Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat
Steam turbine model
Ali Chaibakhsh, Ali Ghaffari *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Pardis Street, Vanak Square, P.O. Box 193951999, Tehran, Iran
article info
Article history:
Received 9 November 2007 Received in revised form 20 May 2008 Accepted 20 May 2008 Available online 6 June 2008
Keywords:
Power plant
Steam turbine
Mathematical model
Genetic algorithm
Semiempirical relations
Experimental data
abstract
In order to characterize the transient dynamics of steam turbines subsections, in this paper, nonlinear mathematical models are ﬁrst developed based on the energy balance, thermo dynamic principles and semiempirical equations. Then, the related parameters of devel oped models are either determined by empirical relations or they are adjusted by applying genetic algorithms (GA) based on experimental data obtained from a complete set of ﬁeld experiments. In the intermediate and lowpressure turbines where, in the subcooled regions, steam variables deviate from prefect gas behavior, the thermodynamic characteristics are highly dependent on pressure and temperature of each region. Thus, nonlinear functions are developed to evaluate speciﬁc enthalpy and speciﬁc entropy at these stages of turbines. The parameters of proposed functions are individually adjusted for the operational range of each subsection by using genetic algorithms. Comparison between the responses of the overall turbinegenerator model and the response of real plant indicates the accuracy and performance of the proposed models over wide range of operations. The simulation results show the validation of the developed model in term of more accurate and less deviation between the responses of the models and real system where errors of the proposed functions are less than 0.1% and the modeling error is less than 0.3%.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past 100 years, the steam turbines have been widely employed to power generating due to their efﬁciencies and costs. With respect to the capacity, application and desired performance, a different level of complexity is offered for the structure of steam turbines. For power plant applications, steam turbines generally have a complex feature and consist of multistage steam expansion to increase the thermal efﬁciency. It is always more difﬁcult to predict the effects of proposed control system on the plant due to complexity of turbine structure. Therefore, developing nonlinear analytical models is nec essary in order to study the turbine transient dynamics. These models can be used for control system design synthesis, per forming realtime simulations and monitoring the desired states [1] . Thus, no mathematical model can exactly describe such complicated processes and always there are inaccuracy in developed models due to unmodeled dynamics and parametric uncertainties [2,3] . A vast collection of models is developed for longterm dynamics of steam turbines [4–11]. In many cases, the turbine models are such simpliﬁed that they only map input variables to outputs, where many intermediate variables are omitted [12] . The lack of accuracy in simpliﬁed models emerges many difﬁculties in control strategies and often, a satisfactory degree of precision is required to improve the overall control performance [13] . Identiﬁcation techniques are widely used to develop mathematical models based on the measured data obtained from real system performance in power plant applications where the developed models always comprise reasonable complexities
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 886 748 41; fax: +98 21 886 747 48. Email address: ghaffari@kntu.ac.ir (A. Ghaffari).
1569190X/$  see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2008.05.017
1146
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
Nomenclature
C 
speciﬁc heat (kJ/kg K) 
D 
droop characteristics (N m/rad/s) 
h 
speciﬁc enthalpy (kJ/kg) 


h 
absolute enthalpy (kJ/kmol) 
J 
momentum of inertia (kg m ^{2} ) 
k 
index of expansion 
_ 
mass ﬂow (kg/s) molecular weight (kg) 
m 



m 

M 
inertia constant (kg m ^{2} /s) 
p 
pressure (MPa) 
P 
power (MW) 
Q 
heat transferred (MJ) 
q 
ﬂow (kg/s) 
s 
entropy (kJ/kg K) 
t 
time (s) 
T 
temperature ( C) 
Tr 
torque (N m) 
U 
machine excitation voltage (V) 
V 
terminal voltage (V) 
v 
speciﬁc volume (m ^{3} /kg) 
W 
power (MW) 
x 
Daxis synchronous reactance ( X ) 
Greek letters
a 
steam quality 
d 
rotor angle (rad) 
g 
efﬁciently 
q 
speciﬁc density (kg/m ^{3} ) 
s 
time constant (s) 
x 
frequency (rad/s) 
Subscripts 

e 
electrical 
ex 
extraction 
f 
liquid phase 
fuel 
fuel 
g 
vapor phase 
in 
input 
m 
mechanical 
out 
output 
p 
constant pressure 
s 
saturation 
spray 
spray 
v 
constant volume 
w 
water 
0 
standard condition 
HP 
high pressure 
IP 
intermediate pressure 
LP 
lowpressure 
that describe the system well in speciﬁc operating conditions [14–18]. Moreover, in large systems such as power plants, breaking major control loops when systems run at normal operating load conditions may put them in dangerous situations. Consequently, the system model should be developed by performing closed loop identiﬁcation approaches. System identi ﬁcation during normal operation without any external excitation or disruption would be an ideal target, but in many cases, using operating data for identiﬁcation faces limitations and external excitation is required [19–21]. Assuming that paramet ric models are available, in this case, using soft computing methods would be helpful in order to adjust model parameters over full range of input–output operational data. Genetic algorithms (GA) have outstanding advantages over the conventional optimization methods, which allow them to seek globally for the optimal solution. It causes that a complete system model is not required and it will be possible to ﬁnd
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
1147
parameters of the model with nonlinearities and complicated structures [22,23]. In the recent years, genetic algorithms are investigated as potential solutions to obtain good estimation of the model parameters and are widely used as an optimiza tion method for training and adaptation approaches [24–30] . In this paper, mathematical models are ﬁrst developed for analysis of transient response of steam turbines subsections based on the energy balance, thermodynamic state conversion and semiempirical equations. Then, the related parameters are either determined by empirical relations obtained from experimental data or they are adjusted by applying genetic algo rithms. In the intermediate and lowpressure turbines where, in the subcooled regions, steam variables deviate from prefect gas behavior, the thermodynamic characteristics are highly dependent on pressure and temperature of each region. Thus nonlinear functions are developed to evaluate speciﬁc enthalpy and speciﬁc entropy at these stages of turbines. The param eters of proposed functions are individually adjusted for the operational range of each subsection by using genetic algo rithms as an optimization approach. Finally, the responses of the turbine and generator models are compared with the responses of the real plant in order to validate the accuracy and performance of the models over different operation conditions. In the next section, a brief description of the plant turbine is presented. It consists of a general view of the steam turbine and its subsystems including their inputs and outputs. It follows by the analytical model development and the training pro cedure of proposed models based on the experimental data. The next section presents the simulation results of this work by comparing the responses of the proposed model with the actual plant. The last section is the conclusion and suggestions for future studies.
2. System description
A steam turbine of a 440 MW power plant with oncethrough Benson type boiler is considered for the modeling approach. The steam turbine comprises high, intermediate and lowpressure sections. In addition, the system includes steam extrac tions, feedwater heaters, moisture separators, and the related actuators. The turbine conﬁguration and steam conditions at extractions are shown in Fig. 1 . The highpressure superheated steam of the turbine is responsible for energy ﬂow and conversion results power gener ating in the turbine stages. The superheated steam at 535 C and 18.6 MPa pressure from main steam header is the input to the highpressure (HP) turbine. The input steam pressure drops about 0.5 MPa by passing through the turbine chest system. The entered steam expands in the highpressure turbine and is discharged into the cold reheater line. At the full load con ditions, the output temperature and pressure of the highpressure turbine is 351 C and 5.37 MPa, respectively. The cold steam passes through moisture separator to become dry. The extracted moisture goes to HP heater and the cold steam for reheating is sent to reheat sections. The reheater consists of two sections and a desuperheating section is considered between them for controlling the outlet steam temperature. The reheated steam at 535 C and with 4.83 MPa pressure is fed to intermediate pressure (IP) turbine. Exhaust steam from IPturbine for‘ the last stage expansion is fed into the lowpressure (LP) turbine. The input temperature and pressure of the lowpressure turbine is 289.7 C and 0.83 MPa, respectively. Extracted steam from ﬁrst and second extractions of IP is sent to HP heater and deaerator. Also, extracted steam from last IP and LP extractions are used for feedwater heating in a train of lowpressure heaters. The very lowpressure steam from the last extraction goes to main condenser to become cool and be used in generation loop again.
3. Turbine model development
The behavior of the subsystems can be captured in terms of the mass and energy conservation equations, semiempirical relations and thermodynamic state conservation. The system dynamic is represented by a number of lumped models for each subsections of turbine. There are many dynamic models for individual components, which are simple empirical relations
Fig. 1. Steam turbine conﬁguration and extraction.
1148
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
between system variables with a limited number of parameters and can be validated for the steam turbine by using real sys tem responses. In addition, an optimization approach based on genetic algorithm is performed to estimate the unknown parameters of models with more complex structure based on experimental data. With the respect to model complexity, a suit able ﬁtness function and optimization parameters are chosen for training process, which are presented in Appendix A . The models training process is performed by joining MATLAB Genetic Algorithm Toolbox and MATLAB Simulink . It makes it possible model training be performed online or based on recorded data in simulation space ( Appendix B ).
3.1. HPturbine model
The highpressure steam enters the turbine through a stage nozzle designed to increase its velocity. The pressure drop produced at the inlet nozzle of the turbine limits the mass ﬂow through the turbine. A relationship between mass ﬂow and the pressure drop across the HP turbine was developed by Stodola in 1927 [31] . The relationship was later modiﬁed to include the effect of inlet temperature as follows:
m in ¼ ^{K}
_
q
p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ p ^{2}
T in
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
in ^{} ^{p} ^{2} out
ð
1Þ
where K is a constant that can be obtained by the data taken from the turbine responses. Let k be deﬁned as follows:
k ¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
s
p
^{2}
in ^{} ^{p} ^{2}
out
T in
ð 2Þ
By plotting k via inlet mass ﬂow rate based on the experimental data, the slope of linear ﬁtting is captured as K = 520 ( Fig. 2 ). Generally, Eq. (1) has a sufﬁcient accuracy where water steam is the working ﬂuid. A comparison between the model re sponse and the experimental shown in Fig. 3 indicates the accuracy of the deﬁned constant.
Fig. 2. Mass ﬂow rate versos k .
Fig. 3. Response of pressure–mass ﬂow model.
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
1149
The input output pressure relation for HP turbine based on experimental data is shown in Fig. 4 . It shows a quite linear relation with the slope of 0.29475. Noting that the time constant for HP turbines are normally between 0.1 and 0.4 s, here the time constant is measured to be about 0.4 s and therefore the transfer function of the input–output pressure is
^{p} out
_{¼} 0: 29475
^{p} in
0 :4s þ 1
ð
3Þ
The time response of the proposed transfer function is shown in Fig. 5 . To develop the dynamic model of HP turbine, the pressure, mass ﬂow rate and temperature of steam at input and output of each section is required. The input and output relations for steam pressure and steam ﬂow rate are deﬁned in previous section. The steam temperature at turbine output can be captured in the terms of entered steam pressure and temperature. By assuming that the steam expansion in HPturbine is an adiabatic and isentropic process, it is simple to estimate the steam temperature at discharge of HP turbine by using ideal gas pressure–temperature relation.
T
out
T
in
¼
p
out
p
in
ð
k
1
k
Þ
ð 4Þ
where k ¼ C _{p} = C _{v} is the polytrophic expansion factor. The energy equation for adiabatic expansion, which relates the power output to steam energy declining by passing through the HP turbine, is as follows:
W _{H}_{P} ¼ g _{H}_{P}
m _{i}_{n} ð h _{i}_{n} h _{o}_{u}_{t} Þ ¼ g _{H}_{P} C _{p} m _{i}_{n} ð T _{i}_{n} T _{o}_{u}_{t} Þ
_
_
ð 5Þ
Fig. 4. Pressure ratio of the HPturbine cylinder input and output.
Fig. 5. Responses of pressure model.
1150
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
It is possible to deﬁne the steam speciﬁc heat as a function of pressure and/or temperature. Here, for more simpliﬁcation, water steam is considered ideal gas. In addition, the turbine efﬁciency can be expressed as a function of the ratio of blade tip velocity to theoretical steam velocity. In this paper, turbine efﬁciency is considered as a constant value. Then,
W _{H}_{P} ¼ g _{H}_{P} C _{p}
_
m in
T in T in
p
out
p
in
ð
k
1
k
Þ ! ¼ g _{H}_{P} C _{p} m _{i}_{n} ðT _{i}_{n} þ 273: 15Þ 1
_
p
out
p
in
ð
k
1
k
Þ !
ð 6Þ
The nonlinear model proposed for HP turbine is a parametric model with unknown parameters, which are associated with efﬁciency and speciﬁc heat. These parameters can be deﬁned by performing a training approach over a collection of input– output operational data. The model parameters adjustment is executed through a set of 650 points of data and for transient and steady state conditions in the range of operation between 154 and 440 MW of load. The error E is given by the mean value of squared difference between the target output y ^{*} and model output y as follows:
E
¼
1
N
N X
j
¼1
ðy y _{j} Þ ^{2}
j
ð 7Þ
where N is the number of entries used for training process. The optimized value for speciﬁc heat, C _{p} , in order to reach the best performance at different load conditions, is obtained 2.1581 and consequently, the polytrophic expansion factor, k , be equal to 1.2718. The efﬁciency of a welldesigned HP tur bine is about 85–90%. A fair comparison between the experimental data and the simulation results shows that the obtained HP turbine efﬁciency equal to 89.31% is good enough to ﬁt model responses on the real system responses. The proposed model for HP turbine is presented in Fig. 6 , where K _{1} ¼ K ¼ 520 and K _{2} ¼ C _{p} g _{H}_{P} = 1000 ¼ 1 : 921 10 ^{} ^{3} . The outlet steam from the HP turbine passes through the moisture separator to become dry. There are obvious advantages in inclusion of steam reheating and moisture separation in terms of improving low pressure exhaust wetness and need for less steam reheating. In this section, a considerable fraction of steam wetness is extracted which supplies the required steam for feedwater heating purpose at the HP heaters. The outlet ﬂow from moisture separation is captured as follows:
_{s} dq
t
d
_
¼ ð1 bÞ m _{i}_{n} q
ð 8Þ
where b is the fraction of moisture in output ﬂow. In the technical documents, it is declared that the amount of liquid phase extracted as moisture form steam mixture is approximately 10% of total steam ﬂow entered to HP turbine.
3.2. IP and LP turbines model
The intermediate and lowpressure turbines have more complicated structure in where multiple extractions are em ployed in order to increase the thermal efﬁciency of turbine. The steam pressure consecutively drops across the turbine stages. The condensation effect and steam conditions at extraction stages have considerable inﬂuences on the turbine per formance and generated power. In this case, developing mathematical models, which are capable to evaluate the released energy from steam expansion in turbine stages, is recommended. At turbine extraction stages, where in the subcooled re gions, steam variables deviate from prefect gas behavior and the thermodynamic characteristics are highly dependent on pressures and temperature of each region. Therefore, developing nonlinear functions to evaluate speciﬁc enthalpy and spe ciﬁc entropy at these stages of turbines is necessary. The steam thermodynamic properties can be estimated in term of tem perature and pressure as two independent variables. A variety of functions to give approximations of steam/water properties is presented, which are widely used in nuclear power plant applications [32–36].
Fig. 6. HPturbine model ( B = 273.15, K _{1} = 520, K _{2} = 1.927 10 ^{} ^{3} , f ( u )=[ u (1)/u (2)] ^{0}^{.}^{2}^{1}^{3}^{7} ).
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
1151
In 1988, very simple formulations were presented by Garland and Hand to estimate the light water thermodynamic prop erties for thermalhydraulic systems analysis. In the proposed functions, saturation values of steam are used as the dominant terms in the approximation expressions. This causes that these functions have considerable accuracy at/or near saturation conditions. However, these functions are extended to be quite accurate even in the subcooled and superheated regions [37] . The approximation functions for the thermodynamic properties in subcooled conditions are presented as follows:
F ðp ; T Þ ¼ F _{s} ðp _{s} ð T ÞÞ þ Rð T Þ ðp p _{s} Þ
ð 9Þ
where p _{s} is the steam pressure at saturation conditions. The proposed equations to estimate steam saturation pressure, p _{s} , as a function of temperature are listed in Appendix C . In addition, the approximation functions for the thermodynamic prop erties in superheated conditions are presented as follows:
F ðp ; T Þ ¼ F _{g} ð pÞ þ Rð p; T Þ ð T T _{s} Þ
ð 10Þ
where T _{s} is the steam saturation temperature. The equations to evaluate steam saturation temperature, T _{s} , as a function of steam pressure are presented in Appendix D . It is noted that, these functions are not able to cover the entire range of pressure changes and therefore the pressure range is divided into many subranges. The proposed functions are quite suitable for esti mating the water/steam thermodynamic properties; however, these functions are tuned for a given range from 0.085 MPa to 21.3 MPa and they have not adequate accuracy for very lowpressure steam particularly for the extractions conditions. In this paper, it is recommended that these functions be tuned individually for each input and output and at desired operational ranges. It should be mentioned that pressure changes have signiﬁcant effects on the steam parameters and therefore, it is focused on adjusting the ﬁrst term of functions, which depend on pressure and the functions R ð T Þ and R ð P ; T Þ are considered the same as presented by Garland and Hand. The working ﬂuid at different turbine stages can be single or two phases. In this condition, it should be assumed that both phases of steam mixtures are in thermodynamic equilibrium and liquid and vapor phases are two separated phases. The steam conditions at each section are presented in Table 1 . The proposed functions for speciﬁc enthalpy for liquid phase and speciﬁc entropy in both liquid and vapor phases are deﬁned by three parameters as follows:
F ¼ að pÞ ^{b} þ c
where three parameters a , b and c are adjusted for four different steam conditions at 35, 50, 75 and 100% of load. In addition, the proposed function for speciﬁc enthalpy in vapor phase is deﬁned by three parameters and one constant as follows:
F ¼ að p d Þ ^{2} þ bð p dÞ þ c
Here, the constant d can be chosen manually with respect to pressure variation ranges. The error E is given by the mean value
*
of absolute difference between the target output y and model output y as follows:
E
¼
1
N
N X
j¼1
j y y _{j} j
j
where N is the number of entries used for training process.
ð 11 Þ
3.2.1. Speciﬁc enthalpy, liquid phase The following function is presented for estimating speciﬁc enthalpy of water in liquid phase.
hð p; T Þ ¼ h _{f} ðp _{s} ð T ÞÞ þ 1: 4
^{1}^{6}^{9} ð p p _{s} Þ
369 T
ð
12 Þ
As seen in Table 1 , the steam condition for extractions 5, 6 and 7 are in twophase region where it can assume that p p _{s} . In this condition, the speciﬁc enthalpy of steam for their ranges can be deﬁned as a function of steam pressure. The functions listed below estimate the speciﬁc enthalpy of water in liquid phase, h (kJ/kg).
Table 1 Steam condition at turbine extractions
Extraction No. 
Pressure (saturation temperature) 
Temperature ( C) 
Steam condition 

IP turbine 
1 
2.945 (233.91) 
456.6 
One phase 
2 
1.466 (197.58) 
359 
One phase 

3 
0.830 (171.85) 
289.1 
One phase 

LP turbine 
4 
0.301 (133.63) 
182.7 
One phase 
5 
0.130 (105.80) 
111.2 
Transient 

6 
0.0459 
77.5 
Two phases 

7 
0.0068 
38.2 
Two phases 
1152
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
h _{f} ¼ 44: 12782275 ð1000 pÞ ^{0}^{:} ^{6}^{0}^{4}^{9}^{7}^{5}^{4}^{9} þ 19 : 30060027
h _{f} ¼ 194: 57965086 ð 100pÞ ^{0}^{:} ^{3}^{3}^{1}^{9}^{0}^{9}^{7}^{9} þ 1: 73249442 0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa
h _{f} ¼ 258: 51219036 ð 100pÞ ^{0}^{:} ^{1}^{7}^{5}^{1}^{3}^{6}^{0}^{8} þ 11 : 83393526
0: 0038 MPa < p < 0: 0068 MPa
0: 0683 MPa < p < 0: 13 MPa
3.2.2. Speciﬁc enthalpy, vapor phase
ð 13Þ
The following function is presented for estimating speciﬁc enthalpy of water/steam in vapor phase.
2
6
4: 5p
hð p; T Þ ¼ h _{g} ð pÞ 4 ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
7: 4529 10 ^{} ^{0} ^{:}^{6} T ^{3} p ^{2}
q
_{þ} _{0}_{:} _{2}_{8} _{} _{e} 0 : 008ð T 162Þ _{} ^{1}^{0}^{0}
_{T}
3
7
2: 225 _{5}_{ð} T T _{s} Þ
ð 14Þ
It should be noted that in twophase region, it could assume that T T _{s} . Therefore, speciﬁc enthalpy can be deﬁned as a function of steam pressure. The functions listed below estimate the speciﬁc enthalpy of water/steam in vapor phase for the pressure range in 3.8–4.83 MPa.
h _{g} ¼ 0: 48465587 ð1000 p 5Þ ^{2} þ 6:47301169 ð 1000p 5Þ þ 2560: 91238452
h _{g} ¼ 1: 82709298 ð100p 2Þ ^{2} þ 17: 40365447 ð100p 2Þ þ 2606 :680821285
h _{g} ¼ 0: 50205745 ð 100p 12 Þ ^{2} þ 6: 64525736 ð100p 12Þ þ 2679: 80609322 0: 0683 MPa < p < 0: 13 MPa
h _{g} ¼ 2: 07829396 ð10p 3Þ ^{2} þ 25: 01448122 ð 10p 3Þ þ 2704: 84920557 0: 195 MPa < p < 0: 301 MPa
h _{g} ¼ 0: 49047808 ð10p 8Þ ^{2} þ 10: 48902998 ð10p 8Þ þ 2740 :0576451 0: 432 MPa < p < 0: 830 MPa
h _{g} ¼ 0: 21681424 ð10p 14 : 5Þ ^{2} þ 6:13049409 ð 10p 14 :5Þ þ 2771: 18901288
h _{g} ¼ 0: 08217055 ð10p 29 Þ ^{2} þ 3: 07429644 ð 10p 29 Þ þ 2816: 82024234
1: 471 MPa < p < 2: 945 MPa
0: 753 MPa < p < 1:466 MPa
0: 0038 MPa < p < 0 :0068 MPa
0: 0180 MPa < p < 0 :0459 MPa
h _{g} ¼ 0: 11673499 ð10p 48 Þ ^{2} þ 0: 13784178 ð 10p 48 Þ þ 2862: 43339472
2: 388 MPa < p < 4: 83 MPa
ð 15Þ
3.2.3. Speciﬁc entropy, liquid phase
The optimized functions for estimating speciﬁc entropy of water/steam in liquid phase based on steam pressure where p p _{s} are as follows:
s _{f} ¼ 0: 27490714 ð 1000pÞ ^{0} ^{:}^{6}^{0}^{2}^{6}^{5}^{4}^{9}^{9} 0: 22865089 0: 0038 MPa < p < 0: 0068 MPa
s _{f} ¼ 1: 26673390 ð100pÞ ^{0} ^{:} ^{1}^{7}^{8}^{5}^{3}^{9}^{5}^{9} 0: 61703122
0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa
s _{f} ¼ 0: 92671704 ð 100pÞ ^{0}^{:} ^{1}^{4}^{3}^{2}^{3}^{9}^{2}^{5} 0 :03660477
0: 0683 MPa < p < 0: 13 MPa
3.2.4. Speciﬁc entropy, vapor phase
ð 16Þ
In addition, the following function is presented for estimating speciﬁc entropy of water/steam in vapor phase.
2
6
0: 004p ^{1}^{:} ^{2}
sð p; T Þ ¼ s _{g} ðpÞ 4 ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
3: 025 10 ^{1}^{:} ^{1} ð T þ 46Þ ^{5} p ^{2}
q
_{þ} 0: 00006 ﬃﬃﬃ
p
p
3
7
4: 125 10 ^{} ^{6} T þ 0: 0053 _{5}_{ð} T T _{s} Þ
ð17Þ
The optimized functions to evaluate the speciﬁc entropy water/steam of phase vapor in the pressure range between 3.8 kPa and 0.301 MPa.
s _{g} ¼ 8:83064734 0: 12141594 ð 1000pÞ ^{0} ^{:}^{7}^{7}^{9}^{3}^{2}^{8}^{0}^{6} 0: 0038 MPa < p < 0: 0068 MPa
s _{g} ¼ 9:0863247 0: 96869236 ð 100pÞ ^{0} ^{:} ^{2}^{6}^{1}^{3}^{9}^{2}^{4}^{7} 0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa
s _{g} ¼ 8:36610497 0: 45436108 ð100p Þ ^{0} ^{:} ^{3}^{4}^{2}^{4}^{6}^{7}^{7}^{8}
s _{g} ¼ 7:42364087 0: 10328045 ð 10pÞ ^{1}^{:} ^{2}^{7}^{8}^{2}^{7}^{9}^{2}^{3} 0: 195 MPa < p < 0: 301 MPa
0: 0683 MPa < p < 0: 13 MPa
ð 18Þ
The proposed functions are depending on pressure and temperature of the steam and these variables are necessary to be deﬁned at deferent operational conditions. The steam temperature at each extraction stage is expressed as a function of en tered steam temperature. The proposed transfer functions for steam temperature at extraction stages are presented in Table 2 . It is possible to calculate the steam pressure at extractions as a function of the mass ﬂow through turbine stages. Here, it is recommended that the steam pressure be deﬁned as a function of steam pressure entered to turbine. As shown in Fig. 7 , the pressure drops across the turbine stages are approximately linear and can be deﬁned by ﬁrst order transfer functions. The proposed transfer functions for steam pressure at extraction stages are presented in Table 2 . In addition, the mass ﬂow rate through the turbine stages is sequentially decreased as by subtracting extracted steam ﬂow. The extraction ﬂow at each sec tion can be deﬁned as a function of entered steam ﬂow to turbine. As shown in Fig. 8 , the input–output steam ﬂow ratio at
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 
1153 

Table 2 Transfer function for steam pressure and temperature 

Output 
Temperature 
Pressure 

IP turbine 
Extraction 1 
^{0} ^{:} ^{8}^{6}^{1}^{5} 
0 
: 6097 

0 
: 3 s þ 1 
0 
: 3 s þ 1 

Extraction 2 
^{0} ^{:} ^{6}^{7}^{7}^{3}^{6} 
0 
: 30352 

0 
: 7 s þ 1 
0 : 7 s þ 1 

Extraction 3 
^{0} ^{:} ^{5}^{4}^{5}^{5} 
0 
: 1718 

1 
: 1 s þ 1 
1 
: 1 s þ 1 

LP turbine line 
^{0} ^{:} ^{5}^{4}^{6}^{6} 
0 
: 1718 

1 
: 4 s þ 1 
1 
: 4 s þ 1 

LP turbine 
Extraction 4 
^{0} ^{:} ^{6}^{3}^{0}^{7} 
0 
: 3627 

1 
: 5 s þ 1 ^{0} ^{:} ^{3}^{8}^{2}^{8} 
1 
: 5 s þ 1 

Extraction 5 
0 
: 1566 

1 
: 7 s þ 1 
1 
: 7 s þ 1 

Extraction 6 
^{0} ^{:} ^{2}^{6}^{7}^{5} 
0 
:0553 

1 
: 9 s þ 1 
1 
: 9 s þ 1 

Extraction 7 
0 
: 1219 
0 
: 0082 

2 
: 1 s þ 1 
2 
: 1 s þ 1 
Fig. 7. Steam pressure at extractions.
Fig. 8. The steam ﬂow rate at extractions.
1154
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
different load conditions, except 2nd extraction, are linear. However, considering a linear function of steam ﬂow rate is good enough to ﬁt the model response on the real experimental data. For the twophase region, the enthalpy of the extracted steam is depending on its quality. By considering expansion of steam in extraction chamber is an adiabatic process; the steam quality can be captured base on the steam entropy as follows:
Then,
s _{0} ¼ s _{f} þ x s _{f}_{g} ) x ¼ ^{s} ^{0} ^{} ^{s} ^{f}
_{s} fg
h ¼ h _{f} þ x h _{f}_{g}
ð 19Þ
ð20Þ
The steam entropy at twophase region (at ﬁfth, sixth and seventh extractions) is considered to be equal with steam entropy at fourth extraction (onephase region). The proposed model for twophase region is presented in Fig. 9 . The thermodynamic cycle for the steam turbine with seven extraction stages is shown in Fig. 10 . By considering steam expansion at turbine stages
Fig. 9. Enthalpy model for twophase region.
Fig. 10. Power plant cycle T – S diagram.
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
1155
be an ideal process, the energy equations for steam expansion in turbine, which relates the power output to steam energy declining across turbine stages can be captured. Therefore, the work done in IP turbine can be captured as follows:
W
^{0}
IP ^{¼}
m _{I}_{P} ðh _{I}_{P} h _{e}_{x}_{1} Þþð
_
m IP m ex1 Þðh ex1 h ex2 Þþð m IP
_
_
_
_
m ex1
m _{e}_{x}_{2} Þð h _{e}_{x}_{2} h _{e}_{x}_{3} Þ
_
Now, the performance index can be considered for IP turbine.
W _{I}_{P} ¼ g _{I}_{P} W ^{0}
_{I}_{P}
ð 21 Þ
ð 22 Þ
The LP turbine consists of four extraction levels. The work done in the LP turbine can be captured as follows:
where
W
_
^{0}
LP ^{¼}
m _{L}_{P} ðh _{L}_{P} h _{e}_{x}_{4} Þþð
þð
_
_
_
m LP m ex4 Þðh ex4 h ex5 Þþð m LP
_
_
_
_
m LP
_
m _ ex4 m ex5 m ex6 Þðh ex6 h ex7 Þ
_
_
m _{e}_{x}_{3} then,
_
m LP ¼ m IP
m ex1 m ex2
W _{L}_{P} ¼ g _{L}_{P} W ^{0}
_{L}_{P}
m _ ex4 m ex5 Þðh ex5 h ex6 Þ
_
ð
23 Þ
ð 24 Þ
The optimal values for efﬁciencies of IP and LP turbines are obtained 83.12% and 82.84%, respectively, which are ﬁtting tur bine model responses on the real system responses. The developed models for IP and LP turbines are presented in Fig. 11 . The overall generated mechanical power can be captured by summation of generated power in turbine stages as follows:
P _{m} ¼ W _{H}_{P} þ W _{I}_{P} þ W _{L}_{P}
3.3. Reheater model
ð 25 Þ
Reheater section is a very large heat exchanger, which has signiﬁcant thermal capacity and steam mass storage. The reheater dynamics increase nonlinearity and time delay of the turbine and should take into account as a part of turbine mod el. We have developed accurate Mathematical models for subsystems of a once through Benson type boiler based on the thermodynamics principles and energy balance, which are presented in [29,30] . The parameters of these models are deter mined either from constructional data such as fuel and water steam speciﬁcation, or by applying genetic algorithm tech niques on the experimental data. The proposed equations for the temperature model is as follows:
dT out
dt
¼
K 2 ðK 1
_
^{m} fuel ^{þ}
_
m _{i}_{n} ð T _{i}_{n} T _{o}_{u}_{t} þ B _{1} Þ þ B _{2} Þ
ð 26 Þ
In this model, the steam quality has signiﬁcant effects on output temperature and should be considered in related equations.
The transfer function for fuel ﬂow rate and steam quality is as follows:
a
9:45039 e 6
_{¼}
_
m
fuel
20s þ 1
ð
27 Þ
A modiﬁed version of the temperature model for the reheater sections is presented in Fig. 12 . According to the mass accu
mulation effects and by considering that the pressure loss due to change in ﬂow velocity is prevailing in the steam volume,
the ﬂowpressure model is presented as follows:
dp
^{p} ^{0}
¼
dt
s m _{v}
ð
_
m in
_
m _{o}_{u}_{t} Þ
ð 28 Þ
A model for the mass ﬂow responding to steam pressure changes is proposed by Borsi [38] . The swing of main steam ﬂow
strictly relies on the change of steam pressure as follows:
d
_
m
out
_
m
out0
dp
^{¼}
dt
^{2}^{ð} ^{p} in0 ^{} ^{p} out0 ^{Þ}
d
t
ð 29 Þ
In Fig. 13 , the ﬂowpressure model is presented. Generally, in power plants, the turbine inlet ﬂow is controlled by a governor
or control valves to response to the grid frequency. Therefore, when this valve is acting, there is an interaction between steam pressure and ﬂow. When the control valve opening is completed, the pressure ﬂuctuation is removed and the swing of steam ﬂow tends to zero. The adjusted parameters of the developed models are presented in Table 3 . The reheater temperatures must be kept constant at speciﬁc temperature. The spray attemperators is implemented be
tween reheater sections to control outlet temperature. The attemperator has a relatively small volume and then its mass storage is negligible. In addition, it is considered that there is no pressure drop in this section. Then, the inlet temperature
of the second reheater, T _{o}_{u}_{t} is governed by the following equation [39] .
DT out ¼ ^{1}
_{C} _{p} Dh out ¼ ^{ð}
C
p
_
m
out
h in
h out Þ
D
_
m out þ
_
m
in
_
m
out
DT _{i}_{n} ^{ð}
h in
h spray Þ
C
p
_
m
out
D
_
m spray
ð 30Þ
where m _{i}_{n} is inlet steam ﬂow, h _{i}_{n} is speciﬁc enthalpy of inlet steam h _{s}_{p}_{r}_{a}_{y} is speciﬁc enthalpy of water spray. The conﬁgura
_
tion of reheater section is presented in Fig. 14 .
1156
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
3.4. Generator model
Fig. 11. IP and LPturbine model.
The turbinegenerator speed is described by the equation of motion of the machine rotor, which relates the system inertia to deference of the mechanical and electrical torque on the rotor.
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 
1157 



Fig. 12. Temperature model for the reheater section. 

Fig. 13. Flowpressure model K 3 ¼ ^{P} ^{0} _{m} _{v} ; K 4 ¼ _ ^{m} out0 

Table 3 Parameters for reheater model 
s 
2 ð P _{i}_{n}_{0} P _{o}_{u}_{t}_{0} Þ 
. 

B 1 
B 2 
K 1 
K 2 
K 3 
K 4 

Reheater a 
0.1706 
6.2893 
2.41e 3 3.77e 4 
1.06e 2 1.06e 2 
0.0128 0.0128 
36.0257 

Reheater b 
0.1315 
15.723 
36.0257 
Fig. 14. Reheater conﬁguration.
1158
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
Fig. 15. Overall turbine and generator models.
d
P _{m} P _{e} ¼ M _{d}_{t} _{ð}_{D}_{x} _{m} Þ
ð 31Þ
where M = J x _{m}_{,} which is called inertia constant. In the steam turbines, the mechanical torqueses of the prime movers for large generators are function of speed. It is noted that the frequency control of a generator is generally investigated in two main situations. In the ﬁrst case, the generator is in the islanded operation and feeding load to the electrical grid. In this case, actions of the frequency control would be in steady state conditions, where the system is running as a regulated machine. In the regulated machines, the speed mechanism is responsible for the steam turbine throttle valves controlling. Therefore, in order to stabilize overall system, the frequency should be controlled with respect to the speed droop characteristics [40] . The regulation equation is derived as follows,
then,
1
ðx x _{0} Þ _{D} þ ð Tr _{m} Tr _{m}_{0} Þ ¼ 0
P _{m} ﬃ Tr _{m} x _{0} ¼ P _{m}_{0} ð x _{0} = DÞ Dx
ð
32Þ
ð 33Þ
In the second case, the generator is part of a large interconnected system or be connected to an inﬁnite bus. In this case, the turbine controller regulates only the power, not the frequency. While the machine is not under an active governor con trol and running at unregulated conditions, the torquespeed characteristics can be considered linear over a limited range as follows,
Tr _{m} ¼ P _{m} =x
ð 34Þ
For each case, the electrical power ( P _{e} ) can be captured in term of terminal voltage ( V ), machine excitation voltage ( U ), direct axis synchronous reactance ( x ), and the rotor angle ( d ) as follows,
P _{e} ¼ ðUV =xÞ sinð dÞ
ð 35Þ
The transient response of the machines are particularly investigated for turbine overspeed and load rejection conditions, where P _{e} = 0. It is noted that no difference is declared for the characteristics of transient and steady state conditions of unreg ulated machines in the literature and therefore, Eq. (34) can be also used for the transient conditions [41] . In addition, it is recommended that the term of losses in rotating system be considered in Eq. (31) to complete the gen erator model, which is presented in Eq. (36).
P L ¼ P L0
x
x
0
2
ð
36Þ
The proposed model for the turbine and generator is presented in Fig. 15 .
4. Simulation results
In this section, responses of proposed functions for estimating the thermodynamic properties of water steam are ﬁrst compared with standard data, in order to show their accuracy. In this regard, the responses of proposed functions for speciﬁc enthalpy (extraction no. 1) and speciﬁc entropy (extraction no. 4) are presented as examples at different temperatures and pressures, which are shown in Figs. 16 and 17 , respectively. In addition, we deﬁne the error as the difference between the response of the proposed functions and standard values to evaluate the error functions. In Table 4 the error functions are listed as; upper bound error Max( j e j ), lower bound error Min( j e j ), mean absolute error MAE, average absolute deviation AAD (e) and correlation coefﬁcient R ^{2} (e). The developed model for turbine is simulated by using Matlab Simulink . In order to validate the accuracy and performance of the developed model, a comparison between the responses of the proposed model and the responses of the real plant is performed. The load response in steady state and transient conditions over an operation range between 50% and 100% of nominal load is shown in Fig. 18 to illustrate the behavior of the turbinegenerator system. Simulation results indicate that
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 
1159 



Fig. 16. Responses of enthalpy function at different temperatures and pressures (extraction 1). 



Fig. 17. Responses of entropy function at different temperatures and pressures (extraction 4). 

Table 4 Thermodynamic property error function 

Max ( j e j ) 
Min ( j e j ) 
MAE 
AAD (e) 
R ^{2} (e) 

Enthalpy for Ext. 1 Entropy for Ext. 4 
0. 8182 
2.213e 4 1.101e 4 
0.4014 
1.0884e 4 5.3533e 4 
0.9982 
0.0095 
0.0041 
0.9977 
Fig. 18. Response of the turbinegenerator.
the response of the developed model is very close to the response of the real system such that the maximum difference be tween the response of the actual system and the proposed model is much less than 0.3%. The predicted values are plotted via real system response to subscribe the accuracy of developed models ( Fig. 19 ). In addition, by deﬁning the error as the dif
1160
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
Fig. 19. Predicted values via real system response.
Table 5 Turbine modeling error
ference between the response of the actual plant and the responses of the model, the error functions are evaluated in order to validate the accuracy of developed model, which are presented in Table 5 .
5. Conclusion
Developing nonlinear mathematical models based on system identiﬁcation approaches during normal operation with out any external excitation or disruption is always a hard effort. Assuming that parametric models are available, in this case, using soft computing methods would be helpful in order to adjust model parameters over full range of input–out put operational data. In this paper, based on energy balance, thermodynamic state conversion and semiempirical rela tions, different parametric models are developed for the steam turbine subsections. In this case, it is possible the model parameters are either determined by empirical relations or they are adjusted by applying genetic algorithms as optimi zation method. Comparison between the responses of the turbinegenerator model with the responses of real system validates the accu racy of the proposed model in steady state and transient conditions. The presented turbinegenerator model can be used for control system design synthesis, performing realtime simulations and monitoring desired states in order to have safe oper ation of a turbinegenerator particularly during abnormal conditions such as load rejection or turbine overspeed. The further model improvements will make the turbinegenerator model proper to be used in emergency control system designing.
Appendix A. Optimization Parameters for GA
HP turbine 
IP and LP turbine 
Functions 

Population size 
20 
50 
100 
Crossover rate 
0.7 
0.7 
0.8 
Mutation rate 
0.1 
0.1 
0.2 
Generations 
50 
100 
2500 
Selecting 
Stochastic uniform Elite count: 2 

Reproduction 
Appendix B. Linking simulink and GA toolbox
It is mentioned that the MATLAB Simulink is able to read parameters from speciﬁed location on disk. Here, an example for a model with two parameters is presented.
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
1161
Appendix C. Saturation pressure as a function of temperature
The proposed functions for estimating the steam saturation pressure, p _{s} , for the range of 89.965 C to 373.253 C are pre sented below.
p _{s} ¼
p s ¼ p s ¼
p s ¼
p s ¼
T
þ57 : 0
236: 2315
T
þ28: 0
207: 9248
T
þ5: 0
185: 0779
T
þ16 : 0
195: 1819
T
þ50: 0
277: 2963
^{} ^{5}^{:}
^{6}^{0}^{2}^{9}^{7}^{2}
89: 965 ^{} C 6 T 6 139: 781 ^{} C
^{} ^{4}^{:}
^{} ^{4}^{:}
^{7}^{7}^{8}^{5}^{0}^{4}
^{3}^{0}^{4}^{3}^{7}^{6}
139: 781 ^{} C 6 T 6 203: 622 ^{} C
203:622 ^{} C 6 T 6 299: 40 ^{} C
^{} ^{4}^{:} ^{4}^{6}^{0}^{8}^{4}^{3} 299: 407 ^{} C 6 T 6 355: 636 ^{} C
^{} ^{4}^{:} ^{9}^{6}^{0}^{7}^{8}^{5}
355: 636 ^{} C 6 T 6 373: 253 ^{} C
where, the modeling error is less than 0.02% [37] . It should be noted it is not necessary to estimate saturation pressure for twophase region.
Appendix D. Saturation temperature as a function of pressure
The proposed functions for estimating the steam saturation temperature, T _{s} , in the range of 0.070 to 21.85 MPa are pre sented as follows:
T 
_{s} ¼ 236: 2315p ^{0}^{:} ^{1}^{7}^{8}^{4}^{7}^{6}^{7} 57: 0 
0: 070 MPa 6 p 6 0: 359 MPa 
T 
_{s} ¼ 207: 9248p ^{0} ^{:} ^{2}^{0}^{9}^{2}^{7}^{0}^{5} 28 : 0 
0: 359 MPa 6 p 6 1: 676 MPa 
T 
_{s} ¼ 158: 0779p ^{0} ^{:} ^{2}^{3}^{2}^{3}^{2}^{1}^{7} 5: 0 
1:676 MPa 6 p 6 8: 511 MPa 
T 
_{s} ¼ 195: 1819p ^{0}^{:} ^{2}^{2}^{4}^{1}^{7}^{2}^{9} 16: 00 8:511 MPa 6 p 6 17: 690 MPa 

T 
_{s} ¼ 227: 2963p ^{0}^{:} ^{2}^{0}^{1}^{5}^{8}^{1} 50: 00 17: 690 MPa 6 p 6 21: 850 MPa 
where, the modeling error is less than 0.02% [37] . It should be noted it is not necessary to estimate saturation temperature for twophase region.
References
[1] W.C. Tsai, T.P. Tsao, C. Chyn, A nonlinear model for the analysis of the turbinegenerator vibrations including the design of a ﬂywheel damper, Electrical Power and Energy Systems 19 (1997) 469–479. [2] C.K. Weng, A. Ray, X. Dai, Modeling of power plant dynamics and uncertainties for robust control synthesis, Application of Mathematical Modeling 20 (1996) 501–512. [3] P. Hejzlar, O. Ubra, J. Ambroz, A computer program for transient analysis of steam turbinegenerator overspeed, Nuclear Engineering and Design 144 (1993) 469–485. [4] IEEE Committee Report, Dynamic Models for Steam and Hydro Turbines in Power System Studies, IEEE Power Engineering Society, Winter Meeting, NY,
1973.
[5] P.V.G. Shankar, Simulation model of a nuclear reactor turbine, Nuclear Engineering and Design 44 (1977) 269–277. [6] K.C. Kalnitsky, H.G. Kwatny, A ﬁrst principle model for steam turbine control analysis, ASME Journal of Dynamic System Measurement and Control 103 (1981) 61–68. [7] K.L. Dobbins, A dynamic model of the turbine cycle of a power plant for startup, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1985. [8] D.W. Auckland, R. Shunleworth, Y.A. A1Turki, Micromachine model for the simulation of turbine generators, IEE Proceedings 134 (1987) 265–271.
1162
A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162
[9] IEEE PES Working Group, Hydraulic Turbine and Turbine Control Models for System Dynamic, IEEE Transaction on Power System 7 (1992) 167–174. [10] H. Anglart, S. Andersson, R. Jadrny, BWR steam line and turbine model with multiple piping capability, Nuclear Engineering and Design 137 (1992)
1–10.
[11] L.N. Hannett, J.W. Feltes, Testing and model validation for combinedcycle power plants, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting 2 (2001)
664–670.
[12] A. Ray, Dynamic modeling of power plant turbines for controller design, Application of Mathematical Modelling 4 (1980) 109–112. [13] H. Habbi, M. Zelmata, B. Ould Bouamama, A dynamic fuzzy model for a drum boilerturbine system, Automatica 39 (2003) 1213–1219. [14] M. Nagpal, A. Moshref, G.K. Morison, P. Kundur, Experience with testing and modeling of gas turbines, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting 2 (2001) 652–656. [15] N. Chiras, C. Evans, D. Rees, Nonlinear gas turbine modeling using NARMAX structures, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 50
(2001) 893–898. [16] F. Jurado, M. Valverde, M. Ortega, A method for the identiﬁcation of microturbines using a Hammerstein model, Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering 1 (2005) 1970–1973. [17] M. Jelavic, N. Peric, I. Petrovic, Identiﬁcation of wind turbine model for controller design, Twelfth International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference 1 (2006) 1608–1613. [18] A.M. Kler, A.S. Maksimov, E.L. Stepanova, Highspeed mathematical models of cogeneration steam turbines: optimization of operation at heat and power plants, Journal ThermoPhysics and Aeromechanics 13 (2006) 141–148. [19] M. Wang, N.F. Thornhill, B. Huang, Closedloop identiﬁcation with a quantizer, Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 729–740. [20] U. Forssell, L. Ljung, Closedloop identiﬁcation revisited, Automatica 35 (1999) 215–1241. [21] J.F. MacGregor, D.T. Fogal, Closedloop identiﬁcation: the role of the noise model and preﬁlters, Journal of Process Control 5 (1995) 163–171. [22] G.J. Gray, D.J. MurraySmith, Y. Li, K.C. Sharman, T. Weinbrunner, Nonlinear model structure identiﬁcation using genetic programming, Control Engineering Practice 6 (1998) 1341–1352. [23] D. Whitley, An overview of evolutionary algorithm: practical issues and common pitfalls, Information and Software Technology 43 (2001) 817–831. [24] J.L.C. Chapot, F.C. Da Silva, R. Schirru, A new approach to the use of genetic algorithms to solve the pressurized water reactor’s fuel management optimization problem, Annals of Nuclear Energy 26 (1999) 641–655. [25] P.J. Fleming, R.C. Purshouse, Evolutionary algorithms in control systems engineering: a survey, Control Engineering Practice 10 (2002) 1223–1241. [26] G. Duan, Y. Yu, Problemspeciﬁc genetic algorithm for power transmission system planning, Electric Power Systems Research 61 (2002) 41–50. [27] C.M.N.A. Pereira, C.M.F. Lapa, Parallel island genetic algorithm applied to a nuclear power plant auxiliary feedwater system surveillance tests policy optimization, Annals of Nuclear Energy 30 (2003) 1665–1675. [28] T. Jiejuan, M. Dingyuan, X. Dazhi, A genetic algorithm solution for a nuclear power plant riskcost maintenance model, Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 81–89. [29] A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari, S.A.A. Moosavian, A simulated model for a oncethrough boiler by parameter adjustment based on genetic algorithms, Simulation Modeling Practice and Theory 15 (2007) 1029–1051. [30] A. Ghaffari, A. Chaibakhsh, H. Parsa, An optimization approach based on genetic algorithm for modeling Benson type boiler, in: American Control Conference, New York, USA, 2007, pp. 4860–4865. [31] A. Stodola, Steam and Gas Turbine, vol. 1, Peter Smith, New York, 1945. [32] D.H. Brereton, Approximate equations for the properties of dry steam from a generalization of Callendar’s equation, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 4 (1983) 27–30. [33] A.P. Firla, Approximate computational formulas for the fast calculation of heavy water thermodynamic properties, in: Symposium of simulation of reactor dynamics and plant control, Saint John, New Brunswick, 1984. [34] W.J. Garland, J.D. Hoskins, Approximate functions for the fast calculation of light water properties at saturation, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 14 (1988) 333–348. [35] W.C. Muller, Fast and accurate water and steam properties programs for twophase ﬂow calculations, Nuclear Engineering and Design 149 (1994) 449–
458.
[36] J.L.M. Fernandes, Fast evaluation of thermodynamic properties of steam, Applied Thermal Engineering 16 (1996) 71–79. [37] W.J. Garland, B.J. Hand, Simple functions for the fast approximation of light water thermodynamic properties, Nuclear Engineering and Design 113 (1989) 21–34. [38] L. Borsi, Extended linear mathematical model of a power station unit with a oncethrough boiler, Siemens Forschungs und Entwicklingsberichte 3 (1974) 274–280. [39] C. Maffezzoni, Boilerturbine dynamics in power plant control, Control Engineering Practice 5 (1997) 301–312. [40] S.B. Crary, Power System Stability, vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 1947. [41] P.M. Anderson, A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability, second ed., Wiley, New York, 2003.
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.