Professional Documents
Culture Documents
power production process by the following: have quantitative knowledge as the impact
on thermal performance. Examples of
Ii (12)
FCIi 1000 using these techniques follow (see Deihl,
Gin 1999 for a parallel study).
this, the plant operators chose to keep all With the information obtained from
burner sleeve dampers fixed in place at 3 the traverse of the exit flue and further EX-
inches open and use the outer air regis- FOSS sensitivity analyses, the plant took
ters for burner adjustment. With a pulver- its O2 probes and moved them to monitor
izer out-of-service, the only way to isolate the centroids of equal areas in the upper
secondary air to the burner was to shut the duct. To cover the centroids of equal areas
outer air registers. With a burner sleeve for the entire duct, it would require an
damper fixed in place at 3 inches open, and additional twelve O2 probes. The plant
having its associated outer air register elected not to install these additional
shut, secondary air flow could not be iso- probes, preferring to investigate the
lated in the out-of-service burners. The results of testing performed after the 2001
plant typically runs with seven mills in- spring outage.
service at full load. Thus with a mill out-of- The results of the these two modifica-
service, and its associated sleeve damper tions proved to be outstanding. The plant
fixed in place, a significant source of air in- now uses the burner sleeve dampers for
leakage was present. During the 2001 burner adjustments, and rarely adjusts
Spring outage, modifications were com- the burner air registers. Of note is the
pleted to the sleeve mechanism for all 32 reduction in Wind Box pressure. Prior to
burners allowing proper operation. Again, this modification, the Wind Box pressure
this was done for the purpose of isolating was typically 4.5 to 5.5 inwater at full
tramp air from the out-of-service mill(s). load. With the current burner sleeves
The second source of high air in-leak- opened to between 8 to 9 inches, Wind
age was found by a detailed examination of Box pressure has decreased to 1.5 to 2.0
the boilers exit flue oxygen profiles (not in-water, resulting in reduced Forced
involving plant instrumentation, but an Draft Fan loading. This load reduction is
independent mobile lab.). Table 1 presents due to a decrease Forced Draft Fan load-
Boiler O2 readings. Note the heavily strati- ing, caused by less throttling at the
fied O2 concentrations across the back of sleeve dampers. Most importantly, this
the duct; and, most significantly, in the up modification has allowed the out-of-serv-
and down directions. These readings were ice pulverizer to be effectively isolated,
obtained while the plant was controlling to thus mitigating a major source of air in-
an exit flue O2 set point of 2.8% (interest- leakage. The out-of-service burners have
ingly, operations believed they had no diffi- their sleeve dampers opened slightly for
culty maintaining this set point!). burner tip cooling.
Furthermore, the plant was using fourteen In general support of this work, Figure 1
in-situ O2 probes, thus believing that boil- illustrates a year of stack effluent data.
er O2 was well understood. The reality was Note the reduction in stack O2 and total
that half of these probes were mounted at air flow. Stack O2 decreased from approxi-
the 6 foot level and the other half at the 12 mately 7.0% to 5.5%. Stack CO2 increased
foot level, in a 22 foot deep duct. Further, from 10.66% to over 12%. Clearly this data
their mountings were located in such a indicates an increase in boiler efficiency.
way as to bias burners feeding the "front" Computed boiler efficiency after the
of the boiler. At this time, mills at the Spring 2001 outage eventually rose to
"back" of the boiler were favored for out-of- between 85.0% and 85.6%, versus the ear-
service, thus further masking air leakage lier 83.21%; accounting for typically a 2%
effects. increase in boiler efficiency.
generation industry.
term "sees" effects from the stored energy Canyon coal. Two of six mills running Bear
in Deaerator and condenser (effects meas- Canyon implied 1/3 of the plants fuel was
ured boundary conditions). Conversely high energy with low moisture. With this
during return to full power, calculated fuel configuration, a higher than usual boiler
flow is less than the indicated, caused by efficiency was anticipated; however,
an incrementally higher flow actually Input/Loss computations indicated this
being added to re-establish stored ener- was not the case.
gies required of the loads. Boiler efficiency prior to the six mill
The plant burned Bear Canyon and configuration was approximately 85%.
Buckskin coals, in various combinations, After two mills were bought on line with
throughout 2001. By January 5, 2002 the high energy coal, the computed boiler effi-
plant burned the last of high energy Bear ciency was essentially the same.
Canyon coal. Figure 8 indicates the com- Obviously something was wrong. Total air
puted results during this transition; most flow remained roughly the same, but with
reasonable results are again seen. a lower computed fuel flow. Additionally,
Efficiency decreased typically 0.7% . Stack CO2 was approximately 11.67%,
Although Figures 7 and 8 both employ an Stack O2 at 6.0%. This data, with prior mon-
expanded heating value scale, they also itoring and testing experiences, indicated
demonstrate the volatile nature of mixing the plant was putting too much air into the
coals. For the days plotted in Figure 8, the plant. This was made evident by a variety of
mean change in heating value (before and
after mid-night on the 30th) was 64 TABLE THREE: Coals Burned at Boardman
Btu/lbm; however the standard deviation
of all data was 93 Btu/lbm - typically a
200 Btu/lbm range! Net heat rate during
full load, steady state conditions changed
from 9,820 to 9,876 Btu/kWh, or 56
Btu/kWh degraded. Such information is
valuable, as accurate and repeatable boiler
efficiency computations, even with vari-
able fuels, allows for consistent decisions.
which expresses with clarity to the opera- appear in-phase due to skewness (energy
tor which direction his/her actions are dissipation) in the Reheater. At these
causing on unit heat rate - feedback tells peaks (at the highest losses), Reheat tem-
the operator of an improvement or degra- perature is minimized. When the Division
dation (Lang, 2002b). Wall is blown, more heat is removed from
the gas, followed by marked reduction in
heat being delivered to the back-pass. This
EXAMPLE G: FCI CHANGES WITH is confirmed by noting the drop in Reheat
SOOT BLOWING temperature. Second Law parameters sug-
For plant operators, one of the recur-
gest that removing soot from the Division
ring pursuits is the adequacy of soot blow-
Wall exchanger causes more heat to be
ing: Is the plant blowing too much or not
absorbed in this heat exchanger, thereby
enough? Figure 10 presents a plot of sev-
causing a greater T, thus higher irre-
eral FCIs for the boilers major heat
versible losses hence an increase in the
exchangers. Plotted are the FCIs for the
FCI for the Division Wall (as seen).
Reheater and Division Wall Superheater,
Similarly, with less heat delivered to the
also plotted is final Reheat temperature.
back-pass exchangers, a reduction occurs
Soot Blower steam flow was not plotted as
in the T across the tube surfaces reduc-
only system total use was recorded; soot
ing losses, thus a decrease in the FCI for
blowing at Boardman is continuous. Note
the Reheater.
the periodicities of the FCIs and Reheat
Note that minimal cyclic variation in
temperature. This clearly reflects soot
the FCI for the Finishing Superheater was
blowing. The outstanding question is:
observed. Given this response, operators
Where in the steam generator is soot blow-
made the decision to reduce its soot blow-
ing occurring to cause such oscillations?
ing; thus a heat rate improvement. This
The next exchanger downstream from
action was over checked by visual inspec-
the furnace is the Division Walls followed
tion and noting no appreciable change in
by the Finishing Superheater. After the
the FCI pattern.
Finishing Superheater, combustion gases
are split to the Reheater and the Primary
Superheater/Upper Economizer heat EXAMPLE H: INCREMENTAL HEAT
exchangers (or back-pass); such split is RATE CHANGES
governed through dampers as a function of Boardman employs two Forced Draft
final Reheat temperature. Damper controls Fans used for excess air and two Primary
are slow moving. As seen in Figure 10, Air Fans for fuel transfer. Each fan uses its
losses in the Reheater are generally out of inlet vanes as a means to control: Forced
phase with losses (FCIs) in the Division Draft Fans control Boiler oxygen; and the
Wall exchanger; although their peaks Primary Air Fans control primary air duct
16 ASME Power Division Special Section | ENERGY-TECH
FIGURE ELEVEN: Fan Difference Heat Rate and FCI Changes to FIGURE TWELVE: Measured and Computed Effluent Flows
Load Reduction
REFERENCES
Lang, F.D., US Patents 5367470, 5790420,
and US patents & Patent Cooperation
ASME Power Division Special Section
Steering Committee
Chairman Prof. Terushige Fujii
Kobe University
Co-Chairman Mr. William C. Stenzel
Consultant, Sargent & Lundy, LLC
Prof. Kefa Cen
Zhejiang University
Members Mr. Toshikazu Ikegami, Secretary General
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Dr. Yutaka Kawata, Chair of General Affairs
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Mr. Ryohei Shirai, Chair of Financial Affairs
The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Dr. Kenji Mori, Chair of Scientific Committee
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Dr. Yoshinori Hisazumi, Chair of Social Program Committee
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.
Abstract Submission
Submissions are welcome by authors from any country. Authors are strongly requested to
attend the Conference and to present their papers in oral sessions individually. Initial screening
will be based on the abstracts. Authors willing to present their papers should submit 4 copies of
400 words abstracts in English, containing the following: title of paper, names, affiliations and
complete addresses (with the phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses), two to five represen-
tative keywords, and an abstract summarizing the objectives, main findings and results. Abstracts
should be submitted by mail to either the following:
USA: Impor
ta
Prof. David Y.S. Lou, J.K. Ludwickson Apri nt Dates
Distinguished Professor and Chairman l 19,
2003 for Au
400 w thors
Department of Mechanical Engineering May ords abstra
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1, 20 ct due
Notific 03
104N Walter Scott Engineering Center Jun at ion of
e 21, abstra
Lincoln, NE 68588-0656, USA 2003 ct acc
eptanc
Full-le e
Phone: 402-472-2375, Fax: 402-472-1465 July ng th ma
19, 2 nuscrip
E-mail: dlou1@unl.edu 0 03 t du e
Notific
ation
All full-length manuscripts will be peer reviewed. All script of full
accept -le ngth m
accepted papers will be published in the Conference Aug ance anu-
ust 1
Proceedings that will be available at the Conference site. Camer 6, 2003
a-read
Also the papers of JSME members will be endorsed for registr y man
at uscrip
publication in the JSME International Journal upon co-aut ion of at lea ts and
pre-
hors w s
reviewers recommendation. ith reg t one of the
istratio
Detailed information about the conference, including location, n fee d
ue
travel, accommodation, abstract submission, proceedings, venues, registration,
etc. can be found at the web page of the ICOPE-03:
http://www.jsme.or.jp/pes/ICOPE-03.
FEBRUARY 2003 | ASME Power Division Special Section 19