Mark V TMR system is installed on our site for Frame V gas turbines. Mark V was initially configured with <I> but in 2008 <I> was upgraded to HMI (computer based and with cimplicity). Two gas turbines are installed at our site and each gas turbine has its own HMI in the GT compartment and we have one HMI in the control room for both the gas turbines for displaying data. The fuel used for the gas turbine is Natural Gas.
We are upgrading MarkV to MarkVIe on one of our gas turbines. I have already mentioned this in a post in June 2018. CSA mentioned in that post that we are going to find lot of undocumented changes in the new logic. He was absolutely right and we have started to notice a lot of changes although we are in commissioning phase yet. I want to mention here that keeping CSA's point in view we asked GE if there are going to be any changes in the logic and as expected their answer was NO. I am posting this just to give feedback to CSA. Dear CSA I am getting a LITTLE too fond of you, TECHNICALLY.
Well the logic is quite another issue. In this post I want to discuss the Dead Bus Breaker closure simulation. We have removed the old wires from the MarkV panel, removed that panel and installed the new panel with MarkVIe. The wires were re-terminated in the MarkVIe panel carefully. There was no change in field instrumentation except the flame scanners. Atlast we are able to getrid of 335V scanners. New scanners are installed and they work on 24V. The application code has been uploaded and HMI's are ready. We have done the offline washing of the machine and after that we have fired the machine and tested it upto the FSNL. While going to the FSNL we have noticed the difference in MarkV and MarkVIe codes. Some of the changes are acceptable while others or not. We are going to ask GE for the required changes.
Currently our GT is in OFF mode. The main BUS is live as we are getting power from other machines. We want to simulate the Dead Bus Breaker closure logic in this scenario. We have tried few things today. According to our understanding if L25A relay (it was L25X in MarkV) is actuated then we can Manually close the breaker. Dead Bus detection is in the logic of L25A (L25X) command. We racked out the 52G breaker and removed its cables from the breaker. We decided to force the L25A command and give manual breaker closure command and check whether the contact changes at the breaker end. To our surprise even after forcing L25A we the contacts of the relay were not changed, neither on breaker side nor on the terminals in the MarkVIe. Should we not force L25A in any case? Is it not allowed? Will contacts of relay not change even if we force it?
If we force the SYNCH CHECK PERMISSIVE and SYNCH CHECK BYPASS, As BUS is live and voltages are there and GT is in OFF mode can we swap the L3_GEN volts and L3_Bus volts? This will tell the L25A command that permissive are present and Generator Voltages are there and BUS is dead. It should actuate the L25A relay command? Am I correct?
If yes the what is the difference between forcing the L25A command AND the second activity? Are we not supposed to or allowed to force the L25A command? This card will actuate the relay ONLY if all PERMISSIVES whether you force it or not?
I hope that I am able to clarify the situation.
We are upgrading MarkV to MarkVIe on one of our gas turbines. I have already mentioned this in a post in June 2018. CSA mentioned in that post that we are going to find lot of undocumented changes in the new logic. He was absolutely right and we have started to notice a lot of changes although we are in commissioning phase yet. I want to mention here that keeping CSA's point in view we asked GE if there are going to be any changes in the logic and as expected their answer was NO. I am posting this just to give feedback to CSA. Dear CSA I am getting a LITTLE too fond of you, TECHNICALLY.
Well the logic is quite another issue. In this post I want to discuss the Dead Bus Breaker closure simulation. We have removed the old wires from the MarkV panel, removed that panel and installed the new panel with MarkVIe. The wires were re-terminated in the MarkVIe panel carefully. There was no change in field instrumentation except the flame scanners. Atlast we are able to getrid of 335V scanners. New scanners are installed and they work on 24V. The application code has been uploaded and HMI's are ready. We have done the offline washing of the machine and after that we have fired the machine and tested it upto the FSNL. While going to the FSNL we have noticed the difference in MarkV and MarkVIe codes. Some of the changes are acceptable while others or not. We are going to ask GE for the required changes.
Currently our GT is in OFF mode. The main BUS is live as we are getting power from other machines. We want to simulate the Dead Bus Breaker closure logic in this scenario. We have tried few things today. According to our understanding if L25A relay (it was L25X in MarkV) is actuated then we can Manually close the breaker. Dead Bus detection is in the logic of L25A (L25X) command. We racked out the 52G breaker and removed its cables from the breaker. We decided to force the L25A command and give manual breaker closure command and check whether the contact changes at the breaker end. To our surprise even after forcing L25A we the contacts of the relay were not changed, neither on breaker side nor on the terminals in the MarkVIe. Should we not force L25A in any case? Is it not allowed? Will contacts of relay not change even if we force it?
If we force the SYNCH CHECK PERMISSIVE and SYNCH CHECK BYPASS, As BUS is live and voltages are there and GT is in OFF mode can we swap the L3_GEN volts and L3_Bus volts? This will tell the L25A command that permissive are present and Generator Voltages are there and BUS is dead. It should actuate the L25A relay command? Am I correct?
If yes the what is the difference between forcing the L25A command AND the second activity? Are we not supposed to or allowed to force the L25A command? This card will actuate the relay ONLY if all PERMISSIVES whether you force it or not?
I hope that I am able to clarify the situation.