8.

3 Comparison of Thermal-Thermal System in Three GENCOs

Table 8.1 Comparison of Hydro-Thermal system in three GENCOs AGC without GRC

Matlab-Simulink based values Single Results Computed values turbine and electric reheat double turbine reheat Mechanical governor

governor Del Pg1 Del Pg2 Del Pg3 Del Ptie1-2 0.012 0.014 0.004 0.0006 0.012 0.014 0.004009 0.005991 0.012 0.014 0.004009 0.005991 0.01197 0.01398 0.004049 0.005952

For the Thermal-Thermal system considered, the different computed values are compared with the Simulink values obtained in the absence and presence of GRC in three GENCOs AGC model . Table 8.3 represents the comparison of different ThermalThermal system consisting of AGC model with single reheat turbine in thermal area and other AGC model with double reheat turbine in thermal area, comparing all simulated values with computed values. All the analysis is carried out by neglecting GRC. Table 8.4 represents the comparison of different Thermal-Thermal system consisting of AGC model with single reheat turbine in thermal area and other AGC model with double reheat turbine in thermal area. All simulated values are compared with computed values & the analysis is carried out by considering GRC Table 8.2 Comparison of Hydro-Thermal system in three Gencos AGC with GRC

Matlab-Simulink based values Results Computed values

single turbine and governor

reheat double reheat turbine electric

Mechanical Governor

Del Pg1 Del Pg2 Del Pg3 Del Ptie1-2

0.012 0.014 0.004 0.0006

0.01185 0.01415 0.004 0.006

0.01133 0.01467 0.004 0.006

0.01205 0.01396 0.003992 0.006006

Table 8.3 Comparison of Thermal-Thermal system in three Gencos AGC without GRC

Matlab-Simulink Based Values Results Del Pg1 Del Pg2 Del Pg3 Del Ptie1-2 Computed Values 0.012 0.014 0.004 0.0006 single reheat turbine 0.012 0.014 0.004008 0.005992 double reheat turbine 0.012 0.014 0.004009 0.005991

Table 8.4 Comparison of Thermal-Thermal system in three Gencos AGC with GRC

Matlab-Simulink Based Values Results Computed Values single reheat turbine Del Pg1 Del Pg2 Del Pg3 Del Ptie1-2 0.012 0.014 0.004 0.0006 0.01194 0.01406 0.004 0.006 double reheat turbine 0.01235 0.01365 0.004 0.006

8.4 Comparison between Single Reheat and Double Reheat turbine for Thermal system in two areas Hydro -Thermal under deregulated environment
From figure 8.1, the optimal transient performance of the power system for thermal unit with single stage reheat/double stage reheat turbine in the LFC loop with different loads are tested. From this figure, it is clearly observed that while comparing the transient response profile of the power system for single stage/double stage reheat turbine, both the turbine models yield the same performance .Thus, it may be inferred that a double stage turbine can be modeled as a single stage one.

Fig. 8.1 Comparative performance analysis of Single and Double Reheat Thermal system For two area H-T under Deregulated environment with and without GRC

8.5 Comparison between Electrical and Mechanical Governor for Hydro system in two areas Hydro-Thermal under deregulated environment
From Fig 8.2, close look at the comparative performance characteristics of electric governor/ mechanical governor for hydro unit unveil that electric governor is better than mechanical governor when system transient performance is of interest. In the recent work, a very fast oscillation in the performance of mechanical governor while settling down the frequency deviation in the LFC loop is noticed. However, in the present work, due to the assistance of SMES and CES loop that very fast oscillatory response is not present in

mechanical governor. But very fast initial oscillation for a short duration in electric governor is noticed due to system transient.

Fig. 8.2 Comparison between Electrical and Mechanical Governor for Hydro system in two areas Hydro-Thermal under deregulated environment

8.6 Comparative analysis between conventional I controller and GA optimized controller coordinated with and without SMES energy storing device
Comparative analysis has been made between conventional I controller and GA optimized controller coordinated with and without SMES energy storing device. These comparisons have been made separately for Hydro and Thermal systems under Deregulated environment .

Fig.8.3 Settling time comparative analysis for hydro area under deregulated environment with conventional, GA optimized controller coordinated with or without SMES device.

The Fig 8.3 & Fig.8.4 shows when the system with conventional controller performance is more or less similar to the performance of GA controller when the load disturbance was 10% variation. But when the load more than 10% the robustness of the conventional controllers is very poor , the system will not with stand and stability issues are become very big issues. But whereas the performance of conventional controller coordinated with SMES stability performance was greatly improved. Again more load disturbance the system oscillation will be very high. GA optimized controller for AGC in coordinated with SEMS performance was very good in terms of system oscillation settling time and peak over shoot, and the robustness of these systems are very high.

Fig.8.4 Settling time comparative analysis for Thermal area under deregulated environment with conventional, GA optimized controller coordinated with or without SMES device.

8.7 Conclusion
This chapter includes the comparative analyses of hydro- thermal system and thermal-thermal system with three GENCOs. This comparison is consider under the effect of GRC or Without GRC. In hydro system the comparison between electric or mechanical governor and in thermal system the comparison between single reheat or double reheat.