724
2, MAY 2003
Modeling Combined-Cycle Power Plant for
Simulation of Frequency Excursions
Kazuyoshi Kunitomi, Atsushi Kurita, Yasuyuki Tada, Associate Member, IEEE, Satoru Ihara, Fellow, IEEE,
William W. Price, Fellow, IEEE, Leon M. Richardson, and Gordon Smith
Abstract—The maximum continuous power output of a com-
bined-cycle power plant depends on the system frequency and the
ambient temperature. The temperature control of a gas turbine
limits the exhaust temperature by reducing the fuel flow as the air-
flow decreases with the shaft speed. In this paper, a simple model
of a combined-cycle power plant is derived from a detailed design
model for an example plant. The model is suitable for long-term
simulation of power system dynamic performance involving ab-
normal frequency conditions.
Index Terms—Combined-cycle power plants, dynamic mod-
eling, gas turbines.
I. INTRODUCTION
A TYPICAL combined-cycle power plant (CCPP) consists
of a gas turbine (GT), a steam turbine (ST), a heat-re-
covery steam generator (HRSG), and a generator mounted in
tandem on a single shaft. The GT of a typical CCPP is equipped
with inlet guide vanes (IGVs) that adjust the airflow to maintain
a high exhaust temperature.
A mathematical model of a combined-cycle power plant is
needed, including relevant control and protective functions,
for long-term simulation of various power system distur-
bances [1]. Long-term simulations of large disturbances are
often performed to investigate specific sequences of events
observed in the actual system. Long-term simulations of
large disturbances are extremely difficult because of possible
operation of various control limiters and protections. These
can include generator underexcitation limiters, overexcitation
limiters, and volts-per-hertz limiters as well as underfrequency
protection, overfrequency protection, loss-of-field protection,
volts-per-hertz protection, and other complex protections in
both plant auxiliaries and the switchyard. Large disturbances,
especially those involving abnormal frequency operations,
cannot be staged and, therefore, it is almost impossible to verify
a complete power plant model through field tests.
GE power generation, as a supplier of power plants, has de-
veloped detailed models of gas turbines, steam turbines, heat-re-
covery steam generators, and associated controls for use in plant
design and analysis. Critical aspects of these design models have
been verified with field tests or detailed engineering evaluation.
Manuscript received February 27, 2002; revised June 24, 2002.
K. Kunitomi, A. Kurita, and Y. Tada are with the Electric Power Research and
Development Center, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, 230-8510,
Japan.
S. Ihara, W. W. Price, L. M. Richardson, and G. Smith are with GE Power
Systems, Schenectady, NY 12345 USA.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2002.807112
0885-8950/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.
For low-frequency events such as the Malaysia blackout [1],
the primary issue is how fast the GT can increase its output and
how the maximum output will be affected by the reduced fre-
quency. A previous paper [2] describes a simple, mathematical
model of a GT of a CCPP. The model includes the IGV control,
the temperature control, and the frequency dependency of the
GT output. It is based on physical principles and the detailed
design model of a GT.
Formation of an island with excess generation resulted in par-
tial load rejection and high system frequency. Various controls
act upon partial load rejection to prevent excessive overspeed.
These controls include a governor, power load unbalance (PLU)
control, GT acceleration control, and ST speed control. The gov-
ernor detects the deviation of the shaft speed from a desired
value and attempts to reduce the deviation by adjusting the GT
fuel command under normal and abnormal conditions. The ST
speed control also detects the speed deviation and attempts to
regulate the speed by adjusting the steam valves only under ab-
normal conditions. The acceleration control detects the shaft ac-
celeration and reduces the acceleration by adjusting the GT fuel
command and the steam valves. If the speed recovers, the plant
returns to normal operation as long as the PLU control has not
been activated.
The PLU control detects excessive unbalance between the
turbine mechanical power output and the generator electrical
output and puts the plant in full-speed, no-load condition by ad-
justing the load reference and the steam valves. It prevents the
turbine from tripping. The plant waits for an operator’s com-
mand for reloading. Not all of the CCPPs are equipped with
PLU controls.
At the design stage of a plant, full load rejection is extensively
studied but partial load rejection is not. It is because full load
rejection stresses the plant more severely and full load rejection
can be tested while partial load rejection cannot. As long as all
the valves function properly, the turbine does not trip on full
load rejection.
In this paper, simple, mathematical models of HRSG, ST, and
pertinent controls are described and the model of a single-shaft
CCPP, typical of a GE STAG 109FA is completed. The simple
models have been derived from the detailed design models. Suf-
ficient details have been included in the process and control
modeling to represent the response to system disturbances in-
volving frequency excursions of up to 5%. The model is not
intended for simulation of startup or shutdown of the CCPP. It is
generally applicable for initial CCPP loading above 50%. This
minimum is well below the normal operating point of a CCPP.
KUNITOMI et al.: MODELING COMBINED-CYCLE POWER PLANT FOR SIMULATION OF FREQUENCY EXCURSIONS
Fig. 1. Critical components of example plant (GE STAG 109FA).
II. MODEL STRUCTURE AND ASSUMPTIONS
Fig. 1 shows the critical components of an example CCPP. Its
HRSG has three drums for high-pressure (HP), intermediate-
pressure (IP), and low-pressure (LP) steam. Eleven heat ex-
changers are shown excluding the economizers that preheat the
water admitted to the drums. The heat exchangers consist of
bundles of tubes through which water or steam flow. The ex-
haust from the gas turbine goes through and around each of the
heat exchanger tube bundles and transfers heat to the water or
steam. The main control valve (MCV), intercept control valve
(ICV), intermediate-pressure admission valve (IPAV), and low-
pressure admission valve (LPAV) adjust the steam admission to
the HP, IP, and LP turbines.
The desired performance range of the CCPP model is above
50% load level and between 95% and 105% of nominal fre-
quency. Selection of pertinent variables, model structure and
parameters are based on careful inspection of the structure and
performance of the detailed design model of an example plant
within the desired performance range.
Gas Turbine: The GT consists of an axial compressor,
a combustion chamber, and a turbine (Fig. 2). The air is
compressed through the compressor and then mixed with fuel
in the combustion chamber. The hot gas resulting from the
combustion process is expanded through the turbine to drive
a generator and the compressor. Pertinent input variables of
the gas turbine are fuel mass flow ( ) and air mass flow
( ), which depends on IGV angle ( ), shaft speed ( ),
ambient temperature ( ), and atmospheric pressure ( ).
Pertinent output variables are net mechanical power output
( ), exhaust gas mass flow ( ), exhaust gas temperature
( ), and compressor pressure ratio (CPR). A previous paper
[2] describes a simple model of a GT including pertinent
725
Fig. 2. Gas turbine configuration.
Fig. 3. Configuration of HRSG HP section.
controls. The airflow speed factor characterizes the frequency
dependency of the GT output. The physically based structure of
the model reveals the possibility of determining the parameters
of the air flow speed factor from the loading tests made at
different ambient temperatures. The GT model is based on the
following assumptions:
• solely determines ;
• since is negligibly small compared to ;
• the shaft power required to drive the compressor is
constant;
• the only significant dynamic effects are the time lags be-
tween changes in fuel command and changes in and
between changes in and changes in .
A. HRSG and Steam Turbine
The performance of the detailed design model of an ex-
ample plant led to the following observations and simplifying
assumptions.
• The feed water energy gains in the economizers and in the
evaporators are additive and there is no need to model the
economizers separately. The feed water adjustment is fast,
and there is no need to model the feed water system or
drum level controls.
• The temperature and flow variations in the condenser have
insignificant effects and there is no need to model the at-
temperators (ATT) or the bypass flows. The water flows to
the attemperators in the HP and reheat lines have insignifi-
cant effects and they can be assumed constant without sub-
stantial loss of accuracy.
• The enthalpy of the steam at the each turbine inlet is con-
stant since the steam temperature is held constant.
Figs. 3–5 show pertinent components of the HP, IP, and LP
sections, respectively. The pertinent variables are steam pres-
sures and flows, and valve positions of MCV, IPAV, ICV, LPAV,
726 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003

Fig. 4. Configuration of HRSG IP section.

Fig. 7. Model of HRSG IP section and reheater.

Fig. 5. Configuration of HRSG LP section.

Fig. 8. Model of HRSG LP section.

model are the ambient air temperature ( ) and pressure ( ),

electrical power output of the generator ( ), and load reference
( ). The pertinent controls are
• GT controls—as identified previously [2], including tem-
perature control, IGV control, governor, and acceleration
control. The acceleration control limits the acceleration
rate of the turbine by limiting the fuel flow. Its primary
function is to limit turbine acceleration during plant
Fig. 6. Model of HRSG HP section. start-up. It may become active during a partial load rejec-
tion. The acceleration control signal ( ) is transferred
and bypass valves. Figs. 6–8 show models of the HP, IP, and LP to the ST valve controls.
sections, respectively. • ST controls—including inlet pressure controls, inlet pres-
sure limiters, and bypass valve controls for MCV, IPAV,
B. Controls and Interconnections and LPAV, which regulate, limit, and relieve the steam
Controls are site specific, and the structure and parameters of pressure at the valve inlet points. Also included is the
the control models need to be adjusted for each site. Therefore, ST speed control, which operates upon an excessive over-
the contribution of this paper is limited to the identification of speed of the turbine.
controls of an example plant that are pertinent to the desired • PLU control—which affects both GT and ST. The PLU
performance range of the model. Figs. 9–11 define the model control issues two signals, the PLU signal and load rejec-
structure of the CCPP example. The input variables to the plant tion occurrence (LRO) signal, if the difference between
KUNITOMI et al.: MODELING COMBINED-CYCLE POWER PLANT FOR SIMULATION OF FREQUENCY EXCURSIONS
Fig. 9. Plant model structure.
Fig. 10. Model structure for GT and controls.
Fig. 11. Model structure for HRSG, ST, and controls.
the mechanical power to the generator and the electrical
power exceeds a specified value (e.g., 0.4 p.u.) and if the
electrical power decreases faster than a specified rate (e.g.,
0.35 p.u./s). With a PLU signal, the ICV and LPAV close
completely. With a LRO signal, the MCV and IPAV close
completely, and is set for a no-load, full-speed value
of 100.3%. Once the unbalance is removed, the PLU signal
is automatically reset but not the LRO signal.
III. MODEL PERFORMANCE
The model performance has been evaluated for scenarios of
load reference change, low-frequency excursion, and partial
load rejection.
727
Fig. 12. Load reference change (solid curve: simple model, +: detailed design
model).
Load Reference Change: A load reference change is per-
formed as one of the commissioning tests for demonstration of
plant behavior and correct control performance during normal
operation without any system disturbances. Fig. 12(a) shows a
series of load reference change starting from 1.1 p.u. The gov-
ernor adjusts the output to the load reference except toward the
beginning and end of the test when the load reference exceeds
the 1.0-p.u. value and the temperature control limits the output
to the base load value [Fig. 12(b)]. The IGV control holds the
GT exhaust temperature essentially constant [Fig. 12(c)]. The
exhaust temperature and flow [Fig. 12(d)] determine the ex-
haust power [Fig. 12(e)]. As shown in Fig. 12(f) and (g), MCV
and IPAV are kept fully open under sliding pressure control,
while LPAV regulates the LPA pressure under inlet pressure
control. The steam enthalpy and flow [Fig. 12(h)] determine the
ST output shown in Fig. 12(b). The performance of the simple
model (shown with solid curves) matches well with the detailed
design model performance (shown with points).
The GT exhaust power correlates linearly to the GT mechan-
ical power during the load reference change [Fig. 13(a)]. The
728
Fig. 13. Mechanical power and GT exhaust power (solid curve: simple model,
+ : detailed design model).
Fig. 14. Low-frequency excursion.
-axis intercept is the no-load exhaust power that corresponds
to the GT mechanical power driving the compressor. The ST
mechanical power follows the GT exhaust power linearly with
a dynamic delay during the load reference change [Fig. 13(b)].
These relationships suggest a simpler approach to modeling the
steam system as previously suggested [3].
Low-Frequency Excursion: Fig. 14 shows a low-frequency
excursion simulated with the simple model. Starting with the
initial plant output of 90% of the base load of 366 MW, the
system frequency is decreased by 5% over 25 s, similarly to the
Malaysia incident [1]. This is one of the cases reported previ-
ously for the GT only [2]. The governor responds to the low
frequency first and increases the GT output to more than base
load; consequently, the exhaust temperature increases. After a
few seconds, the temperature control fully opens the IGV, re-
duces the GT output, and effectively lowers the exhaust tem-
perature to a specified value. The final output is close to the
original level of 90% of the base load instead of 100% due to
the reduced airflow from the compressor running more slowly.
The steam turbine output is essentially invariant during the sim-
ulated low-frequency excursion.
Partial Load Rejection: Full load rejection is extensively
studied in the design stage of a plant since it is more critical
for the design. Load rejection is tested during commissioning
by tripping a loaded generator. It is extremely difficult to test
partial load rejection while keeping the generator connected to
the system as in an islanding situation with excess generation.
Fig. 15 shows 30% load rejection. The speed increases rapidly
upon load rejection, and the governor reduces the GT fuel flow;
consequently, the GT exhaust temperature decreases and the
temperature control closes IGV to recover the exhaust temper-
ature. The GT acceleration control closes the MCV, IPAV and
LPAV temporarily. PLU control does not operate since the load
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
Fig. 15. Load rejection by 30%.
Fig. 16. Load rejection by 70%.
rejection is less than 40%, and the load reference remains the
same. The speed decreases to the final value of 101.5%, which
is above the rated speed due to the governor droop of 5%.
Fig. 16 shows 70% load rejection. The speed increases rapidly
upon load rejection, and the governor reduces the GT fuel flow;
consequently, the GT exhaust temperature decreases and the
temperature control closes IGV. At the same time, the PLU con-
trol puts the ST at no-load full-speed condition since the load
rejection is greater than 40%. The MCV, ICV, IPAV, and LPAV
are closed (a second later, the ICV and LPAV are opened so that
the trapped steam is released) and the load reference is set to
the no-load value of 100.3%. The speed decreases rapidly to a
value substantially below the rated speed. The governor now in-
creases the GT fuel flow in response to the speed deviation, and
the temperature control opens the IGV to keep the desired ex-
haust temperature. The final speed of 98.8% is below the rated
speed due to the governor droop and the load reference set to
the no-load value.
The ST speed control does not operate during these simulated
partial load rejection scenarios; however, this control would act
to protect the unit from excessive overspeed if the PLU is not
equipped or fails to operate properly upon partial load rejection.
Various controls substantially and rapidly change the GT air-
flow and fuel flow during system frequency excursions. The
simulated plant performance is very sensitive to the control pa-
rameters and the system dynamic characteristics. The system
frequency deviation may exceed 5%, and the overfrequency or
underfrequency protection might trip the turbines. One cannot
assume that all pertinent controls will operate to the same ef-
fect during severe system frequency excursions as they do in
the normal frequency band. The plant performance during ab-
normal frequency condition cannot be verified by tests. There-
fore, simulation results should be evaluated with care.
KUNITOMI et al.: MODELING COMBINED-CYCLE POWER PLANT FOR SIMULATION OF FREQUENCY EXCURSIONS
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The GT response is rapid and dominant, and the governor
and GT temperature control play critical roles during abnormal
frequency operations. The dependency of the GT maximum
continuous output on the frequency and ambient temperature is
a significant factor. The PLU control, GT acceleration control,
and ST speed control also influence the plant performance
during partial load rejection.
These controls and their settings are site specific, and
therefore, some effort is required to identify control models
and verify them with field tests. It may be desirable to consult
the manufacturer on modeling the frequency and ambient
temperature characteristics of a specific GT.
The ST power output follows the GT exhaust power with a
long-time constant on the order of 100 s. The simple model pre-
sented in this paper can be further simplified by replacing the
steam part of the model with a simple time-lag model—at least
for the simulated scenarios.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
J. Undrill of GE Power Systems Energy Consulting provided
constructive discussions. His contribution is acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE TF38.02.14, “Analysis and modeling needs of power systems
under major frequency disturbances,” Rep., CIGRE Brochure no. 148,
1999.
[2] K. Kunitomi et al., “Modeling frequency dependency of gas turbine
output,” in IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH, IEEE
Publication no. 01CH37194.
[3] J. Undrill and A. Garmendia, “Modeling of combined cycle plants in
grid simulation studies,” in IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting,
Columbus, OH, 2001, IEEE Publication no. 01CH37194.
Kazuyoshi Kunitomi received the B.S. and M.S. degrees from Tokyo Institute
of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, in 1986 and 1988, respectively.
Currently, he is a Researcher in the Power System Technology Group,
Electric Power Engineering R&D Center, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc.
(TEPCO), Tokyo, Japan. He joined TEPCO in 1988.
729
Atsushi Kurita received the B.S. degree from Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan,
in 1979 and the M.S. degree from Shizuoka University, Shizuoka, Japan, in
1981.
Currently, he is the Group Manager of the Power System Technology Group,
Electric Power Engineering R&D Center, Tokyo Electric Power Company
(TEPCO), Tokyo, Japan, where he has been since 1981.
Yasuyuki Tada (A’96) received the Ph.D. degree in engineering from the Uni-
versity of Tokyo, Toko, Japan, in 1998.
Currently, he is a Researcher in the Power System Technology Group, Electric
Power Engineering R&D Center, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO),
where he has been since 1981.
Satoru Ihara (F’01) received the B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees from Kyoto
University, Kyoto, Japan, and the Ph.D. degree in applied mathematics from
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Currently, he is a Senior Research Fellow at GE Power Systems Energy Con-
sulting, Schenectady, NY. He is also a former chairman of the IEEE working
group on load representation for dynamic performance.
Dr. Ihara is a member of IEE of Japan.
William W. Price (F’95) received the B.S.E.E. degree from Clarkson Univer-
sity, Potsdam, NY, in 1968, and the M.Eng. degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, NY, in 1971.
Currently, he is a Consulting Engineer at GE Power Systems Energy Con-
sulting, Schenectady, NY. He is a former chairman of the IEEE power system
dynamic modeling subcommittee.
Leon M. Richardson received the B.S.E.E. degree from Rochester Institute
of Technology, Rochester, NY, in 1966, and the M.S.E.E. degree from Union
College, Schenectady, NY, in 1969.
Currently, he is a Consulting Engineer at GE Power Systems Energy Con-
sulting, Schenectady, NY.
Mr. Richardson is a former member of the IEEE working group on prime
mover and energy supply models for system dynamic studies.
Gordon Smith received the B.S. degree from the University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY, in 1977.
Currently, he is a Senior System Engineer at GE Power Systems, Schenectady,
NY, engaged in the GE 7H GT/combined cycle system launch project. He joined
GE as an international field engineer in 1981.