Major Project

Master of Technology
in
Power Generation Technology

Rankine cycle based power plant performance

modeling
Supervisors :
Name : Sanjay Jain Dr.M.R.Ravi &
Entry No : 2006JPG2709 Dr. P.M.V. Subbarao
Associate Professors
Deptt. of Mechanical Engineering
IIT Delhi

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology
New Delhi-110016
Overview
• Problem introduction & solution methodology
• Feedwater heaters modeling
• Condenser modeling
• Steam Turbine and overall cycle modeling
• Performance analysis
• Conclusions
Problem introduction & solution
methodology
Motivation

• Unit performance evaluated from performance tests. They requires

special effort, are one time event and are costly.
• No continuous evaluation of plant and its performance.
• Continuous performance evaluation of plant and its equipments can
provide plant operator additional information about plant degradation
so that operator can
• Identify problems
• Improve plant performance
• Make economic decisions about scheduling and optimizing plant
operations
Objectives
• Objective of the project is to develop a thermodynamic
model of Rankine cycle based power plant for
performance analysis.
• In this project steam turbine, condenser, feedwater
heaters, and entire Rankine cycle equipment and
performance models are developed.
• This project develops power plant and its equipments
performance evaluation systems.
 Input plant Input equipment (e.g.
measured data turbine, FW heater,
condenser, and pumps)
design data and geometrical

Project Methodology
parameters

Formulate equipment
thermodynamic equations

Equipment model

Mass and energy Integrate individual

balance code of Turbine equipment models to
cycle. build cycle model

Actual equipment Expected equipment

Performances like turbine performances like expected
power output, heater turbine power output,
TTD, DCA etc. heater TTD, DCA etc.

Comparison of two values

Evaluate equipment and

cycle degradation
The Rankine Cycle Based Power Plant

Fuel Steam Turbine

(Coal, oil, nuclear,
gas, etc.) Generator
Electricity to
Grid

1
Boiler
2

Heat to
4 atmosphere
3
Condenser
Pump
Feedwater Heaters Modeling and
its Results
Feedwater Heater Modeling
1. One feedwater heater is modeled as three heat exchangers in
series.

2. Temperature profile in a feedwater heater

DS
zone Condensing zone Drain
cooling
Tsi zone
T Tsci

Tsco
Tfwo Tso

Tfwco

Tfwci Tfwi
Feedwater Heater Modeling(contd.)

1. Feedwater heater is modeled by modified Bell-Delware method.

2. Feedwater heater modeling is carried out by both LMTD and ɛ-
NTU methods separately.
3. Feedwater heaters are 1-zone, 2-zone and 3-zone.

Extraction steam Extraction steam

T&P flow

Feed Water Heater

Drain T, P and FWH overall U of
Model
flow different zones

FW T,P and
flow FWH TTD and DCA
FW heater
geometrical
parameters

Feedwater heater information flow diagram

 Enter FWH geometrical parameters.
Enter feed water inlet T,P& m.
Enter extraction steam T,P
Enter drain T,P, & m.

Make initial assumption of

FWH TTD & DCA

From heat balance calculate

extraction steam flow.

Calculate drain cooling zone U. Using ɛ-NTU

method calculate Tfwci, Tso, DCA and
%change in DCA value

Use current value of Calculate condensing zone U. Using ɛ-NTU

DCA and TTD for next method calculate Tfwco, Tsci.
iteration

Calculate desuperheating zone U. Using ɛ-

NTU method calculate Tfwo, TTD and
%change in TTD value

Check if
No %change in DCA value<0.01% and
%change in TTD value<0.01%

Flowchart of 3-zone Yes

feedwater heater Output FWH extraction steam flow, TTD and DCA
values
solution strategy by
ɛ-NTU method End
Zone wise overall heat transfer coefficient of Feedwater heaters at

designed load

Overall Heat Transfer cofficient

Desuperheating zone Condensing zone Drain cooling zone
Heater
Rated Calculat Diffrence Rated Calculated Diffrence Rated Calculated Diffrence
(W/m 2o ed
C) (W/m2oC (%age) (W/m2oC) (W/m2oC) (%age) (W/m2oC) (W/m2oC) (%age)

Drain cooler 2192.51 2185.86 -0.30

LPH-1 2887.50 2865.18 -0.77

LPH-2 3219.50 3204.00 -0.48 2413.15 2425.00 0.49

LPH-3 3724.77 3740.13 0.41 2157.64 2229.54 3.33

HPH-5 476.97 443.73 -6.97 2634.71 2634.52 -0.01 2191.70 2160.14 -1.44

HPH-6 715.50 700.15 -2.15 2720.00 2711.49 -0.31 2130.58 2123.48 -0.33

Average Error 4.56 0.40 1.17

Maximum Error 6.97 0.77 3.33

Variation of TTD and DCA with Load for LPH-1, LPH-2, Drain cooler

3.5 4

LPH-1 3.5
Drain
3
3
cooler
2.5
2.5

D C A (O C )
2
T T D (O C )

2 Manufacturer Data
Manufacturer Data
1.5 Model Result 1.5 Model Result

1 1

0.5
0.5
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Load
% Load

3 .5

LPH-2
6

LPH-2 3

2 .5

4
2
TTD (OC)

3
1 .5

2 M a n u f a c t u re r
1
D ata
M o d e l R e s u lt

1 M a n u f a c t u re r 0 .5
D a ta
M o d e l R e s u lt

0
0
50 70
% Lo a d
9 0 110 50 70 % L o ad 90 110
Condenser Modeling and its
Results
 Condenser Modeling

Inlet steam flow Condenser

& enthalpy Pressure

Cooling water inlet Condenser Condenser TTD,

flow & enthalpy Model CW outlet T
Condenser geometrical
parameters Condenser
overall U

• Theoretical condenser models are based on basic principles which

starts from the Navier-Stokes and energy equations for the flowing
fluid.
• Methods of practically predicting condenser performance, typically
rely on methods provided in Heat Exchange Institute(HEI) or ASME
codes.
• Method provided in HEI Standards for Steam Surface Condenser is
followed in modeling condenser.
Condenser modeling 1.Input CW flow and T.
2. Input heat load on
condenser, Q
program flow chart
Use the tube side heat balance
to get the CW outlet
temperature

Guess the expected condenser

P and calculate corresponding
Tsat

Use ASME or HEI method to

calculate overall heat transfer
coefficient U1

Change the expected

condenser pressure Calculate ΔTlm

Calculate Q
U2 =
A.ΔTlm

Check if
No U2 = U1

Yes

Output condenser P, T,
TTD, CW outlet T

End
 Condenser Results
Dependence of Condenser pressure over heat load at various T1=20
CW inlet temp (T1) T1=25
T1=30
20 T1=33
C o n d e n s e r P r e s s u r e (K P a )

18 T1=38
T1=43
16

14

12

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Heat load Q (MCal/s)

 Condenser Results (Contd.)
Dependence of Condenser pressure over heat load at various CW
inlet temp (T1), When cooling water flow 28800m3/hr

25

20
Condenser Pressure (KPa)

T1=20
T1=25
15
T1=30
T1=33
10 T1=38
T1=43

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Heat load Q(KCal/s)
 Effect of fouling and tube plugging
on condenser pressure
Effect of fouling on condenser pressure Effect of tube plugging on condenser pressure

Cleanliness factor C Condenser Pressure Area Reduction % Condenser Pressure

0.9 0.0994955 0 0.0994955

0.85 0.101028 2 0.100045

0.8 0.102831 4 0.100597

0.75 0.104948 6 0.101182

0.7 0.10746 8 0.101802

0.65 0.110456 10 0.102456

0.6 0.114138 12 0.103145

0.55 0.118667 14 0.103869

Steam Turbine & Overall Cycle
Modeling and its Results
Steam Turbine Modeling

• Difficult to model.
• Unlike gas turbine, no characteristic
curves of steam turbine are available.
Flow through steam turbine
 Steam Turbine Modeling
• The rows of blading between the inlet and an extraction, are
considered as a single stage group.
• Reaction steam turbine can be thought of as a series of
stationary and rotating steam nozzles.
• Steam turbine has a parameter called flow function, Φ.
• For a single nozzle
⎧ ⎡ 2 γ +1
⎤⎫
W ⎪ ⎛ γ ⎞ ⎢⎛ P2 ⎞γ ⎛P ⎞ γ
⎥⎪
φ = = C q A ⎨2⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟
γ − ⎠ ⎢⎝ P1 ⎥⎬
⎧ P1 ⎫ ⎪ ⎝ 1
⎢⎣ ⎠ ⎝ P1 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭
⎨ ⎬ ⎩
⎩ v1 ⎭

• Flow function can be a constant, for a single nozzle if:

– Pressure ratio across the nozzle is constant.
– Or, nozzle is operating choked.
• For series of nozzles, as in steam turbine, if last stage is
operating choked, then pressure ratio of all preceding stages
remains constant and they all will operate with constant
Φ.This constant Φ analogy is used in determining pressures
of steam turbine extractions at part loads.
Steam Turbine Modeling (contd.)
• The efficiency of a turbine stage depends on:
– u/c ratio i.e. blade to speed ratio.
– Pressure ratio across stage.
– Reynold no. of flow.
• Heat drop and efficiency of stages preceding that of last LP stage
remains constant.
• Thus modeling of steam turbine essentially comprises of modeling
of:
– Governing stage.
– Intermediate stages having constant heat drop and efficiency.
– Last LP stage, where efficiency and power varies in a complex way at
part load.
• Throttle and sliding pressure governing modeling done.
• HP and reheat section efficiency obtained by following procedure
explained in ASME paper WA-209, and corrected by
manufacturer design data.
• Curve fit equation of manufacturer provided exhaust loss data is
used for modeling last LP stage.
Steam Turbine Exhaust Loss

Annulus
Restriction
losses
Exhaust
loss
50
Turn up
Total

E n t h a lp y , h
loss
40 exhaus 2” UEEP
t loss Hood
losses
Exhaust loss
30 2’ ELEP
Actual
20 leaving
loss
2
10

Entropy ,s
0 120 240 180 240 300 360 ELEP and UEEP of a steam turbine on the h-s diagram
Annulus Velocity (m/s)
Steam Turbine Modeling (contd.)
• From design data determine stage groups Φ, and HP
and reheat section efficiency correction factors.
• In off-design mode, turbine groups stage Φ are kept
constant, and the model predicts the thermodynamic
outputs e.g. temperatures, enthalpies, power etc.
• Turbine model can fully predict the outputs if extraction
flows are specified at part load.
• Steam turbines are uncontrolled extraction steam
turbines.
• It is not possible to model steam turbine in isolation of
feedwater heaters.
Overall Turbine cycle modeling flow diagram

1.Input group stage ɸ

2. Input MS flow, T,P.
3. Reheater pressure drop & HRH T
4. Input CW flow and inlet
temperature

Estimate approximate extraction flows from turbine

Calculate leakage loss & estimate turbine flow distribution

Estimate extraction pressures using constant flow function

Use new
extraction flows, Calculate HP & Reheat section efficiency. Determine steam
TTD & DCA expansion line and establish extraction steam condition. Establish
extraction steam condition at feedwater heaters inlet.

Make initial guess of TTD and DCA of FWH’s for 1st iteration only

Establish condensate and feedwater conditions and BFP-DT steam flows

Use FWH models to determine extraction steam flow TTD and DCA.

No Check if new extraction

flows = Previous flows
 Yes

Make initial guess of condenser pressure

ELEP is already established. Determine turbine exhaust loss and

UEEP & heat rejected to condenser
Use new
calculated value
of condenser Calculate condenser pressure from condenser model
pressure

No Check if new condenser

pressure = old pressure

Yes
Output results

End
Results of Turbine Cycle Modeling

Variation in Power output with MS flow Variation in Heat Rate with MS flow

540.00 2200.00

490.00 2150.00

440.00 2100.00

P o w e r O u tp u t
P o w er O u tp u t

Model Result Model Result

390.00 2050.00
Manufacturer gurantee Manufacturer gurantee

340.00 2000.00

290.00 1950.00

240.00 1900.00
40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
Flow % of VWO flow Flow % of VWO flow
Results of Turbine Cycle Modeling (contd.)

0.8 0.6 1.2

0.5 1
0.6
% a g e c h a n g e in p o w e r o u tp u t

0.4 0.8

% a g e c h a n g e in h e a t r a t e
0.3 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.1
0
0 0 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -0.1 -0.4
-0.2 -0.2 -0.6
-0.3 -0.8
-0.4
-0.4 -1
-0.6 -0.5 -1.2
%age Change in Power Model Results
o Change in temperature (oC)
Change in temperature ( C) ASME As per ASME
Results of Turbine Cycle Modeling (contd.)

6 6 3

% ag e ch an g e in P o wer o u tp u t
4 4
% a g e c h a n g e in p o w e r o u tp u t

1
2 2

0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1

-2 -2
-2

-4 -4 -3
Model Result at
Change in reheat temperature (C) VWO
ASME values
-6 -6
%age Change in Power "Model results 1/2
%age change in pressure ASME rated load"
 Results of Turbine Cycle Modeling
(contd.)

2 Model result at rated load

5.000
Model result at 1/2 rated
4.000
load
3.000 Manufacturer data at rated
1 load
2.000
% C h a n g e in P o w e r

Manufacturer data at 1/2

% C hange power
load
1.000
0 0.000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200
-1.000
-2.000
-1
-3.000
-4.000
Model results at VWO
-2 -5.000
ASME curve
% Reheater pressure drop Condenser Pressure (bar)
Model results at 1/2
 Variation in Heat rate and Power output for 5F (2.78C) condensate Variation in Heat rate and Power output for 1% SH Attempration
subcooling flow

0.05 0.1
0.04 % Variation in Power
0.03 0.08 (Model)
0.02 % Variation in Heat

% V a ria tio n
% Variation in
% V a ria t io n

0.01 0.06 rate (Model)

Power (Model)
0 Variation in Heat rate
% Variation in 0.04
-0.01 45 55 65 75 85 95 (ASME)
Heat rate (Model)
-0.02 0.02 Variation in Power
-0.03 Variation in Heat (ASME)
rate (ASME) 0
-0.04
-0.05 Variation in 45 55 65 75 85 95
Power (ASME)
Flow % of VWO flow Flow % of VWO flow

Variation in Heat rate and Power output for 1% RH Variation in Heat rate and Power output for 1% DM make up
Attempration flow

0.8
0.25
0.7
0.2
0.6 % Variation in Power
0.15
(Model)
0.1
% V a r ia tio n

0.5
% V a r i a ti o n

0.4 0.05 % Variation in Heat

0 rate (Model)
0.3 % Variation in Power
(Model) -0.05 45 55 65 75 85 95
0.2 -0.1 Variation in Heat rate
% Variation in Heat (ASME)
0.1 rate (Model) -0.15
0 Variation in Heat -0.2 Variation in Power
rate (ASME) -0.25 (ASME)
45 55 65 75 85 95
Variation in Power Flow % of VWO flow
Flow % of VWO flow (ASME)
Performance Analysis
Performance Modeling
Measured plant data Overall cycle
performance

Heat and mass balance code Steam turbine performance

of plant Plant Performance
evaluation code
Turbine equipment model

Feedwater heaters
performance

FW heater models

Turbine cycle model Condenser

performance

Condenser model
Feedwater Heaters Performance
HPH-6 Performance
Load Load
(MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) TTD (oC) DCA (oC)
)
Degra
dation
Expec in heat TTD DCA
ted Actual duty( Expec degrad Expec degrad
(MW) (MW) %) ted Actual ation ted Actual ation
520.05 104.01 101.12 98.62 -2.47 0.03 1.27 -1.25 5.59 10.30 -4.70
499.52 99.90 96.03 93.54 -2.59 -1.00 0.33 -1.32 5.02 9.70 -4.68
399.65 79.93 72.99 70.15 -3.89 -2.39 -0.47 -1.92 2.64 7.32 -4.68
306.43 61.29 53.24 50.48 -5.17 -3.23 -0.79 -2.44 1.12 5.52 -4.40
255.18 51.04 41.35 38.94 -5.82 -3.87 -1.24 -2.64 0.52 4.48 -3.97

HPH-5 Performance
Load Load
(MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) TTD (oC) DCA (oC)

Degra
Expec dation TTD DCA
ted Actual in heat Expec degrad Expec degrad
(MW) (MW) duty ted Actual ation ted Actual ation
520.05 104.01 69.98 65.54 -6.34 0.17 2.54 -2.37 5.04 6.77 -1.74
499.52 99.90 67.93 62.99 -7.27 -0.50 2.32 -2.82 4.78 6.67 -1.88
399.65 79.93 53.88 49.12 -8.83 -2.56 0.85 -3.41 2.82 5.06 -2.25
306.43 61.29 41.59 37.35 -10.20 -4.05 -0.11 -3.94 1.46 3.67 -2.21
255.18 51.04 32.66 29.07 -10.99 -4.90 -0.80 -4.10 0.75 1.76 -1.02
Feedwater Heaters Performance
(contd.)
LPH-3 Performance
Load Load
(MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) TTD (oC) DCA (oC)

Degra
Expec dation TTD DCA
ted Actual in heat Expec degrad Expec degrad
(MW) (MW) duty ted Actual ation ted Actual ation
520.05 104.01 33.55 31.31 -6.69 3.08 4.55 -1.47 6.22 3.35 2.87
499.52 99.90 32.80 30.71 -6.37 2.88 4.33 -1.45 6.30 3.93 2.37
399.65 79.93 24.48 22.66 -7.43 1.74 3.32 -1.57 4.38 2.18 2.19
306.43 61.29 18.34 16.97 -7.48 0.98 2.51 -1.53 3.19 1.22 1.97
255.18 51.04 16.02 18.27 14.05 0.69 -2.15 2.84 2.72 0.73 1.99

LPH-2 Performance
Load Load
(MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) TTD (oC) DCA (oC)
)
Degra
dation
Expec in heat TTD DCA
ted Actual duty( Expec degrad Expec degrad
(MW) (MW) %) ted Actual ation ted Actual ation
520.05 104.01 69.19 67.95 -1.79 3.22 4.04 -0.82 6.35 12.48 -6.13
499.52 99.90 63.94 61.13 -4.40 2.79 4.76 -1.97 5.69 11.27 -5.57
399.65 79.93 50.01 48.12 -3.78 1.71 3.35 -1.65 3.73 10.23 -6.50
306.43 61.29 37.89 35.57 -6.12 0.93 3.54 -2.60 2.44 9.48 -7.05
255.18 51.04 32.31 29.82 -7.72 0.61 3.78 -3.17 2.12 8.73 -6.60
 Feedwater Heaters Performance
(contd.)
LPH-1 Performance Drain Cooler Performance
Load Load Load Load
(MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) TTD (oC) (MW) (%age Heater duty (MW) DCA (oC)

Degra Degra
dation
Expec dation DCA
Expec in heat TTD
ted Actual in heat Expec degrad
ted Actual duty( Expec degrad
(MW) (MW) duty ted Actual ation
(MW) (MW) %) ted Actual ation
520.05 104.01 22.58 24.17 7.03 3.39 2.33 1.06 520.05 104.01 3.31 4.43 33.71 4.14 2.33 1.81
499.52 99.90 20.29 22.28 9.82 2.93 1.52 1.41 499.52 99.90 2.95 3.98 35.06 3.61 1.60 2.02
399.65 79.93 15.09 16.19 7.30 1.94 0.97 0.97 399.65 79.93 2.11 2.91 38.38 2.39 0.92 1.46
306.43 61.29 10.95 11.57 5.68 1.26 0.56 0.70 306.43 61.29 1.46 2.05 40.67 1.47 0.41 1.07
255.18 51.04 5.85 5.91 1.06 0.51 0.43 0.08
Condenser Performance

Condenser Performance
Correcte Condens
Rated d er
Cond Actual Cond Press
ense Cond ense ure
r enser r degra CW flow Designed
Load Load Pres Press Pres datio (Kg/s) CW
(M (%a sure ure sure n calcul flow
W) ge) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) ated (Kg/s)

520.05 104.01 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.003 13374.60 15000.00

499.52 99.90 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.013 13691.40 15000.00

399.65 79.93 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.025 13542.10 15000.00

306.43 61.29 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.004 12435.20 15000.00

252.30 50.46 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.148 12337.90 15000.00

 Entire Turbine Cycle Performance Results

Overall Rankine cycle performance

Degrad Degrad Expected Actual degradati degradati
Expecte Actual ation in ation in Heat Rate Heat Rate on on
Load Load d Output Output Output Output (Kcal/KW (Kcal/KW (Kcal/KW (Kcal/KW
(MW) (%age) (MW) (MW) (MW) % Hr) Hr) Hr) Hr)
520.05 104.01 520.05 519.58 -0.48 -0.09 1965.70 1963.22 2.48 -0.13
499.52 99.90 505.13 499.39 -5.74 -1.14 1955.12 1963.46 -8.34 0.43
399.65 79.93 402.74 399.58 -3.16 -0.78 1993.26 1991.18 2.08 -0.10
306.43 61.29 307.98 305.83 -2.14 -0.70 2032.79 2037.51 -4.72 0.23
252.30 50.46 254.38 251.14 -3.24 -1.27 2146.14 2165.41 -19.27 0.90
255.18 51.04 255.02 252.76 -2.26 -0.89 2146.83 2156.04 -9.21 0.43
 Turbine Performance

Performance deterioration of cycle can be due to:

1. Turbine.
2. Other turbine cycle components e.g. feedwater
heaters, condenser, feed pumps, drive turbine etc.

For assessing turbine performance eliminate

variations in the performance of feedwater heaters,
condenser, feed pumps, drive turbine etc.
 Turbine Performance Results

Turbine Performance
Load Load Expect Degra Degra Expecte Actual Heat Heat
ed Actual dation dation d Heat Heat Rate Rate
Output Output in in Rate Rate degrad degrad
(MW) (%age) (MW) (MW) Output Output (Kcal/KW (Kcal/K ation ation
520.05 104.01 521.73 520.34 -1.39 -0.27 1963.71 1974.21 -10.50 0.53
499.52 99.90 506.93 499.94 -6.99 -1.38 1952.91 1978.22 -25.31 1.30
399.65 79.93 404.21 401.54 -2.67 -0.66 1990.80 1997.96 -7.16 0.36
306.43 61.29 309.13 308.67 -0.45 -0.15 2030.09 2025.40 4.69 -0.23
252.30 50.46 255.23 251.74 -3.49 -1.37 2143.37 2179.11 -35.74 1.67
255.18 51.04 255.87 253.29 -2.58 -1.01 2144.02 2170.67 -26.65 1.24
 Conclusion
• Feedwater heaters models developed. Predicted performance is
in good agreement with the designed values at rated load as well
as at part load.
• Condenser model is developed based on HEI method of
condenser design. The predicted condenser pressure from the
model matches closely with the designed condenser pressures.
• Turbine cycle model predictions matches closely with turbine
manufacturer provided data.
• Also correction curves developed from the cycle model for
variation in input parameters matches closely with the correction
curves provided in ASME PTC-6 of steam turbine and by the
turbine manufacturer.
• It is observed that performance of turbine cycle and turbine are
close to expected value.
• Actual performance of drain cooler and LPH-1 is observed to be
better than expected and other heaters are slightly worse than
expected.
• Equipment and cycle models developed in the project can be
used for performance monitoring in plants.
• Equipment and cycle models developed in the project can be
used for plant simulation and doing what-if analysis.
Scope for Future Work

• Before using actual plant data, its quality needs to be

evaluated and improved if possible by incorporating
data validation module.
• Uncertainty analysis of output needs to be performed.
• For full plant modeling boiler model needs to be
developed and incorporated in the entire cycle model.
• Pump performance models needs to be developed and
incorporated in the performance module.
THANK YOU
 HRH T Extraction Pressures
HP Section Power
MS T,P,m HP section efficiency
Overall steam
Extraction flow IP Section Power
turbine IP section efficiency
performance LP Section Power
Condenser model LP section efficiency
Vacuum All Extraction temp and
enthalpies
Outlet enthalpy
Entire Turbine Cycle Modeling
• Manufacturer provided CEP H-Q and ƞ curves are used.
• For BFP modeling manufacturer provided BFP and
BFPDT efficiency curves are used.
• For generator efficiency curve fit equations of
manufacturer data is used.
• Extraction line pressure drop data at designed condition
is used, at other loads extraction line pressure drop is
calculated.
• At part load extraction flows are computed from heater
models and extraction pressure from constant Φ.
Pressure influences extraction flow and vice-versa. So
solution is achieved by iteratively solving.
• Condenser model also integrated in overall plant cycle
model.
 Turbine Performance (contd.)
• Determine actual operating turbine expansion line and
flow function.
• Replace actual feedwater heaters, CEP, BFP and BFP-
DT equipments by designed equipment models.
• Extraction pressures and hence extraction flows will
change. Process converge after few iterations.
• Once extraction pressures are established, extraction
steam temperature and enthalpies determined from test
expansion line at revised pressure.
• Determine exhaust loss.
• Turbine heat rate and output corrected to effect of
balance equipments calculated, by means of energy
balance around turbine.
Entire Turbine Cycle Modeling

Main steam Unit output

T , P & flow power

HRH T Plant heat rate.

Entire TG HP,IP and LP
CW inlet and cycle model turbine
efficiencies
outlet T BFP and CEP
Equipment Power
models consumption
FWH’s TTD
and DCA’s
Attempratio
n flows Condenser
vacuum
Make water
flows FW and
condensate line
T
Variation of TTD and DCA with Load for LPH-3 and HPH-5
6
3 .5

LPH-3 LPH-3
5 LPH-1 3

2 .5
4
2

TTD (OC)
3
1 .5

M a n u fa c tu re r
1
2 D ata
M o d e l R e s u lt

0 .5
1 M a n u f a c t u re r
D ata 0
M o d e l R e s u lt 50 70 % L o ad 90 110
0 1
50 70 90 110

6
% Lo ad
0 .5 HPH-5
HPH-5 0
5 50 70 90 110
- 0 .5

4 TTD ( C)
O
-1

- 1 .5
3

-2
2
- 2 .5 M a n u f a c t u re r
D ata
-3 M o d e l R e s u lt
1 M a n u f a c t u re r
D a ta
M o d e l R e s u lt - 3 .5
0
50 70
% Lo a d
9 0 110 -4 % L o ad
 Variation of TTD and DCA with Load for HPH-6
6
0 .5

5 0
50 70 90 110
- 0 .5
4
-1

- 1 .5

TTD (OC)
3

-2

2
- 2 .5
M a n u f a c t u re r
D ata
-3 M o d e l R e s u lt
1 M a n u f a c t u re r
D ata
M o d e l R e s u lt - 3 .5

0
50 70 90 110
-4 % L o ad
% Lo ad
 Introduction
Plant performance modeling involves
• Estimating the current performance level of the equipments.
• Estimating the expected performance of the equipment. Comparing
these two values shortfall in performance of equipment is assessed.

Expected performance is estimated by

• Equipment correction curves or
• Models of the equipment

Expected performance by equipment modeling is better but is not popular

in India as
• Equipment suppliers do not provide the computer model of the
equipments.
• Commercial codes are too generic and costly.

Thus in view of above it is required that an in-house model based

performance monitoring system be developed which is not too
generic, uses specific plant design data and works on realistic models
of equipments
 Performance testing v/s online
monitoring
Performance test Performance monitoring

Objective Absolute performance Detect degradation

Instrumentation type Precision instrumentation Instrumentation normally available

in plants

Measurement requirement Accuracy Repeatability

Test interval One time activity Repeated often

Test conditions Equipment isolated and at full load Normal plant operation

Eample ASME tests PADO

 Accuracy enhancement
• Data validation
• Class of sensors that are more accurate are
Temp > Pressure >flow
• Least square error for the set of measurments
• Evaluation of raw data set (χ2 test)
• Test uncertainties & data reconciliation as per
VDI-2048 and ASME PTC 19.1
• Data reconciliation can be a a separate module.
 Uncertainty analysis
• Measurement errors:
– Random error
• Estimation by inspection of scatter in
measurements
– Systemic error
• Often instrument manufacturers provide an
estimate of likely error
• Uncertainty of outputs
– Monte Carlo simulation
CONCLUSIONS FROM LITERATURES SURVEYED

Little information in the published literatures on performance modeling

of steam turbine cycle
Most of the works aimed at Gas Turbine performances (perfect or real
gas
consideration, steam properties and wet steam considerations not
taken)
Many procedures and models available are turbine specific (Model and
Make)
On micro level analysis (individual losses at individual stages or blade
rows) a
lot many works done: both Thermodynamic and CFD analysis
Only CFD analysis not possible for overall turbine performance, not
even for
stage-by-stage analysis but for blade-by-blade analysis
Only Thermodynamic analysis for overall performance assessment
In IIT Delhi in recent years a number of works in this direction:
The initial few works not considered steam properties (ideal/ real
gas
assumptions)
The later works with steam as the working fluid but not considering
all
 Gantt Chart Of Major Project Activities
Tasks Aug- Sep- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May-
Jun-07 Jul-07 07 07 Oct-07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08
Literature study.
Data Collection
Program for design
analysis of the turbine
Off design computer
model of Steam turbine
Validation of Steam
turbine model
Computer model of
Feedwater heater
Validation of Feedwater
heater model
Computer model of
condenser
Validation of condenser
model
Computer model of BFP
& CEP
Validation of BFP &
CEP model
Computer model of
entire cycle
Validation of cycle
model
Report preparation
 ASME Performance test codes
related to this project
ASME Test code Description

PTC-6 Steam Turbine

PTC-6A Appendix to PTC 6

PTC-6S Procedure for routine performance test of

Steam Turbines

PTC-12.1 Closed Feedwater heaters

PTC-12.2 Steam surface condenser

 Methodology
1. Develop program to calculate the current performance of equipments
from measured data in power plant.
2. Develop steady state models of power plant equipments and entire
Rankine cycle using design data and published works.
3. Test the model with guarantee performance test results/ equipment
correction curves, and correct the model where necessary.
4. Input measured equipment-operating condition into the model.
5. Run the model and obtain the expected equipment performance as
model output.
6. Evaluate the degradation by comparing the expected performance from
model to measured performance.
Since expected performance is based on the
design model of equipments that might not
represent the actual performance expected
from the plant equipment. One way to resolve
this is to obtain data from early in the plant
operational history, when degradation can be
expected to be zero. Use this data as the
design data in the plant design analysis model,
instead of vendor design or guarantee data.
• Performance monitoring does not necessarily require
absolute accuracy, but it demands repeatable data for
establishing accurate trends of various performance
characteristics.
• On line performance monitoring system can be thought
of as a relative evaluation instead of absolute evaluation
tools. It can be very good at detecting changes in
performance of equipments.
• Because on line performance monitoring system
produces relative result, the degradation of plant
equipment must be tracked over time to identify changes
that have occurred.
• For this reason it is important to install performance
monitoring system early in the operational history of
plant.