首页> 外文期刊>Fuel >A comparative study of different dynamic process simulation codes for combined cycle power plants - Part A: Part loads and off-design operation
【24h】

A comparative study of different dynamic process simulation codes for combined cycle power plants - Part A: Part loads and off-design operation

机译:联合循环电厂不同动态过程仿真代码的比较研究-A部分:部分负荷和非设计运行

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In part A of this study, investigations into the capability of different process simulation codes to predict the real behaviour of a combined cycle power plant during part loads and off-design operation are carried out. The combined cycle power plant with a sub-critical three-pressure-stage heat recovery steam generator is built using the process simulation software tools Aspen Plus Dynamics and Apros. The generated numerical models are validated against the measurements at different steady-state operation points, namely 100%, 80% and 60% loads. The numerical results obtained display a very good agreement towards the given data with a maximal relative error of about 5% for the pressure and less than 1% for the temperature and the mass flow rate. Furthermore, the validated models are also evaluated against the dynamic measurements during a transient operation for a time period of 400 min. Apros and Aspen Plus Dynamics models predict qualitatively the right developments of the plant parameters. However, the simulated results deviate quantitatively from the experimental data with a maximum relative error of about 10%. It can be concluded that the dynamic simulation models can represent accurately the real combined cycle power plant at different steady-state loads, while they can capture the plant behaviour during the off-design operation with less accuracy. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:在本研究的A部分中,对不同过程仿真代码预测部分负荷和非设计运行期间联合循环电厂实际行为的能力进行了研究。使用过程模拟软件工具Aspen Plus Dynamics和Apros构建带有次临界三压力级热回收蒸汽发生器的联合循环发电厂。针对不同稳态操作点(即100%,80%和60%负载)下的测量结果对生成的数值模型进行了验证。所获得的数值结果显示出与给定数据的非常好的一致性,最大相对误差为压力的大约5%,温度和质量流量的最大相对误差小于1%。此外,还针对瞬态运行400分钟期间的动态测量结果对经过验证的模型进行了评估。 Apros和Aspen Plus Dynamics模型定性地预测了工厂参数的正确发展。但是,模拟结果与实验数据存在定量偏差,最大相对误差约为10%。可以得出的结论是,动态仿真模型可以准确地表示不同稳态负载下的实际联合循环电厂,而它们却可以以较低的精度捕获非设计运行期间的电厂行为。 (C)2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Fuel》 |2015年第1期|692-706|共15页
  • 作者单位

    Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Energiesyst & Energietechn, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany;

    Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Energiesyst & Energietechn, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany;

    Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Energiesyst & Energietechn, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany;

    Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Energiesyst & Energietechn, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany;

    Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Energiesyst & Energietechn, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany;

    DOOSAN Heavy Ind & Construct, Boiler Syst Dev Team, Chang Won, South Korea;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Combined cycle power plant; Dynamic simulation; Start-up procedure; Validation study; Aspen Plus Dynamics; Apros;

    机译:联合循环电厂;动态仿真;启动程序;验证研究;Aspen Plus Dynamics;Apros;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号