ISSN 00406015, Thermal Engineering, 2011, Vol. 58, No. 10, pp. 859–868. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2011.

Original Russian Text © V.V. Zhigunov, I.A. Shavochkin, 2011, published in Teploenergetika.

Achieving More Efficient Control of the Power Output of Power

Units through the Use of Differentiation in the Boiler Controller
Regulating Steam Pressure Upstream of the Turbine
V. V. Zhigunov and I. A. Shavochkin
ZAO Interavtomatika, ul. Avtozavodskaya 14/23, Moscow, 115280 Russia

Abstract—Different versions of systems for automatic closedloop control of the power output of power units
are analyzed. A new version of the automatic power control system is proposed together with a method for
tuning it. Results from model studies and tests of the proposed automatic power control system structure at a
real plant are presented.
DOI: 10.1134/S0040601511100132

Much attention is now paid to the quality of main
taining the frequency and power in power systems in
Russia like around the world. To this end, a number of
orders and guiding documents on selective primary
and automatic secondary control of frequency have
been issued in the power industry in the past years
[1, 2]. In parallel with this, more stringent require
ments have been imposed on the quality of load con
trol while ensuring highaccurate maintenance of
other process parameters of a power unit, such as live
steam pressure upstream of the turbine.
In accordance with the new requirements, the load
of a steampower unit must be maintained with accu
racy of 1% of the nominal value. The pressure is
regarded as being maintained satisfactorily if it does
not reach the threshold values at which the watchdog
controllers come into action (except with emergency
disturbances). In this connection, new solutions need
to be worked out for constructing multiply connected
automatic closedloop control systems (MACSs) for
power units, in particular, automatic power control
systems (APCSs).
Below, an APCS structure is considered that is
somewhat different from the traditional structure, its
analysis is presented, and an example of calculating
the tuning parameters of the obtained structure is
given. The results from putting the new scheme (the
tests of which were carried out in November 2010) into
operation in the 330MW Unit 3 at the Kashira district
power station are presented.
will relate all local automatic closedloop systems
(LACSs) for control of process parameters, including
subordinated ones (except with the LACSs for control
of the power unit output and steam pressure upstream
of the turbine) to a plant that can in the given case be
represented as a quadripole (Fig. 1).
The generator’s active power and steam pressure
upstream of the turbine are the output controlled
quantities of this quadripole, and the generalized
assignment for the position of turbine control valves
and the generalized boiler control member producing
control outputs to the subordinated controllers of
feedwater, fuel, and air are its input parameters. Here
and henceforth, the quadripole input and output
parameters are treated in dimensionless form as incre
ments and are denoted by the following variables: N
for the generator active power, p 't for steam pressure
upstream of the turbine, μb for the generalized boiler
control member, and Ht for the generalized assign
ment of turbine valve position. The combined effect
from the disturbance of boiler control output μb and
internal disturbance λb is denoted by μ.
λb
μb μ Wµp (s) p't
WNµ (s) WHp (s)

THE PROPERTIES OF THE PLANT Ht N

CONTROLLED BY A POWER UNIT’S POWER
WHN (s)
OUTPUT/STEAM PRESSURE MACS
We consider an APCS constructed as a doubly con Fig. 1. Simplified structure of a power unit as a plant sub
nected automatic system for closedloop control of a ject to control of power output and steam pressure
power unit’s output/steam pressure. In doing so, we upstream of the turbine.

859
860 ZHIGUNOV, SHAVOCHKIN

(a) (b)
– p't – p't
pref pref

TPrC BPrC

TCVs

TCVs
λb λb
μb μ μ
G G
μb

– N –
BPC Nref TPC Nref

(c) (d)

p't
N

p't t N t

Fig. 2. Structures of systems for automatically controlling the power unit output/steam pressure. (a) APCS1 and (b) APCS2.
Comparison between the quality of maintaining power N and steam pressure p 't when using ACSs constructed according to the
schemes of APCS1 (c) and APCS2 (d). TPrC is the turbine pressure controller, BPrC is the boiler pressure controller, BPC is
the boiler power controller, TPC is the turbine power controller, TCVs are the turbine control valves, and G is the generator.

The plant whose pressure and power output have to
be controlled when a change occurs in the boiler load
(μ) is characterized by large inertia determined by the
boiler dynamic characteristics. The plant’s time con
stants by these channels are as large as a few minutes.
The dynamics of the controlled plant in response to a
disturbance applied by the turbine control valves is
characterized by essentially smaller inertia: the time
constants of the initial parts of transient characteris
tics, which determine the tuning of the controllers, are
as small as a few seconds.
As is well known, controllers for lowinertia plants
(which are often called highspeed controllers) feature
high accuracy with which the parameters are main
tained. Quite a lot of methods for tuning these con
trollers are available, e.g., [3]. This class of controllers
includes automatic closedloop systems for control
ling gas flowrate or pressure, feedwater flowrate, air
flowrate, rarefaction in the furnace, etc. The turbine
controller, which produces commands to the turbine
control valves, is also a lowinertia one, because, as
was mentioned above, the initial parts of the transient
characteristics have very small time constants. More
over, if modern actuators—electromechanical or elec
trohydraulic converters—are used in the hydraulic
part of turbine governors, the full stroke of which is
performed for a few tenths of a second, the character
istics of turbine controllers are close to the ideal ones.
This allows the following assertion to be made. If
steam pressure is maintained by the turbine controller
and the power unit output is maintained by the boiler
controller producing commands to the generalized
boiler control member (Fig. 2a), deviations of pressure
in such a system, called APCS1, will be minimal, and
disturbances will be responded to in a sufficiently
1
quick manner. At the same time, the power will be
controlled in step with the boiler dynamics with tak
ing its inertia into account. Hence, deviations of
this parameter will be larger than pressure devia
tions (Fig. 2c).
In the inverse scheme, called APCS2 (Fig. 2b), in
which the pressure controller’s output is applied to the
generalized boiler control member and the power con
1 The
APCS1 and APCS2 schemes are considered here in pure
form, i.e., without additional forcing signals or compensation
devices. The analysis is carried out for a power unit operating at
nominal pressure.

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

 ACHIEVING MORE EFFICIENT CONTROL OF THE POWER OUTPUT OF POWER 861

(a) (c)
pref εp pref
WBPrC (s) WBPrC (s)
– – –
WD(s)
μb μb
λb Wµp (s) p't λb Wµp (s) p't
μ μ
WNµ (s) WHp (s) WNµ (s) WHp (s)
Ht N Ht N
WHN (s) WHN (s)
α α
– – Nref – – Nref
WTPC (s) WTPC (s)
(b) Kc /Ti (d)
lm(ω)

α=1 1
0.02
α = 0.7 Re(ω)
3
α = 0.4
0.01

2
α=0

0 2 4 6 8 Kc

Fig. 3. Scheme of APCS2 with the additional signal αεc applied to the TPC (a), family of complex frequency responses of the
equivalent plant controlled by the BPrC with the TPC switched into operation and with different values of α (b), scheme of
APCS2 with an additional D component produced from the signal p 't and applied to the BPrC (c), and BPrC stability margin
regions. (1) α = 1 and D is disconnected, (2) α = 0 and D is disconnected, and (3) α = 0 and D is switched into operation. Kc is
the controller’s transfer gain, and Ti is the integrator time constant.

troller’s output is applied to the turbine control valves,
the opposite is the case: the power unit output is main
tained quickly and with high accuracy, whereas the
pressure upstream of the turbine is maintained with
essentially poorer quality (Fig. 2d). As will be shown
below, the quality with which pressure is maintained in
the APCS2 scheme is considerably poorer than the
quality with which power is maintained in the APCS
1 scheme in response to the same disturbances (see
Figs. 2c, 2d). Therefore, since live steam pressure is
one of the most important process parameters, the
control quality of which must comply with very strin
gent requirements, the APCS2 scheme has not hith
erto been widely used in power units equipped with
oncethrough boilers.
Therefore, in order to meet the modern requirements
for control of frequency and power, the APCS1 scheme
is presently used in the majority of cases for control of
power unit output/steam pressure with the use of addi
tional forcing signals in the boiler and turbine controllers,
which can be applied to the input of these controllers or
directly to the control members [4, 5].
We consider here an alternative solution of the
problem, namely, application of the APCS2 scheme
and its modernization for achieving that the boiler
controller maintains steam pressure upstream of the
turbine with sufficient quality and the turbine control
ler maintains the preset power with high accuracy.
Figure 3a shows the APCS2 scheme in a some
what modified version in which an inverse (opposite
polarity) pressure mismatch signal is applied to the
turbine power controller with some gain α. The pres
sure mismatch signal is also applied to the boiler pres
sure controller. We assume that the doubly connected
controlled plant has the following transfer functions
approximating its behavior in response to disturbances
caused by changing the position of the turbine control
valves and the boiler load (μ):

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

862
p
— W µ μ(s) is the transfer function via the μb
channel;
N
— W µ (s) is the transfer function via the μb
channel;
p
— W H (s) is the transfer function via the Ht posi
tion p 't channel; and
N
— W H (s) is the transfer function via the Ht posi
tion N channel.
The transfer function of the turbine proportional
integral (PI) controller is denoted by WTPC(s) and that
of the boiler PI controller, by WBPrC(s).
With the TPC switched into operation, the expres
sion for the transfer function of the equivalent plant
for the boiler controller depending on α takes the form
eq
W pl ( s, α )
p N
W µ ( s ) [ 1 + W TPC ( s )W H ( s ) ] – W µ ( s )W H ( s )W TPC (s )
= 

N

1 + W TPC ( s )W H ( s ) – αW TPC ( s )W H ( s )
Figure 3b shows the family of complex frequency
responses (CFRs) of the equivalent plant for the boiler
pressure controller at different values of α.
An analysis of the dependence W pl (s, α) shows
that at α = 1, the transfer function of the equivalent
eq
plant W pl (s, α), which is the transfer function of a sys
tem with a closed loop containing the TPC, is approx
imately equal to the transfer function of the plant
p
W µ (s) via the μb p 't channel, as would be with the
disconnected TPC. Indeed, with 0 < α ≤ 1, the PI con
troller of turbine power output WTPC(s) becomes
embraced by the p 't negative pressure feedback signal
through the lowinertia channel W H (s). Under such
conditions, the turbine controller is transformed with
respect to the power N signal into an equivalent con
troller approximately described by a P control law, the
proportionality gain of which increases as α decreases
and becomes zero at α = 1. Physically, this is explained
as follows. Since the mismatches of pressure and
power expressed in percentage terms are almost equal
to each other when a disturbance is applied by chang
ing the boiler load (μ) and since they arrive to the TPC
with opposite signs, the turbine controller does not
respond to such disturbance at α = 1; i.e., the TCP is
invariant to disturbances changing the boiler load.
Therefore, if we change the set point of boiler load (μ)
in this mode, the change of pressure will result in that
the power output will also change in few minutes in
step with the boiler dynamics, and these two parame
ZHIGUNOV, SHAVOCHKIN
p 't ters ( p 't and N) will reach new steadystate values. In
this case, no change will occur in the position of the
turbine control valves with respect to the initial state.
N
At α = 0, the turbine PI controller maintains the
power output strictly equal to its setpoint (reference)
value Nref. This means that when the turbine generator
operates in a steady mode, it consumes certain con
stant power arriving from the boiler. If a disturbance is
applied through the μ channel, additional thermal
energy appears, which is produced by the boiler as a
result of firing additional fuel. This additional energy
is not consumed by the turbine generator but is accu
mulated (integrated) as an increment of steam
enthalpy, which is seen by the boiler pressure control
ler as an equivalent plant without selfbalancing (see
the curve α = 0 in Fig.3).
Thus, in the case of using a boiler controller con
structed according to the “pure” APCS2 scheme, we
deal with an integrating plant. Attempts to use of a PI
control law for such plants have always encountered
considerable difficulties, because the tuning parame
N
p ters for such plants have an extremely small region of
p
. stable operation. The gains of the controllers are low,
and the integration time constants are high; hence, the
quality with which the controlled parameters of plants
without selfbalancing are maintained is considerably
poorer than that in selfbalanced plants with similar
characteristics. In addition, it should be pointed out
that such systems become unstable already when a
eq comparatively small change occurs in the plant char
acteristics; i.e., they feature low robustness.
One way in which the system can be made more
stable consists in introducing a differential (D) com
ponent into the control law. Below, the use of this
approach to the boiler pressure controller is consid
ered as applied to the “pure” APCS2 scheme (with
α = 0) with the turbine power controller switched into
operation.
p THE SCHEME OF THE MACS
FOR THE POWER UNIT OUTPUT/STEAM
PRESSURE WITH AN ADDITIONAL
DCOMPONENT FOR p t' IN THE BPRC
ALGORITHM
Figure 3c shows the MACS of pressure and power,
which differs from the APCS2 scheme shown in Fig.
3a by having the pressure derivative signal, an addi
tional control variable applied to the BPrC input from
the real differentiation unit D, whose transfer function
has the form
Kd Td s
Wd(s) = 
,
1 + Td s
where Kd and Td are the transfer gain and differentia
tion time constant.
THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011
 ACHIEVING MORE EFFICIENT CONTROL OF THE POWER OUTPUT OF POWER 863

lm(ω) Ares
2 3.0
Mcircle

2.5
3
0
2 2.0
2
M
–2 3 1.5 1

1
1.0
–4 20 40 60 80 100 Kd /Td
–6 –4 –2 0
Re(ω)
Fig. 4. Complex frequency response of the openloop sys Fig. 5. Dependence of Ares(jω) in the openloop system on
tem with the optimal tunings of the BPrC. The meaning of Td at different values of the product KdTd. The values of
(1)–(3) is the same as in Fig. 3. Td, s: (1) 5, (2) 9.5, and (3) 15.

We now consider the properties of this system, as At the first stage, the boiler PI controller is tuned at
well as methods for tuning it taking as an example the 2
transfer functions obtained from approximation of the α = 1 and with the disconnected differentiator. As was
transient characteristics taken in Unit 3 at the Kashira shown earlier, the equivalent plant for such a controller
district power station (DPS) during its operation on has the form of a selfbalanced plant (see Fig. 3b). There
gas at nominal load: are a lot of methods for tuning such systems, e.g., the
frequency method [6]. The stability margin region of
– 5s the boiler controller obtained using this method and
p 1.14e
W µ ( s ) = 2 ; corresponding to the damping ratio ψ = 0.9 (for which
( 1 + 75s ) the frequency indicator of oscillatory behavior is M =
1.55) is shown in Fig. 3d (curve 1). The optimal
N 1.05e
– 5s parameters of the controller corresponding to the
W µ ( s ) = 
;
2
minimum of the linear integral quality criterion with
( 1 + 90s ) ( 1 + 20s ) the preset damping ratio (the maximal value of the
Kc/Ti ratio at the stability margin curve) are Kc = 3.36
p 0.27  + 
W H ( s ) = – 1.46  0.73 ; and and Ti = 127 s.
( 1 + 2s )
2 ( 1 + 90s ) ( 1 + 10s ) The complex frequency response the openloop
system with the boiler controller has with the obtained
N
WH ( s ) tuning parameters is shown in Fig. 4 (curve 1). If we set
α = 0 with the same parameters of the BPrC, the CFR
0.6  + 
= 0.7  0.4  1 – 
1 . of the openloop system will turn clockwise and go
2 4
( 1 + 2s ) 1 + 40s ( 1 + 11s ) ( 1 + 110s ) beyond the region of the preset oscillatory behavior
and intersect the M circle (see curve 2 in Fig. 4).
The transfer gains were calculated as applied to the
input and output parameters expressed in percentage Having specified a certain value of the differentia
terms with respect to their nominal values. tion time constant Td and gradually increasing the dif
ferentiation transfer gain Kd, we can return the CFR of
The tuning parameters obtained at the Kashira the openloop system corresponding to α = 0 and with
DPS for the controller regulating the pressure before the BPrC tunings obtained for α = 1 into the region
itself and producing commands to the turbine control with the preset stability margin. In this case, as the Kd
valves with the disconnected power controller were value increases, the CFR of the system will first turn
taken as the turbine controller’s parameters. Studies counterclockwise approaching the imaginary axis, and
showed that exact selection of the TPC parameters is then it will again return and go into the oscillatory
not so important for the BPrC tuning because these region.
controllers have different resonance frequencies. The
TPC transfer function is given by the formula This process can be observed most clearly from the
curves in Fig. 5, which show the peak of the ampli
WTPC(s) = 0.6 ⎛ 1 + 1 ⎞ . 2 Here
⎝ 3s⎠
and henceforth, the turbine power controller is switched
into operation.

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

864 ZHIGUNOV, SHAVOCHKIN

N, p't, Ht (a) μb describing an ideal differentiator with the differentia

15 60
tion time KdTd and an aperiodic (damping) section
μb with the differentiation time Td. The role of this damp
Ht
ing section consists in “smoothing” the action of the
10 40 ideal differentiator; i.e., the higher the value of Td, the
N loweramplitude signal the real differentiator will pro
5 20 duce at its output in response to disturbances applied
to its input (with keeping the same value of the product
0 0 KdTd in the range of the minimal values of Ares). Thus,
p't the higher the value of Td, the less intense the control
–5 –20 output the BPrC will produce to the generalized boiler
0 50 100 150 200 control member, and, hence, the “smoother” inputs
t, s will be applied to the controllers regulating the flow
N, p't, Ht (b) μb rates of fuel, water, air, etc. Smaller amplitudes of the
6 15 control outputs also result in a smaller risk of reaching
μb process limitations in the adjustment range.
4 p't 10
However, it can be seen from Fig. 5 that, as the dif
2 5 ferentiation time increases, the AFR peak curves shift
N max
upward, and there exists a value T d at which the
0 0
AFR peak curve touches the value M = 1.55 only at a
–2 Ht –5 single point, and as the differentiation time constant is
max
increased further (Td > T d ), the values of Ares always
–4 –10
0 100 200 300 remain larger than M; i.e., it becomes impossible to
t, s satisfy the condition of ensuring the specified stability
N, p't, Ht (c) μb margin of the system at α = 0 (for the controller tun
3 12 ings corresponding to α = 1).
μb
p't Thus, proceeding from these two opposite con
2 8
straints, the differentiator time constant should be
opt max opt
1 4 taken T d = T d ; in our case, T d = 9.5 s. The dif
N ferentiation coefficient Kd corresponds to the mini
0 0
opt
mum Ares = M; in the given case, K d = 5.5.
–1 –4
Ht Now that the differentiator parameters have been
–2 –8 obtained, it is advisable to determine more exactly the
0 100 200 300 400 500 controller parameters proceeding from the minimum
t, s of the linear integral quality criterion. Figure 3d shows
the stability margin curve for the given system (curve 3).
Fig. 6. Transients in response to stepped disturbances applied With the differentiator switched into operation, the
by changing the power setpoint by 5% (a), pressure set point opt
by 5% (b), and by changing the boiler load by 10% (c). optimal parameters are as follows: K c = 2.8 and
opt
T i = 98 s. Comparing the stability margin bound
tudefrequency response (AFR) of the closedloop aries (see Fig. 3d) determined for the obtained system
system (Ares) as a function of the product KdTd at dif (curve 3) and also for the system at α = 1 (curve 1), we
ferent values of Td. With the specified damping ratio can see that the stability margin regions are quite com
ψ = 0.9, the value of Ares must not exceed the corre mensurable for the considered systems. Figure 3d also
sponding frequency indicator of oscillatory behavior shows the curve of system stability margin at α = 0 but
M = 1.55. As is shown in Fig. 5, the smaller the value with the disconnected differentiator (curve 2). The
of Td, the smaller the value of Ares can be achieved by stability margin region confined by this curve is several
varying the values of Kd. tens of times smaller than the corresponding regions
However, from the process point of view, the value confined by curves 1 and 3. This circumstance
of Td should be as high as possible. This is explained as explains, in particular, the abovementioned difficul
follows. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the minimal ties encountered when attempts were made to use the
value of Ares at each value of Td is reached in a certain APCS2 scheme in pure form. Figure 4 shows the
range of the product KdTd (in our case, this is 40–60). CFR of the obtained openloop system (curve 3).
We will consider the transfer function of a real differ Figure 6 shows transients in the closedloop system
entiator as the product of the transfer functions in steam pressure, power, and position of control

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

 ACHIEVING MORE EFFICIENT CONTROL OF THE POWER OUTPUT OF POWER 865

fref = 50 Hz

f –+
Δf

Dead band
adjuster

Adjuster of
frequency
deviation ++
simulator

Droop adjuster

Ultimate
power

SCRL N
setpoint
adjuster
Rateofchange
adjuster
Accounting FSC
of TCs

ΔNref
pr
ΔN ref
sec
p't d N –+ ++
dt
Setpoint ΔN
adjuster for
SCRL p

ultimate
pressure – + Maximal
upstream of the + + p't pressure
turbine watchdog
Rateofchange Δp't controller
adjuster

Accounting
of TCs PI BPrC p't
Maximal
pressure
watchdog
Ffw.ref controller

Load distribution unit

TPC PI TSG
Misalignment adjuster

Boiler A Boiler B
++
ASLA of b. A

ASLA of b. B

ultimate load ultimate load

setpoint setpoint
adjuster adjuster
Rateofchange Rateofchange
adjuster adjuster
Accounting Accounting
of TCs of TCs

Boiler A Boiler A Boiler A Boiler B Boiler B Boiler B

feedwater fuel total air feedwater fuel total air TCV1 TCV6
controller controller controller controller controller controller

Fig. 7. Structure of the APCS of Unit 3 at the Kashira DPS. FSC is a frequency secondary controller, SCRL is a set point change
rate limiter, TCs are technological constraints, TSG is a turbine speed governor, ASLA is an automatic boiler shell load setpoint
adjuster, and TCV is a turbine control valve.

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

866 ZHIGUNOV, SHAVOCHKIN
p't, % μb, %
5 60
4
2 Kashira DPS constructed according to the principle
0 0
3
1 laid on the boiler pressure controller, which produces
–5 –60
0 100 200 300 400
t, s
Fig. 8. Transients in response to a disturbance applied by
changing the power set point by 5%. (1) p 't for the BPrC
tunings selected taking into account the constraints for
deviation of μb, (2) μb for the BPrC tunings selected taking
into account the constraints for deviation of μb, (3) p 't for
the BPrC tunings selected without taking into account the
constraints for deviation of μb, and (4) μb for the BPrC
tunings selected without taking into account the con
straints for deviation of μb.
members in response to disturbances applied by
changing the power and pressure set points and by
changing the boiler load (μ).
A conclusion can be drawn based on the results
obtained from the model study of the APCS2 scheme
in the frequency and time domains that the introduc
tion of a differentiator into the boiler controller makes
it possible to achieve the required quality of control
ling not only the power unit output, but also the steam
pressure.
It should be pointed out that the proposed scheme
can be brought to a classic one with a real PID con
troller, for which various methods of tuning are avail
able, in particular, [6]. However, in our opinion, for
selfbalanced plants, including the BPrC incorporated
into the APCS2, the proposed scheme and tuning
procedure seem to be more optimal.
TESTS OF THE MACS FOR THE POWER UNIT
OUTPUT/STEAM PRESSURE
AT THE KASHIRA DPS
The proposed scheme developed on the basis of
APCS2 was successfully put in operation at a few
facilities: in the 325MW coalfired Unit 8 at the
Zmiev thermal power station (TPS) in 2003, in the
330MW coalfired Unit 1 at the Zuev TPS in 2010,
and in the 330MW coalgasoilfired Unit 3 at the
Kashira DPS in 2010. In the latter power unit, the new
scheme has successfully passed adjustment and tests
during its operation on gas. It is supposed that this
scheme will be put into operation in the coalfiring
mode after the pulverized coal supply system passes
technological adjustment.
Figure 7 shows the APCS structure of Unit 3 at the
proposed above. The function of controlling the power
unit output is laid on the turbine power controller,
which manipulates the turbine control valves (TCVs)
jointly with the nondisabled electronic highspeed
turbine speed governor (TSG), and the function of
maintaining steam pressure upstream of the turbine is
control inputs to the devices automatically adjusting
the loads of boiler shells (ASLAs) (through a distribu
tion unit), which produce control inputs to the subor
dinated controllers of feedwater, fuel, and air supply.
Prior to adjusting the APCS, all subordinated
LACSs were adjusted, including those controlling the
supply of feedwater, fuel, and air to the boiler, as well
as rarefaction and steam temperatures along the boiler
path.
The tunings for the differentiator and boiler con
troller were calculated on the basis of the proposed
procedure described above after receiving the neces
sary acceleration curves of steam pressure and genera
tor active power in response to a stepped disturbance
applied by changing the boiler load set point and gen
eralized assignment of the position of the turbine con
trol valves. Since the boiler of Unit 3 at the Kashira
DPS consists of two shells, the tests on taking the
experimental characteristics of the plant were carried
out with disturbances applied both by alternately
changing the load set point for one boiler shell and by
changing the load of both shells. The transfer functions of
the plant obtained in response to these disturbances were
almost identical with each other. This means that there is
no need to make any correction to the parameters of the
scheme depending on whether the boiler controller pro
duces a control output to one or both of boiler shells.
However, it should be borne in mind that the situation in
other plants may be different.
Another important feature of this facility (in dis
tinction to other facilities at which the proposed
APCS scheme was put in operation) is that the control
input (μb) has a large deviation with respect to the dif
ference between its initial and steadystate values for
the calculated tunings of the controller and differenti
ator in the BPrC in response to a stepped disturbance
applied by changing the TPC power setvpoint (see
Fig. 6a). As was already mentioned, large deviations of
the control input (μb) are undesirable in a real facility
for keeping its operating mode more smoothly. To
reduce these deviations, it was decided to slow down
the response speed of the boiler controller to some
extent so that the maximal deviation of μb in response
to a stepped disturbance applied by changing the set
point of the power unit output would not exceed 2.0–
THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011
 ACHIEVING MORE EFFICIENT CONTROL OF THE POWER OUTPUT OF POWER 867

μb, t/h (a)

p't, MPa Ht, %
f, mHz
400 27 N, MW 100
ASLA (µb) of b. B

26 ASLA (µb) of b. A
400 300 75
TCV(Ht)
200 Simulator of network
25 280 frequency deviation, f, mHz
p't
0 200 50
260
–200 24
Nref p't.ref
240 N
–400 100 25
23 220

200 t1 t2 t3
0 22 0
02:32:00 02:36:00 02:40:00 02:44:00 02:48:00 02:52:00
02:34:00 02:38:00 02:42:00 02:46:00 02:50:00
Time, h:min:s
μb, t/h (b) Ht, %
f, mHz p' t, MPa
27 N, MW 100
ASLA (µb) of b. A
ASLA (µb) of b. B
400 26
400 75
25 p't TCV(Ht)
200 pt.ref
300 24
0 50
300 Simulator of network
23 frequency deviation, f, mHz
–200 280
–400 200 22 260 25
240 Nref
21 N
t1 t4 t5
220 t2 t3
100 20 200 0
06:34:00 06:42:00 06:50:00 06:58:00 07:06:00
06:38:00 06:46:00 06:54:00 07:02:00 07:10:00
Time, h:min:s
Fig. 9. Results of APCS tests. (a) Checking the joint effect from primary and secondary control with the specified droop equal to
6% (t1—disturbance applied by changing the power setpoint of the secondary component by –17.6 MW for 5 min, t2—simulating
the deviation of network frequency by 0 160 mHz, t3—removing the simulated frequency deviation 160 0 mHz simul
taneously with a disturbance applied by changing the power set point of the secondary component by 17.6 MW for 5 min); (b)
checking the joint effect from primary, secondary, and tertiary control with the specified droop equal to 6% (t1—disturbance
applied by changing the power set point of the tertiary component by +70.4 MW for 40 min, t2—disturbance applied by changing
the power set point of the secondary component by +35.2 MW for 10 min, t3—simulating the deviation of network frequency by
0 –160 mHz, t4—removing the simulated frequency deviation –160 0 mHz, and t5—disturbance applied by changing
the power setpoint of the secondary component by –35.2 MW for 10 min). Dashed curves show the boundaries of possible devi
ation of the power unit output.

2.5 of the difference between its initial and steady Kd corresponding to the minimal possible amplitude
state values. To do so, the differentiator time constant peak of the closedloop system Ares was recalculated,
Td was increased, and the differentiator transfer gain and then the controller parameters Kc and Ti corre

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011

868 ZHIGUNOV, SHAVOCHKIN
sponding to the specified damping ratio and minimal
integral criterion were determined. The new tuning
parameters of the BPrC determined for the considered
plant are as follows: Kd = 0.97, Td = 40 s, Kc = 1.3, and
Ti = 188 s.
Figure 8 shows the simulated graphs of transients in
steam pressure p 't and assigned boiler load μb in
response to a stepped disturbance applied by changing
the set point of the power unit’s output Nref by 5% with
two versions of the BPrC tunings calculated with and
without taking into account the constraint for devia
tion of μb. It can be said from making a comparison
between the presented graphs that the control pro
cesses in the system with the BPrC tunings calculated
taking into account the constraint for deviation of μb
feature a smoother change in the boiler load, a some
what larger mismatch of control by pressure, and a
longer duration of the process; however, the quality
with which this parameter is maintained is in compli
ance with the specified criteria.
Figure 9 shows the graphs of control processes
obtained during the preliminary tests of the APCS of
Unit 3 at the Kashira DPS for compliance with the
requirements of the relevant standard. The require
ments imposed on the quality of maintaining the con
trolled parameters are fully complied with in all tests
that were carried out.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) There are a number of schematic versions con
structed on the basis of APCS1 the use of which
makes it possible to fulfill the modern requirements
imposed on selective primary and automatic second
ary control of frequency [1, 2]. As a rule, this is
achieved by introduction of additional units that pro
duce forcing control actions.
(2) The use of the proposed scheme constructed on
the basis of APCS2 also makes it possible to fulfill all
the necessary requirements and has the following
advantages:
(i) The scheme is simple (only one device, namely,
a differentiator of pressure signal) is added to the
“pure” scheme of APCS2; hence, its implementation
using any equipment should not be a problem.
(ii) There is no need to use any additional compen
sating or forcing sections, the tuning parameters of
which are rigidly linked to the properties of the plant,
the characteristics of which always vary with time.
(iii) The scheme is convenient for tuning (it is easy
to elaborate an algorithm for calculating the BPrC
tuning parameters or for determining them experi
mentally).
(3) The results obtained from simulation, tests, and
operation at real facilities (including those obtained
from longterm operation in Unit 8 at the Zmiev TPS
for 8 years) show that the proposed APCS scheme
copes with the tasks imposed on it, namely, maintain
ing the power unit output and steam pressure, which
are the most important process parameters, in compli
ance with the quite stringent quality criteria that are
presently in force, fulfilling them with certain margin.
REFERENCES
1. Standard of OAO Unified Energy System’s System Opera
tor—Central Dispatch Control Board STO
59012820.27.100.0022005 (SOCDCB UES 0012005,
IDN): Norms for Participation of Power Units at Thermal
Power Stations in Selective Primary and Automatic Sec
ondary Control of Frequency (Moscow, 2005) [in Rus
sian].
2. Order of RAO Unified Energy System of Russia No. 524 of
September 18, 2002.
3. N. D. Aleksandrova and N. I. Davydov, “Tuning
Impulse Relay Regulators for LowInertia Controlled
Objects,” Teploenergetika, No. 5, 54–57 (2002)
[Therm. Eng., No. 5, 408 (2002)].
4. N. I. Davydov, A. D. Melamed, M. D. Trakhtenberg,
and L. P. Fotin, “A System for Automatic Control of
Frequency and Power at UnitType Thermal Power
Stations Equipped with OnceThrough Boilers,”
Therm. Eng., No. 8 (1979).
5. V. A. Bilenko. A. D. Melamed, E. E. Mikushevich,
et al., “Development and Application of Automatic
Frequency and Power Control Systems for Large Power
Units,” Teploenergetika, No. 10, 14–27 [Therm. Eng.,
No. 10, 824 (2008)].
6. V. Ya. Rotach, Automatic Control Theory (MEI, Mos
cow, 2004) [in Russian].
THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 58 No. 10 2011