Alstom Vailbility Assessment

ALSTOM GT26 AN AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
Robert F. Steele
Director Engineering
Strategic Power Systems, Inc.
Kevin P. Licata
Manager - Customer Service
Salvatore A. DellaVilla
President
Abstract
The global energy market continues to drive and motivate significant change, both structurally
and technologically. Structural change is the result of the markets move toward deregulation,
while technological change is driven by the need for new generating alternatives with improved
efficiency, higher output, and increased environmental friendliness. In one sense the markets
motivation for structural and technological change has provided both the catalyst and the
incentive for the evolution of advanced gas turbine designs (also known as F class), made
available to the market by several original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). And as these gas
turbine lines have evolved in capacity, output, and performance, market expectations for
availability and reliability, set by pro forma requirements remain high. Availability and
reliability is tied to the owner/operators pro forma profitability objectives for the plant.
Normally, the success of product design evolution and advancement is achieved in time through
active and effective engineering improvement efforts typically focused on the commitment to
reliability growth. Certainly, the characteristic curve of reliability growth is applicable to and
evidenced by the actual performance of these F class gas turbine machines, across all
manufacturers, as they have been introduced in the field over the past fifteen years. This paper
focuses on the use of Strategic Power System, Inc.s (SPS) ORAP (Operational Reliability
Analysis Program) Program for accurate analysis and measurement of reliability and availability
growth. To demonstrate this, ALSTOMs GT26, a 50-Hertz gas turbine fleet was selected as a
case study, as it had introductory issues, which required engineering efforts, and measurement of
reliability growth was feasible. ORAP tracks and reports reliability and availability performance
characteristics of several gas turbine designs across various MW size ranges, manufacturers,
COPYRIGHT 2004 Strategic Power Systems, Inc. - All Rights Reserved
Where Information Connects with Solutions
Strategic Power Systems, Inc., 11121 Carmel Commons Blvd., Carmel Park II Suite 100, Charlotte, NC 28226
704.544.5501 - 800.SPS.0989 - 704.544.5505 (fax) - www.spsinc.com
applications, and duty cycles. The paper presents and discusses the engineering effort made by
ALSTOM to strengthen the operational capability of the GT26 fleet to achieve and maintain the
necessarily high levels of reliability and availability performance that are expected from this
dynamic and challenging market. A detailed review of the current performance of the GT26 gas
turbine, as compared with the industry is provided.
The data on the GT26 fleet and the F class gas turbines in general, was utilized from the
ORAP program to accurately and impartially present current performance, to assess and
determine the impact of reliability growth. The recorded improvement observed in the GT26
fleet ORAP data, reported from a large number of operating plants, demonstrates that the GT26
has achieved reliability growth that is consistent with market expectations for the performance of
F class gas turbine and is consistent with other OEMs F- class gas turbines.
Introduction and Background
Market Expectations Reliability and Availability
Reliability and availability expectations are set by the market place based on an understanding of
the performance of mature gas turbine technology. This was and is clearly the case as the various
advanced class F-class product lines, both, for 50Hz and 60Hz market, across all manufacturers,
were introduced for commercial operation in the late 1980s and into the 1990s. Pro forma
expectations for the achievable level of reliability and availability required operational
performance consistent with the current technology at that time. Mature gas turbine design units
in the size range between 70 and 125 MW were expected to achieve 98% reliability and 93%
availability. These numbers, for this more mature class of gas turbines, were used to set market
expectations as the first of the F class fleet of gas turbines were deployed and went into
commercial operation.
In fact, the values are consistent with expectations set by EPRI (the Electric Power Research
Institute) during the Design of High-Reliability Gas Turbine Controls and Accessories
program of the early 1980s. This is also consistent with the goals for the U.S. Department of
Energys Advanced Turbine System (ATS) Program.
ORAP and SPS are registered
Trademarks of Strategic Power Systems, Inc.
To achieve this high level of reliability and availability on a continuing unit year basis requires
that out of a total of 613 hours of downtime (both forced and scheduled outages), no more than
133 hours (~22%) should be classified as forced outage. ORAP data suggests that these values
are and have been sustainable, and in fact are representative of mature gas turbine designs in the
70 to 125 MW class range aggregated across all manufacturers.
The scope of equipment covered by this performance expectation covers the simple cycle plant gas turbine, controls and ancillary systems, generator, and related balance of plant systems
(Refer to Appendix A for details on scope). Clearly, the gas turbine is the prime mover in a
combined cycle plant arrangement (both single and multi shaft), and has a significant
contribution to the performance and operating flexibility of the plant.
Consequently, the
technology advancement associated with the gas turbine has been the focus of the market relative
to establishing reliability and availability expectations. That is the reason EPRI set reliability
and availability goals during the High Reliability Controls and Accessories program of the
early 1980 at the simple cycle plant level. Hence, the focus of this paper is an assessment of the
simple cycle plant comprising the GT26 gas turbine as compared to all other F class gas
turbines across all other manufacturers.
Historical ORAP Data For Mature Units and
Initial Market Expectations for F-Class Units
100%
80%
Reliability
98.0%
Availability
93.0%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 1

These initial expectations for the F-class did not consider the pattern of reliability growth
typically associated with a new product introduction. Especially with the advanced class gas
turbines such as the F-class, that incorporated more complex technologies, including higher
temperatures, more sophisticated materials and cooling methodologies, with a major constraint
being the environmental requirement for low NOx emission levels. However, they did reflect the
market perception and requirement for achieving high reliability and availability levels, across
all operating duty cycles, as they directly influence the profitability of the plant and the
owner/operator.
Consequently, as key indicators of performance, the market expects that
reliability and availability will influence and be treated as essential design criteria that must be
considered as alternatives and trade-offs are made.
There was no consideration for reliability growth, as stated earlier, only that the F class gas
turbines would achieve current levels of performance as already seen in mature gas turbine
designs. The fact is that reliability growth was necessary to achieve and sustain these market
expectations.
However, it is important to recognize, that the markets perception and expectations for pro
forma reliability and availability rarely reflect the actual pattern of reliability growth that is
experienced in the field. Reliability performance is a function of both the inherent designed in
reliability or capability of a product, as well as the specific operating and maintenance profile
that must be met. Whether performance is acceptable or not is determined by the market, against
the existing perception.
Relative to market acceptance, when a product under-performs
expectations, reliability growth must be achieved. And reliability growth is driven by how
quickly and completely operating experiences (i.e. issues, problems, forced outages, pre-mature
maintenance) can be defined, resolved, and implemented across the operating fleet.
F class operating units, in general, have demonstrated the typical pattern of reliability growth
from the late 1980s to the present. Note that, F- class gas turbines were launched for both 50Hz
and 60Hz market. Given the actual field experience, perhaps expectations for the initial
performance of F class technology should have been lower to allow for the introductory
reliability growth period associated with a new product introduction. Nonetheless, on average,
the achieved reliability and availability of F class technology today, across all manufacturers,
is 96% and 88% respectively. The availability of 88% has improved over time from the low
80s, indicating the initial introductory issues of all F-class gas turbine technology.
These reliability and availability values must be considered as the markets current requirement
for the performance of F class technology plants. Whether the units are in simple or combined
cycle, or whether they operate in a baseload, cyclic, or peaking duty, the performance
expectations are consistent.
ORAP Process and Methodology
In order to accurately measure RAM performance relative to goals and market expectations, a
source of accurate and unbiased data is required. The independent and unbiased source of
reliability and availability statistics used to support the market in establishing realistic
expectations for achieving and sustaining acceptable reliability and availability performance
levels is an extremely important consideration. Strategic Power Systems, Inc. (SPS), a global
energy sector business, is uniquely focused on this important issue, and is able to provide the
market with meaningful and accurate reliability and availability information through ORAP
(the Operational Reliability Analysis Program).
ORAP is the largest most comprehensive
reliability database in the energy market focused on gas turbines in both simple and combined
cycle operation. The data reflects the operating experience of over 1,700 gas and steam turbines
worldwide, across all manufacturers, product lines, and duty cycles. Further, the data represents
the performance capability of both mature and advanced technologies.
ORAP is an automated system for monitoring the Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
(RAM) of both combustion (gas) and steam turbine driven plants, with the emphasis on the total
plant, including condensate and feed water systems, power distribution, heat recovery steam
generators, electrical generators, driven equipment, and all mechanical and electrical balance of
plant systems. Standard Equipment Codes, developed by SPS under an EPRI contract, are the
basis for the uniform reporting system across all product lines and OEMs. These codes provide
reporting uniformity across all equipment types, providing a basis for combining or segmenting

data at a component level across equipment manufacturers, size ranges, or other valid criteria.
Additionally, ORAP is capable of obtaining data using the European KKS standard.
This product breakdown structure or equipment taxonomy is essential for recording event data
(either/or forced or planned outages at the component level). Further, SPS ensures that the
ORAP system adheres to industry measurement standards of RAM (i.e. IEEE 762 and ISO 39779), please see Appendix B for applicable definitions from ORAP. The information available in
ORAP covers various applications, duty cycles, and plant arrangements for both simple and
combined cycles.
Data from participating plants is submitted to SPS on a monthly basis, or in some cases on a
real time basis, for engineering review and data validation, data acceptance according to
relevant industry standards, and incorporation in the ORAP database. This process is illustrated
in Figure 2.
ORAP Information Flow
Participating Plants
Submit Monthly Data
Total Plant Simple and Combined Cycle
Standard Equipment Codes Component Level
Data Edit & Verification
Web Enabled Reporting
Preparation for Reporting
ORAP
Reliability Database
Operating Data
Time, Capacity & Events
Outage Events to Component Level
Maintenance Events
Others
Issue Electronic Reports

Quarterly Reports Fleet & Industry
Participating Plants vs. Fleet Benchmarking
Component Detail
Figure 2

An important aspect of the data collection process is to obtain event data (forced and scheduled
outages) at the right level of detail to support an understanding of the causes of
unavailability/unreliability. Standard event types, based on IEEE Std. 762, were created and used
by ORAP. ORAP data is collected and reported from the "bottom-up". In other words, ORAP
allows the engineer to see the impact of a component failure including shared equipment, up to
the system, up to the plant. This level of detail is essential for effective reliability analyses.
The ORAP information system then converts the data into RAM statistics such as: detailed
system and component outage factors, failure rates, starting unreliability, service factors, time to
repair, and other outage factor information. Additionally, ORAP provides outage description
details, outage causes, failure modes, and corrective actions taken (as supplied by the plant
operator). This information provides the basis for assessing plant, system, and component RAM
performance, as well as, for developing RAM values to assess improvement. It should be noted
that the data reported to the SPS ORAP system from various utility and co-generator participants
is reviewed for accuracy, verification, and then entered into the database. The information is not
modified by SPS unless the participating customer concurs with and accepts the recommended
change. SPS engineers work with each participant to ensure data accuracy and completeness.
This ensures that SPS ORAP data reflects the specific operational, failure, and maintenance
history for each component in the database, and therefore, the availability and reliability
performance measurements are valid indicators of unit experience and capability.
A proprietary and non-disclosure relationship establishes the basic rules for how SPS will
process unit and site specific data for each participant, as well as combining like data together
to develop fleet level performance. Participation in ORAP provides members with quarterly
reports of statistical comparisons of their equipment with units in similar applications and MW
range for industry assessment, fleet benchmarking, and up-to-date operational information.
Moreover, the ORAP data is used to perform reliability assessments that can effectively measure
and demonstrate reliability performance. As an example of an assessment, the RAM performance
of the ALSTOM GT26 is presented here.

GT24/GT26 Technology Review

The GT24 (60 Hz) and the GT26 (50 Hz) product lines are unique in the gas turbine industry in
that they utilize sequential combustion to provide a method for achieving high cycle efficiency
with increased power output, without significantly increasing the firing temperature above
current available technology. The engine was developed in the early 1990s and combines two
features used in other ALSTOM engines: the EV burner in annular combustion and the
sequential combustion technology (see figure 3). Sequential combustion had already been
applied to earlier (Brown Boveri) gas turbines, but using two side mounted silo combustors.
The design philosophy focused on the use of an annular combustion process, capitalizing on the
design approach and operating experience associated with the GT13E2 and GT8C2 product
lines. This sequential combustion design utilized ALSTOMs Environmental (EV) and
Sequential Environmental (SEV) burners in tandem to maintain cycle temperature at current
levels, while achieving a higher output and improved efficiency, especially at part load
conditions. The high power density is apparent with the GT26 having the same basic footprint as
the GT13E2 but developing some 100 MW more power.
A further, yet important benefit of the sequential combustion approach relates to the ability to
attain low NOx emission levels. The simple design of the EV burner leading to complete air /fuel
mixing before ignition and the lower oxygen levels and less heating required to reach flame
temperature in the SEV combustor both go towards NOx emission levels well below the current
statutory limits of 25 ppm.

EV Fuel Distribution System

SEV Fuel Distribution System
Compressor
with 3 VGV rows
High Pressure Turbine

Low Pressure Turbine
Maintenance-free welded rotor
Figure 3: Main Features of the GT26 gas turbine (courtesy ALSTOM)
The high-pressure turbine comprises a single stage of rotating blades downstream of the EV
combustor. The exhaust from this stage passes to the SEV combustor where additional fuel is
introduced before expanding through a four-stage low-pressure turbine. The turbine components
make use of advanced materials such as single crystal and directionally solidified castings as
well as thermal barrier coatings.
The cooling circuit/flow was designed to provide required and adequate cooling through an
external once through heat exchanger. Air extracted from the compressor is cooled in both a
high and low-pressure heat exchangers (once through cooler) and then used to cool the various
turbine stages. By integrating these coolers into the water/steam cycle, the heat removed from the
GT cooling air is not lost but used to maximise both power output and efficiency of the overall
combined cycle. From a reliability engineering perspective, the integration of the compressor,
combustion, turbine, and cooling systems, that drive the gains in operating efficiency and output,
have a strong influence on the operational reliability and availability of this advanced product.
GT26 Product Evolution
In 1999, the first B configuration versions of the GT24/GT26 engine went into operation (the
earlier GT24/GT26 engines being subsequently designated as A configuration engines). These
improved versions incorporated not only performance improvements based on ongoing
development but also included changes that would provide improved reliability and availability.

The objective was to ensure reliability growth, as well as to achieve the performance and
operating requirements of the plant. Following were the changes made:
The EV burner was modified to a cast as opposed to a welded design for improved
performance. Additionally, the burner went from a fixed design to a retractable
design so improving maintainability.
At the same time, the burner size could be
standardized for both the GT24 and GT26 and the number of burners could also be
reduced (on the GT26, reduced from 30 to 24)
Improved turbine cooling: changes involved further use of thermal barrier coating,
adjustments to cooling holes patters.
Improved seal designs to reduce losses.
LPT Blade 2
LPT Blade 1
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Fleet Operation
Introduction of the GT24/GT26 B-Configuration
LPT Row 2 shroud
Reliability Assurance
Plant
LPT Blade 1
(Inlet cooling and cycle optimization)

Upgrade Compressor
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 4: GT26 gas turbine Evolution over time (courtesy ALSTOM)
Figure 4 provides an overview of the reliability assurance and engineering improvement program
followed by ALSTOM that resulted in the B configuration of the GT26.
Furthermore, during the introductory phase on the B configuration operation, several issues came
to light that required modifications. The two items that are of interest in the time period studied
are:

10
Shroud deformation on the 2nd stage low-pressure turbine blade was resolved by
modifying the stator heat shield to improve shroud cooling. In addition, improvements
were made to the blade airfoil comprising of additional thermal barrier coatings and by
cutting back the blade to reduce trailing edge stresses, as well as providing improved
temperature resistance.
1st stage low-pressure turbine blade exhibited cracking at a particular row of cooling air
holes. The solution was straight forward in that it proved possible to omit these cooling
holes in subsequent production. While there were no cases of actual blade failure, engine
monitoring was necessary which had a corresponding impact on engine availability
Of the current fleet of GT26 operating units in the field, approximately 50% (11 units) were
either shipped with or modified in the field during the commissioning phase to include the two
issues noted above. This provides an important source of information specifically related to
monitoring these units from a reliability growth perspective. In addition, all of the enhancements
(except for retractable EV burners which are not available for A configuration engines) were also
made to the remainder of the GT26 fleet prior to July 2002. Consequently, the GT26 fleet after
July 2002 included all the above enhancements, and the operational reliability performance can
be assessed to quantify the reliability improvement and growth.
GT26 Current Performance and Reliability Growth
The GT24/GT26 fleet consisting of 74 units in commercial operation has crossed one million
fired hours. More than 700,000 operating hours have been accumulated since mid 2002 when
most of the units started operating commercially. During the period measured, the fleet of GT26
gas turbines includes 23 units in commercial operation that have accumulated over 425,000
operating hours. Three quarters of the total operating hours were accumulated in the period of
mid 2002 till May 2004. From this perspective, it is important to review the period when the gas
turbine is considered stable and has accumulated major operating experience. Moreover, it is the
period, as stated earlier, when most of the reliability assurance enhancements were completed.

11
As stated previously, the market expectations for reliability and availability are based on simple
cycle plant scope. In other words, the unreliability/unavailability (that ultimately set the goals)
are based on a scope of plant equipment that includes; gas turbine, control and ancillary systems,
generator, fuel supply, power distribution, and other related balance of plant systems. This is an
important consideration that characterizes the performance indicators and comparisons on a
uniform basis across the ORAP F class fleet.
With these points in mind, SPS performed an independent technical reliability engineering
review of the data available in ORAP to determine if reliability growth has been experienced and
achieved by the GT26 gas turbine fleet. It is important to describe the technical approach that
SPS followed to derive meaningful and accurate results using the ORAP system. ORAP data for
the period July 2002 to May 2004 was reviewed. This period, as previously stated, represents
the point in time where all GT26 units included most of the engineering improvements along
with high operating experience. Consequently, the reliability and availability performance of the
GT26 during this period should be indicative of the effectiveness of the improvement program,
hence an indicator of reliability growth.
Further since the other F- class machines were
introduced earlier than the GT26 this period should be indicative of their current performance.
Sample selection is an important consideration when performing an assessment of reliability. If
care is not taken when defining samples, results and conclusions can be distorted. In addition the
following describes the major considerations that went into the definition of the samples utilized
in this assessment.
14 of the 23 GT26 units (~60%) participate on the ORAP program. This sample size can
be considered as random and therefore provides a sound base from which measures of
central tendency can be developed with strong statistical significance and inference.
To be considered an ORAP participant, data must be continuous i.e. with no gaps in the
data. Therefore the data represents all operating experience on the units since participation
in ORAP began. Further, SPS does not modify the data reported from the operating plant.
If there is a question on the data submitted, the SPS personnel will contact the site to ensure

12
that the data accurately reflects site experience. The data is not changed unless the site
concurs with the changes. This ensures that RAM performance is accurately represented.
All comparisons made in the assessment between the GT26 and the rest of the F Class
fleet in general is made on a simple cycle plant basis. The units that make up the fleet are
in different configurations, whether in simple or combined cycle. The Simple Cycle Plant
represents the largest common denominator of plant equipment. By performing the
comparisons on this basis, it ensures that similar equipment is being compared from plant
to plant. Steam cycle design differences such as the ability to bypass the steam cycle, or
the possibility to operate at partial plant output in a multi-shaft arrangement do not impact
the assessment. The assessment is therefore focused on the gas turbine plant equipment in
order to ensure consistent comparisons.
The GT26 units reporting to ORAP during July 2002 to May 2004 accumulated
approximately 160,000 period hours, with approximately 126,000 operating hours
accumulated during this period. In general this is indicative of a high service factor
(~78%).
Even though the period since the engineering changes have been made is
relatively short, the GT26 Fleet has gained a significant amount of operating experience in
that time. Therefore, the effect of the engineering improvements can be seen relative to the
impact on the operational capability of these units.
Statistically, the greater the operating time accumulated, the tighter the confidence limits
on the sample. Estimating the 95% confidence bounds on the reliability, based upon the
standard error of the mean, results in a range of approximately +/-1.5%.
This is an
indication that, the confidence bounds around the sample are fairly tight.
When utilizing any particular period of time to perform comparisons, it is important to
understand that since major maintenance activities are performed on an operating time
basis, and could possibly be excluded in such a time sample. When reviewing the GT26
data from July 2002, it is clear that this is not the case. During this period, all units had the
A & B visual inspection and some had C Inspections (Hot Gas Path Inspections). Since

13
some of these inspections were also extended to perform compressor upgrades, the impact
of this maintenance would tend to decrease the availability (as opposed to the availability
being increased if the sample included no maintenance), making comparisons somewhat
conservative from a maintenance perspective. In addition, given any sample, units will be
at different points in their maintenance cycles, so some units will have maintenance
activities included and some will not. The percentage of Hot Gas Path inspections that
GT26 went through in this period can be considered to be consistent with the percentage of
units in the other F-class. Therefore, as with the other F-class sample, this can be
considered to provide an indication of average performance over time.
All GT26 units reporting to ORAP are operating in a combined cycle with various modes
of
operation;
daily
start/stop,
baseload/continuous,
and
cycling/intermediate.
Consequently, this provides the opportunity to assess the impact of the engineering
improvements across a variety of operating regimes.
Reliability and Availability Figure 5 provides a review of the reliability and availability of the GT26 ORAP fleet as
compared with the other F class ORAP fleet for the period of July 2002 to May 2004 (on a
cumulative basis). This figure shows that the GT26 has achieved both reliability (98.3%) and
availability (91.8%) levels that are consistent with the market expectations relative to F class
performance (described in a previous section of the paper).

14
Simple Cycle Plant Availability & Reliability

July 2002 through May 2004
GT26 Units and F Class Units
100%
98.3%
97.9%
98.0%
95%
93.0%
91.8%
90%
91.8%
85%
80%
75%
Reliability
GT26
Availability
F Class Units
Market Expectations
Figure 5
The ORAP data demonstrates that the engineering improvement program and implementation
efforts along with the reliability assurance program for GT26 have been effective and have
resulted in reliability growth that is consistent with market perceptions and expectations.
Figure 6 provides a review of the ORAP data on a rolling 12-month basis. A rolling 12-month
average is important to demonstrate that fluctuation in the monthly levels of availability and
reliability, and the ability to sustain a required level of performance and reliability growth. It
shows a pattern of growth beginning in July 2002 and increasing over time to the levels required
by the market. Also, the chart shows that reliability has achieved a sustainable level of ~97.3%
since January 2003.

15
Simple Cycle Plant Availabilty & Reliability

GT26 Units - Rolling 12 Month Average
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
Jul-02
Sep-02 Nov-02
Jan-03
Mar-03 May-03
Jul-03
Sep-03 Nov-03
Jan-04
Mar-04 May-04
12 Month Period Ending

Reliability
Availabilty
Figure 6
NOTE: It is important to note that the rolling 12-month averages for the periods prior to June
2003, contain data prior to the implementation of all engineering improvements.
To provide a more detailed example of the reliability growth of GT26, Figure 7 and 8 provides a
review of the ORAP data on a rolling 12-month basis for the GT26 and other F class units in
baseload/continuous duty operation over the past 12 month period.

16
F Class & GT26 Baseload/Continuous Duty

Simple Cycle Plant Reliability
Rolling 12 Month - July 2002 to May 2004
100%
97%
94%
91%
88%
85%
Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04
Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04
Rel F Class 97.8% 97.9% 98.0% 98.0% 98.1% 97.6% 97.3% 97.3% 97.6% 97.8% 98.0% 98.0%
Rel GT26
98.2% 98.2% 98.4% 98.3% 98.3% 98.3% 98.3% 98.4% 98.4% 99.0% 98.8% 98.9%
Figure 7
F Class & GT26 Baseload/Continuous
Simple Cycle Plant Availability
Rolling 12 Month - July 2002 to May 2004
100%
97%
94%
91%
88%
85%
Jun-03
Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04
Jun-03
Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04
Avail F Class
92.8%
93.2%
93.2%
93.1%
93.1%
92.2%
91.5%
91.0%
91.6%
92.4%
93.1%
93.3%
Avail GT26
89.3%
89.1%
87.8%
88.9%
89.6%
90.1%
90.7%
92.0%
92.1%
92.6%
92.9%
94.8%
Figure 8
As in the previous charts, a pattern of reliability growth beginning in 2002 and steadily
increasing over time is evident in these charts. Specifically, the reliability chart indicates that the

17
GT26 gas turbine achieved, and has sustained a level that meets and exceeds market expectations
(greater than 98%).
The following can be concluded for Reliability and Availability:
The GT26 is equal to other F class engines.
The GT26 has shown steady and sustained improvement over the past 2 years indicating the
effectiveness of the engineering efforts.
Service Factor
A review of the service factor experienced during this period of July 2002 to May 2004 (on a
cumulative basis) is shown in Figure 9. The data shows that the GT26 units operated ~78.5% of
the time (on average 6,877 hours per year).
Simple Cycle Plant Service Factor
100%
80%
78.5%
68.5%
60%
55.1%
40%
20%
0%
Service Factor
GT26
F Class Units
Market Expectations
Figure 9
Figure 10 represents a plot of the service factor versus the service hours per start ratio, by unit
for the period July 2002 through May 2004. It demonstrates the operating profiles of the GT26

18
compared with other F Class fleet in general. This clearly illustrates that while the GT26 units
are operating in all duty cycle modes there is a large number of units in the F Class that are
operating in peaking duty, with very low service factors and service hours per start ratios.
Because the GT26 units are operating with high service factors, there is not a significant period
of reserve time that influences the availability, therefore, the availability figure of GT26 (91.8%)
presented in the earlier chapter could be considered to be rather conservative.
Service Factor v. Service Hours per Start
Service Hours per Start
1,500
1,200
900
600
300
0
0%
20%
40%
60%
Service Factor (%)
GT26 Units
80%
100%
F Class Units
Figure 10
Unavailability Assessment
The sources of equipment unavailability are recorded as forced outages, unscheduled
maintenance, and scheduled maintenance. From the reliability and availability data presented
above, Table 1 below shows the outage factors for the GT26 and the other F class units in
general for the cumulative period, July 2002 through May 2004.

19
Simple Cycle Plant Unavailability

GT26 Units
1.70
Forced Outage Factor (%)
0.52
Unscheduled Maintenance Factor (%)
5.95
Schedule Maintenance Factor (%)
8.20
Total Unavailability (%)
F Class Units
2.10
0.97
5.13
8.20
Table 1
This data suggests that the majority of downtime for both the GT26 and the F class units in
general is related to scheduled maintenance. In fact, scheduled maintenance represents more
than 60% of the total downtime experienced by these units.
As a note, when comparing these values of scheduled outage factor with mature technology there
is a significant increase in the downtime contributed by scheduled maintenance for all F class
advanced technology.
To assess the reliability growth, it is important to review forced outages, from both a frequency
and duration standpoint. This assessment should focus on the units ability to meet its required
operating profile.
In this case measured by the frequency of forced outages from a state
operation) or Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and the time to restore the unit to a state of
operational readiness or Mean Time To Repair (MTTR). Figure 11 provides the Mean Time
between Failures for the GT26 units based upon a rolling 12-month average. The increased
service time between forced outages can be clearly seen from the trend in this figure. In
addition, since the end of 2003, the average service time between trips for the GT26 has
remained at or above ~1,000 hours, consistent F class units and with availability requirements.
Figure 12 provides the rolling 12-month average for the Mean Time to Repair. Both, MTTR and
MTBF are consistent with the other F class data.

20
Simple Cycle Plant - Mean Time Between Forced Outages

Simple Cycle Plant - Mean Time To Repair Forced Outages

50
1,000
40
750
30
Hours
Hours
1,250
500
20
10
250
0
Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04
Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04
Figure 11
Figure 12
Note: MTBF is the mathematical inverse of the failure rate. Therefore an increase in MTBF
indicates a decreasing failure rate, which in turn indicates a reduction in trips from a state of
operation.
Starting Reliability
An important issue in the market, especially for gas turbines that must meet either a peaking duty
or a daily start/stop mission profile is starting reliability. Relative to the effectiveness of the
engineering improvement effort described earlier and as an additional measure of the units
ability to meet its operating profile, the ability of the GT26 to successfully start and achieve a
preset load is an important factor that must be considered. ORAP data for the F- class and
GT26 fleets shows a starting reliability for both samples that is approximately 96%.
Operational Flexibility
The GT26 units participating in the ORAP database as described earlier are all operating in
combined cycle plant configurations. There are no simple cycle units included in this data set.
When the duty cycle of these operating plants is considered on a service hours per year and
service hours per start basis, it is clear that the GT26 ORAP fleet can be considered from the
following operating perspectives;

21
(1) Cycling/Intermediate Duty - high service hours (~6,300 hours/year) and high starts (~70
starts/year)
(2) Baseload/Continuous Duty high service hours (~7,300 hours/year) and fewer starts (25
starts/year)
(3) Daily Start Stop operation low service hours (~4,000 hours/year) and very high starts
(~270 starts/year)
These statistics demonstrate the capability of the complete combined cycle plant to meet the
economic dispatch profile of the owner/operator. When the total plant statistics are reviewed, the
steam cycle (HRSG, steam turbine, condensate and feed-water, etc.) does not contribute a
significant level of unreliability during these operating periods. These results support findings
developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in High Reliability Combined Cycle
Power Plant study.
A review of the reliability and availability trends stratified by duty cycle using ORAP data would
demonstrate a similar trend of growth that is consistent with the GT26 sample (including all duty
cycles) that has been presented here.
The effect of these strenuous duty cycles must be
considered relative to the operational flexibility of the GT26 gas turbine. This is an important
consideration as operating requirements for cycling, daily start/stop operation, and baseload
requirements in todays operating environment are driving the economic viability of the
operating plant.
Upgrade Opportunity
As the design changes were made and completed, prior to July of 2002, opportunity for uprating
the GT26B configuration allowed ALSTOM to take advantage of available margin in the design,
resulting in a higher output and improved efficiency. As part of this product development, a
compressor upgrade program was made available with the target of providing higher output. The
compressor has been modified to achieve an approximately, 5% higher mass flow. This was

22
achieved by optimized aerofoil design and restaging of the blades. There has not been any
degradation in reliability growth due to the introduction of this compressor upgrade.
From an availability perspective, the changes that were made and introduced took place during
periods of scheduled maintenance. ORAP data does not show any issues and initial operating
constraints that resulted in significant forced outage downtime.
Rather, limitations in
performance and output resulted in design change that required scheduled downtime to introduce
the improvement to the operating plant. In fact, the additional time required to perform the
compressor upgrade as observed in ORAP data, typically extended the scheduled maintenance
over the normal period. From an assessment of the data, the outage extensions represented
approximately 0.4% of additional unavailability.
Consequently, the achievable level of
availability is expected to be in the range of 92% and continues to be consistent with market
expectations. In fact, the GT26 value (91.8%) expressed earlier is conservative, as the percentage
of additional unavailability due to compressor upgrade program is included in the statistics.
Summary and Conclusion
Today the global market continues to evolve as new challenges and constraints place an everincreasing focus on the value of reliability and availability. Expectations for reliability and
availability performance at the right level, as set in the pro forma, have a tremendous impact
on the profitability of the operating asset.
Consequently, the financial implication of not
achieving performance requirements is a significant risk a risk that can be typically mitigated
through contractual service arrangements. The owner/operator and the OEM are now uniquely
committed to the same objective financial reward as a function of equipment capability and
performance.
The gap between equipment design and serviceability (operations and
maintenance practice) has been closed due to the value proposition and shared risk associated
with high reliability and availability.
This paper has described the ORAP process and demonstrated the effect of its usage rightly to
measure quantitatively from its database on the engineering efforts put forth by ALSTOM to

23
provide a substantial level of reliability growth associated with the performance of the GT26,
to specifically meet market expectations in a manner that is sustainable.
As can be seen from the information presented here, ORAP provides a strong basis for assessing
the RAM performance of gas turbines plants. Further, because of the level of detail available
from ORAP, detailed Reliability Engineering assessments are feasible.
Conclusions that are developed from a review of the ORAP data are:
A reliability of 98% and an availability of 92% are achievable and sustainable by
GT26 and other F-Class fleet across all manufactures.
The GT26 recorded and achieved substantial improvement and sustainable reliability
growth in a relatively short period of time (just less than 2 years) indicative of the
effectiveness of focused engineering efforts.
In general, the fleet of GT26 units have a significantly high economic demand profile
(relative to the market in general) these economic dispatch requirements are
supported by reliability growth as seen through a reduction in forced outage trips, and
an improved mean time between failure.
Reliability growth is necessary for any product line to achieve the reliability and
availability targets. This assessment of GT26 fleet demonstrated that with appropriate
engineering focus, these targets could be achieved.
In general, the fleet of GT26 units demonstrates a relatively high operational
flexibility, with a high level of starting reliability (96%), at varying load profiles and
operating regimes.
The steam cycle equipment (HRSG, Steam Turbine, Condensate, Feed-water and
associated balance of plant equipment) has negligible impact on the reliability
performance of the GT26 units. This is significant because all of the GT26 are in
combined-cycle.
24
The design evolution of the GT26 technology has proceeded in a manner consistent
with the markets expectations for F class gas turbines. Specifically, the increased
output and improved efficiency attributes, obtained through the engineering
improvements and the compressor upgrade opportunity, have resulted in a product
that effectively meets the demands of the market.
The reliability growth of GT26 gas turbine and current levels of reliability and availability
achieved, as demonstrated by the ORAP data, fully meet the performance expectations of the
market, and are consistent with the reliability and availability of the fleet of F class gas
turbines across all equipment manufacturers. The results of the reliability assurance efforts (the
engineering improvements) clearly demonstrate a commitment to the market through a focus on
reliability growth.

25
Bibliography [1] Electric Power Research Institute, High-Reliability Gas Turbine Combined-Cycle
Development Program, EPRI AP-1681-SY, January 1981
[2] Electric Power Research Institute, Design of High-Reliability Gas Turbine Controls and
Accessories, EPRI AP-5823, June 1988.
[3] Von Rappard, A.W., Della Villa, S.A., 2001, Gas Turbine Performance of Mature, F- and
Advanced Technologies 2000, ASME 2001-GT-394.
[4] Lloyd, Jonathan, 2003, ALSTOMs GT24 and GT26: A High-Performance Workhorse.
[5] ANSI/IEEE Std 762-1987, IEEE Standard Definitions for Use in Reporting Electric
Generating Unit Reliability, Availability, and Productivity.
[6] International Standard ISO 3977-9:1999, Gas Turbines Procurement, Part 9: Reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety.
[7] Philipson, Stephen, Sudland, Martin, and Raza, Mohammad, 2004, The GT24/GT26 Fleet:
A Review as the Fleet Approaches 1 Million Hours of Operation.
[8] Della Villa, S.A., Electric Power 2004, Optimizing Product Performance Using Reliability
& Information Technology to Improve Productivity and Drive Profitability.
[9] ALSTOMs GT24 and GT26: Building on Experience Brochure
[10] ORAP RAM definitions and unavailability Event types.
[11] ORAP Data from different Power Plants with gas turbines from different manufacturers

26
Appendix A Simple Cycle Plant, Equipment Scope

System Description
Gas Turbine
Atomizing Air
Accessory Drive
Air Inlet
Auxiliary Power
Bearing Lift Oil
Bearings
Cooling and Extraction Air
Combustion
High Pressure Compressor
Compressor
Controls
Cooling Water Closed
Enclosures
Exhaust
Liquid Fuel Forwarding
Fire Protection
Gas Fuel
Hydraulic Control
Heating and Vent.
Instrument Air
Ignition Gas
Liquid Fuel
Lubrication
Fuel Purge
Regenerators
Steam Injection
Supports
Starting
Turbine
High Pressure Turbine
Low Pressure Turbine
Water Injection
Water Wash
Station Equipment (Balance of Plant)

Plant Service Air
Plant Instrument Air
Cycle Chemical Feed
Cranes
Distributed Control System
Emissions Monitoring
Plant Fire Protection
Fuel Gas Supply
Engine Auxiliary
Liquid Fuel Unloading
Liquid Fuel Storage
Liquid Fuel Treatment
Nitrogen
Non-Component Chargeable Event
Plant Process Steam
Power Distribution
Auxiliary Steam Supply
Exhaust Stack
Combined Cycle Steam Supply
Raw Cooling Water
Water Cooling Tower
Auxiliary Cooling
Circulating Chemical Feed
Cycle Water Makeup & Storage
Cycle Makeup Water
Waste

Electric Generator
Bearings
Cooling Air
Control and Protection
Excitation
Hydrogen Cooling
Lubrication
Generator
Seal Oil
Cooling Water Closed
Auxiliary Power
Load Couplings
Load Gear
Lubrication
Power Distribution
27
Appendix B - Standard Terms and Definitions
Availability: The percentage of time that a unit is available to operate without a maintenance
repair or a failure of an equipment system or component. Availability includes the effects of
both maintenance and forced outages. This is a statistical measurement represented in the
following equation:
(MH + FOH )
Availability (%) = 100
100
PH
Where Maintenance Hours (MH) = Scheduled + Unscheduled Maintenance Hours

FOH = Forced Outage hours
PH = Period hours
Reliability: The percentage of time that a unit is available to operate without a failed equipment
system or component causing a forced shutdown. This is a statistical measurement represented
in the following equation:
Reliability (%) = 100
Forced Outage Hours

100
Period Hours
Forced Outage Factor: Represents the ratio of Forced Outage Hours and Period Hours. This is a
statistical measurement represented in the following equation:
Forced Outage Hours
100
Forced Outage Factor (%) =
Period hours
Scheduled Maintenance Factor: Represents the ratio of Scheduled Maintenance Hours and
Period Hours. This is a statistical measurement represented in the following equation:
SMH
100
PH
SMH = Scheduled Maintenance Hours
PH = Period Hours
Scheduled Maintenance Factor (%) =
Unscheduled Maintenance Factor: Represents the ratio of Unscheduled Maintenance Hours and
Period Hours. This is a statistical measurement represented in the following equation:
UMH
Unscheduled Maintenance Factor (%) =
100
PH
UMH = Unscheduled Maintenance Hours
PH = Period Hours
28
Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF): An average measure of the number of operating hours that
a piece of equipment accumulates before incurring a forced outage. This statistic can be utilized
to represent the average mean time failure based on any failure type, but is traditionally utilized
for forced outage trip events. This is a statistic is represented in the following equation:
MTBF ( Hours ) =
Service Hours
Number of Forced Outage Trip Events
Mean Time to Repair (MTTR): The average time required to restore a piece of equipment to
service following an event. This statistic can be utilized to represent the average time to repair
based on any failure type, but is traditionally utilized for forced outage trip events. This is a
statistic is represented in the following equation:
MTTR ( Hours) =
Sum of Forced Outage Trip Events

Number of Forced Outage Trip Events
Service Factor: Represents the percentage of time the unit was in operation during a given time
period. This is a statistical measurement represented in the following equation:
Service Hours
100
Service Factor (%) =
Period Hours
Service Hours per Start: Represents the ratio of Service Hours and Successful Starts. This is an
average value of how long a unit will operate after each start. This is a statistical measurement
represented in the following equation:
Service Hours
Service Hours per Start ( Hours ) =

Successful Starts

29

Alstom Vailbility Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Alstom Vailbility Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ALSTOM GT26 AN AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

ORAP and SPS are registered

Consequently, as key indicators of performance, the market expects that

Relative to market acceptance, when a product under-performs

ORAP is the largest most comprehensive

ORAP and SPS are registered

Data Edit & Verification

Web Enabled Reporting

Preparation for Reporting

Issue Electronic Reports

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

GT24/GT26 Technology Review

ORAP and SPS are registered

EV Fuel Distribution System

High Pressure Turbine

Figure 3: Main Features of the GT26 gas turbine (courtesy ALSTOM)

ORAP and SPS are registered

At the same time, the burner size could be

(Inlet cooling and cycle optimization)

Figure 4: GT26 gas turbine Evolution over time (courtesy ALSTOM)

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

Further since the other F- class machines were

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

Simple Cycle Plant Availability & Reliability

ORAP and SPS are registered

Simple Cycle Plant Availabilty & Reliability

12 Month Period Ending

ORAP and SPS are registered

F Class & GT26 Baseload/Continuous Duty

ORAP and SPS are registered

The GT26 is equal to other F class engines.

ORAP and SPS are registered

Service Hours per Start

ORAP and SPS are registered

Simple Cycle Plant Unavailability

In this case measured by the frequency of forced outages from a state

ORAP and SPS are registered

Simple Cycle Plant - Mean Time Between Forced Outages

Simple Cycle Plant - Mean Time To Repair Forced Outages

12 Month Period Ending

12 Month Period Ending

ORAP and SPS are registered

The effect of these strenuous duty cycles must be

ORAP and SPS are registered

Consequently, the achievable level of

Consequently, the financial implication of not

The gap between equipment design and serviceability (operations and

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

ORAP and SPS are registered

Appendix A Simple Cycle Plant, Equipment Scope

Station Equipment (Balance of Plant)

ORAP and SPS are registered

Appendix B - Standard Terms and Definitions

Where Maintenance Hours (MH) = Scheduled + Unscheduled Maintenance Hours

Forced Outage Hours

Scheduled Maintenance Factor (%) =

Sum of Forced Outage Trip Events

Service Hours per Start ( Hours ) =

ORAP and SPS are registered