SIMULATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DRUM – BOILER

DYNAMICS

MSc. Thesis by

Giambattista Pistore

ABSTRACT
The deregulation of new market energy causes the necessity of knowing and controlling the
dynamic behaviour of power plant, both the singular devices and the entire plant.
The thesis presents a non-linear dynamic model for natural circulation drum-boilers. The
model describes the pressure dynamics of the drum, downcomer, and riser components.
Parameters have been identified with identification techniques using experimental data logged
from Fusina (320 MW, coal fired) steam power plant.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Italian government choice of denationalising ENEL (Italian Electricity Board) and the
consequent energy market deregulation have pushed people to look at power plant in a more
modern way. Today it is important not only to achieve the maximum plant efficiency but also
to lead plant in a rewarding way. In other words the demands for rapid changes in power
generation will increase and an electric administrator should be able to fulfil these demands
producing every time the necessary electric power. This leads to more stringent requirements
on processes control systems. It is required to keep the process operating well for large
changes in operating conditions. One way to achieve this is incorporate more process
knowledge into the systems in order to forecast (control) the dynamic behaviour of the
processes.
Nowadays there are good static models that describe system behaviour in steady state
conditions, there are also black box models that describe the system well in specific operating
conditions. Both the two do not capture dynamics, the goal is to develop non-linear models
based on physical principles with a small number of parameters. The aim is that controlling
these parameters we should be able to guarantee a good behaviour during transient conditions.
The work presented in this paper deals with a model based on physical parameters built up in
order to capture drum-boiler pressure dynamics. To identify the parameters in a satisfactory
way, different identifications techniques have been used such as OLS (Ordinary Least
Squares) and TLS (Total Least Squares).

2. THE PHYSICAL MODEL

There are two different strategies to deal with boiler turbine dynamics:
1. “knowledge models”: they are detailed dynamic models representing plant components,
these models are generally used to build plant simulators, which can substitute expensive
experimental tests, this is the only way to become acquainted with the many interactions
among process variables and with their relevance
2. “interpretation models” they capture only first-cut dynamics in order to reveal essential
input –output interactions. They are based on mass, momentum and energy balances, for
their simplicity they are used in control models, and for fault diagnosis system.
The two main equations that guide the process are mass and energy balance:
dM
w l − w v =
dt
dE
w l H l − w v H v + Q =
dt

where wl and Hl are the feedwater mass flow rate and specific enthalpy at drum inlet
respectively , wv and Hv steam mass flow rate and enthalpy at drum outlet, Q the heat flow
rate to the risers M and E mass and energy stored at the interior of the generator.
Putting together the two equations above we get
dE
= Q − P G
dt

it indicates that a part of heat flow rate Q is spent to produce steam (PG), the other part to
increase the stored energy, after having reached the new steady-state it will be: Q = PG.
In order to understand drum – boiler dynamics it is fundamental to understand the link
between stored energy and generated power, this link is expressed with
E = E m + E l + E v = α m ρ m c m Ts V + (1 − α )[ρ ls (H ls − H l ) − p]V + α[ρ vs (H vs − H l ) − p]V 1)

where V is the total steam + water volume, Em, El, Ev are respectively the metal, water and
steam stored energy, αm is the ratio between metal volume Vm and total volume V, α the
volume fraction of steam in the flow, ρm is the metal density, cm the specific heat .
For a given generator, density and specific heat are constant for steels, at the same time αm
depends only from the nominal working pressure po, so E is a function only of α and p.
However, to avoid damages due to shrink and swell effect, α has to remain constant at
varying functional conditions (load). At the end we can say that E depends only from the
working pressure p.
At the same result we arrive considering the generated power PG

p ρ° ρ°
PG = w ° v (H vs − H l ) = q v ° vs p(H vs − H l ) = V vs p(H vs − H l ) 2)
p° p° τ° p°

We can think at the stored energy E as a function of the produced power PG and calculate the
derivative:
dE
τ =
dP G
The other systems such as ECOnomizer and SuperHeater impose some boundary conditions
to the boiler:
ECOnomizer: it behaves like a filter, so that the feedwater enthalpy (Hl) can be considered as
an external input
 TURBINE

INPUT
FURNACE

1
1 + sτ ri FILTER

Ti (Hi)

Fig. 1 – Thermal cycle loop

SuperHeater: it varies the turbine admittance seen from the drum by a factor of value 0.8 – 1

1/ 2
'
k SH pT
=
'
k SH [
+ f T° ( x ) ]
2
p cc

Where k’SH is a factor that take allowance of pressure losses along the SH, and foT(x) is a
function dependent from the turbine inlet valve position (Maffezzoni).

A very simple interpretation model of evaporator dynamics can be derived with the above
equations and the following fundamental assumptions:
1. the fluid in the whole circulation loop (drum, risers and downcomers) is in the state of
saturation;
2. the metal walls in the whole circulation loop are at saturation temperature;
3. the steam quality in the risers is, at any time, linearly dependent on the tube abscissa
4. fluid pressures differences along the circulation loop are ignored.

The first three assumptions are valid only for little pressure variations, the fourth is based on
the fact that the pressure differences along the circulation loop are of the order of 1% of the
absolute fluid pressure in the drum.
Even if boiler has a complicated geometry with a lot of tubes, dryers into the drum to obtain a
dried saturated steam etc. , the general behaviour can be well captured starting from mass and
energy balances, using following symbols: l saturated water, f feedwater, v saturated steam, t
total, w flow rate, Q heat flux to risers tubes

d
(ρ v V vt + ρ l V lt ) = w f − w v
dt
d
(ρ v V vt u v + ρ l V lt u l + M m c m T m )= Q + w f h f − w vh v
dt
where Mm, cm, Tm, are total metal mass (drum + risers + downcomers), specific heat and mean
temperature.

Looking only at the pressure we get

dp
C = Q − w f (h l − h f )− w v h c 4)
dt
where hc is the condensation enthalpy and C means the boiler capacity of storing energy.
Since the energy stored by the steam is of little entity, because of its low mass density,
compared to that stored by water and metal we get

dE ∂h l ∂Ts
C = ≈ ρ l V lt + M m cm
dp ∂p ∂p

An important thing to point out is that all the coefficient are given by steam tables and
construction data, so the calculation for a steady state can give a rough parameters value
estimate around that given state.

3. THE SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION

Once you get the equation regulating the process (4) it is necessary to identify and discretize
the model writing it as a differential algebraic equation.
For our purpose the nonlinear model based on physical parameters described above has been
rendered as much as possible linear, in order to use the classical system identification
techniques.
For identification experiments I have chosen two ways:

- write our proper routines

- use the System Identification ToolBox (SITB) of Matlab
both the two ways have given same results.
Discretization of equation (4) leads to:

C dp dt → C (p v ( k + 1) − p v ( k ) ) / ∆ t
Q → k aria w aria ( k ) + k c om b w c om b ( k )
w f (h l − h f ) → w f ( k ) (h l ( k ) − h f ( k ) )

the steam flow rate is checked by the turbine valve, it can be expressed as a linear function of
valve opening x:

pt
w v = k °t x
(T t )1 2
The equation (4) become:

dp p
C = Q − w f (h l − h f ) − k (h v − h l )
dt T
 the equation is the same of a RC circuit where the resistance is

and the time constant T of the RC circuit is:

p vfin ∂h l ∂Tv
T = RC = ρ lVl + M tC
w vfin (h v − h l
fin ) ∂p
p
∂p
T pv
R = =
(h v − h l )k v w v (h v − h l )
For a steam generator of 330 MW, as that in Fusina used for model identification, from
construction data we get:

p f = 170 bar
h v - h l = 2547 - 1685 = 862 kJ/kg
w vf = 290 kg/s
∂h l
ρ l Vl = 3840 (from steam tables and Vl = 170 m 3 water vo lume in the drum )
∂p
∂T
M m c m s = 2090 (from steam tables and M m = 800000 kg furnace metal mass)
∂p
we get : T = 403 s

This is an estimated value for nominal load conditions, during identification experiments
(always around this nominal load: experimental data have been taken during winter when the
plant is working at maximum load) we wait for a converging result not very far from that
above.
So that standard identification models have success it is of great importance that:
- parameters have to be constant respect to output variable (in this case drum pressure p)
- input have to be independent from output variable (Picci 1998) or at maximum a linear
dependence

Regard to boiler capacity C, if pressure variations are not too much great both Ts and hl can be
considered as linear behaviour as regards pressure so only ρl(p) remains, for the considered
∆p water density is nearly constant, in this way C can be considered constant as regards
pressure. On the contrary R depends from p at the denominator, in order to try to identify a
constant we can measure pressure and temperature and calculate the enthalpy so we have to
identify only the turbine valve admittance k, which for little ∆p is nearly constant because the
valve stays in the same position.
Once the model has been linearized and discretized it assumes the form:

k * p v (k)(h v − h l )
C(p v (k + 1) − p v (k)) = k air w air (k) + k c om b w c om b (k) − w f (k)(h l (k) − h f (k)) − * ∆t
Tt

in the linear regression form:

T
k k 1 k
p v ( k + 1) − p v ( k ) = air , c om b , − , - w air ( k ) ∆t , w c om b ( k ) ∆t , w f ( k )(h l ( k ) − h f ( k ) )∆t , p v
(h - h )
(k) v l ∆t
C C C C Tt
where ∆T is the sample time and it has been taken equal to 20 seconds.

In order to have an idea of kair and kcomb values, the combustion heat produced in the furnace
is

Q tot = (w ar h ar + w comb h u )η gv

Where har stands for air enthalpy, hu for fuel heating power ( in this case coal) and ηgv the
steam generator efficiency. Nearly 50%-60% of the combustion heat is radiated to boiler
screened walls, it’s now possible to calculate :

k aria = 0.55h aria ηgv = 0.55C p (Tin − Tamb )η gv = 0.55 * 1005 * (270 − 20 ) * 0.95 ≈ 131000 J
kg
k c om b = 0.55h u ηgv = 0.55 * 30 * 10 * 0.95 = 15675000 J
6
kg

where hu=30000 kJ/kg for the coal and the inlet air temperature Tin in the combustion
chamber is of 250° - 300 °C .

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Model identification experiments were made on unit 4 of Fusina power plant. The unit has a
nominal power of 320 MW and at the time of experiments was fed with coal. Different
algorithms, such as ordinary least squares, recursive least squares and total weighted least
squares, were tested in order to compare and improve identification results.

The non linearity of the model causes several numerical problems as the singularity of
regression matrix. I get a remarkable improvement of results making the parameters model
constant for low ∆p.
The parameters estimate was refined in several attempts. At the beginning I searched
transients in which ∆p varied in a considerable and quick way but this caused the non
convergence of the model, probably because the data went out of the field in which the
linearisation is still efficacious, moreover quick and relevant ∆p cause regulators reaction,
which distort process own dynamics. After I chose slower transients and the convergence was
improved, another refinement was obtained resetting the wa flow meter and placing it in a
better position.

I made two type of analysis:

- “batch” or “off-line”: it is possible only after having completely recorded data, it is
possible to make an accurate filtering
- “recursive” or “on-line”: it is possible estimate parameters immediately during data
record, usually there is a less accurate data filtering than in batch analysis.

Unfortunately I couldn’t made “ad hoc” tests because of production reasons, so that to
simulate a process excitation (a step input) the data logger was regulated in such a way to
record data after a certain pressure variation with a frequency chosen by operator.
The following tables show the obtained results:

Table 1 – Identification results

date 16/3/2003 18/3/2003 30/3/2003 5/4/2003

Ka/C -11.45 131.5 136 128
Kc/C 2104 2100 2390 2150
-1/C -2.287*10^-4 -2.9*10^-4 -3.39*10^-4 -3.13*10^-4
-k/C -9.63*10^-8 -17.25*10^-8 -18.48*10^-8 -16.78*10^-8

After 18/3/2003 wa flow meter was reset and placed in a better position, results improved.
At the same time interesting parameters are nearly those expected:

Table 2 – Interesting parameters

data 16/3/2003 18/3/2003 30/3/2003 5/4/2003

C 4370 J/Pa 3450 J/Pa 2950 J/Pa 3230 J/Pa
R 0.0847 0.064 0.0673 0.068
T=RC 370 s 220 s 200 s 219 s

Figure 2 and 3 show the same results.

At this point I searched to solve the problem of results reliability. I knew the different
uncertainty of measures, and I tried to take care of it,.the idea is to make count for little, in the
algorithm, the more uncertain data. So that I “weighted” data with a diagonal matrix.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) are based on the belief that the model structure itself is
perfect, while Total Least Squares (TLS) assume that both output as input are uncertain and
put all together in the same regression matrix; Total Least Squares Weighted (TLSW) are a
further refinement because they weight the different data uncertainties (Li and De Moor,
2002).
The gauges precisions are:
- pressure: 2%
- temperature: 2%
- smoke flow rate: 5%
- air and fuel flow rate: 20%

It’s very interesting to compare results found with the two different methods: OLS and
TLSW. Table 3 shows that OLS results are not far from TLSW estimates, this can seem as a
proof of results reliability, in fact the biggest relative uncertainty is on the output ∆p, which
is the difference of two absolute pressure measurements (p(k+1)-p(k)), so in a first cut
analysis we can disregard input uncertainties and reduce ourselves to a OLS scheme.
 Table 3 – Comparison OLS – TLSW

TLSW (18/3) OLS (18/3) TLSW (30/3) OLS (30/3) TLSW (5/4) OLS (5/4)
132 131.5 135 136 124 128
2138 2100 2380 2390 2130 2150
-2.937*10^-4 -2.9*10^-4 -3.314*10^-4 -3.39*10^-4 -3.019*10^-4 -3.13*10^-4
-17.45*10^-8 -17.25*10^-8 -18.56*10^-8 -18.48*10^-8 -16.60*10^-8 -16.78*10^-8

5. CONCLUSIONS
It has been presented a non linear dynamic model which captures the main drum – boiler
dynamics during load variations. First results, obtained by the application in Fusina power
plant, are quite good, although some measurements uncertainty.
Future applications of this model can be the adaptive control (fig. 4) and fault diagnosis
(fig. 5). In particular the fault diagnosis system detect and isolate faults and identify their type
and characteristics. Fault detection implies the decision that a fault is present in the system:
we can realise it when a parameter goes out of its range of good working. Fault isolation
implies the determination of the source of the fault, e.g. which sensor, actuator or component
has become faulty, in doing this we can start analysing inputs with much influence on the
considered parameter in this way we restrict the number of possible fault causes. After a fault
is detected and isolated, actions to eliminate the fault should be taken to prevent further
damage or injury.

6. REFERENCES

Annaratone D. (1985) ,Generatori di vapore, Ed. Clup, Milano.

Astrom K.J., Bell R.D. (2000), “Drum-boiler dynamics”, Automatica, 36, pp. 363-378.

Adam E.J., Marchetti J.L., (1999), “Dynamic simulation of large boilers with natural recirculation”, Computers
and Chemical Engineering, 23, pp. 1031-1040.

Leva A., Maffezzoni C., Benelli G., (1999) “Validation of drum boiler models through complete dynamic tests”,
Control Engineering Practice, 7, pp. 11-26.

Cori R., Busi T., (1977) “Parameter identification of a boiler power plant”, 3rd Power Plant Dynamics, Control
and Testing Symposium”, Knoxville (USA), 7-9 Settembre 1977.

Maffezzoni C., Dinamica dei generatori di vapore, Ed. Masson, Milano, 1989.

Leeds & Northrup Italiana S.P.A., “Sistema di regolazione coordinata caldaia turbina centrale termoelettrica di
Fusina, gruppi 3 e 4”, specifica tecnica.

Maffezzoni C., Controllo dei generatori di vapore, Ed. Masson, Milano, 1990.

Picci G., Appunti dalle lezioni, Ed. Libreria Progetto, Padova, 1998.

Maffezzoni C., “Boiler – turbine dynamics in power – plant control”, Control Engineering Practice, 5 (1997),
pp.301-312.

Ljung L., System Identification: Theory for the User, Ed. Prentice – Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Li B., De Moor B., “Identification of influential observations on total least squares”, Linear Algebra and its
Applications, 348 (2002), pp. 23-39.

Lepschy A., Viaro U., Guida allo Studio dei Controlli Automatici, Ed. Pàtron, Bologna, 1983.

Figure 2 – Convergence (18/3/2003 data)

Figure 3 – Parameters (18/3/2003 data)

Figure 4 – Self tuning regulator

Figure 5 – Fault diagnosis