http://www.powermag.com/how-to-conduct-a-plant-performance-test/?

printmode=1

How to conduct a plant performance

test
09/15/2006 | Tina L. Toburen, PE, and Larry Jones, McHale & Associates Inc.

PRINT MODE : ON

http://www.powe favorite 28024

Save to myPOWER

Completing a power plant’s start-up and commissioning usually means pushing the prime
contractor to wrap up the remaining punch list items and getting the new operators trained.
Staffers are tired of the long hours they’ve put in and are looking forward to settling into a work
routine.
Just when the job site is beginning to look like an operating plant, a group of engineers arrives
with laptops in hand, commandeers the only spare desk in the control room, and begins to
unpack boxes of precision instruments. In a fit of controlled confusion, the engineers install the
instruments, find primary flow elements, and make the required connections. Wires are dragged
back to the control room and terminated at a row of neatly arranged laptops. When the test
begins, the test engineers stare at their monitors as if they were watching the Super Bowl and
trade comments in some sort of techno-geek language. The plant performance test has begun
(Figure 1).
 <img alt=""
src="http://www.powermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/520004dcca100-60-1.jpg" />
1. Trading spaces. This is a typical setup of data acquisition computers used during a plant
performance test. Courtesy: McHale & Associates

Anatomy of a test
The type and extent of plant performance testing activities are typically driven by the project
specifications or the turnkey contract. They also usually are linked to a key progress payment
milestone, although the value of the tests goes well beyond legalese. The typical test is designed
to verify power and heat rate guarantees that are pegged to an agreed-upon set of operating
conditions. Sounds simple, right? But the behind-the-scenes work to prepare for a test on which
perhaps millions of dollars are at stake beyond the contract guarantees almost certainly exceeds
your expectations (see box).

Performance test economics are overpowering

Consider a 500-MW facility with a heat rate of 7,000 Btu/kWh. When operating at baseload with
an 80% capacity factor, the plant will consume over 24 million mmBtu per year. At a fuel cost of
$8/mmBtu, that’s nearly $200 million in fuel costs for the year.
If an instrumentation or control error raises the heat rate of the facility by 0.5%, that would cost
the plant an additional $1 million each year. If, on the other hand, a misreported heat rate causes
the facility to be dispatched 0.5% less often, reducing the capacity factor to 79.5%, the losses in
revenue at $50/MWh would amount to nearly $1.1 million for the year.
Performance tests can bring the right people together at the facility to identify losses in
performance and to recapture or prevent such losses in facility profits.
Long before arriving on site, the test team will have:
 Gathered site information.
 Reviewed the plant design for the adequacy and proper placement of test taps and for the
type and location of primary flow elements.
 Developed plant mathematical models and test procedures.
 Met with the plant owner, contractor, and representatives of major original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) to iron out the myriad details not covered by contract specifications.
Experienced owners will have made sure that the plant operations staff is included in these
meetings.
Tests are normally conducted at full-load operation for a predetermined period of time. The test
team collects the necessary data and runs them through the facility correction model to obtain
preliminary results. Usually within a day, a preliminary test report or letter is generated to allow
the owner to declare "substantial completion" and commence commercial operation. The results
for fuel sample analysis (and/or ash samples) are usually available within a couple of weeks,
allowing the final customer report to be finished and submitted.
The art and science of performance testing require very specialized expertise and experience that
take years to develop. The science of crunching data is defined by industry standards, but the art
rests in the ability to spot data inconsistencies, subtle instrument errors, skewed control systems,
and operational miscues. The experienced tester can also quickly determine how the plant must
be configured for the tests and can answer questions such as, Will the steam turbine be in
pressure control or at valves wide open in sliding-pressure mode? What control loops will need
to be in manual or automatic during testing? and at what level should the boiler or duct burners
be fired?
For the novice, it’s easy to miss a 0.3% error in one area and an offsetting 0.4% error in another
area that together yield a poor result if they aren’t resolved and accounted for. With millions of
dollars on the line, the results have to be rock solid.

Mid-term exams
There are many reasons to evaluate the performance of a plant beyond meeting contract
guarantees. For example, a performance test might be conducted on an old plant to verify its
output and heat rate prior to an acquisition to conclusively determine its asset value. Other
performance tests might verify capacity and heat rate for the purpose of maintaining a power
purchase agreement, bidding a plant properly into a wholesale market, or confirming the
performance changes produced by major maintenance or component upgrades.
Performance tests are also an integral part of a quality performance monitoring program. If
conducted consistently, periodic performance tests can quantify non-recoverable degradation and
gauge the success of a facility’s maintenance programs. Performance tests also can be run on
individual plant components to inform maintenance planning. If a component is performing
better than expected, the interval between maintenance activities can be extended. If the opposite
is the case, additional inspection or repair items may be added to the next outage checklist.
Whatever the reason for a test, its conduct should be defined by industry-standard specifications
such as the Performance Test Codes (PTCs) published by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), whose web site—www.asme.org—has a complete list of available codes.
Following the PTCs allows you to confidently compare today’s and tomorrow’s results for the
same plant or equipment. Here, repeatability is the name of the game.
The PTCs don’t anticipate how to test every plant configuration but, rather, set general
guidelines. As a result, some interpretation of the codes’ intent is always necessary. In fact, the
PTCs anticipate variations in test conditions and reporting requirements in a code-compliant test.
The test leader must thoroughly understand the codes and the implications of how they are
applied to the plant in question. Variances must be documented, and any test anomalies must
either be identified and corrected before starting the test or be accounted for in the final test
report.
A performance test involves much more than just taking data and writing a report. More time is
spent in planning and in post-test evaluations of the data than on the actual test. Following is a
brief synopsis describing the process of developing and implementing a typical performance test.
Obviously, the details of a particular plant and the requirements of its owner should be taken into
account when developing a specific test agenda.

Planning for the test

The ASME PTCs are often referenced in equipment purchase and/or engineering, procurement,
and construction (EPC) contracts to provide a standard means of determining compliance with
performance guarantees. The ASME codes are developed by balanced committees of users,
manufacturers, independent testing agencies, and other parties interested in following best
engineering practices. They include instructions for designing and executing performance tests at
both the overall plant level and the component level.
Planning a performance test begins with defining its objective(s): the validation of contractual
guarantees for a new plant and/or the acquisition of baseline data for a new or old plant. As
mentioned, part of planning is making sure that the plant is designed so it can be tested. Design
requirements include defining the physical boundaries for the test, making sure that test ports and
permanent instrumentation locations are available and accessible, and ensuring that flow
metering meets PTC requirements (if applicable).
After the design of the plant is fixed, the objectives of testing must be defined and documented
along with a plan for conducting the test and analyzing its results. A well-written plan will
include provisions for both expected and unexpected test conditions.
Understanding guarantees and corrections
The most common performance guarantees are the power output and heat rate that the OEM or
contractor agrees to deliver. Determining whether contractual obligations have been met can be
tricky. For example, a plant may be guaranteed to have a capacity of 460 MW at a heat rate of
6,900 Btu/kWh—but only under a fixed set of ambient operating conditions (reference
conditions). Typical reference conditions may be a humid summer day with a barometric
pressure of 14.64 psia, an ambient temperature of 78F, and relative humidity of 80%.
The intent of testing is to confirm whether the plant performs as advertised under those specific
conditions. But how do you verify that a plant has met its guarantees when the test must be done
on a dry winter day, with a temperature of 50F and 20% relative humidity? The challenging part
of performance testing is correcting the results for differences in atmospheric conditions. OEMs
and contractors typically provide ambient correction factors as a set of correction curves or
formulas for their individual components. But it is often up to the performance test engineers to
integrate the component information into the overall performance correction curves for the
facility.
The reference conditions for performance guarantees are unique to every site. A simple-cycle gas
turbine’s ratings assume its operation under International Standardization Organization (ISO)
conditions: 14.696 psia, 59F, and relative humidity of 60%. The condition of the inlet air has the
biggest impact on gas turbine–based plants because the mass flow of air through the turbines
(and consequently the power they can produce) is a function of pressure, temperature, and
humidity. Performance guarantees for steam plants also depend on air mass flow, but to a lesser
extent.
The barometric pressure reference condition is normally set to the average barometric pressure of
the site. If a gas turbine plant is sited at sea level, its barometric pressure reference is 14.696 psia.
For the same plant at an altitude of 5,000 feet, the reference would be 12.231 psia, and its
guaranteed output would be much lower.
The relative humidity reference condition may or may not have a significant bearing on plant
performance. In gas turbine plants the effect is not large (unless the inlet air is conditioned), but
it still must be accounted for. The effect of humidity, however, is more pronounced on cooling
towers. Very humid ambient air reduces the rate at which evaporation takes place in the tower,
lowering its cooling capacity. Downstream effects are an increase in steam turbine backpressure
and a reduction in the turbine-generator’s gross capacity.
The most important correction for gas turbine plant performance tests involves compressor inlet
air temperature. Although a site’s barometric pressure typically varies by no more than 10% over
a year, its temperatures may range from 20F to 100F over the period. Because air temperature
has a direct effect on air density, temperature variation changes a unit’s available power output.
For a typical heavy-duty frame gas turbine, a 3-degree change in temperature can affect its
capacity by 1%. A temperature swing of 30 degrees could raise or lower power output by as
much as 10%. The effect can be even more pronounced in aeroderivative engines.
ISO-standard operating conditions or site-specific reference conditions are almost impossible to
achieve during an actual test. Accordingly, plant contractors and owners often agree on a base
operating condition that is more in line with normal site atmospheric conditions. For example, a
gas turbine plant built in Florida might be tested at reference conditions of 14.6 psia, 78F, and
80%. Establishing a realistic set of reference conditions increases the odds that conditions during
a performance test will be close to the reference conditions. Realistic reference conditions also
help ensure that the guarantee is representative of expected site output.
Establishing site-specific reference conditions also reduces the magnitude of corrections to
measurements. When only small corrections are needed to relate measured performance from the
actual test conditions to the reference conditions, the correction methods themselves become less
prone to question, raising everyone’s comfort level with the quality of the performance test
results.
Beyond site ambient conditions, the PTCs define numerous other correction factors that the test
designer must consider. Most are site-specific and include:
 Generator power factor.
 Compressor inlet pressure (after losses across the filter house).
 Turbine’s exhaust pressure (due to the presence of a selective catalytic reduction system or
heat-recovery steam generator).
 Degradation/fired hours, recoverable and unrecoverable.
 Process steam flow (export and return). Blowdown (normally isolated during testing).
 Cooling water temperature (if using once-through cooling, or if the cooling tower is outside
the test boundary).
 Condenser pressure (if the cooling water cycle is beyond the test boundary).
 Abnormal auxiliary loads (such as heat tracing or construction loads).
 Fuel supply conditions, including temperature and/or composition.

Choose the right instrumentation

Instrumentation used to record test measurements should be selected based on a pre-test
uncertainty analysis (see "Understanding test uncertainty"). This analysis is important to fine-
tune the instrumentation to ensure that the quality of the test meets expectations. The test
instruments themselves are usually a combination of temporary units installed specifically for
testing, permanently installed plant instrumentation, and utility instrumentation (billing or
revenue metering). Temporary instruments are typically installed to make key measurements that
have a significant impact on results and where higher accuracy is needed to reduce the
uncertainty of test results. Among the advantages of using a piece of temporary instrumentation
is that it has been calibrated specifically for the performance test in question following National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) procedures.
Another benefit of installing temporary instrumentation is to verify the readings of permanent
plant instruments. Plant instrumentation typically lacks NIST-traceable calibration or has been
calibrated by technicians who are more concerned with operability than with accurate
performance testing. There’s a good reason for the former: Performing a code-level calibration
on plant instrumentation can be more expensive than installing temporary test instrumentation.
An additional benefit of a complete temporary test instrumentation setup is that the
instrumentation, signal conditioning equipment, and data acquisition system are often calibrated
as a complete loop, as is recommended in PTC-46 (Overall Plant Performance).
All performance instruments should be installed correctly, and any digital readings should be
routed to a central location. Choosing a good performance data center is very important. A
performance command center should be out of the way of site operations yet close enough to
observe plant instrumentation input and operation.
Obviously, performance instrument readings should be checked against those of plant
instruments, where available. This is one of the most important checks that can be made prior to
a performance test. When a performance tester can get the same result from two different
instruments that were installed to independent test ports and calibrated separately, there’s a good
chance the measurement is accurate. If there’s a difference between the readings that is close to
or exceeds instrument error, something is likely to be amiss.
Typically, when plant guarantees are tied to corrected output and heat rate, the two most
important instrument readings are measured power and fuel flow. If either is wrong, the test
results will be wrong. For example, say you’re testing a unit whose expected output is 460 MW.
The plant instrument is accurate to within 1%, and the test instrument is even more accurate: +/–
0.3%. In this case, the tester prefers to see the two readings well within 1% of each other (4.6
MW) but they still may be as far apart as 5.98 MW (1.3%) and technically be within the
instruments’ uncertainty.
When setting up for a performance test, it is not uncommon to find errors in permanent plant
instrumentation, control logic, or equipment installation. These errors can influence the operation
of a generating unit, for example by causing over- or under-firing of a boiler or gas turbine and
significantly impacting the unit’s output and heat rate. In cases where the impact on actual
operation continues undetected, the corrected test report values may still be in error due to
corrections made based on faulty instrument readings. If these reported values are used as the
basis of facility dispatch, a small error could have an enormous impact on the plant’s bottom
line, ranging from erroneous fuel nominations to the inability to meet a capacity commitment.

Understanding test uncertainty

Uncertainty is a measure of the quality of the test or calculation result. A pretest uncertainty
analysis can be used to design a test to meet predefined uncertainty limits. A post-test uncertainty
analysis should be performed to verify that those uncertainty limits were met and to determine
the impact of any random scatter recorded in the test data.

Each input to the calculation must be analyzed for its impact on the final result. This
impact is identified as the sensitivity of the result to that input. For example, if inlet air
temperature changes by 3 degrees F, and the corrected output changes by 1%, the sensitivity is
1% per 3 degrees F or 0.33%/degree F.
The instrumentation information is used to identify the systematic error potential for each input.
For example, a precision 4-wire resistance-temperature detector can measure inlet air
temperature with an accuracy of +/- 0.18F, based on information provided by the manufacturer
and as confirmed during periodic calibrations.

During a test run, multiple recordings are made for any given parameter, and there will be scatter
in the data. The amount of scatter in the data is an indication of the random error potential for
each input. For example, during a 1-hour test run, the inlet air temperature may be recorded as an
average of 75F, with a standard deviation in the measurements of 0.6F.

If more than one sensor is used to measure a parameter, there also will be variances between
sensors based on location. These variances may be due to the variances either in the
instrumentation or in the actual parameter measured. For example, if air temperature is being
measured by an array of sensors, there may be effects due to ground warming or exhaust vents in
the area, either of which would affect the uncertainty of the bulk average measurement. These
variances will affect the average and standard deviation values for that parameter. Spatial
variances are added into the systematic error potential, based on the deviation of each location
from the average value for all locations.

Now that we’ve defined the three separate inputs to the uncertainty determination—sensitivity
(A), systematic error potential/uncertainty (B), and random error potential/uncertainty (C)—it’s
time to put on our statistician’s hats.

The terms can be combined in the following equation:

Uncertainty = SQRT[(A x B)2 + ( t x A x C)2]

The "t" value on the right side of the equation is known as the Student-t factor and is based on
the number of degrees of freedom (or number of data points recorded) in the data set. For a 95%
confidence interval and data taken at 1-minute intervals for a 60-minute test run, the value of "t"
is 2.0. If data are taken less frequently (such as at 2-minute intervals), fewer recordings are made
and therefore either the test run must be longer (which is not recommended, because ambient
conditions may change) or the value of "t" will increase.

The example given above is for a single parameter, such as inlet air temperature, and its effect on
corrected output. For each correction made, the same process must be carried out to determine
the sensitivity, systematic uncertainty, and random uncertainty of the corrected result on that
correction parameter (such as barometric pressure and relative humidity).

Once each individual uncertainty has been identified, they can be combined to determine the
overall uncertainty of the corrected result. Combining the individual uncertainties is a three-step
process:

 Determine the total systematic uncertainty as the square root of the sum of the squares for all
the individual systematic uncertainties.
 Determine the total random uncertainty as the square root of the sum of the squares for all
the individual random uncertainties.
 Combine the total systematic uncertainty and total random uncertainty as follows: Total
uncertainty = SQRT[(systematic_total)2 + ( t x random_total)2].

The result of the analysis is an expression stated in terms of the uncertainty calculated for an
individual instrument or the overall system. We might normally say, "The inlet air temperature is
75F," but when including an uncertainty analysis of a temperature measurement system, a more
accurate statement would be, "We are 95% certain that the inlet air temperature is between 74.6F
and 75.4F."

Once again, the value for "t" will depend on the design of the test, including the number of
multiple sensors and the frequency of data recordings. Additional information on the Student-t
factor as well as a discussion of how to determine uncertainty can be found in ASME PTC 19.1
(Test Uncertainty).

Conduct the test

The performance test should always be conducted in accordance with its approved procedure.
Any deviations should be discussed and documented to make sure their impact is understood by
all parties. If the test is conducted periodically, it is important to know what deviations were
allowed in previous tests to understand if any changes in performance might have been due to
equipment changes or simply to the setup of the test itself.
Calibrated temporary instrumentation should be installed in the predetermined locations, and
calibration records for any plant or utility instrumentation should be reviewed. Check any data
collection systems for proper resolution and frequency and do preliminary test runs to verify that
all systems are operating properly.
The performance test should be preceded by a walk-down of the plant to verify that all systems
are configured and operating correctly. It’s important to verify that plant operations are in
compliance with the test procedure because equipment disposition, operating limits, and load
stability affect the results. Data can then be collected for the time periods defined in the test
procedure and checked for compliance with all test stability criteria. Once data have been
collected and the test has been deemed complete, the results can be shared with all interested
parties.
Because the short preliminary test may be the most important part of the process, be sure to
allow sufficient time for it in the test plan. The preliminary test must be done during steady-state
conditions following load stabilization or when the unit is operating at steady state during the
emissions testing program. The preliminary test has three objectives: to verify all data systems,
to make sure manual data takers are reading the correct instruments and meters, and to have the
data pass a "sanity check."
After the test data have been collected, the readings should be entered into the correction model
as soon as possible and checked for test stability criteria (as defined by the test procedure). At
this point, depending on the correction methods, the test director may be able to make a
preliminary analysis of the results. If the numbers are way out of whack with expected values, a
good director will start looking for explanations—possibly, errors in the recorded data or
something in the operational setup of the unit itself. Though everyone is concerned when a unit
underperforms, a unit that performs unexpectedly well may have problems that have been
overlooked. For example, a unit that corrected test results indicate has a 5% capacity margin may
need to have its metering checked and rectified, or it may have been mistuned to leave it in an
over-fired condition.
Although an over-tuned gas turbine may produce more megawatt-hours during initial operations,
the gain comes with a price: increasing degradation of the unit’s hot section, shortening parts life
and increasing maintenance costs. The most common mistake in testing is acceptance of results
that are too good. If results are bad, everyone looks for the problem. If the results are above par,
everyone is happy—especially the plant owner, who seems to have gotten a "super" machine.
However, there’s a reason for every excursion beyond expected performance limits—for better
or worse.
If all the pretest checks are done properly, the actual performance test should be uneventful and
downright boring. It should be as simple as verifying that test parameters (load, stability, etc.) are
being met. This is where the really good performance testers make their work look easy. They
appear to have nothing to do during the test, and that’s true because they planned it that way.
Having done all the "real" work beforehand, they can now focus on making sure that nothing
changes during the test that may affect the stability of the data.

Analyze the results

Almost immediately after the performance test (and sometimes even before it is complete),
someone is sure to ask, "Do you have the results yet?" Everyone wants to know if the unit
passed. As soon as practical, the performance group should produce a preliminary report
describing the test and detailing the results. Data should be reduced to test run averages and
scrutinized for any spurious outliers. Redundant instrumentation should be compared, and
instrumentation should be verified or calibrated after the test in accordance with the requirements
of the procedure and applicable test codes.
The test runs should be analyzed following the methods outlined in the test procedure. Results
from multiple test runs can be compared with one another for the sake of repeatability. PTC 46
(Overall Plant Performance) outlines criteria for overlap of corrected test results. For example, if
there are three test runs, a quality test should demonstrate that the overlap is well within the
uncertainty limits of the test.
Once test analysts are satisfied that the results were proper, the test report can be written to
communicate them. This report should describe any exceptions to the test procedure that may
have been required due to the conditions of the facility during the test. In the event that the
results of the performance test are not as expected, the report may also suggest potential next
steps to rectify them.
For sites where the fuel analysis is not available online or in real time, a preliminary efficiency
and/or heat rate value may be reported based on a fuel sample taken days or even weeks before
the test. Depending on the type and source of the fuel, this preliminary analysis may be
significantly different than that for the fuel burned during the test. It’s important to understand
that preliminary heat rate and efficiency results are often subject to significant changes. Once the
fuel analyses are available for the fuel samples taken during the test, a final report can be
prepared and presented to all interested parties.
—Tina L. Toburen, PE, is manager of performance monitoring and Larry Jones is a testing
consultant for McHale & Associates. Toburen can be reached at 425-557-8758 or
tina.toburen@mchale.org; Jones can be reached at 865-588-2654 or larry.jones@mchale.org.