See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3268434

Determining Parameters of Turbine's Model Using Heat Balance Data of

Steam Power Unit for Educational Purposes

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · December 2007

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.907509 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
22 2,591

3 authors, including:

Behrooz Vahidi Wolfgang Gawlik

Amirkabir University of Technology TU Wien
458 PUBLICATIONS   2,710 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stability Enhancement of multi VSG-grids View project

Optimal Demand Response View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Behrooz Vahidi on 05 September 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2007 1547

Determining Parameters of Turbine’s Model

Using Heat Balance Data of Steam Power
Unit for Educational Purposes
Behrooz Vahidi, Senior Member, IEEE, Mohammad Reza Bank Tavakoli, and Wolfgang Gawlik

Abstract—In this paper, the procedure for deriving the param- tion than there are in the text books, and 2) usually not the entire
eters of an IEEE governor-turbine model (particularly turbine data which is required for determining the model’s parameters
model) based on a practical study case consisting of a 200-MW is available.
tandem compound, single reheat steam unit and its available
heat balance data is presented. The main focus of the work In this paper, our aim is to illustrate the process of deriving the
is on presenting a regular procedure and using only available IEEE turbine model’s parameters [1] for a real 200-MW, tandem
heat balance data of the steam unit, to be suitable for training compound, single reheat steam unit using available data of the
the principles and details of such an approach for educational unit’s heat balance map.
purposes. Unavailable parameters are approximated with simple This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, an overall
thermodynamic assumptions, resulting in good correspondence
to typical values. The model response to step changes for special description of the steam power unit cycle is presented. The ba-
scenarios is simulated and presented as well. sics of governor and turbine models for stability analysis are
briefly described in Section III. In Section IV, the 200-MW unit
Index Terms—Heat balance data, steam power plant, thermody-
namic process, turbine model. heat balance data and turbine’s model parameters calculation is
presented. Section V shows the simulation and step response of
the derived model, and Section VI concludes this paper.
I. INTRODUCTION
II. STEAM PLANT POWER GENERATION
Steam units in a power plant mainly consist of a boiler, re-
O CARRY out power system dynamic studies, a suitable
T mathematical representation of power units and their con-
trols are required. Finding these models is the subject of ongoing
heaters, turbine sections, condensers, pumps, and a heat regen-
erative cycle which includes feedwater preheaters and feedwater
pumps. In Fig. 1, a typical steam cycle is presented.
research and educational activities and of numerous books [1],
In this cycle, the steam which is produced in the steam
[2]. Standard models were created which were used in different
generator with high pressure enters the high-pressure (HP)
dynamic programs during years [3]. One big problem in this re-
turbine after passing main control valves. Then it passes in-
gard is the parameter identification for these models. The goal of
termediate-pressure (IP), and low-pressure (LP) turbines until
this paper is to create a clear path for power engineers and stu-
it finally reaches the condenser. In HP, IP, and LP turbines,
dents who need such models for dynamic studies, to describe
there may be drained steam which is fed into heat regenerative
how the parameters of the turbine model can be derived from
cycle of feedwater preheaters. During plant operation, steam
a heat balance map (which is almost always available) if there
expanding through the low-pressure turbine is directed into
was no model data provided by the turbine manufacturer.
the condenser and is condensed. Mechanically coupled HP,
From an educational point of view, there are three major ques-
IP, and LP turbines provide the mechanical power which is
tions for understanding the basis of a particular predefined dy-
converted into electrical energy in the generator. Then the
namic model: 1) what does each block of the model represent,
condensed water is pumped by the condensate pump (CP) to
2) how can the model’s parameters be derived, and 3) what is
the heat regenerative cycle. In this cycle, until the condensate
the response of the model to particular disturbances and how can
is directed to the steam generator, it may pass through gland
the results be verified. Based on the authors experience, students
steam condensers (GSCs), low pressure and high pressure
and engineers are often confused in deriving good estimation of
feedwater pre-heaters (LPH and HPH), and feedwater pump
the model’s parameters when they are faced with a real cycle in
(FWP) as depicted in Fig. 1. For stability analysis, especially
an existing power unit. This may be because of two reasons: 1)
short-term stability, valve control system, turbines, reheaters,
in a real steam unit, there are more components for plant opera-
and crossover response should be taken into account [1].
Other parts of Fig. 1 cycle, however, are more likely to be
Manuscript received March 21, 2007; revised May 13, 2007. Paper no. effective in a long-term stability analysis and the individual re-
TPWRS-00208-2007.
B. Vahidi and M. R. B. Tavakoli are with the Electrical Department, sponse inside power plant.
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 1587-54413, Iran (e-mail:
vahidi@aut.ac.ir; banktavakoli@aut.ac.ir). III. GOVERNOR-TURBINE MODEL FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS
W. Gawlik is with Siemens AG, Erlangen 91058, Germany (e-mail:
wolfgang.gawlik@siemens.com). A typical overview of primary control in a steam unit is pre-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.907509 sented in Fig. 2. The functional blocks include the governor
0885-8950/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
1548
Fig. 1. Typical steam unit cycle for power generation.
Fig. 2. Steam unit primary control blocks.
Fig. 3. Simple mechanical-hydraulic speed-governing model.
speed changer, speed governor, speed relay, controlled valves,
and turbine systems.
All the equipments with some simplification can be mathe-
matically represented by simple block-based models. The next
subsections provide a short description of these models. In the
models, only one control valve (CV) between the steam gen-
erator and HP turbine is assumed. Also, the models are built
without intercept valves, fast valving (early valve actuation).
Boiler pressure is assumed to be constant.
A. Governor Model
The block diagram of Fig. 3 shows an approximate model for
a typical mechanical-hydraulic speed-governing system. In the
figure, and are the speed governor and servomotor
time constants, respectively. Also, , , , and
represent the valve’s rate limits and position limits, re-
spectively. Although it is possible to extract the parameters of
the governor model using dimensions and physical parameters
[4], we just confine the study to the turbine model.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2007
Fig. 4. Three common tandem compound configurations of steam turbines
(a) without reheat, (b) single reheat, and (c) double reheat.
Thus, for the governor model, only speed governor gain is
taken into account using the following:
(1)
where is the percentage of steady-state speed regulation or
unit droop. Other parameters are considered to be typical values
[2], [3].
B. Turbine Model
The steam chest and inlet piping to the first turbine cylinder
and reheaters and crossover piping introduce delays between
valve movement and change in steam flow. The main objec-
tive in modeling the steam system for dynamic studies is to
represent these delays. Also, the configuration of turbines af-
fects the model. There may be tandem compound or cross com-
pound configuration. Also in each of these categories, single or
double reheat stages may exist. In Fig. 4, three common config-
urations for tandem compound units are presented. The general
model for the turbine system provided in Fig. 5 [1] can repre-
sent all tandem compound configurations. In Fig. 5, , ,
VAHIDI et al.: DETERMINING PARAMETERS OF TURBINE’S MODEL USING HEAT BALANCE DATA
Fig. 5. General model for tandem compound configuration of turbines.
Fig. 6. Assumed vessel of (2).
, and are steam chest, first reheater, second reheater,
and crossover time constants, respectively. Also, , ,
, and are very-high-pressure (VHP), HP, IP, and LP
turbines’ power fractions, respectively.
Assuming a steam vessel as in Fig. 6, using the continuity
equation, the time constant of steam crossing the vessel can be
written as [3]
where is the time constant of the vessel steam flow in sec-
onds, is the steady-state vessel pressure in Pa (
and is the steady-state mass flow out of the vessel in kg/s.
is the volume of the vessel in , and is the
density change due to pressure changes in constant temperature
.
Vessel pressure, temperature, and mass flow data can be ex-
tracted from the heat balance map of the unit as described in
Section IV. is the specific volume of steam ( ) at
assumed constant temperature of the vessel, and is the vessel
temperature which is assumed to be constant.
Often, the volume of the vessel for reheater, crossover, and
chest cannot be determined exactly and has to be derived using
available data. For calculating , the tabulated thermody-
namic data of steam can be used [5]. Assume and to be the
boundaries of the smallest pressure interval which include the
vessel pressure in steam thermodynamic specific volume table.
Also, and are the specific volumes corresponding to
and . Then, can be approximately written as follows:
1549
Note that in tabulated thermodynamic data, the specific
volume is given at different pressures for various temperatures.
The exact temperature of our vessel may not be available in
the table. In such cases, a linear interpolation for gaining the
specific volume is common. Using (2) and (3), time constants
for steam chest, reheaters, and crossover can only be estimated.
Often, the above equation parameters cannot be stated exactly
or temperature steadiness is not always provided.
Another important parameter set of the turbine model are the
power fractions. These fractions determine the way that each
turbine contributes to total turbine system power. Assuming the
rated output power as a per unit basis, we have
(5)
To determine each of these fractions, two useful parameters
and can be defined as follows:
(6)
(7)
where , , and are HP turbine power, IP turbine
power, and LP turbine power, respectively. For calculating the
turbine power, we need the steam enthalpy on each stage and
mass flow which is available from the heat balance map. The
power of each turbine is simply estimated via the following:
(8)
where is the power of turbine (kJ/s), indicates the tur-
(2) bine stage between draining points, is the mass flow in stage
(kg/s), is inlet steam enthalpy of stage in kJ/kg, and
(3) is the outlet steam enthalpy of stage in kJ/kg.
Solving (5)–(7), we have
(9)
),
(10)
(11)
Thus, the turbine model parameters can all be estimated. Note
that for calculating the turbine power as a weighted sum of
the turbine sections, the turbine thermodynamic process was
assumed to be pure isentropic and mechanical losses are ne-
glected. Nevertheless, these assumptions are common for tur-
bine thermodynamic studies [5].
IV. STUDY CASE: 200-MW STEAM UNIT
AND ITS HEAT BALANCE DATA
The study case is a 200-MW, tandem compound, single reheat
unit. Fig. 7 represents the unit’s heat balance map of most parts
of the unit cycle. In this map, thermodynamic data including
pressure ( ), enthalpy (kcal/kg), mass flow (T/h), and
temperature ( ) of nearly all sections of the cycle are given.
(4) Typically, this map is provided in different operating regimes
of the unit. The presented figure represents the nominal load
1550 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2007

Fig. 7. The 200-MW unit heat balance map.

From tabulated data for steam at , the following

specific volumes are extracted:

Fig. 8. IEEE model for turbine configuration of Fig. 7. Specific volumes were interpolated between available data.
Thus, from (4), can be calculated as follows:
regime. Temperature control forces the input steam of HP and
IP turbines to have constant temperature. Also, there is one stage
draining in the HP turbine, four stages in the IP turbine, and one
For the volume results
stage in the LP turbine. There are also gland steams fed into
some sections.
The heat regenerative cycle consists of two GSCs (GSC1
and GSC2), four low-pressure feedwater preheaters (LPH1 to Finally, the steam chest time constant will be
LPH4), and three high-pressure feedwater preheaters (HPH1 to
HPH3). In this relatively complex cycle, we are interested in
the thermodynamic data of the reheater, HP, IP, LP turbines, and
draining pipes for calculating the turbine model parameters. The
B. Reheater
suitable model for this configuration is presented in Fig. 8.
The following physical unit conversion factors are to be ob- The reheater between HP and IP turbines consists of a double
served: ; ; and pipe set which is mounted on the heating wall of the furnace.
. Fig. 9 represents the simplified configuration. Table II tabulates
the reheater required dimensions.
A. Steam Chest From the heat balance data
For the steam chest between control valve and HP turbine, a
simple cylinder with average radius and average height
is assumed. Table I lists the average steam chest dimensions.
From the heat balance data of Fig. 7, we extract
As it can be seen, the lower pressure was assumed for the
reheater; however, one might also think about using the average
pressure, too. In the reheater, temperature increases from 333
to 540 , and therefore, the constant temperature constrain is
VAHIDI et al.: DETERMINING PARAMETERS OF TURBINE’S MODEL USING HEAT BALANCE DATA 1551

TABLE I
AVERAGE STEAM CHEST DIMENSIONS

Fig. 10. Crossover pipe.

TABLE III
CROSSOVER DIMENSIONS

From heat balance data of Fig. 7, we get

Fig. 9. Reheater pipes representation for estimating the volume.

TABLE II
AVERAGE REHEATER DIMENSIONS
From Fig. 7, , and for specific volumes

violated. Despite this fact, an approximate time constant can be

derived using the average temperature
Thus, from (4), can be calculated as

With and steam tabulated thermodynamic

data, we have
According to Fig. 10, the pipe volume is

Crossover time constant will finally be

and from (4)

Using Fig. 9, the volume of two rows of pipes can be approx-
imated by multiplying the number of pipes by the volume of
each pipe
where is the total heat area. Note that we have neglected
the space between pipes on the wall.
The reheater time constant then is estimated using (2)
D. Power Fractions
Power fractions determination according to Section III-B re-
quires calculating each turbine’s thermodynamic work. Thus,
from heat balance data and (8), the thermodynamic works can
be estimated as follows.
HP turbine:

C. Crossover
As depicted in Fig. 10, unit crossover between IP and LP
turbines is a simple pipe with the dimensions of Table III.
1552 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2007

TABLE IV
GOVERNOR MODEL PARAMETERS (SEE FIG. 3)

TABLE V
TURBINE MODEL PARAMETERS (SEE FIG. 8)

Fig. 11. Governor model step response to speed changes.

Also, applying the same procedure for IP and LP turbines, we

have

The power fractions then can be simply calculated

Fig. 12. Turbine model step response to valve position changes.

Note that in these calculations, the gland steams have been

neglected. The above parameters are close to other typical data
which is usually assumed for steam power units [1]–[3]. As a
result, using heat balance data of the steam unit can create a
good estimation for the IEEE turbine model.

V. SIMULATION AND MODEL STEP RESPONSES
Tables IV and V represent the summary of assumed and de-
rived parameters for the governor and turbine model (see Figs. 3
and 8), respectively. The step response of the governor model
assuming 4% and 5% droop ( and 20) are presented in
Fig. 11. With 4% droop, 4% speed change will result in 100%
power output change (i.e., 1-p.u. valve position). Accordingly,
we would expect a change in valve position of
for a droop 4% and 0.02 p.u. for a droop 5%. In
Fig. 11, implementing a small speed step, the limits of valve po-
sitioning are not reached, and therefore, the time characteristic
would be a combination of two first-order lags of speed relay
and servomotor model (see Fig. 3). The governor response time
to the steps of Fig. 11 is under 2 s.
Fig. 12 represents the step response of the turbine to valve
position changes for position steps 0.8 and 1. As it can be seen
Fig. 13. Governor-turbine model step response to speed changes.
from this figure, the turbine’s output power follows the valve po-
sition signal and reaches its steady-state value in , which
is roughly four times the largest time constant that corresponds
to the reheater.
Given the time constants and power fractions, 31% of the step
should be followed rather fast, i.e., with a time constant of 0.4 s
( ), whereas the rest should follow with a further lag of
(some 7 s).
Fig. 13 shows the overall response of the entire governor-
turbine model to speed steps of 0.032 and 0.1 p.u.
The 0.032-p.u. speed step changes the valve position signal
within the interval of position limits, and output power reaches
0.8 p.u. accordingly. A speed step 0.1 p.u. causes the position
VAHIDI et al.: DETERMINING PARAMETERS OF TURBINE’S MODEL USING HEAT BALANCE DATA
signal to violate the upper limit, resulting in full opening of the
valve and total output power.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this paper, based on a real study case for a 200-MW steam
unit, the turbine model’s parameters were derived using the heat
balance map of the unit. The usual simplifying assumptions
were stated for each parameter calculation. The obtained pa-
rameters for the turbine model were within the ranges of al-
ready-known typical values of those parameters [1]–[3].
From the educational point of view, the following hints can
be given.
1) The described procedure is a good approach for a power en-
gineering student who is interested in using an appropriate
turbine model in dynamic studies. The procedure provides
background knowledge for better understanding the influ-
ence of actual data on the model parameters.
2) Moreover, the procedure helps an electrical engineer
to estimate missing data by assumptions based on the
experience.
3) The procedure of deriving turbine parameters and the prac-
tical study case can be used as an educational tool for
trainers who want to make their students more familiar with
the details of deriving the parameters of the IEEE model for
turbines.
Deriving boiler parameters based on the work of [6] and iden-
tifying the regenerative cycle parameters can be a good future
study case. Hydro plant turbine and its controls [7] are also an
attractive work.
Another interesting case would be the approximate derivation
of heavy duty gas turbines fuel, temperature, and performance
control model’s parameters based on the work of Rowen [8],
which is under study to be presented in future works.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. H. Gharagozloo and Mr.
A. Mirzaee of Iran Grid Management Company for their coop-
eration on gathering the heat balance data of steam unit. Also,
the authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who
helped to make the work better presented with their interesting
comments.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Working Group Report, “Dynamic models for fossil fueled steam
units in power system studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 753–761, May 1991.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1994.
View publication stats
1553
[3] IEEE Committee Report, “Dynamic models for steam and hydro tur-
bines in power system studies,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.
PAS-92, no. 6, pp. 1904–1915, Nov./Dec. 1973.
[4] M. A. Eggenberger, “A simplified analysis of the no-load stability
of mechanical-hydraulic speed control systems for steam turbines,”
ASME Paper 60-WA-34, Dec. 1960.
[5] G. J. Van Wylen, R. E. Sonntag, and C. Borgnakke, Fundamentals of
Classical Thermodynamics, 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1998.
[6] F. P. DeMello, “Boiler models for system dynamic performance
studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 66–74, Feb. 1991.
[7] IEEE Working Group Report, “Hydraulic turbine and turbine control
models for power system dynamic studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 167–179, Feb. 1992.
[8] W. I. Rowen, “Simplified mathematical representations of heavy-duty
gas turbines,” Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Power, vol. 105, no. 1, pp.
865–869, 1983.
Behrooz Vahidi (M’00–SM’04) was born in
Abadan, Iran, in 1953. He received the B.S. degree
in electrical engineering from Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1980, the M.S. degree
in electrical engineering from Amirkabir University
of Technology, Tehran, in 1989, and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the University
of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology,
Manchester, U.K., in 1997.
From 1980 to 1986, he worked in the field of high
voltage in industry as a Chief Engineer. From 1989
to the present, he has been with the Department of Electrical Engineering of
Amirkabir University of Technology, where he is now an Associate Professor.
His main fields of research are high voltage, electrical insulation, power system
transient, lightning protection, and pulse power technology. He has authored and
coauthored 120 papers and four books on high-voltage engineering and power
system.
Mohammad Reza Bank Tavakoli was born in
Kerman, Iran, in 1981. He received the B.S. in elec-
trical engineering from Tehran University, Tehran,
Iran, in 2003 and the M.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Amirkabir University of Tech-
nology, Tehran, in 2005. Currently, he is pursuing
the Ph.D. degree with the Department of Electrical
Engineering of Amirkabir University of Technology.
His main fields of research are power system
dynamics and power system component modeling
and simulation. He is also with the IGMC Company,
working on extensive analysis of the Iranian power system.
Wolfgang Gawlik was born in 1971 in Landshut,
Germany. He received the Dipl.-Ing and Dr.-Ing.
degrees in electrical engineering and power systems
from the University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany,
in 1997 and 2004, respectively.
From 1997 to 1999, he was with the Power
Generation Group and the Generator Calculation and
Construction Department at Siemens AG, Erfurt,
Germany. In 1999, he joined the institute for Power
Systems at the University of Erlangen as an Assistant
Professor. Since 2004, he has been with the Power
Transmission and Distribution Group and the Power Technology International
Department at Siemens AG, Erlangen. Among his fields of interest are system
dynamics and generator control.