Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers
On-Line Monitoring of Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in Coal-Fired Units
Sastry S. Munukutla, Professor, ASME Fellow
Robert Craven, R&D Engineer
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Center for Energy Systems Research
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN, U.S.A.
Abstract
Coal-fired thermal power stations account for an
overwhelming share of existing power generation as well
as the rapidly expanding capacity growth in the world.
Improvement of efficiency will automatically result in
reduced fuel consumption and reduced emissions for the
same amount of power generated. It is, therefore,
imperative to have a simple, accurate and universally
applicable on-line method for efficiency monitoring.
Whether it is as a participating country of the Kyoto
Treaty or in its own national interest it is time for
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions in all countries.
Emissions monitoring in the U.S.A. is accomplished by
using continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) in
each power plant. The cost of CEMS for one unit is
approximately U.S. $1 million. It would, therefore, be
advantageous to have an inexpensive emissions
monitoring system.
A software for on-line monitoring of efficiency as well as
greenhouse gas emissions in coal-fired units has been
developed at the Center for Energy Systems Research.
The calculations are based on the recently developed
output/loss method and almost all the required data is
available on plant computers.
The software has been successfully installed in 15 coal-
fired units in the U.S.A. and in six units in foreign
countries. In this paper the output/loss method and the
associated thermodynamic model will be described. Field
results from several units around the world will be
presented. Examples of strategies for performance
enhancement based on real-time performance monitoring
will be discussed.
Key Words: Boiler efficiency, Coal flow rate
Heatrate, Plant performance
1. Brief Literature Review
Steam cycle heatrate and boiler efficiency were
considered as independent parameters until the coupling
ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 146
between the two parameters was clearly established as an
outcome of an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
sponsored project in the early 80’s. This work was
reported in a classic paper by Levy, Munukutla et al [1].
The output loss method of calculating the unit heatrate
was clearly established as the most viable method for
performance monitoring. Levy, Munukutla et al [2]
subsequently discussed the optimization of unit heatrate
through variations in fireside parameters. Munukutla et al
[3, 4] discussed simulation models for the performance of
four units of Plant Scherer and one unit of J.M. Stuart
Station. Levy et al [5] introduced the utilization of flue
gas flow rate measurements for calculating unit heatrate.
Every coal-fired unit in the U.S.A. is mandated to measure
the flue gas flow rate as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA); however, the measurements are
not reliable. Typical errors are in the range of 10-20%.
Tempering Air Coal
FD FAN
Coal
Primar y Air Coal/Air
Mills
Hot Reheat
Ste am
BOILER ColdReheat
Ste am
Secondar y Air
ID FAN Main Steam
Air preheater Leakage
Flue Gas
Fee d Wate r
S TAC K AIR PREHEA TER
Figure 1 Schematic of the System Modeled by the
Output/Loss Method
A method of determining coal analysis from
measurements of flue gas components was reported by
Munukutla et al [6]. As a consequence of this work, it
was possible to use Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) data in lieu of coal analysis for
calculating unit heatrate as reported by Munukutla and
Khodabakhsh [7]. CEMS was mandated in every fossil
unit in the U.S.A. due to CAAA. It is well known that
coal analysis is rarely available in real-time, however,
CEMS data is available in real-time. It was, therefore,
possible to monitor coal-fired power plant performance in
 Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers

real-time using the method developed by Munukutla and Boiler efficiency:

Khodabakhsh. This technology of real-time performance
monitoring has been implemented at several coal-fired QS
ηB =
power plants MC * H
Sistla and Munukutla [8] presented some aspects of
implementing the Real-Time Performance Monitoring
Technology in a Coal-Fired Unit. A systematic study of
the effect of errors in various parameters used in the Steam cycle heatrate
calculations was conducted and presented by Munukutla, QS
Craven, and Vijiapurapu [9]. Field results from some HR C =
Kwg
power plants in the U.S.A. were presented by Munukutla
and Li [10].
2. Principal of the Output/Loss Method
The basic principle of the output/loss method Net unit heatrate
is that the energy input to a system is the sum of MC * H
HR N =
the output and losses. If the entire coal-fired (Kwg − K S )
power plant were to be considered as a system,
the input to the system is the product of the coal 3. Powerplant Model:
flow rate (Mc) (1b or kg/hr) and the gross The schematic of the model of the power
calorific value (H) of the fuel (Btu/lb or plant for purposes of performance monitoring is
Kcal/Kg). The output is the heat transferred to shown in Figure 1.
the steam in the boiler, Qs (Btu/hr or Kcal/hr). The sequence of calculations will now be
The losses of the system include, heat loss due described. Starting from the ultimate analysis of
to unburned carbon in the fuel, heat loss due to the coal, the chemical formula for the moisture
heat in dry flue gas, heat loss due to moisture in and ash free (MAF) coal is written as
the fuel, heat loss due to moisture from burning
hydrogen in the fuel, heat loss due to moisture in CHaSbOcNd
the air, heat loss due to formation of carbon
monoxide and heat loss due to surface radiation The chemical equation for the combustion of
and convection. These losses (l) can be coal can then be written as follows. Here f is
estimated per unit mass of fuel. We can, the fuel moisture, B is the Stoichiometric
a c
therefore, write the following equation: quantity of air (B = 1 + + b − ) , E is the excess
4 2
Mc*H = Qs + Mc*l (1) of
air, w is the moles of H2O in air per mole
oxygen, x is the amount of unburned carbon and
In the above equation Mc can be calculated by m is the quantity of CO.
knowing H, QS, and ℓ. The TTU Real-Time
Heatrate performance Monitoring software CH S O N + fH O + B(1 + E) (O + 3.76 N + wH O)
a b c d 2 2 2 2
known as, TTURTHRMTM, performs the
a 
calculations based on plant data. Once the coal = (1 - x - m) CO + xC + mCO +  + f + B(1 + E ) w  H O
2 2  2
flow rate is calculated, the following  m  d
performance parameters can be calculated. In + bSO +  BE + x + O + 3.76B(1 + E ) +  N
2  2 2  2 2
what follows Kwg is the gross power generation
and Ks is the Station Service Power.
The unburned carbon in the above equation,
x, can be calculated by knowing the carbon in
ash. By knowing the coal analysis, the
quantities a,b,c,d,f, and B will be known. There

ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 147

 Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers

are still two unknowns m and E in Equation 6. Convection and Radiation

These can be calculated by knowing the molar
fraction of any two flue gas components. Usual Leakage Air
practice is to use the molar fractions of CO and Primary Air Hot Reheat
O2 in the flue gas to determine m and E. At this Steam
Secondary Air
stage all the terms in the combustion equation Cold Reheat
are known and, therefore, the quantities of air Coal Steam
flow and each flue gas component flow per unit Flue Gas
Main Steam
mass of coal can be calculated. Fly Ash
(unburned Feed Water
The air flow has to be divided into primary air Carbon)
flow and secondary air flow based on actual
measurements or in the absence of which by Bottom Ash
using design data. At this stage an energy
balance will be performed on the boiler as Figure 2 Energy Analysis for the Boiler
shown in Figure 2. calculated. The coal flow rate Mc can then be
First the energy analysis will be performed calculated as
based on unit mass of fuel flow. Note that each Mc =
Qs
flow stream has its own enthalpy. If the heat Hs
transferred to the steam per unit mass of coal is
Hs, the enthalpy of air is Ha, the enthalpy of the Once the coal flow rate is calculated, the flow
coal is Hc, the enthalpy of the flue gas is Hf, rate of CO2 can be calculated.
enthalpy of flyash is Hfa, enthalpy of bottom ash
is Hba, enthalpy of unburned carbon Huc and the
Alternatively Equation 1 can be used for
enthalpy corresponding to radiation and
calculating the coal flow rate. The losses per
convection loss is Hr, energy balance gives
unit mass of coal ℓ can be calculated either by a
Hs=Ha+Hc-Hf-Hfa-Hba-Huc-Hr rigorous energy balance as described here(7)or by
using a PTC4 type calculation. Note that in this
By knowing the flow rate, pressure, and approach, the control volume has to be chosen
temperature of each of feedwater, main steam, very carefully. Once the coal flow rate is
cold reheat steam and hot reheat steam, the total determined by Equation 8, the other
heat transfer to the steam Qs can be performance parameters can be calculated.

4. Coal Analysis in Real-Time:

In the foregoing section describing the power
plant model, it was tacitly assumed that the coal
ultimate analysis was known apriori. However,
it is well known that coal quality is not an
absolute constant, even in cases where the coal
supply is received from the same mine.
However, minor variations in coal ultimate
analysis do not result in significant errors in
results. As discussed in Reference 5, twenty
different coal analyses measured at Morgantown

ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 148

 Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers

during the period of March 1984 to July 1985 5. Field Results

were used to evaluate a set of data. It is to be
noted that Morgantown receives its coal supply
from the same mine. The resulting standard
deviation in unit heatrate due to variations in
ultimate analysis was found to be less than 8
Btu/Kwh. It can, therefore, be concluded that in
units that receive coal supply from the same
source, a typical coal analysis can be used to
perform the calculations.
However, several units buy coal from the spot
market and this would lead to considerable
variation in coal quality. Blending of different
coals is also becoming a common practice in
U.S. utilities. It is very difficult to maintain a
constant blend ratio due to several operational
considerations and this could lead to
considerable variations in coal quality. The only
way to address this situation is to monitor coal
analysis in real-time.
The first set of results presented in Table I
correspond to a 375 MW unit. During a test, the
load was maintained constant and coal and ash
samples were collected and sent to the
laboratory for coal ultimate analysis and
unburned carbon in ash. The other plant data
corresponding to the time at which the samples
were collected along with the laboratory coal
analysis and unburned carbon data were used to
calculate the heatrate from performance tests as
shown in the third column. During the test
period, the heatrate was also calculated in real-
time by determining the coal analysis from
CEMS data. It can be seen that except in two
cases, the percent difference was less than 1.5%.
Table 1 Comparison of Real-Time Heatrate Results
with Performance Test Results

Real-time coal analyzers have been available

in the market for some time. Most of the
analyzers are based on the Prompt Gamma
Neutron Activation Analysis (PGNNA)
Technique. The available equipment is bulky
and expensive and, therefore, is not being used
routinely in the U.S.A. Recently some products
have entered into the market that are addressing
some of the problems. On the other hand the
technique described in Reference 6, wherein the
coal analysis is determined from flue gas
analysis offers a viable alternative to using a
separate instrument to determine coal analysis.

In order to comply with the CAAA, CO2, SO2,

and O2 and flow rate of flue gas have to be
measured in all U.S.A. coal-fired units. This
yields the so-called CEMS data. This CEMS
data can be used to determine a very good
estimate of the coal analysis [11]. An exact
calculation would require realtime
The next set of results shown in Figures 3-5
instrumentation for ash, flue gas moisture, and
correspond to a 700 MW unit. Ten tests were
N2.
conducted of which nine were four-hour tests
and one was a two-hour test. Samples were

ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 149

 Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers

taken continuously over the course of each test, Hydrogen in Coal

but were bagged at one-hour intervals. These
5
one-hour samples were mixed and then broken
into two subsamples which were sent to two 4

Hydrogen (%)
different laboratories. There were some 3 Lab H
variations between the two laboratories and, Realtime H
2
therefore, the average of the two was taken as
the representative lab value. The comparisons 1
of laboratory measurements versus calculated 0
values are shown for carbon, hydrogen, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Test Number
sulfur in Figures 3-5. The predicted carbon
value was always slightly higher than the lab Figure 4 Percent Hydrogen Comparison between
value. The error is caused by errors in the Laboratory Results and Real-Time Prediction
estimates for ash and fuel moisture due to the
lack of real time instruments for these Sulfur in Coal

quantities. Parametric studies have shown 0.8

minimal impact on Heatrate from these errors. 0.7
The predicted hydrogen agrees very well with 0.6
Sulfur (%)0.5
lab value except in one case. The predicted 0.4
sulfur value is always less than the lab value. 0.3 Lab S
This could be attributed to sulfur capture in the 0.2 Realtime S
air preheater which causes the SO2 percent to 0.1
0
decrease between the upstream and downstream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
of the air preheater. Test Number

Carbon in Coal Figure 5 Percent Sulfur Comparison Between

Laboratory Results and Real-Time Prediction.
72
71 Finally a comparison between measured and
Carbon (%)

70
69
calculated coal flow rates is shown in Figures 6
68 and 7. In Figure 6 is shown the comparison
67 Lab C between measured and calculated flow rates
66 Realtime C over a 12-hour period for a 700 MW unit.
65 Shown in Figure 7 is a 10-minute average value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
of coal flow rate over a 14-day period for a 700
Test Number
MW unit. The close tracking of calculated coal
flow with that of a calibrated feeder
Figure 3 Percent Carbon Comparison Between
measurement demonstrates the robustness of the
Laboratory Results and Real-Time Prediction
real time calculation.

ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 150

 Recent Researches in Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications and Computers

14 Day 10 minute Values the Effects of Key Parameters on Plant Scherer Performance,
presented at the EPRI Heat-Rate Improvement Conference,
1000000

900000
Richmond, VA (May 1988).
800000

700000
[4] M. Gadiraju, S. Munukutla, G. Tsatsaronis and Ora
600000
Scott, Steady State Performance Simulation Model for J. M.
Stuart Station Unit 2, Paper No. 89-JPGC-PWR-22, presented
lbs/hr

500000

400000 at the ASME Joint Power Generation Conference, Dallas, TX

300000 (October 1989).
200000

100000 [5] E. Levy, N. Sarnac, H. G. Crim, R. Leyse and J.

0 Lamont, Output/Loss: A New Method for Measuring Unit Heat
25-Sep-02 27-Sep-02 29-Sep-02 01-Oct-02 03-Oct-02 05-Oct-02 07-Oct-02 09-Oct-02
00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 Rate, Paper No. 87-JPGC-PWR-39, presented at the ASME
Feeder Total TTU Joint Power Generation Conference, Miami, FL (October 1987).

Figure 6 Measured versus Calculated Coal Flow [6] S. Munukutla, P. Chodavarapu and D. C. O'Connor,
On-Line Coal Analysis from Measurement of Flue Gas
180 Components, Paper No. 91-JPGC-PWR-17, presented at the
175
Joint Power Generation Conference, San Diego, CA (October
170
1991).
Coal flow (tons/hr)

165

160
[7] S. Munukutla and F. Khodabakhsh, Enhancement of
155 Measured
TTU calculated
Boiler Performance Evaluation Methods Using CEMs Data,
150
presented at the 1995 International Joint Power Generation
145
Conference, Vol. 29, pp. 11-16, Minneapolis, MN (October
140
12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 12/9/2003 1995).
2:04 3:16 4:28 5:40 6:52 8:04 9:16 10:28 11:40 12:52 14:04
Time
[8] P. Sistla, S. Munukutla, A Novel Approach to Real-
Time Performance Monitoring of a Coal-Fired Power Plant,
Figure 7 Measured versus Calculate Coal Flow proceedings of the International Conference on Electric Utility
Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies, pp.
6. Conclusions 273-277, London, U.K., April 2000.
The simplified model developed for [9] R. Craven, S. Vijiapurapu, and S. Munukutla
performance monitoring, utilizing the Parametric Studies of Power Plant Performance Monitoring,
output/loss method, appears to work well in ASME paper #IJPGC 2002-20683 presented at ASME
International Joint Power Generation Conference, June 23-June
real-time. Field results comparing real-time 26, 2002, Scottsdale, Arizona
heatrate, calculated coal composition and coal
flow respectively to heatrate from performance [10] Li Daolin and S. Munukutla, Real-Time Boiler
Performance and Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Technology with
test, coal composition from laboratory analysis Applications, paper presented at U.S.—China Industrial Boilers
and coal flow rate measured by calibrated Workshop, June 10-11, 2004, Beijing, China.
feeders appear to be fairly accurate.
[11] S. Munukutla, On-Line Coal Analyzer Based on
CEMS Data Paper presented at International On-Line Coal
7. References Analyzer Technical Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, November
[1] E.K. Levy, S. Munukutla A. Jibilian, H. G. Crim, J. 8-10, 2004.
Cogoli, A. F. Kwasnik and F. Wong, Analysis of the Effects of
Coal Fineness, Excess Air and Exit Gas Temperature on the
Heat Rate of a Coal-Fired Power Plant, Paper No.
84-JPGC-PWR-1, presented at the ASME Joint Power
Generation Conference, Toronto, Canada (October 1984).

[2] E.K. Levy, S. Munukutla, O. Badr, S. Williams and J.

Fernandes, Optimization of Unit Heat Rate Through Variations
in Fireside Parameters, presented at the EPRI Power Plant
Performance Monitoring and System Dispatch Improvement
Workshop, Washington, D.C. (September 1986).

[3] S. Munukutla, G. Tsatsaronis, D. Anderson, S. Wilson

and J. Harris, FLAPP: A Microcomputer Software for Analyzing

ISBN: 978-960-474-284-4 151