Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012
GT2012
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND DYNAMIC CALCULATION METHOD FOR OPTIMIZED
LOAD REJECTION CHARACTERISTICS OF STEAM TURBINES
Christoph Schindler
Siemens AG, E F PR SU R&D COT 3
Mülheim, Germany
ABSTRACT
A load rejection disconnects the generator from the
electrical grid. The resulting power excess accelerates the turbo
set. Reacting to the load rejection, the turbine governor rapidly
closes the steam admission valves. The remaining entrapped
steam expands, thereby continuing to power the turbine. Thus
the turbine speed rises till a dynamic equilibrium of
accelerating and braking forces is reached. Thereafter the
turbine speed decreases. If the maximally attained turbine
speed remains below the trip threshold, immediate re-
synchronization to the electrical grid is possible. Consequently,
a forced outage of the steam turbine can be avoided and
operational reliability is increased. Furthermore, functional
safety requirements demand that the maximum turbine speed
remains below test speed under all failure conditions.
Accordingly, steam turbine design has to account for the impact
of overspeed for a reliable and safe operation of the turbo set.
In order to manage load rejection requirements for steam
turbine operation, the design engineer applies standard rules
and overspeed calculation methods. These rules limit
standardized overspeed estimation by defining maximum steam
volumes, valve closing times, and I&C reaction times, as well
as type and number of non-return valves.
A more thorough turbine overspeed investigation is
necessary for several reasons, such as to evaluate this behavior
under undesired failure conditions e.g. failure of non-return
valves or blocking of control valves. A second justification for
this investigation would be to predict changes resulting from
turbine modifications – e.g. turbine upgrade or change at I&C
systems.
In this paper, basic and advanced overspeed calculation
tools are illustrated and compared, with respect to required
1 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark
GT2012-68613
Gerta Zimmer
Siemens AG, E F PR SU EN FS M S
Mülheim, Germany
effort as well as accuracy of prediction. It is shown how system
parameters which are most sensitive with respect to overspeed
can be identified and their influence assessed. Thus, firstly it is
already possible to identify and improve critical overspeed
behavior during design. Secondly, the impact of particular
failures can be accurately predicted, thus allowing for due
implementation of appropriate counter measures.
The methods, presented in this paper, were developed by
the authors and their predecessors at SIEMENS AG for large
steam turbo sets with a power range between 100 MW and
1500 MW.
INTRODUCTION
A turbo-set is operated to generate electrical power
which is fed into an electrical grid. The frequency of this grid
matches the speed (or a multiple of the speed) of the
participating turbo sets. This is due to the equilibrium of
driving forces of the turbo sets and the consumers braking
forces. Hence, in a large electrical grid the frequency, and thus
the speed of the turbo-sets involved, remains almost constant.
Whenever a turbo-set is disconnected from the electrical
grid this equilibrium is no longer sustained. If the
disconnection is due to a load rejection the accelerating force
exceeds the remaining braking force considerably, thereby
accelerating the turbo set until a new equilibrium is attained.
Reacting to the load rejection, the turbine governor, or
turbine protection system, respectively, rapidly closes the steam
admission valves. The remaining entrapped steam expands,
thereby continuing to power the turbine. The turbine speed
rises till a dynamic equilibrium of accelerating and braking
forces is reached. If the turbine valves are tightly closed, the
braking forces will eventually exceed the accelerating forces
and thus cause the turbine speed to decrease again. During this
 event the turbine designs and turbine systems need to meet two
requirements
Firstly, functional safety requirements demand that the
maximum turbine speed remains below test speed under all
failure conditions.
Secondly, operational flexibility requires avoidance of a
turbine trip. Interception of the turbine, or turbo-set,
respectively, at idling conditions enables the operator to
immediate re-syncronise to the electrical grid if the failure
which led to load rejection could be resolved quickly. In this
case an expensive forced outage of the steam turbine can be
avoided.
Consequently, a good a-priori prediction of the expected
overspeed is necessary to assure compliance with functional
safety specifications and furthermore is extremely helpful with
operational flexibility issues. In the following chapter three
differently detailed methods for overspeed prediction will be
presented.
NOMENCLATURE
CALCULATION METHODS
In order to manage load rejection requirements for steam
turbine operation, the design engineer applies standard rules
and overspeed calculation methods. These rules limit
standardized overspeed estimation by defining maximum steam
volumes, valve closing times, and I&C reaction times, as well
as type and number of non-return valves.
Comparison of Acceleration Times
For a straightforward approach it should be assumed that
the overspeed behavior of a certain configuration is known.
Then minor deviations in the given set-up will result into
comparably small changes to the overspeed behavior.
At commissioning of a large coal fired power plant, load
rejection was successfully carried out at different load levels.
Steam volumes, reaction times and inertia remained at the same
level. As figure 1 displays, the resulting overspeed turned out
to be roughly proportional to the respective power output prior
to the load rejection.

Symbol Meaning unit gradient

1.1
A area m² gradient
1.08
a index: ‘in front of’
b index: ‘after’ 1.06
n/n_0

h specific enthalpy (total) kJ/kg

1.04
hV valve stroke [%]
HIL high-intermediate-low 1.02
Plant A:
HIL- Steam turbine with high- intermediate 1
recection from 100% load

turbine and low pressure section 0 2 4 6 8 10

HP high pressure time [s]

IP intermediate pressure
1.1
I&C Instrumentation and control
LP low pressure 1.08
MS main steam
1.06
mV steam mass kg
n/n_0

m V steam mass flow kg/s 1.04

n turbine speed [1/s] 1.02

p pressure bar
1
P power [W] 0 2 4 6 8 10
RA controller output time [s]
RH Re-heat
U Energy kJ
u specific energy kJ/kg Figure 1: top: load rejection from 100% load, 6.4%
overspeed
V volume m³
bottom: load rejection from 75% load, 4.8% overspeed
v specific volume m³/kg
 inertia kg m² Another example shows that a load rejection after a retrofit
to increase the turbine efficiency resulted in a similar
Remark: magnitude of overspeed although the rejection was carried out
The usage of ‘h’ to denote the specific enthalpy as well as a from a higher load. The peak value was attained at a later point
valve stroke is due to the SIEMENS notational conventions. of time than before the retrofit. Comparing the power

2 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 enhancement to the change of the rotor trains inertia, the 1.2
relative increase of power and inertia was almost identical. 1.18 gradient
1.16
1.14
3250 1.12

n/n_0
1.1
3200 1.08
1.06
3150 1.04
Plant B:
1.02
rpm

recection from 100% load

1
3100
0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
3050

3000 Figure 3: Plant B: load rejection from 100% load,

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
same acceleration time constant as plant A in figure 1.
3250
Plant B, depicted in figure 3 above, has the same
3200 acceleration time constant of 10.3s as plant A in figure 1. Both
plants have a very different set-up concerning steam volumes
3150 and interception concepts. After the load rejection at t=0s both
rpm

plants accelerate with the same gradient in t=0. But while plant
3100
A is quickly decelerated and remains wells below the trip
3050
threshold of 10%, plant B overshoots to 15.4%, violation the
10% limit by more than 5%. This is due to the fact that plant B
3000 is constructed such that significantly more entrapped steam
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 volume can expand after the load rejection is issued.

Figure 2: top: load rejection from 100% load, before retrofit,

bottom: load rejection from 100% load, after retrofit

Please note that figure 2 displays clippings of recorded

plant data. Thus the rejection times differ and – in difference to
the calculated overspeed - the scaling is given in absolute
values. Due to confidentiality the time scale had to be omitted.

With the acceleration constant TA of a turbo-set, defined as

TS 2n0 2
TA  (1)
P0106
where TS denotes the inertia of the rotor train, n0 the
nominal turbine speed and P0 the nominal turbine power
output, the inverse, 1/TA gives a good measure to predict the
change of overspeed behavior at turbine changes due to
variation in power output or the inverse of the rotor inertia, see
[3].
Comparison of acceleration constant gives a fairly simple
indication of the change that can be expected in terms of
maximum overspeed at a change in the turbine set-up when
steam volumes and automation times are not affected.

Unfortunately, the reverse does not hold true. Plants with

the same time constant may turn out to have a very different
overspeed behavior, if steam volumes or automation times
differ considerably.

3 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Analytic Calculation Considering Entrapped Energy t n, max
If the turbine design differs considerably from the standard
design a comparison of the acceleration constant is not always
Erot,t n, max    P t dt
i
i
0
sufficient. Especially design deviations regarding steam or t0 t n, max
(4)
condensate entrapped inside the turbine or preheaters are not
covered by this straightforward method. An alternative


0  i
Pi t dt 
  P t dt
t0 i
i

approach additionally accounts for the utilizable energy   


1
entrapped in the turbine . E rot,t0  *ΘTS*ω0 2
2
Maximum turbine speed ωmax is determined by the During the I&C reaction time tI&C and valve closing time
rotational energy Erot,tn, max at which the speed attains its tvalve energy still flows through the turbine valves into the
turbine and out of the turbine into the condenser or turbine
maximum value,
extractions and accelerates the turbo shaft. Rather than
summing up all energy flows into and out of the turbo set, only
2 Erot,t n,max the resulting turbo set power PTS(t) is accumulated over these
ωmax  (2)
ΘTS periods of time.
t0 t 0 t I&C

While a turbo set is connected to the electrical grid,

thermal energy is converted to rotational energy and finally to
Erot,tn,max 

0  i
Pi t dt 
P
t0

TS t dt

    
 

electrical energy which is fed into the grid. As long as there is a 1
Erot,t0  *ΘTS*ω0 2 PTS(t0 )*t I&C
stable equilibrium, the turbo set remains at const. speed. If the 2
t0 t I&C tvalve t n ,max
turbo set is disconnected, the equilibrium is disturbed. Energy
is still transferred to the turbo set, thereby accelerating the 
 PTS t dt   P steam,i dt (5)
turbo set, until a new equilibrium is reached. The maximum t0 t I&C

i t0 t I&C
energy Erot,tn, max is the sum of all partial energies Ei. fThrottling*PTS(t0 )*tvalve

t n, max t n ,max

Erot,t n, max   E    P t dt

i i (3)   P condensate, i dt
i t0 t I&C
i i 0
In order to explain which partial energies are considered During the I&C reaction time this turbo set power is
the following figure 4 shows an overspeed characteristic after a constant. Therefore the turbo set power accounts for all energy
load rejection. flows into and out of the turbine. Thus the second integral in
(5) is the product of turbine power at time t0 and the I&C
Speed characteristic after a load rejection reaction time tI&C. After the I&C reaction time the valves
throttle the turbine Power PTS(t). As a simplification the
reduction is approximated by a standard factor fThrottling for all
valves. This causes a calculation error of less than 0.5 %
overspeed which can be avoided by determining a valve
specific factor.
speed

As the valve closes, the pressure inside the turbine drops.

Consequently, the entrapped steam expands and condensate
starts to evaporate. This additional energy accelerates the
turbine shaft and is calculated separately for every steam and
n
0 time
condensate storage i. It is assumed that the energy Esteam, i is
t
0
t +t
0 I&C
t +t
0 I&C
+t
valve
t
n,max equal to the change of energy inside the considered volume
ΔU steam,i minus the part of energy which flows with the mass
Figure 4: Speed characteristic after a load rejection mout 1,i and enthalpy hout 1,i out of the turbine into the condenser.
t n ,max
Until time t0 the energy is given by the rotational energy of
the turbo shaft at the beginning of consideration. Thus the
interval from 0 to tn, max is split into two at t0..
P
t 0  t I&C
steam,i dt  E steam, i  ΔU steam,i  mout 1,i*hout 1,i (6)

In a similar way the energy for evaporating condensate is

calculated.

4 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 tn,max This model describes the thermodynamic part of a turbo set
 Pcondensate,i dt  Econdensate, i  ΔUcondensate,i  mout 2,i*hout 2 ,i
t0 t I&C
(7) by non-linear flow equations for throttle components, e.g.
valves, pipes and turbine sections,:
m Element   ( pa , ha , pb )
Figure 5 shows the graphical user interface of a program
which analytically calculates overspeed based on the equations hb  ha  hElement ( pa , ha , pb , n) (8)
above using the entrapped energy. Parameters like I&C reaction PElement hElement ( pa , ha , pb , n) * m Element
time, moment of inertia, actual power can easily be fed, stored,
loaded or exported using the different input fields and buttons. Index ‘a’ denotes the state in front of an element, ‘b’ the
The thermodynamic state and volume of each steam or state thereafter. The enthalpy-drop hElement ( pa , ha , pb , n) is
condensate segment are presented by a single row in the specific for an element and depends on the throttle device as
highlighted table. well as on the turbine speed n. The flow is assumed to be
isenthalpic, i.e. hElement = 0, for valves and pipes and positive
for turbine sections in power generation mode. Please note that
h refers to the total enthalpy. Consequently, the change in
kinetic energy is accounted for.
At a load rejection the turbine might endure windage,
resulting in hElement < 0, which means power consumption.
See [2] for details.
Additionally, mass as well as energy storage capacities for
steam volumes are considered:
t
m(t )  m0 
 m
0
in ( )  m
 out ( ) d
(9)
t
U (t )  U 0 

0

Q (τ )  m in ( )hin ( )  m out ( )hout ( ) d

In particular, the re-heater is modeled by considering the

Figure 5: Graphical user interface of the calculation program
As this program is designed to calculate the maximum
speed and not the evaluation over time, there is no need to
parameterize connecting components like stage groups, non
return valves or pipes.
heat-flow Q which is required to lift a steam mass flow m
from the enthalpy ha at the entrance to the enthalpy hb at the
exit. Accordingly, this heat flow is equal to
Q  m (h a hb ) .
Additionally, the rigorous description allows for modeling
condensation and evaporation without further efforts.
Condensation occurs whenever energy is extracted below the
condensation level, i.e. enthalpy drops below h”(p).
Subcooling, which occurs if the enthalpy drops below h’(p) can
be accounted for by dividing the water storage into several
areas.
Vice versa, whenever energy is supplied, water starts to
evaporate as soon as the enthalpy rises above h’(p). When
h”(p) is exceeded, evaporation is completed. Details of the
modeling approach are given in [4].

Calculation using Storage-Throttle-Models The mechanical devices consist of the shaft and the
If the previous methods result in a potentially critical generator. A momentum balanced system leads to the equation
overspeed or non-standard failure conditions have to be to determine the variation of angular velocity of the shaft
investigated, the employment of a thorough overspeed analysis
is advisable. For this purpose, a detailed model which includes

d
dt
 M  M f br . (10)
all relevant steam volumes, throttle components, mechanical P
Using = 2n and M f  ,
details as well as relevant automation set-up has to be 
conducted. dn

1
dt 2
 P

 2 n
 M br 


(11)

5 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 is obtained. The braking torque Mbr consists of the frictional

Cond
torque of the shaft and the torque which is due to the generator

E F PR SU EN FS M S
pvh
pvh

Dr. G. Zimmer
Siemens AG
load. The friction depends on the speed n and is determined by
a plant specific characteristic.

LP2
b dHm_b

A simple generator model considers the slip between P

turbine speed n and grid frequency f to determine the polar a dHm_a

water level
con5
wheel angle . The generators braking torque MG,br is the sum

control1
-K-

Mh_w
1

1
f
dHm
storage2
of a damping torque, which is proportional to the slip  = n-f, a
dm

water

-K-
pvh

forcing torque, which is proportional to the sin of the polar

generator_simp
dH

shaft_q
dQ Mh_w

[n]
oo
G
wheel angle, and an internal loss, which depends on the speed

S3
dm
pvh" dH

LP1
n. The corresponding torque MG,f onto the electrical grid is the

heat2
con7
pipe1
b dHm_b

braking torque without the internal losses (see [1,3]) P b

 n( )  f ( ) d

1/P_0

Gen S

dHm

-K-
a dHm_a
a

-K-
M G ,br  K1 sin( )  K 2 ( n  f )  K 3n (12)

4
dm

M G , f  K1 sin( )  K 2 (n  f )

-K-
pvh
dH

water level
control
In this context it is sufficient to model the electrical grid by

dHm
-K- Mh_w
storage1
S2

water
a constant frequency f since the main part of overspeed
investigation is carried out for a plat which is disconnected
dQ Mh_w

IP
dm

from the grid. Thus a grid frequency is needed to start from a b dHm_b pvh" dH

heat1
dynamic equilibrium. Using an adequate grid model, the

pipe
P

impact on a weak grid or vive versa can be studied as well.

a dHm_a b
dHm

-K-
a

A typical full scale simulation model set up in

2
dm

-K-
pvh

Matlab/Simulink is depicted by the subsequent figure 6. The dH

RHCV

model displays a typical HIL-turbine, i.e. a turbine consisting

S1

LP_by
of separate high- intermediate- and low-pressure sections. The
b

dHm b

reheater between the HP and the IP-section is modeled as well

-K-

a dHm

as the IP-LP-bypass station and IP- and LP-extractions. a

Circular blocks are storages, the other components are throttles

-1

3
dQ

[0 1]1
– except for the devices on the bottom right side, which model pvh dm

shaft, generator and electrical grid. The icons of the throttles

dH
HeExCh
RH

Ramp1
indicate the flow type, i.e. pipe, valve or turbine.
HP

n6

b dHm_b

P
From

a dHm_a
[n]

-K-

IP- and LP-extraction

dm
pvh
dH
MSCV
RR

HIL Turbine

b
LP-bypass

dHm

a
pvh

STG

Figure 6: Simulation model for detailed overspeed analysis of

an HIL turbine

6 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 For simplicity, the model displays just some typical I&C reaction time and valve closing time
features. More details, such as asymmetrical flows, multiples Figure 8 shows the maximum overspeed as a function of
LP sections etc. can be added to account for plant specific the I&C reaction time and valve closing time. The abscissa is
configuration. normalized to Siemens standard I&C reaction times and closing
Simulation is carried out with an implicit solver and step times.
control, thus accounting for the stiffness of the resulting
system. Further details of the set-up are proprietary and can not 22

be elucidated. 20
"design limit"

18

16
APPLICATIONS

Maximum overspeed [%]

14
In the subsequent section several calculation examples are
12
given to demonstrate the capabilities and limits of the above "operational limit"
10
described overspeed calculation methods.
8

Estimation using acceleration time constant 6

I&C
Figure 7 shows the maximum overspeed as a function of 4 valves

the acceleration constant. 2

0
22 1 2 4 6 8
"design limit" factor I&C reaction time [-]
20 factor I&C valve closing time [-]

18

16 Figure 8: Maximum overspeed as a function of the I&C

Maximum overspeed [%]

14 reaction time and valve closing time

12

10
"operational limit"
For the standard I&C reaction times and valve closing
8
times the maximum overspeed is 8% and thus within limits. A
6
100% increased reaction or valve closing time would raise the
4
overspeed by another 2% and thereby reduce the availability.
2
Entrapped steam
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
acceleration time constant [s]
9 10 11 12 Furthermore, the amount of steam or energy has an impact
on overspeed after a load rejection. The steam volumes in front
Figure 7: Maximum overspeed as a function of the of HP-, IP- and LP-blading are varied to determine the limit
acceleration constant values. The volumes are normalized by the standard volumes in
front of the blading. According to figure 9 again all speed limits
Using this curve the engineer is able to predict the are kept for Siemens standard turbine design.
maximum overspeed by calculating the acceleration constant. 22
"design limit"
Also for a turbo set with a very small time constant equal to or 20

larger than 5.5 s the speed stays within the operational and 18

design limits and there is no need for further investigations. 16

However a precondition for this simplified approach is

Maximum overspeed [%]

14

having predefined boundary values for the I&C reaction times, 12

valve closing times and of course the maximum amount of 10
"operational limit"

steam entrapped inside the turbine (by design of the turbine). 8

For this purpose the sensitivity of these parameters are
6
investigated and upper limits are defined. As an example the
following two figures show the sensitivity of the overspeeed in 4
volume in front of HP blading
volume in front of IP blading
five different scenarios. To illustrate the boundary case and to 2
volume in front of LP blading

increase the speed sensitivity the acceleration constant 5.5s is 0

1 2 3 4 5
factor of nominal volume [-]
chosen.
Figure 9: Maximum overspeed as a function of the volume in
front of an HP- IP- or LP turbine

7 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 The volume in front of HP blading has less impact on
overspeed. In contrast a doubled volume in front of IP blading
raises the speed considerably and reduces availability. This is
reasonable due to the higher contribution of power of the IP
and LP turbine.
In order to manage load rejection requirements predefined
design rules limit the I&C reaction times, the turbine valve
closing times and the steam volume entrapped inside the
turbine or connected systems.
Process Steam Extraction
An application where a full order model is mandatory is a
fault analysis that investigates the impact of a partial failure in
a process steam extraction line. Whereas simple evaporation at
a pre-heater system can be readily estimated, an incident where
a time dependant back flow out of the extraction system occurs
has to be considered in detail.
The considered plant is an HIL-plant, given by figure 6. At
t=0 a load rejection to idling is initiated. MS- and RH-control
valves close with a delay of 250ms with a traveling time of
150ms. The failure analysis considers the partial blockage of
the IP extraction’s non-return valve.
The following figure compares the predicted overspeed
behavior at a) normal operation, b) with complete failure of
the non-return valve and c) with the non-return valve partially
blocked having a remaining orifice of 10% of the original area.
Comparison: Overspeed at Failure of IP-extraction non-return Valve
1.12
1.10
1.08
rated speed
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
Figure 10: Comparison of overspeed at a failure of the
non-return valve of the IP-extraction
In the nominal case the turbine accelerates until the
entrapped steam is expanded to the subsequent pressure level.
As soon as an extraction device is blocked, the turbine is
supplied with an additional energy source. In case of a total
NRV failure, this source quickly supplies the amount of steam
entrapped in the extraction. If the NRV is partially blocked, the
supply occurs slowly. Consequently, the acceleration rate is
smaller than in the case of the total blockage. Additionally, the
equilibrium between the acceleration due to the steam supply
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
and the deceleration due to the braking forces are reached at a
smaller overspeed margin.
The entrapped energy does not depend on the investigated
failure case. Consequently, the entrapped energy approach
predicts an additional overspeed of 3.5% due to evaporation
from the IP-extraction for both failure cases.
The full order model calculates a total overspeed of 10.5%
at a complete failure of the non-return valve. That is a surplus
of 3.2% compared to the nominal overspeed of 7.3%.
At a partial blockage with a remaining area of 10% of the
extraction line, the rigorous model calculates an overspeed of
8.6% at load rejection. Thus, in this case the nominal overspeed
is exceeded by merely 1.3%. It is also visible that the peak
value is attained approximately 5.5 s after the load rejection. At
nominal conditions, the peak was attained 1.8s after load
rejection, and at a complete non-return valve failure, the peak
occurred 4s after load rejection.
Impact of the bypass System
In general, HIL-turbines are nowadays equipped with a n
IP-LP-bypass system. This bypass system will open at load
rejection and thus provide a short circuit between the reheater
and the condenser. Thus the hot steam is dumped in the
condenser, its energy content is not converted into rotational
energy.
A plant with an IP-LP-bypass allows for a quick drop in
the reheater pressure at load rejection. Consequently, any
remaining steam through the IP-LP-turbine sections expands
with a significantly lower pressure difference, thus providing
less rotational energy.
Plant with Re-Heat-Control Valves
Considering a plant with RH-control valves, the HP-steam
expands to condenser level instead of re-heat level thus
accounting for additional entrapped energy. Though, a detailed
nominal overspeed analysis reveals almost no difference in the overspeed behavior
overspeed at completely open IP NRV
overspeed at IP NRV blocked at 10%
with and without opening the IP-LP-bypass.
6 7 8 9 10
1.08
1.07
1.06
rated speed
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
without IP-LP-bypass
1.01
with IP-LP-bypass
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time [s]
Figure 11: Overspeed with and without opening the
IP-LP-bypass
8 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.
 Further analysis shows that this effect is due to the fact that SUMMARY
the pressure in front of and behind the HP-turbine decreases Three different approaches for the estimation of overspeed
simultaneously thus allowing just a small amount of steam to after a load rejection were outlined and compared.
flow through the HP-section and thereby generate energy. A simple estimation compares similar turbine
configurations considering the acceleration time constant. This
approach merely needs the effective power output and the
100 inertia of the turbo set. In return, it gives a fast estimate how
90
without IP-LP-bypass
minor changes, e.g. due to a retrofit, effect the resulting
80 with IP-LP-bypass overspeed. As long as these predictions are adequately distant
HP steam mass flow [%]

70 from trip and design values, this method can be applied to

60 decide whether or not the protection system remains sufficient.
50
The entrapped energy approach can be viewed as an
40
enhancement of the theoretical approach in the ASME Power
30
test code [5]. The entrapped and inserted energy is integrated
20

10
and converted into rotational energy, thus resulting in a certain
0
amount of overspeed. Supplementary to power output and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 inertia, these methods need detailed knowledge on entrapped
time [s]
steam volumes and steam states therein, automation and valve
Figure 12: HP-steam mass flow with and without opening the travel times as well as steam mass flows. It produces an
IP-LP-bypass estimate on the overspeed to be expected without needing a
reference to compare with.
Hereby another advantage of the rigorous approach Whenever a thorough overspeed prediction is required, a
becomes obvious. Steam mass flows as well as pressure rigorous simulation model has to be employed. This is capable
transients are accessible. of considering several types of time-dependent influences such
as delayed evaporation or the influence of asymmetric events
like unparallel valve closing, e.g.. .
Plant without Re-Heat-Control Valves Applications of the different approaches were given.
The situation changes completely when a plant without RH
control valves is considered. Permission for Use:
The content of this paper is copyrighted by Siemens
1.3
Energy, Inc. and is licensed to ASME for publication and
distribution only. Any inquiries regarding permission to use the
1.25
content of this paper, in whole or in part, for any purpose must
1.2
be addressed to Siemens Energy, Inc. directly.
rated speed

1.15

1.1 REFERENCES
1.05
[1] Ordys, A. W., Pike, A. W., Johnson, M. A., Katebi, R. M.,
without IP-LP-bypass Grimble, M. J., 1994, Modelling and Simulation of Power
with IP-LP-bypass
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Generation Plants, (London: Springer Lecture Notes).
time [s] [2] Traupel, W., 1988, Thermische Turbomaschinen I und II,
(Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer).
Figure 13: Overspeed with and without opening the [3] Weedy, B. M., Cory, B. J., 1999, Electrical Power Systems,
IP-LP-bypass (Chichester, New York: John Wiley & Sons)
[4] Zimmer, G., 2008, Modelling and Simulation of Steam
Now the situation is completely different. While the Turbine Processes: Individual Models for Individual
overspeed without opening the IP-LP-bypass becomes Tasks, MCMDS, 6, pp 469 – 493.
completely uncontrollable, the overspeed resulting from [5] ASME power test code, Overspeed Trip Systems for Steam
opening the bypass system remains well under the designs Turbine Generator Units. .
limit, which is 25% in this case.

9 Copyright © 2012 by Siemens Energy Inc.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/74826/ on 03/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo