Plant Performance - Delhi

Performance Test Report
Of
2 X 600 MW Singareni Thermal Power
Plant,
Telangana, India.
(An ISO 9001:2008 certified Company)

STEAG Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd.
(Formerly Evonik Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
(A wholly owned subsidiary of STEAG Energy Services GmbH, Germany)
A-29, Sector-16, NOIDA-201301, India
Jan- 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Steag Energy Services India Private Limited, SESI expresses their sincere gratitude to
the management of Singareni Thermal Power Plant, specifically Mr. JN Singh, Chief
(O&M) for their cooperation in executing the offline performance evaluation of TG &Boiler
of STPP at Jaipur ,Mancherial. We are thankful to Mr. SS Jadhav, Mr. Veera Brahman,
Mr. Neeraj Agarawal, Mr. Rajeev Saini, Mr. Prithvi Reddy and Mr.Dhawal Marghade, who
were closely associated with the study activity and provided all assistance, valuable
inputs during the study without which timely completion of the job would have been
difficult.
We would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to the other departments also who
helped us with infrastructure / arrangements and encouragement in our endeavor. The
valuable information / input furnished by the Operating and Maintenance personnel of
the plant during site activity are also highly appreciable.
Finally, we thank all those who helped us directly or indirectly to execute this Test.
ONM012/STPPL/01/18/R01 Page 2 of 82
TABLE CONTENTS
SECTIONS PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 8
2.0 PERFORMANCE TEST AND ANALYSIS ............................................................ 9
2.1 Background for the Test ................................................................................. 9
2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Test Setup ...................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Measuring points and Instrument used ...................................................... 11
2.5 Condition for the Test ................................................................................... 12
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ 13
3.1 Turbine Cycle Analysis ................................................................................. 13
3.1.1 Computation of Flows and Mass &Energy Balance ................................ 13
3.1.2 Turbine Cylinder Efficiency ...................................................................... 17
3.1.3 Turbine Pressure Survey ......................................................................... 19
3.1.4 Turbine Cycle Heat Rate ......................................................................... 21
3.1.5 Condenser Analysis................................................................................. 24
3.2 Heater andDeaeratorAnalysis ...................................................................... 28
3.2.1 HP Heater Analysis ................................................................................. 28
3.2.2 Deaerator Analysis .................................................................................. 35
3.3 Pump Analysis ............................................................................................... 36
3.3.1 TDBFP Analysis ...................................................................................... 36
3.3.2 CEP Analysis ........................................................................................... 38
3.4 High Energy Drain Valve Survey .................................................................. 40
3.5 Boiler Analysis .............................................................................................. 41
3.5.1 Boiler efficiency ....................................................................................... 41
3.5.2 APH Performance.................................................................................... 43
3.6 Cooling Tower Performance ........................................................................ 46
3.7 Power Measurement ..................................................................................... 51
3.8 Insulation Survey .......................................................................................... 55
Annexure –I Test Coal/Ash Analysis and Proximate to Ultimate Analysis
conversion .............................................................................................................. 62
Annexure –II Cycle isolation list during Performance Evaluation.................. 63
Annexure –III Design Data (100 %, 80 %, 60% Load) ....................................... 64
Annexure –IV Operating Data (100 % Load Case)............................................. 66
Annexure –V Turbine Heat Rate Calculation ..................................................... 69
Annexure –VI HBDs ............................................................................................... 70
Annexure –VII Cooling Tower Cell Wise Test Data ............................................. 74
Annexure –VIII Boiler Efficiency Calculation..................................................... 78
Annexure –IX APH Test data ................................................................................. 81
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Turbine cylinder efficiency ................................................................. 17
Table 3-2: Turbine pressure survey .................................................................... 20
Table 3-3: Turbine cycle gross heat rate............................................................. 22
Table 3-4: Heat rate deviation ............................................................................. 23
Table 3-5: Design details of condenser............................................................... 24
Table 3-6: Condenser-A performance analysis ................................................... 25
Table 3-7: Condenser-B performance analysis ................................................... 25
Table 3-8: Condenser vacuum loss .................................................................... 25
Table 3-9: Vacuum comparison .......................................................................... 27
Table 3-10 Heater performance analysis ............................................................ 29
Table 3-11 Deaerator performance evaluation ................................................... 35
Table 3-12: TDBFP performance analysis .......................................................... 36
Table 3-13 Measured Recirculation flow ............................................................. 37
Table 3-14 Extra steam consumption due to RC passing ................................... 37
Table 3-15 Recirculation loss in BFP .................................................................. 38
Table 3-16 CEP performance analysis ............................................................... 38
Table 3-17 Unit 1 Drain valve passing ............................................................... 40
Table 3-18 unit 2 Drain valve passing ................................................................. 41
Table 3-19 Boiler efficiency analysis ................................................................... 41
Table 3-20 Boiler water/steam temperature profile ............................................. 42
Table 3-21: APH Performance analysis .............................................................. 44
Table 3-22 APH pressure drop ........................................................................... 45
Table 3-23 Design Details of Cooling tower ........................................................ 47
Table 3-24 Cooling tower performance (CT 1A) ................................................. 48
Table 3-25 Cooling tower performance (CT 1B) ................................................. 48
Table 3-26 Cooling tower performance (CT 2A) ................................................. 49
Table 3-27 Cooling tower performance (CT 2B) ................................................. 49
Table 3-28 Transformer feeder Unit 1 ................................................................. 51
Table 3-29: Transformer feeder Unit 2 ................................................................ 52
Table 3-30 Motor feeder Unit 1 (11 KV and 3.3 KV) ........................................... 53
Table 3-31 Motor feeder Unit 2 (11 KV and 3.3 KV) ........................................... 54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Mass balance diagram (a) unit 1, (b) unit 2 ...................................... 14
Figure 3-2: Heat and mass balance diagram during test condition (a) unit 1, (b)
unit 2 ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-3: Comparison of HPT expansion against VWO condition.................... 18
Figure 3-4: Turbine pressure survey (a) unit 1 (b) unit 2 ..................................... 21
Figure 3-5: Measurement locations for computation of heat rate and efficiencies
............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3-6: Condenser vacuum loss (a) Unit 1 (b) unit 2 .................................... 26
Figure 3-7 Schematic diagram of heater arrangement........................................ 29
Figure 3-8 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 7A/B .................................. 31
Figure 3-9 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 6A/B .................................. 32
Figure 3-10 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 5A/B................................ 32
Figure 3-11 Knee curve test 1 ............................................................................. 35
Figure 3-12 Feed water Vs Steam temperature profile ....................................... 42
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section presents a brief summary of the results of the comprehensive offline
performance test carried out at Singareni Thermal Power Plant, pegadapalli during
January 2018. The study covered with a focus on performance assessment of vital
energy consuming equipment including energy conservation measures.
A team of four specialist consultants were involved in the comprehensive offline

performance test from Steag Noida office. The test was mainly targeted at identifying
current performance of the boiler, APH, turbine, condenser, cooling tower, regenerative
feed heating system and turbine heat rate. Based on the evaluated performance
resulting from a detailed study and analysis of technical parameters; practical,
sustainable and economically viable energy saving opportunities for above sections of
the facility is identified. The test involved using a wide range of sophisticated, portable,
diagnostic and measuring instruments to generate refined data and facilitate in complex
analyses to give a more reliable basis for evaluation of performance, energy saving
measures and economic viability.
The performance test of the unit is conducted on 17th January 2018 for unit 1 and 18th
January 2018 for unit 2, using offline instruments for Turbine cycle and boiler. The
overall performance of both the units based on test data is depicted in below table.
Test Condition 100 % Load Date: 17-01-2018 18-01-2018
Description Unit Design Unit #1 Unit #2
Average Load MW 600 605.91 603.93
Main steam pressure kg/cm2 170.06 171.96 169.25
Main steam temperature ºC 537.00 537.89 539.41
HP turbine exhaust pressure kg/cm2 43.04 45.49 43.80
HP turbine exhaust temperature ºC 332.7 333.31 335.89
HRH pressure at IP turbine inlet kg/cm2 38.73 42.43 40.87
HRH temperature at IP turbine inlet ºC 565 564.980 564.740
Feed water temperature at
economizer inlet ºC 278.00 282.98 280.14
Final feed water flow t/h 1835.506 2027.72 1908.88
SH Spray flow t/h 0 21.44 38.40
RH Spray flow t/h 0 3.30 32.66
TG heat rate (actual) kcal/kWh 1927.1 2118.82 2069.39
TG heat rate (corrected) kcal/kWh 1927.1 2057.05 2010.22
Boiler efficiency actual % 88.53 86.98 86.87
Unit heat rate kcal/kWh 2177.00 2436.09 2382.16
Major Observations:
 Recirculation valve passing across TDBFPA&B for both the units has been
observed, hence it is recommended to attend the valve passing immediately for
both the units.
 It has been observed more throttling loss due to deaerator control valve, so it is
recommended to install VFD in CEP to reduce energy consumption.
 In cooling tower, 4 no of CT fans found to be nonfunctional which should be
made available as per design. CT Approach is high due to Low air flow from Fan.
Recommended to refer to OEM for improving the approach
 During flue gas analysis, it was observed only one sampling point at inlet/outlet of
APH, so it is recommended to make available more number of sampling point
with approach.
 Unit 1&2, deaerator extraction temperature having the more deviation, needs to
be rectified.
 Mill rejection losses were observed around 0.34% and 0.52% respectively, so
minimize the losses due to mill rejection system.
 Condenser vacuum and Drain passing attribute to high heat rate.
 Poor insulation of boiler furnace is one of the reasons for low Boiler efficiency.
Identified energy conservation measures for the unit are given below:
Annual Saving
Unit Investment
Recommendation Electricity Coal Rs. Payback
No Rs. Cr
Cr
[kWh] [MT]
Attending TD BFP 1A
1 10969.71 2.63 0.10 14 days
Recirculation passing
Attending TD BFP 1B
1 7531.17 1.81 0.10 21 days
Attending TD BFP 2A
2 22516.51 5.40 0.10 7 days
Attending TD BFP 2B
2 14304.46 3.43 0.10 11 days
VFD installation into 14
2 1250488.66 0.45 0.50
CEP 2A months
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The Singareni Thermal Power Plant (STPP) is a coal based Sub-critical power station
in Pegadapalli, Telangana, India having total installed capacity of 1200 MW, consisting of
two identical 600 MW units, and is operated by the Singareni Collieries Company
Limited. Power plant synchronization was completed on 13th March 2016 for Unit 1 and
on 1st September 2016 for Unit 2. C.O.D for Unit -1 was 25th September 2016 & 2nd
December 2016 for unit -2 respectively.
Water for the plant consumptive requirements is sourced from two different locations,
one from Godavari River at Shetpalli Village 9 km away and second is Pranhita River
near Devalwada village which is 42 kms away from the plant. Primary source of fuel is
coal and is sourced from Srirampur coal fields owned by SCCL, which is at a distance of
11km and station has a requirement of 4.784 MMTPA at GCV of 4529 kcal/kg.
Boiler is of pulverized fuel fired type; BHEL (India make) has a capacity of 2000 TPH at
BMCR condition. Turbine rated capacity of 600 MW, three cylinder reheat condensing
type, BHEL (India make). DCS is from BHEL Max DNA and switchyard is 400Kv one and
half breaker scheme. Each unit is having 6 no’s of HP heater &3 no’s of LP heater.
Individual unit consisted with 2 no’s of condenser including 3 no’s of vacuum pump
keeping 1 in standby. Induce draft cooling tower having 22 no’s of cell for each unit
keeping 2 no’s of CT fan in standby.
The study focuses on evaluating performance of Boiler, APH, Turbine, Condenser ,

regenerative feed heating system and cooling tower for improving energy use efficiency
and identifying energy saving opportunities at the various equipment’s.
During the study, every attempt was made to understand the existing practices to
develop set of recommendations in the interest of: The preliminary observations have
been discussed with the efficiency department personnel as well as the management,
both during the course of the study. This is primarily to ensure that there is a proper
dissemination of information, as well as to provide the right platform for sharing of ideas.
2.0 PERFORMANCE TEST AND ANALYSIS
2.1 Background for the Test

The test covered an in-depth study of all the major subsystems as mentioned in previous
section. The test involved carrying out various measurements and analysis covering all
major sections, to realistically assess losses and potential for energy savings.
The study focused on evaluation of performance and its gap for improving energy use
efficiency and identifying energy saving opportunities at various equipment as mentioned
earlier and processes. The analyses included simple payback calculations where
investments are required to be made to implement recommendations, to establish their
economic viability.
A wide array of latest, sophisticated, portable, diagnostic and measuring instruments

were used to support our test investigations and analyses. Wherever possible online
data recorded by making a data required list in the DCS during the actual field test.The
study made use of various portable instruments, for carrying out various measurements
and analyses. The specialized instruments that were used during the test include:
 Power analyzer
 Flue gas analyzer
 Ultrasonic flow meter
 Anemometer
 Hygrometer
 Thermography camera
 Pressure transmitter
 Thermocouples/Temperature probe
During the test, there was continuous interaction between the test team and plant
personnel to allow for possible concurrent implementation and to ensure that the
suggestions made are realistic, practical and implement able.
2.2 Methodology
Steag team visited STPP, site from 08.01.2018 to 22.01.2018 for Unit #1 and #2
performance testing using offline and online plant instruments, for assessing the
performance of systems as described in executive summary. Prior to the visit,
requirements for conducting the test, list of on line instruments to be made available
/calibrated, offline instruments required were forwarded by Steag to STPP. A pretest
meeting was held at site in presence of station efficiency and operation group. The test
team discussed the modalities for the test, methodology to be adopted, and various
requirements from site for carrying out the test. Steag team discussed with site team to
assess following:-
 The general condition of the unit.
 Availability of data from online instruments to be used, and their calibration and
validation of parameters.
 Finalization of data list to be captured through DCS.
 The methodology & condition of unit required to be maintained during test was
explained /discussed with plant engineers.
 The final test was carried out on 17.01.2018 for Unit 1 from 13:15 to 15:15 hrs
and 18.01.2018 for unit 2 from 10:20 to 12:20 hrs for 100 % load condition
 Location and availability of test pockets for collection of samples such as flue gas
sampling before and after APH, as fired coal sampling, bottom and fly ash
sampling, mill rejects etc.
2.3 Test Setup

 The test was conducted as per the test proposal discussed with STPP personal
at TMCR condition with 605.91 MW and 603.93 MW load for Unit 1 and Unit 2
respectively, using offline and online station instruments. The general guidelines
as detailed in ASME PTC code for boiler (PTC 4 ) & turbine performance (PTC 6)
were followed while conducting the test.
 Flue gas temperature and O2 measurement done using portable gas analyzer at
APH inlet and outlet. Also at some location flow measurement is done using GE
PT 878 ultrasonic flow meter. Condensate flow is measured using ultrasonic flow
meter and feed water flow is computed based on measured condensate flow for
further performance calculation.
 Condenser vacuum is measured using absolute pressure gauge.
 A team of STPP and SESI site engineers were associated with SESI noida team
to assist and coordinate the various activities during the test.
 The test duration was for 2 hours for turbine and 4 hours for boiler.
2.4 Measuring points and Instrument used

 Barometric pressure was recorded with absolute pressure transmitter.
 Condensate flow to deaerator, BFP suction and individual flow of cooling tower
header has been measured using the portable ultrasonic flow meter.
 Air flow in the CT fan was measured by the anemometer.
 The existing test pockets at Air heater inlet /outlet were used for flue gas analysis
by grid sampling method using Testo Flue gas analyzer.
 Calibrated Portable flue gas analyzer was used for measurement of oxygen,
carbon dioxide &, CO percentage in flue gas at APH inlet &outlet.
 Flue gas temperature data was captured by offline grid method using K-type
thermocouple available with the portable gas analyzer.
 All test data recorded in DCS at one minute frequency for two hours.
 The sample for `as fired coal’ was collected from all running coal feeders at 30
minutes interval during test by STPP and composite sample was made by coning
and quartering. Two final samples were prepared for analysis. For total moisture,
separate samples were also collected at same time. The total moisture, GCV and
proximate analysis were carried at site Chemistry laboratory. The ultimate
analysis has been derived from proximate analysis using standard formula as
mentioned in Annexure I.
 The fly ash samples were collected from all ESP hoppers during the test and
were tested at site chemistry lab for un-burnt fraction. Similarly the bottom ash
sample was collected during bottom hopper de-ashing after completion of the test
and tested at site chemistry lab for un-burnt.
 Bottom ash temperature is taken as 900ºC as per instruction from STPP for
calculating loss due to sensible heat.
 Heat credits have not been taken for calculation of boiler efficiency for this test.
2.5 Condition for the Test

The preparation for the test and following points were carried out before the test.
 During performance evaluation, soot blowing was not carried out at furnace and
air heater.
 Total air flow, SADC & oxygen controls were maintained (as per station practice)
and unit operating parameters like main steam temperature, pressure, reheater
temperature etc. were stabilized at rated value before the test.
 No mill changeover was done during the test period and no oil support was taken
during the test period.
 All heaters LP & HP were in operation with normal cascading
 CBD, EBD was kept closed during the test.
 DM make up flow to the unit is kept isolated during the test
 Manual isolating valves of all turbine high energy drain valves and HP heaters
emergency drains valves closed.
 Cycle Isolation list in Annexure - II
Note:
 All extractions steam pressure and temperature measurements were available at
heater end in DCS.
 The heat rate evaluated is a broad assessment and is only indicative, for the
purpose of calculating heat rate deviations and giving recommendations. It is not
to be used for any regulatory, commercial and legal purposes.
 Numerical values all quantities mentioned in this report are in SI units.
 Resulting numerical values all calculated pressures, and also values of pressure
in all heat balance diagrams are of absolute pressure.
 Water / Steam table used for all calculation: IAPWS-IF97
 During test BFP recirculation passing is observed and same has been measured.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Turbine Cycle Analysis
3.1.1 Computation of Flows and Mass &Energy Balance
Feed water flow to the boiler was computed using measured condensate flow to
deaerator and calculation of extraction flow to HPH-5(A/B), HPH-6(A/B), HPH-7(A/B) and
deaerator by heat and mass balance with the method depicted in ASME. The
condensate flow is measured using ultrasonic flow meter as 1502.394t/h and 1470.30t/h
for unit 1 and 2 respectively. Based on mass balance using method describe in ASME
the calculated final feed water flow at heater outlet is 2027.72t/h and 1908.88t/h
including reheater and super heater spray flow as shown in Figure 3-1.This has been
validated using the first principle modeling software Ebsilon®Professional. The computed
feed water flow at economizer inlet is used for further heat rate calculation. Figure 3-2
shows the mass and energy balance of the unit1 & 2 at 100% load condition based on
the test data collected from the plant. The detailed design data is depicted in Annexure
III. The detailed data collected during test is presented in Annexure IV.
(a) Unit 1
(b) Unit 2
Figure 3-1Mass balance diagram (a) unit 1, (b) unit 2
(a)
(b)
Figure 3-2: Heat and mass balance diagram during test condition (a) unit 1, (b) unit 2
Observation and Analysis

 The final feed water to the boiler was determined using by equation method
based on ASME PTC 6A.
 The final feed water flow is calculated based on the measured condensate flow.
 The DCS condensate flow recorded is around 1531.76 t/h and 1510.67 t/h for
unit 1 & 2 against the measured condensate flow using flow meter of 1502.39
t/h and 1470.30 t/h (@design 1365.78t/h).Condensate flow deviation w.r.t
measurementis136.61t/h &104.52t/h for unit 1&2 against design.
 The DCS feed water flow is recorded around 1979.16 t/h (includes SH spray
21.44 t/h) and 1970.8t/h (includes SH spray 38.40 t/h) for unit 1 & 2 respectively
against the calculated final feed water flow of 2027.72 t/h and 1908.88 t/h as
sown in Figure 3-1) @design 1835.506 t/h. Hence feed water flow deviation is
192.22 t/h & 73.37 t/h respectively for unit 1&2 against design.
 As the station DCS record/ calculate final feed water flow including SH spray,
hence the deviation depends upon amount of spray quantity. It has been
observed that the feed water consumption for unit 1 is higher than the feed
water consumption of unit 2. This may be due to drain passing through high
pressure valve in unit 1. The detail drain passing details is discussed in section
4.4. It is also observed that the unit2 RH & SH spray is more than the unit 1.
 The difference of calculated feed water flow at unit 1 and unit 2 is may be due
to difference of deaerator level of unit 1 and unit 2. Also deaerator extraction
steam temperature is found to be327.31ºC& 339.12ºCfor unit 1&2 respectively
against the design 327.5ºC.So temperature deviation is around 11.81ºC
between unit 1 & 2.Hence final feed water flow might be varying due to this
also, so unit 2 deaerator extraction temperature element to be checked.
 It is also found to be the average extraction steam temperature of unit 1 heater
5A & 5B @445.24ºC& for unit 2 heaters 5A &5B @452.78ºC against the design
462.9 ºC. So temperature difference between the unit 1 & 2 extraction is
7.54ºC. Hence this may be effect the deviation in final feed water flow between
unit 1 &2. So it is recommended to check the extraction steam temperature
element of heater 5A & 5B for both units.
 During flow measurement at deaerator inlet, it has been observed that the flow
is unstable and the flow is ranged between 1486 m3/hr to 1680 m3/hr (difference
of around 200 m3/hr) this may be due to faulty operation of deaerator control
valve. So deaerator level control valve, tuning to be required in both unit to
minimize the sudden flow fluctuation of approximately 200 m3/hr.
3.1.2 Turbine Cylinder Efficiency

The procedure is performed to provide information for diagnosing of steam turbine
condition and to identify abnormal changes with respect to steam turbine performance.
This method determines the ratio of actual enthalpy drop to the isentropic enthalpy drop.
This enthalpy drop efficiency method provides a good measure for monitoring purposes,
provided certain qualifications are met in obtaining results. Turbine cylinder efficiency
tests were evaluated from test data collected at TMCR condition. The HP, IP&LP turbine
efficiencies are evaluated from data acquired from plant DCS is given in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Turbine cylinder efficiency
Station: Date: 17-01-2018 18-01-2018
Description Unit Design Unit # 1 Unit # 2
Load kW 600000 605910 603930
HP Turbine
Main Steam Pressure Before ESV kg/cm2 170.06 171.95 169.26
Main Steam Temperature before ESV ºC 537 537.890 539.405
HP Turbine Exhaust Pressure kg/cm2 43.04 45.49 43.79
HP Turbine Exhaust Temperature ºC 332.7 333.305 335.89
HP Turbine efficiency % 89.65 93.56 90.75
IP Turbine
Hot reheat pressure at IV inlet kg/cm2 38.73 42.43 40.87
Hot Reheat temperature at IV inlet ºC 565 564.98 564.74
IP Turbine Exhaust Pressure kg/cm2 7.70 7.87 8.93
IP Turbine Exhaust Temperature ºC 328.2 329.26 338.98
IP Turbine efficiency % 92.95 88.97 93.26
It may be noted that, the cylinder efficiency calculations are very sensitive to
measurement inaccuracies. Calculation of cylinder efficiency shown in Table 3-1 is
based on average data collected form online plant instruments. Thus error in
measurements because of instrument inaccuracy may not give accurate results and may
show larger deviation than actual. Hence, the calculation in Table 3-1 should be taken as
indicative only. After continuous running of the unit deterioration is expected, due to
increase in turbine clearance, blade surface roughness etc.
Figure 3-3: Comparison of HPT expansion against VWO condition

 Usually cylinder efficiency test is conducted in VWO condition to access the
turbine performance. In this report the calculated efficiency is only an indication of
current operating efficiency of turbines.
 The results of turbine efficiency as per test data are depicted in Table 3-1. The
HPT efficiency is found to be 93.56 % and 90.75 % for unit 1 & 2 against the
design value of 89.64%. As per HBD data in VWO condition the HPT efficiency is
92.5 %. As shown in the turbine expansion line in Figure 3-3the isentropic heat
drop in unit 1 is381.16 kJ/kg and in unit 2 is388.63 kJ/ kg against VWO condition
of 378.52 kJ/kg. Which may not the reason that the unit1 HPT efficiency is little
higher than the VWO condition efficiency, where as the change in entropy from
the extraction stage till exit of HPT is quit negative. This may be due to carry over
loss or friction loss.
 The IPT efficiency as per test data for unit 1 is calculated and found to be 88.97%
against the design value of 92.95%. However for unit 2 the IPT efficiency is
higher than the design value which is may be due to wrong extraction
parameters.
Recommendation
 Periodic assessment of turbine efficiency to be carried out using calibrated
instruments to trend deterioration in performance and formulate corrective action
plan also to monitor the extraction parameters.
HPT Inlet HPT exhaust HPT exhaust/Throttle Pr
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
HBD 170 43.03 0.2531
Unit 1
Test 171.9 45.48 0.2646
HBD 170 43.03 0.2531
Unit 2
Test 169.20 43.78 0.2587
The increase in pressure ratio indicates there may be possibilities of increase in

turbine clearances. In unit 1 the ratio is higher side compared to unit 2.
 It is suggested that the gland seal / inter stage seal strips condition as well as its
clearances may be checked at the next available opportunity.
 It is suggested to trend the HPT efficiency at VWO condition (to track the
degradation).
 It is suggested that the pressure ratio of HPT exhaust to throttle pressure should
also be monitored, trended and analyzed for correlating with possible change in
turbine clearances.
IPT Exhaust IPT Inlet IPT exhaust/IPT Inlet
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
HBD 7.70 38.72 0.1989
Unit 1
Test 7.86 42.41 0.1853
HBD 7.70 38.72 0.1989
Unit 2
Test 8.92 40.86 0.2183
 A decrease in pressure ratio indicates possibility of deposits or roughness. It is

suggested that the pressure ratio of IPT exhaust to IPT inlet should also be
monitored.
 It is suggested to trend the IPT efficiency at VWO condition (to track the
degradation).
3.1.3 Turbine Pressure Survey

Turbine pressure survey is a very useful method for determining the internal condition of
the turbines. It is a graphical method of obtaining an indication of turbine internal faults.
Details of the pressure at each tapping point at full load are plotted in the Figure 3-
4along with the manufacturer given value for 100 % design case. The same has been
tabulated in the Table 3-2for comparing each unit with others.
Table 3-2: Turbine pressure survey

Particulars Unit Design Unit 1 Unit 2
MS pressure kg/cm2 170.00 171.89 169.20
Ext V pressure kg/cm2 62.59 66.46 64.58
2
CRH pressure kg/cm 43.03 45.48 43.78
HRH pres kg/cm2 38.72 42.414 40.86
Ext IV pressure kg/cm2 18.39 18.44 18.44
IPT exhaust pressure kg/cm2 7.700 7.715 8.755
Ext III pressure kg/cm2 2.468 2.47 2.61
Ext II pressure kg/cm2 0.944 1.044 1.003
Ext I pressure kg/cm2 0.383 0.383 0.383
LPT exhaust kg/cm2 0.105 0.159 0.157
200.00
180.00
171.89
160.00
140.00
Design
120.00 Unit 1
100.00
80.00 66.46
60.00 45.48 42.414
40.00
18.44
20.00 7.715
2.47 1.044 0.383 0.159
0.00
MS pressure Ext V CRH Pres HRH pres Ext IV pres IPT Exhaust Ext III pres Ext II pres Ext I pres LPT Exhaust
pressure pres
(a)
180.00 169.20
160.00
Design
140.00
Unit 2
120.00
100.00
80.00 64.58
60.00 43.78 40.859
40.00
18.44
20.00 8.755
2.61 1.003 0.383 0.157
0.00
MS Ext V CRH Pres HRH Ext IV IPT Ext III Ext II Ext I LPT
pressure pressure pres pres Exhaust pres pres pres Exhaust
pres
(b)
Figure 3-4: Turbine pressure survey (a) unit 1 (b) unit 2

 As shown in Figure 3-4bothin unit 1 and 2, stage pressure line lies above the
reference line which indicates there may be general wear at the internal seals.
This also reflects from the data that the stage pressure is higher than the normal
pressure at 100% nominal load condition. In case of unit 1 it is more prominent as
compare to unit 2. Another possible reason may be that inside turbine the inter
stage seals are satisfactory or there is some other restriction to flow.
 Pressure survey should be carried out in each month in each machine. To
achieve this all pressure gauges should be accurate and in good condition.
 It is recommended to check and calibrate the pressure gauges in the upstream
side to visualize the correctness of the ridings.
3.1.4 Turbine Cycle Heat Rate

The TG cycle heat rate was evaluated from test data at 100% TMCR condition. Main
steam flow to turbine is calculated from feed water flow to the boiler. Feed water flow is
again derived from measured condensate flow as depicted in section 3.1.1. The
validation of flow is done through modeling technique based on measured condensate
flow to deaerator and other collected physical parameters. All extraction flows to HP
heaters and deaerator are calculated based on mass and energy balance. TG cycle heat
rate calculations are summarized in Table 3-3
Figure 3-5: Measurement locations for computation of heat rate and efficiencies
Note: All extractions steam pressure and temperature measurements were available at
heater end in DCS. Extraction parameters from turbine end were not available in DCS.
Hence the heater end parameters for heat and mass balance calculation of entire system
has been considered.
Calculated Gross TG cycle heat rate as per test data at 100% TMCR condition for unit-1
and unit-2 is 2118.82 kcal/kWh and 2069.39kcal/ kWh against the design TG cycle heat
rate of1927.1kcal/kWh. Details of design heat rate and test heat rate is depicted in Table
3-3 Turbine cycle gross heat rate and a measurement location is shown in Figure 3-5.
Gross TG heat rate calculation and its average data used for calculation are depicted in
Annexure V.
Table 3-3: Turbine cycle gross heat rate
Test Condition 100 % TMCR
Average Load kW 600005 605910 603930
% TMCR % 100 100.99 100.66
Main steam pressure Before ESV kg/cm2 170.06 171.96 169.25
Main steam temperature before ESV ºC 537 537.89 539.41
HP turbine exhaust pressure kg/cm2 43.04 45.50 43.80
HP turbine exhaust temperature ºC 332.7 333.31 335.89
HRH pressure at IP turbine inlet kg/cm2 38.73 42.43 40.87
HRH temperature at IP turbine inlet ºC 565 564.98 564.74
Feed water temperature at
278.00 282.98 280.14
economizer inlet ºC
Feed water flow t/h 1835.506 2027.72 1908.88
SH Spray flow t/h 0 21.44 38.40
RH Spray flow t/h 0 3.30 32.66
Gross TG Heat Rate kcal/kWh 1927.1 2118.82 2069.39
Test Condition 100 % TMCR

Corrected TG Heat Rate kcal/kWh 1927.1 2057.05 2010.22
Heat rate deviations are calculated for those parameters having direct impact on Turbine
cycle heat rate. Reference parameters are taken from heat balance diagram and factors
have been derived from the correction curve provided by STPP and the results are
shown in Table 3-4.Below table indicates the heat rate deviation due to controllable
parameters and the result includes only those parameters for which correction curve is
made available from plant.
Table 3-4: Heat rate deviation
Heat Rate loss
Parameter Unit Reference Actual
(kcal/kWh)
Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #1 Unit #2
2
MS Pressure kg/cm 170.00 171.96 169.25 -2.24 1.12
MS Temperature °C 537 537.89 539.41 -0.56 -1.48
REH Temperature °C 565 564.98 564.74 -0.01 0.13
Condenser Vacuum kg/cm2 0.1047 0.1621 0.1596 64.58 59.39
Turbine heat rate
kcal/kWh 1927.1 2118.82 2069.39
(actual)
Turbine heat rate
kcal/kWh 1927.1
(reference)
Difference in HR kcal/kWh 191.72 142.29
Turbine heat rate
kcal/kWh 2057.05 2010.22
(corrected)
-ve sign indicates gain in heat rate and +ve sign indicates loss in heat rate.
 The turbine cycle heat rate for unit 1 and 2 at TMCR 100% load is found to be
2118.82 kcal/kWh (for unit 1) and 2069.39 kcal/kWh (for unit 2) as against design
of 1927.1 kcal/kWh.
 The heat rate deviation is calculated for four parameters as per the provided heat
rate correction curve. The corrected heat rate is calculated as 2057.05 kcal/kWh
and 2010.22 kcal/kWh for unit 1 and 2 respectively.
 The turbine Heat rate deviation for unit 1 and unit 2 is 191.72 kcal/kWh and
142.29 kcal/kWh respectively, this may be due to the higher flow of SH,RH spray,
TDBFP recirculation passing. Also condenser vacuum is on higher side against
the design 0.1047 ata. All other controllable parameters are within design limit.
 Heat rate deviation due to throttle pressure During test the main steam
pressure of unit 1 (171.96 kg/cm2) at turbine inlet was higher to the design value
(170.00 kg/cm2). Thus, the unit 1 has a gain in heat rate of 2.24kcal/kWh.
However, in unit 2, MS pressure was169.25 kg/cm2. The heat rate loss due to
low main steam pressure in unit 2 is 1.12kcal/kWh.
 Heat rate deviation due to throttle temperature The average main steam
temperature in unit 1 and 2 is recorded as 537.89 ºC and 539.41 ºC higher to the
design value of 537ºC. Hence, there is a gain in heat rate of 0.56kcal/kWh and
1.48kcal/kWh for unit 1 and unit 2 respectively.
 Heat rate deviation due to reheat temperature The average reheat steam
temperature in unit 1 is almost similar to the design value. Whereas, in unit 2 the
reheat temperature is lower than the design value. Due to this, there is a loss of
0.13kcal/kWh in heat rate for unit 2.
 Heat rate deviation due to condenser vacuum Average condenser pressure
was 0.1590 kg/cm2(against design 0.1047 kg/cm2) in unit 1 and 0.1565kg/cm2 in
unit 2 which corresponds to a heat rate loss of 64.58 kcal/kWh for unit 1 and
59.39kcal/kWh for unit 2. Detailed discussed in condenser section.
 Heat rate deviation due to TDBF RC passing
 Extra steam consumption due to recirculation valve passing of TDBFP for unit
1&2 are 11t/h & 21.69t/h respectively which corresponds to a heat rate deviation
approximately13.52 kcal/kWh & 26.74 kcal/kWh @design enthalpy 744.6 kcal/kg.
3.1.5 Condenser Analysis

The unit is equipped with two surface condensers with rated flow of 31650 m3/h each
with condenser back pressure of 77 mmHg (a) at 33 ºC CW inlet temperature. The
design details of condenser are provided in Table 3-5. To evaluate the performance of
condensers, circulating water inlet and outlet temperature, flow, vacuum and hot well
temperatures recorded form DCS. The performance analysis of both condenser A and
condenser B is shown inTable3-5 and Table3-6 respectively.
Table 3-5: Design details of condenser
Description Unit Value
Manufacturer BHEL
Heat load kcal/hr 325.93 X106
Number of passes Number 2
Number of tubes 17266
Vacuum kg/cm2 0.1047
Table 3-6: Condenser-A performance analysis

Description Units Design Unit# 1 Unit# 2
Water Inlet Temperature ºC 33 33.18 32.5
Water Outlet Temperature ºC 43.3 44.96 44.27
∆ T of Water ºC 10.3 11.78 11.78
2
Condenser Vacuum kg/cm 0.1047 0.1581 0.1550
Saturation Temperature ºC 46.33 55.05 54.65
Hot Well Temperature ºC 46 54.57 53.23
Terminal Temp. Difference ºC 3.4 10.09 10.38
Log mean Temperature Difference ºC 6.95 15 16
2
Corresponding Back pressure(corrected) kg/cm 0.1127 0.1272
Effectiveness % 77 53.9 53
Table 3-7: Condenser-B performance analysis

Description Units Design Unit# 1 Unit# 2
Water Inlet Temperature ºC 33 33.16 32.41
Water Outlet Temperature ºC 43.3 43.91 44.03
∆ T of Water ºC 10.3 10.76 11.62
2
Condenser Vacuum kg/cm 0.1047 0.1632 0.1611
Saturation Temperature ºC 46.33 55.31 55.05
Hot Well Temperature ºC 46 54.57 53.23
Terminal Temp. Difference ºC 3.4 11.4 11.02
Log mean Temperature Difference ºC 6.95 16 16
2
Corresponding Back pressure(corrected) kg/cm 0.1199 0.1205
Effectiveness % 77 48.5 51.3
Table 3-8: Condenser vacuum loss

Cond - Cond - Cond - Cond -
Description Unit 1A 1B 2A 2B
unit Load MW 605.91 603.93
Back pressure kg/cm2(a) 0.611 0.1632 0.1581 0.1611
Corresponding sat temp ºC 55.05 55.31 54.65 55.05
CW inlet temp ºC 33.18 33.16 32.5 32.41
CW outlet temp ºC 44.96 43.91 44.27 44.03
million
heat load 367 367 369 369
kcal
Expected back pressure kg/cm2(a) 0.1127 0.1199 0.1272 0.1203
back pressure due to CW inlet
kg/cm2(a) 0.1078 0.1076 0.1040 0.1040
temp
back pressure due to CW flow &
kg/cm2(a) 0.1161 0.1101 0.1122 0.1111
CE inlet temp
Variation due to CW inlet temp mmHg 0.71 0.62 -1.95 -2.27
Cond - Cond - Cond - Cond -

Description Unit 1A 1B 2A 2B
variation due to CW flow and
mmHg 6.74 2.43 3.89 2.9
heat load
Variation due to air/dirty tube mmHg 32.46 38.24 33.11 36.31
Total variation mmHg 38.49 40.06 38.95 41.48
No of pumps in service No 3 3
condensate sub cooling ºC 0.48 0.74 1.43 1.82
45.00
40.00
35.00 Cond‐1A
Vacuum loss (mmHg)
30.00 Cond ‐ 1B
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Variation due to CW variation due to CW Variation due to air
inlet temp flow ingress/dirty tube
(a)
40.00
35.00
30.00 Cond ‐ 2A
Vacuum loss (mmHg)
Cond ‐ 2B
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
‐5.00 Variation due to CW variation due to CW Variation due to air
inlet temp flow ingress/dirty tube
(b)
Figure 3-6: Condenser vacuum loss (a) Unit 1 (b) unit 2
Observations
 The condenser vacuum was measured during field visit using offline absolute
pressure transmitter. The detail comparison of measured condenser vacuum and
DCS vacuum is depicted in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9: Vacuum comparison
Description Unit Design Measured DCS
Condenser – 1A kg/cm2 (a) 0.158 0.146
Condenser – 1B kg/cm2 (a) 0.160 0.127
0.1047
Condenser – 2A kg/cm2 (a) 0.155 0.129
2
Condenser – 2B kg/cm (a) 0.158 0.128
 Based on the information furnish in Table 3-9, condenser vacuum recorded in

DCS by online instrument is deviated from measured vacuum using off line
instrument. Deviation might be due to the installed transmitter range was 0-
10kg/cm2 with non absolute type transmitter.
 Under test condition the effectiveness of condenser A and condenser B is
calculated as 54& 49 for unit #1 and 53&51 for unit #2 respectively against the
design of 75 .The low effectiveness may be due to air ingress, based on design
condition two vacuum pumps are required for full load operation. However during
field visit three vacuum pumps were in operation, this shows that the vacuum is
affected due to air ingress. Also observed during site audit that air ingress was
more as recorded in vacuum pump separator rota-meter air flow on higher side
85kg/hr against the design value 64kg/hr. Air ingress might be due to air leaking
in expansion joints, pressure relief diaphragm and gland seal.
 Vacuum losses due to various reasons are projected in Table 3-8andFigure 3-6.
Based on the analysis the loss of vacuum mainly contributed by air ingress, which
is calculated as 32.46mmHG (cond A) & 38.24mmHG (cond B) and 33.11mmHG
(cond A) & 36.31mmHG (cond B) respectively in condenser of unit 1 and unit 2.
 Vacuum may deteriorated due to improper heat exchange as recorded turbidity in
cooling water 19.8NTU on date 17.01.2018 & 20NTU on date 18.01.2018 against
the design <10NTU.
 DP across the condenser is high in both units.
 The condenser heat load as per design is 325.93 million kcal. However during
field visit the condenser heat load for condenser A and condenser B is calculated
and found to be 403.19 million kcal & 403.19 million kcal for unit 1 condenser
A&B and 392.15 million kcal & 392.15 million kcal for unit 2 condenser A&B.
Recommendation
 It is recommended to increase the condenser tube cleaning frequency to maintain
vacuum close to design. Moreover, it is recommended to maintain the cooling
water turbidity as per design.
 It is recommended to carry out the Helium leak detection study and also conduct
the vacuum pump performance evaluation.
 It is recommended to install the absolute type transmitter of lower range (0-
250kpa) to get better accuracy.
 Air leaking in expansion joints, pressure relief diaphragm &gland seal to be
checked.
 It is suggested to install online turbine(rotary) flow meter in vacuum line to get air
ingress at real time in control room.
 It is recommended to attend TDBFP Recirculation passing valve in both unit to
reduce heat load in condenser.
3.2 Heater and Deaerator Analysis

3.2.1 HP Heater Analysis
Each unit has equipped with 6 number of HP heaters (HPH 5A/B, HPH 6A/B and HPH
7A/B). The discharged feed water from TDBFP is bifurcated into two line and flows to the
parallel line. The detail schematic diagram of HP heaters is shown in Figure 3-
7.Moreover; the unit has 4 LP heaters for heating the condensate flow to the deaerator.
The final feed water temperature at HPH 7 outlet for unit-1 and unit-2 is found to be
282.98 ºC and 280.14 ºCrespectively. The performance of the heater is shown in Table
3-10. The rated extraction parameters at design condition are shown in the form of
HBDs in Annexure VI.
Drain from
DEAERAT
OR
Drain from
E t
E t
E t
T bi
SH Spray
T bi
HTR HTR HTR

E t
TD & MD
T bi
BFP
T bi
HTR HTR HTR

B
Figure 3-7 Schematic diagram of heater arrangement
Table 3-10: Heater performance analysis

HPH7
HPH 7A HPH 7B HPH 7A HPH 7B
Unit Load MW 600000 605910 603930
FW inlet Temperature ºC 250.8 256.01 257.45 252.52 252.66
FW outlet Temperature ºC 278 284.35 282.99 281.02 281.35
∆ T of Water ºC 27.2 28.34 25.54 28.5 28.68
Steam pressure kg/cm2 62.61 66.52 66.46 64.37 64.82
Saturation temperature ºC 277.1 281.09 281.03 278.92 279.39
Extraction Steam
temperature
ºC 389.1 397.21 394.72 395.05 383.44
Extraction Steam enthalpy kcal/kg 751.7 754.98 753.44 754.61 747.05
Drip Temperature ºC 255.6 274.1 265.04 255.56 254.03
Drip enthalpy kcal/kg 265.81 288 276.98 265.77 263.98
Feed water flow t/h 917.753 1013.86 1013.86 954.44 954.44
TTD ºC -1 -3.26 -1.96 -2.1 -1.96
DCA ºC 4.8 18.09 7.59 3.04 1.37
Heat load kW 38854.5 35012.7 36536.6 36793
Extraction steam flow t/h 59.23 67.32 67.32 64.89 64.89
HPH 6
Unit Design HPH 6A HPH 6B HPH 6A HPH 6B
Unit Load kW 600000 605910 603930
FW outlet Temperature ºC 250.8 256.01 257.45 252.52 252.66
∆ T of Water ºC 37.4 48.97 51.65 46.86 47.33
Extraction Steam
temperature
ºC 330.6 335.27 336.15 334.31 335
Drip enthalpy kcal/kg 222.32 222.29 224.9 219.87 218.95
TTD ºC -0.3 -1.52 -3.29 -0.72 -0.91
DCA ºC 4.8 10.02 13.64 9.18 8.67
Heat load kW 62822.8 66281.8 56417.7 56986
HPH 5
Unit Design HPH 5A HPH 5B HPH 5A HPH 5B
Unit Load kW 600000 605910 603930
FW outlet Temperature ºC 207.5 212.43 205.8 209.59 205.33
∆ T of Water ºC 40.2 42.4 35.91 38.92 34.63
Extraction Steam
temperature
ºC 462.9 444.52 445.96 452.33 453.23
Drip enthalpy kcal/kg 174.21 180.13 181 179.87 180.17
TTD ºC -0.3 -5.05 1.58 -2.24 2.05
DCA ºC 4.8 7.83 8.8 6.93 7.2
Heat load kW 52100.5 43994.7 44986.4 35992
400 400.00
HPH (unit 1) 7A Temperature profile HPH (unit 2) 7A Temperature profile
380 Extraction 380.00 Extraction
360 360.00
Feed water Feed water
Temperature oC
340 temp 340.00 temp
Temperature oC
320 320.00
300 300.00
280 280.00
260 260.00
240 240.00
220 220.00
200 200.00
Drain Cooling zone condensing zone condensing zone Desuperheating
Drain Cooling condensing condensing
zone
zone zone zone Desuperheating
zone Travel Distance
Travel Distance
400.00 400.00
HPH (unit 1) 7B Temperature profile HPH (unit 2) 7B Temperature profile
380.00 Extraction 380.00 Extraction
360.00 Feed water 360.00 Feed water

temp temp
Temperature oC
340.00 340.00
Temperature oC
320.00
320.00
300.00
300.00
280.00
280.00
260.00
260.00
240.00
240.00
220.00
220.00
200.00
Drain Cooling condensing zone condensing zone Desuperheating
200.00 zone zone
zone zone
Travel Distance
Travel Distance
Figure 3-8Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 7A/B
400.00 400.00
HPH (unit 1) 6A Temperature profile HPH (unit 2) 6B Temperature profile
temp temp
340.00 340.00
Temperature oC
Temperature oC
320.00 320.00
300.00 300.00
280.00
280.00
260.00
260.00
240.00
240.00
220.00
220.00
200.00
200.00 Drain Cooling condensing condensing Desuperheating
zone zone zone zone zone zone
Travel Distance Travel Distance
400.00 400.00
temp temp
Temperature oC
340.00 340.00
Temperature oC
320.00 320.00
300.00 300.00
280.00 280.00
260.00 260.00
240.00 240.00
220.00 220.00
200.00 200.00
Drain Cooling condensing zone condensing zone Desuperheating Drain Cooling condensing zone condensing zone Desuperheating
zone zone zone zone
Figure 3-9 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 6A/B
450.00 450.00
HPH (unit 1) 5A Temperature profile HPH (unit 2) 5A Temperature profile
Extraction Extraction
400.00 400.00
350.00 temp 350.00 temp
Temperature oC
Temperature oC
300.00 300.00
250.00 250.00
200.00
200.00
150.00
150.00
100.00
Drain Cooling condensing condensing zone Desuperheating 100.00
zone zone zone zone zone
450.00 450.00
Extraction Extraction
400.00 400.00
350.00 temp temp
350.00
Temperature oC
Temperature oC
300.00
300.00
250.00
250.00
200.00
200.00
150.00
150.00
100.00
zone zone 100.00
Travel Distance zone zone
Travel Distance
Figure 3-10 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 5A/B

 In unit 1 and unit 2 feed water temperatures at HPH 7A and 7B outlet is recorded
as 284.35 ºC& 282.99 ºC and 281.02 ºC& 281.35 ºC respectively (against design
of 278 ºC). The TTD for unit – 1 and unit – 2 heaters are calculated to be -
3.26(7A)& -1.96(7B) and -2.1(7A) & -1.96(7B) against design of -1 ºC. Moreover,
the effectiveness of unit-1 and unit-2 heaters is found to be 1.13(7A) & 1.08(7B)
and 1.08(7A) & 1.07(7B). As an increase in TTD indicates reduced heat
transfer. However, the effectiveness of all heaters is on higher side. This is quite
difficult to achieve and thus concluded that the DCS parameter collected during
field study needs to be trend and analyze and the instrument accuracy to be
verified. The problems can range from something as simple as inaccurate or
fluctuating readings.
 In addition, the DCA for heater 7 is also found to be on higher side for both unit 1
(18.09 ºC and 7.59 ºC against design of 4.8 ºC). This occurs due to possible
reason of decrease in heater level. The higher DCA may do sever damage to the
tubes and other internals like drain cooling zone, baffles. This may be also
depicted in the drain outlet temperature. As the DCA increases the drain outlet
temperature also increases. The DCA level for unit 2 is on lower side (3.04°C
and 1.37°C against design of 4.8 ºC). The heater 7 zone wise detail is depicted in
Figure 3-8.
 TTD and DCA of unit 1 HPH 6A is calculated as -1.52 ºC and 10.02 ºC. In HPH
6B the TTD & DCA is found to be -3.29 ºC&13.64 ºC against design of -0.3°C of
TTD and 4. ºC of DCA. The effectiveness of HPH 6A&B is found to be 1.03 and
1.07.
 TTD and DCA of unit 2 HPH 6A is calculated as -0.72°Cand 9.18°C. In HPH 6B
the TTD & DCA is found to be –0.91 ºC&8.67 ºC against design of -0.3 ºC of TTD
and 4.8 ºC of DCA. The effectiveness of both HPH 6 A & B is found to be 1.02.
 As it is noted the DCA and TTD are inversely proportional as DCA increases level
reduces and there is a better heat transfer rate at cooling zone. However, based
on the analysis of HPH 6 and 7 it is noted that both DCA and TTD are in higher
end. This may be due to wrong extraction parameters. The heater 6 heat transfer
is shown in Figure 3-9
 In case of HPH 5A and HPH 5B in unit 1 the TTD is found to be -5.05 ºC and 1.58
ºC (against design of -0.3 ºC). DCA is also in higher range (7.83°C& 8.80 ºC
against design of 4.8 ºC). This may be due to wrong extraction parameters.
Similarly in unit 2 the TTD is found to be -2.24 ºC and 2.05 ºC (against design of -
0.3 ºC). DCA is also in higher range (7.83 ºC& 8.80 ºC against design of 4.8 ºC)
(refer Figure 3-10).
 Overall the lower water level in heater produces a lower TTD and a higher DCA.
In some cases, this can improve thermal performance. However, low drains
cooling level should be avoided because it can subject the baffles and tubes
supports in the drains cooling zone to two-phase flow.
Recommendation
 Recommended to check the extraction parameters and also trend the feed water
level, temperature, pressure drop and check the correctness of the readings to
drill down for further analysis at plant level. Historical data is critical for performing
diagnostics and troubleshooting of heater performance problems in such case.
Trending the above parameters against load can verify the proper operation of
the level controls and heater vents. This data is important from point of view that;
the heater performance problem may be only at certain load levels, such as only
at high or at very low loads. Historical trends will help to determine the exact load
where a problem initiates. For example trend of DCA with level and load will leads
to intimate when the heater was operating with a low level and possible damage
happen in the drain cooler. This information can then be used by the plant
personal to make the necessary adjustments to rectify the problem.
 A level control test may be performed to determine the optimum operating level
for a feed water heater by manually altering the heater level and recording the
DCA and TTD responses. The optimum level in which to operate can be
determined by performing a knee of the curve test1.A typical Knee curve test is
shown in Figure 3-11.
1
https://m.energy-tech.com/mobile/heat_exchangers/article_d15a246f-ae23-5da3-965c-c73389a7cb21.html
Figure 3-11 Knee curve test1
3.2.2 Deaerator Analysis

Deaerator performance is analyzed based on evaluation of terminal temperature
difference and compared with rated parameters and is given in the Table 3-11
Table 3-11: Deaerator performance evaluation
Parameters Unit Design Unit 1 Unit 2
Load MW 600 605.91 603.93
Condensate Inlet temperature °C 124 121.94 124.84
Condensate outlet temperature °C 163.8 166.82 169
Steam pressure kg/cm2 7..70 7.86 8.46
Extn steam temperature °C 328.2 327.31 339.12
Deareator Saturation °C 168 168.9 172
temperature
Temperature rise °C 39.8 44.88 44.16
Condensate Flow t/h 1365.78 1502.39 1470.30
HPH Drain to Deareator Tank t/h 378.30 439.33 400.79
Dain Inlet enthalpy kcal/kg 174.1 180.6 180
Deaerator Condensate outlet kcal/kg 165.3 168.5 170.7
enthalpy
Steam Enthalpy kcal/kg 744.6 744 749.6
Terminal temperature difference °C 4.247 2.094 2.963
Heat Pickup kcal/hr 61799222.61 75458798.47 74060340.46
Steam Flow t/h 91.43 110.71 108.84
Effectiveness % 90.4 95.5 93.7
Observation
 Deaerator extraction steam temperature is found to be 327.31 ºC& 339.12 ºC for
unit 1&2 respectively against the design 327.5 ºC. So temperature deviation is
around 11.81 ºC between unit 1 & 2.
 Overall deaerator performance is found to be satisfactory.
 Dissolved oxygen level in feed water may be monitored at regular intervals to
access the condition of trays and spray nozzles.
 The deaerator pressure provided in DCS data seems to be faulty tag. Hence the
IP turbine outlet steam pressure has been considered for calculating the
deaerator performance.
 Unit 2 deaerator extraction temperature element to be checked.
3.3 Pump Analysis
3.3.1 TDBFP Analysis

The unit is having 2 TDBFP and 2 MD BFP. During test two TDBFP was in running
condition. The performance of TDBFP is shown in Table 3-12 .
Table 3-12: TDBFP performance analysis
BFP A BFP B BFP A BFP B

Unit Load kW 600000 605910 603930
TDBFP water Flow t/h 1102.76 1080.97 1023.05 1136.39 1112.95
2
TDBFP suction pressure kg/cm 7.18 7.18 7.45 7.45
TDBFP discharge
pressure kg/cm2 215.05 215.06 212.13 211.98
Total head M 2320 2077.9 2078.1 2046.1 2044.6
kg/s 10.93 12.94 12.52 13.79 13.05
TDBFP steam flow t/h 39.35 46.58 45.07 49.64 46.98
Steam inlet pressure kg/cm2 6.78 7.56 7.56 8.12 8.12
Steam inlet temperature ºC 327.2 327.31 327.31 339.12 339.12
Steam inlet enthalpy kcal/kg 744.53 744.18 744.18 749.82 749.82
Steam exhaust pressure kg/cm2 0.11 0.1543 0.1543 0.153 0.153
Steam exhaust enthalpy kcal/kg 569.9 596.6 596.7 596.7 596.7
kW equivalent of above 7995.4 7736.27 8838.32 8366.49
enthalpy kW
Fluid kW kW 6120.78 5793.36 6336.08 6200.84
Combined efficiency % 80.2 76.55 74.89 71.69 74.12
(Pump+Turbine)
Observation
 The flow measured at the suction side has been considered for calculating the
performance of the TDBFP. The combine efficiency of BFP A and BFP B for unit
1 is evaluated as 76.55% and 74.89% against the design of 80.2%. Similarly, the
efficiency of BFP A and BFP B for unit 2 is calculated and found to be 71.69%
and 74.12% against the design of 80.2%.
 The steam flow at 100% TMCR for TDBFP 1A, 1B, 2A&2B is found to be 46.59
t/h, 45.08 t/h, 49.64 t/h and 46.99t/h respectively against the design 39.37t/h. The
expected flow (at test load) based on the data in HBD for each TDBFP is
approximately 40 t/h. The steam consumption on higher side due to recirculation
valve passing. Recirculation valve passing measured using flow meter and
measured flow is provided in Table 3-13.
Table 3-13: Measured Recirculation flow
Description Unit Recirculation Flow
TD BFP – 1A t/h 152.11
TD BFP – 1B t/h 104.43
TD BFP – 2A t/h 309.23
TD BFP – 2B t/h 196.45
 The design specific steam consumption is calculated based on the HMBD
diagram and it is found to be 0.0429 kg of steam per kg of feed water flow.
Similarly the operating extra steam consumption due to recirculation valve
passing is calculated and provided in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14 Extra steam consumption due to RC passing

A B A+B Extra steam due to passing
UNIT 1 TDBFP RC Passing(t/h) 152.11 104.43 256.54 11
UNIT 2 TDBFP RC Passing(t/h) 309.23 196.45 505.68 21.69
Recommendation
 While field visit it has been noted that there is a passing across the BFP
recirculation at the both units. Due to this higher feed water flow additional steam
has been extracted. Hence, it is recommended to attend the valve passing
immediately for both the unit.
 The saving calculation by arresting the recirculation passing for BFP 1A,1B,2A
and 2Bis provided in the below table
Table 3-15: Recirculation loss in BFP

Recirculation loss in BFP
Units BFP 1A BFP 1B BFP 2A BFP 2B
Specific Power consumption kg of steam /kg of
(average of two pumps) feed water flow 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429
Recirculation flow t/h 152.11 104.43 309.23 196.45
Extra steam flow t/h 6.52 4.48 13.26 8.43
Steam consumption saving
after Changing recirculation
v/v t/h 6.52 4.48 13.26 8.43
Annual Running Hours hrs 7781.51 7781.51 7781.51 7781.51
103211.9
Annual steam Saving Tonne/year 50769.86 34855.67 1 65569.25
Enthalpy of steam required kcal/kg 744.60 744.60 744.60 744.60
3780323 2595353 7685159 4882286
Annual heat saving Saving kcal/year 8778.38 5110.29 1134.30 6728.11
Annual coal saving t/h 10969.71 7531.17 22516.51 14304.46
Coal cost Rs/Tonne 2400.00 2400.00 2400.00 2400.00
Annual Saving Cr 2.63 1.81 5.40 3.43
Investment Cr 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Payback Days 13.86 20.19 6.75 10.63
Heat rate deviation kcal/kWh 13.52 26.75
3.3.2 CEP Analysis

The station has provided with three condensate extraction pumps (CEPs) for one unit.
During test two are in running condition. The CEP performance is shown in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16: CEP performance analysis
Unit #1 Unit #2
Particulars Unit Design CEP-1A CEP-1B CEP-2A CEP-2B
m3/hr 795 817.27 798.21 825.18 755.8
Pump discharge flow
t/h 1115.1 760.1 742.3 767.4 702.9
2
Suction Pressure kg/cm 0.159 0.1565
2
Discharge Pressure kg/cm 33.55 31.18 31.21 30.48 30.55
Total Head Developed m 335 310.25 310.55 303.21 303.9
Input Motor Power kW 11150 997.4 974.14 1071.38 981.3
Motor Efficiency % 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Combined Overall Efficiency % 71.85 64.43 64.49 59.18 59.32
Pump Efficiency % 75.34 67.56 67.63 62.06 62.2
Percentage loading of flow % 100 68.16 66.57 68.82 63.03
Percentage loading on motor % 100 95% 93% 102% 94%
Specific consumption kW/T 0.9 1.31 1.31 1.4 1.4
Percentage loading on head % 92.61 100.1 97.63 100.23
Observation and Recommendation

 As the individual CEP flow measurement was not possible, the total through CEP
is considered based on the condensate flow and the individual flow through CEP
is computed based on the ratio of power.
 Based on the calculations CEP performance is found to be satisfactory.
 In unit 1 CEP 1A & CEP 1B efficiency is found to be 67.46 % and 67.53 % and in
unit 2 CEP 2A and 2B efficiency is found as 61.97% and 62.11 % respectively
against design of 80.50%.
 The specific energy consumption of all the pumps in both units are on higher side
compared to design of 1.29
 Head developed by the entire pump is also in higher side compared to design of
290 mlc.
 By seeing the specific energy consumption of both unit pumps it is clear that
effort should be made to improve the efficiency of the pump through overhaul of
the cartridge of the pump.
If the reference point of the SEC will be 1.29 then the energy saving potential of
each pumps in unit 2 will be, (1.40-0.1.29)*735*8760*0.96= 679916.16 kW,
Cost saving (@ 3.60 Rs/kWh) = 679916.16 *3.6 =Rs Cr. 0.25 per year per
pump which is quite possible to achieve.
Where 735 is t/h is the average condensate flow through each pumps,
PLF is 96.
Investment will be cost for overhauling and if required replacement of
cartridge.
 CEPs were designed for rated head of 290mlc. During test it was observed that
the CEP outlet pressure is around 30 kg/cm2, while the de-aerator pressure is
approx 7.0kg/cm2. Thus this may be causing loss of energy due to throttling
across control valve. Removal of CEP stage may reduce this throttling loss as
well as power consumption. This needs further detailed investigation by plant
experts whether the above measure is feasible or not as per system requirement
and site conditions.
 Based on this, the power consumption can be reduced by installing VFD in
pumps. This option can be tried in one of the pump and the performance can be
observed.
Energy Saving potential is calculated for unit 2 CEP A this will reduce the APC as
well as loss due to throttling.
Energy saving calculation if VFD is installation in CEP 2A:
Power consumption as measured kW 1071.40

Extra power consumption** kW 160.70
Annual operating hours hrs/yr 7781.51
Annual Energy Saving potential kWh/yr 1250488.66
Energy cost Rs/kWh 3.60
Annual Monetary Saving Rs Cr 0.45
Investment*** Rs Cr 0.50
Payback Months 13.33
** Assumed 15% saving in power consumption after VFD installation.
*** Actual investment cost to be verified with OEM/Vender
3.4 High Energy Drain Valve Survey

High energy drain valve survey was conducted by Steag team and a list of high energy
drains for both unit 1 and unit 2, passing was identified and same has been shown in
Table 3-17 for unit 1 and Table 3-18for unit 2. Drain temperatures were measured with a
non-contact thermometer to assess the extent of passing.
Table 3-17: Unit 1 Drain valve passing
Description Status Temp(°C) after valve
MS STRAINER DRN TO UNIT F/T Passing 220
Drain before HPCV-1 Passing 170
Extraction drain A-7 Passing 111
Drain before IV-2 Passing 130
LPBP WARM UP LINE DRAIN TO SD F/T Passing 130
LPBP LINE DRAIN Passing 140
HRH STRAINER DRAIN TO SD F/T Passing 120
CRH LINE DRAIN TO SD F/T Passing 130
EXTN. TO HPH 6A LINE DRN TO HPD F/T Passing 160
EXT. TO DEA LINE DRN TO LPD F/T Passing 150
HPH 6B DRAIN TO HPF/T Passing 120
HPH 5B DRAIN TO HP F/T Passing 110
HPH 5B DRAIN TO HP F/T Passing 120
HPH 5A DRAIN TO HP F/T Passing 130
HPH 5A DRAIN TO HP F/T Passing 140
Drain near DRV-2 Drip 6A to 5A Passing 85
Drain near ASV-58 (PRDS Floor) Passing 90
Drain near ASV-27 (PRDS Floor) Passing 80
Drain valve near ASV-36 (PRDS Floor) Passing 85
Drain valve near ASV-39 (PRDS Floor) Passing 120
Drain near ASV-63(PRDS Floor) Passing 120
BP LOWER REAR HEADER DRAIN Passing 95
BP LOWER FRONT HEADER DRAIN Passing 120
BP LOWER FRONT HEADER DRAIN Passing 140
BP LOWER REAR HEADER DRAIN Passing 90

DIV PANEL SH DRAIN Passing 120
SH PLATEN I/L HEADER DRAIN Passing 75
MAIN STEAM ERV (LHS) Passing 140
MAIN STEAM ERV (RHS) Passing 75
Table 3-18 : Unit 2 Drain valve passing

Description Status Temp(°C) after valve
HP by pass RHS Spray control vale Passing Leakage
Extraction For HPH-7 drain Passing 115
HP bypass-2 warm up drain to Unit flash tank Passing 120
Main LHS steam strainer drain valve Passing 140
Main RHS steam strainer drain valve Passing 130
Drain before HPCV-1 Passing 220
CRH line drain to flash tank Passing 110
HRH strainer drain LHS drain to unit flash tank Passing 120
Drain MIV near ASV-3 Passing 80
Drain MIV near ASV-39 Passing 90
HPH-6A safety valve passing Passing 85
CRH to D/A drain MIV passing in D/A floor Passing 110
MS ERV RHS S-152 passing Passing 86
MS Safety valve passing Passing 68
Drum safety valve passing Passing 90
HRH RHS, SV-20,22 passing Passing 90
3.5 Boiler Analysis

3.5.1 Boiler efficiency
The boiler in both the units is BHEL boiler of controlled circulation; reheat type, one
stage of superheating spray and one stage of reheating spray. Design pressure of main
steam at the outlet of super heater is 178 kg/cm2(g) and temperature is 540oC. Steam
pressure at repeater outlet is 40.3 kg/cm2(g). RH steam temperature is controlled by
burner tilt and RH spray. Boiler efficiency was evaluated by loss method as per PTC-4.
Various losses and efficiency is depicted in Table 3-19.
Table 3-19: Boiler efficiency analysis
Dry gas loss % 5.04 5.34 5.35
Loss due to unburnt carbon % 1.00 0.49 0.57
Loss due to moisture in fuel % 1.04 1.71 1.70
Loss due to hydrogen in fuel % 3.44 4.32 4.10
Loss due to carbon monoxide % 0.01 0.00 0.00
Loss due to moisture in air % 0.12 0.16 0.15
Loss due to Sensible heat % 0.59 0.43 0.50
Radiation and Unaccounted loss % 0.24 0.24 0.24

Loss due to Mill reject % 0.00 0.34 0.52
Total Loss % 11.47 13.02 13.13
Boiler efficiency % 88.53 86.98 86.87
Boilers feed water and steam temperature

In both the units (Unit 1& 2) SH temperature is deteriorated from the design of 540 ºC as
shown in below table. Re-heater outlet temperature is lower side of around 4 ºC.
Economizer inlet temperature is lower than design in both the units. Figure 3-12shows a
comparative plot of boiler feed water and steam temperature profile.
Figure 3-12 Feed water Vs Steam temperature profile
Table 3-20: Boiler water/steam temperature profile

Description Design Unit 1 Unit 2
Drum Saturation temperature (ºC) 363 361.76 361.16
SH Platen outlet (ºC) 540 537.89 539.4
RH inlet temperature (ºC) 332 329.25 338.98
RH outlet temperature (ºC) 568 564.98 564.74
Economizer inlet temperature (ºC) 297.7 282.98 280
Economizer outlet temperature (ºC) 322 325 364
Observation
 Boiler efficiency for unit 1 and 2 is found to be 86.98% and 86.87% respectively
(against the design efficiency of 88.53% @ design GCV 4529 kcal/kg) at 100%
TMCR and operating GCV of 3962 kcal/kg and 3929 kcal/kg. Boiler efficiency
deviated from the design 1.54% &1.65% respectively for unit 1&2.Major loss has
been observed due to dry flue gas loss as well as moisture & hydrogen in fuel.
Boiler efficiency at test condition is evaluated based on the measured flue gas
parameter like O2, temperature at exit of boiler boundary and analysis data
available from plant.
 Dry flue gas loss is calculated 5.34 % and 5.35% for unit 1 & 2 respectively
against design value of 5.04%. Dry flue gas loss depends on the flue gas exit
temperature, the mass of flue gas generated and GCV of coal. There is minor
deviation observed 0.30% and 0.31% in dry flue gas loss. The major reason high
dry gas loss is higher APH exit flue gas temperature. The average corrected flue
gas temperature at air heater exit was 146.87 oC and 151.09 oC (against design
value of 138 oC) for both unit 1 and 2.
 Loss due to moisture in fuel in unit 1 & 2 are 1.71% & 1.70% respectively against
the design value of 1.04%.
 Loss due to hydrogen in fuel is found to be 4.32% & 4.10% against design 3.44%
for unit 1&2 respectively. So deviation observed from design 0.88% & 0.66% for
unit 1&2 respectively. The loss due to hydrogen in fuel is beyond the control of
station as it depends on the fuel quality. The stack loss increases due to change
in coal composition and excess air.
 Mill rejection losses for unit 1 & 2 are found to be 0.34% and 0.52% respectively.
 It is observed that soot blowing has been carried out daily and mill sieve analysis
has been carried out fortnightly which are good operational practices.
 Over all boiler efficiency is seems to be satisfactory, however by arresting the
ingress in APH will further reduce the dry gas loss.
3.5.2 APH Performance

Each unit is having two rotary regenerative type air heaters. APH performance is
evaluated based on the measured temperature of air and flue gas across APH and O2 %
at APH inlet & outlet. During boiler efficiency evaluation, the dry gas losses represent the
largest single thermal loss in boiler. Basically this is a percent loss based on the heat
being released to the atmosphere that the boiler cannot make use of.
Air to gas ratio and air to gas pressure variations has a major impact on regenerative air-
heater performance. Flue gas diluted with air leakage on the cold end of the air heater
will lower the overall gas outlet temperature as well as change the temperature gradients
downstream from air heater outlet. Furthermore, high air in-leakage results in lower gas
outlet temperatures and when combined with SO3, accelerated corrosion is likely to
occur. Design specification of APH is presented below. The performance analysis of
APH is presented in Table 3-21.
Type : Tri-Sector
Make : BHEL
Effective heating Surface : 101400 m²
Size of electric Motor(kW) : 30.0 KW
Table 3-21: APH Performance analysis
Particular Unit PG Test Unit 1 Unit 2
APH A APH B APH A APH B
Plant Load MW 605.91 603.93
Oxygen content in flue % 3.72 4.47 3.23 3.99 2.65
gas before APH
Oxygen content in flue % 5.35 5.33 6.12 6.07 5.60
gas after APH
Oxygen In ESP outlet % 6.31 6.82 6.89 6.72
Flue gas temp at Inlet ºC 341 348.63 356.30 367.71 357.43
of APH
Flue gas temp at ºC 128 141.67 129.75 134.57 135.43
Outlet of APH
temperature of air ºC 31.58 36.84 37.04 31.25 31.66
entering the APH
PA air inlet temp ºC 31.94 40.33 40.86 34.75 35.77
PA air outlet temp ºC 300.37 315.35 309.71 310.36 301.55
SA air inlet temp ºC 31.42 35.26 35.32 29.42 29.51
SA air outlet temp ºC 314.40 315.86 311.08 313.91 307.88
Avg temp (PA & SA) ºC 310.16 315.70 310.65 312.69 305.70
APH Leakage % % 9.37 4.94 17.48 12.54 17.24
ESP Leakage % % 2.01 3.55 4.18 5.65
Corrected gas outlet ºC 137.43 147.07 146.66 148.09 154.10
temp
Gas side efficiency % 66.0 64.64 65.67 65.28 62.42
X ratio - 0.73 0.72 0.77 0.78 0.74
Avg corrected gas o/l ºC 137.43 146.87 151.09
temperature
*Design data for all parameters are not available hence PG test parameter is used for
performance comparison
Observation
 APH performance is evaluated based on the measured temperature of air and
flue gas and O2 measurement across APH and ESP using flue gas analyzer. Air
heater leakage during test condition is observed to be 4.94 % (A pass)&17.48

%(B pass) in unit 1 and in unit 2 it was evaluated as12.54 %(A pass)&17.24 %(B
pass) respectively. Leakage across ESP in unit 1 is found to be 4.80% and
3.55%, and in unit 2 leakages is 4.18% and 5.65%.
 Gas side efficiency for APH1A and 1B is 64.64 % and 65.67% respectively. For
unit 2, efficiency is calculated to be 65.28% &62.42% for pass A and Pass B
respectively against PG test value of 66%. Little deviation in the gas side
efficiency may be due to basket wear and ash plugging. From the readings
across each air heater in unit 1 & 2 is evident that the exit temperature
(corrected) of the air heater is on higher side (146.87oC and 151.09oC) in both the
units against design corrected temperature of 138oC (PG test 137.43oC).This can
be due to deterioration of heat transfer from flue gas to air in air heater. This
required inspection of air heater and restoration of any damage and chocking in
the next available opportunities. In pass B of Unit 1 though the leakage
percentage is more, where as the gas side efficiency is better. This is due to the
fact from the measured parameters that the actual drop in gas temperature of
pass B is almost 20 oC more than the pass A, keeping the theoretical drop in gas
temperature almost close to the value of pass A. This will leads to less air side
effectiveness.
 The DP across air heater is also on higher side as shown in Table 3-22. In both
units DP across heater is more than design. In comparison with unit 1, Unit 2 DP
across heater is higher. It could be due to basket clogging/soot deposition has
been taken place and may not be coming out by normal soot blowing causing
higher DP and affecting heat transfer performance.
Table 3-22: APH pressure drop

Particulars Unit Unit 1 Unit 2
Design APH A APH B APH A APH B
FG pressure air heater
inlet mmWC -99 -83.99 -83.04 -95.3 -91.91
FG pressure air heater
outlet mmWC -201 -202.2 -200.41 -261.04 -253.14
FG pressure drop in air
heater mmWC 102 118.21 117.37 165.74 161.23
SA pressure air heater
inlet mmWC 173 213.05 209.79 231.74 227.88
SA pressure air heater
outlet mmWC 119 145.89 145.22 141.77 143.39
SA pressure drop in air mmWC 54 67.16 64.57 89.97 84.49
heater
PA pressure air heater
inlet mmWC 815 829.96 828.64 911.06 903.94
PA pressure air heater
outlet mmWC 768 766.59 764.61 805.49 804.99
PA pressure drop in air
heater mmWC 47 63.37 64.03 105.57 98.95
Recommendation
 Water washing of APH during available opportunities. Ensure thorough cleaning

by continuous washing till inlet & outlet water PH matches. Dry out the APH after
washing by running ID and FD fans.
 Judicious cleaning of APH baskets with high pressure water jet after taking them
out during major opportunity like overhaul / major outage. Inspection of baskets
for erosion/ damage and replacement of the same, if necessary.
 As there is significant amount of ingress in APH of both units, it is recommended
to do a physical inspection of the air heater to check the damage of seals,
eccentricity, sector plate damage etc. Replacement of APH seals and proper seal
setting during every major opportunity to reduce /minimize leakages.
 Furnace air tightness test may be carried out for identifying various sources of air
ingress in to furnace, boiler second pass and same may be attended.
 It is recommended to replace the corroded baskets (condition based) during
overhauling.
 It is suggested to make at least 5 number of sampling point/pockets at APH inlet
& outlet for both unit to have better mapping of O2 (leakage), and evaluating the
performance on routine basis.
3.6 Cooling Tower Performance

The cooling towers performance was tested when the unit – 1 and unit – 2 was operating
at Full load. Table 3-23depicts the design details of cooling tower. Parameters
measured for performance test are:
 Hot water temperature
 Cold water temperature
 Individual riser water flow
 All CT fans velocity
 Makeup water temperature

 Air wet bulb temperature
Table 3-23: Design Details of Cooling tower
Description Unit Particulars
No of Cooling Tower 4 for 2
No of Cells for each Tower 11(10 W+1 S)
Hot water inlet temperature ºC 42.5
Cold Water outlet temperature ºC 32
Design Wet Bulb Temperature ºC 27
Water Flow rate/Cell m3/hr 3600
Liquid gas ration 1.489
Fan Area M2 81.804
Fan velocity m/sec 7.790
Motor Rated kW 112
Cooling tower operating parameters have been measured to analyze the performance of
tower. The results are as follows:
The cooling tower range is calculated using following expression:
Range= T1- T2 in 0C
Where,
R Cooling range, 0C
T1 Hot water temperature, 0C
T2 Cold water temperature, 0C
Cooling Approach
The cooling tower cooling approach is calculated as follows:
Approach= T2- T3 in0C
Where,
A Cooling approach, 0C
T2 Cold water temperature, 0C
T3 Ambiant air wet bulb température, 0C
Range
Effectiveness= ------------------------------ X 100
(Range + Approach)
Cooling tower operating parameters have been analyzed individual cell wise and also
tower wise. The result has been depicted in tables below Moreover, the cell wise cooling
tower calculation is shown in Annexure - VII
Table 3-24: Cooling tower performance (CT 1A)
Particulars Unit Design Value Test Value
Dry Bulb Temperature ºC 31.45
Wet Bulb Temperature ºC 27 22.39
Hot water temperature 42.5 44.10
Cold water temperature 32 33.64
CT Fan Duct velocity. m/sec 7.79 5.39
No of running Fans No’s 11.00
3
Air flow/Cell m /h 1587324.82
3
m /h 17460572.98
Total Air flow
kg/h 21301899.03
water flow m3/h 36000 34609
Total fan power kW 1047.07
Range 10.5 10.46
Approach 5 11.25
Effectiveness 67.74 48.18
L/G ratio 1.489 1.71
Evaporation loss m3/hr 553.88
Sp. power consumption 0.05
Heat load in CT kcal/hr 362010140
COC 3.28
Blow Down m3/hr 242.93
Makeup water consumption m3/hr 796.80
Table 3-25: Cooling tower performance (CT 1B)

No of running Fans No’s 10.00
Air flow/Cell m3/h 1657830.64
3
m /h 16578306.43
Total Air flow
kg/h 20225533.85
3
water flow m /h 32644.6
Total fan power kW 969
Range 10.5 10.55
Approach 5 11.75

L/G ratio 1.489 1.54
Evaporation loss m3/h 526.93
Heat load in CT kcal/h 344400530
COC 3.28
Blow Down m3/h 231.11
Makeup water consumption m3/h 758.04
Table 3-26: Cooling tower performance (CT 2A)

CT Fan velocity. m/sec 7.79 5.44
No of running Fans no’s 7.00
3
Air flow/Cell m /h 1601460.55
m3/h 11210223.83
Total Air flow
kg/h 13676473.07
water flow m3/h 36000 30920
Range 10.5 9.03
Approach 5 12.00
Effectiveness % 67.74 42.94
L/G ratio 1.489 2.38
3
Evaporation loss m /h 427.19
Heat load in CT kcal/h 279207600
COC 3.48
3
Blow Down m /h 172.25
3
Makeup water consumption m /h 599.44
Table 3-27: Cooling tower performance (CT 2B)

Wet Bulb Temperature ºC 27 25
No of running Fans 10.00
Air flow/Cell m3/hr 1183956.19

m3/hr 11839561.92
Total Air flow
kg/hr 14444265.54
water flow m3/hr 36000 35129.2
Range 10.5 8.10
Approach 5 11.00
L/G ratio 1.489 2.56
Evaporation loss m3/hr 435.36
Heat load in CT kcal/hr 284546520
COC 3.48
Blow Down m3/hr 175.55
Makeup water consumption m3/hr 610.90
Observations:
 Improper water flow has been observed through individual riser which causes non
symmetric water flow through the nozzle on fills. Measured air velocity is lower
than design.
 During field visit it was observed some carryover of water outside the unit. It may
be due to blockage of the fill pack or uneven operation of spray nozzles.
 At the time of measurement 4 CT fans were not in service in unit 2.
 In CT 1A and 1B calculated range is approx equal to design range while in unit- 2
CT towers it is lower than design range 10.5 ºC. This may be due to during field
visit 4 number of CT fans were not in operation.
 Calculated Approach is in between 11 ºC and 12 ºC while design approach is 5
ºC**. (**Design approach is calculated with the help of design WBT value and
Design cold water temperature), which may be due to lower WBT measurement
against design WBT of 27 ºC. This lower WBT may be due to carryover of water
outside the unit.
 Effectiveness of cooling tower 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B is 48.18%, 47.31 %, 42.94%
and 42.41% respectively against the design of 66.7% respectively. Efficiency of
cooling tower depends upon range & approach. As approach value is found more
against the design. Hence efficiency is deteriorated
 It has been observed that L/G ratio of all 4 four cooling towers are more than
design. L/G ratio for cooling tower 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B is found to be 1.71, 1.54,
2.38 and 2.56 respectively against design 1.489. An increase L/G ratio will result
in an increase of the approach that means, warmer water will be leaving the
tower. Hence cooling tower air flow should be increased for reducing the L/G
ratio. Ultimately approach as well as cooling tower outlet temperature will be
achieved close to design.
 In unit-2 L/G ratio is more than unit -1 it may be due to 4 CTs fans were not
operating at the time of audit.
 As fan angle is changed from 14˚ to 16˚, still air velocity (flow) is not getting close
to design as well as water turbidity is also found to be 19.8NTU on date
17.1.2018 & 20NTU on date 18.1.2018 against the design <10NTU. So it might
be create restriction in suction path of air.
Recommendations
 It is recommended to improve airflow to maintain L/G ratio by consulting with
equipment manufacturer.
 It is recommended to operate 10 CT fans as per design
 Improper water flow through the riser may be adjusted by consulting with
equipment manufacturer.
 Damaged fills to be replaced with new fills & fills to be cleaned to minimize the
restriction in suction path of air.
 Nozzles to be cleaned periodically
 Turbidity of cooling water to be maintained close to design.
3.7 Power Measurement

Table 3-28: Transformer feeder Unit 1
EQUIPMENT Volta Current Power Rated Loadi
ge (A) factor Power Power Power ng
(kV) (Cos ø) kW KVA KVA %
14116. 17007. 31500.
Incomer from UAT 1A 11.7 839.3 0.83 57 91 00 54%
15737. 19192. 31500.
Incomer from UAT 1B 11.7 947.1 0.82 78 41 00 61%
Boiler Service Transformer - 2000.0
1DBT01 11.7 19.8 0.85 341.05 401.24 0 20%
Turbine Service Transformer 2000.0
1DAT1 11.7 23.5 0.87 414.31 476.21 0 24%
1284.4 1493.4 5000.0
VFD TRF ID FAN 1A-CH1 11.7 73.7 0.86 0 9 0 30%
1045.4 1201.6 5000.0
VFD TRF ID FAN 1B-CH1 11.7 59.3 0.87 6 8 0 24%
1262.3 1450.9 5000.0
VFD TRF ID FAN 1A-CH2 11.7 71.6 0.87 1 3 0 29%
VFD TRF ID FAN 1B-CH2 11.7 60.9 0.85 1048.9 1234.1 5000.0 25%
EQUIPMENT Volta Current Power Rated Loadi

ge (A) factor Power Power Power ng
(kV) (Cos ø) kW KVA KVA %
9 0 0
Boiler Service Transformer - 2000.0
1DBT02 11.7 15 0.87 264.45 303.97 0 15%
Unit Aux Transformer - 5305.6 6981.0 16000.
1CAT02 11.7 344.5 0.76 3 9 00 44%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DCT01 11.7 13.4 0.99 268.83 271.54 0 17%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DDT01 11.7 11.2 1 226.96 226.96 0 14%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DET01 11.7 13.1 1 265.46 265.46 0 17%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DFT01 11.7 10.8 0.99 216.67 218.86 0 14%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DCT02 11.7 10.8 1 218.86 218.86 0 14%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DDT02 11.7 9.6 1 194.54 194.54 0 12%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DET02 11.7 12.8 1 259.38 259.38 0 16%
1600.0
ESP Service TRF-1DFT02 11.7 12.5 1 253.31 253.31 0 16%
Cooling Tower Transformer - 1061.4 1179.3 2000.0
1A 11.7 58.2 0.9 5 9 0 59%
Cooling Tower Transformer - 1114.5 1252.3 2000.0
1B 11.7 61.8 0.89 8 4 0 63%
1600.0
Bottom Ash Transformer 1 11.7 6.6 0.88 117.70 133.75 0 8%
1600.0
Bottom Ash Transformer 2 11.7 12.9 0.84 219.59 261.41 0 16%
Table 3-29: Transformer feeder Unit 2

EQUIPMENT Voltage Current Power Power Power Rated Loading
(KV) (A) factor Power
(Cos ø) KW KVA KVA %
16837. 20787.
Incomer from UAT 2A 11.7 1025.8 0.81 6 2 31500 65.99
13860. 17111.
Incomer from UAT 2B 11.7 844.4 0.81 1 3 31500 54.32
Boiler Service Transformer - 303.15 356.65
2DBT01 11.7 17.6 0.85 5 3 2000 17.83
Boiler Service Transformer - 216.01 263.43
2DBT02 11.7 13 0.82 9 7 2000 13.17
Turbine Service Transformer 314.90 374.89
2DAT1 11.7 18.5 0.84 9 1 2000 18.74
1410.7 1720.4
VFD TRF ID FAN 2A-CH1 11.7 84.9 0.82 7 5 5000 34.41
1660.0 2024.4
VFD TRF ID FAN 2B-CH1 11.7 99.9 0.82 2 1 5000 40.49
1479.6 1740.7
VFD TRF ID FAN 2A-CH2 11.7 85.9 0.85 1 1 5000 34.81
1556.9 1898.7
VFD TRF ID FAN 2B-CH2 11.7 93.7 0.82 9 7 5000 37.98
Unit Aux Transformer -
2CAT02 11.7 265.9 0.71 3825.7 5388.3 16000 33.68
264.81
ESP Service TRF-2DCT01 11.7 13.2 0.99 5 267.49 1600 16.72
EQUIPMENT Voltage Current Power Power Power Rated Loading

(KV) (A) factor Power
(Cos ø) KW KVA KVA %
253.30 253.30
ESP Service TRF-2DDT01 11.7 12.5 1 5 5 1600 15.83
257.35 257.35
ESP Service TRF-2DET01 11.7 12.7 1 8 8 1600 16.08
250.77 253.30
ESP Service TRF-2DFT01 11.7 12.5 0.99 2 5 1600 15.83
ESP Service TRF-2DCT02 11.7 10.4 1 210.75 210.75 1600 13.17
261.41 261.41
ESP Service TRF-2DDT02 11.7 12.9 1 1 1 1600 16.34
228.98 228.98
ESP Service TRF-2DET02 11.7 11.3 1 8 8 1600 14.31
242.74 245.19
ESP Service TRF-2DFT02 11.7 12.1 0.99 7 9 1600 15.32
Cooling Tower Transformer - 793.35 881.50
2A 11.7 43.5 0.9 1 1 2000 44.08
Cooling Tower Transformer - 1081.5 1201.6
2B 11.7 59.3 0.9 1 8 2000 60.08
151.61
Bottom Ash Transformer 1 11.7 8.7 0.86 8 176.3 1600 11.02
303.15 356.65
Bottom Ash Transformer 2 11.7 17.6 0.85 5 3 1600 22.29
Table 3-30: Motor feeder Unit 1 (11 KV and 3.3 KV)

Power Rated
Voltage Power Loading
EQUIPMENT Current(A) factor Power
(KV) (kW) %
(Cos ø) (kW)
PA Fan-1A 11.7 79.2 0.84 1348.2 3200 37.92

PA Fan-1B 11.7 78.6 0.84 1337.9 3200 37.63
CW pump-1A 11.7 219 0.81 3594.7 3600 89.87
CW pump-1B 11.7 220.6 0.78 3486.9 3600 87.17
BCW A 3.36 86.5 0.51 255.96 450 51.19
BCW C 3.36 84.7 0.55 270.3 550 44.23
FD A 3.36 163.1 0.76 719.22 1350 47.95
FD B 3.36 170.2 0.79 780.15 1350 52.01
CEP A 3.36 198.3 0.88 1012.5 1150 79.24
CEP B 3.36 191.5 0.89 988.9 1150 77.39
MILL B 3.36 149.9 0.72 626.22 680 82.88
MILL C 3.36 146.7 0.74 629.88 680 83.37
MILL D 3.36 139.4 0.74 598.53 680 79.22
MILL E 3.36 140.8 0.73 596.37 680 78.93
MILL F 3.36 142.2 0.74 610.55 680 80.81
MILL H 3.36 163.1 0.76 719.22 1350 47.95
IA compressor -A 3.36 64.6 0.91 341.09 500 61.4
Table 3-31: Motor feeder Unit 2 (11 KV and 3.3 KV)

EQUIPMENT Voltage Current(A) Power factor Power Rated Loading
(KV) (Cos ø) (kW) Power %
(kW)
PA Fan-2A 11.7 83.2 0.85 1433.10 3200 40.31
PA Fan-2B 11.7 84.1 0.84 1431.56 3200 40.26
CW pump-2A 11.7 221.5 0.77 3456.19 3700 84.07
CW pump-2B 11.7 219.8 0.76 3385.13 3700 82.34
BCW A 3.36 86.4 0.51 256.43 550 41.96
BCW C 3.36 90.2 0.51 267.71 550 43.81
FD A 3.36 162.9 0.78 739.44 1350 49.30
FD B 3.36 160.4 0.73 681.42 1350 45.43
CEP A 3.36 200 0.89 1035.87 1150 81.07
CEP B 3.36 195.1 0.88 999.14 1150 78.19
MILL A 3.36 133.9 0.71 553.26 680 73.23
MILL B 3.36 129.1 0.69 518.40 680 68.61
MILL C 3.36 135.2 0.73 574.36 680 76.02
MILL D 3.36 143.2 0.68 566.68 680 75.00
MILL E 3.36 137.3 0.71 567.30 680 75.08
MILL G 3.36 144.7 0.71 597.88 680 79.13
MILL H 3.36 147.1 0.69 590.68 680 78.18
IA compressor -B 3.36 65.4 0.9 342.54 500 61.66
Observation and Recommendation

 As per the information from site at this moment the feeder current is measured
through relay which may not be safer for all the time. Thus individual energy
meter can be installed for each feeders, as a self contained device for
measurement of voltage, current, power (real power, reactive power, apparent
power, power factor, harmonic and reactive power).
 As per Table 3-30andTable 3-31the PAF power loading for both units is less than
the 50 %. As per the test data the system demand is approximately varies from
1300 kW to 1500 kW at full load data against the rated motor capacity of 3200
kW. Where as in PG test at 100 % TMCR each fan consumption is almost less
than 1100kW. Thus keeping the higher capacity motor may cost losses.
3.8 Insulation Survey

Insulation Audit was carried out during the detailed energy audit to identify the damaged
area of insulation in the boiler area, Turbine and associated steam lines. Surface
temperatures were measured using non-contact infra red thermometer and the
measurements are presented below :
U
Unit 1
UBetween LRSB 123 and 135
Observation:
Temperature measurement inbetween LRSB 123 and 135 is around 230oC. Thus needs
proper insulation.
U52 meter corner 1 left wall sl no1
Observation:
At 52 meter corner 1 left wall, the temperature reading is on higher side. Hence it is
required to take necessary action.
U43 meter corner 4 right wall
Observation:
Proper insulation at 43 meter corner 4 right wall is not provided and temperature
o
measured is around 150 C. Thus needs proper insulation
U43 meter corner 4 right side wall
Observation:
43 meter corner 4 right side wall is not properly insulated and temperature measured is
around 170oC. Necessary action to be required.
43 meter corner 2 left side wall
Observation:
Measure temperature at 43 meter corner 2 left side wall is found around 165oC.
UPRDS floor near ASU-33
Observation:
Insulation need to repair at PRDS floor near ASU -33 as measured temperature is
220oC.
HP Casing
Observation:
In HP casing, at points shown in above figure temperature has measured around 100oC.
UTDBFP-B steam
Observation:
steam extraction line to TDBFP B the temperature is measured to be around 125oC.
Unit 2
U
U22 meter corner -2 Rear wall
Observation:
The insulation provided at 22 meter corner – 2 Rear wall is found damage and
temperature measured is around 300oC. Thus needs proper insulation
U22 meter corner 3 rear wall
Observation:
Proper insulation at 43 meter corner 4 right wall is not provided and temperature
o
measured is around 150 C. Thus needs proper insulation
U22 meter corner 4 right wall
Observation:
At 22 meter corner 4 right wall measured temperature is around 145oC.
U43 meter corner 3 right side
Observation:
At particular points above sootblowing of 43 meter corner 3 right side measured
temperature is around 180oC.
43 meter corner 1 front side
Observation:
The temperature measured at 43 meter corner 1 front side is found to be around 120oC
Annexure –I Test Coal/Ash Analysis and Proximate to Ultimate Analysis

conversion
Proximate Analysis: Reporting of Proximate Analysis of as fired coal should be on

‘Total Moisture’ basis
Parameter Value
Total Moisture (M) ……%

Ash (A) ……%
Volatile matter (VM) ……%
Fixed Carbon (FC) ……%
Total 100 %

FcDc=free carbon on dry ash free basis =
. –
VmDf = volatile matter on dry ash free basis = 100 FcDc
Cdf =fixed carbon on dry ash free basis = FcDc 0.9 ∗ VmDf 14
.
Hdf = hydrogen on dry ash free basis = VmDf ∗ 0.013
Ndf = nitrogen on dry ash free basis = 2.1 0.012 ∗ VmDf
Ultimate Parameters
∗
Carbon percentage (Ca) =
∗
Hydrogen percentage (H) =
∗
Nitrogen percentage (N) =
Sulpher percentage (S) = Get as per site condition from plant
Oxygen percentage (O) = 1 Ca H N S M A
Component Unit Values

Proximate Analysis Unit 1 Unit 2
Ash % 32.49 36.42
Total Moisture % 10.88 10.67
Inherent moisture % 5.68 5.31
Fixed Carbon % 30.35 28.37
Volatile matter % 26.28 24.54
GCV kcal/kg 3962 3929
Unburnt carbon in fly ash % 0.33 0.35
Unburnt carbon in bottom Ash % 2.36 2.38
Annexure –II Cycle isolation list during Performance Evaluation
1. Furnace wall blowers, LRSB and the air heater soot blowers were operated prior to
the efficiency test.
2. The soot blowing cycle was completed an hour before testing.
3. No furnace or air heater soot blowing is done during the test.
4. Unit operation was kept steady for at least 60 minutes prior to the test.
5. Main Steam pressure and temperature and Reheat Steam temperature were set to
design values.
6. Auxiliary PRDS steam flow from the unit being tested was kept isolated.
7. Continuous Blow down, Intermittent Blow down was not operated during the test.
8. No mill changeover was done during the test.
9. No oil support was taken during the test period.
10. Bottom ash hopper de-ashing was done prior to the test period.
11. Eco hopper de-ashing or Bottom hopper de-ashing was not done during the test.
Annexure –III Design Data (100 %, 80 %, 60% Load)
Turbine Unit 100% 80% 60%

Generated Power (Gross MW 600.150 480.150 360.150
Feed water flow economizer t/h 1835.506 1465.945 1110.225
MS Press HPT inlet (Average) kg/cm2 170 170 170
MS Temp HPT inlet (Average) °C 537 537 537
HPT Exhaust/CRH pressure (Average) kg/cm2 43.03 34.94 27.02
HPT Exhaust/CRH Temperature (Average) °C 332.7 325.6 318.7
CRH flow t/h 1553.497 1260.736 971.241
Steam Press IPT inlet (Avg) kg/cm2 38.72 31.5 24.33
Steam Temp IPT inlet (Avg) °C 565 565 565
Steam Pressure IPT outlet kg/cm2 7.7 6.31 4.89
Steam Temperature IPT outlet °C 328.2 329.7 330.8
Steam Pressure LP turbine inlet kg/cm2 7.7 6.31 4.89
Steam Temperature LP turbine inlet °C 328.2 329.7 330.8
CONDENSER
Condenser Vacuum (absolute) kg/cm2 0.1047 0.1047 0.1047
HEATERS and Deaerator Unit 100% 80% 60%
LPH3 Inlet condensate temperature °C 94.9 90.6 84.8
LPH3 outlet condensate temperature °C 124 118.6 111.3
LPH3 Drain temperature °C 99.6 94.4 87.7
E Press (From Turbine) to LPH3 kg/cm2 2.597 2.138 1.665
ETemp (From Turbine) to LPH3 °C 209.2 210.9 212.3
E Pressure (LPH3 inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 2.468 2.043 1.6
E Temperature (LPH3 inlet) Heater end °C 208.9 210.7 212.2
LPH2 Inlet condensate temperature °C 71.7 69.2 65.6
LPH2 outlet condensate temperature °C 94.9 90.4 84.6
LPH2 Drain temperature °C 76.4 72.9 68.3
Ext Press (From Turbine) to LPH2 kg/cm2 0.994 0.817 0.634
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to LPH2 °C 118.6 119.7 120.6
Ext Pressure (LPH2 inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 0.944 0.783 0.614
Ext Temperature (LPH2 inlet) Heater end °C 118.3 119.6 120.5
HPH5A Inlet condensate temperature °C 171.6 159.6 150.4
HPH5A outlet condensate temperature °C 213.4 199.4 189.5
HPH5A Drain temperature °C 174.1 163.4 153.2
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 5A kg/cm2 19.36 15.81 12.27
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to HPH 5A °C 463.4 464.3 465.2
Ext Pressure (HPH5A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 18.39 15.08 11.75
Ext Temperature (HPH5A inlet) Heater end °C 462.9 463.9 465
HPH5B Inlet condensate temperature °C 171.6 159.6 150.4
HPH5B outlet condensate temperature °C 213.4 199.4 189.5
HPH5B Drain temperature °C 174.1 163.4 153.2
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 5B kg/cm2 19.36 15.81 12.27
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to HPH 5B °C 463.4 464.3 465.2
Ext Pressure (HPH5B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 18.39 15.08 11.75
Ext Temperature (HPH5B inlet) Heater end °C 462.9 463.9 465
HPH6A Inlet condensate temperature °C 213.4 199.4 189.5
HPH6A outlet condensate temperature °C 250.8 240.2 227.5
Turbine Unit 100% 80% 60%

HPH6A Drain Temperature °C 217.1 203 191.1
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH6A kg/cm2 43.04 34.94 27.02
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 6A °C 332.7 382.6 318.7
Ext Pressure (HPH6A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 40.68 33.5 26.15
Ext Temperature (HPH6A inlet) Heater end °C 330.6 324.1 317.8
HPH6B Inlet condensate temperature °C 213.4 199.4 189.5
HPH6B outlet condensate temperature °C 250.8 240.2 227.5
HPH6B Drain Temperature °C 217.1 203 191.1
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH6B kg/cm2 43.04 34.94 27.02
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 6B °C 332.7 382.6 318.7
Ext Pressure (HPH6B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 40.68 33.5 26.15
Ext Temperature (HPH6B inlet) Heater end °C 330.6 324.1 317.8
Deaerator Pressure kg/cm2 7.08 5.86 4.6
Deaerator sat temp °C 165.412 157.69 148.72
Ext Press (From Turbine) to Deaerator kg/cm2 7.7 6.31 4.89
Ext Temperature (From Turbine) to Deaerator °C 328.2 329.7 330.5
Ext Pressure (Deaerator inlet) kg/cm2 7.08 5.87 4.6
Ext temperature (Deaerator inlet) °C 327.5 329.3 330.5
HPH 7A Inlet Feed Water Temperature °C 250.8 240.2 227.5
HPH 7A Outlet Feed Water Temperature °C 278 265.8 251
HPH 7A Drain Temperature °C 255.6 243.9 230
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 7A kg/cm2 65.54 52.96 40.69
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 7A °C 391.3 382.6 373.9
Ext Pressure (HPH 7A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 62.59 51.11 39.64
Ext Temperature (HPH 7A inlet) Heater end °C 389.1 381.1 373
HPH 7B Inlet Feed Water Temperature °C 250.8 240.2 227.5
HPH 7B Outlet Feed Water Temperature °C 278 265.8 251
HPH 7B Drain Temperature °C 255.6 243.9 230
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 7B kg/cm2 65.54 52.96 40.69
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 7B °C 391.3 382.6 373.9
Ext Pressure (HPH 7B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 62.59 51.11 39.64
Ext Temperature (HPH 7B inlet) Heater end °C 389.1 381.1 373
Annexure –IV Operating Data (100 % Load Case)

Test carried out on 17-08-2018 at 13:15 hrs to 15:15 hrs for unit 1 and 18-01-2018
10:20 hrs to 12:20 hrs for unit 2
Turbine Unit Unit 1 Unit 2
Generated Power (Gross) MW 605.91 603.93
Feed water flow economizer inlet t/h 1979.16 1970.80
MS Flow boiler outlet t/h 1968.520 1946.08
Make up flow t/h 0.000 0.000
Condensate Flow After LPH 5 t/h 1531.760 1510.67
Condensate Flow After LPH 5 (Measured) t/h 1502.39 1470.30
RH Spray flow (Total) t/h 3.300 32.660
RH spray (Left) t/h 3.300 15.410
RH Spray (Right) t/h 0.000 17.250
RH Spray water Pressure kg/cm2 77.400 77.400
RH Spray water Temp ºC 166.230 170.565
SH Spray flow (Total) t/h 21.440 38.400
SH Spray flow Stage 1 (Left) t/h 14.790 37.540
SH Spray flow Stage 1 (Right) t/h 6.650 0.860
SH Spray water Temp ºC 168.430 170.675
SH Spray Water Pressure kg/cm2 206.000 206.000
MS Press FSH outlet (average) kg/cm2 170.880 168.185
2
MS Press FSH outlet (L) kg/cm 170.76 167.97
MS Press FSH outlet (R) kg/cm2 171 168.4
MS TEMP FSH outlet (average) ºC 537.890 539.405
MS TEMP FSH outlet (L) ºC 538.83 538.97
MS TEMP FSH outlet(R ) ºC 536.95 539.84
MS Press HPT inlet (Average) kg/cm2 170.880 168.185
MS Press HPT inlet (L) kg/cm2 170.760 167.970
MS Press HPT inlet(R ) kg/cm2 171.000 168.400
MS Temp HPT inlet (Average) ºC 537.890 539.405
MS Temp HPT inlet (L) ºC 538.830 538.970
MS Temp HPT inlet(R ) ºC 536.950 539.840
HPT 1st stage Pressure kg/cm2 165.950 163.240
HPT Exhaust/CRH pressure (Average) kg/cm2 44.465 42.765
2
HPT Exhaust/CRH pressure (Left) kg/cm 44.490 42.750
HPT Exhaust/CRH pressure (Right) kg/cm2 44.440 42.780
HPT Exhaust/CRH Temperature (Average) ºC 333.305 335.890
HPT Exhaust/CRH Temperature (Left) ºC 333.280 335.890
HPT Exhaust/CRH Temperature (Right) ºC 333.330 NA
Steam Press RH inlet (Avg) kg/cm2 44.465 42.765
Steam Press RH inlet (L) kg/cm2 44.490 42.750
Steam Press RH inlet (R ) kg/cm2 44.440 42.780
Steam Temp Reheater inlet (Avg) ºC 333.305 167.945
Steam Temp Reheater inlet (L) ºC 333.280 335.890
Steam Temp Reheater inlet (R ) ºC 333.330 0.000
HRH Press RH outlet (Avg) kg/cm2 41.400 39.845
HRH Press RH outlet(L) kg/cm2 40.490 39.230
HRH Press RH outlet(R ) MPa 42.310 40.460
HRH Temp RH outlet (Avg) ºC 564.980 564.740
HRH Temp RH outlet(L) ºC 564.830 560.920
HRH Temp RH outlet(R ) ºC 565.130 568.560
Steam Press IPT inlet (Avg) kg/cm2 41.400 39.845
2
Steam Press IPT inlet(L) kg/cm 40.490 39.230
Steam Press IPT inlet(R ) kg/cm2 42.310 40.460
Steam Temp IPT inlet (Avg) ºC 564.980 564.740
Steam Temp IPT inlet(L) ºC 564.830 560.920
Steam Temp IPT inlet (R ) ºC 565.130 568.560
Steam Pressure IPT outlet kg/cm2 6.850 7.910
Steam Temperature IPT outlet ºC 329.255 338.980
Steam Pressure LP turbine inlet kg/cm2 6.850 7.910
Steam Temperature LP turbine inlet ºC 329.255 338.980
HEATERS and Deaerator Unit 1 Unit Unit 1 Unit 2
LPH3 Inlet condensate temperature ºC 92.990 97.940
LPH3 Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm2 11.320 11.471
LPH3 outlet condensate temperature ºC 121.940 124.842
2
LPH3 outlet condensate pressure kg/cm 10.350 10.612
LPH3 Drain temperature ºC 97.740 102.158
E Press (From Turbine) to LPH3 kg/cm2 1.460 1.595
ETemp (From Turbine) to LPH3 ºC 223.790 234.293
E Pressure (LPH3 inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 1.460 1.595
E Temperature (LPH3 inlet) Heater end ºC 223.790 234.293
LPH2 Inlet condensate temperature ºC 65.910 76.655
LPH2 Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm2 12.190 12.238
LPH2 outlet condensate temperature ºC 121.940 124.842
2
LPH2 outlet condensate pressure kg/cm 10.350 10.612
LPH2 Drain temperature ºC 77.570 36.821
Ext Press (From Turbine) to LPH2 kg/cm2 0.030 -0.011
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to LPH2 ºC 0.000 114.808
Ext Pressure (LPH2 inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 0.030 -0.011
Ext Temperature (LPH2 inlet) Heater end ºC 114.65 114.808
HPH5A Inlet condensate temperature ºC 170.030 170.679
2
HPH5A Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm 212.430 209.595
HPH5A outlet condensate temperature ºC 207.040 205.666
HPH5A outlet condensate pressure kg/cm2 211.450 208.974
HPH5A Drain temperature ºC 177.860 177.611
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 5A kg/cm2 17.430 17.421
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to HPH 5A ºC 444.520 452.327
Ext Pressure (HPH5A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 17.430 17.421
Ext Temperature (HPH5A inlet) Heater end ºC 444.520 452.327
HPH5B Inlet condensate temperature ºC 169.890 170.703
2
HPH5B Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm 212.640 209.475
HPH5B outlet condensate temperature ºC 205.800 205.333
HPH5B outlet condensate pressure kg/cm2 211.680 208.671
HPH5B Drain temperature ºC 178.690 177.899
2
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 5B kg/cm 17.430 17.433
ExtTemp (From Turbine) to HPH 5B ºC 445.960 453.233
Ext Pressure (HPH5B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 17.430 17.433
Ext Temperature (HPH5B inlet) Heater end ºC 445.960 453.233
HPH6A Inlet condensate temperature ºC 207.040 205.666
HPH6A Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm2 211.450 208.974
HPH6A outlet condensate temperature ºC 256.010 252.523
2
HPH6A outlet condensate pressure kg/cm 210.400 207.735
HPH6A Drain Temperature ºC 217.060 214.848
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH6A kg/cm2 42.680 40.766
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 6A ºC 335.270 334.308
Ext Pressure (HPH6A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 42.680 40.766
Ext Temperature (HPH6A inlet) Heater end ºC 335.270 334.308
HPH6B Inlet condensate temperature ºC 205.800 205.333
2
HPH6B Inlet condensate Pressure kg/cm 211.680 208.671
HPH6B outlet condensate temperature ºC 257.450 252.664
HPH6B outlet condensate pressure kg/cm2 210.380 207.287
HPH6B Drain Temperature ºC 219.440 214.008
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH6B kg/cm2 42.440 40.732
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 6B ºC 336.150 335.003
Ext Pressure (HPH6B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 42.440 40.732
Ext Temperature (HPH6B inlet) Heater end ºC 336.150 335.003
Deaerator Pressure kg/cm2 7.180 7.450
Deaerator sat temp ºC 165.979 167.482
Ext Press (From Turbine) to Deaerator kg/cm2 7.180 7.450
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to Deaerator ºC 327.310 339.120
Ext Pressure (Deaerator inlet) Deaerator end kg/cm2 7.180 7.450
Ext Temperature (Deaerator inlet) Deaerator end ºC 327.310 339.120
HPH 7A Inlet FeedWater Pressure kg/cm2 210.400 207.735
HPH 7A Inlet FeedWater Temperature ºC 256.010 252.523
HPH 7A Outlet FeedWater Pressure kg/cm2 209.620 206.608
HPH 7A Outlet FeedWater Temperature ºC 284.350 281.023
HPH 7A Drain Temperature ºC 274.100 255.561
2
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 7A kg/cm 65.480 63.334
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 7A ºC 397.210 395.050
Ext Pressure (HPH 7A inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 65.480 63.334
Ext Temperature (HPH 7A inlet) Heater end ºC 397.210 395.050
HPH 7B Inlet FeedWater Pressure kg/cm2 210.380 207.287
HPH 7B Inlet FeedWater Temperature ºC 257.450 252.664
2
HPH 7B Outlet FeedWater Pressure kg/cm 209.340 206.663
HPH 7B Outlet FeedWater Temperature ºC 282.990 281.348
HPH 7B Drain Temperature ºC 265.040 254.029
2
Ext Press (From Turbine) to HPH 7B kg/cm 65.420 63.791
Ext Temp (From Turbine) to HPH 7B ºC 394.720 383.444
Ext Pressure (HPH 7B inlet) Heater end kg/cm2 65.420 63.791
Ext Temperature (HPH 7B inlet) Heater end ºC 394.720 383.444
Annexure –V Turbine Heat Rate Calculation

Description Unit HBD Unit 1 Unit 2
Avg. Unit load MW 600.150 605.91 603.93
% of TMCR % 100% 101% 101%
Main Steam flow
Flow t/h 1835.506 2049.16 1947.28
Temperature ºC 537.00 537.89 539.41
Pressure kg/cm2 170.06 171.96 169.25
Enthalpy kJ/kg 3396.05 3396.45 3403.74
SH Attemperation
Temperature ºC 0.00 168.43 170.68
Pressure kg/cm2 207.08 207.08
Flow t/h 0.00 21.44 38.40
Enthalpy kJ/kg 0.00 723.45 733.10
Cold reheat
Temperature ºC 332.70 333.31 335.89
Pressure kg/cm2 43.04 45.50 43.80
Flow t/h 1553.497 1710.22 1637.63
Enthalpy kJ/kg 3043.60 3038.75 3050.01
Hot reheat
Temperature ºC 565.00 564.98 564.74
Pressure kg/cm2 38.73 42.44 40.87
Flow t/h 1553.496 1713.49 1670.29
Hot reheat enthalpy kJ/kg 3596.36 3593.07 3593.89
RH spray
Temperature ºC 0.00 166.23 170.57
Pressure kg/cm2 78.44 78.44
flow t/h 0.00 3.30 32.66
enthalpy kJ/kg 0.00 706.67 725.47
Feed water
Temperature ºC 278.00 282.98 280.14
Pressure kg/cm2 203.11 206.68 203.57
Feed water Flow t/h 1835.506 2027.72 1908.88
Turbine heat rate (actual) kcal/kWh 1927.10 2118.82 2069.39
TG Heat Rate (corrected) kcal/kWh 2057.05 2010.22
Specific stem consumption kg/kWh 3.058 3.38 3.22
Cycle efficiency % 44.63 40.59 41.56
Correction for throttling temperature kcal/kWh -0.56 -1.48
Correction for Throttling pressure kcal/kWh -2.24 1.12
Correction for Condenser Vacuum kcal/kWh 64.58 59.39
Correction for Reheater temperature kcal/kWh -0.01 0.13
Annexure –VI HBDs

1. 600 MW with 0% make up
3. 360 with 0% make up
Annexure –VII Cooling Tower Cell Wise Test Data

COOLING TOWER 1A
CELL-1 CELL-2 CELL-3 CELL-4 CELL-5 CELL-6 CELL-7 CELL-8 CELL-9 CELL-10 CELL-11
Desig
n Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
Particulars Unit Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
Amb.DBT ºC 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.40 31.40 31.40 31.40 31.40
CT DBT ºC 32.55 31.85 31.15 31.4 31.7 31.55 30.90 31.05 31.40 31.25 31.15
CT WBT ºC 27.7 25.85 25.9 24.85 22.1 22.35 23.95 23.30 19.15 17.90 19.15 22.60
Hot water
temp. ºC 42.5 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.10
Cold
water
temp. ºC 32 33.75 32.45 33.95 33.95 33.79 34.9 33.95 33.75 32.65 33.50 33.40
Air
Velocity 7.79 5.27 5.3 5.6 5.54 5 5.52 5.93 5.89 5.26 5.06 4.98
1551985. 1560820. 1649168. 1631498. 1472472. 1625609. 1746351. 1734572. 1549040. 1490141. 1466582.
Air flow m3/hr 49 32 64 98 00 088 79 02 54 66 11
water
flow m3/hr 3097 2967.6 3057.6 3167.4 3158.4 3015.8 3176.60 3299.20 3215.20 3132.60 3321.80
Fan
power kW 87.78 89.08 92.46 98.77 110.79 97.75 93.48 88.79 101.62 85.94 100.61
Range ºC 10.35 11.65 10.15 10.15 10.31 9.2 10.15 10.35 11.45 10.60 10.70
Approach ºC 7.9 6.55 9.1 11.85 11.44 10.95 10.65 14.60 14.75 14.35 10.80
Effective
ness % 56.71 64.01 52.73 46.14 47.40 45.66 48.80 41.48 43.70 42.48 49.77
L/G ratio 1.72 1.64 1.60 1.67 1.85 1.60 1.57 1.64 1.79 1.81 1.95
COOLING TOWER 1B
Desi
gn
Valu Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
Particulars Unit e Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
Amb.DBT ºC 31.4 31.40 31.4 31.40 31.40 31.40 31.40 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4
CT DBT ºC 31.65 31.35 31.75 31.30 31.35 31.05 30.60 31.65 31.3 31.2 30.15
CT WBT ºC 27.7 18.90 23.05 24.05 19.20 18.20 19.30 21.25 24.55 24.55 23.23 21.2
Hot water
temp. ºC 42.5 43.90 43.90 43.9 43.90 43.90 43.90 43.90 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9
Cold
water
temp. ºC 32 32.60 33.15 33.4 33.10 31.95 33.70 32.30 33.9 33.25 35.25 34.3
Air
Velocity 7.79 5.87 5.46 5.4 5.19 5.9 6.01 6.16 5.53 NS 5.68 5.53
1728682. 1607939. 1590269. 1528425. 1737516. 1769911. 1814085. 1628554. 1672728. 1628554.
Air flow m3/hr 13 42 76 94 96 34 50 032 NS 192 032
water
flow m3/hr 2794.80 3055.60 2778.8 2582.00 2886.00 2869.20 2775.20 3262.2 3179.4 3317 3144.4
Fan
power kw 95.31 97.55 95.77 92.87 105 108.75 90.83 97.14 86.55 99.22
Range ºC 11.30 10.75 10.50 10.80 11.95 10.20 11.60 10 10.650 8.650 9.600
Approach ºC 13.70 10.1 9.35 13.90 13.75 14.40 11.05 9.35 8.700 12.020 13.100
Effective
ness % 45.20 51.56 52.90 43.72 46.50 41.46 51.21 51.68 55.039 41.848 42.291
1.48
L/G ratio 9 1.39 1.64 1.51 1.46 1.43 1.40 1.32 1.73 1.710 1.665
Cooling tower 2A
Desi
gn
Particular Valu Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure
s Unit e d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value d Value
Amb.
DBT ºC 32.10 32.10 32.10 32.10 32.10 32.10 32.1 32.10
CT DBT ºC 30.25 30.55 31.05 30.50 30.15 30.15 30.45
CT WBT ºC 27.7 24.01 23.85 24.80 21.10 23.15 22.65 21.95
Hot water
temp. ºC 42.5 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.10 44.1 44.10
Cold
water
NOT IN SERVICE
NOT IN SERVICE
NOT IN SERVICE
temp. ºC 32 33.95 35.00 36.10 33.75 35.00 35.70 36.00
Air vel. 7.79 6.28 5.35 4.71 6.25 5.29 5.36 5.38 4.89
1849424. 1575545. 1387068. 1840590. 1557875. 1578489. 1584379. 1440077.
Air flow m3/hr 83 04 62 00 38 98 87 62
water
flow m3/hr 4596.40 4374.20 4387.60 4452.40 4326.60 4343.00 NS 4439.80
Fan
power kW 85.33 83.91 83.18 96.94 101.22 100.81 110.38 97.35
Range ºC 10.15 9.10 8.00 10.35 9.10 8.40 8.10
Approach ºC 9.94 11.15 11.30 12.65 11.85 13.05 14.05
Effective
ness % 50.52 44.94 41.45 45.00 43.44 39.16 36.57
1.48
L/G ratio kg/kg 9 2.15 2.40 2.73 2.09 2.40 2.38 2.66
Cooling tower 2B
Desi
gn
Valu Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured
Particulars Unit e Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
Amb.
DBT ºC 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1
CT DBT ºC 29.4 31.2 30.25 29.95 30.45 30.3 30.6 31.45 31.6 30.8 31
CT WBT ºC 27.7 19.2 18.45 20.2 19.9 19.4 18.3 20.2 23.4 23.35 18.65 18.6
Hot water
temp. ºC 42.5 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1
Cold
water
temp. ºC 32 33.35 33.55 34.75 34.3 34.65 34.25 34.6 34.2 35.9 34.4 34.05
Air Vel 4.22 4.04 4.01 4.1 3.92 3.6 4.39 4.19 4.22 3.867
1242766. 1189757. 1180922. 1219206. 1154418. 1060179. 1292830. 1233931. 1242766. 1138809.
Air flow m3/hr 37 38 544 82 05 84 42 54 NS 37 84
water
flow m3/hr 3749.00 3121.60 2989.60 3536.40 3677.80 3041.20 4087.60 3611.40 3263.20 4051.40
Fan
power kW 99.38 106.51 89.12 110.81 98.16 98.69 98.77 98.98 - 90.83 95.86
Range ºC 10.75 10.55 9.35 9.80 9.45 9.85 9.50 9.90 8.20 9.70 10.05
Approach ºC 14.15 15.10 14.55 14.40 15.25 15.95 14.40 10.80 12.55 15.75 15.45
Effective
ness % 43.17 41.13 39.12 40.50 38.26 38.18 39.75 47.83 39.52 38.11 39.41
1.48
L/G ratio 9 2.61 2.27 2.19 2.51 2.75 - 2.03 2.86 - 2.27 3.07
Annexure –VIII Boiler Efficiency Calculation

Description Unit Unit 1 Unit 2
Power Generated MW 605.91 603.93
Ambient Temperature ºC 32.00 32.00
Relative Humidity % 0.00 0.00
DRY GAS LOSS
Carbon in fuel % 47.05 44.00
sulphur in fuel % 0.42 0.42
Specific heat of flue gas kg/kg/c 30.60 30.60
Average Flue gas temp APH out ºC 135.71 135.00
Unburnt C in Ash % 0.74 0.76
carbon in ash / kg of coal kg/kg of 0.00241 0.00277
coal
Total Air flow t/h 2148.89 2231.91
Ratio of SA to total Air flow % 0.69 0.66
Ratio of PA to total Air flow % 0.31 0.34
Weighted Temp Air In ºC 36.94 31.46
Weighted Temp Air out ºC 313.18 309.19
Average FG CO2 APH out % 13.36 13.16
Gross CV kcal/kg 3962.00 3929.00
Weight of Dry gas kg/kg of 0.29 0.28
coal
Sensible Heat Dry Gas kJ/kg 885.44 880.35
Dry Gas Loss % 5.34 5.35
LOSS DUE TO UNBURNT CARBON
carbon in ash / kg of coal kg/kg of 0.00241 0.00277
coal
CV of carbon kcal/kg 8077.80 8077.80
Gross CV Kcal/kg 3962.00 3929.00
Loss Due To Unburnt Carbon % 0.49 0.57
LOSS DUE TO MOISTURE IN FUEL
Moisture in fuel % 10.88 10.67
Average FG Temp APH out ºC 135.71 135.00
Weighted Temp Air APH in ºC 36.94 31.46
Sensible Heat of water vapor kJ/kg 2599.99 2621.67
Loss due to moisture in fuel % 1.71 1.70
LOSS DUE TO HYDROGEN IN FUEL
Hydrogen in fuel % 3.06 2.86
Loss due to hydrogen in fuel % 4.32 4.10
LOSS DUE TO CARBON MONOXIDE
Average FG CO2 APH out % 13.36 13.16
AVERAGE FG CO APH out % 0.00 0.00
Carbon in fuel % 47.05 44.00
CV of Carbon monoxide kcal/kg 2415.00 2415.00
Carbon in ash /kg of coal kg/kg coal 0.00 0.00

Loss due to carbon monoxide % 0.00 0.00
LOSS DUE TO MOISTURE IN AIR
Average FG O2 APH inlet % 3.85 3.32
Carbon infuel % 47.05 44.00
Hydrogen in fuel % 3.06 2.86
Sulphur in fuel % 0.42 0.42
Oxygen in fuel % 5.20 4.79
Carbon in ash /kg of coal kg/kg coal 0.00 0.00
Moisture in Air (from Psychometric chart) kg/kg air 0.02 0.02
Reference Air Temp ºC 36.94 31.46
Average FG temp APH Out ºC 135.71 135.00
Average FG O2 APH out 5.73 5.84
Average FG N2 APH out % 80.92 81.00
stoichiometric air fuel ratio kg/kg of 6.21 5.80
coal
Excess Air 1.36 1.37
Total Moisture in Air % 0.14 0.13
Loss due to moisture in air % 0.16 0.15
OTHER LOSSES
A. Loss Due To Sensible Heat In Fly Ash
Temperature of Fly Ash ºC 135.71 135.00
Reference air Temperature ºC 36.94 31.46
Specific heat of fly ash kcal/kg/ ºC 0.16 0.16
Ash in Coal % 32.49 36.42
Distribution of fly ash % 80.00 80.00
Gross cv kcal/kg 3962.00 3929.00
Loss due to sensible heat in fly ash % 0.10 0.12
B. Loss Due To Sensible Heat In Bottom Ash
Temperature of bottom Ash ºC 1290.00 1290.00
Reference air temp ºC 36.94 31.46
Specific heat of bottom ash kcal/kg/ ºC 0.16 0.16
Ash in coal % 32.49 36.42
Distribution of bottom ash % 20.00 20.00
Loss due to sensible heat in bottom ash % 0.33 0.37
C. Loss Due To Sensible Heat In Duct Ash

Temperature of Duct Ash ºC 350.00 350.00
Specific heat of duct ash kcal/kg/ ºC 0.16 0.16
Ash in coal % 32.49 36.42
Distribution of duct ash % 0.00 0.00
Loss due to sensible heat in duct ash % 0.000 0.000

D. Loss Due To Sensible Heat In APH Ash
Temperature of APH Ash ºC 135.71 135.00

Specific heat of APH ash kcal/kg/ ºC 0.16 0.16
Ash in coal % 32.49 36.42
Distribution of APH ash % 0.00 0.00
Loss due to sensible heat in APH ash % 0.00 0.00
Coal Flow t/h 357.86 375.24
Loss due to sensible heat in APH ash % 0.07 0.07
Total Other Losses % 0.43 0.50
RADIATION LOSS
Taken as per ABMA Curve 1.24 1.24
Total Main Steam Flow t/h 1933.53 1876.27
Radiation loss % 0.10 0.10
LOSS DUE TO MILL REJECT
Total Mil Reject kg/h 2202.00 3409.00
CV of Mill Reject kcal/kg 2193.43 2234.78
Coal Flow t/h 357.86 375.24
Loss Due to Mill Reject % 0.34 0.52
SUMMARY
Dry gas loss % 5.34 5.35
Loss due to unburnt carbon % 0.49 0.57
Loss due to moisture in fuel % 1.71 1.70
Loss due to hydrogen in fuel % 4.32 4.10
Loss due to carbon monoxide % 0.00 0.00
Loss due to moisture in air % 0.16 0.15
Loss due to Mill reject % 0.34 0.52
Loss due to Sensible heat % 0.43 0.50
Radiation and Unaccounted loss % 0.24 0.24
Loss due to Mill reject % 0.34 0.52
Total Loss % 13.02 13.13
BOILER EFFICIENCY % 86.98 86.87
Annexure –IX APH Test data

PARAMETER UNIT 1 APH A INLET
DISTANCE 2 MTR 1.5 MTR 1 MTR
O2 % 4.6 4.2 4.6
CO PPM 8 5 2
APH A(LHS)
FT °C 348.2 348.7 349
I/L
FT(average) 348.63
CO2 % 14.3 14.85 14.37
PARAMETER UNIT 1 APH B INLET

DISTANCE 2 MTR 1.5 MTR 1 MTR
O2 % 3.2 3.1 3.4
CO PPM 16 10 4
APH B (RHS)
FT °C 353 358 357.9
I/L
FT(average) 356.30
CO2 % 15.4 15.68 15.55
UNIT 1 APH A
PARAMETER POCKET 1 POCKET 2
OUTLET
1.5
DISTANCE 2 MTR 1.5 MTR 1 MTR 2 MTR 1 MTR
MTR
O2 % 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.4
CO PPM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0
APH A(LHS)
FT °C 141.20 141.5 141.8 142.7 141.5 141.3
0/L
FT(average) 141.50 141.83
CO2 % 13.83 13.75 13.84 13.58 13.69 13.72
UNIT 1 APH B
OUTLET
1.5
DISTANCE 2 MTR 1.5 MTR 1 MTR 2 MTR 1 MTR
MTR
O2 % 5.70 5.7 5.8 6.5 6.4 6.6
CO PPM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0
APH A(RHS)
FT °C 132.40 132.8 133.2 126.8 126.7 126.6
0/L
FT(average) 132.80 126.70
CO2 % 13.52 13.37 13.24 12.64 12.68 12.45
UNIT 2 APH A
PARAMETER POCKET 1 POCKET 2 POCKET 3
INLET
1.5 1 2 1.5 1 2 1.5 1
DISTANCE 2 MTR
MTR MTR MTR MTR MTR MTR MTR MTR
TIME
APH A(LHS) O2 % 5 4.6 4.2 4.4 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.2 3.4
I/L CO PPM 10 3 0 6 0 0 2 0 0
FT °C 357.6 365.6 368.1 358.7 370.5 375.3 367.1 372 374.5

FT(average) 363.77 368.17 371.20
CO2 % 14.15 14.34 15.08 14.51 14.94 15.09 15.15 15.7 15.67
UNIT 2 APH B
INLET
1.5 1 2 1.5 1
DISTANCE 2 MTR
MTR MTR MTR MTR MTR
O2 % 2.5 2.8 3 2.5 2.6 2.5
CO PPM 8 8 5 4 3 3
APH B (RHS)
FT °C 355.4 356.2 355.1 355.7 360.1 362.1
I/L
FT(average) 355.57 359.30
CO2 % 16.05 15.66 15.82 16.52 16.31 13.35
UNIT 2 APH A
PARAMETER POCKET 1
OUTLET
1.5 1
DISTANCE 2 MTR
MTR MTR
O2 % 6.1 5.8 6.3
CO PPM 0.00 0 0
APH A(LHS)
FT °C 134.20 134.6 134.9
0/L
FT(average) 134.57
CO2 % 12.9 12.55 12.91
UNIT 2 APH B
PARAMETER POCKET 1
OUTLET
1.5 1
DISTANCE 2 MTR
MTR MTR
O2 % 5.4 5.7 5.7
CO PPM 0 5 6
APH A(RHS)
FT °C 135.8 135.9 134.6
0/L
FT(average) 135.43
CO2 % 13.49 13.53 13.54

Plant Performance - Delhi

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Plant Performance - Delhi

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Performance Test Report

(An ISO 9001:2008 certified Company)

A team of four specialist consultants were involved in the comprehensive offline

The study focuses on evaluating performance of Boiler, APH, Turbine, Condenser ,

2.0 PERFORMANCE TEST AND ANALYSIS

2.1 Background for the Test

A wide array of latest, sophisticated, portable, diagnostic and measuring instruments

2.3 Test Setup

2.4 Measuring points and Instrument used

2.5 Condition for the Test

3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 3-1Mass balance diagram (a) unit 1, (b) unit 2

Observation and Analysis

3.1.2 Turbine Cylinder Efficiency

Figure 3-3: Comparison of HPT expansion against VWO condition

Observation and Analysis

The increase in pressure ratio indicates there may be possibilities of increase in

 A decrease in pressure ratio indicates possibility of deposits or roughness. It is

3.1.3 Turbine Pressure Survey

Table 3-2: Turbine pressure survey

Observation and Analysis

3.1.4 Turbine Cycle Heat Rate

Test Condition 100 % TMCR

3.1.5 Condenser Analysis

Table 3-6: Condenser-A performance analysis

Table 3-7: Condenser-B performance analysis

Table 3-8: Condenser vacuum loss

Cond - Cond - Cond - Cond -

 Based on the information furnish in Table 3-9, condenser vacuum recorded in

3.2 Heater and Deaerator Analysis

HTR HTR HTR

HTR HTR HTR

Figure 3-7 Schematic diagram of heater arrangement

Table 3-10: Heater performance analysis

Description Unit Design Unit #1 Unit #2

360.00 Feed water 360.00 Feed water

Figure 3-8Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 7A/B

Travel Distance Travel Distance

Figure 3-9 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 6A/B

Figure 3-10 Heater zone temperature profile for HPH 5A/B

Observation and Analysis

Figure 3-11 Knee curve test1

3.2.2 Deaerator Analysis

3.3 Pump Analysis

3.3.1 TDBFP Analysis

BFP A BFP B BFP A BFP B

Table 3-14 Extra steam consumption due to RC passing

Table 3-15: Recirculation loss in BFP

3.3.2 CEP Analysis

Observation and Recommendation

Energy saving calculation if VFD is installation in CEP 2A:

Power consumption as measured kW 1071.40

3.4 High Energy Drain Valve Survey

BP LOWER REAR HEADER DRAIN Passing 90

Table 3-18 : Unit 2 Drain valve passing

3.5 Boiler Analysis

Radiation and Unaccounted loss % 0.24 0.24 0.24

Boilers feed water and steam temperature

Figure 3-12 Feed water Vs Steam temperature profile

Table 3-20: Boiler water/steam temperature profile

3.5.2 APH Performance

heater leakage during test condition is observed to be 4.94 % (A pass)&17.48

Table 3-22: APH pressure drop