Does anyone knows which are the differences between using a generator neutral grounding

resistor (NGR) instead of using a generator neutral grounding transformer (NGT) with a resistor
in the secondary winding?
Reply to this post...

Posted by Phil Corso on 31 October, 2006 - 8:56 pm

Responding to George's Oct 24, 7:04pm query... of course, both are used but the NGT method
has a unique advantage:

NGR uses a limited-duty high-voltage resistor. This precludes extended operation under fault-
conditions. Typically, then, immediate tripping of the generator is necessary! Conversely, NGT
uses a continuous-duty distribution-type transformer whose secondary (eg,120 Volts) is
connected to a continuous-duty low-voltage resistor. This, then, extends
fault-condition operation until a safe and orderly shutdown can be executed!

Please understand that this discussion omits other design considerations (eg, over-voltage.) If
additional information or details are required,
let me know!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE {Boca Raton, FL, USA}
[tal-2@webtv.net] (Cepsicon@aol.com)
Reply to this post...

Posted by Anonymous on 3 November, 2006 - 1:52 am

How can I choose between these two solutions? Both of them leave only app. 15 A fault current.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Phil Corso, PE on 5 November, 2006 - 5:19 pm

Responding to Anonymous' Nov 3, 1:52am question... first step, determine if overvoltage due to
system capacitance is a problem!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE {Boca Raton, FL, USA}
[tal-2@webtv.net] (Cepsicon@aol.com)
Reply to this post...

Posted by AKM on 2 December, 2006 - 2:08 pm

I require my 415 Volt LT system to be restricte to 750 milli amps earth fault current.Wheather
NGR or NGT is suitable,effect of restricted grounding wheather wll raise the neutral potential
and how much.The insulation level of existing transformer.O/C ,ground fault relay do need to be
further checked.

regards
AKM
Reply to this post...
Posted by Anup Mahajan Sr. Engineer on 11 May, 2010 - 2:23 pm
Dear Georg,

I have only one query. why the primary side of NGT is always grounded.
Please reply me

Regards
Reply to this post...

Posted by Abhay on 25 November, 2006 - 2:08 pm

There are two major basic methods used within the industry to connect generators to the power
system. They are

1. Direct Connected system - The generator is connected to its load bus without going through a
voltage transformation. The gen supplies power directly to the load. Basically this config is for
small process industries where the power is utilised locally. This is also called as the low
resistance grounding where the fault current is limited to 100-400 Amps.

2. Unit connected system - The generator is connected to the power system through a dedicated
step-up transformer (wye-delta) connected to the gen terminals. Most large generator sets are
connected to the power system in this manner. This is also called as the high resistance
grounding where the fault current is limited in the range of 5-10 Amps typically.
Till here the referene used is Ch1 of IEEE tutorial on the protection of synch gens.

Now your question - using a generator neutral grounding resistor (NGR) instead of using a
generator neutral grounding transformer (NGT) with a resistor in the secondary winding.

Using NGR at "unit connected" configuration will only cause a higher value of fault current
(100-400Amp depending upon resistance value) to flow through the stator core (hence causing
more damage to the core) before the protection system takes over. In case a NGT with a
secondary loading resistor would have limited the fault current through the generator neutral to a
mere 5-10 Amps which is not detrimental to the stator core.

However using a NGT at a "direct connected" configuration in place of a NGR could create
nuissance by allowing spurious triping of the generator.

Hope that the argument fits the forum and takes your question.
Reply to this post...

Posted by anand on 23 June, 2009 - 1:27 pm

When we are using medium resister grounding NGR in direct connected load, then also 100 or
200A current is flowing through stator core. In this case stator core will also get damaged.
Reply to this post...
Does anyone knows which are the differences between using a generator neutral grounding
resistor (NGR) instead of using a generator neutral grounding transformer (NGT) with a resistor
in the secondary winding?
Reply to this post...

Posted by Phil Corso on 31 October, 2006 - 8:56 pm

Responding to George's Oct 24, 7:04pm query... of course, both are used but the NGT method
has a unique advantage:

NGR uses a limited-duty high-voltage resistor. This precludes extended operation under fault-
conditions. Typically, then, immediate tripping of the generator is necessary! Conversely, NGT
uses a continuous-duty distribution-type transformer whose secondary (eg,120 Volts) is
connected to a continuous-duty low-voltage resistor. This, then, extends
fault-condition operation until a safe and orderly shutdown can be executed!

Please understand that this discussion omits other design considerations (eg, over-voltage.) If
additional information or details are required,
let me know!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE {Boca Raton, FL, USA}
[tal-2@webtv.net] (Cepsicon@aol.com)
Reply to this post...

Posted by Anonymous on 3 November, 2006 - 1:52 am

How can I choose between these two solutions? Both of them leave only app. 15 A fault current.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Phil Corso, PE on 5 November, 2006 - 5:19 pm

Responding to Anonymous' Nov 3, 1:52am question... first step, determine if overvoltage due to
system capacitance is a problem!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE {Boca Raton, FL, USA}
[tal-2@webtv.net] (Cepsicon@aol.com)
Reply to this post...

Posted by AKM on 2 December, 2006 - 2:08 pm

I require my 415 Volt LT system to be restricte to 750 milli amps earth fault current.Wheather
NGR or NGT is suitable,effect of restricted grounding wheather wll raise the neutral potential
and how much.The insulation level of existing transformer.O/C ,ground fault relay do need to be
further checked.

regards
AKM
Reply to this post...
Posted by Anup Mahajan Sr. Engineer on 11 May, 2010 - 2:23 pm
Dear Georg,

I have only one query. why the primary side of NGT is always grounded.
Please reply me

Regards
Reply to this post...

Posted by Abhay on 25 November, 2006 - 2:08 pm

There are two major basic methods used within the industry to connect generators to the power
system. They are

1. Direct Connected system - The generator is connected to its load bus without going through a
voltage transformation. The gen supplies power directly to the load. Basically this config is for
small process industries where the power is utilised locally. This is also called as the low
resistance grounding where the fault current is limited to 100-400 Amps.

2. Unit connected system - The generator is connected to the power system through a dedicated
step-up transformer (wye-delta) connected to the gen terminals. Most large generator sets are
connected to the power system in this manner. This is also called as the high resistance
grounding where the fault current is limited in the range of 5-10 Amps typically.
Till here the referene used is Ch1 of IEEE tutorial on the protection of synch gens.

Now your question - using a generator neutral grounding resistor (NGR) instead of using a
generator neutral grounding transformer (NGT) with a resistor in the secondary winding.

Using NGR at "unit connected" configuration will only cause a higher value of fault current
(100-400Amp depending upon resistance value) to flow through the stator core (hence causing
more damage to the core) before the protection system takes over. In case a NGT with a
secondary loading resistor would have limited the fault current through the generator neutral to a
mere 5-10 Amps which is not detrimental to the stator core.

However using a NGT at a "direct connected" configuration in place of a NGR could create
nuissance by allowing spurious triping of the generator.

Hope that the argument fits the forum and takes your question.
Reply to this post...

Posted by anand on 23 June, 2009 - 1:27 pm

When we are using medium resister grounding NGR in direct connected load, then also 100 or
200A current is flowing through stator core. In this case stator core will also get damaged.
Reply to this post...
I would like to inquire to how I can calculate the power in MW that drives the compressor. As
we know the efficiency of gas turbine is about 25%.
I did some calculation which is as follows:
If the efficiency is 100% and GT efficiency 25% that means 25% is equal to 60 MW 75% is
equal to 180 MW (loses).
This 180MW is the power that drives the Gas turbine compressor.

Please the answer should provided with formula.

Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 17 January, 2011 - 8:53 pm

Ayed,

Your questions sure cover the gambit!

The efficiency of most GE-design heavy duty gas turbines *in simple-cycle application* (i.e,
without a waste heat recovery boiler (or heat recovery steam generator) in the exhaust is
approximately 32-35% at Base Load in new and clean condition at nameplate rated conditions
(ambient pressure, ambient temperature, ambient humidity).

New and clean condition implies clean turbine inlet air filters, clean axial compressor bellmouth
and IGVs, clean axial compressor without excessive clearances, hot gas path parts equal to new
specifications--including combustion liners, transition pieces, turbine nozzles, turbine buckets,
and an exhaust duct back pressure within design specifications). It also implies fuel with the
expected characteristics as defined in Sect. 05 of the Control Specification drawing. And lastly, it
implies the IGV LVDTs have been properly calibrated, the compressor discharge pressure
transmitter(s) are properly calibrated, and the exhaust T/Cs and wiring are properly installed and
are all working properly with a minimal exhaust temperature spread at Base Load.

So, this means that for roughly ever three horsepower developed by the turbine section while
operating at Base Load in a new and clean condition that two horsepower are required to drive
the axial compressor. That's a pretty good rule of thumb.

I don't believe I've ever seen formulae outside of computers at GE Engineering that can
accurately calculate the amount of energy being consumed by the compressor at a given
operation condition. I'm sure there are companies selling software that can perform these
calculations based on estimates of compressor efficiencies and such, but without a lot of
instrumentation that's not normally installed on a compressor and turbine and without intimate
knowledge of the design parameters of the compressor it would be very difficult to come up with
an exact figure.

32-35% efficiency is better than many fossil fuel-fired boilers (coal or oil or natural gas) can
achieve on their best day during initial operation. And, if a gas turbine is operated in combined
cycle mode, using the exhaust heat to produce steam to drive a steam turbine, well, efficiencies
of more than 55% and close to 60% are now being achieved for the entire cycle. The rule of
thumb for combined cycle power plants is that you will be able to produce approximately 0.5
MW with a steam turbine for every MW produced by the gas turbine, for the same fuel flow-rate
(presuming no extractions). And that's much better than any fossil fuel-fired boiler and turbine
could ever hope to achieve, with fewer emissions in many cases, as well (gotta get that green
aspect in there!).

Again, there are probably some people somewhere who could give you some formulae that could
calculate it down to the second decimal place, but it will still likely be an estimate based on
assumptions, and would fall in the range described above (+/- 1%).

You need something more than that, you better start talking to some power plant designers and
architect/engineering firms.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 19 January, 2011 - 6:01 am

Efficiency of the gas turbine

The total energy balance in a gas turbine can be summarized as

Total energy input = Compressor load + Generator power output + Flue gas energy loss +
rotational losses

with the exception of the rotational losses all others can be calculated in a easy manner , what
you need is the following information.

1. Calorific value of the fuel (kcal/kg)

2. Mass flow rate of the fuel (kg/s or t/hr) (if only the volume flow is available then you need to
know the density of the fuel)

3. air flow into the turbine ( this is tricky most of the sites do not have a air flow meter , you have
to get it from the characteristic graphs which GE provides , you can also get the value form the
site acceptance test or the performance guarantee test done at commissioning)

if you have a HRSG , which you probably will have then you can calculate the efficiency of the
HRSG and also the combined efficient of the total co generation power plant, for this you need
the additional data

Note - i do not know the layout of your plant or its operating nature , i am assuming that the
steam used for deaeration is got from the plant itself and CPH if present is inside the HRSG
itself. you need to work out the details yourself , i am giving the calculations for a self sustaining
plant. ie it takes only water at room temp and fuel and gives out power and steam. The plant
axillary consumption which will be around 2-4% of the plant full load is neglected in the
calculation. mainly because i do not have sufficient data.

The basic equations for the calculation are

For GT
Efficiency = 860*MW output (MwHr) / (fuel flow(kg) * calorific
value of fuel(in kcal/kg))
this is the base formula where fuel flow is normally available in M3 which
you have to convert to mass with the known density.

for HRSG
efficiency (overall) = steam flow rate * enthalpy of steam /
(HRSG inlet temp * 0.25 * air flow rate)

efficiency (heat exchanger) = steam flow rate * enthalpy of

steam / ( (HRSG inlet temp - HRSG outlet temp) * 0.25 * air flow rate)

the combined efficiency of the co generation is given by

efficiency = ( (860*MW output (MwHr)) + steam flow rate *

enthalpy of steam) / (fuel flow(kg) * calorific value of fuel(in kcal/kg))

sample calculation

I am now in a frame 5 site , so i am taking the daily production readings

from here. the values at your site will be different

Naptha consumption = 192m3

Power generation = 379 Mwhr
Average power generation / hr = 15.8 MW
Calorific value of naptha = 11250 kcal/kg
Naptha density = 0.7

the HRSG is a twin drum and produces two different steam varities one a VHP
steam at 48Kg/cm2 and 435 deg and other MP steam at 18kg/cm2 at 245 deg

Enthalpy of VHP steam = 785 kcal/kg

Enthalpy of IP steam = 692 kcal/kg
VHP steam production = 805 tonnes
average steam production / hr = 33.5 t/hr
MP steam production = 99 tonnes
average MP steam production /hr = 4.12 t/hr

HRSG inlet temperature = average GT exhaust temp

= 490 deg
HRSG outlet temperature = average stack temperature
= 140 deg
ambient temperature = 32 deg

air flow rate - the air flow for a frame 5 machine at site condition (32 deg
ambient) is 408 tonnes at 85 deg IGV opening , as the machine was put in
cogen cycle and the average IGV opening is 56 deg , from the chara graph the
air flow is estimated as 364 tonnes.

so

GT efficiency = (860 * 379 *100) / ( 192 * 0.7 * 11250)

= 21.57 %
HRSG efficiency (overall) = ( ( 33.5 * (785-30) ) + (4.12 * (692-30) ) ) / (
490 * 0.25 * 364) ( here stack losses are taken into account)
= 62.83 %
HRSG efficiency (heat exchanger) = ( ( 33.5 * (785-30) ) + (4.12 * (692-
30) ) ) / ( (490-140) * 0.25 * 364) ( here stack lossses not taken into
account)
= 88 %

overall co-generation efficiency

= (860 * 379) + ( ( 805 * (785-30) ) + (99 * (692-
30) ) ) / ( 192 * 0.7 * 11250)
= 67 %
Reply to this post...

Posted by Ayed on 19 January, 2011 - 7:57 am

i am still not get how i can calculate the power that drives the compressor.
i need the equation.

note that we have HRSG and the capacity is 118tons

best regards...........
Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 19 January, 2011 - 3:24 pm

Ayed,

Without being able to measure the air flow through the compressor, the best you're going to be
able to do is estimate the amount of work being done by the compressor.

And the size of the HRSG isn't going to affect the compressor load, either.
Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 19 January, 2011 - 8:03 am

>Efficiency of the gas turbine
>
>The total energy balance in a gas
>turbine can be summarized as
>
>Total energy input = Compressor load +
>Generator power output + Flue gas energy
>loss + rotational losses
>
>with the exception of the rotational
>losses all others can be calculated in a
>easy manner , what you need is the
>following information.
>
>1. Calorific value of the fuel
>(kcal/kg)
>
>2. Mass flow rate of the fuel (kg/s or
>t/hr) (if only the volume flow is
>available then you need to know the
>density of the fuel)
>
>3. air flow into the turbine ( this is
>tricky most of the sites do not have a
>air flow meter , you have to get it from
>the characteristic graphs which GE
>provides , you can also get the value
>form the site acceptance test or the
>performance guarantee test done at
>commissioning)

And then this just falls apart. In the calculations, nowhere does it mention the compressor load or
provide any indication of a sample value for rotational losses. There's no mention of air flow or
how the value 860 came into the formula nor what it represents.

Just doing a quick search of wikipedia.org, more than one article suggests the thermal efficiency
of simple-cycle gas turbines is approximately 30-40%, and that combined cycle gas turbine
efficiencies are as high as 60%. GE used to market one of their aero-derivative packages as a
"40-40" machine because it had 40% thermal efficiency for 40 MW, and that's darned high for a
simple cycle machine (that had to have inlet cooling to achieve the 40-40 moniker).

But, ProcessValue needs to patent the plant at his site, and quick. Because a thermal efficiency of
67% is exceptional.

And unrealistic. Particularly if the Frame 5 is only putting out an average of 15.8 MW per hour,
which is very low if the unit is operating at Base Load, which is when the efficiency would be
highest and when most performance guarantee tests are run. And even more unrealistic if the GT
efficiency is only 21.57%.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 19 January, 2011 - 11:31 am

I kinda forgot to add this small bit in the calculation above

Energy balance in Gasturbine

inlet ambient air = 25 deg

cdp = 6.8kg/cm2
ctd = 302 deg
exhaust = 507 deg
fuel input = 1.7 kg/s
calorific value of naptha = 11250 kcal/kg
density of naptha = 0.71
power = 16 MW
air flow into the turbine = 360 t/hr
specific heat capacity of air = 0.25 kcal/kg deg

input energy into the turbine = fuel input + air input

fuel input = 1.7 * 3.6 * 11250 *(1000) kcal
= 68850 Mcal
air input = 360 * 0.25 * 302
= 27180 Mcal

total energy input to the turbine = 96030 Mcal

power output from the generator = 16*860

= 13760 Mcal

flue gas losses = (360+1.6*3.6)*0.25*507

= 46390 Mcal

compressor load and rotational losses = 96030 - (46390 + 13760)

= 96030 - 60150
= 35880 Mcal

this equated in terms of power = 35880/860

= 41 MW

the compressor load does not change much with the loading of the machine , you will see that for
a 20 MW gasturbine , the compressor load is about 40MW.

And CSA , are you sure about 30-35% efficiencies ?? to the best of my knowledge GT simple
cycle efficiencies does not exceed 25 +/- 2 %.
Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 19 January, 2011 - 3:04 pm

Let's see, if the total power produced by the gas turbine in your example is 60 MW (20 MW
generator output + 40 MW compressor load), then isn't 20 MW (the output rating of the gas
turbine) 1/3 (33%) of 60 MW? So, roughly two of every three horsepower produced by the gas
turbine are used to drive the compressor, and only one of every three horsepower is available to
drive the generator?

Lastly, compressor load varies with IGV angle.

It's kinda ironic that the fortune at the bottom of the control.com page when I read this post was:
Speed is a substtitute for accurancy.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 19 January, 2011 - 11:23 pm

Quiries and answers :)

Quiery 1

" And then this just falls apart. In the calculations, nowhere does it mention the compressor load
or provide any indication of a sample value for rotational losses. There's no mention of air flow
or how the value 860 came into the formula nor what it represents."

ok , i kinda assumed that people will be familiar with the joules constant , power energy
equivalency now i have to derive the formulas as well i guess. well here goes
Power energy equivalents
1 kilowatt (KW) = 1 kilo joule/ sec

1 kilowatt sec ( Kw s) = 1 kilo joule

converting sec to hours , as Kw Hr is the standard for electrical energy

measurement
1 kilowatt hour (Kw Hr) = 3600 Kilo joule

now we know

1 calorie = 4.187 joules , this is the joules constant so

1 Kilo calorie = 4.187 Kilo joules

1 kilo joules = 0.23883 Kilo calories

so

1 Kilowatt hour (Kw Hr) = 3600 * 0.23883 Kilo calories

= 859.80416 Kilo calories
= 860 kilo calories ( this is a reasonable
approximation)

this is the electrical energy and heat energy equivalence . This is how the
860 in the formula came from.

Efficiency of the gas turbine

efficiency of the turbine = energy equivalent of generator Generator power

output / energy input into the turbine

energy equivalent of generator Generator power output = 860 * Kw-Hr

energy input into the turbine = Calorific value of the fuel (Kcal /kg) * fuel
flow ( Kg/hr)

= 860 * Kw-hr / Calorific value of the fuel

(Kcal /kg) * fuel flow ( Kg/hr)

now multiplying both the numerator and denominator by thousand

= 860 * Kw-hr * 1000 / Calorific value of the
fuel (Kcal /kg) * fuel flow ( Kg/hr) * 1000
this converts the Kw-Hr to Mw-Hr and kg/hr to t/hr
= 860 * Mw-hr / calorific value of the fuel
(Kcal/kg) * fuel flow ( t/hr)

so this is how the energy efficiency of the gas turbine is derived.

i am also deriving a formula for heat rate of the turbine to the efficiency

heat rate of the turbine is defined as the The ratio of fuel energy input as
heat per unit of net work output. It is expressed mostly in Btu/Kwhr or in kj

/Kwhr . I am not a fan of Btu , but i am a ardent fan of SI units :) so i

will derive the equation here in Si units.

Heat rate = Kj/ Kwhr

Efficiency = KwHr * 3600 / Kj

Efficiency = 3600 / (kj/kwhr)

efficiency = 3600 / Heat rate

as far as the rotational and compressor loads are concerned i have given the
calculation in the next post. Please go through it.

................................................................... ........................................................................

Quiery 2

" Just doing a quick search of wikipedia.org, more than one article suggests the thermal
efficiency of simple-cycle gas turbines is approximately 30-40%, and that combined cycle gas
turbine efficiencies are as high as 60%. GE used to market one of their aero-derivative packages
as a "40-40" machine because it had 40% thermal efficiency for 40 MW, and that's darned high
for a simple cycle machine (that had to have inlet cooling to achieve the 40-40 moniker).

But, ProcessValue needs to patent the plant at his site, and quick. Because a thermal efficiency of
67% is exceptional.

And unrealistic. Particularly if the Frame 5 is only putting out an average of 15.8 MW per hour,
which is very low if the unit is operating at Base Load, which is when the efficiency would be
highest and when most performance guarantee tests are run. And even more unrealistic if the GT
efficiency is only 21.57%."

I did a quick search through my GE manuals and i came up with this. I am uploading a small
document , a GE document which has the heat rate for its line of gas turbines.

http://www.2shared.com/document/VUjnzbcw/GEgasTurbine.html

heat rate for a distillate fired frame 5 machine is given as 12847 kj/kw-hr . from the efficiency to
heat rate equation derived above it calculates to an efficiency of 28% max. this is the full load
efficiency of the machine at iso conditions , at 26 MW , air flow of 450 t/hr pressure ratio of 10.6
etc .... please refer the doc. this is seldom achieved in real life. Base load of the machine at site
conditions is 21.5 MW , and the supplier BHEL doc gives a assured heat rate of 3390 kcal/kwhr
as the heat rate , ie the base load efficiency of the machine is 25 %. thus for a machine running at
a part load of 15 MW an efficiency of 22% is not unrealistic. its just the way the machine is.

wikipedia provides good answers , most of the time it is quite right, but 40% efficiency is way
higher and i will bet on the GE manual than wiki.

now that we mention it , frame 9 machine seems to have the lowest heat rate on a gas fired
machine , 9930. this equates to a efficiency of 34%. i have contacted my friend in NTPC , he will
give the data on the fame 9 machine they are running , but he assured me that they get close to
30% efficiency at base load operation. it seems that the smaller machines have a higher heat rate
and thus a lower efficiency. machines in refineries are mostly frame 6. they also do not fare well.
not above 25-26%.

and about the cycle efficiencies. I calculated the efficiency of a co-generation power plant , not a
combined cycle power plant. in a co-generation power plant the plant output is both power and
steam. in a combined cycle power plant the plant output is power only. the steam from the HRSG
is routed to a steam turbine to produce power. combined cycle power plants have a lower
efficiency than co generation power plants. in co generation power plants the heat equivalent of
the steam generated is taken as the output. this gives them a higher efficiency than a combined
cycle power plant.

in a combined cycle power plant , the steam is used to run a steam turbine at the downstream
which has a 30% efficiency due to the condenser losses.

in a cogeneration cycle power plant as the steam equivalent is directly taken , this 70% reduction
in efficiency does not come into play. only the stack losses are accounted for.

this is the reason why the efficiencies of a co generation plant is higher than a combined cycle
power plant.

combined cycle gives efficiencies in the range of 50 - 60% while co- generation system give
efficiency of 70-80 %. the plant efficiency shown in the calculation is quite low as it was
operating in part load conditions.

So i do not think i need to go and patent my site , unfortunately it is running at kinda low
efficiencies. all refineries and process plants which operate the gas turbine at part loads have the
same situation.

So my concluding remarks are , my calculations and math are quite right. there are no deviations
in the equations or in the values provided.

and one last thing , i just saw CSA's post now

" Let's see, if the total power produced by the gas turbine in your example is 60 MW (20 MW
generator output + 40 MW compressor load), then isn't 20 MW (the output rating of the gas
turbine) 1/3 (33%) of 60 MW? So, roughly two of every three horsepower produced by the gas
turbine are used to drive the compressor, and only one of every three horsepower is available to
drive the generator? "

well CSA you are talking about only the useful power output from the turbine. ( ok the
compressor load is not got as useful power , but i am taking it as the work done by the turbine) .
but every heat engine needs to reject out certain heat , in gas turbines it is in the form of flue
gases , that should also be accounted as a loss is it not ??

Speed is a substtitute for accurancy. LOL , as long as you cover up / rectify your mistakes as
soon as you make them , no one is going to notice right ;) . just trying to lighten up the serious
discussion :)
Reply to this post...

Posted by krush on 31 January, 2011 - 12:14 am

in a combined cycle power plant, the steam is used to run a steam turbine at the downstream
which has a 30% efficiency due to the condenser losses.

Sir, please explain where you got this number for steam turbine efficiency. Steam turbines are
pretty good at extracting the energy from the steam--I have no reference off hand, but I think
75%+ is not an unheard of number
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 31 January, 2011 - 7:23 am

Efficiency of the steam turbine

Kurush , steam turbine power plants have only 30% efficiency , i do not know from where you
got 75% efficiency and all . i am giving a sample calculation again.

if you look at the above equations you will see that 1 MWhr is equivalent to 860*1000 kcal of
energy.

let us suppose that i am having a fully condensing turbine , with input 90Kg and 500 deg steam
and condenser operating at vacuum of -0.9 kg/cm2 and a dynuss fraction of 0.85
the enthalpy of the input steam is given by = 812 kcal/kg

enthalpy of steam going into the condenser is given by = 533 kcal/kg

the heat energy available for the turbine to convert to work is = 812 - 533
= 280 kcal/kg

the heat energy which goes to the condenser is lost , this is what i was referring to the condenser
losses.

assuming that turbine has no rotational and radiation losses , they will be small , so they can be
neglected you can see that for producing 1 MW output you will need 860/280 = 3.1 tonnes of
steam at 90 kg pressure and 500 deg. thus the efficiency can be calculated as
efficiency of the steam turbine = 860/(3.1*812)
= 34.12 %

well , now you see that neglecting all the losses i get a ideal steam turbine efficiency as 34%
only. i have not taken into account that the boiler will be only 88% efficient , there will be
extraction steam for deaeration etc . if you have all the data , and if you calculate you will see
that the efficiency of a conventional steam power plant is only 30% +- 2% .
Reply to this post...

Posted by krush on 31 January, 2011 - 5:06 pm

>Efficiency of the steam turbine
>
>Kurush , steam turbine power plants
>have only 30% efficiency , i do not know
>from where you got 75% efficiency and
>all . i am giving a sample calculation
>again.

I did not say efficiency of "steam plant"; I said efficiency of steam TURBINE.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 1 February, 2011 - 7:07 am

I calculated the efficiency of the steam turbine only. which part of it did you not understand. you
have said the you have a steam turbine running right, with the equations above calculate the
efficiency yourself you will get to know.

efficiency of a fully condensing turbine is given by

= 860 * power output of the turbine / ( inlet steam flow (t/hr) * enthalpy of steam kcal/kg)

once again i say steam turbines have 30-35% efficiency only.

if you need any second reference , i suggest you look into power plant engineering by black &
veatch, or PK Nag or steam plant operation by lammers and woodruff. it will give you good idea
about how to calculate steam turbine efficiencies and also a overall idea about design and
operation of steam turbines and power plants in general.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Namatimangan08 on 1 February, 2011 - 8:41 am

>in a combined cycle power plant, the
>steam is used to run a steam turbine at
>the downstream which has a 30%
>efficiency due to the condenser losses.
>
>Sir, please explain where you got this
>number for steam turbine efficiency.
>Steam turbines are pretty good at
>extracting the energy from the steam--I
>have no reference off hand, but I think
>75%+ is not an unheard of number

Probably you are referring to isentropic or cylinder efficiency. In this case 75% is the least you
can expect. It can be as high as 90%. Isentropic efficiency is the ratio between the actual
expansion power to the theoretical expansion power assuming the expansion takes place at
constant entropy.

As far as thermal efficiency is concern you can find somewhere around 45% for a big ST
(1000MW), 3-pressure type. Thermal efficiency for the steam cycle (exclude boiler) is the ratio
between the total expansion power to the total energy received by the steam cycle.
Reply to this post...

Posted by krush on 1 February, 2011 - 6:43 pm

>
>Probably you are referring to
>isentropic or cylinder efficiency. In
>this case 75% is the least you can
>expect. It can be as high as 90%.
>Isentropic efficiency is the ratio
>between the actual expansion power to
>the theoretical expansion power assuming
>the expansion takes place at constant
>entropy.

*ding* *ding* Guess we should define our control volumes and "efficiencies" better.

Perhaps I'm ignorant, but whenever referring to turbine efficiency, we are talking about
isentropic efficiency of the turbine. By convention, thermal efficiency (in my experience) is used
for the entire plant.

Is one or us right and the other wrong? No. We just were ambiguous on our definitions.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Namatimangan08 on 2 February, 2011 - 1:38 pm

You are right. Turbine efficiency by convention is an isentropic efficiency.
I take note that you define thermal efficiency for the entire plant. Nothing wrong with it.

That will give overall thermal efficiency. There are many efficiencies entangle in it. They are
isentropic efficiency, ST cycle thermal efficiency, boiler efficiency, generator efficiency,
mechanical efficiency and combustion efficiency. Sometimes we need to look specifically on
each of them. It is very helpful if we can configure our energy balance boundary to evaluate each
of those efficiencies.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Namatimangan08 on 3 February, 2011 - 2:36 am

In practice probably we use net change in enthalpy between two terminals of your compressor,
namely enthalpy of air at compressor discharge and enthalpy of ambient air. In this case you are
assuming intake filter is a part of your compressor. You can do correction to normalize work
done to overcome filter differential separately.

In order for you to know enthalpies at both terminals you have to measure mainly:

Ambient air: Temp & pressure

Compressor discharge : Temp & pressure

These 2 sets of data in fact defined enthalpies of ambient air and at comp discharge. You can use
standard table for properties of air to get the desired enthalpies.

Enthalpy diff between these two terminals in defined work done to compress each kg or air.
Obviously this is done by the compressor. The engineering unit shall be in Joule/kg.

Finally you have to know air mass flow rate (kg/s). Here is tricky part since it is rare you have
measurement for that. The best & also one of the standard methods used is via index pressure.
Basically this method utilizes index pressure changes to predict deviation of air mass flow when
compared to the known reference (e.g. commissioning data).

In brief your calculation should look like this one.

Enthalpy change across comp = h2(P2,T2)- h1(P1,T1)

= Delta h (J/kg)

Compressor input power = (Delta h)*dm_air/dt (J/s)

The most critical parameter to get good result is to get accurate value for dm_air/dt.

What I mentioned above is very simplified task. Depends on your applications more often you
have to do a lot more fine tuning/correction/normalization to ensure what you are measuring
serves the intended purpose.
Reply to this post...