ONCE THROUGH

STEAM GENERATORS
Benson boiIer growth Benson boiIer growth
1926 Siemens maufactures 30125t/h boilers
1949 First OT boiler with high steam conditions(175 bar/610 DegC
Leverkusen)
1963 First spiral tube waterwall in membrane design(Rhodiaceta)
1987- Largest hard coal fired boiler
(Heyden 900 MW
More than 980 boilers with > 700000 t/h
CONTROLLED CIRCULATION (Vs)
ONCE THRU'
CC
OT
Once Through Principle
Comparison Natural Circulation /
Once-Through-System
Source: Siemens
Cumulative Steam Capacity oI
Ordered BENSON Boilers
BBPs share about 44
Source: Siemens Total Steam Output about 200.000 kg/s
220.000 MW
Once Through Boiler-Concept
Once through system
ONCE - THROUGH OPERATING RANGE
ncrease oI Cycle EIIiciency due
to Steam Parameters
300
241
175 538 / 538
538 / 566
566 / 566
580 / 600
600 / 620
6,77
5,79
3,74
5,74
4,81
2,76
4,26
3,44
1,47
3,37
2,64
0,75
2,42
1,78
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HP / RH outIet temperature [deg. C]
Pressure [bar]
Increase of efficiency [%]
Comparison oI Plant part load
eIIiciency
30
40
46
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Load %
41,1 %
36,7 %
39,3 %
40,5 %
43,2 %
42,4 %
40,1 %
P
I
a
n
t

n
e
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
SupercriticaI unit
acc. AIternative 2
255 bar 538C / 538C
SubcriticaI unit
acc. AIternative 1
166 bar 538C / 538C
43,6 %
Examples oI Boiler Concepts
Two-Pass BoiIer
without pIaten superheater
Two-Pass BoiIer
with pIaten superheater
Tower BoiIer
PS Heyden 4 - 920 MW
eI
PS Kogan Creek - 700 MW
eI
PS Staudinger 5 - 550 MW
eI
66,0m
Comparison oI Lignite, Coal and Oil
Fired Units
!$ Offleben (C). 325 MW
el
!$ Farge. 320 MW
el
!$ Doha West. 300 MW
el
m
HD
1000 t/h; B 16.4 m m
HD
1020 t/h; B 16.5 m m
HD
1100 t/h; B 14 m
Heat input / furnace area [kW/m] 215 330 680
% SH heating surfaces [m] 17.781 6.791 10.953
% RH heating surfaces [m] 15.290 12.072 5.202
% BundeI surfaces [m] 33.071 18.863 16.155
Benson Boiler
Main ConIiguration - Single-pass /
Two-pass
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. !f the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
Source: Siemens
DRUM vs ONCE THROUGH DRUM vs ONCE THROUGH
Pressure Sub criticaI Sub & super CriticaI
Steam Separation Drum Separator (Low Ioads)
Types NaturaI / Assisted (SuIzer) / (Benson)
Burner PaneI Straight tube SpiraI Tube / Straight (MHI)
Load Change Base Faster
CoId Start 4-5 Hours 2 Hours
Hot Start 1-2 Hours 0.5 Hours
SH
STEAM TO
TURBINE
HEAT
DOWN
COMER
DRUM
ECO
Water WaII
ORIFICE
CIRC. PUMP
SH
STEAM TO
TURBINE
ECO
HEAT
Water WaII
rum type boiler
Steam generation takes place Iurnace water
walls
Fixed evaporation end point - the drum
Steam -water separation takes place in the
drum
Separated water mixed with incoming Ieed
water
Once Through Boiler
Once -through Ilow through all sections oI
boiler (economiser, water walls &
superheater)
Feed pump provides the driving head
Suitable Ior sub critical & super critical
pressures
Once -thru Boiler
/;antages:
Quick response to load changes
Shorter start up time
Better suited Ior sliding pressure operation
Steam temperature can be maintained over wider
load range under sliding pressure
Higher tolerance to varying coal quality
Suitable Ior sub critical & super critical pressures
'NTES OF ONCE THROUH
BOLERS
Once thru boiler enables :
Peak power generation with better
eIIiciency levels
Quicker response to T load changes
Better heat rate oI lower loads
Once -through Boiler
Characteristics :
Provides Quicker response to T load changes
Supports achievement oI better heat rate at lower
loads
Higher Iurnace wall pressure drop and consequent
higher Ieed pump auxiliary power consumption
Needs ultra pure quality Ieed water - Cannot
operate under conditions oI condenser leak
Tower Vs Two pass Tower Vs Two pass
For ndian Pit-head power station BBP preference is tower type (
to overcome flyash erosion)
For power stations firing beneficiated ndian coals Two pass
boiler
For coastal power stations firing imported coals Two pass boiler
Flow Scheme oI Membrane
Walls Ior Two-Pass Boilers
3.)
1.)
2.)
4.) 5.)
DetaiI:
Ties for SpiraI Tubing
Temperature difference
between the waII systems
(Example Studstrup Power Plant)
Boiler Load
Location 100% 35%
1.) 2 K 1 K
2.) 7 K 1 K
3.) 13 K 1 K
4.) 2 K 3 K
5.) 7 K 17 K
FIow Scheme of Membrane WaIIs FIow Scheme of Membrane WaIIs
for Tower BoiIers for Tower BoiIers
Transition from SpiraI Tubing to
VerticaI Tubing
Start-Up Times |min| oI Power
Plants
PIants with BENSON BoiIer
250 bar / 540C / 560C
PIants with Drum BoiIer
167 bar / 538C / 538C
first steam
to Turbine
full load
From ignition to:
first steam
to Turbine
full load
From ignition to:
20 - 30
40 - 60
150 - 210
150 - 210
60 - 80
80 - 100
300 - 350
450 - 600
20 - 30
30 - 40
60 - 80
60 - 80
30 - 40
50 - 60
150 - 200
400 - 600
After shut
down hours
<1
8
48
>48
Modern Coal-Fired Power Plant
KWU 99 152d
Page 23
EV2 / ; NTPCPresentation.ppt
BOLERS - SCUSSE T BBP
MUB 660 MW TOWER 192 bar 555 C 19286x19286
SCHKOPU 450 MW TOWER 262 bar 545 C 17846x17846
'OERE 700 MW TWO PSS 206 bar 530 C 23668x15773
BOXBER 900 MW TOWER 266 bar 545 C 24086X24086
ELKRFT 300 MW TWO PSS 250 bar 545 C 12720X14280
MUB,SCHKOPU,'OERE :
WTH 'ERTCL TUBE HOPPER
BOXBER:
WTH SPRL TUBE HOPPER
ELKRFT:
WTH SPRL HOPPER &
SPRL N FRONT/RER , HORONTL N SES
Once -thru BoiIer - Furnace WaII
Furnace Arrangement Furnace Arrangement
VERTICAL TYPE
SPIRAL TYPE
FURNCE W RRNGEMENT
BOILER PRESSURE PARTS
WEIGHT
BOLER TYPE PPES TUBES
210 MW 315 MT 1100 MT
250 MW 410 MT 1440 MT
500 MW 695 MT 2870 MT
660 MW** 1070 MT 5080 MT
** Worked out based on the lstom BOM supplied
Ior SPT boiler.
Technology Acquisition Thru
Collaboration - 8tatus
BHEL entered into a TCA with M/S Babcock Borsig
Power(BBP), Grmany in 1999.
First phase of training provided by BPP in 2001.
BBP has become insolvent in July 2002 & further
training planned during the execution of the first
contract and technology transfer was not possible.
Subsequently a new Engg company , Babcock Borsig
Power Systems (BBPS), owned by Babcock Hitachi,
Japan was formed.
BBPS was found acceptable for Technical
collaboration after "due deligence" exercises. But the
collaboration route with BBPS could not be utilised for
Sipat tender as NTPC spec required the collaborator to
provide financial guarantees.
SPT 3x660MW oint Bidding with lstom
n the original bid submitted in Oct 2003, BHEL-lstom ioint bid
was placed at L3, with ossan/Korea as L1 and TPE/Russia as L2.
n ec 2003, NTPC invited snap bids to be submitted by all the
three bidders by 9 an 2003
The new requirements (with increased steam Ilow & Ior vacating
certain deviations) called Ior a total redesign by lstom with
estimated three months time. ccordingly BHEL sought extension
till 05 March 2004 Ior submitting the revised bid.
However since the request Ior extension was not granted by NTPC,
the snap bid could not be submitted by BHEL
mmediate OTB proiects
NTPC BRH 3x660MW
Tender due in May 2004. QR same as Sipat proiect.
PENCO, 'iiayawada 1X660MW
Four companies (lstom, Siemens/oosan,Sumitomo/Babcock
Hitachi & TPE/Russia) have been pre-qualiIied Ior EPC