Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Power Plant Performance Monitoring

    Uploaded by

    Tanaji Bandal
    63 views546 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    63 views546 pages

    Power Plant Performance Monitoring

    Uploaded by

    Tanaji Bandal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 546
    Power Plant Performance Monitoring Rodney R. Gay With Carl A, Palmer TSE ee aL TECHNIZ BOOKS INTERNATIONAL Power Plant Performance Monitoring Rodney R.Gay Carl A. Palmer Michael R. Erbes TECH BOOKS INTERNATIONAL Publishers & Distributors New Delhi-110019, India © 2006 Tech Books International, New Delhi- 110016, India, Indian Edition ighis reserved. No Part ofthis book may be reprinted or reproduced or uiliged in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or ather means, now known ot hereafter invented, including photocopying and Fecording, er in any information stofage of retrieval systems, swithout permission in writing from the publishers, Publistied by : ‘TECH BOOKS INTERNATIONAL Publishers & Distributors 4/12, Kalkaji Extn., Opp. Nehru Place, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110.019. India Phone : (011) 2628479 1, 26284790, 26484791 Fax: 91-11-2647361 1, 26231799 E-mail ‘hbooks @vanl.net; booksales@bal.net.in Visit us at: werw.technobooks.com Library of Congress Catstoging.in-Publication Data Gay, Rodney R. Power plant performance monitoring / by Rodney R. Gay, Carl A. Palmer, Michael R. Erbes. ~ Isted. pem. Includes bibliographical references and index. LCCN 2004096640 ISBN $1-88305-83-9 |. Electric power-plants--Efficiency, 2. Plant performance:-Monitoring. 1. Palmer. Cat A. I. Brbes, Michael R. II. Title, “TIC1005.639 2006 23a QB 1O4-200607 ISBN : £1-88305-83.9 Dedicated to the most important people in my life: Henry, my father who taught me to be eurious Joan, my mother responsible for my sucess in life Wendy, my wife, companion and friend for 27 years and for life Christopher, my son who is nearly perfect Richard, my twin brother and good friend David, my brother, tennis partner and hiking buddy Timothy, my brother who gives me medical and political advice ‘William, my grandson who makes me smile Authors Rodney R. Gay received his PRD in mechanical engineering from Stanford University in 1975. He served as founder and president of Enter Software, Inc. from 1988 until the company was sold to General Electric in 1999, He remained as president of GE Enter Software for two years, then left GE to become a writer and engineering consultant. Carl A. Palmer carned his PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1991, after which he became an employee with Enter Software, Inc, Carl is currently an engineering manager working on sensor development for the power industry. Michael R. Erbes received his PhD in mechanical engineering from ‘Stanford University in 1987. He co-founded Enter Software, Inc. in LO8S where he served as vice president and director of engineering. Mike is now president of Enginomix, LLC (wavw-enginomix.net), a consulting and software development company focusing on integrated engineering and economic modeling solutions for power plant design and operations. Table of Contents Foreword Overview of Performance Monitoring LL Concept of Performance Monitoring 1.1.1 “Where You Are” Vs “Where You Should Be” 1.1.2 Performance Calculation Procedure 1.1.3. Expected Performance: “Where You Should Be” 1.1.4 Equipment Ratings 1.1.5 Corrected Performance 1.1.6 What is My Degradation? 1.1.7 How Much is Degradation Costing Me? 118 1.8. Optimization: “Where You Could Be” 1.1.9 Controllable Loss Displays ASME Test Codes Performance Testing versus Online Monitoring Curve Based Methods 1 Performance Curves 2. Expected Performance from Curves 3 Additive Performance Factors 1.4.4 Expected Performance from Curves 1.4.5 Correction Factors 1.4.6 Percent Change Correction Factors, 1.5 Model-Based Performance Analysis Heat Balance Analysis 2.1 Local Heat Balances 2.2 Combined-Cycle Overall Plant Heat Balance 2.3. Combined-Cycle Balance Using Commercial Software 24 — Rankine-Cycle Overall Plant Heat Balance 2.5 Rankine-Cycle Balance Using Commercial Software Data Validation 3.1 Definition of Data Validation 3.2 Range Checking 3.2.1 Static Ranges 3.2.2 Dynamic Ranges 3.2.3 Rejected Values 3.3 Averaging Sensor Data 3.4 Time Averaging 3.5 Heat Balances for Data Validation Accuracy of Calculated Results 4.1. Instrument Error 13 13 13 W 18 20 26 2 30 32 33 35 37 38 38 46 a7 30 53 54 63 16 85 89 89 92 93 97 105 105 4.1.1 Measurement Error 4.1.2 Random Uncertainty 4.1.3 Systematic Uncertainty 42 Uncertainty of a Calculated Test Result 4.3 Monte Carlo Method 4.3.1 Definition of the Monte Carlo Method Probability Distributions Running the Mente Carlo Simulation 4.3.5 Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation Overall Power Plant Performance 3.1 Equipment Performance versus Plant Performance 5.2 Specification of Overall Power Plant Performance 5.3 Overall Plant Expected Performance Models 5.3.1 Curve-Based Method Expected Plant Perf 5.3.2, Model-Based Method Expected Plant Perf 5.3.3. Impact Method for Expected Plant Performance 54 Degradation of the Overall Power Plant Impacts of Degradation on Overall Plant Performance 6.1 Definitions of Plant Impacts 6.2 Gas Turbine Impacts 6.3 Heat Recovery Steam Generator Impacts 64 Steam Turbine Impacts 65 Boiler Impacts 6.6 Feedwater Heater Impacts 67 Condenser Impacts 68 Cooling Tower Impacts 6.9 Inlet Air Filter Impacts 6.10 Exhaust Pressure Loss Impacts Gas Turbine Performance 7 Overview 7.2 Power Generation 7.3 Airflow, Firing Temperature and Pressure Ratio 74 Control Algorithms 7.8 Correction Curves (Baseload Performance) 7.3.1 Effect of Inlet Temperature 7.5.2 Effect of Inlet Humidity 7.5.3 Effect of Atmospheric Pressure or Altitude 7.5.4 Effect of inlet Pressure Loss 7.5.5 Effect of Exit Pressure Loss 7.5.6 Effect of Steam or Water Injection 7.6 Part-Load Performance (Industrial Engines) Sampling from Probability Distributions 105 107 108 109 110 110 HL Ha 4s Ms 17 7 Hg 122 122 124 126 128 129 129 131 135 136 137 139 140 14 142 14d 147 147 147 49 153 136 159 159 160 162 163 164 166 7 7.8 79 7.10 7M 712 213 Tl4 2AS Part-Load Correction Curves 7.7.1 Under-Firing Correction 7.7.2 Inlet Guide Vane Correction 7.7.3. PartcLoad Expected Heat Rate Actaderivative Engine Performance Overall Gas Turbine Heat Balance 7.9.1 Determination of Exhaust Gas Specific Heat 7.9.2 Detailed Gas Turbine Heat Balance 7.9.3 Tuning Detailed Gas Turbine Heat Balance 7.9.4 Step-by-Step Solution of the Equations 7.9.8 Simultaneous Solution of the Equations 7.9.6 Combustion Mass Balance Analysis 7.9.7 Specific Heat ofa Mixture Model-Based Gas Turbine Heat Balance Physically-Based Models of Expected GT Performance Gas Turbine Performance Evaluation A theoretical degradation curve versus time is in Experience with Measured Data from Operating GT Performance Degradation and Engine Life Heat Recovery Steam Generator Performance I 8.2 83 &4 Overview 8.1.1 Economizers 8.1.2 Evaporators 8.1.3 Blowdown 8.14 Superheaters Duet Burner HRSG Efficiency and Effectiveness Expected HRSG Performance 84.1 Effect of Duct Burner Firing 84.2. Effect of Exhaust Gas Temperature 8.43 Effect of Exhaust Gas Flow 8.4.4 Effect of Steam Pressure HRSG Heat Balance Analysis: Model-Based HRSG Heat Balance Analysis Expected Section-by-Section Performance Impact of Fouling on HRSG Performance HRSG Performance Evaluation Example Performance Analysis Fouled HP Evaporator Example of Section-by-Section Expected HRSG Perf Conclusions and Recommendations Steam Turbine Performance 91 Overview 168 168 169 172 174 177 179 185 195 197 198 201 209 210 24 216 225 226 227 231 231 232 235 245 246 248 251 257 260 263 264 265 266 273 280. 284 289 294 297 299 301 301 9.2 Steam Turbine Configurations 302 9.2.1 Inlet Section 302 9.2.2. Condensing Section 308 9.2.3 Back-Pressure Steam Turbines 314 9.2.4 Extractions 315 9.2.5 Controlled (“Automatic") Extraction 315 9.2.6 Uncontrolled Extraction 316 9.2.7 Admission 320 9.2.8 Reheat 321 9.3 Seals and Leaks 323 9.4 Steam Turbine Thermal Performance 325 9.4.1 Steam Turbine Efficiency and Heat Rate 325 9.4.2 Pressure, Temperature and Flow Relationships 328 9.5 Steam Turbine Heat Balance Analysis 329 9.3.1 Combined-Cycle ST Heat Balance Analysis 329 9.5.2 Rankine Cycle ST Heat Balance Analysis. 335 9.6 Curve-Based Expected Performance 341 9.61 Rankine Cycle ST Correction Curves 342 9.6.2 Combined Cycle ST Performance Curves 345 9.7 Model-Based Expected Steam Turbine Performance 348 97.1 Expeeted Performance of Overall ST 348 9.7.2 Section-by-Section Expeeted ST Performance 352 9.8 Building ST Expected Performance Models 385 9.9 Steam Turbine Degradation 362 Boiler Performance 367 10.1 Boiler Efficiency 367 10.2 Theoretical Air 369 103 Boiler Losses 372 10.4 Flue Gas Loss 333 10.4.1 Generalized Chemical Balance Method 33 10.4.2 Products of Combustion Method 374 10.4.3. Loss Due to Mo'sture 375 10.5 Loss Due to Ash 379 10.6 Loss Due to Radiation 379 10.7 Credits for Heat Additien to Boiler 380 10.8 Boiler Heat Balance Analysis 381 10.8.1 Furnace Heat Balance Analysis 385 10.8.2 Analysis of Boiler Convective Heat Exchangers 395 10.8.3 Desuperheater Heat Balance 396 10.8.4 Air Heater Heat Balance 397 10.8.5 Simultaneous Solution of the Equations 399 10.9 Model-Based Boiler Heat Balance Analysis 408 i 13. 14, 15, 10.10 Expected Boiler Performance 10.10.1 Curve-Based Method for Exp Boiler Perf 10.10.2 Model-Based Expected Boiler Performance 10.11 Boiler Degradation 10.12 Sootblowing Analysis Air Heater Performance 1 Overview 2 Air Heater Heat-Balance Analysis 3. Air Heater Expected Performance 114 Air Heater Degradation Feedwater Heater Performance 12.1 Overview 12.2 Feedwater Heater Heat-Balance Analysis: 12.3 Expected Feedwater Heater Performance 12.4 Feedwater Heater Degradation Deaerators, Drums and Open Heaters Condenser Performance 14.1 Overview 14.1.1 ASME Method for Condenser Heat Transfer 14.1.2 The HEI Methed for Condenser Heat Transfer 14,2 Condenser Heat Balance Analysis 14.2.1 Overall Plant Energy Balance for Cond Duty 14.2.2 Steam Turbine Expansion Line Analysis 14.2.3 Condenser Heat Balance Equations 14.2.4 Condenser Cleanliness from Measured Data 14.2.5 Validation of Condenser Heat Balance Data 14.3 Condenser Expected Performance 14.3.1 Predicting Expected Condenser Performance 14.4 Condenser Degradation 14.5 Diagnosing Condenser Performance Problems Cooling Tower Performance 15.1 Overview 15.2 Cooling Tower Performance Curves 15.3 Cooling Tower Heat Balance Analysis 154 Expected Cooling Tower Performance 15.5 Cooling Tower Degradation Inlet and Exhaust Pressure Losses 16.1 Overview 162 Fitting the Pressure Loss Equation to Data 16.3 Pressure Loss Degradation Pump Performance 17.1 Overview 410 412 416 426 430 433 433 443 445 497 447 449 493 457 461 461 461 46a 460 467 467 468 469 an 474 475 475 477 480 487 437 490 493 500 502 503 503 504 505 507 507 17.2 173 174 175 176 177 178 Extended Bernoulli Equation Pump Curves Affinity Laws Corrected Pump Performance Pump Flow Control Model-Based Pump Performance Pump Degradation References and Links Nomenclature APPENDIX Definition of Terms 507 512 S14 S15 S18 519 521 523 527 331 Foreword | developed an interest in performance monitoring in 1983 when I worked as a consultant to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). | was asked to review measured data from the steam eycle of a nuclear power plant. The task was to evaluate feedwater heater performance by comparing plant measured data toa PEPSE™ computer model (built by someone else at PG&E) of the steam eyele, and identify any discrepancies which might indicate a performance problem. I compared the measured feedwater heater TTD’s (terminal temperature differences) to the predictions of the PEPSE™ model. The computer code predicted integer numbers for each of the feedwater heater TD's. The measured data was within £3 F of the predicted values from the computer code for all of the feedwater heaters, but did not match any of them. The fact that the predicted TTD"s were integers indicated to me that the computer model was a design predicticn of the plant performance, and that the TD's were inputs to the analysis, Did the predicted results mean that some of the feedwater heaters were better than expected, and that some of them were fouled? Or was this computer prediction justa theoretical design ‘model that did not necessarily represent reality at the plant. I did not know, so | decided to run some alternate: computer calculations to see if | could learn more Tooked at the measured drain flows from each feedwater heater. I knew that the TTD’s and the drain flows were related to each other by mass and energy balances. The beauty of a computer code like PEPSE™ js that all these mass and energy balances are automatically calculated. I just needed to input plant measured data (TTD's), and PEPSE™ would calculate heat ‘balance data that is consistent with my inputs, Unfortunately, the measured drain flows bore little resemblance to the ‘computer calculated values for these flows. Typically the ealeulated flow values were different ftom the measured values by 30% or more. I came to the conclusion that the measured drain flows were of little value. A PG&E engineer confirmed that the drain flows were knawn to be inaccurate, I decided to see what effect. TTD has on the overall steam-cycle performance. I chose a feedwater heater that appeared to be performing poorly (TTD measured three degrees F higher than predicted) and entered this measured TTD into the PEPSE™ input field for the chosen feedwater heater. I ran the PEPSE™ prediction and was astonished to see that the only predicted result than changed very much was the TTD for the feedwater Foreword heater that I had input to the anglysis The remained of the steam cycle was almost unchanged. The feedwater temperature at the exit of every feedwater heater, except for the one feedwater heater that | changed, was exactly the same as in the original computer prediction. This exercise taught me the difference between design analysis, where equipment operating data (such as a TTD) is input, and an off-design analysis (also called predictive analysis) where the equipment performance capabilities (such as surface area and heat transfer coefficient at the design point) are input and the operating data is predicted. In my case, the computer analysis increased the size (heat transfer coefficient times surface area) of the feedwater heater following the degraded feedwater heater such that the fall-off in feedwater temperature caused by the degradation in one feedwater heater was exactly made-up by the improved performance in the following feedwater heater. I refer to design analysis as running the “rubber power plant because the heat balance eade changes the size of plant equipment to meet the specifications (temperatures, flows, power levels and pressures) of the software user. ‘The concept of design analysis versus off-design analysis was not developed for application to performance monitoring, but it has tumed-out to be one of the key characteristics that makes heat balance codes useful as the calculation engines for on-line performance monitoring systems. Performance monitoring involves the comparison of current performance to expected performance. Design analysis can be used to mach a computer heat-balance analysis to the current plant operating conditions (current performance), and the off-design analysis can be used to predict the expected equipment performance (expected performance) given those current operating conditions. Later in my career, when my company developed the GateCycle™ heat balance code, the concept of design versus off-design analysis was built directly into code structure. We wanted it to be easy for a user to establish the design-point performance of a power plant in one caleulation, and then switch to the off-design analysis to predict the power plant performance over a range of postulated operating conditions. Several vendors of commercial heat balance products have built the concept of design versus off-design analysis into their products. The GT PRO™ and STEAM PRO™ produets from Thermoflow, Inc. perform design analysis, and allow the user to transfer the results of the design analysis to the predictive (off-design) analysis that is done by the GT MASTER™ and STEAM MASTER™ cofnputer codes. Foreword ‘The GateCycle™ user can establish the design-point performance of a power plant in one calculation, and then switch to off-design analysis (by ‘licking a check box on the user interface) to predict the power plant performance over a range of postulated operating conditions. PEPSE™ allows the user to perform design or off-design analysis through the option to either input a desired equipment output parameter (such as feedwater heater TTD), oF detailed equipment characteristics (such as the number of tubes, the tube sizes, the tube material and surface type of a heat exchanger). The choice of inputs must be selected individually for each icon in the PEPSE™ model, ‘The engineer that f reported to at PG&E just wanted me to compare the predicted temperatures to the measured temperatures, and identify any potential problems. Unfortunately there were too many discrepancies, and | In’t know how to resolve them. I soon realized that the running of a design computer model of the plant and comparing to measured data was not an adequate process to identify equipment degradation, | deseribe this example to illustrate the point that it is not obvious how to use commercial heat balance codes to monitor performance, even when you are familiar with all of the inputs and ourputs of the heat balance code. I ‘spent next two decades developing and implementing procedures for using ‘heat balance analysis and commercial camputer codes to monitor the performance of power plants and their equipment. This baok documents ‘what [leamed, Returning to the discussion of the performance monitoring evaluation at the PGE nuclear power plant, [ can now say what I should have done to evaluate the plant data back in 1983. First, [ would assume that the PEPSE™ computer model, given to me by PGW&E, was a design analysis model that matched a vendor heat balance or guarantee prediction of the power plant performance at full load. The TTD's in this model probably came from a heat-balance diagram delivered to PG&E by the plant vendor. This mode! would become the basis of predictive models for the expected performance of the plant equipment. The equipment performance characteristics from the design model, such as the UA (heat transfer coefficient multiplied by surface area) of each heat exchanger, and the design isentropic efficiency of each steam turbine section, would be the inputs to the predictive (off-design) models. 1 would copy and rename the design PEPSE™ model, and then manually edit the inputs from design to off-design for each piece of plant equipment in the Foreword PEPSE™ model (these equipment inputs are changed for you automatically in GateCycle™ by selecting the off-

    You might also like