APC PROJECTS IN TG BOP

AREAS

Submitted By :
Anit Kumar Jindal Power Limited
Anand Prakash Singh 4*250 MW Power Plant
Pradeep Kumar Tamnar, Raigarh -496107
INDEX
 Impeller Trimming Of RAW Water Pump

 Energy Efficient Coating in CW Pump

 GRP Blade Replacement with FRP Blades

in Cooling Tower

 Reduction Of one Stage in 8 Stage CEP

IMPELLER TRIMMING OF RAW
WATER PUMP

 As the requirement of flow of RAW water was low than

the required flow, because of which Pump had to operate
by opening recirculation valve which unnecessary
accounts for energy loss.

 Before carrying out the modification prior approval was

taken, as well as the concurrence of OEM i.e. M/s Mather
Platt was also taken. Trimming of Impeller was done in
house & the balancing of the same was carried out in
JSPL.
 POWER OPTIMIZATION

IMPELLER FLOW TOTAL INPUT EFFICIENCY

DIA (m3/hr) HEAD POWER OF PUMP
(mm) (m) (KW) (%)

BEFORE 654 2200 41.82 330.81 75.79

TRIMMING

AFTER 575 2200 27.82 220.38 75.68

TRIMMING
Continue..

 KW saving = before Impeller trimming, Avg. Input Power

to motor – After impeller trimming, Avg. Input Power to
motor =330.81-220.38 KW =110.43 KW
 KW saving per hour = 110.43 KWH per pump
(Assuming 7200 hrs. of operation per year for one pumps)
 Yearly KWH saving = 7200*110.43 =795096 KWH
 FOR 2 PUMPS, TOTAL SAVING CONSIDERING COST OF A
UNIT=3 RS
 Total saving in Money= 3*795096= Rs. 2385288
 Total saving for 2 pumps = Rs. 4770576
 Total Approximate Capital investment, = Rs 160,000 per
pump
 Payback period for a pump = 160000/2385288 = 24 Days
PHOTOS

BEFORE TRIMMING AFTER TRIMMING

ENERGY EFFICIENT COATING IN
PUMPS

 Energy Efficient coating done on CW pump to reduce the

power consumption.

 Many a Company Guarantees min.02 to 04 % increase in

efficiency which reduces the power consumed by motor.
POWER OPTIMIZATION

FLOW HEAD POWER EFFICIENCY

(m3/hr) (m) (KW) OF PUMP
(%)

RATED 18000 25.0 1490.27 88.00

BEFORE
COATING 20583 20.3 1414.63 80.49

AFTER
COATING 22701 19.4 1363.56 87.90
 Continue…
 KW saving = before coating of pump, Avg. Input Power to motor
– After coating of pump, Avg. Input Power to motor =1417
KW- 1350.61 KW=67 KW

 KW saving per hour = 67 KWH per pump

(Assuming 8760 hrs. of operation per year)

 Yearly KWH saving = 8760 x 67 =586920 KWH

(Assuming 8760 hrs of operation per year)

 Cost of electricity per KWH = Rs 3.00

 Yearly saving = 586920 x 3.00 = Rs. 1760760
Continue…

 Total Saving for 2 pumps: = Rs. 35,21520

 Total capital investment incurred including all cost per

pump (Man+ Material) = Rs 600,000

 Payback period for one Pump: 6,00,00/1760760 =

4.09 months
PHOTOS

Suction Bell Impeller

Bowl Assembly
Mouth
GRP BLADE REPLACEMENT WITH
FRP IN COOLING TOWER

 Aerodynamically designed Energy Efficient FRP Blade

have been fitted in place of Existing GRP blades due to
its various advantages like low noise, high air flow, low
power consumption of fan’s motor.

 Many a supplier guarantees min. 20% power

consumption from the existing providing the same air
flow by the fan.
 POWER OPTIMIZATION

Before After %
S NO Parameters Remarks
Installation Installation Deviation

FAN PARAMETERS

1 Air Velocity(m/sec) 4.77 5.1 6.92 Improved

2 Air Flow(m3/sec) 369.01 394.54 6.92 Improved

POWER READINGS

1 KW 38.2 28.16 -26.28 Improved

2 Amp. 55 38.2 -30.55 Improved

Continue…
 KW saving = 38.20-28.16= 10.4kw
 KW saving per hour = 10.4kwh
(Assuming 8000 hrs of operation per year)

 Yearly KWH saving = 8000 x 10.4 = 83200

 Cost of electricity per KWH = Rs 3.00
 Yearly saving = 83200 x 3.00 = Rs. 249600 per cell.
 Total saving: = Rs. 24, 9600 (Recurring)

 Total capital investment for one CT fan’s cell blades =Rs

350,000
 Payback Period =350,000/24,9600 = 17 Months
 PHOTOS

COOLING TOWER COOLING TOWER

WITH GRP BLADE WITH FRP BLADE
 REDUCTION OF ONE STAGE IN 8
STAGE CEP

 Removal of one stage approximately reduces 25 m of head

without compromising the flow of the pump.

 It also helps to reduce the auxiliary power consumption of the

plant.

 The dummy stage can be again replaced by the working stage

if system require more pressure.
 POWER OPTIMIZATION

FLOW HEAD INPUT POWER

(M3/Hr) (m) TO MOTOR
(Kw)
CEP With 8 STAGE 390 200 267

CEP WITH 7 STAGE 390 175 233

DIFFERENCE 0 25 34
 POWER OPTIMIZATION
 KW saving = Avg. Input Power to motor of CEP With 8 stage
– Avg. Input Power to motor Of CEP with 7 Stage
=267 – 233 KW =34 KW
 KW saving per hour = 34 KWH per pump
(Assuming 5500 hrs of operation per year)
 Yearly KWH saving = 5500 x 34 =18700 KWH
(Assuming 5500 hrs of operation per year)
 Cost of electricity per KWH = Rs 3.00
 Yearly saving = 18700 x 3.00 = Rs. 561000 per pump
 Total Saving for 6 pumps of 2 units: Rs 3366000
 Total Capital investment for 3 pumps = Rs 570,000
 Payback Period = 2*570,000/3366000= 4.06 months
 PHOTOS

AFTER REMOVAL OF
WITH 8 STAGES
2ND STAGE
SAVE ENERGY SAVE LIFE

Thank you