Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Modeling
Description
Traditional approaches to modeling microgrids include the behavior of each inverter operating in a particular network configuration and at a particular operating point. Such models quickly become computationally intensive for large systems. Similarly, traditional approaches to control do not use advanced methodologies and suffer from poor performance and limited operating range. In this document a linear model is derived for an inverter connected to the Thevenin equivalent of a microgrid. This model is then compared to a nonlinear simulation model and analyzed using the open and closed loop systems in both the time and frequency domains. The modeling error is quantified with emphasis on its use for controller design purposes. Control design examples are given using a Glover McFarlane controller, gain sched- uled Glover McFarlane controller, and bumpless transfer controller which are compared to the standard droop control approach. These examples serve as a guide to illustrate the use of multi-variable modeling techniques in the context of robust controller design and show that gain scheduled MIMO control techniques can extend the operating range of a microgrid. A hardware implementation is used to compare constant gain droop controllers with Glover McFarlane controllers and shows a clear advantage of the Glover McFarlane approach.
ContributorsSteenis, Joel (Author) / Ayyanar, Raja (Thesis advisor) / Mittelmann, Hans (Committee member) / Tsakalis, Konstantinos (Committee member) / Tylavsky, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The loading provisions were compared between the ASCE 7-10 standard and ASCE 7-16 standard. Two different structural models were considered: an office building with a flat roof located in Tempe and a community center with a gable roof located in Flagstaff. The following load types were considered: dead, live, wind, and snow loads. The only major changes between the standards were found in the wind load calculations. The winds loads were reduced by approximately 22% for the office building in Tempe and 37% for the community center in Flagstaff. A structural design was completed for the frame of the Flagstaff community building. There was a 19% reduction in cost from the design using ASCE 7-10 provisions compared to the design utilizing ASCE 7-16 provisions, leading to a saving of $7,599.17. The reduction in loading, and subsequently more cost-effective design, is attributed to the reduction in basic wind speed for the region and consideration of the ground elevation factor. The introduction of the new ASCE 7-16 standard was met with criticism, especially over the increase in specific coefficients in the wind load and seismic load chapters. Proponents of ASCE 7-16 boast that the new chapter on tsunami loads, new maps for various environmental loads, and a new electronic hazard are some of the merits of the newest standard. Others still question whether the complexity of the provisions is necessary and call for further improvements for the wind and seismic provisions. While tension exists in the desire for a simple standard, ASCE 7-16 prioritizes in having its provisions provide economical and reliable results. More consideration could be devoted to developing a more convenient standard for users. Regardless, engineering professionals should be able to adapt alongside newly developed practices and newly discovered data.
ContributorsCajegas, Cyam Joshua Dato (Author) / Rajan, Subramaniam (Thesis director) / Neithalath, Narayanan (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05