42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory M3A.

6
University of Texas at Tyler
Tyler, TX, USA, March 7-9, 2010

Performance Analysis of Range Sensors for a Real-Time Power Plant

Coal Level Sensing System
Ralph Taylor and Mukul Shirvaikar
Electrical Engineering Department
University of Texas at Tyler
Tyler, TX 75799 USA
E-mail: ralph.taylor@luminant.com,
mshirvaikar@uttyler.edu

Abstract – A coal-fired power plant typically has
silos, bunkers or stock piles in which the fuel is
placed for storage purposes. Real-time feedback
sensors are utilized to sense the coal height so
data can be sent to downstream systems for
further processing. These systems are required
to accurately sense the height of coal within the
bunker or stock pile. The range information is
then fed in a real-time fashion to a control
system. Inaccurate measurements can result in
severe environmental and safety consequences.
There are many types of ranging sensors
available in the marketplace. The coal-fired
power plant application is especially daunting
due to the particularly harsh operating
conditions and reliability requirements. This
research project analyzes the performance of
three types of range sensors: ultrasonic, radar
and laser systems. These systems are currently
operational at a plant located in the North East
Texas area. The ultrasonic and radar sensors
were part of legacy systems and the new laser
sensor was integrated as a part of this study. The
feedbacks signals from each sensor were
recorded over time and compared to measured
data. The laser sensor proved to be slightly more
accurate than the others, but it has some
drawbacks that were listed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Coal level detection and dust suppression are
important aspects of the performance of a coal-fired
power plant [9]. The coal must be transported from
rail cars to the furnace, via a coal handling system,
and dust must be controlled from an environmental
and safety standpoint [1,,2]. A coal-fired power
plant typically has silos, bunkers or stock piles
wherein the fuel is placed for storage purposes.
Real-time feedback sensors are utilized to sense the
coal height so data can be sent to downstream
systems for further processing. This paper
compares three types of coal level detection
sensors: ultrasonic, radar and laser respectively.
The first two sensors were part of a legacy system
and this project included the installation and
implementation of a new laser system. These
systems determine the height of the coal and
feedback the range data to its respective control
systems in a real-time fashion thereby assisting
with environmental, process and safety needs. All
of the sensors were sourced off-the-shelf from
different manufacturers, but have the same type of
feedback signal (4-20mA) into the control system.
The coal-fired power plant application is especially
daunting due to the particularly harsh operating
conditions and reliability requirements. These
systems are currently operational at a plant located
in the North East Texas area.
II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Range sensor-based systems are utilized to measure
the height of coal in what are referred to as the silo
bunkers, stock pile and in this project train receiver
hoppers. For this power plant, coal is brought into
the plant via rail cars and then unloaded into a
hopper system that will either transport coal to the
telescoping chute and then to coal silos The three
types of sensors utilized for measuring range
information were ultrasonic, radar and laser and the
principles of each modality are described below.
A. Ultrasound
The ultrasonic base systems installed in the top of
coal silos, shown in Figure 1, are the Siemens
Milltronics XLT Air Ranger systems [4].
Ultrasonic level measurement systems are
comprised of two components: an ultrasonic signal
transducer and a remotely mounted electronic
transceiver [4]. The transducer sends out a
continuous series of ultrasonic pulses and receives
the reflected echoes on the round trip from the
liquid or solid surface being monitored. The
microprocessor in the transceiver converts the
signals into distance, level or volume, and displays
this data as an LCD digital read out.

978-1-4244-5692-5/10/$26.00 © IEEE 2010 188

Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 laser sending out infrared light pulses, which are
collimated by the transmitter lens [14]. Via the
receiver lens, part of the echo signal reflected by
the target hits a photodiode which generates an
electrical receiver signal [14]. The time interval
between the transmitted and received pulses is
counted by means of quartz stabilized clock
frequency [14]. The calculated value is fed into the
internal microcomputer which processes the
measured data and prepares it for range and speed
display as well as for data output [2]. The laser
system installed was a Riegl LD90-450. The data
output can be either a serial interface or 4-20mA
analog feedback.
Figure 1 Coal Silos

In a perfect world, monitoring a liquid or solid level

in a vessel and receiving a single, strong return
echo from the reflecting surface is a simple process.
But in reality, there are many factors that can
complicate things. Turbulence, dust, echoes from
false targets like ladders, beams or pipes, steam,
and the effect of sound attenuation over distance,
are just a few of the many elements that can test a
system’s capabilities to the limit. Ultrasonic devices
can read the surface well, but the dust usually
absorbs too much sound energy to get reliable
measurements. The Milltronics AirRanger system
utilized in this study has been in operation for about
five years.

B. Radar
The radar probes are mounted in the top section of
the coal receiving hoppers (not shown) and aimed
into the cone section of the hopper. Similar to
ultrasonic systems, radars are non-contact
technologies that do not have abrasion problems.
Radar systems do not have some of the accuracy
issues associated with ultrasound but may have
difficulties with inert materials. The Siemens LR
460 radar system is an industry standard for
detecting bulk materials such as coal [3]. It consists Figure 2 Telescoping Chute
of a 4-wire 24 GHz FMCW (Frequency Modulated
Continuous Wave) radar level transmitter with D. Control System
extremely high signal-to-noise ratio and advanced The control system is tasked with automating the
signal processing for continuous monitoring of downward movement of a telescoping chute. It is
solids up to 100 meters (328 ft) [3]. necessary to sense both the position of the
telescoping chute and the height of the stock pile
C. Lasers under harsh operating conditions. After engineering
A laser system was implemented in an effort to team discussions to evaluate different designs based
improve the accuracy of coal level range sensing on on contact probes, radars, ultrasonics, tilt probes,
a Telescoping Chute shown in Figure 2. encoders and lasers, it was decided to utilize two
lasers: one for the stock pile and one for the
The basic operation of the laser system is shown in telescoping chute position.
Figure 3. The transmitter is a semiconductor diode

189

Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The control system used is based on an Allen-
Bradley ControlLogix system, already in service at
this the power plant. An added advantage was the
ControlLogix system encompasses an embedded
processing system that is mounted in a rack along
with other types of cards and is expandable [7]. The
lasers are mounted on the telescoping chute (Figure
2) and an Ethernet wireless system is being used to
retrieve the laser range data for feedback into the
ControlLogix system [6]. The feedback is then
scaled and control decisions are made to re-position
the telescoping chute. Figure 5 Function Block – Scale

The variable ITSC_LSR_FBK is the laser feedback

from the chute position laser. The laser feedback is
an input into an analog input card with an A/D
resolution of 15 bits [8]. This means the card will
have an output maximum value of 215 – 1 = 32767.
The SCL block will take this data and calculate a
linear slope of the input (0 to 32767) and convert to
a scale value which in this case is 3 to 75 feet. The
conditioning formula for the above function block
is shown below:

Figure 3 Basic Operation of the Laser Distance where , , , are the end points for
System the input analog signal and the output height range.

The ControlLogix system utilizes several different Angle of Repose

types of software to perform control decisions.
These are: ladder diagrams, function blocks
routines, structured text and sequential function
charts. This project only utilized ladder and
function blocks routines.
Ladder Diagrams evaluate the conditions of the
input ladder elements, from left to right, and the
output instruction is turned on if the input
conditions are met (see Figure 4) [1, 5, 7].
There is an important parameter to measuring levels
in silos or stock piles which is the angle of repose.
The angle of repose is an engineering property of
granular materials. It is the maximum angle of a
stable slope determined by friction, cohesion and
the shapes of the particles. [16] An example of
angle of repose is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 4 Ladder Logic

Figure 6 Angle of Repose
Functions Block Diagrams execute internal
algorithms that perform a specific function [1, 5, 7]. Solids stored in a vessel do not have a flat,
Shown in Figure 5 is a scale block (SCL) that is horizontal surface like virtually all liquids. The
used to condition , the unscaled integer surface of powders and granular materials, as
feedback value from the laser sensor, by shown in Figure 6, has an angle of repose. The
normalizing and scaling it to a floating-point value angle of repose, or shape of the surface, can vary
. with filling, discharging, the fill location and

190

Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 discharging, angled or multiple fill points, multiple
draw points, etc. [11]. There are other physical
issues such as ratholing and bridging that cause
issues within silos but will not be discussed within
the contents of this paper. The “real world”
accuracy of a level measurement system for bulk
solids applications is the stated accuracy of the
manufacturer, usually expressed in terms of
distance or level. [15]
Ultrasonic and radar systems perform better if the
angle of repose is very low or flat. The angle of
repose has no bearing on level measurements with
the laser system as the transmitted beam is very
narrow and cannot scatter back as with radars or
ultrasonics. It should noted the only parameter of
interest in this project, is the actual height of the
stock piles
III. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section presents the analysis results for the
three types of ranging systems – radar, ultrasonic
and laser respectively. The system performance is
evaluated on the basis of a single parameter:
measurement error or the actual level versus the
sensed level. The actual level that serves as the
ground truth is physically measured in each case by
utilizing a tape measure. The tape measure has a
weight attached to end and was dropped into each
zone and the distance recorded.
Figure 7 shows measurements of the ultrasonic
system performance. There are 26 silos over which
these measurements are made. The measurements
were then entered into a spreadsheet along with
control system feedback and the error computed.
On units 1 and 2 (1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B…etc) the
sensing distance of the silos are 32’, however, the
total height of the silos is 37’. On unit 3 (3A, 3B,
… etc) the sensing distance of the silo is 50’ with
the total height being 55’. It only senses to the top
part of the cone section since false reflections begin
to occur within the cone height. It is very important
to maintain the coal level above the cone section,
due to a pressurized feeder system below the silo. If
a hole in the coal or a low level occurs, then the
system could blow hot air into the top of the silo
which would put personnel at risk if they are
present in the house above the silo.
Figure 8 represents results from the radar guided
system. There are four radars systems which
measurements were made. Again, a tape measure
was dropped into the top of the hoppers and range
values were tabulated and error calculations were
191
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
made. The height of the hopper is 38’ from the
radar position to the bottom of the cone. The radar
probes are aimed across the hopper to the bottom of
the cone. The total downward sensing distance of
the radar system is 38’. These radar systems have
been operational for about one year.
Figure 9 demonstrates the results for the laser
system. There are two lasers which measurements
were made and the values were placed in the
spreadsheet. One laser is sensing the stock pile
height and the other laser is sensing the position of
the telescoping chute (Figure 2). These signals are
then fed back into the control system creating a
setpoint, and then the chute is moved to this
setpoint position. The total height of the mounting
position of the lasers from the ground is 67’.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analyzing data from the ultrasonic systems, it can
be observed that as the coal approaches high or
empty levels, error starts to grow. This was evident
in almost all of the silos except for silo 1C in which
the error was only 1.4%. This may be explained by
the fact that silo 1C does not follow the physical
profiles of the other silos. These systems will keep
the actual level within tolerances until the level has
increased above 90% full or until the level has
dropped below 30% full. It should noted that the
level feedback, from operational experience, starts
to decay when the level drops below 50% full. This
is because the coal pile inside the silo starts to
invert as the coal is being pulled from the bottom-
center of the silo. The ultrasonic system is mounted
on one side of the silo and it is aimed straight
downward toward the outer edge of the coal height.
Analyzing data from the four radar probes, it was
observed that they seem to have a similar reaction
to the hoppers being full and to hoppers being
completely empty. This is evident with 1-North, in
which there is a 4.8’ difference in the measured
feedback to the actual feedback. Similarly, the level
ranging for 3-South is in the middle of the span and
has a 2.17’ difference in actual level versus
measured feedback. The radars are mounted on top
of the train receiving hoppers and aimed across to
the top of the cone section.
The lasers are mounted at the same elevation with
one aimed at a target on the telescoping chute and
the second aimed downward toward the coal stock
pile. There were two samples taken: one when the
chute was fully retracted (stock pile high) and one
when the chute was fully extended (stock pile low)
 under the setpoint management system of the
program. In this system, the stock pile does not
decay in a symmetric shape: the stock pile may
have holes in it as it decays. This does not occur for
each extension of the chute. Therefore, logical
curves have been incorporated into the controller to
allow for variances in the stock pile and detect
when the chute and stock pile collide. It should be
noted, the stock pile laser is detecting its targets
with no indication of issues.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In a head-to-head comparison of accurate level
detection, the laser system outperforms the other
two systems. The major advantages to the laser
system are that it can be aimed toward a small
target and then accurately feedback data to the
control system. However, the major disadvantage to
the laser system is there cannot be any obstructions
in the line of sight of the laser. The ultrasonic and
radar systems have built-in algorithms that learn the
sensing area and ignore obstructions within line of
sight. All three systems have built in amplifiers to
drive through pluming dust interference. Another
disadvantage to the laser system is cost. The lasers
cost approximately twice as much as the other two
systems. If bulk replacement of ultrasonics or
radars with lasers is to be undertaken, then a large
capital expense would be incurred. Lastly, all three
systems operate well in their respective
environments with the edge in performance going
to the laser system, radars finishing second and the
ultrasonics finishing last in accuracy.
Coal Silo - Ultrasonics
45.00
40.00
35.00
Height &%Error
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 10
Figure 7 Ultrasound Detection Accuracy on the Coal Silos
192
Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Steven C. Stultz and John B. Kitto, Steam Its
Generation and Use, 40th Edition, Babcock &
Wilcox Company, USA, 1992.
[2] Coal Dust Fundamentals, Luminant Power
Inc., 2009.
[3] Sitrans LR460 Manual, Siemens Milltronics
Process Instruments Inc. Canada, 2007.
[4] AirRanger SPL Manual, Siemens Milltronics
Process Instruments Inc., Canada, 2004.
[5] Logix5550 – Instruction Set Reference Manual,
Rockwell Software Inc., 1999.
[6] Wireless Ethernet Radios - 802.11 Transceiver
Series User Manual, Phoenix Contact, 2008.
[7] RSLogix 5000 ControlLogix Software,
Rockwell Automation Inc, 2008.
[8] ControlLogix Remote I/O Comm.Module
Manual, Rockwell Automation Inc., 2009
[9] L.A. Bryan and E.A. Bryan, Programmable
Controllers, Second Edition, Atlanta Industrial
Text Company, 1997.
[10] John G. Webster, Measurement,
Instrumentation and Sensors, Taylor and
Francis Group, 1999
[11] Joseph D. Lewis, Sr., Technology Review:
Level Measurement of Bulk Solids in Bins,
Silos and Hoppers, pp 5 - 7, Monitor
Technologies Inc., December 2004.
[12] Angle of Repose, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Angle_of_repose, August 2009.
[13] Measurement Uncertainty, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty, Jan. 2008.
[14] Riegl Laser Measurement Systems Application
Note AN-GI002, Riegl USA 2009.
Measured Height (Ft)
Actual Height (Ft)
% Error
20 30
 Train Receiving Hopper - Radar Detection

30

25
Height & % Error

20
Measured Height (Ft)
15 Actual Height (Ft)
% Error
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 8 Radar Detection Accuracy on the Train Receiving Hopper

Telscoping Chute, Laser Detection

60

50
Position & % Error

40
Measured Position (Ft)
30 Actual Position (Ft)
% Error
20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 9 Laser Detection Accuracy on the Telescoping Chute

193

Authorized licensed use limited to: Anna University Coimbatore. Downloaded on May 07,2010 at 05:40:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.