Gampa I.

Bhat is Chief Machinery

Engineer for ExxonMobil Chemical Compa-
ny, in Baytown, Texas. As Lead Specialist,
he acts as the focal point for the
ExxonMobil Chemical Worldwide Machin-
ery Network and is involved with the
development of machinery strategies for
new and upgrade projects. He is also
involved in the selection, operation, main-
tenance, and troubleshooting of machinery
systems.
Mr. Bhat received his B.S. degree (Mechanical Engineering)
from Karnataka University in India, and an M.S. degree from West
Virginia College of Graduate Studies. He is a member of ASME.
Satoshi Hata is a Manager of the Turbine
Design Section in the Turbomachinery
Engineering Department, Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd., in Hiroshima, Japan. He
has had experience with R&D for nuclear
uranium centrifuges, turbomolecular pumps,
and heavy-duty and aero engine derivative
type gas turbines and steam turbines for 21
years.
Mr. Hata has B.S. and M.S. degrees
(Mechanical Engineering) from Kyushu
Institute of Technology.
Kyoichi Ikeno is the Mechanical
Engineer of the Turbine Design Section in
the Turbomachinery Engineering Depart-
ment, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., in
Hiroshima, Japan. He is a blade design
specialist and has seven years of experience
with R&D for synthesis gas compressor
steam turbines and gas turbines.
Mr. Ikeno has a B.S. degree from Miyazaki
University, and an M.S. degree (Mechanical
Engineering) from Kyushu University.
ABSTRACT
To compete in todays economic climate, petrochemical plants
are strategizing on continuous long-term operation to reduce main-
tenance costs and increase productivity. This strategy has led some
plants to go from eight years between turnarounds to 10 years. For
rotating machinery such as mechanical-drive steam turbines, one
factor that affects this strategy is heavy deposition on steam turbine
internals, caused by impurities in the steam. These impurities result
in fouling on the blade and nozzle path surfaces due to contami-
nated materials such as silica and sodium in the steam. As a result,
turbine performance tends to deteriorate gradually.
This paper introduces an innovative online washing technique to
minimize the impact caused by fouling of the steam path for large
multistage condensing steam turbines. This technique, although
applied here to extracting-condensing turbines, is also applicable
to large condensing turbines. The new technology has water
injection nozzles located in the steam chest of the extraction valve
rack. The injection nozzles are manifolded to a water supply
source, which controls a setpoint temperature, by controlling the
water injection rate. The objective is to directly wash off deposits
adhering to the blades and nozzles on the low-pressure side with
minimal power turndown, and without impacting the turbines
long-term performance. Erosion damage and thermal stress of
internal parts such as chest valves and blades due to the injected
water had to be taken into consideration.
To properly achieve this objective, and considering the potential
for damage during the online wash, a new extraction valve box had
to be designed.
The new design had to consider the effects of optimizing the
mixing zone of the steam and water injection to generate a specific
particle size, moisture propagation through the condensing section,
mechanical deflection of stationary components, and the overall
thermodynamic analysis of each stage during the online wash. A
prototype model was built and several experiments carried out
based on the practical operating condition of actual steam turbines.
This paper discusses the evaluations made from the model, by pre-
senting the thermodynamic analysis results, and the finite element
analysis (FEA) that was used to evaluate the strength of the internal
parts during actual online washing.
The final design was a compact extraction box that could replace
existing models without any machining of the casing. To date there are
two such installations worldwide. These are operating effectively
57
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR ONLINE WASHING OF LARGE
MECHANICAL-DRIVE CONDENSING STEAM TURBINES
by
Gampa I. Bhat
Chief Machinery Engineer
ExxonMobil Chemical Company
Baytown, Texas
Satoshi Hata
Manager, Turbine Design Section
Kyoichi Ikeno
Mechanical Engineer, Turbine Design Section
and
Yuzo Tsurusaki
Mechanical Engineer, Turbine Design Section
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Hiroshima, Japan
without incident. This paper also discusses online washing test results,
which were obtained using an actual steam chest with the special
injected nozzle and a risk assessment of online washing in general.
INTRODUCTION
During steam turbine continuous long-term operation, steam con-
taminants, such as silicate and sodium, deposit on the internals as
solids. This occurs under certain operating conditions related to steam
pressure and temperature for each of the stages. These contaminants
foul the surfaces of nozzles and blades and gradually build up during
steam turbine operation. Figure 1 shows the typical steam turbine
operating condition for an ethylene plant application. Figure 2 shows
the fouling condition after seven years of continuous operation.
Figure 1. Typical Operation Condition.
Figure 2. Fouling Condition after Seven Years Continuous
Operation.
The composition and characteristics of the fouling materials are
different along the steam path as we move from the high-pressure
stages to the low-pressure side, as shown in Figure 3. Under these
fouling conditions, the pressure profiles across the nozzles, blades,
and throat areas are increased. These profiles in turn result in dete-
rioration of turbine performance, and will continue to do so over
time if left unattended.
Current online washing techniques involve dropping the steam
inlet temperature to increase the moisture at the condensing stages
for the purpose of generating enough moisture to wash the soluble
salts. This procedure cannot eliminate insoluble contaminants,
especially in the high-pressure stages. By reducing the steam inlet
temperature, enthalpy across the turbine drops significantlythis
can result in production losses.
In order to resolve this fouling problem, an innovative online
washing technique was developed. This new technique incorporates
Figure 3. Distribution of Compounds along Steam Path.
the application of new technologies in the design of the extraction
valve rack. The injection nozzles are manifolded to a water supply
source, which controls a setpoint temperature, by controlling the
water injection rate.
This new technology places water injection nozzles in the
extraction steam chest with a controlled water supply source. The
advantage of this compact design is its ability to directly wash off
deposits adhering to blades and nozzles in the low-pressure zones,
by controlling the amount of moisture at each stage. Consideration
for this new design factored in erosion damage and thermal stresses
of internal parts, such as chest valves and blades, induced by the
water injected.
A prototype model was built and several experiments carried out
based on the practical operating condition of actual steam turbines.
This paper discusses the evaluations made from the model, by pre-
senting the thermodynamic analysis results and the finite element
analysis (FEA) that was used to evaluate the strength of the internal
parts during actual online washing.
In addition, online washing test results were obtained by using
actual steam chest conditions equipped with these special injection
nozzles, and a risk assessment produced.
CONVENTIONAL STEAM TURBINE
ONLINE WASHING PROCEDURE
Figure 4 shows the trend over time of the relationship between
condensing flow and after-extraction pressure, comparing design
pressure and actual pressure measured during operation. The after-
extraction pressure increases due to the decrease in throat area
caused by the deposition of chemical materials.
Figure 4. Internal Deposition Trending.
As mentioned previously, current online washing techniques
involve dropping the steam inlet temperature to increase the
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-THIRD TURBOMACHINERY SYMPOSIUM 2004 58
SPEED 3800 RPM
MAX POWER 49500 BHP
POWER RECOVER 2000 BHP
AFTER WASHING
AFTER
EXT.PRESS.
Paext
AXIAL FORCE.
Fa
4688 LBS(MAX FLOW)
BL:8600kgf LP:13000kg
f
HP:4300kgf
INLET
TEMP.
Tin
EXHAUST STEAM
CONDITION
2 IN HG ABS
185 KLB/H
EXT. STEAM CONDITION
650 PSIG
615 KLB/H
INLET STEAM CONDITION
1500 PSIG
910 DEG.F
800 KLB/H
WATER
TREATMENT
NaPO4
BFW
Si<0.5ppb
BOILER
CONCENTRATION %
COMPOSITION %
0%
50% 5%
10% 100%
NaCl
NaOH
Na
2
SiO
3
Na
SiO
2
Si
HP PART MP PART LP PART
LCT01 Fouling Monitoring
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Condensing Flow (klb/hr)
A
f
t
e
r

E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
s
u
e

(
p
s
i
g
)
Aug - Sep 2000
Jan - Mar 2001
Jul - Sep 2001
Jan - Mar 2002
Apri - Jun 2002
Cl ean Turbi ne per MHI
Maximum Al lowable Pressure
56 MONTHS
56 MONTHS
34 MONTHS
97WASH3Q99
moisture at the condensing stages for the purpose of generating
enough moisture to wash the soluble salts. This procedure cannot
eliminate insoluble contaminants, especially in the high-pressure
(HP) stages. By reducing the steam inlet temperature, enthalpy
across the turbine drops significantly, which can result in produc-
tion losses.
The effects of this conventional procedure can be seen from the
deposition and pressure profile in Figure 5. The inlet steam tem-
perature is decreased thereby increasing the moisture within the
low-pressure (LP) stages in order to wash several kinds of fouled
materials off the nozzles and blades. The concentration and com-
position of these chemicals under dry and wet conditions are
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 5. Deposition and Pressure Profile for Conventional Online
Washing.
THERMODYNAMICS ANALYSIS RESULTS
FOR A CLEAN CONDITION
When applying conventional online washing, the turbine power
and after-extraction pressure do not recover to their original levels,
but rather to some lower level. The extent of this recovery will now
be related to the lowering of the inlet steam temperature. Changes
in moisture distribution for each stage during washing have to be
analyzed in order to determine how much moisture is needed for
effective washing. Figure 6 shows stage exit moisture levels in
relation to inlet temperature changes (910F to 800F).
Figure 6. Moisture Distribution Across Each Stage for Clean
Condition.
Knowing the moisture distribution with respect to changes in
temperature, other thermodynamic properties, such as specific
volume, delta-P across diaphragms, and nozzle exit velocities can
be determined. Except for moisture contents, the calculation of
these thermodynamic properties showed no significant changes for
a clean turbine when inlet temperature was changed. In addition, it
was found that the extraction stage and after-extraction stage
remained in the superheated zone.
THERMODYNAMICS ANALYSIS RESULTS
FOR A FOULED CONDITION
It is well known that when fouling occurs, it increases the
pressure drop across the particular stage. This increase then
cascades through the steam path causing backpressure. This back-
pressure can be monitored at the stage after extraction, as
previously shown in Figure 4. Knowing the after-extraction
pressure, the thickness of the cumulative deposits can be deter-
mined both before and after washing. Figure 7 illustrates the
fouling profiles generated from these findings. This chart shows
that a change in nozzle area for the stages after extraction has a
definite effect on pressure rise resulting from deposition thickness.
The deposition thickness up to the maximum operating pressure
limit for the fouled stages can range from 0.5 mm to 0.6 mm (0.02
inch to 0.024 inch). Figure 7 also illustrates that stages downstream
of the extraction stage have minimal impact on pressure rise.
Figure 7. Deposition Profile Across Steam Path for Fouled Condition.
METHODOLOGY TO DESIGN
ONLINE WASH NOZZLES
As mentioned previously, conventional online water washing
involves decreasing the inlet temperature thereby increasing the
moisture content of each stage, resulting in power losses and ulti-
mately affecting production.
In the new online washing system, pressurized water is injected
directly into the extraction valve chest. Figure 8 shows a schematic
of the new water injection valve box installation. Table 1 shows the
procedure implemented to design and evaluate the new injection
nozzles. The effects of mass flow, erosion damage, and structural
integrity were some of the criteria used in this design evaluation.
This evaluation took into account that the after-extraction pressure
can get close to the operating pressure limit during a wash.
Heat Balance Analysis
Figure 9 shows the method used for calculating the injected
water mass flow using the energy conservation method around the
extraction valve chest.
Evaluation of Erosion Damage Due to Water Droplets
Evaluation of erosion damage caused by water droplets is
another factor considered in the methodology. To understand this
phenomenon, it is necessary to evaluate the size of droplets along
the steam path, from the valve chest through the nozzles and blades
for each LP stage. Specifically, we need to know how these
droplets are scattered, how they flow within the main steam stream,
and what damage they cause to the nozzles and blades.
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR ONLINE WASHING OF LARGE MECHANICAL-DRIVE CONDENSING STEAM TURBINES 59
SODIUM & SILICA
CONCENTRATION
ppb
Paext
PSIG
Tin
DEG.F
270 PSIG
350 PSIG
250 PSIG SILICA
SODIUM
900 degF
1000
500
0
FOULING WASHING OFF
NOZZLE AREA INCREASE
PRESSURE DROP
NOZZLE THROAT AREA
APPR. 10% RECOVER
DESIGN PRESS.
275PSIG
@185KLB/HR LP FLOW
INCREASE TO MAX
O\
2\
4\
6\
8\
1O\
12\
14\
16\
O 2O 4O 6O 8O 1OO 12O 14O 16O 18O
PRLSSU!RL AlTLR LAOH STAGLS PS!A)
S
T
A
G
L

L
X
!
T

M
O
!
S
T
U
R
L

\
)91O DLG l
86O DLG l
84O DLG l
88O DLG l
82O DLG l
81O DLGl
8OO DLG l
TURB!NL !NLLT TLMP.
11TH STAGL
1OTH STAGL
9TH STAGL
8TH STAGL
7TH STAGL
6TH STAGL
6TH STAGL
O
6O
1OO
16O
2OO
26O
8OO
86O
4OO
46O
O O.1 O.2 O.8 O.4 O.6 O.6 O.7 O.8 O.9 1 1.1 1.2
lou!1n_ Th1oknoss mm)
A
f
t
o
r

o
x
t
.

s
t
a
_
o

p
r
o
s
s
u
r
o

P
S
!
G
)
Oaso1 Tho fou!1n_ ooourrod to 6th sta_o
Oaso2 Tho fou!1n_ ooourrod to 6th sta_o
Oaso8 Tho fou!1n_ ooourrod to 7th sta_o
Oaso4 Tho fou!1n_ ooourrod to 6th, 6th and 7th sta_os
Figure 8. Schematic of New Water Injection System.
Table 1. Evaluation Procedure to Design Injection Nozzles.
Figure 9. Heat Balance Analysis.
The basic theory to determine water droplet size and distribution
is the balancing of drag and inertia forces. The drag force acts to
slow down the droplets, whereas the inertia force is the force
required to move the droplets along the steam path. The relative
difference between the drag force and the inertia force is the shear
force, which determines the size of the droplet. When the drag and
inertia forces are equal, and the shear force is zero, the droplet size
will be maintained and will flow with the main steam stream. Drag
force is a function of Reynolds number calculated by steam
velocity and droplet size. Since inertia force is also a function of
droplet size, the balancing of these two forces will determine
droplet size.
Figure 10 shows a flow diagram to determine the maximum
droplet size, using Reynolds number to calculate the drag force and
equating this to the inertia force. According to this analysis, the
droplet diameter is expected to range between 10 m to 1 mm.
Figure 10. Water Droplet Size and Distribution.
The next step is to evaluate the mechanical damage caused by
erosion. Erosion caused by water droplets is a fatigue phenomenon
resulting from impact compression pressure on the surface of a
given profile.
Erosion index is a parameter used to quantify the severity of the
damage caused by erosion. This index relates to the cyclic impact
compression stress divided by the fatigue endurance limit. The
erosion index can be obtained by calculating the Mach number of
a droplet and the fatigue impact pressure on the profile surface.
When the erosion index parameter is less than one, erosion damage
will not occur. A flow diagram illustrating the basic evaluation
procedure is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Erosion Evaluation Procedure.
An evaluation of erosion damage to valve, nozzles, and blades is
shown in Figure 12 for different velocities along the steam path.
This figure shows the correlation between droplet size and relation
steam velocity, as well as the calculated erosion damage along the
steam path. For example, a low velocity inside the valve chest results
in larger droplet size, with a corresponding higher erosion index.
However, downstream of the valve chest, erosion is influenced more
by droplet size than relative velocity. Therefore, since the droplet
sizes are smaller downstream the erosion condition is milder.
In each case, the erosion index parameter is much lower than
1.0, and therefore the authors can conclude that erosion damage
will not occur. However, there is a potential for cavitation damage
when injected water is mixed with steam in a narrow space such as
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-THIRD TURBOMACHINERY SYMPOSIUM 2004 60
Max. Droplet Diameter
Reaching to Blades
Steam Condition
Nozzles & Blades Design
Impact Mach Number
of Max. Droplet
Impact Pressure
Erosion Parameter
Comparison Of
Field Observation
{max =Function of
Surface Tension of Water
Critical Weber Number
Droplet Velocity
Steam Velocity
Steam Density
Mo = Function of
Velocity of Sound in Water
Impact Velocity of Max. Droplet
P = Function of
Impact Mach Number of Max. Droplet
e = Fatigue Limit of Material
C
{
= f({max) influence function of
Droplet Diameter
Erosion IndexCriteria (danger/Safety)
Described by Distribution
Along blade height & Axial apace
{max
Mo=V1/Co
P
C
{
P/e
FIG.11
DRAG COEFFICIENT
1000
100
10
1
10
-1
10
6
10
5
10
4
REYNOLDS NUMBER Re
BASED ON DROPLET DIAMETER
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
-0
10
-1
20ata 210Steam & Saturated Water
Steam Velocity 500m/sec
Reynolds Number
Droplet Drag Force By Steam Flow
= Droplet Inertia Force
Steam Density & Velocity is Large Enough.
Large Droplets are Scattered by Shear Force.

Flow Pattern of Steam & Water is Same.

Water can be Scattered Equally.
Droplet Diameter 1 mm
WHAT SIZE OF DROPLET AND HOW DROPLET ARE SCATTERED ?
CAN THESE DROPLETS FLOW WITH MAIN STEAM STREAM ?
CASE STUDY : CALCULATION OF MAX.DIAMETER OF DROPLET
RANGE OF
DROPLET
10,m to 1mm
EXTRACTION
VALVE
CHEST
HP
Steam
G
1
, h
1
Steam
G
3
, h
3
INJECTION WATER
G
2
, h
2
G
2
= G
1
(h
1
- h
3
) / (h
3
- h
2
)
G : flow [KLB/H]
h : specific enthalpy [J/KLB]
Subscript 1:Condition of Upstream
of Extraction Valve Chest
Subscript 2:Water Injection Condition
Subscript 3 :Condition of Downstream
of Extraction Valve Chest
G
2
=13[KLB/H]
LP
3 RD
STAGE
AFTER
4 TH
STAGE
INLET SIDE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED MASS FLOW
FOR WATER INJECTION
EROSION DAMAGE
EVALUATION
OF
CASING
NOZZLE AND BLADE
SELECTION OF
NOZZLE SIZE
AND
STRUCTURE DESIGN
HEAT BALANCE ANALYSIS
EVALUATION FOR MASS FLOW OF
WATER INJECTION
WATER EVAPORATION DURATION TIME ANALYSIS
PREDICTION OF IMPACT PRESSURE OF DROPLET
OPTIMUM DROPLET DIAMETER
FOR EROSION PREVENTION
NOZZLE TYPE SELECTION
NOZZLE ATTACHMENT DESIGN
THERMAL STRESS ANALYSIS OF CASING PROVISION
CONTROL FOR
DROPLET SIZE CONSTANT
RATIO OF STEAM/WATER
STEAM & WATER
SUPPLY
APPLICATION OF
HYBRID SPRAY NOZZLE
SUPPLYING STEAM & WATER
Figure 12. Erosion Evaluation Results.
a valve chest. This mixture of water and steam is critical and a
potential risk, requiring that the effects be quantified in the labora-
tory. The effects were quantified by conducting a shop test using an
actual valve chest.
Selection of Injection Nozzles
A wide spray-angle type water injection nozzle was selected
based on mass flow rate: spray angle, pressure, and temperature
application ranges. As previously mentioned, the mass flow rate was
determined based on heat balance of the steam and injected water.
The new design extraction valve with the selected water
injection nozzles is presented in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows the
detail of the selected nozzle as installed in the extraction box. The
mechanical integrity of the welded nozzle arrangement was
evaluated using FEA as explained below.
Figure 13. Injection Nozzle Arrangement.
Figure 14. Injection Nozzle Details.
STRENGTH EVALUATION OF
ONLINE WASHING NOZZLE
Strength evaluation using FEA was done on a component basis;
namely the injection nozzles, the extraction steam chest, and the
inner lift bar.
Wash Nozzles
Wash nozzles were evaluated in transient and steady-state con-
ditions to determine temperature distribution and associated
stresses during water injection. Figure 15 shows the temperature
distribution in both states at low temperature water supply. As can
be seen in the transient state, there is a large temperature gradient
at the inlet flange of the water injection nozzle, compared to the
steady-state where the temperature gradient is minimal.
Conversely, the temperature gradient for the transient condition
along the welded pipe between the valve chest and the inlet flange
is minimal compared to the steady-state condition. The associated
thermal stress distribution is detailed in Figure 16. Note, in the
detail design process, stress can be decreased especially in the
transient case by changing boss size, pipe length, groove size,
groove location, and water supply temperature.
Figure 15. FEA Temperature DistributionNozzle Box.
Figure 16. FEA Thermal StressNozzle Box.
Figure 17 shows the peak stress point for both transient and
steady-state. Based on these stress analyses, low cycle fatigue eval-
uation was carried out to determine the safety factor of the design
during periodical online washing.
Figure 18, in accordance with ASME Code (Section VIII),
shows that for the strain calculated, there is an inherent safety
factor of 2. This corresponds to a life factor of 20 times the design
criterion of 12 washes per year over 30 years.
Extraction Steam Chest
A 3-D computer-aided design (CAD) model was used as input
to perform the FEA, and the stress and displacement were calcu-
lated based on actual operating conditions. Results are shown in
Figures 19 and 20.
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR ONLINE WASHING OF LARGE MECHANICAL-DRIVE CONDENSING STEAM TURBINES 61
Erosion Evaluation
O.OOO1
O.OO1O
O.O1OO
O.1OOO
1.OOOO
O 1OO 2OO 3OO 4OO 6OO
PelaLlve VeloclLy |m/c|
0
r
o
p
l
e
L

0
l
a
m
e
L
e
r

|
m
m
|
Erosion Parameter < 1 then OK
Valve room
Nozzle, Blade
Valve Chest Nozzle Blade
Relative velocity m/s 14.3 496.0 496.0
Impact velocity m/s 14.3 496.0 291.0
Droplet Diameter mm 0.427 0.0004 0.0004
Impact Pressure MPa 62 2381 1266
Erosion Parameter

0.320 below 0.001 below 0.001
After 60sec Steady
Nozzle
Gasket
Body
['] [']
After 60sec Steady
[kgf/mm
2
]



FIG.13
EM-MHI-33 TURBO
Figure 17. Thermal Stress Relief ModificationNozzle Box.
Figure 18. Low Cycle Fatigue Evaluation.
Figure 19. Analysis Results of Valve Chest Stresses.
The results of this analysis of the extraction box, which is made
from chromium molybdenum (CrMo), show the stress to range
from 2.3 to 4.6 kgf/mm
2
(3271.4 to 6542.7 lbf/in
2
). This range
provides adequate margins when compared to the allowable stress
of 9.8 kgf/mm
2
(13,938.9 lbf/in
2
) based on creep rupture.
Figure 20. Analysis Results of Valve Chest Displacement.
Inner Lift Bar
During online washing, the inner lift bar is exposed to a temper-
ature gradient caused by low temperature water injected on one
side, while the other side is exposed to a higher steam temperature.
This results in deformation and thermal stress occurring in both
transient and steady-states.
The lift bar was modeled using FEA, and was based on a tem-
perature distribution calculated over a two hour wash period with
an inlet temperature of 20C (68F). Based on this inlet tempera-
ture, it was estimated that the temperature difference between the
water injection spot area and the opposite side was about 250C
(482F) for the model. Actual shop testing showed that the tem-
perature of the injected spot area was close to the mixture
temperature of the water and steam. However, during real
operating conditions, because the actual temperature difference is
not large between the water injection spot area side and the
opposite side, the thermal stress is not particularly severe.
Using 250C (482F) delta-T for the model, the thermal stress
distribution was calculated for a two hour wash period as
mentioned above. The maximum stress in tension was approxi-
mately 60 kgf/mm
2
(85,340.1 lbf/in
2
) and compression stress was
20 kgf/mm
2
(28,446.7 lbf/in
2
). A low cycle fatigue evaluation was
also carried out. This confirmed a safety factor of 2 for a total stress
of 60 kgf/mm
2
(85,340.1 lbf/in
2
), resulting in a life factor of 20
times the design criterion of 12 washes per year over 30 years.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the contours of deformation and
stress for the inner bar. The maximum deformation is 1.2 mm (.045
inch) and equivalent stress is 58 kgf/mm
2
(82,495.4 lbf/in
2
).
Although the model used a larger than normal delta-T of 250C
(482F), the stress and deformation calculated were well within the
acceptable range. Expected actual stress and deformation will be
about 1/10 of the calculated values.
SHOP TESTING EVALUATION AND RESULTS
In order to verify the results of the design calculation, a static
shop test was conducted on the newly designed extraction steam
chest.
Actual steam conditions were simulated. Injected flow rates
were adjusted during the test to determine whether or not the
injected water steam mixture was completely vaporized.
Nonvaporized mixture could cause damage such as breakage or
deformation of internal parts in the valve box or turbine casing due
to heavy drain erosion under the condition of insufficient vapor-
ization of water.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-THIRD TURBOMACHINERY SYMPOSIUM 2004 62
0.43%
CYCLE NUMBER
Based on
85kgf/mm
2
Unsteady
Peak Stress
of Nozzle
Flange
TOTAL
STRAIN
(%)
S.F 2
S.F 20
360 CYCLES (12/YEAR`30YEARS)
unit : kgf/cm^2
FIG.19
EM-MHI-33 TURBO
y p
unit : mm
FIG 20
IN CASE OF STRESS RELEASE MODIFICATION
PEAK STRESS
AT STEADY CONDITION
PEAK STRESS
AT UNSTEADY CONDITION
BOSS
FOR STRESS RELEASE
Figure 21. Deformation Analysis for Inner Lift Bar During Online
Washing.
Figure 22. Stress Analysis for Inner Lift Bar During Online
Washing.
Description of Test Setup
The flow diagram in Figure 23 illustrates the shop test setup for
the valve chest. Figure 24 shows a photograph of the actual test
facility. As can be seen, the testing arrangement can simulate the
actual online washing condition by varying measured water
injection flow rates and steam temperature distribution along the
steam path internals including the valve box.
Figure 23. Testing Flow Diagram.
Test Conditions
Figure 25 is a schematic showing the points of measurement for
the various parameters. Actual operation conditions are used in the
simulation, including steam velocity. Since only one injection
valve is used compared to four in a real turbine, the flow rate is a
quarter of the actual steam flow. Table 2 shows a comparative
summary of the parameters used in the tests versus the conditions
for a real turbine. Note: Point is equivalent to the actual position of
the first LP stage nozzle, i.e., the extraction stage.
Figure 24. Test Setup for Online Washing.
Figure 25. Valve Chest Schematic.
Table 2. Test Conditions.
Results
The temperature profile along the steam path downstream of point
k at varying water flow rates is shown in Figure 26. Under increas-
ing flow rates, steam temperature gradually drops to saturation
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR ONLINE WASHING OF LARGE MECHANICAL-DRIVE CONDENSING STEAM TURBINES 63
Valve Chest Sch
Water injection
a,v,w
Inlet steam
s,t,u
Outlet
x
Point of measuring
steam temperature
Point of measuring
internal parts temperature
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k(equivalent position
to nozzle)
m l
n
p o
q
r
z
FI
TURBO

eq
(kgf/mm
2
)
MN
MX
X
Y
Z
MN
MX
0
4.4
8.9
13.3
17.8
22.2
26.6
31.1
35.5
40
X
Z
max
MN
MX
0
6.4
12.9
19.3
25.8
32.2
38.7
45.1
51.5
58

eq
(kgf/mm
2
)
MN
MX
X
Y
Z
X
Z
max
SECTION A SECTION A
V
S1
V
W1
V
S2
Silencer
V
S3
T
1
P
1
T
2
P
2
T
3
P
3
m
1
m
3
Boiler Silencer
Water
T: Temperature
P: Pressure
m: Flow rate
Steam
Valve chest
T)
)
MN
MX
X
Y
Z
A
MN
MX
111
141
171
200
230
259
289
319
348
378
X
Z
U
Z
mm)
A)
X X
Z
X
Y
MN
MX
-.089
.055
.199
.343
.487
.631
.775
.919
1.063
1.207
-.144
-.116
-.088
-.061
-.033
-.005
.023
.05
.078
.106
MN
MX
UY

UZ

SECTION A
1.9 0.38 Water flow rate[kg/s]
373 373 Water temperature[K]
4.8 4.9 Water pressure[MPa]
23 4.7 Steam flow rate[kg/s]
651 651 Steam temperature[K]
4.6 4.6 Steam pressure[MPa]
Actual turbine Testing machine Item
* Same steam velocity as the actual turbine
temperature (250C, 482F). As can be seen, for flow rates below
18 l/min (4.8 g/min), the temperature profile is fairly constant
along the flow path downstream of k. Whereas, flow rates above
18 l/min (4.8 g/min) result in temperature increases along the same
flow path, leading the authors to conclude that water is therefore
not vaporized completely.
Figure 26. Test Results for Steam Temperature Profile.
Figure 27 shows the temperature profile in the upper portion of
the valve box at varying water injection rates. Temperature in this
area does not decrease even during water injection. On the other
hand, just below this area, the temperature falls to saturation.
Based on this observation, the authors found that the injected water
does not vaporize completely in the extraction valve box and the
surface of the valve box gets wet at saturation temperature.
Figure 27. Test Results for Valve Box Temperature Profile.
Figure 28 shows the temperature profile on the surface of the
inner bar and valve disc for varying water injection rates. The tem-
perature gradually decreases to saturation temperature (250C,
482F) with increasing water flow. The temperature of the valve
disc is lower than that of the inner bar. Therefore from the test
results, the authors can see that the surfaces of these parts are wet
and the injected water will be heated to saturation temperature
before reaching the turbine internal parts.
Relation Between Water Injection
Flow Rate and Mixing Temperature
Figure 29 shows the relationship between water injection flow
rate and mixing temperature at point k in comparison to the cal-
culated values. As can be seen, the measured mixing temperature
is almost the same as that of the calculated value.
Figure 28. Test Results for Inner Lift Bar Temperature Profile.
Figure 29. Comparison Test Results for Mixing Temperature.
Transient Temperature Comparison
Calculated Versus Tested
Figure 30 shows transient temperature during water injection,
comparing calculated and measured figures at different points
along the valve chest. It is evident that the test results match very
well with the calculated values.
Figure 30. Temperature Comparison of Nozzle BoxCalculated
Versus Tested.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-THIRD TURBOMACHINERY SYMPOSIUM 2004 64
1|
24O
26O
28O
3OO
32O
34O
36O
38O
4OO
O.O 6.O 1O.O 16.O 2O.O 26.O
/l/mln
#

o
I

'
k
n
[#
WATER INJECTION FLOW RATE (L/MIN)
O
U
T
L
E
T

S
T
E
A
M

T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E


(
'
)

K
N
CAL.
Evaluation point of outlet
steam temperature
FOR MIXING TEMPERATURE
2OO
26O
3OO
36O
4OO
O 2O 4O 6O 8O 1OO
%| cec

'
d
e
g
H
d
e
g
h
2OO
26O
3OO
36O
4OO
O 2O 4O 6O 8O 1OO
%| cec

'
d
e
g
H
I
N
N
E
R
B
A
R

T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E


(
'
)

I
N
N
E
R
B
A
R

T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E


(
'
)

TIME AFTER INJECTION
(SEC)
TIME AFTER INJECTION
(SEC)
CALCULATED MEASURED
2OO
226
26O
276
3OO
326
36O
376
4OO
426
46OO 6OOO 66OO 6OOO 66OO 7OOO 76OO 8OOO
1lme |cec|
1
e
m
p
e
r
a
L
u
r
e

|
'
|
O
6
1O
16
2O
26
3O
36
4O
46
w
a
L
e
r

f
l
o
w

|
l
/
m
l
n
|
6Leam Lemp.l]
6Leam Lemp.]
6Leam Lemp.k]
6Leam Lemp.m]
6Leam Lemp.n]
waLer flowa]
-33 TURBO FIG.26
2OO
226
26O
276
3OO
326
36O
376
4OO
426
46OO 6OOO 66OO 6OOO 66OO 7OOO 76OO 8OOO
1lme |cec|
1
e
m
p
e
r
a
L
u
r
e

|
'
|
O
6
1O
16
2O
26
3O
36
4O
46
w
a
L
e
r

f
l
o
w

|
l
/
m
l
n
|
Valve box Lemp.b]
Valve box Lemp.c]
Valve box Lemp.d]
Valve box Lemp.e]
Valve box Lemp.f]
Valve box Lemp.g]
Valve box Lemp.H]
waLer flowa]
FIG.27
HI-33 TURBO
2OO
226
26O
276
3OO
326
36O
376
4OO
426
46OO 6OOO 66OO 6OOO 66OO 7OOO 76OO 8OOO
1lme |cec|
1
e
m
p
e
r
a
L
u
r
e

|
'
|
O
6
1O
16
2O
26
3O
36
4O
46
w
a
L
e
r

f
l
o
w

|
l
/
m
l
n
|
|nner bar Lemp.o]
|nner bar Lemp.p]
|nner bar Lemp.q]
Valve dlck Lemp.r]
waLer flowa]
NDE Testing
For inner bar, control valve, and water injection nozzle, Figure
31 shows nondestructive evaluation (NDE) results, and no defects
were found in any of these parts. As there is no appreciable thermal
deformation caused by water injection, the inner bar and valve will
operate normally.
Figure 31. NDE Results after Water Injection Test.
RISK ASSESSMENTS ANALYSIS
Based on hazard and operability (HazOp) and United States
Department of Defense military (MIL) standards shown in Tables
3 and Figure 32, the authors designed the online wash system
shown in Figure 33 for an actual field application.
Table 3. Risk Assessment.
Figure 32. U.S. MIL Risk Assessment.
Figure 33. Water Injection Supply System.
The main risks are draining carryover, thrust force increase,
drain-erosion, and thermal shock stress. The mixing temperature
inside the valve chest is monitored and, if the system detects a low
temperature close to saturated temperature, both the flow control
and solenoid valves are immediately closed. Other risks are
countered with appropriate alarms and relief valves.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has introduced an innovative online washing
technique to minimize the impact caused by fouling of the steam
path in large multistage condensing steam turbines.
The methodology developed to effectively evaluate the design of
the new online wash nozzles showed that the calculated parameters
compared well with shop test results. This methodology evaluated
the nozzle box on a component-by-component basis using FEA,
which confirmed the mechanical integrity of the overall system.
Life cycle calculations based on fatigue phenomenon showed the
system to exceed the projected life by a factor of 20. Using HazOp
and MIL risk assessment standards, the authors were able to design
the supporting external facility.
The final design is a compact extraction box, which replaced an
original design extraction box without machining of the turbine
casing. This design was shop tested and proved effective in
washing off deposits from LP blades and nozzles with minimal
power turndown, and without impacting the turbines long-term
performance. This technique, although applied here to extraction-
condensing turbines, is also applicable to large condensing
turbines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully wish to acknowledge the following indi-
viduals for their contribution and technical assistance in analyzing
and reviewing the results: T. Hirano, T. Inoue, and M. Wakai of
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.; M. Fujimura of Mitsubishi
Turbo Techno; H. G. Elliott of International Turbomachinery
Consulting Services; and Joe Pachioli and Jin Yamada of MHI
America.
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR ONLINE WASHING OF LARGE MECHANICAL-DRIVE CONDENSING STEAM TURBINES 65
ASSESSMENT FACTOR
ELEMENT RISK SOURCE
HAZARD
GRADE PROBABILITY RISK INDEX
COUNTERMEASURES
ALARM SAFETY LOADING
WATER&STEAM
MIXING
INJECTION
PROVISION
EXT. VALVE
INNER BAR
INJECTION
NOZZLE
TURBINE
NOZZLE
PROFILE
DRAIN INVASION
CHOKE FOR
SOLID PARTICLE
DRAIN EROSION
THRUST FORCE UP
IN CHOKE
NON-EFFECTIVE
HEAT BALANCE
TRANSIENT
THERMAL STRESS
TURBINE
BLADE
PROFILE
LP SECTION
MOISTURE UP
TURBINE
BLADE
PROFILE
TURBINE
THRUST
BEARING
OPERATION
TRANSIENT
THERMAL STRESS
TRANSIENT
THERMAL STRESS
DRAIN EROSION
THRUST FORCE UP
IN CHOKE
THRUST FORCE UP
IN CHOKE
AXIAL
DISPLACEMENT UP
WATER FLOW
UNCONTROL
PRESSURE RAISE
IN SUPPLY LINE
T

C 12
C 8
C 8
C 8
C 12
8 C
D 6
D 6
D 6
C 8
D 6
C 8
C 8
D 6
D 6
SHOP INJECTION TEST
TIT LL CONTROL
TRANSIENT STRESS
ANALYSIS & NDE T/A
TRANSIENT STRESS
ANALYSIS & NDE T/A
TRANSIENT STRESS
ANALYSIS & NDE T/A
EMERGENCY SHUT XV
PDCV DOUBLE SHUT
FLUSHING & HEATING
DRYING
DAMAGE INDEX NDE T/A
COATING FOR PROTECT
AFTER EXT. PRESS & AXIAL
DISPLACEMENT MONITORING
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT & METAL
TEMPERATURE ARE MONITORED
TIT IS CONTROLLED TO
MAINTAIN LP MOISTURE 14%
DAMAGE INDEX NDE T/A
COATING FOR PROTECT
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT & METAL
TEMPERATURE ARE MONITORED
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT & METAL
TEMPERATURE ARE MONITORED
EMERGENCY SHUT XV
PDCV DOUBLE SHUT
PRV IS INSTALLED IN
WATER SUPPLY LINE
xv
Condensate Water
TIT
PDT
PDO
MONITOR ALARM L/H + + XV [LL]
TO DCS
E.C.V.
lO
Condensate Water
1 psig`2F
(TI) (TAL / TAH)
Drain
Drain
Strainer
730 psig`721F
895 psig`721F
1 psig`2F
895 psig`2F
Design Condition
of Extraction Control Valve
730 psig`721F (600 lb)
Setpoint
ECV inner pressure=75psig
Setpoint
550F 10F
F
1. HAZARD GRADE
: CATASTROPHIC
1: CRITICAL
1: MARGINAL
: NEGLIGIBLE
2. HAZARD PROBABILITY
A: FREQUENT
B: REASONABLY PROBABLE
C: OCCUPATIONAL
D: REMOTE
E: EXTREAMLY UNLIKELY
F: IMPOSSIBLE
1 1
A 24 18 12 6
B 20 15 10 5
C 16 12 8 4
D 12 9 6 3
E 8 6 4 2
F 4 3 2 1
3. RISK INDEX
MORE THAN 13: NOT ACCEPTABLE
STOP AND RE-DESIGN REQUIRED
9 TO 12: BIG PROBLEM
TEST AND RE-DESIGN REQUIRED
5 TO 8: SEVERAL PROBLEMS
TECHNICAL MODIFICATION ONLY
LESS THAN 4: ACCEPTABLE
4. CRITERIA FOR RISK INDEX
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-THIRD TURBOMACHINERY SYMPOSIUM 2004 66