USING ISOCHRONOUS LOAD-SHARING PRINCIPLES

WITH GAS AND STEAM TURBINE GENERATORS

©istockphoto.com/allkindza
By Krishnanjan Gubba Ravikumar,
Brandon Bosley, Ty Clark, and Julio Garcia

A liquefied natural gas facility in the United States is being expanded

to allow the liquefaction of natural gas and exportation of liquefied natural gas while
keeping intact its existing import facilities. This means it will add more loads and
steam-based generation to its existing gas turbine generator (GTG) portfolio. The
upgraded system will feature six GTGs and two steam turbine generators (STGs)
in an islanded plant with no grid connection. This article reveals the fundamentals

Generation Control Systems

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2018.2875127
Date of publication: 19 December 2018

36 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ March/April 2019 1077-2618/19©2019IEEE

of how the plant performs isochronous load sharing
in an islanded power system with various makes and
sizes of generators (steam and gas turbines) and details
the decentralized generation control system interface
methodology with automatic speed governors and volt-
age regulators. Also presented are some topics that are
crucial for industrial power systems—particularly in
islanded configurations—as well as the transient simu-
lations performed in a controlled lab environment that
analyze system stability and help finalize the generator
modes of operation.
Overview of the Expansion
One of the key requirements for islanded power system
stability is the ability to monitor and control all of the
generators that maintain voltage and frequency. Gen-
eration control systems (GCSs) typically perform slow-
and high-speed rebalancing actions, depending on the
control objective [1]. This article discusses a decentral-
ized (distributed) GCS applied to an islanded power
system with a mix of STGs and GTGs from various
manufacturers, while advancing the concepts originally
presented in [2].
The previously mentioned gas facility features six
GTGs in an islanded configuration with no grid con-
nection. Five of the GTGs are from the same manufac-
turer with different ratings, although all of the GTGs
operate at 13.8-kV nominal voltage and can operate in
an isochronous load-sharing mode. The plant also has
four synchronous motors. A new expansion will add
two generators to the system that are driven by high-
speed steam turbines equipped with gears. The new
expansion will also add one 26-MW and two 20-MW
variable-frequency drive-operated motors. Figure 1
shows a simplified one-line diagram of the facility’s
power system without any load representation.
GTGs
9.42 MW
9.42 MW
9.42 MW
GTGs
25.312 MW
13.8 kV
13.8 kV (60 Hz)
(60 Hz) Bus A
FIGURE 1. A simplified one-line diagram.
Generation Control Systems
The objective of a GCS is to maintain the system’s frequen-
cy and voltage during everyday operations and provide
support during system events. A GCS combines low- and
high-speed functions to ensure safe and optimal control
of the machines to maintain system stability. Control func-
tions such as base loading, droop control, and isochronous
load sharing allow the GCS to maintain and regulate fre-
quency for any planned or unplanned system events. Simi-
larly, functions such as voltage control, power factor (PF)
control, and volt-ampere-reactive (VAR) sharing allow the
proper regulation of reactive power within a system. Com-
pared with larger grids, islanded power systems require rel-
atively faster-acting control systems during system events to
compensate for the reduced overall system inertia. Figure 2
shows a high-level architecture and distributed controller
connections in a case with two STGs.
Frequency Control System
A frequency control system (FCS) regulates the generators
to maintain the system’s frequency when an accelerating or
decelerating torque develops, e.g., during a machine step-
load response for either accepting or rejecting a change in
load. Such a torque also develops during or after system
events, e.g., faults and unexpected load/generation trips.
Figure 3 shows the frequency, electrical power, and
mechanical power responses of an industrial frame tur-
bine and generator for a small-load step response [3]. The
step change in electrical power along with the time lag
between the generator and turbine output are also dis-
played in Figure 3.
The basic, underlying equation that relates to mechani-
cal power, electrical power, and speed is
dW m
JW s = Pa = Pm - Pe,(1)
dt
STGs GTG
25.312 MW 65 MW 65 MW 15.605 MW
13.8 kV 13.8 kV
Bus B (60 Hz) Bus D (60 Hz) Bus C
M arch/A p ri l 2019 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 37
 where J is the combined moment
STG-A STG-B of inertia of the generator and tur-
bine (kg # m2 ), W s is the synchro-
nous angular velocity (rad/s), W m is
the rotor angular velocity (rad/s), t
is the time (s), Pa is the accelerat-
CT Input CT Input ing power (W ), Pm is the mechanical
VT Input VT Input
power (W ), and Pe is the electrical
power (W ).
A typical FCS operates on a pro-
Open Open
Distributed Distributed portional megawatt-sharing philoso-
Controller Controller phy and tries to maintain all of the
Status Status units within their respective capabil-
VT Input VT Input ity curves. The generators within the
facility operate in two out of three
available frequency control modes.

Isochronous Load Sharing

Ethernet In isochronous load-sharing mode,
Other Substation Switch Other Substation
Generators Generators all of the ­generators within the plant
are set to isochronous mode on their
Communications Cables
speed governors. Using a common
communications backbone, the dis-
FIGURE 2. The high-level architecture of distributed controllers in a two-generator case.
CT: current transformer; VT: voltage transformer. tributed controllers connected in the
island exchange information and regu-
late the generators to maintain frequency during load imbal-
98 63 ances. In addition to maintaining frequency, controllers
97 also perform proportional, real power sharing between the
62
Frequency (Hz)

96 units based on their rated megawatt capacity.

Power (MW)

61
95
The regulation at each unit is performed by biasing
60 the speed governor using a control signal (typically an
94
93 Electric Power 59 analog bias). This bias adds into or subtracts from the
Mechanical Power 58 speed reference (nominal speed) of the governor con-
92 Speed = Frequency
trol itself. The response of the bias signal is defined
91 57
0 5 10 15 20 by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control that
Time (s) exists within the GCS controller.
Figure 4 shows the integration of the bias signal into
FIGURE 3. A small-load synchronous machine step response. a typical governor-controlled block diagram. The con-
ditioner block is used to limit and
scale the bias for use in the gover-
Valve/Gate nor control system. The speed bias
Pm
Turbine Pe integrator time constant, limits, and
Steam Wr gain are field-tunable parameters
∆Y – that obtain the desired response
+ + from the machine.
Integrator –K Σ Σ Speed
∆Wr Reference W0 A high-level block diagram of the
+
frequency control function within
Integrator the distributed controller is shown
in Figure 5. Depending on the type
Conditioner of control selected, different logic is
activated along with the PID loop.
Speed Bias Figure 6 shows single-unit iso-
(Analog Signal) chronous governor regulation for
different bias conditions. During a
FIGURE 4. The block diagram of an isochronous governor with integrated speed bias (analog control situation, the GCS dynami-
bias input). cally calculates the bias set points

38 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ March/April 2019

for each generator before dispatching controls. These set Voltage Control System
points change rapidly as the system adjusts to a newer set- A voltage control system (VCS) dispatches exciter set
tling state after a disturbance of the equilibrium. points among a group of generators to maintain the ter-
Isochronous load sharing between multiple units provides minal bus voltages within acceptable limits [1]. The VCS
the ability to reject frequency disturbances and to active- at the aforementioned facility is implemented within the
ly share the load. In cases with fast-acting speed governors same distributed controllers used for the FCS. Similar to an
that operate in isochronous load-sharing mode, generator- FCS, a VCS issues control signals to every generator to keep
shedding schemes can mostly be eliminated, assuming the
generators have enough headroom to swing.
Load-Sharing
Droop Control Logic
For stable load sharing between multiple units paralleled to
Power Control
strong sources, droop-based control allows multiple units to
Control Logic +
operate in parallel by decreasing their speed for increases Σ PID Loops* Bias
Frequency + Signal
in load. Droop control is typically observed in units that Control
are paralleled to utility grids. In islanded power systems, Control Logic
droop-only control (without isochronous operation) is not *Different PID Loops Are Activated Based
recommended because of its inability to actively maintain on the Type of Control
the system frequency during system events. It is important to
note that droop-only control can be allowed where a system, FIGURE 5. The high-level block diagram of an individual distributed
such as a GCS, is available to provide functionality similar to controller.
an isochronous control.

Base Loading Positive Bias

Base loading is performed on a generator to follow a pre-
set megawatt command. This is sometimes referred to as 100% No Bias
maintained mode, in which the operator requests a certain
output from a few generators while others provide regula-
Speed

tion using droop and/or isochronous controls. Generators Negative Bias

are typically maintained when they are in parallel to the
utility, have smaller ratings, or do not have the built-in
ability to assist with primary frequency regulation.
Figure 7 shows the response of an STG for different 50% 100%
base load transitions. Starting at 37 MW, the machine is
stepped through various set points, and the figure shows Load
the response of the speed bias signal, generator frequen-
cy, and active power response. FIGURE 6. A single-unit isochronous governor regulation with GCS bias.

65,000 65
Generator Active Power
5–60 MW
Generator Frequency (Hz)

Speed Bias 60–37 MW

37–15 MW
kW

60

Generator Frequency
15–5 MW
Load
Reference

0 55
0 4.7 9.4 14.1 18.8 23.5 28.2 32.9 37.6 42.3 47
Time (min)

FIGURE 7. The base load tests on a single STG model using real GCS controller equipment.

M arch/A p ri l 2019 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 39

 them running at the desired mega-
VAR (MVAR) output level. Although
the external interface between the
VCS and the generator exciter consists
of raise and lower control signals,
there can be different control inner
loops within the VCS. For example,
during an islanded situation, the
VCS implements a generator volt-
age control inner loop to maintain
the island bus voltages rather than
implementing a VAR control loop to
maintain a fixed VAR output. Similar
to isochronous operation for main-
taining system frequency, a VCS is
requir­­ed to keep at least one unit (if
not more) to maintain and regulate
the bus voltages.
A typical VCS operates on a proportional MVAR-
sharing philosophy and tries to maintain all of the units
within their respective capability curves. The generators
within the facility operate in two different voltage con-
trol modes.
1) Voltage control with VAR sharing: In this mode, the
primary objective of the VCS is to maintain the bus
voltages at each generator terminal and proportion-
ally share the MVAR based on the unit ratings. The
distributed VCS dynamically calculates the individ-
ual set points for each excitation system and biases
the excitation reference to achieve the desired set
point. Figure 8 shows the interfacing of the bias (raise/
lower pulses) with a typical generator excitation system.
When the bias signal is an analog input, the interface
is similar to what is shown in Figure 4.
Vset
+ Synchronization System
– KA VR +
Vinput Σ VE
1 + STA
+ –
Vbias
Σ KE
+ and generator control for synchro-
Vraise
Start
+Edge
Adjust
Timer
Stop Gain
–Edge
Control Signal
Vlower
Start
+Edge
Adjust
Timer
Stop Gain
–Edge
FIGURE 8. The block diagram of an ac exciter with integrated voltage bias (digital bias input).
40 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ March/April 2019
2) PF control: In this mode, every
distributed controller follows the
A typical FCS operates operator set point on a per-
machine basis. This mode is typi-
on a proportional cally used when the generator is
megawatt-sharing in parallel with the utility and
needs to maintain its PF through-
philosophy and tries out the real power operating
range. During PF control, the
to maintain all of the controller does not try to main-
units within their tain the bus voltage and does not
need to exchange information
respective capability with the rest of the controllers
because sharing is not occurring.
curves. This mode is only recommended
when there are other machines
available to provide voltage sup-
port and balance the system reac-
tive power needs.
The control loop parameters for achieving the desired
PF are separate from the voltage control parameters. This
way, two independent loops are established and tuned for
fast- and slow-acting controls.
Island Tracking System
Controlling multiple generators within an island requires
a smart island tracking system to correctly enable the
control modes on the governors and exciters. Island
detection is traditionally performed by tracking the sys-
tem topology using breaker statuses (52 A and 52 B). In
this application, these statuses are brought into a central-
ized location to properly identify islands and update the
distributed controllers. When provided with such infor-
mation, the controllers correctly identify the groups of
generators that need to be controlled
in every island.
1 The distributed GCS controllers
STE within the plant provide the abil-
VX = VE . SE (VE) ity to synchronize across individual
+ generator breakers and some of the
critical tie breakers. Breaker closing
+
KD Ifa nization are performed automati-
cally after the user selection and
initiation [4]. This important func-
+ +
tion helps the plant successfully
Σ
reconnect because the islanded
–
plant itself can become further
segregated into subislands follow-
ing particular events or even dur-
ing normal operating conditions.
After the events are cleared and
the islands are stabilized, the auto-
matic ­synchronization system can
control the governor and exciters automatically to match In addition to the generator and load-protection systems,
the phase, voltage, and frequency error between the the plant has a primary contingency-based load-shedding
islands. Once the closing criterion is met (along with system, a backup frequency-based load-shedding system,
the availability of operator permissives), the controller and an intertie tripping system based on available genera-
that has access to the generator breaker provides the tion and overload conditions.
close command.
Testing Using a Real-Time Hardware Simulator
Communications Architecture To verify and validate the GCS performance, the authors
Modern power management systems are a complete inte- developed a computer simulation model of the plant in
gration of protection, control, and automation devices [1]. a commercial real-time hardware simulator. The simulator
GCSs are no different when it comes to how to monitor provides the ability to connect the actual controllers (real
and control generators. Communications play a vital equipment) under test in a closed-loop fashion with the
role in both centralized and decentralized architectures. plant model. This allows for the exchange of measurement
Because of the necessity of measuring local quantities and control signals in real time to evaluate the true perfor-
and making a wide-area decision, various intelligent mance of the GCS functions. Figure 9 shows a block dia-
electronic devices (IEDs) send measurements to a central- gram of the simulator testing setup.
ized controller, or controllers located at the generators The model contains detailed plant information, includ-
constantly exchange critical information pertinent to each ing generator electrical and mechanical parameters, actual
generator. With the criticality of the application, such governor and excitation models and parameters (obtained
communications networks need to be dedicated and iso- from the manufacturer), network impedances, detailed load
lated from noncritical traffic to avoid network overloads, models (e.g., static, induction, and synchronous motors),
lost data packets, and failure [5]. A dedicated bandwidth and voltage- and frequency-protection systems. This level
is crucial for guaranteeing round-trip times for high- of detail allows for accurate testing of the controller perfor-
speed functions [6]. mance for various system events and conditions.
The facility applies a distributed GCS with controllers Before performing the closed-loop tests, the authors
located at each generator. These controllers are connected validated every component in the model and the full model
via copper Ethernet connections to locally managed Eth- itself. Generator validation tests included load rejection,
ernet switches within the substations. The substations load acceptance, full-speed no load, and exciter step tests
are further connected through a
combination of single- and mul-
timode fiber connections to form DI
an isolated, star-connected net-
Hardwire Currents and
work. Each distributed controller
Analogs Voltages
provides two physical network Real-Time Distributed
connections for redundancy. This Simulator Simulator AO AO AI Controller
Amplifier
forms an A network and a B net- Hardwire I/O Cards (Each
Digitals Generator)
DO DI
work across the system, each
with dedicated Ethernet switches. IEC 61850
TCP
GOOSE
Coordination With the
Protection and Control AI DI
Interface
System PLC
Proper coordination of all the
protection and control systems is UDP
critical for ensuring smooth plant Interface DI AI DO AO
UDP PLC Card Card Card Card
operation. The GCS was designed
considering the plant load-shed-
ding system, intertie tripping Operator
Island
system, and generator and load- UDP Set Points
Detection
protection systems; this ensures System
Island Identification
optimal control of the system fre-
quency and voltage at all times. Bias Signals
Improper coordination often
leads to unnecessary tripping and FIGURE 9. A block diagram of the simulator testing setup. PLC: programmable logic controller;
could have a detrimental effect on I/O: input/output; DI: digital input; AO: analog output; DO: digital output; AI: analog input; TCP:
the stability of the system. Transmission Control Protocol; UDP: User Datagram Protocol.

M arch/A p ri l 2019 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 41

 Before performing integrated system tests, the authors
used the model to tune and test every generator by using
Test A (0.8*) their GCS controllers. This provided the starting-point
61 Test B (1.2*) PID values for each distributed controller. A large variety
Frequency (Hz)

Test C (1.5*) of tests was conducted using the closed-loop simulator

60.5 Test D (2.2*)
60
59.5
59
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Time Samples (Each Sample Is 16.667 ms)
*Values in Parentheses Indicate Ratio of Proportional
Gain to Integral Gain
FIGURE 10. The frequency-control PID tuning of a single STG for a
large-load (21.3 MW) trip.
for each unit. Similarly, transformers, lines, and loads were
validated to ensure correct representation. Finally, the
authors validated the overall system for load flow cases
and performed a few dynamic performance tests that
included observing the system response for events such as
generator tripping and intertie tripping.
In addition to closed-loop validation tests, the model
also allowed tuning of the various PID loops within the
GCS to achieve an optimal performance. Figure 10 shows
an example of tuning performed on a single STG for a
load-tripping condition, along with the response of a sin-
gle STG for different proportional and integral gains of its
distributed controller.
and actual distributed controllers for various generation-
loading conditions. Some of the tests included generation
tripping, load tripping, large-load startups, inadvertent
loss of interties, single-phase and three-phase faults at
various plant locations, loss of excitation and prime mover,
arc-flash events triggering the opening of multiple break-
ers within the system, and closely timed events (i.e., back-
to-back contingencies).
The following is the test sequence for every simula-
tion run.
1) Adjust generation and load, and initiate simulation
using a typical load flow.
2) Trigger the event either by applying faults and clearing
them or directly opening breakers.
3) Analyze the system response in terms of frequency and
bus voltages in every island.
4) Record the minimum and maximum frequencies, the
minimum and maximum voltages, and the interaction
of the GCS with local protection or control systems.
5) Verify the controller performance and record any obser-
vations, including round-trip times expected versus
actual control action, and so on.
6) Confirm the behavior of protection systems based on
the nature of the test case.
As an example, Figure 11 shows the response of the
system generators (all operating in isochronous load-
sharing mode and voltage-control VAR sharing) for a

Frequency Line-to-Neutral Bus Voltage

Fault
Applied

Reactive Power (Two STGs)

Real Power (Two STGs)

Real Power (Existing GTGs) Reactive Power (Existing GTGs)

FIGURE 11. Simulation data showing the effect of a three-phase fault on a helper motor.

42 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ March/April 2019

three-phase fault on a helper motor running at 11.3 MW.
The event resulted in the motor tripping and a loss of load
on the system. This test shows that the minimum and
maximum system frequencies and generator bus voltages
are well within the allowable limits and that the system
quickly settles at a new steady state.
Overall, the authors performed approximately 100
different simulation tests during project development and
factory acceptance testing. These simulations provided quali-
tative conclusions and results regarding the system per-
formance and evaluated the controller performance itself.
The benefits ranged from fine-tuning the GCS to recom-
mending effective system operational modes for various
plant-operating scenarios.
Some of the key benefits of using simulations are as
follows:
1) Provide a safe environment to develop and tune
the various loop variables prior to the integration
and commissioning of the actual hardware.
2) Help develop a realistic starting point for all tuning
prior to real-world tuning during commissioning.
3) Provide an environment for plant owners (operations
and engineering) to develop “what-if” case scenarios
to examine various possibilities (faults, process upsets,
and so on).
4) Allow operations to avoid risky combinations of gen-
eration, knowing that the islanded facility is not as
robust as other combinations that might provide more
upset-ride-through capabilities.
Some of the lessons learned in terms of system opera-
tions include the following:
●● To provide the highest chance of survival during some
events, always operate one of the two STGs in isochro-
nous load-sharing mode.
●● For an STG in fixed load control, do not operate the unit
close to its maximum megawatt value (results in faster
instability during system events).
●● Operate at least one of two existing 25 MW units in
isochronous load-sharing mode to provide stability
during islanding situations.
●● Revise the underfrequency set points of the exist-
ing plant to avoid nuisance tripping during certain
island conditions.
●● To avoid overloading the intertie lines during certain
operating topologies, always operate one STG in iso-
chronous load-sharing mode.
●● Design fast load-shedding systems with appropriate
power-measurement filter-time constants to avoid
all known failure modes. Examples include untrust-
worthy transducer measurements during voltage
transients and meter-data aliasing when polling data
from IEDs.
●● The distributed GCS is tuned to operate well with the
load-shedding and generator protection systems, thus
avoiding any unnecessary oscillations. Final tuning
may be required during onsite commissioning.
●● For most of the event conditions, the new STGs pro-
vide enough dynamic stability support to run the older
units above 50% capacity to meet emission-complian­­
ce requirements.
●● The generators are tuned well enough to survive low
load-loss events even when the load-shedding system
is unavailable.
●● Due to the controller design limitations, operate as many
units as possible in isochronous load-sharing mode to
avoid the possibility of inadvertently putting a fixed-load
unit in a single island.
Field Testing and Commissioning
The authors recently commissioned this system, tying
together the Greenfield and Brownfield systems. Pre-
commissioning checks and tests were completed before
system tests were executed. The tests ranged from basic
generator startup to system level for verifying load shar-
ing among all of the generators.
Detailed procedures were developed to verify the
system’s operation, including presynchronization checks,
preliminary checks on distributed control systems, STG
control panel checks, and existing GCS upgrade checks.
The following is an example testing sequence implement-
ed for one of the STGs.
1) excitation automatic voltage regulator and protective
relay trip test checks
2) preload bank checks
3) load bank “dead bus” synchronization checks to verify
••interfacing between the distributed controller and
the turbine control system
••hardwired and Ethernet control signals between
the distributed controller and the centralized island
tracking system
••distributed controller mode transitions using load
bank dynamic tests
••generator and load bank breakers closing
4) “live bus” checks to verify
••synchronization using distributed controllers with
no impact on existing generation
••synchronization and load sharing using distributed
controllers with an impact on existing generation.
After the individual generator checks, system tests
were carried out using modular and integrated testing
approaches for the distributed controllers. Modular tests
focused on the ability of the distributed controllers to suc-
cessfully control the generators, whereas the integrated
tests focused on STG performance during load sharing.
System performance was analyzed to ensure that stability
was maintained.
The lab test results provided significantly improved
initial conditions for various modular and integrated tests.
As an example, Figure 12 shows the step response of a
single STG tested using load banks.
Figure 13 shows the STG response for a synchroniza-
tion and base-loading condition. A single STG was started
M arch/A p ri l 2019 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 43
 cle presents the details of VCSs,
Generator Frequency (Hz) highlights the necessity of autosyn-

Generator Output (MW)

60
Generator 5 chronization systems, and identifies
58 Generator
Frequency the benefits of testing using a real-
56 Active Power
4 time simulator for controller valida-
54 tion, understanding power system
52 Distributed Controller 3
Speed Bias (%)
dynamics, and finalizing generator
50 2 modes of operation.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Time Samples (Each Sample Is 400 ms) Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowl-
FIGURE 12. The generator step tests in load-sharing mode. edge the support of Ashish Upre-
ti and Bharath Nayak during the
closed-loop testing. and the manu-
facturer’s support with the setup of
180 55
Speed Bias the distributed controllers for con-
Angle Difference (°)

135
53 trolled lab testing.

Speed Bias (%)

90
45
0
–45 Angle
–90 Difference
–135
–180
0 15 30
FIGURE 13. The STG synchronization and base load test.
up and synchronized to a live bus into which other GTGs
were connected.
While there were issues identified and recorded during
commissioning, the authors were satisfied with the overall
system performance. A majority of the issues identified
were related to the distributed controller’s performance
in terms of alarming, receiving, and sending data through
industry-standard protocols and its ability to control the
generators within the required times. It was evident that
the tuning and interfaces established during the real-time
simulator testing significantly reduced the time needed
for field testing. Presently, the authors are installing a syn-
chrophasor-based wide-area monitoring system to capture
the overall dynamic-response data during planned and
unplanned system events.
Conclusions
GCSs play an important role in islanded power sys-
tems. Fundamental building blocks of a GCS include
frequency and voltage control functions, the ability to
track system islands, and autosynchronization across
critical breakers.
The key to isochronous load sharing between gen-
erators is applying the same type of controllers using
a common backbone for continuous control of their
speed governors. Such a platform provides the abil-
ity to perform robust, primary frequency control and
share the output proportionally. Additionally, this arti-
Terminal Voltage
51
Breaker
Author Information
49
Closing Krishnanjan Gubba Ravikumar
Generator 47 (krishnanjan_gubba_ravikumar@
Active Power
45 selinc.com) is with Schweitzer Engi-
45 60 75 90 105 120 135
neering Laboratories, Inc., Pullman,
Time (s)
Washington. Brandon Bosley is
with Kiewit Engineering and Design
Co., Lenexa, Kansas. Ty Clark is
with Dominion, Glen Allen, Virginia.
Julio Garcia is with Kiewit Engineering and Design Co.,
Lenexa, Kansas. Ravikumar is a Senior Member of the
IEEE. Clark is a Member of the IEEE. This article first
appeared as “Generation Control System Using Isochro-
nous Load Sharing Principles with Gas and Steam Tur-
bine Generators” at the 2017 IEEE IAS Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Technical Conference. This article
was reviewed by the IAS Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Committee.
References
[1] K. G. Ravikumar, S. Manson, S. K. Raghupathula, T. Alghamdi, and J.
Bugshan, “Complete power management system for an industrial refin-
ery,” in Proc. 62nd Annu. Petroleum and Chemical Industry Tech. Conf.,
2015.
[2] K. G. Ravikumar, B. Bosley, T. Clark, and J. Garcia, “Isochronous load
sharing principles for an islanded system with steam and gas turbine
generators,” in Proc. 64th Annu. Petroleum and Chemical Industry Tech.
Conf., 2017.
[3] E. R. Hamilton, J. Undrill, P. S. Hamer, and S. Manson, “Considerations
for generation in an islanded operation,” in Proc. 56th Annu. Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Tech. Conf., 2009.
[4] S. M. Manson, A. Upreti, and M. J. Thompson, “Case study: Smart auto-
matic synchronization in islanded power systems,” in Proc. 51st Annu.
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Tech. Conf., 2015.
[5] E. O. Schweitzer, III, D. Whitehead, K. Fodero, and P. Robertson,
“Merging SONET and Ethernet communications for power system appli-
cations,” in Proc. 38th Annu. Western Protective Relay Conf., 2011.
[6] A. Kulkarni, J. Payne, and P. Mistretta, “Integrating SCADA, load shed-
ding, and high-speed controls on an Ethernet network at a North Ameri-
can refinery,” in Proc. 60th Annu. Petroleum and Chemical Industry
Tech. Conf., 2013.


44 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ March/April 2019