Case Study on Frequent tube Failure of Grid panel in CFBC Boiler

Presented by S. Sivakumar AGM- O&M Contracts Cethar Vessels Ltd, Trichy

1

CETHAR VESSELS LIMITED Leading manufacture of AFBC , CFBC , WHRB for sponge iron kiln Gas, cement kiln gas ,DG exhaust gas & supply of power plant on EPC basis for more than two decades . Tied up with Riley Power Inc, USA for PC fired boilers of sub critical & super critical pressure. Collaboration with Riley / Siemens Benson Technology for super critical PC boilers.

Collaboration with Siemens for Super Critical CFBC boilers.

Tied up with OJSC power machineries , Russia for turbine design and Manufacturing.

Executing O & M contracts of captive power plants of any Capacity through Cethar energy ltd.

Major projects under execution: 2x 135 MWe IPP with CFBC Boiler 2 x 350 MWe PF Fired Boiler 2 x 300 MWe PF Fired Boiler 2 x 150 MWe IPP with CFBC Boiler - M/s.Aryan Coal Beneficiation - M/s.Ind Barath energy Ltd. - M/s.Meenakshi energy Ltd. - M/s.Shree cement

2 x 135 MWe IPP with PF Fired Boiler - M/s.Vandana vidhuyut

2 x 60 MWe CFBC Boiler - M/s.Jayprakash associates

65 Boilers are under execution for IPP, CPP & Co-gen

10 IPP & Captive power plants are under execution

Credentials
CVL had designed, manufactured, erected and commissioned more than 1000 FBC boilers. Based on our versatile experience during operation and maintenance, we have listed few problems faced and the causes, solution given for the information to this elite league

Case study I :
Reported issue:
Tube failure of grid panel in CFBC boiler

BACKGROUND :
Plant capacity
Boiler capacity
:
:

2 X 25MW CPP
114 TPH

Type of firing
Steam pressure

:
:

CFBC
88 Kg/cm

Steam temperature :
Grid tube size location
: :

520 5 C
51.0 X 4.0 mm 1,2,17,18,19,20,21,24,25,26th row from combustor left side

BACKGROUND :

Approx. service temperature : 300C

Boiler commissioned on
Tube failed on

: 20.08.2009
: (a) Tube No : 1, 2 (b) Tube No : 19, 20, 21 (c) Tube No: 24, 25, 26 (d) Tube No: 16, 17 : 4 Months

-23.01.10 -12.01.10 -12.11.2009 -13.11.2009.

Approx. service period

Observations
(A)Sample No. 17& 24 :

On inspection it is found that severe erosion with

puncture.

Transverse cracks with ID grooving were also noticed.

Transverse crack at inner surface

Crack noticed by LPI test

8

Observations
Sample No. 20, 16, 1 & 2 :

Severe puncture with erosion was noticed

Observations
Sample No. 19, 21 : Erosion is found at 25 mm from one end.

10

Observations
Sample No 26: This tube length 320 mm have no crack indication.

11

Failure Analysis

Dimensional Measurements :
Diameter and thickness of grid panel tube sample measured at various location and given below

12

Failure Analysis

Chemical Analysis :
Spectroscopically chemical analysis of failed tube sample carried out. Values are given below

13

Failure Analysis

Deposit analysis (24,26,19 & 21) :

14

Failure Analysis

Hardness measurement :
Hardness measurement using Rockwell B scale was done on failed tubes. The values given below

15

Failure Analysis

Metallographic Examination (Micro) :

Metallographical polishing is done in the region closer & away from failure region and examined under microscope

16

Reasons for Failure

(A) Sample No. 24 & 17 :

Overheating of tube around Ac1 for prolonged period. Fluctuating load. Thermal Cyclic variation.

17

Reasons for Failure

(B) Sample No. 19,20,21, 1 & 2 :

Erosion on outer surface of the tubes.

Secondary failures caused from other primary sources.

18

Solution

Refractory was laid on the entire grid panel tube to a thickness of

100mm to withstand thermal load variation.

19

Conclusion

There is no grid panel tube failure till date after refractory laying.

20

Case study 2:
Reported issue:
Excess coal consumption

21

Plant design details:

Plant capacity : 1 X 8 MWe co-gen plant

Boiler capacity
Type of firing

: 40 TPH
: AFBC

Steam pressure

: 68 ata

Steam temperature : 495 C

22

Design Fuel Analysis Moisture : 13.98% GCV : 6100 kcal/kg

23

Plant visit was made, boiler operating data, fuel input were collected and analyzed

24

Boiler data:
Boiler operating capacity Steam pressure Steam temperature Feed water temperature : 37.5 TPH : 68.007 ata : 495 C : 122C

Flue gas temperature leaving APH : 132C O2 in flue gas : 4%

25

Fired fuel analysis and efficiency

GCV Moisture : 3950 Kcal/kg : 31.50%

Efficiency achieved : 81.7% Reasons for lower Efficiency:

Excess fired fuel moisture comparing to design fuel moisture

Lower GCV of fuel comparing to design Loss in efficiency due to the above was 3.501%

26

Conclusion:

Corrected efficiency is 85.2% Fuel moisture to be controlled for achieving the guaranteed thermal Efficiency of the boiler

Expected Fuel saving by controlling moisture is 7.6 TPD

27

Any questions please?

THANKS CVL
28