9th annual gas turbine - actsys.comactsys.com/news/download/gas turbine conference 2015...

ACTSYS Process Management Consultants Pte LtdACTSYS Process Management Consultants Pte Ltd

9th Annual Gas Turbine

Conference

Performance Monitoring for Fuel Efficiency

16th April 2015

1

ACTSYS Process Management Consultants Pte Ltd

Agenda

• ACTSYS Overview

• Thermodynamic Performance Monitoring of Power Plants

• Case Studies

• Limitations of Online Monitoring Systems


Actsys Overview

Singapore Based Company

Incorporated 2001

Operating regionally (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India)

Core expertise

Thermodynamic Performance Analysis

Process Simulation / Pinch Analysis

Utilities System Optimization

Basic Engineering Design

Operations and Maintenance experience

Domain knowledge Power Plants, Refineries, Petrochemicals

Accredited as Energy Service Company by Singapore National

Environmental Agency

About Us Services


Actsys Overview

Power Plant Thermodynamic Performance Analysis

Energy Auditing for Improvement Opportunities

Measurement & Verification

Energy Management System

Online Dashboards

ISO50001 Gap Analysis

Process Studies and Front End Design

Training Plant Operating Principles Energy Auditing / Performance Monitoring

About Us Services


Plant ID Location Remark CCP Steam Plant Cogen

Tuas Power Singapore MHI 701F

Alstom GT26

367 x 4

370 x 1

PT PJB, Muara Karang Indonesia 500 x 1 200 x 2

PT PJB Gresik Indonesia 480 x 1 200 x 2

PT PJB Paiton Indonesia Coal 400 x 2

Power Seraya Singapore Siemens V94 370 x 2 250 x 6

Senoko Singapore Alstom GT26 370 x 3; 450 x 2

Gulf Electric, Samutprakarn Thailand GE Frame 6 130 x 1

Gulf Electric, Nongkhee Thailand GE Frame 6 130 x 1

Malakoff Malaysia GE Frame 9E 370 x 1

SembCorp Singapore GE Frame 9E 800 x 1

Petronas Malaysia GE Frame 5 36 x 5

Jimah Malaysia Coal 700 x 2

Indonesia Power, Labuan Indonesia Coal 300 x 2

Total MW 5938 5100 2340

Power Plant Customers


Thermodynamic Performance Monitoring

• Early work with Power Plants to calculate GT compressor efficiency, to evaluate OEM wash frequency recommendation

• Thermodynamic modeling approach novel to most Power Plant engineers and initial acceptance was cautious

• Collaborative development of heat balance, new & clean, incremental improvement calculation methodologies to address customer needs– Better understanding of plant efficiency losses by components

– Identification of maintenance requirements

– Post turnaround evaluation of maintenance effectiveness

• Continuous development of analysis methodology with increasing customer base


Performance Monitoring Objective

• Proactively identifying the plant sections that

have degraded performance

• Quantifying the degradations in terms of effect

on overall plant efficiency

• Enabling a condition based predictive

maintenance program to set and prioritize

maintenance activities that will minimize

degradation and hence maximize efficiency


Performance Monitoring Objective

Actual and Potential Efficiency Improvement

49.600%

49.800%

50.000%

50.200%

50.400%

50.600%

50.800%

GT Compressor Fouling 0.051% 0.150% 0.320% 0.423% 0.030%

BFP Inefficiency 0.012% 0.020% 0.025% 0.026% 0.026%

LP Bypass 0.300% 0.320% 0.288% 0.310% 0.310%

HP Bypass 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150%

Condenser Fouling 0.085% 0.092% 0.224% 0.225% 0.225%

IAF Pressure Drop 0.005% 0.022% 0.033% 0.054% 0.054%

Actual Efficiency 50.300% 50.100% 49.800% 49.700% 50.040%

Nov 06 Dec 06 Jan 07 Feb 07 Mar 07

GT Compr

Cold Wash


Thermodynamic Models

• Heat and Mass Balance calculations of all hot gas path,

steam and water flows in a Power Plant

• Equipment are all rigorously modeled based on first

principles of heat transfer and energy conversion

• Models can be tuned to replicate Design or

Commissioning Heat Balances, in order to calculate New

& Clean performance


First Principles of Heat Transfer


First Principles of Energy Conversion

• Adiabatic expansion in Steam Turbine

• Spencer Cotton Canon for expected Isentropic efficiency

• Modified Stodola equation for Pressure – Flowrate characteristics


CCP Plant Modeling

HPSH2

RHTR2

RHTR1 HPSH1 HPEVAP HPECO2 IPSHT R LPSHTR IPEVAP

IPECO2

HPECO1

LPEVAP HPECO0 IPECO1 LPECO FWPRHT

SP1 M1 M2SP2

HPST

IPST

M3

M4

RHDSH

HPSDSH

SP3

PI1

PI2

GT COMP

GT COMB

GT TURB

INLFLT

SSGEN

CONDSR

MAKEUP

M5

GLNDCN

DEAER

SP4

169298

GT Power kW

109848

ST Power kW

PUMP1

BFW HDR

HPBFW P

LPBFWP

IPBFWP

SP5

SP6

278.91

Gross Generator Output MW

LPST

M6

DUCT 1

PI3

HPBYPS

V1

V2

GT EXH

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5S6 S7 S8

S9 S10 S11 S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

S17 S18 S19 S20 S21

STACK

COND

DFW

LPBFW

S22

S23

S26

IPBFW

S27

S28

S29

HPSTOT

LPSHPS

IPS

S24

S25

RHTRS

HPBFW

S30S31

S32S33

S34

S35

S36

LPST OT

HPBFW 1

HPBFW 2

S37

S39S40

AIR COMPIN

CMPDSC T URBIN

FUELGS

S41

S42

S43

LPDEAR

S44S45S46

S47

S49

BFW SPP

S50

S51

S52

S53

S54

S55

S48

S56

S57 S58

CWS

CWR

S59

GLNST M

HPBPSS

S38

S60


Power Plant Modeling Capabilities

HRSG

HRSG Effectiveness

Duty of individual heat

transfer components

Steam Turbine

HP Turbine Power

IP Turbine Power

LP Turbine Power

HP/IP/LP Turbine Eff

Condenser

Condenser Water Flow

Condenser Duty

Condenser effectiveness

Auxiliaries

CWP Performance

BFP Performance

CEP Performance

Distribution Valve passing

Line Loss

GT GT Power Generation

GT Comp Eff.

GT Turbine Eff

GT Heat rate

IAF performance

CCPPowerStation


Performance Monitoring Methodology

Modeling Application

To make a Complete Heat and Mass

Balance

Establishing current performance level of

individual components and total system

Establishing the New & Clean benchmark for the

individual component and for total system

Calculate the incremental benefit from repairing

defective plant component


Heat & Mass Balance

• Complete quantification of all streams in a power

plant eg flue gas, cooling water, steam and fuel

flows

• Establish the present performance level of the

individual equipment eg efficiency, heat transfer

coefficients, leakages

• Enables data validation

– Measured values can be compared against the heat

balance output for validating the accuracy of

measurement.


CCP Plant Modeling – Heat Balance

Simulation Model Demo


Quantifying GT Compressor Fouling

GT Compressor Isentropic Effciency Daily avg >330MW

0.8

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.85

0.86

0.87

0.88

0.89

1/1

/05

3/2

/05

5/1

/05

6/3

0/0

5

8/2

9/0

5

10

/28

/05

12

/27

/05

2/2

5/0

6

4/2

6/0

6

6/2

5/0

6

8/2

4/0

6

10

/23

/06

12

/22

/06

2/2

0/0

7

48K EOH

GT Comp Wash

GT Comp Wash

40K CI GT

Comrpessor WashGT Comp Wash


GT IAF Selection Optimization

CCP1 EMW VS Freudenburg IAF

0.80

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.85

0.86

0.87

0.88

0 7

14

21

28

35

42

49

56

63

70

77

84

91

98

105

112

119

126

133

140

147

154

161

168

175

182

189

196

Days

GT

Co

mp

Isen

tro

pic

Eff

icie

ncy

EMW Filter Nov 05 ~ May 06

Freudenburg Filter from Dec 2006

Linear (Freudenburg Filter from Dec

2006)Linear (EMW Filter Nov 05 ~ May 06)

CCP1 EMW VS Freudenburg IAF

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

0 7

14

21

28

35

42

49

56

63

70

77

84

91

98

105

112

119

126

133

140

147

154

161

168

175

182

189

196

Days

IAF

Pre

ssu

re D

rop

mm

H2O

EMW Filter July ~ Dec 2005

Freudenburg Filter from Dec 2006


Loss of CCP Efficiency due to IGV adj


Unmeasured Flows – HP Bypass

HPSH2

RHTR2

RHTR1 HPSH1 HPEVAP HPECO2 IPSHT R LPSHTR IPEVAP

IPECO2

HPECO1

LPEVAP HPECO0 IPECO1 LPECO FWPRHT

SP1 M1 M2SP2

HPST

IPST

M3

M4

RHDSH

HPSDSH

SP3

PI1

PI2

GT COMP

GT COMB

GT TURB

INLFLT

SSGEN

CONDSR

MAKEUP

M5

GLNDCN

DEAER

SP4

169298

GT Power kW

109848

ST Power kW

PUMP1

BFW HDR

HPBFW P

LPBFWP

IPBFWP

SP5

SP6

278.91

Gross Generator Output MW

LPST

M6

DUCT 1

PI3

HPBYPS

V1

V2

GT EXH

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5S6 S7 S8

S9 S10 S11 S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

S17 S18 S19 S20 S21

STACK

COND

DFW

LPBFW

S22

S23

S26

IPBFW

S27

S28

S29

HPSTOT

LPSHPS

IPS

S24

S25

RHTRS

HPBFW

S30S31

S32S33

S34

S35

S36

LPST OT

HPBFW 1

HPBFW 2

S37

S39S40

AIR COMPIN

CMPDSC T URBIN

FUELGS

S41

S42

S43

LPDEAR

S44S45S46

S47

S49

BFW SPP

S50

S51

S52

S53

S54

S55

S48

S56

S57 S58

CWS

CWR

S59

GLNST M

HPBPSS

S38

S60


Unmeasured Flows – HP Bypass

HPST Bypass Flow

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.001

-Ja

n

15

-Ja

n

29

-Ja

n

12

-Fe

b

26

-Fe

b

12

-Ma

r

26

-Ma

r

9-A

pr

23

-Ap

r

7-M

ay

21

-Ma

y

4-J

un

18

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

16

-Ju

l

30

-Ju

l

13

-Au

g

27

-Au

g

10

-Se

p

24

-Se

p

T/H


Steam Turbine Sectional Performance

Individual Section Power (kW)

0.0

50000.0

100000.0

150000.0

200000.0

250000.0

300000.0

15-A

pr-

05

15-M

ay-0

5

15-J

un-0

5

15-J

ul-05

15-A

ug-0

5

15-S

ep-0

5

15-O

ct-

05

15-N

ov-0

5

15-D

ec-0

5

15-J

an-0

6

15-F

eb-0

6

LPST Power IPST Power HPST Power

Turbine Efficiency

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

15-A

pr-

05

15-M

ay-0

5

15-J

un-0

5

15-J

ul-05

15-A

ug-0

5

15-S

ep-0

5

15-O

ct-

05

15-N

ov-0

5

15-D

ec-0

5

15-J

an-0

6

15-F

eb-0

6

Overa

ll eff

icie

ncy (

%)

HP Turbine IP turbine LP Turbine


Boiler Feed Pump Efficiency

Chart 23 CCP 1 : Boiler Feed Pump Efficiency

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

1-A

pr

15

-Ap

r

29

-Ap

r

13

-Ma

y

27

-Ma

y

10

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

8-J

ul

22

-Ju

l

5-A

ug

19

-Au

g

2-S

ep

16

-Se

p

30

-Se

p

Pu

mp

Eff

icie

ncy

0

1

2

3

4

Pu

mp

ID

Pump Efficiency

Pump ID

Boiler Feed Pump Performance

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310

Flow (TPH)

Po

wer

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

kW

)

Pump 2

Pump 1


Condenser Cooling Water Flow (T/H)

Debris Filter

Repaired

Condenser Cooling Water Flow





Balance








New & Clean Performance Models

Each piece of equipment modeled separately to match guaranteed data, then read

by overall model

GT

HPSHT HPEVAP HPECONDUCT

DEAER

CONDEN

CONDST

CNDPMP

HPPUMP

CNDMIX

MAKEUP

S1 S2

S3

S4

S5 S6

S7EXH

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

GT

uses curves or

spreadsheet data

HRSG matches

HRSG vendor

COND matches

HEI/condenserST model

matches ST vendor


CCP Plant Modeling – New & Clean

Simulation Model Demo


New & Clean Performance

Thermodynamic

Simulation

Heat Balance

Model

Measured

Plant

Data

Actual Plant &

Equipment

Performance

Indicators

Heat Balance

Calculated Plant

Operating

Conditions

Thermodynamic

Simulation

New & Clean

Models tuned to

Design / Comm

Target Plant &

Equipment

Performance

Indicators

Plant &

Equipment

Performance

Gaps


HRSG Malperformance

Gresik CCP2 HRSG2.1 Steam Prod

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

11/24/2

004

12/1/2

004

12/8/2

004

12/15/2

004

12/22/2

004

12/29/2

004

1/5/

2005

1/12

/2005

Actu

al

/ N

&C

HP STM LP STM


HRSG Malperformance


Fouled HRSG Tubes @ level 8


Flue Gas Inlet Flue Gas to Stack

Fe

ed

wa

ter

Pre

he

ate

r

E-3

Condensate

Extraction PumpPreheated Water

To Deaerator

V-1

Bypass

Valve

Passing Valve

HRSG Deterioration


Stack temp Vs Feedwater Preheater Temperature

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1-Jan-05

15-Jan-05

29-Jan-05

12-Feb-05

26-Feb-05

12-Mar-05

26-Mar-05

9-Apr-05

23-Apr-05

7-May-05

21-May-05

4-Jun-05

18-Jun-05

2-Jul-05

16-Jul-05

30-Jul-05

13-Aug-05

27-Aug-05

10-Sep-05

24-Sep-05

8-Oct-05

22-Oct-05

5-Nov-05

19-Nov-05

3-Dec-05

17-Dec-05

31-Dec-05

Stack T

Feedwater Preheater T

Valve Repaired

(Actual) / (New and Clean Performance)

HRSG Deterioration


Poor Steam Turbine Section

Steam 3 ST Power Output

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

11/2

4/200

4

12/1

/200

4

12/8

/200

4

12/1

5/200

4

12/2

2/200

4

12/2

9/200

4

1/5/

2005

1/12

/200

5

Actu

al /

N&

C

HPST IPST LPST ST


Poor Steam Turbine Section


Condenser Performance

Condenser Press ACT/NC

Condenser

Air Ingress

Solved





Balance








Incremental Benefit Analyses

• As Plant Management you are only interested in

how a defective plant component affects

– Overall Plant efficiency / heatrate

– Baseload capability

• Quantification enables prioritization and

scheduling of corrective maintenance in next

turnaround


Incremental Benefit Analysis

Actual and Potential Efficiency Improvement

49.600%

49.800%

50.000%

50.200%

50.400%

50.600%

50.800%

GT Compressor Fouling 0.051% 0.150% 0.320% 0.423% 0.030%

BFP Inefficiency 0.012% 0.020% 0.025% 0.026% 0.026%

LP Bypass 0.300% 0.320% 0.288% 0.310% 0.310%

HP Bypass 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150%

Condenser Fouling 0.085% 0.092% 0.224% 0.225% 0.225%

IAF Pressure Drop 0.005% 0.022% 0.033% 0.054% 0.054%

Actual Efficiency 50.300% 50.100% 49.800% 49.700% 50.040%

Nov 06 Dec 06 Jan 07 Feb 07 Mar 07

GT Compr

Cold Wash


Examples of Issues Identified

• Lost of efficiency after MI due to IGV reprogramming

• Boiler Feed Pump minimum flow recycle valve passing

• Identification of Passing HPST Bypass Valve

• FW Preheater Bypass Valve passing

• Selection of Optimum Inlet Air Filter

• Condenser Cooling Water Optimization

• Condenser Cooling Water Debris Filter Choke

• HPST Bypass Spray Valve Passing

• HRSG HP and RH Spray Valve Passing

• Condenser Air Ingress

• Condenser Tube Fouling


Limitations of Online Systems


Limitation of Online Systems

• Black box

– Plant engineers over time will suffer an increasing

lack of knowledge of model calculations, which plant

measurements are inputs and assumptions

– Plant component performance degradation results are

still high level indicators, they do not lead to the actual

problem eg detailed equipment level

– As all result screens are preprogrammed, drill down

capability to determine root cause is limited

– Difficult to use results as decision support to

determine corrective maintenance activities



• Not all losses are calculated, eg

– Online models normally do not include bypass valves

(eg HPST, FWPH) or recirc valves (eg BFW min flow);

they are all assumed to be tight closed and not

passing

– Drain valves are also assumed to be tight

– Steam flow to auxiliary steam header is not

accounted for

• Above listed losses are common especially as a

plant ages and if not detected and repaired can

lead to very significant efficiency and water

losses



• Time trends of performance factors are very useful

– Detect Degradation trends

– Comparison of Performance

• Pre and Post inspection

• Change of plant components eg Inlet Air Filter

• Change of equipment control tuning eg IGV control curve

– Drifting of measurements

• X-Y plots of performance variables also offer insightful

views into root cause of performance degradation

• Online systems offer little possibility for such analysis


Conclusions

• Thermodynamic Performance Monitoring ensures plant degradations that cause efficiency loss are identified and corrected early

• Skill set that needs to be fostered in today’s competitive power industry

• Online systems have practical limitations and do not give the same in-depth analyses


Thank You

GT

SH

AF

T P

OW

ER

(3

4.2

3%

)INLET AIR (1.45%)

HP STEAM (34.39%)

HP

TU

RB

PO

WE

R (

2.1

8%

)

LP TURB POWER (10.87%)

CONDENSER LOSS 33.53%

SHAFT POWER

IP TURB POWER (6.68%)

AU

XIL

IAR

Y P

OW

ER

(0

.22%

)

ROTOR COOLING LOSS (2.09%)

COMBUSTOR LOSS (0.49%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

OR

WO

RK

(…

.% o

f G

T

Sh

aft

Po

we

r)

FUEL

SENSIB

LE H

EAT

1.00

%

DUCT L

OSS (0

.35%

)

RADIATION LOSS

(0.34%)

PIP

E L

OSS (0

.08%

)

LP STEAM (4.03%)STACK LOSS (8.97%)

IP STEAM (8.6%)

CHEMICAL

ENERGY

(97.32%)

RADIATION LOSS (0.06%)

RA

DIA

TIO

N L

OS

S

(0.0

9%

)

RA

DIA

TIO

N L

OS

S

(0.0

4%

)

www.actsys.com

9th annual gas turbine - actsys.comactsys.com/news/download/gas turbine conference 2015...

Documents