Advanced analytics for process analysis of turbine plant and components

• Main Author: Maharajh,Yashveer
• Other Authors: Rousseau, Pieter
• Format: Dissertation
• Language: English
• Published: Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment 2021
• Subjects: Thermofluid process modelling; FLOWNEX® SE; feed water heater; machine learning; deep learning; artificial neural networks; multi-layer perceptron; ReLU; Adam optimisation; regularization; data augmen
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35387

This research investigates the use of an alternate means of modelling the performance of a train of feed water heaters in a steam cycle power plant, using machine learning. The goal of this study was to use a simple artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the behaviour of the plant system, specifically the inlet bled steam (BS) mass flow rate and the outlet water temperature of each feedwater heater. The output of the model was validated through the use of a thermofluid engineering model built for the same plant. Another goal was to assess the ability of both the thermofluid model and ANN model to predict plant behaviour under out of normal operating circumstances. The thermofluid engineering model was built on FLOWNEX® SE using existing custom components for the various heat exchangers. The model was then tuned to current plant conditions by catering for plant degradation and maintenance effects. The artificial neural network was of a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) type, using the rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function, mean squared error (MSE) loss function and adaptive moments (Adam) optimiser. It was constructed using Python programming language. The ANN model was trained using the same data as the FLOWNEX® SE model. Multiple architectures were tested resulting in the optimum model having two layers, 200 nodes or neurons in each layer with a batch size of 500, running over 100 epochs. This configuration attained a training accuracy of 0.9975 and validation accuracy of 0.9975. When used on a test set and to predict plant performance, it achieved a MSE of 0.23 and 0.45 respectively. Under normal operating conditions (six cases tested) the ANN model performed better than the FLOWNEX® SE model when compared to actual plant behaviour. Under out of normal conditions (four cases tested), the FLOWNEX SE® model performed better than the ANN. It is evident that the ANN model was unable to capture the “physics” of a heat exchanger or the feed heating process as a result of its poor performance in the out of normal scenarios. Further tuning by way of alternate activation functions and regularisation techniques had little effect on the ANN model performance. The ANN model was able to accurately predict an out of normal case only when it was trained to do so. This was achieved by augmenting the original training data with the inputs and results from the FLOWNEX SE® model for the same case. The conclusion drawn from this study is that this type of simple ANN model is able to predict plant performance so long as it is trained for it. The validity of the prediction is highly dependent on the integrity of the training data. Operating outside the range which the model was trained for will result in inaccurate predictions. It is recommended that out of normal scenarios commonly experienced by the plant be synthesised by engineering modelling tools like FLOWNEX® SE to augment the historic plant data. This provides a wider spectrum of training data enabling more generalised and accurate predictions from the ANN model.