Control
Loop Case History 122
Foreword by Michael
Brown
This is the second contribution in this two
part series by Etienne Wannenberg, who applied some of the
teachings in my Part 2 Course on Control of More Difficult
Processes, and has written an excellent article on his work.
Part
2: Controlling Swell and Shrink in Boiler Drum Levels
Introduction
Steam drum level is one of the major contributors
of boiler trips and downtime. Effected with a specific
phenomenon (swell and shrink) it is difficult to
optimally control the drum level.
Babcock conducted studies to determine the best
control configuration to control steam drum level and how to
optimise it. In the previous edition of SA Control and
Instrumentation, the single and two-element control
configurations were explained and tested. The basic
configuration and test results of the three-element control will
be described in this article.
Boiler Process
To reiterate the main topics mentioned in the
previous article;
In natural circulation boilers the steam drum is
used to separate the steam from the water by using mechanical
equipment (scrubbers and cyclones). The steam drum can be seen
as the balance point of the boiler.
The steam flow from the boiler is controlled by the
downstream process demand. A sudden increase or decrease in
steam flow changes the pressure in the steam drum and boiler
circuit. The change in pressure will cause a change in both the
boiling point and density of the water and steam. These combined
reactions will cause the level in the steam drum to rapidly
increase/decrease. This phenomenon is commonly known as swell
and shrink.
The swell and shrink reaction will be
in the opposite direction to the normal behaviour of the boiler
process. Thus, swell and shrink reactions
adversely affects the controllability of the steam drum level.
Drum level control is designed to maintain the drum
level at 50% of the capacity. It was indicated in the previous
article that two-element configuration is superior to the
single-element in that it reduced both the settling time and
reaction magnitude.
The testing was conducted on two identical 55 t/h
Babcock boilers connected to a common header which supplies
steam at 66 Barg 490°C to a single turbine unit.
Boiler 1 was used as the baseline for the testing.
The steam drum level configuration on boiler 1 was left on
single-element control during the test period and compared to
boiler 2 three-element control configuration.
Three-element control
The three-element configuration is formed by
cascading the drum level and feed water controllers with the
addition of steam flow feed forward signal. The steam flow
signal is added to the drum level controllers output. Figure 1
indicates the basic three-element configuration.

Figure 1
The principle of the three-element configuration is
to control the mass balance of the steam drum. If steam is
removed from the boiler circuit, the loss of steam must be
replaced with an equal mass of feed water.
The feed water and steam mass balance cannot be
used independently to the drum level controller. It is
especially difficult to obtain a precise measurement of steam
mass flow due to the allowable reference accuracy effects of the
physical measuring instrumentation. Furthermore, the boiler is
normally not a closed circuit. Steam drum blow down and
sootblower steam take off will affect the boiler mass balance.
Thus, the drum level control is retained in the configuration to
resolve the problems experienced by the mass balance control and
will be used as a trim function.
A function block is used to introduce the steam
flow signal to the drum level controllers output. The function
block is used to manipulate the steam flow signal. A steam flow
influence magnitude adjustment is used to change the controller
from two to three-element control. When the value is adjusted to
100% the full magnitude of the steam flow will be used in the
control loop.
The function block furthermore contains a drum
level controller bias signal. The bias signal is used to correct
the operating range of the drum level controller’s output. At
steady state condition the steam flow will equal the water flow.
If this mass balance maintains the drum level at 50%, the output
of the drum level controller will be reduced to zero. Operating
the drum level controller output close to zero is not ideal.
The bias signal will correct the drum level output
signal to operate close to 50% under steady state conditions.
The value of the bias signal is dependent on the specific boiler
process and can only be obtained with testing.
Switching from Two-element to Three-element control
Unlike the single and two-element configurations,
three-element cannot be used from start-up conditions due to the
steam flow being unreliable.
When sufficient steam pressure is achieved during
start-up and a reliable main steam flow is maintained, the drum
level control can be switched to three-element control.
The three-element configuration utilises the same
controller used in the two-element configuration. Retuning of
the controller is thus not required. The steam flow signal
influence magnitude is only increased until the full signal is
used.
During this increase the drum level output signal
will reduce as the steam flow signal is increased. The bias
signal must be adjusted in proportion to the steam flow signal
to maintain the correct drum level output signal.
The steam drum mass balance requires the water flow
and steam flow to be equal, thus no gain is placed on the steam
flow signal. The raw value derived from the process is used
directly in the control configuration.
Figure 2 indicates 10% increase in the steam flow
magnitude signal. It is indicated that the set-point of the feed
water controller is increased without an increase in the drum
level controllers output. The feed water flow is increased due
to the change in set-point of the feed water controller, which
is followed by a decrease in the drum level controller output.

Figure 2
Three-element performance test
During the implementation period of the
three-element controller, set-point changes were introduced to
establish the configurations performance. Figure 3 indicates the
set-point change test result where the drum level set-point was
increased from 50% to 55%.
At the instant of the test, the magnitude influence
signal from the steam flow was maintained at 40%. The set-point
test indicated that the controllability of the configuration did
not deteriorate by the addition of the steam flow signal.

Figure 3
A steam demand reduction was experienced during the
implementation stage of the three-element controller. The common
turbine supplied by the two boilers, tripped. The trip was
caused by a turbine fault which retained the boilers to remain
in service.
During a turbine trip the steam supply valve is
closed and the turbine by-pass line is opened. The turbine
supply valve closes quicker than the by-pass valve can open.
Thus during the change from turbine to by-pass the steam flow is
momentarily stopped.
Figure 4 indicates the reaction load change on both
the drum levels due to the turbine trip. The steam drum pressure
and steam flow for boiler 2 is also indicated.

Figure 4
The changeover to three-element control was not
completed at the time of the turbine trip. The steam flow
influence signal was set at 70 %. Even without the complete
steam flow signal the load change indicated an improved
performance compared to the single-element control.
Table 1 summarises the reaction recordings.
|
Boiler (Control Configuration) |
Reaction
Maximum |
Reaction
Minimum |
Reaction
Settling Time |
|
Boiler 1 (Single-element) |
62 % |
33 % |
18 Min |
|
Boiler 2 (Three-element) |
54 % |
32 % |
11 Min |
Table 1: Summary Table
The recording indicated that the load change was
more severe than compared to the previous article. The drum
level experienced a dramatic shrink function. Both
boilers activated the low drum level alarm. After the shrink
function, boiler 1 overshot the set-point significantly more
than boiler 2.
The three-element control on boiler 2 also
stabilized 7 min faster than the single-element control on
boiler 1.
Conclusion
The testing identified that the three-element
control configuration is superior compared to the single-element
configuration. The load change confirmed that the three-element
control configuration experienced the same initial shrink
function as boiler 1 but improved the reaction magnitude and
settling time after the shrink function.
The configuration of the three-element control was
not designed to cure the shrink and swell
reaction. As indicated above the addition of the steam flow
signal will drive the control valve to close during a shrink
reaction. This is directly opposite to maintaining the drum
level at set-point during the shrink reaction.
However the closing of the valve is required to
stabilise the process after the shrink reaction. Thus the
addition of the steam flow signal improves the control only
after the shrink function and will not obviate the shrink
or swell reaction
The testing of the configuration had to be
concluded before a solution was found for the shrink/swell
function. Further development of the configurations will be
continued when a similar opportunity arises.
To summarise:
The single-element control functioned relatively
well and has a simple construction; however it offers the worst
performance of the three configurations.
The two-element control offers improved performance
compared to the single-element and is relatively simple to
install. On most boiler plants only the addition of the cascade
control and retuning of the loop is required to obtain
two-element control. The addition of the cascade controller will
also mitigate valve problems to large extent.
The three-element offers the best performance of
the tested configurations. The configuration is the most
complicated but is simple to derive from the two-element
control. Engineering consideration is however required during
implementation and start-up activation.
Index to articles
Michael Brown is a specialist in control loop optimisation, with many years of experience in process control instrumentation. His
main activities are consulting, and teaching practical control loop analysis and optimisation. He gives training courses which can be
held in clients' plants, where students can have the added benefit of practising on live loops. His work takes him to plants all over South Africa, and also to other countries. He can be contacted at: Tel (011) 486-0567
Fax (011) 646-2385 E-Mail: michael.brown@mweb.co.za
|