See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279846126

Optimizing Boiler Feed Water Inlet Temperature

to Maximize Efficiency of Steam Power Plant
Conference Paper January 2010

READS

349

2 authors:
Chittatosh Bhattacharya

Nilotpal Banerjee

National Power Training Institute

National Institute of Technology, Durgapur

26 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS

16 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Chittatosh Bhattacharya

Retrieved on: 13 May 2016

1st International Conference on Advances in Energy Conversion Technologies (ICAECT 2010), Jan07 -10, 2010

Optimizing Boiler Feed Water Inlet Temperature

to Maximize Efficiency of Steam Power Plant
Chittatosh Bhattacharya, Nilotpal Banerjee

Abstract Deterioration in final feed water (FW)

temperature at boiler inlet is common in steam thermal
power plants that reduces system efficiency. "As fired"
coal quality mismatch, continuous fluctuation in load
demand causes considerable variation of FW inlet
temperature despite a close control over steam, FW and
fuel flow. Nozzle erosion by solid steam contaminants in
turbine reduces desired pressure drop resulting a
degraded inlet pressure to Intermediate Pressure (IP)
turbine and a reduced specific volume for lower reheat
temperature. The erosion in IP turbine blades degrades
the back pressure on High Pressure (HP) turbine and
thereby degrades last HP heater shell pressure resulting
degradation in FW temperature. Bypassing HP heaters
affect the same way. The present paper discusses the
possible opportunity to maintain the final FW
temperature through a novel patented process
modification with an impact analysis on boiler FW inlet
temperature with reference to design data of 210 MWe
corner fired unit while HP heater is available and the
same is out of service or running with performance
deterioration.
Index Terms Boiler Feed Water Inlet Temperature, Feed
Water, Feed Water heating loss minimization, HP Heater
unavailability loss, Optimum Feed Water heating,
Regenerative Feed Water Heating, Regenerative feed water
heating improvement.

I. INTRODUCTION
Economic implications are crucial to determine the
suitability of technologies for the sustainable development.
Today, amongst the various problems faced by pulverized
coal (PC) fired thermal power plants; primary issues are
increasing users' end power cost, decreasing fuel quality and
tightening environmental emission norms [1].
Rankine steam cycle, adapted in coal fired thermal power
generation, has shown that increased efficiency requires
increased boiler pressure, degree of superheat (SH) and
reheat (RH) to improve steam heat content and condenser
vacuum. These improvements reached natural limits of
boiler strength, high temperature metallurgy and cooling
First & Corresponding Author is with the Dept. of Power Engineering,
National Power Training Institute (Eastern Region), West Bengal
University
of
Technology,
India.
(E-mail:
chittatosh_bhattacharya@rediffmail.com).
Second Author is with the Dept of Mechanical Engineering, National
Institute of Technology (Durgapur), Deemed University, W.B.; India.

system efficiency for condenser [2, 3]. The ideal Rankine

Cycle performance improvement in subcritical regime is
relatively insignificant even with moderate increase in the
upper temperature limit. As such, the regenerative FW
heating system has progressed cycle efficiency more [4, 5].
Modified cycle is certainly more efficient where heat added
to FW by the steam bled from the turbine at points
intermediate between throttle & exhaust reduces heat
rejection in condenser. Heat rejected in circulating cooling
water system of condenser is the major loss in Turbine
cycle. Heat regenerated through heaters after partial
expansion of steam, is used for heating up the condensate /
FW, before cascaded to condenser resulting more heat
including latent heat in the steam remains within the cycle,
reducing condenser loss and cycle efficiency increases up to
4%. However, specific work out put (power output per kg of
steam) of cycle decreases due to steam extractions reducing
turbine output [6]. Therefore, maximum 30% steam can be
extracted from turbine for regenerative FW heating purpose.
The PC firing is very efficient for pneumatic conveyance
to burn coal under suspension. By pulverizing the coal, the
particle size reduces to the desired fineness with increased
surface area resulting quicker preheating and better
combustibility. Besides, there is always a variation in mill
selection coal and the available fired coal. Sometimes, the
variation goes beyond the design pulverizing capacity
limitations putting restriction to meet the boiler thermal load
demand and thereby affect steam generation [7]. Therefore,
optimization of FW temperature close to design condition at
boiler inlet is crucial in balancing the heat absorption in
boiler water-steam circuit along optimization of exhaust dry
flue gas loss. The stated process improvement takes care of
this heat distribution mismatch through regenerative FW
heating with SH bled steam from boiler circuit removing
limitations of conventional regenerative FW heating through
turbine bled steam.

II. METHOD OF IMPROVEMENT OF FW TEMPERATURE

Erosion caused by solid particles in HP and IP turbines
result in higher nozzle area causing a degraded inlet
pressure to HP/IP turbine and a reduced specific volume
caused by lower steam temperature. Then again, erosion in
IP turbine blades degrades the back pressure on HP turbine
and thereby degrades last HP heater shell pressure. This in
turn leads to degraded final FW temperature since TTDs
trend constant only at full load operation. In fact, 10C
increase in TTD due to poor heater performance for tube
scaling or any other failure results in 0.027% loss of cycle

Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engg, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University

1st International Conference on Advances in Energy Conversion Technologies (ICAECT 2010), Jan07 -10, 2010

efficiency. Sometimes, HP heaters kept out of service for

various reasons affect the final FW inlet temperature to
boiler.
The schematic layout of a typical 210 MWe BHEL
(Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited; India) make PC fired
power plant unit is as shown in the Fig.-1. The generated
steam from radiant, RH, natural circulation, single drum,
balanced draft, dry bottom, tilting - tangential, auxiliary fuel
oil and primarily coal fired with Direct Ignition PC firing
system boiler, is entering (working fluid state :WFS -1) and
expanding in HP turbine. The part of HP turbine exhaust
steam is bled to use in HP heater (HPH)-2 for regenerative
FW heating which is an uncontrolled extraction to meet
final feed heating demand (WFS -2).
The Major amounts of HP turbine exhaust passes to cold
RH line for further resuperheating to enhance system
efficiency (WFS-3). The RH steam with a bit frictional
pressure drop in tubular looping readmitted at IP turbine
(WFS -4) for a dual flow balanced expansion. HPH-1 is
heated with extracted steam from 11th stage of IP turbine
blading having 20 stages in each side of double flow coaxial
arrangement (WFS-5). The part of IP turbine exhaust (WFS
-6) is used for heating in boiler FW tank (BFT) attached to
deaerator which is only direct contact open heating
arrangement. The major part of IP turbine exhaust is further
expanded in Low Pressure (LP) turbine before discharging
in condenser hot well (WFS -10). LP heater (LPH)-3 is
heated with extracted steam from 3rd stage of LP turbine
(WFS-7) blading having eight stages in each side of dual
flow arrangement. LPH-2 is heated with extracted steam
from 5th stage of LP turbine blading (WFS-8) and LPH-1
(which is two in numbers) is heated by bled steam (WFS -9)
from 7th stage LP turbine. Again condensate of LPH-3 is
cascaded to LPH-2 (WFS -20) and condensate of LPH-2 is
cascaded to LPH-1 (WFS-17). The condensate from LPH-1
(WFS -13) is fed back into the FW in the regenerative feed
heating system (WFS -14) after cascading in the flash boxes
of Gland Steam Condenser and Drain Coolers (which are
not shown here to simplify the schematic representation).

Condensate feed water (WFS-11) pumped by Condensate

Extraction pump (CEP) (WFS -12) after passing through LP
H-2 (WFS -19), and LPH-3 (WFS -21) is fed into the
Deaerator attached to BFT from where suction is taken
(WFS - 22) for Boiler Feed Pump (BFP).The BFP discharge
(WFS-23) is passed through HPH-1 (WFS -25) and HPH-2
(WFS-27) successively before moving to FW regulating
station for controlled FW flow in boiler (WFS -28).The
condensate of HPH-2 (WFS-26) is cascaded back in HPH-1
which is subsequently (WFS -24) fed into BFT. The detail
of heat balance per unit working fluid flow is as given
below to find out the design efficiency of the aforesaid
system as shown in Table I of annexure for bled steam
quantity m1, m2, m3, etc evaluated in kg/ kg of main steam
flow in turbine.
Assumptions - Generation load at 210 MWe with 3% FW
make up flow with condenser back pressure at 0.1187 bar
with all heaters in service at rated steam condition.
HPH-2: m1 (h2-h26) = (1-m1) (h27-h25) m1=0.0855
HPH-1: m2 (h5-h24) + m1 (h26-h24)
= (1-m1-m2) (h25-h23) m2=0.0478
BFT Heating: m3 (h6ht-h22) + (m1+m2) (h24-h22)
= (1-m1-m2-m3) (h22-h21) m3=0.048
LPH-3: m4 (h7ht-h20) = (1-m1-m2-m3-m4) (h21-h19)
m4=0.042
LPH-2: m5 (h8ht-h17) + m4 (h20-h17)
= (1-m1-m2-m3-m4-m5) (h19-h16) m5 =0.042
LPH-1: m6 (h9ht-h13) + (m4+m5) (h18-h13)
= (1-m1-m2-m3-m4-m5-m6) (h15-h12) m6=0.0078
Work Done: Turbine Work WT
= (h1-h2) + (1- m1)(h4 h5) + (1-m1-m2) (h5-h6) +
+ (1-m1-m2-m3) (h6-h7) + (1-m1-m2-m3-m4) (h7-h8)
+ (1-m1-m2-m3-m4-m5)(h8-h9) +
(1-m1-m2-m3-m4-m5-m6)(h9-h10) = 1108.311 kJ/kg

Fig. 1 Schematic Layout of a typical 210 MWe BHEL make PC fired unit along heat balance diagram
Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engg, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University

1st International Conference on Advances in Energy Conversion Technologies (ICAECT 2010), Jan07 -10, 2010

Pump work: WP = (p1-p10)vsw =14.875 kJ/kg

Net work: W = (WT - WP) =1093.436 kJ/kg
Heat addition: Q = (h1-h27) + (1-m1) (h4-h3) + (h23 h22)
= 2783.142 KJ/kg; Efficiency: W/Q =0.393 i.e.39.3%

III. SYSTEM EFFICIENCY AT VARIOUS OTHER CONDITIONS

The same parametric analysis was carried out with both
the HP heaters out of service where BFP discharge (WFS 23) is directly going in the FW regulating station. The
resultant efficiency reduces to 33.52%. The thermodynamic
parameters at various stages of working fluid are given in
Table II of Annexure while both the HP heaters are out of
service.
The same parametric calculation is repeated for a typical
operating condition with all the heaters in operation in less
efficient condition and when the unit is generating at full
load but with reduced boiler FW inlet temperature by about
150C as given in Table III of Annexure. The resultant
thermal efficiency here is 35.02% at this condition

IV.

EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON CYCLE EFFICIENCY

From the above analysis of design data and the operating

parameters of the unit, evidently there is a substantial loss of
efficiency due to improper regenerative FW heating. It is
true that despite a close control over steam flow, FW flow
and fuel flow, continuous fluctuation in load demand and
turbine blade erosion or deposition cause considerable
variation in boiler FW inlet temperature. Regulating the
final FW temperature close to design specification enhances
and maintains system efficiency. Typically 100F (3.50C)
degradation in final FW temperature is worth 85 Btu/kWh.
As such, it is not uncommon to find the older 210 MWe
units running with average 5-70 C degradation. If the
economic impact of this performance deterioration is
calculated in most conservative manner with reference to
the typical 210MWe unit running with the best average
operating performance according to the guidelines of
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Notification
Ref No. L-7/25(5)/2003-CERC New Delhi 27.9.2007) with
heat rate of 2500 kCal/kWh along a coal rate of 0.63
Kg/KWh and specific fuel oil consumption 2ml/KWh; it
amounts an additional fuel cost to maintain the 210 MWe
generation for a fuel cost of about INR 800/MWh for
typical worst variety Indian coal having HHV of 20.4
MJ/kg and presuming minimum 82% unit availability (7000
operating hrs/year) as - (210 MWe) (7000 hr/yr) (INR
800/MWe-hr) [85 /9920] =INR 10 Million per year [8].
V. CONCLUSIONS
With reference to above discussions, in 100% Maximum
Continuous Rating condition, the FW inlet temperature to
economizer with both the H.P heaters in service is 2300C. It
is observed that in same MCR operation, without HP heaters
in service, the FW inlet temperature to boiler reduces 1620C.
This drop in FW temperature is equivalent to a heat rate

penalty of 300 kCal/kWh. In other words, it results in an

enthalpy drop of 297.7 kJ/kg. The said enthalpy loss can be
compensated with a patented process improvement device
which upkeeps the FW inlet temperature to boiler with an
extraction steam from boiler passing through a heat
exchanger without compromising the efficiency of boiler
performance and the subcooled exhaust steam is used to
maintain the final SH/RH steam temperature eliminating
spray water attemperation[9].With the associated
temperature control device, the modified patented process
corrects the variation of final FW temperature with respect
to design specification irrespective of availability or
unavailability of HP/LP heaters and thereby upkeep the
rated efficiency. A pilot scale application to assess the
economics of feasible emission reduction opportunity
through this process improvement is in progress as 40.3% of
global power generation is sourced from coal (in 2005)
[10,11].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors wish to acknowledge the support extended by
NPTI (ER)/Durgapur B.Tech (PWE) Final year students
(2008-09) Sri N. N. Halder, Sri S. Das and Ms. A. Roy in
collection of plant data under the guidance of the authors
during plant visits.
REFERENCES
[1] Bhattacharya, C.; Sarkar, H.S.; Economic Assessment
of Utilization of Beneficiated Indian Power Coal for
Thermal Power Generation ; (April 2003); National
Symposium on Self Reliance in Power (SRP-2003)
CMERI ; (CSIR) / Durgapur, WB, India.
[2] Nichols, C. Et al Reducing CO2 Emissions by
Improving the Efficiency of the Existing Coal-fired
Power Plant Fleet July 23,2008; DOE/NETL2008/1329
[3] Zachary, J; Bechtel Power Corp Options for reducing a
coal-fired plants carbon footprint: Part I&II,
www.powermag.com/issues/
[4] Palkes, Mark, Alstom Power Inc (2004) Project Report
to DOE/NETL/US, Economics and Feasibility of
Rankine Cycle Improvements for Coal Fired P. Plants.
[5] Why new U.S. supercritical units should consider
T/P92 piping, POWER, April 2006.
[6] Suresh M.V.J.J.; Reddy; K.S. and Kolar; A K. Energy
And Exergy Analysis Of Thermal Power Plants --
proceedings of Conference on Advances in Energy
Research, 2006; IIT Bombay, INDIA
[7] Bhattacharya, C., Capacity Mapping For Optimum
Utilization Of Pulverizers For Coal Fired Boilers,
ASME Transactions - JERT SEPTEMBER 2008, Vol.
130 / 032201-08.
[8] Integrated Environmental Control Model with Carbon
Sequestration (IECM-cs); Carnegie Mellon University.
[9] Bhattacharya, C., Boiler Outlet Steam Attemperation
System p 7109; Indian Patent Journal , 16.5.08
[10] IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2007, pp 24 30.
[11] CO2 Allowance & Electric Price Interaction, IEA; Feb
2007

Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engg, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University

1st International Conference on Advances in Energy Conversion Technologies (ICAECT 2010), Jan07 -10, 2010

ANNEXURE
Table I
Thermodynamic parameters of the various state of working fluid with all heaters in service as per design specification
P(bar)
147.1
35.513
38.47
33.47
16.43
15.55
6.9235
6.828
2.324
2.236
0.841
0.8
0.212
0.195
0.1187
0.104
21.08
0.192
20.062
0.797
14.4
2.206
12.8
6.963
181.4
15.547
179.46
35.5
177.5
160.633

T(0C)
535
341.4
343
535
433
427
318.8
313.4
203.2
200
110.5
107
62
60
49.2
46.3
46.3
59
56.4
93.4
89.9
123.35
120
160
162
200
198
243.35
244
347.65

v(m3/kg) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg.0C) Saturation (0C) State

0.22785 3411.2
6.48388
340.57 Steam
0.07422 3084.3
6.62041
243.38 Steam
0.068278 3081.2
6.58112
248.03 Steam
0.108924
3531
7.2798
239.99 Steam
0.194723 3325.7
7.32056
202.64 Steam
0.204069
3314
7.33826
200 Steam
0.388668 3099.3
7.37251
164.51 Steam
0.390363 3088.2
7.36001
163.96 Steam
0.934761 2875.4
7.44897
125.04 Steam
0.965141 2869.3
7.4538
123.79 Steam
2.080514 2699.2
7.50133
94.88 Steam
2.167822 2692.7
7.50722
93.52 Steam
7.263078 2613.3
7.89336
61.33 Steam
7.838708 2609.8
7.92047
59.56 Steam
0.001012
205.9
0.69315
49.23 Sat.Liquid
0.00101
193.8
0.65537
46.6 Liquid
0.001009
195.6
0.65445
215.06 Liquid
0.001017
246.9
0.81841
59.18 Sat.Liquid
0.001014
237.7
0.78451
212.53 Liquid
0.001039
391.2
1.23172
93.42 Sat.Liquid
0.001035
377.6
1.19038
196.36 Liquid
0.001064
517.9
1.5635
123.36 Sat. Liquid
0.00106
504.5
1.52661
190.9 Liquid
0.001102
675.5
1.94237
164.74 Liquid
0.001092
694.5
1.94205
357.61 Liquid
0.001156
852.3
2.33057
200 Sat.Liquid
0.001138
850.7
2.28723
356.71 Liquid
0.001236 1053.6
2.73268
243.36 Sat.Liquid
0.001216 1058.4
2.70812
355.8 Liquid
0.009246 2582.9
5.24899
347.65 Sat. Steam

Ref. state
h1
h2
h3
h4
*h5
*h5ht
h6
*h6ht
h7
*h7ht
h8
*h8ht
h9
*h9ht
h10
h11
h12
*h13/14
*h15/16
*h17/18
h19
*h20
h21
h22
h23
*h24
h25
*h26
h27
h28

Location
Main Steam to turbine
FW Heating Steam to HPH 2 at HPH Shell Pressure
HPT Exhaust Steam (CRH Steam)
HRH Steam inlet to IP turbine
Bled Steam IPT 11th stage
FW Heating Steam to HPH 1 at shell pressure
IPT Exhaust Steam
BFT/DA Heating Steam at DA shell pressure
Design Bled Steam LPT 3rd stage
FW Heating Steam to LPH 3 at htr shell pressure
Design Bled Steam LPT 5th stage
FW Heating Steam to LPH 2 at htr shell pressure
Design Bled Steam LPT 7th stage
FW Heating Steam to LPH 1 at htr shell pressure
LPT Exhaust design pressure/ Sat. Liquid at Condenser Hotwell
CEP Inlet at Condenser Back Pressure
CEP Outlet FW
Heating Steam Condensate from LPH1 to Flash box /CEP I/L
FW from LPH 1 O/L & to LPH 2 I/L
Heating Steam Condensate from LPH 2 to Flash box/ LPH 1 I/L
FW from LPH 2 O/L & to LPH 3 I/L
Heating Steam Condensate from LPH 3 to Flash box / LPH 2 I/L
FW from LPH 3 O/L & to Deaerator- BFT I/L
FW from BFT O/L & to BFP I/L
FW from BFP O/L & to HPH 1 I/L
Heating Steam Condensate from HPH1 to BFT I/L
FW from HPH 1 O/L & to HPH 2 I/L
Heater condensate Cascaded from HPH 2 to HPH 1 heating steam I/L
FW from HPH 2 O/L & to Feed Water Regulating Station
Dry Saturated Steam O/L from Steam Drum

* predicted from relevant operational parameters at rated design MCR due to unavailability of installed measuring devices.

Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engg, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University

1st International Conference on Advances in Energy Conversion Technologies (ICAECT 2010), Jan07 -10, 2010

TABLE II
THERMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF THE VARIOUS STATE OF
WORKING FLUID WITH BOTH HP HEATERS OUT OF SERVICE

P(bar)
147.1
38.47
33.47
6.9235
6.828
2.324
2.236
0.841
0.8
0.212
0.195
0.1187
0.104
21.08
0.192
20.062
0.797
14.4
2.206
12.8
6.963
181.4
160.633

T(0C)
535
343
535
318.8
313.4
203.2
200
110.5
107
62
60
49.2
46.3
46.3
59
56.4
93.4
89.9
123.35
120
160
162
347.65

v(m3/kg)
0.22785
0.068278
0.108924
0.388668
0.390363
0.934761
0.965141
2.080514
2.167822
7.263078
7.838708
0.001012
0.00101
0.001009
0.001017
0.001014
0.001039
0.001035
0.001064
0.00106
0.001102
0.001092
0.009246

h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg.0C) Saturation (0C)

3411.2
6.48388
340.57
3081.2
6.58112
248.03
3531
7.2798
239.99
3099.3
7.37251
164.51
3088.2
7.36001
163.96
2875.4
7.44897
125.04
2869.3
7.4538
123.79
2699.2
7.50133
94.88
2692.7
7.50722
93.52
2613.3
7.89336
61.33
2609.8
7.92047
59.56
205.9
0.69315
49.23
193.8
0.65537
46.6
195.6
0.65445
215.06
246.9
0.81841
59.18
237.7
0.78451
212.53
391.2
1.23172
93.42
377.6
1.19038
196.36
517.9
1.5635
123.36
504.5
1.52661
190.9
675.5
1.94237
164.74
694.5
1.94205
357.61
2582.9
5.24899
347.65

State
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Sat.Liq.
Liquid
Liquid
Sat.Liq.
Liquid
Sat.Liq.
Liquid
Sat. Liq.
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Sat. St.

TABLE III
THERMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF THE VARIOUS STATE OF WORKING FLUID
WITH ALL HEATERS IN SERVICE BUT WITH LESS EFFICIENT CONDITION

Ref. state
h1
h3
h4
h6
*h6ht
h7
*h7ht
h8
*h8ht
h9
*h9ht
h10
h11
h12
*h13/14
*h15/16
*h17/18
h19
*h20
h21
h22
h23
h28

P(bar)
148.57
39.29034
40.9918
39.08
16.9
16
7.1
7
2.7
2.55
0.79
0.77
0.18
0.17
0.1684
0.154
21.08
0.27
18.06
0.765
16.4
2.12
14.5
6.025
184
15.65
181.7
17.243
178
160

T(0C)
528
352
355
528
416
412
300
294.6
221
218
129
127
77
75
56.42
50.3
51
66
61.5
92.3
89.3
122
120
159
162
200
197
205
229.5
347.35

v(m3/kg)
0.022238
0.068044
0.065397
0.092034
0.184261
0.193632
0.36607
0.367654
0.834683
0.878754
2.329417
2.378089
8.944695
9.417785
8.99058
0.00102
0.00102
0.00102
0.001017
0.001038
0.001035
0.001062
0.00106
0.001101
0.001092
0.001156
0.001136
0.11502
0.001188
0.009312

h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg.0C) Saturation (0C)

3390.5
6.45405
341.36
3101.7
6.60523
249.27
3105.3
6.59289
251.79
3509.5
7.18334
248.96
3288.2
7.26349
204.02
3280.9
7.27759
201.37
3059.5
7.29279
165.53
3048.5
7.27981
164.96
2909.9
7.45178
129.98
2904.5
7.46674
128.08
2736.5
7.625
93.17
2732.7
7.62735
92.49
2642.6
8.05358
57.83
2638.9
8.06938
56.61
2603.5
7.96911
56.42
210.5
0.70739
54.54
215.2
0.71544
215.05
276.2
0.90571
66.72
258.9
0.84881
207.28
386.6
1.21908
92.31
375.2
1.18328
202.56
512.2
1.54913
122.08
504.6
1.52645
196.69
671.1
1.93246
159
694.7
1.94176
358.77
852.4
2.33064
200.3
846.4
2.27757
357.73
2793.8
6.39062
205
991.6
2.57704
356.04
2585.2
5.25368
347.33

State
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Liquid
Liquid
Sat.Liq.
Liquid
Sat.Liq.
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Steam
Liquid
Sat. St.

* predicted from relevant operational parameters at rated conditions of MCR due to unavailability of installed measuring devices.

Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engg, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University

Ref. state
h1
h2
h3
h4
*h5
*h5ht
h6
*h6ht
h7
*h7ht
h8
*h8ht
h9
*h9ht
h10
h11
h12
*h13/14
*h15/16
*h17/18
h19
*h20
h21
h22
h23
*h24
h25
*h26
h27
h28