Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

A data reconciliation based framework for integrated sensor

and equipment performance monitoring in power plants
Xiaolong Jiang, Pei Liu ⇑, Zheng Li
State Key Lab of Power Systems, Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 Integrated framework provided for both sensor and equipment performance monitoring.
 Improved measurement gross error detection ability.
 Accurate dominant factor modeling and validated test statistic distribution property.
 Application in the feed water regenerative heating system of a coal-fired power plant.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Power plant on-line measured operational data are often corrupted with random and gross errors. The
Received 21 May 2014 data reconciliation method can reduce the impact of random errors by adjusting redundant measure-
Received in revised form 6 August 2014 ments to satisfy system constraints and detect gross errors together with a statistical test method. In pre-
Accepted 8 August 2014
vious studies, the data reconciliation method is mainly used to deal with measurements with random and
gross errors, and its application is mainly in the data preprocessing areas. In this work, we extend the data
reconciliation and gross error detection method to cover both sensor and equipment performance mon-
Keywords:
itoring in power plants, through introducing equipment characteristic constraints together with charac-
Power plant
Data reconciliation
teristic parameter dominant factor models in the data reconciliation method. The validity and capability
Sensor biases of the proposed framework are illustrated with case studies in the feed water regenerative heating sys-
Equipment faults tem of a 1000 MW ultra-supercritical coal-fired power generation unit. Case study results show that the
characteristic parameter dominant factor models have relative root mean squared errors smaller than
2.3%, whilst the distribution properties of the test statistics for the integrated sensor and equipment per-
formance monitoring are validated with simulated test statistic samples. We also illustrate that the pro-
posed framework can efficiently detect and identify both sensor biases and equipment faults in the
system. At the same time, the ability of the data reconciliation and global test method for measurement
gross error detection is also improved due to the increased system redundancy under the proposed
framework.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction method of limit and trend checking, reconstructed phase planes,

To pursue higher process reliability and efficiency in power
plants, performance monitoring methods are widely used. Blanco
et al. [1] applied a method for multivariate detection of steady
states in power plants, which allows accurate characterization of
the system operation mode under quasi-steady-state. Variny and
Mierka [2] studied the part load performance of a combined cycle
power plant based on on-line monitoring data and identified three
possibilities for part load fuel savings. Finn et al. [3] implement the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62795734x333; fax: +86 10 62795736.
E-mail address: liu_pei@tsinghua.edu.cn (P. Liu).
and regression curves for power plant anomaly diagnosis and
showed great promises for power plant applications. Nikpey
et al. [4] developed an artificial neural network model of a micro
gas turbine, which can predict performance parameters accurately
and be used for condition monitoring. When applying these meth-
ods in real-life power plants, the accuracy of measured operational
data is of great importance, because on-line measured data are
often corrupted with random and gross errors, which are propa-
gated into the uncertainty of performance monitoring results [5].
To pursue better performance monitoring effects, data preprocess-
ing techniques are usually applied to reduce the impact of random
errors and detect gross errors [6].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.040
0306-2619/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282
Nomenclature
Ak the Jacobian matrix of the constraint equations with
respect to reconciled variables at the kth iteration
ax normalized adjustments for the measured variables
ah normalized adjustments for the characteristic
parameters
Bk the Jacobian matrix of the constraint equations with
respect to unmeasured variables at the kth iteration
Ck the constant vector of the linearized constraint
equations at the kth iteration
Dk the constant vector of the linearized constraint
equations with only measured variables at the kth
iteration
fm1 system constraint equations
gq1 characteristic parameter models
Kk the covariance matrix for the constraint residual vector
at the kth iteration
Mk the linearized constraint equation coefficient matrix
with only measured variables at the kth iteration
Qk The matrix Q obtained through QR factorization of
matrix Bk
Q1,k the first p basis vector in matrix Qk
Q2,k The second m  p basis vector in matrix Qk
Rk the matrix R obtained through QR factorization of
matrix Bk
R1,k the nonsingular p  p upper triangular matrix in matrix
Rk
r the constraint residual vector
r the redundancy of the system
xn1 the vector of simulated measured values
xi the simulated measured value of the ith measurement
^n1
x the vector of reconciled values for the measured
variables
^xi the reconciled value of the ith measurement
yp1 the vector of calculated values for the unmeasured
variables
y
Pi the calculated value of the ith unmeasured variable
the covariance matrix of the measured data
nn
Greek letters
a the level of significance for gross error detections
Data reconciliation is a data preprocessing technique, which
adjusts redundant measured data to satisfy the system constraints
and reduce the impact of random errors in the data [7]. The data
reconciliation method can be further used for gross error detection
and identification together with a statistical hypothesis test
method, including the global test and the measurement test [8],
the constraint test [9], the generalized likelihood ratio test [10]
and the principal component test [11], etc. Gross errors can also
be detected simultaneously with data reconciliation calculation
by replacing the general weighted least square form of objective
function for data reconciliation with a robust estimator [12]. Since
1960s, the data reconciliation and gross error detection methods
have been widely studied in chemical and petrochemical indus-
tries, with applications in an oil refinery distillation preheat train
[13], a single-effect ammonia/water absorption chiller [14], a
coke-oven-gas purification process [15] and an polypropylene
reactor [16], etc. Recently, these techniques are also of increasing
interests in the power industry, with applications in nuclear power
plants [17,18], gas turbine and combined cycle power plants
[19,20] and coal-fired power plants [21–24].
Generally, the system constraints for data reconciliation mainly
contain the balance constraints, including mass flow balances,
271
d the non-central parameter for the distribution of the
test statistic cR under the null hypothesis
ei the simulated random error of the ith measurement
ni the permissible error of the ith measuring instrument
ri the random error standard deviation of the ith
measurement
rcR the standard deviation of test statistic samples
c the objective function of a data reconciliation problem
cR the gross error test statistic
cR the average value of test statistic samples
^h the vector of characteristic parameters obtained with
dominant factor models
h the value of characteristic parameters obtained based
on measurements
^h the value of characteristic parameters obtained with
dominant factor models
li the simulated actual value of the ith measurement
v2r ðdÞ the non-central chi-squared distribution with the
degree of freedom r and a non-central parameter d
v21a;r ðdÞ the critical value of a non-central chi-squared
distribution with the degree of freedom r and the
non-central parameter d at the level of significance a
Superscripts
T matrix transposition
1 matrix inversion
Subscripts
i index of parameters
j index of parameters
k iteration steps in the data reconciliation solution algo-
rithm
m the number of constraint equations
n the number of measured variables
p the number of unmeasured variables
q the number of characteristic parameters
min minimum value
R reconciled
sat,w saturated water
energy balances and substance balances, etc., which would have
to be fulfilled by the actual values of the measured variables
[25]. As the data reconciliation method develops, more detailed
characteristic constraints are also included. These characteristic
constraints usually contain equipment characteristic parameters,
like flow resistance coefficient, heat transfer coefficient, flash effi-
ciency, and catalyst activity. To study the characteristic constraints
based data reconciliation, MacDonald and Howat [26] estimated
the flash efficiency of a single stage flash operation unit simulta-
neously with data reconciliation and found that flash efficiency
precision estimated in this coupled procedure are more accurate
than those obtained sequentially after data reconciliation. Albu-
querque and Biegler [27] carried out simultaneous data reconcilia-
tion, gross error detection and characteristic parameter estimation
for dynamic systems and simulation results showed that the fair
function based robust data reconciliation method could give more
accurate characteristic parameter estimates when gross errors
exist. Vachhani et al. [28] pointed out that the biased characteristic
parameter identification problem can be viewed as a diagnostic
problem and provided a framework in which only the identified
biased characteristic parameters are estimated simultaneously
with data reconciliation, thus greatly reduced the calculation time
272 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282
for dynamic data reconciliation and parameter estimation.
Vachhani et al. [29] developed the unscented recursive nonlinear
dynamic data reconciliation method which is efficient, accurate
and stable for estimating the characteristic parameters with
inequality and equality constraints. Prata et al. [16] applied the
particle swarm optimization method to simultaneously solve the
problems of characteristic parameter estimation and nonlinear
dynamic data reconciliation in an industrial polypropylene reactor
and results showed that the proposed method could provide more
reliable characteristic parameters for advanced control schemes. In
these studies, although characteristic constraints have been
included in data reconciliation, the characteristic parameters are
generally treated as unknown parameters and their values are esti-
mated simultaneously with the data reconciliation calculation.
Besides, there are also studies treating characteristic parameters
as known parameters. Chen and Anderson [30] applied the bell-
mouth flow equation with a known compressor inlet flow
constant and the swallowing capacity relationship with a known
Stodola coefficient for the data reconciliation of a gas turbine com-
pressor and improved the accuracy of the measured data efficiently.
Farsanga et al. [31] proposed a model based algorithm for simulta-
neous validation of online analyzers and process simulators
through an iterative process of identifying simulator unknown
parameters based on data reconciliation results and performing
data reconciliation based on the improved model, until the differ-
ence between simulation and reconciliation results are insignifi-
cant. In these studies, data reconciliation method is also mainly
illustrated for accurate estimates of measured variables and
unknown parameters.
In this work, we propose a data reconciliation based framework
to cover both sensor and equipment performance monitoring, in
which equipment characteristic constraints together with charac-
teristic parameter dominant factor models are included. Dominant
factors are the process variables which mainly determine the val-
ues of equipment characteristic parameters when the power gen-
eration unit operates at various load points [32]. Dominant factor
models, when calibrated with historical operational data, can well
describe the quantitative relationships between the characteristic
parameters and their dominant factors and give accurate charac-
teristic parameter estimates. On the other hand, if the equipment
has some faults, the quantitative relationships between the charac-
teristic parameters and their dominant factors are changed, and
the dominant factor model estimates could have gross errors.
These gross errors can be detected and identified with the
extended data reconciliation based gross error detection methods,
and thus provide some indicators for equipment faults. In this way,
the data reconciliation based gross error detection methods are
extended to provide a framework for integrated sensor and equip-
ment performance monitoring.
We illustrate the validity and capability of the proposed frame-
work through case studies for its application to the feed water
regenerative heating system of a 1000 MW ultra-supercritical
coal-fired power generation unit. Firstly, we introduce the basics
about the system and the dominant factor modeling methods.
Then, we developed a detailed algorithm for the integrated sensor
and equipment performance monitoring framework. Finally, simu-
lation case studies are carried out to illustrate the validity and
capability of the proposed framework.
2. System description and characteristic parameter modeling
2.1. System configuration
It is shown in Fig. 1 an illustration of the feed water regenera-
tive heating system in a real-life 1000 MW ultra-supercritical
coal-fired power generation unit. Key equipment in Fig. 1 includes,
the #1, #2 and #3 high pressure feed water heaters (HPFW1,
HPFW2 and HPFW3), the #1, #2 and #3 extraction steam pipes
(EP1, EP2 and EP3), a feed water pump (FWP) and a deaerator (DA).
In the deaerator, air dissolved in the condensate water is
removed by a mixing process with extraction steam from the
steam turbine and drain water from the high pressure feed water
heaters. The feed water pump is located downstream of the deaer-
ator and pressurize the deaerator outlet water to a specific value.
Pressurized feed water is then preheated by extraction steam in
the three high pressure feed water heaters. The extraction steam
is introduced into the feed water heaters through the extraction
steam pipes and becomes subcooled drain water after heating
the feed water. The subcooled drain water is then sent to the next
feed water heater and finally enters the deaerator. At the feed
water pump, part of the feed water is extracted and injected into
boiler reheater as spray water.
2.2. Measured variables and measurement error standard deviations
In the feed water regenerative heating system, there are three
kinds of measurements, including mass flow rate, pressure and
temperature measurements, which are represented by nomencla-
tures in the rectangular boxes in Fig. 1 and described in details in
Table 1.
In this work, the measured data for case studies are simulated
by adding random errors to the simulated actual data of the pro-
cess variables as shown in Eq. (1).
xi ¼ li þ ei ð1Þ
where li and xi represent the simulated actual and measured value;
ei represents the generated random error.
The simulated actual value li is generated with a phenomeno-
logical model, whose model parameters can be adjusted flexibly
to simulate the situations of equipment faults. Details about the
phenomenological model are reported in Appendix A.
The random error ei, which follows a normal distribution with a
zero mean and specific standard deviation ri, is generated with
a MATLAB normal distribution random number generator
‘‘normrnd’’ [33]. The standard deviation ri is set with respect to
the actual measurement accuracy. Assuming that the permissible
error ni of a measuring instrument is the confidence interval of
the error distribution with 95% confidence probability [20], the
random error standard deviation can be evaluated with Eq. (2).
ni
ri ¼ ð2Þ
1:96
where ni represents the permissible error of a measuring instru-
ment according to its accuracy class.
The evaluated measurement random error standard deviations
together with a set of simulated actual data and a set of simulated
measured data are reported in Table 1.
2.3. System balance constraints
In this work, data reconciliation constraints contain balance
constraints and characteristic constraints. In this subsection, we
first introduce the balance constraints as shown in Table 2.
In Table 2, the balance constraint equations include steady
state mass and energy balances, which are used in common
power plant heat balance analysis to calculate the unknown
extraction steam and drain water flow rates. In these equations,
h(p, T) represents the specific enthalpy of water or steam at pres-
sure and temperature (p, T); hsat,w (p) represents the saturated
water specific enthalpy at pressure p. According to the ASME
standard [34], the specific enthalpy of drain water was
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282 273

Fig. 1. An illustration of a feed water regenerative heating system.

Table 1
Values and error standard deviations of the measured variables.

Variables Description and location Variable Unit Real-life measured Simulated actual Simulated measured Error standard
type value value value deviation
MFFW Outlet flow rate of HPFW1 Output kg/s 783.02 795.43 794.10 ±9.33
MFWP Outlet flow rate of FWP Output kg/s 785.31 795.43 796.04 ±4.30
MCW Inlet flow rate of condensate water in Input kg/s 611.47 611.47 612.10 ±2.46
DA
MRHS Flow rate of reheater spray water in Input kg/s 3.00 3.00 3.05 ±0.23
FWP
PES1 Extraction steam pressure in EP1 Input Bar 83.19 83.19 83.15 ± 0.26
PES2 Extraction steam pressure in EP2 Input Bar 46.63 46.63 46.63 ±0.15
PES3 Extraction steam pressure in EP3 Input Bar 22.67 22.67 22.68 ±0.10
PIS1 Inlet steam pressure in HPFW1 Output Bar 81.02 81.02 81.01 ± 0.26
PIS2 Inlet steam pressure in HPFW2 Output Bar 44.85 44.86 44.80 ± 0.15
PIS3 Inlet steam pressure in HPFW3 Output Bar 22.10 22.10 22.10 ± 0.10
PIS4 Extraction steam pressure in DA Output Bar 10.63 10.63 10.62 ± 0.04
PFWP Outlet pressure of FWP Input Bar 310.32 310.32 310.31 ± 1.02
PRHS Pressure of reheater spray water in Input Bar 117.21 117.21 116.99 ±0.77
FWP
PCW Condensate water pressure in DA Input Bar 13.99 13.99 14.03 ± 0.15
TES1 Extraction steam temperature in EP1 Input °C 428.36 428.36 428.50 ±1.53
TES2 Extraction steam temperature in EP2 Input °C 341.02 341.02 341.05 ±1.02
TES3 Extraction steam temperature in EP3 Input °C 509.46 509.46 509.47 ±1.53
TIS1 Inlet steam temperature in HPFW1 Output °C 426.64 426.97 426.86 ±1.53
TIS2 Inlet steam temperature in HPFW2 Output °C 341.35 339.29 339.20 ±1.02
TIS3 Inlet steam temperature in HPFW3 Output °C 509.38 509.18 509.27 ±1.53
TIS4 Inlet steam temperature in DA Input °C 392.25 392.25 392.42 ±1.15
TFFW Feed water outlet temperature in Output °C 296.90 297.05 297.01 ±0.89
HPFW1
TDW1 Drain water temperature in HPFW1 Output °C 264.00 263.97 264.02 ±0.89
TFW2 Feed water outlet temperature in Output °C 256.79 256.82 256.73 ±0.77
HPFW2
TDW2 Drain water temperature in HPFW2 Output °C 226.62 226.61 226.57 ±0.77
TFW3 Feed water outlet temperature in Output °C 218.87 218.97 218.95 ±0.77
HPFW3
TDW3 Drain water temperature in HPFW3 Output °C 196.38 196.42 196.47 ±0.77
TFWP Feed water outlet temperature in FWP Input °C 190.45 190.45 190.51 ±0.77
TRHS Temperature of reheater spray water Input °C 184.55 184.55 184.63 ±0.77
in FWP
TCW Condensate water temperature in DA Input °C 157.64 157.64 157.47 ±0.64

calculated with corresponding extraction steam pressure and thermodynamic properties are calculated according to the IAPWS
drain water temperature, and the specific enthalpy of feed water IF97 standard [35].
was calculated with corresponding feed water temperature and Descriptions of the unknown extraction steam and drain water
the outlet pressure of feed water pump. The water and steam flow rates in the heat balance analysis are shown in Table 3.
274 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282

Table 2
System balance constraint equations.

Equipment Constraint equations Equation type

HPFW1 MES1  MDW1 = 0 Mass balance
MFFW  h(PFWP,TFW2) + MES1  h(PES1,TES1)  MFFW  h(PFWP,TFW)  MDW1  h(PES1,TDW1) = 0 Energy balance
HPFW2 MES2 + MDW1  MDW2 = 0 Mass balance
MFFW  h(PFWP,TFW3) + MES2  h(PES2,TES2) + MDW1  h(PES1,TDW1)  MFFW  h(PFWP,TFW2)  MDW2  h(PES2,TDW2) = 0 Energy balance
HPFW3 MES3 + MDW2  MDW3 = 0 Mass balance
MFFW  h(PFWP,TFWP) + MES3  h(PES3,TES3) + MDW2  h(PES2,TDW2)  MFFW  h(PFWP,TFW3)  MDW3  h(PES3,TDW3) = 0 Energy balance
FWP MFFW  MFWP = 0 Mass balance
MDA  MFWP  MRHS = 0 Mass balance
DA MES4 + MCW + MDW3  MDA = 0 Mass balance
MES4  h(PES4,TES4) + MCW  h(PCW,TCW) + MDW3  h(PES3,TDW3)  MDA  hsat,w(PES4) = 0 Energy balance

Table 3
Descriptions of the unknown variables in the heat balance analysis.
Variables Description and location
MES1 Flow rate of extraction steam in #1 feed water heater
MES2 Flow rate of extraction steam in #2 feed water heater
MES3 Flow rate of extraction steam in #3 feed water heater
MES4 Flow rate of extraction steam in deaerator
MDW1 Flow rate of drain water in #1 feed water heater
MDW2 Flow rate of drain water in #2 feed water heater
MDW3 Flow rate of drain water in #3 feed water heater
MDA Outlet feed water flow rate of deaerator
Fig. 2. An illustration of a feed water heater temperature profile.
2.4. Equipment characteristic constraint equations
In this subsection, we further introduce the equipment charac-
teristic constraint equations, including pressure drop equations for
the extraction steam pipes and heat transfer equations for the feed
water heaters, as follows.
2.4.1. Extraction steam pipes
Characteristic constraint equations for the extraction steam
pipes are shown in Eq. (3).
pin  pout ¼ Dp
where pin and pout represent the inlet and outlet pressure; Dp rep-
resents the pressure drop of the extraction steam pipes.
In Eq. (3), the pressure drop Dp is the characteristic parameter
for an extraction steam pipe.
2.4.2. Feed water heaters
To derive characteristic constraint equations for the feed water
heaters, we first introduce their temperature profiles, as shown in
Fig. 2.
The feed water heaters are shell and tube type heaters with
desuperheating, condensing and drain cooling zones. In the tube
side, feed water enters with the temperature of T1 and is heated
continuously, before it leaves the heater with the temperature of
T3. In the shell side, the superheated extraction steam enters with
the temperature of T4 and is cooled to a temperature 5–35 °C above
its saturation temperature in the desuperheating zone [36]. Then
the steam condenses in the condensing zone at the temperature
of T5 and is further cooled to a temperature lower than the satura-
tion temperature before it leaves the heater with the temperature
of T6.
Since the temperature of steam leaving the desuperheating
zone usually cannot be measured, the desuperheating and con-
densing zone are considered as an integrated zone when deriving
the characteristic constraint equations. For convenience, this inte-
grated zone is still called condensing zone, because the heat trans-
fer rate in the condensing zone is usually much larger than that in
the desuperheating zone. Besides, the pressure drops for both the
tube and shell sides are neglected, which is consistent with the
ASME standard for heat balance analysis [34]. Based on these
assumptions, the characteristic constraint equations for a feed
water heater are written in Eqs. (4) and (5).
ðT 4  T 3 Þ  ðT 5  T 2 Þ
_ FW ðhðpFW ; T 3 Þ  hðpFW ; T 2 ÞÞ ¼ ðUAÞcond
m ð4Þ
lnððT 4  T 3 Þ=ðT 5  T 2 ÞÞ
ðT 5  T 2 Þ  ðT 6  T 1 Þ
_ FW ðhðpFW ; T 2 Þ  hðpFW ; T 1 ÞÞ ¼ ðUAÞdrain
m ð5Þ
lnððT 5  T 2 Þ=ðT 6  T 1 ÞÞ
where m _ FW and pFW represents the mass flow rate and pressure of
feed water; (UA)cond and (UA)drain represent the product of heat
transfer coefficient U and heat transfer area A in the condensing
and drain cooling zone.
In Eqs. (5) and (6), (UA)cond and (UA)drain are the characteristic
parameters for a feed water heater.
2.5. Characteristic parameter modeling
In this work, characteristic parameter dominant factor models
are applied to give characteristic parameter estimates in data
reconciliation.
The dominant factor for a extraction steam pipe pressure drop
Dp is the extraction steam flow rate, because when the steam
ð3Þ
flow rate changes, the steam velocity and the steam pipe friction
factor will also change, which finally causes the change of charac-
teristic parameter Dp. For a feed water heater, the dominant fac-
tors for the characteristic parameters (UA)cond and (UA)drain are the
feed water flow rate. When the feed water flow rate changes, the
steam extracted from steam turbine for heating the feed water is
also changed. As a result, the flow velocities, Reynolds numbers
and heat transfer coefficients for both shell and tube sides of
the feed water heater will change. Finally, the value of the char-
acteristic parameters (UA)cond and (UA)drain will also change. Based
on these analysis, the relationships between the characteristic
parameters and their dominant factors are then expressed in
Eqs. (6)–(8).
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282 275

_ out Þ
Dp ¼ f D p ð m ð6Þ ^hk ¼ gðx
^ k ; yk Þ ð10Þ
_ FW Þ
ðUAÞcond ¼ f ðKAÞcond ðm ð7Þ Step 3: Evaluate the Jacobian matrices of the constraint equa-
_ FW Þ
ðUAÞdrain ¼ f ðKAÞdrain ðm ð8Þ ^; y.
tions with respect to variable x

where m _ out represents the flow rate of extraction steam in a extrac- @f @f

Ak ¼ ; Bk ¼ ð11Þ
tion steam pipe; m _ FW represents the flow rate of feed water in a feed ^k
@x @yk
water heater. The partial derivatives in matrix Ak and Bk are evaluated with a
To obtain the specific quantitative relationships, characteristic numerical differentiation method [37], based on the variable
parameters are firstly calculated with Eqs. (3)–(5) based on heat ^k ; yk ; ^
values of x hk as shown in Eqs. (12) and (13).
balance analysis results with measured historical operational data.
Then, statistical analysis methods are used to determine the quan- @f i;k f i ðx1;k ; x2;k ; . . . xj;k þ Dxj;k ; . . . xn;k ; yk ; ^hk Þ  f i ðx
^k ; yk ; ^hk Þ
¼ ;
titative relationships between the characteristic parameters and @xj;k Dxj;k
their dominant factors. Details about the dominant factor models Dxj;k ¼ 0:001xj;k ð12Þ
are illustrated in the Case Study 1.
^k ; y1;k ; y2;k ; . . . yj;k þ Dyj;k ; . . . yp;k ; ^hk Þ  f i ðx
@f i;k f i ðx ^ k ; yk ; ^hk Þ
¼ ;
3. Integrated framework for sensor and equipment @yj;k Dyj;k
performance monitoring Dyj;k ¼ 0:001yj;k ð13Þ

The constraint equations fðx ^ ¼ 0 can then be linearized

^ ; y; hÞ
3.1. Characteristic constraints based data reconciliation
through Taylor series method with only the first order derivative
term retained, as shown in Eq. (14).
To provide an integrated framework for sensor and equipment
performance monitoring, the general nonlinear steady-state data ^ þ Bk y ¼ Ck
Ak x ð14Þ
reconciliation problem is extended to include the characteristic ^k Þ
where Ck ¼ Ak x^ k þ Bk yk  fðx
^k ; yk ; h
constraint equations together with the characteristic parameter
Step 4: Perform QR factorization of the matrix Bk as shown in Eq.
dominant factor models, as shown in Eq. (9):
(15).
T
X
1 X
n
ðxi ^xi Þ
2  
min c ¼ ðx  x
^Þ ^Þ ¼
ðx  x r2   R1;k
i¼1
i Bk ¼ Q k Rk ¼ Q 1;k Q 2;k ð15Þ
ð9Þ 0
s:t: fðx^; y; ^hÞ ¼ 0
^h ¼ gðx where R1,k is a nonsingular p  p upper triangular matrix; Qk is a
^; yÞ
m  m orthogonal matrix; Q1,k is the first p basis vector for
where xn1 and x ^ n1 represent the measured and reconciled values matrix Qk; Q2,k is the second m  p basis vector for matrix Qk.
P
of measured variables; nn represents the covariance matrix of the QR factorization decomposes matrix Bk to a product of an
measured data; ri represents the random error standard deviation; orthogonal matrix Qk and an upper triangular matrix Rk, and
fm1 represents the steady state system balance and characteristic detailed description of QR factorization methods can also be
constraint equations; yp1 represents the calculated values for the seen in Ref. [38].
unmeasured variables; ^ hq1 represents the calculated value for the Step 5: Since Qk is orthogonal, the matrix Q T2;k has the property.
characteristic parameters; gq1 represents the dominant factor    
  R1;k R1;k
models. Q T2;k Bk ¼ Q T2;k Q 1;k Q 2;k ¼ ½0 I ¼0 ð16Þ
0 0
In this work, the characteristic constraints based data reconcil-
iations are carried out with both balance constraints in Section Multiply the linearized constraint equations shown in Eq. (14)
2.3 and characteristic constraints in Section 2.4, while the balance with matrix QT2,k and obtain following constraint equations con-
constraints based data reconciliations are performed with only taining only measured variables.
the balance constraints. When we include characteristic con-
^ ¼ Dk
Mk x ð17Þ
straints in data reconciliation, the number of constraints equa-
tions is increased. Since the characteristic parameters are where Mk = QT2,kAk
and Dk = QT2,kCk.
estimated with their dominant factor models, the number of Step 6: Data reconciliation problem with constraints shown in
unknown parameters is kept unchanged. As a result, the redun- Eq. (17) can be solved with the Lagrange multiplier method.
dancy of the system, indexed by subtracting the number of con- ^.
Then we can obtain updated estimates of the reconciled value x
straint equations with the number of unknown variables, is X T
increased compared to the balance constraints based data
^ ¼x
x MTk K1
k Q 2;k ðAk x  Ck Þ ð18Þ
reconciliation. P
where Kk ¼ ðMk MTk Þ
Step 7: Since matrix Qk is orthogonal, it has the property
3.2. Solution of the data reconciliation problem Q Tk Q k ¼ I. Multiplying Eq. (14) with matrix Q Tk , we can obtain:

An approach based on the successive linear data reconciliation Q Tk Ak x

^ þ Rk y ¼ Q Tk Ck ð19Þ
method is used to solve the data reconciliation problem [7]. Basic
Using Eq. (15), we further get:
steps are as follows:
" #   " #
Q T1;k R1;k Q T1;k
Step 1: Start with the measured values x as initial estimates for ^þ
Ak x y¼ Ck ð20Þ
Q T2;k 0 Q T2;k
the reconciled value x ^ , and initial estimates y for the unmea-
sured variables provided through heat balance analysis taking Then we can obtain updated estimates of the unmeasured vari-
one of MFFW, MFWP and MCW as primary flow rate. ables y.
Step 2: Calculate the characteristic parameter estimates with T
the dominant factor models. y ¼ R1 ^
1;k Q 1;k ðAk x  Ck Þ ð21Þ
276 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282

Step 8: Stop if the new estimates are not significantly different
from those obtained in the previous iteration. Otherwise, repeat
the procedure from Step 2 with the new estimates x ^ ; y.
3.3. Integrated sensor and equipment performance monitoring
In this work, the general global test and serial elimination strat-
egy for data reconciliation based gross error detection and identi-
fication are extended to provide an integrated framework for
sensor and equipment performance monitoring.
Under the proposed framework, there are mainly two kinds of
gross errors: gross errors in the measurements caused by sensor
biases and gross errors in characteristic parameter estimates
caused by equipment faults. Since measurement gross errors are
common for data reconciliation studies, here we mainly explain
the gross errors in characteristic parameter estimates. As the dom-
inant factor models are calibrated with historical operational data
for healthy equipment, the characteristic parameter estimates pro-
vided by these models will deviate severely from the actual char-
acteristic parameter values for the faulty equipment. As a result,
the characteristic parameter estimates will contain gross errors
in case of equipment faults.
The gross errors are firstly detected with the global test, use the
following test statistic [7]:
X 1
cR ¼ rT K1 r ¼ ðMx  DÞT ðM MT Þ ðMx  DÞ ð22Þ
where r(mp)1 = Mx  D represents the residual vector of the line-
P
arized constraint equations; the matrix K ¼ M MT represents the
covariance matrix for the residual vector; all the matrices are eval-
uated using the converged results of x ^ ; y for the data reconciliation
calculation.
The null hypothesis for the global test is that there are no gross
errors in the system. For balance constraints based data reconcili-
ation, it can be generally proven that under the null hypothesis the
test statistic cR follows a chi-squared distribution with a degree of
freedom r, where r equals to the redundancy of the system
[7].However, for the characteristic constraints based data reconcil-
iation method proposed in this work, the test statistic follows a
non-central chi-squared distribution, which will be discussed as
follows.
In this work, the dominant factor models have considered the
influence of the dominant factors while neglecting the influence
of other factors, thus could have some errors in characteristic
parameter estimates. As a result, the actual values of the process
variables may not satisfy the characteristic constraint equations
and the expectation of the constraint residual vector r is a non-zero
vector l. In this case, the constraint residual vector follows a mul-
tivariate normal distribution shown in Eq. (23):
of the suspected measurements or characteristic parameter esti-
mates for containing a gross error is eliminated one by one. If a sus-
pected measurement is eliminated, it will be treated as an
unmeasured variable to formulate a data reconciliation problem
of a reduced size. And if a characteristic parameter estimate is
eliminated, the characteristic constraint equation containing this
characteristic parameter will be excluded from the data reconcili-
ation constraints.
After eliminating one of the suspected variables, the redun-
dancy of the system is reduced by one and the reduced test crite-
rion for gross error detection is chosen as v21a;r1 ðdÞ. In this work,
we mainly consider the situation when there is only one gross
error, either in the measurements or in the characteristic parame-
ter estimates, and leave the situation of multiple gross errors for
further work. In this case, when we eliminate a suspected variable
and if the probability for the test statistics to exceed the reduced
test criterions is equal to or smaller than a, the test result indicates
that there are no gross errors in other variables and the eliminated
variable is identified as containing a gross error. When a measure-
ment is identified as containing a gross error, it indicates that there
is a bias in this measurement. And when a characteristic parameter
estimate is identified as containing a gross error, it indicates that
the corresponding equipment has a fault.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Case study 1: Characteristic parameter modeling
In this subsection, we illustrate the dominant factor modeling
methods based on 1440 sets of simulated measured data generated
by the phenomenological model with model input values obtained
from the real-life power plant measurements during one day with
a time interval of 1 min.
Based on the simulated measured data, heat balance analysis is
carried out with MFWP taken as primary flow rate and the charac-
teristic parameters are calculated with Eqs. (3)–(5). As an example,
we show the relationships between the calculated characteristic
parameters and their dominant factors for the #1 extraction steam
pipe and the #1 high pressure feed water heater in Figs. 3–5.
From Figs. 3–5, we can see that the characteristic parameters
changes obviously along with their dominant factors, indicating
that dominant factors can mainly determine the value of character-
istic parameters at various unit load points.
With the calculated characteristic parameters, second order
polynomial models are then built to quantitatively express the

r  NðmpÞ1 ðl; KÞ ð23Þ

According to Eqs. (22) and (23), it can be theoretically proven
that under the null hypothesis the test statistic cR follows a non-
central chi-squared distribution v2r ðdÞ with a degree of freedom
r = m  p and a non-central parameter d = lTK1l [39]. When the
equipment does not have faults, the dominant factor model errors
stay in normal ranges and their influences on the global test statis-
tic are embedded within the non-central parameter d. The test cri-
terion for gross error detection is then chosen as v21a;r ðdÞ, which is
the critical value of non-central chi-squared distribution at the
chosen a level of significance. Under the null hypothesis, the prob-
ability for the test statistic to exceed the test criterion is equal to or
smaller than the chosen a level of significance. If this probability
exceeds the level of significance, a gross error is detected.
Once a gross error is detected, the standard serial elimination
strategy is then used for gross error identification, in which each Fig. 3. The characteristic parameter model of Mp for EP1.
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282 277

Table 4
Accuracies of the dominant factor models.

Equipment Characteristic parameter Unit RMSE RRMSE (%)

HPFW1 (UA)cond kW/°C 13.02 0.80
(UA)drain kW/ °C 4.29 0.67
HPFW2 (UA)cond kW/°C 20.14 1.13
(UA)drain kW/°C 7.29 0.71
HPFW3 (UA)cond kW/°C 5.07 0.73
(UA)drain kW/°C 12.18 1.05
EP1 dP Bar 0.02 1.42
EP2 dP Bar 0.02 1.36
EP3 dP Bar 0.01 2.28

 actual represents the average of the characteristic parameters calcu-

Y
lated based on simulated actual data.
Accuracy evaluation results for the dominant factor models are
shown in Table 4.
Fig. 4. The characteristic parameter model of (UA)cond for HPFW1. From Table 4, we can see that RRMSE for all the characteristic
parameter models are smaller than 2.3%, which indicates that
these models can well express the relationships between the char-
acteristic parameters and their dominant factors, thus can give
accurate estimates for the characteristic parameters in the pro-
posed framework.

4.2. Case study 2: distribution property validation of test statistics

In this subsection, we carry out simulation studies to validate

that under the null hypothesis the test statistic cR for the global
test follows a non-central chi-squared distribution with a degree
of freedom r and a non-central parameter d.
We first carry out characteristic constraints based data reconcil-
iation with 1440 sets of simulated measured data and obtain 1440
samples of the test statistic cR under the null hypothesis. The aver-
age value cR of the test statistic samples is then calculated and used
to determine the non-central parameter d according to Eq. (27)
[39].

Fig. 5. The characteristic parameter model of (UA)drain for HPFW1.
relationship between the characteristic parameters and their dom-
inant factors with the form shown in Eq. (24):
Y esti ¼ aX 2domi þ bX domi þ c
where Yesti and Xdomi represent the estimated characteristic param-
eters and their dominant factors; a, b and c represent the dominant
factor model coefficients.
The characteristic parameter model coefficients are obtained
through second order polynomial curve fitting with the MATLAB
function ‘‘fit’’ [33].
The accuracies of the dominant factor models are evaluated
with their root mean squared errors (RMSE) and relative root mean
squared errors (RRMSE) as follows.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P1440 2 function match well with that of the simulated test statistic
i¼1 ðY i;esti  Y i;actual Þ
RMSE ¼
1440
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P1440 2 is 4.9%, which are close to the chosen 5% level of significance. As a
1 i¼1 ðY i;esti  Y i;actual Þ
RRMSE ¼ 
Y actual 1440
where Yi,esti represent the ith characteristic parameter estimated
with its dominant factor model; Yi,actual represents the ith
characteristic parameter calculated based on simulated actual data;
cR ¼ r þ d ð27Þ
where c R represents the average value of the test statistic samples; r
represents the system redundancy.
With the obtained non-central parameter d = 1.25 and system
redundancy r = 11, we can then estimate the cumulative distribu-
tion function F(x) of the test statistic cR according to the statistical
ð24Þ property of a non-central chi-squared distributed random variable.
The cumulative distribution function F(x) describes the probability
for a random variable X to have a value less than or equal to x and
can completely describe the distribution of the random variable.
The estimated cumulative distribution function is then compared
with the distribution of the simulated test statistic samples in
Fig. 6.
In Fig. 6, the solid lines represent the estimated cumulative dis-
tribution functions and the histograms represent the cumulative
distribution of the simulated test statistic samples. From Fig. 6,
we can see that the estimated test statistic cumulative distribution
ð25Þ samples. From Fig. 6, we can also see that the possibility for the test
statistic samples to exceed the test criterions v215%;11 ð1:25Þ ¼ 21:9
ð26Þ result, we validate that under the null hypothesis the test statistic
cR for the global test follows a non-central chi-squared distribution
with a degree of freedom r and a non-central parameter d and the
test criterion v215%;r ðdÞ can be used in the global test for gross error
detection.
278 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282

Fig. 7. The test statistic distribution in the case of a sensor bias.

Fig. 6. A comparison of the estimated cumulative distribution function with that of
the test statistic samples.

Table 5
4.3. Case study 3: detection and identification of a sensor bias
Suspected variables in the case of a sensor bias.

In this case study, we investigate the capability of the proposed Equipment Variable Normalized variable adjustment
framework for sensor performance monitoring. To simulate the sit- HPFW2 (UA)drain 26.9
uation of sensor biases, a fixed value is added to the simulated HPFW3 (UA)cond 22.4
actual values of feed water outlet temperature of HPFW3. The mag- HPFW2 (UA)cond 5.2
– TFW3 4.3
nitude of this simulated bias is chosen as 3.82 °C, which is five HPFW1 (UA)drain 2.2
times the value of its random error standard deviation.
Characteristic constraints based data reconciliations are then
carried out to obtain test statistic samples based on 1440 sets of
simulated biased measured data. The distribution of the obtained
test statistic samples is shown in Fig. 7.
From Fig. 7, we can see that when there is a bias in the measure-
ment, the probability for the test statistic cR to exceed the test cri-
terion v215%;11 ð1:25Þ ¼ 21:9 is 84.3%, which is significantly larger
than the chosen 5% level of significance. The global test result indi-
cates that there is a gross error in the system.
To identify the existing gross error, we further evaluate the nor-
malized variable adjustments for the measurements and character-
istic parameter estimates [20], as shown in Eqs. (28) and (29).

x  ^x
ax ¼
rx
h  ^h
ah ¼
RMSEh
where ax and ah represent the normalized variable adjustments for
the measurements and characteristic parameter estimates; h and ^
represent characteristic parameters calculated based on measure-
ments and dominant factor models; RMSEh represents the root
mean squared error of a dominant factor model.
The measurements or characteristic parameter estimates are
suspected as containing gross errors, if the magnitudes of their
normalized variable adjustments are large. The variables with the
five largest magnitudes of normalized variable adjustments are
shown in Table 5.
In Table 5, the reported normalized variable adjustments are
the average values of normalized variable adjustments obtained
with characteristic constraints based data reconciliation for the
1440 sets of simulated biased data. These five suspected variables
are then eliminated one by one to form a reduced data reconcilia-
tion problem and the obtained probabilities for the test statistics cR
to exceed the test criterions are shown in Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, we can see that when we eliminate the measure-
ments of TFW3, the probability for the test statistic to exceed the
ð28Þ
ð29Þ
h
Fig. 8. Serial elimination tests in the case of a sensor bias.
test criterion is 3.68%, which is smaller than the chosen 5% level
of significance. This test result indicates that after eliminating
TFW3, there is no gross error in other variables and the eliminated
TFW3 is identified as containing a gross error. On the other hand, if
we eliminate other suspected variables, the probabilities for the
test statistics to exceed the test criterion are still significantly lar-
ger than 5%, indicating that there are still gross errors in other vari-
ables and the eliminated one is not identified as containing a gross
error. As a result, this serial elimination test result indicates that
there is a gross error in the measurement of TFW3, which coincide
with the operation of adding a bias to the simulated actual value of
TFW3. With this case study, we validate the capability of the pro-
posed method for sensor bias monitoring.
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282 279

Fig. 9. The test statistic distribution with balance constraints based data reconcil- Fig. 10. The test statistic distribution in the case of an equipment fault.
iation in the case of a sensor bias.

Table 6
To further illustrate the capability of the proposed framework,
Suspected variables in the case of an equipment fault.
we make a comparison with the balance constraints based data
reconciliation and gross error detection methods. The distribution Equipment Variable Normalized variable adjustment
of the test statistics obtained through balance constraints based EP2 dP 6.9
data reconciliation for the same 1440 sets of simulated biased HPFW2 (UA)cond 5.7
EP1 dP 4.6
measured data is shown in Fig. 9.
HPFW1 (UA)drain 2.8
For balance constraints based data reconciliation, the system HPFW1 (UA)cond 2.3
redundancy is two and the test criterion for the global test is cho-
sen as v215%;2 ¼ 5:91. From Fig. 9, we can see that when carrying
out balance constraints based data reconciliation, the probability
for the test statistic to exceed the test criterion is 4.31%, which is
still smaller than the chosen 5% level of significance. As a result,
the gross error in the measurement of TFW3 is not detected by
the global test. The reason for this test result is that, when we only
include the balance constraints for data reconciliation, the redun-
dancy of the system is small. In this case, even if there is a bias
in the measurement of TFW3, its impact on the system constraint
residuals and data reconciliation test statistics are rather small. As
a result, the gross error contained in this measurement cannot be
detected efficiently. From this comparison, we can see that the
ability of data reconciliation based gross error detection method
has been improved under the proposed framework due to the
increased system redundancy by introducing characteristic con-
straint equations together with the characteristic parameter dom-
inant factor models.

4.4. Case study 4: detection and identification of an equipment fault

In this case study, we investigate the capability of the proposed
framework for equipment performance monitoring. To simulate an
equipment fault, we set the condensing zone heat transfer area of
HPFW2 to be 80% of its normal value when using the phenomeno-
logical model to generate simulated actual data. This setting simu-
lates the situation when parts of the tubes in condensing zone are
submerged in the condensate water caused by condensate water
level control system faults and the condensing heat transfer areas
are correspondingly reduced.
Then 1440 sets of simulated abnormal measured data are gen-
erated for characteristic constraints based data reconciliation and
the distribution of the obtained test statistics is shown in Fig. 10.
From Fig. 10, we can see that when a fault happens to the equip-
ment of HPFW2, the probability for the test statistic cR to exceed
the test criterion is 25.1%, which is significantly larger than the
Fig. 11. Serial elimination tests in the case of an equipment fault.
chosen 5% level of significance. The global test result indicates that
there is a gross error in the system.
Suspected measurements or characteristic parameter estimates
for containing gross errors are then investigated and variables with
the five largest magnitudes of normalized variable adjustments are
shown in Table 6.
When we eliminate these characteristic parameter estimates
one by one from the data reconciliation calculation, the probabili-
ties for the test statistics cR to exceed the test criterion are shown
in Fig. 11.
From Fig. 11, we can see that when we eliminate the character-
istic parameter estimates of (UA)cond for HPFW2, the probability for
the test statistic to exceed the test criterion is 3.86%, which is
280 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282

smaller than the chosen 5% level of significance. However, if we A.1. Mechanism formulas
eliminate other suspected variables, the probability for the test
statistic to exceed the test criterion is still significantly larger than A.1.1. Extraction steam pressure drops
5%. This serial elimination result indicates that the condensing The pressure drops in the extraction steam pipes are calculated
zone of HPFW2 has a fault, which coincides with the operation of with Eq. (a):
reducing the heat transfer area of HPFW2 when generating simu-  
lated actual data. As a result, this case study validates the capabil- f qw2
Dp ¼ L  ðaÞ
ity of the proposed method for equipment faults monitoring. di 2

where L and di represent the equivalent length and inside diameter

5. Conclusions of the extraction steam pipes; w and q represent the velocity and
density of the extraction steam; f represents the friction factor.
In this work, we propose a framework for integrated sensor and The friction factors are calculated with the Colebrook correla-
equipment performance monitoring in power plants through intro- tion and Vennard correlation [40], as shown in Eqs. (b) and (c).
ducing equipment characteristic constraints together with charac- !  8=7
teristic parameter dominant factor models in data reconciliation.
1 2:51 e di
pffiffiffi ¼ 2log10 pffiffiffi þ when 26:98
We illustrate the validity and capability of the proposed frame- f Re f 3:7di e
work through case studies in the feed water regenerative heating  0:85
di
system of a 1000 MW ultra-supercritical coal-fired power genera- < Re < 4160 ðbÞ
2e
tion unit.   2  0:85
The dominant factor models well express the relationship di di
f ¼ 1:14 þ 2log10 when Re P 4160 ðcÞ
between the characteristic parameters and their dominant factors, e 2e
thus can give accurate estimates for the characteristic parameters
where e represents the pipe roughness; l represents the dynamic
with relative root mean squared errors smaller than 2.3%. The
viscosity of the extraction steam; the Reynolds number Re is a func-
influences of these characteristic parameter model errors on the
tion of the steam velocity w, the pipe inside diameter di and the
global test statistic cR for gross error detection are embedded
kinematic viscosity t, expressed as Re ¼ wdt .
i
within a non-central parameter d and the test criterion v215%;r ðdÞ
are chosen for gross error detection based on the distribution prop-
erty of a non-central chi-squared distribution random variable. A.1.2. Heat transfer coefficients of the feed water heaters
Case study results show that the proposed framework can well Heat transfer coefficients of the feed water heaters are calcu-
perform integrated sensor and equipment performance monitor- lated separately for the desuperheating, condensing and drain
ing, with the simulated measurement biases and equipment faults cooling zones. An expression of the overall heat transfer coefficient
detected and identified efficiently. The proposed method can also for a single zone is as follows.
detect measurement biases more efficiently than the traditional
1 1 d0 1 d0
balance constraints based data reconciliation methods due to the ¼ þ Rf ;s þ Rm þ Rf ;t þ ðdÞ
U hs di ht di
increased system redundancy by introducing characteristic con-
straint equations together with the characteristic parameter dom- where U represents the overall heat transfer coefficient; Rf,s and Rf,t
inant factor models. represent the fouling resistance for the shell and tube sides; Rm rep-
In this work, we have mainly considered the situations when resents the tube metal resistance; do and di represent the tube out-
there is only one gross error, either in the measurements or in side and inside diameter.
the characteristic parameter estimates, and validated the proposed The shell side fouling resistances for the desuperheating and
framework through simulation studies. In the future, further drain cooling zone are chosen as Rf,s = 5.3  105 m2 K/W and the
research will be carried out to evaluate the capability of the pro- tube side fouling resistances for the three zones are chosen as
posed method in the case of multiple gross errors and validate Rf,t = 3.5  105 m2 K/W, which is the recommended minimum
the monitoring results with real-life power plant on-site value from the Feed Water Heater Standard [41]. The tube metal
experiments. resistance Rm is calculated as follows.
  
do do
Acknowledgments Rm ¼ ln ðeÞ
km di

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from where km represents the tube metal thermal conductivity
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. The tube side heat transfer coefficients in all the three zones are
51106080), from the IRSES ESE Project of FP7 (Contract No: calculated with the classical Dittus–Boelter equation [42], as
PIRSES-GA-2011-294987), and from BP company in the scope of follows.
the Phase II Collaboration between BP and Tsinghua University.
ht di
Nut ¼ ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:4 ðfÞ
kt
Appendix A. Simulation of actual data
where kt represents the thermal conductivity of tube side feed
In this work, a phenomenological model is used to calculate the water; Pr represents the Prandtl number.
heat transfer coefficients for the feed water heaters and pressure The shell side heat transfer coefficients for the desuperheating
drops for the extraction steam pipes with detailed mechanism for- and drain cooling zone are calculated with the Kern equation [43].
mulas, so as to calculate the output variables with model inputs hs D e
taken from the measurements of the real-life power plant. The Nus ¼ ¼ 0:36Re0:55
De Pr
0:333
ðgÞ
ks
input and output variables are illustrated in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Detailed mechanism formulas and equipment structural param- where ks represents the thermal conductivity of shell side steam or
eters used in the phenomenological model are as follows. water, and the following are important in using the above equation:
 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282 281

 The Reynolds number is calculated based on the equivalent In Table A.2, structural parameters are mainly obtained from
diameter De and the cross flow area Ss, expressed as ReDe ¼ the feed water heater design materials provided by the equipment
qwDe m_ qDe _ e
mD
l ¼ qSs l ¼ lSs . manufacture except the baffle spacing parameters, which are
 The cross flow area Ss is a function of the shell diameter Ds, the adjusted so that the feed water outlet temperature and drain water
tube pitch PT, the tube clearance CT and the baffle spacing LB, temperature match the design load measured data from the real-
expressed as Ss ¼ Ds Lb CPTT . life power plant reported in Table 1.
 With the tubes laid out on a triangular pitch, the equivalent
diameter can be expressed as De ¼ 8ðPT =2  0:86P T 
2
0:5pdo =4Þ=ðpdo Þ.
References

The shell side heat transfer coefficient for the condensing zone [1] Blanco J, Vazquez L, Peña F, Diaz D. New investigation on diagnosing steam
is calculated as follows [44]: production systems from multivariate time series applied to thermal power
plants. Appl Energy 2013;101:589–99.
 
hs Lc 1  qg =ql 1=3 [2] Variny M, Mierka O. Improvement of part load efficiency of a combined cycle
Nus ¼ ¼ 0:959 ðhÞ power plant provisioning ancillary services. Appl Energy 2009;86:888–94.
ks ReL [3] Finn J, Wagner J, Bassily H. Monitoring strategies for a combined cycle electric
power generator. Appl Energy 2010;87:2621–7.
where the following are important in using the above equation: [4] Nikpey H, Assadi M, Breuhaus P, Mørkved P. Experimental evaluation and ANN
modeling of a recuperative micro gas turbine burning mixtures of natural gas
and biogas. Appl Energy 2014;117:30–41.
 The Reynolds number is calculated based on the mass flow rate [5] Usón S, Valero A, Correas L. Energy efficiency assessment and improvement in
per unit width C expressed as ReL ¼ Cl. energy intensive systems through thermoeconomic diagnosis of the operation.
 The mass flow rate per unit width C is a function of the heat Appl Energy 2010;87:1989–95.
[6] Palmé T, Fast M, Thern M. Gas turbine sensor validation through classification
transfer rate Q_ , the latent heat of evaporation r, the number of with artificial neural networks. Appl Energy 2011;88:3898–904.
Q_
tubes n, and the baffle spacing Lb, expressed as C ¼ rnL . [7] Narasimhan S, Jordache C. Data reconciliation & gross error detection: an
b
 The characteristic length Lc is a function of the kinematic viscos- intelligent use of process data. Houston, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2000.
ity mpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and the gravitational acceleration g, expressed as
[8] Almasy G, Sztano T. Checking and correction of measurements on the basis of
Lc ¼ 3 m2 =g . linear system model. Probl Contr Inform Theory 1975;4:57–69.
[9] Mah RS, Stanley GM, Downing DM. Reconciliation and rectification of process
flow and inventory data. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Develop 1976;15:175–83.
A.2. Equipment structural parameters [10] Narasimhan S, Mah RSH. Generalized likelihood ratio method for gross error
identification. AIChE J 1987;33:1514–21.
The structural parameters used in the extraction steam pipe [11] Tong H, Crowe CM. Detection of gross errors in data reconciliation by principal
component analysis. AIChE J 1995;41:1712–22.
phenomenological models are shown in Table A.1.
[12] Martinez Prata D, Schwaab M, Luis Lima E, Carlos Pinto J. Simultaneous robust
In Table A.1, the pipe roughness values are chosen according to data reconciliation and gross error detection through particle swarm
the pipe material of carbon steel and the pipe inside diameters are optimization for an industrial polypropylene reactor. Chem Eng Sci
2010;65:4943–54.
estimated so that the design load steam flow velocities are in the
[13] Ishiyama EM, Heins AV, Paterson WR, Spinelli L, Wilson DI. Scheduling
recommended ranges of 35–60 m/s according to the Design Code cleaning in a crude oil preheat train subject to fouling: incorporating desalter
of Power Piping for Power Plant [45]. The equivalent lengths are control. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:1852–62.
adjusted so that the pipe pressure drops are equal to the values cal- [14] Martínez-Maradiaga D, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Steady-state data reconciliation
for absorption refrigeration systems. Appl Therm Eng 2013;51:1170–80.
culated with the design load measured data from the real-life [15] Faber R, Li B, Li P, Wozny G. Data reconciliation for real-time optimization of
power plant reported in Table 1. an industrial coke-oven-gas purification process. Simulat Model Pract Theory
The structural parameters for the feed water heater phenome- 2006;14:1121–34.
[16] Prata DM, Schwaab M, Lima EL, Pinto JC. Nonlinear dynamic data
nological models are shown in Table A.2. reconciliation and parameter estimation through particle swarm
optimization: application for an industrial polypropylene reactor. Chem Eng
Sci 2009;64:3953–67.
Table A.1 [17] Sunde S, Berg Ø. Data reconciliation and fault detection by means of plant-
Structural parameters for the phenomenological models of the extraction steam wide mass and energy balances. Prog Nucl Energy 2003;43:97–104.
pipes. [18] Valdetaro ED, Schirru R. Simultaneous model selection, robust data
reconciliation and outlier detection with swarm intelligence in a thermal
Parameter Unit EP1 EP2 EP3 reactor power calculation. Ann Nucl Energy 2011;38:1820–32.
[19] Gülen SC, Smith RW. A simple mathematical approach to data reconciliation in
Equivalent length, Le M 50.5 73.7 86.8
a single-shaft combined cycle system. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2009;131.
Inside diameter, di Mm 168.3 187.3 228.5 [20] Martini A, Sorce A, Traverso A, Massardo A. Data reconciliation for power
Pipe roughness, e 105 m 4.6 4.6 4.6 systems monitoring: application to a microturbine-based test rig. Appl Energy
2013;111:1152–61.
[21] Fuchs F. Development and testing of an operational data validation method for
thermal cycles [Ph.D Thesis]. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Stuttgart; 2002
Table A.2 (in German).
Structural parameters for the phenomenological models of the feed water heaters. [22] Hartner P, Petek J, Pechtl P, Hamilton P. Model-based data reconciliation to
improve accuracy and reliability of performance evaluation of thermal power
Parameter Unit HPFW1 HPFW2 HPFW3 plants. Reno-Tahoe, NV, United States: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2005.
Number of tubes, n 2249 2249 2249
[23] Jiang X, Liu P, Li Z. Data reconciliation for steam turbine on-line performance
Tube outside diameter, do mm 15.9 15.9 15.9 monitoring. Appl Therm Eng 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Tube inside diameter, di mm 11.0 11.0 11.0 j.applthermaleng.2014.05.007.
Tube pitch, PT mm 20.6 20.6 20.6 [24] Jiang X, Liu P, Li Z. Data reconciliation and gross error detection for operational
Tube clearance, CT mm 4.8 4.8 4.8 data in power plants. Energy 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Shell inside diameter, Ds m 1.9 1.9 1.9 j.energy.2014.03.024.
2
Desuperheating zone area, Adesuper m 281.8 139.4 129.2 [25] VDI. VDI 2048: uncertainties of measurement during acceptance tests on
2 energy-conversion and power plants. Düsseldorf, Germany; 2000.
Condensing zone area, Acond m 1125.8 1204.1 846.8
Drain cooling zone area, Adrain m2 206.0 320.6 260.9 [26] MacDonald R, Howat C. Data reconciliation and parameter estimation in plant
Desuperheating zone baffle spacing, Lb,desuper m 0.6 0.3 0.2 performance analysis. AIChE J 1988;34:1–8.
Condensing zone baffle spacing, Lb,cond m 0.8 0.9 0.6 [27] Albuquerque JS, Biegler LT. Data reconciliation and grosserror detection for
dynamic systems. AIChE J 1996;42:2841–56.
Drain cooling zone baffle spacing, Lb,drain m 1.8 2.8 1.2
[28] Vachhani P, Rengaswamy R, Venkatasubramanian V. A framework for
integrating diagnostic knowledge with nonlinear optimization for data
282 X. Jiang et al. / Applied Energy 134 (2014) 270–282
reconciliation and parameter estimation in dynamic systems. Chem Eng Sci
2001;56:2133–48.
[29] Vachhani P, Narasimhan S, Rengaswamy R. Robust and reliable estimation via
unscented recursive nonlinear dynamic data reconciliation. J Process Contr
2006;16:1075–86.
[30] Chen PC, Andersen H. The implementation of the data validation process in a gas
turbine performance monitoring system. In: ASME turbo expo 2005 – gas turbie
technology: focus for the future. Reno-Tahoe, NV, United States; 2005. p. 609–16.
[31] Farsanga B, Gomorib Z, Horvathb G, Nagyb G, Nemetha S, Abonyi J.
Simultaneous validation of online analyzers and process simulators by
process data reconciliation. Chem Eng Trans 2013;32:1303–8.
[32] Yang B, Li Z. Dominant factor modelling method for the thermal system of
power station. Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng Xuebao/Proc Chin Soc Electr Eng
2005;25:96–102 [in Chinese].
[33] MathWorks I. MATLAB help document (version R2012a); 2012.
[34] ASME. ASME PTC 6-2004: steam turbines performance test codes. New York,
USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2006.
[35] Magnus H. X Steam, Thermodynamic properties of water and steam; 2007.
[36] Weber G, Worek W. Development of a method to evaluate the design
performance of a feedwater heater with a short drain cooler. ASME Trans J Eng
Gas Turb Power 1994;116:434–41.
[37] Scheid F. Schaum’s outline of theory and problems of numerical analysis. New
York, USA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 1988.
[38] Gentle JE. Matrix algebra: theory, computations, and applications in
statistics. New York, USA: Springer; 2007.
[39] Muirhead RJ. Aspects of multivariate statistical theory. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2005.
[40] Massoud M. Engineering thermofluids. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2005.
[41] HEI. Standards for closed feedwater heaters. Cleveland, USA: Heat Exchanger
Institute; 2004.
[42] Yang S, Tao W. Heat transfer. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press; 2006 [in
Chinese].
[43] Antar MA, Zubair SM. The impact of fouling on performance evaluation of
multi-zone feedwater heaters. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:2505–13.
[44] von Bèockh P, Wetzel T. Heat transfer: basics and practice. Berlin,
Germany: Springer; 2012.
[45] Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of P.R. China, General
Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine of P.R. China.
Design Code of Power Piping for Power Plant. Beijing, China: China Planning
Press; 2012 [in Chinese].