PROJECT REPORT

PROJECT NAME: - Comparative study of various parameters of

performance evolution of a power plant.
This project work is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement
for the award of diploma in

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD
OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION MUMBAI

SUBMITTED BY
Sanket Prabhakar Khade
Under the guidance of
A. P. Chavhan

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, MURTIZAPUR,

DIST: AKOLA
Index

Sr. No. Topic Name

1 Abstract

2 Introduction

3 Data collection

4 Performance Analysis

5 Result

6 Conclusion

7 Reference
Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess and evaluate the performance of a large-scale
thermal power plant (TPP). The performance rating was conducted in compliance with the
statistical principles. The data for this analysis were obtained for a TPP with an installed
capacity of 375 MW during a span of 8 years (2010–2017). Four parameters were used to
evaluate the performance of the TPP including the availability, the reliability, the capacity
factor, and the thermal efficiency. These parameters were calculated using a set of equations
and then compared to the international best practices and target values. The results indicate
that approximately 91% of the expected capacity was available throughout the studied period
against the industry best practice of 95%. However, the average TPP’s reliability was found
to be approximately 95% against the target value of 99.9%. Furthermore, the average
capacity factor throughout the studied period is 70% as against the international value of 40–
80%. Moreover, the thermal efficiency of the TPP is 40% against the target value of 49%.
Due to the outage hours and malfunctions, the power losses throughout the studied period
reached 846 MW. Overall, the analysis indicates that the studied TPP is not within the scope
of the best industrial practices.
Introduction
` The gas turbine (GT), also known as the combustion turbine, is a rotary motor that
removes energy from a hot gas flow generated in a stream of compressed air by combustion
of gas or fuel oil. The GT has a radial or axial flow air compressor mechanically connected
with an upstream turbine and combustion chamber. Energy is released by the mixing and
ignition of compressed air into the combustion chamber (combustor)1. Energy is generated in
shaft power by GTs and used to power generators and other machinery. GTs have been
recognized as prime movers for reliable baseload applications and they are being increasingly
used world wide

GTs have earned a privileged position among other electrical generation technologies
due to its high efficiency and reliability, particularly when incorporated with combined cycle.
GTs are also known for their flexibility and regular availability. However, the performance of
the GT is influenced by both the efficiency of components and the turbine inlet temperature.
In addition, the operation of GTs and combined-cycle operations is predominantly affected
by the long-term operation. In addition, the output of the gas-turbine engine has relatively
poor performance at part-load, and power output (PoutPout) deteriorates during hot seasons.
Najjar et al. studied the performance diagnostics and the degradation of the GT cycle using
actual data obtained from a combined-cycle power plant throughout 2 years of operation. It
has been concluded that the degradation of the GT increases with temperature and load over
time. In this context, the performance ratings of thermal power plants (TPPs) including
reliability, availability, capacity factor, and efficiency, are expected to flocculate with the
operation time.
CCGT is one type of power plant that directs the exhaust gas of the GT over a heat exchanger
which generates steam at various levels of pressure. The performance analysis of the
combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) focuses mainly on evaluating the power efficiency of the
plant. The efficiency of a plant has a definite economic significance because heat inputs are
the energy that is to be purchased at high temperatures, and net energy production is the
return on the energy that is purchased. The GT running at lower inlet temperatures of the
turbine produces low performance thus, lower efficiency. The lower efficiency of the GT
means that low PoutPout is produced. Several factors affecting the efficiency of TPPs in
general, these include age, fuel type, capacity factor, and heat sink system.
Sabouhi et al., investigated the reliability of a CCGT power plant using a developed
model. The analysis involved modeling both GT and steam turbine power plants from an
engineering system perspective, which provided the necessary data to estimate the reliability
of the CCGT. Overall, the results point out to the most important components that help in
selecting convenient strategies for the CCGT power plants. On the other hand, Kolawole et
al. studied the availability, reliability, and capacity factor of a power generating plant using
its historical data. It has been concluded that plant unavailability, the grid constraints, and gas
restriction prevented the power plant from running at the maximum continuous rating.
However, they suggested that in order to enhance the power supply, there is a demand for
better maintenance, adequate gas supply, and the examination of the distribution and
transmission units.

A schematic of process flow throughout a CCGT. Reprinted from Sustainable Energy

Technologies and Assessments, 37, Najjar, Y. S. H., Alalul, O. F. A. & Abu-Shamleh,
Degradation analysis of a combined cycle heat recovery steam generator under full and part
load conditions. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 100,587, 2020, with
permission from Elsevier.
Data collection
The data of the power plant were obtained for a period of 8 years (2010–2017) from
CEGCO annual reports. Throughout the studied period, several major malfunctions occurred
to the power plant. Though minor failures were also observed during the extended period, the
major failures were observed for the years 2010, 2012, and 2013. These malfunctions
affected the overall performance of the power plant and caused some of the generation units
to be out of service for several days. The total number of days the malfunctioned units were
out of service throughout the studied period is 206. Table 1 summarizes the major failures the
power plant was exposed to during the period of the study.

Table 1- A summary of the major malfunctions that the power plant was
exposed to during the studied period.
Year Incident Cause Period No. Comments
of
days
2010 One GT was The teeth of the (12/2– 51 The GT was returned
out of service high-speed gear 23/3) and to service at full
were partially (14–25/7) capacity on 25/7/2010
broken due to an
emergency failure
One GT was The side of the (3/2– 10 A new accessory gear
out of service turbine was twisted 12/2) coupling was
and separated due to installed to fix the
a failure in the failure
accessory gear
coupling
2012 One GT was Failure of one of the (15/6– 27 The torque converter
out of service turbine shafts and 11/7) was replaced by a
the existence of a new one
problem in the unit
torque convertor
2013 One GT was Failure in the (23/4– 118 -
out of service generator of the unit 18/8)
The specific data that was used to evaluate the power plant performance includes,
total installed capacity (MW), power output (MW), generated electrical energy (EgEg)
(MWh), running hours (h), heat supply (MW), and heat rate (HR) (kJ/kWh). Table 2 shows
the data of the power plant throughout the studied period.

Table 2-The data of the power plant across the studied period.
Year Total installed Power Generated Running Heat Heat rate
capacity output electrical hours (h) supply (kj/kWh)
(MW) energy (MW)
(MWh)
2010 357 279.95 2,197,800 7850.71 707.84 8941
2011 357 242.16 2,013,600 8314.99 598.23 8731
2012 357 244.86 1,994,400 8145.05 600.59 8674
2013 357 224.81 1,620,000 7205.98 565.14 8900
2014 357 258.02 2,108,400 8171.33 632.88 8830
2015 357 255.70 2,041,900 7985.62 656.31 9240
2016 357 240.09 1,963,100 8176.58 613.10 9193
2017 357 245.97 2,105,800 8561.15 623.50 9124.9

Performance analysis

The performance evaluation was carried out based on statistical principles. The
evaluation was carried out based on four key parameters namely, availability, reliability,
capacity factor, and thermal efficiency. These parameters are calculated based on the data of
the power plant and then compared to the best industrial practices and target values.

The forced outage factor (FOF) and the planned outage factor (POF) were both used
to calculate the annual running hours of the TPP by subtracting the number of hours per year
from both. FOF is defined as the shutdown of the plant as a result of undesired occurrences,
whereas POF is defined as the prescheduled shutdown as for routine maintenance.
Equations – were used to calculate the identified 4 parameters. The calculated FOF and POF
are presented in Table.
Table 4 – The outages factor of TPP
Year Forced outage hours Planned outage hours Forced outage Planned outage
(h) (h) factor (h) factor (%)
2010 548.38 360.91 6.26 4.12
2011 204.98 240.02 2.34 2.74
2012 430.12 184.84 4.91 2.11
2013 1267.57 286.45 14.47 3.27
2014 122.64 466.03 1.4 5.32
2015 109.50 664.88 1.25 7.59
2016 127.90 455.52 1.46 5.2
2017 14.02 184.84 0.16 2.11

The running hours of the power plant per each year can be calculated using
the following equate:

Runninghours=24[h/day]×365[days/year]−(FOH[h]−POH[h])
(1)

where FOHFOH is the forced outage hours. and POHPOH is the planned

outage hours.
The forced outage factor can be calculated as follows:

FOF[%]=FOH[h]/24[h/day]×365[days/year]×100
(2)
The planned outage factor can be calculated as follows:

POF[%]=POH[h]/24[h/day]×365[days/year]×100
(3)
The power output of the plant in MW was obtained as follows:
Pout[MW]=Eg[MWh]/Running hours[h]
(4)
The availability of the power plant is calculated using the following
equation:

Availability[%]=Running hours[h]/24[h/day]365[days/year]×100
(5)
The reliability of the power plant is calculated using the following equation:

Reliability[%]=1−FOH[h]/24[h/day]×365[days/year]−(FOH[h]+POH[h])×
100
(6)
The capacity factor of the power plant is calculated using the following
equation:

Capacity Factor[%]=Eg/24[h/day]×365[days/year]×Total Installed

Capacity[MW]×100
(7)
The thermal efficiency (ηthηth) of the power plant throughout the studied
period is calculated as follows:
ηth[%]=Pout[MW]/Heat Supply[MW]×100
(8)
Finally, the HR of the power plant can be calculated as follows:

HR[kJ/kWh]=3600/ηth
(9)

Result
The calculated values for each rating parameter across the studied period are shown in Table.
These values are fluctuated based on the performance of the TPP during the years. Ideally,
the total generated power of the TPP during the 8 years can be calculated by multiplying the
total installed capacity by the number of the years. In this case, the total generated power in
MW should be 2856 MW, however, the actual generated power is less than that, due to the
TPP being operated at part load conditions, along with other technical reasons including
outage hours and malfunctions. The actual power generated throughout the studied period is
approximately 1991.6 MW, meaning that 864.4 MW was lost. Overall, this operating loss
does not mean that the plant is not achieving its purpose as most of the power plants are
expected to have such huge losses during the years. In this context, the performance analysis
is used to decide whether these losses are significant or not. Figure illustrates the actual
power generated to the installed generated power.

Table 4 – The calculated performance parameters of the TPP

Year Availability Reliability (%) Capacity factor (%) Thermal
(%) efficiency (%)
2010 89.62 93.01 76.7 39.55
2011 94.92 97.53 70.3 40.48
2012 92.98 94.72 69.6 40.77
2013 82.26 82.41 56.6 39.78
2014 93.28 98.50 73.6 40.77
2015 91.16 98.63 71.3 38.96
2016 93.34 98.44 68.5 39.16
2017 97.73 99.84 73.5 39.45
The generated power by the TPP throughout (2010–2017).

The availability factor of a power plant is the amount of time that it is able to produce
electricity over a certain period, divided by the amount of time in the period. The availability
factor depends on the operation of the power plant, the fuel type, and the design of the plant.
In this study, the availability of the studied TPP varies from 82.3 to 97.7%. Considering that
the best industrial practices designate that GTs have a relatively high availability factor of
95%, the TPP, on average, is not within the target value. Figure shows the variation of the
availability factor over the studied period.

The availability factor of the TPP throughout (2010–2017).

The reliability analysis is an important step in the evaluation of CCGTs and plays a
significant role in the operation of the plant in terms of maintenance scheduling. However,
the reliability factor of a power plant is mainly dependent upon the FOH and can be
calculated by dividing the FOH by the actual time of operation. Over the studied period, the
reliability of the TPP ranged between approximately 82.4% and 99.8% as shown in Fig. The
lowest value has been obtained for the year 2013 due to one GT being out of service for a
relatively large amount of time as mentioned in Table. Nevertheless, the TPP’s average
reliability was found to be 95.4%. Since there is no mentioning of the best industrial range of
reliability for CCGTs in the literature, this percentage was compared to the starting reliability
value of 99.9%. This means that the reliability of the power plant is not within the best
industrial practices. The high average percentage obtained can be attributed to the annual
percentage of hours due to forced outage and the planned outage is around 4%.

The reliability factor of the TPP throughout (2010–2017).

The capacity factor of a power plant is essentially a measure of its overall utilization. For a
power plant, the capacity factor can be calculated by dividing the actual electricity produced
by its maximum possible electricity output throughout a certain period of time. The average
capacity factor of the TPP over the studied period is 70% with a minimum value of 65.6%
obtained for 2013 and a maximum value of 76% for the year 2010. The flocculation of the
capacity factor can be attributed to the age of the plant, outages, operation and maintenance,
and weather conditions. Based on the international values, the average capacity factor of a
power plant within a specific period should not be less than 65%, meaning the power plant is
within the normal ranges. Figure shows the graph of the capacity factor throughout the
studied years.

Conclusion
In this study, a large-scale TPP was evaluated based on statistical principles. The evaluation
was based on collected data from an actual power plant for a period of 8 years. The main
performance parameters that were studied include availability, reliability, capacity factor, and
thermal efficiency. These parameters were compared to the best industrial practices and
target values. The average availability and reliability of the TPP throughout the studied
period were found to be approximately 91% and 95% respectively. In addition, the average
capacity factor and thermal efficiency over the studied period were found to be 70% and 40%
respectively. The power losses out of the total generated electrical power over the studied
period reached 864.4 MW. Several major malfunctions were reported over the studied period
which caused the TPP to be out of service for a number of days. These malfunctions are
linked to the overall performance of the TPP and the evaluated parameters. Overall, the
analysis indicates that the plant is not within the context of the best industrial practices.
Moreover, the evaluation methodology followed in this research can be useful in building
maintenance schedules for such plants.

Reference
 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77802-8#Bib1
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/089043329390048Z?via
%3Dihub
 https://chemport.cas.org/cgi-bin/sdcgi?
APP=ftslink&action=reflink&origin=npg&version=1.0&coi=1%3ACAS
%3A528%3ADC
%252BC2MXhs1KrsbjO&md5=81a00a02478b812b9dbb8fdf6e8b4e59
 https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?
q=comparative+study+of+various+parameters+of+performance+evaluation+of+a+po
wer+plant&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036054421931758X