Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Load-following performance analysis of a microturbine for islanded and grid connected operation
G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Modeling, simulation and performance analysis of a microturbine (MT) generator (MTG) system is carried out in this paper. The MTG system is consisting of a MT coupled with a synchronous generator. The proposed model incorporates power, speed and voltage controller for maintaining constant speed and voltage under variable loading condition. Modeling and simulation tasks are performed in MATLABSIMULINK platform for different loading conditions under isolated and grid connected modes. Performance study of the MTG system is carried out with and without both speed and voltage controller. It is observed from the simulation work that the MTG along with speed and voltage controller performs quite well under load disturbances, thereby, renders its suitability as a viable option for playing a key role as distributed generation for both isolated and grid connected mode of operation. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 19 February 2013 Received in revised form 27 September 2013 Accepted 12 October 2013

Keywords: Microturbine Load-following performance Distributed energy resources Synchronous generator

1. Introduction Distributed generation (DG) system is going to play a key role in bridging the gap between the rate at which electrical energy demand is increasing and the generation capacity being added. A recent trend of decentralization in electric power utility is creating more opportunities for high penetration of DGs, serving as complimentary options to the centralized energy system. DG may be operated in dual mode with grid or without grid. Nevertheless, stand-alone DG systems are preferred more in hilly areas and remote villages where accessibility to the main grid is really a big challenge [13]. Apart from these, DGs are technically stable, economically feasible and environment friendly. These are small and efcient modular generation systems [46]. Recently, there is a growing concern among the researchers across the globe in developing microturbines (MTs) for DG applications owing to their quick start capability and easy controllability which may be useful for efcient peak shaving. Also, MTs render reliable and efcient operation along with lower maintenance cost and low greenhouse gas emission [7,8]. Microturbine generation (MTG) is a multi-fuelled generating system, incorporating simple cycle gas turbine technology with power generating capacity ranging between 25 and 500 kW. It suits best to meet peak load requirements of the consumer because
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 0326 2235644; fax: +91 0326 2296563.
E-mail addresses: gauri1983@gmail.com (G. Shankar), vivek_agamani@yahoo. com (V. Mukherjee). 0142-0615/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.10.018

of its quick start capability. Mainly, two types of MT are reported in the literature. One of them is very high speed, single-shaft MTG where generator and turbine are mounted on the same shaft while the other one is the split-shaft MTG system where a generator is connected via a gearbox to a power turbine [911]. Addition of DG affects the overall dynamics of the power distribution network, thereby, accurate modeling of MTG and its control have become inevitable to predict its grid and off-grid interaction in advance. Due to these reasons, researchers around the globe have been concentrating hard to explore accurate dynamic model of the MTG system. Detailed theory of the gas turbine is well presented by Cohen et al. in [12]. In [9,13,14], modeling of single-shaft heavy duty gas turbine and its performance dynamics with acceleration, temperature and speed control are discussed. A review of different gas turbine model, developed till now, is presented and compared in [15,16]. So far as microgas turbine is concerned, its governing principle resembles heavy duty gas turbine theory. Modeling, simulation and control of load-following performance for grid/off-grid operations of MTG are well pursued in [1721]. These works deal with single-shaft microturbine coupled with high speed permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG). High frequency electrical power generated by PMSG, eventually, cannot be used directly by the consumer. As a result, interfacing of power electronic devices between the MTG and the end user is inevitable. The usage of power electronic components results in conversion losses and makes the overall system operation and control more complex. To overcome these complexities while modeling of single-shaft MTG with power electronic components, split-shaft

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

705

modeling of MT with either induction generator (IG) or synchronous generator (SG) is reported in [9,2225]. The gas turbine governor model (GAST) developed by General Electric (GE) is the most commonly used model to study the dynamic performance of gas turbine. In [25,26], dynamics behavior of parallel operation of hybrid fuel cell and MTG system forming a microgrid is explored. Authors of [8,23,24,27] have used the GAST model for different load-following performance studies of split-shaft MTG system under with or without grid connected mode of operation. Sisworahardjo et al. in [24] have made a comparison between controller based on articial neural network and conventional PI controller for standalone MT power plants. Oguz et al. have made similar type of approach in [27]. In the present work, GAST model of a split-shaft MTG is considered and simulated in MATLAB-SIMULINK platform [28]. Slow dynamics of electro-mechanical system of a MTG is explored considering different load scenarios for islanding as well as grid connected mode of operation. Along with active power controller and speed controller, an additional voltage controller is also incorporated in the present work for load-following performance study of the proposed MTG system. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, model of split-shaft MT along with its control mechanism is presented. The parameters used in the studied MT model are illustrated in Section 3. Simulation results are presented and discussed in Sections 4. Finally, conclusions of the present work are drawn in Section 5. 2. Split-shaft MT model Most of the MTs use a single-shaft design conguration in which shaft rotates both the inlet air compressor and the generator. Singleshaft models are designed to operate at higher speed, typically, in the range of 50,000120,000 rpm. These systems generate highfrequency alternating current (AC) which is rectied to direct current and, nally, inverted to 5060 Hz AC using power electronic interface system [1721]. Single-shaft MTs are incorporated with mainly three primary controllers viz. speed controller, temperature controller and acceleration controller. Each of these controllers modulates fuel control block and overall turbine dynamics, as and when required. Speed controller (being the primary controller) acts owing to the mismatch between reference speed and actual rotor speed. Temperature controller monitors the upper limit of the output power generated. Acceleration controller acts mainly to regulate the rate of acceleration of rotor during start-up [23]. On the other hand, twin-shaft MTs use two turbines. One is used to drive the air compressor while the other is used to drive the generator via a gear box. Exhaust coming out from the compressor turbine powers the generator turbine as shown in Fig. 1. The gear box is used to reduce the speed to 3600 rpm. With the pressure ratio splited between the two turbines, the lower output shaft speed of the second stage turbine is more conducive to directly accommodate a conventional generator such as an IG or a SG without any requirement of power electronic interface [29]. A recuperator and a waste heat recovery or a heat exchanger is incorporated to enhance overall efciency and power generation output. The recuperator captures thermal energy of the exhaust from the power turbine for preheating compressed air whereas heat exchanger captures the exhaust energy to meet the heating load requirement of the consumers, if any. [8,2227]. In this paper, a twin-shaft model of MT is used. As main focus of the present work is to explore the slow dynamics of the electromechanical systems under normal operating condition, recuperator and the heat exchanger (both being only system efciency raising components) are omitted from the proposed model. For simplicity, actual temperature control which uses thermocouple

for sensing exhaust temperature and acceleration control blocks are neglected in our studied model. It may be noted here that the temperature and acceleration control blocks do not participate under normal operating condition. In the present work, a speed controller is used in place of governor of MT system [23]. 2.1. Split-shaft MT and its control In the present work, the most commonly used GAST model of the MT (developed by GE) is simulated to study the load-following behavior. SIMULINK-based GAST model of MT with speed controller and active power controller is shown in Fig. 2. The parameter details of the MT model may be found in [23] and are listed in Table 1. As shown in Fig. 2, speed control is realized by incorporating a conventional proportional-integral (PI) controller which is used to control the error between reference speed (xref) and the actual speed xact of the rotor. Similarly, from Fig. 2, it may be observed that the mechanical power output from the turbine (which in turn governs active power output from generator) is controlled by an another PI controller. The input to this PI controller is the difference between reference active power (Pref) and the actual active power generated (Pact). The outputs of the speed controller (x1), active power controller (x2) and temperature control block (x3) are given as inputs to a low value gate (LVG) which in turn governs the convenient fuel ow rate. Output of the LVG is given to fuel opening valve (FOV) block, represented by a rst order transfer function (having time constant T1) with maximum and minimum valve opening limits denoted by FOVmax and FOVmin, respectively. Depending upon LVG output, FOV actuates the fuel system block (having fuel system control time constant of T2) to produce required fuel ow rate. Exhaust temperature block is represented by a rst order time constant block with load limit time constant shown as T3. The values of load limit (Lmax) and FOVmax are taken as 1.2 (assuming that MT has 120% peak power capacity). 2.2. Simplied SG model and its control A simplied SG model, as given in [23], is used for the simulation work of the present paper. In the present work, a predened SG model (as available in SimPowerSystems toolbox of MATLAB [28]) is used which models both the electrical and mechanical characteristics of the SG. The parameters of the studied SG model are mentioned in Table 2. The real power output of the generator is controlled by a PI controller. In the present work, terminal voltage of the MTG system is maintained at desired level by using a voltage regulator whose input is the output of an another PI controller. This voltage control mechanism, in islanded mode, is beyond the scope of the work reported by Saha et al. in [23]. But this voltage control mechanism, in islanded mode, is considered in the present work. Input to the PI controller used in voltage control mechanism is the mismatch between reference voltage (Vref) and the actual terminal voltage per phase (Vphase). These controllers must work in unison to achieve two important targets viz. (a) meeting the power requirement at the consumer end and (b) keeping both the terminal voltage and the speed deviation (i.e. frequency) within their prescribed limits. A high quality power is expected from the MTG system when these two targets are fullled. The block diagram of the MTG system interconnected with the utility grid is shown in Fig. 3. A 150 kVA, 440 V, 60 Hz MTG system is interconnected with the utility grid via a 200 kVA, 11 kV/440 V, 60 Hz, YD transformer. The utility grid is modeled as a simple RL equivalent source with short circuit level 500 kVA with a load of 5 kW [23]. The off-grid and grid connected operation of the system may be realized by opening or closing of the circuit breaker located at the point of common coupling (PCC).

706

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

Fig. 1. Block diagram of twin-shaft MT.

Fig. 2. Block diagram of GAST MT model [8].

Table 1 Parameters of the MT model. Symbol Dtur FOVmax FOVmin Ki_pc Ki_sc Ki_vc Kp_pc Kp_sc Kp_vc KT Lmax Prated,MT Pref T1 T2 T3 Vref Meaning Turbine damping Maximum valve position Minimum valve position Power controller integral gain Speed controller integral gain Voltage controller integral gain Power controller proportional gain Speed controller proportional gain Voltage controller proportional gain Temperature control loop gain Load limit Rated power, kVA Reference power, p.u. Fuel system lag time constant, s Fuel system lag time constant, s Load limit time constant, s Reference voltage, p.u. Speed reference, p.u. Value 0.03 1.2 0.1 50.0 40.0 0.5 10.0 680.0 0.005 1.0 1.2 150 1.0 10.0 0.1 3.0 1.0 1.0

Table 2 SG parameters. Symbol f H KD P Prated R Vref X Meaning Rated frequency, Hz Inertia constant, s Damping factor, p.u. Number of poles Rated power, kVA Internal resistance, p.u. Rated line to line voltage, V Internal reactance, p.u. Value 60 Hz 0.822 60.0 2 150 0.02 440 0.3

3. Model parameters The parameters used for the simulation of the studied MT, SG and grid are taken from the work of Saha et al. [23] and are illustrated in Tables 13, respectively.

xref

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

707

Fig. 3. Simulation block diagram of MTG with grid.

Table 3 Distribution grid parameters. Parameter 3-Phase source base voltage, kV 3-Phase source short circuit kVA, kVA Rated frequency, Hz 3-Phase source X/R ratio Distribution transformer power rating, kVA Distribution transformer primary voltage, kV Distribution transformer secondary voltage, kV Value 11 500 60 6 200 11 440

4. Results and discussions In the present work, load-following performances of the MTG system under isolated and grid connected modes are considered and simulated. The analysis is carried out in per unit system considering 150 kVA as the base kVA, 3600 rpm as the base speed and 11 kV as the base voltage. 4.1. Islanding operation of MTG Scenarios considered vis--vis observations of load-following performances of the proposed MTG system in islanding mode of operation are presented below. 4.1.1. Islanding mode-Scenario 1 In this scenario, performance of an isolated MTG system is analyzed without speed and voltage controller. In this scenario, simulation is performed for t = 90 s and set point for Pref is changed manually with load. Initially, MTG system is assumed to be operated with 30 kW (0.2 p.u.) of load. At t = 40 s, an additional load of 90 kW (0.6 p.u.) is connected and corresponding change in Pref is made to change turbine mechanical power output to meet the load requirement. Mechanical power output of turbine (PMECH) and electrical power output of generator (PSG) are plotted in Fig. 4. The rotor speed (xr) and Vphase of the SG due to step change in load pattern are plotted in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. It may be observed from Fig. 4 that though the load is increased from 0.2 p.u. to 0.8 p.u but due to decrease in Vphase (as voltage controller is absent) from 1 p.u. to 0.96 p.u. as shown in Fig. 6, the actual electrical power delivered to the load is less than 0.8 p.u. As a result, though PMECH changes as per the predened value of Pref but the PSG could
Fig. 4. MT mechanical power output and generator electrical power output (islanding mode-Scenario 1).

Fig. 5. SG rotor speed (islanding mode -Scenario 1).

708

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

Fig. 6. SG terminal voltage per phase (islanding mode-Scenario 1). Fig. 8. SG rotor speed (islanding mode-Scenario 2).

Fig. 9. SG terminal voltage per phase (islanding mode-Scenario 2).

Fig. 7. MT mechanical power output and generator electrical power output (islanding mode-Scenario 2).

not change up to 0.8 p.u. Hence, it is observed from Fig. 4 that PMECH becomes greater than PSG which causes the rotor to accelerate and due to absence of speed controller, xr shoots up above 1.0 p.u as shown in Fig. 5. However, if Pref would not have changed with load, then PMECH would have been less than PSG causing rotor to decelerate and decrease in xr might have been observed in the absence of both speed and voltage controller. 4.1.2. Islanding mode-Scenario 2 In this scenario, both speed and voltage controllers are incorporated along with the active power controller of the MTG model and its overall performance is analyzed. The simulation is carried out for t = 90 s. Simulation started with an initial load of 30 kW (0.2 p.u.), at t = 20 s an additional load of 90 kW (0.6 p.u.) is switched on and further at t = 60 s, there is step increase in load by 30 kW (0.2 p.u.). Proles of PMECH and PSG for this scenario are plotted in Fig. 7. Proles of xr and Vphase of the SG due to step change in load pattern (as considered in this scenario) are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. It may be observed from Fig. 7 that owing to step change in load demand at t = 20 s and t = 60 s, PMECH follows PSG after overcoming the oscillatory response at the time of change in load. It may be noticed from Fig. 8 that the conventional PI speed controller used in the model is successful in bringing back the speed to 1.0 p.u. after the occurrence of the load disturbances at t = 20 s and t = 60 s. It may be observed from Figs. 7 and 8 that the maximum settling time both in case of PMECH and xr is approximately 20 s for a large change in load of 0.6 p.u. occurring at

t = 20 s which is higher as compared to disturbances caused due to small change in load of 0.2 p.u. at t = 60 s. A maximum peak overshoot of 0.831 p.u. and settling time of 1 s is observed in the prole of PSG during larger load change at t = 20 s. A maximum 0.1% dip in rotor speed from its nominal value is observed at t = 20 s. Fig. 9 shows that Vphase momentarily dips due to step load change at t = 20 s and t = 60 s, but the installed voltage controller changes the generator internal voltage (Eg) accordingly to maintain Vphase constant at 1.0 p.u. It is observed that due to large change in load at t = 20 s, a voltage dips to a minimum value of 0.782 p.u. from its nominal with settling time less than 0.5 s as compared to load change at t = 60 s. However, due to fast acting dynamics of voltage regulator circuit as compared to MT, Vphase could reach to 1.0 p.u. with a settling time of less than 1 s. 4.1.3. Islanding mode-Scenario 3 In earlier two scenarios, MTG performances with resistive load are considered. But in the present scenario, a RL load is applied to an initial resistive load and the MTG performance is analyzed incorporating all controllers as used in scenario 2. Simulation for this scenario is considered for 90 s. Simulation started with an initial resistive load of 30 kW (0.2 p.u.). At t = 20 s, an another RL load of (90 kW + j 30 kVAR) is switched on and further at t = 60 s, an another RL load of (15 kW + j 15 kVAR) is connected. Proles of PMECH and PSG for this scenario are shown in Fig. 10. Proles of xr and Vphase of the SG due to step change in load pattern are plotted in Fig. 11(a) and (b), respectively. Proles of PSG and reactive power output of generator (QSG) are shown in Fig. 12. From Fig. 10, it may be inferred that the load-following performance of the active power controller installed in the model are being

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

709

monitored in this scenario also, as stated in the earlier two scenarios. As compared to previous case (Islanding mode-Scenario 2), at t = 20 s, due to reduced power factor, oscillation with a little higher amplitude in the prole of PSG is observed, whereas the settling time remains more or less same, being less than 1 s in both cases. As compared to previous case (Islanding mode-Scenario 2), the action of speed and voltage controller may be noticed from Fig. 11 in maintaining the speed and the voltage, respectively, at desired level. Because of reactive power loading of 0.2 p.u. at t = 20 s, a little more drop in speed and the voltage is observed as compared to previous case. However, settling time is observed to be more or less same from the prole of xr and Vphase, in both the cases. From Fig. 12 it may be observed that the proles of both PSG and QSG follow the load requirement. 4.2. Grid connected operation of MTG Scenarios considered vis--vis observations of load-following performances of the proposed MTG model in grid connected mode of operation are presented below. Both speed and voltage controllers are taken into account in all the scenarios considered of this mode of operation. 4.2.1. Grid connected mode-Scenario 1 In this scenario only resistive load is considered and simulation is carried out for 90 s. Simulation started with an initial load of 30 kW (0.2 p.u.) on MTG and 60 kW (0.4 p.u.) on grid. At t = 10 s, MTG is synchronized to the grid using technique as given in [30]. At t = 15 s, an another load of 0.2 p.u. is applied to MTG and MTG is made to disconnect from grid at t = 20 s. Again at t = 40 s, MTG is re-synchronized and further an additional load of 0.2 p.u is applied both on MTG and the grid at t = 50 s and t = 60 s, respectively. Finally, at t = 70 s once again MTG is disconnected from the grid. Load-following performances of PMECH and PSG of the proposed MTG system are presented in Fig. 13. Proles of PGRID and PSG are compared in Fig. 14(a) and (b), respectively The variations of xr and Vphase for this scenario may be observed from Fig. 15(a) and (b), respectively. These load-following performances justify the actions of their respective controlling mechanisms. It may be observed from Fig. 13, prior to synchronization at t = 10 s and t = 40 s, both MTG and the grid were operating in steady state in islanding mode. As result, due to proper synchronization no sharing of load from MTG to grid and vice versa is observed. However, as the control topology remains the same in MTG during islanding and grid connected mode of operation, hence from Fig. 14, it may

Fig. 10. MT mechanical power output and generator electrical power output (islanding mode-Scenario 3).

Fig. 11. SG (a) rotor speed and (b) terminal voltage per phase (islanding modeScenario 3).

Fig. 12. Real and reactive power output of SG (islanding mode-Scenario 3).

Fig. 13. MT mechanical power output and generator electrical power output (grid connected mode-Scenario 1).

710

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

operation is fully transferred back to MTG when disconnected from the grid at t = 20 s and t = 70 s and PMECH follows PSG, accordingly as shown in Fig. 13. Fig. 15 shows that a change of 0.033% in xr is observed with a settling time of 10 s and 1.73% change in Vphase with settling time of 2 s, when MTG is disconnected at t = 20 s from grid which is found higher as compared to when MTG once again disconnected at t = 70 s.

Fig. 14. Real power output of (a) grid and (b) SG (grid connected mode-Scenario 1).

4.2.2. Grid connected mode-Scenario 2 In this scenario, simulation is performed for t = 90 s with RL load and the performance of MTG in grid connected mode of operation is analyzed. Simulation started with initial RL load of (30 kW + j 15 kVAR) on MTG and (45 kW + j 30 kVAR) on grid. MTG is made to synchronized with grid at t = 10 s and a load of (30 kW + j 15 kVAR) is further connected to MTG at t = 15 s. MTG is made to disconnect from grid at t = 20 s. Again at t = 40 s, MTG is re-synchronized and further an additional load of (15 kW + j 15 kVAR) is applied on MTG at t = 50 s and a load of (30 kW + j 15 kVAR) is connected to the grid at t = 60 s. Finally, at t = 70 s once again MTG is disconnected from the grid. Proles of PMECH and PSG following the load disturbances for this scenario are illustrated in Fig. 16. Proles of PGRID and PSG are presented in Fig. 17(a) and (b), respectively and variations of reactive power of grid (QGRID) and QSG are illustrated in Fig. 18(a) and (b), respectively. Proles of xr and Vphase for this scenario may be observed from Fig. 19(a) and (b), respectively. It may be noticed from Fig. 16 that the load-following performance of the MTG is maintained in this scenario as well. When MTG is disconnected from grid at t = 20 s and t = 70 s, the loads shared by the grid from MTG are again transferred back to MTG and consequently, PMECH changes accordingly to meet the load changes occurred at MTG side. A maximum peak overshoot of 1% with settling time of 9 s is observed in the prole of PMECH following a large change in load at t = 20 s as compared to load change at t = 70 s. In this scenario too, at the time of synchronization at t = 10 s and t = 40 s, no load sharing between MTG and grid is observed as seen from Figs. 16 and 17. However, it is also observed that during grid connected mode of operation, load changes at MTG side at t = 15 s (30 kW + j 15 kVAR) and t = 50 s (15 kW + j 15 kVAR) is fully supported by the grid. And when MTG is isolated from grid at t = 20 s and t = 70 s, automatically, load shared by the grid is transferred back to MTG. Oscillatory nature in the proles of PMECH and PSG of Figs. 16 and PGRID and PSG of 17 are observed during load switching and synchronization with acceptable overshoots and settling times because of reactive nature of the load. It may be noted from Fig. 19 that in this scenario too, both the speed as well as the terminal voltage per phase proles are being settled down to 1.0 p.u. following the load

Fig. 15. (a) SG rotor speed and (b) SG terminal voltage per phase (grid connected mode-Scenario 1).

be noticed that any change in load either at MTG side (0.2 p.u. of load change each at t = 15 s and t = 50 s) or at grid side (0.2 p.u. of change in load at t = 60 s) during grid connected mode, is fully shared by the grid only. This happens because droop governor based load sharing has not been considered in this model. Load shared by the grid from MTG during grid connected mode of

Fig. 16. MT mechanical power output and generator electrical power output (grid connected mode-Scenario 2).

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

711

Fig. 19. SG (a) rotor speed and (b) terminal voltage per phase (grid connected mode-Scenario 1). Fig. 17. Real power output of (a) grid and (b) SG (grid connected mode-Scenario 2).

disturbances as well as connection and disconnection events as considered in this scenario. Overshoots, undershoots and settling time in the proles of xr and Vphase at the time of load disturbances, connection and disconnection events at different instant are well under acceptable limits. 4.3. MTG performance For performance analysis of the MTG model, the model in the presence of properly tuned active power controller, speed controller and the voltage controller is simulated for t = 350 s with resistive load and the results obtained is compared with other results. In this study, simulation started with no-load on MTG and a load

Fig. 18. Reactive power output of (a) grid and (b) SG (grid connected modeScenario 2).

Fig. 20. MT mechanical power output (Ref [23] and simulated).

712

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713

of 30 kW (0.2 p.u.) and 120 kW (0.8 p.u.) are connected to MTG at t = 50 s and t = 200 s, respectively. The proles of PMECH and xr are compared with that of results reported in [23] and are shown in Figs. 20 and 21, respectively. It may be observed from Fig. 20 that when a load of 0.2 p.u. is connected to MTG at t = 50 s, no peak overshoot and settling time of 15 s is observed as compared to a

peak overshoot of 3.6% with settling time of 50 s as reported in [23]. At t = 200 s, a large load of 0.8 p.u. is connected to MTG and a peak overshoot of 2.5% with setting time of 45 s is observed as compared to peak overshoot of 29.5% and settling time of 100 s as reported in [23]. From Fig. 20 it may be observed that decrease in rotor speed found to be same (in simulated result and in [23]) following load switching at t = 50 s and t = 200 s. A higher peak overshoot is observed in the prole of xr of [23]. However, settling times in the prole of simulated xr are found to be 5 s and 30 s corresponding to load switching at t = 50 s and t = 200 s, respectively. The simulated result is much better as compared to settling time of 80 s and 100 s in prole of xr as reported in [23], corresponding to load disturbances occurred at t = 50 s and t = 200 s, respectively. Higher settling time is observed in the proles of PMECH and xr at t = 200 s due to large switching of load of 0.8 p.u. as compared to 0.2 p.u. of load disturbance at t = 50 s. 4.4. Comparison between split-shaft and single-shaft MT A comparison of the load-following performances of split-shaft and single-shaft MT of similar rating under isolated mode of operation is carried out. In this study, simulation started with an initial load of 15 kW (0.1 p.u.). An another additional load of 15 kW (0.1 p.u.) is connected at t = 5 s and t = 15 s. Proles of PMECH and PSG for both the split-shaft and single-shaft MT are presented as Fig. 22(a) and (b), respectively. It may be noticed from Fig. 22 that the load-following response of both the MTs are similar in nature and, thus, either of these two models may be used for DGs application. However, power electronic interface devices used in singleshaft model of MT for which many control strategies have been surfaced in the recent literatures are not associated with split-shaft MT.

Fig. 21. SG rotor speed (Ref [23] and simulated).

5. Conclusion In this paper, the dynamic model of MTG system with power, speed and voltage controller is simulated for load-following performance study. The performances of the MTG under different loading pattern for both isolated as well as grid connected mode are studied and analyzed. Due to slow dynamics of MTG, little delay in increase and decrease in mechanical power in following the load dynamics are observed. Even though, MTG could able to trace out the changing load prole keeping speed of rotor and terminal voltage per phase at desired level under their respective controller actions. The results obtained in islanding mode are compared to earlier reported results assuming similar MTG system with same load patterns. Comparison shows better results due to the presence of properly tuned power, speed and voltage controllers. Further, a comparison of load-following response between split-shaft and single-shaft MT is also carried out. The study of the present work shows that MTG system has a bright future in micro-grid applications for meeting isolated or grid connected consumer load demand. References
[1] Dursun Erkan, Kilic Osman. Comparative evaluation of different power management strategies of a stand-alone PV/Wind/PEMFC hybrid power system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;34:819. [2] Ou Ting-Chia. A novel unsymmetrical faults analysis for microgrid distribution systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;43(1):101724. [3] Mohammadi S, Soleymani S, Mozafari B. Scenario-based stochastic operation management of microgrid including wind, photovoltaic, micro-turbine, fuel cell and energy storage devices. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;54(1):52335. [4] Geem ZW. Size optimization for a hybrid photovoltaic-wind energy system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;42(1):44851.

Fig. 22. Mechanical power output and generator electrical power output of (a) split-shaft MTG and (b) single-shaft MTG.

G. Shankar, V. Mukherjee / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 55 (2014) 704713 [5] Kaundinya DP, Balachandran P, Ravindranath NH. Grid-connected versus stand-alone energy systems for decentralized power-a review of literature. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(8):204150. [6] Davis MW. Distributed resource electric power systems offer signicant advantages over central station generation and T&D power systemspart I. In: Proc IEEE power engineering society summer meeting, vol. 1. 2002. p. 5461. [7] Scott WG. Micro-turbine generators for distribution systems. IEEE Ind Appl Mag 1998;4(3):5762. [8] Zhu Y, Tomsovic K. Development of models for analyzing the load-following performance of microturbines and fuel cells. Electr Power Syst Res 2002;62(1):111. [9] Rowen WI. Simplied mathematical representations of heavy-duty gas turbines. Trans ASME J Eng Power 1983;105(4):8659. [10] Pai Fu-Sheng. An improved utility interface for microturbine generation system with stand-alone operation capabilities. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2006;53(5):152937. [11] Watts JH. Microturbines: a new class of gas turbine engines. Gas Turbine News Brief 1999;39(1):511. <http://www.asme.org/igti/ggtn/archives.html>. [12] Cohen H, Rogers GFC, Saravanamuttoo HIH. Gas Turbine Theory. Longman; 1987. [13] Hannett LN, Khan AH. Combustion turbine dynamic model validation from tests. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1993;8(1):1528. [14] Massuco S, Pitto A, Silvestro F. A gas turbine model for studies on distributed generation penetration into distribution networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2011;26(3):9929. [15] Yee SK, Milanovic JV, Hughes FM. Overview and comparative analysis of gas turbine models for system stability studies. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2008;23(1):10818. [16] Shalan HEMA, Hassan MAM, Bahgat ABG. Comparative study on modeling of gas turbines in combined cycle power plants. In: Proc 14th International middle east power system conference; 2010, p. 97076. [17] Gaonkar DN, Patel RN, Pillai GN. Dynamic performance of microturbine generation system connected to a grid. Electr Power Compon Syst 2008;36(10):103147.

713

[18] Guda SR, Wang C, Nehrir MH. Modeling of microturbine power generation systems. Electr Power Compon Syst 2006;34(9):102741. [19] Hajagos LM, Berube GR. Utility experience with gas turbine testing and modeling. In: Proc IEEE power engineering society winter meeting, vol. 2. 2001. p. 6717. [20] Grillo S, Massuco S, Morini A, Pitto A, Silvestro F. Microturbine control modeling to investigate the effects of distributed generation in electric energy networks. IEEE Syst J 2010;4(3):30312. [21] Fethi O, Dessaint LA, Al-Haddad K. Modeling and simulation of the electric part of a grid connected microturbine. In: Proc IEEE power engineering society general meeting, vol. 2. 2004. p. 22129. [22] Al-Hinai A, Schoder K, Feliachi A. Control of grid-connected split-shaft microturbine distributed generator. In: Proc of 35th Southeastern symposium on system theory; 2003; p. 848. [23] Saha AK, Chowdhury S, Chowdhury SP, Crossley PA. Modeling and performance analysis of a microturbine as a distributed energy resource. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2009;24(2):52938. [24] Sisworahardjo NS, El-Sharkh MY, Alam MS. Neural network controller for microturbine power plants. Electr Power Syst Res 2008;78(8):137884. [25] Kamel RM, Kermanshahi B. Design and implementation of models for analyzing the dynamic performance of distributed generators in the micro grid part I: micro turbine and solid oxide fuel cell. Trans D: Computer Sci Eng Electr Eng 2010;17(1):4758. [26] Uzunoglu M, Onar O, El-Sharkh MY, Sisworahardjo NS, Rahman A, Alam MS. Parallel operation characteristics of PEM fuel cell and microturbine power plants. J Power Sources 2007;168(2):46976. [27] Oguz Y, Ustun SV, Yabanova I, Yumurtaci M, Guney I. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system to improve the power quality of a split shaft microturbine power generation system. J Power Sources 2012;197(1):196209. [28] SimPowerSystems Users Guide, ver. 4.6. The Mathworks Inc.; 2008. [29] Borbely AM, Kreider JF. Distributed generation: the paradigm of the new millennium. USA: CRC Press; 2001. [30] Cho Changee. New Ideas for soft synchronizer applied to CHP cogeneration. IEEE Trans Power Del 2011;26(1):1121.