Guidance
for Evaluation PERFORMANCE
TEST
of Measurement CODES
Uncertainty in
Performance Tests
of Steam Turbines
ANSVASME PTC 6 Report-1985
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This document will be revised when the Society approvesthe issuance of the
next edition, scheduled for 1991. There will be no Addenda issued t o PTC 6
Report-1985.
This report was developed under procedures accredited as meeting the criteria for American
National Standards. The Consensus Committee thatapproved the report wasbalanced t o assure
that individuals from competentand concerned interestshave had an opportunity t o participate.
The proposed report was made available for public review and comment which provides an op-
portunity for additional public input from industry,academia, regulatory agencies, and the public-
at-large.
ASME does not "approve," "rate," or "endorse" any item, construction, proprietary device, or
activity.
ASME does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in
connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertaket o insure anyone
utilizing a standard against liability for infringement of any applicable Letters Patent, or assume
any such liability. Users of a code or standard are expressly advised that determination of the
validity of any such patent rights,and the risk of infringement of suchrights, is entirely theirown
responsibility.
Participation by federal agency representativels) or personls) affiliated with industry is not to
be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this report.
ASME accepts responsibility for only those interpretations issuedaccordance
in with governing
ASME procedures and policies which preclude the issuance of interpretations by individual vol-
unteers.
Copyright O 1986 by
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D - A S M E P T C b R E P O R T - E N G L L985 m U 7 5 9 6 7 0 ObObSbO 5 2 7
FOREWORD
The Test Code forSteam Turbines, ANSVASME PTC 6-1976 (R1982),hereafter called
“the Code,” provides for the accurate testing of steam turbines for the purpose of
!
obtaining a minimum-uncertainty performance level. The Code i s based on theuse
of accurate instrumentation and the best available measurement procedures. Use of
test uncertainty as a tolerance to be applied to the final results is outside the scope
of theCode. Such tolerances, if used, are chiefly of commercialsignificance and sub-
ject t o agreement between the partiesto thetest.
It i s recognized that Code instrumentation and procedures are not always eco-
nomically feasible or physically possible for specific turbine acceptance tests. This
Report provides guidanceto establish the degree of uncertainty of thetest results.
Increased uncertainties due to departures from the Code proceduresare also dis-
cussed.
The Report provides estimatedvalues of uncertainty thatcan be used t o establish
the probable errors in test readings during steam turbine performance tests. It is rec-
ognized that the statistical method presentedi n this Report isdifferent from and much
simpler than the method presented in ANSVASME PTC 19.1-1985. ANSVASME PTC
19.1-1985, Measurement Uncertainty, includes discussions and methods which en-
able the user t o select an appropriate uncertainty model foranalysis the and reporting
of test results. For the purposes of this Report, the committee has used a simplified
version of the root sum square model presentedi n ANSUASME PTC 19.1.The possible
errors associated with steam turbine testing are expressed as uncertainty intervals
which, when incorporated into this model, will yield an overall uncertainty for the
test result which provides95% coverage of the true value. That is, the model yields
a pluslminus interval about thetested value which can be expected to include the
true value i n 19 instances out of20. It should be notedthat, i n general, measurement
errors consist oftwo components- a fixed component, called the bias or systematic
error, and a random component, called the precision or sampling error. Since Sta-
tistics deals with populations which are essentially randomly distributed, in a strict
sense, only the random component is amenable to statistical analysis. Consequently,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
iii
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(The following is the roster of the Committee at the time ofapproval of this Code.)
OFFICERS
C. B. Scharp, Chairman
N. R. Deming, Vice Chairman
COMMITTEEPERSONNEL
J. M. Baltrus, Sargent & Lundy Engineers
J. A. Booth, General Electric Co.
P. G.Albert, Alternate to Booth, General Electric Co.
B. Bornstein, Consultant
E. J.Brailey, Ir., New England Power Service Co.
W. A. Campbell, Philadelphia Electric Co.
K.C. Cotton, Consultant
J.S. Davis, Jr., Duke Power Co.
J. E. Snyder, Alternate to Davis, Duke Power Co.
N. R. Deming, Westinghouse Electric Corp.
P. A. DiNenno, Jr., Westinghouse Electric Corp.
A. V. Fajardo, Jr., Utility Power Corp.
C. Cuenther, Alternate to Fajardo, Utility Power Corp.
D. L. Knighton, Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers
Z. Kolisnyk, Raymond Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
C. H. Kostors, Elliott Co.
F. S. Ku, Bechtel Power Corp.
J. S. Lamberson, McGraw Edison Co.
T. H. McCloskey, EPRI
E. Pitchford, Lower Colorado River Authority
C. B. Scharp, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
P. Scherba, Public Service Electric & Gas Corp.
S. Sigurdson, General Electric Co.
E. J.Sundstrom, Dow Chemical USA
V
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
C. B. Scharp, Chairman
J.S. Davis, Jr., Vice Chairman
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Vi
All ASME codes are copyrighted, with all rights reserved to the Society. Re-
production ofthis or any otherASME code ¡sa violation ofFederal Law. Legalities
aside, the user should appreciate that the publishing of the high quality codes
that have typifiedASME documents requiresa substantial commitment by the
Society. Thousands of volunteers work diligently to develop these codes. They
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
vi i
viii
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
CONTENTS
Section
O Introduction ...................................................... 1
1 Object
and Scope ................................................. 3
2 Description
andDefinition
of Terms ................................ 3
3 Guiding Principles ................................................. 5
4 Instruments
and Methods of
Measurement .......................... 11
5 Computationof Results ............................................ 37
Figures
3.1 Maximum Recommended Values for the Effect of Test Data Scatter
on Test Results for Each Type of Measurement ..................... 6
3.2 Required Number of Readings for Minimum Additional Uncertainty
in the Test Results Caused by Test Data Scatter .................... 7
3.3 Base Factor. % .................................................... 9
4.1 GeneratorConnection Types ....................................... 13
4.2 Error Curves for Equal Voltage and Current Unbalance in One Phase
and for Three Possible Locations of Z Coil for 2; Stator Watthour
Meters ......................................................... 14
4.3 WatthourMeterConnections ....................................... 15
4.4 Typical Connections for Measuring ElectricalPower Output by
the Three-Wattmeter Method ..................................... 20
4.5 Minimum StraightRunofUpstream Pipe After Flow Disturbance.
No FlowStraightener ............................................ 28
4.6 P Ratio Effect ...................................................... 28
4.7 Effect of Number of Diameters of Straight Pipe After Flow
Straightener ..................................................... 29
4.8 Effect of Number of Sections i n FlowStraightener .................... 29
4.9 Effect of Downstream PipeLength .................................. 29
5.1 Typical Throttle Pressure Correction Curves For Turbines With
Superheated Initial Steam Conditions ............................. 43
5.2 Typical Throttle Temperature Correction Curves For Turbines With
Superheated Initial Steam Conditions ............................. 43
5.3 Typical Exhaust Pressure Correction Curves ......................... 44
5.4 Slope of Superheated Steam Enthalpy at ConstantTemperature ....... 46
5.5 Slope of Superheated Steam Enthalpy at Constant Pressure ........... 46
5.6 Slope of Saturated Liquid Enthalpy (Pressure) ........................ 47
5.7 Slope of Saturated Liquid Enthalpy(Temperature) .................... 47
ix
Appendices
I ComputationofMeasurementUncertainty in Performance Test for
a Reheat TurbineCycle .......................................... 55
II Derivationof Fig 3.2 . ............................................... 71
III References ........................................................ 73
Figures
1.1 Heat Balance ...................................................... 61
1.2 Initial Pressure Correction Factor for Single Reheat Turbines With
SuperheatedInitial Steam Conditions ............................. 63
1.3 Initial Temperature Correction Factor For Turbines With Superheated
Initial Steam Conditions ......................................... 63
1.4 Reheater Pressure Drop Correction Factor For Turbines With
SuperheatedInitial Steam Conditions ............................. 67
1.5 Reheater Temperature Correction Factor For Turbines With
SuperheatedInitial Steam Conditions ............................. 67
1.6 Exhaust Pressure Correction Factor For Turbines With Superheated
Initial Steam Conditions ......................................... 68
X
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
xi
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS
OF STEAMTURBINES
SECTION O - INTRODUCTION
0.01 ANSllASME PTC 6-1976 (R1982),Test Code the parties to a test on all phases of the test that
for Steam Turbines (hereafter called "the Code"), deviatefrom PTC6ifthe resultsarecompared with
of steam turbines
provides for the accurate testing expected performance.Such alternatives affectthe
I
for the purpose of obtaining a minimum uncer- accuracy of thetest results. Themagnitudes of the
< taintyperformance level. TheCode is based on the resultant errors and their effectson the final results
use of accurate instrumentation and the
best avail- become subjects to be resolved between the par-
able
measurement procedures
and is recom- ties to thetest. It is recommended that the parties
mended foruse in conductingacceptance testsof discuss and agree on all deviations from PTC 6 dur-
steam turbines. ing the design and planning stage if at all possible.
In n o case should a test b e started, where the re-
sultsarecompared to expected performance, with-
I
0.02 For reasons of expediency and economics, out prioragreement. It is the intent ofthis Report
alternativeinstrumentationandproceduresare to provide guidanceto the parties to thetest in ar-
sometimesconsideredandfrequently used. In riving at values of uncertainty based on industry
such cases, prior agreementi s necessary between tests and statistical treatment of the data.
1.01 The object ofthis Report is to provide guid- 1.03 In thisReport, numerical values have been
ance for the parties to the
test t o establish the de- assigned to the uncertainty of instruments var-of
gree of uncertainty of thetest results when there ious qualities. These numerical values, represent-
are deviations from requirements of PTC 6. ing theconsensus of knowledgeable professional
people, cover 95% uncertainty intervals and there-
1.02 The parties to the test should become fa- fore will be exceeded, on average, in one instance
miliarwiththe Code. Since this Reportdoes not in 20.
contain a complete test procedure, it should be
used only in conjunction with the Code. Cornpli-
ance withtheCode is expectedwhere no alter- 1.04 Some ofthe referencesused incompiling
native i s shown
in this Report.
these'values are given i n Section 6.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2.01 The nomenclature given in Section 2 of the value of error selected by the Committee and is
Codeapply.
shall
expected to be exceeded
in-
one
more
than
notin
stance i n 20. Error is defined as the difference be-
tween the truevalue and thecorrected value based
2.02 In this Report, uncertainty i s apossible ontheinstrument reading.
3.01 When a test not in accordance with the and recovery cone where applicable. If the existing
Code is planned, the parties to the test must agree calibration facilities cannot cover the entire range
on the expected uncertainties in the test readings of Reynolds numbers expected during a test, ex-
prior to the test and determine the expected over- trapolation of the calibrationdata is permissible in
all combined uncertainty of the testresults. accordance with Code Par. 4.33.
With accuracy ratio defined as the accuracy o f
3.02 Numerical values to be used as guidance the measuring standard compared t o accuracy of
for agreement on instrumentation aregivenin Sec- the instrument beingcalibrated, a ratio of 1O:l i s
tion 4 of this Report. Procedures for calculating
the recommended for calibration work. New devel-
combined uncertainty of thetest results are given opment of extremely accuratetest instruments may
in Section 5. necessitate lowering this ratio to 4 : l .
Consideration shall be given to the calibration
3.03 Calibration of Instruments. Instrument cal- environment. Even under laboratory conditions,
ibration plays an important role in the reduction the measured quantity and the measuring instru-
o f test uncertainty by minimizing fixed biases or ments can be influenced by vibration, magnetic
displacement of measuredvalues. In performance fields, ambient temperature, fluctuation, instabil-
testing, calibration i s defined as the process of de- ity of thevoltage source, and other variables.
termining the deviation of indicatedvalues of an
instrument or device from those aof standard with 3.04 If Code procedures relative to frequencyof
known uncertainty traceable to the National Bu- readings, allowable variation in test readings, and
reau of Standards. A calibration should cover the prescribed limits for cycleleakages cannot be es-
range for which the instrument i s used. The in- tablished for the test, agreement must be reached
crement betweencalibration points and the to estimate the probable increase in uncertainty.
method of interpolation between these points shall
be selected to attain the lowest possible uncer- 3.05 Frequency of Readings and Duration of Test.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tainty of the calibration. The frequencyat which test readings are recorded
Tabulated data and a plot of the observed de- and the running time required fora test is deter-
viations for a series of measurements overa range mined by the time variabilityin the test data [see
of expected test values, and the values obtained Par. 5.02(b)]. When a test that deviates from the
from the instrument being calibrated, maybe used Code instrumentation requirements is run with a
as calibration data for determining the correction mutually agreed upon pretest uncertainty, the ef-
applied to a test value. Thecalibrationreport fect dueto time variability must be minimal to pre-
should be signed b y a responsible representative vent an increase in this uncertainty. To avoid an
of the calibration laboratory. When a formal report appreciable effect on thepretest uncertainty, Fig.
is required, the calibration report should include 3.1 can be used as a guide to establish the maxi-
the identification of the calibration equipment and mum time variability effect each measured param-
instruments, a description of the calibration pro- eter may have on the results. This figure, used with
cess, a statement of uncertainty of the measuring Fig. 3.2 and Table 3.1, provides a means for esti-
standard, and a tabulation of the recorded cali- mating the number of readings required afor test
bration data. t o achieve this. An example for the use of Figs. 3.1
Flow measuring devices shall be calibrated as- and 3.2 i s given in Par. 5.12. The derivation of Fig.
sembled with their own upstreamand down- 3.2 is given in Appendix II in this Report. Nomen-
stream pipe sections including flow straightener clature used in Fig. 3.2 are as follows.
0.3
FIG. 3.1 MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED VALUES FOR THE EFFECT OF TEST DATA SCATTER ON TESTRESULTS
FOREACH TYPE OF MEASUREMENT
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400.
300
200
2
ÜI
.-
P
[r
Y- 100
O
L 90
d
6 80
z
u 70
.-?!
60
II:
50
40
30
20
10
2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50
ll
60 709080 100
7
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
terioration and deposit buildup. be determined. However, if there is reasonable as-
surance that the unit has not been damaged and
3.07 Thefollowingguidelinesfortimingthetest, i s free of excessive deposits, an estimated value of
listed in the order of preference, should be con- deterioration may be established by mutual agree-
sidered before testing. ment and taken into account in the comparison of
(a) The test should be conducted as soon as the test results with guarantees.
practicable after initial startup per Code recom- For guidance purposes, Fig. 3.3 may be used to
mendations. establish an estimated value of deterioration for
(b) If the tests must be delayed, they should be turbines operating with superheated inlet steam.
scheduledimmediatelyfollowing an inspection Thiscurve is based on industryexperienceand rep-
outage, provided any deficiencies have been cor- resents an average expected deterioration for units
rected during the outage. with a history of good operating procedures and
(c) If (a) and (b) are impossible,the condition of water chemistry. The curve was developed from
the unit can be determined by: the results of enthalpy-drop efficiency tests run pe-
(I) comparing results of an enthalpy-drop ef- riodically on a number of turbines of various sizes.
ficiency test run on turbinesections in the super- The method cited in Appendix III, Ref. (13)was used
heat region with startupenthalpydrop test results, to determine the effect of deterioration on heat the
to provide guidance on the action to be taken; rate. The estimated deterioration was calculated
(2) reviewing operating and chemistry logs; using theenthalpy-drop test data on high pressure
(3) reviewing operating data on pressure-flow and intermediate pressuresections, and assuming
8
(b)Periods during which the turbine casings are open should not
(e) For units with a history of detrimental inci-
be included.
dences, the amount of deterioration cannot be
(c) This curve i s for guidance purposes when no other data for determined and the course of action or the deter-
establishing deterioration is available. mination of deterioration allowance must be mu-
tually agreed upon between the parties involved
(d) Correct operation and good water chemistry practices
in the test. Examples of detrimental incidents are:
notwithstanding, conditions beyond the operator's control may
cause a greater heat rate deterioration than predicted by this curve.
( I ) existence of any turbine water induction
incidents
(2) unusual shaft vibration and balance moves
FIG. 3.3 BASE FACTOR, % (3) abnormal conductivity in the condenser
hotwell
( 4 ) excessive boiler water silica content
that the low pressure section deterioration was (5) presence of large excursionsin throttle and
one-half of the intermediate pressure section de- reheat temperatures
terioration. Thevolumetric flow and size indicators (6) evidence of boiler tube exfoliation
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
SECTION 4 - INSTRUMENTSANDMETHODS OF
MEASUREMENT
4.01 Paragraph 4.01 of the Code recognizes that trical system of N conductors, N - 1 metering ele-
special agreementsmay b e needed. When it is ments are required to measure the theoretically
agreed todeviate from Code requirements, this Re-
true power or energy of system. the (This assumes
port provides the ideal instruments and instrument transformers.)It
basis for evaluating the influence
of such special agreements and establishing the is evident, then, that the connection of the gen-
erating system governs the selection of the me-
resultant loss of accuracy. The partiesto a test must
realize that the loss in accuracy will cause an in-tering system.
crease in the uncertaintyin the test results, and this Connectionsforthree-phasegenerating sys-
must be recognizedin the interpretation of the re- tems can be divided into two general categorieg-
sults. three-phase, three-wire connections with no neu-
tral return to thegeneratingsourceandthree-
4.02 The general instrumentation and location phase, four-wire connections with the fourth wire
requirements outlined in Par. 4.03 of the Code acting as a neutral current return pathto the gen-
should be followed, but variations in type may be erator.
used. The alternatives are discussed in the appro- To aidin the identification of the generating sys-
priate Sections of this Report. temconnection,thefollowingdiscussionde-
scribes someof the different types of three-phase,
three-wire and three-phase, four-wire generator
MEASUREMENT OF THREE-PHASE AC
connections that are used.
ELECTRICAL OUTPUT
(a) The most common three-phase, three-wire
4.03 General Contents. The accuracy of three- system consists of a wye connected generator with
phase power or energy measurement depends on a high impedance neutral grounding device. The
the proper application of metering systems (either generator i s connecteddirectly to a generator
wattmeters or watthour meters) and the accuracy transformerwith adelta primarywinding. Load dis-
of all the devices used in the measurement. This tribution is madeon thesecondary, grounded wye
Section discusses the following: side of the transformer [see Fig. 4.l(a)]. Load un.
(a) types of generating system connections, ap- balances on the load distribution side of the gen-
plicable metering methods and uncertainties; erator transformer are seen as neutral current in
(b) alternativemeteringmethodsanduncer- the grounded wye connection. However, on the
tainties; generator side of the transformer, the neutral cur-
(c) meter constant and reading uncertainties; rent i s effectively filteredout due to the delta wind-
(d) instrument transformers and their metering ing, and a neutral conductor is not required.
uncertainties; An ungrounded wye generator is less common
(e) uncalibratedstationmetersandtheirme- than thehigh impedancegrounded wyegenerator,
tering uncertainties; but when used with a delta-wye grounded trans-
(f) overall uncertainty of power measurement. former, it i s alsoan exampleof athree-phase, three-
wire generator connection [see Fig. 4.l(a)].
4.04 Types of Generation System Connections A final example of a three-phase, three-wire gen-
and Applicable Metering Methods andUncertain- eration connection is the delta connected gener-
ties. Blondel‘s Theorem for the measurement of ator. The delta connected generator has no neutral
electrical power or energy states that in an elec- connection to facilitatea neutral conductor; hence,
11
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
itcanonlybeconnected inathree-wireconnection not thecase, but in practice the voltage at the gen-
[see Fig. 4.l(b)]. erator terminais can be assumed to be balanced
( b ) Three-phase, four-wire generator connec- within 0.5% with a load power factor of 0.85 (la@
tions can be made only witha wye connected gen- or better.These conditions lead to a maximum un-
erator with the generator neutraleithersolidly certaintyof about0.5% attributable to the metering
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Generator
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
transformer
Generator
System loads
Solid or impedance
13
+B
+6
+4
0.5 PF lag
0.6
L +2
E 0.7
W
c
C 0.8
? O 0.9
n
b
4-
-2 1 .O PF lag
0.9
-4 0.8
0.7
-6 0.6
0.5 PF lag
-a
O 2 4 6 8 10
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) This figure is reproduced with permission from the Electrical Metermen's Handbook, Seventh
Edition, by the Edison Electric Institute, 1965.
(b) See Fig. 4.3(al for location ofZ coils referenced in the legend on theabove curve.
14
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Generator 3
2
1
J I
15
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.1
NUMBEROFCURRENTTRANSFORMERS (CT’S) ANDPOTENTIALTRANSFORMERS (PT’S)
REQUIREDFOREACHMETERINGMETHODANDMETERINGMETHODUNCERTAINTIESSUMMARY
Each Single
Polyphase
Element
Meter Meters Metering
Method
Item Connections
Generator Metering Methods CT’s PT’s CT’s PT‘S Uncertainty
Three-phase,
(a) three-wire measured
Power by two single-element 1 1 2 2 Zero
generator connections, (stator) meters or one two-element (stator)
Figs. 4.l(a) and 4.l(b) polyphase meter
(b) Three-phase, four-wire Power measured by three single-element 1 1 3 3 Zero
generator connections, (stator) meters or one three-element (stator)
Fig. 4.l(c) polyphase meter
Three-phase,
(c) four-wire Power
measured by one 2X-element (stator) NA
NA 3 2 f 0.5%
generator connections, polyphase meter
Fig. 4.l(c)
(d) Three-phase, four-wire Power measured by one two-element (stator) NA
NA 3 2 f 0.5%
generator connections, polyphase meter utilizing threecurrent
Fig. 4.l(c) transformers and two potential
transformers, Fig. 4.3(b)
Three-phase,
(e) four-wire measured
Power by two single-element 1 1 2 2 5%
generator connections, (stator) meters or one two-element (stator) Not
Fig. 4.l(c) polyphase meter utilizing two current recom-
transformers and two potential transformers mended
TABLE 4.2
WATTMETERUNCERTAINTIES
NOTE:
(1) From ANSI C39.1-1981.
16
TABLE 4.3
WATTHOUR METER UNCERTAINTIES
Item Uncertainty Watthour Meter
GENERAL NOTE: Accuracy class designations are not established for watthour meters as they are
for wattmeters and instrument transformers.
NOTE:
(1) From ANSI C12-1975 and ANSI C12.10-1978.
TABLE 4.4
POTENTIAL TRANSFORMER UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainty Item
Transformers Current
GENERAL NOTE: Uncertainties are based on the assumption that the burden is the highest per-
missible value for the transformer without overload.
NOTES:
(I) Known burdens include check on wiring and contact resistance for the transformer Wiring.
(2) From ANSI C57.13-1978.
17
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the uncertainties described for wattmeters. For formers must be determined and this data used for
these meters, the erroris a function of the change reference to transformer calibration curves. It is
in register reading magnitudeduring the test. Gen- sufficientto usethemanufacturer’s published data
erally, it i s possible to read the meter with an error to determine the burden of each station instru-
not exceeding one unit of themeter scale. For ex- ment and each test instrument connected to the
ample, if thechange in register reading i s 100 units, instrument transformers. Since the voltage regu-
the uncertainty in reading is one unit or1%. Read- lator burden i s variable, i t s removal from service
ing error can be reduced by extending the test during thetestisdesirable. I f this is impossible, the
period or by using the register based on smaller limits of burdenvariation due to regulator action
registration units. To obtain accurate readings it must be estimated. The resistance of connecting
frequently becomes necessary to count the turns wiring and fuses is best determined by actual mea-
of thewatthourmeter disc (or measure the time for surement.
a specified number of disc revolutions) to achieve The Code requires the calibration of potential
acceptable sensitivity in the reading process. It is and current transformers prior to the test. De-
usuallydesirabletoplanthetestsothatthereading pending on the test accuracy desired, the use of
error for the watthour meters is one order ofmag- calibrated transformers may not benecessary. Type
nitude smaller than the largest uncertainty intro- calibration curves forcurrent transformers are
duced by theinstrument transformers orthe generally satisfactory, and calibrationof individual
watthour meter. transformers usually is justified only for Code tests.
Current transformer cores may be permanently
4.07 Instrument Transformers and Uncertainties. magnetized by inadvertent operation with open
Instrument transformers are almost universallyap- secondary circuit, resultingin a change in theratio
plied to reduce electric-system voltage and current and phase-angle characteristics. If magnetization
levels to values appropriate for metering equip- is suspected, it should be removed by procedures
ment. Errors in power measurement are intro- described in Ref. (56) of Appendix III under “Pre-
ducedby the instrument transformers through caution in the Use of Instrument Transformers.’’
transformer ratio variations, and phase displace- Current transformers used for protective relay-
ments between primary andsecondary voltages or ing should not be used for tests. Theuncertainties
currents. for typical instrument transformers used for gen-
Both of these effects are governed by the fol- erator power output measurement are shown in
lowing operatingconditions: Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
( a ) excitingcurrent oftheinstrument trans-
former; 4.08 Uncalibrated StationMeters. Uncalibrated
(b) percentage of rated voltage or current; station metering installations may haveuncertain-
(c) power factor of the electric system load; ties substantially greater than those instruments
(d) impedance (usuallycalled burden)of thede- and transformers just described. Afrequent source
vices connected to thesecondary windings of the of error i s high resistance in potential transformer
instrument transformers. circuits, resulting in lower thanacutal power read-
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The percentage of rated voltage or current and ings. High resistance may be in the fuses or wire
the power factor of the system load can be deter- terminations and can be readily detected by mea-
mined during tests by reference either to thesta- surements prior totest. Errors in uncalibrated sta-
tion instruments or totest instruments. While the tion metering installationsmay be as much as 5%;
Code recommends the use of test instruments for therefore, these installations are not recom-
voltage and current measurements, the readings mended for test.
of station instruments are usually of sufficient ac-
curacy for the purposes described here, 4.09 Overall Uncertainty of Power Measure-
The Code permits no burden on the potential ment. Measurements of electric power when using
transformers other than the test instruments and wattmeters should be conducted in accordance
their leads. Since separate test transformers fre- with instructions given in PTC 19.6-1955, Par. 5.85.
quently are unavailable, it may be necessary to If watthour meters are used,the instructions given
connect the test instruments to the potential and in Par. 6.70 will apply. A typical instrument con-
current transformers serving the station instru- nection diagram is shown in Fig. 4.4 of this Report.
ments. The resulting total burdens on the trans- The overall uncertainty of the power measure-
18
TABLE 4.5
CURRENT TRANSFORMER UNCERTAINTIES
requirements Code
(a) Meeting & 0.05%
Type
calibration
(b) curve available, burden
volt-amperes
and 2 0.10%
power factor available
(C) Uncalibrated
metering
transformers with
unknown burdens
but not overloaded, 0.6% to 1.0% lagging power factor of
metered load, and meteringaccuracy classes as follows at
100% rated current of transformer:
0.3% accuracy class f 0.3% [Note (l)]
0.6%accuracy class 20.6% [Note (I)]
1.2% accuracy class & 1.2% [Note (l)]
At 10% rated current of transformer:
0.3% accuracy class 0.6% [Note (I)]
0.6% accuracy class 1.2% [Note (l)]
1.2% accuracy class +2.4% [Note (l)]
GENERAL NOTE: Uncertainties are based on the assumption that the burden is the highest per-
missible value for the transformer without overload.
NOTE:
( 1 ) From ANSI C57.13-1978.
19
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
t
Generator
3Ph. 1
Ph. 2
WM u
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
VM - Voltmeter
AM - Ammeter
WM - Wattmeter
C T - Current transformer
PT -. Potential transformer
m - Polarity
mark
20
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.6
SUMMARY - ADVANTAGESA N D DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT TORQUEOR
POWERMEASURING DEVICES
Disadvantages
Method Advantages
Reaction Systems
Cradled dynamometer Highly accurate; calibration Expensive; not readily
performed in place transportable; size and
weight requirements;
trunnion bearing error at
low torque; water and
electrical line interference
Uncradled dynamometer No trunnion bearing inherent Complex support structures
friction and hysteresis required for large
losses; portable machines; metal elastic
characteristics vary with
temperature
Transmission Systems
Shaft torque Relatively low cost; relatively Metal elastic characteristics
good accuracy; good vary with temperature,
frequency response; percent error increases with
maximum load flexibility decreasing load for given
system
Angular displacement Small in physical size; Difficult calibration
adaptable to removable procedures required,
pieces such as spacer usually cannot be done in
couplings place; metal elastic
characteristics vary with
temperature
Energy Balance Can be performed when Less accurate than direct
direct methods are not methods; large amount of
possible or practical data; uncertainty of fluid
thermodynamic properties
measurements should be selected to produce the shaft seal leakoff flows, and any other outgoing
desired test uncertainty. Of critical importance is pump flows, such as desuperheating water, when
the instrumentation used to measure the temper- these do not leave at pump discharge enthalpy.
ature rise in the feedwater as this rise is usually of Pressures and temperatures of these miscella-
small magnitude. Multiple measurementswith cal- neous flows must be measured for enthalpy de-
ibrated multijunction thermocouples, installed in termination.
properly designed adequately insulated thermo- Data collection for a drive turbine test should
couple wells, are necessary. The feedwater flow spanatwohourperiod,orthedurationofthecoin-
passing through the pump should be measured cident test on themain unit.The required duration
with a calibrated flow section. For multiple pumps for an independently conducted driveturbine test
operating in parallel, total flow may haveto be ap- may be determined by consulting a graph similar
portioned in accordance with therelative values of to Fig. 3.1 of theCode. The reader should note that
nozzle pressure drop through therespective min- the 0.05% effect shown in Fig. 3.1 may be too re-
imum-flow monitoringdevices. strictive for a drive
turbine test and that values for
When pump power is calculated using an as- K or S may have to be derived for each test. Data
sumed or' previously determined efficiency, suc- averages and scatter, combined with the number
tion and discharge pressures must be measured of instruments and the number of locations for
with deadweight gages or equally accurate instru- each measurement must beused to arrive at a test
ments. uncertaintyvalue. Reference(24) of Appendix III is
The heat balance about the pumpalso requires a goodsource for making the required uncertainty
measurements of shaft sealing injection flows, calculation.
22
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.8
MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTIES FOR TESTING O F BOILER FEED PUMPDRIVE
TURBINES
Quality and
Measurement Instrument Grade Uncertainty
Calibrated
suction
section
Pump
flow
Calibrated
flow f 0.2%
Feedwater temperatureMultijunction
rise thermocouples
Calibrated +_O.IoF
Pump suction
temperature
Thermocouple and
digital
Calibrated
voltmeter f l.O°F
pressure
Deadweight
suction
Pump gage ... f 0.1 %
discharge
pressure
Pump
Deadweight gage ... f 0.1 %
Pump shaft seal leakoffflowOrificeflowsectionand
Calibrated manometer +1.0%
Pump shaft seal injection
Orifice
flow
section
and
flow Calibrated manometer * 1.0%
Pump shaft speed Stroboscope ... * 1.0%
Desuperheating water flowOrificeflow section and
manometer ... * 1.0%
Temperatures
Thermocouple
digital
of and
Calibrated
voltmeter flows
miscellaneous f l.O°F
Pressures
miscellaneous
of Bourdon gage Station f 2.0 to 5.0%
flows
Pump
efficiency From pump manufacturer Not available Not available
23
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.9
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY - TYPICALROTARYSPEED INSTRUMENTATION
Frequency Sensitive
Electronic Shaft mounted 60 tooth gear, magnetic or eddy f 1 pulse count
current pickup; pulse counter, crystal time
base, digital display
Mechanical Vibrating reed tachometer mounted on frame *1.00% to *2.00%
of machine, nonrecording
Tachometer
Electric generator Shaft mounted AC or DC generator, with * 1.00% to f 2.00%
output voltage proportional tospeed,
connected to an indicator
Eddy current Test rotor connected to three-phase generator f 1.00% to f 2.00%
and connected to three-phase sync motor
which drives the tachometer
Centrifugal Flyball governor built into hand-held f 1.50% to f 3.00%
tachometer
Counters
Accumulators Digital display connected to pickup obtaining f 1 count
signal from shaft mounted 60 tooth gear
Timepieces
Electronic Crystal time base with digital display and gate *0.005% to *0.010%
time of 1 sec to 5 sec
Electric Time base using an analog clock locked into AC *0.10% to *0.20%
supply
Other
Stroboscope Rotating reference mark on shaft illuminated by f 0.50% to f 1.00%
periodic light flashes
Photocell Light reflective mark on shaft, reflecting a light f0.50% to *1.00%
source to the photocell, then to meter
the speed by summing the number of pulses of the discussion, methods, and applications relative to
input signal for a preciselyknown time period. The speed measurement.
rotary speed accuracy should include the crystal Rotaryspeedmeasurements mustbecoordi-
time base uncertainty (on the order of f 0.0075%), nated with torquemeasurements toobtain thetest
and also the uncertainty of the count. Since frac- power. The frequency of calibration, number of
tional counts are not included, the count uncer- observations, and other similar items should ac-
tainty is expressed as: cord with the test objectivesoutlined in the Code.
All measuring apparatusmust becalibrated before
and after a test in accordance with Code require-
1
* count time (sec) X number of teethlrev.
ments.
The measurement uncertainty for typical rotary
speed instrumentation is presented in Table 4.9.
For a 60 tooth pulse generatorwith the counter
set on a one second time base, the uncertaintybe- 4.15 Measurement of Primary Flow. Since the
comes publication of ANSUASMEPTC6R-1969(R1985),
much additional data on flow measurements, using
1
flow nozzles and orifices.permanently installedin
' 1 sec X 60 teethlrev.
= ~ 0 . 0 1 6 7d s = & 1 rpm straight pipe runs in steam turbine installations,
has become available. This expanded database of
both published and unpublished datarepresents
Other types ofspeed measuring devices canbe industry's experience t o date. From the analysis of
found inASMEPTC19.13-1961. Itincludesageneral this data, the method of estimating flow uncer-
24
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tainties described in this Section was developed. Item C. The device was in service between
The material given in this Section i s based primarily
time of calibration andtest and its condition may
on comparison of flowsmeasured with Code flow havechanged, although therei s no evidence of de-
sections (after compensation for heat and water terioration.
balanceflows) withcorrespondingflows mea- Item D. The flow section was installed after
sured with flow sections that did not meet Code initial system flushing. It was i n service before the
requirementsand were installed in same the steam test and has not been inspected since installation.
turbine cycle arrangement. The primary intent of Thegiven values represent possibledeposit
this Section, therefore, is to provide a means of de- buildup or roughening ofsurfaces during service
riving the estimated additional expecteduncer- before the test.
tainty in flowmeasurements for steam turbine tests item E. The flow section was calibrated,
when flow sections that do not meet Code re- thenpermanently installed, andnotinspected
quirements are used and the installation config- thereafter. For liquid measurement, the assigned
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
urations aresimilar to those typically found in values represent theeffectof possibledamagedur-
power plants. ing initial flushing or from deposits that accumu-
late during operation. For steam measurement, the
4.16 Many factors determine theaccurate mea- values include the additional effect of an extrap-
surement of primary flow as described in theCode, olated curve, and some damage from initial blow-
Pars. 4.19 through 4.47.The more importantfactors ing of thesteam line, cleaning out welding beads,
affecting absolute accuracy i n this measurement and other contamination. These values increase
are given in Tables 4.10 and 4.11 and Figs. 4.5 with prolonged service if there is scaling, deposit
through 4.9 in this Report. Table 4.10 lists the es- accumulation, or erosion. For measuring steam
timated uncertainty in flow under various circum- flow, usual practice employs a pipe-wall tap noz-
stances when all flow section configuration details zle.
meet the Code requirements. Figures 4.5 through (2) Group 2 in Table 4.10 applies to uncali-
4.9 pertain to the flow section configuration de-
brated flowsections.
tails, and thecurves on thefigures indicate the ex-
Item F. An inspection immediately before
pected uncertainties for selected deviations from
and after the test includes checking for correct di-
the Code flow section configuration. A flow sec-
ameter, damage due to passing debris, and change
tion’s estimated overall uncertainty is calculated
in diameter dueto deposit buildup.For throat tap
by taking thesquare root of the summation of the
nozzles, the inspection includesa very closescru-
squares of the applicable percentage from Table
tiny of the throat taps. They should be sharp and
4.10, and the applicable percentages to the flow
free of burrs.
section from Figs. 4.5 through 4.9. In Table 4.10,
uncertainties are tabulatedinpercentforboth Item G. If not inspected after test, the un-
water andsteam flow measurement. For water flow certainty from possible damage and deposit
measurement, the uncertainties shown are based buildup i s increased.
o n flow coefficientsonly. For steam flow mea- Item H. This measuring section will be in
surements, the uncertainties are for differential place during the initial flushing and blowing of the
pressure to inletpressure ratiosof 0.10 or less, and pipeand initial operation. Considerabledamage in
include both flow coefficient and expansion factor. the formof nicks andscratches is possible andde-
(a) Comments on the items Table4.10
in follow. positbuildup i s common,thusincreasingthe
(7) Group 1 items in Table 4.70 apply when a uncertainty of the flow-measuring device. For ex-
flow section iscalibrated. ample, a piece ofwelding rodacross a nozzle may
Item A. Calibration meets Coderequire- produce a 10% error. There should be a certificate
ments. Application of
uncertainties may be of inspection stating that the diameter
was correct,
required for the instrumentation detailed pres- for the unit was clean, the taps were straight, and the
sure measurement i n Pars. 4.22 through 4.27 and installation, i n general, complied with ASME PTC
for temperature measurementi n Pars. 4.29 and 4.30 19.5-1972, Fluid Meters, Part II, when originally in-
of this Report. stalled.
item B. Calibrated, but the shape of the Item i. The absence of the minimum in-
curve and numericalvalue specified i n Par. 4.31 of spection of Item H precludes few errors. For ex-
the Code do notmeet requirements. ample, a beveled orifice installed backwards will
25
TABLE 4.10
BASE UNCERTAINTIES OF PRIMARY FLOW MEASUREMENT
-
26
TABLE 4.11
MINIMUM STRAIGHTLENGTH O F UPSTREAMPIPEFORORIFICE PLATES A N D F L O W NOZZLE F L O W
SECTIONS W I T H NO F L O W STRAIGHTENERS
[Minimum Straight Lengths of Pipe Required BetweenVarious Fittings Locatedat Inlet and Outlet
of the Primary Device, and Device Itself (based oninformationin ASME MFC-3M-1985 and ASME
PTC 19.5-1972).]
r
O n lnlet Side of Primary Device T
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7
Two 90 deg.
Ells in Same
Plane,
Single 90 deg. Separated by
Bend or Tee 10 Diameters Two 90 deg.
(Flow From Two 90 deg. of Straight Ells Not in Valve or On Outlet
Diameter One Branch Ells in Same Pipe Same Plane Reducers and Regulator Side (For All
Ratio Only) Plane [Note (1)l [Note 12)l Expanders [Note (3)l Inlets)
NOTES:
(1) If this length i s less than 10 diameters, Column 2 shall apply.
(2) If the two ells in Column4 are closely preceded by a third ell notin the same plane as the second ell, the piping requirements
shown by Column 4 should be doubled.
(3) The valve or regulator in Column6 restricts the flow; however, awide open gate valve or plug valve may be considered as not
creating any serious disturbance, and itmay be located according to the requirements of the fitting preceding it,as permitted
in Column 1, 2, 3, or 4.
produce a very large error. Hence, no numerical ties of over20%may result. For flow measurements
uncertainty value for Item I is tabulated. where severe upstream disturbances may occur,
(b) Comments on thecurves in Figs. 4.5 through the use of a multiplate-type flow straightener pre-
4.9 follow. Figure 4.5 is applicable to flowsections ceding the flow section i s recommended.
containing no flow straighteners. Locating flow Figure 4.5 used with Table 4.11, Columns 1
sections with no flow straighteners where severe through 6, estimates the flow section uncertainty
upstream swirl disturbances may be encountered for the straight length of pipe preceding the pri-
should be avoided. Examplesof such locatims are: mary flow element.
(7) near pump discharge; Figure 4.6 is applicable to flowsections with and
(2) after and nearpartially open control valves; without flow straighteners. The curves on the fig-
( 3 ) preceded by two or more elbows in dif- ure give the additional uncertainty for calibrated
ferent planes with no run between the elbows. and uncalibrated flow sections when the P ratio i s
In some instances,if a flow section without a flow greater than that recommended by the Code.
straightener is used in these locations, uncertain- Figures4.7 and 4.8 are for flowsections with flow
27
2.5
S?
6
3
3
2.0
z
c.
.-
C
m
E
V
1.5
1.0 1 1 -
1 .o 1.5 2.0
Ratio Straight Upstream Length
Length From Table 4.1 1
2.0
c
i
.c 1.0
c
o
c"
3
O
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
5, Ratio
28
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.0
8.
F
v,
2.0
1
c
.-m
C
c
al
c" 1.0
3
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U l I l I I I I l
O t I I I ' I I ' I I ' W I I I ' I ' I
O 4 8 12 16 20 24
2.0
1 .o
1.5
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 l : : ' ' I l
29
ANSUASME
PTC 6 REPORT-1985 GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD IN PERFORMANCETESTSOF STEAM TURBINES
straighteners. These curves give estimated uncer- nozzle is installed in a boiler feedwater line. The
tainties forthe upstream length between the flow section is not calibrated and the flow nozzle
straightener and flow element are thatshorter than was inspected before permanent installation.The
the 1 6 0 specified bythe Code andwhenthe flow nozzle P ratio is 0.65 and the flowsection has
straightener has less than the Code specified 50 no flow straightener. The pipe inside diameter D
section 2 0 long straightener. For multiplate flow i s 8.5 in. There is a single 90 deg. bend preceding
straighteners with a large number of small holes, the flowsection. The flow section upstream length
ULszin Fig. 4.8 is equal to 0.0. The curves on the is 107 in. The straight length of pipe downstream
figures applywhen the lengthof straight pipe of the flow nozzle is 50 in. The upstream length ex-
ahead of the flow straightener is at least 2 pipe pressed in pipe diameters i s 107/8.5 = 12.6. Table
diameters and the straight length of pipe down- 4.11, Column 1, indicates that for = 0.65, the re-
stream oftheflow element is atleast 4pipe quired minimum straight length of pipe between
diameters. In locationswhere flow profiles mayen- the upstream elbow and the flow nozzle inlet face
counter severe separation, such as when the flow should be atleast 11.5 pipe diameters. The up-
section i s installed in a branch leg ofa tee, use of stream length ratio to be used to enter Fig. 4.5 is
tubular flow straighteners can cause large errors therefore 12.6h1.5 = 1.1, resulting in a UINSvalue
in measurements. Such locations should be of & 1.8%. The downstream length, expressed in
avoided. Otherwise, use of a
multiplate-type pipe diameters, is 5018.5 = 5.9. Table 4.11, Column
straightener is recommended. 7, indicates a minimum requirement of 4 pipe di-
Figure 4.9 applies to flow sections with and with- ameters. The downstream length ratio to be used
out flowstraighteners. This figure, used with Table to enter Fig.4.9 is therefore 5.914 = 1.5, resulting
4.11, Column 7, estimates the flow section uncer- in a UDsLvalue of *0.3%.
tainty due the to straight pipe length following the
primary flow element. (7) From Table4.10, Item H for Usapplies and
is +3.2%.
4.17 Flow SectionsThatCannotBeInspected (2) From Fig.4.6, U, at ß = 0.65 and the un-
After Installation. Table4.10, Items D, E, and H are calibrated curve = &0.5%.
for sections containing flow elements permanently The combined uncertainty becomes:
welded in the pipe withoutinspection ports. This
makes it difficult toinspect the flowelement after +
d(1.8)* (0.3)2 + (3.2)2 + (0.5)2= +3.7%
the flow section is assembled. It is subsequently (6) For the same flow nozzle calibrated before
impossible to establish whether the flowelements permanent installation, and assembled in a flow
are free of deposits or if damage has occurred since section with a 30 tube flowstraightener assembled
assembly. In general, initial surface deposits and 12 pipe diameters upstream of the flow element,
scratches on flow nozzles and damage to orifices the uncertainties become:
in the form of distortion or nicks to thesharp edge
have an immediate effect on the flowcoefficient; (7) From Table 4.10, Item E for Usapplies and
thereafter, if further deposits or damageoccur, the is &2.5%.
change in coefficient with time is probably much (2) ‘From Fig. 4.6, U, at B = 0.65 and calibrated
reduced. For noninspectable flow sections in ser- = 20.3%.
vice for more than6 months, the base uncertainty (3) From Fig.4.7, ULs,at 12 and 0 = 0.65 =
is likely to change much less with time than in- &0.6%.
dicated for the initial 6 monthsin Table4.10. When (4) From Fig. 4.8, ULszat 30 and 0 = 0.65 =
the base uncertainties for these flow sections with f 0.4%.
morethan 6 months in service must beestablished, ( 5 ) From Fig. 4.9, UDsLat 1.5 = *0.3%
mutual agreement between the parties to thetest
must be reached after considering the plant’s water The combined uncertainty becomes:
chemistry and maintenance history.
J(2.5)* + (0.3)* + (0.6)’ + (0.4)2 + (0.q2 = +2.6%
4.18 Theprocedurefordeterminingthetotalex-
pected uncertainty using the tables and figures is 4.19 Measurements Using RadioactiveTracers.
shown in the following examples. Theuncertainty in flowsorqualities measuredwith
(a) Aflowsectioncontaininga pipe-wall tapflow radioactivetracers i s dependent on the
uncertainty
30
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.12
RADIOACTIVE TRACER UNCERTAINTIES
~~
31
eral ways. Counting errors can be reduced signif- certainity at a reasonable cost. Uncertainties re-
icantly by increasingthe counting timeby a factor sulting from use of nonradioactivetracer materials
of 100 or by utilizing two detectors. Injection rate must be agreedto by the parties to the test based
can be more precisely controlled using an instru- on information available at the time.
ment-qualitypositivedisplacementminipump.The
pump can be fed from acontainer mounted on an 4.21 Steam Quality MeasurementsUsingThrot-
analytical balance calibrated to 0.02%. If, in addi- tling Calorimeters. Throttling calorimeters operate
tion, the balance is read to kO.1 grams at five on the principle that the initialand final enthalpies
minute intervals measured to *0.2 seconds, the are equal when steampasses through an orifice
uncertainty can be further reduced. from a higher to a lower pressure, providing there
Preparation of more standards will reduce the is no heat loss and the initialand final kinetic ener-
uncertainty in this area, and two or three mea- gies are negligible.
surementsof backgroundwill almost eliminate the Steam samples should be taken in accordance
uncertainty. with ASTM D 1066, or as described in ASME PTC
With theabove techniques, water flowscan be 19.11-1970.
measured to better than 1% using tracers. The calorimeter alone, with properly calibrated
instruments, is capable of an uncertaintyof k 0.2%;
4.20 MeasurementsUsing
Nonradioactive however, a statement of overall uncertainty is not
TracersThe sampling technique of nonradioactive valid because of the uncertainties involved in the
tracers hasseveraladvantages that make this sampling technique. Throttling calorimeters have
method more adaptablefor use at nonnuclear in- a limited range of use which varies with pressure
stallations, where the licensing and personnel re- (see ASME PTC 19.11-1970).
quired for using radioactive tracers may not be
available. 4.22 Measurement of Pressure. The instruments
However, uncertainties from the following to be used for measuring the various fluid pres-
sources can be introduced and might be expected sures in the cycle arelisted in Code Par. 4.64. The
during a Code test: typesof instruments used for measuring pressures
(a) preparation ofstandards; at various locations, such as at the throttle, first
(b) variation in injection rate; stage, extraction stages, feedwater heaters, and ex-
(c) contamination of samples; haust, are discussed in the following paragraphs.
( d ) sampling and analysis.
Experience to date is based on limited fieldtests 4.23 The quality and grade of the test instru-
using a sodium tracerwhich yielded promising re- ments should be coordinated. For example, if pri-
sults. The sampling techniques were generallyin mary flow is measured as in Item H of Table 4.10,
accordancewith ASTM D 1428-64, Method B, mod- whether pressureis measured byBourdon gageor
ified to allow a larger number of samples during deadweight gage will make little difference in the
a two hour test period. uncertainty of the result. Improvement in the
Other limited testing indicates that steamen- method of flow measurement would be necessary
thalpies can be determined within 0.01 Btullbm, before highly accuratepressuremeasuring de-
which would have a negligible effect on test re- vices would be justified.
sults. However, such accuracy most probably will
require raising the level of sodium in the system 4.24 The uncertainties for different types and
to one possibly objectionable to manufacturers of calibrations of deadweight gages are addressedin
some major systemcomponents. Accordingly,the Table 4.14.
allowable sodium level in each individual system
must be established and coordinated with other 4.25 The uncertainties for different types of ma-
test requirements. nometers are addressedin Table 4.13.
Because of the potentially detrimental effects of
raising the system sodium level, studies are un- 4.26 Transducersand their applications are
derway to identify a more desirable tracer material. mentioned in Code Par. 4.83. High quality trans-
This material, alongwith a suitable tracer detection ducers properly installed in controlled tempera-
technique and associated instrumentation, must ture environments and used with high resolution
be practicable and must provide the desired un- digital readouts canyield low uncertainties, butthe
32
TABLE 4.13
MANOMETERUNCERTAINTIES
Test manometer
Precision-bored, compensated-scale, without
reading k0.05 in.
aid
Station manometer
Commercial
compensated scale, without reading
aid kO.10 in.
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) For additional information, see ANSVASME PTC 19.2-1986 and, in particular, note the capillary
error in small bore tubing.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(b) When manometersare used to measure turbine exhaust pressures, the spatial uncertainty from
Table 4.17 also applies.
TABLE 4.14
DEADWEIGHTGAGEUNCERTAINTIES
Area Ratio Quality and Grade Uncertainty
Uncalibrated f 0.10%
rated of capacity
initial and continued precision ofthis equipment haust annulus or from any major flow restriction,
should be demonstrated by frequent in-placecal- is recommended for measurement of the exhaust
ibration or by use in parallel with suitable preci- pressure. Normally,the probes should beadjacent
sion equipment. If transducers are installed im- to the plane of the last stage blading and closeto
properly o r are in service for long periods without the turbine exhaust flange. The station vacuum
calibration, the uncertaintywill be indeterminate. gage connection i s seldom located to comply with
Transducers and the uncertainties for different this requirement, andi s generally placedin thecas-
measuring systems and calibrations are addressed ing wall. If such a connection i s used, the uncer-
in Table 4.16. tainty is & 0.5 in. Hg. The uncertainties for different
numbers of probes for exhaust pressure measure-
4.27 The uncertainties for different types and ment are addressed in Table 4.17.
calibrations of Bourdon gages areaddressed in
Table 4.15. 4.29 TemperatureMeasurement. Refer to the
Code, Par. 4.100. For acode performancetest, only
4.28 Exhaust pressuremeasurementandthe calibrated integral cold-junction thermocouples or
factors affecting measurement uncertaintyare pre- platinum resistance temperature detectors with
sented in the Code,Pars. 4.92 through 4.98. A min- calibrated leads are recommended for tempera-
imum of two basket-type probes for each exhaust tures with the greatest influence on test results.
annulus, located 1ft away from the wall of the ex- Examples of influential temperatures are throttle
33
TABLE 4.15
BOURDON GAGE UNCERTAINTIES
10 in. test gage Laboratory, 24 in. scale length calibrated in place and *0.5%
temperature compensated of full scale
8 in. station gage Commercial, 16 in. scale length, calibrated in place * 1.0%
conditions
operating
under of full scale
TABLE 4.16
TRANSDUCERUNCERTAINTIES
~~
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
~~ ~ ~~
Transducer for gage Medium accuracy laboratory calibrated +0.10% of full scale
pressure or absolute
pressure for test [Note
(I)]
and reheatsteam temperatures, final feed tem- accuracy, or a high resolution bridge of0.03%ac-
perature, primary flow element fluid temperature, curacy, or an equivalent digital microvolt meter
and, when primary flow is calculated by heat bal- should be used as applicable.
ance, temperatures aroundall heaters down- For extensive treatment of thermocouples, refer
stream of the flow measuring section. For these to ANSVASME PTC-19.3-1974 (R1985), Chapter 3.
temperatures, thecode-recommended measuring For a test that deviates from the Code, uncer-
instruments should be used with thetemperature taintyof thetemperature measurements should be
element. A high resolution potentiometerof 0.03% consistent with the overall expected uncertainty of
34
TABLE 4.17
NUMBER OF EXHAUST PRESSURE PROBES
Exhaust JointArea
NOTE:
(1) Probe location is at a point whose accuracy has been demonstrated as an average of exhaust
pressures in accordance with the Code, Par. 4.93. If not so located, the uncertainty may be as
high as f0.5 in. Hg.
TABLE 4.18
THERMOCOUPLE A N D RESISTANCE THERMOMETERUNCERTAINTIES
Instrument Uncertainty
Grade
Quality and
the test. The quality.and grade of thevarious test and the reading instrument. Potentiometers are
instruments should be coordinated. For example, available as follows (values are percentages of
if primary flow i s measured as in Item H of Table readings):
4.10, it will make little difference whether the tem- Limits of
perature is measuredby Uncertainty
commercialthermo- Instrument
couple or laboratory thermocouple. Precision
laboratory
potentiometer 0.01 % *
Tables 4.18 and 4.19 include thegeneral typesof Precision
potentiometer
portable f 0.03%
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
potentiometer
Industrial f 0.20%
instruments used for measuring the temperature
Recording potentiometerfor
switchboard
a 5 0.30%
of the fluid at various locations in the cycle, such
as throttle, extractionstages, heaters, and exhaust. When a digital indicating instrumentis used, the
For thermocouples, the uncertainty of the mea- accuracyand resolution of the instrument must be
surement depends upon the combination of the consistent with the expected uncertainty of the
thermocouple, the wiring, thereference junction, thermocouple element.
35
TABLE 4.19
LIQUID-IN-CLASS THERMOMETER UNCERTAINTIES
Instrument Quality and Grade . Uncertainty
Glass
stem thermometer Industrial type, calibrated
to 3OOoF f 2.0°F
to 6OOOF k 3.0°F
GENERAL NOTE: See ANSVASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R1985), Table 5.4, page 49 and Par. 4.29.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
since calibration of this standard should not ex- on the emergent stem.
ceed 12 months.
NOTE: Inasmuch as tl is not the true temperature of the bulb
of the immersed thermometer, the correction K is only ap-
4.30 For liquid-in-glassthermometers, an emer- proximate upon substitution in the above equation. If a new
gent-stem correction must be added algebraically substitution in the equation is made using tl + K as the new
value for tl, the new correction K will be more nearly correct.
to the indicated temperature. For a total immersion Further recalculation with tl, corrected for the new value of K,
mercury-in-glass thermometer,the correction can will result in a more correct value for K. Seldom are more than
be calculated from the following equation: two recalculations necessary and then only for high temper-
atures and long emergent stems. Referto ANSVASME PTC 19.3-
1974(R1985), Chapter 5, Par.48, for sample calculations of emer-
K = o.oooo9 D (r, - rz) gent-stem corrections.
36
5.01 The uncertainty of an overall result is de- and space using a limited number of readings and
pendent upon the collective influence of the com-sampling points. Procedures for determining the
ponent uncertaintiesof the testdata. Sincevarious magnitude of each of these uncertainties are de-
combinations of measurements will be required scribed in items (a), (b), and (c) below. In item (d),
for anytest,a method i s given for determining how the contributions from each source of uncertainty
individualtestdatauncertaintiesmaybecom- on a particular parameter are combined into an
bined intoanoveralluncertaintyfortheresult.This overall measurement uncertainty.
can be done in four steps. (a) Usually, the most significant source of un-
First, the uncertainty of each measured para- certainty is that of the measuring device. Values of
meter (throttle temperature, pressure, and other uncertainty for the various instruments used were
similar items) must be determined by considering given in the previous Section. However, it should
the contribution of the three sources of uncer- be noted that if thevalue a parameter
of isobtained
tainty discussed in Par. 5.02. by averaging the readings of several instruments
Second, some variables that affect heat rate are of the same kind andgrade, then the effect of the
calculated fromseveral measured parameters. The uncertainty in the averaged reading ofa measure-
determination of the uncertainty of these calcu- ment is reduced byafactor equal to the square root
lated variables must be based on the uncertainty of the number of duplicate instrumentsused:
of each of the measured parameters from which
they are calculated and the effecteach of the pa- u, = u;/&
rameters has o n the variable. The second step is
discussed in Par. 5.03. where
Third, the effect each variable has on the final
test result (so-called influence factors) must be de- U,= uncertainty in the average value of the
termined as discussed in Par. 5.04. Three methods measurement due to uncertainty of each
for obtaining influence factors are recommended: instrument used
the use of a generally applicable table (Par. 5.06), U; = basic uncertainty of the instrument given
the use of a computer to perform a perturbation in Section 4
analysis (Par. 5.07), and analytical differentiation M = number of duplicate instruments used in
(Par. 5.08). obtaining the average
Fourth, the uncertainties of each variable are For example, if throttle temperature i s measured
combined to determine the overall uncertainty for by averaging the readings of three test thermo-
the test results as explained in Par. 5.05. couples with separate test leads:
A numerical example of the methods discussed
i s given in Pars, 5.09 and 5.10 and in Appendix I.
U; = k3.0°F (Table 4.18)
5.02 Uncertainty of Individual Measurements.
First, the uncertainty of the individual measure-
ments must be determined. In general, the un- U, = 3.0/& = f 1.73OF
certainty of a measurement is the combination of
uncertainties fromas many as three sources. These
are instrument uncertainty due to the measuring It is emphasized that averaging the readings of
deviceitselfandsamplinguncertaintiesintro- several instruments to reduce uncertainty is valid
duced by measuring parameters that varywith time so that
only if the errors are randomly distributed
37
high readings tend to offset low readings. Gen- determining the number of readings required to
erally, instrumenterrors are composed of two minimize the time variability effect on the com-
components, namely a random component anda bined uncertaintyof theresult. However, if this re-
systematic component. The random component quirement cannot be satisfied, the effect of this
may be due toscale readability (or precision) and source of uncertainty must beaccounted for sep-
nonrepeatability ofresponse. The systematic com- arately, basedon thenumber ofreadings available
ponent may be dueto driftin calibration and non- (see Par. 3.05).Themethod presented in this Report
linear response. This is a fixed bias causing errors utilizes statistical methods to estimate data varia-
which produce consistently high or low readings. bility.Thevariabilityestimateis then translated into
In a well-designed instrument, the random com- an uncertainty by consideringthe assumed distri-
ponent is small and can be further reduced by using bution of thedata andthe desired confidence level.
multiple instruments and, when readabilityhas an There are two statistical methods for estimating
effect, by multiple readings of the same instru- variability, each with i t s own distribution.The pre-
ments. In uncertainty analysis, the systematic com- ferred method utilizes the standard deviation es-
ponent is usually treated as random since i t s timator and requires at least 10 readings:
direction, highor low, is unknown. (If thedirection
were known, its effects could be eliminated by cor-
recting thereading.) However, the systematic com-
ponent will not always be reduced by the use of
S =
.\i c
i=l
'.
(X; - S / ( N - 1)
TABLE 5.1
VALUESOFTHESTUDENT'S t- ANDSUBSTITUTE t-
DISTRIBUTIONSFOR A 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
-
The uncertainty due to variability with time i s U, = 2.052 X
R = average of the ranges of each instrument
3 . 1 8 0 / m = k1.2OF
respectively
U, = ti R
For the example of throttle temperature:
= 0.717 x 0.12 in. Hg
U, = k0.09 in. Hg
Ur =1 - = 4(1.2)2+ (1.7)2
UT = *2.I0F
However, since a different instrumentis usually
used at each location, some of the variability ap-
5.03 Uncertainty of Calculated Variables.The
parently due to location will in fact be due to in-
combined uncertainty of variables calculated from
strument uncertainty. Therefore, unless multiple
the measurement of several parameters (such as
instruments are used at each location, the instru-
those required to calculate flow and power)is de-
mentuncertaintyand the spatial uncertainty
termined by summing the component uncertain-
should becompared and only thelarger of the two
ties of each parameter, using the square root of the
used to determine the overall measurement un-
sum of squares method. The component uncer-
certainty. In the example of throttle temperature,
tainties are calculated by multiplying the overall
if the three thermocouples were installed in the
uncertainty of each parameter .by the effect of a
same plane perpendicularto thecenter line of the
change in that parameter on the variable (sensitiv-
pipe, a maximum observed spacevariability (range)
ity). If /? is a variable calculated from themeasure-
of l.O°F could be noted for threespatial locations:
..
ment of K parameters, P,, P?, . Pk then:
U, = ti R
= 1.304 x l.O°F
where
U, = k1.3OF U R = uncertainty in calculated variable R
aR - sensitivity of R to a change in P (influence
"
factor)
The uncertainty due to the instrumentation, U/,
was computed as f 1.7OF. Since U / > U,, only the Up;= overall uncertainty in measured parameter
instrument uncertainty is combined with the time due to instrumentation, spatial, and time
uncertainty to obtain the overall uncertainty. For variability
the exhaust pressure example, however, the spa-
tial uncertainty is larger than the instrument un- 5.04 Effect of Uncertainty in Each Variable on the
certainty (Table 4.13); hence, only U, would be Overall Test Result. Due to thenature ofsteam tur-
used. bine performance, certain test variables such as
TABLE 5.2
EFFECT ON HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY OF SELECTEDPARAMETERS
E f f e c t on Corrected
Parameter Heat Rate Uncertainty
flow and power affect the overall test result on a component uncertaintyis calculated. Hence, over-
1:1 ratio; ¡.e., a 1% uncertainty in flow or power all uncertainty:
causes a 1%uncertainty insteam rate or heat rate.
Other test variables, such as pressures, tempera-
tures, and secondary flows, affect the overall test UHR = j Z
i= 1
ANSUASME
PTC 6 REPORT-1985
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTY
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
5.06 Table 5.2 can be used to determine the ef- value of final-feedwater enthalpy includ-
fects of individual measurements on the test re- ing Group 1 corrections (specified cycle
sults required to determine the influence factors corrections, see Code Par. 5.22)
discussed in Par. 5.04. valueof generator output including Group
Table 5.2 contains results of calculations made 1 corrections
for reheat regenerative turbine generator units heat-rate-divisor correction factor for
with throttlepressures ranging between 1800 psig throttle pressure
to 2400 psig and throttle and reheat temperatures heat-rate-divisor correction factor for
between 1000°F to llOO°F. Since many combina- throttle temperature
tions of steam conditions and cycles are possible, heat-rate-divisor correction factor for ex-
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
a range of probable values i s given. The list in- haust pressure
cludes only those variables having the greatest in- (b) Determine the effect of achange in each var-
fluence on test results. iable in theright-hand side of Eq. (1) on theoverall
test result. This maybe readily done by inspection
5.07 When the effect of theindividual mea- for flow, power, and each of the correction factors;
surement cannot be obtained from Table5.2, it can but a general approach follows.
be determined by following an appropriate cal- (7) Rewrite the overall test result expression
culation procedure. One procedureevaluates a test in logarithmic form. For example:
twice, using each of the twovalues of a particular
variableand notingtheirdifference. Sincethis must
be done foreach variable of significance, it i s best
to use acomputer.An alternative approach
involves an analysis which is outlined in the fol-
(2) Differentiate term by
term, noting that d(ln
lowing paragraph and should beused for the less
u) = du/u, and replace the differential d with dif-
complex cases.
ference A
5.08 An alternative approach to evaluating the
effects of uncertaintiesin test measurements upon
the overall uncertainty employs analytical or nu-
merical differentiation. The method i s outlined as
follows.
(a) Define the test result to be evaluated, in-
cluding correctionfactors to contract conditions,
if applicable. An example is selected with thefol-
lowing data: Each of the terms in Eq. (3) except the twocon-
Steam conditions of 850 psig, 900°F, 1.5 in. Hg tainingenthalpyvariables represents thefractional
abs, 141,590 Ibm/h throttleflow, 16,500 kW, at 0.85 change for therespective variable; and,in the con-
power factor, 351.8OF final feedwater temperature, text of this analysis, they represent the uncertainty
with a specified heat rate of of that variable expressed as a fraction. It should
be notedthat an uncertainty in flow affects the un-
141,590(1453.1 - 325.0) certainty in heat rate in the same direction, whereas
HR = = 9680 Btu/kWh
16,500 uncertainty in power and correction factors affect
the heat rate in theopposite direction. This is de-
For this example, the uncertainty in the cor- noted in the following analysis by theuse of plus
rected heat rate will be evaluated. The corrected or minus coefficients, respectively.
heat rate is defined as: (3) Theeffect of uncertainty in each correction
factor due to uncertainties in the corresponding
test variable is determined from correctioncurves.
Typical correction curves in Figs, 5.1 through 5.3
are used to illustrate this procedure. From these
where curves the followingeffects on corrected heat rate
W, = test value for throttle flow uncertainty are established by determining the
h,, = test value for throttle enthalpy slope of the curve at the test values of 850 psig,
42
FIG. 5.1 TYPICAL THROTTLE PRESSURE CORRECTION CURVES FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED INITIAL
STEAM CONDITIONS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(Y-
c
n
c
m
I
O
c
L
O
V
Throttle Temperature, OF
FIG. 5.2 TYPICAL THROTTLE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION CURVE FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED
INITIAL STEAM CONDITIONS
43
+4
+3
pi
d +2
O
Y
+1
-1
-2
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
-3
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Exhaust Pressure, in. Hg abs.
44
900°F, 1.5 in. Hgabs and141,590 Ibm/h throttle flow Aha X 100 - -0.036 X 100
- AP/f
(using the 150,000 lbmlh curve). (hl, - hll) (1453.1 - 325.0)
(a) Throttle pressure. A change of + I O psi
0.565 X 100
= -0.10% on heat rate. This becomes +0.010% on
(1453.1
+
- 325.0)
ATlt = -0.003Ap/t O.O5OAT/, (6) +
heat rate per psi when the negative coefficient from
Eq. (3) is applied.
(b) Throttle temperature. A change of+ I O O F
= -0.30% on heat rate. This becomes +0.030%o n (c) The basis for final feedwater enthalpy
heat rate per O F when the negative coefficient from determination differs with the type of test con-
Eq. (3) is applied. ducted. For the example for the specified cycle, the
(c) Exhaust pressure. A change of +0.6 in value is taken after Croup1corrections have been
Hg = 1.20% on heat rate. This becomes -2.0% on applied; as such, it i s based upon the pressuremea-
heat rate perin. Hg when the negative coefficient surement at the turbine flange in the extraction line
from Eq. (3) is applied. feeding the final heater, with specified line pres-
(4) The two terms in Eq. (3) containing en- sure drop and specified heater terminal difference
thalpy must be converted to actual test measure- applied.
ment as follows. For routine tests, where the specified cycle is not
(a) Throttleenthalpy is generallydeter- considered, the final feedwater enthalpy depends
mined.fromdirectpressureandtemperature onthetemperatureand pressure measurementsof
measurements at that location. Therefore, theun- that feedwater.
certainty in throttle enthalpy may be expressed as: For example, the effect of an uncertainty in the
turbineextraction pressure measurement upon the
finalfeedwaterenthalpywilldepend upon the
thermodynamic relationship between enthalpy of
compressedliquidandsaturationpressure. For
where practical purposes, the slope of the saturated liq-
uid enthalpyversus pressure relation can be used.
= uncertainty in throttleenthalpy in units
The difference between the slopes of the com-
of Btu/lbm
pressed liquid and saturatedliquid enthalpy-pres-
= slopeofthesuperheated steamen- sure relations i s negligible.
[TlJ thalpy versus pressurecurveatcon-
stant temperature. This slope i s given
in Fig. 5.4. For the example 850 psig,
900°F, it is -0.036 Btullbm-psi.
[%] P
= slope of thesuperheated steam en-
thalpy versus temperaturecurveat
where
Ah,, = uncertainty in final feedwater enthalpy
in units of Btullbm
[zl
constant pressure. This slope is given
in Fig. 5.5. For the example 850 psig, = slopeof saturated liquid enthalpyversus
900°F, it i s 0.565 BtuAbrn-OF. saturationpressurecurve.Thisslope is
Aplt, AT,, = the uncertainties in test throttle pres- plotted on Fig. 5.6 for saturated liquid
sure and temperature in units o f psi [Note (I)]. For the exampleit is 0.566 Btu/
and O F , respectively Ibm-psi (at 147 psia) [Note (2)].
(6)This uncertainty in throttle enthalpy af-
fects the corrected heat rate uncertaintyas deter- NOTES:
(1) The companion slope (dHxL/dJSJis given in Fig. 5.7 for use
mined in E q . (31, as follows: when the final feedwater enthalpy is based upon a tem-
perature measurement.
(2) This is the pressure equivalent to measured pressure at the
turbine extraction flange (164.9 psia), less 5% specified line
pressure loss andless 5 O F specified heater terminal tem-
perature difference.
Apx = uncertainty in test pressure at turbine ex-
For example, on a percent heat rate uncertainty
ba- traction flange connected to final heater,
sis: in units of psi
45
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
- 0.05
.-
B
k
.
o
a
tñ - 0.10
h
T
- 0.15
- 0.20
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1 100 1200
Steam Temperature, O F
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
+ 0.80
LL
I
E
o
\
m'
. 4.0.70
t 0.50
400 500 600 700 800 900 lo00 1100 1200
Steam Temperature, O F
46
I
E + 1.0
.
o
3
S
t 0.5
O
O 1O0 200 300 400 500
Pressure of Saturated Liquid, psia
1.3
1.2
U
O
I
1.1
1.o
0.9
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.8
1O0 200 300 400 500
47
(d) This uncertainty in final feedwater en- basic instrument uncertaintyis k0.05 in. Hg (Table
thalpy affects the corrected heat rate uncertainty 4.13, Item 2), and since four manometers and four
as determined in Eq. (3) as follows: probes are used, the average uncertainty of the
readings is k0.025 in. Hg (¡.e., O.OS/&).
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = -2%per in.
Hg (Table 5.3, Column B, line 5).
Heat rate uncertainty = -2 x k 0.025 = f 0.05%
(Column D).
Although the number of probes satisfies the
Codecriteria for minimum uncertainty, the spatial
uncertainty has not been previouslydemonstrated
For example, on a % heat rate uncertainty basis:
as required by the Code. This may increase the un-
certainty of the average exhaust pressure mea-
surement. Consequently, the readings should be
checked after the test to determine if sampling un-
certainties due to spatial variations should have
- -(0.566)(100) Ap, = -0.05O2Apx been accounted for.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(1453.1 - 325.0) (4Extraction pressure is measured with an 8
in., 300 psig full scale station gage (Table 4.15). Un-
certainty of k 1 % of full scale gives k 3 psi instru-
5.09 To illustrate the use of the data and pro-
ment uncertainty.
cedures in the foregoing paragraphs, an example
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = -0.05% per
of a pretest uncertainty estimate follows. Table 5.3
presents a summary of the results. In this table, psi (Table 5.3, Column B, line 6).
Heat rate uncertainty = -0.05 x 2 3 = 20.15%
Column A is the measurement under considera-
(Column D).
tion, Column B is the calculated effect of thatmea-
(e) Electrical power is measured with one 2%-
surement on heat rate as discussed in Pars. 5.6
through 5.8, Column C is the resulting instrumen- element polyphase watthour meter which meas-
tation uncertainty, and Column D is the compo- ures the total powerof three phases and is applied
to a three-phase, four-wire connectedgenerator as
nent heat rate uncertainty in percent. In Par. 5.10,
the example is continued to demonstrate the tech- shown in Fig. 4.l(c).
niques for reassessing the uncertainty after per- The following instruments will be used:
forming thetest. (7) watthour meters - three-phase portable
(a) Throttle measurement employs an 8 in. sta- meter without mechanical register, calibrated be-
fore testing;
tion gage with 1000 psig full scale(Table 4.15).
*
Uncertainty of 1 % of full scale gives f 10 psi for (2) potential transformers - type calibration
curve available, burden power factor is 0.85, 0.3%
instrument uncertainty.
metering accuracy class;
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = 0.007% per
psi (Table 5.3, Column B, line 3). (3) current transformers - typecalibration
Heat rate uncertainty = 0.007 x f 10 = f 0.07% curve available, burden power factor is 0.85,0.3%
(Column D). metering accuracy class.
(b) Throttle temperature measurement uncer- The equation for power as read by a watthour
tainty dueto instrument uncertainty is f 1.73OF as meter is:
previously determined in Par. 5.02.
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = 0.080% per PT = [(Kh)(R)(CTR)(PTR)llt
O F (Table 5.3, Column B, line 4).
Heat rate uncertainty = 0.080 x f 1.73 = f 0.14%
(Column D). where
(c) Exhaust pressure is sampled by four static PT = total power
pressure probes installed in an exhaust annulus Kh = meter constant
with a 64 ft2 area. A separate mercury manometer R = number of meter disc revolutions
is used on each probe. CTR = current transformer ratio
The manometers are precision-bored and scale PTR = potential transformer ratio
compensated, without optical reading aids. The t = time interval for R revolutions
48
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY
ANSI/ASME PTC 6 REPORT-1985
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES AN AMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
49
In W = In C + 2(ln d ) + In K + In fa
+ Yi [In (Ap) + lnpl where ( a ~ ) / ( a pand
) ~ (ap)/(aT),, are the effects of
changes in pressure and temperature, respec-
du tively, on specific weight as obtained from the
Differentiating, noting d(ln u) = - and substitut- ASMESteam Tables [Appendix III, Ref. (76)].Ap
U
and AT are the uncertainties in the fluidpressure
ing A for d:
and temperature measurements.
Uncertainty in the pressure measurement is neg-
ligible, since for compressed water:
composed of four components as discussed in Sec- Hence, the specific weight uncertainty is:
tion 4:
Base uncertainty (Table 4.10, item O, uB = 0.6
Uncertaintydue to high /3 ratio (Fig. 4.61, U, = 0.2
Uncertainty due toshort distance between flow
straightener and nozzle (Fig. 4.71, ULs, = 0.0
(6) Combining the five uncertainty com-
Uncertainty due tosmall number ofsections in
ponents, the total flowuncertainty is:
flow straightener (Fig. 4.8), ULSZ= 0.6
TABLE 5.3
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE TO INSTRUMENTATION
Component
Heat Rate
Instrumentation Uncertainty,
Test Measurement Effect on Heat Rate, 0 Uncertainty, U, UHR,
A B C D
Throttle flow +I
%/% 1.08% 1.08%
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Power -I%/% 0.64% -0.64 %
Throttle pressure
[Note (I)] +0.010 - 0.003 = +O.O07%/psi 10 psi 0.07%
Throttle temperature
[Note (I)] +0.030 + 0.050 = + 0.080%/0F 1.73OF 0.14%
Exhaust pressure -2%/in. Hg 0.025 in. Hg -0.05%
Extraction pressure -O.OS%/psi 3 psi -0.15%
NOTE:
(I) The same measurements of throttle pressure and temperature are used in determining the
throttle enthalpy and the corresponding correction factors.Hence, their effects are combined
algebraically to determine the neteffect on heat rate uncertainty.
5.11 Theeffectofuncertaintyduetoinstru-
mentation, time, and space variability are com-
bined in Table 5.5 to yield the overall heat rate
uncertainty for the test. It is noteworthy that the
effect of time and space variability had only
a small
effect on the overall uncertainty, as should be ex-
These figures are summarized in Table 5.3.
pected for a well-planned and executed test.
5.10 After test completion, the time uncertainty 5.12 Example in the Use
of Figs. 3.1 and
for the multiple-reading measurements and the 3.2. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 are intended foruse by the
spatial variability for the multilocation measure- engineer directing the test to determine the effect
ments (in this example, the latter affectsonly tur- of time uncertaintyon test results, and should be
binethrottletemperatureandturbineexhaust used as the testprogresses. An example for the use
pressure), were estimated using the procedures of these figures follows.
described inPar. 5.02. The results are summarized (a) Table 5.3 indicates that the expected uncer-
in Tables 5.4A and 5.4B. The calculations for the tainty in the test will b e *1.27%. At 1.27%, Fig. 3.1
time and spatial uncertainty for throttle ternpera- indicates that Ur, the allowable effect due scat- to
ture and exhaust pressure are shownin Par. 5.02. ter, i s 0.12%.
Although not shown, similar calculations are done (6) After 50 m i n o f a planned 1 hr test, the En-
for the other variables including the effect sam-
of gineer directing the test determines by scanning
ple size (denoted by the variables N and L in Tables the differential pressure readings for the 10 sam-
5.4A and 5.4B) in determining the appropriate es- ples of five readings that the average range is 0.17
timate of variability (standard deviation of range) and the scanned average reading i s 8.0.
and using an average estimate of the standard de- (c) Ofrom Table3.1 = 0.5 for flow, by flow nozzle
viation, or range, if more than one instrument (de- differential. f f o r Fig. 3.2 can now be calculatedas
noted by M ) was used. follows:
51
TABLE 5.4A
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE T O VARIABILITY WITH TIME
No. of Degrees Estimate Uncertainty-
Per Readings No. of of Time of Statistical Time
Instrument Instruments Variability Freedom Distribution Variability
Test Measurement N M S or R Y t, or t.' u1
Throttle flow 61 1 0.47% 0.12%
60 2.000
Power 6 0.13% 1 0.12%
2.571 5
Throttle pressure 13 1 1.87 3.10 psi2.179 12 psi
Throttle temperature 10 3 3.18OoF
2.052 27 1.19OF
Exhaust pressure 13 4 0.01 in.
2.010 48 0.002 in.
pressure
Extraction 13 1 0.3 psi
0.5 2.179 12 psi
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) If N > 10, use standard deviation S to estimate time variability and Student's [-distribution.
IfM>I IfM=l
Y = N - I V = M(N - 1)
N M
-
S S
UT = t. -
fi
u, = t, -
fi
(b) If N < IO, use range R to estimate time variability and substitute t-distribution.
IfM=l IfM> 1
u = N v = M
-
R
u, = t,'R u - t'
I -
NOTE:
?/U, = 1.06/0.12 = 8.83 The number of readings can also be calculated by:
N R = [(? x tg,)/(UT X cl2*)]'
( d ) Entering Fig. 3.2 at 8.83,the number of read-
ings required is approximately 57 as read from the where 2 is calculated as in (c) zbove and U r is determined as
ordinate at the intersection of the 8 or more sam- in (a) above. Degrees of freedom andd2* for determiningtSsare
from Appendix II, Table 11-1.
ples line. Thus, there will be sufficient readings at For 10 samples of size 5, d2* = 2.34 and v = 36.5 tssfor Y of
the conclusion of the planned duration of the test 36.5 = 2
that time variability has minimal effect. Had the 1.06 x 2 '
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
52
TABLE 5.48
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE TO VARIABILITY W I T H SPACE
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
pressure
Extraction 1 ... ... ... ...
~
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) If L > IO, use standard deviation S to estimate time variability and Student's t-distribution.
IfM=I lfM>l
v = L v = L
-
S S
u -t- u,= t" -
'JI m
(b) If L < I O , use range R to estimate time variability and substitute t-distribution.
IfM=l IfM>I
u = L v = L
-
R
u, = C,' -
fi
53
TABLE 5.5
OVERALL HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY
Sources of Uncertainty
Effect on Overall Component
Heat Rate Time Space Measurement Heat Rate
UncertaintyVariability
Variability
Instrument Uncertainty Uncertainty
Test Measurement e U, u, US UT UHR,
uHR,
= e X uT
54
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
APPENDIX I
COMPUTATION OF MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTY IN
PERFORMANCE TEST FOR A REHEAT TURBINE CYCLE
1.00 INTRODUCTION
The uncertainty of an overall test result for a reheat turbine i s dependent upon the collective in-
fluenceof theuncertaintiesof thedatausedin determining thetest result. Sincevariouscombinations
of instruments may be selected for any given test, a method i s given for determining how individual
uncertainties in test data may be combined into an uncertainty for the overall test result. Thiscan
be done in three steps, as follows.
(a) Determine the uncertainty of each of the several individual measurements. Component un-
certainties o f variables that require more than one type test of
measurement, suchas flow and power,
should be combinedas the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual measurements.
(6) Express the uncertainty ofeach individual measurement ofStep (a) in terms ofi t s effect on the
overall test result.
(c) Compute the overall uncertainty for the test. This is the square rootof the sum of thesquares
of the values obtained in Step (b).
Certain test variables, such as flow and power, affect the overall test result on a 1:l ratio; ¡.e., a
1% uncertainty in flow or power causes a 1% uncertainty insteam rate or heat rate. Other testvariables,
such as pressures, temperatures, and secondary flows, affect the overall test results o n less than a
1:1 ratio.
The reader i s cautioned against the inappropriateuse of the familiar correction-factor curves for
throttle and reheat steam conditions to determine the effect on heat rate. Since errors in thesesteam
conditions affect steam enthalpies which appear in the heat-rate equation, thesedo curves
not show
the total effect of the measurement errors. Therefore, the effect of an actual change in these variables
is not the same as the effect of an error of the same magnitude in that variable when applied in the
analysis of specific test results. However, theexhaust pressure correction t o heat rate for acondensing
unit can be correctly usedto determine the effectof an error in exhaust pressure, since there i s no
effect on values in the heat rate equation.
The effect of the individual measurement on the overall result can be determined by one of the
following appropriate calculation procedures. One procedure evaluates the test twice, using each
of the twovalues of a particular variable and noting the effect of the difference. Since this must be
done foreach variable of significance, it i s best to usea high-speed computer. An alternative approach
involves an analysis which is outlined in the following paragraph and i s better suited for the less com-
plex cases.
This alternative approachto evaluating the effects of uncertainties in test measurements upon the
overall uncertaintyemploys analytical or numerical differentiation. The method i s outlined as follows.
55
where
HR, = test heat rate corrected for steam conditions
W,, = calculated test value for throttle flow
wRH= calculated test value for reheat flow
H,,= test value for throttle enthalpy
Hll = test value of final-feed enthalpy
HHRH = test value for hot reheat enthalpy
HCRH= test value for cold reheat enthalpy
Pg = value of generator output at specified generator. conditions
CF,, = heat-rate divisor correction factor for throttle pressure
CFT1 = heat-rate divisor correction factor for throttle temperature
CF,, = heat-rate divisor correction factor for exhaust pressure
CFT",, = heat-rate divisor correction factor for hot reheat temperature
CF,, = heat-rate divisor correction factor for reheater pressure drop
1.02 Expression of Individual Measurements in Terms of Their Effects on Overall Test Result
Now determine the effect thata change in each variable in the right-hand side ofEq. (1) will have
upon the overall test result. This maybe readily done by inspection for flow, power, and each of the
correction factors, b u t a general approach is as follows.
(a) Derive General Mathematical .Expression. For simplicity, rewrite above equation as
A x B + C x D
HR, =
E
where
In(HR,) = In ( A x B ~ C x D ) = I n ( A x B + C x D ) - I n E
du
This equation can be written in differential form, and since d(ln U ) = -,
U
-AxdS+BxdA+CxdD+DxdC --
df
A x B + C x D f
Based on the previousdefinitions, the differentials in Eq. (11) can be expressed as follows:
56
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
dA = d w f
and
Now, substituting these values in Eq. (11) and replacing the differentials cf by the differences A,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
'W,, (3)
AT,,
T'r] _
1
aTlt P,,
_
DENOM Tl(
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(21)
6 = (ACFpdCF
Apdp6p6) x (22)
Also, since the reheater pressure drop is a function of the hot and coldreheat pressures
58
where (ACFApIPcHR is the changein reheater pressure drop correction factor when PHRH i s allowed to
change and pCRH= constant, and conversely, where (ACFA,JPHRH is the change in reheater pressure
drop correction factor whenpCRHi s allowed to change and pHRH is constant.
The values for the uncertainties in the correction factors can thus be substituted in Eq. (19):
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Each of the termsin Eq. (27) represents the fractional change fora specific measured variable mul-
tiplied by a weighting factor between brackets (this factor is referred to as sensitivity ratio). In the
context of this analysis, they represent the percentage of errorin that variable and its effecton the
uncertainty in calculated heat rate.
These terms are individually calculated for this example in the following paragraphs.
(b) Apply Results. The parametersin Eq. (27) can b e calculated for the unit.
A heat balance diagram
for this unit is shown in Fig. 1.1. From this heat balance,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The effect of each measured quantity on heat rate can thus be calculated.
(7) Throttle Pressure. The uncertainty in heat rate caused by a 1%error in throttle pressure or
the sensitivity ratio for throttle pressure(SR,,) can be written fromE q . (27).
Tll ACF,,,/CF,,,
SR,, = (35)
DENOM "' - APllPl
The heat balance throttle pressure and temperature have been substituted i n Eq. (35). Therefore,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The second right-hand side term i n Eq. (35) is the uncertainty due to the correction
factor.
The term AcFpl'cFpl i s the slope of the throttlepressure correction factor curve. This slope can
A PIIPI
be found bygraphical differentiation as shown in Fig. 1.2.
ACfpl/CFpl -
- "
0.3% -
- -0.0625%/%
APllP1 4.8%
The term is the slope of the superheated steam enthalpy vs temperature curve at constant
1I4 load
112 load
Rated load
Rated load
112 load
114 load
FIG. 1.2 INITIAL PRESSURE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR SINGLE REHEAT TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED
INITIAL STEAM CONDITIONS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Rated load
1 14 load
FIG. 1.3 INITIAL TEMPERATURECORREC TlON FACTOR FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED INITIAL STEAM
CONDITIONS
63
(%)
aTft P,,
= [g(p = 2412, T = 1OOO)
The information onthe heat balance allows the calculation of the first right-hand side term in Eq.
(39).
The second right-hand side term in Eq. (39) is the uncertainty dueto the correction factor. It is the
slope of the throttle temperature correction factor curve found in Fig. 1.3.
ACFT1/CFT1- -0.7
--=
The term -O.O153%/OF (43)
A TJT, 45.7
At 1000°F, 1% = IOOF. i
For a I O O F error in throttle temperature, the effect of the throttle temperature correction factor is
(3) Final Feedwater Pressure. The term (8Hl1/dp&,, i s the slope of the compressed water en-
thalpy vs pressure at constant temperature. Since enthalpy hardlychanges in the compressed liquid
range if thetemperature is left constant, for the practical range of error in pressure measurement,
(4) Final Feedwater Temperature. Thefourth term in Eq. (27) is an expression of the uncertainty
in heat rate caused by an error in thefinal feedwater temperature measurement. Since in the com-
pressed liquid region, enthalpy does not change for thepressure errors being considered, the partial
derivative (8H,l/8Tl,)p can be written as a total derivative
where dHsLldTsL is the slope of thesaturated enthalpy vs saturated temperature curve. This slope is
given in Fig. 5.7.
(T = 542) = 1.26
dTsr
=
-5,958,707U.26) (542)
= -0.622 (49)
DENOM 6.53788 X io9
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
( 7 ) Hot Reheat Pressure. The uncertainty in heat ratecausedb y a 1% error in hot reheat pressure
or the sensitivity ratio for reheat pressure(SRPHRH)can be written from Eq. (27).
[g ( p = 495, T = 1000)
IT
= -0.03 (53)
WRH (%)
~PHRH THRH 4,819,165(-0.03) (495)
= -0.011 (54)
DENOM = 6.53788 X 10'
Fig. 1.4.
(8) Hot Reheat Temperature. The uncertainty in heat rate caused by a 1%error in hot reheat
temperature (SRTHRH)i s found from E q . (27).
(-)
aTtfRH P"RH
= [e
aT
(p = 495, T = 1000)
1, = 0.54
65
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4,819,165(0.54) (1OOO)
THRH= = 0.398 (59)
DENOM 6.53788 X IO9
The second term is the slope of the hotreheat temperature correction factor. It is found fromFig.
1.5.
(60)
(9) Cold Reheat Pressure. The uncertainty in heat rate caused by a 1% error in cold reheat pres-
sure (SRPCRH)is
The term ( 1 3 H ~ ~ ~ is
/ calculated
d p ~ ~ ~ ) ~Fig.
from ~ 5.4.
~ ~
(-) =
~ P C R H rCRH
[E ( P = 550, T = 620)
IT
= -0.078
(70) ColdReheat Temperature. The sensitivity ratio (SR,,) for the cold
reheat temperature mea-
surement i s
66
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
loads
All I
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
114 load
1i 2 load
Rated load
FIG. 1.5 REHEATER TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED INITIAL STEAM
CONDITIONS
67
t 10.0
+ 8.0
1,875,000 Ibrn/h
8
S +6.0
å?
c
P 2,550,000 Ibm/h
.C + 4.0
r
p
o 3,450,000 Ibrnlh
+ 2.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
O 0.5 1.o 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
68
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 1.1
ERRORS IN CALCULATEDHEAT RATE DUE T O ERRORS IN INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS
EffectAdditional
on Effect
Heat Rate Due to Assumed
Uncertainty C.orrection Effect
Uncertainty
on of Heat Rate
Test Measurement (per %) Factor Measurement
Heat Rate Uncertainty
A B C D=B+C E (%) F=DxE F2
[Note
Throttle
flow (I)] 0.84 0.16 [Note (2)] 1 .o f 0.15 f 0.15 0.0225
pressure
Power
Throttle
-1.0
-0.077
-
0.0625
-1.0
-0.014
f 0.10
f 0.85
* 0.10
f 0.0119
0.0100
0.000142
temperature
Throttle 0.606 0.153 0.76 f0.10 f 0.076 0.005783
pressure
Final feed O - O f 1.00 0.000 f 0.00
temperature
Final feed -0.62 - 0.62 f 0.18 f0.112 0.0125
Hot reheat
pressure -0.01 1 -0.10 0.111 f 0.45 f 0.050 0.0025
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Hot reheat
temperature 0.398 0.14 0.54 f 0.10 0.00292
f 0.0540
Cold
pressure
reheat 0.0316 -0.10 -0.068 f 1.34 f 0.0911 0.0083
Cold
temperature
reheat -0.279 - -0.28 f 0.16 f 0.0448 0.002
Exhaust pressure - -0.044 -0.044 f 1.0 f 0.044 0.00194
NOTES:
is not thesame as condensate flow uncertainty; it must be calculated fromheat
(1) The uncertaintyin throttle flow thebalance around
the heaters.
(2) The reheat flow uncertainty dependson throttle flow uncertainty.A 1 % uncertainty in throttle flow is assumed to cause 1 % un-
certainty in thecalculated reheat flow.
"IOKH -
DENOM 'LKH
(%)
aTCRH Pene
= ["
l3T
( p = 550, T = 620)
Ip = 0.61
Therefore,
-4,819,165(0.61) (620)
SRTCRH= DENOM TCRH= = -0.279 (69)
6.53788 X IO9
AcfpdCFp6
SRp, = (70)
APdP6
In the foregoing analysis, the uncertainty in calculated heat rate resulting from a1% error in each
independent measurement was calculated. An additional uncertainty term was introduced when the
test heat rate was corrected to design conditions. These uncertainties are listed in Table 1.1 under
Columns B and C, respectively. The number in Column D is thus the uncertainty in heat rate.
D=B+C (71)
Column E contains the assumed uncertainty for each of the measurements on the unit.Thus, the
uncertainty in heat rate caused by each of the measurements is given by the following formula.
70
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
APPENDIX II
DERIVATION OF FIG. 3.2
This Appendix presents the method used for de- range (maximum reading-minimum reading) for
veloping Fig. 3.2, required number of readings for identical sample sizes may be used t o estimate S.,
a test.
Fig. U,on 3.1 i s defined as S, = z / d ; (4)
rori"]
~
duringtheprogressof a test. Wherecomputersare sizes from 5 to 10 using Table 11.1 and the above
not available and for sample sizes of 10 or less, the equations.
71
TABLE11.1
VALUESASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THEAVERAGE RANGE'
1 3.8 2.48 4.7 2.67 5.5 2.83 6.3 2.96 7.0 3.08 7.7 3.18
2 7.5 2.40 9.2 2.60 10.8 2.77 12.3 2.91 13.8 3.02 15.1 3.13
3 11.1 2.38 13.6 . 2.58 16.0 2.75 18.3 2.89 20.5 3.01 22.6 3.11
4 14.7 2.37 18.1 2.57 21.3 2.74 24.4 2.88 27.3 3.00 30.1 3.10
5 18.4 2.36 22.6 2.56 26.6 2.73 30.4 2.87 34.0 2.99 37.5 3.10
6 22.0 2.35 27.1 2.56 31.8 2.73 36.4 2.87 40.8 2.99 45.0 3.10
7 25.6 2.35 31.5 2.55 37.1 2.72 42.5 2.87 47.5 2.99 52.4 3.10
8 29.3 2.35 36.0 2.55 42.4 2.72 48.5 2.87 54.3 2.98 59.9 3.09
9 32.9 2.34 40.5 2.55 47.7 2.72 54.5 2.86 61.0 2.98 67.3 3.09
10 36.5 2.34 44.9 2.55 52.9 2.72 60.6 2.86 67.8 2.98 74.8 3.09
NOTE:
(1) Adapted with permission from Ref. (69) of Appendix III.
72
APPENDIX 111
R.EFERENCES
(5) Thresher, L. W., and Binder, R. C., “A Practical Application of Uncertainty Cal-
culations to Measure Data,” ASME 55-A-205, Vol. 79, February 1957, 373-376.
(6) Sprenkle, R. E., and Courtwright, N. S., “Straightening Vanes for Flow Mea-
surement,” In Mechanical fngineering, ASME A-76, February 1958.
(7) Murdock, J. W. and Goldsbury, J., “Problems in Measuring Steam Flow at 1250
psia and 95OOF With Nozzles and Orifices,” ASME 57-A-88,
(8) Angelo, J. and Cotton, K. C., ”Observed Effects of Deposits on Steam Turbine
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(9) Fowler, J. E. and Brandon, R. E., ”Steam Flow Distributionat the Exhaust of Large
Steam Turbines,” ASME 59-SA-62.
(IO) Cotton, K. C . and Westcott, J. C., ”Throat Tap Nozzles Used for Accurate Flow
Measurement,” ASME 59-A-174, Vol. 82, October 1960, 247-263.
(14) Custafson, R. L. and Watson, J . H., “Field Testing of Industrial Steam Turbines,”
ASME 62-WA-319.
73
(17) Hilke, J. L., Cotton, K. C., Colwell, K. W., and Carcich, J.A., "Nuclear Turbine
ASME Test Code InstrumentationNiagara Mohawk Power Corp. NineMile Point
525 MW Unit 1" ASME 66-WAIPTC 4.
(18) Morris, F. S . , Gilbert, R. S., Holloway, J. H., Cotton, K.C., and Herzog, W. G.,
"Radioactive Tracer Techniques for Testing Steam Turbines in Nuclear Power
Plants," ASME 6BWAlPTC 3.
(19) Deming, N. R. and Feldman, R. W., "Non-Radioactive Tracer for Performance
Tests of Steam Turbines in PWR Systems," in journal of Engineering for Power,
1972, ASME 71-WAIPTC 2,109-116.
(20) Cotton, K. C., Carcich, J.A., and Schofield, P., "Experience With Throat-Tap Noz-
zle for Accurate Flow Measurement," in journal of Engineering for Power, April
1972, ASME 71-WAIPTC 1,133-141.
(21) Cotton, K. C., Schofield, P., and Herzog, W. G., "ASME Steam Turbine CodeTest
Using Radioactive Tracers," ASME 72-WAIPTC 1.
(22) Miller, R. W. and Kneisel, O., "A Comparison Between Orifice and Flow Nozzle
Laboratory Data and Published Coefficients," in journalofEngineering forfower,
June 1974, ASME 73-WAIFM-5, 139-149.
(23) Rousseau, W. H. and Milgram, E. J.,"Estimating Precision ln-heat Rate Testing,"
ASME 73-WAIPTC 2. I
(24) Sigurdson, S. and Kimball, D. E., "Practical Method ofEstimating Number ofTest
Readings Required," ASME 75-WAIPTC 1.
(25) Benedict, R. P. and Wyler, J. S., "Analytical and Experimental Studies of ASME 1
Flow Nozzles," in lournalof Engineering for Power, September 1978, ASME 77-
WAIFM-1.
- With Particular Ref-
(26) Benedict, R. P. and Wyler, J. S., "Engineering Statistics
erence to Performance Test Code Work," in journalof Engineering for Power,
101, October 1979, ASME 78-WNPTC 2,265-275.
(27) Benedict, R. P., "Generalized Fluid Meters Discharge Coefficient Based Solely
on Boundary Layer Parameters," ASME 78-WNFM-1, in journalof Engineering for
Power, 101, October 1979,572-575.
(28) Cotton, K. C., Estcourt, V. F., and Carvin, W., "A Procedure for Determining the
Optimum Accuracy on a Cost/Effectiveness Basis of an Acceptance Test," Pro-
ceedings of American Power Conference, Vol. 40,1978.
(29) Southall, L. R., and Kapur, A., "Experience With a Computer ControlledData Ac-
quisition System for Field PerformanceTestingof Steam Turbines,"ASME79-WA/
PTC l.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(30) Crirn, H. G., Jr. and Westcott, J.C., "Turbine Cycle Test System at Potomac Electric
Power Company," ASME 79-WAIPTC 2.
(31) Arnold, H. S., Ir., Campbell, D.,Wallo, M . J.,and Svenson, E. B,, ir., "Power Plant
Equipment Testing Using Computerized Data Acquisition and Evaluation Tech-
niques," ASME 79-WAIPTC 3.
(32) Kinghorn, F. C., McHugh, A., and Dyet, W. D., "The Use of Etoile Flow Straight-
eners With Orifice Plates in Swirling Flow," ASME 79-WNFM-7.
(33) Miller, R. W. and Koslow, G. A., "The Uncertainty Values for theASME-AGA and
I S 0 5167 Flange Tap Orifice Coefficient Equations," ASME 79-WNFM-5.
74
75
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
REFERENCE BOOKS
(65) “Temperature: I t s Measurement and Control in Science and Industry,” Vol. III,
New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1962.
Part 1: Basic Standards, Concepts and Methods
Part 2: Applied Methods and Instrumentation
Part 3: Biology and Medicine
(66) Benedict, R. P., “Fundamentals of Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Measure-
ments,” 3rd Edition, New York: Wiley-lnterscience.
(67) ”ElectricalMetermansHandbook,”7th Edition, New York: Edison Electric
Institute, 1965.
(68) Perry and Chilton, “Chemical Engineer‘s Handbook,” 5th Edition, New York:
McCraw Hill, 1973, 2.62-2.67.
(69) Duncan, A. J., “Quality Control and Industrial Statistics,” 4th Edition, Home-
wood, Illinois: R. D. Irwin, Inc., 1974.
76
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---