Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
36
Vol. 67, January 2008, pp. 36-42
Introduction
Six Sigma (SS) methodologies improve quality and
produce large cost savings1-9. Kumar4 noted that SS has
found place primarily in manufacturing industries as a
quality tool. In process industries, no such convenience
is available. Working fluid in process industries may not
be visible and its quality is measured by pressure,
temperature and flow measurement. In manufacturing
industries, production is already operating at 1-2 sigma
level and by applying SS methodology, it can be raised
up to 5-6 sigma levels. In process industries, there are
many sub- processes that operate even at negative sigma
level because of being secondary in nature. So in process
industries, a quantum jump in sigma value by application
of SS tools cannot be expected and it is found that the
improvement potential is maximum up to 2-3 sigma
levels.
Present work is an initiative to implement SS in a
thermal power plant (TPP).
Six Sigma Application in Thermal Power Plants A
Case Study
In TPP, optimisation of cycle make up water [Demineralize (DM) water] consumption process involves
substantial cost. Escalating water charges from water
supply department and cost of production of DM water
*Author for correspondence
E-mail: parbhakarkaushik@yahoo.com
KAUSHIK & KHANDUJA: SIX SIGMA DMAIC METHOD FOR THERMAL POWER PLANT
570C
GT - 1
Flue gases
GT Gener ator II
S team Turbine
Gene rator
156 MW
20 0C
G as
570C
GT
Ex h aust
GT - 2
H RSG - 1
VTB
H .P. Steam
L.P. Stea m
GT Gener ator I
76 k g / cm
52 8C
H PS T
LPS T
H RSG - 2
VTB
37
D M W ater
Mak e u p
H .P. Steam
CO NDENS ER
ABBR.
D escription
GT
HRS G
VTB
H.P. S te am
L.P. S te am
HPS T
LPS T
G as T urbine
H eat Recovery St eam G enerat or
Vert ical T ube B oiler
H igh P ressure St ea m
Low P ressure St eam
H igh P ressure St ea m T urbine
Low P ressure St eam T urbine
C old Water
for
C ondensing
HO T W ELL
Hot
Water
C ondensate
Extra ction Pump
De ae rator
B oiler Fee d Pu mp
38
S up plier
In put
DM
P la n t
M a ke U p W a te r
C o n su m p tion
D a ta
P rocess
O utp ut
C u stom e r
O p e ra tion
and
M a in te n a n ce
p ra ctice s
R e d u ction in
M a ke U p
W a te r
C o n su m p tion
T h e rm a l
P o we r
M a n a ge m e n t
Th in kin g
6 S igm a
M e th o d olo gy
C u sto m e r
S a tisfactio n &
R e la tio n sh ip
Flow
1 .5 0
1 .2 5
1 .0 0
0 .7 5
0 .5 0
20
40
N u m b e r o f r u n s a b o u t m e d ia n :
E x p e c te d n u m b e r o f r u n s:
L o n g e st r u n a b o u t m e d ia n :
A p p r o x P - V a lu e fo r C lu ste r in g :
A p p r o x P - V a lu e fo r M ix tu r e s:
60
92
91 .824 18
7
0 .510 45
0 .489 55
80
100
Ob s e r v a t io n
Observation
1 20
N u mb er o f ru n s u p o r d o w n :
E x p e c te d n u m b e r o f r u n s:
L o n g e st r u n u p o r d o w n :
A p p r o x P - V a lu e fo r T r e n d s:
A p p r o x P - V a lu e fo r O sc illa tio n :
1 40
1 60
1 80
119
12 1.00 000
4
0.36 191
0.63 809
Run chart was drawn from data collected for day cycle
make up water from TPP measured through flow meter.
From the results found using Minitab, P-values (Fig. 4)
for clustering (0.51045), trend (0.36191), oscillation
(0.63809) and mixtures (0.48955) come out to be more
than the significance level (0.05), indicating not any
special cause of variation in data.
KAUSHIK & KHANDUJA: SIX SIGMA DMAIC METHOD FOR THERMAL POWER PLANT
Target
Process Data
LSL
Target
USL
Sample Mean
SampleN
StDev (Within)
StDev (O v erall)
USL
39
Within
Overall
*
0.50000
0.70000
0.90945
182
0.27796
0.26475
0.4
O bserv ed Performance
PPM<LSL
*
PPM>USL 763736.26
PPMTotal
763736.26
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-0.79
*
-0.79
-0.26
0.14
1.6
MAN
EQUIPMENT
Improper Adjustment of
S WAS Sampling Valves
Late closing of
Drain & Vent
Valves during Boiler Startup
Sampling Valve s remaining
open after collection of samples
Sample drains remained opened
during Shutdown boiler
Frequency of boiler
hydraulic tests
Higher no. of sample
collection in SWAS
MORE DM
CYCLE
MAKE UP
METHOD
Tube Leakages
Gland Leakages from
pump s
MATERIAL
c) Fish-bone Diagram
40
35
Percent of contribution
Contribution,
%
Percent
of contribution
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SWAS
VA LVE P A SSING
Causes
Causes
O THERS
Target
P rocess D ata
LS L
Target
USL
S am ple M ean
S am pleN
S tD ev (Within)
S tD ev (O v erall)
USL
W ithin
O v erall
*
0.50000
0.70000
0.54066
61
0.09767
0.15382
0.32
O bserv ed P erform ance
P P M < LS L
*
P P M > U S L 65573.77
P P M T otal
65573.77
0.48
0.64
0.80
0.96
1.04
*
1.04
0.35
0.42
1.12
Fig. 8 Process capability analysis of make up water after implementing DMAIC methodology
Improve
KAUSHIK & KHANDUJA: SIX SIGMA DMAIC METHOD FOR THERMAL POWER PLANT
41
Status
Implemented
Six month periodic training cum awareness program for lab analysts to
be conducted to make them aware of the importance of DM water loss.
First program
already
conducted
Implemented
Instructions
pasted
Implemented
Instructions
being followed
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented
To detect the problem of seal water tank overflow at the earliest, in the
log sheet of the operator, the daily checking of seal water tanks to be
Implemented
included.
Included in the
log sheet
To be
implemented
10
Implemente d
11
Implemented
12
To be
implemented
42
References
1
4
5
6
8
9
Appendix-1
Cost calculations of loss on account of 0.1% make up water
Loss due to make up water consumption
Water is heated in boiler from 27C at atmosphere pressure to superheated steam at 528C and 76kg/cm2
Heat loss
Total loss on account of make up water =Heat loss + water loss = Rs 1684.74 per m3 + Rs 22.00 per m3 = Rs 1706.741 per
m3
Losses on account of 0.1% make up water
Total flow in boiler per annum = [(231(HP) + 46 (LP)) 2 (Boiler)] 24 h 365 days = 4853040 m3
Water quantity for 0.1% make up = (0.1 4853040)/ 100 = 4853.04 m3 per annum
Therefore, loss on account of 0.1% make up water = 4853.04 Rs 1706.74 = Rs 8282882.343 = Rs 82.82 lakhs approx per
annum