Estimating forces in mixed eccentricities motion from purely dynamic eccentric rotor centre motion in a hydropower generator and their validation against EM simulations

Öz

Electromagnetic analysis of hydropower generators is common practice but there is little emphasis on studying the effect of
rotor whirling in the analysis. This paper demonstrates the use of
the unbalanced magnetic pull (UMP) curves based on purely dynamic
eccentricity motion for a wide range of whirling frequencies in the
prediction of the steady state UMP in the case of mixed eccentricities
motion. The latter motion type is more realistic in practice. Actual
electromagnetic (EM) simulations are also carried out for these mixed
eccentricities motion cases in order to verify the proposed method. Good
agreement between the UMP from the actual EM simulations and the
UMP predictions are made when low eccentricities exist. The proposed
method is thus very useful since firstly, very few EM software packages
can handle mixed eccentricities motion and secondly, since actual EM
simulations of intricate rotor centre motion are time-consuming, the
proposed method is a big time saver. A modified feature selective validation
(FSV) method, the FSV-UPC, is also applied to assess the similarities and
the differences in the force computations.

Kaynakça

1. M. Walker. Specification and Design of Dynamo-Electric Machinery.
2. Longmans’ Electrical Engineering Series, 1915.
3. E. Rosenberg. Magnetic pull in electrical machines. Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 37(2):1425–1469, 1918.
4. I. Ozelgin. Analysis of magnetic flux density for airgap eccentricity
5. and bearing faults. International Journal of Systems Applications,
6. Engineering & Development, 4(2):162–169, 2008.
7. D. de Canha, W.A. Cronje, A.S. Meyer, and S.J. Hoffe. Methods for
8. diagnosing static eccentricity in a synchronous 2 pole generator. In Power Tech, 2007 IEEE Lausanne, pages 2162–2167, July 2007.

9. I. Tabatabaei, J. Faiz, H. Lesani, and M.T. Nabavi-Razavi. Modeling
10. and simulation of a salient-pole synchronous generator with dynamic
11. eccentricity using modified winding function theory. IEEE Transactions
12. on Magnetics, 40(3):1550–1555, May 2004.
13. G. Joksimovic, C. Bruzzese, and E. Santini. Static eccentricity detection in synchronous generators by field current and stator voltage signature analysis—part I: Theory. In Electrical Machines (ICEM), 2010 XIX International Conference, Rome, Italy, pages 1–6, 6-8 Sept. 2010.
14. B.A.T. Iamamura, Y. Le Menach, A. Tounzi, N. Sadowski, and E. Guillot. Study of static and dynamic eccentricities of a synchronous generator using 3-D FEM. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 46(8):3516 –3519, August 2010.
15. J. Faiz, M. Babaei, J. Nazarzadeh, B.M. Ebrahimi, and S. Amini. Timestepping finite-element analysis of dynamic eccentricity fault in a threephase salient pole synchronous generator. Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, 20:263–284, 2010.
16. J. Faiz, B.M. Ebrahimi, M. Valavi, and H.A. Toliyat. Mixed eccentricity
17. fault diagnosis in salient-pole synchronous generator using modified
18. winding function method. Progress In Electromagnetics Research B,
19. :155–172, 2009.
20. M. Negrea, P. Jover, and A. Arkkio. Electromagnetic flux-based condition monitoring for electrical machines. In Fifth IEEE International
21. Symposium on Diagnostics for Electric Machines, Power Electronics and
22. Drives, 2005. SDEMPED, pages 1–6, 2005.
23. B.H. Shakibaei. Analysis and simulations of eccentric rotors of rotating machinery in polar space. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(12):1675–1682, 2012.
24. L. Wu, B. Lu, X. Huang, T.G. Habetler, and R.G. Harley. Improved online condition monitoring using static eccentricity-induced negative sequence current information in induction machines. In Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2005, 31st Annual Conference of IEEE, 6–10 November, 2005.
25. T.P. Holopainen, A. Tenhunen, E. Lantto, and A. Arkkio. Unbalanced
26. magnetic pull induced by arbitrary eccentric motion of cage rotor in
27. transient operation. Part 1: Analytical model. Electrical Engineering,
28. (1):13–24, April 2005.
29. T.P. Holopainen, A. Tenhunen, E. Lantto, and A. Arkkio. Unbalanced
30. magnetic pull induced by arbitrary eccentric motion of cage rotor in transient operation. Part 2: Verification and numerical parameter estimation. Electrical Engineering, 88(1):25–34, March 2005.
31. N.L.P. Lundström and J-O. Aidanpää. Whirling frequencies and amplitudes due to deviations of generator shape. International Journal of
32. Non-Linear Mechanics, 43(9):933–940, November 2008.
33. H. Torkaman and E. Afjei. Magnetostatic field analysis regarding the
34. effects of dynamic eccentricity in switched reluctance motor. Progress
35. In Electromagnetics Research M, 8:163–180, 2009.
36. MagNet, Infolytica Corporation, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 2011, Version 7.1.3.
37. B. Archambeault, S. Connor, and A.P. Duffy. Comparing FSV and
38. human responses to data comparisons. In International Symposium on
39. Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2005. EMC, Chicago, USA, volume 1,
40. pages 284–289, August 2005.
41. A.L. Drozd. Selected methods for validating computational electromagnetic modeling techniques. In International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC 2005, volume 1, pages 301–306, August 2005.
42. R. Jauregui and F. Silva. Numerical validation methods (editor: Jan
43. Awrejcewicz). In Numerical Analysis—Theory and Application. InTech,
44. September 2011.
45. V. Rajamani, C.F. Bunting, A. Orlandi, and A. Duffy. Introduction to
46. feature selective validation (FSV). In Antennas and Propagation Society
47. International Symposium 2006, IEEE, 2006, Albuquerque, USA, pages
48. –604, 9–14 July 2006.
49. IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society. IEEE standard for
50. validation of computational electromagnetics computer modeling and
51. simulations—IEEE std 1597.1TM, 2008.
52. V. J. Gawron. Human Performance Measures Handbook. CRC Press,
53. July 2000.
54. Y. Calleecharan and J-O. Aidanpää. Dynamics of a hydropower generator subjected to unbalanced magnetic pull. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 225(9):2076–2088, 2011.
55. Y. Calleecharan and J-O. Aidanpää. Stability analysis of an hydropower generator subjected to unbalanced magnetic pull. IET Sci. Meas. Technol., 5(6):231–243, november 2011.
56. Division for Electricity, The Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala Universitet,Sweden.
57. O. Biro. Computational Electromagnetics (CEM) Conference 2011—Review of eddy current analysis. [online].
58. http://tv.theiet.org/technology/electronics/10890.cfm.
59. D. Marcsa and M. Kuczmann. Finite element analysis of single-phase
60. induction motors. COMSOL Conference, Budapest, Hungary November
61. , 2008, pp. 1-6.
62. M.V.K. Chari and P. Silvester. Analysis of turboalternator magnetic fields by finite elements. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-90(2):454–464, March 1971.
63. John R. Brauer. Magnetic Actuators and Sensors. Wiley-IEEE Press, 1st edition, February 2006.
64. DATAPLOT. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Version 5/02/06.
65. D. Coleby and A. Duffy. Analysis of techniques to compare complex
66. data sets. COMPEL: The International Journal for Computation and
67. Mathematics in Electrical Engineering, 21, Iss. 4:540–553, 2002.
68. A. Duffy, A. Martin, O Antonio, G. Antonini, T. Benson, and M. Woolfson. Feature selective validation (fsv) for validation of computational electromagnetics (CEM). Part i—the FSV method. IEEE transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, 48(3):449–459, 2006.
69. A. Orlandi, A. Duffy, B. Archambeault, G. Antonini, D. Coleby, and
70. S. Connor. Feature selective validation (fsv) for validation of computational electromagnetics (CEM). Part ii—assessment of FSV performance. IEEE transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, 48(3):460–
71. , 2006.
72. J. Knockaert, J. Peuteman, J. Catrysse, and R. Belmans. Modifying the
73. feature selective validation method to validate noisy data sets. IET Sci.
74. Meas. Technol., 2(4):244–257, 2008.
75. NASA. Flying qualities, stability and control, and performance evaluations, [Online]. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/ch4.htm.
76. R. Jauregui, P. Riu, and F. Silva. Transient FDTD simulation validation. IEEE Proc. International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC 2010, pages 257–262, 2010.
77. P. Riu, R. Jauregui, F. Silva, and M. Fernandez. Transient electromagnetic field computation in automotive environments using FDTD. IEEE Proc. International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii, pages 1–4, July 9–13, 2007.
78. R. Jauregui, J. Rojas-Mora, and F. Silva. Study of transient phenomena with feature selective validation method. Progress In Electromagnetics Research, 7(3):286–290, 2011.
79. R. Jauregui, F. Silva, A. Orlandi, H. Sasse, and A. Duffy. Factors
80. influencing the successful validation of transient phenomenon modelling.
81. In Asia-Pacific electromagnetic compatibility symposium and technical
82. exhibition, Beijig, China, pages 2–5, 2010.
83. GCEM Validation Tool (GVT), Grup de Compatibilitat Electromagnètica (GCEM), DEE Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, Version 3.0.3, November 2012, [Online]. http://www.upc.edu/web/gcem/.
84. A. Duffy, A. Drozd, B. Archambeault, and D. Coleby. Measuring
85. similarity for validation of computational electromagnetic modelling. In
86. International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC 2004,
87. volume 2, pages 697–702, 9–13 August, 2004.