Powering The Power Industry

Custom Search

Navigation

Friday, June 18, 2010

Hydro Generator- Part 2

Generator components

Prime Mover
  • Source of mechanical power for relative motion
  • Two classes of Prime movers :
                            High Speed : Steam & Gas Turbines
                            Low Speed : IC engines, Water turbines and DC motors
  • Type of prime mover plays an important role in a generator installation. Many characteristics of alternator and its construction depend upon Speed at which the rotor is turned. 
 Rotors
  • Two types are used in rotating field alternators
            - Turbine driven rotor ( used where prime mover is a high speed turbine)

            - salient pole rotor( used with low speed prime movers)


Stator

Many types based on

                   - Power out put
                   - Voltage output
                  - Type of cooling
                  - Number of phases

Simplified schematic of 3 ph. Stator

  • Three single phase windings displaced by 120 degrees
  • Star or Delta connection
  • Neutral may or may not be brought out
  • No. of terminals can be 3,4, or 6








Out-puts from a Generator

  • Three phase ac power at :
                 -Rated Voltage
                 -Rated Frequency

Common Ratings
  • Small Generators : 25 kVA to 300 kVA
  • Medium Size Generators : 500 kVA to 1 MVA
  • Large size Generators : 1 MVA to 25 MVA
  • Power Plant Generators: 110 MW to 500 MW
Frequency
  • Frequency depends up on the Speed of Rotation ( direct proportion)
  • F = PN / 120 where F = frequency in Hz, P = No. of poles, N = speed of rotation in RPM, ( 120 is a constant to convert minutes to seconds and poles to pole pairs)
  • Nominal frequency = 50/60 Hz
  • Generator frequency can vary due to load fluctuations
  • Frequency Regulation is mainly by adjusting the speed
  • speed is controlled by varying the fuel input to the prime mover ( Governor control)
Read more in coming posts...

Monday, June 7, 2010

Hydro Generator- Part 1


GENERATOR BASICS

Generator Structure
  • Generator is a machine which converts Mechanical energy into Electrical energy
  • Magnetic Induction Principle
  • An emf is induced in a coil whenever
      • a coil cuts through a magnetic field
      • a magnetic field cuts through a coil
  • emf induction is due to relative motion between two parts ( coil & magnetic field)
  • Relative motion is by Rotation
  • Two mechanical parts :
      • Field - Part which produces magnetism (Rotor)
      • Armature – part where emf is induced (Stator)


Generator components
  • Prime Mover
  • Rotor (Exciter)
  • Stator

 
Read more in coming posts...

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Advantage of Horizontal Machines

Advantage in Design:
  • Simple in Design (Standardized size available)
  • Hydraulic path is simpler (No distributor for tubular)
  • No Complicated parts
  • Even distribution of load on foundation (as turbine load come at different place and generator load at different place etc.,)
Advantage in Efficiency:
  • Better efficiency for lesser MW project (as flow is straight and Hydraulic passage is of lesser restriction to flow.

Advantage in Layout:
  • Simpler Layout (all auxiliary equipment can be placed in one floor and close to main generating equipment - Better coordination by operator)
  • Entire equipment is directly under crane hook making approach very easy for erection, maintenance - Reduce down time during maintenance.

Advantage in Supply:
  • As design is simpler and standardized, quicker delivery period.
  • All equipment can be supplied in 6 to 12 months.
  • Saving in delivery period of the order of about 6 months

Advantage in Erection:
  • Erection time is less (as equipment distributed on one floor)
  • Machine (turbine as well as generator) can be fully assembled in shop / service bay and lowered to foundations.
  • Results in shorter erection & commissioning time (3 to 6 months)

Advantage in Operation:
  • Easier control and vigil (operator sitting in control room can see all the equipments and can take preventive shutdown, if required)
  • No skilled personnel are required. As no complex parts are involved thus, easy to understand the parts and system.

Advantage in Maintenance:
  • Simple design; hence availability of spares is easy.
  • Easy Maintenance; All equipment are exposed in Horizontal formation thus can be maintained independently like turbine & Generator independently.
  • Also the Turbine is exposed (not fully buried in concrete) thus inspection, repair, maintenance etc., is easier.

                                                             Horr. Francis Arrangement

Friday, April 23, 2010

National Hydro Power Association

This post is for making visitors of this page aware of National Hydro Power Association annual conference(April 26-28, 2010). Extract from the NHA website.

Impact the future of the hydropower industry by joining hundreds of colleagues at the 2010 National Hydropower Association Annual Conference, April 26-28 at the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C. This dynamic three-day event brings together industry leaders, state and federal regulatory officials and key legislative staff to discuss technology, policy and future development options for the hydropower sector.

BENEFITS OF ATTENDANCE

- In-depth educational sessions exploring hot topics in technology, policy and future development
- Networking opportunities with hundreds of colleagues
- Visits to Capitol Hill
- Opportunities to exchange ideas, solutions and new approaches to new and existing challenges
- Access to industry resources and affiliates
- And more

WHO SHOULD ATTEND

- NHA members
- Hydro policy makers
- Hydro industry leaders and organizations
- Public utilities
- Investor-owned utilities
- Independent power producers
- Equipment manufacturers
- Environment and engineering consultants and attorneys
- Advocates of hydropower in the U.S.
- Project managers
- Service contractors
- Government and NGO representatives

Professional Development Hours

National Hydropower Association conference attendees registered as Full Conference Delegates are eligible to receive 12 Professional Development hours. Instructions on how to access your certificate of completion will be automatically emailed to all Conference Delegates following the 2010 event.

Conference registration includes:

All program sessions
President's luncheon Tuesday afternoon
Hospitality receptions on Monday and Tuesday evenings
Refreshment breaks
All conference materials
12 professional development hours (PDHs)

For more info visit NHA website

Monday, March 22, 2010

Horizontal Vs Vertical Turbine

Advantage of Horizontal Machines

Advantage in Design:
-Simple in Design (Standardized size available)
-Hydraulic path is simpler (No distributor for tubular)
-No Complicated parts
-Even distribution of load on foundation (as turbine load come at different place and generator load at different place etc.,)

Advantage in Efficiency:
-Better efficiency for lesser MW project (as flow is straight and Hydraulic  passage is of lesser restriction to flow) 

Advantage in Layout:

-Simpler Layout (all auxiliary equipment can be placed in one floor and close to main generating equipment - Better coordination by operator)

-Entire equipment is directly under crane hook making approach very easy for erection, maintenance Reduce down time during maintenance.

Advantage in Supply:

-As design is simpler and standardized, quicker delivery period.

-All equipment can be supplied in 6 to 12 months.

-Saving in delivery period of the order of about 6 months

Advantage in Erection:
-Erection time is less (as equipment distributed on one floor)
-Machine (turbine as well as generator) can be fully assembled in shop / service bay and lowered to foundations.
-Results in shorter erection & commissioning time (3 to 6 months)

Advantage in Operation:
-Easier control and vigil (operator sitting in control room can see all the equipments and can take preventive shutdown, if required)

-No skilled personnel are required. As no complex parts are involved thus, easy to understand the parts and system


Advantage in Maintenance:
-Simple design; hence availability of spares is easy.
-Easy Maintenance; All equipment are exposed in Horizontal formation thus can be maintained independently like turbine & Generator independently.
-Also the Turbine is exposed (not fully buried in concrete) thus inspection, repair, maintenance etc., is easier.


Horizontal Francis Turbine

Horizontal Vs Vertical Turbine

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Equipment: Retrofitting Thrust Bearings

FPL Energy experienced multiple failures of the thrust bearing in the single turbine-generating unit at its 6-MW Cataract plant in Maine. To solve the problem, FPL Energy installed a new eight-pad, spring-supported PTFE thrust bearing and a new thrust block. The retrofitted unit began operating in July 2006 and has been failure-free ever since.

By Paul J. Plante, Eric D. Soule, and Mike A. Dupuis
FPL Energy’s 6.65-MW Cataract project is a run-of-the-river hydro facility on the Saco River in Maine. The station has a single Kaplan turbine-generating unit that began operating in 1939. Between 1959 and 2005, the unit’s thrust bearing failed eight times, with half of the failures occurring between 2003 and 2005.
To deal with the situation, FPL Energy installed a low-profile, eight-pad, spring-supported thrust bearing and a new thrust block. This modification solved the problem – the unit has operated since July 2006 with no thrust bearing failures.

Problem with the thrust bearing
The spring-bed babbitt thrust bearing at Cataract is above the rotor in the upper bridge, which also houses the upper guide bearing. There is a lower guide bearing under the generator rotor and a water-lubricated turbine bearing in the head cover. In 1959, FPL Energy repaired the thrust bearing because it had suffered from eccentric wear over the initial 20-year operating period. The eccentric wear was believed to be associated with concrete growth at the station. The repair work included installing a sleeve on the thrust block. Since that repair, the thrust bearing failed eight times, with four of those failures occurring since 2003.

In 2004, FPL Energy took the unit out of service to repair an oil leak in the Kaplan head. When the unit was disassembled, personnel discovered two significant adverse conditions. First, the babbitt shoes on the thrust bearing were cracked. Second, misalignment of the powerhouse as a result of alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) had progressed to such a degree that the unit centerline needed to be reestablished. Work to correct these two problems took about ten months.

In June 2005, personnel began to start up the rehabilitated unit. Personnel conducted mechanical runs and then initiated an auto-start sequence. Within 30 minutes, the unit tripped as a result of high thrust bearing temperature. Personnel performed an inspection after the trip and discovered a severely wiped bearing with a babbitt-filled oil reservoir.

FPL Energy personnel then conducted an investigation to determine the cause of failure during start up. During disassembly of the failed bearing, personnel discovered that the round keys that hold the split thrust runner halves to each other were distressed. The two keys are held in place by set screws. Personnel found one ejected key in the thrust bearing oil reservoir; the other key was still in place. Both keys had sheared set screws. And, personnel noticed displacement of about 1/16 of an inch between the thrust runner halves. However, they were not able to target a conclusive root cause for the failure.

To recover from this failure, personnel first reengineered the thrust bearing components. They installed a new split half thrust runner that included a robust key set. Additionally, personnel were concerned that rebabbitting the original backing plate might result in warping. Instead, they decided to install a two-piece babbitt plate. Personnel reassembled the unit and prepared to restart it in September 2005.

During this start up, personnel developed a start-up procedure, intended to address potential issues from the June start-up failure. This included a program of progressive starts and stops consisting of mechanical runs at various speeds, speed-no load runs, and runs of varying duration. Personnel also conducted intermediate inspections and cleaning and scraping to check for damage.

The second start up progressed normally through a run that included flashing the field. The unit was then auto-started and synchronized. Thrust bearing temperatures started to climb dramatically and the unit tripped within three minutes. Upon disassembly of the unit, personnel discovered a preferential wipe in the babbitt that was so severe that the thrust bearing components would have to be either repaired or replaced. Personnel also noted displacement between the two halves of the thrust runner, despite the enhancements made to improve rigidity and stiffness of the keys.

Investigating solutions

At this time, personnel completely removed the thrust bearing from the unit. FPL Energy then assembled a ten-member multidisciplinary team to determine the root cause of the thrust bearing failures and the appropriate corrective actions.

The team worked on the problem for six months. They performed an exhaustive study, evaluated the failed components, and consulted with several thrust bearing performance experts. Eventually, the team came up with one potential root cause and six contributors that enhanced the likelihood of the root cause. The team determined the likely root cause of both failures was the marginal load capacities of the original bearing (subject of the initial start-up failure) and of the reengineered bearing (subject of the second start-up failure).



This thrust bearing, from the 6.6-MW Cataract plant, failed during start up of the rehabilitated unit in June 2005. The oil reservoir of the bearing was filled with babbitt as a result of severe wiping of the bearing.

It has been widely reported that two-piece babbitt bearings on spring beds in hydro service have lower load-bearing capacity than more modern independent pad bearings.1,2 In the case of the thrust bearing at Cataract, calculations indicate that the design load is within 10 percent of the limit for babbitt, which is generally accepted to be 400 pounds per square inch (psi).3 With such a small margin between the design load and the load limit for babbitt, along with other factors at the station – including the situation with AAR that will progressively increase the amount of misalignment – FPL Energy’s focus moved away from refurbishing the existing two-piece spring-bed bearing to retrofitting the unit by installing a higher-capacity bearing.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Case Study: Thrust Bearing Overheating Problem

For several years, Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) struggled with high temperatures – and subsequent failures – of the thrust bearings of two units at its 907-MW Priest Rapids hydro project. To solve the problem, the utility installed pressure transducers to measure load on the bearings, then used the measurements to more accurately adjust the bearings’ position.
Project background
The Priest Rapids project is on the mid-Columbia River in Washington. The powerhouse is equipped with ten vertical Kaplan turbines. Each umbrella-style generator is rated at 95 MW. Unit commissioning started in 1959 and was completed in 1961.
English Electric designed and manufactured the thrust bearing assembly for each unit. This assembly consists of ten tilting pad shoes supported with an equalizing table. Each shoe is pre-loaded with an adjusting screw. The thrust runner is in two pieces bolted together, and then bolted to a thrust collar. The thrust collar is shrunk fit 0.05-inch onto the generator shaft.
During start up and commissioning, it was necessary to scrape a depression in the babbitt to prevent overheating of the bearings. The scrape patterns evolved through the years with minor bearing wipes, developing their own patterns of areas needing a depression scraped. Often, a bearing set would require a wear-in period and more than one scraping before the temperatures settled. As a result of frequent high temperatures in the thrust bearing assembly, Grant County PUD conducted an inspection and scraping every four years.
Modifying the thrust runner and bearing
In 1995, after several bearing failures, PUD engineers decided to investigate alternatives to hand scraping for solving the overheating problem. On two units they measured bearing movement relative to the support, pressure at the high lift port, and temperature distribution across the leading and trailing edges of the thrust bearing shoe. From an analysis of the test results, the engineers concluded the oil wedge between the thrust runner and thrust bearing (also referred to as an oil film) pressurized the split between the two thrust runner halves, causing it to open slightly. This opening – aided by centrifugal force – allowed oil to flow out the end of the split. The oil leak resulted in unequal load on the thrust bearing, allowing the outer radius of the bearing to move up and briefly make contact with the thrust runner. This contact caused the temperature to rise on the outer radius and across the top of the thrust bearing shoe. As a result of the temperature increase, the bearing deformed into a crowned shape; this caused the top of the bearing to wipe if a depression was not scraped into it.
PUD engineers conducted testing of the thrust bearings and thrust runner to resolve the overheating and failure issues. During data collection, a physical observation of the thrust runner split leak confirmed this unusual phenomena. PUD crews reported that, when the unit was rotated manually (with the high-pressure lift system energized), a stream of oil “squirted” out the split in the thrust runner. Fretting corrosion between the thrust runner and thrust collar near the runner split was attributed to the split becoming pressurized and moving the thrust runner slightly.
As a result of the analyses, the thrust runner on every unit was removed and the thrust runner split machined to achieve a tight fit. The connecting bolts on each thrust runner were shortened to provide more resistance to flexing. All the thrust bearing sets were machined flat without the scraped depression. Another modification involved replacement of a threaded plug for the high-pressure lift system port with a plug that was welded flush. Additionally, all the radial anchor grooves – which were intended to help hold the babbitt in place but can be a source of bonding problems – were machined flat.
From 1995 to 2004, as a result of the modifications to the thrust runner and bearing, PUD was able to discontinue the previously described four-year cycle of scraping, inspection, and maintenance on the thrust bearings. The number of forced outages caused by thrust bearing problems improved from an average of almost one unplanned outage a year to one unplanned outage every three years.
Recent failures
Then, in December 2004, a bearing failure occurred on Unit 1. Three of the ten bearing shoes had sections of babbitt completely removed. This failure was attributed to babbit bond failure on an older rebabbitting process. In the areas of babbitt removal, the bearing shoe had no tin left. The babbitt was previously bonded to the shoe with a trimetal copper process and anchor grooves.
In May 2005, the Unit 1 thrust bearing failed again. A visual inspection showed the babbitt contained fatigue cracking on all the bearings shoes. PUD staff discovered three of the eight bolts between the thrust runner and thrust collar had broken. They also found a crack in the thrust runner split joint, resulting from the additional stress caused by the broken bolts. Powertech Labs performed material failure analysis, consisting of micrographs and scanning electron micrograph pictures. This analysis showed that the three bolts failed in tension due to fatigue.
After this second failure, PUD staff disassembled the entire bearing support mechanism in Unit 1, including the equalizing table, to inspect it for wear or failures. On the surfaces of the thrust runner and thrust collar where they face each other, staff found excessive fretting corrosion. The corrosion caused the thrust collar to be out of tolerance.
To fix the problem, PUD staff would need to machine the thrust collar in place. However, staff concluded in-place machining would be too risky. It would require design and fabrication of a custom machine tool. The high original tolerances for flatness on the thrust collar would be difficult for a custom machine tool. If the flatness tolerance was degraded further during an in-place machine operation, complete disassembly would be required to repair the damage.
The next option – to dismantle the unit even further to machine the thrust collar using a standard available machine tool – was too costly. This option would result in lost power generation from the unit for about two months.
The PUD ultimately decided to replace the thrust bearing runner with a spare and put the unit back in service. The PUD decided the damaged and out-of-tolerance thrust collar would not be repaired at this time.
Before placing the unit back on line, the PUD added monitoring instrumentation to provide feedback on the operating characteristics. PUD personnel placed a resistance temperature detector (RTD) inside the six thrust bearings with no monitoring instrumentation. The PUD already used these RTDs on four of the bearings to measure temperature in the thrust bearing shoe.

Figure 1: Grant County Public Utility District connected pressure transducers to each of ten bearings in Unit 1 at its Priest Rapids hydro project to measure oil pressure at the high-pressure lift port.


In addition, they connected a pressure transducer to each bearing to measure the oil pressure at the high-pressure lift port, as shown in Figure 1 on page 72. The end nut of the bearing was drilled and tapped to allow the pressure at the port of the high-pressure lift system to be measured while the unit was on line. This modification does carry the risk of developing leaks between the oil port and the pressure transducer. A significant leak in the tubing could lead to the loss of the oil wedge and result in a bearing wipe. The risk was minimized by careful installation and pressure testing of all the tubing.
Grant County PUD had one month to assemble the unit and put it into operation, to meet future power demand. The short time available prohibited the use of a less risky, more traditional method of measuring the pressure, such as load cells or submersible transducers installed close to (but not on) the bearing.
In September 2005, the PUD began placing Unit 1 back in service. First, the thrust bearings were pre-loaded with the adjustment screw that holds the thrust bearing shoe up against the thrust runner, according to standard torquing procedures. However, two of the bearings did not leak oil out of the edges of the bearing with the high-pressure lift system energized. If a bearing shoe does not leak oil, the load on that particular bearing is too high. In addition, the unit would not rotate manually.
More...Read full article