Assessment of Air Preheater Effects on

Power Plant Efficiency

1018472

13522217
13522217
 Assessment of Air Preheater Effects on
Power Plant Efficiency

1018472

Technical Update, 2008

EPRI Project Manager

J. Stallings

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
13522217800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ [email protected] ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Energy and Environmental Strategies

Energy Technologies Enterprises Corporation (EnTec)

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail [email protected].

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

13522217
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
Energy & Environmental Strategies
50 Old Faith Road
Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Principal Investigator
R. Afonso
Energy Technologies Enterprises Corp. (EnTec)
1204 Perry William Drive
McLean, VA 22101-2320
Principal Investigator
E. S. Tavoulareas
This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Assessment of Air Preheater Effects on Power Plant Efficiency. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008.
1018472.

13522217 iii
13522217
 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Air Preheaters (APHs) improve overall boiler efficiency by transferring heat from the boiler
exhaust gases to the incoming air used for combustion and coal drying. APH performance can
have a significant impact on plant efficiency, and therefore fuel consumption, carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions and power plant economics. This report summarizes the major relationship
between APH parameters and heat rate, and presents some preliminary guidelines for evaluating
APH upgrades.

Results and Findings

The importance of fuel efficiency and the potential value of CO2 reductions are the main drivers
towards increased awareness of APH performance and its major effect on plant heat rate. This
report presents an example that highlights the first-order effects. Other, non-quantified impacts
(outage costs, recovered capacity, reduced washes, etc.) are equally important in the overall
analysis, and can affect the cost/benefit decision. In the example, by performing an early APH
upgrade, the utility recognized a three-year savings of between $3.9M (fuel savings only) and
$7.8M (including CO2) compared to a capital cost of $2.0M, for a simple payback of about 1.5
years for fuel alone, or about eight months if CO2 is included.
APHs have a very large impact on boiler efficiency. A typical gas temperature reduction of 40Fº
(22Cº) across an APH represents about a 1.0% boiler efficiency gain (as long as the temperature
reduction is due to heat transfer between the gas and combustion air streams). Given the
increasing importance of efficiency due to fuel costs and CO2 emissions, APH O&M practices
must incorporate traditional cost/benefit considerations. It is therefore important for APH
operators to consider the overall effect of APH performance in establishing O&M practices and
schedules.

Challenges and Objectives

The investigators designed this study to provide the utility industry with guidance on how to
evaluate APH performance upgrades with respect to costs, plant efficiency, and maintainability.
Traditionally, time- and experience-based schedules and reaction to events (e.g., forced outages)
drive APH O&M practices. However, new challenges that emphasize the importance of plant
heat rate suggest that utilities should base APH decisions on, or at least consider, the benefits of
APH upgrades on plant heat rate.
The major objective of this report is to assess the potential impacts of various air preheater
hardware modifications on plant heat rate, and highlight the importance of incorporating these
analyses into APH decision-making. The investigators do not intend it to be a discussion of APH
technologies. Rather, the report focuses on summarizing the major relationships between APH
parameters and heat rate, providing actual data from case studies at several power plants, and
presenting some preliminary guidelines on evaluating APH upgrades.

Applications, Values, and Uses

APH performance has recently become even more important due to rapidly increasing fuel prices
and the potential need to reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector. This has made it equally
important to understand the options available for APH performance improvement, including the
costs and benefits, and boiler heat rate considerations, such that utilities evaluate APH

13522217 v
performance on a more global basis. The survey results in this report show that utilities can
justify APH O&M upgrades on a condition basis as opposed to a schedule basis.

EPRI Perspective
For many years, EPRI has carried out research on air preheater-related issues, including the
impacts of ammonia slip from selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) systems on APH performance. As part of these efforts, EPRI has developed
Air Preheater Fouling Guidelines (EPRI Report 1004142), published in 2004, and an associated
air preheater deposition predictive model. Vendors have developed improved seals, plates,
materials, and sootblowing and washing practices to help maintain APH operability and
efficiency. Operators have developed O&M procedures (e.g., cleaning cycles and on- and
off-line washing) to address these same concerns.

Approach
The project team reviewed recent APH information (literature, vendor websites/contacts), and
prepared a survey/questionnaire geared towards utilities to gather information on recent APH
upgrades and results. The investigators then analyzed and summarized heat rate impacts from
APH operational parameters. The report also provides general guidance on heat-rate-based cost-
benefit evaluations.

Keywords
Heat rate
Performance
Fossil plant efficiency
Air preheaters

13522217 vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During this study, the authors sought direct communication and information from various
individuals and organizations to augment and confirm available information.
Specifically, we would like to acknowledge the following contributors for their help and
feedback to the project.
Fred Kutilek, Ameren
Mark Ness, Pat Schwartz, Great River Energy
David Goodman, American Electric Power

13522217 vii
13522217
 CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................1-1
Background ..........................................................................................................................1-1
Objectives and Approach .....................................................................................................1-2

2 OPTIONS FOR APH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................2-1

Overview of Design and Operational Considerations ..........................................................2-1
Design Tradeoffs and Operational Constraints ....................................................................2-2
Options for Improving APH Performance.............................................................................2-4
Controlling APH Leakage and Fouling ...........................................................................2-4
Seal Technology ............................................................................................................2-5
Heat Transfer Baskets/Plates ........................................................................................2-5
Fouling Control Options .................................................................................................2-5
Effects on Boiler Efficiency and Plant Heat Rate .................................................................2-6
Power Required for Increased Pressure Drop ...............................................................2-6
Efficiency Loss Due to Gas Temperature ......................................................................2-6

3 SURVEY SUMMARY..............................................................................................................3-1

4 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING APH UPGRADES ................................................................4-1

Efficiency Benefits................................................................................................................4-2
CO2 Emissions .....................................................................................................................4-4
Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................4-5
APH Upgrade Costs.............................................................................................................4-7
Cost/Benefit Example...........................................................................................................4-7
Plant/Unit Situation Overview.........................................................................................4-7
APH Situation.................................................................................................................4-8
Analysis..........................................................................................................................4-8
Key Results ....................................................................................................................4-9
Discussion....................................................................................................................4-10

13522217 ix
13522217
1
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Background
Air Preheaters (APHs) are devices whose very mission is to improve overall boiler efficiency.
This is accomplished by transferring heat from the boiler exhaust gases resulting from
combustion to the incoming air to be used for combustion and coal drying. As a result, APH
performance can have a significant impact on boiler efficiency and therefore plant heat rate. The
heat transfer brought about in the air preheater raises the temperature of the combustion air and
lowers that of the flue gas, resulting in improved boiler efficiency. On the other hand, air
preheater leakage has a negative impact, increasing both the flue gas flow rate and associated
pressure drop losses. All of these represent first-order effects on plant efficiency and therefore on
fuel consumption, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and power plant economics.
APHs used in the electric power generation industry are typically of two main types – tubular
and regenerative – with the latter being the primary focus of this report. Figure 1-1 provides a
general view of a typical regenerative-type APH. Operationally, these devices are relatively
simple machines in which a metal matrix of heat transfer plates continually rotates between the
hot flue gas and the cold combustion air, transferring energy (heat) between the two. This
simplicity, however, does not diminish the importance of proper operating and maintenance
(O&M) practices. The massive sizes of APHs dictated by the large surface area required for heat
transfer make it essentially impossible to avoid some leakage between the air and gas sides,
which tends to increase with time and normal deterioration of seals and rotors. Similarly, the
small gas passages adjacent to the thin heat transfer plates, required to maximize the heat transfer
area, are conducive to fouling and plugging by ash particles in the flue gas. These issues have
challenged stakeholders (vendors, operators, R&D) to develop design and operating approaches
to mitigate their negative effects on APH performance.
For many years, EPRI has carried out research on air-preheater-related issues including the
impacts of ammonia slip from selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) systems on APH performance. As part of these efforts, EPRI has developed
Air Preheater Fouling Guidelines (EPRI Report 1004142), published in 2004, and an associated
air preheater deposition predictive model. Vendors have developed improved seals, plates,
materials, and sootblowing and washing practices to help maintain APH operability and
efficiency. Operators have developed O&M procedures (e.g., cleaning cycles and on- and
off-line washing) to address these same concerns.

13522217 1-1
Figure 1-1
Typical Regenerative APH (courtesy: Howden)

However, APH performance has recently become even more important as a result of rapidly
increasing fuel prices and the potential need for CO2 emission reductions in the power sector.
This has made it equally important to understand the options available for air preheater
performance improvement, as well as their costs and benefits, such that APH performance
considerations are directly linked to their effect on boiler heat rate and therefore evaluated on a
more global boiler basis.

Objectives and Approach

This study was designed to provide the utility industry with guidance on how to evaluate APH
performance upgrades with respect to costs, plant efficiency, and maintainability. Whereas
traditionally, APH O&M practices have been driven by time- and experience-based schedules
and reaction to events (e.g., forced outages), the new challenges that emphasize the importance
of plant heat rate suggest that APH decisions should be based on, or at least consider, the
benefits of APH upgrades on plant heat rate.
The major objective of this report is to assess the potential impacts of various air preheater
hardware modifications on plant heat rate, and highlight the importance of incorporating these
analyses into APH decision-making. It is not intended to be a discussion of APH technologies.
Rather, this report focuses on summarizing the major relationships between APH parameters and
heat rate, providing actual data from case studies at several power plants, and presenting some
preliminary guidelines on how APH upgrades should be evaluated.
In order to accomplish these objectives, the study involved the following key tasks:
• Review of recent APH information (literature, vendor websites/contacts)
• Preparation of a survey/questionnaire geared towards utilities to gather information on recent
APH upgrades and results
• Analyses of heat rate impacts from APH operational parameters

13522217 1-2
• Preparation of a report summarizing findings
Section 2 provides a summary of the major options for APH modifications and their effect on
heat rate, including a general discussion on design and operational considerations. Section 3
summarizes the information gathered from the survey, as well as other case studies from the
literature. Section 4 draws some conclusions and provides general guidance on heat-rate-based
cost-benefit evaluations.

13522217 1-3
13522217
2
OPTIONS FOR APH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
Overview of Design and Operational Considerations
Regenerative APHs have been standard equipment on power plants for six decades. This section
is intended to review some of the key design and operational considerations that are relevant to
the understanding of APH upgrades in the context of heat rate effects.
Operationally, regenerative APHs are relatively simple devices. Heat from the hot flue gas is
transferred to a slow (~1–3 rpm), continuously rotating metal matrix, and subsequently released
to the cold incoming combustion air.
In theory, one would want to reduce the flue gas temperature as much as possible to minimize
the efficiency penalty due to gas losses. Similarly, it would be desirable to achieve this heat
transfer without incurring any pressure loss, thereby avoiding the associated energy loss. These
two parameters (gas temperature and pressure loss) represent the major impacts on power plant
heat rate attributable to the APH. Increased air temperature is the intent of an APH. If the gas
transfers less heat than expected, the resulting air temperature will be lower. Lower air
temperatures result in additional work from the pulverizer to dry and grind the coal, as well as
additional fuel energy to offset the lower combustion air temperature. Fouling, increased
pressure drop, bypassing of inlet air or hot flue gas flow, and dilution with APH air leakage all
cause poorer APH and plant performance.
However, in reality, flue gas temperature decisions must consider other operating parameters,
including fuel quality and type of equipment downstream. The sulfur content of the fuel and the
resulting sulfur trioxide (SO3) concentration in the flue gas play a major role in determining the
appropriate flue gas temperature for a given application. The outlet gas temperature should be
above the acid dew point to prevent the formation of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and to avoid all
associated problems, such as corrosion and acid-driven deposition. In the same way, APHs must
reconcile gas pressure loss, heat transfer effectiveness and space/size requirements. Typically,
large electric plant APHs have design pressure drops of about 4-6 inches H2O. These built-in
efficiency losses are unavoidable.
The challenge for operators is, therefore, to be able to maintain these two parameters near design
values and not increase them over time. Unfortunately, changes in fuel quality (e.g., sulfur
content) and mechanical deterioration of APH components and materials eventually require
maintenance and/or upgrades. It is particularly in these areas that full consideration of the
cost/benefit tradeoffs, especially the economic value of heat rate improvement and potential CO2
emissions credits or offsets, can help determine the timing of such repairs or modifications. In
other words, by fully considering all the aspects of APH performance effects, APH modifications
may be justified in a heat-rate-based cost-benefit analysis, as opposed to the conventional
schedule-based approach.

13522217 2-1
Design Tradeoffs and Operational Constraints
To more easily understand the opportunities and options for improving APH performance, a brief
review of the key design tradeoffs and operational constraints is summarized here. Table 2-1
presents a qualitative comparison of ideal APH design criteria and the major real-life constraints
or impediments.

Table 2-1
Design Tradeoffs and Operational Constraints

Design Parameter Objective Constraint/Impediment Major Contributors

APH physical size Minimize Pressure drop Unit size, number of APHs
Heat transfer Maximize Pressure drop Leakage, fouling, plate
effectiveness material and geometry
APH pressure drop Minimize APH size Leakage, fouling, plate
spacing and geometry
Outlet gas temperature Minimize Corrosion, acid/ABS fouling Leakage, fouling
APH leakage Minimize Mechanical limitations Mechanical deterioration,
fouling

The tradeoffs shown in Table 2-1 represent the design and operational issues affecting APH
performance and provide the basis for what options are available to mitigate deteriorating
conditions. Further discussion about each parameter follows below.
• APH physical size – The overall size of an APH is dictated by the quantity of the gas/air
flows, as well as the inlet and outlet conditions. Mass flow rates are a function of unit size,
fuel quality and combustion conditions. The original design of the APH takes into account
these factors. Inlet temperature conditions are design inputs and reflect boiler design and
operation. Outlet temperatures are discussed below. Cost and real estate considerations
normally suggest that the size of APHs should be kept as small as possible. Typical
configurations in power plants use two or three APHs per unit due to size and reliability
considerations.
• Heat transfer effectiveness – APH designers must reconcile more effective heat transfer
surfaces (mostly with respect to size of gas path openings, or porosity) with resulting
pressure drops and potential for flyash plugging. Heat transfer effectiveness is affected
primarily by plate geometry (shape and thickness) and also by its material (e.g., steel vs.
alloy vs. enameled coatings).
• APH pressure drop – APH design pressure drop represents a compromise between overall
APH size, heat transfer plate design (e.g., minimum acceptable opening size for a given
coal/ash quality) and balance-of-plant concerns (fan capacities and power requirements).
Operating pressure drop will change from the design value over time. APH leakage
(increased gas flow) and fouling (increased resistance) are the main culprits affecting
operating pressure drop. Leakage mainly affects pressure drop on downstream equipment,
such as electrostatic precipitators (ESP), fabric filters (FF), ID fans, and flue gas
desulfurization (FGD). Fouling primarily affects APH pressure drop, although because
higher APH ΔP increases leakage, fouling also has a secondary effect on downstream
equipment. Pressure drop has a direct impact on plant heat rate due to higher fan power

13522217 2-2
 requirements. Ultimately, if system pressure drop exceeds fan capacity, plant load constraints
can occur.
• Outlet gas temperature – Outlet gas temperature conditions represent a compromise
between achieving higher efficiency (lower temperature) and the minimum temperatures
compatible with site-specific conditions to avoid low-temperature corrosion and acid
deposition. This minimum temperature is affected by the fuel constituents, primarily sulfur
content, and incorporates considerations for the cold-end APH baskets (avoid acid corrosion,
acid-driven fouling and, more recently, with the use of SCR/SNCR technologies, the
formation and deposition of ABS), as well as downstream ducts and other equipment (ESP,
FF, and FGD). The gas outlet temperature has a direct impact on boiler efficiency and plant
heat rate due to the associated gas (or stack) losses. Gas temperature dilution due to APH air
leakage can result in lower than actual readings for gas outlet temperatures and, hence,
falsely suggest higher boiler efficiencies. Therefore, gas temperatures must be considered
together with APH air-gas leakage (see below) and not as independent values.
• APH leakage – Unlike the parameters above, leakage is strictly an unfortunate result of
mechanical limitations in regenerative APHs. Figure 2-1 provides a simplified diagram of the
major air/gas leakage flow paths in APHs. The limitations are related to three key
unavoidable factors: 1) massive size and weight of rotating equipment (i.e., cannot be 100%
sealed); 2) wear and tear of metal surfaces (erosion and corrosion); and 3) large temperature
differentials as the rotor goes from the cold air side to the hot gas side (thermal distortions).
These conditions ensure that some leakage is always present; typical APH guarantees include
some level of expected as-new leakage (4-6%). As shown in the figure, leakage minimization
is accomplished through the use of seals, whose designs have evolved over the years. Seals
are essentially mechanical devices that close the necessary gaps in the APH. These gaps
allow for expansion and motion, without which the APH cannot function, but also permit
axial, radial and circumferential leakage. Leakage can affect APH performance in two ways:
1) increased gas flows, and 2) decreased heat transfer. The first results in higher pressure
losses downstream of the APH, while the latter results in higher gas temperatures and lower
air temperatures. As discussed above, both have a harmful impact on plant heat rate.
Unfortunately, APH leakage is difficult to measure. Oxygen (O2) measurements may be
misleading, as they may be affected by other leaks (e.g., ducts) as well. Furthermore, it is
difficult to discriminate between radial/axial and circumferential (or bypass) leakage, as the
bypass leakage paths do not incur a change in O2 across the air or gas sides and therefore are
not accounted for through an O2 balance test. Different locations of the APH leakage have
different effects on APH and unit performance. Cold-end air leakage has no effect on APH
performance, but increases total gas flow downstream of the APH (a similar effect as duct
leakage has on downstream equipment pressure drop and ID fan performance). Hot-end
leakage (similar to boiler casing leakage prior to the APH) reduces the flue gas temperature
(through dilution) entering the APH and reduces the combustion air temperature. Lastly,
peripheral or bypass leakage, on both air and gas sides, results in lower air and higher gas
temperatures.

13522217 2-3
Figure 2-1
APH Leakage Diagram

Options for Improving APH Performance

It is clear from the foregoing that to minimize APH effects on heat rate, one must maintain low
pressure loss and low exit gas temperatures, as well as minimal APH leakage. It should be
further clear that the key APH parameters affecting pressure loss and gas temperature are leakage
and fouling. Therefore, the major options to address APH performance with respect to improving
heat rate must address leakage and fouling minimization.

Controlling APH Leakage and Fouling

Referring back to Figure 2-1, it can be deduced that leakage is first and foremost a function of
how well the various seals work – the larger the gaps, the higher the leakage. Secondly, leakage
is directly related to the pressure differential between the air and gas sides of the APH – the
lower this differential, the lower the leakage rate. Therefore, it follows that there are two main

13522217 2-4
approaches to minimizing APH leakage: 1) fixing, upgrading or using better, longer lasting seals;
and 2) reducing pressure drop across the APH.

Seal Technology
Seal technology has evolved over the years in response to APH leakage concerns. Axial, radial
and circumferential seals and plates are offered by the major OEM vendors, as well as
aftermarket companies. A variety of designs and materials are available, and vendors offer their
own trade name products. Seal life is dependent on many variables, but typical life-cycle
expectancy ranges from two to nine years between replacements, depending on seal technology
and operating conditions.

Heat Transfer Baskets/Plates

As stated previously, APH pressure drop is driven by the resistance of the flow channels adjacent
to the heating plate elements. This resistance is a function of both the geometry of the heating
elements (porosity and surface shape), as well as their fouling condition (cleanliness).
Addressing the type and geometry of heating elements requires changing to a plate of different
geometry. Obviously, the tradeoff between pressure drop and heat transfer effectiveness (and
resulting gas temperature) must be evaluated when changing heating elements. With respect to
dirty or fouled plates, more effective cleaning approaches are potentially attractive, but the
tradeoff here is to mitigate mechanical/corrosion damage during the cleaning process.
Heating plate elements are typically defined by their geometry and materials. Carbon steel,
corrosion-resistant alloys and enameled surfaces are typical in the industry. Similarly, a variety
of shapes, well known by their popular denominations (e.g., DU, NF, NU, CU, and DNF) are
widely available. These geometries and materials have specific performance characteristics and
must be compatible with the particular application, but must also account for the tradeoffs
between pressure drop, heat transfer and fouling characteristics.

Fouling Control Options

Cleaning approaches (sootblowing, sonic devices, and washing) have also evolved over the
years, and much work has been done to improve plate fouling control. Plate cleanability is
affected by the cleaning device, as well as the plate geometry itself. With the more recent
concerns about ABS fouling due to SCR/SNCR applications, deeper cold-end plates have been
preferred over the conventional shorter cold-end depths, to prevent sootblowing energy from
dissipating in the spaces between element layers.
In parallel, improved sootblowing and washing methods have been developed. Steam and air
sootblowing, as well as high- and low-pressure washing, are available. Retractable, multi-head
and swing/movable sootblower designs are commercially available. The appropriate choice is
site- and conditions-specific. APH washes have traditionally been conducted off-line to avoid
water-related damage at APH operating temperatures. More recently, approaches have been
developed to accomplish APH washing while on-line (typically at reduced loads). Some U.S.
utilities have adopted European techniques of varying rotational speed during on-line washing to
insure complete cleaning of the outer sections of baskets.

13522217 2-5
Effects on Boiler Efficiency and Plant Heat Rate
The main APH parameters that impact boiler efficiency are increased pressure loss and gas
temperature. As discussed, pressure loss affects fan power (plant parasitic loss), and potentially
plant generating capacity, while stack gas temperature affects boiler efficiency (and also
potentially fan capacity due to the higher volumetric gas flow at the higher temperature).
These two effects are easy to quantify if the before and after conditions are known. Once
quantified, the resulting economic impact can be calculated from the heat rate gains and CO2
reductions (if and when appropriate).

Power Required for Increased Pressure Drop

• HP = [Flow rate (ACFM) x ΔP (in H20)] / [(6356) x fan eff (%) x motor eff (%)]
• Equivalent kW = HP x 0.746 (kW/HP)
Efficiency Loss Due to Gas Temperature
• The loss due to the change in APH gas outlet temperature can be calculated for a particular
unit based on combustion efficiency calculations. However, the conventional rule-of-thumb
of 1% efficiency loss per 40ºF of gas outlet temperature represents an acceptable correlation
for these purposes. Hence,
• Equivalent kW = [(Initial APH gas outlet temperature – new APH gas outlet temperature) x
(1% / 40)] x (boiler kW)
Additional analyses are provided in Section 4, including a hypothetical case study.

13522217 2-6
3
SURVEY SUMMARY
A questionnaire was prepared and submitted to several EPRI member utilities to identify recent
APH modifications and the resulting performance improvements. The main objectives of these
case studies were (1) to identify, through real life experience, actual results from the undertaken
modifications or upgrades; and (2) to document or estimate the effects on heat rate and plant
operation. While in many cases detailed testing of the APH alone does not necessarily follow
APH maintenance or upgrade work, the survey confirms the general expectations and illustrates
the value of the APH upgrade options. Whether detailed performance tests are carried out often
depends on the type of contract the utility has with the supplier of the APH upgrades and what
other plant modifications/upgrades are implemented at the same time. For example, if APH heat
transfer baskets and seals are the only upgrade in the plant, and the contract includes an
acceptance test, the effects of the APH upgrades can be easily identified. However, if other plant
upgrades are being implemented at the same time, or if operating conditions change
significantly, it may be more difficult to isolate the effect on plant heat rate of the APH work.
APH upgrades are typically justified by:
• Deterioration of performance (e.g., seal leakage)
• Improved heat transfer basket designs
• Accommodations for a new fuel
• Accommodations for a new ammonia-based NOx control system
• Improved cleaning devices to address fouling conditions

These justifications can result in heat rate and/or capacity/reliability improvements where fuel
savings and/or increased revenue can be determined and compared to the cost of the upgrade.
Table 3-1 presents a summary of the results from the survey. The main performance results are
provided where available. The background for the various modifications is not known in all
cases, but a couple of examples illustrate the varying reasons driving the modifications.
In case studies A-1 through A-4 and B-1, major APH retrofits were conducted. These included
rotors, posts, diaphragms, basket design changes (bolted vs. welded), layer configuration (three-
layer to two-layer), seals, and motors (variable speed). In the following case, the decision was
driven by the fact that the original rotors had been in service since the early 1970s. “…. The
rotor posts and diaphragms had numerous cracks repaired during that time and were
structurally suspect. The gas inlet temperatures were above the 750 degree design temperature
further compromising wheel integrity. The new basket design will allow complete basket
replacement in about 3 weeks versus 7 weeks for the original configuration. Also the gas side
pressure differential will be reduced from about 9 inches to 5 inches, reducing auxiliary power
and minimizing fan related load drops.”

13522217 3-1
In other words, the major retrofits undertaken in these four case studies went well beyond routine
seal replacement or basket design changes. The results therefore cannot be attributed to an
individual component but rather to the overall retrofit.
Case study C-1/2 involved lesser modifications. The stated objectives were to “…reduce air/ gas
flow, temperature and DP, and basket deterioration.” In this case the upgrades were conducted
over a period of time as follows:
• “Changed out hot, hot intermediate and cold end layers of baskets in Unit 2 in 2007 and
Unit 1 in 2008.
• Changed hot end radial seals from 12 gage OEM style to full contact stainless steel seals in
Unit 2 in 2004 and Unit 1 in 2005.
• Added deflector shields over hot end gas side bypass seals in Unit 2 in 2004 and Unit 1 in
2005.
• Doubled the number of axial seals in Unit 2 in 2004 and Unit 1 in 2005.”
The owner used several seal technologies from different vendors as well. This case study
represents a more direct before and after comparison of the results of the seal and basket
upgrades.
Table 3-1 focuses on information obtained from electric utilities in the US, but it was
supplemented by a few cases documented by APH upgrade suppliers. The Howden case studies
in the table, as well as several others, are described in their website www.howden.com.

13522217 3-2
Table 3-1
APH Heat Rate Survey: Summary of Results

The following are additional clarifications of the information presented in the table.
• Plant/Unit – The plant and/or unit name is provided when from a publically available
source. Responses to the survey were kept confidential, and such plants are listed as A-1,
A-2.
• Modifications –This column indicates the APH retrofits undertaken. In some cases, only one
option was implemented (e.g., seals only), whereas in others, multiple modifications were
included (e.g., seals, baskets, and major layer configuration changes). It should be noted that
the results may reflect the combined effect of multiple changes undertaken.
• % Leakage – Where available, the before and after leakage numbers are provided. As
discussed in Section 2, leakage affects APH heat transfer and gas flows, both of which
impact unit heat rate. Where before and after temperatures are available, the flue gas loss and
associated efficiency penalty can be estimated. The other effect of leakage is reflected in
higher gas flows, which result in higher pressure drops across downstream equipment (e.g.,
ducts, ESP, FGD).
• ΔP – Where available before and after APH pressure drop values are provided, ΔP values can
be directly used to estimate additional fan power requirements. APH pressure drop can
impact boiler capacity in situations where fan capacity is exceeded. In two cases (W. Burton

13522217 3-3
 and Ince B) capacity recovery was indicated, although it is not clear whether other boiler
work contributed to the final result in the case of Ince B.
• Gas Temperatures – This refers specifically to APH gas outlet temperatures, which have a
major effect on boiler efficiency losses (~1% per 40ºF). Where available, the impact on HR
includes the contribution of this loss from both the source and estimated values.
• HR Impact – These columns present the effect on heat rate associated with the APH
modifications described and the results shown. Two sub-columns are presented.
• Source – These numbers are presented as obtained or described in the source document
or communication. In some cases, they reflect just the HR effect associated with the
relevant parameters shown, such as at Matra and Ince B, where the HR effect reflects the
gas temperature change due to the modifications. In other cases, the HR effect number
reflects the total impact on plant heat rate, which accounts for other plant-equipment-
related benefits due to the APH changes (e.g., total fan power reduction or recovered
capacity), such as in W. Burton and units C-1, D-1, and D-2.
• Estimated – This column presents the estimated HR effect based on the parameters
provided by the original source. Hence, gas temperatures and APH ΔP are used to
calculate their impact on heat rate (as shown in Section 2). To reiterate, where leakage
values are given, any additional fan power associated with downstream equipment is not
included, as we do not have that information. (Note: pressure drop is proportional to the
square of the flow rate, meaning a 10% increase in flow should increase pressure drop
across a given piece of equipment by 21%. For example, a fabric filter operating at
normally 6.0 in H2O would experience an increase to about 7.2 in H2O). Where both
source and estimated values are the same, it means the original source also used APH ΔP
and gas temperatures as the only contributors in their HR results (Matra and Ince B).
Conversely, where the two columns differ, the original source used plant performance
data beyond these two parameters used in the estimated column.
• Cost – The cost numbers presented must be considered very generic, not necessarily because
the numbers provided are not accurate, but because in some cases we cannot determine the
individual impacts on costs of the many modifications described. For example, the
$5.5 million for units A-1 through A-4 and B-1 includes the total project costs which, as
described, involved many component upgrades and retrofits. In the cases of C-1 and plant X,
the cost of the APH seals retrofit seems to agree quite well ($35K versus $50K).
In summary, the results in Table 3-1 indicate that APH modifications resulting in lower leakage
rates, decreased operating pressure drop and reduced gas outlet temperatures have significant
impacts on boiler efficiency and plant heat rate. Actual improvement in heat rate will vary not
only as a function of the APH before and after performance, but also due to the impacts on
balance-of-plant conditions.

13522217 3-4
4
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING APH UPGRADES
APHs have a very large impact on boiler efficiency. A typical gas temperature reduction of
400ºF (204ºC) across an APH represents about a 10% boiler efficiency gain (as long as the
temperature reduction is due to heat transfer between the gas and combustion air streams). Given
the increasing importance of efficiency due to fuel costs and CO2 emissions, APH O&M
practices must incorporate traditional cost/benefit considerations. It is therefore important for
APH operators to consider the overall effect of APH performance in establishing O&M practices
and schedules.
As discussed in Section 2, the direct impact of APH performance on boiler efficiency or heat rate
is easily calculated. The major performance parameters – gas outlet temperature, ΔP and leakage
– affect boiler efficiency (gas temperatures) and power consumption (ΔP and leakage). This
section provides some general indications of the potential effects due to the more common
performance upgrades. It is focused on the three main parameters and typical solutions discussed
in Section 2:
• APH leakage – seals
• APH ΔP – element type, cleaning system
• APH heat transfer (gas temperatures) – element type, seals
Major APH modifications – such as rotor, motors, gearboxes, etc. – are not discussed, as their
replacement strategies are driven by larger condition-based maintenance considerations, which
are beyond the scope of this report. Table 4-1 summarizes the major considerations necessary to
properly evaluate the cost/benefit of APH upgrades.

Table 4-1
Major Items to Consider in Cost/Benefit Analyses

COSTS BENEFITS
• Cost of upgrade components • Heat rate/fuel savings
o Capital o Reduced APH ∆P
o Installation o Reduced APH leakage
• Outage costs ƒ Reduced ∆P in downstream
o Capacity equipment
o Energy o Reduced fan power consumption
o Purchased power • Reduced maintenance
o Fewer outages for APH washes
• Recovery of lost capacity
o Remove fan limitations

Note: Not all items are applicable to all situations. Site-specific analyses would use only those applicable.

13522217 4-1
Efficiency Benefits
To reiterate, the main APH parameters that affect plant heat rate are pressure loss, and
combustion air and stack gas temperatures. Pressure loss affects fan power (plant parasitic loss),
while air/gas temperatures affect boiler efficiency. APH leakage increases gas flow to
downstream equipment and results in additional pressure loss across such equipment, requiring
additional fan power. These represent the key effects on plant heat rate due to APH performance.
Secondary effects are also potentially present, such as gas temperature effects on ESP
performance (due to resistivity changes and volume flow rate), which may in some cases require
higher TR power settings. (Note that increased gas volume flow rates can also affect the
performance of ESPs and fabric filters, resulting in changes in opacity and/or particulate
emissions). Again, it must be restated that the constraints discussed in Section 2 need to be taken
into account. For example, stack gas temperatures cannot be lowered below a certain level due to
corrosion and fouling considerations.
Figures 4-1 to 4-3 present nominal relationships between these APH parameters (gas
temperature, APH ΔP and APH leakage) and their effect on heat rate. These effects are additive,
and hence can represent a significant source of plant heat rate improvement.
• APH Gas Outlet Temperature – Figure 4-1 shows the nominal effect of decreasing gas
temperature on boiler efficiency. For example, a decrease in temperature from 330ºF to
300ºF would result in an equivalent efficiency (or fuel savings) improvement of about 0.75%.

Figure 4-1
Effect of APH Gas Outlet Temperature. Example: Basket Upgrade

• APH Pressure Drop – Figure 4-2 presents the effect of a reduction in APH pressure drop on
efficiency. This efficiency gain is attributed to the decrease in fan power requirement.

13522217 4-2
Figure 4-2
Effect of APH Pressure Drop. Example: Cleaning System Upgrade

• APH Leakage – Figure 4-3 shows the effect of reducing APH leakage on unit efficiency.
Leakage increases gas flow and imposes added pressure drop on downstream equipment,
such as air pollution control devices (APCDs). For illustration purposes, the graph shows the
effect of a change in APH leakage for two typical APCDs. Further, it assumes that the APH
design basis is 6% leakage.
• Fabric filter at a normal ΔP of 6 in H20
• FGD at a normal ΔP of 10 in H20

Figure 4-3
Effect of APH Leakage. Example: Seals Upgrade.

Summarizing these three primary examples of APH performance improvements, it is clear that
there is potential for significant impact on heat rate. By way of an example (see more details in

13522217 4-3
cost/benefit section), consider the combined effects of reducing APH gas temperature from
340ºF to 300ºF (40ºF), decreasing APH ΔP from 12 in H2O to 6 in H20 (6 in H2O) and leakage
from 10% to 6% (4%). From the graphs, the combined improvement in unit heat rate or fuel
savings would be approximately 1.0% + 0.65% + 0.05% (FGD case) for a total of 1.7% decrease
in heat rate (or 1.7% in fuel savings).

CO2 Emissions
Another area of potential future cost benefit from the improvement of plant heat rate is the value
of CO2 credits. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the quantity of fuel used. Figure 4-4
presents the relationship between coal fired and CO2 generated for a nominal bituminous coal.
Figure 4-5 shows CO2 emissions as a function of heat rate improvement for several nominally
sized coal plants.

Figure 4-4
CO2 Emissions from Coal

Figure 4-5
CO2 Emissions Reductions from Increased Efficiency

13522217 4-4
The potential value of CO2 reduction can be seen from Figure 4-5. For example, assuming a CO2
credit of $20/ton, a 500-MW plant that reduced its heat rate by the same 1.7% as in the example
above would save about 65 KTPY of CO2, with a value of $1.3 million/year.

Cost Savings
Ultimately, these performance improvements translate to operating cost savings. The cost
savings are site specific, but can be estimated using the resulting fuel cost savings due to heat
rate improvement. These are directly related to the APH performance effects on heat rate.
However, other operating costs must also be taken into account based on site operating
experience with APH historical maintenance, etc. For example, reduced outages or cleaning
cycles translate to reduced operating costs. Further, cost effects such as the potential recovery of
lost capacity due to fan limitations must also be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Translating these efficiency improvements to fuel cost savings requires assumptions for cost of
fuel, plant heat rate and coal heating value. Figures 4-6 (a-b) and 4-7 provide cost savings (fuel
costs) for three nominal plant sizes and three nominal coal prices. For the examples in
Figures 4-6 to 4-9, plant heat rate and coal HHV were assumed to be 10,000Btu/kwhr and
12,000Btu/lb, respectively.
Similarly, the potential value of CO2 credits can be estimated. Using the data in Figure 4-5 and
assigning values to CO2 credits ($/ton CO2), the value of CO2 reductions is presented in
Figures 4-8 and 4-9 for the same three unit sizes and a range of CO2 credit prices from $20/ton to
$40/ton.

Figure 4-6
Yearly Cost Savings from Fuel Costs vs. Heat Rate Improvement
a) 100-MW unit; b) 500-MW unit

13522217 4-5
Figure 4-7
Yearly Cost Savings from Fuel Costs vs. Heat Rate Improvement (1000-MW Unit)

Figure 4-8
Yearly Cost Savings from CO2 Credits vs. Heat Rate Improvement
a) 100-MW Unit); b) 500-MW Unit

Figure 4-9
Yearly Cost Savings from CO2 Credits vs. Heat Rate Improvement
(1000-MW Unit)

13522217 4-6
The potential cost savings from APH improvements can be significant, as shown in the graphs
above. Using the same example of a hypothetical retrofit that results in a 1.7% heat rate
improvement, a 500-MW unit would derive fuel savings between about $790K and $1.8M per
year (for the assumed fuel cost range of $30/ton to $70/ton), and generate CO2 credits worth
between about $1.3M and $2.6M (for the assumed CO2 credit value range of $20/ton to $40/ton).

APH Upgrade Costs

Cost for these common APH retrofits (seals, baskets, cleaning systems) were not sought in great
detail, given the general scope of this study. However, some general cost ranges are provided
here, based on vendor communications, as well as data provided in the answers to the
questionnaire. These are not intended for use in actual cost/benefit analyses, rather just as general
references to provide a basis for a hypothetical cost/benefit example. The numbers reflect typical
APH size ranges and are given for typical materials and installation costs in 2008.
• Capital costs for material
• Seals – $40K – $200K
• Baskets – $500K – $1.5M
• Cleaning systems – $100K – $200K
• Installation costs
• Seals – $40K – $200K
• Baskets – $250K – $1M
• Cleaning systems – $50K – $100K

Cost/Benefit Example
A hypothetical cost/benefit analysis is discussed below to illustrate the potential value of an early
decision for an APH upgrade, instead of using a conventional schedule-based approach. As the
example here is totally hypothetical, the intent is to lay out a general process to ensure that the
major considerations are included.

Plant/Unit Situation Overview

• 500-MW unit
• Two Bisector APHs
• 10,000 Btu/kwh Heat Rate
• Capacity factor – 70%
• 12,000 Btu/lb coal – (changed from 3.0% S to1.5%-2.0% S two years ago)
• Coal price – $50/ton
• CO2 value – $20/ton
• Sufficient fan capacity – i.e., full load can be achieved
• SCR installed two years ago
• Air Pollution Control

13522217 4-7
 o ESP (ΔP – 2 in H2O)
o Wet FGD (ΔP - 10 in H2O)
APH Situation
• Three-layer design
• No upgrades for SCR
• Seals changed four years ago
• Next scheduled outage – three years
• Original conditions
o ΔP – 6 in H2O
o % leakage – 6%
o Gas outlet temperature – 330ºF
• Current conditions
o ΔP – 12 in H2O
o % leakage – 10%
o Gas outlet temperature – 340ºF
• Summary – decision not to upgrade at time of SCR installation. ABS fouling controlled
by low ammonia slip, aggressive sootblowing and yearly off-line APH washes.
• Opportunity to consider APH upgrades before next outage due to
o High ΔP and leakage
o Lower-sulfur coal should allow for lower gas temperature (lower acid dew point
and lower ABS formation temperature)
o Likely potential for increasing ammonia slip as SCR catalyst ages
Analysis
The challenge in this situation is to determine whether to continue current operations until the
next scheduled outage or to justify an early APH outage to recover lost performance. In this case,
three areas of improvement would be possible:
• Reduce ΔP through a more effective cleaning system and possibly a layer configuration
change (three-layer to two-layer with a deeper cold end for better sootblowing
effectiveness).
• Reduce leakage through better seals.
o Note that typical APH leakage testing by O2 balance does not address
circumferential or bypass leakage, which does not contribute to the O2 imbalance
but does affect APH heat transfer effectiveness. Visual inspection of bypass
openings and/or detailed heat transfer analyses might be appropriate in some
cases.
• Reduce gas temperature through reduced leakage and more efficient basket heating
elements.
Having determined these areas for improvement, the justification process should include the
following major steps and analyses:

13522217 4-8
 • Technical
o Determine targets for the major parameters (suggested values only for use in
hypothetical example)
ƒ ΔP – 6 in H2O (must reconcile heat transfer, rotor size and basket plate
design)
ƒ % leakage – 4% (consider the various seal designs available)
ƒ Gas temperature – 300ºF (determine minimum acceptable gas temperature
based on acid dew point for current coal and on ABS formation for NH3
and SO3 conditions)
o Determine efficiency gains from target levels compared to current operation (e.g.,
as per the graphs above)
• Costs of APH upgrade
o Capital /Installation
o Outage costs (site-specific energy, capacity, purchased power)
• Benefits from APH upgrade
o Fuel savings from heat rate improvement (including all contributions as discussed
above)
o Value of CO2 credits (if applicable)
o Recovered capacity (if applicable)
o Reduced APH washes (if applicable)
o ESP performance due to lower temperature and gas flows (if applicable)

Key Results
For illustration purposes, key costs/benefits for this example are shown below.
• Costs
o Seals – $300K
o Baskets – $1.5M
o Cleaning systems – $200K
o Outage cost – site specific
ƒ Total (not including outage cost) – $2M
• Benefits
o ΔP reduction – 0.65% heat rate (from Figure 4-2)
o Leakage reduction – 0.05% heat rate (from Figure 4-3)
o Gas temperature reduction – 1.0% heat rate (from Figure 4-1)
ƒ Total – 1.7% heat rate improvement
ƒ Total fuel savings – ~$1.3M/yr (from Figure 4-6b)
o CO2 value (if applicable) – ~$1.3M/yr (from Figure 4-8b)
o Recovered capacity (if applicable)
o Reduced APH washes (if applicable)

13522217 4-9
 o ESP performance due to lower temperature and gas flows (if applicable)

Discussion
This simplified example highlights the major considerations appropriate for an APH upgrade
analysis. The key message is that APH O&M upgrades can be justified on a condition basis as
opposed to a schedule basis. The importance of fuel efficiency and the potential value of CO2
reductions are the main drivers towards increased awareness of APH performance and its major
effect on plant heat rate. The first-order effects are highlighted in this example. The other, non-
quantified impacts (outage costs, recovered capacity, reduced washes, etc.), are equally
important in the overall analysis and can affect the cost/benefit decision. In this example, the
three-year savings of doing an early APH upgrade are between $3.9M (fuel savings only) to
$7.8M (including CO2) compared to a capital cost of $2.0M, for a simple payback of about
1.5 years for fuel alone, or about eight months if CO2 is included.

13522217 4-10
13522217
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
granted with the specific understanding and major locations in Palo Alto, California; Charlotte,
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full North Carolina; and Knoxville, Tennessee, was
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and center for public interest energy and environmental
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure research. EPRI brings together members, participants,
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is the Institute's scientists and engineers, and other
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign the challenges of electric power. These solutions span
export laws and regulations. In the event you are nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery,
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully and use, including health, safety, and environment.
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with generated in the United States. International
your company’s legal counsel to determine whether participation represents nearly 15% of EPRI's total
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make research, development, and demonstration program.
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1018472

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
13522217800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com