" '>S

DYNAMIC MODELS FOR STEAM AND HYDRO TURBINES IN POWER SYSTEM STUDIES
IEEI COMMITTEE REPORT

ABSTRACT

Ok N/v Coop

V S

Basic models for speed-governing systems and turbines in power system stability studies are presented. These models provide adequate representation for hydro, fossil-fired, and pressurized water reactor nuclear units in most stability analyses. Models for boiling water reactor nuclear units are to be presented at a later date. Typical parameters are given.

many electric utilities had assembled related data files or were in the process of doing so. It appeared that a committee paper, similar to that on generator excitation1, covering mathematical models, nomenclature, and typical data would be useful. After considering alternatives, the task force was expanded to include appropriate ASME representation with the assignment of writing this paper.

INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned with the representation of steam and hydraulic turbines and their speed-governing systems for power system stability studies. The intent is to indicate the origin of the models currently in wide use, to bring about a greater understanding of when these models may and may not be used and to promote standardizatioI of nomenclature.
In preparing this paper, the Task Force surveyed utilities and service centers currently using models of this general type. The model descriptions which follow are typical of those in use by the groups which responded to the survey.

FOREWORD
The Dynamic System Performance Working Group of the Power System Engineering Committee established the Task Force on Overall Plant Response in 1968 to consider the effects of power plants on power system stability. The intent was to identify problems not already under investigation and to make recommendations regarding them to appropriate subcommittees and working groups.
In 1968, there were several computer programs which represented the effects of turbine speed control on system stability and

GOVERNC- CONTROL MECHANISM

SPEED

SPEED

GOVERNOR-CONTROLLED
VALVES OR GATES

TBI
ENERGY SYSTEM
l

SPEED-GOVERNING SYSTEM

TURBINE AND

Fig. 1. Functional Block Diagram Showing Location of SpeedGoverning System and Turbine Relative to Complete

/i

System.

(@466 $< P,-t.k Ppp? Cc

Members of the Task Force on Overall Plant Response include: R. T. Byerly (Chairman), Ola Aanstad, D. H. Berry, R. D. Dunlop, D. N. Ewart, B. M. Fox, L. H. Johnson, and D. W. Tschappat. Cointributing nonmembers include G. J. Bartok, F. P. DeMello, R. J. Mills, and-C. C.; Young.

/1 A.-3

The diagram of Figure 1 includes functional blocks for the governor speed changer and for automatic generation control to show their relationship to the speed-governing system. The time span of most stability studies is short compared to the time required to make significant load changes, so that load changing equipment is not represented. Four basic models are presented in this paper. These are:
1. Speed-governing systems for steam turbines.

2. Steam turbine systems.

3. Speed-governing systems for hydroturbines.
Paper T 73 089-0, recommended and approved by the Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, N.Y., January 28-February 2, 1973. Manuscript submitted October 24, 1972; made available for printing December 14,
1972.

4. Hydroturbine systems.

For each category, a physical description of the equipment is given with one or more mathematical representations in block diagram form.

1904

The paper includes general models applicable to most turbine and speed-governing system combinations. Typical constants are given.

SPEED - CONTROL MECHANISM

The steam turbine models and associated speed-governing systems apply to conventional fossil-fired units. For purposes of stability studies, these also apply to turbines supplied by pressurized water reactors. It is the intent of the Task Force to present a standard model for turbines supplied by boiling water reactors at a later date. Further, it is assumed that all turbine control is accomplished by means of governor-controlled valves (i.e. excluding intercept valves and stop valves). Contingency valving, such as early valving or fast valving to obtain benefits for transient stability, is not specifically treated in this paper. It is suggested that power vs. time curves supplied by the turbine manufacturers be used in place of the turbine and speedgoverning system models in cases where contingency valving is to be studied.
Finally, governor dead band is not shown in any of the models. In studies where the performance of the speed-governing system itself is the primary concern, it may be necessary to represent dead band, but it is not normally represented in large system studies.

GOVERNOR SPEED CHANGER POSITION

SPEED

RELAY

SERVO MOTOR

IGOERNO VALV

OVALES

rn&

SPEED GOVERNOR POSITION

SPEED G )ERN

PEED

(A)
*CV

SPEED-GOVERNING SYSTEMS FOR STEAM TURBINES

Mechanical-Hydraulic Control
A typical mechanical-hydraulic speed-governing system consists of a speed governor, a speed relay, a hydraulic servomotor, and governor-controlled valves which are functionally related as shown in Figure 2 (A). (See reference 2 for more detailed descriptions of mechanical-hydraulic controls.)

(B)
CVOPEN
CVMAX

VCLOSE

CVMIN|

G,_

The block diagram of Figure 2 (B) shows an approximate nonlinear mathematical model. The speed governor produces a position which is assumed to be a linear, instantaneous indication of speed, and is represented by a gain KG which is the reciprocal of regulation or droop. The signal, SR, is obtained from the GOVERNOR SPEED CHANGER of Figure 1, and is determined by the AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL system. It represents a composite load and speed reference and is assumed constant over the interval of a stability study. The speed relay is represented as an integrator with time constant TSR and direct feedback. A nonlinear cam to compensate for valve nonlinearity is shown between the speed relay and the servomotor. The latter is represented by an integrator with time constant TSM anrd direct feedback. The servomotor moves the valves and is physically large, particularly on large units. Rate limiting of the servomotor may occur for large, rapid speed deviations, and rate limits are shown at the input to the integrator representing the servomotor. Position limits are also indicated and may correspond to wide-open valves or the setting of a load limiter.
In power system studies, nonlinearities in the speed-control mechanism are normally neglected except for rate limits and the limits on valve position, as shown in Figure 2 (C). Typical parameters for mechanical-hydraulic systems are:

(C)

Fig. 2. Mechanical-Hydraulic Speed-Governing System For Steam Turbines. (A) Functional Block Diagram; (B) and (C) A pproximate Mathematical Representations.
SPEED
REF
O

(A)
CVOPEN
SR
-

CVMAX

KG = 20.0 TSR = 0.1 seconds

(B)
C

TSM = 0.2 to 0.3 seconds

nPEN

CVMAX

CVOPEN
CVCLOSE

=
=

0.1 pu per second per valve

1.0 pu per second per valve

Electro-Hydraulic Control
An electro-hydraulic speed-control mechanism provides flexibility through the use of electronic circuits in place of mechanical components in the low-power portions.3 The block diagram of Figure 3 (A) illustrates a typical configuration. The steam flow (or first stage pressure) feedback and the servomotor feedback loop provide for improved linearity over the mechanical-hydraulic system.
1905

(C)

Fit. 3. Electro-Hydraulic Speed-Governing Systems For Steam

Turbines. (A) Functional Block Diagram; (B) Approximate Mathematical Model For General Electric EHC System; (C) Approximate Mathematical Representation For Westinghouse EH Control System.

The block diagram of Figure 3 (B) shows approximate mathematical relationships for the speed-governing function of the General Electric EH control systemn with the steam flow feedback operative. Typical parameters for this block diagram are: KG = 20.0
= 3.0 with steam flow feedback

It is not regarded as important when frequency variations are small and centered around the nominal system frequency. 0P
AW

Kp
Kp

K(ItsT2) (lIsT1)

V3

= 1.0 without steam flow feedback

TSM = 0.1 seconds

(A)

CVOPEN

= 0.1 pu per second per valve

= 0.1

K(I+TsT)
(B)

1PMAX
M
P GV

CYCLOSE

pai per second per valve

PMIN

The block diagram of Figure 3 (C) is applicable to the Westinghouse EH control system with steam flow feedback operative. Typical parameters for this block diagram are:

KG = 20.0

Fig. 4. General Models For Speed-Governing Systems. (A) Steam Turbine Systems; (B) Hydro. Systems.

KPR = 1.0
TI
=

Table I. Speed Governing System Parameters For Use With The Block Diagram of Figure 4 (A)
System

1.0 - 2.0 seconds

Time Constants In Secohds T0

TSM = 0.1 seconds

dVOPEN dVCLOSE

0.1 pu per second per valve

T2
0
0 0

T3
0.1

= 0.1 pu per second per valve

Mechanical-Hydraulic

0.2 -0.3

When steam flow feedback is not utilized with the Westiighouse EH system, the block diagram of Figure 4 (A) and the parameters of Table I ate applicable.

General Electric EH With* Steam Feedback

General Electric EH Without Steam Feedback

0 0

0.025

0.1
0.15 0.1

General Model For Speed-Governing Systems

The speed-governing model of Figure 4 (A)' may be used to represent either a mechanical-hydraulic system or an electro-hydraulic system by means of an appropriate selection of parameters. Table I contains a listing of typical parameters for this block diagram for the speed-governing systems previously discussed.
This model shows the load reference as an initial power Po. This initial value is combined with the increments due to speed deviation to obtain the total power, PGV, subject to the time lag, T3, introduced by the servomotor mechanism.

Westinghouse EH With* Steam Feedback

Westinghouse EH Without Steam Feedback

2.8**
0

1.0**
0

Rate limits are nominally 0.1 pu per second except for mechanicalhydraulic system where PDOWN is 1.0 pu per second.

y, K 100/(% Steady-State Speed Regulation)

See note 3 of Table V for further comment. *Steam flow feedback includes the steam chest time constant T which must be modified when Figure 4 (A) is used.

Steam Turbine Systems

All compound steam turbine systems utilize governor-controlled valves at the inlet to the high pressure (or very high pressure) turbine to control steam flow. The steam chest and inlet piping to the first turbine cylinder and reheaters and crossover piping downstream all introduce delays between valve movement and change in steam flow. The principal objective in modeling,the steam system for stability studies is to account for these delays. Flows into and out of any steam vessel are related by a simple time constant. Appendix I presents the basis for this representation and illustrates the calculation of the vessel
time constant.

**These values may vary considetably from one unit to another.

Steam Chest and High Pressure Piping Between the -governor-controlled valves and the high pressure turbine is a steam bowl or chest as shown in Figure 5 (A). This vessel introduces a time delay between changes in valve steam flow and steam flow in the high pressure turbine. The mathematical model of Figure 5 (B) shows this effect as the time constant TCH. In addition, this block diagraim shows a method of accouniting for boiler tube drop. The pressure PSG is an internal boiler pressure assumed constant over the study interval and PT is a variable pressure at the entrance to the governor-controlled valves. The parameter KPD is a pipe-drop coefficient. The flow into the steam chest is:

Pressure changes at the entrance to the governor-controlled valves may also be important in some stability studies. 11- Boiler controls are designed to regulate valve pressure, but the controlled boiler response is not fast enough to compensate for pressure variations due to the movement of governor-controlled valves. It can be assumed that there is a pressure somewhere in the steam generator which ddes remain constant for the time interval of a stability study, and that a pressure change dependent on the square of steam flow occurs in the boiler tubes from that constant pressure point to the valves. In a drum-type boiler, the point of constant pressure can be assumed to be at the drum. In a once-thru boiler no guidelines currently exist, but this point can be determined by tests or a simulation of the boiler. The pressure variation at the valves may be significant in simulating disturbances which result in relatively large, sustained frequency changes.
1906

nCV= PGV (PSG - KPD m CV2)

where appropriate per unit variables are assumed.

The model of Figure 5 (C) shows a simpler method of approximating the effect of boiler tube drop by reducing the effective gain of the governor-controlled valves to the fraction F - (see note 3, Table V). If boiler tube drop is ignored, F is unity.

VALVE POSITION

GOVERNOR - CONTROLLED VALVES

STEAM

HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE STEAM FLOW

Table II. Typical Parameters For Steam Turbine Models

STEAM

(A)
P I+sTC
HP

System Configuration
Nonreheat
TandemFig. 7 (A)

Steam

FRH

Typical Cylinder Fractions

FVHP FHp Flp FLP TCH TRHp1 TRH2 Tco

-

Typical Time Constants I V

PSG
PGV

I-

.2-.5_-_
.3

.-5

(B)
STEAM CHEST

-Reheat

Compound Single-

.3

.4

4-11

PGV IG+ sTcH ^H

FM-2 PTO + 2KpD dhTO
PTO
2

fin~~HP

Compound DoubleReheat Fig. 7(C)

Tandem-

Fig. 7(B)
.22
.22

.30

.26 .1-.4

-11

4-11

.3-.5

CrossCompound

Single-

(C)
Fig. 5. Steam Chest and High Pressure Piping Representations. (A) Functional Block Diagram; (B) Approximate Nonlinear Model; (C) Linear Model.
Steam Configurations

Fig. 7(D)___
Compound SingleCr-osspOud Reheat Fig. 7(E)
DoubleReheat
.

Reheat

.3

.3

.4

.1-.4

4-11

.3-.5

.25

.25

.5

.1-.4

4-11

.3-.5

Cross-

Compound
Fig. 7(F)

.22

.22

.28

.28 Al-4

4-11

4-11

.3-.5

Six common steam system configurations are shown in Figure 6. Corresponding mathematical models are shown in Figure 7. The time constants TCH, TRH, and TCO represent delays due to the steam chest and inlet piping, reheaters, and crossover piping respectively. The fractions FVHjp, FHp Flp, and FLp represent portions of the total turbine power developed in the various cylinders (see Table V and associated comments). Typical values for time delays and cylinder fractions are presented in Table II. Extraction steam taken at various turbine stages to heat feedwater usually does not have significance for stability studies and is not shown in these models, although it is represented in some stability programs.1 1. General Steam System Model

SPEED-GOVERNING SYSTEMS FOR HYDROTURBINES

Mechanical-Hydraulic Control
The mechanical-hydraulic speed-governing system for a hydroturbine consists of a speed governor, a pilot valve and servomotor, a distributor valve and gate servomotor, and governor-controlled gates which are functionally related as shown in Figure 9 (A). The speedgoverning requirements for hydroturbines are strongly influenced by the effects of water inertia, and the dashpot feedback of Figure 9 (A) is required to achieve stable performance. The block diagram of Figure 9 (B) is an approximate nonlinear model for this speed-governing system. Note that the gate servomotor may be rate limited for large rapid speed excursions. However, transient droop feedback reduces the likelihood rate limiting in stability analysis. Position l-imits exist corresponding to the extremes of gate opening. Typical parameters for this model are shown in Table IV.

Universal models are convenient for computer program development and as a basis for data files. All of the commonly encountered steam system configurations may be represented by the block diagram of Figure 8. Table III shows relationships between the parameters of Figure 8 and those of Figure 7.

Table III. Interpretation of Parameters Used in General Model for Turbines

1907

POSITION STEAM

VALEVALVES

VECONTROL

HAFT
CONDENSER

P6-V

1- M

CHEST

(A)

(A)

IREHEATER
.CONTROL
VALVE

CCROSSOVER

VALVES,

POSITION STEAM----

TO CONDENSER

PGV

I+

STRH'

I +STCO

(B)
REHEATER REHEATER

(B)
CROSSOVER
FVHP

CONTROL
VALVE

VALVESSHAFT

FHP
(C)

POSITIO
,CHEST

TO CONDENSER
(C)

PGV

~~~~~I
I+sTRH2
I

POSITION STEAM

VALVE -VALVES,

CHEST.

1s HEATE I

SRSSOVER

_
IP, LP SHAFT

PGV
*--I

(D)

(D) -

VALVE

CONTROL

HPAES

------HP, IP

SHAFT

POSITION

CHEST_
LP

LP------LP SHAFT

TO CONDENSER

(E)

(E)

~ PM2
PM

_ F_

M~~~~~~P

+-STc

(D)( FMI

p/

~~~~~~~PMI

,PM2

PGG
-PM2

(F)
Fig. 6. Common Steam System Configurations

(F) Fig. 7. Approximate Linear Models

A) Nonreheat B) Tandem Compound, Single Reheat C) Tandem Compound, Double Reheat D) Cross Compound, Single Reheat E) Cross Compound, Single Reheat F) Cross Compound, Double Reheat

1908

The simplified model of Figure 4 (B) is the one most often utilized for hydroturbine speed-governing systems in large system stability studies. This model may be derived from Figure 9 (B) by neglecting the time constant Tp and the gate servomotor limits. The assumption is also made that gate servomotor position and effective valve position are equal. Gate position limits are then imposed outside the feedback loops. Table IV also contains expressions for the parameters of Figure 4 (B) in terms of the parameters for 9 (B).

GOVERNOR

CHANGER

SPEEDNOR

SPEED -CONTROL MECHANISM

I
PILOT VALVE AND

POSITION

DISTRIBUTOR
VALVE AND GATE

GOVERNORCONTROLLED GATE

SERVOMOTOR

SERVOMOTOR

GATES

POSITION

GOVERN

POSITION

GOVERNOR

(A)
LIMITS
RATE POSITION LIMITS
NONLI NEA
S

PM2

SR

_S Sy -R -I+sTp
w

CV

LFUNCTION

Fig. 8. General Model for Turbine Systems.

Table IV. Typical Parameters For Speed-Governing Systems For Hydroturbines

PILOT VALVE AND SERVOMOTOR

DISTRIBUTOR VALVE AND GATE SERVOMOTOR

A1
Range

1+ sT

a sTR

Parameter

Typical Value

TRANSIENT DROOP COMPENSATION

[.

TR
TG
Tp
6
a

5.0
0.2 0.04 .3 .05

2.5 - 25.0

I~~~~
(B)

0.2 - 0.4 .03 -.05 0.2- 1.0

0.03 - 0.06

PERMANENT DROOP COMPENSATION

Fig. 9. Mechanical-Hydraulic Speed-Governing System for Hydroturbines. (A) Functional Block Diagram; (B) Approximate Nonlinear ModeL

Typically, TR = 5 TW
6 = 2.5

TW/2H

GV

I-w-

23

(a3 a-,G-a,) dG,3GI+ , STIj STW a,I

(A)

TW

LM

where H is the turbine-generator inertia constant on the machine MVA base.

Let TA = (1 ) TRTG

TB = -[(+6) TR +TG] Then T1 and T3 of Figure 4 (B) are approximately

PGV

11+.5 sTW

PM
l

(B)
Fig. 10. Approximate LinearModels forHydroturbines.

TI,T3=

TB

2 -

TBKTA
2

Also in Figure 4 (B), K = I/a.

Electric-Hydraulic Control

usually not necessary to use travelling-wave models for stability studies, although they are used regularly for detailed plant design studies. The block diagrams of Figure 10 contain the hydroturbine models most often used in system studies. These models are derived by various authors; for example, see Appendix II of reference 5.
In Figure 10 (A), the time constant TW is called the water starting time or water time constant. Appendix II presents a method for estimating this time constant from readily available parameters. The other model coefficients in Figure 10 (A) are associated with the turbine and are defined in Table V. For an ideal turbine, these coefficients are such that the model reduces to that shown in Figure 10 (B). The relationships of Figure 10 (B) can also be expressed in terms of the general model of Figure 8 through an appropriate choice of parameters. The last entry in Table III shows these parameters.

Modern speed-governing systems for hydroturbines may involve electronic apparatus to perform the low-power functions associated with speed sensing and droop compensation. The electronic apparatus provides greater flexibility and improved performance in both dead band and dead time.4 For interconnected system operation, however, the dynamic performance of the electric governor is necessarily adjusted to be essentially the same as that for the mechanical governor, so that a separate model is not needed.
Hydraulic Turbine

CONCLUSIONS The transient characteristics of hydroturbines are determined by the dynamics of water flow in the penstock. The conversion of flow Basic models for speed-governing systems and turbines in power and head to power by the turbine involves only nondynamic relationsystem stability studies are presented. These models provide adequate ships. The most precise models of water pressure and flow in the representation for hydro, fossil-fired, and pressurized water reactor penstock are those which treat the travelling-wave phenomena. It is nuclear units in most stability analyses. 1909

Table V. Definitions for Model Symbols

This table contains-three groups of symbols: 1) those which apply to steam systems only, 2) those which apply to hydro systems only, and 3) those which apply to both steam and hydro systems. Models and typical values are based on a per unit system in which power, speed, valve or gate position, pressures, and flows are in per unit of rated values. Time constants are in seconds.

Steam System Symbols Symbol Description

Notes

ee See

Symbol

Description
Pilot Valve Time Constant

Notes

See

FVHP
FHP FHp

Very High Pressure Turbine Power Fraction

High Turbine Power Fraction Turbine Power Fraction in Pressure e Pressure Intermediate Pressure Turbine(s) Power Fraction
Low Pressure Turbine(s) Power E;raction
1 1

Tp
TR
TW
6
a

Dashpot Time Constant

Water Starting Time, See Appendix II
Transient Speed Droop Coefficient

Flp FLP
F

Gain Constant. See Fig. 5 (C)

Permanent Speed Droop Coefficient

Common System Symbols

KG
Kp
KPR

100./(% Steady State Speed Regulation)

Gain Associated With Steam Flow Feedback on General Electric EHC Systems

CV

Effective Governor-Controlled Valve or Gate Position

Gain Associated With Steam Flow Feedback Westinghouse EH System

Steam Lead Pressure

on

kV
CVMAX CVMIN
CVOPEN

Effective Governor-Controlled Valve Incremental Position

Valve
or

or

Gate

KPD
mcv rnHP

Drop Coefficient

C:ate Position Limits

Governor-Controlled Valve Steam Flow

High Pressure Turbine Steam Flow

Initial (time = 0 ) Throttle Valve Steam Flow
-Mechanical Power, Shaft 1 Mechanical Power, Shaft 2
Internal Boiler Steam Pressure, Assumed Constant

inTo
PMTO

CVCLOSE
K1 - K7
K

Valve or Gate Servo Rate Limits

General' Model Parameters See Figure 8 and Table III Total Effective Speed-Governing System Gain See Figure 5 Mechanical Power
3

PM2
PSG

PT
PTO TSM TSR
TI

Throttle Pressure
Initial (time = 0 ) Throttle Pressure

PM PO
AP

Initial (time = 0 -) Mechanical Power

Incremental Power Due to Valve or Gate Motion
Incremental Power
Limits Imposed

Valve Positioning Servomotor Time Constant

Speed Relay Time Constant

Time Constant Associated With Steam Flow Feedback on Westinghouse EH System Steam Chest Time Constant (Control Valves to HP (VHP)) Exhaust
4

'6PMAX
t1PMIN
PUP

by Gate or Valve Travel

TCH

PDOWN
PGV PMAX
PMIN
SR

Limits on Rate of Change of Power Imposed by Control Valve Rate Limits Power at Gate or Valve Outlet

TRHI
Tco

TRH=

Reheat Time Constant (HP VHP Exhaust to IP HP) Exhaust

to IP Exhaust)

4
4 4

Power Limits Imposed by Valve or Gate Travel

Speed Reference
See Figure 4 and Tables I and IV

TRH2

Second Reheat Time Constant (HP Exhaust

Crossover Time Constant (IP Exhaust to LP Exhaust)

Ti
T2

Hydraulic System Symbols

all
a1 3
a21
a23

Hydro Turbine Parameters

T3 T4 - T7
Au

General Model Time Constants See Figure 8 and Table II1 Speed
Speed Deviation
Differential Operator

TG

Gate Servomotor Time Constant

1910

Nomenclature Notes
1) Turbine power fractions are defined as the ratio of the steadystate mechanical power delivered by -the particular turbine section (e.g., low pressure turbine) to the total steady-state mechanical power.
1.

REFERENCES IEEE Committee Report, "Computer Representation of Excitation Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-87, No. 6 pp. 1460-1468, June 1968. M. A. Eggenberger, "A Simplified Analysis of the No Load Stability of Mechanical-Hydraulic Speed Control System for Steam Turbines," ASME Paper 60-WA-34, December 1960.

2) For small perturbations about a steady state condition the turbine may be represented by the following linearized equations:
q

2.

allI h+ a12 n+ a13g

m=a21 h+a22n+a23g

where
q = p.u. deviation in flow h = p.u. deviation in head
n = p.u. deviation in speed

3. .M. Birnbaum and E. G. Noyes, "Electro Hydraulic Control for Improved Availability and Operation of Large Steam Turbines," ASME-IEEE National Power Conference, Albany, New York, September 19-23, 1965. 4.
M. Leum, "The. Development and Field Experience of a Transistor Electric Governor for Hydro Turbines," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-85, pp. 393-402, April 1966.

5.

g = p.u. deviation in gate position

m = p.u. deviation in torque

D. G. Ramey and J. W. Skooglund, "Detailed Hydro Governor Representation for System Stability Studies," Sixth PICA Conference Proceedings, pp. 490-501, May 1969, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-89, pp. 106-1 12, January 1970.
R. Oldenburger and J. Dohelson, "Dynamic Res4ponses of a Hydro Electric Plant," AIEE Transactions, part III, vol. 81, pp. 403-419, October 1962.

and

6.

a,1 = aq/ah,
a,1
a2l
= 0.5
=

a12 aq/an, a13

=

aq/ag
am/ag
7.

a12 = am/ah, a22 = am/an, a23

For the ideal turbine at rated speed, head and

J. M. Undrill and J. L. Woodward, "Nonlinear Hydro Governing Model and Improved Calculation for Determining Temporary Droop," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-86, pp. 443452, April 1967.

a120

a13

1
1

8.

1.5 a22 -1 a23

F. R. Schleif and A. B. Wilbor, "The Coordination of Hydraulic Turbine Governors for Power System Operation," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-85, pp. 750-756, July 1966.
J. L. Woodward, "Hydraulic-Turbine Transfer Function for Use in Governing Studies," Proc. IEE, vol. 115, No. 3, March 1968. L. M. Hovey, "Optimum Adjustment of Governors on Manitoba Hydro Systeni," AIEE TRANS, vol. PAS-81, pp. 581-587,

3) The overall effective speed governing gain (see Figure 4) may be estimated with various degrees of complexity as follows:

9.

a) For most stability studies, K is taken as 100./(%steady-state speed regulation).

10.

b) Where there is. need for mote a'ccurate representation and specific nonlinear characteristics are known, the steady-state

1962.

11.

incremental speed regulation may be used to compute K. When doing so, though, the user should check the range of applicability of the incremental regulation.

C. C. Young, "Equipment and System Modeling for Large-Scale Stability Studies," PICA, 1971.

12.

c) If the effects of steam lead pressure drops are not to be neglected then a gain correction of F (see Figure 5 (C) should be applied between PGV and rnHP. In this case K = KGF. d) Electrohydraulic control systems with steam flow feedback are treated as follows. For General Electric EHC Systems, use:
K = KGKPF 1 + F(Kp -1)

E. I. Busby, J. W. Skooglund, and K. L. Williams, "System Response to Severe Contingencies Including C6ntrol Systems Transmission Line Protection and Load Management," IEEE Conference Paper 69 CP65D-PWR, Summer Power Meeting, Dallas, June 22-27, 1969
IEEE Standard Definitions of Terms for Automatic Generation Control on Electric Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-89, No. 6, July/August 1970. Appendix I. Simplified Model of Steam Vessel The continuity equation, with reference to Figure 11 is:

13.

For Westinghouse EH systems, use:

K = KGF

dW Q

Ft=

IN GOUT

(1-1)

4) See Appendix I for procedure of calculating steam time constants. The equivalent time constant should be calculated including all volumes in the section of steam path being represented.

where W is the weight of steam (lbs.) in the volume V (ft3), t is time in seconds, and QIN and QOUT are flows (lbs/sec). Assuming the weight flow out of the vessel is proportional to pressure in the vessel,

5) No provision has been made in the speed-governing system models of Figures 2 and 3 to show separate speed and load references. In
Figures 2 (B), 2 (C), 3 (B), and 3 (C), SR is necessarily a composite reference for both load and speed. In Figure 9 (B), it is a simple speed reference.

QOUT = PP QO

(I-2)

dQOUT QO
dt
1911

Po

dP dt

(I-3)

01IN -a

V
(A)

QOUT

The derivative of the reciprocal of specific volume with respect to pressure at constant temperature is estimated from Figure 11 (B).
v = .901

ft3/lb

v2= 1.254 ft3/lb

p, = 750 psia

=2Then

550 psia

(650) (200) T (900) (750- 550)

T= 0.226 seconds.

(.901

1.254)

Appendix 11. Calculation of Water Time Constant

ENTROPY (BTU PER LB DEG F)

The water starting time, or water time constant, Tw, is associated with the acceleration time for water in the penstock between the, turbine inlet and the forebay as shown in Figure 12, or between the turbine inlet and the surge tank if one exists. The basic equation for water time constant is:
T =LV

(B)
Fig. 1. Steam Vessel Time Constant. (A) Steam Vessel (B) Estimation of p where P (psia) is a variable vessel pressure, P0 (psia) is the steady state vessel pressure, and QO(lbs/sec) is the steady state weight flow out of the vessel corresponding to pressure Po. Assuming constant temperature in the vessel,
dW dt

(If-1)

where L is the length of the penstock in feet, V is water velocity in, feet per second, HT is the total head in feet, and g is the acceleration of gravity in feet per second squared. It is convenient to eliminate' water velocity in terms of power generated by the plant.

P=1. 11.8

VHT Ae

(11-2)

aWdP _V a aP dt P

/l dP vId

(1-4)

where v is the specific volume (ft3/lb) of steam in the vessel. Combining equations (I-1), (1-3), and (I4),

where P is the generated electrical power in kilowatts, A is the average penstock area in square feet, and e is the product of turbine efficiency and generator efficiency. Thus,

QIN
Let

PoVa (ldQOuT QOUT7 IP \v) dt Q

Va (lI

Tw - 11.8 PL HT2 Aeg

or

(11-3)

(1-5)

Po IQ=
Then

T W -0.366 PL
(1-6)

HT2 Ae

(11-4)

TP vh

QIN -QOUTT
or, in

d=

TQOUT
dt

(1-7)

/ A/

operational form,
1

QOUT QIN

I +ST

(1-8)

The following is an example calculation of the time constant T:

QO = 900 lbs/sec
V = 200 ft3

HT

Po = 650 psia

L
Fig. 12. Penstock
1912

To = 760F

Discussion
Ronald P. Thompson (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, Calif. 94106): The Task Force has written a reference paper which will provide a valuable standard for modeling steam and hydraulic turbines and their speed-governing systems. Extensive work has been undertaken in recent years to model power plant response characteristics for stability studies. By acceptance of the models presented in this paper, the utility industry will have available, for the first time, an industry-wide accepted model which can add validity to test results and provide a means of comparison between proposed stability control systems utilizing the standard models. Comments on the following points would be appreciated: 1. With the publication of this paper and the previously published paper on excitation system modelsl, would the Task Force agree that IEEE standard power plant component models are now available to adequately represent plant responses for time periods not exceeding 10 seconds? Would the Task Force comment on the current status of the additional power plant component models (primarily boilers) necessary for representation of dynamic responses beyond 10 seconds? 2. Does the Task Force recommend use of the general speed goveming and turbine systems presented in this paper for the longer term (greater than 10 seconds) dynamnic stability time period? Would the models have to be simplified and approximations made for representation in the longer time period? If simplification is desirable, what plant parameters are significant enough to be retained in the turbine and speed governing models? REFERENCE

1.

IEEE Committee Report, "Computer Representation of Excitation Systems", IEEE PAS-8-7/No. 6, June 1968, pp. 1460-64.
Manuscript received February 8, 1973.

P. M. Anderson (Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50010): The IEEE Task Force on Overall Plant Response has performed a valuable service in publishing a paper which establishes a set of uniform models for steam and hydro turbine representation. Most of the turbine models now being used can be represented in the form presented in the paper and this creates a uniformity of representation which makes exchange of data easier. This also provides a standard model for manufacturers to use in specifying time constants for their equipment. I am particularly fond of the general model representation presented in Figure 8 of the paper. This makes programming considerably easier than the specification of several different models for computer representation and should, in my view, be encouraged as a standard form for turbine representation. One fault in the models presented by the task force is the omission of any mention of fast valving. Since fast valving is becoming an alternative which often requires study, it would seem appropriate to include in these models a provision for representing this alternative. This should be done in such a way that the control logic for the intercept valve can be specified by the user as this logic is not always the same. It would also seem appropriate to include a provision for introduction of the boiler pressure at the governing valve. Since some studies require runs of over 10 seconds when boiler response may be a factor, inclusion of control valve representation will provide a means of adding this effect if one chooses to do so. The inclusion of both the control valve and the intercept valve can be conveniently accomplished with multipliers as shown in Figures 1-3. Figures 1 and 2 are the same as Figure 6(B) of the paper but with control and intercept valve representation included. Figure 3 shows these valves added to the general model, Figure 8 of the paper. In the case of the control valve, the per unit pressure can be thought of as a signal which gain-adjusts the governor servomotor per unit stroke to give an output of per unit steam flow rate. The intercept valve inputs can be
Manuscript received February 16, 1973.

Fig. 1. Conmmon Steam System Configurations for Tandem Compound, Single Reheat

CONTROL

GV
P.U. IV VALVE POSITION
Fig. 2. Approximate Linear Models for Tandem Compound, Single Reheat

Fig. 3. General Model for Turbine Systems

1913

thought of as the per unit steam available at the intercept valve (or intermediate stage input pressure) which is gain-adjusted by the per unit IV position to give an output signal of per unit intermediate pressure flow. The manufacturers are beginning to suggest alternatives in intercept valve positioning, some of which involve complex logic to coordinate the control and intercept valves. These alternative control schemes are expensive and should be simulated, at least approximately, in order to make intelligent decisions regarding their purchase and later field adjustment. It is the intention of this discussion to suggest one way in which this might be accomplished. If these refinements are not required they may be either ignored or the separate input can be set to unity. If we can reach an agreement that such control and intercept valve representation is reasonable and desirable, then this makes future simulations easier for both the engineers making the study and the manufacturers who will be asked to supply data for the equipment. I would urge the Task Force to consider these alternatives in theii models, which are otherwise a welcome addition to the technical literature.

respectively, would be operative. These translate into CVOPEN - 1.3 pu/s and CVCLOSE = 6.6 pu/s. An explanation of the assumptions made to arrive at the parameters that are indicative of slow valve action under conditions affecting system stability would be appreciated.

3. Weissgerber (Allis-Chalmers Power Systems, Inc., West Allis, Wis. 53214): The authors are to be commended for attempting to establish a basic model of the governor system for use in digital stability studies. This effort should be appreciated by those appraising transmission system performance and the manufacturers of turbine-generators that have to respond to the data requests for such studies. To minimize the complexity of the model for digital studies, the authors had to resort to simplifications. The resultant limitations must be taken into account when applying the model. Combining the turbine control into one valve ahead of the HP section restricts the application of the model. For example, the EHC system of A-CPSI turbine-generators features parallel operation of the speed and load controllers, and when the turbines are under pure speed control, namely during low-load operation or stabilization of system disturbances, the main and intercept valves controlling the HP and IP sections, are, stroked simultaneously. The exclusion of the intercept valve ahead of the IP stages from the basic model tenders the simulation of such a control, as well as contingency valving, very difficult. Based on the results of recent analog studies, we must caution against the authors' recommended use of power vs. time curves to simulate contingency valving. Such curves reflect idealized response of the control valves to being triggered by specific conditions into fast, total closure and time-delayed valve opening. The analog studies simulating the valve control system in detail indicate the possibility of multiple intercept valve stroking under certain circumstances. This phenomenon could not have been observed had the model presented by the authors and power vs. time curves been used. Furthermore, for turbines under continuous valve control during contingency valving, as employed in the A-CPSI design, the mechanical power responds dynamically to system power oscillations, thus precluding the possibility of defining the power response in the form.of a single curve. Another simplification is apparent from the linear models depicted in Figs. 7 and 8 which do not take into account the effect of turbine stages on the stages lying upstream of them. Such models yield too rapid changes of mechanical power because each quantity of stored energy changes in accordance with its own time constant, whereas in reality the steam flow and pressure in all stages are interdependent. Just considering one feedback loop around the HP section in the model can lead to deceptively favorable results. Another disadvantage of models 'that neglect this inter-stage coupling effect is that they make it difficult to incorporate intercept valves. The inclusion in the model of an intercept valve with provisions for auxiliary signals derived from comparison of electrical and mechanical power in addition to speed would greatly enhance its usefulness for system stability studies. Steam pressure variations affect turbine performance after system disturbances. They can only be neglected if the study of post-fault performance is restricted to the first second of time which, however, disregards the later effects of power swings after short-circuit faults. Analog investigations reveal that operation of the turbine control valves may be required to dampen power swings after the elapse of the first second following serious disturbances. The equally slow valve opening and closing rate limits listed as parameters for the mathematical models in Fig. 3 would appear only typical for load control involving small valve movements. Under transient conditions involving system stability, however, the full opening
and closure times of control valves, which are approx. 750 and 150 ms
Manuscript received February 20, 1973

IEEE Task Force on Overall Plant Response, Dynamic System Performance Working Group, Power System Engineering Committee: The validity of these models is dependent not only on the time period being simulated but also on the nature of the system and the disturbance. For those studies in which the frequency deviations are small and the average frequency scarcely deviates from its nominal value, the principal effect of speed-governing is to alter the damping of power oscillations. Simulations of several cycles of dynamic oscillations using these models are justified even though the oscillation frequency may be low and the simulation period long, say up to thirty seconds or perhaps even longer. For very low frequency power oscillation, there may, however, be a need to simulate the automatic generation control system. The situation is quite different when large sustained frequency deviations occur, such as when a subsystem becomes isolated from the interconnection with a resulting excess of load. In such cases, valves may open to their limits and remain there. Two questions pertinent to stability analysis arise when this occurs: 1) what immediate power is available at the governor valve position with open valves and 2) how does the available power decay with time. Detailed consideration of these questions is beyond the scope of this paper. The discussion related to Figure 5 suggests a means of calculating the immediate full open power at the governor valve but does not give typical data. Reference 11 has more detail on this subject and some comment on the deterioration of steam conditions with elapsed time. Within ten seconds, this phenomena need not be considered. It is well to remember that there are other uncertainties in this kind of simulation which may be as important as those associated with modeling the prime mover. Specifically, one does not know with precision how loads vary with frequency. Moreover, sustained frequency deviations and sustained system voltage deviations usually co-exist, so that knowledge of load variation with voltage is also important. In the final analysis, those engaged in system dynamic studies-for which these models are intended-must consider the importance of increased acchracy, which more sophisticated modeling can provide, in relation to the nature of the study and to the impact which such sophistication has on the ultimate decisions being made. The suggestion that fast-valving be simulated by representing governor and intercept valves as multipliers in the speed-governing models was considered by the task force as noted in the introduction. This is certainly a valid thing to do if the resultant turbine power decay curve is sufficiently accurate. However, if an accurate power decay curve is to be calculated, with a high confidence level, it must in general be based on more detailed models than those justified for large system dynamic analyses. The experience of some task force members is that these speed-governing system models with valves added as multipliers do not generally yield the same power decay curves as those obtained with more detailed models. The speed-governing model parameters, including valve characteristics, can usually be altered so that an accurate power decay curve can be matched quite closely, but this is a trial and error process. Consequently, the task force recommends that fast-valving studies be based on the most precise power decay curve available, perhaps from test data, and that this curve be used directly in the stability calculation. The effect of turbine stages on the stages upstream was well recognized by the task force. From the simulation point of view, the linearized models are much simpler to implement than non-linear ones which take interstage coupling into account. Considering the intended purposes of such models, the resultant response obtained in this manner is consistent with the overall accuracy of the models presented here. In addition, conservatism can be introduced by lumping the extraction volume for each turbine cylinder upstream of the blades for that cylinder. The velocity limits, Cv open and Cv close, in Figure 3 represent velocity saturation limits when the servocylinder is under control of the servovalve. As mentioned previously, the velocity limits of the control valves are nominally 0.1 pu per sec per valve except for the mechanicalhydraulic system where Cv CLOSE is 1.0 pu per second per valve. It should be noted that the power rate limits given in Table 1, 0.1 per second except for the mechanical-hydraulic system where PDOWN is 1.0 pu per second, assume full arc admission. In the case of partial arc admission, where the control valves are generally operated sequentially, the velocity limit on each valve is still 0.1I pu per seco'nd per valve, but the composite rate limit on power must be adjusted accordingly.
Manuscript received May 18, 1973

1914

Further, if the error signal is large enough, more than one valve may be moving at a time. It is suggested that the user consult with the manufacturer on appropriate power rate limits to use, particularly under conditions of partial arc admission. During transient conditions involving other closing and reopening means, the Cv close could be as high as 10 pu/s and Cv open could be somewhat higher than .1 pu/s. However,

this would be taken into account in computing the resultant power decay curve as recoinmended by the task force. The task force has a backlog of work related to the representation in stability analyses of industrial gas turbines, aviation gas turbines, combined cycle plants, and BWR plants: It appears now that the continuous control of intercept valves should be added to that list.

1915