paper presented at MedPower Conference

2008, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2008

Comparison of Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Models for System Stability
Studies
J. C. Mantzaris
jmantzaris@gmail.com

M. E. Karystianos

ABSTRACT: The subject of this paper is the comparison of

different dynamic models response for Gas Turbine plants and
Combined Cycle plants in electric load and frequency transients.
In particular one model of open cycle gas turbine and another of
combined cycle plant are developed in Matlab/Simulink
environment. These models are compared with corresponding
models taken from the simulation program PSS/E, which is
widely used for dynamic simulation. This study is part of a
research project between the Electric Energy Systems Lab of
NTUA and the Public Power Corporation of Greece (PPC SA)
on the development of Dynamic Models for simulation of
Autonomous Island Systems.
Keywords: Gas Turbine, Open Cycle Plant, Combined Cycle
plant, Power System Simulator

I.

C. D. Vournas

karyst@power.ece.ntua.gr
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
National Technical University of Athens

II.
A.

vournas@power.ece.ntua.gr

OPEN CYCLE GAS TURBINE MODELS

Description

The basic structure of open cycle gas turbines is

presented in Fig. 1. The compressor leads pressured air to
the combustion chamber where it is mixed with the fuel,
producing the gases that are eventually exhausted in the
turbine producing mechanical power. The major parts of
gas turbine plants are the speed governor, the fuel system,
the combustion chamber, the temperature control and the
turbine. Different models of gas turbines mostly refer to
certain simplifications of some of the above subsystems.

INTRODUCTION

During the last decades there has been continuous

development of combined cycle power generation plants
due to their increased efficiency and low emissions. This
fact raises the issue of accurate modelling of such plants
in power system dynamic simulation studies.
Comparisons made in this paper involve two basic
aspects. The first refers to the structure of models and
whether certain procedures and subsystems are modelled
in detail. In addition it is investigated whether certain
simplifications in critical subsystems of the model result
in major differences in its response. The second basic
aspect is the comparison between different models and
refers to their dynamic response in severe disturbance
such as load and frequency variations.
The paper is structured as follows: In Section II open
cycle gas turbine models are presented and analysed.
Section II is divided into four subsections. In the first, a
general description of the structure of plants is done. In
subsection B and C, two different models are presented
and in the fourth, comparison in models dynamic
response is made. Section III refers to combined cycle
plants and has the same structure. In the last section,
conclusions of the comparison of different models are
summarized .

Figure 1: Gas Turbine

Gas turbines models are mainly based on two control
loops. The first is the speed governor which varies
according to the type of the plant. The second one is the
temperature emergency control loop which measures and
calculates exhaust and inlet gas temperatures and
produces a second control signal. Both signals are guided
to a low value select block. Essentially the second control
loop reduces fuel flow whenever temperature exceeds
acceptable levels.
B.

Detailed model in Matlab/Simulink

The model that is shown in Fig. 2 is based on

[1],[2],[3]. The two loops described above are easily
identified in Fig. 2 leading to the low value select valve
(LVS). The fuel demand signal is guided to the fuel
system, which is powered by the shaft, so that fuel flow is
proportional to rotational speed. The output of the LVS is
driving the fuel system, which defines fuel flow to the
combustion chamber, where thermal power is produced.
The parameters that define the thermal power are fuel
and air flow, the ambient temperature and pressure. In
addition the compressor and fuel system in such plants is
also powered by the shaft rotation so frequency of the
plant also defines thermal power.
Temperatures and thermal power flow are calculated in
the gas turbine block with algebraic equations of energy
conversion:

t d = t i (1 +

x 1

(1)

t f = t d + (t f 0 t d 0 )

(2)
Wf
W

a few ones are adjusted accordingly to the parameters of

[2]. In Table 1 parameters of the two models are
presented. Rows of Table 1 include corresponding
variables of open cycle gas turbine models. In Tables 2,3
the parameters for algebraic equations of energy
transform are presented.

(3)
Table 1: Parameters for open cycle gas turbine models

1
t e = t f [1 (1 ) t ]
x

(4)

E g = K 0 [(t f t e ) (t d t i )]W

(5)

W = gN

(6)

Parameter

Note that symbols that are not defined in this paper can
be found in nomeclature of [3].

1/R
Tg

Fd

Fuel system

Te = Tr a f 1 (1 W f ) b f 1 ( N 1)

(8)

Parameters of the detailed model are defined in [2], [3]

adjusted properly to the case of open cycle operation.
Most parameters of GAST2A are defined in [5],[6] while

Temperature control

Vcemin

-0.1

K3

Ratio of fuel adjustment

0.77

K3

0.77

K6

Fuel valve lower limit

0.23

K6

0.23

0.05

tf

0.4

Tv

T3
T4
T5
Tt
Tc
max

Tc
min

Turbine

25
0.05

K5

(7)

W
Y

Fuel control lower limit

K4

Eg = ( a f 2 + b f 2W f c f 2 ( N 1)) N

25
0.05

1.5

TF

The structure of GAST2A model [4], taken from PSS/E

library, shown in Fig. 3, is similar to the one of the
detailed model. Fuel system is almost identical.
Temperature control and turbine dynamics are also
similar. The major difference between the two models lies
on the equations used to calculate the thermal power flow
and the exhaust temperature. In the detailed model
equations (1)-(6) are used in order to calculate the
parameters in the inlet and outlet of the combustion
chamber.
In the model of PSS/E only two simplified equations
are used in order to calculate the state variables:

Speed governor regulation

Governor time constant (s)

Vcemax

Fd

Model GAST2A of PSS/E

GAST2A

1.5

min

Figure 2: Gas Turbine detailed model

Value

Fuel control upper limit

max

C.

Value

Matlab
Speed
Governor

x = (Pr 0W )

T6
Tcd

Valve positioner time constant

0.05
(s)
Fuel system time constant (s)

0.4

Kf
Gain of radiation shield
0.8
(instantaneous)
Gain of radiation shield
0.2
Time constant of radiation
15
shield (s)
Time constant of thermocouple
2.5
(s)
Time constant of temperature
3.3
control (overheat) (s)
Temperature control (overheat)
0.4699
integration rate (s)
Temperature control upper
1.1
limit
Temperature control lower
0
limit
Time constant of f control (s) 60
Gas turbine time constant (s)
0.2
TCD
ECR
ETD

0.1
0.01
0

Table 2: Parameters for open cycle gas turbine model

(energy conversion) GAST2A
af1

bf1

af2

bf2

cf2

Tr

700

550

-0.299

1.3

1.5

950

Table 3: Parameters for detailed open cycle gas turbine

model (energy conversion)
Parameter
Ambient temperature (K)
Nominal compressors discharge
temperature (C)

ti0
Parameter (detailed model)

td0

Values
303
390

shown in Fig. 5 that is related to the exhaust temperature.

This difference does not affect the power response of the
model, because temperature is usually lower than nominal
levels, and overheat control is not activated except for
serious disturbances.
1000

tf0 Nominal gas turbine inlet temperature (C)

1085

detailed model
900

K0

Nominal exhaust temperature (C)

Nominal compressor pressure ratio
Ratio of specific heat (Cp/Cv)
Compressor efficiency
Turbine efficiency
Gas turbine output coefficient
(1/)

532
11.5
1.4
0.85
0.85

800

Te (K)

te0
Pr0

c
t

700

600

0.00303
500

GAST2A

400
0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7
wf (pu)

0.8

0.9

Figure 5: Comparison of energy conversion equations

The dynamic response of the two models is investigated
in two cases. In the first case, a step increase of load 10%
at 85% of nominal power is applied. In the second case, a
step decrease 3% on system frequency is applied at 85%
of nominal power. The results are shown in Fig. 6-8 and
fig. 9-11 respectively, where GAST2A dynamic response
is presented as dashed blue line and detailed models
response is presented in solid green line.
1.02
detailed model
GAST2A

1
0.98

Figure 3: Gas Turbine model GAST2A(PSS/E)

D.

Comparing open cycle gas turbine models

Pm (pu)

0.96

The comparison between gas turbine algebraic equation

of the two models is presented in Figs. 4-5. Solid line
presents power generation and exhaust temperature when
frequency is 1.05pu, while dashed line is used when
frequency is 0.95pu.

0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0

10

15

time (s)

Figure 6: Power generation (step increase of load)

1
detailed model

1.6

0.8

Eg (pu)

1.5
0.6

1.4
1.3
Tc Fd (pu)

0.4

0.2

1.2
Tc
1.1

GAST2A

1
0
0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7
wf (pu)

0.8

0.9

detailed model

0.9

Fd

0.8

Figure 4: Comparison of energy conversion equations

GAST2A
0.7

As we can easily observe in Fig. 4, power generation

equations give similar results. A significant difference is

10

15

time (s)

Figure 7: Control variables (step increase of load)

In Fig. 6-11 we can easily observe that the detailed

model has lower damping ratio of power and speed
oscillations. This is due to the difference between gas
turbine time constant. Nevertheless, response of two
models is similar.

1.001
detailed model
GAST2A

1
0.999

speed (pu)

0.998

III.

0.997
0.996

A.

COMBINED CYCLE PLANT MODELS

Gas and Steam Turbines

0.995
0.994
0.993
0

10

15

time (s)

Figure 8: Rotor speed (step increase of load)

1.015
detailed model
GAST2A

1.01
1.005

speed (pu)

1
0.995
0.99
0.985
0.98
0.975
0.97
0.965

10

15

Modeling combined cycle plants is based on gas turbine

modeling. Dynamic response mainly depends on the
contribution of gas turbines, as a possible change in
power production of gas turbines takes a few seconds to
result in change of steam production and eventually on
power generation by the steam turbine.
Modeling combined cycle plants includes certain
additional features in comparison to open cycle gas
turbines. First of all, a significant change is the fact that
power generation is produced by more than one turbines.
Steam turbines, respond slower than gas turbines.
Additionally, in order to maintain desired exhaust
temperature and maximize the efficiency of steam
generator, these units regulate the inlet and outlet
temperature of the turbine [7]. Inlet guide vans (IGVs)
regulate the airflow at the entrance of the combustion
chamber, and through this they control the exhaust
temperature.

time (s)

Figure 9: Rotor speed (step frequency decrease)

1.15

1.05
1
Pm (pu)

Detailed model in Simulink /Matlab

The detailed model is based on [1], [2], [3] and is

shown in Figure 12. Combined cycle model is quite
similar to the open cycle gas turbine. Two branches have
been added. The first one is the heat recovery/steam
turbine branch that simulates the steam generator and the
steam turbine. In the system of algebraic equations (1)(6), one additional equation is introduced in order to
calculate the thermal power flow to gas turbine and heat
recovery:

detailed model
GAST2A

1.1

B.

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8

E
0.75

10

15

time (s)

Figure 10: Power generation (step frequency decrease)

1.6
1.5

= K 1t eW

(9)

The second branch that has been added is the air flow
control. As mentioned above, this control loop regulates
exhaust temperature to nominal levels (or slightly below).
The parameters of the model are presented in Tables 1,3
supplemented with the ones of Table 4.

1.4

Table 4: Combined cycle detailed model parameters

Tc Fd (pu)

1.3
1.2

K0

detailed model
1.1

K1

1
GAST2A
0.9
0.8
0.7

10

15

time (s)

Figure 11: Control variables (step frequency decrease)

Tm
Tb
gmax
gmin

Parameter
Gas turbine output coefficient
(1/)
Steam turbine output coefficient
(1/)
Steam turbine time constant (s)
Heat recovery boiler time constant (s)
Air valve upper limit
Air valve lower limit

Value
0,00303
0,000428
5
20
1,001
0,73

C.

GGOV1 (PSS/E)

Table 5 Combined cycle GGOV1 parameters

Parameter

The structure of the model GGOV1 taken from PSS/E

library is shown in Fig. 13 and its parameters are
presented in Table 5. This model is also based on a low
value select block. Speed governor is a PID controller,
which can be driven by multiple signals. The temperature
control is much the same as the previous model. The third
input signal of the low value select is acceleration control
which reduces fuel flow if the acceleration of the shaft
exceeds acceptable levels. This branch typically becomes
active during plant start up.

dm
r
Rselect
Tpelect
maxerr
Kpgov
Kigov
Kdgov
Tdgov
Vmax
Vmin
Tact
Kturb
Wfnl
Tb
Tc
flag
Teng
Tfload
Kpload
Kiload
Ldref
Ropen
Rclose
Kimw
aset

Figure 12: Combined cycle detailed model

In model GGOV1, certain features of the main structure
are included, but in the same time certain subsystems are
neglected as noncritical for dynamic response.
Specifically in this model two basic simplifications are
made.
The first one refers to the temperature control signal. In
GGOV1 it is assumed that exhaust temperature is
proportional to fuel flow. This fact does not take into
account the IGVs and accepts that temperature will reach
nominal level only when power generation is also at its
nominal levels. Furthermore the dependence of airflow on
frequency is neglected.
However, as can easily be observed, this model takes
into account the fact that fuel system is powered by shaft
rotation and that is why fuel flow is multiplied by rotor
speed. Fuel system is quite the same apart from the fact
that a rate limiter is introduced on the variations of fuel
flow. In the previous model there is no such rate limiter.
The emergency rate of power generation change is
defined through airflow. As it was mentioned above,
exhaust temperature is regulated through IGVs to
nominal levels. Any increase on fuel flow demands a
proportional increase on airflow in order to maintain
temperature to nominal levels according to (3). So the
power generation rate of change in the detailed model is
not defined from fuel flow rate of change, as it is in
GGOV1 but is defined by the airflow change rate limiter.

Ka
Ta
db
Tsa
Tsb

Droop
Selector signal for speed governor
Electrical power transducer time
constant (s)
Maximum acceptable speed deviation
Speed governor gain
Integral gain of speed governor
Derivative gain of speed governor
Governor derivative controller time
constant (s)
Maximum valve position limit
Minimum valve position limit
Actuator time constant
Turbine gain
No load fuel flow (pu)
Turbine Lead time (s)
Turbine Lag time (s)
Selector for fuel system
Transport lag time constant for diesel
engine (s)
Load limiter time constant (s)
Load limiter proportional gain for PI
controller
Load limiter integral gain for PI
controller
Load limiter reference value
Max valve opening rate (pu/s)
Min valve opening rate (pu/s)
Power controller (reset) gain
Maximum acceptable shafts
acceleration
Acceleration limiter gain
Acceleration limiter time constant (s)
Speed governor dead band
Temperature detection lead time
constant (s)
Temperature detection lag time
constant (s)

Value
0
0.04
1
1
0.05
10
2
0
1
1
0.15
0.5
1.5
0.2
0.5
0
1
0
3
2
0.67
1
0.1
-0.1
0.002
0.01
10
0.1
0
4
5

Figure 13: Combined cycle mode GGOV1 (PSS/E)

The second simplification is related to the power

generation. The fact that IGVs are neglected results in an
assumption that the only parameter that defines power
generation is fuel flow. In addition, power generation of
the combined cycle is investigated as a whole and not
separately for gas and steam turbine. Finally it is assumed
that time constant of turbines do not differ much and an
average time constant (Tb) is used.
D.
Comparison between models of combined cycle
plants

production is increased quickly. This fact causes

overheating problems, which are resolved by air control
which increases airflow and limits temperature. The rate
that IGV's open determines the rate of increase of
mechanical power as shown in Fig. 17 for time period
between t=12 and t=23s. On the contrary GGOV1 does
not include overheat control as a sensitive branch and
accepts that overheat is practically possible only when
fuel flow exceeds nominal levels (Fig, 16). So in this case
there is no active overheating control and fuel system rate
limiter limits the rate of mechanical power increase.

The dynamic response of the two models is investigated

in two cases. In the first case, a step increase of load 10%
at 85% of nominal power is applied with the results
shown in Figs. 14-17. In the second case, a 3% step
decrease of system frequency is applied at 85% of
nominal power, shown in Figs. 18-21. GGOV1 dynamic
response is presented as dashed blue line and detailed
models response is presented in solid green line.
These two models present major differences in dynamic
response. In the first case the detailed model overheat
control is activated and reduces fuel flow (Fig. 15). On
the contrary in the GGOV1 model, overheat control is not
activated (Fig. 16).

1
Tc

Tc, Fd (pu)

0.95

0.9

0.85

Fd

0.8

0.75

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

1.002

Figure 16: Control variables of GGOV1 (step increase of

load)

detailed model
GGOV1
1

1.02

0.998

detailed model
GGOV1

0.996
0.98

0.994

0.96

0.992

0.94

Pm (pu)

speed (pu)

0.92

0.99
0.9

0.988

10

15

20

25

30

0.88

35

time (s)
0.86

Figure 14: Rotor speed (step increase of load)

0.84
0

1.25

10

15

20

25

35

Figure 17: Power generation (step increase of load)

1.2
1.15

Tc

1.05
detailed model
GGOV1

1.1
Tc, Fd(pu)

30

time (s)

1.05
1
Fd

speed (pu)

0.95
0.9

0.85
0.8

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

Figure 15: Control variables of detailed model (step

increase of load)

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

The detailed model tends to increase quickly fuel flow

so as to cover the mismatch between power generation
and production. For some seconds mechanical power

Figure 18: Rotor speed (step frequency decrease)

high values are applied. As in the previous case the rate of

mechanical power generation is limited by fuel valve rate
limiter.

1.8
1.7
1.6

IV.

Tc, Fd(pu)

1.5

1.3
1.2

Tc

1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Fd
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

Figure 19: Control variables of detailed model (step

frequency decrease)
1.3
1.2
1.1
Tc
1
Tc, Fd (pu)

CONCLUSIONS

1.4

0.9
Fd

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

Figure 20: Control variables of GGOV1 (step frequency

decrease)
1.3
detailed model
GGOV1

1.2

In this paper we analyzed differences in modeling and

dynamic response between detailed and PSS/E models of
open cycle and combined cycle plants. The main
conclusions can be summarized as follows:
Open cycle modeling is quite similar between PSS/E
and detailed model. Dynamic responses are slightly
different due to difference in parameter values. PSS/E
model includes certain simplifications that do not affect
the overall response.
Combined cycle models are quite different. Certain
simplifications are made in critical parts of the plant in
GGOV1 model.
Difference between gas and steam turbine time
constants is neglected.
GGOV1 uses simplified equations in order to
calculate exhaust temperature which results in
different operation of the corresponding control loop.
IGV's are neglected. Air flow rate is regarded as
constant and instead of IGVs, fuel flow rate limiter
is introduced.
Power generation depends only on fuel flow.
These assumptions result in major differences in
combined cycle model dynamic response. Temperature
control loop in GGOV1 is almost inactive. In addition
difference in speed governor modeling results in high
amplititude oscillations in GGOV1 comparing with the
ones in the detailed model. Conclusingly GGOV1 is not
well tuned for major frequency disturbances.

1.1

V.

Pm (pu)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (s)

Figure 21: Power generation (step frequency decrease)

The second disturbance is even more severe as the step
decrease of frequency generates major transients.
As far as the detailed model is concerned, control loops
function in the same way as presented in the first case.
Frequency deviation results in a quick increase in fuel
flow which results in an increase at exhaust temperature.
Overheat control loop is activated and cuts on fuel flow.
GGOV1 produces a power and frequency oscillation of
large magnitude which damps relatively slow. This is due
to the analog and integral gain of speed governor where

REFERENCES

[1] W. I. Rowen, Simplified Mathematical Representations of

Heavy Duty Gas Turbines, Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Eng., vol.
105, pp.865-869, Oct 1983
[2] N. Kakimoto, K. Baba, Performance of Gas Turbine-Based
Plants During Frequency Drops, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 18, No 3, August 2003
[3] J. Mantzaris, C. Vournas, Modeling and Stability of a
Single-Shaft Combined Cycle Power Plant, International
Journal of Thermodynamics Vol. 10 (No. 2), pp. 1-9, June 2007
[4] PSS/E-30 Program Operation Manual, Siemens Power
Technologies Inc.
[5] L. N. Hannett, A. Khan, Combustion Turbine Dynamic
Model Validation from Tests, IEEE, Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol.8, 1993
[6] L. M. Hajagos, G. R. Berube, Utility Experience with Gas
Turbine Testing and Modeling, IEEE, 2001
[7] CIGRE, 2003, Modeling Gas Turbines and Steam Turbines
in Combined-Cycle Power Plants, International Conference on
Large High Voltage Electric Systems, Technical Brochure.