condition monitoring for predictive maintenance to maximize plant energy efficiency

8/2/2019 Condition Monitoring for Predictive Maintenance to Maximize Plant Energy Efficiency

1/32

Condition Monitoring for Predictive

Maintenance to Maximize Plant Efficiency

ACTSYS Process Management Consultants Pte Ltd.

Seminar on Energy Efficiency for the Process Industry


2/32

ACTSYS Process Management Consultants

Who are we ?

Established 2001

Principal ex Shell operational and technology seniormanagement

Based in Singapore, operating regionally Specialize in Plant Performance Monitoring methodology for

Power Plants, Refineries and Petrochemicals

Major Clients include Tuas Power Singapore, Power SerayaSingapore, PJB Indonesia, GE Energy, Gulf ElectricThailand, EGAT, Petronas Penapisan Trengganu, PetronasCentral Utilities Gebeng, ThaiOil, Malakoff, Senoko Power

Singapore


3/32


Improving Plant Energy Efficiency

Operational

Adjustments

Corrective

Maintenanc

e

Retrofit

Improvem

ents

Energy Review to identify gaps

due to non optimal settings

Historical EI

Energy Review to identify specific

energy improvement plantmodifications


due to equipment degradation

Further Potential

Improvement

Energ

yIndex

Time


4/32


Your Cars Rising Petrol Consumption

The way you have been driving ?

Tire pressure not good ?

Poor Fuel Injection ? Air intake filter clogged ?

Poor lubrication ?

Sticky brakes ?

Worn piston rings ?

Choked exhaust catalytic converter ?


5/32


Energy Intensive Equip in Process Plants

Boilers Furnaces

Gas Turbines

Heat Recovery Steam

Generators

Pumps

Fans Compressors

Heat exchangers

Steam Turbines

Condensors

Power Recovery Turbines

The performance of these equipment can be adversely affected by mechanical

degradation or fouling.


6/32ACTSYS Process Management Consultants

Plant Equipment Degradation Examples

Boiler tube internal

fouling reduces heattransfer efficiency




Boiler tube

external fouling




Gas Turbine

Blades fouling


9/32



Flue Gas Inlet Flue Gas to Stack

Feed

water

Preh

eater

E-3

CondensateExtraction Pump

Preheated Water

To DeaeratorV-1

BypassValve

Passing Valve


10/32



Boiler Feed Pump Performance

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

16001650

1700

170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310

Flow (TPH)

PowerCo

nsumption(kW

)

Pump 2

Pump 1

Pump 2 requiring

50-75 kW less than

Pump 1


11/32



Leaking steam

not contributing to

Power generation


12/32



Gouging of Steam

Turbine blades

causing efficiency loss


13/32



Chipped off Gas

Turbine Compressor

Blade


14/32



B1001 Stack Temp Vs Load

Jan - Oct 2007

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50BFW Flow

StackTempC

Target Stack T

Boiler stack temp

higher than new &

clean by 20-30 degC


15/32


Challenges facing the Asset Owner

Identifying plant component defects

Quantifying effect of defect on overall plant efficiency

Carrying out the above actions in a predictive mannerand prioritizing for first opportunity corrective

maintenance


16/32


The Quantification Challenge

Lord Kelvin (1883 lecture) :

I often say when we can measure what you are speaking about and

express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when youcannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your

knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.


17/32



Do we know the energy efficiency of the plant at agiven load or throughput ?

Do we know what SHOULD be the energy efficiency

of the plant at the given load ?

If there is a gap, do we know which plant component is

causing the gap ? And do we know how much a gap is due to each plant

component ?


18/32



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


19/32


Inefficient Operation of Power Plants

Before After Delta Basis

Average Unit Loading MW 350 350

Thermal Efficiency % 50.0 50.1 (0.1)

Energy Consumption GJ/H 2,520 2,515 5.03

Annual Energy Savings GJ/Yr 43,459

MWh/Yr 12,072

Fuel Gas Savings MMBtu/Yr 41,193

Cost Savings US$/Yr 288,351 Fuel Cost is US$7/MMBtu

Fuel Savings ton/Yr 903 Fuel LHV = 48139 kJ/kg

CO2 Savings ton/Yr 2,483 Natural Gas composition C:H = 4:1

Suntec City

Annual Energy Cons MWh/Yr 87,600 10 MW Power consumption


20/32


Thermodynamic Models

Heat Balance model Using existing measured operating conditions calculate all

other unmeasured plant conditions

Determine actual efficiencies of plant components

New and Clean models for plant components

For each operating point calculate the what-if benchmarkperformance of the plant component in a New & Clean

state

Comparison of the Actual vs the New & Clean

performance gives a measurement of the plant component

degradation


21/32


Case Study 1 HRSG Fouling

HPSH2

RHTR2

RHTR1 HPSH1 HPEVAP HPECO2 IPSHTR LPSHTR IPEVAP

IPECO2

HPECO1

LPEVAP HPECO0 IPECO1 LPECO FWPRHT

SP1 M1 M2SP2

HPST

IPST

M3

M4

RHDSH

HPSDSH

SP3

PI1

PI2

GTCOMP

GTCOMB

GTTURB

INLFLT

SSGEN

CONDSR

MAKEUP

M5

GLNDCN

DEAER

SP4

169298

GT Power kW

109848

ST Power kW

PUMP1

BFWHDR

HPBFWP

LPBFWP

IPBFWP

SP5

SP6

278.91

Gross Generator Output MW

LPST

M6

DUCT1

PI3

HPBYPS

V1

V2

GTEXH

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5S6 S7 S8

S9 S10 S11 S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

S17 S18 S19 S20 S21STACK

COND

DFW

LPBFW

S22

S23

S26IPBFW

S27

S28

S29

HPSTOT

LPSHPS

IPS

S24

S25

RHTRS

HPBFW

S30S31

S32S33

S34

S35

S36

LPSTOT

HPBFW1

HPBFW2

S37

S39S40

AIR COMPIN

CMPDSC TURBIN

FUELGS

S41

S42

S43

LPDEAR

S44S45S46

S47

S49

BFWSPP

S50

S51

S52

S53

S54

S55

S48

S56

S57 S58

CWS

CWR

S59

GLNSTM

HPBPSS

S38

S60

(Heat Recovery Steam Generator)


22/32



Gresik CCP2 HRSG2.1 Steam Prod

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

11/24

/2004

12/1/2004

12/8/2004

12/15

/2004

12/22

/2004

12/29

/2004

1/5/2005

1/12/2005

Actu

al/N&C

HP STM LP STM


23/32




24/32




25/32


Case Study 2 FWPH Bypass Valve

Flue Gas Inlet Flue Gas to Stack

Feed

water

Preh

eater

E-3

CondensateExtraction Pump

Preheated Water

To DeaeratorV-1

BypassValve


26/32


Case Study 2 FWPH Bypass Valve

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)


27/32


Continuous Condition Monitoring

Operations &

Maintenance Presentation &Discussion of Results

Plant

Data

Reports

Discussion Points

Plant Info System

Data ReconciliationHeat Balances

Performance Models

Plant

Data

Theoretical Analysis&

Interpretation

DecisionSupportDecisionSupport

Historical Archive


28/32


So what are the Benefits ?

For the Power industry for example for Singapores6000 MW operating capacity, a 0.1% thermal efficiency

loss will incur

Extra emissions 43,000 tons CO2 per year

Loss of 207 GWh per year of fuel energy or at typical prices

today equivalent to approx S$7-12million per year

Typically power plants operate with at least 0.5%

thermal efficiency loss, some as high as 1-3% !!

Imperative to ensure Power Plants operate as near aspossible to New & Clean all the time


29/32


Singapore Fuel Consumers (2005)

Power

Generation

51.0%

Industry

31.7%

Transport15.8%Buildings

0.9%

Households

0.6%

That the Power Generators and Process Industry have to do something is clear


30/32


Condition Monitoring Energy Efficiency

Operational

Adjustments

Corrective

Maintenance

Retro

fit

Improvem

ents


due to non optimal settings

Historical EI

Energy Review to identify specific

energy improvement plantmodifications

Energy Review to identify gapsdue to equipment degradation

Further Potential

Improvement

Energ

yIndex

Time

So are the power and

process industries

doing this ?


31/32


Reasons Why there may be Gaps

Lack of inhouse thermodynamics and calculationmethodology knowledge

OEM guarantees do not include Energy Efficiency

What is not quantified does not generate concern and is

therefore not controlled

Asset management and Production silos performancemonitoring and energy efficiency falls in no mans land

The paradox of high efficiency designs ..

Auxiliary equipment power consumption often only

secondary importance


32/32


Thank you for your attention

GTSHAFTPOWER

(34.23%)

INLETAIR(1.45%)

HP STEAM (34.39%)

HPT

URBPOWER(2.18%)

LP TURB POWER (10.87%)CONDENSER LOSS 33.53%

SHAFT POWER

IP TURB POWER (6.68%)

AUXILIA

RYPOWER(0.22%)

ROTOR COOLING LOSS (2.09%)

COMBUSTOR LOSS (0.49%)

COMPRESSOR

WORK(.%ofGT

ShaftPower)

FUEL

SEN

SIBL

EHEAT

1.00%

DUCT

LOS

S(0.35

%)

RADIATION LOSS

(0.34%)

P

IPELO

SS(0.08%

)

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

IP STEAM (8.6%)

CHEMICALENERGY

(97.32%)

RADIATION LOSS (0.06%)

RADIATION

LOSS

(0.09%

)

RADIATION

LOSS

(0.04%

)

condition monitoring for predictive maintenance to maximize plant energy efficiency

Documents