Boiler Effects on Steam Turbine Response

James W. Feltes, Johnny R. Willis

Power Technologies, Inc.
Schenectady, New York
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the effects of the boiler and associated controls on the power response of steam
turbines following sudden imbalances in load and generation. The paper reviews a commonly used turbinegovernor model for steam turbines, especially with regard to its assumptions regarding boiler response. Then a
model structure for a boiler and controls is described, as well as the most common control philosophies such as
boiler-follow, turbine-follow, coordinated control, and variable pressure. Finally, to illustrate the differences in
response in boiler control strategies, as well as to compare their response with the more simplified model,
simulations on an example system are presented and discussed.
Introduction
Simulation studies of frequency transients in a power system following sudden load/generation unbalance are
used to help identify spinning reserve requirements, load shedding, and governor response requirements. Since
the main interest is frequency dynamics, of particular importance to the accuracy of simulations are governor and
prime mover modeling. This paper examines one facet of the response of steam turbines that is often overlooked
in simulation studies: the effect of boiler pressure.
Governor/Prime Mover Models
A typical governor model for steam turbines has two main sections, the governor and steam control valve, whose
output is effective control valve area in response to speed deviation of the machine, and a section modeling the
turbine, whose input is steam flow and output is mechanical power applied to the generator rotor. (Such a
model, based on IEEE recommendations [1], is PTIs PSS/E model IEEEG1.) Figure 1 shows this basic model.
Speed
Governor Control and
Deviation
Steam Valve

Control Valve
Area

Steam
Turbine

Mechanical
Power

( = Steam Flow)

FIGURE 1: Model Assuming Throttle Constant Pressure (Infinite Steam Source)

This model assumes that steam flow and valve position are the same, that is, the steam pressure, often called
throttle pressure, is assumed to be 1.0 per-unit under all conditions. This model also implies (1) that the boiler
can maintain constant pressure to the control valve regardless of its steam output, and (2) that this pressure is at
100% of rated pressure regardless of whether the unit is at full load or partial load. In reality, of course, boilers
are not true constant pressure devices and may not be operating at full pressure under all conditions.
A more accurate model of the steam flow relationship with valve area and throttle pressure would look like
Figure 2. In this model, steam flow to the turbine is the product of valve area and throttle pressure. Thus, if
throttle pressure drops due to an increased demand in steam flow, the valve area must further increase to
maintain the same flow as compared with the simplified model.

Speed
Deviation

Governor Control
and
Steam Valve

Control
Valve
Position

Mechanical
Power

Steam
Flow

Steam Turbine
Steam Pressure at Control Valve
(Throttle Pressure)

FIGURE 2: Model Including Effect of Pressure Deviations (Finite Boiler)

A model that incorporates this effect, and allows for modeling of the effects of boiler dynamics on throttle
pressure, is the PSS/E TGOV5 model [2]. A block diagram of this model is shown in Figure 3. The governor
model is similar to the IEEEG1 model. Proper selection of the time constants and gains allows the modeling of
the reheater and intermediate and low-pressure turbine effects. It can be used for tandem and cross-compound
units. The valve has rate (velocity) limits as well as position (area) limits. However, steam flow is proportional
to the product of throttle pressure and valve area rather than just proportional to valve position as in the standard
governor models. The variables of the governor that interface with the other portions of the model are Po (load
reference of the governor), PT (throttle pressure) and ms (steam flow). The additional boiler controls will handle
practically any mode of control including conventional (boiler-follow), turbine-follow, coordinated optimal, and
variable pressure. The control mode is selected by the proper choice of constants.

K(1 + sT2)

SPEEDHP

1 + sT 1

UO
1
T3

1
s

Demand

Desired
MW

C2
+

K13

+
-

+
-

1
1 + sT7

+
+

K8
+
+

PMECHLP
PM2

PO

K14

S
RMIN

LMIN

KL

PE (pressure error)
Deadband

.
ms

PE

PE

+
C3

PM1

K7

K6

PMECHLP

LMAX

RMAX

PSP

K4
+
+

K12
+

1
1 + sT6

K2

1 + sTMW

K5

KMW

1 + sT5

PELEC

K3

.
ms

1 + sT4

PT

VMIN

MW

UC

Po

+
K1

VMAX
+
-

Po
CMIN
Controller
KI(1 + sT I)(1 + sT R)
s(1 + sTR1)

PE

PSP
+
-

CMIN
+

x
PT

PD
Fuel Dynamics
+

K11

K10

-sTD
(1 + sT F) (1 + sT W)

Desired
MW

K9

1
CBs
+

C1
+

.
ms

.
ms

Figure 3. PSS/E Model TGOV5, IEEE Type 1 Speed-Governing Model Modified

To Include Boiler Controls
Boiler Control Modes
There are four basic boiler/turbine control strategies [3]:
1. Conventional Control (Boiler-Follow). Most conventional drum-type steam units are operated in the boiler
follow mode, where changes in generation are initiated by the turbine control valves responding to change in
load reference or machine speed. The boiler controls respond with the necessary control action upon sensing the
resulting changes in steam flow and deviations in pressure. In this mode the turbine can draw on the stored
energy in the boiler and load changes within reasonable magnitudes can occur with fairly rapid response. The
use of the TGOV5 model for conventional control, simplified to show only the active controls, is shown in
Figure 4.

The load reference of the governor, Po is fixed based on the initial loading of the unit (it could be adjusted based
on external signals such as modeling of AGC pulsing). Drum pressure, PD , is proportional to the integral of
steam generation less steam flow out of the boiler, ms. Throttle pressure, PT , is equal to drum pressure less a
pressure drop across superheaters and steam leads. This pressure drop varies as square of steam flow and also
with density of steam. [4,5]
Steam generation is controlled by the inputs to the boiler (fuel and air) which are driven by a three-mode
controller. In conventional control, the fuel is controlled to correct the pressure error, the difference between
throttle pressure and the pressure setpoint (rated pressure or 1.0 per unit). The three-mode controller includes
controller limits and can be adjusted to model manual or two mode control. Time delay in the fuel system is
modeled as it can be very significant, especially for coal-fired units.
2. Turbine-Follow. The turbine follow mode involves use of the turbine control valves to regulate boiler
pressure. This method can be done with practically no time delay so that boiler pressure suffers virtually no
transient deviations. Stored energy in the boiler is not used. Steam flow through the turbine and, therefore,
turbine power follows closely the amount of steam generation, i.e., the input to the boiler. The response of
turbine power is considerably slower than conventional control.
Implementation of turbine follow control using the TGOV5 model is shown in Figure 5. Fuel is no longer
controlled by pressure error but by a desired MW signal. A MW demand signal (fixed based on the initial
loading of the unit unless adjusted based on external signals such as modeling of AGC pulsing) is modified by a
frequency deviation bias, B, usually matching the units governor droop, 1/K, to form the desired MW signal.
As well as being the input to the fuel controls this desired MW signal is summed with a pressure error signal and
the power reference to form a MW error which is integrated to move the load reference Po, modeling the turbine
speed changer.
3. Coordinated Optimal. The coordinated optimal mode recognizes the advantages and disadvantages of the
conventional and turbine follow modes and the need for varying degrees of compromise between the desire for
fast response to load changes and the desire for boiler safety and good quality of control of steam conditions.
The implementation of this approach using the TGOV5 model structure is shown in Figure 6.
The MW demand signal is modified by a frequency deviation bias matching the units governor droop
characteristic to develop the desired MW. Comparison with the units actual output develops the MW error. The
desired MW signal may be sent to the boiler controls. Turbine-speed changer position is directed to reduce a
combination of MW error and pressure error to zero while the boiler controls are directed to reduce the pressure
error to zero. Depending on the cross-coupling strength between pressure and MW loops, the load response can
be adjusted to any degree between that of the conventional and turbine follow modes.
4. Variable Pressure. In the variable pressure (or often called sliding pressure) control mode, the pressure set
point is proportional to MW demand. The pressure error between set point and actual throttle pressure drives
steam generation through the fuel controls. The amount of coupling, if any, that occurs between the demand
signal and the turbine control valve position is selected based on the plants control philosophy. One
implementation of variable pressure control using the TGOV5 model structure is shown in Figure 7.
Thus the TGOV5 model can simulate each of these control strategies by judicious setting of the model gains.
Actual plant controls could be variants of the standard control philosophies or combinations of them. The
documentation further describing the above model in reference 2 gives data for typical boiler control methods
such a boiler-follow, turbine-follow, coordinated, and variable pressure for gas/oil and coal fired units.
Availability of Data
The data necessary to model the boiler and controls is rarely available. However, it is usually known under
which control mode a unit operates, e.g., boiler-follow. It is often preferable, in such cases, to represent boiler
response with typical data rather than ignore an important effect due to lack of data. Also, a number of key
parameters, such as boiler storage time constant (CB) and pressure drop coefficient C1 can often be estimated
from on-line measurements of unit response during system disturbances, or from staged tests.

.
m

Governor

Valve

PMECH

Turbine

+
PT

Po

PELEC

REF

MW

Demand

Governor

Valve

.
ms

MW
C2

PMECH

LMAX

RMAX

Desired

1
S

K14

RMIN

PO

LMIN

Turbine

PE (pressure error)

PT

Po

Deadband
.
ms

P
E

PE

.
ms

PSP

PT

P
E

CMIN

Controller
KI(1 + sT I)(1 + sT R)
s(1 + sTR1)

PSP
+
-

PE

-sTD
(1 + sTF) (1 + sT W )

C1

.
ms

Valve

(1 + sTF) (1 + sTW)

K1
1

Figure 5. Turbine Follow Control Using the

TGOV5 Model

PMECH

Turbine

.
ms

Governor

PT

Po

.
ms

Desired MW

.
ms

-sTD

Figure 4. Conventional (Boiler Follow) Control

using the TGOV5 Model

1
CBs

Fuel Dynamics

Governor

CBs

Fuel Dynamics

+
PD

C1

CMIN

+
PD

PT

Valve

PMECH

Turbine

+
PT

Po
PELEC

f
KMW

MW

1 + sTMW

Desired

MW

Demand
C2

LMAX

RMAX

K14

MW

PO

RMIN

MW
C2

LMIN

Desired

Demand

x
+
PE (pressure error)

K12

PE
PE

Deadband

.
ms

K13
PE (pressure error)
Deadband

PSP

.
ms

PE

Po

CMIN

PSP
Controller

CMIN

PT

PE

C1

-sTD

K9

PD
+

CBs

CBs

C1

Fuel Dynamics

Fuel Dynamics

.
ms

(1 + sTF) (1 + sTW)

Figure 6.

PT

CMIN

PD

s(1 + sTR1)

PE

CMIN

KI(1 + sTI)(1 + sTR)

s(1 + sTR1)

PSP
Controller

KI(1 + sTI)(1 + sTR)

Coordinated Optimal Control

Using the TGOV5 Model

-sTD

.
ms

(1 + sTF) (1 + sTW )

Figure 7. Variable Pressure Control Using the

TGOV5 Model

Simulation Examples
To illustrate these points, loss of generation using a small example case was simulated. A single unit in the
system is tripped when carrying about 7% of the total system generation; all remaining units are assumed to be
steam units. Of these units, one is at about half-load, while the others are near full load but still with some MW
reserve to respond to frequency disturbances. Frequency dependence of network parameters is modeled.
Frequency dependence of loads and underfrequency load shedding are not, to more clearly show the effects of
the boiler controls. (Normally these would be modeled in actual studies).
In the first simulation, all steam governor/turbines were modeled using the "standard" IEEEG1 model; thus all
units are at 100% boiler pressure regardless of load, and throttle pressure will remain constant regardless of
steam flow. In the second simulation, the TGOV5 model was used for all units to allow for variations in throttle
pressure, and control constants were chosen to represent "boiler-follow" control. In this control method, the
steam valve position changes to increase steam flow and turbine power to arrest machine speed deviations
without concern for the effects of the increased steam flow on boiler pressure. It is up the boiler controls to
adjust fuel input to maintain pressure, and thus the boiler "follows" the change in turbine power. Thus, in the
second simulation, the control strategy for moving the valve is the same as in the first, but the difference is that
boiler pressure will not be constant. In the third simulation, all units were modeled in a turbine-follow control
mode as discussed above. In the fourth and final simulation, the partially loaded unit is modeled with TGOV5
using the "variable pressure" control constants; at partial load the pressure is assumed to be lower than at full
load (70% versus 100%), thus the steam valve must be open much more to achieve the same steam flow; other
units are modeled with boiler-follow controls. The frequency deviation at a system bus for the various
simulations is shown in Figure 8.

60.2

Without Boiler Model

60
Frequency (Hz)

59.8
59.6
59.4

Boiler-follow

59.2

Turbine-follow

59
58.8

Variable pressure on one unit,

others boiler follow

58.6
58.4
58.2
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Tim e (seconds)

FIGURE 8: Effect of Boiler Modeling on Frequency for Example System with 7% Loss of Generation
The minimum frequency and maximum frequency deviation for each simulation are given in the table below:
Boiler Control Mode
Without Boiler Model
Boiler-follow
Turbine-follow
Variable pressure (one unit)

Minimum Frequency
59.34 Hz
59.20 Hz
59.20 Hz
58.35 Hz

Max. Frequency Deviation

- 0.66 Hz
- 0.80 Hz
- 0.80 Hz
- 1.65 Hz

Note that there is a difference in the lowest frequency reached with and without the boiler models. For the
boiler-follow and turbine-follow controls, this is primarily due to throttle pressure drop due to the increase in
steam flow as shown in Figure 9 below. This has an effect similar to a reduction in governor gain and is
overcome only as the boiler controls respond to restore pressure. Also, note that the response of the system
frequency is much slower when all units are under turbine-follow control when compared with boiler-follow.
The second dip in frequency seen in Figure 8 when boiler effects are modeled is often seen in recordings of

actual disturbances resulting from significant generation/load imbalances, and is usually due to this pressure drop
effect on the steam units.

1.05

Throttle Pressure (p.u.)

1
0.95
0.9

Without
Boiler
Model

0.85
0.8
0.75

Turbinefollow

Boilerfollow

Variable
pressure

0.7
0.65
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Tim e (seconds)

FIGURE 9: Comparison of Throttle Pressure for Part-Load Unit

Under Different Boiler Models
When the unit with the most reserve is on variable pressure control, the magnitude of the frequency drop
increases from 0.80 Hz to 1.65 Hertz. Because the pressure is reduced for part-load operation, the units control
valve has much less margin for opening and thus cannot contribute as effectively to spinning reserve as under
boiler-follow. Figure 10 shows the movement of the control valve of this unit, and its mechanical power for both
boiler-follow and variable pressure control. The Figure shows that under variable pressure control, the valve is
limited in its travel since it is almost fully open, whereas under boiler-follow control it does not reach its limit.
The boiler-follow controls, with high initial steam pressure, can use the storage energy in the boiler to arrest
frequency decay while the variable pressure controls have no such capability. Thus the boiler-follow unit
provides better spinning reserve response at the cost of the lower efficiency resulting from throttling the units
control valve.

P.U. Valve or Mechanical Power

0.95

Valve Movement
with Boiler-follow

0.85

Mechanical Power with

Boiler-follow

0.75

Valve Movement
with Variable
pressure

0.65

Mechanical Power with Variable Pressure

0.55
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Tim e (seconds)

FIGURE 10: Comparison of Valve Movement and Mechanical Power for Part-Loaded Unit
for Boiler-Follow and Variable Pressure Control
One final simulation shows the effect of load limiting under boiler-follow control. Under load limiting, a units
controls do not allow excessive movement of the units control valve under governor control. This is often
necessary because rapid, large variations in valve position can lead to transients in the boiler which may make

operation difficult and could even lead to boiler trip. In this simulation, valve limits are set to be 10% above the
initial operating point (subject to a ultimate limit of 0.9 p.u. on machine MVA base) to model this effect. Figure
11 compares the system frequency transient for the loss of generation under three control assumptions: using a
standard IEEE governor model (boiler is not modeled and assumed to provide constant pressure at 100%),
boiler-follow, and finally boiler-follow with load limiting. In this example, only the two units with the largest
MW reserve were affected by load limiting as the other units were already near their maximum valve opening.
The figure illustrates the importance of modeling load limiting at steam plants as its effect on a units response in
providing MW reserve can be very significant.

60.2

Without Boiler Model

Frequency (Hz)

60
59.8
59.6

Boiler-follow

59.4
59.2

Boiler-follow
with load limiting

59
58.8
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Tim e (seconds)

FIGURE 11: Frequency Transient in Example System Showing the Effect

of Load Limiting Under Boiler-Follow Control
Conclusions
This paper discusses the effects of the boiler and its associated controls on steam turbine power response.
Simulations on an example system compare the response of common boiler control methods such as boilerfollow, turbine-follow, and variable pressure (or sliding pressure). Of special importance is the demonstration
that the common assumption in steam turbine-governor models of a constant-pressure steam source, that is,
ignoring boiler limitations, can lead to optimistic results in studies of load/generation imbalances.

Appendix I
Parameters:
K
T1 & T2
T3
Uo
Uc
VMAX
VMIN
T4
T5, T6, & T7
K1, K3, K5, & K7
K2, K4, K6, & K8
K9
K10
K11
K12
K13
K14
RMAX
RMIN
LMAX
LMIN
C1
C2
C3
B
CB
KI
TI
TR
TR1
CMAX
CMIN
TD
TF
TW
Psp
TMW
KL
KMW
DPe

The following is an explanation of the model constants:

Description:
The inverse of the governor speed droop.
The governor controller lag and lead time constants (sec).
The valve servomotor time constant for the control valves (sec).
The control valve open rate limit (per unit/sec).
The control valve close rate limit (per unit/sec).
The maximum valve area (per unit).
The minimum valve area (per unit).
The steam flow time constant (sec).
The first and second reheater time constants, and the crossover time constant. They may be set to zero if
all steps are not necessary: i.e., no second reheat stage.
The fractions of the HP units mechanical power developed by the various turbine stages. The sum of
these constants should be one for a non-cross-compound unit.
Similar fractions of the LP units mechanical power. These fractions should be zero for a non-crosscompound unit. For a cross-compound unit, the sum of K1 through K8 should equal one.
The adjustment to the pressure drop coefficient as a function of drum pressure.
The gain of anticipation signal from main stream flow.
The gain of anticipation signal from load demand.
The gain for pressure error bias.
The gain between MW demand and pressure set point.
Inverse of load reference servomotor time constant (= 0.0 if load reference does not change).
The load reference positive rate of change limit (per unit/sec).
The load reference negative rate of change limit (per unit/sec).
The maximum load reference.
The minimum load reference.
The pressure drop coefficient.
The gain for the pressure error bias.
The adjustment to the pressure set point.
The frequency bias for load reference control.
The boiler storage time constant (sec).
The controller integral gain.
The controller proportional lead time constant (sec).
The controller rate lead time constant (sec).
The inherent lag associated with lead TR(usually about TR/10) (sec).
The maximum controller output.
The minimum controller output.
The time delay in the fuel supply system (sec).
The fuel and air system time constant (sec).
The water wall time constant (sec).
The initial throttle pressure set point.
The MW transducer time constant (sec).
The feedback gain from the load reference (0.0 or 1.0).
The gain of the MW transducer (0.0 or 1.0).
The deadband in the pressure error signal for load reference control (per unit pressure).

References:
1.

IEEE Committee Report Dynamic Models for Steam and Hydro Turbines in Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-92, pp. 1904-1915, 1973.

2.

PSS/E Program Application Guide, Power Technologies, Inc., Vol. II, pp. 22-12 - 22-18, 1998

3.

"MW Response of Fossil-Fueled Steam Units," IEEE Working Group on Power Plant Response to Load
Changes, F.P. de Mello (Chairman), Joint Power Generation Conference, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-92, No. 2, March/April 1973, pp. 455-463.

4.

"Dynamic Models for Fossil Fueled Steam Units in Power System Studies", Working Group on Prime
Mover and Energy Supply Models for System Dynamic Performance Studies, F.P. de Mello (Chairman),
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1991, p. 753.

5.

F. P. de Mello, "Boiler Models for System Dynamic Performance Studies," IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 1991, pp. 66-74.