1 / 39

WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen April 07

Practicability of the standard EN 14181 put into question: results of the LABORELEC study. WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen April 07. Outline:. LABORELEC tests on QAL2: Protocol Some examples Findings summary : QAL2 QAL3 AST Conclusions. QAL2 assessment protocol:.

eytan
Download Presentation

WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen April 07

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practicability of the standard EN 14181 put into question: results of the LABORELEC study WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen April 07

  2. Outline: • LABORELEC tests on QAL2: • Protocol • Some examples • Findings summary : • QAL2 • QAL3 • AST • Conclusions.

  3. QAL2 assessment protocol: • Two in-situ analysers in conventional Belgian power plants: • PROCAL: PULSI 240RL • SICK GM31 and GM35 • Parameters: • NO: 0-500 ppm and 0-1000 ppm • SO2: 0-600 ppm • CO: 0-200 ppm and 0-1000 ppm • Continuous recording of the AMSs and SRM outputs • Hourly averages distributed on three days. • No peripheral measurements taken into account.

  4. PROCAL PULSI (1) • IR spectroscopy (IR wavelengths obtained by means of interference filters and gas filled cells (GCF)) • Auto zero checks. • Span checks should be possible with test gas.

  5. PROCAL Pulsi (2)

  6. SICK GM 31 (1) • Possible to measure simultaneously SO2, NO and optionally NO2 or NH3 • UV spectroscopy • Zero point measurement • Reference point measurement

  7. SICK GM 31 (2) Sampling

  8. SICK GM 35 • IR spectroscopy • CO • CO2 • H2O

  9. Example 1a: cal. funct. obtained during different recording periods.

  10. Example 1b: cal. funct. obtained during different recording periods

  11. Example 2: cal. funct. obtained during the same recording period D = 52 ppm

  12. Example 3: data selection

  13. Example 3: data selection

  14. Example 3: data selection

  15. Example 4: 2 methods to calculate the calibration function

  16. Findings summary: 1/5 QAL 2 • Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3). • Irrelevant calibration function when: • measurements close to zero • Measurements not scattered enough • Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period). • Validation test not always relevant.

  17. Findings summary: 1/5 QAL 2 • Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3). • Irrelevant calibration function when: • Measurements close to zero • Measurements not scattered enough • Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period). • Validation test not always relevant.

  18. Findings summary: 1/5 QAL 2 • Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3). • Irrelevant calibration function when: • measurements close to zero • Measurements not scattered enough • Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period). • Validation test not always relevant.

  19. Findings summary: 1/5 QAL 2 • Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration (as requested in § 6.3). • Irrelevant calibration function when: • measurements close to zero • Measurements not scattered enough • Markedly different calibration functions obtained on the same AMS (even during the same recording period). • Validation test not always relevant.

  20. Findings summary: 2/5 QAL 2 • Validated range to narrow. • Too costly for: • Plants operating for short durations • With emissions much lower than the ELV. • Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission. • Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?

  21. Findings summary: 2/5 QAL 2 • Validated range to narrow. • Too costly for: • Plants operating for short durations • With emissions much lower than the ELV. • Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission. • Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?

  22. Findings summary: 2/5 QAL 2 • Validated range to narrow. • Too costly for: • Plants operating for short durations • With emissions much lower than the ELV. • Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission. • Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?

  23. Findings summary: 2/5 QAL 2 • Validated range to narrow. • Too costly for: • Plants operating for short durations • With emissions much lower than the ELV. • Difficult to pass the variability test with high plant emission. • Why does the methodology proposed by the standard not include the uncertainty on the SRM measurements?

  24. Findings summary: 3/5 QAL 2  QAL2 with low emissions?  Extension of the calibration range based on linearity functional tests.

  25. Findings summary: 4/5 QAL 3 • QAL1 data not available for existing AMS • Site data very difficult to obtain use of default values • Cusum chart is complicated and no example of Shewart chart provided • QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

  26. Findings summary: 4/5 QAL 3 • QAL1 data not available for existing AMS • Site data very difficult to obtain use of default values • Cusum chart is complicated and no example of Shewart chart provided • QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

  27. Findings summary: 4/5 QAL 3 • QAL1 data not available for existing AMS • Site data very difficult to obtain use of default values • Cusum chart is complicated and no example of Shewart chart provided • QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

  28. Findings summary: 4/5 QAL 3 • QAL1 data not available for existing AMS • Site data very difficult to obtain use of default values • Cusum chart is complicated and no example of Shewart chart provided • QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL  Use of fixed warning limits  What about auto zero and span checks?

  29. Findings summary: 5/5 AST • Same findings as for QAL2 • Linearity and cross interference tests already checked during QAL1

  30. Findings summary: 5/5 AST • Same findings as for QAL2 • Linearity and cross interference tests already checked during QAL1  Supress linearity and cross interference tests

  31. Conclusions • Be careful • Some features have to be revised/ clarified: • QAL2 with low emissions? • Extension of the calibration range based on linearity functional tests. • Use of fixed warning limits • QAL3 utility • What about auto zero and span checks? We ask for a standard revision !

  32. Current situation: CEN committee will publish a guidance note to support the application of the EN14181. (mainly based on the Technical guidance Note M20 published by the British Environment agency, www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business)

  33. Five reasons for you to choose Laborelec : • You have one-stop shopping for your energy needs • You get access to more than 40 years of experience • You get rapid service with reliable solutions • You increase the profitability of your installations • You benefit from independent and confidential advice The technical Competence Center in energy processes and energy use. From R&D to operational assistance. LABORELEC

  34. Procal NO and SO2

  35. Procal CO

  36. SICK NO and SO2

  37. SICK CO

More Related