Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations IDS on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

running generators at very low ( <0.7) PF 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

emmjea001

Electrical
Jul 17, 2013
24
Dear Members,

Please can I ask you to consider a technical query. Say there are generator sets rated at 1250kVA before de-rating. After de-rating they available power on site is: 912.5kVA and 730kW at 0.8 PFC, so for both units this is 1825kVA and 1460kW.

Now currently the plant maximum load (actually only the peak MD) is 1465kVA, as measured off the utility meter, and at 0.98 PF, as the PFC units are operating. When the generators run the PFC units are dropped out, and the uncorrected PF is about 0.72.

So 1465kVA at 0.98 is 1435 KW of "real load", which worked back again at 0.72 is 1994 kVA.

Please comment on the following points - if you can below each actual point this would be helpful.

1. the de-rated actual engine power available on site is as per the de-rated value of 1460kW, and the plant at the MD full load is 1435, so actually this is quiet close to the prime rating, and although there would appear to be lots of "room" if you look at the kVA values - i.e. Generator Capacity of 1825 kVA versus actual of 1465 kVA - this is at 0.98 PF, where-as in fact the 1825 kVA is only the value at 0.8 kVA, and if you were to run the sets at 0.98 PF you would only have an output of 1460kW (the de-rated on site kW power) x 1/0.98 = 1490kVA - do I have this correct? (it always amazes me how the simple concept of PF and kW and kVA every now and again "undoes" me!)

2. From this, if I go back to the actual load, which in kW is 1435 kW, at 0.72 PF this is 1994 kVA - which is over the rating - however, so long as the engine is not overloaded, which we assume it is not as it is rated prime at 1460kW, and we have peak of 1435kW (and constant around the 1350kW range), then all we have to worry about is the current rating of the alternator - is this correct?

3. following above, if we look at the 1994 kVA value, I do not believe this is actually over the rated values for the alternator, as you should not have to de-rate the alternator for altitude, and so its full data sheet rating of 1250 kVA should apply / for each alternator, which is 2500kVA. which is comfortably above the 1994kVA - is this correct?

4. in fact, the case could be made that at an unchanging real load of 1435 kW, all the way down to a hypothetical worst case value of PF = 0.57 which would yield at load of 2490kVA, the sets should be ok, and there is no need to look at running them on a corrected PF scheme.

Your technical comment and further advice on the above will be appreciated.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Some basic principals you likely already know:
The KW rating is based soley on driver horsepower. If the load demands more KW than the driver can put out, the throttle goes wide open, and the driver slows down - frequency goes down.

The KVA rating is based on the ability of the alternator to reject heat. As the load goes to a high KVA (low pf - KW remaining unchanged), output voltage drops. So, the rotor current has to go up to maintain the output voltage. So, low pf (lagging) pushes up the output current, and causes the rotor current to increase. For normal generators, KVA ratings are always reduced below .8pf lagging.

Do you have a copy of the generator capability curve? It will give operating envelope for KW, KVA, pf (lead and lag)

second question: Why are the generators derated?

It would help to have those two before continuing.

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
Thanks,

- I am derating due to Altitude and temperature
- the attached data sheet refers

However, aside from the above, confirm my assumptions or logic are ok - in that the alternator is effectively oversized anyway, and so with the low PF I should not have to worry?

Regards
 
 https://drive.google.com/a/tribology.biz/file/d/0B4aRIkFH8AcmV3lCQWR5YnI5dHM/edit?usp=sharing
You have referenced a derating chart from Stamford which details generator-end derating for temperature and altitude. Why would you think that this applies to the engine???
The inlet air filters refer to inlet cooling air for the generator-end, not the engine air intake.
The engine manufacturer will supply information for engine derating which will affect the kW capability only.
The rated KVA of a generator end changes as the rated voltage changes. Safest is to determine the maximum safe current subject to appropriate derating. Do not exceed that current.
Example: A genset is rated for 100 KVA at 240 Volts three phase. Rated current is 100,000/(1.73 x 240V) = 241 Amps.
Now the set is used on a 208 Volt circuit. We cannot exceed the 241 Amps so the new KVA rating is 241 A x 208 V x 1.73 = 87 KVA.
Bottom line: Do not exceed rated (derated) Amps.
If you use Volts times Amps to determine the KVA for safe operating you must use the Voltage rating that the nameplate KVA was rated at, not the actual working voltage.
On a larger set you may wish to check the capability curve. Full KVA at very low power factors may result in overheating the field windings due to high levels of excitation and may not be allowed by the capability curve.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Thanks waross,

The attachment as you correctly say is for the alternator, I did not use this for the re-rating, I used the engine sheet (which I did not attach, as no need, I am happy with engine re-rating)

I attached the alternator sheet as iceworm asked for it to have a look for the capability curves, and this is the only data sheet / info I have on the alternator - hence as he asked for it, I attached it in answer to his request - trust that explains things?

Regards
 
I can't see your file. It is a problem with my operating system - not your's. But I'll get a look at it tonight. So, I can't tell if you have the generator capacity curve. It will look like the attached file.

If you don't have the gen capability curve - you really need it. Recommend calling the mfg. They will sent you one - probably email attachment

emmjea001 said:
The attachment as you correctly say is for the alternator, I did not use this for the re-rating, I used the engine sheet
I don't know what this means. Are the numbers you gave for rated output (912.5kVA and 730kW at 0.8) derived from derated engine output and don't take into account the reduced cooling of the alternator? This could be a foolish question and if I could see your attachment it would be clear. Well, tonight.

Considering the poor uncorrected pf, you must be islanded and not connected to a grid. And your loaded to 98% of the rated kw. That's amazing. Usually, the only times I have seen this is seconds before the gen goes down on UF.

I don't want to comment any more until I can see your data sheet.

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=d7965f90-583e-4418-8974-7f145a275268&file=t030-chp5-pt2.jpg
However, aside from the above, confirm my assumptions or logic are ok - in that the alternator is effectively oversized anyway, and so with the low PF I should not have to worry?
Not quite. Do a proper generator-end de-rate based on local conditions and the data sheets that you posted. Low power factor affects the Kw but not the KVA. It is possible to have rated KVA at zero power factor.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Thanks for the input iceworm and waross,

Maybe I can just clear the de-rating issue as this seems to be clouding things somewhat and detracting from what I think are the core issues. So the sets have been de-rated by 17%, I got this figure from 8% on the engine, based on the engine de-rate curves for altitude and temp, and I was aggressive on temp, i.e. ambient is max 35 deg C, but I used 40. Then the looked at alternator re-rate, and this was 5% as the set has air filters and is not an open set, then a further 3% for altitude, so say another 8%, so together this is 16%, now I re-rated by 17%. The sets are rated Prime with 10% OL for an hour.

I have re-linked the data sheet for the alternator using the engineering.com. hope this helps you view it? I do not have a capability curve plot like the one you provided, the attached file is all I have at present.

If I can summarise; this whole query started out with me being asked if the low PF when these units run in Island Mode was going to lead to an OL - so I posted this query to confirm that there is no point in trying to run the units with the automatic PFC units connected, as correcting the PF is not actually going to do anything - this is still a point I would like a view on?

Now, the second issue, as you have correctly noted, is one of the load - yes it is high/ close to the max, and I have attached the current load profile as well, and from this you can see that it is only the odd peak which is hitting the plus 1400kVA level, the averaged base load is around the 1370 mark - so still high and not ideal, but as the sets are existing and are for back-up purposes, my thoughts are that:

- they are rated Prime
- with aggressive (in my view) de-rating they have 1460kW available and 10% available as OL for one hour
- so with average full load around 1340 (kW) this is 90% loaded, with the 10% overload taking caring of the odd MD spike

So bottom line is an effective loading of 90% of available capacity - so, yes, tight, but it should not really be an issue assuming no further load growth? Would you agree, or would you start panicking?

Thanks again for the time
,

 
1 Gen set rated at 1250 KVA
2 Genset rated at 1000 kW
3 Engine de-rated 8% Genset de-rated to 92% of 1000 kW = 920 kW. (for two sets, 1840 kW)
4 Generator-end de-rated 8% Genset de-rated to 92% of 1250 KVA = 964 KVA (for two sets, 1928 KVA)
Engine de-rating applies to kilo-Watts only.
Generator-end derating applies to Kilo-Volt-Amps only
After de-rating kilo-Watts must not be more than Kilo-Volt-Amps.
The peak KVA loading is over the de-rated capacity of the sets but within the 10% overload capability. It may be well to evaluate the number of hours a day the sets may run into the 10% overload range.
then all we have to worry about is the current rating of the alternator - is this correct?
Over current is overheat. Overheat is shortened lifespan.
Generators don't like a lot of capacitors, but you may try putting enough capacity online to raise the power factor enough to drop the current below the danger point. I would consider fixed rather than automatic correction. Possibly bring the PF up to around 80%. I would try to avoid automatic capacitor switching on the gensets.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Adding to waross comments - which are excellent:
emmjea001 said:
this whole query started out with me being asked if the low PF when these units run in Island Mode was going to lead to an OL - so I posted this query to confirm that there is no point in trying to run the units with the automatic PFC units connected, as correcting the PF is not actually going to do anything

The files you attached do not give any indication of the alternator capability at the elevated ambient.

From your data, the best I can say is the gen is operating within the generator capability curve IF the pfc caps are on-line. If the pfc caps are off-line, the gen is operating outside of rated kvar limits. For an example, see the attached a generic capacity curve wuth two operating points that may fit your explanation.

Assuming I understand your comments/explanation, you have derated the gen to a conservative limit. And now you wish to operate the gen outside of these limits. Reasoning being, "it's okay. I set the limits really conservative." Respectfully, it is a bit sloppy to come up with a set of ratings and then later say - Oh they don't count. They are really conservative. It appears that the reason for the change is: it is not convenient to operate with the pfc on-line.

If I were the one asking I'd say, 'Great, send me a memo showing the revised ratings.'

Is there some reason you are reluctant to call the mfg and ask for a capacity curve? These gens are likely in the $1M range each and you are operating near 100%. I would not be paniced, but I would be damned sure I did my homework and had an excellent defenseable position for when they do exhibit shortened life.

ice



Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=ef65074d-de77-4461-8db5-ef20b3bb67f7&file=capability_curve.pdf
Additional thought:
What say the winding RTDs? Winding temp is really the concern here. They should be wired into the protective relay - an alarm at minimum, trip likely.

Most gens this size will have the the RTDs - probably bearing RTDs as well. If you don't have a monitor probably should consider getting one.

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
Thanks again both waross and iceworm, very helpful comments, and a bit of feedback ...

- no reluctance at all to call mfg and had already asked them for the curve when u mentioned it - yet to get a response, but in the interim, wanted to carry on with my line of questioning...
- de-rating engine side and gen side separately, got it thanks, and an obvious school boy error, now I think about it...
- windings do have fuse-able links for monitoring winding temp, and interlocked to shut-down
- there are 3 banks of PF capacitors on the site - currently they are wired to drop out when in island mode, so if I wanted to improve the PF, the practical way to do it would be to only inhibit say 1 or 2, and leave the other one "in" - it would be in automode, by I would expect it to bring all caps in, and for them to stay in (this is in reference to waroos comment about not bringing caps in and out, but to be honest to try have auto PFC while on utility, then it drops out and fixed PFC comes in when on Gen is a bit of a story). Now when you ask if it is more convenient to run without PFC, it is not a big deal to allow 1 or 2 of the banks to continue to operate this is true only because the mfg seems to think you should never have PFC equipment connected to generators, but my position was , well it is only a problem if you run the risk of a leading PF, in this case it will be clearly lagging, and about 0.8 or 0.85 maximum, so to me this should not be an issue
 
emmjea001 said:
windings do have fuse-able links for monitoring winding temp, and interlocked to shut-down
I don't know what these are. How do they work? Is there a readout for the winding temperature?

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
Haven't actually seen fusable links but they are electrical links installed like fuses except they melt at a specified temperature and are thus in dependant of electrical load so to speak they can operate due to failed cooling. Normally on the rotor.

I am on the road at the moment but will try to find my explanation on the capability curves. The load will heat the stator and the excitation will heat the rotor if incorrect and trying to correct low .pf.
 
I have tried to upload a sketch that I made. I call them cicle diagrams but they are your stability curves. You were asking about a bad power factor. The center vertical line origin has a semi circle from a centre point on the lower left. This is unity power factor. The horizontal lines are lines of constant power. If you are running on the turbine limit, the top most red line and the power factor gets worse and worse, you will move further to the right and the exciter will be over excited until you reach the rotor excitation limit. As this stage the rotor will start over heating. On my drawing the alternator design point is at 0.8 power factor. This is a point where the stator current and rotor current are max and the turbine is a maximum power. If you venture out side the red area your alternator and turbine can beocme unstable.I hope this helps. If the sketch does not come through, can someone please let me know. Thanks.
 
 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=4ecfcf15-926f-44d5-abd5-2c8d62c07ab1&file=Alternator_Control_notes_Circle_diagram.pdf
squeeky
If you need a generic generator capability curve, perhaps the one I attached to my 17 Jan 14 13:51 post will help.

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
Whoops - hit the submit too soon

Your's looks fine

ice

Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
 
I am still waiting on the manufacturer to provide the capability curves, and to explain why they have given a very generic "our application engineers stated the sets should not be run with PFC equipment connected"... anyway, aside from this, I have another question I do not quite know how to deal with...

the control is currently set-up so a signal is sent to drop off the PFC when the main generator feeder breaker closes, and then on return the opposite. However, given that we want these sets to sync to the grid for a soft change over and restore (no break make and return) how exactly does one handle the control logic here? What we want to avoid is on return to utility, the customer meter "seeing" the 0.72 PF, as this will cause a massive spike in their MD charge for the month?

Any input as to how this is normally handled, will be much appreciated.

(PS - if any one feels this should be a separate thread/ query, let me know, and I'll re-post as such)

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor