See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220372259

Prediction of power output of a coal-fired power plant by artificial neural

network

Article  in  Neural Computing and Applications · July 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s00521-009-0331-6 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

33 607

5 authors, including:

Jure Smrekar Mohsen Assadi

JS energy Ltd. University of Stavanger (UiS)
19 PUBLICATIONS   261 CITATIONS    115 PUBLICATIONS   1,444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Absorption heat transformer View project

EU H2-IGCC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jure Smrekar on 24 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
DOI 10.1007/s00521-009-0331-6
Author's personal copy
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prediction of power output of a coal-fired power plant by artificial

neural network
J. Smrekar • D. Pandit • M. Fast • M. Assadi •

Sudipta De

Received: 7 January 2009 / Accepted: 16 December 2009 / Published online: 30 December 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Abstract Accurate modeling of thermal power plant is been discussed along with the expected prediction accu-
very useful as well as difficult. Conventional simulation racies and validation of models with real plant data. The
programs based on heat and mass balances represent plant interpolation and extrapolation capability of ANN models
processes with mathematical equations. These are good for for the plant has also been studied, and observed results are
understanding the processes but usually complicated and at reported.
times limited with large number of parameters needed. On
the other hand, artificial neural network (ANN) models Keywords Power plant
Coal-fired boiler

could be developed using real plant data, which are already Steam turbine
ANN model
Real plant data

measured and stored. These models are fast in response and Extrapolation
Interpolation
easy to be updated with new plant data. Usually, in ANN
modeling, energy systems can also be simulated with fewer List of symbols
numbers of parameters compared to mathematical ones. AI Artificial intelligence
Step-by-step method of the ANN model development of a ANN Artificial neural network
coal-fired power plant for its base line operation is dis- B Bleed steam data, pressure (kg/cm2) and
cussed in this paper. The ultimate objective of the work temperature (°C)
was to predict power output from a coal-fired plant by CHP Combined heat and power
using the least number of controllable parameters as inputs. C Concentration (%)
The paper describes two ANN models, one for boiler and MLP Multi layer perceptron
one for turbine, which are eventually integrated into a MRE Mean relative error (%)
single ANN model representing the real power plant. The m Mass flow rate (t/h)
two models are connected through main steam properties, p Pressure (kg/cm2)
which are the predicted parameters from boiler ANN stg1 Group of parameters (mcoal, UB,out, pfw, tfw)
model. Detailed procedure of ANN model development has optimized after first stage sensitivity analysis
t Temperature (°C)
J. Smrekar
M. Assadi Greek symbol
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering U Valve opening (°)
and Materials Science, University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway Subscripts
1–6 Steam extractions from turbine for bleeding
D. Pandit
S. De (&)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, B Boiler
Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India CN Condenser
e-mail: de_sudipta@rediffmail.com coal Coal
FG Flue gas to stack
M. Fast
M. Assadi
Department of Energy Sciences, fw Feed water
Lund University, Lund, Sweden in At the inlet

123
726 Author's personal copy
out At the outlet
oxygen Oxygen
p Pressure
s Steam
SA Secondary air to the boiler furnace
t Temperature
1 Introduction
Modeling a power plant has been a challenging issue. It
involves many components with large number of involved
parameters. Mathematical models try to express actual
processes by representative mathematical equations.
Though these are developed with better understanding of
the processes, it is very difficult to develop such mathe-
matical models for a complete power plant. This is mainly
due to the large number of components/subcomponents of
the plant and inherent complexity in modeling them.
Integrating models for these components for the prediction
of the overall performance of the plant also creates some
difficulties as equations for several components have
mutual dependence through some common interdependent
parameters. Thus, iterative solution is the only way, which
makes it difficult for real time use. Moreover, the accuracy
of the developed mathematical model will decrease over
time if the inherent ‘degradation’ of the plant is not taken
into consideration. But it is again usually very difficult.
On the other hand, real data for large number of
parameters of an operating plant are always captured and
stored as database for monitoring and other purposes.
Hence, real data for any operating power plant are always
available without any additional effort or investment. These
already stored data can be used for the development of
artificial neural network (ANN) model for the components
or the whole power plant. If properly trained with this real
plant data, ANN can predict the values of desired parame-
ters with good accuracy. However, the prediction of the
trained ANN is also expected to deviate from the measured
value over time due to the ‘degradation’ of the plant. This
deviation can be used to estimate the plant degradation, and
measures may be adopted accordingly. Moreover, a new
ANN may be trained with latest data for more accurate
prediction of plant parameters if this degradation cannot be
avoided. Thus, it is easy to update the ANN model with
current status of the plant. As trained ANNs produce results
without any iteration, they are very fast in response and can
be used for ‘online’ applications also.
Boiler is undoubtedly one of the most important equip-
ment of a power plant that needs precise monitoring and
control. Models to simulate the operation of boilers are hence
very important requirement. However, the operation of the
boiler is very complex with numerous interdependences
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
between involved parameters. To develop the mathematical
model of a boiler is a challenging job. Several such devel-
opments of mathematical models have been reported [1–10]
in literature. Similar works are also reported for the mathe-
matical modeling of turbines [11–20]. Different aspects of
the development of ANN models for gas turbines have been
reported also by several authors [21–23]. However, ANN
models for steam turbines using real plant data are not
available.
Each of these mathematical models reported in literature
is developed with some simplifying assumptions, as it is
almost impossible to incorporate all aspects of operation of
such a complex system in a single model. Thus, results
from these models show some agreement with real plant
data only for some conditions of operations. Moreover,
these models have limitations also as mentioned earlier.
Introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools for
the modeling and simulation of real life complex systems
may be a suitable alternative [24–28]. ANN is one of these
AI-based tools that could be used for the modeling of
energy systems for which operational data (either real plant
or simulated) are available. The development of ANN
models for the steam process of a biomass and coal co-fired
combined heat and power plant using real plant data has
already been reported by the same group [29, 30]. How-
ever, there are a few reported works [31–35] on the mod-
eling of conventional coal-fired boilers using ANN, and
only one of them [35] used real plant data.
Similarly, different aspects of the development of ANN
models for gas turbines have been reported by several
authors [21–23, 36]. However, ANN models for steam
turbines using real plant data are not available.
In this study, the step-by-step development of ANN
model for the steady-state operation of a coal-fired power
plant of India is reported. ANNs were trained with real
plant data. Separate ANN models were developed for the
two most important components of the plant, i.e., the boiler
and the steam turbine. Selection of data from the available
plant database for training and determination of ‘optimum’
number of input parameters for decided output parameters
through sensitivity analysis has been discussed. The
developed models were also tested with data from the
plant, which were not used during training. This indicated
the expected accuracy by the developed model, i.e., the
validation of the model for real life use. Finally, the models
for the boiler and the turbine were integrated into a single
model to predict the overall power output of the plant by
providing the values of only a few number of input
parameters. The integration of models was done by using
the predicted values of output parameters of the boiler
model as some of the inputs to the turbine model rather
than using real plant data for the prediction of its power
output. Thus, the required measured data for the prediction
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy
of power from the plant reduced to a few only, though the
accuracy of prediction was good. Thus, the feasibility of
ANN model development for coal-fired power plants using
already stored data has been established.
The whole work covers the modeling of a real power
plant consisting of the boiler and steam turbine models. In
addition, issues related to the integration of these two
developed models are discussed. ANNs trained with data
for a particular range of power and used for prediction of
the same beyond this range is also covered in the paper.
Thus, ‘interpolation’ and ‘extrapolation’ capability of ANN
for such plants was also tested.
This work is one of the series of studies [29, 30, 35–37]
made on ANN modeling of coal-based power and CHP
plants. These studies explored the aspects of generalization
of ANN modeling of such plants, if any, and established a
road map for such studies in future.
2 Brief description of the power plant
The power plant was a 210 MW unit designed on the
concept of unit system where a single boiler supplies steam
to a single turbine, coupled to an AC Generator. The basic
schematic of the plant is shown in Fig. 1. The boiler was a
radiant, reheat, natural circulation, single drum, dry bottom
and semi outdoors type. Boiler was provided with three ball
Fig. 1 Schematic of the 210 MW coal-fired power plant
727
and tube, slow speed pulverizers with gravimetric-type raw
coal feeders for each coal mill. Three primary air fans were
in operation, one for each pulverizer. Each mill was sup-
plied with one seal air fan, which takes suction from
atmosphere and supplies seal air to coal mills for sealing
system, i.e., preventing the pressurized dust coal from
coming out of the mill. The superheater steam system had
mainly three sections. The low temperature superheater
was arranged in the second pass of the unit. The radiant
platen superheater was located at the outlet section of the
furnace, and the final superheater was located in the hori-
zontal pass of the boiler. The reheater was located in the
horizontal pass of the boiler in between the radiant platen
superheater and final superheater sections. The econo-
mizer, a single block unit, was of the continuous loop, plain
tubular, drainable and horizontal, in line arrangement with
water flow upward and gas flow downward.
The turbine was manufactured by Bharat Heavy Elect-
ricals Limited, India. It was a 210 MW, three-cylinder
condensing-type 50% reaction turbine with high-, medium-
and low-pressure stages. Rated steam pressure before
emergency stop valve was 150 kg cm-2 at full load. Rated
steam temperature before emergency stop valve and before
IP connector valve was same and was 535°C at full load.
There were totally six extractions or bleeds of steam for
the regenerative heating of feed water to the boiler. The
regenerative feed water heating was done by heating the
123
728 Author's personal copy
condensate in ejectors, gland steam cooler, low-pressure
heaters, deaerator and high-pressure heaters. Extracted
steam from various points of the turbine was utilized to
heat the condensate in these heaters. The condenser cooling
water system was a closed cycle. Three cooling water
pumps of 15,000 m3/h capacity were provided for each unit
with suction from the common cooling water basin and
supplied water to the twin condenser of each unit. The hot
return water was taken to the cooling tower of the unit.
After being cooled in the induced-draft-type cooling tower,
the water was returned to the cooling water basin through a
concrete tunnel. To make up the drift and evaporation
losses, clarified water was supplied.
The rated output of the generator was 210 MW (with
150% overload capacity). The HP and IP rotors were
connected by a rigid coupling and had a common bearing.
A semi-flexible coupling connected the IP and LP rotors.
The common bearing of HP and IP rotor was combined
journal cum thrust bearing.
3 Basics of ANN
Artificial neural network mimics the neural structure of the
human brain [38]. The brain basically learns from experi-
ence. ANN consists of a number of interconnected artificial
neurons with linear or non-linear transfer functions. It can
identify and learn the relationships between the inputs and
the outputs of a non-linear multi-dimensional system (i.e.,
from many inputs to many outputs), and therefore, they
have become very popular for solving problems that are
difficult to solve by traditional means. There is no
impediment having more than one hidden layer, but it has
been proved that one layer of hidden neurons is enough to
approximate any continuous non-linear function if it has
only a sufficient number of neurons [38].
In this study, feed-forward multi-layer perceptron
(MLP) networks were used. The training was done with the
back-propagation learning algorithm. MLP consists of an
input layer, one or more hidden layer/s and an output layer.
Once the inputs are presented to the network, they will be
multiplied by their adjustable weights. Then, they are
summed and transferred in the processing elements (neu-
rons) in order to produce an output. The data used as inputs
are transmitted through the network, layer by layer, and a
set of output/s is obtained. Neural Network has a strong
modeling environment for a user to test and explore sim-
ulated models faster and easier than ever before. Training
of the model is done with available data. The input and
output data are introduced to the neural network, and the
network is trained by using a neural network program. One
such commercially available program for training ANN is
NeuroSolutions [39]. When the training is finished with
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
desired accuracy, the model is ready to predict the outputs
for data not presented to the ANN during training, i.e.,
‘unknown’ to it.
4 Data from the plant and selection of ANN training
data
Data for a large number of parameters are usually mea-
sured in a power plant. These are used for the monitoring
of the plant and stored for possible future use. However, for
ANN model, only a few of these are good enough as input
parameters for the prediction of specified output parame-
ters. Thus, selection of proper input parameters is an
important issue as discussed in Sect. 5.1. On the other
hand, the accuracy of a trained ANN can never be better
than that of the measured data with which it is trained.
Hence, the proper selection of data for the training of the
ANN is also crucial. The large database measured and
stored in a power plant is expected to contain some erro-
neous data also. This may be due to faulty sensors or
recording system or due to some human errors. How these
erroneous data, called ‘outliers’, were removed for this
model is discussed in Sect. 4.1. Moreover, selection of data
for training after removal of outliers is discussed separately
in Sect. 4.2.
4.1 Data pre-processing before training
Data for 33 parameters from the plant were obtained for an
interval of 30 min during a 1-month period. Parameters
included those related to air, fuel (coal), feed water and
main steam. It was almost impossible to identify all erro-
neous data from such a large database. However, identifi-
cation and removal of outliers as much as possible is
desired. For this purpose, values of parameters were plotted
against time. By careful observation of these plots, most of
the outliers could be identified. Some outliers could be
identified instantaneously. For normal operation, continu-
ous variation of values of any parameter with respect to
neighboring points was expected. Thus, any data point,
which is substantially deviating from the general trend of
variations of its neighboring points, could be suspected as
outliers.
Similar investigations were carried out for data com-
prehending both boiler and turbine parameters. For the
boiler model, in total, 695 rows (out of 1,440 available
rows) of data representing variations in operation (as dis-
cussed in Sect. 4.2) were selected for the training of the
ANN. In total, 229 rows of data were removed as either
outliers or for shutdown period, and the rest 466 rows of
data were used for the training of the ANN. During the
selection of training data variations of different parameters
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
related to steam turbine was also considered. Eventually,
the training data set for the turbine model included the
same rows of data as those used for the boiler modeling.
This can be expected since dynamics of boiler and turbine
operation is interrelated through load, main steam proper-
ties and power as presented later.
4.2 Selection of training data
As mentioned in Sect. 4.1, at the beginning, total 695 rows
of data from the plant were selected for the training of the
ANN. This training data set should include data from all
operational conditions. The operational condition of a
boiler and turbine mostly varies with the load to the boiler.
Other operating parameters are set to their values according
to the load. In order to choose training data to represent all
possible ranges of operations, parameters were plotted
against time and their variations were observed. Training
data were selected from two periods covering the opera-
tional range of plant as marked by dashed vertical lines in
Fig. 2 showing mass flow rate of fresh steam and temper-
ature of feed water. In these periods, most of the parame-
ters showed good variations simultaneously. It should be
noted that all these variations were shown for a period of
25 days approximately. Data for about rest 5 days were
removed as those were during the two shutdown periods.
Finally, suspected outliers were removed from these two
selected zones to obtain the final training data set that
comprised 466 rows of data. Remaining 745 rows of data
(outside the selected regions in Fig. 2) were preserved for
the validation of the trained ANNs. These data were not
processed by removing suspected outliers as these would
Fig. 2 Variations of mass flow 720
rate of steam and temperature of
700
feed water with time and
selection of training data sets 680
m (t/h)
660
validation
s
640
620
600
0 5
230
220
210
(°C)
200
190
fw
validation
t
180
170
160
0 5
Author's personal copy 729
be used as if ‘real life’ data from the plant to check the
accuracy of the developed ANN model, i.e., validation of
the model.
5 Development of ANN model for power plant
The structure of ANN was decided from previous experi-
ence as well as by some trial and error. Next step for the
model development was to select suitable input parameters
for a decided set of output parameters by different trials.
The final set of input parameters was decided by ‘opti-
mizing’ between smaller number of input parameters and
desired accuracy in prediction by the ANN through sensi-
tivity analysis. Finally, the accuracy of the developed
model was validated by using data set, which was not used
during training and thus was ‘unknown’ to the trained
ANN. This gave an assessment of the expected perfor-
mance of this model in real life use. These steps of the
model development are discussed later.
The final objective of this work was to develop a unified
model of the boiler and the steam turbine to represent the
whole power plant. The unified model would predict the
main steam properties (mass flow rate, pressure and tem-
perature) and power output of the plant with inputs to the
boiler model and some other additional input parameters to
the turbine model as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Predicted values with boiler model were used for the pre-
diction of the power output by the turbine model rather
than using measured values of these.
Input parameters for a decided set of output parameters
are automatic choice in mathematical modeling by the
training
training
validation
validation
10 15 20 25
time (days)
validation
training
training validation
10 15 20 25
time (days)
123
730 Author's personal copy
equations describing corresponding physical processes.
However, the selection of input parameters in ANN mod-
eling emerges differently, since the choice of input and
output parameters is not constrained by the ‘‘cause and
effect’’ relations like mathematical modeling. However, the
experience and expert knowledge of underlying relations
between parameters help to initially decide input parame-
ters for a set of output parameters, though the input
parameters are usually ‘optimized’ on the basis of com-
promise between the number of parameters and the desired
accuracy of prediction by the ANN, called sensitivity
analysis as discussed in Sect. 5.3. As a result, the number
of input parameters for ANN model is usually lesser than
that required for a mathematical model of the same system.
This also has the advantage of avoiding sensor errors with a
greater probability as lesser number of measured input
parameters are required for ANN modeling. It makes
possible also to develop ANN model without some
parameters as inputs that have consistent errors in their
measured values as discussed in Sect. 5.3.1. This is an
important advantage relative to mathematical modeling for
which it is never possible.
5.1 Selection of output and input parameters
It was known from previous experience [29] that mass flow
rate of fuel, pressure and temperature of feed water were
expected to influence the prediction of main steam prop-
erties. So, they were included as input parameters in boiler
model. Moreover, the valves before and after the boiler
were also independent control equipment. According to
expert knowledge, valve positions of both valves before
and after the boiler are expected to influence the output
parameters [35]. However, due to unavailability or con-
stancy of data for some of these input parameters, the
initial input parameters chosen were mass flow rate of coal
(mcoal), valve openings at the outlet of the boiler (UB,out),
pressure of the feed water (pfw) and temperature of the feed
water (tfw). These were the input parameters for the stage
one of the trial as discussed in Sect. 5.3.1. Data for some
other parameters related to air flow and flue gas were also
available. Effects of these parameters on the prediction of
output parameters were carried out at the second stage of
the sensitivity analysis as discussed in Sect. 5.3.2. The final
set of input parameters for the boiler model was decided on
the basis of these two-stage sensitivity analysis and final
validation of the model as discussed later.
The selection of suitable set of input parameters for the
prediction of the power output with the turbine model was
not obvious. In fact, a lot of parameters are involved with
the operation of steam turbines. In order to select suitable
input parameters, all available parameters, for which data
were available from the plant, were examined. It was
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
decided based on system knowledge of the authors and
their previous experiences with ANN modeling [29] that
parameters of the main steam (ms, ps, ts), condenser pres-
sure (pCN) and those related to bleeds from the turbine
would be included in the initial set of input parameters. The
final set of input parameters for turbine model emerged
from this set through two-stage sensitivity analysis.
5.2 ANN structure and training
A feed-forward ANN model with back-propagation learn-
ing algorithm was used for this work. It was a fully con-
nected multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with one hidden
layer. Based on previous experience [29] and subsequent
trials, hyperbolic tangent transfer function was found to be
the most suitable one and was used for these ANNs. The
training of the ANN was carried out with commercially
available software, called NeuroSolutions. Data were pre-
randomized before divided into different groups, viz.,
training data set, cross validation data set and test data set.
While dividing the data into these sets in NeuroSolutions,
some initial rows were used for the training (60%), some
following rows were for cross validation (15%) and the rest
were test data (25%). The normalization rate of transfer
functions was [-0.9, 0.9]. The training of the boiler ANN
model was performed with a variation of 1–17 neurons and
4,000 epochs. The training was repeated three times with
the same pre-randomized data set but with randomly cho-
sen set of weights in each run in order to avoid local
minima. In final model, the best solution converged at 9
neurons and 4,000 epochs.
The training of the turbine ANN model was performed
with a variation of 1–18 neurons and 10,000 epochs.
Similarly, the training was repeated three times with the
same pre-randomized data set. In final model, the best
solution converged at 10 neurons and 10,000 epochs.
5.3 Sensitivity analysis
The objective of sensitivity analysis was to decide the set
of input parameters for the finally accepted model out of
those initially assumed. During this analysis, the prediction
accuracies of output parameters for the initially assumed
input parameters were used as reference standard. Then,
one input parameter is removed each time, and the ANN
was retrained with identical structure and the same pre-
randomized data set. By using the same randomized data
set, it was assured that the same data was used in training,
cross validation and testing data sets for all ANNs. This
provided the common platform for the comparison of
results for different cases.
To find all possible parameters that influence the pre-
diction accuracy, it is recommended to include large
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy 731

number of input parameters initially. So influence of most
of the available parameters on the prediction accuracy was
tested. However, as the assumed initial input parameters
were many, sensitivity analysis was carried out in two
stages for both boiler and turbine model. Optimum set of
input parameters was selected through the first stage of
sensitivity analysis by ‘top-down’ approach as discussed in
Sect. 5.3.1. The sensitivity analysis for the second stage
started with the optimum solution emerged from this first
stage and then adding more input parameters to test their
relevance, i.e., by ‘bottom-up’ approach. Results of these
two-stage sensitivity analyses are reported in Sects. 5.3.1
and 5.3.2.
5.3.1 First stage sensitivity analysis
The results of first stage sensitivity analysis are summa-
rized in Fig. 3. In this figure, mean relative errors (MREs)
(in vertical axis), of ANN predictions of steam properties
and power output, respectively, are plotted in two diagrams
for different combinations of input parameters. It is obvi-
ous from first diagram that pressure and temperature of
feed water had maximum sensitivity and should be inclu-
ded. On the other hand, absence of outlet valve openings as
input parameter affected the prediction of mass flow rate of
steam significantly with respect to the reference case, i.e.,
including all four parameters (left most set of points in first
diagram). Most unexpectedly, the mass flow rate of fuel did
not influence the prediction accuracy as shown by the
second set of points from left. To explain this apparently
unexpected result, the accuracy of data for mass flow rate
of fuel was investigated. It was informed by the plant
operators that data for mcoal were measured from the feeder
speed. It was assumed that coal flow was always propor-
tional to the feeder speed. At 100 rpm, 7.5 t/h of coal were
supplied to the boiler. The mill level was maintained by
monitoring the mill sound level. When mill became empty,
sound level went high. The feeder speed was adjusted
accordingly to maintain the desired flow rate of coal. Thus,
the measured values of coal flow were not accurate, though
it served the purpose of running the plant. Moreover,
though the basic fuel for the plant was coal, there was some
support of oil firing when there were some problems in
maintaining the flame inside the furnace either due to
quality of coal or due to some other operational conditions.
Four oil guns thus fired occasionally and no data could be
found for duration and rate of this oil firing. Thus, the used
values of mass flow rate of fuel as obtained from the plant
were grossly erroneous, which was confirmed by plotting
the measured mass flow rate of fuel with mass flow rate of
steam on the same time scale. It was decided that the mass
flow rate of fuel would be dropped, as it did not show any
sensitivity. Finally, the set of three parameters (UB,out, pfw,
tfw) emerged as the ‘optimum’ input set after the first stage
of sensitivity analysis. The accuracy of prediction (second
set of points from the left in first diagram) was acceptable
for this set of three parameters. This showed the great
advantage of ANN model which would predict accurately
even without values of some parameters that could not be
measured due to some reasons.
Results of the first stage of sensitivity analysis for tur-
bine model are shown in the second diagram of Fig. 3. The
left most point shows the MRE in power prediction rep-
resenting reference point as this corresponds to all initially

Fig. 3 Results of first stage 1.4 p Boiler ANN model

s
sensitivity analysis for the boiler 1.2
MRE (%)

ts
and turbine ANN models 1 m
s
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
fw
fw
fw

fw
fw

,p
,t
,t

,t
,t

t
ou

t
ou
fw
fw

fw

B,
,p
,p

B,
,p
t

t
ou

ou

,φ

,φ
al
B,

B,

co
m

al
,φ

al
co
m

co
m
al
co
m

0.21 Turbine ANN model

Power
MRE (%)

0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
6

5
6

6
6

6
5,

3,
5,

3,
5,

3,
5,
3,

2,
2,

2,
3,

3,

,B
2,

1,
1,

1,
2,

1,
1,

,B

,B
,B

,B
,B

N
,B

C
t
,p
ou
N

N
N

N
N
C

C
C

C
,p

,p
,p

,p
C
N

,p

B,
t

t
t

t
t
ou

ou
ou

ou
C

ou
t
,p
ou

,φ
B,

B,
B,

B,
B,
B,

m
,φ

,φ
,φ

,φ

s
,φ
,φ

,
m

m
m

m
s

s
s
m

,t
s

s
m
s

,
,

,
,

p
s
,t

,t
,t

,t
,

s
s
,t

s
s
,t
s

p
p

p
s

s
s
p

s
s
p
s

123
732 Author's personal copy Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740

selected input parameters. Rest points correspond to trials
carried out during the sensitivity analysis. It should be
mentioned that no bleed was noted for the extraction point
4 and thus not included in the trial. It was concluded from
results of this analysis that bleed data corresponding to
extraction point 3 was most important and that for
extraction point 6 was also significant to some extent.
Thus, from this first stage of sensitivity analysis, it was
resolved that bleed data of two extraction points, i.e., B3,6
would be included as input parameters.
5.3.2 Second stage sensitivity analysis
In second stage of sensitivity analysis for the boiler model,
the ‘optimized’ set of three input parameters of the first
stage was always included. In addition, other new param-
eters related to air and flue gas were included to check their
sensitivity. Exhaustive search was carried out with differ-
ent possible combinations of these new parameters at
second stage. The results of this stage of sensitivity anal-
ysis are summarized in Fig. 4 for both boiler and turbine
ANN models. In the first diagram, the reference case
(optimized solution of the first stage) of boiler model is
shown as the left most set of points, named collectively
‘stg1’. Only results for significant combinations of new
parameters with previous three are presented in that dia-
gram. It was obvious that all these combinations of new
input parameters with ‘stg1’ improved the prediction
accuracy, though the improvements were not very signifi-
cant. However, in ANN modeling, number of input
parameters has to be ‘optimized’ with respect to the
increased accuracy. At this stage, it was a bit confusing to
decide the final set of input parameters for boiler model, as
the ‘optimization’ was not obvious. It was decided that the
final set of input parameters would be selected by com-
paring the prediction accuracy for these combinations of
input parameters with plant data that were not used during
training, i.e., by validation of the developed model as
discussed in Sect. 5.5. This seemed most logical, as it
would indicate the expected accuracy of the model in real
life.
In the case of turbine model, second stage of sensitivity
analysis was carried out with two-bleed steam data always
included as input parameters. At this stage, intention was to
examine the sensitivity of other five (ps, ts, ms, Ut,in, pCN)
parameters as shown in the second diagram of Fig. 4. The
sensitivity of each was tested by removing one of these five
at a time as an input parameter and checking the corre-
sponding accuracy in prediction. MREs in predicting the
power output for a combination of input parameters (shown
in x-axis) are represented by each data point. It is obvious
from this figure that mass flow rate of steam (ms) and the
condenser pressure (pCN) were the two most significant
parameters identified at this stage of sensitivity analysis.
However, sensitivities of other three parameters (ps, ts,
UB,out) were not that significant. Unlike mathematical
modeling, the number of input parameters was judiciously
‘optimized’ between the number of parameters and corre-
sponding accuracy. These three parameters (ps, ts, UB,out)
could be dropped as inputs if this developed turbine model
would be used independently with measured values of all
input parameters. However, the final objective was to

Fig. 4 Results of second stage 0.7 Boiler ANN model

sensitivity analysis for the boiler 0.6
ps
MRE (%)

t
and turbine ANN models s

0.5 m
s

0.4
0.3
0.2
FG

FG

FG
FG

SA
FG
g1

,m

,t
,m

,t
,m

,m
st

SA
en
FG

,m
FG
FG

en

ig
,t

,t
,t

ig

ox

g1
,C
ox
en

SA
en

,C
,t

st
ig

ig

SA
ox

ox

SA

,t
SA
,C

,C

,m

,t

SA
g1
SA

,m
g1

SA
,t

,m
st

g1
st
SA

g1
,m

st
st
g1
st

0.3 Turbine ANN model

Power
MRE (%)

0.25

0.2

0.15
6
6

6
6

6
3,
3,

3,
3,

3,

3,

3,
,B
,B

,B
,B

,B

,B

,B
t
ou
N
N
N

B,
N

N
C
C

,p
C

,p

C
,p

C
,p

,p

,p
t
t

t
ou
ou

ou

ou

,φ
,m
s

m
B,

s
B,

B,

B,

,m
s

t,
,φ

,t
,φ

,φ

,φ

s
,t
s
p
s
m
,m

,m

,t
s
s

p
s
t,

p
s
,t

p
s
s

s
p
s

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy
combine the boiler model with that of the turbine. Values
of two of these three parameters (ps, ts) would be supplied
by the boiler model to the turbine model, rather than using
their measured values. The other parameter (UB,out) would
be used as an input to the boiler model as reported previ-
ously. It seemed logical to include it as an input to the
turbine model also as its measured values were required for
the boiler model and hence available for its use in the
turbine model too. Hence, these three parameters (ps, ts,
UB,out) were included as inputs as they improved the pre-
diction accuracy (second diagram in Fig. 4), though not
significantly. Finally, a set of seven input parameters was
used for the prediction of power output.
5.4 Integration of the boiler and turbine models
Values of three input parameters (ps, ts, ms) would pass
from the boiler model to the turbine model in the integrated
model for the power plant as discussed earlier. Measured
values of the valve opening (UB,out) in the main steam line
between the boiler and the turbine would be used as inputs
to either of these models as it was an independent control
parameter for both of them.
In previous sections, development of boiler and turbine
ANN models is discussed. These are independent models.
Predictions of output parameters could be obtained by
specifying values of corresponding input parameters.
However, in actual operation of a power plant, both boiler
and turbine operate with a final common objective of
delivering power. Steam is generated from the feed water
and reheated again in the boiler. The main steam as well as
the reheated steam from the boiler is used in the steam
turbine to generate power. Thus, the main output from the
boiler (i.e., steam) is the required input to the steam turbine
for its delivery of power. The operation and control of the
overall power plant are thus decided mostly on the basis of
the combined functions of these two main components
toward the generation of power. In actual power plants,
values of many parameters are measured for its monitoring,
and control strategies are decided accordingly. However, it
may be noted that some of the input parameters of the
steam turbine model are nothing other than output param-
eters of the boiler model. The proposition of the integration
of these two models is through these common parameters.
Instead of providing measured values of all input param-
eters to the steam turbine model, values for steam prop-
erties (ps, ts, ms) for the turbine model could be those
predicted by the boiler model. This integration of two
independent models toward a unified model for the overall
plant is shown in Fig. 5. In this integrated model, the power
output of the plant would be predicted by specifying values
of three input parameters for the boiler model (tfw, pfw,
UB,out) and two other input parameters for the turbine
733
Fig. 5 Integration of boiler and turbine ANN models for the overall
power plant
model (pCN, B3,6). Thus, the model would be useful both
online and offline. However, it should be noted that value
of UB,out is used by both models. Moreover, bleed data
include both pressure and temperature of bleed steam and
hence B3,6 indicates four parameters in total, i.e., pressures
and temperatures of bleed steam for extraction points 3 and
6. Thus, in the integrated model, the power output of the
power plant would be predicted by specifying values of
only eight input parameters.
5.5 Validation of the power plant model
The developed ANN model is useful if it predicts the
values of output parameters accurately with the real life
values of input parameters. To check this aspect of the
trained ANN, it was provided with real measured values of
input parameters from a data set, which was not used
during the training of the ANN (i.e., validation data sets in
Fig. 2). Thus, values of these sets of input and output
parameters were not already ‘known’ or ‘seen’ by the
ANNs. To ensure a situation closer to the real life, these
sets of data were not filtered for outliers. By comparing the
predictions of the developed ANNs with the actual mea-
sured values of output parameters, an assessment of
expected performance for real life applications can be
obtained. Figure 6 presents validation of boiler model with
corresponding errors for some combination of input
parameters. Validation of additional models with different
inputs was performed due to hard decision on final set of
‘optimum’ input parameters that emerged suitable after the
two stages of sensitivity analyses as described in Sect. 5.3.
Only those with comparable accuracy are shown in Fig. 6.
Best prediction was obtained for the set of input parameters
(UB,out, pfw, tfw), which emerged as ‘optimum’ set after the
first stage of sensitivity analysis. Since the boiler and tur-
bine ANN models can be applied independently as well as
one integrated model, the results of validation for each
option are shown in Table 1.
123
734 Author's personal copy Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740

Fig. 6 Boiler ANN model

1 ps
validation results with data not

MRE (%)
ts
used during training and final 0.8
m
decision on ‘optimum’ set of s
0.6
input parameters
0.4

fw
fw
fw

fw
,t
,t
,t

,t
fw

fw
fw

fw
,p
,p
,p

,p
t
t
t

t
ou

ou
ou

ou
B,

B,
B,

B,
φ

,φ
,φ

,φ
l
l

SA
a
a

,t
co
co

,m
m

SA
m
SA
,t
SA
m
Table 1 Validation results of the boiler and turbine ANN models as Since the validation data set was not filtered, the max-
individual ones and the validation results of the integrated ANN imum errors were additionally investigated. It was con-
model
firmed that most of the errors for all observed parameters
ANN model Error \1 1–2 2–3 3–4 [4 MRE Max. higher then 2.5% were outliers in either input or output sets
(%) (%) (%) of parameters that were measured. Therefore, the MREs
Boiler ps 736 9 0 0 0 0.32 1.47 are more representative for final decision on ANN model
(individual) ts 494 191 49 11 0 0.86 3.93 applications rather than error distribution results. Further, it
ms 628 101 9 3 4 0.60 8.39 should be emphasized that accuracy of ANN models (both
Turbine Power 595 86 49 9 6 0.49 6.85 individual ones and integrated) could be significantly
(individual) improved if better representation of power plant operation
Integrated Power 551 143 44 4 3 0.77 6.41 was recorded. Namely, the data used for training were
30 min snapshot readings that do not represent plant’s
operation well, especially in transients. Furthermore, in this
There were 745 rows of data available from the plant case, the quality of sensor readings in terms of sensor
that were used for the validation of the developed models. installations and uncertainties was also unknown.
From Table 1, it can be seen that the error distribution of The integrated model can serve the purpose of some
this validation study was satisfactory. The MREs are 0.32, additional convenience. It is useful for general-purpose
0.86 and 0.60% for pressure (ps), temperature (ts) and mass assessment of expected power output from the plant for
flow rate (ms) of fresh steam, respectively. steady base line operation as well as for the training of
However, the accuracy of prediction of power output by staff. The accuracy in prediction of power by this inte-
the integrated model was expected to differ from that grated model, as shown in Table 1, is also quite good and
predicted by the independent turbine model as the pre- hence acceptable. Moreover, the option for using inde-
dicted values of steam properties (ps, ts, ms) by the boiler pendent boiler and turbine models for more accurate pre-
model could be different from the measured values of these dictions still remains as and when necessary.
parameters. The integrated model is useful if the accuracy
of it is acceptable. Comparison of measured power with
that predicted by the integrated model is summarized in 6 Interpolation and extrapolation studies of power
Table 1. It shows that errors in predicting power are rela- plant ANN model
tively higher than those predicted by the independent tur-
bine model. In the case of integrated model, the MRE of During training of an ANN, the underlying relations
predicted power is 0.77%, whereas independent turbine between values of input and output parameters are cap-
model yields 0.49%. In independent turbine model, values tured. ANN trains itself with known values of input and
of all input parameters were actual measured values from corresponding output parameters according to chosen
the plant. On the other hand, in integrated model values of learning algorithm. This is done on the basis of numerical
steam properties were provided to the turbine model by the values of input and output parameters without having any
boiler model, rather than directly measured values. Thus, relevance with the physical aspects. However, real life
errors in predicted steam property values additionally systems have different operational ranges for which types
affect the prediction of power. Therefore, the coupling of of operations can be quite different, e.g., full and part load
two independent models into a unified model for the power operations of any power plant are different from opera-
plant led to greater inaccuracy in the prediction of power. tional viewpoint. For ANN, only the underlying relations

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy
for transformation of values of input parameters to corre-
sponding values of output parameters are relevant. A
trained ANN with data for a range of operation may predict
output parameters for a different range also. The advantage
of this is that the ANN does not need data for all ranges of
operations for its training, though it would be able to
predict for those ranges too. This is called the ‘interpola-
tion’ or ‘extrapolation’ capability of a trained ANN as it is
similar to numerical interpolation or extrapolation,
respectively. Interpolation is the prediction by an ANN for
a range of operation lying in between the ranges of oper-
ation of training data. Extrapolation is the similar predic-
tion of parameters beyond the range of operation of
training data set, either for lower range (called ‘downward
extrapolation’) or for upper range (called ‘upward extrap-
olation’). These aspects of an ANN are very significant for
prediction of power from a plant. A power plant runs at
different loads and predictions are possible for all loads by
the same ANN if the trained ANN has the interpolation
and extrapolation capability. A study was carried out to
check these aspects for the boiler and turbine models and
for the integrated model too. Observed results are presented
later.
6.1 Interpolation results
For this specific plant of India, the principle of operation
was to maintain steady power output, as far as possible, at
the economic load. As this plant supplies power to a
national grid, this is a better option to always run it at
maximum efficiency. Thus, the data available from this
plant were always within a small variation of power output
values. This led to the difficulty for testing the interpolation
Fig. 7 Selection of training and 230
validation data for the study of
220
interpolation capability of
Power (MW)
210
integrated ANN model and its
200
validation
190
180
170
160
0 5 10
error
reference
predicted
210
Power (MW)
200
190
180
0 5
735
capability of the ANN for this plant. However, for dem-
onstration, data were collected for almost 2 months for a
different period than that used above with shorter mea-
suring intervals (10 min). Total 7,621 rows of data were
selected for all the parameters involved. The power output
variation for this data set is shown in the first diagram of
Fig. 7. It shows that this plant practically operated at steady
load though there are some variations of power output as it
was expected in real life operation.
To check the interpolation capabilities of the ANN for
this plant, all rows of selected data were divided into two
groups. Data for power above (including) 210 MW and
below (including) 190 MW were used for the training of
the ANN (as shown in the first diagram of Fig. 7). On the
other hand, data for power in between these two limits
were preserved for the validation of the interpolation
capability of the trained ANN. In total, 4,343 rows of data
were used for training and rest 3,278 rows of data were
used for the validation study. Training data set was ran-
domized, and the same randomized pattern of data set was
used for the training of ANNs for both the boiler and the
turbine. The training of the boiler ANN was performed
with a variation of 2–20 neurons and 5,000 epochs and one
hidden layer. The training was repeated three times with
the same pre-randomized data set. The best solution con-
verged at 14 neurons and 5,000 epochs. Table 2 shows the
observed accuracies for the boiler ANN after training
procedure as well as for the validation of trained ANNs. It
is obvious from this table that interpolation capability of
the ANN for the boiler is acceptable. Namely, the MREs of
validation data set that contained approximately 25 days of
data for all predicted parameters (i.e., ps, Ts, ms) are less
than 1%.
training
validation
training
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
time (days)
4
3.5
3
error (%)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10 15 20
time (days)
123
736 Author's personal copy Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740

Table 2 Training and validation results of boiler, turbine and inte- 0.9], and it was found the best at [-0.3, 0.3] in all cases.
grated ANN models for interpolation study Observed results are discussed later.
Boiler ANN model
6.2.1 Upward extrapolation results
Training Validation
Error (%) ps ts ms ps ts ms For upward extrapolation, all available data for power less
MRE 0.51 0.65 0.43 0.71 0.76 0.45 than (including) 207 MW were used for training and rest
Max. 1.95 4.43 4.77 2.14 6.11 3.05 data, i.e., for power above 207 MW were used for the
validation of the trained ANNs as shown in the first dia-
Turbine ANN model
gram of Fig. 8. As a result, total 2,012 rows of data were
Training: Power Validation: Power used for training and 5,609 rows of data were used for the
validation of trained ANN. The training of the boiler ANN
MRE 0.20 0.29
was performed with a variation of 2–20 neurons,
Max. 1.27 1.63
8,000 epochs and one hidden layer. The training was
Integrated ANN model repeated three times with the same pre-randomized data set
Validation results: Power
but with a different set of weights in order to avoid local
minima. The best solution converged with 18 neurons and
MRE 0.47 8,000 epochs. Observed accuracy for this boiler ANN is
Max. 3.19 summarized in Table 3. The MREs for validation data set
are 0.64, 1.06 and 0.47% for ps, ts and ms, respectively. The
prediction for ts is a bit higher in comparison with other
results, but overall performance of the boiler model is
Similar training and validation procedure were carried acceptable and the capability of ANN for upward extrap-
out for turbine model also. Observed accuracy is summa- olation can be confirmed.
rized in Table 2. The MRE of validation data set for this Similarly, the training and validation of turbine model
turbine ANN is only 0.29%. Acceptable interpolation were also carried out with the same data sets. The best
capability for the turbine model was thus also proved. solution converged with 16 neurons and 8,000 epochs.
In the last case, the integrated model for the overall Observed accuracy for this turbine ANN is summarized in
plant was studied with the same validation data set. Results Table 3. The MRE in power prediction for validation data
are shown in the second diagram of Fig. 7 for all data set is 0.56%, and hence the turbine model has also proved
points, and the MREs are summarized in Table 2. The good capability in upward extrapolation.
accuracy of integrated model for the power plant was The upward extrapolation study was then extended for
expectedly deteriorated in comparison with independent the integrated model with same set of validation data.
turbine model as the boiler model inaccuracy had also its Results for the power plant model are shown in the second
effect. However, the MRE of integrated model is still under diagram of Fig. 8 for validation data set, and it is also
0.5%, which can be considered as very good. The inter- summarized in Table 3. Expectedly, 0.94% MRE for
polation capability of the integrated model has been power prediction by integrated ANN model is higher than
proven successful, and thus it is acceptable for real life in the case of independent turbine model, but still
applications. acceptable.

6.2 Extrapolation results 6.2.2 Downward extrapolation results

To check extrapolation capability, studies were carried out
for both ‘upward extrapolation’ and ‘downward extrapo-
lation’. When using ANN in extrapolation applications, the
normalization rate should be considered [37]. If the oper-
ational range is fully covered, the normalization rate can be
close to [-1, 1] (i.e., the transfer function boundaries). On
the contrary, when the data partially covers the operating
range, there is a need for extrapolation capability and the
data should be normalized within a smaller range to pro-
vide room for extrapolation. In this study, the normaliza-
tion rates were tested in a range from [-0.2, 0.2] to [-0.9,
The study of downward extrapolation was also carried out.
All available data for power greater than (including)
200 MW were used for training and rest data, i.e., for
power less than 200 MW were used for the validation of
the trained ANNs as shown in the first diagram of Fig. 9.
As a result, total 6,863 rows of data were used for training
and 758 rows of data were used for the validation of
the trained ANNs. The training of the boiler ANN was
performed with a variation of 2–20 neurons and
8,000 epochs. The best solution converged with 8 neurons
and 8,000 epochs. Observed accuracy for this boiler ANN

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy 737

Fig. 8 Selection of training and 230

validation data for the study of validation
220
upward extrapolation capability

Power (MW)
210
of integrated ANN model and
200
its validation
190
180 training
170
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
time (days)

225 error 4
reference
220 predicted

Power (MW)

error (%)
210
2
200

190

180 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (days)

Table 3 Training and validation results of boiler, turbine and integrated ANN models for extrapolation study
Upward extrapolation Downward extrapolation
Boiler ANN model
Training Validation Training Validation
Error (%) ps ts ms ps ts ms ps ts ms ps ts ms

MRE 0.55 0.67 0.54 0.64 1.06 0.47 0.57 0.70 0.41 0.93 0.67 1.81
Max. 2.26 5.70 3.67 2.06 5.50 2.28 2.58 4.61 2.20 2.85 6.29 11.45
Turbine ANN model
Training: Power Validation: Power Training: Power Validation: Power

MRE 0.25 0.56 0.22 1.34

Max. 1.41 2.25 1.38 9.98

Integrated ANN model

Validation results: Power Validation results: Power

MRE 0.94 2.51

Max. 3.19 14.79

is summarized in Table 3. The MREs for validation data
set are 0.93, 0.67 and 1.81% for ps, ts and ms, respectively.
The error in prediction of ms is more than 1% and, there-
fore, not within desired limit. It is interesting to note that
the MREs are small for all parameters both during training
and validation of the model. The possible causes for higher
errors are discussed in the following section.
The training and validation of turbine model were also
carried out with the same data sets. The best solution
converged with 16 neurons and 8,000 epochs. Observed
accuracy for this turbine ANN is summarized in Table 3.
With the MRE of 1.34% for validation data set, the accu-
racy is higher in comparison with upward extrapolation.
The downward extrapolation study was then extended
for the integrated model with same set of validation data.
Results for the power plant model are shown in the second
diagram of Fig. 9 for validation data set, and the summary
can be found in Table 3. The MRE for this integrated
model is 2.51%, which is expectedly higher than in the case
of individual turbine model.

123
738 Author's personal copy Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740

Fig. 9 Selection of training and 230

validation data for the study of 220 training

Power (MW)
downward extrapolation 210
capability of integrated ANN
200
model and its validation
190
180
validation
170
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
time (days)
error
reference 15
predicted
200

Power (MW)

error (%)
10

180

160

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
time (days)

6.2.3 Discussion on extrapolation results
Due to some higher MREs, especially in model predictions
of validation data sets, the data were additionally exam-
ined. Firstly, validation data set was not filtered in order to
simulate real life monitoring. It was confirmed under closer
inspection of the data that operational points, where the
highest errors occurred, are mostly due to outliers. Hence,
in the process of validation, the MREs are more repre-
sentative to look at.
However, in the case of downward extrapolation, the
MREs are significantly higher in comparison with upward
extrapolation. It was found that these errors, in most of the
cases, cannot be related to outliers. On one hand, it was
observed that high MREs are mainly due to rather opti-
mistic selection of training and validation data sets. In the
case of downward extrapolation, the boundary between
training and validation data set is at 200 MW that makes
extrapolation range rather large, i.e., down to approxi-
mately 165 MW. On the contrary, in upward extrapolation,
the boundary is set at 207 MW and the extrapolation
reaches approximately 222 MW. In latter case, the range of
15 MW is much narrower than at downward extrapolation
that is 35 MW. It follows that in downward case, the
selected training data set also comprehends relatively
narrow range of operation, i.e., from 200 to 220 MW,
whereas in upward extrapolation, it is much wider, i.e., 165
to 207 MW. From the comparison of Figs. 8 and 9, it can
be seen that extrapolations, whether upward or downward,
are comparable in smaller ranges considering also the level
of extrapolated/predicted values. Therefore, the extrapola-
tion capability of ANNs can be confirmed taking into
account proper data selection for training. Looking at
accuracies of models by training, which are significantly
smaller than by validation, a similar conclusion can be
made.
Due to higher MREs in downward extrapolation, which
comprehend wider region of operation, a question about
missing mass flow rate of fuel arises. The correlation
between mass flow rate of fuel and of fresh steam is, in
general, very high, i.e., close to 1. Therefore, it could be
expected that having accurate data of mass flow rate of
fuel, the prediction of steam properties in extrapolation
study could be improved.
Another interesting feature can be noticed that despite
well-represented training data set (6,863 rows) in down-
ward extrapolation in comparison with upward extrapola-
tion (2,012 rows), the accuracy is still better in upward
extrapolation with much less data used for training. Con-
clusion can be drawn that extrapolation capability of ANN
is not dependent on largeness of amount of training data
but rather on careful selection of data that comprehend
adequate operational range with sufficient representation of
transients.
7 Conclusions
Results of an extensive study of artificial neural network
modeling of a coal-based power plant with real plant data
have been reported in this work. This study is one of some
similar studies carried out for different coal-fired power
plants. The objective is to investigate the feasibility of
ANN modeling for coal-fired power plants. Developed
ANN model by using already measured data is useful for
different purposes. Separate models were developed for the
boiler and steam turbine. The step-by-step model devel-
opment for both the boiler and the turbine has been

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740 Author's personal copy
reported. Finally, these two were integrated to a single
model where predictions of output parameters of the boiler
15.
model were used as inputs to the turbine model. The fea-
sibility of ANN modeling for a coal-based power plant has
been established. It was concluded that ANN model could 16.
be developed for the prediction of power output from the
plant by specifying values of a few input parameters. 17.
Finally, interpolation and extrapolation (both upward and
downward) studies were also carried out with plant data for 18.
different periods from the same plant. It was concluded that
interpolation accuracy was acceptable. Extrapolation 19.
results were also good for the upward extrapolation, though
the same for the downward extrapolation was not that good
as relatively higher maximum errors for some parameters
20.
were noted during validation with data not used during
training.
Acknowledgments Professor Mohsen Assadi, Department of 21.
Energy Sciences, Lund University, Sweden and Dr. Sudipta De,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolk-
ata, India gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this work 22.
from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) under Swedish
Research Link Program (Grant No.: 348-2006-5349).
23.
References
24.
1. Bhambre K, Mitra SK, Gaitunde UN (2007) Modeling of a coal-
fired natural circulation boiler. Trans ASME J Energy Res Tech 25.
129:159–167
2. Liu C, Liu J, Niu Y, Liang W (2001) Nonlinear boiler model of
300 MW power unit for system dynamic performance studies. 26.
IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2:1296–1300
3. Astrom KJ, Bell RD (2000) Drum boiler dynamics. Automatica
33:363–378 27.
4. Adam EJ, Marchetti JL (1999) Dynamic simulation of large
boilers with natural circulation. Comput Chem Eng 23:1031–
1040
5. Lu S (1999) Dynamic modeling and simulation of power plant 28.
systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A 213:7–22
6. Lo KL, Song ZM, Marchand E, Pinkerton A (1990) Development
of a static-state estimator for a power station boiler: part I. 29.
mathematical model. Electr Power Syst Res 18:175–179
7. Tysso A (1981) Modeling and parameters estimation of a ship
boiler. Automatica 17:157–166
8. Usoro PB (1977) Modeling and simulation of a drum boiler- 30.
turbine power plant under emergency state control. Master’s
thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9. Kwan HW, Anderson JH (1970) A mathematical model of a
200 MW boiler. Int J Control 12(6):977–998
10. Chein KL, Ergin EI, Ling C, Lee A (1958) Dynamic analysis of a 31.
boiler. Trans ASME 80:1809–1819
11. Eklund K (1971) Linear drum boiler–turbine models. Ph.D. thesis
TFRT-1001, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden 32.
12. Brandl P, Reichert K, Vogt W (1975) Simulation of turbogen-
erators on steady state load. Brown Bovery Rev 9:444–449
13. Girija Shankar PV (1977) Simulation model of a nuclear reactor 33.
turbine. Nucl Eng Design 44(2):269–277
14. Bell RD, Åström KJ (1987) Dynamic models for boiler–turbine-
alternator units: data logs and parameter estimation for a
739
160 MW unit. Report TFRT-3192, Lund Institute of Technology,
Sweden
Anglart H, Andersson S, Jadrny R (1992) BWR steam line and
turbine model with multiple piping capability. Nucl Eng Design
137(1):1–10
Schobeiri MT, Chakka P (2002) Prediction of turbine blade heat
transfer and aerodynamics using a new unsteady boundary layer
transition model. Int J Heat Mass Transf 45(4):815–829
Bassel WS, Gomes AV (2002) A metastable wet steam turbine
stage model. Nucl Eng Design 216:113–119
Liu JJ, Cui YQ, Jiang HD (2003) Investigation of flow in a steam
turbine exhaust hood with/without turbine exit conditions simu-
lated. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 125(1):292–299
Lampart P, Yershov S (2003) Direct constrained computational
fluid dynamics based optimization of three-dimensional blading
for the exit stage of a large power steam turbine. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 125(1):385–390
Perez RE, Lopez MAA, Vazquez EM, Littlewood EC, Cruz CA
(2004) A comprehensive finite-element model of a turbine-gen-
erator infinite-busbar system. Finite Elements Anal Design
40:485–509
Boccaletti C, Cerri G, Seyedan B (2001) A neural network sim-
ulator of a gas turbine with a waste heat recovery section. Trans
ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 123:371–376
Mathioudakis K, Stamatis A, Tsalavoutas A, Aretakis N (2001)
Performance analysis of industrial gas turbines for engine con-
dition monitoring. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy
215:173–184
Mathioudakis K, Stamatis A, Bonataki E (2002) Allocating the
causes of performance deterioration in combined cycle gas tur-
bine plants. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 124:256–262
Kalogirou SA (2000) Applications of artificial neural-networks
for energy systems. Appl Energy 67:17–35
Kalogirou SA (2003) Artificial intelligence for the modeling and
control of combustion processes: a review. Prog Energy Combust
Sci 29(6):515–566
Kesgin U, Heperkan H (2005) Simulation of thermodynamic
systems using soft computing techniques. Int J Energy Res
29:581–611
Cerri G, Khatry DS (1998) A neural network approach in ther-
modynamic process evaluation. In: Proceedings of the interna-
tional conference on engineering application of neural network
(EANN-98), Gibraltar (GB), Paper No. 98172
Mesbahi E (2000) Artificial neural networks for fault diagnosis,
modeling and control of diesel engines. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
De S, Kaiadi M, Fast M, Assadi M (2007) Development of an
artificial neural network model for the steam process of a coal
biomass cofired combined heat and power (CHP) plant in Swe-
den. Energy 32:2099–2109
Fast M, Assadi M, Smrekar J (2008) Application of artificial
neural network to the condition monitoring and diagnosis of a
CHP plant. In: Proceedings of the 21th international conference
on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental
impact of energy systems, Poland, pp 981–988
Irwin G, Brown M, Hogg B, Swidenbank E (1995) Neural net-
work modelling of a 200 MW boiler system. IEE Proc -Control
Theory Appl 142(6):529–536
Lu S, Hogg BW (2000) Dynamic and nonlinear modelling of
power plant by physical principles and neural networks. Electr
Power Energy Syst 22:67–78
Chu JZ, Shieh SS, Jang SS, Chien CI, Wan HP, Ko HH (2003)
Constrained optimization of combustion in a simulated coal-fired
boiler using artificial neural network model and information
analysis. Fuel 82:693–703
123
740 Author's personal copy
34. Feretti G, Piroddi L (2001) Estimation of NOX emissions in
thermal power plants using neural networks. J Eng Gas Turbines
Power 123: 465–471
35. Smrekar J, Assadi M, Fast M, Kuštrin I, De S (2009) Develop-
ment of artificial neural network model for a coal-fired boiler
using real plant data. Energy (Oxford) 34:144–152 [Print ed.]
36. Fast M, Assadi M, De S (2009) Development and multi-utility of an
ANN model for an industrial gas turbine. Appl Energy 86:9–17
123
View publication stats
Neural Comput & Applic (2010) 19:725–740
37. Fast M (2005) Artificial neural networks for gas turbine modeling
and sensor validation. Master Thesis, Lund University
38. Haykin S (1999) Neural networks, a comprehensive foundation,
2nd edn. ISBN No. 0–13-273350–1. Prentice Hall, Inc, New
Jersey, USA
39. Principe JC, Euliano NR, Lefebvre WC (1999) Neural and
adaptive systems: fundamentals through simulations. Wiley, New
York