I want to know the correct procedure for calibration of LVDT of GCV/SRV in Mark_VI

Machine.

And how to download the .m6b file to controller after changing the null bias value.

Any body please suggest

Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 14 November, 2010 - 2:02 am

It is a pretty straight forward procedure. I am uploading a small document here , in that

you will find the detailed procedure including the screen shots of how to do the
calibration.

http://www.2shared.com/document/TSYug7uX/sevo_calibration.html

Hope this will help you in clearing your doubts in this regard.
Reply to this post...

Posted by chris on 15 November, 2010 - 8:20 am

>I am uploading a small document here , in that you will find the
>detailed procedure including the screen shots of how to do the >calibration.
>
>http://www.2shared.com/document/TSYug7uX/sevo_calibration.html

Link is not working ... Getting message invalid link. Is it possible for anyone/public to
download ? Please advise
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 18 November, 2010 - 12:07 am

Chris the link is working well , only problem is that they have disguised the download
button very well. in the bottom of the page you will have a small button which will say
"save file to computer" you need to click it to down load the doc. till now 20 downloads
have been done so i think it has worked for that many people.
Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 15 November, 2010 - 11:16 am

ProcessValue,

Can you explain specifically your section on null bias current? I'm not sure what the
intent is nor how to accomplish what is to be done.
Reply to this post...
 Posted by Process Value on 18 November, 2010 - 12:03 am

Servo null bias configuration.

Here comes the long answer once again :)

Servo valve operation : to explain in detail about the servo null bias one should know
how a 2 way servo valve actually works. i am uploading a small pic here in which i have
explained in detail the working of a flapper/nozzle servo which is used by moog. the pics
that you will see represent a very similar design used by moog and by all servo
manufacturers.

a. first part - the main parts of a servo is explained.

b. operation of a servo valve to move the actuator to the right is explained ( the reverse
operation is vice versa)

c. the resetting of the servo valve after the required movement of the actuator is explained

http://www.2shared.com/photo/_LkyHPfy/servo_expain.html

please read through the above so that what i am going to say below can be understood in
greater detail.

In the pic above the centering spring is present on both sides of the servo spool piece.
This centering spring is responsible to bring back the servo spool

to the initial position so that there is no control oil flow into the actuator chamber. in our
case there is only one spring installed in the system. this spring is called the failsafe
spring/ compression spring . in the absence of any electrical commands this pushes the
spool piece to open a very small port which causes the actuator rod to retract (open/close
the vavle depending on the design). During normal operation , such a thing should not
happen , and thus the current required to over come the spring force and return the servo
to null (zero control flow) position is called the servo null bias.The servo null bias is
often expressed as a percentage of the full scale servo current. in moog design its 10 ma
full scale and for a null bias current of 0.2 ma means a null bais of 2%.

i am uploading another pic here , in that you will see the servo chara for a typical moog
valve ( control flow vs. input currnet ) in the same i have marked the servo null current
for better understanding.

http://www.2shared.com/photo/4CNdVGGl/moog.html

now coming to the null bias setting in mark Vi.

in mark vi TMR systems the servo is a three coil one , with each of the three processors
supplying the current to the servo. in GE designs the servo feedback

is accomplised by two methods.

a. LVDT - IGV / Gas based designs

b. pulse rate inputs - fuel valve in distillates

the servo null bias has a range of about -0.133 ma to -0.4 ma. the required null current
will be somewhere between this value. this is the usual norm but it may not be true for all
cases. i have seen a site with a null current of -0.75 ma in IGV conrol servo working
perfectly. please see the servo data sheet to get the actual value.

for an example let us say that we have fixed the null value at -0.15 in the servo
configuration (-1.5%) . now given that the processors are online and you are in the servo
calibration page use the manual command to give a stroke of 50%. if you have a LVDT
then you can see the value easily other wise you need a dial guage to measure the valve
stroke. let us say for the stroke of 50% we get the following values.

R - 47.5
s - 47.8
t - 47.7
dial guage - 48.

now this means that the control oil ported is not enough to attain the correct stroke and
you need to increase the null bias value , theoretically a 2% increase in the null bias ie
from 1.5% to 3.5% must get you to 50% value (assuming that the dial gauge reading is
most accurate), but it rarely happens; with three processors and three coils and three
feedback inputs attaining a perfect 50% is well quite difficult , anything in the 49-51%
range is acceptable (at least for me). further calibration is quite tedious and frankly a
waste of time.

now enter the new null value (3.5%) in the servo calibration page and do the stroking
once again , you will get a value close to 50%. if you still want to have some fun you can
change the resolution of the servo null bias and try to get the perfect fifty ( upto 5 decimal
places are accepted if i remember correctly).

most probably you will see that in GE machine the null bias value to be at -2.667 %. this
is the median value of the range specified by moog , and yes this will work most of the
cases. it is quite rare that you need to change this value.

this is to the best of my knowledge how a servo works and this is the method to calibrate
the servo null current. hope CSA will be satisfied by the explanation and can give more
pointers in the area :) .
Reply to this post...
Posted by cikenkari on 27 December, 2010 - 8:10 am
Process Value, can you reupload the files, seems the link is dead. Thks
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 27 December, 2010 - 12:39 pm

Sigh ... well the links are indeed working, as i have said in the earlier post at the bottom
right side of the page there is a posting like this

Save file to your PC: click here

click the link and you will able to download the file.

from the last time i saw the screen it is now downloaded 44 times :) hurray :).
Reply to this post...

Posted by cikenkari on 28 December, 2010 - 4:13 am

i dunno, but the message says "The file link that you requested is not valid. Please contact
link publisher or try to make a search. "

Please upload to another file sharing, or send email to cikenkari(at)gmx.com

Thanks ya
Reply to this post...

Posted by cikenkari on 28 December, 2010 - 4:18 am

Seems the link can't find the file, so using search to find "sevo_calibration",

thanks Process Value, very nice procedure

Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 28 December, 2010 - 8:12 am

Good to hear that you did download the file , and as far as the invalid link i do not know
what the problem is i will upload to a different site and post here.

and yes glad to be of help :)

Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 2 January, 2011 - 10:17 pm

Well, I'm going to have to take exception to some of the material presented here. While
the basic premise is correct, the drawings used to explain the concept along with the
disclaimers about the drawings, and the math doesn't seem to work out.
If there is a centering spring that returns the servo spool piece to a condition that blocks
oil and prevents opening or closing of the servo-operated actuator, isn't that contrary to
the "fail-safe" concept? In other words, in the absence of any servo current, the servo
valve is supposed to port oil to the actuator to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam. If
there were no current applied to the coil in the drawing, the centering spring would just
"block" the actuator in its current position, which could keep fuel or air or steam flowing
in a "loss of control" situation (no servo current). So, this doesn't seem to make sense.

ProcessValue then says, oh, forget about the centering spring, because the servos at his
site only have a spring at one end. A spring at only one end would cause a properly
applied servo to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam in the event of loss of servo
current to the coils--which meets the definition of "fail-safe".

So, we're given some drawings with explanations that we're told to read and study, and
then we're told, "Oh, that's okay, but that's not what really happens."

The Speedtronic servo regulators used by GE put out 0.00 mA when the actual position is
equal to the reference (the error is zero), and then the null bias current value is added to
that to overcome the null bias spring tension in order to keep the actuator/device at the
desired position.

GE specifications for servos used for heavy duty gas turbines state that the null bias
current (total) should be -0.8 mA, +/- 0.4 mA. Take that value and divide it by three for a
three-coil servo and you get -0.267 mA per coil, for a total of -0.8 mA.

Presuming that no one has adjusted the spring tension of the single fail-safe spring of the
servo (which should never be necessary except under extremely unusual circumstances),
an individual null bias current of between -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA should be sufficient
to make the measured position match the indicated position (from the LVDT feedback).

ProcessValue makes a very important and excellent point in the explanation: The null
bias current adjustment should only be used to make the actual position (and,
hence, indicated position) equal to the reference. It's not to be used to make the
indicated position (feedback value displayed on the screen) equal to the reference if the
actual position isn't being measured!

In other words, the calibrated feedback value needs to be very nearly equal to the actual
physical position as measured (using a dial indicator or vernier caliper, or machinists'
protractor, as appropriate) and then and only then should the null bias current be
adjusted to make the physical position (feedback) equal to the reference value. So, if the
reference is 50% and the actual position is 48.9 and the indicated position is 49.0, then
one can adjust the null bias current to make the actual position equal to the reference
value.

And we're speaking about averages here for a three coil servo. If one processor's
indicated feedback is radically different from the actual position (and hence the indicated
positions of the other two processors) then adjusting the null bias current value is not the
proper method for correcting this problem.

And, lastly there's this statement about changing the null bias current by 2% to counter a
2% error between the actual physical position and the reference. I've never witnessed a
one-to-one relationship between current and position reduce the error between actual and
reference positions. It's not that simple, and a trial and error method is usually required.
(And why was the original null bias value fixed at -1.5% to begin with? Why wasn't it
-2.67%? The error would have been less had the original value been -2.67%, which is
what the starting value should always be.)

Again, I want to stress that the most valid and important points in ProcessValue's
explanation are these:

(1) The null bias current is to be adjusted to make the actual, measured physical position
match the reference after the calibrated feedback has been proven to match the
actual physical position by comparing the measured physical position to the
calibrated feedback. If the actual, measured physical position is not very nearly equal to
the calibrated feedback value on the display, then the feedback IS NOT calibrated
properly, and adjusting the null bias current value isn't going to fix this error.

(2) The normal range of null bias current values should be between -0.133 and -0.400 mA
per processor, or, -1.33% to -4.00% (remember, in most Speedtronic systems the negative
sign is not used; the positive null bias value on the display is "inverted" in the
Speedtronic).

Most sites never measure the valve or IGV position and just adjust the null bias current
to try to make the feedback value on the display equal to the reference--and that's just
WRONG! Or, they try to adjust the null bias value when one processor's indicated value
is significantly different from the other processors' indicated value.

By the way, the feedback spring in the drawings provided by ProcessValue would usually
be the "fail-safe" element in a servo with a centering spring. Null bias current would be
required to overcome the force that the feedback spring would apply to the coil armature
in the loss of servo current to cause oil pressure to be ported to the actuator to shut off the
flow of fuel or steam or air. Presuming the application required a fail-safe servo.
Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 6 January, 2011 - 4:30 am

> Well, I'm going to have to take exception to some of the material presented here. While
the basic premise is correct, the drawings used to explain the concept along with the
disclaimers about the drawings, and the math doesn't seem to work out. <

well here are the answers to the "exceptions" found by CSA :) . we all love a healthy
argument don't we :)
exception - 1

"If there is a centering spring that returns the servo spool piece to a condition that blocks
oil and prevents opening or closing of the servo-operated actuator, isn't that contrary to
the "fail-safe" concept? In other words, in the absence of any servo current, the servo
valve is supposed to port oil to the actuator to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam. If
there were no current applied to the coil in the drawing, the centering spring would just
"block" the actuator in its current position, which could keep fuel or air or steam flowing
in a "loss of control" situation (no servo current). So, this doesn't seem to make sense."

All servo valves manufactured need not have a "fail safe" concept , and fail safe concept
need not necessarily mean a full open or a full close condition. an example of a servo
system which does not have a "fail safe concept" of full open or full close is the damper
control in an FD fan. these i have typically seen in boilers , and in some furnaces. most
boilers follow a air rich or fuel rich control mode ,in both the concept the air flow is
maintained by these dampers. in case we need to increase in the boiler load the damper
opens first to let in more air and only if there is a air increase the fuel is increased to the
boiler. Here the inlet air needs to be maintained at 3-4% excess of the stotiometric air. in-
case of absence of electrical signals the servo in the damper control just holds the damper
in the last position. you cannot close the damper as the air inlet will be reduced , leading
to black smoke then eventual tripping of the boiler , you cannot fully open the damper as
you will let in excess air which leads to white smoke in the chimney , very inefficient
operation , slight load reduction and lowering of stack temperature , lowering of
temperature gradient in the boiler zone and a whole lot assorted problems. thus the servo
just holds the damper in the last position. this servo "does have" a centering spring.

Servos are hard to explain without any diagrams , hope you will agree with me on that
one. i got the pic from the net , i modified it to a large extent to suit my explanation. I was
trying to tell people how a servo actually works so that one can get a grasp of what the
null current is. I do not think that anyone who does not know how a servo works will
understand the concept of null bias current. i provided the explanation specifically for
that.

exception - 2

"ProcessValue then says, oh, forget about the centering spring, because the servos at his
site only have a spring at one end. A spring at only one end would cause a properly
applied servo to shut off the flow of fuel or air or steam in the event of loss of servo
current to the coils--which meets the definition of "fail-safe".

So, we're given some drawings with explanations that we're told to read and study, and
then we're told, "Oh, that's okay, but that's not what really happens." "

ha ha ha hurray for the tongue and cheek once again but i would like to add that my
"Parent site" has all kinds of servos one with centering spring ( boiler FD fan in boilers ) ,
one with the fail safe spring at one end ( GT fuel recirculation moog valve for one ) ,
servos with no compression springs ( desalter rotary stirrer in CDU unit). In my opinion
the explanation given in the diagram with the "centering spring" servos is correct , and i
don't remember saying that is not happens (it happens at a lot of places as i explained) , i
just said that is not what happens in GT fuel control.

exception - 3

" And, lastly there's this statement about changing the null bias current by 2% to counter
a 2% error between the actual physical position and the reference. I've never witnessed a
one-to-one relationship between current and position reduce the error between actual and
reference positions. It's not that simple, and a trial and error method is usually required.
(And why was the original null bias value fixed at -1.5% to begin with? Why wasn't it
-2.67%? The error would have been less had the original value been -2.67%, which is
what the starting value should always be.) "

i am copy pasting my exact wordings " theoretically a 2% increase in the null bias ie from
1.5% to 3.5% must get you to 50% value (assuming that the dial gauge reading is most
accurate), but it rarely happens; with three processors and three coils and three feedback
inputs attaining a perfect 50% is well quite difficult , anything in the 49-51% range is
acceptable (at least for me) " . You just repeated what i have told ; it rarely happens ,
meaning there in never a perfect lenier relationship. I was giving an example by quoting
that you begin with -1.5%., i have also mentioned in the post that a null bias value of
-2.67% will work out in most cases and it is rare that you need to change them. and yes i
always start with -2.67 % .

so i hope that there are no points of singularity in my explanation , and the exceptions
regarding the material , disclaimers ??!! and math are all resolved. further discussions ,
criticisms ;) from CSA are always welcome.
Reply to this post...

Posted by CSA on 6 January, 2011 - 7:09 pm

We were, and aren't, talking about servos used for FD fans or rotary stirrers. The thread
was about:

>What is the correct procedure for calibration of >LVDT of GCV/SRV in Mark-VI

machine.

In the case of servos used for GE-design heavy duty gas turbines (as this thread regards),
fail-safe operation is required. I don't see posts from ProcessValue in any threads other
than GE-design heavy duty gas turbine-related threads (with the exception of
speed/frequency control threads), so it's odd that FD fans and rotary stirrers are
introduced into this thread.

You say you've read and learned a lot from previous GE-design heavy duty gas turbine-
related threads on control.com, which were kept as "real world" as possible. The driving
concern has always been to present information that is relevant to the discussion, and
most closely matches real world circumstances that the originator, or a subsequent poster,
would encounter.

Nothing more; nothing less. (Okay; an occasional editorial comment, meant to reinforce
the information.)

Diagrams of servos used on GE-design heavy duty gas turbines can usually be found in
the Service/Instruction Manuals provided with the units; not always, but quite often (at
least, they used to be included in years past in the Control System section). I agree, that
it's difficult to explain servos without diagrams, but not impossible. And, some people
have difficulty understanding any drawings, even with notes and circles and arrows and
paragraphs; even engineers! (Sad, but true.)

Your treatment of the null bias current adjustment issue in your write-up was lacking and
superficial, and presumes that changes to the null bias current value are always necessary.
And the explanation wasn't that much better.

There are thousands of GE-design heavy duty gas turbines with TMR Speedtronic
turbine control panels running around the world at this very instant (or any instant, for
that matter) using null bias current values of -0.267 mA per coil, and they run just fine
with no perceptible problems whatsoever.

At the same instant in time, there are likely tens, if not more, GE-design heavy duty gas
turbines running around the world with wildly incorrect null bias current values, and
they, too, run just fine with no perceptible problems whatsoever (at least that people want
to pay attention to; remember, Diagnostic Alarms are just nuisances, and as long as the
unit doesn't trip, most people ignore them, and even if the unit trips, they ignore them
still).

I can probably count on one hand the number of sites that I've visited in nearly three
decades that actually use a dial indicator (or machinist's protractor for the IGVs) when
calibrating LVDT feedback, or that even use the scales provided at the valves/IGVs for
checking the accuracy of the calibration. They just "click" and "click" and "click" and
ass-u-me that the calibration is correct, without anyone ever observing the device, or
without ever measuring the physical position.

And, again, there are literally thousands of GE-design heavy duty gas turbines running
without any perceptible problems around the world, but with inaccurate LVDT feedback
calibrations (for a variety of reasons, not just improper null bias current values). In some
cases, very inaccurate LVDT feedback calibrations, by the way.

And, until some time in the last 10 years there was virtually NO null bias current
adjustment ever made or even attempted during most LVDT feedback calibrations. It's
really only since the advent of DLN combustion systems and the need for very accurate
position feedback calibration in order to use fuel splits to control emissions very precisely
did this issue ever arise. And, it has arisen with virtually no proper documentation or
instructions from GE or its packagers whatsoever.

Bad documentation is worse than no documentation. It causes people not to trust, and
even not to read, documentation going forward. It causes people to put stock in myths,
legends, and wives' tales, and worse, to perpetuate them over time. That's something
which should be ended.

To quote a GE T.A. I worked with many years ago, "This stuff ain't rocket science!" No
matter how people try to make it out to be rocket science. Providing concise and correct
information with real world application and examples relevant to the questions being
asked is the goal.

The only thing I'm going to argue is whether or not correct and relevant information is
being provided. This is trying to keep the information presented on track, relevant, and
correct. It seems that, as with the incorrect usage of the word "doubt" to express a
question or questions, some want to use the word "argue" to mean discussion. When I see
incorrect and irrelevant information being provided, I'm going to call attention to it.

Just as others have chosen to do.

Reply to this post...

Posted by Process Value on 7 January, 2011 - 8:43 am

I still do not understand what is irrelevant or wrong about the information i have given. I
did not write about Boiler internals in a servo related thread.

The simple thing is that the picture presented there provided a clear idea about a servo
working. i have MOOG drawings , data sheets etc , but they have cross sectional
diagrams , and it did not have the actuator part in it as in the one i have presented. I do
not know how a 10 point explanation about the working can be called superficial. If you
have a better explanation please post it in here i would be glad to read it. i have gone
through many control.com posts but i have not seen anyone post a picture or an
accompanying explanation.

It is not that i reply to gas turbine related posts alone, i have also replied to steam turbine
and boiler related posts also.It just so happens that not many people here ask about
boilers. My career started with the commissioning of a co-generation steam turbine
power plant. and i have been maintenance coordinator for boiler and HRSG shutdowns.

" Your treatment of the null bias current adjustment issue in your write-up was lacking
and superficial, and presumes that changes to the null bias current value are always
necessary. And the explanation wasn't that much better."

i have never said in my post that null bias changes are always necessary , i have said
quite in the contrary , the value of -2.67 % almost never needs to be changed ; please go
through my earlier posts. Explanations are liked by some , disliked by some , if you did
not like it , tough luck ... but the explanations are the best i can do and for the given
diagram they are correct , and i am pretty sure a lot of people out there would have
gained "correct" and knowledgeable information from it.you probably do not need them ,
as you have seen them for a long time. but let me assure you control.com is visited by a
lot of new and young engineers , i was one of them a couple of years back. Information
and knowledge that you take for granted is not the same for all people , i have been there
first hand. And providing a additional bit of information is not going to hurt them or
anybody. This is my way of giving back to the community from which i have learned.

" There are thousands of GE-design heavy duty gas turbines with TMR Speedtronic
turbine control panels running around the world at this very instant (or any instant, for
that matter) using null bias current values of -0.267 mA per coil, and they run just fine
with no perceptible problems whatsoever."

The question was about LVDT calibration , yes it is true that thousands of machine are
running with the standard value but what was i supposed to say. Just fix up -2.675 it will
work fine. i just uploaded the document which had the procedure. then you asked to
explain more in detail about null bias current , which is why i posted the second thread
with the explanation about the servo and all.

i agree that most of the units do not use the dial gauge , I do , the people who taught me
to do it did the same ; so you can add one more to your count on that.

" To quote a GE T.A. I worked with many years ago, "This stuff ain't rocket science!" No
matter how people try to make it out to be rocket science. Providing concise and correct
information with real world application and examples relevant to the questions being
asked is the goal. "

Actually Moog is more famous for using its servo valves in flight controls , missile
controls and yes Space craft controls. Servos form a integral part of flight control and
missile control systems , so they do form a small part of rocket science.

And lastly , you would probably know this but i am not getting anything out of posting
servo workings in control.com , The explanation that you deem superficial took me a
whole 2 hours ; to hunt a good picture , modify and present. The only thing that i am
getting out of posting the irrelevant servo information is the satisfaction that i am giving
back to the community which had helped me out. you have every right to raise an
attention when you see a irrelevant material , but try to appreciate the fact that i am taking
the time to help out young engineers and readers with information which is to the best of
my knowledge correct.

This will be my last posting in this thread.