TECHNICAL INQUIRY

On Steam Turbine Aging Factor

PTC 6 1996 & PTC 6 Report-1985
The following (A & B) are two inquiries on the same subject:

A.

Background
About 30 months ago acceptance testing was performed on a steam turbine unit that failed to
meet the guarantee. The supplier decided to make good and to re-design some parts of the
turbine. At the outage about one month ago the labyrinth seal between the HP/IP (combined
casing) was replaced with a re-design, a number of flanges between the inner casings were
tightened and damaged blade seals of the HP turbine were replaced. However, nothing was
done to the steam path.

After the outage the acceptance tests will now be re-run. In the effort of seeking guidance
how to assess the deterioration of the turbine between the first acceptance test and the second test
after the outage we have found the following relevant ASME documents.
ASME PTC6, 1996
On page 10 it reads "... Adjusting of heat rate test result to start up enthalpy drop
efficiencies or for the effects of aging are not permitted by this Code". This document gives no
guidance to the present situation.
ASME PTC6 Report -1985
Para. 3.07 gives guidance how to consider the deterioration of the turbine. The following
two sub-clauses seem to be applicable to this case.
(b)
"If tests must be delayed, they should be scheduled immediately following
an inspection outage, provided any deficiencies have been corrected during the
outage..."
(d)
" However, if there is reasonable assurance that the unit has not been
damaged and is free of excessive deposits, an estimated value of deterioration
may be established by mutual agreement and taken into Account in the
comparison of the test results with guarantee..."
Interpretation of the Code
Both supplier and customer have agreed upon using the ASME Report to determine the
aging factor, however cannot agree upon the magnitude of the factor.
The customer claims that because of the inspection the aging factor shall be equal to zero.
The supplier claims, that because of the fact that nothing was done to the steam path itself,
the aging factor shall be determined according to figure 3.3 (base factor, %), which will give an
aging factor of 0.74% (number of month: 29 --> BF=1.7, rating: 130 MW, initial pressure: 2014.7
psi). The supplier's interpretation of (b) is that only a change (improvement) of the steam path
(which was not the case) can reduce the aging factor according to the figure 3.3. Only the fact
that the turbine is inspected (and nothing done to the steam path) cannot cause a reduction of the

aging factor. Consequently, if the turbine is inspected and nothing touched to any part and put
together again, the aging factor according to figure 3.3 also shall remain.
QUESTIONS:
Can clause 3.07 of the PTC 6 Report-1985 be applied in a situation like that described
above?
Does the figure 3.3 still apply, if during an inspection the steam path is left completely
untouched?
What factors according to PTC are considered to cause the deterioration given in figure
3.3?

B.

We have the following condition and need your assessment and advice whether to apply
the aging factor or not and the correct way of applying AGING FACTOR with reference
to ASME PTC 6 para. 3.3.1, and ASME PTC 6 Report-1985 item 3.07.
Condition

1
Unit 4 Turbine was performance tested for the first time 8 months after
initial operation in June 99. Results failed to meet guarantee (1.4% higher than
guaranteed Heat Rate), noting that aging factor was applied in accordance with
ASME PTC 6 Report-1985
Contractor as a result decided to carry out full inspection, during which he found:
a.
incorrect setting for differential expansion causing metal to
metal contact resulting in damages of labyrinth seals.
b.
incorrect assembly of internal parts causing internal steam leakage
c.
excessive HP-IP steam leakage.
3
The contractor just completed correction of all deficiencies affecting
performance except blade replacement, which were normal.
A repeat performance test is to take place a month after correction works are

done.
QUESTION:
How do we deal with Aging factor?

ANSWER TO BOTH SETS OF QUESTIONS

The PTC-6 Committee recommends that acceptance tests be conducted within 8 weeks of
initial start-up or following a complete overhaul during which the machine has been restored to
new-and-clean condition. Under these conditions no aging factor would be applied. When these
conditions are not met, the parties to the test would have to agree on the magnitude of any
adjustments for aging. The guidance of Section 3.07 of the PTC-6 Report -1985 could contribute
to reaching that agreement.
The Committee would expect that during an outage when repairs and modifications were
made to correct performance deficiencies, the parties would make every effort to restore the
turbine to new-and-clean condition or have the turbine evaluated to place a value on any
unrestored performance (i.e. steam path audit). Enthalpy drop tests would typically be used to
identify changes in performance. The curve in Fig. 3.3 was intended to be used when the turbine
was not opened so no repairs to seals or blade path could be made. Judgment must be used when
applying the curve to the described situation.
The information used to establish the aging curve in the Guidance Report, PTC-6R,
indicated differences from one machine to another in reported deterioration for a given period of
operation. Over time, the turbine blade path and seals will experience wear, erosion, corrosion and
deposits that will typically not be fully corrected during periodic overhauls. The curve represents
a typical value of such loss of performance over time, and does not represent a value certain for
any particular turbine or time period. The parties should use inspection evaluations and plot the
trend of enthalpy-drop test results to aid in arriving at a decision on the appropriate factors.

"ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of this interpretation

when or if additional information is available which the inquirer
believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved
by an interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or
subcommittee. As stated in the foreword of our standards, ASME does
not "approve", "certify", "rate", or "endorse" any item,
construction, proprietary device or activity."