Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

PTC INQ.

#04-05
TECHNICAL INQUIRY
PTC 4
Subject:

PTC 4 1998 versus PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991)

Preface to Response below - It is assumed from the questions that the inquirer is
considering conducting a test in accordance with the losses listed in the former PTC 4.1
Abbreviated Efficiency Test form and Unmeasured Losses either specified or by mutual
agreement (which was normal industry practice for PTC 4.1). This response also addresses
the PTC 4.1 losses and credits for a full PTC 4.1 test. It is noted that if the inquirer desires
the highest degree of accuracy (see question 2), then efficiency must be determined by the
energy balance method per PTC 4.
Question 1: Is PTC 4.1 1964 (reaffirmed 1991) still a current document?
obtain a copy from the ASME?

How does one

Answer 1:
No. PTC 4.1 has been withdrawn and has been replaced by PTC 4-1998 as
the American National Standard. Copies of PTC 4.1 are not available from ASME.
Question 2: What typical relative test uncertainties can be expected between a PTC 4 1996
test and a PTC 4.1-1964 (1991) test of the same conventional pulverized coal-fired steam
generator for a subcritical reheat steam unit? There is no sulfur sorbent injection. Our intent is
to have the lowest reasonably achievable test uncertainty.
Answer 2:
Typical test uncertainty values for efficiency are listed in Table 1.3-1 of PTC
4. While an uncertainty analysis is not a part of PTC 4.1, it is conceivable that
instrumentation and data sampling procedures could be selected to yield a test result of
equal uncertainty with regard to instrumentation as if PTC 4 was used. The level of
uncertainty is mainly driven by the particular choices to be made regarding economical
instrumentation and data sampling procedures. Section 4 of PTC 4 provides background
and guidance in these matters.
The calculation method and whether the PTC 4.1 Abbreviated Test Form with assigned
Unmeasured Losses is used also impact uncertainty. There are some specific differences in
the calculation of certain losses (such as the Surface Radiation and Convection Loss) that
in PTC 4 are intended to produce more accurate loss results and reduce the uncertainty.
Also, the level of uncertainty associated with unmeasured or unaccountable loss
estimates commonly included with tests following PTC 4.1 Abbreviated Test Form
would normally be greater than that associated with the individually estimated losses as
part of PTC 4 (or a full PTC 4.1 evaluation).

Question 3: What are the major differences between the two methods and how do those
differences impact results?
Answer 3:
results.

Philosophical Differences see Answer to Question 4 regarding impact on

Definition of efficiency:
o PTC 4.1 defines efficiency as:

Output
Heat Losses
100
100
Total
Input
Fuel
Input

Heat
Credits

Efficiency gross 100

which is referred to as gross efficiency. The total input is the sum of the available
chemical energy in the fuel, HHV, plus heat credits or the energy content of working
fluids entering the steam generator boundary with respect to the reference
temperature, such as air and fuel. When heat losses and heat credits are expressed
on a percent basis (QpL=100xQrL/HHV and QpB=100xQrB/HHV where QrL and
QrB are in units of Btu/lbm fuel), the gross efficiency by the heat loss method
becomes
Eff g 100 100

QpL
100 QpB

It is noted that the terms heat losses and heat credits have been simplified to losses
and credits in PTC 4. Also, the heat loss method in PTC 4.1 is now referred to as the
energy balance method in PTC 4.
o PTC 4 defines efficiency as:

Losses Credits
Output
100
100
Fuel
Input
Fuel Input

Efficiency fuel 100

which is referred to as fuel efficiency and is the preferred PTC 4 definition. Fuel
Input is the available chemical energy in the fuel, HHV. When losses and credits are
expressed on a percent basis (QpL=100xQrL/HHV and QpB=100xQrB/HHV where
QrL and QrB are in units of Btu/lbm fuel), the fuel efficiency by the energy balance
method becomes:
Eff f 100 QpL QpB

With Fuel Efficiency, fuel flow may be calculated directly from Output and Fuel
Efficiency.
o In summary, efficiency may be defined in different ways, including LHV rather than
HHV. Therefore, the user must be careful to assess the definition before attempting
to compare efficiency values directly. The important parameter to be evaluated is
fuel flow. i.e. the parameter that should be consistent between various definitions of
efficiency is fuel flow.

Reference temperature:
o PTC 4.1: The user may select any temperature to use as a reference temperature.
The average air temperature entering the boundary is commonly used as the
reference temperature in accordance with the Abbreviated Test Form. This
eliminates the credit for energy in entering air and energy in moisture in entering
air. Credits for other streams would then be calculated, or sometimes neglected in
the case of the Abbreviated Test Form.
Note that comparisons of gross efficiency values based on different reference
temperatures are meaningless.
o

PTC 4: The code establishes a fixed reference temperature of 77F (25C) for use in
all calculations. With a fixed reference temperature, it is necessary to calculate
both credits and losses. If the temperature of a stream entering the steam
generator boundary (such as the entering air) is lower than the reference
temperature, the credit is negative.
With a fixed reference temperature, all results are on the same basis and are
directly comparable.

In the new PTC 4 Code, unmeasured losses must be estimated. The calculation
forms in the Appendix list losses and credits on two pages. The losses and credits listed
on the first page are considered significant and should be calculated from measured
parameters (except for residue splits, which may be estimated rather than measured)
for all tests. Of particular note, the Surface Radiation and Convection loss is now to be
calculated based on actual steam generator surface area and specific measured or
estimated parameters, rather than by use of the ABMA radiation loss curve. The losses
and credits on the second page are referenced as Other Losses and should be estimated
(individually) if not measured, with appropriate uncertainty values.
In PTC 4, to meet the criteria of an ASME test, a test uncertainty level must be agreedto, the uncertainty of the test results must be calculated and the agreed upon limit must
be met.
In PTC 4, Output is defined as the energy absorbed by the working fluid that is not
recovered within the steam generator envelope. For example, energy supplied by the
steam generator to the air preheater coils to heat the entering combustion air is not
considered to be Output because the energy is recovered within the steam generator
envelope. In PTC 4.1, Output was defined simply as the energy absorbed by the
working fluid.
PTC 4 has expanded on the performance parameters (test objectives) covered by the
Code (reference Section 1.1).
In PTC 4, corrections to design conditions are more comprehensive and well-defined.
In PTC 4, energy credits/losses are calculated based upon enthalpy, rather than on
specific heat as in PTC 4.1. In PTC 4, the enthalpy of dry air, dry flue gas, moisture
vapor, and fuels are defined by equations (curve fits) as opposed to difficult-to-read
figures.

In PTC 4, measured flue gas oxygen content is the basis for the combustion
calculations as opposed to measured O 2 and CO2 in PTC 4.1. Calculations allow both
dry and wet (in-situ) oxygen measurement.
As with PTC 4.1, calculations are based upon a fuel analysis on a mass basis. The
calculation method for converting a fuel analysis on a volumetric basis to a mass basis
is included in PTC 4.

Question 4: If the test uncertainty was removed from the picture (i.e. if the instrumentation,
chemical analysis, etc, was perfect), would the results of a PTC 4-1996 and a PTC 4.1-1964
(1991) test of the same fired steam generator be equal? If not, what in the two codes prescribed
calculations or methodology would influence the results to make them different?
Answer 4:
The results would not be equal. Given the same (perfect) data, results would differ because
of the following:
The definitions of efficiency are different as noted in Answer 3 above and are not
directly comparable when credits are calculated for PTC 4.1. PTC 4.1 uses gross
efficiency and PTC 4 uses fuel efficiency.
PTC 4.1 allowed the user to establish the reference temperature, which has a significant
impact on gross efficiency. PTC 4 uses a Code-specified reference temperature.
Surface Radiation and Convection Loss There is a significant change in the calculation
procedure. The ABMA radiation loss curve (used in PTC 4.1) is no longer applicable.
This loss is now calculated based upon the actual steam generator surface area, standard
convection and radiation coefficient formulations and a standard temperature difference
(except for equipment for which this is not applicable such as pulverizers, coal piping
and hot dust collection equipment within the steam generator boundary). Alternatively,
the appropriate values of all applicable parameters within the boundary can be
measured. For gas- and oil-fired units, the loss is approximately the same as the ABMA
curve. For coal-fired units, the loss will be 2 to 2.5 times greater because coal fired units
are inherently larger (to accommodate the fuel). Because of the consideration of the
specific unit surface area, the revised calculation method is deemed to be more accurate.
While there are significant differences in the methods of calculating combustion, the
difference in the resulting values such as dry gas and dry air weights are minor and
primarily attributable to slight differences in the combustion constants.
Differences in individual losses and credits:
The following table lists the losses/credits that are either measured, calculated or both as
part of any PTC 4 efficiency test. The table indicates:
Whether the item was included in the PTC 4.1 Code;
Whether the item was included in the PTC 4.1 Abbreviated Test Form (ATF), and
therefore commonly included in past tests;
Whether there may be a minor difference due to the use of enthalpy relations in
PTC 4 versus specific heat values or curves in PTC 4.1; and
Other descriptive notes for each item.

PTC 4 Item

PTC 4.1

PTC 4.1
ATF

Enth/Cp
potential
difference

Notes

Dry Gas Loss

Yes

Yes

Yes

---

Water from H2 in Fuel,


H2O in Fuel Loss

Yes

Yes

No

No change

H2O Vapor in Fuel Loss

No

No

----

New Item

Moisture in Air Loss

Yes

No

No

No change

Unburned Carbon in
Residue Loss

Yes

Yes

----

No change

Sensible Heat of Residue


Loss

Yes

No

Yes

Hot Air Quality Control


Equipment Loss

No

No

----

Surface Radiation and


Convection Loss

Yes

Yes

----

Yes

No

Yes

----

Yes

No

Yes

----

Auxiliary Equipment
Power Credit

Yes

No

----

No change

Losses and credits for


sorbent reactions

No

No

----

- Have been added and are different


from prior Industry values published
by the ABMA.

Entering Dry Air and


Moisture in Dry Air
Credit
Sensible Heat in Fuel
Credit

Users may agree on residue split if not


measured.
New item. Primarily added to
distinguish the loss due to the hot AQC
equipment separate from the steam
generator.
As noted above, the calculation
procedure is different, and PTC 4
generally yields greater loss for coalfired units.

Other Losses and Credits To be individually estimated if not measured. Typically


applicable Losses/Credits are:
Item

PTC 4.1

PTC 4.1
ATF

No
Yes
Yes

No
No
No

Yes

No

Enth/Cp
potential
difference

Notes

Loss due to:


NOx
CO
Unburned HC
Pulverizer Rejects Loss

----

-----

New item.
Different calculation method.
Different calculation method.
Now includes sensible heat in addition
to the heating value of the rejects.

Wet Ash Pit Loss

Yes

No

-----

Option for simplified calculation with


provision of typical radiation rate and
uncertainty.

Question 5: Under what circumstances are the results or application of a PTC 4.1 test superior
to those of a PTC 4 test?
Answer 5:
None. PTC 4 is a much more comprehensive code than PTC 4.1 and is based
upon modern test measurement, data reduction, calculation and uncertainty analysis
technology.

Похожие интересы