Lethabo Thermodynamic Model

Report
Lethabo Boilers - Provision

Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Executive Summary
Steinmueller Engineering (SE) has been tasked by Eskom to create and verify a
thermodynamic model for the Lethabo boilers.
The study is split into three parts as follows:
Part I – Verification of the thermal boiler design as per SE design standard based on the
supplied Eskom C-Schedule and other relevant design data,
Part II – Recalculation of the current boiler operating conditions, based on the obtained site
measurements,
Part III – Simulation of dirty boiler conditions.
Results of the study are as follows:
Part I – Modeling of the thermodynamic design of Lethabo boiler units and successful
verification of the model with the data from the C-Schedule.
Part II – Recalculation of the present boiler status. The present air leakages at the boiler are
higher than after commissioning. The calculated evaluation factors show a normal fouling of
the boiler except for reheater 1. The potential of reducing the current fouling of the reheater 1
could for instance offer the possibility of achieving hot reheat temperatures after the
implementation of Low-NOx burners.
Part III – Simulation with increased fouling factors for the different heat exchanging surfaces
provide extreme conditions (e.g. flow rates, temperatures) to be used as design parameters
for various purposes.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 1 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Plant description ....................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 Basic design data of the units 1-6 ................................................................... 4
1.2 Objective .................................................................................................................. 5
2 Model description .............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 General DimBo description....................................................................................... 6
2.2 Specific model basics ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Arrangement of heating surfaces .................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Dimensions of heating surfaces ...................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Air controlling .................................................................................................. 8
3 Calculation ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Used coal compositions............................................................................................ 9
3.2 Leakage ................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Site measurements: ............................................................................................... 10
3.4 Comparison of the calculated and applied fouling conditions .................................. 11
4 Results and discussions .................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Original thermodynamic system (Part I) .................................................................. 15
4.1.1 Water/steam temperature profile ................................................................... 15
4.1.2 Flue gas temperature profile ......................................................................... 16
4.1.3 Conclusion 4.1 .............................................................................................. 17
4.2 Recalculation of current boiler conditions (Part II) ................................................... 17
4.2.3 Recalculation of current boiler conditions ...................................................... 22
4.2.4 Conclusion 4.2 .............................................................................................. 24
4.3 Simulation of dirty boiler conditions (Part III) ........................................................... 25
4.3.3 Conclusion 4.3 .............................................................................................. 28
4.4 FFP design data ..................................................................................................... 29
5 Summary:........................................................................................................................ 31
6 References...................................................................................................................... 32
7 Annex.............................................................................................................................. 35
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 2 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Arrangement of heating surfaces ............................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Efficiency of the heating surfaces.......................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Efficiency of the heating surfaces (Data 2013-07) ................................................. 13
Figure 4: Defined fouling comparison ................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data) ............... 15
Figure 6: MP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data)............... 16
Figure 7: Flue gas temperature profile of the design case .................................................... 17
Figure 8: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011 ... 18
Figure 9: MP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011 ... 19
Figure 10: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from July 2013 ...... 20
Figure 11: Flue gas temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011 ................ 21
Figure 12: Flue gas temperature profile of site measurements from July 2013..................... 22
Figure 13: HP - Water/steam temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR
............................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 14: MP - Water/steam temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR
............................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 15: Flue gas temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR........... 24
Figure 16: HP - Water/steam temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions.......................... 25
Figure 17: MP - Water/steam temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions ......................... 26
Figure 18: MP - Water/steam temperature profile comparison ............................................. 27
Figure 19: Flue gas temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions ........................................ 28
Table 1: Dimensions of Lethabo boiler heating surfaces ........................................................ 8
Table 2: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions................................. 9
Table 3: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions (continuation) ........ 10
Table 4 Minimum coal specification ..................................................................................... 29
Table 5 FFP inlet data based on the minimum coal specification ......................................... 30
Table 6: List of attachments ................................................................................................. 35
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 3 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1 Introduction
1.1 Plant description
Lethabo Power Station situated between Vereeniging and Sasolburg in the Free State, South
Africa, is a coal-fired power plant owned and operated by Eskom. The station consists of six
618 MWe units with a total installed capacity of 3708 MW. The construction of the Lethabo
boilers dates back to 1980 and by the end of 1990 the plant was fully operational.
1.1.1 Basic design data of the units 1-6

OEM : Babcock Power Limited
Type : Drum type boiler with natural circulation system
Number of passes : Two-pass boiler
Output : 618 MWe
HP Steam :
• Flow : 509.7 kg/s
• Temperature : 540°C
• Pressure : 161 bar
RH Steam :
• Flow : 478,6 kg/s
• Temperature : 540°C
• Pressure : 38 bar
Milling system:
• Each boiler has 6 mills (Riley tube mills)
• 5 mills are required to maintain full load
There is no central division wall in the combustion chamber.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 4 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1.2 Objective
The objective of the current study is to construct a validated DimBo model of the Lethabo
boilers with respect to SE’s design standard considering the C-Schedule and the available
site measurements data.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 5 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
2 Model description
2.1 General DimBo description
In order to evaluate the steam generator thermodynamic models were generated with the
software DimBo using the information received from ESKOM.
The software DimBo and the DimBo manual are available at ESKOM.
2.2 Specific model basics
The data used for the preparation of the thermal model to verify the boiler design according
to SE’s standard are:
1. C-Schedule (design data)

2. General arrangement and pressure part arrangement drawings
3. Operating instructions and study reports
4. Site measurements of all units at various occasions.
The used documents are listed in section 6 References of the present report.
2.2.1 Arrangement of heating surfaces

The boiler is designed as two pass boiler with a transition between 1st and 2nd pass. It
consists of the following heating surfaces:
Evaporator
The membrane water walls (front, rear, sides) are arranged in parallel as evaporator.
Economizer
The economizer consists of two stages, arranged in counter flow, in the second pass.
Superheater
The superheater consists of three stages. The first stage is divided into two sections in the
second pass. The second stage is formed by two platen superheater in the first pass, and the
final stage of the superheater is located in the transition between 1st and 2nd pass (vestibule).
Reheater
The reheater has two stages. The first stage is divided into three sections in the second pass.
The second stage is located in the vestibule.
Figure 1 shows the arrangement of the heating surfaces in a side view of the boiler.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 6 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Reheater 2
Final SH
Superheater 1
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Reheater 1
Reheater 1
Reheater 1
Economizer
Economizer
Figure 1: Arrangement of heating surfaces
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 7 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
2.2.2 Dimensions of heating surfaces

Table 1: Dimensions of Lethabo boiler heating surfaces
Provided area
MSTA Outer diameter (C-Schedule) Calculated area
Description
(DimBo ID no.) [mm] [m²]
[m2]
Economizer
Economizer 362; 382 38 14117 14166
Superheater
Superheater 1 296; 316; 326 54 11040 11353
Superheater 2 204; 205 38 3156 4933
Final Superheater 234 44.5; 51 3660 3660
Reheater
Reheater 1 336; 346; 356 63,5 17667 17668
Reheater 2 254; 264; 265; 274 51; 57 8135 8251
There are a few differences between the information from the C-Schedule and the
arrangement drawings for some heating surfaces. The C-Schedule presents only the
projected surface of the platen, which is smaller than the 'calculated' area by the factor /2.
For calculation purposes the DimBo software references the calculated area.
For the heating surfaces with contradictory information, it was assumed that the drawings are
more reliable than the C-Schedule.
2.2.3 Air controlling

The air distribution in the DimBo model is done as per the following specifications:
1.) The leakage of the air preheater is adjusted to the specified or measured O2 content of
the flue gas flow downstream the air preheater.
2.) The mass flow of the air preheater bypass is adjusted to match the classifier temperature
3.) The air distribution between primary and secondary air is adjusted according to the C-
Schedule or measured flow rates.
4.) The total air flow is calculated to match the excess air ratio or measured O2 content
upstream the air preheater.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 8 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
3 Calculation
3.1 Used coal compositions
Table 2: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions
Basic Sample
Average Average
Designation Design value coal 2013-03- Combustion tests
2011 2012
06
ar* ar* ar* ar* ar* ad/an* ad/an*
Carbon [%] 49.3 47.22 46.2 39.81 40.15
Hydrogen [%] 2.5 2.47 2.41 1.95 2
Sulfur [%] 1.12 1 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.75 0.81
Oxygen [%] 9.6 7.99 7.82 8.76 8.81
Nitrogen [%] 1.1 1.08 1.06 0.93 0.9
Ash [%] 34.97 31.3 35.5 33.59 32.86 41.84 41.43
Moisture [%] 10.5 10.5 8.74 7 9 10.6 10.6
NCV [kJ/kg] 16550
GCV [kJ/kg] 18340 16140 18110 17730 15480 15260
Volatiles [kg/kg] 0.217 0.1942 (dry) 0.208 0.2012 0.2012 0.1945 0.2
*ar = as received; ad/an= air dried
Different coal compositions were used as input for the calculations of the model. The
acquisition of the data was chronologically made in different stages. Table 2 presents the first
group of coal compositions. The Basic value coal was used for the recalculation with the C-
Schedule data. The Sample 2013-03-06 coal was used for a recalculation with site
measurements done on Unit 5 in March 2013. The combustion tests coal with moisture of 9%
was used for a recalculation with data from the Combustion Tests Program performed in
August 2011. In order to have an overview of the results with more recent coal compositions,
the Average 2012 coal was used for a recalculation based on the evaluation factors obtained
from the August 2011data.
Table 3 provides the second group of coal compositions used for the calculations. These
incomplete coal analyses belong to the measurements on Units 1 to 6 recorded in July 2013
(except for Unit 5 which data was recorded in May 2013).
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 9 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Table 3: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions (continuation)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

Designation
2013-07-24 2013-07-22 2013-07-22 2013-07-29 2013-05-06 2013-07-24
ar* ar* ar* ar* ar* ar*
Sulfur [%] 0.66 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.65
Ash [%] 35.05 39.2 46.1 40.25 40.35 40.1
Moisture [%] 10.07 9.15 9.55 10.47 10.06 9.7
NCV [kJ/kg] 17030 16080 13350 15510 15830 15930
Volatiles [kg/kg] 0.216 0.207 0.1765 0.2 0.206 0.1895
*ar = as received
3.2 Leakage
The boiler leakage used for the different recalculations was based on the excess air ratio
given in the C-Schedule, on the O2-Content measurements from August 2011, March 2013
and July 2013 and on air leakage tests from November 2012 respectively.
3.3 Site measurements:
Three compilations of measured data were used for the evaluation. The first group consisted
of March 2013 DCS-Data from Unit 5 for two load cases:
Approximately 100% load (7 hours)
Approximately 60% load (7 hours)
Since the measurements from March 2013 delivered atypical results, the summarised data
from the combustion tests done in August 2011 was used as second evaluation option.
New DCS-Data from all six units for two load cases (about 100% load and 60% load) were
gathered in July 2013 and constituted the third evaluation option.
The data considered for the evaluation were the mean values of the specific measurement
period. Frozen values, errors or implausible values were excluded from the mean values.
In the absence of a flow measurement of the steam through the reheater, a ratio of 92% of
the live steam was assumed as cold reheat inlet flow (C-Schedule basis).
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 10 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
3.4 Comparison of the calculated and applied fouling conditions
The efficiency of heat transfer is expressed by means of evaluation factors, which are
defined as the relation between the actual heat absorption and the heat absorption of an
ideal and clean heating surface. DimBo can be used to obtain evaluation factors based on
site measurements. For coal fired boilers the typical range of the evaluation factors is
between 0.4 and 0.95 depending on fouling tendencies and arrangement.
Different from the other heating surfaces, which make use of an evaluation factor, the quality
of heat transfer in the furnace is expressed by a so-called C-factor. The C-factor describes
the radiative heat transfer in comparison to a black body (C-factor 5.67) and is usually in the
range between 1.2 and 2.1 for furnaces in coal fired power plants.
The evaluation factors of heating surfaces are varied according to the water/steam
temperature inputs.
Figure 2 gives an overview of the calculated and defined heating surface evaluation factors.
The four calculated evaluation factors are shown by different color-coding. The black frame
shows the defined evaluation factors later used for the validation with the recent coal
composition (See Average 2012 in Table 2).
The measurements of March 2013 brought evaluation factors which somehow differ from the
expected typical range, particularly in the second pass. Due to this fact it was assumed that
an error (probably a mistaken designation of measured points) led to those evaluation factors
and that they could not be used for the model validation.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 11 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Evaluation Factors Comparison
1,2 1,2
1,0 1,0
0,8 0,8
0,6 0,6
0,4 0,4
0,2 0,2
0,0 0,0
Evaporator Superheater 2 Final Superheater Reheater 2 Superheater 1 Reheater 1 Economizer
C-Schedule Data 2013-03-22 Data 2013-03-10 Combustion tests Defined Fouling
Figure 2: Efficiency of the heating surfaces
Because of the results of the March 2013 DCS-Data, the summarized data from the
combustions tests performed in August 2011 were considered for the defined evaluation
factors (black frame).
The defined evaluation factors were reduced for the “dirty” operation conditions. The
assumed dirty conditions for the heating surfaces are considered as shown in the formula
below.
Evaluation factordirty = Evaluation factorclean - 0.1 [1]
The C-factor was reduced by 0.1 W/m2K4 (absolute) for the dirty operation conditions.
In an attempt to use more recent data than that of August 2011 for the definition of the
evaluation factors, new DCS-Data was requested. The new data (July 2013) consisted also
of two load cases (approx. 100% and 60% load) for each one of the six Units at Lethabo.
The measurements with erroneous information were disregarded and plausible values were
replaced where applicable. For instance, it was assumed that the economizer inlet
temperature of Unit 1 was 247 °C instead of the measured 274°C (Data 2013-07-24).
Figure 3 shows the evaluation factors brought by the measurements of July 2013. New
evaluation factors (black frame) were defined based on the twelve load cases (two per unit).
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 12 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1,20 1,20
1,00 1,00
0,80 0,80
0,60 0,60
0,40 0,40
0,20 0,20
0,00 0,00
Unit 1, 618MW Unit 1, 380MW Unit 2, 635MW Unit 2, 380MW Unit 3, 618MW Unit 3, 405MW Unit 4, 618MW
Unit 4, 400MW Unit 5, 618MW Unit 5, 350MW Unit 6, 618MW Unit 6, 380MW Defined Fouling
Figure 3: Efficiency of the heating surfaces (Data 2013-07)
Most volatile evaluation factors are those of reheater 1. Unit 4 and Unit 5 presented the
poorer evaluation factors on the reheater 1 area. On the other hand the new evaluation
factors of Unit 5 are significantly better than the ones from March 2013. It is suspected, that
the reason for that difference laid on an incorrect measurement of the reheater attemperator
water flow. The March 2013 data should have shown a reheater attemperator water mass
flow of 8 kg/s or higher instead of 0.5 kg/s.
Figure 4 compares the defined evaluation factors based on the combustion tests with the
defined evaluation factors based on the July 2013 data. The evaluation factors from July
2013 are lower than those from the combustion tests particularly on the reheater 1 area.
Nevertheless these evaluation factors are in an acceptable range. This, in addition to the
relative homogeneity of the results from the new data (see Figure 3) were reasons for
choosing the defined evaluation factors from July 2013 as the basis for the final model
validation.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 13 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
Defined Fouling (C. Tests) Defined Fouling (July 2013)
Figure 4: Defined fouling comparison
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 14 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
4 Results and discussions
4.1 Original thermodynamic system (Part I)
This chapter gives an overview of the recalculation results for the boiler design data.
The data from the C-Schedule (Design data) was used to verify the boiler model as per the
design conditions.
4.1.1 Water/steam temperature profile

Figure 5 shows almost a perfect match between the original design data and its recalculation
for the HP water/steam temperature profile.
HP - Water/steam temperature profile
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Eco Inlet Drum SH1 Outlet SH2 Outlet Live Steam
Design Data Recalculation

Design
Figure 5: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data)
A similar result is shown on Figure 6 for the MP Water/steam temperature profile.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 15 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
MP - Water/steam temperature profile
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
RH1 Inlet RH1 Outlet RH2 Outlet

Design
Figure 6: MP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data)
4.1.2 Flue gas temperature profile

Figure 7 compares the flue gas temperature profiles for the design data and the recalculation
of the design data.
Over the flue gas temperature profile the differences between the design data and the
recalculation values are smaller than 10 K.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 16 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Flue gas temperature profile
1100
1000
900
800
Temperature (°C)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Furnace Exit Eco Inlet Eco Exit AH Exit ID Fan Exit

Design
Figure 7: Flue gas temperature profile of the design case
4.1.3 Conclusion 4.1

The recalculation of the design conditions is in good accordance with the data from C-
Schedule. The water/steam temperatures were used as input parameters for the DimBo
model and therefore no deviations can be expected. The fact that also the resulting flue gas
temperatures fit to the C-Schedule indicates that both thermodynamic models, the one
originally used to prepare the C-Schedule and the new DimBo model, comply with each other.
4.2 Recalculation of current boiler conditions (Part II)
This chapter gives an overview of the recalculation of the actual boiler conditions.
The recalculation of the actual conditions was first planned using plausible data selected
from the March 2013 site measurements. The site measurements included two load cases:
one of 99.8% MCR (measured on March 22) and one of 61.1% MCR (measured on March
10).
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 17 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
The recalculations based on the March 2013 measurements revealed evaluation factors out
of the typical range and were consequently not used for a validation of the current boiler
conditions.
As second attempt, the measurements from the combustion tests (Test 2, Unit 2) from
August 2011 were used in order to define the present boiler conditions. These
measurements (101% Load) demonstrated much more acceptable evaluation factors than
the measurements from March 2013.
The third and last attempt was made with DCS-Data from July 2013. This data showed also
acceptable evaluation factors.
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Combustion Tests Recalculation Comb. Tests
Figure 8: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011
Figure 8 and Figure 9 illustrate the water/steam temperature profiles of the HP and MP of the
boiler (combustion tests basis) respectively. The temperature profiles are almost identical
and hence the defined evaluation factors were considered as adequate for a validation.
The water/steam temperature profile of the recalculation showed no noticeable deviations

from the design case. However, the measured live steam temperature (532.96°C) and the
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 18 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
measured hot reheated steam temperature (528.97°C) are lower than the corresponding
design temperatures of 540°C.
The recalculations of the data from July 2013 also gave values matching the source
measurements with adequate accuracy. Figure 10 shows this aspect through the HP
water/steam temperature profile based on the 618 MWe data from Unit 3.
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Figure 9: MP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 19 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Unit 3 Data Unit 3 Recalculation
Figure 10: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of site measurements from July 2013

Figure 11 compares the flue gas temperature profile from the measurements within the
recalculation values along the flue gas path.
The larger differences between the site measurements and the recalculated values were
observed at the furnace exit and at the economizer inlet. The flue gas temperature profile of
the site measurement recalculation is plausible. The differences can be attributed to the
position of the metering instruments inside the flue gas duct.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 20 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
Temperature (°C)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Figure 11: Flue gas temperature profile of site measurements from August 2011
Plausible differences between the measured and recalculated values over the flue gas
temperature profile were also found on the analysis of the data from July 2013. Figure 12
illustrates this aspect for the 618 MWe data of Unit 3.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 21 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1200
1100
1000
900
Temperature (°C)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Unit 3 Data Unit 3 Recalculation
Figure 12: Flue gas temperature profile of site measurements from July 2013
4.2.3 Recalculation of current boiler conditions

Based on the evaluation factors from the recalculation of the combustion tests and with the
coal specification Average 2012 (see Table 2) two recalculations were performed to
represent the 100% MCR and 60% MCR current boiler conditions.
The data for the boundary of the 60% MCR recalculation were obtained as an extrapolation
based on the values of the 618 MWe load (Test 2) and the values of the 500 MWe load (Test
4) from the combustion tests performed in August 2011 on Unit 2.
As mentioned before (see chapter 3.4) a new attempt to use recent data for the validation
took place through the analysis of the July 2013 DCS-Data from all units. The defined
evaluation factors along with the coal specification Average 2012 were used in order to
perform recalculations representing the 100% MCR and 60% MCR respectively.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the water/steam temperature profile of the HP and MP part
while Figure 15 illustrates the flue gas temperature profile of the boiler for the current boiler
conditions based on the measurements from July 2013.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 22 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 13: HP - Water/steam temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 14: MP - Water/steam temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 23 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1200
1100
1000
900
Temperature (°C)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 15: Flue gas temperature profile recalculation for 100% MCR and 60% MCR

The calculated water/steam temperature profiles for the chosen loads are in general
acceptable.
The calculated flue gas temperature profiles for the chosen loads are acceptable.
The validation based on the data from July 2013 was satisfactory.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 24 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
4.3 Simulation of dirty boiler conditions (Part III)
The simulation of dirty boiler conditions is based on the recalculation for current boiler
conditions (July 2013-Data basis) with decreased evaluation factors for the heating surfaces
as described in chapter 3.4. Two recalculations were made using the coal specification
Average 2012: one of 100% MCR and one of 60%MCR.
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 16: HP - Water/steam temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions
Figure 16 shows the water/steam temperature profile of the HP part. A live steam
temperature of 535°C is reached for both chosen load conditions.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 25 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
250
200
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 17: MP - Water/steam temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions
Figure 17 shows the water/steam temperature profile of the MP part under dirty boiler
conditions.
At 60% MCR load a hot reheated steam temperature of 534°C instead of 535°C is achieved.
Therefore the attemperator spray mass flow becomes zero.
Figure 18 compares the MP - water/steam temperature profiles of the current and dirty boiler
conditions.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 26 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
550
500
Temperature (°C)
450
400
350
300
100% Load 60% Load

100% Load dirty boiler 60% Load dirty boiler
Figure 18: MP - Water/steam temperature profile comparison
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 27 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
1200
1100
1000
900
Temperature (°C)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
100% Load 60% Load
Figure 19: Flue gas temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions
Figure 19 shows the flue gas temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions. Both flue gas
temperature profiles are in general plausible.
The furnace exit temperature for 100% MCR is about 1118°C. At 60% MCR the furnace exit
temperature ranges around 980°C. Both temperature ranges are plausible.

The calculated water/steam temperature profiles for the chosen loads are in general
acceptable.
The calculated flue gas temperature profiles for the chosen loads are acceptable.
Under dirty boiler conditions a hot reheat temperature of 535°C would not be reached by
loads of about 60% MCR.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 28 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
4.4 FFP design data
In order to establish the extreme conditions the following determinations are made:
The minimum coal specification from Eskom is used

The heat transfer efficiencies of the heating surfaces and air preheater are reduced in
order to achieve max. fuel flow conditions and highest exhaust gas temperatures
The secondary airheater leakage is assumed as 12% of the total AH inlet gas flow in
order to achieve high flue gas flow rates
Min. secondary airheater leakage is assumed as 8% of the total AH inlet gas flow in
order to achieve max. flue gas temperatures and max. dust loading
The flue gas pressure at the FFP inlet is calculated based on the site measurements
The design margin regarding the flue gas flow for the FFP was not taken into account
The coal data are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Minimum coal specification
Min. coal specification

Inherent moisture % 5.00
Total moisture % 8.00
Ash (ar) % 35.86
Total carbon (ar) % 43.76
Hydrogen (ar) % 2.48
Nitrogen (ar) % 1.15
Sulphur (ar) % 0.73
Oxygen (ar) % 8.02
Net CV (ar) MJ/kg 14.251
The summarised calculation results can be found in the data sheet 064097-B-DBL-201 in the
Annex. The FFP inlet data are shown in Table 5. The extreme values are highlighted in
yellow.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 29 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
Table 5 FFP inlet data based on the minimum coal specification

Reference Number 1 2
Min. coal spec. Min. coal spec.
Description
High leakage Low leakage
High fouling High fouling
Boiler Load MCR MCR
Flue gas
FFP inlet
- Mass flow (gas + dust) kg/s 963.6 928.9
- Mass flow dust kg/s 36.7 36.7
- Flue gas volume flow (STP) m³/s STP 698.0 671.0
- Dust load (wet conditions) g/m3 52.6 54.7
- Pressure bar 0.817 0.817
- O2 content (dry, volumetric) % 5.41 4.75
- Air heater leakage 1)
% 12 8.0
(% of total flue gas flow at AH inlet)
- Flue gas temperature °C 155.5 160.0
- Total operating volumetric flow m³/s 1358.2 1319.5
- Operating volumetric flow per FFP m³/s 679.1 659.8
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 30 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
5 Summary:
The verification of the thermodynamic model of Lethabo Units 1-6 by recalculation of the C-
Schedule test showed temperature profiles and heating surface effectiveness in acceptable
ranges.
The determination of the actual boiler status was first planned with the March 2013
measurement data from Unit 5. Since these measurements showed evaluation factors out of
the normal range, a second attempt was made based on site measurement data from August
2011 (combustion tests). The recalculation of the August 2011 data showed normal fouling of
the heating surfaces.
A last attempt of validation with recent measurements considered DCS-Data from the six
units (July 2013 data). As in total twelve data sets were evaluated, the July 2013 test data
form a reliable and representative basis for validation purposes. The July 2013 data brought
evaluation factors lower than the ones from August 2011, but still in normal range. The
resulting temperature differences between the calculated and the measured values are in a
plausible range. The defined evaluations factors could therefore be used as a good approach
for the validation of the model as well as for the calculations of the third part of the study.
The July 2013 data confirmed that the reheater 1 area has the more severe fouling
conditions. A cleaner reheater 1 could provide a potential for reaching hot reheated steam
temperatures in case of upgrades such as the installation of Low-NOx burners.
The evaluation factors for the dirty boiler conditions were considered based on the
recalculation of the site measurements and SE experiences. Hot reheat temperatures lower
than design values would be more likely expected in dirty boiler conditions.
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 31 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
6 References
[1] “Lethabo C-Schedule”
[2] “1st & 2nd Superheater Attemperator Spray Water System Diagram – DRG.
No. 81550/25/82082”
[3] “Reheater Attemperator Spray Water System Diagram – DRG. No.

81550/27/82083”
[4] “Reheater Attemperator Spray Water – DRG. No. 5733/62/01808”
[5] “Boiler Flue Gas System – DRG. No. 5733/62/01809”
[6] “Cross Section of Boiler and Side View of Economiser – DRG. No.
23.63/52107”
[7] „Arrgt. of Boiler Plant – Plan Sections E-E & F-F – DRG. No. 5733/15/00307 ”
[8] “Arrgt. of Boiler Plan Sections C-C & D-D – DRG. No. 5733/15/00306”
[9] “Process Flow Diagram – DRG. No. 23.63/52737”
[10] “Boiler Flow Sheet – DRG. No. LET/000/15/901“
[11] “Primary, Tempering and Seal Air Diagram; Secondary Air Diagram;
Combustion Gas Path – DRG. No. MI 34/10/05”
[12] “Furnace Rear Wall Left Hand Side – DRG. No. LET/000/15/037”
[13] “Furnace Front Wall Left Hand Side – DRG. No. LET/000/15/035”
[14] “Furnace Front Wall Roof Tubes – DRG. No. LET/000/15/046”
[15] “Furnace Front Wall Roof Tubes – DRG. No. LET/000/15/047”
[16] “Furnace Rear Wall Roof Tubes – DRG. No. LET/000/15/048”
[17] “Furnace Exit Screen and Rear Wall Support Tubes – DRG. No.
5733/15/03152”
[18] “Arrgt. of Vestibule Exit Screen Tubes – DRG. No. 5733/15/03150”
[19] “Vestibule Exit Screen Tubes – DRG. No. LET/000/15/059”
[20] “Arrangement of Boiler Half Sectional Elevations on N-N & P-P – DRG. No.
5733/15/00312”
[21] “Details of Cage Front Wall Exit Screen Tubes – DRG. No. 5733/25/04804”
[22] “Arrangement of Cage Support Tubes – DRG. No. 5733/25/04805”
[23] “Enclosure Roof Tubes – DRG. No. LET/000/15/050”
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 32 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
[24] “Enclosure Side Wall Panels – DRG. No. 5733/28/03388”
[25] “Arrgt. & Details of Economiser Tubes – DRG. No. 5733/28/03380”
[26] “Primary Superheater Tubes ABC & QBR RHS – DRG. No. LET/000/25/540”
[27] “Arrgt. & Detail of Primary S/H Vertical Leg Tubes – DRG. No. 5733/25/03307”
[28] “Tie Tubes-Platen S/HTR Elements-Left Side – DRG. No. LET/000/25/012”
[29] “Arrangement & Detail of Platen Superheater Tubes – DRG. No.

5733/25/03317”
[30] “Arrangement & Detail of Final Superheater Tubes – DRG. No.

5733/25/03310”
[31] “Arrgt & Detail of Primary Reheater Intermediate Tubes – DRG. No.
5733/27/03348”
[32] “Arrangement & Details of Secondary Reheater Tubes – DRG. No.

5733/27/03352”
[33] “General Arrgt. of Primary Air Heater – DRG. No. 5733/54/04000”
[34] “Details of Primary Air Heater Tube Plates Ref. A&C – DRG. No.
5733/54/03919”
[35] “Lethabo Air Heater Leakage Test 2012/11/21 – December 2012.pdf”
[36] “Coal Samples.xls”
[37] “Coal Data for low NOX CDM.xlsx”
[38] “Results Lethabo PS Units 2&3 – Suction Pyro Tests Aug 2011 – rev.1.6.xls”
[39] “process parameters DimBo model (incomp).xlsx”
[40] “eco o2.xlsx”
[41] “063/70019 - Unit 01 NA/NC/RL/UZ/ Boiler steam drum & superheater

headers piping & instrumentation diagram”
[42] “063/70356 - Unit 02 NA/RA/ Boiler superheater system piping &

instrumentation diagram”
[43] “063/70022 – Unit 01 NW/ 1st & 2nd stage superheater attemperator spray
water system piping & instrumentation diagram”
[44] “063/70021 – Unit 01 NE/NC/RB/RC/ boiler reheater system piping &

[45] “063/70023 – Unit 01 NW/ reheater attemperator spray water system piping &
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 33 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
[46] “unit 1 process parameters 380.xlsx”
[47] “unit 1 process parameters 380MW.xlsx”
[49] “unit 1 process parameters 618MW.xlsx”
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 34 of 35 SE
Report
Project 64097
and Verification of
Thermodynamic Model
7 Annex
Table 6: List of attachments
Document identification Description
064097-R-PFD-001-01 Graphical representation of DimBo circuitry
064097-S-DBL-011-00 Process data sheet - recalculations
064097-S-DBL-201-01 Process data sheet - recalculations
064097-B-BER-001-00 DimBo input data file
064097-B-BER-010-00 DimBo plot of results file
064097-U-UUU-001-00 References
64097-T-BER-001-01 Page 35 of 35 SE

Lethabo Thermodynamic Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lethabo Thermodynamic Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Lethabo Boilers - Provision

The study is split into three parts as follows:

Part III – Simulation of dirty boiler conditions.

Results of the study are as follows:

2 Model description .............................................................................................................. 6

4 Results and discussions .................................................................................................. 15

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 2: Efficiency of the heating surfaces.......................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Efficiency of the heating surfaces (Data 2013-07) ................................................. 13

Figure 4: Defined fouling comparison ................................................................................... 14

Figure 5: HP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data) ............... 15

Figure 6: MP - Water/steam temperature profile of the C-Schedule (Design Data)............... 16

Figure 7: Flue gas temperature profile of the design case .................................................... 17

Figure 16: HP - Water/steam temperature profile for dirty boiler conditions.......................... 25

Figure 18: MP - Water/steam temperature profile comparison ............................................. 27

Table 1: Dimensions of Lethabo boiler heating surfaces ........................................................ 8

Table 2: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions................................. 9

Table 3: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions (continuation) ........ 10

Table 4 Minimum coal specification ..................................................................................... 29

Table 6: List of attachments ................................................................................................. 35

1.1 Plant description

1.1.1 Basic design data of the units 1-6

There is no central division wall in the combustion chamber.

2.1 General DimBo description

2.2 Specific model basics

1. C-Schedule (design data)

2.2.1 Arrangement of heating surfaces

Figure 1: Arrangement of heating surfaces

2.2.2 Dimensions of heating surfaces

Economizer 362; 382 38 14117 14166

Superheater 1 296; 316; 326 54 11040 11353

Superheater 2 204; 205 38 3156 4933

Final Superheater 234 44.5; 51 3660 3660

Reheater 1 336; 346; 356 63,5 17667 17668

Reheater 2 254; 264; 265; 274 51; 57 8135 8251

2.2.3 Air controlling

3.1 Used coal compositions

Table 2: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions

Carbon [%] 49.3 47.22 46.2 39.81 40.15

Hydrogen [%] 2.5 2.47 2.41 1.95 2

Sulfur [%] 1.12 1 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.75 0.81

Oxygen [%] 9.6 7.99 7.82 8.76 8.81

Nitrogen [%] 1.1 1.08 1.06 0.93 0.9

Ash [%] 34.97 31.3 35.5 33.59 32.86 41.84 41.43

Moisture [%] 10.5 10.5 8.74 7 9 10.6 10.6

NCV [kJ/kg] 16550

GCV [kJ/kg] 18340 16140 18110 17730 15480 15260

*ar = as received; ad/an= air dried

Table 3: Process parameters – Comparison of used coal compositions (continuation)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

ar* ar* ar* ar* ar* ar*

Sulfur [%] 0.66 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.65

Ash [%] 35.05 39.2 46.1 40.25 40.35 40.1

Moisture [%] 10.07 9.15 9.55 10.47 10.06 9.7

NCV [kJ/kg] 17030 16080 13350 15510 15830 15930

Volatiles [kg/kg] 0.216 0.207 0.1765 0.2 0.206 0.1895

3.3 Site measurements:

Approximately 100% load (7 hours)

Approximately 60% load (7 hours)

3.4 Comparison of the calculated and applied fouling conditions

Evaluation Factors Comparison

C-Schedule Data 2013-03-22 Data 2013-03-10 Combustion tests Defined Fouling