
- •Chapter 1 General Provisions
- •Chapter 3 Inspection
- •Chapter 4 In-Progress Inspection
- •Section 1 General
- •Section 2 Overhead Transmission Line
- •Section 3 Underground Transmission Line
- •Section 4 Substation Equipment
- •Chapter 5 Completion Inspection
- •Section 1 General
- •Section 3 Underground Transmission Lines
- •Chapter 6 Periodic Inspection
- •Section 1 General
- •Section 2 Overhead Transmission Line
- •Section 3 Underground Transmission Line
- •Section 4 Substation Equipment
- •Chapter 1 General Provision
- •Chapter 3 In Progress Inspection
- •Section 1 Generator/Generator-Motor
- •Section 2 Turbine/Pump-Turbine
- •Section 3 Auxiliary Equipment of Turbine/Generator
- •Section 4 Power Plant Equipment (PPE)
- •Chapter 4 Completion Inspection
- •Section 2 Periodic Inspection for Flood Control
- •Section 3 Periodic Inspection for Dam Safety
- •Section 4 Periodic Inspection for Overall Power Plants Facilities
- •Chapter 1 General Provisions
- •Chapter 2 Organization and Documentation
- •Chapter 3 Completion Inspection
- •Section 1 General Provision
- •Section 2 Mechanical Equipment
- •Section 3 Electrical Equipment
- •Chapter 4 Periodic Inspection
- •Section 1 General Provision
- •Section 2 Mechanical Equipment
- •Section 3 Electric Equipment
Chapter 4 Periodic Inspection
Section 1 General Provision
Article 158. General provisions
1.It must be confirmed that status of damage and operation etc. thermalof power facilities meets with the technical regulation taking account of this Guideline.
2.Power plants may refer to international standards (voluntary standards) regarding the pressure
vessels, lifting, fire fighting and other devices in addition to Vietnamese mandatory gulationsre and voluntary standards.
Article 159. Frequency of periodic inspections
1.The status of power plant varies depending on the type of system, type of fuel, whether new or old, whether design is good or bad, whether production is good or badThe. frequency of periodic
inspections must be decided based on the technical |
regulations taking account of operational |
|||
status of each power plant. Therefore, frequency |
of |
periodic inspectionis |
not |
majorproblem, |
since the condition of each power plant is different. |
|
|
|
|
For example, frequency of periodic inspection |
of |
boiler at power plant |
can |
beregulated 2 |
years; on the other handit of boiler at B power plant can be regulated 3 years becauseofit boiler is regulated within six (6) years in the technical regulation.
2.However, if power purchase agreement is concluded and time of periodic inspection is regulated in it, it must be regulated frequency of periodic inspection in line with it.
3.“Risk based maintenance”: When applying the new maintenance technology and conventional one to existing machines, it is necessary to formulate a maintenance planso as to be compatible, such as maintenance cost andthe rate of utilization. It can be mentioned the approach based on RBM (Risk Based Maintenance) as a method to establish the maintenance plan. The concept is shown in Figure 159-1. Maintenance costs will increase depending on the number of menu to
perform maintenance; on the other hand, the probability that equipment will be broken will decrease. Accordingly, the amount of damage tha is caused by broken equipment, therisk of accidents, will be reduced. Here, the necessary cost during operation of the unit, cost of economic risks is deemed as the sum of maintenance costs and accident risk, which type of bathtub curveas shown in Figure 159-1. It is deemed that the maintenance plan at the minimized point of economic
risk curve is the best anpl in this technique. System which supports the optimization of the maintenance plan based on this concept has been developed.
245

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic risks = maintenance |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
costs + accident risk |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
maintenance plan |
|
|
Maintenance |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
costs |
|
|||
Economic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
riscs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
(Yen) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accident risk |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Low |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Few |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of maintenance menu to be done |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 159-1 Concept of optimizing for maintenance planning based on RBM
4. “Periodic inspection of boiler”: It takes 50 ~ 200days to perform periodic inspectionthat is required the replacement of boiler pressure part , though it is depending on the output of unit and replacement range. For example, replacement of reheaterand hot super-heater is performed in many units which have passed 100,000hours total operation time.The replacement of cold superheater, economizer, water wall tubeand the like is also expected in thecase more than 200,000 hours operation time is extended further as shown in Figure 159-2. It will be the important issue to shortening the construction period in case if it is required long periods of time.
Operation |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
|
|
||
hours |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Longest operation unit |
for utility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replacement of re-heater |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Replacement of re-heater |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of the second |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replacement of hot super-heater |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Replacement of super-heater |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Replacement of hot super-heater |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of the second |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replacementofofwaterwall, coldsuperer--heater,economizer,hederheaderandandmajormajorauxaux. equipment. equipment
Figure 159-2 Location and timing of replacement of pressure part of boiler
246
5.“Management of gas turbine hot part”:
(1)Type of inspection
Two kinds of inspection,“Full scale inspection” and “combustor inspection” are set as the inspection of gas turbine equipments and are performed. “Full scale inspection” is the inspection to decompose and open-up entire facility of gas turbine (GT, compressor, combustor), to inspect,
repair, assemble and perform function testing and the like.“Combustor inspection” is the partial inspection to perform the inspectionfor combustor, repair,assemble and perform function testing and the like
(2)Interval of inspection
The inspection interval of GT hot parts is determinedand the inspection is performed in the number of years considering the demand of power. In case of GT ofGE, full scale inspection is carried out once in 3 years and combustor inspection is carried out once a year as shown in Figure 159-3-(b).
It is |
possible to review |
the interval considering the operation experience, |
inspection result |
(status |
of deterioration and |
damage) and the recommended one according to |
the GER-3620 |
which is recommended by GE, thoughfull scale inspection has been carried out once in 2 years at the beginning of operation.
For the purpose of further reduction of inspection costs, full scale inspection once in 3 years and combustor inspection once in 1.5 years have also started operation as shown in Figure 159-3-(c).
In case of GT of MHI, full scale inspection is carried out once in 2 years and combustor inspection is carried out once a year as shown in Figure 159-4. The full scale inspection for the second year is considered whether an extension is possible as well as GT of GE.
The reduction of the number and time of shut-down and high occupancy contribute significantly to reduce fuel costs and CO2 emissions, since combined cycle has a high thermal efficiency.
The continuous and furtherconsideration of full scale inspection and combustor inspectionis required.
247

Full scale inspection |
|
Full scale inspection |
|
Full scale inspection |
|
Full scale inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combustor inspection Combustor inspection Combustor inspection
1 year |
|
|
1 year |
|
|
1 year |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
2 year |
|
|
2 year |
|
|
2 year |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) Inspection interval at initial operation
Full scale inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full scale inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full scale inspection |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year |
|
1 year |
|
|
1 year |
|
|
|
1 year |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
1 year |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 year |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) Inspection interval after the review
Full scale inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
Full scale inspection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full scale inspection |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
1.5 year |
|
1.5 year |
|
1.5 year |
|
|
1.5 year |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
3 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 year |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c)(b)Inspectioncti nintervt all afterthe further review
Figure 159-3 Inspection interval of GE type gas turbine
248

Full scale inspection |
|
Full scale inspection |
|
Full scale inspection |
|
|
Full scale inspection |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
|
Combustor inspection |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
2 year |
|
|
|
|
2 year |
|
|
|
|
2 year |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 159-4 Inspection interval of MHI type gas turbine
6.“Periodic inspection of safety valve”:
(1)Japanese regulation and standard
Table 159-1 Japanese regulation of interval for safety valve inspection
Law, |
|
|
|
regulation, |
Application |
Inspection interval |
|
rule and |
|||
|
|
||
standard |
|
|
|
|
Periodic voluntary inspection |
Period not exceeding 2 |
|
|
|
years (de-composition, |
|
Electric |
|
inspection, operation test) |
|
BusinessAct |
Periodic inspection |
1~2 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine inspection |
Once a day (leakage from |
|
|
|
seat) |
|
Ordinance on |
Performance test |
Once a year |
|
safety of boiler |
|
|
|
and pressure |
|
|
|
vessels |
|
|
|
|
Safety inspection and periodic voluntary inspection |
(1) 4 years (full amount |
|
|
|
type) |
|
High pressure |
|
(2) 2 years (full amount |
|
|
type, lift type |
||
gas safety law |
|
||
|
excluding low lift |
||
|
|
||
|
|
type) |
|
|
|
(3) a year (low lift type) |
|
|
|
|
|
Guideline for |
Maintenance, periodic inspection, valve (safety valve) |
Once a year (operation |
|
|
test) , to perform every 2 |
||
spherical gas |
|
||
|
years and to overhaul in |
||
holder |
|
||
|
case of malfunction |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
249
Law, |
|
|
|
regulation, |
Application |
Inspection interval |
|
rule and |
|||
|
|
||
standard |
|
|
|
|
Maintenance, patrol and inspection |
Visual inspection: once a |
|
Guideline for |
|
year |
|
LNG storage |
|
Operation test: |
|
tank |
|
confirmation of operation |
|
|
|
pressure |
|
|
Maintenance, patrol and inspection |
Visual inspection: once a |
|
Guideline for |
|
month |
|
|
Operation test: |
||
LNG facility |
|
||
|
confirmation of operation |
||
|
|
||
|
|
pressure |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference: P-2 of “Maintenance of safety valve”No.54 of Technical report of Fukui seisakusho |
|
(2) International standard
Table 159-2 International standard of interval for safety valve inspection
Law, |
|
|
|
regulation, |
Application |
Inspection interval |
|
rule and |
|||
|
|
||
standard |
|
|
|
|
Section-7 “Recommended guidelines for the care of |
Once a year |
|
|
power boilers” C4.110 |
(Safety valve) |
|
|
Safety valve for section-1 |
|
|
ASME |
|
|
|
C4.200 |
More than 6 month and not |
||
|
Safety relief valves or relief valves C4.220 Inspection |
longer than 2 years |
|
|
and maintenance foe section-7 |
(safety valve and relief |
|
|
|
valve) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RP510: “Pressure vessel inspection code: maintenance, |
Max. 5 year for normal |
|
|
inspection, rating, repair and alteration” 6.6 pressure |
process (possible to extend |
|
|
relieving device |
until 10 years in case for |
|
API |
|
clean and no corrosive) |
|
|
RP576: “Inspection of pressure relieving devices” |
Within the duration that is |
|
|
Section-5 Frequency and time of inspection 5.1.2 |
capable to maintain its |
|
|
Normal basis |
function as safety valve |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual survey Part-1/ Chapter-2 Classification |
4~5 years |
|
Lloyd’s resister |
regulation |
|
|
Section-3: Special survey 3.5.9 – 3.5.12 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Intermediate survey 3.5.2 – 3.5.3 |
2~3 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual survey Section 2-12 |
4~5 years |
|
Bureau Veritas |
Surveys related to liquefied gas carrier cargo area |
|
|
2-122: Annual survey |
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
2-123 Intermediate survey |
2~3 years |
|
|
|
|
|
Det Nolske |
Annual surveyA300 |
4~5 years |
|
Veritas (DNV) |
Intermediate surveys A400 |
2~3 years |
|
|
|
|
Reference: P-2 of “Maintenance of safety valve”No.54 of Technical report of Fukui seisakusho
250