Unmesh-12,Summer Internship programmme

Increasing BBGS Unit # 3 efficiency by reduction of

boiler feed pump power consumption & un-burnt
carbon in ash

Project by Yashvardhan Joshi

Project guide Mr. Souvik dutta,DGM,Budge Budge
Generating Station.CESC Ltd

Acknowledgement

At the onset I must thank all the people at BBGS without whose active support
this project would not have materialized. In view of this I would like to extend my
sincere thanks and gratitude to everyone who has supported me during the
UNMESH 12 internship programme.
I am highly indebted to Mr. Souvik Dutta for his guidance and constant
supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project &
also for his support in completing the project. I would also thank Mr. Kaushik
Chaudhuri, Mr. Suman Sengupta, Mr. Debashish Chatterjee, Mr. Sharnath
Banarjee, Mr. Sk. Sabir Ali, Mr. Tapas Ghosh and Mr. Subhendu Ghosh for their
constant support and guidance.
I would also like to express my special gratitude and thanks to industry people
and CESC HRD for giving me such attention and time.
My thanks and appreciation also goes to my parents, family and professors
from IIT Kharagpur who have willingly helped me out to achieve my objective.

Certification

This is to certify that Yashvardhan Joshi has worked

under my guidance on Increasing BBGS Unit # 3
efficiency by reduction of boiler feed pump power
consumption & un-burnt carbon in ash under the
UNMESH 12 internship program from 14th May 2012 to
7th July 2012. He has successfully completed the project.

Date:
Signature
Mr. Souvik Dutta
Deputy General Manager
Budge Budge Generating
Station , CESC

Objective
1).Improvement of BBGS Unit 3 boiler efficiency by
reducing un-burnt in ash.
2). Reduction of BBGS Unit 3 auxiliary consumption
power by reducing boiler feed pump power
consumption

Content

1.
2.

Introduction
Improvement of BBGS Unit 3 boiler efficiency by reducing un-burnt in ash.

Boiler efficiency calculation

Un-burnt in plant calculation and trends
PF fineness calculation and role of mills
Variation in un-burnt with PA flow and net savings

3.

Reduction of BBGS Unit 3 auxiliary consumption

power by reducing boiler feed pump power
consumption
Importance of drum level control and methods
Types of BFP controls and their advantages
Energy consumption in various operational modes of BFP
Net energy savings using 3-Element control mode.

4.

Conclusion

Introduction
Energy projects are among the most capital intensive infrastructure investments. Decisions
made today will form our lives for decades, and it is important that these decisions are based on facts
and a proper economic assessment of available options. The global power sector is facing a

number of issues, but the most fundamental challenge is meeting the rapidly growing demand
for energy services in a sustainable way, at an affordable cost and in the environmentally
acceptable manner. This challenge is further compounded by the fact that the major part of the
increase in demand for power and hence in the emissions in the future, will come from
developing countries, who strive to achieve a rapid economic development.

A power plant produces electrical energy and also consumes substantial amount of this
energy in the form of auxiliary consumption. Auxiliary power comprises the power consumption
by all the unit auxiliaries as well as the common station requirement such as station lighting, air
conditioning etc. Plant auxiliaries include all motor-driven loads, all electrical power
conversion and distribution equipment, and all instruments and controls. Therefore Auxiliary
power in a power plant can define in three categories of auxiliary systems.
1. Drive power components such as pumps, fans, motors and their power electronics
such as variable frequency drives. These provide drive power for fuel handling, furnace draft,
and feed-water pumping. These systems and components will be referred to as Drive power.
2. Electrical power systems conversion, protection, and distribution equipment,
excluding motors and variable-frequency drives. This includes power transformers and LV and
MV equipment. These systems and components will be referred to as Electric Power Systems.
3. The instruments, control, and optimization systems. These provide boiler-turbine and
other control functions. These systems and components will be referred to as Automation
This auxiliary equipment has a critical role in the safe operation of the plant and
equipments used for auxiliary power are varying for different types of power plant. Reduction
of auxiliary power consumption could thus help increase the efficiency of a power plant.

Figure 1: Various losses in a thermal power plant

The boiler losses represent around

35% of the total losses. Of these losses
combustion losses represent around 3% of the
total losses. For coal to burn effectively there
are three factors necessary, namely:

Temperature

Time

Turbulence

The time required for carbon to burn depends

on the average size of the coal particles, which
in turn depends on the type of boiler. In a
pulverized fuel boiler the average size of coal
particles is about 75 micron.
Figure 2: Losses in a boiler

While various losses are controlled by theoretical and metallurgical restriction the
combustion losses are due to un-burnt carbon. Un-burnt carbon is carried with either the
bottom ash or the fly ash. Insufficient time or insufficient oxygen can also lead to carbon
monoxide formation which is also a part of combustion losses. While various other losses are
difficult to reduce the combustion losses can be reduced significantly by optimizing the
operation conditions. The PF fineness of coal plays a significant part in un-burnt carbon
percentage control. The PF fineness is measured according to standards set by ASTM and is a
primary measure of the fineness of the fuel and consequently the time required for
combustion.
Un-burnt in ash can also be reduced by reducing the PA flow. The PA flow is used to
carry pulverized fuel to the boiler, when the PA flow is reduced the velocity of coal going into
the furnace is reduced, consequently giving the coal particles more time to burn.

Improvement of BBGS Unit 3 boiler efficiency by

reducing un-burnt in ash.

Boiler efficiency calculation :

Table-1: Coal analysis of composite coal sample from all the running coal feeders except
Feeder D
Description

Unit

Value

Carbon

40.16

Hydrogen

2.59

Nitrogen

1.02

Oxygen

5.39

Sulphur

0.44

Moisture

1.85

Ash

48.55

TOTAL

100

kCal/kg

4020

Coal analysis

GCV

During boiler efficiency test flue gas is measured with flue gas analyzer at APH outlet and it is
given below.

Design parameter of Air Pre-heater

The Air heater leakage percentage at the SAH is computed by following equation.
% AHL =

O2 outlet- O2 inlet X 0.9 X 100%

21- O2 outlet

Where
%AHL - Air heater leakage, percentage gas flow entering air heater
O2outlet - Oxygen at air heater outlet on a dry basis, measured, %

O2inlet

- Oxygen at air heater inlet on a dry basis, measured, %

21 -

Constant, percentage oxygen in ambient air

The Air heater leakage percentage at the SAH Pass A is

= 2%

The Air heater leakage percentage at the SAH Pass B is

= 3%

Secondary Air Pre-heater performance

Flue gas Temperature, 0C

Oxygen, %

Leakage,%

SAH Inlet

305

2.6

2.0

SAH Outlet

146

Description A pass

Description B pass

3.0
0

Flue gas Temperature, C

Oxygen, %

Leakage,%

SAH Inlet

322

2.4

3.0

SAH Outlet

152

3.0

10

Observation:
here is an increase in oxygen percentage, indicating air leakage

Effectiveness of Air Pre Heater

Towards assessing the performance of air heater, the air and gas temperatures have been
measured. The effectiveness of the heater is given below:
The corrected flue gas outlet temperature from the APH is computed by the following equation.
Corrected gas outlet temperature (TGONI)

TGONI

AL X Cpa X (TGO TAI)

= ---------------------------------- + TGO
100 X Cpg

Where,
AL
Cpg
Cpa
TAI
TGO

=
=
=
=
=

Air leakage into APH system (%)

Specific heat of Gas (kCal/kg/0C)
Specific heat of air at inlet of APH (kCal/kg/0C)
Temperature of air at inlet of APH (0C)
Temperature of Gas at outlet of APH (0C)

The Corrected gas outlet temperature (TGONI) at outlet of SAH A

TGONI

2.0 X 0.24 X (146 37)

= ---------------------------------- + 146
100 X 0.23

= 148.27 0C
The Corrected gas outlet temperature (TGONI) at outlet of SAH B

TGONI

3.0 X 0.24 X (152 36)

= ---------------------------------- + 152
100 X 0.23
= 155.63 0C

11

Corrected gas outlet temperature of SAH

Description

Unit

APH A

APH B

O2 at APH inlet

2.6

2.4

O2 at APH outlet

3.0

3.0

Air leakage

2.0

3.0

Cp of air

kCal/Kg/0C

0.24

0.24

Gas leaving temp.

146

152

Air entering temp

37

36

Cp of flue gas

kCal/Kg/ C

0.23

0.23

Corrected temperature of flue gas

148.27

155.63

The effectiveness (Gas Side Efficiency) of the air pre-heater is calculated by the following
equation
Flue Gas Analysis at APH outlet
Description

Unit

Boiler-3

Flue gas Temperature

149

Corrected Temperature

151.95

Ambient Temperature

35

DBT

35

WBT

29

Oxygen

CO2

16

CO

ppm

28

During boiler efficiency test fly ash and bottom ash sample is collected and the ash analysis
report is given below.

12

Table-3: Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Analysis

Description

Unit

Boiler-3

Un-burnt

2.745

Carbon in fly ash

kg/kg of fuel

0.01133

Un-burnt

7.515

Carbon in bottom

kg/kg of fuel

0.0055

Fly Ash Analysis

Bottom Ash Analysis

The procedure of calculation of un-burnt in both fly ash and bottom ash is described later in this
document.
Observation:

Un-burnt in bottom ash is found in higher side.

Boiler efficiency:
Boiler efficiency is calculated by indirect method based on flue gas, coal and ash analysis report
as given below,
The boiler efficiency is calculated by the indirect method and is as follows.
Theoretical Air requirement = [(11.6 C) + {34.8 (H2 O2/8)} + (4.35S)]/100
(Kg / kg of fuel)
Where,
C
H2
O2
S

=
=
=
=

Weight of Carbon in fuel (%)

Weight of Hydrogen in fuel (%)
Weight of Oxygen in fuel (%)
Weight of Sulphur in fuel (%)

13

Theoretical Air requirement = [(11.6 40.16) + {34.8 (2.59 5.39 / 8)} + (4.35
0.44)] / 100 (kg / kg of fuel)
= 5.34 kg/kg of fuel

Excess air (%) =

O2 %
------------------- x 100
(21 - O2 %)

Excess air (%) =

3
--------------- x 100
(21 3)

16.67 %

Actual mass of air supplied per kg of Fuel (AAS)

AAS = (1+ (Oxygen content measured at the exit of boiler / (21 - Oxygen content measured at
the exit of boiler) X Theoretical air required

AAS

= (1+ (3 / (21- 3)) X 5.34

= 6.23 kg / kg of coal

Mass of the dry flue gas =

Mass of the dry flue gas =
=

Heat Loss in Dry Flue Gases (%) =

(1+ Actual mass of air supplied per Kg of fuel)

(1+ 5.29 kg / kg of coal)
7.23 kg / kg of coal

m X Cpf X (Tf-Ta) X 100

GCV of Fuel

Where,
M
Cpf
Ta

=
=
=

Mass of dry flue gases (kg)

Specific Heat of Dry flue gases (kCal/kg OC)
Temperature of ambient air (OC)

14

Heat Loss in Dry Flue Gases (%)

= 7.23 X 0.23 X (151.95-35) X 100

4020
= 4.84%

Percentage heat loss due to evaporation of water formed due to H2 in fuel

=
9 X H2 X {584 + Cp X (Tf - Ta)} X 100
GCV of Fuel

Where,
Cp

Specific Heat of water, (kCal/kg 0C)

Percentage heat loss due to evaporation of water formed due to H2 in fuel

=
9 X (2.59/100) X {584 + 0.45 X (151.95 35)} X 100
4020
= 3.69%

Percentage heat loss due to moisture content in fuel

=

Where,

Mf

Mf X (584 + (Tf - Ta) X Cp) X 100

GCV of Fuel

Mass of moisture content in fuel

Percentage heat loss due to moisture content in fuel

=
(1.85/100) X (584 + (151.95 35) X 0.45) X 100
4020
= 0.29%

Percentage of heat loss by moisture in air

=
{AAS X Humidity Factor X Cp X (Tf - Ta)} X 100
GCV of Fuel
Where, AAS

Actual air supplied (kg/kg of dry air)

15

Percentage of heat loss by moisture in air

=
{7.23 X 0.0229X 0.45 X (151.95 35)} X 100
4020
=
0.22%

Loss due to CO present in flue gas

=

CO X C X 5744 x100
(CO + CO2) X GCV of Fuel

Where,
C
CO
CO2

=
=
=

Weight of carbon in fuel (%)

% in the flue gas
% in the flue gas

Percentage of heat loss by incomplete combustion

=
(28/1000000) X (40.16/100) X 5744 x100
((28/1000000) + (16/100)) X 4020
=

0.0015 %

Percentage heat losses due to radiation and convection losses & unaccounted (Q) (assumed)
=
1.5 %

Percentage of heat loss by un-burnt in Fly Ash

Carbon in fly ash= (Un-burnt in fly ash/100) X (85/100) X (ash % in coal/100)
= (2.745/100) X (85/100) X (48.55/100)
= 0.0113 kg/kg of fuel

Percentage of heat loss by un-burnt in fly ash

=
Carbon in fly ash, kg / kg of Fuel burnt X GCV of carbon X 100
GCV of Fuel
Percentage of heat loss by un-burnt in Fly Ash
= 0.0113 X (33820/4.184) X 100
4020
= 2.28 %

16

Percentage of Heat Loss by un-burnt in Bottom Ash

Carbon in bottom ash= (un-burnt in bottom ash/100) X (20/100) X (ash % in coal/100)

= (7.515/100) X (15/100) X (48.55/100)

= 0.0055 kg/kg of fuel

Percentage of Heat Loss by un-burnt in Bottom Ash

=

Carbon in bottom ash, kg / kg of Fuel X GCV of carbon X 100

GCV of fuel

= 0.0055 X (33820/4.184) X 100

4020
=

1.11%

Sensible Heat Loss from Fly Ash

=

Total mass of fly Ash X 0.2 X (Tf - Ta) X100

GCV of Fuel

= (48.55 X 0.85/100) X 0.2 X (151.95-35) X100 / 4020

= 0.24%
Sensible Heat Loss from Bottom Ash
=
Total mass of bottom Ash X 0.2 X (Tb - Ta) X100
GCV of Fuel

= (48.55 X 0.15/100) X 0.2 X (800-35) X100/ 4020

= 0.28%

17

Total losses = 4.84+3.69+0.29+0.22+0.0015+1.5+2.28+1.11+0.24+0.28

= 14.45 %
Boiler Efficiency (%) = 100 Total Losses
= 100 14.45
= 85.55%
As per manual design boiler efficiency at design coal is 87.69%
A deviation in the boiler efficiency from the design efficiency points to the
fact of an existing scope for improvement in the present operation conditions.
We observe that the un-burnt carbon in bottom and fly ash contribute to about
25% of the total losses in a boiler.

18

 Un-burnt in plant calculation and trends

Un-burnt in ash: Fly ash is a byproduct of coal combustion and it contains many different
mineral matters such as carbon, iron oxide and Sulphur. Unburned carbon in fly ash is a major
index to determine the efficiency of coal combustion in a power plant. Fly ash with a high
volume of unburned carbon not only indicates poor combustion efficiency, which results in a
high emission of pollutants and higher fuel requirement, it also prevent power plants from
selling the coal fly ash to secondary markets for recycling. In order to ensure the combustion
efficiency and maintain low unburned carbon content in fly ash, the power industry is
constantly investigating the most effective way to monitor the unburned carbon in fly ash.

Un-burnt carbon in Bottom ash

The PG design of the unit states the un-burnt in bottom ash as 4.3%.
However the un-burnt carbon in bottom ash has a higher average compared to the PG test
recommendations. The following is the procedure for the for calculating the un-burnt carbon in
bottom ash

Un-burnt carbon in Bottom ash calculation procedure

1. Take 10-15 grams of bottom ash sample in a watch
glass.
2. Place the sample in a hot air oven at 108 2 C for a
sufficient period of time so that the weight becomes
constant (2 hours).
3. Take 1 gram of this ash sample in an ash crucible.
4. Burn this in a furnace at 810 10 C for 1 hour.
5. Cool the sample for 10 minutes in a desiccators.
6. The final weight of the ash sample is taken.
7. The loss in weight is the amount of combustible
present in ash.
Figure 3: Weight balance

19

The following is the trend for the un-burnt in bottom ash for Unit-3 for the FY 2011-12:

Figure 4: Bottom ash un-burnt carbon trend

Un-burnt carbon in Fly ash

The PG design of the unit states the un-burnt in bottom ash as 1.5%. However the yearly
average is relatively higher than the PG test recommendations. The following is the procedure
for calculating the un-burnt carbon in bottom ash.

20

Figure 5: Hot air oven

Figure 6: Muffle Furnace

21

Un-burnt carbon in Fly ash calculation procedure

1. Take 10-15 grams of fly ash sample in a watch glass.
2. Place the sample in a hot air oven at 108 2 C for a sufficient period of time so that the
weight becomes constant (30 45 min ).
3. Take 1 gram of this ash sample in an ash crucible.
4. Burn this in a furnace at 810 10 C for 1 hour.
5. Cool the sample for 10 minutes in a desiccators.
6. The final weight of the ash sample is taken.
7. The loss in weight is the amount of combustible present in ash.

The following is the trend for the un-burnt in bottom ash for Unit-3 for the FY 2011-12:

Figure 7: Fly ash un-burnt carbon trend

22

The higher values of the un-burnt in both fly ash and bottom ash could be due to various
reasons. One such reason could be related with PF fineness of coal. The PF fineness of the coal
might be low resulting in larger average surface area, leading to more un-burnt coal in ash. We
observe the PF fineness characteristics of various mills in Unit-3.
PF fineness is done using iso-kinetic sampling of coal from various mills.
The PF grading test is as follows

PF fineness calculation and role of mills

PF grading procedure
1. Air drying of sample is recommended if high moisture (>10%) coal is being fired or sieving is
not performed immediately after sample extraction. This is to prevent the coagulation of
sample on top of sieve screens which prevents particles to pass through screens and results in
non-representative coal fineness. Coagulation of coal sample usually appears as small "balls" of
coal on 100 Mesh screens. ASTM D-197 specifies drying at 18 27F above room temperature
until weight loss is less than 0.1% difference.
This step can usually been eliminated if the following criteria have been established:
Pulverizer Discharge temperature above 160F
Fuel moisture is moderate
Collected samples are placed in air-tight Ziploc bags
Sieving is performed immediately after extraction
No coagulation of coal is observed during sieving
2. Remove 50 grams of coal from the sample. This is done by using an ASTM riffler or by
rolling the sample (usually between 200 g and 800 g). We advocate the riffler method which
is cleaner and more efficient. A 50 gram sample can not be simply scooped or spooned from
the whole sample; this may result in a disproportionate quantity of fine or coarse particles. If
sample is not exactly 50 g, be sure to weigh and record initial sample weight. The figure below
illustrates a coal riffle as specified by ASTM D 197-87. Plot the percentages passing each sieve
to the Rosin and Rammler equation. The percent passing 50, 100 and 200 Mesh should fall on a
straight line. If the plotted line is not linear, the sample is non-representative and must be
extracted. The Figure below illustrates representative coal fineness plotted against the Rosin
and Rammler equation. Non-representative sampling is the result of one of following:

23

 Sampling rate not isokinetic

Testing error or error in calculating sampling rate
Sample Splitting or Coal sieving error
Excessive sample Moisture

3. Shake the sample through a series of

50, 100, 140 and 200 Mesh U.S. Standard
sieves. Figure 8 illustrates the order of the
sieves.
4. Record the weight of coal residue on
each screen and coal in the bottom pan
(passing 200 Mesh). Great care should be
taken in weighing coal sample residue on
each screen. Residue on 50 Mesh will be
very small and must be weighed
accurately to yield representative data. A
scale capable of accuracy to 1/1000
(0.001) must be utilized.
Coal Sieving Procedure
5. Calculate the percentage of total
sample passing 50, 100, 140 and 200
Mesh.

Figure 8: ASTM riffler

Weight of Test Sample

50 g

Weight of Residue on 50 Mesh

R1g

_____________

Weight of Residue on 100 Mesh

R2g

_____________

Weight of residue on 140 mesh

R3g

_____________

Weight of Residue on 200 Mesh

R4g

_____________

Weight of Sample in Pan (Passing 200 Mesh)

R5g

_____________

% Passing 50 Mesh

50.00

(50.00 - R1 ) 100
24

50.00
% Passing 100 Mesh

(50.00 - (R1 + R2 )) 100

50.00

% Passing 140 Mesh

(50.00 - (R1 + R2+ R3 )) 100

50.00

% Passing 200 Mesh

(50.00 - (R1 + R2 + R3+ R4 )) 100

50.00

% Recovery

(R1 + R2 + R3 + R4+ R5 ) 100

50.00

25

Figure 9: Sieve shaker setup

Coal Sieving Procedure

6. Plot percentages passing each sieve to the Rosin and Rammler equation. The percent passing
50, 100 and 200 Mesh should fall on a straight line. If the plotted line is not linear, the sample is
non-representative and must be extracted. The Figure below illustrates representative coal
fineness plotted against the Rosin and Rammler equation. Non-representative sampling is the
result of one of following:
Sampling rate not isokinetic
Testing error or error in calculating sampling rate
Sample Splitting or Coal sieving error
26

 Excessive sample Moisture

Figure 9

27

Using this procedure the PF grading of Mill 3 D was calculated and the following were the
observations

PF grading for Unit -3 (mill 3-D) on 31.05.2012

The weight of the -200 sample

Category

Time

Weight

15 minutes

30.38 grams

+2 minutes

4.12 grams

+2 minutes

3.12 grams

+2 minutes

0.92 grams

+2 minutes

0.57 grams

Total weight

39.11 grams

Weight present

Percentage

+52

0.05

.1

+100 , -52

2.12

4.24

+200 , - 100

8.72

17.44

-200

39.11

78.22

The following is the trend of the PF fineness from various mills of BBGS unit #3

28

PF fineness grading
Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Date
11-Mar-10
6-Apr-10
23-Apr-10
25-Apr-10
6-May-10
11-May-10
19-May-10
23-May-10
5-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
3-Jul-10
4-Aug-10
3-Sep-10
14-Sep-10
14-Oct-10
6-Nov-10
5-Dec-10
19-Jul-11
11-Aug-11
31-May-12
Average

52
0.16
0.6
0.28
0.24
0.14
0.2
0.22
0.14
0.56
0.36
0.6
0.32
0.28
0.52
0.72
0.38
0.76
0.84
0.5
0.48
0.415

Report for Mill-3A

-52/100
-100/200
4.9
15.78
7.88
20.58
4.64
12.18
4.28
17.32
3.02
12.96
5.52
18.62
6
18.82
3.54
16.42
9.24
23.08
5.68
17.3
7.62
19.68
6.56
21.24
3.24
11.38
7.06
18.84
10.18
26.52
6.24
19.44
8.2
21.04
10.5
22.12
10.26
20.12
12.16
27.82
6.836
19.063

Figure 10: PF fineness Mill 3-A

29

-200
79.16
70.94
82.9
78.16
83.88
75.66
74.96
79.9
67.12
76.66
72.1
71.88
85.1
73.58
62.58
73.94
70
66.54
69.12
59.54
73.686

Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Date
11-Mar-10
25-Mar-10
30-Mar-10
6-Apr-10
23-Apr-10
25-Apr-10
6-May-10
16-May-10
23-May-10
9-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
8-Aug-10
9-Sep-10
3-Oct-10
6-Nov-10
15-Dec-10
1-Jan-11
15-Mar-11
3-Apr-11
20-Apr-11
6-May-11
22-May-11
8-Jun-11
24-Jun-11
10-Jul-11
28-Jul-11
14-Aug-11
29-Aug-11
13-Sep-11
18-Sep-11
28-Sep-11
29-Sep-11
15-Oct-11
30-Oct-11
12-Nov-11
24-Nov-11

52
0.08
0.3
0.16
0.82
1.38
1.08
0.66
0.18
1.14
0.64
2.16
0.58
1.12
0.66
0.64
0.68
0.1
1.3
0.32
0.78
0.84
1.08
1.6
1.02
0.7
1.32
1.12
0.96
0.62
0.56
1.58
1.5
0.86
0.86
1.22
1.04
0.78
0.88

Report for Mill-3B

-52/100
-100/200
3.46
12.78
4.54
17.1
4.78
18.28
7.22
17.84
14.1
28.44
10.16
20.04
11.84
25.46
6.5
22.54
11.36
21.8
8.14
21.26
9.9
16.78
12.8
30.12
8.94
19.78
8.62
25.26
7.72
16.62
9.3
22.38
3.84
25.62
11.42
24.36
8.14
22.16
8.42
24.06
9.56
23.14
9.2
13.28
18.46
13.4
11.62
22.32
9.1
20.74
12.52
22.62
11.12
23.74
11.2
23.62
7.78
25.3
7.46
24.5
12.42
23.46
10.66
24.18
7.92
15.22
7.92
15.22
12.92
24.24
10.4
22.54
9.3
20.34
10.26
22.94

30

-200
83.68
78.06
76.78
74.12
56.08
68.72
62.04
70.78
65.7
69.96
71.16
56.5
70.16
65.46
75.02
67.64
70.44
62.92
69.38
66.74
66.46
76.44
66.54
65.04
69.46
63.54
64.02
64.22
66.3
67.48
62.54
63.66
76
76
61.62
66.02
69.58
65.92

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

9-Dec-11
24-Dec-11
9-Jan-12
19-Jan-12
20-Feb-12
22-Apr-12
28-May-12
31-May-12
Average

0.92
0.06
0.16
0.2
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.1

9.8
4.64
6.12
7.72
6.8
5.6
6.68
5.02

21.78
19.94
22.56
26.04
29.92
21.06
23.56
20.42

67.5
75.36
71.16
66.04
63.12
73.16
69.62
74.46

0.766

8.987

21.712

68.535

Figure 11: PF fineness Mill 3-B

31

Aver

Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Date
2-Mar-10
26-Mar-10
24-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
14-May-10
21-May-10
23-May-10
12-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
6-Jul-10
11-Jul-10
10-Aug-10
14-Sep-10
18-Sep-10
3-Oct-10
20-Nov-10
18-Dec-10
6-Jan-11
2-Feb-11
15-Feb-11
14-Mar-11
3-Apr-11
21-Apr-11
7-May-11
11-Jun-11
26-Jun-11
12-Jul-11
30-Jul-11
15-Aug-11
30-Aug-11
9-Sep-11
17-Sep-11
17-Sep-11
28-Sep-11
3-Oct-11
19-Oct-11

52
0.68
1.12
1.98
1.9
2.02
0.88
2.12
2
0.4
1.78
2.46
2.22
1.28
1.88
3
0.78
1.02
3.76
2.06
1.22
1.76
0.22
1.8
0.82
2.32
2.74
2.04
1.66
3.1
2.74
1
4.14
4.5
3.32
3.3
3.4

Report for Mill-3C

-52/100
6.64
8.46
12.5
11.98
8.66
8.72
15.42
11.62
6.4
11.22
12.02
11.64
12.9
12.2
15
7.88
8.14
18.02
13.7
10.58
11.5
8.3
11.06
14.06
15.5
15.32
16.22
15.04
15.66
13.56
9.76
15.18
16.5
17.54
15.64
17.94

32

-100/200
16.28
18.66
21.08
20.46
18.84
19.94
24.8
21.44
17.28
17.36
24.62
23.22
20.66
24.88
21.12
16.98
18.84
24.3
20.76
18.08
19.52
26.16
19.36
24.66
24.04
22.2
19.5
20.38
21.44
19.8
20.36
21.66
24.5
25.48
22.5
22.66

-200
76.4
71.76
64.44
65.66
70.48
70.46
57.66
64.94
75.92
69.64
60.9
62.92
65.16
61.04
60.88
74.36
72
53.92
63.48
70.12
67.22
65.32
67.78
60.46
58.14
59.74
62.24
62.92
59.8
63.9
68.88
59.02
54.5
53.66
58.56
56

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

5-Nov-11
20-Nov-11
6-Dec-11
20-Dec-11
4-Jan-12
15-Jan-12
4-Feb-12
22-Feb-12
12-Apr-12
Average

1.98
1.28
2.74
0.1
0.18
0.1
0.22
0.32
0.2
1.79

17.52
11.04
18.06
5
6.68
6.12
8.54
8.48
3.98
11.953

27.5
22.7
26.32
25.94
27.3
25.96
33.22
34.2
24.82
22.484

Figure 12: PF fineness Mill 3-C

33

53
64.98
52.88
68.96
65.84
67.82
58.02
57
71
63.773

Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Date
11-Mar-10
15-Mar-10
26-Mar-10
27-Mar-10
9-Apr-10
19-Apr-10
29-Apr-10
22-May-10
23-May-10
2-Jun-10
15-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
14-Sep-10
15-Sep-10
11-Oct-10
9-Nov-10
25-Dec-10
11-Jan-11
13-Jan-11
4-Feb-11
17-Mar-11
6-Apr-11
24-Apr-11
10-May-11
25-May-11
10-Jun-11
25-Jun-11
11-Jul-11
29-Jul-11
16-Aug-11
31-Aug-11
9-Sep-11
16-Sep-11
18-Sep-11
28-Sep-11

Report for Mill-3D

52
-52/100
4
11.84
3.46
14.96
1.56
10.92
1.5
9.76
2.4
14.3
4.04
15.74
5.24
18.72
5.6
18.94
6.46
19.36
3.94
11.04
5.34
19.3
0.2
3.3
0.56
9.9
0.12
5.08
0.14
5.56
0.08
3.3
0.14
3.94
0.06
3.12
0.1
2.98
0.18
5.96
0.16
7.04
0.26
7.42
0.22
5.08
0.24
10.36
0.16
12.16
0.32
6.14
0.18
5.86
0.2
5.44
0.32
6.54
0.56
7.04
0.16
6.58
0.1
4.78
0.64
6.24
0.22
5.86
0.16
6.52
0.4
12.84
0.6
9.16

34

-100/200
15.94
22.74
21.38
20.9
23.4
19.42
25.68
21.66
24.24
17.98
23.42
16.04
25.76
20.44
20.86
21.48
17.04
18.34
22.04
19.4
27.72
21.88
22.8
18.4
18.16
22.74
20.28
19.54
22.52
20.84
24.7
21.86
22.28
23.86
23.94
31.88
27.52

-200
68.22
58.84
66.14
67.84
59.9
60.8
50.36
53.8
49.94
67.04
51.94
80.46
63.78
74.36
73.44
75.14
78.88
78.48
74.88
74.46
65.08
70.44
71.9
71
69.52
70.8
73.68
74.82
70.62
71.56
68.56
73.26
70.84
70.06
69.38
54.88
62.72

38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

29-Sep-11
2-Oct-11
17-Oct-11
3-Nov-11
17-Nov-11
4-Dec-11
16-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
14-Jan-12
3-Feb-12
17-Feb-12
17-Mar-12
2-Apr-12
18-Apr-12
2-May-12
31-May-12
5-Jun-12
Average

0.6
0.34
0.1
0.02
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.1
0.22
0.12
0.22
0.16
0.2
0.14
0.16
0.1
0.1
0.982

9.16
8
4.82
4.16
7.36
3.9
4.62
6.1
9.92
7.84
5.68
7.44
8.32
7.26
5.96
4.24
2.5
8.155

Figure 13: PF fineness Mill 3-D

35

27.52
24.36
23.86
22.76
28.6
21.74
22.5
24.34
29.22
28.46
23.22
26.96
28.88
26.5
22.4
17.44
13.3
22.614

62.72
67.3
71.22
73.06
63.92
74.2
72.72
69.46
60.64
63.58
70.88
65.44
62.6
66.1
71.48
78.22
84.1
68.249

Sl No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

Date
11-Mar-10
7-Apr-10
9-Apr-10
10-Apr-10
24-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
10-May-10
16-May-10
20-May-10
18-Jun-10
12-Jul-10
16-Jul-10
22-Aug-10
14-Sep-10
22-Sep-10
3-Oct-10
12-Nov-10
13-Jan-11
6-Feb-11
22-Apr-11
8-May-11
23-May-11
24-May-11
9-Jun-11
5-Jul-11
26-Jul-11
12-Aug-11
27-Aug-11
9-Sep-11
19-Sep-11
24-Sep-11
28-Sep-11
28-Sep-11
29-Sep-11
29-Sep-11
13-Oct-11
29-Oct-11
16-Nov-11
27-Nov-11

52
0.48
1.8
2.94
0.8
3.86
7.24
5
8.82
7.62
0.66
1.78
0.58
0.4
0.48
0.6
3.62
0.58
0.6
0.36
1.32
0.62
0.16
0.84
0.76
1.16
0.82
0.82
0.8
1.22
1.48
1.04
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.2
1.1
2.2
0.04

Report for Mill-3E

-52/100
-100/200
6.6
16.9
11.8
23.44
14
20.88
9.06
18.22
17.7
24.58
26.08
29.28
13.16
22.16
17.14
18.58
20.94
25.06
9.2
19.5
13.22
22.98
10.86
22.12
6.3
17.68
6.48
17.24
10.5
26.5
17.02
22.16
7.52
20.3
9.2
21.64
7.32
19.88
10.8
18.96
11.82
23.5
10.22
23.32
8.38
17.94
9.94
16.54
9.06
16.84
9.54
23.48
10.64
22.72
8.96
21.1
10.3
19.66
10.66
21.76
9.5
18.46
12.42
23.68
12.42
23.68
12.42
23.68
12.42
23.68
14.14
20.36
9.78
21.2
14.82
22.56
5.14
22.02

36

-200
76.02
62.96
62.18
71.92
53.86
37.4
59.68
55.46
46.38
70.64
62.02
66.44
75.62
75.8
62.4
57.2
71.6
68.56
72.44
68.92
64.06
66.3
72.84
72.76
72.94
66.16
65.82
69.14
68.82
66.1
71
62.3
62.3
62.3
62.3
63.3
67.92
60.42
72.8

40
41
42
43
44
45
46

14-Dec-11
16-Jan-12
9-Feb-12
13-Apr-12
4-May-12
6-Jun-12
7-Jun-12
Average

0.9
0.46
1.26
1.96
1.12
0.9
0.9
1.711

8.48
7.96
10.16
11.62
7.8
8.9
8.9
11.115

19
21.8
24.46
21.54
19.58
20.18
20.18
21.326

71.62
69.78
64.12
64.88
71.5
70.02
70.02
65.848

Figure 14: PF fineness Mill 3-E

From the above trends we observe Mill 3A PF fineness decreasing over the past few
months, the mill was subsequently shut down for overhauling and maintenance.

37

 Variation in un-burnt with PA flow and net savings

Un-burnt carbon is not only controlled by PF fineness but also with other factors like the
amount of primary and secondary air flow. The following experiment was carried out at BBGS
unit #3 on 22/06/2012.

Principal Reducing the PA flow into the mill would reduce the velocity of coal going into the
furnace, which would give coal more time for combustion. Consequently this
would mean lower un-burnt carbon in ash.

Procedure The PA flow set point in general operation for Unit #3 at BBGS is about 90 TPH to
each mill making the total PA flow set point 360 TPH. This set point was reduced
to 80 TPH to each mill making the total PA flow about 320 TPH. Ash samples were collected for
both these set point conditions.

Observation PA Flow
360 TPH

Un-burnt carbon % in Bottom Ash

10.03%

Un-burnt carbon % in Fly Ash

2.39%

320 TPH

4.91%

2.59%

The net reduction in un-burnt carbon in ash is calculated below (assumption 85% ash is fly ash
remaining is bottom ash).

Reduction
= (10.03 4.91) x 15/100 + (2.39 2.59) x 85/100
= 0.598 % un-burnt reduction is ash
Coal Savings

= 0.435 TPH
= 3,814,923.06 Kg / year

Power saving = 6,368,819.79 units / year

Cost saving

= Rs 3,37,54,744.94 / year

38

 Reduction of BBGS Unit 3 auxiliary consumption

power by reducing boiler feed pump power
consumption
Importance of drum level control and methods
The drum is a buffer vessel that is used to separate water from steam. Steam is
separated form water using a cyclone separator. For the separator to work properly a minimum
level of water must be maintained in the drum. However the steam flow would fluctuate from
time to time causing the drum level to fluctuate. A system must thus be set into work to control
the drum level at all times. This is done by controlling the feed water flow by varying the
operation conditions of either the Boiler feed pump or the Feed control station.

The BFP for BBGS Unit #3 make specifications are:

Type
Quantity
Gen. Pressure
Speed
Pump efficiency
Power absorbed
NPSH required at
3% HD

Booster Pump
Cent Horiz Single Stage
891 TPH
9.15 kg/cm2
1406 rev/min
80.5 %
308 KW
4.3m

Boiler Feed pump motor

Type
Frame size
Rating
Supply

Cage Induction CACW

EL 710/2800 J
8800
6.6KW
39

Press stage
Cent Horiz
892 TPH
191.3 kg/cm2
5730 rev/min
81 %
6392 KW
4.9m

BFP suction strainer

Type
Element
Degree of filtration
Temperature

Duplex
80 mesh
185 micron
170 C

The Boiler Feed pump and the de-aerator are strategically placed so as to provide
sufficient suction pressure for the BFP. This is done by placing the de-aerator at a height (22.5
m) and then placing the BPF right under it at ground level.
The BFP used in BBGS Unit 3 has hydraulic coupling with scoop control to vary the
speed of the driven shaft. In hydraulic coupling pumps torque transmitted between the driverdriven shaft is varied by varying the oil levels using scoop control. Typical efficiency of a
hydraulically coupled motor is about 98% .

Figure 15: Line diagram of Feed water

system

Types of BFP controls and their advantages

3 Element control method is a control process that constantly generates the amount of
feed water that needs to be supplied by the boiler feed pump to the boiler in order to keep the
drum level in control. A function using the drum level and the steam flow as inputs is used to
generate the feed flow required. A system is said to be in 3 element control when it takes the
feed flow rate generated by the 3 element control function and then functions towards
maintaining that flow rate.
40

There are two methods to control the drum level:

1. Operating the feed control valves in 3 element control and the BFP scoop would in DP
control mode. The advantage of operating FCS valves in 3 element control and BFP in
scoop is its quick response to large fluctuations in load.
2. Operating the BFP scoop in 3 element control mode. The advantage of this process is
the its energy efficient working scheme where there is least amount of throttling loss
across the valves of the feed control station.

Energy consumption in various operational modes of BFP

Observations
Energy saving using BFP scoop in 3 element control mode

The energy saving were noted for the following control conditions
i.

BFP in DP control with DP set point at 1.8 kg/cm2.

ii.

BFP in DP control with DP set point at 3.5 kg/cm2.

iii.

BFP in scoop control with :a. 1 full load valve of feed control station completely open and the other valves
closed.
b. 1 full load valve and 1 low load valve open.
c. all valves of feed control station completely open.

41

The following are the results :-

Date

30-0512

Time
1000
1020
1040
1100
1100
1120
1140
1200
1400
1420
1440
1500
1500
1530
1600
1600
1630
1700

Avg.
Average
FCS DP
Load
suction
FCS DP

832.15

815.7

837.05

850.55

851.53

1.769
1.927
1.85775
1.927
1.808
1.808
3.534
3.087
3.456
3.55
2.239
2.205
2.2275
2.202
2.264
2.264
0.568 1.13333
0.568
0.568
0.512 0.49933
0.418

Average
load

259.5
260.36
259.9725
258.32
261.71
261.71
261.98
262.12
263.05
261.74
260.71
261.16
261.0525
260.98
261.36
261.36
263.04 261.9367
261.41
261.41
263.37 262.12
261.58

Figure 16: BFP auxiliary consumption

vs. DP 42
across FCV v/v

Frequency

Total
power

BFP aux %
of total
generation

49.7

5.3636

2.06314

49.63

5.684

2.16847

49.6

5.3848

2.06273

49.73

5.2572

2.00705

49.93

5.143

1.96208

 Net energy savings using 3-Element control mode.

At 250 MW generation:
The BFP at 1.8 DP set point power consumption = 5157.85 units/ hour
BFP scoop in 3 element control power consumption = 4905.2
(With 3 FCS V/V FULLY OPENED)

units/hour

The total power saving = 252.65 units/hour

= 22,13,214 units/year
Cost saving = Rs 1,17,30,034.2 /year
Coal saving = 13,25,715.186 kg/year
CO2 emission reduction =16,45,433.5 kg/year

43

Conclusion

Reducing the PA flow into the mills reduces the un-burnt carbon losses significantly.
When the coal quality is good it would require lower time and turbulence to burn properly as
compared to a bad grade of coal. Reduction of PA flow into the mill increases the time coal has
for combustion, however the turbulence is also partly reduced. Lower grades of coal might not
be able to optimally burn in low turbulence condition. For down shot boilers, increasing the PA
flow would increase the velocity of coal flowing into the furnace, leading to higher un-burnt in
bottom ash. In corner fired boilers higher velocity would mainly reduce the coal-air mixing time,
leading to poorer combustion.
It was found that when the BFP scoop is put in 3- element control, the loss that was
occurring at the feed control station valves is reduced significantly, making this a cost efficient
method. However as compared to the conventional method of putting the feed control station
in 3- element control and the BFP scoop controlling the DP set-point across the feed control
station, the response time required in the higher. Thus when the load fluctuates rapidly for a
unit, the conventional method becomes a little more bankable. For normal operation however
the energy savings by putting BFP scoop in 3- element control is significant.

44