TURBINE/GENERATOR GOVERNOR DROOP/ISOCHRONOUS

FUNDAMENTALS – A GRAPHICAL APPROACH

Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC-2011-04

Roy E. Cosse, Jr. P.E. Michael D. Alford, P.E. Masoud Hajiaghajani,PhD,P.E.

Senior Member, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
Chevron Chevron Chevron
1400 Smith Street 1400 Smith Street 1400 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002 Houston, TX 77002 Houston, TX 77002
USA USA USA
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

E. Roy Hamilton, P.E.

Member, IEEE
Chevron
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
USA
[email protected]

Abstract - To promote a better understanding of industrial frequency change as load is applied; additionally, this one
turbine/generator speed control, the fundamentals of droop generator governor droop example shows the effect of
and isochronous turbine/generator control are discussed via changing the no-load frequency above and below rated
graphical examples for typical industrial islanding applications frequency. Two paralleled generator examples follow with
with bus connected generators. A mathematical analysis of identical generators operating with the same per cent droop;
several examples illustrates the validity of a practical the resulting system frequency is shown when the no-load
graphical approximation approach. By comprehending these frequency is the same for both generators and also when the
fundamental concepts, industrial application engineers can two generators have different no-load frequencies.
more thoroughly investigate advanced governor control
topics, such as, isochronous load sharing with
communications lines between governors, manual operator G1 G2
control of multiple generators, and load sharing via automatic
power management systems.

Index Terms — Droop, droop line, governor, infinite bus,

islanding generator, isochronous, isochronous load sharing,
no-load frequency (NLF), summing point, and
turbine/generator.

I. INTRODUCTION Fig. 1 Bus Connected Islanding Generators

This paper discusses fundamental droop and isochronous Mathematical computations are included for several
turbine/generator governor control applied through modern examples to illustrate that the graphical analysis and the
electronic governors for islanding, bus connected generator analytical computations provide approximately the same
applications (Fig. 1). Simplified block diagrams with summing results.
points illustrate basic turbine/generator governor concepts of Additional graphical illustrations show combined
droop and isochronous control. Graphical examples of droop isochronous and droop operation and the change in power
and isochronous governor control are provided to promote a output as the droop line is shifted.
better understanding of typically encountered industrial Governor dynamic response capability limit discussions are
islanding applications. beyond the scope of this paper but available in [1].
The graphical approach discussions begin with To better focus on the real power aspects related to
isochronous control for one generator operating governor actions, automatic voltage regulator (AVR)
independently. A two generator isochronous discussion considerations are not included in this paper; however, a
follows to illustrate why operating two generators in future paper with advanced governor control strategies will
independent isochronous governor control mode is not include AVR considerations.
recommended. Next, one generator is operated
independently in droop mode, showing the resulting

978-1-61284-298-1/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

1
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 II. FUNDAMENTAL GOVERNOR SPEED (typically 60 Hz or 50 Hz for industrial islanding systems).
CONTROL – DROOP AND ISOCHRONOUS Deviation from the speed reference results in a fuel valve
correction to adjust the turbine/generator frequency output
Droop and Isochronous are two fundamental methods of until the system frequency is maintained at the speed
turbine/generator governor speed control. Droop control is a reference and the summing point difference is theoretically
typically implemented independent governor speed control zero. As load demand varies, system frequency is
method because a stable electrical power system operation maintained as turbine/generator speed corrections are made
is achieved with multiple islanding system generators. A very and turbine/generator power output provides the required
rudimentary explanation of droop control is that an increase load MW power output; this is isochronous speed control with
in MW power loading results in a linear decrease in speed the purpose of maintaining a constant pre-settable speed as
corresponding to the per cent droop selected and no-load the load MW increases or decreases. This is a typical control
frequency; this is described in more detail later in the paper. strategy for a stand-alone, one generator islanding
It is imperative that droop control is well-understood before application.
proceeding to more advanced governor control concepts;
therefore, droop control is the primary focus of this paper.
When the word isochronous is applied to turbine governor
speed control, it means that changes in turbine/generator
MW power loading results in no final speed change from a
set reference; however, to accomplish this as load increases
or decreases, immediate speed corrections via the fuel valve
are made. Stable operation with this type of governor control
has been applicable to single, islanding generator
applications. Although specific, modern governors permit
Fig. 2B Simplified Isochronous Governor Control System
multiple, bus connected, islanding generators to operate in
isochronous load sharing via load sharing lines, this control
system strategy is considered an advanced type and is
beyond the scope of this paper. However, the authors plan
to discuss isochronous load sharing and other advanced
industrial turbine/generator control system strategies in a
future paper.

Fig. 2C Simplified Droop Governor Control System

Fig. 2C illustrates a simplified block diagram of the

Fig. 2A Simplified Turbine / Generator Governor Control
governor speed summing points for basic droop control, i.e.,
System
one summing point for speed comparison summation and a
separate summing point for MW power comparison
Fig. 2A is an example of a simplified turbine/generator
summation, so that an increase in load MW results in
governor control system which is the reference system
increased fuel to the turbine and a linear decrease in turbine
diagram for the discussions of this paper. Fig. 2A depicts a
speed based on the per cent droop setting and no-load
modern, simplified electronic governor control system with
frequency. Because power must be measured, voltage and
selectable droop/isochronous governor control. Voltage
current transformer inputs are needed. Droop has been a
transformers, current transformers, and a turbine/generator
typical governor control strategy when connecting to a utility
speed sensor (tachometer) provide basic inputs to the
“infinite bus”.
modern electronic governor so that a selected fundamental
Understanding governor control fundamentals enables the
control strategy (droop or isochronous) can be implemented.
application engineer to better comprehend governor control
As indicated, the governor controls the turbine mechanical
methodology during factory acceptance testing, initial
fuel valve so that the turbine can provide the generator MW
commissioning and startup activities, and operational and
output required by the electrical load.
maintenance conditions. The following discussions promote
Fig. 2B shows a simplified block diagram of the governor
a better understanding of droop and isochronous governor
speed summing point for basic isochronous control. The
control fundamentals for one and two generator applications.
mechanical speed is measured by electrical/electronic speed
With this increased application background, the authors
transducers, converted to a usable format, and compared at
anticipate that when turbine/generator MW operation is
the summing point with the isochronous speed reference
different from expected, the operating conditions can be more

2
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 readily understood and appropriate corrective action taken by the offline turbine/generator powers the load and does not trip
facility operations. on reverse power. Therefore, for this example, assume G1 is
operating at 60.0 Hz and G2 is operating with 60.1 Hz
III. ISOCHRONOUS OPERATION EXAMPLES frequency (speed) reference. When paralleled, G2 governor
senses a slightly greater than 60.0 Hz system frequency;
Consider an islanding electrical power system with one therefore, G2 summation point output is a negative number
turbine/generator and associated governor operating in which commands the G2 fuel valve to open with a resulting
isochronous mode. Fig. 3A is a steady-state graph of the increase in turbine/generator speed. As system frequency
generator MW output power versus frequency with an increases, the turbine/generator G2 begins to power the load.
isochronous governor control strategy operating at 60.0 Hz G1 summation point senses an increased speed and the
frequency reference, ignoring response to transients. As the summation point output is positive; this results in a command
load increases from no-load to 100% load, frequency is to close G1 fuel valve with a subsequent decrease of G1 MW
maintained at a constant steady-state magnitude of 60.0 Hz. power output. This iterative condition continues until G2
As previously shown in Fig. 2B, the speed summation point powers all loads and G1 fuel valve closes to a minimum;
compares the speed reference with the measured speed, eventually G2 powers G1. With G1 in a motoring condition,
and the fuel valve is modulated for load increases or the G1 reverse power protection device may trip the G1
decreases because the summation point output difference is generator circuit breaker; thereby tripping G1 offline.
maintained at zero after a load change. For this example, the
isochronous control strategy maintains a constant speed and
a 60.0 Hz frequency. IV. DROOP OPERATION EXAMPLES WITH ONE
GENERATOR

Fig. 4A example is related to one generator operating in an

island configuration supplying power to connected loads and
a governor with a typical 4% droop setting. The 4% droop
line starts at 60.0 Hz no-load frequency (NLF) and as the
load increases from no-load to turbine rated load (100% load)
the generator output frequency decreases linearly from 60.0
Hz to 57.6 Hz, a 4% frequency change as shown in Fig. 4A.
Fig. 4A shows the turbine speed decreases proportionally
from 0% speed reduction at no-load to 4% speed reduction at
Fig. 3A One Generator (G1) Example of Power versus 100% load.
Frequency with Isochronous Governor Control
f(Hz)
Fig. 3B example shows two generators in isochronous
25% 50% 75% 100%
mode but different frequency setpoints. The following
Load Load Load Load
discusses what occurs when two generators with different 60.0 P(MW)
isochronous speed settings attempt to operate in parallel.
Although the discussion is not a detailed analytical analysis
59.4
supported by a dynamic stability simulation, the discussion
attempts to explain why isochronous operation (without an
additional control strategy of isochronous load sharing) is 58.8
DROOP = 4%
restricted to one islanding generator that powers all loads. NO-LOAD FREQUENCY = 60Hz
The example assumes both generators are able to operate in 58.2
a no-load condition.
57.6

Fig. 4A One Generator Example with 4% Droop

and NLF = 60.0 Hz

The utility industry uses this proportional frequency (speed)

reduction versus power output droop algorithm to maintain
stable generator operation when connected to other system
grid generators. Reference [2] indicates from significant field
Fig. 3B Two Generator (G1 and G2) Example of Power experience that a 3% to 5% droop setting is typical for gas
versus Frequency with Different Isochronous turbine generators. However, when a droop setting is applied
Governor Setpoints to an islanding generator, maintaining a system frequency of
58.2 Hz at 50% load or 57.6 Hz at 100% load is typically
Generator G1 is online powering a load; Generator G2 is objectionable to industrial operating personnel because a
offline. Typically, offline generators are operated at slightly reduced frequency decreases the output power of induction
faster speed than online generators so that when paralleled motors connected to pumps, compressors, fans, etc.

3
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Operating with a full load frequency of 57.6 Hz may be operating frequency). With the generator operating at 50%
objectionable to facility operations because traditional load, 60.0 Hz would be the operating frequency. If the
turbine/generator underfrequency alarm or trip limits (95% of generator operated at 75% load, this would result in an
rated) may be marginal. operating frequency of 59.4 Hz and could be considered as a
The Fig. 4A example illustrates the dilemma of accepting frequency compromise when droop mode is selected in a
reduced operating frequency when a 4% droop is applied system islanding configuration. As previously stated,
with a 60.0 Hz no-load frequency. Since there is a linear isochronous load sharing could be considered, but the
relationship between the droop setting and the no-load isochronous load sharing discussions are reserved for a
frequency (speed), Fig. 4B shows the result of changing the future paper.
no-load frequency from 60.0 Hz to 62.4 Hz while retaining the When two identical generators operate in parallel in an
same 4% droop setting and 4% droop line slope for a 60 Hz islanding configuration and have the same turbine/generator
no-load frequency. MW rating and governor per cent droop setting at the same
Operating with a no-load frequency of 62.4 Hz may be no-load frequency, each turbine/generator should operate as
objectionable to operations because at no-load traditional described in this section with the load shared equally
turbine overfrequency alarm or trip limits (105% x rated between the generators.
frequency) may be marginal. Turbine/generator frequency
(speed) limits vary with size and manufacture of V. GRAPHICAL APPROACH – AN
turbine/generator and should be reviewed. Only when 100% APPROXIMATION
load is applied is the frequency reduced to 60.0 Hz; therefore,
a compromise to reduce the no-load frequency to less than The graphical approach is an approximation because the
62.4 Hz could be considered. droop line slope is based on a 60 Hz (or 50 Hz) no-load
frequency and is used throughout the graphical analysis from
60 Hz no-load frequency to 62.4 HZ no-load frequency (or
from 50 Hz no-load frequency to 52 Hz no-load frequency),
rather than slightly adjust the droop line slope for each no-
load frequency investigated.
Although this droop slope line approximation is used per
turbine throughout the graphical illustrations, the
mathematical comparison examples of this paper illustrate
the very close approximation and minimal difference between
the graphical approach and exact mathematical
computations. This very close approximation is considered
to be suitable for engineering evaluation because the
graphical results are almost the same as the detailed
calculations shown in the examples of this paper and a
Fig. 4B One Generator Example with 4% Droop visual, intuitive understanding provides a more in-depth
and NLF = 62.4 Hz comprehension of the application, as well as the
mathematical calculations.

VI. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS APPROACH

A graphical methodology is provided to make analyzing

governor droop/isochronous controls concepts more easily
explained and comprehended; however, a mathematical
approach is presented below for validation of the practical
graphical approach approximation used in the examples of
this paper and also when a more rigorous analytical
approach is needed.
The droop concept is a straight line that can be analyzed
via a basic straight line equation

Fig. 4C One Generator Example with 4% Droop y = mx + b (1)

and NLF = 61.2 Hz
where
Fig. 4C shows the result of changing the no-load frequency
from 60.0 Hz to 61.2 Hz with the same 4% droop setting and y system frequency fSYSTEM;
4% droop line slope for 60.0 Hz no-load frequency. With this m slope = rise/run = [(fFL – fNL)/(PFL – PNL)];
operating condition, the no-load frequency of 61.2 Hz x system power PSYSTEM;
presents a compromise for both no-load and 100% loaded b straight line intercept with the y-axis which is the
conditions because at no-load the system frequency is 61.2 droop line no-load frequency fNL;
Hz (2% greater than rated operating frequency) and at 100% fFL droop line full-load frequency;
load the system frequency is 58.8 Hz (2% less than rated PNL turbine/generator output power at no-load;

4
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PFL turbine/generator output power at full-load. the same 6 MW full-load turbine/generator power rating and
4% droop setting but with different no-load frequencies fNL.
A. One Generator Droop Example Initially, G1 and G2 are synchronized at 60.0 Hz; however,
G1 no load frequency set point is increased until fG1NL = 62.4
Fig. 5A is an example of one generator with the following Hz. The purpose of this example is to illustrate what could
system and governor parameters: occur when it is desirable for an incoming droop generator to
Turbine rated power = PFL = 6 MW accept load.

Power at no-load = PNL = 0 MW Determine the power output of each generator and the
Droop setting = 4% with fNL = 60.0 Hz and fFL = 57.6 Hz system frequency when the total load is 6 MW.

Note: Except for fNL, the parameters of Fig. 5A Appendix B calculations show PG1 = 6 MW and PG2 = 0 MW.
turbine/generator are used for the following examples of this
section. This confirms Fig. 5B graphical representation because G1
Determine the operating frequency with a 3MW load. accepts the load from 62.4 Hz until 60.0 Hz; whereas G2
does not begin to accept load until the system frequency
From above and [3], reduces to 60.0 Hz or less. Hence, G1 accepts loads from
0MW to 6MW (100% of G1) before G2 begins to provide MW
fSYSTEM = [(fFL – fNL)/(PFL – PNL)] * PSYSTEM + fNL (3) power output.

fSYSTEM = [(57.6 HZ – 60.0 Hz)/(6 MW – 0 MW)] * 3 MW + 60

Hz = 58.8 Hz (4)

When compared with Fig. 5A, approximately the same 58.8

Hz frequency with 3MW load is obtained.

f(Hz)

1.5MW 3MW 4.5MW 6MW

60.0 P(MW)

59.4

58.8
G1 = G2 = DROOP = 4%
NO-LOAD FREQUENCY = 60Hz
58.2

57.6

Fig. 5B Two 6MW Generator Example with 4% Droop,

Fig. 5A Two 6MW Generator Example with 4% Droop Generator G1 NLF = 62.4 Hz and
and NLF = 60.0 Hz Generator G2 NLF = 60.0 Hz
B. Two Generator Droop Example with same fNL D. Two Generator Droop Example with Unequal Load
Fig. 5A can also be utilized to illustrate load sharing with Sharing
two identical 6 MW turbine/generators having the same
Fig. 5C illustrates the concept of unequal load sharing
parameters as Fig. 5A one generator example.
when two identically rated 6MW full-load turbine/generators
(G1 and G2) have the same 4% droop setting and 4% droop
Determine the power output of each generator and the
line slope for 60 Hz no-load frequency but different no-load
system frequency when the total load is 6 MW.
frequencies fNL.
Appendix A calculations show fSYSTEM = 58.8 Hz and PG1 =
fG1NL = 62.4 Hz and fG2NL = 61.2 Hz.
PG2 = 3 MW.
Determine the power output of G1 and G2 and the system
When compared with Fig. 5A, approximately the same 3 MW,
frequency when the total load is 9MW.
58.8 Hz result for each generator is obtained.
Appendix C results show fSYSTEM = 60.0 Hz, PG1 = 6 MW, and
C. Two Generator Droop Example – Accepting Load PG2 = 3 MW.
Fig. 5B illustrates the concept of Fig. 5A generators with

5
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 But what happens as the load is reduced from 9 MW to 6
MW? Inspection of Fig. 5C shows that at 60.6 Hz, PG1 = 4.5 f(Hz)
MW and PG2 = 1.5 MW. Hence, the load is reduced and Note:
divided between the two generators according to the droop 62.4 Same slope,
based on NLF =
line for each turbine/generator and the system frequency 60 Hz, is used for
61.8 G2 : DROOP = 4%
increases from 60.0 Hz to 60.6 Hz. Further load reduction to each droop line.
3MW is shown at 61.2 Hz where PG1 = 3 MW and PG2 = 0
61.2
MW. This example illustrates the unequal load sharing G1 : ISOCHRONOUS = 60.0Hz
based on the droop line settings of G1 and G2.
60.6

25% 50% 75% 100%

60.0 P(MW)
fNL = 62.4Hz

59.4 fNL = 61.8Hz

58.8 fNL = 61.2Hz

58.2 fNL = 60.6Hz

57.6
fNL = 60.0Hz

Fig. 6 Two Generator Example with Droop Line Shift to

Accept Load

VIII. SUMMARY

The discussions above focused on the rudimentary

Fig. 5C Two 6MW Generator Example with 4% Droop, fundamentals of industrial turbine/generator governor control
Generator G1 NLF = 62.4 Hz and strategies of droop and isochronous when applied to
Generator G2 NLF = 61.2 Hz industrial islanding, bus connected generator systems.
Simplified droop and isochronous block diagrams were
VII. COMBINED DROOP / ISOCHRONOUS presented to highlight the significance of the summation point
OPERATION EXAMPLE for frequency and power parameters.
A graphical approach was used to more rapidly and easily
Fig. 6 example of this section illustrates two paralleled illustrate fundamental droop and isochronous governor
generators with G1 operating in isochronous mode and G2 control concepts. A mathematical straight line equation
operating with 4% governor droop; both generators are analytical approach was used to check the graphical example
initially operating at 60.0 Hz no-load. results and also to provide an analytical tool when a more
Fig. 6 shows G1 operating with an isochronous complex and exacting computation or analysis is required.
characteristic at 60 Hz and the G2 droop line with a no-load One generator and two generator examples with various
frequency of 60 Hz. Because loading G2 results in a linear power and no-load frequency combinations were selected for
decrease in frequency less than 60 Hz, G1 powers the load typically encountered industrial applications. An example
from 0% load to 100% load of G1. G2 will not begin to with one generator in droop and a second generator in
provide output power until G1 has achieved maximum output isochronous illustrated load sharing limitations with this type
power and the G1 fuel valve is fully open. of governor control strategy.
For G2 to accept load from a fully loaded G1 isochronous Emphasis was placed on the droop line because this has
generator without a decrease in system frequency, the G2 been considered a stable governor operating mode for
droop line must be slowly increased. Fig. 6 shows G2 electrical power generating systems. The application
frequency increased in gradual increments with the 4% droop practice of isochronous, droop, and other governor control
line slope for 60 Hz no-load frequency used throughout the strategies will be investigated in a future paper.
graph. As the G2 fuel valve is gradually opened and G2
accepts 25% load, the droop line no-load frequency IX. CONCLUSION
increases to 60.6 Hz. A continued opening of the G2 fuel
valve until G2 powers 50% load results with a droop line shift It is imperative that fundamental governor concepts of
to 61.2 Hz no-load. Further opening G2 fuel valve to accept droop and isochronous are thoroughly understood so that
75% load causes an additional droop line shift to 61.8 Hz no- typical governor control operational strategies can be
load. To accept 100% load, G2 fuel valve is opened further investigated, such as, operating one turbine/generator in
so that the G2 no-load frequency is 62.4 Hz. This description isochronous and the remaining turbine/generators in droop.
is indicative of one method to parallel an in-plant “droop” The authors intend to provide a more advanced
generator with a utility grid and make the in-plant generator turbine/generator governor control strategies paper for typical
accept load. To unload G2, a reduction in the droop line no- islanding and grid connected industrial applications with the
load frequency is required. purpose of investigating control strategies having manual and

6
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 automatic load sharing control, isochronous load sharing via project engineer for E. I. DuPont and the former Amoco Oil
load sharing lines, and turbine/generator governor control via Company. He also served as an electrical operations
a power management system. engineer for nine years in Saudi Aramco’s Northern Area
Producing Department. Currently, he is working in Chevron’s
X. REFERENCES Engineering Technology Center as a Technical Team Lead.
He is a Professional Engineer in Georgia. He is an IEEE and
[1] E.R. Hamilton, P.S. Hamer, J. Undrill, S. Manson, IEEE IAS member.
"Considerations for Generation in an Islanded
Operation,” IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 46-6, pp. 2289-2298, Nov/Dec 2010.
[2] Governing Fundamentals and Power Management,
Woodward Reference Manual 26260, document
number 06/03/F, 2004, Chapter 3, pg. 31.
[3] Stephen J. Chapman, Electric Machinery
Fundamentals, First Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1985,
pp. 462-477.

XI. VITA

Roy E. Cossé, Jr. received the BSEE (1968) and MSEE

(1972) degrees from the University of Southwestern
Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana. He has 40 years of
Electrical Engineering experience in the Upstream,
Downstream, and Cogeneration Industries. His experience
encompasses conceptual design, detailed engineering,
training, startup, maintenance and operations. His specialty
is power system analysis. He is a Professional Engineer in
Texas and Louisiana. Mr. Cossé is an IEEE Senior member.
He is one of the original organizers of the IEEE Houston
Continuing Education on Demand series; and he has
presented technical seminars for this program. He has co-
authored and presented IEEE conference technical papers
and tutorials. Mr. Cossé is employed by Chevron, where he
is a Senior Staff Electrical Engineer.
Michael D. Alford received the BSEE (1971) degree from
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He has
35+ years of Electrical Engineering experience in the
Upstream, Downstream, Offshore, and Utility Power Plant
Industries. His experience encompasses conceptual design,
detailed engineering, training, startup, maintenance and
operations. He has experience in project development and
project and field support, with a specialty in power system
analysis. He is a Professional Engineer in Texas. Mr. Alford
is an IEEE Senior member. He is a Technical Committee
Member of the IEEE Houston Continuing Education on
Demand series; and he has presented technical seminars for
this program. Mr. Alford is employed by Chevron’s
Engineering Technology Center as a Subsea Consulting
Electrical Engineer.
Masoud Hajiaghajani (IEEE M ’00), has a BSEE from
Sharif University of Technology, a MSEE from the University
of Tehran and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Texas
A&M University. He is a registered Professional Engineer in
the State of Texas. He has three patents and authored / co-
authored several IEEE technical papers. Mr. Haji has 15
years of electrical engineering experience and is currently
working in Chevron’s Engineering Technology Center as a
Subsea Electrical Power Systems Engineer.
E. Roy Hamilton received his undergraduate degree in
Electrical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of
Technology in 1980. He has worked as an electrical design
engineer for the Tennessee Valley Authority and as an I&E

7
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 APPENDIX A
Calculations for Fig. 5A
PG1 rated = PG2 rated = 6 MW
G1 droop = G2 droop = 4%
fG1NL = fG2NL = 60.0 Hz.
Determine PG1, PG2, and fSYSTEM when the total system load is 6 MW.
PG1 = [(PG1FL-PG1NL)/(fG1FL-fG1NL)] (fG1NL – fSYSTEM) (5)
PG2 = [(PG2FL-PG2NL)/(fG2FL-fG2NL)] (fG2NL – fSYSTEM) (6)
Adding the two equations together provides the following resulting equation
PG1 + PG2 = 6MW = [(PG1FL-PG1NL)/(fG1FL-fG1NL)] (fG1NL
– fSYSTEM) + [(PG2FL-PG2NL)/(fG2FL-fG2NL)] (fG2NL –
fSYSTEM) (7)
6MW=(6MW/2.4 Hz)(60.0 Hz–fSYSTEM)+ (6MW/2.4
Hz) (60.0 Hz –fSYSTEM) (8)
fSYSTEM = 58.8 Hz
PG1=PG2=(6 MW/2.4 Hz) * (60.0 Hz–58.8 Hz) =3 MW (9)

APPENDIX B
Calculations for Fig. 5B

PG1 rated = PG2 rated = 6 MW

G1 droop = G2 droop = 4%
fG1NL = 62.4 Hz and fG2NL = 60.0 Hz.
Determine PG1, PG2, and fSYSTEM when the total system load is 6MW.
6MW = (6 MW/2.4 Hz)(62.4 Hz – fSYSTEM) + (6 MW/2.4 Hz)(60.0 Hz – fSYSTEM) (10)
fSYSTEM = 60.0 Hz
PG1 = (6 MW/2.4 Hz) * (62.4 Hz – 60.0 Hz) = 6 MW (11)
PG2 = (6 MW/2.4 Hz) * (60.0 Hz – 60.0 Hz) = 0 MW (12)

APPENDIX C
Calculations for Fig. 5C
PG1 rated = PG2 rated = 6 MW
G1 droop = G2 droop = 4%
fG1NL = 62.4 Hz and fG2NL = 61.2 Hz.
Determine PG1, PG2 , and fSYSTEM when the total system load is 9MW.
9MW = (6 MW/2.4 Hz)(62.4 Hz – fSYSTEM) + (6 MW/2.4 Hz)(61.2 Hz – fSYSTEM) (13)
fSYSTEM = 60.0 Hz
PG1 = (6 MW/2.4 Hz) * (62.4 Hz – 60.0 Hz) = 6 MW (14)
PG2 = (6 MW/2.4 Hz) * (61.2 Hz – 60.0 Hz) = 3 MW (15)

8
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on January 25,2024 at 09:03:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.