EPRI Translate
EPRI Translate
EPRI Translate
Importance.......................................................................................................................... 1-1
Measurement...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Purpose........................................................................................................................... 3-1
Corrections.................................................................................................................. 3-5
Boilers................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Turbine.............................................................................................................................. 3-24
Instrumentation...................................................................................................... 3-34
Calculations............................................................................................................... 3-37
Analysis..................................................................................................................... 3-41
MONITORING......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Temperature.............................................................................................................. 5-13
Pressure.................................................................................................................... 5-13
Flow........................................................................................................................... 5-16
Electrical.................................................................................................................... 5-17
Background................................................................................................................. 7-2
Conclusions............................................................................................................... 7-10
Hardware............................................................................................................... 7-17
Maintenance.............................................................................................................. 7-33
Correctable:...................................................................................................................B-16
Correctable:...................................................................................................................B-19
Correctable:...................................................................................................................B-22
C PERFORMANCE PARAMETER DIAGNOSTICS ...............................................................C-1
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this manual is to define the performance standards necessary to
successfully manage a heat rate improvement program. The information contained in
this manual can enable management, staff and technical individuals to make their
company more competitive and successful in the future production of electricity.
This report:
x Reveals the benefits of a performance program by explaining the philosophy,
purpose and savings from a high quality performance monitoring program.
x Explains how to implement and integrate a successful performance monitoring
program.
x Shows that improving efficiency of a units operation should be a continuing
objective.
x Equips the performance engineer with a tool to reduce fuel costs and enhance the
reliability and availability of their product.
Importance
A successful thermal performance program is essential to competitive success in a
deregulated environment. Rising fuel costs and increased environmental regulations
have directed many utilities to improve the performance of their generating stations. A
more accurate knowledge of unit heat rates can improve economic dispatching costs
and ensure that profits are maintained on a daily basis.
Complexity
A thermal performance program based on performance monitoring and heat rate
improvement is dynamic and complex. To improve efficiency, the engineer must know
the heat input, mass of fuel, the fuel analysis and the kW rating generation to
determine actual heat rate. After the actual heat rate is calculated and understood,
losses must be identified and understood. Good communication and teamwork between the
engineer and staff within the station is essential to success. Dedication, initiative, and
diligence at the station is also required.
Defined Actions
A thermal performance program is actually the development of performance
parameters which characterize a unit’s operation. Appropriate performance
parameters can enable the performance engineer to either immediately correct
performance or estimate when it would be cost effective to make corrections.
Performance data and benefits have been defined by the action or decisions which the
data can affect.
These actions are:
x Improve unit operation
x Predictive maintenance
x Comparison of actual to expected performance
x Baselining and tracking of units performance
x Improved economic dispatch of units
x Reduce uncertainty in actual costs for better MW sales.
Value
The performance parameters measure how well the unit is doing its job in producing
electricity. Decisions should not necessarily be made only to improve thermodynamic
efficiency, but rather to improve a company’s overall performance.
Measurement
As with any program, a performance program should be measured. The following is a
useful matrix to help measure the activities surrounding a successful program.
2
HEAT RATE PRIMER
Although the specific objectives of a heat rate improvement program will vary from
utility-to-utility and from plant-to-plant, a necessary prerequisite to formalizing
program activities is to obtain some understanding of the current conditions of a unit.
This is essential to ensure the cost-effective expenditure of the limited resources
available to improve unit heat rate. Although some problem areas may be known at a
unit, many units have substantial heat rate degradations which are unknown. The
purpose of the activities described below is to outline an approach which will begin to
aid utility personnel in characterizing the performance of a unit in order to establish the
amount of improvement which can be made in heat rate performance.
Heat Rate Definitions
Introduction
Heat rate is defined in units of Btu/kWh (kJ/kWh) and is simply the amount of heat
input into a system divided by the amount of power generated by a system. While the
definition seems simple, the number of ways in which heat rate can be computed are
numerous. This section will describe the standard heat rate definitions currently being
used by utilities and the purpose and usefulness of each. The definitions provided are
those commonly used by utilities to report heat rate for management information
purposes.
It is recognized that utilities use different fuels - coal, natural gas, oil, wood waste,
refuse, bagasse, etc. - to produce electricity or steam for consumption. However, this
discussion will center on the more traditional fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas. Special
emphasis will be given to the calculation of the heat rate of coal-fired units due to the
complexities of accurately measuring fuel flow and heating values. Regardless of the
fuel burned, the principles involved in computing a heat rate are identical. However,
the accuracy of measuring both fuel usage and the heating value of oil and natural gas
are less uncertain than for other types of fuel
Factors that exist which are not usually included in the “as-designed” heat rate curve
are:
x Heater vents
x Pump seal and leakoff flows
x Steam traps
x Plant auxiliary steam usage
x Cycle leakages
x Soot blowers steam usage
x Coal handling power consumption
x Steam coils
x Different fuel characteristics (grindability, HHV, moisture, ash)
These factors have to be quantified and a benchmark established in order for a
performance program to have a firm foundation. Only by knowing how well a unit can
perform will the performance person be able to make intelligent decisions regarding
performance improvement.
Conditions which affect unit performance which are not controllable are air inlet
temperature, cooling water temperature, and fuel quality. The expected design net
heat rate and best achievable net heat rate have to be adjusted for these conditions.
Once adjusted for these uncontrollable conditions then a comparison can be made
between actual and expected (design and/or best achievable) heat rates.
Heat Rate Changes
The performance of a unit will begin to decline as the unit begins to age. A good
performance program will be able to identify these losses as accounted-for losses. Unit
overhauls can bring the unit back to the best achievable heat rate, but some of the lost
performance may not be economically recoverable. It should be pointed out that the
best achievable heat rate is a realistic value because it was once attained and can be
achieved again if cost justified. To exceed the best achievable heat rate equipment
modification and/or enhanced operating practices will have to occur. Many times
during the course of a unit's operating life it is modified in a manner which directly
affects heat rate performance.
Some typical modifications include: conversion from constant speed to variable speed
fans, addition of cooling towers, changes in fuel used, and the retrofit of electrostatic
precipitators or flue gas desulphurization. Other modifications could include: addition
or removal of heat transfer surface or the replacement of heat transfer surfaces with
more efficient design, replacement of turbine nozzles or blading with designs which
may improve unit performance, replacement of feedwater heaters, or replacement of
the condenser tubing with a more efficient design.
Whenever a modification is made on a unit a test should be performed to determine the
actual performance of the equipment in question. Then the design heat rate curve
should be adjusted based on design values and the best achievable heat rate adjusted
based on test results. The adjustment to the design and best achievable curves can be
made manually or through the use of a computer performance code. To perform these
calculations manually, the performance person needs to evaluate each modification
independently to precisely determine the effect it has on the operating parameters of
the unit. The performance person then uses available information, such as the plant
thermal kit or heat balances codes, to estimate the effect that the change will have on
unit heat rate. Any adjustment to benchmark curves should be well documented for
future reference.
Definitions for various levels of performance standards are shown in the Figure 2-1.
program to be of maximum benefit. 1) Actual net heat rate 2) Best achievable net heat
rate 3) Expected design net heat rate must be accurate so that a performance person can
make intelligent decisions regarding performance improvement.
Having determined the best achievable heat rate at one valve point, valves wide open
for example, or at a load point, maximum guarantee for example, the performance
person can estimate the shape of the best achievable heat rate performance over the
remainder of the load range. This can be done by duplicating the shape of the design
heat rate curve. Once the performance person has determined the best achievable
performance of the unit, one can compare the actual and the best achievable heat rates
to determine the amount of improvement that can be made in the unit’s performance.
Operating Heat Rate
Operating heat rate is calculated from the heat energy consumed by a unit or station for
a specified time period regardless of the operating status of the unit or station.
A common utility practice is the use of an accounting heat rate which is the ratio of the
total fuel consumed by the unit or station divided by the gross electrical energy
produced by the generator. The fuel input into the furnace or the unit, is simply the
fuel consumed by the unit, multiplied by the fuels heating value. The total fuel
consumed is considered in the heat rate calculation including fuel used during light-off
and start-up.
Accounting heat rate may be referred to by different names at various utilities. Some of
the more common synonyms are: generation cost heat rate, gross overall heat rate, and
heat rate of record. Accounting heat rate is not a useful measure of unit performance to
a performance engineer wishing to evaluate the efficiency of a particular unit.
However, because this heat rate index has widespread exposure within a utility
organization, the performance engineer should be familiar with how it is computed
and with the manner in which he can influence its accuracy. This is normally the heat
rate value which is reported for publication and comparison with the performance of
other utilities.
Accounting heat rate is primarily influenced by fuel and power measurements. The
performance engineer can influence the accuracy of this calculation by ensuring the
proper maintenance and calibration of fuel weighing and sampling equipment and
reviewing and auditing fuel sampling procedures, and by reconciling fuel inventory
measurements with fuel as-received and as-burned records.
This latter point can be very important to an accurate accounting of heat rate because
some utilities will adjust the heat rate calculation based upon fuel consumption which
is adjusted for fuel inventories. The fuel consumed by a unit or a station is determined
by the difference between the fuel received, as estimated from fuel supplier receipts or
as-received measurements, and the fuel stored or stockpiled. The amount of stabilizing
or start-up fuel must also be considered in determining the total amount of fuel
consumed. For instance, oil-fired units, which burn No. 6 oil, will use either natural
gas or No. 2 oil as a start-up fuel and coal-fired plants will use either oil or gas for
flame stabilization at low loads and during start-up. The energy input into the unit is
calculated by multiplying the amount of fuel consumed by the average heating value
for that fuel. This total energy consumed is then divided by the gross electrical
generation to determine the gross accounting heat rate. A net accounting heat rate can
be computed by subtracting from the gross electrical generation the energy consumed
by the unit or station during power generation and the energy consumed by the unit
during non-operating periods during the specified time period.
The obstacles to calculating an accurate heat rate for a coal-fired unit using this method
are:
x The difficulty of accurately assessing the quantity of coal which has been diverted to
the stockpile.
x The inaccuracies of the as-received coal scales and the large uncertainty associated
with measurements made over long periods of time.
x The use of an average heating value for a fuel whose heating value may vary widely
with different fuel suppliers.
Incremental Heat Rate
Units within a utility system and within a power pool are dispatched, i.e., loaded upon
the grid, based upon their incremental heat rate and resulting cost curve. In addition to
its usefulness for economic dispatch, the incremental cost curve is also used in
production simulation for maintenance planning and projecting fuel procurement
needs and for pricing of power for sale or resale. The benefit of accurate input/output
data for a unit (and the benefit of an accurate incremental cost curve) will depend upon
the particular utility system which the unit is a part and on how the unit is operated.
The estimation of the unit incremental cost curve utilizes input/outpt (I/O) data for the
unit. I/O data are obtained in two ways. One is by varying unit load and measuring
the rate of energy into the boiler (i.e., fuel flow and heating value) and power produced
by the generator (i.e., power at the generator bus bar). This approach is practical for oil
and gas units where the technology for reasonable accurate fuel flow measurements
and relatively consistent fuel heating values exist. However, for coal units this
approach is less than optimum due to the difficulty in obtaining accurate coal flow
measurements and due to the constantly changing heating value of the fuel. The
possibility of introducing errors into the cost curves is high. For the most part a unit’s
incremental cost curve is based upon estimates of a unit’s performance which are
nontypical of that unit’s actual performance. For example, a unit may be operating
with some equipment problem which is affecting its heat rate yet no adjustments are
made to that unit’s incremental curves to account for the decreased (less efficient)
performance.
A second approach to obtaining I/O data, which may be more suitable for pulverized
coal-fired units, is to measure turbine heat rate vs. Load (corrected to standard
conditions), boiler efficiency vs. load, and then calculate energy input rate for various
values of power output according to:
Once the I/O data are obtained, an I/O model must be developed which fits the data
and also meets the constraints of operation. The main constraint is that the
input/output curve, fitted through the unit valve points, must be monotonically
increasing with a concave upward curvature. This curve is then differentiated to obtain
the incremental heat rate curve which, together with fuel and maintenance costs, yields
the incremental cost curve.
EPRI Reports EPRI CS/EL-4415 vols. 2 and 6 address the issue of incremental heat rate
in more detail.
electrical output of the unit is obtained from measurements of the gross generation and
station service power. Thus
The measured value of coal flow rate required by this method can be obtained from
gravimetric feeders, which, if they have just been properly calibrated, are capable of
accuracies of 1 percent or better. Laboratory analyses of coal heating value have typical
uncertainties of about 1 percent. The electrical quantities can be measured relatively
accurately with uncertainties ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 percent. The uncertainty in the
measured heat rate can be given as
where the H’s are relative uncertainties and the G’s are absolute uncertainties of the
quantities indicated.
Fuel Effects
To accurately calculate a unit’s heat rate, only the fuel actually consumed during power
production is factored into the heat rate calculation. With oil and natural gas this is not
a deterrent since the fuel is measured as it being consumed. However, in coal-fired
units, instantaneous fuel flow measurements cannot be made. The measurement of fuel
usage is made either at the entrance to the coal bunkers or between the bunkers and the
coal pulverizers.
The main advantage of the scales being located at the entrance to the bunker is that they
can be periodically calibrated since they are not in continuous use and are easily
accessible. This enables an accurate measurement of coal delivery to be made. The
disadvantage of this method is that the fuel consumed cannot be easily measured over
short time intervals with any degree of accuracy. However, determining the amount of
fuel actually consumed, the coal delivery values must be adjusted to account for the
coal which is stored in the bunkers. That relates this method of calculating operating
heat rate to long periods of time.
Other uncertainties associated with this method are:
x The inaccuracies of the as-consumed scales and the large uncertainty interval
associated with measurements made over long time periods.
x The inaccuracies associated with estimating the coal storage of the bunkers.
x The inaccuracies associated with using average fuel heating value measurements.
The method described in equation 2-2 can provide a gross estimate of a unit's actual net
operating heat rate. However, these measurements do not provide adequate
information for making sound decisions regarding heat rate improvement. It is used
mainly for management information purposes and as an overall indicator of the
performance of the unit. To obtain useful measurements of a unit's heat rate, the
calculation must be performed over small time intervals with accurate measurements of
fuel usage and heating value. The location of the fuel measurements in the above
method make short time period tests nonfeasible.
To achieve the accuracy needed to perform short time period tests, the fuel
measurement should be made as close to the combustion chamber as possible. Again,
for oil and natural gas fired units this poses few problems since there is no fuel storage
to take into consideration. In a pulverized coal-fired unit the optimum location to
make the fuel flow measurement would be between the pulverizer and the furnace
as this would eliminate errors introduced by coal storage within the pulverizers.
However, this is not possible with present technology.
Presently, the most accurate fuel flow measurements can be made as the fuel is
delivered from the bunker to the pulverizers. As mentioned, this introduces a storage
error due to the coal which resides within the pulverizer. However, this error is small
when compared to the total amount of fuel consumed during the period for which a
heat rate is being calculated.
Fuel measurements made at the pulverizer inlet give an almost direct indication of the
amount of fuel consumed by the unit over any period of time without the need to
adjust the measurements for coal storage. The use of the pulverizer inlet coal scales to
measure coal consumption can be used to characterize unit heat rate over the load
range at which the unit operates. This is accomplished by measuring the coal
consumed during short time periods when the unit is operating at a constant load
point. By performing this test at several valve points, the information can be used to
generate input/output curves for dispatching purposes and compare the unit's actual
operating heat rate against its best achievable heat rate.
The uncertainties involved in making heat rate calculations from pulverizer inlet
measurements are:
x The inaccuracies associated with the coal measuring device.
The unit heat rate can thus be evaluated independently of coal flow rate and higher
heating value measurements, if measurements of QT, QA, LB and Pfm are made instead.
A rigorous derivation for the energy balance is given in Appendix B of EPRI CS/EL -
4415 Vol. 4.
An error analysis similar in concept to that given by Equation 2-2 was performed for
the output/loss method.
These results indicate approximately a 10 to 1 ratio between the uncertainties in stack
loss and heat rate. While the uncertainties in quantities such as unburned carbon and
heat transfer in the air preheater were assumed to be relatively large, the energy flows
associated with these quantities are small enough so that their contributions to the
overall uncertainty in heat rate are small. With the output/loss technique, uncertainties
in heat rate of approximately 1 percent are feasible even with uncertainties in the order
of 10 percent in the stack loss and 50 percent in unburned carbon.
Efficiency Factor
Efficiency Factor (EF) is an important element in a strong performance monitoring
program. The indicator is a quick reference of unit performance in relation to what it
was designed to be. EF can also indicate the magnitude of effort needed to correct
performance deficiencies. When the EF = 0, the unit is performing exactly as it was
designed to. When EF is > 0, the unit is performing poorer (at a higher heat rate) than
design and when EF is < 0, the unit is performing better than design. Once a
performance monitoring program is implemented, a decreasing trend in EF indicates
success in lowering and maintaining a good heat rate. As with most performance
indicators it is not so important what the value of EF for a unit is, but rather which
direction it is going over time.
EF accurately judges performance whether a unit is used for peaking, base load, or
intermittent operation. Actual on-line heat rate achieved is always compared to the
design heat rate curve at the point which best represents actual operation. The design
heat rate to use in the calculation is at the average load for the unit during the
measurement period. EF should be measured monthly for good data averaging,
especially considering the importance of accurate coal weighing in determining actual
heat rate.
Heat Rate Logic Trees
Introduction
Engineers at a fossil station responsible for monitoring Heat Rate need a systematic
approach to aid them in identifying the root cause(s) of declining unit performance.
The Heat Rate Logic Trees described in “Heat Rate Improvement Guidelines for
Existing Fossil Plants”, EPRI report CS-4554 provide an example of one such approach.
The Logic Trees described in this report were modified and used during five
demonstration projects at fossil stations in the United States. These demonstration
projects are listed with a brief summary of how they modified the original guidelines at
the end of this section.
Logic Tree Descriptions
Logic Trees are visual tools or diagrams of a Root Cause Analysis. Logic symbols are
used to construct a diagram that defines a problem and various paths to a root cause(s).
Figure 2-3 describes the logic symbols used in the diagrams. This information was
obtained from another EPRI report: “Coal-Handling System Problems at Gulf Power
Company’s Plant Crist: a Root Cause Analysis”, EPRI CS-4743. All of the gates (blocks)
in the Heat Rate logic trees developed here are “or” gates, meaning that any one of the
lower level items can contribute to the higher level item.
Transfers are used to switch from one block or page of the logic tree to another. The
transfer point is identified by a letter or number inside the triangle. Logic Trees can be
constructed using the process described in CS-4743, but it will be more efficient to use
the diagrams provided in CS-4554 or as modified in one of the demonstration project
reports. Figures 2-4 through 2-21 show logic trees compiled from four different fossil
plants.
Heat Rate Losses Tree
The heat rate logic tree is used to identify areas in the plant where heat rate
degradation may be occurring without conducting expensive tests. The logic tree is
structured to provide a process by which decisions can be determined that narrow
down the cause of the problem based on available information. A statement of the
overall problem (heat rate losses) starts the logic tree. This statement is placed in an
“or” gate because any or all of the lower levels could contribute to heat rate losses. See
Figure 2-4.
Major Cycle Component Trees
The next level of the logic tree identifies major areas in the plant cycle that have the
potential for contributing to the overall problem. These include components such as
the boiler and turbine, systems such as condensate/feedwater, cooling water, auxiliary
systems (both electrical and mechanical), and fuel handling, and processes such as heat
losses, and cycle isolation (leaks). These are plant dependent, (an oil fired unit would
not have fuel handling components such as a coal pulverizer mill), and should be
evaluated for applicability at each station. Each block shown on the main diagram is a
part of a “transfer in” gate or a continuation from another page. The triangle below the
block has an identifier showing where the logic tree is continued or “transferred from”.
Figures 2-5 & 2-6 show how a logic tree is continued or “transferred from” boiler losses.
This is also an “or” gate with several potential causes. These potential causes can also
be “or” gates and/or transfer in gates. The process is repeated until the root cause(s) of
the problem is identified (problems with the superheater due to fouling), or it is
decided not to continue to any lower levels. Economic and time considerations
determine how far the process is to continue.
Decision Criteria
Associated with the problem or potential cause is a decision criteria. These are listed
below each block or gate. Decision criteria are conditions that need to be evaluated to
determine if the potential cause (area or system shown in the block) is the actual cause
of the heat rate loss. Decision criteria can be based on the value of a single performance
parameter or the values of multiple performance parameters. In some cases the
parameters may need to be trended, or calculations may need to be performed.
Equipment checklist, special or periodic tests and comparisons between actual and
expected values can also be appropriate decision criteria.
Performance Parameters
EPRI CS-4554 provides several tables and appendices that list performance parameters
which can be used as decision criteria. Table 2-1 lists Performance Parameters and
their Impact on Heat Rate. Table 2-2 is a list of performance parameters most often
monitored by utilities. Appendix B of the EPRI CS-4554 is a Performance Parameter
Accounting Manual. This is the basis for constructing, modifying or using a logic tree.
It gives the effect on heat rate as a Utility Average, possible causes of the performance
parameters deviation, and possible corrections that can be made to operations or
maintenance.
Logic Tree Application
How can the station engineers modify and use the logic trees and decision criteria
described above to evaluate the cause(s) of heat rate losses? First obtain data from
various sources at the station including routine monitoring of selected plant
performance parameters, special tests, outage reports, initial design documents and
interviews with plant personnel. Then convert the data into decision criteria and
associate these with the appropriate areas of the plant. Several options exist for
displaying the performance parameters as decision criteria that relate possible causes
for heat rate deviation.
1. The Logic Trees modified to suit each station can be used. Figures 2-4 through 2-20
are compiled from four different reports. All areas of the plant and both oil/gas
fired and pulverized coal fired units are included. The engineer should select and
modify whichever logic trees that best suites the needs of their station.
2. The Demonstration Project for Salem Harbor Station Unit 4 (an oil fired station),
EPRI Report GS-7329, uses a tabular form to present this information. See Appendix
Tables C-1 through C-5. These tables give the performance parameter(s), causes for
degradation of the parameter(s), further testing for confirmation, and a list of
corrective actions. Major components or systems are separated into different tables.
Not all areas or systems of a fossil station are included in the tables from this report.
3. In addition to the logic trees, the heat rate improvement guidelines describes a
decision tree as a tool for identifying causes of heat rate degradation. See Figure 2-22.
This technique relates the performance parameter with the possible causes of
deviation depending on whether it is high or low compared to normal. A series of
branching paths continue until some final or root cause is reached. Appendix B of the
guidelines is used as the basis for constructing this representation.
Example
As an example, determine the potential causes for deviation of main steam
temperature:
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 quantifies the effect its deviation has on heat rate.
Appendix B of the guidelines (B.4) also quantifies the effect on heat rate and lists
possible causes and possible corrections.
The Heat Rate Logic Trees (Dry Gas Losses) show that the potential cause is fouling of
heat transfer surfaces. See Figure 2-6.
The Diagnostic Tables (Boiler Losses) shows additional testing that can be conducted to
confirm possible causes. See Appendix Table C-1.
The Decision Tree, provides a branching path to investigate operational or maintenance
corrections such as sootblowing or damper adjustment. See Figure 2-22.
It can be seen that information from different sources is used to narrow the search for
the cause of steam temperature deviation. The engineer can take the logic trees and
diagnostic tables provided and modify them to suit the station’s needs. Later sections
of this document describe how to establish heat rate monitoring programs progressing
from initial steps to performance testing of major components.
EPRI Reports referenced in this section:
Coal Handling System Problems at Gulf Power Company’s Plant Crist: a Root Cause
Analysis, Report CS-4743. Describes the symbols used and how Logic Trees are
developed.
Heat Rate Improvement Guidelines for Existing Fossil Plants, Report CS-4554. The
initial guidelines and logic trees describes the decision tree and gives Appendix B,
Performance Parameter Accounting Manual. The logic trees for electrical and steam
auxiliary losses, fuel handling losses and heat losses are used.
Demonstration of Heat Rate Improvement Guidelines (Gas Fired Unit), Report GS-7295
provides recommendations for improvement of the guidelines and modified logic trees.
The logic trees for cycle isolation are used.
Heat Rate Demonstration Project (Oil Fired Unit), Report GS-7329 gives a cross
reference between the report and the heat rate guidelines. The Performance parameter
diagnostic table is used.
Heat Rate Demonstration Project, North Omaha Unit 5 (Coal Fired), Report TR-102122.
Describes the logic trees and how to modify for this station. The logic tree main
diagram and the top four areas are used.
Heat Rate Demonstration Project, Mt. Storm (Coal Fired) Unit 1, Report TR-102127.
Describes use of logic trees. The logic tree on steam conditions is used. This area was
added to the main diagram.
Heat Rate Demonstration - Ormond Beach (Gas/Oil Fired)Unit 2, Report TR-101249.
Provides a discussion on cycle isolation and a walkdown isolation chart.