e-ISSN (O): 2348-4470

Scientific Journal of Impact Factor (SJIF): 4.72

p-ISSN (P): 2348-6406

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research

Development
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT THROUGH ENERGY AUDIT OF A

250MW COAL FIRED THERMAL POWER PLANT
S. S. L. Patel1, Dr. G. K. Agrawal2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Korba, Chhattisgarh, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Govt. Engineering College, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India

Abstract  In this paper, performance of a 250MW coal fired thermal power plant has been investigated through the
energy audit of all its important components at various loads. Energy efficiency of boiler, turbine-generator and
condenser section as well as the overall plant is evaluated for 250MW, 200MW and 125MW loads. Similarly
effectiveness of feed water heaters is evaluated for all the three loads.
It is observed that the performance of all the sections except boiler is decreasing when the plant load decreases
from its rated value. A similar trend is observed regarding overall plant as efficiency decreases from 38.5% to 34.63%
when the load is reduced to half i.e. from 250MW to 125MW. From percentage loss point of view the area of major
concerns are turbine-generator section and condenser section. Boiler efficiency seems to be satisfactory but it is still
lower than the design value. This signifies that boiler have further scope of improvement.

Keywords - Energy audit, Thermal power plant, Plant performance, Efficiency, Energy loss.

I. INTRODUCTION

Energy is among the top three expenses in any industry other two being labour and materials. If cost
management is related then energy would be in top rank and a key step towards energy management is to conduct energy
audit of the system, process or plant. Energy audit is the technique to know the fraction of total input energy being used
for the intended purpose as well as the losses through various means. Thus energy audit is of utmost importance for cost
reduction as it helps to understand the ways of energy use and in identifying the areas where waste can occur and scope
for improvement exists [1].

Fast growing economy and increasing population are some of the major contributing factors behind enhanced
energy demand in India. One of the basic source of energy for industrial and power sector in India is coal, as its
consumption has raised at the compound annual growth rate of 6.69% from 433.27MT in 2005-06 to 827.57MT during
2014-15. Biggest consumer of coal is the electricity generation sector, followed by steel industries [2]. This increasing
demand on one side and legislation in form of Energy Conservation Act 2001[3] on the other, has made it mandatory for
the industries to consume energy at prescribed efficiency levels or even better. The act has prescribed the standards and
directs the consumers on ways and means of efficient utilization of energy with a view to improve productivity, enhance
operating efficiency, reduce operating costs and minimize pollution. Parameter of the power plants which comes under
the ambit of the act are unit heat rate, auxiliary power, specific oil consumption and plant load factor.

Many authors have used the energy audit technique for performance analysis of the respective plants considered
under their study. Talwar P. et al. [4] conducted energy audit for boiler of a coal based thermal power plant and found the
boiler efficiency as 81.07%. They concluded that except the heat loss due to fly ash and bottom ash all other losses were
within the design values. M. Bajwa and P. Gulati [5], Bhardwaj V. et al. [6] and N. Kaur and N. K. Brar [7] uses energy
audit technique to compare the performance of thermal power plant components at various loads and recommends few
measures for improvement. A. K. Namdev et al. [8] in an energy audit of a boiler and waste heat recovery system in
thermal power plant determines losses in the boiler and effectiveness of air preheater and concluded that the total unburnt
carbon loss was 6.14% and dry gas loss was 4.59%. To reduce above losses they suggested to maintain coal particle size
in the range of 70 to 74 micron and controlling excess air supply.

P. Sindhu and S. Arya [9] carry out the energy audit of a thermal power plant at the operating load of 232 MW
and found the overall efficiency of the plant as 35.89% and suggested the plant operation at higher loads. V. Duhan and
J. Singh [10] in the energy audit of Rajiv Gandhi thermal power plant at Hisar studied the dynamic responses of power
plants through mathematical modeling and simulation by developing a model using genetic algorithms for parameter
identification and model response optimization. Study also conducted the energy audit of the 600MW unit at various
loads by taking data from the control room. Several authors [11–15] analyses the performances of different thermal
power plants through energy audit and suggested some potential saving measures.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 35

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

U. Ahmed and J. A. Chattha [16] in a case study evaluated the performance of combined cycle power plant and
identified the areas requiring improvement. G. T. Dhanre et al. [17] in a review paper on energy audit of the boiler of
thermal power plants summarizes the various studies carried out by different authors and concluded that energy audit
evolves many ways to reduce energy consumption and energy cost.

II. FLOW LAYOUT AND OPERATIONAL DATA OF THE POWER PLANT

For present analysis 250MW thermal power plant located in Chhattisgarh, India is considered and its flow
layout is shown in the Figure 1. Recorded operating parameters of the plant at different points are given in Table 1 to 3.

B – Boiler LPH – Low Pressure Heater

HPT – High Pressure Turbine HPH – High Pressure Heater
IPT – Intermediate Pressure Turbine CEP – Condensate Extraction Pump
LPT – Low Pressure Turbine BFP – Boiler Feed Pump
G and C – Gland Steam Condenser and Drain Cooler COND – Condenser
Figure 1. Flow layout of the power plant

Table 1. Data of power plant for250MW load

Physical
Point t (C) p (bar) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) E (kW)
State
1 Water 255.00 167.78 204.79 1077.20 220604.10
2 Steam 537.00 143.75 204.79 3426.24 701673.39
3 Steam 347.20 40.05 204.79 3088.43 632491.93
3' Steam 347.20 40.05 183.24 3088.43 565923.91
4 Steam 537.00 36.04 183.24 3534.66 647690.73
5 Coal 85.00 1.03 47.05 13800 649290.00
6 Steam 302.80 6.81 172.47 3065.40 528680.34
6' Steam 302.80 6.81 161.74 3065.40 495810.06
7 Steam 46.30 0.106 141.33 2410.72 340701.81
8 Water 46.30 0.106 162.78 193.81 31548.00
9 Water 46.50 19.66 162.78 196.74 32025.27

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 36

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

9' Water 50.10 19.66 162.78 210.56 34273.72

10 Water 73.50 19.66 162.78 308.93 50286.36
11 Water 92.70 19.66 162.78 388.00 63157.86
12 Water 119.80 19.66 162.78 502.85 81852.92
13 Water 158.30 6.108 204.79 668.09 136819.80
14 Water 161.40 185.56 204.79 693.45 142013.78
15 Water 197.70 185.56 204.79 848.92 173853.72
16 Steam 347.20 40.05 20.10 3088.43 62086.71
17 Steam 417.10 15.99 11.20 3291.87 36868.94
18 Steam 302.50 6.80 10.72 3065.40 32864.15
19 Steam 188.10 2.35 7.66 2854.00 21855.93
20 Steam 104.70 0.94 5.31 2686.15 14263.46
21 Steam 78.40 0.44 6.97 2583.60 17999.94
22 Water 202.50 39.81 20.10 864.40 17377.03
23 Water 166.30 15.78 31.31 703.25 22018.69
24 Water 97.70 2.12 7.66 409.39 3135.11
25 Water 78.40 0.73 12.97 328.60 4261.94
26 Water 76.4 0.71 19.93 319.4 6363.64
27 Water 34.00 2.02 8750 142.32 1245300
28 Water 42.20 1.49 8750 176.65 1545687.5

Table 2. Data of power plant for200MW load

Physical
Point t (C) p (bar) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) E (kW)
State
1 Water 236.00 161.50 164.89 1042.00 171815.38
2 Steam 537.00 144.84 164.89 3432.00 565902.48
3 Steam 340.50 32.57 164.89 3089.27 509389.73
3' Steam 340.50 32.57 148.87 3089.27 459899.62
4 Steam 537.00 29.32 148.87 3549.73 528448.31
5 Coal 85.00 1.03 38.61 13800 532818.00
6 Steam 303.90 5.57 140.24 3070.85 430640.65
6' Steam 303.90 5.57 132.05 3070.85 405505.74
7 Steam 46.30 0.106 117.05 2434.16 284918.43
8 Water 46.30 0.106 132.90 193.81 25757.35
9 Water 46.60 21.73 132.90 196.74 26147.01
9' Water 49.20 21.73 132.90 208.88 27760.15
10 Water 70.20 21.73 132.90 294.27 39108.48
11 Water 86.20 21.73 132.90 369.62 49122.50
12 Water 114.40 21.73 132.90 480.13 63809.28
13 Water 150.80 5.02 164.89 635.43 104776.05
14 Water 153.80 174.98 164.89 658.45 108571.82
15 Water 189.70 174.98 164.89 813.34 134111.63
16 Steam 340.50 32.58 15.01 3089.27 46369.94
17 Steam 417.90 13.05 8.80 3298.15 29023.72
18 Steam 303.80 5.57 8.19 3070.85 25134.91
19 Steam 189.30 1.93 5.97 2849.41 16999.58
20 Steam 105.40 0.77 4.03 2689.50 10849.44

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 37

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

21 Steam 74.20 0.37 4.93 2587.36 12742.75

22 Water 193.40 32.3 15.01 831.76 12484.72
23 Water 157.60 12.82 23.81 666.41 15867.22
24 Water 92.30 1.75 5.97 344.92 2057.79
25 Water 74.20 0.656 10.00 310.60 3106.00
26 Water 72.1 0.625 14.92 301.81 4503
27 Water 32.75 2.01 7500 137.10 1028250
28 Water 40.87 1.489 7500 171.08 1283100

Table 3. Data of power plant for 125MW load

Physical
Point t (C) p (bar) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) E (kW)
State
1 Water 219.70 154.60 108.39 945.00 102428.55
2 Steam 537.00 147.92 108.39 3417.45 370417.41
3 Steam 323.20 18.78 108.39 3076.71 333484.60
3' Steam 323.20 18.78 94.30 3076.71 290133.75
4 Steam 537.00 17.80 94.30 3551.00 334859.30
5 Coal 85.00 1.02 26.16 13800 361008.00
6 Steam 313.50 3.82 94.30 3095.12 291869.82
6' Steam 313.50 3.82 89.53 3095.12 277106.09
7 Steam 46.30 0.11 81.27 2527.08 205375.79
8 Water 46.30 0.11 90.10 193.81 17462.28
9 Water 46.70 23.88 90.10 197.58 17801.96
9' Water 49.10 23.88 90.10 205.95 18556.10
10 Water 62.60 23.88 90.10 262.46 23647.65
11 Water 79.40 23.88 90.10 332.36 29945.64
12 Water 104.40 23.88 90.10 429.50 38697.95
13 Water 138.20 3.65 108.39 581.43 63021.20
14 Water 141.70 169.70 108.39 606.97 65789.48
15 Water 173.10 169.7 108.39 741.34 80353.84
16 Steam 323.20 20.77 8.27 3076.71 25429.01
17 Steam 420.90 8.47 4.97 3311.12 16439.71
18 Steam 313.50 3.81 5.04 3095.13 15599.46
19 Steam 198.00 1.33 3.75 2869.50 10769.23
20 Steam 111.60 0.52 2.49 2704.57 6734.38
21 Steam 65.50 0.24 2.15 2598.66 5594.91
22 Water 175.90 20.42 8.27 749.68 6196.85
23 Water 144.00 8.29 13.23 606.13 8019.71
24 Water 82.30 1.17 3.75 344.56 1292.10
25 Water 65.50 0.384 6.24 274.18 1711.98
26 Water 63.3 0.182 8.40 264.97 2225.75
27 Water 29.90 2.01 5500 125.16 688380
28 Water 38.00 1.49 5500 159.07 874885

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 38

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

III. METHODOLOGY OF DATA ANALYSIS

Following methodology of data analysis and determination of efficiencies and effectiveness of different units
and overall plant is used in this present paper.
(i) Boiler section
Input energy to the boiler = Fuel energy = Mass flow rate of the fuel × gross calorific value of the fuel
= mf  G. C. V. = m5 h5 = E5 (1)
Net energy output from the boiler = (Energy of superheated steam  Energy of feed water)
 (Energy of hot reheat steam  Energy of cold reheat steam)
= (Energy at 2  Energy at 1)  (Energy at 4  Energy at 3’)
= (m2h2  m1h1)  (m4h4 m3, h3,) = (E2  E1)  (E4  E3’) (2)
Where m, h and E are mass flow rate, specific enthalpy and total energy at corresponding points.
Net energy output from the boiler
Efficiency of the boiler, ηb = Input energy to the boiler
× 100% (3)

(ii) Turbine and generator section

HPT: Energy inlet to HPT = E2
Energy outlet from HPT = E3
Net energy at HPT = (E2  E3) (4)
IPT: Energy inlet to IPT = E4
Energy outlet from IPT = E6  E17
Net energy at IPT = E4  (E6  E17) (5)
LPT: Energy inlet to LPT = E6’
Energy outlet from LPT = E19 E20 E21
Net energy at LPT = E6’  (E19 E20 E21) (6)
Total net energy at turbines = (4)  (5) (6) (7)
Energy outlet from turbine-generator = Operating load of the plant

Operating load of the plant

Efficiency of the turbine-generator, ηtg = Total net energy at turbines
× 100% (8)
(iii) Condenser section
Actual rise in cooling water temperature
Condenser efficiency, ηc = Maximum possible rise in cooling water termperature × 100%
T 28 − T 27
= T 7 − T 27
 100% (9)

Where T represent the temperature at corresponding point.

(iv) Feed Water Heaters
Actual increase in temperature of feedwater T wo − T wi
Effectiveness of heaters = Maximum possible increase in temperature of feedwater
= T s − T wi
(10)

Where Twi and Two are the temperature of feed water entering to and leaving from the feed water heater respectively and
Ts is the temperature of the steam entering to the feed water heater.
(v) Overall plant efficiency
Output of the plant
Overall plant efficiency, ηplant = × 100%
Mass flow rate of the fuel  gross calorific value of the fuel
Load
= × 100% (11)
m f × G.C.V.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 39

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Using recorded data and following the method of analysis as stated above, performance at section wise as well
as for whole plant at 250MW, 200MW and 125MW load is determined. The results obtained are presented both in
tabular (Table 4) and graphical forms (Figure 2 to 4) for ease of comparison and better understanding.
All the components are performing better at higher load (except boiler). As shown in Figure 2, when load
decreases to 50% of rated value, turbine-generator efficiency reduced considerably over 2.5% and condenser efficiency
reduces more than 10%. Effectiveness of feed water heaters are shown separately in Figure 3. Effectiveness in general is
also reducing with decrease in load. Overall plant efficiency as shown in Figure 4 also reduces by almost 4% with the
load being half of the rated value.
Table 4. Results of the analyzed data
Load
Section/Components Description
250MW 200MW 125MW
Energy input to boiler, kW 649290.00 532818.00 361008.00
Net energy output from boiler, kW 562836.12 462635.78 312714.40
Boiler
Energy loss in boiler, kW 86453.88 70182.22 48293.60
Efficiency of boiler, % 86.68 86.83 86.62
Net Energy at HPT 69181.46 56512.75 36932.81
Net Energy at IPT 82141.45 68783.94 26549.77
Turbine-generator Net Energy at LPT 441690.73 364913.97 254007.57
Net Input at Turbines 593013.64 490210.66 317490.15
Efficiency of Turbine-generator, % 42.16 40.80 39.37
Condenser Condenser efficiency,% 62.94 59.93 49.39
Effectiveness of LPH1 0.82 0.84 0.82
Effectiveness of LPH2 0.61 0.45 0.34
Feed Water Heaters Effectiveness of LPH3 0.28 0.27 0.21
Effectiveness of HPH5 0.14 0.13 0.11
Effectiveness of HPH6 0.38 0.31 0.31
Overall Plant Efficiency,% 38.50 37.54 34.63

100
250MW
90
200MW
80
125MW
70
Efficiency,%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Boiler Turbine- Generator Condenser

Figure 2. Efficiency of various sections at different loads

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 40

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

0.90
250MW
0.80
200MW
0.70
125MW
0.60
Effectiveness

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
LPH1 LPH2 LPH3 HPH5 HPH6

Figure 3. Effectiveness of heaters at different loads

39
38
Efficiency,%

37
36
35
34
33
32
250MW 200MW 125MW

Figure 4. Overall plant efficiency at different loads

V. RECOMMENDED MEASUSRES

Based on the observations and results of analyzed data, few measures have been recommended to improve the
performance of each section. These measures include both categories of recommendations viz. short term, requiring little
time and cost to be implemented, and long term, covering bigger activities therefore requires larger investment and
longer time to be implemented. Section wise improvement objectives and recommended measures are summarized in
Table 5.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 41

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

Table 5. Recommendations for improvement of plant efficiency

Section Possible Improvement Recommended Measures

Boiler Improving efficiency, *Reducing flue gas exhaust temperature to the minimum
reducing losses and curbing possible limit.
environmental pollution * Maintaining optimum quantity of excess air.
* Controlling dampers for proper combustion.
* Better control of furnace temperature to reduce spray.
* Improving coal quality to control moisture in the fuel.
* Avoid part load operation and shut down by regular periodic
maintenance
* Improving air preheater performance by controlling air
ingress across seals. Check air preheater baskets and replace if
necessary.

Turbine- Better utilization of energy of * Reduce gland losses by proper sealing.

generator steam for higher efficiency * Optimize the quantity of extracted steam by metering it
and output both properly.
* Improve design and material of the turbine blade to permit
efficient operation and longer life.

Condenser Maintaining low vacuum and * Avoiding air ingress to maintain low vacuum.
effective heat transfer * Cleaning tubes by high pressure jets and remove scale.
through tubes * Regular cleaning by online tube cleaning system.
* Attend tube leakages immediately as and when required.
* Ensure performance of each cooling tower.
* Ensure adequate flow of cooling water.

Heaters Maintaining desired terminal *Properly measure the temperatures using calibrated
temperatures instruments.
*Maintain recommended condensate levels in feed water
heaters. With this no heat transfer areas are immersed in the
drain condensate.

Overall plant Higher thermal efficiency *Overall plant efficiency is a function of efficiencies of boiler
and steam turbine both. In this case, improving boiler
efficiency can make a major contribution.

VI. CONCLUSION

From results of the analyzed data it may be concluded that for higher energy efficiency, plant should run at full
load. As the loss at boiler is the loss of energy of high quality, therefore boiler efficiency should be improved by adopting
the suggested measures and following the good maintenance practices. Efficiency of turbine-generator section and
condenser are also lower than their design values. Also the effectiveness of feed water heaters particularly 3 and 5
requires to be improved.

VII. FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

Total loss in the boiler is more than 13% in all the cases of loading which requires further detailed analysis to
identify the major sources of losses in the boiler and to investigate the parameters affecting these losses.

REFERENCES

[1] Energy Audit Manual of Energy Management Centre, Kerala accessed at www.keralaenergy.gov.in, pp. 4-7.
[2] Executive Summary, Power Sector (2016), Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of
India. pp. 29-31, January 2016.
[3] Energy Conservation Act 2001, The Gazette Of India Extraordinary Ministry of Law, Justice And Company Affairs
(Legislative Department), New Delhi, the 1st October, 2001/Asvina 9, 1923 accessed at http://powermin.nic.in.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 42

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 4, April -2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

[4] P. Talwar, S. Vaishya and A. Nagaria, “ Performance Analysis from the Energy Audit of a Thermal Power Plant
SGTPS”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 6,
pp. 2202-2207, June 2014.
[5] M. Bajwa and P. Gulati, “Comparing the Thermal Power Plant Performance at Various Loads, by Energy Auditing
(A Statistical Analyzing Tool)”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 2,
pp. 111-126, May-July 2011.
[6] V. Bhardwaj, R. Garg, M. Chahal and B. Singh, “Energy Audit of 250 MW Thermal Power Station, PTPS, Panipat”,
Proceeding of the National Conference on Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering, Faridabad, Haryana,
pp. 120-125, Oct. 19-20, 2012.
[7] N. Kaur and N. K. Brar, “Thermal Power Plant Performance Comparison at Various Output Loads Using Advanced
Energy Auditing”, International Journal of Advance Research in Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, Issue 11, pp.
358-369, Nov. 2014.
[8] A. K. Namdev, A. C. Tiwari and G. K. Shukla, “Energy Audit of a Boiler and Waste Heat Recovery System in
Thermal Power Plant”, International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, Vol.4, Issue 6, pp.
133-142, Nov.- Dec. 2016.
[9] P. Sindhu and S. Arya, “A Energy Audit of Thermal Power Plant”, International Journal of Exploring Emerging
Trends in Engineering, Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 1-6 Nov. 2014.
[10] V. Duhan and J. Singh, “Energy Audit of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant Hisar”, International Journal for
Research Publication and Seminar, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp.1-6, March- July 2014.
[11] C. K. Kumar and G. S. Rao, “Performance Analysis from the Energy Audit of a Thermal Power Plant”,
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 6, pp. 2485-2490, June 2013.
[12] B. S. S. Phani Shanker and G.V. Rao, “Performance Analysis and Energy Audit Based on Dry Flue Gas Loss by
using Modern Soot Blower in Thermal Power plant”, International Journal of Thermal Technologies, Vol. 5, Issue
4, pp. 300-305, Dec. 2015.
[13] A. Hooda and Y. Sharma, “Comprehensive Study on Energy Audit of a Thermal Power Plant”, International Journal
of Enhanced Research in Science Technology and Engineering, Vol. 4, Issue 7, pp. 379-384, July 2015.
[14] D. Sharma, “A Comprehensive Energy Audit of 210MW Super Thermal Power Plants for Improving Efficiency”,
International Journal of Engineering Technology and Management Research, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 88- 93, Sep. 2015.
[15] M. G. Poddar and A. C. Birajdar, “Energy audit of a Boiler– A Case study of Thermal Power Plant, Unit III, Parli
(V) Maharastra”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 6, pp. 1660-1666,
June 2013.
[16] U. Ahmed and J. A. Chattha, “Energy Audit of Combined Cycle Power Plant : A Case Study”, International
Journal of Technical Research and Applications, Special Issue 19, pp. 12-17, June 2015.
[17] G. T. Dhanre, U. T. Dhanre and K.M. Mudafale, “Review Paper on Energy Audit of a Boiler in Thermal Power
Plant”, International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, Vol. 2, Issue 6, pp. 283-288, Oct-Nov
2014.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 43