Category: Blog

Home  ›  Blog  ›  Page 18

AQ: What causes VFD driven motor bearing current?

There are several things involved, all with varying degrees of impact.

Large machines are – generally speaking – made of pieces (segments) because the circle for the stator and/or rotor core is too large to manufacture from a single sheet. This leads to some breaks in the magnetic flux path symmetry, both in the radial (right angles to the shaft) and axial (parallel to the shaft) directions.

For the most part, the windings of large machines are formed and installed by hand. This too can lead to symmetry issues, as the current paths are not identical which in turn will create some differences in the magnetic field flux.

Output waveforms from power electronics are only approximations of true sinusoids. The presence of additional harmonics distorts the sinusoidal nature and results in changes that are not symmetric in the magnetic field strength … which in turn means a non-symmetric flux distribution.

Two other items contribute to potentially damaging bearing currents as well. One of these is the Common Mode Voltage which is present (to some degree) in all drives. Essentially this is a signal that is present at both the drive input and output … I tend to think of it as an offset. It’s not something that traditional grounding addresses, and can create an elevated potential in the shaft which then discharges through the bearing path.

A second item is not related to the presence (or absence) of drives at all; it is related to the mechanical arrangement of the process drive train. For example, a shaft that has a sliding seal (like the felt curtain on a dryer section), or one that turns a blade against a gas or liquid (like a compressor) can generate a static charge at the point of contact. If there is no means of isolating this charge to the portion of the shaft where the sliding is occurring, it can pass through to the motor shaft and thence through the motor bearings.

Lastly – the frequency of the variable frequency drive harmonics in the output waveform is significantly higher than line frequency. This requires specific accommodations for grounding as traditional methods are insufficient due to the attenuation caused by the relatively high resistance ground path.

AQ: Avoid voltage drop influence

My cable size and transformer size should give me maximum 3% on the worst 6% to 10%. If it is the single only equipment on the system then maybe you can tolerate 15%. If not, dip factor may affect sensitive equipment and lighting.

This is very annoying for office staff each time a machine starts lights are dimming. It does not matter what standard you quote I cannot accept 10%- 15% make precise calculation and add a 10% tolerance to avoid.

In most cases, this problem comes from cable under sizing so we have to settle with a Standard giving 15% Max.

Just recently I had to order a transformer and cable change for a project which was grossly undersized.
I have had to redesign the electrical portion of a conveyor and crushing system to bring the system design into compliance with applicable safety codes. The site was outdoor at a mine in Arizona where ambient temperatures reach 120F. The electrical calculation and design software did not include any derating of conductor sizes for cable spacing and density within cable trays, number of conductors per raceway, ambient temperature versus cable temperature rating, etc. Few of the cables had been increased in size to compensate for voltage drop between the power source and the respective motor or transformer loads.

Feeder cables to remote power distribution centers were too small, as voltage drop had not been incorporated in the initial design. The voltage drop should not be greater than 3%, as there will be other factors of alternating loads, system voltage, etc. that may result in an overall drop of 5%.

The electrical system had to be re-designed with larger cables, transformer, MCCS, etc, as none of the design software factors in the required deratings specified in the National Electric Code NFPA70 nor the Canadian Electric Code, which references the NEC.

AQ: Experience: Flyback

My first SMPS design was a multiple output flyback. This was in 1976, when there were no PWM controllers. So I used a 556 (1/2 osc -30 kHz, and 1/2 PWM generator) plus used a 3904 NPN where the VBE was the reference and also provided gain for the error amp function. I hap-hazardly wound the windings on a 25 mm torroid. It ranglike a tank circuit. I quickly abandoned the transformer and after a year, and many hours on the bench, I had a production-grad SMPS.
Since it went into a private aircraft weather reader system, I needed an exterier SMPS which was a buck converter. I used an LM105 linear regulator with positive feedback to make it oscillate (one of nationals ap notes). It worked, but I soon learned that the electrolytic capacitors lost all of their capacitance at -25 deg C. It later worked with military-grade capacitors.

I had small hills of dead MOSFETs and the directly attached controllers. When the first power MOSFETs emerged in 1979, I blew-up so many that I almost wrote them off. They had some real issues with D-S voltage overstress. They have come a long way since.

As far as very wide range flyback converter, please dig-up AN1327 on the ONSEMI website. This describes a control strategy (fixed off-time, variable on-time) and the transformer design.
The processor to that was a 3W flyback that drove 3 floating gate drive circuits and had an input range of 85 VAC to 576 VAC. It was for a 3 phase industrial motor drive. The toughest area was the transformer. To meet the isolation requirements of the UL, and IEC, it would have required a very large core, and bobbin plus a lot of tape. The PCB had the dimensions of 50 mm x 50 mm and 9 mm thick A magnetics designer named Jeff Brown from Cramerco.com is now my magnetics God. He designed me a custom core and bobbin that was 10 mm high on basically an EF15 sized core. The 3 piece bobbin met all of the spacing requirements without tape. The customer was expecting a 2 – 3 tier product offering for the different voltage ranges, but instead could offer only one. They were thrilled.

Can be done, watch your breakdown voltages, spacings and RMS currents. I found that around 17 -20 watts is about the practical limit for an EF40 core before the transformer RMS currents get too high.

AQ: Impedance analyzer

A graphical impedance analyzer with good phase resolution is a must. Some brands have all the bells and whistles, but not the phase resolution necessary to accurately measure high Q (100+) components over the instrument’s full frequency range (which should extend at least into the low megahertz). Of course the Agilent 4294A fills the performance bill, but with a $40k+ purchase bill, it also empties the budget (like similar high end new models from Wayne Kerr). Used models from Wayne Kerr work very well, and can be had for under $10K but they are very heavy and clunky with very ugly (but still useable) displays.

Perhaps the best value may be the Hioki IM3570, which works extremely well with superior phase resolution, has a very nice color touch screen display (with all the expected engineering graphing formats), is compact and lightweight, and costs around $10k new. Its only downside is that its fan is annoyingly loud and does not reduce its noise output during instrument idle.

But where should an impedance analyzer rank on the power electronics design engineer’s basic equipment list (and why)?

Beyond the basic lower cost necessities such as DMMs, bench power supplies, test leads, soldering stations, etcetera, I would rank a good impedance analyzer second only to a good oscilloscope. The impedance analyzer allows one to see all of a component’s secondary impedance characteristics and to directly compare similar components. Often overlooked is the information such an instrument can provide by examining component assemblies in situ in a circuit board assembly. Sometimes this can be very revealing of hidden, but influential layout parasitics.

Equally importantly, an impedance analyzer allows accurate SPICE models to be quickly formulated so that simulation can be used as a meaningful design tool. Transformer magnetizing and leakage inductances can be measured as well as inter-winding capacitance and frequency dependent resistive losses. From these measurements and with proper technique, a model can be formulated that nearly exactly matches the real part. Not only does this allow power circuits and control loops to be initially designed entirely by simulation (under the judicious eye of experience, of course), but it even allows one to effectively simulate the low frequency end of a design’s EMI performance.

AQ: Maximum permissible value of grounding resistance

For grounding in the US it typically goes like this: Utility transformer has one ground rod. Then from the utility to the building you typically have three phase conductors and one neutral/ground conductor landing on the main panel with the utility meter. At that point we drive a ground rod. And we bond the ground rod to the water pipes (generally). And we bond the ground rod to the building steel (generally). Water pipes are generally very well connected to ground and the building steel is a nice user ground. With all these connections you typically have a good ground reference. Now, if that utility neutral wire is bad or too small, then you can have poor reference to ground between phases (a normal sign of that is flickering lights even when the load is not changing much).

Grounding impedance of the transformer and building ground rods is mainly for voltage stabilization and under normal conditions should have nothing to do with our return ground fault current. See NEC 250.1 (5) “The earth shall not be considered as an effective ground-fault current path.”

Let’s say we have a system with the building transformer and panel to ground impedance of 1000 ohms (we built this place on solid rock). Okay, we have a poor 277V reference and we will have flickering lights (that 277 voltage will bounce all over the place). But now, in our system above, if we take a phase wire and connect it to a motor shell, which is also connected to our grounding wire, will the upstream breaker trip? The answer is yes. If our phase-to-ground fault impedance is low we will trip the upstream feeder breaker no matter what the main panel ground rod impedance is. My point here is that is does not matter what our transformer grounding is or what our panel grounding is (ground rod is not important in this case). The breaker must trip because our circuit is complete between the phase conductor and the transformer wye leg.

As long as we have a utility main transformer to panel neutral conductor of proper size to handle our fault current and we size our grounding conductors properly and they are properly connected at each subpanel and each motor in our case, we will apply nearly full phase to ground voltage because our real ground fault path is from that motor, through the grounding conductor, through our sub panels, to our main panel, than back to the transformer. That ground current must flow through our building grounding conductor to the main panel and back to the transformer through that utility neutral wire which is connected to the wye leg of the transformer. And it does not matter what the transformer to ground rod connection is. We could take that out the transformer to ground rod connection and the main panel to ground rod connection completely and we are still connecting that phase wire, through the motor metal to the grounding conductor back to the wye leg of that utility transformer, which will complete our electrical circuit. Current will flow and the breaker will trip.

AQ: Experience: Design

I tell customers that at least 50% of the design effort is the layout and routing by someone who knows what they are doing. Layer stackup is very critical for multiple layer designs. Yes, a solid design is required. But the perfect design goes down in flames with a bad layout. Rudy Severns said it best in one of his early books that you have to “think RF” when doing a layout. I have followed this philosophy for years with great success. Problems with a layout person who wants to run the auto route or doesn’t understand analog layout? No problem, you, as the design engineer, do not have to release the design until it is to your satisfaction.

I have had Schottky diodes fail because the PIV was exceeded due to circuit inductance causing just enough of a very high frequency ring (very hard to see on a scope) to exceed the PIV. Know your circuit Z’s, keep your traces short and fat.

Fixed a number of problems associated with capacitor RMS ratings on AC to DC front ends. Along with this is the peak inrush current for a bridge rectifier at turn on and, in some cases, during steady state. Unit can be turned on at the 90 deg phase angle into a capacitive load. This must be analyzed with assumptions for input resistance and/or a current inrush circuit must be added.

A satellite power supply had 70 deg phase margin on the bench, resistive load, but oscillated on the real load. Measured the loop using the AP200 on the load and the phase margin was zero. Test the power supply on the real load before going to production and then a random sampling during the life of the product.

I used MathCAD for designs until the average models came out for SMPS. Yes, the equations are nice to see and work with but they are just models none the less. I would rather have PsPice to the math while I pay attention to the models used and the overall design effort. Creating large closed form equations is wrought with pitfalls, trapdoors, and landmines. Plus, hundreds of pages of MathCAD, which I have done, is hard to sell to the customer during a design review (most attendees drift off after page 1). The PsPice schematics are more easily sold and then modified as needed with better understanding all around.

AQ: Paralleling IGBT modules

I’m not sure why the IGBTs would share the current since they’re paralleled, unless external circuitry (series inductance, resistance, gate resistors) forces them to do so?

I would be pretty leery of paralleling these modules. As far as the PN diodes go, reverse recovery currents in PN diodes (especially if they are hard switched to a reverse voltage) are usually not limited by their internal semiconductor operation until they reach “soft recovery” (the point where the reverse current decays). They are usually limited by external circuitry (resistance, inductance, IGBT gate resistance). A perfect example: the traditional diode reverse recovery measurement test externally limits the reversing current to a linear falling ramp by using a series inductance. If you could reverse the voltage across the diode in a nanosecond, you would see an enormous reverse current spike.

Even though diode dopings are pretty well controlled these days, carrier lifetimes are not necessarily. Since one diode might “turn off” (go into a soft reverse current decreasing ramp, where the diode actually DOES limit its own current) before the other, you may end up with all the current going through one diode for a least a little while (the motor will look like an inductor, for all intents and purposes, during the diode turn-off). Probably better to control the max diode current externally for each driver.

Paralleling IGBT modules where the IGBT but not the diode has a PTC is commonly done at higher powers. I personally have never done more than 3 x 600A modules in parallel but if you look at things like high power wind then things get very “interesting”. It is all a matter of analysis, good thermal coupling, symmetrical layout and current de-rating. Once you get too many modules in parallel then the de-rating gets out of hand without some kind of passive or active element to ensure current sharing. Then you know it is time to switch to a higher current module or a higher voltage lower current for the same power. The relative proportion of switching losses vs conduction losses also has a big part to play.

AQ: Is it worth to built-in batteries in electric cars

Energy storage is the issue. Can we make batteries or super caps or some other energy storage technique that will allow an electric car to have a range of 300-500 miles. Motors and drives are already very efficient, so there is not much to be gained by improving their efficiency. As far as converting the entire fleet of cars to electric, I don’t expect to see this happen any time soon. The USA has more oil than all the rest of the world put together. We probably have enough to last 1000 years. Gasoline and diesel engines work very well for automobiles and trucks and locomotives. The USA also has a huge supply of coal, which is a lot cheaper than oil. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for two reasons: Coal is much cheaper than oil, and the coal fired power plants have an efficiency of about 50%. Gasoline engines in cars have a thermal efficiency of about 17%. Diesel locomotives have an efficiency of 50%+.

I don’t believe the interchangeable battery pack idea is workable. Who is going to own the battery packs and build the charging stations? And what happens if you get to a charging station with a nearly dead battery and there is no charged battery available?

Who is going to build the charging stations; the most logical answer is the refueling station owners as an added service. The more important question is about ownership of the batteries. If as an standard, all batteries are of same size, shape, connectors as well as Amp-Hour (or kWh) rating and a finite life time, lets say 1000 recharging. The standard batteries may have an embedded recharge counter. The electric car owners should pay the service charges plus cost of the kWh energy plus 1/1000 of the battery cost. By that, you pay for the cost of new batteries once you buy or convert to an electric car and then you pay the depreciation cost. This means you always own a new battery. The best probable owner of the batteries should be the battery suppliers or a group or union of them (like health insurance union). The charging stations collecting the depreciation cost should pass it on to the battery suppliers union. Every time a charging station get a dead battery or having its recharge counter full, they will return it to the union and get it replaced with a new one. So, as an owner of electric car you don’t need to worry about how old or new replacement battery you are getting from the charging station. You will always get a fully charged battery in exchange. The charging stations get their energy cost plus their service charges and the battery suppliers get the price of their new battery supplies.

Buddies, these are just some wild ideas and I am sure someone will come up with a better and more workable idea. And we will see most of the cars on our roads without any carbon emission.

AQ: Power supply prototypes is the best way to learn it

I have been designing power supplies for over 15 years now. We do mostly off line custom designs ranging from 50 to 500W. Often used in demanding environments such as offshore and shipping.
I think we are the lucky ones who got the chance to learn designing power supplies using the simple topologies like a flyback or a forward converter. If we wanted to make something fancy we used a push-pull or a half bridge.

Nowadays, straight out of school you get to work on a resonant converter, working with variable frequency control. Frequencies are driven up above 250kHz to make it fit in a matchbox, still delivering 100W or more. PCB layouts get almost impossible to make if you also have to think about costs and manufacturability.
Now the digital controllers are coming into fashion. These software designers know very little about power electronics and think they can solve every problem with a few lines of code.

But I still think the best way to learn is to start at the basics and do some through testing on the prototypes you make. In my department we have a standard test program to check if the prototype functions according to the specifications (Design Verification Tests), but also if all parts are used within their specifications (Engineering Verification Tests). These tests are done at the limits of input voltage range and output power. And be aware that the limit of the output power is not just maximum load, but also overload, short circuit and zero load! Start-up and stability are tested at low temperature and high temperature.

With today’s controllers the datasheets seem to get ever more limited in information, and the support you get from the FAE’s is often very disappointing. Sometime ago I even had one in the lab who sat next to me for half a day to solve a mysterious blow up of a high side driver. At the end of the day he thanked me, saying he had learned a lot!
Not the result I was hoping for.

AQ: Conditional stability

Conditional stability, I like to think about it this way:

The ultimate test of stability is knowing whether the poles of the closed loop system are in the LHP. If so, it is stable.

We get at the poles of the system by looking at the characteristic equation, 1+T(s). Unfortunately, we don’t have the math available (except in classroom exercises) we have an empirical system that may or may not be reduced to a mathematical model. For power supplies, even if they can be reduced to a model, it is approximate and just about always has significant deviations from the hardware. That is why measurements persist in this industry.

Nyquist came up with a criterion for making sure that the poles are in the LHP by drawing his diagram. When you plot the vector diagram of T(s) is must not encircle the -1 point.

Bode realized that the Nyquist diagram was not good for high gain since it plotted a linear scale of the magnitude, so he came up with his Bode plot which is what everyone uses. The Bode criteria only says that the phase must be above -180 degrees when it crosses over 0 dB. There is nothing that says it can’t do that before 0 dB.

If you draw the Nyquist diagram of a conditionally stable system, you’ll see it doesn’t surround the -1 point.

If you like, I can put some figures together. Or maybe a video would be a good topic.

All this is great of course, but it’s still puzzling to think of how a sine wave can chase itself around the loop, get amplified and inverted, phase shifted another 180 degrees, and not be unstable!

Having said all this about Nyquist, it is not something I plot in the lab. I just use it as an educational tool. In the lab, in courses, or consulting for clients, the Bode plot of gain and phase is what we use.