Case Study.......
INTRODUCTION : Boiler is the most commonly found energy equipment in the industry. Performance of the boiler system not only affects the fuel consumption directly, but also, at times controls the production output and quality of product. The Steam system comprises of following components:
Steam generation |
: |
Boiler |
Steam Distribution system |
: |
Pressure reducing stations, steam traps, steam piping and insulation. |
Steam Utilization system |
: |
End use equipment that consumes steam. |
Normally the energy conservation activity in steam system starts from steam generation and concludes with steam distribution. It has been our observation that the maximum energy saving potential is in the steam utilization system. This may sound little absurd, but is definitely logical. The Case study series is carefully designed to identify and evaluate the impact of Energy conservation activity in each of the systems. The Cases selected are from Energy Audit studies conducted in various industries and represent a true real life picture of energy conservation potentials. Boilers are generally classified under three categories: |
- Non – IBR (or coil type boilers)
- Package (or smoke tube IBR boilers)
- Large water tube boilers
Though the classification is based on the IBR regulations, it has a greater significance from energy conservation angle. The energy conservation opportunities associated with each of the above boilers are different, so are the problems faced by the end users.
We have incorporated the case studies classifying them under the above headings. The facts and figures are from actual field study measurement whereas names of the company are not mentioned to maintain secrecy.
STEAM GENERATION SYSTEM :
The first and foremost activity to be conducted in the energy management program is to evaluate the boiler efficiency. Format for collecting data for boiler efficiency is enclosed as Appendix I and the Work sheet for evaluating boiler efficiency from the collected Data. Fortunately the efficiency evaluation procedure for all the boilers is same regardless of its classification.
Following is the boiler efficiency test conducted on a non-IBR boiler.
BOILER EFFICIENCY EVALUATION CALCULATIONS (850 kg/hr)
Ultimate Analysis of fuel (w/w):
Type of fuel |
F.O. |
|
C: |
82.98 |
% |
H: |
12.38 |
% |
S: |
2.77 |
% |
N2: |
1.12 |
% |
O2: |
0.74 |
% |
Moisture: |
0.01 |
% |
Ash: |
0.00 |
% |
Specific Gravity of fuel |
0.92 |
kg/m3 |
Gross Calorific value of fuel |
9944 |
kcal/kg f |
Fuel Temperature |
115 |
°C |
Flue gas analysis (v/v): |
Before Eco. |
After Eco. |
CO2 % |
14.00% |
13.00% |
N2 |
83.00% |
83.00% |
O2 % |
3.00% |
4.00% |
(Actual Measurements of CO2% from observations) |
Indirect Efficiency Test
Average feed water temp. |
74.00 |
°C |
Average Steam Pressure |
10.50 |
kg/cm2 |
Average combustion Air temp. |
29.00 |
°C |
Flue gas temp. Before Eco. |
450.00 |
°C |
Flue gas temp. After Eco. |
210.00 |
°C |
(Actual measurements of temperature from observation table) |
|
Before Eco. |
After Eco. |
Air ratio |
1.17 |
1.24 |
Actual wet flue gas (kg/kg F) |
15.27 |
16.38 |
Flue gas temperature |
450.00 |
210.00 |
|
% Dry gas loss |
15.45 % |
7.12 % |
% Wet gas loss |
7.81 % |
6.47 % |
Radiation losses |
2.00 % |
2.00 % |
|
Efficiency of boiler (Indirect) |
74.74 % |
84.40 % |
Direct Efficiency Test |
Tank dimensions |
Water |
Oil |
-Length |
124 |
120 |
-Width |
298 |
120 |
-Height |
124 |
90 |
Volume of tank |
4.582048 |
1.296 |
Calibration factor |
36.952 |
14.4 |
|
Drop in level |
53 |
8.1 |
Actual consumption during test |
1958.46 |
116.64 |
Evaporation Ratio |
16.79 |
lt. of water / lt. of oil |
|
18.25 |
kg of water / kg of oil |
Heat balance across boiler |
|
Average feed water temp. |
74.00 |
°C |
Average Steam Pressure |
10.00 |
kg/cm2 |
Feed water temperature at economizer inlet |
40.00 |
°C |
|
Enthalpy of saturated steam at above pressure |
664 |
kcal / kg |
Enthalpy of water at boiling |
185.6 |
kcal / kg |
|
Enthalpy of steam at the above evaporation ratio |
409.00 |
|
|
Quantity of saturated steam |
62.16 |
% |
Quantity of water carry over |
37.84 |
% |
|
Actual Efficiency of boiler on dry saturated steam |
67.03 |
% |
Heat loss in hot water |
7.72 |
% |
|
Heat gain in economiser |
6.21 |
% |
Heat loss in feed water tank |
3.45 |
% |
|
Useful heat available to process |
72.90 |
% |
Comments: Though the boiler efficiency of 84% by indirect method shows that the performance of boiler is very good. However, due to the design of non-IBR boilers, there is lot of heat wastage from water carry over and wet steam. This is normally not accounted in the plant efficiency evaluations. The contribution of economiser diminishes as the feed water temperature increases due to condensate recovery. That is the reason why Useful heat to process is as low as 72.90% against the Indirect boiler efficiency of 84.40%
Tuning of boiler Boiler efficiency test for both the boilers was carried out during the Energy Audit study. Major findings of the test before are as follows:
PARTICULAR |
850 kg/hr boiler |
600 kg/hr boiler |
Average fuel consumption |
40 lt./hr |
31 lt./hr |
Net Heat available to process |
74.80% |
75.07% |
Efficiency of steam generation
Heat loss in moisture separator
WHR in Economizer Loss in the FW tank |
67 %
7.72%
8.2%
1.5% |
69.37%
7.44%
6.50%
Nil |
Boiler Tuning: During he Energy Audit study, boiler tuning was done,
the tuning of boiler has led to following results:
PARTICULARS |
850 kg/hr |
600 kg/hr |
|
Before Tuning |
After Tuning |
Before Tuning |
After Tuning |
CO2 % |
13 |
13 |
8 |
11 |
Temperature at boiler outlet |
450°C |
370°C |
450 °C |
370°C |
Temperature at Economiser outlet |
210°C |
180°C |
270 °C |
210°C |
Net useful heat available to process |
74.80 % |
78.97 % |
60.0 % |
75 % |
This tuning of boiler is expected to reduce the fuel bill by around 5 to 10% depending upon the operating hours of the boilers. This tuning is done by reducing the fuel quantity and optimizing the air to fuel ratio. Normally, the plant operators change the settings arbitrarily. It is, therefore, necessary to do this exercise periodically.
The minimum monetary saving expected is Rs. 1.5 Lacs per annum.
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY FROM THERMOPAC STACK :
The Thermic fluid heater burner has a capacity of 1 Lac kCal/hr (corresponding to 10 kg/hr LPG firing.). Flue gas temperature is 300°C & flow rate is 302 M3/hr.
It is therefore proposed to tap heat content in flue gases by installing Waste Heat Steam Generator in the stack.
align="justify">WASTE HEAT RECOVERY ECONOMICS:
1. Qty of gases through vent (V2) |
= |
302 M3/hr |
2. Temp. of gases through vent (V2) |
= |
300°C |
3. Gases can be safely cooled to 150°C |
|
|
4. Waste Heat recovery potential |
= |
302 X 0.25 X (300-150) X 1.2 |
|
= |
13600 kcal/hr |
Steam qty.(@3 kg/cm2 ) that can be generated through the available
Waste Heat
|
= |
13600/(650-30) |
|
= |
22 kg/hr |
Saving on low pressure steam |
= |
22 X 0.60 X 8,000 |
@ Rs. 0.6/kg steam cost. |
= |
Rs. 1,05,000 per year |
Total saving out of proposed system |
|
|
Total |
= |
Rs. 1,05,000/Year |
Investment Proposed |
= |
Rs. 60,000 |
Pay Back Period |
= |
7 Months |
Comments: Though the Thermopac capacity and quantity of steam generated are very small, the payback period is very attractive. The same logic can be extrapolated to any size of Waste Heat Recovery system.
STEAM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM:
The steam distribution system comprises of the following components:
1. Moisture separator
2. Pressure reducing station
3. Piping and its insulation
4. Steam traps
All of the above distribution system components contribute largely to efficient plant operations. The effect of individual component on the overall efficiency is very hard to determine.
Following are some of the hard facts regarding steam losses in various components of Steam Distribution system.
Leakage:
Steam Pressure |
Steam kg/year |
FO kg/year |
Rs./Year |
Hole Dia of 1/10 Inch |
7 kg/cm2) |
50,880 |
4,070.4 |
42,780 |
21 kg/cm2 |
1,20,000 |
9,600 |
1,00,896 |
Hole Dia of 1/8 Inch |
7 kg/cm2) |
2,03,636 |
16,291 |
1,71,217 |
21 kg/cm2 |
4,80,000 |
38,400 |
4,03,584 |
Hole Dia of 3/16 Inch |
7 kg/cm2) |
4,58,182 |
36,655 |
3,85,244 |
21 kg/cm2 |
10,80,000 |
86,400 |
6,84,874 |
Hole Dia of 1/4 Inch |
7 kg/cm2) |
8,14,545 |
65,164 |
9,08,064 |
21 kg/cm2 |
19,20,000 |
1,53,600 |
16,14,336 |
Basis : |
F. O. Price |
= |
Rs. 10.5 per kg |
|
Operating hrs |
= |
8,000 hrs per year |
|
Steam Ratio |
= |
12.5 kg of steam per kg FO |
Loss Due To Improper Insulation
Steam Temp. |
Rs./M2/Year |
> °C |
Lagging Thickness |
|
Bare |
1 Inch |
½ Inch |
2 Inch |
2 ½ Inch |
3 Inch |
4 Inch |
38 |
1590 |
265 |
185 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
65 |
4100 |
662 |
529 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
93 |
7810 |
1191 |
794 |
662 |
- |
- |
- |
121 |
11910 |
1720 |
1191 |
926 |
- |
- |
- |
149 |
17070 |
2249 |
1588 |
1191 |
1058 |
- |
- |
177 |
23150 |
2778 |
1984 |
1588 |
1191 |
- |
- |
204 |
30160 |
3308 |
2381 |
1852 |
1455 |
1191 |
- |
232 |
38390 |
3969 |
2778 |
2117 |
1720 |
1455 |
- |
260 |
47890 |
4631 |
3307 |
2514 |
1984 |
1720 |
- |
316 |
70650 |
- |
4234 |
3175 |
2646 |
2249 |
1720 |
371 |
99220 |
- |
- |
3969 |
3307 |
2778 |
2117 |
427 |
34950 |
- |
- |
4895 |
3969 |
3441 |
2646 |
Relation of steam velocities and pressure drop in the pipe :
Pipe Size |
Steam Pressure kg/cm2 |
Velocity M/Sec with pressure drop/25 Meters |
|
|
0.0175 |
0.035 |
0.0525 |
0.07 |
0.105 |
0.14 |
0.21 |
3 Inch Pipe |
0.338 |
41 |
55 |
72 |
82 |
100 |
120 |
152 |
3 Inch Pipe |
1.013 |
26 |
37 |
44 |
52 |
63 |
76 |
96 |
3 Inch Pipe |
1.75 |
15 |
23 |
26 |
32 |
40 |
46 |
58 |
3 Inch Pipe |
7 |
9 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
23 |
27 |
35 |
3 Inch Pipe |
28 |
- |
- |
9 |
11 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
6 Inch Pipe |
0.338 |
67 |
96 |
122 |
140 |
168 |
191 |
229 |
6 Inch Pipe |
1.013 |
4.4 |
58 |
73 |
91 |
107 |
123 |
152 |
6 Inch Pipe |
175 |
24 |
35 |
44 |
52 |
61 |
73 |
91 |
6 Inch Pipe |
7 |
15 |
21 |
27 |
32 |
40 |
46 |
55 |
6 Inch Pipe |
28 |
- |
9 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
23 |
29 |
How to read the above table : Example: For 6” pipe, at 7 kg/cm2 pressure the pressure drop in the pipe shall be:
0.0175 kg/cm2 per 25 meters of running length |
: |
if velocity is 15 m/s |
0.0525 kg/cm2 per 25 meters of running length |
: |
if velocity is 27 m/s |
0.21 kg/cm2 per 25 meters of running length |
: |
if velocity is 55 m/s |
Case Study to elaborate the effect of insulation of flanges:
100 ft of 6 Inch pipe 12 Flanges of 6 Inch = 5 ft of pipe length Heat loss
in following 3 cases :
Case (I) – Bare pipe ( Bare Flanges)
Case (II) – Pipe with 2 inch insulation aluminum cladding and bare flanges
Case (III) – Insulated pipe and Flanges
|
|
Case (I) |
Case (II) |
Case (III) |
Heat Loss |
Kcal/year |
36,300 |
4,100 |
2,490 |
Steam Loss |
Kg/Year/100ft |
68 |
3.2 |
– |
Fuel Loss |
Kg/Year/100ft |
55 |
0.26 |
– |
Energy Saving Potential |
Rs. Per Year/100 ft |
60 |
2.8 |
– |
Present Scenario
Boiler Capacity |
: |
850 kg/hr (non-IBR) |
Fuel consumption (LDO) |
: |
50 liters per hour (900 liters per day) |
Boiler operating hours |
: |
18 per day |
Plants to which boiler is attached |
: |
Reactor and dryers both indirect heating applications |
No moisture separator installed in the line and only TD traps for drain points
After the Moisture separator was installed in the pipeline:
Fuel consumption |
: |
45 liters per hour (630 liters per day) |
Boiler operating hours |
: |
14 per day |
Energy Conservation Potential :
Daily fuel saving |
: |
270 liters |
Annual reduction in fuel bill |
: |
Rs. 10 Lacs |
Investment Required |
: |
Rs. 4,500/- |
Additionally the production capacity increased due to availability
of the production equipment for longer durations.
STEAM UTILIZATION SYSTEM : This area is most potent for energy conservation. The application, end use utility and quality of steam are the three main points that govern energy performance of the system. Energy performance of the system can be drastically improved by close examination of the system. The energy saving is affected by following measures:
Reducing the demand of steam by modification of application system by:
-
Reduction in operating hours
-
Reduction in quantity required per hour
-
Use of more efficient technology
-
Minimizing wastage
We shall elaborate the efficiency enhancement process by suitable
examples of each type.
CASE I: Reduction in demand of steam in belt dryer system
System Description and present operating conditions
A belt dryer in one of the chemical industries is using steam for heating the drying air. The energy inputs to the system are:
Steam for air heating |
: |
300 kg/hr |
Electrical energy for FD |
: |
8.5 kW |
Electrical energy for ID |
: |
3.4 kW |
Initial performance parameters were established by field measurements
and the performance was monitored for few batches.
Following is summary of performance parameters at present conditions :
1. Air flow rate |
: |
17,000 kg/hr |
2. Moisture evaporation load |
: |
27 kg/hr |
3. Effectiveness of dryer |
: |
10.9% |
4. Effectiveness of steam consumption |
: |
9.5% |
5. Efficiency of FD fan |
: |
29.2% |
6. Efficiency of ID fan |
: |
26.2% |
Recommendation :
Start the circulating fans in each section and cut down the blower flow rate. Replace the blower with smaller size blower.
Following is summary of performance parameters at proposed conditions:
1. Air flow rate |
: |
5,000 kg/hr |
2. Moisture evaporation load |
: |
27 kg/hr |
3. Effectiveness of dryer |
: |
40% |
4. Effectiveness of steam consumption |
: |
38% |
5. Efficiency of FD fan |
: |
60% |
6. Efficiency of ID fan |
: |
26.2% |
Energy savings :
The energy consumption of proposed system shall be:
Steam Saving |
= 215 kg/hr (i.e. 72 %) |
Yearly fuel Saving |
= Rs. 3,87,000/- |
Electrical saving |
= 9 kW (i.e. 75%) |
Yearly electrical Saving |
= Rs. 3,24,000/- |
Comments : This is a typical example where reduction in demand by modification in the end application leads to a mammoth saving of 75%.
CASE II: Reduction in steam demand by use of hot water in the process:
System description : Cold water is taken to the reactor and then heated to desired temperature. The average time taken for getting the desired temperature is between 1 to 2 hours. This instantaneous heat load leads to pressure drop in the boiler. Once the temperature is attended, the steam requirement is hardly anything. The hot water is then drained to ETP as there is no condensate recovery system.
Recommendation : Hot water shall be used for the process the loss due to condensate draining is eliminated completely, and the average batch time shall reduce by 1.5 hrs.
Using the heat available in the boiler economiser can generate the hot water required for process. This shall also ensure that there is no loss of heat through the feed water tank.
It is required to increase the capacity of the tank to 10 KL and insulate the tanks. If hot water at a desired temperature is required, one steam blower can be installed that shall mix live steam with water instead of indirect heating.
Saving potential : Investment required for implementation of all the modifications shall be in the range of Rs. 45,000/- The energy saving potential is Rs. 1,00,000/- per year
Comments : The savings achieved in this case are due to reduction in operating hours of steam requirement and Waste Heat Recovery. It must be noted that there is a productivity improvement as the batch time is reduced by 1.5 hours.
CASE III: Reduction in steam demand by use of Multiple Effect Evaporators :
System description : The plant has a single effect evaporator to concentrate 250 m3/day of a stream from 15% concentration to solid. The system parameters are :
Flow rate |
: 250 m3/day |
Initial concentration |
: 15% |
Final concentration |
: 100% |
Steam requirement |
: 275 MT/day |
Recommendation and saving potentials:
There is a possibility of installing 4-effect or 6-effect or 12-effect evaporator system. The saving potentials and the investments in all the three systems is as follows :
Parameter |
Units |
4-effect |
6-effect |
12-effect |
Flow rate |
m3/day |
250 |
250 |
250 |
Initial concentration |
% |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Final concentration |
% |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Steam requirement |
MT/day |
92 |
70 |
35 |
Steam saving potential |
MT/day |
183 |
205 |
240 |
Monetary saving |
Rs./year |
465 Lacs |
510 Lacs |
600 Lacs |
Investment |
Rs. |
75 Lacs |
90 lacs |
110 Lacs |
Comments: This is a typical case of reduction in steam demand by use of more efficient technology. Here the investment is also proportionately high, but in the larger perspective, it pays to switch to a more efficient technology.
CASE IV: Reduction in wastage of steam by use of thermocompressor System description :
Thermocompressors are heat pumps, where low level (low-pressure) steam is compressed by using motive steam at high pressure. In the process of compression, vacuum is also generated in the connected equipment. For evaporator applications the vapour generated in the body is compressed using thermocompressors and the discharge steam is passed to the calendria. Live steam, which was earlier fed to the calendria, shall now pass through the Thermocompressor at a higher pressure. Steam generation at higher pressure also helps improving efficiency of boiler operation.
The savings shall occur on the following accounts :
-
Reduced steam consumption
-
Elimination of Vacuum pump operation
-
Proportionate reduction in the cooling water circulation
-
Improved boiler efficiency on account of steam
generation at higher pressure
The following analysis shall quantify effect of each of the parameters on energy saving.
PARTICULARS |
UNITS |
|
Steam requirement |
Kg/hr |
5500 |
Motive Steam Flow Rate |
Kg/hr |
4770 |
Vapour suction flow rate |
Kg/hr |
730 |
Discharge flow rate |
Kg/hr |
5500 |
Motive steam pressure |
Psig sat |
150 |
Suction pressure |
Inch Hg |
26 |
Discharge pressure |
Psig sat |
50 |
|
Steam saving |
Kg / hr |
730 |
Fuel Saving |
Rs / hr |
423.4 |
Hours of operation / yr |
Hrs |
6000 |
Annual Saving |
Lacs |
25.404 |
APPENDIX I : INDIRECT BOILER EFFICIENCY TEST OBSERVATIONS
(850 kg/hr boiler)
Observation table :
Sr. No. |
Time |
%CO2 |
Stack temperature |
Steam Pressure |
Oil firing Pressure |
Steam Temp. |
Ambient temp. |
|
|
Before Eco. |
After Eco. |
Before Eco. |
After Eco. |
(kg/cm2) |
(kg/cm2) |
°C |
°C |
1 |
4.45 |
13.4 |
10 |
470 |
210 |
11 |
18.5 |
184 |
29 |
2 |
5.15 |
14.4 |
13.4 |
430 |
220 |
10 |
19 |
174 |
30 |
3 |
6.15 |
14.2 |
13 |
450 |
220 |
11 |
18.5 |
183 |
30 |
4 |
6.45 |
14 |
13.2 |
460 |
210 |
11 |
18.5 |
180 |
29 |
5 |
7.00 |
14.2 |
13 |
440 |
210 |
10 |
18.5 |
182 |
29 |
6 |
7.25 |
13.8 |
13 |
450 |
210 |
10 |
18.5 |
182 |
29 |
Avg. |
|
14 |
13 |
450 |
210 |
10.5 |
18.5 |
181 |
29 |
DIRECT BOILER EFFICIENCY TEST OBSERVATIONS (850 kg/hr)
Observation table :
Sr.
No. |
Time |
Water Level |
Oil Level |
Steam Pressure |
Water Temp. |
Hour meter reading |
|
|
cm |
cm |
(kg/cm2) |
°C |
|
1 |
4.3 |
75 |
65.5 |
11 |
80 |
7424.5 |
2 |
5.3 |
57 |
62.5 |
10 |
78 |
7425.26 |
3 |
6.3 |
39.5 |
60 |
10 |
73 |
7425.95 |
4 |
7.35 |
22 |
57.4 |
10 |
65 |
7426.5 |
Avg. |
|
|
|
10 |
74 |
|
|
Drop in level |
53 |
8.1 |
|
|
|