See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267621836

Comparing Boiler Efficiency Calculation Methods

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.1115/POWER2011-55215

CITATIONS READS
2 6,307

5 authors, including:

David A. T. Rodgers Timothy H Golightly

Portland General Electric 2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   
8 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Fred D. Lang
Exergetic Systems, Inc
20 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Power Plant Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David A. T. Rodgers on 22 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Submitted for publication in either ASME’s:
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power [rejected], or
Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications

COMPARING BOILER EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONAL METHODS

David A.T. Rodgers, P.E. Timothy Golightly Fred D. Lang, P.E.

Portland General Electric Co. Portland General Electric Co. Exergetic Systems Inc.
Boardman, Oregon 97818 Boardman, Oregon 97818 San Rafael, California 94901
Dave.Rodgers@pgn.com Timothy.Golightly@pgn.com Lang@ExergeticSystems.com

ABSTRACT
This paper compares two methods for calculating thermal efficiency of Steam Generators (boiler
efficiency) using test data obtained from the Boardman Coal Plant. The two methods are ASME PTC
4’s Energy Balance Method and Exergetic Systems’ Input/Loss Method. Three cases were evaluated:
test results from the Boardman 610 MWe coal-fired unit; and two examples provided in PTC 4 for
coal and oil fuels. The Boardman test data was evaluated by Sargent & Lundy LLC, Chicago, IL
accordingly to their interpretation of PTC 4. The Input/Loss evaluations of the Boardman test and
PTC 4 examples were evaluated by Exergetic System, Inc., San Rafael, CA. using its EX-FOSS
Steam Generator simulator using Input/Loss. The differences in methods were found to be
significant: in their application of fundamental thermodynamics; in their definitions of thermal
efficiency; and in calculational methodologies. Evaluated differences in efficiency are discussed with
supporting sensitive studies. This work is based on a paper delivered at the ASME 2011 Power
Conference, Denver, USA (POWER2011-55215). PAPER85_Rev23.WPD

NOMENCLATURE
PTC 4
Note that some inconsistencies are present regards PTC nomenclature, this work attempts to use a
consistent set and may be at odds with certain PTC 4 nomenclature, but not with intent.
DvpCO = Boundary CO measured on a dry basis, %
DVpNOx = Boundary NOX measured on a dry basis, %
EF = Boiler efficiency (çB), %
EX = Pulverizer motor efficiency, %
HCRHstent = Entering enthalpy of Room Heating, Btu/lbm
HCRHstlvg = Exiting Fan Room Heating, Btu/lbm
HDAen = Enthalpy of dry air at boundary, Btu/lbm
HDFgLvCr = Enthalpy of dry flue gas
HFen = Enthalpy of fuel, Btu/lbm
HHVF = Gross calorific value of fuel (i.e., higher heating value), Btu/lbm
HHVCO = Heat of Combustion of CO, 4347 Btu/lbm
HHVCRs = Calorific value of carbon as it occurs in residue
HrNOx = Heat of Formation of NOX, 38630 Btu/lb mole
HRsz = Enthalpy of ash residues , Btu/lbm
HStLvCr = Enthalpy of steam exiting in flue gas, Btu/lbm

-1-
HWRe = Enthalpy of water at 77°F, Btu/lbm
HWven = Enthalpy of water vapor in entering air, Btu/lbm
HWvLVCr = Enthalpy of water vapor at boundary, Btu/lbm
LHVF = Net calorific value of fuel (i.e., lower heating value), Btu/lbm
MfrWa = Specific humidity in combustion air, lb-H2O/lbm-air
MoDFg = Dry gas at boundary, moles/lbm-fuel
MpUbC = Unburned carbon, % mass
MqDA = Total dry air entering system, lbm/Btu
MqDFg = Dry Flue Gas Weight, lbm/Btu
MqRsz = Ash residues (bottom, Economizer & fly), lbm/Btu
MqWH2F = Water product from combustion of H2, lbm/Btu
MrCRHst = Cold Reheat steam to Fan Room Heating, lbm/hr
MrF = Mass flow rate of fuel, lbm/hour
Qb = Energy balance closure (QpL - QpB), Btu/hr
QpB = Sum of energy flow credits converted to percent (also termed SmQpB), %
QpL = Sum of energy flow losses converted to percent (also termed SmQpL), %
QrB = Sum of energy flow credits, Btu/hr
QrF = Total energy flow input from fuel, Btu/hr
QrL = Sum of energy flow losses, Btu/hr
QrO = Total energy flow output from system, Btu/hr
QX = Power supplied from pulverizers, kW
çB-HHV = Gross calorific value based boiler efficiency, %
çB-LHV = Net calorific value based boiler efficiency, %

Input/Loss Method
CP = Specific heat, Btu/lbm-R
HBC = Firing Corrections, Btu/lbmAF
HHV = Gross calorific value at constant volume, Btu/lbmAF
HHVP = Gross calorific value at constant pressure, Btu/lbmAF
HNSL = Non-Chemistry & Non-Stack Losses, Btu/lbmAF
HPRAct = Enthalpy of Products, actual, Btu/lbmAF
HPRIdeal-AF = Enthalpy of ideal products from pure fuel in dry oxygen at TCal, Btu/lbmAF
HPRIdeal-FA = Enthalpy of ideal products from pure fuel in combustion air at TCal, Btu/lbmAF
HRXAct = Enthalpy of Reactants, the actual reacting streams, Btu/lbmAF
HRXCal-AF = Enthalpy of pure fuel assuming dry oxygen at TCal, Btu/lbmAF
HRXCal-FA = Enthalpy of pure fuel, and all other reacting streams at TCal, Btu/lbmAF
HSL = Stack Losses, Btu/lbmAF
mAF = As-Fired fuel flow, lbm/hour
nj = Molar concentration of effluent j, moles-j/molar base
QWF = Useful energy flow to working fluid, Btu/hour
TCal = Calorimetric temperature, oF
ÄHP = PV correction to HHV, Btu/lbmAF
0
ÄH f-Cal = Heat of Formation at TCal, Btu/lbmAF
çB-HHV = Gross calorific value based boiler efficiency, %
çB-LHV = Net calorific value based boiler efficiency, %

-2-
INTRODUCTION
Accurate boiler efficiency testing and calculations are becoming increasingly important given
societal focus on lowering electricity costs and reducing emissions. In addition to environmental
concerns, the commercial impact of being able to compute boiler efficiency consistently has obvious
import. Note that for a new Steam Generator supplying a 400 MWe turbine, every 1% in boiler
efficiency below guarantee, could well mean .$20 million in penalties(1). In addition, for the
knowledgeable utility, on-line monitoring of steam plants means knowing absolute fuel flow and
resultant computed effluent flow. With these considerations, Portland General Electric (PGE)
undertook an extensive testing and analysis effort to understand the differences in two prominent
methodologies: ASME’s Performance Test Code (PTC) 4(2) and Exergetic Systems’ Input/Loss
Method(3). The testing effort was conducted at PGE’s Boardman Coal Plant. PGE sponsored both
this testing effort and its initial analyses(4) with the objective that thermal efficiency methods can be
better understood not only at Boardman, but to the benefit of the industry.

TESTING AT BOARDMAN
Boardman is a 610 gross MWe conventionally fired unit burning Powder River Basin coal.
The Steam Generator is a wall fired, subcritical, boiler provided by Foster Wheeler as are the two
MB type and six MBF type pulverizers. The steam turbines are upgraded Siemens Westinghouse
machines. The plant’s Distributed Control System (DCS) is an Ovation system supplied by Emerson
Electric. Boardman’s operational data is transmitted from the DCS in real time to a plant historian
system provided by Real Time eXecutives (RTX) of Wrentham, MA. The Input/Loss Method was
installed by Exergetic Systems in 2002 and has been in continuous use since then.
Horizon Engineering of Portland, Oregon was contracted to sample for accurate emission
data. Standard Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming was contracted for all fuel calorific and ultimate
analyses. In addition, Performance Engineering LLC of Camarillo, California was contracted to
provide high accuracy and calibrated instrumentation, with data collection, for all critical Turbine
Cycle boundary conditions.
The bulk of plant data, and all data associated with the efficiency calculations were obtained
using procedures established by Exergetic Systems’ when conducting its routine Systems Effects
Test procedure. A “Master Data Set” was then formed, consisting of all special and routine
measurements, which was then used by both Sargent & Lundy and Exergetic Systems. The Master
Data Set is attached as Appendix A such that it might serve others when investigating boiler
efficiency computations. It includes the following:
P Pressures, temperatures and flows for all heat exchangers (working fluid energy flows
were computed separately for each method);
P Gross generation;
P Fuel calorific value (higher heating value);
P As-Fired fuel chemistry;
P Consistent emission data presented at the Air Pre-Heater inlet, the ID Fan inlet,
and at the Stack; and
P Miscellaneous temperature data for combustion air and gas fans.

To assure First and Second Law consistencies when developing the Master Data Set,
Exergetic Systems applied its Calculational Closure technique using Steam Generator and Turbine
Cycle computer simulators. The work of this paper, of comparing boiler efficiency methods, did not
allow interpretation of working fluid energy flows, fuel chemistry, calorific values nor of base
stoichiometrics supporting emission data. In summary, all computations were begun by both

-3-
Exergetic Systems and Sargent & Lundy using the same Master Data Set. The methodology
underlying Exergetic Systems’ Calculational Closure technique involves first analyzing individual
Turbine Cycle processes such that key measurements are matched with the bulk of plant data. These
matches included parameters such as: thermal boundary conditions; IP-LP cross-over conditions;
feedwater heater temperature profile; turbine state-lines; working fluid energy flows; independent
turbine seal flow testing; walk-downs; etc. Note that the significant HP-IP turbine seal leakage was
determined using the new Lang-Canning technique(5) which greatly affected the computed Reheat
flow as-reported. Although it is believed that forcing Calculational Closure increases test accuracy,
it is not part of PTC 4 procedures. The resultant working fluid energy flow was then combined with
a calculated boiler efficiency from PTC 4 and Input/Loss, and, when combined with calorific value,
allowed fuel mass flow to be computed. The computed fuel flow was then compared to the best
available plant data.

PTC 4 SAMPLE PROBLEMS

The PTC 4 document of 2008 presents a number of sample data sets, two of which were used
for this work. These data sets included the coal-fired example described in Appendix B-5, and the
oil-fired example of B-6. These cases were not analyzed by Sargent & Lundy. PTC published results
were compared to those obtained using Exergetic Systems’ EX-FOSS program using Input/Loss.
Heat exchanger data was input to EX-FOSS such that a fuel flow value could be computed, via
Eq.(IL/26), and compared to the PTC reported. The reader is greatly cautioned if generalizing on
results, in that cases B-5 and B-6 appear not to reflect any commercial Steam Generator encountered
by the authors. Effluent measurements presented for the oil-fired case cannot be correct as they agree
with the coal-fired (Stack dry O2 at 5.56% for the oil-fired system, coal at 5.57%). Zero air leakage
was assumed for B-5 & B-6. Heat transfer data was identical for both cases, thus identical thermal
loads. Although PTC presents “measured” fuel flows as if they were obtained under test, it is
believed numerical comparisons are still viable ... no matter the lack of realism.

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

The definition of a system’s boundary is critical to its thermodynamic understanding, and
obviously numerically impacts any definition of thermal efficiency. Although both methods broadly
employ similar boundaries, there are notable exceptions associated ... and exceptions associated with
different and base thermodynamic approaches. Appendix B shows the PTC 4 boundary. Input/Loss
employs this the same level of detail but with the following serious exceptions (fully discussed
below):
P For Input/Loss, the pulverizer is not part of the system, its shaft power can only affect
coal’s surface/mass ratio, and cannot heat a brittle material such as coal per se; all
grinding effects are mimicked in the laboratory when coal is ground in preparation for
calorific testing.
P Forced Draft (FD) Fan and Primary Air (PA) Fan powers delivered to the air are always
considered a positive Äcontribution to Input/Loss’ Firing Correction term (for PTC 4,
such fans are outside the boundary).
P For Input/Loss, all sensible heats of reacting and exiting streams are relative to the
calorimetric temperature, not to a fixed 77°F as used by PTC 4; this is a profound
difference.
P For Input/Loss, heating of combustion air (or any reacting stream) is always a positive
Äcontribution to its Firing Correction term, no matter its source whether from fan shaft,
steam/air heater, or the like.

-4-
P PTC 4 assumes the exit boundary for combustion gases as is the suction side of the
Induced Draft (ID) Fan. Input/Loss recognizes this, but formerly takes the Stack exiting
stream as its boundary, given its gases directly enter the local environment, this done
for consistency with the required location for emissions and temperature measurements.
Input/Loss then corrects its Firing Correction term with the ID Fan power, always taken
as a negative Äcontribution.

The Input/Loss boundary for all reacting and exiting streams is the system’s local
environment (givne ID Fan correction). This is not the case for PTC 4. PTC 4 assumes that its system
boundary begins at combustion air fan discharges, fan heating is not included (e.g., depending on
design, 10 to 25°ÄF may be seen). PTC 4’s exiting boundary lies at a point in the system where
effluent concentrations and temperatures are not routinely measured; if un-measurable air ingress
occurs in the duct work leading to the Stack, determining effluent concentrations at the ID Fan
suction, from Stack measurements, leads to unnecessary errors. Steam/air heating is included but
only if downstream of combustion air fans; however, at Boardman such heating is upstream of the
fans. Consistent system stoichiometrics are an important aspect to Input/Loss, as they interact with
system air leakage allowing overcheck on air leakage. Input/Loss system stoichiometrics are
generically presented in Appendix C.
Many industrial standards, including PTC 4, have employed “energy credits” to adjust for
boundary conditions. Traditionally, energy credits were applied to both numerator and denominator
terms comprising boiler efficiency; this was the case for the older PTC 4.1(6), the well used German
standard DIN 1942(7), and the new European standard(8). For PTC 4 credits are only applied to the
boiler efficiency’s numerator. This manipulation was required to maintain PTC 4’s use of a “fuel
efficiency” concept, involving only a fuel energy term in its denominator. As will be explained, not
correcting the denominator destroys PTC 4’s consistency with a calorimetric based First Law
balance.
Input/Loss departs from a simple energy credit concept to focus on correcting all reacting
stream energy levels (i.e., streams entering the system) to a common reference. This may appear to
be an energy credit, but as seen below there is subtlety when implemented. Input/Loss terms these
reacting stream corrections as “Firing Corrections”; they appear in both numerator and denominator.
The subtlety lies in that Input/Loss thermal losses are only applied to exiting streams, affecting only
the numerator term of boiler efficiency. These differences, although may appear a matter of
convenience are of critical importance when judging a performance guarantee of a new Steam
Generator, for determining carbon taxes, for performance monitoring, and the like.
The authors find PTC 4 difficult to follow without serious study; however, the same has been
stated of Input/Loss ... at least its theory. Thus the reader is well encouraged to have both the PTC
4 document and the defining Input/Loss technical paper in-hand while studying the following
development. Subtitles abound in the treatments of energy credits (and Firing Corrections) and their
impact on entering/exiting streams. This aspect, and the use of the reference (calorimetric)
temperature, which are at the heart of differences between the methods.
In the following developments, to add clarity, PTC 4 equations are presented in italics,
Input/Loss employs standard type. Equation numbering, when obtained directly from the PTC 4(2)
standard, are denoted as “(PTC/xx-xx-xx)”. Equation numbering, when obtained directly from the
defining Input/Loss paper(3), are denoted as “(IL/xx)”. Wherever practical original nomenclature is
used, as was published.

ASME PTC 4 - Energy Balance Method

-5-
 ASME PTC 4 procedures provide two methods to determine boiler efficiency: the
Input-Output Method and the Energy Balance Method. The advantage of the Energy Balance Method
is a lower overall test uncertainty due to the large amount of data points and measurements required,
and, principally, due to the typically high uncertainty associated with fuel flow required for
Input-Output. PTC 4’s Energy Balance Method, which was used exclusively for this study, employs
the following relationship for fuel flow:

MrF = 100 QrO / [EF HHVF] (PTC/5-7-7)

PTC 4’s Energy Balance determines boiler efficiency (EF) based on the working fluid and other
energy flows entering and leaving the PTC Steam Generator boundary (a totaling QrO), divided by
the energy flow associated with the only the fuel (MrF x HHFV). PTC 4 incorporates losses and
credits on both a percentage and an energy flow basis. The following steps demonstrate how the
defining equation for boiler efficiency, Eq.(PTC/5-7-6), is determined when applying these
definitions.
The fuel energy flow as input to the systems, QrF, corrected to a constant pressure basis, is
given by:

QrF = QrO + Qb (PTC/5-6-2)

where QrO is the total energy flow output from the system, and Qb is an “energy balance closure”
term. Qb is equivalent to total losses (QrL) less total credits (QrB) entering and leaving the system:

Qb = QrL - QrB (PTC/5-6-3)

At this fundamental level, PTC departs from Input/Loss philosophy. Input/Loss assumes only
total energy flow output plus losses must balance with the actual, as-fired, fuel energy flow which
is QrF plus QrB. Thus QrB can only affect input (reacting) streams. Input/Loss argues the
calorimetric based thermodynamics requires “credits” be added to each side of Eq.(PTC/5-6-2): QrF
+ QrB = QrO + QrL + QrB. “Credits” affect reacting streams, losses affect output streams ... they
cannot be confused. But, back to PTC development, by substituting Eq.(PTC/5-6-3) into
Eq.(PTC/5-6-2), the PTC energy balance becomes:

QrF + QrB = QrO + QrL (PTC/5-6-4)

Then by applying the following PTC 4 definition:

EF = 100 QrO/QrF (PTC/5-7-1)

QpL = 100 QrL/QrF and QpB = 100 QrB/QrF (PTC/5-7-4)

efficiency can be expressed either in absolute or relative terms:

EF = 100[1.0 - QrL/QrF + QrB/QrF] (PTC/5-7-3)

EF = 100 - QpL + QpB (PTC/5-7-5)

Again, is well to point out that these formulations are antithesis to the most basic definition
of efficiency of a thermal system: “Useful Output” divided by “Input”. The Input must be the net

-6-
of all reacting, as-fired, input streams. Useful Output must satisfy a First Law system balance as
[Input - Losses]. Such basics imply that if losses are zero, efficiency is unity. Eq.(PTC/5-7-3) states
that if losses are zero, EF is not unity given a non-zero credit term, QrB … 0.0. For argument, we
may arbitrarily replace QrO with [QrO + QrB], we see via Eq.(PTC/5-6-4) & (PTC/5-7-1) that EF
becomes unity when losses are zero. However this then departs from the relationship between Useful
Output and fuel flow for we see via Eq.(PTC/5-7-7) that QrB … 0.0 credits will mathematically
impact computed fuel flow, an impossible functionality. For example, we cannot simply heat
combustion air (e.g., say using a huge Steam/Air heater) and assume thermal efficiency will change
without concomitant changes to fuel, combustion characteristic or to Useful Output! The net of outlet
streams cannot be influenced by “credits”, only losses reduce a system’s Useful Output. These
differences demonstrate PTC’s thermodynamic inconsistencies. Such differences are addressed by
Input/Loss Methods, not through “credits”, but through consistent correction of calorimetrics (the
key being consistent treatment of the “Input” term).

PTC Energy Losses

The principle energy losses calculated by PTC 4 are as follows, all of these loss terms assume
a percent basis and all were used to analyze the Boardman test data. Note the explicit computations
of PTC losses involve both system outlet streams (e.g., dry gas, unburned hydrocarbons, CO, NOX,
etc.) and, notably, reacting streams (e.g., moist air, heating of combustion air, etc.).
Dry Gas = 100 MqDFg (HDFgLvCr)
Water from burning Hydrogen = 100 MqWH2F (HStLvCr - HWRe)
Water in a solid = 100 MqWvF (HStLvCr - HWRe)
Moisture in Air = 100 MfrWa (MqDA) (HWvLVCr)
Summation of UBC = MpUbC (HHVCRs) / (HHVF)
Sensible heat of residue = 100 3 MqRsz (HRsz)
CO in Flue Gas = DvpCO (ModfG) (HHVCO) / (HHVF)
Formation of NOX = DvpNOx (ModfG) (HrNOx) / (HHVF)
Air Stream Heating = MrCRHst (HCRHstent - HCRHstlvg)

In addition to the above, when analyzing Boardman data, all parties used the following fixed losses
taken from the Master Data Set:
P Pulverizer Rejects;
P Air Infiltration;
P Unburned Hydrocarbons in Flue Gas;
P Ash Pit; and
P Radiation & Convection loss.

PTC Energy Credits

Energy credits calculated by PTC 4 and used in the Energy Balance Method are as follows,
all energy credits assume a percent basis:
Entering dry air = 100 (MqDA) (HDAen)
Moisture in entering air = 100 (MfrWA) (MqDA) (HWven)
Sensible Heat in Fuel = 100 / [(HHVF) ( HFen)]
Auxiliary Power = 3412 (OX) (EX) / 100.

According to ASME PTC 4 procedures, calculating efficiency based on the Energy Balance

-7-
Method requires an estimated boiler efficiency only if atomizing steam or soot blowing steam are
used. For the Boardman test soot blowing was used, thus its affects caused iterations per PTC 4
procedures. Ash flow balances included flows associated with bottom ash, Economizer ash, and fly
ash. PTC 4 calls for iterations until the estimated and calculated efficiencies converge within 0.1%,
which was followed.

INPUT/LOSS METHOD
The Input/Loss Method is a simple concept in which terms are added to the basic calorimetric
equation, maintaining thermodynamic balance with the objective of developing an expression for
boiler efficiency. It is argued there can be no methodological differences in computing the efficiency
of a conventionally fired coal unit, a gas-fired unit, a trash burner, a combustion turbine, a fired heat
recovery Steam Generator, etc.
The Input/Loss Method begins with the chemical energy of the fuel as determined by
calorimetrics (either computed or measured). The gross (higher) calorific value (HHV) is Input/Loss’
starting point. HHV is either directly measured for solid and liquid fuels in a constant volume bomb
calorimeter, or computed for gaseous fuels given knowledge of its unique compounds. However
determined dry oxygen is typically assumed for the ambient. Because fuels are burned in a constant
pressure environment, HHV for solid and liquid fuels must be corrected for PV work resulting in
HHVP. For the purpose of this work, the gross value is principally discussed.
All specific energy terms used in engineering are relative to a reference state. Only when
dealing with single fluid systems, will fluid enthalpies at the reference state cancel. However, when
dealing with combustion systems involving multiple fluids, the reference state becomes canonical.
For a Steam Generator, the reference state must be consistently reflected in all energy levels; this
includes fuel energy, all reacting and product Heats of Formation, latent heats of water, properties
of dry air, air’s moisture, water in-leakages, gas properties, working fluid energy flows, etc. The
“Why” of this simply lies with the fact that all fluids within a commercial Steam Generator interact -
fuel becomes combustion products, water leaks into the combustion space; combustion air obviously
interacts; water is ubiquitous as it is created from combustion, bourn with fuel, carried with
combustion air, leaks into the gas space, etc. ... and all mix as the effluent is formed. When we
measure a fuel’s energy in a bomb calorimeter operating isothermally, or compute it for natural gas
at a chosen temperature, the reference state for a First Law description of the combustion process
becomes intrinsically fixed; the temperature chosen for such calorimetrics becomes the reference
temperature.
This said, Input/Loss assumes that the reference temperature used in the laboratory for solid
and liquid fuels cannot be altered for two reasons: 1) one does not know the Heat of Formation of
the reacting material as a function of temperature; and 2) water formed by combustion obviously
must have the same reference as water bourn with the fuel. For high-water coals especially, water
from fuel hydrogen cannot be isolated regards its base energy from the fuel’s free water, or from soot
blowing, in-leakages, air moisture, etc. For coal and oil, the measured HHV must be accepted
without alternation. In like manner, a chosen referenced temperature used to compute a gaseous fuel
energy cannot then be altered when describing non-fuel fluids. For Input/Loss, this temperature is
termed the “calorimeter temperature”.
To summarize, the additive approach taken by Input/Loss begins with ideal combustion in
a dry environment as used for calorimetrics, proceeding eventually to an efficiency statement:

P describe the Heats of Formation, based on calorimetrics, for the reacting

fuel and for the products from ideal combustion, burnt in dry oxygen

-8-
 at the specified calorimetric temperature (TCal);
P add to the reacting fuel term the Heats of Formation associated with
other reacting streams such as water in combustion air, sorbents, etc.;
P then add a sensible heat correction to bring all reacting streams from
TCal to their As-Fired conditions;
P then substrate losses from the products from ideal combustion (i.e.,
forming actual products) balanced with an efficiency term; and
P computed boiler efficiency.

Key to Input/Loss is stating and understanding that HHVP is the difference between the
enthalpy of products from ideal combustion, and the enthalpy of the reacting fuel stream (being burnt
in dry oxygen), both enthalpies evaluated at the calorimetric temperature:

HHVP = - HPR Ideal-AF-HHV + HRXCal-AF-HHV (IL/3)

An important feature of Input/Loss lies with the definition of HRXCal-AF-HHV of Eq.(IL/3); indeed
this very equation defines the term. HHVP is based on the measure or the computed. The ideal
product term is computed based on ideal concentrations of CO2, H2O and SO2 products based on a
known fuel chemistry, burnt in dry oxygen.
Using the bomb calorimeter, as it employs dry O2 to produce idea products, there are no
compound formations not directly deriving from the pure fuel. Systems described by Eq.(IL/3), are
termed “calorimetric systems”. They are evaluated at a constant TCal thus there is no differential
sensible heat. In a calorimetric system, there is no product water formed which does not derive from
the fuel; it being condensed (a gross CV), or not (a net CV). However, when analyzing a system
using moist combustion air, the Heat of Formation of the air’s water must be accounted when
evaluating the actual Heat of Reactants, and will appear, of course, in the product stream. We must
track separately that water associated with the fuel, verus ambient water ... and all other reactants.
For example, consider 1.0 mole of moist methane being burnt in moist oxygen. The following
suggests how the Heat of Reactants must be computed:

For a Gross CV Base:

[0.9CH4 + 0.1H2O]As-Fired + 1.7O2 + [0.3H2O]Vap
=> 0.9CO2 + [1.8H2O]Liq + [0.3H2O]Vap
For a Net CV Base:
[0.9CH4 + 0.1H2O]As-Fired + 1.7O2 + [0.3H2O]Vap
=> 0.9CO2 + [2.1H2O]Vap

In any real system the gross CV reflects only the condensation of product water derived from the As-
Fired fuel (at TCal). Also, as a fine point, it is not credible to suggest that if a gaseous fuel contains
CO2 or water, or coal contains water with a leakage of working fluid, or combustion air bearing
moisture, that ideal combustion products cannot be defined consistent with Eq.(IL/3).
Thus by adding the Heats of Formation of non-fuel reactant terms to HRXCal-AF of Eq.(IL/3),
we form an energy of combined As-Fired fuel and non-fuel reactants, all at TCal, described by
HRXCal-FA. Such treatment also implies that the energy of ideal combustion products reflect all
initiating reactants, described by HPRIdeal-FA; thus:

HHVP = - HPRIdeal-FA-HHV + HRXCal-FA-HHV (IL/4A)

-9-
 Next, Eq.(IL/4A) must be corrected for the environment in which combustion occurs (the
As-Fired condition); this is done by adding a sensible heat term, HBC, to each side:

HHVP + HBC = - HPR Ideal-FA-HHV + HRXCal-FA-HHV + HBC (IL/5)

The left-side of Eq.(IL/5) represents the calorific value, corrected for PV work and for sensible heat
from the reference (calorimetric temperature) to the As-Fired. HBC is termed the “Firing Correction”
and takes into account the sensible heats of only the reactants; i.e., conditions found at the actual
boundary relative to the calorimetric temperature for the fuel stream, moist combustion air stream,
air leakage, all in-leakages of water (soot blowing, atomizing steam, tube leakage, etc.), and the flow
of sorbents added to the system.
As we balance Eq.(IL/5) with HBC, it suggests a serious subtly. Any system described by
Eq.(IL/5) has a unity efficiency for HBC can only affect reacting streams. Thus there is nothing we
can do to the reacting streams which directly impacts boiler efficiency. HBC, as so applied, does not
impact any product term, per se, thus no system losses are affected; HPR Ideal-FA is what it is ... Also,
when Firing Corrections HBC are added to the enthalpy of the reacting materials at the calorimetric
temperature, the actual, As-Fired, Enthalpy of Reactants is then obtained; it is based on Eq.(IL/4A),
leading to Eq.(IL/4B):

0
HRXCal-FA-HHV = HRXCal-AF-HHV + [Non-Fuel ÄHF-Cal-k]
0
= HHVP + HPRIdeal-AF-HHV + [Non-Fuel ÄHF-Cal-k] (IL/4B)

HRXAct-HHV = HRXCal-FA-HHV + HBC (4)

Eq.(IL/5) defines a boiler's total potential energy release, given no losses, and thus represents
a system with unity thermal efficiency. Again, the magnitude of the Firing Correction term cannot
directly impact a departure from unity efficiency. It is important to realize that Eq.(IL/5), as based
on calorimetrics, is conserved when HBC is added to both sides. This may appear trivial, however
it conserves the First Law for combustion systems and represents a major departure from the PTC
4 approach.
When Eq.(IL/5) is revised to include losses, we must, of course, maintain balance and thus
Input/Loss introduces a “boiler efficiency term”, çB-HHV; a balancing correction factor by any other
name, a balancing against losses:

çB-HHV (HHVP + HBC) = - HPRIdeal-FA-HHV - 3Loss/mAF + HRXAct-FA-HHV (5)

Another, perhaps obvious, point must be emphasized in that losses degrade the system from ideal
combustion; for a system with no losses, efficiency will always be unity. Credits can neither degrade
nor enhance a thermal system. Losses only apply to streams exiting the system, degrading from ideal
combustion as based on the thermodynamics of calorimetrics.
Thermal losses, 3Loss/mAF, may be evaluated/sub-divided any number of ways. Input/Loss
chooses to consider Stack losses, versus all other losses termed “Non-Chemistry & Non-Stack
Losses” (HNSL). HNSL consists of the well-known terms: radiation & convection loss, pulverizer
rejects, unburned fuel, and losses associated sensible heats of ash streams leaving the system. If the
ID Fan is included within the boundary then its power delivered to the gas stream must be considered
a negative correction to the product stream exiting the Stack. Note that using the Stack as boundary

-10-
is convenient as effluent measurements and gas temperature are normally obtained at the Stack;
requiring only to correct for ID Fan power which cannot affect the combustion process per se.
When correcting the HPRIdeal-FA term for Stack losses we are, indeed, describing the actual
products found at the boundary. By using the resultant HPRAct term as evaluated for all observed
(actual) effluents, we eliminate any need for the evaluation of individual Stack loss terms (e.g., CO,
separate hot gas loss, etc.). This is a key to improved accuracy and eases evaluation steps when using
Input/Loss. Specifically, for each species found in at the exiting boundary, the total HPRAct-HHV
becomes:

HPR Act-HHV = 3 n j [ÄH0f-Cal + CP (TStack - TCal)] j (IL/14)

Note that the Heat of Formation for species j, ÄH0f-Cal , is evaluated at the calorimetric temperature(3).
Therefore, in summary, Eq.(IL/11) defines Input/Loss’ boiler efficiency when considering an actual
system with losses, following directly from Eq.(5):

çB-HHV = [- HPRAct-HHV + HRXAct-HHV - HNSL] / [HHVP + HBC] (IL/11)

A uniqueness associated with Input/Loss is its reliance on a unifying system stoichiometrics.

Although not presented here, the source of any consistent mass/energy balance of a combustion
system must stem from system stoichiometrics. As outlined in Appendix C, Input/Loss air leakage
is uniquely incorporated using a Leakage Dilution Factor (â) which allows, with a Leakage Factor
(R), consistency between Boiler and Stack concentrations. For example, this allows the transference
of a measured Boiler O2 to the Stack boundary; and the reverse which is extremely useful for
checking effluent measurements against assumed fuel chemistry and air leakage.
To demonstrate consistency of Input/Loss, gross versus net bases are now considered. Note that
the above development assumed a gross (higher) calorific value base, the HHV subscripts. The same
thermodynamics as above leads to a net (lower) calorific value, LHV, calculation used exclusively
outside North America. For all combustion systems, the fundamental relationship of its thermal
efficiency is output divided by input; i.e., the “useful energy flow to working fluid” (QWF, identical
to QrO) divided by fuel energy flow consistent with calorimetrics. For a Steam Generator, using
gross and net efficiencies, efficiencies are given by:

çB-HHV = QWF / [mAF(HHVP + HBC)] (6A)

çB-LHV = QWF / [mAF(LHVP + HBC)] (6B)

From Eq.(6) is obvious that for any given As-Tested condition, whether evaluated using HHV
or LHV, the same mass flow must be computed:

mAF = QWF / [çB-HHV (HHVP + HBC)] (IL/26A)

mAF = QWF / [çB-LHV (LHVP + HBC)] (IL/26B)

From Eq.(IL/26) it is obvious that the ratio [QWF/mAF] is constant, gross and net. Also, from
Eq.(IL/11), considering that HNSL and HBC are defined the same for gross and net calculations, the
following are developed and considered important identities.

çB-HHV (HHVP + HBC) / çB-LHV (LHVP + HBC) (IL/27)

-11-
- HPRAct-HHV + HRXAct-HHV / - HPRAct-LHV + HRXAct-LHV (IL/28)

As explained elsewhere(3) when taking individual stream energies in isolation, both the product
and reactant terms becomes irrelevant to gross or net. Thus for actual products and actual reactants
terms:

HPRAct-HHV / HPRAct-LHV (30)

HRXAct-HHV / HRXAct-LHV (31)

Such identities and Eq.(IL/26A) & (IL/26B) serve as important computational overchecks.
For PTC 4, computing the same fuel flows, suggested by Eqs.(PTC/5-7-1) or (PTC/5-7-3),
produces the following:

MrF = QrO/(çB-HHV HHVF) (7A)

MrF = QrO/(çB-LHV LHVF) (7B)

Eqs.(7A) & (7B) are presented to illustrate that since the PTC gross (çB-HHV HHVF) and net (ç B-LHV
LHVF) terms must be identical to produce the same QrO/MrF ratio, this means that PTC 4 credits
and losses must be computed differently for gross- or net-based computations. PTC 4 offers no such
procedures; indeed, PTC 4 as seen in Eq.(7) demonstrates intrinsic inconsistencies. Input/Loss’
Firing Correction and 3Loss/mAF terms are identical, and must be, regards a gross- and net-based
computations.

INPUT DETAILS, CREDIT AND LOSS DISCUSSIONS

This section discusses the more important differences between the methods. This section
attempts to illustrate how the methods can (or cannot) be manipulated. Its discussion of input data
refers to the Boardman test data; all other discussions are universal.

ASME PTC 4 Inputs

In summary, the following data was used in determining boiler efficiency given Boardman’s
Master Data Set, as following ASME PTC 4:
P Reference temperature of 77°F (set constant)
P Fuel and Air temperatures at 39.18°F, the system’s measured local environment
(the FD Fan is considered outside the boundary)
P Both ultimate and proximate fuel analyses are used
P Enthalpies associated with loss terms were generated by curves and equations
based on the reference temperature (77°F)
P Bottom ash, Economizer ash and fly ash flow splits, temperatures & carbon contents
P Air outlet temperature was based on weighted PA and SA gas flow splits
P Boiler wet O2, noting that consistent system stoichiometrics are critically important
P Pulverizer shaft power
P Ash pit and fly ash heat losses
P Miscellaneous effluent CO and NOX
P Non-stack losses based on Input/Loss, as recorded in the Master Data Set
P Working fluid energy flow as the Steam Generator output, which included
principle flows entering and leaving the boundary, and the miscellaneous
(i.e., Turbine Cycle soot blowing, blow-down and Fan Room heating).

-12-
Input/Loss Inputs
In summary, the following data was used in determining boiler efficiency given Boardman’s
Master Data Set, as following the Input/Loss Method:
P Reference temperature of 59°F (the laboratory’s chosen calorimetric temperature)
P Fuel and Air temperatures at 39.18°F, the system’s measured local environment
P FD Fan power delivered to combustion air (i.e., heating a reacting stream)
P Ultimate fuel analysis
P Fly ash, and combined bottom & Economizer ash flow splits, temperatures & carbon contents
P Air outlet temperature based on weighted PA and SA gas flow splits
P Stack dry O2 with confirmation of fuel chemistry and air leakage by comparing
Boiler conditions with measurements
P Ash pit and fly ash heat losses
P Miscellaneous effluent CO, SO3 and NOX concentrations
P Non-stack losses based on Input/Loss, as recorded in the Master Data Set
P Working fluid energy flow as the Steam Generator output, which includes
principle flows entering and leaving the boundary, and the miscellaneous
(i.e., Turbine Cycle soot blowing, water cannons using raw water,
blow-down, and Fan Room Heating).

Energy Credit and Loss Differences: Reference Temperatures

The most significant difference between methods is their use of the thermodynamic reference
temperature. As explained, when considering a combustion process, Input/Loss assumes the
reference temperature affects all stream crossing the boundary: the energy levels of all reacting
material flows and resulting combustion products. The reference temperature used by Input/Loss is
always taken as the calorimetric temperature. However, the typical sensitivity of calorimetric
temperature on individual terms comprising Input/Loss’ base equation, Eq.(IL/11), are slight
provided fuel and product water are ignored! This observation forces the following restriction: that
Input/Loss must be replaced with an Input-Output method (i.e., direct measurement of fuel flow),
when fuel hydrogen plus fuel water is less than 10% by weight; see Ref. (3) for supporting
computations. Of course, a restriction of this nature applies to all Energy Balance and Heat Loss
methods; such intrinsic sensitivity to thermodynamic properties cannot be method dependent.
Input/Loss has no “credit” term. Its approach is to simply balance the calorimetric equation,
Eq.(IL/4), by adding a sensible heat term to each side resulting in a First Law description of the
As-Fired reactants of Eq.(IL/5). Input/Loss cannot determine individual “credit” effects, they are
intrinsic, and thus the term “Firing Corrections” is employed. Firing Corrections affect input streams,
correcting sensible heats. Losses only affect output streams. Output stream sensible heats, relative
to the calorimetric temperature, are losses. Ideal combustion products less losses are, exclusively,
actual products.
The reference temperature used in PTC 4 is fixed at 77°F. This temperature, as with Input/Loss,
is the thermodynamic reference for all streams entering and leaving the boundary. In practice,
calculating PTC 4 credits means use of prepared correlations, pre-adjusted to 77°F. In the analysis
of the Boardman data, the air and fuel temperature entering the envelope (39.18°F) was below PTC
4’s reference; thus a negative credit. For Boardman, the credit associated with the entering dry air,
air’s moisture and the fuel’s sensible heat amounted to an -1.077% loss of boiler efficiency.

Energy Credit and Loss Differences: A Limiting Example

To further illustrate the fundamental difference, consider the base PTC 4 description of its

-13-
Energy Balance Method, Eq.(4), wherein no losses are considered, QrL = 0.00. Without losses, all
systems perform as reversible processes, system metrics should follow suit. However, under such
conditions, PTC 4 suggests that:

(QrF) çB = QrF + QrB (8)

And when describing boiler efficiency, Eq.(8) becomes: 1.0 + QrB/QrF. What this suggests is that
the efficiency of a fossil-fired system without losses has nothing to do with burning fuel. For
example, say we burn a trivial amount of fuel, and run pulverizers and/or FD Fans all at full load,
thus *QrB/QrF * > 1.0, forcing PTC 4’s efficiency to be either <0.0 or >100%.
Now allow let us examine Input/Loss under these same limits. By expanding Eq.(IL/11), by
substituting for Eq.(IL/4) and for HRXAct , and assuming 3Losses/mAF = 0.0:

çB-HHV = [ HHVP - HRXCal-HHV + HRXCal-HHV + HBC] / [HHVP + HBC] (9)

Thus the Eq.(9) efficiency will always be unity. Again, if we burn a trivial amount of fuel, but run
pulverizers, air heaters, FD Fans, Steam/Air heaters, etc., all at some high load, the computed
Input/Loss efficiency is always 100%; and simply because losses are assumed at zero. In the limit,
running any system in a passive manner, producing nothing, implies a reversible process with unity
efficiency; it is not <0.0 or >100% as suggested by PTC 4.

Energy Credit and Loss Differences: Fans and Combustion Air Heating
Given the boundaries used by each method, “credits” and losses are handled differently.
Boardman preheats its combustion air immediately upstream of the FD Fans using steam from Cold
Reheat; this process is termed Fan Room Heating.
With Input/Loss the boundary for all inlet streams is the local environment. Thus any heat added
to an input stream is accounted for through use of a Firing Correction term. Input/Loss' boundary
differs from PTC 4 regards pulverizer and FD & PA Fan shaft powers. Input/Loss considers energy
added to the reactant air stream through fan shaft power as always a positive contribution to Firing
Corrections. Fan Room Heating at Boardman is a positive contribution to the Firing Corrections.
However, note that the steam used to heat Boardman’s air is taken from Cold Reheat. The fuel
energy used to heat this flow from final Feedwater to Throttle is fully accounted, it being subtracted
from Reheat flow. Although Firing Corrections address affects on reactants, the working fluid energy
flow (with reduced Reheat flow) addresses the effects on fuel flow.
PTC 4 treats heat added by Boardman’s Fan Room Heating as an energy loss. For PTC 4, this
affect was a considerably large loss to boiler efficiency of -0.747% ÄçB-HHV.

Energy Loss and Credit Differences: Pulverizer Shaft Power

Input/Loss does not consider pulverizer shaft power as having any effect on boiler efficiency.
Input/Loss assumes that grinding of coal (a brittle material) is fully emulated when preparing coal
for laboratory calorimetric testing. This assumption has been independently studied and reported
separately(9).
PTC 4 considers the entirety of pulverizer shaft power as additive to the internal energy of the
fuel, and hence is considered an energy credit. The energy credit of Boardman’s pulverizers, using
PTC 4, affected boiler efficiency by +0.120% ÄçB-HHV.

Energy Credit and Loss Differences: Correcting for Constant Pressure

-14-
 Input/Loss corrects for PV work effects on calorific value; solid fuel CVs are measured under
constant volume, but fired under constant pressure. These effects are due to molar changes given the
presence of fuel hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. The PV corrections for fuel nitrogen and oxygen
are negative, that for hydrogen positive.
PTC 4 procedures only correct for fuel hydrogen; thus a difference is assured as is reported in
Table 1. Although small in absolute terms, the difference resulted in a PTC 4 calorific value 4.21
ÄBtu/lbm higher than that used by Input/Loss. The affect on PTC 4 boiler efficiency was a higher
efficiency by +0.052% ÄçB-HHV.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

PTC 4 is an exercise in standardizing form at the sacrifice of thermodynamic substance. This
said, as an industrial standard it is obvious that a great deal of work has gone into the preparation of
PTC 4. PTC 4’s presentation of property data, its general organization and completeness is very well
done. However, without improvement to its fundamentals it will not become the international
standard the authors would desire for their society. The authors believe PTC 4 falls short in that
energy credits are not properly applied. PTC 4 computes variations in boiler efficiency as a function
of ambient conditions, independent of losses. This is demonstrated by using PTC 4 under the
condition of no losses. If credits are applied as defined by PTC 4, as noted by Eq. (PTC/5-7-4), it is
then possible to calculate a non-unity boiler efficiency.
The Input/Loss Method of calculating boiler efficiency is an exercise in physical chemistry. The
Input/Loss Method advocates for absolute answers; it advocates for a return to the thermodynamics
of calorimetrics. All Input/Loss analyses were completed using Exergetic Systems’ EX-FOSS Steam
Generator simulator after extensive modifications(10). EX-FOSS modifications included:
incorporation of NASA thermodynamic property data; detail review of all formulations; allowing
the injection of four sorbents; expanded reporting details for mass flow, energy flow and effluent
balances; Windows 7 compatibility; etc.

Boardman Testing
Results indicate differences in computed efficiencies and fuel flows can easily vary up to 1%
when using Boardman’s Master Data Set and if using differing - but reasonable - assumptions
associated with ambient conditions and boundaries. This said, the particular interpretation made by
Sargent & Lundy was made with their best engineering judgement. It must be kept in mind that given
the capricious nature of PTC 4, comparison to any other approach, and certainly to an absolute
method afforded by Input/Loss, must be completed using multiple tests on a variety of units.
Principle results from testing at Boardman are present in Table 1. Note that efficiency differs
between Input/Loss and PTC 4 by 0.382% ÄçB-HHV. If this difference were applied to typical
contractual penalties, it is approaching $12 million for the Boardman test given a PTC 4 analysis
versus the actual, lower efficiency using Input/Loss. It is interesting that although given such non-
agreement in efficiency, the computed fuel flows agree within 0.12% ... demonstrating inconsistent
flow computations, rooted in treatment of credits, see Eqs.(PTC/5-7-7) versus (IL/26).
It is important to note that significant differences arise in an Input/Loss boiler efficiency if mis-
using calorimetric temperature. For example, if considering a natural gas fired unit, and mis-using
calorimetric temperatures at 95°F (35°C) when the fuel has been computed for 77°F (25°C), an
0.50% error in Äefficiency results. A difference of 0.81% ÄçB-LHV is realized when making this same
18°ÄF error for a high-water lignite unit. See Ref.(3) for sensitivity cases.

-15-
 Table 1: Input Loss vs. PTC 4 using Boardman Test Data
PARAMETER INPUT/LOSS PTC 4 (S&L)
Calorimetric Temperature (°F) 59.0 77.0
Boiler Efficiency (Percent) 84.616 84.998
Computed Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 665,418 666,177
Gross CV, HHV, (Btu/lbm) 8302.667 8302.667
Firing Correction (ÄBtu/lbm) +44.690 n.a.
Constant Pressure Corr. (ÄBtu/lbm) 4.735 8.941
Useful Output (106 Btu/lbm) 4702.6396 4706.3334

When using PTC 4, ambient fuel and air temperatures, and air heating significantly affect boiler
efficiency. For example, if fuel and ambient air temperatures are arbitrarily increased to 77°F and
then to 95°F, significant differences are seen in the computed efficiencies and fuel flows, presented
in Table 2. Note, only fuel and ambient air temperatures were changed for Table 2’s computations,
all other input data was held constant (i.e., fan room heating was not eliminated, no change in
pulverizer power, etc). The observed changes in boiler efficiency represent changes in energy credits,
and specifically not placing a credit term in the denominator of PTC 4’s efficiency equation. The
“other side” of these sensitivities lies with how PTC 4 is formulated: if a reference temperature other
than 77°F were chosen, fuel flow would, of course, vary accordingly. Thus if the reference
temperature is arbitrarily chosen, the computed flow of fuel delivered to a static system becomes
arbitrary; conversely, if 77°F is arbitrarily fixed, fuel flow is still arbitrary. Table 2 also illustrates
why basing new Steam Generator warrantees on PTC 4 procedures is unreasonably sensitive to
ambient conditions when the As-Tested departs from assumed combustion.

Table 2: Effects of Arbitrary Changes in Fuel and

Ambient Air Temperatures using PTC 4 (S&L)
AMBIENT TEMPERATURES (°F): 39.18 77.0 95.0
Calorimetric Temperature (°F) 77.0 77.0 77.0
Boiler Efficiency (PerCent) 84.998 86.067 86.578
Change in Efficiency (% ÄçB-HHV) 0.000 +1.069 +1.580
Computed Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 666,177 657,902 654,022
Change in Fuel Flow (PerCent) 0.000 -1.258 -1.858

Table 3 illustrates the consistency afforded, if desired, when using Input/Loss. Although much
is made about use of a calorimetric temperature, it is also a natural outcome of consistent application
of the First Law that the same fuel mass flow will be computed at any calorimetric temperature
provided the fuel’s energy is known at that temperature!! Table 3 illustrates that boiler efficiency
does not have to be arbitrary; for a given system there is only one fuel flow. Regards the HHVs used
in Table 3, and as has been stated, it is not credible that calorific temperature can be altered without

-16-
knowing corresponding changes in calorific value. This said, the Table 3 values were carefully based
on both a calorimetric testing program sponsored by Portland General Electric, and on confirmatory
sensitivity computations of slight changes in Heats of Formation and changes in water properties
(values were fixed in early 2011). A maximum of 0.007% ÄmAF/mAF is observed.

Table 3: Effects of Arbitrary Changes in Calorimetric Temperature

using Input/Loss (with constant ambient conditions)
CALORIMETRIC TEMP. (°F): 59.0 77.0 95.0
Ambient Temperature (°F) 39.18 39.18 39.18
Gross CV, HHV (Btu/lbm) 8302.667 8298.664 8294.621
Firing Correction (ÄBtu/lbm) +44.690 -3.525 -51.754
Boiler Efficiency (PerCent) 84.616 85.149 85.731
As-Fired Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 665,418 665,396 665,373

To further illustrate, allow a demonstration of how Input/Loss might be used to judge guarantees
of new Steam Generators. If, instead of fixating on a constant calorimetric, allow its use to “correct”
to any given guarantee (e.g., a contractual reference at 77°F). This can be accomplished by simply
altering both the input and output streams by the same ÄT, as equal to the guarantee temperature less
the As-Tested calorimetric. The technique raises/lowers all “boats” (streams) together with a constant
ÄT offset. Assume that we wish to correct to a contractual reference at 77°F, thus for Boardman the
ÄT is 77°F less the As-Tested calorimetric of 59°F; thus a +18Ä°F is then applied to all reactant and
product streams. We must remember that the CV should (must) also be altered, and estimates were
made. Results are presented in Table 4 for both adjusted and unadjusted CVs. We observe changes
in computed boiler efficiency only in the fourth significant digit (and if using the correct CV, in the
5th digit) ... this to the satisfaction of any litigant. Table 4 is an example of what can be done using
an absolute methodology. The technique would be most applicable for gas-fired units given CVs are
computed. The slight non-linear effects are due to property data, especially for the in-leakage of soot
blowing steam used during the Boardman test (given non-linear vapor properties).

Table 4: Effects of Changes in Calorimetric Temperatures using

Input/Loss with ÄT Offset for Guarantee Calculations
CALORIMETRIC TEMP. (°F): 59.0 77.0 77.0
Ambient Temperature (°F) 39.180 57.180 57.180
Stack Temperature (°F) 278.901 296.901 296.901
Gross CV, HHV (Btu/lbm) 8302.667 8302.667 8298.664
Boiler Efficiency (PerCent) 84.616 84.630 84.623
Firing Correction (ÄBtu/lbm) +44.690 +45.057 +45.045
QWF/mAF (Btu/lbm) 7067.192 7068.844 7064.863
As-Fired Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 665,045 664,895 665,638

-17-
PTC 4 Examples
The cases presented in the PTC 4 document are most interesting as they do not suffer from tight
commercial interpretation. As seen in Table 5, there are no significant differences for the coal-fired
unit (Case B-5), however the oil-fired unit (Case B-6) differs by 0.329%ÄçB-HHV, PTC 4 efficiency
being higher. Again, such comparisons require multiple fuels and system designs.
For Case B-5 the quoted dry Stack O2 concentration was changed form 5.50% to 5.5614% to
be consistent with the quoted fuel chemistry and zero system air leakage; this was required to
produce zero error in the computed EX-FOSS efficiency (see PTC 4, Table B-5-6). Case B-5 losses
consisted of the following: Stack CO (0.050% ÄçB-HHV); radiation & convention (0.668% ÄçB-HHV);
unburned carbon in the Economizer and Fly ash; pulverizer rejects (0.090% ÄçB-HHV); and “other
losses” (0.140% ÄçB-HHV). Case B-5 losses were listed in PTC 4 in Tables B-5-2, B-5-3 & B-5-10.
For Case B-6, PTC losses were listed as: Stack CO (0.050% ÄçB-HHV); radiation & convention
(0.676% ÄçB-HHV); and “other losses” (0.140% ÄçB-HHV). Case B-6 losses were listed in PTC 4 in
Tables B-5-5 & B-5-6. All such losses were match by Input/Loss with the exception of “other
losses”. Note that any so-called “loss” not based on thermodynamic degradation, such as
manufacturing losses, “other losses” and the like, cannot be addressed by Input/Loss given its
adherence to Eq.(IL/26)’s computed fuel flow. Input/Loss simply cannot arbitrarily increase QWF,
or decrease HHVP or HBC without a mis-balancing throughout, and given çB is computed from
Eq.(6) ... it is what it is.

Table 5: Results of PTC 4 Examples B-5 and B-6 using Input/Loss

CASE: Example B-5 (Coal) Example B-6 (Oil)
ANALYSIS: PTC 4 Input/Loss PTC 4 Input/Loss
Calorimetric Temperature (°F) 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0
Ambient Temperature (°F) 83.17 83.17 83.17 83.17
Stack Temperature (°F) 280.19 280.19 280.70 280.70
Dry Stack O2 (Percent) 5.500 5.5614 (adj) 5.570 5.570
Gross CV, HHV (Btu/lbm) 11,447 11,447.550 17880 17,880.000
Firing Correction (Btu/lbm) n.a. +26.435 n.a. +96.583
Boiler Efficiency (Percent) 88.383 88.385 89.416 89.087
Useful Output (106 Btu/lbm) 565.330 565.326 565.325 569.459
Computed Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 55,874 55,703 35,360 35,253
Measured Fuel Flow (lbm/hr) 61,900 35,440

RECOMMENDATIONS
P For PTC 4: specify that only 77°F be used for bomb calorimetry and gaseous fuel
calculations; this will bring the fuel’s energy release into compliance with the
standard’s arbitrary reference.

-18-
P For PTC 4: correct the formulation by adding Firing Corrections to the denominator of
the efficiency equation; system losses fundamentally affect thermal efficiency as they
impact product streams; the conditioning of reactant streams does not.
P For PTC 4: eliminate pulverizer power as an energy credit.
P For PTC 4: interface with the local environment must serve as the boundary for all
thermal efficiencies. PTC 4 must use the intakes to FD and PA Fans as boundaries, not their
discharges.
P For PTC 4: fan power delivered, heating of combustion air and the like, increases a
reacting stream’s energy; assuming a negative credit for such terms violates the First law.
P For PTC 4: the standard's section '5.18 allows corrections to be made: by changing test
air conditions to a standard; by changing exit gas temperature to a standard; by
changing the test fuel to a standard; etc. '5.18 states that: "the difference between the
test efficiency and corrected efficiency will usually be no more than two to three
percentage points." (i.e., $40 to $60 million!). This is absurd. Correcting to a chosen set
of standard conditions by simply replacing As-Tested values is not credible.
P General: either drop boiler efficiency as a criteria to qualify Steam Generators, or use
efficiency in combination with a computed fuel flow, or employ the quantity QWF/mAF
provided it is computed using an Input/Loss approach.
P General: Input/Loss, or any Heat Loss method, cannot be allowed if fuel hydrogen plus
fuel water is less than 10% by weight; the Input-Output method must be employed.
P General: the computation of fuel flow must be a requirement by all standards if fuel
water is >10%.
P General: for all systems burning a hydrocarbon (solid, liquid or gaseous) the same
thermodynamics used for thermal efficiency must apply. There can be no methodology
differences between a boiler efficiency (or QWF/mAF) determined for a conventionally fired
system, a gas turbine, a fluidized combustor, etc., nor if firing PRB, gas, oil, peat, biomass
or lignite. Nor can there be differences between the computed fuel flow when using a gross
(higher) calorific value base, versus a net (lower) base.

REFERENCES
1) Private communication, FD Lang with a Steam Generator vendor, June 2009.
2) “Fired Steam Generators”, Performance Test Code 4: 2008, ASME, New York, NY.
3) Lang FD, “Errors in Boiler Efficiency Standards”, ASME, 2009 Power Conference,
POWER2009-81221, Albuquerque, NM. Mod.30 contains serious revisions and is available
from www.ExergeticSystems.com, this paper has been made available with ASME’s
permission, it may be downloaded for personal use only.
4) Rodgers DAT, Golightly T, Lemmons ME, Stenzel WC, and Lang FD, “Comparing Boiler
Efficiency Calculation Methods”, ASME 2011 Power Conference, POWER2011
-55215, Denver, CO.
5) Lang FD and Canning T, “Determining HP-IP Turbine Seal Leakage”, ASME,
2010 Power Conference, POWER2010-27252, Chicago, IL.
6) “Steam Generating Units", Performance Test Code 4.1: 1964, 1973 (Reaffirmed 1991),
ASME, New York, NY; a defunct U.S. standard.
7) “Acceptance Testing of Steam Generators”, DIN 1942: February 1994, DIN Deutsches
Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin; a defunct German standard.
8) “Water-Tube Boilers and Auxiliary Installations - Part 15: Acceptance Tests”, EN 12952-15:
2002, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (also: CEN/TC269/WG3N337);

-19-
 replaces both the German DIN 1942 and British BS 2885 standards.
9) Lang FD, Golightly T, Rodgers DAT and Canning T, “Effects on Boiler Efficiency of
Pulverizing Coal”, ASME 2011 Power Conference, POWER2011-55216, Denver, CO.
10) “EX-FOSS: A Program for Monitoring & Analysis of Fossil-Fired Boilers”, Exergetic
Systems, Inc., San Rafael, CA. (July 2012, Ver.2.8, Mod.40, first published 1983).

-20-

View publication stats