I

Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7, NO. 1, February 1992 167

HYDRAULIC TURBINE AND TURBINE CONTROL MODELS FOR SYSTEM PYNAMIC STUDIES

Working Group on Prime Mover and Energy Supply

Models for System Dynamic Performance Studies

ABSTRA~ Other developments requiring new models include the

A working group on Prime Mover and Energy Supply Models for
System Dynamic Performance Studies underthe IEEE System Dynamic
Performance Subcommittee was established in 1987 to collect
technical informationon dynamic characteristicsof prime mover and
energy supply systems that can affect power system performance
durlng and following disturbances such as faults, loss of generation or
loads and system separation.
A principal objective of the working group is to develop prime
mover/energy supply models for use in power system simulation
programs. The last endeavor in this area was the IEEE Committee
Report (Ref. 1) in 1973 entitled "Dynamic Models for Steam and Hydro
Turbines'.
KEY WORDS
Hydraulic Turbine Dynamic Models, HydreTurbine Controls.
Power System Dynamic Petformonce.
widespread use of electric-hydraulic speed control both in new
construction and in modernization of older power plants. It is better
to use models describing the actual equipment rather than make
approximations to fit existing mechanical governor models. The
tremendous increase in computer power eliminates the need for less
detailed models.
This report recommends hydraulic models suitable for a
relatively wide range of studies. The two main sections of the report
provide models for 1) prime movers including water supply conduit
and 2) prime mover speed controls. The section on prime mover
models includes both linear and nonlinear controls. Non-linear
models are required where speed and power changes are large,
such as in islanding. load rejection. and system restoration studies.
The block diagram of Figure 1 shows the basic elements of a
hydro turbine within the power system environment. Excluded from
-
the scope of this report are models for aeneration load control and
electrical load dynamics.
I mechanlcal torque

1 .O INTRODUCTION

The 1973 IEEE Committee report 'Dynamic Models for Steam Dynamics
- Dynamics
Rotor
Dynamic8
and Hydro Turbines in Power System Studies' (1) has been used
widely. Even in 1973. however, it was realized that more work Aaaigned unlt preaaure, h electrical torque
needed to be done. Since then, modeling requirements have generation flow. q
increased greatly and more detailed models have been
implemented in the advanced simulation programs.
The older models were considered adequate for typical first
swing stability simulations common in the early 70s. Nowadays,
models for the following types of studies are also needed:

Longer transient stability program simulation -up to

, Automatic Oeneratlon Load
Dynamlcs
and beyond ten seconds are now routine. In this
longer time frame, prime mover and prime mover Interchange
action can affect results. and frequency

Low frequency oscillations.

Figure 1. Functional Block Diagram Showing Relationship of
Islanding and isolated system operation. Hydro Prime Mover System and Controls to Complete
System
System restoration following a break-up.

Load rejection. 2.0 MODELING OF TURBINE CONDUIT DYNAMICS

Load acceptance.
2.1 Non-linear Model Assuming a Non-Elastic Water Colurryh
Wcter-hammer dynamics.
The block diagram in Figure 2 represents the dynamic
Pump storage generation with complex hydraulic characteristics of a simple hydraulic turbine, with a pehstock,
structures. unrestricted head and tail race, and with either a very large or no
surge tank.
The penstock is modeled assuming an Incompressiblefluid and
Paper preparation was coordinated by F. P. de Mello
a rigid conduit of length Land cross-sectionA. Penstock head losses
(Chairman) and R. J. Koessler with contributionsfrom J. Agee. P. M.
hl are proportionalto flow squared and f is the head loss coefficient,
Anderson, J. H. Doudna, J. H. Fish 111, P. A. L. Hamm, P. Kundur. D. C. P
usually ignored.
Lee, G. J. Rogers and C. Taylor.
From the laws of momentum, the rate of change of flow in the
conduit is
91 462-2 K:RS A p a p e r recoinnencied and a!l:x-oveti
by t h e I% .E Power Systeil I,ngineerin: Committee of
Tower 2n:;ineering i o c i e t I f o r 2 r s s e n t a t i o n
dq -- (6- Fi - 4 ) g A/L
_
dt
(1)
a t t h e IKEkl/P?S 1371 Su.xier : . e e t i n g , S a l Die?o,
C a i i f o r n i a , J u l y 26 - Auzus?. 1, l.;sl. .Ixn.iscri?t where:
c u b i i i t t e d Xebruarv 1. 1941 innde a v a i l a b l e l o r
" I

p r i n t i n 1 June 19, 1971. U-Y-I

168

turbine flow rate, m3,,/ produces mechanical power. There is also a speed deviation
2 damping effect which is a function of gate opening (6).
Penstock area, m Per unit turbine power, Pm, on generator MVA base is thus
Penstock length, m expressed as:
2
is the acceleration due to gravity, m/sec
is the static head of water column, m
is the head at the turbine admission, m where qnl is the per unit no-load flow, accounting for turbine fixed
is the head loss due to friction in power losses. A+ is a proportionality factor and is assumed constant.
the conduit, m It is calculated using turbine MW rating and generator MVA base.

' =
Turbine MW rating
(Generator MVA rating) h,(q, - q,,,)
(6)

where hr is the per unit head at the turbine at rated flow and qr is the
per unit flow at rated load.
it should be noted that the per unit gate would generally be
less than unity at rated load.
The parameter A, defined by Equation 6 converts the gate
opening to per unit turdine power on the volt-ampere base of the
generator and takes into account the turbine gain. It should be
noted. however, that in some stability programs, A+ is used to convert
the actual gate position to the effective gate position, i.e. A,
= 1 /(G - G ) as described in (6). A separate factor is then used to
convetthe "p',wer from the turbine rated power base to that of the
generator volt-ampere base.
Figure 2. Non-Linear Model of Turbine - Non-Elastic Water Column

Expressed in per unit this relation becomes

2.2 Linear Models

Neglecting friction losses in the penstock, a small perturbation

analysis of the relationships in Figure 2 yields the black diagram of
Figure 3.

where h and hl are the head at the turbine, and head loss
respectively in per unit, with hbase defined as the static head of the
water column above the turbine.
Tw, called water time constant or water starting time, is defined as:
I - 1

I I

qbose is chosen as the turbine flow rate with gates fully open (Gate
posltion G = 1) and head at the turbine equal to hbase. It should
be noted that the choice of base quantities is arbitrary.
7-
AW
The system of base quantities defined above has the following
advantages: Figure 3. Linearized Model of Turbine - Non-Elastic Water Column
Base head (hbase) is easily identied as the total
available static head (i.e. lake head minus tailrace From this figure, the change in mechanical power output can
head). be expressed as:
Base gate is easily understood as the maximum gate
opening.
Having established base head and base gate position, the 4(1 - T,s)AG
turbine characteristics define base flow through the relationship:
AP,,, = - DG0Ao (7)
(1 + TA
q = f (gate. head) where
The per unit flow rate through the turbine is given by: Go = per unit gate opening qt operating point

Ti = (qo-qn$TW

T2 = G0Tw/2
In an ideal turbine, mechanical power is equal to flow times
head with appropriate conversion factors. = per unit steady state flow rate at operating
The fact that the turbine is not 100% efficient is taken into 90
point
account by subtracting the no load flow from the actual flow giving
the difference as the effective flow which, multiplied by head, Note that Go = qo
 169

With the damping term neglected, equation 7 is similar to the

(10)
commonly used classical penstock/turbinelinear transfer function

AP,
-=
1- GoTwS
XA, (8) and Te, the wave travel time is
AG G T s
1 + A
c
T,=L/a (1 1)
where GOTw is an approximationto the effective water starting time
for small perturbations around the operating point. where:
Other, more elaborate linear models have been proposed
(2.3A.5). They require more detailed turbine data. a = pg (1/K + D/fE)
Linear models are useful for studies of control system tuning = density of water
using linear analysis tools (frequencyresponse, eigenvalueetc.). Their PK = bulk modulus of water
use in time domain simulations should be discouraged since in D = internal penstock diameter
addition to being limitedto small perturbations, they do not offer any f = wall thickness of penstock
computational simplicity relative to the non-linear model. E = Young's modulus of pipe wall material
= base flow
'base
2.3 Traveling Wave Models hbase = base head
9 = acceleration due to gravity
While the modeling of the hydraulic effects using the L = length of penstock
assumption of inelastic water columns is adequate for short to
medik length penstocks, there is sometimes need to consider the
effects wnich cause traveling wave; .' pressure and flow due to the
elasticity of the steel in the penstock and the compressibil*yof water.
a = wave velocity =E
For long penstocks the travel time of the pressure and flow waves
can be significant. Noting that the water time constant in the penstock
An analysis of the partial differential equations in time and
space defining pressure and flow rate at each point in the conduit
gives rise to the classical traveling wave solution which, with the Tw = -qd
boundary conditions of zero change in head at the penstock inlet 4umag
and the flow/gate/head relationship at the turbine, yields the block
diagram of Figure 4. and expression 11 for Tea it follows that

-rL T, = ZoTe

Typical values for wave velocity are in the range of 1000 to

Figure 4. Non-Linear Model of Turbine Including Water Column
Traveling Wave Effects
This block diagram incorporates the traveling wave transfer
function between head and flow rate:
1200 m/sec.
In the block diagram of Figure 4 the effect of friction head loss
in the penstock is shown proportional to flow squared.
An alternative numericalmethodof time simulation of traveling
wave effects is the method of characteristics solution, detailed in
reference 9. An example of this solution technique is given in
Section 4.4.
The dynamics of turbine power are an almost instantaneous
function of head across the turbine and gate or nonle opening
including deflector effects where applicable. The head across the
turbine is a function of the hydraulic characteristics upstream of the
turbine and also downstream in cases where the flow in the draft
tube and/or tailrace is constrained as in the case of Francis or Kaplan
Turbines. In the case of Pelton (impulse) turbines, the downstream
pressure is atmospheric hence the hydraulic effects are only from the
conduits between the reservoir and turbine.
This modulor separation of effects is shown in Figure 1 with the
distinct blocks labeled "Turbine Dynamics" and "Conduit Dynamics".
The model of the combined system. turbine and conduit. is shown in
Figures 2 and 3 for the simple penstock/turbine system without
elasticity effects and in Figure 4 considering elasticity effects.
Particular hydraulic conduit arrangements may require special
modeling in cases such as constrained or vented tunnels. individual
penstocks fanning out from a common pressure shaft etc. The basic
models for conduits can be put together to describe the specific
arrangement, much as the basic models of electric components are
used to describe specific networks.
Examples of models for more complex hydraulic systems are
given in Sections 2.4 to 2.6.

also written as 2.4 Non-linear Madel Including Surge Tank Effects.

Non-Elastic Water Columns.
-Z,tan h(Tes) (9b)
In hydro plants with long supplyconduits.it is common practice
to use a surge tank. The purpose of the surge tank is to provide some
2, is the surge impedance of the penstock in per unit expressed as:
 170

hydraulic isolationof the turbine from the head deviations generated

by transients in the conduit. Many surge tanks also include an orifice
which dissipates the energy of hydraulic oscillations and produces
damping. The hydraulic model shown in Figure 5 includes
representationof
I - I
penstock dynamics
surge chamber dynamics
tunnel dynamics
penstock, tunnel and surge chamber orifice loses css q"L

I L

-
A Head at turbine(\
d
AW A

I '
I
I
Figure 6. Non-Linear Model of Turbine With Surge Tank Effects
and Traveling Wave Effects in Penstock

2.6 Non-linear Model d Multiple Penstocks and Turbines

Supplied from Common Tunnel. Inelastic Water Columns

Figure 7 shows a configurationwhere a pressure shaft or tunnel

brings water to a manifold from which penstocks fan out to several
turbines. The coupling effect of head variations at the manifold is
I I illustrated in the model of Figure 8 for the case of three turbines and
Surge Tank Level (head)
their penstocks with water starting times of Twl, Tw2 and Tw3
respectively and a tunnel water starting time of Tw. The model of
Figure 5. Non-Linear Model of Turbine Including Surge Tank
Figure 8 is derived from the basic momentum equations for each
Effects - Non-Elastic Water Column
conduit and eliminating the variable head at the manifold through
use of the continuity equation forcing the flow in the upper tunnel to
be equal to the sum of the flows in the penstocks.
Flow base, head base and water time constants are
determined as in 2.1. C,, storage constant of surge tank, is defined
as: Penstocks
c, = As*hme
~ secs (14)
%lSE
Tunnel
where Turbines
A, = surge tank cross section area, m
2
Upper and lower penstock head loses are proportionalto flow
rate squared through loss coefficients f p l and p
Head IoSSeS in the orifice'to the surge tan are proportional to
the coefficient fo times flow rate times absolute value of flow rate to
maintain direction of head loss. The same applies to head loss in the Figure 7. Penstock Arrargement Fanning Out From Manifold
upper penstock where flow can reverse. From Sinale Tunnel
The head across the lower penstock is defined by the level of
the surge tank, which can undergo low frequency oscillations (in the
order of .01 Hz) between surge tank and reservoir.
The inclusion of surge tank effects is warranted in cases where
dynamic performance is being simulated over many seconds to 01
minutes.
Q2
2.5 Non-Linear Model Including Surae Tank Effects.
Elastic Water Column in Penstock
G3-------

in cases where traveling wave effects in the penstock are The equivalent relf and mutual rtarting timer, T1, , T12 , T13 , etc. are derived
important the model of Figure 5 is modified to that of Figure 6. Here from the solution of h 1 , h 2 and h 3 as function of ql , Q2, 43
They are basically the terms in the inverre of the matrlx below.
the upper penstock or tunnel is considered inelastic because the
dynamic effects contributed by that system and surge chamber
involve low frequency effects, while the high frequency response
components are contributed by the lower penstock which is subject
to abrupt gate or flow area changes. The difference between the
model in Figure 6 and that in Figure 4 is that the head acting on the
lower penstock is the surge tank level rather than the constant
reservoir elevation taken as 1 pu. Figure 8. Model for Configuration of Figure 7 - Non-Elastic
Woter Column
 171

2.7 Non-Linear Model of Multiple P w t o c k s and TurbiheS SuPDhd proportional control gain would be limited to about 3 per unit for
From Common Tunnel. Elastic Water Columns in Penstocks and acceptable stabilfty which would imply an unacceptably high
Tunnel regulation of 33%.

Figure9 shows the model accounting for traveling wave effects

in the penstocks and tunnel.
ia

1%
1

I
202G3= Surge impedance of indlvidual penstocks

-
2 0 7 Surge Impedance of tunnel
Te,, T 9 Te? Travel tlme of lndlvidual penstock8
I

T y Travel time In tunnel

Figure 9. Model for Configuration of Figure 7 - Including

Traveling Wave Effects in Penstocks and Tunnel
n-. .
This model incorporatesthe single penstock model of Figure 4 0.01 Oel rad/sec ' 10

and introduces the effect of the tunnel b y using the same form of
transfer function between downstream head and flow, which. for the
tunnel is the sum of flows in the penstocks. Figure 11. Bode Plot of Open Loop Function in Figure 10 with
Whereas the algebraic loop between flow and head of the Proportional Governor
simple penstock can be solved in closed form, these loops in Figure
9 are best solved by iteration.

3.0 HYDRO TURBINE CONTROLS

K = 2 - WCROSS = 0.28 radlsec - OHARG = 45.8 deg
Hydro turbines, because of their initial inverse response K = 3 - WCROSS = 0.47 radlsec - llHARG= 2 2 . 2 deg
characteristics of power to gate changes, require provision of
transient droop features in the speed controls for stable control K = 4 - WCROSS = 0.71 radlsec - BMRG = 0.0 deg

performance. The term 'transient droop' implies that, for fast

deviations in frequency, the governor exhibits high regulation (low
gain) while for slow changes and in the steady state the governor
exhibits the normal low regulation. (high gain).
From a linear control analysis point of view. the case of a hydro
turbine generator supplying an isolated load can be represented by
the block diagram of Figure 10.

Qate Pmech ACC. Acc.

Syrtem
Pelec

Figure 10. Linear Model of Hydro Turbine and Speed Controls

Supplying Isolated Load
1?,I
100 ,
.oo30 3.0000 5.0000 7.0000 9~oooo 11 .WO
3.000 15.noo
,ooO 19.000
Conventionalfrequency response and Bode plot analysisof this TI M E
control system shows that a pure Droportionalcontroller would have
to be tuned with a very low gain for acceptable stability yielding a Figure 12. Response of Mechanical Power for a Step Change in
very poor (high) regulation. This is evident from Figure 11 showing the Electrical Power in System of Figure 10 with
open loop asymptotic gain and phase angle plots and in Figure 12 ProportionalGovernor
showing the response to a step change in electrical load for different
values of proportional gain K. This example using a water starting
time Tw of 2 sec and inertia constant H of 4 sec, shows that a
 172

Transient gain reduction is thus necessary to provide

acceptable steady state regulation with adequate stability.

3.1 -
Governors ProportionalContrd with Transient Droop

Figure 13 shows the model block diagram of a typical governor

in which the turbine gate is controlled by a two stage hydraulic
position selvo. The physical meaning of the parameters used in the
model is as follows:

T - Pilot valve and servo motor time constant

8 - ~ervogain
T - Main servo time constant
?I - Permanent droop
RP
- Transient droop
- Reset time or dashpot time constant
TR

I ' ---U Rp
Permanent Droop
I
0.01
Compenrrtlon radlsec 10

Figure 14. Bode Diagram of Governor in Figure 13, Forward and

Figure 13. Model of Typical Hydro-Turbine Governor
The permanent droop determines the speed regulation under
steady state conditions. It is defined as the speed drop in percent or
per unit required to drive the gate from minimum to maximum
opening without change in speed reference. As noted in Section 3.0.
due to the peculiar dynamic characteristicsof the hydraulic turbine.
it is necessary to increase the regulation under fast transient
conditions in order to achieve stable speed control. This is achieved
by the paralleltransient droop branch with washout time constant TR.
Because of the choice of the per unit system, with maximum
gate opening defined as unity, the speed limits must be defined, for
consistency, as fractions of the maximum gate opening per second.
The Bode diagram in Figure 14 gives an asymptotic plot of the
inverse of the feedback path l/hl i.e.
Inverse Feedback Function
Hence, the closed loop response may be approximated by
plotting both g1 and l/hl and choosing the lowest of both gain
responses at any frequency as an approximation to the closed loop
response at that frequency. Referring to Figure 14, the speed-
regulating control loop will "see' the governor as having a gain of
1/Rp in the steady state, and a 'transient' gain of l/Ri for
phenomena above the l/TR frequency range. An equivalent time
constant of 1/(QRt)sec will result from the second intersection of the
g1 and l/hl traces.
The speed regulating loop will have acceptable stability if:
a) The transient gain, (l/Rt) does not exceed
1
- i 1.5
H
-
Rt Tw

b) Crossover frequency, Wc, approximately equal to

and the fofward function g 1/(2HRt), occurs somewhere in the region between
l/TR and QRt. Th's reduces phase lag contributions
from the governor.

Several authors have proposed relations for temporary droop.

Rt, and dashpot time constant, TR:
For temporary droop Ref 11 and 12 propose values of TW/H,
(For the purpose of clarity, the effects of selvomotor time constants while Ref. 7 proposes the following formula
have been neglected in this figure. Their effect is significant only if
their poles occur before or near crossover frequency).
The closed loop response (C.L.R.) of such a g,/h, Rt = TdH*(1.15 - (l
-,
1)*0.075]
control loop is

If gl<<l/hl. then: ghl<<l and C.L.R. is approximately = gl,
If l/hl<cg, then: glhl>>l and C.L.R. is approximately = l/hl.
All three will result in crossover frequencies that are close to 1/2Tw,
and, therefore, satisfy condition (a).
Regarding the dashpot time constant, Ref 11 suggests a value
of 4 times Tw, Ref 12 proposed a TR equal to five times Tw and Ref
7 proposes
 173

TR = Tw*(5 - (Tw - 1)*0.5] (20)

For crossover frequencies in the order of 1/2Tw, l / T R values in

the order of 1/5Tw will minimize 'low frequency" phase lag
contributions from the governor.
Reference 7 suggests large values of €2, the servosystem gain,
to attain improved performance characteristics. The typical
maximum values of 5 to 10 reported in that Same paper, will minimize
the 'high frequency' phase lag contributions from the gavemor.

3.2 Other Tvpes of Govemon

There are cases where specific governors require more

complex representation than in Figure 13. The differences may be
due to added time constants in hardware and also where derivative

*
action is included.
Figure 15 shows an example of more complex representations.

Saeed
_r-_-

Reference

.o 1 .1
radhec
1 10

I I
U Addl tlonal
Servo Figure 16. Bode Plot of P-l Control
Dynamics

100

Figure 15. PID Governor Including Pilot and Servo Dynamics

3.2.1 PI Govemor (KD = 0)

Neglecting the pilot servo and additional servo dynamics in

Figure 15, shown in the Bode diagram of Figure 16 are the inverse of
the intemal loop feedback path l/h i e 1/Rp. and the forward gain 10
g , i.e. KP + Kl/s. When comparing tLe resulting frequency response
characteristics with those of Figure 14 it is apparent that both
governors achieve the same objective, i.e. transient droop increase.
Tuning objectives are identical: Transient droop Rt is given by
l/KP. KP/KI is equivalent to the dashpot time constant T , and care
must be taken that crossover does not occur at frequenfies that are
close to the inverse of the smaller servomotor time constants.
1
3.2.2 PID Governor

The purpose of the derivative is to extend the crossover

frequency beyond the constraints imposed on PI governors. Figure
17 shows the governor loop frequency response when the PID
governor is tuned according to the authors of Reference 10.
Rt = 1/KP = 0.625Tw/H
TR = KP/KI = 3.33 Tw (21) 0.1

w/KD 3P-w ' 0.01 radlsec ' 10

Transient gain (1/Rt) has been increased by 60% over normal Figure 17. Bode Plot of PID Control
PI values. This results in roughly the same increase in crossover
frequency. and thereby, in governor response speed. The
detrimental effects on stability are averted by the phase lead effects 3.3 Enhanced Govemor Modd
resulting from derivative action. There is a risk, however, that the rise
in magnitude due to the derivative action, compounded with that The governor model described in Figure 18 has modeling
resulting from the hydraulic system. may result in a second crossover capabilities not frequently found in typical hydro plant models. Its
at higher frequencies. Due to the high phase lags at these features may be critical for the correct simulation of partial or toto1
frequencies, a second crossover will certainly result in governor loop load rejections:
instability. This is the reason for the minimum limit imposed on the
value of KP/KD.
 114

Buffering of gate closure may produce a reduction in
overpressures under load rejection. It also reduces impact loadings
on the gate linkage and limits the magnitude of the pressure
pulsations while the gates are fully closed during the decay of load
rejection overspeed.
4.0 EXAMPLES OF ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION
A sample system with all hydraulic and control parameters
defined in the Appendix serves to illustrate various aspects Of
dynamic performance and simulation approaches.

Jet Deflector
MXJDOR 4.1 Govemor L o o p Stabili

Traveling wave effects may become a significant factor when

analyzing governor loop stabili. F$ure 19 shows mognitude and
phase lags for the classical linear hydro turbine model (Eq. 8. G =1,
Speed Tw=2 sec) and for the same ideal modelwhen travelingwave e d c t s
are considered (Te=l sec) (14). The larger magnitudes in the
%e traveling wave model will result in higher crossover frequencies.
Ref Higher crossover frequencies, compounded with larger phase lags,
result in smaller phase margins,and therefore lessstable performance
MXQTCR or
than when assuming a lumped-parametermodel.

Opening
0
Relief Valve

Permanent Droop
Temporary Droop ..
Dashpot Time Constant .y
I
rR Pilot Valve Tlme Constant
Qate Servo Tlme Constant
1.0 L 1.o 2.0
MXGTOR Maxlmum Gate Openlng Rate o (rad/.sec)
MXGTCR Maximum Gate Closing Rate On. I
MXBGOR Maxlmum Buffered Gate Openlng Rate
MXBGCR Maximum Buffered Gate Closing Rate
GMAX Maximum Gate Limit
GMlN Minimum Gate Llmlt
RVLVCR Relief Valve Closing Rate
RVLMAX Maxlmum Rellef Valve Llmlt
MXJDOR Maxlmum Jet Deflector Openlng Rate
MXJDCR Maxlmum Jet Deflector Cloalng Rate

Figure 18. Enhanced Governor Model Used In Load Rejection

Studies
In some installations a relief valve is attached to the turbine
casing providing a bypass for the flow. It is operated directly from
the governor or the gate mechanism of the turbine. The amount of
water bypassed is sufficient to keep the total discharge through the
penstock fairly constant, hence controlling pressure rise.
Turbine flow, as used for turbine power calculations, is
determined in this case as:
Turbine Flow = Qpnstock Gatawning
(22)
Gate.Opn. + Rel.Vlv.Opn.
Figure 19. Magnitude and Phase Lag Versus Frequency of
AP /AG Function - Lumped Parameter and Traveling
W 8 e Models
These effects have usually a negligible impact on PI controller
stability. They should not be neglected. however, when analyzing PID
controller. This is illustrated in the example in Table 1, where traveling-
wave modeling is shown to have a significant impact on PID
controller stabili.
It can be shown that the per unit error in the head/flow transfer
function due to ignoring traveling wave effects is approximately
equal to

error -To' s2
- (24)
In long-penstock impulse turbines, rapid reductions in water .
I

velocity are not allowed to avoid the pressure rise which would
occur. To minimize the speed rise following a sudden load rejection,
a governor-controlledjet deflector is sometimes placed betweenthe
needle nozzle and the runner. The governor moves this deflector
rapidly into the jet, removing part or all of the power input to the
turbine.
Turbine flow in this case is calculated as:
3
Their significance is therefore larger for long penstocks. Long
penstocks result in larger water time constants and therefore lower
governor response speed. The larger bandwidth in PID controllers is
most attractive in such conditions. Traveling wave analysis thus
becomes cfiical.

Turbine Flow = Openstock x Min(l.,DefPos./Gate Opn.) (23)

4.2 Linear vs. Non-Linear Hydraulic Model (Inelastic Flow)

In Figure 18, position limits are shown on the controller. Limits The advantages of nonlinear versus linear models become
could also be included on the jet and gate Servos.
 175

apparent when both models are subjected to large excursions in 4.3 Effect d Surae lank
turbine loading. Figure 20 shows the models' responses to a relatively
small (0.01 pu) step in gate position. Figure 21 shows simulation results Surge tank effects should be included in dynamic analyses of
for a larger (0.2 pu) step. For comparison purposes, the governor hydro plants when the time range of interest is comparable to the
representation was deactivated in both models and both no-load surge tank natural period. For shorter time periods. the simpler short-
flow and sDeed deviations were set to zero in the nonlinear model. term model can be used.

Table 1. Governor Loop Stability for Typical

Controller Tuning and Alternative Hydraulic Models Surge Tank Natural Period=Px (25)

1 :[ 1 1 1
Hydraulic
Controller Frequency Margin

Lumped
Parameter rad/sec 19.5 deg

Parameter
Lumped r? 20.0deg
Traveling
Wave rad/sec 18.1 deg
Traveling 0.54
i I I I I I I I I -
C

Wave rad/sec 13.8 deg MECHANICAL POWER C

H=4sec.TW=2sec.Te= 1 sec
-
PI Controller: KP = 2, KI = 0.25
PID Controller: KP = 3.2, KI = 0.48. KD = 2.13
-

The hydroulic system parameters were:

-

T, = 1.83 s8c -
At = 1.004
Go = 0.762 pu
-

The linear model fails to represent the increases in effective water

I -
time with changes in penstock flow.
-
I I I I I I I i I
-
-e
i I I I i I I I I
MECHANICAL POUER

Figure 21. Mechanical Power Response to .2 pu Step in Gate

Position. Linear vs. Nonlinear Model

Figure 22 shows the result of simulating a 0.1 pu step load

increase on on isolated hydro plant with and without surge tank
effects. The surge tank natural period is 3 minutes. For the normal 3
to 5 sec transient stability range simulation results are almost identical.
For longer simulation intervals. surge tank level starts falling, and
mechanical power recovery lags behind that of the short-term
model, which assumes an infinite surge tank.
Simulation of surge tank dynamics is necessary when the tank
is small enough to be emptied by a large load increase (8). Long-
term simulations are valuable in establishing acceptable operating
procedures that avoid such catastrophic consequences.
- For plants with more complex layouts. 'high frequency"
oscillations resulting from pendulum action between surge chambers
I I I I 1 I I I I 'z
v and other hydraulic resonant modes may interfere with the
governor's speed-regulating loop. Dynamic simulations and
frequency response analyses representing these 'long-term" effects
are required tools in such types of analyses (81.

Figure 20. Mechanical Power Response to 0.01 pu Step in Gate

Position. Linear vs. Non-Linear Model
 176

4.4 Traveling-Wave Hydraulic Simulation where:

The results shown in Figure 22 were for the case of inelastic a - condult wave velocity
condults and incompressible fluid. Taking into account the effect of g - gravitational acceleration
elasticity and compressibility leads to a traveling wave solution -
A cross-sectional area
method described in Figure 23. This method of calculation of 0 - conduit siope
traveling wave effects is an alternative to implementation of the
Figure 6 model with time delay of transport time simulation of the Ond On equation Of motion:
wave.

Time-space lattices such as those shown in Figure 23 are

defined for each of the conduits, and both equations are
simuitaneously solved using the method of characteristics [9).
The accuracy of the results is proportional to the number of
segments into which the conduit is divided. Practical application of
these models seems to suggest that a minimum of ten segments is
required.
Time and space increments are related by conduit wave
velocity. Time increments must be equal to or multiples of the
Simulation time step. The minimum size requirements on simulation
time step may create additional computational burdens for large

I system simulations.
SPEED DEYIATIffl
Simultaneousconsiderationof two or more conduits, while using
a unique simulation time step makes it impossible to T i an exact
lattice on each conduit. Recognizing the problem uncertainties,
particularly on conduit wave velocity, conduit lengths are adjusted
to the nearest increment.
The sine term in (26) recognizes pressure rises. and therefore,
specific volume and flow reductions, resulting from reductions in
elevation. This complicates the initializationprocess (flows along the
same conduit are not equal in the steady-state), but has negligible
effects in simulation results. Horieontal conduits may be assumed.
TIME
The additional computational burden of programming and
Figure 22. Response of Mechanical Power and Speed to a 0.1 pu running a traveling-wave model has to be weighed against the error
-
Load Increase With and Without Surge Tank Effects caused by the use of an inelastic model. As previously mentioned,
the per-unit errors are proportional to the square of conduit travel
time times the square of the main frequency of the dynamic
phenomena. As shown in Section 4.1 this per-unit difference will
Time TUNNEL (TUNLGTH. TUNSPD, TUNARE. TUNLOS) usually be negligible unless very long penstocks are studied or unless
Tunnel Inlet governor bandwidth has been expanded by derivative action. A
Constraints Surge Chamber critical case run under both assumptions assesses the difference.
Conatraintr This is shown in Figure 24, where the hydro plant described in
the Appendix cTw = 1.83 s. Te = 0.42 s) is subjected to a 0.2 pu
Space
increase in load under isolated conditions. Except for some transient
high frequency effects, the difference between the elastic and
inelastic solutions is negligible.
There are times, however, when traveling wave analysis is
essential. The analysis of overpressures and pressure pulsations due
to total load rejection is generally carried out with this type of tool.
A closed or almost closed gate gives rise to poorly attenuated
traveling waves of pressure.

Surge Chamber
t PENSTOCK (PENLGTH. PENSPD. PENARE. PENLOS) Figure 25 shows a total gate closure simulation for the system
described in the Appendix. For gate positions at or near total closure,
Conrtralntr Turblno Conatrrintr the inelastic simulations of scroll case head and penstock flows are
no longer applicable, and are replaced by an algebraic, steady-
Space state solution of the penstock. Surge chamber levels and tunnel flows
are not affected by these high-frequency effects. Frequency control
is not affected either since turbine power is practically zero at these
small gate openings.
Figure 23. Solution of Traveling Wave Effects by Method of The effect of buffering the gate closure is shown in Figure 26 for
Characteristics the same total load rejection simulation as in Figure 25, but with a
maximum buffered closing rate of 4.05 pu/sec. applied after gate
opening is less than 0.15 pu. Overpressures and pressure pulsations
Flows and heads along the penstock and tunnel are analyred ore significantly reduced. at the expense of a larger overspeed.
in terms of a continuity equation Figure 27 shows the same total load rejection as in Figure 25,
but including simulotion of a relief valve with a -0.01 closing rate.
Both overpressures and overspeed are significantly improved by relief
valve operation.
Figure 28 simulates total load rejection including jet deflector
action with a -0.5 closing rate. While gate closing rate has been
reduced to a tenth of Rs value in Figure 25, reducing overpressures.
the jet deflector manages to control speed.
 177

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDANONS
has presented a number of different models for
This
hydraulic turbinesand for their speed controllers. The models vary in
complexity, and are meant to be used for the study of power system
problems of different types. General recommendotionsfor their use
are given below.
It is recognized that specific applications may require the
development of special models including effects such as deadbands.
hysteresis. etc. One of the objectives of the paper is to Present the
basic physics Of hydraulic turbines and thekcontrok that,
in the State of the afl, the development Of code for a particular
model is routine once the physics are well defined.
5.1 Transient Stabilitv Studier

UITH TRAVELING ~ A V EEFFECTS

TIME

igure 26. Speed and Head Response to a Full Load Rejection

With Gate Buffering

TIME

Figure 25. Speed and Head Response to a Full Load Rejection

-1.60 ,lmm
3!0000 5!woo
I : L
7.0000 9 . ~ 0 0
I
l'.ooo
I
13,ooo
'
15.u00 l7.000
19.000

TIME
With and Without Traveling Wave Effects
Figure27. Speed, Head and Flow Response to a Full Load
Rejection With Relief Valve Operotion
 178

In studies of small isolated power systems, the governor and APPENDIX

turbine characteristics play an important part in the response of the
system frequency to disturbances. Here the action of the govemor Sample System (Figures 5,6 and 18)
speed regulation and the response of the turbine must be included Rated MVA: 100. MVA
in the model. The effects of gate position and speed limits can be
significant in such cases, and should thus correspond to those in Rated Turbine Power: 90.94 MW
service in the modeled plants. Rated Turbine Flow: 7 1.43 m3/s
Rated Turbine Head: 138.9 m
Gate Position at Rated Cond: 0.90 pu.
NoLoad Flow, qNL: 4.3 m3/s
- Permanent Droop. RP: 0.05 pu.
Temporor) Droop, Rt: 0.45pu.
L
- OPEN IN^
-
Dashpot Time Constant. TR: 8. s
- 52
m -
Pilot Time Constant, T :
P
0.02 s
TURBINE HEAD
I .
. 2 9' + Servo Time Constant, T :
0
0.5 s
A
Q
S
L~
,- - - -
-..
-OfFLfcroR FIOU
- - - _ _- - - _ .
- f 4 fi
m - 4 7 7
Maximum Gate Opening Rate, MXGTOR: 0.1 pu./s
0 .
*c.
b . ,/? OPEN IN^ PEED ~ ~ y l ~ r l o N * - - . _-_. 2
-_ ---_ 5 I O 0

Maximum Gate Closing Rate, MXGTCR: -0.1 pu./S

y,:." ---_ -
- - f "
s
--L

--&(
4 7 7 Maximum Gate Limit, GMAX: 1. pu.
- Minimum Gate Limit, GMIN. 0. pu.
/I
/
I'

,I
'
:,
1 o
.$ _
- .
Lake Head,
1 '
I ' . '3
% - 307.0 m
Tail Head, 166.4 m
Penstock Length 465m
Penstock Cross Section 15.2 m2

TIME
Penstock Wave Velocity: 1100 m/s
Penstock Head Loss Coeff.. fpl: 0.0003042
Figure 28. Speed, Head and Flow Response to a Full load
Rejectionwith Jet Deflector Operation Tunnel Length: 3850 m
Tunnel Cross Section: 38.5 m2
The turbine model of Section 2.1 coupled with a governor Tunnel Wave Velocity: 1200 m/s
model chosen from that of Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 as appropriate Tunnel Head Loss Coeff., fp2: 0.00101 12 m/(m3/s)2
is recommended for use in transient stability programs. A simple
linear turbine model is not recommended since its parameterswould Surge Chamber C. Section: 78.5 In2
have to be adjusted as a function of operating conditions and the SCh. Orifice Head Loss C.. fo: 0.0040751 m/(m3/s)2
accuracy of representationwould be affected by the magnitude of
the perturbations. Turbine Damping: 0.5 pu/pu

5.2 Small Signal Stabilii REFERENCES

1. IEEE Committee Report, "DynamicModelsfor Steam and Hydro
In small signal stability studies, it is the effect of the governors Turbines in Power System Studies', IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-@.
and turbines on the damping of low frequency inter-area modes pp.1904-1915.
which is of concern. These effects can be modeled adequately by
linearizing the non-linear turbine and governor models about the
2. J.L.Woodward,"Hydraulic-Turbine Transfer Function for Use in
appropriate operating point. Fixed time constant lineaked models GoverningStudies",Proc. IEE, Vol. 1 15, pp. 424-426, March 1968.
of the turbine without adjustment for operating point are not
recommended.
3. J.R.Smith et al..'Assessment of Hydroturbine Models for Power
Linear models are also used for guidance in speed control System Studies", Proc. IEE, Vol. 130. Pt. C, No. 1, January 1983.
tuning using linear control analysis techniques. The most criiical
condition for such studies of governor adjustments would be with the
4. P.W.Agnew,"TheGoverning of Francis Turbines'. Water Power,
unit supplying an isolated load at maximum output.
pp. 119-127, April 1974.

5. R.Oldenburger. J.Donelson, 'Dynamic Response of a

5.3 SrJecial ADdications
Hydroelectric Plant", Trans. AIEE, Vol. 81, Pt. 111, pp. 403-418,
1962.
In special circumstances, additional complexity must be
included in the turbine and governor models to study the detailed
6. J.M.Undriil and J.L.Woodward, 'Non-Linear Hydro Governing
response of the plant to disturbances, or to study the effect of the
Model and Improved Calculation for Determining Temporary
units on long-term dynamics. Other instances requiring additional
Droop'. IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-86, No. 4, pp. 443-453, April 1967.
complexity are studies of interactions between turbine hydraulic
dynamics including draft tube pulsations and electromechanical
7. P.L.Dandeno,P.Kundur and J.P.Bayne, 'Hydraulic Unit Dynamic
power oscillations. In such cases, the model must correspond as
closely as possible to the actual tubine and controls that exist at the Performance Under Normal and Islanding Conditions - Analysis
and Validation", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97, No. 6, pp. 2134-2143.
plant. Detailed modeling of special controls, such as those discussed
November/December 1978.
in Section 3.3, and the penstock,including traveling wave effects and
surge tank dynamics, as in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, may be required.
 179

8. J.M.Undrilland W.Stmuss. 'Influence of hydro plont desiQnon

regulatingand resewe responsecapacity'. IEEE Trans., Vd. PAS
74,PP. 1192-1200,July/August 1974.
9. V.L.Streeter and E.B.Wylie,'Fluid Mechanics' (McGrw-Hill,New
York, 1975).

10. S. Hagihara, H. Yokota. K. Goda, K. Ixrobe. 'Stability of a

Hydraulic Turbine Generating Unit Controlled by PID Governof,
iEEE Trans., Vol. PAS 98 No 6.pp. 2294-2298,Nov/Dec 1979.

11. L. M. Hovey, 'Optimum Adjustment of Hydro Governors on

Manitoba Hydro System'. AlEE Trans., Vol. 81, Part 111. pp. 581-
587. Dec 1962.
12. F. R. Schleif and A. B. Wilbor, The Coordination of Hydraulic
Turbine Governors for Power System Operation', IEEE Trans. Vd.
PAS 85,pp. 7W758,July 1966.

13. L. K. Kirchmayer, 'Economic Control of InterconnectedSystems.

Vol. 11, Chapter I., John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1959.

14. C. K. Sanathanan. 'Accurate Low Order Model for Hydraulic

Turbine-Penstock', IEEE Trans., Vol. EC-2, No. 2. pp. 196200,
June 1987.