Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121
DOI 10.1007/s40032-011-0005-x
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Modeling of Steam Turbine and its Governor of a Thermal
Power Plant
Milan Basu Samiran Chowdhuri
Received: 8 June 2011 / Accepted: 15 October 2011 / Published online: 31 January 2012
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2012
Abstract The availability of inexpensive base load power
from independent power producer has caused electric
utilities to cycle their large steam turbines in an effort to
reduce overall generation cost. Over the years, it has not
been possible to accurately simulate the frequency
response of a power station when large generators trip.
Comparisons of disturbance monitoring records and their
simulation using modeling have shown this discrepancy.
The principal reason for this large discrepancy was that a
large percentage of thermal unit turbines and governors
were not properly modeled. This article develops a new
turbine-Governor modeling and simulation technique of a
steam-Turbine including the creation of system database
based on disturbance monitoring and supervision control
and data acquisition recording. This resulted in prediction
of response with greater accuracy.
Keywords Modeling and simulation  SCADA
List of symbols
TFP Time-constant of the follow pilot valve, 0.1 s
TIP Time-const. of the intermediate pilot valve, 0.12 s
TLP Time-constant of the speed-load control pilot valve, 0.15 s
TSP Time-constant of the summation pilot valve, 0.08 s
TSM Time-constant of the hydraulic servomotor, 0.2 s
TM Time-constant of the main chest valve, 0.3 s
M. Basu (&), Fellow
Department of Electrical Engineering, Techno India College
of Technology, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata 700 156, India
e-mail: milanbasu43@gmail.com
S. Chowdhuri, Fellow
Department of Electrical Engineering, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata, India
TRH Time-constant of the re-heater, 3.5 s
TI Time-constant of the interceptor valve, 0.1 s
TCO Time-constant of the crossover piping, 0.05 s
KHP Fraction of power generated by high pressure
turbine, 0.4
KIP Fraction of power generated by intermediate
pressure turbine, 32
KLP Fraction of power generated by low pressure
turbine, 0.28
Ki Gain of integral feed forward, 0.5
H Inertia constant in sec, stored energy in MJ at rated
speed/MW rating, 4.2 s
D Damping constant, 1 p.u
x Angular speed in r/s
d Power angle in rad
Ru Static droop, 0.02
Introduction
Power System has grown in both size and complexity, the
nature of system stability [1] problems have changed. Fur-
thermore, there is a demand for more accurate engineering
analysis [2] of the system stability problem. Since thermal
power plant is a large-scale system consisting of many sub-
systems, the representative mathematical model consist of
high order nonlinear dynamic equations [3]. To obtain the
feasible region of operation, which is related with a range of
control actions for the balance of power, the steady state
model [4] is required. The characteristics of a power plant
changed markedly between heavy and light load conditions,
with a varying number of generating units in operation and
having system spinning reserve. Also, the magnitude of a
disturbance can vary from a very small to very large
imbalance between mechanical and electrical power.
123
116 Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121
Modeling Methodology
The new steam turbine-governor modeling effort followed
a two step process of development and validation
Development of the state-space modeling [5] from the
block diagram of a three-stage Tandem-Compounded
turbine is given in Fig. 1, at firstly including and then
excluding the integral feedback part.
Model validation [6] with test data. Figures 5 and 6
show the results of the simulations for the validation of
the new model compared to the existing model.
Modeling of Steam Turbine
The modeling is made for a 3-stage tandem-compound steam
turbine of rating 210 MW, 3000 rpm with single reheat, run-
ning a 2-pole alternator generating at 50 Hz. The block dia-
gram of the turbine-governor control has been given in Fig. 1.
x1 to x10, x, are state variables.
Four distinct sections can be identified in this diagram viz.
Pilot valve section
hydraulic amplifier section
turbine section
inertia and damping
Fig. 1 Block diagram of a 3-stage tandem-compounded turbine with single reheater
123
A pilot valve is a small valve that controls a limited-flow
control feed to a separate piloted valve. Typically, this valve
controls a high pressure or high flow feed. Pilot valves are
useful because they allow a small and easily operated feed to
control a much higher pressure or higher flow feed, which
would otherwise require a much larger force to operate.
The pilot valve section has a follow pilot valve which
receives a proportional feedback from the turbine speed devi-
ation. The proportionality constant is (1/Ru) where Ru is the
static droop. This was kept normally between 3 and 5% in earlier
days. Now-a-days, after introduction of ABT, a closer control is
made. The static droop determines the load-sharing. The follow
pilot valve is cascaded to an intermediate pilot valve. An integral
feedback (Ki/s) can be opted, if automatic frequency control is
desired, through a speed-load control pilot valve. Its output is
summed up with that of intermediate pilot valve in the sum-
mation pilot valve. It gives a PI control scheme. The hydraulic
servomotor acts as an amplifier for the signal generated in the
pilot valve section. The amplified signal is fed to the main steam
chest valve which admits steam to the high pressure turbine
(HPT). A fraction of the total power (KHP) is generated by it.
Then the steam parameters are restored (except for
pressure) by passing it through a re-heater and the resulting
steam is admitted to the intermediate pressure turbine (IPT)
through an interceptor valve. A fraction of the total power
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121 117

(KIP) is generated by it. Then the expanded steam is passed Equations including the integral feed forward to get
through crossover piping and is fed to the double-axial flow automatic frequency control (AFC):
low pressure turbine (LPT) which produces a fraction of xki =s x9 or x9 xki 1
the total power (KLP), such that KHP ? KIP ? KLP = 1.
The total power generated by the turbine is the mechanical x9 =1 sT L P x1 0 or x1 0 x9  x1 0=T L P 2
power, designated as Pm and the power developed in the x=Ru 1 sT F P x1 or x1 x  Ru x1 =T F PRu 3
generator is designated as Pe. The difference, Pa (i.e.
x1 =1 sT I P x2 or x2 x1  x2 =T I P 4
Pa = Pm - Pe) is the accelerating power which acts upon
the mechanical system having inertia and damping. The x2 x1 0=1sT S P x3 or x3 x2 x1 0x3 =T S P 5
output from this stage is the rotor speed or its deviation x3 =1 sT S M x4 or x4 x3  x4 =TS M 6
from the synchronous speed. This signal is fed back to the
governor and acts upon the pilot valve system through x4 =1 sT M x5 or x5 x4  x5 =T M 7
static droop (and optionally through the frequency-cor- x5 =1 sT R H x6 or x6 x5  x6 =T R H 8
recting integrator).
The frequency-correcting integrator is put into use if x6 =1 sT I x7 or x7 x6  x7 =T I 9
automatic frequency regulation is desired. If generation x7 =1 sT C O x8 or x8 x7  x8 =T C O 10
control is not properly made, AFC may be over-active and
Pm K H Px5 KI Px7 K L Px8 11
cause a complete loss of control. In our country, this loop is
generally bypassed and the frequency is allowed to vary Pm  Pe =2Hs D x
freely under proportional turbine-governor action with or x K H P x5 K I P x7 K L P x8 Dx=sPe =s 12
static droop.
The state space equations have been developed from the s 2H 13
block diagram given in Fig. 1, at first including and then x=s d or d x 14
excluding the integral feedback part. The state variables
have been shown in the diagram. The state equations are given below in the matrix form

2 3 2 3
x_ 1 2 1 1 3 x1
6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7
6 x_ 2 7 6 T1FP 1
Ru TFP
76 x2 7
6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7
6 x_ 3 7 6 TIP TIP 76
7 6 x3 7
6 7 6 1 1 1 7
6 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
76 x 7
6 x_ 4 7 6
TSP TSP TSP
7
6 7 6 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 4 7
6 x_ 7 6 TSM TSM 76
7 6 x5 7
6 57 6 1 1 7
6 7 6 0 0 0 TM TM 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 7
6 x_ 6 7 6 1 76
7 6 x6 7
7 6
1
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 7 6 6
TRH TRH
1 1
76
7 6 x7 7
6 x_ 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 7
6 7 TI TI 7
6 x_ 7 6 1 1 76
7 6 x8 7
6 87 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
7 6 76
TCO TCO
6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KI 76 x 7
6 x_ 9 7 6 76 97
6 7 1 7
6 x_ 7 4 0 56
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TLP TLP 0 7
4 10 5 KHP KIP KLP D 4 x10 5
0 0 0 0 s 0 s s 0 0 s
15
x_ x
2 3
0
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
 6
1 6
7
7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
4 0 5
Pe

123
118 Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121

Equations excluding the integral feed forward (the normal Reduced Order Model for the Turbine-Governor
practice in our country is to use static control without
integral feed forward) The model developed for the multistage tandem-compound
x=Ru 1 sT F P x1 or x1 x  Ru x1 =T F PRu 16 steam-turbine is very detailed and is capable of predicting
dynamic performance very accurately. It is good for finding
x1 =1 sT I P x2 orx2 x1  x2 =T I P 17 the dynamic behavior [7] of the turbine itself. However, for
x2 =1 sT S P x3 or x3 x2  x3 =T S P 18 the analysis of the entire turbo generator along with boiler,
generator, transformer, exciter etc., it is not expedient to
x3 =1 sT S M x4 or x4 x3  x4 =T S M 19
represent the turbine in such great details. To develop an
x4 =1 sT M x5 or x5 x4  x5 =T M 20 integrated model for the turbo-generator, the turbine model
should be reduced in dimension retaining only the domi-
x5 =1 sT R H x6 or x6 x5  x6 =T R H 21
nant modes.
x6 =1 sT I x7 or x7 x6  x7 =T I 22 In the reduced order model, the turbine is represented as
x7 =1 sT C O x8 or x8 x7  x8 =T C O 23 a first order lag, the governor and the pilot valve system as
another time lag, and the inertia constant and damping as
Pm K H Px5 K I Px7 K L Px8 24 another. The control has been considered to be static,
Pm  Pe =2Hs D x or having only P-type feedback. There is a frequency error
x K H Px5 K I P x7 K L P x8  Dx=s  Pe =s under running condition- the control is not astatic. The
simplified representation is shown in Fig. 2.
25 The state space equations for this reduced order model
x=s d or d x 26 are given below:
The state equations are given below in the matrix form. x TG
x_ 1   x1 28
2 3 Ru RU
x_ 1
6 x_ 2 7 1 1
6 7 x_ 2  x1  x2 29
6 x_ 3 7 TT TT
6 7  
6 x_ 4 7
6 7 x_ x x2  Pe K p T p 30
6 x_ 5 7
6 7
6 x_ 6 7 K p 1=D; T p 2H=D 31
6 7
6 x_ 7 7
6 7 The equations are being given in matrix form:
4 x_ 8 5
2 3 2 TG 32 3
x_ x_ 1  Ru 0  R1u x1
2 1 3
TFP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ru TFP
2 3 4 x_ 2 5 6
4 T1T  T1T 0 7 5 4 x2 5
6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 x1 x_ 0 KP
 T1P x
6 TIP TIP 7 6 x2 7 TP 2 3
6 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 76 7
6 TSP TSP 7 6 x3 7 h i 0
6 76 7
6 0 0 T1SM 1
0 0 0 0 0 7 6 x4 7 0 0  KTPP 4 0 5 32
6 TSM 76 7
6 6 0 0 0 1
TM
1
TM 0 0 0 0 7 6 x5 7
76 7
Pe
6 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 7 6 x6 7
6 TRH TRH 76 7 This simplified representation is often used in integrated
6 1 1 7 6 x7 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 7 model for the boiler and steam turbo-generator and for
6 TI TI 7 4 x8 5
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 5 solving loadfrequency control problems and area
TCO TCO x
KHP KIP KLP D
0 0 0 0 s 0 s 2 s 3 s interchange.
0
6 07
6 7
6 07 Case Studies
6 7
6 07
 
1 6
6 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 6 07 7 The case study has been made for a small perturbation in
6 07
6 7 electrical output Pe. The integral feed forward has been
6 07
6 7 excluded from the model as it is often bypassed in our
4 05 country [8] to avoid over-correcting efforts eventually
Pe leading to instability. The static droop has been taken as
27 4%. The state equation for the particular values of

123
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121 119

Fig. 2 Reduced order model of

steam turbine

parameters and time constants of the example machine and

for a step change in electrical power by 0.01 p.u. is given

2 3 2 32 3
x_ 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 x1
6 x_ 2 7 6 8:333 8:333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 x2 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 x_ 3 7 6 0 12:5 12:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 x3 7
6 x_ 7 6 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 76 7 7
6 47 6 6 x4 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 x_ 5 7 6 0 0 0 3:333 3:333 0 0 0 0 7 6 x5 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 x_ 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 0:1818 0:1818 0 0 0 7 6 x6 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 x_ 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 x7 7
4 x_ 8 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 5 4 x8 5
x_ 0 0 0 0 0:0476 0 0:0381 0:0333 0:119 x
2 3 33
0
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 7
 6 0 7
3 6 0 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:19e 6 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
6 0 7
6 7
4 0 5
Pe

and the output equation of the above system is Stability analysis is being made by Rouths criterion.
2 32 3 The Rouths tabulation is given in chart:
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x1
60 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 6 x2 7
6 76 7
60 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 07 6 7
6 7 6 x3 7 1.00 1981.94 264843.90 3726375.00 9668709.00
60 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 07 6 7 7
6 6 x4 7 69.47 30167.93 1343606.00 5739669.00 3835784.00
Y 6 60 0 0 0 1
7
0 0 0 0 7 6 x5 7
6
7 34
60 0 0 0 0 1547.67 245502.40 3643751.00 9613492.00
6 1 0 0 07 6 7
7 6 x6 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 6 7 19148.49 1180055.00 5308165.00 3835784.00
6 7 6 x7 7
40 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 1 0 4 x8 5 150124.90 3214721.00 9303466.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x 770015.90 4121504.00 3835784.00
2411179.00 8555628.00
The characteristic equation of the state matrix is being 1389243.00 3835784.00
found out by Fadeev-Leverrier method. 1898217.00
The characteristic equation is given below:
x9 69:571x8 1981:9x7 30168x6 264844x5
13:43606x4 3726375x3 5739669x2 35 The system is stable as all the elements in the first
9668709x 3835784 0 column are positive. There is no change in sign.

123
120 Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121

Case study has also been made for the reduced order Turbine-Governor Control Loop
model. The time constants and parameters for the reduced
order model (Fig. 2) are given below: The Existing (incorrect) model assumes that 100% of tur-
T G 1 s; T T 0:8 s; H 4:2 s; D 2pu: bine generator respond in accordance with the 5% Speed-
droop generator characteristics. The resolution of SCADA
Which gives rise to : K P 0:5; T P 2:1 s;
at 2 s intervals doesnt pick up the detail electrical power
The time domain analysis, with these values, is given swings as seen in the simulation but it does show the overall
below: general response as an envelope. Figure 5 shows the sim-
2 3 2 32 3 ulation of a typical base load unit. The characteristic initial
x_ 1 50 0 50 x1
6 7 6 76 7 peak typically seen at the start of the response is inertial.
4 25 4
x_ 1:25 1:25 0 5 4 x2 5 Figure 4 shows the simulation of a typical base load
x_ 0 0:238 0:476 x unit. The characteristic initial peak typically seen at the
2 3
0 36 start of the response is inertial.
6 7 The new modelling approach which has been repre-
0 0 0:238  4 0 5
sented by a block diagram as shown in Figure 5, has been
Pe
extensively validated against recording of a power plant
and several large disturbances have also been considered.
The improved modelling of a thermal plant response results
and
2 32 3 in reduced overall contribution of thermal plant to the
1 0 0 x1 correction of frequency.
Y 40 1 0 5 4 x2 5 37 Simulation with the new thermal model compares closely
0 0 1 x to frequency recording of a generating power plant. Figure 6
The characteristic equation of the above state Matrix is compares frequency simulation of the new model and the
given below existing model frequency recording during system test.

x3 51:72x2 86:89x 44:62 0 38

By seeing the above equation, it is concluded that the
system is stable.
Time response of the above system against step input is
given in Fig. 3.
Simulation Impacts
Following are some of the important impacts of the new
turbine-governor modeling on system operation and plan-
ning studies.

Fig. 3 Step response of Step Response of System-1

system 1 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

x1
0
Y

x2
Omega

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
time (sec)

123
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (JanuaryMarch 2012) 93(1):115121
Fig. 4 The simulation of a base-loaded unit compared to SCADA
recording
Fig. 5 Block diagram of the
new thermal turbine-governor
with MW load controller
System frequency response can be predicted more
accurately including large protection system operation
More accurate prediction of critical intertie flows and
dynamic limits can be obtained for operation.
An improved assessment of system oscillations and
damping is achieved.
Under frequency and Load-shedding studies can be
performed.
Dynamic voltage stability studies can also be performed.
Conclusion
A new thermal turbine-governor modeling approach based
on the existing simulation of the base-load unit has been
developed. The development of this model goes through an
extensive study process which includes validation with
respect to existing system. The new modeling can be used
in all planning and operation studies. In future, further
work can be undertaken in several areas including
improved generator model data, automatic generation
control modeling studies of system oscillations and voltage
stability.
121
Fig. 6 System frequency response with the new model compared to
recording
References
1. J.P. McDonald, H.G. Kwanty, J.H. Spare, A non-linear model for
reheat boiler-turbine generator system; part I: general description
and evaluation, in Proc. 12th Joint Automatic Control Conf
(Missouri, 1971), pp. 219226
2. H.G. Kwantny, J.P. McDonald, J.H. Spare, A non-linear model for
reheat boiler-turbine generator systems; part II; development, in Proc.
12th Joint Automatic Control Conf. (Missouri, 1971), pp. 227236
3. R.D. Bell, K.I Astron, A low order non-linear dynamic model for
drum boiler-turbine-alternator units. Report TFRT-3192 (Lund
Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1979)
4. L. Pereira, J. Undrill, D. Kosterev, D. Davies, S. Patterson, A new
thermal governor modeling approach in the WECC, Manuscript
no. TPWRS-00453-2002 (in press)
5. I. Kamwa, L. Gerin-Lajoie, State-space system identification-
towards MIMO models for modal analysis and optimization of bulk
power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst 15(1), 326335 (2000)
6. D.N. Kosterev, C.W. Taylor, W.A. Mittelstadt, Model validation
for the August 10, 1996 WSCC system outage. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 14, 967979 (1999)
7. L. Pereira, D. Kosterev, D. Davies, S. Patterson, New thermal
governor model selection and validation in the WECC. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 19(1), 513517 (2004)
8. Power plant modeling and parameter derivation for power system
studies: present practice and recommended approach for future
procedures. EPRI, Palo Alto; June 2007. Report No.1015241.
(www.epri.com)
123