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

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

A.

Background About 30 months ago acceptance testing was performed on a steam turbine unit that failed to meet the guarantee. The supplier decided to make good and to re-design some parts of the turbine. At the outage about one month ago the labyrinth seal between the HP/IP (combined casing) was replaced with a re-design, a number of flanges between the inner casings were tightened and damaged blade seals of the HP turbine were replaced. However, nothing was done to the steam path.

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

aging factor. Consequently, if the turbine is inspected and nothing touched to any part and put together again, the aging factor according to figure 3.3 also shall remain. QUESTIONS: Can clause 3.07 of the PTC 6 Report-1985 be applied in a situation like that described above? Does the figure 3.3 still apply, if during an inspection the steam path is left completely untouched? What factors according to PTC are considered to cause the deterioration given in figure 3.3?

B.

We have the following condition and need your assessment and advice whether to apply the aging factor or not and the correct way of applying AGING FACTOR with reference to ASME PTC 6 para. 3.3.1, and ASME PTC 6 Report-1985 item 3.07. Condition 1 Unit 4 Turbine was performance tested for the first time 8 months after initial operation in June 99. Results failed to meet guarantee (1.4% higher than guaranteed Heat Rate), noting that aging factor was applied in accordance with ASME PTC 6 Report-1985 Contractor as a result decided to carry out full inspection, during which he found: a. incorrect setting for differential expansion causing metal to metal contact resulting in damages of labyrinth seals. b. incorrect assembly of internal parts causing internal steam leakage c. excessive HP-IP steam leakage. 3 The contractor just completed correction of all deficiencies affecting performance except blade replacement, which were normal. A repeat performance test is to take place a month after correction works are

4 done.

QUESTION: How do we deal with Aging factor?

ANSWER TO BOTH SETS OF QUESTIONS

The PTC-6 Committee recommends that acceptance tests be conducted within 8 weeks of initial start-up or following a complete overhaul during which the machine has been restored to new-and-clean condition. Under these conditions no aging factor would be applied. When these conditions are not met, the parties to the test would have to agree on the magnitude of any adjustments for aging. The guidance of Section 3.07 of the PTC-6 Report -1985 could contribute to reaching that agreement. The Committee would expect that during an outage when repairs and modifications were made to correct performance deficiencies, the parties would make every effort to restore the turbine to new-and-clean condition or have the turbine evaluated to place a value on any unrestored performance (i.e. steam path audit). Enthalpy drop tests would typically be used to identify changes in performance. The curve in Fig. 3.3 was intended to be used when the turbine was not opened so no repairs to seals or blade path could be made. Judgment must be used when applying the curve to the described situation. The information used to establish the aging curve in the Guidance Report, PTC-6R, indicated differences from one machine to another in reported deterioration for a given period of operation. Over time, the turbine blade path and seals will experience wear, erosion, corrosion and deposits that will typically not be fully corrected during periodic overhauls. The curve represents a typical value of such loss of performance over time, and does not represent a value certain for any particular turbine or time period. The parties should use inspection evaluations and plot the trend of enthalpy-drop test results to aid in arriving at a decision on the appropriate factors.

"ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of this interpretation when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by an interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. As stated in the foreword of our standards, ASME does not "approve", "certify", "rate", or "endorse" any item, construction, proprietary device or activity."