This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385

www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

A PDE model of a waterwalls steam generation process

Miguel A. Delgadillo a,∗ , Dionisio A. Suárez a,1 , Jaime A. Moreno b,2
a Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas, Calle Reforma 113 Col. Palmira, 62490 Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
b Instituto de ingenierı́a, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Edificio 12, Circuito Exterior, Coyoacán 04510, México DF, Mexico

Received 22 January 2007; received in revised form 10 April 2008; accepted 2 July 2008
Available online 9 August 2008

Abstract

This paper describes a model of a forced circulation waterwalls steam generator, derived from first principles. The distributed parameter criteria
were applied to the heat transfer process and to the steam production inside the waterwalls. The model is capable of representing swell and shrink
effects as well as the condensation–vaporization phenomena that take place inside the waterwall tubes, when large drum steam pressure variations
are introduced. The swell and shrink effects are responsible for water displacement from the waterwalls to the drum and from the drum to the
waterwalls. Open loop simulated test were produced with the steam pressure disturbance. Closed loop tests, including the models of the drum
level and the combustion system and their control systems are presented.
c 2008 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steam generator; Dynamic modeling; Simulation; Swell and shrink

1. Introduction
The “Termoeléctrica Francisco Pérez Rı́os” is a Combustion
Engineering (Canada) boiler, wall-fired type, radiant and
pressurized furnace; forced water circulation, oil and gas fueled
with tangential burners. This power plant was designed to
generate 300 MW. A frequent source of power plant instabilities
is the so-called swell and shrink effects in the waterwalls of
steam generators. Therefore, these effects are studied in here.
1.1. Historical background
In the literature surveyed, the steam generators dynamics
has been studied for almost 50 years. Some of these
studies, where simplified models were obtained, are: Chien
et al. [18]; Speedy–Goodwin [19], McDonald–Kwantny [20];
Herget–Park [27] and Åström–Eklund [5]. Other works for
coal fired units are Kwan and Anderson [26] and Armor
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 777 3623811x7725; fax: +52 777
3623811x2100.
E-mail addresses: madv@iie.org.mx (M.A. Delgadillo),
suarez@iie.org.mx (D.A. Suárez), JMorenoP@ii.unam.mx (J.A. Moreno).
1 Tel.: +52 777 3623811x7286; fax: +52 777 3623811x2110.
2 Tel.: +52 55 5623 3600x8811; fax: +52 55 5623 3681.
et al. [28]; the first one applies the distributed properties along
the waterwall tubes in a linearized model solution and the
second presents a module modeled system but no equation was
shown. Maffezzoni [22] proposes that the two-phase flow in
the evaporator of a steam generator may be treated as a single
homogeneous phase with equivalent average fluid properties. In
the study of Ferrarini–Maffezzoni [23] the partial differential
equations (PDE) of heat exchangers, is proposed. However,
none of the studies included the swell and shrink effects.
Once-through boiler models are presented in Lausterer
et al. [29] where the two-phase flow were studied; however,
in this type of boilers there is not a drum level to be studied.
In conventional power plants (with wall fired furnace) Flynn-
O’Malley [8] developed a lumped model for risers (waterwalls)
with a linear distribution of steam quality; however, they stated
a general overview analysis without distinction of the different
parts of the processes and equipment, that is, global mass and
energy balances were applied. Maffezzoni, references [9,10],
stated a model from global mass and energy balances; and
Lu [21] gives an example of a dynamic simulation for a coal
and gas fired power plant. Therefore, in these jobs, a distributed
parameter analysis was avoided.
Some other researchers have avoided stating models from
first principles since they consider such analysis to be complex.
Habbi et al. [11] derived a fuzzy logic application of power

c 2008 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0019-0578/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2008.07.002
 Author's personal copy
M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385
plant control. Kallappa [12] developed a supervisory controller
with rule-based expert knowledge. These models are valid only
in the short ranges that were stated.
1.2. Background for the swell and shrink phenomena
Some papers that study the swell and shrink effects on
nuclear plants like: Zhao et al. [13] who proposed a first order
lag expression to represent the swell and shrink effect, and
Kothare et al. [14] where a non-minimum phase term was
introduced in a first order lag. Also, for nuclear power plants
Dai–Thompson [15] developed a neural network to model the
dynamic behavior of level. Habibiyan et al. [16] proposed a
water level controller for a “U” tubes steam generator using
neural networks. Lin–Lin [17] developed a neural network
application on a nuclear reactor steam generator using a
multilayer perceptron feedforward neural network.
Some works that studied the swell and shrink ef-
fects in fossil-fueled power plants are: Åström–Bell [1]
analytically treated the swell and shrink effect, and a
condensation–boiling equation was obtained. In the work of
Aleksandrova–Davydov [7] a simplified boiler model, applying
global energy and mass balances, is developed. Åström–Bell [2]
presents a comparison with plant experiments data, of model
simulation results. Bell–Åström [4] presents results of valida-
tion of a forth order model. Finally, in Åström–Bell [3] an
empirical equation is added to the model stated before in ref-
erence [2], that accounts for “the steam flow through the liquid
surface in the drum”. However, all these models were stated
with the same considerations of global mass and energy bal-
ances and linear distribution of water–steam mass ratio along
the risers.
1.3. The paper approach
In spite of so many papers that deal with swell and shrink
effects, none of them, to our knowledge, applies a distributed
parameter analysis with the effect of water displacement from
the waterwalls to the drum and vice versa. Moreover, in these
studies there is no clear distinction between the swell and shrink
effects, as a consequence of the water–steam mixture heating,
and boiling–condensation effect due to steam pressure changes.
In this paper, a nonlinear model based on physical principles is
obtained. The distributed parameter analysis is applied to study
the heat transfer in the furnace and, through the waterwalls, to
the water–steam mixture. Also, a detailed analysis of the water
displacement due to the additional bubble formation during
a heating change, or because of a drum pressure change, is
applied.
2. Swell, shrink, boiling and condensation effects
Fig. 1 is a schema of the real plant showing the main
components of the steam generator. The feedwater enters the
drum and the circulation pump sucks the water from the drum.
After that, the water is distributed in the waterwall tubes in the
furnace where the fuel combustion takes place heating the water
375
Fig. 1. Heat transfer and boiling effect in the waterwalls of a steam generator.
entering the waterwalls, at about 50 K below the saturation
temperature. When a sudden generator load rejection takes
place and the control system reacts closing the steam control
valve, a large increase of the drum pressure occurs. Then, the
instantaneous condensation of the steam inside the waterwall
tubes takes place. An increase in the drum pressure makes the
control system react closing the fuel valve, and then producing
a reduction of the drum pressure; therefore, boiling of water
in the waterwall tubes takes place. The sudden condensation
or boiling produces water displacement from the drum to the
waterwalls, or from the waterwalls to the drum respectively.
Therefore, the condensation–boiling phenomena may produce
large drum level variation.
Besides, waterwalls heating produces a fixed water–steam
ratio; therefore, if heating is increased, the steam proportion
in the water–steam mixture increases also. This is called swell
effect. Moreover, additional bubbling inside the waterwalls
tubes is produced and these bubbles push water from the
waterwalls into the drum. On the contrary, a reduction of
the heating rate results in a reduction of the steam in
the water–steam mixture which means a reduction in steam
volume. This phenomena is called shrink effect, which sucks
water from the drum to the waterwalls.
On the other hand, if the heating flow rate remains constant
but a drum depressurization occurs changing the equilibrium
point, then the new water enthalpy value is below its former
value, before the pressure change. Then, the exceeding heat is
set free by evaporating the liquid water needed to reach the new
enthalpy value. At the same time, the depressurization process
also produces steam condensation due to steam expansion.
As an issue of swell–shrink and boiling–condensation effects,
when the steam flow to the turbine is increased, the drum steam
pressure decreases causing the level to initially rise instead of
falling as should be expected from the mass balance in the
drum. A decrease in the steam flow rate leads to an opposite
effect of collapsing the steam bubbles as a consequence of
increasing the pressure in the drum.
 Author's personal copy

376 M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385

Fig. 2. Lamber’s law applied to flame radiation in the furnace.

3. The process model

3.1. Assumptions

The main assumptions for developing the model are: (a) Fig. 3. Control volume of combustion gases in the furnace.
the same pressure along the waterwall tubes is assumed since
the pressure difference between the top and the bottom of emissivity, εH2 O , are the only considered combustion gases
these tubes is approximately 38,000 Pa; (b) perfect mixing of radiation. Then, it follows that:
water–steam mixture is reasonable since there is a turbulent
flow inside the waterwall tubes; (c) The slip between phases 1Q CO2 H2 O
complicates the analysis due to the difference in the steam and " 4  4 #
Tgh T pw
= τ εCO2 + εH2 O A Ltc 1Z .


water velocities. Refs. [22,18,8]; state that the slip between −
phases, in power plant boilers, “is negligible in practice”. The 100 100
same consideration is made hereby; (d) the phase changes from
A heat balance in a control volume in the furnace, Fig. 3,
liquid to steam and vice versa, are so fast compared to the
gives us:
dominant lags of heat transfer; that thermodynamic equilibrium
may be stated; (e) The gases pressure change and the gases Heat flow input of Heat flow output of
flow in the furnace are not the main aims in the present hot gases to the con- − hot gases from the
work. Therefore, the inertia of hot gases is neglected; (f) the trol volume control volume
steam generator is a tube wall furnace, therefore equidistant
waterwalls may be assumed; (g) the steam generator is a forced Heat rate transferred
Accumulation rate of
circulation type with a constant velocity pump, then it follows by flame and gases
− = thermal energy in the .
that a constant flow in the waterwalls input is reasonable. radiation to the wa-
control volume
terwalls
3.2. Steam generation analysis The thermal energy drop through the waterwall tubes is
C p g G g 1Tgh , therefore:
3.2.1. Energy balance in the furnace "  #
∂ Tgh Tgh 4 T pw 4
 
In accord with Lambert’s cosine law, see reference [24],
 the K εCO2 + εH2 O


 −C pg G g − −
flame radiation is stated as 1Q = σ cos θ T f − T pw 1A,
4 4 ∂Z 100 100
where σ is the Stefan–Boltzman constant, T f is the flame
" 4  4 #
Tfh T pw K
temperature, T pw the waterwall tubes temperature, the radiation − − q
100 100 2
area is A = L1Z , and changing the cos θ (see Fig. 2), by its rh + Z 2
equivalent, it follows that:
∂ Tgh ∂ρg
 
k = A T h C pg ρg + Tgh (1)
∂t ∂t
 
1Q = q T f4 − T pw
4
1Z
rh2 + Z 2 where A T h is the cross sectional area of the furnace (see Fig. 3).

where k = Lσ . The heat transfer is carried out mainly

by flame and hot gas radiation in the furnace. Gases radiation 3.2.2. Waterwall tubes temperature
of oxygen and nitrogen are negligible, see reference [24], A heat balance from the hot combustion gases to the wall of
therefore the carbon dioxide emissivity, εCO2 and water vapor the waterwalls gives us:
 Author's personal copy

M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385 377

   4 
Tf 4 T pw 4 Tgh 4
    
T Pw
q K K εCO2 + εH2 O − h pw A Ltc T pw − TL



100 − 100 + 100 − 100
∂ T pw rh2 +Z 2
=
∂t Aan L n t C p pw ρ p

Box I.

Fig. 4. Control volume for the thermal energy transferred to the water–steam
mixture. Fig. 5. Control volume for mass balance of the water–steam mixture in the
waterwalls.
Rate of accumulated Input of thermal en-
3.2.4. Mass balance inside the waterwalls
thermal energy in the ergy flow of flame
= A mass balance in the water–steam mixture in the control
waterwall tubes in and gases radiation to
the control volume the control volume volume, see Fig. 5, give us:
Water–steam mixture
Heat flow transferred Accumulating rate of
= flow that inputs the
through the water- water–steam mixture
− . control volume
wall tubes in the con-
trol volume Water–steam mixture
Water flow displaced
Since the heat transferred through the waterwall tubes is − flow that leaves the −
by the steam
h pw A Ltc (T pw − TL ), it follows the equation in Box I. control volume

Water flow socked

3.2.3. Energy balance inside the waterwalls
by bubble collaps-
Fig. 4 shows the thermal energy transferred by the wall of − .
ing due condensing
the waterwall tubes, then:
steam
Heat flow transferred
Heat flow that
to the water–steam 1Mmac 

+ receives the water– = − 1G m |CtrlVol − 1G ldc |CtrlVol
mixture through the 1t CtrlVol
steam mixture
waterwall tubes
− 1G ldei |CtrlVol + 1G vcdo |CtrlVol . (4)
Heat flow with the Heat rate accumula-
The liquid mass displaced by heating, Mldc , depends on
water–steam mixture tion in the water–
− = . the water density, ρ L , and on the steam volume generated
that leaves the con- steam mixture in the
by heating, Vvc , that is, Mldc = ρ L Vvc . Since Vvc may be
trol volume control volume
substituted by its equivalent Mvc /ρv ; then, by differentiating
the resulting equation with respect to time, assuming ρ L
h pw Atc T pw − TL 1Z − 1 (G m Hm )


constant, we obtain:
A T t n t 1Z 1 (ρm Hm )
= , hence: ρL Mvc ∂ρv
1t G ldc = G vc − ρ L 2 . (5)

∂ Hm ∂G m ρv ρv ∂t
h pw Atc T pw − TL − G m − Hm
∂Z ∂Z In the same way, the water flow generated due to water
∂ Hm ∂ρm
 
boiling when depressurization takes place, G ldei , is calculated
= A T t n t ρm + Hm . (2)
∂t ∂t considering that the mass of the displaced liquid, Mldei , depends
on the displaced volume, Vvei , which is calculated as Mvei /ρv ,
The steam mass fraction may be calculated as follows then we obtain:
Hm Lv − HL ρL Mvei ∂ρv
Xv = . (3) G ldei = G vei − ρ L 2 . (6)
Hv − HL ρv ρv ∂t
 Author's personal copy

378 M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385

h i
dρm [ρv + X v (ρ L − ρv )] ρ L dρ
dt
v
− ρv ρ L (1 − X v ) dρv
dt + (ρ L − ρv ) dX v
dt
=
dt [ρv + X v (ρ L − ρv )]2

Box II.

The mass balance of the steam inside the waterwalls results Saturated water en-
as follows: Saturated water en-
thalpy at time “t”
thalpy at time “t” be- −
∂ Mvac just after depressur-
fore depressurization
= G vc + G vei − G vcdo . (7) ization at time t + 1t
∂t
Here, the accumulated steam mass is Mvac = Mvc + Mvei − Thermal energy used
Mvcdo , then, by substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) in (4) and using for mass water boil-
= .
Eq. (7), we obtain: ing due to depressur-
ization
∂ Mmac ρ L ∂ Mvac ρL
 
= ∂G m − + G vcdo 1 − −1 (M L HL ) = G vei (HV − HL ) 1t| Ctrol
∂t ρv ∂t ρv Vol.
(14)
1 ∂ρv But the mass of water is M L = 1Z A T t n t ρm (1 − X v ); then
+ (Mvac + Mcdo ) . (8)
ρv2 ∂t Eq. (14) give us:
But 1 ∂G vei
AT t nt ∂ Z
∂ Mmac ∂ρm
= AT t nt ∂ Z . (9) ρm HL ∂∂tX v − ρm (1 − X V ) ∂ ∂t
HL
− HL (1 − X V ) ∂ρ∂tm
∂t ∂t = . (15)
Hv − HL
And since the accumulated steam mass is Mvac = Steam condensation also takes place when depressurization
1Z A T t n t ρm X v , and applying the derivative with respect to occurs and it may be evaluated in the same way as the boiling
time to this equation: effect. Therefore, the thermal energy balance is:
∂ Mvac ∂ρm ∂ Xv
 
= ∂ Z AT t nt X v + ρm . (10) −1 (Mvs Hvs ) = G vcdo (HV − HL ) 1t| Vol . (16)
∂t ∂t ∂t
Ctrol

But, the steam mass is Mvs = 1Z A T t n t ρm X v ; hence, by

But since the water–steam mixture flow is G m = G lr + substitution of Eq. (16), we obtain:
G vei − G vcdo , and since circulation flow; G lr , is constant, then
1 ∂G vcdo
the derivative of this equation is:
AT t nt ∂ Z
∂G m ∂G vei ∂G vcdo ∂ρm
= − . (11) −ρm Hvs ∂∂tX v − ρm X V ∂ H vs
∂t − Hvs X v ∂t
∂Z ∂Z ∂Z = . (17)
Hvs − HL
Then by substituting equations (9) and (10) into (8), and
using (11), then we obtain:
3.3. Drum level and steam pressure
∂ρm ρL ρm ρ L ∂ X v
 
1+ Xv +
∂t ρv ρv ∂t Drum level. The drum is a horizontal cylindrical vessel with el-
1

∂G vei ρ L ∂G vcdo

X v ρm ρ L ∂ρv liptical covers. The volumes for the horizontal cylindrical, Vcy ,
= − + (12) and that of the
 covers, Vellq , are level (N D ) functions as follows:
AT t nt ∂Z ρv ∂ Z ρv2 ∂t  
ND
Vcy = L D (N D − r D ) 2N D r D N D + r D cos
2 2 −1 1 − rD
where (∂ Mvcdo /∂ Z ),is considered negligible. The mixture  
density, ρm , is as follows: and the covers Vcll = Ccll N D 2 3D − N
2 D D .

ρv ρ L A mass balance, accounting for the total water volume

ρm = . (13) (Vcy , +Vell ), see Fig. 1, gives:
ρv + X v (ρ L − ρv )
dN D G m (1 − X v ) − G lr + G f w
By differentiating this equation with respect to time, we =  .
dt
q
obtain Box II. ρL 2L D D D N D − N D 2 + C N (D − N )
1 D D D

(18)
3.2.5. Instant boiling and condensation
The bulk water boiling, during depressurization, may be Drum steam pressure. We assume that a variation of pressure
evaluated as follows: does not generate steam condensation or water vaporization in
 Author's personal copy

M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385 379

the drum (see Fig. 1).

d (E vacD MvacD )
= G m Lv X vs Hvs − G voD Hvs . (19)
dt
The saturated steam enthalpy Hvs , and specific volume Svs ,
are drum pressure functions, and since the internal energy
E vacD , may be expressed as E vacD = Hvs − Pvs Svs , therefore:
dM
dPvs Pvs Svs dtvacD
= 2

(20)
dt Vvac K 1 + K 2 Pvs + K 3 Pvs
where the K ’s constants are K 1 = C12 − C21 , K 2 =
2(C13 −2C22 ) and K 3 = −3C23 . The steam mass balance gives:
dMvacD
= G m X vs − G ov D . (21)
dt

3.4. Combustion reaction and flame temperature

Since natural gas composition (mainly methane and ethane) Fig. 6. Three element feedwater control system.
is known, this fuel was used. The NOx production appears
typically in coal reaction and in accordance to reference [30]
NOx reactions do not have a worthy effect in the flame
temperature. Moreover, air pollution, including the production
of CO is out of the scope of the present work. Then the
combustion reaction is as follows:
CH4 + C2 H6 + 11/2O2 = 3CO2 + 5H2 O.
Taking a volume of gases with a fixed mass, inside the
furnace, the energy balance gives:
dT f h
dt
G c a J + G air C peair (Teair − T0 ) η f − C pg f G gc T f h − T0


= (22)
C pg f Macgh

where the natural gas as fuel flow, G c , is a function of valve

opening, Yc , and pressure difference:
q
2 .
G c = C f c Yc Pic2 − Pgh (23)
Fig. 7. Combustion control system.
The mass ratio of actual fuel to the stoichiometric fuel mass
a is evaluated as 4. Drum level and combustion control systems
G ceq
a= . (24) The three element typical level control system, see Fig. 6,
Gc
was used to perform closed loop tests. This figure shows the
If a is equal to 1, this means that fuel is just the quantity
drum level, the feedwater flow and the steam flow signals
required to react with the oxygen in the air. If a is less than 1,
as inputs; here the controllers are in a standard cascade
then fuel is in excess. On the contrary, if a is bigger than 1,
arrangement of master and slave form; therefore, the master
then the air is in excess. The stoichiometric mass flow G ceq , is
controller output signal enters as the setpoint signal of the slave
calculated as:
controller.
G ceq = G O2 qc/O2 . (25) The combustion control system (see Fig. 7) has the steam
pressure signal as the controlled variable. The air flow signal
Here qc/O2 is the mass fuel ratio actually reacted with the is characterized by a function F(x) that consider the squared
stoichiometric oxygen, and the actual oxygen flow G O2 , is measurement of the air and the nonlinearity of the forced draft
proportional to the mass fraction of oxygen in the air (b): vane position with respect to the air delivered by the forced draft
G O2 = G air b. (26) fan. The fuel–air flow ratio is used as input in another controller
and the output of this controller is added as a feedforward signal
 Author's personal copy

380 M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385

Table 1 Table 2
Parameters at base load Initial conditions at base load
Parameter Value Parameter Value Variable Value Variable Value
AT h 314 m2 G lr 594.542 kg/s Gm 594.542 kg/s T pw 1049.34255 K
Altc 75.06 m2 /m J 33,782,026 J/kg G vei 0 kg/s Xv 0.43376954a
AT t 0.00114 m2 K 531.13 J/(ms K) G vcdo 0 kg/s ρ gc 1.418 kg/m3
b 0.01105 Adim. Lt 18.745 m HL 1,657,279.6425 J/kg. ρm 213.74482568 kg/m3a
Ccll 0.402 m rh 8.86 m Hm Lv 2,052,754.7993 J/kga ρL 592.8951 kg/m3
C pg 1287.2146 J/(kg K) nt 1254 Hv 2,568,996.84 J/kg ρv 116.496692 kg/m3
h pw 393.23 J/(s K) εCO2 0.150 1/m Pv D 16,551,765 Pa ∂ Tgc /∂ Z −33.23 K/m
G gc 293.2339 kg/s εH2 O 0.275 1/m Tgc 1,473.2 Ka ∂G vcdo /∂ Z 0 kg/(s m)
TL 623.26 K ∂G vei /∂ Z 0 kg/(s m)

with output of the master controller, the resulting signal sets the
air forced draft vanes position in accordance with the fuel–air
flow ratio; then, the air follows the fuel requirements.
Other side control systems, such as the steam temperature
and deareator level, are outside the scope of the present paper
since they do not contribute under a direct effect to the drum
pressure and level.
No formulation of the control systems is presented since they
are based on the well known standard form of PID. Also most of
the control valves and other parts of the process were omitted
for the sake of simplicity, although they were included in the
simulation tests. Some effort has been made to apply PDE in
control strategies. As examples of this are the references [31,
32]. Then, it may be useful to look for applications of the PDE
model, here presented, in control strategies of drum level and
combustion of steam generators.
5. Numerical solution
Some researchers, like Maffezzoni [22] and Ferrarini
–Maffezzoni, have found parasitic oscillations (Gibbs effect)
in solving PDE in the solution of heat transfer models stated
as PDE, when lumped parameter techniques are applied. The
Explicit Finite Difference (EFD) is a suitable method for a PDE
system having the same partial derivative in several equations.
Then, by applying the EFD (see reference [25]) method it
results in an algebraic linear differential equation system that
may be solved by a simultaneous solution. This procedure
has good stability if a proper integration step size is chosen;
therefore, the EFD method was applied on the steam generation
model solution. The integration step, for running the steam
generation module, was found by trial and error, beginning
with a reasonable step size and reducing it in each test until
the stability solution was obtained. Fig. 8 shows the steps for
solution.
Most coefficients of the system equations were obtained
from construction data of the “Central Termoeléctrica Fransisco
Pérez Rı́os” plant, located in Tula Mexico. However, some
constants were evaluated from steady state values of variables
at base load (100% of load), as the simulation starting point, see
Table 1 for the calculated parameters and Table 2 for the initial
conditions.
a Values distributed along variable Z are fixed for a initial linear distribution
for ρm and X v .
6. Simulation results
6.1. Open loop tests
The open loop tests applied to the steam generation model,
were performed as shown in Fig. 9. The drum pressure was
disturbed with the Agnesi function, Pvs = a 3 /(t 2 + a 2 ).
The effect of the pressure disturbance in the internal
variables is shown in graphs of Figs. 10–14. Each graph has
16 lines and each line corresponds to each piece in which the
whole waterwall tubes length was divided, and going from the
bottom to the top, the first line in the bottom corresponds to
the first piece of the tube. Fig. 10 shows the steam quality
and has a little descent when the pressure is going up, even
near the pressure top. Therefore, the effect in the steam quality
for ascending pressure is larger than in the case of descending
pressure. In Fig. 11 the boiling water flow, G vei , is shown.
In this case, this flow shows a descending trend for pressure
ascent, this means, that this flow must be subtracted from the
actual water–steam mixture flow G m . Fig. 12 shows the steam
condensate flow, G vcdo , with the contrary behavior to G vei
due to the fact that an increase in the drum pressure results
in an increase in condensation. Fig. 13 shows a reasonable
decrease in the water–steam mixture enthalpy when the drum
pressure increases; however, when the drum pressure decreases
a larger increase in the water–steam mixture enthalpy takes
place. In Fig. 14 the water–steam mixture flow shows a large
decrease (almost 150 kg/s) when the drum pressure increases
and a reasonable increase in this variable (less than 100 kg/s)
when the drum pressure decreases. Large movements of the
evaporated steam flow (Fig. 11) and in the mixture low G m
(Fig. 14) show the expected behavior in accordance with
operators reported performance when large pressure changes
take place in the drum.
6.2. Closed loop tests
Closed loop tests were applied to the complete model,
including the control strategy for the drum level and for
the steam pressure, as is shown in Fig. 15. Steam pressure
perturbations were introduced by first closing the steam throttle
valve (from 80 to 20%) and once the stability in all variables
was recovered, a sudden opening of the throttle valve returns
 Author's personal copy

M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385 381

Fig. 8. Flow chart for the steam generation equations system solution.

it to its original position (80%). Figure 16 shows the drum
pressure and the steam valve movements. It is clear that closing
the steam valve results in a more oscillatory behavior than that
shown when the valve position is back to the original position
(80%). This means that at low load the process stability is more
difficult than at high loads as was also found in papers [3,4,12].
Fig. 17 shows the drum level behavior when the steam valve is
closed to 20% position. Some reasonable oscillations may be
appreciated. When the steam valve goes back to its initial 80%
position, in the first part of the graph, the level shows a clearly
good stability. However, as the drum pressure is recovering
slowly, the drum level goes down due to the compressing effect.
Until the drum pressure goes down to its setpoint, the level
signal shows a very steep ascent due to the water vaporization;
then afterwards, almost instantaneously, the level falls to its
setpoint value.
The sudden drop in the drum level, about the time 1300 s
(see Fig. 17), is due to the continuous decrease in the water
flow that enters to the drum with the water–steam mixture this
flow is calculated as G m (1 − X v ) in Eq. (18), as it is shown in
 Author's personal copy
382 M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385
Fig. 9. Open loop test arrangement of the steam generation process model.
Fig. 10. Steam mass fraction (X v ) behavior.
Fig. 11. Evaporated steam flow (G vei ) behavior.
Fig. 18. Note that at the same time (1300 s) the minimum value
of this flow is reached. The level drop takes place in spite of
the continuous increase of the feedwater flow. When the drop
of the drum pressure is overcome (see Fig. 16), the drum level
is steeply recovering as it is shown on Fig. 17.
6.3. A plant run
In order to show the plant behavior when the drum pressure
changes, the Fig. 19 presents a plant run carried out on
November 3rd of 2006 in our Tula–Mexico plant (unit 1);
here, drum level and the combustion controls were in automatic
mode; therefore, this graph shows closed loop results where the
level control system reacts just after the drum level goes up
steeply. However it is clear that a drum pressure descent makes
Fig. 12. Condensate steam flow (G vcdo ) trajectory.
Fig. 13. Water–steam mixture enthalpy (Hm ) behavior.
the level go up, in accordance with the simulated response
(Fig. 14) that shows an increase of the water–steam mixture
flow that enters in the drum. A vertical line is added in Fig. 19
in order to show the time when the pressure descent starts. Note
that this pressure descent causes a drum feedwater flow increase
that contributes additionally to the drum level increase.
It has to be noted that the level trajectory in the graph agrees
with the expected behavior according to the mathematical
model; therefore, it may be considered as a qualitative
validation of the model here developed.
7. Conclusions
A detailed mathematical model for the steam generation
process in a power plant has been presented. A separate
analysis is applied to study each of the shrink, swell, condensate
and boiling effects that take place inside the waterwalls of a
steam generator of a power plant. The analysis accounts for
distribution of the water and steam mass and volume along the
waterwall tubes (distributed parameter criteria); that is, global
statements (lumped parameter) were avoided. Other studies are
 Author's personal copy
M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385
Fig. 14. Water–steam mixture flow (G m ) trajectory.
featured by global analysis to represent the swell and shrink
phenomena, see references [1–4,6–10].
An open loop simulation test, with steam pressure
disturbance, was applied to the steam generation process
module (represented by partial derivatives). The results show
congruence with the expected behavior of internal and output
variables (Figs. 10–14). Closed loop simulation tests were
applied to the steam generation module in conjunction with
the drum level, the combustion systems, as well as the
conventional control systems of the drum level and pressure
(combustion system). These tests show the impact of the swell,
shrink, condensing and boiling effects which appear with the
drum pressure changes and with the fuel combustion energy
variation. It may be noted that the drum level variation was
represented with a strict non-linear differential equation (see
Eq. (18)). The graphs of Figs. 16 and 17 show the difficulties in
controlling two of the fundamental variables for power plants
control: the steam pressure and the drum level. The model
Fig. 15. Process model and control systems in closed loop arrangement.
383
Fig. 16. Drum steam pressure (Pvs ) behavior in closed loop test.
developed here may be used to evaluate control strategies of
level and combustion control systems. Moreover, Eqs. (15) and
(17) are responsible for the sudden condensation and boiling
effects that appear with a pressure change. Therefore, these
two equations may be introduced in Eq. (12) and the resulting
equation may be used in a model-based control strategy which
may account for the drum level and for the drum steam pressure
variation.
The affected variables for a steam pressure variation show
the expected trend in the simulated closed loop results. The
plant run here presented (Fig. 19) also shows the expected
behavior, i.e. a drum pressure decrease results in a drum level
increase; therefore, it may be said that there is a qualitative
validation of the mathematical model developed in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the reviewers of this paper for
their worthy comments. They would also like to express their
gratitude to Pablo Villaseñor Dı́az and Fany Mendez Vergara
 Author's personal copy
384 M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385
Fig. 17. Drum level (N D ) behavior in closed loop test.
Fig. 18. Water flow (G f w ) behavior in closed loop test.
Fig. 19. Drum level and steam pressure variation in a plant run.
for helping them in parameters calculations and for running the
tests.
References
[1] Åström KJ, Bell RD. Simple drum boiler models. In: IFACC int.
symposium on power systems, modelling and control applications; 1988.
p. 123–7.
[2] Åström KJ, Bell RD. A nonlinear model for steam generation processes.
In: Preprints IFAC 12th world congress, vol. 3; 1993. p. 395–8.
[3] Åström KJ, Bell RD. Drum-boiler dynamics. Automatica 2000;36:
363–78.
[4] Bell RD, Åström KJ. A fourth order non-linear model for drum boiler
dynamics. In: IFAC’96, preprints 13th world congress, vol. 0; 1996. p.
31–6.
[5] Åström KJ, Eklund K. A simplified non-linear model of a drum boiler-
turbine unit. International Journal of Control 1972;16:145–69.
[6] De Mello FP. Boiler models for system dynamic performance studies.
IEEE Transactions on Power System 1991;6(1):66–74.
[7] Aleksandrova ND, Davydov NI. A dynamic model for a drum-boiler
circulation circuit. Thermal Engineering 1993;40(2):97–101.
[8] Flynn ME, O’Malley MJ. A drum boiler model for long term power
system dynamic simulation. IEEE Transactions 1999;1:209–17.
[9] Maffezzoni C. Boiler-turbine dynamics in power plant control. Control
Engineering Practice 1997;5(3):301–12.
[10] Maffezzoni C. Boiler-turbine dynamics in power-plant control. In: IFAC
13th triennial world congress; 1996. p. 1–12.
[11] Habbi H, Zelmat M, Bouamama OB. A dynamic fuzzy model for a drum-
boiler-turbine system. Automatica 2003;39:1213–9.
[12] Kallappa P, Ray A. Fuzzy wide-range control of fossil power plants for
life extension and robust performance. Automatica 2000;36(1):69–82.
[13] Zhao F, Ou F, Du W. Simulation modeling of nuclear steam generator
water level process. ISA Transactions 2000;39:143–51.
[14] Kothare MV, Mettler G, Bendotti P, Morari M, Bendotti P, Falinover CM.
Level control in the steam generator of a nuclear power plant. IEEE
Transactions on Control System Technology 2000;8(1):55–69.
[15] Dai H, Thompson JW. Use of neural networks for modelling the steam
generator of a nuclear power plant. Canadian Conference on Electrical
and Computer Engineering 1994;2:734–8.
[16] Habibiyan H, Setayeshi S, Arab-Alibeik H. A fuzzy-gain-scheduled
neural controller for nuclear steam generator. Annals of Nuclear Energy
2004;31:1765–81.
[17] Lin C, Lin Tsung-Ming. Empirical steam generator water level modeling
using neural networks. Nuclear Technology 1999;127:102–12.
[18] Chien KL, Ergin EI, Ling C, Lee A. Dynamic analysis of a boiler.
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1958;80:
1809–19.
[19] Speedy CB, Bell RD, Goodwin GC. Dynamic modelling of a steam
generator using least squares analysis. In: Proceedings of JACC; 1970.
p. 365–72.
[20] McDonald JP, Kwantny. A mathematical model for reheat boiler-turbine
generator systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES winter power meeting.
1970. p. 1–19 (paper 70-CP221-PWR).
[21] Lu S. Dynamic modeling and simulation of power plant systems. In:
Proceedings of the institute of mechanical engineers; 1999. p. 7–22.
[22] Maffezzoni C. Modeling and simulation of power plants. In: IFAC
symposium on control of power plants and power system; 1992. p. 15–23.
[23] Ferrarini L, Maffezzoni C. Simulation of heat exchangers in fossil fired
power plants: A method to avoid Gibbs phenomena. In: IFAC symposium
on control of power plants and power system; 1992. p. 31–6.
[24] Obert EF, Young RL. Elements of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Mc.
Graw-Hill Company; 1962. p. 417–418 and 497.
[25] Chapra SC, Canale RP. Numerical method for engineers with
programming and software applications. The McGraw Hill Co., Inc.;
1998.
[26] Kwan HW, Anderson JH. A mathematical model of a 200 MW boiler.
International Journal of Control 1970;12(6):977–98.
[27] Herget CJ, Park CU. Parameter identification and verification of low order
boiler models. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-
95(3): 1153–8.
[28] Armor AF, Shor SWW, Smith LP. Dynamic performance of fossil-fueled
power plants. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-
101(10): 4136–46.
[29] Lausterer GK, Franke J, Eitelberg E. Modular modelling applied to a
Benson boiler. In: IFAC modelling and control of electric power plants;
1983. p. 11–9.
[30] Yavorskii IA. Preventing nitrogen oxide emissions by technological
methods of solid fuel combustion. Thermal Engineering 1995;42(2):
109–17.
 Author's personal copy

M.A. Delgadillo et al. / ISA Transactions 47 (2008) 374–385 385

[31] Hunt LR, Ramiro Villareal. Parallels between control PDE’s and systems [32] Igreja JM, Lemos JM, Silva N. Adaptive receding horizon control of a
ODE’s. In: Proceedings at the 27th conference on decisions and control. distributed collector solar field. In: 44th IEEE conference 2005; 2005. p.
Austin Texas; December 1988. p. 1269–71. 1282–7.