EFFldlENCY MAINTENANCE OF LARGE STEAM TURBINES

P. Schofield
ABSTRACT
Maintaining a high level of steam turbine-generator
thermal efficiency has become increasingly important
with escalating fuel costs. This paper presents the power
plant performance engineer with a method of estimating
the turbine-generator thermal performance loss due to
deterioration of individual components in the turbine
steam path. The types of deterioration considered are
solid particle erosion, deposits, increased clearances and
peening or foreign material damage. With this informa-
tion, economic evaluations of increased fuel costs resulting
from the performance loss versus repair or replacement
costs can be made. Also, discussed are recommendations
for turbine steam-path repair to restore thermal perform-
ance plus the importance of analyzing the cause of the
deterioration to prevent future recurrence.
An example illustrating the application of the method
described in the paper is given in an Appendix.
INTRODUCTION
High turbine-generator thermal performance is becoming
increasingly important in the design of modern power
plants because it directly affects fuel consumption in the
steam generator. This is true in either a fossil boiler or a
nuclear reactor. Since fuel is a major expense, utilities
require machines not only to have a high initial level of
performance, but also to sustain that
life of the unit.
A knowledge of the actual
level is extremely important,
operating
for it is
righ level over the
thermal efficiency
only through this
knowledge that any change in performance can be identi-
fied. Descriptions of different types of performance tests
to determine and monitor performance level are given in
References l-5. It cannot be overstressed, that the heart
of a program to maintain turbine-generators at their optimum
level of performance is a test program that includes both
an initial acceptance testing plus regular in-service perform-
ance monitoring.
The focus of this paper is to give utilities a means of
estimating the performance loss that a turbine experiences
due to an abnormal condition in the turbine steam path or
conversely, the performance gain that might be achieved
if the turbine is restored to its original condition. The
estimates given in this paper are based not only on analyti-
cal calculations, but also on many field inspections of
turbines having known measured performance deterioration.
The deterioration described results from the turbine
environment rather than the type of turbine construction,
so the information presented is applicable to all types of
turbine construction. The photographs and examples
presented show extreme cases of deterioration and should
not be construed as being typical of impulse-type turbines.
CAUSES OF STEAM TURBINE
EFFICIENCY DETERIORATION
Common causes of deterioration include: solid particle
erosion (Figure l), deposits (Figure 2) increased clear-
ances and peening or foreign material damage (Figure 3).
The overall performance loss associated with deterioration
results from the combination of fundamental losses. These
fundamental causes of loss in a turbine steam path include:
A change in the stage energy distribution resulting
from nozzle and bucket areas being different from
design.
Aerodynamic losses caused by a change in nozzle
and bucket profiles.
Increased friction losses resulting from rough surfaces.
Increased leakage losses due to excess diaphragm
packing, radial tip spill strip and shaft end packing
clearances.
more detailed description of these fundamental
losses is given in Reference 1.
Solid-Particle Erosion
Solid-particle erosion is the abrasive cutting of turbine
components by foreign material carried into the unit by
the steam. This industry-wide problem is increasing turbine
operating costs because of poorer thermal performance
and necessary maintenance expense. Deterioration of the
surfaces of nozzles, buckets, and other steam path parts
Figure 2. Deposits on H.P. stage nozzles.
has been found, in varying degrees, in almost all modern
turbines.
Exfoliating metal oxide scale is the principal source of
solid particles carried by the steam. It builds up over a
period of time and spalls off, possibly during thermal
transients, from the highest-temperature piping - such
as the boiler superheater and reheater tubes, and main
steam piping. It is difficult to predict where and to what
extent solid-particle erosion will occur. Duplicate plants
or turbines, for example, may have different erosion
experience because of different operating practices. Solid-
particle erosion is typically most severe at or near the
high-temperature steam inlet points and diminishes down-
stream. Regions with high steam velocity, e.g., the active
first-stage nozzle arc during partial-arc operation, can be
Figure 1. Solid particle erosion of first reheat nozzles. Figure 3. Foreign material damage to nozzles.
4
Figure 4. Solid particle erosion of first-stage nozzles.
takes into account the losses associated with a change in
energy distribution in the turbine, the change in nozzle
profile and the increased friction losses. It is also assumed
that the loss varies linearly with the degree of erosion
damage. In practice, this is probably not the case. It is
believed that the performance loss is small during the
initial stage of solid-particle erosion, accelerating as the
nozzle trailing edges start to erode away. This estimate
should, therefore, only be used if the erosion is to a point
where the nozzle trailing edges are starting to erode away.
Leakage losses associated with eroded leakage controls
should be considered separately.
For the impulse-type design, the performance losses
due to bucket erosion can be estimated as one-third that
for the nozzle. In reaction-type designs, the overall stage
performance loss is about the same, however, the split is
different, with equal loss for both stationary and rotating
parts.
susceptible to this type of erosion (Figure 4). The first
stage after the reheater has also been found to be susceptible
(Figure 1).
Performance losses caused by solid-particle erosion are
primarily a result of changes in nozzle and bucket profiles,
increased roughness of steam-path surfaces and increased
spill-strip clearances. Secondary effects result from redis-
tribution of energy among the stages and associated cycle
effects. Since these losses combine in a complicated man-
ner, it is difficult to obtain a general relationship between
erosion damage and efficiency loss.
To provide some guidance in this area, Reference 1
provides an estimate of the overall heat-rate loss that
might typically exist when solid-particle erosion has reached
the point at which the mechanical-structural integrity of
the parts is questionable. It states that when the turbine-
generator is operating at full load, the loss in the HP section
could be 30 Btu/kWh for a 500 MW opposed-flow unit
and 40 Btu/kWh for a 700 MW separate HP casing unit.
The losses at part load would be greater. In the reheat
section, the loss might be about 25 Btu/kWh for both
units.
The losses given above are an overall effect and include
a number of stages, increased leakage effects and the
effects of erosion on both the nozzle and bucket contours
and areas. To economically justify repair or replacement
of parts, a further breakdown of the losses is required.
As mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to generalize
the magnitude of the losses associated with solid particle
erosion. However, an approximate rule of thumb for an
impulse type stage is - three percent stage efficiency loss
for 10 percent change in nozzle throat area. This value
To determine the losses due to solid-particle erosion,
measurement of nozzle area in the eroded condition is
required so that it can be compared to the design area. This
is not easy in a severely eroded nozzle, however, only an
approximate measurement is needed to determine the
order of magnitude of the loss. Once a stage efficiency
loss has been estimated, it can be converted into a heat-
rate loss. This procedure is explained in the section en-
titled, Evaluation of Performance Loss.
The economics of the performance loss may justify
repairs or replacement of parts damaged by solid-particle
erosion well before direct structural failure is imminent.
Such repairs or replacements may also be needed prior
to this point because the increasing level of vibratory
stimulus or loss <of cooling steam effectiveness, which
occur as erosion progresses, may lead to early bucket
failure and long-term rotor damage.
Erosion damage is expensive and time-consuming to
repair. Parts such as nozzles and diaphragms may be re-
paired by welding and recontouring steam-path surfaces.
Good repair techniques, together with the use of contour
gauges during the welding process can result in the recovery
of the majority of the performance loss. However, poor
uncontrolled repair of nozzle profiles will result in not
only less performance recovery, but also could jeopardize
the reliability of the turbine. Replacement is usually
necessary only in extreme cases. Some parts, however,
such as buckets, must be replaced because there is no
practical method of repair.
The use of better oxidation-resistant
high-temperature regions of the boiler and
material in the
in high-temper-
5
ature piping has been suggested as a possible way to mini-
mize erosion. Chromizing and chromating boiler tubes
can also be used. Acid cleaning of the boiler and main
steam piping to remove oxide scale before it comes loose
has also been suggested. However, extreme caution must
be used to protect the turbine from contamination by
the cleaning wastes. The extra cost for better materials or
acid cleaning has to be offset by the cost of damage caused
by erosion and its consequent loss of efficiency.
While it may be impractical to replace piping and boiler
tubing in operating plants to improve steam cleanliness,
a utility might be able to reduce the impact of the erosion
by following these recommendations:
l Avoid prolonged operation at light load. If this is
not possible, consideration should be given to full-
arc operation.
l Avoid frequent cycling.
l Maintain good control of water chemistry.
l Have specific spare parts available, so that repair of
the eroded part does not extend the outage.
Deposits
Boiler carryover or the use of main steam or reheat
attemperation having poor water chemistry may result in
deposits on the turbine steam-path. This can have a signifi-
cant effect on unit efficiency, capacity, and reliability.
The impact of deposits on turbine performance depends
on their thickness, their location, and the resulting surface
roughness. Deposits will change the basic profile of the
nozzle partitions and buckets resulting in losses caused by
changes in energy distribution and aerodynamic profiles
as well as by surface roughness effects.
The performance loss associated with deposits is de-
pendent upon roughness of the deposit surface. If it is a
fairly smooth uniform deposit, the magnitude of the loss
due to the area change is similar to that for solid-particle
erosion. However, if the surface is very rough due to the
deposits flaking off, such as in Figure 2, then a greater
loss might be experienced, especially in the high pressure
section of a turbine.
One of the major effects of deposits when they occur
in the high pressure turbine, is the reduction in the maxi-
mum capacity of the turbine. Figure 5 shows the maximum
capacity change that can be expected for changes in nozzle
area for an impulse-type turbine. For example, a 10 per-
cent reduction in nozzle area of the first stage because of
deposits would reduce the maximum capacity of the unit
by three percent. The values in Figure 5 are approximately
additive (i.e., an additional 10 percent reduction in the
second-stage nozzle area would result in a total maximum
capacity reduction of 5.2 percent). Figure 5 can also be
used for the first stage of a reaction-type turbine.
Figure 5. Effect of change in nozzle area on flow capa-
city for impulse-type turbines.
2
CHANGE
4 6
NOZZLE AREA
0
( PERC ENT )
6
During maintenance periods, it is common practice to
clean the stationary and rotating blading by blasting them
with aluminum oxide. Most deposits can be removed this
way, but the original surface finish of the blading may be
deteriorated to some extent. Cleaning should be done
carefully and according to the manufacturers recommen-
dations. An operator should take particular care to clean
the less accessible areas, such as the underneath side of
bucket covers (Figure 6). These areas are frequently missed
during cleaning and can easily cause losses of several per-
centage points on stage efficiency.
Figure 6. Deposits under bucket covers.
Internal washing of an assembled turbine to remove
deposits sometimes can be used to indicate the presence
of deposits and to restore lost efficiency - at least tem-
porarily. It does not, however, remove the cause of the
deposit problem and generally is not considered to be an
effective long-term solution. For large, modern turbines,
washing should be undertaken with great caution and only
under special circumstances. An operator can contact the
manufacturer for recommendations if he believes washing
would be beneficial.
The most effective method for preventing deposit
formation is to maintain good control of water chemistry
and to assure that only clean steam enters the turbine
under all operating conditions.
Increased Clearances
Rubbing of rotating parts with the stationary parts will
result in increased. clearance and, hence, increased steam
leakage. Rubbing of the packings and spill strips can be
caused by high vibration of the rotor, thermal distortion
of the stationary parts, bearing failure, water induction,
etc. Increased packing and spill-strip clearances can also be
caused by erosion from solid particles.
In order to produce shaft output, steam must pass
through both the nozzle and bucket flow passages. Steam
which bypasses either or both of these flow passages will
not produce output and, in fact, .may disturb the flow
that does go through the nozzle and bucket in such a way
as to further decrease the output. Leakage losses occur in
turbines as bucket tip leakage, diaphragm packing leakage,
bucket root leakage, shaft end packing leakage, and internal
packing leakage. Abnormal leakage such as at the horizontal
joints of shells and diaphragms also falls into this category.
Figures 7 and 8 diagrammatically illustrate the different
inner-stage leakages for a typical impulse wheel and dia-
phragm construction and reaction drum rotor construction,
respectively.
To determine the performance loss due to increased
clearances, the clearances need to be measured. It should
be remembered that packing teeth or spill strips do not
normally wear uniformly around the circumference. The
bottom and the top of the packings often rub more than
the sides. Therefore, tooth wear needs to be measured at
the top and bottom of the packing or spill-strip as well as
the sides. Wear measurements are converted into clear-
ances by comparing the wear at the left and right joints
with the measured clearances at these locations with the
rotor in place. Using these relationships, the top and
bottom clearances can be calculated. The packing clear-
ance is then obtained from an average of the four readings:
left, right, top, and bottom.
To assist in evaluating the thermal performance loss
for diaphragm packing leakage and radial tip spill-strip
leakage, General Electric supplies kilowatt loss per mil
excess clearance on all units on which Advanced Main-
tenance Planning (AMPS) recommendations have been
made. These data should be used in estimating losses if
it is available.
a) Bucket Tip Leakage
Bucket tip leakage is the leakage that bypasses the
bucket passage by leaking over the tip of the bucket.
The amount of leakage is dependent upon the steam
conditions of the stage, the pressure drop across the
tip of the bucket (dependent upon stage reaction),
the axial and radial clearance, and the type of tip
leakage control. Because of the large number of
variables that effect the magnitude of this leakage
loss it is difficult to arrive at a generalized formula to
determine the loss. This is why the individual stage
loss data, like that supplied by General Electric in
their Advanced Maintenance Planning (AMPS),
should be used. When these data are not available,
the following typical kW loss data per stage can be
used for impulse type turbines.
TABLE 1.
Typical Kilowatt Loss per Mil of
Excess Clearance Per Stage for Radial
Tip Spill Strips
Unit Size - MW HP Stages
100 2.5
500 7.0
IP Stages
1.0
3.0
LP Stages
1.5
6.0
The data given in Table 1 are for a total turbine stage
and includes the stage loss factors. They also assume
that the axial clearance is large compared to the radial
clearance, which is usually the case in large modern
units. To obtain data for a single row, the values given
above need to be divided by the number of flows in
that section. For example, if a 500 MW unit has a
four-flow LP section, then the kW loss/mil excess
clearance for each row would be 1.5 kW/mil. For
turbine sizes other than those given above, a linear
interpolation may be used.
The typical data given above are for impulse-type
turbines. Because of the inherently greater pressure
drop across the bucket tip of reaction-type turbines,
the percentage stage efficiency loss for excess radial
tip spill-strip clearances can be double that for the
impulse. design.
b) Diaphragm Packing Leakage
This is the leakage flow that bypasses the nozzle
passage by leaking between the diaphragm or sta-
tionary nozzles and the rotor. To reduce this leakage,
a labyrinth packing is installed. This leakage flow is
dependent upon the stage steam conditions, the
pressure drop across the stationary nozzle (dependent
upon stage reaction), the radial clearance, the diameter
and the number of teeth in the packing. If specific
kW loss data are available, they should be used. When
not available, the following typical kW loss data per
stage can be used for impulse type turbines.
TABLE 2.
Typical Kilowatt Loss per Mil
of Excess Clearance Per
Stage for Diaphragm Packings
Unit Size - MW 1 HP S t a g e s 1 I P St ages 1 LP Stages
The same comments apply to these data as applied to
Table 1.
The fewer packing teeth and the larger packing
diameter of the reaction-drum rotor construction of
Figure 8 combine such that the percentage stage
efficiency loss for excess diaphragm packing clear-
ances can be 25 percent greater than that for the
impulse design.
c) Bucket Root Leakage
Wheel holes are an important factor in keeping the
bucket ro,ot leakage loss to a minimum. Without the
wheel holes, the diaphragm packing leakage would
flow out into the steam path disturbing the main
steam flow. Test turbine data have shown that bucket
root leakage flow entering the steam path results in
an additional stage efficiency loss of one percent for a
leakage flow equivalent to one percent of the main
steam flow. This loss can be considerably reduced
with a wheel and diaphragm construction (Figure 7)
that allows for installation of wheel holes. These
wheel holes are sized to accommodate the normally
expected diaphragm-packing leakage flow so that
under normal operating conditions little if any flow
enters or leaves the steam path at the root of the
bucket. If, however, the diaphragm packings have a
greater-than-normal clearance, then the wheel holes
cannot pass the increased leakage flow. The excess
flow will enter the main steam path at the bucket
root, resulting in additional loss. The data given in
Table 2 for the impulse-type design includes this
additional loss.
Other types of construction, such as the drum rotor
shown in Figure 8, do not allow for the installation
of wheel holes. This type of construction, therefore,
suffers a sizeable bucket-root leakage penalty even
under normal operating conditions.
8
DI APHRAGM PACKI NG LEAKAGE
Figure 7. Impulse wheel and diaphragm construction.
d) Shaft-End Packing Leakage
Unlike diaphragm shaft packing leakage, most of the
shaft-end packing leakage can be measured directly
and, hence, can be continually monitored. Flow
measuring devices, such as orifices or forward-reverse
pitot-tubes, can be used in the leakoff lines to measure
the leakoff flow.
Figure 8 Reaction drum rotor construction.
TI P LEAKAGE
If the measured flows are not available, Martins
formula, which is well documented in Reference 6,
can be used to calculate the leakage flow through.
a labyrinth packing using measured radial clearances.
where QPKG = the leakage flow lbs/hr
100
4 0
2 0
K
A
cl
D
p1
v1
P
N
p2
= A flow coefficient dependent upon
type and clearance of the packing
teeth - Figure 9
= Leakage area = 7~ (D) (cl) - in.2
= Radial clearance - in.
= Shaft diameter - in.
= Upstream pressure - psia
= Upstream specific volume - ft3/lb
= Number of Throttlings
= Downstream Pressure - psia
LABYRI NTH TYPE PACKI NG
I I I 1 1
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100
RADI AL CLEARANCE (MILS)
Figure 9. Flow coefficient for rubbed packing for use in
Martins formula.
9
Converting leakage flows into an effect on heat rate
can be achieved by using Figures 10 through 13. In
these Figures, HL is the enthalpy of the leakage and
HEXT is the enthalpy of the stage at which leakage
is returned. These curves are plotted for a heat rate
of 8500 Btu/kWh. To correct for actual heat rate,
multiply value from curve by:
(o 666) [(Actual Heat Rate)
.
3412.14 -
ll
(2)
If an estimated kW loss is required, the percent
change in kW output is obtained from equation (3):
(Minus percent increase
Percentage change
in Heat Rate) (100)
- (3)
- in kW output
(K) (100 + percent increase
in Heat Rate)
Where IS = 0.58 for leakage initiating before reheater
and returned after reheater.
K = 1 .O for all other leakages.
e) Miscellaneous Leakages
There are other possible leakage areas which should
be inspected, for they also contribute to a loss in
thermal performance.
Diaphragm distortion can cause leakage at the outer
fits. The symptoms normally show up as bottom
rubbing on the packings and as foreign material
between the joints at the outer rings.
Inner shells and inner casings can distort so that
leakage occurs at the horizontal joint. The leakage
(I+_- HEXT ) (BTU/LB)
Figure 10. Approximate percent loss in heat rate for
leakages taken out of the turbine before the
reheater and returned to the cold reheat line.
I I 1 1 1
0 100 200 300 400 500
(H,-H&(BTU/LB)
Figure 11. Approximate percentage loss in heat for all
leakages taken out of the turbine and returned
to the feedwater on non-reheat units and for
leakages taken out of the turbine after the
reheater and returned to the feedwater on
reheat units.
normally leaves a characteristic pattern, which is
very helpful in determining the mode of distortion.
There is an increased use of thermocouples, pressure
taps,
cooling or heating pipes, and other devices
which must pass through the inner shell from the
outer shell. These are all potential leaks and should
I I I I I
- 200 -100 0 +I00 t200 +300
( HL - HEXT) ( BTU/LB)
Figure 12. Approximate percentage loss in heat rate for
leakage taken out of the turbine before the
reheater and returned to the feedwater on
reheat units after the reheat point.
10
Figure 13.
150 200
HEAT ADDED IN REHEATER (BTU/LB)
250
Approximate percentage loss in heat rate for
first-stage leakage which is returned to the
bowl of the first stage of the turbine section
after the reheater.
be examined during an inspection for the charac-
teristic tracks of leaking steam. For example, if a
first-stage pressure tap is improperly installed or
left out, a loss of as much as 1000 kW could occur
because of steam leaking through the hole, bypassing
the HP turbine stages.
To decide how far to go with iestoration of clearances,
one must consider not only the magnitude of the rub, but
also the degree to which the cause of the rub can be cor-
rected. In the search for likely causes, it is helpful to plot
packing wear versus stage and packing groove numbers in
their correct axial location in the turbine. Wear at both
sides and at the top and bottom should be plotted sepa-
rately. These plots will often show clearly the type of rub
(raised shell, bowed rotor, etc.).
The following guidelines, together with a performance
loss evaluation, will be helpful in making decisions con-
cerning repair of sealing devices.
l Do not replace packing or spill strips that you expect
will quickly rub out to the same condition.
l Do not restore if the clearance is 25 mils or less for
small units or 35 mils or less for large units. These
are typical values of clearance found for a smooth
running turbine after one year of operation.
Particular emphasis should be placed on those units
where a known case of water induction, solid-particle
erosion, or excessive vibration has occurred. To restore
these units to a reasonable level of performance, it may
be necessary to repair or replace the damaged spill strips
and packing. These parts should be carried in stock to be
sure they do not delay the outage.
If rubbed packings or spill strips are not replaced, the
teeth should be sharpened. Care should be taken during
the sharpening process to make certain that the clearances
are not increased.
General Electric establishes its design clearances some-
what smaller than the typical in-service values given above.
The good rubbing characteristics of the spring back packing
design used with wheel and diaphragm type construction
has been proven through long experience. Therefore, by
establishing design clearances smaller than the average,
not all turbine operators are penalized by the large clear-
ances needed to assure no rubbing during abnormal
operation.
Due to the many variables associated with turbine opera-
tion, it is General Electrics practice to use the typical
in-service running clearances given above in efficiency
evaluations rather than design clearances.
Peening or Foreign Material Damage
This is caused by the admission of foreign material
(other than oxide scale) to the various turbine stages.
Typical foreign materials include weld rod, bead and
spatter, loose debris such as small nuts and bolts, and
other material or parts that may have come loose in com-
ponents further upstream in the steam system.
The distinguishing features of peening and foreign
material damage are that the damage occurs instanta-
neously or over a short period of time - as distinct from
solid-particle erosion, which is a continuing process. Also,
the damaging particles are generally larger than those
which cause solid-particle erosion.
Damage found during an inspection usually is covered
with oxide, or with deposits, giving the damage the appear-
ance of being old (Figures 3 and 14). If the damage is
caused by foreign material, it probably will be found on
both the admission edge of the buckets and on the down-
stream side of the nozzles in the same stage. The reason is
that the larger particles associated with this type of damage
ricochet back and forth between the rotating and stationary
blading in the nozzle-bucket space before passing on
through the turbine.
Like deposits and solid-particle erosion, peening and
foreign material damage causes changes in nozzle and
bucket throat areas and profiles and surface roughness,
which adversely effect turbine efficiency. The magnitude
of the loss will depend upon the amount and uniformity
of the damage. However, if it is extensive enough to change
11
Figure 14. Peening and foreign material damage to buckets.
nozzle areas, then the loss can be assumed to be similar to
that suggested for solid-particle erosion.
If the damage is only to the surface of the nozzle and
buckets, then the losses experienced will be those due to
increase friction resulting from the rougher surface. If
the whole nozzle and bucket surfaces are damaged, the
losses can be considerable as shown in Figure 15. Figure
15 is a plot of the calculated loss in stage efficiency caused
by surface roughness and was taken from Reference 7.
Usually, the surface damage is not as extensive as assumed
in Figure 15 so the actual loss would be proportionately
less.
Corrective action should include identification of the
source of the damaging material to prevent further occur-
0.0 I
rences. In some cases, it is necessary to check components
in the steam system upstream of the damage, including
upstream turbine components. This will determine the
source of the material and facilitate repairs. If the source
is located ahead of the turbine stop valves, screens in the
valves should be inspected and repaired, if necessary.
Peening and foreign-material damage can be minimized
further by taking the following precautions:
l Blow down main and reheat steam piping before
initial turbine startup and after major repairs.
l Be absolutely certain before closure that no foreign
material is left in the turbine after installation and
maintenance.
l Install fine-mesh screens of main and reheat stop
valves before initial startup and after major boiler
repairs. Operate the turbine with valves open as
widely as possible and at rated steam conditions
for a sufficient period before removing fine mesh
screens.
To restore the steam path after peening or foreign
material damage has occurred, one should smooth roughened
nozzle partitions or buckets by simple handwork, removing
the raised portion of the craters where the foreign material
has upset the original surface. Regaining original factory
finish by filing or polishing the surface until pits completely
disappear should not be attempted as this would require
removing a large amount of material from the surface,
which would significantly change the original profile shape,
-5 0 0 Mw U N I T
\
---200Mw U N I T
l-i. l? TURBI NE
q
\
\
\
\
8 I6 3 2 6 3 I25 2 5 0 5 0 0
I I I I I ! 1
\
SURFACE FI NI SH, MI CRO- I NCHES C .L.A. ( FLOW ACROSS CUT)
\
I6 3 2 6 3 I25 2 5 0 5 0 0 IO00
I I I I I I 1
\
SURFACE FI NI SH, MI CRO- I NCHES C. L. A. ( FLOW WI TH CUT)
9 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0
I
2 4 0
I I I I
EMERY GRADE
L.P.TURBINE
I. P.TURBINE
0 . 0 5 0.1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1.0 2 . 0 4 . 0 6 . 0 8 . 0 10.0
EQUI VALENT SAND GRAI N SI ZE ( MI LS)
Figure 15. Approximate loss in stage efficiency as a function of surface roughness.
12
weaken the blade structurally, and may result in changing
the nozzle or bucket throat area.
EVALUATION OF
PERFORMANCE LOSS
The effect on overall turbine-generator output and heat
rate due to an efficiency loss on a single stage depends
upon the kilowatt output of that stage and its location
in the turbine. In general, the stages in each section are
designed to have approximately equal energy. Using this
assumption, the interstage pressures can be estimated from
a Mollier Chart by dividing the turbine expansion line for
each section into a number of equal energies. The number
of divisions would be equal to the number of stages in that
section. An approximation of single stage output in a
section can be estimated from equation (4):
(kW Rating)(kW Factor of
Stage kW Output =
the Section)
(4)
(No. of Stages in Section)
(No. of Flows) (100)
The kW Factor is the percent of the rating kilowatts
generated in the section in which the loss occurred. This
kW Factor varies from section to section and unit to unit
and can be estimated from the turbine-generator heat
balances. If heat balances are not available, typical values
that can be used range from:
HP Section - 24 to 26 percent
IP Section - 39 to 25 percent
LP Section - 37 to 49 percent
In general, the first number represents older-type de-
signs, while the second number is more representative of
modern design.
As a result of a property of steam, some of the loss
that occurs in a stage before the last stage will be recovered
by the following stages. To account for this effect, a
factor, known as loss factor, must be applied to a stage
loss to determine the true effect of that loss on the overall
turbine.
Figure 16 shows the loss factor for a turbine operating
entirely in the superheated region (i.e., HP Section), with
the assumption of an average stage efficiency of 90 percent.
Figure 17 shows the loss factor for a turbine that has an
expansion that crosses the saturation line (i.e., reheat
section), again with the assumption of an average stage
efficiency of 90 percent.
The kilowatt output loss due to the loss in stage ef-
ficiency can then be estimated using equation (5):
IOOOOF I NI TI AL TEMPERATURE
90% AVERAGE STAGE EFFI CI ENCY
PEXHAUST - SECTI ON EXHAUST PRESSURE
PLOSS - PRESSURE AT WHI CH LOSS OCCURED
0. 6
,i
0.5 1 I I I I I
0 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 I . 0
E X H A U S T LOSS
Figure 16. Loss factor for turbine operating entirely in
superheated region.
(Stage kW Output)(Loss Factor)
Kilowatt Loss =
(% Loss in Stg. Effic.)
(5)
(100)
The heat rate penalty resulting from this kilowatt
loss can be calculated using equation (6):
(K)(Kilowatt Loss)
Heat Rate Penalty (Btu/kWh) = (T-G Heat Rate)
(6)
I . 0
0. 9
0. 6
0.5
0. 4
0
(Rating kW)
EXHAUST PRESSURE - 3HgA
90% AVERAGE STAGE EFFI CI ENCY
I I I I I I
2 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0
TEMPERATURE AT WHI CH LOSS OCCURS
1200
Figure 17. Loss factor for turbine whose expansion
crosses the saturation line.
13
where: K = 0.58 for loss initiating before the reheater - Therefore:
this takes into account the change in re-
heater duty.
b
No. of Years to Insp.
1
(9)
The Present Worth of the
Total Fuel Cost Savings
= \ (Present Worth)
for Year N or K = 1.0 for losses initiating after the reheater or
for nonreheat units. I
Restoration through repair or replacement will result in
improved heat rate and hence reduced fuel costs. The
In addition to a reduction in fuel costs produced by a
annual savings in fuel costs can be estimated using the
more efficiency turbine-generator, the utility benefits by
following simplified formula:
obtaining more plant capacity from a given investment in
steam generating and other heat transfer equipment, as
AFCS (R>(cF>(F)(aHR>(8760> -
-
108
(7)
well as feed.water and fuel handling equi pment. The value
placed on incremental capacity varies widely between
different power generating systems, but in general tends
where : AFCS = Annual Fuel Cost Savings (Dollars)
to be proportional to the installed cost per kilowatt of
R = Turbine-Generator Rating (Kilowatts)
current plant construction within that system.
CF = Capacity or Load Factor (Percent)
F = Fuel Costs (Dollars per Million Btu)
AHR = Expected Improvement in Heat Rate
An example illustrating the application of these tech-
niques to a particular t<rbine is given in the Appendix.
(Btu/kWh)
CONCLUSION
To estimate a total savings, the length of time that the
fuel cost savings will be experienced needs to be deter- thermal performance through testing, monitoring, main-
mined. For nozzle repair, it seems reasonable to assume tenance, and improved diagnostic and operating procedures
that the reduced fuel cost resulting from the restoration to eliminate or reduce conditions causing deterioration can
Maintaining a high level of steam turbine-generator
of the turbine will be experienced at least up to the time
of the next scheduled outage. The logic behind this premise
is the fact that if no repair is done, the turbine performance
would continue to deteriorate, probably at about the same
rate as if restoration had taken place. For estimating the
savings for restoring packing clearances, the assumption
made for length of time the efficiency benefit will be
experienced is different, as there is a likelihood that the
clearances would not deteriorate further if they were not
restored. Therefore, in the case of evaluating the advantages
of restoring clearances, it is suggested that one assumes
that by the time the next inspection is due, the clearances
have increased back to those just found. Using this assump-
tion, the reduced fuel costs for restoring packing clearances
should be decreased at a uniform rate until the next sched-
uled outage. This is probably conservative, as with good
operation, there is no reason why the clearances cannot be
held.
provide a significant long-term economic benefit to the
utility in the form of reduced fuel costs and increased
capacity.
Acceptance testing, to verify high initial thermal per-
formance, and performance monitoring, to track the level
of thermal performance, are important in determining
the magnitude and rate of deterioration in performance.
An estimate of thermal performance loss, can be used
by utilities to justify economical repair or replacement
of turbine parts, such as nozzles, buckets, diaphragm
packings, spill-strips, etc.
Preventing the recurrence of the causes of deterioration,
or at least slowing down the process of deterioration, is
essential in maintaining a high level of thermal performance.
A consistently high level of -thermal performance has
conservation and reduced effect on the environment
other benefits not addressed here. Among them are: fuel
resulting from fewer products of combustion and less
heat rejection.
assuming fuel cost inflation. The present worth of those
savings is found using equation (8).
The fuel cost savings can be calculated for each year
Present Worth of Fuel _ [AFCS in 1 [ 1
Cost Savings in Year N - Year N (l+r)n
-J
(8)
Therefore, improved thermal performance should be
a continuing goal for utilities. It will result in reduced
operating costs, an increase in capacity for a given in-
vestment, and a beneficial ecological outcome.
where: r is the annual rate of return on investment and
n = (N + (N-1))/2.
14

APPENDIX
TABLE 3.
The example following is hypothetical and for illustra-
tive purposes only and should not be considered as typical
for conditions found in impulse-type turbines. Inspection
of a seven-stage HP and a 5-stage IP section of an opposed
flow type, 400 MW turbine having 2400 psia/lOOO F/
1000 F initial steam conditions and a 580 psia HP section
exhaust pressure revealed the following:
RESULTS OF INSPECTION OF HP AND IP
SECTION OF A 400 MW
24OOP/lOOO F/1000 F STEAM TURBINE
Diaphragm
or Shaft
Packing
Clearance
Percentage
Increase in
Nozzle Area
Due to
Erosion
l Solid particle erosion in the HP and IP sections.
l Radial rubbing of both diaphragm packing and
radial tip spill strips throughout the HP and IP
sections.
l Radial rubbing of shaft end and internal packing.
The results of the measurements taken are given in
Table 3.
A. Calculation of fuel cost savings for repairing diaphragms
with solid particle erosion damage.
Consider the first HP stage. Using the rule of thumb
given earlier in the paper, a three percent loss in stage
efficiency for 10 percent change in nozzle area, the first
stage efficiency loss calculates to be 3.6 percent. To de-
termine the effect of this single stage loss on overall heat
rate, the output of the stage needs to be estimated. From
equation (4) the stage kW output is:
Stage kW output =
(400000) (26) = 14900 kW
(7) (1) (100)
The loss factor
how much of the
for the sta
loss from
.ge is now
the first
needed
stage is
to determine
recovered in
HP turbine), the first-stage shell pressure can be read off
the Mollier Chart to be 1970 psia. From Figure
factor for the first stage is found to be 0.78.
16, the loss
the downstream stages. Figure 18 shows the construction
of the HP section expansion line on a Mollier Chart. Divid-
ing the expansion line into seven equal energies (seven-stage
The overall kW loss from equation (5) is:
kW loss =
(14900) (o*78) (3*6)
100
= 420 kW
From equation (6) the heat rate loss associated with the
solid particle erosion is:
Heat Rate Loss =
(*58) (420) () = 4 9 Btu/kWh
(400000) l
Location
N 1 Packing
Stage 7
Stage 6
Stage 5
Stage 4
Stage 3
Stage 2
Stage 1
N2 Packing
Stage 8
Stage 9
Stage 10
Stage 11
Stage 12
N3 Packing
mils
45
50
55
57
55
55
52
__
53
__B
57
59
62
61
60
Radial Tip
Spill Strip
Clearance
mils
___
60
60
62
64
82
90
100
--
80
70
65
68
70
mm_
___
-s_
-m-
5%
8%
12%
-_-
10%
5%
In this calculation, the overall turbine-generator cycle
heat rate is assumed to be 8000 Btu/kWh.
Assuming the turbine to have a 70 percent capacity
factor and a boiler fueled by coal purchased at $1.50 per
million Btus, the annual fuel cost savings that would
result from first-stage nozzle repair is estimated using
equation (7):
Annual Fuel = (400000) (70) (l l 5) (4*9) (8760)= $ I8 000
Cost Savings
(108)
9
15
where: K = 0.58 for loss initiating before the reheater -
this takes into account the change in re-
heater duty.
or K = 1.0 for losses initiating after the reheater or
for nonreheat units.
Restoration through repair or replacement will result in
improved heat rate and hence reduced fuel costs. The
annual savings in fuel costs can be estimated using the
following simplified formula:
AFCS (R)(cF>o(aHR)(8760>
=
108
(7)
where : AFCS = Annual Fuel Cost Savings (Dollars)
R = Turbine-Generator Rating (Kilowatts)
CF = Capacity or Load Factor (Percent)
F = Fuel Costs (Dollars per Million Btu)
LSIHR = Expected Improvement in Heat Rate
(Btu/kWh)
To estimate a total savings, the length of time that the
fuel cost savings will be experienced needs to be deter-
mined. For nozzle repair, it seems reasonable to assume
that the reduced fuel cost resulting from the restoration
of the turbine will be experienced at least up to the time
of the next scheduled outage. The logic behind this premise
is the fact that if no repair is done, the turbine performance
would continue to deteriorate, probably at about the same
rate as if restoration had taken place. For estimating the
savings for restoring packing clearances, the assumption
made for length of time the efficiency benefit will be
experienced is different, as there is a likelihood that the
clearances would not deteriorate further if they were not
restored. Therefore, in the case of evaluating the advantages
of restoring clearances, it is suggested that one assumes
that by the time the next inspection is due, the clearances
have increased back to those just found. Using this assump-
tion, the reduced fuel costs for restoring packing clearances
should be decreased at a uniform rate until the next sched-
uled outage. This is probably conservative, as with good
operation, there is no reason why the clearances cannot be
held.
The fuel cost savings can be calculated for each year
assuming fuel cost inflation. The present worth of those
savings is found using equation (8).
Present Worth of Fuel _ [AFCS in 1 [ 1
Cost Savings in Year N - Year N (l+r)n
1
(8)
where: r is the annual rate of return on investment and
n = (N + (N-1))/2.
14
Therefore:
No. of Years to Insp.
The Present Worth of the =
Total Fuel Cost Savings
c
(9)
(Present Worth)
for Year N
N=l
In addition to a reduction in fuel costs produced by a
more efficiency turbine-generator, the utility benefits by
obtaining more plant capacity from a given investment in
steam generating and other heat transfer equipment, as
well as feedwater and fuel handling equipment. The value
placed on incremental capacity varies widely between
different power generating systems, but in general tends
to be proportional to the installed cost per kilowatt of
current plant construction within that system.
An example illustrating the application of these tech-
niques to a particular turbine is given in the Appendix.
CONCLUSION
Maintaining a high level of steam turbine-generator
thermal performance through testing, monitoring, main-
tenance, and improved diagnostic and operating procedures
to eliminate or reduce conditions causing deterioration can
provide a significant long-term economic benefit to the
utility in the form of reduced fuel costs and increased
capacity.
,
Acceptance testing, to verify high initial thermal per-
formance, and performance monitoring, to track the level
of thermal performance, are important in determining
the magnitude and rate of deterioration in performance.
An estimate of thermal performance loss, can be used
by utilities to justify economical repair or replacement
of turbine parts, such as nozzles, buckets, diaphragm
packings, spill-strips, etc.
Preventing the recurrence of the causes of deterioration,
or at least slowing down the process of deterioration, is
essential in maintaining a high level of thermal performance.
A consistently high level of thermal performance has
other benefits not addressed here. Among them are: fuel
conservation and reduced effect on the environment
resulting from fewer products of combustion and less
heat rejection.
Therefore, improved thermal performance should be
a continuing goal for utilities. It will result in reduced
operating costs, an increase in capacity for a given in-
vestment, and a beneficial ecological outcome.
--
APPENDIX
TABLE 3.
RESULTS OF INSPECTION OF HP AND IP
SECTION OF A 400 MW
24OOP/lOOO F/1000 F STEAM TURBINE
The example following is hypothetical and for illustra-
tive purposes only and should not be considered as typical
for conditions found in impulse-type turbines. Inspection
of a seven-stage HP and a 5-stage IP section of an opposed
flow type, 400 MW turbine having 2400 psia/ 1000 F/
1000 F initial steam conditions and a 580 psia HP section
exhaust pressure revealed the following: Percentage
Increase in
Nozzle Area
Due to
Erosion
Diaphragm
or Shaft
Packing
Clearance
Radial Tip
Spill Strip 0 Solid particle erosion in the HP and IP sections.
Clearance
l Radial rubbing of both diaphragm packing and
radial tip spill strips throughout the HP and IP
sections.
mils mils Location
N 1 Packing
Stage 7
Stage 6
Stage 5
Stage 4
Stage 3
Stage 2
Stage 1
N2 Packing
Stage 8
Stage 9
Stage 10
Stage 11
Stage 12
N3 Packing
45
50
55
57
55
55
52
-_
53
_--
57
59
62
61
60
l Radial rubbing of shaft end and internal packing.
60
60
62
64
82
90
100
es-
The
Table 3
results of the measurements taken are given in v-e
_B_
A. Calculation of fuel cost savings for repairing diaphragms
with solid particle erosion damage.
mm-
5%
8%
12%
--_
10%
5%
-_-
Consider the first HP stage. Using the rule of thumb
given earlier in the paper, a three percent loss in stage
efficiency for 10 percent change in nozzle area, the first
stage efficiency loss calculates to be 3.6 pert ent. To de-
termine the effect of this single stage loss on overall heat
__
80
70
65
68
70
rate, the output of the stage needs to be estimated. From
equation (4) the stage kW output is:
Stage kW output =
(400000) (26) = I4900 kW
(7) (I) (100)
The loss factor for the stage is now needed to determine
how much of the loss from the first stage is recovered in
the downstream stages. Figure 18 shows the construction
of the HP section expansion line on a Mollier Chart. Divid-
ing the expansion line into seven equal energies (seven-stage
HP turbine), the first-stage shell pressure can be read off
the Mollier Chart to be 1970 psia. From Figure 16, the loss
factor for the first stage is found to be 0.78.
mm_
S-B -mm
In this calculation, the overall turbine-generator cycle
heat rate is assumed to be 8000 Btu/kWh.
The overall kW loss from equation (5) is:
kW loss =
(14900) (o*78) (3 l 6)
100
= 420 kW
Assuming the turbine to have a 70 percent capacity
factor and a boiler fueled by coal purchased at $1.50 per
million Btus, the annual fuel cost savings that would
result from first-stage nozzle repair is estimated using
equation (7): From equation (6), the heat rate loss associated with the
solid particle erosion is:
Heat Rate Loss =
(*58) (420) (8000) = 4 9
(400000) l
Btu/kWh Annual Fuel = (400000) (70) (l l 5) (4*9) (8760)= $ I8 000
Cost Savings
(108)
>
15
15oc
145c
m
s
z
;140(
n-
?i
I
+
ifi
13%
130(
1
TYPICAL
H.f? SECT
EXPANS
LINE
ION
ION
I I
15 1.6 1.9
ENTROPY - BTLj/LB:F
Figure 18. Typical H.P. section expansion line.
Assuming the next inspection of the turbine is scheduled
in five years, fuel costs increase at a rate of 10 percent per
year and the rate of return on investment is 12 percent
then the annual fuel cost savings and their present worth
would be:
AFCS
Present Worth
of AFCS
Year 1 $ 18,000 $17,000
Year 2 $ 19,800 $16,700
Year 3 $ 21,800 $16,400
Year 4 $ 24,000 $16,100
Year 5 $ 26,400 $15,900
TOTAL $110,000 $82,100
Therefore, fuel cost savings of $110,000 would be ex-
perienced if the first-stage nozzles were repaired. The
present worth of these fuel cost savings is $82,100, so a
repair to the first-stage nozzles costing less than this could
be justified from the expected efficiency improvement
alone. It should be remembered that repair of the nozzles
would also result in improved long-term reliability of the
unit by allowing the unit to operate more closely to its
design condition.
Similar calculations for the remaining eroded stages
result in the following total fuel cost savings and present
worth:
Fuel Cost
Savings
Present Worth
of Fuel Cost
Savings
Stage 2 $ 74,300 $55,500
Stage 3 $ 47,600 $35,500
Stage 8 $129,400 $96,600
Stage 9 $ 67,400 $50,300
B. Diaphragm and radial tip spill-strip clearance loss.
Consider the second-stage diaphragm packing having a
measured average clearance of 52 mils. When calculating
the gains expected for replacement of packings, it is recom-
mended not to use the design clearance, but a typical
clearance that would be expected after a years operation.
From field measurements, it is found that small machines
have clearances averaging about 25 mils after the first
year, while the larger machine averages closer to 35 mils.
In this example, an in-service operating clearance of 30
mils is judged appropriate.
Excess clearance = 52 - 30 = 22 mils
Interpolating Table 2 for an HP sta.ge of a 400 MW
turbine, the kW loss per mil of excess clearance is seven
kW. Since this is a single flow section, the kW loss per
mil of excess clearance per row is also seven kW. If it was
double flow, it would be half that value.
Therefore, kW loss due to 22 mils excess clearance is
154 kW.
From equation 6, this translates into a heat rate pen-
alty of:
Heat Rate Penalty =
(Oo5 8)(1 54)(8000) - I
400000 - l
8 Btu/kWh
From equation (7) the first years annual fuel cost
savings is:
AFCS -
-
(400000)(70)(1 l 5)( l 8)(876o) = $6 600
108
9
Assuming that the clearances increase linearly with time
to a point where at the next inspection the clearances will
be the same as found during this present outage, and
that if the packing is not replaced, the clearance * will
not increase further, the fuel cost savings for each year
will be:
16
Percent of
Initial Improved
Efficiency
Assumed
Annual
Fuel Cost
Savings
Present Worth
of AFCS
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
TOTAL
90%
70%
50%
30%
10%
$ 5,900
$ 5,100
$ 5,000
$ 2,600
$ 1,000
$18,600
$ 5,600
$ 4,300
$ 3,000
$ 1,700
$ 600
$15,200
Replacement of the second-stage diaphragm packing will
result in a fuel cost savings of over $18,000. This diaphragm
packing should, therefore, be replaced if the cost of replace-
ment is less than the present worth of $15,200. It should
also be remembered that replacement of the packing will
also result in an increase of 154 kW to the maximum
capacity of the unit.
Using similar assumptions, the total fuel cost savings and
the present worth of those savings have been calculated for
the remaining diaphragm packings and radial tip spill strips.
These results are shown in Table 4.
C. Shaft end and internal packing leakage loss.
Consider the internal N2 packing between the HP and IP
sections. In this packing, flow leaks from the first-stage
shell to the IP section bowl.
Using Martins formula, equation (l), to calculate the
leakage flow:
PI = 1970 psia
P2= 515 psia
v1 = 0.38 ft3/lb
cl = 0.053 ins
D = 28 ins
N = 48 teeth
K = 43 from Figure 9
Leakage area = (n) (28) (0.053) = 4.66 in2
p= /a) = 0. 139
TABLE 4.
EXPECTED FUEL COST SAVINGS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF DfAPHRAGM
PACKINGS AND RADIAL TIP SPILLSTRIPS
Stage No. Diaphragm Packings Radial Tip Spill Strips
1
m-m
2
3
4
5
6
7
$22,600
$25,600
$25,600
$27,700
$25,600
$20,500
8
-mm
9 $11,900
10 $12,900
11 $14,100
12 $13,600
Fuel Cost
Savings
Present
Worth
m-s
$18,200
$20,600
$20,600
$22,300
$20,600
$16,500
$ 9,600
$10,400
$11,400
$11,000
Fuel Cost
Savings
$43,200
$34,600
$27,700
$12,100
$10,400
$ 8,600
$ 8,600
$18,900
$12,600
$ 9,700
$11,400
$12,600
Present
Worth
$34,800
$27,900
$22,300
$ 9,700
$ 8,400
$ 6,900
$ 6,900
$15,200
$10,100
$ 7,800
$ 9,200
$10,100
Therefore, for rubbed condition leakage flow is:
1970
= (25)(43)(4.66)(0.139) -
I
0.38
- 50,100 lbs/hr
-
As before, an initial in-service clearance of 30 mils is
assumed if the packing is replaced. Repeating the above
calculation for 30 mil clearance, the new leakage flow is
33000 lbs/hr.
Therefore, the reduced leakage flow for replacing
packing would be 17,100 lbs/hr.
17
Using Figure 13, with a first-stage used energy of 22
Btu/lb and the heat added in the reheater of 205 Btu/lb,
the percent heat rate loss for a leakage flow equivalent to
one percent of throttle flow is 0.20 percent. Correcting
this value to the turbine-generator heat rate of 8000 Btu/
kWh using equation (2) one arrives at a 0.18 percent
heat rate loss for a leakage flow equivalent to one percent
of throttle flow.
Therefore, improvement in heat rate for restoring the
clearance of this internal packing is:
(*18) (17100) () = 8 7 Btu/kWh
(28200) (100) -
In this equation, one percent of throttle flow is equiva-
lent to 28,200 lbs/hr.
Equation (7), then gives the annual fuel cost savings.
- (400000) (70) (lo) (8*7) (8760) = $32 000
-
108
9
Using the same assumptions as the diaphragm packings,
the fuel cost savings and the present worth of replacing
this internal N2 packing are calculated to be:
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
90% $28,800
70% $24,600
50% $19,400
30% $12,800
10% $ 4,700
TOTAL $90,300
Percent of
Initial Improved
Efficiency
Assumed
Annual
Fuel Cost
Savings
Present Worth
of AFCS
$27,200
$20,800
$14,600
$ 8,600
$ 2,800
Therefore, replacement of this internal N2 packing will
result in fuel cost savings of over $90,000. The $74,000
present worth of these fuel cost savings can be used to
justify the replacement of this internal N2 packing. It
should also be remembered that replacement of this pack-
ing will increase the maximum capacity of the unit by
0.19 percent or 752 kW.
Similar calculations for the shaft-end pa.ckings indicates
total fuel cost savings of $47,100 and $41,700 for the Nl
and N3 packings respectively.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Schofield, P., Maintaining Optimum Steam Turbine-
Generator Thermal Performance , Missouri Valley
Electric Association, 198 1 Engineering Conference,
April 23, 198 1, Kansas City.
Cotton, KC., and Schofield, P., Analysis of Changes
in the Performance Characteristics of Steam Turbines,
New York: ASME Winter Annual Meeting, 1970.
Steam Turbines, ANSI/ASME, PTCG-1976, New York:
1976.
Bornstein, B., and Cotton, KC., A Simplified ASME
Acceptance Test Procedure for Steam Turbines, ASME
Paper No. 80-JPGCIPWR-15, Joint Power Generation
Conference, September 28-October 2, 1980.
5. Cotton, KC. and Westcott, J.C., Methods for Measur-
ing Steam Turbine-Generator Performance, ASME
Paper No. 60-WA-139.
6. Bartlett, R.L., Steam Turbine Performance and Eco-
nomics, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958.
7. Forster, V.T., Performance Loss of Modern Steam-
Turbine Plant due to Surface Roughness, Inst. of
Mech. Eng. Proceedings 1966-7, 181, Part 1, No. 17.
18