Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 342 views

    PTC6

    Uploaded by

    marcosrf_4
    This technical inquiry discusses determining an aging factor for a steam turbine that failed initial acceptance testing and will undergo retesting after repairs. The two parties disagree on how to calculate the aging factor according to the relevant ASME standards. The customer believes the aging factor should be zero since inspections were done, while the supplier believes an aging factor of 0.74% is appropriate as the steam path itself was not repaired. The supplier's interpretation is that the ASME standard allows for an estimated aging factor if the unit is free of damage and excessive deposits after inspections.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PTC6

    Uploaded by

    marcosrf_4
    342 views1 page
    This technical inquiry discusses determining an aging factor for a steam turbine that failed initial acceptance testing and will undergo retesting after repairs. The two parties disagree on how to calculate the aging factor according to the relevant ASME standards. The customer believes the aging factor should be zero since inspections were done, while the supplier believes an aging factor of 0.74% is appropriate as the steam path itself was not repaired. The supplier's interpretation is that the ASME standard allows for an estimated aging factor if the unit is free of damage and excessive deposits after inspections.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This technical inquiry discusses determining an aging factor for a steam turbine that failed initial acceptance testing and will undergo retesting after repairs. The two parties disagree on how to calculate the aging factor according to the relevant ASME standards. The customer believes the aging factor should be zero since inspections were done, while the supplier believes an aging factor of 0.74% is appropriate as the steam path itself was not repaired. The supplier's interpretation is that the ASME standard allows for an estimated aging factor if the unit is free of damage and excessive deposits after inspections.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    342 views1 page

    PTC6

    Uploaded by

    marcosrf_4
    This technical inquiry discusses determining an aging factor for a steam turbine that failed initial acceptance testing and will undergo retesting after repairs. The two parties disagree on how to calculate the aging factor according to the relevant ASME standards. The customer believes the aging factor should be zero since inspections were done, while the supplier believes an aging factor of 0.74% is appropriate as the steam path itself was not repaired. The supplier's interpretation is that the ASME standard allows for an estimated aging factor if the unit is free of damage and excessive deposits after inspections.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    TECHNICAL INQUIRY On Steam Turbine Aging Factor PTC 6 1996 & PTC 6 Report-1985

    The following (A & B) are two inquiries on the same subject:

    A.

    Background About 30 months ago acceptance testing was performed on a steam turbine unit that failed to meet the guarantee. The supplier decided to make good and to re-design some parts of the turbine. At the outage about one month ago the labyrinth seal between the HP/IP (combined casing) was replaced with a re-design, a number of flanges between the inner casings were tightened and damaged blade seals of the HP turbine were replaced. However, nothing was done to the steam path. After the outage the acceptance tests will now be re-run. In the effort of seeking guidance how to assess the deterioration of the turbine between the first acceptance test and the second test after the outage we have found the following relevant ASME documents.

    ASME PTC6, 1996 On page 10 it reads "... Adjusting of heat rate test result to start up enthalpy drop efficiencies or for the effects of aging are not permitted by this Code". This document gives no guidance to the present situation. ASME PTC6 Report-1985 Para. 3.07 gives guidance how to consider the deterioration of the turbine. The following two sub-clauses seem to be applicable to this case. (b) "If tests must be delayed, they should be scheduled immediately following an inspection outage, provided any deficiencies have been corrected during the outage..." (d) " However, if there is reasonable assurance that the unit has not been damaged and is free of excessive deposits, an estimated value of deterioration may be established by mutual agreement and taken into Account in the comparison of the test results with guarantee..." Interpretation of the Code Both supplier and customer have agreed upon using the ASME Report to determine the aging factor, however cannot agree upon the magnitude of the factor. The customer claims that because of the inspection the aging factor shall be equal to zero.
    The supplier claims, that because of the fact that nothing was done to the steam path itself, the aging factor shall be determined according to figure 3.3 (base factor, %), which will give an aging factor of 0.74% (number of month: 29 --> BF=1.7, rating: 130 MW, initial pressure: 2014.7 psi). The supplier's interpretation of (b) is that only a change (improvement) of

    You might also like