Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
How to eliminate
thermal losses, identify
equipment deficiencies
By James Koch, Powerplant Performance Specialist
HP turbine
Compressor efficiency
Inlet air flow
Exhaust pressure drop
LP turbine
Generator
Cooling
tower
Condenser
cleanliness
Circ water flow
Tower approach
HRSG cleanliness
HRSG surface losses
GT exhaust-duct
surface loss
Boiler-feed pump
Auxiliary power
Condensate
pump
worth making?
Performance impacts
Like the way the various engine
components affect car mileage, the
various components of a combined
cycle affect overall plant performance.
Furthermore, the performance of each
component can be characterized by
one or more parameters related to the
mechanical or thermodynamic performance of that component.
Fig 1 shows key performance
parameters schematically. For example, gas-turbine (GT) performance can
be assessed by looking individually at
(1) inlet air flow, (2) compressor section
efficiency, (3) turbine section efficiency,
(4) inlet and exhaust pressure losses,
and (5) parameters that may be opera-
Powerplant Engineering
DESIGN & EPC CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES:
Detailed Design EPC CM
Studies Owner & Bank
Engineering
CLIENTELE:
Utilities IPPs Industry
Universities OEMs
Banks/Investors
Bob Bibb
Chairman / CEO
Lou Gonzales
President / COO
Dave Wiker
VP Engineering
Nick Francoviglia
Chief Mech. Eng.
Doug Franks
Mgr. Electrical
Rob Schmitt
Mgr. Mechanical
Chris Bramhall
Rich Carvajal
Dave Kreimer
George Neill
Phil Peterson
Dean Andrisevic
Mgr. Bus. Develop.
Sr. Project Mgr.
Sr. Mech. Eng.
Sr. Project Mgr.
Sr. Project Mgr.
Sr. Project Mgr.
For career opportunities e-mail a resume in confidence to: recruitment@bibb-eac.com
33
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
restore overall plant performance.
Determining and trending performance indicators, correlating changes
in the parameters to changes in unit
performance, and understanding
how instrument uncertainty affects
uncertainty in the perceived (that is,
calculated) values of these parameters,
are at the very root of analyzing plant
performance.
Examples 1 and 2 describe two common problems at combined-cycle plants.
In each case, common-sense thinking
and basic instrumentation were able to
identify the problem, indicate a solution, and show that the proposed fix was
cost-justified. These two examples are,
of course, for demonstration purposes;
it isnt always this easy.
But, while some problems are more
complicated, require more pieces of
field data, and more detailed analysis,
there are also many issues that can be
identified with some basic knowledge
of plant operation, a few measurements, and some arithmetic.
Getting started. The challenge of
todays plant owners and operators is
not simply monitoring and analyzing
performance, but doing so in a time
of limited budgets, reduced staffing
levels, and combined-cycle technologies that are becoming increasingly
complex. The last makes accurate
analysis more difficult. Critical, too, is
that the performance monitoring and
analysis effort provide owner/operators
a compelling value proposition.
OEMs once shared virtually all
information regarding performance
curves; you may recall the thermal
kit for steamers. Try finding the
equivalent of that kit for a gas turbine. Usually all that is available is
a set of correction curves from the
acceptance test. But these arent necessarily optimal for performance monitoringbecause they were prepared
with a commercial purpose in mind.
Furthermore, it is not unusual to find
inaccuracies in such correction curves.
Common sense rules. Often a
plant wants to get started with performance monitoring, but management drags its feet in moving forward
because the cost of running a full test
in accordance with the ASME PTCs.
They recall the manpower, high cost,
and complexities of conducting their
own contract acceptance tests. Unfortunately, managers too often make a
connection between running a Codelevel contract test and doing simple,
routine trendingand they stop dead
in their tracks.
When the purpose of a test is to
demonstrate a contract-level of performance, and there are significant
damages or bonuses tied into tenths (or
hundredths) of a percentage point in
34
Example 1: Is a
compressor wash
beneficial?
Compressor efficiency and calculated air flow indicate that an offline
compressor wash is needed. The
outage cost (lost revenue) for this
350-MW 1 x 1 combined cycle
would be $20,000; cleaning is an
additional $2000.
Washing should improve compressor efficiency by 2 percentage
points, based on historical data;
plus, air flow should increase by
2%. Combined, these benefits
should produce a 12-MW increase
in combined-cycle output.
For an average spread of
$10/MWh, plant revenue should
increase by about $2000/day, giving a simple payback of about
a week and a half. Conclusion:
Schedule the wash.
Example 2: Is it time
to clean HRSG heattransfer surfaces?
GT exhaust backpressure has
increased by 3 in. H2O for this 350MW, 1 1 combined cycle since
its heat-recovery steam generators
finned heat-transfer sections were
cleaned two years ago. Recovery
of the 3-in.-H2O penalty would
increase GT output by about 2 MW.
Plus, steam-turbine output would
increase by about 1 MW because
of the higher steam flow associated
with better heat transfer.
Cleaning a unit of this size costs
about $100,000 and requires a fiveday outage. A simple payback of
about six months would be expected. However, this estimate only
includes the cost of cleaning; the
cost of a dedicated outage cannot
be recovered. Solution: Write HRSG
tube cleaning into the outage plan
for the next opportunity when there
is a five-day window.
the test results, it behooves both parties to run a highly accurate test. Its
likely that each tenth of a percentage
point in the results could cost one party
or the other many thousands of dollars.
This is where high-accuracy, high-cost
instrumentation and procedures can
pay for themselves by reducing test
uncertainty.
But, if the plant is running a simple
test for routine monitoring, or trending performance for its own internal
purposes, the results do not need to
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
36
Correction factor
Correction factor
4.4
5.9
9.5
13.7
22.9
19.4
11
7.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.7
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
GT output
same
GT output
decreased
GT heat
rate same
No
change
Air-flow
problem
GT heat rate
increased
Not
possible
Efficiency
problem
HP turbine
Generator
Generator
HP steam flow
IP steam flow
Cooling
tower
Condenser
LP turbine
HRSG
Boiler-feed
pump (BFP)
Condensate flow
HP economizer flow
IP economizer flow
BFP suction flow
BFP curve
Condensate-pump curve
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Ambient wet-bulb
temperature, 55F
Ambient wet-bulb
temperature, 55F
Cooling
tower
Circulating
water (CW)
pump
70F
Wet-bulb temp, F 55
CW inlet temp, F
70
100
100F
1.9 in. Hg
90F
CW inlet temp, F
CW outlet temp, F 90
Hotwell temp, F
110F
2.5 in. Hg
90F
70
110
5. Expected design performance for the main cooling system reflects an overall cooling-system delta T of 45 deg F
40
70F
Wet-bulb temp, F 55
45
Condenser
Circulating
water (CW)
pump
CW outlet temp, F 90
Hotwell temp, F
Cooling
tower
Condenser
55
Todays options
Performance monitoring is necessary and can be done; its just a matter of how. There are three typical
Parameter
As tested
Corrected
Baseline
GT1 output, MW
GT2 output, MW
ST output, MW
Aux power, MW
CC net output, MW
176.3
170.1
175.2
8.1
513.5
178.2
171.9
177.6
8.2
519.5
180.1
181.6
178.2
8.2
531.7
Deviation
MW*
%
1.9
9.7
0.6
0.0
12.2
1.1
5.3
0.3
0.0
2.3
DHCP = $AFETY
for your GE
Hydrogen-Cooled
Generator
Founded in 1988
24
Years experience
youR next
poweR pRoject.
www.picworld.com