ASME 2004 Power Conference 2004
DOI: 10.1115/power2004-52058
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk Assessment of an L-0 Stage Blade Retrofit

Abstract: The tie-lugs on a 46” last stage blade (LSB) operated in a power plant first commissioned in the early 1960s experienced a long service history of cracking problems. A root cause investigation was performed, which identified the third mode of the bladed disc as operating near resonance. The original configuration is a 4-blade group structure with two tie-lugs. The third mode is a group torsional mode in which maximum stress occurs in the outer lugs. Dynamic stress throughout the rotating stage was calculated u… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…he lower Pcr of RAC can be attributed to the relatively higher water absorptiveness of RG, which should have created a steeper moisture content gradient from the cover layer to the interior layer of the specimen. In turn, the moisture content gradient due to RG can cause higher incompatible drying shrinkage between the interior and exterior RAC, compared to that of NAC [16], thereby facilitating the cover was spalling. Furthermore, the lower bond strength between the rebar and RAC than NAC [17] also contribute to the lower cover spalling load and the faster rate of cover degradation in RAC compared to those of the NAC columns.…”
Section: Results and Discussion:-failure Modes:-mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…he lower Pcr of RAC can be attributed to the relatively higher water absorptiveness of RG, which should have created a steeper moisture content gradient from the cover layer to the interior layer of the specimen. In turn, the moisture content gradient due to RG can cause higher incompatible drying shrinkage between the interior and exterior RAC, compared to that of NAC [16], thereby facilitating the cover was spalling. Furthermore, the lower bond strength between the rebar and RAC than NAC [17] also contribute to the lower cover spalling load and the faster rate of cover degradation in RAC compared to those of the NAC columns.…”
Section: Results and Discussion:-failure Modes:-mentioning
confidence: 99%