Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Simulation

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat

Theory journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat Steam turbine model Ali Chaibakhsh, Ali Ghaffari *

Steam turbine model

Ali Chaibakhsh, Ali Ghaffari *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Pardis Street, Vanak Square, P.O. Box 19395-1999, 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

Semi-empirical 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 semi-empirical 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 low-pressure turbines where, in the sub-cooled 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 turbine-generator 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 real-time 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 un-modeled dynamics and parametric uncertainties [2,3] . A vast collection of models is developed for long-term 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. E-mail address: ghaffari@kntu.ac.ir (A. Ghaffari).

1569-190X/$ - 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

D-axis 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

low-pressure

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 semi-empirical 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 low-pressure turbines where, in the sub-cooled 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 once-through Benson type boiler is considered for the modeling approach. The steam turbine comprises high, intermediate and low-pressure 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 high-pressure 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 high-pressure (HP) turbine. The input steam pressure drops about 0.5 MPa by passing through the turbine chest system. The entered steam expands in the high-pressure turbine and is discharged into the cold reheater line. At the full load con- ditions, the output temperature and pressure of the high-pressure 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 de-superheating 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 IP-turbine for‘ the last stage expansion is fed into the low-pressure (LP) turbine. The input temperature and pressure of the low-pressure 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 de-aerator. Also, extracted steam from last IP and LP extractions are used for feedwater heating in a train of low-pressure heaters. The very low-pressure 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, semi-empirical 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

for individual components, which are simple empirical relations Fig. 1. Steam turbine configuration and extraction.

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 on-line or based on recorded data in simulation space ( Appendix B ).

3.1. HP-turbine model

The high-pressure 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.

in Fig. 3 indicates the accuracy of the defined constant. Fig. 2. Mass flow rate versos

Fig. 2. Mass flow rate versos k .

accuracy of the defined constant. Fig. 2. Mass flow rate versos k . Fig. 3. Response

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 HP-turbine 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 HP ¼ g HP

m in ð h in h out Þ ¼ g HP C p m in ð T in T out Þ

_

_

ð 5Þ

m i n ð T i n T o u t Þ _ _ ð 5

Fig. 4. Pressure ratio of the HP-turbine cylinder input and output.

Þ _ _ ð 5 Þ Fig. 4. Pressure ratio of the HP-turbine cylinder input and

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 HP ¼ g HP C p

_

m in

T in T in

p

out

p

in

ð

k

1

k

Þ ! ¼ g HP C p m in ðT in 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 well-designed 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 HP = 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 in 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 low-pressure 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 sub-cooled 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].

widely used in nuclear power plant applications [32–36] . Fig. 6. HP-turbine model ( B =

Fig. 6. HP-turbine model ( B = 273.15, K 1 = 520, K 2 = 1.927 10 3 , f ( u )=[ u (1)/u (2)] 0.2137 ).

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 thermal-hydraulic 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 sub-cooled and superheated regions [37] . The approximation functions for the thermodynamic properties in sub-cooled 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 sub-ranges. 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 low-pressure 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

169 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 two-phase 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: 60497549 þ 19 : 30060027

h f ¼ 194: 57965086 ð 100pÞ 0: 33190979 þ 1: 73249442 0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa

h f ¼ 258: 51219036 ð 100pÞ 0: 17513608 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: 28 e 0 : 008ð T 162Þ 100

T

3

7

2: 225 5ð T T s Þ

ð 14Þ

It should be noted that in two-phase 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 :60265499 0: 22865089 0: 0038 MPa < p < 0: 0068 MPa

s f ¼ 1: 26673390 ð100pÞ 0 : 17853959 0: 61703122

0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa

s f ¼ 0: 92671704 ð 100pÞ 0: 14323925 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 5ð 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 :77932806 0: 0038 MPa < p < 0: 0068 MPa

s g ¼ 9:0863247 0: 96869236 ð 100pÞ 0 : 26139247 0: 0180 MPa < p < 0: 0459 MPa

s g ¼ 8:36610497 0: 45436108 ð100p Þ 0 : 34246778

s g ¼ 7:42364087 0: 10328045 ð 10pÞ 1: 27827923 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 : 8615

0

: 6097

0

: 3 s þ 1

0

: 3 s þ 1

 

Extraction 2

0 : 67736

0

: 30352

0

: 7 s þ 1

0

: 7 s þ 1

Extraction 3

0 : 5455

0

: 1718

1

: 1 s þ 1

1

: 1 s þ 1

LP turbine line

0 : 5466

0

: 1718

1

: 4 s þ 1

1

: 4 s þ 1

LP turbine

Extraction 4

0 : 6307

0

: 3627

1

: 5 s þ 1 0 : 3828

1

: 5 s þ 1

 

Extraction 5

0

: 1566

1

: 7 s þ 1

1

: 7 s þ 1

Extraction 6

0 : 2675

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

0 : 0082 2 : 1 s þ 1 2 : 1 s þ 1 Fig.

Fig. 7. Steam pressure at extractions.

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 two-phase 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 fg ) x ¼ s 0 s f

s fg

h ¼ h f þ x h fg

ð 19Þ

ð20Þ

The steam entropy at two-phase region (at fifth, sixth and seventh extractions) is considered to be equal with steam entropy at fourth extraction (one-phase region). The proposed model for two-phase 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. 10 . By considering steam expansion at turbine stages Fig. 9. Enthalpy model for two-phase

Fig. 9. Enthalpy model for two-phase region.

expansion at turbine stages Fig. 9. Enthalpy model for two-phase region. Fig. 10. Power plant cycle

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 IP ðh IP h ex1 Þþð

_

m IP m ex1 Þðh ex1 h ex2 Þþð m IP

_

_

_

_

m ex1

m ex2 Þð h ex2 h ex3 Þ

_

Now, the performance index can be considered for IP turbine.

W IP ¼ g IP W 0

IP

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 LP ðh LP h ex4 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 ex3 then,

_

m LP ¼ m IP

m ex1 m ex2

W LP ¼ g LP W 0

LP

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 HP þ W IP þ W LP

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 in ð T in T out 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 flow-pressure model is presented as follows:

dp

p 0

¼

dt

s m v

ð

_

m in

_

m out 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

2ð p in0 p out0 Þ

d

t

ð 29 Þ

In Fig. 13 , the flow-pressure 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 out 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 in ð

h in

h spray Þ

C

p

_

m

out

D

_

m spray

ð 30Þ

where m in is inlet steam flow, h in is specific enthalpy of inlet steam h spray is specific enthalpy of water spray. The configura-

_

1156

A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 3.4. Generator model Fig. 11. IP and LP-turbine model.

3.4. Generator model

Fig. 11. IP and LP-turbine model.

The turbine-generator 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

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 1157   Fig. 12. Temperature model for the reheater
 

Fig. 12. Temperature model for the reheater section.

 
 
Fig. 13. Flow-pressure model K 3 ¼ P 0 m v ; K 4 ¼

Fig. 13. Flow-pressure model K 3 ¼ P 0 m v ; K 4 ¼

_

m

out0

Table 3 Parameters for reheater model

s

2 ð P in0 P out0 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

1.06e 2 0.0128 0.0128 36.0257 Reheater b 0.1315 15.723 36.0257 Fig. 14. Reheater configuration.

Fig. 14. Reheater configuration.

1158

A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 Fig. 15. Overall turbine and generator models. d P

Fig. 15. Overall turbine and generator models.

d

P m P e ¼ M dt ðDx 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 m0 Þ ¼ 0

P m Tr m x 0 ¼ P m0 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 torque-speed 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 over-speed 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 turbine-generator 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

4 5.3533e 4 0.9982 0.0095 0.0041 0.9977 Fig. 18. Response of the turbine-generator. the response of

Fig. 18. Response of the turbine-generator.

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

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 Fig. 19. Predicted values via real system response. Table

Fig. 19. Predicted values via real system response.

Table 5 Turbine modeling error

Max ( j e j ) Min ( j e j ) MAE AAD (e)
Max ( j e j )
Min ( j e j )
MAE
AAD (e)
R 2 (e)
Power
1.6324
3.3156e 5
0.8988
0.0026
0.9988

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 semi-empirical 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 turbine-generator model with the responses of real system validates the accu- racy of the proposed model in steady state and transient conditions. The presented turbine-generator model can be used for control system design synthesis, performing real-time simulations and monitoring desired states in order to have safe oper- ation of a turbine-generator particularly during abnormal conditions such as load rejection or turbine over-speed. The further model improvements will make the turbine-generator 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

Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 1145–1162 1161 Appendix C. Saturation pressure as a function of

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:

602972

89: 965 C 6 T 6 139: 781 C

4:

4:

778504

304376

139: 781 C 6 T 6 203: 622 C

203:622 C 6 T 6 299: 40 C

4: 460843 299: 407 C 6 T 6 355: 636 C

4: 960785

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 two-phase 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: 1784767 57: 0

0: 070 MPa 6 p 6 0: 359 MPa

T

s ¼ 207: 9248p 0 : 2092705 28 : 0

0: 359 MPa 6 p 6 1: 676 MPa

T

s ¼ 158: 0779p 0 : 2323217 5: 0

1:676 MPa 6 p 6 8: 511 MPa

T

s ¼ 195: 1819p 0: 2241729 16: 00 8:511 MPa 6 p 6 17: 690 MPa

T

s ¼ 227: 2963p 0: 201581 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 two-phase region.

References

[1] W.C. Tsai, T.P. Tsao, C. Chyn, A nonlinear model for the analysis of the turbine-generator 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 turbine-generator over-speed, 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. A1-Turki, Micro-machine 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 combined-cycle 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 boiler-turbine 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 micro-turbines 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, High-speed mathematical models of cogeneration steam turbines: optimization of operation at heat and power plants, Journal Thermo-Physics and Aeromechanics 13 (2006) 141–148. [19] M. Wang, N.F. Thornhill, B. Huang, Closed-loop identification with a quantizer, Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 729–740. [20] U. Forssell, L. Ljung, Closed-loop identification revisited, Automatica 35 (1999) 215–1241. [21] J.F. MacGregor, D.T. Fogal, Closed-loop identification: the role of the noise model and pre-filters, Journal of Process Control 5 (1995) 163–171. [22] G.J. Gray, D.J. Murray-Smith, 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, Problem-specific 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 risk-cost maintenance model, Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 81–89. [29] A. Chaibakhsh, A. Ghaffari, S.A.A. Moosavian, A simulated model for a once-through 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 two-phase 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 once-through boiler, Siemens Forschungs und Entwicklingsberichte 3 (1974) 274–280. [39] C. Maffezzoni, Boiler-turbine 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.