Reactive power sharing in ship

energy systems with shaft

generators
JM Prousalidis, E Xanthopoulos and K Voutzoulidis, National Technical University of Athens,
School of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering
This paper deals with the well-based mathematical formulation of active and reactive
load sharing of the synchronised generators of a ships electric energy system. Thus, both
the first- and second-stage regulation during load sharing is presented via mathematical
equations. The novelty introduced in the paper is, on the one hand, that the hybrid
parallel operation of shaft and conventional generators is covered, while on the other
hand, that the analysis results in solving the combined reactive and real load sharing
within the generator rated capacity. Furthermore, the dynamic behaviour of the ma-
chines and their controllers during the load sharing problem is also discussed with the
aid of simulations in the MATLAB/Simulink environment. The entire analysis, which it is
hoped can also be used for educational purposes, is enriched by figurative results
obtained from an actual ship case study, in which this work assisted in resolving a series
of load sharing problems
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES
Dr J Prousalidis (Electrical Engineer from NTUA/1991, PhD
from NTUA/1997) is Assistant Professor at the School of
Naval and Marine Engineering at the National Technical
University of Athens, dealing with electric energy systems
and electric propulsion schemes in shipboard installations.
E Xanthopoulos and K Voutzoulidis are graduate students
of the School of Naval and Marine Engineering at the
National Technical University of Athens. Their scientific in-
terests include marine electrical engineering issues.
INTRODUCTION
L
oad sharing among the shipboard generator sets is
considered to be a well-defined and rather simple
practice. However, this is erroneous: several pro-
blems can be encountered in an actual ships elec-
trical power grid if proper attention has not been paid at the
design and trials stages. These problems increase if reactive
load sharing is sought and especially so in ships where
modern shaft generator systems with power electronic con-
verters are installed.
1,2
In this paper, a thorough theoretical
analysis of the load sharing problem in its entirety is pre-
sented, highlighting the differences between conventional
and shaft diesel generators. The mathematical formulation
of the so-called primary and secondary regulation in terms
of active and reactive load sharing among all generators
during a load change, is presented.
This analysis is supported by simulations on a two-stage
approach. At the first stage, the so-called static problem is
faced, with the load sharing problem considered without
any time constants. At this stage, the significance of having
well-tuned load sharing is highlighted. At the second stage,
the complete dynamic problem is faced, taking into ac-
count the dynamic response of all generator systems in-
volved, including main electric machine dynamics, as well
as those of the speed and voltage controllers. In this latter
case, the problem is solved via the MATLAB/Simulink
3
computer simulation tool. Two different sub-groups of pro-
blems are studied, ie, load sharing in the cases of making
and braking a passive load and a large power motor, respec-
tively.
The work presented in this paper has been provoked by
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 21
an actual case study of a ships electrical power system
comprising both shaft and conventional generators operating
in parallel. In this case the generators did not share either
active or reactive load in the manner required by the appro-
priate standards.
The source programs developed during this study are
intended to be used for educational purposes as a tangible
tool to help students understand the load sharing problems
of synchronised generators.
SHAFT GENERATORS WITH DC LINK
AND CONDENSER
Shaft generators (SGs) have long been exploited, in both
commercial and warship applications, as they can produce
significant amounts of electric energy and take advantage
of a ships main propulsion engines at very low cost.
2
Thus,
in certain cases, one shaft generator can cover the energy
demands of the entire ship without the dedicated generator
sets being used. As the main engine rotates at a variable
speed range, the frequency output of the SG is not constant.
In most configurations, this problem is resolved by a dc
link, ie, a power electronic device comprising a rectifier in
series with an inverter (Fig 1) which transforms the electric
power output of the SG into constant frequency and voltage.
This is the scheme that will be considered in this paper as it
is the one most often used in applications of parallel opera-
tion of conventional diesel generating sets with shaft gener-
ating systems.
Before power electronics had been developed to suffi-
cient capacity, several other solutions to the variable electric
frequency (and perhaps voltage) problem were applied, such
as:
the variable rotation speed was stabilised by rather
complicated (and therefore expensive) gearboxes
the main engine speed was kept constant, while the
ships controllable pitch propeller provided the control
of ships speed (this also had significant increased cost)
the variable frequency of the SG was used to supply an
independent electric system comprising loads insensi-
tive to frequency variations.
Nevertheless, due to the presence of the dc link, the SG can
supply the ship electric system only with active power.
Therefore, the system reactive power demands are covered
by a Rotary Compensator (or Synchronous Condenser, SC),
ie, a synchronous machine drawing only the real power
necessary to sustain its own mechanical losses and therefore
running at a power factor of, essentially, zero and producing
or absorbing only reactive power. In this way, the synchro-
nous condenser, which slightly increases the installation and
operation cost, acts as voltage regulator for the entire sys-
tem keeping the voltage downstream the SG unit almost
constant. Hence, the combination of the SG and the SC,
hereinafter called the Shaft System (SS), behaves as an
ordinary generator supplying the system with energy via the
circuit breaker ACB (Fig 1). Furthermore, in the case of
short circuits, the SC also acts as a current source supplying
the short circuit with fault current and permitting the pro-
tection scheme to offer discrimination. Moreover, the SC
covers the reactive losses due to harmonic distortion of both
voltage and current waveforms provoked by the power elec-
tronic devices of the dc link.
It is worth noting that:
In former applications, the SGs could not operate in
port. Nowadays, however, the propeller can often be
easily decoupled from the main engine allowing the
operation of SGs.
The ac/dc/ac conversion at the dc link provokes harmo-
nic power quality problems to the entire electric energy
system, ie, harmonic distortion to voltage and current
waveforms and increased associated reactive losses.
However, as with all power electronic applications, this
problem can be resolved by introducing certain alterna-
tive harmonic quality improving measures, eg, instal-
ling harmonic filters (such as a DCL reactor coil on the
dc side and an ACL coil on the ac side of the inverter
(see Fig 1), applying sophisticated switching techniques
or using less harmonic-polluting power electronic
bridge topologies.
ACTIVE LOAD SHARING
Active load sharing among ac generators is generally based
upon their frequency droops, ie, the gradients of their f-P
(frequency versus active power generation) characteristics,
which in turn reflect the relationship between the ac gen-
erators and their associated prime movers (Fig 2).
Considering the example of two generators depicted in
Fig 2, given a total load P
o
, the corresponding partial load-
ing of each generator as well as the common operating
frequency is obtained from solving the following set of
linear algebraic equations:
Generator 1: f = f
L1
x
P1

P
O1
P
N1
f
N1
(1)
Generator 2: f = f
L2
x
P2

P
O2
P
N2
f
N2
(2)
P
O1
P
O2
= P
O
(3)
Fig 1: Typical shaft generator system
22 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
where the frequency droops of the two generators are de-
fined as follows:
x
P1
=
f
L1
f
V1
f
N1
x
P2
=
f
L2
f
V2
f
N2
(4)
In the special case where one generator, say generator 2, is
significantly larger than the other one (acting thus as an
infinite bus), its f-P characteristic is almost horizontal (Fig
3). Moreover, this slack generator defines the operating
frequency covering any active load fluctuations.
The other generator with non-zero frequency droop
works at the frequency set by the slack generator. In the
case that none of the plant generators are of horizontal f-P
characteristic, one is rather arbitrarily selected to play the
slack role.
When the load condition changes, the new operating
point (ie, load sharing among generators at a new operating
frequency) is defined by the generators frequency droops.
This first settlement, the so-called primary regulation or
self-regulation corresponds to a frequency decrease in case
of a load increase and vice versa. However, as this new
operating frequency can be beyond the permissible operat-
ing limits the so-called secondary regulation is performed.
According to this procedure, the f-P characteristic of the
regulating unit moves upwards or downwards (but without
changing its slope) so that the new loading conditions are
covered at a frequency close to the nominal one. This
movement is achieved by increasing or decreasing the fuel
injection of the generator prime mover (Fig 4).
Mathematical relationships P- and Q-V
The well-known single phase equivalent circuit of a three-
phase synchronous generator is shown in Fig 5.
The voltage-current relationships are:
~
EE =
e
II R j X ( )
~
VV =
e
II =
~
EE
~
VV
R j X
(5)
The single-phase complex power is obtained from
~
SS =
~
VV:
~
II
+
(6)
Considering the generator terminal voltage V as the refer-
ence phasor, (ie, its argument equals zero or
~
VV = V[ 0
o
)
equation (5) turns into:
e
II = I

= I cos jI sin
= I cos jI sin =
E cos jE sin V
R jX

R jX
R jX
=
~
EE = E
[
= E cos jE sin
I cos jI sin =
E cos V
( )
R X E sin
[ [
j E R sin X E cos V
( ) [ [
R
2
X
2
The separation of real and imaginary parts leads to:
Fig 2: Parallel operation of two generators in f-P common
plane
Fig 3: Parallel operation of a generator with an infinite bus
Fig 4: Graphical representation of fuel injection change in
generator 2 working in parallel with generator 1
Fig 5: Single-phase equivalent circuit of a three-phase
synchronous generator
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 23
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
I cos =
1
R
2
X
2
E cos V
( )
R X E sin
[ [
(7)
I sin =
1
R
2
X
2
R E sin X E cos V
( ) [ [
(8)
The complex output power
~
SS at the generator output term-
inals is:
~
SS =
~
VV
~
II
+
= V[ 0
o
I

= V I cos j V I sin = P jQ
(9)
P = V I cos (10)
Q = V I sin (11)
By substituting (7), (8) into (10) and (11) P and Q expres-
sions are yielded:
P =
V
R
2
X
2
E cos V
( )
R x E sin
[ [
(12)
Q =
V
R
2
X
2
E cos V
( )
X R E sin
[ [
(13)
Considering that in most cases R X, equations (12) and
(13) are simplified by eliminating the R-terms:
P =
V E
X
sin (14)
Q =
V
X
E cos V
( )
(15)
Equations (12) (13) (or their plausibly simplified versions
in (14) (15) which are the most commonly used) comprise
the P- and Q-V operation rules respectively they are
graphically presented in Figs 6 and 7.
The shaded areas in Figs 6 & 7 correspond to static
stable operation areas, ie, the following conditions (inequal-
ities) are fulfilled:
<

2
& P <
V E
X
(16)
1
2
E cos < V < E cos & Q <
1
4X
E
2
cos
2

(17)
It is worth noting that, in practice, transient stability areas
are significantly more restricted (perhaps down to almost
40%) of the static stability limit values given in expressions
(16) and (17)
4
and illustrated in Figs 6 & 7. This additional
restriction is due to the nature of transient stability which
considers the systems capability to recover to steady-state
operation after fast transients, such as short circuit faults
and switching operations. (Operating at the very limits of
static stability the peaks in Figs 6 & 7is effectively
impossible as any perturbation which increases the load will
move the machine into the unstable area. The amount of
margin necessary to ensure transient stability depends on
the overall system design and the level of destabilising
perturbations arising form both normal and abnormal opera-
tion.)
In contrast, static stability refers to extremely slow per-
turbations from normal operation, which set higher limit-
ations. In between stands the dynamic stability problems,
corresponding to case studies of such duration that certain
automatic control sub-systems like the Automatic Voltage
Regulator (AVR) are capable of reacting and participating
effectively in the entire phenomenon. It is to be noted that
frequency regulation that relies on mechanical speed gover-
nors can never be fast enough to materially affect dynamic
stability (even mechanically speed regulated diesel-genera-
tors).
REACTIVE LOAD SHARING
Reactive load sharing among generators is similar but not
identical to active load sharing. The main difference is that
although both the V-Q and f-P relations are non-linear only
that for f-P can be sensibly linearised around the operating
point (and then only where margin for transient stability is
included in the maximum load operating point). Conversely
the V-Q relationship can only be approximated by a linear
curve in certain cases. However, as shown in Fig 8, the
more the generator emf, E, increases the more the curve
can be considered to be linear, at least for small reactive
loads and small reactive load changes.
It is worth noting that the AVR acts faster than the
speed governor by at least an order of magnitude and
this allows the P- relationship during active power reg-
ulation to be simplified by regarding the emf, E, to be of
constant value. On the contrary, the Q-V relationship
senses changes of the -angle, but via the cos-function, ie,
Fig 6; Active power P vs power angle diagram of
synchronous generator
Fig 7: Voltage vs reactive power (V-Q) curve of synchronous
generator
24 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
in a rather insensitive manner especially for the small range
of -values (0,,408) where the generator normally oper-
ates (because of transient stability limits).
By inspecting equations (13) or (15), it is easily seen
that, because the V-Q relationship is not linear, the voltage
droop varies with the operating point (unlike the real load
droop relationship). If voltage droop is defined as:
x
Q
=
@V
@Q
=
1
@Q
@V
(18)
then the accurate expression (13) leads to:
x
1
Q
=
1
R
2
X
2
E cos V
( )
R E sin
[ [

V
R
2
x
2
(X)
(19)
whereas the approximate expression (15) results in:
x
1
Q
=
1
X
E cos V
( )

V
X
(20)
As a mean representative value, the gradient between the
stable area limits can be considered:
^ xx
Q

V
Q
=
E cos
1
2
E cos
0
1
4
E
2
cos
2

X
=
1
2
E cos
1
4
E
2
cos
2

X
= ^ xx
Q
=
2X
E cos
(21)
As yielded from equations (19 or (20) voltage droop x
q
depends on the following parameters:
R: armature winding resistance (varies slightly with
temperature)
X: synchronous reactance (constant, but transient and
sub-transient reactances differ)
V: network voltage (held constant by proper regulation
through the V-Q relationship)
E: generator emf (it is regulated by the AVR interven-
tion to the field circuit)
: power angle reflecting mainly the active power load-
ing of the generator (it is regulated by the speed-governor
intervention to the f-P rule).
On the other hand, referring to the regulation time
delays of the dependent variables:
Emf E: very fast regulation by the AVR (in the order of
100-200ms)
Power angle : fairly slow regulation by the speed
governor (in the order of 1000-2000ms for diesel generating
sets).
Therefore during load changes (referring to either active
or reactive power):
the AVR detects variation of voltage V (due to load
change) and reacts fast, regulating emf E and therefore
reactive power Q, too.
the speed governor detects variation of f and reacts
relatively slowly regulating active power P via the fuel
injection rule. This regulation sets the power angle
(eg, it is obtained from (14) that = sin
1 P X
V E
).
However, this variation of is reflected in the Q-V relation-
ship as well, spoiling the fast reaction of the AVR (it is to
be noted that the voltage droop x
Q
depends on both E and
cos). This leads to a new (secondary) regulation of the
reactive power.
THE SPECIAL CASE OF THE SHAFT
GENERATOR SYSTEMS
As previously mentioned this paper considers the most
common scheme for shaft power generation, namely a shaft
generator (most often a synchronous three-phase one) along
with a synchronous condenser (Fig 1). The shaft system SS,
as a whole, operates in parallel to the conventional genera-
tor sets via the intervention of a power ac/dc/ac converter
with the generator producing only active power and the
condenser supplying the corresponding reactive power.
Thus, the f-P mechanism refers to the SG while the V-Q
mechanism refers to the SC. It is worth noting that due to
power electronics, the SG could fix the frequency despite
any load changes acting as an infinite bus. However, in
most cases, the SGs are adjusted so that they have a non-
zero frequency droop working in a similar manner to con-
ventional generators. In this way, parallel operation between
SGs and conventional generating sets can be accomplished.
The V-Q mechanism is controlled by properly adjusting
the AVR of the synchronous condenser of the shaft system.
In this machine, the active power is almost zero, ie, its
power angle is zero:
P ~ 0 =sin 0 = 0 (22)
(in the equation below, with sin 0, cos 1)
= Q =
V
x
E cos V
( )
= Q
=
V E V ( )
x
=
E V V
2
x
(23)
As deduced from equation (23) compared to the conven-
tional generators:
Fig 8: Effect of increased emf E on Q-V curve
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 25
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
this Q-V has a point of maximum with increased both
Q and V co-ordinates, as cos=1
as this Q-V relationship is independent on the power
angle , see equation (21), reactive loading of the
synchronous condenser (and hence the entire shaft gen-
erator system) is defined only by appropriate setting of
the emf, E, via the AVR without any iteration with the
P-f relationship.
As cos()=1, the voltage droop is of a lower value, see
equations (20) and (21), ie, the V-Q characteristic is more
horizontal (Fig 9). This leads to the condenser being able to
act as a regulating unit, stabilising the voltage, V, and cover-
ing all reactive load demands.
Primary load sharing
Consider a set of M
t
generators (comprising M
1
shaft sys-
tems and M
2
diesel generator sets) working in parallel at an
instant, when the total active and reactive load is P
tot
and
Q
tot
respectively, and while the generators no load frequen-
cies and emfs are f
L1
, f
L2
, . . ., f
LMt
and E
1
,E
2
, . . ., E
Mt
respectively.
The f-P set of equations is as follows:
f = f
Lk
x
Pk

P
k
P
Nk
f
Nk
X
M
t
k=1
P
k
= P
tot
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., M
t
(24)
ie, a M
t
xM
t
set of linear equations, where the unknown
quantities are: P
1
, P
2
, . . ., P
Mt
and f.
On the other hand, regarding the V-Q set of equations, if
the approximate linearised V-Q equations (those with the
voltage droop x
Q
) are used, the corresponding set of equa-
tions is very similar to the f-P one:
V = E
k
x
Qk

Q
k
Q
Nk
V
Nk
X
M
t
k=1
Q
k
= Q
tot
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., M
t
(25)
ie, a M
t
xM
t
set of linear equations, where the unknown
quantities are: Q
1
, Q
2
, . . ., Q
Mt
and V.
Alternatively, the unknown variables, ie,
1
,
2
, . . .,
Mt
and V can be calculated via the following M
t
xM
t
set of
exact but non-linear expressions:
(14)

P
k
=
E
k
V
X
k

sin
k
k = 1, 2, . . . M
t
X
M
t
k=1
V
x
k
E
k
cos
k
V ( ) = Q
tot
8
>>
>
>
<
>>
>
>
:
9
>>
>
>
=
>>
>
>
;
(26)
These non-linear sets of equations can be solved by apply-
ing iterative numerical procedures such as the Newton-
Raphson method, which is presented in the following.
The generic formula of Newton-Raphson is:
y = y
o

@ g
@ y

1
: g( y
o
) (27)
where in this case:
y = [
1

2
. . .
M
t
V ]
T
y
o
= [
1,o

2,o
. . .
M
t
,o
V
o
]
T
g(k):
E
k
V
x
k
sin
k
P
k
= 0 k = 1, 2, . . . M
t
(28)
g(M
t
1):
X
M
t
k=1
V
x
k
E
k
cos
k
V ( ) Q
tot
= 0
Whereas regarding the Jacobian matrix elements:
@ g(1)
@V
=
E
1
V
X
1
sin
1
@ g(1)
@
1
=
E
1
V
X
1
cos
1
@ g(1)
@
2
= . . . =
@ g(1)
@
M
t
= 0
@ g(2)
@V
=
E
2
V
X
2
sin
2
@ g(2)
@
1
= 0
@ g(2)
@
2
=
E
2
V
X
2
cos
2
@ f (2)
@
3
= . . . =
@ g(2)
@
M
t
= 0
. . .
@ g(M
t
)
@V
=
E
M
t
V
X
M
t
sin
6
@ g(M
t
)
@
1
= . . .
@ g(M
t
)
@
5
= 0
@ g(M
t
)
@
M
t
=
E
M
t
V
X
M
t
cos
M
t
@ g(M
t
1)
@V
=
E
1
cos
1
2V
X
1

E
2
cos
2
2V
X
2
. . .
E
M
t
cos
M
t
2V
X
M
t
@ g(M
t
1)
@
1
=
VE
1
X
1
sin
1
@ g(M
t
1)
@
2
=
VE
2
X
2
sin
2
. . .
@ g(M
t
1)
@
M
t
=
VE
M
t
X
M
t
sin
M
t
(29)
hence, the Newton Raphson general equation in matrix
form is as follows:
Fig 9: Linearised approximation of V-Q curve
26 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
As soon as these unknown variables, ie,
1
,
2
, . . .,
Mt
and V are calculated, then each generators reactive power
can be assessed, too:
Q
1
=
V E
1
cos
1
V ( )
X
1
Q
2
=
V E
2
cos
2
V ( )
X
2
(31)
Q
M
=
V E
M
t
cos
M
t
V

X
M
t
The solution yielded in the linear V-Q, equation (25), is less
accurate than that obtained by the iterative procedure which
is based on the more precise equation (26). However, this
linearised method can be used as a means to get an initial
guess vector y
0
for use in the precise method.
Secondary load sharing
As soon as assessment of the primary loading is finished,
assessment of the secondary load sharing can begin. At this
stage the central energy management system makes
the effort to converge the system frequency and voltage as
close to their nominal values, f
N
and V
N
respectively, as is
possible, while each generator is loaded by its proportionate
active and reactive load, P
K
and Q
K
:
P
K
=
P
N
K
X
M
K=1
P
N
K
P
O
k = 1, 2, . . . M
t
(32)
Q
K
=
Q
N
K
X
M
K=1
Q
N
K
Q
O
k = 1, 2, . . . M
t
(33)
By setting the desired (proportionate) active power produc-
tion for each generator, P
k
, the no load frequencies f
Lk
s
are calculated from:
f
Lk
= f
N
x
Pk

P
k
P
Nk
f
Nk
(34)
Similarly, the desired proportionate reactive load sharing
among the generators is also known, ie, Q
k
, therefore, the
generator emfs, E
k
s, can be calculated from:

2
. . .

M
t
V
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
=

1,o

2,o
. . .

M
t
,o
V
o
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

E
1
X
1
sin
1,o
V E
1
x
1
cos
1
0 . . . 0
E
2
X
2
sin
2,o
0
V
o
E
2
X
2
cos
2,o
. . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E
M
t
X
M
t
sin
M
t
,o
0 0 . . .
V
o
E
M
t
X
M
t
cos
M
t
E
1
cos
1,o
2V
o
X
1
. . .
E
M
t
cos
M
t
,o
2V
o
X
M
t

V E
1
X
1
sin
1

V
o
E
2
X
2
sin
2,o
. . .
V
o
E
M
t
X
M
t
sin
M
t
,o
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
1
3
E
1
V
o
X
1
sin
1,o
P
1
E
2
V
o
X
2
sin
2,o
P
2
. . .
E
M
t
V
o
X
M
t
sin
M
t
,o
P
M
t
X
M
t
k=1
V
o
X
k
E
k
cos
k,o
V
o
( ) Q
tot
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
(30)
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 27
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
E
k
=

P
k
X
k
V
N

2

Q
k
X
k
V
N
V
N
!
2
v
u
u
t
k = 1, 2, . . ., M
t
(35)
Finally should the load angles
k
be required they are
obtained from:
tan
k
=
P
k
X
k
Q
k
X
k
V
N
2
k = 1, 2, . . ., M
t
(36)
It can be seen that, at this stage, no iterative calculation
procedure is required. On the other hand, due to practical
restraints, in a real generator system the target of propor-
tionate active and reactive loading at both nominal fre-
quency and voltage cannot be attained precisely. This is the
reason why most standards
5-7
specify a tolerance range
within which the proportionate loading is considered suc-
cessful.
|P
K
| = |P
K
P
K
| ,
P
(37)
|Q
K
| = |Q
K
Q
K
| ,
Q
(38)
These tolerances,
P
and
Q
are based on the rated power
capacities of all generators participating in load sharing.
DYNAMIC SYSTEM SIMULATION
The analysis made so far is static having no inherent
dynamic character. Hence, no time delay nor overshooting
related to the primary or secondary load sharing made by
machine dynamics or the control schemes of the speed
governors and the AVRs has been introduced. This dynamic
behaviour is best, and most easily, studied in a computer
environment dealing with automation and control systems.
In this paper, the well-known simulation environment of
MATLAB/Simulink
3
has been exploited. Typical control
schemes for speed governors and AVRs are considered (Figs
10 & 11). Furthermore, the model of a conventional diesel-
generator set is shown in Fig 12, while the circuit model of
a shaft system is depicted in Fig 13. According to the
approach followed, a Load Flow subroutine runs first so that
initial conditions are determined and then, the full scale
simulation is run. Interest is focused on the dynamic reac-
tion of all system components, which takes place during the
primary regulation, and the subsequent elimination of fre-
quency and voltage errors at the secondary regulation.
LOAD SHARING AMONG
CONVENTIONAL AND SHAFT
GENERATOR SYSTEMS
MATHEMATICAL CASE STUDY
This case study is obtained from an actual ship electric
energy system and comprises six 60Hz generators (M
t
=6)
working in parallel, two of which are shaft systems (M
1
=2)
and four conventional diesel generating sets (M
2
=4), as
shown in Fig 14. The shaft systems, as described in the
preceding sections, are composed of shaft generators
(450V@1000kW) along with ac/dc/ac power converters and
rotating condensers (450V@750kVAr). Generators 1-3 are
installed in the bow electric power plant, while generators
4-6 in the stern plant; each plant has a directly associated
generator bus. Nevertheless, the main generator bus is con-
sidered to be a unique one, as the two buses are directly
Fig 10: Speed governor
model in MATLAB
environment
Fig 11: AVR model in MATLAB environment
28 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
connected and the voltage drop between them is negligible.
The rated values of the diesel generators are 770kW and
577.5kVAr @ 450V. Almost all speed and voltage droops
x
P
and x
Q
* varied significantly from the ideal value of 3%
prescribed by the manufacturer (Table 1). This was due to
inadequate calibration of their governors and AVRs. Thus,
the generators did not share either active or reactive load in
the proportionate manner that the standards stipulate, while
in many cases reverse power flow was noticed leading to
unpleasant tripping of the protection scheme. This is the
problem that has provoked the work presented in this paper.
The mathematical analysis developed in the preceding
sections is exploited to highlight the significance of propor-
tionate load sharing among generators and of having equal
values of frequency and voltage droops. Furthermore, the
accuracy of the non-linear set of equations of the primary
regulation versus the linearised is examined. All cases are
compared to a base reference one, which refers to equal
droops and equal initial operating points for all generators
(the so-called ideal). In all cases where the total load con-
sidered is about 60% the nominal capacity of all six gen-
erators is 3000kW and 2200kVAr).
Primary load sharing
The set of active power balance, ie, P-f, equations is:
f = f
Lk
x
Pk

P
k
P
Nk
f
Nk
X
6
k=1
P
k
= P
tot
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., 6
(39)
ie, a 7x7 system with unknown variables: P
1
, P
2
, . . ., P
6
and f.
The corresponding reactive power balance equation is:
X
6
k=1
V
x
k
E
k
cos
k
V ( ) = Q
tot
k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., 6
(40)
Where angles
k
are interrelated via the active power quan-
tities:
sin
k
=
P
k
X
k
E
k
V

k = 1, 2, . . . 6 (41)
These equations set a non-linear system solved via the
Newton-Raphson iterative numerical procedure as described
above. Hence:
y = y
o

@ g
@ y

1
: g( y
o
) (42)
g(k):
E
k
V
x
k
sin
k
P
k
= 0 k = 1, 2, . . . 6 (43)
g(7):
X
6
k=1
V
x
k
E
k
cos
k
V ( ) Q
tot
= 0 (44)
Whereas regarding the Jacobian matrix elements:
@ g(1)
@V
=
E
1
V
X
1
sin
1
@ g(1)
@
1
=
E
1
V
X
1
cos
1
@ g(1)
@
2
= . . . =
@ g(1)
@
6
= 0
@ g(2)
@V
=
E
2
V
X
2
sin
2
@ g(2)
@
1
= 0
@ g(2)
@
2
=
E
2
V
X
2
cos
2
@ f (2)
@
3
= . . . =
@ g(2)
@
6
= 0
@ g(6)
@V
=
E
6
V
X
6
sin
6
@ g(6)
@
1
= . . .
@ g(6)
@
5
= 0
@ g(6)
@
6
=
E
6
V
X
6
cos
6
@ g(7)
@V
=
E
1
cos
1
2V
X
1

E
2
cos
2
2V
X
2
. . .
E
6
cos
6
2V
X
6
@ g(7)
@
1
=
VE
1
X
1
sin
1
@ g(7)
@
2
=
VE
2
X
2
sin
2
. . .
@ g(7)
@
6
=
VE
6
X
6
sin
6
(45)
Secondary load sharing
In this case the set of active load sharing equations results
in obtaining the required no-load frequency setting from
proportionate active loading P
k
and nominal system operat-
ing frequency f
N
:
f
Lk
= f
N
x
Pk

P
k
P
Nk
f
Nk
k = 1, 2, . . ., 6 (46)
Concerning assessment of reactive load sharing through the
accurate non-linear Q-V relationship, the no-load voltage is
obtained from proportionate reactive loading Q
k
and nom-
inal system operating voltage V
N
:
Fig 12: Diesel generator model in MATLAB environment
* Mean values of voltage droops, ie, mean value of Q-V gradient
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 29
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
F
i
g
1
3
:
S
h
a
f
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
m
o
d
e
l
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
i
n
g
a
s
h
a
f
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
,
a
r
o
t
a
r
y
c
o
n
d
e
n
s
e
r
a
n
d
a
a
c
/
d
c
/
a
c
l
i
n
k
i
n
M
A
T
L
A
B
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
30 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
E
k
=

P
k
X
k
V
N

2

Q
k
X
k
V
N
V
N
!
2
v
u
u
t
k = 1, 2, . . ., 6
(47)
Concerning assessment of reactive load sharing through the
linearised Q-V relationship, the no-load voltage is obtained
from:
E
k
= V
N
x
Qk

Q
k
Q
Nk
V
Nk
k = 1, 2, . . ., 6 (48)
The initial operating point (no-load frequencies and vol-
tages, f
Lk
and E
k,k=1,2,...6
) for the Newton-Raphson proce-
dure of the primary regulation calculations is obtained from
a set of field measurements performed aboard (Table 2).
The following cases have been considered:
Case I: all frequency droops are equal to one another
(x
pk
=3%, k=1,2,. . .,6), while during the primary reac-
tive load sharing the non-linear set of Q-V equations is
used. The no-load frequencies and no-load voltages are
also of common value for all generators (ie, f
Lk
=60.6
Hz, E
k
=450 V, k=1,2,. . .6). This case is considered the
reference case to which all the others are compared.
Case II: all frequency droops are equal to one another
(x
pk
=3%, k=1,2,. . .,6), while during the primary reac-
tive load sharing the linear set of Q-V equations is
used. Thus, in this case all generator voltage droops
have a constant common value (x
Qk
=3%, k=1,2,. . .,6).
Case III: frequency and mean voltage droops are as
tabulated in Table 1, while f
Lk
and E
k
, k=1,2,. . .6 are
as tabulated in Table 2. Primary reactive load sharing is
performed based on the non-linear set of Q-V equa-
tions. This was the case to be corrected.
The results of the primary load sharing assessment are
summarised in Table 3, from which the following remarks
can be made:
As expected there is no error between cases I and II
with respect to active power load sharing as in both
cases the corresponding P-f curves are the same. Con-
versely, the relative error in reactive load sharing is of
the order of 15% for power generation, and 2% for
voltage. This is the error of linearising the Q-V curve.
With respect to the load sharing of the actual ship
generation system with unequal droops, the no-load
set-points (f
Lk
and E
k
) vary and make the assessment
problematic. Thus, case III demonstrates how important
the good calibration of generator speed governors and
voltage regulators is for proportionate loading. Nega-
Fig 14: Case study
scheme: two shaft
systems synchronised
with four diesel
generators
Xp1 (%) 2,20 Xq1 (%) 3,89
Xp2 (%) 2,68 Xq2 (%) 0,69
Xp3 (%) 2,10 Xq3 (%) 0,53
Xp4 (%) 2,19 Xq4 (%) 0,35
Xp5 (%) 2,58 Xq5 (%) 0,12
Xp6 (%) 2,94 Xq6 (%) 0,88
Table 1: Non-equal speed droops and mean voltage droops
of the ship case study as obtained from field test measure-
ments
f
L1
(Hz) 60,65 E
1
(V) 460,47
f
L2
(Hz) 61,59 E
2
(V) 460,68
f
L3
(Hz) 60,67 E
3
(V) 458,06
f
L4
(Hz) 60,96 E
4
(V) 456,40
f
L5
(Hz) 60,53 E
5
(V) 456,66
f
L6
(Hz) 60,85 E
6
(V) 459,58
Table 2: No-load frequencies and voltages, f
Lk
and E
k,k=1,2,...6
as obtained from field test measurements
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 31
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
tive active power flow (reverse power flow) is observed
for generator No 5. It is worth mentioning that in the
actual ship system, as soon as this problem was cor-
rected a set of measurements close to that of case I was
measured.
Secondary regulation, where voltage and frequency values
are brought back close to their nominal values, while the
proportionate loading in Table 4 is sought, is summarised
on Table 5.
From the results of Table 5, it can be seen that:
In all three cases, the setting required for the no-load
frequency is the same for all generators and equal to
61.063Hz.
The situation alters in the case of no-load voltage. In
cases I and III, where the Q-V curve is considered non-
linear, a value of 460 and 459 respectively is required
(a small difference is noticed between a shaft system
condenser and a diesel generator). On the contrary, in
case II, where the linearised Q-V equation is used, a
different set value (about 12V lower than that of cases I
and II) is yielded, which is common for all six genera-
tors.
Simulation of the dynamic behaviour of load sharing
In this case, the system considered is modelled in the
MATLAB/PSB-Simulink environment, as shown in Fig 15.
For each generator an AVR and a speed governor like
the ones shown in Figs 10 & 11, are considered. Thus,
during the simulation, the actual primary load sharing in-
cluding the dynamic transition from one loading stage to
another one, due to generator self-regulation, can be stud-
ied. The initial conditions of the simulations are yielded
from a preliminary load flow procedure run for the entire
circuit. The generators are initially loaded by a resistive-
inductive static load (P=5120kW and Q=3840kVAr) along
with a large power asynchronous motor (emulating the be-
haviour of a 1340hp thruster motor with Q
C
=500kVAr).
Two distinct representative load changes based on this
scheme are considered:
Case A: The resistive-inductive load is initially con-
nected but immediately disconnected at 0 seconds and
re-connected at 5s. The motor is de-energised through-
out.
Case B: The static load and motor are connected
throughout. A step-up increment (from 5.3kNm to
6.2kNm) takes place on the shaft torque load of the
large power motor at 3s.
In case A, Fig 16 illustrates the main generator bus voltage
and Fig 17 illustrates the system frequency. During initial
disconnection both voltage and frequency encounter a tran-
sient decaying increment due to load shedding, while during
re-connection at 5s, they both suffer from a sag due to the
abrupt load increment. The voltage sag is in the order of
70V (about 15%), while the corresponding frequency fluc-
tuation has a transient dip of 5.5% followed by a swell of
2.5%. The speed and voltage controllers manage to restore
voltage and frequency nominal values within a time frame
of 2-3s.
Case I Case II % error Case III %error
f(Hz) 59.54 59.54 0.00 60.56 -1.72
P
1
(kW) 590.55 590.55 0.00 65.47 88.91
P
2
(kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 491.87 -8.17
P
3
(kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 65.00 85.70
P
4
(kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 231.98 48.98
P
5
(kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 -16.70 103.67
P
6
(kW) 590.55 590.55 0.00 162.37 72.51
V(V) 459.68 452.21 1.63 458.60 0.23
Q
1
(kVAr) 518.06 433.07 16.40 2992.19 -477.58
Q
2
(kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1870.19 -542.74
Q
3
(kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 -490.12 268.44
Q
4
(kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1985.82 782.48
Q
5
(kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1751.50 701.95
Q
6
(kVAr) 518.06 433.07 16.40 1565.05 -202.10
Table 3: Primary load sharing results of all cases
P
1
(kW) 590.551 Q
1
(kVAr) 433.071
P
2
(kW) 454.724 Q
2
(kVAr) 333.465
P
3
(kW) 454.724 Q
3
(kVAr) 333.465
P
4
(kW) 454.724 Q
4
(kVAr) 333.465
P
5
(kW) 454.724 Q
5
(kVAr) 333.465
P
6
(kW) 590.551 Q
6
(kVAr) 433.071
Table 4: Proportionate loading among all six generators
Case I Case II Case III
f
L1
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
f
L2
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
f
L3
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
f
L4
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
f
L5
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
f
L6
(Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
E
1
(V) 459.947 447.795 458.874
E
2
(V) 460.047 447.795 458.974
E
3
(V) 460.047 447.795 458.974
E
4
(V) 460.047 447.795 458.974
E
5
(V) 460.047 447.795 458.974
E
6
(V) 459.947 447.795 458.874
Table 5: Secondary load sharing results of all case studies
32 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
Regarding the loading of the generators, representative
curves are shown in Figs 18 to 21. More specifically, in
Figs 18 & 19 where the active power production of one
shaft generator and one diesel generator are shown, it can
be seen that in the initial interval the generator does not
actually produce any active power; the situation changes
rapidly at the instant of the load re-connection. On the other
hand, in Figs 20 and 21 the corresponding reactive power
quantities are presented, the one supplied by one shaft con-
denser and the one provided by one diesel generator. In this
case, at the first interval when the load is disconnected
there is some reactive power produced mainly covering the
requirements of all the choke filters of the ac/dc/ac conver-
ter. As soon as the load is re-connected the reactive power
Fig 15: Ship electric network simulated in MATLAB environment
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 33
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
Fig 16: Main bus
voltage fluctuation
(case A)
Fig 17: System
frequency fluctuation
(case A)
Fig 18: Active power
produced by one shaft
generator
34 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
Fig 19: Active power
produced by one diesel
generator
Fig 20: Reactive power
produced by one shaft
condenser
Fig 21: Reactive power
produced by one diesel
generator
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 35
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
Fig 22: Main bus
voltage (case B)
Fig 23: System
frequency (case B)
Fig 24: Induction motor
electromagnetic torque
(case B)
36 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
demands are increased and the generators tend to respond
to this increment.
In case B, following the motor starting-up, it initially it
takes about 2s for voltage and frequency to stabilise (Figs
22 & 23) and also Figs 24 & 25 for the motors electromag-
netic torque and its rotation speed. As the motor encounters
a small step-increase in torque at 5s, its rotation speed
slightly decreases. The system frequency encounters a sag
which is restored completely within 1.5s. Only a very small
sag is noticed in system voltage following this increase in
power demand of the motor; and in any case this is very
quickly eliminated.
It is worth noting that no regulation directly stipulates
the time window within which the primary and secondary
regulations are performed. The only restrictions often met
5-9
mention that no voltage transient fluctuations should exceed
10% the nominal value, but within a time interval equal
to half the fundamental period. The corresponding con-
straint for the frequency is 5%, without any time refer-
ence. Anyhow, it is deduced that in case A, both voltage
and frequency limits are temporarily exceeded and they take
at least two seconds to recover (instead of few milliseconds)
to their nominal values. This problem can result in serious
power quality problems such as voltage stability and
flickering. Moreover, when some large power loads (the
so-called pulsed loads) are cyclically connected, discon-
nected and re-connected to the grid, voltage and frequency
modulation phenomena can emerge.
10-12
The effect of dy-
namic behaviour of both the speed governor and the voltage
regulator is of primary importance in such cases and has to
be thoroughly analysed so that precautionary measures can
be taken.
11-12
CONCLUSIONS
This paper deals with analysing and solving the mathemati-
cal problem of active and reactive load sharing among the
synchronised generators of a ships electric energy system.
Thus, both the first- and second-stage regulation during
load sharing is presented via the solution of well-based
mathematical equations. Among the difficulties faced in the
paper are the consideration of hybrid parallel operation of
shaft and conventional generators where each shaft system
participates via a pair of machines, one for active power
and one for reactive power generation. The analysis also
covers the combined proportionate load sharing of not only
active power demands but also of reactive ones. In the case
study presented, which is based on an actual ships electric
network, the significance of having well-tuned controllers
and droops is highlighted. The paper is further enriched by
representative load sharing simulations during abrupt load
changes, where the dynamic behaviour of the generators
themselves in combination with their speed and voltage
controllers play a significant role.
REFERENCES
1. IEEE Standard 45-1993 Recommended practice for
electrical installations on shipboard, IEEE Press, New York,
1993.
2. Prousalidis J, Hatzilau IK, Michalopoulos P, Pavlou I,
Muthumuni D. 2005. Studying ship electric energy systems
with shaft generator, Proceedings of Electric Ship Sympo-
sium ESTS05, USA.
3. MATLAB: The Mathworks Inc. Matlab Users Guide
(2004).
4. Van Cutsem T and Vournas C. 1998. Voltage stability
analysis of electric power systems, Vluwer Academic Pub-
lications.
5. Germanischer Lloyd (GL). General Requirements and
Instructions, 2002.
6. Lloyds Register of Shipping (LRS). Rules and Reg-
ulations for the Classification of Naval Ships Electrical
Engineering, 2001.
7. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Rules for ships July
2001 Pt 4, Machinery and Systems Main Class, 2001.
8. Registro Italiano Navale (RINA). Rules and Regula-
tions for the Classification of Naval Ships Electrical
Engineering, 2001.
9. Hellenic Register of Shipping. Rules and Regulations
Fig 25: Induction motor
rotation speed (case B)
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 37
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
for the Classification and Construction of Ships Part 6/
Electrical Installations - 1999, (Issue No 1).
10. STANAG 1008: Characteristics of shipboard electri-
cal power systems in warships of the North Atlantic Treaty
navies, NATO, Edition 8, 21 Febr. 1994/Edition 9 under
ratification.
11. Kanellos F, Hatzilau IK, Prousalidis J and Styvakta-
kis E. 2006. Simulation of a shipboard electrical network
(AES) comprising pulsed loads, IMarEST Proceedings of
Engine as a Weapon II, International conference, UK.
12. Kanellos F, Hatzilau IK and Prousalidis J. 2007.
Investigation of voltage/frequency modulation in ship elec-
tric networks with pulsed loads according to STANAG 1008
design constraints, IMarEST Proceedings of All Electric
Ship International Conference AES 2007, UK.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude towards Elefsis
Shipyards for all the support provided, including funding,
technical data accumulation and field measurement per-
formance. In addition, they are indebted towards Dr John
Dermentzoglou for his assistance on setting-up the simula-
tions in the MATLAB environment.
NOMENCLATURE
R: armature winding resistance (varies slightly by the
thermal load)
X: synchronous reactance (constant with the exception of
the short circuit transient period)
V: network voltage (by proper regulations on V-Q rule,
this voltage is to remain constant)
E: generator emf (it is regulated by the AVR intervention
to the field circuit)
: power angle reflecting mainly the active power
loading of the generator (t is regulated by the speed-
governor intervention to the f-P rule)
x
P
: frequency droop
x
Q
: voltage droop
f
Lk
: no-load frequency of k-generator
f
N
: nominal system frequency
f
Nk
: nominal generator frequency of k-generator
f
vk
: full-load frequency of k-generator
M
t
: total number of generators installed
M
1
: total number of shaft systems installed
M
2
: total number of diesel generators installed
P
1
: proportionate active power loading of k-generator
P
Ok
: active power operating point of k generator
Q
1
: proportionate active power loading of k-generator
SG: shaft generator
SC: shaft (rotary) condenser
SS: shaft system comprising a shaft generator with its
associated condenser
V
N
: nominal system voltage
V
Nk
: nominal terminal voltage of k-generator

p
: tolerance set by standards for proportionate active
power load sharing in secondary regulation

Q
: tolerance set by standards for proportionate reactive
power load sharing in secondary regulation
38 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators