P. 1
Power Plant

Power Plant

3.0

|Views: 1,064|Likes:
Published by dalveer_eck

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: dalveer_eck on Jun 19, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/11/2012

pdf

text

original

The method of performance assessment chosen is the indirect method of heat loss and
boiler efficiency as per BIS standard 8753 and the employed relationships are presented in
annexure-I.
Prior to the trial, the list of boiler operating parameters to be monitored and the
corresponding transducer reference in the data acquisition system were identified and the
same was monitored every fifteen minutes interval. The list of access points for various
parameters are presented as annexure-II.
The boiler efficiency trials were conducted during January 2007 for unit no. 2, 120 MW in
as run operating condition. During the trial, values of as-run parameters observed, are
indicated in annexure- III.
During the trial period, the following conditions and procedures were adopted:
•The test was carried out for a 4 hour duration each, during which both CBD and IBD
was stopped. No soot blowing was carried out during this period.
•During the period of as run testing, the unit no. 2 remained isolated and at steady full
load condition
•The steam flow was maintained steady during the as run trial.
•Coal samples were collected at regular intervals during period of testing, were mixed
and a composite sample was prepared.
•Ash samples were collected during de-ashing and from ESP hoppers during the testing.
•Exit gas analysis for O2, CO2, CO and temperature was measured using portable gas
analyzer IMR I400.
For comparison of operating data, design data for the unit was referred to, the same was
also compared with he PG test results of unit no. 3, in the absence of PG test data of unit
no. 2, Since both the units are identical.

41

BOILER HEAT LOSS PROFILE

The heat loss profile covering losses through unburnt in ash, sensible heat loss in flue
gases, moisture in combustion air, loss due to presence of hydrogen and moisture in coal,
radiation and unaccounted loss, are as follows:

SL.
No

Operating Parameters

Unit

AVG

AVG

DATE

10/01/2007

10/01/2007

DURATION

HR

10.30 hrs to 15.00
hrs

15.00 hrs to 19.00
hrs

A.HEAT INPUT TO BOILER

KCAL/HR

299776213.125299765713.569

B.HEAT LOSSES IN THE SYSTEM :
B1

UNBURNTS IN ASH :
BOTTOM ASH

%

0.65866

0.65845

FLY ASH

%

1.06508

1.06687

B2

SENSIBLE HEAT IN FLUE GAS

%

4.28299

4.27665

B3

MOISTURE IN FLUE GAS

%

8.78621

8.78560

B4

MOISTURE IN COMB. AIR

%

0.07059

0.07072

B5

RADIATION & UNACCOUNT

&

1.21000

1.21000

C.TOTAL LOSSES

%

16.074

16.068

D.BOILER EFFICIENCY
(100 - TOTAL LOSSES)

%

83.926

83.932

E.EXCESS AIR

%

23

23

F

OVERALL HEAT RATE

KCAL/KWH

2549.76791

2524.22476

Above trial data is average value during 15 min. interval.
It may be observed that as against 87% design efficiency, there is a margin of about 3-4%
improvement by various measures, which are largely O&E related and R&M related. About
2% improvement is possible by various O&E related aspects mentioned above. For further
improvement in efficiency, R&M activities are required specially in the area of mills.

42

OBSERVATIONS

(i)

The thermal efficiency of boiler of unit no. 2 estimated based on heat loss method
during the trial period is found to be around 83% with the firing of middlings as
against 87% as per design at 100% TGMCR.

(ii)

The average boiler heat losses ranges from around 16.1% against design value of
12.97%.
(iii)The average controllable losses like combustible loss in ash, sensible heat loss to dry
flue gas range from 6%.
(iv)The excess air percentage maintained at air pre-heater outlet is found to be 23% with
an oxygen percentage of 3.9% as against design value of 20% equivalent to 3.5%
oxygen level. Though the excess air level is reasonably satisfactory, scope exists
towards fine tuning the same to bring down excess air level to 17% to 18% using
washery middlings. It was observed that at present the oxygen analyzer installed at
APH inlet and outlet respectively indicate oxygen percentage as 7.7% and 5.5%
respectively and was reported out of commission during the observation period by the
plant management. It is strongly recommended to repair, calibrate or replace the
same for trimming of oxygen level apart from controlling relevant operating
parameter. This will restrict the sensible heat loss through the dry flue gases to a
large extent thereby reducing boiler losses and improve operating efficiency. The
details of flue gas measurement for oxygen, excess air, temperature as against desired
design values are given in Table – I

Table – I : Flue Gas Analysis Results :

SL.
No.Parameter

Unit

Location of Sampling

ECO Outlet / APH
Inlet

APH Outlet / ESP
Inlet

ID Fan Inlet

Design

Actual

Design

Actual

Design

Actual

1

O2

%

3.00

3.9

5.5

5.9

2

Co2

%

15.0

16.8

15.2

14.8

3

Co

ppm

65

10

12

13

4

Temperature

o

C

345

343*

142

148

137

135

5

Excess Air

%

20%

* Measured 31.7o

C at UCB

(v)

The exit flue gas temperature after air pre-heater outlet was found to be 147 to 148o

C

as against design value of 139o

C in spite of dilution and air ingress. This has also

lead to higher dry flue gas losses.
(vi)The in-leak air in the air pre-heater area as well as between APH inlet to ID fan inlet
ranges from 10% to 15% equivalent to 6% oxygen level, as against design value of
maximum 2% increase in oxygen content. The in leak air specially in APH flue path
as well as flue duct between APH and ID fan causes detrimental effect towards
effectiveness of heat transfer of APH area. It may also shift the draft level in the flue
gas path apart from increase in ID fan motor load. It is recommended to regularly
monitor oxygen percentage of flue gas through portable oxygen analyzers at ESP inlet
as well as ID fan inlet, analyze the data with respect to on line monitoring system at
APH inlet and outlet towards control of in leak points in the ducting area. Any effort
43

to minimize the in leak air would directly help in ID fan capacity release apart from
power saving in ID fan.
(vii)Pertinent to boiler operations, the recognized concern area are with regard to coal
quality are GCV of coal, ash content in coal, VM and HGI towards mill performance.
GCV of coal fired during the observation as compared to design value was found to
be much higher than design, apart from Ash & FC content which are favourable
compared to design. The middling coal fired during trial was little harder since HGI is
45 as compared to design coal of HGI 55. With this the mill output is expected to be
reduced by 15%. However, since moisture content in coal used during the trial period
is much lower compared to design coal moisture, the effect should be favourable
towards output. The design vis-à-vis actual coal utilized during observation period is
given Table-2:

TABLE – 2: DESIGN VIS-À-VIS ACTUAL COAL UTILIZED

Sl.
No.Parameter

Unit

Coal used during
trail and
observation

Coal used
December’06
**

Design Coal
(MCL)

1.Moisture *

%

0.53

-

12

TM **

4.44 to 4.56

4.5

2

Ash

%

35.61 to 36.11

34.13

45

3.VM

%

20.33 to 20.78

19.12

21.8

4.Carbon

43.53 to 42.58

41.62

21.2

5.Hydrogen

3 to 4

-

-

6.Nitrogen

0.2 to 0.6

-

-

7.Sulpher

0.4. to 0.8

-

-

8.GCV *

Kcal per
Kg

5006.2 to 48.36.3

3350

GCV **

4646.19 to
4803.38

4850

9.HGI

45

55

*Air dry basis
** As received basis
(viii)The losses due to moisture and Hydrogen in coal are comparable to design value.
(ix)Coal mill fineness observed during the trial period is found about 85 to 91% passing
through 200 mesh size compared to design coal fineness of 70% passing through 200
mesh (i.e., 75 micron level) and is found to be over grinded. This will also lead to
reduced mill output apart from increasing the mill electrical power loading and
reduced residence time within the furnace area. These are separately discussed in the
auxiliary power consumption study of the mill. The mill fineness observed during the
study period is given below in Table –3. It may further be pointed out that over
grinding may also lead to higher wear and tear of mill parts. The present preventive
maintenance schedule of the mills are after every 750 to 1000 running hours.

Table – 3: Mill Fineness Analysis : 10/1/2007

44

Mill No. and
range of fineness
(micron)

+ 300- 300 + 250- 250 + 125- 125 +75- 75 + 0

A

0

0.06

1.36

13.43

85.15

B

0

0.25

3.83

10.31

85.61

C

0.

0.08

2.31

9.53

88.08

D

0

0.02

2.71

5.59

91.73

(x)

Total coal flow to maintain full load at design is 81% of rated mill TPH using a
combination of 3 mills: ie., @ 27 TPH using design MCL coal, where as during trial
observation period 4 mills are being utilized to maintain full load using Middlings,
total coal flow is found to be 63-64 TPH, @ 17-18 TPH per mill, the load of 4th

mill is
only 10-11 TPH, leading to lean air coal mixture. However there is no mill gap and
adjacent mills were being utilized during trial and observation period. The mill motor
load was approaching almost full load at this condition leaving no margin. Details
are given in Table – 4 & 5.

Table – 4 : Mill Loading Analysis

Mill No. / Parameter

A

B

C

D

Total

Actual Coal Flow, T/hr
(using Middlings)

11.2

18

18.3

17.4

64.9

Design coal flow /
PG test value of unit # 3, T/hr
(using ROM coal)

-

27.19

28.63

27.85

83.67

% Loading

66%

64%

62.5%

Table – 5: Mill Power Consumption using washery coal

Mill No.

A

B

C

D

kW

274

261.1

261

221.8

Loading %

98

93

93

79

Rating /
PG test value*

280 / -

280 / 240.71

280 / 224.28

280 / 206.65

*

During PG test of mill unit no. 3, MCL coal was used and mill was operated at
higher than 80% output to meet 100% TG MCR capacity.
Improvement in mill operations towards achieving rated coal flow with 3 mill
operation is identified as key result area of concern. The results would manifest as
reduced excess air loss as well as reduced loss due to unburnt in bottom ash and fly
ash apart from reduced auxiliary consumption.

(xi) During the observation, mill reject quantity for mill no. 2C was found to be
much higher 0.14% of coal flow) compared to other operating mills (mill
combination 2A, 2B, 2C & 2D). The GCV of mill reject is about 2300-2400
KCAL/KG requiring thorough maintenance of the mill apart from classifier vane
adjustment. The details are given in the table –6 below :

45

Table – 6 : Mill rejects analysis result : 10.1.07

Mill No.

A

B

C

D

Quantity (Kg/hr)

13.25

9

25.5

18.5

*GCV (Kcal/Kg)

2325.9

Moisture (%)

0.5

Total moisture
(%)

2.19

Ash (%)

61.13

*Air dry basis
(xii)Combustible matter in bottom ash and fly ash is found to be in the range of 5.7% and
2.7% respectively, which is much higher than the design value of 4% and 0.5%
respectively using design coal. The same for unit # 3, PG test value is 1.37% and
0.11% respectively. This loss is directly related to fuel combustion efficiency and also
upon operational factors. The loss due to unburnts in ash is about 2.31% as compared
to design value of 1.1%. The details of unburnt analysis results using middling coal
is given in the table –7. It may be mentioned that combustible in ash is also a
function of the ratio of fixed carbon and volatile matter in the coal fired and with the
increase in the ratio there is a tendency towards increase in the combustible matter
both in the fly ash and bottom ash, the ratio being almost double for middlings
compared to ROM coal.

Table –7: Combustible matter in fly ash and bottom ash :

date of sample 10.1.07.

Location

Combustible matter in Fly Ash

Combustible matter in Bottom Ash

Design

Analysis of
Dec’06
(avg)

10.01.2007Design

Analysis of
Dec’06
(avg)

10.01.2007

46

Field 23 V1
23 V2
23 V3
23 V4
Vessel 21
(1 to 6)
Vessel 22
(1 to 6)

0.5

1.62

2.6
2.25
2.29
2.32
1.79

1.78

4

5.52

5.72

(xiii)The heat required/heat released at full load is 280-290 MKCAL/Hr as per design. The
same during operation at full load (100% TG MCR) using Washery Middlings is
found 7.5% higher (Coal GCV being 3600 KCAL/KG at design as compared to
Middling at 4725 KCAL/KG fired during trial observation). This clearly indicates
that gain in terms of higher heat value of middlings is lost towards very lean air : coal
mixture, loss of combustion efficiency, very low capacity output of the mills, coal
being harder resulting use of more no. of mills leading to lean air coal mixture.

(xiv)The primary air through the mills was found 30% to 31% above design/test value
indicating lean air coal mixture. This is also corroborated by higher unburnt
percentage of combustible in fly ash and bottom ash. However, secondary air flow is
controlled for restricting total air quantity, the secondary air flow is kept only 59% of
total air quantity. The details of FD air flow, primarily air coal ratio, primary air flow,
primary : secondary air ratio at 100% TG MCR both at design as well as during
observation on 10.1.07 using middlings is given in Table-8.

Table-8: FD Air Flow, Primary Air Coal Ratio, Primary air flow, Primary
air/secondary air ratio ( at 100% TG MCR).

Parameter

Unit

Design Coal
with 3 mill
operation

Observation on
10/1/07 using
Middlings.

1. No. of Mills in
operation

Nos.

03

04

2. Total air flow

T/hr.

438

430

3. Primary air flow

* Primary air flow as %
of total air flow

T/hr

%

135

31

176.4

41

4. Secondary air flow
* Secondary air flow as
% of total air flow

T/hr

%

303

69

253.6

59

5. Coal flow

T/hr

81.5

63.5

6. Primary air : coal ratio

1.65

2.78

7. Primary Air:
secondary air ratio

0.45

0.69

After the trial, an attempt was made by plant operating personnel to reduce primary
air flow and also restricting to 3 mill operation, however, it was reported by the
operating personnel that there is deposition of coal particles at the mill outlet and at
the first level of coal pipelines and load could not be maintained with 3 mill
47

operation. The PA fan header pressure was found to be well within limit during
observation period.

(xv)The wind box pressure, FD fan discharge pressure, furnace draft, wind box to furnace
DP was found well within design limits during the operation on 10/1/07. The details
are given in Table-9.

Table – 9 : Wind box pressure, FD Fan discharge pressure, furnace draft,windbox to
furnace.

Sl.
No.

Parameter

Unit

Design

Actual

1.Wind box pressure

mmwc

(+) 100

(+) 95-96

2.FD fan discharge pressure

mmwc

240

234 to 238

3.Furnace draft

mmwc

(-) 4

(-) 6.4 to 8.8

4.Windbox to furnace DP

mmwc

-

(+) 100 – 105

(xvi)Combustion efficiency is closely linked with temperature of secondary air as also mill
performance with respect to moisture removal and coal fineness and unburnts in ash
and any drop may affect combustion. During trial, the secondary air temperature was
found 280-290 O

C as against design value of 273- 282 O

C and is well within the

design limit.
(xvii)Though housekeeping in boiler area is commendable and, improvements are
possible in the following areas :
•Leakage from bottom ash de-ashing hopper.
•Hot Air leakage from secondary air heaters.
•Improvement of insulation in economizer and APH area.
•Though the inspection doors/peep-holes are tightly fitted and kept closed properly, high
radiation loss from them was noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Two energy conservation opportunities are identified in the area of boiler operations namely
•Excess air control
•Control of combustible in fly ash and bottom ash

6.1

Present Condition :

O2% at APH out let = 5.5%
Corresponding excess air level at APH out let = 35.48%
Sensible heat loss in flue gas = 4.28%
Boiler Efficiency = 83% (Avg.)

(i) SAVINGS POTENTIAL BY O2 TRIMMING (EXCESS AIR CONTROL)

48

The improvement in operating efficiency of boiler, by reduction excess air level (and there by
reduction in sensible heat loss percentage) is identified as a key result area.

Proposed Condition :

O2% at APH out let

= 3.5%

Corresponding excess air level at APH out let=20%
Sensible heat loss in flue gas

= 3.35%

Boiler Efficiency

= 83.95% (Avg.)

Fuel savings by operation of Boiler at 83.95%

= 63 TPH x 8000 x {1- (83/83.95)}
= 5703 MT per year

Landed cost of coal

= 1500 MT

Annual saving potential (Rs.)

= 85.5 Lakh

Control of combustible in fly ash and bottom ash, through mill performance improvements,
is identified as a key result area for attention.
During field study period, lab. Analysis of un-burnt in bottom & fly ash, w.r.t. design values
are given below :

Date

Un-burnt Carbon % in Fly Ash & Bottom Ash

Un-burnt Fly Ash (%)

Un-burnt in bottom Ash (%)

Design

Actual

Design

Actual

10th

January, 2007

0.5%

2.7%

4%

5.7%

PG test value of Unit # 3

0.11

1.37

Energy Savings estimate
Existing heat loss due to un-burnt in fly ash & bottom ash

=1.724%

Existing boiler efficiency

=83% (avg.)

Envisaged heat loss with improved mill performance.

= 1.05%

Increased Boiler Efficiency after reduction in un-burnt loss

=83.674 %(avg.)

Improvement in Boiler Efficiency

=0.674%

Annual reduction in coal consumption (MT) by boiler efficiency improvement
=63 x 8000

x {1 - (83/83.674)}

= 4059 MT

Landed cost of coal

= 1500 MT

Annual saving potential (Rs.)

=Rs.60.9 lacs.

(ii) SAVINGS BY CONTROL OF COMBUSTIBLES IN FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH

49

50

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->