Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
S T D . A S M E P T C b R E P O R T - E N G L L985 m 0 7 5 7 L 7 0 OhOb958 9 7 9 m
Guidance
for Evaluation
of Measurement
Uncertainty in
Performance Tests
of Steam Turbines
PERFORMANCE
TEST
CODES
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
United Engineering
Center
OF
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS
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.
Please Note: ASME issueswritten replies t o inquiries concerning interpretation
of technical aspects of this document. The interpretations are not part of the
document. PTC 6 Report-1985 is being issued withan automatic subscription
service to the interpretations that will be issued t o it up to the publicationof
the 1991 Edition.
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 opportunity for additional public input from industry,academia, regulatory agencies, and the publicat-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 volunteers.
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
U 7 5 9 6 7 0 ObObSbO 5 2 7
FOREWORD
(This Foreword is not part of ANSIIASME PTC 6 Report-1985.)
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
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 subject t o agreement between the partiesto thetest.
It i s recognized that Code instrumentation and procedures are not always economically 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 discussed.
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 recognized 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 enable 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 Statistics deals with populations which are essentially randomly distributed, in a strict
sense, only the random component
is amenable to statistical analysis. Consequently,
as illustrated in
ANSVASME PTC 19.1-1985,the two error components should
treated
be
separately throughout the uncertainty
analysis and combined only in the calculation
at the final test uncertainty after the individual error componentshave been propagated, through the use of the appropriate sensitivity factors, into the final result.
In compiling the possible errorsassociated with the myriad of measurements required forsteam turbine performancetesting, the committee
has used theconsensus
of people knowledgeablein the field based on information published in the
various
documents of the PTC 19 series on Instrument and Apparatus Supplements and
gleaned from numerous industry tests and manufacturers supplied data. Unfortunately, thedetailedinformationon
thesemeasurementerrors
whichwould
allow separation into their fixed and random components i s not available. Consequently,the accuracies associated withthe variousmeasurement devices and
iii
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
PERSONNELOFPERFORMANCE
(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
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
~~
S . P. Nuspl
E. Pitchford
W. O. Printup, Ir.
J.A. Reynolds
J. W. Siegrnund
J.C . Westcott
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A. F. Armor
R. P. Benedict
W. A; Crandall
J. H. Fernandes
W. L. Carvin
G. J. Gerber
Vi
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
All ASME codes are copyrighted, with all rights reserved to the Society. Reproduction 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
participate on their own or with a sponsors assistance and produce documents
that meet the requirements
of an ASME concensus standard. The codes are very
valuable piecesof literatureto industry and commerce, and the toeffort
improve
these living documents and develop additional neededcodes must be continued. The monies spent for research and further code development, administrative staff support and publicationare essentialand constitute a substantial
drain on ASME. The purchase price
of these documents helps offset
these costs.
User reproduction undermines this system and represents an added financial
drain on ASME. When extra copies are
needed, you are requestedt o call or write
the ASME Order Department, 22 Law Drive, Box 2300, Fairfield, New Jersey070072300,andASMEwill expeditedeliveryof such copies
to you by return
mail. Please
instruct your people to buy required test codes rather than copy them. Your
cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
vi i
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
1
This Report describes alternative instrumentation and procedures for use in commercial
performance testing of steam turbines. Such tests do not fulfill the requirements of PTC 6 and
cannot be considered acceptancetests unless both parties to the test have mutually agreed
PRIOR TO TESTING, preferably in writing, on all phases of the test that deviate from PTC 6.
I
viii
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
CONTENTS
Foreword ...............................................................
Committee Roster .......................................................
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Section
Introduction ......................................................
Object
and
Scope .................................................
2
Description
and
Definition
of
Terms ................................
3
Guiding Principles .................................................
4
Instruments
and
Methods
of
Measurement
..........................
5
Computation
of
Results ............................................
O
1
Figures
3.1
Maximum Recommended Values for the Effect of Test Data Scatter
on Test Results for Each Type of Measurement .....................
3.2
Required Number of Readings for Minimum Additional Uncertainty
in the Test Results Caused by Test Data Scatter ....................
3.3
Base Factor. % ....................................................
4.1
Generator
Connection Types .......................................
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
iii
v
1
3
3
5
11
37
7
9
13
Error Curves for Equal Voltage and Current Unbalance in One Phase
and for Three Possible Locations of Z Coil for 2; Stator Watthour
Meters .........................................................
WatthourMeterConnections
.......................................
14
15
20
Minimum StraightRunofUpstream
Pipe After Flow Disturbance.
No FlowStraightener
............................................
28
28
29
29
29
ix
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
Tables
3.1
4.1
.................................
..........................................
....
..........................................
.......................................
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
............
.......................
Appendices
I
ComputationofMeasurementUncertainty
in Performance Test for
a Reheat TurbineCycle ..........................................
II
Derivationof Fig 3.2
III
References ........................................................
. ...............................................
16
16
17
17
19
22
23
23
24
26
27
31
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
39
41
51
52
53
54
55
71
73
Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
.............................
61
63
63
67
67
68
Tables
1.1
Errors in CalculatedHeat Rate Due to Errorsin Individual
Measurements ..................................................
11.1 ValuesAssociated With the Distribution of the AverageRange
..
. . . ...
69
72
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
xi
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
TEST CODES
Report on
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION
OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ASMEPERFORMANCE
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS
OF STEAMTURBINES
SECTION O
INTRODUCTION
<
SECTION 1
- OBJECT AND
1.01 The object ofthis Report is to provide guidance for the parties to the
test t o establish the degree of uncertainty of thetest results when there
are deviations from requirements of PTC 6.
1.02 The parties to the test should become familiarwiththe Code. Since this Reportdoes not in
contain a complete test procedure, it should be
used only in conjunction with the
Code. Cornpliance withtheCode is expectedwhere no alternative i s shown
in
this Report.
these'values
SCOPE
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
S T D *ASME P T C b REPORT-ENGL.
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OFMEASUREMENT
302
UNCERTAINTY
SECTION 3
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.03 Calibration of Instruments. Instrument calibration plays an important role in the reduction
o f test uncertainty by minimizing fixed biases or
displacement of measuredvalues. In performance
testing, calibration i s defined as the process of determining the deviation of indicatedvalues of an
instrument or device from those aof
standard with
3.04 If Code procedures relative
to frequencyof
readings, allowable variation in test readings, and
known uncertainty traceable to the National Buprescribed limits for cycleleakages cannot be esreau of Standards. A calibration should cover the
tablished for the test, agreement must be reached
range for which the instrument i s used. The into estimate the probable increase in uncertainty.
crement
between
calibration
points and
the
method of interpolation between
these points shall
3.05 Frequency of Readings and Duration of Test.
be selected to attain the lowest possible uncerThe frequencyat which test readings are recorded
tainty of the calibration.
and the running time required fora test is deterTabulated data and a plot of the observed demined by the time variabilityin the test data [see
viations for a series of measurements overa range
Par. 5.02(b)]. When a test that deviates from the
of expected test values, and the values obtained
Code instrumentation requirements is run with a
from the instrument being
calibrated, maybe used
as calibration data for determining the correction mutually agreed upon pretest uncertainty, the effect dueto time variability must be minimal to preapplied to a test value. Thecalibrationreport
vent an increase in this uncertainty. To avoid an
should be signed b y a responsible representative
appreciable effect on thepretest uncertainty, Fig.
of the calibration laboratory. When
a formal report
3.1 can be used as a guide to establish the maxiis required, the calibration report should include
mum time variability
effect each measured paramthe identification of the calibration equipment and
eter may have on the results. This figure, used
with
instruments, a description of the calibration proFig. 3.2 and Table 3.1, provides a means for esticess, a statement of uncertainty of the measuring
mating the number of readings required afor
test
standard, and a tabulation of the recorded calit o achieve this. An example for the
use of Figs. 3.1
bration data.
and 3.2 i s given in Par. 5.12. The derivation of Fig.
Flow measuring devices shall be calibrated assembled with their own upstreamand down3.2 is given in Appendix II in this Report. Nomenclature used in Fig. 3.2 are as follows.
stream pipe sections including flow straightener
5
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.3
1.o
2.0
3 .O
4.0
5 .O
FIG. 3.1
MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED VALUES FOR THE EFFECT OF TEST DATA SCATTER ON TESTRESULTS
FOREACH TYPE OF MEASUREMENT
6
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
6.0
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL
2985
m 0757b70
ObOb473 2 8 5
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400.
300
200
2
I
.-
P
[r
Y-
100
90
80
70
.-?!
60
II:
50
40
30
20
10
2.5
FIG. 3.2
8 910
20
30
40
50
REQUIREDNUMBEROFREADINGSFOR
MINIMUM ADDITIONALUNCERTAINTY
RESULTS CAUSED BYTEST DATA SCATTER
7
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ll
60 709080
IN THE TEST
100
Z = effectofinstrumentreadings
e,
or average of O2 (I,,,
I,,,,)
where
e2
Type of Data
01
e2
Power
Flow (volumetric) by weigh
tanks
by
Flow
flow nozzle differentials
Steam pressure and
temperature
Feedwater temperature
Exhaust pressure
1.o
...
1.o
0.5
...
O,'
+ O,"
...
01,
...
Oz'
+ ozn
O,"
82'
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) 0, is expressed as percent effect per percent of instrument
reading.
(b) Oz is expressed as percent effect perunit of instrument
reading.
(c) O,' and Oz' are the slopes of the correctionfactor curves.
(d) O," and Oz1 are used to take into account the effect of the
instrument reading range for variability with time measurein
ments usedto establish any enthalpy appearing in theheat rate
equation. ForO," and O," values, usethe applicable Figs. 5.4,5.5,
5.6, or 5.7 after converting the ordinate to percent effect per
percent of absolute temperature for O," or percent effect per
unit of reading for 02".
TIMING OF TEST
3.06 Regardless ofthecalculateduncertainty
agreed to foran acceptance test, the timing of the
test should conform Par.
to 3.04of the Code. Timely
testing will minimize additional uncertainty in the
turbine performance due to normal-operation
deterioration and deposit buildup.
3.07 Thefollowingguidelinesfortimingthetest,
listed in the order of preference, should be considered before testing.
(a) The test should be conducted
as soon as
practicable after initial startup per Code recommendations.
(b) If the tests must be delayed, they should be
scheduledimmediatelyfollowing
an inspection
outage, provided any deficiencies have been corrected during the outage.
(c) If (a) and (b) are impossible,the condition of
the unit can be determined by:
(I) comparing results of an enthalpy-drop efficiency test run on turbinesections in the superheat region with startupenthalpydrop
test results,
to provide guidance on the action to be
taken;
(2) reviewing operating and chemistry logs;
(3) reviewing operating data on pressure-flow
relationships, particularly for first stage shell, reheat inlet, crossover, and extraction sections;
(4) inspecting flow measurement elementsin
the cycle for deposits; and
( 5 ) inspecting the last stage from the exhaust
end.
( d ) Ifnoinitialoperationbenchmarkdata
is
available, the actual overall deterioration cannot
be determined. However, if there
is reasonable assurance that the unit has not been damaged and
i s free of excessive deposits, an estimated value
of
deterioration may be established by mutual
agreement and taken into account
in the comparison of
the test results with guarantees.
For guidance purposes, Fig. 3.3 may be used to
establish an estimated value of deterioration for
turbines operating with superheated inlet steam.
Thiscurve is based on industryexperienceand represents an average expected deterioration for units
with a history of good operating procedures and
water chemistry. The curve was developed from
the results of enthalpy-drop efficiency
tests run periodically on a number
of turbines of various
sizes.
The method cited
in Appendix III, Ref. (13)was used
to determine the
effect of deterioration on heat
the
rate. The estimated deterioration was calculated
using theenthalpy-drop test data on high pressure
and intermediate pressuresections, and assuming
8
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
TABLE 3.1
INFLUENCE FACTORS FOR
CALCULATING 7 FOR FIG. 3.2
AND
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
12
24
48
36
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) Estimated percent deterioration in heat rate after N months
of operation =
BF
initial pressure,
psig
(f)
log M W
where
MW
f
2400
(b)Periods during which the turbine casings are open should not
0.4%
(e) For units with a history of detrimental incidences, the amount of deterioration cannot
be
determined and the course of action or the determination of deterioration allowance must be mutually agreed upon between the parties involved
in the test. Examples of detrimental incidents are:
( I ) existence of any turbine water induction
incidents
(2) unusual shaft vibration and
balance moves
(3) abnormal conductivity in the condenser
hotwell
( 4 ) excessive boiler water silica content
(5) presence of large excursionsin throttle and
reheat temperatures
(6) evidence of boiler tube exfoliation
be included.
(c) This curve i s for guidance purposes when no other data for
establishing deterioration is available.
(d) Correct operation and good water chemistry practices
notwithstanding, conditions beyond the operator's control may
cause a greater heat rate deterioration than predicted by this curve.
9
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
ANSVASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
SECTION 4 - INSTRUMENTSANDMETHODS
OF
MEASUREMENT
4.01 Paragraph 4.01 of the Code recognizes that trical system of N conductors, N - 1 metering elespecial agreementsmay b e needed. When it is
ments are required to measure the theoretically
11
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ANSUASME
PTC
6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
not thecase, but in practice the voltage at the generator terminais can be assumed to be balanced
within 0.5% with a load power factor of 0.85 (la@
or better.These conditions lead to a maximum uncertaintyof about0.5% attributable to the metering
method.
(b) Anotheralternativemetering
system that
may be found in use on some three-phase, fourwire systems is the two-element(stator) meter utilizing two potential
coils andtwo currentcoils, but
receiving currentinput from
three, rather than two
current transformers[see Fig. 4.3(b)]. The third current transformer is connected to subtract its current fromthat fedinto the two current
coils by the
other two currenttransformers. The net effect is a
metering system that is electrically equivalent to
the 2X-element (stator) system described in (a)
above. The maximum expected uncertainty in applyingthis metering methodon athree-phase,fourwire generator connection is the same as for the
2%-element (stator) system.
(c) The application of a two-element (stator) device to meter a three-phase, four-wire generator
connection i s inappropriate if only two current
transformers are used. Under certain conditions
(balanced phases), this meteringarrangement may
be theoretically accurate, but under certain conditions where neutral currentis present, the twoelement (stator) method becomes very inaccurate
depending upon the amount of neutral current
flowing and the generator load. In practical applications, the uncertainty in metering with the
aforementioned system will be on the order
of5%.
(cf) Alternative metering method uncertainties
are summarized in Table 4.1.
(e) The number of current
transformers and potential transformers required for each metering
method is summarized in Table 4.1. This information is necessary in the uncertainty calculations
described in Section 5.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
itcanonlybeconnected inathree-wireconnection
[see Fig. 4.l(b)].
( b ) Three-phase, four-wire generator connections can be made only witha wye connected generator with the generator neutraleithersolidly
grounded or, more typically, grounded throughan
impedance. Load distribution is madeat generator
voltage rather than beingseparated from thegenerator by a delta-wye generator transformer. This
typeofconnection hasaseparatefourthconductor
that directly connects the generator neutral (or
neutral grounding device) with the neutral of the
connected loads [see Fig. 4.l(c)].
(c) For the generating system connections described in the preceding paragraphs, theoretically
accurate metering (.e., no uncertainty introduced
due to themetering methods) will be provided under all conditions of load power factor and unbalance by the properapplication of thefollowing
metering systems (also see Table 4.1 for metering
method uncertainties summary):
(7) three-phase, three-wire generator connections - two single element (stator) meters or one
two-element (stator) polyphase meter;
(2) three-phase, four-wire generator connections - three single element (stator) meters or one
three-element (stator) polyphase meter.
4.05 Alternative Metering Methods and
Uncertainties
(a) Not all existing three-phase, four-wire generator installations have enough instrumenttransformers to provide metering in accordance with
Blondel's Theorem. Typically, for economic reasons, a potential transformer
is omitted and power
and energy measurements are made with what is
known as a 2X-element (stator) meter utilizing
threecurrent coils, but only two potential coils
[see
Fig. 4.3(a)]. Under most conditions, the 2X-element
meter gives a theoreticallyaccurate measurement
of power or energy. If, however, the phasevoltages
become unbalanced, the metered quantity is no
longer theoretically accurate and is further affected by power factor and phase current unbalance.
Figure4.2 givesa graphical representation of the
error introducedinto the reading of a 2X-element
(stator) device over a broad range of voltage and
current unbalance at various load power factors.
This graph, however, assumes that instrumentation is available to measure the unbalance in the
voltage and current. Unfortunately, this is usually
12
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Generator
transformer
Generator
System loads
- 3-Phase, %Wire
System loads
Solid or impedance
FIG. 4.1
- &Phase. +Wire
13
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
+B
+6
+4
0.5 PF lag
0.6
+2
0.7
W
c
0.8
0.9
4-
1 .O PF lag
-2
0.9
0.8
-4
0.7
0.6
-6
0.5 PF lag
-a
O
10
% Unbalance =
x 100
Average
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.
Z COILFOR
14
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IN ONEPHASEANDFOR
2% STATORWATTHOUR
METERS
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
Generator
2
1
FIG. 4.3
WATTHOURMETERCONNECTIONS
15
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.1
NUMBEROFCURRENTTRANSFORMERS
(CTS) ANDPOTENTIALTRANSFORMERS
REQUIREDFOREACHMETERINGMETHODANDMETERINGMETHODUNCERTAINTIESSUMMARY
(PTS)
Each Single
Polyphase
Element
Meter
Item
Metering Methods
CTs
PTs
CTs
PTS
Metering
Method
Uncertainty
measured
Power
by two single-element
(stator) meters or one two-element (stator)
polyphase meter
Power measured by three single-element
(stator) meters or one three-element (stator)
polyphase meter
Power
measured
by one 2X-element (stator)
polyphase meter
Zero
Zero
NA
NA
f 0.5%
NA
NA
f 0.5%
Connections
Generator
Three-phase,
(a)
three-wire
generator connections,
Figs. 4.l(a) and 4.l(b)
(b)
Three-phase, four-wire
generator connections,
Fig. 4.l(c)
Three-phase,
(c)
four-wire
generator connections,
Fig. 4.l(c)
(d)
Three-phase, four-wire
generator connections,
Fig. 4.l(c)
Three-phase,
(e)
four-wire
generator connections,
Fig. 4.l(c)
Meters
5%
Not
recommended
TABLE 4.2
WATTMETERUNCERTAINTIES
Item
Wattmeter
Uncertainty
(a)
*0.20% of reading
+0.20% of reading
(C)
(d)
(e)
NOTE:
16
*
*
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(b)
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
TABLE 4.3
WATTHOUR METER UNCERTAINTIES
Item
(a)
(b)
(C)
(e)
Uncertainty
Watthour Meter
*0.15% of reading
&0.15% three phase
f 0 . 2 0 % single phase
f 0.25%
f 0.50%
f 0.50%
f 1 .OO%
May be f 5 % , not
recommended for
tests
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
(a)
(b)
Type
(C)
Current
1.2%
(d)
f 0.10%
-+ 0 . 2 % for 1.00 pf
f 1.5%
GENERAL NOTE: Uncertainties are based on the assumption that the burden is the highest permissible 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
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
~~
~~
~~
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
18
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
UNCERTAINTY
STEAM TURBINES
S T D D A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL L985
0 7 5 7 b 7 0 Db06984 Tb0
ANSUASME PTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
TABLE 4.5
CURRENT TRANSFORMER UNCERTAINTIES
Item
Current Transformers
Uncertainty
requirements Code
(a)
Meeting
Type
calibration
(b)
curve
available, burden
volt-amperes
and
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
0.6%accuracy class
1.2% accuracy class
At 10% rated current of transformer:
0.3% accuracy class
0.6% accuracy class
1.2% accuracy class
& 0.05%
2 0.10%
f 0.3% [Note
(l)]
GENERAL NOTE: Uncertainties are based on the assumption that the burden is the highest permissible value for the transformer without overload.
NOTE:
( 1 ) From ANSI C57.13-1978.
where
= power, watts
19
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3
Generator
3
Ph. 1
WM
u
VM
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
Ph. 2
Voltmeter
AM - Ammeter
WM - Wattmeter
C T - Current transformer
PT
-. Potential transformer
- Polarity
mark
20
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
OUTPUT BY THETHREE-WATTMETER
PTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONALSTANDARD
lx.
21
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D . ASME P T C b REPORT-ENGL
ANSVASMEPTC
ANAMERICAN
L785
6 REPORT-1985
NATIONAL STANDARD
IN PERFORMANCETESTS OF STEAMTURBINES
TABLE 4.6
SUMMARY
- ADVANTAGES
Disadvantages
Method
Reaction Systems
Cradled dynamometer
Uncradled dynamometer
Transmission Systems
Shaft torque
Angular displacement
Energy Balance
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D - A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL
0757b70 O b D b 7 8 8 b o b 9
L985
Table 4.8 summarizes measurement uncertainties for testing of boiler feed pump drive turbines.
TABLE 4.7
SUMMARY OF TYPICALUNCERTAINTYFOR
DIFFERENT SHAFT POWERMEASUREMENT
METHODS
No shaft calibration
Balance
Energy
Methods
Open cycle systems
Closed cycle systems
for 2 h Test
Method
Uncertainty
+0.1% to k0.5%
fO.5% t o fI.O%
torque
for
k 1.0% for
torque
on design
and
application
f 1.0%
Low
buterror,
intrinsic
subject to large error from
environmental sources
f 3.0% for
torque
measurement ofminimumuncertaintyand
is recommended
for
conducting
Code
a
test. The pulse
generator should have a minimum of60 teeth providing pulses,
turn
which
in
are sensed
nonby
contacting magnetic or eddy current
transducers.
The digital speed measuring device will measure
Depends on uncertainty
analysis
Depends on uncertainty
analysis
MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTIES
Measurement
TABLE 4.8
FOR TESTING O F BOILER FEED PUMPDRIVE
TURBINES
Instrument
Calibrated
suction
section
Pump
flow
Calibrated
flow
Feedwater temperature
Multijunction
rise
thermocouples
Calibrated
Pump
suction
temperature
Thermocouple
and
digital
Calibrated
voltmeter
pressure
Deadweight
suction
Pump
gage
discharge
pressure
Pump
Deadweight
gage
Pump shaft seal leakoffflowOrificeflowsectionand
Calibrated manometer
Pump
shaft seal injection
Orifice
flow
section
and
flow
Calibrated
manometer
Pump shaft speed
Stroboscope
Desuperheating water flowOrificeflow
section and
manometer
Temperatures
Thermocouple
digital
of and
Calibrated
voltmeter flows
miscellaneous
Pressures
miscellaneous
of Bourdon
gage
flows
Pump
efficiency
From pump manufacturer
Quality and
Grade
f 0.2%
+_O.IoF
...
...
...
* 1.0%
* 1.0%
...
* 1.0%
Station
f l.OF
f 2.0 to 5.0%
Not available
Not available
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
f l.OF
f 0.1 %
f 0.1 %
+1.0%
23
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
Uncertainty
TABLE 4.9
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
Speed Instrument
Frequency Sensitive
Electronic
Mechanical
Tachometer
Electric generator
Eddy current
Centrifugal
Counters
Accumulators
Timepieces
Electronic
Electric
and
- TYPICALROTARYSPEED
INSTRUMENTATION
Method
Type
Uncertainty
f 1 pulse count
*1.00% to *2.00%
* 1.00% to
f 2.00%
f 1.00% to f 2.00%
f 1.50% to f 3.00%
f 1 count
*0.005% to *0.010%
*0.10% to *0.20%
supply
Other
Stroboscope
Photocell
1
X
number of teethlrev.
'
f0.50% to *1.00%
1
= ~ 0 . 0 1 6 7d s = & 1 rpm
1 sec X 60 teethlrev.
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
f 0.50% to f 1.00%
~~~
~~~~
S T D - A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL L785
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY
ANSVASME
PTC
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
0759b70 ObOb790
2b4
6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
25
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
S T D - A S M EP T C
b REPORT-ENGL
ANSVASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.10
BASE UNCERTAINTIES OF PRIMARY FLOW MEASUREMENT
Flow Nozzle
Base Uncertainty, U,,%
Item
Liquid
Flow Nozzle
Throat
Tap
Pipe Wall
Tap
Orifice
Throat
Tap
Pipe Wall
Tap
Orifice
0.15
[Note (3)l
0.25
0.25
[Note (4)l
0.50
0.25
[Note (4)1
0.60
0.25
[Note ( 4 1
0.50
0.35
[Note (4)l
0.75
0.45
[Note W1
1.10
0.35
0.60
0.80
0.70
1 .O5
1.65
1.25
1.25
1.55
1.60
1.70
2.30
2.50
2.50
3.00
2.75
2.80
3.70
0.80
2.00
1.o0
1.20
2.50
2.00
1.15
2.60
2.50
3.20
2.50
3.20
1.50
3.00
3.00
3.70
3.00
4.20
(V1
Calibrated before permanent installation
[Notes (1) and (211
26
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
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
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Column 6
Column 7
Reducers and
Expanders
Valve or
Regulator
[Note (3)l
On Outlet
Side (For All
Inlets)
16.5
17
18
18.5
19.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3
20.5
22
23.5
25
27
3
3.5
3.5
30
34
39
44
4
4
4
4.5
Two 90 deg.
Diameter
Ratio
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Single 90 deg.
Bend or Tee
(Flow From
One Branch
Only)
6
6
6
6
6
0.35
0.40
6
6.5
7
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
O. 75
8
9.5
11.5
14
16.5
Two 90 deg.
Ells in Same
Plane
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Ells in Same
Plane,
Separated by
10 Diameters
of Straight
Pipe
[Note (1)l
14
14
6
6
14.5
15.5
16
6
6
17
18
19.5
21
22.5
6
6
6.5
10
11.5
7.5
8.5
14
Ells Not in
Same Plane
[Note 12)l
6
6
16
19
21.5
Two 90 deg.
25
29.5
31
9.5
11
12
13.5
35
6
6
6
6
6.5
7
8
9.5
11.5
14
16.5
3.5
3.5
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) All straight lengths are expressed as multiples of pipe diameterD a n d are measured from the upstream end
of the inlet section.
(b) The radius of curvature of a bend or elbow shall not be less than 0.75 times the pipe diameter D.
NOTES:
27
STD*ASME P T C
b REPORT-ENGL
2.5
S?
2.0
c.
C
.m
1.5
1.0
1 .o
2.0
1.5
2.0
.c
1.0
c"
0.4
0.6
0.5
5, Ratio
FIG. 4.6
RATIO EFFECT
28
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.7
0.8
3.0
8.
F
v,
2.0
1
C
.-m
al
c"
1.0
3
I
t
O
'
'
'
12
I I
16
'
I '
20
24
OF STRAIGHTPIPEAFTERFLOWSTRAIGHTENER
2.0
1 .o
O
Number of Sections in Flow Straightener With
Length = 2 Pipe Diameters
FIG. 4.8
OF SECTIONS IN FLOWSTRAIGHTENER
EFFECTOFNUMBER
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1.5
For sections with or without flow straighteners
1.0
4-
.-C
0.5
o
3
I
0.8
0.9
1.0
I
1.5
2.0
FIG. 4.9
EFFECT
OF
29
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
7,Table 4.1 1
2.5
'
'
3.0
~~
is +3.2%.
4.17 Flow SectionsThatCannotBeInspected
d(1.8)* (0.3)2
is &2.5%.
(2) From Fig. 4.6, U, at B = 0.65 and calibrated
= 20.3%.
(3) From Fig.4.7, ULs,at 12 and 0 = 0.65 =
&0.6%.
(4) From Fig. 4.8, ULszat 30 and 0 = 0.65 =
f 0.4%.
( 5 ) From Fig. 4.9, UDsLat 1.5 = *0.3%
+2.6%
D757b70 ObOb99b 7 8 2
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 4.12
RADIOACTIVE TRACER UNCERTAINTIES
~~
Measurement
Counting
Injection rate
Counting
Injection rate
0.75%
Throttle-quality &0.1%
Extraction quality +0.5%
Heater leakage f 0.1% of
throttle flow
Flow f 1.75%
31
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ANSUASME
PTC
6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
eral ways. Counting errors can be reduced significantly by increasingthe counting timeby a factor
of 100 or by utilizing two detectors. Injection rate
can be more precisely controlled using an instrument-qualitypositivedisplacementminipump.The
pump can be fed from acontainer mounted on an
analytical balance calibrated to 0.02%. If, in addition, the balance is read to kO.1 grams at five
minute intervals measured to *0.2 seconds, the
uncertainty can be further reduced.
Preparation of more standards will reduce the
uncertainty in this area, and two or three measurementsof backgroundwill almost eliminate the
uncertainty.
With theabove techniques, water flowscan be
measured to better than 1% using tracers.
4.20 Measurements
Using
Nonradioactive
TracersThe sampling
technique of nonradioactive
tracers hasseveraladvantages
that make this
method more adaptablefor use at nonnuclear installations, where the licensing and personnel required for using radioactive tracers may not be
available.
However, uncertainties from the
following
sources can be introduced and might be expected
during a Code test:
(a) preparation ofstandards;
(b) variation in injection rate;
(c) contamination of samples;
( d ) sampling and analysis.
Experience to date is based on limited fieldtests
using a sodium tracerwhich yielded promising results. The sampling techniques were generallyin
accordancewith ASTM D 1428-64, Method B, modified to allow a larger number of samples during
a two hour test period.
Other limited testing indicates that steamenthalpies can be determined within 0.01 Btullbm,
which would have a negligible effect on test results. However, such accuracy most
probably will
require raising the level of sodium in the system
to one possibly objectionable to manufacturers of
some major systemcomponents. Accordingly,the
allowable sodium level in each individual system
must be established and coordinated with other
test requirements.
Because of the potentially detrimental effects of
raising the system sodium level, studies are underway to identify a more desirable tracer material.
This material, alongwith a suitable tracer
detection
technique and associated instrumentation, must
be practicable and must provide the desired un-
32
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
TABLE 4.13
MANOMETERUNCERTAINTIES
Instrument
Test manometer
Uncertainty
Test manometer
Precision-bored,
aid
k0.02 in.
compensated-scale, without
reading
Station manometer
Commercial
compensated
k0.05 in.
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
IO: 1
Laboratory calibrated
kO.IO% of reading
Uncalibrated
f 0.10%
rated of
Laboratory calibrated
Uncalibrated
1OO:l
Uncertainty
capacity
~~
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
calibrated leads are recommended for temperasented in the Code,Pars. 4.92 through 4.98. A minimum of two basket-type probes for each exhaust tures with the greatest influence on test results.
Examples of influential temperatures are throttle
annulus, located 1ft away from the wall of the
ex-
33
ANSVASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
TABLE 4.15
BOURDON GAGE UNCERTAINTIES
lnstrumenl
Grade
Quality and
Uncertainty
*0.5%
of full scale
* 1.0%
Station gage
of full scale
Commercial, uncalibrated
Indeterminate
TABLE 4.16
TRANSDUCERUNCERTAINTIES
~~
Uncertainty
Primary flow
differential
pressure transducer
for test [Note (I)]
Secondary flow
differential pressure
transducer for test
[Note (V1
*0.25% to 0.50% of
full scale
~~
~~
(I)]
Transducers for absolute
gage or differential
pressures for station
use
certified to 0.03%.
and reheatsteam temperatures, final feed temperature, primary flow element fluid temperature,
and, when primary flow is calculated by heat balance, temperatures aroundall
heaters downstream of the flow measuring section. For these
temperatures, thecode-recommended measuring
instruments should be used with thetemperature
element. A high resolution potentiometerof 0.03%
34
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Use
S T D - A S M E P T C h R E P O R T - E N G L L985
0757h70 Ob07000 B O 1
TABLE 4.17
NUMBER OF EXHAUST PRESSURE PROBES
Exhaust JointArea
Less Than
32 sq ft
64 sq h
by Required
Used
1
[Note (V1
1
[Note (V1
2
[Note (V1
Used
Number of Probes
Code
128 sq ft
Spatial
Uncertainty
f0.08 in. Hg
*0.1 in. Hg
f 0 . 2 in. Hg
[Note (I)]
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
Test thermocouple
fl.OF
Test resistance
thermometer
Test thermocouple
f l.OF
f2.0F
Test thermocouple
Thermocouple
Station recording
thermocouple
f 3.OoF
5 7.0"F
510.0F
35
0 7 5 9 b 7 0 Ob07001 7118 D
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL 1785
ANSllASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
TABLE 4.19
LIQUID-IN-CLASS THERMOMETER UNCERTAINTIES
Instrument
Glass
stem
thermometer
Station thermometer
Uncertainty
f 0.5OF
f 2.0F
f 2.0F
k 3.0F
k 5.OoF
f 10.OF
where
K = correction, O F
D = length of emergent stem expressed in O F
on the thermometer stem
t, = temperature indicated by the thermometer, O F
f2 = mean temperature of the exposed emergent stem, O F . Values of t2 are measured
using an auxiliary thermometer mounted
on the emergent stem.
NOTE: Inasmuch as tl is not the true temperature of the bulb
of the immersed thermometer, the correction K is only approximate upon substitution in the above equation. If a new
substitution in the equation is made using tl
K as the new
value for tl, the new correction K will be more nearly correct.
Further recalculation with tl, corrected for the new value of K,
will result in a more correct value for K. Seldom are more than
two recalculations necessary and then only for high temperatures and long emergent stems. Referto ANSVASME PTC 19.31974(R1985), Chapter 5, Par.48, for sample calculations of emergent-stem corrections.
36
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
GENERAL NOTE: See ANSVASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R1985), Table 5.4, page 49 and Par. 4.29.
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
SECTION 5
COMPUTATION OF RESULTS
5.01 The uncertainty of an overall result is deand 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 decombinations 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
individualtestdatauncertaintiesmaybecomon a particular parameter are combined into an
bined intoanoveralluncertaintyfortheresult.This
overall measurement uncertainty.
(a) Usually, the most significant source of
uncan be done in four steps.
certainty is that of the measuring device.
Values of
First, the uncertainty of each measured
parauncertainty for the various instruments used were
meter (throttle temperature, pressure, and other
similar items) must be determined by considering given in the previous Section. However, it should
be noted that if thevalue
a parameter
of
isobtained
the contribution of the three sources of uncerby averaging the readings of several instruments
tainty discussed in Par. 5.02.
Second, some variables that affect heat rate are of the same kind andgrade, then the effect of the
uncertainty in the averaged reading ofa measurecalculated fromseveral measured parameters. The
ment is reduced byafactor equal to the square root
determination of the uncertainty of these calcuof the number of duplicate instrumentsused:
lated variables must be based on the uncertainty
of each of the measured parameters from which
they are calculated and the effecteach of the pau, = u;/&
rameters has o n the variable. The second step is
where
discussed in Par. 5.03.
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 thermothe 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; = k3.0F (Table 4.18)
5.02 Uncertainty of Individual Measurements.
First, the uncertainty of the individual measureU, = 3.0/& = f 1.73OF
ments must be determined.
In general, the uncertainty 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
several instruments to reduce uncertainty is valid
deviceitselfandsamplinguncertaintiesintroduced by measuring parameters that varywith time
only if the errors are randomly distributed
so that
37
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
high readings tend to offset low readings. Generally, instrumenterrors are composed of two
components, namely a random component anda
systematic component. The random component
may be due toscale readability (or precision) and
nonrepeatability ofresponse. The systematic
component may be dueto driftin calibration and nonlinear response. This is a fixed bias causing errors
which produce consistently high or low readings.
In a well-designed instrument, the random component is small and can be further reduced by using
multiple instruments and, when readabilityhas an
effect, by multiple readings of the same instruments. In uncertainty analysis, the systematic component is usually treated as random since i t s
direction, highor low, is unknown. (If thedirection
were known, its effects could be eliminated by correcting thereading.) However, the systematic component will not always be reduced by the use of
multiple instruments. For example, if twoBourdon
gages are usedto measure the same pressure, nonlinearity in responseover the scale rangewill cause
similar errors in both gages; if the gages are not
temperature-compensated, then calibration drift
errors will also exist. Similarly, all thermocouples
calibrated in the laboratory usinga secondary standard will contain the same calibration bias as the
secondary standard.In each of these cases, factors
such as design characteristics and calibration accuracy introduce errors that
will not be reduced by
the use of multipleinstruments. Hence, judgment
must be used when determining the uncertainty
in averaged readings.,
(b) The magnitude of test parameters may vary
over time. The magnitude and frequency of the
variations will depend on the nature of the measured parameter and the manner in which thetest
is conducted. The variations may be at relatively
high frequency, such as pressure pulsations due
to flowinstabilities, or slow oscillations caused by
hunting of an under-damped automatic control
system. Although the accuracy of the measurement at the instant of readingis not affected by the
variations, they will introduce another source of
uncertainty into the final
test result.This is because
the measurements of many parameters must be
combined to obtain the final result and all the required readings cannot be taken simultaneously.
For example,throttle enthalpy i s determined from
measured pressure and temperature. If these two
parameters vary with timeand are not read simultaneously, throttle enthalpy witi be affected by the
variability. Paragraph 3.05 provides a method for
.\i c
(X; - S / ( N - 1)
i=l
'.
where
S = standard deviation estimation
X-i = individual reading
X = average of all readings
N = number of readings
The variability in the average reading is given by
SIJ and the uncertainty intervali s constructed by
multiplying this term by theappropriate value of
the Student's t-distribution. The t-distribution for
a 95% confidence level (cocsistent with the definition of uncertainty throughout this Report) i s
shown in Table 5.1, Column (a) as a function ofdegrees of freedom (defined as the number of readings minus I).
Thus:
u, = t, W
where
U,= uncertainty in average value of the readings due to time variability
t, = value of t-distribution for 95% confidence
and Y degrees of freedom
Y = degrees of freedom = N - 1
If duplicate readings are taken on several instruments which are then averaged into a single
value, the uncertainty is:
u, = t,
;/m
where
S = the average of the S values computed from
the readings of each instrument
38
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
TABLE 5.1
VALUESOFTHESTUDENT'S
t- ANDSUBSTITUTE tDISTRIBUTIONSFOR A 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL
where
M = number of instruments
v = M(N - I )
As an example, consider a throttle temperature
obtained by averaging the combined 10 readings
from each of .717
three thermocouples. 2.776
Degrees of Freedom, v
1
6.353 2
1.304 3
4
5
6
,399
2.447
THROTTLE TEMPERATURE, O F
.333
2.365
ThermoThermoThermoReading No.
couple 1
couple 2
couple 3
.255
2.262
.288
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
898.0
897.0
896.0
899.0
904.0
903.0
902.0
903.5
905.0
Average,
899.5
T,,
900.0
900.5
Standard Deviation
Estimator,
3.127
S,
3.375 - 3.028
-
Overall Average
T,, = (7,
Average S, 7 = J(3.028'
3.375*
Degrees of freedom,
901.5
900.5
897.5
895.5
894.5
898.5
903.5
902.5
2.060
901.5
2.042
904.5
2.021
900.0
Y =
900.5
899.5
896.52.179
895.5
895.0
898.0
902.5
903.0
901.O
13
14
15
20
25
30
40
60
120
(Y
2.571
...
.507
2.306
2.201
.230
.210
.I 94
2.160
2.145
2.131
2.086
.I81
.I70
.I60
,126
2.000
1.980
1.960
...
...
2.228
...
...
...
...
M(N - 1) = 3 (IO - 1) = 27
where
R = average of the ranges of each instrument
R&
i=l
( c ) In some cases, the measured valueof theparameter varies with the location. Turbine exhaust
pressure for a condensing turbine i s an example.
Since it i s impractical t o measure at a very large
number of points, a computed average based on
a limited number of measurements must be accepted. Hence, a third uncertainty source results
from the variability over
space. If weassume these
variations are randomly distributed, the
magnitude of this uncertainty source can be calculated
using the procedures described above for variation withtime. In thiscase, the standard deviation
estimator should be used if more than10 measuring locations areavailable; and therange estimate
used for fewer than10 locations. For example, assume pressure is measured by fourstatic pressure
probes in the exhaust annulus ofa condensing turbine. Readings, from precision-bored,compen-
U, = t: R
where
u, = th E l f i
39
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
12.706
4.303
3.182
Column
(b)
Substitute t-
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
901.0
7
8
9
10
11
12
Column (a)
Student's tdistribution
distribution
1
2
1.43
3
4
1.55
1.47
1.50
The uncertainty in the average due to the variability with space is:
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
U, = ti R
= 0.717 x 0.12 in. Hg
Ur
U, = k0.09 in. Hg
=1 -
+ (1.7)2
= 4(1.2)2
UT = *2.I0F
However, since a different instrumentis usually
used at each location, some of the variability apparently due to location will in fact be due to instrument uncertainty. Therefore, unless multiple
instruments are used at each location, the instrumentuncertaintyand
the spatial uncertainty
should becompared and only thelarger of the two
used to determine the overall measurement uncertainty. In the example of throttle temperature,
if the three thermocouples were installed in the
same plane perpendicularto thecenter line of the
pipe, a maximum observed spacevariability (range)
of l.OF could be noted for threespatial locations:
..
U, = ti R
= 1.304 x l.OF
where
U R = uncertainty in calculated variable R
aR - sensitivity of R to a change in P (influence
U, = k1.3OF
"
factor)
S T D m A S M E PTC b REPORT-ENGL
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTY
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
TABLE 5.2
EFFECT ON HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY OF SELECTEDPARAMETERS
E f f e c t on Corrected
Parameter
Throttle temperature
Cold-reheat temperature
Hot-reheat temperature
Final feedwater temperature [Note (I)]
Final feedwater temperature [Note (2)]
Temperature of condensatet o deaerator [Note (I)]
Temperature of feedwater to top heater [Note (I)]
Temperature of feedwater to first high-pressure heater
[Note (111
Temperature of condensate from deaerator [Note(I)]
Throttle pressure
Cold-reheat pressure
Hot-reheat pressure
Low-pressure-turbine exhaust pressure
Main-condensate flow
Power
+0.07% per O F
-0.04% per O F
+0.05% per O F
+0.03% to +0.04% per
-0.12% per O F
-0.11% to -0.13% per
+0.02% to +0.04% per
OF
OF
OF
-0.05% t o
+0.06% to
+0.02% to
-0.05% t o
-0.08% per O F
+0.12% per O F
+0.04% per %
-0.08% per %
+0.08% per %
Derive from correction curve
+1.0% per %
-1.0% per %
UHR
j Z
i= 1
where
U,; = uncertainty of each variable used to determine the finaltest result (heat rate)
As discussed i n Pars. 0.02 and 3.01, agreement
should bereached prior to testing on expected
the
uncertaintyduetodeviations from theCode. Using
themethodspresented
herein, instrumentation
uncertaintyand, insome cases, spatial uncertainty
can be predetermined.For example, Table 4.17 allows the determination of spatial uncertainty in
turbine exhaust pressure whenthenumberof
probes is less than that recommended by Code.
the
However, in cases where few previoustest results
exist, spatial and time uncertainties cannot bedetermined. Nevertheless, adherence to the requirements ofPar. 3.05 will assure that the effect of this
source of uncertainty ontest results is minimized.
If test measurements significantly exceed the test
uncertainty agreed to before the test, a new uncertainty agreement and test may be indicated.
in the overall uncertaintyas in the component uncertainty, the square root of the sum of squares
41
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5.06 Table 5.2 can be used to determine the effects of individual measurements on the test results required to determine the influence factors
discussed in Par. 5.04.
Table 5.2 contains results of calculations made
for reheat regenerative turbine generator units
with throttlepressures ranging between 1800 psig
to 2400 psig and throttle and reheat temperatures
between 1000F to llOOF. Since many combinations of steam conditions and cycles are possible,
a range of probable values i s given. The list includes only those variables having the greatest influence on test results.
HR =
141,590(1453.1
16,500
- 325.0)
Each of the terms in Eq. (3) except the twocontainingenthalpyvariables represents thefractional
change for therespective variable; and,in the context of this analysis, they represent the uncertainty
of that variable expressed as a fraction. It should
be notedthat an uncertainty in flow affects the uncertainty in heat rate in the same direction, whereas
uncertainty in power and correction factors affect
the heat rate in theopposite direction. This is denoted in the following analysis by theuse of plus
or minus coefficients, respectively.
(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
curves the followingeffects on corrected heat rate
uncertainty are established by determining the
slope of the curve at the test values of 850 psig,
9680 Btu/kWh
For this example, the uncertainty in the corrected heat rate will be evaluated. The corrected
heat rate is defined as:
where
W, = test value for throttle flow
h,, = test value for throttle enthalpy
42
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ANSUASME
PTC
6 REPORT-1985
GUIDANCE
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
0757b70 Ob07008 U T 2
FIG. 5.1 TYPICAL THROTTLE PRESSURE CORRECTION CURVES FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED INITIAL
STEAM CONDITIONS
(Yc
n
c
I
O
Throttle Temperature,
FIG. 5.2
OF
43
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
+5
+4
+3
pi
+2
+1
O
-1
-2
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
-3
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.1
44
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.4
S T D - A S I E PTC
L REPORT-ENGL.
750
900F, 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).
(1453.1 - 325.0)
(hl, - hll)
(a) Throttle pressure. A change of + I O psi
0.565 X 100
= -0.10% on heat rate. This becomes +0.010% on
ATlt = -0.003Ap/t
O.O5OAT/, (6)
(1453.1
- 325.0)
heat rate per
psi when the negative coefficient from
Eq. (3) is applied.
(b) Throttle temperature. A change of+ I O O F
(c) The basis for final feedwater enthalpy
= -0.30% on heat rate. This becomes +0.030%o n
determination
differs with the type of test conheat rate per
O F when the negative coefficient from
ducted.
For
the
example for the specified
cycle, the
Eq. (3) is applied.
value is taken after Croup1corrections have been
(c) Exhaust pressure. A change of +0.6 in
applied; as such, it i s based upon the pressuremeaHg = 1.20% on heat rate. This becomes -2.0% on
surement at the turbine flange
in the extraction line
heat rate perin. Hg when the negative coefficient
feeding the final heater, with specified line presfrom Eq. (3) is applied.
sure drop and specified heater terminal difference
(4) The two terms in Eq. (3) containing enapplied.
thalpy must be converted to actual test measureFor routine tests, where the specified cycle
is not
ment as follows.
considered, the final feedwater enthalpy depends
(a) Throttleenthalpy
is generallydeteronthetemperatureand pressure measurementsof
mined.fromdirectpressureandtemperature
that feedwater.
measurements at that location. Therefore, theunFor example, the effect of an uncertainty in the
certainty in throttle enthalpy may be expressed
as:
turbineextraction pressure measurement upon the
finalfeedwaterenthalpywilldepend
upon the
thermodynamic relationship between enthalpy of
compressedliquidandsaturationpressure.
For
practical
purposes,
the
slope
of
the
saturated
liqwhere
uid enthalpyversus pressure relation can be
used.
= uncertainty in throttleenthalpy in units
The difference between the slopes
of the comof Btu/lbm
pressed liquid and saturatedliquid enthalpy-pres= slopeofthesuperheated
steamensure relations i s negligible.
thalpy versus pressurecurveatconstant temperature. This slope i s given
in Fig. 5.4. For the example 850 psig,
900F, it is -0.036 Btullbm-psi.
where
= slope of thesuperheated steam enAh,, = uncertainty in final feedwater enthalpy
P
thalpy versus temperaturecurveat
in units of Btullbm
constant pressure. This slope is given
[TlJ
[%]
[zl
Aplt, AT,, = the uncertainties in test throttle pressure and temperature in units o f psi
and O F , respectively
(6)This uncertainty in throttle enthalpy affects the corrected heat rate uncertaintyas determined in E q . (31, as follows:
NOTES:
(1) The companion slope (dHxL/dJSJis given in Fig. 5.7 for use
when the final feedwater enthalpy is based upon a temperature 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 temperature difference.
Apx = uncertainty in test pressure at turbine extraction flange connected to final heater,
in units of psi
45
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A N W A S M E PTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
- 0.05
.-
k
.
o
a
t
- 0.10
h
- 0.15
- 0.20
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 100
1200
Steam Temperature, O F
FIG. 5.4
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
t 0.90
+ 0.80
LL
m'
4.0.70
t 0.50
400
500
600
700
800
900
lo00
1100 1200
Steam Temperature, O F
46
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
PRESSURE
t 1 .5
o
.
+ 1.0
t 0.5
1O0
200
400
300
500
1.3
1.2
U
O
1.1
1.o
0.8
1O0
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.9
200
300
400
500
47
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
(d) This uncertainty in final feedwater enthalpy affects the corrected heat rate uncertainty
as determined in Eq. (3) as follows:
5.09 To illustrate the use of the data and procedures in the foregoing paragraphs, an example
of a pretest uncertainty estimate follows. Table 5.3
presents a summary of the results. In this table,
Column A is the measurement under consideration, Column B is the calculated effect of thatmeasurement on heat rate as discussed in Pars. 5.6
through 5.8, Column C is the resulting instrumentation uncertainty, and Column D is the component heat rate uncertainty in percent. In Par. 5.10,
the example is continued to demonstrate the techniques for reassessing the uncertainty after performing thetest.
(a) Throttle measurement employs an 8 in. station gage with 1000 psig full scale(Table 4.15).
Uncertainty of 1 % of full scale gives f 10 psi for
instrument uncertainty.
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = 0.007% per
psi (Table 5.3, Column B, line 3).
Heat rate uncertainty = 0.007 x f 10 = f 0.07%
(Column D).
(b) Throttle temperature measurement uncertainty dueto instrument uncertainty is f 1.73OF as
previously determined in Par. 5.02.
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = 0.080% per
O F (Table 5.3, Column B, line 4).
Heat rate uncertainty = 0.080 x f 1.73 = f 0.14%
(Column D).
(c) Exhaust pressure is sampled by four static
pressure probes installed in an exhaust annulus
with a 64 ft2 area. A separate mercury manometer
is used on each probe.
The manometers are precision-bored and scale
compensated, without optical reading aids. The
PT
where
PT = total power
Kh = meter constant
R = number of meter disc revolutions
CTR = current transformer ratio
PTR = potential transformer ratio
t = time interval for R revolutions
48
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
= [(Kh)(R)(CTR)(PTR)llt
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D - A S t I I : P T C b REPORT-ENGL
1785
0 7 5 9 b 7 0 Ob07014 3Tb
PTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
(4) Potential
transformer
uncertainty,
APTRIPTR - the potential transformer uncertainty
is obtained from Table 4.4, Item (b), and i s 0.3%.
However, the number of potential transformers
used in the metering circuit mustalso be considered. This information i s obtained from Table 4.1,
Item (c), and is 2. Theeffect of potential transformer uncertainty on power uncertaintywill be:
APTRlPTR = + 0 . 3 / 4
PT = [M(Kh)(R)(CTR)(PTR))Ilt
(5) Current
transformer
uncertainty
- the current transformer uncertainty
ACTRICTR
In PT = In M
+ In Kh + In R
+ In CTR + In PTR
A p J P , = ( A M / M ) + (Al(h/Kh)
ACTR~CTR=
-
o.lol&
In t
(6) Timing uncertaintyAt/t - the time interval for 50 meter revolutions is approximately 8
min and the smallest time increment of the clock
is 1sec; therefore, the minimumuncertainty is the
smallest timing increment and equals 1 sec. The
uncertainty during the8 min interval is:
-I-(ARIR)
+ (APTR/PTR) + ( A C T R I U R ) - (Adt).
Each bracketed right-hand termi n this equation
can beidentified asan instrument ormeasurement
uncertainty. The uncertainty of each term in the
above equation can now be determined.
(7) Metering method uncertainty, AMIM
- the uncertaintyis obtained fromTable 4.1, Item
At
8x60
x 100 = +0.21%
(c):
AMIM = * o s %
(2) Disc revolution uncertainty, ARlR assume that 50 disc revolutions were counted and
timed. There is a chance for miscount, but this
should be readily apparent by comparison of the
timed interval with adjacent timings of the same
run and should be eliminated; hence:
ARIR= o
(3) Meter constant uncertainty, AKh/Kh the meterconstantuncertainty
is taken as the
watthour meter uncertainty and shown
i n Table
4.3, Item (c) (for watthourmeters with three-phase
calibration)
AKh/Kh = f 0.25%
= +0.64%
49
ANSUASME
PTC
6 REPORT-1985
GUIDANCE
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
W
= Cd2 KFa
FOR EVALUATION
MEASUREMENT
OF
UNCERTAINTY
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
where
W =
flow
C = a constant
d = nozzle throat diameter
K = flow coefficient
F, = thermal expansion factor
Ap = pressure drop across nozzle
P = specific weight
Following the procedure in Par. 5.08, rewrite the
flow equation in logarithmic form:
In W = In C
(
The
ispecific weight
+ 2(ln d ) + In K + In fa
where ( a ~ ) / ( a pand
) ~ (ap)/(aT),, are the effects of
changes in pressure and temperature, respectively, on specific weight as obtained from the
ASMESteam Tables [Appendix III, Ref. (76)].Ap
and AT are the uncertainties in the fluidpressure
and temperature measurements.
Uncertainty in the
pressure measurement is negligible, since for compressed water:
du
Differentiating, noting d(ln u) = - and substitutU
ing A for d:
2-
(d1
*2.300
o.oo1 x 100
*om%
-(") -
(aT),
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
= d(0.6)2
-O.O7%/OF
(6) Combining the five uncertainty components, the total flowuncertainty is:
f1.08%
*0.87%
Net effect on heat rate uncertainty = 1% per percent (Table 5.3, Column B).
Heat rate uncertainty = f 1.08 x 1 = f 1.08%
(Column D, Line 1).
(g) Combining the uncertaintiesof items
(a) through (6 produces the pretest instrumentation uncertainty in corrected heat rate:
50
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
J(0.09)2
(KI
is a function of
S T D -AStlE P T C h REPORT-ENGL
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTY
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
TABLE 5.3
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE TO INSTRUMENTATION
Throttle flow
Power
Throttle pressure
[Note (I)]
Throttle temperature
[Note (I)]
Exhaust pressure
Extraction pressure
Instrumentation
Uncertainty, U,
C
B
+I
%/%
-I%/%
+0.010
+0.030
+ 0.050 = + 0.080%/0F
0.003 = +O.O07%/psi
-2%/in. Hg
-O.OS%/psi
1.08%
0.64%
10 psi
1.73OF
0.025 in. Hg
3 psi
UHR,
D
1.08%
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Test Measurement
A
Component
Heat Rate
Uncertainty,
-0.64 %
0.07%
0.14%
-0.05%
-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.
51
TABLE 5.4A
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE T O VARIABILITY WITH TIME
No. of
Per Readings
Instrument
N
Test Measurement
Throttle flow
Power
Degrees
Instruments
M
61
6
13
10
13
13
Throttle pressure
Throttle temperature
Exhaust pressure
pressure
Extraction
Estimate
of Time
Variability
S or R
No. of
of
Freedom
Y
0.47%
0.12%
2.571
1.87 3.10 psi
2.179
3.18OoF
2.052
0.01 in.
2.010
0.3
0.5 2.179
psi
0.13% 1
1
3
4
1
0.12%
60
5
12
27
48
12
Statistical
Distribution
t, or t.'
UncertaintyTime
Variability
u1
2.000
psi
1.19OF
0.002 in.
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
M(N - 1)
c (x, -
;='N - 1
c S,
X)2
S="'
u, = t,
UT = t. -
fi
(b) If N
<
S
fi
IfM=l
IfM> 1
u = N
v = M
u, =
u -
t,'R
t'
I -
Z=
8.0
= 1.06%
NOTE:
The number of readings can also be calculated by:
N R = [(? x tg,)/(UT
cl2*)]'
NR =
52
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
1.06 x 2
(0.12 x 2.34)
'
= 57
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Ip
IN
TABLE 5.48
HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY DUE TO VARIABILITY W I T H SPACE
flow
Throttle
Power
pressure
Throttle
temperature
Throttle
Exhaust pressure
pressure
Extraction
No. of
Instruments
Per Location
Variability
Degrees of
Freedom
S or R
t, or t,'
1
1
...
...
...
...
1
3
4
1
...
...
...
...
...
...
1.o0
0.12
3
4
1.304
0.717
1.304O F
0.09 in.
Estimate
of Space
Uncertainty-
...
...
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
u -t-
S
u,= t" -
'JI
(b) If L < I O , use range R to estimate time variability and substitute t-distribution.
IfM=l
IfM>I
u = L
v = L
u, = C,'
53
R
-
fi
Statistical
Distribution
...
Space
Variability
u5
...
...
...
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
No. of
Measurements
Test
Sampling
locations
S T D - A S M EP C
b REPORT-ENGL
1985
0 7 5 9 b 7 0 Ob070L9 988 D
' .
TABLE 5.5
OVERALL HEAT RATE UNCERTAINTY
Sources of Uncertainty
Effect on
Time
Space
Overall
Measurement
Uncertainty
Component
Heat Rate
Uncertainty
u,
US
UT
UHR,
0.12%
0.13%
1.87 psi
...
...
...
Heat Rate
Variability
Instrument
UncertaintyVariability
Test Measurement
Throttle flow
Power
1.0%/%
l.O%/%
Throttle pressure
Throttle temperature
1.304OF
O.O07%/psi
Exhaust pressure
Extraction pressure
U,
1.08%
0.64%
10 psi
1.17OF
O.O8O%/OF
2.0%/in. Hg
0.025 in. Hg
1.73OF
O.O50%/psi
3 psi
0.002 in. Hg
0.3 psi
0.09 in. Hg
...
uHR,
= e X uT
54
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1.09%
0.65%
10.17 psi
2.09"F
0.09 in. Hg
3.01 psi
f 1.09%
f 0.65%
f 0.07%
f0.17%
*0.18%
*0.15%
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
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 influenceof 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 uncertainties 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 complex 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.
1.01 Nomenclature and Definitions
For a reheat turbine cycle, the corrected heat rate is defined as:
55
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
where
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
HR, =
A x B + C x D
E
where
In(HR,) = In ( A x B ~ C x D ) = I n ( A x B + C x D ) - I n E
du
dln(HR,) = d[ln(A X B
+CX
D ) ] - d(ln E)
-AxdS+BxdA+CxdD+DxdC -df
A x B + C x D
Based on the previousdefinitions, the differentials in Eq. (11) can be expressed as follows:
56
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
STD-ASFE
P T C b REPORT-ENGL 1 9 8 5 m 0757b70Ob07022472
dA = d w f
and
Now, substituting these values in Eq. (11) and replacing the differentials cf by the differences A,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
'W,,
(3)
aTlt
P,,
DENOM
T'r] _
AT,,
_
Tl(
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(21)
(ACFpdCF
Apdp6p6)
Also, since the reheater pressure drop is a function of the hot and coldreheat pressures
58
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
(22)
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
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 for
a specific measured variable multiplied 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,
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
I
I
I
T5'4
ANSllASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
= 6.53788
x IO9
(34)
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).
SR,, =
The term
r&)
aPIt
Tll
DENOM
"' -
ACF,,,/CF,,,
APllPl
(35)
TI,
(%)
rit
+It
= -0.035
li
The heat balance throttle pressure and temperature have been substituted i n Eq. (35). Therefore,
I'
(37)
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 APllP1
0.3% - -0.0625%/%
"
4.8%
(39)
The term
62
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
rlI
DENOM
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
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
(%)
aTft
[g
(p = 2412, T = 1OOO)
P,,
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.
The term
ACFT1/CFT1-0.7
--=
45.7
A TJT,
-O.O153%/OF
(43)
At 1000F, 1% = IOOF.
For a I O O F error in throttle temperature, the effect of the throttle temperature correction factor is
-0.0153
10
-0.153%/%
(44)
(45)
(3) Final Feedwater Pressure. The term (8Hl1/dp&,, i s the slope of the compressed water enthalpy 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 compressed 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
dTsr
(T = 542) = 1.26
DENOM
-5,958,707U.26) (542)
= -0.622
6.53788 X io9
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(49)
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL L785
(5)
(6)
( 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)
= -0.03
(53)
IT
(%)
~PHRH
4,819,165(-0.03) (495)
THRH
DENOM
6.53788
10'
-0.011
(54)
Fig. 1.4.
(56)
The term
(aHHRH/dTHRH)PHRH
(-)
aTtfRH
=
P"RH
[e
(p
aT
1,
495, T = 1000)
65
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.54
THRH=
DENOM
4,819,165(0.54) (1OOO)
= 0.398
6.53788 X IO9
(59)
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 pressure (SRPCRH)is
The term ( 1 3 H ~ ~ ~ is
/ calculated
d p ~ ~ ~
from
) ~Fig.
~ 5.4.
~ ~
(-)
~ P C R H rCRH
[E
( P = 550, T
= 620)
-0.078
IT
(66)
66
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D - A S M E P T C b R E P O R T - E N G L L985 W 0757b70IIb07032
GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENTUNCERTAINTY
IN PERFORMANCE TESTS OF STEAM TURBINES
311 W
loads
All I
FIG. 1.4REHEATERPRESSURE
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
114 load
1i 2 load
Rated load
FIG. 1.5
REHEATER TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR TURBINES WITH SUPERHEATED INITIAL STEAM
CONDITIONS
67
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
GUIDANCE
+ 12.0
85,000 Ibmlh
t 10.0
+ 8.0
1,875,000 Ibrn/h
8
S
+6.0
P
.C
+ 4.0
2,550,000 Ibm/h
+ 2.0
3,450,000 Ibrnlh
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
O
0.5
1.o
1.5
2.0
Exhaust Pressure,
2.5
3.0
3.5
in. Hg abs.
CONDITIONS
68
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
STEAM
ERRORS IN CALCULATEDHEAT
Test Measurement
EffectAdditional
on
Heat Rate
Uncertainty
(per %)
(I)]
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
[Note
Throttle
flow
Power
pressure
Throttle
temperature
Throttle
pressure
Final feed
temperature
Final feed
pressure
Hot reheat
temperature
Hot reheat
Cold
pressure
reheat
Cold
temperature
reheat
Exhaust pressure
TABLE 1.1
RATE DUE T O ERRORS IN INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS
Effect
Due to
C.orrection
Factor
C
0.84
Assumed
-0.077
0.606
1 .o
-0.014
f 0.85
f0.10
f 1.00 0.000
0.76
O
0.62
0.111
0.54
-0.068
-0.28
-0.044
-0.044
f 1.0
-0.10
0.14
-0.10
0.398
0.0316
-0.279
-
f 0.15
f 0.10
E (%)
-1.0
0.0625
0.153
-0.62
-0.01 1
of
Effect
Uncertainty
on
Measurement
Heat Rate
D=B+C
-1.0
f 0.18
f 0.45
f 0.10
f 1.34
f 0.16
Heat Rate
Uncertainty
F=DxE
f 0.15
F2
* 0.10
0.0119
0.0225
f
f 0.076
f 0.00
0.000142
0.005783
f0.112
0.0125
0.0025
f 0.050
0.00292
f 0.0540
f 0.0911
f 0.0448
f 0.044
0.0100
0.0083
0.002
0.00194
NOTES:
(1) The uncertaintyin throttle flow
is not thesame as condensate flow uncertainty; it must be calculated fromheat
thebalance around
the heaters.
(2) The reheat flow uncertainty dependson throttle flow uncertainty.A 1 % uncertainty in throttle flow is assumed to cause 1 % uncertainty in thecalculated reheat flow.
"IOKH
DENOM
'LKH
(%)
aTCRH
Pene
["
Ip
( p = 550, T = 620)
l3T
0.61
Therefore,
-4,819,165(0.61) (620)
SRTCRH=
DENOM
TCRH=
6.53788
IO9
-0.279
(69)
AcfpdCFp6
(70)
APdP6
69
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
S T D - A S f l E PTC b REPORT-ENGL
ANSUASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
1985
0 7 5 7 b 7 0 Ob07035 O20
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.
0.06858
m= *0.26%
(73)
(74)
70
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
S T D - A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL
1985
ANSI/ASMEPTC 6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
APPENDIX II
DERIVATION OF FIG. 3.2
Fig.
57.
rori"]
71
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This Appendix presents the method used for derange (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.
U,on
3.1 i s defined as
S, = z / d ;
(4)
~~~
~~
S T D - A S MPET C
b REPORT-ENGL
1985
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
VALUESASSOCIATED
0 7 5 9 b 7 0 Ob07037 9 T 3
TABLE11.1
WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THEAVERAGE
RANGE'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.8
7.5
11.1
14.7
18.4
22.0
25.6
29.3
32.9
36.5
2.48
2.40
2.38
2.37
2.36
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.34
2.34
4.7
9.2
13.6 .
18.1
22.6
27.1
31.5
36.0
40.5
44.9
2.67
2.60
2.58
2.57
2.56
2.56
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
5.5
10.8
16.0
21.3
26.6
31.8
37.1
42.4
47.7
52.9
2.83
2.77
2.75
2.74
2.73
2.73
2.72
2.72
2.72
2.72
NOTE:
(1) Adapted with permission from Ref. (69) of Appendix III.
72
6.3
12.3
18.3
24.4
30.4
36.4
42.5
48.5
54.5
60.6
2.96
2.91
2.89
2.88
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.86
2.86
7.0
13.8
20.5
27.3
34.0
40.8
47.5
54.3
61.0
67.8
3.08
3.02
3.01
3.00
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.98
2.98
2.98
7.7
15.1
22.6
30.1
37.5
45.0
52.4
59.9
67.3
74.8
3.18
3.13
3.11
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.09
3.09
3.09
S T D - A S M E PTC b R E P O R T - E N G L 1985
0 7 5 9 b 7 0 Ob07038 A I T
IN
ANSI/ASMEPTC
6 REPORT-1985
AN AMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
APPENDIX 111
R.EFERENCES
(1) Wilson, W. A., Design of Power PlantTests to Insure ReliabilityofResults, ASME
53-A-156, Vol. 77, May 1955, 405-408.
(2) Boonshaft, J. C., Measurement Errors Classification and Interpretation, ASME
53-A-219, Vol. 77, May 1955, 409-411.
(3) Kimball, D. E., Accuracy & Results of Steam Consumption Tests on Medium
Steam Turbine-Generator Sets, ASME 54-A-253, Vol. 77, November 1955,13551367.
(4) Kratz, E. M., Experience in Testing Large Steam Turbine-Generators in Central
(8) Angelo, J. and Cotton, K. C., Observed Effects of Deposits on Steam Turbine
ASME 59-A-234.
(12) Benedict, R. P., Temperature Measurements in Moving Fluids, ASME 59-A-257.
(13) Cotton, K. C. and Westcott, J. C., Methods of Measuring Steam Turbine-Generator Performance, ASME 60-WA-139.
(14) Custafson, R. L. and Watson, J . H., Field Testing of Industrial Steam Turbines,
ASME 62-WA-319.
(15) Lovejoy, S. W., Examples of Modified Turbine Testing, ASME 62-WA-318.
(16) Ortega, O. J.,Goodell, J. H., and Deming, N. R., Engineering a Saturated Steam
MW San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, ASME
PerformanceTest for the450
66-WA/PTC 2.
73
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
(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 Nozzle 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.
(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
Flow Nozzles," in lournalof Engineering for Power, September 1978, ASME 77WAIFM-1.
- With Particular Reference 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.
(29) Southall, L. R., and Kapur, A., "Experience With a Computer ControlledData Acquisition 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 Techniques," ASME 79-WAIPTC 3.
(32) Kinghorn, F. C., McHugh, A., and Dyet, W. D., "The Use of Etoile Flow Straighteners 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
Copyright ASME International
Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(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," Proceedings of American Power Conference, Vol. 40,1978.
~~
17.
Whitfield, O. J.,Blaylock, G., and Gale, R. W., The Use of Tracer Techniques to
Measure Water Flow Rates in Steam Turbines, Presented at the Institution of
Mechanical EngineersSteam Turbines forthe1980s, October9-12,1979, London,
England.
Kline, S. J. and McClintock, Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments, In Mechanical Engineering, January 1953.
Deming, N. R., Silvestri, G. L., Albert, L. J., and Nery, R. A., Guidelines for Uniform Source Connections Design for
Steam Turbine EconomyTests, ASME 82JPGC-PTC 1.
Bornstein, B. and Cotton, K.C., Guidance for Steam Turbine Generator Acceptance Tests, ASME 82-JPGC-PTC 3.
Albert, P. G., Sumner, W. J., and Halmi, D., A Primary Flow Section forUse With
S T D * A S M E P T C b REPORT-ENGL 1785
ANSllASMEPTC
6 REPORT-1985
ANAMERICANNATIONALSTANDARD
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 Measurements, 3rd Edition, New York: Wiley-lnterscience.
(67) ElectricalMetermansHandbook,7th
Institute, 1965.
(68) Perry and Chilton, Chemical
McCraw Hill, 1973, 2.62-2.67.
York:
in Water and Water(77) ASTM D 1428-1964, Test Methods for Sodium and Potassium
Formed Deposits, by Flame Photometry
76
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
PTC 1
- General Instructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PTC 2
- Definitionsand Values
PTC 6
- Steam Turbines
..............................
...................................
...............................
1980
(R1985)
1980
(R19851
1976
(R19821
1984
1982
1949
(R1969
196:
(R1969)
1965
1949
1978
1974
(R1 985)
--``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
PTC 6s Report
1974
(R19851
request.
D04186