A System Dynamics Model of

B. J. Huang
Fire-Tube Shell Boiler
Professor.
A system dynamics model of fire-tube shell boiler was developed. The derivation
of the dynamics model started with a nonlinear time-variant dynamic modeling
P. Y. Ko based on the transport phenomena in the fire-tube boiler. A linear time-invariant
Graduate Assistant. perturbed model around steady-state operating points was then derived. The
identifiable parameters tmw, Twa, K, (3, and Td were identified by using field test
Department of Mechanical data and least-squares estimation method; the coefficients C's were, meanwhile,
Engineering,
National Taiwan University,
directly predicted by using the small-perturbation relations. Empirical correla-
Taipei, Taiwan 10764 tions of the identifiable parameters were further derived to account for the
variation of parameters with operating conditions. The present perturbed model
is thus semi-empirical and can describe the dynamic behaviour of fire-tube boilers
over a wide range of operating conditions. The predictions of dynamic responses
using the present model were shown to agree very well with the test results.

I Introduction

r
STEAM
The thermal performance of boiler is then highly nonlinear
and can be significantly affected by the operating conditions
such as steam pressure and flowrate, ambient conditions,
excess-air quantity, degree of fuel and combustion air mixing
etc. The performance can be further disturbed by the varia-
tion of steam or combustion air flow during operation. Time-
OIL
BURNER variant phenomena will also appear inevitably due to the
integral effect produced by the variation of holdup water or
water level in the shell side. The dynamic model of fire-
tube boilers should apparently be in the following nonlinear
time-variant and multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) form:
I \
FEED SLOWDOWN
WATER X(o=/[X(r),U(0] (1)
Y(0 = g[X(r),U(f)]. (2)
Fig. 1 Schematic of fire-tube shell boilers
The system dynamics of water-tube power boilers for the
design of high performance control system of power plants
has been extensively studied in the past (for examples, Chien
Fire-tube shell boiler or package boiler (Fig. 1) has been et al., 1958; Nicholson, 1964, 1965, 1967; Anderson, 1969;
widely used in industries and residential areas for process Kwan, 1978; McDonald and Kwatny, 1973; Ray and Bow-
heating and hot water supply. The design of fire-tube shell man, 1976; Aleksandrov and Rassokhin, 1985). These stud-
boilers consists of a bundle of fire tubes contained in a shell; ies, however, have been mainly theoretical due to their com-
severe boiling and evaporating processes take place outside plexity. The studies of dynamic models of fire-tube shell
the fire tubes and steam is generated. The heat transfer boilers have been sparse. Only a few simple lumped single-
process from the combustion gas to the boiling water via input-single-output (SISO) models for domestic fire-tube
the tube surface is extremely complicated as it involves hot water heaters have appeared in literature (Lebrun et al.,
combustion, radiation, convection, and boiling processes. 1985; Malmstrom et al., 1985; Claus and Stephan, 1985).
An attempt has then been made here for developing a MIMO
Contributed by the Dynamic Systems and Control Division for publication in system dynamic model of fire-tube shell boilers.
the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript
received by the DSCD December 4, 1988. Associate Technical Editor: P. B. Usoro. The system dynamics of fire-tube boilers can be identified

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/745
Copyright © 1994 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
 by using the estimation methods such as generalized least- were further derived to account for the variation of parame-
squares, instrumental-vaiiables and maximum likelihood al- ters with operating conditions. The present perturbed model,
gorithms etc. (Hsia, 1979). The system parameters identified written in the form of Eqs. (3) and (4), is thus semi-empirical
in this way may, however, be in large errors at operating and can accurately describe the dynamic behaviour of fire-
conditions different from the one used in the identification, tube boilers over a wide range of operating conditions.
unless the plant is linear and time-invariant which is obvi-
ously not the case for fire-tube boilers. The application of X(?) = A(X,U)X(f) + £(X,U)U(f) + E(X,V)t(t) (3)
this approach is thus limited. Y ( 0 = C(X,U)X(f) + £>(X,U)U(0 (4)
A model-based approach has been used here in the deriva-
tion and identification of system dynamics of fire-tube boil- II Physical Modeling and Governing Equations
ers. A nonlinear time-variant dynamic model was first de-
A three-node lumped model is derived here for the sake
rived based on the transport phenomena in the fire-tube
of simplicity. It was assumed that the boiler can be divided
boiler. A linearization using small perturbation around a
into three different phases: namely, the holdup water in the
steady-state operating point was applied and resulted in a
shell side as the liquid phase, the metal of the heating surface
linear time-invariant perturbed model with some well-de-
(fire tubes) as the solid phase, and the combustion gaseous
fined and identifiable system parameters and some predict-
product in the combustion chamber and fire tubes as the
able coefficients. The identifiable parameters clearly possess
gaseous phase. Each phase was assumed to have a uniform
a physical meaning and their values at various operating
temperature. The heat transfer between the three phases is
conditions can be identified by using test data and least-
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The dynamic model can be obtained
squares estimation method; the predictable coefficients are,
here by applying an energy and mass balance to each phase.
meanwhile, a function of steady-state operating conditions
and can be directly evaluated. Empirical correlations of the Gaseous Phase. An energy balance to the gaseous phase
parameters in terms of steady-state operating conditions will lead to

Nomenclature

theoretical air flowrate per Mg = mass of combustion gas in T

f temperature of preheated fuel
unit fuel flowrate for stoichio- the boiler, kg oil, °C
metric combustion, Eq. (20), Mw = mass of holdup water in the T
fw temperature of feedwater, °C
Nm 3 /kg oil shell side, kg T flue gas temperature, °C
A, = heating surface area of fire ma = mass flowrate of combustion go metallic fire-tube (solid
tubes, m2 air, kg/hr phase) temperature, °C
A = heat transfer surface area of way = mass flowrate of fuel oil, T0 = temperature of datum state,
fire tubes, m2 kg/hr °C
mw
area used in evaluating the ms = mass flowrate of steam, la = absolute humidity of combus-
heat transfer from the boiling kg/hr tion air, kg vapor/kg dry air
Awa = water to the ambient, m2 mw = mass flowrate of feedwater, <S>a = ratio of actual to theoretical
heat capacity of fuel oil, kg/hr combustion air flowrates, di-
9= kJ/kg°C N2 = volumetric concentration of mensionless
C
g =
heat capacity of flue gas, gaseous N2 in flue gas, % Pa = density of combustion air,
kJ/kg°C 02 = volumetric concentration of kg/m 3
C,n =
heat capacity of fire tube, gaseous 0 2 in flue gas, % T = time constant for the re-
kJ/kg°C QE net rate of heat carried out sponse of fire-tube tempera-
cs = heat capacity of steam, by steam from the boiler, ture due to heat transfer from
kJ/kg°C Watt solid phase to boiling
cw = heat capacity of water, Qgl radiative heat transfer rate water, s
kJ/kg°C from the combustion gas to time constant for the re-
CO = volumetric concentration of fire tube surface (solid sponse of water temperature
gaseous CO in flue gas, % phase), Watt due to heat transfer from boil-
CO, = volumetric concentration of Qgo rate of energy loss from the ing water to ambient, s
gaseous C0 2 in flue gas, % flue gas, Watt
heating value of fuel oil, Superscripts
H'/t Qin rate of energy input resulting
KJ/kg from fuel combustion, Watt small perturbation
heat transfer coefficient from rate of heat loss from the liq- steady-state operating con-
QL
fire tube to water, W/m 2o C uid phase to the ambient, dition
h,.,„ =heat transfer coefficient from Watt estimated variable
boiling water to ambient, T = temperature of boiling water
W/m 2o C in shell side or exit steam
i = enthalpy, KJ/kg temperature, °C
enthalpy of feed water, KJ/kg Ta = ambient temperature, °C
% =
746/Vol. 116, DECEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 This, however, may not be too serious since Qg0 is relatively
small as compared to Qin and Q x and the efficiency control
of a boiler is of the major concern in many applications. A
quasi-steady approximation can therefore hold and the en-
ergy equation for the gaseous phase becomes
.. -„...., , INSULATION
"in DU ACC I Qfw *£go x~in x--g (12)
Fig. 2 Schematic of 3-node model of fire-tube shell boilers Solid Phase., Applying an energy balance to the solid
phase will lead to
dT,
M,„C„ - Qgi *lmwAmw{Tm T) (13)
(Af,MB), (5) '" "' dt
*W« X--20 x£p
dt
where the last term h,mWAmw(Tm " T) represents the heat
where Qjn can be evaluated by the relation (Cheng et al., convection from tube surface to boiling water.
1988; McLean and Murdock, 1972)
Liquid Phase. Applying an energy balance to the liquid
Qin = Qin(mf) = mfiHf+Cj(Tf-T0)y, (6) phase for zero blowdown (QBD = 0) will lead to
Q can be evaluated by the relation
[MWCW(T - T0)} = hmvAnm{Tm -T)-QE-QL (14)
Qgo= Qg0(mf,ma,T) dt
= mf[VdCgo(Tgo - T0) + GwfAH + GwaCs(Tg0 - T0) where QE is the net rate of heat carried out by steam from
+ 30.5Vd(CO)] (7) the boiler; QL represents the rate of heat loss from the liquid
phase to the ambient, i.e.,
where Gw, = the water formation weight of the combustion
= .09h + .Olw, where h and w are the weight compositions QE = ms(is ~ '<,) - m w('/w - U (15)
of hydrogen and water in the fuel oil; Gwa = water vapor
content in the combustion air = 1.293"ya<paAB, in kg vapor/ QL = hwaAwa(T-Ta) (16)
kg oil, where ya is the absolute humidity. AH = latent heat where i0 is the enthalpy of water at datum state.
of water vapor = 597.5 + Cs(Tg0 - T0), kcal/kg oil; Vd =
<S?aA0. The semi-empirical relation developed by Huang et Stoichiometric Relation of Gaseous Phase. In addition
al. (1988) can be applied for Qgl, the heat transfer to the to the energy and mass balance relations, a stoichiometric
tube walls. relation for the chemical combustion process in the boiler
can be derived for the flowrate of combustion air (Cheng
Qgi = Qgi(mpma,T,Tgo) et al., 1983; McLean and Murdock, 1972),
= frtTAl(TG-T*) + hcAl(TG-Tl), (8) m
a = 9amfAa, (17)
where where

?i 1
°f ' <|>a(l + 1.61-y a )A 0) in Nm3/kgoil (18)
rc*r*4> Qin Taf
(9)
21
(19)
Qin mjlHf+Cf(Tf-T0)l K= — O2-0.5CO\
l
af (10) 21-79
M C m C
a g a S N-, I

Q,l Qe
+ T, (11) AQ = .0889c + .267 h--\ + 0333s, in Nm7kg oil

(20)
where fr, hc, <$>, C, n, and rw are the empirical constants;
8 2
o- is the Stefan-Boltzman constant, 5.669 x 10~ W/m K. AD is the theoretical combustion air flowrate per unit fuel
The combustion gas contained in the combustion chamber flowrate for stochiometric combustion, where c, o, and s
of the boiler has a very small thermal capacity in practice are, respectively, the weight concentrations of carbon, oxy-
as compared to the boiling water to which the radiative and gen, and sulfur in the fuel oil.
convective heat Q x will be transferred. The energy storage The above modeling results in the governing equations
rate due to the thermal capacity effect of the combustion of fire-tube boilers, i.e., Eqs. (12), (13), (14), and (17).
gas can then be relatively very small too as compared to
Qin and Qgl. This is due to a rapid chemical combustion I l l S m a l l P e r t u r b a t i o n s
process with heat generation rate Qin and a fast heat transfer
process <2„j. For the sake of simplification, the thermal ca- Using the small perturbations around a steady state:
pacity effect of the combustion gas is neglected here. This Qin{t) = Qin + j 2 / „ « ; Qgoit) = Qg„ + Qg0{t)\ QE(t) = QE +
may cause a larger error in predicting the flue gas tempera- QE{t); 7X0 = 7^+ f{t); TJf) = Tn±+ fm(t); mw(t) = mw +
ture response since the flue gas loss rate Q may be closely mjt)\ ms(t) = ms + ms(t); Qgl(t) = Qgl + Qgl(t), a perturbed
related to the energy storage rate of the combustion gas. model is obtained here from Eqs. (12) to (14) and the mass

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/747

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 balance relation dMw/dt - mw - ms and neglecting the
higher-order effects,

Qgo - Qin Qg\ (21)

dfm .
(22)
The subscripts "o" denote the derivative in respect to a
T
-f" + ( P + 1 ) f = P f '"" P ^
steady-state point. If the datum state is chosen as the feedwa-
(23) ter state at 7 ^ , then T0 = 7^,; i^ = i0; and Cew = 0 and we
obtain
where QE = Cesms + CeTf. (27)
i = QE +Cw{mw-ms){T-T0)- (24) Similarly achieved here for the flue gas heat loss Qgo is
MC„ MWCW Qgo = Cof"ia + Coama + C f (28)
7wa
h A
mw mw wa wa where
l . h mwA mw
K„ = -
h A "wiAv
C
°f= ( l ^ ) 0
= V C T
" ^ „o - T0) + GwfAH
ll
mw mw
The higher-order terms essentially represent the integral + GwaCs(Tgo-To) + 30.5VdCO,
effect due to the variation of water holdup in the shell side
fdQ„„\ C„„ - m, -
and the unbalance of steam and feedwater flowrates. This C
"""'^f =
~ f ^ - T0)+1.293ya-tC,(Tt0 - To)
makes the boiler to behave like a nonlinear time-variant
system. However, for safety reason, the water level in the 30.5-
fire-tube boiler is allowed to vary only within a finite range, •CO,
Pa
usually within 2 cm. The variation of holdup water volume
C
is therefore small as compared to the total holdup volume. ° ^ ( I H =™flV<tCSo + GwfCs + GwaCs].
The integral or time-variant effect can then be neglected by ^ go'o
using small-perturbation approximation. In other words, the
For the radiative heat transfer Qgl, small perturbation on
holdup water volume in the shell side can be assumed to be
Eq. (8) and using quasi-steady approximation yields
approximately constant.
Equations (21) to (23) are the small-perturbation equations 2 , 1 = Crf™f + C>a + Cj + Crgfgo, (29)
in terms of the perturbed heat flows Q's which are not the where
primary system inputs. From the point of view of system
dynamics, the direct or primary inputs of the boiler are the Al(4frcrTG + hc)[FfieCif/Al
fuel oil flowrate m^ the combustion air flowrate ma and the fiQgi\ -(^/mf){\-FaM
C„3
feedwater flowrate mw. The measurable outputs are the water ~f \dmfJ0 4fr<r(TGFfi-TlFrw) + hc(Ffi-Frw)-l
or steam temperature in the shell side T, the flue gas tempera-
ture T and the oxygen concentration 0 2 of the flue gas, Al(4fr<rTG + hc)(4>e/ma)(l - FJ
the steam load ms, meanwhile, acts as a disturbance input Cr.
to the boiler. The model obtained so far is apparently nonlin- a™„ L 4frv(T3GFfi - T\FrJ + hc(Ffi - Frw) - 1
ear in terms of these primary inputs since the heat flows Q ,
Qgl, and QE appearing in the above equations are nonlinear C „ J*Q* A^AfaTl + hJ
T —
37 3
functions of these input variables. Linearizations using small 4fMT GFfi - T\Frw) + he(Ffl - Frw) - 1
perturbation around a steady state are further required.
Applying small perturbation to Eq. (6) and using a first- -A,(4/,a7*+/y
C,„
rg =
order approximation will lead to Ur„ 4fru{TGFfi - T\Frw) + hc(Ffi - Frw) - 1
Qin Cifmf (25) T
af~T AiF, af
where Faf- — ' ^/;-(P - ! Frw~rw
•af Qin
Qsi\n-
Clfif = *Qi, Hf + CATf-TD). + nC\
~\d "•f'o
QgiTaf-T0
Taking small perturbation of Eq. (15) will lead to T G S T + ^
Qin Taf Qin
QE = Cewmw + Cesms + CeTf, (26)

where
"f m C
a g m C
a g m
aCg

cs
- (^d0=~iifw~io)
748/Vol. 116, DECEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 For the combustion air, small perturbation to Eq. (17) the state-space model is then obtained here in the form of
yields, neglecting the effects of CO concentration since it Eqs. (3) and (4) with
is usually very low in commercial boilers:
/ P+ 1 + KC
eT _P_\
™a = C
mf™f + C
mo°2< (30)
A(X,U): (40)
where P+K(CrT-RTCrB) -1_
BT T
p f l [ ^ + (4> a -i)A 0 ] \ " mw mw
C
*-\dr, l
f'o B(X,U)
79pamfA0$a ^
KCW(T-Tfw)
c„
2I0 2lN2-19(O2-0.5CO)'
K{Crf+RfCrs) K(Cra + RaCrs) (41)
All the coefficients C's are a function of the steady-state
BT BT
operating conditions and can be directly evaluated. r* mw r1 mw

IV System Dynamic Model / i o\

C(X,U): -RT 0 (42)
The state-space model is derived here first. The states are
defined as 0 0

x{ = T 0 0 0\
x
2 = Tm. (31) D(X,U) Rf -R„ 0 (43)

The above small-perturbation relations are then substituted

into Eqs. (21)-(23) to lead to -KjC^-CJT-T^)]]
B + 1 + KCe E(X,U) T (44)
-x,L. 1 +T • -^9 wa
T T o
wa wa
K[Ces-Cw(T-T0)] KCW(T-T0) Taking Laplace transform of Eqs. (3) and (4) will lead to
(32)
m„ m.
Y(s) = G(j)U(j) + W(j)f(j), (45)
[S + K(CrT - RTCrg)] 1
X\ X'y
BT The MIMO transfer-function plant model G(s) is then
K(Crf+RfCrs) Ui _ K(Cra - RaCrg&) _
+ „ — -m f + z: ~m„ (33) G^) = C(rf-Ar1B + D (46)
ST ' BT
" mw r* mw Ka„ K(wBs + w,) \
go
(34) aas + 7 i ^ + 72 a.0s + 7 i ^ + 72
T„„ = -RTxl + Rfiht - RJna -RTKa0 -RTK(w0s + wx)
On (35) + R7
'mo ^mo a0s +yxs + y2 a0J2 + 7 ^ + 72

where C. 0
r
- C
i f - C
o f - C /
R rl- (47)
h A f
~ c„„
og + c
"'wa wa
Crn + C C rT where
R„ RT ~
c +c C +C
. o g * Wg
yl = al + CeTK'Tmw
The state vector X, the manipulating input vector U, the 72=1 +{CeT-CrT+CrgRT)K
output vector Y, and the disturbance input vector T are
defined as a =T T
o mw wa
a , = ( l + B)Tmlv + Twa
x= 1
(36) fo= C
rf+CrgRf
\ m>
a
o = Cra ~ C
rg^a
Q J C T T C
o = mw\- w( ~ fw) ~ «]
Us ma (37)
\<
e, CW(T - Tfw) - Ces

f
/ ^\ = -Cw(T- Tfw).
*.. f
go (38)
o-, The plant disturbance model W(s) can be written as

T = (ms), (39) W(s) = C ( s I - A ) _ 1 E (48)

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/749

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 / K^s'+BJ \
W(s)
a0s2 + yxs + y2
RTK(QoS + 6,) +
G(s) + *•
a0s + 7,5 + 7 ;
0

The resultant MIMO plant model for a fire-tube shell

boiler can be seen to be 3- x 3. The interactive or cross X +^
B 4 + x i>^ c
effects between the inputs and outputs are present since the \y
plant transfer function G(s) is nondiagonal. The variation A

of plant dynamics with the steady-state operating points can D

clearly be seen from the present model.
The system dynamic model of fire-tube boilers developed Fig. 3 System block representation of fire-tube shell boilers, (a) Trans-
fer-function model; (b) state-space model
above is based on the physical modeling with several simpli-
fications. Some unmodeled dynamics must then exist which
may reflect to the time delay or high-order effects. The
time delay effect may not be negligible for the temperature id are the system parameters which can be identified using
response of boiling water in the shell side T(t). A modifica- field test results and thus are referred to as "identifiable
tion is thus required. system parameters."
Assuming that the time delays for the boiling water tem-
perature response f(t) with respect to the manipulating inputs V Parameter Estimation
U ( 0 and disturbance input F(t) are the same, i.e., id, then
1 Experimental Setup. A half-ton fire-tube shell
the first raw of G(*) and W(s) have to modified by multi-
boiler installed in the laboratory was used for the experiment
plying a delay term e~^dS. This assumption can approxi-
in the present study. Refer to the recent paper of Huang et al.,
mately hold since the dynamic responses Y (steam and flue
(1988) for the specification of the test boiler. The empirical
gas temperatures, f and f and flue gas concentration 6 2 )
constants defined in the radiative heat flux relation Qgl, Eq.
due to the disturbance input T (steam load ms) and the
(8), for this test boiler a r e / r = 0.38567; hc = 13.99 W / m 2 o C ;
manipulated input U (mass flowrates of fuel, air and feedwa-
<$> = 1123.09°C; C = 865.11; n = -0.0019912; rw = 3.078 x
ter, rhp ma,mw) are produced by a heat transfer through the
10"4 m 2 °C/W (Huang et al., 1988).
holdup water in the shell with a large thermal capacity and
are therefore approximately in the same order of magnitude. Three T-type thermocouples were installed in the shell
With this consideration, the system dynamic model of fire- side to measure the average boiling water or steam tempera-
tube boilers finally becomes ture in the shell side; among them, two were immersed 5 and
10 cm under the water level to detect the water temperature in
G(s) = shell side; and the other one was 10 cm above the liquid
level to measure the water vapor temperature. The average
value of these three temperatures was taken as the boiling
Ka^i Ke-"d(Wos + Wl)\
n
water (liquid phase) temperature. Other four T-type thermo-
<V + 7 ^ + 72 <V +7i* + 7 2 <V +7i* + 7 2 couples were installed in the chimney, feedwater storage
~RTK(w0s + w1) tank, fuel line of the burner, and ambient to respectively
-RTKfB -RTKa0
+ Rt -/?„ measure the temperatures of flue gas, feedwater, fuel oil,
a0s + 7 ^ + 7 2 a0s + 7 ^ + 72 a0s + yls + y2 and ambient. The precision error is estimated to be ±0.1°C.
-C,
mL 1 The pressure in the shell side was measured by a Endevco
0 8510-200 pressure transducer installed at the steam exit of
r /
the boiler. The flowrates of the feedwater and fuel oil were
(49) respectively measured by a MK-508 turbine flowmeter and a
OVAL EC-250 gear-type flowmeter, both with pulse output
IK{% s + e ^ e - " ^ signals. OVAL EC-250 has been calibrated to give a sensitiv-
a0s2 + yxs + y2 ity of .01714 kg/pulse with an uncertainty of ±1.6 percent.
The sensitivity for MK-508 is .00151 kg/pulse with an
W(J) = RjKjQ^ + e,) (50) uncertainty of ±2.9 percent. The flue gas compositions were
2
a0s + yxs + y2 measured by a gas analyzer of Energy Efficiency System
0 Co. which gave an uncertainty of ±0.3 percent for 0 2 , ±2
\ percent for CO gas and ±10 percent for C 0 2 gas. The steam
The schematic of system dynamic model in state-space and flowrate was measured by an orifice meter which was com-
transfer-function forms is presented in Fig. 3. posed of an orifice plate and two pressure transducers (Ya-
Equations (49) and (50) represent the system dynamic matake Honeywell piezoelectric transducers).
model of fire-tube boilers in which all the coefficients in- The dynamic data were taken using a data acquisition
volving C's can be directly predicted by the small-perturba- system AD700S. All the analog signals of the transducers
tion relations described in Section III; Tmiv, T K, (3 and and sensors were first picked up by a HP 3456A digital

750/Vol. 116, DECEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 -S(k)
voltmeter with GPIB output connected to IBM PC; the pulse
output signals of the turbine flowmeters were, meanwhile,
counted by a counter card (AD50120) within AD700S. Soft- C(z"')
ware compensation was used with a cold junction compensa- A(z"')
tion card (AD50010T) for temperature measurements. Two
10-channel multiplexers (AD50010) were used for multiple
channel measurements. The maximum reading rate of the Biz"')
z- n - T(K)
Alz-'l
data acquisition system was 330 reading/sec. The sampling a„(k)
time interval for the present experiment was 3 seconds.
The feedwater flow was regulated by a water level relay Fig. 4 System block diagram for parameter identification
control system. Since the laboratory boiler was equipped
with an automatic burner, for safety reason, the primary
x !
system inputs (flowrates of combustion air and fuel oil) A(z - 1 ) •= \ +axz + a2z ; B(z~l) = bxZ-1;
could not be arbitrarily adjusted in the present experiment. 1
C(z- ) = c1 + c2z- ; 1
(56)
Only the nozzle of the burner could be changed here to vary
the oil flowrate. For a given nozzle and a fixed setting of with the (;orresponding coefficients
excess air, the burner is automatically operated. It is due to = -(rx + r2)
«i
this restriction that the primary inputs (mf, ms,mw, ma) cannot
«2 = rxr2
be chosen as the input signals for system identification in
the present study. Instead, the secondary input signal Qgl Kplp1(r2- /-,)
and £ were used. *i
P\ 'Pi
c
2 Input Signals. Combining Eqs. (22) and (23), while i = -KtmwPlPl
taking into account the time delay, will lead to c
K . Pir2-Pirx (57) + ze{n -r2)
2
Ke- "i S P\ -Pi
T(s) 2,i (51) where rx and r2 are the z-poles of the plant; px and p2 are
^mw^Wa(S+Pl)(S+P2)
s-poles.
Ke-">i(s + ze
•£ 3 Signal Pretreatment and Parameter Estimation.
Pretreatment or prefiltering before system identification is
= GT(s)Qgl(s) + WT(s)Us), (52) required since the testing signals could be corrupted by
internal and external disturbances or noises. The internal
Ke ~"d disturbance was mainly generated by the severe agitation
GT{s) effect of the boiling water and evaporating process in the
shell side (i.e., an unmodeled dynamics) and imposed on
the response of steam or boiling water temperature. The
T
mw
T
Js + p 0(s+p y
2
(53) external noises were essentially the measurement noises.
Both kinds of disturbances and noises were in high-fre-
where ze = 1/T mw and
quency range, as compared to the system response. A low-
( l + P ) T m w + T wa 1 pass filtering for the testing signals was therefore applied.
+ p2 PiPi =
P\ T' mw T wa T T The following third-order smoothing filter F(z~l) was used
mw wa in the present study,
p mw 'wa^-P 1 + p2) - T mw - T wa
(54)
1 i

yk = 3 2 ad- (58)
The secondary input signal Q t can be evaluated by measur- i= -i
ing Qin and Q and by using Eq. (21); |_can be evaluated where uk andyk are, respectively, the input and output signals
by Eq. (24) and the relation QE = QE - QE. Both the input
of the filter. The discrete-time model in terms of the filtered
signals Qgl and I were mainly produced by a cyclical opera-
signals then becomes, from Eq. (55),
tion of a feedwater pump due to the relay on/off during the
water level control. It was found in the present experiments A{q-X)f*(k) = B{q-l)Q*gl(.k - nd)
that they were approximately persistently exciting over the
+ C(q-1)i*(k-nd) + e(k) (59)
frequency range of 0 ~ 0.3 Hz. From the above derivations,
l l l
the parameters to be determined are K, Td, ze, px and p2 where e(k) is the residue; A(q~ ), B(q~ ) and C(q~ ) are the
which corresponds to the system parameters K, id, rmw, twa, estimates of the system parameters in terms of backward
and (3. shift operator q~l\ f*(k), Q*gl (k - nd) and l*(k - nd) are
Equation (52) can be discretized for digital signal pro- the filtered signals by the filter F{z~l). That is,
cessing by z-transform to yield
f*(k) = F(q~l )f (*); Q*gl(k - nd) = F(q-l)Qgl(k - nd);
1
n
B
(z )A C(z- ) - l*(k-nd) = F{q- )l(k-nd) 1
(60)
T{z) ~d fie,(z) + (55)
1
A(z' ) A(z'1) Uz)
The system block diagram for parameter identification is
where shown in Fig. 4.

journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/751

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 fig- Model fitting results, (a) m, =J4.6 kg/hr, P s =^3.8 kg/cm 2 ; (£>)
.0 kg/hr, P, = 5.1 kg/cm 2 ; (c) m, = 37.9 kg/hr, P s = 7.3 kg/cm 2
m,=

The least-squares method was used in the present study

for estimating the system parameters using Eq. (59). The
dynamic data was seen to closely follow the predicted values
as shown in Fig. 5 for some of the results.
The parameter estimation is well known to be unbiased if
the residue e(k) is a statistically independent random process
(Hsia, 1979). The whiteness of the residue can be examined Fig. 6 Whiteness of residue, (a) m, =_14.6 kg/hr, Pn := 3.8 kg/cm 2 ; (b)
by using the normalized autocorrelation function of e{k), m, = 26.0 kg/hr, P, = 5.1 kg/cm 2 ; (c) m, = 33.6 kg/hr, P, = 6.2 kg/cm 2
p(«).

p(w) (61)
represented by the fuel flowrate m* and the steam pressure
Ps. The approximate empirical relation was derived as:
where Ree(n) is the autocorrelation function of the residue.
The residues e(k) for various operating conditions being t|i = C'mjPl, (63)
quite close to a white signal can be seen from Fig. 6.
The present tests were run at six different operating condi- where i|/ represents the parameters pv p2, nd, ze, Tmw. The
tions with the fuel flowrate ranging from 14.6 to 37.9 kg/ identified results as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 7 have been
hr; the water flowrate ranging from 181 to 465 kg/hr; the obtained by using least-squares fitting.
steam pressure ranging from 3.8 to 7.3 kg/cm2gage. The
identified system parameters in terms of ax, a2, bx, cx, c2 5 Model Verification. The dynamic model previously
are presented in Table 1. The steady-state gains K were developed can be verified by substituting the identified pa-
determined by the relation derived from Eq. (14), rameters Tmw, Twa, K, (3 and rd and the coefficients C's into
the MIMO model, Eqs. (32) to (35) or Eqs. (3) and (4), for
1 T-T„
K= (62) system simulation and comparing with the test results. The
^wcAwa Qgl ~ Ql parameters tmw, iwa, K, (3 and Jd were evaluated using the
empirical relation, Equation (63) and Table 3; the coeffi-
From the above results, the parameters Pi,p2>nd<ze(=l/ Tmw), cients C's were, meanwhile, calculated by the small-pertur-
Twa were determined and from which (3 can be evaluated by bation relations derived in Section ffl.
Eq. (54) using ze, Twa, px, and p2. The final results are
The test data can be seen from Fig. 8 to coincide very
presented in Table 2. All the identifiable system parameters,
well with the simulations for the response of steam (or
T „ , Jwa, (3, Td, and K, appearing in the state-space equations,
boiling water) temperature f(t). The simulation results for
Eqs. (40) to (44) and Equations (49) and (50), thus can be
the flue gas temperature are in a larger error (Fig. 9). This
determined from these results.
is due to the fact that the present modeling used the quasi-
4 Empirical Correlations of Parameters. The param- steady approximation and ignored the thermal capacity effect
eters pl,p2, nd, ze{= 1/T„ W ), Twa can be seen to vary with the in the gaseous phase. However, the error in predicting the
steady-state operating conditions which can be essentially flue gas temperature response is tolerable.

752/Vol. 116, DECEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1 Z-plane parameter estimation
mf P,
kg/hr kg/cm 2 gage "I a
i *i ^1 c2 '
14.6 3.8 -1.7063 .7088 -9.303 x 10"9 -2.222 x 10"9 -3.632 x 10"11
21.9 5.2 -1.8572 .8592 1.152 x 10"8 -9.205 x 10"10 2.924 x 10"10
26.0 5.1 -1.6922 .6940 -2.514 x 10-8 -3.856 x 10"9 2.211 x 10"9
33.6 6.2 -1.8818 .8826 -5.639 x lO"10 -2.191 x 10' 9 1.778 x 10"9
33.6 4.0 -1.4437 .4447 -1.884 x 10"8 -1.059 x 10"8 8.233 x 10"9
37.9 7.3 -1.8674 .8683 6.656 x 10"10 -1.838 x 10~9 1.571 x 10""9

Table 2 System parameter estimation

mf Ps Ts P\ Pi ze K "d Twa
kg/hr kg/cm 2 gage °C s"1 s"1 s-1 °C/W a S
14.6 3.8 344.7 .002868 .1119 .4001 .01644 5 1247.3
21.9 5.2 345.6 .005366 .0452 .2449 .00865 1 1009.0
26.0 5.1 345.3 .001951 .1198 .1694 .01048 3 724.7
33.6 6.2 349.9 .002553 .0391 .0667 .00703 3 668.6
33.6 4.0 344.2 .000575 .2696 .1080 .00836 6 697.3
37.9 7.3 356.2 .002329 .0448 .0519 .00413 4 498.0

- simulated ... measured feedwater flow signal (ON/OFF)

Table 3 Semi-empirical correlations of system
parameters.

* c
Pv s .02878 -2.4041 3.2525
p2, s" .36795 1.3888 -3.7238
ze, s 147.90 -1.7757 -.7171
K, °C/W .37991 -.7084 -.9099
nd, A 1.6988 1.0706 -1.7663 ? &—-';
T
«. 0 . s .00014 -.7600 -.2470 • j J \ i J1 1 A i 1 r
h" 1
i iK'" A ~ / X i •'k
">/• kg/hr; P,- kg/ cm gage
f . j/|\i/i Vl/I \ If v/iVi/V / W w
s"
1 1

o
J - fr ! T ! If
t_. T f ; f T |-
• Pt

004
Fig. 8 _Model verification for_steam temperature response, (a) m, = 21.9
: kg/hr, P„ = 5.2 kg/cm 2 ; (b) m, = 33.6 kg/hr, P, = 6.2 kg/cm 2
002

,0' ',
.002 - simulated ... measured feedwater Bow signal (ON/OFF)

40 ' ' ' ' 1

^ • s

20
0 ,'
0 ,'

500 1000 1500 0 10 20

FITTED, eqn(63) Fig. 9 Model verification for flu<2 gas temperature response, (a) m, ••
33.6 kg/hr, P„ = 6.2 kg/cm 2 ; (b) m, = 37.9 kg/hr, Ps = 7.3 kg/cm 2
Fig. 7 Fitting of empirical relations for system parameters

in Table 2 to be due to a heat transfer from the metallic

VI Discussions tube (solid phase) to the holdup water in the shell side. The
The time constant for the response of solid phase tempera- time constant Tmw (= 1 lze) decreases with an increasing fuel
ture can be seen from the estimated parameters presented firing rate m, and operating pressure Ps and is in the order

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/753

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 of 2 to 20 s. This is due to the fact that the boiling phenome- time-variant dynamic modeling based on the transport phe-
non in the fire-tube boiler is possibly film boiling. The metal nomena in the fire-tube boiler. A linear time-invariant per-
surface temperature tends to rise as the heating rate (i.e. fuel turbed model around steady-state operating points was then
firing rate) increases. This causes the convective heat transfer derived. The identifiable system parameters T„ W , Twa, K, |3,
v
coefficient hmw to decrease. This makes the time constant and id were then identified by using field test data and
Tmw = ^ m C„//! miv A mw increase. least-squares estimation method; the coefficients C's were,
The time constant Twa for the response of liquid phase meanwhile, predicted directly using the small-perturbation
due to the heat loss from the holdup water in the shell side relations. Empirical correlations of the identifiable parame-
to the ambient increases_with increasing fuel firing rate rrij- ters were further derived to account for the variation of
and operating pressure P s 'and are in the order of 8 to 20 parameters with operating conditions. The present perturbed
minutes. This is mainly due to the fact that a higher fuel model is thus semi-empirical and can describe the dynamics
firing rate and operating pressure result in a higher agitation behaviour of fire-tube boilers over a wide range of operating
effect of the boiling water (liquid phase). This in turn, in- conditions. The predictions of dynamic responses using the
creases the overall heat transfer coefficient hwaAwa and thus present model were shown to agree very well with the test
reduces the time constant j w a . results.
The system dynamics of the fire-tube shell boilers is of
second order as seen from the present study. Two s-poles, Acknowledgment
p{ and p2, and one s-zero, ze exist. The results presented in The present work was supported by the National Science
Table 2 further show that the magnitudes of s-pole p2 and Council of Taiwan, the Republic of China through grant no.
s-zero ze are in the same order; the s-pole pl is, meanwhile, NSC77-0401-E002-17.
smaller than p2 by an order. A order reduction to a first-
order model is then possible (Franklin et al., 1986).
References
Three sources of errors exist in the system identification:
Aleksandrov, V. V., and Rassokhin, G. N., 1985, "Predicting the Dynamic
the time-variant or integral effect due to the variation of Instability of Oncethrough Sodium-Water Steam Generator," Thermal Eng.,
holdup water level in the shell side, the internal disturbance Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 62-64.
Anderson, J. H., 1969, "Dynamic Control of a Power Boiler," Proc. IEE,
induced by the agitation of boiling water, and the assumption Vol. 116, No. 7, pp. 1257-1268.
of lumping in the modeling. However, the variation of Chen, Y. C , Chuan, S., and Lee, M. Y., 1983, "A study on calculation method
holdup water was relatively small (<2 percent) as compared of boiler efficiency," Technical Report No. EMR-024, Energy and Mining
Service Organization, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan.
to the total holdup water in shell side. The internal distur- Chien, K. L., Ergin, E. I., Ling, C , and Lee, A., 1958, "Dynamic Analysis
bance was filtered out by a low-pass smoothing filter F(z~}). of a Boiler," Trans. ASME, Vol. 80, pp. 1809-1819.
Claus, G. and Stephan, W., 1985, "A General Computer Simulation Model
The assumption of lumping can be corrected by adding a for Furnaces and Boilers," ASHRAE Trans, Vol. 91, Part 1, CH-85-02 NO. 1.
time delay term in the model. The resultant error in the Doebelin, E. O., 1983, Measurement System: Application and Design,
parameter estimation can then be negligible. This was proven McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Franklin, G. F., Powell, J. D. and Emami-Naeini, A. 1986, Feedback Control
by the comparison of the test results with the simulation by of Dynamic Systems, Addison-Wesley.
using the present model. Hsia, T. C , 1979, System Identification, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
Huang, B. J., Yen, R. H. and Shyu, W. S., 1988, "A Steady-State Thermal
The cross or interactive effects between system inputs Performance Model of Fire-Tube Shell Boiler," ASME J., Gas Turbines and
and outputs are noticeably taken into account in the present Powers, Vol. 110, pp. 173-179.
Kwan, H. W., 1970, "A Mathematical Model of a 200 MW Boiler," Int. J.
MEMO dynamics model. The effects of parameter variations Control, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 977-998.
on the plant dynamics is one of the sources causing plant Lebrun, J. J., Hannay, J., Dols, J. M. and Morant, M. A., 1985, "Research
of a Good Boiler Model for HVAC Energy Simulation," ASHRAE Trans, Vol.
uncertainty as in regard to the issue of robust control using 91, Part 1, CH-85-02 No. 2.
linear controller design procedures. The parameter variations Malmstrom, T. G., Mundt, B., and Bring, A. G„ 1985, "A Simple Boiler
may result from the variation of operating conditions. The Model," ASHRAE Trans, Vol. 91, Part 1, CH-85-02, No. 3.
McDonald, I. P. and Kwatny, H. G., 1973, "Design and Analysis of Boiler-
dynamics model identified in the present study can be used Turbine-Generated Controls Using Optimal Linear Regulatory Theory," Trans.
to accurately estimate this type of plant uncertainty and IEEE, Vol. AC-18, No. 3, pp. 202-209.
McLean, W. G., and Murdock, I. W., 1972, "ASME Power Test Code Steam
thus it is applicable to the design of various robust control Generating Units PTC 4 . 1 , " ASME, New York.
systems. Nicholson, H., 1964, "Dynamic Optimization of a Boiler," Proc. IEE, Vol.
I l l , No. 8, pp. 1479-1499.
Nicholson, H., 1965, "Dual-Mode Control of a Time-Varying Boiler Model
VII Conclusion with Parameter and State Estimation," Proc. IEE, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 383-395.
Nicholson, H., 1967, "Integrated Control of a Nonlinear Boiler Model," Proc.
A system dynamics model of fire-tube shell boilers has IEE, Vol. 114, No. 10, pp. 1569-1576.
Ray, A., and Bowman, H. F., 1976, "A Nonlinear Dynamic Model of a Once-
been developed here by using a model-based approach. The Through Subcritical Steam Generator," ASME JOURNAL DYNAMIC SYSTEMS,
derivation of the dynamic model started with a nonlinear MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL, Vol. 98, pp. 332-339.

754/Vol. 116, DECEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASM!

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/23/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms