Category: Blog

Home  ›  Blog  ›  Page 15

AQ: How to connect 3 phase motor?

Making a connection of 3 phase motor the nameplate shows different voltages for delta it is 380-400 volt and 660-690 volt for star, what option should be selected? the supply Line to Line voltage is 380-400.

Each stator winding of the motor can withstand 380-400 V.
Thus, if you connect your motor (the stator of your motor) in delta, it should be connected to 380-400 V line-to-line.

On the other hand, if you connect the stator winding of your motor in Y, you’d be able to connect your motor to line-to-line voltage that is sqrt(3) x 380-400 V = 660-690 V.

The actual output power (for a standard squirrel cage 3-phase AC motor) is not determined by the motor itself, but by the load it is driving. The motor will attempt to run at a speed near its synchronous speed, and to deliver the power required by the driven machinery at that speed. This means that the current taken up by the motor at any given voltage, will be almost the same whether it is star, or delta connected. If you therefore connect the motor in star while supplying it by the voltage it is designed for when delta connected, the current through each winding will be sqrt(3) times the winding is designed for. This again means that the heat dissipation in the winding will be approximately 3 times what it is designed for, and therefore it will burn out if you load the motor with its nominal load.

We should be aware that the motor power as mentioned on its nameplate, in relation with the available power of the MCC panel to which it is connected, are the important factors in choosing the type of starting of the motor. Take into account the fact that starting the motor direct in Delta connection (which is the correct one based on your network voltage) the currents may be up to 8xInomianl of motor and if your MCC doesn’t have the capacity to withstand this current (by decreasing its supply voltage ) you may fail with DOL Delta starting type. Is that why, based on the power of motors, in order to avoid high currents during the starting time, it is recommended the Y/D connection. Limitations in starting currents by Y/D are considerable by decreasing the current first with sqrt3 because the feeding voltage is not 660V (you feed the motor with 380-400V) and the current initially in Y is sqrt3<I delta, so it is 3 times less than Delta DOL. Y/D is not the single one, there are a lot of solution to start AC motors.

AQ: What need to be concerned to start a motor?

First, you need to know power (rated power and rated current) of your power source with whom you will supply your motor. For example, if you want to supply your motor by using low voltage synchronous generator (through high voltage power transformer), you need to know rated power and rated current of synchronous generator and rated power and rated currents of high voltage power transformer. This information is very important because if you don’t have powerful source for supplying your motor, there is possibility that you’ll never reach rated rotational speed during rated time which means that you’ll not start your motor.

Second, you need to know kind of your motor. Is that motor asynchronous motor with cage rotor or is that asynchronous motor with sliding rings? This information is very important because these kinds of asynchronous motors have different values of starting current: for asynchronous motors with cage rotor starting current is 6-8 times higher than rated current of mentioned kind of motor while for asynchronous motors with sliding rings starting current is 3-5 times higher than rated current of mentioned kind of motor. Also, too much higher starting current of your motor could be a reason for unallowed warming of windings of stator what it could lead to dangerous consequences, first all, for people in surrounding of motor and then also for equipment in surrounding of motor.

In relation with start of your motor with lower voltage because you will, on that way, reduce starting current 2 times and starting torque will be 4 times lower than rated torque of your motor. On that way, you will easily start your motor.

AQ: AC induction motor constant power

An AC induction motor is supposed to be a constant power motor, which implies it draws more current on low voltage. Consider a motor running a constant torque load at a particular speed. Suppose now the voltage is reduced, which should cause it to settle down at a lower speed supplying the same torque as per the new torque speed characteristic. If we consider the electrical side, higher slip will cause more current to be drawn that too at higher pf, which should maintain the power justifying the above theory. But on the mechanical side the new output power Torque x speed is supposed to be lesser now as speed is less now. Is it this contradiction?

The following guidelines prove there is no contradiction since your question about Motor under running condition:

1. Torque / Slip characteristic for Induction Motor has three Zones.
a)- Starting Torque @ S=1, selection of this torque depends on the application. The starting should be greater the system torque at time of starting.
b)- Unstable Zone during which acceleration and torque development took place. This zone up to the Max. Torque can be developed.
In this regard, it may be necessary to mention that the seventh harmonics to be considered otherwise crawling / clogging may occur.
c)- Normal Operating Zone. NOZ about which your query raised. NOZ ranged as ” 0 < S< 1″ ie up to the Max. Torque. It is worth mentioning that Max. torque always remain the same regardless to its location of occurrence.

2. The torque is directly proportional to rotor resistance “r2” & varies with slip “S”. hence increase of rotor resistance is the most practical method of changing the torque (ie wound rotor Slip ring Motors). Moreover, the Max torque achieved when rotor Resistance “r2” = The Stator impedance, At starting S=1.

3. Accordingly, the ration r2/x2 gives the location of the max. Torque w.r.t Slip (if the max. torque is required at starting (S=!) then r2/x2 should equal “1”.

4. load being constant. Mechanical output = Electrical input – losses.

5. Tmax Propotional to Sq(v). decrease of 50% of the supply voltage generate a reduction of 20% in the max. running Torque (zone c) , increase in slip and also Full load current and temperature raise increase while the full load speed decrease. the status of the above parameters will be opposite if the voltage increases by 10%.

Based on the above, in all cases since the Motor is running within the operating range will be no issue unless the supply voltage falls behind the above limits (-50%, +110%). Accordingly, variable frequency drives provided by under/Over voltage protection relay to avoid damage to insulation due to Heat/temperature rise that will be generated due to excessive current intend to composite load.

AQ: How to select a drive between motor and machine?

We should select a drive (direct/flexible, chain, flat/vee/ribbed belt, gearbox, soft start). The motor/starter/drive characteristics should match that of the load. Design and factors to be considered in selection.

AQ: VFD replace mechanical gearbox to drive the load

Can an AC drive to replace the mechanical gearbox that used to decrease motor speed in conveyor application i.e to use a motor that will drive the load directly throw a coupling, belt or chain, without gearbox, motor rated up to 18.5 kw.

Theoretical is true as far the speed variation is concerned. Practically is not recommended for your application if the conveyor is required to be used with constant speed, on the other hand the gearbox also used for Torque purposes.

For light conveyors used on packing lines on which rate of production varies in accordance to some industrial parameters (Automation & PID control), direct coupled motor controlled by variable frequency drive may be feasible.

VFD is expensive (capital & running cost) its selectivity should be done carefully among the other available options.

By using a variable frequency drive we can change the speed of an AC Motor, and working for any time on any choosing speed, even in some case we can exceed the speed more than the normal one if the motor can withstand it. Noting that:
1- We should be careful when choosing the type of AC drive that should ne normally done according on the application “Conveyor, Fan, Pump, Compressor, ext ” to determine the torque’s level at running time.
2- In some special case when the motor runs at too low speed comparing by his normal one, maybe we need a forcing cooling for that motor.
3- Each VFD has a value of the Short Circuit’s level that can be withstanded, so, we should be careful of that point.

AQ: Cross regulation for multiple outputs

Cross regulation is a very important component of multiple outputs. This can be done in several ways: transformer coupling, mutually coupled output filter chokes (forward-mode) and/or shared output sensing voltages/currents. All, of which, are impossible to model. I have tried them all.

I have sort of written of the first two off, since it is under the control of external vendors, which make their own decisions as to their most cost effective solutions. At best, transformer solutions yield a +/- 5 percent regulation, and can be many times much worse. .Coupled inductors yield a much better cross regulation, but the turns ratio is critically important. If you are off by one turn, you loose a percentage of efficiency.

Shared current/voltage cross sensing is so much more common sense. First, choose the respective weighing of the percentage of sense currents from each outputs approximately in proportion to their respective output powers. Keep in mind that, without cross-sensing, the unsensed outputs can be as much +/- 12 % out of regulation. Decide your sense current through you lower sense resistor. Then multiply your percentages by this sense current from your positive outputs. Calculate each output’s resistance to provide that respective current. Try it, you will be amazed. The negative outputs will also improve immensely.

One can visualize this by, if one senses only one output, only the load of that output influences the feedback loop, which, for example, increases the pulsewidth for each increase in load of the heavily loaded output. The lighter, unsensed loads go crazy. By cross sensing, the lighter loads are more under control and the percent of regulation of the primary load is loosened somewhat.
By sharing the current through the lower sense resistor, you can improve the regulation of every output voltage in a multiple output power supply.

AQ: Soft start motor tripped in fuel oil suction and discharge

First of all check all the component i.e.CB, CT, Heat Element, and the O/L setting then megger the motor to be shore that there is no problem with the motor winding insulation.
After that let the mechanical check the vibration analyses during the start-up also measure the startup currant of the motor and diffidently you will find where is the problem.
It could be a relay setting; or problem in the insulation; or even a problem in the motor itself.

On the other hand, check the motor on No Load condition and tune it to the Soft starter before coupling it to the pump.
Auto Tuning feature is generally inbuilt to Advanced soft starters.
If the No load startup of the motor is perfect, 2 causes arise:
1) Improper design.
2) Viscosity _ this can be tackled if you can make some temporary arrangement for pre-heating to confirm if this is the culprit.

As using soft starter could result in reducing torque of the motor. Soft starter normally reduces starting current by reducing starting voltage. However, decreasing voltage will lead to starting toque reduction. Hence, the motor may take longer time, especially when driving high-inertia load, with somewhat high current until it reach its full speed. Using an inverter will help you get full starting torque or even boost up it to 150-200% while keeping starting current at 150-200% of full load. Installation of heat tracing might also help and economic.

Assuming it is an electrical problem. On a motor of this size it has separate overload protection from the ground fault and short circuit protection. There are tolerance levels for motor that you may not be within. However a megger will not answer all the possibilities with motors unless you are ready to perform polarization index test etc….A power analyzer will allow you to see the operation in real world application. Assuming you have confirmed this is an electrical problem your next step would be to use a power analyser. You should be able to confirm by the signature and different placements of the analyzer the problem. Analyzer should be around all three phases.

AQ: Popularization of SPICE

I am currently writing a bullet point history of the popularization of SPICE in the engineering community. The emphasis is on the path SPICE has taken to arrive on the most engineering desktops. Because of this emphasis, my history begins with the original Berkeley SPICE variants, continues onto PSpice (its limited, but free student version made SPICE ubiquitous) and culminates with LTspice (because, at over three million downloads, it has reached many more users than all other SPICE variants combined).

I have contacted Dr. Laurence Nagel (the father of Berkeley SPICE) and Mike Engelhardt (LTspice) in order to verify the accuracy of the historical account (haven’t had a chance to fold in Dr. Nagel’s corrections yet), but I am lacking solid information about the beginnings of PSpice (I don’t even know who the technical founders of MicroSim were). Ian Wilson was an early technical V.P. Also, I am not sure what the PSpice acronym means. (Seems to me that it started out as uPspice?)

Here is what I have recently found about PSpice (more info appreciated):

User’s Guide to PSpice, Version 4.05, January 1991
From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.1 Overview, starting with paragraph 2 (page 3):

“PSpice is a member of the SPICE family of circuit simulators. The programs in this family come from the SPICE2 circuit simulation program developed at the University of California at Berkeley during the early 1970’s. The algorithms of PSICE2 were considerably more powerful and faster than their predecessors. The generality and speed of SPICE2 led to its becoming the de facto standard for analog circuit simulation. PSpice uses the same numeric algorithms as SPICE2 and also conforms to the SPICE2 format for input and output files. For more information on SPICE2, see the references listed in section 13.2.1.4 (page 427, especially the thesis by Laurence Nagel.

“PSpice, the first SPICE-based simulator available on the IBM-PC, started being delivered in January of 1984.

“Convergence and performance is what sets PSpice apart from all the other ‘alphabet’ SPICEs. Many SPICE programs became available on the IBM-PC around mid-1985, after Microsoft released their FORTRAN complier version 3.0. For the most part, these SPICEs are little modified from the U.C. Berkeley code. Using benchmark circuits, we find that PSpice runs anywhere from 1.3 to 30 times faster than our imitators. In the area of convergence, PSpice has a two-year lead in improving convergence and a customer base that is larger than all of the other SPICE vendors combined (including those SPICEs offered for workstations and mainframes). This larger customer base provides more feedback, sooner, than any other SPICE program is likely to receive.”

From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.4 Standard Features, last paragraph (page 7):

“PSpice, version 3.00 (Dec. 1986) and later, is a complete re-write of the simulator into the ‘C’ pro-gramming language. It is not a version of SPICE3, from U.C. Berkeley, which is also written in ‘C’. MicroSim has overhauled the data structures and code, however the analog simulation algorithms are similar and the numeric results are consistent with SPICE2 and SPICE3. Having the simulator re-written in ‘C’ allows faster development, allowing our team to reliably modify and extend the simulator in sev-eral directions at once.”

From the January 1987 Newsletter: PSpice went from version 2.06 (Fortran) to version 3.00 (C). Speed increased by 20%. PSpice 3.01 (Dec 86) introduced the non-linear Jiles and Atherton core model.

From the April 1987 Newsletter: PSpice 3.03 (Apr 87) introduced ideal switches.

From the July 1991 Newsletter: PSpice announced Schematics at the June 1991 Design Automation Conference. (Became available when PSpice 5.0 shipped in July 91?)

Solving Differential Equations with Mic

AQ: Improve PF of pumping motor with soft starter controlled

I have 3 pumping motors of 1750 kw 6.6kv, with soft starter they are maintaining a pf of .96-.97. Now I want to install HT capacitors to use these motors in d.o.l, can I take the pf to .99 by using this?

If you are using soft starters now, do not take them out. These are really large motors and starting them across the line is not a good idea. The utility serving you should have designed their service based on you having soft starters for these motors. They probably also have a stipulation stating that you cannot start them all at the same time. Starting one or more them across the line may cause the utility’s transformer fuses to fail. Even if it doesn’t, the flicker may cause other processes in your facility to trip. Especially drives or undervoltage relays in MCC’s.

The only reason to install caps at this point would be to correct for power factor. Since your pf is .96 it will take years if not decades to get a return on your investment (ROI). My utility does not charge a pf penalty until you drop below .90. And even then, it is usually not worth installing a cap bank unless you are under .85 and correct to >.95. Most customers require a 3 to 5 year ROI and you will never get that. We always recommend designing for a .95 pf to leave some “headroom”. So, your existing design sounds like it is correct. Your company may also have a “kva rate” instead of a “kw rate” with the utility. Check with your utility marketing rep to verify what type rate you are own and to help you evaluate your ROI.

Also, when you install a capacitor bank you have to make sure that you do not hit a resonant harmonic frequency. You will have to get the utility involved to give you the short circuit data at the PCC (point of common coupling). If the calculated harmonic resonant point is near the 3,5,7,11 or 13 harmonic, you will need a harmonic filter installed in conjunction with the capacitor bank. That means more money and a longer ROI.

AQ: Simulator history

Power electronics has always provided a special challenge for simulation. As Hamish mentioned above, one of the problems encountered is inductor cutsets, and capacitor loops that lead to numerical instability in the simulation matrices.

In the 80s, Spice ran so slowly that is was not an option unless you wanted to wait hours or days for results, and frequently it failed to converge anyway. It was never intended to handle the large swings of power circuits, and coupled with the numerical problems above, was just not a feasible approach.

Ideal-switch simulations were used with other software to get rid of many of the nonlinearities of devices that slowed simulation down, but Spice really hated ideal switches as it would try to converge on the infinite slope edges.

Three universities started writing specialized software for converter simulation to address this shortcomings of Spice. Virginia Tech had COSMIR, which I helped write with a grad student, Duke University had the program which later became Simplis, and the University of Lowell had their program, the name of which I don’t recall (anyone remember?).

All of these programs started before Windows came along, and they were fast and efficient. With windows, the programming overhead to maintain programs like these moved beyond the scope of what university research groups in power electronics could handle. Only the Duke program survived, with Ron Wong leading the effort at a private company. The achievements of Simplis are remarkable, but it is a massive effort to keep this program going for a relatively small marketplace (power supply companies are notoriously cheap, so the potential market does not get realized), and that keeps the price quite high. If you can afford it, you should have this program.

Spice now runs at a reasonable pace on the latest PCs, so it is back in the game. LT Spice is leading the charge because it is free, and the models are relatively rugged. Now that speed is less of a factor, you can put real switches in, and Spice can handle them in a reasonable amount of time. (Depending on your definition of “reasonable”.)

PSIM was another ideal switch model, and they eliminated the convergence headaches that plagued all the other programs by not having convergence at all. You just cut the step size down to get the accuracy you needed, and this worked fine for exploring power stages and waveforms, but was not good for fast transient feedback loops. As the digital controller people quickly realized, the resolution on the PWM output needed to avoid numerical oscillations is very fine, and PSIM couldn’t handle that without slowing down too much.

When I left Virginia Tech, I felt the bulk of the industry needed a fast simulation and design solution so engineers did not have to add to their burdens with worrying about convergence and other problems. This is a hardware-driven field, and we all have our hands full dealing with real life blowups that simulation just doesn’t begin to predict.

I have observed in teaching over the years that engineers in a hurry to get to the hardware have very little tolerance for waiting for simulation. If you are building a well-known topology, about 2 seconds is as long as they will wait before they become impatient.

This is the gap that POWER 4-5-6 plugs. The simulation is practically instantaneous, and the program has no convergence issues so you design and simulate rapidly before moving to a breadboard. It is intended for the working engineer who is under severe time pressure, but would like some simulation to verify design integrity.