Proceedings of Proceedings

Proceedings of PWR2005
of PWR2005
ASME Power
ASME Power
April 5-7, 2005, Chicago, Illinois
April 5-7, 2005, Chicago, Illinois USA

PWR2005-50211
PWR2005-50211

COMBINED CYCLE PERFORMANCE TEST CORRECTION WITH DUCT FIRING

Sang Ip Mehdi Soltani

Senior Engineer Senior Technical Specialist
Bechtel Power Corporation Bechtel National Inc.
5275 Westview Drive 5255 Westview Drive
Frederick, MD 21703 Frederick, MD 21703
U.S.A. U.S.A.

ABSTRACT maximum power is desired, plants equipped with a duct burner

In a gas turbine combined cycle, the performance
guarantees are based on a specific set of base reference
conditions. The actual plant performance is measured during a
performance test, which usually occurs under conditions
different from the base reference conditions. ASME
Performance Test Code (PTC) 46, “Performance Test Code on
Overall Plant Performance,”[1] addresses various cycle
configurations and the fundamental equations used to correct
results at the test condition back to base reference conditions.
When the test requires duct firing of the heat recovery steam
generator(s), then developing the correction curves poses
unique challenges to the cycle engineer. This paper will review
the issues and techniques used to develop the appropriate
correction curves for the duct-fired combined cycle.
INTRODUCTION
In the late 1990s, a large number of natural-gas-fired
combined cycle plants were built in the United States and
abroad, mostly due to the low price of gas and the large demand
in electricity. Most of the plants were put into operation in the
early 2000s. Many of them, owned by independent power
producers (IPPs), were designed to yield a good heat rate and
be able to produce and sell maximum power during the peak
electrical demand in the summer. To meet this peak power
demand, a large number of these combined cycle plants had
duct burners installed in the heat recovery steam generators
(HRSGs) in order to increase the power production.
The combined cycle plant owner and the engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor develop
agreement on the plant performance guarantees, such as, among
others, net electrical output (NEO) and net plant heat rate
(NPHR) at a specific set of base reference conditions. If
may be fired at maximum heat duty. This is either the HRSG
duct burner’s exit temperature limit or the plant’s emission
permit limit.
If duct firing is not limited by the equipment rating, then
the correction curves and testing are relatively simple.
However, the overall testing process becomes more
complicated when the goal is to optimize the plant’s revenue by
maximizing electrical output. This is because different plant
components (duct burner, pumps, steam turbine, etc.) reach
their maximum rating at different ambient conditions. For
example, duct burner duty may have to be reduced at high
ambient temperatures not to exceed burner exit temperature
limits or steam turbine backpressure limits (when equipped
with air-cooled condenser). This paper discusses the challenges
of developing the correction curves and the plant disposition
during testing. The effects of equipment limitations on the
correction curves are of particular interest.
NOMENCLATURE
NEO Net Electrical Output, kW
NPHR Net plant heat rate, Btu/kWh, lower heating value
(LHV)
Pmeas Measured net electrical output, kW
Pcorr Net electrical output corrected to base reference
conditions, kW
Qmeas Total measured heat input to plant, Btu/hr
Qcorr Total heat input corrected to base reference conditions,
Btu/hr
QGT Heat input to the gas turbine, Btu/hr
QDB Heat input to the duct burner, Btu/hr
∆ Change of variable

1 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ∆2A Correction for gas turbine generator (GTG) power
factor
∆2B Correction for steam turbine generator (STG) power
factor
∆5A Correction for wet-bulb temperature difference
between GTG and cooling tower inlet
∆8A Correction for GTG degradation due to fired hours
∆8B Correction for STG degradation
α1 Correction for ambient temperature
α2 Correction for ambient pressure
α3 Correction for ambient relative humidity
α4 Correction for fuel supply temperature
α5 Correction for fuel composition
ω8A Correction for degradation due gas turbine fired hours
on heat input
β1 Correction for ambient temperature
β2 Correction for ambient pressure
β3 Correction for ambient relative humidity
β4 Correction for fuel supply temperature
β5 Correction for fuel composition
Π Product of variables
Σ Summation of variables
DESCRIPTION
In a gas turbine combined cycle, the performance
guarantees are based on a specific set of base reference
conditions. The plant performance is demonstrated during a
performance test, which usually occurs under conditions
different from the base reference conditions. Running the
performance test at conditions as close to base reference
conditions is difficult to achieve. The conductance of a
performance test is dictated by many factors affecting plant
construction schedules. If construction goes smoothly and the
weather cooperates, the plant could be ahead of schedule, while
other plants may be delayed for the opposite reasons. In one
plant, the guarantee conditions were at very cold ambient
conditions (20 °F) [2], while the test was conducted at around
90 °F. Because correction curves are developed well in advance
(3 to 6 months) before the anticipated performance test date, the
correction curves must cover a wide range of ambient
conditions likely to be encountered during the performance test.
For plants without auxiliary firing in the HRSG, the
performance test corrections are straightforward. For plants
with auxiliary firing, the corrections are not that different,
provided there is no equipment limitation to the firing at
different ambient conditions. ASME Performance Test Code
(PTC) 46, “Performance Test Code on Overall Plant
Performance,” addresses various cycle configurations and
presents the fundamental equations used to correct the test
results to base reference conditions.
However, when the test operating disposition requires
auxiliary firing of the HRSGs and the equipment design limits
are reached at various ambient conditions, then developing the
correction curves poses unique challenges. From past
experience, the plant probably will not be able to maintain
2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
maximum auxiliary firing heat duty throughout the design
range of ambient conditions. Just a few limits are duct burner
exit temperature, condensate pump flow capacity, steam turbine
shaft limit, and, in an air-cooled condenser application, steam
turbine backpressure limit.
CASE STUDY
The case study in this paper examines a combined cycle
plant equipped with auxiliary firing. The plant is powered by a
nominal 170 MW gas turbine with inlet evaporative cooler and
a triple-pressure HRSG with reheat and duct firing. The steam
turbine has a nominal rating of 160 MW and exhausts to a wet-
surface condenser that rejects heat through a cooling tower.
This plant is designed to have maximum duct firing at ambient
conditions above 59 °F. Auxiliary firing is limited only by the
site’s emission permit and the HRSG’s design limitation, i.e.,
superheater metal temperature limit and duct burner exit
temperatures. Below 59 °F, maximum duct firing is not
required because electric power demand is low. The plant has
overall NEO and NPHR guarantees with the evaporative cooler
off and the duct burner in service. Duct burner duty level is not
part of the guaranteed conditions.
The plant is base loaded, and its power output and heat rate
vary as a function of ambient conditions. The test goal is to
duct-fire at maximum duct burner duty for maximum plant
electrical output at the base reference conditions. The duct
burner disposition can vary depending on the equipment limits.
TEST BOUNDARY AND REFERENCE CONDITIONS
Figure 1 shows the plant’s test boundary and identifies the
measured variables for calculating corrected results. The plant’s
guarantees are based on ISO conditions (59 °F, 60 percent
relative humidity, and 14.696 psia ambient pressure) and the
contract fuel composition at 60 °F fuel gas temperature crossing
the boundary. Also, the HRSG drum blowdown is isolated
during the test. Combustion and steam turbines are at new and
clean condition at 0.9 lagging power factor measured at
generator terminals.
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS
The fundamental performance equations in PTC 46
provide the basic guidelines for the specific disposition test
goal. The net plant corrected electrical output Pcorr is
determined using the measured NEO Pmeas and the correction
factors.
⎛ 8
⎞ 5
P corr = ⎜ Pmeas + ∑ ∆ i ⎟ ∏α j Eq.(1)
⎝ i =1 ⎠ j =1
For the current test boundary, Eq.(1) is rewritten as:
Pcorr = (Pmeas + ∆2A + ∆2B + ∆5A + ∆8A + ∆8B ) α1α2α3α4α5
Eq.(2)
2 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel
 Where,
∆2A = Correction for GTG power factor
∆2B = Correction for STG power factor
∆5A = Correction for wet-bulb temperature difference
between GTG and cooling tower inlet
∆8A = Correction for CTG degradation
∆8B = Correction for STG degradation
α1 = Correction for ambient temperature
α2 = Correction for ambient pressure
α3 = Correction for ambient relative humidity
α4 = Correction for fuel supply temperature
α5 = Correction for fuel composition
To simplify the discussion in this paper, the following
assumptions have been made:
• The generators are at design power factors during
performance test, i.e. no power factor correction and ∆2
equals to zero.
• The cooling tower inlet air conditions are identical to those
at the combustion turbine inlet, i.e. ∆5A equals to zero.
• The combustion turbine and steam turbine are tested within
manufacturers’ allowable new and clean periods, i.e. no
degradation correction and ∆8 equals to zero.
• The fuel temperature at the plant boundary is equal to
β2 = Correction for ambient pressure
β3 = Correction for ambient relative humidity
β4 = Correction for fuel supply temperature
β5 = Correction for fuel composition
Applying similar assumptions to Eq.(6) in this study, the
corrected plant heat input Qcorr becomes:
Qcorr = (Qmeas ) β 1 β 2 β 3 Eq.(8)
CORRECTION CURVES
When the duct firing is within the HRSG’s design limits,
the mass and energy balance model can be set up to fire at
constant duct burner duty (air permit limits) throughout the
range of design ambient conditions. Per PTC 46, the correction
curves are developed based on varying one parameter at a time.
Figures 2 and 3 show the ambient temperature correction
factors α1 and ω1 when the duct burner is firing at a constant
maximum burner duty throughout the ambient temperature
range.
Figure 2
Net Output Correction Factor For Variation
Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature

reference conditions of 60 °F, i.e. α4 equals to 1. 1.18

• The fuel analysis is same as design, i.e. no fuel heating 1.16

1.14
values correction and α5 equals to 1.
Net Output Correction Factor α 1

1.12

1.10
These assumptions are only for the purpose of reducing the
1.08
complexity of presenting all the correction factors. For a real
1.06
performance test, these variables must be included in the set of 1.04
test corrections. 1.02

1.00
Equation 2, therefore, is simplified to the following: 0.98
Const. DB Duty

0.96

Pcorr = (Pmeas ) α1α2α3 Eq.(3) 0.94

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

o
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature ( F)
The corrected NPHR for the test boundary shown in Fig.1
is defined as:
Figure 3
Q corr
NPHR = Eq.(4) Net Heat Input Correction Factor For Variation
Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature
P corr 1.14

and, 1.12

⎛ 8
⎞ 5

∑ ωi⎟ ∏ β
1.10
Q corr = ⎜ Q meas + Eq.(5)
j
⎝ ⎠ 1.08
Net Heat Input Correction Factor β 1

i =1 j =1

Qcorr = (Qmeas + ω 8 A ) β 1 β 2 β 3 β 4 β 5
1.06
Eq.(6) 1.04

1.02

Qmeas = QGT + QDB Eq.(7) 1.00

0.98
Const. DB Duty
0.96

Where, 0.94

QGT = Heat input to the combustion turbine, Btu/hr (LHV) 0.92

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
QDB = Heat input to the duct burner, Btu/hr (LHV)
ω8A = Correction for gas turbine degradation heat input Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature (oF)

β1 = Correction for ambient temperature

3 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 When the duct burner exit temperature exceeds the HRSG Although the equipment limits can be readily identified in
design temperature limit (1,560 °F) at hotter ambient the computer model, it is not always recognized during the
conditions, the duct burner duty must be reduced to protect the performance test. Effects of gas turbine exhaust temperature,
equipment from overheating. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the gas turbine exhaust flow and HRSG will affect duct burner
correction curves when duct burner exit temperature is temperatures. For example, at 90 °F ambient, the duct burner
maintained below 1,560 °F so as not to exceed the HRSG might not experience an exit temperature limit due to lower GT
design limit. At about 80 °F ambient temperature, duct firing exhaust temperature and/or higher GT exhaust flow. Hence,
must be reduced. The dash lines on the right show the burner the duct burner could be firing at the maximum duty without
exit temperature limited curves. problem. On the contrary, if GT exhaust temperature is much
Figure 4 higher than expected during the test, the duct burner duty must
Net Output Correction Factor For Variation
be further reduced and the correction could be even higher than
Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature the maximum temperature curve shown in Fig. 4.
1.18

1.16
The same situation may occur for other “expected”
1.14 Duct burner reaches exit equipment limits such as condensate pump flow, or turbine
temperature limit at 80F
Net Output Correction Factor α 1

1.12 back pressure, etc. It is impossible to predict what exactly will

1.10 take place at the test conditions. Therefore, a set of ambient
1.08
Condensate pump
temperature correction curves as a function of duct burner duty
1.06 reaches flow limit at 50F should be used to bracket the burner duty expected during the
1.04
test. Figure 6 and 7 show the correction curves with varying
1.02
burner heat duty.
1.00
Figure 6
0.98
Const. DB Duty Net Output Correction Factor For Variation
DB Temp <1560F Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature
0.96 Cond Pump Limit 1.18

0.94 1.16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Duct burner at 500 MMBtu/hr
1.14
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature (oF)
Net Output Correction Factor α 1

1.12

Figure 5 1.10

1.08
Net Heat Input Correction Factor For Variation
Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature 1.06
1.14
1.04 Duct burner at 520 MMBtu/hr
1.12
Duct burner reaches exit 1.02
1.10 temperature limit at 80F 1.00
550 MMBtu/hr
520 MMBtu/hr
1.08 0.98 500 MMBtu/hr
Net Heat Input Correction Factor β 1

DB Temp <1560F
1.06 Condensate pump 0.96
Cond Pump Limit
reaches flow limit at 50F
1.04 0.94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
1.02
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature (oF)
1.00

0.98
Figure 7
0.96
Const. DB Duty Net Heat Input Correction Factor For Variation
DB Temp< 1560F Of Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature
0.94 Cond Pump Limit 1.14

0.92 1.12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Duct burner at 500 MMBtu/hr
1.10

Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature (oF) 1.08

Net Heat Input Correction Factor β 1

Another equipment limit is the condensate pump. Because 1.06

the plant is not designed to have maximum duct firing at cold 1.04
Duct burner at 520 MMBtu/hr
ambient conditions, the condensate pump flow is too large if 1.02
the model maintains the maximum duct burner duty at the low
1.00
ambient temperatures. Curves on the left-hand-side of Fig. 4 550 MMBtu/hr
0.98
and 5 show the correction when the duct burner duty is reduced 520 MMBtu/hr
500 MMBtu/hr
to maintain the condensate pump flow within limits when the 0.96
DB Temp< 1560F
ambient temperature is at 50 °F or below. (Note: For this plant, 0.94 Cond Pump Limit

the condensate pump was able to run at higher flow rates than 0.92
originally estimated due to lower system friction losses. The 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

condensate pump limitation was subsequently removed from Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature ( F) o

the model and correction curves.)

4 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 In the above example, if at 90 °F ambient, the duct burner Figure 10
hits the exit temperature limit of 1560°F with a duty of 520 Net Output Correction Factor For Variation
Of Ambient Relative Humidity
MMBtu/hr (LHV), then the correction should be read from the 1.020

520 MMBtu/hr curve at 90 °F ambient. This set of curves 1.016

could be used with the actual test conditions where equipment 1.012
Little difference at 110F with
or without duct burner exit
limits occurred. temperature limit

Net Output Correction Factor α 3

1.008

1.004
Similarly, the ambient pressure correction curves for α2
1.000
and ω2 are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. The output and heat
0.996
input corrections are basically identical for ambient 35 F
0.992
temperatures at 20 °F, 59 °F and 110 °F when the duct burner is 75 F

firing at constant heat duty. 0.988 110 F

110 F (DB EXIT TEMP LIMITED)
0.984

Figure 8 0.980
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Net Output Correction Factor For Variation Ambient Relative Humidity (%)
Of Ambient Pressure
1.020
Figure 11
1.016 Heat Input Correction Factor For Variation
20F Of Ambient Relative Humidity
1.012
1.020
Net Output Correction Factor α 2

59F
1.008
110F 1.016
Little difference at 110F with
1.004 or without duct burner exit
1.012

Net Heat Input Correction Factor β 3

temperature limit
1.000
1.008

0.996
1.004

0.992 20F, 59F and 110F curves are 1.000

basically identical for constant
0.988 duty burner duty
0.996

0.984 0.992 35 F

0.980 0.988 75 F
14.55 14.60 14.65 14.70 14.75 14.80 14.85 110 F
Ambient Pressure (PSIA) 0.984 110 F (DB EXIT TEMP LIMITED)

0.980
Figure 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ambient Relative Humidity (%)

Heat Input Correction Factor For Variation

Of Ambient Pressure
1.020
Two other correction methods are also considered for the
1.016 test correction and are found to not satisfy the test objective.
20 F
1.012 One is to specify a fixed measured net power test at all ambient
Net Heat Input Correction Factorβ 2

59 F
1.008 110 F
conditions. However, this method is not sufficient to
demonstrate both the output and heat rate guarantees. The other
1.004
method is to use a ∆7 correction, which allows the addition of
1.000 power output and fuel heat input to the test results to account
0.996 for the additional firing from the duct burner. If the correction
0.992
curves are developed with a lower duct burner duty, then the
20F, 59F and 110F curves are
basically identical for constant
test heat input could be increased to the maximum duct burner
0.988 duty burner duty
duty using ω7 correction while adding the incremental output ∆7
0.984
to the test output. The advantage of lowering the duct firing is
0.980 that the correction curves can be generated at a constant duct
14.55 14.60 14.65 14.70 14.75 14.80 14.85
Ambient Pressure (PSIA)
burner duty throughout the ambient temperature range without
hitting any equipment limit.

The ambient relative humidity correction curves for α3 and For example, if the maximum duct burner duty is 550
ω3 are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Unlike the ambient MMBtu/hr (LHV), correction curves could be developed at 500
temperature correction curves, the relative humidity correction MMBtu/hr (LHV) where no equipment limits exist throughout
curve at hotter ambient temperatures is less affected by the duct the ambient temperature range. Figure 12 shows the correction
firing limitation. This is because at 110 °F fixed ambient factor of delta output versus delta heat input. For a delta heat
temperature; the duct burner duty is almost constant at various input of 50 MMBtu/hr (LHV), the ∆7 output adjustment will be
relative humidities. Therefore, the correction factor is similar to approximately 6.2 MW. However, as PTC 46 has pointed out,
that of same ambient temperature with constant duct firing. the ∆7 correction is for small differences between required and
actual unit operating disposition. The adjustment in this case

5 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 does not really meet the intent of the ∆7, ω7 correction of PTC CONCLUSION
46.
Development of correction curves for a combined cycle
Figure 12 power plant is a critical task in the performance testing
Net Output Correction Factor For Variation program. These curves will be used to determine the corrected
Of Duct Burner Heat Input
10,000
performance of the plant, and therefore are instrumental in
9,000
determining whether the plant has achieved its performance
guarantees. For an unfired combined cycle plant, development
8,000
of correction curves is straightforward. However, for a heavily
Increase in Net Output, ∆ 7, (kWe)

7,000
fired combined cycle plant, potential equipment constraints
6,000 may impact how the correction curves are developed. It must
5,000 be recognized that equipment constraints may not occur in the
4,000 "real plant" under the same conditions as identified in the
3,000
performance model. The correction curves must be developed
2,000
to account for this, so that corrected results accurately reflect
the true performance of the plant at the guarantee conditions.
1,000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Increase in Duct Burner Heat Input, ω 7, (MMBtu/hr, LHV) REFERENCES

[1] ASME Performance Test Code on Overall Plant
Performance, PTC 46, 1996.
DISCUSSIONS
[2] Ugolini, D.J. and Ip, S., 1993, "Combined Cycle Plant
Combined cycle plants with duct firing pose challenges to Performance Testing - Correcting Measured Performance Back
the cycle engineer in developing correction curves when to Guarantee Conditions", Proceedings of the POWER-GEN
equipment design limits are reached at various ambient AMERICAS '93 Conference, Dallas, Texas, vol. 9, pp. 39-56.
conditions. This is especially true when the plant guarantees are
at colder instead of hotter ambient temperature reference
conditions. For a specific plant disposition test for output and
heat rate, the fundamental equations in PTC 46 and as
described in this paper’s example can be used to develop the
correction curves. This method is better than using the ∆7 and
ω7, which could yield too large an adjustment for output and
heat rate correction. The test director must properly identify
the measuring criteria of the equipment limits and place the
plant in the intended test configuration so that the correction
curves could be properly applied.

For plants that have an air-cooled condenser as a heat sink,

the steam turbine backpressure limit can be reached at hot
ambient conditions; hence, the amount of duct firing may need
to be cut back further at those conditions. Depending on the
equipment design margins, actual test ambient conditions, and
plant test disposition, the equipment limits as anticipated in the
calculation might not be seen (or accurately measured) during
the performance test. The advantage of using a set of correction
curves with varying duct burner duty is to rely less on the
accurate measurement of the equipment limits, such as duct
burner exit temperatures during the test.

Another alternative to developing correction curves is to

use a plant performance model to determine a single overall
correction. The correction methodology of PTC 46 is written
around the use of correction curves, but section 5.4 of PTC 46
does allow the use of a model to determine the overall
correction. The use of a model eliminates the concerns
described in this paper, but industry practice currently clearly
favors the use of correction curves. Disadvantages of the use of
a computer model (such as potential convergence problems,
whether costly program licenses would be required for all
parties, etc.) must be recognized if a model is being considered.

6 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 1 - PLANT PERFORMANCE TEST BOUNDARY
P
B
pf

HP IP/LP GEN
P

COOLING
TOWER t

R rh
H E CONDENSER
P H L
R H E P
S E O A
T C H T T S
E O E T
A L A S E
M D T T A
E M MAKE - UP
S A WATER
T M
E
A
M

Plant Aux Load

S S S E E E
S E E S E C
U U U V
R D U V U C C V O P
P R P C P
U P P A O O A N R
E E E A O E
R C E E E P N N P D E
H R P N R R
H T R H O O O O E H
E H H O O H H H I L
E E L E R M M R N E
GAS TURBINE A E R M P P
H A B E
H A
A H A H A H I P A I E I A P I I A S A
GENERATOR T T P A P T
P T E U P T P T P T P Z T T Z Z T A T
E R E E E O E E O T E
R E O E E
R N R R R R R
R R R R R R E R
GEN E
B R

t pf GROSS
P OUTPUT

BLOWDOWN
rh
To Duct Burner
HP/IP
p BFP

FUEL SYMBOLS:
TEST m
FLOW t TEMPERATURE rh REL HUMIDITY
C m t BOUNDARY
p AMB. PRESS P POWER

C COMPOSITION pf POWER FACTOR

7 Copyright © 2005 by Bechtel

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use