The minimum required static head is:
Hal = (NPSH) r + Hf + AHmaK = 93.9 ft < 95 ft provided
The elevation of the deaerator is, therefore, adequate.
Recommended Bypass System. With this protective system, Hst
can be reduced. If H3t is assumed to be 74 ft, M, will be 17,000
lb proportionally.
The maximum suction pressure decay due to the mixing zone
capacity Mm can be determined by substituting Mm for x into
equation (8).
hi = 329.1 B t u / l b
Since h, = hi, the corresponding pressures and liquid specific
volumes are:
Pd = 147.60 psia, vd = 0.01807
p, = 150 psia, v, = 0.01809
Then,
/0.01807 + 0.01809 \
Affmax = (150 - 147.6)( 1 = 6.3 ft
Hence, the minimum required static head is,
H„ = 52 + 14 + 6.3
= 72.3 ft, which is smaller than 74 ft assumed.
Therefore, the bypass system reduces the elevation of the de-
aerator by 21 ft. The required bypass flow is then,
DISCUSSION
I. J. Karrasik 2
Nothing gives an engineer as much pleasure as the opportunity
to discuss a technical paper on a familiar subject, written by a
congenial author from a point of view that is compatible to one's
own. Such is certainly the case today as I review Mr. Liao's paper.
That the subject is familiar to me can be readily demonstrated by
examining Mr. Liao's list of references; that his point of view is
compatible with mine is apparent from his recommendation to pro-
tect boiler feed pumps against transient conditions by means of a
control which I patented in 1945, even though Mr. Liao recom-
mends modifying it somewhat; finally you will have to take my
word for the fact that I find the author of this paper congenial.
All the preceding should not be interpreted to mean that there
are absolutely no differences of opinion between Mr. Liao and
myself. But the differences which do exist are not very important,
nor do they lead us to widely diverging conclusions or recommen-
dations. As a matter of fact, Mr. Liao implies some differences
which are really nonexistent, as I shall point out later on.
Let me first state my complete agreement with Mr. Liao's ap-
proach to the problem, which is to see that "the wolf must be fed
while the sheep remain safe." In other words, he has concentrated
on recommending means that would fully protect the boiler feed
pump against the unfavorable effects of sudden load reduction
without imposing unnecessary increases in the cost of the deaera-
tor or of its supporting structure. As he says, this approach
should produce "enormous savings" in the light of the rapid in-
creases taking place in the average unit size. But I submit that
the development of the automatic protection controls to which I
addressed myself as early as 1945 was intended for the same pur-
pose.
2
Vice-President and Chief Consulting Engineer, Worthington Corp.
Downloaded From: https://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/31/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
254 / JULY 1974 Copyright © 1974 by ASME
Wb = Wf (1 - e~M"M) = 33401b/min
which amounts to only 3.55 percent of the maximum feedwater
flow.
A computer was used to calculate deaerator pressure and pump
suction vapor pressure for the whole transient operation. The
results were plotted in Pig. 3 to compare the subject protective
system with the ordinary system. I t indicates that there are
negative suction pressure decays when cumulative feedwater *
is within the range between Mm and Ma + M%eM*>u; therefore
this protective system provides the pump with some excess
available N P S H during this period.
Recommended Bypass System with 3-Minute Deaerator Storage Ca-
pacity. Based on:
M = 282,000 lb and M, = 17,600 lb,
we obtain
Affmax = 10.0 ft
which is only 3.7 ft more than the deaerator with 5 min storage.
The required bypass flow increases to 5690 Ib/min, or 6.05
percent of maximum feedwater flow. Although it results in a
slight increase in both deaerator height and bypass flow, a re-
duction in deaerator storage capacity from 5 min to 3 min can be
a significant capital saving both from deaerator and its support-
ing structure.
The transient suction pressure decays in feet of liquid for the
foregoing three cases are shown in Fig. 4.
These controls, in their initial conception, were to be actuated
by signals originated from a measurement of the NPSH at the
pump suction, whereas Mr. Liao prefers and recommends signals
indicating turbine load reduction and cutoff of outside steam sup-
ply. It may well be that Mr. Liao is right and that his type of
control is both less expensive and more reliable. Basically, the
choice of the signal is not important. What is extremely impor-
tant is that the initiation of protective action be as near to 100
percent reliable as possible. If Mr. Laio finds that his choice of
signal has greater reliability, then by all means it should be pre-
ferred.
I am, however, just a bit unhappy that, my good friend Liao has
ascribed to me the intention of diverting "most of the condensate
flow to the boiler' feed suction." If I had, I would have to agree
with him that all the disadvantages he ascribes to such an ap-
proach would indeed exist. But I insist on my complete innocence
in this connection. A careful reading of the reference he cites 3 will
reveal that, on the contrary, I suggested a very modest bypassing of
condensate flow directly to the boiler feed pump suction. I quote:
"A nominal admixture of colder water is sufficient to add a sub-
stantial amount of surplus NPSH to the p u m p . " In the example I
used it was only necessary to provide 12.5 percent of the total
flow from the colder condensate source to achieve 50 ft of addi-
tional NPSH. I should add that there can be no difference what-
soever in the calculated amount of colder water admixture to
achieve a given NPSH increase, given the "immutability" of
steam tables and of the formulas for mixing flows of different
temperatures.
We now come to the differences between the various approach-
es for calculating the effects of sudden load reduction that I have
used in the past, and Liao's approach. It is entirely true that, for
the sake of simplicity, I had neglected changes in the temperature
of the condensate entering the deaerator after a load drop. The
results thus calculated were on the conservative side, but not
3
Karassik, I. J., "Steam Power Plant Clinic—Part XXXII," Combustion
June 1962, pp. 48-50, (Worthington Reprint 45-RP-1014-37).
Transactions of the ASME
 overly so. As I had indicated in my discussion of Mr. Liao's ear- Concerning the recommended on-off type control versus the
lier paper*, my simplified formula could be adjusted very readily continuous modulating control mentioned by Mr. Karassik, the
to reduce this degree of conservatism and to approach very closely on-off type is considered to be superior, as far as minimizing the
to the results obtained using Liao's solution. bypass of nondeaerated water and the cost of system installation
But I repeat: none of these differences are overly important. are concerned. The on-off type ensures no bypass during normal
What is important is that Mr. Liao has contributed one more operations, whereas the modulating type relies on the adjustment
analysis to clarify the circumstances surrounding the transient and setting of the control instruments. It is difficult to determine
conditions which follow load reduction and greater refinement in which control system is more reliable. However, applying the sin-
the methods available to combat the unfavorable results of these gle failure criteria to the control system, the author recommends
transients. His contribution will be most helpful to engineers in- redundant controls. In view of enormous savings that may be
volved in the design of the feedwater cycle of large steam generat-' realized with regard to the cost of the deaerator and its support-
ing stations and I would like to take this occasion to congratulate ing structures, and with a relatively low cost control system, the
.him for it. on-off type could justify redundancy.
Mr. Karassik also referred to the difference between his simpli-
fied approach and the author's method [1], although this had
Author's Closure been explained previously [2]. He indicated that his modified
method, which would incorporate the average temperature of con-
densate entering the deaerator, but neglect the warm condensate
The author wishes to thank Mr. Igor J. Karassik for his valu-
masses in the low pressure heaters and interconnecting piping,
able comments and discussion on this subject; however, I would
could yield a solution similar to that obtainable using the au-
like to clarify some points.
thor's method. He applied his simplified method to the author's
Mr. Karassik indicated that the author had ascribed to him example calculation, and obtained a very similar solution. How-
the intention of diverting "most of the condensate flow to the ever, the approximation omitting the effect of the warm conden-
boiler feed suction." However, this phrase was used with refer- sate masses could easily result in an error of ±10 percent as pre-
ence to an on-off type deaerator bypass system—a system which viously indicated [2], depending on the number of low pressure
Mr. Karassik has never specifically recommended. Taking this heaters. The author's example in an earlier paper [1] indicates
into consideration, a review of the text and reference [15] should that the results obtained from the constant condensate tempera-
clarify his concern. ture assumption varied from 15.3 to 44.1 ft, or almost a 1:3 ratio.
This signifies that the larger the warm condensate masses, the-
4
smaller the maximum transient suction pressure decay, which
Liao, G. S., and Leung, P., "Analysis of Feedwater Pump Suction Pres- approaches 15.3 ft, and vice versa. Therefore, the use of an aver-
sure Decay Under Instant Turbine Load Rejection," JOURNAL OF ENGI-
NEERING FOR POWER, TRANS. ASME, Series A, Vol. 94, Apr. 1972, age condensate temperature alone may result in a significant
pp. 83-90. error.

Downloaded From: https://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org

Journal of Engineering for Power on 05/31/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
JULY 1974 / 255