Modeling and Simulation of A Complex Thermosyspro Model With Openmodelica Dynamic Modeling of A Combined Cycle Power Plant
Modeling and Simulation of A Complex Thermosyspro Model With Openmodelica Dynamic Modeling of A Combined Cycle Power Plant
Modeling and Simulation of A Complex Thermosyspro Model With Openmodelica Dynamic Modeling of A Combined Cycle Power Plant
OpenModelica
Dynamic Modeling of a combined cycle power plant
The library may be downloaded freely together with The inverse problem basically consists in setting
the OpenModelica software from (fixing) a state variable of the model to a known
https://openmodelica.org/download/download- measurement value to compute by model inversion the
windows. value of a parameter or a boundary condition.
Several test-cases were developed to validate the Modelica allows to express inverse problems, which
library in order to cover the full spectrum of use-cases is a powerful feature for computing operation points,
for power plant modeling: which are defined by their observable outputs, and for
Dynamic model of a 1300 MWe nuclear power system sizing, to compute parameterised characteristics.
plant covering the primary and secondary loops, To implement the inverse problem under Dymola, it
Dynamic model of steam generators for sodium is enough simply to fix the value of the state variable
fast reactor (David F., Souyri A. and Marchais G, and declared it to (fixed = true) and released the
2009) parameter to be computed and declared it as (fixed =
Static and dynamic models of a biomass plant (El false). However, this method is incompatible with
Hefni B. and Péchiné B, 2009), OpenModelica (no standard Modelica language).
Physics/neutronics model in Modelica for a tool, Here is a simple example to illustrate the deference
to assist the operator, to control the power plant between Dymola and OM for the implementation of the
for infrequent transients and to establish a reverse problem (standard Modelica language).
strategy of optimal operating procedure (El Hefni Furthermore, for the demonstration we use a simple
B., 2011), model to calculate the pressure drop in a tube, so:
Dynamic model of a concentrated solar power Q Q
Pi Po K
plant (El Hefni B., 2013),
Dynamic multi-configuration model of a 145 Pi is the fluid pressure at the singularity inlet (Pa) , Po
MWe concentrated solar power plant with the
ThermoSysPro library (tower receiver, molten is the fluid pressure at the singularity outlet (Pa), Q is
salt storage and steam generator)’, (El Hefni B., the fluid mass flow rate (kg/s), K is the
Soler R., 2014),
friction pressure loss coefficient (m-4 ) and is the
Dynamic simulation of a 1MWe CSP tower plant 3
with two-level thermal storage implemented with average density of the fluid (kg/m ).
control system (S.J. Liua et al., 2014),
As the above equation is implemented in a TSP
Dynamic simulation and experimental validation component model called SingularPressureLoss, this
of Open Air Receiver and Thermal Energy model component is used to illustrate inverse
Storage systems in solar thermal power plant calculation. The model uses the following component
(Qing Li et al., 2015). models (see Figure 1):
The objective of this paper is to show the potentiality,
SingularPressureLoss model,
capability and efficiency of OpenModelica tools to
perform dynamic studies using complex models such as SourceP model,
the combined cycle power plant model. SinkP model.
In order to challenge the dynamic simulation
capabilities of the library, a step load variation from P0= 3e5 Pa P0= 1e5 Pa
100% to 50% and a turbine trip (sudden stopping of the
gas turbine) were simulated.
windows of the SingularPressureLoss model (see Steam Generator (HRSG): Thermal power: 2*360
Figure 2). MW,
Steam Turbine: Nominal power: 277 MW,
Condenser:
Thermal power: 428 MW.
Outlet water temperature: 305 K
Vacuum pressure: 6100 Pa.
Heat exchangers fouling coefficients, The computational time is faster than real time.
Nominal isentropic efficiency of the compressor,
3.7 Comparison between Dymola and
Nominal isentropic efficiency of the gas turbine,
OpenModelica
…
The simulation results of OM are very close to the
simulation results of Dymola. The simulation time with
3.4 Simulation scenarios
OM is between 15% and 60% times slower than the
For simulation runs, two scenarios were selected. The simulation time with Dymola, depending on the
first scenario is a power generator step reduction from scenario and the tolerance (see Table 4).
100 to 50% load:
Initial state (combined cycle): 100 % load
Table 4. Simulation time.
Final state (combined cycle): 50% load (800 s
Simulation time (s)
slope).
Dymola 2017 OpenModelica1.11.0
The second scenario is a full GT trip (sudden Tolérance=0,001 Tolérance=0,0001 Tolérance=0,001 Tolérance=0,0001
stopping of the gas turbine): Variation de charge 58 73 75 84
Initial state (GT exhaust): 894 K, 607 kg/s (simulation 2500 s)
Trip TAC 174 310 240 492
Final state (GT exhaust): 423 K, 50 kg/s (600 s (simulation 10000 s)
slope).
However, OM is still 20 times faster than real time in
the worst case.
3.5 Simulation
Simulation runs were done using Dymola 2017 and 4 Conclusion
OpenModelica 1.11.0. The simulation of the scenarios A dynamic and rather large model of a combined
were mostly successful. However, some difficulties cycle power plant has been developed to validate the
were encountered when simulating large transients, ThermoSysPro library. This model comprises the flue
mainly stemming from the large size of the model: gas side and the full thermo-dynamic water/steam cycle
Poor debugging facility, closed through the condenser. Two difficult transients
Large number of values to be manually provided by were simulated with Dymola 2017and OpenModelica
the user for the iteration variables, for the two tools. 1.11.0: a step reduction load of the power generator and
a full gas turbine trip. The results are mostly consistent
In particular, it has been observed that, the two tools with the engineer’s expertise.
cannot calculate the initial states, when all iterations Despite of some simulation difficulties because of the
variables are not set close to their solution values. lack of debugging tools for Modelica models, this work
shows that the library is complete and robust enough for
3.6 Simulation results
the modelling and simulation of complex power plants
The model is able to compute: with the two software.
The air excess, The simulation results of OM are very close to the
The distribution of water and steam mass flow rates, simulation results of Dymola. The simulation time with
The thermal power of heat exchangers, OM is slower than simulation time with Dymola, but
still 20 times faster than real time.
The electrical power provided by the generator,
This work shows that OpenModelica software is very
The pressure temperature and specific enthalpy satisfying for thermo-hydraulic modelling and
distribution across the network, simulation.
The drums levels and the condenser level, Acknowledgements
The performance parameters of all the equipments, This work was partially supported by the OPENCPS
The global efficiencies of the water/steam cycle and project.
gas turbine.
References
The results of the simulation runs are given in Figure
David F., Souyri A. and Marchais G., ‘Modeling Steam
6 and Figure 7. They are consistent with the engineer’s
Generators for Sodium Fast Reactors with Modelica’,
expertise. The comparison between simulation Modelica 2009 conference proceedings.
results and GE (General Electric) results
El Hefni B. and Péchiné B., ‘Model driven optimization of
(FOUQUET L, 2004) for 100 % load and 50 % load, biomass CHP plant design’, Mathmod conference 2009,
have shown that the Simulation results are very close Vienna, Austria.
to the GE values (Design results).
Figure 4. Model of the combined cycle power plant used for the power generator step reduction load.
Figure 5. Model of the combined cycle power plant used for the full GT trip.
Figure 6. Power generator step reduction simulation (-50%): natural gas mass flow rate, air mass flow rate, excess air
temperature at the inlet of the combustion turbine, exhaust temperature (gas turbine), mechanical power of the combustion
turbine, mechanical power produced by each steam turbine, generator power, HRSG temperature at the outlet, steam mass
flow rate produced in each drum, the drums pressure, and the drums level.
Figure 7. Gas turbine trip simulation: flue gases temperature at the inlet of the HRSG, flue gases mass flow rate at the inlet
of the HRSG, generator power, the drums pressure, steam mass flow rate produced in each drum, thermal power produced
in each heat exchanger (Evaporators HP, IP, LP and economizers HP, IP, LP), and steam mass flow rate in each steam
turbine.