LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
WG Implementatie EN14181 in VlaanderenApril 07
Practicability of the standard EN 14181 put into question: results of the LABORELEC study
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Outline:
LABORELEC tests on QAL2: Protocol Some examples
Findings summary : QAL2 QAL3 AST
Conclusions.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
QAL2 assessment protocol:
Two in-situ analysers in conventional Belgian power plants: PROCAL: PULSI 240RL SICK GM31 and GM35
Parameters: NO: 0-500 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
SO2: 0-600 ppm
CO: 0-200 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
Continuous recording of the AMSs and SRM outputs Hourly averages distributed on three days. No peripheral measurements taken into account.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
PROCAL PULSI (1)
IR spectroscopy (IR wavelengths obtained by means of interference filters and gas filled cells (GCF))
Auto zero checks. Span checks should be possible with test
gas.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
PROCAL Pulsi (2)
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 31 (1)
Possible to measure simultaneously SO2, NO and optionally NO2 or NH3
UV spectroscopy Zero point measurementReference point measurement
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 31 (2)
Sampling
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 35
IR spectroscopy CO CO2 H2O
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 1a: cal. funct. obtained during different recording periods.
Calibration functions for CO (AMS1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30AMS
SR
M
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 1b: cal. funct. obtained during different recording periods
Calibration functions for CO (AMS2)
-30
20
70
120
170
-30 20 70 120 170
AMS
SR
M
Calibration functions for CO (AMS2)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10 0 10 20 30
AMS
SR
M
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 2: cal. funct. obtained during the same recording period
Calibration functions: SO2
y = 0,75x + 89,10
y = 0,94x + 36,81
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300AMS
SR
M
= 52 ppm
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO SICK: hourly averages
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200 400 600
AMS ppm dry
SR
M p
pm
dry
Randomly selected
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO QAL2 SICK: hourly averages
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200 400 600
AMS ppm dry
SR
M p
pm
dry
Randomly selected
Chosen
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO SICK: calibration functions
y = 1,22x - 0,21
R2 = 0,99
y = 1,38x - 4,24
R2 = 0,99
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 200 400 600
AMS
SR
M
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 4: 2 methods to calculate the calibration function
CO QAL2 AMS2: hourly averages
0,001,002,003,004,005,00
6,007,008,009,00
10,00
-2,00 3,00 8,00
AMS ppm dry
SR
M p
pm
dry
CO QAL2 AMS2 : calibration functions
0,00
100,00
200,00
300,00
400,00
500,00
600,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00
AM S ppm dry
SR
M p
pm
dry
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 1/5
Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3).
Irrelevant calibration function when: measurements close to zero Measurements not scattered enough
Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period).
Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 1/5
Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3).
Irrelevant calibration function when: Measurements close to zero Measurements not scattered enough
Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period).
Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 1/5
Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3).
Irrelevant calibration function when: measurements close to zero Measurements not scattered enough
Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period).
Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 1/5
Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3).
Irrelevant calibration function when: measurements close to zero Measurements not scattered enough
Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period).
Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 2/5
Validated range to narrow.Too costly for:
Plants operating for short durations With emissions much lower than the ELV.
Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission.
Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 2/5
Validated range to narrow.Too costly for:
Plants operating for short durations With emissions much lower than the ELV.
Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission.
Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 2/5
Validated range to narrow.Too costly for:
Plants operating for short durations With emissions much lower than the ELV.
Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission.
Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 2/5
Validated range to narrow.Too costly for:
Plants operating for short durations With emissions much lower than the ELV.
Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission.
Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 3/5
QAL2 with low emissions?
Extension of the calibration range based on linearity functional tests.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 4/5
QAL1 data not available for existing AMSSite data very difficult to obtain use of
default valuesCusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart providedQAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 4/5
QAL1 data not available for existing AMSSite data very difficult to obtain use of
default valuesCusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart providedQAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 4/5
QAL1 data not available for existing AMSSite data very difficult to obtain use of
default valuesCusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart providedQAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 4/5
QAL1 data not available for existing AMSSite data very difficult to obtain use of
default valuesCusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart providedQAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
Use of fixed warning limits What about auto zero and span checks?
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 5/5
Same findings as for QAL2Linearity and cross interference tests already
checked during QAL1
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary: 5/5
Same findings as for QAL2Linearity and cross interference tests already
checked during QAL1
Supress linearity and cross interference tests
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Conclusions
Be carefulSome features have to be revised/ clarified:
QAL2 with low emissions? Extension of the calibration range based on linearity
functional tests. Use of fixed warning limits QAL3 utility What about auto zero and span checks?
We ask for a standard revision !
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Current situation:
CEN committee will publish a guidance note to support the application of the
EN14181.
(mainly based on the Technical guidance Note M20 published by the British Environment agency, www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business)
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Five reasons for you to choose Laborelec :
You have one-stop shopping for your energy needs
You get access to more than 40 years of experience
You get rapid service with reliable solutions
You increase the profitability of your installations
You benefit from independent and confidential advice
LABORELEC
The technical Competence Centerin energy processes and energy use.From R&D to operational assistance.
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Procal NO and SO2NOCalibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv = 59,8 o*kv =19,9
Period 1 -17,95 1,12 1458 0,98 14,3 OK OKPeriod 2 -0,78 1,03 2078 0,99 43,8 OK NOKPeriod 3 48,03 0,89 1892 0,83 34,0 OK NOKPeriod x 104,71 0,84 1861 0,52 43,7 OK NOKPeriod x+1 29,47 1,04 2190 0,86 38,8 OK NOKPeriod y 40,28 0,95 2074 0,98 34,5 OK NOKPeriod y+1 33,64 0,96 2083 0,99 30,3 OK NOK
SO2Calibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv = 89,6 o*kv = 24,9
Period 1 -0,92 0,94 1618 0,93 20,0 OK OKPeriod 2 14,68 0,92 1455 0,94 17,8 OK OKPeriod 3 14,83 0,93 1377 0,94 40,7 OK NOKPeriod x 121,22 0,61 1548 0,40 49,1 OK NOKPeriod x+1 42,50 0,89 1543 0,75 55,6 OK NOKPeriod y -6,91 0,98 1769 0,99 17,7 OK OKPeriod y+1 -7,67 0,98 1442 1,00 11,0 OK OK
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Procal CO
COCalibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv= 20,7 o*kv = 12,4
Period 1 0,00 0,68 6 na 1,8 OK OKPeriod 2 0,00 0,42 10 na 3,4 OK OKPeriod 3 0,00 0,67 29 na 4,5 OK OKPeriod x 0,00 1,03 22 na 6,0 OK OKPeriod x+1 0,00 1,10 24 na 6,1 OK OKPeriod y 0,00 1,01 29 na 6,6 OK OKPeriod y+1 0,00 0,98 22 na 5,6 OK OK
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK NO and SO2
NOCalibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv = 59,8 o*kv =19,9
Period 3 39,50 0,87 1904 0,87 27,4 OK NOKPeriod 4 5,63 0,95 2118 1,00 9,4 OK OKPeriod 4+1 0,43 0,96 2107 1,00 15,6 OK OKPeriod x -10,49 1,06 1923 0,80 27,8 OK NOKPeriod x+1 -35,39 1,12 2221 0,93 26,6 OK NOKPeriod y 10,87 0,97 2096 1,00 14,5 OK OKPeriod y+1 13,98 0,96 2108 1,00 13,1 OK OK
SO2Calibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv = 89,6 o*kv = 24,9
Period 3 14,83 0,93 1363 0,94 40,7 OK NOKPeriod 4 5,53 0,95 1362 1,00 23,0 OK OKPeriod 4+1 10,07 0,94 1350 0,99 24,4 OK OKPeriod x 89,10 0,75 1530 0,48 45,5 OK NOKPeriod x+1 36,81 0,94 1537 0,81 48,1 OK NOKPeriod y 7,75 0,96 1429 1,00 8,5 OK OKPeriod y+1 12,49 0,95 1429 1,00 11,6 OK OK
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK COCO random
Calibration function: Variability:Upper validity
limit Test 1 Test 2a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv= 20,7
o*kv = 12,4
Period 3 - - - - - - -Period x 0,00 2,51 23 5,7 OK OKPeriod x+1 0,00 2,71 28 6,4 OK OKPeriod y 0,00 3,96 51 na 14,7 OK NOKPeriod y+1 0,00 3,33 42 na 15,4 OK NOKPeriod 6 -0,21 1,22 395 0,99 31,3 NOK NOKPeriod 7 -0,10 0,97 605 1,00 56,4 NOK NOKPeriod 8 -2,44 0,83 202 0,88 26,4 NOK NOK
CO recalculéCalibration function: Variability:
Upper validity limit Test 1 Test 2
a b mg/Nm³ std R² SD
o*kv= 20,7 o*kv = 12,4
Period 3bis 8,92 0,84 29 0,92 1,6 OK OKPeriod ybis 4,63 0,93 0,59 3,8 OK OKPeriod y+1 4,77 0,55 0,74 1,8 OK OK
bisPeriod 6bis -4,24 1,38 438 0,99 11,1 OK OKPeriod7Ter 0,08 0,94 33 0,95 4,3 OK OK
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
LABORELEC Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007