Ijaerv13n5 29

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 5 (2018) pp.
2298-2325
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
Performance Analysis of Coal Based KWU Designed Thermal Power Plants

using Actual Data at Different Load Conditions
R. B. Chokshi1*, Neeraj K. Chavda2**, Dr. A. D. Patel3

1
Ph. D. Scholar, CHARUSAT University, Changa-388421, India.
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology, New Vallabh Vidyangar-388121,
Dist: Anand, Gujarat, India
2
Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology,
New Vallabh Vidyangar, Gujarat, India.
** ORCID : 0000-0001-6250-1810
3
Principal, C. S. Patel Institute of Technology, CHARUSAT University, Changa-388 421, Gujarat, India.
*Corresponding Author E mail: rajeshbchoksi@yahoo.com
Abstract GE General Electric

Most of coal-based thermal plants having KWU design and IR Irreversibility
210 MW capacity are in operation since many years in India.
On the basis of actual sets of operational parameters from KWU Kraft Werk Union
different TG sets, energy and exergy performance is evaluated LMZ Leningradsky Metallichesky Zavod
and analyzed for TG cycle of power plant at three ranges of
operating load between 75 % to 100 % of full capacity of T,t Temperature
generating load to understand the actual performance for its TG Turbo Generator
improvement. Energy and exergy analysis together give
complete picture of performance and also indicate the location TGS Turbo Generator Set
along with scope of improvement. This analysis revealed that
W Work Done
if the condition of TG set along with its major components
and proper operating parameters are well maintained, better η Efficiency
performance can be achieved even in middle and low load
ranges in existing TG sets running since more than 20 years. Subscript
Moreover, it is observed that the performance of a boiler has i ith component
major influence on overall plant performance as boiler is
found with maximum exergy destruction share in overall 0 Deadstate
exergy destruction. cw Cooling Water (Circulating Water)
Keywords: Coal-based Thermal Power Plant, 210MW f Fuel
Capacity, Energy, Exergy, Exergy destruction, Irreversibility
fw Feed Water
g Generation
Nomenclature
I First Law Efficiency
h Enthalpy
II Second Law Efficiency
m Mass Flow Rate
in Inlet Condition
P Power Supplied
isen Isentropic
S Entropy
out Outlet Condition
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electriccals Limited
Cp Specific Heat
INTRODUCTION
DM De-mineralized
Energy is essential for all economic activities carried out in a
DS Dead State country. One of the parameters to measure the growth of any
ED Exergy Destruction country is energy consumption. Power consumption is directly
related to power generation. As per the data provided in [1],
Ex Exergy the installed capacity of India is 329205 MW as in April,
GCV Gross Calorific Value 2017. For the year 2016-2017 plant load factor observed was
60 %, about 61 % of the power was generated using thermal
route and approximately 59 % of power was generated using
2298
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 5 (2018) pp. 2298-2325
coal as a fuel. Majority of the power is generated using coal- thermal system. Exergy efficiency is defined as the ratio of
based thermal power plants in India. useful exergy from the system to total exergy to the system.
Exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical useful work
Looking at the history of power generation in India, the
obtained if a system is brought into thermodynamic
growth of power generation has increased after the
equilibrium with the environment by means of processes in
independence. The power plants of capacity ranging from 10
which the system interacts only with this environment. The
MW to 67.5 MW were installed by 1960s in various parts of
thermodynamic analysis of the system carried out on the basis
India. The G. E. make 67.5 MW single cylinder turbo-
of the exergy allows us to assess the exact point of
generators are still operational in many power stations. With
inefficiencies and compare different thermal systems.
the advancement in technology and requirement in power
Although exergy analysis approach is more robust as
intensive industries, machines of capacity ranging from 100
compared to energy analysis, both the methods should be
MW to 140 MW of Polish, French, British and German
used. Energy analysis provides an initial glimpse of
designs were installed during 1970-80s. Later on BHEL
efficiencies, while exergy analysis should be used as a tool for
adopted the technology for manufacturing 210 MW steam
more detailed investigation of the imperfections in thermal
turbines from LMZ, USSR. Many power plants have been
systems.
installed with C. E. design boiler and LMZ design 210 MW
turbines during 1980-90s. The design consists of one high Enrico Sciubba and Goran Wall [2] in 2007 have published an
pressure, one intermediate pressure and one low pressure exhaustive review of literature based on 2600 literatures
turbine having flow of steam in single direction. In the late related to history, development and application of exergy
1980s, KWU (Siemens), West Germany modified LMZ analysis to various systems. They reported that Gibbs (1973)
design by using double flow of steam in low pressure turbine who had defined the thermodynamic function “available
having higher efficiency of the plant. Therefore, BHEL energy” was the first person to explicitly introduce the notion
collaborated with KWU (Siemens) for installing power plants of available work including the diffusion term and at a
having capacity of 120 MW to 500 MW in India. However, scientific meeting in 1953, the Slovenian Zoran Rant
KWU design having 210 MW capacity was preferred by most suggested that the term exergy (in German Exergie) should be
of state electricity boards and private power companies. With used to denote technical working capacity. They looked into a
the increase in demand of the power, 500 MW plants and future where exergy analysis will be a part of any system
supercritical power plants have been installed. Yet majority of analysis and will be combined with the other methods for
the power plants in India are operating with 210 – 250 MW better understanding of the system.
capacity turbo-generator having KWU design. Since the
Exergy analysis of a thermal power plant gives us the
plants have been installed, they are continuously operated in
complete insight of the plant. A thermal power plant is
different states of India. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate
operated continuously under different circumstances such as
and analyze the thermal performance of each of the
shortage of fuel, sudden change in demand, sudden change in
components of the plant and if possible to modify as per the
operating conditions, etc. at various loads other than the
requirements to increase the thermal performance of the plant.
design load. Therefore, it becomes essential to know the
Thermal performance of a power plant can be analyzed on the energetic and exergetic performance of different components
basis of the efficiency calculated using two approaches viz. and plants at the operating loads. It may be also possible that
(1) first law efficiency which is known as energy efficiency by changing one or two parameters at that operating load,
and (2) second law efficiency popularly termed as exergy energetic and exergetic performance of the system may
efficiency. Traditionally, energy efficiency of a system is improve. It seems essential to know the energetic and
evaluated on the basis of the heat balance of the system. exergetic performance of the plant at various loads and the
Energy efficiency of any system is calculated based on the effect of critical parameters on them. Instant calculation of
first law of thermodynamic which only focuses on the energetic and exergetic performance of the plant when change
quantity of energy lost from the system. For example, when in plant operating load is going on and set the parameters as
considering a thermal power plant cycle, the first law per the calculated energetic and exergetic performance of the
efficiency is defined as the proportion of the net work done by plant is essential which can be implemented through various
the cycle and the heat input to the cycle. Hence, for accurate techniques of artificial intelligence.
identification of the loss of energy, along with the external
The exergy analysis of thermal power plants began from
loss of energy (quantity of energy) internal loss of energy
1970s. In the last decade, this method has been widely applied
(quality of energy) should be taken into consideration during
to a wide range of thermal power plants. The review of studies
analysis. Exergy analysis which is based on the second law of
related to exergy analysis of 200 to 300 MW capacity thermal
thermodynamics and which considers both the ‘‘quality’’ and
power plants has been carried out and presented in Table 1.
the ‘‘quantity’’ of energy is important for analyzing any
2299
Table 1. Review of Literatures related To Exergy Analysis of 200 to 300 MW Capacity Thermal Power Plants
Sr. Name of Researchers Capacity, Parameters Component Studied Data IPT
No. (Year) Design Studied
1 Geng Liu et. al. (1993) [3] 267 MW, NA Energy and Boiler, HPT, Reheater, IPT, Data Provided Single Flow,
Exergy LPT, Condenser, CEP,GCS, by Power Coal
Efficiency DC, LPH 1, LPH 2, LPH Plant
3,LPH4, Deaerator, BFP,
HPH 5 and HPH 6
2 G. P. Verkhivker and B. V. 232.6 MW, Energy and NA NA NA
Kosoy (2001) [4] NA Exergy
Efficiency
3 S. Sengupta et al. (2007) 210 MW, NA Energy Boiler, HPT, Reheater, IPT, Design Data Single Flow,
[5] Efficiency, LPT, Condenser, CEP, LPH at 40 %, 60 Coal
Exergy 1, LPH 2, LPH 3, Deaerator, %, 80 % and
Efficiency. BFP, HPH 5 and HPH 6 100 % Load
4 Hasan Huseyin Erdem et. 210 MW, NA Energy and Boiler, HPT, Reheater, IPT, Data Provided Single Flow,
al. (2009) [6] Exergy LPT, Condenser, CEP, LPH by Power Lignite
Efficiency 1, LPH 2, LPH 3, LPH4, Plant
LPH5, Deaerator, BFP, HPH
5, HPH 6 and HPH7
5 Mohammad Ameri et al. 250 MW, NA Energy and Boiler, HPT, Reheater, IPT, NA Single Flow,
(2009) [7] Exergy LPT,Condenser, CEP, LPH Natural Gas
Efficiency 1, LPH 2, LPH 3, LPH 4,
LPH 5, Deaerator, BFP,
HPH 5, HPH 6 and HPH 7
6 V. Siva Reddy et al. 210 MW, NA Energy As Per Sr. No. 5 100 % Load Single Flow,
(2011) [8] Efficiency, Design Data Coal with Solar
Exergy
Efficiency.
7 Amirabedin Ehsan and M. 240 MW, NA Energy As Per Sr. No. 3 + LPH 4, Arbitrary data Single Flow,
Zeki Yilmazoglu (2011) [9] Efficiency, HPH 7, Cooling Tower, Air lignite coal
Exergy Preheater, Fan, Stack
Efficiency,
8 R. Mahamud et al. (2013) 280 MW, NA Energy Boiler, HPT, Reheater, IPT, Data Provided Double Flow,
[10] Efficiency, LPT, Condenser, CEP, LPH by Power Coal
Exergy 1, LPH 2, LPH 3, Deaerator, Plant
Efficiency, BFP, HPH 5 and HPH 6
9 Varun Goyal et al. (2014) 210 MW, NA Energy As Per Sr. No. 3 Actual Data Double Flow,
[11] Efficiency, of Power Coal
Exergy Plant
Efficiency,
10 Shailendra Pratap Singh 210 MW, Energy As Per Sr. No. 3 + Gland Not Available Single Flow,
and Vijay Kumar Dwivedi LMZ Efficiency, Cooler, Cold Reheat, Bituminous Coal
(2014) [12] Exergy Ejector, LPH 4, HPH 7
Efficiency.
11 Muhib Ali Rajper et al. 210 MW, NA Energy As Per Sr. No. 3 + LPH 4, Design Data Single Flow, Oil
(2016) [13] Efficiency, HPH 7 of 200 MW and Gas
Exergy
Efficiency.
12 Gholam Reza Ahmadi and 200 MW, NA Energy As Per Sr. No. 3 + Gland Design Data Single Flow,
Davood Toghraie, (2016) Efficiency, Cooler, Gland Compressor, Natural Gas
[14] Exergy CEP2, Cold Reheat, Ejector,
Efficiency. LPH 4, HPH 7
NA : Not Available
condenser and (2) second law analysis is a powerful tool of
thermodynamic research for power plants and other thermal
Geng Liu et al. [3] in 1993 have numerically investigated
systems. G. P. Verkhivker and B. V. Kosoy [4] in 2001 have
energy and exergetic efficiency of 267 MW steam power plant
analyzed the performance of a conventional power plant of
using data provided by the Sierra Pacific Power Company.
232.6 MW capacity using exergy analysis. They reported that
They reported that (1) combustion, heat transfer inside the
reduction in exergy destruction is achieved by increasing the
boiler and conversion of thermal energy to electricity are
value of thermodynamic parameters of working fluid supplied
responsible for most of the exergy destruction followed by
2300
to the turbine and by reducing the temperature differences of exergy analysis of 240 MW coal fired thermal power plant in
the net heaters. Queensland using data provided by the plant. They reported
that (1) the boiler of a subcritical power generation plant is the
S. Sengupta et al. [5] in 2007 have carried out an exergy
major source of useful energy lost, (2) there are opportunities
analysis of 210 MW coal-based thermal power plant with
to improve energy efficiency of power plants by improving
design data at different operating conditions. They observed
the performance of the boilers and the turbine system, and (3)
that exergy destruction is maximum (almost 60 %) in boiler at
in order to achieve significant improvement in energy
all loads under study. They also reported that (1) At reduced
efficiency the boiler and turbine systems need to be altered
load, throttling of control valves increases the exergy
and the current trends towards ultra-supercritical power plant
destruction and its increase is more at lower load, (2)
cycles are consistent with this aim.
Condenser pressure has little influence on the exergy
efficiency of the turbo-generator, (3) Exergy efficiency Varun Goyal et al. [11] in 2014 have evaluated energy and
decreases when high pressure heaters are withdrawn and (4) exergetic performance of 210 MW thermal power plant using
At part load, less throttling at the control valves with sliding data collected during actual operation of the plant. They
pressure mode of operation helps to reduce exergy destruction concluded that a boiler is the source of major irreversibility
in the plant. Hasan Huseyin Erdem et al. [6] in 2009 have rather than condenser and approximately 42 % of exergy is
analyzed comparatively the performance of nine thermal lost in boiler. Shailendra Pratap Singh and Vijay Kumar
power plants under control central governmental bodies in Dwivedi [12] in 2014 have investigated the effect of ambient
Turkey, from energetic and exergetic viewpoint. Out of them temperatures (278 to 318 K in step of 5 K) on exergetic
capacity of one power plant, i.e. Orhaneli power plant is 210 performance of 210 MW fossil fuel based thermal power
MW. Based on comparative analysis they reported that (1) the plant. They reported that (1) increase in ambient temperature
most two important performance criteria in terms of exergetic decreases exergetic performance of the plant from 83.83 % to
analysis are exergy efficiency and exergetic performance 82.55 % and increases irreversibility from 39.52 to 41.42 MW
coefficient, (2) exergetic performance of the power plants due to turbines and (2) increase in ambient temperature by 1
O
increases with reduction in the exergetic performance C increases total irreversibility rate of the plant by 0.047
coefficient and increment of exergy efficiency and (3) boilers MW.
are vital components needed to be investigated principally for
Muhib Ali Rajper et al. [13] in 2016 have prepared a model
enhancing plants’ overall exergetic performance.
of 210 MW dual fire thermal power plant using design data of
Mohammad Ameri et al. [7] in 2009 have performed the 200 MW using EES software and validated the model data
energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis for the Hamedan supplied by the manufacturer. The model has been then
steam power plant working on natural gas as fuel and having employed to carry out parametric analysis in order to evaluate
capacity of 250 MW at different load. They concluded that (1) the effect of condenser pressure, main steam pressure and
when the ambient temperature is increased from 5 to 24 OC, temperature on energy and exergetic efficiency of the thermal
the irreversibility rate of the boiler, turbine, feed water power plant. They concluded on the basis of parametric
heaters, pumps and the total irreversibility rate of the plant analysis that the performance improves with an increase in
increases, (2) as the load varies from 125 to 250 MW (i.e. full the main steam pressure and temperature as well, whereas it
load) the exergy efficiency of the boiler and turbine, decreases with an increase in condenser pressure. Gholam
condenser and heaters increases and (3) the boiler has the Reza Ahmadi and Davood Toghraie [14] in 2016 have
highest cost of exergy destruction. V. Siva Reddy et al. [8] in investigated the energy and energetic performance of 200
2011 have carried out exegetic analysis of 210 MW coal fired MW thermal power plant. They reported that (1) for each 0.01
power plant with and without solar aided feed water heater bar increase in condenser pressure approximately 0.7 MW
(SAFWH) using design data. They observed (1) An power generation is reduced, (2) by increasing the condenser
instantaneous increase in power generation capacity of about pressure from 0.09 bar to 0.32 bar the load unit reduced from
35% by substituting turbine bleed streams to all the low and 200 MW to 183.7 MW and (3) the boiler covers the major part
high pressure feed water heaters with SAFWH, (2) of exergy loss. They have also reported several suggestions
Consumption of coal is increased by 3.5 % for reheat of with positive effects on improving power plant efficiency and
steam by replacement of high pressure feed water heaters with saving energy consumption.
SAFWH, (3) With SAFWH in coal fired thermal power plant,
The review of literature reveals that most of coal-based
energetic efficiency decreases from 34.19% to 31.81% &
thermal plants having KWU design and 210 MW capacity are
exergetic efficiency increases from 32.47% to 35.73%.
in operation since many years. It is essential to evaluate and
Amirabedin Ehsan and M. Zeki Yilmazoglu [9] in 2011 have analyze the thermal performance of each component of the
designed a thermal power plant and performed an exergy power plant to increase the performance. Exergy analysis
analysis of 240 MW thermal power plant using arbitrary data. based on second law of thermodynamics is the appropriate
They have also modeled the plant under study assuming tool to evaluate and analyze the thermal performance of a
various types of Turkish lignite coal as a fuel in the power power plant. Prediction of the exergetic performance of the
plant. They found that (1) main exergy destruction takes place power plant is essential when a power plant is operated at
in the boiler with an exergetic efficiency of 83.29% and (2) various loads to select the proper operating parameters and
increasing ambient temperature causes an increase in fuel an artificial neural network is a powerful learning tool to
consumption and consequently diminishes the exergetic predict the performance. It has also been observed that
efficiency. R. Mahamud et al. [10] in 2013 have carried out exergetic evaluation of coal-based thermal power plant of
2301
KWU design and 210 MW capacity based on actual data of throttle control. HPT comprises of 25 single flow stages. From
the plant at various operating loads and various environmental HPT, Cold Reheat steam (CRH) (38.4 kg/cm2, 338.2 0C) goes
conditions and prediction of the exergetic performance of the for reheating in the boiler and after reheating Hot Reheat
plant under study have not been reported. steam (HRH) (34.6 kg/cm2, 535 0C) enters IPT through two
combined reheat stop and control valves. Intermediate
The objectives of this work are to evaluate and analyze the
Pressure Turbine (IPT) is a double flow turbine with 20
energetic and exergetic performance of the 210 MW coal-
reaction stages per flow. From IPT the steam goes to double
based thermal power plant of KWU design situated in
flow Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) with 8 reaction stages per
Western Region of India using actual data of the power at
flow. The steam from LPT gets exhausted to condenser at a
various operating load conditions and to suggest remedies for
back pressure of 0.1195 kg/cm2 (48.6 0C). Extraction steam is
improving the performance the plant.
bled from six bleeding points (3 extractions from LPT to
LPH-1, LPH-2, and LPH-3 respectively, 2 extractions from
IPT to deaerator and HPH-5 respectively, 1 extraction from
THERMAL POWER PLANT HPT to HPH-6). The individual turbine rotors and the
The plant under study is situated in the Western Region of generator rotor are connected by rigid couplings. Cascaded
India and has power generating units of LMZ and KWU backward is designed for drips obtained from LPHs. The final
design. The work was carried out on three KWU design units drip which is received from LPH-1 is provided to the
of the power plant. Each of these turbo-generator sets has a condenser. Condensate is pumped with the help of CEPs and
capacity of 210 MW, 3000 RPM, 15.75 KV, 247 MVA at fed to the deaerator through LPH-1, LPH-2 & LPH-3. The
0.85 P.F. The required coal is received from the coal mines temperature of feed water increases in these LPHs with the
of the state of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and West help of steam extraction taken from LPT. From deaerator,
Bengal via railway. The main water sources for water make- feed water is fed to HPH-5 & HPH-6 through BFPs. With
up to power plant are river main canal and tube wells. further increase in temperature in HPHs with the help of
Clarifier and DM plant are provided to remove the impurities steam extractions from IPT and HPT, feed water is finally fed
from raw water to make the water suitable for the boiler. Each to the economizer.
unit is equipped with Electro-Static Precipitator (ESP) which
The layout of the plant is presented in Figure 1. The plant has
collects most of the ash from the flue gases liberated through three turbo-generator sets, i.e. TGS-1, TGS-2 and TGS-3.
chimney. The collected ash is disposed off in ash pond They are operated at various load conditions. Steady state
through an ash plant. Being coal-based thermal power station,
online data from different turbo-generator sets have been
it is provided with coal plant comprising of wagon tripplers,
extracted during actual operation of the plant at various load
stacker-reclaimer and primary & secondary crusher houses.
conditions. Extracted data for TGS-1, TGS-2 and TGS-3 have
Each unit consists of six coal mills (each with a capacity of
been presented in Table 2. The data also has been arranged in
39.6 T/H), two Force Draft (FD) fans, Air Pre Heaters ascending order of operating load conditions and presented in
(APHs), two Induced Draft (ID) fans, and two Primary Air Table 3.
(PA) fans. This pulverized coal coming from the coal mills is
transported to the boiler along with primary air. The
secondary air is supplied to the boiler by FD fans. The
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THERMAL
balanced draft is maintained by FD fans and ID fans. In the
POWER PLANT
boiler, pulverized coal is fired from six elevations of burners
located in each corner. The coal combustion takes place in the In a power plant, the major focus is on transforming
furnace, and the liberated heat is utilized to generate maximum possible energy into useful work. In order to know
superheated steam from the water. where energy is lost in a system, energy analysis is carried out
based on the first law of thermodynamics, which talks about
This work focuses on coal-based 210 MW KWU design
conservation of energy. This first law of thermodynamics
turbine cycle which consists of a set of major components
takes into consideration important factors like thermal
including a boiler, a High Pressure Turbine (HPT), an
efficiency and output power.
Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT), a Low Pressure Turbine
(LPT), a condenser (surface type single shell, two pass), In this analysis, to evaluate the performance of the system,
Condensate Extraction Pumps (CEPs), 3 Low Pressure Feed required values of parameters like pressure, temperature, mass
Water Heaters (LPHs), a deaerator, 2 Boiler Feed Pumps flow rate, enthalpy, entropy etc. have been measured /
(BFPs) and 2 High Pressure Feed Water Heaters (HPHs). calculated at inlets and outlets of plant components. Here,
changes in kinetic and potential energy have been ignored.
The KWU steam turbine is a tandem compounded, three
The aforesaid energy analysis suffers from some drawbacks:
cylinders, single reheat, condensing turbine provided entirely
(1) It does not consider the system environment properties (2)
with reaction blading. Being a coal-based thermal power plant
It ignores degradation of energy quality and (3) It does not
(Overall designed plant energy efficiency 37.3%), the boiler
consider irreversibility of the system. Thus this energy
utilizes bituminous coal (GCV 18410 KJ/Kg) as a fuel. The
analysis fails in providing a correct and comprehensive
boiler generates superheated steam (690 T/H, 155 kg/cm2)
picture of system performance.
and sends it to the HPT. Superheated steam (150 kg/cm2 abs,
535 0C) enters the High Pressure Turbine (HPT) through two The second law of thermodynamics states that not all energy
initial steam stop and control valves. HP cylinder has a input is converted into useful work because of thermodynamic
2302
irreversibility. The part of energy that can be converted into Exergy analysis is useful in identifying exergy destruction at
maximum useful work is referred to as an Exergy. It is various locations in the system. The exergy destruction
viewed as maximum theoretical possible work potential of a indicates entropy generation which leads to inefficiency
system that can be obtained from a system when its state is because of irreversibility. Exergy at any point can be
brought to reference dead state. Higher value of exergy calculated using the equation number 1. Energy, Exergy,
indicates a greater value of obtainable work. Exergy is not Entropy Generation, Energy Efficiency, Exergy Efficiency,
conserved as energy. Exergy destruction indicates measure of Exergy Destruction and Irreversibility of each component in a
irreversibility, and it is the source of performance loss. Exergy thermal power plant has been evaluated using the equations
has four parts: (i) physical, (ii) chemical, (iii) kinetic, and (iv) presented in Table 4.
potential. In this analysis, the kinetic exergy and potential
exergy are not considered. It is worth noting that the exergy
analysis does not replace energy analysis, but it complements 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡,
it.
𝐸𝑥,𝑖 = (ℎ𝑖 − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑆𝑖 − 𝑆0 )……..(1)
Figure 1. The Layout of the Thermal Power Plant
Table 2. Thermal Power Plant data arranged as per Turbo-Generator Sets

Unit wise Power Pressure of Temp. of Mass Flow Rate Mass Gross
Different Load
Load of the Plant Steam at Steam at of Steam at Flow Rate Calorific
Conditions of
Power Load, in Turbine Inlet, Turbine Turbine Inlet, of Coal, in Value of
the Power
Plant MW in kg/cm2 Inlet, OC kg/sec kg/sec Coal, in
Plant
kJ/kg
TGS1-L1 P1 209.44 150.4 541.3 179.6 38.61 16610.48
TGS1-L2 P5 184.07 151.6 540.8 161.6 34.68 16610.48
TGS1-L3 P9 159.82 149.7 533.2 140.0 30.14 16610.48
TGS2-L1 P3 208.75 148.9 534.3 183.2 37.96 16577.01
TGS2-L2 P7 171.29 151.4 525.2 151.0 29.51 16577.01
TGS2-L3 P8 163.85 151.2 536.5 145.8 31.90 16577.01
TGS3-L1 P2 209.35 149.4 532.8 183.7 39.18 16577.01
TGS3-L2 P4 204.01 153.2 544.7 181.2 35.94 16577.01
TGS3-L3 P6 178.27 152.4 545.2 157.5 33.89 16577.01
TGS3-L4 P10 159.33 150.8 533.0 142.2 29.22 16577.01
2303
Table 3. Thermal Power Plant data arranged in ascending order of Operating Load Conditions
Different Power Temp. of

Pressure of Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Gross Calorific
Load Plant Steam at
Steam at HPT of Steam at HPT of Coal, in Value of Coal, in
Conditions of Load, in HPT Inlet,
Inlet, in kg/cm2 O Inlet, kg/sec kg/sec kJ/kg
the Plant MW C
P1 209.44 150.4 541.3 179.6 38.61 16610.48
P2 209.35 149.4 532.8 183.7 39.18 16577.01
P3 208.75 148.9 534.3 183.2 37.96 16577.01
P4 204.01 153.2 544.7 181.2 35.94 16577.01
P5 184.07 151.6 540.8 161.6 34.68 16610.48
P6 178.27 152.4 545.2 157.5 33.89 16577.01
P7 171.29 151.4 525.2 151.0 29.51 16577.01
P8 163.85 151.2 536.5 145.8 31.90 16577.01
P9 159.82 149.7 533.2 140.0 30.14 16610.48
P10 159.33 150.8 533.0 142.2 29.22 16577.01
Table 4. Equations to Evaluate Energy and Exergetic Performance of Various Components of the Thermal Power Plant
Energy:
(𝑚𝑓 × 𝐺𝐶𝑉) + (𝑚20 × ℎ20 ) + (𝑚3 × ℎ3 ) = (𝑚1 × ℎ1 ) + (𝑚4 × ℎ4 )
Exergy:
Coal Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at
( )+( )+( )=( )+( )
Exergy Point 20 Point 3 Point 1 Point 4
Entropy Generation:
𝑚𝑓 × 𝐺𝐶𝑉
𝑆𝑔,𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = (𝑚1 𝑆1 + 𝑚4 𝑆4 ) − (𝑚3 𝑆3 + 𝑚20 𝑆20 ) −
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚
Energy efficiency:
{(𝑚1 × ℎ1 ) − (𝑚20 × ℎ20 )} + {(𝑚4 × ℎ4 ) − (𝑚3 × ℎ3 )}
𝜂𝐼,𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = × 100
𝑚𝑓 × 𝐶𝑉
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at
{( )−( )} + {( )−( )}
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = Point 1 Point 20 Point 4 Point 3 × 100
𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑎𝑙
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at
𝐸𝐷𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = {( )+( )+( )−( )−( )}
𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑎𝑙 Point 20 Point 3 Point 1 Point 4
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟
2304
Energy:
(𝑚1 × ℎ1 ) = (𝑚2 × ℎ2 ) + (𝑚3 × ℎ3 )
Exergy:
Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at
( )=( )+( )
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝑇 = (𝑚2 𝑆2 + 𝑚3 𝑆3 ) − (𝑚1 𝑆1 )
Energy efficiency:
{(ℎ1 ) − (ℎ2 )}
𝜂𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝑇 = × 100
{(ℎ1 ) − (ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,2 )}
Exergy Efficiency
𝑊𝐻𝑃𝑇
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝑇 = × 100
{( )−( )−( )}
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐻𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )} − {𝑊𝐻𝑃𝑇 }
𝑊𝐻𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )} − {𝐷𝑆 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝑇 }
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐻𝑃𝑇 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝑇
Energy:
(𝑚4 × ℎ4 ) = (𝑚5 × ℎ5 ) + (𝑚6 × ℎ6 ) + (𝑚7 × ℎ7 )
Exergy:
( )=( )+( )+( )
Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐼𝑃𝑇 = (𝑚5 𝑆5 + 𝑚6 𝑆6 + 𝑚7 𝑆7 ) − (𝑚4 𝑆4 )
Energy efficiency:
ℎ4 −ℎ5 ℎ5 −ℎ6 ℎ6 −ℎ7
𝑚5 × { } + 𝑚6 × { } + 𝑚7 × { }
ℎ4 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,5 ℎ5 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,6 ℎ6 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,7
𝜂𝐼,𝐼𝑃𝑇 = × 100
𝑚4
Exergy Efficiency
𝑊𝐼𝑃𝑇
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐼𝑃𝑇 = × 100
{( )−( )−( )−( )}
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐼𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )−( )} − {𝑊𝐼𝑃𝑇 }
𝑊𝐼𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )−( )} − {𝐷𝑆 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐼𝑃𝑇 }
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐼𝑃𝑇 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐼𝑃𝑇
2305
Energy:
(𝑚7 × ℎ7 ) = (𝑚8 × ℎ8 ) + (𝑚9 × ℎ9 ) + (𝑚10 × ℎ10 ) + (𝑚11 × ℎ11 )
Exergy:
Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at Exergy at
( )=( )+( )+( )+( )
Point 7 Point 8 Point 9 Point 10 Point 11
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝑇 = (𝑚8 𝑆8 + 𝑚9 𝑆9 + 𝑚10 𝑆10 + 𝑚11 𝑆11 ) − (𝑚7 𝑆7 )
Energy efficiency:
ℎ7 −ℎ10 ℎ10 −ℎ9 ℎ9 −ℎ8 ℎ8 −ℎ11
𝑚10 × { } + 𝑚9 × { } + 𝑚8 × { } + 𝑚11 × { }
ℎ7 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,10 ℎ10 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,9 ℎ9 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,8 ℎ8 −ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛,11
𝜂𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝑇 =
𝑚7
× 100
Exergy Efficiency
𝑊𝐿𝑃𝑇
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝑇 =
{( )−( )−( )−( )−( )}
× 100
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐿𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )−( )−( )}
− {𝑊𝐿𝑃𝑇 }
𝑊𝐿𝑃𝑇 = {( )−( )−( )−( )−( )}
− {𝐷𝑆 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝑇 }
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐿𝑃𝑇 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝑇
Energy:
(𝑚11 × ℎ11 ) = (𝑚12 × ℎ12 )
Exergy:
Exergy at Exergy at
(Loss of Exergy to cw) = ( )−( )
Point 11 Point 12
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = (𝑚12 𝑆12 ) − (𝑚11 𝑆11 ) + 𝑚𝑐𝑤 𝐶𝑝,𝑐𝑤 (𝑡𝑐𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑡𝑐𝑤,𝑖𝑛 )
2306
Energy efficiency:
𝑚11 × (ℎ11 − ℎ12 ) − 𝑚𝑐𝑤 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑐𝑤 × (𝑡𝑐𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑡𝑐𝑤,𝑖𝑛 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = × 100
𝑚11 × (ℎ11 − ℎ12 )
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy of Exergy of
( )−( )
cw, out cw, in
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = × 100
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
Point 11 Point 12
Exergy Destruction:
Exergy at Exergy of Exergy at Exergy of
𝐸𝐷𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = ( )+( )−( )−( )
Point 11 cw, in Point 12 cw, out
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟
Energy:
(𝑚8 × ℎ8 ) + (𝑚13 × ℎ13 ) + (𝑚28 × ℎ28 ) = (𝑚14 × ℎ14 ) + (𝑚29 × ℎ29 )
Exergy:
( )+( )+( )=( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝐻1 = (𝑚14 𝑆14 + 𝑚29 𝑆29 ) − (𝑚8 𝑆8 + 𝑚13 𝑆13 + 𝑚28 𝑆28 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚13 × 𝐶𝑝𝑓,𝑤 × (𝑡14 − 𝑡13 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝐻1 = × 100
𝑚8 × (ℎ8 − ℎ29 ) + 𝑚28 × (ℎ28 − ℎ29 )
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝐻1 = Point 14 Point 13 × 100
( )−( )+( )
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐿𝑃𝐻1 = ( )+( )−( )−( )+( )
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐿𝑃𝐻1 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝐻1
Energy:
(𝑚9 × ℎ9 ) + (𝑚14 × ℎ14 ) + (𝑚26 × ℎ26 ) = (𝑚15 × ℎ15 ) + (𝑚27 × ℎ27 )
2307
Exergy:
( )+( )+( )=( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝐻2 = (𝑚15 𝑆15 + 𝑚27 𝑆27 ) − (𝑚9 𝑆9 + 𝑚14 𝑆14 + 𝑚26 𝑆26 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚14 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑓𝑤 × (𝑡15 − 𝑡14 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝐻2 = × 100
𝑚9 × (ℎ9 − ℎ27 ) + 𝑚26 × (ℎ26 − ℎ27 )
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
( )−( )+( )
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐿𝑃𝐻2 = ( )+( )−( )−( )+( )
Irrersibility:
Energy:
(𝑚10 × ℎ10 ) + (𝑚15 × ℎ15 ) = (𝑚16 × ℎ16 ) + (𝑚25 × ℎ25 )
Exergy:
( )+( )=( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐿𝑃𝐻3 = (𝑚16 𝑆16 + 𝑚25 𝑆25 ) − (𝑚10 𝑆10 + 𝑚15 𝑆15 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚15 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑓𝑤 × (𝑡16 − 𝑡15 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐿𝑃𝐻3 = × 100
𝑚10 × (ℎ10 − ℎ25 )
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
Point 10 Point 25
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐿𝑃𝐻3 = ( )+( )−( )−( )
2308
Irrersibility:
Energy:
(𝑚6 × ℎ6 ) + (𝑚24 × ℎ24 ) + (𝑚16 × ℎ16 ) = (𝑚17 × ℎ17 )
Exergy:
( )=( )+( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = (𝑚17 𝑆17 ) − (𝑚6 𝑆6 + 𝑚16 𝑆16 + 𝑚24 𝑆24 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚16 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑓𝑤 × (𝑡17 − 𝑡16 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = × 100
𝑚6 × (ℎ6 ) + 𝑚24 × (ℎ24 )
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = Point 17 Point 16 × 100
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
Point 6 Point 24
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = ( )+( )−( )+( )
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
Energy:
(𝑚17 × ℎ17 ) = (𝑚18 × ℎ18 )
Exergy:
Exergy at Exergy at
( )=( )
Point 17 Point 18
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐵𝐹𝑃 = (𝑚18 𝑆16 ) − (𝑚17 𝑆17 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚17 × (ℎ18 − ℎ17 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐵𝐹𝑃 = × 100
𝑃𝐼𝑛
2309
Exergy Efficiency
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐵𝐹𝑃 = Point 18 Point 17 × 100
𝑃𝐵𝐹𝑃
Exergy Destruction:
Exergy at Exergy at
𝐸𝐷𝐵𝐹𝑃 = ( )−( ) + 𝑃𝐼𝑛
Point 18 Point 17
Irrersibility:
𝐼𝑅𝐵𝐹𝑃 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐵𝐹𝑃
Energy: (𝑚12 × ℎ12 ) + (𝑚30 × ℎ30 ) = (𝑚13 × ℎ13 )
Exergy: ( )+( )=( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐶𝐸𝑃 = (𝑚13 𝑆13 ) − (𝑚12 𝑆12 + 𝑚13 𝑆13 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝑔 × ℎ
𝜂𝐼,𝐶𝐸𝑃 = × 100
𝑃𝐶𝐸𝑃
Exergy Efficiency
( ) − {( )+( )}
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐶𝐸𝑃 = Point 13 Point 12 Point 30 × 100
𝑃𝐼𝑛
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐶𝐸𝑃 = ( ) − {( )+( )} + 𝑃𝐼𝑛
Irrersibility: 𝐼𝑅𝐶𝐸𝑃 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐶𝐸𝑃
Energy:
(𝑚5 × ℎ5 ) + (𝑚18 × ℎ18 ) + (𝑚22 × ℎ22 ) = (𝑚19 × ℎ19 ) + (𝑚23 × ℎ23 )
Exergy:
( )+( )+( )=( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = (𝑚19 𝑆19 + 𝑚23 𝑆23 ) − (𝑚5 𝑆5 + 𝑚18 𝑆18 + 𝑚22 𝑆22 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚18 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑓𝑤 × (𝑡19 − 𝑡18 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = × 100
𝑚5 × (ℎ5 − ℎ23 ) + 𝑚22 × (ℎ22 − ℎ23 )
Exergy Efficiency
( )−( )+( )−( )
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = Point 19 Point 18 Point 22 Point 23 × 100
( )+( )−( )
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = ( )+( )−( )−( )+( )
2310
Irrersibility: 𝐼𝑅𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝐻5

Energy: (𝑚2 × ℎ2 ) + (𝑚19 × ℎ19 ) = (𝑚20 × ℎ20 ) + (𝑚21 × ℎ21 )
Exergy: ( )+( )=( )+( )
Entropy Generation:
𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝐻6 = (𝑚20 𝑆20 + 𝑚21 𝑆21 ) − (𝑚2 𝑆2 + 𝑚19 𝑆19 )
Energy efficiency:
𝑚19 × 𝐶𝑝,𝑓𝑤× (𝑡20 − 𝑡19 )
𝜂𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝐻6 = × 100
𝑚2 × (ℎ2 − ℎ21 )
Exergy Efficiency:
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
𝜂𝐼𝐼,𝐻𝑃𝐻6 = Point 20 Point 19 × 100
Exergy at Exergy at
( )−( )
Point 2 Point 21
Exergy Destruction:
𝐸𝐷𝐻𝑃𝐻6 = ( )+( )−( )−( )
Irrersibility: 𝐼𝑅𝐻𝑃𝐻6 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝐻6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY different ranges between 75 % to 100 % of full generating

capacity using actual data of the power plant. The steady state
The steps followed for this research are as follows:
online actual data of the power plant has been extracted and
(1) Study of existing 210 MW KWU coal-based thermal presented in Table 2 and Table 3. The thermal performance of
power plant layout and its working. the power plant has been evaluated as per the research
(2) Extracting the steady state online data of the plant and methodology presented in the previous section. The results
arranging at various actual load conditions unit wise. have been analyzed on the basis of TG set wise load
The extracted data are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 conditions, different load conditions and step of the load
respectively. conditions (i.e. low load range of around 75% of total
(3) Development of a program in EES software to obtain the generating capacity, middle load range of around 85% of total
various properties such as pressure, temperature, quality generating capacity and higher load range of around 95 %
of steam, enthalpy, entropy and mass of working to100 % of total generating capacity) on the thermal power
medium at inlet and outlet points of components for plant. They have been presented in subsections such as
turbine cycle of the power plant at dead state energetic performance of the power plant, exergetic
temperature of 25 OC. performance of the power plant, comparison of energetic and
(4) Calculation of energy efficiency of major components of exergetic performance of the power plant and overall findings.
turbine cycle as well as of the overall plant at dead state
temperature of 25 OC using equations presented in Table
4. ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF TG SET WISE LOAD
(5) Calculation of exergy efficiency and exergy destruction CONDITIONS OF THE THERMAL POWER PLANT
of major components of a turbine cycle as well as of the
Component wise energetic performance of TGS-1, TGS-2 and
overall plant dead state temperature of 25 OC using
TGS-3 at various operating load conditions is presented in
equations presented in Table 4.
Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. Energy
(6) Calculation of irreversibility of major components of
efficiency of various major components as well as overall
turbine cycle as well as of the overall plant using at dead
plant is calculated on the basis of actual operating data taken
state temperature of 25 OC using equations presented in
at three different generating load of TGS-1, TGS-2 and TGS-
Table 4.
3. Load L1 is greater than load L2 and load L2 is greater than
(7) Comparison of results.
L3. For TGS-1, overall plant efficiency is higher at load L1
than load L2 and L3. Though overall plant efficiency is more
at load L2 than at load L3, no major difference in overall plant
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
efficiency is observed for loads L2 and L3 mainly due to
In the present paper, energetic and exergetic performance of better performance of boiler at load L2. Poor boiler
critical components of 210 MW KWU design thermal power performance restricts the overall plant efficiency in this
plant has been evaluated at various operating loads in three particular TGS-1. For TGS-2 overall plant efficiency is higher
2311
at load L2 than load L1 and L3 mainly because of better and at load L4 than L3 mainly because of better operating
operating performance of boiler at load L2. For TGS-3, performance of boiler.
overall plant efficiency is higher at load L2 than at other loads
100
TGS1-L1
TGS1-L2
80
TGS1-L3
Energy Efficiency
60
40
20
0
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6 Overall
Thermal Power Plant Components
Figure 2. Components wise Energetic Performance of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating Loads
100
TGS2-L1
90
TGS2-L2
80
TGS2-L3
Energy Efficiency
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
TGS3-L1
TGS3-L2
80
TGS3-L3
Energy Efficiency
TGS3-L4
60
40
20
0
2312
100
TGS1-L1
80 TGS1-L2
Exergy Efficiency
TGS1-L3
60
40
20
0
Figure 5. Components wise Exergetic Performance of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating Loads
100
TGS2-L1
90
TGS2-L2
80
TGS2-L3
Exergy Efficiency
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
TGS3-L1
90
TGS3-L2
80
TGS3-L3
Exergy Efficiency
70
TGS3-L4
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2313
100 Energy Efficiency-

TGS1-L1
80 Exergy Efficiency-
TGS1-L1
Energy Efficiency-
Efficiency
60 TGS1-L2
Exergy Efficiency-
40 TGS1-L2
Energy Efficiency-
20 TGS1-L3
Exergy Efficiency-
TGS1-L3
0
Figure 8. Components wise Comparison of Energy and Exergetic Efficiency of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating
Loads
100
Energy Efficiency-
90 TGS2-L1
70 TGS2-L1
Energy Efficiency-
Efficiency
60
TGS2-L2
50
Exergy Efficiency-
40 TGS2-L2
30 Energy Efficiency-
20 TGS2-L3
TGS2-L3
0
Loads
100 Energy
Efficiency-TGS3-
90
L1
TGS3-L1
70
Efficiency
60 Energy
Efficiency-TGS3-
50 L2
TGS3-L2
30
20 Energy
Efficiency-TGS3-
10 L3
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6 Overall TGS3-L3
Loads
2314
Component wise exergetic performance of TGS-1, TGS-2 and observed low than energy efficiency at all loads but follows
TGS-3 at various operating load conditions is presented in almost same trend in line with energy efficiency. For TGS-2,
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. Overall plant the overall plant efficiency is higher at load L2 than load L1
exergy efficiency for TGS-1, TGS-2 and TGS-3 is observed to and L3 mainly because of better operating performance of
be lower than energy efficiency at all loads but follows almost boiler at load L2. Overall plant exergy efficiency is observed
same trend in line with energy efficiency. Component wise low than energy efficiency at all loads but follows almost
Comparisons of Energy and Exergetic Efficiency of TGS-1, same trend in line with energy efficiency. Because of better
TGS-2 and TGS-3 at Various Operating Loads are presented operating performance of boiler found in TGS-2, the overall
in Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 respectively. plant efficiency is higher at load L2 than at other loads and at
load L4 than L3. Overall plant exergy efficiency is observed
Exergy destruction of boiler and overall thermal plant exergy
low than energy efficiency at all loads but follows almost
destruction have been plotted for TGS-1, TGS-2 and TGS-3 at
same trend in line with energy efficiency.
various operating loads and presented in Figure 11, Figure 12
and Figure 13 respectively. Maximum exergy destruction is Maximum exergy destruction is observed in boiler at all given
observed in the boiler at all given loads in all TG sets. At load loads in all TG sets. At load L2 on TGS-2 as well as on TGS-
L2 on TGS-2 as well as on TGS-3, contribution of exergy 3, contribution of exergy destruction in the boiler is lower
destruction in the boiler is lower than all other loads on all than all other loads on all three TG sets, These results match
three TG sets. These results match with the observations made with the observations made as reasoning statement given for
as reasoning statement given for higher energy and exergy higher energy and exergy efficiency. In the TGS-1
efficiency. irreversibility is observed higher in feed water heaters LPH2
& LPH3 as well as in HPH5 & HPH6. In view of higher
Component wise irreversibly evaluated for TGS-1, TGS-2 and
contribution of irreversibility and lower exergy efficiency,
TGS-3 at various operating load conditions is presented in
there is a scope to improve the performance of the LPH2 and
Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16 respectively.
HPH5. Similarly in TGS-2, there is substantial scope to
Irreversibility indirectly shows the entropy generation. In the
improve performance of LPH2, LPH3 and HPH5 at higher
TGS-1, irreversibility observed higher in feed water heaters
load. While in TGS-3, LPH2 and HPH5 are having more
LPH2 & LPH3 as well as in HPH5 & HPH6. In view of
scope for performance improvement. Energy efficiency and
higher contribution of irreversibility and lower exergy
exergy efficiency of the overall plant are better in TGS-2 than
efficiency, there is a scope to improve the performance of
TGS-1 and TGS-3. Out of TGS-1, and TGS-3, TGS-3 is
LPH2 and HPH5. Similarly in TGS-2, there is substantial
better.
scope to improve the performance of LPH2, LPH3 and HPH5
at higher load. While in TGS-3, LPH2 and HPH5 are having
more scope for the performance improvement.
This indicates that if the TG set ( mainly condition of feed
water heaters, furnace, APH, ID fans etc) is well maintained
and operated, better performance can be achieved even in
OVERALL FINDINGS
middle and low load ranges.
Poor boiler performance restricts the overall plant efficiency
in this particular TGS-1. Overall plant exergy efficiency is
500000
450000 Boiler
400000 Overall
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
TGS1-L1 TGS1-L2 TGS1-L3
Figure 11. Exergy Destruction of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating Loads
2315
500000
Boiler
450000
Overall
400000
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
TGS2-L1 TGS2-L2 TGS2-L3
500000
Boiler
450000
Overall
400000
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
TGS3-L1 TGS3-L2 TGS3-L3 TGS3-L4
25000
TGS1-L1
20000
TGS1-L2
Irreversibility
TGS1-L3
15000
10000
5000
0
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6
Figure 14. Components wise Irreversibility of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating Loads
2316
20000
TGS2-L1
TGS2-L2
15000 TGS2-L3
Irreversibility
10000
5000
0
Boiler HPT IPT LPT
Thermal LPH1 Plant
Power LPH2 LPH3
Components Dearetor HPH5 HPH6
30000
TGS3-L1
25000 TGS3-L2
TGS3-L3
20000
Irreversibility
TGS3-L4
15000
10000
5000
0
ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT LOAD Figure 20. Generating load P1 to P10 is in descending order.
CONDITIONS OF THE THERMAL POWER PLANT Barring P5 general trend of exergy destruction is downward in
line with load reduction. However, exergy destruction
Component wise energetic and exergetic performance of
depends on the actual condition of a plant and hence it differs
thermal power plant at various operating loads is presented in
for same load range in different TG sets. With reduction in
Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively. Load P1 to load P10 is
generating load, irreversibility is also observed to be reduced
in descending order. Overall plant energy efficiency at
in general except HPT. In higher load range, HPT is having
generating load P3, P4, P7 and P10 is better. These all four
less irreversibility than at load for remaining middle as well as
loads are in different range representing higher (P3 & P4),
low range. It implies that though performance is better for
middle (P7) and low (P10) load range respectively. Energy
middle and low range load, still there is a scope for its
efficiency of IPT remains high and there is not much variation
improvement.
with change in load. Energy efficiency of HPT is observed
better for load of higher range in each TG set. LPT and feed
water heaters show fluctuations due to different maintenance
OVERALL FINDINGS
conditions of FW heaters resulting into variation in actual
parameters than expected. Energy efficiency at generating load P3, P4, P7 and P10 is
better. These all four loads are in different range representing
Exergetic efficiency is not varying much more for Boiler,
higher (P3 & P4), middle (P7) and low (P10) load range
HPT, IPT, LPT, LPH3, HPH6 and overall plant. LPH1, LPH2,
respectively. It can be seen that for these four loads, overall
Deaerator and HPH5 show more fluctuations due to reasons
plant energy efficiency is also better. Energy efficiency of
discussed for energy efficiency.
IPT remains high and there is not much variation with change
Exergy destruction in boiler and overall exergy destruction of in load. Energy efficiency of HPT is observed better for load
the plant at various operating loads have been presented in of higher range in each TG set. LPT and feed water heaters
Figure 19, while component wise irreversibility of thermal show fluctuations due to different maintenance conditions of
power plant at various operating loads has been presented in FW heaters resulting into variation in actual parameters than
2317
expected. Exergetic efficiency is not varying much more for irreversibility is also observed to be decreased in all major
Boiler, HPT, IPT, LPT, LPH3, HPH6 and overall plant at components except HPT. In higher load range, HPT is having
different load. LPH1, LPH2, Deaerator and HPH5 show more less irreversibility than at load for remaining middle as well as
fluctuations due to reasons discussed for energy efficiency. low range. It implies that though performance is better for
middle and low range load, still there is a scope for its
Exergy destruction: General trend of exergy destruction is
improvement.
downward in line with load reduction. However, exergy
destruction depends on the actual condition of plant and hence This indicates that if the proper operating parameters are well
it differs for same load range in different TG set. maintained, better performance can be achieved even in
Irreversibility: With reduction in generating load, middle and low load ranges.
100
P1
90 P2
80
Energy Efficiency
P3
70 P4
60 P5
50 P6
40 P7
30 P8
20 P9
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6 Overall P10
Figure 17. Component wise energetic performance of Thermal Power Plant at Various Operating Loads
100
P1
90
80 P2
Exergy Efficiency
70 P3
60
P4
50
40 P5
30
P6
20
10 P7
Figure 18. Component wise Exergetic Performance of Thermal Power Plant at Various Operating Loads
500000 Boiler
450000 Overall
400000
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
P1 P2 P3 P4 Different
P5 Load Condition
P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
Figure 19. Exergy Destruction of Thermal Power Plant at Various Operating Loads
2318
ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF STEP OF LOAD that there is a possibility of performance improvement at load
CONDITIONS ON THE THERMAL POWER PLANT L3 in the same TG set.
Component wise energy and exergy efficiency of thermal
power plant for low, middle and higher operating load ranges
Out of all sets of readings taken at different loads, maximum
are presented in Figure 21, Figure 22, Figure 23, Figure 24,
value of energy and exergy efficiency is found at load L2
Figure 25 and Figure 26 respectively. While component wise
(TGS-2), which is in middle range. It should also be noted
comparison of energetic and exergetic performance of thermal
here that better performance is observed at lowest load L4
power plant at lower, middle and higher operating loads are
(TGS-3) than higher load L1 (TGS-1), L2 (TGS-1), L3 (TGS-
presented in Figure 27, Figure 28 and Figure 29 respectively.
1), L3 (TGS-2), L1 (TGS-3) and L3 (TGS-3). Irreversibility
In all three generating load ranges energy and exergy
for boiler is found increasing with decrease in load in each
efficiency is found better at lower load mainly due to better
load range. Same trend is found for the overall plant also (not
performance in boiler.
shown in the graph).
Exergy destruction in boiler and overall exergy destruction of
thermal power plant at low, middle and high operating loads
are presented in Figure 30, Figure 31 and Figure 32. CONCLUSION
Component wise irreversibility of thermal power plant at low,
middle and high operating loads are presented in Figure 33, Though the age is nearly same of all three TG sets under
study, energy efficiency and exergy efficiency of overall plant
Figure 34 and Figure 35. Exergy destruction ratio of boiler to
are better in TGS-2 than TGS-1 and TGS-3. Out of TGS-1
overall plant is found less at low load in each load range.
and TGS-3, TGS-3 is better. It is also observed that
However, in low load range the same is found slightly
performance at lower load is better in one TG set than at
different for load P9 and load P10 though both P9 and P10 are
nearly same. For P9 it is lower than P10. It is to be noted here higher load in another TG set. Performance observed at
that P9 and P10 are from different TG sets. Irreversibility for middle range load in TGS-2 is well enough even after
operation of more than 20 years. This observation implies that
boiler is found increasing with decrease in load in each load
if the (1) condition of TG set along with its major
range. Same trend is found for the overall plant also (not
components and (2) proper operating parameters (pressure and
shown in the graph).
temperature of main steam, excess air percentage etc.) are
well-maintained, nearly design performance (only around 2%
less) can be achieved in all said three load ranges of TG sets
OVERALL FINDINGS
running since more than 20 years. Irreversibility shows the
In higher load range, energy and exergy efficiency are found possibility of improvement in performance. It is possible that
better at load L2 (TGS-3). This shows that in the same TG set irreversibility may be high in case of better energy and exergy
there is a possibility of performance improvement at load L1. efficiency and vice versa. Exergy destruction in the boiler is
In the middle range of load, energy and exergy efficiency are found maximum and hence boiler performance is having
found better at load L2 (TGS-2). This shows that there is a major impact on overall plant performance. Thus, boiler is a
possibility of performance improvement at load L1 in the key area to focus for improvement in the overall plant
same TG set. In the Lower load range, at load L4 (TGS-3) performance.
energy and exergy efficiency are found better, which indicate
28000
P1
24000 P2
20000 P3
Irreversibility
16000 P4
P5
12000
P6
8000 P7
4000 P8
0 P9
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6 P10
Figure 20. Component wise Irreversibility of Thermal Power Plant at Various Operating Loads
2319
100
P1
90
80 P2
Energy Efficiency
70 P3
60 P4
50
40
30
20
Figure 21. Component wise Energy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Low Operating Load Range
100
P5
90
80 P6
Energy Efficiency
70 P7
60
50
40
30
20
Figure 22. Component wise Energy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Middle Operating Load Range
100
P8
90
P9
80
Energy Efficiency
P10
70
60
50
40
30
20
Figure 23. Component wise Energy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Higher Operating Load Range
2320
100
P1
90
80 P2
Exergy Efficiency
70 P3
60 P4
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 24. Component wise Exergy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Low Operating Load Range
100
P5
90
P6
80
P7
Exergy Efficiency
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 25. Component wise Exergy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Middle Operating Load Range
100
90 P8
80 P9
Exergy Efficiency
70
60 P10
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 26. Component wise Exergy Efficiency of Thermal Power Plant for Higher Operating Load Range
2321
100
P1-Energy Efficiency
90
80 P1-Exergy Efficiency
70
60
40
30
10 P4-Energy Efficiency
0
Boiler HPT IPT LPT LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 Dearetor HPH5 HPH6 Overall P4-Exergy Efficiency
Figure 27. Component wise Comparison of Energetic and Exergetic Performance of Thermal Power Plant at Lower Operating
Loads
100
60
P6-Exergy Efficiency
20
0
Figure 28. Component wise Comparison of Energetic and Exergetic Performance of Thermal Power Plant at Middle Operating
Loads

60
0
Figure 29. Component wise Comparison of Energetic and Exergetic Performance of Thermal Power Plant at Higher Operating
Loads
2322
500000 Boiler
450000 Overall
400000
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
P1 P2 P3 P4
Lower Operating Load Range Condition
Figure 30. Exergy Destruction of Thermal Power Plant at Low Operating Loads
500000 Boiler
450000
Overall
400000
Exergy Destruction
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
P5 P6 P7
Middle Operating Load Range Condition
Figure 31. Exergy Destruction of Thermal Power Plant at Middle Operating Loads
500000 Boiler
Exergy Destruction
400000 Overall
300000
200000
100000
0
P8 P9 P10
Higher Operating Load Range Condition
Figure 32. Exergy Destruction of Thermal Power Plant at High Operating Loads
2323
28000
24000 P1
Irreversibility
20000 P2
16000 P3
12000
8000
4000
0
Figure 33. Component wise Irreversibility of Thermal Power Plant at Low Operating Loads
20000
P5
16000 P6
Irreversibility
P7
12000
8000
4000
0
Figure 34. Component wise Irreversibility of Thermal Power Plant at Middle Operating Loads
20000
P8
16000 P9
Irreversibility
P10
12000
8000
4000
0
Figure 35. Component wise Irreversibility of Thermal Power Plant at High Operating Loads
REFERENCES [4] G. P. Verkhivker and B. V. Kosoy, On Exergy

Analysis of Power Plants, Energy Conversion and
[1] http://powermin.nic.in/en/content/power-sector-
Management, 2001, vol. 42, pp. 2053-2059.
glance-all-india as on June 20, 2017.
[5] S. Sengupta, A. Datta and S. Duttagupta, Exergy
[2] Enrico Sciubba and Goran Wall, A brief Commented
Analysis of a Coal-Based 210 MW Thermal Power
History of Exergy From the Beginnings to 2004, Int.
Plant, International Journal of Energy Research, vol.
J. of Thermodynamics, 2007, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-
31, 2007, pp. 14–28, DOI: 10.1002/er.1224.
26.
[6] Hasan Huseyin Erdem, Ali Volkan Akkaya,
[3] Geng Liu, Robert H. Turner and Yunus A. Cengel,
Burhanettin Cetin, Ahmet Dagdas, Suleyman Hakan
Second Law Analysis of a Conventional Steam
Sevilgen, Bahri Sahin, Ismail Teke, Cengiz Gungor
Power Plant, 1993, document no. : N94-23646,
and Selcuk Atas, Comparative Energetic and
pp.151-166, download from
Exergetic Performance Analyses for Coal-Fired
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_1994001917
Thermal Power Plants in Turkey, International
3 on June 16, 2017.
2324
Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2009, vol. 48, pp.

2179–2186.
[7] Mohammad Ameri, Pouria Ahmadi and Armita
Hamidi, Energy, Exergy and Exergoeconomic
Analysis of a Steam Power Plant: A Case Study, Int.
J. Energy Res., 2009, vol. 33, pp. 499–512, DOI:
10.1002/er.1495
[8] V. Siva Reddy, S. C. Kaushik and S. K. Tyagi,
Exergetic Analysis of Solar Aided Coal Fired (210
MW) Thermal Power Plant, International Journal of
Advances in Thermal Sciences and Engineering,
Volume 2, Number 2, 2011, pp. 85-90.
[9] Amirabedin Ehsan and M. Zeki Yilmazoglu, Design
and Exergy Analysis of a Thermal Power Plant
Using Different Types of Turkish Lignite,
International Journal of Thermodynamics (IJoT),
2011, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 125-133, doi:
10.5541/ijot.288.
[10] R. Mahamud, M. M. K. Khan, M. G. Rasul and M.
G. Leinster, Exergy Analysis and Efficiency
Improvement of a Coal Fired Thermal Power Plant in
Queensland, Chapter 1 from the book Thermal
Power Plants - Advanced Applications, edited by
Mohammad Rasul, ISBN 978-953-51-1095-8,
Published: April 17, 2013, pp. 3-28,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55574
[11] Varun Goyal, Rajasekhar Dondapati, Rakesh Dang
and S. K. Mangal, Exergy Analysis of a 210 MW
Unit at 1260 MW Thermal Plant in India, Second
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Modeling and Simulation, 2014, 978-1-4799-7600-3,
IEEE, DOI : 10.1109/AIMS.2014.10.
[12] Shailendra Pratap Singh and Vijay Kumar Dwivedi,
Exergy Analysis of the Turbine for a Reheat
Regenerative 210 MW Fossil-Fuel based Power
Plants in India, International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.1, 2014, pp.
160-164.
[13] Muhib Ali Rajper, Abdul Ghafoor Memon and
Khanji Harijan, Energy and Exergy Analysis of 210
MW Jamshoro Thermal Power Plant, Mehran
University Research Journal of Engineering &
Technology, 2016, Volume 35, No. 2, pp. 265-274.
[14] Gholam Reza Ahmadi and Davood Toghraie,
Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri Steam
Power Plant in Iran, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 2016, vol. 56, pp.454–463.
2325

Ijaerv13n5 29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijaerv13n5 29

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijaerv13n5 29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 5 (2018) pp.

Performance Analysis of Coal Based KWU Designed Thermal Power Plants

R. B. Chokshi1*, Neeraj K. Chavda2**, Dr. A. D. Patel3

Abstract GE General Electric

Figure 1. The Layout of the Thermal Power Plant

Table 2. Thermal Power Plant data arranged as per Turbo-Generator Sets

Different Power Temp. of

Irrersibility: 𝐼𝑅𝐻𝑃𝐻5 = 𝑇0 × 𝑆𝑔,𝐻𝑃𝐻5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY different ranges between 75 % to 100 % of full generating

100 Energy Efficiency-

Figure 11. Exergy Destruction of Turbo-Generator Set-1 at Various Operating Loads

Figure 12. Exergy Destruction of Turbo-Generator Set-2 at Various Operating Loads

Figure 13. Exergy Destruction of Turbo-Generator Set-3 at Various Operating Loads

100 P8-Energy Efficiency

REFERENCES [4] G. P. Verkhivker and B. V. Kosoy, On Exergy

Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2009, vol. 48, pp.

You might also like