Heatrate Improvement

EPRI's Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings
Proceedings
January 15-19, 2001 New Orleans, Louisiana The Hotel Inter-Continental New Orleans
EPRIs Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings

1001328
Proceedings, January 2001
EPRI Project Manager J. Stallings
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT Electric Power Research Institute
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 2001 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
These proceedings were compiled by EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: EPRI's Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1001328.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
The Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference, sponsored by EPRIs Heat Rate and Cost Optimization Value Package, is the latest in a series of meetings designed to assist utilities in addressing problems with power plant performance and in identifying cost-effective solutions for achieving and maintaining heat rate improvement. The previous conference was held in Baltimore in September 1998. Background Deregulation in the utility industry has forced power plants to lower their costs of generating electricity to become more competitive. Since the cost of fuel for coal-fired plants accounts for 60-80% of the overall cost of electricity, improvements in heat rate are at the forefront of these cost-cutting efforts. In the long run the lowest-cost generators will be the ones that dominate the power industry. Objective To summarize current efforts by EPRI and others to improve the heat rate of fossil-fired power plants, including optimization, intelligent sootblowing, and heat rate performance and monitoring. Approach EPRIs Heat Rate and Cost Optimization Value Package hosted a conference January 30 to February 1, 2001 in Dallas, Texas. The conference was divided into six technical sessions, with three additional panels designed to investigate individual topics in more depth. Panel topics were: How are utilities using heat rate information? Why test? What improvements in heat rate information are needed?
Results Areas addressed in the individual sessions include: The effectiveness and usefulness of On-Line Heat Rate Monitors The trend for Optimization software tools to use heat rate as an input into total plant cost minimization efforts The potential for incorporating Intelligent Sootblowing applications into optimization efforts v
The possibilities for heat rate improvements from upgrades in Turbines and Auxiliaries The latest trends in Heat Rate Testing Actual Plant Experiences with heat rate improvement projects
EPRI Perspective This conference was sponsored by EPRIs Heat Rate and Cost Optimization Value Package. As such, the meeting reflects those topics considered most important by the members of the value package in their continual efforts to improve heat rate and overall plant performance. The value package is currently supporting demonstrations of on-line heat rate monitors, total plant cost optimization, intelligent sootblowing, and steam quality assessment. The proceedings from the previous conference in 1998 were published as Proceedings: 1998 Heat Rate Improvement Conference (TR-111047). Keywords Heat Rate Boiler Performance Fossil-Fired Power Plants Power Plant Optimization Sootblowing
vi
AGENDA
EPRIs Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference January 30-February 1, 2001 Hotel Inter-Continental Dallas Dallas, TX Final Agenda Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast Welcome Conference Chair: Jeff Stallings, EPRI Utility Host: Ron Seidel, Senior Vice President, Fossil Generation, TXU Energy Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors Session Chairs: Tom Calle, TXU Energy and Charlie Rose, Consultant Real-Time Performance Monitoring of Coal-Fired Units Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Sastry Munukutla, Tennessee Technological University F-Factor Method for Heat Rate Measurement and its Characteristics Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh University The Input/Loss Method Fred D. Lang, Exergetic Systems, Inc. Recent Experiences with Performance Monitoring at TVA using EPRIs Plant Monitoring Workstation Robert Inklebarger, TVA Eric Sikes, TVA Cyrus Taft, EPRI I&C Center
8:10 a.m.
8:10 a.m.
8:35 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:25 a.m.
vii
9:50 a.m. 10:20 a.m.
Break Modular Heat Rate Calculations for Power Plants using OPC Harry R. Winn, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Improving Results, Confidence and Decisions with Precise Data Validation Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Marcus Caudill, Performance Consulting Services, Inc. Ron Griebenow, Performance Consulting Services, Inc. Panel: How are utilities using heat rate information? Moderator: Mark Ness, Great River Energy Panelists: Tom Calle, TXU Energy Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Leeth DePriest, Southern Company Services Lunch Session 2: Optimization Session Chairs: Darrell Howard, TVA and Stratos Tavoulareas, EnTEC Impacts of Combustion Optimization on Power Plant Heat Rate Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh University Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University Obtaining Improved Boiler Efficiency and NOx using Advanced Empirical Optimization and Individual Burner Instrumentation on a Boiler Operated in Load-Following Mode E. P. Payson, Allegheny Energy Supply Dave Earley, Air Monitor Corporation Rich Brown, EPRI Carlos Moreno, Ultramax Corporation Application of GNOCIS Neural Network Optimization Controller for Boiler Efficiency Control Darrell A. Howard, TVA Lonnie Coffey, EPRI I&C Center/TVA Heat Rate Improvement at Dairylands Madgett Station using NeuSIGHT Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Brad Radl, Pegasus Technologies Glen Foster, Data Systems & Solutions Break
10:45 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
1:25 p.m.
1:50 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
2:40 p.m. viii
3:10 p.m.
ProcessLink at the Roanoke Valley Energy Facility Don Keisling, LG&E Peter Spinney, NeuCo Automatically Control NOx with Heat Rate Constraints, in a Coal-Fired Power Plant Kandi Forte, Reliant Energy Tom Cowder, Reliant Energy Russell F. Brown, Pavilion Technologies, Inc. Unit Optimization at Hammond Unit 4 John Sorge, Southern Company Services Reception and Exhibits
3:35 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast Session 3: Intelligent Sootblowing Session Chairs: William Yee, Reliant Energy and Rabon Johnson, EPRI I&C Center Effects of Sootblowing in Coal-Fired Boilers on Unit Heat Rate and Nox Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh Univerisity Optimization of Boiler Sootblower Operation Jeffery Williams, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Xu Cheng, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Bernie Begley, Southern California Edison, Inc. Alex Smith, Southern California Edison, Inc. Dale Hopkins, Southern California Edison, Inc. Intelligent Sootblowing Application Development Neel J. Parikh, Pegasus Technologies, Inc. Brad J. Radl, Pegasus Technologies, Inc. Intelligent Sootblowing Boiler Cleaning Management System Randy Carter, Applied Synergistics Break Session 4: Turbines and Auxiliaries Session Chairs: Jim Terrell, TVA and Tom McCloskey, EPRI ix
8:00 a.m.
8:25 a.m.
8:50 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:40 a.m. 10:10 a.m.
10:10 a.m.
In-Situ Feedwater Flow Measurement Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Izidro DiazTous, Encor-America In-Situ Enthalpy Measurements in Low Pressure Condensing Steam Turbines Steve Hesler, EPRI Tom McCloskey, EPRI Steam Turbine Related Reseach at TVA Jim Terrell, TVA On-Line Performance Monitoring and Condition Assessment of Steam Turbines Rolf F. Orsegh, Impact Technologies LLC Michael Roemer, Impact Technologies LLC Ben Atkinson, Impact Technologies LLC Bill McGinnis, Reliant Energy Scott McQueen, Reliant Energy Lunch Session 5: Heat Rate Testing Session Chair: Sam J. Korellis, Dynegy Midwest Generation Performance Evaluation and Testing Sam J. Korellis, Dynegy Midwest Generation Philip Gerhart, University of Evansville A Procedure for Analyzing Power Plant Measurement Variances Associated with Thermal Performance Testing Fred D. Lang, Exergetic Systems, Inc. Cycle Alignment Methods and Evaluation Sam J. Korellis, Dynegy Midwest Generation In Search of Unaccounted for BTUs via the Art of ASME PTC-6 Testing Italo Liberatore, Constellation Power Source Generation Allison Rossi, Constellation Power Source Generation Donald Fyhr, Constellation Power Source Generation Break
10:35 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
11:25 a.m.
11:50 a.m. 1:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
1:25 p.m.
1:50 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
2:40 p.m.
3:10 p.m.
Panel: Why test? Moderator: Sam Korellis Dynegy Midwest Generation Panelists: Matt Dooley, Alstom Fred Lang, Exergetic Systems Albert Lau, Reliant Energy Dick Storm, Storm Engineering Adjourn
4:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 1, 2001 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast Panel: What improvements in heat rate information are needed? Moderator: Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Panelists: Ron Griebenow, Performance Consulting Services Darrell Howard, TVA Gary Walling, Alliant Power William Yee, Reliant Energy Session 6: Plant Experiences Session Chairs: Gary Walling, Alliant Energy and Jose Sanchez, EPRI Analysis of Variables for Predicting Power Output at the Columbia Power Plant Aravindan Rangarajan, Industrial Engineering MS, Iowa State University Experience of Moneypoint Power Station in Recovering Plant Heat Rate: Focus on Control Valves Michael Rocke, Electricity Supply Board, Ireland Tom Canning, Electricity Supply Board, Ireland Sanjay V. Sherikar, Control Components, Inc. Break Heat Rate Improvement in an Existing Multifuel Unit Joaquin G. Blas, Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, S.A. Florentino Blanco, Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, S.A. An Application of the Plant Performance Modelling Package PROATES to Analyse the Cause of a Persistent Tube Failure Problem K.R.J. Hartwell, Powergen A.B. Ready, Powergen
9:15 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:40 a.m.
10:05 a.m. 10:35 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
xi
11:25a.m.
In-Situ O2 Probe Failure at Dairylands JP Madgett Station Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Closing Remarks Adjourn
11:50 a.m. 12:00 p.m.
xii
CONTENTS
1 SESSION 1: ON-LINE HEAT RATE MONITORS ................................................................ 1-1 Real-Time Performance Monitoring of Coal-Fired Units...................................................... 1-2 Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Sastry Munukutla, Tennessee Technological University F-Factor Method for Heat Rate Measurement and its Characteristics................................1-23 Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh University The Input/Loss Method......................................................................................................1-61 Fred D. Lang, Exergetic Systems, Inc. Recent Experiences with Performance Monitoring at TVA using EPRIs Plant Monitoring Workstation......................................................................................................1-73 Robert Inklebarger, TVA Eric Sikes, TVA Cyrus Taft, EPRI I&C Center Modular Heat Rate Calculations for Power Plants using OPC ...........................................1-85 Harry R. Winn, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Improving Results, Confidence and Decisions with Precise Data Validation....................1-109 Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Marcus Caudill, Performance Consulting Services, Inc. Ron Griebenow, Performance Consulting Services, Inc. 2 SESSION 2: OPTIMIZATION .............................................................................................. 2-1 Impacts of Combustion Optimization on Power Plant Heat Rate ........................................ 2-2 Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh University Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University
xiii
Obtaining Improved Boiler Efficiency and NOx using Advanced Empirical Optimization and Individual Burner Instrumentation on a Boiler Operated in Load-Following Mode .......2-30 E. P. Payson, Allegheny Energy Supply Dave Earley, Air Monitor Corporation Rich Brown, EPRI Carlos Moreno, Ultramax Corporation Application of GNOCIS Neural Network Optimization Controller for Boiler Efficiency Control ..............................................................................................................................2-63 Darrell A. Howard, TVA Lonnie Coffey, EPRI I&C Center/TVA Heat Rate Improvement at Dairylands Madgett Station using NeuSIGHT......................2-68 Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Brad Radl, Pegasus Technologies Glen Foster, Data Systems & Solutions ProcessLink at the Roanoke Valley Energy Facility ........................................................2-80 Don Keisling, LG&E Peter Spinney, NeuCo Automatically Control NOx with Heat Rate Constraints, in a Coal-Fired Power Plant ......2-107 Kandi Forte, Reliant Energy Tom Cowder, Reliant Energy Russell F. Brown, Pavilion Technologies, Inc. Unit Optimization at Hammond Unit 4..............................................................................2-128 John Sorge, Southern Company Services 3 SESSION 3: INTELLIGENT SOOTBLOWING..................................................................... 3-1 Effects of Sootblowing in Coal-Fired Boilers on Unit Heat Rate and Nox............................ 3-2 Carlos E. Romero, Lehigh University Nenad Sarunac, Lehigh University Edward K. Levy, Lehigh Univerisity Optimization of Boiler Sootblower Operation .....................................................................3-35 Jeffery Williams, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Xu Cheng, Westinghouse Process Control, Inc. Bernie Begley, Southern California Edison, Inc. Alex Smith, Southern California Edison, Inc. Dale Hopkins, Southern California Edison, Inc. Intelligent Sootblowing Application Development...............................................................3-56 Neel J. Parikh, Pegasus Technologies, Inc. Brad J. Radl, Pegasus Technologies, Inc. Intelligent Sootblowing Boiler Cleaning Management System ........................................3-63 Randy Carter, Applied Synergistics
xiv
4 SESSION 4: TURBINES AND AUXILIARIES...................................................................... 4-1 In-Situ Feedwater Flow Measurement ................................................................................ 4-2 Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative Izidro DiazTous, Encor-America In-Situ Enthalpy Measurements in Low Pressure Condensing Steam Turbines.................. 4-3 Steve Hesler, EPRI Tom McCloskey, EPRI Steam Turbine Related Reseach at TVA ...........................................................................4-19 Jim Terrell, TVA On-Line Performance Monitoring and Condition Assessment of Steam Turbines ..............4-27 5 SESSION 5: HEAT RATE TESTING ................................................................................... 5-1 Performance Evaluation and Testing.................................................................................. 5-2 Sam J. Korellis, Dynegy Midwest Generation Philip Gerhart, University of Evansville A Procedure for Analyzing Power Plant Measurement Variances Associated with Thermal Performance Testing ............................................................................................ 5-7 Fred D. Lang, Exergetic Systems, Inc. Cycle Alignment Methods and Evaluation..........................................................................5-14 Sam J. Korellis, Dynegy Midwest Generation In Search of Unaccounted for BTUs via the Art of ASME PTC-6 Testing ........................5-18 Italo Liberatore, Constellation Power Source Generation Allison Rossi, Constellation Power Source Generation Donald Fyhr, Constellation Power Source Generation 6 SESSION 6: PLANT EXPERIENCES .................................................................................. 6-1 Analysis of Variables for Predicting Power Output at the Columbia Power Plant ................ 6-2 Aravindan Rangarajan, Industrial Engineering MS, Iowa State University Experience of Moneypoint Power Station in Recovering Plant Heat Rate: Focus on Control Valves...................................................................................................................6-18 Michael Rocke, Electricity Supply Board, Ireland Tom Canning, Electricity Supply Board, Ireland Sanjay V. Sherikar, Control Components, Inc. Heat Rate Improvement in an Existing Multifuel Unit .........................................................6-28 Joaquin G. Blas, Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, S.A. Florentino Blanco, Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, S.A.
xv
An Application of the Plant Performance Modelling Package PROATES to Analyse the Cause of a Persistent Tube Failure Problem ...............................................................6-63 K.R.J. Hartwell, Powergen A.B. Ready, Powergen In-Situ O2 Probe Failure at Dairylands JP Madgett Station................................................6-75 Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Cooperative
xvi
1
SESSION 1: ON-LINE HEAT RATE MONITORS
1-1
Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-20
1-21
1-22
1-23
1-24
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-28
1-29
1-30
1-31
1-32
1-33
1-34
1-35
1-36
1-37
1-38
1-39
1-40
1-41
1-42
1-43
1-44
1-45
Test Instrumentation Error

D ifference in F lue G as F low R ate C alc ulated from S tandard and Im proved Ins trum entation for Veloc ity Head M easurem ent
5
4 .5
S ite S ite S ite S ite 1: 2: 3: 4: S ho rt S tack, S ho rt S tack, T all S tac k, T all S tac k, RA = RA = RA = RA = 4 Deg 9 Deg. 13 Deg. 6 D eg
P e rc e n t F lo w D iffe re n c e
3 .7
3 .5
1 .9
0 S ite 1 S ite 2
T est S ite
24
S ite 3
S ite 4
1-46
1-47
Achieved Reductions In Flow Bias Error

20
18.3
18
O ld E P A R eg u lation s New E P A Reg u lation s
R ed u ctio n in C E M Bias E rro r [% ]
16
13.9
14 12
10.3
13.2
10 8 6
4.2 4.1
9.8
7.1
4 2 0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.8
Un it A
Un it B
Un it C
Un it D
Un it E
Un it F
T ested U n it
26
1-48
1-49
1-50
1-51
Dilution Probe Errors

6
E rro r in C o n cen tratio n M easu rem en t [%]
Nominal P ara mete rs T sta ck = 2 50 de g. F 4 P sta ck = 1 atm. M W sta ck = 3 0 lb/lbmo l P re g = 5 0 psig 2 T u mb .ca b le = 8 0 deg. F
6 0 D e g. F = 1% Erro r -2
-4 -2 50 -2 00 -1 50 -1 00 -5 0 0 50 1 00 1 50 2 00 2 50
C h an g e in S tack T em p eratu re [F ]
30
1-52
1-53
1-54
1-55
1-56
1-57
F-Factor Method - Field Results

10 ,2 0 0
F lu e g a s flo w ra te m e a s u re d b y A u to p ro b e
TM
. G rid fin e n e s s = 4 8 p o in ts
10 ,1 0 0
Input/Output B TC E
Ne t Un it He a t R a te [B T U/k W h ]
10 ,0 0 0
F F acto r, O2-B ase d F F acto r, C O2-B ased
9,90 0
9,80 0
9,70 0
9,60 0
9,50 0 0 5 10 15 20
T e s t Nu m b e r
25
30
35
40
36
1-58
1-59
1-60
1-61
1-62
1-63
1-64
1-65
1-66
1-67
1-68
1-69
1-70
1-71
1-72
1-73
1-74
1-75
1-76
1-77
1-78
Bull Run DCS Graphics Controllable Losses
1-79
Bull Run DCS Graphics Boiler Performance
1-80
Bull Run DCS Graphics Feedwater Heaters
1-81
1-82
1-83
1-84
Modular Heat Rate Calculations for Power Plants using OPC

By: Harry R. Winn Westinghouse Process Control, Inc.
1-85
Modular Heat Rate Calculations for Power Plants using OPC

Or how to use OPC in power plants as a system wide performance monitoring tool
1-86
Performance Monitoring Traditional Methods...

Proprietary Code usually not supplied Proprietary Datalink to DCS required Difficult for users to make modifications Costly to have the performance monitoring vendor make modifications Eventually does not match plant configuration due to lack of maintenance Difficult to get key performance data to users on plant network
1-87
The challenge-- Develop performance monitoring system which is user friendly, easy to maintain, and provide needed data to the engineer in the format required Provide an standard communication link to all DCS vendors that is easy to configure and maintain and allows bi-directional communication Provide option to allow the performance monitoring system to execute at the enterprise level and send critical data l h l l l
1-88
The 1st Challenge-- Develop standard method of interface to DCS systems OPC was chosen as interface method
1-89
OPC--- What is it?

OPC (originally OLE for Process Control) is an industry standard created with the collaboration of a number a leading worldwide automation and hardware software suppliers working in cooperation with Microsoft. The standard defines method for exchanging realtime automation data among PC-based clients using Microsoft operating systems. The organization that manages this standard is the OPC Foundation.
1-90
OPC--- Why use it?

Most DCS vendors have OPC server Standard design of protocol based on OPC specification Browser capability Easily configurable No custom programming Enterprise level of performance monitoring www.opcfoundation.org
1-91
Typical OPC Performance Monitoring Configuration:

DCS Vendor #1 OPC Server DCS Vendor #2 OPC Server DCS Vendor #3 OPC Server
DCS PM Operator Graphics DCS PM Operato Graphics DCS PM Operator Graphics
Bi-directional Data Communication
Ethernet
Ethernet
Key Performance Data to users on plant network
Performance Monitoring System for three units
1-92
The 2nd Challenge-- Develop user friendly performance monitoring system that is easily configurable and maintainable Complete point and click capabilty Develop monitoring system for both fossil fired utility type boilers and combined-cycle plants
1-93
Performance Monitoring System User Interface

Centralized performance monitoring tag database Complete point and click capability to configure and maintain Custom algorithms created for performance monitoring modules including condenser, boiler, turbine, feedwater heater, etc.
1-94
Flowchart workspace Plant attributes
Algorithm selection
Drop and drag
1-95
Typical Condenser Calculation Worksheet
1-96
Condenser Design Data Screen
1-97
OPC Tag Configuration
1-98
Event Logger to easily track system
1-99
OPC tag selection output mapping
1-100
Run mode and What-If manual constant entry
1-101
Run mode view of calculations
1-102
Any Plant inputs
Plant Overview Flow Chart
Any plant equipment type
Live values displayed
1-103
1st Installation ...

Implemented at AES Warrior Run project in Cumberland, Maryland
210 gross megawatt rating CE coal fired fluidized bed boiler ABB steam turbine Co-generation plant
Commissioned in May, 2000
1-104
Controllable Loss Operator Graphic
1-105
Controllable Loss Operator Graphic #2
1-106
Cooling Tower Operator Graphic
1-107
Future Development...
Data Validation module with SoftSensor replacement capability, Spring 2001 Data Replay module to permit retrieving historical data, modifying, and re-executing the calculations, Fall 2001
1-108
Improving Results, Confidence and Decisions with Precise Data Validation

Duane Hill
Dairyland Power
Marcus Caudill Ron Griebenow, P.E.
Performance Consulting Services, Inc.
1-109
Why Is Data Validation Important?

Instrument Errors:
Reduce Efficiency Increase Emissions Cause Unnecessary Power Purchases Create Monitoring System Errors Cost $$$$$$$$$$$
~$1,000,000 per year on a 440 MW fossil plant
1-110
ALL Automated Systems Need Accurate Data for Reliable Results

Control System Combustion Optimization System Expert / Advisory System Performance Monitoring System On-line Costing System
1-111
What is Advanced Data Validation?

Recognizes Interdependence of All Data in Man-Made Systems Utilizes Repeatable Patterns of Process Data Applies Localized (Relevant) Models to Current Operation Provides Precise Analytical Redundancy Provides Data Filtering for Automated Systems
1-112
Data Filtering
Automated System
Filtered Values Outputs
ACM
Raw Inputs
1-113
Calibration Optimization / Calibration Reduction

Early identification of instrument drift Identify instruments requiring calibration during an outage Identify instruments that DO NOT require calibration Utilize highly-skilled techs in higher priority tasks
1-114
Duke Nuclear
Oconee Nuclear Station 900 MW PWR producing Superheated Main Steam ACM Capability Demonstration Tracking Calometric Data
44 points tracked over a 4 month period
1-115
With reference data primarily from the first week of operation, this temperature is predicted within 0.1% of actual value.
1-116
Drift in this main steam temperature measurement is easily detected and alarmed before the measurement had drifted 4 degrees (less than 1%).
1-117
A loss of gross generation associated with the error in calculated steam temperature rise, feedwater venturi fouling and changes in condenser backpressure is also easily detected
1-118
Accurate replacement values are provided during temporary instrument faults.
1-119
Allegheny Harrison Unit 2

650 MW Rated Capacity Foster Wheeler Opposed-Wall, Coal-Fired, Supercritical Boiler Westinghouse Single Reheat Turbine
1-120
Allegheny Project
Data Validation for Existing On-Line Performance Monitoring System Initial Data Gathering and Model Development in Early 1999 Seven-Week Turbine Overhaul and Boiler Outage Started April 1, 1999
System used to identify post outage process changes models updated for post outage operation
1-121
Range of reference data (~50100% load, consistent with performance monitoring system operation)
1-122
Very accurate modeling of main steam temperature prior to unit outage (except shut down periods where no reference data exists).
1-123
Increase in top heater drain temperature. Subsequent analysis reveals corresponding decrease in heater level and increase in DCA.
1-124
B-side heater shell pressure tracks closely with prediction.
1-125
A-side heater shell pressure clearly drops (<1%) after a unit shutdown
1-126
Allegheny Harrison Unit 2

System View
Early March
Late March
Post-Outage
Pre-Outage
1-127
Notable increase in gross generation following turbine overhaul.

Turbine Overhaul
1-128
Turbine Overhaul
Increase in steam flow due to replacement of many turbine seals. increases in turbine train pressures confirms increase in steam flow supports generation increase
1-129
Turbine Overhaul
Expected improvements in heat rate due to turbine overhaul (>1/2%) confirmed through data validation. Validation of all values used in heat rate calculation increases confidence in calculated result.
1-130
No increase in HP turbine efficiency after turbine overhaul.

Turbine Overhaul
1-131
Substantial (unrealistic) increase in calculated IP turbine efficiency after turbine overhaul. Performance monitoring system includes assumed N2 leakage, which was greatly reduced with seal replacement. Calculations must be updated.
Turbine Overhaul
1-132
Turbine Overhaul
After transmitter replacement, hot reheat pressure at the boiler shows increase consistent with increased steam flow (reduced turbine leakage).
1-133
Turbine Overhaul
Hot reheat pressure at the turbine substantially lower than expected. Screens placed in steam path after work in boiler reheat section produce large pressure drop.
1-134
Turbine Overhaul
Extensive air heater work during outage, including replacement of several baskets. Clear reduction in air heater pressure drop on both the air and gas sides.
1-135
Error in calculated BFPT steam flow. Failure of BFPT discharge pressure transmitter identified as root cause.
Turbine Overhaul
1-136
Turbine Overhaul
Several transmitters changed from absolute to gauge during outage. Will require update to performance calculations and data validation system.
1-137
OPG Lambton Unit 3

Stand-alone Data Validation for Plant Control System
Retrieves data from control system Can send alarms back to control system
Initial Data Gathering and Model Development in Spring 2000 Installation October 2000 Installation Being Expanded to 4 Units
1-138
ACM detects FWH drain temperature spikes resulting from low heater level
1-139
During the daily automatic calibration cycle, ACM can provide an accurate replacement value.
1-140
Dairyland Power JPM

Installing NeuSIGHT Optimization System Requires Extensive Data Set Found O2 Calibration Errors After Data Set Was Collected Existing ACM Models Were Used to Assess O2 Accuracy ACM High Accuracy Predictions Were Used to Validate and Replace Faulty O2 Data For Training of the Neural Network Models
1-141
Measured value lower than prediction until calibration on 2/3.
1-142
Drift begins on 2/1. No Change during 2/3 calibration.
1-143
Measured value lower than prediction for entire time frame.
1-144
Matches well until 1/31, then measured value drifts low.
1-145
Measured value higher than prediction until calibration on 2/3. Begins to drift again on 2/8.
1-146
Measured value slightly higher than prediction until calibration on 2/3, then a good match.
1-147
APR Data Validation Has Been Successfully Applied To:

Data filtering and validation for:
Performance Monitoring Systems Control Systems Neural Network-Based Optimization Systems
Stand-Alone Data Validation Calibration Optimization and Reduction
1-148
Conclusion
Precise Data Validation
Improves Performance Monitoring and Optimization System Results Increases Operations and Engineering Staff Confidence in On-Line Information Provides Reliable Information to Support Operations and Maintenance Decisions
1-149
Improving Results, Confidence and Decisions With Precise Data Validation

Duane Hill Dairyland Power Cooperative, Inc. Marcus Caudill Ron Griebenow, P.E. Performance Consulting Services, Inc.
Abstract In the increasingly competitive electric power generation market, it is critical that all generation resources be utilized in the most cost-effective manner. In particular, it is essential that the operation and maintenance costs of steam power cycles be minimized while maintaining peak availability, reliability, efficiency and environmental compliance. Advanced control technologies and artificial intelligence are becoming more frequently used to support these optimization efforts. However, these advanced technologies are heavily reliant upon the validity of the input data. Application of advanced data validation methods can improve the reliability of and the confidence in intelligent control technologies. Using advanced data validation to preprocess the plant data that is used by performance monitoring, combustion optimization, plant control, and artificial intelligence systems will provide these systems with accurate and reliable information, increasing confidence in the calculated results and operational recommendations. In addition, advanced data validation can accurately identify instruments requiring calibration. Calibration efforts can be then focused on only those instruments that need attention, reducing total hours required for instrument maintenance. Advanced data validation methods have been applied in various ways to a number of generating units, including Dairyland Power Cooperatives J.P. Madgett and Genoa Stations and Allegheny Powers Harrison Unit 2. This paper provides an overview of various data validation methods and outlines some of the benefits of advanced data validation in reducing operation and maintenance costs. It also presents some of the specific findings from initial analyses at these sites. Oral presentation at the EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference will include additional case studies from various utility installations illustrating the integration of advanced data validation into plant automation, monitoring, and intelligent control applications.
Page 1 of 1
1-150
What Is Data Validation and Why Is It Important? In an attempt to improve plant performance, reduce operating and maintenance costs, and meet the requirements of new regulation, many utilities are implementing automated systems and new technologies for plant monitoring and control. However, the usefulness of these systems is dependent upon the reliability and accuracy of the instrumentation. While the optimization algorithms are often mathematically perfect to achieve best operating conditions, the data entering these systems is usually less than perfect. Erroneous input data can result in misleading performance assessments, inappropriate operator actions, inefficient plant operation, excessive plant emissions, and a host of other undesirable effects. This is why accurate, reliable data is critical to cost-efficient operation of any generating facility, and why implementing a cost efficient method of plant data validation is essential. Note that even though questionable data supplied to a performance monitoring system will produce questionable results and reduce operator confidence in the system, the data does not truly impact the integrity of the calculations. When good data is restored, the calculated performance results will be correct. This is not necessarily true with neural-network based optimization systems. Because these systems are developed (trained) based on measured plant data, it is essential to provide accurate data for initial training of the system and, possibly even more importantly, for subsequent on-line re-training, if the system has this capability. Otherwise, errors will be built into the network calculations causing incorrect optimization scenarios. Measured data obtained from process sensors and associated electronic or pneumatic equipment is the only path for the unit operator, automatic control system or computerbased operator support system to obtain process information. Therefore, it is very important that the quality of process information be high. While instrument reliability and quality has improved significantly in recent years, wholesale instrument replacement is difficult to justify and usually not warranted. Erroneous data from sensors must be quickly and effectively identified so that the operator and any automated analysis or control functions can maintain reliable, efficient operation. Invalid sensor signals may result in misleading or incorrect conclusions and inappropriate responses (e.g., an invalid measurement could be mistaken for a process fault) by an operator or computer-based system, possibly producing unnecessary process shutdowns or equipment damage. Historically, instrument calibrations have been performed on a time basis, with those instruments that were deemed as critical to safety and efficient operations calibrated more frequently than those viewed as less important. This method of calibration has several side effects. First, the calibration intervals for the critical instruments may be close enough together that the instruments would not change significantly, so while the integrity of the instrument signals was maintained, the instrument maintenance staff spent precious resources calibrating instruments that did not need calibration. Second, due to the time required to maintain these critical instruments, the less important instrument calibration intervals tend to get longer and longer until a problem with one of these less important systems becomes critical.
Page 2 of 2
1-151
In short, quality data is essential to get effective results from and use of automated controls, computerized optimization systems and operator response. Data validation provides information to help distinguish measurement failures from process faults and select which instrument signals to use in control and analysis functions. High quality data validation can also reduce the time spent on calibration of instruments that are within specifications, and can identify those instruments that are beginning to change, so that a calibration check can be scheduled.
Data Validation Methods Data validation has been an issue for power producers as long as there have been power plants. In many cases, the traditional form of data validation was to take a test instrument out into the plant and install it adjacent to a questionable instrument and compare the two. If the test and plant instrument were close enough, then the plant data was considered valid. As fuel cost became more of an issue in the industry and additional automation required additional instrumentation, more complex and more costly data validation schemes emerged. Many of these methods of data validation resulted in significantly higher instrument maintenance costs and provided only marginally better instrument accuracy and reliability. The more common methods of maintaining instrument accuracy are presented below, along with a discussion of advanced data validation. Blanket Calibration The data validation method that has been most commonly used throughout the industry is blanket calibration. Historically, power generators have scheduled unit maintenance on a time basis (12 month intervals, 18 month intervals, etc.) and during these maintenance outages, many of the process instruments were scheduled for calibration. When preparing for these outages, it was not unusual for the plant staff to budget 500 to 1500 hours or more for instrument calibrations. In addition to the staff time, high-quality calibration equipment is required for each technician performing the calibrations. In many cases, technicians found that they were calibrating instruments that did not need calibration and, because of the length of time between calibrations, they were not developing useful calibration history on the individual instruments. For example, they might record that a particular pressure transmitter was out of calibration three years in a row, but they had no idea when during that year the calibration drift occurred. Between the intensive manpower requirements and the calibration history developed, there are definite drawbacks to blanket calibrations. Data Comparison Comparison methods are based on the availability of at least two measurements (direct or derived) for a desired process state. These redundant indications may then be used to make some judgment about the validity of the measurement signals. The simplest comparison methods involve the installation of two sensors at the same location for the same process state. These redundant sensors are compared with each other, and disagreement between them, larger than a threshold (which is typically related to the
Page 3 of 3
1-152
amount of anticipated measurement noise), is considered indicative of failure of one of the measurements. However, if only two measurements are available, no decision can be made on which to accept. An unambiguous measurement quality determination requires more than two measurements. When at least three measurements are available for comparison, it is possible to make some logical choice of which to accept or reject, and to form a "best estimate" of the true value of the process state. When there are no physically redundant devices, it is possible to use analytically redundant measurements. An analytically redundant measurement is most often derived using a process model to calculate a representative value of a directly measured state from measurements of other states. Once three or more representations of a particular measurement are available, there are methods which may be used to discriminate failed measurements and select the most representative "true" value of the measurement. Advanced Data Validation The usefulness of the methods described above has been severely limited by the cost and complexity of their implementation, as well as the accuracy and reliability of their results. Blanket calibrations require a significant investment in highly trained staff and a continuous block of dedicated time for maintaining calibrations. Installing and maintaining redundant sensors is costly and tends to be limited to a small subset of the total number of sensors that impact process performance and reliability. Comparison methods also generally compare only two or three measurements to each other or a measurement to a fixed limit or a simple single-variant curve. Consequently, this approach is not very precise or robust, and is therefore unlikely to cover a large subset of process measurements. These limitations have deterred many utilities from initiating a comprehensive data validation program. Fortunately, advanced data validation technology resolves many of the shortcomings of these traditional methods. Advanced data validation works in much the same way as the human brain. The human control operator with an analog control system observes the positions of dials, gauges and other indicators on the control panel and compares the current picture of unit operation with previous pictures that are stored in memory to decide if the unit is operating in an acceptable manner. If the picture matches something that the operator remembers, either from training or from past operation, then the operator can identify the current operation. If something in the picture deviates from past experience, the operator might use part of the picture to make a prediction (that pressure should be 200 psi). The advanced data validation technology works in a similar way. Snapshots of historical data are collected, evaluated to assure that all of the information within the snapshot is good, then included in a reference data file. Then as new data is evaluated, a snapshot of current data is compared to the reference snapshots, and the system determines if the current operation is consistent with past operation. A detailed explanation of the methodology can be obtained in Reference 1.
Page 4 of 4
1-153
The advanced data validation approach brings several advantages over other numerical methods. For example, since this technology recognizes that all monitored parameters are interrelated, the underlying algorithm is highly fault tolerant; the effects of incorrect or missing plant measurements are minimized. It is important to realize that advanced data validation is not a replacement for conventional performance monitoring, combustion optimization or other plant process improvement system. It is designed to work in conjunction with these systems, providing high quality data so that these conventional systems can achieve optimum results.
Advanced Data Validation Applications Advanced data validation systems have been or are being installed at a number of generating stations, both in the US and overseas. Personnel at these sites espouse a wide range of performance monitoring philosophies and reasons for installing data validation systems. However, all realize that the common problems with data reliability that exist in all power plants will prevent them from achieving their lowest cost of generation. Each of the examples below present the utilitys motivation for installing data validation, their goals for the installation, and examples of the results achieved to date. Dairyland Application Dairyland Power Cooperative is a long-time user of on-line performance monitoring and has a history of being on the cutting edge of performance improvement technology. After deciding to upgrade from a VAX-based performance monitoring system to a Windows NT-based system, Dairyland staff recognized the need to verify data quality. The data quality issue was to be even more important since Dairyland had plans to install a neural network-based optimization system. Dairyland knew that both the performance monitoring system and the optimization system were good programs but, to work effectively, they need good data. Another primary motivation for installing a data validation system at Dairyland was to reduce the load on instrument technicians. The three technicians at JP Madgett station were already overloaded, and each time that blanket calibrations were performed, Dairyland technicians were finding a number of instruments were scheduled for calibration when they didnt need to be. What was really needed was a tool to assist the instrument technicians in determining when an instrument needed calibration or replacement. To this end, advanced data validation was implemented to monitor approximately 260 instruments. Dairylands performance improvement program relies heavily on the existing performance monitoring system, which is used not only for performance calculations, but also as a data archival and retrieval system. In addition, the optimization system being installed will acquire its data through the performance monitoring system. Based on these considerations, Dairyland decided to integrate the data validation system with
Page 5 of 5
1-154
their existing performance monitoring system. Figure 1 depicts the data flow of the Dairyland system. In one of many examples of the systems benefits, it identified an anomaly in the highpressure feedwater heater drain temperature. Since this was happening at night at low loads, the problem most likely would not have been identified through existing monitoring activities. The controller was set improperly causing a drain valve to open when it was supposed to be closed. Correcting the problem allowed the heater to perform much more effectively, improving unit overall efficiency.
PC Windows NT 4.0 Unit Control System Perf. Monitor Database DAS Value Storage ACM Value Storage Calc Value Storage
DAS or Replacement Value Calculated Results
Performance Monitoring Calculations
DAS Value
Validated DAS Value DAS or Replacement Value
Advanced Data Validation Process
Neural Network-based Optimization System (Planned)
Optimization Instructions
Figure 1 -- Integration of Advanced Data Validation at Dairlyands JP Madgett
In another example, the performance staff noticed that one of the two Madgett feedwater flow transmitters had failed. The operations staff had noticed the same thing and were trying to determine the time of failure. Using the performance monitoring system, a trend of both flow transmitters and the advanced data validation system predicted flow value was displayed. The trend, depicted in Figure 2, shows that one transmitter began to straight line, indicating the time of failure. Further, the predicted value provided an accurate replacement for this failed transmitter that could be used for continued operation until the failed instrument in replaced.
Page 6 of 6
1-155
3000
2500
F W
2000
F L O w
1500
1000
500
Time
Actual FW Flow 1 Actual FW Flow 2 ACM Predicted FW Flow 1
Figure 2 -- Dairyland Feedwater Flow Transmitter Failure In yet another example, the plant had been experiencing unusual operating problems for several days. Operators reported that the unit was operating strangely at lower loads. A review of the advanced data validation system results revealed that the West Primary AirFlow transmitter was fluctuating between 200 KPH and its maximum value of 531 KPH. The advanced data validation system prediction did not show this fluctuation, indicating that there was a problem with the transmitter. Shortly after this problem was discovered, the transmitter failed completely. This illustrates the value of data validation in pinpointing the root cause of operating problems. Identifying the deficient instrument saved Dairyland staff a significant amount of diagnostic time. Finally, following weeks of parametric testing for the implementation of a neural network-based combustion optimization system, performance engineering staff determined that the boiler oxygen measurement probes had been experiencing plugging resulting in an erroneously low indication of excess air. Gradual drift in the boiler oxygen measurements was confirmed by reviewing the advanced data validation system results. The data validation system predicted values were subsequently used for successful training of the neural network saving weeks of repeated testing. Based on the success of their current installation, Dairyland is looking to use the system to provide early identification of performance degradation, in addition to expanding the installation to additional units. Allegheny Energy Harrison Station Application Allegheny Energy realized that in order to remain competitive in a deregulated environment that new approaches to traditional business practices were in order. While Allegheny historically has been proactive in the performance improvement area, personnel reduction and turnover has resulted in rethinking performance improvement methods and turning to computerized performance tools. Two of the tools that were implemented early in the process were a standardized information database and a standardized performance monitoring system.
Page 7 of 7
1-156
Implementation of a information database provides Allegheny staff with instant access to a wealth of plant process data, both at the plant and at the corporate level. With the incorporation of performance calculations, operations, maintenance and engineering staff not only have access to data, but to calculated performance results such as turbine efficiency, boiler efficiency, and unit heat rate. While all of this information is tremendously useful, it also points out a weakness that is common to all automated systems: the results are only as good as the incoming plant data. Over time, transmitters and other process indicators can drift and there is simply not enough manpower available to continuously check the calibration of critical instruments. With increased emphasis on heat rate and performance, Allegheny staff realized that properly calibrated instrumentation is a key to being able to control the generation process and maintain peak efficiency. Advanced data validation provides an economical and efficient way to monitor the calibration of important sensors. At Harrison Station, all historical data is stored in the OSI-PI data base on a DEC Alpha with an Open VMS operating system. The existing performance monitoring system, which also resides on the DEC Alpha, retrieves data from the PI database, runs the performance calculations, and sends results back to the PI system. Since the initial application of data validation was intended to improve confidence in the performance calculations, there were a number of options for integration with this system. First, the data validation system could directly filter data from the plant control system. Second, it could communicate with the PI system and provide validation information back to the database. Third, the data validation system could be interfaced directly to the performance monitoring system, validating only the information used for the performance calculations. After considering all of the possibilities, Allegheny opted to configure the system so that it communicated with the PI database. Since OSI PI is the standard database throughout the Allegheny system, this interface would allow use of the same interface software on all of the Allegheny units. In addition, all data from the plant computers are stored in the PI system, allowing validation of all plant data, whereas only a limited number of process points are transferred to the performance monitoring system. Figure 3 depicts the integration of the advanced data validation system with the plant database and the performance monitoring system. Data validation models were developed for Harrison Station Unit 2 in the spring and summer of 1999. Installation of the system was scheduled to follow a seven-week boiler outage and turbine overhaul that began April 1, 1999. In addition to identifying several data problems prior to the outage, the system was used to identify changes in the system following the outage.
Page 8 of 8
1-157
Alpha OpenVMS Unit Control System OSI PI System DAS Value Storage ACM Value Storage Calc Value Storage
DAS or Replacement Value Calculated Results
Performance Monitoring Process
DAS Value
Validated DAS Value
Intel NT PC Advanced Data Validation Process
Figure 3 -- Integration of Advanced Data Validation at Alleghenys Harrison Station System level displays available from the data validation system easily identified substantial process change resulting from the turbine overhaul. Figure 4 shows bullseye plots from both before and after the outage. Each hole in these plots represents one of the 249 measurements or performance monitoring system results that were analyzed with the data validation tool. Each ring of the bullseye represents one standard deviation between the measured value and the data validation system predicted value.
Figure 4 -- Allegheny Harrison Unit 2 System Level Displays
Page 9 of 9
1-158
In addition to several post-outage findings, the system clearly confirmed an increase in steam flow (Figure 5) and turbine train pressures resulting from replacement of worn turbine seals along with a corresponding increase in generation (Figure 6) and decrease in unit heat rate (Figure 7).
Measured Value Predicted Value Dynamic Alarm Limits
Turbine Overhaul
Figure 5 Harrison Unit 2 Steam Flow
Measured Value Predicted Value Dynamic Alarm Limits Turbine Overhaul
Figure 6 Harrison Unit 2 Gross Generation

Page 10 of 10
1-159
Measured Value Predicted Value Dynamic Alarm Limits Turbine Overhaul
Figure 7 Harrison Unit 2 Net Unit Heat Rate The system was installed in late-September 1999 and continues to provide real-time validation for the on-line performance monitoring system. Other Advanced Data Validation Applications In the past, the unit operator could easily make adjustments for questionable plant data. However, with the large quantity of data that is frequently used in advanced control algorithms, it is impossible for an individual operator evaluate all of the input data without assistance. Many facilities are implementing neural network-based optimization systems, which are designed to optimize many different aspects of plant operation, including NOx, heat rate, SO2, and overall operating costs. Since these systems are configured based on actual plant data from parametric testing, it is critical that high-quality data is used for configuration of the systems and continued operation. Advanced data validation can be integrated into an optimization program in a number of ways. It can be configured to work directly with the optimization software and validate only the information that is being assessed for optimization, or it can be interfaced with the plant data acquisition to pre-process the data supplied to the optimization system. At a minimum, advanced data validation technology should be employed to filter the data used in configuring a neural network. This will reduce the chance of incorporating faulty data into the neural network model and reduce the need for costly and time-consuming retraining. Further,
Page 11 of 11
1-160
implementing such a system in a closed-loop control mode requires high-quality, realtime data, making on-line advanced data validation essential.
Economics of Advanced Data Validation In the current power generation market, most business decisions are driven by economics. If there is not a definitive cost benefit to improving data quality, then the prudent businessperson would not install a data validation system. In addition, many utilities are implementing requirements for a one or two-year payback period. Advanced data validation methodology can often provide full return in less than one year through the following benefits. Increases operator confidence in data Aids management in making accurate O&M decisions Reduces calibration resources by optimizing calibration scheduling Reduces engineering analysis resources by identifying the root cause of a problem (instrument or equipment) Provides early warning of instrument drift or failure Provides accurate replacement values for drifted or failed instruments Provides early warning of process drift or change Precisely quantifies the amount of instrument/process drift or change
While all of these are important benefits to power generators, only those which can be assigned a dollar value can be used for cost justification. Examples of the cost benefits available from advanced data validation are presented below. Advanced data validation will help to reduce costs by streamlining the calibration process. Utilities estimate that as many as 1500 man-hours are expended on instrument calibrations during annual outages. If advanced data validation can reduce this by a conservative 25%, an additional 375 man-hours would be available for more productive tasks, such as controls tuning and optimization. Assuming that an instrument technician with a loaded cost of $35 per hour is performing the calibrations, a reduction of 375 hours per unit results is a direct labor savings of more than $13,000 annually. For the past 25 years the power generation industry has been on a quest to improve fuel efficiency and reduce heat rate. One of the cornerstones of this quest has been the reduction of controllable losses. A tremendous amount of research, time, training, money and effort has gone into the effort to reduce controllable losses. While this effort has provided exceptional payback, the weak link is again the primary instrumentation. The pressure and temperature sensors must provide an accurate indication of the true process value in order to minimize controllable losses. In a study performed on a single 450 Mw coal-fired generating unit, the impact of historical deviations in just three of the instruments that impact controllable losses -- throttle pressure, throttle temperature, and hot reheat temperature - was calculated to be more than $900,000 annually in additional fuel consumption and replacement power. Since these instruments are part of the highprofile set of controllable loss instruments, it is assumed that higher priority was placed
Page 12 of 12
1-161
on maintenance of these instruments. With an advanced data validation system, these calibration deviations would be readily detected. Add these tangible savings to the less tangible, such as increased operator confidence in the input data, and it is clear that data validation provides high returns.
Conclusions Advanced data validation has been successfully applied to pre-processing of the plant data that is used by performance monitoring and control systems and provides these systems with accurate and reliable input data. This provides increased confidence in monitoring and optimization system recommendations and reductions in plant operating costs. In addition, advanced data validation has been used to accurately identify instruments requiring calibration, refocusing calibration efforts on those instruments that need attention and reducing instrument maintenance time. As more utilities apply optimization programs, advanced controls, and other emerging power plant technologies, the need for the improved accuracy, reliability, and confidence in data becomes more imperative. Application of advanced data validation will accelerate the practical and effective use of these advanced methods of plant automation, helping to minimize the cost of production. Where quality data is critical for efficient operations and accurate maintenance decisions, implementation of advanced data validation is essential.
References 1. Application of Advanced Pattern Recognition to Power Plant Condition Assessment; M.B. Caudill, R.D. Griebenow, E.J. Hansen; 1996 EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas; 1996. 2. Advanced Calibration Monitor Users Manual; Performance Consulting Services, Inc.; Montrose, Colorado; 1998. 3. "Applied Pattern Recognition for Plant Monitoring and Data Validation"; R.D. Griebenow, E.J. Hansen, A.L. Sudduth; 6th Annual EPRI-ISA POWID; La Jolla, CA; 1995. 4. Similarity Based Regression: Applied Advanced Pattern Recognition for Power Plant Analysis; E.J. Hansen, M.B. Caudill; 1994 EPRI-ASME Heat Rate Improvement Conference; Baltimore, Maryland; 1994.
Page 13 of 13
1-162
2
SESSION 2: OPTIMIZATION
2-1
Session 2: Optimization
IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION OPTIMIZATION IMPACTS OF COMBUSTION OPTIMIZATION ON POWER PLANT HEAT RATE ON POWER PLANT HEAT RATE
EPRIs Heat Rate Improvement Conference EPRIs Heat Rate Improvement Conference Dallas, TX, January 30 --February 1, 2001 Dallas, TX, January 30 February 1, 2001
Carlos E. Romero Edward K. Levy Nenad Sarunac Energy Research Energy Research Center Center
2-2
COMBUSTION OPTIMIZATION
Basic Steps:
Energy Research Energy Research Center Center
Inspect and Maintain Related Equipment. Define Relationships Between Boiler Operating Parameters (Boiler Testing). Identify Optimal Boiler Control Settings. Maintain Levels of Improvement for NOx, Heat Rate and Combustibles (CO and UBC).
2
Combustion Optimization
2-3
Impacts of Comb. Optimization

Common Performance Impacts:
Boiler Efficiency (Excess O2, UBC, CO, Gas Temperatures). Turbine Cycle Heat Rate (Steam Temperatures, Desuperheating Flow Rates). Auxiliary Power Requirements (Fan Loading, Pulverizers Settings).
3
2-4
Impacts of Comb. Optimization

Combustion Optimization Parametric Impact on Unit Heat Rate Heat Rate Impact
Boiler Component
Parameters Affected
O2, UBC, CO, Tsteam, Tgas, Attemp.,
Boiler
Excess Air Pulverizer
Classification Primary Air Biasing UBC, CO, UBC, CO,
Turb.
PAux.
Pfan,
Pmill Pfan Pmill
O2, CO, Tsteam, Tgas, Attemp.,
Burner System
Secondary Air Swirl OFA Tilt O2, UBC, CO O2, UBC, CO O2, UBC, CO, Tsteam, Tgas, Attemp. O2, UBC, CO, Tsteam, Tgas, Attemp. Tsteam, Tgas, Attemp., Pfan
Sootblowing
2-5
Effect of O2 on CO and Fly Ash LOI

280 M W F W B o iler (T w in F u rn ace)
120 110

17
Average S ec ondary Air D am per at 65 %
16 100 15
C O [p p m ]
90 80 70 13 60 50 40 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 11

B a s e lin e B a s e lin e
14
12
A v e ra g e E c o n o m iz e r O 2 [%]
F ly A s h L O I [%]
2-6
Effect of O2 on Unit Heat Rate

300 M W B & W B o iler; F G R C ap ab ility
240
D e lta Un it He a t R a te [B tu /k W h ]
210 180 150 120 90 60

H ig h L O I H ig h S ta c k L o s s
y = 103.06x 2 - 777.35x + 1490.6
30 0 2 .0 2 .3 2 .6 2 .9 3 .2 3 .5 3 .8 4 .1 4 .4 4 .7 5 .0
A v e ra g e E c o n o m iz e r O 2 [%]
2-7
Effect of FEGT on Unit Heat Rate

585 M W C E B o iler (S p lit F u rn ace)
20 0
18 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 2,1 0 0 2,2 0 0 2,3 0 0 2,4 0 0 2,5 0 0 2,6 0 0 2,7 0 0 2,8 0 0 2,9 0 0

L o w S tea m T em p e ratu res E x ce s siv e D e su p erh e atin g S p ra ys
C a lc u la te d F E G T [d e g . F ]
2-8
Effect of Mill Configuration on Unit Heat Rate

3 0 0 M W B & W B o ile r; 6 E L -7 6 M ills Ne u ra l Ne two rk M o d e l R e s u lts
1 0 ,10 0
O 2= 3% , F G R= 45 O 2= 3.6% , F G R= 45
Ne t Un it He a t R a te [B tu /k W h ]
1 0 ,05 0
1 0 ,00 0
9 ,9 50
T o p M ills U n lo a d in g
B o tto m M ills U n lo a d in g
9 ,9 00
D & E-M ill O /S C & E-M ill O /S B & E-M ill O /S D & F -M ill O /S E & F -M ill O /S B & C -M ill O /S
E-M ill O /S
9 ,8 50
9 ,8 00 -1 .0 -0 .8 -0 .6 -0 .4 -0 .2 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0
M ill B ia s P a ra m e te r
B -M ill O /S
F -M ill O /S
2-9
NOx vs. UNIT HEAT RATE TRADE-OFF
In General, the Higher the Level of NOx Reduction, the Greater the Potential for Unit Performance Impacts. NOx vs. Unit Heat Rate Trade-Off Affected by:
Optimization Objective. Operational and Environmental Constraints. Boiler Specifics (Design, Size, Fuel Blend, etc.). Boiler Operability and Dispatching Demands. Other Impacts (Ash Disposal, Maintenance Conditions, etc.).
2-10
NOX and Unit Heat Rate Trending in Comb. Opt.

0.70 Baseline Sec. Air 0.65 O2 Burner tilt
O2 / burner tilt

Burner tilt / Sec. Air
9200
Fuel Air 9150
Mills
0.60
9100
0.55
9050
0.50
9000
0.45
8950
0.40
"Final"
8900
0.35
NOx Heat Rate
8850
0.30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8800
Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
NOx, lb/MBtu
10
2-11
Typical NOx vs. Unit Heat Rate Trade-Off

9200
Net Unit Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
9150
9100
9050
N o t e : H e a t R a t e s C a l c u la t e d U s i n g t h e H E A T R T C o d e
9000 0 .3 5 0 .4 5 0 .5 5
x
0 .6 5
NO
E m is s io n s (lb /M B tu )
11
2-12
BOILER OP STRUCTURE
Expert System - Guides Engineer Through a Series of Boiler Tests, Builds the Database Plant Data Neural Networks Correlate Test Data Optimization Algorithm Determines Best Control Settings Satisfying Optimization Goal and Operational Constraints
Boiler Controls
Expert System
Recommended Test Conditions
Plant Engineer
Neural Networks
Optimization Algorithm Personal Computer
Advice to Plant Engineer
12
2-13
UNIT A
85 MW Tangentially-Fired CE Boiler. Fires Eastern Bituminous Coal. LNCFS-III Low NOx Firing System. Four Burner Elevations Can Operate at Full Load with Only 3 Mills in Service. Optimization Objective: Improve Heat Rate and Find Optimal Control Settings at Different Target NOx Levels.
13
2-14
NOx vs. Unit Heat Rate TradeOff and Operator Variability

8 5 M W C E B o ile r; L N C F S -III B u rn e r S ys te m
1 0,2 40
P aram etric Tes ts
P redic t ed O ptim al S ettings
1 0,2 20
1 0,2 00
O p e ra to r V a ria b il ity
1 0,1 80
1 0,1 60
1 0,1 40
1 0,1 20 0 .30 0 .35 0 .40 0 .45 0 .50 0 .55 0 .60
NO x E m is s io n R a te [lb /M B tu ]
14
2-15
Unit A Results
Optimal Net Heat Rate is a Strong Function of NOx Below 0.40 lb/MBtu. Control Settings Traditionally Used by Individual Operators Caused Heat Rate Penalties From 0 to 65 Btu/kWh. OEM Control Settings Result in Emission OverCompliance and a 50 Btu/kWh Heat Rate Penalty.
15
2-16
UNIT B
Opposed Wall-Fired Supercritical 650 MW Boiler. Phoenix Combustion Low-NOx Dual Register Burners With OFA. Periodic Opacity or CO Excursions Which, Unchecked, Could Require Unit Derating. Optimization Objective: Obtain NOx Reductions with Minimum Impact in Unit Heat Rate, Subject to Prescribed Constraints.
16
2-17
Air Flow Range Impact on CO and Opacity

120 110 100 90
CEM CO S tac k O p ac ity
Air Flow Range

20 18 16
Baseline Opacity
650 M W F W B o iler; P h o en ix L o w -N O x B u rn ers
C E M C O [ppm ]
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 67 68 69 70 71 72
Baseline CO
12 10 8
Baseline Air Flow
6 4 2 0
73
74
S econdary Air Flow [%]
17
2-18
S tack O pacity [%]
14
Minimum Achievable NOx and Optimal Heat Rate

650 M W F W B o iler; P h o en ix L o w -N O x B u rn ers 8,520 8,500
N et U n it H eat R ate [B tu /kW h ]
8,480
T est Data Points
8,460 8,440 8,420 8,400 8,380 8,360 8,340 8,320 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
M in im u m He a t Ra te C urve B a s e lin e
N O x Em issio n R ate [lb /M B tu ]
18
2-19
Unit B Results
NOx Reduced to 0.60 lb/MBtu with Minimal Impact on Heat Rate. Minimum NOx Level of 0.55 lb/MBtu Achieved Within CO and Opacity Constraints. Implemented On-Line Closed-Loop Combustion Control for CO and Opacity Control.
19
2-20
UNIT C
600 MW B&W Opposed Wall-Fired Boiler With a Conventional Dual Register Firing System. Unit Can Achieve Full Load With 6 of 8 Mills InService While Burning Western Coals. Top Mill Row Secondary Air Can Be Used as Simulated OFA. Optimization Objective: Determine Best Heat Rate and Minimum Achievable NOx Using Top Mill Row Secondary Air as Simulated OFA.
20
2-21
Best Heat Rate and Minimum Achievable NOx

6 0 0 M W B & W B o ile r; S im u la te d O F A
9,750
28 6 7
9,720
11 4
10
9,690
5
8 26 21 24 3 27 19 9 1
9,660
14
12 13
9,630
2
P arametric Test B aseline S plit F ire Optima l (S e ssion 65)
9,600 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33
21
2-22
Unit C Results
Simulated OFA Achieved a Minimum NOx Level of 0.161 lb/MBtu (34% Reduction From the Baseline Conditions). Feasible to Achieve Simultaneous NOx Reduction and Heat Rate Improvement (30 Btu/kWh). Stack Opacity and Fly Ash LOI Were Not Affected by the Change in Boiler Control Settings. CO Found to be a Strong Function of O2 and Top Row Secondary Air Damper Position. 22
2-23
UNIT D
300 MW Front-Fired B&W Boilers With a Conventional Firing System. Flue Gas Recirculation Fan Capability. Pneumatic Combustion Control System and Bailey INFI-90 Digital Control System. Optimization Objective: Determine Minimum Possible NOx Between the 75 MW to 300 MW Load Range and Best Mill Combinations Over the Load Range.
23
2-24
NOX vs. Unit Heat Rate Trade-Off Over the Load Range
300 M W B & W B o iler; F G R C ap ab ility
3 00
NO x Re d. 35.6 %

1 50
NO x
1 20
NOx Re d.
NO x R e d u c tio n
2 00
22.5 %
90 1 50
NOx Re d. 15.5 %
60 1 00
30 50
200
250 Un it L o a d [M W ]
300
He a t R a te P e n a lty [k J /k W h ]
2 50
HR
[p p m , c o rr. @ 3 % O 2 ]
24
2-25
Unit D Results
NOx Reduced From Over 700 ppm to 550 ppm (corr. to 3% O2 dry basis) Over the Load Range (20% Reduction). FGR Flow Important to Maintaining Steam Temperatures When Reducing O2 and NOx. Implemented On-Line Low-NOx Advisory System for the Operators Which Provides an On-Line Operator Interface Between Boiler OP and the INFI-90 DCS for Continuous Low-NOx Advise.
25
2-26
Penalty Box Screen
26
2-27
CONCLUSIONS
Changes in Boiler Settings Result in Changes in Operating Parameters Which Affect Boiler Efficiency, Turbine Cycle Heat Rate and Auxiliary Power. Impacts on Unit Heat Rate Due to Changes in Control Settings are Typically Limited to Within 100 Btu/kWh. Additional Up-Front Reduction in Unit Heat Rate Can Be Achieved Through Boiler Maintenance.
27
2-28
CONCLUSIONS
Usually, the Higher the Level of NOx Reduction, the Greater the Potential for Unit Performance Impacts. An Evaluation of the Trade-Offs Between Heat Rate and NOx Emissions Should Consider the Cost of Fuel and NOx Credits, as Well as Boiler Constraints and Other Maintenance Costs.
28
2-29
Allegheny Energy Supply

Armstrong P. S.
Obtaining Improved Boiler Efficiency and NOx Using Advanced Empirical Optimization and Individual Burner Instrumentation on a Boiler Operated in Load -Following Mode
E. P. Payson: Allegheny Energy Supply Rich Brown: EPRI Dave Earley: Air Monitor Corporation Carlos Moreno: Ultramax Corp
2-30
Project Description
An EPRI Tailored Collaboration Project Merge four technologies into plant operations:
Fuel Flow Measurement- all burners Secondary Air Flow Measurement-- all burners Variable orifices to balance primary air and coal flow - 1/3 of the burners Optimization Software- UltraMax Corp.s transient optimizer
Host unit is Allegheny Energy Supplys Armstrong #1 Unit
2-31
Armstrong #1 Unit
Foster Wheeler sub-critical boiler rated at 180 MW Equipped with 12 Foster Wheeler IFS Low NOx Burners Fires eastern bituminous coal: 124,500 lb/hr at MCR Two D7-Class ball mills feed the 12 burners
2-32
A r m s tro n g
U n it s 1
&
2 B o ile r A r r a n g e m e n t
2-33
Burners
1 12 7 1 3 5 2 4 6 2 3 6 9 4 11 10 7 9 11 8 10 12
1A1
1A2
5 8
1B1
1B2
Coal Conduits 3 way distributor
Coal Conduits
Ball mill pulverizer A
Ball mill pulverizer B
2-34
T C Project Goals
Merge the new technologies into process control to improve overall boiler performance and NOx reduction
Determine the impact on performance of each technology as it is phased in and the overall impact
Determine the extent of fuel and air flow imbalance

Using existing controls and variable orifices on the coal pipes attempt to balance flows.
Determine to what extent NOx; LOI, and CO can be reduced by attempting to balance secondary air-to-fuel ratios at each burner
2-35
Project Instrumentation & Control

Air Flow Measurement & Control
Air Monitors Individual Burner Air Monitor (IBAM) Sleeve damper control on FW/IFS burners
Coal Flow Measurement & Control

Air Monitor/ Promecon Pf-Flow microwave flow measurement on each burner Power & Industrial variable orifices
2-36
IBAM Principal Pitot-Fechheimer Probe
2-37
Individual Burner Airflow Measurement (IBAM) Probe
2-38
Burner Register Flow Stratification

Swirler Multi-Point Averaging IBAM Probe
P1 P2 P3 P4
Secondary Air Primary Air/ Coal Secondary Air
P5 P6 P7 P8
2-39
2-40
Air Monitor Corporation Test Chamber
2-41
Coal Flow Measurement - Pf Flow

Technology by Promecon Absolute Measurement
Microwaved based Output from each pipe not dependent on other pipes, primary air, or other variables Output not dependent on coal feeder information No coal sampling required to yield relative flow distribution Output is directly proportionate to coal flow in each pipe
Scaled Mass Flow

Apply scaling factor to obtain absolute output
Scaling factor may be obtained from gravimetric feed rate input,or manual sampling of a single coal pipe.
2-42
PF Density Measurement
x
PF density determined by means of measuring microwave signal attenuation due to the presence of coal particles. Ty Tx Ry Rx = = = = Transmitter Y axis Transmitter X axis Receiver Y axis Receiver X axis
The transmitter and receiver pair (Ty and Ry) are aligned linearly on the pipe. If installed alone, the polarization is only in one plane, resulting in a dead spot at 90 to the transducer pair. Therefore, a second pair of transmitter and receiver transducers (Tx and Rx) are placed at 90, so that there is measurement in both y and x polarizations. This is essential in that it allows measurement of the whole pipe cross sectional area.
Technology by Promecon
2-43
Velocity Measurement
2-44
2-45
Minimum Installation Requirements
2-46
ULTRAMAX
Sequentially adjusts the control inputs given the values of the uncontrolled inputs to maximize a scorecard metric Learns about process characteristics from data generated by the process
Does not require prior process models nor prior data Converges to the optimum even if there has not been experience with the process there
Can optimize in a dynamic-transient mode Can operate in advisory, closed-loop mode or stand alone mode
2-47
Armstrong P.O.V. Game Plan Armstrong P.O.V. Game Plan

Decision Diagram
Control Inputs
A A A A A A A A O2 Setpoint Top Sleeve Damper Pos. Mid. Sleeve Damper Pos. Bot. Sleeve Damper Pos. Aux Air A1 Aux Air A2 Aux Air B1 Aux Air B2
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Boiler Efficiency NOx LOI North A Economizer O2 North B Economizer O2 South A Economizer O2 South B Economizer O2 AH Gas Out Temp. A AH Gas Out Temp. B CO Opacity AH Gas Inlet Temp. A AH Gas Inlet Temp. B LOI A LOI B Precip. Amps 1A1, 1A2, 1B1, 1B2 Precip. Amps 11A, 12A, 13A Precip. Amps 11B, 12B, 13B
Allegheny Power Armstrong Power Station Unit #1 FW Front wall 180 GMW w/LNB
Uncontrolled Inputs
Time Since Last Soot Blow
M
Advice
Measurements (can be automated)
ULTRAMAX
2-48
TC Project Status
Characterize Project Status as Work In Progress Initial UltraMax stand-alone optimization performed Nov. 1998 Promecon system installed March 1999. System chosen for TC because this particular technology appeared to be most robust, incorporating particulate velocity and absolute mass flow in all coal conduits IBAMs installed during Apr-June 1999 outage UltraMax closed-loop feature installed and demonstrated March 2000
2-49
TC Project Status Cont.

Currently finalizing validation of Pf-Flow fuel flow measurement system. Recently installed Reflector Rods on all coal conduits to mitigate microwave reflections in conduits. Use of Pf-Flow velocity measurement enabled a greater understanding of the combustion process. Were able to reduce particulate velocities from 95-110 fps in most cases down to 75-85 fps, and demonstrated enhanced control over CO formation in the furnace Two to four of the twelve IBAMS appear to be malfunctioning. Troubleshooting for problem resolution
2-50
TC Project results to date

UltraMax stand-alone optimization showed nominal 2530% reduction in LOI; .25-.5% improvement in efficiency without violating NOx constraint UltraMax optimization in closed-loop demonstration yielded sustainable reductions in absolute NOx levels. About 20% NOx reduction above 165 MW; Nominal 12% NOx reduction below 150 MW
2-51
Ultramax Results
After 84 readjustments (40 operating hours), Efficiency improved 0.27% while all other requirements were satisfied.
Baseline Variable Name O 2 Setpoint Top Sleeve Dampers Middle Sleeve Dampers Bottom Sleeve Dampers Top Outer Register Middle Outer Register Bottom Outer Register Aux. Air A1 Aux. Air A2 Aux. Air B1 Aux. Air B2 Boiler Efficiency NO x LOI A LOI B CO Units % inches inches inches % open % open % open % % % % % lb./MBtu % % ppm conditions 3.21 0.07 -0.01 -0.12 50 50 50 42.4 42.6 42.5 42.6 88.01 0.360 6.2 7.5 127 Optimization conditions 3.24 0.90 0.92 0.98 55 55 50 4.4 46.6 35.4 48.6 88.28 0.352 5.5 10.9 429 Management Objectives / Requirements 2.8 < * < 5.5 -0.82 < * < 3. -0.61 < * < 3. -0.64 < * < 3. 40 < * < 70 40 < * < 70 40 < * < 70 10 < * < 60 10 < * < 60 10 < * < 60 10 < * < 60 maximize < 0.45 < 20 < 20 < 430
2-52
A rm stro n g #1 Un it B o ile r 1 1/1 8/9 9 B RO S S T ES T Au x air im p ac t o n C O
5 00.0 0
5.00
4 50.0 0
4.50
4 00.0 0
4.00
3 50.0 0
3.50
3 00.0 0
3.00
2 50.0 0
2.50
2 00.0 0
2.00
1 50.0 0
1.50
1 00.0 0
1.00
50.0 0 0.0 0
0.50 0.00
35
86
1 71
2 22
2 56
3 07
3 41
3 58
3 92
4 43
S ta ck G a s C O 1A O 2 1A O 2
1A 1 A ux A ir 1B O 2
1 A 2 A ux A ir 1 B O2
1 B 1 A ux A ir
1 B 2 A ux A ir
5 28
18
52
69
120
154
205
290
375
426
477
511
103
137
188
239
273
324
409
460
494
2-53
Armstrong #1Unit Boiler

March 9-10, 2000 Open Loop Operation 9AM-9A M
55 50 45 40
Excess Air %
0.5
0.45
35 30 0.35 25 20 15 10
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
0.3
0.25
190
Load MW Excess Air Nox Poly. (Excess Air) Poly. (Nox)
2-54
NOx lb/Mbtu
0.4
Armstrong # 1 Unit Boiler

March 15, 2000 Closed Loop Operation (part time) 2 AM-10PM
55 50 45 40
0.5
0.45
Excess Air %
35 30 25 20 15 10 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
0.35
0.3
0.25 190
Load MW
Excess Air Nox Poly. (Nox) Poly. (Excess Air)
2-55
NOx lb/Mbtu
0.4
2-56
Armstrong #1 Oct 08, 7 AM - Oct 09, 7 AM: 2000 1B2 IBAMS
20.000 190 18.000 170 16.000 150 14.000 130 12.000 110 10.000 90
8.000
70
6.000
50
4.000
30
2.000
10
0.000
08-Oct-00 04:48:00 08-Oct-00 09:36:00 08-Oct-00 14:24:00 08-Oct-00 19:12:00 09-Oct-00 00:00:00 09-Oct-00 04:48:00 09-Oct-00 09:36:00
Tim e
GROSS LOAD (MW)
8 IBAM
12 IBAM
10 IBAM
1A WB Pres
1B WB Pres
2-57
A rm strong #1
O ct 0 8 , 7 A M - Oc t 0 9 , 7 A M : 2 0 0 0 IB A M P lo t
120.00 0
140.000
100.00 0
120.000
80.000
100.000
60.000
80.000
40.000
60.000
20.000
40.000
0.000 130 140 150 160

L oa d M W
20.000 170 180 190
1 IB A M 8 IB A M
2 IB A M 10 IB A M
3 IB A M 11 IB A M
4 IB A M 1 A W B P re s
5 IB A M 1B W B P r es
6 IB A M 12 IB A M
7 IB A M 9 IB A M
2-58
Arm strong #1
Oct 08, 7 A M- Oc t 09 , 7 A M: 2 000 A ll 12 C oal Pipes
195 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 4:48:00 AM 9:36:00 AM 2:24:00 PM 7:12:00 PM
T im e
12:00:00 AM
4:48:00 AM
9:36:00 A M
GROSS LO AD (MW)
Tot Co al Flow
CEM Fuel F low
2-59
Arm stron g # 1
O c t 08, 7 A M - O c t 09, 7 A M : 20 00 1A 1 E XH . R eflec tor R o ds ins talled S ept 18, 2 000
4 0.000
10.000 9.000 8.000
3 5.000
3 0.000 7.000 2 5.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 1 0.000 2.000 5.000 1.000 0.000 140 150 160
L oa d M W
1 C o a l Flo w 3 C oa l F lo w 5 Co a l Flo w 1 A1 to ta l 1 A1 cla ss d iff 1 A1 A u x A ir
2 0.000
1 5.000
0.000 1 30 170 18 0
19 0
2-60
A rm st ro ng # 1 Co a l F low v s L o a d O ct 11 , 7 AM - Oc t 1 2, 7 A M : 20 00 All 1 2 C o al Pip es
170 .0 0
P ro m e co n F u e l F lo w
150 .0 0
130 .0 0
110 .0 0
90 .0 0
70 .0 0
C E M F u e l F lo w
50 .0 0
30 .0 0
D es ig n Fu e l F low
10 .0 0 85 90 95 1 00 10 5 11 0 115 1 20 12 5 13 0 135 1 40 1 45 15 0 155 160 1 65 17 0 175 180 1 85
L o ad ( M W ) T o t Co al F lo w L in ear ( T o t C o al F lo w ) D es ig n F lo w L in e ar (C E M F u e l F lo w ) C E M F u el F lo w
2-61
Future Directions
Extractive sampling for further validation of the Pf-Flow instruments Trouble shoot problematic IBAMs Evaluate effectiveness of variable orifices on primary air and coal Balance secondary air flows using sleeve dampers Import measurement values into UltraMax for ultimate control on mill output dampers, aux air dampers and burner sleeve dampers to optimize NOx, CO and LOI Evaluate transient mode of UltraMax with all signals.
2-62
Tennessee Valley Authority Energy Research / Technology Advancements Application of GNOCIS Neural Network Optimization Controller for Boiler Efficiency Control
By Darrell A. Howard And Lonnie A. Coffey
January 4, 2001
2-63
Test Results-NOx and Boiler Efficiency NOx Optimization Test Results Operation of the GNOCIS system with its interaction with the DCS bias settings is very stable. Closed loop control was implemented from the beginning of testing and was the sole mode of operation. The impact on NOx reduction was achieved without ideal plant equipment conditions. For example, many sootblowers were not operational. Figure 1 shown below is actual data taken from a 200 MW T fired unit normal burners and no overfire air operating on automatic load control. The average load remaining approximately at the same level throughout the duration of the test. This unit normally burns a high quality eastern bituminous coal. The operator constraints were relatively conservative. The optimization system was not allowed to drive the unit operating conditions into producing CO. The unit CO monitors were not included in the control scheme on this unit. The CO and NOx indications were used extensively as a safety indicator to prevent creating overfueling conditions in the twin furnace balanced draft system, since the excess oxygen instrumentation is affected by boiler air in-leakage. The performance indicated in Figure 1 has proven to be typical after two years of operation. The final model is still accurate after two years and an outage cycle on the unit. In this example, GNOCIS becomes active at 8:15AM.
Optimizing for NOx SH and RH NOx Unit 9 GNOCIS Test SH = Pink, RH = Blue: Units= Lb/MMBTU
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 9CBAI1:B29.PNT 9CBAI1:B25.PNT 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 9/17/98 9/17/98 8:00 8:18 9/17/98 9/17/98 9/17/98 8:36 8:54 9:12 9/17/98 9/17/98 9/17/98 9:30 9:48 10:06 9/17/98 9/17/98 10:24 10:42 9/17/98 9/17/98 9/17/98 9/17/98 11:00 11:18 11:36 11:54
FIGURE 1
2-64
NOx and Boiler Efficiency Test Results Figure 2 shown below was generated from the DCS system historian data, and documents the test results of NOx and boiler efficiency relationships at a steady state load situation of approximately 175MW. This particular test was conducted on July 4, 2000 with a NOx reduction by GNOCIS of approximately 10%, and boiler efficiency gains of .27% (approximately 27Btu.) GNOCIS constraints were set conservatively. The actual improvements recorded at the beginning of the test indicate a NOx level of .495 LB/MMBtu and a boiler efficiency of 87.8%. These values were obtained by the unit operator allowing some additional boiler excess air bias of approximately .2% below the constrained value that is determined by GNOCIS. The NOx and boiler efficiency improvements with the additional bias allowed by the unit operator, resulted in a NOx reduction of 12% and a boiler efficiency improvement of .58% or approximately 58 Btu/kWh
F ig u re 2 . G N O C IS T E S T , J U L Y 4 , 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 M W " T " F IR E D U N IT
0 .7 5 0 .7 3 0 .7 1 0 .6 9 0 .6 7 0 .6 5
NOx #/MM BTU
B O IL E R E F F IC IE N C Y % A L L G N O C IS A N D OPER AT OR B IA S E S R E M O V E D A T 7 :1 5 C D T G N O C IS R E T U R N E D T O C LOSED LOOP AND D R IV IN G F O R B O T H B .E . AND NOx
N O T E : A F T E R T E S T IN G O R IG IN A L O P E R AT O R B IAS E S W E R E N O T R E S E T R E S U L T IN G IN A L O W E R O V E R AL L B O IL E R E F F E C IE N C Y A F T E R G N O C IS W AS R E T U R N E D T O AU T O M AT IC O P E R AT IO N
8 7 .9
8 7 .7
BOILER EFFICIENCY %
8 7 .5
NOx AND B .E . V A L U E S W IT H O U T G N O C IS IN O P E R A T IO N N O x M O V IN G A V E R A G E (2 0 M IN ) AVER AG ED FOR BOT H FUR NAC ES
0 .6 3 0 .6 1 0 .5 9 0 .5 7 0 .5 5 0 .5 3 0 .5 1 0 .4 9 0 .4 7 0 .4 5 7 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0 8 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
R H N O x (2 0 M IN M A )
8 7 .3
8 7 .1
S H N O x (2 0 M IN M A )
8 6 .9
8 6 .7
9 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
1 0 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
1 1 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
1 2 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
8 6 .5 1 3 :0 0 :0 0 0 7 /0 4 /1 0 0
D a t e T im e ( 1 5 m in g rid s )
2-65
Other Optimization Requirements and Benefits Process sensors are required for real time performance and emissions Sensor validation provided an important predictive maintenance tool Process controllers must be available Neural Network Application -System must handle unlimited inputs -Update time critical for non-baseload or large units -Correlation relationships understood -Sensitivity analysis understood -Combining models feature important
Process outside the boiler optimization control system may be affected Unit net heat rate Maximum generation capability Unit AGC response capability (operating under variable pressure control for NOx, steam temperature, and unit heat rate)
Conflicting Optimization Goals Normally boiler optimization techniques consist of supplying the correct average amount of air and fuel to each burner to obtain ideal stiochiometry to produce the desired process responses. Total fuel and air control demand signals and dampers for all burners are driven from the same process. This means that any fuel and air imbalance between burners may generate problem zones that require individual bias adjustments. Optimization of the combustion process can create a set of conflicting goals. Normally boiler efficiency and NOx improve together as dry gas losses are reduced until CO is produced. At this point, NOx will continue to improve and boiler efficiency decreases. In some cases, as total air is reduced to minimize NOx and improve boiler efficiency, steam temperatures may suffer due to boiler design, slagging conditions, or a number of other factors. Since changes in steam temperature affect turbine cycle efficiency more than boiler efficiency, it becomes an administrative decision to determine the acceptable targets for these processes. A real example of conflicting goals follows. This is a unit where the MW output is imposed by the turbine steam flow conditions. At rated steam flow, pressure, and temperature, additional load may be obtained by overfiring the boiler and using attemperation to keep the RH temperature down within normal limits. The additional RH flow may generate 2-2.5% more power. The increased steam from attemperation flow will provide additional generation capacity. NOx and boiler efficiency cannot be optimized under these conditions. The value of additional generation may be greater than the boiler efficiency losses many times over. If the emissions average for the unit is good enough, limits may still be attained because of the average emission credits in the bank.
2-66
Conclusion The GNOCIS technology can consistently be applied to reduce NOx and improve boiler efficiency at the same time while operating on load control. In most cases, GNOCIS can do a better job than the unit operator can because it calculates and implements a new set of recommendations every minute. The amount of improvement is conservatively 10% to 15% NOx reduction and 30- to 40 Btu improvement on boiler efficiency with very conservative constraints. Continued research is needed to apply the technology to areas beyond boiler efficiency and NOx control.
2-67
Heat Rate Improvement at Dairylands Madgett Station using NeuSIGHT

TM
Duane Hill, Dairyland Power Coop. Brad Radl, Pegasus Technologies Glen Foster, Data Systems & Solutions
2-68
Madgett Station
Riley Turbo Boiler 375 MW Gross 4 Ball Mill Pulverizers 6 Burners per Mill Analog Controls PMAX Performance Monitoring System
2-69
Dairyland HR
2-70
Dairyland HR
2-71
NeuSIGHT Project
Main Goal - Heat Rate Improvement Occurred in 3 Phases Phase III implemented a NeuSIGHT in an Advisory mode Interfaced through custom displays built by DPC personnel on PMAX system Put into service July 2000
2-72
Load Profile
Must Optimize Through Continually Varying Loads Typical Profile
Full Load Only When Cows Come Home (early am, early pm) 170-250 MW during day 100-200 MW during night
2-73
NeuSIGHT Project
Control Points
RH Damper Positions (East/ West) Excess O2 Mill Coal Flow Bias
Interacts with
Firing Rate Attemperation Flows Boiler Cleanliness
2-74
Mill Flow Bias Testing Results

1 /2 7/0 0 HR a t 3 2 5 M W
40
10900
35
10800
10700 30
M ill c o a l % o f T o t a l
10600
HRn e t BT U/KW
25 10500 20 10400 15 10300 Roc elle c oal 10 10200 5 Mill bais ing tes t 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 10000 Blac k Thunder c oal
mill 61 % mill 62 % mill 63 % mill 64% Nuhr
10100
2-75
Multi-Parameter Results
3 5 0 M W 3 .5 Hr c o n t in u o u s t e s t
10700 % Total A ir Flow 10600
100 90 80
RH S p ,T o t A ir ,M ills , RH Dm p
Net Heat Rate 10500

Ne t He a t Ra t e BT U/KW
Nuhr RH_SPRA Y _FLOW RH_E_DA MP_62 MILL 61 % MILL 62 % MILL 63 % MILL 64 % Total A ir Flow
70 RH Spr ay kpph 60 50 40 30 20
10400 70 % RH Damper 10300 60 % 50 % Mills 61&63 bias ed up [ % total c oal f low ] 10200
10100
Mills 62&64 c ontr olled low er by Total Fuel c ontr ol 10
10000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
5 m in in t e r v a ls
0 41
2-76
Custom Advisory Display
2-77
Reported Heat Rate Comparison
2-78
Conclusion
To-Date Comparison Shows 1.5% Imp. Improvements came from Two Areas:
NeuSIGHT responsive to changing unit conditions Operator knowledge and willingness to share insights
2-79
ProcessLinkTM at the Roanoke Valley Energy Facility

Don Keisling, LG&E Peter Spinney, NeuCo
EPRI Heat Rate Conference Dallas, Texas January 30, 2001
2-80
Agenda
Introduction Plant Description How ProcessLink Works ProcessLink at ROVA Initial Results Conclusions and Future Directions
2-81
NeuCo, Inc. & Babcock Borsig Power

NeuCo was formed in 1996 and is owned by Charles River Associates, Advanced Energy (NStar), Babcock Borsig, and employees. NeuCo: Statistical, Neural Network Modeling, Software Engineering, Optimization Methodologies, Chemical & Combustion Engineering. Babcock Borsig: Boiler & Environmental technology expertise. NeuCo & Babcock Borsig joined forces to combine expertise and deliver integrated solutions to our customers.
2-82
LG&E-Westmoreland Partners
LG&E Energy is a Fortune 500 energy services company headquartered in Louisville, Ky which owns and operates businesses in power generation; project development; asset-based energy marketing; and retail gas and electric distribution services. LG&E was recently acquired by PowerGen. Westmoreland Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company, headquartered in Colorado Springs. LG&E-Westmoreland is a limited partnership that jointly owns ROVA
2-83
ROVA Plant Description

Coal-fired PURPA QF and EWG built in 1994-95. Sells power under long-term contract and steam to local host. Two wall-fired units of 180 MW and 50 MW gross. Riley boilers with Atrita mills. Bailey Infi-90 DCS Overfire air and individual burner shrouds Both units have flue gas desulfurization systems. Unit 2 has an SNCR due to stricter permitting requirements
2-84
On-Line Real Time Boiler Optimization

ProcessLink identifies the dozens of bias and trim settings needed to improve the mixing of the fuel and air within the furnace.
ProcessLink
NOx CO O2 Flue Gas Temp
Increased Efficiency, Improved Emissions Control
2-85
Where ProcessLink Fits

Current Performance Relative to Design Conditions Best Performance Under Actual Conditions and How to Achieve it
Performance Monitoring System DCS

PI Data Historian
ProcessLink Optimizer
Optimum Set Points
ProcessLink Information Available on Plant LAN
2-86
ProcessLink at ROVA
Objectives include Boiler Efficiency and Emissions Control NOx and CO ProcessLink selected after rigorous evaluation Unit 2 SNCR is included in the optimization PI and CO monitors installed as part of the project Power contract necessitated closed-loop deployment under full load Manipulated variables include (but not limited to):
Gross air (boiler O2) Mill biases (primary air flow and mill outlet temperatures) OFA Burner shrouds
2-87
Implementation Steps
Typical Tasks/Milestones of a ProcessLink Project
Work Plan And Kickoff
Hardware & Data Acquisition Systems Installed
DCS Integration
Direct Search Optimizer On-line
Data Collection
Neural Optimizer on-line
Training & Acceptance
Project Duration of 12-16 weeks.
2-88
2-89
2-90
2-91
2-92
2-93
2-94
Summary of Initial Results

Installed and commissioned with zero plant downtime Initial 0.3% efficiency gain after just 2 months on both units Improved control of NOx on Unit 1 and CO on both units ProcessLink often able to control CO much more effectively than operators Reduction in average Urea flow rates on Unit 2 (at times limited by need to control CO) Further work underway to realize additional benefits
2-95
Unit 1 Times Series Analysis

Analysis Timeframe NOx #/mmbtu Pre DOE DOE Neural w/CO Constraint CO #/mmbtu Pre DOE DOE Neural w/CO Constraint Average O2 Pre DOE DOE Neural w/CO Constraint Minimum O2 Pre DOE DOE Neural w/CO Constraint Boiler Effic (Abbr Losses) Pre DOE DOE Neural w/CO Constraint Period 2/18 - 3/3 3/4 - 4/21 4/22 - 6/26 2/18 - 3/3 3/4 - 4/21 4/22 - 6/26 2/18 - 3/3 3/4 - 4/21 4/22 - 6/26 2/18 - 3/3 3/4 - 4/21 4/22 - 6/26 2/18 - 3/3 3/4 - 4/21 4/22 - 6/26 Mean 0.290 0.306 0.304 N/A 0.171 0.232 2.929 2.899 2.736 1.989 2.222 2.274 83.399 83.437 83.796 Std Deviation Comparison Abs Delta Rel Delta 0.0161 -0.0014 0.0147 N/A 0.0609 N/A -0.0303 -0.1632 -0.1935 0.2331 0.0524 0.2855 0.0388 0.3587 0.3975 5.55% -0.46% 4.80% N/A 26.22% N/A -1.04% -5.97% -6.68% 11.72% 2.30% 12.85% 0.05% 0.43% 0.48%
0.0209 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.0278 Delta Neural - DOE 0.0265 Delta Neural - Pre DOE N/A Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.2080 Delta Neural - DOE 0.2123 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.9061 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.3025 Delta Neural - DOE 0.4631 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.5002 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.4775 Delta Neural - DOE 0.5652 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.2653 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.3180 Delta Neural - DOE 0.2731 Delta Neural - Pre DOE
2-96
Unit 1 Boiler Efficiency (Abbr. Losses)

Blr Eff (Abbr Losses) All Data
85 84.8 84.6 84.4 84.2
84 83.8 83.6 83.4 83.2 83 4-Feb-00
24-Feb-00
15-M ar-00
4-Apr-00
24-Apr-00
14-M ay-00
3-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
13-Jul-
DateAndTime
2-97
Unit 1 Net Plant Heat Rate

ROVA 1 C o r r e c t e d N e t He a t Ra t e [ P o s t Out a g e ] 11000
10750
10500
10250
10000
9750
9500
9250
9000 29-May-00 3-J un-00 8-J un-00 13-Jun-00 Da t e A ndT i me 18-Jun-00 23-Jun-00 28-Jun-00
2-98
Post-Outage NOx Trend for Unit 1

Unit 1 CHIM NOX lb/mmBTU Post Outage
0.45
0.4
0.35
#/mmbtu
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
29-May-00
3-Jun-00
8-Jun-00
13-Jun-00
18-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
28-Jun-00
DateAndTime
2-99
Unit 2 Times Series Analysis

Analysis Timeframe Period Total Urea Flow Pre DOE 2/18 - 3/3 DOE 3/4 - 5/30 Neural w/CO Constraint 6/1 - 6/26 CO #/mmbtu Pre DOE 2/18 - 3/3 DOE 3/4 - 5/30 Neural w/CO Constraint 6/1 - 6/26 Average O2 Pre DOE 2/18 - 3/3 DOE 3/4 - 5/30 Neural w/CO Constraint 6/1 - 6/26 Minimum O2 Pre DOE 2/18 - 3/3 DOE 3/4 - 5/30 Neural w/CO Constraint 6/1 - 6/26 Boiler Effic (Abbr Losses) Pre DOE 2/18 - 3/3 DOE 3/4 - 5/30 Neural w/CO Constraint 6/1 - 6/26 Mean 18.253 18.910 18.739 N/A 0.261 0.149 2.534 2.677 2.484 0.951 2.177 2.116 84.614 84.880 85.408 Std Deviation Comparison Abs Delta Rel Delta 0.6569 -0.1716 0.4852 N/A -0.1124 N/A -0.0303 -0.1632 -0.1935 0.1424 -0.1926 -0.0502 0.2664 0.5275 0.7939 3.60% -0.92% 2.57% N/A -75.60% N/A -1.04% -5.97% -6.68% 5.62% -7.76% -1.88% 0.31% 0.62% 0.94% 3.8184 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 5.6831 Delta Neural - DOE 7.7893 Delta Neural - Pre DOE N/A Delta DOE - Pre DOE 3.5464 Delta Neural - DOE 0.0768 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.2591 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.3622 Delta Neural - DOE 0.3188 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.8917 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.4487 Delta Neural - DOE 0.3633 Delta Neural - Pre DOE 0.2653 Delta DOE - Pre DOE 0.3384 Delta Neural - DOE 0.1884 Delta Neural - Pre DOE
2-100
Unit 2 Boiler Efficiency (Abbr. Losses)

Unit 2 Blr Eff (Abbr Losses) All Data
86 85.8 85.6 85.4 85.2
85 84.8 84.6 84.4 84.2 84 4-Feb-00
24-Feb-00
15-M ar-00
4-Apr-00
24-Apr-00
14-M ay-00
3-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
DateAndTime
2-101
Unit 2 CO During Period for Which Monitoring Was Available

U2 BGHSE OUT CO #/MMBTU Post Outage
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 14-May-00
#/mmbtu
19-May-00
24-May-00
29-May-00
3-Jun-00
8-Jun-00
13-Jun-00
18-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
DateAndTime
2-102
Post-Outage Unit 2 Urea Usage

Unit 2 Total Urea Flow Post Outage
50 45 40 35 30
gal/hr
25 20 15 10 5 0 14-M ay-00
19-M ay-00
24-M ay-00
29-M ay-00
3-Jun-00
8-Jun-00
13-Jun-00
18-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
28-Jun-00
DateAndTime
2-103
Current SNCR Optimization

Focused on minimizing NOx-in as function of urea flow performance objective No current NOx measurement before reactor Overall urea flow determined by NOx setpoint No ability to modulate urea flows by injector or level Demonstrated ability to reduce urea flow Benefits somewhat limited by need to manage CO O2 Trim is vital to obtaining benefits with current regime
2-104
Future Enhancements to SNCR Optimization

NOx monitoring before SNCR inlet Control of flow rates through individual nozzles and/or vertical levels Flow rates need to be incorporated for control via DCS Temperature sensitivity of chemical reaction and tuning experience indicates substantial potential upside Continued progress with controlling CO will allow more room for minimizing urea usage and heat rate
2-105
ProcessLink is providing measurable ongoing boiler efficiency gains while managing emissions to defined constraints . CO limits boiler efficiency gains but is effectively controlled by ProcessLink. Not all optimization technologies are the same. Auto-retuning essential for sustained benefits. Further benefits can be achieved by enabling additional controllable parameter and controls to SNCR. Optimization more is a journey, not an event!
Conclusions
2-106
Automatically Control NOx, With Heat Rate Constraints, in a Coal-Fired Power Plant
Kandi Forte Conemaugh Generating Station Reliant Energy
Tom Cowder Keystone Generating Station Reliant Energy
Russell F. Brown Pavilion Technologies, Inc.
2-107
Outline
Multivariable control Dynamic control Neural-Net APC Reliant Keystone and Conemaugh Control objectives Results Summary
2-108
Multivariable Control
Many handles" for NOx control Lowering NOx impacts other things Constraints
2-109
Dynamic Control
Fast disturbance rejection sootblowing, coal changes Control load following units Change setpoint quickly (but who cares?)
2-110
Neural-Net APC
Steady-state neural network model Steady-state optimizer Dynamic model Control model Dynamic optimizer
2-111
Knowledge Guided Training

Correlated data Some knowledge of process Enforce known relationships
2-112
Reliant Conemaugh And Keystone

CE 900 MW T-Fired supercritical Concentric firing retrofit Low NOx burners & OFA ABB/CE P2 low NOx burner Honeywell TDC 3000 DCS PHD historian upgrade Extensive use of multiple fuel supplies
2-113
Control Objectives
Control or minimize NOx emissions CO below a maximum constraint Control reheat temperature Reheat temperature difference <25F Minimize dry gas loss Constraint on the auxiliary air damper
2-114
Conemaugh Results
Reduced NOx Rate by 15% in 1999 using Open-Loop Control Reduced NOx Rate an additional 2 to 5% in 2000 using Dynamic Closed-Loop Control
2-115
Conemaugh
C o ne ma ug h S ta tio n O zo ne S e a so n B o ile r E ffic ie n cy
B o ile r Effic ie n c y D e lta
4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Ap ri l U ni t 1 199 8 May Un it 2 1 9 9 8 Ju ne U nit 1 1 99 9 Jul y U ni t 2 199 9
2-116
Conemaugh
P rec ip ita to r In le t L O I
12
9.4 9 7 .13
11 .45
10
8.1 0
% L OI
1
U nit
1 99 9 J uly A vg
1 99 8 J uly A vg .
2-117
Keystone Unit 2, NOx Without APC
Without APC control on NOx rate, 1998 Ozone Season.
2-118
NOx, Open Loop SS Optimization
APC open loop SS control on NOx, 1999 ozone season.
2-119
Closed Loop Dynamic Control, Set-Point Mode
APC closed loop control (setpoint mode) on NOx, 1999 ozone season
2-120
NOx Minimization Mode
APC closed loop control (NOx minimization mode) on NOx, 1999 ozone season.
2-121
No APC
Without APC control on NOx rate, 1998 Ozone Season.
Without APC control on reheat temperature (top) and CO (bottom), 1998 Ozone Season.
2-122
Open Loop SS Control: NOx, CO, Reheat
APC open loop control on NOx, 1999 ozone season.
APC open loop control on CO (bottom), 1999 ozone season. Reheat (top) still controlled by DCS.
2-123
NOx Dynamic Control, Setpoint Mode
APC closed loop control (setpoint mode) on NOx, 1999 ozone season.
APC closed loop control (setpoint mode) on reheat temp. (top) and CO (bottom), 1999 ozone season.
2-124
NOx Minimization Mode
APC closed loop control (NOx minimization mode) on NOx, 1999 ozone season.
APC closed loop control (NOx minimization mode) on reheat temperature (top) and CO (bottom), 1999 ozone season.
2-125
Summary
Dynamic control > steady state optimization > no control Allows trade-offs -- NOx vs. steam temperatures, efficiency
2-126
Further Work
Reliant rolling out to total of 10 boilers At Keystone, added soot-blowing and opacity More results appeared in Power Engineering, and will appear in EPRI TC report
2-127
Unit Optimization at Hammond Unit 4
John Sorge Southern Company
EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference January 30 - February 1, 2001 Dallas, Texas
2-128
Project Participants
Funding
EPRI, PowerGen, Southern Company U.K. Department of Trade and Industry U.S. Department of Energy
Participants
EnTEC PowerGen Southern Company Tennessee Tech URS / Radian
2-129
Unit Wide Optimization

Maximizing unit return
Fuel, emissions, ash marketing ... Using real-time controllable process parameters
Complications
Complex, non-linear, non-stationary processes Many important parameters are difficult to measure in real-time (LOI, heat rate, others) Process interaction
2-130
Optimization Envelope
Min Airflow Requirements
Fan Limitations ESP Limitations Opacity Problems Mass Emissions
Excess Oxygen
$O ptim al O
NO xO Nom ptim inal O al O 2 2 Low Steam Temperatures
UBC Limits 0% Load 100%
2-131
Project Overview
Desired Targets
Unit Optimization
Possible Operating Envelope
Boiler Optimization
ESP Optimization
Intelligent Sootblowing
Steam Cycle Optimization
Online Heat Rate
Process Data Server

LAN
DCS PLCs
DAS
PCs PLCs
Field I/O
Plant
2-132
Boiler Optimization Package

Issues
Current optimization system running closed-loop
Want improvements but at low risk of breaking
Approach
Upgrade boiler optimization system to latest version Investigate adding additional manipulated variables Implement online model error correction Improve what-if capabilities
2-133
Steam Cycle Package

Issues
As compared to boiler:
Fewer control handles More deterministic and more linear
Steam conditions have high impact when no cost attributed to NOx; more when NOx is considered
Approach
Looked at several tools Boiler optimization tools are directly applicable
2-134
ISB Package
Issues
Non-continuous and many variables Difficulties in creating robust models Probable significant interaction with boiler package Hardware (control elements and sensors) problems
Approach
Fuzzy-Logic Rule Based Method
Advantages
Relative low cost, complexity, and risk Models an expert instead of the process
Disadvantages
Models an expert instead of the process
2-135
ESP Package
Issues
Non-continuous control variables Performance affected by upstream conditions Full controls not integrated into the DCS
Approach
Install PCAMS / ESPert ESPert
1st principles model of ESP Knowledge of ESP operating state
PCAMs
ESP supervisory control system Employs low level optimization
2-136
On-Line Heat Rate Package

Objective
Provide real time heat rate and boiler efficiency calculation for use in developing models
Tennessee Tech developed package Two methods

Conventional output/loss (direct) Output/loss method with CEMs data (indirect)
Makes prediction of some fuel properties
2-137
Unit Optimization Package

Purpose
Produce minimum cost operation Maintain operating constraints
Possible Approaches
Global Hierarchical
Each satellite optimizer gives different control settings Each satellite associated with different plant item Some method of reconciling these different settings is required
2-138

Cost Function
Each M satellite processes must have a cost associated with it Unit cost expression function of these high level plant variables
2 2 COverall =C ESP +C Boiler
Two dimensions
C ESP = f ( x1 , x2 ,..., y1 , y2 ,...) C Boiler = f ( x1 , x2 ,..., z1 , z 2 ,...)
Many dimensions (N)
2-139

Methodology
Minimize unit cost function treating high level plant variables as independent with constraint on variable change Use recommended plant settings as extreme points of convex set Full unit cost optimisation using convex set as search space - maintains plant constraints Reduces problem from M dimensions to N dimensions
2-140
Summary
Benefits
Flexible, cost effective method for improving plant operating margins
Keys to success
Obtaining accurate accounting of plant costs Unit must not be in critical condition User acceptance
2-141
3
SESSION 3: INTELLIGENT SOOTBLOWING
3-1
Session 3: Intelligent Sootblowing
Effects of Sootblowing in Coal-Fired Boilers on Unit Heat Rate and NOx

Presented at EPRIs Heat Rate Improvement Conference January 30 - February 1, 2001
Carlos E. Romero Nenad Sarunac Edward K. Levy Energy Research Center Lehigh University
3-2
SOOTBLOWING AFFECTS:
Slag and Fouling Deposits Gas Temperatures, Steam Temperatures and

Attemperating Sprays
NOx Emissions Stack Opacity Other Impacts
3-3
Effect of Sootblowers on Steam Temperature (Boiler A)

Im p act o f IR s an d IK s o n H o t R eh eat, B o iler A
55 0
Hot Corners IR's S ide IR's
50 45
A v e ra g e Ho t R e h e a t S te a m
54 5 40
R e h e a te r A tte m p e ra tin g S p ra y
T e m p e ra tu re (d e g . C )
54 0
35
D e sign H T R T = 538 C
30 53 5 25 20 53 0
IK 63 (S HT - North & S outh S ides )
15
IK 58 (RHT - North & S outh S ides )
10 5
52 5
52 0
6:00 7:12 8:24 9:36 10:48 12:00 13:12
0
14:24
T im e (A p ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 )
3-4
Va lv e P o s itio n [%]
Effect of Sootblowers on Steam Temperature (Boiler B)

IK 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 11-14 Tests (2/96) Boiler B
Hot Reheat Temperature (F)
1,040
IK 1-2
RHTCF
1,020
LTSHCF
IK 5-6
HTSHCF
1,000
IK 9-10
980
IK 11-12
IK 13-14
960 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
HTSHCF, RHTCF, LTSHCF (%)
3-5
Effect of Wallblowers on Performance (Boiler C)

Wall Blowers C and D Row, Boiler C
1,020
HEAT RATE
8,950
Steam Temperatures (F)
8,900
980
MAIN STEAM
8,850
960 8,800
HOT REHEAT
940
920
0 0.5 1 1.5
8,750
Time (hrs)
3-6
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
1,000
Effect of Wallblowers on NOx Emissions (Boiler D)

E ffect o f S lag g in g o n E m issio n s, B o iler D
0 .9 0
0 .8 5
0 .8 0
0 .7 5
0 .7 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
E la p s e d T im e [h r]
3-7
Effect of Wallblowers on NOx Emissions (Boiler E)

W A L L B L O W E R S E L E V . 101 ft., B O IL E R E
0.40 2,900 2,890
S o o tb lo w IR #18 ,2 1,2 3,26,29 (31 O /S )
S o o tb lo w IR #17 ,1 8,1 9,26,27 (25 O /S )
0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 6:57 7:33 8:09 8:45
2,880
2,860 2,850 2,840 2,830 2,820 2,810 2,800 9:21 9:57 10:33 11:09 11:45 12:21 12:57
T im e (No v . 0 2 , 1 9 9 9 )
3-8
F E G T [d e g . F ]
2,870
SOOTBLOWING OPTIMIZATION IS NEEDED TO:
Maintain Appropriate Level of Slagging and

Fouling in Various Heat Transfer Sections Minimize Impact on Unit Heat Rate Reduce NOx Emissions Minimize Opacity Excursions Meet Other Objectives What portions of the boiler to clean and on what schedule, considering the trade-offs between NOx, steam temp., heat rate, etc.
3-9
SOOTBLOWING OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY
Instrumentation/Calculations Setup Sootblower Characterization Data Analysis Development of Sootblowing Strategy Implementation and Evaluation of the
Strategy
3-10
UNIT B
CE Tangentially-Fired, 108 MW Boiler. Subcritical, Single Reheat Unit With Conventional Burners (Original Firing System). Fires Eastern Bituminous Coal. Unit Equipped With Cold and Hot ESP VAX-Based PMW Available for Data Archiving and Cleanliness Calculations.
3-11
Sootblower Locations at Boiler B

RHTR HIGH TEMP SUPER HEAT IK 5&6 IK 9&10 IK 11&12 LOW TEMP IK 13&14
IK 1&2
N
24 25 23 26 27 28
SUPERHEAT ECON
IRs EL 96
22 21
FURNACE
IRs EL 85
30 29 14 15 13 12 11 16 17 18
E
Cold Corner
Hot Corner
20 19
Odd numbered IK blowers are located on the south side of the boiler.
3-12
Sootblower Characterization, Boiler B

B o iler B ; W all B lo w ers - H o t C o rn er
1,120
M ain S te am Rehe at S te am WWCF
85
1,080
80
1,060
1,040
75
1,020
1,000 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
70
1.25
Tim e [hr]
S e c tio n C le a n lin e s s F a c to r [%]
1,100
S te a m T e m pe ra ture [de g. F ]
3-13

S o o tb lo we r C h a ra c te riz a tio n T e s ts , B o ile r B
W a ll B lo w e r s
1 ,0 5 0
H o t R eh eat S team T em p eratu re
S IDE W A LL: IR 17
1 ,0 4 0
CO LD CORNE R: IR 18-19
[d eg . F ]
1 ,0 3 0
IK 1& 2
1 ,0 2 0
HO T CO RNE R: IR 11-20
1 ,0 1 0
1 ,0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 0 .7 5 1 .0 0 1 .2 5
T im e [h r]
3-14

S o o tb lo w er C h aracterizatio n T ests, B o iler B
1 .0 2
1 .0 0
N o rm alized N O x [lb /M B tu ]
0 .9 8
0 .9 6
Ho t C o rne r: IR 1 1 -2 0 0 .9 4 C o ld C o rne r: IR 1 8 -1 9 C o ld C o rne r: IR 2 8 -2 9 R e trac tab le s : IK 1 -2 0 .9 2 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
W ater W all C lean lin ess F acto r, C F -W W [%]
3-15
Data Analysis, Boiler B

Change in Main Steam Temperature o [oF] -45 -35 -25 -15 7 -15 +7 +15 Change in Reheat Steam Temperature [o F] -40 -30 -20 -25 +2 +20 +7 +7 Change in Unit Heat Rate [Btu/kWh] +110 +85 +60 +50 -10 +1 -15 -30
Sootblowers
NOx Reduction [%] 6 4 2 2 0 0 0 0
Hot Corner Cold Corner Furnace Side IK 1-2 IK 5-6 IK 9-10 IK 11-20 IK 13-14
3-16
Data Analysis,Boiler B
N O x vs. F u rn ace E xit G as T em p eratu re, B o iler B
N O x E m is s io n R a te [lb /M B tu ]
0 .7 0 0 .6 8 0 .6 6 0 .6 4 0 .6 2 0 .6 0 0 .5 8 1 ,8 4 0 1 ,8 8 0 1 ,9 2 0 1 ,9 6 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 4 0
C a lc u la te d F u r n a c e E x it G a s T e m p e r a tu r e [d e g . F ]
3-17
Data Analysis, Boiler B

NOx vs. Heat Rate Tradeoff, Boiler B
Low-NOx Mode 0.55
Heat Rate Penalty
Heat Rate Penalty (Btu/kWh)
150 120 90 60 30 0
0.49 0.46
NOx
-30 -60 -90 60 65 70 75 80 85

Off-Line Heat Rate Penalty due to changes in Tms and Thr.
0.43 0.40
WWCF (%)
3-18
NOx (lb/MBtu)
0.52
UNIT C
CE Tangentially-Fired, 585 MW Boiler. Supercritical, Single Reheat Unit Retrofitted With CE LNCFS-III Low-NOx System. Fires Eastern Bituminous Coal. Unit Subject to Opacity Excursions. VAX-Based PMW Available for Data Archiving and Cleanliness Calculations.
3-19
Sootblower Characterization, Boiler C

Im p a c t o f E C O N C F o n S ta c k O p a c ity , B o ile r C
20 18 16
S ta c k O p a c ity [% ]
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
E c o n o m iz e r C le a n lin e s s F a c to r [% ]
3-20
Data Analysis,Boiler C
W W C F vs. H eat R ate T rad eo ff
250 1 ,0 4 0 1 ,0 2 0 1 ,0 0 0 980 150 960 940 100 920 900 50 D e lta U n it H R 880 860 0 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 840
H R S te a m T e m p . S e tp o in t
200
H o t R e h e a t S te a m T e m p .
Ho t R e h e a t S te a m T e m p e ra tu re
C a lc u la te d W W C F [%]
[d e g . F ]
3-21
UNIT E
B&W Opposed Wall-Fired, 640 MW Boiler. Supercritical, Double Reheat Unit Retrofitted With B&W DRB-XCL Low-NOx System. Fires US and Foreign Coals. Unit Constrained by NOx and CO Limits of 0.45 lb/MBtu and 160 ppm, Respectively. PI-DAS and FEGT Instrumentation Available. Reheat Attemperation Used for Extra Load Generation.
3-22
Sootblower Characterization, Boiler E

W allb lo w er C h aracterizatio n fo r N O x , B o iler E
1 .0 4
1 .0 2
N o rm a liz e d N O x
1 .0 0
0 .9 8
0 .9 6
0 .9 4
8-IR20,22,23,24,28,29,30,32
S o o tb lo w in g
8-IR1,2,3,8,9,10,11,16 6-IR17,18,19,25,26,27 5-IR17,18,19,26,27 4-IR20,24,28,32
0 .9 2
0 .9 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
E la p s e d T im e [m in ]
3-23
Data Analysis,Boiler E
F u rn ace E xit G as T em p eratu re vs. N O x E m issio n s, B o iler E
0.440
June 26, 2000
0.430
A verage O 2 = 2.27 + /- 0.13%
0.420
0.410
y = 0.0006x - 1.1381
0.400
R 2 = 0.5718
0.390
June 22, 2000
0.380
A verage O 2 = 1.98 + /- 0.07%
0.370
y = 0 .0 0 0 7 x - 1 .6 6 7 6 R = 0 .6 7 1 3
2
0.360 2,740 2,750 2,760 2,770 2,780 2,790 2,800 2,810 2,820
F u rn a c e E x it T e m p e ra tu re [d e g . F ]
3-24
Data Analysis,Boiler E
F u rn ace E xit G as T em p eratu re vs. U n it L o ad , B o iler E
6 34 6 33 6 32 6 31 A ve ra ge E xce ss O 2 = 2.2 7 +/- 0.13 %
Un it L o a d [M W g ]
6 30 6 29 6 28 6 27 6 26 6 25 6 24 6 23 6 22 6 21 6 20 2 ,73 0 2 ,74 0 2 ,75 0 2 ,76 0 2 ,77 0 2 ,78 0 2 ,79 0 2 ,80 0 2 ,81 0 2 ,82 0
F u rn a c e E x it G a s T e m p e ra tu re [d e g . F ]
3-25
DEVELOPMENT OF SOOTBLOWING STRATEGY

Use sootblower characterization test data to create database concerning the effect of individual sootblowers and sootblower groups on:
Boiler section cleanliness Steam Temperatures Attemperating Sprays Gas Temperatures NOx Emissions Opacity
Develop sootblowing strategy that satisfies optimization objective (goal) and unit constraints.
3-26
Example of a Sootblowing Schedule, Boiler B
After the 4th mill is put on-line, alternate the activation of all side blowers. (Avoid Steam Temp. Overshoot) Once the unit is at full-load and settled-out, bring the WWCF to about 85% by activating the sootblowers at the lower elevation corners. (Thermal NOx Reduction) About one hour into the steam temp. transient, alternate the activation of IKs 11 to 14. (Steam Temp. Recuperation) If the WWCF drops below 80%, activate the higher elevation corner sootblowers. Otherwise activate them before unit cycles back to minimum load. (Slagging and NOx Control) At operator discretion, activate HT superheater and reheater blowers on a one-a-day frequency. (Fouling Control)
Recommended daily frequency: 5 Wallblower (IRs), 1 to 2 Retractables (IKs). Heat Rate Penalty Due to Steam Consumption = 3 Btu/kWh
3-27
Temperature Overshoot During Load Ramp-Up

120
Unit L o ad Main S te am R e he at S te am
L o a d R am p -U p , B o iler B
1,120
1,100
110
Tmst,de s ign
1,080
1,060
1,040 100 1,020

Trht,de s ign
1,000 90
980
960
80 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
940 2.00
T im e [h r]
3-28
S te a m T e m p e ra tu re [F ]
U n it L o a d [M W ]
Sootblowing Impact on Steam Temperature During Ramp-Up

S o o tb lo w in g E lim in ates T em p eratu re Oversh o o t D u rin g L o ad R am p -U p , B o iler B
1 ,100
M a in S te a m T e m p e ra tu re [F ]
1 ,050
1 ,000
1 /3 0 /9 6 1 /3 1 /9 6 2 /4 /9 6
9 50 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0
T im e [h r]
1 .5
2 .0
3-29
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
SCHEDULE DRIVEN: MANUAL: Provide written schedule to the operator. SEMI-AUTOMATED/AUTOMATED: Plant control system generates alarms to prompt the operator or automatically activates sootblowers at appropriate times. INTELLIGENT SOFTWARE:
Artificial-based system provides expert advice or

activates sootblowers.
3-30
Example of a Sootblowing Schedule Evaluation, Boiler C

O p tim ized S o o tb lo w in g E valu atio n , B o iler C
40
W W CF
1 00
HE P enalty
W a te rwa ll C le a n lin e s s F a c to r [%]
37 34 31 28 25 22 19 16 13 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
60
65
70
Nu m b e r o f D a ys
He a t R a te P e n a lty [B tu /k W h ]
3-31
INTELLIGENT SOOTBLOWING SOFTWARE CONCEPT

R e t ra c t a b le S o o t b lo w e r s
DA T A BA SE
Live P lant Data

Fur nace W a l lb lo w e r s
EXPERT SYST EM
Exp e r t A d vice
A dvic e and W arnings
W hat-If A naly s is
Op e r ato r
3-32
Schematic of the Intelligent Sootblowing Approach

SOOTBLOW CHARACTERIZATION
(Field Tests)
DATABASE
(Emissions, Performance, Opacity)
1. Select Optimization Goal 2. Define Goal Functions 3. Identify Operating Constraints
Expert Knowledge
MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS
LIVE PLANT DATA
EXPERT SYSTEM
Expert Advice or Action
3-33
CONCLUSIONS
The ERC has Developed and Successfully

Implemented Optimized Sootblowing Schedules at Several Utility Boilers.
Sootblowing Optimization Helps to Determine the

Optimal Balance Between Slagging and Fouling Levels and Steam Temp., Attemperation, NOx, etc.
Sootblowing Operation Can be Optimized for

Different Objectives (i.e., to Help Reduce the Cost of Controlling NOx During the Ozone Season).
The ERC is Currently Developing Intelligent

Sootblowing Software.
3-34
Optimization of Boiler Sootblower Operation
Jeffrey Williams Xu Cheng

Westinghouse Process Control, Inc.
Bernie Begley Alex Smith Dale Hopkins

Southern California Edison, Inc.
[W estnghouse Pr sContol i oces r ,

I nc.
A Fisher-Rosemount Company
3-35
Overview - Intelligent Sootblower Scheduling

Project Outline Model-Based Cleanliness Factor Calculation Sootblower scheduling Optimization Scheme
Opacity Reduction Mode Steam Temperature Control and Steam Saving Mode
Implementation Results Summary

I nc.
3-36
Intelligent Sootblowing Goals

Maintain clean heat exchanger surfaces Enhance heat transfer efficiency Avoid excessive sootblowing Improve steam temperature control Avoid opacity spikes and generate steam savings

I nc.
3-37
System Overview
Firing Rate Heat Content Air Flow Feedwater
Furnace/Windbox DP Flue Gas Temperature Burner Tilt Spray
Boiler Boiler
Section Temperature & Pressure Measurements
Step 1
Neural Network Neural Network Model Model Actual Actual Enthalpy Enthalpy Calculation Calculation (Steam Table) (Steam Table) Performance Performance Monitoring Monitoring
Step 2
Steam Temp. Opacity
Neural Network Neural Network Model Training Model Training
Actual Heat Actual Heat Absorption Absorption
Expert Rule Expert Rule Formation Formation
Desired Cleanliness
Ideal Heat Ideal Heat Absorption Absorption Cleanliness Cleanliness Factor Factor Calculation Calculation Sequence Selection
Steam Saving Mode Opacity Reduction Mode
Sootblower Sequence Logic
DCS Controller
3-38
Cleanliness Factor Calculation

Actual heat absorption rate
CF =
Ideal heat absorption rate
Implies section heat transfer effectiveness. Values range from zero to one. Better to have flue gas temp measurement.

I nc.
3-39
Motivation for Dynamic Model Based Cleanliness Factor Calculation

First principles model very difficult to formulate Direct flue gas temperature measurements not available at all boiler sections. Frequent load changes. Employing empirical model makes sense.

I nc.
3-40
Formulation of Cleanliness Factor Model Qact = Fs (Ho - Hi) Qideal = f (Fs, Tsi, Tgi) Neural Network is used to approximate the non-linear function to calculate Qideal A boiler section is assumed to be clean immediately after soot-blowing.

I nc.
3-41
Intelligent Sootblower
Sootblower Optimizer can operate in two modes.
Steam Savings Mode - Avoids unnecessary sootblowing, prevents excessive desuperheater spraying, improves steam temperature control, and reduces heat rate. Opacity Reduction Mode - Emphasizes uniformity of blowing sequence. Adaptively adjust desired cleanliness factor in realtime.
The Result
Balanced sootblowing strategy ---heat rate is minimized and plant performance are maximized.
I nc.
3-42
Boiler Heat Exchangers
Reheater
Final Superheater
Primary Superheater
Furnace Wall

I nc.
3-43
Opacity Reduction Basic Strategy
Maximum blow idle time violation check
Load Change Check
Cleanliness factor check
Sootblowing
Opacity check Y Modify desired Cleanliness factor
Violation ? N

I nc.
3-44
Steam Saving Mode Basic Strategy
In addition to section cleanliness consideration:
Superheat/reheat temperature too low ---> Blow convective section
Superheat/reheat temperature too high ---> Blow furnace wall section

I nc.
3-45
Steam Temperature Change versus Sootblowing Location
20
R eh e at S tea m T e m p e ra tu re C h a n g e (F )
C lo se r t o fur n a ce w a ll S oo tb lo w in g L o ca tio n
-20

I nc.
3-46
Sootblower Location Fuzzy Membership Function Illustration
F lu e G a s P a th
VL
Fu r n ace
w a ll
VS
P rim a ry S up erh ea t
S MS
R e he ate r (I)
M
F ina l S u pe rhea t
ML L
Re he at er (II)
VL
10
VS

I nc.
3-47
Exemplary Rule Base

(Reheat steam temperature control)
Reheat Temp.
VL VL L ML MS VS
Reheat Spray
ANY ANY L ML MS VS
Reheat Super Wall Blower Heat Blower Idle TM. Temp. Idle TM.
ANY ANY MS ML ML VL NOT_VS S ANY ML S ANY VL L ML MS M VS
Blowing Location
VS S MS M L VL

I nc.
3-48
Result: Waterwall Cleanliness Factors

1 .1
1 .0 5
C le a n l in e s s F
S e r ie S e r ie
0 .9 5
1 0 01
1051
1101
1151
1251
T im e

I nc.
1351
12 01
13 01
25 1
55 1
70 1
101
151
201
301
351
401
451
501
601
651
751
801
851
901
951
0 .9 51 1
3-49
Result:
Division Superheater Cleanliness Factor
1 .1
1 .0 5
C le a n lin e s
0 .9 5
0 .9
0 .8 5
0 .8 1 6 3 1 2 5 1 8 7 2 4 9 3 1 1 3 7 3 4 3 5 4 9 7 5 5 9 6 2 1 6 8 3
t im e
7 4 5
8 0 7
8 6 9
9 3 1
9 9 3
1 0 5 5
1 1 1 7
1 1 7 9
1 2 4 1
1 3 0 3
1 3 6 5

I nc.
3-50
Test Result : Stack opacity
O pacity-M e gawatt Ratio

0.035 0. 03
(% Opacity / MW)
0.025 0. 02 0.015 0. 01 0.005 0

July Augus t Sep1~13 Sep14~26

I nc.
3-51
Sootblowing Affects Steam Temperature
88 0
73 0
Wall blowers on
Temperature ( F)
8 70 86 0 8 50 84 0 83 0 82 0 0 50 10 0 150 70 0 710 72 0
Time (minute) Superheat Temperature Reheat Temperature

I nc.
3-52
Sootblowing Affects Spray Flow
300
Wall blowers on
Spray flow (KPPH)
250 200 150 1 00 50 0 0 50 100 150
Time (Minute) Superheat Spray Reheat Spray

I nc.
3-53
User Interface DCS
DCS Operator Graphics
3-54
SUMMARY
Neural network model based boiler cleanliness factor calculation implemented Optimized sootblowing strategy based on Steam Saving or Opacity Reduction objective Software tool and user interface integrated with existing Westinghouse DCS Initial test shows promising result

I nc.
3-55
Intelligent Sootblowing Application Development

Neel J. Parikh and Brad J. Radl Pegasus Technologies, Inc.
Confidential - Pegasus Technologies
3-56
Key Criteria (1/3)

Intelligent Learn Identify Current Conditions Recognize Changes Respond Accordingly Asynchronous Not Just Time Based Does Not Rely On Pre-defined Sequence
3-57
Key Criteria (2/3)

Adaptive Adjust to Fuel Changes Seasonal Changes Equipment Wear and Tear Operating Preference and Practices
3-58
Key Criteria (3/3)

Event Driven Examine Current Operating Conditions Evaluate Boiler Cleanliness Identify Desired Objective Determine Need to Sootblow Signal Activation of Desired Sootblower
3-59
Desired Objectives
Multiple Goals Avoid Unplanned Outages Temperature Variations Slagging, Fouling, Tube Erosion Auxiliary Power Consumption, etc. Improve Emissions, Heat Rate, etc.
3-60
Pegasus Approach
Combination of AI Techniques Boiler Cleanliness Information Utilize N-Net Models Plant Specific Customization Monitoring and Backup Processing
Intelligent, Asynchronous, Adaptive, Event Driven, Sootblower Activation

3-61
Considerations
Utilize Modular Components of the Existing Combustion Optimizer Application Interface with Plant DCS/Sootblowing System Facilitate Smooth Transition Easily Switch Operating Modes Incremental Benefits as Project Progresses Current R&D Project
3-62
EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference

Intelligent Sootblowing Boiler Cleaning Management System January 31, 2001 Presented By: Randy Carter
Applied Synergistics Proprietary Information 2000 Printed with permission of the copyright holder.
3-63
Presentation Topics
Sootblower Operation Past Practices Intelligent Sootblowing ASI Approach
Furnace Cleanliness Module Sootblowing Cleanliness Module Boiler Efficiency Module
System Benefits
3-64
Boiler Cleaning Management System

Basis for Sootblower Operation Past Practices
Boiler walk down (observation) Time of day / elapsed time Overall measurements
Spray flows Steam temperatures Gas temperatures
Calculations
Recoverable losses
Operating rules
Temperature constraints Opacity Others
3-65

ASI Approach
Provide direct measurements for determining boiler cleanliness in furnace Assimilate plant process information within sootblower control system
Use existing instrumentation Incorporate plant experience/ operating rules
Provide flexible platform to implement real working system

Make it easy for operators!
3-66
Boiler Cleaning Management System Optimization System

Purpose
Provide ability to clean boiler based on need Provide real-time information on heat transfer surface cleanliness Provide real-time feedback on sootblowing effectiveness Provide measure of system performance Provide full integration with sootblower controls
3-67
Boiler Cleaning Management System Optimization System

System components
Measurements/analytical modules to determine surface cleanliness
Furnace Cleanliness Module (direct measurement based) Sootblowing Cleaning Expert (calculation based)
Furnace Cleanliness Module Sootblowing Cleaning Expert
Performance assessment modules

Average furnace heat flux Furnace surface utilization Boiler Efficiency Module
3-68
Boiler Cleaning Management System Furnace Cleanliness Module

Control of furnace heat transfer is critical Rate of heat transfer degradation varies with furnace location Sootblowing effectiveness varies with furnace location Therefore furnace sootblowing optimization requires both spatial and time (demand) dimension
3-69

Furnace subdivided into zones to provide ability to clean where required, spatial dimension Direct measurement used to determine cleaning requirement in each zone, time/demand dimension
3-70

Heat Flux Sensor
Measures heat transfer per unit area perpendicular to the tube OD, KBTU/HR-FT2 Sensor located in each zone Provides input for determining clean/dirty conditions and performance measures Sensor is an integral part of furnace wall tube
3-71

Heat Flux (kBTU/hr-ft2)
Heat flux alone does not indicate cleanliness Furnace cleanliness module software interrogates heat flux to find sintering point, based on
Frequency Rate of change Minimum heat flux
100
Curve 1
90
Curve 2
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 Time
Sintering Point
3-72

When and where to clean
Locations which require cleaning are color coded. Same signal drives sootblower controls, automatic control module
3-73

When and where to clean Sootblower effectiveness
Trend plot provides direct feedback on cleaning effectiveness
3-74

System components
Furnace Cleanliness Module (direct measurement based) Sootblowing Cleaning Expert (calculation based)
Furnace Cleanliness Module Sootblowing Cleaning Expert

3-75
Boiler Cleaning Management System Sootblower Cleaning Expert

Distribution of heat transfer is just as important as local cleanliness FEGT provides boundary condition for furnace (outlet) and hanging Furnace Cleanliness Module surface/convection Direct measurement region (inlet) based FEGT measurements
Optical, SpectraTemp or Acoustic, BoilerWatch
FEGT EGOT
Sootblowing Cleaning Expert Calculation based
3-76

Heat transfer of convection surfaces strongly interrelated Convection region heat transfer affects furnace conditions
3-77

Calculation based
Calculations with measurement to define boundary conditions of each section Calculated cleanliness factors determine cleaning requirements
Cleanliness factor
Cf = Umonitored/Uideal
3-78

Engineering information
Cleanliness factor
Cf = Umonitored/Uideal
Heat transfer section absorption Gas path temperatures Provides input for boiler efficiency module
3-79

Operator interface
When and where to clean Sootblower effectiveness
3-80
Boiler Cleaning Management System Assessment Modules

System components
Furnace Cleanliness Module (direct measurement based) Sootblowing Cleaning Expert (calculation based
Sootblowing Cleaning Expert Furnace Cleanliness Module

3-81

0.9
Average furnace heat flux

Provides comparison to boiler design basis
Furnace Surface Utilization
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
Furnace heat transfer surface utilization

Indicates if areas over or under cleaned Indicates non-uniform heat transfer
3-82

Boiler Efficiency Module
Dry gas loss Loss from water in fuel Loss from moisture in air Convention/radiation loss Unburned carbon loss
3-83
Boiler Cleaning Management System Under Automatic Control

Furnace/convection heat transfer distribution, permissives
FEGT RH spray Load Steam temperatures
Adaptive cleaning device control

Number of operations Wait time Jet progression velocity Cleanliness bypass
3-84
Boiler Cleaning Management System - Benefits

350 MW tangentially fired unit Powder River Basin coal Water and system cleaning devices ASI Boiler Cleaning Management System
3-85
Boiler Cleaning Management System - Benefits

Number of Sootblower Operations per hour
50 45
Heat Flux kbtu/hr-ft2
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Baseline Auto Avg Heat Flux SB Ops Per Hour
0.8
Boiler Effectiveness
850 800 750
40 35 30 25 20
0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 Baseline Auto Boiler Effectiveness EGOT
700 650 600
3-86
Economizer Gas Outlet Temperature, F
0.85
900
Summary
Boiler Cleaning Management System (BCMS) is an integration of sootblower controls, advanced heat transfer measurement devices, existing plant sensors, and performance software BCMS offers heat transfer optimizing for cleaning when and where needed, that is demand based cleaning BCMS benefits include
Increased boiler heat transfer Reduced gas path temperatures Reduced sootblowing frequency Improved sootblowing maintenance practices
More stable steam temperatures and spray flows

3-87
3-88
4
SESSION 4: TURBINES AND AUXILIARIES
4-1
Session 4: Turbines and Auxiliaries
In-Situ Feedwater Flow Measurement

Presentation was not available at time of publication.
4-2
In-Situ Enthalpy Measurements in Low Pressure Condensing Steam Turbines

Steve Hesler Tom McCloskey Electric Power Research Institute
2001 EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference; Dallas Texas
4-3
History of Technology
Various optical transmission probes developed in U.K, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, and Czechoslovakia earliest applications in 1970s, included droplet sizing and wetness fraction tests to support blade design EPRI develops aerodynamic probe technology and sponsors optical probe field evaluation in 1992 EPRI wetness probe development initiated in 1995, as part of LP turbine efficiency improvement program Initial plant tests of EPRI wetness probe in 1997-8; improved model probes fabricated in 1999 and 2000 Benchmarking in subscale test turbine successfully completed EPRI awarded U.S. patent in 2000 Full-scale verification benchmark system test in planning phase
4-4
Purpose of Enthalpy Measurements

Turbine operators:
measurement of UEEP enthalpy verify LP turbine performance upgrades measurement of hood losses trend LP turbine performance
Turbine OEMs
measure flow conditions prior to design of advanced replacement blading detailed feedback to designers on characteristics of proposed stage
4-5
Parameters Measured
Aerodynamic probe
total pressure static pressure steam tables pitch & yaw angle
specific volume wetness fraction
steam tables
enthalpy
Wetness probe
droplet volume concentration
steam wetness probe subsonic aero probe 2001 EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference; Dallas Texas
4-6
Flow-Weighted Averaging
= f(pstatic, W)
Mach no. = f( ptotal
pstatic
hstatic = f (pstatic, W) htotal = hstatic + m = 2 Htotal =

. n
i
V2 2Jg
V
i =1
n i =1 n i =1
ax
ri ri
2 htotaliVax riri 2 i Vax riri 2 ptotali Vax riri

i =1 n
Ptotal =
2 iVax riri
i =1
4-7
Expansion Line Analysis
T T
Hinlet Houtlet T T Hinlet Hideal T T
4-8
Aerodynamic Probe
null balancing disk type wide pitch range large tap diameters
wet steam calibration facility
4-9
Optical Probe Principal

probe head
100 %
spectral transmission plot

3 averaged cycles
0%
215 nm UV
930 nm infrared
4-10
Mie-Scattering Analysis
100 %
3 averaged cycles
0%
215 nm UV
930 nm infrared
4-11
Field Data from Full-Scale Turbine

8 7
Droplet Size Distribution

1.0 0.9
Transmission Data
Transmission Ratio (I/Io)
Relative Distribution
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 0.2
position #4
peak droplet dia. => 0.17 micron Sauter dia. => 0.19 micron
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 measured calculated
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
Diameter (micron)
Wavelength (micron)
8 7

1.0 0.9
Transmission Data
Transmission Ratio (I/Io)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 0.2
position #6
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 measured calculated
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Diameter (micron)
Wavelength (micron)
8 7

1.0 0.9
Transmission Data
Transmission Ratio (I/I o)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 0.2
position #8
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 measured calculated
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
Diameter (micron)
Wavelength (micron)
i i
4-12
Optical Probe System
4-13
Steam Droplet Concentration Analysis

EPRI MIST program
fits droplet size distribution to measured light extinction curve integrates distribution to yield liquid volume
4-14
Probe Access Ports

turbine exhaust ports can be installed during boiler outage
b a ll v a lve
w e ld ed f ittin g o n e x h a u st flo w g u id e
fla n g e g u id e tu b e w e ld ed a d a p te r
L P b la d e s
e x h a u st flo w g u id e
m a n h o le
4-15
Probe Deployment
Traverse mechanism controls probe position
4-16
Model Turbine Benchmark Test

p robe s
W outle t , P t
facility
.
outle t
, Ps
,
outle t
inle t
,Tt
inle t
, Pt
facility
inle t
kw
T
four-stage
shaft torque dynamometer
condensate flow measurement
e x tra c tion
, T e xtra ct ion
facility
kW kW
2
& m & m
,
inlet
H H
inlet
& m & m
1 2
extraction extraction
extraction extraction
& m
exit exit
exit
inlet
inlet
& m
H 2 exit
W outle t , P t
outle t
, Ps
o utl et
1- 2
? probe
1- 2
generator
4-17
Future Activities
Model turbine benchmark test report Comparative benchmark test against PTC-6 measurements Droplet sizing experiments in two-phase flow Extend steam wetness measurement technology to higher pressure and temperature regimes
4-18
Steam Turbine Related Research at TVA

Jim Terrell Tennessee Valley Authority
4-19
Introduction
TVA - Largest wholesaler of electricity in the United States s 156 Billion kw-hrs sold in 1999 s $ 6.6 Billion in 1999 revenues s Supply power to 158 distributors serving ~ 8 M people in seven states s 62 direct-serve industrial and federal customers
s
4-20
TVA Generation Mix

59 Coal-fired Units (61%) s 5 Nuclear Units (28%) s 113 Hydro Units (9%) s 56 Combustion Turbines (2%)
s
4-21
Current Steam Turbine R&D

Low Pressure Turbine Efficiency Upgrade s EPRI Steam Wetness Probe Validation s Improved Mechanical Seal Designs s Member of EPRI Target 58: Steam Turbines, Generators, BOP
s
4-22
LP Turbine Efficiency Upgrade

Developed as EPRI TC Project s New Exhaust Flow Guide Design (+0.33%) s New Last Stage Blade Designs (+1.0%) s 70 MW of Additional Capacity s GE 200 MW s Westinghouse 250 MW
s
4-23
Validate EPRI Steam Wetness Probe

TVA/EPRI Cooperation s Test Cell Constructed at Texas A&M University s EPRI Providing Probe System s Testing to Begin Spring, 2001 s Final Report Due Fall, 2001
s
4-24
Improved Mechanical Seals

GE 200 MW Steam Turbines s N-2 Packing Leakage (Leaking 5% of MSF) s NASA Seal Designs s TVA/University of Tennessee Space Institute s Future Research: Generators, Boiler Feedpumps
s
4-25
Member of EPRI Target 58

Information Clearinghouse for T-G s NDE Inspection Techniques for T-G s NDE of Stator Winding Insulation s Turbo-X Upgrades s Guidelines to Reduce Outage Time s SAFER Rotor Evaluation Code s FMAC
s
4-26
On-Line Performance Monitoring and Condition Assessment of Steam Turbines

Rolf F. Orsagh, Michael J. Roemer, and Ben Atkinson Impact Technologies, LLC 125 Tech Park Drive Rochester, NY 14623 Bill McGinnis and Scott McQueen Reliant Energy Houston, TX
Abstract: An Internet-based performance monitor and condition assessment system has been developed that allows off-site maintenance personnel to access steam turbine diagnostic information in real-time. The Internet provides an inexpensive vehicle for the collection and assessment of condition data from machines in distant plants that leads to improved maintenance scheduling. The On-line health monitoring system is designed to efficiently and reliably transfer acquired data to a remote server for processing and analysis then publish the results on a secure Web-site on a minute by minute basis. Sophisticated machine condition assessment techniques including sensor validation, statistical trending, and fuzzy logic algorithms are implemented to detect incipient forms of machine performance degradation. An Internet-based condition monitor for a supercritical steam turbine is presented to illustrate the features, operation, and architecture of the system. Key Words: Condition monitoring, Internet-based, health monitoring, diagnostics, statistical trending, real-time analysis Introduction: Web-based performance monitoring and condition assessment of steam turbines implemented over the Internet is an inexpensive vehicle to deliver real-time performance and diagnostic information to key off-site personnel. Industries that could benefit from this technology include electric power generation, petroleum suppliers, chemical producers, or any other owner/operators of complex equipment in remote areas. On-line machinery condition monitoring merges the latest Internet communication technology with advanced diagnostic and prognostic algorithms to deliver sophisticated health monitoring information in a highly accessible format. Intelligent diagnostic algorithms continuously running on a web-server identify anomalies, and diagnose incipient performance faults, which are then published on a secure web-site. From the web-site, authorized personnel can easily view graphs showing performance trends, and tables of performance parameters, anomalies, and diagnosed faults A web-based health monitoring system for a high pressure (HP) section of a supercritical 700 MW steam turbine is used to illustrate the details of this information technology
4-27
application. The unit was chosen because of its criticality to plant operation and its constantly varying load posed more of a condition monitoring challenge to the operators and maintenance personnel. System Architecture: The web-based performance monitoring system consists of three components as shown in Figure 1. First, the turbine performance data from the plants data acquisition system must be stored in a database on the utilitys WAN (Wide Area Network) then transmitted using file transfer protocol (FTP) across the internet to a remote file server. Second, intelligent algorithms on the server validate the sensor data, detect performance anomalies, and diagnose the most likely cause of the performance degradation. A complete diagnostic record is written to an output database on the server. Third, active server pages (ASP) use VB Script programs and active data objects (ADO) to update the web-site with real-time data from the output database. Authorized users can access the information on the web-site from remote locations via a user name and password.
Browser Server Web-Site Output.db
Analysis Algorithms
Plant
NewData.mdb
FTP
Input.db
Figure 1 Architecture of Web-Based Monitor Monitoring and Diagnostic Algorithms: Key monitoring and diagnostic algorithms on the web-site server consist of five components; performance parameters, data validation, data correction, statistical trending analysis, and fuzzy logic based diagnostics. First, a data correction routine calculates the equivalent sensor readings under standard operating conditions. Second, data validation tests are then applied to detect abnormally low or high readings. Third, statistical trending algorithms are used to detect incipient performance faults by identifying shifts in the mean values of recent corrected and calculated parameters. Finally, in the event of a statically significant and severe deviation from the baseline values, fuzzy logic algorithms diagnose the most likely cause of the performance degradation.
4-28
Performance Parameters An optimal set of performance parameters must be selected during the design of an online monitoring system. The appropriate set of parameters includes a sufficient level of redundancy to support sensor validation algorithms and ensure reliable results without becoming overly complex. For the steam turbine demonstration, a set of performance parameters were chosen to detect the onset of the most common causes of performance degradation in HP turbines; solid particle erosion, leakage, deposits, and blockage. Diagnosis of these faults is based on techniques developed by Cottoni and Beebeii and relies on five commonly used parameters (1st stage pressure, cold reheat pressure, mass flow, 1st stage efficiency, and HP efficiency) for HP turbine diagnostics. The web-based monitoring system also displays other parameters, as shown in Figure 2, which are not used by the diagnostic system but may provide additional insights into the operational status of the unit.
Figure 2 Monitored Parameters Data Validation To provide reliable information, a health monitoring system must begin with a rigorous examination of the measured parameters to identify sensor malfunctions before they contaminate the diagnostic information. Sensor problems such as ground loop faults or sensor drift are often misinterpreted as the onset of performance or vibration faults. In the
4-29
event of a sensor failure, sensor recovery is possible through the use of artificial intelligence algorithms that can provide proxy data until the malfunctioning sensor can be repaired. The sensor diagnostic process should be performed using multiple and collaborative techniques that offer advantages for isolating and detecting specific sensor failure modes. Some available techniques that have been implemented with success include; trained neural networks, and fuzzy logic analysis. The neural network operates by comparing the physical relationships between signals as determined from either a baseline model or equivalent computer model of the machines performance parameters. The fuzzy logic based sensor analysis continuously assesses the normal bands associated with each sensor signal at the current operating condition. When a signal goes outside these bands, while others remain within, an anomaly is detected associated with those specific sensors. These parallel algorithms are combined in a data fusion process that determines the final confidence levels that a particular sensor has either failed or has suspect operation. In the steam turbine monitoring example, data validation algorithms test each diagnostic parameter to identify gross deviations from the expected operating range. Upper and lower bounds for the each parameter were established from normative (baseline) data supplied by the utility. The sensor validation status is shown for each monitored parameter on the web page shown in Figure 2. Interruptions of the data transfer from the plant are also detected to avoid corruption of the statistical database. Data Correction Variable speed or variable load machinery presents a significant health monitoring challenge due to the difficulty involved in trending performance parameters. To accurately trend the performance of variable speed or variable load equipment while it is in use, the performance parameters must be corrected to their equivalent values at a standard speed or load condition. Corrections are based on a-priori knowledge of the relationship between the independent and dependent performance parameters in a baseline model. Corrections are performed using polynomials that represent baseline mean values of performance parameters over the operational range while the equipment is in a healthy condition. Correction curves were developed for the steam turbine monitor by fitting polynomials to the normative data supplied by the utility. Care must be used when selecting normative data to ensure that it is unbiased by periodic or seasonal effects. The variation of each diagnostic parameter from its baseline (expected) value is calculated in real-time, and translated to an equivalent value at the design conditions. Figure 3 shows examples of uncorrected and corrected data. The discontinuity in the slope of the uncorrected data (at mass flow = 1700 units) is due to the fact that the unit operates in two distinct modes.
4-30
Figure 3 Uncorrected and Corrected Data The steam turbine on-line monitor required corrections to the five diagnostic parameters and load. Each record of data that is transferred from the plant may be collected under a different load condition. Before the data is analyzed, it must first be corrected to eliminate the effects of the varying operating conditions. First stage pressure, cold reheat pressure, and the efficiencies are all corrected to their equivalent values at the 5% over pressure equivalent design mass flow from the turbine manufacturers heat balance diagram for the unit. The load on the turbine is calculated by correcting the electric power generated for the non-linear electrical and mechanical power loss in the generator. Finally, mass flow is corrected to its equivalent value at the 5% over pressure condition using the corrected load. Performance trends may then be identified and evaluated under any operating conditions. Statistical Trending Analysis Performance anomaly detection algorithms are designed to statistically detect the manner in which machinery performance parameters are shifting over time. The mean values of a recent sample of performance parameters are compared against the mean values in the baseline model. Significant deviations of the corrected performance parameters from their baseline values indicate the presence on an anomaly and possibly the onset of performance degradation. A statistical T-test is used to detect subtle shifts in the corrected performance parameters. Mean and standard deviation values are calculated for the corrected performance parameters that comprise the baseline model. Small deviations during operation may be due to normal random fluctuations in the selected sample or due to real performance changes. The confidence value reported by the T-test represents the probability that the observed shift is not attributable to normal random fluctuations as shown in Figure 4.
4-31
Baseline mean 1
Current mean 2
t = | 1 2 | s1 s 2 n1 n2
Figure 4 T-test is Used to Detect Incipient Faults An anomaly was detected shortly after the implementation of the steam turbine on-line monitor. Figure 5 shows the corrected data and corresponding distributions for the baseline and anomaly conditions. The T-test indicated a nearly 100% confidence that a 13% shift had occurred in the parameter shown. However, sensor validation alarms indicated that the problem was not due to performance degradation, but to corrupt data. Consultations with the utility revealed a data processing error in which data from a different turbine was transmitted to the on-line monitor.
Figure 5 Anomaly Detection Diagnostic Classification The total combination of performance parameter trends is used to provide a diagnosis of the most probable performance fault. Once an anomaly has been detected, the performance error patterns, i.e., parametric trendline deviations from baseline performance are fed to a diagnostic module. Artificial intelligence-based pattern recognition algorithms within the diagnostic module compare the observed error pattern with those of known faults to determine the most likely cause of the anomaly.
4-32
The error patterns associated with known faults must be determined through modeling or analysis of the failure modes. For the web-based steam turbine monitor, computer simulations of a similar unit were run using a through-flow, HP-section, performance model. The model has the ability to simulate SPE or Deposit damage in the HP control stage, seal leakage, or flow blockage anywhere in the unit. This is performed through altering a combination of chord length and surface roughness for various levels of SPE or Deposit damage and their respective efficiency effects, and gaging on the HP stator and rotating rows (Figure 6). Figure 7 shows a simulated normalized performance error pattern for the case of SPE (top left) versus ideal fault error patterns.
Figure 6 Modeling Degradation of Turbine Blades
Figure 7 SPE Diagnostic Results Within the diagnostic module, fuzzy logic is used to examine error patterns and determine the most likely cause of anomalous conditions. Fuzzy logic is an artificial intelligence technique that has the ability to recognize error patterns that are not necessarily identical to that of a known fault. It is deemed an intelligent tool because it can operate in gray areas just as a human evaluator would, rather than in black or white. For instance, in the case of solid particle erosion (SPE), the 1st stage pressure is a little high (Figure 8). If, in addition, we find the CRH pressure
4-33
is ok, the mass flow is high, and the 1st stage efficiency is a little low we can say with confidence that the unit is probably experiencing the onset of (SPE) in the HP control stage based on its similarity to the known error pattern for SPE.
Figure 8 Fuzzy Logic Classification Results form the anomaly detection and diagnostic algorithms are immediately presented on the web site along with supporting information. Users can dig down to learn more about the condition of their equipment by displaying logs of past diagnostic results, and trend plots of key raw and corrected parameters. Conclusion: This information rich condition monitoring and assessment system offers access to current plant data, plots of performance trends, and automated fault diagnosis that are useful to both technical and non-technical plant personnel. Access to current performance and machinery health information allows risk managers, and plant operation planners to improve maintenance scheduling and reduce the machinery life cycle costs. Posting the information on a web-site makes it readily available to all authorized personnel. Acknowledgements: The on-line monitoring demonstration was developed under a grant from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The authors wish to specifically acknowledge Peter Millet, and Bill Reuland of EPRI for their support and technical assistance. References:
i ii
Cotton, K. C., Evaluating and Improving Steam Turbine Performance, Cotton Fact Inc., Rexford, NY, 1993 Beebe, R, Machine Condition Monitoring, Engineering Publications, Victoria, Australia, 1988.
4-34
5
SESSION 5: HEAT RATE TESTING
5-1
Session 5: Heat Rate Testing
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND TESTING

SAM J. KORELLIS, P.E., Performance Group Leader Dynegy Midwest Generation Vice-Chair ASME Board on Performance Test Codes PHILIP GERHART, Ph.D., P.E. Dean of Engineering, University of Evansville ASME VP-Performance Test Codes NEW EQUIPMENT? MAJOR MODIFICATION? ASME PERFORMANCE TEST CODES HELP EVALUATE PERFORMANCE When faced with the question of How well is this equipment performing? ASME Performance Test Codes (PTCs) can help guide us to an answer. ASME PTCs provide uniform rules and procedures for conducting and reporting tests of equipment and systems to determine if performance criteria have been met. What are ASME PTCs? ASME Performance Test Codes (PTCs) provide uniform rules and procedures for planning, preparing, and executing performance tests and reporting the results. A performance test is an engineering evaluation based on measurements and calculations, whose results indicate how well the functions of equipment are accomplished. For over a century, the philosophy of ASME has dictated that a PTC test can provide results with a high level of accuracy, based on current engineering knowledge and practices; taking into account the costs of the test and the value of the information obtained. Codes are, or are intended to be, legal documents. ASME PTCs are written in a format suitable to be cited in contracts as the standard methodology to determine if the equipments guaranteed performance was attained. Who uses ASME PTCs? In simple terms, PTCs can be used by equipment owners, equipment suppliers, and engineering personnel who conduct and analyze tests. When acquiring new equipment, purchasing agents or sales staff can specify that the equipment guarantee will be based on the results of a test conducted in accordance with a specific ASME PTC. Next, the design engineers consult the PTC document to ensure the proper instrument connections will be available. Later, the test engineers install the required instrumentation, and utilize the test procedures and calculation methods to conduct a code test Throughout the process, the focus is on building on the new equipment. Representatives of the now numerous parties to the test ensure the test methods are in compliance with the Code. The test results are analyzed by both the supplier and the equipment owner, and compared to the performance criteria. Also, manufacturers and suppliers may be interested in the exact performance of their equipment, to better understand design margins and impacts of manufacturing tolerances on performance. Therefore, Code tests are conducted outside of any performance guarantees. In the commercial arena, ASME PTCs permit suppliers to compete fairly while protecting users from complacency and poorly-performing products. Purchase specifications are greatly strengthened by citing the results of tests dictated by PTCs. Who issues ASME PTCs? Performance Test Codes fall under the jurisdiction of the ASME Council on Codes & Standards. Anyone identifying the need for a test code or a test code revision communicates that need to ASME staff. Based on the substantiated need, the Board on Performance Test Codes organizes and empowers a technical standards committee to develop or revise a test code. The technical standards committee is a team of experts; highly qualified and technically competent engineers, with expertise in some or all fields covered by the specific PTC. The committee membership is balanced between equipment users, equipment manufacturers, and general interest personnel. While their employment and, in most cases, their support is based in one of the three membership categories, standards committee members represent no one but themselves. This group prepares the code draft, while meeting periodically, and corresponding continually. It should be noted that all meetings are open to anyone interested in attending and participating. A preliminary draft is sent to knowledgeable persons in the industry for review. This review and the incorporation of comments and recommendations strengthen the document. The completed draft is then approved by the technical committee membership and the Board on Performance Test Codes. The new Code is sent to ANSI for their approval, and ASME publishes the document and sells it for barely more than the cost of the material, printing, paper, and handling! consensus. All ASME Codes have been developed by
5-2
seeking balanced input from all types of parties who may be interested in the Code and/or the equipment or process the Code deals with. Who, besides ASME, issues Codes and Standards? Several other professional organizations develop codes and standards by the consensus process; among them IEEE and ASTM. Codes developed by these organizations often compliment ASME Codes, and ASME PTCs often refer to IEEE or ASTM Codes for test elements that fall within the areas covered by the IEEE/ASTM. Examples include electric power measurements for motor drives, and the determination of properties of materials such as coal or limestone. Codes and standards are sometimes issued by trade organizations. These documents are usually developed by a team of manufacturers, and often do not include input from equipment users or general interest parties such as engineering consultants or representatives of government. The federal government and, to a lesser extent, state governments sometimes develop and issue codes and standards. At the current time, the U.S. Federal Government is attempting to move away from governmentally-developed standards, and towards utilizing voluntary, consensus-based standards. Other codes and standards are also issued by groups sponsored by some countries outside the U.S. These may represent a single country, such as the German DIN standards; or a multi-national effort, such as the ISO standards, which include U.S. participation.
ASME Vice-President, elected by the entire Society. One of the five Councils of ASME, the Council on Codes and Standards governs all ASME Codes and Standards activities. What equipment is covered by PTCs? Performance Test Codes originated as Power Test Codes decades ago; so the main emphasis has been on power plants and their associated equipment. The first Code (of any type) issued by ASME was Rules for Conducting Boiler Tests, published in 1884. Today, nearly 50 PTCs are available, covering individual components, entire systems, and complete plants. In addition to these Codes, Supplements on Instruments and Apparatus are available, covering measurements and techniques common to several Codes. Equipment covered by PTCs encompass: PTC-4 Fired Steam Generators PTC-6 Steam Turbines PTC-10 Compressors PTC-11 Fans PTC-12.2 Steam Surface Condensers PTC-18 Hydraulic Turbines PTC-23 Cooling Towers PTC-25 Pressure Relief Devices PTC-39 Steam Traps PTCs applying to plants and systems include: PTC-46 Overall Plant Performance PTC-PM Performance Monitoring Guidelines Some Supplements on Instrumentation & Apparatus are: PTC-19.1 Test Uncertainty PTC-19.2 Pressure Measurement PTC-19.3 Temperature Measurement PTC-19.5 Flow Measurement PTC-19.11 Steam and Water Purity
Who is ASME? ASME, International (the American Society of Mechanical Engineers) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting mechanical engineering. ASMEs mission is: To promote and enhance the technical competency and professional well-being of our members, and through quality programs and activities in mechanical engineering, better enable its practitioners to contribute to the well-being of humankind... ASME consists of more than 125,000 members, and has a staff of 400. Performance Test Code committees are staffed by volunteers and coordinated by an ASME staff engineer. Committee membership is not limited to ASME members. PTC committees report to the Board on Performance Test Codes. The Chair of the Board is an
What is included in an ASME PTC? Performance Test Codes have a standard format. Each begins with an Object and Scope, describing the equipment to be evaluated, the goals of the test, and the expected uncertainty of the results. Definitions and Description of Terms, which also includes mathematical symbols and abbreviations, follows the Object and Scope section. Guiding Principles are covered in detail, including: - items to be agreed upon before the test - preliminary tests - test preparations - operating conditions
5-3
equipment set-up for the test permissible deviations constancy of operations acceptability of test runs frequency of observations and duration of test runs
From all parties point of view, a PTC test firms up the expected and guaranteed performance. Everyone now understands what is expected and how it is measured. The value added by conducting the tests includes: - the purchaser and manufacturer can agree on the current level of equipment performance - adjustments can be made based on the results of the test, including partial refund of purchase price, restoration of inadequate performance, or bonus/ penalty payments. - the manufacturer gains baseline knowledge of the equipments design, often learning the impact of manufacturing tolerances, impacts of off-design operation, or evaluation of the latest improvements. - the equipment owner now has baseline information against which to compare future performance and predict future capability (including projecting product cost). What do PTC tests cost, and what are their worth? The PTC documents can be purchased directly from ASME, at prices ranging from $20 to $250, each. The exact price depends on the specific test code. Figure 1 lists typical test costs for selected components and respective test codes. The table also contains component capital and operating costs, and the cost of potential performance losses for comparing to the value of a PTC test. Test costs also depend upon the complexity of the system being tested. Typically, the tests can cost a few thousand dollars for a small component, up to a quarter of a million dollars for a complex plant. These costs are put in perspective by understanding that it doesnt require many $1,000 on-peak MWhours to recoup the cost of identifying and correcting an efficiency loss. For fuel-consuming equipment like gas turbines and boilers, the cost of a PTC test is less than one (1) percent of one year of operating, fuel, and investment costs. For components not directly consuming fuel, like cooling towers and steam turbines, the test costs are typically well under one year of operating and investment costs for that component.
The section on Instruments and Methods of Measurement includes guidance on the choice of instruments, including: sensitivity, precision, number, alternatives, and duplication. Additional information is provided on the use and placement of instrumentation, its limitations, sources of error, and precautions. Test methods are also described. Another section outlines the Computation of Results. This section contains the formulas and directions for determining the equipment performance from the recorded data. It also contains the formulas and directions to determine the uncertainty of the results. Each PTC contains a list of information that should be included in the Report of Results section. PTCs may provide the format or outline for the report. Many PTCs have appendices. Topics covered in the appendices may include: - sample calculations - derivation of formulas - alternate test methods With these state-of-the-art methods, why worry about test uncertainty? Uncertainty is associated with all measurements. PTCs provide guidance on determining test uncertainty and the typical or expected values for specific tests. Some PTCs require that a certain level of test uncertainty be achieved in order for the test to be a valid Code Test. It is important to note that test uncertainty is not a tolerance; but rather, provides insight to the quality of the test and its results. Delving into the individual contributions to overall test uncertainty, the test engineer can determine where best to spend limited funds to improve the quality of the test results. If alternate methods are provided in the code or are used in the test, the impact on uncertainty to the final result is determined. Why include PTCs in purchase contracts? Acceptance tests have a significant cost; however, the cost is much smaller than the capital cost of the equipment, or the net worth of the proper operation and performance of the equipment.
5-4
FIGURE 1 PTC COSTS

Typical Test Cost ($000) 100 35 20 17 50 30 250 225 Component Capital Cost ($000) 200,000 25,000 12,000 200 60,000 20,000 150,000 800,000 Annual O&M Costs ($000) 30,000 50 60 20 13,000 14,000 400 38,000 Test Cost as a % of Annualized Costs 0.3% 4.0% 4.3% 63.8% 0.3% 0.2% 4.6% 0.3% Potential Annual Performance Loss ($000) 540 60 60 8 50 260 270 810 Payback of Test Costs (months) 2 7 4 26 12 1 11 3
Component Boiler (Fired Steam Generator) Condenser Cooling Tower Feedwater Heater Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam Turbine Total Plant *all costs in U.S. dollars
PTC 4 12.2 23 12.1 22 4.4 6 46
Fuel Costs Included
Included Included Included
The cost savings arise when the test identifies a correctable deficiency. For example, a test on a new steam turbine can cost $250,000, and require 7-10 days to complete. The purpose of the test is to verify the performance of a $150 million machine, where a one percent efficiency loss can be worth over $250,000 each year. Why does it take so long to publish Codes? New test codes are typically issued about five years after the formation of a standards technical committee. While coordinated by ASME staff, the documents are developed entirely by volunteers; therefore, work does not progress continuously. The consensus process used by these diverse teams of experts, which results in a fair and technically excellent product, requires time and effort. Recently, ASME recognized that five years is too long, and has redesigned the process of developing all products in the entire Codes and Standards Division. Time savings will result from the increased use of new technologies, including electronically routing draft documents; and streamlining the administrative process; e.g., conducting parallel reviews. Where can I get more information on ASME PTCs? Contact ASME: - their web page at http://www.asme.org - Director of PTCs, Mr. W. O. Hays at (212) 705-8550 - Mechanical Engineering Magazine - attend (and/or participate in) technical committee meetings. The times, dates, and locations are available from the sources noted above.
What can you do? Whenever you or your staff procure a major piece of equipment, ensure the warranty calls for the acceptance criteria to be based on the results of a PTC test. Support your engineering personnel participating on committees, reviewing drafts, and conducting official tests. Volunteer to serve on a technical standards committee. Provide feedback to ASME, the committees, and Board on the usefulness of PTCs or other related services you desire.
What is the future of PTCs? Performance Test Codes have been extensively used for over one hundred years. While the test methods have changed greatly with the advent of modern instruments and portable computers, there is still a need for standards and directions for conducting these near people-less tests. As the power industry accelerates through deregulation, additional emphasis will be placed on cost reductions; therefore, knowledge of the component level of performance will increase in value. Equipment guarantees will become more important; the purchase specifications will be tightened, extending the intensity of competition to the equipment suppliers. As previously mentioned, ASME Codes and Standards have redesigned the processes used to develop and deliver their products. This change resulted from the observed increases in everything from number of Codes and Standards, to their increased acceptance and use; pace and volume of data interchange, and increased expectations. With leaner corporate structures and fewer available volunteers having less available time, ASME is committed to: - producing their C&S products on a time scale that
5-5
meets users needs. providing timely responses to inquiries. maintaining due process and consensus documents with less impact on volunteers.
REFERENCES 1. 2. ANSI / ASME PTC 1, General Instructions, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1999. Yost, J. G., The ABCs of Acceptance Testing, PWRVol. 30, Proceedings of the International Joint Power Generation Conference, 1996. Korellis, S. J., ASME Performance Test Codes, Electric Power Research Institute Balance of Plant Performance Group Meeting, 1992.
New PTCs have been developed to accommodate the new and complex needs of the industry. Several PTCs that consider equipment that is not specifically focused on electric power production are under development. PTCs for environmental protection equipment and processes are being written. Additional products and services are being evaluated to ensure that ASME PTCs best serve global industries as the preeminent provider of state-of-the-art standardized methods for performance testing, monitoring, and analysis of energy conversion and industrial processes, systems, and equipment.
3.
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
CYCLE ALIGNMENT METHODS AND EVALUATION

and plants today are much more in tune to optimizing their heat rates, all should undertake a regular program to ensure proper cycle alignment. In addition to the heat rate improvement realized by routing the heated fluids on their intended ways, several other benefits exist. Those benefits include hardware life extension, improved component operation, reduced condenser backpressure, improved measurements, and reduced personnel safety hazards. Just as the turbine designer/manufacturer takes great care to maximize the amount of steam flowing through the blades and buckets in the turbine, the architect engineer and plant operators try to ensure that the heated fluids in the steam cycle are routed to where they provide the greatest benefit. Todays steam turbines have variable clearance interstage packings that open during startup, causing a brief efficiency loss, but protect the packings to provide improved performance during full load operation. That is similar to the use of emergency drains on FW heaters. They open to protect the heat exchanger, routing heated water to the condenser, temporarily causing a large heat rate loss. But just as damaged turbine interstage packings result in poorer turbine efficiency, a leaking emergency drain line causes poorer unit efficiency.
SAM J. KORELLIS, P.E., Performance Group Leader Dynegy Midwest Generation Abstract The action of restoring cycle alignment has historically yielded large heat rate improvements. The benefits, in addition to the fuel savings realized by minimizing cycle leakages, include: extended hardware life, improved component operation, reduced condenser backpressure, more reliable flow measurements, and enhanced personnel safety. Methods of improving cycle alignment are explained, evaluated, and accompanied by economic analyses. Potential heat rate effects of cycle isolation losses are listed. Actual field results and examples of cost savings from improved cycle alignment are provided. Basis Historically, restoring cycle alignment has provided the largest heat rate improvements as compared to any other action. It is usually the least costly to implement, making it desirable in terms of financial return. Since generators
EffectsCC To put the potential losses into perspective, the following table is based on a leakage equal to one tenth of a percent of throttle steam flow. Loss originates at Heat Rate Effect 0.12 % 0.07 % 0.08 % 0.03 % 0.02 % 0.04 %
Main Steam Cold Reheat Hot Reheat Highest Press FW Heater drain FW Pump Steam Drum
The turbine manufacturers have developed and published similar tables of generic values for use in evaluating test results. Unit specific heat rate effects can be determined via steam cycle evaluation using software and models, testing, or rigorous hand calculations.
Cycle Alignment
5-14
Effects To put the potential losses into perspective, the following table is based on a leakage equal to one tenth of a percent of throttle steam flow. Loss originates at Main Steam Cold Reheat Hot Reheat Highest Press FW Heater drain FW Pump Steam Drum Heat Rate Effect 0.12 % 0.07 % 0.08 % 0.03 % 0.02 % 0.04 %
valve and the sparger cost over $10,000, but by now operating this system without the leak, the cost of sparger repairs will not be repeated and a heat rate improvement will be realized. Had the leak continued, condenser tube damage would have occurred shortly causing a forced outage. The repair was justified based on a heat rate improvement alone, but that cost is small in comparison to those of a forced outage. There are additional positive effects of maintaining cycle alignment. Other motivations include proper equipment operation, reliable fluid measurement, and potential personnel safety hazards. The valves on the vents on feedwater heaters need to be open to ensure proper venting of non-condensables to maintain optimal heat transfer. If the orifice is either clogged or enlarged by erosion, the incorrect flow rate will either reduce heat transfer in the feedwater heater or waste heat by sending excess steam to the condenser. Equipment bypass lines should be completely closed when the equipment is in service. Routing a portion of a units feedwater flow past a feedwater heater instead of through it results in an efficiency loss. Ensuring the entire flow passes through a flow meter, with minimal pressure drop contribution from isolation valves, is necessary to properly measure the flow rate. Lines open to the atmosphere release the energy in the fluid, lose the treated fluid itself, and may be a personnel hazard. Methods
The turbine manufacturers have developed and published similar tables of generic values for use in evaluating test results. Unit specific heat rate effects can be determined via steam cycle evaluation using software and models, testing, or rigorous hand calculations. The information from this table can be used to determine the cost of a leak. For a nominal 500 MWe coal fired unit, each percent heat rate loss is worth over $300,000 in annual fuel costs. So using the table, a 30,000 lb/hr leak through a HP heater drain can cause a $90,000 annual loss. This large leak is nearly a full percent of throttle flow and 10% of the expected extraction steam flow, but would not be readily noticed during plant operation. Using the typical annual costs of the least expensive evaluation methods and anticipated repairs, restoring cycle alignment can pay for itself by finding and correcting one leak of this magnitude every six years. Conversely, repairing this one leak will pay for itself in a few months. The magnitude of plants heat rate improvement is much greater than the tenths of percents listed in the table that reflect a single leak. For example during initial plant startups, heat rate losses caused by cycle alignment problems have been in the 5-10% range. Typically, when preparing for a turbine test or commencing on a cycle alignment restoration program, the gains have been 0.52.0% improvement in heat rate. A big portion of the savings comes from heat rate improvement since fuel costs consume 60-75% of the annual plant operating budgets. But, these leakages can also affect maintenance costs. Identifying and correcting a leak before it ruins the sealing surface of a valve seat or erodes the downstream pipe or cuts a few tubes in the condenser will save maintenance dollars. For an example, a leaking recirc min-flow line on a feedwater pump was identified during a condenser inspection. The associated flow sparger that distributes the high-energy flow in the condenser was severely eroded. Repairing that leaking
Most of the methods to evaluate cycle alignment are labor intensive, requiring personnel to list hundreds of flow paths and walk down plant systems to make simple observations. The sensing devices span the range from no tech to high tech. As with any rigorous action in a power plant, a plan should be developed in advance. The first step is to develop a list of valves / lines / traps to be checked. This list can be developed from plant drawings and verified by walking down the system. Since the list can be quite large, it is recommended to prioritize the potential flow paths by their potential heat rate effect, the system, or by its location in the plant. Prioritizing it by potential heat rate effect can be done simply by ranking based on fluid enthalpy or more accurately based on the results of steam cycle analysis or testing. Once the priority is set, a unit specific frequency for surveys can be established. It is recommended that the entire system of flow paths be surveyed after each major overhaul and no less frequently than once each year. Those valves with either a high effect on heat rate or a history of leakage should be checked more frequently. Several generators reported checking several high impact valves as often as once a week.
5-15
There are many methods to detect proper or improper alignment. Methods include temperature measurements, sonic measurements, and visual detection. One of the simplest detection methods is measuring temperature upstream and downstream of a valve. Since most of the lines of interest are connected to the condenser an elevated downstream temperature is strong indication of a leak. Boring a small (1/4) hole in the bottom (at 6:00) of the insulation surrounding a pipe permits a surface temperature measurement to be made with a small portable probe. For those pipes more remotely located, infrared temperature measurements (thermography) are recommended. Some boiling water reactor plants have installed surface mounted thermocouples on the lines with the highest potential of leakage or heat rate loss and routed the lead wires outside the shielding to permit periodic monitoring without additional radiation dose. Other methods include: observing, recording, and trending the valve stem position, or using aerosols to detect motion of the air near the pipe caused by either heat convection, flow exhausted from an open line, or air drawn into the condenser vacuum. ASME equipment Performance Test Codes contain additional recommendations for verifying proper cycle alignment. Though many of these tests require strict cycle isolation, which cannot and should not be maintained during normal plant operation, they provide excellent guidelines for the most efficient operation. PTC-6 on steam turbine testing requires that the unaccounted for leakage from a turbine steam cycle be less than 0.1% of throttle flow. Using the values in the table above, based on this limit the uncertainty on heat rate caused by not knowing the source of the external leaks can approach 10 btu/kwh. Several empirical relations have been published to estimate the leakage flow rate based on the temperature differential, acoustical emissions, and associated plant conditions. Turbine vendors, test consultants, and test equipment suppliers have numerous methods to estimate leakage flow rates. The primary reason to estimate the flow rate is to determine the effect on heat rate and operating costs. Computer models and steam cycle analyses and heat rate testing also provide valid estimates the effects, but are labor intensive, time consuming methods. Several systems have been developed to indicate a leak or estimate a flow rate based on acoustic signals. The acoustic monitor is placed on the exterior of the valve body. Its output is compared to past readings, when there was reasonable assurance the valve was not leaking, and provides an estimated flow rate based on vendor propriety correlations.
A portable ultrasonic flow meter can be strapped onto the outside of an uninsulated pipe to measure flow. This is useful where a measurable temperature differential is not anticipated, like in the case of an open feedwater heater bypass. It shouldnt be used downstream of a potentially leaking isolation valve, since without a full pipe of water the reading is most often erroneous or difficult to obtain. On the lower tech end, a mechanics stethoscope can be used to listen to steam traps and valves, though the analysis is quite subjective. Some lines are designed with a vent or drain line between the valve and the condenser. Water will flow out of that valve only if certain conditions prevail, otherwise opening this valve might cause a huge increase in condenser air inleakage and not indicate leakage when some exists. If this vent or drain is located between two valves upstream of the condenser, then it can be used to determine if the most upstream valve is secure. Use extreme caution in all cases when opening a pressurized system to the atmosphere. Some leakages are non-continuous and occur on a cyclic frequency. Automatic drain valves might cycle based on incorrect high liquid level signals or controller problems. Unless the monitoring frequency just happens to match its cycle of opening, the leak indications will be more difficult to measure. Noticing downstream temperature variations in time is a signal that the pipe is cooling after a periodic loss of high temperature fluid. Longer term monitoring using an automated data acquisition system is the best method to identify non-continuous leakages. Not all of the leakages identified are caused by mispositioned valves. Many are the result of control system problems, mechanical problems with the valve, or even misapplication of valve design. To improve cycle alignment some emergency drain valves, used to control feedwater heater level, have been replaced with globe valves to better withstand throttling service without damaging the seating surface. Again to improve cycle alignment, gate valves, typically used for steam and startup drain valves, have been replaced with quarter turn ball valves. The control systems of many valves experiencing intermittent service have been modified to improve sealing and permit less leakage. Maintaining proper air pressure and correct controller gain settings and to ensure the valve is not just cracked open help preserve its seat and prevent long term leakages. Returning to your specific actions, the list has been developed and the potential loss flow paths have been surveyed in the plant. So now you are hot and sweaty and have a list of leaks causing potential losses. They are reported to maintenance and you follow their restoration. On the leaking lines containing a manual isolation valve, a short test can be conducted by temporarily closing the manual valve to determine how much heat rate
5-16
improvement is realized when the flow is stopped. The process doesnt end here. To maintain improved plant performance for the long term, this is a continuously ongoing process for the life of the plant. It is recommended to conduct this in-plant survey on a periodic basis. Checking the temperatures or acoustics of a valve immediately following repairs provides excellent feedback to the maintenance crew and plant leadership in addition to developing records for future comparisons. Examples of flow paths that should not be flowing: -Emergency drains to the condenser -Pump recirculation lines -High point vents -Low point drains -Equipment pressure relief valves -Steam startup drains -Steam traps -Equipment bypasses -Turbine hood sprays -Condenser water box priming vents -Any line routing heated fluid out of the steam cycle Example and Evaluation This is an example of a process to improve cycle isolation on a modern 500 MW fossil station. The hours and costs are typical of actual experience. Review drawings and verify valve locations in the plant to develop a prioritized list containing 120 high priority flow paths and 250 lower priority flow paths. 3-5 days Purchase a hand held pyrometer. Identify and prepare locations. Conduct the survey. Issue maintenance work requests. Subtotal of first time survey cost Repair leaking valves Recheck those repaired Subtotal resolution cost Total cost Repeat survey cost $300 2 days 1 day 2-4 hours <$4000 $10,000 2-4 hours <$10,500 <$15,000 <$600
made on cycle alignment. The return on investment improves on future surveys without the first time preparation costs.
References 1. ANSI / ASME PTC 6-1996, Performance Test Code on Steam Turbines, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1996. 2. ANSI / ASME PTC 39.1, Steam Traps, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. 3. Heat Rate Improvement Reference Manual, TR109546, EPRI, July 1998. 4. Performance Monitoring Program Manual, Duke Power Company, June 1985. 5. Condenser In-Leakage Guideline, TR-112819, EPRI, January 2000. 6. Branco, M. M., Balasubramanian, K., Dimmick, J. G., Fitzgerald, W. V., Heat Rate Recovery by Cycle Isolation and Control, EPRI BOPPMG, 1992. 7. Albert, P. G., Booth, J. A., Shafer, H. S., Effects of Turbine-Generator Associated Equipment on Sustained Thermal Performance, ASME paper 83-JPGC-PTC-4, 1983. 8. Moradian, M. A., Sandhu, S. S., Southall, L. R., Application of Diagnostic Performance Programs in Power Plants, ASME paper 87-JPGC-PTC-5, 1987.
Identifying and repairing one major leak during an initial survey provides a two-month return on the investment
5-17
In Search of Unaccounted for Btus via the Art of ASME PTC-6 Testing
Italo Liberatore
Senior Engineer Predictive Maintenance Engineering Constellation Power Source Generation
Allison Rossi
Plant Performance Engineer Brandon Shores Power Plant Constellation Power Source Generation
Donald Fyhr
Performance Engineer Predictive Maintenance Engineering Constellation Power Source Generation
5-18
In Search of Unaccounted for Btus via the Art of ASME PTC-6 Testing
Italo Liberatore
Constellation Power Source Generation
Allison Rossi
Constellation Power Source Generation
Donald Fyhr
Constellation Power Source Generation Abstract: Beginning in late 1997, the unit heat rate of Brandon Shores Unit 2 has steadily increased with no clear explanation of the root cause. Of the increase of approximately 500 Btu/kwhr, our Performance Monitoring Program has not explained 400 Btu/kwhr. To identify the cause of this increase, Constellation Power Source Generation plans to perform a full scale ASME PTC 6-1996 turbine heat rate on the unit during early 2001. General Introduction: The Brandon Shores Unit 2 boiler is a Babcock and Wilcox balanced draft, natural circulation, Carolina Type radiant boiler, firing pulverized coal with No. 2 oil igniters. The boiler is rated for 4,425,000 lb/hr of steam at 2520 psig and 1005/1005F. The turbine-generator, supplied by General Electric Company, is rated for 680,000 kw output at 3600 rpm. The turbine is a tandem-compound, double flow reheat with two double flow low pressure sections. Commercial operation began in 1991. An SCR was recently installed in late 2000 to reduce NOx emissions. A baseline turbine heat rate test was performed in 1993. Existing Program: The Performance Monitoring Program consists of three primary sections: Heat Rate/Thermal Performance Tracking: Monitoring and trending heat rate deviations and long term/gradual performance problems. As part of the Heat Rate/Thermal Performance Tracking we conduct routine testing at similar steady state full load conditions using plant instrumentation. We set the main steam and reheat steam as close as possible to design/optimum rated conditions. Pressure, temperature, and flow data is collected, as applicable, for a period of one hour preceded by one hour of settling out. Simultaneously, we collect coal and ash samples. This information is used off line to calculate the
5-19
monthly average unit performance using the Output/Loss Method, as well as the Input/Output Method. These values are used for trending of unit performance, as described below. Performance Engineering Test: Major equipment testing, as part of the Predictive Maintenance Program, using portable calibrated instrumentation. When routine monitoring identifies the need or for plant equipment not instrumented for test, the Predictive Maintenance Engineering Unit is called in to conduct a performance test using portable calibrated instrumentation. Testing is done following detailed test procedures, which are based on the ASME Test Codes. Monitoring & analysis: Evaluation of the operators Controllable Loss Monitor parameters. The unit is equipped with an online controllable loss monitor to aid the plant operators in maintaining optimum conditions to improve heat rate. The data is trended for any indications of problem areas that need to be addressed. Historical NPHR: Routine performance testing using plant instrumentation has being done on a consistent basis on this unit since February 1995. The plant instrumentation used in this testing may not always give accurate results, but the trend in heat rate should be reliable. Parameters calculated include, but are not limited to net plant heat rate (NPHR), turbine generator heat rate (TGHR), HP & IP turbine efficiencies, boiler efficiency, feedwater heater terminal temperature differences (TTDs) and drain cooler approaches (DCAs), etc. For each piece of major equipment, performance indicators are calculated. The expected value at the test load and/or steam flow is also determined. Deviations from the expected value are determined for most common causes of inefficiencies and the sum of the total losses calculated. These are known as accounted for losses. The actual NPHR is compared to the expected NPHR and the difference between the total NPHR deviation and the accounted for losses is defined as unaccounted for losses. Attachment 1 is an example of the monthly report generated from the above. Attachment 2 shows the annual averages for accounted for and unaccounted for losses. Since the beginning of this reporting/testing period, Unit 2 has had unaccounted for losses that could not be explained or associated with any one cause. Since late 1997, these losses have increased substantially, but the root cause(s) for these inefficiencies have not been identified. Attachment 3 shows the trends of net plant heat rate deviation and unaccounted for losses over time.
5-20
Trending and boiler testing has indicated that the increase in heat rate is in the turbine cycle. Therefore, all efforts have been concentrated on the causes for higher turbine heat rate. Special Testing/Evaluation: To ensure the increase in heat rate was not an instrument problem, the plant instruments that affect heat rate the most were verified for accuracy by comparing their indications with portable, calibrated test instrumentation. Any instruments exceeding acceptable limits were calibrated/corrected. The results of this process found no significant instrument problems. Performance testing using calibrated test instrumentation, as part of the Performance Monitoring Program, did not identify any major deviations that were not already identified by the monitoring program. In an attempt to narrow the search for the cause(s) of these inefficiencies, we compared the performance of Unit 2 to Unit 1 while they were operating at approximately the same conditions. The two units are very similar, allowing this comparison. This relative comparison highlighted the differences between each other, as well as the differences between them and their expected design (best achievable condition). The comparison of the units heat rates showed Unit 2 NPHR calculated based on the Output/Loss method to be higher than Unit 1. The NPHR calculated by the Input/Output method showed similar results. Comparison of other parameters such as turbine efficiencies, pressure ratios, feedwater heater performance, etc. only explained part of the higher heat rate. Attachment 4 lists the comparison results. Attachments 5, 6, 7 and 8 compare all of the major components in the turbine cycle. No indication of the cause for the large deviation in performance can be attributed to any of them. Although all indications show that the losses are not attributed to the boiler cycle, it was also reviewed again. As suspected no major indication of efficiency changes over time were found. Therefore, we went back to the historical database and began to assess each of the input data points used to calculate NPHR based on the output/loss method. The one variable that stood out more than all of the others was the final feedwater (FFW) flow. Comparison of the FFW flow measurement to the calculated FFW flow based on MBFP suction flow measurements showed that the FFW flow measurement may be indicating high (see Attachment 9). Comparison of the FFW flow measurement to the condensate flow measurement supports this conclusion (see Attachment 10). If the indicated flow is high, then the heat rate would indicate high as well. This would result in a higher than actual increase in heat rate being shown. Although unlikely and uncommon, we suspected that the FFW nozzle might be creating higher than actual readings. In order for the nozzle to indicate higher than actual flow, it would need to have deposits at the throat area of the nozzle. Since there were problems with copper deposits in the HP turbine in the past, the historical trends were evaluated for possible explanation. The only way to
5-21
prove or disprove this conclusion is via a nozzle calibration test. The last time it was done was in 1993, during a full scale turbine heat rate test. This test was run to establish the baseline condition of the turbine. To validate the historical trend for Unit 2, it was decided to compare the output/loss method with another approach, based on continuous emission monitor (CEM) data. This information is known to be indicating higher than actual, but since only the trends would be compared, and therefore their relative changes, it was considered to be valuable. It is noted that the heat rate based on output/loss method trended similar to the CEM heat rate calculations. These two are completely independent, and therefore indicates that the FFW flow may be indicating the correct/actual flow. Attachment 11 shows the trends of gross plant heat rate based on the Output/Loss, Input/Output and CEM methods over time. The MBFP speed increasing over time is also indicating that flow is probably increasing. If the FFW flow indication is assumed correct, then the cause of the increase in heat rate is still unknown. When Industry Experts encounter this type of unit performance, and have exhausted all other possibilities, they will normally conclude that the inefficiency is due to the LP turbine performance, i.e., if it is not elsewhere, its in the LP turbine. A PTC 6 test will thoroughly evaluate all other possibilities, and therefore could make/present such a conclusion. After rigorous and lengthy evaluation and comparison of the performance data collected, the root cause(s) of BS2 unaccounted for losses could not be identified. The two areas which are suspect, although not certainly proven, are the final feedwater flow and the LP turbine efficiency. To provide concrete evidence of these possible causes it was recommended to perform a Turbine Heat Rate Test, in accordance with ASME PTC-6. After presentation of the review findings to plant personnel, approval was received to perform a full scale turbine heat rate test. PTC 6 Test Plan The test is being run using the ASME PTC 6-1996 full-scale test as a guideline. Turbine heat rate, HP turbine efficiency, and IP turbine efficiency will be calculated. LP turbine exhaust steam enthalpy and LP turbine efficiency will not be calculated due to unknown split of flow between the two LP turbines (dual pressure unit). In addition to the above, the following is also being performed: Calibration of the plant final feedwater nozzle, main boiler feed pump suction nozzle, and condensate flow orifice Calculation of feedwater heater performance Calculation of boiler feed booster pump and main boiler feed pump head versus flow performance
5-22
Calculation of main boiler feed pump turbine efficiency (through 5th stage) Plant heat rate based on input/output method (electrical output divided by fuel input) Six load points will be tested with two tests run at each load point for repeatability. Each test will be two hours in duration following a one-hour settling-out period. The six load points are: Load Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 Valve Point VWO VWO 2nd 3rd 1st VWO Steam Conditions 2520 psig,1000F/1000F (5% overpressure) 2400 psig,1000F/1000F 2400 psig,1000F/1000F 2400 psig,1000F/1000F 2400 psig,1000F/1000F 2450 psig,1000F/1000F (normal full load)
The cycle will be isolated for testing load points 1 through 5. Load point 6 testing will be run with normal operating valve positions. No soot blowing will be allowed during the test periods. Turbine valve points will be set by measuring the feedback voltage signal from the control valves to the EHC system. Data points have been selected to meet the requirements of PTC 6-1996 except as follows: Design values will be used for boiler feed pump and boiler feed booster pump seal flows (no flow elements installed in lines) Feedwater heater pressure drops will be measured Readings will be taken on plant final feedwater nozzle, main boiler feed pump suction flow nozzle and condensate flow orifice (plant flow elements are being calibrated for routine testing) Main boiler feed pump turbine operating data (leak-off flow, 5th stage pressure and temperature, etc.) will be read for efficiency calculation Coal flows will be read and coal samples obtained for plant heat rate calculation Test instrumentation will be installed as shown in Attachment 13. There are 62 pressure and 75 temperature readings required for the heat rate test. An additional 14 pressure and 1 temperature readings will be added for other testing. The total number of readings to be taken each minute is 152. All pressures (static and differential) will be read using calibrated pressure transmitters. All temperatures, except some turbine seal flows, will be read using calibrated type E thermocouples equipped with lead wires and reference junctions. The other turbine seal flow temperatures will be read using uncalibrated type E strap-on thermocouples.
5-23
Data will be collected every one minute using a PC-based data acquisition system. Plant operating data will be collected using the plant computer. Hotwell level, deaerator storage tank level, and coal consumption will be read at the beginning and end of the test and at thirty minute intervals between. Coal samples will be obtained from the coal bunkers just above the feeders at the beginning of and at thirty-minute intervals during the test. Pump speeds will be taken every ten minutes. Condensate flow will be measured using a calibrated 16" Daniel throat tap nozzle installed in a horizontal pipe run between feedwater heater No. 24 and the deaerator. The nozzle was calibrated just prior to installation during an outage in December 2000. The CPSG Electric Test & Generator Protection Unit will obtain the electrical measurements using calibrated test instrumentation. An Excel spreadsheet has been created to calculate test results. The test series is expected to run be within a two-week period (schedule to be based on dispatch requirements). Instrument set-up and data collection system checkout will be done in a two-week period preceding the testing. Post-Test Analysis Upon completion of the test and calculation of results, several areas will be looked at including the following. The final feedwater nozzle calibration data will be loaded into the routine performance test calculations. This will show if the indicated increase in net plant heat rate trend was true. A comparison will be made with the 1993 baseline test results. Some of the parameters to be looked at are: The change in turbine heat rate (calculated to determine if it is the cause of the change in NPHR). Performance of the HP and IP turbine sections Feedwater heater performance Main boiler feed pump and turbine performance Seal flows The effect of cycle isolation on unit output will be evaluated to determine its impact and possible problem areas. Plant instrument readings will be compared to test instrument readings to determine if any corrections or calibrations are required.
5-24
Once all changes in turbine heat rate that can be attributed to specific sources (i.e. HP/IP turbine, MBFPT, feedwater heaters, etc.) have been made, the remaining increase in turbine heat rate (unaccounted for losses) will be attributed to the LP turbine. Future Actions In cooperation with EPRI, CPSG has agreed to use Brandon Shores Unit 2 as a demonstration facility for testing two Real-Time Heat Rate Monitors. The boiler performance will be tested with the new SCR in service to determine its effect on unit performance. The installation of data validation software on the plant computer system will be evaluated.
5-25
Attachment 1
Brandon Shores Unit 2 Monthly Thermal Performance Evaluation Report

August 2000 FULL LOAD PERFORMANCE
Average Circ Water Temperature Average Expected Net Plant Heat Rate Average Measured Net Plant Heat Rate Average Total Net Plant Heat Rate Deviation 673.2 Mw-hr (gross)
MONTHLY AVERAGE PERFORMANCE

Monthly Average Operating Net Plant Heat Rate 1999 Monthly Average Operating Net Plant Heat Rate Previous Rolling Average Operating Net Plant HR Present Rolling Average Operating Net Plant HR **** 2000 Year-End Rolling Avg. NPHR Goal **** Change in Average Operating Heat Rate Fuel Cost Savings, Actual vs Goal 10,099 Btu/kW-hr 10,329 Btu/kW-hr 10,137 10,125 10,228 -11 Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr K$ saved
94 9,753 10,506 753
F Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr
Heat Rate Deviation Accountability: Turbine Cycle Average Gross Turbine Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr Average HP Turbine Efficiency, % Average IP Turbine Efficiency, % Average 27 Feed Water Heater TTD, F Average 26 Feed Water Heater TTD, F Average HP Condenser Pressure, in-Hg Average LP Condenser Pressure, in-Hg Average MS Temperature, F Average MS Throttle Pressure, PSIG Average Reheat Steam Temperature, F Average Reheater Pressure Drop, % Boiler & Auxiliaries Average Boiler Efficiency, % Average Excess Air, % Average Exit Gas Temperature, F Average Cegrit Percent LOI, % Average Coal Moisture, % Average Auxiliary Load Usage, MW-hr Average of Total Accounted For Losses Average of Total Unaccounted For Losses Expected Value 8,126 85.3 91.3 0.2 3.2 4.7 3.3 1,000 2,450 1,000 10.0 Actual Value 8,681 83.3 89.7 12.5 0.2 4.7 3.4 998.7 2,453.6 998.4 9.7
Plant Heat Rate Deviation (Btu/kW-hr) 37.3 19.2 23.7 3.6 -3.5 7.2 2.1 -0.9 2.2 -2.8
OTHER INFORMATION Monthly Average Percent LOI 2000 YTD Percent LOI 1999 Average Percent LOI Monthly Average Percent Auxiliary Load 2000 YTD Percent Auxiliary Load 1999 Average Percent Auxiliary Load Percent Savings over 1999 Average Auxiliary Load 8.00 7.14 7.29 % % %
10.13 % 6.32 % 4.72 % -33.92 %
REMARKS (Affecting NPHR and/or efficiencies) BOOS / 24FWH OOS BOOS / 24FWH OOS NONE NONE
12/20/00 12:44 PM
Week 1 2 3 4
Date 08/09/00 08/23/00 #NUM! #NUM!
88.1 19.0 323.5 7.0 6.0 36.8
86.8 21.0 331.9 9.9 7.2 35.4 115 638
-12.2 17.8 35.0 10.6 -24.3 Btu/kW-hr Btu/kW-hr
Attachment 2: Average Yearly Accounted For & Unaccounted For Losses
650 600 550 500 450 400

Btu/kwhr
1998 Year Average
1999 Year Average
2000 Year-to-Date Average
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50
5-26
Attachment 3: Brandon Shores 2 NPHR Accounting of Losses Heat Rate Deviation 1000 Unaccounted For Losses
800
600
BTU/KW-HR
400
200
-200
2/21/95 5/21/95 8/21/95 11/21/95 2/21/96 5/21/96 8/21/96 11/21/96 2/21/97 5/21/97 8/21/97 11/21/97 2/21/98 5/21/98 8/21/98 11/21/98 2/21/99 5/21/99 8/21/99 11/21/99 2/21/00 5/21/00 8/21/00
481 121 39 321 115 436
DATE
A ttachm ent 4: Heat R ate D eviation C om parison, B tu/kw -hr

U1 6 8 5 .4 9895 9913 9780 115 8197 8103 94 56 4 11 0 3 0 -1 -2 3 32 3 -1 8 7 9 108 U2 687 10205 10224 9609 596 8458 7998 460 43 8 17 4 -2 -2 0 -7 7 18 -1 1 29 43 0 147 U2 - U1 1 .7 310 331 -1 7 1 481 261 -1 0 6 366 -1 3 4 6 4 -5 -2 2 -6 4 -1 4 -1 5 47 36 -8 39 NPHR Dev
G e n e ra to r g ro s s lo a d , m w -h r N e t p la n t h e a t ra te (b as e d o n b o ile r e ff) C o rre c te d n e t p la n t h ea t ra te N e t p la n t h e a t ra te , e xp e c te d N e t p la n t h e a t ra te d ev ia tio n T u rb in e -g e n e ra to r h e at ra te E x p e c te d tu rb -g e n h ea t ra te T u rb -g e n h e a t ra te d ev ia tio n H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - H P tu rb e ffic ie n c y H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - IP tu rb e ffic ie n c y H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - 17 /2 7 fe e d w a te r h e a te r H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - 16 /2 6 fe e d w a te r h e a te r H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - m a in s te a m te m p e ra tu re H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - m a in s te a m p re s s u re H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - re h e a t s te a m te m p H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - re h e a te r p re s s u re d ro p H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - H P c o n d e n s e r b p H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - LP c o n d e n s e r b p H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - flu e g a s o x y g e n H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - air h e a te r o u t te m p H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - LO I H e a t ra te d e v ia tio n - m o is tu re in fu e l Total deviation (accounted for) Total Differential Losses U n it 1 N P H R D e v ia tion U2 "Unaccounted For" Losses
10
5-27
Attachment 5: BS NPHR Comparison (Test Date: 3/29/00)
10500 10400 10300 10200 10100 10000 9900 9800 9700 9600 9500 Net plant heat rate (output/loss) Net plant heat rate (input/output) Net plant heat rate, expected Corrected net plant heat rate (output/loss) Corrected net plant heat rate (input/output) Unit 1 Unit 2
Attachment 6: BS Turb Efficiency Comparison (Test Date: 3/29/00)
Btu/kw-hr
92 91 90 89 88 87
%
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
86 85 84 83 82 81 80 High pressure turbine efficiency Intermediate pressure turbine efficiency HP turbine efficiency, expected IP turbine efficiency, expected
11
5-28
Attachment 7: BS Corrected Pressures Comparison (Test Date: 3/29/00)
2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400

psia
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Corrected throttle Corrected 1st pressure stage pressure Corrected hot reheat pressure Corrected cold Corrected 16/26 Corrected IP reheat pressure fwhtr extract pres turbine exhaust
Attachment 8: BS LP Turbine Extraction Pressures Comparison (Test Date: 3/29/00)
80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45
psia
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Corrected 14/24 Corrected 13/23 fwhtr extract pres fwhtr extract pres Corrected 12B/22B fwhtr extract pres Corrected 12A/22A fwhtr extract pres Corrected 11B/21B fwhtr extract pres Corrected 11A/21A fwhtr extract pres
12
5-29
5-30
KLBS/HR KLB/HRS
-250 150 -50 50
-150
250
1,000
200
400
600
800
0
2/21/95 5/21/95 8/21/95 11/21/95 2/21/96 5/21/96 8/21/96 11/21/96 2/21/97 5/21/97 8/21/97 8/21/97 5/21/97 2/21/97 11/21/96 8/21/96 5/21/96 2/21/96 11/21/95 8/21/95 5/21/95 2/21/95
Attachment 10: BS 2 Measured Final Feedwater Flow - Condensate Flow
Attachment 9: BS 2 Measured Final Feedwater Flow - (MBFP Suction Flow - Spray Flows)
13
DATE
11/21/97 2/21/98 5/21/98 8/21/98 11/21/98 2/21/99 5/21/99 8/21/99 11/21/99 2/21/00 5/21/00 8/21/00 2/21/98 5/21/98 8/21/98 11/21/98 2/21/99 5/21/99 8/21/99 11/21/99 2/21/00 5/21/00 8/21/00 11/21/97
DATE
Attachment 11: Brandon Shores 2 Gross Plant Heat Rate Comparison CEM 11250 Input/Output Output/Loss
10750
Btu/kw-hr
10250
9750
9250
8750
Jan-98 Mar-98 Nov-98 Sep-98 Jan-99 Jul-98 Mar-99 Jul-99 Nov-99 May-98 Sep-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 May-99 Jul-00
L SPE P T P T T T P T P T L T T DEAER P T P T SJAE P T
Month/Yr
Attachment 12: Brandon Shores Unit 2 Heat Rate Test Instrumentation

RHTR SSH P T
F P T
T P T P T Generat or E
HP T urbine P P T T F F RHTR P T F P P T F F P P P T T
IP Turbine P T P T P
LP A Turbin e P P P P T P F B C D T T T P
LP B Turbin e P P P P A E F T T T
F P T P T T F P T TEST NOZZLE PF PF T T E P PF PF P - Pre ssure T - Tem pe rature F - Fl ow E - Ele ctric L - Le vel S - Speed - Nozz le - Orifi ce MFBP P S T F BFBP S T T T T P T F T P T T A P T T B P T T C P T D B FPT P
- GE F/R Tub e
May-00
C ond enser
DC F 12/18/00
14
Sep-00
5-31
6
SESSION 6: PLANT EXPERIENCES
6-1
Session 6: Plant Experiences
Analysis of Variables for Predicting Power output at the Columbia Power Plant
Aravindan Rangarajan
6-2
Project Description
Columbia Plant is 535 MW T-fired boiler Project is intended to establish the statistical relationship of critical variables to the unit output in order to optimize performance and identify critical operator-controllable parameters Project involved statistic processing of large volume of operating data
6-3
Correlation of different variables with Power Output

A list of 70 variables was examined for predicting the power output at the Columbia Power plant. Data for all the variables was accumulated between May 1st 2000 to August 15th 2000 A list of 13 variables have been identified as critical variables which affect the Power output the most These critical variables either have a high positive correlation or a high negative correlation.
6-4
Examples of Critical Variables

Corr. Coefficient Secondary Air temperature 0.955 Combined Air flow total 0.960 Coal Flow 0.976 Air Heater Cleanliness Factor 0.899 PSH Cleanliness Factor -0.890 Waterwall Cleanliness Factor -0.587
6-5
List of Critical Variables (contd.)

Economizer Gas out Temp Air Heater Gas Pressure Drop Air Heater Gas in Temperature Flue Gas Oxygen Economizer Gas in Pressure Economizer Gas out Pressure 0.943 0.926 0.894 -0.941 -0.759 -0.949
6-6
Examination of other variables

The initial (raw) coal fuel flow correlation was poor A further examination was undertaken to verify other variables that affect coal flow. These other variables were initially categorized as non-critical or in some cases are not recorded in the plant data acquisition system.
6-7
Raw Fuel flow correlation with the Power Output

600 500 400
GMW
300 200 100 0 500 1000
Total
6-8
List of Variables which affect the Fuel vs Power Output Graph

Correlation Coefficient Moisture -0.49 Moisture vs Ht content - 0.8 (average) Ash vs Ht content -0.25 (average) Sulphur vs Ht content -0.25 (average of all months) Its apparent that moisture, sulphur and Ash affect the Heat content. Corrected heat content correlates directly to Power Output
6-9
Corrected Graph of Fuel vs Gen MW

600 500 400
GMW
300 200 100 0 500 1000
Total
6-10
Regression Equation with Critical Variables

A regression equation was developed for 14 critical variables as a Linear equation Analysis of the standard deviations show that Air heater and Primary SH cleanliness factors have high variability.
6-11
Standard Deviations of some important predictor variables

Predictor StDev
AH A Cleanliness 5.173 PSH Cleanliness 9.263 AH A Gas 0.2376 This shows that the AH A and PSH cleanliness factors are not in Statistical control. There may be interactions that are not fully developed in this analysis.
6-12
Variability in Power Output

X-bar Chart for GMW
580 560 540 6 6 2 X=517.1 6 480 -3.0SL=469.5 460 440 420 400 0 10 20 30 1 1 1 1 3.0SL=564.6
Sample Mean
520 500
Sample Number
6-13
Interaction among the Variables

Burner tilt position on water cleanliness factor ( 0.7 correlation) Sec.SH cleanliness with Prim.SH cleanliness (0.55 correlation) Flue gas oxygen with economizer gas pressure ( 0.9) Interaction shows that the noncritical variables could affect the correlation of the critical variables to Power Output
6-14
Interaction among Variables
BURNER TILT POSITION
10
-10
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Waterwall Clean Fact - Raw
6-15
Inferences and Conclusion

The graph of the power output vs coal input is affected by variables such as moisture, sulfur and ash present in the coal. This brings variability in the raw data graph. The non-critical variables affect the correlation coefficients of the critical variables and can be taken as secondary critical variables.
6-16
Inferences and Conclusion

For a better prediction of power output it is necessary to take into consideration other variables which affect the critical variables. Some of the critical variables have a high standard deviation which explains why some correlations appear to be out of statistical control at times. Further examination of additional variable relationships may be necessary or better statistical control may be considered.
6-17
12th EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference, Dallas, Texas, January 2001.
EXPERIENCE OF MONEYPOINT POWER STATION IN RECOVERING PLANT HEAT RATE: FOCUS ON CONTROL VALVES
Michael Rocke, BE Chartered Engineer Technical Services Engineer, Moneypoint Generating Station Electricity Supply Board, Ireland E-mail: mick.rocke@mail.esb.ie
Tom Canning, B.E. Manager, Thermal Performance Electricity Supply Board (E.S.B.), Ireland. E-mail: tom.canning@mail.esb.ie
Sanjay V. Sherikar, Ph.D., P.E. Manager, Plant Betterment Control Components Inc., Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, U.S.A. E-mail: svs@ccivalve.com
Abstract This paper reports the results of a program undertaken to recover plant heat rate by Moneypoint Power Station, a 3 x 315 MW coal-fired power station, owned and operated by the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) of Ireland. The focus of this program was control valves. The results of to date indicated that an overall performance improvement of 4% for the station is possible by eliminating valve-related inefficiencies. The priorities at this station in recent years have been, and still are, availability of the Units and NOx control. Having recorded improvements in these areas over the years, a systematic program focussing on valves was undertaken to recover efficiency loss attributable to valves. An initial study was done as the first part of this program. This study showed that performance improvement equivalent of 37 MW for the station is achievable with the correct valve performance. The problems/losses in all the cases were caused because the technology in those valves was not suited for the specific applications. Leaking valves constituted a majority of the sources of loss. Recommended changes in seven of the problem valves applications in Unit 2 were made in May 2000. Measurements at these valves indicate an estimated gain of 7.4 MW.
6-18
Background at Moneypoint Power Station Moneypoint station of Electricity Supply Board (ESB) has 3 identical coal-fired Units, 305 MW each, with Foster Wheeler drum boilers and Asea Brown Boveri Steam Turbines. They were commissioned successively in 1985, 86 and 87. The nominal rating for the main steam on these Units is 160 bar at 538C, with reheat steam also at 538C. The station operates at base load for most part. Over the years, major valve problems were solved, or resolved, at least to the degree that they did not appreciably affect the plant operation and its ability to produce at the rated capacity. In recent years, efforts were focussed on improving availability of the station, which brought in good results in that respect. Next, Moneypoint station took the initiative to improve the heat rate of the Units. It was recognized that, given tight plant margins and availability constraints, the elimination of valve-related losses held the most significant potential for quick improvement.
Influence of Control Valves on Plant Operation & Heat Rate Control valves are the final control elements in the operation of a power plant. Therefore, under-performance of the valves directly affects plant operation - in terms of output, heat rate and/or in terms of reliability and availability. Recent studies indicate that eliminating control valve problems alone can improve the heat rate of power plants in the range of 2% to 5%. Figure 1 shows a simple process in which the control system generates a control signal, a valve that operates according to the signal and then a feedback sensor that relays the parameter being monitored to the control system. The weakest link in this control loop will be the limiting factor in the control of such a process. Even sophisticated digital control systems (DCS) or modern feedback sensors cannot make up for the limitations in the performance of a control valve.
CONTROL SYSTEM
Control signal Feedback loop
Sensor
PROCESS
Figure 1. Simplified diagram of process control.
6-19
Severe Service Valves. Of the hundreds of control valves in any power plant, some valves experience particularly tough operating conditions either at all times or under some operating conditions. These are known as severe service valves. Although they are few in number, they pose challenges to maintenance and operation. In most cases, problems are caused by the misapplication of general service valves into severe service duty. These severe service applications commonly also affect efficiency more than the rest of the valve population. Conversely, eliminating problems in a stations severe service valves offers one of the quickest and most effective means of improving the efficiency of an existing power plant. There are three basic modes through which valve-related penalties occur: Loss of production (MW-hours) due to their unavailability/unreliability, Penalty in heat rate or MW-capacity due to leakage, Penalty in heat rate or MW-capacity due to poor control. In addition, other components have to work harder to compensate for such losses, which affects their life-cycle. While contributions to plant efficiency loss from individual valve applications may be small, together they can sum together to significant levels. When the invisible effects of the valve problems are taken into account, the net impact is even greater.
Methodology The program to recover the performance loss attributable to control valves can be divided roughly into three broad phases: 1. A study to identify valves which affect plant performance and solutions for the same, 2. Implementation of recommended solutions, and, 3. Follow-up, or monitoring, to ensure that the desired results are achieved. The first phase of this effort, the study focussing on valves, had the following objectives: Identify the loss in efficiency and the penalty in heat rate due to the poor performance of control valves in the system, Diagnose the root cause of these valve problems, Recommend solutions, which will eliminate the root causes of these problems, and, Recommend changes in valve-related systems to improve the reliability and operation.
6-20
In gathering the necessary information, assistance was solicited from different groups at the site. Discussions were held with plant staff from the Control and Instrumentation Group and the Technical Services Group as well as Maintenance and Operations staff generally. This staff is involved in day-to-day operation, either directly or indirectly, and has good visibility of problems that are being experienced in this plant. Based on discussions with the staff, the operation of the system and the design basis for each of the valves under study was reviewed. Plant data was gathered for review, which included the following: Flow diagrams for the startup system and the Unit Startup and shutdown procedures Heat Balance Diagrams for the system Operating parameters from the plants data acquisition system Datasheets for control valves where available Operating Reports for Moneypoint station
Most importantly, the historical performance of severe service control valves of interest in this study was reviewed. In addition, their operation was observed from close proximity. This allowed checking of the valves in their closed position for leakage, as evidenced by abnormally high downstream temperature, and/or sounds generated by leakage flow. Calculations for quantification of losses were based for the most part on standard procedures and had been established earlier [Ref. 1-3]. The second phase of this program was to implement reliable long-term measures to recover the losses caused by individual valves. This required the station engineers and the valve experts responsible for designing and manufacturing them to work closely together. Good co-ordination between the two was necessary to make sure that all the design/operating conditions were considered and that different options based on the system requirements were evaluated. Unit 2 overhaul was due in when the results of the study became available. In the limited time available, seven (7) valves were identified for replacement. The third phase in this program is the follow-up, or monitoring to ensure that the valves performed as expected. As poor isolation was the main problem in most cases, temperatures upstream and downstream of these valves were key indicators. Measurements were made both before and after the overhaul.
6-21
Results Results from the study, Phase 1 of the program, identifying the losses attributable to individual valves are shown in Table 1 below. The loss in each of Units 2 & 3 was equivalent of 14.2 MW. Unit 1, which already has a new Start-Up valve capable of tight shutoff, was losing 8.4 MW. By far, the biggest component of loss was attributable to the leakage past the Start-Up valve at 5.8 MW. The other major components of loss were emergency heater drain valves (0.8 MW), steam drain valves (2.3 MW), drum blowdown valve (1.7 MW), and spraywater valves (1.7 MW).
Penalty in Heat Rate 1.9 % 0.02 % 0.18 % 0.12% 0.15 % 0.10 % 0.04 % 0.06 % 0.54 % 0.27 % 0.33 % 0.16% 0.22 % 0.14 % 0.21 % 0.21% 2.8% 4.7% Estimated Eq. MWe-Loss 5.8 MWe 0.06 MWe 0.54 MWe 0.36 MWe 0.44 MWe 0.30 MWe 0.12 MWe 0.17 MWe 1.74 MWe 0.81 MWe 1.00 MWe 0.47 MWe 0.66 MWe 0.43 MWe 0.64 MWe 0.62 MWe 8.4 MWe 14.2 MWe Estimated Leak rate 5 kg/s 0.43 kg/s 0.43 kg/s 1.28 kg/s 1.06 kg/s 0.42 kg/s 0.80 kg/s 2.70 kg/s 0.63 kg/s 0.90 kg/s 0.30 kg/s 0.98 kg/s 2.5 kg/s -
Application TURBINE BYPASS SYTEMS: Start-Up Valve, Units 2&3 only HP Bypass Valve LP Bypass Valve FEEDWATER CONTROL SYSTEM FW Control Valves HEATER DRAIN SYSTEM: #7 Heater Emergency Drain #6 Heater Emergency Drain #6 Desuperheater Emergency Drain #5 Heater Emergency Drain DRAIN & BLOWDOWN SYSTEMS Drum blowdown, V35 Main Steam Drain Valves (RT01/RT02/RT05 S001/S002) Steam drain, V61 & V66 Other steam drain valves SPRAYWATER SYSTEMS Aux. Steam Spraywater valves Superheat Spraywater valves HP Bypass Spraywater valves UNRELIABILITY {lost production} (Unit 1) TOTAL (Units 2&3)
Table 1. Estimate of loss due to individual valves
6-22
The quantification of losses attributable to individual valves helped in prioritizing actions to eliminate these losses. Unit 2 was getting ready for the outage about the time the study was concluded. In the time-frame available, the following valves were replaced in May 00: Startup valve, 12 x 12 Emergency Heater Drain valves (#7, #6 and #5), 6 x 6 Main Steam Drain valves (RT01, RT02 and RT05), 2 x 2 The temperatures in the vicinity of these valves were recorded before and after the overhaul, i.e. before and after the old valves were replaced with new valves featuring fluid velocity control. These are shown in Table 2. The low temperatures after the modifications indicate that the new valves shutoff tight and have practically eliminated losses that were occurring earlier in these services.
VALVE/ TAG # Main Steam Drain RT01S001 Main Steam Drain RT02S001 Main Steam Drain RT05S001 Startup Valve SF012S001 HP Heater #7 Emergency Drain 02RP70S001 HP Heater #6 Emergency Drain 02RP40S001 HP Heater #5 Emergency Drain 02RP20S001 TOTAL TEMPERATURE UPSTREAM Before After 326 OC 27 OC 323 OC 319 OC 236 OC 175 OC 34 OC 27 OC 27 OC 128 OC 45 OC 42 OC TEMPERATURE DOWNSTREAM Before After 180 OC 26 OC 223 OC 137 OC 125 OC 50 OC 30 OC 29 OC 27 OC 27 OC 57 OC 37 OC 40 OC 37 OC ESTIMATED GAIN 0.27 MWe 0.27 MWe 0.27 MWe 5.8 MWe 0.44 MWe
0.30 MWe
7.35 MWe
Table 2. Unit 2 Temperature survey of critical valves before and after May 2000 overhaul.
No significant changes in temperatures were observed after six months in service, which indicated continued tight shutoff.
6-23
Discussion The estimate of the improvement potential in the Moneypoint study is consistent with published literature and industry experience [Ref. 4]. A coal-fired supercritical station in the U.S. had noted a 1.2% heat rate penalty within a year after a major overhaul due to just the drain valves [Ref. 5]. It was observed that, among all the valves, the losses of significance occur mostly in the severe service applications. Further, in most such cases, the problems occur as a result of the existing valves being inadequate for that service from technology/design and/or selection perspective. Maintenance and/or operational changes are not a solution when this is the case because they does not address the root cause of those problems. Controlling fluid velocity along the flowpath is perhaps the single-most important feature that is necessary when p across the valve is high. Failure of conventional valve designs in high p applications is attributable to high fluid velocities, which lead to problems such as premature erosion leading to loss of shutoff capability, high vibrations, cavitation, and so on [Ref. 6]. Figure 2 illustrates the origin of high velocities along the flowpath inside such valves, in which the process of pressure reduction occurs in one step. High velocities occur at the vena contracta, or minimum flow area, which may cause the liquid to boil; subsequent pressure-recovery downstream causes cavitation.
VALVE Inlet Pressure Pinlet Pressure Inlet Vvc Outlet vc = Vena
Inlet Velocity
Vinlet
Voutlet Velocity Poutlet
Va p o u r Pressure Pvc
Cavitation occurs in this pressure-recovery region
Figure 2. Pressure letdown process and velocity along the flowpath inside conventional valves for liquid flow.
6-24
All this points to the fact that having the correct technology in the severe service valves is a must if such losses have to be eliminated. One tool for ensuring this is to have a good specification it forces better selection of valve for a given application [Ref. 7, 8]. Example of a good generic specification, specifically for severe service control valves, can be found in Reference 9.
DRAG technology for severe service valve applications. DRAG technology was used in the new severe service valves at Moneypoint Power Station. It is a combination of an unique hardware design and good engineering practices, all of which have evolved from experience in solving severe service valve problems over thirty-five years. It attends to application details for each service as part of the design procedure. Such an approach eliminates the risks, and losses, that are inherent with trial-and-error or solution-by-trials. Fluid velocity is controlled in DRAG valves by providing many tortuous path stages of pressure reduction. This eliminates high fluid velocities as shown in Figure 3.
VALVE Inlet Pressure Pinlet Pressure Inlet Outlet
Inlet Velocity
Vinlet
Voutlet Velocity
Va p o u r Pressure Poutlet
Figure 3. Pressure letdown process and velocity along the flowpath inside DRAG valves for liquid flow. Fluid velocity is controlled within safe limits all along the flow-path, which eliminates cavitation.
6-25
A section of a DRAG valve is shown in Figure 4 to illustrate the velocity control principle. The multi-path, multi-stage flowpath effectively dissipates the fluid energy associated with the valve pressure-drop within the trim itself. This type of design allows 20, 30, 40 stages whatever number that is required, to keep the fluid velocity at the trim exit within the safe limit. As a result, the fluid exiting the trim has much lower levels of kinetic energy, typically less than 5% of the total energy dissipated in the valve. Consequently, destructive and unwanted effects such as cavitation, premature erosion, vibration, noise, etc. are eliminated at their source, which is the high fluid kinetic energy at the trim exit. In conventional technology valves, most of this energy dissipation occurs through fluid turbulence outside the trim within the valve body cavity, or in the downstream pipe, leading to the problems described earlier.
Figure 4. Sectional view of DRAG trim inside a valve body.
6-26
The velocity control principle was applied, beyond the valves, to the main steam drain lines at Moneypoint. Occasionally blowing of holes in the drain line elbows, typified by Figure 5, delayed startups of the Units. This was attributed to magnetite and high velocities in the drain line during startup when the drain valves are open. By installing new correctly sized valves, steam velocity in each of the critical lines was reduced by a factor of 7; Since erosion is proportional to (velocity)n where the exponent n varies between 2 and 4, the corresponding erosion rates are expected to drop drastically and thereby practically eliminate the problem.
Figure 5
Conclusions Major findings from the initiative at Moneypoint, ESB, are: 1. Heat Rate can be improved by an estimated 4.1% by eliminating the inefficiencies attributable to valves. This is consistent with previous industry experience. 2. Long-term reliable performance in severe service valve applications requires that correct technology be used. Experience shows that fluid velocity control along the flow path, as in DRAG technology, is necessary for long-term reliable performance. 3. A systematic approach, focussed on eliminating valve-related losses, can improve plant heat rate significantly. Both the initial system-wide study and the follow-up in monitoring performance continually are key to achieving the full potential benefits. Expertise is available for reliable analysis of inefficiencies due to control valves in existing power stations, and for the specification of long-term solutions. 4. Ease of implementation, quick payback and low risk all combine to make this approach very attractive for heat rate improvement. References
1. Byrne, L. and Sherikar, S.V., Improving Efficiency at Moneypoint Power Station: Focus On Control Valves, January 2000. 2. Sherikar, S.V. and Puri, A., Importance of Startup System Isolation in Recovering MW-Loss and Heat Rate in Power Plants, International Conference on Power Plant Operation, Efficiency and Environmental Protection, New Delhi, India, 8-11 February, 2000. 3. Sherikar, S.V., Sterud, C.G., Bhate, B.H. and Strother, J., Modernization of the Startup System at Paradise Power Plant, Report for TVA Contract #99-PYN-247276 (1999). 4. Cotton, K.C., Evaluating and Improving Steam Turbine Performance, 2nd edition, p. 296, pp. 305-313, (1998). 5. Weeks, Ed, Personal Communication, (May 2000) 6. Miller, H.L., and Stratton, L., Fluid Kinetic Energy As A Selection Criteria For Control Valves, ASME Paper FEDSM97-3464. 7. Miller, H.L., Frequent Control Valve Problems, Seventh EPRI Valve technology Symposium, Incline Village, NV, May 26-28, 1999. 8. Sherikar, S.V., Technology In Severe Service Control Valves, 15-th Annual Air-Operated Valve Users Group (AUG) Meeting, Tucson, AZ, June 9-12, 1998. 9. Control Valve Technical Specification, ISA Guideline Compliant Specification for Control Valves (based on Control Valves Practical Guides for Measurement and Control, ISA, 1998), CCI-LIT-350.
6-27
HEAT RATE IMPROVEMENT IN AN EXISTING MULTIFUEL UNIT

Joaqun G. Blas Florentino Blanco Hidroelctrica del Cantbrico, S.A. Hidroelctrica del Cantbrico, S.A.
Heat Rate Improvement Conference January, 30 2001 February, 1 2001
6-28
The New Scenario

In the new competitive scenario, power stations must face:
To Reduce the generating costs. To Maintain high availability, efficiency and operational flexibility. To Meet strict environmental conditions. To Manage and extend the equipment life, including systems modernization.
TO REDUCE THE GENERATION COSTS

6-29
The Generation Cost Reduction

THE SITUATION
The Marginal cost The Variable Cost The Marginal Cost, decides the competitiveness of the electric units in a generating pool The Fuel cost components: The kilocalorie cost (pta/kcal) The Net Heat Rate (kcal/kWh)
The kWh fuel cost (Europe) = 70% to 90% the variable overall cost
OBJETIVE
To reduce the marginal cost through the heat rate improvement
TO IMPROVE THE HEAT RATE

6-30
Heat Rate improvement in an existing unit
n (%) = 100 860 NHR n = b

x
tg
n = Unit net efficiency b = Boiler efficiency tg= Turbo Generator efficiency a = Transformation and Auxiliaries efficiencies
NHR = Net Heat Rate
OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE EACH OF THE ABOVE FACTORS

6-31
Boiler efficiency improvement

Can only actuate significantly on:
Heat loss due to unburned fuel (latent heat). - Fuel characteristics. - Combustion condition (air excess and its distribution). - Other factors. Heat loss due to heat in the flue gas (sensible heat). - Adjust exit flue gas temperature and mass flow. Heat loss due to surface radiation and convection. - Boiler insulation. - Preferential path ways and convection cooling air flows.
6-32
Turbo Generator efficiency improvement Can only normally act on:

Losses caused by internal and external leaks. - Through the seals between stationary and rotating parts. Losses caused by pressure and/or temperature deviations in the exhaust. - Cleaning system of the condenser tubes - Feed water heaters drainage system Losses in the electric generator (without considering both, the core and armature) - Improving the efficiency of the excitation system
6-33
Transformation and Auxiliaries efficiencies The actions are centered on:

Improving the efficiency of the Boiler Feed Pumps (BFP) drive Improving the efficiency of the IDF and FDF Improving the efficiency of the other electric consumptions and energy savings, where possible
6-34
Application
Aboo Multifuel Power Station
Two Units (I & II) rated respectively 360 MW and 543 MW
FUELS: Pulverized Coal (domestic and imported) Low BTU siderurgic gases (BFG and COG) Heavy Fuel Oil
ABOO I
Schematic Diagram
UNIT I Rated Output Commisioning date Accumulated operation hours

360 MW 1974 167,000
6-35
Actuations: Boiler Area (I)

New IDF and FDF.
- IDF: New induced draft fans with variable pitch blades. - FDF: New high efficiency centrifugal fans. Investment: 750 Mpta.
Operation and Diagnosis operation System (ODIS)

- Phase I: Continuous operational data collecting, its analysis and comparison, for both, to improve the process knowledge and to transmit them to other systems. - Phase II: Use of the neural networks and ODIS connection with the maintenance and alarm management systems. Investment: 100 Mpta.
6-36
Actuations: Boiler Area (II)

Economizer modifications.
- Surface extension by 15% increase - Flow guide baffles Investment: 300 Mpta.
Actuation on the soot-blowing process
- New supervisory system for process optimization Investment: 30 Mpta.
Air heaters - Replacement of the original Rothemles soot blowing
system - New flow guide baffles installation in the tubular primary air heaters Investment: 60 Mpta.
6-37
Actuations: Turbogenerator Area

HPT and MPT packings.
- Change of shaft packings and strips seals repairs. Investment: 50 Mpta.
Generator Excitation System.

- Change of the power equipment and the voltage regulator. Investment: 100 Mpta.
Condenser and Feed Water Heaters - Condenser cleaning system improvement.

- Feed Waters Heaters drainage system optimization. Investment: 60 Mpta.
6-38
Actuations. Auxiliaries Area

Induced Draft Fans and Forced Draft Fans.
- As mentioned previously in Boiler Area.
Electrostatic Precipitators.
- New control system. Investment: 55 Mpta.
Boiler Feed Pumps. - Variable speed gearings.

- Pump seals modifications. Investment: 35 Mpta.
6-39
Results: General
Relative improvement of the net efficiency = 3.1% Net Heat Rate passed from 2,598 kcal/kWh to 2,520 kcal/kWh
Savings
1. Under operating conditions of 7,500 equivalent hours per year and with a fuel cost of 1.20 pta/termia, the amount saved is 233 Mpta per year 2. Amount obtained by being able to burn a greater percentage of BFG, which goes from 20% to 30% in terms of energy, 112 Mpta per year
Total savings: 345 Mpta per year Total investment: 1,500 Mpta Internal rate of return (IRR): 25%
6-40
Discussion: Impacts assessment

The separation of the impacts was made as follows: Boiler : ASME test Specific test and Plant data
Turbogenerator : Complete Heat Balance of the Unit Manufacturer estimations Specific test and Plant data Transformation and auxiliaries: Directly from Wh meters
6-41
Boiler Impacts Separation

Relative Efficiency Improvement= 1.88% = 47.5 kcal/kWh
(from 86.06% to 87.68%)
15C reduction in exit gas and better control BFG temperature = 0.8 % = 20 Unburned reduction (excess air, more BFG) and fuel mix (ODIS) = 0.6 % = 15 Soot blowing and gas flow redistribution
kcal/kWh kcal/kWh
= 0.5 % = 12.5 kcal/kWh
6-42
Turbogenerator Impacts Separation

Relative Gross Efficiency Improvement= 0.6 % = 15 kcal/kWh
(from 41.81% to 42.06%)
Shaft Packing changes and Strip Seals repairs Excitation system modernization Condenser cleaning and FWH optimization
= 0.35% = 9 kcal/kWh = 0.05% = 1 kcal/kWh = 0.2 % = 5 kcal/kWh
6-43
Transformation and Auxiliaries Impacts Separation

Relative Net Energy Improvement = 0.6% = 15 kcal/kWh
(from 91.5% to 92.05%; 2 MW auxiliaries reduction)
FDF and IDF replacement Electrostatics Precipitators consumtion optimization BFP speed gearing and seals modifications
= 0.3% = 7.5 kcal/kWh = 0.05% = 1 kcal/kWh = 0.25% = 6.5 kcal/kWh
6-44
Impact of the Actions. Summary

Element
UNIT BOILER Economizer and S IOD IDF and FDF and Fuel S oot-blowing and AH T URBOGENERAT OR MPT and IPT Generator Condens er and FWH AUX ILIARIES IDF and FDF Electros tatic precipitator BFP (drive and pump)
NHR improvements
% 3.1 1.88 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.35 0.05 0.20 0.6 0.3 0.05 0.25 Kcal/Kwh 78 47.5 20 15 12.5 15 9 1 5 15 7.5 1 6.5
S teps performed
S ee below S ee below S urface extens ion and new ODIS New fans and fuel mix control S hoot blowing optimization baffles ins tallation and others S ee below New s haft packings and s trip s eals repairs Modernis ation of the excitation Cleaning s ys tem improvement and controls optimization S ee below Fans replacement Optimization of electric cons umption Variable s peed gearing and pump s eals modifications
Initial Unit NHR Final Unit NHR
--3.1
2,598 2,520
--S ee above
6-45
Conclussion
Improvements in the Heat Rate can make competitive existing units.
A complete and systematic study most be performed, including:
- Potencial improvements in the Heat Rate - Associated operating costs reduction - Investments - Profitability Also, should include: - Unit actual condition and heat rate - Remanent and extended life - Fuel costs - Environmental restrictions, and others
6-46
Blast Furnace Heating Circuit
6-47
Unit I Boiler Sectional view
ABOO POWER PLANT
6-48
Neural Network for BFG heating control

Neural Network topology used for the prediction of the heating water flow for the BFG (C512).
Error evolution during the network training and histrogram error between real and estimated values
6-49
HEAT RATE IMPROVEMENT IN AN EXISTING MULTIFUEL UNIT
Joaqun G. Blas Florentino Blanco
Hidroelctrica del Cantbrico, S.A. Hidroelctrica del Cantbrico, S.A.
Abstract- With the electricity markets deregulation, and particulary the competition in the electricity generation, power producers are forced to reduce their kwh costs. This paper proposes a systematic actuation for tackling the potential oportunities of increase the efficency of the conventional thermal power stations in service and so reduce the kwh cost. The application to a multifuel thermal unit shows, that with a reasonable investment, is possible to improve the competitiveness of the existing plants in the spanish new scenario through a systematic study of the potential improvements in the heat rate and the associate savings and the profitability of the required investment to get it. Index terms: Deregulation, efficiency, net heat rate, generating costs.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the new competitive scenario, power stations must face: To reduce the generating costs. To maintain high availability, efficiency and operational flexibility. To meet strict environmental conditions. To manage and extend the equipment life, including systems modernization.
In Europe, the kWh fuel cost - depending on the specific circumstances of each plant represents approximately between 70 and 90% of the variable overall cost of the generated kWh or, which is equivalent, the marginal cost, which decides the competitiveness of the electrical units in a generating pool, where an abundant offer exists. Therefore, the first step to be taken is to reduce the both components of fuel cost: the kilocalorie cost (pta/kcal), and the net heat rate (kcal/kWh). Leaving aside the steps to be taken to ensure the adequate, economical and secure supply of fuel, we are going to deal with the net heat rate and the steps to reduce it and how to do it. In the following paper, we will examine the possibilities of improving the operating cost of a existing unit, by increasing efficiency, refered to the net heat rate, NHR measured in terms of kcal/kWh related to the HHV of the fuel, from which we obtain the net efficiency 860 n , whose value in percent is : n=100 NHR Moreover, the net efficiency is the product of the efficiency of the three classic components of the installation: i.e. the steam generator or boiler (B) the turbo generator (TG) and the auxiliaries (A) so that n = b x tg x a where b , tg and a are respectively, the efficien-
6-50
2 cies of the boiler, the turbo generator (thermodynamic, mechanical, electrical) and transformation and auxiliaries. The systematic work process leads us to deal with the opportunities, existing in real life, to increase each of the above examined factors.
2. POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Bearing in mind that we always refer to a existing Unit, with up-to-date maintenance, reliability centered, with an adequate diagnosis system, the process leads us to the following considerations: 2.1 BOILER EFFICIENCY Among the various types of boiler losses for a given fuel (single or multifuel), can only normally act significantly on the following: Heat loss due to unburned fuel (latent heat). Heat loss due to heat in the flue gas (sensible heat). Heat loss due to surface radiation and convection.
The losses due to unburned fuel are related to the fuel characteristics, and the conditions and combustion characteristics (air excess and its distribution, pulverized coal size, etc.) and other different factors. In our practical application, this aspect is one of the most important elements that were involved: new axial Induced Draft Fans (IDF) and centrifugal Forced Draft Fans (FDF) of higher efficiency, which made possible to increase the excess of O2 when burning Blast Furnace Gas (BFG), reducing simultaneously the auxiliaries consumption, and actions on the fuel mix: Pulverized Coal, Blast Furnace Gas, Coke Oven Gas and Heavy Fuel Oil (PC + BFG + COG + FO), using a new Operation and Diagnosis Information System (ODIS). With regard to the loss due to heat in the flue gas, and maintaining always the boiler exit gas temperatures according to the fuel sulphur (S2) content, the steps to take will be focused on adjusting that temperature, working on the heat transference in the recovery exchangers, basically by adecuate cleaning of the exchange surfaces (air heaters, economizers, etc) using the soot-blowers, and in the case of wide temperature deviation, acting on the exchange surface itself and/or gas distribution (pre-economizers installation or surface extension, distribution baffles installation, etc). We will see that this area has also been included: we are refering to the Soot Blowing Optimatization Progam, economizer modification and the work performed on the Air Heaters (AH). Finally, the steps taken to reduce the losses due to surface radiation and convention are included in the normal boiler maintenance, in order to keep the boiler insulation in a good condition, and avoiding preferential path ways and natural cooling air flows. 2.2. TURBOGENERATOR EFFICIENCY
6-51
3 Among the different types of losses found in a particular turbogenerator, in the most common cases we would normally act on the following: Losses caused by internal and external leaks (through the seals between stationary and rotating parts). Losses caused by pressure and/or temperature deviations in the exhaust. Losses in the electrical generator.
The best way of reducing the losses caused by internal leaks, which could add up to 1% of the energy available in the turbine, is to keep in good condition the seals between the rotating blade tips and the shell, the seals between the stationary blades and the shaft, and finally, the shaft end packings. This has also been a specific case of our application where we have opted to change the shaft end packings in the High and Intermediate Pressure Turbines (HPT and IPT) and to repair both stationary and rotating blade strip seals. Normally, it is also strongly recommended to work on the cleaning system of the Condenser tubes, on the condensate levels controls in the Feed Water Heaters (FWH) and on the integrity of the preboiler system. In our case, improvements to the Condenser cleaning system was given preferential attention and full advantage was taken of the operating conditions of the feed water preheating system. The losses reduction in the generator, without considering both the armature and rotor winding, is focused on improving the efficiency of the excitation system, taking advantage of modern electronic power in static systems, more efficient, which, in our case, was an important area to work on. 2.2 TRANSFORMATION AND AUXILIARIES EFFICIENCIES Leaving aside major modifications to the plant design, the possibilities of reducing the auxiliaries consumption are centered on actuations such as: Improving the efficiency of the Boiler Feed Pumps (BFP) drive. Improving the efficiency of the IDF and FDF. Improving the efficiency of other electric consumptions and energy savings, where possible.
With regard to the first point, the steps that were taken includes the installation of new internal in the BFP drive gearings, and the replacement of the pumps original labyrinthic seals by mechanical seals, with cero leaks. Regarding to IDF and FDF, the inicial fans were replaced by new axial IDF with variable pitch blades, and by more efficient centrifugal fans in the case of FDF. Finally, the actuation on the auxiliaries consumption was completed with a thorough study, including each one of them. As a result of it, and among other measures, the optimization of the energy consumption of the boilers electrostatic precipitators was identified as one of the main potential source of savings.
6-52
4 3. APPLICATION 3.1. GENERAL In the following paper, we will examine the results, when applied to the Unit 1, 360 Mw, multifuel thermal power station in Aboo, owned by Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, S.A. This plant was commisioned in 1974 and has a total of 167.000 operating hours. A sectional view of the boiler is shown in Figure 1. The plant uses pulverized coal, heavy fuel oil, and low Btu siderurgic gases (BFG and COG). These gases are used in variable quantities depending on the operation of the nearby integral iron and steel mill. The flowing characteristic of the siderurgic gas supply drives the plant to operate more than 8,000 hours per year. The total investment, corresponding to the measures taken, rises to 1500 Mpta, splitted among the various items examined below. 3.2. BOILER AREA 3.2.1 The New IDF and FDF In order to increase the operational flexibility beyond the base load, while maintaining efficiency, new induced draft fans with variable pitch blades were installed and the original forced draft fans were also replaced by high efficiency centrifugal fans. As a result of it, was possible, in first place, to operate the boiler with higher excess air, and in second place, to increase the quantities of BFG to be burnt in the boiler. Consecuently, the losses due to unburned fuel were reduced by two ways: higher excess air and more BFG used with cero unburned, as well as the energy consumed by the fans. The investment reached 750 Mpta. 3.2.2 Operation and Diagnosis Information System (ODIS) With a view to the optimization of the plant control proces, the project was carried out in two phases: Phase I.: The continuous operational data collecting, its analysis and comparison, for both to improve the process knowledge and to transmit them to other systems. Phase II: The use of neural networks and the ODIS connection with the maintanence and alarm management systems, in order to reduce the forced shutdown periods as well as to centralize the control and to improve the efficiency.
The completion of Phase I was a success, while the testing period for Phase II is well underway, with the installation of the neuronal networks for the prediction of the feed water flow used for BFG heating (Figures 2 and 3), which mass flow is subjected to frecuent and strong fluctuations because it is a process gas produced in the nearby integral iron and steel mill plant, in spite of the use of a gas holder. The investment of the project was approximately 100 Mpta, and as a result we have
6-53
5 achieved to optimise the heat exchange of hot water- BFG, keeping under control both temperatures. 3.2.3 Economizer Modifications With the target of reducing the temperature of the gases at the air heater outlet and therefore improving boiler efficiency, it was decided to extend the economizer surface, by installing four new rows of tubes at the inlet side, taking advantage of the available place, and so increasing by 15% the total economizer surface. Flow guide baffles in the economizer inlet gas duct were also installed. As a result, the gas temperature at the inlet of the air heaters, which are placed in the gas circuit behind the economizer, was reduced by 25C, and consecuently, the temperature of the boiler exit gases was reduced by 15C. The investment was 300 Mpta. 3.2.4 Actuation on the soot-blowing process To take full advantage of the Unit operation, a supervisory system was installed with an investment of 30 Mpta. The most representative parameters of the plant operation are taken as a base, and boiler and Unit efficiencies are calculated on line every five minutes. Based on it, the supervisory system detects and assesses economically the deviations and calculates the most reasonable and economical alternatives and, among other factors, it stablish the optimal soot blowing program. The optimization of the soot blowing program not only reduces steam consumption and the erosions caused by the soot blowing, but also improves the overall efficiency of the Unit. 3.2.5 Air Heaters In the regenative air heaters, Rothemhle type, the original soot blowing system with rotating type valves, was modified for an oscillatory type system, which ensures a more effective and uniform cleaning, improving the air heater efficiency. In the tubular-type primary air heater, flow guide baffles were installed in the inlet gas duct, and as a result tube pluggings were avoided, the primary air temperature increased, and the exit gas temperatures reduced, improving therefore the boiler efficiency. The required investment for all the above modifications and improvements reached 60 Mpta. 3.3 TURBOGENERATOR AREA 3.3.1 HPT and MPT Packings Taking advantage of the overall inspection of High and Intermediate Pressure Turbines, the shaft packings were changed because the excesive leaks due to the acumulated operating hours, as wells as rubbing, deformation caused by the shaft and shell temperatures, operating incidents, and others. The rotating and stationary blade strips seals were simultaneously repaired, with a total investment of 50 Mpta.
6-54
6 3.3.2 Generator Excitation In the Generator excitation system, the power equipment was changed by installing new thyristors which showed a significant reduction in its number and corresponding losses, modifing also the cooling air control system. At the same time, the electronics of the original voltage regulator was replaced by microprocessor technology, including additional functions (V/Hz limitation, phase swingings stabiliser, etc). The investment required was 100 Mpta. 3.3.3. Condenser and Feed Water Heaters In the on line condenser cleaning system, several improvements ware made, with include a continuous monitoring of the cleaness factor leading to take full advantage of the automatic cleaning. In the Feed Water Heaters (FWH), the existing partition plate leaks were eliminated and the condensate level controls and drainage systems were tuned and improved, ensuring its optimal performance. The required investment was 20 Mpta. 3.4 AUXILIARIES CONSUMPTION 3.4.1 Induced Draft Fans and Forced Draft Fans See 3.2.1 3.4.2 Electrostatic Precipitators In the electrostatic precipitators, a new control system based on microprogramed remote units were installed, connected to two remote terminal units (RTU) and with a central supervision station. The system has various control strategies according to the fuel mix burned (domestic/imported coal and siderurgic gases) incorporating several algorhythms: sparks and detection extinction strategy, automatic adjusting of the electric consumption according to the gas opacity measurements, energy reduction to the precipitator during the collection plates hammering, and finally different secuences of the plates and electrodes hammering. With this new control system, an important reduction of about 50% of the precipators electric consumption has been achieved, maintaining the efficiency. The required investment was 55 Mpta. 3.4.3 Boiler Feed Pumps In the boiler feed pumps-3 pumps of 55% of unitary capacity, hydraulic variable speed gearing, -the speed torque convertor gears were replaced to get the maximum efficiency. The original pump seals, floating ring type, wich require an important condensate flow injection, were replaced by mechanical seals, with external cooling in a closed circuit, and with negigeable leaks.
6-55
7 The total cost of the investment was 35 Mpta.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 GENERAL
The results show that the net efficiency made a relative improvement of 3.1% as the NHR passed from 2,598 kcal/kWh to 2,520 kcal/kWh, which means a reduction of 78 kcal/kWh. Therefore, if the Unit is operating 7,500 equivalent hours at full load per year, with a fuel cost of 1.20 pta/termia, (1 termia = 1,000 kcal), then the amount saved is 233 Mpta per year (7,500 x 360 x 0.9236 x 78 x 1.20 = 233) without taking in account the improvement to the operation conditions flexibility, safety and a small load increase which was achieved, since was possible to operate the Unit with more excess air. Besides the amount saved, another 112 Mpta per year can be added. This last amount was obtained by being able to burn a greater percentage of BFG, which as mentioned previously, goes from 20 to 30% in terms of energy, as the cost of the BFG termia is 15% less than that of coal. Consecuently, the total savings can be estimated at 345 Mpta per year, and the required investment was, as before mentioned, 1,500 Mpta, so the internal rate of return (IRR) of the investment over15 years is approximately 25%. The assessment of the impact of the different measures taken, and the separation of each result, shown in Table 1, was carried out in the following way: The ASME test was used to measure the efficiency of the Boiler (separate losses). The complete heat balance of the Unit, performed simultaneosly with the boiler efficiency test, was used for the gross heat rate determination. The different contributions were separated by using the manufacturers estimations and the plant available tests results. The transformation efficiency and auxiliaries consumption was obtained directly from the Wh meters. BOILER
4.2
After the different actuations carried out, the boiler test shows that efficiency has improved from 86.06% to 87.68%, that means a relative increase of 1.88%. This 1.88% (47.5 Kcal/Kwh) is distributed in this way: 0.8% (20 Kcal/Kwh) due to the 15C reduction in the boiler exit gas temperature because the economiser surface extension and the better control of the hot BFG temperature.
6-56
8 0.6% (15 kcal/kwh) as a result of the improvement in the unburned fuel losses, since it was possible: to increase the excess air due to the fans changes, to burn more BFG with cero unburned, and less losses due the formation of H2O from the fuel- as well as to improve the control of the fuel mix (PC + BFG + COG + FO) through the new of Operation and Diagnosis Information System. 0.5% (12.5 kcal/kwh) as a result of taking full advantage of the soot blowing program, the flows redistribution, the installation of guide baffles and others. TURBOGENERATOR
4.3
The gross efficiency of the turbogenerator, calculated from the gross heat rate and boiler efficiency, passes from 41.81% to 42.06% which means a relative increase of 0.6% (15 kcal/kwh). This improvement is distributed as follows: Improvement due to shaft packing changes and strip seals repairs in HPT and IPT, according to manufacturers estimation: 0.35% (9 Kcal/Kwh). Improvement due to the excitation modifications: 0.05% (1 Kcal/Kwh), according to the losses calculation. Improvement due to the condenser cleaning and the feed water preheaters optimization: 0.20% (5 kcal/kwh). TRANSFORMATION AND AUXILIARIES
4.4
The net energy at rated load now represents 92.05% of the gross energy generated, compared to 91.5% before the implementation of the related measures. The reduction in the auxiliaries was 2 MW at full load, showing a relative improvement of 0.6% (15 kcal/kwh) due to the following savings: IDF and FDF = 0.3% (7.5 kcal/kwh) Electrostatic Precipitators = 0.05% (1 kcal/kwh) BFP = 0.25% (6.5 kcal/kwh)
5. CONCLUSIONS
The results show that with reasonable investments it is possible to make older power stations more competitive, in the new spanish scenario, after performing a systematic study considering the potential improvements in the heat rate and associated operating costs, and the profitability of the necessary investments to attain it. A specific study must be carried out for each Unit and the external conditions of each area competitiveness, as well as the Unit internal conditions must be taken into consideration: in this case we are referring to the Unit general condition, remanent and extended life, actual heat rate, specific operating problems, fuel costs, environmental retrictions and others. The cut cost study should include other areas apart from the fore-mentioned heat reate, such us operation and maintenance cost, possible avalability improvements and others.
6-57
9 In any case, it is almost obligatory to consider at the same time, the necessary modifications for the efficiency and availability improvements with those relating to life extension and modernization of the Unit and its regulatory environmental adaptation.
REFERENCES: (1) Gonzlez Blas, J.: Future Electricity Generating Cost with Fossil Fuels, 3 Lusas de Ingeniera Elctrica, Barcelona, 1-3 Julio 1993.
rd
Jornadas Hispanoth
(2)
Gonzlez Blas, J.: Operation and Diagnostic Operation System in Power Installations, 5 Jornadas Hispano-Lusas de Ingeniera Elctrica, Salamanca, 3-5 Julio 1997. Grhn, Michael; Tielsch, Hans-Peter: On Line Expert Diagnostic Siemens Power Journal. Enero 2000.
(3)
6-58
10
T ABLE 1 IMPACT OF T HE ACT IONS

Element
UNIT BOILER Economizer and S IOD IDF and FDF and Fuel S oot-blowing and AH T URBOGENERAT OR MPT and IPT Generator Condens er and FWH AUX ILIARIES IDF and FDF Electros tatic precipitator BFP (drive and pump)
NHR improvements
% 3.1 1.88 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.35 0.05 0.20 0.6 0.3 0.05 0.25 Kcal/Kwh 78 47.5 20 15 12.5 15 9 1 5 15 7.5 1 6.5
S teps performed
S ee below S ee below S urface extens ion and new ODIS New fans and fuel mix control S hoot blowing optimization baffles ins tallation and others S ee below New s haft packings and s trip s eals repairs Modernis ation of the excitation Cleaning s ys tem improvement and controls optimization S ee below Fans replacement Optimization of electric cons umption Variable s peed gearing and pump s eals modifications
Initial Unit NHR Final Unit NHR
--3.1
2,598 2,520
--S ee above
6-59
11
ABOO POWER PLANT UNIT I Boiler Sectional View
HEAT RATE IMPROVEMENT IN AN EXISTING MULTIFUEL UNIT Fig.1
6-60
12
6-61
13
NEURAL NETWORKS
Neural Network topology used for the prediction of the heating water flow for the BFG (C512).
Error evolution during the network training and histrogram error between real and estimated values
HEAT RATE IMPROVEMENT IN AN EXISTING MULTIFUEL UNIT- Fig.3
6-62
AN APPLICATION OF THE PLANT PERFORMANCE MODELLING PACKAGE PROATES TO ANALYSE THE CAUSE OF A PERSISTENT TUBE FAILURE PROBLEM Mr K R J Hartwell Mr A B Ready Powergen, Power Technology Centre Ratcliffe-on-Soar Nottingham, NG11 0EE Nottinghamshire UK Tel: +44 115 936 2219/2232 Fax +44 115 936 2711 Email kevin.hartwell@powertech.co.uk Abstract
Powergens proprietary whole plant modelling software PROATES has been developed and applied to solve a variety of plant performance problems, examples of which have been TM discussed in previous papers. This paper describes in detail an analysis, using PROATES , of a particularly persistent tube failure problem. During the course of a month, six tube leaks occurred on the same tube in a Generating Stations boiler furnace and were incurring considerable costs and loss of generating income. The Station had tried promoting extra flow in the problem tube by enlarging the tube orifice. Cold flow tests had shown that this action had resulted in the tube taking 30% more flow than neighbouring tubes but the failures still occurred. To gain a better understanding of the causes of the high tube TM temperatures which had led to failures, a detailed PROATES model was built of the heat transfer/flow circuit and was used to demonstrate the likely reasons for the tube failure and also remedial actions which could be taken. As a result of the analysis advice was given and implemented and the tube failure problem was successfully overcome.
TM
Introduction
Powergens Power Technology Centre was contacted by a Utility following a series of failures in the furnace of one of their boilers. One particular tube failed six times within a period of one month resulting in an estimated loss of revenue of $2 million. This tube was repeatedly replaced until very little of the original tube remained; however overheating failures still occurred in the replaced tubing. The Station could not detect any flow blockages and even increased the tube orifice diameter to promote more flow, but still the tube failed. Power Technology Centre were asked to undertake a theoretical study to identify the mechanisms leading to the observed high tube temperatures which were resulting in tube failure.
Study Procedure
To build a model of the thermo-hydraulic system where tube failure was occurring using the PROATES modelling package To examine the recorded plant data to provide an insight into the failure problem To validate the model against cold flow test data To use the model to determine the sensitivity of the failed tube outlet temperature to imbalances in tube heat absorption To determine the effects of orifice size in reducing the sensitivity of tube outlet temperature to imbalances in heat flux To suggest ways of preventing future tube failures
6-63
Model Construction
The furnace circuit is shown in Figure 1a. Furnace corner tubes flow down from the top to the bottom of the furnace. At the bottom of the furnace these tubes turn and form the up flowing centre serpentine section panels of each furnace wall. The modelling was performed using PROATES . PROATES , a commercial product available from Power Technology, is a steady state plant modelling software package enabling a range of modelling to be undertaken from whole boiler/turbine/feedheater models to more detailed models of particular components of the plant. PROATES has been described in detail, together with examples of its application, in previous EPRI heat rate papers (Refs 1,2,3). A model of the circuit was constructed using the tube pressure drop module within the PROATES modelling system. This module includes the facility to model two-phase frictional pressure losses in tubes or pipes with a given roughness length. In addition, to allow the modelling of geometrical features of the tube, such as bends and orifices, a further loss term has been incorporated. This Other geometric loss term is specified in terms of so-called K-values which 2 give a lumped parameter representation of resistance corresponding to the number of v losses through the tube. The frictional flow conductance parameter is represented by a version of the well-validated Colebrook-White equation. This equation closely approximates the curves on a Moody chart in the turbulent region of flow. The module also allows a heat absorption input to be specified, in this case used to represent the furnace heat input. The furnace tube circuit, shown schematically in Figure 1b, can be considered as two basic parallel paths. A path representing the long path of the front and rear wall tubes and a path representing the shorter path of the side wall tubes. Each of the major paths additionally has an associated parallel single tube path represented to enable studies of single tube abnormalities to be undertaken. In this analysis only abnormalities associated with the short side wall tube circuit, which contained the failing tube, were considered. The model contained formulations allowing the pressure drop across the tube orifices, given the orifice size and profile, to be represented. Heat flux profiles to the tubes were assumed to be the same as those determined in a previous study and the total heat gain of the circuit was set to agree with plant data.
TM TM
Initial Data Examination

Figure 2 shows a typical plot of the tube outlet steam temperatures from the wall section containing the failing tube. A study of this data and subsequent similar plots indicated the following: The high temperature of the failing tube followed the natural temperature fluctuations of its neighbouring tubes indicating that the overheating had occurred due to increased heat absorption rather than due to a flow instability The failing tube was more sensitive to general wall heat absorption fluctuations than neighbouring wall tubes At the beginning of the week the failing tube temperature tended to be higher than at the end of the week. This is thought to be due to slag spalling off at weekend shutdowns. As operation continued during the week slag would build up again and heat absorption would be reduced.
6-64
Model Analysis Cold Flow Tests

Cold flow tests data was compared to the model predictions. The model predictions were close to the measured data. The percentage flow to the front and rear walls measured and predicted was 57% and 57.6% respectively. The increase in flow to the failing tube resulting from the orifice enlargement in that tube measured and predicted was 28.6% and 29.1% respectively. This added confidence that the orifice sizes, tube path lengths, tube geometries, tube roughness used in the model and the construction of the model were correct.
Static Stability
Figure 3 shows the pressure drop flow relationships for a typical furnace side wall tube with a 0.28in (7.1mm) orifice operating at different pressure and temperature boundary conditions. In constructing the curves the heat input to the tubes has been assumed to be proportional to the flow to the whole of the furnace section. The plot shows that at inlet conditions of 572F (300C) / flow<2143 lb/h (0.27 kg/s) and 653F (345C) / flow<1746 lb/hr (0.22 kg/s) the pressure drop in the furnace section goes negative. Under negative pressure drop conditions it is possible for a tube to operate alternatively in a reversed flow mode, which will satisfy the negative pressure differential. If a reversed flow mode is established in a tube then this can lead to high tube temperatures and failure. To reduce the tendency for this condition to arise, operation above loads of 30% MCR should be aimed for. Additionally the tendency for static instability is reduced by maintaining the inlet temperatures as high as possible (>345C) whilst ensuring that the outlet temperature does not exceed its design value of 860F (460C). However operation at high inlet temperature can exacerbate other problems as discussed in the next Section.
Effects of Increased Heat to a Single Tube

Figure 4 shows the effect of increased heat to a single tube at different inlet temperature and pressure conditions. The heat absorption factor is the ratio of heat absorbed by a single tube compared to the rest of the tubes. The general heat distribution to the four furnace walls is assumed to be even. As can be seen the higher the heat absorption factor the higher the tube temperature, and as would be expected the higher the inlet temperature the greater will be the outlet steam temperature. The effect of different operating pressures is small. Figure 5 shows the additional effect of +-5% uneven heat distribution to the furnace walls, on a tube which has increased heat absorption compared with its neighbours but which has the same orifice size. It can be seen that outlet temperatures of 1290 F (700C) can be obtained when heat absorption is increased to a single tube by 33% if at the same time there is an uneven heat distribution to the wall containing the tube of greater than 5%. Increased heat absorption by a single tube can arise for the following reasons. If a tube becomes proud of its neighbours (due to repairs) If its emissivity (absorptivity) is higher than its neighbours. This can occur if the tube is new since the metal surface of these are quoted to have high emissivity (>0.8) compared with tubes which have a slag coating which are quoted to have an emissivity around 0.7 If the new tube is relatively clean compared with long term fouling of old tubes.
Uneven distribution to the furnace walls can arise due to the furnace fireball not being central, or if the walls are not equally fouled.
6-65
Effects of Increasing Orifice Size on the Failing Tube

Figure 6 compared with Figure 5 shows how increasing the orifice size from 0.28in (7.1) to 0.354in (9.0mm), on the tube with enhanced heat absorption, affects the sensitivity to increased heat absorption. It is seen that increasing the orifice size has counteracted the effects of increased heat absorption by promoting extra flow through the tube and has effectively reduced the steam temperatures by approximately 230F (130C). Figures 5 and 6 can also be used to explain the observed data. The data showed that sometimes the failing tube temperature is higher, sometimes similar and sometimes lower compared with other tubes in the group. It has been observed that the failing tube temperature tends to be higher than its neighbours at the beginning of the week and lower at the end of the week with step changes in its temperature relative to its neighbours sometimes occurring. It is postulated that at the beginning of the week the tubes are cleaner than at the end of the week, due to the action of slag spalling when the unit is off at weekends. This explains why the tube with increased heat absorption has a relatively higher absorption at the beginning of the week. It is believed that the step changes in the failing tube temperature relative to its neighbours are due to operational changes such as sootblowing or firing which cause imbalances in heat distribution to the furnace walls.
Causes of Tube Failure

From the above simulations and comparisons with the observed data it is concluded that the cause of the tube failures is due to the replacement tube initially absorbing more heat than neighbouring tubes. This results in a greater frictional pressure drop contribution compared with other tubes and hence a lower flow which together with the extra heat absorption results in high tube temperatures and failure.
Measures to Overcome the Problems of Tube Failures Orifice Size Alterations

The orifice size in the front and rear wall tubes is larger than in the side wall tubes. This is aimed at compensating for the longer path length and heat transfer area of the front and rear wall tube. The model indicates that this compensation is too high resulting in the average side wall tubes operating approximately 45F (25C) hotter. This result is supported by limited plant data obtained from a small number of tubes. Using the model it is predicted that reducing the orifice sizes in the front and rear wall tubes from 0.409in (10.4mm) to 0.339in (8.6mm) would enable a better balance of outlet temperatures. If this was undertaken it is predicted that the increase in pressure loss would be (15psi) 1 bar at a load of 350MWe. Figure 7 shows the effect of reduction of orifice size of all tubes on the outlet temperature of a single tube receiving increased heat absorption, and Figure 8 shows the effect of reduced orifice size on pressure loss. Figure 7 shows that there is some benefit to be obtained from reducing orifice size, however this is at the expense of a significant increase in pressure loss. A reduction in orifice size equivalent to a 290 psi (20 bar) increase in pressure loss would reduce the tube outlet temperature by 140F (60C) at a heat absorption factor of 1.4 and 86F (30C) at a heat absorption factor of 1.25. It is considered that the increase in pressure loss is not acceptable as the benefits are relatively small.
Capping off the Failing Tube

This option was modelled. Provided the capped off tube does not corrode away it is not thought that this will cause any problematic temperature rise effects in other tubes. There will be an increased heat transfer to tubes either side of the capped tube due to the high operational temperature of the capped tube. It is estimated that this is not likely to result in more than a 36F (20C) increase in steam temperature in these tubes. However if the capped tube corrodes away
6-66
with time then more and more surface area of the adjacent tubes will be exposed to furnace radiation. This will result in an increased heat gain by these tubes and steam temperatures could increase significantly. For example a 20% increase in heat absorption would result in a steam temperature increase of 153F (85C).
Cap off the Up Flowing Section of the Failing Tube and Merge the Exit of the Down Flowing Section into the Exit of an Adjacent Down Flowing Tube
This is definitely NOT recommended since as shown by Figure 9, at flows below 3300 lb/h (0.42kg/s) (equivalent to loads below 44% MCR) there is both a downward flow and an upward flow which can satisfy the pressure drop between top and bottom headers i.e. static instabilities can occur. This could result in one of the joined downward tubes operating with a reversed (upward) flow causing overheating and failure. In addition the possible problems resulting from the hot dead tube as described above would also be present.
Reducing Imbalances in Tube to Tube Heat Absorption

The following were suggested as ways to reduce the imbalances in tube to tube heat transfer Ensuring all the tubes are in line so that the area of each tube exposed to radiation is the same. Note that the practice of replacing tubes by the use of small rods as a means to attach the replacement tube to neighbouring tubes will effectively increase the area of the replaced tubes. Ensure that the levels of fouling on the four walls of the combustion chamber are similar. If a wall has a tube with a high temperature then let it foul up and this should reduce the temperature. Try to keep the furnace firing pattern balanced to achieve a central fireball and an even distribution of incident radiation to the tubes. When a failed upflowing serpentine tube is replaced by a new clean tube then it would be beneficial to try and condition this tube to ensure its heat absorption was not higher than the other tubes. A thin coating designed to reduce the surface emissivity might be applied to the tube. For instance the emissivity of oxidised aluminium is 0.2-0.3 compared with that of shiny oxidised steel of 0.8, and the emissivity of aluminium paints range between 0.3 and 0.7. Such a low emissivity coating, if durable, will reduce the tube heat absorption whilst the tube becomes conditioned by slagging during the normal course of operation.
Concluding Remarks
The PROATES model was able to explain the reasons for tube failure. Subsequently newly repaired tubes have been given a coat of aluminium paint which has been effective in avoiding increased heat absorption in the initial period before the tube surface has become naturally conditioned during operation. This measure has been successful in preventing failures due to overheating.
References
1. Green C.H., Ready A.B., Rea J., The Powergen Experience in off-line and on-line modelling of power plant for efficiency improvement , EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference, Birmingham, 1992.
6-67
2. Green C.H., Ready A.B., Rea J., PROATES. A computer modelling system for power plant: Its description and application to heat rate improvement within Powergen, EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference, Baltimore, 1994. 3. Green C.H., Ready A.B., Chew P.E., Hartwell K.R.J., Application of the Whole plant Modelling System package PROATES to improve power plant performance, EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference, Baltimore, 1998.
6-68
Figure 1a Boiler tube geometry
Figure 1b - Schematic representation
6-69
Figure 2 Typical plot of Furnace tube outlet temperatures Note Tube 13 is the failing tube with an orifice enlarged from 0.28in (7.1mm) to 0.354in (9 mm)
6-70
Figure 3 Expected flow characteristics of a typical side wall tube with a 0.28in (7.1mm) orifice
25 326.5 20
15
226.5
10 126.5
26.5 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-5
-73.5
Single tube flow - kg/s 220 bar 345C inlet T 220bar 300C inlet T 180 bars 345 C inlet T 180 bar 300 C inlet T
Figure 4 Effect of increased heat absorption to a single tube with even furnace heat distribution to furnace walls
800 750 700
1460
1260 650 600 1060 550 500 450 400 350 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 660 860
Single tube heat absorption factor 220 bar 345C inlet T 180 bar 345C inlet T 180 bar 300C inlet T
6-71
Figure 5 Effect of increased heat to a single tube with an orifice size on 0.28in (7.1mm) and the additional effects of uneven furnace wall heat distribution
900 850 800 750 1350 700 650 1150 600 550 500 450 400 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 750 950 1550
Heat absorption factor even furnace heat distribution 5% less heat to wall with problem tube 5% more heat to wall with problem tube
Figure 6 Effect of increased heat to a single tube with an orifice size of 0.354in (9.0mm) and the additional effects of uneven furnace wall heat distribution
750 700 1260 650 600 1060 550 500 450 400 350 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 660 860
Heat absorption factor Even furnace distribution 5% less heat to wall with problem tube 5% more heat to wall with problem tube
6-72
Figure 7- Effect of side wall and front/rear wall orifice sizes on desensitising the effects of increased heat transfer to a single tube
750 1350 700
650 1150 600
550
950 500
450
400 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
750
Single tube absorption factor 7.1 and 8.6 mm orifices 6.0 and 6.7 mm orifices 5.0 and 5.4 mm orifices
Figure 8 - Effect of side wall and front/rear wall orifice size on pressure loss
50 700 45 40 35 30 400 25 20 15 10 100 5 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 100 300 600
500
200
Boiler Load % MCR orifice 7.1 and 8.6 orifice 6.0 and 6.7 orifice 5.0 and 5.4 orifice 7.1 and 10.43
6-73
Figure 9 Pressure drop flow stability curve of a down flowing tube which has been joined at exit to an adjacent tube
4 45 2 positive flow indicates downflow negative flow indicates upflow -0.6 -0.4
0 -0.2 -2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.8
-5
-4
-55
-6 -105 -8
-10 -155 -12
-14
-205
Single tube flow kg/s Downflow Upflow
6-74
In-Situ O2 Probe Failure at Dairylands JP Madgett Station

Duane Hill Manager, Performance Administration Dairyland Power Cooperative
6-75
Description of Problem
In November 1999, Operators report the following:
having trouble making full load at JPM; reaching maximum ID Fan amps approximately 25 MW lower than full load indicated air flow appears to be high NOx levels rising
6-76
Initial Test Results

Instrument techs conduct calibrations of O2 probes; all probes calibrate with no corrections Performance department conducts ID fan tests; both fans performing on curve; high flow rate through fans Performance department conducts air heater tests; high DPs on both air heaters and elevated leakage rates
6-77
JPM APH G a s D P & P re ss At U R G E

14
A PH G a s DP (I n W C )
13 1 2.5 12 1 1.5 11 1 0.5 10 198 6 1988 1 990 19 92 199 4

Ye a r
A PH G A s O u t P re s s (In
1 3.5
-15 -15.5 -16 -16.5 -17 -17.5 -18 -18.5 -19 -19.5 -20 -20.5 -21 -21.5 -22 1996 1 998 20 00 200 2
Av g AP H G as D P
Avg AP H G as O ut Pres s
6-78
W C)
JPM NOx Jan99-Apr00

0.5200 0.5000
lb NOx/MBTU
0.4800 0.4600 0.4400 0.4200 0.4000 Aug Apr Jul Jun Feb Sep May Nov Dec Mar Jan Mar Feb Jan Oct Apr 320-330
6-79
Initial Plant Response

Plant schedules an outage to clean air heaters and look for sources of air leakage In preparation for outage, a complete leakage test of boiler gas cycle is performed
6-80
JPM Air Heater Test Results 2/00

Econ. Out %CO2 %O2 % Leakage 15.28 1.55 -----61 61 AH 62 AH 62 AH AH Out In Out In 13.62 12.88 13.55 13.14 3.65 11.89 4.6 5.70 3.75 12.52 4.26 3.00 Stack 11.93 5.8 8.88
6-81
JPM Air Heater Test Results 4/00

Furnace Exit Econ. Out 61 AH In 61 AH Out 62 AH In 62 AH Out Stack
%CO2 %O2 % Leakage
17.55 3.07 ------
18.96 1.63 ------
16.93 15.42 17.11 15.84 12.65 3.70 11.25 5.24 9.25 3.52 10.17 4.81 7.57 8.05 32.58
6-82
Instrument Evaluation
Economizer outlet O2 was measured with insitu instrumentation When using test instrumentation, economizer outlet O2 and furnace O2 were the same Compared all analyzers with calibration gas; all responded correctly
6-83
Which O2 is Right?
Compared test instrument with new O2 probes on another boiler, and test instrumentation read what the new O2 probes read Test instrumentation appeared correct, but what caused in-situ probes to read low? Further analysis of O2 probes showed 4 of 6 reading low, one reading correct and one giving poor reading (out of average)
6-84
Why?
Contacted vendor to find out what would cause O2 probes to read 1.5% low? First guess from vendor was combustibles burning on probe; assumed CO; CO measured less than 100 ppm Second guess from vendor was plugged diffuser; will cause unit to read low but will calibrate
6-85
Plugged Diffuser test

Vary calibration gas flow rate up and down. Under normal conditions, resultant O2 will vary no more than .2%. If variance more than .2%, diffuser is plugged JPMs O2 probes varied 1-2.5% Visual inspection not good enough
6-86
Final Results
Brought unit up on load with test instrumentation and had no problems making full load; changed diffusers, in-situ probes working properly Diffuser pluggage test added to monthly calibration checks Still had problems with air heater DPs, but no a load limiting problem
6-87
Target: Heat Rate and Cost Optimization
About EPRI EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for the benefit of utility members, their customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide range of innovative products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers draws on a worldwide network of technical and business expertise to help solve todays toughest energy and environmental problems. EPRI. Electrify the World
2001 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1001328
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

Heatrate Improvement

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Heatrate Improvement

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EPRI's Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings

EPRIs Twelfth Heat Rate Improvement Conference Proceedings

Proceedings, January 2001

EPRI Project Manager J. Stallings

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

9:50 a.m. 10:20 a.m.

12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m.

2:40 p.m. viii

9:40 a.m. 10:10 a.m.

11:50 a.m. 1:00 p.m.

10:05 a.m. 10:35 a.m.

11:50 a.m. 12:00 p.m.

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Test Instrumentation Error

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Session 1: On-Line Heat Rate Monitors

Achieved Reductions In Flow Bias Error

O ld E P A R eg u lation s New E P A Reg u lation s

R ed u ctio n in C E M Bias E rro r [% ]