ieee industrial electronics conference (iecon2016) - dialogue session

1
The 42 nd Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON’2016) Palazzo dei Congressi Firenze (Florence) - Italy October 24-27, 2016 Abstract Power electronic interfaces Results Evaluation of different power electronic interfaces for control of a rotating brushless PM exciter Jonas Kristiansen Nøland 1,2 , Fredrik Evestedt 1 , J. José Pérez-Loya 1 , Johan Abrahamsson 1 and Urban Lundin 1 1 Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity, Uppsala University, Uppsala 751 21, Sweden (e-mail: [email protected]) 2 Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Department of Engineering, University College of Southeast Norway, 3184 Borre, Norway (e-mail: [email protected]) A passive diode bridge is commonly used as the rotating interface on conventional brushless excitation systems. Those systems are known to be slow dynamically, since they cannot control the generator field voltage directly. Wirelessly controlled power electronic interfaces on the shaft makes the brushless excitation system comparable to the static excitation system. A proper interface should be selected. This paper investigates torque ripple, power factor and ceiling voltage capability at the nominal working point, for the proposed interfaces of study. Constructed outer pole PM exciter with synchronous generator below Instantaineous torque with 50A excitation current through the field winding Interface A: Thyristor-based Interface B: Chopper-based Interface C: Electrical drive Conclusion Interface C produces sinusoidal current waveforms, the highest ceiling voltage factor, unity power factor and the lowest torque ripple. Interface B seems to be the best power electronic solution for the designed PM exciter, yielding a compromise between complexity and performance. It has a huge benefit regarding few active switches and the lack of need of a triggering circuit for the rectification of the armature voltages. However, interface A lacks the need of a rotating capacitor, yielding increased reliability. Phase currents with 50A excitation current through the field winding STEADY STATE PERFORMANCE OF THE DIFFERENT INTERFACES Experimental setup: a) test-rig, b) external inductor, c) CAD

Upload: jonas-kristiansen-noland

Post on 18-Jan-2017

82 views

Category:

Engineering


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: IEEE Industrial Electronics Conference (IECON2016) - Dialogue Session

The 42nd Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society

(IECON’2016)Palazzo dei Congressi

Firenze (Florence) - ItalyOctober 24-27, 2016

Abstract

Power electronic interfaces

Results

Evaluation of different power electronic interfaces for control of a rotating brushless PM exciterJonas Kristiansen Nøland1,2, Fredrik Evestedt1, J. José Pérez-Loya1, Johan Abrahamsson1 and Urban Lundin1

1 Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity, Uppsala University, Uppsala 751 21, Sweden (e-mail: [email protected])2 Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Department of Engineering, University College of Southeast Norway, 3184 Borre, Norway (e-mail: [email protected])

A passive diode bridge is commonly used as the rotating interface on conventionalbrushless excitation systems. Those systems are known to be slow dynamically, since they cannot control the generator field voltage directly. Wirelessly controlledpower electronic interfaces on the shaft makes the brushless excitation system comparable to the static excitation system. A proper interface should be selected. This paper investigates torque ripple, power factor and ceiling voltagecapability at the nominal working point, for the proposed interfaces of study.

Constructed outer pole PM exciterwith synchronous generator below

Instantaineous torque with 50A excitation current through the field winding

Interface A: Thyristor-based

Interface B: Chopper-based

Interface C: Electrical drive

Conclusion

• Interface C produces sinusoidal current waveforms, the highest ceiling voltage factor, unity power factorand the lowest torque ripple.

• Interface B seems to be the best power electronicsolution for the designed PM exciter, yielding a compromise between complexity and performance. It has a huge benefit regarding few active switches and the lack of need of a triggering circuit for therectification of the armature voltages.

• However, interface A lacks the need of a rotatingcapacitor, yielding increased reliability.

Phase currents with 50A excitation current through the field winding

STEADY STATE PERFORMANCE OF THE DIFFERENT INTERFACES

Experimental setup: a) test-rig, b) external inductor, c) CAD