CASE HISTORY

Diagnosing a Steam Turbine

Governor Problem at EQUATE Petrochemical

This case history documents how
GE Energys System 1* software
was used in identifying the root
cause of a unique high vibration
problem encountered during
the post-maintenance start-up
of a critical mechanical-drive
steam turbine at the EQUATE
Petrochemical complex in Kuwait.

Joy.P.Francis. Specialist, Condition Monitoring EQUATE Petrochemical Company, Kuwait puthenjf@equate.com

3 6 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

CASE HISTORY

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 3 7

CASE HISTORY

Machine Description
The machine detailed in this case history is a 1547
kW back-pressure steam turbine (Figure 1) driving a
high-pressure multi-stage boiler feed pump at 4200
rpm. The turbine is forced lubricated, incorporates
tilting-pad thrust bearings at the steam end, and uses
a Woodward Peak 150 governor for speed control.
The entire train is monitored continuously via a Bently
Nevada 3500 Series Machinery Protection System
connected to System 1 software.

Events Leading up to the

Machinery Problem
During a turnaround in April 2006, the existing labyrinth

Figure 1. Back-pressure steam turbine running

at 4200 rpm and driving a multi-stage, highpressure boiler feed pump (not shown in photo
to right of coupling guard).

seal was replaced with a special bearing isolator (BI) as

a part of a modification to arrest an oil leak from the
turbine bearings. This particular BI is slightly wider than
conventional designs; it also incorporates an extra oil
deflector ring at the bearing ends. The cross-sectional
diagram of Figure 2 shows the BIs and the oil deflectors
on the turbine rotor.

Initial Vibration Problem on

Outboard Bearing
On 5 April 2006, the turbine was started for an uncoupled
test run, and the shaft vibration amplitude at the exhaust
end bearing recorded more than 100 microns pk-pk (3.94
mils pk-pk), reaching the trip setpoint. With System 1

Figure 2. Cross-sectional diagram showing

arrangement of bearing isolators and oil
deflectors on turbine rotor.

software in place and providing continuous information

on machine condition, valuable data were captured and
available for diagnosis. However, since the Keyphasor*
probe was installed on the pump (not the turbine), only
unfiltered vibration signals were available for analysis.
[Editors Note: Good engineering practice is to install a Keyphasor
phase reference transducer on the driver rather than on the driven
machine, allowing a phase reference for uncoupled test runs, exactly
as in the scenario described here. This is why industry standards such
as API 670 require the phase reference transducer to be mounted on
the driver rather than driven machine only.]

shows the results of this run; analysis of this time signal

indicated high runout at the drive end probe landing
area. This was initially puzzling because the turbine
inspection report showed acceptable shaft runout
values, conflicting with the most recently acquired data.
The turbine was shut down and runout tests were

The unit was then run at slow-roll speed to determine

conducted on both bearings. Runout of 100 microns

whether the readings were in fact high vibration or

pk-pk (3.94 mils pk-pk) and 26 microns pk-pk (1.0 mil

simply excessive mechanical/electrical runout. Figure 3

pk-pk) were detected at the exhaust and inlet ends

respectively.

3 8 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

CASE HISTORY

Figure 3. Timebase signatures gathered during

slow-roll conditions from turbine exhaust (top)
and inlet (bottom) bearing radial probes respectively. The waveforms are indicative slow-roll
runout or so-called glitch.

Figure 4. Cross-sectional diagram of turbine rotor

showing close proximity of oil deflector rings to
radial vibration probes. Because the face of the
oil deflector rings was not perfectly perpendicular, the wobble was observed by the probes and
accounted for the high slow-roll runout readings.

Figure 5. Following removal of the oil deflector

rings and reinstallation of the original labyrinth
seals, three separate startups were attempted
but aborted due to high vibration amplitudes.

Figure 6. Timebase signatures gathered during

44 rpm slow-roll conditions from turbine exhaust
(top) and inlet (bottom) bearing radial probes
respectively. The amplitudes were considerably
lower than before removal of the oil deflector
rings, but still above API recommended limits.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 3 9

CASE HISTORY

Investigation into the source of the runout focused on

the newly installed oil seal deflectors (Figure 4). These
were found to have high face runout and were located
in very close proximity (~ 2 mm) to the radial probes. The
deflector is shrunk fit to the shaft and the face runout (i.e.,
wobbling action) of this ring was within the observable
sideview field of the radial probe; consequently, it introduced erroneous readings into the radial vibration signal.
Based on these findings, it was decided to revert back to
the previous labyrinth seals due to time constraints and
the practical difficulties in straightening and correcting
the perpendicularity of the welded oil deflector rings.

Continuing Problems
The turbine rotor was dismantled to revert back to the
previous labyrinth seals. The outage was also used to
perform an overhaul of the governor actuator to correct

Figure 7. Bode plots during uncoupled run from

turbine exhaust (top) and inlet (bottom) bearing
radial probes respectively. The amplitudes were
within expected ranges.
exhaust end bearings as shown in Figure 7, staying
below 40 microns pk-pk (1.6 mils pk-pk).

hunting of the governor valve that had been observed

In addition to the Bode plots of Figure 7, spectrum plots

during the previous start-ups.

were also examined. These showed a high-amplitude

Following this work, the turbine was restarted on 9 April

2006 for a coupled run.
Unfortunately, the machine experienced what appeared
to be very high vibration amplitudes of 150 microsn
pk-pk (6 mils pk-pk) immediately after start-up at the
steam end x-probe as shown in Figure 5. As a result,
three separate startup attempts had to be aborted.

component occurring at a very low frequency

(approximately 0.625 Hz). This was initially thought to
be spurious signal noise; however, analysis of the shaft
centerline plots revealed a different scenario.
The shaft centerline plot is polar representation of the
shafts centerline as a function of time or changing
speed. It is often used during startup or coastdown to
show how the shaft climbs up the oil wedge to assume

Further start-up attempts were abandoned until

a stable position within the bearing clearance, graphi-

detailed vibration analysis could be conducted. The

cally depicting the average radial position of the shaft

slow-roll runout levels were again checked on the steam

within its bearings at various speeds.

and exhaust ends at very low speeds of around 44 rpm

(Figure 6). The runout levels were 33 and 13 microns
pk-pk at steam and exhaust ends respectively.

The shaft centerline plot of Figure 8a does not show

expected behavior; instead, it depicts an almost instantaneous (note that the time stamps are all within two

Though the magnitude of this runout was above the

seconds of one another) change in shaft position from

API limits, it was not enough to explain the excessive

the bottom of the bearing clearance at the 6:00 position

momentary vibration increase at start-up during the

to an unstable position in the top half of the bearing

coupled run. Consequently, the root cause of the high

clearance circle. This abrupt movement of the shaft

vibration remained unanswered.

towards the X-probe during the coupled startup is highly

An external speed probe was temporarily installed to

allow the capture of filtered vibration data, and the turbine was tested uncoupled by running up to full speed.
The vibration levels were acceptable at both steam and

unusual and the timebase plot of Figure 8c confirms

the nearly instant step-change in the average value.
Essentially, it shows a DC step change (the gap voltage)
upon which is superimposed the AC vibration waveform.
Continued on page 42.

4 0 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

SIDEBAR ARTICLE

Considered one of the worlds leading petrochemical

producers, EQUATE Petrochemical Company is a
Kuwait-based international joint venture between
Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), The Dow
Chemical Company (Dow), Boubyan Petrochemical
Co m p any (BP C) an d Q urain Pet ro ch emical
Industries Company (QPIC).
As a world-class petroc h e m i c a l p r o d u c e r, EQ UAT E
currently provides markets in
the Middle Eas t, A sia, Africa
and Europe with high-quality
petrochemical products.
E Q U AT E p r o d u c e s a n d i t s
commercial face, the EQUATE
Marketing Company (EMC),
marketsa wide range of
p o lyet hy l en e (PE ), f ro m lin e ar l o w d en si t y
(LLDPE) to high molecular weight high-density
resins (HDPE). Recently EMC has also begun
selling Styrene Monomer (SM) produced from
Greater EQUATEs expanded facilities. EQUATE
also produces Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) and

CASE HISTORY

Diethylene Glycol (DEG), which are marketed by

MEGlobal, a separate PIC and Dow joint venture.
To meet ever-increasing worldwide demand
for excellent petrochemical products, EQUATEs
shareholders have completed a multi-billion
expansion project which greatly increases the
existing production of PE and EG.
Emerging as Greater EQUATE,
this $3 billion global-scale
venture added SM to EQUATEs
product por tfolio. Paraxylene
and Benzene are also produced
at the same location from a new
wo r l d - cl a s s A ro m a t ic s p l ant
which is managed by EQUATE.
Hand-in-hand with being a
leading market player, EQUATE is
an empowered, competency-based organization
applying best practices and leading technology
i n m a r ke t i n g , s a l e s , re cr u i t m e nt & ca re e r
development, environment, health & safety,
industrial operations, and administrative
affairs.
Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 4 1

CASE HISTORY

Figure 8. The shaft centerline plot (a) at left depicts an almost instantaneous change in the shafts average
position as can be noted by the timestamps which are all within two seconds of one another. The amplitude
trend (b) at upper right provides another view of this sudden change, as does the timebase waveform (c) at
lower left which assumes the shape of a step change upon which is superimposed the AC vibration signal.

This sudden change in gap voltage as the shaft

abruptly shifted towards the X-probe was detected and
interpreted as vibration by the X-probe, resulting in the
spiking vibration of Figure 5.
Since the phenomenon was observed only during
the coupled startup, it was apparent that the shaft
movement was steam-induced (the steam throughput
is much higher in a coupled run than in an uncoupled
run due to the additional load imposed by the pump).
As such, attention was focused on the turbine governor
control as the potential source of problems (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Governor actuator assembly.

Root cause Investigation

Investigation revealed that when the governor actuator

speed. As a result, the sudden inrush of the excessive

had been overhauled during reinstallation of the original

steam flow momentarily pushed the rotor upward.

labyrinth seals, the actuator stroke was changed,

This upward force, along with the bearing fluid forces,

altering the start-up sequence. The governor, initially

caused a resultant force in the direction of the X-probe.

configured in auto-start mode, had been modified to

This phenomenon did not occur during uncoupled runs,

manual mode; thus, the turbine ramped directly to mini-

as the magnitude of steam throughput is much less

mum governor speed without dwelling at the slowroll

than in coupled load runs.

4 2 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

CASE HISTORY

Figure 10. Trend of vibration data during final startup (bottom) shows vibration levels below 60 microns
pk-pk (2.5 mils pk-pk), consistent with normal levels. The shaft centerline plot at upper left also shows normal
response, with the centerline climbing up the oil wedge as the shaft speed increases from 0 to 4200 rpm. For
a shaft rotating in the counter-clockwise direction, it will slowly climb up the right wall of the bearing with
increasing speed, exactly as shown, before assuming a stable position at running speed.

To test this hypothesis, the turbine was started slowly by

units can only run when this unit runs. Without dynamic

manually controlling the steam admission. As expected,

data capture and a full complement of plot types such as

the turbine ramped slowly to full speed with very low

shaft centerline, slow-roll timebase, and spectrum, the

vibration levels and a normal shaft centerline response

problem would have been extremely difficult to diagnose

as shown in Figure 10.

and would have taken considerably longer.

Conclusion

As such, this case history emphasizes the importance

of different formats of vibration data provided by

Left unchecked, the high initial steam flow caused by

GE Energys System 1 software. The appropriate use of

the improper governor startup control has the potential

this data helps the Equate condition monitoring team to

to deform the shaft. The ability to diagnose this problem

fully comprehend the problem by effective and accurate

allowed us to not only prevent possible permanent dam-

vibration analysis. In this case, the shaft centerline plot,

age to the shaft, it saved us approximately one weeks

when examined with respect to time, was particularly

production losses due to a cascade effect whereby other

instrumental in the accurate and timely diagnosis of

both the problem and its root cause.
* denotes a trademark of Bently Nevada, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Electric Company.
Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 4 3