GCV SRV Calib..

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current
Posted by saha on 24 February, 2009 - 11:06 am

For GE Gas turbine Frame 5 controlled by Mark 5 TMR system, what can make the Null Bias current of a
Servo Valve incorrect? In other words if the Null Bias is far from -2.667mA, What should we check to
make the null bias current close to -0.267mA?
Reply to this post...
Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am

I'm going to split some hairs here (be very, very detailed) and make some corrections to what you're
describing. This topic can't really be covered completely in a forum like this; it's complicated. But, we're
going to take a short swing at the high points.
In the Speedtronic turbine control panel, the error between a servo-valve output's regulator feedback and
its reference is converted into servo current. When the feedback of a regulator is equal to the reference the
error is zero, so zero error would mean zero current. But, if zero current is applied to the servo-valve, the
fail-safe spring in the servo-valve will make the hydraulic actuator move to shut off the flow of fuel or air
or steam.
Null bias current is the value of current that is added to the servo-valve output current to overcome the
tension of the fail-safe spring in the servo-valve. So, some amount of current must be added to the output
when the regulator error is zero (when the regulator feedback is equal to the reference) to provide
sufficient current to overcome the fail-safe spring to keep the device in position to maintain a steady flow
of fuel or air or steam. In the Mark V, null bias current is a *fixed* value of current, defined in the I/O
Configurator, that is *added* to the output to overcome fail-safe spring tension.
In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale servo current. 100% servo current is
equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
The servo current values you see when the unit is running or when you are manually positioning a device
are almost never the null bias currents. The servo current values you see when the unit is running are the
total servo current being put out by the control processor, *including* the null bias current value. You can't
really see the null bias current portion of the total current that's being applied to the servo coils *unless the
feedback is nearly exactly equal to the reference.* Then and only then is the servo current value being
displayed equal to the the null bias current and only the null bias current.
And this is done by each control processor independent of the others in a TMR control panel. So, if one
control processor thinks the feedback for some device is different than the reference and different than
another control processor's or processors', the total amount of current from the control processor will be
different than the current from the other control processor(s). Each control processor will have the *same
amount* of null bias current added to its output, but each control processor's output can be different if each
control processor thinks its feedback is different than the others'.
When the regulator feedback is different from the reference, then the control processor will adjust its total
current output *which includes the fixed null bias current value* to try to make its feedback value equal to
the reference value. And each control processor is doing this for every servo-valve output. Again, the null
bias current is a fixed value, defined in the I/O Configurator, which is always added to the total current
output of each control processor.
When something like what you are asking about happens, you need to find out what the feedback values
are for all three control processors for the servo output and you will likely find that one or two of them are
very different from the other(s). If all three control processors don't think the feedback is the same and
equal to the reference (the reference should be the same for all three control processors), then each control
processor will adjust its servo output current to try to make its feedback equal to the reference.
For example, consider the GCV servo output. The GCV regulator feedback is the high-selected value of
LVDT feedback from the two LVDTs on the GCV. Let's say that <R> thought the GCV position was
57.8% and <S> thought the GCV position was 55.4% and <T> thought the GCV position was 54.8%, and
the reference position for the GCV was 55.2%, then the servo currents would likely be unbalanced. And
probably by a fairly large amount. <R> might be putting out -3.9% servo current, and <S> might be
putting out - 1.9%, and <T> might be putting out -2.5%. Those values are *not* null bias currents, but
each one includes the fixed value of null bias current which is defined in the I/O Configurator.
In this example, the problem is *not* the fixed null bias current value. The problem is that the three
processors have fairly different ideas about the position of the GCV and each one is trying to move the
valve to the reference position, and they all have to work together (and that means that one or two are
trying to overcome the other) to keep the valve at a steady state position. The bigger the discrepancy in
what each control processor believes the feedback to be, the bigger the discrepancy in the servo output
currents (which include the fixed null bias current value).
Now, let's talk specifically about the null bias current value. Let's say that the value of null bias current
defined in the I/O Configurator and that was downloaded to and being used by all three control processors
was 2.667 % (the Mark V automatically inverts the value in the I/O Configurator!). Further, let's say all the
control processors were indicating a GCV position of 49.7%, the measured position was approximately
49.8%, and the reference was 50.0% and the three servo currrents were all indicating about -2.9% per
control processor, or thereabouts.
If you changed the null bias current value in the I/O Configurator to approximately 3.0 (which would
correspond to -3.0%; remember: the Mark V automatically inverts the value from the I/O Configurator!),
downloaded that value to all three control processors, and re-booted all three control processors, you'd
probably find that the indicated valve position feedback for all three processors was nearly 50.0%, the
measured position would be about 50.0%, and the servo currents would be almost exactly -3.0% per
control processor. In this case, the amount of current being displayed for each control processor would be
nearly equal to the null bias current amount, because each control processor thought the feedback was
nearly identical to the reference *AND* because the amount of null bias current was exactly equal to what
was required to overcome the fail-safe spring tension.
But it should be clear that unless all three control processors believe their regulator feedback values to be
nearly identical to each other, the servo currents being put out by each control processor will not be the
same. And it has nothing to do with the fixed value of null bias current being applied to the servo-valve
output. The value of current that is displayed when the unit is running is not just the null bias current
unless all three control processors are using nearly the same value of feedback for the device and the
feedback is very nearly identical to the reference.
The amount of null bias current required to overcome the fail-safe spring is actually a range: -0.267 mA,
+/- 0.133 mA, or, -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA (-1.33% to -4.00%). So, the actual amount of null bias current
required for a particular servo may be anywhere between -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA and still be within spec.
The value of *null bias current* doesn't have to be exactly equal to -2.667%, but 2.67% is a fairly good
value and works for the majority of servo-valves in use on the majority of GE-design heavy duty gas
turbines. About the only time that null bias servo currents need to be adjusted is for some DLN valves, and
even then, it's questionable whether or not it's really required.
The regulator feedback is compared to the reference 128 times per second, and the total servo current
output is adjusted as necessary to try to make the feedback equal to the reference. *BUT* the value that's
shown on any display or in any VIEW tool capture or output is only updated four times per second. In
other words, the value of servo current written into the control signal database is only updated 4 times per
second, even though it could be changing at the rate of 128 times per second. (I think that's different for
Mark V LM panels, by the way.)
Lastly, the LFBV uses Liquid Fuel Flow Divider Feedback as its primary control feedback and the SRV
uses P2 pressure feedback as its primary control feedback. So, feedback is not always position. Some
LFBVs have LVDTs as another stabilizing element of the control loop.
Posted by Jeff Ladwig on 9 February, 2010 - 9:28 am

I am in the process of checking the calibration of PM1, 2, 3 and SRV control valves, and have run in to
exactly the difficulty you describe in trying to measure null current. Since we are currently offline, I tried
disconnecting two of the three servo outputs and driving the servo to 50% stroke, to eliminate the
competition between the controlers. It seems that this would allow the one controller to match reference
and feedback, and then go to zero output (except for the null current).
For example, with one output active at a time, these are the VDC and calculated servo currents for PM1:
R active: 0.290 vdc, 0.280 mA

S active: 0.280 vdc, 0.275 mA
T active: 0.300 vdc, 0.283 mA
This calculates to a null bias of 2.79%, the I/O configurator value is 2.67%. Should I put the new null bias
value in the I/O configurator? Valve position is within 1% of reference when operating.
Posted by CSA on 9 February, 2010 - 12:23 pm

Did you record any as-found conditions, or are these the as-found conditions?
Did you, or based on the as-found conditions do you, feel it necessary to re-calibrate LVDT position
feedback? Valve position feedback calibration changes can impact emissions, since fuel splits are
converted to valve positions. If you will be DLN tuning after the outage it might not be so critical. But if
you won't be DLN tuning after the outage it might be crucial not to change the LVDT feedback calibration.
When two of three controller outputs are disconnected, then two of the three null bias currents are not
being applied to the servo-valve, and it will not be able to make the actual position equal to the reference
position. All this does (operating the servo-valve with a single controller output) is to verify that the
polarity of the current being applied to the coil that is still connected is correct, and does not cause the
device the servo is controlling to reduce the flow of fuel (or air or steam) to the unit. Remember, the servo-
valves used on GE-design heavy duty gas turbines are bipolar devices and the polarity of the current
applied to each individual coil is very, very important.
The three null bias currents are summed in the servo-valve to produce the total null bias current applied to
the servo-valve. The summing is accomplished by the magnetic force developed as the result of current
flowing through the coils (amp-turns).
2.79% vs. 2.67% is a negligible difference, in my personal opinion, but changing it might make the actual
position more closely match the reference position; a 1% error is approaching the limit of tolerance (and
that's a personal limit, not a GE-defined limit, since GE never defines one), especially for a unit with DLN
combustors.
Posted by Jeff Ladwig on 10 February, 2010 - 9:25 am

The values given for PM1 are as found. In addition, the actual position value as shown on the valve
calibration screen while at 50% stroke ranged from a low of 51.15% to a high of 52.48%.
I followed the same procedure for PM2, and found that with only one core active, the valve would only
achieve 44.5% to 45.5% of the 50.0% stroke reference. This now makes sense, realizing that all three cores
are needed to supply the required null current.
PM2 is also about 2% off from reference online.

At 50% stroke, the feedback percentages are:
R - 48.17% (LVDT 1) 48.99% (LVDT 2)
S - 49.13% (LVDT 1) 48.87% (LVDT 2)
T - 48.79% (LVDT 1) 48.92% (LVDT 2)
If I replace a servo, is it recommended to change the null bias current value in the I/O configurator to the
value supplied by MOOG in the attached specs, or is the procedure that GE gives in the control spec
better? Thanks.

It would sound as if there's something amiss with the null bias current value(s) for PM1? What is the actual
physical position of the valve with respect to LVDT feedback?
I am not a fan of the null bias calculation procedure in the control Specification. I've seen it cause more
trouble and lost time than it's worth. If the null bias current doesn't fall within the range that GE specifies (-
0.8 mA, +/-0.4 mA total, for a TMR) then there's something wrong with the servo-valve. And many people
try to use the null bias current for something it was not intended for.
If the valve (or the IGVs) doesn't behave the way they think it should, then they start changing the null bias
current(s) after they spent hours trying to calculate one based on the Control Specification value.
And worse, most people don't have any idea how to change individual servo current values for a TMR
Mark V and end up just making things worse in the end.
If Moog is providing null bias currents with their servo-valves, it would seem to make sense to use them as
starting points at a minimum--as long as they are in the range specified by GE.
Posted by Jeff FLadwig on 12 February, 2010 - 4:12 pm

I have not measured the actual position.
I don't have the tool that attaches to the side of the cylinder. It rides the actuator spring bushing up &
down, and provides a small platform to rest the end of the dial indicator on.
I measured PM1 servo currents at 50%, following the GE procedure, and came up with 1.01% calculated
null bias, which is outside the range allowed by the procedure. The calculated servo currents:
R - 0.007 mA
S - 0.160 mA
T - 0.136 mA

And what happens when you put the 2.67% value (negative) in the Speedtronic for all three processors and
then tell PM1 to go to 50% stroke?
Again, I see more and More and MORE people never bothering to measure the stroke or angle.
Speedtronic panels are good, but, I don't know if they're that good. But it does prove a major point: Gas
turbine control IS NOT rocket science, no matter how hard people make it out to be. I've seen people
spend tens of hours, literally, trying to get the zero stroke reading for LVDTs to be exactly 0.700 VAC
RMS, as if that improved the accuracy of the operation of the turbine.
I've seen three-inch stroke dial indicators for about GBP50.00 and mag bases for around GBP10.00
recently. I've even used dial calipers in a pinch with a couple of zip ties to hold one portion stationary and
manually moving the other portion. Before GE started using Woodward valves the GE-designed valves
used to have scales on them which were very handy. (I still find it simply amazing that GE uses Woodward
valves, and the likely major reason is cost. They're certainly not as good as Fisher valves, but they are less
expensive, though they do require more maintenance and repair when in service. Guess another old adage
is proven true: You get what you pay for.)
Posted by A. OZTAS on 25 February, 2009 - 11:33 am
In general: Internal mechanical failure in the servo will lead to deviation of null bias current. Possible
causes are, degraded lube oil (clogging of servo ports), wrong calibration of the null bias (maybe you have
refurbished servo valves from none OEM supplier). Although, there is a way to calibrate the null bias, my
advice is to replace it with new one from OEM.
Good Luck...Tempus Fugit...


A. Oztas brings up a point I neglected to address. Usually, when I get this question it's related to one single
coil that has a servo current that is out of balance with the others. One cannot *really* fix the problem with
a single control processor's servo current being greatly different from the other two by changing the null
bias current value.
There is only *ONE* fail-safe spring, so changing the null bias value and downloading it to all three
control processors will only mask the problem with the one control processor. Yes, it might lessen the
differential between the three control processor's servo currents, but it's not addressing the problem of why
the one control processor's servo current is out of balance. That is usually related to the feedback for that
control processor being out of balance with the other two control processors.
If all three control processors have basically the same feedback and it's not very equal to to the reference,
then all three control processors will likely be trying to overcome some problem with the servo-valve:
clogging or varnishing of internal components leading to sticky or sluggish operation, worn internal
passages or o-rings.
Also, a single open-circuit in one of the three coils of a servo-valve will cause the output currents from the
other two control processors to increase to try to supply the "missing" torque which would have been
produced by the lack of current in the one coil. (Some documentation refers to electro-hydraulic servo-
valves as "torque motors.") Usually, in this case, the difference between the reference and the feedback
will also usually be a little greater than normal.
A. Oztas brings up another issue which has been reported by many sites which have tried to use rebuilt or
refurbished servo-valves. That is, the the fail-safe spring tension usually is not adjusted per GE-design
specifications after refurbishment. Adjusting the spring tension is not an easy task even in a factory or lab.
One needs special equipment to monitor oil flow-rates and volumes in addition to the currents applied to
the three coils. Every time I've seen people try to adjust null bias spring tension on a servo-valve which is
in service, it has resulted in having to replace the servo-valve (that has been said in previous posts here on
control.com, also).
And usually when they're trying to adjust the spring tension, it's an attempt to bring the servo current of
one control processor into line with the others. And that simply can't be done with the adjustment on a
single fail-safe spring.
As I've said before, I'm saving my pennies to buy Moog. These things are so misunderstood and people
replace them so quickly without understanding how they work or what they're capable of that Moog must
be making a fortune because I know of sites that have replaced a single servo-valve several times before
fixing the real cause of the problem. In the process, the once perfectly good servos get dirty and are not
handled very well, and are basically useless after that.
Cha-CHING!
Posted by sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Wonder why my earlier reply is not shown here.
NVM.. let me rephrase it again now.
Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)
In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in percentage and not in amperes. Which mean
that -2.667mA is actually shown as -0.267%.
Don't worry too much as your servo is still fine;)

>Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)
In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in percentage and not in amperes. Which mean
that -2.667mA is actually shown as -0.267%.
From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale servo current. 100% servo current is
equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.
I just looked through several ACALIB.DAT files, from early Mark Vs (with <I>s) and from very late Mark
Vs (with GE Mark V HMIs). None of them had lines to display null bias current.
ACALIB.DAT is an ASCII text file that ACALIB.EXE uses to configure the displays seen in
AutoCalibrate is running. Would you please open that file on you operator interface and copy one of the
lines which carries the words "null bias" and paste it into a response?
My suspicion is that someone found the TCQA RAM address for the null bias current value that gets
downloaded from the I/O Configurator, or someone has re-labeled the servo current line to read "null bias".
Posted by Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale
servo current. 100% servo current is equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
According to this explination we tried to compare the current servo values on the Mark V screen with the
ones measured directly on the screw of the board. For instance..
For the SRV (as seen on interface)
<R>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,43
Servo Current -2,50
<S>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,39
Servo Current -2,21
<T>
Required Position 15,53 %
Actual Position 99,37 %
Servo Current -2,87 %
Then checking in the file TC2kReport and we found the screw number and board to measure the output
tension (?) to the servo. That was <R> QTBA screw number 27 and 29. We got -0,4v in <R> ( bearing in
mind that the resistance is 1Kohm would be 0,4mA), is that what should be? That is far different from the
value we get on the screen (-0,25 mA), means that that on the screen is not taking account of the null bias?
or we are measuring in a wrong place?

How can i get in the demand desplay the signal's name of the requiered position since I can not find it in
the Longname.dat.
Thanks very much in advance.

Posted by CSA on 15 March, 2009 - 1:36 am

The first thing I see wrong with this post is that if the required position is 15.53% and the actual position is
99%, then I would say that something is really, really, really, REALLY wrong with the servo-valve output.
Because, if there is that much difference between the setpoint and the actual, then the control ain't working.
Was the unit running when you were observing these values and taking these voltages?
QTBA-27 & -29 are for servo-valve output #1. There are eight servo-valve outputs from a Mark V. So, I
think the second thing that's wrong with this post is that we don't know if you were looking at the required
position for SVO1 and the feedback for SVO1. In TC2KREPT.TXT, the column labeled "Signal Name" is
the value you need to look up in the CSP and work "backwards" from that to find the reference signal
name.
SVO1 is usually assigned to the Stop/Ratio Valve of a gas fuel system. The reference for the SRV is
usually signal name FPRG and the feedback for the SRV is usually FPG2. You won't find this in
LONGNAME.DAT. You will find it in the CSP.
And, the signal name for the SRV servo current is usually FAGR.
If you want to see what value of null bias current is being applied to a particular servo-valve output, you
need to look in the I/O Configurator for that particular servo-valve output. And, remember that the value in
the I/O Configurator is *inverted* (negative) in the Mark V. (If you see 2.667, the actual value will be
-2.667%, or -0.2667 mA.)
Whatever value of current you see or measure is the total current that's being applied to the servo coil and
includes the value of null bias current that's being applied to the output. If you've been reading this post,
unless the reference and the actual values for the output are nearly identical the value of current you see on
the display will not be the value of null bias current. From the data you provided, the reference and the
actual are *far* from equal.
Tension is another name for voltage, and since this is a DC output, it can have positive and negative values
of voltage (tension) and current. The typical resistance of a servo coil used for a GE-design heavy duty gas
turbine is approximately 1000 ohms, so -4.0 V DC would equate to a servo current of approximately -0.4
mA. But, any measurement you make would only be an assumption unless you know the exact value the
coil resistance.
Posted by walter/roberto on 17 March, 2009 - 3:43 am

Hello! Here we go again.
First thing, at the moment we took all that data the turbine was runing at base load (MS 6001B MKV
TMR). Since CSA warned us about the wide difference between SRV required and actual position we went
into the old files ( I'd dare to say ever since commissioning) and found out that that error was as wide as is
currently.
Could be that problem related to the inadequate fuel pression supply? According to CSP FPRGOUT must
be 248,1 psi at 99.85% TNH , and our actual P2 is approx 223 psi at the same TNH. So, as FPRGOUT is
not reached ( because of the lack of fuel) the valve goes practicaly to 99 % of its position in order to
provide 248,1 psi. Is that possible?
Other doubt is why we get the signals FPRG and FPG2 in psi and not in % as is should be to set the
position?
Stop Ratio Valve.
<R>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,79 %
Servo Current: -1,87 %
<S>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,57 %
Servo Current: -2,28 %
<T>
Required Position: 15,50%
Actual Position: 99,55%
Servo Current: -1,97%
As we understand in these posts, the servo current we see in the screen is the TOTAL output current to the
servo, ( servo null bias + output current to adjust the error). So, here the output SVO1 servo current is -
1,87 % for <R> , then our maths don't work out, since the servo null bias current is already -2,667%. And
measuring on the QTBA SVO1 output currrent we get -0,4 mA ( 4%), which would be more logical ( null
bias (-0,2667mA) + output current to the servo). Any clue where are we going wrong? Could be something
wrong with the configuration of SRV Autocalibrate display?
Thanks very much again and sorry for our insistence.

Greetings from Argentina.
Posted by CSA on 17 March, 2009 - 3:29 pm

Hello to Argentina, one of the futbol powerhouses of the world!
"Here we go again." Do you mind explaining that comment, please?
You seem to have pieces of the puzzle and the answers, but aren't able to put them all together. If the gas
fuel supply pressure is less than the P2 pressure reference, then the SRV is going to go wide open to try to
get the P2 to be equal to the reference. Since there's approximately a 0.7 barg pressure drop across the SRV
(typically) that would mean that, per the information you provided, the supply pressure would need to be
approximately 258 psig to keep the SRV from opening fully.
You did not provide the gas fuel supply pressure reading upstream of the SRV. What is the supply
pressure? I have seen clogged y-strainers cause high pressure drops, and most units have a y-strainer just
upstream of the SRV. Has it been checked for cleanliness recently? There's not usually a d-p gauge across
the y-strainer, and if you can read the pressure directly upstream of the y-strainer, what is it versus the gas
fuel supply pressure upstream of the SRV?
Some units have some kind of fuel filters upstream of the y-strainer, as well. Some times they are
coalescing filters or just "sock" filters. If they are present, have they been checked? I was at one site where
they said the d-p gauge had never registered any d-p. When the filter canister was opened, the filter
element had been so dirty at some point that it had ruptured and was effectively non-existent. Someone
also commented that they had had exhaust temperature spread problems a couple of years earlier and that
the gas nozzle tips were found to be plugged with some kind of stringy material, the source of which was
never identified. Turns out the gas fuel filter was one of those sock-type filters made of wound stringy
material.
I want to warn you: That is a bad condition to be operating the unit in if you ever experience gas fuel
supply pressure spikes or sudden load decreases. When the Speedtronic panel is putting out excessive
current to try to open the SRV it can go into what's deemed "wind-up". Wind-up can take a split-second to
recover from if there is a sudden supply pressure increase or a sudden load decrease ("load rejection") and
the unit can trip on exhaust overtemperature if it's being operated at or near Base Load when the
disturbance occurs because the current has to be reduced at a rate and it might not reduce the current
sufficiently to prevent a "burst" of fuel from being admitted to the combustors.
If your gas fuel supply pressure can never be greater than approximately 260 psig, you may be able to ask
GE or the OES to recalculate the P2 pressure reference curve to allow the SRV to operate in a controlling
region and fashion. But, be prepared to supply them with a recent gas analysis and some details of the
configuration of the gas fuel supply system. They may also ask for P/Ns (part numbers) of the gas fuel
nozzle tips installed in the machine, and if they're not OES equipment, be prepared to supply the flow
characteristics from the vendor or the sizes of the orifices in the nozzle tips. This information will be
necessary to be able to determine if a lower P2 pressure might be possible, and if so, to calculate a lower
P2 pressure reference curve. Also, be prepared to supply all the start-up, warm-up, and acceleration FSR
Control Constants.
Can you find the section of ACALIB.DAT for the SRV (SVO1 or SVO01) and post it to this thread? You
have never told us where you were reading the servo currents from, and if it's from the AutoCalibrate
display then you might be right: There might be a problem with the configuration of ACALIB.DAT.
Did you put the signals FPRG, FPRGOUT, and FAGR on a Demand Display or on the Logic Forcing
Display and observe them versus the readings you are seeing on the AutoCalibrate Display?
I would submit that you aren't doing anything wrong with the measurements you're taking, but it's
something with the display values or the display that you're reading the values from. Please put the above
signals on a Demand Display or the Logic Forcing Display and tell us what the differences are between
them and the values you are seeing on the AutoCalibrate display, if that's where you're observing the
values from (which, again, you haven't told us).
0.4 mA (or 4%) would be more likely what one would expect to see if the Mark V were driving the SRV to
be more open than the valve could physically travel such as what you are describing.
If you will look at Section 7, I believe, of GEH-6195, of the Mark V Application Manual, you will see that
the SRV regulator uses FPRGOUT as the primary reference and FPG2 for the feedback of the regulator
summing junction. If the two are equal, then the output of the summing junction is zero, which means the
SRV position is equal to what it needs to be to make the P2 pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference.
After the primary regulator summing junction, the SRV LVDT feedback is compared to the output of the
summing junction, and if the summing junction output is zero, then no change to valve position is to be
made.
If there is an error between FPRGOUT and FPG2, then that difference will be treated as a requiring a
change to the valve position, and that error will be compared to the current LVDT position feedback and
the servo current will be changed to make the necessary position change to make the P2 pressure feedback
equal to the reference.
The GCV and IGV regulators are "straight" position regulators and the feedback is from the LVDTs
mounted on the device actuators. The LFBV (Liq. Fuel Bypass Valve) reference is a liq fuel flow rate and
the feedback is from the magnetic speed pick-ups on the Liq. Fuel Flow Divider.
But I'd really like to understand the, "Here we go again!" comment.

Posted by walter/roberto on 19 March, 2009 - 5:07 am

Hello CSA!, again from the land of football (no soccer) no offence..;) , you are invited to see a football
match whenever you want!
First of all let us explain to you that we did not mean to be impolite writing "here we go again", we just
wanted to express that we are here trying with the same topic again, just that.
Talking about gas fuel supply pressure upstream the SRV we have 260 psi what would be pressure enough.
After reading your explanation it seems that is not a gas fuel supply problem. It is more likely to be a
problem on the Autocalibrate display. The servo currents we provided you were taken from the
Autocalibrate Display. Here goes the ACALIB.DAT from the SRV.
PROC Q
SOCKET 1
SVO 1
IOP 21
CARD "TCQA"
TITLE "GAS STOP RATIO VALVE"
PERMISSIVE L3ADJ
POSITION_NEG_SAT 100
POSITION_POS_SAT -0,1
POSITION_SCALE (F2 256,0 0,0 2 '% ')
MAN_SCALE (F2 128,0 0,0 2 '%')
LINE01 BTEXT 'DESCRIPTION <R> <S> <T> UNITS'

line 02 data 'SVO number' <D0A 09> (C1)
line 03 data 'Regulator type' <D0A 19> (H1)
LINE 05 DATA "LVDT #1 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 60> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
;LINE 09 DATA "LVDT #3 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 68> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
LINE 14 DATA "LVDT #1 Voltage" <D0A 20> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
LINE 15 DATA "LVDT #2 Voltage" <D0A 26> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
;LINE 16 DATA "LVDT #3 Voltage" <D0A 32> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
;LINE 17 DATA "LVDT #4 Voltage" <D0A 60> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V rms")
LINE 23 DATA "Position at POS Cur Sat." <D0A 10> (F2 256 0 1 "%")
LINE 24 DATA "Position at NEG Cur Sat." <D0A 12> (F2 256 0 1 "%")
LINE 25 DATA "Manual control position" <D0A 14> (F2 128 0 1 "%")
LINE 27 DATA "Required Position" <D0A 50> (F2 128 0 2 "%")

LINE 28 DATA "Actual Position" <D0A 58> (F2 128 0 2 "%")
LINE 29 DATA "Servo Current." <D0A 56> (F2 100 0 2 "%")
LINE 31 STATUS 1 R "R STATUS:" <D0A 16>

LINE 32 STATUS 1 S "S STATUS:" <D0A 16>
LINE 33 STATUS 1 T "T STATUS:" <D0A 16>
LINE 34 DATA "Permissive: L3ADJ" L3ADJ
LINE 35 DATA "Permissive: SPEED <28% (TNH)" TNH
Then we compared the signals in the Logic Forcing Dispay to the same ones in the Autocalibrate Display,
and this is what we get:
In Logic Forcing Display: FPRGOUT :248,5 psi; FPG2: 233,5 psi; FAGR: -2,95 %
In Autocalibrate Display: FPRGOUT (required pos): 15,52 %; FPG2( actual pos): 99,65 %; FAGR:-1,99
% all values in <R>
I found a signal which it seems to be the reference for us, FSGR, which in Logic Forcing Display is 99,59
% and in the Autocalibrate is, as you saw above 99,65%, more closed to the value. Is it maybe a wrong
signal reference we are seeing in the Autocalibrate Display as FSGR? And last but not least In our second
turbine (TG 2) happens exactly the same with the SRV autocalibrate display.
Again thanks very much in advance.
Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 2:23 pm

Hombre,
This is not football, it look like that we are ping ponging Now get back reality.
Quick look to your ACALIB data shows that is standard configuration for a FR5. I wonder whether your
system is HMI or I ? Or is it may be in the past upgraded to HMI? How about the PROM revisions? If your
SRV is operating at 99%, definitely the upstream FG pressure is below the specifications as given by the
OEM. However this should not give the problems that you describe. There are two options for your
problems:
1) DONT use ACALIB for calibration and monitoring purposes. Use the logic forcing display and/or pre-
vote data display.
2) Verify the ACALIB data for your GT and the revisions of the PROMs. Cross check also the IO_CFG
SVOx configuration (stroke 100 % or 128 %)
Remember that you dont necessarily AUTOCLIB display to perform calibration. Just use the basic
calibration procedure.
Docendo Discumus

If you've asked this question before on control.com, can you please provide the URL link to the post?
My bad for making some assumptions (I really try not to do that, but I failed on this one!). I assumed that
you have verified pressure transducer readings against reasonably accurate gauges and didn't ask you to
confirm that. I assumed the P2 pressure transducer(s) (by the way, how many transducers does the unit
have: 1 or 3?) are reasonably well calibrated and that the feedback (input) is properly scaled in the Mark V.
I've assumed the SRV LVDTs have been calibrated properly and that the valve is physically at or near full
open (something we haven't asked, but which we are asking you to visually confirm).
I'm going to try to explain this again: When the servo-valve regulator feedback is equal to the servo-valve
regulator reference, the servo-valve regulator error is zero. When the error is zero, the servo-valve output
current would be equal to zero mA. However, the servo-valve has a spring which, in the absence of current
(zero mA), will drive the device to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam. To overcome the spring and to
keep the device in a steady-state position such that the feedback is equal to the reference, a small amount
of current is continually added to the servo-valve output (at all times!). The only time that the current being
applied to the servo-valve's coils is equal to the null bias current value is when the feedback is exactly
equal to the reference and no additional current is required to keep the device in a steady-state position to
make the feedback equal to the reference.
Remember: The Moog servo-valves used for GE-design heavy duty gas turbines are polarity-sensitive
devices, meaning that the polarity of the applied DC voltage affects the flow of hydraulic oil through the
servo-valve. With zero current, there is no force (torque) developed by the torque 'motor' in the servo-
valve, and the null bias spring will act just like the application of a positive current, which would be to shut
off the flow of fuel or air or steam. When the regulator error is zero, the output is zero mA, so the null bias
current value defined in the I/O Configurator is continually added to the output. That's what a bias value is:
something that's continually added to something (or subtracted, depending on the application). So, when
the error between the reference and the feedback is zero, the only current being supplied is the null bias
current. And, in my experience with the Mark V, the displayed value of servo current is always the total
amount of current being supplied, which includes the null bias current. Under normal conditions, only
when the error is zero will the amount of current being supplied to the servo be equal to the null bias value.
Which brings up another question I haven't thought to ask: To your knowledge, has anyone tried to adjust
the null bias spring tension of the SRV servo-valve?
At this time, based on the information you have provided and what you have chosen to provide, I cannot
explain why the SRV servo current is less than what the expected null bias current should be. I suspect that
in an attempt to try to get the SRV into a controlling position that someone has changed the null bias
current value in the I/O Configurator, but, we don't yet (!) know what that value is. I might also suspect
that someone has done something with the TCQC card configuration jumpers or even something "unique"
in the CSP to try to rectify this SRV situation. Not being able to look at your CSP and card jumpers, we
can'tell that.
I am hoping that by answering the GCV questions that we can establish that one servo output is operating
as expected, but I'm asking a question that I don't know the answer to, and I just might get a great big
surprise, but I'm willing to take that chance at this point.
You have *NOT* provided all the information asked of you. Please don't arbitrarily choose what
information you are going to provide or what information you deem to be relevant or necessary. We're not
asking questions to be making you run around needlessly; we're asking because we aren't on site and can't
get the information for ourselves. And because you wrote here asking for help with an issue, we presume
that you are interested in learning something and providing the information requested to help you resolve
your issue. If you don't want to fully participate in the exercise of solving your issue, then there's no point
in continuing this thread.
Specifically:
1) What is the value of null bias current listed in the I/O configurator for SVO1? (Open the I/O
Configurator, and click on the TCQA card, and scroll to the screen for SVO1, and tell us what is listed in
the null bias current field. Exit the card, exit the I/O Configurator, without saving anything, and you won't
disturb any of the I/O Cfgr. settings.)
2) Precisely, where are you measuring this 260 psi supply pressure? At the SRV inlet/supply pressure
gauge in the Gas Fuel Compartment, which would be downstream of the y-strainer, or some place in the
gas fuel supply piping upstream of the two units' y-strainers? From a pressure transducer on the gas fuel
supply? From a pressure transducer on a metering tube and orifice in the gas fuel supply piping upstream
of the unit's y-strainers?
3) Has anyone visually checked the y-strainer recently?
4) Are there any filters upstream of the y-strainers, and if so, what is the d-p across the filters and have
they been visually checked recently?
Now, eight new questions:
1) Please confirm the actual, physical position of the SRV is at or near full open.
2) What is the GCV position indication (from the LVDT feedback, usually signal name FSG (Fuel Stroke-
Gas))?
3) What is the value of FSR?
4) What is the value of servo current being applied to the GCV (usually signal name FAG)?
5) What Diagnostic Alarms are active when the unit is running? (Include any locked-out Diag. Alarms in
the list)
6) Please tell us exactly where you're measuring this 260 psi, and is it psig or could it be psia?. Many GE-
design heavy duty gas turbines use a metering tube and orifice flow-meter to measure gas fuel flow-rate,
and the static pressure transducer is usually calibrated in psia, not psig. So, if you're reading a static
pressure transducer for the supply pressure (and this is usually located upstream of the gas fuel y-strainer),
please confirm the calibration and scaling of the input (the signal name is usually FPG1, sometimes,
FPG3).
7) What are the pressures on the three gas fuel pressure gauges in the Gas Fuel Compartment? One should
be SRV inlet ("supply" pressure; one should be Gas Fuel Valve Intervalve Pressure (P2 pressure); and one
should GCV discharge pressure, or gas fuel manifold pressure.
8) Sometimes the pressure drop across the SRV is a little higher; sometimes a little lower. But 0.8 bar to
1.3 par is a typical range. Also, can you describe the SRV? Is it in a combined casting with the GCV or is
it a separate valve from the GCV? If it's a separate valve, is it a rotary valve or a plug valve?
The fact remains, if the SRV is at 99.93% and the P2 pressure reference is 248.5 psig and the actual P2
pressure is 232.5 psig (and I presume you are reading this from the P2 pressure transducer feedback on the
Mark V operator interface display; can you please tell us what the P2 pressure gauge reading is?) then
there is *not* sufficient flow capacity from your gas fuel supply to achieve required P2 pressure. It's that
simple. There would generally be no other reason for the SRV to be open so high and the P2 pressure to be
lower than the P2 pressure reference.
Now, is the P2 pressure transducer calibrated properly? Is the feedback scaled properly in the Mark V? If
the gauges in the Gas Fuel Compartment are relatively accurate, this would be a good indication of
whether or not the transducer(s) is(are) calibrated properly and the feedback is scaled properly.
If the P2 pressure gauge in the Gas Fuel Compartment is reasonably accurate and is indicating roughly the
same pressure as the transducer feedback, then there's just not enough supply pressure and flow capacity to
allow the SRV to operate in a controlling range (which should be something less than 99.93% and less than
full open). Because, even if the SRV LVDTs are calibrated properly, the regulator for the SRV is a
pressure control loop and it will put the SRV at whatever position it needs to be at to make the actual P2
pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference, provided there is sufficient pressure and flow capacity
upstream of the SRV to allow the SRV to control the P2 pressure without going full open (and that just
doesn't seem to be the case in this instance, for two turbines).
The reason we're asking about the GCV information is to try to establish that at least one valve is operating
in a properly controlled fashion, and to see what the value of servo current is that is being applied to that
valve when operating in a properly controlled fashion.
FSGR (Fuel Stroke-Gas Ratio) is the typical signal name for the SRV LVDT feedback; it's not a reference,
is the actual feedback.
The only other thing I could think of to cause the SRV to behave as it's being described is that if the P2
pressure transducer was not properly calibrated or the feedback (input) was not properly scaled, but I
would expect that reasonably accurate gauges would have alerted you to this issue much sooner.
FPG2 is not the SRV position, and it's not listed in the ACALIB.DAT section you posted. Lines 27, 28,
and 29 in the section you copied displays the valve's reference position, actual position, and servo current,
respectively. I can't recall if the reference position is "active" when the unit is running, or if it's only
"active" when the valve is being manually positioned using AutoCalib. (The answers to the GCV question
may help with that!)
FPG2 is the scaled feedback (in psi) from the P2 pressure transducer(s), which should be calibrated in psig
(gauge pressure). If you have more than one P2 pressure transducer, the you can look at the signal name
FPG2 in the Prevote Data Display to see the individual, pre-voted values of the three feedbacks, and then
report them to us, please.
Lastly, the amount of null bias current being applied to the SRV as understood in this thread has nothing
whatsoever to do with the fact that the SRV appears to be at or near full open in an attempt to control P2
pressure at 248.5 psig. But it can't because the upstream supply pressure and flow capacity isn't sufficient
to be able to do that. That's what the data you have provided to date tells us. Perhaps the answers you
haven't provided and the answers to the new questions will lead us in a different direction, but it's not
really likely. And, it has nothing to do with null bias current.
I agree with Ore Rotundo; the section of ACALIB.DAT that you have provided seems to be fairly generic.
Please provide all the information requested, and we can try to get to the bottom of your problem, which,
again, should not be related to the null bias current value.
Posted by servo_2001 on 18 March, 2009 - 4:39 pm

I would like to clarify that the answer is not just the OEM as the solution to the problem. To null the
servovalve is the easiest calibration you can perform to a servovalve. Do your homework and you will see
that there are reputable repair facilities that have been repairing these valves for some time. Our company
has specialized in electro-hydraulic servovalves since 1969. We were schooled at Moog on the repair of
their valves. Do not let the OEM make you think they are the only game in town.
Posted by CSA on 19 March, 2009 - 12:19 am

What's missing from your reply? Contact info for your company.
What's also missing from your reply? The fact that adjusting servo null bias springs is best done in a
"laboratory" environment, with controlled flow-rates and measuring equipment. It's easy under those
circumstances.
The problems being discussed here are not generally related to null bias spring adjustment, but rather the
methods of applying a null bias current and why they are necessary and how to "measure" them. And how
the currents being applied (including the null bias current) can be out of balance.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone claim that the OEM was the only game in town. There have been other
posts here on control.com which listed firms which refurbish Moog servo-valves. Can you add yours to the
group?
Posted by Mehul on 21 March, 2009 - 6:50 am

Dear CSA,
Here I have concept of NULL Bias, You are requested to confirm the same.
There is good talk on the Null Bias Current for the servo. We can use the drawing of Servo along with
schematic of IGV or GCV-SRV to understand the concept.
For this talk reference, let us take IGV scheme, the IGV is stable at one position 57 deg. By viewing the
scheme of IGV actuating Piston & Cylinder, both side of Piston must be equal pressured, as CSRGVOUT
is CSRGVBAK(for Mark_IV) to keep IGV at 57 deg STABLE.
Now look at the drawing of Servo, to maintain the both sides of piston equally pressurized, the spool
should be at the middle of the bushing(such that it neither allows any port{connected to one side of
piston} to drain nor gives extra pressure to Port{Other side of Piston}). And thus flapper (Feedback
Sleeve) should be at centre and so the armature should be at the centre. And to keep the armature at
physical centre position, amount of current applied, is null bias current.
Consider what would happen, if the spool is not coming back to centre position. Definitely! it will drive
the IGV in either extreme position.
Now consider, the IGV is required to be open to maintain the Exhaust temperature. The Controller will
change the current to servo such that the armature will forces spool to move. The movement of the spool
will be such that one port will be connected to pressure source and at the same time, opens the other port to
the drain. This will create the pressure diff. on both side of piston. Ultimately Piston will move the IGV to
open. At the end, when CSRGVOUT=CSRGVBAK(command=feedback), once again armature is required
to be at to null position i.e. centre position, which is done by providing null bias current by controllers
Similarly the mechanical null bias key has been provided to adjust the armature at centre positon.
Thanks in advance

I will confirm all but the last statement about the "null bias key".
If by null bias key you mean a tool to adjust the null bias spring tension, then, absolutely no! No one
should be adjusting the null bias spring tension of a three-coil electro-hydraulic servo-valve, with the
exception of a facility with the appropriate means to do so and verify proper results.
Mehul, I really appreciate your questions, and anyone else's who's reading this thread and has some
interpretation of this concept they wish to confirm. I find this to be one of the most difficult concepts to try
to explain to people, with or without the ability to use diagrams or pictures, which doesn't seem to make
much difference. I am almost desperately searching for the right words and the right means to explain this
to people.
I think that one of the things that most people misunderstand about servo-valves as used on GE-design
heavy duty gas turbines is that they are not like the overwhelming majority of most actuator outputs on
most other types of control systems. Instead of an output that's proportional to desired position such as a 4-
20 mA output being at 12 mA for a reference of 50%, this one is proportional to the error between the
reference and the feedback, plus a null bias current. And if the error is zero then the output is zero, plus a
null bias current. If the error is greater than zero, then the output is greater than zero plus a null bias
current.
It gets even more complicated when there's more than one coil in the servo-valve, such as in a TMR
control panel, and each control processor can output a different current and each servo-valve output
includes a null bias current (the same amount of current) to overcome a single spring.
So, to anyone reading this thread, if you have some idea about how to make this any easier to
understand, PLEASE write and let me know. If it would help to try to relate it to some other control
system concept or input or output, that would be great. But, I've been trying for years to put this in simple,
understandable terms, and I've yet to find the right words, with or without pictures.
Posted by Mehul on 26 March, 2009 - 4:59 am

Thanks once again CSA.
Definetly , one MUST NOT adjust spring tension to set null bias current without proper FACILITY .
I mentioned it here to confirm the null bias adjustment device available with the servo.
Otherwise, one should prefer to replace servo & maitaining clean Pall filter other than service,claening,
replacement of spares for servo.
Regarding Servo Valve Maintenance, one of my earlier Comment in "IGV TEMP CONTROL TRIP"
topic.
"Another thing, cleaning the moog servo or replacing the filter, spares of moog servo requires the extream
extream exteram(03 Times)care to be taken for the cleanliness of the tool tackels, oils, Hands of personals
and envoirement at which the servicing is being carried out. So if possible try to replce the servo, then
serviceing the servo."

Many electronic manufacturers used to give away small screwdrivers to use to adjust the potentiometers on
printed circuit cards. There used to be a joke that they gave away those "tweakers" (as they were
affectionately called) so that technicians and supervisors would misadjust the pots and have to call the
manufacturer in to readjust the pots.
I often wonder if Moog doesn't include the little hex key/wrench for the same reason.
It's interesting to note that the originator of this thread hasn't replied to the questions asked to try to help
with their issue (which likely isn't related to null bias current, but may be related to a misadjustment of the
null bias spring!).
Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 1:25 pm

Dear Servo 2001
Maybe its good to highlight that, we are not fundamentally promoting the OEM's and one thing is sure that
we are also not getting paid for it to do it! Our intention is to give the control.com community our opinions
and suggestions in order to help them out with their technical issues. The servo valve users are plenty and
indeed healthy competition is welcome, such as after market parts. Finally its all about money, in order to
safeguard the reliability of their asset, professional companies will purchase anyway OEM servos. There
are plenty of other GT users who are purchasing repaired parts such as the servo valves. I know some of
these GT users buying reconditioned servos who are complaining after having the servo valve in service
less then a year, believe or not!
Docendo Discumus
Posted by minister on 17 July, 2009 - 9:45 am

I would like to add some more interesting facts and kindly ask for explanation.
We have 4 Frame 5 non-dln turbines running in the island mode. I have found something odd
troubleshooting the moog of one of the machines, that randomly changes its bias causing 3% position error
- temporary solution we use(unit online) is to recalculate new Null Bias measuring coils voltage and
having coil resistance measured before, then downloading the VSVO. This way it's fine for some time,
usually until next start-up. I have to mention, that we have already tried three different Moogs with the
same result.
Back to the moog story. The odd thing is that each unit SRV, GCV and IGV servo currents change at the
same time from one stable value to another one (usually by the step of 3, 4 %). The same time error doesn't
change. I have trended hydraulic pressure 96HQ but there is no sign of the event. Also no sign on P125DC
and N125DC. I'm running out of ideas what to trend.
Also polarity has been checked many times so far by confiming that MKVI is able to drive the valve by
each servo coil separetely.
Although it happens on all four units, the event doesn't occure at the same time looking from unit to unit
(see my trends).
Please check the data collected I uploded below:

http://www.speedyshare.com/476835562.html
Do not be surpirsed looking at these trends. One of our machines (G4) also have out of spec, positive Null
Bias, since commisioning by GE (MKVI config value -12, changing moogs didn't help, anyway machine is
controlled correctly.)
Any explanation on the moog servo current changes? Why all units affected?
Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 2:14 am

You say you have four turbines and you're only having a problem with one. Or at least that's what it sounds
like. Actually, I can't really tell how many units are having the problem now that I re-read the message.
But, here goes anyway.
You've changed the servos; you say the problem happens with all the servos.
You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when this happens, or before this happens.
Do these units have IS barriers?
If you've been reading this thread, you know that the null bias current is the current required to overcome
the null bias spring tension. So, if the current required to overcome the spring tension changes, it would
seem that either something is making the spring tension change or something is causing the coil resistance
to change.
Servo valves are about the most misunderstood device I've ever run across. They're nothing more that
electromagnets which produce small amounts of torque. They're just coils of wire through which DC
current is applied; the polarity and magnitude of the current causes the direction and amount of torque to
change. How can they be so complicated? They're not.
The overwhelming cause of "failure" is oil cleanliness and oil temperature. There's just not much more to
them than that. Very tiny, orifice-like passages and clearances which are very susceptible to dirt and
varnishing.
Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature?
I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used as the "pressure regulators" for the hydraulic
pump. This causes excessive flow through the hydraulic pump.
The hydraulic system of a GE-design heavy duty gas turbine is basically a static system, meaning that
under steady-state operating conditions there is no flow. There is only flow when a valve or the IGVs are
being commanded to move.
I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not properly in service. This also causes the flow
through the hydraulic pump to be excessive which could be a cause of high oil temperature.
Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the TSVOs? And all the configuration settings
on the VSVOs? Of the unit with the problem vs. a unit without the problem? What is the dither set to on
the unit with the problems vs. a unit which seems to be running well (not the one with the whacko null bias
value).
It just doesn't seem like the servos can be the problem here, especially if all of them on one unit are
behaving similarly. There's something else that's common to the servos that the problem.
Another couple of months and I should be in a position to make my bid for Moog. The way these things
get changed on a whim, they must be raking in the cash! I just want to buy the GE-design heavy duty gas
turbine line, and I'll be paying my business loan off very early--I'm sure of that.
The 125 VDC battery supply voltage is converted to voltages by the rack power supplies which are then
used by the VSVOs to drive the servos. It wouldn't seem likely that a problem with 125 VDC battery
voltage would manifest itself in the servo outputs.
There's something different about the hydraulic system of that unit. Or, possibly even and, there is some
configuration and/or jumper settings that are not correct. But, for a Moog servo to be changing its null bias
spring tension requiring on-line null bias current changes? That's just pretty not right.
Anyway, that's about all I can think of. To address what I thought the problem was. Now, I'm not so sure.
One thing's for sure though: When I own that piece of Moog, I' won't be contributing to threads like this on
control.com. I know better than to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Thank you CSA for your reply.
>You say you have four turbines and you're only having a problem with one. Or at least that's what it
sounds like. <
Actually we have problem with two servos:

1. On one machine the SRV changes it's Null Bias mostly after restart (I have greased the stem already and
stroke after many times, result the same, so it's probably not the friction). This Moog creates error >3%, to
avoid trip exceeding 5% value we just downloaded recalculated null bias. This really drops the error to
zero. Because of production I can't just stop the machine to do it off-line. (I'm aware about on-line software
download, but hardware, single VSVO I tried many times with no bad luck).
2. Another machine GCV has positive Null Bias (MKVI RegNullBias =-11.96), and it's not the polarity.
Investigating these two issues I trended all machines and found interesting fact that I shared on previous
post.
>You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when this happens, or before this happens. <
The only alarm we have is the increased position error that can lead to turbine trip. Again, it's not the
machine with positive NullBias value.
>Do these units have IS barriers? <
Yes we have the barriers on SRV and GCV (some MTL-7765ac), none for IGV. I have it planned to run
the machine bypassing them, what do you think? Especially, that two other barriers for seismics on the
same machine had failed.
>Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature? <
I'm going to trend all servo currents with oil temperature starting this afternoon. Right now (2:42PM) the
header temperatures are 57 to 58 deg C, outside ambient 46 deg C (air oil cooler).
>I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used as the "pressure regulators" for the hydraulic
pump. This causes excessive flow through the hydraulic pump. <
That's another good hint you gave me. I found our technician resetting hydraulic pressure on the PSV
instead of using pump PCV. I will check remaining units.
>I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not properly in service. <
No accumulators here.
>Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the TSVOs? And all the configuration settings
on the VSVOs? Of the unit with the problem vs. a unit without the problem? <
All TSVO the same (jumpers), all MKVI hardware configs the same (to be sure, I have also compared m6b
with the MKVI).
Dither Amplitude 2.0, Freq 100hz on all Moogs (including IGV), on all units.
The SRV/GCV we have is the old design, containing both valves in one body, don't think we have to
disable the dither as someone posted dither disabling is recommended for new types of valves.
Regards!
Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 4:39 pm

One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop. Even if the LVDT calibration is WAY off, the
pressure loop is going to put the valve at the position required to make the actual P2 pressure equal to the
P2 pressure reference. It doesn't make any difference if the valve thinks it's at 35.4% and it thinks it should
be at 28.4% or 44.4%, or if it's actually at 31.4% stroke (physical measurement) and it thinks it should be
at 37.1% and the LVDT feedback says it's at 35.9%. As long as the actual P2 pressure is equal to the P2
pressure reference, everything is perfectly okay. When it's not perfectly okay is when the unit is a TMR
panel and the three servo currents are not fairly equal; THAT'S a problem.
I'll bet any amount of money the differential is related to the calibration method of that combined
SRV/GCV assembly.
Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the servos? For all of the turbines? A simple chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4

Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain
SRV
GCV
IGV
I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark VI panels; if so, please remind me.
As far as dither goes, my personal belief is that none is needed with most of these legacy-style actuators.
I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems over the years. They appear to be fine, but
they're not. Also, some seem to be temperature and current sensitive when they start "failing."

Dear CSA,
Thank you this time for your reply!
> One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop.

---- snip ----
As long as the actual P2 pressure is equal to the P2 pressure reference, everything is perfectly
okay. When it's not perfectly okay is when the unit is a TMR panel and the three servo currents are not
fairly equal; THAT'S a problem. <
Thanks for reminding that. The above was also mentioned many times on this forum. Although it's
pressure control loop our concern is not to be tripped by position error.
>Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the servos? For all of the turbines? A simple
chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4

Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain
SRV 2.4/1.8 3.9/1.8 3.2/1.8 -11.69/1.8
GCV 3.3/1.8 3.1/1.8 3.3/1.8 2.65/1.8
IGV 2.61/6.8 2.67/6.8 2.82/6.8 3.1/6.8
The way we calibrate these valves is to lift the stem and insert and leave filler gauge to get rid of the gap
between the actuator and valve stem. This way the valve is still closed and LVDT indicates 2.5%
difference from its rest position.
Hope this is the way.
> I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark VI panels; if so, please remind me. <
TMR, sorry, should have mention that at the beginning.
>I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems over the years. They appear to be fine, but
they're not. Also, some seem to be temperature and current sensitive when they start "failing." <
Can I bypass these barriers? I know it's for EEX zone but I do not recall (I'm not 100% sure) seeing them
on 9E turbine in Europe for example.
After trending the servo currents jumps together with Oil Temperature no relation could be observed
(during night when temperature decreases, the frequency of jumps seems to be the same)
Can anyone trend servo currents for at least 12hours to observe if these jump like it happens here? I do not
understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all machines but at different times.
We have running hrs varying from 6000 hrs to 12000 hrs and we have never change the lube oil. I wonder
if these jumps happen anywhere else?
Regards!

You have a TMR control system. That means that each control processor has it's own gain and null bias for
each coil of the servo valve.
Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each servo of each turbine?
One thing all manufacturers do is to "copy" functions to similar applications, like the LVDT position error
check. Since the position isn't the problem for the SRV (the inability to control P2 pressure is the problem),
do you think it makes sense to use the same settings for the SRV as for, say, the IGVs or the GCV?
I'm still confused about how the position error can start out at one value (even if it's zero) and then change
when the unit is running. And I'm confused when you say you download new null bias value(s). Do you
download a new value to one processor? Or to all three processors, one at a time?
As MIKEVI says, there might be a problem with one of the processors thinking that the P2 pressure isn't
the same as the other processors, and that would cause that processor to change its current output and the
other processors would have to change theirs to counteract the other. This happens a LOT, and if you have
three P2 pressure transducers and one of them drifts or has a leak or a wiring problem, that can cause a
problem like this.
How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have? One or three or ????
Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to see what they're doing before and after this
problem?
When you put the feeler gauges into the gap prior to performing the calibration of the SRV and GCV,
that's to PUT them in their true zero position. When you remove the feeler gauges and the valve stems drop
and the indication goes negative, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen.
The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't held open by the actuator bottoming out. Some
places it's called "closed end overtavel". The true zero stroke position for these valves is NOT with the
valve stem fully down when the valve is closed; in that position the valve stem is not touching the bottom
of the valve plug.
The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and the valve stem is touching the bottom of the
plug, and that's what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in contact with the bottom of the valve
plug when the valve is closed and ensure that at the end of the calibration procedure that the valve will
return to the same position as when it started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs
when run).
The use of barriers is entirely a function of the code and requirements of the country or regulatory agency
where the unit is installed, OR the policy of the company which is operating the unit. There are thousands
of units operating in all manner of applications around the world which do not and have never had IS
barriers installed.
So, only you can decide if you can operate without the barriers. We don't know the application or the site
conditions so we can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if the IS barriers are installed on the LVDTs
or the servo-valve outputs.
When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the temperature of the hydraulic pump
discharge. You're trending the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the hydraulic pump.
I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think I'm getting a handle on it, you say "... I do not
understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all machines but at different times...."
By "three" servos do you mean all the coils of a single servo valve? Or do you mean all the servos on all
the machines? You say it's only on the SRV, but then you say it happens on three servos on all machines at
different time. Is this happening on the SRV of all machines at different times?
Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would change during operation, or why the coil
resistance would change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be the most likely cause for either,
but I've never heard of this problem, or a problem described like this.
And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone attributes an occurrence to this reason or that
reason without any real evidence that this reason or that reason is causing the problem.
You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null bias spring tension is changing.
All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing) and that you can change (reduce) the position
error by changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the Mark VI" and we don't know if you're
downloading the change to one VSVO or to all three VSVOs one at a time.
I would really like to help solve this problem, but, again, every time I think I'm understanding what's
happening then I re-read the posts and I get confused even more.
I really think MIKEVI has suggested a good course of action, and that you need to also trend the P2
pressures of all the processors to try to understand what's happening.
You should be trending the P2 pressure of each processor, the LVDT feedback from both LVDTs as read
by each processor, and the servo current outputs from each processor.
I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the outrageous null bias current. You say you've
replaced this servo and the new one still behaves the same way???? And you've tested the servo current
polarity under the individual control of each processor for this device (GCV or SRV or ???) and it will
closely maintain the position with only one processor????
I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've previously said that the GCV of one unit is the one with
the outrageous null bias. We really need to know what the running servo currents for each processor are for
the servo with the outrageous null bias value.
Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the actuator of the device which this servo is installed
on?
I apologize if my response seems a little "random" but I'm really baffled by this and at the same time very
interested to solve these problems.
You should know this: On every GE-design heavy duty gas turbine operating anywhere in the world, there
is likely some error in position feedback vs. position reference on one or more servo outputs. Some more
than others. But, they are all running.
And we're only talking about position feedback vs. position reference. I have been to more sites that have
incorrectly calibrated LVDT feedback so that the actual physical position is way off from the indicated
LVDT feedback. And the turbines still run. And run well.
I heard a former colleague say once a long time ago about GE-design heavy duty gas turbine control, "This
ain't rocket science." And he was very correct. If it were rocket science, GE would have been out of
business a long time ago because if every servo output had to operate with zero error the units wouldn't
run. But they do run, and they run very well.
Sure, in a perfect world we'd all like the position error to be zero, and it should be zero. But, it doesn't have
to be zero. What counts is: Is the position error increasing or decreasing?
This has been said many times before on control.com: The value of something today isn't really
informative. It's the value today vs. the value last hour or yesterday or two days ago or one week ago or
one month ago or six weeks ago, and whether or not that value has changed in that time and how fast it has
been changing.
Sure, a L.O. header temperature value of 90 deg C isn't good, but if the unit has been running for four years
with an indicated L.O. Header temperature of 90 deg C, would you say it's been running incorrectly? Or
would you go to find another way to verify that reading?
In your case, the position reference error seems to be changing relatively quickly and then remaining
relatively constant. From what we can understand. Which changes with every reading.
Sorry; I'm both perplexed and intrigued. And, I'm a very literal person (but you couldn't tell that could
you?).

CSA,
thanks for your post. I appreciate your time spent at the computer.
> Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each servo of each turbine?
The NullBias values I gave are the same in each processor for each servo coil (RST). You confused me a
little with this question. Using Toolbox I have (v11.02.09), when I select Download Configuration, it goes
directly to all three VSVO cards, with no possibility of selecting destination processor (R, S or T). It could
be only possible if all three VSVOs are in Simplex config like for example Thermocouple VTCC cards. To
set-up hardware config you only have one common field, not three separate fields for R/S/T.
To have different NullBias values in each R/S/T card, the only way that comes to my mind is to remove
Ethernet cables during download. Have you heard about MKVI having different NullBias values for coils
on the same servo? What is your way to achieve that?
Gains are of course the same for R/S/T as NullBias and the rest of the HW config.
More on that, I confirmed the config with TSM, gain and null bias values are the same in all three
processors.
What I found using TSM checking regulators (command A*pplications -> R*egultors) and then servos
(commands S1 for SRV, S3 for GCV and S4 for IGV) : G1/G2/G4 have parameter FIX 1 and FIX 2 equal
to zero (for all three GCV/SRV/IGV servos) and MKVI LVDT Min/Max (0/100% position) values at
LIMIT HI VOLTS and LIMIT LO VOLTS. The G3, the one that must have had SRV Null Bias corrected
after two last restarts has MKVI values of SRV and GCV LVDT min/max in FIX 1/FIX 2 fields and
LIMIT HI VOLTS and LIMIT LO VOLTS are different by around +-0.100 (FIX 1 + 0.100, FIX 2 - 0.100).
IGV is the same as G1/G2/G4. I'm not sure if you are familiar with this part of TSM. I found it today
looking for any unusual thing. It may be that someone here started the calibration and haven't fix Min/Max
value - have no idea. Can only check on stopped unit. Also TSM has a lot of stuff that can be checked.
> do you think it makes sense to use the same settings for the SRV as for, say, the IGVs or the GCV? <
For some reason we have it (5% position error trip), I can't think of the situation that this protection is
needed, but as it is know that SRV is fuel gas pressure controlled valve, its LVDT is used as a feedback for
VSVO card (SRV VSVO regulator type is 2_LVPosMax), so loosing the LVDT the card probably doesn't
know how to adjust servo current (what direction to go).
Am I close?
> Do you download a new value to one processor? Or to all three processors, one at a time? <
OK. See the trend I have uploaded below:

The whole story started there

You can see that one day we started having the error. Servo command had to be higher then the position
required to drive SRV to desired position. Suddenly either SRV position increased by overcoming the
friction or the moog current increased for some reason and then MKVI reduced SRV command and so we
got both value (position and command) at the same level. I'm not sure what was the reason I can only
speculate as above (as I said I greased the SRV/GCV stems with the same result after restart). Then I
started my research and found such Moog current step changes on all machines (but again, on other
machines the do not cause an position error). Once again, on each machine. lets say on GT1, all three
moogs SRV/GCV/IGV indicates the step change at the same time.
Please see the trend I included in my first post. I highlighted each GT set of moogs with different color.
Again, in my post I wanted to confirm if anyone has ever observed these step changes, I had mention GT3
servo problem as an origin.
So, If you help me with all my problems I will be very grateful.
>As MIKEVI says ----snip----
>How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have? One or three or ????
>Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to see what they're doing before and after this
problem? <
I have just trended P2 (R/S/T) and see nothing (flat lines during the step change that just happened on GT1
and GT3). Will include it in GT3 trend at next start-up.
> When you remove the feeler gauges and the valve stems drop and the indication goes negative, that's
what's SUPPOSED to happen. <
Yes, that's right (the value (negative) is from 3% to 2.5% depending on machine).
>The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't held open by the actuator bottoming out. <
That is exactly how I understand the valve. I'm assuming the gap is for safety if the seat is worn and no gap
the valve will leak. Also the drawing say to check that gap is within desired limits and if no grind the
piston rod to obtain it.
> The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and the valve stem is touching the bottom of the
plug, and that's what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in contact with the bottom of the valve
plug when the valve is closed and ensure that at the end of the calibration procedure that the valve will
return to the same position as when it started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs
when run). <
No doubt about it.
>The use of barriers is entirely a ----snip----.
> So, only you can decide if you can operate without the barriers. We don't know the application or the site
conditions so we can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if the IS barriers are installed on the LVDTs
or the servo-valve outputs. <
Thanks for advice. I will feel more confident doing it.
>When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the temperature of the hydraulic pump
discharge. You're trending the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the hydraulic pump. <
No other option for me right now.
> I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think I'm getting a handle on it, you say "... I do
not understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all machines but at different
times...." By "three" servos do you mean all the coils of a single servo valve? Or do you mean all the
servos on all the machines? You say it's only on the SRV, but then you say it happens on three servos on
all machines at different time. Is this happening on the SRV of all machines at different times? <
Again, as stated the thing above (it's really difficult to me to explain it as English is not my native
language).
What I can trend, is jump/step change up/down/up/down (and so on) of the total current of each Moog. But
I observed looking at card points ServoIOutxNVR/S/T that it happens also in the same direction on all
three coils (second screenshot I attached, you can call it static observation). So, on one single turbine, the
change happens at the same time on all 9 coils (3xSRV, 3xGCV, 3x IGV), and you can observe the same
on all machines but from machine to machine it's not synchronized. Please see again the trend and color
marked GT's.
>Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would change during operation, or why the coil
resistance would change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be the most likely cause for either,
but I've never heard of this problem, or a problem described like this.
>And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone attributes an occurrence to this reason or that
reason without any real evidence that this reason or that reason is causing the problem.
>You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null bias spring tension is changing. <
I agree, I don't want to risk and disconnect servo coils one by one online. What I found after stop that the
current is different each time (I register in Excel sheet all NullBias calculations), not resistance. It stays on
all machines 1200- 1300ohm on all machines (barriers give additional resistance, I think I checked that a
year ago).
> All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing) and that you can change (reduce) the
position error by changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the Mark VI" and we don't know if
you're downloading the change to one VSVO or to all three VSVOs one at a time. <
All three at one time. Simply calculation, have all three resistance noted before the start last month, I
measure the voltage for each coil separately, divide V/R, summarize all three results and finally divide by
three to get average (negative result must be placed as positive in MKVI config and so on). This is the GE
calculation way given by the ControlSpec and it works (offline :), for me also online)
>I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the outrageous null bias current. You say
you've replaced this servo and the new one still behaves the same way???? <
Actually It has been replaced by GE TA, that left it saying it's fine. They just wanted to leave the place :))))
> I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've previously said that the GCV of one unit is the one
with the outrageous null bias. We really need to know what the running servo currents for each processor
are for the servo with the outrageous null bias value. <
I wrote G4 - on the trend you will find G4\signal - that was the reason I used it instead of GT4. Affected
valve is SRV.
> Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the actuator of the device which this servo is installed
on? <
I will check, I have to re-read your posts guys and prepare a checklist)
Finalizing the story: you can see that we have two major problems - very high positive null bias on one
machine running relatively good - position error that disappear after start-up or we have to help it
disappears changing NullBias value (we did it last time instead of waiting).
...And one minor that is servos current step changes on all machines that I accidentally discovered.
It took all day to think about answers also have a headache. Sorry if I messed something again.
Regards
Posted by CSA on 21 July, 2009 - 12:42 am

In the early days of Toolbox, it was possible to download to individual VSVOs. Maybe that's not the case
any longer; I haven't seen a Mark VI in a couple of years.
I have never seen trends like this. My initial reaction is that there is something about/with the IS barriers,
but that's just because I don't have a lot of experience with them and the experiences I have had have not
been very good.
As for the friction comment, when I have seen friction on a gas valve (SRV or GCV) the effect has been
that the servo current increases with no change in position until the device "jumps" usually to a position
past the reference and then the current changes to try to drive device back to the reference with no change
in position until it "jumps" to a position past the reference and this continues and in some cases gets worse.
So, the valve behavior was jumpy and erratic. On either side of the sticky portion of the valve stems, the
action was normal. But where the shaft was worn and scored (on a couple of turbines) or where the
cylinder walls were scored (on a couple of turbines) the behavior was jumpy and erratic.
From what you describe, it seems that the current just "jumps" and without seeing the valve position
feedback at the time the current jumps, it's difficult to say what's happening.
I don't recognize the IS barriers you cited. Have you reviewed the manufacturer's manuals/documents to
see if these are properly applied?
I would like to know how the *circuit* resistance changes when this phenomenon occurs. It would be very
interesting to monitor the voltages of each servo coil and see what happens. A change in voltage would be
indicative of a change in circuit resistance. Would it be possible to monitor the voltage across the IS barrier
and the voltage across the servo coil?
I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
I have seen Moog provide some very good troubleshooting assistance when asked to get involved. I know
they are slow to respond, but when they do get involved they are pretty helpful.
I don't believe the null bias spring tension is changing.
Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? And agglomeration (I think that's what it's called)?
Some of the newer formulations of turbine lube oils seem to be causing lots of problems for servos. I think
BP has a formulation that has been used successfully by a lot of heavy duty gas turbine users.
When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine power output change? Does the unit continue to
run normally or does an operator have to make a change to keep the unit running as desired?
If the AHJ (Agency Having Jurisdiction (thanks for that Phil Corso!)) would permit a test with the servo IS
barriers disconnected it would be very interesting to see what happens.
I'd really like to know what happens to the position feedback at the time the current jumps.
That's about all I can think of.


The more I think about this the more I think if you're seeing it on all the servos on all the units at your site,
the one thing that's common to the gas valves is the IS barriers. I also wonder if they're also affecting the
other servo outputs on the VSVO, such as the IGVs.
I did some checking on the MTL site, and it says the MTL7765ac is primarily for high frequency low
voltage applications. Hmmmm..... I also wonder about the resistance readings you mentioned, which seem
much higher than those listed in the tables in Sect. 8 of the manual.

CSA,
I had opportunity to shutdown GT1 and found something interesting.

It seems that "jumps" are not caused by the hydraulic part of the system as these also exist during cool
down and after when Auxiliaries are off.
Trend with some description added (trip occured :) ).

Will try today to bypass barriers and trend again.
> It would be very interesting to monitor the voltages of each servo coil and see what happens. <
The voltage changes for sure, I had usual average value of around -0.320V after last calibration, then when
I started the machine and found the position error, I made another measurement of coil voltages and as
described before recalculated the NullBias and downloaded new VSVO config (average voltage this time
-0.490V).
> I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong
again. <
I hope barriers is the reason. Could it be changing MKVI cabinet inside temperature affecting them? I
wonder if it's sync'ed with the cabinet fan switching on/off (I can simply check it by keeping all fans on for
few hours.
> Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? <
Yes we have it tested, but we are trying to make it more often (monthly). Nothing unusual last time, let's
see next time.
> When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine power output change? <
Nothing unusual I have trended DWATT as well.
> test with the servo IS barriers disconnected it would be very interesting to see what happens. <
Yep, this I will provide soon.

I have to find some extra terminals for barriers bypassing.
Cheers!

This is troubleshooting: Understanding the possible causes of a problem and working to eliminate them
one at a time or to narrow the field of possibilities down to a very few.
I think it's very telling that when these "jumps" occur when the turbines are running that there is no change
in power output. The Mark VI is fast enough to maintain steady and stable power output in the face of
whatever is causing the servo current to have to change. And, even if the position error increases (for
whatever reason) the Mark VI is automatically "compensating" and keeping the turbine operation stable
and steady.
You have not provided any information on specifically what's happening to the LVDT feedback when
these jumps are occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback also have IS barriers. If so, what is
the manufacturer/part number?
And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is not the changing servo currents, but the
changing LVDT feedback. You say that the position error changes, and when that happens the servo
current would change to try to maintain the error closer to zero. Right?
Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current, and the LVDT feedback from each LVDT
would be the best to trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the unit is not running.
It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature to be changing very much. It should be located
in a temperature- and humidity controlled environment, the emphasis is on control. Are you saying the
temperature in the Mark VI panel, or wherever the IS barriers are located, changes? If so, by how much
during the course of the day? Are there fans controlled by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not unheard
of, but not typical.
I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive" devices and don't require bus power, but the
manufacturer instruction book is really unclear on these particular barriers. If they are powered, where do
they receive their power from?
What IS barriers are used for the LVDTs? Do all the LVDTs have IS barriers?
Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000 ohm resistors (heat dissipation) and connecting
them directly to the TSVO in place of the barriers and then trending the servo current. (This would have to
be done when the unit is not running.)
If the current still changes, then I would suggest removing the IS barriers from the LVDT circuits and
monitoring the individual LVDT feedbacks and the servo currents.
This also happens sometimes in troubleshooting: The focus gets placed on the effect rather than the
"affect" (the cause). The whole servo regulator loop needs to be considered: the reference, the feedback,
the output.
Let's not drop the theory that the servo barriers may be the problem, but let's not lose sight of the other
possible contributing factors. You have addressed the hydraulic possibility pretty conclusively. But, servos
do get very warm in the environments they are placed in.
Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of the L.O. reservoir/tank, where the vapors collect.
The L.O. in the tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled).
The IGV servo is usually located in the turbine compartment, which experiences large temperature swings
during starting, operation, and shutdown.
Posted by minister on 23 July, 2009 - 12:26 pm

Thanks CSA for you input:
Post update:
>You have not provided any information on specifically what's happening to the LVDT feedback when
these jumps are occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback also have IS barriers. If so, what is
the manufacturer/part number? <
No barriers at LVDT at all. Summarizing we have only 6 barriers installed for SRV and GCV.
I have used terminal block to bypass the barriers and during last 12 hours "jumps" occurred again. We can
exclude IS barriers from servo current change phenomena, but still have to take them into account for two
running units, (position error and high positive null bias).
Let's keep in mind, that the offline unit is the one controlled "perfectly" (only servo current jumps" are
observed). So let's concentrate on servo current jumps.
> And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is not the changing servo currents, but the
changing LVDT feedback. You say that the position error changes, and when that happens the servo
current would change to try to maintain the error closer to zero. Right? <
Right. This gave in another suggestion as the error appears some time after restart. It can be possible that
we loose one LVDT by vibrations while running unit (e.g.. loose wiring) or we are getting the LVDT back
by the same reason.
> Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current, and the LVDT feedback from each LVDT
would be the best to trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the unit is not running. <
Trend set-up and running. A hint for people that want to trend LVDT's. You have to turn Monitors on (we
have it unused, but I met the feature used on some sites). Select 1_LVposition as monitor type, select
LVDT you want to monitor (see your Regulator), fill in Mn and MxLVDT1_Vrms with data you have in
your Regulator. Keep in mind that Regulators use usually two LVDT's, and you have to separate them
using two Monitors. After the config is downloaded you will see each LVDT value in VSVO Card Point
section under MON1, MON2....MON12 (depending of your set-up)
> It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature to be changing very much. It should be
located in a temperature- and humidity controlled environment, the emphasis is on control. Are you saying
the temperature in the Mark VI panel, or wherever the IS barriers are located, changes? If so, by how much
during the course of the day? Are there fans controlled by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not unheard
of, but not typical. <
We have HVAC unit for the MKVI room so we have quite good environment.
And yes, we have fans controlled by thermostats, I was aware of this as very often we have to clean cabinet
ventilation inlet filters and fan outlet filters from accumulated fine desert sand. After trending servo
currents yesterday afternoon with all of fans running the servo current phenomena still exists. The average
temperature measured using TBTC cold junction is 30 deg C (IS barriers are mounted on the back side of
the cabinet where TBTC are mounted, also fans are on MKVI terminal board side only)
> I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive" devices and don't require bus power, but the
manufacturer instruction book is really unclear on these particular barriers. If they are powered, where do
they receive their power from? <
Passive barriers.
> Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000 ohm resistors (heat dissipation) and
connecting them directly to the TSVO in place of the barriers and then trending the servo current. (This
would have to be done when the unit is not running.) If the current still changes, then I would suggest
removing the IS barriers from the LVDT circuits and monitoring the individual LVDT feedbacks and the
servo currents. <
Will add to the plan.
> Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of the L.O. reservoir/tank, where the vapours
collect. The L.O. in the tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled). The IGV servo is usually
located in the turbine compartment, which experiences large temperature swings during starting, operation,
and shutdown. <
That's the case we have, valve servos are mounted inside the tank underneath the valve. IGV in turbine
compartment. As the unit will stay some days, temperature should come down and we will see possible
effect on the trend.
After all day trending:

Please find another trends (40ms sample time), this time also one toolbox .trn file.
1) change observed only on GCV/SRV (I was measuring coil resistance a while before it happened.
Resistance stays always the same):
2) GCV/SRV/IGV jump (see signal description in first file, scale for some signals is different, color the
same)
"Jump" UP
"Jump" DOWN:
I'm trying try do the same with dither off. (As dither is an AC on the DC command signal, can it induct
something in the circuit?):
After switching dither off, I observed that all current signals (SRV R/S/T, GCV R/S/T, IGV R/R/T) have
moved in the middle of the "jump high" and "jump low" servo current values. It's moved down by 2% from
the high value or 2% up from the low value.
Is it coincidence, when the dither amplitude is also 2%?
Please see dither off trend: http://www.speedyshare.com/860219617.html
These 4% current switches seems odd when I have checked servo currents loading the machine by 1MW
(around +2% GCV and SRV) and couldn't even indicate the difference on the trend. If it's not the coil
resistance that changes, is it whole circuit loop resistance I mean inside MKVI hardware? The dither seems
to be the one not explored :)))
Another experiment: On running unit I have gradually changed dither amplitude for GCV from 2.0 to 0.2%
(by 0.2 % step) , and observed servo current travelling from -7 % to -5% without load or position change.
Again, not to confuse you guys, these are trend taken on the offline machine, the machine that has no
problems with position error. I will troubleshoot affected unit ASAP (read when available after shutdown -
software modification needed to trend LVDT's and servo outputs separately).
At the end of the post, after 4 hrs of trending servos with removed dither I can confirm no jumps on offline
GT so far (have to finish my shift). Tomorrow morning I will updated whether jump occurred or not.
CSA, please share your thoughts and suggestions for next checks.
Cheers!

I was thinking in my bed about this changes of the servo current. It's not the resistance that changes, but
the voltage and then current had to compensate the change for the servo to do the same work (Power = U*I
= const).
(I recall having sometime unusual higher voltage across coils during NullBias verification, I think I wrote
the value before).
Ok have to go to sleep

Update:
After switching the dither off I haven't observed any more jumps last night.
I'm going to do another experiment, put all three servos on different dither frequency and amplitude trend.
As MKVI fastest sample time is 40ms I should see oscillation at least on 12.5Hz and 25Hz dither trend. I
want to check if there is a relation between jumps and dither frequency.
I suspect that these jumps are just recorded extrema of the oscillation signal when its frequency is higher
than the sample rate. The trending tool gets periodically unsynchronized with the servo current oscillation
generator.
Catch you later.


Update 2:
I can observe full curve oscillation for servo currents with 12.5 Hz and 33Hz frequency dither.
The 25Hz (40ms) dither as being the same as trend sample could be catched only as shown on attached the
screenshot:
Well, now I will focus on the other two issues I have here. I will write more when I have a chance to make
more tests on these machines
Regards

This explanation would make more sense, especially because there is no upset in the turbine output when
these "jumps" occur.
But what isn't explained is the position error that you reduce by changing the null bias.
I'm not a fan of dither for GE-design heavy duty gas turbine applications. The nature of operation doesn't
really cause the control valves to require dither from my experience, though I've recently been made aware
of some "lore" (because it's not documented anywhere) that there was non-configurable dither built into the
Mark V. But there wasn't any dither in the Mark IV or earlier Speedtronic panels because the servo outputs
were all analog circuits and there wasn't any dither that I was aware of.
GE Trending tools can be misleading, as can any manufacturer's. Technology is great, but, digital
technology has its limits, and this is one of them. An old-fashioned pen-and-ink chart recorder had its
limits as well. In general, and this case is probably a great exception because of the variable frequency
rates for the dither option, the GE Trending tools are pretty good because the execution rate is not
generally higher than the fastest trending rate. But, again, this could be an exception because of the rate
issue. Very highspeed toggling of discrete inputs is also hard to catch on GE Trending tools.
This explanation also makes more sense because of the repeatable nature of the "jumps". They never seem
to increase or decrease by more than the same amount, at least from the trends you've sent.
But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good trend of, is still puzzling.

> But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good trend of, is still puzzling. <
Please see another trend I found in my collection for the position error.
The error wasn't so high that time and went back to normal by itself. (I only changed NullBias having the
alarm above 3%).
Odd is, the step change is recorded at the same moment, it could be that what caused the error created also
a delay (momentary desync) for trending tool (???)
(what happens during that moment can be seen on this zoomed trend:
http://www.speedyshare.com/585332895.html)
Looking at the trend and step changes, the overall picture is very confusing - that's why I wanted to raised
the step changes issue.
The dither on this machine has been disabled yesterday (machine online).
What I need for my tests is to set-up servo currents and LVDT's to be trended all separately.
Regards
Posted by minister on 27 November, 2009 - 6:25 am

An update (sorry for not updating for so long)
1) The turbine with reversed (positive null bias, negative as a value for MKVI config).
I managed to do some tests:
- barrier bypass - no change
- swapping the MKVI hardware, SRV and its LVDT's connected in place of GCV equipment - no change
This gives me a hint to look at the field hardware, as I haven't witnessed the previous MOOG replacement
I'm not sure if it's true there was a replacement.
I noticed that error on SRV position (positive one) of the value +1.4% is may cause a fired trip although
the turbine is running fine on load as the position is not considered in the process control loop (as we know
the SRV reference will try to maintain the interstage pressure proportional to the turbine speed regardless
the LVDT feedback, at least on my machine where it's only used by VSVO hardware and HMI).
What has happened here was the valve being open during shutdown by the given above 1.4% while the
command was 0% from the MKVI.
This resulted in gas leak through SRV (Exhaust went up to 500 deg C!) with GCV being still open at about
6% and the speed at about 20%. Then the protection tripped the turbine (shutdown exceeded the given
period of time)
Funny, next day the position and the feedback

after the restart were correct.
I will have to work on this valve later.
This is just an information (useful I think) what may happened with an error on the valve.
2) The other machine with jumping error that could be corrected adjusting the Null Bias online.
I have the LVDT's and moog currents setup in the MKVI to be able to trend as separate signals for each
coil and LVDT, but the turbine is running fine since. Nothing unusual trending LVDT's or the moog servo
current.
I will update the thread with any news I find.
Regards!
Posted by MIKEVI on 18 July, 2009 - 3:04 pm

Dear Minister,
I offer this suggestion as something to trend, although from your post it is difficult to tell if this is
happening on one gas control valve only or multiple valves. And if the problem is on one unit or multiple
units.
Anyway I had an issue recently with a frame 7ea machine. We were intermittently getting an alarm for low
P2 interstage pressure, at the same time we noted the SRV valve position was erratic. Trending the position
of the SRV in the MKVI confirmed that the SRV valve was not holding a steady position, under constant
load and constant main inlet fuel gas pressure. I trended the SRV servo current known as "fagr" and found
it was erratic during the event. I then trended the individual servo currents from each MKVI core, in my
unit these are called FAGR_R, FAGR_S, and FAGR_T. What I found by running a high speed trend,
40ms, was that intermittently the "T" core would decide to fight the other 2 cores, it would try to close the
valve. The other 2 cores, "S" and "T" would respond by opening the valve. Then "T" would decide to go
back to normal, and "R" and "S" would have to catch up.
I don't know if this will help, but it would be something else for you to check. Please also note that
replacing the VSVO card repaired the problem. Also note that I have seen some sites where the signals
were never added at the card level to be able to trend the servo currents individually. Look at your .m6b
file, under the VSVO card points, for the given regulator you are having trouble with look at the
"ServOut#NVR, ServoOut#NVS, and ServoOut#NVT. If there is no point associated with it, it will say
"not used", if that is the case you will need to create a point for each card point and download before you
can trend the currents individually.
Again this may not be the problem, but it would be something else you can check. Lastly this assumes that
your MKVI is a TMR system, and not a simplex.

Dear MIKEVI
Thank your for reply.

I have read your post about the servo current trend 40ms before. I have this it in my plans but have to wait
for scheduled shutdown to create new signal PINs.
Good idea with testing another VSVO. I realized I have one unused VSVO (R/S/T) and two terminal
boards.
minister
Posted by MIKEVI on 20 July, 2009 - 10:55 am

Minister,
the great thing about GE's control systems are that they have lots of great tools to use for diagnosing
problems. The downside is that all the same tools are not given to all the customers (some .m6b have pins,
some don't etc.) I am not sure where the ball gets dropped, either during commissioning or straight from
Salem. But no matter, we have this forum full of knowledgeable people to take advantage of. And best of
all we have a participant such as yourself that provides the information we need to try and help solve a
problem, and hopefully we all learn something in the process. I wish you continued luck with your issue,
and look forward to you resolving the problem.

MIKEVI
The forum is great thing, I agree with you.

I will update my post if I get any new information.
Posted by RVT on 6 June, 2010 - 9:52 am

Great reading, was looking for this information for a very long time. thanks guys.
Posted by minister on 25 November, 2010 - 10:38 am

Latest (very late, sorry) update:
1) The turbine with reversed (positive null bias, negative as a value for the MKVI config):
Should have done that test before: I decided to check the behavior of the SRV (I think I made a mistake
stating it was the GCV in previous posts) having all three coils disconnected from the MKVI. The valve
went fully open instead close. So, either the Moog is installed incorrectly supplying the oil from the
opposite port or the hydraulic block between the Moog and the actuator is installed incorrectly (if
possible), or something else inside the Moog. Unfortunately I have no detail drawing for the system and
have to compare to another machine when possible.
Surprisingly GE left us the machine with servo working in such an unsafe setup.
2) The other machine with jumping error that could be corrected adjusting the Null Bias online.
I think I have finally solved this one. One day we couldn't restart the machine, SRV didn't open. We found
that 20HD solenoid didn't work correctly - stuck. The WD40 wash helped. I think, before the trip solenoid
valve was closing but being sticky was not providing enough oil to the valve actuator (still draining some
amount) when energized. Then after like two hours running on-line the situation changed, the trip solenoid
valve fully closed providing all the oil to the actuator (pressure changed) and we had to change the
NullBias to correct the new (described above in previous posts) situation.
I suspect, that before the cleaning of the trip solenoid valve, after a shutdown when we were recalibrating
the SRV, the sticky trip solenoid made us the same condition (draining some oil to the tank) so we got the
wrong null bias again.
Regards
minister
Posted by CSA on 25 November, 2010 - 7:40 pm
Thanks for the feedback!
Have you checked the servo valve part number against the appropriate parts list for the gas valve
assembly? Are you sure the servo is the correct one for the application?
A lot of people think that all the servos on some GE-design heavy duty gas turbines are interchangeable,
and while some are, many are not.
I've seen incorrect servos been used in dire circumstances, forcing some rash things to be done to make
them work. I've also seen them left in service for so long because, well, they're working! And, then when
they finally get around to replacing the servo (either because it fails or because of valve refurbishment)
everyone associated with the initial effort develops amnesia and a lot of blame gets misdirected.
I'm *NOT* saying that's what happened at your site, but I've seen similar things happen during
commissioning as well. There is a popular sentiment amongst some TAs, especially when a job is over
schedule and/or over budget to do whatever it takes to get finished and get off site. The best intentions are
to send the right part back to site, but sometimes others in the decision-making chain have this same
mentality, "It's working! If it's not broke, don't fix it!"
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

Posted by minister on 7 December, 2010 - 9:35 am

Thanks CSA,
I haven't checked the part number as I believed the TA during commissioning, that he replaced it with
another one taken from the spares, having similar result in operation after. I will try to schedule the check
and inform you.
Regards to all of you guys and Merry Christmass!


GCV SRV Calib..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCV SRV Calib..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCV SRV Calib..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current

Posted by saha on 24 February, 2009 - 11:06 am

Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am

Posted by Jeff Ladwig on 9 February, 2010 - 9:28 am

R active: 0.290 vdc, 0.280 mA

Posted by CSA on 9 February, 2010 - 12:23 pm

Posted by Jeff Ladwig on 10 February, 2010 - 9:25 am

PM2 is also about 2% off from reference online.

Posted by CSA on 11 February, 2010 - 1:00 am

Posted by Jeff FLadwig on 12 February, 2010 - 4:12 pm

Posted by CSA on 12 February, 2010 - 6:21 pm

Posted by A. OZTAS on 25 February, 2009 - 11:33 am

Good Luck...Tempus Fugit...

Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 4:23 pm

Posted by sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 26 February, 2009 - 11:15 am

From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.

Posted by Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

or we are measuring in a wrong place?

Thanks very much in advance.

Posted by CSA on 15 March, 2009 - 1:36 am

Posted by walter/roberto on 17 March, 2009 - 3:43 am

Stop Ratio Valve.

Thanks very much again and sorry for our insistence.

Posted by CSA on 17 March, 2009 - 3:29 pm

But I'd really like to understand the, "Here we go again!" comment.

Posted by walter/roberto on 19 March, 2009 - 5:07 am

LINE01 BTEXT 'DESCRIPTION <R> <S> <T> UNITS'

LINE 27 DATA "Required Position" <D0A 50> (F2 128 0 2 "%")

LINE 31 STATUS 1 R "R STATUS:" <D0A 16>

Again thanks very much in advance.

Reply to this post...

Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 2:23 pm

Posted by CSA on 20 March, 2009 - 12:14 pm

3) Has anyone visually checked the y-strainer recently?

Now, eight new questions:

3) What is the value of FSR?

Posted by servo_2001 on 18 March, 2009 - 4:39 pm

Posted by CSA on 19 March, 2009 - 12:19 am

Posted by Mehul on 21 March, 2009 - 6:50 am

Posted by CSA on 23 March, 2009 - 8:10 pm

Posted by Mehul on 26 March, 2009 - 4:59 am

Posted by CSA on 26 March, 2009 - 2:55 pm

Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 1:25 pm

Posted by minister on 17 July, 2009 - 9:45 am

Please check the data collected I uploded below:

Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 2:14 am

But, here goes anyway.

Do these units have IS barriers?

Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature?

Posted by minister on 18 July, 2009 - 11:42 am

Actually we have problem with two servos:

>Do these units have IS barriers? <

>Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature? <

Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 4:39 pm

GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4

Posted by minister on 19 July, 2009 - 10:59 am