Effects of deterioration equipment reliability in a gas turbine cogeneration power plant

Aneta Hazi, Gheorghe Hazi, Roxana Grigore, Sorin-Gabriel Vernica

Department of Power Engineering Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau Bacau, Romania ahazi58@yahoo.com

Abstract In this paper we analyzed the effects of deterioration equipment reliability both on some key reliability indicators of the power plant and on fuel consumption and on CO2 emissions. We also evaluated the economic losses determined by deterioration of equipment reliability. As an example, the paper presents a case study. Keywords-reliability indicator, gas turbine cogeneration power plant

indicators can be expressed in terms of yearly mean failure duration and yearly mean number of failures. The yearly mean number to failure is expressed as:

N t = N r + N m [inter/year]

(1)

where: Nr - yearly mean number to failure eliminated through repairs,[3], [7]:

I.

INTRODUCTION

Nr =

e e T [inter/year] e + e

(2)

The gas turbine installation is one of the most efficient installations for the conversion of gas fuels to mechanical power. If this installation is coupled with a waste heat recovery boiler in a combined cycle, then efficiency increases significantly. The environmental impact of the gas turbine installation is lower than that of another conversion installation. Power plants of this type have been installed in increasing numbers around the world and have an increasingly wider adoption for base load power generation. Power plant reliability and availability is extremely important due to a competitive environment and to the overall operating and production costs. The reliability and availability of the power plant can be increased by reducing the failure rate for each component, [4],[5]. This paper examines how a reliability decrease due to the main equipments deterioration influences the global reliability indicators of the gas turbine cogeneration power plant and also the fuel consumption and emissions. The economic impact of the reliability decrease is also examined. This analysis has helped to identify the critical and sensitive components of the power plant that need improvement. II. EVALUATION OF THE OVERALL INDICATORS OF THE
POWER PLANT

e failure rate; e repair rate, me failure rate during manoeuvres, T = 8760 h - reference time interval. Nm - yearly mean number to failure eliminated through manoeuvres: Nm =

me e T [inter/year] e + e

(3)

The yearly mean time to failure can be determined by: Tan = N rTr + N mTm [h/year] (4)

where: Tr - mean time to failure removed through repairs; Tm manoeuvre duration. Success probability is: P=

e e + e
Tf T

100 [%]

(5)

Time availability:
UT =

(6)

where Tf operation time:

T f = T T pm Tan [h/year] Tpm preventive maintenance duration.

Fuel losses due to revenue can be estimated as, [1]:

(7)

Reliability is an important characteristic of a repairable system, [2]. For a power plant, the relevant reliability

B g = B gp T p N t [Nmc/year]

(8)

Tp - startup time; Bgp fuel consumption during startup, [Nmc/h]. Increase of CO2 emission due to fuel losses is:

III.

CASE STUDY

CO2 = f CO 2 B g H i [kg/year]

(9)

fCO2 CO2 emissions factor for methane gas, [8]; Hi the inferior calorific value of the fuel, [GJ/Nmc]. The economical losses due to failure are:

For a numerical perspective, we present a case study for a gas turbine power plant with a cogeneration cycle. The plant is divided into four subsystems: the gas compression system, the gas turbine installation, the exhaust system heat, the exhaust system of electricity. Reliability analysis has been done for each subsystem and for the overall plant in [6]. The sensitivity of the yearly mean time to failure to the failure rates was calculated and shows that it is significantly higher for thermo-mechanical equipments. Therefore, in this paper we estimated the relative variation of the overall indicators of the plant for the case of 4 relative variations of the failure rate of the following equipment: combustion chamber (CA), gas turbine (TG), air compressor (KA), generator (G) and waste heat recovery boiler (CR). The results are shown in the tables 1 through 5 and in the figures 1 through 7. Initial values of indicators and the corresponding initial failure rates of equipment are shown in table 1.

Ec = E en + E r + E p [$/year]

(10)

Een economical losses due to corrective maintenance and to energy loss of revenue, [2]; Een economical losses due to employee remuneration during the yearly mean failure time; Een economical losses due to profit loss during the yearly mean failure time. The relative variation of the indicator is:
V = V Vi Vi

(11)

Vi the initial value of the indicator corresponding to the initial failure rate of the element, i; V the value of the indicator corresponding to the increased failure rate of the element, :

The relative variations of the overall indicator of the plant are very small. Therefore, the values are shown in the table multiplied by 103. However, the data and the graphs show how a reliability decrease due to main equipments deterioration influences the global reliability indicators of the gas turbine cogeneration power plant, fuel consumption and emissions. Note, all indicators deteriorate with the increase of the failure rate of the equipments but sensitivity (the gradient of the deterioration) is different.

= i (1 + )
where is the relative variation of the failure rate.

(12)

TABLE 1.THE EFFECT OF DETERIORATION OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER FAILURE RATE ON THE INDICATORS No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicator Yearly mean time to failure Yearly mean number to failure Success probability Time availability Fuel losses Increase of CO2 emissions Economic loss Notation Tan Nt P UT Bg CO2 Ec Unit h/year inter/year % Nmc/ year Kg/ year $/year Initial value 1685 23.95 80.863 0.6935 1050 2211 141323 Relative variation, V x 103
for =0,05 for =0,1 for =0,15 for =0,2

0.125 0.787 0.098 0.112 0.593 0.86 0.408

0.553 1.616 0.2 0.231 1.422 1.689 0.836

1.002 2.487 0.306 0.355 2.293 2.56 1.286

1.473 3.401 0.419 0.486 3.207 3.475 1.759

TABLE 2. THE EFFECT OF DETERIORATION OF GAS TURBINE FAILURE RATE ON THE INDICATORS No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicator Yearly mean time to failure Yearly mean number to failure Success probability Time availability Fuel losses Increase of CO2 emissions Economic loss Notation Tan Nt P UT Bg CO2 Ec Relative variation, V x 103
for =0,05 for =0,1 for =0,15 for =0,2

0.1 0.662 0.067 0.077 0.468 0.735 0.281

0.292 1.36 0.137 0.158 1.166 1.433 0.575

0.6 2.093 0.211 0.244 1.9 2.167 0.885

0.925 2.863 0.288 0.334 2.669 2.937 1.21

TABLE 3. THE EFFECT OF DETERIORATION OF AIR COMPRESSOR FAILURE RATE ON THE INDICATORS No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicator Yearly mean time to failure Yearly mean number to failure Success probability Time availability Fuel losses Increase of CO2 emissions Economic loss Notation Tan Nt P UT Bg CO2 Ec Relative variation, V x 103
for =0,05 for =0,1 for =0,15 for =0,2

0.035 0.221 0.02 0.021 0.028 0.295 0.08

0.119 0.457 0.04 0.044 0.264 0.531 0.164

0.207 0.706 0.06 0.069 0.512 0.779 0.253

0.3 0.966 0.083 0.095 0.772 1.039 0.346

TABLE 4. THE EFFECT OF DETERIORATION OF GENERATOR FAILURE RATE ON THE INDICATORS No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicator Yearly mean time to failure Yearly mean number to failure Success probability Time availability Fuel losses Increase of CO2 emissions Economic loss Notation Tan Nt P UT Bg CO2 Ec Relative variation, V x 103
for =0,05 for =0,1 for =0,15 for =0,2

2.698 1.208 0.71 0.825 1.014 1.281 2.976

5.823 2.478 1.455 1.693 2.284 2.551 6.097

9.099 3.809 2.235 2.601 3.615 3.883 9.37

12.534 5.205 3.053 3.554 5.011 5.279 12.8

TABLE 5. THE EFFECT OF DETERIORATION OF WASTE HEAT BOILER FAILURE RATE ON THE INDICATORS No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicator Yearly mean time to failure Yearly mean number to failure Success probability Time availability Fuel losses Increase of CO2 emissions Economic loss Notation Tan Nt P UT Bg CO2 Ec Relative variation, V x 103
for =0,05 for =0,1 for =0,15 for =0,2

0.035 2.954 0 0.005 2.76 3.028 0.027

0.057 6.06 0 0.011 5.865 6.133 0.056

0.081 9.321 0 0.017 9.126 9.395 0.087

0.105 12.745 0 0.024 12.549 12.819 0.12

4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0,05 Tm Nr P UT Bg C O2 Ec 0,1 0,15 0,2

3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0,05 Tm Nr P UT Bg C O2 Ec 0,1 0,15 0,2

Fig.1. Relative variation of indicators depending on relative variation of combustion chamber failure rate

Fig.2. Relative variation of indicators depending on relative variation of gas turbine failure rate

Thus, this sensitivity is greater in the case of CO2 emissions, of yearly mean number to failure and of fuel losses due to the increased failure rate of the combustion chamber, of the gas turbine and of the air compressor. The highest sensitivity to economic loss and to the yearly mean time to failure can be noticed for the increase of the failure rate of the generator.

But then, the yearly mean number to failure, the fuel losses and the CO2 emissions are most sensitive to the increased failure rate of the waste heat boiler. Figures 6 and 7 show that the yearly mean time to failure is most influenced by the generator and the yearly mean number to failure is most influenced by the combustion chamber.

V 14
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0,05 Tm Nr P UT Bg C O2 Ec 0,1 0,15 0,2

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CA TG KA G CR

Tm

Nr

UT

Bg

CO2

Ec

Fig.4. Relative variation of indicators depending on relative variation of generator failure rate

Fig.6. Relative variation of indicators for relative variation of failure rate =0,2 of equipments

1,2 1 Tm 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0,05 Nr P UT Bg C O2 Ec 0,1 0,15 0,2

V 14
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Tm Nr P UT Bg C O2 Ec CA TG KA G CR

Fig.3. Relative variation of indicators depending on relative variation of air compressor failure rate

Fig.7. Effect of relative variation of failure rate =0,2 of equipments on relative variation of indicators

Plotting graphs similar to the ones presented in figures 17 is very useful in the design and operation of gas turbine installations. These graphs help us to determine which equipments significantly influence the reliability of the gas turbine installation. This, in turn, helps determine the actions required increasing the reliability of the acquired installations and helps prioritize the preventive maintenance activities REFERENCES

Fig.5. Relative variation of indicators depending on relative variation of waste heat boiler failure rate [1] [2] Bendea G., Reliability of electrical systems in power plants, Editura Matrix Rom, Bucharest, 2002. Yongjun Zhao, An integrated framework for gas turbine based power plant operational modeling and optimization, Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005. Jesus, F. & Carazas, G. & Francisco, G. & Moraes, M., Availability Analysis of Gas Turbines Used in Power Plants, Int. J. of Thermodynamics, Vol. 12 (No. 1), pp. 28-37, March 2009. Wang, W., Loman, J., Vassiliou, P., Reliability importance of components in a complex system, Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, International Symposium on Product Quality and Integrity, p. 6-11, 2004. Javad Barabady, Uday Kumar, Availability allocation through importance measures, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 Iss: 6, pp.643 657, 2007. Hazi, A., Hazi, Gh., Grigore, R., Vernica, S.-G., Relliability analysis in gas turbine cogeneration power plant, 6-th International Conference on Electrical and Power Engineering EPE 2010, Iasi, October 2010. *** NTE 005/06/00, Standard on methods and computing elements of power installations reliability, 2006. *** Procedures for monitoring and reporting of greenhouse effect gas emissions, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2006.

IV.

CONCLUSION

[3]

From the data presented in tables 15 and figures 16 we conclude the following:

[4]

The overall reliability indicators decrease with the component equipment reliability decrease The overall indicators sensitivity to the failure rates of the component equipments is different Yearly mean time to failure is most influenced by the generator reliability. This is justified by the series placement of the generator and by its reliability parameters The yearly mean number to failure is most influenced by the waste heat recovery boiler reliability
[5]

[6]

[7] [8]