MODELING AND CONTROL OF A SUPERCRITICAL COAL FIRED BOILER by ROHIT DAMODAR PARANJAPE, B.Chem.Engg., M.S.Ch.

E A DISSERTATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
AnnrnvpH

May, 1996

/ll^i
fr^ ^/.

^ 0 5 (J? 'P^

Copyright 1996, Rohit Paranjape

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and to the loving memory of my father. I would not have achieved anything without their love, support and guidance throughout my career and life. I owe special thanks to my wife Mrinal for her love, encouragement and all kinds of support throughout my Ph.D. work. I am thankful to my brother, sisterin-law, my niece Anuya, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Amit for their love and encouragement. I am truly grateful to Uncle and Aunty for being my parents in the U.S.A. I am deeply indebted to Dr. J. B. Riggs, the chairman of my committee, for his guidance, encouragement, support and everything else that made this research possible. I extend my sincere thanks to the other committee members. Dr. R. R. Rhinehart, Dr. R. W. Tock, and Dr. . . Anderson for their invaluable suggestions and assistance in this work. I owe special thanks to my "Boiler Gurus" Tom Calle and Danny Crow from Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas and Dennis Buchanan from Southwestern Public Company for their unconditional and timely assistance in this work. And last but not the least, my special thanks are extended to my co-workers in the research group and all myfriendsin the Chemical Engineering Department for their vital advice and moral support during this work.

J'
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LISTOFHGURES CHAPTER I n m IV V INTRODUCTION LITERATURE SURVEY MODELING OF A SUPERCRITICAL COAL FIRED BOILER COORDINATED CONTROL SYSTEM NONLINEAR PROCESS MODEL BASED CONTROL VI Vn BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTROL STUDIES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ii iv vi vii

1 5

16 43

59 69 161 163

t,-.

A * *.'^#>^-^) :

ABSTRACT

A boiler or a steam generating unit is an integral part of any electric utility plant. It requires a source of heat at a sufficient temperature level to produce steam. The fossil fuels are burnt in the furnace of the boiler for this purpose. The type of steam generating unit considered in this project was a coalfiredunit. An advantage of using supercritical conditions is reduction in physical size of the boiler and steam piping for the same heat carrying capacity and a greater overall efficiency of the unit. The steam is superheated and reheated in order to generate electric power with a turbogenerator. The heat of superheat is all recoverable in the turbine. A variation in the steam temperature and pressure, etc., may cause an unequal expansion and contractions in the turbine parts. Rapid and excessive changes can result in damage to the turbine. Moreover, such variations also cause a change in the unit electric generation. In the electric utility plants, the objectives are to produce required units of electricity continuously and make load changes as and when required and as quickly as possible. Thus, control of steam temperature, pressure, etc., or control of boiler-turbine system is a very important and challenging problem in electric utility plants. A dynamic simulator for the supercritical coal fired unit was developed as a first part of this project. It was based on the Cromby 2 model developed by McDonald, Kwatny and Spare of the Philadelphia Electric Company. This simulator was bench-

marked against plant data provided by Texas Utilities Electric on a steady state basis. In the control studies on this supercritical unit, a coordinated control system with all the loops having conventional controllers was developed. It was thought that some of the loops in the coordinated control system might be nonlinear; thus it might be

IV

advantageous to use nonlinear models for control purposes in those loops. From the literature survey, it was found that no such attempt was made previously to identify nonlinear loops and apply nonlinear models for control purposes in a coordinated control system. Thus, in this research work, the nonlinear loops were identified and nonlinear models were developed for control purposes, for the first time. The coordinated

controller having these nonlinear models was in general found to perform better or at least as good as the coordinated controller having all the conventional controller loops for steam temperature and throttle pressure control.

flWt

Ksv

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Data receivedfromTU Electric The fuel specification receivedfromTU Electric Approximate flue gas temperature Comparison of the values calculated by the simulator with the plant data

39 40 40

41 42 57 58 58 68 68 160

3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1

Values of the parameters used in the simulator Tuning parameters for the Coordinated Control System Gain Comparison 1 Gain Comparison 2 Tuning parameters for GMC controller for superheater spray Tuning parameters for GMC controller for firing rate to feed water ratio Measure of goodness of control

VI

i^itir^MKiat

LIST OF HGURES 3.1 Process Schematic for the feed water-steam side of the boiler 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 A typical flue gas path Boiler following mode Turbine following mode Boiler-Turbine coordinated control Block diagram of Boiler-Turbine valve-Turbine Turbine master controller Boiler master controller Superheat spray flow controller Reheat temperature controller Superheater Pendent Section Response ofpower output for test 1 Response of throttle pressure for test 1 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 1 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 1 Superheat spray for test 1 Fuelfortest 1 Feed water for test 1 Response of power output for test 2 Response of throttle pressure for test 2 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 2 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 2 Superheat spray for test 2 37 38 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 67 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

vu

^S^^MBltv

6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37

Fuel for test 2 Feed water for test 2 Response of power output for test 3 Response of throttle pressure for test 3 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 3 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 3 Superheat spray for test 3 Fuel for test 3 Feed water for test 3 Response ofpower output for test 4 Response of throttle pressure for test 4 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 4 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 4 Superheat spray for test 4 Fuel for test 4 Feed water for test 4 Response of power output for test 5 Response of throttle pressure for test 5 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 5 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 5 Superheat spray for test 5 Fuel for test 5 Feed water for test 5 Response ofpower output for test 6 Response of throttle pressure for test 6

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

vm

'-3S

6.38 6.39 6.40 6.41 6.42 6.43 6.44 6.45 6.46 6.47 6.48 6.49 6.50 6.51 6.52 6.53 6.54 6.55 6.56 6.57 6.58 6.59 6.60 6.61 6.62

Response of superheated steam temperature for test 6 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 6 Superheat spray for test 6 Fuel for test 6 Feed water for test 6 Response ofpower output for test 7 Response of throttle pressure for test 7 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 7 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 7 Superheat spray for test 7 Fuel for test 7 Feed water for test 7 Response of power output for test 8 Response of throttle pressure for test 8 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 8 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 8 Superheat spray for test 8 Fuel for test 8 Feed water for test 8 Response of power output for test 9 Response of throttle pressure for test 9 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 9 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 9 Superheat spray for test 9 Fuel for test 9

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

IX

6.63 6.64 6.65 6.66 6.67 6.68 6.69 6.70 6.71 6.72 6.73 6.74 6.75 6.76 6.77 6.78

Feed water for test 9 Response ofpower output for test 10 Response of throttle pressure for test 10 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 10 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 10 Superheat spray for test 10 Fuelfortest 10 Feed water for test 10 Response of power output for test 11 Response of throttle pressure for test 11 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 11 Response of reheated steam temperature for test 11 Superheat spray for test 11 Fuelfortest 11 Feed water for test 11 A typical ATV test

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A boiler or a steam generating unit is an integral part of any electric utility plant. It requires a source of heat at a sufficient temperature level to produce steam. Fossil fuel utilized for the generation of steam is generally burned directly for this purpose in the furnace of the boiler. The fossil fuels can be coal, oil, gas, wood, and their derivatives. The type of steam generating unit considered in this project is a coalfiredunit. This boiler can be operated at subcritical or supercritical conditions. Modem utility boilers operate at pressures in the range of 2000 to 4000 psig, while their industrial counterparts are generally in the range of 100 to 1000 psig. Advantages of using high pressure are the reduction in physical size of the boiler and steam piping for the same heat carrying capacity and the improvement in the overall efficiency of the unit. In generating electric power with a turbogenerator, it is much more efficient to use steam that has been superheated and reheated as is done in the typical electric utility plant. The general practice with the industrial boiler is to use saturated steam or only a small amount of superheat unless the electric power is being generated in the industrial plant. A turbine generally transforms the heat of superheat into work without forming moisture. The heat of superheat is all recoverable in the turbine (Dukelow, 1991). A variation in the steam temperature, pressure, etc., may cause unequal expansion and contraction in the turbine parts. Rapid and excessive changes in temperature can result in damage to the turbine. Steam temperatures that are significantly higher than the design temperature can shorten the life of the turbine metal parts. Such temperature variations also cause a change in the unit electrical generation. In electric utility plants, the objective is to

produce required units of electricity continuously; make load changes as and when

required and as quickly as possible. Thus, control of steam temperature, pressure etc. or control of the boiler-turbine system is a very important and challenging problem in Electric utility plants. A supercritical steam generating unit is the one which operates at a pressure above the critical pressure of 3208 psia. When water at a supercritical pressure is heated, it does not boil and does not produce a two-phase mixture of water and steam. Instead, the fluid undergoes a transition in the enthalpy range of approximately 850 to 1050 btu/lb, during which the physical characteristics (such as density, compressibility, viscosity, etc.) change continuously and homogeneously from those of a liquid to those of a gas or a vapor. The nature of the process rules out the use of a boiler drum to separate steam from water and drumless steam generators have been universally adopted for supercritical units. At the boiler's inlet the high pressure feed water is forced into the boiler tubes. It is heated as it passes through them and finally is ejected from the boiler's main outlet (secondary superheater outlet) as a main steam. A Combustion Engineering (CE) supercritical unit at Texas Utilities (TU) Electric, Dallas was chosen for this simulation and control study. The unit under consideration was designed to deliver superheated steam at a rate of 4003.678 Klbs/hr (maximum continuous) at 1005^ and 3850 psig (superheat outlet) to a 575 MW turt>ogenerator. The reheater was designed to handle 3465 Klbs/hr of steam reheated from 5 6 9 ^ to IOO5OF. A dynamic simulator was developed as afirstpart of this project. It was based on the Cromby 2 model developed by McDonald, Kwatny and Spare of the Philadelphia Electric Company (McDonald et al., 1971). The Cromby 2 model was modified for the considered supercritical unit. The Cromby 2 model was selected because it covered the major elements of plants that are of interest, and it had been validated from 50 to 100%

load. The model is well documented and is available in the public domain (Riggs et al., 1995). The steady state data at different operating loads was provided by TU Electric, Dallas from one of their supercritical units. That plant data was provided as the initial conditions for the dynamic simulator. The plant data provided include temperature,

pressure of the steam at various locations in the unit, amount of fiiel, fuel heating value, steam flow rate, spray flow rate, flow rate, temperature and pressure of the steam at the various stages within the turbine, megawatt output, etc. Then the dynamic simulator was bench marked against the actual data on a steady state basis. Control requirements of these supercritical units are quite different from those of a drum type unit. The interactions between steam generator inputs (feed water, fiiel, air), output (steam flow, pressure, temperature) and turbine-generator output (Kilowatts) are more direct and immediate in the supercritical pressure unit than in the subcritical drum type unit. The changes in the electrical load on the turbine-generator are felt more quickly (in the form of pressure and temperature changes) throughout the supercritical unit since there is less heat storage than in a drum type unit. Since the supercritical unit has differences in response to the input and the output variables, a different approach is necessary in the operation of the unit. A different

approach is also required in the design of a control system to adequately control the unit and to take advantage of its inherent greater responsiveness. A control system should coordinate all the inputs and outputs directly as a function of the desired unit output load. A demand signal should be applied directly and

simultaneously to all the manipulated variables, to produce the most rapid, stable response.

Thus, the next part of the project was to develop a coordinated control system for this supercritical unit. Initially, only the conventional controllers were used in all the loops. A coordinated control system has 10-15 different loops. All these loops make use of one or more of the control principles, e.g., feedback control, feedforward control, ratio control, cascade control, etc. It is a complicated control problem. It was thought that one or more of these loops might be nonlinear. Hence, nonlinear models could be used for control purposes in these loops. From the thorough literature survey, it was found that no attempt was made previously to identify the nonlinear loops in a coordinated control system and to apply nonlinear models for control purposes in those loops. The gains were calculated for each of the loops within the coordinated control system by giving positive and negative setpoint changes. Two loops involving the control of the superheated steam temperature were found to be nonlinear. The nonlinear models were developed for these two loops in the coordinated control system. This was the first attempt in an open literature to test the nonlinear models in the coordinated control system. The performance of the coordinated control system having all the conventional controllers was compared with the coordinated controller having nonlinear models in two loops. Development of the process simulator, development of the coordinated control strategy, nonlinear controller models in the coordinated control strategy, control results and comparisons are discussed in the following chapters.

ie^iw^VAwfa^\^HiJG^ft

CHAPTER n LITERATURE SURVEY

Babcock and Wilcox (1972) have discussed the fundamentals of steam, generation and use in the 39^^ edition of SteamIts Generation and Use. They have described the application of the fundamentals of steam generation to the design of boiler, superheaters, etc., to generate steam using chemical or fossil fiiel. After fiiel selection and determination of the heat requirement, the fiimace is designed for proper combustion of fiiel with appropriate provisions for handling the ash in the case of solid fiiels. Furnace waterwall surfaces are proportioned to reduce combustion gas temperature to the level desired at the entrance to the convection banks. The convection surfaces in the boiler, superheater and reheater are then designed. The variation of steam temperature with load is discussed for superheaters in various locations. The need for steam temperature adjustment and control is explained and the means of accomplishment are set forth, including consideration of a number of different methods of control such as attemperation, burner selection, excess air, divided furnace differentially fired, etc. Then they deal with fossil-fiiel equipment for the electric utilities. The principal factors involved in the selection of steam generating equipment are listed and examined. These include fuels, steam requirements, space, and geographical considerations, power for driving auxiliaries and guarantees. The B & W radiant and universal pressure boiler types for pulverized coal, cyclone fiimace, natural gas and oil firing are described. Thus, SteamIts Generation and Use gives an excellent overview about steam generation, fiiels, steam generating equipments, application of steam generation, etc.

Boiler Modeling Literature Suzuki et al. (1979) have constmcted a dynamic mathematical model of a supercritical once-through boiler presently operating at Kainan Thermal Power Station of Kansai Electric Power Company. The model is based on the nonlinear partial differential equations which describe the physical phenomena in the boiler. The dynamics of the boiler can be derived from the three nonlinear partial differential equations for continuity, enthalpy and pressure (conservation of mass, energy and momentum, respectively). The equation of pressure drop is static. Although a number of thin tubes are arranged in parallel in the actual boiler, Suzuki et al. (1979) have considered them lumped into a single equivalent tube with the same total cross-sectional area. Each tube in the series represents one section of the boiler. The length and cross-sectional area of each tube is appropriate to the section of the boiler it represents and then, equations for continuity, enthalpy and pressure are written for each section of the boiler. The equations of the continuity and enthalpy are first solved simultaneously by utilizing the piecewise-linear relationships for enthalpy and specific volume and then the pressure equation is solved. In the model, the feed water flow depends on both the govemor valve's position and on the steam flow to the feed water pump turbine. Because of the assumptions necessary for solving the equations and the discrepancy between the design specifications and real values, mathematical models which are derived analytically generally cannot describe actual behavior. Therefore, this

analytical model was fitted to the actual system by adjusting parameters. The values of these unknown parameters were determined by adjusting them so as to minimize the sum of the squares of the differences between the actual boiler output and the simulated results. The simulation was performed using Euler integration with time increments of

'I

">w^^^a

one second. The Fletcher-Reeves optimization method (Edgar et al., 1988) was used for parameter adjustment. Suzuki et al. (1979) have also shown some simulation results. The model has three manipulated variables namely govemor valve position, fiiel flow and steam flow to the feed water pump turbine, and three controlled variables namely main steam flow, pressure and temperature. Suzuki et al. (1979) have shown the simulated open loop responses of the controlled variables to the step changes in each of the manipulated variables. Volkov et. al (1992) have presented a physical-mathematical predictive model of combustion in the firing of polydisperse pulverized coal in the fiimace chamber of utility boilers, which includes a specific use of an inertial-diffiision model for description of particle dynamics and a technique for taking into account fiiel polydispersity. Volkov et al. (1992) claim that this model is applicable to large-scale plants in a wide range of variation of geometrical parameters and operating conditions. Bauer et al. (1989) have developed a mathematical model for a 320 megawatt, wet bottom, coal fired utility boiler to determine boiler performance and considerable design information at any load. The model which consists of many stand-alone submodels can predict the boiler performance parameters such as fiimace exit gas temperature, steam temperature, spray flows, combustibles in ash, boiler efficiency, air preheater outlet gas temperature, tube metal temperatures, gas flows and resident times, flame temperature. Bauer et al. (1989) also describe an algorithm that can be utilized for on-line monitoring of boiler performance and to offer advice to boiler operators on a real time basis. Chawdhry (1993) has described the application of system identification techniques to obtain models of boilers in power stations. He has used the method of recursive least squares (RLS) to estimate parameters. Before proceeding to test on a real plant, a

detailed boiler model was simulated. The nonlinear analytical model used in the simulation was developed by McDonald et al. to represent a boiler at the Cromby power plant of Philadelphia Electric Co. The simulation program represented the plant during steady state conditions. (Chawdhry [1993] has added local PI controllers for closed loop simulation. The inputs that were controlled, were feed water, fiiel flow, air flow, bumer tilt.) The computer based data acquisition system was used to perform three sets of tests in two power stations. Pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) input signals were used to perturb plant set points while doing the tests. A two-stage recursive least squares

algorithm was developed to estimate initial operating conditions and model parameters. In these tests, models of the plant were derived and validated. The results indicated that models of the order 11-16 (number of state variables) depending upon the selection of variables are suitable for representing significant plant dynamics over a long period. Sekoguchi (1970) has proposed an analytical method using the theoretical relationships and transfer fiinctions for predicting plant dynamics from design data. To make it easy to calculate, some of the transfer fiinctions are reduced to integrated forms. He has included both anal3^ical results and field test results (step responses), which were performed using three public utility plants with Sulzer and Benson type boilers. A fairly good agreement between analytical results andfieldtest results suggests the validity of the analytical methods. Further, Sekoguchi has observed substantial differences between the process dynamics of both plants with Sulzer and Benson type boilers.

Boiler Control Literature Dukelow (1991) has discussed the basic ideas involved in boiler control. He has extensively covered the boiler process aspect before covering the control aspects.

In the boiler process aspects, Dukelow (1991) has discussed the basic boiler, and its steaming process, mass and heat balance across various parts, heat recovery from flue gases, efficiency calculations, various types of fiiels, and their handling. In the control aspects, Dukelow (1991) says that a carefiil examination of most of the boiler control applications will show that the overall control system is an interconnected matrix of the four types of control applications namely simple feedback control, feedforward plus feedback control, cascade control and ratio control. Then he has discussed the important control loops in the boiler such as feed water control system, main steam and reheat steam temperature control, andfiringrate demand for utility boilers. In firing rate demand, he discusses different modes such as boiler following, turbine following, and boiler-turbine coordinated control which will be discussed in a chapter for "Coordinated Control System." Dukelow (1991) has discussed pumping andfiringrate, steam temperature control and feed water control for a once through boiler. Most of the once through boilers operate in the supercritical pressure range. The typical throttle pressure of such units is 3500 psig. In a once through boiler, combustion is controlled by ratioing the air flow to the fiiel flow. Steam temperature is controlled by ratioing fiiel and combustion air to feed water. Because of the need to obtain more responsive control of steam temperature during transient, a parallel proportional control using spray water is incorporated. Garrett (1967) has discussed the control system objectives. Proper system design can provide maximum unit efficiency and optimum dynamic response, while insuring properly balanced boiler inputs and boiler-turbine power levels. Deviations of the dependent variables of pressure, temperature or oxygen result from imbalances between feed water, fiiel, air or between the production of steam by the boiler and the requirements for steam by the turbine. It is important to maintain the

^^f5?"

proper relationships between the boiler and the turbine generator. To accomplish this end, four basic control objectives resulted. 1. A common proportional feedforward signal is generated for the independent variables of feed water, fiiel, and air. 2. 3. This same signal is used to establish a requirement for the govemor valve area. Integrating actionfromerrors in the dependent variables of pressure, temperature, flue gas or megawatt bias the basic demand for feed water, fiiel, air in a nonintegrating marmer. 4. The feedforward demand signal is properly conditioned to include capacity and dynamic limitations of any of the major equipment and their associated auxiliaries. In the coordinated control system for a supercritical coal fired boiler, the feedforward demand signal is modified by integration action from process variable errors to establish setpoints for the independent variables like feed water flow, fuel, air flow and the govemor valve area. These integration actions are applied in a non-interacting

manner. For instance, megawatt and pressure errors are arithmetically summed, before being applied to the boiler inputs and the same errors are subtracted before being applied to the govemor valve area demand. As an example, consider the action if both power output and pressure are high. The arithmetic sum of these two errors calls for reduced boiler input and any action by the govemor valve would tend to aggravate one condition or the other. Consequently, subtraction of the variable errors results in no action by the govemor valves and all corrective action is taken by the boiler inputs. Garrett (1967) also talks about the five basic control modes for the supercritical boiler namely Manual, Turbine Follow, Base input, DEB (Direct Energy Balance), and DEB-Load Control. The feedforward demand signal is developed in the boiler-turbine govemor. Mode selection, limits, mnbacks, rate of change, andfrequencybias are located

10

tWMWmm:.

in the boiler-turbine govemor. The rate of change setter limits the rate at which the target load is fed forward into the boiler input and to the turbine govemor valves. The frequency bias is included in order that the action of the govemor valves in following the speed changes can be fed forward into boiler demand. Garrett (1967) has presented a steam temperature control configuration for a once through supercritical coal fired boiler. He used a cascade arrangement where a PI

controller controls the attemperator spray flow rate which is cascaded to a PI controller that controls the steam temperature. Garrett has discussed reheat temperature control configuration. The bumer tilts are positioned to maintain the reheat temperature setpoint. Spray type desuperheaters are also provided as a part of the reheat steam temperature control but are used only during emergencies and abnormal operating conditions. Laubli et al. (1970) have described the dynamic characteristics of the supercritical pressure boiler and its coordinated control system. They have given computer simulation studies and actual open-and closed-loop tests of supercritical boiler plants. The coordinated control system makes use of both feedforward and feedback control concepts. In the feedforward part of the control system, a load demand signal (required output) is sent to each of the four flow control loops. This feedforward signal can be properly interpreted as the overall boiler-turbine plant setpoint for electric generation. Conventional feedback controllers with P (proportional), I (integral), and D (derivative) actions are used to correct for steady state errors in the controlled variables; megawatts, throttle pressure, steam temperature, and oxygen. To fiirther clarify the coordinated control system concepts, Laubli et al. (1970) have included actual field test data to illustrate certain basic dynamic characteristics of the supercritical boiler when compared with the dmm type boiler. The coordination of the fuel and feed water flow loops are more important because of their direct mutual influence on

11

^^I

steam temperature. In fact, the ratio of fiiel flow to feed water flow determines the final superheat steam temperature during steady state conditions. Several field test results given by Laubli et al. (1970) illustrate that feedforward control can be used to supplement the feedback control to improve the load changing capability of the boiler-turbine unit. The supercritical boiler is inherently very stable following a load change if the feedforward rate signals are properly adjusted. The control system tuning philosophy used by Laubli et al. (1970) was based on the belief that the principal tuning criterion should be power output response. Heat

storage within the boiler should be used to aid in achieving rapid generation response by permitting temporary deviations in throttle pressure. Laubli et al. (1970) have described the behavior of a supercritical boiler, especially with regard to its capability to generate instantaneous standby capacity. The most rapid generation of instantaneous standby capacity can be achieved by reducing the turbine throttle steam pressure. Another possibility of increasing the generator output temporarily by reducing the energy stored in the boiler is to increase the feed water flow. Riggs et al. (1995) have presented a nonlinear PMBC controller for steam temperature control and compared it with a State Variable Controller (SVC) and a PI controller, for a dmm type coalfiredboiler. The simulation was based upon the Cromby 2 model (McDonald et al., 1971) and was used to test each controller for ten different upset scenarios that included soot blowing, load ramps, and change in bumer tilt. Nonlinear Process-model based control (Nonlinear PMBC) uses a nonlinear approximate model directly for control purposes. The controller model does not have to be rigorous but should contain the major characteristics of the process. Riggs et al. (1995) have used the Generic Model Control (GMC) developed by Lee and Sullivan (1988). For a nonlinear approximate model, an unsteady state energy balance around the

12

>-,.

* * > *

>*:'(^*

^^mmmmm^

secondary superheater and the attemperator was written. The approximate model was parameterized solving for the effective heat transfer coefficient using a steady state energy balance on the secondary superheater. The nonlinear PMBC clearly outperformed the SVC controller which offered only a marginal advantage over the PI controller. The nonlinear PMBC controller has an ability to adapt to process gain changes. While the PI controller and SVC controller, both are fixed gain controllers, show significant cycling, whereas, a PMBC controller, due to its adaptive gain nature, was able to eliminate the cycling. Kaya (1990) presents an overview of boiler controls and presents conventional schemes which use various arrangements of Proportional Integral (PI) controllers. For steam temperature control, he presents a three-element controller which uses cascade control to a flow control loop on the attemperator spray flow rate and feedforwards the load to the attemperator spray flow rate. Dattatreya (1982) presents an adaptive gain controller for steam temperature and pressure control on a utility coal fired boiler. Maximum deviations from setpoints were reduced by a factor of three using a controller with an adaptive gain compared with a static gain controller.

Nonlinear Process Model Based Control Nonlinear Process Model Based Control (NPMBC) uses a nonlinear approximate model directly for control purposes. The approximate model does not have to be a rigorous model but should contain the major characteristics of the process. The Generic Model Control (GMC), one of several model based control techniques, was proposed by Lee and Sullivan (1988). The control law employs a

nonlinear process model directly within the controller. The control law also includes the

13

i^ -..'iTjfcp-xwnKKVHmBBaa

>}^^"^^^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

iLJ^^5!5cg

feedback term such that the closed-loop response exhibits zero offset, the process model is usually a nonlinear description of the process derivedfromfiindamental mass and energy balance considerations. GMC is a control framework for both linear and nonlinear

systems in the time domain. All the equations and structure of GMC will be explained in the chapter for "Nonlinear PMBC Controller." Economou et al. (1986) extended Intemal Model Control (IMC) to include nonlinear models. This approach is called Nonlinear Intemal Model Control (NLIMC) and uses an interactive integration of the approximate model for its control law. Rhinehart and Riggs (1990) compared GMC and NLIMC for a wide range of exothermic CSTR control problems and found that GMC control law is an explicit numerical formulation and NLIMC is an implicit one. GMC is easier to apply and implement and requires less computational efforts. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NLMPC) (Parrish and Brosilow, 1988) uses the intemal model stmcture but assigns any process/model mismatch to unmeasured disturbances. Bequette (1989) presented a version of NLMPC that used a single stepahead control law with continuous model parameter update. Patwardhan et al. (1988) applied NLMPC for the startup of an open-loop unstable, exothermic CSTR. Riggs

(1990) applied a version of GMC to the same problem considered by Patwardhan et al. and found that GMC and NLMPC gave an equivalent performance. Thus, there is not much difference between the performance of various nonlinear PMBC methods when the same approximate model is used. The basic difference between the various nonlinear PMBC methods is the way in which offset is removed, e.g., in GMC integral term is used; while in NLMPC adjustment of disturbances is used to remove the offset. A variety of nonlinear models have been investigated using the differential geometric approach. Nonlinear decoupling via feedback using this approach has been

14

-yj'.i*t-'--:-':-

!"'"'^^^

explored by Isodori et al. (1981). An overview of nonlinear geometric methods have been summarized by Kantor (1987). Ha and Gilbert (1983) have outlined a complete

characterization of decoupling laws for a general class of nonlinear systems. Henson and Seborg (1989) reviewed the field of differential geometric control strategies. By studying a CSTR and a pH control problem, they found that static methods, of which nonlinear PMBC is a subset, provided the best control performance and were relatively insensitive to process/model mismatch. They state that GMC is only applicable to a very restrictive class of problems for which the manipulated variable appears explicitly in the dynamic model for the output variable. While this statement is true in a strict sense, it does not pose a practical limitation to GMC since the manipulated variable can usually be expressed as an explicit function of one or more variables that do appear in the model equations. GMC has been successfiilly applied to processes such as coal gasification (Pandit et al., 1989), pH (Rhinehart and Choi, 1988; Williams et al., 1990; Mahuli et al., 1993), propylene sidestream distillation (Riggs, 1990), supercritical fluid extraction

(Ramchandran et al., 1992), heat exchanger (Paruchuri et al., 1994), plasma reaction (Subawalla et al., 1994), and nonideal binary distillation column (Pandit et al.,1992).

15

Ih^MI^^BMnill

I ' l l

'

i*"i-,,*i.>t-.'.-*-^'*', " ^ i A " ^ ' - .

iiiwu.jjj

CHAPTER m MODELING OF A SUPERCRITICAL COAL FIRED BOILER

A supercritical steam generating unit is the one which operates at a pressure above the critical pressure of 3208 psia. When water at a supercritical pressure is heated, it does not boil and does not produce a two-phase mixture of water and steam. Instead, the fluid undergoes a transition in the enthalpy range of approximately 850 to 1050 btu/lb, during which the physical characteristics (such as density, compressibility, viscosity etc.) change continuously and homogeneously from those of a liquid to those of a gas or vapor. The nature of the process mles out the use of a boiler dmm to separate steam from water and dmmless steam generators have been universally adopted for supercritical units. At the boiler's inlet, the high pressure feed water is forced into the boiler tubes. It is heated as it passes through them and finally is ejected from the boiler's main outlet (secondary superheater outlet) as the main steam. The first part of this project was to develop a dynamic simulator for a supercritical coal fired boiler and bench-mark it against the actual plant data. Texas Utilities (TU) Electric, Dallas had provided us with the actual data on one of their supercritical units which we used to benchmark our model. The supercritical unit for which the data has been provided by TU Electric, Dallas is designed to deliver superheated steam at a rate of 4003.678 Klbs/hr (maximum continuous) at 1005^ and 3850 psig (superheat outlet) to a 575 MW turbogenerator. The reheater is designed to handle 3465 Klbs/hr (maximum continuous) of steam reheated from 5690F to 1005^. The unit being a divided fiimace design has each furnace half fired through four tilting tangential windbox assemblies (waterwall dividing the fiimace into two halves).

16

f'.vji.. - ^ - - . s ^ - ^ > * -

*"-^"'

'

-*.*!

W-m

.11. ijijjgmt^ga

The simulator developed in this work was based on the Cromby 2 model developed by McDonald, Kwatny and Spare of the Philadelphia Electric Company. (McDonald et al., 1971). As mentioned above a supercritical boDer is a dmmless unit. The Cromby 2 model was modified for the dmmless unit. The Cromby 2 model was selected because it covered the major elements of plants that are of interest, and it had been validated from 50 to 100% of load. The boiler simulation software consists of separate modules, each representing a segment of the boiler system. The boiler was divided into the following segments: Feed water valve and boiler feed pumps, Mills, Fumace, Waterwall, Backpass, Superheater which consists of the following different modules: Divisional panels. Superheater platen, Desuperheater, Pendent, Reheater which consists of the following different modules: Desuperheater, Reheater platen, Reheater horizontal and vertical, Turbine governing stage, High pressure turbine, Low pressure turbine. Figure 3.1 shows a process schematic for the feed water-steam side of the boiler. Two general assumptions were made in the development of the model by McDonald, Kwatny and Spare (1971). First, it is assumed that the dynamics of the steam and flue gas could be neglected, since the time constants of the steam and flue gas dynamics are much smaller than the other process time constants. Second, it is assumed that the economizer

17

.4i-y....----'---

:- - = ; * ' - : ; ' ^ = T ^ - : " -

, ^ : ^ J

"'"^^J

and feed water heater dynamics can be neglected. To account for changes in feed water enthalpy, which occurs with changes in feed water flow, a curve fitting was done on the actual plant data. Now, the description of the model equations will be given for the various units modeled.

Mills There are a total of eight mills for the entire boiler. The mills are the Raymond Bowl type manufactured by Combustion Engineering. The mill is modeled as two

elements, the first represents the mass of the cmshed coal (M^) stored in the mill and the second represents the deflector and the exhauster. The rate of change of the stored mass (MCT) is equal to the difference between the inflow and outflow of the coal. The input flow rate is proportional to the mass of coal stored.

^=K^I^-K^M, where

(3.1)

K^f = proportionality constant between coal flow rate out of cmsher and mass of the cmshed coal stored, per second, Kfs = proportionality constant between coal flow into mill and the feeder stroke,per second, Ifg = normalized feeder stroke, lbs, MCT = mass of coal in the cmsher zone of the mill, lb. The flow of primary air through the mill is proportional to the feeder stroke (K^^ \^ and the air-coal mixture fills the entire volume representing the deflector and the exhauster. The mass balance on the fraction of coal (X^f) in the volume yields.

18

..Sfc"-*%fc-

> ' ' "

^tTT'

mm

sa

dX <f

dt

p^V

(K^M^-W,),

(3.2)

where, the coal flow to the fumace is given by.

(3.3)

and
^poo -^ao'^ ^wfs^fs >

(3.4)

where ^wfs ~ proportionality constant between primary air flow and feeder stroke, per second, V = mill volume, cubic ft, Wao = primary air flow with zero coal flow, lbs/sec, Wf = mass rate of coal flow to the boiler, lbs/sec, Wpao = primary air flow through the mills, lbs/sec. Pa = density of the primary air, lb/cubic ft, Pcf ^ density of the coal, lb/cubic ft. The process of combustion of pulverized coal in a fiimace is extremely complex. A macroscopic view of the process indicates that if Wf lbs/sec of coal having a heating value of T' is bumt with a thermal efficiency of TI, the gas temperature with no heat loss would be given by the following equation. (McDonald et al., 1971)

(3.5)
gf g

where Q = specific heat of combustion products at the averageflametemperature, btu/lb/degree R, Tf = adiabaticflametemperature, degree R, T/ = air heater outlet temperature, degree R,
19

l.iuttM

Wg = mass rate of gas flow through the boiler, lbs/sec. Since, (W^ /Wf = 5.3317, for the given fiiel composition) Wa = 5.3317 *Wf* pet, where Pet = weight percent excess air, Wg = mass rate of the air flow through the boiler, lbs/sec. The total gas flow is the sum of the fiiel and the air flow. Wg = Wf+W3. (3.7) (3.6)

The specific heat of the combustion products at the calculated range of gas temperature was found to be very close to the specific heat of nitrogen alone. The specific heat of combustion products (Cgf) as a fiinction of coal flow can be given as the following equation. Cgf = 0.2918 + 0.8828 e "^ * Wf (3.8)

Fumace The unit considered has a divided fiimace design (center waterwall divides the fiimace into two halves). Each fiimace half is identical and is fired through four tilting tangential assemblies. The majority of the boiler heating surface is contained in the fiimace walls where the tubes are spaced so as to prevent a tube to tube wall constmction. The large mass contained in the total waterwall tubes represents a significant heat capacitance. In the fumace, the rate of change of metal temperature (Tm^ is obtained by the energy balance.

A^.c,^=e^-e.>

(3 9)

20

' - - - &

where ^pm ^ specific heat of a metal in the waterwaU, btu/lb/degree R, M^ = total effective mass of the waterwall, Klb (includes metal mass and water mass), Qnvs " I'^te of heat transfer from the gas to the metal in the waterwall, Kbtu/sec, ^ Qws ^ rate of heat transfer from the metal to steam in the superheat waterwall, Kbtu/sec. These units must be designed to operate in the nucleate boiling range (Babcock and Wilcox, 1972; McAdams, 1954). In the nucleate boiling range, the heat transfer to the steam is given by the following equation. (McAdams, 1954; Rohsenow et al., 1985) Q^=K(T^-T,)\ where k^ = heat transfer coefficient between tube metal and steam in waterwall, Kbtu/(degree R)Vsec, Tjj = average steam temperature in waterwall, degree R. The heat removed from the hot gas is given by the equation O
\-rws

(3.10)

=k, HP -P ) ,
\w \ gas nrws f

(3.11)
^ '

where kj^' = overall heat transfer coefficient between gas and tube metal in waterwalls, Kbtu/ (degree R)4/sec, T = mid section gas temperature of the waterwall, degree R.
gas
'^

The average and the exit gas temperatures are obtained by assuming that changes in the energy stored in the fiimace gas is negligible and writing a fiimace gas energy balance ^^=7>-^. (3.12) T^ = n.-Tf, C =0.2989+ 0.0002235 * > , (313) (3.14)

21

fc'wfa'

where Cg = specific heat of the combustion products at the averagefiimacetemperature, btu/lb/degree R, Tgs = fiimace exit gas temperature, degree R. The effect of bumer locations and bumer tilt positions can be taken into account by recognizing that the heat transfer coefficient k,^' is proportional to the waterwall surface area exposed to the radiating gases (McDonald et al., 1971). This area is approximately the exposed waterwall area between the flame center and the fiimace exit. The flow center location moves in proportion to tan G^ where 9^ is the superheat fiimace bumer tilt position. Consequently, the heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as *iw' = ^,w"(l-^2wtan^,), where kj^" = basic heat transfer coefficient between gas and tube metal including the effect of bumer geometry, Kbtu/ (degree R)4/sec, ^2w = coefficient relating a change in bumer tilts on the waterwall heat transfer, Kbtu/ (degree R)4/sec. The eight mills supply eight corresponding (four comers of the each half of the fiimace) vertically arranged rows of bumers, the lowest to the highest being respectively designated a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h. A is the vertical distance from bumer row H to fiimace exit and 6 is the vertical distance separating successive bumer rows. The effect of bumer location can be included by defining (3.15)

, _,
^iw ~'^\w

di-\-(a*lS^b*65-^c*SS-\-d*4S-^e*3S+f*lS->t^g*S a+b-\-c-\-d+e-k-f-\-g-\-h
A + 72
s > (3.16)

where a, b etc. are 1 or 0 according to operating or non-operating status of A mill, B mill etc., and
22

i,]^'.-.;.

~ aa4;;",Viitfas*.2; mjtMm*m.i.'.:fi^-f'

_, _ __ ^

^sm

ki^ = basic heat transfer coefficient between gas and tube metal in the fiimace, Kbtu/ (degree Kflsec, A = vertical distancefromthe bumer row H to fiimace exit, ft, 6 = vertical distance separating successive rows, ft. The flue gas after coming out of a fiimace goes through the shell side of different heat exchangers of the superheater and the reheater. The path it traverses is given below. Fumace exit > Divisional panel > Superheater platen > Reheater platen > Superheater pendent > Backpass > Reheater horizontal and vertical > Economizer > Air preheater. Figure 3.2 shows the typical flue gas path as block diagram. As it travels along this path, its temperature decreases. The reduction in the temperature of the flue gas as it passes through the shell side of the heat exchanger is given by the following equation.

where fg = flow rate of the flue gas, lbs/sec, Q = heat transferredfromthe flue gas to the steam in the heat exchanger, btu/sec. The average temperature of the flue gas across the heat exchanger is given by the following equation. T where Tgin = temperature of the flue gas at the heat exchanger inlet, degree F, Tgout = temperature of the flue gas at the heat exchanger outlet, degree F, Tgavg = average temperature of the flue gas across the heat exchanger, degree F. T +T =-^^, (3.18)

23

iSft5Ai*~l

-^" ""TPiw

-.rrj^

Superheaters and Reheaters For waterwall, backpass, divisional panels, platen, pendent, reheater platen, reheater horizontal and vertical steam side, mass, energy, and momentum balance equations are written. Mass balance: y ^ Energy balance: dh MS!ii-=Q-Wh
ju i "tn"tn

= K-W^

(3.19)

-W M
"out'*out

(3 20)
V-'"*'^/

Momentum balance: Pin-P,.t=L ,

Pin

(3.21)

where fgs = fiiction coefficient for steam flow in a particular unit, [ Psi * lb/ft3/(lb/s)2], hjn = enthalpy of incoming steam to the unit, Btu/lb, hout = enthalpy of outgoing steam to the unit, Btu/lb, M = effective steam mass in that unit, (includes metal mass and actual steam mass), lbs, Pjn = pressure of incoming steam, psia, Pout ^ pressure of outgoing steam, psia, Q = heat transferred from flue gases to steam, Btu/sec, V = steam storage volume of that unit, ft^. Win = steam flow rate of the inlet of the unit, lb/sec, Wout = steam flow rate of the outlet of the unit, lb/sec, Pjn = density of incoming steam, Ib/ft^, Pout ^ density of steam going out of the unit, Ib/ft^.

24

.,.>,<.'."->-^

->>-r*v---'a-.-.:'

- ^ - . ^

^s^

The empirical relationships are written for the temperature and the pressure leaving that particular unit. They can be represented as,
Taut^f i^out^out ^Kut)(3.22) (3-23)

Pout=fihou,^Paut^Pau,T^t)-

These relationships are derived empirically and using the steam table for the temperature and pressure range in which T^^t and P^^t change for the different loads. Thus, the two state variables are enthalpy (h) and density (p) of the outgoing steam. In the energy balance equation, e = ^*^*A/, (3.24)

where At^ (log mean temperature difference) can be given by the following relationships. (On the gas side, tj = temperature of the incoming gas, ii ^ temperature of the outgoing gas. On the steam side, tj' = temperature of the incoming steam, X-^ = temperature of the outgoing steam.) For the cocurrent flow,

^^^(LzlDz^lZhl,
h
^2-^2*

(3.25)

For the counter current flow.

(3.26)

ini^
^2-^l'

The heat transfer from the flue gases to the steam takes place by two modes: the convection and the radiation. So both of these factors should be embedded in the

expression for V. The expression for IT is given by. U=

{U^^U^^US

(3.27)

25

l|Bfciia6*^iXii:'''.ii..? -iistisi;**'"^-'

"TfW-

where, Ugg = convective heat transfer coefficient on the gas side or hotterfluidconvection conductance, Btu/(ft2hi^), Ups = convective heat transfer coefficient on the steam side or colderfluidconvection conductance, Btu/(ft2hr<^), Ujg = radiative heat transfer coefficient. For the turbulent flow inside the long tubes. U =U where Fpp = physical properties factor, unitless, Ff = temperature factor, unitless, Ucs = basic convection conductance, btu/(ft2 hr ^ ) . Equation (3.28) applies to both the heating and cooling of the fluids inside the clean conduits. In the steam boiler, the most important application of convection is in the transfer of heat from hot combustion gases to the various heat absorbing tubular surfaces. Compared with the extensive research on heat transfer for fluids flowing inside the tubes, little has been done to establish convection heat transfer coefficients for crossflow over the tube banks. Perhaps the most authoritative and complete data on crossflow heat transfer are those obtained as a part of a Babcock and Wilcox research program. For turbulent flow outside tubes, Ucg=U'c^FFpPaF.^ where Fg = arrangement factor, unitless, Fd = depth factor, unitless. (3.29) FF (3.28)

26

^l5-.^v^^--v- - rr*..^--.

'^^-'-^^

mmmmmmm.

Fpp = physical properties factor, unitless, Ugg = basic convection conductance, btu/(ft2 hr ^ ) . The arrangement factor, F^, depends upon the tube arrangement, the ratios of the tube spacing to tube diameter and the Reynold's number. While, Urg=U'rK, where Uj = basic radiative conductance, btu/(ft2 hr ^ ) . Factor "K' takes into account the effect of mean radiative length and fiiel on radiation conductance or radiative heat transfer coefficient. When an exchange of energy is (3.30)

considered between any source and any receiver by radiative mode, all the radiation may not be seen to fall on the receiver. The receiving surface, such as the banks of tubes, is cylindrical and may partially obscure some of the surface from "seeing" the source. Thus, a geometric factor or view factor has to be incorporated in the calculations. It has been stated that the elements of the fiimace are best handled individually, and in evaluating the effective or "seen" surface of the tube rows, the assumption is made that the heat source is a radiating plane parallel to the tube row. The end effects are eliminated by assuming both the plane of the tubes and the radiating plane to be infinite in extent. All surfaces are assumed to be black. For such surfaces the view factor is equal to 1 (Kern, 1950). In Equation (3.27), TJ represents the combined or overall heat transfer coefficient for most boilers and superheaters where the resistance to heat flow through the metal is very small and may be neglected. Only the convective and radiative parts of the heat transfer coefficient are significant and are considered (Babcock and Wilcox, 1972).

27

^ S ^ ' S i i i ^ .V.-.Sttfe

Superheater and Reheater Desuperheaters The primary method of throttle temperature control is the use of superheater spray in which sub cooled liquidfeed water from the discharge of the boiler feed pumpis sprayed into the steam as it flows from the superheater platen to the superheater pendent. The feed water is introduced through a spray nozzle at the throat of a venturi section within the steam line. The spray action at the nozzle and the high velocity through the venturi assures that the feed water is completely nuxed as it mixes with the main steam flow. The venturi is surrounded by a thermal sleeve designed to avoid thermal shock of the high pressure piping. The process is considered to be typical of adiabatic mixing of the two streams and mass and energy balance equations are written. Mass Balance: W^t = W,+W^, Energy Balance: W^fiout = W,X^W^r<^^,^^ where hin = enthalpy of the steam coming in into the desuperheater, btu/lb, hout = enthalpy of the steam coming out of the desuperheater, btu/lb, hgpray = enthalpy of the spray water, btu/lb. Win = "^^^ s^^"* ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ desuperheater, lbs/sec, * ^ Wout = outlet steam flow rate to the desuperheater, lbs/sec, Wspray = flow rate of the spray water, lbs/sec. Feed water taken from the intermediate stage of the boiler feed pump can be sprayed into the steam before it enters the reheater horizontal (after it comes out from the high pressure turbine) in a similar fashion to the superheater spray. The final reheater (3.32) (3.31)

28

?|Mt.'!>.>'".

temperature can be controlled in this manner. The mass and the energy balance equations are written in a similar way as in the superheater. In order to fiirther improve the realism of the simulation, hysteresis in the attemperator spray control valves (5%), lag in the temperature sensor (5 seconds time constant) was added.

High Pressure Turbine After passing through the turbine governing stage, the steam passes through the high pressure turbine. The flow conditions in the high pressure turbine are such that sonic velocities are assumed to exist over the entire load range so that flow and first stage pressure are related by W^=K^*P^. where Kjjp = flow coefficient for reaction stages of high pressure turbine, Pjj = steam pressure at the exit of the throttle valve, (first stage pressure), psia, Wsso = steam flow rate at the secondary superheater outlet, lbs/sec. The temperature at the high pressure turbine inlet can be obtained using the state relationship (3-33)

which was determined using the steam table. where hhp = steam enthalpy in the impulse chamber, btu/lb, Thp = impulse chamber (first stage) temperature, degree R. The ideal high pressure turbine outlet temperature is computed assuming an isentropic expansion through the turbine (McDonald et al., 1971)

29

t = T,A'\
where k = ratio ofspecific heats (at constant pressure/at constant volume). Per = steam pressure at the discharge of high pressure turbine, psia,
TCT*

(3.35)

= ideal steam temperature at the discharge of high pressure turbine, degree R.

The ideal cold reheat enthalpy can be obtained using the state relationship Kr=f(.PcrX)The actual cold reheat enthalpy is given by the following equation K=K-1xpiK-f'lr)< where her ^ steam enthalpy at the discharge of high pressure turbine, btu/lb, h^* = ideal steam enthalpy at the discharge of high pressure turbine, btu/lb, h^p = steam enthalpy in the impulse chamber, btu/lb, T||jp = overall efficiency for the reaction blading. The total high pressure turbine power generation is given by the following equation. MW, = W^{h^ -h)\.Q542. (The factor 1.0542 is a unit conversion factor.) (3.38) (3.37) (3.36)

Low Pressure Turbine After leaving the reheater, the steam enters the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine followed by the low pressure turbine (LP). The IP and LP turbine stages are considered together as the low pressure turbineand the exhaust hood conditions are assumed to be constant. As in the case of high pressure turbine, sonic velocity is assumed to exist and the flow equation can be given as
30

'--* " ' " ^ ' ^ ~

',^

.. _s'.

':.

"t^-

"*9m

mmwmmmn

^n,=-^. where Pro = steam pressure at the reheater outlet, psia, Tro = steam temperature at the reheater outlet, degree R, Wro = reheater outlet steam flow rate, lbs/sec.

(3.39)

The energy equation relating the power output to the decrease in energy of the steam as it passes through the turbine is given by the following equation. MW, = rj,(h-hJW^*l0542, Here also, the factor 1.0542 is used for the unit conversions, where h^j^ = exhaust enthalpy, btu/lb, Tij = low pressure turbine isentropic efficiency. (3.40)

Turbine Groveming Stage The flow of steam from the secondary superheater (pendent) bifurcates and each half after passing through a normally open throttle valve, enters a steam chest on either side of the turbine. Each steam chest contains four governing valves that are opened sequentially to control the flow of steam to the turbine. Each valve discharges the steam to its own section of the first stage nozzle ring. The valves are of the single seated plug type and are operated by a hydraulic servo motor which is positioned by the turbine govemor. The servo motor raises or lowers a valve bar which opens and closes the valves in a predetermined sequence, each valve opens when the bar engages a nut on the threaded stem of the valve. The steam leaving each governing valve passes through an associated convergent nozzle designed to increase fluid velocities and chaimel the flow into the first stage
31

..Iw.S.,I..

A i * K-Tf

blading. The steam then flows through the impulse blading which, ideally, converts the kinetic energy into work. It has been observed that the flow through the valve-nozzle combination may achieve sonic velocity. If this is the case, a shock wave will exist and the flow can be computed from the valve inlet conditions using the standard formula, W^ = C-^A, where A = governing valve area, C = flow coefficient for the sonic flow through the valve-nozzle combination, Psso ~ pressure at the secondary superheater outlet, psia, Tgso = temperature at the secondary superheater outlet, degree F Wgso = steam flow rate at the secondary superheater outlet, lbs/sec. (3.41)

Feed water valve Condensate is delivered to the suction pipe of the three boiler feed pumpsfromthe first four feed water heaters. The pressure and temperature of the feed water are

increased in the boiler feed pumps and the flow from the pumps is regulated by the feed water valve. In the model, the feed water flow is govemed by Bemoulli's equation restricted by the following assumptions: 1. No change in elevation. 2. Inlet velocity at the feed water valve equal to zero. The flow through the feed water valve is related to the pressure drop by the relation W^^=K^A}(P,-P^), (3.42)

32

'-r^

where Af = normalized feed water valve flow area, Kf = flow coefficient for the feed water valve, ^ecoo = pressure at the economizer outlet, psia, Ph = boiler feed pump discharge pressure, psia. The superheater and reheater spray flow is extracted from the boiler feed pump discharge header which is after the feed water control valves. The actual flow to the boiler is given by the following relationship.

W =W -W*pray -W ' rsprayy where Wg = feed water flow rate to the boiler, lbs/sec, Wgp = water flow through the feed water valve, lbs/sec, Wspray ^ Superheater spray flow rate, lbs/sec, Wrepray ^ reheater spray flow rate, lbs/sec.

(3.43)

In order to improve the realism of simulation, hysteresis was added in the feed water valve (0.5%).

Model Bench-Marking The dynamic simulator was bench-marked against the steady state plant data provided by TU Electric, Dallas (Calle, 1995). The plant data provided include power output; temperature, pressure of the steam at various locations in the unit, amount of fuel fuel heating value, steam flow rate, spray flow rate; flow rate, temperature and pressure of the steam at the various stages within the turbine etc. This data was provided at different power outputs (loads). The data received is listed in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.

33

Jit

There are several heat exchangers at various locations within the superheater section, e.g., division panels, platen, pendent etc. Similarly, there are several heat

exchangers within the reheater section. The steam properties, i.e., steam temperature, pressure, flow, etc., were not available at the inlet and outlet of each of these heat exchangers. These properties were available only at the certain intermediate locations e.g. superheater pendent outlet, cold reheat, hot reheat, economizer inlet, boiler exit etc. Normally, in an actual utility, thermocouples are not installed at all the locations to measure temperatures. But, TU Electric provided us with the approximate flue gas

temperatures at different locations within the superheater and reheater section. Table 3.3 shows these values. From the amount of fiiel fired, fiiel composition, excess oxygen percentage, the amount of flue gas produced was calculated. The values of flue gas flow rate are listed in Table 3.5. From that, the heat loads for each heat exchanger were estimated. Normally, thefireballtemperature is not measured in an actual utility. But the adiabaticflametemperature seems to be very close to the actualflametemperature. Thus, by knowing the flame temperature and the heat gained by each heat exchanger, a temperature profile of the flue gas was estimated from the fireball to exit past the economizer. Similarly, from the knowledge of heat loads of different heat exchangers, steam properties (e.g., temperature, pressure, density, enthalpy) were estimated on the steam side. In Equation 3.21, pressure drop across the unit is related to inlet steam flow rate to the unit. While doing bench-marking, the values of 'f^' or fiiction coefficient for steam flow were adjusted to get the proper value of the inlet steam flow rate to the unit. The values of T ' for different units at different load conditions are listed in Table 3.5. These values o f f were regressed as a function of current values of steam flow rate and square of current values of steam flow rate. Thus, as load changes, steam flow rate changes and

34

PJ'-WMi.-i-:

wmmmmmtmmmmi^

S f ^ also changes. The initial values of the heat transfer coefficients were estimated using O^ the steady state version of Equation 3.20. The values obtained for different units are listed in Table 3.5. Similarly, for the fiimace, k^ and kj^' were estimated assuming that at steady state Q ^ = Qj^. The values obtained are listed in Table 3.5. The properties that were provided by TU Electric were used as a point of reference for these estimations. These kind of calculations were repeated at several different power outputs for which data was provided by TU Electric. The data provided by TU Electric and the estimated property data were used as the input for the dynamic simulator. The dynamic simulator was mn to steady state using the input data. The steady state values of different properties such as temperatures, pressures, flow rates at different locations within the system, power output of the system were found to be very close (within 5%) to the input or the design data. A general program was written where a user can select the unit load at which the system to be mn. The program automatically selects the inlet conditions by regressing the data given in Tables 3.1 and 3.5 and mns the dynamic simulator to steady state. The input variables to the simulator which are obtained by regression of the input data are fiiel rate, feed water flow rate, spray rates, etc. Table 3.4 shows comparison of the values

calculated by the simulator with the plant data at 473 megawatts power output. The relative percentage error shows a close fit between the plant data and the values calculated by the simulator. Some open-loop tests (with no controller on) were performed on a simulator by giving step changes in the manipulated variables like superheat spray flow, bumer tilt position, fiiel flow, feed water flow, govemor valve position, etc. The responses of the controlled variables, such as power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature, reheated steam temperature, were observed for these step changes in the

35

, K .> . i . " -" liSk-U'^-i^i'af^.i

f^^mm

manipulated variables. No dynamic data was available from a supercritical unit to bench mark these open-loop responses. However, some open-loop responses from a dmm type of unit at Southwestem Public Service Company, Lubbock were obtained (Buchanan, 1995). Open-loop responses were qualitatively bench marked against those responses observed industrially.

36

""~T;sja

Governor valve

/f^

Feed pump and Feed water valve

]Nomenclature

Econo WW BP DP Platen Desup Pend HP Plat Des Hor IP LP Con

Economizer Waterwall Back pass Divisional panel Superheater platen Superheater desuperheater Pendent High pressure turbine Reheater platen Reheater desuperheater Reheater horizontal and vertical Intermediate pressure turbine Low pressure turbine Condenser

Figure 3.1 Process Schematic for the feed water-steam side of the boiler

37

DP
/

N }

Plat

N }

RH Plat

- ^

Pend

\ /

\ y

s.

RH Hor Econo
\ y

Flue gas and flame

APH

DP Plat RHPlat Pend RHHor Econo APH

Divisional Panel Superheater Platen Reheater Platen Pendent Reheater horizontal and vertical Economizer Air preheater

Figure 3.2 : A typical flue gas path

38

mmmmmmmmm
'T

Table 3.1: Data received from TU Electric

Properties

Units

Feed water flow Superheat spray flow Reheat spray flow Throttle flow Throttle pressure Cold reheat pressure Hot reheat pressure First stage pressure Main steam temperature Cold reheat temperature Hot reheat temperature Lignite flow Heat content Heat input Excess oxygen HP turbine efficiency IP turbine efficiency LP turbine efficiency Boiler efficiency Used energy endpoint Economizer gas out

Klbs/hr Klbs/hr Klbs/hr Klbs/hr psia psia psia psia degF degF degF tons/hr Btu/lb MMBtu/hr
% %

For 327 megawatts power output 2234.78 44.55 0.0 2234.78 3514.9 374.5 343.1 1383 998.6 508.4 975.2 242 6741.7 3262.98 3.71 70.89 90.42 82 83.76 1070.3 648

For 473 megawatts power output 3277.19 62.55 0.0 3277.19 3515.6 543.1 497.7 2041.2 996.7 545.3 1003 351.4 6775.7 4761.96 3.29 78.91 90.55 81.93 82.46 1073.4 727

For 502.5 megawatts power output 3472.56 78.65 0.0 3472.56 3513.8 575.4 527.5 2170.4 997.7 552.4 1009.5 376.5 6501.3 4895.52 2.73 80.62 90.42 82.39 82.78 1072.2 752

Btu/lb degF

39

js:j.d,z^i^iMaaitSS^^

mmm

Table 3.2 : The fiiel specification receivedfromTU Electric Species C H 0 N S Ash UjO Percentage 39.2 2.99 11.04 0.57 0.61 14.31 31.27

Table 3.3: Approximate flue gas temperature Sections Entering superheater section Around divisional panel Around reheater platen Around back pass Around reheater horiozontal and vertical Leaving economizer Units degF degF degF degF degF degF Temperature 2300 2200 2000 1600 1300 850

40

Table 3.4: Comparison of the values calculated by the simulator with the plant data Properties Units DatafromTU Electric 473 3280 3515 540 497 995 545 1000 Values obtained by simulator 472 3295 3503 545 500 988 538 995 Relative % error 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 0.5%

Power Throttle flow Throttle pressure Cold reheat pressure Hot reheat pressure Main steam temperature Cold reheat temperature Hot reheat temperature

MW Klbs/hr psia psia psia DegF DegF DegF

41

-^*'v<'*#il

mmm
-

y-

Table 3.5: Values of the parameters used in the simulator Properties fgg for back pass (psia*lb/ft3)/ (lb/sec)2 fgg for divisional panel fgg for waterwall fgg for platen fgg for pendent fgg for reheater horiozontal fgg for reheater platen Flue gasflowrate (Klbs/hr) Heat tranfer coefficient for back pass (Btu/hr deg F) Heat tranfer coefficient for divisional panel Heat tranfer coefficient for platen Heat tranfer coefficient for pendent Heat tranfer coefficient for reheater platen Heat tranfer coefficient for reheater horiozontal For 327 megawatts power output 1.85e-3 1.52e-3 0.04053 1.271e-3 7.61e-4 4.81e-5 1.52e-5 3836.882 400.6414 20.1396 21.98 For 473 megawatts power output 8.65e-4 7.1e-4 0.01913 5.93e-4 3.53e-4 4.73e-5 1.5e-5 5434.296 498.71 27.9974 For 502.5 megawatts power output 7.59e-4 6.24e-4 0.01732 5.22e-4 3.11e-4 4.87e-5 1.41e-5 5729.97 505.42 29.4589

30.4 75.52

31.9973 79.08

55.5

31.53

44.47

44.55

122.42

170.4228 2.316e-5 2.4454e-12

174.34

if^

6.5154e-5 1.788e-12

1.8977e-5 2.62e-12

42

J..

..

,^-,-#j

mmm
^ -

CHAPTER IV COORDINATED CONTROL SYSTEM

There are different modes in which the control system for a boiler-turbine can operate, e.g., boiler following, turbine following, boiler-turbine coordinated control system. In the boiler following control, the control systems for the boiler and turbine are separate and uncoupled. Starting with the steady state loading, any control system Either from

demand for more electric power is applied only to the turbogenerator.

additional load on the electric system or from a remote demand signal, the turbine govemor valves open. The result is that the turbine asks for additional energy input in the form of superheat steam. Since the boiler was previously producing an amount of steam with a lower total energy level, the pressure will begin to drop. As the pressure drops, some steam will be produced due to release of energy from boiler energy storage (energy stored in the boiler fumace mass due to the high temperature and pressure in the system). The drop in throttle pressure and the change in steam flow requirement activate the combustion control system to increase the firing rate of the boiler and bring the steam pressure back to its setpoint. The effect of the increased firing rate starts to be effective about 20 to 40 seconds after the demand for additional electric generation. Stability with pressure at setpoint and power output at the desired level, is not achieved until several minutes have passed. Figure 4.1 shows the typical schematic for boiler following system and power output, throttle pressure response for the same. Of the various front end control arrangements, boiler following is the most responsive to a change in electric energy demand but also is the most unstable. The turbine valves open immediately to produce the required additional generation although

43

MBMtoArfirv^-vV^-

-T-:-VSC^i'^

* >4 a^a..d

the pressure may be below the setpoint. As the pressure starts to retum to the setpoint, the electrical generation starts to increase above the desired level, causing the turbine steam valves to begin closing. This causes boiler pressure to increase. The ringing of the boiler following scheme arises from this interaction between the turbine valve control and the boiler control (Dukelow, 1991). A greater feedforward precision is needed in a utility boiler control system than is required for industrial boiler because it is more important to maintain the steam temperature close to setpoint at all times. The slowest but the most stable arrangement is "turbine following" development of thefiringrate demand. The demand for an increased power output is used to increase the firing rate to the boiler. As the additional steam energy is obtained from the increased firing rate, the throttle steam pressure tends to rise. This causes the turbine throttle backpressure control to open the turbine valves. Only then is there any addition to the energy generation rate. This system does an excellent job of pressure control but does not allow the borrowing of energy from, or depositing of energy to, boiler energy storage (energy stored in the boiler fiimace mass due to the high temperature and pressure in the system) during a load change. The steam is thus denied the benefit of using boiler energy storage to assist in making load changes. The response time is several minutes for this mode. Figure 4.2 shows the typical schematic for Turbine following mode and power output, throttle pressure response for the same. By coordinating the action of the boiler firing and the turbine valve action into a single subsystem (boiler-turbine coordinated control), the firing rate demand control can be improved. The major portion of the responsiveness of the boiler following method and no ringing of the turbine following scheme are thus combined. In this arrangement, the power demand is applied to both the turbine valves and the firing rate demand as a feedforward signal. The sum of the power output error and the steam pressure error is the

44

aai^ ^ ^ v w * i K * |

total error input to the firing rate demand proportional plus integral (PI) controller, which is the final control of the firing rate demand. Thefiringrate demand is used to drive the total error (error in power output plus error in steam pressure) to zero. Load can be picked up or dropped without stretching the boiler stability. In the end, a sustained load change in either direction can be handled more smoothly and at a faster rate (Dukelow, 1991). Figure 4.3 shows a schematic for boiler-turbine coordinated control system and power output, throttle pressure response for the same. The effect of increased firing rate starts to be effective immediately after demand for additional electrical generation. Stability of pressure at setpoint and power at the desired level is also achieved very quickly as can be seen from Figure 4.3. Keeping these features in mind an attempt was made to develop a coordinated control system for the supercritical coal fired boiler under consideration. A pressure feedback to this system is pressure at the turbine throttle. Since a fixed setpoint reference at the turbine throttle is needed, the controller requires both proportional plus integral action. Thus, in this coordinated control system, the boiler master and the turbine master will control on throttle pressure error plus power output error using a (PI) mode, with a unit load demand as a feedforward signal. Table 4.1 gives tuning parameters for feedback and feedforward controllers for boiler master as well as tuning parameters for feedback and feedforward controllers for turbine master.

Turbine Master Control The purpose of the turbine master controller is to control the amount of steam going to the turbine, i.e., to control the turbine valve position. The steam flow to the turbogenerator can be determined by measuring the first stage turbine pressure. Refer to Figure 4.4. It shows the exact place at which first stage pressure can be measured in the

45

l l i l l i i i f i f i H i r ' ' '^

system. The relation between energy flow to the turbine and first stage pressure is nearly a straight line. The output of the turbine master controller is a setpoint for first stage to throttle pressure ratio. The turbine master controller output is actually a percentage signal. It is transformed into a first stage to throttle pressure ratio demand or setpoint signal once it is directed into that loop. This setpoint is compared to an actual first stage to throttle pressure ratio (the turbine energy input should be ratioed to the throttle pressure to avoid the positive feedback), and the error is used to calculate the new turbine valve position. The new turbine valve position is compared with the old turbine valve position and the error in valve position is calculated. A proportional plus integral

controller is used to raise or lower the turbine valve in order to allow more or less steam to pass through to the turbine. Table 4.1 gives tuning parameters for this slave loop of the turbine master controller. Figure 4.4 shows arrangement of boiler, turbine valve and turbine in a block diagram. Figure 4.5 shows a control diagram for the turbine master controller.

Boiler Master Control The basic purpose of a boiler master controller is to control the amount of feed water, fiiel, air used by the boiler to generate the steam. The boiler master output is the basic demand or setpoint for all major boiler variables (fiiel, air and water). The output signal is directed to the fiiel and feed water loops in parallel; however, these signals can be modified by the firing rate to feed water ratio. However, the effect of firing rate to feed water ratio is very small. Figure 4.6 shows a complete control diagram for the boiler master controller. The firing rate to feed water ratio is set by a Proportional plus Integral plus Derivative (PID) controller driven by waterwall temperature error. Table 4.1 gives tuning

46

wmm
4

parameters for this loop. The waterwall temperature setpoint (T^g^tpoint is obtained by a (PI) controller driven by superheat temperature error and the rate of change of superheat temperature. Table 4.1 gives tuning parameters for this loop. When a value offiringrate to feed water ratio given by the controller falls within the certain limits (1% above or below the base case value), the boiler master output signal is passed unaltered to the fiiel, air and feed water flow control loops. When a value of firing rate to feed water ratio given by the controller is greater than the upper bound of the limit, the demand for fiiel and air flow is ratioed up above the boiler master output; and the demand for feed water flow is ratioed down below the boiler master output. In other words, the setpoint for the firing rate loop is modified by a factor. That factor is obtained by calculating the relative percentage change offiringrate to feed water ratio given by the controller with respect to the base case value and 10 to 15% of this value is taken to modify the setpoint. The setpoint for the feed water loop is modified by the same factor only in the opposite direction to firing rate setpoint change. In a similar manner, the fiiel and air demand are ratioed down and feed water ratioed up for firing rate to feed water ratio less than the lower bound of the limit. The boiler master controller output is a percentage signal. It is transformed into a feed water demand signal and fiiel demand signal once it is directed into that particular loop. The boiler master output, modified by the firing rate to feed water ratio, is cross limited by available air flow to become the demand for total fiiel flow. When the firing rate demand increases, air flow goes up first followed by fiiel flow. This avoids the formation of carbon monoxide due to the presence of insufficient amount of oxygen. As the firing rate demand decreases, fiiel goes down first followed by air flow, again for the same reasons. This is a cross limiting effect. A proportional plus integral controller

47

compares total fuel demand and total fuel flow and gives the new value of the feeder stroke. Table 4.1 gives the tuning parameters for the fiiel loop. Similarly, the boiler master output, modified by the firing rate to feed water ratio becomes the demand for feed water flow. A proportional plus integral controller compares feed water demand and actual feed water flow and gives the value of feed water valve position. Table 4.1 gives the tuning parameters for feed water loop. Superheat spray is used to control the superheated steam temperature. Thus, whenever superheated steam temperature goes above the setpoint, more superheat spray is needed to bring the temperature back to its setpoint. Similarly, when superheated steam temperature goes below the setpoint, less superheat spray is needed to bring the temperature back to its setpoint. The boiler master output signal is a percentage signal. It is transformed into a superheat steam temperature setpoint when it goes into that loop (see Figure 4.7). The feed water flow demand described above is used as the basic spray flow demand signal. A proportional plus integral controller output driven by superheat temperature error (ejj) and the rate of change of temperature error is used to ratio this signal into a final spray flow demand. Thisfinalspray flow demand is compared with the current spray flow and the error is used in a proportional plus integral controller to give the final spray valve position. Table 4.1 gives the tuning parameters for master and slave loop ofthis spray flow controller. It is important to keep the spray in the mid range. An additional feedback loop is introduced to do that. Whenever spray flow changes to control the temperature, an error in the spray valve position is calculated. It is passed through a proportional controUer (Kc = 5). The output of the controller is used to modify firing and feed water so that the spray can be brought back to the mid range. The reheat outlet temperature is controlled by sequencing of bumer tilts and reheat spray valves. The boiler master output signal is a percentage signal. It is transformed into

48

_._.

,_fr~^.ATT "

Mi

a reheat steam temperature setpoint when it goes into that loop.

Whenever reheat

temperature is above the setpoint, bumers are tilted in the downward direction in the fiimace in order to cut down the heat supplied to the superheater, reheater section. Similarly, when reheat temperature is below the setpoint, bumers are tilted in the upward direction in the fiimace in order to raise the heat supplied to the superheater, reheater section (see Figure 4.8). The reheat temperature setpoint is compared with the actual reheat temperature; and the error is used in a proportional plus integral controller to give the final bumer tilt position. Table 4.1 gives tuning parameters for this loop. Reheat spray flow can also be used to control the reheat outlet temperature. But generally, reheat spray flow is equal to zero in an actual utility plant. It is only used in an emergency situation. Otherwise, bumer tilts are sufficient for reheat temperature control. If reheat spray is to be used, it is controlled in a similar fashion to superheat spray flow. All the loops described above were tuned using autotune variation testing (Astrom et al., 1983). Initially, all the master loops were tumed off'and all the slave loops were tuned first, e.g., loop which calculates new turbine valve position, feed stroke, feed water valve position, superheat spray valve position, bumer tilt position. After this was

accomplished, all these loops were kept on, while proceeding to tune master loops. Thus, tuning was done from the bottom of the pyramid towards the top. The boiler master controller and turbine master controller which gave the value of the setpoint for all the other loops were tuned at the end. Whenever there is a load change or any other kind of disturbance in the system, firing rate and feed water are manipulated to get temperature and pressure near the setpoint, while the bumer tilts and the spray flows are used as afinecontrol. After tuning the coordinated control system, using all the conventional loops, the tests were performed to check the nonlinearities in different loops of this coordinated

49

control system. This was achieved byfindingthe gain information of these different loops. Each loop was tested individually by giving the setpoint changes in the controlled variable of the loop in a positive and a negative direction. The changes in the value of the manipulated variable required to achieve those positive and negative setpoint changes were found. calculated. Then the gains for the positive and negative setpoint changes were If the values of gains for positive and negative setpoint changes are

approximately equal, then the loop is approximately linear in that operating region. Table 4.2 shows gain for reheated steam temperature controlled by bumer tilt. Since the gains in the positive and negative directions are approximately equal, this loop is linear. The gain information in each of these different loops showed that most of these loops are linear except the loops involving the superheated steam temperature. In the loops involving superheat steam temperature, the gains differ by a factor of two. Table 4.3 shows gain for the main steam temperature controlled by the superheat spray, so these loops are nonlinear. Hence, there is a potential that the performance of these loops can be improved using nonlinear models. Thus, an attempt was made to introduce nonlinear models into the loops involving superheat steam temperature control. It will be discussed in a chapter for the nonlinear process model based control.

50

ry

y MW Y ^

\5/
Gen.

Steam pressure

MW Generation B'
I- -

Throttle Pressure
.
. - "

Set Point

"A

3 4 Time, min

Figure 4.1 Boiler following mode

51

mmmmmmmfmmm

!>-*^-r

Load Demand

MW Generation B'

Throttle Pressure

Set Poin
^

3 4 Time, min

Figure 4.2 Turbine following mode

52

PKPVP

{III iiiiij inaiiijiiii

^.j

'y* r

Coordinated Unit Control

Gen.

MW Generation

B'

z.
Throttle Pressure Set Point
~
\

3 4 Time, min

Figure 4.3 Boiler-Turbine coordinated control

53

wmm r

ftrnm

Turbine Valve Boiler

Figure 4.4 Block diagram of Boiler-Turbine valve-Turbine

First stage pressure Throttle Pressure + e.

Turbine Master Controller

Feedforward I signal Setpoint

\/ Error
Slave loop new turbine valve position
Figure 4.5 Turbine master controller

54

e megawatt

-I-

e throttle pressure

Boiler Matter Controller

Feedforward signal

\/ (T
^ WW

^ W W 'setpoint

Feed water setpoint

!S

0^-^r
Fuel Controller error N^

>

<

Airflow Firing rate setpoint controller

Feed water flow P +l

Feed water valve position

Figure 4.6 Boiler Master Controller

55

master loop P + I spray flow Ratio error slave loop

> X
Feed water setpoint

P + I Final spray flow demand

>

superheat spray valve position

Figure 4.7 Superheat spray flow controller

Boiler Master Output Reheat temperature

Reheat temperature setpoint

error P + I Bumer t i l t position

Figure 4.8 Reheat temperature controller

56

Table 4.1 Tuning parameters for the Coordinated Control System

k. Feedback of Boiler Master Feedforward of Boiler Master Feedback of Turbine Master Feedforward of Turbine Master Slave of Turbine Master 0.015 0.086 0.015 0.086 71.04

Xi

"r ^

TH

7.5 200 7.5

. ^

100
_

200
^

100
M

291.666 1000

Slave loop givingfiringrate to feed water 0.01 ratio Master loop giving water wall temperature setpoint Fuel loop Feed water loop Master loop of sprayflowcontroller 3.2848 * 10-3 4.45 * 10^ 0.01 0.1

0.001

1000

0.001

260.4 10 250

0.000 1

Slave loop of sprayflowcontroller Bumer tilt position

0.0383 1.2

291.66 300

0.001

57

Table 4.2 Gain Comparison 1

Gain

Positive setpoint change in reheat steam temperature

Negative setpoint change in reheat steam temperature 0.83

AT/AO in deg F/deg tilt angle

0.8564

Table 4.3 Gain Comparison 2

Gain

Positive setpoint change in main steam temperature

Negative setpoint change in main steam temperature -216.696

AT/A(spray to feed water ratio) in deg F/(lbs/s)/(lbs/s)

-409.584

58

^HPi

CHAPTER V NONLINEAR PROCESS MODEL BASED CONTROL

Nonlinear process model based control uses a nonlinear approximate process model directly for control purposes. The controller model does not have to be rigorous but should contain the major characteristics of the process. The nonlinear approximate model used here is a steady state model, so it provides a steady state gain and decoupling information for the controUer. The Generic Model Control (GMC), one of the several model based control techniques, was proposed by Lee and Sullivan (1988). One stmcture of it uses steady state models to describe the process gains and interactions and the assumption of low order dynamics to describe the process transient behavior. The steady state model is usually a nonlinear description of the process derived from fiindamental mass and energy balance considerations. To understand GMC, consider a SISO (single input, single

output) process described by the following dynamic model. ^ = f{y,u,d,k), at (5.1)

where d = vector of measured disturbances, k = vector of parameters, u = manipulated variables, y = output variables. Assuming that y has a value of yo and it is desired to move the process from yo to ygp in some time interval x, then equation (5.1) can be approximated using the forward difference approximation of the derivative.

59

^^^^ = /0'.,M.,*).
T

(5.2)

Equation (5.2) can be solved directly to determine u, the control action, if we know do, k. The time interval x is the tuning parameter. If x is small, rapid response is required; if x is large, a more sluggish response is required. Since equation (5.2) uses an approximate model, using this control law will result in a steady state offset. To eliminate this offset, Lee and sullivan added an integral term (analogous to a PI controller), resulting in the GMC control law given by equation (5.3). f{y..u,d,,k)-^K,(j^,-y^)^K,\{y-y^)dt = Q, (5.3)

where Kj represents 1/x in the Equation (5.2). Kj and K2 are the tuning parameters. Thus, Equation (5.3) can be solved to calculate the control action. In many applications, a dynamic model of the form described by Equation (5.1) is not available. In such cases a steady state model is used. But since the implementation of GMC requires a dynamic model, the steady state controller model is converted into a dynamic model assuming linearfirst-orderdynamics. ^=iy.-y\
dt T^

(5.4)

where, ygs is the solution of the steady state approximate model based upon the current values of the manipulated variables. Combining the GMC control law with Equation (5.4) we obtain,
0

where, Kj' is equal to XpKj and K2' is equal to XpK2. This control law yields the steady state target yss which can be used in the steady state model to yield the required control action.

60

Henson and Seborg (1989) stated that GMC is only applicable to a very restrictive class of control problems for which the manipulated variable appears explicitly in the dynamic model for the output variable. While the statement is tme in a strict sense, Riggs et al. (1995) reported that it does not pose a practical limitation to GMC, since the manipulated variable can usually be expressed as an explicit fiinction of one or more variables that do appear in the model equation. Consider the superheater pendent section shown in Figure 5.1. Applying an energy balance around the superheater pendent and superheater attemperator results in:

where Cpm = heat capacity of the metal, Btu/lb/degree F, KTpiout) = steam enthalpy at temperature Tpj^ut, Btu/lb, h(Tpnout) = steam enthalpy at temperature Tpno^, Btu/lb, hp = enthalpy of water used by the attemperator, Btu/lb, M^ = mass of the metal in the pendent section, lbs, 0 , ^ = heat transfer rate from thefluegas to the steam in the superheater pendent, Btu/sec, t = time, seconds, Tpiout = outlet steam temperature leaving superheater platen, degree F, Tpnout = outlet steam temperature leaving superheater pendent, degree F, W lout = flow rate of the steam out of superheater platen, lbs/sec, W = flow rate of the water spray in the attemperator (manipulated variable), lbs/sec.
sp

Note that the steam and metal tube in the pendent are lumped together in this model. Also, Q is modeled using an overall heat transfer coefficient, hj. Qp.n=K{T^-TX
61

(5-7)

where hj = effective heat transfer coefficient between the flue gas and the superheated steam, Btu/(sec deg F), Qpcn = heat transfer ratefromthe flue gas to the steam in the superheater pendent, Btu/sec, Tg = average gas temperature, degree F, Tg = average steam temperature, degree F. Each time the controller is called, a steady state energy balance around the pendent (the steady state version of Equation [5.7]) is used to calculate hy and this value is filtered with afirstorder exponentialfilterto provide the value of hj used by the controller. Also, it is assumed that Tg is constant and equal to 1931^. The major mismatch between Equation (5.7) (model) and the process (dynamic simulator) is that Tg varies between 1850 to 2000^ in the simulator and the simulator dynamically models the heat transfer to the pendent while Equation (5.7) is a steady state model. The manipulated variable is an attemperator spray flow rate or desuperheater spray flow rate. Next, the GMC control law was used to calculate the new attemperator spray rate using Equation (5.3).

Q^+W^MT^.)^ wji, - (W^,+w^)h(T^) = k,(T^.-T^)-^k,\(T^,-T^)dt+k,^^

= 0. (5.8)

where g ^

=hj(Tg-T^).

Since Wgp affects Tg, solution ofthis equation requires an iterative numerical procedure. The GMC controller uses the secant search method to find the solution to this equation on-line.

62

wsmmmfww^

The approximate model is parameterized (the value of a model parameter is adjusted to make a model output match the process) solving for an effective heat transfer coefficient using a steady state energy balance on the superheater pendent. /!,= ^^ , (5.9)

where, Qpe^ is calculated by performing an energy balance around the superheater pendent. This on-line parameterization should eliminate any process-model mismatch and should allow the user not to use the integral term in the GMC control law. However, it was found that even after on-line parameterization the offset was not eliminated. So, the integral term was also used in the GMC control law along with the on-line parameterization. There are four parameters that must be tuned for this controller: kj, k2, k3 and the filter factor 'f for the heat transfer coefficient hj-. Nominal values were chosen for kj, k2, k3 and f such that stable control was obtained. The tuning parameters were optimized using ISE. The tuning parameters used are listed in Table 5.1. Now consider the waterwall section. Applying the energy balance results in the following equation: M,C^^ where Cpw = heat capacity of the metal, Btu/lb/deg F, h^,^,,;^ = steam enthalpy at the inlet of the waterwall, Btu/lb, h(Tbpui) = steam enthalpy at temperature T^pin, Btu/lb, M^ = effective mass of the metal in the waterwall section, lbs, 0 = heat transfer rate from thefluegas to the steam in the waterwall section,Btu/sec, = Q^^W^h^ -W^T^), (5.10)

t = time, seconds.

63

^bpin ~ outlet Steam temperature leaving waterwall, degree F, ^bpin ~ flow rate of steam out of the waterwall, lbs/sec, ^wwin ^ flow rate of steam into the waterwall, lbs/sec. Note that the steam and metal tube in the waterwall are lumped together in this model. Q ^ v is modeled using an overall heat transfer coefficient, h^ ^w Q^=K(T^-LX where h^ = effective heat transfer coefficient between the flue gas and the steam, Btu/sec/deg F, Q^;^^ = heat transfer rate from the flue gas to the steam in the waterwall section, Btu/sec, Tgww ^ average gas temperature in the waterwall, degree F, Tjj = average steam temperature in the waterwall, degree F.
*wwin

(5.11)

(economizer outlet enthalpy) in Equation (5.10) can be expressed as a fiinction of

feed water flow, i.e.. ^^n =a-i-bW^+cW^ -\-dW^ +eW^, where Wg = actual feed water flow to the waterwall, lbs/sec, a, b, c, d, e = coefficients of the curve fitting. Wg' can be expressed in terms of firing rate/feed water ratio. 0.98Fr. 7 W=w

(5.12)

(5.13)

where
FR/FW

= firing rate to feed water ratio (manipulated variable),

Wf = fuel flow rate, lbs/sec. Substituting Equation (5.13) in Equation (5.12), we get equation (5.12) in terms of
(FR^W)

which is a manipulated variable.

64

mi^mm

At each sampling period, each time the controller is called, a steady state energy balance around the waterwall (the steady state version of Equation [5.11]) is used to calculate h^ and this value is filtered with a first order exponential filter to provide the value of h^ used by the controller. Also, it is assumed that T ^ ^ is constant and equal to g^^ 27850F. The major mismatch between Equation (5.11), i.e., model, and the dynamic simulator of a process is that Tg varies between 2700 to 2850^ in the simulator and the simulator dynamically models the heat transfer to the waterwall, while Equation (5.11) is a steady state model. The manipulated variable is firing rate to feed water ratio (FR/F^V)- Next, the GMC control law (minus the integral term) was used to calculate the new firing rate to feed water ratio using Equation (5.3).

Qww "^ ^wMin "wwin

W^j^h{ l^j^ )

MJ2^
where Q^ = h^{Tg^ - 7^).

= K(T^-T,^)^k,,^

= 0,

(5.14)

The solution of this equation requires an iterative numerical procedure.

The GMC

controller uses the secant search method tofindthe solution to this equation on-line. For this system, the integral term in the GMC control law was not required because the on-line calculation of h^ eliminated any process/model mismatch. The approximate model was parameterized solving for the effective heat transfer coefficient using a steady state energy balance on the waterwall.
1.
T^WW

"' " 71... - L 'gww

(5.15)

where Q^w is calculated by performing an energy balance around the waterwall. There are three parameters kj,, kjj and the filter factor Tj' for the heat transfer coefficient h^. Nominal values were chosen for kjj, ki3 and fj such that stable control was obtained. The

65

-' r

tuning parameters were optimized using ISE. The tuning parameters used are listed in Table 5.2.

66

iflP"^i^^^"ipwwBiit*5a

r
I
Wplout Tplout L Figure 5.1 Superheater Pendent Section Wsp

Vv/VAJVL/VVVt
Qpen

Tpnout

67

mrm

Table 5.1 Tuning parameters for GMC controller for superheater spray Parameters k, k. k. f Values 7.5 0.1 200 0.5

Table 5.2 Tuning parameters for GMC controller forfiringrate to feed water ratio Parameters ku Values 0.8 0.9

kii

68

mi^mmmrn

CHAPTER VI CONTROL STUDIES

Control studies were performed on a simulation of a supercritical coal fired boiler. The performance of the coordinated controller with all the loops having conventional controllers was compared with the coordinated controller with the nonlinear models in certain loops (described in the chapter for nonlinear process model based control). Both of these controllers were tested for load changes (power changes) as well as disturbances in the system.

Autotune Variation Testing Autotune variation (Astrom et al., 1983) is an extremely useful procedure for the calculation of the ultimate gain and uhimate period of a control loop. The method

involves closed-loop testing of the process by replacing the feedback controller with a relay element. The relay switches the manipulated variable between its preselected high and low limits whenever the controlled variable crosses its setpoint. Use of the relay helps set up sustained oscillations in the controlled variable with the manipulated variable oscillating in a square wave. Figure 6.78 shows a typical ATV test (Luyben, 1989). The ultimate gain and period of the control loop are determinedfromthe following relations. (6.1)
tr_4h

P =T
* u
>

(6.2)

69

where a = height of the controlled variable oscillations (amplitude), units of controlled variable, h = height of the manipulated variable oscillation, units of manipulated variable, K^ = ultimate gain, units of manipulated variable/units of controlled variable, m = manipulated variable (see Figure 6.78), Pu = ultimate period, seconds, T = time period of the controlled variable oscillations, seconds, X = controlled variable (see Figure 6.78). The relay height 'h' is found by trial-and-error so as to get equal amplitude in both the directions. The value of 'h' usually ranges between 1-6% of the nominal value of the manipulated variable, depending on the gain of the process. Next, using the ultimate gain (Ku) and ultimate period (P^) obtained from the ATV test, the Ziegler-Nichols (ZN) tuning constants (Ziegler et al., 1942) for PI controllers are calculated.

^zN

2.2

(6.3)

''ZN

(6.4) 1.2

where, K^ and P^ are the ultimate gain and ultimate period respectively and K^^, ^ZN, are the ZN tuning constants (proportional gain and reset time respectively) for that particular loop. Due to the interaction between different loops in a multiloop controller, each loop has to be detuned in order to get stable and good performance. The detuning process involves dividing the controller gain and multiplying the controller reset time of the loop with the same detuning factor (F) (Toijala and Fagervik, 1972).

70

K =^ .
F T, = T^*F.

(6.5)

(6.6)

where, K^. is the proportional gain and Xj is the reset time for the PI controller. The detuning factor can be determined on-line by giving setpoint changes in the controller loop. This ATV tuning method was employed in all the PI controller loops to obtain K^. and Xj. As described in the previous chapter, the tuning procedure was started for all the slave loops first. Then keeping those slave loops on, tuning was done for all the master loops (next level). The boiler master controller loop and turbine master controller loop which gave the setpoint for the rest of the loops were tuned at the end. The detuning factor was optimized using integral of square of error (ISE) and integral of absolute error (lAE) in response to the setpoint changes. The general formula for ISE is, ISE = je^dt,
0

(6.7)

where e = error between the controlled variable and the setpoint. The general formula for lAE is,
t

IAE=\\e\it.
0

(6.8)

In the loops in which GMC controller was used, initial tuning parameters were set by trial-and-error and subsequently adjustments were made to get minimum ISE.

Results and Discussion Several tests were performed on both the controllers: the coordinated controller with all the loops having conventional controllers; and the coordinated controller with the

71

nonlinear models in certain loops and the comparative performances can be seen from the figures at the end ofthis chapter which will be stated in the forthcoming discussion. The set of tests are as follows: 1. Ramp increase in power output: The load demand (power output demand) is increased 25 megawatts/min. from 420 megawatts to 490 megawatts at which point load demand remains constant. 2. Ramp load profile: The load is ramped up at 25 megawatts/min. from 420 megawatts to 490 megawatts and after some time it is ramped down at 25 megawatts/min. until it reaches 340 megawatts where it is maintained for the duration of the test. 3. Ramp decrease in power output: The load demand is decreased 25 megawatts/min. from 420 megawatts to 340 megawatts at which point load demand remains constant. 4. Step increase in power output: The load demand is increased instantaneously from 420 megawatts to 460 megawatts at which point load demand remains constant. 5. Step decrease in power output: The load demand is decreased instantaneously from 420 megawatts to 380 megawatts at which point load demand remains constant. 6. 7. Removal of a set of bumers: A set of bumers in the fiimace is removed. Fumace wall soot blowing-conduction change: The fiimace wall soot blowing operation modeled by decreasing ash thickness on the fumace wall. 8. Fumace wall soot blowing-radiation change: The fiimace wall soot blowing operation is modeled by decreasing the radiation heat transfer coefficient for the fumace wall.

72

^^^^W"^9l"""

9.

Primary superheater soot blowing: The primary superheater soot blowing operation is modeled by a decrease in the ash thickness on the primary superheater tubes.

10.

Secondary superheater soot blowing: The secondary superheater soot blowing operation is modeled by a decrease in the ash thickness on the secondary superheater tubes.

11.

One half percent excess air increase: The excess air is increased 50% in the form of pulse lasting 2 minutes. In an actual utility plant, approximately 5% of the maximum load limit is used as

the maximum ramp rate (Crow, 1995a). Hence, in first three tests a ramp rate of 25 megawatts/min. was chosen which is approximately 5% of maximum load for the unit considered. In tests 4 and 5, a step change of 40 megawatts was used. This step change was chosen in order to test the robustness of the controller (Crow, 1995b). The rest of the tests were selected as stringent tests of steam temperature and pressure control system performance. These tests include the interactive effects of the controllers and the physical elements in the boiler for events likely to occur in normal operation (Riggs et al., 1995). In all the tests mentioned above, the initial conditions were lined out for operation at 418.6 megawatts, 987.47 ^F superheated steam temperature (main steam or high pressure steam temperature), 3499.53 psia throttle pressure and 993.3 ^F reheat steam temperature. The control interval was 0.5 seconds. Figures 6.1 through 6.4 compare the performance of both the controUers for four variables, namely power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature for test number 1. Figures 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 show the

superheat spray, fuel and feed water respectively given by both the controllers for this test. (These three manipulated variables are given since two loops involving these three

73

manipulated variables show nonlinear behavior, as described in the previous two chapters. Nonlinear models are applied in these two loops only. The nonlinear model, which gives firing rate to feed water ratio, affects both fiiel and feed water, although the effect is very small as described in the previous chapter.) At 7000 seconds, the load demand was ramped up from 420 to 490 megawatts at 25 megawatts/min. (Henceforth, a coordinated controller with all the loops having a conventional controller will be referred to as controller 1, and a coordinated controller with the nonlinear models in certain loops will be referred to as controller 2. In all of the plots, controller 1 performance is denoted by thin solid line, while controller 2 performance is denoted by thick solid line.) As shown in Figure 6.1, both the controllers do well to bring the load from 420 megawatts to 490 megawatts very quickly. There is only a small difference in the performance for power output for both controllers in this test. The plots are actually overlapping. Figure 6.2 shows the performance of throttle pressure for this test. As the power output increases, throttle pressure goes down initially, but recovers back to its setpoint. Figure 6.3 shows the performance of superheated steam temperature. Controller 2 clearly outperforms controller 1 by showing about three times smaller total deviation and a shorter settling time. As shown in Figure 6.5, superheat spray goes ahnost to zero momentarily. But it recovers because of the feedback loop which altersfiringand feed water. There are more oscillations in spray in case of controller 2 as compared to controller 1. Figure 6.4 shows the performance ofreheated steam temperature. Controller 1 and controller 2 do equally well in this case. As expected, fuel as well as feed water go up to generate the necessary power in this case (Figure 6.6 and 6.7). Figures 6.8 through 6.11 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature, reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 2. Figures 6.12, 6.13 and 6.14 show the superheat spray.

74

fiiel and feed water given by both the controllers for this test. At 7000 seconds, the load demand was ramped up from 420 megawatts to 490 megawatts at 25 megawatts/min. It was held at 490 megawatts till 8000 seconds at which point the load was ramped down at 25 megawatts/min. until it reaches 340 megawatts, where it was maintained for the duration of the test. As shown in Figure 6.8, both controllers perform equally well for power output. The plots are overiapping. Similarly, in the case of throttle pressure in Figure 6.9, both controllers perform very good. Figure 6.10 shows the behavior of the superheated steam temperature for this test. In the case of controller 2, steam temperature settles to its setpoint very fast and shows three times lower total variability as compared to controller 1. Figure 6.12 shows that both controllers are trying to keep the spray in the mid range. As expected, fuel and feed water go up initially to bring the power up to 490, and then go down simultaneously to take the power down to 340 (Figures 6.13, 6.14). Controller 2 shows a slightly lower variability as compared to controller 1 in case of reheat steam temperature (Figure 6.11). Figures 6.15 through 6.18 compare the performance of both the controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 3. Figures 6.19, 6.20 and 6.21 show the superheat spray fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. At 7000 seconds, the load demand was ramped down from 420 megawatts to 340 megawatts at 25 megawatts/min. As shown in Figure 6.15, both controllers perform equally well for power output. The plots are actually overlapping. Figure 6.16 shows the performance of throttle

pressure for this test. As power output decreases, pressure goes up initially, but recovers back to its setpoint. Controller 1 as well as controller 2 show an equal performance here.

75

ipl^pp

Figure 6.17 shows the performance of the superheated steam temperature for this test. Note a slightly longer settling time shown for the steam temperature using controller 1 as compared to controller 2. When power output starts decreasing initially, the firing rate also has to decrease, but it takes a short time to do so. Thus, temperature increases initially, but it is brought back to its setpoint. Figure 6.19 shows that superheat spray given by controller 2 is slightly smoother than controller 1. Both controllers are able to keep the spray in the mid range. Reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.18) essentially shows equal performance for both controllers. Figures 6.22 through 6.25 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 4. Figures 6.26, 6.27 and 6.28 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. At 7000 seconds, the load demand was stepped upfrom420 megawatts to 460 megawatts instantaneously. As shown in Figure 6.22, both controllers performed equally well for power output. The plots are overlapping. Figure 6.23 shows the performance of throttle

pressure for this test. As the power output increases, pressure goes down initially, but recovers back quickly to its setpoint. Controller 1 as well as controller 2 show an equal performance here. The kind of initial sagging shown by the pressure is very close to the one observed industrially (Crow, 1995c). Figure 6.24 shows the performance of the superheated steam temperature for this test. When the load demand increases, the firing rate also has to increase, but it takes a little longer to do so. Thus, the temperature decreases initially, but it should come back to its setpoint. The initial drop in the

temperature shown by controller 2 is slightly smaller as compared to controller 1. Controller 1 shows a little more oscillations as compared to controller 2. Reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.25) essentially shows an equal performance in the case of controller

76

1 as well as controller 2. The superheat spray given by both the controllers is essentially showing the same behavior (Figure 6.26). Both of them are oscillating. As expected fiiel and feed water have gone up to generate the necessary power (Figures 6.27, 6.28). Figures 6.29 through 6.32 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 5. Figures 6.33, 6.34 and 6.35 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. At 7000 seconds, the load demand was stepped down from 420 megawatts to 380 megawatts instantaneously. As shown in Figure 6.29, both the controllers perform equally well for power output. The plots are again overlapping in this case. Figure 6.30 shows the performance of the throttle pressure for this test. As the power output decreases, pressure goes up initially, but recovers back to its setpoint very fast. Controller 1 as well as controller 2 show an equal performance here. The kind of initial overshoot shown by the pressure is very close to the one observed industrially (Crow, 1995c). Figure 6.31 shows the

performance of the superheated steam temperature for this test. When the load demand decreases, the firing rate also has to decrease, but it takes a little longer to do so. Thus, temperature increases initially, but it is brought back to its setpoint after a long time in the case of controller 1. Controller 2 is able to adapt to these changes quickly and takes rapid actions. Thus, it brings the temperature back to its setpoint faster as compared to

controller 1. Controller 1 shows more oscillations as compared to controller 2. Figure 6.33 shows that superheat spray given by controller 2 is slightly smoother as compared to controller 1. Both controllers are able to keep the spray in the mid range. The reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.32) essentially shows an equal performance for controUer 1 as well as controller 2.

77

Figures 6.36 through 6.39 compare the performance of the controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 6. Figures 6.40, 6.41 and 6.42 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. At 7000 seconds, the lower set of bumers are removed. As shown in Figures 6.36 and 6.37, both the controllers perform equally well for power output as well as throttle pressure, respectively. Figure 6.38 shows the

performance of the superheated steam temperature for this test. Note the higher initial variability and settling time shown by temperature in case of controller 1. Controller 2 is able to adapt to the process change quickly than controller 1. But controller 2 shows bigger oscillations as compared to controller 1. Figure 6.40 shows a slightly smoother superheat spray given by controller 2 as compared to controller 1. The reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.39) essentially shows an equal performance for controller 1 as well as controller 2. Figures 6.43 through 6.46 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 7. Figures 6.47, 6.48 and 6.49 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. As shown in Figures 6.43 and 6.44, both controllers perform equally well for power output as well as throttle pressure, respectively. Figure 6.45 shows the

performance of the superheated steam temperature for this test. Note the significantly higher initial variability and a higher settling time shown by temperature for controller 1 as compared to controller 2. The soot blowing increases the gain of the process. Controller 2 is able to adapt to these changes better than controller 1. The superheat spray is

brought back in the mid range by the feedback loop for both controllers. After that time.

78

w^mmrfi^

I III! . > ! ' J ( 3

the temperature cycles a little in the case of both controllers. This can be attributed to the slight cycling of fiiel and feed water (Figures 6.48, 6.49). The reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.46) essentially shows an equal performance in the case of controller 1 as well as controller 2. Figures 6.50 through 6.53 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 8. Figures 6.54, 6.55 and 6.56 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. As shown in Figure 6.50, both controllers perform equally well for power output. Both plots are overlapping. In Figures 6.51 and 6.52, throttle pressure and the The reheated steam

superheated steam temperature show an equal performance.

temperature (Figure 6.53) essentially shows an equal performance for controller 1 as well as controller 2. Figures 6.57 through 6.60 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively for test number 9. Figures 6.61, 6.62 and 6.63 show the superheat spray, fuel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. As shown in Figure 6.57, both controllers perform equally well for power output. In Figure 6.59, controller 2 is able to adapt to the process change much better than controller 1. Note the significantly higher settling time and cycling shown by controller 1 as compared to controller 2. As shown in Figure 6.61, both controllers are trying to bring the spray back to the mid range. Controller 2 shows a smoother response. Controller 2 clearly outperforms controller 1 in this case. In Figure 6.60, reheated steam temperature shows an equal performance for both controllers. In Figure 6.63, feed water shows a lot of oscillations in case of controller 1 as compared to controller 2.

79

Figures 6.64 through 6.67 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 10. Figures 6.68, 6.69 and 6.70 show the superheat spray, fiiel and feed water, respectively, given by both controllers for this test. As shown in Figures 6.64, both controllers show an equal performance for power output. In Figure 6.66, controller 2 is able to adapt to the process change much better than controller 1. Note the significantly higher variability, settling time shown by

controller 1 as compared controller 2. As shown in Figure 6.68, both controllers are trying to bring the spray back to the mid range. Controller 2 shows a better performance. Controller 2 clearly outperforms controller 1 in this case also. In Figure 6.67, the reheated steam temperature shows an equal performance for both controllers. Figures 6.71 through 6.74 compare the performance of both controllers for power output, throttle pressure, superheated steam temperature and reheated steam temperature, respectively, for test number 11. Figures 6.75, 6.76 and 6.77 show the superheat spray, fuel and feed water, respectively, given by both the controllers for this test. As shown in Figure 6.71, both controllers show an equal performance for power output. In Figure 6.73, initially, temperature shows a lesser deviation and lower settling time for controller 2 as compared to controller 1. Both sprays are brought back to the mid range and settle around 8500 seconds (Figure 6.75). However, controller 2 shows more oscillations as compared to controller 1. Reheated steam temperature (Figure 6.74) shows essentially the same performance for controller 1 and controller 2. Table 6.1 shows the values of ISE and lAE for controller 1 and controller 2 for tests 1 through 11, observing superheated steam temperature. These ISE and lAE values were calculated for power output as well as superheated steam temperature. However, ISE and lAE values were very close for controller 1 and controller 2, for power output in

80

i^Wff<^'^T'

all of the tests. This is well justified since it was observed that the power output response was almost identical for both controllers in all the tests. From Table 6.1, it can be seen that lAE values for controller 2 are 2-5% lower than controller 1. In case of test 1 and 2, the lAE values for controller 2 are ahnost 15-20% lower than controller 1. ISE values are also lower for controller 2 than controller 1. Thus, in all of the tests described above, controller 2, in general, shows a better or at least an equal performance as compared to controller 1. Thus, it is advantageous to use nonlinear models for control purposes because of their ability to adapt to process gain changes.

81

j,^|..i

J .^;ij"*|

'

" I'jaw

500 490 480 H 470 460

450440430-

420 410 7

10

11

12

time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.1 Response ofpower output for test 1

82

^ ' "I'lrayifi

"IBP"

jte;

3600

'^
0)

3550

3500

""-e?V5S'--V5>WVVs/W

3450

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.2 Response of throttle pressure for test 1

83

r^'^^

j..J3^^B^

iW"PjpPiif5??

990 989.5 989988.5Q)

988987.5987 986.5 986 985.5 985 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

E
CD

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.3 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 1

84

1040 1030 u. 10201010

Q. 1000 E
CD

990 980 970 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 11 12

Controller 2

Figure 6.4 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 1

85

,<^../wg--"-*'

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.5 Superheat spray for test 1

86

U^iMPJtH

^ -. :wt! W ^ ' ^ - ^

250

o 200CD
CO

Si

C D

150-

100

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.6 Fuel for test 1

87

a^r^m

1000
o
CD
fi nrW^T"

900-

-cv^

CD

800

0 CD

700-

600

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

11

12

controller 1

controller 2

Figure 6.7 Feed water for test 1

88

^^-.Mtb

mmmmimim

mill,

4 * ^M.i^K- '-f

500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320
I

8 9 10 time In seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.8 Response ofpower output for test 2

89

" " ^"W31

3600

CO

'^

3550

3450

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.9 Response of throttle pressure for test 2

90

992

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.10 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 2

91

 ^ ^ " " ^ "

< "'1-'

1040
1030LL
1020

1010H
d. 1000H E

CD

990 H
980-

970
9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.11 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 2

92

%*

.'^1

!W?;p*gglJi^'.':!--Z-:iZ

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.12 Superheat spray for test 2

93

250

o
CD

200

n
5
C D

150-

100

10

12

time in seconds

(Thousands)
controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.13 Fuel for test 2

94

-iJ/j.sTT'

twr

1000
o
CD

900-

800
CO D

0 0

700

600

10

time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

controller 2

Figure 6.14 Feed water for test 2

95

.^^

'^^\

-IpWWipipppUllJiJiiuiJ, . ^ ^

-J

-j.iui.ijivMiv^

420 410 400 390

380 370 360 350 340 H 330

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.15 Response ofpower output for test 3

* *

.J^S

3600

CO

'^
0
C3 /

3550

2
CL

3500

3450

8 9 10 time In seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.16 Response of throttle pressure for test 3

97

.-:*! JJI

mmmmmmm im i

.. "^" ;;;;;

990 989"l 988

D) 0 "D

.E 987 H d. 0 986 985 984 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.17 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 3

98

HJg'J.'-IPl* ^^^^^ttmmm WiMwa

'

"^^Mw.;*-^

^W^?^,|

1040 1030U-

1020 1010H

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.18 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 3

99

'mm^^

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.19 Superheat spray for test 3

100

d.

BSBS-!

'/:!

250

o
0

200-

In

150

100

10

time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.20 Fuel for test 3

101

'%fif^^

.jy..rv:*^npftiji-w*>.w'5'"^^^'^^
,f>

1000

o
0
JQ

900

800 5
0 0

700-

600

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

11

12

controller 1

controller 2

Figure 6.21 Feed water for test 3

102

.-5.

465 460 455 450445440435 430425420-. 415

^^^i^i^^"^

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.22 Response ofpower output for test 4

103

.&;

^--'jtfi^^^viassi^'^ssBsa^afss^^

3600

C O
C/3 Q.

3550

0
^

D (f) C O

3500

j'-uMui^iy^i'uwtjyv ^Vy^gyv

Q.

3450

10

11

12

time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.23 Response of throttle pressure for test 4

104

.14*

990 989 ^
0
D

988H
.^^^>-----.*:?--'^i.Ht^^

. 987 d. 0 986985984

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.24 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 4

105

1040 1030u. g 10201010H

d. 1000H E ^
0

990 H 980 970 8 9 10 time In seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 11 12

Controller 2

Figure 6.25 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 4

106

!i.

ar^l

1^1

ii

*"

"

40 o
0

30

Q. C O

20-

Q.
D CO

10

wwflWM
7

10

11

12

time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.26 Superheat spray for test 4

107

rt-

''^^^'Wfi&

250

o
0

200

lo

150

100

10

time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.27 Fuel for test 4

108

--'1K:

1000
o
0

900^ U^ U Ol ) U " U ' u A u ' I iDLiiiui ~iininui>n,s_,iiY^Myt

To

800
CO

5
0 0

700-

600

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

11

12

controller 1

controller 2

Figure 6.28 Feed water for test 4

109

it^-i.

.^SBB^^vl

mm

420 415
410H 405 400-

395-

390
385 380 375
"T"

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.29 Response ofpower output for test 5

no

*jSf*C*:v---

^fnvfXMmtsz-

3600

CO

'^ 3550
0
CO

2
Q.

3500

3450 8 9 10
time i seconds n (Thousands) Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.30 Response of throttle pressure for test 5

111

'

-:^jsteMBvt:--

;-:rtsr<M(Sj;

990 989 9880

.E 9870 986 985 984 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.31 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 5

112

-4*li

C-'ff'i-c^a-v--*

*.''

1040 1030 u. S 10201010

d. 1000 E ^
0

990 980970 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.32 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 5

113

40
o
0

lo

30-

I 20
CO

1^*= ^**^ '

8 9

-^f^-HWHr-

u ' ' ^''j^

s
0

"i 10
Q.
D C O

10

11

12

time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.33 Superheat spray for test 5

114

250

o
0

200

To
0

150-

100

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.34 Fuel for test 5

115

^m:4

1000

o
0

900-

To n

800
5
0 0
^-*yV AA^/A^^/^ . , ^ ^ . A . . r.. M. . A s ^ ^ ^ iV. > ^ ^ .

700-

600

"T"

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

11

12

controller 1

controller 2

Figure 6.35 Feed water for test 5

116

a^^B*

430

425

420-

415

410

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.36 Response ofpower output for test 6

117

r'-^JUU'.M^iilJ

3600

C O C O Q.

3550

c
0 D C O C O 0 Q.
^

3500

3450 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.37 Response of throttle pressure for test 6

118

lill

^^'^^^

988LL.

V y\V^

/^

"^^^"^^"^ \/^^ \/^

-\/

\/^

\/

0
D

987-

|0

986-

985-

984^

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.38 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 6

119

. -issisa

.^a

<^^^^^^^rm

1040
1030-

li.

10201010H

10

11

12

time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.39 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 6

120

i>i>iB."i'

40 o
0

To

30

Q. C O

20
n

- I

Jo

0
CO

10-

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.40 Superheat spray for test 6

121

185

o
0

To ^ 175
0

165

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.41 Fuel for test 6

122

850

o
0

To

0
D

800

0 0

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.42 Feed water for test 6

123

'> (Min M r f i f l

ji T I itanWTirrr* i

430

425-

420

415-

410

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.43 Response ofpower output for test 7

124

yii^&mifi

"^asms^m

3600

C O
C O

Q.

3550

c
0 i D
C O C O

0 Q.

3500

3450

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.44 Response of throttle pressure for test 7

125

K-J*'t
- 1 ^ *

990 989 988

0
D

.E 987 H d. 0 986 985984 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 11 12

Controller 2

Figure 6.45 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 7

126

/J

1030-

LL
D)

10201

8 1010_C

d. 1000E
0

990980970-

'V^
1 1 1 1 I -

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.46 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 7

127

SSORSBBSSSSSH^^vi^:^

8 9 10 time i seconds n (Thousands) controller 1 controller 2

12

Figure 6.47 Superheat spray for test 7

128

~.J3'.'-7

185

o
0
CO

To

175

165

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1 controller 2

Figure 6.48 Fuel for test 7

129

il W lrf lrf"l

850

o
0
CO

To

^ 0
5 0 0

800^^^

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.49 Feed water for test 7

130

r"'

^r^.-^. .

.^

B 8 M i I III

II

430

425

420-

415-

410

"T"

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1

11

12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.50 Response ofpower output for test 8

131

^mgmmm^m

3600

C O C O Q.

3550

c
0 ^ D C O C O 0 Q.

3500

I ^^^^^^^*^"*^**

"''*^i^'''^c;:?^'^^^''^^*\.^>=^Vj^^^^

3450

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.51 Response of throttle pressure for test 8

132

r-^-

TI

990 989T;

9S8

0
D

. 987
Q.

986 985984

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.52 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 8

133

1040 1030 u. g 10201010H

8 9 10 time In seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.53 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 8

134

40 o
0

To n

30-

I 20
CO

CO 0

Q.
D CO

10

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.54 Superheat spray for test 8

135

"^ISsqwWMsfi^S**?:***

185

o
0
CO

To

175-

165

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.55 Fuel for test 8

136

850

o
0

To n

800

0 0

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

12

Figure 6.56 Feed water for test 8

137

.1

430

425

420T^Tv^f^^'^r-y'^rV'^v'

415

410

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.57 Response ofpower output for test 9

138

K-H'SJ*^

s^Ws

mm)^.:yMf-

W/mmmmmmem

3600

C O
C O

CI

3550

c
0 u. D
C O C O

0 Q.

3500

3450 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.58 Response of throttle pressure for test 9

139

i^S5^gaiDlL:.-i..ii'.i

C.^

990

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 Controller 2

Figure 6.59 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 9

140

- ^ f : W 9 * ^ ^ ^ E ^ i ^ ^

tmmmm*

JTOT!^

j ^ i | y r'lT f i -

1040 1030u. 10201010

d. 1000E *0

990 980 970 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1 11 12

setpoint

Controller 2

Figure 6.60 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 9

141

.---*H

'T

Vt?1

o
0

To n

Q. C O

to
0
0 Q. D C O

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.61 Superheat spray for test 9

142

mm

-'iVs'.,ff|

185

CO

To n =
0

175-

165

"T"

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.62 Fuel for test 9

143

850 o
0
CO

To
^ to
0 0

800 H

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.63 Feed water for test 9

144

BH

430

425

420

415

410
8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1 11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.64 Response ofpower output for test 10

145

li*'..K^1

,.^li>*M' I

3600

C O C O Q.

3550

c
0 imm D C O C O 0 Q.

3500

3450

- I

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.65 Response of throttle pressure for test 10

146

M^Mpirl

MMM

990

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.66 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 10

147

.Mn

t . ViJ '." .1 I I

' **

1040
1030H 1020 g 1010H

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.67 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 10

148

"^PMC* **"

il<l'H'i-ll'tJ

40 o
0
CO

To n

30-

I 20
CO

C O 0
^.

Q.

10

CO

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.68 Superheat spray for test 10

149

::;;j-

"'^ESS'

BB

185

o
0
CO

To n =
0

175-

165

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.69 Fuel for test 10

150

..i'.t:

IH^^^FJ

F.V?^

850 o
0

To
^ 0 800 ^^^

to
D

0 0

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.70 Feed water for test 10

151

i-t

-W9

430

425-

420

415

410

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.71 Response ofpower output for test 11

152

:.m

mtmummm

am

au

t. s ^

3600

3450 8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

Controller 1 Controller 2

12

Figure 6.72 Response of throttle pressure for test 11

153

BiB r i ^ m n

?5^

990 989T ; 988H

0
D

. 987 d. 0 986 985984

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.73 Response of superheated steam temperature for test 11

154

jssmm

1040
1030u. 8 1020 1010H

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) setpoint Controller 1

11

12

Controller 2

Figure 6.74 Response ofreheated steam temperature for test 11

155

.^^it-

MMP

rws

O 0

To

CO

to
0 0 Q. D C O

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1 controller 2

12

Figure 6.75 Superheat spray for test 11

156

mssss^s^

^i

185

o
0
CO

To

=
0

175-

165

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands) controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.76 Fuel for test 11

157

*?:..>*'";>''"'''

niiifiiiriin T

--n

itv*nsszaBCusw

850

o
0
CO

To

800

\jif^t^^^\2^^

to
" D 0 0

750

8 9 10 time in seconds (Thousands)

controller 1

11

12

controller 2

Figure 6.77 Feed water for test 11

158

Tr^^

l^;2ciii^SiiggiSSiiiiimimtti.i^m^tg'mi

Time

Time

Figure 6.78 A typical ATV test

159

^.- ^ 1

Table 6.1 Measure of goodness of control

Test# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ISE for controller 1 8.1716e6 8.6430e6 7.9373e6 7.8961e6 7.9184e6 7.9259e6 8.0280e6 7.8924e6 7.9224e6 7.9428e6 7.9132e6 ISE for controller 2 7.9000e6 7.9689e6 7.9148e6 7.8914e6 7.9103e6 7.8932e6 7.9049e6 7.8936e6 7.8909e6 7.8880e6 7.8942e6 lAEfor controller 1 1.4198e6 1.5880e6 1.2933e6 1.2427e6 1.2729e6 1.2677e6 1.3394e6 1.2361e6 1.2750e6 1.2664e6 1.2594e6 lAEfor controller 2 1.2360e6 1.3020e6 1.2521e6 1.2190e6 1.2365e6 1.2405e6 1.2465e6 1.2319e6 1.2106e6 1.2059e6 1.2344e6

160

KSCj^WWtWK'i

CHAPTER v n CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

This project had various stages. The results achieved in these various stages are stated as conclusions ofthis project. 1. A detailed dynamic simulator of a supercritical coalfiredboiler was developed and bench-marked against the steady state plant data provided by TU Electric, Dallas. The simulator was bench marked at various operating loads. Thefinalsteady state values of the parameters like temperature, pressure, steam flow, etc., were found to be very close to the steady state plant data. 2. The process gains showed that the system under consideration is quite linear in most of the loops. Only the high pressure steam temperature loops showed nonlinearity. 3. A coordinated controUer was developed using the conventional controllers in all the loops. 4. The approximate models based on the energy balance relationships were written, and a Generic Model Controller (Nonlinear Process Model Based Controller) was implemented for the steam temperature control. 5. The coordinated control system having nonlinear models in certain loops, showed a better or at least an equivalent performance for steam temperature and throttle pressure control than the coordinated control system having conventional controllers in all the loops. It is advantageous to use nonlmear models for control purposes because of their ability to adapt to process gain changes.

161

1 "

1 ^ ^ ^ * ^ > . - > - - g ^ . . -

Recommendations Some of the fiiture work that can be done in this area is recommended as under. 1. An experimental demonstration or an actual utility plant application of nonlinear models would prove the authenticity ofthis work. 2. Applications of other advanced techniques such as neural networks can provide some advantages. The nonlinear approximate models which are used are phenomenological models. They may not be able to take into account all the disturbances that may hit the system. In that respect, neural networks may provide some advantages if properly trained.

162

M4^-><S

^Jfa.i<l>w<MgMMIiaaMh**.

^ t'VnMtdBB^Ei

BiM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Astrom, K. J.; and Hagglund, T., Proceedings of the IF AC conference, San Francisco, 1983. Babcock, G. H.; and Wilcox, S., Steam-its generation and use. Babcock and Wilcox Company, New York, 1972. Bauer, F. W.; Nayak, R. V.; and Kohanik, W., "Boiler Modeling for performance improvement," Presented at the joint ASME/IEEE power generation conference, Dallas, TX, October 22-26, pp. 1-8, 1989. Bequette, B. W., "A one-step-ahead approach to nonlinear process control," Proc. 1989 National ISA meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 1989. Bird, R. B.; Stewart, E. W.; and Lightfoot, N. E., Transport Phenomena. John Wiley & Sons Inc., NY, 1960. Buchanan, D. J., Personal Communication, Southwestem Public Service Company, AmariUo, TX, 79170, 1995. Calle, T., Personal Communication, Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas, TX, 75201, 1995. Chawdhry, P. K.; Hogg, B. W., "Identification of boiler models," lEE Proceedings, vol. 136, no. 5, September 1989, 261-271. Collier, J. G., "The design of boilers," Heat exch: Therm. Hvdrauli. Fundam. Des.. 1980, 619-646. Crow, D., Personal Communication, Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas, TX, 75201, 1995a. Crow, D., Personal Communication, Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas, TX, 75201, 1995b. Crow, D., Personal Communication, Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas, TX, 75201, 1995c. Dattatreya, S., "Adaptive gain improves coalfiredboiler control," Hydrocarbon Processing. 1982, 261-263. Dolezal, Richard, Large Boiler Fumaces Theorv. Constmction & Control. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1967.

163

-.^ I

fK

si,f^.^aiBSTsr

r-ifftiTi V? ^rSr

Dukelow, Sam G., Improving boiler efficiency. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, Kansas, 1981. Dukelow, Sam G., The Control of Boilers, second edition. Instrument Society of America, 1991. Economou, G. G.; Morari, M.; and Palsson, B. O., "Intemal model control. F. Extension to nonlinear systems," Ind. Engng. Chem. Process Des. Dev.. 1986, 403-43. Edgar, T. F.; and Himmelblau, D. M., Optimization of chemical processes. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988. Fujii, T.; Ohta, J.; Ziang, A. Z.; Kijima, K.; and Kinka, T., "Dynamic Characteristics of boilers in combined cogeneration plants," Chemical Engineering. 1990, 561-572. Garcia-Barras, Thomas, Manual for improving Boiler & fiimace performance. Gulf PubUshing Company, Houston, TX, 1983. Garrett, C. J., "Mountain Creek Unit No. 8 control system design emphasizes Dependability and Safety," Presented at the ISA 1967 Power Instmmentation Symposium, Dallas, TX, 1967. Ha, I. J.; and Gilbert, E. G., "A complete characterization of decoupling control laws for a general class of nonlinear systems," TFF.F Tras. Auto. Control. 1986, 32, 763. Henson, A. M.; and Sd)org, D. E., "Extension of nonlinear coupling methods to include feedback linearization," Paper 1444A, presented at the 1989 AICHE meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1989. Isodori, A.; Krener, A. J.; Gori-Giorgi, C; and Monaco, S., Nonlinear Decoupling via Feedback: A Differential Geometric Approach, TFEF. Trans. Auto. Control 1981,26,331. Kakac, S.; Bergles, A. E.; and Mayinger, F., Heat Exchangers: Thermal - Hydraulic Fundamentals and Design. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1981. Kantor, J. C , An overview of nonlinear geometric strategies for process control Shell process control workshop, Butterworth, Stoneham, MA, 1987. Kaya, A., "A critical review of boiler controls for improved efficiency," Energy Engng, 1990,36-51.

164

P l ^ ^

rSBSaHH^i^HK^ VH

Keenen, J. H.; Keyes, F. G..Thermodynamic Properties of Steam. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1947. Kern, D. Q., Process Heat transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1950. Laubli, F.; Fenton, F. H., "Theflexibilityof the supercritical boiler as a partner in power system design and operation - part I: Theoretical relationship," IEEE transaction on power apparatus and systenLl971, 1719-1724. Laubli, F.; and Fenton, F. H., "Theflexibilityof the supercritical boiler as a partner in power system design and operation - part II: Application andfieldtest results," IEEE transaction on power apparatus and system^ 1971, 1725-1733. Lee, P. L.; and SuUivan, G. R., "Generic Model Control" Computers Chem Engng. 1988, vol. 12, 573-583. Luyben, W.L., Process modeling, simulation and control for chemical engineers. Second edition, McGraw Hill Co., New York, 1989. Mahuli, S. K.; Rhinehart R. R.; and Riggs, J. B., "Nonlinear Model Based In-line control of wastewater pH: A Lab Study," ISA Transactions, 1993, 32, 241. McAdams, W. H., Heat Transmission. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1954. McDonald, J. P.; Kwatny, H. G.; and Spare, J. H., "Nonlinear model of a reheat boilerturbine generator system," Philadelphia Electric Company, Research Division Report No. -196(1971). Meyer, C. A.; McClintock, R. B.; Silvestri, G. J.; and Spencer, R C , Thermodynamic and transport properties of steam. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1967. Pandit, H. G.; Rhinehart, R. R., "Process Model Based Control of afluidizedBed Reactor: A comparison of two strategies," Advances in Instmmentation ISA. 44, 1989, 703. Pandit, H. G.; and Rhinehart, R. R., "Experimental demonstration of constrained process model-based control of a nonideal binary distillation column," in Proc. Amer. Cont. Conf, Chicago, IL, 1992, 630-631. Parish, J. R.; and Brosilow, C. B., "Nonlinear inferential control" AICHE J. 1988, 633644.

165

f; m

r.i^

t",-.'?

Pamchuri, V. P.; and Rhinehart, R. R., "Experimental Demonstration of Nonlinear Model Based Control of a Heat exchanger," 1994 ACC Conf Proceed., Baltimore, MD, 1994. Patwardhan, A. A.; Rawlings, J. B.; and Edgar, T. F., "Nonlmear prediction control using solution and optimization," presented at the 1988 AICHE National meeting, Washington, DC, 1988. Ramchandran, B.; Riggs, J. B.; Heichelheim, H. R., "Nonlinear Plant-wide Control: Application to a Supercritical Fluid Extraction Process." Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.. 1992,31,290. Rhinehart, R. R.; and Choi, J. Y., "Process Model Based Control of wastewater pH Neutralization," Advances in Instmmentation. ISA. 1988, 43, 351. Rhinehart, R. R.; and Riggs, J. B., "Comparison between Two Nonlinear Process Model Based Controllers," Comp. Chem. Engg.. 1990, 14, 075. Riggs, J. B.; Curtner, K.; Foslien, W., "Comparison of two advanced steam temperature controllers for coal-fired boilers," Comp. Chem. Engg.. 1995, Vol 19 (5), 541550. Riggs, J. B., "Nonlinear Process Model Based Control of a Propylene Sidestream Draw Column," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.. 1990, 29, 2221. Riggs, J. B., An Introduction to Numerical Methods for Chemical Engineers. Second edition, Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, TX, 1994. Riggs, J. B.; and Rhinehart, R. R., "Comparison between process model-based controllers," Proc. 1988 Amer. Control Conf Atlanta, GA, 1988. Rohsenow, W. M.; Hartnett, J. P.; and Ganic, E. N., Handbook of heat transfer fundamentals, second edition, McGraw Hill Inc., New York, 1985. Sekoguchi, K.," Analyses andfieldtests of once through boiler dynamics," Bulletin of the JSME. 1970, vol 13, no. 63, 1084-1095. Sherwin, K.," Design of a Boiler," Intemational Joumal of Mechanical Engineering Education, vol 17, no. 2, 1989, 107-116. Subawalla, H.; and Rhinehart, R. R., "Experimental Comparison of Model Based and Convention Control of a Plasma Reactor," 1994 ACC Conf Proceed., Balthnore, MD, 1994.

166

::.vr,*j>;.

"iim^'mi^^m

Suzuki, Y.; Pak, P. S.; and Uchida, Y., "Simulation of a supercritical once-through boUer," Simulation. 1979, vol. 33, no. 6, 181-193. Suzuki, Y.; Pak, P. S.; and Uchida, Y., "Simulation of supercritical once through boiler," Proceedings Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 1977, 343-352. Toijala, K.; and Fagervik, K., "A digital simulation study of two-point control of distillation columns," Kem. Teollisuus. 1972, 29, 5. Volkov, E. P.; Gusev, I. N.; and Zaichik, L. I., "Mathematical modeling of combustion in fiimace chambers of coal-fired utility boilers," Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Energetika. 1992, vol. 30, no. 2, 81-89. Williams, G. L.; Rhinehart, R. R.; and Riggs, J. B., "Inline Process Model Based Control of Wastewater pH using Dual Base Injection," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.. 1990, 29, 1254. Wilson, C. R., "Modem Boiler Economisers - Development and Applications," Heat Recovery Systems. 1982, vol 2, no. 2, 209-225. Ziegler, J. G.; Mchols, N. B., "Optimum settings for automatic controllers," Trans. ASME. 1942, 64, 759.

167

-'I'lMiwirfininiifi I

i iiiilirrriTfi -

NJ

ieiffiHisattaii

.-,/