Null Bias Control

Welcome to Control.com, the global online community of automation professionals.
Home | View Discussion Topics | Post a New Thread | Posting Guidelines | Become a
Member | Advertise with Us | Control.com shirts, hats, etc. | About Us | Contact Us
Control.com - Nerds in Control
Visit our shop for nerds in control lifestyle products.
Thermal Overload
The threads that wouldn't die...
- PC reliability?
- Windows, real time
- PID loops
- PCs vs. PLCs
- Replacing people
- MS 'monopoly'?
- Software quality
- Where do we go from here?
- Why pay?
Fortune
"Spare no expense to save money on this one."
-- Samuel Goldwyn
RSS Feed
Use this link to get an RSS feed of the Control.com article flow, for private, non-
commercial use only:
www.control.com/rss/
To get a personalized feed, become a member at no cost.
Select a Page Style
Select one of the following styles:
- BluFu
- Classic
(cookies required)
from the Maintenance department...

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current
Posted by saha on 24 February, 2009 - 11:06 am
For GE Gas turbine Frame 5 controlled by Mark 5 TMR system, what can make the Null
Bias current of a Servo Valve incorrect? In other words if the Null Bias is far from -
2.667mA, What should we check to make the null bias current close to -0.267mA?
Reply to this post...
Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am

I'm going to split some hairs here (be very, very detailed) and make some corrections to
what you're describing. This topic can't really be covered completely in a forum like this;
it's complicated. But, we're going to take a short swing at the high points.
In the Speedtronic turbine control panel, the error between a servo-valve output's
regulator feedback and its reference is converted into servo current. When the feedback
of a regulator is equal to the reference the error is zero, so zero error would mean zero
current. But, if zero current is applied to the servo-valve, the fail-safe spring in the servo-
valve will make the hydraulic actuator move to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam.
Null bias current is the value of current that is added to the servo-valve output current to
overcome the tension of the fail-safe spring in the servo-valve. So, some amount of
current must be added to the output when the regulator error is zero (when the regulator
feedback is equal to the reference) to provide sufficient current to overcome the fail-safe
spring to keep the device in position to maintain a steady flow of fuel or air or steam. In
the Mark V, null bias current is a *fixed* value of current, defined in the I/O
Configurator, that is *added* to the output to overcome fail-safe spring tension.
In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale servo current. 100%
servo current is equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
The servo current values you see when the unit is running or when you are manually
positioning a device are almost never the null bias currents. The servo current values you
see when the unit is running are the total servo current being put out by the control
processor, *including* the null bias current value. You can't really see the null bias
current portion of the total current that's being applied to the servo coils *unless the
feedback is nearly exactly equal to the reference.* Then and only then is the servo current
value being displayed equal to the the null bias current and only the null bias current.
And this is done by each control processor independent of the others in a TMR control
panel. So, if one control processor thinks the feedback for some device is different than
the reference and different than another control processor's or processors', the total
amount of current from the control processor will be different than the current from the
other control processor(s). Each control processor will have the *same amount* of null
bias current added to its output, but each control processor's output can be different if
each control processor thinks its feedback is different than the others'.
When the regulator feedback is different from the reference, then the control processor
will adjust its total current output *which includes the fixed null bias current value* to try
to make its feedback value equal to the reference value. And each control processor is
doing this for every servo-valve output. Again, the null bias current is a fixed value,
defined in the I/O Configurator, which is always added to the total current output of each
control processor.
When something like what you are asking about happens, you need to find out what the
feedback values are for all three control processors for the servo output and you will
likely find that one or two of them are very different from the other(s). If all three control
processors don't think the feedback is the same and equal to the reference (the reference
should be the same for all three control processors), then each control processor will
adjust its servo output current to try to make its feedback equal to the reference.
For example, consider the GCV servo output. The GCV regulator feedback is the high-
selected value of LVDT feedback from the two LVDTs on the GCV. Let's say that <R>
thought the GCV position was 57.8% and <S> thought the GCV position was 55.4% and
<T> thought the GCV position was 54.8%, and the reference position for the GCV was
55.2%, then the servo currents would likely be unbalanced. And probably by a fairly
large amount. <R> might be putting out -3.9% servo current, and <S> might be putting
out - 1.9%, and <T> might be putting out -2.5%. Those values are *not* null bias
currents, but each one includes the fixed value of null bias current which is defined in the
I/O Configurator.
In this example, the problem is *not* the fixed null bias current value. The problem is
that the three processors have fairly different ideas about the position of the GCV and
each one is trying to move the valve to the reference position, and they all have to work
together (and that means that one or two are trying to overcome the other) to keep the
valve at a steady state position. The bigger the discrepancy in what each control
processor believes the feedback to be, the bigger the discrepancy in the servo output
currents (which include the fixed null bias current value).
Now, let's talk specifically about the null bias current value. Let's say that the value of
null bias current defined in the I/O Configurator and that was downloaded to and being
used by all three control processors was 2.667 % (the Mark V automatically inverts the
value in the I/O Configurator!). Further, let's say all the control processors were
indicating a GCV position of 49.7%, the measured position was approximately 49.8%,
and the reference was 50.0% and the three servo currrents were all indicating about -2.9%
per control processor, or thereabouts.
If you changed the null bias current value in the I/O Configurator to approximately 3.0
(which would correspond to -3.0%; remember: the Mark V automatically inverts the
value from the I/O Configurator!), downloaded that value to all three control processors,
and re-booted all three control processors, you'd probably find that the indicated valve
position feedback for all three processors was nearly 50.0%, the measured position would
be about 50.0%, and the servo currents would be almost exactly -3.0% per control
processor. In this case, the amount of current being displayed for each control processor
would be nearly equal to the null bias current amount, because each control processor
thought the feedback was nearly identical to the reference *AND* because the amount of
null bias current was exactly equal to what was required to overcome the fail-safe spring
tension.
But it should be clear that unless all three control processors believe their regulator
feedback values to be nearly identical to each other, the servo currents being put out by
each control processor will not be the same. And it has nothing to do with the fixed value
of null bias current being applied to the servo-valve output. The value of current that is
displayed when the unit is running is not just the null bias current unless all three control
processors are using nearly the same value of feedback for the device and the feedback is
very nearly identical to the reference.
The amount of null bias current required to overcome the fail-safe spring is actually a
range: -0.267 mA, +/- 0.133 mA, or, -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA (-1.33% to -4.00%). So,
the actual amount of null bias current required for a particular servo may be anywhere
between -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA and still be within spec. The value of *null bias
current* doesn't have to be exactly equal to -2.667%, but 2.67% is a fairly good value and
works for the majority of servo-valves in use on the majority of GE-design heavy duty
gas turbines. About the only time that null bias servo currents need to be adjusted is for
some DLN valves, and even then, it's questionable whether or not it's really required.
The regulator feedback is compared to the reference 128 times per second, and the total
servo current output is adjusted as necessary to try to make the feedback equal to the
reference. *BUT* the value that's shown on any display or in any VIEW tool capture or
output is only updated four times per second. In other words, the value of servo current
written into the control signal database is only updated 4 times per second, even though it
could be changing at the rate of 128 times per second. (I think that's different for Mark V
LM panels, by the way.)
Lastly, the LFBV uses Liquid Fuel Flow Divider Feedback as its primary control
feedback and the SRV uses P2 pressure feedback as its primary control feedback. So,
feedback is not always position. Some LFBVs have LVDTs as another stabilizing
element of the control loop.
Posted by A. OZTAS on 25 February, 2009 - 11:33 am

In general: Internal mechanical failure in the servo will lead to deviation of null bias
current. Possible causes are, degraded lube oil (clogging of servo ports), wrong
calibration of the null bias (maybe you have refurbished servo valves from none OEM
supplier). Although, there is a way to calibrate the null bias, my advice is to replace it
with new one from OEM.
Good Luck...Tempus Fugit...
Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 4:23 pm

A. Oztas brings up a point I neglected to address. Usually, when I get this question it's
related to one single coil that has a servo current that is out of balance with the others.
One cannot *really* fix the problem with a single control processor's servo current being
greatly different from the other two by changing the null bias current value.
There is only *ONE* fail-safe spring, so changing the null bias value and downloading it
to all three control processors will only mask the problem with the one control processor.
Yes, it might lessen the differential between the three control processor's servo currents,
but it's not addressing the problem of why the one control processor's servo current is out
of balance. That is usually related to the feedback for that control processor being out of
balance with the other two control processors.
If all three control processors have basically the same feedback and it's not very equal to
to the reference, then all three control processors will likely be trying to overcome some
problem with the servo-valve: clogging or varnishing of internal components leading to
sticky or sluggish operation, worn internal passages or o-rings.
Also, a single open-circuit in one of the three coils of a servo-valve will cause the output
currents from the other two control processors to increase to try to supply the "missing"
torque which would have been produced by the lack of current in the one coil. (Some
documentation refers to electro-hydraulic servo-valves as "torque motors.") Usually, in
this case, the difference between the reference and the feedback will also usually be a
little greater than normal.
A. Oztas brings up another issue which has been reported by many sites which have tried
to use rebuilt or refurbished servo-valves. That is, the the fail-safe spring tension usually
is not adjusted per GE-design specifications after refurbishment. Adjusting the spring
tension is not an easy task even in a factory or lab. One needs special equipment to
monitor oil flow-rates and volumes in addition to the currents applied to the three coils.
Every time I've seen people try to adjust null bias spring tension on a servo-valve which
is in service, it has resulted in having to replace the servo-valve (that has been said in
previous posts here on control.com, also).
And usually when they're trying to adjust the spring tension, it's an attempt to bring the
servo current of one control processor into line with the others. And that simply can't be
done with the adjustment on a single fail-safe spring.
As I've said before, I'm saving my pennies to buy Moog. These things are so
misunderstood and people replace them so quickly without understanding how they work
or what they're capable of that Moog must be making a fortune because I know of sites
that have replaced a single servo-valve several times before fixing the real cause of the
problem. In the process, the once perfectly good servos get dirty and are not handled very
well, and are basically useless after that.
Cha-CHING!
Posted by sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Wonder why my earlier reply is not shown here.
NVM.. let me rephrase it again now.
Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)
In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in percentage and not in
amperes. Which mean that -2.667mA is actually shown as -0.267%.
Don't worry too much as your servo is still fine;)
Posted by CSA on 26 February, 2009 - 11:15 am

>Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)
In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in percentage and not in
amperes. Which mean that -2.667mA is actually shown as -0.267%.
From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale servo current. 100%
servo current is equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.
I just looked through several ACALIB.DAT files, from early Mark Vs (with <I>s) and
from very late Mark Vs (with GE Mark V HMIs). None of them had lines to display null
bias current.
ACALIB.DAT is an ASCII text file that ACALIB.EXE uses to configure the displays
seen in AutoCalibrate is running. Would you please open that file on you operator
interface and copy one of the lines which carries the words "null bias" and paste it into a
response?
My suspicion is that someone found the TCQA RAM address for the null bias current
value that gets downloaded from the I/O Configurator, or someone has re-labeled the
servo current line to read "null bias".
Posted by Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-scale
servo current. 100% servo current is equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
According to this explination we tried to compare the current servo values on the Mark V
screen with the ones measured directly on the screw of the board. For instance..
For the SRV (as seen on interface)

<R>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,43
Servo Current -2,50
<S>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,39
Servo Current -2,21
<T>
Required Position 15,53 %
Actual Position 99,37 %
Servo Current -2,87 %
Then checking in the file TC2kReport and we found the screw number and board to
measure the output tension (?) to the servo. That was <R> QTBA screw number 27 and
29. We got -0,4v in <R> ( bearing in mind that the resistance is 1Kohm would be
0,4mA), is that what should be? That is far different from the value we get on the screen
(-0,25 mA), means that that on the screen is not taking account of the null bias?
or we are measuring in a wrong place?

How can i get in the demand desplay the signal's name of the requiered position since I
can not find it in the Longname.dat.
Thanks very much in advance.

Posted by CSA on 15 March, 2009 - 1:36 am

The first thing I see wrong with this post is that if the required position is 15.53% and the
actual position is 99%, then I would say that something is really, really, really, REALLY
wrong with the servo-valve output. Because, if there is that much difference between the
setpoint and the actual, then the control ain't working. Was the unit running when you
were observing these values and taking these voltages?
QTBA-27 & -29 are for servo-valve output #1. There are eight servo-valve outputs from
a Mark V. So, I think the second thing that's wrong with this post is that we don't know if
you were looking at the required position for SVO1 and the feedback for SVO1. In
TC2KREPT.TXT, the column labeled "Signal Name" is the value you need to look up in
the CSP and work "backwards" from that to find the reference signal name.
SVO1 is usually assigned to the Stop/Ratio Valve of a gas fuel system. The reference for
the SRV is usually signal name FPRG and the feedback for the SRV is usually FPG2.
You won't find this in LONGNAME.DAT. You will find it in the CSP.
And, the signal name for the SRV servo current is usually FAGR.
If you want to see what value of null bias current is being applied to a particular servo-
valve output, you need to look in the I/O Configurator for that particular servo-valve
output. And, remember that the value in the I/O Configurator is *inverted* (negative) in
the Mark V. (If you see 2.667, the actual value will be -2.667%, or -0.2667 mA.)
Whatever value of current you see or measure is the total current that's being applied to
the servo coil and includes the value of null bias current that's being applied to the output.
If you've been reading this post, unless the reference and the actual values for the output
are nearly identical the value of current you see on the display will not be the value of
null bias current. From the data you provided, the reference and the actual are *far* from
equal.
Tension is another name for voltage, and since this is a DC output, it can have positive
and negative values of voltage (tension) and current. The typical resistance of a servo coil
used for a GE-design heavy duty gas turbine is approximately 1000 ohms, so -4.0 V DC
would equate to a servo current of approximately -0.4 mA. But, any measurement you
make would only be an assumption unless you know the exact value the coil resistance.
Posted by walter/roberto on 17 March, 2009 - 3:43 am

Hello! Here we go again.
First thing, at the moment we took all that data the turbine was runing at base load (MS
6001B MKV TMR). Since CSA warned us about the wide difference between SRV
required and actual position we went into the old files ( I'd dare to say ever since
commissioning) and found out that that error was as wide as is currently.
Could be that problem related to the inadequate fuel pression supply? According to CSP
FPRGOUT must be 248,1 psi at 99.85% TNH , and our actual P2 is approx 223 psi at the
same TNH. So, as FPRGOUT is not reached ( because of the lack of fuel) the valve goes
practicaly to 99 % of its position in order to provide 248,1 psi. Is that possible?
Other doubt is why we get the signals FPRG and FPG2 in psi and not in % as is should be
to set the position?
Stop Ratio Valve.

<R>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,79 %
Servo Current: -1,87 %
<S>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,57 %
Servo Current: -2,28 %
<T>
Required Position: 15,50%
Actual Position: 99,55%
Servo Current: -1,97%
As we understand in these posts, the servo current we see in the screen is the TOTAL
output current to the servo, ( servo null bias + output current to adjust the error). So, here
the output SVO1 servo current is - 1,87 % for <R> , then our maths don't work out, since
the servo null bias current is already -2,667%. And measuring on the QTBA SVO1
output currrent we get -0,4 mA ( 4%), which would be more logical ( null bias (-
0,2667mA) + output current to the servo). Any clue where are we going wrong? Could be
something wrong with the configuration of SRV Autocalibrate display?
Thanks very much again and sorry for our insistence.

Greetings from Argentina.
Posted by CSA on 17 March, 2009 - 3:29 pm

Hello to Argentina, one of the futbol powerhouses of the world!
"Here we go again." Do you mind explaining that comment, please?
You seem to have pieces of the puzzle and the answers, but aren't able to put them all
together. If the gas fuel supply pressure is less than the P2 pressure reference, then the
SRV is going to go wide open to try to get the P2 to be equal to the reference. Since
there's approximately a 0.7 barg pressure drop across the SRV (typically) that would
mean that, per the information you provided, the supply pressure would need to be
approximately 258 psig to keep the SRV from opening fully.
You did not provide the gas fuel supply pressure reading upstream of the SRV. What is
the supply pressure? I have seen clogged y-strainers cause high pressure drops, and most
units have a y-strainer just upstream of the SRV. Has it been checked for cleanliness
recently? There's not usually a d-p gauge across the y-strainer, and if you can read the
pressure directly upstream of the y-strainer, what is it versus the gas fuel supply pressure
upstream of the SRV?
Some units have some kind of fuel filters upstream of the y-strainer, as well. Some times
they are coalescing filters or just "sock" filters. If they are present, have they been
checked? I was at one site where they said the d-p gauge had never registered any d-p.
When the filter canister was opened, the filter element had been so dirty at some point
that it had ruptured and was effectively non-existent. Someone also commented that they
had had exhaust temperature spread problems a couple of years earlier and that the gas
nozzle tips were found to be plugged with some kind of stringy material, the source of
which was never identified. Turns out the gas fuel filter was one of those sock-type filters
made of wound stringy material.
I want to warn you: That is a bad condition to be operating the unit in if you ever
experience gas fuel supply pressure spikes or sudden load decreases. When the
Speedtronic panel is putting out excessive current to try to open the SRV it can go into
what's deemed "wind-up". Wind-up can take a split-second to recover from if there is a
sudden supply pressure increase or a sudden load decrease ("load rejection") and the unit
can trip on exhaust overtemperature if it's being operated at or near Base Load when the
disturbance occurs because the current has to be reduced at a rate and it might not reduce
the current sufficiently to prevent a "burst" of fuel from being admitted to the
combustors.
If your gas fuel supply pressure can never be greater than approximately 260 psig, you
may be able to ask GE or the OES to recalculate the P2 pressure reference curve to allow
the SRV to operate in a controlling region and fashion. But, be prepared to supply them
with a recent gas analysis and some details of the configuration of the gas fuel supply
system. They may also ask for P/Ns (part numbers) of the gas fuel nozzle tips installed in
the machine, and if they're not OES equipment, be prepared to supply the flow
characteristics from the vendor or the sizes of the orifices in the nozzle tips. This
information will be necessary to be able to determine if a lower P2 pressure might be
possible, and if so, to calculate a lower P2 pressure reference curve. Also, be prepared to
supply all the start-up, warm-up, and acceleration FSR Control Constants.
Can you find the section of ACALIB.DAT for the SRV (SVO1 or SVO01) and post it to
this thread? You have never told us where you were reading the servo currents from, and
if it's from the AutoCalibrate display then you might be right: There might be a problem
with the configuration of ACALIB.DAT.
Did you put the signals FPRG, FPRGOUT, and FAGR on a Demand Display or on the
Logic Forcing Display and observe them versus the readings you are seeing on the
AutoCalibrate Display?
I would submit that you aren't doing anything wrong with the measurements you're
taking, but it's something with the display values or the display that you're reading the
values from. Please put the above signals on a Demand Display or the Logic Forcing
Display and tell us what the differences are between them and the values you are seeing
on the AutoCalibrate display, if that's where you're observing the values from (which,
again, you haven't told us).
0.4 mA (or 4%) would be more likely what one would expect to see if the Mark V were
driving the SRV to be more open than the valve could physically travel such as what you
are describing.
If you will look at Section 7, I believe, of GEH-6195, of the Mark V Application Manual,
you will see that the SRV regulator uses FPRGOUT as the primary reference and FPG2
for the feedback of the regulator summing junction. If the two are equal, then the output
of the summing junction is zero, which means the SRV position is equal to what it needs
to be to make the P2 pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference. After the primary
regulator summing junction, the SRV LVDT feedback is compared to the output of the
summing junction, and if the summing junction output is zero, then no change to valve
position is to be made.
If there is an error between FPRGOUT and FPG2, then that difference will be treated as a
requiring a change to the valve position, and that error will be compared to the current
LVDT position feedback and the servo current will be changed to make the necessary
position change to make the P2 pressure feedback equal to the reference.
The GCV and IGV regulators are "straight" position regulators and the feedback is from
the LVDTs mounted on the device actuators. The LFBV (Liq. Fuel Bypass Valve)
reference is a liq fuel flow rate and the feedback is from the magnetic speed pick-ups on
the Liq. Fuel Flow Divider.
But I'd really like to understand the, "Here we go again!" comment.

Posted by walter/roberto on 19 March, 2009 - 5:07 am

Hello CSA!, again from the land of football (no soccer) no offence..;) , you are invited to
see a football match whenever you want!
First of all let us explain to you that we did not mean to be impolite writing “here we go
again”, we just wanted to express that we are here trying with the same topic again, just
that.
Talking about gas fuel supply pressure upstream the SRV we have 260 psi what would be
pressure enough. After reading your explanation it seems that is not a gas fuel supply
problem. It is more likely to be a problem on the Autocalibrate display. The servo
currents we provided you were taken from the Autocalibrate Display. Here goes the
ACALIB.DAT from the SRV.
PROC Q
SOCKET 1
SVO 1
IOP 21
CARD “TCQA”
TITLE “GAS STOP RATIO VALVE”
PERMISSIVE L3ADJ
POSITION_NEG_SAT 100
POSITION_POS_SAT -0,1
POSITION_SCALE (F2 256,0 0,0 2 ‘% ‘)
MAN_SCALE (F2 128,0 0,0 2 ‘%’)
LINE01 BTEXT ‘DESCRIPTION <R> <S> <T> UNITS’

line 02 data ‘SVO number’ <D0A 09> (C1)
line 03 data ‘Regulator type’ <D0A 19> (H1)
LINE 05 DATA “LVDT #1 0% cal. Ref.” <D0A 60> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)
;LINE 09 DATA “LVDT #3 0% cal. Ref.” <D0A 68> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)
LINE 14 DATA “LVDT #1 Voltage” <D0A 20> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)

LINE 15 DATA “LVDT #2 Voltage” <D0A 26> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)
;LINE 16 DATA “LVDT #3 Voltage” <D0A 32> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)
;LINE 17 DATA “LVDT #4 Voltage” <D0A 60> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)
LINE 23 DATA “Position at POS Cur Sat.” <D0A 10> (F2 256 0 1 “%”)
LINE 24 DATA “Position at NEG Cur Sat.” <D0A 12> (F2 256 0 1 “%”)
LINE 25 DATA “Manual control position” <D0A 14> (F2 128 0 1 “%”)
LINE 27 DATA “Required Position” <D0A 50> (F2 128 0 2 “%”)

LINE 28 DATA “Actual Position” <D0A 58> (F2 128 0 2 “%”)
LINE 29 DATA “Servo Current.” <D0A 56> (F2 100 0 2 “%”)
LINE 31 STATUS 1 R “R STATUS:” <D0A 16>

LINE 32 STATUS 1 S “S STATUS:” <D0A 16>
LINE 33 STATUS 1 T “T STATUS:” <D0A 16>
LINE 34 DATA “Permissive: L3ADJ” L3ADJ
LINE 35 DATA “Permissive: SPEED <28% (TNH)” TNH
Then we compared the signals in the Logic Forcing Dispay to the same ones in the
Autocalibrate Display, and this is what we get:
In Logic Forcing Display: FPRGOUT :248,5 psi; FPG2: 233,5 psi; FAGR: -2,95 %
In Autocalibrate Display: FPRGOUT (required pos): 15,52 %; FPG2( actual pos): 99,65
%; FAGR:-1,99 % all values in <R>
I found a signal which it seems to be the reference for us, FSGR, which in Logic Forcing
Display is 99,59 % and in the Autocalibrate is, as you saw above 99,65%, more closed to
the value. Is it maybe a wrong signal reference we are seeing in the Autocalibrate Display
as FSGR? And last but not least…In our second turbine (TG 2) happens exactly the same
with the SRV autocalibrate display.
Again thanks very much in advance.
Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 2:23 pm

Hombre,
This is not football, it look like that we are ping ponging Now get back reality.
Quick look to your ACALIB data shows that is standard configuration for a FR5. I
wonder whether your system is HMI or I ? Or is it may be in the past upgraded to HMI?
How about the PROM revisions? If your SRV is operating at 99%, definitely the
upstream FG pressure is below the specifications as given by the OEM. However this
should not give the problems that you describe. There are two options for your problems:
1) DONT use ACALIB for calibration and monitoring purposes. Use the logic forcing
display and/or pre-vote data display.
2) Verify the ACALIB data for your GT and the revisions of the PROMs. Cross check
also the IO_CFG SVOx configuration (stroke 100 % or 128 %)
Remember that you dont necessarily AUTOCLIB display to perform calibration. Just use
the basic calibration procedure.
Docendo Discumus

If you've asked this question before on control.com, can you please provide the URL link
to the post?
My bad for making some assumptions (I really try not to do that, but I failed on this
one!). I assumed that you have verified pressure transducer readings against reasonably
accurate gauges and didn't ask you to confirm that. I assumed the P2 pressure
transducer(s) (by the way, how many transducers does the unit have: 1 or 3?) are
reasonably well calibrated and that the feedback (input) is properly scaled in the Mark V.
I've assumed the SRV LVDTs have been calibrated properly and that the valve is
physically at or near full open (something we haven't asked, but which we are asking you
to visually confirm).
I'm going to try to explain this again: When the servo-valve regulator feedback is equal to
the servo-valve regulator reference, the servo-valve regulator error is zero. When the
error is zero, the servo-valve output current would be equal to zero mA. However, the
servo-valve has a spring which, in the absence of current (zero mA), will drive the device
to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam. To overcome the spring and to keep the device
in a steady-state position such that the feedback is equal to the reference, a small amount
of current is continually added to the servo-valve output (at all times!). The only time that
the current being applied to the servo-valve's coils is equal to the null bias current value is
when the feedback is exactly equal to the reference and no additional current is required
to keep the device in a steady-state position to make the feedback equal to the reference.
Remember: The Moog servo-valves used for GE-design heavy duty gas turbines are
polarity-sensitive devices, meaning that the polarity of the applied DC voltage affects the
flow of hydraulic oil through the servo-valve. With zero current, there is no force (torque)
developed by the torque 'motor' in the servo-valve, and the null bias spring will act just
like the application of a positive current, which would be to shut off the flow of fuel or
air or steam. When the regulator error is zero, the output is zero mA, so the null bias
current value defined in the I/O Configurator is continually added to the output. That's
what a bias value is: something that's continually added to something (or subtracted,
depending on the application). So, when the error between the reference and the feedback
is zero, the only current being supplied is the null bias current. And, in my experience
with the Mark V, the displayed value of servo current is always the total amount of
current being supplied, which includes the null bias current. Under normal conditions,
only when the error is zero will the amount of current being supplied to the servo be
equal to the null bias value.
Which brings up another question I haven't thought to ask: To your knowledge, has
anyone tried to adjust the null bias spring tension of the SRV servo-valve?
At this time, based on the information you have provided and what you have chosen to
provide, I cannot explain why the SRV servo current is less than what the expected null
bias current should be. I suspect that in an attempt to try to get the SRV into a controlling
position that someone has changed the null bias current value in the I/O Configurator,
but, we don't yet (!) know what that value is. I might also suspect that someone has done
something with the TCQC card configuration jumpers or even something "unique" in the
CSP to try to rectify this SRV situation. Not being able to look at your CSP and card
jumpers, we can'tell that.
I am hoping that by answering the GCV questions that we can establish that one servo
output is operating as expected, but I'm asking a question that I don't know the answer to,
and I just might get a great big surprise, but I'm willing to take that chance at this point.
You have *NOT* provided all the information asked of you. Please don't arbitrarily
choose what information you are going to provide or what information you deem to be
relevant or necessary. We're not asking questions to be making you run around
needlessly; we're asking because we aren't on site and can't get the information for
ourselves. And because you wrote here asking for help with an issue, we presume that
you are interested in learning something and providing the information requested to help
you resolve your issue. If you don't want to fully participate in the exercise of solving
your issue, then there's no point in continuing this thread.
Specifically:
1) What is the value of null bias current listed in the I/O configurator for SVO1? (Open
the I/O Configurator, and click on the TCQA card, and scroll to the screen for SVO1, and
tell us what is listed in the null bias current field. Exit the card, exit the I/O Configurator,
without saving anything, and you won't disturb any of the I/O Cfgr. settings.)
2) Precisely, where are you measuring this 260 psi supply pressure? At the SRV
inlet/supply pressure gauge in the Gas Fuel Compartment, which would be downstream
of the y-strainer, or some place in the gas fuel supply piping upstream of the two units' y-
strainers? From a pressure transducer on the gas fuel supply? From a pressure transducer
on a metering tube and orifice in the gas fuel supply piping upstream of the unit's y-
strainers?
3) Has anyone visually checked the y-strainer recently?
4) Are there any filters upstream of the y-strainers, and if so, what is the d-p across the
filters and have they been visually checked recently?
Now, eight new questions:
1) Please confirm the actual, physical position of the SRV is at or near full open.
2) What is the GCV position indication (from the LVDT feedback, usually signal name
FSG (Fuel Stroke-Gas))?
3) What is the value of FSR?
4) What is the value of servo current being applied to the GCV (usually signal name
FAG)?
5) What Diagnostic Alarms are active when the unit is running? (Include any locked-out
Diag. Alarms in the list)
6) Please tell us exactly where you're measuring this 260 psi, and is it psig or could it be
psia?. Many GE-design heavy duty gas turbines use a metering tube and orifice flow-
meter to measure gas fuel flow-rate, and the static pressure transducer is usually
calibrated in psia, not psig. So, if you're reading a static pressure transducer for the
supply pressure (and this is usually located upstream of the gas fuel y-strainer), please
confirm the calibration and scaling of the input (the signal name is usually FPG1,
sometimes, FPG3).
7) What are the pressures on the three gas fuel pressure gauges in the Gas Fuel
Compartment? One should be SRV inlet ("supply" pressure; one should be Gas Fuel
Valve Intervalve Pressure (P2 pressure); and one should GCV discharge pressure, or gas
fuel manifold pressure.
8) Sometimes the pressure drop across the SRV is a little higher; sometimes a little lower.
But 0.8 bar to 1.3 par is a typical range. Also, can you describe the SRV? Is it in a
combined casting with the GCV or is it a separate valve from the GCV? If it's a separate
valve, is it a rotary valve or a plug valve?
The fact remains, if the SRV is at 99.93% and the P2 pressure reference is 248.5 psig and
the actual P2 pressure is 232.5 psig (and I presume you are reading this from the P2
pressure transducer feedback on the Mark V operator interface display; can you please
tell us what the P2 pressure gauge reading is?) then there is *not* sufficient flow capacity
from your gas fuel supply to achieve required P2 pressure. It's that simple. There would
generally be no other reason for the SRV to be open so high and the P2 pressure to be
lower than the P2 pressure reference.
Now, is the P2 pressure transducer calibrated properly? Is the feedback scaled properly in
the Mark V? If the gauges in the Gas Fuel Compartment are relatively accurate, this
would be a good indication of whether or not the transducer(s) is(are) calibrated properly
and the feedback is scaled properly.
If the P2 pressure gauge in the Gas Fuel Compartment is reasonably accurate and is
indicating roughly the same pressure as the transducer feedback, then there's just not
enough supply pressure and flow capacity to allow the SRV to operate in a controlling
range (which should be something less than 99.93% and less than full open). Because,
even if the SRV LVDTs are calibrated properly, the regulator for the SRV is a pressure
control loop and it will put the SRV at whatever position it needs to be at to make the
actual P2 pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference, provided there is sufficient pressure
and flow capacity upstream of the SRV to allow the SRV to control the P2 pressure
without going full open (and that just doesn't seem to be the case in this instance, for two
turbines).
The reason we're asking about the GCV information is to try to establish that at least one
valve is operating in a properly controlled fashion, and to see what the value of servo
current is that is being applied to that valve when operating in a properly controlled
fashion.
FSGR (Fuel Stroke-Gas Ratio) is the typical signal name for the SRV LVDT feedback;
it's not a reference, is the actual feedback.
The only other thing I could think of to cause the SRV to behave as it's being described is
that if the P2 pressure transducer was not properly calibrated or the feedback (input) was
not properly scaled, but I would expect that reasonably accurate gauges would have
alerted you to this issue much sooner.
FPG2 is not the SRV position, and it's not listed in the ACALIB.DAT section you posted.
Lines 27, 28, and 29 in the section you copied displays the valve's reference position,
actual position, and servo current, respectively. I can't recall if the reference position is
"active" when the unit is running, or if it's only "active" when the valve is being manually
positioned using AutoCalib. (The answers to the GCV question may help with that!)
FPG2 is the scaled feedback (in psi) from the P2 pressure transducer(s), which should be
calibrated in psig (gauge pressure). If you have more than one P2 pressure transducer, the
you can look at the signal name FPG2 in the Prevote Data Display to see the individual,
pre-voted values of the three feedbacks, and then report them to us, please.
Lastly, the amount of null bias current being applied to the SRV as understood in this
thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the SRV appears to be at or near
full open in an attempt to control P2 pressure at 248.5 psig. But it can't because the
upstream supply pressure and flow capacity isn't sufficient to be able to do that. That's
what the data you have provided to date tells us. Perhaps the answers you haven't
provided and the answers to the new questions will lead us in a different direction, but it's
not really likely. And, it has nothing to do with null bias current.
I agree with Ore Rotundo; the section of ACALIB.DAT that you have provided seems to
be fairly generic.
Please provide all the information requested, and we can try to get to the bottom of your
problem, which, again, should not be related to the null bias current value.
Posted by servo_2001 on 18 March, 2009 - 4:39 pm

I would like to clarify that the answer is not just the OEM as the solution to the problem.
To null the servovalve is the easiest calibration you can perform to a servovalve. Do your
homework and you will see that there are reputable repair facilities that have been
repairing these valves for some time. Our company has specialized in electro-hydraulic
servovalves since 1969. We were schooled at Moog on the repair of their valves. Do not
let the OEM make you think they are the only game in town.
Posted by CSA on 19 March, 2009 - 12:19 am

What's missing from your reply? Contact info for your company.
What's also missing from your reply? The fact that adjusting servo null bias springs is
best done in a "laboratory" environment, with controlled flow-rates and measuring
equipment. It's easy under those circumstances.
The problems being discussed here are not generally related to null bias spring
adjustment, but rather the methods of applying a null bias current and why they are
necessary and how to "measure" them. And how the currents being applied (including the
null bias current) can be out of balance.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone claim that the OEM was the only game in town. There
have been other posts here on control.com which listed firms which refurbish Moog
servo-valves. Can you add yours to the group?
Posted by Mehul on 21 March, 2009 - 6:50 am

Dear CSA,
Here I have concept of NULL Bias, You are requested to confirm the same.
There is good talk on the Null Bias Current for the servo. We can use the drawing of
Servo along with schematic of IGV or GCV-SRV to understand the concept.
For this talk reference, let us take IGV scheme, the IGV is stable at one position 57 deg.
By viewing the scheme of IGV actuating Piston & Cylinder, both side of Piston must be
equal pressured, as CSRGVOUT is CSRGVBAK(for Mark_IV) to keep IGV at 57 deg
STABLE.
Now look at the drawing of Servo, to maintain the both sides of piston equally
pressurized, the spool should be at the middle of the bushing(such that it neither allows
any port{connected to one side of piston} to drain nor gives extra pressure to Port{Other
side of Piston}). And thus flapper (Feedback Sleeve) should be at centre and so the
armature should be at the centre. And to keep the armature at physical centre position,
amount of current applied, is null bias current.
Consider what would happen, if the spool is not coming back to centre position.
Definitely! it will drive the IGV in either extreme position.
Now consider, the IGV is required to be open to maintain the Exhaust temperature. The
Controller will change the current to servo such that the armature will forces spool to
move. The movement of the spool will be such that one port will be connected to
pressure source and at the same time, opens the other port to the drain. This will create
the pressure diff. on both side of piston. Ultimately Piston will move the IGV to open. At
the end, when CSRGVOUT=CSRGVBAK(command=feedback), once again armature is
required to be at to null position i.e. centre position, which is done by providing null bias
current by controllers
Similarly the mechanical null bias key has been provided to adjust the armature at centre
positon.
Thanks in advance

I will confirm all but the last statement about the "null bias key".
If by null bias key you mean a tool to adjust the null bias spring tension, then, absolutely
no! No one should be adjusting the null bias spring tension of a three-coil electro-
hydraulic servo-valve, with the exception of a facility with the appropriate means to do so
and verify proper results.
Mehul, I really appreciate your questions, and anyone else's who's reading this thread and
has some interpretation of this concept they wish to confirm. I find this to be one of the
most difficult concepts to try to explain to people, with or without the ability to use
diagrams or pictures, which doesn't seem to make much difference. I am almost
desperately searching for the right words and the right means to explain this to people.
I think that one of the things that most people misunderstand about servo-valves as used
on GE-design heavy duty gas turbines is that they are not like the overwhelming majority
of most actuator outputs on most other types of control systems. Instead of an output
that's proportional to desired position such as a 4-20 mA output being at 12 mA for a
reference of 50%, this one is proportional to the error between the reference and the
feedback, plus a null bias current. And if the error is zero then the output is zero, plus a
null bias current. If the error is greater than zero, then the output is greater than zero plus
a null bias current.
It gets even more complicated when there's more than one coil in the servo-valve, such as
in a TMR control panel, and each control processor can output a different current and
each servo-valve output includes a null bias current (the same amount of current) to
overcome a single spring.
So, to anyone reading this thread, if you have some idea about how to make this any
easier to understand, PLEASE write and let me know. If it would help to try to relate it to
some other control system concept or input or output, that would be great. But, I've been
trying for years to put this in simple, understandable terms, and I've yet to find the right
words, with or without pictures.
Posted by Mehul on 26 March, 2009 - 4:59 am

Thanks once again CSA.
Definetly , one MUST NOT adjust spring tension to set null bias current without proper
FACILITY .
I mentioned it here to confirm the null bias adjustment device available with the servo.
Otherwise, one should prefer to replace servo & maitaining clean Pall filter other than
service,claening, replacement of spares for servo.
Regarding Servo Valve Maintenance, one of my earlier Comment in "IGV TEMP

CONTROL TRIP" topic.
"Another thing, cleaning the moog servo or replacing the filter, spares of moog servo
requires the extream extream exteram(03 Times)care to be taken for the cleanliness of the
tool tackels, oils, Hands of personals and envoirement at which the servicing is being
carried out. So if possible try to replce the servo, then serviceing the servo."

Many electronic manufacturers used to give away small screwdrivers to use to adjust the
potentiometers on printed circuit cards. There used to be a joke that they gave away those
"tweakers" (as they were affectionately called) so that technicians and supervisors would
misadjust the pots and have to call the manufacturer in to readjust the pots.
I often wonder if Moog doesn't include the little hex key/wrench for the same reason.
It's interesting to note that the originator of this thread hasn't replied to the questions
asked to try to help with their issue (which likely isn't related to null bias current, but may
be related to a misadjustment of the null bias spring!).
Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 1:25 pm

Dear Servo 2001
Maybe its good to highlight that, we are not fundamentally promoting the OEM's and one
thing is sure that we are also not getting paid for it to do it! Our intention is to give the
control.com community our opinions and suggestions in order to help them out with their
technical issues. The servo valve users are plenty and indeed healthy competition is
welcome, such as after market parts. Finally its all about money, in order to safeguard the
reliability of their asset, professional companies will purchase anyway OEM servos.
There are plenty of other GT users who are purchasing repaired parts such as the servo
valves. I know some of these GT users buying reconditioned servos who are complaining
after having the servo valve in service less then a year, believe or not!
Docendo Discumus
Posted by minister on 17 July, 2009 - 9:45 am

I would like to add some more interesting facts and kindly ask for explanation.
We have 4 Frame 5 non-dln turbines running in the island mode. I have found something
odd troubleshooting the moog of one of the machines, that randomly changes its bias
causing 3% position error - temporary solution we use(unit online) is to recalculate new
Null Bias measuring coils voltage and having coil resistance measured before, then
downloading the VSVO. This way it's fine for some time, usually until next start-up. I
have to mention, that we have already tried three different Moogs with the same result.
Back to the moog story. The odd thing is that each unit SRV, GCV and IGV servo
currents change at the same time from one stable value to another one (usually by the step
of 3, 4 %). The same time error doesn't change. I have trended hydraulic pressure 96HQ
but there is no sign of the event. Also no sign on P125DC and N125DC. I'm running out
of ideas what to trend.
Also polarity has been checked many times so far by confiming that MKVI is able to
drive the valve by each servo coil separetely.
Although it happens on all four units, the event doesn't occure at the same time looking
from unit to unit (see my trends).
Please check the data collected I uploded below:

http://www.speedyshare.com/476835562.html
Do not be surpirsed looking at these trends. One of our machines (G4) also have out of
spec, positive Null Bias, since commisioning by GE (MKVI config value -12, changing
moogs didn't help, anyway machine is controlled correctly.)
Any explanation on the moog servo current changes? Why all units affected?
Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 2:14 am

You say you have four turbines and you're only having a problem with one. Or at least
that's what it sounds like. Actually, I can't really tell how many units are having the
problem now that I re-read the message.
But, here goes anyway.
You've changed the servos; you say the problem happens with all the servos.
You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when this happens, or before this
happens.
Do these units have IS barriers?
If you've been reading this thread, you know that the null bias current is the current
required to overcome the null bias spring tension. So, if the current required to overcome
the spring tension changes, it would seem that either something is making the spring
tension change or something is causing the coil resistance to change.
Servo valves are about the most misunderstood device I've ever run across. They're
nothing more that electromagnets which produce small amounts of torque. They're just
coils of wire through which DC current is applied; the polarity and magnitude of the
current causes the direction and amount of torque to change. How can they be so
complicated? They're not.
The overwhelming cause of "failure" is oil cleanliness and oil temperature. There's just
not much more to them than that. Very tiny, orifice-like passages and clearances which
are very susceptible to dirt and varnishing.
Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature?
I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used as the "pressure regulators"
for the hydraulic pump. This causes excessive flow through the hydraulic pump.
The hydraulic system of a GE-design heavy duty gas turbine is basically a static system,
meaning that under steady-state operating conditions there is no flow. There is only flow
when a valve or the IGVs are being commanded to move.
I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not properly in service. This also
causes the flow through the hydraulic pump to be excessive which could be a cause of
high oil temperature.
Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the TSVOs? And all the
configuration settings on the VSVOs? Of the unit with the problem vs. a unit without the
problem? What is the dither set to on the unit with the problems vs. a unit which seems to
be running well (not the one with the whacko null bias value).
It just doesn't seem like the servos can be the problem here, especially if all of them on
one unit are behaving similarly. There's something else that's common to the servos that
the problem.
Another couple of months and I should be in a position to make my bid for Moog. The
way these things get changed on a whim, they must be raking in the cash! I just want to
buy the GE-design heavy duty gas turbine line, and I'll be paying my business loan off
very early--I'm sure of that.
The 125 VDC battery supply voltage is converted to voltages by the rack power supplies
which are then used by the VSVOs to drive the servos. It wouldn't seem likely that a
problem with 125 VDC battery voltage would manifest itself in the servo outputs.
There's something different about the hydraulic system of that unit. Or, possibly even
and, there is some configuration and/or jumper settings that are not correct. But, for a
Moog servo to be changing its null bias spring tension requiring on-line null bias current
changes? That's just pretty not right.
Anyway, that's about all I can think of. To address what I thought the problem was. Now,
I'm not so sure.
One thing's for sure though: When I own that piece of Moog, I' won't be contributing to
threads like this on control.com. I know better than to kill the goose that lays golden
eggs.

Thank you CSA for your reply.
>You say you have four turbines and you're only having a problem with one. Or at least
that's what it sounds like. <
Actually we have problem with two servos:

1. On one machine the SRV changes it's Null Bias mostly after restart (I have greased the
stem already and stroke after many times, result the same, so it's probably not the
friction). This Moog creates error >3%, to avoid trip exceeding 5% value we just
downloaded recalculated null bias. This really drops the error to zero. Because of
production I can't just stop the machine to do it off-line. (I'm aware about on-line
software download, but hardware, single VSVO I tried many times with no bad luck).
2. Another machine GCV has positive Null Bias (MKVI RegNullBias =-11.96), and it's
not the polarity.
Investigating these two issues I trended all machines and found interesting fact that I
shared on previous post.
>You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when this happens, or before
this happens. <
The only alarm we have is the increased position error that can lead to turbine trip. Again,
it's not the machine with positive NullBias value.
>Do these units have IS barriers? <
Yes we have the barriers on SRV and GCV (some MTL-7765ac), none for IGV. I have it
planned to run the machine bypassing them, what do you think? Especially, that two
other barriers for seismics on the same machine had failed.
>Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature? <
I'm going to trend all servo currents with oil temperature starting this afternoon. Right
now (2:42PM) the header temperatures are 57 to 58 deg C, outside ambient 46 deg C (air
oil cooler).
>I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used as the "pressure regulators"
for the hydraulic pump. This causes excessive flow through the hydraulic pump. <
That's another good hint you gave me. I found our technician resetting hydraulic pressure
on the PSV instead of using pump PCV. I will check remaining units.
>I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not properly in service. <
No accumulators here.
>Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the TSVOs? And all the
configuration settings on the VSVOs? Of the unit with the problem vs. a unit without the
problem? <
All TSVO the same (jumpers), all MKVI hardware configs the same (to be sure, I have
also compared m6b with the MKVI).
Dither Amplitude 2.0, Freq 100hz on all Moogs (including IGV), on all units.
The SRV/GCV we have is the old design, containing both valves in one body, don't think
we have to disable the dither as someone posted dither disabling is recommended for new
types of valves.
Regards!
Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 4:39 pm

One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop. Even if the LVDT calibration is
WAY off, the pressure loop is going to put the valve at the position required to make the
actual P2 pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference. It doesn't make any difference if the
valve thinks it's at 35.4% and it thinks it should be at 28.4% or 44.4%, or if it's actually at
31.4% stroke (physical measurement) and it thinks it should be at 37.1% and the LVDT
feedback says it's at 35.9%. As long as the actual P2 pressure is equal to the P2
pressure reference, everything is perfectly okay. When it's not perfectly okay is when
the unit is a TMR panel and the three servo currents are not fairly equal; THAT'S a
problem.
I'll bet any amount of money the differential is related to the calibration method of that
combined SRV/GCV assembly.
Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the servos? For all of the
turbines? A simple chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4
Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain
SRV
GCV
IGV
I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark VI panels; if so, please
remind me.
As far as dither goes, my personal belief is that none is needed with most of these legacy-
style actuators.
I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems over the years. They appear to
be fine, but they're not. Also, some seem to be temperature and current sensitive when
they start "failing."

Dear CSA,
Thank you this time for your reply!
> One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop.

---- snip ----
As long as the actual P2 pressure is equal to the P2 pressure reference, everything is
perfectly okay. When it's not perfectly okay is when the unit is a TMR panel and the
three servo currents are not fairly equal; THAT'S a problem. <
Thanks for reminding that. The above was also mentioned many times on this forum.
Although it's pressure control loop our concern is not to be tripped by position error.
>Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the servos? For all of the
turbines? A simple chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4
Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain
SRV 2.4/1.8 3.9/1.8 3.2/1.8 -11.69/1.8
GCV 3.3/1.8 3.1/1.8 3.3/1.8 2.65/1.8
IGV 2.61/6.8 2.67/6.8 2.82/6.8 3.1/6.8
The way we calibrate these valves is to lift the stem and insert and leave filler gauge to
get rid of the gap between the actuator and valve stem. This way the valve is still closed
and LVDT indicates 2.5% difference from its rest position.
Hope this is the way.
> I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark VI panels; if so, please
remind me. <
TMR, sorry, should have mention that at the beginning.
>I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems over the years. They appear to
be fine, but they're not. Also, some seem to be temperature and current sensitive when
they start "failing." <
Can I bypass these barriers? I know it's for EEX zone but I do not recall (I'm not 100%
sure) seeing them on 9E turbine in Europe for example.
After trending the servo currents jumps together with Oil Temperature no relation could
be observed (during night when temperature decreases, the frequency of jumps seems to
be the same)
Can anyone trend servo currents for at least 12hours to observe if these jump like it
happens here? I do not understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen
on all machines but at different times. We have running hrs varying from 6000 hrs to
12000 hrs and we have never change the lube oil. I wonder if these jumps happen
anywhere else?
Regards!

You have a TMR control system. That means that each control processor has it's own
gain and null bias for each coil of the servo valve.
Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each servo of each turbine?
One thing all manufacturers do is to "copy" functions to similar applications, like the
LVDT position error check. Since the position isn't the problem for the SRV (the inability
to control P2 pressure is the problem), do you think it makes sense to use the same
settings for the SRV as for, say, the IGVs or the GCV?
I'm still confused about how the position error can start out at one value (even if it's zero)
and then change when the unit is running. And I'm confused when you say you download
new null bias value(s). Do you download a new value to one processor? Or to all three
processors, one at a time?
As MIKEVI says, there might be a problem with one of the processors thinking that the
P2 pressure isn't the same as the other processors, and that would cause that processor to
change its current output and the other processors would have to change theirs to
counteract the other. This happens a LOT, and if you have three P2 pressure transducers
and one of them drifts or has a leak or a wiring problem, that can cause a problem like
this.
How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have? One or three or ????
Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to see what they're doing
before and after this problem?
When you put the feeler gauges into the gap prior to performing the calibration of the
SRV and GCV, that's to PUT them in their true zero position. When you remove the
feeler gauges and the valve stems drop and the indication goes negative, that's what's
SUPPOSED to happen.
The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't held open by the actuator
bottoming out. Some places it's called "closed end overtavel". The true zero stroke
position for these valves is NOT with the valve stem fully down when the valve is
closed; in that position the valve stem is not touching the bottom of the valve plug.
The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and the valve stem is touching
the bottom of the plug, and that's what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in
contact with the bottom of the valve plug when the valve is closed and ensure that at the
end of the calibration procedure that the valve will return to the same position as when it
started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs when run).
The use of barriers is entirely a function of the code and requirements of the country or
regulatory agency where the unit is installed, OR the policy of the company which is
operating the unit. There are thousands of units operating in all manner of applications
around the world which do not and have never had IS barriers installed.
So, only you can decide if you can operate without the barriers. We don't know the
application or the site conditions so we can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if
the IS barriers are installed on the LVDTs or the servo-valve outputs.
When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the temperature of the
hydraulic pump discharge. You're trending the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the
hydraulic pump.
I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think I'm getting a handle on it, you
say "... I do not understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all
machines but at different times...." By "three" servos do you mean all the coils of a single
servo valve? Or do you mean all the servos on all the machines? You say it's only on the
SRV, but then you say it happens on three servos on all machines at different time. Is this
happening on the SRV of all machines at different times?
Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would change during operation, or
why the coil resistance would change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be the
most likely cause for either, but I've never heard of this problem, or a problem described
like this.
And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone attributes an occurrence to this
reason or that reason without any real evidence that this reason or that reason is causing
the problem.
You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null bias spring tension is
changing.
All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing) and that you can change
(reduce) the position error by changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the
Mark VI" and we don't know if you're downloading the change to one VSVO or to all
three VSVOs one at a time.
I would really like to help solve this problem, but, again, every time I think I'm
understanding what's happening then I re-read the posts and I get confused even more.
I really think MIKEVI has suggested a good course of action, and that you need to also
trend the P2 pressures of all the processors to try to understand what's happening.
You should be trending the P2 pressure of each processor, the LVDT feedback from both
LVDTs as read by each processor, and the servo current outputs from each processor.
I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the outrageous null bias
current. You say you've replaced this servo and the new one still behaves the same
way???? And you've tested the servo current polarity under the individual control of each
processor for this device (GCV or SRV or ???) and it will closely maintain the position
with only one processor????
I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've previously said that the GCV of one
unit is the one with the outrageous null bias. We really need to know what the running
servo currents for each processor are for the servo with the outrageous null bias value.
Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the actuator of the device which this
servo is installed on?
I apologize if my response seems a little "random" but I'm really baffled by this and at the
same time very interested to solve these problems.
You should know this: On every GE-design heavy duty gas turbine operating anywhere
in the world, there is likely some error in position feedback vs. position reference on one
or more servo outputs. Some more than others. But, they are all running.
And we're only talking about position feedback vs. position reference. I have been to
more sites that have incorrectly calibrated LVDT feedback so that the actual physical
position is way off from the indicated LVDT feedback. And the turbines still run. And
run well.
I heard a former colleague say once a long time ago about GE-design heavy duty gas
turbine control, "This ain't rocket science." And he was very correct. If it were rocket
science, GE would have been out of business a long time ago because if every servo
output had to operate with zero error the units wouldn't run. But they do run, and they run
very well.
Sure, in a perfect world we'd all like the position error to be zero, and it should be zero.
But, it doesn't have to be zero. What counts is: Is the position error increasing or
decreasing?
This has been said many times before on control.com: The value of something today isn't
really informative. It's the value today vs. the value last hour or yesterday or two days
ago or one week ago or one month ago or six weeks ago, and whether or not that value
has changed in that time and how fast it has been changing.
Sure, a L.O. header temperature value of 90 deg C isn't good, but if the unit has been
running for four years with an indicated L.O. Header temperature of 90 deg C, would you
say it's been running incorrectly? Or would you go to find another way to verify that
reading?
In your case, the position reference error seems to be changing relatively quickly and
then remaining relatively constant. From what we can understand. Which changes with
every reading.
Sorry; I'm both perplexed and intrigued. And, I'm a very literal person (but you couldn't
tell that could you?).

CSA,
thanks for your post. I appreciate your time spent at the computer.
> Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each servo of each turbine?
The NullBias values I gave are the same in each processor for each servo coil (RST). You
confused me a little with this question. Using Toolbox I have (v11.02.09), when I select
Download Configuration, it goes directly to all three VSVO cards, with no possibility of
selecting destination processor (R, S or T). It could be only possible if all three VSVOs
are in Simplex config like for example Thermocouple VTCC cards. To set-up hardware
config you only have one common field, not three separate fields for R/S/T.
To have different NullBias values in each R/S/T card, the only way that comes to my
mind is to remove Ethernet cables during download. Have you heard about MKVI having
different NullBias values for coils on the same servo? What is your way to achieve that?
Gains are of course the same for R/S/T as NullBias and the rest of the HW config.
More on that, I confirmed the config with TSM, gain and null bias values are the same in
all three processors.
What I found using TSM checking regulators (command A*pplications -> R*egultors)
and then servos (commands S1 for SRV, S3 for GCV and S4 for IGV) : G1/G2/G4 have
parameter FIX 1 and FIX 2 equal to zero (for all three GCV/SRV/IGV servos) and MKVI
LVDT Min/Max (0/100% position) values at LIMIT HI VOLTS and LIMIT LO VOLTS.
The G3, the one that must have had SRV Null Bias corrected after two last restarts has
MKVI values of SRV and GCV LVDT min/max in FIX 1/FIX 2 fields and LIMIT HI
VOLTS and LIMIT LO VOLTS are different by around +-0.100 (FIX 1 + 0.100, FIX 2 -
0.100). IGV is the same as G1/G2/G4. I'm not sure if you are familiar with this part of
TSM. I found it today looking for any unusual thing. It may be that someone here started
the calibration and haven't fix Min/Max value - have no idea. Can only check on stopped
unit. Also TSM has a lot of stuff that can be checked.
> do you think it makes sense to use the same settings for the SRV as for, say, the IGVs
or the GCV? <
For some reason we have it (5% position error trip), I can't think of the situation that this
protection is needed, but as it is know that SRV is fuel gas pressure controlled valve, its
LVDT is used as a feedback for VSVO card (SRV VSVO regulator type is
2_LVPosMax), so loosing the LVDT the card probably doesn't know how to adjust servo
current (what direction to go).
Am I close?
> Do you download a new value to one processor? Or to all three processors, one at a
time? <
OK. See the trend I have uploaded below:

The whole story started there

You can see that one day we started having the error. Servo command had to be higher
then the position required to drive SRV to desired position. Suddenly either SRV position
increased by overcoming the friction or the moog current increased for some reason and
then MKVI reduced SRV command and so we got both value (position and command) at
the same level. I'm not sure what was the reason I can only speculate as above (as I said I
greased the SRV/GCV stems with the same result after restart). Then I started my
research and found such Moog current step changes on all machines (but again, on other
machines the do not cause an position error). Once again, on each machine. lets say on
GT1, all three moogs SRV/GCV/IGV indicates the step change at the same time.
Please see the trend I included in my first post. I highlighted each GT set of moogs with
different color.
Again, in my post I wanted to confirm if anyone has ever observed these step changes, I
had mention GT3 servo problem as an origin.
So, If you help me with all my problems I will be very grateful.
>As MIKEVI says ----snip----
>How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have? One or three or ????
>Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to see what they're doing
before and after this problem? <
I have just trended P2 (R/S/T) and see nothing (flat lines during the step change that just
happened on GT1 and GT3). Will include it in GT3 trend at next start-up.
> When you remove the feeler gauges and the valve stems drop and the indication goes
negative, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. <
Yes, that's right (the value (negative) is from 3% to 2.5% depending on machine).
>The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't held open by the actuator
bottoming out. <
That is exactly how I understand the valve. I'm assuming the gap is for safety if the seat is
worn and no gap the valve will leak. Also the drawing say to check that gap is within
desired limits and if no grind the piston rod to obtain it.
> The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and the valve stem is touching
the bottom of the plug, and that's what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in
contact with the bottom of the valve plug when the valve is closed and ensure that at the
end of the calibration procedure that the valve will return to the same position as when it
started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs when run). <
No doubt about it.
>The use of barriers is entirely a ----snip----.

> So, only you can decide if you can operate without the barriers. We don't know the
application or the site conditions so we can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if
the IS barriers are installed on the LVDTs or the servo-valve outputs. <
Thanks for advice. I will feel more confident doing it.
>When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the temperature of the
hydraulic pump discharge. You're trending the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the
hydraulic pump. <
No other option for me right now.
> I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think I'm getting a handle on it,
you say "... I do not understand why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on
all machines but at different times...." By "three" servos do you mean all the coils of a
single servo valve? Or do you mean all the servos on all the machines? You say it's only
on the SRV, but then you say it happens on three servos on all machines at different time.
Is this happening on the SRV of all machines at different times? <
Again, as stated the thing above (it's really difficult to me to explain it as English is not
my native language).
What I can trend, is jump/step change up/down/up/down (and so on) of the total current
of each Moog. But I observed looking at card points ServoIOutxNVR/S/T that it happens
also in the same direction on all three coils (second screenshot I attached, you can call it
static observation). So, on one single turbine, the change happens at the same time on all
9 coils (3xSRV, 3xGCV, 3x IGV), and you can observe the same on all machines but
from machine to machine it's not synchronized. Please see again the trend and color
marked GT's.
>Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would change during operation,
or why the coil resistance would change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be
the most likely cause for either, but I've never heard of this problem, or a problem
described like this.
>And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone attributes an occurrence to
this reason or that reason without any real evidence that this reason or that reason is
causing the problem.
>You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null bias spring tension is
changing. <
I agree, I don't want to risk and disconnect servo coils one by one online. What I found
after stop that the current is different each time (I register in Excel sheet all NullBias
calculations), not resistance. It stays on all machines 1200- 1300ohm on all machines
(barriers give additional resistance, I think I checked that a year ago).
> All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing) and that you can change
(reduce) the position error by changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the
Mark VI" and we don't know if you're downloading the change to one VSVO or to all
three VSVOs one at a time. <
All three at one time. Simply calculation, have all three resistance noted before the start
last month, I measure the voltage for each coil separately, divide V/R, summarize all
three results and finally divide by three to get average (negative result must be placed as
positive in MKVI config and so on). This is the GE calculation way given by the
ControlSpec and it works (offline :), for me also online)
>I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the outrageous null bias
current. You say you've replaced this servo and the new one still behaves the same
way???? <
Actually It has been replaced by GE TA, that left it saying it's fine. They just wanted to
leave the place :))))
> I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've previously said that the GCV of one
unit is the one with the outrageous null bias. We really need to know what the running
servo currents for each processor are for the servo with the outrageous null bias value. <
I wrote G4 - on the trend you will find G4\signal - that was the reason I used it instead of
GT4. Affected valve is SRV.
> Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the actuator of the device which this
servo is installed on? <
I will check, I have to re-read your posts guys and prepare a checklist)
Finalizing the story: you can see that we have two major problems - very high positive
null bias on one machine running relatively good - position error that disappear after
start-up or we have to help it disappears changing NullBias value (we did it last time
instead of waiting).
...And one minor that is servos current step changes on all machines that I accidentally
discovered.
It took all day to think about answers also have a headache. Sorry if I messed something
again.
Regards
Posted by CSA on 21 July, 2009 - 12:42 am
In the early days of Toolbox, it was possible to download to individual VSVOs. Maybe
that's not the case any longer; I haven't seen a Mark VI in a couple of years.
I have never seen trends like this. My initial reaction is that there is something about/with
the IS barriers, but that's just because I don't have a lot of experience with them and the
experiences I have had have not been very good.
As for the friction comment, when I have seen friction on a gas valve (SRV or GCV) the
effect has been that the servo current increases with no change in position until the device
"jumps" usually to a position past the reference and then the current changes to try to
drive device back to the reference with no change in position until it "jumps" to a position
past the reference and this continues and in some cases gets worse. So, the valve behavior
was jumpy and erratic. On either side of the sticky portion of the valve stems, the action
was normal. But where the shaft was worn and scored (on a couple of turbines) or where
the cylinder walls were scored (on a couple of turbines) the behavior was jumpy and
erratic.
From what you describe, it seems that the current just "jumps" and without seeing the
valve position feedback at the time the current jumps, it's difficult to say what's
happening.
I don't recognize the IS barriers you cited. Have you reviewed the manufacturer's
manuals/documents to see if these are properly applied?
I would like to know how the *circuit* resistance changes when this phenomenon occurs.
It would be very interesting to monitor the voltages of each servo coil and see what
happens. A change in voltage would be indicative of a change in circuit resistance.
Would it be possible to monitor the voltage across the IS barrier and the voltage across
the servo coil?
I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but I've been wrong before and I'll
be wrong again. I have seen Moog provide some very good troubleshooting assistance
when asked to get involved. I know they are slow to respond, but when they do get
involved they are pretty helpful.
I don't believe the null bias spring tension is changing.
Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? And agglomeration (I think that's
what it's called)? Some of the newer formulations of turbine lube oils seem to be causing
lots of problems for servos. I think BP has a formulation that has been used successfully
by a lot of heavy duty gas turbine users.
When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine power output change? Does the
unit continue to run normally or does an operator have to make a change to keep the unit
running as desired?
If the AHJ (Agency Having Jurisdiction (thanks for that Phil Corso!)) would permit a test
with the servo IS barriers disconnected it would be very interesting to see what happens.
I'd really like to know what happens to the position feedback at the time the current
jumps.
That's about all I can think of.


The more I think about this the more I think if you're seeing it on all the servos on all the
units at your site, the one thing that's common to the gas valves is the IS barriers. I also
wonder if they're also affecting the other servo outputs on the VSVO, such as the IGVs.
I did some checking on the MTL site, and it says the MTL7765ac is primarily for high
frequency low voltage applications. Hmmmm..... I also wonder about the resistance
readings you mentioned, which seem much higher than those listed in the tables in Sect. 8
of the manual.

CSA,
I had opportunity to shutdown GT1 and found something interesting.

It seems that "jumps" are not caused by the hydraulic part of the system as these also
exist during cool down and after when Auxiliaries are off.
Trend with some description added (trip occured :) ).

Will try today to bypass barriers and trend again.
> It would be very interesting to monitor the voltages of each servo coil and see what
happens. <
The voltage changes for sure, I had usual average value of around -0.320V after last
calibration, then when I started the machine and found the position error, I made another
measurement of coil voltages and as described before recalculated the NullBias and
downloaded new VSVO config (average voltage this time -0.490V).
> I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but I've been wrong before and
I'll be wrong again. <
I hope barriers is the reason. Could it be changing MKVI cabinet inside temperature
affecting them? I wonder if it's sync'ed with the cabinet fan switching on/off (I can
simply check it by keeping all fans on for few hours.
> Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? <
Yes we have it tested, but we are trying to make it more often (monthly). Nothing
unusual last time, let's see next time.
> When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine power output change? <
Nothing unusual I have trended DWATT as well.
> test with the servo IS barriers disconnected it would be very interesting to see what
happens. <
Yep, this I will provide soon.

I have to find some extra terminals for barriers bypassing.
Cheers!

This is troubleshooting: Understanding the possible causes of a problem and working to
eliminate them one at a time or to narrow the field of possibilities down to a very few.
I think it's very telling that when these "jumps" occur when the turbines are running that
there is no change in power output. The Mark VI is fast enough to maintain steady and
stable power output in the face of whatever is causing the servo current to have to
change. And, even if the position error increases (for whatever reason) the Mark VI is
automatically "compensating" and keeping the turbine operation stable and steady.
You have not provided any information on specifically what's happening to the LVDT
feedback when these jumps are occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback
also have IS barriers. If so, what is the manufacturer/part number?
And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is not the changing servo
currents, but the changing LVDT feedback. You say that the position error changes, and
when that happens the servo current would change to try to maintain the error closer to
zero. Right?
Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current, and the LVDT feedback
from each LVDT would be the best to trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the
unit is not running.
It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature to be changing very much. It
should be located in a temperature- and humidity controlled environment, the emphasis is
on control. Are you saying the temperature in the Mark VI panel, or wherever the IS
barriers are located, changes? If so, by how much during the course of the day? Are there
fans controlled by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not unheard of, but not typical.
I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive" devices and don't require bus
power, but the manufacturer instruction book is really unclear on these particular barriers.
If they are powered, where do they receive their power from?
What IS barriers are used for the LVDTs? Do all the LVDTs have IS barriers?
Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000 ohm resistors (heat
dissipation) and connecting them directly to the TSVO in place of the barriers and then
trending the servo current. (This would have to be done when the unit is not running.)
If the current still changes, then I would suggest removing the IS barriers from the LVDT
circuits and monitoring the individual LVDT feedbacks and the servo currents.
This also happens sometimes in troubleshooting: The focus gets placed on the effect
rather than the "affect" (the cause). The whole servo regulator loop needs to be
considered: the reference, the feedback, the output.
Let's not drop the theory that the servo barriers may be the problem, but let's not lose
sight of the other possible contributing factors. You have addressed the hydraulic
possibility pretty conclusively. But, servos do get very warm in the environments they are
placed in.
Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of the L.O. reservoir/tank, where
the vapors collect. The L.O. in the tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled).
The IGV servo is usually located in the turbine compartment, which experiences large
temperature swings during starting, operation, and shutdown.
Posted by minister on 23 July, 2009 - 12:26 pm

Thanks CSA for you input:
Post update:
>You have not provided any information on specifically what's happening to the LVDT
feedback when these jumps are occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback
also have IS barriers. If so, what is the manufacturer/part number? <
No barriers at LVDT at all. Summarizing we have only 6 barriers installed for SRV and
GCV.
I have used terminal block to bypass the barriers and during last 12 hours "jumps"
occurred again. We can exclude IS barriers from servo current change phenomena, but
still have to take them into account for two running units, (position error and high
positive null bias).
Let's keep in mind, that the offline unit is the one controlled "perfectly" (only servo
current jumps" are observed). So let's concentrate on servo current jumps.
> And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is not the changing servo
currents, but the changing LVDT feedback. You say that the position error changes, and
when that happens the servo current would change to try to maintain the error closer to
zero. Right? <
Right. This gave in another suggestion as the error appears some time after restart. It can
be possible that we loose one LVDT by vibrations while running unit (e.g.. loose wiring)
or we are getting the LVDT back by the same reason.
> Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current, and the LVDT feedback
from each LVDT would be the best to trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the
unit is not running. <
Trend set-up and running. A hint for people that want to trend LVDT's. You have to turn
Monitors on (we have it unused, but I met the feature used on some sites). Select
1_LVposition as monitor type, select LVDT you want to monitor (see your Regulator),
fill in Mn and MxLVDT1_Vrms with data you have in your Regulator. Keep in mind that
Regulators use usually two LVDT's, and you have to separate them using two Monitors.
After the config is downloaded you will see each LVDT value in VSVO Card Point
section under MON1, MON2....MON12 (depending of your set-up)
> It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature to be changing very much.
It should be located in a temperature- and humidity controlled environment, the emphasis
is on control. Are you saying the temperature in the Mark VI panel, or wherever the IS
barriers are located, changes? If so, by how much during the course of the day? Are there
fans controlled by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not unheard of, but not typical. <
We have HVAC unit for the MKVI room so we have quite good environment.
And yes, we have fans controlled by thermostats, I was aware of this as very often we
have to clean cabinet ventilation inlet filters and fan outlet filters from accumulated fine
desert sand. After trending servo currents yesterday afternoon with all of fans running the
servo current phenomena still exists. The average temperature measured using TBTC
cold junction is 30 deg C (IS barriers are mounted on the back side of the cabinet where
TBTC are mounted, also fans are on MKVI terminal board side only)
> I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive" devices and don't require bus
power, but the manufacturer instruction book is really unclear on these particular barriers.
If they are powered, where do they receive their power from? <
Passive barriers.
> Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000 ohm resistors (heat
dissipation) and connecting them directly to the TSVO in place of the barriers and then
trending the servo current. (This would have to be done when the unit is not running.) If
the current still changes, then I would suggest removing the IS barriers from the LVDT
circuits and monitoring the individual LVDT feedbacks and the servo currents. <
Will add to the plan.
> Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of the L.O. reservoir/tank, where
the vapours collect. The L.O. in the tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled).
The IGV servo is usually located in the turbine compartment, which experiences large
temperature swings during starting, operation, and shutdown. <
That's the case we have, valve servos are mounted inside the tank underneath the valve.
IGV in turbine compartment. As the unit will stay some days, temperature should come
down and we will see possible effect on the trend.
After all day trending:

Please find another trends (40ms sample time), this time also one toolbox .trn file.
1) change observed only on GCV/SRV (I was measuring coil resistance a while before it
happened. Resistance stays always the same):
http://www.spee dyshare.com/314203559.html
2) GCV/SRV/IGV jump (see signal description in first file, scale for some signals is
different, color the same)
"Jump" UP
"Jump" DOWN:
I'm trying try do the same with dither off. (As dither is an AC on the DC command
signal, can it induct something in the circuit?):
After switching dither off, I observed that all current signals (SRV R/S/T, GCV R/S/T,
IGV R/R/T) have moved in the middle of the "jump high" and "jump low" servo current
values. It's moved down by 2% from the high value or 2% up from the low value.
Is it coincidence, when the dither amplitude is also 2%?
Please see dither off trend: http://www.speedyshare.com/860219617.html

These 4% current switches seems odd when I have checked servo currents loading the
machine by 1MW (around +2% GCV and SRV) and couldn't even indicate the difference
on the trend. If it's not the coil resistance that changes, is it whole circuit loop resistance I
mean inside MKVI hardware? The dither seems to be the one not explored :)))
Another experiment: On running unit I have gradually changed dither amplitude for GCV
from 2.0 to 0.2% (by 0.2 % step) , and observed servo current travelling from -7 % to -
5% without load or position change.
Again, not to confuse you guys, these are trend taken on the offline machine, the machine
that has no problems with position error. I will troubleshoot affected unit ASAP (read
when available after shutdown - software modification needed to trend LVDT's and servo
outputs separately).
At the end of the post, after 4 hrs of trending servos with removed dither I can confirm no
jumps on offline GT so far (have to finish my shift). Tomorrow morning I will updated
whether jump occurred or not.
CSA, please share your thoughts and suggestions for next checks.
Cheers!

I was thinking in my bed about this changes of the servo current. It's not the resistance
that changes, but the voltage and then current had to compensate the change for the servo
to do the same work (Power = U*I = const).
(I recall having sometime unusual higher voltage across coils during NullBias
verification, I think I wrote the value before).
Ok have to go to sleep

Update:
After switching the dither off I haven't observed any more jumps last night.
I'm going to do another experiment, put all three servos on different dither frequency and
amplitude trend. As MKVI fastest sample time is 40ms I should see oscillation at least on
12.5Hz and 25Hz dither trend. I want to check if there is a relation between jumps and
dither frequency.
I suspect that these jumps are just recorded extrema of the oscillation signal when its
frequency is higher than the sample rate. The trending tool gets periodically
unsynchronized with the servo current oscillation generator.
Catch you later.


Update 2:
I can observe full curve oscillation for servo currents with 12.5 Hz and 33Hz frequency
dither.
The 25Hz (40ms) dither as being the same as trend sample could be catched only as
shown on attached the screenshot:
We ll, now I will focus on the other two issues I have here. I will write more when I have
a chance to make more tests on these machines
Regards

This explanation would make more sense, especially because there is no upset in the
turbine output when these "jumps" occur.
But what isn't explained is the position error that you reduce by changing the null bias.
I'm not a fan of dither for GE-design heavy duty gas turbine applications. The nature of
operation doesn't really cause the control valves to require dither from my experience,
though I've recently been made aware of some "lore" (because it's not documented
anywhere) that there was non-configurable dither built into the Mark V. But there wasn't
any dither in the Mark IV or earlier Speedtronic panels because the servo outputs were all
analog circuits and there wasn't any dither that I was aware of.
GE Trending tools can be misleading, as can any manufacturer's. Technology is great,

but, digital technology has its limits, and this is one of them. An old-fashioned pen-and-
ink chart recorder had its limits as well. In general, and this case is probably a great
exception because of the variable frequency rates for the dither option, the GE Trending
tools are pretty good because the execution rate is not generally higher than the fastest
trending rate. But, again, this could be an exception because of the rate issue. Very
highspeed toggling of discrete inputs is also hard to catch on GE Trending tools.
This explanation also makes more sense because of the repeatable nature of the "jumps".
They never seem to increase or decrease by more than the same amount, at least from the
trends you've sent.
But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good trend of, is still puzzling.

> But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good trend of, is still puzzling. <
Please see another trend I found in my collection for the position error.
The error wasn't so high that time and went back to normal by itself. (I only changed
NullBias having the alarm above 3%).
Odd is, the step change is recorded at the same moment, it could be that what caused the
error created also a delay (momentary desync) for trending tool (???)
(what happens during that moment can be seen on this zoomed trend:
http://www.speedyshare.com/585332895.html)
Looking at the trend and step changes, the overall picture is very confusing - that's why I
wanted to raised the step changes issue.
The dither on this machine has been disabled yesterday (machine online).
What I need for my tests is to set-up servo currents and LVDT's to be trended all
separately.
Regards
Posted by MIKEVI on 18 July, 2009 - 3:04 pm

Dear Minister,
I offer this suggestion as something to trend, although from your post it is difficult to tell
if this is happening on one gas control valve only or multiple valves. And if the problem
is on one unit or multiple units.
Anyway I had an issue recently with a frame 7ea machine. We were intermittently getting
an alarm for low P2 interstage pressure, at the same time we noted the SRV valve
position was erratic. Trending the position of the SRV in the MKVI confirmed that the
SRV valve was not holding a steady position, under constant load and constant main inlet
fuel gas pressure. I trended the SRV servo current known as "fagr" and found it was
erratic during the event. I then trended the individual servo currents from each MKVI
core, in my unit these are called FAGR_R, FAGR_S, and FAGR_T. What I found by
running a high speed trend, 40ms, was that intermittently the "T" core would decide to
fight the other 2 cores, it would try to close the valve. The other 2 cores, "S" and "T"
would respond by opening the valve. Then "T" would decide to go back to normal, and
"R" and "S" would have to catch up.
I don't know if this will help, but it would be something else for you to check. Please also
note that replacing the VSVO card repaired the problem. Also note that I have seen some
sites where the signals were never added at the card level to be able to trend the servo
currents individually. Look at your .m6b file, under the VSVO card points, for the given
regulator you are having trouble with look at the "ServOut#NVR, ServoOut#NVS, and
ServoOut#NVT. If there is no point associated with it, it will say "not used", if that is the
case you will need to create a point for each card point and download before you can
trend the currents individually.
Again this may not be the problem, but it would be something else you can check. Lastly
this assumes that your MKVI is a TMR system, and not a simplex.

Dear MIKEVI
Thank your for reply.

I have read your post about the servo current trend 40ms before. I have this it in my plans
but have to wait for scheduled shutdown to create new signal PINs.
Good idea with testing another VSVO. I realized I have one unused VSVO (R/S/T) and
two terminal boards.
minister
Posted by MIKEVI on 20 July, 2009 - 10:55 am

Minister,
the great thing about GE's control systems are that they have lots of great tools to use for
diagnosing problems. The downside is that all the same tools are not given to all the
customers (some .m6b have pins, some don't etc.) I am not sure where the ball gets
dropped, either during commissioning or straight from Salem. But no matter, we have
this forum full of knowledgeable people to take advantage of. And best of all we have a
participant such as yourself that provides the information we need to try and help solve a
problem, and hopefully we all learn something in the process. I wish you continued luck
with your issue, and look forward to you resolving the problem.

MIKEVI
The forum is great thing, I agree with you.

I will update my post if I get any new information.
From Control Engineering magazine...

Related articles from Control Engineering magazine
- Dataforth 8B33 signal conditioning module measures true RMS, signal power
- Harting Han-Quick Lock terminals: Reliable, space saving
- Technology partnership aimed at low-cost, low-power wireless mesh networks
- Protecting Industrial Networks Against Evolved Cyber Threats
- Embedded: Flyback dc/dc controller operates at 150°C
- Energy-efficient Ethernet standard project approved to move forward
- Process control, safety integration as needed: PlantPAx from Rockwell Automation
- Siemens Scalance XB unmanaged Ethernet switch
- Control Engineering tip of the day is available via Twitter
- K-Tek adds wireless capability to process sensor lines
Above articles copyright 2009 Reed Business Information. Subject to its Terms of Use.
Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices
and the Privacy Policy. Please read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the
rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the content of this site and the
compilation thereof is © 1999-2009 Nerds in Control, LLC. All rights reserved.
Users of this site are benefiting from open source technologies, including PHP, MySQL
and Apache. Be happy.

Null Bias Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Null Bias Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Null Bias Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is discussed regarding servo valve null bias current?

What is discussed regarding servo valve null bias current?

What troubleshooting steps does MikeVI suggest for erratic servo current?

What troubleshooting steps does MikeVI suggest for erratic servo current?

Welcome to Control.com, the global online community of automation professionals.

Control.com - Nerds in Control

Visit our shop for nerds in control lifestyle products.

from the Maintenance department...

Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am

Posted by A. OZTAS on 25 February, 2009 - 11:33 am

Posted by CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 4:23 pm

Posted by sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 26 February, 2009 - 11:15 am

From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.

Posted by Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

For the SRV (as seen on interface)

or we are measuring in a wrong place?

Thanks very much in advance.

Posted by CSA on 15 March, 2009 - 1:36 am

Posted by walter/roberto on 17 March, 2009 - 3:43 am

Stop Ratio Valve.

Thanks very much again and sorry for our insistence.

Posted by CSA on 17 March, 2009 - 3:29 pm

"Here we go again." Do you mind explaining that comment, please?

But I'd really like to understand the, "Here we go again!" comment.

Posted by walter/roberto on 19 March, 2009 - 5:07 am

LINE01 BTEXT ‘DESCRIPTION <R> <S> <T> UNITS’

LINE 14 DATA “LVDT #1 Voltage” <D0A 20> (F2 6,667 0 3 “V rms”)

LINE 27 DATA “Required Position” <D0A 50> (F2 128 0 2 “%”)

LINE 31 STATUS 1 R “R STATUS:” <D0A 16>

Again thanks very much in advance.

Reply to this post...

Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 2:23 pm

Posted by CSA on 20 March, 2009 - 12:14 pm

3) Has anyone visually checked the y-strainer recently?

Now, eight new questions:

3) What is the value of FSR?

Posted by servo_2001 on 18 March, 2009 - 4:39 pm

Posted by CSA on 19 March, 2009 - 12:19 am

Posted by Mehul on 21 March, 2009 - 6:50 am

Posted by CSA on 23 March, 2009 - 8:10 pm

Posted by Mehul on 26 March, 2009 - 4:59 am

Regarding Servo Valve Maintenance, one of my earlier Comment in "IGV TEMP

Posted by CSA on 26 March, 2009 - 2:55 pm

Posted by Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 1:25 pm

Posted by minister on 17 July, 2009 - 9:45 am

Please check the data collected I uploded below:

Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 2:14 am

But, here goes anyway.

Do these units have IS barriers?

Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature?

Posted by minister on 18 July, 2009 - 11:42 am

Actually we have problem with two servos:

>Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature? <

Posted by CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 4:39 pm

Posted by minister on 19 July, 2009 - 10:59 am

Thank you this time for your reply!