Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology

ISSN: 2046-4177 (Print) 2056-8487 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmar20

Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems

with shaft generators

J M Prousalidis, E Xanthopoulos & K Voutzoulidis

To cite this article: J M Prousalidis, E Xanthopoulos & K Voutzoulidis (2009) Reactive power
sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators, Journal of Marine Engineering &
Technology, 8:1, 21-38, DOI: 10.1080/20464177.2009.11020216

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2009.11020216

Published online: 01 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 292

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmar20

Download by: [195.29.81.98] Date: 26 July 2016, At: 22:45

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

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
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

load sharing of the synchronised generators of a ship’s 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
oad sharing among the shipboard generator sets is
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

L considered to be a well-defined and rather simple

practice. However, this is erroneous: several pro-
blems can be encountered in an actual ship’s 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-
as those of the speed and voltage controllers. In this latter
case, the problem is solved via the MATLAB/Simulink3
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

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 21

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
an actual case study of a ship’s 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 ship’s 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
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016
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.
Fig 1: Typical shaft generator system
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
ship’s controllable pitch propeller provided the control
of ship’s 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.
22
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 Po, 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:
PO1
Generator 1: f ¼ f L1  x P1   f N1 (1)
PN 1
PO2
Generator 2: f ¼ f L2  x P2 
PN 2
 f N2 (2)
PO1 þ PO2 ¼ PO (3)
Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009
 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

movement is achieved by increasing or decreasing the fuel

injection of the generator prime mover (Fig 4).

Fig 2: Parallel operation of two generators in f-P common

plane
Fig 4: Graphical representation of fuel injection change in
where the frequency droops of the two generators are de- generator 2 working in parallel with generator 1
fined as follows:

f L1  f V 1 f L2  f V 2 Mathematical relationships P- and Q-V

x P1 ¼ x P2 ¼ (4)
f N1 f N2 The well-known single phase equivalent circuit of a three-
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

phase synchronous generator is shown in Fig 5.

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.

Fig 5: Single-phase equivalent circuit of a three-phase

synchronous generator

The voltage-current relationships are:

E~  V~
E~ ¼ Ie  ð R þ j  X Þ þ V~ ) Ie ¼ (5)
Rþ j X

Fig 3: Parallel operation of a generator with an infinite bus The single-phase complex power is obtained from
S~ ¼ V~: I~ (6)
The other generator with non-zero frequency droop
works at the frequency set by the slack generator. In the Considering the generator terminal voltage V as the refer-
case that none of the plant generators are of horizontal f-P ence phasor, (ie, its argument equals zero or V~ ¼ V j 0 o )
characteristic, one is rather arbitrarily selected to play the equation (5) turns into:

slack role. Ie ¼ I   ¼ I cos  þ jI sin 
When the load condition changes, the new operating
point (ie, load sharing among generators at a new operating ) I cos   jI sin  ¼
frequency) is defined by the generator’s frequency droops.
This first settlement, the so-called primary regulation or E cos  þ jE sin   V R  jX
 )
self-regulation corresponds to a frequency decrease in case R þ jX R  jX
of a load increase and vice versa. However, as this new
operating frequency can be beyond the permissible operat- E~ ¼ Ej  ¼ E cos  þ jE sin 
ing limits the so-called secondary regulation is performed. ½ð E cos   V Þ R þ X  E  sin 
According to this procedure, the f-P characteristic of the þ j½ E  R  sin   X ð E  cos   V Þ
regulating unit moves upwards or downwards (but without I cos   jI sin  ¼
R2 þ X 2
changing its slope) so that the new loading conditions are
covered at a frequency close to the nominal one. This The separation of real and imaginary parts leads to:

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 23

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

1
I cos  ¼  ½ð E cos   V Þ R þ X  E  sin  (7)
R2 þ X 2
1
I sin  ¼ 2  ½R  E  sin  þ X ð E  cos   V Þ
R þ X2
(8)
The complex output power S~ at the generator output term-
inals is:

S~ ¼ V~  I~ ¼ V j 0 o  I  
(9)
¼ V  I  cos  þ j  V  I  sin   P þ jQ Fig 7: Voltage vs reactive power (V-Q) curve of synchronous
P ¼ V  I  cos  (10) generator
Q ¼ V  I  sin  (11)

By substituting (7), (8) into (10) and (11) P and Q expres- are significantly more restricted (perhaps down to almost
sions are yielded: 40%) of the static stability limit values given in expressions
V (16) and (17)4 and illustrated in Figs 6 & 7. This additional
P¼ 2
 ½ð E  cos   V Þ R þ x  E  sin  (12) restriction is due to the nature of transient stability which
R þ X2
considers the system’s capability to recover to steady-state
V
Q¼ 2  ½ð E  cos   V Þ X  R  E  sin  (13) operation after fast transients, such as short circuit faults
R þ X2
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

and switching operations. (Operating at the very limits of

static stability – the peaks in Figs 6 & 7—is effectively
Considering that in most cases R  X, equations (12) and impossible as any perturbation which increases the load will
(13) are simplified by eliminating the R-terms: move the machine into the unstable area. The amount of
VE margin necessary to ensure transient stability depends on
P¼  sin  (14) the overall system design and the level of destabilising
X
perturbations arising form both normal and abnormal opera-
V
Q ¼  ð E  cos   V Þ (15) tion.)
X In contrast, static stability refers to extremely slow per-
Equations (12) (13) (or their plausibly simplified versions turbations from normal operation, which set higher limit-
in (14) (15) which are the most commonly used) comprise ations. In between stands the dynamic stability problems,
the P-ä and Q-V operation rules respectively – they are corresponding to case studies of such duration that certain
graphically presented in Figs 6 and 7. automatic control sub-systems like the Automatic Voltage
The shaded areas in Figs 6 & 7 correspond to static Regulator (AVR) are capable of reacting and participating
stable operation areas, ie, the following conditions (inequal- effectively in the entire phenomenon. It is to be noted that
ities) are fulfilled: frequency regulation that relies on mechanical speed gover-

VE nors can never be fast enough to materially affect dynamic
< & P< (16) stability (even mechanically speed regulated diesel-genera-
2 X
tors).
1 1
 E  cos  < V < E  cos  & Q <  E2  cos2 
2 4X
(17) REACTIVE LOAD SHARING
Reactive load sharing among generators is similar but not
It is worth noting that, in practice, transient stability areas 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
Fig 6; Active power P vs power angle  diagram of constant value. On the contrary, the ‘Q-V’ relationship
synchronous generator senses changes of the -angle, but via the cos-function, ie,

24 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

ing of the generator (it is regulated by the speed-governor

Fig 8: Effect of increased emf E on Q-V curve
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:
@V 1 ship as well, spoiling the fast reaction of the AVR (it is to
xQ ¼ ¼ (18)
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016
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  ¼ sin1 VPXE ).
However, this variation of  is reflected in the Q-V relation-

@Q be noted that the voltage droop xQ depends on both E and

@Q
cos). This leads to a new (secondary) regulation of the
@V
reactive power.
then the accurate expression (13) leads to:
1
x1
Q ¼
½ð E  cos   V Þ  R  E  sin 
R2 þ X 2 THE SPECIAL CASE OF THE SHAFT
(19)
V GENERATOR SYSTEMS
þ (X ) As previously mentioned this paper considers the most
R2 þ x 2
common scheme for shaft power generation, namely a shaft
generator (most often a synchronous three-phase one) along
whereas the approximate expression (15) results in:
with a synchronous condenser (Fig 1). The shaft system SS,
1 V as a whole, operates in parallel to the conventional genera-
x1
Q ¼
ð E  cos   V Þ  (20)
X X tor sets via the intervention of a power ac/dc/ac converter
with the generator producing only active power and the
As a mean representative value, the gradient between the condenser supplying the corresponding reactive power.
stable area limits can be considered: Thus, the f-P mechanism refers to the SG while the V-Q
1 mechanism refers to the SC. It is worth noting that due to
˜V E  cos    E  cos  power electronics, the SG could fix the frequency despite
x^Q ffi ¼ 2
˜Q 1 2 any load changes acting as an infinite bus. However, in
 E  cos2 
most cases, the SGs are adjusted so that they have a non-
04
X zero frequency droop working in a similar manner to con-
(21) ventional generators. In this way, parallel operation between
1
 E  cos  2X SGs and conventional generating sets can be accomplished.
¼ 2 ) x^Q ¼  The V-Q mechanism is controlled by properly adjusting
1 2 E  cos 
 E  cos2  the AVR of the synchronous condenser of the shaft system.
4
X In this machine, the active power is almost zero, ie, its
power angle is zero:
As yielded from equations (19 or (20) voltage droop xq P 0 ) sin  ffi 0 )  ’ 0 (22)
depends on the following parameters:
R: armature winding resistance (varies slightly with (in the equation below, with sin  ffi 0, cos  ffi 1)
temperature) V
X: synchronous reactance (constant, but transient and )Q¼  ð E  cos   V Þ ) Q
x
sub-transient reactances differ) (23)
V: network voltage (held constant by proper regulation V  ðE  V Þ E  V  V 2
¼ ¼
through the V-Q relationship) x x
E: generator emf (it is regulated by the AVR interven-
tion to the field circuit) As deduced from equation (23) compared to the conven-
: power angle reflecting mainly the active power load- tional generators:

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 25

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

8
 9
• this Q-V has a point of maximum with increased both >
> (14) Ek  V
sin  k
>
k ¼ 1, 2, . . . M t >
Q and V co-ordinates, as cos¼1
>
< ! Pk ¼ Xk
>
=
• as this Q-V relationship is independent on the power >
>
X
Mt
V >
>
angle , see equation (21), reactive loading of the >
:  ð E k  cos  k  V Þ ¼ Q tot >
;
x
k¼1 k
synchronous condenser (and hence the entire shaft gen-
erator system) is defined only by appropriate setting of (26)
the emf, E, via the AVR without any iteration with the
P-f relationship. These non-linear sets of equations can be solved by apply-
ing iterative numerical procedures such as the Newton-
As cos()¼1, the voltage droop is of a lower value, see Raphson method, which is presented in the following.
equations (20) and (21), ie, the V-Q characteristic is more The generic formula of Newton-Raphson is:
horizontal (Fig 9). This leads to the condenser being able to
1
act as a regulating unit, stabilising the voltage, V, and cover- @g
y ¼ yo  : g( yo ) (27)
ing all reactive load demands. @y

where in this case:

y ¼ [ 1 2 ... M t V ]T
yo ¼ [ 1,o 2,o ... M t ,o V o ]T
Ek  V
g(k): sin  k  Pk ¼ 0 k ¼ 1, 2, . . . M t
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

xk
(28)
X
Mt
V
g(M t þ 1):  ð E k  cos  k  V Þ  Q tot ¼ 0
k¼1
xk

Fig 9: Linearised approximation of V-Q curve Whereas regarding the Jacobian matrix elements:
@ g(1) E1  V @ g(1)
Primary load sharing ¼ sin 1
@V X1 @1
Consider a set of Mt generators (comprising M1 shaft sys-
E1  V @ g(1) @ g(1)
tems and M2 diesel generator sets) working in parallel at an ¼ cos 1 ¼ ... ¼ ¼0
instant, when the total active and reactive load is Ptot and X1 @2 @ M t
Qtot respectively, and while the generators’ no load frequen- @ g(2) E2  V @ g(2) @ g(2)
¼ sin 2 ¼0
cies and emfs are fL1 , fL2 , . . ., fLMt and E1 ,E2 , . . ., EMt @V X2 @1 @2
respectively.
E2  V @ f (2) @ g(2)
The f-P set of equations is as follows: ¼ cos 2 ¼ ... ¼ ¼0
8 9 X2 @3 @ M t
>
> Pk >
>
< f ¼ f Lk  x Pk  PNk  f Nk >
> = ...
XMt (24) @ g(M t ) E M t  V @ g(M t ) @ g(M t )
>
> >
> k ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . ., M t ¼ sin 6 ¼ ... ¼0
>
: P k ¼ P tot >
;
k¼1
@V X Mt @1 @5
@ g(M t ) E M t  V
¼ cos  M t
ie, a Mt xMt set of linear equations, where the unknown @ M t X Mt
quantities are: P1, P2 , . . ., PMt and f.
@ g(M t þ 1) E1 cos 1  2V E2 cos 2  2V
On the other hand, regarding the V-Q set of equations, if ¼ þ
@V X1 X2
the approximate linearised V-Q equations (those with the
voltage droop xQ ) are used, the corresponding set of equa- E M t cos  M t  2V
þ ... þ
tions is very similar to the f-P one: X Mt
8 9
>
> Qk >
> @ g(M t þ 1) VE1 @ g(M t þ 1)
< V ¼ E k  xQk  Q Nk  V Nk >
> = ¼ sin 1
@1 X1 @2
XMt (25)
>
> >
> k ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . ., M t VE2 @ g(M t þ 1)
>
: Q k ¼ Q tot >
; ¼ sin 2 . . . (29)
k¼1 X2 @ M t
VE M t
ie, a Mt xMt set of linear equations, where the unknown ¼ sin  M
X Mt t
quantities are: Q1 , Q2 , . . ., QMt and V.
Alternatively, the unknown variables, ie, 1 , 2 , . . ., Mt
and V can be calculated via the following Mt xMt set of hence, the Newton Raphson general equation in matrix
exact but non-linear expressions: form is as follows:

26 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

2 3 2 3
1 1,o
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 2 7 6 2,o 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 . . . 7 ¼ 6 . . . 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 M t 7 6 M t ,o 7
4 5 4 5
V Vo
2 31
E1 V  E1
6 sin 1,o cos 1 0 ... 0 7
6 X1 x1 7
6 7
6 7
6 E2 V o  E2 7
6
6 sin 2,o 0 cos 2,o ... 0 7
7
6 X2 X2 7
6 ... ... ... ... ... 7
6 7
6 7
6 EM t Vo  E M t 7
6 sin  M t ,o 0 0 ... cos  M t 7
6 7
6 X Mt X Mt 7
6 7
6 7
4 E1  cos 1,o  2V o E M t  cos  M t ,o  2V o V  E1 V o  E2 Vo  EM t 5
þ ...  sin 1  sin 2,o ...  sin  M t ,o
X1 X Mt X1 X2 X Mt
2 3
E1  V o
sin 1,o  P1
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

6 X1 7
6 7
6 7
6 E2  V o 7
6
6 sin  2,o  P 2 7
7
6 X2 7
6 ... 7
36 6 7
7
6 EM t  Vo 7
6 sin  M t ,o  PM t 7
6 7
6 X Mt 7
6 7
6 7
6X Mt
Vo 7
4 5
 ð E k  cos  k,o  V o Þ  Q tot
k¼1
X k

(30)

As soon as these unknown variables, ie, 1 , 2 , . . ., Mt possible, while each generator is loaded by its proportionate
and V are calculated, then each generator’s reactive power active and reactive load, PK and Q K :
can be assessed, too:
V ð E1  cos 1  V Þ PN K
Q1 ¼ PK ¼ PO¸ k ¼ 1, 2, . . . Mt (32)
X1 X
M
V ð E2  cos 2  V Þ PN K
Q2 ¼ (31) K¼1
X2
  QN K
V E M t  cos  M t  V QK ¼ QO¸ k ¼ 1, 2, . . . Mt (33)
QM ¼ X
M
X Mt QN K
K¼1
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 By setting the desired (proportionate) active power produc-
linearised method can be used as a means to get an initial tion for each generator, Pk , the no load frequencies fLk ’s
guess vector y0 for use in the precise method. are calculated from:

Secondary load sharing Pk

f Lk ¼ f N þ x Pk   f Nk (34)
As soon as assessment of the primary loading is finished, PNk
assessment of the secondary load sharing can begin. At this
stage the central energy management system makes Similarly, the desired proportionate reactive load sharing
the effort to converge the system frequency and voltage as among the generators is also known, ie, Q k , therefore, the
close to their nominal values, fN and VN respectively, as is generator emf’s, Ek ’s, can be calculated from:

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 27

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!2
u

u P X 2 Qk X k
behaviour is best, and most easily, studied in a computer
Ek ¼ t k k
þ þ VN k ¼ 1, 2, . . ., M t environment dealing with automation and control systems.
VN VN In this paper, the well-known simulation environment of
(35) MATLAB/Simulink3 has been exploited. Typical control
schemes for speed governors and AVRs are considered (Figs
Finally should the load angles k be required they are 10 & 11). Furthermore, the model of a conventional diesel-
obtained from: generator set is shown in Fig 12, while the circuit model of
a shaft system is depicted in Fig 13. According to the
Pk X k
tan  k ¼ k ¼ 1, 2, . . ., M t (36) approach followed, a Load Flow subroutine runs first so that
Qk X k þ V N 2 initial conditions are determined and then, the full scale
simulation is run. Interest is focused on the dynamic reac-
It can be seen that, at this stage, no iterative calculation tion of all system components, which takes place during the
procedure is required. On the other hand, due to practical primary regulation, and the subsequent elimination of fre-
restraints, in a real generator system the target of propor- quency and voltage errors at the secondary regulation.
tionate active and reactive loading at both nominal fre-
quency and voltage cannot be attained precisely. This is the
reason why most standards5-7 specify a tolerance range LOAD SHARING AMONG
within which the proportionate loading is considered suc- CONVENTIONAL AND SHAFT
cessful.
GENERATOR SYSTEMS –
k˜PK k ¼ kPK  PK k ,  P (37)
MATHEMATICAL CASE STUDY
k˜QK k ¼ kQ K  Q K k ,  Q
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

(38) This case study is obtained from an actual ship electric

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
energy system and comprises six 60Hz generators (Mt ¼6)
working in parallel, two of which are shaft systems (M1 ¼2)
and four conventional diesel generating sets (M2 ¼4), 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


Pk  X k
sin  k ¼ k ¼ 1, 2, . . . 6 (41)
Ek  V

These equations set a non-linear system solved via the

Newton-Raphson iterative numerical procedure as described
above. Hence:

1
@g
y ¼ yo  : g( yo ) (42)
@y
Ek  V
g(k): sin  k  Pk ¼ 0 k ¼ 1, 2, . . . 6 (43)
xk
Fig 12: Diesel generator model in MATLAB environment X
6
V
g(7):  ð E k  cos  k  V Þ  Q tot ¼ 0 (44)
k¼1
xk

connected and the voltage drop between them is negligible.

The rated values of the diesel generators are 770kW and Whereas regarding the Jacobian matrix elements:
577.5kVAr @ 450V. Almost all speed and voltage droops @ g(1) E1  V
xP and xQ * varied significantly from the ideal value of 3% ¼ sin 1
@V X1
prescribed by the manufacturer (Table 1). This was due to
inadequate calibration of their governors and AVRs. Thus, @ g(1) E1  V
¼ cos 1
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

the generators did not share either active or reactive load in @1 X1
the proportionate manner that the standards stipulate, while
in many cases reverse power flow was noticed leading to @ g(1) @ g(1)
¼ ... ¼ ¼0
unpleasant tripping of the protection scheme. This is the @2 @6
problem that has provoked the work presented in this paper. @ g(2) E2  V @ g(2)
The mathematical analysis developed in the preceding ¼ sin 2 ¼0
@V X2 @1
sections is exploited to highlight the significance of propor-
tionate load sharing among generators and of having equal @ g(2) E2  V @ f (2) @ g(2)
¼ cos 2 ¼ ... ¼ ¼0
values of frequency and voltage droops. Furthermore, the @2 X2 @3 @6
accuracy of the non-linear set of equations of the primary @ g(6) E6  V @ g(6) @ g(6)
regulation versus the linearised is examined. All cases are ¼ sin 6 ¼ ... ¼0
@V X6 @1 @5
compared to a base reference one, which refers to equal
droops and equal initial operating points for all generators @ g(6) E6  V
¼ cos 6
(the so-called ideal). In all cases where the total load con- @6 X6
sidered is about 60% the nominal capacity of all six gen- @ g(7) E1 cos 1  2V E2 cos 2  2V
erators is 3000kW and 2200kVAr). ¼ þ
@V X1 X2
E6 cos 6  2V
þ ... þ
Primary load sharing X6
The set of active power balance, ie, P-f, equations is: @ g(7) VE1 @ g(7) VE2
8 9 ¼ sin 1 ¼ sin 2
> Pk > @1 X1 @2 X2
> >
< f ¼ f Lk  x Pk  PNk  f Nk >
> = (45)
@ g(7) VE6
X6
k ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . ., 6
(39) ... ¼ sin 6
>
> >
> @6 X6
>
: Pk ¼ Ptot >
;
k¼1

ie, a 7x7 system with unknown variables: P1, P2, . . ., P6 Secondary load sharing
and f. In this case the set of active load sharing equations results
The corresponding reactive power balance equation is: in obtaining the required no-load frequency setting from
proportionate active loading Pk and nominal system operat-
X
6
V
 ð E k  cos  k  V Þ ¼ Q tot k ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . ., 6 ing frequency fN :
k¼1
xk
Pk
(40) f Lk ¼ f N þ x Pk   f Nk k ¼ 1, 2, . . ., 6 (46)
PNk

Where angles k are interrelated via the active power quan- Concerning assessment of reactive load sharing through the
tities: accurate non-linear Q-V relationship, the no-load voltage is
obtained from proportionate reactive loading Q k and nom-
* Mean values of voltage droops, ie, mean value of Q-V gradient inal system operating voltage VN:

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 29

 Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

30
Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

Fig 13: Shaft system model comprising a shaft generator, a rotary condenser and a ac/dc/ac link in MATLAB environment

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

No. A13 2009
 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

Fig 14: Case study

scheme: two shaft
systems synchronised
with four diesel
generators
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

Xp1 (%) 2,20 Xq1 (%) 3,89 fL1 (Hz) 60,65 E1 (V) 460,47
Xp2 (%) 2,68 Xq2 (%) 0,69 fL2 (Hz) 61,59 E2 (V) 460,68
Xp3 (%) 2,10 Xq3 (%) 0,53 fL3 (Hz) 60,67 E3 (V) 458,06
Xp4 (%) 2,19 Xq4 (%) 0,35 fL4 (Hz) 60,96 E4 (V) 456,40
Xp5 (%) 2,58 Xq5 (%) 0,12 fL5 (Hz) 60,53 E5 (V) 456,66
Xp6 (%) 2,94 Xq6 (%) 0,88 fL6 (Hz) 60,85 E6 (V) 459,58
Table 1: Non-equal speed droops and mean voltage droops Table 2: No-load frequencies and voltages, fLk and Ek,k¼1,2,...6
of the ship case study as obtained from field test measure- as obtained from field test measurements
ments
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!2
u

u P X 2 Q X
(xpk ¼3%, k¼1,2,. . .,6), while during the primary reac-
t k k k k tive load sharing the linear set of Q-V equations is
Ek ¼ þ þ VN k ¼ 1, 2, . . ., 6
VN VN used. Thus, in this case all generator voltage droops
(47) have a constant common value (xQk ¼3%, k¼1,2,. . .,6).
• Case III: frequency and mean voltage droops are as
Concerning assessment of reactive load sharing through the tabulated in Table 1, while fLk and Ek , k¼1,2,. . .6 are
linearised Q-V relationship, the no-load voltage is obtained as tabulated in Table 2. Primary reactive load sharing is
from: performed based on the non-linear set of Q-V equa-
tions. This was the case to ‘be corrected’.
Qk
E k ¼ V N þ xQk   V Nk k ¼ 1, 2, . . ., 6 (48)
Q Nk
The results of the primary load sharing assessment are
summarised in Table 3, from which the following remarks
The initial operating point (no-load frequencies and vol- can be made:
tages, fLk and Ek,k¼1,2,...6 ) for the Newton-Raphson proce-
dure of the primary regulation calculations is obtained from • As expected there is no error between cases I and II
a set of field measurements performed aboard (Table 2). with respect to active power load sharing as in both
The following cases have been considered: cases the corresponding P-f curves are the same. Con-
versely, the relative error in reactive load sharing is of
• Case I: all frequency droops are equal to one another the order of 15% for power generation, and 2% for
(xpk ¼3%, k¼1,2,. . .,6), while during the primary reac- voltage. This is the error of linearising the Q-V curve.
tive load sharing the non-linear set of Q-V equations is • With respect to the load sharing of the actual ship
used. The no-load frequencies and no-load voltages are generation system with unequal droops, the no-load
also of common value for all generators (ie, fLk ¼60.6 set-points (fLk and Ek ) vary and make the assessment
Hz, Ek ¼450 V, k¼1,2,. . .6). This case is considered the problematic. Thus, case III demonstrates how important
reference case to which all the others are compared. the good calibration of generator speed governors and
• Case II: all frequency droops are equal to one another voltage regulators is for proportionate loading. Nega-

No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 31

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

Case I Case II % error Case III %error

f(Hz) 59.54 59.54 0.00 60.56 -1.72
P1 (kW) 590.55 590.55 0.00 65.47 88.91
P2 (kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 491.87 -8.17
P3 (kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 65.00 85.70
P4 (kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 231.98 48.98
P5 (kW) 454.72 454.72 0.00 -16.70 103.67
P6 (kW) 590.55 590.55 0.00 162.37 72.51
V(V) 459.68 452.21 1.63 458.60 0.23
Q1 (kVAr) 518.06 433.07 16.40 2992.19 -477.58
Q2 (kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1870.19 -542.74
Q3 (kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 -490.12 268.44
Q4 (kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1985.82 782.48
Q5 (kVAr) 290.97 333.46 -14.60 1751.50 701.95
Q6 (kVAr) 518.06 433.07 16.40 1565.05 -202.10
Table 3: Primary load sharing results of all cases

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
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016
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-

measured. tors.

Secondary regulation, where voltage and frequency values

are brought back close to their nominal values, while the Simulation of the dynamic behaviour of load sharing
proportionate loading in Table 4 is sought, is summarised In this case, the system considered is modelled in the
on Table 5. MATLAB/PSB-Simulink environment, as shown in Fig 15.
For each generator an AVR and a speed governor like
P1 (kW) 590.551 Q1 (kVAr) 433.071 the ones shown in Figs 10 & 11, are considered. Thus,
P2 (kW) 454.724 Q2 (kVAr) 333.465 during the simulation, the actual primary load sharing in-
P3 (kW) 454.724 Q3 (kVAr) 333.465
cluding the dynamic transition from one loading stage to
P4 (kW) 454.724 Q4 (kVAr) 333.465
another one, due to generator self-regulation, can be stud-
P5 (kW) 454.724 Q5 (kVAr) 333.465
P6 (kW) 590.551 Q6 (kVAr) 433.071 ied. The initial conditions of the simulations are yielded
from a preliminary load flow procedure run for the entire
Table 4: Proportionate loading among all six generators circuit. The generators are initially loaded by a resistive-
inductive static load (P¼5120kW and Q¼3840kVAr) along
Case I Case II Case III
with a large power asynchronous motor (emulating the be-
fL1 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
haviour of a 1340hp thruster motor with QC ¼500kVAr).
fL2 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
fL3 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063 Two distinct representative load changes based on this
fL4 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063 scheme are considered:
fL5 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063 • Case A: The resistive-inductive load is initially con-
fL6 (Hz) 61.063 61.063 61.063
nected but immediately disconnected at 0 seconds and
E1 (V) 459.947 447.795 458.874
E2 (V)
re-connected at 5s. The motor is de-energised through-
460.047 447.795 458.974
E3 (V) 460.047 447.795 458.974 out.
E4 (V) 460.047 447.795 458.974 • Case B: The static load and motor are connected
E5 (V) 460.047 447.795 458.974 throughout. A step-up increment (from 5.3kNm to
E6 (V) 459.947 447.795 458.874 6.2kNm) takes place on the shaft torque load of the
large power motor at 3s.
Table 5: Secondary load sharing results of all case studies
In case A, Fig 16 illustrates the main generator bus voltage
and Fig 17 illustrates the system frequency. During initial
From the results of Table 5, it can be seen that: disconnection both voltage and frequency encounter a tran-
sient decaying increment due to load shedding, while during
• In all three cases, the setting required for the no-load re-connection at 5s, they both suffer from a sag due to the
frequency is the same for all generators and equal to abrupt load increment. The voltage sag is in the order of
61.063Hz. 70V (about 15%), while the corresponding frequency fluc-
• The situation alters in the case of no-load voltage. In tuation has a transient dip of 5.5% followed by a swell of
cases I and III, where the Q-V curve is considered non- 2.5%. The speed and voltage controllers manage to restore
linear, a value of 460 and 459 respectively is required voltage and frequency nominal values within a time frame
(a small difference is noticed between a shaft system of 2-3s.

32 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009

 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016
Fig 15: Ship electric network simulated in MATLAB environment
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
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
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
33
 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

Fig 16: Main bus

voltage fluctuation
(case A)
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

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
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

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)
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

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
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016
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 motor’s 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 met5-9
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 ship’s electric energy system.
Thus, both the first- and second-stage regulation during
load sharing is presented via the solution of well-based
No. A13 2009 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
Fig 25: Induction motor
rotation speed (case B)
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 ship’s 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 User’s 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. Lloyd’s 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
37
 Reactive power sharing in ship energy systems with shaft generators

for the Classification and Construction of Ships – Part 6/ X: synchronous reactance (constant with the exception of
Electrical Installations - 1999, (Issue No 1). the short circuit transient period)
10. STANAG 1008: Characteristics of shipboard electri- V: network voltage (by proper regulations on V-Q rule,
cal power systems in warships of the North Atlantic Treaty this voltage is to remain constant)
navies, NATO, Edition 8, 21 Febr. 1994/Edition 9 under E: generator emf (it is regulated by the AVR intervention
ratification. to the field circuit)
11. Kanellos F, Hatzilau IK, Prousalidis J and Styvakta- : power angle reflecting mainly the active power
kis E. 2006. Simulation of a shipboard electrical network loading of the generator (t is regulated by the speed-
(AES) comprising pulsed loads, IMarEST Proceedings of governor intervention to the f-P rule)
Engine as a Weapon II, International conference, UK. xP : frequency droop
12. Kanellos F, Hatzilau IK and Prousalidis J. 2007. xQ : voltage droop
Investigation of voltage/frequency modulation in ship elec- fLk : no-load frequency of k-generator
tric networks with pulsed loads according to STANAG 1008 fN : nominal system frequency
design constraints, IMarEST Proceedings of All Electric fNk : nominal generator frequency of k-generator
Ship International Conference AES 2007, UK. fvk : full-load frequency of k-generator
Mt : total number of generators installed
M1 : total number of shaft systems installed
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS M2 : total number of diesel generators installed
P1 : proportionate active power loading of k-generator
The authors wish to express their gratitude towards Elefsis
POk : active power operating point of k generator
Shipyards for all the support provided, including funding,
Q1 : proportionate active power loading of k-generator
technical data accumulation and field measurement per-
Downloaded by [195.29.81.98] at 22:45 26 July 2016

SG: shaft generator

formance. In addition, they are indebted towards Dr John
SC: shaft (rotary) condenser
Dermentzoglou for his assistance on setting-up the simula-
SS: shaft system comprising a shaft generator with its
tions in the MATLAB environment.
associated condenser
VN: nominal system voltage
VNk: nominal terminal voltage of k-generator
p : tolerance set by standards for proportionate active
NOMENCLATURE
power load sharing in secondary regulation
R: armature winding resistance (varies slightly by the Q : tolerance set by standards for proportionate reactive
thermal load) power load sharing in secondary regulation

38 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A13 2009