管理风险与汽轮机第一蒸汽入场以下锅炉清洗不足

J. Roy-Aikins, Gary de Klerk, Duduzile Ramasimong, Kumar Rupnarain
{"title":"管理风险与汽轮机第一蒸汽入场以下锅炉清洗不足","authors":"J. Roy-Aikins, Gary de Klerk, Duduzile Ramasimong, Kumar Rupnarain","doi":"10.1115/power2021-64846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Unit 6 of the recently completed six-unit Medupi coal-fired power station was the first unit to go into commercial operation. Synchronisation of the generator to the transmission grid had occurred five months before commercial operation. Prior to the admission of first steam to the turbines, the boiler underwent a three stage cleaning process, which was performed by the boiler contractor, to ensure that debris left over in the boiler from construction was removed and to avoid damage to the turbine when steam was admitted. Steam blowing of the boiler was the penultimate stage of boiler cleaning and contractually the steam would have been deemed clean when the steam cleanliness acceptance criteria were met.\n The steam cleanliness acceptance criteria, which were set by the turbine contractor, relate to the number and size of indentations caused by particles striking a given area of each target plate situated in the temporary piping downstream of the inlet valves of the high pressure and intermediate pressure turbines. For each target plate, values were prescribed for these variables and for the flow conditions that should prevail in the pipe upstream. The boiler contractor had to meet these requirements. Unfortunately, there was a mismatch between the steam cleanliness requirements set by the turbine contractor and those included in the boiler contract. The less stringent steam cleanliness requirements set for the boiler contractor in the boiler contract meant that the boiler would not be adequately cleaned, from the point of view of the turbine contractor.\n The boiler contractor designed a temporary pipework system for the steam blow-through process that permitted steam to bypass the turbines and exhaust to the atmosphere through a silencer. During steam blowing, the prescribed pipe flow conditions for accepting the steam were not being met, even after a large number of blows had been conducted. Mathematical modelling of the process revealed that the required pipe flow conditions could not be attained at the intermediate pressure turbine inlet and as such, the steam blow-through pipework was inadequately sized. The solution was to redesign the temporary pipework, and manufacture and install a new system of pipework, all of which would have taken a couple of months. Business needs required an alternative solution, and so a decision had to be taken on the way forward. Engineering judgement, based on operating and maintenance experience with the current fleet, suggested that the steam was sufficiently clean to be admitted to the turbine, with little risk.\n Of the two feasible options available to the project team, admission of steam after a defined number of blows was accepted. Care had to be exercised to manage the risk that the potential turbine contractor non-compliance to any of the performance guarantee conditions could be blamed on poor steam quality. An analysis of the risks associated with this option was conducted and controls were adopted to mitigate the risks. Eventually, steam was admitted to the turbines. Subsequent inspections and tests conducted on the turbines indicated minimal damage and no loss of performance.\n This paper describes the Medupi Unit 6 steam blow-through problem and the analytical process that revealed the inadequacy of the blow-through pipework. It describes also the process of analysing the risks associated with admission of first steam to the turboset, the decision processes that were followed to admit the steam, and the process of managing the identified risks through the controls that were put in place.","PeriodicalId":8567,"journal":{"name":"ASME 2021 Power Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Managing Risks Associated With Turbine First Steam Admission Following Inadequate Boiler Cleaning\",\"authors\":\"J. Roy-Aikins, Gary de Klerk, Duduzile Ramasimong, Kumar Rupnarain\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/power2021-64846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Unit 6 of the recently completed six-unit Medupi coal-fired power station was the first unit to go into commercial operation. Synchronisation of the generator to the transmission grid had occurred five months before commercial operation. Prior to the admission of first steam to the turbines, the boiler underwent a three stage cleaning process, which was performed by the boiler contractor, to ensure that debris left over in the boiler from construction was removed and to avoid damage to the turbine when steam was admitted. Steam blowing of the boiler was the penultimate stage of boiler cleaning and contractually the steam would have been deemed clean when the steam cleanliness acceptance criteria were met.\\n The steam cleanliness acceptance criteria, which were set by the turbine contractor, relate to the number and size of indentations caused by particles striking a given area of each target plate situated in the temporary piping downstream of the inlet valves of the high pressure and intermediate pressure turbines. For each target plate, values were prescribed for these variables and for the flow conditions that should prevail in the pipe upstream. The boiler contractor had to meet these requirements. Unfortunately, there was a mismatch between the steam cleanliness requirements set by the turbine contractor and those included in the boiler contract. The less stringent steam cleanliness requirements set for the boiler contractor in the boiler contract meant that the boiler would not be adequately cleaned, from the point of view of the turbine contractor.\\n The boiler contractor designed a temporary pipework system for the steam blow-through process that permitted steam to bypass the turbines and exhaust to the atmosphere through a silencer. During steam blowing, the prescribed pipe flow conditions for accepting the steam were not being met, even after a large number of blows had been conducted. Mathematical modelling of the process revealed that the required pipe flow conditions could not be attained at the intermediate pressure turbine inlet and as such, the steam blow-through pipework was inadequately sized. The solution was to redesign the temporary pipework, and manufacture and install a new system of pipework, all of which would have taken a couple of months. Business needs required an alternative solution, and so a decision had to be taken on the way forward. Engineering judgement, based on operating and maintenance experience with the current fleet, suggested that the steam was sufficiently clean to be admitted to the turbine, with little risk.\\n Of the two feasible options available to the project team, admission of steam after a defined number of blows was accepted. Care had to be exercised to manage the risk that the potential turbine contractor non-compliance to any of the performance guarantee conditions could be blamed on poor steam quality. An analysis of the risks associated with this option was conducted and controls were adopted to mitigate the risks. Eventually, steam was admitted to the turbines. Subsequent inspections and tests conducted on the turbines indicated minimal damage and no loss of performance.\\n This paper describes the Medupi Unit 6 steam blow-through problem and the analytical process that revealed the inadequacy of the blow-through pipework. It describes also the process of analysing the risks associated with admission of first steam to the turboset, the decision processes that were followed to admit the steam, and the process of managing the identified risks through the controls that were put in place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASME 2021 Power Conference\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASME 2021 Power Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/power2021-64846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASME 2021 Power Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/power2021-64846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近建成的六机组梅多皮燃煤电厂的6号机组是第一个投入商业运行的机组。发电机与输电网的同步在商业运行前5个月就完成了。在第一批蒸汽进入汽轮机之前,锅炉经历了一个由锅炉承包商执行的三级清洁过程,以确保锅炉中施工遗留的碎片被清除,并避免蒸汽进入时对涡轮机的损坏。锅炉吹汽是锅炉清洗的倒数第二阶段,合同规定,当蒸汽清洁度验收标准达到时,该蒸汽即被认为是清洁的。蒸汽清洁度验收标准是由汽轮机承包商制定的,与颗粒撞击位于高压和中压汽轮机进口阀下游临时管道中的每个靶板的给定区域所造成的压痕的数量和大小有关。对于每个靶板,规定了这些变量的值以及上游管道中应占主导地位的流动条件。锅炉承包商必须满足这些要求。不幸的是,汽轮机承包商设定的蒸汽清洁度要求与锅炉合同中包含的要求不匹配。从汽轮机承包商的角度来看,锅炉合同中为锅炉承包商设定的不太严格的蒸汽清洁度要求意味着锅炉不会得到充分的清洁。锅炉承包商为蒸汽吹过过程设计了一个临时管道系统,允许蒸汽绕过涡轮机,通过消声器排放到大气中。在吹汽过程中,即使进行了大量的吹汽,也没有达到规定的接受蒸汽的管道流量条件。该过程的数学模型表明,在中压涡轮入口无法达到所需的管道流动条件,因此,蒸汽吹过管道系统的尺寸不适当。解决方案是重新设计临时管道,并制造和安装新的管道系统,所有这些都需要几个月的时间。业务需要一个替代解决方案,因此必须在前进的道路上做出决定。根据现有机组的运行和维护经验,工程判断表明,蒸汽足够清洁,可以进入涡轮机,风险很小。在项目团队可用的两种可行方案中,接受了在规定次数的打击后进入蒸汽。必须小心翼翼地管理潜在的涡轮机承包商不遵守任何性能保证条件的风险,这可能归咎于糟糕的蒸汽质量。对与此选项相关的风险进行了分析,并采取了控制措施来减轻风险。最终,蒸汽进入了涡轮机。随后对涡轮机进行的检查和测试表明,损坏最小,没有性能损失。本文介绍了美度皮6号机组蒸汽通汽问题及其分析过程,揭示了通汽管道的不足之处。它还描述了分析第一次蒸汽进入汽轮机组相关风险的过程,随后的蒸汽进入决策过程,以及通过实施控制来管理已识别风险的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Managing Risks Associated With Turbine First Steam Admission Following Inadequate Boiler Cleaning
Unit 6 of the recently completed six-unit Medupi coal-fired power station was the first unit to go into commercial operation. Synchronisation of the generator to the transmission grid had occurred five months before commercial operation. Prior to the admission of first steam to the turbines, the boiler underwent a three stage cleaning process, which was performed by the boiler contractor, to ensure that debris left over in the boiler from construction was removed and to avoid damage to the turbine when steam was admitted. Steam blowing of the boiler was the penultimate stage of boiler cleaning and contractually the steam would have been deemed clean when the steam cleanliness acceptance criteria were met. The steam cleanliness acceptance criteria, which were set by the turbine contractor, relate to the number and size of indentations caused by particles striking a given area of each target plate situated in the temporary piping downstream of the inlet valves of the high pressure and intermediate pressure turbines. For each target plate, values were prescribed for these variables and for the flow conditions that should prevail in the pipe upstream. The boiler contractor had to meet these requirements. Unfortunately, there was a mismatch between the steam cleanliness requirements set by the turbine contractor and those included in the boiler contract. The less stringent steam cleanliness requirements set for the boiler contractor in the boiler contract meant that the boiler would not be adequately cleaned, from the point of view of the turbine contractor. The boiler contractor designed a temporary pipework system for the steam blow-through process that permitted steam to bypass the turbines and exhaust to the atmosphere through a silencer. During steam blowing, the prescribed pipe flow conditions for accepting the steam were not being met, even after a large number of blows had been conducted. Mathematical modelling of the process revealed that the required pipe flow conditions could not be attained at the intermediate pressure turbine inlet and as such, the steam blow-through pipework was inadequately sized. The solution was to redesign the temporary pipework, and manufacture and install a new system of pipework, all of which would have taken a couple of months. Business needs required an alternative solution, and so a decision had to be taken on the way forward. Engineering judgement, based on operating and maintenance experience with the current fleet, suggested that the steam was sufficiently clean to be admitted to the turbine, with little risk. Of the two feasible options available to the project team, admission of steam after a defined number of blows was accepted. Care had to be exercised to manage the risk that the potential turbine contractor non-compliance to any of the performance guarantee conditions could be blamed on poor steam quality. An analysis of the risks associated with this option was conducted and controls were adopted to mitigate the risks. Eventually, steam was admitted to the turbines. Subsequent inspections and tests conducted on the turbines indicated minimal damage and no loss of performance. This paper describes the Medupi Unit 6 steam blow-through problem and the analytical process that revealed the inadequacy of the blow-through pipework. It describes also the process of analysing the risks associated with admission of first steam to the turboset, the decision processes that were followed to admit the steam, and the process of managing the identified risks through the controls that were put in place.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信