JPL PUBLJCATIOM 84-29 DOBET-371 16-2 

Distribution Category UC-66df 

(YASA-CP-17U161) IY'IEBLATIC~~AL TEST AOC Y 85- 133 72 

DPIOYSTRAZIOI OE L 1-MU UElLtiEAD GEOEEAT06: 

YUJCAL SCBEY EXEALDEB €OLE6 ELANT Pirial 

Beport (Jet 2ropilsion Lak.) 234 p Unclaz 

HC A11/HP A01 CSCL IO€! 63/44 24602 

In%rnational Test and Demonstration 

of a 1-MW Wellhead Generator: Helical 

Screw Exoander. Power Plant, 

Model 7601 

Final Report 

Richard A. McKay 

June 1, 1984 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Through an Agreement with 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

by 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California Institute of Technology 

Pasadena, California 
JPL PUBLICATION 84-29 DO WET-37 1 16-2 

Distribution Category UC-66df 

International Test and Demonstration 

of a 1-MW Wellhead Generator: Helical 

Screw Expander Power Plant, 

Model 76-1 

Final Report 

Richard A. McKay 

June 1, 1984 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Through an Agreement with 

N-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration 

by 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California Institute of Technology 

Pasadena, California 
Prepared by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 

for the U.S. Department of Energy through an agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

agency Agreement DE-A I 03- 79ET37 1 16) 

(NASA Task RE-152, Amendment 226; DOE InterThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by agencies of the 

United States Government and the governments of Mexico, Italy, and New Zealand* 

Neither the United States Government, nor the Mexican Government, nor the 

Italian Government, nor the New Zealand Government, nor any agency thereof, nor 

any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any 

legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness 

of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents 

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference herein to any specific coamercial product, process, or service ty 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, except the subject power 

plant, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recomendation, or favoring by the United States Government, the Hexican Government, the 

Italian Government, the New Zealand Government, or any agency thereof. The 

views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or 

reflect those of the United States Government, of the governments of kxico, 

Italy, and Nacu Zealand, or of any agency thereof. Preparation of this final 

report by JPL does not imply approval of the contents of the interim status 

reports by Wexico, Italy, and New Zealand on which this report is based, except 

as included or stated in this report. 
ABSTRACT 

A 1-FM wellhead generator was tested in 1980, 1981, and 1982 by Mexico, 

Italy, and New Zealand at Cerro Prieto, Cesano, and Broadlands, respectively. 

These tests were performed with the participation of the U.S. Department of 

Energy, the Hydrothermal Power Co., Ltd., and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 

under the auspices of the International Enerqy Agency. The total flow helical 

screw expander portable power plant, Hodel 76-1, had been built for the U.S. 

Government and field-tested in Utah, USA, in 1978 and 1979. The expander had 

oversized internal clearances designed for self-cleaning operation on fluids 

that deposit adherent scale normally detrimental to the uti1 ization of 1 iquiddominated fields. Conditions with which the expander was tested included inlet 

pressures of 64 to 220 psia, inlet qualities of 0% to loo%, exhaust pressures 

of 3.1 to 40 psia, electrical loads of idle and 110 to 933 kU, electrical frequencies of 50 and 60 Hz, male rotor speeds of 2500 to 4000.rpm, and fluid 

characteristics to 310,000 ppm total dissolved solids and noncondensables to 38 

wt X ot the rapor. Some testing was done on-grid. Typical expander isentropic 

efficiency was 40% to 50% with the clearances not closed, and 5 percentage 

points or more higher with the clearances partly closed. The expander efficiency increased approximately logarithmically with shaft power for most operations, while inlet quality, speed, and pressure ratio across the machine had 

only small effects. These findings are all in agreement with the Utah test 

results. Condensing tests produced lower machine efficiencies but also lower 

flowrates per kW of electricity produced. Based on operating results and 

cost/benefit analyses in corngarison with 1-Fw turbine generators, Mexico and 

Italy rated the screw expander power plant as suitable for noncondensing service in some liquid-dominated fields, although the unit tested needs shaft seal 

repair before it is returned to service. Inprovements of the shaft seal flush 

water system and the speed control system are important, and closing of the 

rotor clearances, either through manufacturing changes or operating changes, is 

necessary for best performance. Lower prices through mass production would 

broaden the appl ication. 

iii 

CONTENTS 

SUFIFIARY ............................................................... xi 

A . GENERAL .................................................... xi 

B . CONCLUSIONS ................................................ xiv 

I . INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1-1 

A . TASK OBJECTIVES ............................................ 1-3 

R . TASK RESPONSIRILITIES ...................................... 1-4 

I1 . LIMITS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................... 2-1 

A . DESIGN LIMITATIONS ......................................... 2-1 

1 . Rotor Clearances ...................................... 2-1 

2 . Shaft Seal System ..................................... 2-2 

3 . Speed Control ......................................... 2-3 

B . TEST LIMITS ................................................ 2-4 

1 . Utah: 1978 and 1979 .................................. 2-4 

2 . Mexico: 1980 and 1981 ................................ 2-5 

3 . Italy: 1981 and 1982 ................................. 2-5 

4 . New Zealand: 1982 and 1983 ........................... 2-5 

I11 . TEST OBJECTIVES ................................................. 3-1 

A . MEXICO ..................................................... 3-1 

6 . IT4LY ...................................................... 3-1 

C . NEW ZEALAND ................................................ 3-1 

IV . TEST SITES AND WELLS ............................................ 4-1 

A . .xIcn ..................................................... 4-1 

R . ITALY ...................................................... 4-1 

C . NEW ZEALAND ................................................ 4-1 

V 
V . PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .............................. 5-1 

VI . INSTALLATION .................................................... A . PROCESS LAYOUTS ........................................... 1 . Mexico ............................................... 2 . Italy ................................................ 3 . New Zealand .......................................... R . SHAFT SEAL WATER .......................................... 1 . Mexico ............................................... 2 . Italy ................................................ 3 . New Zealand .......................................... C . LOAD ...................................................... D . AUXILIARY P0.E. ........................................... E . PROCESS AND PERFORMANCE VONITORING ........................ 1 . Instruments .......................................... 2 . Data Acquisition ..................................... 

VI1 . TESTING ........................................................ A . .XICO .................................................... 8 . ITALY ..................................................... C . NEW ZEALAND ............................................... 

.. I11 . TEST RESULTS ................................................... A . r.xIco .................................................... B . ITALY ..................................................... C . NEW ZEALANn ............................................... 

6-1 

6-1 

6-1 

6-4 

6-4 

6-4 

6-9 

6-9 

6-9 

6-9 

6-11 

6-11 

6-11 

6-13 

7-1 

7-1 

7-3 

7-10 

8-1 

8-1 

8-10 

8-12 

vi 
IX . SCALING AND DETERIORATION ...................................... 9-1 

A . MEXICO .................................................... 9-1 

8 . ITALY ..................................................... 9-2 

C . NEW ZEALAND ............................................... 9-2 

X . EQUIPMENT FAILURES ............................................. 10-1 

A . MEXICO .................................................... 10-1 

B . ITALY ..................................................... 10-2 

C . NEW ZEALANO ............................................... 10-2 

XI . MAINTENANCE: NEW ZEALAND SITE .................................. 11-1 

XI1 . RECOMMENDATiONS ................................................ 12-1 

A . MXICO .................................................... 12-1 

B . ITALY ..................................................... 12-1 

C . NEW zEI\LAND ............................................... 12-1 

D . GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 12-2 

XI11 . COST/BENEFIT .ALYSIS .......................................... 13-1 

A . MEXICO .................................................... 13-1 

1 . Benefits ............................................. 13-1 

2 . Economic Comparison .................................. 13-5 

3 . Conclusicns .......................................... 13-5 

B . ITALY ..................................................... 13-9 

1 . Technical Considerations ............................ 13-9 

2 . Economic Considerations .............................. 13-13 

3 . Conclusions .......................................... 13-13 

vi i 
C . NEW ZEALAND ............................................... 13-15 

1 . 13-15 

2 . Cost InforRation ..................................... 13-17 

3 . Discussion and Conclusion ............................ 13-18 

Power Potential Comparison of the Helical Screw 

Expander vs . the Steam Turbine ....................... 

D . COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............. 13-18 

XIV . APPLICATIONS ................................................... 14-1 

A . MEXICO .................................................... 14-1 

B . ITALY ..................................................... 14-1 

C . NEW ZEALAND ............................................... 14-1 

XV . REFERENCES ..................................................... 15-1 

APPEND I XES 

A . MEXICO/CFE ................................................ A-1 

8 . ITALY/ENEL ................................................ R-1 

C . NEW ZEALANO/.wO ........................................... C-1 

Figures 

6-1 . Process Schematic and Instruments: Atmospheric Pressure 

6.2 . bocess Schematic and Instruments: Subatmospheric Pressure 

Discharge Tests. Mexico ......................................... 6-2 

Cischarge Tests. Mexico ......................................... 6-3 

6.3 . Pilot Flanc Equipment Flow Sheet. Italy ......................... 6-5 

6.4 . Process Schematic: HSE Operating from Separator. Italy ......... 6-6 

6.5 . Process Schematic: HSE Operating from Wellhead. Italy .......... 6-7 

6.6 . Process Schematic. New Zealand .................................. 6-8 

6.7 . Water Supply System. Mexico .................................... 6-10 

viii 
6.8 . HSE Corwection to Italian Electrical Grid ....................... 6-12 

7-1 Summary of Operating Periods of the C1 Pilot Plant. Italy ....... 7.2 . Filter Basket. Italy ............................................ 7-6 

7.3 . Assorted Samples of Scale. Italy ................................ 7-6 

HSE Exhaust Pipe and Expansion Joint with Scale. Italy .......... HSE Exhaust Pipe After Hammering the Scale. Italy ............... 

Temperature 29OOC ............................................... 13-2 

Mass and Energy Balance. We1 1 M.43 ............................. 

Turbine for Different Temperatures ............................. 

7-4 

7.4 . 

7.5 . 

13.1 . Comparison Between the HSE and a Steam Turbine; Reservoir 

13.2 . 13.3 . 

7-9 

7-9 

13-4 

Comparison Between HSE (48% Machine Efficiency) and a Steam 

13-6 

13.4 . 

13.5 . Cesano 7 Rack-Pressure Curve ................................... 13-10 

Comparison Between HSE (55% Machine Efficiency) and a Steam 

Turbine for Different Temperatures ............................. 13-7 

13.6 . Schematic Diagram of Two Back-Pressure Plants to U t i 1 i z e 

Cesano 7 Brine ................................................. 13-11 

13.7 . Specific Power vs . Wellhead Enthalpy for a Single Flash 

Back-Pressure Unit ............................................. 13-12 

13.8 . Specific Enthalpy Drop for Various HSE Efficiencies as a 

Function of Cesano 7 Wellhead Pressure ......................... 13-14 

13.9 . Power Potential Curves for the Helical Screw Expander and a 

Steam Turbine .................................................. 13-16 

Tab1 es 

S.1 . HSE Power Plant Total Test Summary ............................. xi 

1.1 . Programme Schedule ............................................. 1-2 

13.1 . Results of Comparison Between HSE and a Steam Turbine 

for Different Temperatures ..................................... 13-8 

13.2 . Optimum Power .................................................. 13-17 

13.3 . Cost Summary (U.S. $). Cost/Renefit Analysis ................... 13-19 

ix 
SUmARY 

A. GENERAL 

A 1-MW wellhead generator was tested in Mexico, Italy and New Zealand as 

part of the International Energy Agency (IEA) programme of research, development and demonstrat ion on geothermal equipment. The we1 1;iead generator used in 

the tests was a total flow helical screw expander (HSE) portable power plant, 

Model 76-1, which had been built for the U.S. Government and field-tested in 

Utah, USA, in 1978 and 1979. The HSE was designed with oversized internal 

clearances for the specific purpose of operating on mineralized geothermal 

fluids that deposit adherent scale normally detrimental to utilization. The 

test activities with the HSE in Mexico were conducted at Cerro Prieto by the 

Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) using well M-11 from December I979 

through April 1981. In Italy the tests were conducted by the Ente Nazionale 

per 1'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) at Cesano 1 well from July 1981 to June 1982. 

Those tests in New Zealand were performed by the Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) at the Broadlands field with well BR 19 from September 1982 to June 

1983. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participated in the tests with the 

assistance of the Hydrothermal Power Co., Ltd. (HPC) (manufacturer of the power 

plant), and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The HSE power plant was made 

available by the U.S. Department of Energy for the tests in these other 

countries after it was determined that small power plants in the HSE size range 

most likely to be built could have international utility. A total test 

summary, including the testing in the USA, is listed in Table S-1. 

Table S-1. HSE Power Plant Total Test Summary 

Power Product ion Time 

Location and Year h Zh 

California, USA 1977* 

Utah, USA 1978 

Utah, USA 1979 

Mexico 1980 

Mexico 1981 

Italy 1981 

Italy 1982 

New Zealand 1982 

New Zealand 1983 

5 

337 

100 

1,064 

37 

23 

98 

i 02 

1,633 

5 

342 

442 

1,506 

1,543 

1,566 

1,664 

1,766 

3,399 

Generator Output 

kWh C kWh 

nil ni 1 

85,170 85,170 

27,540 112,710 

854,830 967,530 

10,110 997,64[1 

4,740 382,380 

21,720 1,004,100 

36,580 1,040,580 

1,330,250 2,370,930 

* Acceptance test using compressed air at factory. 

xi 
The work in Mexico, italy and New Zealand conformed to the IEA programme 

objectives to accelerate the development of geothermal resources through early 

introduction of advanced geothermal energy conversion technology. The test 

objectives f3r each country were to assess the performance and reliability of 

the wellhead generator and to assess the applicability of the power plant to 

the test site or an appropriate alternative site within the country. The 

assessment of applicability was based on costs and benefits of the HSE power 

plant in comparison with a turbine generator set of the same 1-MW size, both i 

noncondensing operation. The HSE power plant cost that was used was fo: a 

one-of-a-kind machine and was not the cost of a production model. 

The performance testing in the IEA programme encompassed a wide range of 

operating conditions in order to map the operational characteristics of the 

HSE. The test parameters that were varied were the inlet pressur' inlet steam 

quality, exhaust pressure, electrical load, electrical frequency, male rotor 

speed, and geothermal fluid properties, all in various combinations. The 

ranges were as follows: 

Inlet pressure (psia) 

Inlet quality (%) 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Electrical load (kW) 

Electrical frequency (Hz) 

Male rotor speed (rpm) 

Total dissolved sol ids (ppm) 

Noncondensables (wt % of vapor) 

64 to 220 

0 to 100 

3.1 to 40 

idle and 110 to 933 

50 and 60 

2500, 3000, 3333 and 4000 

low to 310,000 

low to 38.0 

The isentropic efficiency of the helical screw expander was taken as the 

primary measure of performance of the power plant. This efficiency compares 

the actual expander with an ideal expander operating over the same pressure 

interval and is commonly known as machine efficiency. Efficiency values in the 

range of 40% to 55% were demonstrated as typical for the machine as tested. 

The desired closing of the oversized internal clearances within the HSE was not 

achieved during these tests and so the performance of the HSE with the clearances reduced to within norinal limits for this type of machine was xt detcrmined at any site. In Italy, despite very rapid scale growth, the expected 

tests with small clearances were not possible because the scale did not remain 

on the rotors. Machine efficiency was found to be around 45%, well below the 

65% to 68% limit predicted by ENEL for operation with small clearances using a 

theoretical model of machine performance based OR an analysis of the Utah and 

Mexico test data. However, without tests with small clearances, the performance available with this HSE remains unknown. 

Endurance tests made to assess the reliability contributed to the determination of performance. In New Zealand the growth of a very thin layer of 

scale on the rotors during 1632 hours of endurance testing resulted in a 3.5 

percentage-point improvement in the efficiency. At the end of the test the 

efficiency was 46.5% and evidently still increasing. 

determined during the endurance test in Mexico but the amount of increase was 

uncertain. The corresponding amount of scale growth achieved to partly close 

the oversized clearances was also uncertain but small . 

A greater improvement was 

.i 
For many operating conditions the expander efficiency increased approximately logarithmically with shaft power. Inlet quality and the ratio of inlet 

to outlet pressure had a small influence on the efficiency. The optimum speed 

varied with shaft power, but again the influence was small in the range tested. 

Because of the number of parameters that influence the efficiency, correlation 

of the data was difficult. Therefore, for some purposes it was convenient to 

plot the efficiency of the HSE as a function of the most important variable, 

shaft power, and let the effect of the other variables appear as data scatter, 

although many of the measurements that appear to be scattered in this treatment 

were actually quite reproducible. By this and similar methods of correlation, 

representative efficiencies were determined for each test site. With bare 

rotors and oversized clearances for noncondensing operation, these efficiencies 

ranged from 40% in New Zealand to 48% in Mexico, for half load or more. Corresponding determinations yielded 45% for the HSE operation in Italy (and 48% for 

the earlier test operation in the USA). The lower efficiency demonstrated in 

New Zealand relative to the other three sites has not been explafned. 

Some limited condensing testing was performed in Mexico. In all cases 

the HSE efficiency decreased with decreasing back pressure but so also did the 

flowrate per kW of electricity produced. 

The effect of rotor speed on the machine efficiency was small for tests 

in Mexico and New Zealand. 

All testing in Mexico, Italy and New Zealana used the low-pressure inlet 

trim in the speed control valve in the HSE. The resulting stable operating 

range of inlet pressure was limited to below about 200 psia because of limitations in the speed control system. These same limitations prevented idling at 

pressures above about 130 psia dth this trim. These limits vary with inlet 

steam quality because they relate to the control of volumetric flowrate into 

the machine. The results demonstrated a need for further development 5f the 

speed control system to provide stable operation over the full range of load 

from idle to full load for all wellhead pressuros. 

The reliability of the HSE power plant was assessed during the performance and endurance testing. The shaft seals were of greatest concern, because 

they were newly designed replacements used only for the 100 hours of Utah 

test iny immediately preceding the beginning of the International Test and 

Demonstration Programme. No seal problems occurred Juring the 1100 hours of 

operation in Mexico, but seal damage occurred in Italy and in New Zealand. 

Italy the damage was caused during the first 18 hours of operation by impacts 

resulting from scale that had been rapidly deposited within the machine. A 

seal design modification after about 24 hours of operation corrected the breakage problem. Intensive examination of the broken seals by several parties 

indicated no signs of wear resulting from the cumulative 1224 hours of seal 

operation. 

In 

In New Zealand a seal assembly evidencing 1 materials flaw was replaced 

(after 98 hours of operation in Italy and 102 hours in New Zealand). The seals 

withifi the assembly were also found to be abraded, apparently by particulates 

found in the assembly. During the following 1632 hours of endurance testing, 

progressively increasing oil leakage beyond the design specifications occurred, 

xiii 
resulting in prematuibe termination of ttsting. The cabse of the leakage was 

not actually determined, but it may have been caused by abrasive wear by the 

particulates. Ouestions regarding seal wear .)r damage must be rasolved before 

further use of the HSE is considered. 

During replacement of the damaged shaft seals in Italy, passages for 

recapturing oil from the flush water were installed to make the VSE more reliable in case of wear or damage of the shaft seals. Suitable anr.illary equipment for operating the recapture system was not available. Deficiencies in the 

available equipment resulted in maintenance and re1 iabi! ity problems with oil 

filters and with scavenger pumps for removing water from oil reservoirs. 

The operation of the HSE power plant is 1:~ more complex than any other 

form of small turbine generating plant and satisfactory operation with oncedaily inspect ion was demonstrated in New Zeal ana. 

Costjbenefit analyses were performed by each country on the basis that 

the deliberately oversized internal clearance (to be closed by scale deposition) woulJ not be closed during prolonged service. Machine efficiencies of 

45% in Italy and New Zealand and 48% in Mexico were used. A new plant cost of 

$770,000 to $800,000 U.S. was used in the analyses, based on the assumption 

that such CI plant could be purchased. The analyses showed that on these bases, 

the HSE power plant tested, Model 76-1, cannot compete with a conventional 

steam turbine, considering both cost and perfcrmance. For some applications 

the HSE can compete on the basis of performance. For exmple, at a 48% efficiency the HSE performance is advantageous for hot-water reservoirs with temperatures up to 275OC in Mexico. In Italy the HSE can compete on the basis of 

both cost and performance for certaiq applications, mostly because of its versatility and higner overall efficiency. The analysis for Mexico showed that if 

the HSE efficiency were to rise to 55% as was demonstrated, it would be preferred to a turbine for all applicalions on the basis of performance, but not 

on the basis of cost. The estivation of the perfomance at which the HSE could 

compete despite a higher capital cost was outside the scope of the59 analyses. 

B. CONCLUF'ONS 

The HSE Dower plant, Model 76-1: 

0 is suitable for electric power production in some liquid-dominated 

geothermal fields, although the unit testec needs repair of damaged 

shaft seals before it is returned to service. 

0 can compete with a stPam turbine on the basis of pci'ormance for some 

appl icat ions. 

0 cannot compete with a mass-produced steam turbine on the basis of the 

stated capital cost far a single HSE machine performing as tested. 

0 is rugged and is not damaged by typical geothetwai process upsets. 

0 can operate on an unattended basis with periodic inspections and maintenance. 

xiv 
0 can be put on and off grid manually with simple equipment. 

0 is not suitable for continuous operation on a rapidly scaling brine 

such as from Cesano 1, Italy. 

The HSE Model 76-1 machine efficiency: 

0 is in the range of 45% to 50% with bare rotors for a wide range of 

load, inlet pressure and steam quality in noncondensing operation. 

increases with scale deposition within the machine, but the performance potential with the small internal clearances normal for a 

machine of this type has not been determined. 

0 

0 increases with load but is fairly flat over the upper 75g of its load 

range. 

0 is insensitive to inlet fluid quality but diminishes at the ex+femes. 

0 is insensitive to rotor speed over the 2500-rpm to 4000-rpm range 

tested. 

0 decreases with increasing hackpressure. 

0 decreases with reduced backpressure, but the energy produced per pound 

of fluid used increases with decreasing backpressure over the range 

tested. 

The HSE Model 76-1: 

0 shaft seals have a demonstrated mode of operation in which no detectable wear is observed after 1224 hours of service, but long service 

life has not been demonstrated. 

0 shaft seal support system is not correctly sized and installed. 

0 speed control system is not adequate for all loads and all wellhead 

pressures in all combinations. 

0 i ,ternal clearances are excessive for use on fluids that do not 

deposit adherent scale on the rotors. 

The IEA Test and Demonstration Programme tests confirmed the results of 

testing in Utah. 

xv 
SECTION I 

INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report on a task to test and demonstrate a 1-NW geothermal wellhead generator in he field (the Task), carried out sequentially in 

Mexico, Italy and New Zealand the Host Countries), with the participation of 

the U.S. Department of Energy DOE) (the Operating Agent) and the assistance of 

the Hydrothermal Power Co., Ltd. (HPC) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). 

The Host Countries were represented by the Comision Federal de Electricidad 

(CFE), Mexico, Ente Nazionale per 1'Energia Elettrica (ENEL), Italy, and the 

Ministry of Works and Development (MWD), New Zealand. The final report summarizes the work perforined in the three countries and reported in interim status 

reports by CFE, Ref. A, ENEL, Ref. B, and MWD, Ref. C. 

The Task was part of a cooperative program defined in an International 

Test and 

Energy Agency Imp1 ement i ng Agreement for a Programne of Research, Development 

and Demonstration on Geothermal Equipment as described in Annex I: 

Demonstration of A 1-MW Wellhead Generator. In the Annex, CFE, ENEL, MWD, and 

DOE were designated as Participants of the Task and the responsibilities of the 

Host Countries and the Operating Agent were assigned. Task management was 

vested in an Executive Committee consisting of one member from each country. 

The schedule of the Task as planned and as achieved is shown in Table 1-1. 

The wellhead generator used in this Task was a transportable total flow 

he1 ical screw expander power plant HPC Model 76-1, which had been designed ard 

field-tested earlier for the U.S. Government in a project managed by JPL 

(Ref. 1). The expander was designed by HPC with oversized clearances for use 

only in liquid-dominated geothermal fields that produce fluids suitable for 

producing adherent scale deposits within the machine. 

The power plant was made available to the Task by DOE, acting within the 

framework of the U.S. membership in the International Energy Agency and under 

the auspices of the Committee of Energy Research and Development of the Agency. 

The power plant was accompanied by test support equipment including a computerequipped data system, an instrumentation and control van, and a transportable 

1000-kW variable load bank, all of which had been integrated with the power 

plan$ ,rto a test array designed for operation at a variety of geothermal field 

sites. All of this equipment is described in Ref. 1 and in manuals that were 

iicluded with the equipment. Additional fabrication details of the power plant 

are described in Ref, 2. The results of the earlier work are summarized later 

in this section. 

This final report includes (a) an assessment of the performance and reliebility of the power plant under the differing geothermal conditions of the 

test sites, and (b) a costjbenefit analysis of the power plant relative to each 

site as required by the Implementing Agreement, Annex I, which assigned the 

responsibility for the final report to DOE. Ry direction of the Executive 

Committee, the final report is based on the interim status reports (Refs. A, 8, 

and C) submitted by each of the three Host Countries. Much of the report is 

1-1 
1- 2 
presented in country sequence - Mexico, Italy, New Zealand - with the status 

reports and the Appendixes coded A, R, and C in the same sequence, as a convenience to the reader. 

Some of the material in this report is repeated verbatim from the sources 

without quote marks. Figures and tables from the interim status reports were 

copied from the originals in most cases, except for the identification numbers. 

To the extent deemed necessary or appropriate by JPL, some information i n t h i s 

report is from the JPL report on the prior work (Ref. 1) or from the author's 

reports and notebooks and general information of the author compiled during 

this task or the prior work. In addition, information from HPC is included. 

In the prior work (kef. l), th HSE power plant was tested in Utah in 

1978 and 1979. An average irachine efficiency of approximately 45% was demonstrated over a wide range of test conditions in nonsondensing operation on 

single-phase and two-phase geothermal fluids. The efficiency was fairly flat 

above one-quarter 1 oad, a1 though efficiencies as high as 54% were demonstrated. 

The test data characterize an expander having large internal clearances or 

leakage passages past the rotors which, contrary to plarl, did not close with 

scale deposits during the testing. Analysis of the data showed that the 

expander efficiency is a strong function of load, a weak function of inlet 

steam quality and of pressure ratio across the expander, and independent of 

throttle position. Test conditions included inlet pressure ranging from 84 to 

258 psia, inlet steam quality of 0% to 99Z, 1 inear throttle position from 7% to 

10M open, output shaft load from idle to 1059 kU, with output shaft or male 

rotor speed of 3000 rpm. The exhaust pressure was atmospheric at about 12 psia 

except for a few tests ierfoned at exhaust pressures of 27 to 30 psia. The 

need to improve the spezd control system to accomnodate small loads at high 

feed pressure or the sudden loss of large loads was identified. So also was 

the need to fabricate the HSE with smaller internal clearances for best efficiency with nonscaling brine. Other design changes for a replacement 5-W unit 

originally planned were also identified and recomnended. 

A. TASK OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of the Task were to: 

(1) Accelerate the development of geothermal ;esources through early 

introduction af advanced geothermal energy conversion technology; 

(2) Provide prospective users cif geothermal energy experience in 

operating advanced technology geotherma; quipment ; and 

(3) Develop 3 data base for a range of geothermal resource conditions of 

the pcvrer plant's performance and reliability in order to assess the 

cost/benefits in the appl ication of the power plant. 

In addition, each Host Country had its own specific test objectives. 

These are described in Section 111. 

1-3 
B. TASK RESPOIISIBILITIES 

The main responsibilities of DOE as Operating Agent were to: 

Provide the operational pawer plant, including support equipment for 

the Task; 

Provide two Technical Specialists* from the prior work to advise on 

the installation and operation of the power plant during the test 

and demonstration prograwnes in each country; 

Perfom major equipment repair; 

Prepare and distribute to Participants d final report on the Task; 

and 

Bear the costs of the above and of transporting the power plant and 

support equipment back to the United States at the end of the Task. 

main responsibilities of the other Participants were to: 

Provide a test site and programne plan acceptable to the Executive 

Committee ; 

Make the necessary site-related preparations prior to the installation of the power plant; 

Be responsible for the installation and routine maintenance of the 

power plant ; 

Be responsible for the test and demonstration programmes, including 

the el itrical, instrumentation and computer work, and all data 

gat her i ng ; 

Report the data and its evaluation to other Participants, including 

an assessment on the costs and benefits in the application of the 

power plant; 

Prepare the power plant arld the support equipment for shipment from 

the sit?; and 

Bear ‘he costs of the above. 

At the request of ENEL, and with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, the qower plant and test support equipment were converted from 60 Hz to 50 

Hz in veparation for the testing in Italy. 

with tne power plant connected to the ENEL electrical grid. Ry agreement, the 

COP Vsior was the responsibility of DOE and was carried out by HPC; the costs 

c,f the hardware for the conversion were shared by DOE and ENEL. 

The purpose was to allow testing 

* R. McKay, JC.L, author of this report, and R. Sprankle, HPC, designer of the 

power ,7.i I t. 

1-4 
SECTION I1 

LIMITS AWD LIMITATIONS 

The assessment of the performance characteristics of the 1-MW helical 

screw expander wellhead generator and of the costs/benefits in its application 

were based on the testing of HSE Hodel 76-1. The test results were influenced 

significantly by the limits and limitations that were either implicit to or 

imposed on the zquipment and tests. It is essential thzt these be understood 

in order to interpret the test results. This was to be an evaluation of an 

existing design and there were no provisions for mdifiGations or improvements 

to the HSE. 

A. DESIGN LIMITATIONS 

The helical screw expander power plant used on this programme was HPC 

Model 76-1, which was designed in 1974-1975 specifically for use on scaling 

fluids from liquid-dominated geothermal resources. This machine was a twentyfold scale-up of a 50-kW prototype developed in i972-1973. Sowe changes or 

developments were identified as desirable during the 1978-1979 testing in Utah, 

but of these only the shaft seals modifications were made. Additional development work on the HSE power plant by the manufacturer was not included as part 

of the IEA Task because of budgetary and Task schedule limitations. Repairs 

were included, but only to the extent necessary to permit the test and demonstration to proceed with minimum delay. Notable design areas identified in 

Utah as needing change or development in order to broaden the application of 

the HSE were rotor clearances, the shaft seal system, and the speed control 

system. These impacted test considerations as fol lows: 

1. Rotor Clearances 

The rotor-to-rotor and rotor-to-case clearances in HSE Wodel 76-1 

were made large, based on the experience of testing the 50-kW prototype and 

forerunner on Wells M-7 and M-10 in Cerro Prieto, Mexico. Fluids from these 

we1 1s had deposited adherent scale within the screw expanders which accumula 

ts 

ed 

to close the leakage paths past the rotors. Good scale adhesion was not always 

immediate, depending on the initial surface corlditions within the machives, but 

closure occurred in each Lase in about 24 hours of testing. The clearances for 

Model 76-1 were intended to be large enough that the scale deposits would serve 

as cladding to protect the rotors and casing interior from possible corrosion 

and to protect the rotors from possible erosion in the inlet areas. 

were provided on the rotor lobe crests to abrade or limit scale growth on the 

opposing surfaces so as to provide finished dimensions lapped to close tolerances, as occurred with the 50-kW prototype. 

ances aqd the resulting leakage past the rotors in Model 76-1 were expected to 

preclude attractive machine efficiency for operation with any clean, nonscal ing 

fluid. Valid testing of the machine for its as-designed performance potential 

was expected to be limited only to the use of fluids and test conditions that 

would result in adherent scale growth within the machine. The building of 

scale on the rotors was considered necessary to complete the fabrication of 

this model HSE. The importance of the scale is explained by the estimate that 

Hard tips 

The size of the initial clear2- 1 
in certain positions of the rotors, the cross-sectional area of the leakage 

paths from the high-pressure pocket was calculated to be 25% to 30% of the 

pocket envelope (Ref. 1 ) . 2. Shaft Seal System 

The original shaft seal system used seal assemblies designed for 

protection from the geothermal fluids by oil leakage past them into the 

machine. The design failed in Utah in 1978 and was replaced in 1979 with a new 

design that used a fresh water barrier. The fresh water was injected into the 

new assemblies at controlled rates, with most of the water flowing toward the 

interior of the machine and to waste. 

past the oil/water seal at a rate determined by the temperature and surface 

speed. The oil lost in this manner was initially expected to be acceptable. 

Under test it was soon discovered that some of the water migrated past the 

oil/water seal and into the oil. The water traveled with the oil to the oil 

console, where it settled to the bottom of the reservoir and could be tapped 

off, However, it is not desirable to have water in the oil, and better methods 

for removal than settling are available, The installation of a centrifuge in 

the return oil line to the reservoir was recommended during the Utah overhaul 

confirmation test in 1979 and was installed on the console in Mexico in 1980 in 

preparation for the testing there, The centrifuge was of suitable size for the 

intended job. 

It was known that some oil would migrate 

It was known from shop tests that the rate of oil migration past the 

oil/water seal into the flush water in each assembly was controlled predominantly by the oil temperature and surface speed of the seals, For operation at 

3000-rpm male rotor speed and with normal oil temperatures, the oil loss was 

estimated to average about 1 gal. per seal assembly per day. 

for each assembly since no two have the same speed and pressure distribution. 

Since it was known that oil would migrate into the water, it was recognized 

during design that the oil could be recovered by withdrawing the oil-laden 

water from each seal assembly through correctly located bleed passages; 

increasing the flow of flush water by an amount equal to the amount withdrawn 

would maintain the fresh water barrier. The oil could then be removed from the 

withdrawn water and the recovered oil and water recycled. This procediire would 

have required performing the difficult job of installing passages in the HSF: 

housing in the field in Utah. This was not done to save time and money, and 

because it was recognized that the new seal design could be verified while 

operating with the predicted oil loss. This design limitation was considered 

acceptable. 

The rate differs 

In Italy, three seal assemblies were replaced because of breakage of 

some of the seal segments from mechanical shock caused by scale build-up within 

the machine. The replacement assemblies were provided with bleed passages for 

recovery of oil that migrates across certain seals into the flush water. 

Refore installing the assemblies, corresponding bleed passages were drilled 

into the HSE housing to allow recovery of the oil. 

large enough for this added load and the use of the oil recovery system was 

limited to oil and water separation by settling. In addition, the capacity of 

the installed hardware for distributing and monitoring the flush water was not 

adequate to provide the additional flush water necessary for the oil recovery. 

The centrifuge was not 

2-2 
These design 1 imitations restricted the recovery flows to inadequate rates both 

in Italy and New Zealand, and recovery was discontinued. 

The importance of protecting the shaft seals from damage by particulates in the flush water requires that adequate water filtration be considered 

as part of the shaft seal system. On-board filters limiting the particle size 

to 25 pm or less were installed for this purpose. These filters were not adequate to remove the particulates from the filtered river water used initially 

in New Zealand, and deposits of particulates within the seal assemblies 

resulted. This design limitation was corrected by improving the prefiltration 

of the water. Similar prefiltration was necessary in Mexico, since without 

adequate prefiltration, the on-board filters plugged in about two hours, shutting down the tests. 

3. Speed Control 

The speed of the HSE is 3overnor-controlled by means of a flow control valve of sliding gate design, built into the inlet of the HSE and havina a 

4-in. stroke. The purpose of the flow control is to provide an exact tlternator speed corresponding to an electrical output of exact frequency Such as 50 

or 60 Hz. The testing in Utah soon showed that the flow control valve ha.! all 

of the well-known flow control limitations of a gate valve. Flow was nL+, 

linear with stroke, and percentage flow variation through a nearly closed va!:.- 

changed abruptly with stroke. .The important determining factors for use were 

the capacity of the valve as a function of pressure drop across it, and the 

response and stability relating to gate travel controlled by the governor and 

system hydraulics. As should be expected, id1 ing was difficult, particularly 

for high-pressure fluids, because the valve was nearly clo~ed or in a pinched 

condition. The valve problem was exacerbated by the very large range of specific volumes of assorted inlet fluids over the full range of both pressure and 

steam quality desired for machine testing and operation. The added requirement 

for flow control over the full range of load, from idle to full load, could not 

be met with a single valve with a 4-in. stroke. Replacement of the original 

simple sliding gate valve with a compcund or multiple-gate valve was outside 

the scope and budget of the evaluation project associated with the Utah testing. Instead, the valve was modified for use with two sizes of trim designated 

as high-pressure trim and low-pressure trim. This was done during the overhaul 

following the shaft seal failure in 1978. However, the valve remained a simple 

sliding gate valve with a 4-in. stroke, albeit of interchangeable gate size. 

In Utah, both sets of trim were used. All of the original limitations remained 

2xcept that they were displaced. Therefore the preferred trim could be 

selected for the application, and the stable load range set accordingly. 

trim provided its own upper feed pressure limits for idling or for operation 

under load for various feed qualities. The corresponding capacity of the valve 

limited the maximum load attainable as shown bj reaching 100% open position 

before reaching full load for some of the tests. The design goal was for a 

flow control valve to handle the full range of load, from idle to full load at 

we1 1 head pressure, because it would permit a direct we1 1 head connection without 

other regulating valves, resulting in the simplest possible installation. Then 

other requirements such as bypass or pressure relief would be dictated by the 

needs of the well and not the HSE. This design goal was not achieved. 

Each 

2-3 
Stable speed requires that the geothermal fluid flowing to the speed 

control valve be uniform or change only slowly with time. 

sarily be homogeneous but obviously slug flow will cause instability because 

the govenor and speed control system cannot respond instantaneously. This presented a problem for testing over the wide range of conditions planned initially for the HSE. An 8-in. diameter feed pipe was installed to handle the 

large flows of low-enthalpy I iquid feed calculated for some of the tests, even 

though it was not certain that such flows could actually pass through the control valve and into the HSE. The idea was to ensure that the tests would not 

be limited by the site of the feed line. The penalty was that the large feed 

line, lrrith its two elbows near the speed control valve, caused phase separation 

of the geothermal fluid for many of the two-phase flow conditions presented to 

the HSE during the tests. To try to alleviate the separation, and the resulting effect on speed stability and excessive working of the governor and speed 

control valve, a passive mixer was fabricated and inserted into the feed pipe 

between the feed line automatic stop valve and the speed control valve. This 

was a compromise, and it was recognized that the inlet piping should be sized 

to the actual application. Meanwhile, the stability characteristics of the 

governor and speed control system were best demonstrated with all-liquid or 

all-vapor feed. Under these conditions, speed control system hunting, often 

displayed with two-phase flow, was typically absent. This hunting would not be 

expected to occur during base load operation when coupled to a grid because the 

speed would be controlled synchronously by the grid, the governor and speed 

control system would stay constant, and the load would vary Aith variation in 

the feed to the HSE. 

It need not necesB. EST LIMITS 

Assorted limits to testing the power plant were encountered for each of 

the tests, including for the prior work in Utah. The most significant limit 

for all tests was the lack of delivery to the HSE of geothermal fluid having 

the scaling characteristics for which the HSE was designed. This precluded 

closing the large clearances within the machine within the test periods. Other 

1 imits are listed below. 

1. Utah: 1978 and 1979 

All testing in Utah was limited to a single male rotor speed of 3000 

rpm. During the 1978 testing, gradual plugging of the well limited the electrical output of the power plant to 754 kW during performance tests and to 380 

kW or less during an endurance test. The endurance test was limited to 182 

hours by a shaft seal failure which terminated the test one day in advance of 

the scheduled shutting in of the we1 1. The testing in 1979 was 1 imited to one 

month and was conducted primarily to confirm an overhaul of the HSE which 

included the installation of a new type of shaft seal. The testing with the 

new seals was limited to io0 hours, leaving endurance testing until later. The 

operating conditions of the well and separator plant were dictated by the needs 

of a different project, some of which were not compatible with the testing of 

the HSE. This limited the available range of test conditions and data 

recorded. An example of the consequences is that the HSE power plant was 

tested at full load for only one inlet pressure and only one inlet quality. 

The preferred method of adjusting the HSE inlet pressure by setting the separa2 -4 
tor pressure was not available because of other site limits or priorities. 

Consequently test conditions in close groups or families of inlet pressures and 

qualities were not attainable. This test limitation yielded an assortment of 

test results d4Ff icult to characterize by conventional graphical methods. The 

data correlations derived for the Utah test results were a result of this difficulty. The correlations were effective and were subsequently used by ENEL 

for treating the test data in Italy where the data were similarly assorted with 

respect to test conditions. This could be important to readers interested in 

comparing the Utah data with data from the other sites. 

2. Mexico: 1980 and 1981 

The capacity of the well limited the continuous electrical output of 

Little or no adjustment of inlet quality 

the power plant to approximately 880 kW before the earthquake of June 8, 1980 

and between 820 to 860 kW afterwards. 

was possible for most tests. Tests with all-liquid feed were limited by the 

capacity of the well to 125-kW electrical output. During the wellhead testing 

in 1980, the desired scale g7owth within the HSE was severely limited by the 

placement of a pressure-reducing valve between the we! 1 head and the power 

plant, causing the majority of the scale to deposit just downstream of the 

valve, thtis reducing the potential fw deposition within the HSE. 

pressure-reducing valve was used because the speed governing system cannot control the speed of the HSE over the full load range over the full range of the 

wellhead pressures. The condensing tests in 1981 were severely limited by the 

cooling water supply to the test site and by a blockage in the inlet to the 

condensate extraction pump. 

The 

3. Italy: 1981 and 1982 

The capacity of the well limited the power production to 550 kW for 

a wellhead connection with unmeasured flowrate. The capacity of the separator 

plant limited the measured perfwmance to a maximum electrical output of 460 kW 

with both separators working in parallel, and to about 260 kW with only liquid 

from the sepiirators. Manipulation of the vapor/l iquid ratio to intermediate 

values was not feasible. The test periods were limited to a total of 121 hours 

by rapid rates of scale deposition in the well and in the surface piping, the 

separators, the separator control valves, and the HSE exhaust pipe. Although 

scale deposited rapidly within the KSE, it did not remain on the rotors. 

4. New Zealand: 1982 and 1983 

The electrical output of the power plant was limited to 850 kW 

because of the allowable torque on the drive shaft and the reduced speed 

resulting from the conversion to 50 Hz for the testing in Italy. The maximum 

stable inlet pressure was limited to 220 psia by the use of the low-pressure 

inlet trim in the speed control valve. The high-pressure trim was not used. 

2-5 
SECTION 111 

TEST OBJECTIVES 

to det 

under 

minati 

The test objec 

,ermine the eff 

various operat 

on of scaling, 

tives were essentially the sape at all test sites, namely 

iciency and reliability of the HSE usin) geothermal fluids 

ing conditions over an extended operating time. The detercorrosion and operaticn problems was included. As a 

group, the operating conditions were intended to be broad enough to permit 

assessing the application of the HSE to any water-dominated field including the 

test site. 

The specific test objectives differed among the three test sites but 

included the following: 

A, HEXICO 

(1) Determine the change in HSE efficiency dth time; 

(2) Investigate the problems that arise in the machine during long 

periods of operat ions ; 

(3) 

(4) Acquire technical information and train personnel. 

Perform vacuum exhaust testing of a preliminary nature; and 

The stated purpose of the tests was to determine under what conditions 

the use of the HSE in Cerro Prieto would be advisable. 

B. ITALY 

(1) Test with high-salinity fluids (310,000 ppm) direct from the wellhead and from a separator plant. 

densing testing because the lower resulting exhaust temperatures 

were predicted to cause excessive scale deposition in the low-pressure zones within the HSF. and in the exhaust system); and 

(This high salinity precluded con- 

(2) Test at 50-Hz generator output, and operate coupled to the grid as 

much as possible. 

rotor speed of 3333 rpm.) 

(The conversion to 50-H? operation yielded a male 

Test objectives independent of the HSE were to evaltiate scaling inhihitors, to investigate the possibility of the production of sodium and potassium 

sulfates, to carry out long-term production tests to investigate the geothermal 

reservoir, and to investigate a possible correlation between reinjection and 

seismic activity. 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

(1) Determine the performance at male rotor speeds of 3333 and 2500 rpm 

over the broadest possible range of load, inlet pressure and inlet 

quality. (These speeds resulted from the frequency change to 50 

3-1 
Hz and the original male rotor speed options of 4000 and 3000 rpm at 

60 Hz); and 

(2) Oetermine the reliability and the maintenance requirements of the 

HSE. 

3-2 
SECTION IV 

TEST SITES AND WELLS 

A. MEXICO 

The test installation in Mexico utilized well M-11 in the Cerro Prieto 

geothermal field (see Appendix A, Figure A-11, during the period from December 

1979 to April 1981. The chemical composition of the brine is listed in Tsble 

A-1, and the well completion and geological information are shown in Figure 

A-2. We1 1 M-ll was selected because its characteristics were we1 1-known, it 

did not produce sand, and it was normally stable. The well had a capacity of 

approximateiy 50 tons per hour (tons/h), which was known in advance to be 

undersized for testing the 1-MW wellhead generator. The capacity of the * -i 

corresponded to approximately 880 kW from the power plant, as discussed 

earlier. Production characteristics of the well are shown in the curves 

Figure A-3. 

B. ITALY 

..I Italy the HSE power plant was installed in the Cesano geothermal field 

located 25 km north of Rome to make use of the Cesano 1 well for electric power 

production. The Cesano 1 well produced the brine shown in Appendix B, 

Table B-1 at about 250 tons/h. It was recognized that the Cesano 1 brine, with 

total dissolved solids of 364,000 mg/l, was cot typical but would present an 

especially severe test of the HSE and its tolerance for scale. 

C. NEN ZEALAND 

The HSE was sited in New Zealand at well BR 19 in the Broadlands geothermal field. The well offered easily managed fluids at greater flow rates than 

the HSE could fully utilize. The fluid chemistry, mass output curve, and 

casing information with barresponding geological informatioi are shown in 

Appendix C, Table C-1 and Figures C-1 and C-2, respectively. 

4-1 
SECTION V 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODO! . 

The helical screw expander power plant consists primarily of I I IiSE 

driving a conventional alternator through a conventional speed reducer. The 

efficiency and performance characteristics of alternators and speed reducers 

are well-known. Since the HSE is the novel piece of equipment in the power 

plant, it is the efficiency and performance characteristics of the HSE that are 

of most interest in this Task. Other efficiencies such as power plan’. -1;ficiepcy or thermal efficiency can he determined but were optional. 

For the purpose of the performance evaluation ot the HSE, the machine 

efficiency is defined as 

KWM Eff = 

(hl - h2sJ 

where 

KWM = liSE shaft output power 

M1 = Mass flowrate of fluid through the HSE 

hl = Specific enthalpy of fluid entering the HSE at inlet 

pressure P1 and inlet temperature T1 

hZs = Specific enthalpy that would result from the isentrop:c 

expansion of the fluid from the HSE inlet condition to the 

outlet pressure P2 

and 

This is the standard equation for machine efficiency or isentropic efficiency under steady-state operation and is equal to the ratio of the actuP1 

work done by the expanding fluid to the work of an ideal expansion of the same 

fluid over the same pressure interval. 

None of the variables in the efficiency equation arc? normally measured 

directly. The value of h2s is calculated from hl and the thermodynamic 

properties of the fluid at the inlet and outlet oressures. KWM, M1 and hi 

must be determined experimentally. The HSE shaft output power KWM is determined by measuring the electrical output of the alternator KWe, and adding the 

alternator and the speed reducer losses. The alternator and speed rediicer were 

factory-calibrated for 60-HZ operation prior to installation in the power plant 

to determine the losses over the entire load range (Ref. 1, p. (3-3). The power 

loss equations were modified for 50-Hz operation as appropriate (Ref. R and 

C). 

The flowrate M1 and the inlet enthalpy hl can be determined for the 

typical cdse by separating the flow ‘nto single-phase vapor an& liquid streams 

whose flowrate and enthalpy can be aetermined and recombined to provide a 

stream of known flowrate and enthalpy to the HSi. 

each of the Host Countries and in the prior work. 

This procedure was ~ix3 by 

5-1 
Alternatively, the flowrate through the HSE and the exhaust enthalpy can 

be determined by measuring the vapor and liquid stream produxi by separating 

the exhaust. For an actual expander the sum of the power output plus thermal 

losses equals tale product of the flowrate and the actual change in enthalpy. 

Since the thermal losses we small and can be neglected, the inlet enthalpy can 

he calculated easily. This procedure of HSE efficiency determination by downstream determination of flowrate and enthalpy was used at well M-11 in Mexico 

to allow a true wellhead installation of the power plant. (For more details of 

these two procedures see Ref. 1, pp. 5-1 to 5-4.) 

5 -2 
SECTION VI 

INSTALLATION 

A. PROCESS LAYOUTS 

1. Mexico 

Two process layouts were used at well M-11 in Cerro Prieto. The 

first provided a wellhead line that bypassed an oxisting separator to carry 

fluid through a pressure control valve to the HSE. 

passed through an atmospheric separator which vented the steam to the atmosphere through an orifice and sent the brine to a weir channel. 

on the two streams allowed the exhaust flowrate and enthalpy to be determined. 

The process schematic is shown in Figure 6-1 (see also Ref. 1, p. 5-7). 

waste through an atmospheric silencer. 

ity, and because of the small capacity of the well no provision was made to 

manipulate the fluid quality to the HSE. 

tests from approximately 10% to 30% according to the amount of flashing that 

occurred as the fluid passed up the well and through the pressure control valve 

and according to the amount of fractionation that occurred as part of the fluid 

was bypassed to waste under selected HSE inlet pressures and loads. 

tionation occurred mostly because the flow path was straight toward the pressure control valve and HSE but turned 90' into the bypass. 

The exhaust from the HSE 

Measurements 

Surplus fluid flcw from the well was bypassed from the wellhead to 

For instal lation and operating simp1 icThe quality varied amnng the various 

The fracThis process layout, Figure 6-1, was IJS& in 1980 for ooncondecsing 

performance tests at various inlet and outlet pressures and loads and for 

endurance testing at the full capacity of the well. The provision for elevated 

back pressure is not shown in Figure 6-1 but the equipment used is described in 

Ref. 1, pp. 5-27 and 5-29. 

preliwinary vacuum exhaust testing. 

readily available equipment. 

denser and was fitted with a steam jet ejector and a condensate extraction 

pump. 

approximatsly 900 ft to the condenser through a pipeline normally used as a 

waste line for the brine from the wellhead separator when the steam from well 

M-11 was delivered to Cerro Prieto power pl3nt C.P. 1. Scale in the pipe had 

reduced the insi4e diameter to about 5 in. The wellhead sepdrator, not shown 

in Figure 6-1, was reinstalled for the vacuum exhaust testing to provide separatec! steam and water streams, thus permitting measurement and recombining of 

the streams for delivery to the HSE at a known flowrate and enthalpy. 

cers schematic for the vacuum exhaust testing is shown in Figure 6-2. This 

process installation also permitted testing the rlSE with dtmospheric discharge 

by venting the condenser to atmosghere. A bypass on the steam line from the 

separator permitted venting the steam to the silencer for testing the HSE on 

all-liquid feed at low power. 

directly to the silencer, again at right angles to the flow to the pressure 

The process layout shown in Figure 6-1 was modified to permit some 

The exhaust separator was converted into a conThe plan was to make use of existing or 

Cooling water fror the evaporation pond (see Figure A-1) was transported 

The proAnother bypass also connected the wellhead 

h-1 
0 

I 

*a'* 

0000 

E 

N 

.- *cum I 

0 cuoo 

6- 2 
- 

0 

c 

c 

0 

L 

u 

a 

ln 

c, 

tn aJ 

It 

e 

i 

0 L - e 

- e 

L ; 

r" m * 0 

c e 

U 

V 

- 

5 

b 

e 

0 8 

0 

. 

1 em E!! 0 

CU 

v, 

v) 

Q: 

V 

0 

L 

a, 

EL 

om 

2; 

"3 z 

P 

I 

c . 

(u 

I 

W 

aJ 

L 

3 

CT 

LL 

.r 

Q 

6-3 
control valve and HSE. The main purpose of this bypass was to regulate the 

wellhead pressure to give the optimum pressure drop across the pressure control 

valve. The combined effects of the amount of flashing and fractionation with 

the bypass resulted in inlet qualities to the HSE ranging from 10% to 34% 

except for the few tests on all-liquid feed. 

2. Italy 

The process layout at Cesano 1 Hell was designed as a pilot plant 

not only to test the HSE but also to investigate the production and recovery of 

chemicals frm the geothermal reservoir. The pilot plant, shown in Figure 6-3, 

featured two primary or wellhead separators i n s t a l l e d for parallel operation to 

permit alternate usage and cleaning. Rrine from the primary separators could 

be subjected to a second control ied f!ash into a secondary separator for the 

chemical studies. Various features of the pilot plant that werc designed to 

accommodate the severe scaling characteristics of the well are afscussed f* 

Ref. 8. For the HSE tests, liquid and vapor streams from the primary separators .:Ere measured and recombined for delivery to the HSE at known flowrate and 

entha’pny, as shown in the process schematic in Figure 6-4. Provisions for 

venting vapor and liquid from the primary separators permitted varying the 

vapor/liquid ratio in the feed to the HSE. These separators were designed to 

operate at wellhead pressure and were undersized for‘ the HSE tests. The 

plant was modified so that the two separators could operate simultaneous 

a line was installed for operating the HSE directly from the wellhead as 

in the process schematic in Figure 6-5. 

3. New tealand 

The process layout at Broadlands well BR 19 consisted of a v:! 

pilot 

Y, and 

shown 

1 head 

leg car jing geothermal fluid to a separator plant with associated pipework 

carrying the fluid to the HSE. The separated steam and liquid flows were 

measured, recombined, directed to the HSE, and finally discharged through an 

atmospheric silencer to waste. Surplus fluid flow from the well was bypassed 

to waste through ir second atmospheric silencer. A process schematic is shown 

in Figure 6-6. 

Flow from the well to the separator was controlled by a pressure 

control valve either automatically from the separator pressure by means of a 

pressure control unit or manually from an auto-manual control station. The 

1 iquid levei in this separator was controlled manual ,y with the hand valve on 

the liquid bypass l i n e t o the bypass silencer. 

The process layout enabled the fluid quality to be varied across the 

range of fluid compositions, from all-liquid to all-steam, and enabled the mass 

flowrate and enthalpy of the fluid entering the HSE to be determined. 

B. SHAFT SEAL WATER 

A reliable water supply low in calcium hardness and particulates was 

required for the shaft seal assemblies in the HSE to provide an expendable 

barrier between the seals and the brine. The design rate of consumption was 

about 4 gpm. A different type of water source was used at each test installation. 

6-4 
Y 

a 

c 

a 

Y 

0 

U 

t 

6- 5 
AP BP 

Figure 6-4. Process Schematic: 

HSE Operating from Separator, Italy (Ref. R, Fig. 6) 

6-6 
C1 

Water 1 softener 4 

Figure 6-5. Process Schematic: 

HSE Operating from Wellhead, Italy (Ref. R, Fig. 5) 

6-7 
I I 

ul c 

6-8 
1. Mexico 

At Cerro Prieto, water for the shaft seals was supplied from the 

cooling tower of power plant C.P. 1. and transported by 2-in. pipe a distance 

of approximately 1 mile. Because a cool ing tower is a wet scrubber that . emoves dust from the air, the water was heavily laden with particulates, and 

filtration was necessary. Qecause the transport pipe was old and contained 

scale deposits, the water arrived at the well site with excessive amounts of 

calcium ions, and water wftening was rlecessary. 

pipe was passed in sequence through a booster pump, 3 filter, standard household cation exchange water softeners, a second filter. a second booster ;lump, a 

third filter, and into a covered holding tank. The first and third fi',ers 

were readily available diatomaceoiis earth filters made for use with home swimming pools. These filters replaced earlier filters that were not satisfactory. 

The second booster pump and the second and third filters had sufficient capacity to allow a stream of water to be withdrawn from the holding tank and recycled through the second and third filters. The process layout is shown in 

Figure 6-7. The water chemistry of samples taken from the holding tank (or 

main container) is included in Table A-2. The storaye pond shown in the layout 

was installed ciriyinally to hold water brought in by tank trtJCk, but this 

method of supply proved unsatisfactory, either because of ground water 

encroachment or salt spray fallout from the air for certain wind directions. 

Water from the pond was not used. Some of the impurities in the water froin the 

tower may have been salts scrubbed from the air. Close attention to the water 

treatment and water qual ity was very important. The diatomaceous earth filters 

normally remove particles down to 1 km size or smaller, but polishing filters 

on the power plant were left in place to remove particles down to 25 pin in case 

of upset. Until the diatoinaceous earth filters were installed, the polishing 

filters plugged in about wo hours of operation, tripping the safety shutdown 

system. 

rosive and was not removed. 

The water from the transport 

Hydrogen sulfide carried Sn the water from the cooling tower was cor- 

(Tee Section IX for a report of corrosion.) 

2. Italy 

Water for the shaft seals was obtained from a shallow well and was 

treated in a commercial-size water softening system shown schematically in 

Figure 6-5 before being sent through the polishing filters on the power plant. 

3. New Zealand 

ceous 

c. 

was d 

Water low in calciiim and sodium carbonate hardness was obtained indirectly from a river that passed near the site. The 5eal flusn water supplied 

to the HSE was orefiltered to levels exceeding the irianufacttirer's specification 

of 25 pm. Durirg the performance tests, \rater filtrdtion to a level of 12pm 

was performed usiny cartridye filters. 

shaft seal assembly showed seal damaye, apparently from abrasion and particulate matter within the assembly. 

After these tests, inspection of one 

Therefore, for the endurance test, a didtomaeartn iJ,ctem was installed to perform prefiltraiion to a level of 1.5 pm. 

LOAD 

At all installations the 

ssipated in a resistive 

electrical energy generated by the power plant 

oad bank supplied as part of the test equipment 
6-10 
and described in Ref. 1, p. 2-17. 

power plant was converted from 60 Hz to 50 Hz and the output voltage was 

reduced from 480 V to typically 430 V. Loads could be incremented in steps of 

50 kW at 480 V as in Utah and Mexico and in increments of approximately 40 kW 

at 430 V as in Italy and New Zealand. In Italy for some of the testing the 

power plant was connected with the Italian electrical grid according to the 

electrical sketch shown in Figure 6-8. No attempt was made to synchronize with 

the Mexico or New Zealand electrical grids due to the distance of the sites 

from suitable transmission lines. 

In preparation for the testing in Italy, the 

0. AUXILIARY POWER 

Auxiliary power was provided by diesel generators at the test sites in 

Mexico and New Zealand. In Italy, auxiliary power was provided from the 

Ita1 ian electrical grid. 

E. PROCESS AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING 

1. Instruments 

All installations were instrumented to enable performance and 

selected process variables to be logged. 

monitoring the performance variables are shown on the process schematics for 

each installation, in Figures 6-1 through 6-6. For the Cerro Prieto installations, the process variables are listed on the schematics, Figures 6-1 and 6-2, 

and for the Cesano and Broadlands installations they are listed separately, as 

nomenclature in Table B-2 for Cesano, ;ind as variables logged in Table C-2 for 

Broadlands. The similarity in the lists of variables is readily apparent and 

is to be expected. Table C-2 includes HSE bearing temperatures and alternator 

winding temperatures which were measured at all sites. 

The locations of the instruments 

The list of transducers used i,~ the Broadlands installation is presented in detail in Table C-3 and may be considered typical. This 1 ist is part 

of a longer list of the transducers that were used in the prior work in i'tah. 

All the process transducers were calibrated for each installatior1 

prior to the commencement of the testing using the same calibration equipment, 

and checks were performed durino the testing to ensure reliable data were being 

1 ogged. 

In the interest of consistency, wherever possible the same instruments were used at all of the test sites, although in some cases the assignment 

within the process schematic was rear mged. 

Notable instrumentation differences among the installations were as 

f 01 1 ows : 

a- 

(see Figure 6-1), the measurement of liquid separated from the HSE exhaust was 

b,y weir. All other measurements of flow of fluid throqh the HSE were by 

orifice. The vapor measurements used flange taps as had been done in Utah, 

whereas the liquid measurement in the second process (see Figure 6-2) lrsed 

pressure taps at 0 and D/2 locations according to the ASME convention. 

- Mexico. In the first process installation in Cerro Prieto 

6-1 1 
x 

cd 

T! 

g.5 .A L L 

> 

0 

6-12 
b. Italy. At Cesano 1, the flow of liquid from the separator for 

deliver;. to the !iSE was measured by a mastietic flowmeter with a removable electroce. The metering tube was of PTFE, scwiceable to 180°C and 40 bar. Cold 

Waf:* was injected upstream of the magnetic flowmeter to avoid boiling withrli 

the meter. 

D/2 taps conforming to ASME convention. 

The flowrate of the vapor phase was measured by orifice with D and 

c. New Zealand. In the Broadlands installation, flowrates were 

metered using D -Lorifice plates conforming to the British Standard, BS 

1042 Pt. 1. As in Utah and Mexico, the water orifice plate was installed with 

sufficient head to avoid flashing at the orifice. 

2. Data Acquisftion 

The data acquisition system was built around Hewl2tt-Packard equipment and is described in detail in Ref. 1, pp. 2-17 to ?-42. Each Host Country 

adapted the computer programs supplied tq suit the corrqsponding i n s t a l l a t i o n . 

The operating programs calculated, on-1 ine, the isentropic efficiency of tne 

HSE. The equations specific to the Mexican, Italian and New Zealand test programmes are documented in Refs. A, 8 and C, respectively. All operating programs logged test data on tape cassettes automatically at pre-set intervals and 

by operator command. 

The instrumentation and data logging facilities enab?;.d easy, re1 iable monitoring and recording of the data generated from the test programs at 

all sites. 

6-1 3 
SECTIOH VI1 

TESTING 

A. SXICO 

Tests were done to measure the performance of the HSE and power plant 

under various process conditions arld to assess the durability and operational 

problems of the equipment. The test activities were carried out appr2Aimately 

as follow; (Ref. A): 

Equipment Reception and Installation: 

December 1, 1979 - February 10, 1980 

During this period the power plant was installed at well M-11 

according to the orocess schematic of Figure 6-1 for testing with 

atmospheric pressure discharge. A1 1 other equipment installations 

were started. 

Auxiliary Equipment Instal lation and Verification: 

February il, 1980 - March 30, 1980 

Auxiliary test support equipment was installed and tested. The data 

acquisition system for use with the computer was verified and the 

instruments were cal ibrated and instal led. 

Various Test Exercises: 

Warch 31, 1980 - May 31, 1980 

The HSE was operated at different inlet pressures and loads at 3000- 

rpm male rotor speed. Necessary changes were identified an3 made in 

tk mechanical subsystems throughout the period. Approximately 

17.67 MWh of elec2ricity were generated during 70 hours of testing. 

Data obtained duriqg tbis period were preliminary pendipg instrument 

instal lation improvements and completion of the computer program. 

Endurance Test: 

May 31, 1980 - July 2Q, 1980 

The power plant was cperated at full well capdcity to determine durability and operational problems. Nominal conditions were inlet 

prssure 180 psia, inlet quality 228, and electrical load 850 kW. 

The test was interriipted on June 8 by an earthquake, on June 18 by a 

steam leak, on June 26 by variation in the wellhead pressure, on 

July 8 by a ruptured disc, on July 15 by high wellhead pressure, and 

on July 20 by a load bank problem. The test totaled approximately 

985 hours of operation, duricg which 826.5 MWh of electricity were 

generated. 

Various Tests: 

July 29, 1980 - August 28, 1980 

7-1 
During this period, tests were carried out at 3000- and 4000-rpm 

male rotor speeds at different inlet and outlet pressures, inlet 

quality and applied loads. The range of operating conditions was as 

follows: 

Inlet pressure, nominal (psia) 100, 140, 180 

Exhaust pressure 

Electrical load (kW) 211 to 857 

Inlet quality, random (X) 10 to 34 

Atmosphere and 25 to 40 psia 

Approximately 3.45 MWh of electricity were generated during the 9.23 

hours of these various tests. 

(6) Condenser Installations: 

September 1, 1980 - December 4, 1980 

During this period the installation was revised to carry out condensing tests according to the process schematic of Figure 6-2. The 

auxiliary changes were made, and the computer program was adapted to 

analyze the machine behavior under the new testing conditions. 

(7) Installation Exercises: 

December 5, 1980 - January 28, 1981 

The installation was subjected to various exercises to verify the 

instal lat ion and computer program revisions. Necessary adjustments 

and equipment repairs were identified and made throughout this 

period. 

January 29, 1981 - February 20, 1981 

(8) Various Tests: 

During this period, tests were run at 3000- and 4000-rpm male rotor 

speed, at different inlet and outlet presstires and applied leads, 

The range of operating ccnditions was as follows: 

Inlet pressure (psia! 

Inlet quality (%) 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Electrical load (kW) 

64 to 183 

near 0 to 26 

3.1 to 16.2 

123 to 933 

These tests were performed during 37.35 test hoiirs during which 10.1 

MWh of electricity were generated. 

(9) Equipment Disassembly: 

February 23, 1981 - April 15, 1981 

The disassembly of the equipment and preparations for shipment to 

Italy were carried out. During this period the following item were 

changed by HPC as part of the conversion of the power plant for the 

50-Hz operation in Italy: 

7 -2 
a. 

b. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

9- 

h. 

C. 

A1 ternator exciter 

Overspeed switch 

Underspeed switch 

frequency meter on power plant 

frequency meter in data van 

Kilowatt transducer 

Oil booster pump motor 

Centrifuge system: transmission gears, clutch, solenoid 

In addition, the 50- and 60-Ht kilowatt transducers and the kilowatt 

hour meter were factory-calibrated. 

B. ITALY 

The testing of the HSE was part of a broader programme of experimental 

activity planned for this test installation. 

The tests at Cesano 1 well were designed to determine the efficiency and 

reliability of the HSE when operating on highly scaling fluids and to 

demonstrate the operation of the HSE power plant connected to the national 

el ect r i ca 1 g r id . It was known in advance that the rapid rates of scale deposition would 

create serious test difficult'es. 

The operating periods of the Cesano 1 test instaliacion for September 

1981 through April 1982 are summarized in figure 7-1. 

include tests cf the pilot plant without the HSE, scali inhibitor tests, 

testing of the ASE, and cleaning of the well. As can be seen from the figure, 

the testipg of the HSE occurred mostly durins November 1981 and March 1982. 

The chronology of site operations, from July 20, 1981 when the HSE arrived at 

the site through June 25, 1982 when it was shipped, is presented in Table B-3. 

These operations arc summarized as follows: 

The site operations 

(1) Fquipment Reception and Instaliations: 

July 20, 1981 - October 5, 1981 

The installation of the Cesano 1 (Figure 6-3) pilot plant without 

the HSE was finished at the end of July 1981. The HSE and 

associated equipment arrived on the site July 20, 1981. The HSE 

hook-up was finished around October 5 (Figure 6-4). The fluorescent 

lights and the air conditioner in the data van were changed for the 

50-Ht operation, and a 1154, 3-kW transformer power supply was 

instal led. Down-well scale inhibitor tests were done during this 

period. 

(2) We1 1 Cleaning and Data System Preparation: 

October 6, 1981 - November 17, 1981 

Following the down-well scale inhibitor tests, it was necessary to 

clean the well and prepare it for testing the HSE. At the sa% 

7 -3 
\ 

h 

N 

P, 

LL 

c 

m 

7- 4 
time, the instruments were cal ibrated, instal led and checked, and 

the computer program supplied with the equipment was adapted for use 

at this installation. Program revisions for the thermodynamics of 

the Cesano 1 fluids were deferred, 

(3) Initiation of HSE Performance Test Operations: 

November 18, 1981 - December P, 1981 

The HSE was tested intermittently under various cmditions to determine its performance on Cesano 1 fluids. The initial test was 

attempted with only vapor from the separator but in order to produce 

an adequate flow of vapor it was necessary to overdrive the separator because it was too small. Scraping noises and chatter in the 

HSE began before the HSE was up to temperature and full speed, and 

were believed to be caused by scale deposits from brine carry-over 

in the vapor. The reasons for starting the operation on the vapor 

phase was to achieve stable HSE operation with a machine free of 

scale and then to monitor performance changes as the scale deposition occurred, but the rapid scale deposition made this impossible. 

Test operation was resumed using the liquid phase. The scraping and 

chatter occurred again and occasional strong vibrations were noted. 

This behcvior was assessed and it was decided to continue the 

tests. 

Rapid scale growth throughout the process piping impeded the test 

operations. Many stops were necessary to clean the filter basket 

(Figure 7-2) in the inlet separator. For the December 2 test, the 

basket was cleaned ten times. 

During some of the tests, the HSE exhaust port and exhaust pipe 

experienced a glaserite scale growth of about 2 cm/h. The problem 

was partly reduced by injecting fresh water into the exhaust through 

ports in the exhaust housicg. Assorted samples of scale (shown in 

Figure 1-3) include, from within the HSE exhaust region, pieces with 

cylindrical faces shaped by the rotors. 

The strongest vibrations within the HSE were believed to have been 

caused by scale coming 'oose within the machine and interfering with 

the rotors, with lessor vibrations or chatter being caused b.y scale 

still attached. Eventually seals in three of the four shaft seal 

assembl ies became damaged, leading to abnormal oil consumption in 

excess of 10 gph after about 26 hours of operation including idling 

without load. The test activities were halted to repair these shaft 

seals, to clean the process installation and to make minor process 

changes. Before the test activities were halted, the power plant 

was connected to the grid for 14 hours. 

The test activities in November and December produced a total of 

7.74 MWh of electrical energy during 23.46 hours of electricity production. The tests showed a need to increase the fluid supply to 

the expander, both through the separator for measured performance 

and directly from the wellhead for test and demonstration purposes. 

7-5 

(4) Shaft Seal Repair dnd Process Instal lation Renovation: 

December 2, 1981 - March 10, 1982 

Thorough inspection of the damaged shaft seals showed that some of 

the carbon segments had cracked at the notch that was provided for a 

locking pin. 

could be detected. 

1224 hours. 

No wear on any of the races or other sea!ing surfaces 

Tile iota1 operating time on the seals was then 

The repair involved revising the locking pins to distribute the 

stress in the carbon segments, using an existing set of spare seal 

assemblies. Secondary passages or bleed ports were provided in the 

seal assemblies to allow the recapture of the oil that normally 

leaks past the seals into the flush water. Appropriate recapture 

passages were machined ir?tn tho HSE housing to allow recovery of the 

recaptured oil. This oil recapture and recovery scheme was cqnsidered during the designing af seals but was not implement4 at that 

time (see Section 1I.A). The improved seal assemblies were installed; the fourth, undamaged assembly remained in the HSE. No bleed 

port or recovery passages were instal led for the fourth assembly, 

and none of the other three was connected for use at this time. The 

centrifuge was not large enough for this added load and there was 

neither time nor money for alternative measures. 

In the process installat ion, the valves, separators and pipelines 

were cleaned. A new, large cone-filter was designed and installed 

upstream of the HSE to avoid the many stops due to the c'.ogging of 

the basket filter. A new pipeline was installed between the wellhead and the new filter, and piping changes were made so that the S1 

and S2 separators (Figure 6-3) could be operated simultaneously to 

increase the fluid supply tc the HSE. 

(5) Continuation of Performance Tests: 

March io, 1982 - March 11, 1982 

Performance tests were made at loads up to 460 kW, the maximum 

available with fluid from the two separators working in parallel. 

Loss of oil through the new low-pressure male shaft seal assembly 

was detected almost immediately after start-up. The power plant was 

connected to the ENCL electrical grid for part of the operation. 

During the testing, the well began to clog. Notwithstandirtg the 

flushing with fresh water, the exhaust pipe also began to clog. The 

operation was stopped to clean the well and the HSE exhaust pipe. 

March 12, 1982 - March 23, 1982 

(6) Cleaning of the Well and the HSE Exhaust Pipe: 

The well and the HSE exhaust pipe were cleaned. Some inject 

tests on the well were carried out to verify its condition. 

ations were made to install oil recovery lines from the spec 

ports in the shaft seal assemblies. 

on 

Yrepara1 

7 -7 
(7) Completion of Performance and Demonstration Tests: 

March 23, 1982 - April 1, 1982 

Measured performance tests were made at various loads up to a maximum of about 450 kW and at various inlet pressures and throttle 

positions. Rapid scale growth in the HSE exhaust sjstem caused elevation in the outlet pressure, a drop in machine efficiency, and 

stiffening of the flexible section of the exhaust pipe. The tests 

were stopped to clean the exhaust system. Pieces of scale more than 

10-cm thick were found (Figures 7-4 and 7-5). Oil lost from the 

leeking seal assembly was recovered through the recapture port and 

sent to a holding tank for separation from the flush water. Use of 

the centrifuge would have been preferred but its capacity was not 

sufficient to handle this added load or similar loads from the other 

assemblies should they occur. Separation in the holding tank was 

poor and was aided by heating the mixture in the. tank. 

The testing was resumed and coupling to the ENEL grid was attempted. 

The coupling operation was rough, causing the shear pins in a shear 

coupling in the HSE power plant to shear, probably because the synchronization and coup1 ing operation was manual. (For a discussion 

of the purpose of the shear coupling, see Ref. 1, p. 2-10.) New 

shear pins were constructed in the ENEL workshop in Larderello and 

then installed in the HSE so the tests could resume. Tests were 

then done on liquid only. After a few hours, the test was halted to 

permit cleaning the pipeline to the disposal vel 1, the separator 

plant, the control valves and the valves near the wellhead. 

After the cleaning, the power plant was operated directly from the 

wellhead to demonstrate the maximum producible power of 550 kW. 

Under this condition, the pressure drop in the pipeline and filters 

was about 24 psi, largely because of scale deposits. The operation 

was then converted to measured performance using the separators, 

first with liquid only, then liquid and vapor. During this test it 

became necessary to stop again to clean the exhaust pipe because the 

discharge pressure steadily increased. 

The final test determined the perFormance of the HSE at the maximum 

producible power of 260 kW from the liquid phase using both separators. The separator capacity was limited by excessive entry velocity because of scale in the supply lines. 

with a check of the governor behavior at no load with liquid and 

vapor feed to the HSE. The check demonstrated that the power plant 

would idle steadily at an inlet pressure to the HSE of 180 psia if 

the governor were adjusted for a high droop. 

The test was terminated 

All of the objectives of the HSE tests were considered reached and 

the plant was shut in. During the tests, the power plant produced 

26.46 MWh of electricity and logged 121 test hours, of which 53 were 

while connected to the Italian electrical grid. 

(8) Disassembly and Packing for Shipment: 

April 1, 1982 - June 25, 1982 

7 -8 

The power plant and associated test equipment, was disassembled and 

packed for shipment to NEW Zealand. 

C. NEW ZEALAN3 

The tests were designed to provide data on the operation of the HSE in 

the two main areas of performance and endurance. Performance was monitored at 

two rotational speeds over a range of fluid inlet conditions and applied loads. 

An endurance test assessed the re1 iabil ity and maintenance requirements of the 

equ i pment . 

A test chronology is presented in Table C-4. The operations, beginning 

with the arrival of the HSE, are summarized as follows: 

Equipment Reception, Installation and Preparations: 

September 2, 1982 - October 19, 1982 

The HSE and associated equipment arrived at the site and was 

irstalled according to the process schematic shown in Figure 6-6. 

The instrments wer2 calibratsd and installed and the computer program was modified to suit the site and was verified. All necessary 

equipment repafrs were done and the installation was completed and 

tested. 

Performance Tests: 

October 20, 1982 - December 14, 1982 

The HSE was run intermittently during the performance test period. 

The electrical energy generated ktas 35.4 MWh from 102 hours of operation. Performance testing encompassed a wide range of operating 

conditions in order to map the operational characteristics of the 

HSE. Significant improvement ir! the efficiency of the plant was not 

expected with deposition due to the low scaling potential of the 

Broadlands geothermal fluid. The HSE was tested at two speeds in 

order to assess the effect of rotor tip velocity on performance. No 

condensing testing was planned. 

The tests were carried out under the following conditions: 

Inlet pressure (psia) 

Inlet steam quality (%) 

Exhaust pressure 

Electrical load (kW) 

Electrical frequency (iiz) 

Mal e rotor speed (rpm) 

100, 140, 180, 220 

0, 10, 25, 50, 100 

atmospher ic pressure 

to 850 

50 2 .4 

25il0, 3333 

The plant was preheated for 30 to 60 minutes before being brought up 

to speed and exciting the alte-nator. 

problem continued following the replacement of the male low-pressure 

shaft seal assembly. This fault taxed the oil/water separation centrifuge beyond its capacity during the New Zealand performance tests 

until a replacemert seal assembly was installed in February 1983 

prior to the endurance test. 

In Italy a shaft sealing 

7-10 
The voltage regulator on the HSE alternator malfunctioned in 

November 1982 and testing ceased on November 12 until a replacement 

regulator was installed on November 29. During the test interruption, the 2500-rpm gear set was instdlled. The regulator malfunction cut short the testing at 3333 rpm, resii!ting in the 3333-rpm 

data being incomplete for an inlet pressure of 180 psia and a 10% 

steam quality. 

Data loggicg during the performance tests was performed at the discretion of the computer o;ierator, who ensured t!tat the plant and 

process cor;ditions were stable hefore loggitig data. 

Endurance Test Preparations: 

FebrLary 6, 1983 - February 23, 1983 

Preparations were made for the endurance test. .The preparations 

consisted principally of (1) replacing the male low-pressure seal 

assembly, (2) modifying the piping for the centrifuge and shaft seal 

flush water, (3) installing a diatomaceous earth water filtration 

plant, and (4) reinstalling the gear set for testing at 3333 rpm. 

During the replacement of the shaft seal assembly, it Has discovered 

that a flake of extraneous material had lodged under the side face 

of one of the carbon seal segments, causing the oil leakage observed 

after installation in Italy. The flake had spalled from an '.riperfection in the face of the housing, evidently during the assembly or 

inst.allation of the seals in Italy. This explains why the leakage 

vas immediate and persistent. Inspect ion also revealed an accumulaiion of 1 ight-colored particill ates throughout the seal assembly, 

including on the races. At the time of the inspection, these particblates were identified as pumice from the river. Two types of 

wear damage were also seen. The races under the hydraload seals 

were grooved, and pumice was found under the seals, although the 

seals themselves appeared to be undamaged. 

hushing seal was not damaged, but the carbon was; carbon was easily 

wiped off the sealing face. Recause the same water supply fed all 

four seal assemblies, it is reasonable to assume that similar pumice 

loading occurred in the other three assemblies, hut they were not 

inspected or cleaned. A possible alternative to damage by pumice or 

other particulates from the river exists. This alternative is 

damage by particulates left behind after the griilding or drilling 

done in the HSE case during the installation of the oil recovery 

passages in Italy. The cause of damage observed fn New Zealand 

after 98 hours of operation in Italy and 102 hours of operation in 

New Zealand must be rationalized with the absence of aetectable wear 

in the three seal assemblies which were removed in Italy after 1224 

hours of prior operation. 

The race under the 

The discovery of both pumice and seal damage from wear led to t.he 

installation of the diatomaceous earth water filtration plant. It 

should be noted that diatomaceous earth filters were used with 

success in Mexico to protect the shaft seals from damage by dirt in 

7-11 
the water supply during most of the 1100 hours of operation there; 

subsequent inspection of three of the seal assemblies in Italy 

showed no sign of seal or race wear. 

(4) Endurance Test: 

February 4, 1983 - May 3, 19C3 

The endarance test was terminated ahead of schedule on the 69th day 

bxsuse af axccssive shaft seal of1 leakage. A 90-day test haa been 

planned. The cacse of the sfraft sea’ leakage was not determined. 

The electrical energy generated was 1.3 GWh from 1632.7 hours of 

operation of which for 1534 hours the operation was run continuously 

during the test. The plant was automatically shut down on March 4 

by the safety shutdown circuitry when the overspeed switch tripped. 

The switch was reFic and the test continued. 

The plant operJting conditions were selected to ensure that stable 

governor speed control could be maintained in the event of electrical load or inlet pressure variations. 

The operating conditions were as follows: 

Inlet preszure (psia) 

Inlet quality (%) 

Ex haus t pres su re 

Electrical load (kW) 

Throttle position (X) 

Isentropic efficiency (X) 

(Calculated) 

177 to 182 

25 to 27.3 

atmos pher i c 

802 to 812 

47 to 61 

43 to 46.5 

The HSE was designed as a wellhead generating unit. Under these 

conditions the plant must be capable of running unattended. 

quently the test h 

vision. 

Conseset up to run with a minimum of operator superPlant checks were performed hollrly for the first three days of the 

test. The interval between chcks was then increased until checks 

were performed daily at 8:OO and 14:OO hours during the working week 

and once every 24 hours on weekends and hol idays. 

once every 24 hours was considered adequate for this unit. 

A plant check 

A performance record of the plant was logged hourly by the computer 

dlrring the endurance test. 

(5) Inspection, Disassembly, Packing and Shipment: 

May 4, 1983 - June 16, 1983 

The separator plant was dismantled and returned to NZED Wairakei. A 

post-test inspection of the HSE was made to determine the extent of 

scale build-up on the rotors and housing. The power plant and associated test equipment were disassembled from the process installation, packed, and transported to Auckland for shipment to the USA. 

7-12 
SECTION VI11 

TEST RESULTS 

A. MEXICO 

The compiTer program used for logging the test data and for ca1cul;ting 

the tert resulLs on-line during the testing in Cerro Prieto was based on a computer program developed for the Utah tests. The Utah program contained a subroutine for the thermodynamic properties of the geothermal fluids using the 

steam table data of Keenan and Keyes, with corrections for noncondensable gases, and salts up to a concentration of 10%. 

thermodynamic correct ions were used in the CFE program. Instead, curve-fit approximations to steam t:r.ie data were used, with no corrections for impurities. 

For Cerro Prieto HC:~ M-11 fluids, the correctiofis were deemed hy CFE to be unimportant, due to the low concert;-ation of salts and noncondensable gases 

(Table A-1). Tile operating computer program used on-1 ine during the testing 

was not always updated with refinements in calibration data or flow measurement 

parameters during the testing, but deferring thebe revisions until later did 

not impair the use of the program for data logging or test management. 

changed some of the nomenclature used in the computer progrm, thus making the 

nomenclature different from the nomenclature used at the other sites, as shown 

in Table A-3. 

Neither this subroutine nor the 

CFE 

Site condi+,ions at Cerro Prieto well M-11 were severe and no attempt was 

made to operate the power plant unattended. Ambient temperatures to 12OOF and 

above caused electrical control devices to deform and/or to experience unexpected overload. Corrosion of electrical and mechanical equipment was a 

serious problem. The heavy particulate burden in the water supply for the 

shaft seals required close attention to and maintenance of the seal water 

system, and scale deposits from the brine required frequent checking and maintenance of some of the process instruments and process equipment. 

(1) Endurance Test 

Th 1 endurance test was run intermittently from May 31, 1980, to 

July 29, 1980. During the test, the power plant was operated at the 

maximum power sustainable by the well. The full load testing was 

ccncluded to repeat earlier performance tests at various loads and 

in1 et pressures. 

The operating conditions were as follows: 

Inlet pressure (psia) 173 to 197 

Inlet quality (%) 20 to 35 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Electrical load (kW) 807 to 882 

Isentropic efficiency (X) 

15.0 to 16.1 

Throttle position (X) 60 to 78 

50 to 59 

(Cal cu I at ed ) 

8-1 
The endurance tcst produced approx .mately 825 MWh of electrical 

energy generated during 978 hours 3f ogeration. 

rupted six times Cor periods of from 2-1/2 hodrs to six days for a 

total time of approrimately 435 lourz. None of the s-:x stops were 

autovatic and nolie were attrioutable to the power plant. One stop 

was precauticnary during an earthquake an6 two vore because of 

unstable wellhead pressure; the other three were failure of a rupture disc, a leak in a pressure gauge line on the xpply p’pt from 

the well, and failure of a load bank far. These failures are chronicled in more detail in Table A-4. 

The test was inter- 

(2) Endurance Test. Results 

A record of the prorrss dnd plant performances was logged at intervals by the computer during the endurance test. 

from the record is presented in Table A-5. Daily jverages of 

machine efficiency (Rm), total mass flow rate (Wt), and inlet 

enthalpy (He) are plotted in Figure A-4. It was predicted that the 

efficicicy of the HSE would improve with scale deposition during the 

test. in earlier tests, it ‘.ad been cbserved that the machine w>s 

internally self-cleaning, especially during test interruption. it 

was expected that the endurance test would offer the first good 

opportunity for scale growth within the machine and restilting efficiency improvement, because the endurance run was scheduled to !wn 

nonstop. 

A table of data 

An efficiency increase was recorded during the test, as shown in 

Figure A-4 and Table A-5. This increase war attributed to scale 

growth within the machine, which reduced the clearances between the 

helical screw rotors and the case. For the overall duration of the 

tezt, CFE reported an incrcase in efficiency on the order of 4 percentage points, based on the daily averages as shown in Fiyure A-4. 

During the test, efficiency improvements as much as a 7 percentagepoint daily average were shown (Figure A-4 and able A-5). It is 

possible that ;hese higher, mid-test yains were subser_,;itly cancelled by the observed loss of scale, as was be ieved at the time. 

Or there may have been flow measurement errors, as proposed hy CFE, 

although none were identified. 

(3) Perfqrmance Tests 

The performance testiny was done in three yroups. The first group 

were atmosphere exhaust pressure tests done at 3000-rpm male rotor 

speed before the endurance test, usiny the noncondensing test 

arrangement shown in Figure 6-i. The second group were atmospheric 

and ele\4ated exhaust pressgre tests done at ?OOO- and 4G30-rpm mrle 

rotor speeds beginning immediately dfter the cndurance test, still 

using the noncondensing test arrangement.. The third yroup were 

atmospheric and subatmospheric exhaust pressure test. done at both 

rotor speeds using the test arrtngernent shown in Figure 6-2. 

second group of tests was halted because of damag.: to the HSE timing 

gears due to blockage in a lubrication pdssage; tnib lubrication 

The 
passage was part of the lubrication system blocked hy insects in 

Utah (Ref. 1, pp. 6-15 and 6-16), and the blockage material looked 

similar, suggesting incomplete cleaning of the insect material. 

Repair of the damage and conversion of the process installation were 

done concurrently in preparation for the third group of performance 

tests. 

(4) Pe-formance Test Results 

The second and third perfornawe tests were analyzed independently 

and will be referred to as the "downstream test" and the "upstream 

test," respectively, due to the test arrangements urd. The test 

data from t' :irst test or group were not considerec valid for this 

evaluation, yLcause the preparation of the computer program an4 the 

instruments was not completed until just prior to the start cf the 

endurance test. The endurance test was analyzed with the awnstream 

test. The downstream and upstream tests were analyzed independently 

because the different test arrangements required different equations, although this should ,lot affect the results.* 

-. 

(3) Atmospheric Exhaust Presslire 

Table A-6 gives a summary of the most important measured and 

calculated results under stabilized conditions. The results 

are also presented graphically in Figures R-5 through A-16. 

Figures A-5 and A-6 refer to the downstream test with rotor 

speeds of 3000 and 4000 rpm, respectively. 

ditions are included. 

upstream test under speed and inlet conditions similar to those 

of the downstream test. These figures show a trend for the 

machine efficiency to increase with increasing load. 

Figures A-9 to A-13 correspond to the 3000-rpm downstream test. 

'he effect of inlet pressure and quality on the machine efficiency is observed. In Figures A-9 and A-10, the inlet pressure varies as shown for inlet quality within 10% to 20% and 

20% to 30%, respectively. 

do not crver the complete range of :haft output power, a sl ight 

decrease in the machine efficiency occurs with increasing inlet 

pressure. 

All the inlet conFigures A-7 and A-8 correspond to the 

Although the data for each precsure 

In Figures A-11, A-12, and A-13, inlet quality varies while 

inlet pressure is kept at approximately 100, 140, and 180 psia, 

respectively. A slight efficiency increase is observed for the 

lower-qual ity range of 10% to 20% at pressures of '00 s 4 140 

* Another independent analysis of the downstream test was reported in Ref. 1. 

The same test data were used, but the calculations and use of the calibration data differed in some details. The efficiencies cilculated in the 

reference tendeu to be somewhat lower than those reported here. 

8-3 
psia. 

cient data to differentiate changes in the machine efficiency 

at different quality ranges. 

At the inlet pressure of 180 psia there were not suffiFigures A-14 and A-15, which corres9ond to downstream and upstream tests, respectively, show the machine efficiency at male 

rotor speeds of 3000 and 4000 rpm for a1 1 inlet conditions. 

For the downstream test, the efficiency ob5erved at 3000 rpm 

was greater than at f300 rpm at shaft outpLt power below 400 

kW. Above that power, the difference between the efficiencies 

obtained for each speed is nil (Figure A-14). In contrast, the 

performance of the machine in the upstream test is similar for 

both speeds at all machine loads tested (Figure A-15). 

Finally, Figure A-15 shows the efficiencies obtained during the 

downstream and upstream tests for all inlet conditions tested. 

A difference is observed between the downstream and upstream 

test results, especially at the lower loads, with the downstream test showing the larger efficiency. 

From an analysis bf flowrate information, CFE has concluded 

that the difference between efficiencies shown in Figure A-16 

is not real, but instead is the result of error in flow 

measurements for the downstream test. This conclusion is based 

oc differences in the total well output flowrates through the 

machine, measured during maximdm load tests of tho H5E using 

the two test installations, and ccmparing these rates with the 

total well output rates measured at other times when the HSE 

was not beiqg tested. During these measurements the wttllheaa 

pressure was approximately the same. 

data are summarized as follows: 

The r2levant HSE test 

TEST DATE SPEED OF TOTAL FLOW 

HALE ROTOR RATE 

rpm tons/h 

Endurance 05/31/80 - 07/29/60 3000 45 .O 

Downs t r eam 08/15/80 300 43 .O 

Upstream 02/05/81 4000 54.6 

Ups t r earn 0 2 / 2 0 / 8 1 3000 54 .O 

Tne flowrates for the downstream and upstream tests are seen to 

differ by tpproximately 10 tons/h. 

discrepancy could be caused by a change irt the production of 

well M-11 in the period spanned by the tests has been discouilted by CFE, since the well is normally quite stable, as 

demonstrated by its i979 and 1980 production characteristic 

curves (Figure A-3), so the discrepancy is attributed to errors 

in flowrate measurement. 

The possibility that this 

8 -4 
Because the well production measured before and after the 

endurance test agreed more closely with the upstream values 

obtained than with the downstream values (Figure A-17), the 

errors are ascribed to the downstream measurements. The 

measurement procedures, namely steam flow by orifice and water 

flow by weir, the hardware, and the calculations were examined 

by CFE and found to be satisfactory. This led CFE to conclude 

that the only possible cause of error was inaccurate zero 

adjustment of the instruments during the downstream test. 

The viewpoint of the author of this report is that the flowrate 

measurements and test results for the downstream test are probably correct, and that the flowrate of the well was different 

from normal during these tests. The reasons for this viewpoint 

are instrument details, observed well variation, compatibility 

of test results, and effects of scale, as discussed next: 

(i) Instrument Details 

The instruments for measuring the steam and water were 

careful ly instal led, cal ibrated and adjusted for iero 

flow. The zeros were roiitinely checked before and after 

testing, and the zero flow readings and calculated flowrates were normally logged by the cmputer. Zero errors 

corresponding to 10 tons/h would have been large and 

should have been easy to detect. The instrument transducers had been used earlier in Utah and were used subsequently in the upstream test in Mexico and in the tests in 

New Zealand with no significant drift. A drift of the 

steam transducer output in the downstream test in Mexico 

causing a signal shift of 0.003 V was recorded during one 

instrumerit check, but this corresponded to only 0.15-in. 

water differential pressure, and was corrected. This offset was insignificant compared with the differential 

across the orifice during the endurance test of about 25 

in. of water for maximum flow. 

Part way throligh the endurance test, the @recision of the 

flow measurewnts was improved by recal ibrating the steam 

transdmer to a span of 0 to 40 in. instead of 0 to 100 

in. on June 12, 1380, and replacing the water transducer 

having an 18-io. minimum span with a new one calibrated 

for 0 to 5 in. prior to the July 2nd test resurnGtion. 

zeros were adjusted and checked on-line. This work took 

glace during the shutdowns hetween June 8 and June 14, 

1980, and between June 26 and July 2, 1980, respectively, 

as shown in Figure A-4 and Table A-5. 

the pressure control valve and the modification of the 

value and its installation, as discussed earlier, were 

done during the latter time period.) 

and after these changes are in good agrement, suggesting 

that there were no zero errors that could explain the 

flowrate discrepancy of 10 tons/h compared with normal 

well flow. 

The 

(The cleaning of 

The flow data before 

8-5 
(ii) Well Variation 

Although well M-11 may be normally stable, it is known 

that pressure and flow instability did occur during the 

testing period. The endurance test was interrupted on 

June 8 by an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter 

scale which altered the characteristics of the well, as 

shown in Figure A-4. The enthalpy decreased by approximately 7%, while the total flow increased in the same proportion. The endurance test was also interrupted on June 

26 by variations in the wellhead pressure and on July 15 

by high wellhead pressure, as reported in Table A-4. If 

and how the flowrate dilemma is related to the earthquake 

or other crustal instability during this time is not 

known. 

paces from the well during the earthquake and that many 

well cellars and ground areas were flooded from below. 

It is known that the ground cracked about 140 

(iii) Compatibility of Test Results 

Based on the results of testing in Utah, a machine efficiency of 48% to 50% was predicted by the JPL Technical 

Specialist for the beginning of the endurance test, when 

the rotors were nearly free of scale. 

At the beginning of the endurance test in Mexico, on May 

31, 1980, the machine efficiency was determined to be 50%, 

using flowrates measured downstream (Table A-5 and 

Figure A-4). 

cently calibrated and checked. 

1981, during the Gpstream test with approximately the same 

test conditions, the efficiency was determined to be 48% 

to 49% (Table A-6 and Figure A-5). The disagreement of 

only 1 to 2 percentage points is significantly less than 

the disagreement between the downstream test results after 

the endurance test and the upstream test results shown in 

Figure A-16. The small difference in efficiencies could 

result from unequal scale deposit thicknesses within the 

machine for the two tests. The close agreement is not 

compatible with a flowrate measurement error of 10 tons/h. 

If, however, it were assumed there is a flowrate error, 

correcting either the water flow or the steam flow Sy the 

total estimated error impairs the compatibility of the 

results. 

gives a macbine efficiency of 53%, which is too high for 

the amount of scale observed on the rotors at that time. 

A corresponding increase in the steam flow gives 34%, 

which is much too low and is not correct. The alternative 

explanation of a balanced sharing of the error, if it 

exists, is not plausible, because the error would have had 

to be spl it in approxircately constant proport ion every 

time the orifice or weir transducer was recalibrated, 

replaced, zeroed, or otherwise changed during downstream 

t est i ng . 

At that time the instruments had been reLater, on February 20, 

tncreasing the water rate by the estimated error 

8-6 
(iv) Effects of Scale 

The disagreement between the downstream and upstream test 

results (see Figure A-16) can he explained by the effects 

of scale on the rotors. The highest efficiencies were 

determined at redliced power in the morning of the termination of the mdlrranc 

there had bew little "pportunity for the machine to lose 

scal e accumul dted during the endurance test, a1 though the 

machine was stopped unintentionally for a few minutes 

while reducing the load for the performance testing. 

After about 4-1/2 hours of performance testing the test 

was interrupted for 17 days because of damage to the load 

bank. 

scaie was lost during this test interruption, but it is 

known that some scale was lost. The subsequent performance level for the downstream test was lowered, but not 

down to the level meas;lred at the beginning of the endurance test, when there was very little scale within the 

machine. 

test (see Table A-6). At that time 

There is no quantitative information about how much 

As a general point it should be noted that the variation of 

scale within the machine and the random variation of other test 

conditions in Mexico made determination of the HSE performance 

characteristics from the test data very difficult. Deposition 

or loss of scale changed the internal dimensions, and the performance of the machine did not remain the same. As an 

example, compare Figures A-14 and A-15 showing the effect of 

rotor speed on machine efficiency for downstream and upstream 

tests, respectively. The 3000-rpm downstream tests were made 

after the endurance test during which most of the scale was 

deposited within the machine. 

those measured first after the termination of the endurance 

test. 

extended period of shutdown and observed loss of scale. By 

comparison, the 3000-rpm and 4000-rpm upstream tests were all 

made about six months later. 

time the amount of scale had stabilized, in agreement with 

observations. It should be noted that all performance testing 

was intermittent, being carried out on a daytime basis only, in 

contrast with the endurance test. From these facts it is the 

view of this author that much of the spread of data seen for 

the downstream tests in Figure A-14 was caused by effects of 

scale rather than rotor speed, especially when compared with 

Figure A-15. 

applies to the interpretation of all of the HSE test data at 

well M-11. The author believes the difference in efficiencies 

between the downstream and upstream tests shown in Figure A-5 

can be similarly explained. 

The highest efficiencies were 

The 4000-rpm tests were made one month later after an 

It can be assumed that by this 

The same difficulty with the effects of scale 

8-7 
(b) Above Atmospheric Exhaust Pressure 

Part of th? downstream test was conducted with exhaust pressures greater than atmospheric pressure. The process arrangement was as shown in Figure 6-1, except for the addition of a 

variable orifice plate placed at the HSE outlet (Ref. 1, pp. 

5-27 and 5-29). 

The operating conditions were as fol lows : 

Inlet pressure (psia) 

In1 et qual ity (%) 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Male rotor speed (rpm) 

Electric ioad (kW) 

100, 140 and 180 

27 to 35 

24 to 41 

3000 and 4000 

211 to 472 

A summary of the test data is presented in Table A-7. 

An increase in the exhaust pressure had a negative effect on 

the machine efficiency, as shown in the following representative results: 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Date 

Time 

Rotor speed (rpm) 

Wellhead pressure (psia) 

Inlet pressure (ps ia) 

Inlet quality (X) 

Electric load (kW) 

Total flow rate (lb/h) 

Isentropic efficiency (%) (calc.) 

Specific flow rate (lb/kWh) 

14.95 

08 / 28 / 80 

10: 26 : 59 

4000 

276.2 

138.0 

20 

271 

43.6 

212.4 

57599 

31.80 

08/27/80 

10:43:47 

4 00 0 

196.9 

143.0 

27 

85599 

35.0 

297.2 

288 

The specific total mass flowrate increases with the increase in 

the back pressure due to the reduction of available energy as 

the exhaust pressure increases and to the lower isentropic 

ef f ic i ency obta ined . The test results are limited and only the effect of rotor speed 

on machine efficiency can be evaluated. The efficiency at 3000 

rpm was greater than at 40Yl rpm, as shown in Table A-8. 

Subatmospheric Exhaust Pressure 

Tests with subatmospheric exhaust pressure were conducted ds 

part of the upstream, or third, performance test. The operating conditions were: 

8-8 
Inlet pressure (psia) 

Inlet quality (%) 

Exhaust pressure (psia) 

Electrical load (kW) 

Rotor speed (rpm) 

100, 140 and 180 

11 to 24 

3.05 to 12.76 

265 to 745 

3001) and 4000 

The results of these tests are considered to be preliminary 

because the test arrangement was adapted from the ex’sting 

installation and was not optimum. The cyclonic separator previously used at the HSE outlet to measure steam and water flowrates was adapted for use as a direct-contact condenser, as 

shown in Figure 6-2. Waste brine from the evaporation pond was 

used as cooling water. The water and steam flow measurements 

were made upstream from the HSE. 

The pumping equipment that was installed to handle the cooling 

water and the discharge from the condenser was not suitable for 

efficient operation. 

sufficient capacity and high vacuum was achieved only at low 

loads. The pump to extract the condensate did not operate 

properly for the differerrt work needs, and instability in the 

water level in the condenser was observed on different occas ions. 

The water supply pumps did not have 

The results for the subatmospheric exhaust pressure tests are 

summarized in Table A-9. Average results for each condition 

are shown in iable A-10 and are compared with tests at atmospheric exhac:;t in Table A-11. 

The machine efficiency decreases b an the inlet pressure 

increases (Table A-10, lines 4 and t,, .+id 12 and 15), in agreement with the results obtained from atmospheric pressure tests. 

The machine efficiency a1 so decreases when greater exhaust 

vacuum is achieved (Table A-10, lines 7, 8 and 13, and 

Table 9). This is counter to the trend seen when comparing 

atmospheric exhaust pressure and above atmospheric exhaust 

pressure. 

In regard to the effect of rotor speed, no clear difference in 

the efficiencies was observed (Table A-10, lines 1, 7 and 8, 

and 4 and 16), in seneral agreement with the atmospheric discharge tests. 

It is important to dbserve that subatmospheric exhaust pressure 

produced a reduction in the specific total mass flowrate in 

every case, despite a reduction in machine efficiency 

(Table A-ll), due to the additional energy available from the 

fluid while passing from atmospheric to subatmospheric pressure. The benefit is more pronounced with lower backpressure. 

However, the required energy to obtain condensation, and the 

steam flow in the ejector, were not considered. 

8-9 
(5) Conclusions 

(a) The use of the HSE is entirely feasible, based on the operating 

behavior. This is supported by the operational indexes and the 

distribution of failures during the tests. 

(b) The isentropic efficiency of the machine improves as the shaft 

output power increases. 

(c) At constant inlet quality, the machine efficiency decreases 

sl ightly as the inlet pressure increases. 

(d) The effect of rotor speed on the machine efficiency is not 

importarlt when the HSE gperates at atmospheric and subatmospheric exhaust pressure. Lli th above atmospheric exhaust pressure, an increase in the isentropic efficiency is observed for 

3000 rpm. 

(e) With discharge pressures above and below atmospheric pressure, 

the isentropic efficiency is less than that obtained during the 

atmospheric discharge tests. 

creases, the specific flowrate (1 b/kWh) decreases. 

As the discharge pressure de- 

(f) An increase in the machine efficiency observed during the endurance test is attributed to the effect of scaling within the 

HSE. 

(9) The author of this report concludes that variations of scale 

thickness within the HSE at different times caused variations 

in the machine performance and made the deterinination of performance characteristics difficult. 

B. ITALY 

(1) Performance Testiny 

The computer program used for loyging the test data and for calculating the test results on-line during the testing was based on the 

computer program developed for the Utah tests. The Utah computer 

program corltained thermodynamic corrections that were valid for salt 

concentrations in the brine froin 0% to lOX, but not for the Cesano 1 

salt concentration of 31%. The adaptation of the Utah program for 

the Cesano 1 HSE tests was satisfactory for logging the test data 

and monitoring the tests, but was not intended for calculating the 

efficiency of the HSE as determined by these tests. For this purpose it was necessary to determine the thermodynamic properties of 

the brine and to apply these properties in the program as corrections to the thermodynamic properties of steam and wL+.er that were 

included as part of the Utah computer program. The thermodynamic 

properties of the brine de .ermined for tile purpose consisted of 

enthalpy of liquid brine, vapor enthalpy, C02 enthalpy, mixture 

8-10 
enthalpy, vapor pressure of brine, brine density, brine entropy, 

CO2 entropy, and mixture entropy, all treated in Ref. 6, where the 

application to the efficiency calculation procedure is also discussed. The discussion includes an assessment of the test instrumentation re1 iabil ity and a sensitivity analysis of the uncertainty 

of critical process parameters, showing the effects on the calcu1 at ed efficiency . (2) Performance Test Results 

The performance test results are shown in Table B-4 listed as unprocessed data. The tabulation includes the data cassette file numbers. 

computer before being recorded and data recorded as a series of 

instantaneous measurements. 

These test results include data that were averaged by the 

The recorded data of Table 6-4 were examined and 18 experimental 

points were selected. The data for the 18 experimental points were 

then averaged and the results presented as shown in Table R-5 and 

Figure 6-1. The results are in good agreement with the test results 

and g were derived 

(see Table 6-6). These correlation functions were app 9 ied to the 

for Utah, for which correlation functions fw, gp 

test results of Table B-4 to calculate the modified efficiency q* 

reported in the tible, where 

x 10 q* = - 

and q = eff X. 

fw gp * x: 

A perfect correlation of +he results would yield values of modified 

efficiency q* equal to 10.00, whereas the average value in Table 6-5 

is 10.29, or 2.9% higher. 

An efficiency c .*€:ation equal to q/fWgpgQ, or q*/10, was plotted 

versais shaft ou;p~: powx, showrl in Figure B-2, and versus throttle 

po.:ition, shown in Figure B-3, as was done previously with the Utah 

datz (Rzf. 1). Both plots show values of q/fwg g 

witj. 'his implies that the correlation is va 73 i , as seen by compa~ii?~ F'.c;wes B-1 and B-2, and that the HSE efficiency is indepen- 

('mi 03 tiirettle position, as seen in Figure 6-3. 

:ate frm unity results both from limitations of the data correlation furi.:tions as presently developed and from experimental data 

scatter, 

that center about 

The spread of the 

(3) Conclusions 

The HSE efficiency is independent of throttle position, as shown in 

Figure 6-3, but this is not obvious by a cursory inspection of the 

test data. However, closer examination reveals that throttle 

position is not an independent variable hut, as expected, is related 

to inlet pressure, inlet quality, load, and perhaps other variables. 

8-11 
If the influence of inlet pressure (or pressure ratio), inlet 

quality, and load are normalized by the correlation technique of 

Ref. 1, the dependent and independent variables are identified or 

s e pa rat ed . 

From Figure B-1 it is evident that at shaft loads above 250 kW, the 

HSE efficiency can be taken as 458, the same as for the Utah results 

(Ref. 1). After the compatibility of the Cesano and Utah data was 

established and applicability of the previous correlation analysis 

was confirmed, further analysis and interpretation of the data was 

attempted (Ref. 6). For this purpose a theoretical model of the HSE 

operations was developed treating the machine as positive displacement with a given inlet volumetric flowrate and a built-in expansion 

ratio, and taking into account fluid entry and exit considerations. 

For this analysis, the Utah and Mexico test data from Ref. 1 were 

used, along with the Cesano data, as far more data are available 

from these earlier tests, and in these tests no problem, c were 

encountered in determining the thermodynamic characteris-ics of the 

brines. 

For the data examined with the aid of the theoretical model, the HSE 

efficiency increases logari’hmically with shaft power. 

quality or pressure ratio between inlet and outlet seem to have no 

appreciable influence on the trend of efficiency calculated from the 

model. Despite all approximations, the analysis was reported to 

indicate that the low apparent efficiency, at reduced loads, is due 

to increased influence of power loss from leakage and friction when 

there is a decrease in shaft power. Considering the overall power 

loss involved, one may assume that leakage is responsible for much 

of this loss; this hypothesis also seems to be confirmed by the 

large clearances between each of the rotors and between the rotors 

and the casing. 

Inlet 

Within the validity limits of the analysis it was concluded that the 

efficiency ?imit of the machine ranges between 65% and 68%. In 

order to reach these values, the pressure losses through the 

throttle valve and at the outlet must be reduced to zero, which 

could be achieved with reasonable approximation by regulating the 

flowrate of the geothermal fluid and/or the rotational velocity of 

the HSE, according to the thermodynamic characteristics of the 

fluid. The analysis and the interpretation were corl;idered to be 

tentative (see Ref. B). 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

(1) Performance Testing 

The computer program used for analyzing the New Zealand test data 

was based on the program developed for the Utah tests but with modifications to the steam and liquid flowrate equations and to the gear 

box and the alternator power loss equations. Details of the changes 

made to the computer program are given in the performance calculzt ion procedure (Tab1 e C-5). Computer outputs selected for tabu1 ation of results are identified in a list of variables (Table ?-6). 

8-12 
All the data were analyzed with 0 ppm total dissolved solids and 0% 

gas in the steam. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken using 5000 

ppm total dissolved solids and 2.5% gas by weight in the steam, 

which were representative of the test conditions. The isentropic 

efficiency varied by 0.3% in the worst case, and, hence, the dissolv& solids and gas content are not accounted for'in the tabulated 

data. 

(2) Performance Tert Results 

The inlet pressures at which the performance tests were conducted 

were selected so that conqarisons with the data generated from the 

Yexican tests at Cerro Prieto could be made. The performance test 

results are presented in Table C-7 and Figures C-3 through C-19. 

Figures C-:8 and C-19 define the stability envelopes for the 

3333-rpm and 25i)O-rpm data. 

governor could maintain stable operation of the plant with the HSE 

eqsipped with the 1w-pressure inlet trim was found to be 220 psia 

for all-liquid feed, but stable operation at 220 psia could not be 

maintained on a1 1 -steam feed. With the low-pressure inlet trim, the 

p1;tnt will idle over the lower range of operating inlet pressures 

only. The maximum inlet pressure at which the plant could idle with 

this trim was not accurately defined, but it is thought to lie 

between 120 psia and 140 psia. 

The maximum inlet pvessure at which the 

The following trends are evident from the graphs contained in 

Appendix C: 

(a) From the data with an inlet stezm quality of 10% or greater, 

Figures C-3 to C-6: 

(i) The isentropic efficiency of the HSE increases with 

increasing shaft power for a given rotational speed and 

inlet pressure. 

(ii) The isentropic efficiency of the tISE decreases with 

increasing inlet pressure for a constant load and rotat ional speed. 

(b) For the all-liquid case, Figures C-7 and C-8, the isentropic 

efficiency is observed to peak and then decline with increasing 

load for a fixed rotational speed and inlet pressure. 

(c) The isentropic efficiency increases with increasing inlet steam 

qualities between 0% and 10% and then decreases as the inlet 

steam quality further increases fcom 25% to 130% for a fixed 

load and inlet pressure (Figures C-9 and C-14). 

Trends evident froln the 2500-rpm and 3333-rpm data indicate the 

2500-rpm speed is slightly more efficient than the 3333-rpm 

speed for loads less than 400 kW whereas the 3333-rpm speed of 

operation ic more efficient for loads greater than 400 kW (see 

Figures C-15, C-16 and C-17). When treated two-dimensionally, 

(d) 

8-1 3 
the data scatter Toan5 a broad band but least squares quadratic 

curvss generated irom the data indicate the same trend with the 

curves intersecting at 385 kW. 

(3) Endurance Test 

The endurance test was run from February 24, 1983, to May 3, 1983. 

The test was terminated ahead of schedule because of excessive shaft 

seal oil leakage. 

From 1632.7 hours of operation, 1.3 GWh of electrical energy were 

generated. 

test. 

safety shutdown circuitry. The switch setting was reset and the 

test resumed. 

The operation ran continuously for 1534 hours during the 

On March 4 the plant was shut down automatically by the 

The pl- -t operating conditions were selected to ensure that stable 

governor speed control could be maintained in the event of electrical load or inlet pressure variations. 

The operating conditions were as follows: 

Inlet pressure (psia) 177 to 152 

Inlet quality (%) 25 to 27.3 

Exhaust pressure atniospher ic 

Electrical load (kW) 802 to E12 

Throttle position (%) 47 to 61 

Isentropic efficiency (%) 43 to 46.5 

(Calculated) 

The HSE was designed as a wellhead generating unit. 

conditions the plant must be capable of running unattended. 

quently, the test wi); set up to run with a minimum of operator 

supervision. 

Under these 

ConsePlant checks were performed hourly for the first three days of the 

test. The interval between checks was then increased until c?.icks 

were performed daily at 8:OO and 14:OO hours during the working week 

and once every 24 hours on weekends and holidays. 

once every 24 hours was considered adequate for this unit. 

A plant check 

(4) Endurance Test Results 

A performance record of the plant was logged hourly by the computer 

during the endurance test. 

four-hour intervals is included in Table C-8. A 3.5 percentagepoint improvement in the HSE efficiency was observed during the 

endurance test as scale built up on the internal surfaces of the 

machine. 

still increasing. The post-test inspection of the rotcrs and the 

housing determined the extent of the scale byild-up. 

on the rotors was ohserved to he a very thin, glassy layer, while 

that on the housing was observed to be 0.13-mm thick increasing to 

A tabulation of data that were logged at 

At the conclusion the efficiency was 46.5% and evidently 

The deposition 

8-14 
1.0 mm in the exhaust elbow. 

was insignificant in comparison with the 1.3-mm deep hard facing on 

the rotor tips. 

The depth of the scale on the rotors 

(5) Conclusions 

The lzast squares quadratic curves generated from the New Zealand 

test data defined the isentropic efficiency of the HSE to be approximately 40% at loads greater than half full load when operating on 

low-scaling geothermal fluids. This efficiency is lower than was 

reported for the previous three test sites. 

differences is not known. 

The reason cor the 

The design philosophy of providing abnormally larce internal clearances within the HSE to accommodate severe scaling was not properly 

tested because of ch2 lo-scal ing potential of the Broadlands geothermal fluid, but trencis observed during the endurance test indicate that the efficiency of the HSE does increase with adherent. 

internal scale formation. A 3.5 percentage-point improvement in the 

isentropic efficiency of the HSE was observed over the 1632 hobrs of 

operation during the endurance test. 

S1 ightly superior performance was observed at the 3333-rpm male 

rotor speed than was observed at the 2500-rpm male rotor speed for 

loacis greater than half fuli load. 

The HSE can be run on an unattended basis, as was the Lase during 

the endurance test, with daily plant checks and maintenance performed as necessary. 

Plant operators need to be trained to operate and maintain the HSE, 

but the operation of the piant is no more complex than any other 

form of small turbine generating plant. Modifications to the governor system should be matie to enable the plant to idle across the 

full range of operating pressures. 

Plant reliability is of the utmost importance in the selection of 

smal 1 geothermal generators. 

8-1 5 
SECTION IX 

SCALING AND DETERIORATION 

A. MEXICO 

Although a detailed program was no+. established to determine the effects 

of scaling of the system, some observations were made during the different test 

periods . 

(1) At opportune times, the rotors were inspected for scale within the 

HSE through two 31.8-mn (1.25-in.) inspection ports in the case near 

the high-pressure end. 

free of scale at the beginning of the tests. Some scsle formzd 

during the tests but inside the machine all scaling was relatively 

soft and easily detached. The patchy appearance of the scale indi - 

cated that detachment occurred during running or while stopping or 

both. Loss of scale also occlJrred during periods while the machine 

was stopped. The reasons for the loss of scale are not known, but 

temperature changes, exposure to air, drying, and surface bond may 

all be factors, No information is available on the amount of the 

scale on t3e rotors associated with each test. 

The inside of the machine Wac, essentially 

(2) The largest observed scale thickness on the HSE rotors was produce0 

during the endurance test. 

(3) At the end of the endurance test the rotors were inspected. 

deposits were observed but the thickness was not measured. 

(4) The maximum deposit of record on the rotors was 0.020 in. measured 

on the female rotor near the hard tips on August 11, 1980. 

measurement was by HPC and witnessed by JPL during the second performance test period while the test was interrupted for repair of a 

load bank fan. A uniform layer of the thfckness measured would have 

closw the leakace passages by at most 40%, but the scale was 

observed to be patchy. No uniform layer of scale deposit from M-11 

brine within the HSE was ever observed. 

Scale 

'(he 

(5) The inside of the HSE was inspected at the end of the downstream ana 

upstream performance tests with less scaling observed than at the 

end G: the endurance test; the scale was not measured. 

(6) Early in th? 'Lesting, scale deposited in the pressure control valve 

(V-ball) located between the well and the HSE (Figure 6-1), causing 

the valve to stick and resultiny in pressure instability. The valve 

was cleaned and additional grease CUDS and passages were instal led. 

The operability of the valve was improved by reinstalling it in the 

direct ion opposite to that recommended by thrl manufacturer for normal sevice. 

3-1 
(7) Ry the end of the endurance test, a scale depos!'t 15 m (0.6-in.) 

thick had been formed in the 152-m (6-in.) diameter pipeline 

lccated between the pressure control valve and the HSE. The chemical composition of the scale is reported in Table A-12. 

(8) After the subatmospheric -exhaust pressure test, a scale deposit with 

thickness from 0.2 mn 'io 17 nm (0.008 to 0.67 in.) was observed in 

the 610-mm (24-in.) diameter exhaust pipeline located between the 

HSE and the condenser. The chemical composition of the scale 

deposit is reported in Table A-12. 

In the flush water slrpply system, all the carbon steel fittings corroded 

internally, pro 'xing a buildup of corrosior, products. 

of the corrusion products showed them to be iron sulfide, presumably caused by 

the hydrogen sulfide known to be in the flush water. 

CFE laboratory analysis 

B. ITALY 

Scale deposition from the heavy Cesano 1 brine occurred very rapidly at 

the lower pressures and temperatures. 

exhaust pipe, the scale growth rate of glaserite was about 2 cm/h. 

bonding to the rotors was poor and during the Cesano tests no increase in HSE 

efficiency due to scale growth was mted. 

reported. 

For example, in the HSE exhaust port and 

However, 

No erosion 3r corrosion was 

During the removal of the three damaged shaft seal assemblies for repair, 

substantial corrosion was observed in the seal flush water passages supplying 

the seal assemblies. The corrosion occurred in the high-pressure end section 

of the housing in which two of the assemblies were installed. This section is 

carbon steel. 

flush water contained hydrogen sulfide. 

low-pressure end section, which is stainless steel. 

The corrosion was attributed to operation in Mexico where the 

No corrosion was detected in the 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

A post-test inspection of the HSE rotors and housing was made. The scale 

dqosition on the rotors was observed to be a very thin, glassy layer, while 

that on the housiny was observed to be 0.13-mm thick, increasing to 1.0 mm in 

the exhaust elhow. The depth of the scale on the rotors was insignificant in 

comparison with the raised, hard facing on the rotor tips. rlo corrosion was 

reported. 

9-2 
SECTION X 

EQUIPMENT FAILURES 

A. FlEXICO 

A log of all equipment failures was maintained for both the HSE power 

plant and the site installation. These are tabulated and identified in the 

Operation and Failure Summary (Table A-4). 

Fourteen of the failures were associated with the power plant. The first 

three were caused by high differential pressure across the filter ir, the oil 

console. 

6-month shelf life, but had been stored out of doors for two years in Utah. 

Replacement with new filtws efiminated the problem. Failure No. 4 was caused 

by the failure of 30-A fuses that supplied auxiliary equipment. The auxiliary 

load had been increased. 

The filters that caused the problem had a manufacturer's stated 

The problem was corrected by installing 40-A fuses. 

Failures Nos. 5, 6, and 7 related lo the pilot-operated solenoid valves 

located in the hydraulic system that is associatd with the safety shutdown 

system of the power plant. 

these valves failed to seat properly. This valve failure was a recurrent problem during the testing in Utah (Ref. 1, p. 7-37) and resulted from dirt in 

system components as received from the original equipment manutacturer. It was 

recommended (Ref. 1, p. 7-40) that the hydraulic system be cleaned +3 stop this 

recurrent problem, but the disassembly cnd cleaning were never convenient 

during any pnase of the IEA Programme. 

testing at each site, more often interfering with starting up the plant rather 

thdn with stopping the plant. 

The three failures occurred because one or both of 

The problem continued throughout the 

Failure No. 13, failure of the synchronization gear, was caused because 

of blockage of a lubrication passage. ?he line had been plugged by an insect 

in Utah durino the sbaft seal modification (Ref. 1, p. 6-16), and, unfortunately, the removal of the plugging material was not complete. The material 

migrated and plugged a nozzle for spraying oil onto the gears. Failure No. 14, 

variatior, in the voltage generated, was caused by corrosion on the contacts of 

one or more voltage potentiometers in the voltage regulator for the alternator. 

The problem was resolved by cycling the potcntioreters. 

From the above discussion it is seen that nine of the fourteen failures 

attributed to the HSE power plant are fully understood and either were or can 

be easily ccrrected. All were external to the HSE except the failure of the 

rotor synchronization gears. 

HSE. These failures were easily corrected, but the causes were not as easily 

eliminated. Four of thesg failures resulted from contaminants in the water for 

the shaft seals and the fifth resulted frav the accumulation of air in the main 

oil pump while tk,e power plant was shut down. 

The remaining failures were also external to the 

10-1 
B. ITALY 

Unfamiliar harsh noises emdnated from the HSE during testing on Cesano 1 

fluids beginning during the first test. 

noises. Vibration protection switches shut down the power plant early in the 

first test and it was necessary to increase the switch settings in order to 

continue the testing. At random intervals, sharper sounds or hits and larger 

vibrations were observed. The unfamil iar noises and vibrations were believed 

to be cabsed by scale that was deposited rapidly within the HSE and that broke 

loose into the path of the rrltors. 

damage to the shaft seals resulted in excessive oil consumption. Inspection 

showed that some of the carbon segments in the damaged seals had each cracked 

at the center notch where the segment rested against a locking pin. Replacement of three of the four seal assemblies was necessary to continue the test 

programme. 

severely enough to prevent completing the tests. No further segment breakage 

was detected. 

Vibration was associated with these 

After 26 hours of operation, cumulative 

One of the replacement assemblies leaked immediately, but not 

The conrtecting of the power plant to the ENEL grid was done manually. 

While the connection was being made on f4zrch 24, 1981, the Yynchronization was 

inexact and the snear pins were broken, as discussed earlier in Section VII. 

During one attempt, the vibration switches were tripped. The failure of the 

shear pins is not considered a power plant deficiency. Neither are equipment 

damage or failwes reported for the load bank or other auxiliarv equipment. 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

Equipment problems were encountered during the performance test period 

and during the endurance test. During the peformance test period, the shaft 

sealing problem that followed the instal lation of the defective male low-pressure shaft seal assembly in Italy continued as discussed earlier. The discontinuogs nature of the performance test made it impossible to determine if the 

leakage rate changed during the test period. 

lator for the HSE alternator required stopping the performance test after 61.5 

hours of test until a replacement regulator was installed. The regulator that 

failed had malfunctioned earlier, beginning in Mexico, where the ambient HzS, 

salt spray, humidity and temperature werc >ometimes very high. 

A failure of the voltage reguDdring the endurance test, wear and failure of several components 

occurred. The most significant failure involved loss of oil through the shaft 

seals. The seals have a design oil consumption of approximately 3.8 1 (1 gal.) 

of oil per day per seal, on the average, at 3000-rpm male rotor speed, and perhaps 5 to 7 1 per day per seal average at 3300-rpm male rotor speed. This oil 

migrates across the seals into the flush water and can be discharged to waste 

witn the geothermal fluid as was done in New Zealand, or it can be recaptured 

from the seal assemblies through the recapture passages. At the start of the 

New Zealand endurance run the oil loss from the machine (four seals) was monitored to be 35 1 per day, well above the design consumption. For the entire 

endurance tes. 3750 1 of oil were lost at an average oil consumption of 55 1 

per day for the test. 

10-2 
The high initial consumption and the increase can be explained if particulates of the types that damaged the low-pressure male seal assembly, which 

was replaced (see (3) in Section VII.C), also damaged the other three assemblies. The progressive damage during the endurance test can be explained by 

damage in the other three assemblies from seal races damaged by particulates 

during the performance test or from damage caused during the endurance test by 

particulates not removed from the system. The explmation of damage by particulates is suoported by the inspection in Italy of three seal assemblies, which 

showed no detectable wear after 1224 hours of operation up to the time of 

removal cf the seal assemblies for inspection, failure analysis and 

rep1 acement , 

A second possible explanation for the increase in oil loss during the 

endurance test is thermal distortion in the high-pressure female seal assembly 

caused by a blockage of the oil flow necessary to keep the seal assembly cool. 

This explanation is less likely because of the continuing increase after the 

blockage was corrected, The correct explanation for the excessive oil leakage 

rate may not be known until the seals in all four assemblies used during the 

endurance test are inspected. 

Four other failures on ancillary equipment occurred: 

The plant was automatically shut down on March 4 by the safety shutdown circuitry when the overspeed switch tripped, as stated earlier. 

The switch was reset and the test continued. It is not known 

whether the circuitry or switch mal functioned, or whether the switch 

setting drifted or was improperly set. What is known is that the 

characteristics of the switch made the setting of the switch iniprecise but normally free of drift. Equipment purchased for setting 

the switch on the bench was not satisfactory so the setting of the 

switch was usually done while installed. 

The automatic greasing system ceased to function on April 7 when a 

microswitch failed. Greasing of the governor valve was performed 

Tanually on a daily basis for the remainder of the test because a 

replacement switch was not ava i? ab1 e. 

The two metering pumps used to scavenge water from the ’ 

oil reservoirs failed in late April, One unit ceased t, ate. 

The other continued to rotate but ceased to pump. One punt@ removed 

water from the main oil reservoir. Prolonged, undetected failure of 

this pump would result in water being fed to the bearings and shaft 

seals. After the failure was detected, the main oil reservoir was 

drained of 15 to 25 gal. of water daily. One pump was repaired just 

prior to the termination of the test. Both pumps were installed 

because of problems relating to the centrifuge. The centrifuge was 

installed above the main oil reservoir so that the case of the centrifuge drained into the reservoir. This was done to avoid loss of 

the oil flowing to the centrifuge if the centrifuge were to fail or 

stop. Unknown at the time of installation was that some of the 

water that the centrifuge removed from the oil drained into the 

centrifuge case and consequently into the reservoir. The second 

‘em of the 

10-3 
reservoir and pump were installed to provide separation by settling 

because the capacity of the centrifuge was not sufficient to handle 

an increase in load. The preferred corrective measure would be to 

replace t?e centrifuge with one of adequate size, installed so that 

no water from the centrifuge drains into the main oil reservoir. 

Otherwise, higher quality pumps are recammended. The instal lation 

of a high-water sensor to actuate a drain valve on the reservoir is 

desirable in the event of failure. 

The jacking motor failed to turn the rotors upon termination of the 

test on May 3. The jacking motor assembly had been installed in 

Mexico during preparation for testing there. To avoid delaying the 

tests, readily available parts had been uti1 ized. The overriding 

clutch assembly of the jacking motor was known to be marginal in its 

radial misalignment capabil ities, and consequential wear caused the 

failure. 

10-4 
SECTION XI 

MAINTENANCE: NEW ZEALAND SITE 

during the endurance test, the following maintenance was peTformed on the 

HSE : 

(1) 3750 1 of Caltex Regal R + 0 46 turbine oil were added to the oil 

reservoir. 

(2) The 25-pm main oil filters were changed five times. 

(3) The 5-pn shaft seal oil filter was changed once. 

(4) The centrifuge was cleaned three times. 

(S) The oil cooler cowling was cleaned twice. 

The oil usage has been discussed in the previous section. The number of 

main oil filter changes is significantly more than estimated by HPC. Replacement filter elements had to he hrought into New Zealand from the United States. 

It is thought that water entrained with the oil was causing the rapid blocking 

of the paper elements. Polypropylene elements were tested and they exhibited 

superior performance. Since a centrifuge of proper size and placement can eliminate water entrainment in the oil, frequent changes and the use of polypropylane elements instead of paper elements should not be necessary. 

11-1 
SECTION XI1 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. MEXICO 

CFE recoinmends that tests be designed and carried out specifically to 

measure the effects of scaling on the effi:iency of the HSE as the internal 

clearances close. 

6. ITALY 

The following recommendations were based either on test resiilts or 

(1) The shaft seal design was successfully improved to take into account 

the vibrations and mechanical shock induced from operation with 

scal ing fluids. Additional improvement is recommended. 

The rotor-to-rotor and rotor-to-case clearances should be diminished 

in order to improve the HSE efficiency. (See also Ref. 1, 

general considerat ions: 

(2) 

p. 7-38.) 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

The Ministry of Works and Development recoinmends the following machine 

modifications and imbrovements: 

(1) - Shaft Sealinq - Yodifications to protect the shaft seals from abrasives carried by the flush water must be undertaken to improve the 

re1 iabil ity of the HSE. 

(2) Governor - Medifications to the governor system (see also Ref. 1, 

pp. 7-38 and 7-41) are recommended to: 

(a) Overcome rapid hunting of the governor valve. (See Section 

I I .A.3.) 

(b) Enable the plant to idle over the full range of operating pressures. (See Section 11.4.3.) 

(3) Centrifug_q - It is recommended that a centrifuge with increased 

capacity be installed. A self-cleaning centrifuge should be cons idered. 

(4) Plant Start-up - Excessive effort is required to 3pen the hydraulicaily operated safety shutdown valve. The hand pump should be 

replaced with an electric pump actuated from the key start. 

see Ref. 1, p. 7-41.) 

(Also 

The hydraulic control system is prone to air entrainment upstream of 

the battery-operated oil pump on start-up, Piping modifications and 

dn automatic air b’eed would overcome this problem. 

12-1 
The battery-operated oil pump could be replaced with a unit with a 

larger capacity and a higher delivery pressure to improve the governor response on start-up of the plant. 

Larger-capacity batteries should be instal led to provide sufficient 

capacity to powe: the wggested improvements in the battery-operated 

equipment and to allow for an extended start-up. 

(5) Instrumentation - Instrumentation to display the bearing temperatures should be installed on the skid mount. 

(6) Piping Modificatiols - An improved layout of the water and oil 

supply piping to the shaft seals and bearings is highly desirable to 

enable easier fault tracing and maintenance of these systems. (Also 

see Ref. 1, p. 7-41.) 

D. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

The author of this report recommends that: 

(1) The following be performed with the HSE Power P 

(a) Disassemble the shaft seals and analyze a1 

damage. 

(b) Replace dll damaged parts. 

(c) Install new shaf'. seal zssemblies. 

(d) Inctall a new shaft seal support systerli of 

ant Model 76-1: 

components for 

preferred size and 

components, including flush. water filtration to 1 pm. 

(e) Reconvert for 60-Hz operation to restore output rating to 1 MW. 

(f) Operate under design conditions to close the rotor clearances. 

(9) Measure performance as clearances cio5e. 

(h) Operate with useful load at least lony enough to obtain service 

life information. 

(i) Perform a cost/benefit analysis on the results. 

(j) If benefit analysis is favorable, determine the performance 

under various cond i t ions . 

(2) The HSE Power Plant Model 76-1 be replaced with a new model 

larger size (such as the 5-MU size replacement originally p 

for the earlier project) having a compound speed control va 

all other improvements identified during testing as desirab 

possible, and then test for performance and service life. 

cf 

anned 

ve and 

e and 

12-2 
SECTION XI11 

COST/BENEF IT ANALYSIS 

The cost/benefit analysis for each site was guided by the following specifications from the Executive Committee: 

(1) The possible applications and potential for the HSE power plant in 

(2) 

each participating country should be reported. 

An economic comparison of the 1-VW Model 76-1 HSE power plant with a 

1-MW bfick-pressure steam turbine set should be made. The cost estimates should be on the basis of commercial poduction of electric 

power, excluding geothermal Ne11 costs. The assumptions made in the 

analysis should be reported. 

The analysis for each site was based on the HSE perforiflance as measured, 

with the clearances and the -1 ?akage past the rotor assuined to remain as tested. 

The possibility that the ef -7 iiency gains demonstrated during the endurance 

tests might continue as more scale deposited during prolonged use, thus progressively reducing leakage, was not considered in the analysis. The HSE price 

was assumed to be the cost of Model 76-1, as used, without imqrovements. It 

should be recognized that since the Model 76-1 is a one-of-a-kind machine hilt 

for test purposes, this price may not accurately reflect what the actually 

quoted price would be to a prospective purchaser of a coinmexial ME power 

plant, or what model would be available. 

In the analyses, all speed reducer and alternator losses were ignored or 

assumed equal for comparably sized indchines. 

A. MEXICO 

The tnalysis was based on a cornparison of the specific total illass flowrates (tons/h per megawatt) and costs for a 1-MW HSE power plant and a 1-MM 

steam turbine set, both in back-pressure operation. Two sets of benefit 

analyses were done. The first set was for a hot-water reservoir temperature 

correspmding to well M-11; the second set applied to a spectrum of hot-water 

reservoir temperatures. 

Isentropic machine efficiencies were selected on the following bases: 

(1) 

(2) 

1. 

a. 

variation 

the three 

Steam turbine efficiency of 65% for a portable, noncondensing steam 

turhine operating with in1.t pressure ranging between 4 and 20 bars 

(58 and 290 psi), according to commercial literature. 

HSE efficiencies (Hm) of 55% and 48%, based respectively on endurance test results with flow measured downstream (Figure 6-1) and 

subsequent test results with fiuws measured upstream (Figure 6-2). 

Benefits 

Comparison of Snecific 2 ___---___ Total Mass ~ ----- Flowrate. Fiyure 13-1 shows the 

of specific total mass flowrate as a function of iniet pressure for 

generator sets operating on a hot-water reservoir with a temperature 

13-1 
1080 

IO0 

10 

- STEAM TURBINE 

--+I HSE 

k t \t 

0 4 0 I2 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 

INLET PRESSURE (bars) 

Figure 13-1. Comparison Between the HSE and a Steam Turbine; 

Reservoir Temperature 290OC (Ref. A, Fig. 25) 

13-2 
of 290°C, corresponding to well M-11. As the figure shows, the HSE with 55% 

efficiency is superior to the turbine for all values of inlet pressure, based 

on specific consumption. If the HSE efficiency is 48X, the HSE is favored only 

for inlet pressures ahove 14 bars (203 psi). However, in the case of well 

M-11, the HSE inlet pressure would be limited to 12 to 14 bars (174 to 203 psi) 

or less, since the well production decreases more rapidly than the specific 

total mass flowrate as pressures increase above 14 bars, as shown with the aid 

of the we1 1 production characteristics curve (Figure A-3). 

b. Comparison of Power Generation --- from Well. An analysis was made for 

well M-43 to compare the maximum obtainable power generation using a well with 

similar temperature, but greater production than well M-11 where the HSE tests 

were performed. 

Production data on well M-43 are as follows: 

Pressure 

Bars 

13.07 

13.36 

17.00 

23.20 

F1 owrat e 

tonslh 

146.2 

145.3 

141 .O 

118.4 

The irlet pressures used in the analyses were 14 bars for the turbine and 

20 bars for the HSE, these pressures being considered as the respective qptimum 

values. 

demonstrated. 

Operation of the HSE with inlet pressures as high as 20 bars was not 

The energy and mass balance for each generator set is included in the 

process diagram shown in Figure 13-2. The following data were obtained: 

Specific Total Mass 

E f f i c i ency Powel- Flowrate 

Machine x MW tons/MWh 

Steam Turbine 65 

HSE 48 

HSE 55 

2.60 

2.65 

3.04 

55 .O 

50.6 

44.1 

The choice between installing a steam turbine of 65% efficiency or an HSE 

of 48% efficiency on well M-43 will depend only upon cost, if the specific 

total mass flowrate adbantage of the HSE is not important. The fluid disposal 

requirements of the HSE are also smaller. These advantages could be important 

when an entire reservoir with a temperature of 290OC is being considered. A 

55% efficient HSE is the preferred machine based on performance benefit, if the 

cost permits. 

c. Comparison for Hot Water Resources of Other Temperatures. The 

analysis was extended to investigate the benefit that could be obtained with 

the HSE on hot water reservoirs having other temperatures, assuming the same 

efficieccy values for the machirles. 

13-3 
W 

c s 

I... 

S*dO 

L 

z I? 

c 0 

13-4 
The relationship of specific total mass flowrate and inlet pressure is 

compared for the tcrbine and the 48% and 551 efficient HSEs in Fiyures 13-3 

13-4, respectively, for five reservoir temperdtures. The results are summarized in Table 13-1 to show the inlet pressure ranges for which the specific 

total mass flowrate of the HSE is less than for the steam turbine. 

Although each well has a particular production behavior, it is reasonable 

to assme that for wellhead pressures yreater than 15 to 20 bars, productivity 

begins to decrease rapidly with increasing pressure. With this response, 

available well productivity is wasted. Rased on this consideration and the 

result,: in Tab12 13-1, it can he concluded that the HSE with 48% efficiency 

would outperform the steam turbine on hot water geothermal reservoirs with 

temperatures up to 275OC. 

liiy could be extended to reservoirs with 300°C temperatures. 

For the 55% efficient HSF, the utilization feasihi2. Economic Comparison 

Neither the cost of thf! geothermal well nor the cos+ of the fluid 

discharge system was considered in this analysis. The costs of the generator 

sets are for complete iinits; installatinn costs and the cost of aiixiliary g~othermal equipment arc, included as follows: 

(1) The cost of the steam turhirle unit was $5NI,i)03 U.S., the cost 

nf the auxiliary equipment siich as separator, hilencer, piping, 

valves and accessories was Sln4,000 1I.S.; cost to install the 

turhine unit was $25,000 U.5.: cost to install the auxiliary 

equipment vas 94U,OOO U.S.; then the total cost would he 

$669.000 I1 .S. 

(2) The cost of the HSE unit is 98U0,OOO 1J.S.; the auxiliary equipment siich as piping, silencer valves and instrumentation is 

estimated at 950,000 IJ.7.; HSE unit in!tallation is $40,000 

1J.S.; auxiliary equipment installation IS $19,000 1J.S.; and 

total cost is SS09,OOO U.S. 

3. Conclusions 

(1) The ecrnomic comparison shtws that the total inst~lled equipment cost favors use df the l-liN steam generator. 

(2) The HSE with 551 efficiency shows a thermdynamic benefit over 

the turbine, hie to its lower specific total mass flowrate for 

geothermal we1 Is in hot water systems at temperatures IPD to 

300°C, if it can he operated in the inlet pressure rdnge specified in Table 13-1. 

(3) For t.he HSE with 484: efficiency the thcrmodynainic henefit over 

tk i..lrhine extends to reservoir temperatures up to 275OC, providcd it can be operatrd in the inlet pressure range specified 

in Tahln 13-1. In this application, use of the HSE is feasihl e. 

13-5 
8 0 

Y 

r 

m 

.: 

I- a 

3 

YW 

mr 

cn 

I1 

a 

1 

A- 0 

2 3 

- 

* 

* 

4 

N 

n 

0 N 

N 

n 

N 

z 

N - 

e 

" 

* 

0 

m 

N 

n 

0. 

N 

N 

, 

m 

0 

N - 

m 

. 

1 

13-6 
- c 

8 

P - 

U 

0 

m 

W 

e 

a 

e 

a 

c 

Y 

13-7 
Table 13-1. Results of Comparison Between HSE and a Steam Turbine for 

Different Temperatures 

Steam Turbine HSE 

Rm = 48% Rm = 55% 

Reservoir Optimum Specific Pressure Specific Pressure Specific 

Temperature Pr-csure Tctal Mqss Range Total Mass Range Total Mass 

("a (aars) Fl owrate (bars) Flowrate (bars) Flowrate 

(Tons /HWh ) (Tons/YWh) (Tons/MWh ) 

200 4 204 6 - 14 173 - 147 4 - 14 180 - 128 

225 6 129 8 - 20 115 - 97 6 - 20 111 - 84 

2 50 e - 10 89 10 - 30 83 - 68 8 - 30 78 - 59 

275 10 - 14 64 14 - 40 61 - 51 10 - 40 58 - 44 

300 14 - 18 4; 20 - 40 45 - 40 12 - 40 45 - 35 

325 16 - 20 36 30 - 40 34 - 33 16 - 49 35 - 29 

3 50 18 - 20 27 > 10 -------- 30 - 40 25 - 23 

13-8 
6. ITALY 

1. Technical Considerations 

The Cesnno 7 well, in the Cesmo area, was chosen to carry out the 

benefit analysis. 4t the time of the analjsis, this well was scheduled to be 

tested in the future to evaluate the possibility of installing a condensing 

power plant in the Cesanc area. This well is preferable to the Cesano 1 well 

for this analysis. 

The hack-pressure prorAction curve of the Cesano 7 well is reported in 

Figure 13-5. 

bel ow: 

Thc main the ,qodynalnic characteristics of the well are listed 

9ottom hole temperature 221 =c 

anttom hole static pressure 

We1 1 head entha: py 972 kJ/kg 

CO2 content 

175 bars 

8% of total mass flow rate 

The economic comparison was carried olrt by comparing the turb 

generator units installed in the two different plants shown schemat 

Figure 13-6. 

ne 

ca 

and HSE 

ly in 

a. Technical Features of Plant No. 1. The turbine, item 2, is a mi- -__------_-- versa1 action type, 1-MW size with an iqlet pressure capability ranging between 

4 and 20 bars. 

isentropic efficiency ranging around 75%. 

The tilrbine can use steam containing from 5% to 40% CO2 with 

The optimum utilization of geothermal fluid with various total CO2 content is treated parametrically in Figure 13-7, which shows the specific power 

produced by a single flash back-pressure unit as a function of wellhead 

enthalpy. From Figure 13-7 it can be seen that the optinurn separator pressure 

from we1 Iheari enthalpy of 971) KJ!Kg and 8% Cd2 is aroilnd 113 bars, 

responding specific power is 39 kJIky. The necessary mass flowrate, G, of 

Cesano 7 fluid will be: 

The corG = __I__I 'Oo0 ki.; x 3.6 conversion factor = 93 tons/h 

39 kJ / kg 

From the characteristiL curve the wellhead pressure will be around 25 

bars for this flowrate. The calcQlated energy ar.? mass balances for !OOO kW 

are shown in Figure 1J-6. 

The maximum power from Cesaqo 7 with this type of plant requires a 

wellhead presslire of 10 bars to yield 165 tons/h, and 

- 

165 

x 1900 kV = 1770 kW 

93 

13-9 
I 

1 

In 0 d .-( 

In Q 

Cf CJ 

JW -3KtSS3dd W'A 

13-10 
-! I 

%/ 

4 

A r 

--. - 

c 

W 

i? 

13-1 1 
The figures on the lines show 

the optimum separating pressure 

(bar). The indicated power 

can be obtained only if the 

wellhead pressure is greater 

than the optimum pressure. 

16.3 

11.63 

10.5 

8.87 

7.76 

7.18 

Figure 13-7. Specific Power vs. Wellhead Enthalpy for a 

Single Flash Back-Pressure Unit (Ref. R, Fig. 17) 

13-12 
5. Technical Features of Plant No. 2. In Figure 13-8 the enthalay drop 

across the -forvarious Cesano / wellhcax pressures is shown for different 

HSE efficiencies. Ry coupling this result with the back-pressure curve of 

Cesano 7 it is possible to find the maximum recoverable power. If the HSE 

efficiency were 45%, the maximum power would be around 1960 kW. Since the 

maximum upstream allowable pressure of the HSE is 20.7 bars, the energy and 

mass balances are as shown in Figure 13-6. 

2. Economic Considerations 

The cost of the reinjection line, water collecting pit, twin 

silencers, pipelines, safety valves and civil works can he considered the sdme 

in the two cases. 

a. - Plant No. 1. The separdtor should be designed in such a way sc a; 

to separate steam fro6 4 to 20 bars. 

fol 1 owing specifications : 

The separators coiJld be designed with the 

Maxiinurn Gressure 21 bars 

Liquid flowrate 100 tons/h 

Saturdte steam flowrdte 30 tons/h 

Operating pressure 10 bars 

Material carbon steel 

The est ,at4 cost of tois separator fitted with safety valves, 

regulating va,ves nnd piping is around 16rJ f’L (million lira) ($107,000 U.S.). 

The estimated cost for vounting the separator can he estimated as 60 Yt 

($40,000 U.S. . The ii talled cost of the turbine, generator and ancillary equipment is 

around 800 tli (5535,000 lJ.5.) witholit considering the design cost. 

The total cost will be 1020 ML ($68?,000 U.S.). 

h. Plant No. 7. The declared cost of the HSE unit in October 198.3 was 

$636,801) Il.S.ded ancillary equipment). 

The estimated cost of installation, safety valves, etc., is around 60 ML 

(840,000 U.S.). 

Ry applying a cost escalation factor (Chemical Engineering, February 7, 

1383) it is possible to obtain the cost in 1983-$v.-q.: 

315 

261 636,800 x - = 5768,551 U.S., say $7/0,000, or about 1150 ML. 

Total cost: 1210 ML ($810,000 !J.S.). 

3. ConcIaIsions 

Fro11 tPe above considerations it vras concluded tnat: 

13-13 
0 C 

c 

13-14 
(1) The cost of the two plants can be considered almost the saw: 

tk;e plants should be designed to be utilized on different 

wells. The higher installation cost of plant No. 1 with the 

turbine will balance the higher costs of Plant No. 2 using the 

HSE with its multiple use. 

(2) Plant No. 2 shows a higher overall efficiency than Plant No. 1, 

assuming an HSE efficiency of 45%. 

power from Cesano 7 is 1770 k'vi with Plant No. 1 against abobt 

2000 kW with Plant No. 2. 

thermal fuel" by utilizing Plant No. 2. 

The maximum recoverable 

It is thus possible to save "ges- 

(3) The reinjection costs are lower for Plant No. 2. 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

The power generating potential and cacital cost of the HSE were compared 

with those of a small steam turbine, with both units being back-pressure sets 

capable of generating 1 YW of electrical energy. 

1. Power Potential Comparison of the Helical Screw Expander vs. the 

Steam Turbine 

A brief, theoretical study evaluating the power generating potential 

of the HSE and a steam turbine, using a specified geothermal resource was 

undertaken. Five fluid enthalpies characteristic of 1 iquid-dominated geothermal resources were used in the study. 

Assumpt ioqs: 

(1) Isentropic efficiency: 

(a) l-MU HSE, 45% (observed during the endurance tests). 

(b) 1-MW steam turbine, 60%. 

(2) Exhaust pressure 14.5 psia. 

(3) Maximum stable operating pressure for the HSE was taken to be 195 

psia. 

(4) 

(5) 

Pipeline friction and energy losses were neglected. 

The power output curves were based on a unit mass flowrate of geothermal well fluid. 

For each fluid enthalpy, powe' output cii, .es were prepared as a function 

of inlet pressure, as shown in Figure 13-9. 

The steam turbine qptimiim power output occurs as the raximum product of 

the steam mass flowrate determined by isenthalpic flash conditions and the corresponding isentropic drop from the flash pressure. 

13-15 
0 

0 

13-16 
The theoretical maximum power output from a given resource using the HSE 

occurs at the maximum stable operating pressure. 

greatest available isentropic enthalpy drop at which stable operation can be 

maintained. 

This corresponds to the 

The optimum conditions have been extracted from the generated curves, 

Figure 13-9, and are tabuidted in Table 13-2. 

Table 13-2. Optimum Power 

HELICAL SCREW EXPANDER STEAM TURRINE 

Inlet Pressure Power 

kWm 

Fluid Enthalpy Inlet Pressure Power -- 

J/g Btu/l b ps ia kWm ps ia 

900 387 195 12.4 79 9.2 

1000 430 195 16.5 101 13.2 

1100 473 195 20.6 130 17.8 

1200 516 195 24.7 166 23.6 

1300 559 195 28.8 20 3 29.1 

For the optimum conditions it can be seen that the HSE requires a smaller 

mass flowrate oc geothermal fluid than is required by a steam turbine to produce 1 MW of electrical power output when operating 3n a geothermal resource 

with an enthalpy of 1200 J/g (516 Btu/lb) or less. 

It has been assumed that the mass flowrate of geothermal fluid required 

This assumption is valid for the Broadlands well BR 19, where the 

for 1 MW of electrical power output can be sustained at ;he optimized inlet 

pressures. 

we1 lhead discharge pressures to sustain the required mass output occur above 

435 psia (30 bar abs). 

flowrate with wellhead pressure has to be considered. 

For geothermal wells where this is not valid, the mass 

2. Cost Information 

Budget cost information was cbtnined for both the HSE and steam turbine units. The equipment includzd the alternator, electrical control equipment ana ancillary plant IC * the proper functioning of the generating sets. 

The cost information was as of March 15, 1983: 

(1) HSE Unit, $800,000 U.S. - Rudget cost supplied verbally by the 

Hydrothermal Power Company (revised October 3, 1983). 

(7) Steam Turbine Unit, $220,000 U.S. - Eudget cost for i! multistage 1-MW standard frame turbine suitable for geothermal service. 

The separator, water vessel and additional pioework required for the 

steam turtine was estimated at $50,000 U.S. by the Flinistry of h'orks and 

Development. 

13-17 
3. Discussion and Conclusion 

The potential of the HSE on lower-enthalpy geother.!llll resources for 

greater power production than can be achieved by a small sre5rn-turbine generator is shown in Table 13-2. 

fluid enthalpy of 1250 to 1300 J/g, the power generating potential for both the 

HSE and She steam turbine are similar. Capital invescient clearly favors the 

stem turbine generating set. 

crjsts because the endurance test disclosed deficiencies that must be remedied 

before meaningful operating and maintenance costs can be identified. For the 

Broadlands BR 19 site there is clehrly no financial benefit to be gained from 

installing an HSE, based on capital costs. 

From the Broadlands well BR 19 with an average 

This comparison does not consider operating 

D. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 

The costs presented in the analjses are summarized in Table 13-3, which 

shows the cost of the equipment, the installation costs, and the cost totals. 

Costs of operation, maintenance, overhaul, and depreciation of the equipment 

were omitted from the analysis for lack of data. 

In the analyses, the benefit of using the Model 76-1 HSE power plant in 

imparison with the turbine generator set was based on the thermodynamic performarice of the machines on easily manageable fluids. The HSE was shown to 

cost more !wt have a performance advantage ova- the twbine for each of the 

test locations, although the advantage was not large for HSE efficiencies taken 

as 45% to 48$ 

ENEL for usage of the HSE to be feasible for certain wel’s. 

ciencies or lower-enthal py reservoirs, he advantage of using the HSE 

increases . 

The performance advantage was cansidered sufficient by CFE and 

For higher effiD-ring the testing of the HSE, it was demonstrated that the machine was 

tolerant of process upsets leading to f ooding of the inlet or of the exhaust 

up to the rotors. The benefits of characteristics such as this, or tolerance 

to scaling brine, if any, were outside the scope of the analyses. The possible 

decay i n f i e l d productivity and the need to operate the prime mover off-design 

and the effect on prime mover efficiency were also outside the scope of the 

an lyses. 

13-18 
3 

3 

0 

3 

9 

3 

3 

3 

c, n 

3 

d 

c 

3 VI m 

m 

h 

10 

C 

4 

*I7 

3 

3 

9 

m 

=, 

3 3 

3 

d 

3 

3 

3 =* 

.= 

3 

3 

c, 

UJ b 

3 d d 

3 

3 

d 

.- a 

m a, .- -r 

5 

, 

rl) 

N 

Ln 

L 

u, 

r-? 

;D 

L 

i i 

c; A CT 

Iu 

E 

Ln 

E, d 

c, 

VI 

0 

V 3 

3 

9 3 

d 

3 

1. u 

0 

C 

c 

c 

in =. cu 0 

d 

wm CICP 

mc ma, 

cc oc c:v 0'0 

13-19 
SECTION XIV 

APPLICATIONS 

A. MEXICO 

From a practical point of view, the use of the HSE in Mexico is entirely 

feasible as indicated by the thermodynamic performance and distribi*tion of 

failures that occurred during the tests. 

using geoth?rmal fluids at the wellhead can he attracti 3 because it can use 

the Fluids in the natural condition of unsepatdced steam and brine in geothermal fields under development, or on enploratory wells to: 

The application of an HSE power plant 

(1) 

(2) Evaluate procedures to reduce or eliminate scaling in I wuipVerify the operability of highly scalin( fluids at differenl operating pressures. 

ment 

(3) Perform production tests to check the geothermal reserves of the 

fields. 

(4) Investigate the relation between the productive process of the field 

and it: recharging through reinjectibn. 

B. ITALY 

The main use of the HSE power plant in Italy would be a; a wellhead backpressure unit. The machine can he used conveniently in this manner during the 

initi,' phzse of exploitation c)f water-dominated reservoirs when it is 

neceb3ctry to collect production inforzation before the installazion of larger 

power plants. 

where the HSE could be used for this purpose.) 

(In Italy there are new fields at Latera, Mofete and Cesano 

C. NEW ZEALAND 

Application of Model 76-1 HSE power plant for general geothermal service 

in New Zealand will -squire lower pricing and demonstration of inproved reliability. 

14-1 
SECTION XV 

REFERENCES 

A. Status Report of the Test and Demonstration Programme for 1 MW Wellhead 

Generator on Cerro Prie::; Comision Federal de Electricidad, Coordinadora 

Ejecut iva de Cerro Prieto, Mexico, October 1981, revised January 1984. 

P. He1 ical Screw Expander International Test and Demonstration Programme 

Status Report of Tests in Cesano (Italy), Ente Nazionale per 1'Energia 

Elettrica-Units Nazionale Geotermica, Pisa, Italy, October 1982, revised 

June :983. 

i. :EA '-ograme p Research, Development and Demonstration on Geothermal 

Equiprent, Test and Demonstration of a 1 Mw Wellhead Generator, Ministry 

of I!C,'kS and Development, New Zealand, prepared by 0. S. Carey, June 

1983. 

l.* He1 ical Screw Expander Evaluation Project Final Report, Richard McKay, 

March 1, 1982, JPL Pub1 icat ion No. 82-5; DOE/ET-28329-1, Distribution 

Category UC-660. 

DOE/ET-28329-1, or the N4SA Accession No., N82-22659, from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. 

This report may be ordered under the DOE Accession No., 

2.* Design, Fabrication, Delivery, Operation and Maintenance of a Geothermal 

Power Conversion System, Hydrothermal Power Co., Ltd., December 1980, 

NASA-CR-168653. 

N82-20644, from NTIS (see Ref. 1 above). 

This report may be ordered under the NASA Accession No., 

* Numbered references are compatible with usage in Refs. B and C. 
APPENDIX A 

HEX ICO/CFE 

Figure A-1 

Figure A-2 

Figure A-3 

Figure A-4 

Fiyirc 4-5 

Figure A-6 

Figure A-7 

Figure A-8 

Figure A-9 

Figure A-10 

Figure A-11 

Figure A-12 

Figure A-13 

Figure A-14 

Figure A-15 

Fiyure A-16 

Figure A-17 

Well Location, Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field (Ref. A, Fig. 1) 

Ne11 ComGletion and Geological Information of Well H-11 (Ref. A, 

Fig. G.l) 

Production Characteristic Curves for Uell #-11, Comparison Retween 

1979 and 1980 (Ref. A, Fig. 23) 

Endurance Test, Daily Average Values (Kef. A, Fig. 10) 

Oownstream Test at 3000 rprn, All Inlet Conditions (Ref. A, 

Fig. 11) 

Downstream Test at 40011 rprn, All Inlet Conditions (Ref. A, 

Fig. 12) 

Itpstroarl Test at 3000 rpm, All Inlet Cond 

Upstream Test at 4000 rpm, All Inlet Cond 

Effect of Inlet Pressure on Plachine Effic 

tions (Ref. A, Fig. 13) 

tions (Ref. A, Fig. 14) 

ency for Oownstrealrl Test 

at 3000 rpm, Inlet Quality 10% to 20% (Kef. A, Fig. 15) 

Effect of Inlet Pressure on Hachive Efficiency for Downstream Test 

at 3000 rpm, Inlet Quality 20'" to 3Ui (Ref. A, Fiy. 16) 

Effect of Inlet Quality of Machine Efficiency for Downstream Test 

at 3000 rpm, Inlet Nominal Pressure 100 psia (Ref. A, Fig. 17) 

Effect of Inlet Quality 90 rlachine Efficiency for Downstream Test 

at 3000 rpm, Inlet Nominal Prcssure 140 psia (Ref. A, Fig. 18) 

Effect of Inlet Quality on Machine Efficiency for Downstream Test 

at 3000 rpm, Inlet Nomina' Pressure 180 psin (Ref. A, Fig. 19) 

Effect of Rotor Speed r:n !fachine Efficiency for Downstream Test, 

Al! Inlet Conditions (Ref. A, Fig. 20) 

Effect of Gotor Speed on '"chine Efficiency for Upstream Test, All 

Inlet Conditions (Ref. A, Fig. 21) 

Ccmprison Retween Downstream and dpstream Tests at 3000 rpm, All 

InleL 'w-!iiions (Ref. A, Fig 22) 

Compariscn Between Downstream 3nd IJpstream Measurements with the 

1980 Characteristic Curve fur Well M-11 (Ref. A, Fig. 24) 

A- 1 
Table A-1 

Table A-2 

Table A-3 

Table A-4 

Table A-5 

Table A-6 

Table A-7 

Table A-8 

Table A-9 

Table A-10 

Table A-11 

Tahle A-12 

Chemical Composition of Geothermal Brine from Well 4-11 (Ref. A, 

Table 3) 

Water Chemistry of Samples Taken During the HSE Test Programme 

(Ref. A, Table 2) 

Nomenclature 

Operation and Failure Summary (Ref. A, Table 11) 

Endurance Test Data (Ref. A, Appendix C) 

Atmospheric Exhaust Pressure Test Data, 2nd and 3rd Performance 

Tests, 3000 rpm and 4000 rpm (Ref. A, Appendix 0) 

Above-Atmospheric Exhaust Pressure Test Data, 3000 rpm and 4000 

rpm (Ref. A, Appendix E) 

Above-Atmospheric Exhaust Pressure Test Data, Average Val lies (Ref. 

A, Table 7) 

Subatmospheric Exhaust Pressure Test Data (Ref. A, Appendix F) 

Stibatmospheric Exhaust Pressure Test Data, Average Values (Ref. A, 

Tahle 8) 

Comparison Between Atmospheric and Subacmospheric Exhaust Pressure 

Tests (Ref. A, Table 9) 

Chemical Composition of Scale Samples (Ref. A, Table 10) 

A-2 
A- 3 
ORIGINAL PAC% S 

3F POOR QUALITY 

0 CLAY 

0 SANOS 

‘T Om 

0 

-+ 

SANDSTONE DARK GRPY SHALE 

p ..I 

..I 

EXPLANAT 

CEMENT 

GRAY SHPLE 

CEN - 

I----- 

ON 

_--. CARBONATE -- 

CARBONATE 0 SILICA 

Figure A-2. Well Completion and Geological Information 

of Well M-11 (Ref. A, Fig. G.l) 

A-4 
8 

e 

8 

- V 

8 s - 

ORIGINAL PAGE is 

OF P09R QUALITY 

Q 

I 

e 

I 

I 

e 

I 

b: 

:e 

e 

e 

I 

y - q I 

I 

0 0 ? 8 8 :: (Y 0 0 

A-5 
. 

0 

. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Y 

I- * Q. 

0. 

L a. 

. - 

Q 

=. 

". 

L. 

L 

. 

A-6 
< 

< 

< 

B 

B 

8 

+ a + 

+ xm 

a00000 

xxxxxx 

000000 PQQQQQ. 

A-7 
8 

B 

B 

B 

*B * 

xx" 

oooo 

xxxx 

n 

3 

s 

Y 

a? 

W 

x 

0 

a 

a 

c 

3 

I3 

0 

IL 

z, 

a. 

a 

c, 

m 

c, 

VI 

aJ 

cE, 

ad 

L 

c, 

VI 

t 

3 

0 

n 

Ul 

4 

aJ 

L 

7 

0, 

LL 

.I- 
8 

e 

* 

**o 

llllll 

tllltl 

000000 

xxxxxx 

* 

A-9 
11111 

~ommm 

xxxxx 

0 

$k 

+ 

0 

PO 

11111 111111111l111 

m 

8 

8 

d 

8 

m 

m 

(P 

8 

Ql 

cp 

6) 

h 

8 

6) 

CD 

m 

m ln 

8 

a * 

a, 

Q 

(rl 

a 

8 

nJ 

a 

a 4 

a 

n 

? 

a 

a 

s 

Y 

W 

x 

0 

I3 

a 

I3 

0 

ILL 

I 

u) 

a 

(%I A3N313IAA3 3NIH3tlW 
+ + 

+ 

m 

m 

m 

0 

m 

m 

QI 

m 

m 

m 

m 

8 

b 

8 

m 

to 

m 

m 

Ln 

m 

m 

0 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

N 

6) 

6) 

4 

n 

3 

s 

Y 

CY 

W 

3 

0 

a 

Ik 

3 

0 

ILL 

I 

u) 

2 

a 

A-1 1 
< 

< 

< 

8 

8 

8 

8 

*a 

* 

8 

8 

8 

d 

8 

8 

tn 

8 

PP 

8 

8 

b 

8 

8 

(b 

E3 

8 ln 

8 

m 

Q 

8 

8 

m 

Q rn' 

N 

m 

m 

4 

m 

n 

3 

Y 

Y 

p! 

W 

x 

0 

I-* 

3 

c 

3 

0 

ILL 

I 

u) 

a 

a 

A-1 2 
xs 

mQ1 

cum 

I1 

x A9 

8B 

-(u 

11 

0 

+t 

xox 

+ + 

** 

+$* 

. 

1111111111111111111 

n 

A-13 
e 

0 

o8 

a 

B 

B 

8 

0 

n 

A-14 
< 

c 

Q 

4b 

sx 

68 

cum 

II 

8I 

00 

xx 

+< 

Q 

8 

Q 

d 

Q 

Q 

Y 

a 

a 

w 

I 

0 

t 

3 

Q 

t 

3 

0 

IL 

I tn 

a 

(XI A3N3131j33 3NIH3CJW 

A-1 5 
* * 

7s 

*O 

88 

88 

88 

mo 

to 

t 

0 ** 

* 80 * 0 

00 

* ** 

a a 11a11l1 a 11111 

A-16 
U 

B * 

0 

E€ 

a~ 

CL 

* * 

0 

iP 

0 

to 

0 

%PO 

A-17 
* * 

0 

*a * 

- 

- 

.I 

- 

- 

7 

* 

8 

8 

8 

d 

Q 

-m 

m 

8 

-8 

m 

Q 

-m 

h 

8 

-8 

tD 

m 

-8 In 

m 

-m * 

8 

-8 

13 

8 

-8 

(u 

8 

-8 CI 

0 *o 

* 

t 

*o 

* ** 

8 ** 8- 

0 

b- in 

Uk km 

w 

It 

a 

wr 

KD 

cw 

ma zt xu) 

8% 

80 

A-18 

n 

3 

a 

a 

a 

* 

Y 

W 

x 

0 

I3 

t 

3 

0 

t 

L 

I 

u) 

a 
X 

a 

i *O E 

0 

0 

0 

m 

0 

& 

c 

a 

w 

t 

w 

0 

2 

4 

a 

a 

0 

2 

w 

0 

m 

?! 

2 - 

a 

I2 

w 

f 

w 

a 

3 

m 

4 

w 

a 

% 

0 

A 

L 

0 

0 

c" 

\ 

c 

0 

w 

c 

I 

m 

- 

0 

0 

P 

b 

- 

Y 

P 

WJ 

a 

W 

0 

a 

a 

0 

W 

t 

-I 

W 

s 

a 

4 

I 

i 10 

'0 i 0 2 N 6- 0 

0 0 0 2 8l 

A-19 
Tatie A-1. Chemical Composition of Geothermal Rrine from Well M-11 

(Ref. A, Table 3) 

Chem i ca 1 

Constituent P Pm 

HCO3 49 

Ca 282 

c1 9350 

PI a 41368 

K 1125 

Rb 10.48 

R 10.48 

---- -----I_- --_--I---- - 

Si02 695 

Mn 0.84 

Mg 0.31 

co 0.15 

Cr 0.11 

Li 13 

CO 7 4109 

H2S 715 

-_-II_.-----____---_---_- I 

T.D.S. = 15,133 ppm 

A-20 
L 

3 

C 

cu 

I 

4 

I 1- I -1 -I - 7- I- - --. I I 1 I 

U 

Q) 

c 

E 

L 

aJ 

c, aJ 

U 

*r 

t 

0 

C 

II 

. 

p. 

C 

c, 

0 

c 

A-2 1 
VARIABLE 

Enthalpy 

Output Power 

Pressure 

Ef f ic i ency 

Throttle Position 

Mass Flow Rate 

Steam Fraction 

VARIARLE 

Water 

In1 et 

Machine 

Out 1 et 

We1 lhead 

Total 

Steam 

TABLE A-3. NOMENCLATURE 

SYMBOL 

CFE Others 

H 

- 

ti 

kW, KW kW, KW 

P P 

R ef f 

Thr Trt, Tr 

W M 

X Q 

SUBSCRIPTS 

CFE Others 

f _c 

a 

e 1 

m 

0 2 

P 

t 

V V 

- 

- 

A-22 
ORlGlNAL PAGE 19 

OF POOR QUALITY 

- 

- 

C 

ILn 9 

m u! 

\o 

In 

- C 

d 

V 

0 

-- N 

In 

IC 

N $1- ?r 0 ix N 

-. 

Ln 

T 

0 

w 

t 

4 

2 

3 

f 

0 

U 

4 

a 

- 

z 

I 

n 

c 

r 

t 

I 

-1 

i 

i* N 

-wmc 

A-23 
J7 Q > 

ce 

0 

M 

vi + M 

t /a c 

- 

= I- c 

9 

- 

M 

N 

c 

dJ N 11; I/ c 2 (v 

v) 

N 

r. 

c 

- 

- 

9 

9 

E! E v) 

c c 

il 4 

TA-24 
rn 

cwmc 

I 16 N 

x) 

hl 

A-25 
,- 

.I 

l-r 

5 -7 G 

c 3- 

Y- c 

- 

M 

A-26 
A-2 7 
ORIGINAL PKE ;s 

OF POOR QUALITY 

m 

Yo 

ID 

u 

L 

a 

0, 

% 

L 

a 

E 

v) 

aJ 

L 

3 

a 

LI 

U 

c 

a 

c 

0 

c, 

m 

L 

L 

5 

c 

..- 

.r 

- 

aJ 

9. 

0 

. 

d 

l 

a 

aJ 

m 

tP 

n 

tWVlDi'iI I i 

A-28 
I I I? d .I N 

2?!. Q 

ea 

c 

NI I I j"i v 

"I I ! II 

I I il! I 

. X 

-7 

0 

w 

c 

4 

'a 

a 

a 

A-29 
L 

-1il-T-Tis .r( 

u 

;D 

L 

P) 

c 

0) 

Do 

I?! 

I3 

'c I '- 

3 

0 :u 

e 

0 m l-10.1 .I 

! I 

c 

C 

A-30 
h 

cc 

0 

d 

. 

In 

I 

e 

aJ 

m 

Ic 

n 

CI x 

w I 

t3 

v) @I 

=I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

2 

I3 

W E 

n: 2 gf W 

1 u 

I 

uc 

00 

70 I m I 

4 

n 

ba K I - a 

u 

0 W 01 

(41 I 

z 

il 

0 I 

A-31 
le 

0 

N 

c, 

c 

lo 

7 

U 

c 

w 

Y, 

I 

e 

r: 

m 

U- a1 

I 

I 

Y 

31 

0- 

4 

\ 

xn 

5 

xm 

a 0)U 

W - 

4 

0- 

XI e4 

z 8 

I 

4 

4 

n el 

ni Xn 

x 

0 I @ 

v1 Lll a1 I 

I 

I E I 

zw 

@ 

0 

a e g; w 

4 V 

uo 

v1 0 I 

zo I m I 

n 

.. I 

I 

w 

W 

I 

9 0)Q 

ni -4 

m 

? 

I 

I 

01 

LLI 

I 

Y 

m m m m cy m d- u cy m m 'r cy m m 4 m m ~3 rd N r( w w m cy cy m m CT 

mmmmm~mmmmInmmmmmmmmmmmInmmmmmmm 

m~mommmrlommmtm~mm~ww~tn~wInm~mt-~ 

m m m rt m m m t w m m m m m m e-m c. m m m m m mm m m m m m 

(~mm~~wr-~~~wmt-~mot-cymo~m~~mot-cymot-~m 

m m m w m N r- m v m r- m t- cy-^ m m m r- om UI moot- w w r( N ~~m~~a~~m~mmmr~m~~~~~~wt-t-~~mmt-

4rlrlrl~rl~4rl44rlrlrl4rl444~'44rl4rl~4rl4rl 

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

A-32 
o, 

u 

r 

9 

L 

7 

'CJ 

c 

LL' 

. 

Ln 

I 

o, 

9 

Ia 

n 

F 

a 

w 

X 

W 

el 

v) 

a 

U 

v1 

w 

0 

z 

4 

a 

3 

P 

z 

w 

4 

a 

U 

W 

4 

W 

9 

A 

I 

Ul 

31 I 

I 

I 

E I 

E gs 

n 0 t-l 0 I 0 I 

0 I 

I $I 

Y 

A-33 
I- 

+ 

0 

c, 

v) 

aJ 

IaJ 

V 

c 

9 

L 

3 

c 

E 

w 

n 

4 

Id 

w 

0 

z 

4 

& 

4 

CL 

A-34 
h 

cc 

0 

m 

c, 

L 

a 

n 

L 

m 

c, 

a 

c 

Y 

v) 

PI 

IPI 

W 

c 

Q 

L 

~ 

w 

0- 

=2 

A-35 
i 

n 

rn 

Io 

c, 

Io 

c 

% 

w 

P 

z 

4 

k 

4 

a4 

X 

W 

m 

v1 

Y 

0- 

XI d 

I 

all 

x- 

.4 

01 a1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Q)cd 

a -4 

m 

e 

al a1 

I 

A-36 
rYO 

h 

L) i 

4 

CL 

* 

4 

c, 

4 

0 

c1 

VI 

aJ 

IaJ 

W 

c 

R1 

L 

J 

T 

c 

W 

. 

In 

I 

=c 

aJ 

4 

I- 

- 

n 

0- 

"5 

X old 

& 4 

m 

a 

I 

I 

I 

a' a1 I 

&I 

E 

m 

w 

W 

H 

4 

a 

Y 

m~mi~mom~mma~~ow~m~m~om~

m VI w m m w m rr) m L1 m m m In m m -3 m 9. m w L1 m m m m m 

Ooor(~o~oooo~LImmoN(Vmm~mmddrtwww 

~~707mm~~~~7~mm9mmmmmmm~r~~mm

~~~7~m~amm~am~~w~~maw~mr(r(~

m r( mom m r( m o (V m LI m m rt m o rl m 7 o cy m o ~m m r( 

~mm~~wmoomoi~owomoomo~~m~~~m~r

~dN000r(N0ol4~l40or(r(No0~l4l4Noo~oo 

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

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

A-37 
E 

& 

0 

0 

0 

m 

A-38 
~POD~~ODOD~WP~W~W.NO~N~WWODWW~VI~~W 

m VI m m m m m m m m m m IC m L m m m m m m rl ul m VI m In m m m 

L 

c, 

v) 

a, 

IaJ 

V 

C 

4 

E 

c 

0 

cc 

c 

aJ 

n 

n 

33 

%cy Y 

0- 

XI 8 

I 

@I 

XODmPQ\m~ODNNdOmNNN4Nrl~NNQNmmm~Imm 

N N N N N cy hc m m m m m M m m m m m 7 m m m m m m m m m m 

a: 

l%h 

wa: 

OQ 

z 

0 

c 

c? 

I 

I ui 

31 I 0 

crr 

44 

Ub 

co 

cu N 

4c; 

c,L 

44 

.) 

on 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

6 n 

rl 

I 

I 

000000000000000000000000000003 

~\o~~~~~w~ow~~~~mw~~rnrnm

N om m m OD o c. -r rl Q\ rl ai IC P or( OD m 0-1 OD OD o N r m o 03 w 

~mmmm~www-~www~w~~~\~~o~mmrlr(~~

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

~Q\~mmwNImwNQPWQ\PcoI-OO~-OI-WQ\OD4P~ 

N NN N N N N rl 4 4 d r 4 rl PI 4 rl rl r( 4-4 N rl r( rl NN N N (v 

I aJ0 

LO 

30 

I 

a1 

31 

I 

01 

ail 

I io 

xo 

wo c) 

V 

.C 

I 

I 

I 

914 

ai *r( 

4a 

w 

XQ 

z 

N 

VI 

e 

I 

1 

I 

!&I 

&I 

L 

aJ 

r- 

. u3 

I 

d 

aJ 

4 

cv 

n 

~-OPO~-wNODwODPW-~3NODW~Omw~wNNODo ~~~~~r(~~ommmo~~o~mo~~r~rnmr(

mmw~~~~~\mP~OD~mooodrl~mrrn.r~-m~~~~

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q .? v 9 O m In m m m m ?;I m m m m m m m m m m 0 

r( 4 4 r( 44 4 CV N N (u N 64 N N N [v P*N N N N N N PJ NN N N M 

4rl~~~r(4rlrl~rl.-Irl~rlrl4.-Irlrl4rlrlrl~~r(r(~rl~ 

w ............................................................ 

i? 

2 ............................................................ 

A-39 
401 

w 

xn 

z 

N 

A 

ZX 

Ur Y 

c. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

gI 

r4 

2 

I 

1 

I El I i.4 

1 

0 I 0 

m Y 

0 2: 

0: 

&I I 

I 

oooooooooooooooco 

PI .w a0 0 m Q) w m m b a0 0 cy Q 0 OI w mv)QOIFomNwor-mNmmw4 

FOIo1Folnddmo1dOImoo 

FtNmFNNNWmmmlri-rmWmw 

tC F b 03 Q) UJ W Q) 03 OI OI OI Q\ C\ OI 

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

00000000000000000 

W'Q)OIOLDW~rl4NmPONWm 

rl 10 01 m w m m PI OI o N CD w Q m r( m m w~m v) w ma r(wm NO m ON mm m~m~~)~~oo~mm~wwm=~- 

~~~~~~~mmmmmrmmmm 

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

m mw 0 OI m w nl b I.? m aD In 4 UJ m OI 

t~~-~~mmm~)m~m-=rmu~oo 

mmorldA74oommmInQ-r=J-=J4dNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 

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

w Q o w ca -4 m r- .-I m m m m w m m w CY *N w e 84 d 3m m om 4q N 4 v d 

lri mw w -r m 9 mmm um w mc4 mm .................................. z ooomW-=fmmm44dANmmu 

m mm om mm mm rs ww - ww u u .................................. 

rld4444d444444ddd4 

A-40 
. 

c, 

v) 

aJ 

IL 

t 

cc 

L 

aJ 

a 

.r 

L 

Qi 

r 

Q 

m 

0 

E 

c, 

4 

a: 

a& 

W4 

PO 

z 

A-41 
c, 

v) 

Ial 

ai 

- 

33 

ZX 

U 

c 

EO 

rc 

c 

a 

73 

L 

n 

0- 

XI dP 

I 

@I 

X- r-r-cn~~mr-~~~~wwmmmw~~~orno~oo 4 4 N N cv N N N N N N N N N N N N %v m m N m m m m 

I 

I &I1 

31 I 

I 

m+ 

co 

cu In 

m xoul 

W 

& (cc, 

+L Qcc 

CL 

4 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Ea1 

L, 

I 0 I 

0 a1 0 31 W - 

00000003000000000000300000 

a, -r aJ LCIu cn 0 m cn VI m 4 w 0 m r- r- l m w P m r- I- 4 r- m~4OmOr-Nmm~~o.9mY,ma,r-~m~a,r-lm 

r- v r? N I- o m da, w I- w cu .- a, o o o ii) m o Q) m o m r- gr o no 0-101 N 0-1 m.9 m - w w m 3 .+ w I- mwcn o m~mll~Fl~lso.~~ll~olm9.~o.~3~m 

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

- 

I 

r 

3L 

m 

CO 

xo 

wo m U 

v) h oi 

&I I 

I 

I 

I 

Q4 

& -4 

m 

B 

I 

I 

I 

&I - 

xn 

z 

N 

c 

L 

al 

I 

Q 

v) 

0 

E 

c, 

4 

. 

w 

a gr~r-Nm~r-mO~wmNa,wcnr-O~mm~~~~rm~~cn~~cnOOO4444a,~~O44dNN~lmm 

NNNNNNNOmmmmmmmmml~Y,mm~U~mm 

00000000000000000003000300 

d~d~d~4~rl4~~~4~~4~4~~~d

m Y el -4 r( N Y, o -I CII r( ci 9. 9. m o 'z o o N m o -P 4 rl m .................................................... 

.................................................... w 

z 

& 

U 

al 

m 

Ic 

n 

A-42 
.) 

u 

ul aJ 

I- 

- 

sfr 

Y A* 

Y 

aJ 

U 

t 

CCI 

0 

YL 

aJ 

E 

a 

0- xi d.r 

4 

CI:e 

(r14 

no 

z 

3000 

(VNNN 001600 (Y4dNN 

- 

I 

I 

wdcrm 

NNNCy 

mmmm 

.... 

I 

I 

$2 n 

-i 

x 

N-!W4-(C 

r(0wm-r 

wwmmw 

..... 

mo4m 

.... 

vnmv 

4.-lrlcc 

r. 

I 

01 

¶I- "I 

ta 

=to 

xo 

WO 

m 

I 

I 

I 

QQ 

01 

m 

P 

;la 

0 

EP 

e 

m 

m4ma 

4mwm 

000- 

4-44 

.... 

I 

I 

I 

a1 

&I 

0 coo ooooc~o13 3000 

Or-~uair-tvmN01-lmolnL4l 

N NNN d(VC44-ld444d4 

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

m (Y r? M a, 4 o m m P (D m m .-- fi 

0000 

o4-r.m 

onam 

W4-4*-f 

.... 

wmmm 

c.: M -4 N 

0or.o 

mmmo 

?MmPi 

4t-i.-ld 

........ 

........ 

A-4? 
&I- a1 I 

mmm 

m m 

c> 4 0 9.0.- 

lnmN 

mmnro 

mme 

r-PP 

NNN 33 

x .% - 

mmm 

NNN 

30.4 

NNN 

I 

I 

4Jl 

ZI I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

c 

m 

no 

2 

-0 

t 

(II 

U 

t 

CJ 

rrJ +’ 

(3 

0 

I 

I 

I ix E 

n 

4 

Y 

c, 

L 

(II 

a. 

c, 

v, 

QI .- 

1 

5 

L 

WW.4 

mrlw 

www 

... (P 0 0 m w In \ow m m m m m m ln 9. 9. rl m 9. 9. -2’ m w 

m 9. N Y, m Cy N N N N N ir) N N N N CI Cy N W N 0 0 

........................ 0 ~z~r-~wwcnmcncncnrncnncncn~~mcncnmm~ 0 

0 

U 

0 I 

dl 

31 3 

0 

U 

c 

m cnmm 

-49. 

.-I .-I 4 

... - I 

E 

L 

oi 

011 I 

1 

1 WaD(b 

IzWN 

cnmm 

... 

I 

I 

011 

a; 

- 

000 

NNQI 

NNN 

N N N 

... 

Nom 

4mW 

E www 

...... H mlnm 

trmm 

44.4 

n ...... (II 

Id \\\ 

N N c+ 009 

A-44 
Q, 

V 

c 

.E 

0 

E 

(c i 

al 

Q 

~commrlwmm 

cy c3 m m m m N rl mar-coco000 444 

U ........ L 

m 

3mm 

E 

c) 

4 

r-mmm~wmw 

........ 

cor-r-mclmvm 0 

0 www\Dr-wcoco 

0 

9. 

I 

I 

41 

31 

9)O 

LO W 

tnzw 

L 

LW 

X ;lo& 

Y 

io 

xo 

WO rn U 

.r 

I 

I 

I 

a4 

a44 

xn 

a 

m 

m 

? 

I 

L 

Q: 

J= 

0. 0000030000000000000 

cP~OdNmOa9.co4ONmr-r-Now 

mmo~~m-~mav~n~n=r-rm~nr-mo 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNm 

................... 00000000 

mmwlnmuNm 

ONm4Ocn4d 

N N N N N 4 N cu 

........ 

rD 

I 

4: f--NI-Nf--r-Nrm tn o N m r> m o 

mmwwwPr-m 

m m m m r> m m M 

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

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

wrJlKrw9.eew 

44r(4dr(dd 

n 

a 

iA-45 
c 

'c 

c 

0 

E 

a 

I- m.iL-4 0- ON mmmvm w w 9. 9. ln ln v) m cr ln Q C) .I m m m m 

mWNQ)N-4-4moOmmNwo 

0 QI Q W F a3 P W Q N 0 3 4 Q 0mmmmmmmmmmwmrnQ) 

4 

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

. 

u2 

I 

4 

aJ 

la 

t- 

- 

n 

mWwoW 

NvOmm 

MQ.rD-0 

mmmmln 

wwv9.v 

44-4-44 

.......... 

.......... 

w 

6 

4 

5 

A-46 
c 

c, 

v) 

c, 

I0- 

XI 8 

I 

4 a1 

Xat3 

w4 - 

1 

'c 

L 

Cr) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

4t30 

d 

clam3 I cn I 

xwm I 

w I 

WBiY >r: 

a 3\ 

-c% 

cc 

Lv 0 

E 

r( 

X 

n 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

ala 

Clr -4 

m 

a 

I 

Jcla 

w 

Xa 

a L m a, 

.c 

Q 00000300000000000,0000000000000 .............................. I 

I 

v) 

0 

E 

c, 

a 

. 

a 

Q) 

c 

A-47 
Eo, LI 

0 

0 

0 

m 

a 

nl 

A-48 
E L 

-0 

c 

m 

h 

L 

0 

c 

0 

0 

W* 4 

.. 

0 

E 

c, 

e 

Q, 

> 

C 

D 

4 

n 

m 

Immmm~~mmm~~~m4mmmd~m~ 

ommu~~rlmo~om0m40~m~om 

4 4 N m m w LO tn a0 r3 N N m IC. m o N co m 04 

~~~~~~~mmrnmmrnmmmmmmrnm 

444,~~4dr(r(44r(4~44~~44rl 

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

mm~~mmm~4NNNNmm~u~~~~ 

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

A-49 
........... >.- 

E 

P h 

0 

0 

C 

e. 

m 

c 

lu 4 

e 

a 

n 

N N N cy N N N N N N N N N N N cu N N N N N m m c) m m m M m m 

E 

a 

L 00000000000000000300c0300000000000 

OD m m OD I- ~n m w P 3 m OD -r - v r. c? m n m cn m cn c i- m u, o v CI 

N ffid N u> a i- w 01 OD a, Y m 3 I- m ma r- ab N ,+ N a .-I 4 N m N rjl 

I .............................. I Ul 

31 

I 

I 

I 

0 

C 

C 

m 

* rl rlrl a 

c, 

CCI 

d 

I 

I 

I 000000000300000300000OOOOOOOO0 

~mm~~~m~~Now~r-W~3mo~~07?r-m

wwmdr-~m~~rlm~mi-o~o~~m--rrlw~~ar-m~m~ 

NI-rlmNwaNwNNm~mv)owYN--rwrlw~mmi-mm~ 

N ~m N m N m N m mcn w am 3 m a cn m .- I-- I- ys r- P P 03 w ~NNNNNN~NNNNN~~N~NNNN~.~~

i .............................. ia 

a 

.-I 

I 

e 

v1 

3 

4 

X 

X 

w Ea. 

Li 0c0000000000030000000000000300 

~wcnm~m~o~~~~morl~rw~o~m~~

L> N m rl a, r( o N w w m m ra N w v) o rl m m rl m o 4 cy v w m w w ~~~m~a,w~1-dmo9m~aor-ow1-i-0~~wmmomm 

m N rc. N N C'N m m Q I-- Ill v m -3 o \o m \D m m m m N rl 0 a 4 a 01 weeow.r.=ru-wo. ~'~mmm~mm~~~mwQwwm~m~ 

.............................. 0 

0 

c 

-a- a 3 

I 

I 

I 

Y 

P mn, o o- m m -a, \o CI CJ o N m v JO 4 (D m w ;;n '3. .-; 00 rn JI P m 

O~~~~~Q~~~NNNNN~~NN

N N N N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m m m Q m m P PI n m m e m 

I .............................. 01 a1 I 

.. 

W 

V 

.r 

L 

a 

I 

0. 

VI 

0 

E 

c, 

aJ 

> 

C 

2 

4 

n 

z 

N 

I 

I 

I 

Q41 a1 - 

fi 

I 

4 

Q: 

c 

~r-01mOmC~mmWN~r-~o~mm0r.rlP~~~~~~

y, om o N g. o m -4 m o rl cv cd m --r =I* rn 04 N v m N u 4 m ,+ N m 

m w 9 r- m I) 0 a? 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m N N N rq w m m fi i- r- .4 ,-id rl r( r'd d.3 N o c 7 zp -? v. e cy .? w r\l N w N N N N N e4 N 

0 0.3 0 G 0 3 5 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 ,-id rl 4 -4 4-4 4 rl 

4 44 .-i -I rl rl4 4 4 -J 4 4 A 4 rl .-4 rl-4 .-I .-I 4 4 F-i 4 rlri 4 4 4 

u ............................................................. p 

I4 

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

0 0 0 

n 

lu 

IA-50 
0 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C 

C 

M 

0 

C 

0 

M 

0 

c 

c 

0 

0 

0 

C 

w 

0 

0 

C 

w 

In 

rg 

9 

In 

c. 

M 

W 

In 

Y) 

m 

v) 

M 

u, 

M 

w 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

00 

00 

N 

Q, 

m 

M 

0 

N 

N 

9 

00 

M 

3 

I- - r( 

d 

N 

M 

M 

Q) 

1u Q)n 

XP d 

0 

N 

Ln 

Y) 

00 

N 

d 

M 

u 

In 

a: 

3 - 

4 

> 

aJ 

0, 

4 

L 

aJ 

> 

a 

.) 

4 

c, 

4 

0 

W 

M 

m 

0 

rM 

M 

e 

d 

m 

M 

W 

m In 

\D 

M 

v) 

m 

00 

m 

0 

00 

d 

W 

v) 

.Q 

n 

v) 

d 

00 

Un 

=I 

I 

d 00 

M 

In 

m 

tu 

d 

d 

W 

b 

M 

+ 

N 

r( 

m 

d 

I00 

In 

Ln 

M 

W 

rN 

N N 

c, 

v) 

aJ 

Ia: 

L 

3 

#I 

v) 

W 

L 

n 

c, 

VI 

7 

rc 

E 

X 

W 

V 

L 

a: 

JE 

Q 

v) 

C 

E 

c, 

a: 

> 

0 

fi 

a 

.F 

4: 

m In 

M 

rM 

m 

N 

v) 

W 

0 

00 

In 

v) 

\D 

m 

d 

M 

d 

W 

0, 

m 

U 

v) 

m 

0 

M i 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

N 

U 

d 

W 

Oh 

a I 

v) 

N 

N 

M 0 

d e 

N 

N 

M 0 d 

I 

Q)a ad u) 

a 

I 

0 

d 

r( 

In 

IC 

d 

00 

m 

M 

d 

d 

h 

rd 

i 

1 

a ad M 

00 

d 

00 

(0 

d 

0 

d 

N 

In 

v) 

N 

d 

m 

d 

m 

d 

N 

0 

W 

\ 

00 

d 

\ 

00 

0 

0 

W 0 

00 

% 

0 

00 

\ 

0 

00 

\ 

IN 

\ 

Q, 

0 

0) 

c, 

(d 

n 

\ 

00 

d 

\ 

00 

0 

rN 

\ 

00 

0 

N 

\ 

00 

0 

n 

(0 

Io) 

c 

4 

DJ dNM bv)\D 

A-51 
0: 

I 

e 

aJ 

m 

IF 

n 

mrnromr-ror-~do~mv~ 

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

ONQmWWmemmWNbW 

awrowwwrowwwwroww 

w l- r- l- r- w -. f- in N 4 0 ma) 

m ma m m ll. dl mmmlnm m In 

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

h. \ \ \ \ \ \'. \\ \\ \ \. \ 

k mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 3 00000030000000 

n \\\\\\\' \\\\\\ N N N N N N N N N N N N h' N 

00030000000000 

oomomooo~~ooo 

m rc) N m N m m m m N m m m 

wmmmr-owrodmmd-w 

blnNlvNmO-sNmdN 

wwwroww~wwwwaw 

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

InlnwmLDwcoQ3ml-mmrww~wwwrowwawwm 

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

4ma)ow4Lnmwba)dm ............. 

4 .v 4 m m m N -s N a) Q m m ooom~ooooomm-s 

444 dd4d4d 4 

0000000000000 

wmwwNr-wP4Or-r-rN N N W N N N r( N N N N 

NNNWNNNNNNNNN 

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

a)Oa)ma)Nr-dr-dwwO 

modovmm4eomdm 

h'm m w rt r- cn m 6W N m r- mmInmmInmam000: 

d 14 rl?' ,i 4 +-I 4 N N N N 

d4d-Iddd+-Id4ddd 

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

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

A-52 
m o a0 03 .-I cn u) i-mm m m c\d Y m n: m mmm 

w tn IA ui m m m m N~-I 

w w \D w w w r- r-bb N N N N N N N NNN 

w w r- r- w b m m a,m 

N N N N N N N NNN 

4 

L.3 

ma 

Qcl 

wr-mNm?4wCDN9.dInw.4olom 

JI CII w m In w m ln r- m IC 0 ol ol r- m > mwmw wOJw~CDmoFlooo 23 

dr(4dd44 

................. I- a, in w (Y w m cow0 .......... 

N 4 cy rl I- m N 4 WN \o P. fi b VI W W W mW 

m nc cy m o ON^ 

w r- OJ CD r- a) .4.40d 

dddd 

.......... 

E 

n. 

Lc 

0 

0 

0 

w 

w w m m m m moa 

v) 9. w m 0 d rc 0 wo In rD w w w w m mwm 

.......... 

w m (0 m m w OI w -rol 

m u) m 9. r- r- m mmw 

4-4 44.4 

.......... 

o o m o o o w w w\o 

00000000000000000 

FlOOmmNa)w(Ymm.4ddwww 

QIIdNNmINcyd.4dNd.4rN cy N hl N cy N N N N N N cv (Y rv N N 

................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 

0 m N \L) a0 N *om N 4 N 4 (Y N OD Q) 0- 

(Y (v N N N N d r( Nd 

.......... 

~fidm(~++mmd~-r-am 

r( m~ In m o 4 ON m m w N 

mmw9.m~OdNNNVIn 

00000mv-r-rQFl-4~ 

mmmmmmmmmm-Pww 

4 4 rl 4 4 0-4 -14 d 4 4.4 4 

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

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

e0-N 

-mum 

nwar- 

........ 

Add4 

-rwo.w 

d.4-4.4 

........ 

hl r- om 9. a3 QI -910 0 m N m 94 N N mnmw 

m 4 N In r- N mmvm mv9.w omrlr(r(4 

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.4.4 

4 4 4 d 4 4 ri -44.4 

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

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

A-53 
0 

*- 

0 

m 

L) i 

(II 

0 

L 

4 

w 

tu 

n 

c, 

ln 

Q: 

c 

Q, 

L 

3 

ln 

ln 

aJ 

L 

a 

w 

VI 

3 

(II 

t 

X 

W 

V 

.C 

4 

aB 

wa: 

na 

w 

"2 m 

I ..... 0 I FQ)~OD~ 0 I wwwww 0 (111 

w XI Y 

- mwwew I ..... 01 wwwww 0.1 

I 

I 

I OmNma 

I ..... Q)cb r-r(r(-m nl.4 mvwqm 

dr(dr(d ! I 

I 00000 I ..... a1 mmmwr- &I NONdd - NNNNN 

N 404 (U Cy N N N Md 0 Ul w 

m m r) I*) 9 w w v w w w ul w ............. 

k-54 
d 

rc 

C 

3 

(II 

I 

X 

W 

m 

I 

.c 

(II 

Irn 

40. 

w 

X0 

m 

a 

I 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 $I 

I 

01 

0.1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

ala 

04 -4 

m 

I 

I 

1 

GI 

&I 

'?. 

o~~mmmirnwww~~~~~cy~~~9mo

I 0 m w w - - i In rn m In rl LO w w 9 w w Q) Q) Q) w u) w a w ........................... 

000000000000000000000000003 

~~a,~a,~,~~mo~owm~~oo-r~n~m~

~Oa,wwm~w~u)~S~ONcyNoNOoo~03w~~ 

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

e. 4 4 A4 4 A444 -4 r( 4 N N rY N N N N N N N N N N N 

A-55 
0 

0 

0 

M 

M 

d 

M 

N 

IN 

W 

d 

d 

.In 

QI 

VI 

d 

W 

M 

M 

0 

+ 

9 

W 

rl 

d 

OD 

\ 

0 

N 

\ 

N 

3 

d 

0 

0 

0 

M 

N 

W 

M 

M 

W 

M 

0, 

d 

W 

9 

N 

M 

9 

In 

0 

0 

Q, 

Q, 

M 

9 

rl 

d 

OD 

\ 

0 

N 

\ 

N 

0 

N 

0 

0 

0 

M 

0 

rn 

9 

U 

0 

N 

Q, 

IIn 

d 

U 

9 

\o 

In 

In 

Q, 

U 

9 

rl 

d 

W 

\ 

0 

N 

\ 

N 

0 

M 

0 

0 

0 

M 

d 

W 

M 

In 

d 

W 

9 

N 

9 

N 

U 

d 

In 

N 

N 

d 

W 

\ 

0 

N 

\ 

N 

0 

w 

0 

0 

0 

M 

M 

d 

d 

In 

e 

9 

d 

N 

0 

N 

Id 

Q) 

0 

d 

d 

b 

0 

N 

d 

W 

\ 

3 

N 

\ 

N 

0 

In 

0 

0 

0 

rc 

e 

In 

M 

0 

N 

In 

In 

d 

0 

Id 

9 

b 

Id 

9 

b 

N 

d 

W 

\ 

0 

N 

\ 

N 

0 

9 

lo 

lo 

I 

I. 

I 

1111 

IM 

I 

! 

Id 

IN 

-0 

.o 

.. 

.M 

.Ii 

i 

!2 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

It 

I 

I 

1.0 

I 

I 

I 

I. 

I 

I 

Id 

I 

I 

I 

I 

iIII\ 

Io 

.In 

i 

.I- 

.d 

.m 

i 

i 

!," 

.N 

.e 

.d 

.d 

-\ 

.o 

.N 

b 

0 

0 

0 

0 

t4 

d 

0 

In 

9 

N 

d 

d 

0, 

9 

0 

N 

9 

d 

0 

In 

0 

rl 

d 

N 

N 

rl 

\ 

9 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

Q) 

0 

0 

0 

d 

In 

W 

M 

In 

IM 

W 

rl 

r-. 

9 

d 

d 

9 

3, 

N 

d 

M 

0 

rl 

v) 

M 

N 

d 

0 

\ 

l0 

\ 

N 

0 

GI 

0 

0 

c 

w 

In 

(v 

d 

M 

IN 

OI 

4 

rl 

9 

d 

d 

0 

In 

In 

In 

r3 

rg 

9 

a 

d 

d 

OD 

\ 

9 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

0 

r( 

A-56 

0 

0 

0 

d 

d 

0, 

M 

In - 

d 

Id 

9 

cc 

N 

PI 

d 

9 

In 

In 

0 

4 

d 

W 

0 

N 

4 

OD 

\ 

M 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

..-l 

d 

0 

0 

0 

d 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0 

In 

0 

0 

0 

d 

0 

In 

M 

0 

IN 

N 

9 

d 

b 

9 

N 

9 

LA 

0, 

b 

N 

N 

r( 

OD 

\ 

IO 

\ 

N 

0 

N 

-4 

d 

M 

9 

d 

d 

N 

In 

9 

9 

rn 

0 

d 

In 

N 

N 

d 

OD 

\ 

v) 

\ 

N 

0 

M 

4 

0 

0 

0 

d 

N 

d 

M 

rc 

9 

N 

9 

d 

N 

9 

0 

4 

N 

In 

IIn 

M 

f 

d 

d 

M 

N 

d 

OD 

\ 

v) 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

e 

d 

0 

0 

0 

e 

d 

0 

d 

9 

M 

In 

d 

In 

4 

Q, 

9 

d 

9 

4 

e 

d 

W 

d 

N 

d 

r) 

\ 

v) 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

v) 

d 

0 

0 

0 

e 

9 

Q, 

M 

M 

M 

In 

ut 

d 

\o 

W 

9 

r( 

0 

rc 

m 

9 

In 

M 

r( 

r( 

M 

N 

+ 

OD 

\ 

In 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

9 

4 

d 

d 

v) 

b 

0 

N 

W 

0 

rl 

d 

N 

d 

W 

W 

N 

rl 

rc 

M - 

N 

N 

N 

rn 

m 

\ 

v) 

0 

\ 

N 

0 

I4 
s 

.d 

Ea, 

r 

0 

C 

MM 

old 

ODM 

NN 

.. 

00 

Ne 

UM 

.. 

am 

\ow 

Ntu 

co 

00 

00 

Oe 

mo 

hh 

dr( 

.. 

M 

-0 

hN 

-\o 

.. 

00 

-9 

u9 

d 

.. 

r)M 

00 

dr( 

Oh 

MN 

NN 

an) 

MM 

MW 

4v) 

Yr( 

rtw 

.... 

.... 

drma 

MrNd 

.. 

-0 

9m 

om 

.. 

lrlm 

r-rmm 

00 

00 

00 

00 

do 

a= 

.. 

dd 

d 

am 

aom 

ao\D 

.. 

ao 

ON 

O* 

4 

.. 

dQ) 

N4 

00 

.. 

old 

0. e -tN 

urn 

ULn 

d e NO 

mm 

4- 

.... 

.... 

twd 

ow 

ON 

mt5J 

.. 

-0 

QN 

mm 

.. 

ma 9w 

hlN 

00 

co 

00 

69 

00 

-9 

dd 

.. 

d lnw 

mol 

r-m 

.. 

dao 

InLn 

4 

.. 

GM 

QO 

M-? 

44 

.. 

94 

M0 

NN 

r-N 

or( 

am 

ma 

UM 

r(r( 

.... 

.... 

NU 

00 

-0 

N N 

.. 

00 

o -a dM 

.. 

dN 

r-rNN 

oc 

00 

oc m8-7 

00 

oldrl 

.. 

am 

r-u 

am 

.. 

do 

e* 

r) 

.. 

Nrrcrr 

00 

rcd 

.. 

l-b 

In00 

rt4 

oao 

ON 

NU 

am 

cc 

.... 

.... 

-4 

ee 

mol 

wm 

rld 

.. 

00 

rom 

-?- 

.. 

me 

d4 

mln 

oc 

00 

00 

MM 

00 

4O 

Nd 

.. 

9u 

NN 

olao 

.. 

9- 

-9 

4 

.. 

-9 

aDao 

mM 

4d 

.. 

NO 

r-e 

r(N 

00 

00 

+In 

mVI 

mrt 

r(4 

.... 

.... 

ma 

aod 

9Ln 

dl4 

.. 

00 

QJN 

bO 

.. 

om 

VI9- 

00 

00 

00 

mm 

00 

r: d 

NN 

.. 

v)aD 

mom 

.. 

rt 

QJ\D 

uoo 

d 

.. 

aQlQ 

MM 

rld 

.I 

mu) 

cno 

dN 

ma0 

ON 

Mln 

arc 

MN 

4r. 

.... 

.. 1. 

A-57 
Table A-12. Chemical Composition of Scale Samples (Ref. A, Table 10) 

I 1 1 S Mg Fo K 

YILUES II 

si 0, 

0,046 

0.020 

0.051 

0.031 

I 

0.810 0.386 0.36 98.276 

0. 614 0. 130 2.20 97.062 

0.373 0. I30 0.20 99.065 

I. 435 0. 136 0.39 1 89.433 

3 

A-58 

0.253 0.203 

4 i 0.223 

I 

o. 
APPENDIX B 

ITALY/EMEL 

Fiyure B-1 

Fiyure B-2 

Figurt B-3 

Table 8-1 

Table B-2 

Table B-3 

Table B-4 

lable 6-5 

Table B-6 

Efficiency vs. Shaft Output Power (Ref. B, Fis. l@j 

Efficiency Correlz'ion vs. Shaft Output Power (Kef. 8, Fiy. 8) 

Efficiency Correlation vs. Throttle Position (Ref. B, Fig. 9) 

Chemical Characteristics of Cesano 1 Brine (Ref. B, Table 1) 

Nomenclature (Ref. B, Table 2) 

Cnronoloyy of Operations (Ref. B, pp. 21-25) 

Unprocessed Data - Performance Test Results (Kef. B, Table 3) 

Cesario Test Results (Ref. B, Table 4) 

Data Correlation Functions (Ref. 1, pp. 7-22 to 7-24) 

H-1 
. 

en 

.c 

&L 

L, 

m 

. 

e 

aJ 

CL 

Y 

L 

al 

I Y 

B-2 
. 

cv P 

.C 

u 

cc 

cc 

w 

.C 

N 

I 

m 

B-3 
I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

m. .I.. 

. 

c 

0 

.C 

al 

c, 

c, 

0 

L 

J= 

Iv, 

> 

F 

. 

t 

0 

-c 

c, 

CCI 

aJ 

L 

L 

0 

V 

7 

e 

m 

I m 

al 

L 

0 

a 

B-4 
Table 8-1. Chemical Characteristics of Cesano 1 Srine (fief. 8, Table 1)' 

Chemical Constituents p.p.rn. 

Ca 1 ci urn 

rjtagnesi urn 

Sod i urn 

Potassi urn 

Lithium 

I ron 

Ammoni urn 

Rubidi urn 

St ront i Jrn 

Ces i urn 

Arsenic 

Bicarbonate 

Chloride 

Sulfate 

H yd rogen s 11 1 f i de 

Boric Acid 

Silica 

TUS 

Jb6 

b.4 

33 ,d1111 

7Y ,4111) 

158 

4.3 

11 

2 9b 

6.3 

33.4 

1.8 

9,Sdd 

LL,lLIU 

14/,4LId 

33 

0,lSd 

S3.L 

3111,ClCld 

'Nonconde?s;bi+ g3s~ were about 1% of the steady state mass flow rate, and 

consisteu GT TLre t,i,tri 39% Cd2. 
Table 8-2. Nomenclature (Ref. B, Table 2) 

S Y MBOL MEASURED DATA 

we1 1 head pressure 

1 iquid feed pressure 

HSE out1 et pressure 

liquid flow-rate from separator 

liquid flow-rate to HSE 

steam flow-rate to HSE 

linear throttl? kosition as percent of 

fully ope1 

separator pressure 

steam feed pressure 

HSE inlet pressure 

atmospheric pressure 

liqu’d level in separator 

separator t ernpe r at ur e 

steam feed temperature 

HSE inlet temperature 

HSE outlet temperature 

atmospheric temperature 

yenerator vo I tag€ 

Qenerator current 

generator frequency 

yenerator power 

psi a 

psi a 

psia 

1 b/hr 

Y b/hr 

1 b/ hr 

psi a 

psi a 

psi a 

psi a 

in. 

OF 

1 ’F 

($7 

07 

I): 

v 

a 

HZ 

kW 

B-6 
Table 8-3. Chronology oi Operations (Ref. B, pp. 21-25), Part 1 of 4 

A. PILOT PLANT CPERATIONS 

- The installation of the C1 pilot plant was finished at the end 

of July 1981 without mounting the H9. 

The HSE arrived on the C1 site on July 20, 1981. 

The month of August was used for training staff. 

- On Augdst 25, 1981, the HSE mounting operations becjan. 

- On September 9, 1981 the well production was started to carry 

01:t preliminary tests on the plant. 

operations the we1 1 was shut in because the separztor discharged 

over the pit. It was necessary to place the separator discharge 

pipe under the water level in the pit. 

inject scal i ng inhibitor appeared broken when it was extracted 

from the well . 

After about 6 hours of 

- The stainless steel pipe that was lowered into the well to 

A new pipe was lowered in the well. 

- On September 18 the well was again put into production. After 

about 80 hours of production we were forced to shut in the well 

because the small pipe carrying scaling inhibitor in the we1 1 

failed inside the well. 

- It was triod to recover the pipe but without success. The pibe 

fell in the well. 

- It was necessary to mount a drill riy and to proceed with 

fishiny and cleaniny operations. 

- The cleaning operations began on lU/7 and were finished on 11/6. 

- The HSE hook-up and cal ibration was finished on October 5th. 

B-7 
ICJUI~ 6-J. CtironoIo9y :t uperations, Pdrt 2 ot 4 

t3. ilSE OPERATIONS 

1 - The USE began to run on 11.18.1981. An attempt was made to start 

the plant with only steam coming from the separator. 

quantity was not sufficient to maintain HSE operation because of 

separator 1 imitations , and the plant stopped due to excesrive 

vibrations tripping a safety switch. It was so decided to start 

utilizing the liquid phase. 

inis latter case and an unexplainable noise. 

The steam 

Strong vibrations were noted also in 

2 - After a stop and after some modifications to the pipelines for ,'SE 

preheatiny, the HSE started up again with the plant directly 

connected The plant stopoed again due to damage to 

the right fan of the load bank. 

ith the well, 

3 - Between 11-19 and 11-24 a bypass was installed to allow downstream 

preheating of HSE. 

Frcm 11-24 to 11-26 the HSE again went into production both 

directly from the wellhead and from the separator. 

necess'ry to clean the fflter-basket upstream from the HSE, 

clogged very fast due to scaling pieces coning from the pipeline 

upstream from the HSE (see Fig. 11). 

damaged. The fan appeared to have run into the screen. The male 

shaft seal assemblies exhibited problems. The seal pressures, 

especially at the low pressure end, oscillated synchronously with 

the rotation of thr? rotor. 

showed a ylaserite scale growth of about 2 cm/hr. 

partly reduced by injec-irrg fresh water into the exhaust at the 

housing exhauat port. 

From 11-26 to 12-1 the valves of the plant were cleaned and the fan 

of load bank replaced. 

A new start-up was effected on 12-1 to verify the seals damage and 

to try to connect the generator with the grid. The HSE was 

connected with the grid without trouble from 8 pm to 22 pm. 

An excessive oil consumption (>lo gal/hr) was noted. At 1 am the 

HSE was stopped to verify the seals damage. 

damaged seal assembly rcvedled 5 out of 15 carbon seyments were 

cracked. 

The right fan was dismantled and repaired. 

4 - 

Many stops were 

The lo;: bank's right fan was 

This 

The exhaust port and exhaust pipe 

The problem was 

5 - 

6 - 

7 - From 12-2 to 12-25 the seals were dismantled. "Kernoval of a 

R -8 
Table 3-3. Chronology of Operations, Part 3 of 4 

The 5 cracked carbons were all fractured identically in the middle 

of the carbon segment with the fracture originating at a locking 

pin. According to K. Sprankle's opinion, "the cause of the 

fracture appears to be clearly related to the impacts on the rotor 

from larye-scale fragments. The consensus is that the impact of 

the rotor causes the shaft to move abruptly, fracturing the 

midsection Oi the carbon." 

seals by utilizing the existing spare seal assemblies. The repair 

involved a change iq the locking pins to reduce stress on the 

carbon segments and to provide a secondary port in the seal 

dc,sembly allowiny the reczpture of any oil leakage should the 

carbons fail. 

It was hence decided to repair. the 

8 - Froni 12-15 to 2-22-1982, the valves, separators, and pipelines were 

cleaned. A ned basket filter was designed and installed upstrean1 

from the HSE in order to avoid the many stops due to thc basket 

clogging. 

Mr. Sprankle's sugyestion;. The data acquisition system was 

repai red from damage caused by a rat. 

we1 1 head and the HSE was instal led. 

The seals were modified in the USA according to 

A new pi pel i ne between the 

9 - From 2-22 to 3-10, the repaired seals arrived and werc .,ounted on 

the HSE. 

10 - From 3-10 to 3-12, the HSL was put into production. At 5 pm oil 

3-10 the HSE was connected to the ENEL electrical grid. The 

niaxilnum power produced wi t h the separators working i n para1 1 el was 

about 460 kW. During the production the well beyan to clog. 

Notwithstanding the flusiting of the exhaust pi+e, it also began to 

clog. At 12 pm on 3-12 the well was shut in because of well 

cl2ygi ng . 

11 - From 3-12 to 3-23, tne well was cleaned and the HSE discharge pipe 

was cleaned. Some injection tests on the well were carried out to 

verity its condition. 

12 - 3-23: The HSE began production again and the generator was 

connected to the yrid. 

rioted from 1 to 1.2 bar. 

reduction and the stiffening of the flex coupling mounted 

downstream the HSE. 

A steadily increase in outlet pressure was 

The clogging caused both a power 

It was decided to stop the expander and to clean again the 

dishcarge pipe. 

cm were found (see Figs. 12, 13). 

Pieces of scaliny of a thickness of more than 10 

B-9 
Table 8-3. Llironology of Operations, Part 4 of 4 

13 - 3-24: The HSE was again in operation. It was tried to connect the 

HSE to the ENEL yrid. 

the shear coupling faileu. 

Because of this operation the shear pins ir! 

14 - From 3-24 to 3-30, new shear pins for the shear couplin9 were 

constructed in the ENEL workshop of Lardet’?l lo and again mounted on 

the HSE. 

15 - From 30-3 to 31-3, the HSE was again connected to the wellhead to 

determine what the maximum producible power from C1 well was. 

The maximum power was 550 KW. The load was reduced and the pldnt 

was operated with the two cyclones. The discharge pressure 

increased steadily and it was necessary to stop aga’n avd tc clean 

exhaust pipe. 

16 - 4-1: The HSE was ayain put into operation to determine the maximum 

producible power frop the liquid phase. 

reached without 1 iquid erltrainment from separators. 

260 kW Wac the power 

All the objectives of the HSE tests were considered reached and the 

g’iant was shut in. 

S-10 
. 

m 

(v 

L 

(II 

a 

rc 

m 

m al 

V 

0 

L 

n 

E 

3 

in 

o, ooooa lilr(. .... LO1 0 0 e 0 0 0 

*.I 

QP000000 

00000~00 

.. 

0.0 o 00 u Q n ..... 

QQOOOOOOO 

a 0.a o o o o o o .. u0~0on0000o0a-9 

00000~000~0044 

.. 

.or. m ... 

0- I7 PJ ... 

iri r- m 999 

444 

c. 0- 0- 

H-11 
o o u u 0 0 4 PJm 4 0- OD 4 N 0 Q 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ PJ PJ OJ 4 4 PJ CJ PI PJ PJ 

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

Q Q -n Q Q .r( Pi Q- Q 0. o‘ 0. 0- 0- 0- 0- m ...... .. ... 

0 33 13 0 Q Q e 0 0 e0 9 0 0 0 0 

rl 

OOOOOO~~ cao 0-0 oooor-1 

ri ri 

B-12 
d 

I 

m 

n 

a 

I- 

- Q c 4 w o o o u o o o Q w VI Q L-I r-ri e1 4.-1 m do 4 r~ u rJ mrn -n or- rJ mQ @J 0, .... .. .. .. .... ...... 

B-13 
u0.o.0.0.o.0o.0~00.00.00.0.0.~0.o.o.000000.0o.0~00.o.o.~o.~o. .... 0 ........ ........................ L o. 0- 01 0- o. o 0.0 o. 00- o 0.0 o. o. 0- e. Q- o. 0- o o o 00 Q- o 0- 00 o 0- 0. o. o- o- o o- rc ~CtQ1mQm4mQmQm~~CtttQmmmmmQmQmmyrQ~~oC~o 

000 

444 

PJ PJ PJ 

904 

44 

ri OJ PJ 444 

000000~0 

44444444 

PJ ri r1 PI CJ EJ CJ PI 

6-1 4 
m 

re 

0 

m 

c, 

L 

m 

- 

a 

I 

m 

c, 

c 

wm.0 

mmm 

QQQ 

Q 

m 

P 

mmh 

mmm 

pi ri 1-1 

u m ri ri PJ ri mmm 

PJ -0 m wN @J VI 

I 

... 

mmm 

0.9- 

CU CJ CU 

440 

L-. 

4 

43 

o. 

0 

cu 

-0-0 

00 

ri rJ 

h 

@J 

4 

u,Q 

d.4 

ri ci c, 

m 

aJ 

I4 * rJ mom hl N rJ 

0 

PJ 

N 

aJ 

to 

Ic 

n 

B-15 
Q Ii 

0- 

aJ 

rcI 

n 

0 

aJ 

In 

v) 

aJ 

V 

0 

L 

n 

ri 43 9 m m 0- r. 40.4 o. 

Q 

0. 

rJ 

r. 

r. -a Q 

0. 

u. 

Pi 

........ 

o. m r. r. P r. P. r. 0-0.0.0.0-0-0-0. 

PJ rJ t?J PJ E1 PJ OJ PJ 

... 

r. r. r. 0. 0- * EJ PI C'J 

... 

r. Q Q 

r* N rJ 0. 0- b- 

... mu* 

0- 0. 0. rd ra CJ 

... 

*-rW 

0. 0. 0. Pi rJ PJ 

0. 

OPl 

4 

0 

m 

0 

0 r-J 

t3 ri ri ri 00 r. a3 ... 

000 

44- 

C1 @J PJ 

PI LI~ r. 

0- 0 0. 

a30~rnr.r.~ 

EJ ri ri rJ ri CJ 

..... 

OO(Jca0O 444-44 

.-I 

PJ 

p1 Ln IJi 

r-7 m 03 Q Q- 0-. 0. 

4 

u, m r. r. r. c. r. F. 0. 0 0- 0.0. 0. 0. 

6-1 ti 
N 

+ m *m4PJeo-t000 000000 DOOooa 000. -0.9 99 99QLnQ-L-099 & - LW rd N~J OD com m 03 m ~OD m OD m o 03 m m m 03 m 43 r. m r- cn OD m m m m m mm m m m w 

B-1 ? 
aJ 

V 

E 

Q 

0 

rc 

L 

PI 

E 

n 

I 

Q 

c, 

tu 

n 

d 

I 

m 

aJ 

Q 

I- 

- 

n 

H-18 
c, 

v) 

aJ 

IaJ 

V 

c 

IU 

0 

ce 

L 

W 

CL 

E 

I 

a 

c, 

rg 

n 

-0 

aJ 

Lfl 

v) 

aJ 

V 

0 

L 

Q 

K 

3 

U 

I 

rn 

W 

c 

n 

rg 

I- 

~~~o.o.0.o.oooo.o.oo.~0-ooo.o.~o.oooooooO-ooooooo.+oo 

01 ........ .... .... L 0% 0.0.. 0. 0.- o 0 00- 3. 00- 0- 0- U 0 0- 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 00 0- 00 0 OQ 00 OO 0 yQOttlP~mmQumQQCminQQQQmmmm~m~QmmmminmmmmVI 

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

2 m m m m in ~n m mu rn VI 03 m m m m a, m m OD m m m m m OD m in a am a3 r. r. r- r. m r. r I- r. r. r. r. r. r. r. r. r. r. r. t- 
~00000000O000Q00Q000000000000~0000000~~0 ......... .. .... ........ ...... .. .. 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

p,'....... .......................... .... 

-I+4~4-I-I~d44+44H4~~44~-I444-IH~~4~~~4~+

~mooom~.ooo.~o.~o.oomo.oo.~oooo.~o.o~mm~o~~o

r. h m m m r. -OD m r. r. r. r.h m m r. r. co r. fi mm m fi r. r. m r. p4 r. m r. m m m m m 

~mMmeaooooo~oooo0000oooo0oooocoaa 

I- FJ t-1 PJ 

8-2 u 
3 

VI 

aJ 

c, 

VI 

aJ 

c 

aJ 

V 

E 

a 

0 

cc 

L 

J, 

I 

E 

n 

a 

c, 

tu 

a 

U aJ 

v) 

v) 

aJ 

u 

0 

L 

c 

3 

n 

d 

I 

m 

n 

aJ 

tu 

I- 

- 

UI m -04 OD 4 a- o. QPJ r. rum ea- QQ o QVI ~4\ 0- Q fi mcu r. 4m m mr. o. 4-n m 90. o 9 

a .rl m n a- Q ~n r. Q rJ Q Q M mm o. m r) am P) o N rJ 0. m 4 4 cu 4 I 4 a- o 4 4 N PJPJ N N Pi CU 4 N N CU N Nm NPJ PJ 4 4 4 4 PJ 4 M 444 

~ooaoooa~~~~~~a~om~oooo~oooo~oo

................. .... ... ........ =0000000O0Q0O00000000000000000~000000000 

CC Fl N 4 0 4N 0. MO Ltl 0. Ln Q4 PJO @J Q 4 0 Q M 4 Lll m 4 @id 0. 0 4 0 QO Pi 4 4 PJ x in ~nm m mm m 4-n mmm mu% mm m vlm m mm m UI m 0303 r. wm m mm m mr. r. r. 

4 m @JM o 4 N o. m o VI o. m -4 NO e4 o em 4 m m 4 ci 4 o. o 4 o 00 N 4 4 ri m x: m m m m ~n m m 9 Q VI m VI v, m m ~n m m m in VI m m ~n Q m QJ m r. m m m m m m m r. r- r. 

CU N PJ N Pl CU Pi PJ PJ Pl PJ Pl PJ C'J N N N CU PJ PJ N PJ Pl PJ N N CJ Cl PJ PJ Pl PJ N @J CU PJ PJ Pl 

N PJ PJ PJ N N PJ N Pl 01 PJ PJ 01 PJ CU Pl PJ P.1 N @J CU Pi Pl Pl PJ Pl CU CU PJ PJ N CJ 01 PJ @l El N PJ 

9 VI 9 Q Q 9 4 9 9 b 99 hh h- h 9h h QLn 9 b 9 M Q 01 l'J P P3CJP-J Pl Mm m OJ M~QQQQQ~~QQQQQQQQQQQQ~QQQ~~~~QUQ~

N (u h) CU (u CU PJ C'J N N PJ Pi NPJ CU N N PJ N 01 CU N CU PJ PJ N N CU PJ Pl L'J PJ CJ PJ (u Pl Pl PJ 

CU PJ CU PJ N PJ N PJ N 01 PJ PJ CU PJ N PJ PJ PJ PJ PJ PJ C'J PJ 01 N PJ PJ Pl PJ @: @J C'J CJ Pi t'J Cl N CJ Pl 

a+ N @J PJ PJ N CU Pl @J CU PJ C'J CU PJ Pl CU PJ N N 9J PJ PJ PJ PJ Pl @J PJ CU t J PJ PJ CJ PJ PJ 3J Pl PJ PJ Cl PJ rn 

k = FJ rJ r.1 ri N rJ 01 Pi rJ ri rJ rJ ri rJ rJ Pi rJ t-1 rJ Pi PA ri ri rJ c-1 rJ ri CJ k-i ri 1.1 PI ri ri Pi ri ri Pi ri 

2 0000o0o00o0oOOOOO~ooooooooooo~oaoQooo~o .............................. ........ cn~ooo ooo 0-0 oaoeo 0- ooa 0-0 .=oo Q oo ooo 00- OOQ 00 

c o. oo o 00 o m 40 mh coo. o. mo. 0. QO m v~ Q C'J rJp3 u m r. r. mm r. r.m r. Q 

r) 

QI 

.A 

F 01 010 o o. o. 00- Q rJ o 0- r. m r. m r. r Q r. LI M 4 r. o. o 0. o. o. 0. e. w m mm 03 .Q 

B-2 1 
c, 

v) 

aJ + 

aJ 

V 

C 

m 

0 

re 

L 

aJ 

E 

n 

I 

m 

4- 

m 

0 

U 

aJ 

v) 

v) 

aJ 

V 

0 

L 

r 

2 

n 

ur.~~~~o.~mm~o~ooqoo~~o.o.o.~mmmm~~m~mm

yQQQ~QQQQ~QVIQUIUIUIUIVIUIUI~*QUI*Q~*Q*~-~Q~~4*QQQ 

.. .. .. .......... .......... .. : 0. 0: 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0. a- D' 0 0. 0. 0- 0. 0- 0. c- 0- 0. 0- 0. 0.0. 0.. 0. 0. 

2 0 0000000 000Q00900000 Q IPJ QWM dCJCJ!nhP?PJ PJPYU'iNQO m.r( ....................... .. .... 

n) 

M~OOOOOOOOOoo~OO~OOOoommmmPYmmMmmm~m~&~~~~ 

c ri 4 0. 0.r. r. r-o. mor. c. r. EO (1u m m Q) m 03 r. Q 0. o 0. o o o 44 -401 4 4 o m Q -0 

m dr. 0. o. OD o. 0.0. o. 0.0.4 4 o o 0. O. 0.0.0.0.0 ... 00 .. ............ ..... 

B-2 2 
L 

m 

n 

c 

VI 

c, 

3 

- 

v) 

aJ 

p: 

c, 

VI 

aJ 

to, 

V 

c 

m 

0 

cc 

L 

aJ 

E 

a 

I 

m 

c, 

m 

-0 

aJ 

VI 

v) 

a, 

V 

0 

n 

L 

Q 

c 

=I 

d 

I m 

a, 

m 

t7 

n 

uh h o o. m o. o. m 4 m rj o. o o o. o o. o o. [' 0: h o. o. m co oh m Q o m m m m Q h h h 01.. .... .. L 0.0." 0. 0. 0. u. 0-0 0.0 0. 0 -0. 0 0.0 0. 0.0.v. 0. 0. u- 0- 00- 0. 0.0 0. 0.0- 0. 0 0. 0. o. )QQ~QQQQQLnQmQLnLfIQ!dlQmQQQa-*QQQLnQUQVIQ.~QQLnQQQ 

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

mhm o. 40. o do. QW~ .~mrclwo.m Q@J ~r.mmo ooo -00 o 00 o 00 o o 

r.r.r. r.mh mar. mmm o. mr. r. mmmo. e.= -00 o 00 o -0 o 0.a Q o 

E ............. ... ....... ............. 

R-2 3 
L 

(z1 

b 

U 

E 

a 

0 

cc 

L 

aJ 

E 

n 

3 rJ Pl rJrJ cud 4 4 4 -4 I4 4 w4 4 + 4 H 4 4 rl 4 4 do 0 0 0 0 0 -2- 0 c 0 0.0 o. ~1 D. 

....................................... 0- 0'0.0.0. o. 0.0.0- o. o. 0. o. 0- ct. o. o. o. o. o. ct. o. s. 0- a- 6.0. 0. 0- o. o-0.0- 0. o. mo. m 

I 

-0 

aJ 

VI 

VI 

aJ 

V 

2 

a 

E 

=> 

0 0 0 ?a 0 0 a 0 o 0 0 o 0 CIO 0 0 

oooooo amoooo~oooo ... c 0 

00 

0 .ea 

u $dooeoo~o,ooooo.aoo,o 

... ........ L~QDOOQOOO~O~~~O~~O~O 

.D 

CE 

m mm M 

PJ 

m 

m 

5- 4m~0 ON -AFJ~ .-I QO o OD- r.mr. M .... .... ........ I' 

'2 1 

9 

d 

Pi 

0-00000~4Q ri M m m m m m r. T 

h Pa 

m 

4 

R-2 4 
J 

v) 

w 

oc 

4 

v) 

aJ 

IaJ 0 OOQ0000000000009 m4. mao0oLo~ooo~o000oo .. .._.. .... 

CZI c p1 M m mm ri r.9 Q Q Q Q Q -n v1 m . ......... .. 
Table 8-5. Cesano Test Results (Ref. t!, Table 4) 

L 

Q1 

(inlet steam eff.% thr.% RYs rf 

quality) p1 p2 Kw I POINT 

(files) 

1 (1 75 27) 128 168 171,3 14,86 0 so 30,7 7 167 9,79 

2 (29251) 139 220 170,7 14,70 0 90 30,85 8 178 9,61 

3 (52 i 72) 138,~ 219 166,s 14,6 196 38,3 22 178 11,95 

4173I83) 106,4 168 165,9 14,7 0 90 27,6 7 145 9,25 

5(85+108) 201 317 165,9 14,8 2 90 39,9 31 241 11,ll 

6(109t112) 201 ’ 317 161,O 14,s 2,l 38,3 36 241 I 10,61 

- 

I 

I 

7(135+161) 216,s 282,6 128,4 14,? 2,7 45,s 4, 257 11,91 

8 (4+19j 433 531 1W,2 15,9 3 90 45,4 SO 477 9,89 

9(2i+47) 341 657 157,i 15,9 391 

10( 49 :68) 408 604 160,l 15,8 2 98 

li (84186) 302 454 160,3 16,7 2,7 

0 90 

-- i12(53+13’;: 185 267 174,C 14,9 I 

E-26 

35,l 1 86 486 9,73 

44,’ 77 152 9,93 

36 ,S 75 344 8,79 

136,2 8 225 10,39 

I 

- I 

13(109+118) 173 230 

14(119+139) 150 216 

176,l 14,8 c! so 35,s I 7 213 10,43 

177,8 14,9 0 so 35,9 6 189 11,oO 

- 

16(?93+178) 190 I 267 177,6 

17(199+222) 196 243 151,O 

18(234+250) 321 405 158,l 

- 

1 

I . -- 

14,9 I 0,O 36,2 7 230 10,35 

14,8 0 so 33,s 16 236 9,21 

14,9 383 44,4 I 53 363 10,71 

-- 

I 
Table 6-6. Data Correlation Functions (Ref. 1, pp. 7-22 to 7-24) 

The data co:relation functiocs are as follows: 

= -21.36 + 10.25 In kWs - O.O72[abs(kWs - 520)]006 fW 

gp = 1 - 0.019 (@ ‘r 1 - 15) 

+ O.O004(Ql - 28) ‘Q 

where 

kWs = shaft output power; 

;‘I = inlet pressure; 

P2 = outlet pressure; 

and 

Q1 = inlet quality 

so that experimental efficiency Q = fWgpgQ, within the validity limits 

of the correlation functions. 

B-27 
APPENDIX C 

NEW ZEALAND/MWD 

Figure C-1 

Figure C-2 

Figure C-3 

through 

Figure C-19 

Table C-1 

Table C-2 

Table C-3 

Table C-4 

Broadlanus Well BR 19 Output Test. (Ref. C, Appendix A) 

Broadlands Well BR 19 Casing and Geological Information 

(Ref. C, Appendix A) 

Tabulated Variables, Performance Data, and Graphs 

(Ref. C, Figs. B.l through B.17) 

Broadlands Well BR 19 Fluid Chemistry (Ref. C, Appendix A) 

Variables Logged by the Data Acquisition System 

(Ref. C, Appendix D) 

Transducers (Ref. C, Appendix D) 

Test Chronology (Ref. C, Appendix E) 

Table C-5 

Table C-6 

Table C-7 

Table C-8 

Performance Calculation Procedure (Ref. C, Appendix C) 

Variable List (Ref. C, Appendix B) 

Performance Test Results (Ref. C, Appendijc B) 

Endurance Test Record (Ref. C, Appendix B) 

c- 1 
450 

400 

350 

300 

$ 

s - E KO 

c 

C 

0 

c 

200 

150 

100 

50 

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 

WELLHEAD PRESSURE bars gauge 

Water over silencer 

0 

209 mm Pipework with 

200 mm Oischarge Pipe stack pipes MOP 35.7 bars gauge 

I- --I --I 

Figure C-1. Broadlands Well BH 19 Output Test (Ref. C, Appendix A) 

c-2 
2l*'DlA HOLE 

492' ! 

J& 20-CASING 

I I 16"CASlNG 

*h I 

I 

15"DIA HOLE I 1 I I 11 %CASING 

I 

WKA FALLS 

FORMATION 

OHAKl 

RHYOLITE 

HUKA FAUS 

FORMATION 

WAlOaA 

8ROADLANDS 

OAClfE 

LOWER SILTS1 

RAUTAWIRI 

BRECCIA 

* 

RANOlTAlKl 

IONlMBRlTE 

? 

'ONE 

993'q 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

105/'01~ HOLE I 

I 

I 

I 

- 1929' I 

7'/; 31A HOLE 

- 3536 

DENOTES PERMEABLE LEVELS 

CO-ORDINATES: 615197.16mN 1 OR,dlN lFI MAKETU 

285932.02 mE .l 

C.H.F. R.L. 965 -52' MOTURlKl DATUM 

T 

'I 

'I 

'I 

'i 

!I 6%* CASINO 

PLAIN 1688' - 1729' 

SLOTTED 1729'- 35 23 * 

3523' 

Figure C-2. Broadlanas Well BR 19 Casing and Geothermal Information 

(Ref. C, Appendix A) 

c-3 
aI I I 00'0s 00'09 OO'O& oodz 004: 00 

0 

0 

0 

LI 

d 

I 

0 

X 

5 

Y 

k 

0 

al 

4J 

w 

4 

.c 

a 

w 

v) 

X 

d 

Y 

! 

E 

(0 

0, 

Y 

v) 

Y 

aJ 

t 

c 

M 

0, 

I 

I 

lu 

Y 

(0 

n 

L 

aJ 

U 

c 

(0 

a. 

X 

W 

0 

I 

V 

c-4 
3r 

0 

c aJ 

-4 

0 

-4 

cw 

cw 

Wdp 

0- 

-4 

a 

0 

k 

+, 

E 

H 

3 

Ekle + * der 

r I 

03.0s OO'OP GO'& OG'dZ ood 00 

n 

4 

I 

0 

rl 

x 

z 

Y 

k 

1 

0, 

4J 

u.l 

m 

c 

v) 

w 

v) 

X 

n 

N 

. 

aJ 

u 

t 

(II 

CI. 

x 

w 

L: 

0) 

L 

u 

v) 

c 

cb 

u c 

P 

P 

b 

d 

I 

0 

c- 5 
$r IKw 

e EX& 

I E 

0 4 

4 0) 

c, 

v) X 

Lc 2 

N 

I 

I 

4 pc 0 4J 

94 c1 

L a 

c Q, cn 0 

c 

4 

0 

w 

x cn 

X W 

1 

3 

0 

v) 

f! 

C-6 
00’05 GO*ok OO’dE 00’0’2 GO*d! 00 

L. 

d 

I 

3 

FI 

X 

B 

Y 

k 

0) 

04 

Y 

YI 

m 

c 

cn 

W tn 

X 

i5 

E 

a aJ 

c, 

v) 

c, 

aJ 

c 

c 

c( 

* 

0, 

I 

I 

m 

c, 

9 

n 

c 

9 

P 

X 

w 

3 

a? 

L 

u 

v) 

c- 7 
0 

4 

W 

W 

Wde 

u- 

.d 

d, 

0 

& 

+, 

c 

9) 

0 

n 

00 

#>X+ 

t 

0 

0 I* 0 

43 

t 

I 

L 

a 

0 

c 

(0 

x 

w 

n 

F 

m 

U 

C-8 
JJ 

C 

al 

0) 

n 

Eo 

c 

0 

0 

u) 

(u 

c 

M 

t 

L 

Q) 

0 

c 

cb 

X 

w 

n 

E 

c-9 
h 

h 

rn 

Q k 

fl 

r I I .- -1 

00'05' OO'W G0.06 00'02 00'01 00' 

0 

0 

0 

a2 

0 

0 

0 

(D 

0 

0 

0 

tf 

0 

Q 

C 

CJ 

c.3 

0 

0 

Ls 

d 

I 

0 

4 

X 

3 

Y 

k 

0) 

u 

g 

a 

& 

w 

m 

c 

v1 

w 

v1 

X 

a 

V 

'4- 

0, 

b 

m 

Y 

m 

0 

m 

0 

c, 

9 

* 

Y 

c 

a .- 

ul 

n 

0 

4: 

I 

I 

am 

s 

9 

0 

c 

a, 

U 

E 

(II 

X 

w 

n 

L 

I 

V 

v) 

c 

9 

V 

v 

E 

c-10 
E .. 

(om 

am 4Jm 

0 (Do 

*3 

L 

Q) 

-0 

C 

4 

X 

w 

n 

c-11 
n 

s 0 

0 s *\' 

0 0 Li 0 *x -m!N-o 

nt.x+a 

OXQ 

E 

affi 

L. 

d 

I 

0 

d 

X 

s 

Y 

& 

9) 

pc 

a 

W 

a 

c 

cn 

w 

cn 

X 

Y 

E 

L 

m 

m 

Cr) 

Cr) 

c 

al 

0 

c 

IU 

Q 

Y 

w 

3 

al 

c 

V 

v) 

c 

9 

U 

.c 

c -3 

c-12 
e 

F3 +X@ 

n 

PI 

I 

0 

d 

X 

s 

Y 

Y 

& 

B 

a 

4J 

vc 

a 

c 

M 

tJ 

m 

X 

0 

0 

rl, 

N 

B 

B 

3 

m 

ul 

& 

m 

n 

0 

2 I 

I 

a 

Y 

a 

D 

L 

aJ 

U 

c 

cer 

X 

W 

n 

E 

si 

I 

u 

C-13 
h 

0 

E 

(D 

4 

0 

4 

w 

w 

w 

UdP 

4- 

a 

0 

k 

u 

c 

B) 

0 

H 

n 

8" 

0 

0 

u) 

ru 

e 

t 

3 

M 

M 

Q 

c, 

a c 

c 

U 

0 

t 

I 

Q 

*r 

Q 

c1 

b, 

c 

0) 

0 

E 

Q 

X 

W 

n 

L 

V 

v) 

2 

i- 11 
CI 

N 

r( 

e 

m 

e 

c 

LL 

0 

cc 

0 

.) 

0 

a 

Y 

>( 

u 

E 

a 

rl 

0 

rl 

PI 

PI 

WUP 

u- 

€2 

0 

X 

I I I I I 

OO'OS OO'Ot GG'CE GO'GZ OG'GI 00' 

L. 

d 

I 

0 

d 

X 

s 

X 

k 

9) 

& 

U 

o( 

Q 

u 

g 

E 

w 

tn 

X 

a 

c 

0 

0 

m 

N 

a 

M 

9. 

.r 

L a8 

0 

6 

a 

9. 

K 

W 

s 

V 

VI 

2 

F 

5 

V 

-IF 

f 

I 

0 

C-15 
I f I I I 

OO*OS OG*OP OO'C€ OO'OZ GO-01 00 

u 

D 

0 

m 

0 

0 

0 lo 

0 

0 

0 * 

0 

0 

c? 

Cd 

t? 

c:, 

I" 

U 

t 

cb 

3 

w 

rd 

c (3 v1 m 

u m 

VI 

X L 

m 

a 

I 

a8 

'z1 

E bu 

Q 

X 

W 

C-16 
+ 

*/+ 

+ 

++%+ *+ + +++ 

+*+ +' + 

I I I 

GO'OS OO'OP GO'O& OO'ot OOd 00' 

0 

0 

0 

'oc 

0 

0 

0 

CD 

0 

0 

0 

't) 

0 

0 

0 

'CJ 

0 

0 

I" 

Y 

m 

c, 

m 

n 

aJ 

0 

t i 

0 

b 

c 

a 

CEp 

L 

m 

m 

m 

m 

I 

I 

t a# 

'If 

CI 

X 

W 

s 

V 

v) 

2 

c fo 

V 

.r 

H 

C-17 
0 

4 

y4 

y4 

w L. 

a 

0 

k 

0 

E 

al 

U 

m 

$+ 

+ 

?++*+ + 

+* +# +3*++ 

L. 

rl 

I 

0 

4 

X 

s 

Y 

k 

0 

PC 

JJ 

YI 

0 

w 

Q 

G 

w tn 

X 

ill 

a 

Y 

s 

t 

E 

c 

0 

re 

L 

al 

p. 

I 

I 

c 

al 

0 

E 

cr, 

X 

W 

n 

3 

U 

v) 

f 

C-18 
Jlu3J 

3 

.s c3 

0 

0 s 

-0 

c3a 

flo 

c-19 
ORIGINAL PAGE 19 

OF POOR QUALll'Y 

i, n 

\ 

w la 

0 

0 

0 le 4 

CJ 

CI 

Q 

-4 

W 

a 

0) 

k 

3 

W 

m 

a, 

k 

a 

4J 

9) 

- 

4 

c 

H 

wa 

a 

Y 

E 

L 

m 

m 

0 

m 

I 

I 

L 

0, 

U 

c tu 

CL 

x 

w 

3 

QI 

L 

U 

v) 

c 

QI 

I 

c-20 
Table C-1. Broadlands Well BR 19 Fluid Chemistry--Samples Taken 

During the HSE Test Program (Ref. C, Appendix A) 

WATER SAMPLES 

Date Col1 ected 24!10/82 

Type * EWB 

W.H.P. (Bar g) 27 

Sep. Pressure (Bar) 11 

Col 1 ect i on Pressure ( Bar 9) 1 

PH 8.91 

Li 11.99 

Na 971 

K 19 1 

Ca 2.4 

Mg 0.01 

c1 1658 

7 

44.1 

so4 

i, 

80 5 

75 

- 

211 10182 

BWB 

27 

11 

1 

8.64 

12.60 

1025 

202 

2.3 

0.03 

1747 

8 

48.8 

850 

134 

- 

3/3/83 

WHS 

35 

12.8 

1 

7 -46 

10.30 

824 

167 

1.2 

0.04 

1341 

7 

38.1 

644 

205 

14.7 

3/3/83 

WEB 

35 

12.8 

1 

7 -39 

9.88 

773 

157 

1 .o 

0.01 

1287 

- 

607 

195 

15.6 

3/3/83 

EWB 

35 

12.8 

1 

11.74 

945 

188 

2.1 

0.01 

1528 

- 

- 

- 

709 

- 

* EWB = HSE Exhaust Weir Box 

BWB = Bypass Weir Box 

WHS = Wellhead Separator 

WEB = Webre Separator ( Sampl i ng) 

STEAM SAMPLES 

Date Collected 21/10/82 3/3/83 3/3/83 28/4/83 

W.H.P. (B) 27 35 35 33 

Sampl i ng Point Pressure - 12.7 12.8 12.6 

Sampl i ng Pressure - 12.6 12.8 12.0 

802 862 902 1108 

16.2 17.8 17.9 19.7 

- - - 48.6 

CO moles/100 moles 

H 5 [mnoles/100 moles 

N& (mg/lit) 

c -21 
Table C-2. Variables Logged by the Data Acquisition System 

(Ref. C, Appendix D), Part 1 of 2 

VARIABLE 

We1 1 head Pressure 

Steam Orifice Upstream 

Press*.re 

Steam Orifice Differential 

Pressure 

Steam Temperature 

Liquid Orifice Pressure 

Liquid Orifice 

Differential Pressure 

Liquid Mixing Point 

Pressure 

Liquid Mixing Point 

Temperature 

Plant Inlet Pressure 

Plant Inlet Temperature 

Plant Exhaust Pressure 

Plant Exhaust Temperature 

Ambient Temperature 

Atmospheric Pressure 

Thrott 1 e Position 

Separator Level 

Voltage 

Amperage 

Frequency 

Electrical Power 

SYMBOL 

Pw 

Pv 

dPv 

Tv 

Pm 

d Pm 

Pf 

Tf 

P1 

T1 

P2 

T2 

Ta 

?a 

trt tr 

Ls 

V 

I 

Hi! 

KW 

UNITS 

psi a 

psia 

inches H2O 

deg F 

psia 

inches H20 

psia 

deg F 

psi a 

deg F 

psi a 

deg F 

deg F 

psia 

% 

inches H20 

volts 

amps 

hertz 

kilowatts 

VECTOR 

LOCAT ION 

1 

8 

5 

34 

7 

4 

2 

40 

Q 

41 

3 

35 

28 

13 

h 

16 

30 

31 

32 

33 

c-22 
Table C-2. VaAables Logged ~y the Data Acquisition System, 

Part 2 of 2 

VARIABLE SYMBOL 

Journal Bearing 

Temperatures 

Thrust Bearing 

A1 ternator Bearing 

Temperatures 

A1 ternator Winding 

Temperatures 

LPJm 

LPJ f 

HPJm 

HPJ f 

THR f 

THKm 

alt brg 

alt wdg 

Thrust Bearing Forces 

\Sensors Faulty) 

Computer Reference Voltage Vre f 

Thr Bry Force 

UNITS 

dey F 

dey F 

deg F 

deg F 

deg F 

deg F 

deg F 

des F 

deg F 

deg F 

deg F 

de3 F 

deg F 

VECTOit 

LOCAT ION 

18 

19 

23 

2 0 

21 

22 

36 

37 

24 

25 

26 

38 

39 

42 

43 

C-23 
Table C-3. Transducers (Ref. :, Appendix 0) , Part 1 of 2 

VAR I ABL E 

(1) PRESSURE 

We1 1 head 

Steam Orifice 

Steam Orifice 

Di f ferenti a1 

Liquid Orifice 

Liquid Orifice 

Di ffere-ti a1 

Liquid Mixing 

Point 

Plant Inlet 

Plant Exhaust 

Atmospheri c 

Separator 

Level 

(2) TEMPERATURE 

Plant Inlet 

Plant Exhaust 

Steam Line 

SYMBOL 

Pw 

Pv 

d Pm 

Pm 

d Pm 

Pf 

P1 

P2 

Pa 

Ls 

CALIBRATED 

MAKE RANGE s/ r: 

Gould 0 to 600 15001 

PA- 1000- 1000- 15 psi a 

Rosemount 0 to 300 6406 1 

115-1GP8E22MB psi a 

Rosemount 0 tc 150 89377 

115-1DP5E22MB inches HzO 

Goul d 0 to 300 121P2A 

PG1000-1000-11 Psi9 

Ro semoun t 0 to 150 90722 

115-1DP4E22MB inches H20 95286 

Goul d 0 to 300 15000 

PA-1000-1000-15 psia 

Rosemount 0 to 300 64062 

115-1GP8E22MB Psig 

Goul d 0 to 54 15002 

P A1000-0200- 15 psia 

Goul d 0 to 50 15004 

“’A1000-OO5G- 15 psia 

Ror.emount 0 to 150 89379 

115-1DP5E22MB incks H?O 

J 

1 

8 

5 

7 

4 

2 

9 

3 

13 

16 

Resistance Thermometer Detectors 

Platinum 1OU ohm at 0 deg C 

T1 267 to 413 91 41 

T2 54 to 243 94 35 

Tv 267 to 413 98 34 

deg F 

deg f 

deg F 

C-24 
Table C-3. Transducers (Ref. C, Appendix D) , Part 2 of 2 

CALIBRATED 

VARIABLE SYMBOL MAKE RAhGE SIN 3 

Water Line Tf 266 to 412 88 40 

deg F 

Ambient Ta 99 28 

(3) ELECTRICAL - Scientific Columbus Instruments 

Voltage V VT100A2 120 volts 30 

Anperage I CT-5 10A2 

Ki 1 owat t s Kbl DL31K5A2-2 0 - 3333.33 33 

Digilogic Model 5 watts 

50 hz 

Frequency t req Exceltronic 6281-B 45 - 55 32 

(4) OTHER 

Throttle trt Bourns 5184 0 to 100% 

Linear posit ion 

6 

C-25 
Table C-4. Test Chronology (Ref. C, Appendix E), Part 1 of 3 

4. 

20. 

26. 

2. 

8. 

9. 

13. 

13/24. 

24. 

27. 

4. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

AUGUST 1982 

Completion of the construction of the pipelines up to the 

anchors at the inlet and exhaust of the HSE. 

Fisher Vee 100 Ball Valve and Fisher 4195B pressure controller 

tests. Well discharging to waste. 

Safety valve di sc harge check. Full steam f 1 ow di sc haryed 

through the safety valves. 

SEPTEMBER 1982 

HSE and load bank were delivered to site in a nine foot six 

high, forty foot long container. 

20 foot container with oil console and ancillary components 

delivered to site. 

Technical Specialists, Messrs. R. McKay and R. Sprankle, 

arrived on site. Data van delivered to site. 

HSE positioned in the shelter building. 

Site preparation continues. 

Completion of electrical wiring. 

Testing of computer equipment. 

One computer and one printer required repair by Hewlett-Pdckard. 

Start of the instrument cal i brat ion. 

OCTOBER 1982 

Computer programme modifications undertaken to suit the 

Broadlands BR 19 site. 

The load bdnk power cablzs were connected to HSE. 

The instruments were installed on the process pipelines and the 

power plant. 

Instrument Gal ibration completed. 

c-26 
Table C-4. Test Chronology, Part 2 of 3 

14. 

18. 

20. 

22. 

3/5. 

10. 

12. 

15. 

29. 

3. 

14. 

6. 

21. 

24. 

27. 

HSE rim for the first time on geothermal fluid in New Zealand. 

Faulty load bank relays replaced. 

Start of 3333 rpm performance tests 

Rotcr inspection - no scale deposits evident. 

rotors and housing. 

Iron sulphide on 

NOVEMBER 1982 

IEA executive committee meetings he?d at MWD offices, Wairakei. 

Voltage regulator instability observed. 

3333 rpm testiny terminated, awaiting a replacement voltage 

regu 1 at or 

2500 rpm gear set installed. 

Replacement voltage regulator installed. 

DECEMBER 1982 

Start of 2500 rpm performance tests. 

2500 rpm tests completed. 

FEBRUA9Y 1983. 

Start of the endurance test preparations. 

Completion of test preparations including: 

(a) Male low pressure seal replacement 

(b) 3333 rpm gearset reinstalled 

(c) Diatomite water filtration plant installed 

Start of endurance test. 

Intermittent fault in instrument power supply to high precision 

RTD temperature probes. 

C-27 
Table C-4. Test Chronology, Part 3 of 3 

- 

MARCH 1983 

4. 

16. 

7. 

26. 

3. 

20. 

23 

10. 

16. 

Fault in automatic shut down circuitry, shut down the plant for 

1 hour. 

RTD power wppl y rgpl aced. 

AWIL 1983 

Automatic grease system failed. 

Failure of the oil netering pumps. 

MAY 1983 

Endurance test terminated due to excessive oil loss across the 

shaft seals . Separator plant dismantled and returned to NZEO Wairakei. 

Exhaust bend and bel 1 ows removed for HSE rotor i nspert.1 on. 

JUNE 1983 

The HSE and the load bank were packed into the large re-tainer, 

The data van and the two containers were transported tu 

Auckland in preparation for shipping to the USA. 

C-28 
Table C-5. Performance Calculation Procedure (Ref. C, Appendix C) 

Part 1 of 2 

The computer programme to calculate the isentropic efficiency of the HSE was 

based on the programne used during the Utah tests. Refer to reference (3) 

for more detailed information than is contained in this appendix. 

Minor changzs were made to the programme for the New Zealand tests. 

were : 

There 

I:) The flow rate calculations for the steam and water orifice 

plates were modified to conform to the British Standard, BS 1042 

Part 1. 

(2) The alternator power loss equation was modified for 50-Hz 

operation . 

(3' The equation for the 3000 rpm (60 Hz) gear set was used to 

compute the gearbox power loss. 

data supplied by the Philadelphia Gear Corporation who 

manufactured the gearbox (refer reference (1) p 6-3). 

This equation was derived from 

A verj bricf outline of the calculation procedure and equations relevant to 

the New Zealand test site are detailed below. 

CALCULATION PROCEDURE 

(?) flow rates computed to BS 1042 pt 1, 1964 

Orifice plate diameters: (d) 

Steam 5 :!i", 4.9.55", 4.396" 

Uater 4.396", 2.8263", 2.069" 

Pi pe Di ameter (0) 

Steam 7.990" 

Water 7 981" 

F1 ow ra: F! equat ian : 

W = 359.2 CZeE(d)Zfi (lbs/hr) 

eqtn (7), page 23, BS 1042 pt 1, 1964 

' ! The enthalpy of fluid flowing into the plant was determined 

using meastired temperatures and pressures to access the steam 

tables programmed in the computer. 

c-29 
Table C-5. Performance Calculation Procedure Part 2 of 2 

(3) The quality of the fluid entering the plant is calculated from 

the known enthalpy ar.d the measured fluid conditions at the 

plant inlet (Pl). 

(4) Compute the Shaft Power Output 

Electrical Power generated is measured (KW) 

Amperage is measured (I) 

A1 ternator Power Loss Equation : 

a = 22.854 + 5.28 x 

This equat on derived by R. McKay for 50-Hz operat 

Gearbox Power Loss Equation: 

b = 8.559 + 6.975 x (a + KhJ)/1000 

Refer to reference (1) p 6-3 for more details 

Shaft Power (KWM): 

KWM = KW + a + b 

+ .00412 

on 

(5) Isentropic efficiency calculation. Refer to the Utah computer 

programme (3) for details. 

C-30 
Table C-6. Variable List (Ref. C, Appendix B) 

VARIABLE 

Plant Inlet Pressure 

Plant Inlet Temperature 

Inlet Fluid Quality 

Inlet Enthalpy 

Mass Flow Rate 

Exhaust Pressure 

Exhaust Temperature 

Throttle Opening 

Electric Power Output 

Shaft Power Output 

Frequency 

1 sentropic Efficiency 

Data Cassette Number 

Oata Cassette Track 

Data File 

SYMBOL 

P1 

Tl 

Q1 

H 

M1 

P2 

T2 

Tr 

KWe 

KWM 

F req 

Eff 

DC 

t rk 

file 

UNITS 

psi a 

deg F 

x 

btu/l b 

klbs/hr 

psi a 

deg F 

% 

kW 

HZ 

HZ 

96 

C-31 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results (Ref. C, Appendix B), 

Part 1 of 10 

IwLn PRESSURE (Psia) 110 II(LR PuftlIlY (2) 100 RPh 3333 

Dote fine Pi 11 01 H Hi P2 12 Tr KYC KMH Freq Eff #: trb file 

psi0 aF 2 btdlb klbh psi0 6 'I b 2 

28/11/82 13:@9:12 99.6 327.6 100.1 1187.9 15.9 14.2 2l1!1 19 111.3 14.3 499.9 21.6 1 1 168 

27/11/02 11:Sl:48 110.1 327.1 101.1 Li87.9 18.4 14.1 289.3 26 1%.4 229.7 St.) 29.7 1 1 277 

28/11/82 13:1:08 111.1 327.0 100.1 1188.2 19.3 14.2 219.8 27 197.1 231.4 9.1 28.7 1 1 179 

2W11/82 14:#:33 98.S 325.6 110.1 1188.2 21.1 14.2 2W.8 34 254.1 289.5 49.9 33.1 1 1 198 

W/IU82 12:13:42 98.8 326.0 100.1 1187.9 21.7 14.1 219.2 33 259.6 295.1 9.1 34.1 1 1 4 

27/18/82 12:41:28 102.6 EO.3 100.1 1188.9 23.6 14.1 249.3 4 342.1 379.1 49.8 37.8 1 1 25 

28/11/82 i4:40*19 102,s 327.9 110.2 1189.1 24.4 i4.2 289.8 43 343.4 389.4 9.1 36.8 1 1 21i 

28/11/82 15:#:4? 160.7 326.4 109.2 ll89.R 26.3 14.2 219.8 56 398.0 436.2 50.1 39.6 1 i 2i2 

27/1R/a2 13:00:2b 100.2 325.8 1t9.2 111.6 27.3 i4.1 219.2 78 448.6 487.4 SS.i 42,5 i : 3 

27/11/82 13:iB:t6 9J.C 33.5 t:C 2 i15.i 26.6 14.1 269.2 Ft 4b.C 525.7 59 6 43.6 1 i 4- 

INLET P?ESSWE !PSIS! i8C INLET PJCtiITY (XI 100 RPW 3333 

Dare Tins Fi Ti 61 n Ill P2 T2 lr KL KYn freq Eff IC trh frit 

ps~a OF Z btollb LlbA psi0 OF Z Hz I 

27/18/82 16:32:23 179,s 371,b 100,l li97,4 33.5 14.0 299.0 27 611.0 653,s 50.0 36.0 1 1 135 

27/10/82 17:lO:Sl 180,2 371.6 100,i 1197.6 38,s 14.1 218.8 36 758.6 814.8 51.1 38,s 1 i 157 

miem i6:si:og 181.6 32.6 100.i 1197.6 36.3 ii,i 219.1 31 69s~ me so,i SI.S i i 146 

C-32 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 2 of 10 

Dote Tia P1 11 fli H ni P2 D k Klk Iyn Freq Eff Oe trk file 

psi0 OF 2 b v.b klbh psia OF 2 Htx 

)2/1!/82 12:23:47 1I0.7 327.4 53.1 769.8 31.4 14.3 UI.6 3i 106.5 e31.9 9.1 3.4 1 1 27d 

12/11/82 i2:47:28 99.4 325.8 49.5 Y3B.1 38.8 14.3 211.5 45 283.9 U9.6 50.0 37.5 2 I 14 

02/11/02 14:83:41 99.4 325.5 51.9 759.3 41.2 143 218.5 !i7 348.3 585.3 50.8 40.8 2 I 47 

D2/ii/B2 14:23:37 110.4 325.4 49.6 739.1 48.6 14,3 2t0.9 03 431.5 470.2 150.1 43.8 2 I 58 

c-33 
Table C-7. Performance rest Results, Part 3 of 10 

:"'El PRESSURE (Psia) 100 IIcLn WIlY (XI 25 RPH 3333 

Date Tim P1 11 01 H Hi P2 12 lr KYe KMfl Freq Eff DC trk file 

psia OF Z btdlb LlbA psi0 d I: LX 

WlN2 li:S2:87 100.6 327.2 8.7 526.9 53.5 i4.4 Zl1.8 38 196.6 231.1 49.9 33.7 1 1 267 

Wli/82 i3:21:27 99.3 m.5 23.6 518.8 66.6 14.4 211.8 5b 279.5 31S.3 CP.9 39.7 2 0 25 

02/11/82 13:40:10 98.6 324.5 26.5 553.0 69.8 14.4 211.9 72 347.3 384.3 49.9 42.5 2 0 3b 

IWLET PRESSURE (Psi01 140 IwLn QUALITY (2) 25 UPH 3333 

Date Tiw Pi 11 01 H Hi P2 72 Tr Ilk KUN Freq Eff DC trk fiie 

psi0 DF X btu/lb klbh psi0 rF 2 Hz 2 

08/11/82 13:52:18 139.1 35i.P 24.8 539.9 52.5 14.3 210.6 21 198.9 233.5 49.9 29.3 2 0 IS 

08/11/92 14:24:R 130.6 35i.4 253 543.8 60,6 14.2 216.6 28 238.7 316,b 49.9 34.0 2 E !2; 

b8iil/E 14:4i:3il i4C.b 52.1 25.9 550.1 67.5 14,3 210.7 34 359.8 397.3 56.1 37,4 2 0 :3:. 

08/11/62 iS:Bt:lJ 136.9 35C.C 24 4 530.3 01.4 14,3 210.8 47 456.3 495.3 49.9 4C.1 f D ik. 

08/1i/aZ 15:26:15 137.4 359 3 2S.? 547.5 07.7 14.4 210.8 50 539,O 579.8 50.1 42.0 2 E 1:- 

08/11/82 15:53:Ca 14t.4 358.; 25,s 546.6 95.: 14,4 21C.9 73 618 7 661.2 4i.9 44.2 2 b 1: 

c-34 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 4 of 10 

IWLET PRESSURE (Puo) 100 INLET WuriITY CX) 10 Apt! 3333 

Date Tue P1 11 Qt H Hi P2 12 Tr Kk KYn Freq Elf M: trI 

prio cf 2 btdlb klbh psi0 OF I Hr I 

iviim ii:37:~ 99.4 325.9 io,i 3m.s 9e.s 14.4 2i1~ SI 2es.1239~ 49.9 36.3 2 1 

10/11/82 11:%:41 108.1 325.6 10al 388.6 115.7 14,4 2l1.1 68 282.6 38.4 50.1 40,7 2 1 

10/11/82 12:23:0b 98.9 323.5 i0.i 307.2 133,2 14.4 211.4 93 346,J 383,9 50.1 43,2 2 1 

file 

85 

91 

182 

fila 

frrd 

4 7: & ' i 

c-35 
Table C-7. Performance lest Results, Part 5 of 10 

INLET PRESS9RE (Psio) 10G INLET Q;I&ITY (XI li RPH 3333 

Date Tine P1 Ti Pi H Hi F2 12 Tr KMe KW Freq Eff Dc irk file 

psia 5 2 b t d l b k l b h psio OF X Hz 2 

21/11/02 12:8:23 102,3 328,7 0.0 299.3 174,3 14,3 211.1 14 113.6 146.7 49.8 29,2 1 I 14 

21/11/82 13:%:A 101.4 328.7 0.1 301,S 235.1 14.S 21ie3 41 199.5 233.8 50.1 34.3 1 I 25 

20/10/82 14:14:32 99.1 325.6 0.4 301,s 304.6 14.8 212A 84 273,1 388.6 50,O 35,O 1 0 36 

INLET PRESSURE (Psio) 140 IKET QUALITY (XI 0 #PN 3333 

INLET PRESSJFE ipsla) !81 INLET QiIALITr (Xi G RPtI 3333 

INLET WESSJRE (Ps~Q) 226 INLET QUALITY (1) I RPk 3333 

Dote Tine P1 Ti pi H Ill P2 12 Tr KL KMH Freq Eff DC trk file 

psi0 tF 2 bto/lb klb/h psi0 OF 2 Hz 2 

26/10/82 13:14:12 220,9 389.8 0,O 364.6 301.9 15,2 214.5 28 676d 720.8 51,O 38,3 1 0 222 

26/11/92 13:26:94 220.0 389,4 1,l 3Mt7 314,3 153 214,7 33 710,l 755.2 50,O 3BA 1 0 243 

26/11/82 i3:26:59 229.0 389,4 tal 364.7 315,1 iS.3 21k7 33 '119.8 754.0 59.1 38,s i @ 244 

26/11/82 13:50:59 218,9 388.9 0.2 365.0 339,6 15,s 215.9 40 755,l 801.4 50,) 38,i 1 0 265 

26/10/a2 i3:~:i7 210~ 388.11 0.2 MA 338~ 15.5 215.9 40 755~ 80~6 so,o 39~ 1 o 266 

C-36 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 6 of 10 

INK, PRESSURE (Psio) 1OG IWT OUALITV (X) 180 RPW 2503 

INLET PRESSURE (Psio) 140 IlAn IWITY (XI 110 RPI) 2598 

Bctc Tihi fi 11 8; H Hi P2 12 Tr Yhe NUN freq Eff DC tri +Lie 

10/12/82 13:55:39 141.0 353.2 iGE,U 1193 5 lS,1 14,2 211.1 14 202,l 23b.S 49,8 25.4 3 1 163 

10/1"42 13:42:5i i39.5 352,6 i0C.i 1193,4 ?1,5 14,2 2ii.1 25 20bz9 323,O 49.9 29.6 3 1 it: 

lO/lti62 13:30:15 136 ? 3P.5 1IB 1 1193,4 242 i4,2 21i,O 23 334.7 371,6 49,6 31.5 3 1 fa:" 

1CliPp'82 G;i::Zc ~39.8 3iI.C it: i ir?3 6 2C.S i4 i 2ib,9 38 453,i 452,4 49,B 53,i. 3 : :*; 

13/iE/82 13:59:29 139,7 35i.C iOC.1 1193Bb 25.1 i4,1 2iD,4 34 454e2 493,b 49.7 34,7 4 b i5 

13/12/82 14:19:15 13&5 351.0 lE3,: 1193'6 32,3 14.1 210.2 48 536d 517.9 4F,8 36.6 4 b 25 

i3/12/82 i4;4;:4f 139.2 350.9 1te.i 1195*9 35.5 15.2 210.1 73 626,2 669.4 49,8 38#? 4 6 36 

psi0 OF X b?m;lb kiblh psia OF X nz z 

c-37 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 7 of 10 

INLET PRESSURE itsioj 100 INLET QUALITY (X) SO RPh 500 

Dote Tine Pi 11 41 H 1 P2 I2 fr KYC WIM Freq Eff DC trl + ' 

psi0 OF X bto/lb tlb/h psi; OF 2 HZ 2 

09/12/82 13:04:ZS W.i 326J S1.i 751.8 36,3 i4.3 211.5 46 280.3 3ib.2 5102 38,7 3 C 270 

09/12/82 12:42:33 11002 52701 50,s 747.1 30.3 I402 21i.5 29 19's.b 22901 499.9 3307 3 8 267 

09/12/02 13:42:26 9809 325,3 49.3 736.3 41.6 14.4 2l1.S 68 34116 ma9 SOe1 4iJ 3 1 in 

IW PRESSURE (Psi01 140 IWLn QurwIlY (2) SO RPN 2511 

Date Tine Pi 11 Qi H 1 P2 12 Tr KUe KYn Freq Eff DC trk file 

psi0 OF X btr/lb klbh psi0 OF X Hi X 

09/12/82 14:29:24 130.0 3S2,2 49.9 75?,7 31.0 i4,3 211,4 ib 198,3 232,9 49,7 28,b 3 1 3t 

09/12/82 14:14:0. :39,2 352,O Sisi 768,G 30,i 14.2 211,4 22 217.9 313.9 4F08 32.4 3 i Z 

09/12/82 14:45:41 143,3 355.i 5C C 7b6.7 4G.C 14.3 211,4 20 33?,8 377.1 S0,3 35,¶ 5 i 4: 

09/12/82 15:45:01 137 7 33.4 5b.i 7V.t 43.1 14,3 211.6 43 457.7 497,i 49,7 37.4 j I St 

iO/12/02 09:97:27 145,1 3S:h 49.0 753.4 541 14.2 211~7 S7 S3&5 579,9 50.2 4i.i 3 i b: 

10/12/8,2 G3:28:43 139.6 33 C Si,; 7h.i 5:,3 14,2 Zi1.7 75 69&,2 b49,1 49,6 Si,; 3 I i. 

C-38 
Tabl? C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 8 of 10 

Date TIM Pi Ti 19 H Hi P2 12 Tr Kk Iyn Freq Eff DE trk file 

psi0 OF Z btu/Ab klbh pria OF Z Hz 2 

07/12/82 5597:s 101.8 327.3 8.9 529,6 50.2 14.2 2i0.2 34 197.0 23i.6 9.6 35.4 3 t 9 

07/12/82 12:02#39 99.7 3254 25.2 522.3 65.6 54.2 210.4 !i4 270.9 34.9 21.1 11.4 3 0 YO 

07/12/82 12:26:Ob 99.9 325.1 25.2 522.6 70.2.54.2 2i0.4 77 348.9 318.1 49.9 42.6 3 I 81 

c-39 
Table C-7. Perfcrmance Test Results, Part 9 of 10 

Dote line Pi 11 Qi H Nl P2 l2 lr Kk IYI FtCg Eff #: trk file 

psia OF X btdlb tlbh psia OF 2 H2f 

13/12/02 i1:S5:48 l0l.i 326.2 10.1 m.4 89.9 14e3 218.5 44 203.9 238,s 9.2 39.2 2 1 190 

13/12/82 11:26:)6 101.3 525.5 9,7 385.9 il2.1 14.3 2i1.6 66 282.2 W.2 9.2 42.4 2 i 211 

15/12/82 11:9:34 1OO.Q 325.0 18.1 307.8 523.4 14.3 218.7 81 317.8 554.5 19.8 &?A 2 i 212 

Dote lime PI Ti 41 H Nl P2 T2 It Ilk KUH Freq Eff Dc trk file 

psia OF 1 bWlb Llbh psia OF 2 Hz 2 

03i12182 i2:CQ:SQ 14G.3 S2.C iBtB 118.5 96.7 ii.2 210,4 30 279.6 315.8 49.9 36.4 2 1 23:. 

03/12/82 13:58:?0 145.2 33.6 ii.; 412.6 115.3 14.3 218.6 41 3S.3 396.9 4?.9 3F.2 2 i 3; 

-r: 631242 13:48:G iX.2 35C.p 5.5 489.7 126.2 14.3 216.8 56 44i,4 486.6 49.8 41.6 2 1 ;J. 

C3/12'82 19:I:.5i I3SC.3 iC,i 412.5 159.9 14.b 211.3 7b 530.5 S71#7 56.1 41.6 2 : ht 

C-40 
Table C-7. Performance Test Results, Part 10 of 10 

INLET PRESSURE (Psia) 100 IMT fflITY iX) 8 IPII 2501 

ktc Tine Pi Ti Bi H M P2 T2 Tr Kk IM Freq Eff Dc tPk file 

psi0 8F I btdlb blbh psi0 OF Z Hrt 

IYW02 09:16:29 98.6 326.1 0.1 297.4 iS1.0 $403 212.0 I0 113.2 14.6 9.0 34.7 4 0 $82 

14/12/82 09:36:83 90.9 327.0 0.1 m.6 312.1 14.S 212.4 33 201.3 2344 9.2 39.2 4 I 1W 

14/12/82 09:53:57 W.5 32b.6 8.4 361.2 283.0 14.0 214.2 92 Vb.2 31L.4 M.9 38.3 4 0 I26 

Bote line Pi 11 Pi H IIt P2 Tz lr #Me lyll Freq Eff Bt nk file 

psi6 OF 2 btdlb klbh psia OF Z Hz X 

14/12/02 10:12:313 14i.C 354.1 0.0 326.0 132.8 14.6 212.7 12 275.1 310.9 49.7 36.9 4 I 13:. 

14/12/82 il:3f 3: 13.6 352.3 6.2 32o,i 24d.7 19.8 214.6 3; 365.7 403.1 49.6 34.S 4 B i4i 

14iWE iC.:S1:43 137.2 E:.' : Z 33.7 X7.i 15.3 215.F bfi 446.7 466.8 #F.P S.8 4 I is1 

14ii362 :i:Li:S: i5.4 351 5 i.4 326.4 364.1 L5.b 219.7 88 437.8 539.8 49.8 3d i t ;?r 

C-4 1 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record (Ref. C, Appendix B), 

Part 1 of 10 

h hi P2 Ti Tr KC Kyh f:eq E4f K tri 

btdlo klblh psia @F Z Hz z 

W.1 111.9 14.6 211.6 61 869.4 W.9 49.6 43.5 5 6 

S6b.l 112,l i4.6 2l1.5 58 810.8 858.4 49.9 43.0 S I 

563.3 110.9 14,s 211.6 57 887.2 854.7 9.0 43.6 S 8 

564.7 111.4 14.6 211.5 % 816.5 854.0 49.9 43.3 5 8 

566.2 111.2 14.4 211.6 28 W9.2 856.8 49.8 43.1 5 b 

565.9 118.3 14.6 211.S 59 882.3 649.8 49.8 43.4 5 0 

565.5 111.5 14.5 211.5 68 810.2 851.8 S0.0 43.4 5 0 

'365.6 111.8 14.5 211.5 68 813.1 860.8 9.0 43.4 5 6 

913.8 111.1 14.6 2i1.7 !i9 880.8 356.4 49.9 43.8 5 0 

564.1 111.3 14.4 211.4 58 807.2 854.8 49.9 43.3 S 0 

261.4 112.4 14.6 211.4 57 819.8 853.5 5Q.O 43,s 5 Q 

565.6 111.3 14.4 211.3 59 8t1a.7 856.4 49.8 43.3 s I 

567.5 1ii.l i4,S 211.3 61 8i9.6 857.2 49.5 41.3 i. 

5t,j,5 112.1 14.5 211.2 59 81G.i 857.0 9.J G2.4 f 1 

5:.1.5 ;2.2 14.5 21:.5 58 6X.i 855.6 4q.C 4;.4 I t 

5~3.3 iii.5 14,t 211.4 5s Si?,7 655.4 49 C 4i I C : 

554.: 1:l.S 14.5 2ii.J ab 88; 6 837.5 :S,7 4i.j 

5:S..i I;;.; 14.5 :;;,I 5; 0.b j 83.0 4f.: hi.! i 

563.: i1i.i i2.S 2xi.j Si &t,L 857.5 45.; 4:.; ; L 

5bi.9 111.5 1;,& 2;i.t 5: 660.4 6i4.b 6G.G 63.: 5 i 

5t2 4 iif.2 14.; 211.3 S? Ph5.4 857.1 4; E 4i.i E C 

5b5.6 119.3 14.5 211 3 66 888.7 856.4 Si .C 4: 5 6 

W.6 :Iivf 1S.S 2il.0 e: bliJ,j 659.9 45.9 43.c C in 

A4 j ii0.i i4 i A1,b 5i 819.5 ih.7 4l.5 4..r f i. 

SaS.5 ;it,: 14.5 213.6 ji 6C?,: 657.3 1: f 4; j i 

kclL. 1iC,: i4,4 216.8 55 858 5 8Sb.i G.5 43.E f i 

5:5,1 1I1.i 14,t 216.5 57 6b.9.: Eh.3 4s,5 4;.r : i 

56.4 1:J.I 14.4 210.7 59 0Ge.S 654.4 4G.v 4i.i i C r- 202 G ii;,. 14~5 iiL.7 57 E;.i.,3 83.5 5b.C 44,; i C 

%;oz 1iO.6 14,s 216.9 58 8Eb.6 854.2 49.9 44.0 5 k 

561 5 iiisS 15.5 2ii.5 5s 6$-.1 83.7 43 5 4Z.j i i 

561.9 ii; I 19.5 2ii.4 5b 612 1 85;.9 43.6 43.t : C 

5e4.8 119.8 14.4 m.9 bo 908~2 8Si.8 43.8 44.6 s 

~2.v iio~ 14.5 210.9 sa ar.7 856.3 49.9 44.11 s o 

50t.B 1iO.b 14.4 216,9 bf 610.6 W.2 45.6 43.5 S 

569.9 109.8 14,s 211.1 57 807,3 854 9 49.9 43.9 5 

564,4 109.5 14.4 210.9 57 807.0 854.6 49,? 44.0 5 

568.4 118.2 14.3 210.7 57 807.4 65.0 49,9 43.1 5 

%4,1 110.3 14.3 210.5 59 809.7 857.3 49.8 43.8 5 

%3#2 111,O 11,2 210.4 S6 512.0 859.7 49.9 43,6 5 

%1,4 109.9 14.3 210.5 57 808.2 65,8 50.0 44.1 5 

E 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

04/03/82 02:41:45 180.6 370,4 25.4 562.4 109,s 14.3 210,7 Sb 805,9 8U,4 50,Q 44,l 5 0 173 

C-42 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 2 of 10 

ktt Ti* F1 Ti Si H Hi F2 12 lr Kiie lik Freq Eff l2 tri 

04/03/62 0o:41:49 18C.3 3hS.2 25.5 W.7 109.4 14.4 211.6 56 805.7 8S3.3 53.6 44.2 3 B 

M/O3/82 11:41:S4 178.1 369.9 25,8 zbS.2 109.7 14.3 210.7 9 805.9 853.4 49.9 43.8 5 0 

04/13/82 1459% 179.8 373.0 26.2 569.1 109.4 14.5 211.3 57 815.9 853.2 50.1 43.8 S 0 

04/13/82 22:59:48 181A 371.5 26.1 W.9 180.1 14.4 211.9 55 805.6 853.2 9.0 43.8 S 0 

1SIu182 02:9:S3 181.5 371.4 25.9 569.2 180.4 14.6 U0.3 9 844.4 62.0 9.1 44.1 5 I 

05/13/82 16:S!J:S9 181.3 371,7 25.9 566.8 108.1 i4.6 211.6 9 804.9 852.2 58.1 44.2 S C 

8S/R3l@ 11:tI:13 11.3 369.8 26.1 567.3 191.5 14.4 211.1 S 812.4 89.0 49.9 44,l 5 1 

IYW182 14:58:57 177.1 371.7 26.6 R1.5 107.9 14.5 211.3 59 W 9 m.3 49.8 44.1 5 0 

IWW 18:23:23 177.8 3E.i 26,4 91.2 11.4 14.4 211.1 59 M9.1 856.7 49.7 43.9 S 0 

15/13/92 22:23:29 184.2 33.1 26.7 573.5 109.1 14.5 U1.5 Sb 812.0 859.8 49.9 43.3 5 1 

06/13/82 0223:s 189.9 PO.8 25.9 567.1 108.8 14.7 211.9 54 815.3 852.9 49.9 44.g S f! 

WW8L IC:u::C,C 186.3 33.2 26.3 59.6 i0G.C iC.6 211.6 55 894.7 852.3 49.P 43.5 5 i 

06/03/82 i4:lU;P i76.E 3sO 6 2t,3 %C,3 109.3 14.4 210 4 57 807.8 83.4 49.8 45.7 5 t 

lbiG3182 ikt2 tl I?? E 376.5 26.0 567 4 103.5 14.5 211~8 57 818.5 855.9 49.9 44.2 5 :. 

0bio3m ZL:O~:I: iae.7 m.4 z0.:\ s.7 198.8 i4.b 211.~ 5;tw.2 8s.s 5t.t 43.b 3 c 

37i03.6: 02:G?:14 ill.1 23 b b.; 56E.i 100.5 14.5 211.3 55 8JS.b 852.9 Si.& 42.; 5 i 

pxa SF 1 btu/lb klbh psra d 2 Hz f 

H/W i8:59:a 1~0.8 373.4 26.8 574.1 109.2 14.5 211.2 811~9 49.9 43.a s I 

W03'82 16:2?:1~ 1e1.6 379 C 2f.b S.2 1BP.b 14.4 210.5 51 814.2 851.7 56.0 4b.2 E. C 

-- - 67/0342 G&:S,L ii, 5 j:: t i; , h5.o iiG.5 I*.a 2i1.8 5s tiC4.3 851-b Si.: 44.1 f I 

07it3!6? io::? Cb i7'9.0 2X.9 26.8 57ii.4 iG2.4 i4.5 211.4 56 836.5 854.0 49.9 43.7 S I. 

17/03/82 14:K;311 i77.i- 372.; ir,S 572.9 108.5 14,4 211.0 58 008.2 855,6 45 7 4; 7 S 8 

318.'82 13:G?:% 170.f 272.5 2c 5 5ii.i 107.6 11.4 211.0 55 839.7 855.2 4;.5 4:s.t 5 6 

07/03i'E 22:62:4: i86.1 Tj.1 20.5 Sa5.6 iG.7 14.4 210.9 5? 637.9 855.3 4;.6 43.5 5 6 

0tiO3t'E Ga:iG-13 ..Yap 373 E. 2b.S 571.2 W.4 14.5 211.4 56 8;S.O 852.5 4i.9 4;i.S 5 b 

0&0381 1[1:i9B3i l75.5 358.7 2o.i %E.; 1i8.9 14.5 3t.7 58 8t0,O 357.6 45.B 43.6 5 C 

oa/o3/8i ci:woc I@?.! 3-5.6 L.: st,i 4 1~8.4 14.5 2il.6 SL, ao6.i ~3.6 49.9 43.9 s i 

08~03,a: I:.!P:v ::nt4 3-i .: ?i 7 5-2.3 :e8.3 1~ 210.8 59 889.7 057.2 49.7 43.1 c f 

ta/03!~ iaw4 1762 3~; :bat sw 101.9 14~ 21~0 si 808.8 856.4 40,~ 43.7 s t 

GS/C3/% 22:iq.tc :&.6 333.3 2t.3 S7i,2 1C6.3 14 4 21C.P 50 816.8 854.3 45.9 4;.b 5 Q 

09,1)3/82 95:19:55 11.4 373.2 h.3 569.7 106.6 14,3 210.6 56 611 6 851,i) 43.8 42.7 E i 

0i;WSi 8C2;:f: rK.4 3-5 2 3.5 5Z.0 1:7.S i4.5 2112 55 366,3 853.9 49.5 43.E 5 1 

09/83/81 18:20;06 179.3 372.8 ia,4 570,7 107,3 14.4 211.1 58 808.5 8%,0 49,8 44.1 5 i 

03/03/E2 14:20:12 176#3 3X,3 56.7 572.5 107.9 14.4 211.1 56 810.1 857.7 49.6 43.8 S 1 

091'03/82 11:20:17 178.6 372.5 b,7 552.4 IQ8.S 14.4 211.6 57 809.7 8572 41.9 43.5 5 : 

89/83/82 22:20:23 179.6 372.9 26.5 571.6 108.2 14.3 210.5 56 809.4 857.0 49,9 44.5 5 1 

10/83/82 02:20:29 180,O 373.1 26,6 572.7 108,1 14.5 211.2 56 810.7 858.4 49.9 43.6 5 I 

11/13/82 06:20:36 180,3 373.2 26.5 571.5 107.6 14,4 211.8 % 887.1 854.5 50.0 43,7 5 i 

11/13/82 10:21:41 179.0 372.6 26.8 574.1 117.9 14.4 211.9 59 812.1 859.8 49,8 43.6 S I 

18/83/82 18:20:54 179.2 372.7 26,7 573.2 106.9 14.4 210.8 57 809,2 856J 49.8 43.9 5 1 

18/03/82 22:21:01 180.5 373.3 26,4 570,9 107,9 14.5 211.3 55 806,s 89.8 49,9 43,7 S 1 

11/03/82 02:21:07 179,8 373.0 26,1 572.8 108.5 14.6 211.5 55 808,2 8559 59.0 43.4 5 1 

itmm 14:2e:47 in,, 371.9 26.7 ms 108.4 14.4 210.9 se m8.8 856.4 49.3 4.5 5 I 

f11e 

f4 

li. 

26 

50 

34 

38 

42 

46 

50 

54 

. t 

iL 

c-43 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 3 df 10 

Dc tie ?IM FI Ti B: ti h1 f2 T2 Tr NUe liMN Freq Eft' 11 irk C~ls: 

13/82 O6:2l:i4 18Q.4 373.2 26.6 572.: 107.3 14,s 211,3 55 804.8 852,3 50,O 43.:. Z i 58 

13/82 10:21:19 178.5 372.4 26.9 574,O 106.8 14.5 2i1.4 58 887.1 854.6 49.8 44.t 5 i 62 

Q/82 14:21:24 178.3 372.3 26.9 574.3 188.1 14.5 211.2 58 809.2 856,8 49.8 43.5 5 i 66 

Q/82 18:21:31 178.8 372.5 26.7 572.4 187.9 14,; 211.3 sb 888.4 0%) 49.9 43.8 5 1 70 

02:21:44 180.2 373.1 26.5 511.2 107.6 14.6 2i1.7 SS 817.2 854,8 50.0 44.0 5 1 78 

WE2 06:2i:50 180.5 373.3 26.6 572,s 107.8 14,s 211.3 55 807.2 8S4.8 58.0 43.6 5 1 82 

W82 11:21:% 179.2 372.7 26.9 94.2 108.2 54.9 2i1.9 57 818.1 655.6 49.9 43.5 5 1 86 

15/82 14:22:00 178.6 372,4 26.7 S72,b 197.6 14.5 211.3 ZB 899.2 857.1 49.8 43.9 5 1 90 

13/82 18:22:05 179,8 372.6 26.7 572.7 107.8 14.5 211.3 56 809.1 956.7 49.8 43.6 5 1 94 

W02 22:22:11 180.0 373.1 26.6 572.3 107.1 14.6 211.6 SS 888.1 855.7 59.0 44.1 5 I 98 

lW82 82:22:15 188.4 373.3 26.6 572,s 107.9 14.6 211.8 55 816.8 854.4 Sb.0 43,7 5 1 102 

13/62 06:2?:?2 18Ct4 373.2 20.7 573.2 10b.9 14.6 211.6 55 806.t 854.2 50.0 44.5 5 i i5: 

13/62 10:22:?1 179,1 f72.b 2b.C 574.1 107.2 14.6 211.5 56 8Ci3.6 856.2 45.9 43,? C i i:. 

13/82 i4:2:Z? !7E t T2.4 3.7 572.7 107.3 14.5 211.4 57 810.2 85; 9 4?.6 44.1 5 ! i:: 

13:82 16:22:3 179.4 372.8 ;O.Q 57:.5 ia7.1 14.5 21i.4 56 669.9 857.5 43,C 44.: 5 ! ii:. 

l3iSi 22:22i43 18J.b 3-i3.3 26.5 52.b iib.7 i4.7 212,i Si 8JF.b 855.2 5L.B 44.: S 1 .:- 

13i@ 18; ; 3': ! 2C.F F?i;.S i;?,: i4.5 2ii.4 j: 636.9 33.5 S:," 44,f 5 1 :I: j/&i z; n .7; - 7.- . 5 -<. 7 < ---' 1 f : :L:,z i-$,s :ii.4 5; i:,?,: fl55 4 4: ! F - 1: 

14:?3:02 178.6 572.1 LE 57: 8 iii,i :4.4 2x.t 57 898.7 856.3 4?.6 43.5 5 : 12; 

1342 :2:?3-14 182 L j73.3 25.6 SY.5 :07.S i4.3 3C05 54 8JS.F 853.5 5d.C 42 F 5 1 :+ 

13/82 I2*23:?I' 180 5 3?!.? 26 6 532,3 107.3 14,4 3i.l 55 884.b 852 1 SO.@ 43.7 5 : :ii 

13.82 66:23:27 1"F.b 3C.9 2b 7 5T,7 !V.4 14.5 Zi1,; 5: 37.8 655-5 S6.i 41.t 5 I 124 

13/82 14:?3:37 177 2 37: E ?&.e 5'3.2 107.8 14.4 2iO.F 58 816.: W.8 4C.6 42.E 5 : io. 

13/62 22.?3:43 13.6 373,s 2c S 3 1117.; 14.; 210.6 54 857.9 635.5 4?,9 43.5 a 1 1:. 

13/52 02.23 53 17? 5 3?; F 2; j 52,5 lot.: 14,3 21G.3 55 894.9 852.5 Si! 5 43 7 S i 1:; 

13ja2 06:24:1: !7C C j7: : :: ? 5to C :[: iL j 54 JE;,j 8;z.Q :fj,C 45 5 :'$ 

13/82 18:24:08 178.5 37?,4 26 8 573.: IOb 7 14.3 218.5 56 BF15,5 852.8 4-3 P 45 7 S. i iiZ 

13/82 14:35:33 179.5 375.3 2t.4 571.4 iOe.4 14.4 210.6 55 %;.I 634.7 56 5 44.5 5 i tar 

13/82 22:38:44 180.1 370.8 26,2 568.6 iOb.1 14.4 210.7 54 805.4 852.9 S0,O 44.7 5 1 113 

15/82 02:38:50 180.2 371.0 26.2 568.8 106.7 14.4 210.8 53 803.9 851,5 56.1 44.4 5 1 197 

13/62 $6:38:5 180,S 371.1 26.1 568.7 106.7 14,s 211.0 53 802.9 850.4 50.1 44#4 5 1 261 

13/82 18:39:01 179,4 370,3 26.2 %8,4 i06.6 14,6 211.1 55 807.7 85S,3 50.0 44.9 5 1 205 

13/82 14:39:07 177.7 369.3 26.7 572.1 106.8 14.5 211.1 57 806.7 654.3 49.9 44,3 5 1 209 

13/82 18:39:12 179.4 370,5 26.2 568.7 106.6 14.5 211.1 55 906.6 8543 50.0 44.6 5 1 213 

13/62 22:39:18 185,4 370,P 26.3 %9,5 106,3 14.6 211.3 53 803,7 851.3 5Q.f 44.5 5 i 217 

13/82 02:39:22 180,9 371.1 26.1 568,i 10o.? 14.5 211.4 53 882.0 849,s SC,1 44.4 5 1 221 

psia OF 1 bts/lb klb/h psir OF I n1 ; 

1~182 22:21:1 179.9 373.8 26.7 m.1 iu.4 14.5 2:i~ 56 m.3 855.9 9.8 43.9 5 i 34 

a. - 

i3/@ ~~.~~:~~ :?c.T 3':.* 2i. 7 57: 5 it6.7 14,: 2;; 1 5j 067.8 835 3 4G.C 43,: 5 -iWE li.E3aEE 17; 7 372.5 ?b 5 Si 5 :bi,2 14.4 21imi 50 Si16.i %E.; 45.; 34.: 5 1 :Ci 

-. 

13i82 16:23~33 179.i. 3'; t 2c.C 574,s iSt.4 i4.4 2it.t; 56 EB7.E 834,b 4?.Q 43.: i I 1,: 

13/82 18:23:&2 176.: 32.: 2c.f 5?C.7 lB,S 14.4 211,O 50 869.2 E3.6 45.5 4i.5 . 1 i.2: 

i3182 10:33:3 175.6 37C f 20.3 565.t. tC7.2 14,3 2iC,5 54 806.8 854.4 Sb.t 44.1 5 1 1:' 

c-44 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 4 of 10 

f de 

225 

229 

233 

237 

241 

245 

249 

2y1 

259 

264 

270 

215 

C;, 

t 

.* -. . 

. T 

4; :. 

- 

:r 

-_ .- 

3: 

4, 

-.I 

.. hz 

_. 

.4- 

d. 

e. ,: 

+ 

b I. 

.f 

I. 

'C 

ti, 

_. 

3 

88 

92 

96 

100 

104 

1 08 

112 

116 

c-45 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 5 of 10 

fih 

C-46 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 6 of 10 

Dote Tine Pl Ti Q1 H MI P2 12 Tr YMe KMfi ireq Eft DC trlr 

ps~a of X btu/ia Irlblt, psi0 OF X Ht X 

01/04/82 23:07:22 f79.6 370.5 26.0 567.2 105.6 14,s 211.0 54 886.3 853.9 49.9 45.2 t 1 

02/04/82 03:07:29 179.1 370,4 26.3 569.2 196.4 14,s 210,9 53 807,4 855.0 49.9 44.6 B i 

02/04/82 07:17:36 180.0 370A 26,4 570.3 10S2 14.4 210,9 53 805.9 8S3,S 9.0 44.6 b 1 

02/14/82 ll:07:43 178,O 370.0 26,4 571,s 105.0 14.4 2ii.O 54 805A 853.4 49.9 44.9 6 1 

02/04/82 15:07:50 177.8 369.6 26,s 570.7 102.3 14.4 210.9 56 8M04 856.8 49.8 45.1 6 1 

02/04/82 19:17:56 1792 370.4 26.3 %9,3 105.8 14.4 U8,9 54 817.7 855.3 49.9 44.8 6 1 

02/04/82 23:08:02 179.0 370.4 26.3 569,2 105.6 14.3 218.9 55 810.8 858,S 49.9 45.0 6 1 

13/14/82 03:18:19 179.2 371,7 26,4 571.3 505.0 14.4 210J 53 896J 63.9 49.9 45,1 6 i 

13/14/82 07:18:15 179.4 370A 26,l 567.9 105J 14.4 218.8 53 816.5 S4,l 49.9 45.2 6 1 

03/04/82 11:08:21 178.6 370.5 26.3 569,4 105.5 14.4 218.8 53 888,s 856,l 49,9 45.i 6 1 

03/04/82 15:18:26 178,O 370,3 26.3 569.3 1052 14.3 210,7 53 805,8 853.4 49.9 45.0 6 1 

03/84/82 19:08:31 179.5 370,9 26,O %7,2 18S08 14.3 210.8 52 805.2 852,8 50,) 44.9 6 1 

03/04/82 23:08.3k 180.0 3X,l 25.P 56c.3 lC5.9 14.3 210,9 52 803,8 61,3 5O.Q 44.9 c : 

04/84/82 @3:08:4? lH+l 371,O 25.5 M6.9 10S.b 14.5 210.9 Si 833.3 89.6 5G.G 45.1 b i 

04/04/82 I;7:08*45 177.9 Pi.8 26.: W.7 105.4 14.4 211.0 52 805,) 852,6 50,O 45.1 b i 

C4/$4:82 11:0ii;55 I%;..: 271; 8 23.1 ioE,i ii6,3 i4.4 21i.1 52 882.9 89.4 54.b 44.6 b i 

04:04iE 15:05 FI i7E.f 3:; i 2 2 5b? 5 164.5 14.5 fii,l 52 664.i S5:.li 51.C 4f,2 c : 

34/04!8? 1S:Vq::f. 18. C 3'6.9 23.2 563 8 :66 P lC.5 ?iI,i 53 0G7,4 855 0 55,O 4;,2 t i 

(A/:16 $2 2!:OJ*iq t 2; G 566 j !(b : 14.6 C11,2 5; 843 2 6jg.7 50.0 4;,1 t. 1 

05/04/82 03:69.;1 iE-.L Fi A k,L 56i.2 liG,l :4.3 211,2 51 8G.S 83,4 5C.C 44.3 E ! 

OS/kM/EZ $7:87 2- iii.1 37; 5 55 9 Sb6.7 i05.5 14.4 2ii,2 51 BGj,l 651.5 5b.l 44.5 b : 

flj/~O/@ 11;?*3,j: i-" C 5': 2: 2 56: 0 fBb.4 14.4 31,3 55 854.b 1\'j?.: 4%,9 44,7 b : 

WE4162 19:0S:43 197.8 376 1 26,O 567.0 lh.6 i4.5 211,3 53 818.2 856.0 5G,O 45.6 t I 

liSi04.'82 23:EP:J5 1F.i.3 371.1 2s.; St?.; 105.2 14.5 31.4 51 883.6 051,? S8,i 45.; 6 1 

06/04/82 I;7:09:5S 179.5 37i.i 2~~0 566.7 105.5 14.6 251,s 51 001,6 849,i 5t.i 41,s b i 

06/64/62 11:i(t:ts5 !7i 4 376.2 26 3 569,s 1uS.S 14,b 211,4 53 8b3,8 850.5 49.3 44.9 b 1 

CiIdPS i5;G:l: 175 9 37;,t ?b 2 568.3 106.: 14.0 ?:!.3 54 6Gt 9 e54.5 4".9 45,; t 1 

06/04/62 19:IG:lb 1Fst 370.r 26.1 568.2 1E.e 14.5 31.3 52 %5,S 82,9 50.6 45.0 b 1 

O6/C4/P2 2j:16!20 !i?6.2 37c.? 26.1 567.8 lDb,l 14.3 211.3 52 8iie.9 854,s sU,O 44.6 b i 

07/04/82 C3:fC:22 120.1 371,O 20~1 Sb7.b 105.0 14.5 21i.3 52 613.7 851.2 S6.b 45.3 t 1 

67/04/82 0?:59:3? i8i,B 33,G 2t.2 56F42 104.9 14.4 2i1.2 51 003,F 851,4 56.0 45,O 6 1 

07/04/82 11:59:3 l?Q S 3?C,S Zb 1 567.8 105,8 14.5 21i.2 53 805.4 853,O 49,9 45,l 6 1 

07/04/82 15:59:44 179.8 370,L 26,3 569.8 104.4 14.4 211.1 53 805.7 853.3 50.0 4S2 6 1 

07/04/82 19:59:49 180.0 370,7 26.2 56&7 105.6 145 211.1 53 805,2 852d 50,O 44,9 6 1 

17/04/82 23:3:54 18i,8 370.9 26,3 SbP.7 105,3 14,4 211.1 51 805,l 852.7 50,O 44,8 6 1 

08/04/82 04:OO:OO 179.8 37i,O 26,3 570.1 104.6 14,s 211.0 52 805.3 852.9 50,O 452 6 1 

08/04/82 08:Ol:Ob 180.4 370.8 26,2 568.9 1OS.S 14.4 211.1 51 8049 852.5 50,O 44.9 6 1 

08/04/82 12:OO:ll 180.6 371,O 26.2 569,4 104,7 14.4 211,l 52 807,O 854d 49,9 45.2 6 1 

08/84/82 16:00:16 181.3 370,9 26,l 568,4 105,O 14,s 211.0 52 808,6 856.3 SO,$ 45,4 6 1 

651'fi4/82 15'c9'jb f?*:.z 37C.i 2.6.4 4 !65.? IC b ?12,3 54 8i)S 4 853.0 49.9 b i 

Ob/!4/0! 03:U~:ii lEf,t 371 C 26.0 567.5 lOS.? 14.5 211.4 51 83bs1 853.7 5C.l 45.1 b ! 

08/04/82 20:00:22 180,3 37009 26,l 568.4 105.4 14.4 211,O 52 806,7 854,3 49,9 45-1 b 1 167 

c-47 
ORiGlNAt E>,.- . . 

OF POOR QUALi'i'L' 

Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 7 of 10 

Datt 1 

09/04/82 (0: 

09/94/82 08: 

19/04/82 12: 

09/14/82 16: 

19/04/82 29: 

11/14/82 01: 

10/14/82 14: 

11/04/82 48: 

18/04/82 12: 

10/04/82 16: 

10/04/62 20: 

11/64/82 OC: 

11/04/62 04, 

11/04/82 0;: 

11/24:8? 12: 

09/14/82 04: 

iiiwa? :i,:

i1/G4i& 23: 

12!114/82 06: 

12/04/82 04: 

12lC4i8? 06; 

12/04/82 12: 

12i044l 16: 

1Z/C4/82 28: 

13/04/62 Oh: 

13/B48P 08: 

13/04/82 12: 

13;04/82 16: 

:S!OC/EI;' 2i: 

14/04/62 0;: 

14/04/82 64: 

14/04/82 12: 

14/04/82 16: 

14/04/82 20: 

15/04/82 10: 

15/04/82 04: 

15/04/82 08: 

15/04/82 12: 

15/04/82 ib. 

15/04/82 20: 

:3, ~41a2 cc: 

14/04/82 08: 

4 

m 

;I I 

I 

'I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

B 

i 

€ 

c 

5 

0 

i 

F 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

c 

E 

0 

0 

I 

B 

O 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I 

0 

m 

m 

a 

r 

C-48 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 8 of 10 

Dote Tine Pi Ti Pi H Mi P2 12 lr 

psi0 OF X btu/lb &lb/h psi0 OF Z 

1W04/82 00:05:03 17k6 370.1 26.3 %9,0 104,7 14A 210.7 P B 

16/04/82 14:05:19 179.3 378.4 26.3 569.4 104.0 14.3 213.8 51 E 

iuo4/az oe:ms:is i78~1 no.3 26.3 569~ m,o 14.4 211.1 Q I 

~WI~/IIZ 12:15:20 177.9 369~ 26.3 569.2 1os.i 14,s 211.19 a 

i;l/we 10:fis:ss 178.4 369,9 26.4 510.3 104.3 14.5 a1.2 Q a 

im/82 M:Is:~~ 179.0 n0.5 26.3 569.4 iw.0 14.5 211.2 si 0 

16/01/82 16:15:6 177.5 369.4 26.3 569.1 114.7 14.4 211.1 5) 8 

16/14/82 21:15:3@ 178.3 369.8 26,2 S68.S 104.4 14.5 211.2 S3 8 

17/04/82 08:05:48 177.9 369A 26,s 270A 104.1 14.5 211,3 53 8 

17/04/82 i2:1S:52 176.9 369,1 26,s 511.0 104.8 14.7 211.3 55 8 

17/84/82 16:06:00 177.4 369,4 26,3 !i60,7 104.9 14,b 211.3 56 8 

17/04/82 20:06:06 171.7 369,7 26,b 57iA 104,8 14.6 211.3 53 E 

i8/04/E2 00:Ob:il 177.6 369.6 26,4 570.0 i04.3 14.6 211.4 54 E 

18/04/02 04:06:19 1V2? F6.1 26,3 569.3 103.9 14,4 211,4 52 E 

18/04/82 08*06:24 179,P 376.4 26.3 %9,3 10LE 14.6 211.5 51 E 

18/G4/82 12:Ob:St 176,i 369.0 26.8 572.6 103.7 14,6 211.4 56 E 

18/C4/82 io Ob:& i7s.4 w.9 26.5 ~1.o 104.0 14.5 211.4 53 a 

16/84/62 20:06:44 175.9 369.6 26.5 571.4 IG.5 i4.5 211,4 53 ti 

19/04/82 08:06.49 i78.4 369.9 2&,4 570.1 104.0 14,s 2i1.4 53 E 

19/04/02 04:06:54 176.6 370.1 26.5 570,8 104.i i48S 211,3 51 E 

19/04/62 08:06:59 176.5 370.0 26.& 572.0 103,4 14,s 211.4 52 8 

19/04/82 12:07:06 :75.0 370.2 26,6 571.8 102.9 14,5 211.3 52 E 

19/04/@2 16:fl?:iZ 178.5 37C.1 26.4 590,4 103,4 14.6 211.1 52 8 

19/04/82 20:07:i7 17tin7 370,2 26.5 570,8 103,f 14,s 211,1 52 E 

20/04/82 GU:07:25 i78,b 376,1 26,b 57l,7 163*3 14.4 211.1 51 8 

28/(14/E2 04:87:28 178,8 370,1 26.4 570.2 10:,4 14.4 211,O 52 8 

20/04/8! 08:17:35 178.5 369.9 26.5 570,9 103,6 14.5 211.1 52 8 

20/04/02 16:07:45 178.1 369,T 26.6 571.8 1G3,7 14.4 211,O 54 8 

26/04/82 2O:G7:5i 173.4 369.9 2o,6 572.0 id3.2 14.4 211,G 52 8 

2U/04/82 12;0;:4c 17x1 309s 26.7 572.i i04.s i4,4 211.1 54 8 

21/tw? o?T.z:. 17~0 ~o.1 26~ 572.6 102.6 i4,4 211.0 52 E 

21/04/82 08:oa:os 178.9 369.5 20.7 575,2 1lri.i i4.2 i1i.0 51 E 

21/84/82 12:08;10 178,O 369.4 26.7 572,2 102,3 14,s 211,1 53 8 

21/04/82 16:08:17 176,8 369.3 26,7 572,3 102,6 14,4 210.8 53 8 

21/waz 20:08:24 im 369.d 26.7 ~2.6 103~ 14.4 210~ 9 8 

WW/E oo:oe:a 177.5 369.7 26.6 57~1 103,s 14.4 silt 9 a 

22114182 04:om 178,s POJ 26,s ~71~9 102~ 14.5 210.9 st a 

21/04/b2 84:08:08 175.3 3?6 2: " 5Z-I iOie9 i4,4 21100 51 8 

22/04/82 08:08:39 176,6 370,O 26,6 S71,b 102,6 14.4 211,1 Si 8 

22/04/82 12:08:4S 177,b 369,4 26,s 570.8 102,8 14.4 211.1 53 8 

22/04/82 16:08:51 178,l 369.7 26,8 573,b 103,O i4,5 211.0 52 8 

22/04/1x 20:08:57 m,4 mi 26,s 571~ 103.3 14.3 211~ 52 a 

I (Ye KYn Freq Lff DC trk fde 

16.9 851.6 50.2 45.4 7 0 56 

14.5 852.1 50.2 45,3 7 0 60 

I4,O 851.5 S1,1 45.5 7 0 64 

15.5 me1 49.9 45.3 7 1 68 

16.9 K4.S 49.9 45.5 7 0 72 

14.7 852.3 49.9 45.7 7 0 76 

I4.t 851.5 st.1 45.3 7 1 80 

9.6 89.1 9.N 45.5 7 0 84 

14.9 852.4 49.9 45,6 7 1 88 

16.1 653.7 49.9 45.7 7 0 92 

17.5 8SSo1 49.8 45.7 1 8 96 

t6-i 853.6 49.9 45.3 7 0 ib2 

17.5 855,1 49.9 45.0 'I C IC: 

13.3 8SC,8 49,9 4S.b 'I 2 :Z 

13.3 850.9 54.0 45,E 'I I ;;i 

17.8 855.5 49.9 45.6 7 C if;- 

16,6 854.2 49.9 45.5 ; ;I i;i 

14.6 852.2 45,P 45.5 7 e 23 

15,1 852,7 50.0 45,s 'I G 132 

i6.4 854.8 49.V 45,7 7 0 i5: 

14,4 852.0 49.9 45.9 I 0 

14.7 852,2 49.9 45,8 7 0 14b 

14.3 851.8 49.9 45.5 1 i i% 

15.2 852,7 49.9 45.; 7 0 f5: 

14.1 851,7 49,9 45#5 C 161 

,0,7 858.4 49.8 45,4 1 t 16; 

15,3 852,9 50,i 45.5 7 f. i2 

15.1 852,7 50,1 45.7 7 0 1% 

14.6 852,2 50,O 45.8 7 0 113 

13.4 85i,O 59.0 45,s 7 0 164 

16,8 854J SO,1 45.9 7 0 192 

14.8 85214 58.2 45.4 'I 8 i9b 

D17 851.2 50.2 45,s 7 0 200 

DA 61.9 50.3 45,8 7 0 204 

12.9 60,4 50.2 45.8 7 0 290 

15.8 853,s 50.2 46.6 7 0 212 

16.3 053,9 s0,2 45,6 7 0 216 

17.3 855,O 50,2 45,b 'I 0 220 

Hz x 

16.1 853.7 49,8 45,7 7 I lib 

14.6 852,1 4989 45.7 7 (. 14:; 

,Os2 857.9 50.0 45,b 7 1 10;. 

ISA 853.0 49.9 6.1 7 o 188 

c-49 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 9 of 10 

Dgtc Time Pi Ti Ui 5 Mi P2 12 lr 

 pi^ OF Z t;~lb klbin yrro 6 X 

23/04/82 00:09:02 17E81 Z9.9 26.6 572,i 102,1 14.4 211,1 51 8 

23/04/82 04:19:89 178.9 370,2 20.6 571,b 1C2.4 14.4 210.8 50 9 

23/@4/82 14:14:0: 179.6 3b87 26,7 S73,2 102,i 14,3 210d 49 8 

23/04/82 22~414 178.8 390.2 26.7 572,s 102.2 14,3 21047 50 8 

24/14/82 02:15:19 178.2 80,2 26.9 S73J 102A 14.2 211,7 50 8 

24/04/82 16:14:26 179,l 370.6 26.8 S73,4 501,7 14.3 210.7 49 8 

24/14/82 10:14r33 177.7 369.7 26.7 572.3 101,S 14.3 21Ba7 Si 8 

24/84/82 18:14:47 17&3 369.9 26.9 943 101.5 14.2 210.7 51 8 

24/04/82 22:14:52 178d 370,4 26,7 573,) 101d !4,3 210.7 49 8 

25/04/02 02:i4:59 178,5 370,3 26.5 571,2 102,O 14.3 210,7 47 8 

25/04/82 06:15:06 175-8 SIR,? 26,8 573,s iO1,O 14.4 210m7 50 8 

25/54/€2 14:iSiit 177.9 361 t. 27 0 574.0 102,2 14.4 2iC,S 51 8 

25/04/02 18:15:23 1713~5 363,9 2t,9 574,s 101~5 14,s 210,7 51 a 

25/64/82 22:15:2i !?E#7 370.3 25 F 574,5 161.3 14,; 210.3 50 8 

26/04/Z 02;1S:S2 176.6 33-4 2b.d 53,2 iCi,5 i+,3 Z1S.E 4; 6 

26/04/82 06:15:37 18Ca9 371,J 20.6 552,5 1Ci.Z 14.5 2rG.8 48 8 

2310~82 18:i4:io 1nn7 369.7 26.8 572.9 112.0 14.3 210.7 52 8 

24/14/82 i4:m in.1 369.5 26.7 MJ 102.5 14.3 210.6 si a 

25/04/82 10;Ai:i: 177.5 3tg,? 2bt9 573,6 iOi.7 14.3 21C.8 52 6 

26/04/a2 io:is:~ i78.i 369.8 i7.2 577.0 ioc.~ 14.9 210~ so 8 

w04/8i 14:is:so i7?s 369.6 26,9 573.9 102.4 14,s 210~8 si a 

26/04/82 18:lS:SS 176.6 369.4 26.9 573.7 101.6 14 3 210,7 53 8 

26/04/82 E:ib:Oi 178.9 369.9 26.8 V4.0 101,S 14,3 2i0.6 50 8 

27/04/82 02:ib:C7 179.5 370.1 26,9 574.8 1hJ1 14,j 21003 50 8 

27/94/82 06:16:12 181.4 37imi 26.7 573.6 101,4 14,: 210-0 48 8 

27/04/82 10;16:16 369.9 26.b 572,i l82,4 14.1 211.5 47 8 

27/64/82 14:16:21 176.3 36P.T ?t 9 574.2 10i99 14.1 209.9 50 8 

27/04/82 18:16:28 177.1 369,9 27.0 574.6 1Oi.5 i4.2 210.3 50 E 

28/04/82 02:i6:37 180.2 31.0 Sb.7 i7:,0 161,7 14.3 210.5 48 8 

28/04/82 06:16:43 1aLO 37fi5 26,7 5?3.4 i01,3 14,3 210,8 48 a 

28/04/82 iO:i6:50 179.8 3711,4 26,b 572.b 101.6 14,4 210.9 49 a 

28/04/82 14:ib:Sb 175,4 368.8 27.2 SIS,? i00,7 14.4 210,9 54 8 

28/01/82 18:17:02 18OJ 371,3 26.5 572.2 101J 14-5 211.1 48 E 

28/04/82 22:17:08 180,4 37i,2 26.9 574,9 1OOd 14,b 211.3 48 E 

29/04/82 02;17:16 17?A 370,O 27,O 574.8 100,7 14,s 211.3 59 E 

29/04/82 06:17:22 l82,2 371.7 26.7 S74,2 IOi,, i4.6 211.4 43 8 

29/04/82 10:17:28 I77,S %9,6 26.8 93.4 102,8 14.5 211.5 52 8 

29/04/82 18:17:39 177,s %9,8 27,b 574.5 101,9 14,4 21i.2 52 8 

29/04/82 22:17:45 179,3 370.6 26,8 S74,O 100,9 14.5 211,2 49 E 

31/04/82 02:17:SO 5794 371,1 26,8 574.4 100,O 14,s 211.2 48 8 

27/04/82 ~2:ib.u 176s 26.7 ~72~ 102.1 14,~ 213.: SI, a 

29/14/82 imxi 179.2 370~ 26~ 574~ ioi~ 14~ 211.2 so a 

K 

c-50 
Table C-8. Endurance Test Record, Part 10 of 10 

Y :Yo KYW Freq Eff 3L trk file 

11,s 849.1 50,1 46,2 7 1 108 

12.7 89,2 50,2 46 i 7 1 112 

13,4 %1,0 SO,? 45.9 7 1 116 

14,2 851.7 51,l 46.0 7 1 120 

l4,l 851.6 51,4 45.8 1 1 124 

13.3 851d 51,2 46,2 7 1 128 

17.7 8553 Sent 46,1 7 1 132 

13.6 851.2 50,2 46.1 7 1 136 

l4,3 851.9 51,2 46.1 7 1 140 

14.8 852,4 50,l 46,O 7 i 144 

12,9 850.5 50.1 46.2 7 1 148 

10~9 848,4 5O.i 45,9 7 I 152 

14,O 851.6 50.2 46,;" ? I 15c 

HI x 

2nI P,fab 51t2 45.9 7 i 16!! 

14.3 851.9 5k.i 46.1 7 i w 

3.1 851.2 5G.2 4a.i Ti 1 id 

12,5 856,O 51,I Ai,; S 1 i7: 

~4~9 8'12,5 SCoL 4c.i 7 i I-c, 

#1.4 84',F 51.2 45.5 7 I iiiC-51 
TECHNJCAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 

1. 84-29 2. Government Accasrion No, 3. Reciptent'r Catalog No. 

4. Title ond Subtitle 5. e t Oat 

6. Performing Organization Code 

!hg 1, f984 International Test and Demonstration of a 1-Mw Wellhead . Generator: He1 icat Screw Expander Power Plant, Model 

76-1 Final Report 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

IO. Work Unit No. 

7* Richard A. McKay 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY 

California Institute of Technology 

4800 Oak Grove Drive 

Pasadena, California 91109 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 1 JPL Pub1 ication 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Washington, D.C. 20546 RE-152 PL-779-00-00-02-26 * I IS. Supplementary Notes: Also sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Energy through an interagency 

agreement (DE-AI03-79ET37176) with NASA. Also identified as DOE/ET-37116-2. (RTOP 

shown as item 14. above.) I 

6. Abstract 

taly, and New Zealand at Cerro Prieto, Cesano, and Broadlands, respectively. These 

.ests were performed with the participation of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Hydro- 

.herma1 Power Co., Ltd., and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, under the auspices of the 

nternational Energy Agency. The total flow helical screw expander protable power plant 

lode1 76-1, had been built for the U.S. Government and field-tested in Utah, USA, in 

978 and 1979. 

ng operation on fluids that deposit adherent scale normally detrimental to the utiliza- 

.ion of liquid-dominated fields. Some testing was done on-grid. Typical expander isenropic efficiency wa-s 40% to 50% with the clearances not closed, and 5 percentage points 

lr more higher with the clearances partly closed. 

pproximately logarithmically with shaft power for most operations, while inlet quality, 

peed, and:pressure ratio across the machine had only small effects. These findings are 

11 in agreement with the Utah test results. 

fficiencies but also lower flowrates per kW of electricity produced. Based on operatng'resul ts and cost/benefit analyses in comparison with 1-MW turbine generators, Mexicc 

nd Italy rated the screw expander power plant as suitable for noncondensing service in 

ome liquid-dominated fields, although the unit tested needs shaft seal repair before it 

s returned to service. Improvements of the shaft seal flush water system and the speed 

ontrol system are important, and closing of the rotor clearances, either through manuacturing changes or operating changes, is necessary for best performance. Lower prices 

hrough mass production would broaden the application. 

A 1-MW well head generator was tested in 1980, 1981, and 1982 by Mexico, 

The expander had oversized internal clearances designed for self-cleanThe expander efficiency increased 

Condensing tests produced lower machine 

'. Key Words (Selected by Author(s)). 18. Distribution Statement 

Conversion Techniques; Power Sources; 

Industrial Engineering; Mechanical 

Engineering 

Unclassified; unl imited 

'. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif, (of this page) 21. No. of Poges 22. Rice 

Unclassified Uncl ass i f i ed 

I I t 

JPL 01M RWU