
Xq
 2
and it is possible to use equations 5 and 7 to obtain: sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
+|Vt |4 Xq + Xd
√ 2 (16)
|Vt | −|Ef |2
|Vt | Xq cos(−δ) = Considering that sin(−δ)2 = sin(δ)2 and rearranging the
(8) terms of 16:
|Vt ||Ef | |Vt |2 (Xd −Xq )
= Xd sin(δ) + 2Xd Xq sin(2δ)  
|Vt |2 sin(δ)2 |Vt |2 cos(δ)2
Xq2 + Xd2
|Ef |2 −
Taking the square from both sides of the equation 8 it is found
that: 3
 
sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
−2 |Vt | Xcos(δ)
d Xq + Xd |Ef |+ (17)
|Vt |4 −|Vt |2 |Ef |2
Xq2 cos(−δ)2 =  2
sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2 |Vt |4 sin(δ)2
+|Vt |4 Xq + Xd − Xq2 =0
|Vt |2 |Ef |2 2 |V ||E | |V |2 (X −X )
= Xd2
sin(δ) + 2 tXd f sin(δ) t 2XddXq q sin(2δ)+ or simply:

|Vt |4 (Xd −Xq )2

+ 4Xd2 Xq2
sin(2δ)2 Pq (|Ef |) = aq2 (δ)|Ef |2 + aq1 (δ)|Ef | + aq0 (δ) = 0 (18)
(9)
Considering that cos(−δ) = cos(δ) and rearranging the terms where:
it is possible to obtain: 
sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2

aq2 (δ) = |Vt |2 + (19)
 2
|Vt | cos(δ)2 |Vt |2 sin(δ)2
 Xq2 Xd2
X 2 + X 2 |Ef |2 +
q d

2|Vt |3 sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2

 
3
|V | (Xd −Xq ) sin(δ) sin(2δ)
+ t |Ef |+ (10) aq1 (δ) = − cos(δ) + (20)
Xd2 Xq Xd Xq Xd

|Vt |4 (Xd −Xq )2 sin(2δ)2 |Vt |4 cos(δ)2

" 2 #
+ 4Xd2 Xq2
− Xq2 =0 4 sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2 sin(δ)2
aq0 (δ) = |Vt | + − (21)
or Xq Xd Xq2
Equations 11 and 18 compose a nonlinear system with two
equations and two unknowns (|Ef | and δ). The other variables
Pp (|Ef |) = ap2 (δ)|Ef |2 + ap1 (δ)|Ef | + ap0 (δ) = 0 (11)
are |Vt |, which is easily measured in a real application, and
where: synchronous reactances Xd and Xq , which can be estimated
from the machine manufacturer’s data-sheets, from simple
cos(δ)2 sin(δ)2
 
tests, such as the determination of open circuit and short circuit
ap2 (δ) = |Vt |2 + (12) characteristics [7], [8], or from typical values determined
Xq2 Xd2
for machines with a similar rating. It is important to notice
|Vt |3 (Xd − Xq ) sin(δ) sin(2δ) that synchronous reactances are just part of the total set of
ap1 (δ) = (13) parameters that can be determined via load rejections. This
Xd2 Xq
set also includes transient and sub-transient reactances, as well
as open circuit time constants. The method presented in this
|Vt |4 (Xd − Xq )2 sin(2δ)2 |Vt |4 cos(δ)2 paper is also robust to deviations of synchronous reactances
ap0 (δ) = 2 2
− (14)
4Xd Xq Xq2 estimates, as detailed in the section V.
The analytical solution of the nonlinear system composed
Similarly, based on equations 6 and 7 it is possible to obtain: by the equations 11 and 18 is a non-trivial task. Fortunately,
√ since in the q-axis load rejections the machine operates as
|Vt |2 −|Ef |2 an underexcited generator, Ia leads Vt . Also δ = −φ, and
|Vt | Xq sin(−δ) =
consequently:
(15)
π π
 
|Vt ||Ef | 2 sin(δ)2 cos(δ)2
= Xd cos(δ) − |Vt | Xq + Xd <φ<0 − 0<δ< (22)
2 2
taking the square of both sides of the equation 15 the result The proposed method consists of the discretization of the
is: second interval presented in the equation 22 in a sufficient

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

number of points. Each point is a δ for which the |Ef |

1
must be determined. To do so, for each δ in the interval,
0.8
the parameters defined in the equations 12 to 14 and 19 to
21 are calculated, considering the measured terminal voltage 0.6

and synchronous reactances estimates. Then, the roots of the 0.4

second order equations 11 and 18 are evaluated. This results 0.2

in four candidate values for |Ef |, which are compared. The

Ef (pu)
0
1st root of Pp(|Ef|)=0
final solution |Ef | for a given δ in the interval described in the
−0.2 2nd root of P (|E |)=0
equation 22 is defined as the root that satisfies both equations. p f
1st root of Pq(|Ef|)=0
−0.4
The calculation of the roots for each δ in the interval defines 2nd root of Pq(|Ef|)=0
a discrete curve in the |Ef | − δ space for which the armature −0.6

current is on the q-axis. Since this curve is not continuous, to −0.8

obtain the value of δ for any desired |Ef |, a linear interpolation −1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
is performed between the points in the curve closer to the δ (deg)

desired |Ef |.
With the determination of the pair (δ, |Ef |) that satisfies Fig. 1. Solutions of the equations 11 and 18 for Vt = 1 pu and the
the armature current on the q-axis, all other variables, such reactances presented in the table I.
as P and Q, can easily be determined using the equations
1 to 4. This allows for the creation of a locus on the P − Q Quadrature axis current loci
space that defines the points for which the pure q-axis armature 1.5
Data−sheet values
currents are expected. Then, speed and voltage regulators can 80% of data−sheet values
120% of data−sheet values
be adjusted to make the machine run under a load on the
desired locus, and then a load rejection can be performed,
allowing the validation of the q-axis synchronous reactance 1

and the determination of the q-axis transient and sub-transient

P (pu)

reactances and open circuit time constants.

0.5
V. L OAD POINTS DETERMINATION
Examples of the curves that were plotted to guide the q-axis
load rejection tests are shown in figures 1 and 2. In figure
1, the roots of equations 11 and 18 are shown, considering 0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0
a terminal voltage |Vt | = 1 pu, δ varying from 1◦ to 89◦ in Q (pu)

steps of 2◦ and synchronous reactances from table I. From the

figure it is possible to notice that the second root of equation
11 coincides with the first root of equation 18. Thus, these
roots and the locus defined by them represent pairs |Ef | − δ
implying pure q-axis armature current. From these pairs, the
active and reactive powers were calculated with the equations
1 to 4 and the locus identified as Data-sheet values shown
in figure 2 was obtained. From the deductions presented in
section IV, it is expected that load points in that locus imply
on pure q-axis armature currents.
In figure 2, other two loci, considering synchronous reac-
tances deviations of +20% and -20%, are plotted. From the
three loci shown in this figure it is possible to notice that in
the −0.1 p.u. ≤ Q ≤ 0 p.u. range, synchronous reactances
deviations imply no significant loci changes. So, if the tests
are performed at load points close to that region, a pure q-axis
armature current is expected, even if synchronous reactances
Fig. 2. Loci in P − Q space that satisfy the condition for pure q-axis
armature current for different values of synchronous reactances.
state, Colombia. This power plant was built on the Cauca
river in the beginning of the 80’s and is equipped with three
salient pole synchronous generators manufactured by Toshiba.
Their characteristics are listed in table I. The machine’s stator
windings were replaced by the same supplier in 2016 and its
parameters had to be validated for Colombian grid stability
studies.
The unit is equipped with a static voltage regulation system,
TABLE I
S ALVAJINA G ENERATOR DATA

estimates are not precise. Parameter Value

The tests performed to validate the load points obtained with Rated apparent power 100 MVA
Rated voltage 13.8 kV
the method are presented in the following section. Rated frequency 60 Hz
Number of poles 40
VI. T ESTS AND RESULTS Rated speed 180 RPM
Rated power factor 0.9
A. Generating unit data D-axis synchronous reactance Xd 0.89 p.u.
Q-axis synchronous reactance Xq 0.53 p.u.
The proposed method was tested in unit 2 of the hydro Rated field current 492 A
power plant Salvajina, located in the city of Suárez, Cauca

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

TABLE II locus. When this condition was reached, |Vt | was checked
S IGNALS ACQUIRED DURING TESTS AND EMPLOYED ACQUISITION again. If no significant change had happened, the armature
MODULES
breakers were opened and the load rejection data was recorded.
Signal Measurement Element Acquisition
module
Armature voltages Voltage transformer D. Method validation
Phases R, S, T 14400 V/ 120 V NI 9244 To validate the method, thirteen load rejection tests were
Armature currents Current transformer
Phases R, S, T 6000 A/ 5 A NI 9227 performed, including some loads close to the locus of pure
Field current Shunt Transducer q-axis armature current and others far from this locus. To
2000 A / 100 mV NI 9238 verify if the armature current before load rejection was on
Field voltage Transducer
0 V-300 V / 0 mA -10 mA NI 9203 the q-axis, the variation of field current during the rejection
Active Power Transducer was calculated. Since the field winding is on the d-axis, it is
SINEAX DME442 NI 9203 expected that q-axis transient phenomena do not interfere with
4 mA -20 mA /
0 MW -150 MW
voltages and currents from this winding. So, if the armature
Reactive Power Transducer current is on the q-axis before the load rejection, no significant
SINEAX DME442 NI 9203 field current variation is expected [10].
4 mA-20 mA /
-100 MVAr -100 MVAr
To calculate the field current variation, the average value
Angular velocity Encoder 120 slots of the moving average of that signal, calculated between
Speed monitor - Transducer NI 9203 0.55s and 0.05s before rejection, was determined and defined
0 Hz -400 Hz/
0 V-10 V/
as the field current before test (If b ). Then, maximum and
4 mA-20 mA minimum values of the moving average after load rejection
were obtained and defined as If amax and If amin , respectively.
Given those values, the field current variation ∆If was defined
as follows:
comprised of a Toshiba analog voltage regulator, which is
responsible for voltage control when the unit is synchronized
∆If = max(|If amax − If b |, |If amin − If b |) (23)
with the power system. The controller has the following
limiting functions: OEL (Overexcitation limiter), UEL (Sub- In figures 3 and 4, results of two of the thirteen tests are
excitation limiter) and PSS (Power system stabilizer). The presented. On the left, in both figures, the q-axis load locus in
speed regulation system is from Mitsubishi, model EA-5, ana- the P − Q space, obtained with the method described in this
log type. This system offers the function of primary frequency paper, is plotted together with the average P and Q measured
regulation. Additionally, it has a PID regulation characteristic, between 0.55s and 0.05s before the load rejection. On the
which performs the primary frequency regulation and imple- right, in both figures, the field current measured during load
ments the statism by re-feeding the actuator position. This rejection, and a moving average of this signal, are shown. The
loop provides an actuator position setpoint that is sent to the moving average was adopted to filter signal noise.
position control loop. The position control of the actuator is As can be seen in the left graphic in figure 3, the load
carried out through a P loop. This regulation system allows just before that test was in the locus where pure q-axis
the control of P and Q and is able to operate in a constant armature current is expected. The graphic in the right shows
field voltage mode. that the field current variation was negligible during that test,
as expected from the results of this paper. Under that condition,
B. Machine instrumentation the value of ∆If calculated according to equation 23 is 0.8%.
Data in the left side of figure 4 shows that, before the
The data acquisition system used during the validation of the
load rejection, the load was far from the locus where pure
proposed method was the National Instruments CompactDAQ
q-axis current is expected. The curve on the right shows
9188. Details about the acquisition modules used and the ac-
that field current variation was significant. For that condition,
quired signals are presented in table II. The acquisition system
∆If =15.95%. This result is coherent with the deduction of
is adjusted through the LabVIEW SignalExpress platform,
the locus described in this paper.
with a 5000 Hz sampling rate.
To summarize the results of all thirteen tests, the minimum
Euclidean distance between the point defined by the average
C. Test procedure P and Q, measured between 0.55s and 0.05s before the load
During the tests, the average |Vt | was measured and the rejection, and the pure q-axis locus on P − Q space, was
method described in the section IV was executed to determine calculated for each one of the tests. Field current variation
the curve in the |Ef | − δ space for which the armature current was also calculated with the equation 23, following the same
would be on q-axis considering the synchronous reactances procedure used for the first two tests. The results are plotted
shown in table I. Then, P and Q were calculated for each point in figure 5. From that figure it is possible to notice that loads
in the |Ef |−δ curve and a locus in the P −Q space, satisfying with small distances from the pure q-axis locus in the P − Q
the q-axis condition, was plotted. In sequence, voltage and space imply small field current variations when rejected. This
speed regulators were adjusted in such a way that the machine indicates that these loads are in fact q-axis loads, validating the
active and reactive powers defined a point close to the desired procedure derived in this paper. On the other hand, loads far

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Locus for Q−axis load − distance=0.014088 ∆ If=0.8%

1 720
Field current
Moving average with 50 samples
0.8 710

700
P (pu)
0.6

If (A)
0.4 690

Calculated locus
Pre−rejection condition 680
0.2

−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 23 23.5 24 24.5

Q (pu) t(s)

Fig. 3. Load rejection under a condition close to the P − Q locus for pure q-axis armature current. On the left, the calculated locus for the terminal
voltage immediately before the rejection and the load condition immediately before the rejection. On the right, field current variation measured
during load rejection and its moving average.

Locus for Q−axis load − distance=0.21891 ∆ I =15.9468%

f
600
1 Calculated locus Field current
Pre−rejection condition Moving average with 50 samples
0.8
550
0.6
P (pu)

If (A)

0.4 500

0.2

450
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 31 31.5 32 32.5
Q (pu) t(s)

Fig. 4. Load rejection under a condition far from the P − Q locus for pure q-axis armature current. On the left, the calculated locus for the terminal
voltage immediately before the rejection and the load condition immediately before the rejection. On the right, field current variation measured
during load rejection and its moving average.

from the locus imply greater field current variations, indicating
that a d-axis component is present. This is also expected from
the results derived in this paper. An interesting fact that is
also shown in figure 5 is that there is a reasonable linear fit
that relates the field current variation to the distance from pure
q-axis locus.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a method to determine load conditions under
which the armature current of a salient pole synchronous
machine is on the q-axis was described, and the equations
to derive that method were detailed. The method allows the
determination of a locus on the P − Q space in which the
armature currents are completely on the q-axis. The derivation
of that locus simplifies the determination of the machine q-axis
parameters, since it eliminates the necessity for trial and error
procedures or the measurement or estimation of the load angle.
If any load in that locus is rejected, the synchronous machine
synchronous, transient and sub-transient q-axis reactances and
time constants can be found with a simple determination of pa-
rameters from an exponential equation. Although the method
depends on initial estimates of the synchronous reactances,
those estimates do not need to be accurate if the load is
chosen from an appropriate region of the locus derived with
the method.
The method was validated in a 100 MVA, 13.8 kV, 60
Hz, 40 poles salient pole synchronous machine installed in
the Salvajina hydro power plant. Test results show that loads
calculated with the proposed method in fact resulted in points
where the armature currents are on the q-axis. It was also
shown that loads far from the locus derived in this paper
present a significant d-axis component, which is evidenced by
the significant field current variation during load rejections.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. L. Agrawal and J. A. Demcko, “Wscc testing experience [generating
units],” in IEEE Power Engineering Society. 1999 Winter Meeting (Cat.
No.99CH36233), vol. 1, DOI 10.1109/PESW.1999.747443, pp. 160–161
vol.1, Jan. 1999.

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Salvajina
45
40
35
Field current variation [%]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 [23] M. Karrari and O. P. Malik, “Identification of physical parameters of a
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Distance between the load rejection point and the q−axid current locus
Fig. 5. Field current variation versus the distance from the pure q-axis
load locus on the P −Q space for the thirteen tests executed in Salvajina
UG 2.
[2] D. N. Kosterev, C. W. Taylor, and W. A. Mittelstadt, “Model validation
for the august 10, 1996 wscc system outage,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 14, DOI 10.1109/59.780909, no. 3, pp. 967–979,
Aug. 1999.
[3] L. Pereira, “Introduction and background to synchronous unit test-
ing and model validation in the wscc,” in IEEE Power Engineering
Society. 1999 Winter Meeting (Cat. No.99CH36233), vol. 1, DOI
10.1109/PESW.1999.747441, pp. 151–156 vol.1, Jan. 1999.
[4] “Acuerdo 843,” Consejo Nacional de Operación,
https://www.cno.org.co/content/acuerdo-843, Tech. Rep., Febrero
2016.
[5] D.-J. Kim, Y.-H. Moon, J.-J. Lee, H.-S. Ryu, and T.-H. Kim, “A new
method of recording generator dynamics and its application to the
derivation of synchronous machine parameters for power system stability
studies,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2017.
[6] M. Ghomi and Y. Sarem, “Review of synchronous generator pa-
rameters estimation and model identification,” in Universities Power
Engineering Conference, 2007. UPEC 2007. 42nd International, DOI
10.1109/UPEC.2007.4468951, pp. 228–235, Sep. 2007.
[7] “Ieee std 115-2009, ieee guide for test procedures for synchronous
machines,” DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5953453, pp. 1–219, May.
2010.
[8] IEC, IEC 60034-4-1: Rotating Electrical Machines - Part 4-1: Methods
for determining electrically excited synchronous machine quantities from
tests, IEC, 2018.
[9] R. H. Park, “Two-reaction theory of synchronous machines generalized
method of analysis-part i,” Transactions of the American Institute
of Electrical Engineers, vol. 48, DOI 10.1109/T-AIEE.1929.5055275,
no. 3, pp. 716–727, Jul. 1929.
[10] F. de Mello and J. Ribeiro, “Derivation of synchronous machine param-
eters from tests,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 96, DOI 10.1109/T-
PAS.1977.32443, no. 4, pp. 1211–1218, Jul. 1977.
[11] M. Giesbrecht, “A phasor diagram based method to determine load
conditions for load rejection tests for round rotor synchronous
machine quadrature axis parameters determination,” in 2016 IEEE
25th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), DOI
10.1109/ISIE.2016.7744877, pp. 122–127, Jun. 2016.
[12] M. Giesbrecht, “A method to determine load conditions for salient
pole synchronous machine quadrature axis parameters determination,”
in 2017 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics
(ISIE), DOI 10.1109/ISIE.2017.8001248, pp. 202–208, Jun. 2017.
[13] R. H. Park, “Two-reaction theory of synchronous machines-ii,” Trans-
actions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol. 52, DOI
10.1109/T-AIEE.1933.5056309, no. 2, pp. 352–354, Jun. 1933.
[14] G. R. Slemon and A. Straughen, Electric Machines. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1981.
[15] A. Fitzgerald, C. Kingsley, and S. Umans, Electric Machinery, 17th ed.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013.
[16] P. C. Sen, Principles of Electric Machines and Power Electronics. John
Wiley and Sons, 1996.
0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
[17] B. Adkins, The general theory of electrical machines. Chapman and
Hall, 1957.
Measured data
Linear interpolation [18] O. Elgerd, Electric energy systems theory: an introduction, ser. McGraw-
Hill Series in Electrical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, 1982.
[19] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, and S. D. Sudhoff, Analysis of electric
machinery and drive systems, 2nd ed. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2002.
[20] R. Wamkeue, C. Jolette, and I. Kamwa, “Alternative approaches for
linear analysis and prediction of a synchronous generator under partial-
and full-load rejection tests,” Electric Power Applications, IET, vol. 1,
DOI 10.1049/iet-epa:20060217, no. 4, pp. 581–590, Jul. 2007.
[21] Z. Zhao, F. Zheng, J. Gao, and L. Xu, “A dynamic on-line parameter
identification and full-scale system experimental verification for large
synchronous machines,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
vol. 10, DOI 10.1109/60.464859, no. 3, pp. 392–398, Sep. 1995.
[22] A. R. Bergen and V. Vittal, Power Systems Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-
Hall International, 2000.
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
synchronous generator from online measurements,” IEEE Transactions
on Energy Conversion, vol. 19, DOI 10.1109/TEC.2003.822296, no. 2,
pp. 407–415, Jun. 2004.
[24] R. E. Doherty and O. E. Shirley, “Reactance of synchronous machines
and its applications,” Proceedings of the American Institute of Electrical
Engineers, vol. 37, DOI 10.1109/PAIEE.1918.6591989, no. 7, pp. 821–
908, Jul. 1918.
[25] M. Walker, Specification and Desing of Dynamo-electric machinery.
Longmans, Green and Co, 1915.
[26] J. H. Walker, Large Synchronous Machines. Design, Manufacture and
Operation. Oxford University Press, 1981.
[27] J. Peqquena, E. Ruppert, and M. Mendoza, “On the synchronous gener-
ator parameters determination using dynamic simulations based on ieee
standards,” in Industrial Technology (ICIT), 2010 IEEE International
Conference on, DOI 10.1109/ICIT.2010.5472769, pp. 386–391, Mar.
2010.
[28] L. Ljung, System Identification - Theory for the user, 2nd ed., T. Kailath,
Ed. Prentice Hall, 1999.
[29] S. H. Wright, “Determination of synchronous machine constants by
test reactances, resistances, and time constants,” American Institute
of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, vol. 50, DOI 10.1109/T-
AIEE.1931.5055960, no. 4, pp. 1331–1350, Dec. 1931.
[30] H. Kaminosono and K. Uyeda, “New measurement of synchronous
machine quantities,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-87, DOI
10.1109/TPAS.1968.292012, no. 11, pp. 1908–1918, Nov. 1968.
[31] S. K. Sen and B. Adkins, “The application of the frequency-response
method to electrical machines,” Proceedings of the IEE - Part C:
Monographs, vol. 103, DOI 10.1049/pi-c.1956.0051, no. 4, pp. 378–
391, Sep. 1956.
[32] M. Coultes and W. Watson, “Synchronous machine models by standstill
frequency response tests,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-100,
DOI 10.1109/TPAS.1981.316568, no. 4, pp. 1480–1489, Apr. 1981.
[33] I. Canay, “Determination of the model parameters of machines from
the reactance operators xd(p), xq (p) (evaluation of standstill fre-
quency response test),” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 8, DOI
10.1109/60.222718, no. 2, pp. 272–279, Jun. 1993.
[34] F. de Mello and L. Hannett, “Validation of synchronous machine models
and derivation of model parameters from tests,” IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-100, DOI 10.1109/TPAS.1981.316963, no. 2, pp. 662–
672, Feb. 1981.
[35] E. da Costa Bortoni and J. Jardini, “Synchronous machines param-
eters identification using load rejection test data,” in Electric Ma-
chines and Drives Conference Record, 1997. IEEE International, DOI
10.1109/IEMDC.1997.604292, pp. WB1/1.1–WB1/1.3, May. 1997.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2866096, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Mateus Giesbrecht was born in Campinas, SP,
Brazil. He received the B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from Univer-
sity of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil, in 2006,
2007 and 2013 respectively.
He is a full time professor at the School of
Electrical and Computing Engineering of the
University of Campinas, Brazil, after nine years
working as electrical engineer at Andritz Hydro
(former GE Hydro), with large synchronous ge-
nerators design. His fields of interests include
electric machines design, electric machines parameters identification,
system identification, time series realization and evolutionary algo-
rithms.
Prof. Giesbrecht is a reviewer from the IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics and IET Power Electronics.
Luis Alfredo Esteves Meneses Luis Alfredo
Esteves was born in Cali, Valle, Colombia.
He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in
Electrical Engineering from University of Valle
(UNIVALLE), Colombia, in 2011 and 2013
respectively.
He is a leader of electrical maintenance at
hydroelectric power plant Alto Anchicayá at the
energy company of the Pacific (EPSA) since
2013. He is responsible for speed and voltage
regulation systems design and commissioning,
and synchronous generators commissioning for EPSA’s hydroelectric
power plants. His fields of interests include electric machines
parameters identification, design of speed regulation system and voltaje
regulation system, predictive maintenance and characterization of
synchronous machines.

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.