Moog Valve

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current
SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current
By saha on 24 February, 2009 - 11:06 am
For GE Gas turbine Frame 5 controlled by Mark 5 TMR system,

what can make the Null Bias current of a Servo Valve incorrect?
In other words if the Null Bias is far from -2.667mA, What
should we check to make the null bias current close to -
0.267mA?
By CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am
I'm going to split some hairs here (be very, very detailed) and
make some corrections to what you're describing. This topic
can't really be covered completely in a forum like this; it's
complicated. But, we're going to take a short swing at the high
points.
In the Speedtronic turbine control panel, the error between a

servo-valve output's regulator feedback and its reference is
converted into servo current. When the feedback of a regulator
is equal to the reference the error is zero, so zero error would
mean zero current. But, if zero current is applied to the servo-
valve, the fail-safe spring in the servo-valve will make the
hydraulic actuator move to shut off the flow of fuel or air or
steam.
Null bias current is the value of current that is added to the

servo-valve output current to overcome the tension of the fail-
safe spring in the servo-valve. So, some amount of current
must be added to the output when the regulator error is zero
(when the regulator feedback is equal to the reference) to
provide sufficient current to overcome the fail-safe spring to
keep the device in position to maintain a steady flow of fuel or
air or steam. In the Mark V, null bias current is a *fixed* value
of current, defined in the I/O Configurator, that is *added* to
the output to overcome fail-safe spring tension.
In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-

scale servo current. 100% servo current is equal to 10.0 mA,
so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
The servo current values you see when the unit is running or
when you are manually positioning a device are almost never
the null bias currents. The servo current values you see when
the unit is running are the total servo current being put out by
the control processor, *including* the null bias current value.
You can't really see the null bias current portion of the total
current that's being applied to the servo coils *unless the
feedback is nearly exactly equal to the reference.* Then and
only then is the servo current value being displayed equal to
the the null bias current and only the null bias current.
And this is done by each control processor independent of the

others in a TMR control panel. So, if one control processor
thinks the feedback for some device is different than the
reference and different than another control processor's or
processors', the total amount of current from the control
processor will be different than the current from the other
control processor(s). Each control processor will have the
*same amount* of null bias current added to its output, but
each control processor's output can be different if each control
processor thinks its feedback is different than the others'.
When the regulator feedback is different from the reference,

then the control processor will adjust its total current output
*which includes the fixed null bias current value* to try to
make its feedback value equal to the reference value. And each
control processor is doing this for every servo-valve output.
Again, the null bias current is a fixed value, defined in the I/O
Configurator, which is always added to the total current output
of each control processor.
When something like what you are asking about happens, you
need to find out what the feedback values are for all three
control processors for the servo output and you will likely find
that one or two of them are very different from the other(s). If
all three control processors don't think the feedback is the
same and equal to the reference (the reference should be the
same for all three control processors), then each control
processor will adjust its servo output current to try to make its
feedback equal to the reference.
For example, consider the GCV servo output. The GCV

regulator feedback is the high-selected value of LVDT feedback
from the two LVDTs on the GCV. Let's say that <R> thought
the GCV position was 57.8% and <S> thought the GCV
position was 55.4% and <T> thought the GCV position was
54.8%, and the reference position for the GCV was 55.2%,
then the servo currents would likely be unbalanced. And
probably by a fairly large amount. <R> might be putting out -
3.9% servo current, and <S> might be putting out - 1.9%, and
<T> might be putting out -2.5%. Those values are *not* null
bias currents, but each one includes the fixed value of null bias
current which is defined in the I/O Configurator.
In this example, the problem is *not* the fixed null bias current
value. The problem is that the three processors have fairly
different ideas about the position of the GCV and each one is
trying to move the valve to the reference position, and they all
have to work together (and that means that one or two are
trying to overcome the other) to keep the valve at a steady
state position. The bigger the discrepancy in what each control
processor believes the feedback to be, the bigger the
discrepancy in the servo output currents (which include the
fixed null bias current value).
Now, let's talk specifically about the null bias current value.
Let's say that the value of null bias current defined in the I/O
Configurator and that was downloaded to and being used by all
three control processors was 2.667 % (the Mark V
automatically inverts the value in the I/O Configurator!).
Further, let's say all the control processors were indicating a
GCV position of 49.7%, the measured position was
approximately 49.8%, and the reference was 50.0% and the
three servo currrents were all indicating about -2.9% per
control processor, or thereabouts.
If you changed the null bias current value in the I/O

Configurator to approximately 3.0 (which would correspond to -
3.0%; remember: the Mark V automatically inverts the value
from the I/O Configurator!), downloaded that value to all three
control processors, and re-booted all three control processors,
you'd probably find that the indicated valve position feedback
for all three processors was nearly 50.0%, the measured
position would be about 50.0%, and the servo currents would
be almost exactly -3.0% per control processor. In this case, the
amount of current being displayed for each control processor
would be nearly equal to the null bias current amount, because
each control processor thought the feedback was nearly
identical to the reference *AND* because the amount of null
bias current was exactly equal to what was required to
overcome the fail-safe spring tension.
But it should be clear that unless all three control processors

believe their regulator feedback values to be nearly identical to
each other, the servo currents being put out by each control
processor will not be the same. And it has nothing to do with
the fixed value of null bias current being applied to the servo-
valve output. The value of current that is displayed when the
unit is running is not just the null bias current unless all three
control processors are using nearly the same value of feedback
for the device and the feedback is very nearly identical to the
reference.
The amount of null bias current required to overcome the fail-

safe spring is actually a range: -0.267 mA, +/- 0.133 mA, or, -
0.133 mA to -0.400 mA (-1.33% to -4.00%). So, the actual
amount of null bias current required for a particular servo may
be anywhere between -0.133 mA to -0.400 mA and still be
within spec. The value of *null bias current* doesn't have to be
exactly equal to -2.667%, but 2.67% is a fairly good value and
works for the majority of servo-valves in use on the majority of
GE-design heavy duty gas turbines. About the only time that
null bias servo currents need to be adjusted is for some DLN
valves, and even then, it's questionable whether or not it's
really required.
The regulator feedback is compared to the reference 128 times

per second, and the total servo current output is adjusted as
necessary to try to make the feedback equal to the reference.
*BUT* the value that's shown on any display or in any VIEW
tool capture or output is only updated four times per second. In
other words, the value of servo current written into the control
signal database is only updated 4 times per second, even
though it could be changing at the rate of 128 times per
second. (I think that's different for Mark V LM panels, by the
way.)
Lastly, the LFBV uses Liquid Fuel Flow Divider Feedback as its
primary control feedback and the SRV uses P2 pressure
feedback as its primary control feedback. So, feedback is not
always position. Some LFBVs have LVDTs as another stabilizing
element of the control loop.
By Jeff Ladwig on 9 February, 2010 - 9:28 am

I am in the process of checking the calibration of PM1, 2, 3 and
SRV control valves, and have run in to exactly the difficulty you
describe in trying to measure null current. Since we are
currently offline, I tried disconnecting two of the three servo
outputs and driving the servo to 50% stroke, to eliminate the
competition between the controlers. It seems that this would
allow the one controller to match reference and feedback, and
then go to zero output (except for the null current).
For example, with one output active at a time, these are the
VDC and calculated servo currents for PM1:
R active: 0.290 vdc, 0.280 mA

S active: 0.280 vdc, 0.275 mA
T active: 0.300 vdc, 0.283 mA
This calculates to a null bias of 2.79%, the I/O configurator

value is 2.67%. Should I put the new null bias value in the I/O
configurator? Valve position is within 1% of reference when
operating.
By CSA on 9 February, 2010 - 12:23 pm
Did you record any as-found conditions, or are these the as-
found conditions?
Did you, or based on the as-found conditions do you, feel it

necessary to re-calibrate LVDT position feedback? Valve
position feedback calibration changes can impact emissions,
since fuel splits are converted to valve positions. If you will be
DLN tuning after the outage it might not be so critical. But if
you won't be DLN tuning after the outage it might be crucial
not to change the LVDT feedback calibration.
When two of three controller outputs are disconnected, then
two of the three null bias currents are not being applied to the
servo-valve, and it will not be able to make the actual position
equal to the reference position. All this does (operating the
servo-valve with a single controller output) is to verify that the
polarity of the current being applied to the coil that is still
connected is correct, and does not cause the device the servo
is controlling to reduce the flow of fuel (or air or steam) to the
unit. Remember, the servo-valves used on GE-design heavy
duty gas turbines are bipolar devices and the polarity of the
current applied to each individual coil is very, very
important.
The three null bias currents are summed in the servo-valve to

produce the total null bias current applied to the servo-valve.
The summing is accomplished by the magnetic force developed
as the result of current flowing through the coils (amp-turns).
2.79% vs. 2.67% is a negligible difference, in my personal

opinion, but changing it might make the actual position more
closely match the reference position; a 1% error is approaching
the limit of tolerance (and that's a personal limit, not a GE-
defined limit, since GE never defines one), especially for a unit
with DLN combustors.
By Jeff Ladwig on 10 February, 2010 - 9:25 am
The values given for PM1 are as found. In addition, the actual
position value as shown on the valve calibration screen while at
50% stroke ranged from a low of 51.15% to a high of 52.48%.
I followed the same procedure for PM2, and found that with
only one core active, the valve would only achieve 44.5% to
45.5% of the 50.0% stroke reference. This now makes sense,
realizing that all three cores are needed to supply the required
null current.
PM2 is also about 2% off from reference online.

At 50% stroke, the feedback percentages are:
R - 48.17% (LVDT 1) 48.99% (LVDT 2)
S - 49.13% (LVDT 1) 48.87% (LVDT 2)
T - 48.79% (LVDT 1) 48.92% (LVDT 2)
If I replace a servo, is it recommended to change the null bias

current value in the I/O configurator to the value supplied by
MOOG in the attached specs, or is the procedure that GE gives
in the control spec better? Thanks.
It would sound as if there's something amiss with the null bias

current value(s) for PM1? What is the actual physical position
of the valve with respect to LVDT feedback?
I am not a fan of the null bias calculation procedure in the

control Specification. I've seen it cause more trouble and lost
time than it's worth. If the null bias current doesn't fall within
the range that GE specifies (-0.8 mA, +/-0.4 mA total, for a
TMR) then there's something wrong with the servo-valve. And
many people try to use the null bias current for something it
was not intended for.
If the valve (or the IGVs) doesn't behave the way they think it
should, then they start changing the null bias current(s) after
they spent hours trying to calculate one based on the Control
Specification value.
And worse, most people don't have any idea how to change
individual servo current values for a TMR Mark V and end up
just making things worse in the end.
If Moog is providing null bias currents with their servo-valves, it

would seem to make sense to use them as starting points at a
minimum--as long as they are in the range specified by GE.
By Jeff FLadwig on 12 February, 2010 - 4:12 pm
I have not measured the actual position.
I don't have the tool that attaches to the side of the cylinder. It
rides the actuator spring bushing up & down, and provides a
small platform to rest the end of the dial indicator on.
I measured PM1 servo currents at 50%, following the GE

procedure, and came up with 1.01% calculated null bias, which
is outside the range allowed by the procedure. The calculated
servo currents:
R - 0.007 mA
S - 0.160 mA
T - 0.136 mA
And what happens when you put the 2.67% value (negative) in
the Speedtronic for all three processors and then tell PM1 to go
to 50% stroke?
Again, I see more and More and MORE people never bothering
to measure the stroke or angle. Speedtronic panels are good,
but, I don't know if they're that good. But it does prove a major
point: Gas turbine control IS NOT rocket science, no matter
how hard people make it out to be. I've seen people spend
tens of hours, literally, trying to get the zero stroke reading
for LVDTs to be exactly 0.700 VAC RMS, as if that improved the
accuracy of the operation of the turbine.
I've seen three-inch stroke dial indicators for about GBP50.00

and mag bases for around GBP10.00 recently. I've even used
dial calipers in a pinch with a couple of zip ties to hold one
portion stationary and manually moving the other portion.
Before GE started using Woodward valves the GE-designed
valves used to have scales on them which were very handy. (I
still find it simply amazing that GE uses Woodward valves, and
the likely major reason is cost. They're certainly not as good as
Fisher valves, but they are less expensive, though they do
require more maintenance and repair when in service. Guess
another old adage is proven true: You get what you pay for.)
By A. OZTAS on 25 February, 2009 - 11:33 am
In general: Internal mechanical failure in the servo will lead to

deviation of null bias current. Possible causes are, degraded
lube oil (clogging of servo ports), wrong calibration of the null
bias (maybe you have refurbished servo valves from none OEM
supplier). Although, there is a way to calibrate the null bias, my
advice is to replace it with new one from OEM.
Good Luck...Tempus Fugit...

A. Oztas brings up a point I neglected to address. Usually,
when I get this question it's related to one single coil that has a
servo current that is out of balance with the others. One cannot
*really* fix the problem with a single control processor's servo
current being greatly different from the other two by changing
the null bias current value.
There is only *ONE* fail-safe spring, so changing the null bias

value and downloading it to all three control processors will
only mask the problem with the one control processor. Yes, it
might lessen the differential between the three control
processor's servo currents, but it's not addressing the problem
of why the one control processor's servo current is out of
balance. That is usually related to the feedback for that control
processor being out of balance with the other two control
processors.
If all three control processors have basically the same feedback

and it's not very equal to to the reference, then all three
control processors will likely be trying to overcome some
problem with the servo-valve: clogging or varnishing of internal
components leading to sticky or sluggish operation, worn
internal passages or o-rings.
Also, a single open-circuit in one of the three coils of a servo-

valve will cause the output currents from the other two control
processors to increase to try to supply the "missing" torque
which would have been produced by the lack of current in the
one coil. (Some documentation refers to electro-hydraulic
servo-valves as "torque motors.") Usually, in this case, the
difference between the reference and the feedback will also
usually be a little greater than normal.
A. Oztas brings up another issue which has been reported by

many sites which have tried to use rebuilt or refurbished servo-
valves. That is, the the fail-safe spring tension usually is not
adjusted per GE-design specifications after refurbishment.
Adjusting the spring tension is not an easy task even in a
factory or lab. One needs special equipment to monitor oil flow-
rates and volumes in addition to the currents applied to the
three coils. Every time I've seen people try to adjust null bias
spring tension on a servo-valve which is in service, it has
resulted in having to replace the servo-valve (that has been
said in previous posts here on control.com, also).
And usually when they're trying to adjust the spring tension,

it's an attempt to bring the servo current of one control
processor into line with the others. And that simply can't be
done with the adjustment on a single fail-safe spring.
As I've said before, I'm saving my pennies to buy Moog. These

things are so misunderstood and people replace them so
quickly without understanding how they work or what they're
capable of that Moog must be making a fortune because I
know of sites that have replaced a single servo-valve several
times before fixing the real cause of the problem. In the
process, the once perfectly good servos get dirty and are not
handled very well, and are basically useless after that.
Cha-CHING!
By sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm
Wonder why my earlier reply is not shown here.

NVM.. let me rephrase it again now.
Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)
In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in
percentage and not in amperes. Which mean that -2.667mA is
actually shown as -0.267%.
Don't worry too much as your servo is still fine;)
>Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)

In AutoCalib page, the value for null bias current is shown in
percentage and not in amperes. Which mean that -2.667mA is
actually shown as -0.267%.
From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

scale servo current. 100% servo current is equal to 10.0 mA,
so 0.1 mA equals 1.0%.
-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.
I just looked through several ACALIB.DAT files, from early Mark

Vs (with <I>s) and from very late Mark Vs (with GE Mark V
HMIs). None of them had lines to display null bias current.
ACALIB.DAT is an ASCII text file that ACALIB.EXE uses to

configure the displays seen in AutoCalibrate is running. Would
you please open that file on you operator interface and copy
one of the lines which carries the words "null bias" and paste it
into a response?
My suspicion is that someone found the TCQA RAM address for

the null bias current value that gets downloaded from the I/O
Configurator, or someone has re-labeled the servo current line
to read "null bias".
By Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

scale
servo current. 100% servo current is equal to 10.0 mA, so 0.1
mA equals 1.0%.
According to this explination we tried to compare the current

servo values on the Mark V screen with the ones measured
directly on the screw of the board. For instance..
For the SRV (as seen on interface)

<R>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,43
Servo Current -2,50
<S>
Required Position 15,53
Actual Position 99,39
Servo Current -2,21
<T>
Required Position 15,53 %
Actual Position 99,37 %
Servo Current -2,87 %
Then checking in the file TC2kReport and we found the screw

number and board to measure the output tension (?) to the
servo. That was <R> QTBA screw number 27 and 29. We got -
0,4v in <R> ( bearing in mind that the resistance is 1Kohm
would be 0,4mA), is that what should be? That is far different
from the value we get on the screen (-0,25 mA), means that
that on the screen is not taking account of the null bias?
or we are measuring in a wrong place?

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

By CSA on 15 March, 2009 - 1:36 am
The first thing I see wrong with this post is that if the required
position is 15.53% and the actual position is 99%, then I would
say that something is really, really, really, REALLY wrong with
the servo-valve output. Because, if there is that much
difference between the setpoint and the actual, then the
control ain't working. Was the unit running when you were
observing these values and taking these voltages?
QTBA-27 & -29 are for servo-valve output #1. There are eight
servo-valve outputs from a Mark V. So, I think the second thing
that's wrong with this post is that we don't know if you were
looking at the required position for SVO1 and the feedback for
SVO1. In TC2KREPT.TXT, the column labeled "Signal Name" is
the value you need to look up in the CSP and work
"backwards" from that to find the reference signal name.
SVO1 is usually assigned to the Stop/Ratio Valve of a gas fuel

system. The reference for the SRV is usually signal name FPRG
and the feedback for the SRV is usually FPG2. You won't find
this in LONGNAME.DAT. You will find it in the CSP.
And, the signal name for the SRV servo current is usually
FAGR.
If you want to see what value of null bias current is being

applied to a particular servo-valve output, you need to look in
the I/O Configurator for that particular servo-valve output. And,
remember that the value in the I/O Configurator is *inverted*
(negative) in the Mark V. (If you see 2.667, the actual value
will be -2.667%, or -0.2667 mA.)
Whatever value of current you see or measure is the total
current that's being applied to the servo coil and includes the
value of null bias current that's being applied to the output. If
you've been reading this post, unless the reference and the
actual values for the output are nearly identical the value of
current you see on the display will not be the value of null bias
current. From the data you provided, the reference and the
actual are *far* from equal.
Tension is another name for voltage, and since this is a DC

output, it can have positive and negative values of voltage
(tension) and current. The typical resistance of a servo coil
used for a GE-design heavy duty gas turbine is approximately
1000 ohms, so -4.0 V DC would equate to a servo current of
approximately -0.4 mA. But, any measurement you make
would only be an assumption unless you know the exact value
the coil resistance.
By walter/roberto on 17 March, 2009 - 3:43 am
Hello! Here we go again.
First thing, at the moment we took all that data the turbine was
runing at base load (MS 6001B MKV TMR). Since CSA warned
us about the wide difference between SRV required and actual
position we went into the old files ( I'd dare to say ever since
commissioning) and found out that that error was as wide as is
currently.
Could be that problem related to the inadequate fuel pression

supply? According to CSP FPRGOUT must be 248,1 psi at
99.85% TNH , and our actual P2 is approx 223 psi at the same
TNH. So, as FPRGOUT is not reached ( because of the lack of
fuel) the valve goes practicaly to 99 % of its position in order
to provide 248,1 psi. Is that possible?
Other doubt is why we get the signals FPRG and FPG2 in psi
and not in % as is should be to set the position?
Stop Ratio Valve.
<R>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,79 %
Servo Current: -1,87 %
<S>
Required Position: 15,50 %
Actual Position: 99,57 %
Servo Current: -2,28 %
<T>
Required Position: 15,50%
Actual Position: 99,55%
Servo Current: -1,97%
As we understand in these posts, the servo current we see in

the screen is the TOTAL output current to the servo, ( servo
null bias + output current to adjust the error). So, here the
output SVO1 servo current is - 1,87 % for <R> , then our
maths don't work out, since the servo null bias current is
already -2,667%. And measuring on the QTBA SVO1 output
currrent we get -0,4 mA ( 4%), which would be more logical (
null bias (-0,2667mA) + output current to the servo). Any clue
where are we going wrong? Could be something wrong with
the configuration of SRV Autocalibrate display?
Thanks very much again and sorry for our insistence.

Greetings from Argentina.
By CSA on 17 March, 2009 - 3:29 pm
Hello to Argentina, one of the futbol powerhouses of the world!
"Here we go again." Do you mind explaining that comment,

please?
You seem to have pieces of the puzzle and the answers, but
aren't able to put them all together. If the gas fuel supply
pressure is less than the P2 pressure reference, then the SRV is
going to go wide open to try to get the P2 to be equal to the
reference. Since there's approximately a 0.7 barg pressure drop
across the SRV (typically) that would mean that, per the
information you provided, the supply pressure would need to
be approximately 258 psig to keep the SRV from opening fully.
You did not provide the gas fuel supply pressure reading
upstream of the SRV. What is the supply pressure? I have seen
clogged y-strainers cause high pressure drops, and most units
have a y-strainer just upstream of the SRV. Has it been
checked for cleanliness recently? There's not usually a d-p
gauge across the y-strainer, and if you can read the pressure
directly upstream of the y-strainer, what is it versus the gas
fuel supply pressure upstream of the SRV?
Some units have some kind of fuel filters upstream of the y-

strainer, as well. Some times they are coalescing filters or just
"sock" filters. If they are present, have they been checked? I
was at one site where they said the d-p gauge had never
registered any d-p. When the filter canister was opened, the
filter element had been so dirty at some point that it had
ruptured and was effectively non-existent. Someone also
commented that they had had exhaust temperature spread
problems a couple of years earlier and that the gas nozzle tips
were found to be plugged with some kind of stringy material,
the source of which was never identified. Turns out the gas
fuel filter was one of those sock-type filters made of wound
stringy material.
I want to warn you: That is a bad condition to be operating the

unit in if you ever experience gas fuel supply pressure spikes or
sudden load decreases. When the Speedtronic panel is putting
out excessive current to try to open the SRV it can go into
what's deemed "wind-up". Wind-up can take a split-second to
recover from if there is a sudden supply pressure increase or a
sudden load decrease ("load rejection") and the unit can trip on
exhaust overtemperature if it's being operated at or near Base
Load when the disturbance occurs because the current has to
be reduced at a rate and it might not reduce the current
sufficiently to prevent a "burst" of fuel from being admitted to
the combustors.
If your gas fuel supply pressure can never be greater than

approximately 260 psig, you may be able to ask GE or the OES
to recalculate the P2 pressure reference curve to allow the SRV
to operate in a controlling region and fashion. But, be prepared
to supply them with a recent gas analysis and some details of
the configuration of the gas fuel supply system. They may also
ask for P/Ns (part numbers) of the gas fuel nozzle tips installed
in the machine, and if they're not OES equipment, be prepared
to supply the flow characteristics from the vendor or the sizes
of the orifices in the nozzle tips. This information will be
necessary to be able to determine if a lower P2 pressure might
be possible, and if so, to calculate a lower P2 pressure
reference curve. Also, be prepared to supply all the start-up,
warm-up, and acceleration FSR Control Constants.
Can you find the section of ACALIB.DAT for the SRV (SVO1 or
SVO01) and post it to this thread? You have never told us
where you were reading the servo currents from, and if it's
from the AutoCalibrate display then you might be right: There
might be a problem with the configuration of ACALIB.DAT.
Did you put the signals FPRG, FPRGOUT, and FAGR on a
Demand Display or on the Logic Forcing Display and observe
them versus the readings you are seeing on the AutoCalibrate
Display?
I would submit that you aren't doing anything wrong with the
measurements you're taking, but it's something with the
display values or the display that you're reading the values
from. Please put the above signals on a Demand Display or the
Logic Forcing Display and tell us what the differences are
between them and the values you are seeing on the
AutoCalibrate display, if that's where you're observing the
values from (which, again, you haven't told us).
0.4 mA (or 4%) would be more likely what one would expect to
see if the Mark V were driving the SRV to be more open than
the valve could physically travel such as what you are
describing.
If you will look at Section 7, I believe, of GEH-6195, of the

Mark V Application Manual, you will see that the SRV regulator
uses FPRGOUT as the primary reference and FPG2 for the
feedback of the regulator summing junction. If the two are
equal, then the output of the summing junction is zero, which
means the SRV position is equal to what it needs to be to make
the P2 pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference. After the
primary regulator summing junction, the SRV LVDT feedback is
compared to the output of the summing junction, and if the
summing junction output is zero, then no change to valve
position is to be made.
If there is an error between FPRGOUT and FPG2, then that

difference will be treated as a requiring a change to the valve
position, and that error will be compared to the current LVDT
position feedback and the servo current will be changed to
make the necessary position change to make the P2 pressure
feedback equal to the reference.
The GCV and IGV regulators are "straight" position regulators
and the feedback is from the LVDTs mounted on the device
actuators. The LFBV (Liq. Fuel Bypass Valve) reference is a liq
fuel flow rate and the feedback is from the magnetic speed
pick-ups on the Liq. Fuel Flow Divider.
But I'd really like to understand the, "Here we go again!"

comment.
By walter/roberto on 19 March, 2009 - 5:07 am
Hello CSA!, again from the land of football (no soccer) no

offence..;) , you are invited to see a football match whenever
you want!
First of all let us explain to you that we did not mean to be

impolite writing "here we go again", we just wanted to express
that we are here trying with the same topic again, just that.
Talking about gas fuel supply pressure upstream the SRV we

have 260 psi what would be pressure enough. After reading
your explanation it seems that is not a gas fuel supply problem.
It is more likely to be a problem on the Autocalibrate display.
The servo currents we provided you were taken from the
Autocalibrate Display. Here goes the ACALIB.DAT from the
SRV.
PROC Q
SOCKET 1
SVO 1
IOP 21
CARD "TCQA"
TITLE "GAS STOP RATIO VALVE"
PERMISSIVE L3ADJ
POSITION_NEG_SAT 100
POSITION_POS_SAT -0,1
POSITION_SCALE (F2 256,0 0,0 2 '% ')
MAN_SCALE (F2 128,0 0,0 2 '%')
LINE01 BTEXT 'DESCRIPTION <R> <S> <T> UNITS'

line 02 data 'SVO number' <D0A 09> (C1)
line 03 data 'Regulator type' <D0A 19> (H1)
LINE 05 DATA "LVDT #1 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 60> (F2 6,667 0

3 "V rms")
LINE 06 DATA "LVDT #1 100% cal. Ref." <D0A 62> (F2 6,667
0 3 "V rms")
LINE 07 DATA "LVDT #2 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 64> (F2 6,667 0
3 "V rms")
LINE 08 DATA "LVDT #2 100% cal. Ref." <D0A 66> (F2 6,667
0 3 "V rms")
;LINE 09 DATA "LVDT #3 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 68> (F2 6,667 0
3 "V rms")
;LINE 10 DATA "LVDT #3 100% cal. Ref." <D0A 70> (F2 6,667
0 3 "V rms")
;LINE 11 DATA "LVDT #4 0% cal. Ref." <D0A 72> (F2 6,667 0
3 "V rms")
;LINE 12 DATA "LVDT #4 100% cal. Ref." <D0A 74> (F2 6,667
0 3 "V rms")
LINE 14 DATA "LVDT #1 Voltage" <D0A 20> (F2 6,667 0 3 "V

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

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

LINE 32 STATUS 1 S "S STATUS:" <D0A 16>
LINE 33 STATUS 1 T "T STATUS:" <D0A 16>
LINE 34 DATA "Permissive: L3ADJ" L3ADJ
LINE 35 DATA "Permissive: SPEED <28% (TNH)" TNH
Then we compared the signals in the Logic Forcing Dispay to

the same ones in the Autocalibrate Display, and this is what we
get:
In Logic Forcing Display: FPRGOUT :248,5 psi; FPG2: 233,5 psi;

FAGR: -2,95 %
In Autocalibrate Display: FPRGOUT (required pos): 15,52 %;
FPG2( actual pos): 99,65 %; FAGR:-1,99 % all values in <R>
I found a signal which it seems to be the reference for us,
FSGR, which in Logic Forcing Display is 99,59 % and in the
Autocalibrate is, as you saw above 99,65%, more closed to the
value. Is it maybe a wrong signal reference we are seeing in
the Autocalibrate Display as FSGR? And last but not least In
our second turbine (TG 2) happens exactly the same with the
SRV autocalibrate display.
Again thanks very much in advance.

By Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 2:23 pm
Hombre,
This is not football, it look like that we are ping ponging Now
get back reality.
Quick look to your ACALIB data shows that is standard
configuration for a FR5. I wonder whether your system is HMI
or I ? Or is it may be in the past upgraded to HMI? How about
the PROM revisions? If your SRV is operating at 99%, definitely
the upstream FG pressure is below the specifications as given
by the OEM. However this should not give the problems that
you describe. There are two options for your problems:
1) DONT use ACALIB for calibration and monitoring purposes.
Use the logic forcing display and/or pre-vote data display.
2) Verify the ACALIB data for your GT and the revisions of the
PROMs. Cross check also the IO_CFG SVOx configuration
(stroke 100 % or 128 %)
Remember that you dont necessarily AUTOCLIB display to

perform calibration. Just use the basic calibration procedure.
Docendo Discumus
If you've asked this question before on control.com, can you

please provide the URL link to the post?
My bad for making some assumptions (I really try not to do

that, but I failed on this one!). I assumed that you have
verified pressure transducer readings against reasonably
accurate gauges and didn't ask you to confirm that. I assumed
the P2 pressure transducer(s) (by the way, how many
transducers does the unit have: 1 or 3?) are reasonably well
calibrated and that the feedback (input) is properly scaled in
the Mark V. I've assumed the SRV LVDTs have been calibrated
properly and that the valve is physically at or near full open
(something we haven't asked, but which we are asking you to
visually confirm).
I'm going to try to explain this again: When the servo-valve

regulator feedback is equal to the servo-valve regulator
reference, the servo-valve regulator error is zero. When the
error is zero, the servo-valve output current would be equal to
zero mA. However, the servo-valve has a spring which, in the
absence of current (zero mA), will drive the device to shut off
the flow of fuel or air or steam. To overcome the spring and to
keep the device in a steady-state position such that the
feedback is equal to the reference, a small amount of current is
continually added to the servo-valve output (at all times!). The
only time that the current being applied to the servo-valve's
coils is equal to the null bias current value is when the
feedback is exactly equal to the reference and no additional
current is required to keep the device in a steady-state position
to make the feedback equal to the reference.
Remember: The Moog servo-valves used for GE-design heavy

duty gas turbines are polarity-sensitive devices, meaning that
the polarity of the applied DC voltage affects the flow of
hydraulic oil through the servo-valve. With zero current, there
is no force (torque) developed by the torque 'motor' in the
servo-valve, and the null bias spring will act just like the
application of a positive current, which would be to shut off the
flow of fuel or air or steam. When the regulator error is zero,
the output is zero mA, so the null bias current value defined in
the I/O Configurator is continually added to the output. That's
what a bias value is: something that's continually added to
something (or subtracted, depending on the application). So,
when the error between the reference and the feedback is
zero, the only current being supplied is the null bias current.
And, in my experience with the Mark V, the displayed value of
servo current is always the total amount of current being
supplied, which includes the null bias current. Under normal
conditions, only when the error is zero will the amount of
current being supplied to the servo be equal to the null bias
value.
Which brings up another question I haven't thought to ask: To

your knowledge, has anyone tried to adjust the null bias spring
tension of the SRV servo-valve?
At this time, based on the information you have provided and

what you have chosen to provide, I cannot explain why the
SRV servo current is less than what the expected null bias
current should be. I suspect that in an attempt to try to get the
SRV into a controlling position that someone has changed the
null bias current value in the I/O Configurator, but, we don't
yet (!) know what that value is. I might also suspect that
someone has done something with the TCQC card
configuration jumpers or even something "unique" in the CSP
to try to rectify this SRV situation. Not being able to look at
your CSP and card jumpers, we can'tell that.
I am hoping that by answering the GCV questions that we can

establish that one servo output is operating as expected, but
I'm asking a question that I don't know the answer to, and I
just might get a great big surprise, but I'm willing to take that
chance at this point.
You have *NOT* provided all the information asked of you.

Please don't arbitrarily choose what information you are going
to provide or what information you deem to be relevant or
necessary. We're not asking questions to be making you run
around needlessly; we're asking because we aren't on site and
can't get the information for ourselves. And because you wrote
here asking for help with an issue, we presume that you are
interested in learning something and providing the information
requested to help you resolve your issue. If you don't want to
fully participate in the exercise of solving your issue, then
there's no point in continuing this thread.
Specifically:
1) What is the value of null bias current listed in the I/O

configurator for SVO1? (Open the I/O Configurator, and click
on the TCQA card, and scroll to the screen for SVO1, and tell
us what is listed in the null bias current field. Exit the card, exit
the I/O Configurator, without saving anything, and you won't
disturb any of the I/O Cfgr. settings.)
2) Precisely, where are you measuring this 260 psi supply

pressure? At the SRV inlet/supply pressure gauge in the Gas
Fuel Compartment, which would be downstream of the y-
strainer, or some place in the gas fuel supply piping upstream
of the two units' y-strainers? From a pressure transducer on
the gas fuel supply? From a pressure transducer on a metering
tube and orifice in the gas fuel supply piping upstream of the
unit's y-strainers?
3) Has anyone visually checked the y-strainer recently?
4) Are there any filters upstream of the y-strainers, and if so,

what is the d-p across the filters and have they been visually
checked recently?
Now, eight new questions:
1) Please confirm the actual, physical position of the SRV is at

or near full open.
2) What is the GCV position indication (from the LVDT

feedback, usually signal name FSG (Fuel Stroke-Gas))?
3) What is the value of FSR?
4) What is the value of servo current being applied to the GCV

(usually signal name FAG)?
5) What Diagnostic Alarms are active when the unit is running?

(Include any locked-out Diag. Alarms in the list)
6) Please tell us exactly where you're measuring this 260 psi,

and is it psig or could it be psia?. Many GE-design heavy duty
gas turbines use a metering tube and orifice flow-meter to
measure gas fuel flow-rate, and the static pressure transducer
is usually calibrated in psia, not psig. So, if you're reading a
static pressure transducer for the supply pressure (and this is
usually located upstream of the gas fuel y-strainer), please
confirm the calibration and scaling of the input (the signal
name is usually FPG1, sometimes, FPG3).
7) What are the pressures on the three gas fuel pressure

gauges in the Gas Fuel Compartment? One should be SRV inlet
("supply" pressure; one should be Gas Fuel Valve Intervalve
Pressure (P2 pressure); and one should GCV discharge
pressure, or gas fuel manifold pressure.
8) Sometimes the pressure drop across the SRV is a little

higher; sometimes a little lower. But 0.8 bar to 1.3 par is a
typical range. Also, can you describe the SRV? Is it in a
combined casting with the GCV or is it a separate valve from
the GCV? If it's a separate valve, is it a rotary valve or a plug
valve?
The fact remains, if the SRV is at 99.93% and the P2 pressure

reference is 248.5 psig and the actual P2 pressure is 232.5 psig
(and I presume you are reading this from the P2 pressure
transducer feedback on the Mark V operator interface display;
can you please tell us what the P2 pressure gauge reading is?)
then there is *not* sufficient flow capacity from your gas fuel
supply to achieve required P2 pressure. It's that simple. There
would generally be no other reason for the SRV to be open so
high and the P2 pressure to be lower than the P2 pressure
reference.
Now, is the P2 pressure transducer calibrated properly? Is the

feedback scaled properly in the Mark V? If the gauges in the
Gas Fuel Compartment are relatively accurate, this would be a
good indication of whether or not the transducer(s) is(are)
calibrated properly and the feedback is scaled properly.
If the P2 pressure gauge in the Gas Fuel Compartment is

reasonably accurate and is indicating roughly the same
pressure as the transducer feedback, then there's just not
enough supply pressure and flow capacity to allow the SRV to
operate in a controlling range (which should be something less
than 99.93% and less than full open). Because, even if the SRV
LVDTs are calibrated properly, the regulator for the SRV is a
pressure control loop and it will put the SRV at whatever
position it needs to be at to make the actual P2 pressure equal
to the P2 pressure reference, provided there is sufficient
pressure and flow capacity upstream of the SRV to allow the
SRV to control the P2 pressure without going full open (and
that just doesn't seem to be the case in this instance, for two
turbines).
The reason we're asking about the GCV information is to try to

establish that at least one valve is operating in a properly
controlled fashion, and to see what the value of servo current
is that is being applied to that valve when operating in a
properly controlled fashion.
FSGR (Fuel Stroke-Gas Ratio) is the typical signal name for the
SRV LVDT feedback; it's not a reference, is the actual feedback.
The only other thing I could think of to cause the SRV to

behave as it's being described is that if the P2 pressure
transducer was not properly calibrated or the feedback (input)
was not properly scaled, but I would expect that reasonably
accurate gauges would have alerted you to this issue much
sooner.
FPG2 is not the SRV position, and it's not listed in the
ACALIB.DAT section you posted. Lines 27, 28, and 29 in the
section you copied displays the valve's reference position,
actual position, and servo current, respectively. I can't recall if
the reference position is "active" when the unit is running, or if
it's only "active" when the valve is being manually positioned
using AutoCalib. (The answers to the GCV question may help
with that!)
FPG2 is the scaled feedback (in psi) from the P2 pressure

transducer(s), which should be calibrated in psig (gauge
pressure). If you have more than one P2 pressure transducer,
the you can look at the signal name FPG2 in the Prevote Data
Display to see the individual, pre-voted values of the three
feedbacks, and then report them to us, please.
Lastly, the amount of null bias current being applied to the SRV
as understood in this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with
the fact that the SRV appears to be at or near full open in an
attempt to control P2 pressure at 248.5 psig. But it can't
because the upstream supply pressure and flow capacity isn't
sufficient to be able to do that. That's what the data you have
provided to date tells us. Perhaps the answers you haven't
provided and the answers to the new questions will lead us in a
different direction, but it's not really likely. And, it has nothing
to do with null bias current.
I agree with Ore Rotundo; the section of ACALIB.DAT that you

have provided seems to be fairly generic.
Please provide all the information requested, and we can try to
get to the bottom of your problem, which, again, should not be
related to the null bias current value.
By Brad Zuercher on 26 February, 2012 - 1:12 pm
Actually...a 4 VDC source over a 1000 ohm servo-valve force-

motor coil will push 4 mA...not .4 mA...
By servo_2001 on 18 March, 2009 - 4:39 pm
I would like to clarify that the answer is not just the OEM as
the solution to the problem. To null the servovalve is the
easiest calibration you can perform to a servovalve. Do your
homework and you will see that there are reputable repair
facilities that have been repairing these valves for some time.
Our company has specialized in electro-hydraulic servovalves
since 1969. We were schooled at Moog on the repair of their
valves. Do not let the OEM make you think they are the only
game in town.
By CSA on 19 March, 2009 - 12:19 am
What's missing from your reply? Contact info for your

company.
What's also missing from your reply? The fact that adjusting
servo null bias springs is best done in a "laboratory"
environment, with controlled flow-rates and measuring
equipment. It's easy under those circumstances.
The problems being discussed here are not generally related to

null bias spring adjustment, but rather the methods of applying
a null bias current and why they are necessary and how to
"measure" them. And how the currents being applied (including
the null bias current) can be out of balance.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone claim that the OEM was the
only game in town. There have been other posts here on
control.com which listed firms which refurbish Moog servo-
valves. Can you add yours to the group?
By Mehul on 21 March, 2009 - 6:50 am
Dear CSA,
Here I have concept of NULL Bias, You are requested to
confirm the same.
There is good talk on the Null Bias Current for the servo. We
can use the drawing of Servo along with schematic of IGV or
GCV-SRV to understand the concept.
For this talk reference, let us take IGV scheme, the IGV is
stable at one position 57 deg. By viewing the scheme of IGV
actuating Piston & Cylinder, both side of Piston must be equal
pressured, as CSRGVOUT is CSRGVBAK(for Mark_IV) to keep
IGV at 57 deg STABLE.
Now look at the drawing of Servo, to maintain the both sides of

piston equally pressurized, the spool should be at the middle of
the bushing(such that it neither allows any port{connected to
one side of piston} to drain nor gives extra pressure to
Port{Other side of Piston}). And thus flapper (Feedback Sleeve)
should be at centre and so the armature should be at the
centre. And to keep the armature at physical centre position,
amount of current applied, is null bias current.
Consider what would happen, if the spool is not coming back to

centre position. Definitely! it will drive the IGV in either
extreme position.
Now consider, the IGV is required to be open to maintain the

Exhaust temperature. The Controller will change the current to
servo such that the armature will forces spool to move. The
movement of the spool will be such that one port will be
connected to pressure source and at the same time, opens the
other port to the drain. This will create the pressure diff. on
both side of piston. Ultimately Piston will move the IGV to
open. At the end, when
CSRGVOUT=CSRGVBAK(command=feedback), once again
armature is required to be at to null position i.e. centre
position, which is done by providing null bias current by
controllers
Similarly the mechanical null bias key has been provided to

adjust the armature at centre positon.
Thanks in advance
I will confirm all but the last statement about the "null bias
key".
If by null bias key you mean a tool to adjust the null bias spring
tension, then, absolutely no! No one should be adjusting the
null bias spring tension of a three-coil electro-hydraulic servo-
valve, with the exception of a facility with the appropriate
means to do so and verify proper results.
Mehul, I really appreciate your questions, and anyone else's

who's reading this thread and has some interpretation of this
concept they wish to confirm. I find this to be one of the most
difficult concepts to try to explain to people, with or without the
ability to use diagrams or pictures, which doesn't seem to make
much difference. I am almost desperately searching for the
right words and the right means to explain this to people.
I think that one of the things that most people misunderstand

about servo-valves as used on GE-design heavy duty gas
turbines is that they are not like the overwhelming majority of
most actuator outputs on most other types of control systems.
Instead of an output that's proportional to desired position
such as a 4-20 mA output being at 12 mA for a reference of
50%, this one is proportional to the error between the
reference and the feedback, plus a null bias current. And if the
error is zero then the output is zero, plus a null bias current. If
the error is greater than zero, then the output is greater than
zero plus a null bias current.
It gets even more complicated when there's more than one coil
in the servo-valve, such as in a TMR control panel, and each
control processor can output a different current and each
servo-valve output includes a null bias current (the same
amount of current) to overcome a single spring.
So, to anyone reading this thread, if you have some idea about
how to make this any easier to understand, PLEASE write and
let me know. If it would help to try to relate it to some other
control system concept or input or output, that would be great.
But, I've been trying for years to put this in simple,
understandable terms, and I've yet to find the right words, with
or without pictures.
By Mehul on 26 March, 2009 - 4:59 am
Thanks once again CSA.
Definetly , one MUST NOT adjust spring tension to set null

bias current without proper FACILITY .
I mentioned it here to confirm the null bias adjustment device

available with the servo.
Otherwise, one should prefer to replace servo & maitaining

clean Pall filter other than service,claening, replacement of
spares for servo.
Regarding Servo Valve Maintenance, one of my earlier

Comment in "IGV TEMP CONTROL TRIP" topic.
"Another thing, cleaning the moog servo or replacing the filter,

spares of moog servo requires the extream extream
exteram(03 Times)care to be taken for the cleanliness of the
tool tackels, oils, Hands of personals and envoirement at which
the servicing is being carried out. So if possible try to replce the
servo, then serviceing the servo."
Many electronic manufacturers used to give away small

screwdrivers to use to adjust the potentiometers on printed
circuit cards. There used to be a joke that they gave away
those "tweakers" (as they were affectionately called) so that
technicians and supervisors would misadjust the pots and have
to call the manufacturer in to readjust the pots.
I often wonder if Moog doesn't include the little hex
key/wrench for the same reason.
It's interesting to note that the originator of this thread hasn't

replied to the questions asked to try to help with their issue
(which likely isn't related to null bias current, but may be
related to a misadjustment of the null bias spring!).
By Ore Rotundo on 19 March, 2009 - 1:25 pm
Dear Servo 2001
Maybe its good to highlight that, we are not fundamentally

promoting the OEM's and one thing is sure that we are also not
getting paid for it to do it! Our intention is to give the
control.com community our opinions and suggestions in order
to help them out with their technical issues. The servo valve
users are plenty and indeed healthy competition is welcome,
such as after market parts. Finally its all about money, in order
to safeguard the reliability of their asset, professional
companies will purchase anyway OEM servos. There are plenty
of other GT users who are purchasing repaired parts such as
the servo valves. I know some of these GT users buying
reconditioned servos who are complaining after having the
servo valve in service less then a year, believe or not!
Docendo Discumus
By minister on 17 July, 2009 - 9:45 am
I would like to add some more interesting facts and kindly ask
for explanation.
We have 4 Frame 5 non-dln turbines running in the island
mode. I have found something odd troubleshooting the moog
of one of the machines, that randomly changes its bias causing
3% position error - temporary solution we use(unit online) is to
recalculate new Null Bias measuring coils voltage and having
coil resistance measured before, then downloading the VSVO.
This way it's fine for some time, usually until next start-up. I
have to mention, that we have already tried three different
Moogs with the same result.
Back to the moog story. The odd thing is that each unit SRV,
GCV and IGV servo currents change at the same time from one
stable value to another one (usually by the step of 3, 4 %).
The same time error doesn't change. I have trended hydraulic
pressure 96HQ but there is no sign of the event. Also no sign
on P125DC and N125DC. I'm running out of ideas what to
trend.
Also polarity has been checked many times so far by confiming

that MKVI is able to drive the valve by each servo coil
separetely.
Although it happens on all four units, the event doesn't occure

at the same time looking from unit to unit (see my trends).
Please check the data collected I uploded below:

http://www.speedyshare.com/476835562.html
Do not be surpirsed looking at these trends. One of our

machines (G4) also have out of spec, positive Null Bias, since
commisioning by GE (MKVI config value -12, changing moogs
didn't help, anyway machine is controlled correctly.)
Any explanation on the moog servo current changes? Why all

units affected?
By CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 2:14 am
You say you have four turbines and you're only having a
problem with one. Or at least that's what it sounds like.
Actually, I can't really tell how many units are having the
problem now that I re-read the message.
But, here goes anyway.
You've changed the servos; you say the problem happens with
all the servos.
You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when

this happens, or before this happens.
Do these units have IS barriers?
If you've been reading this thread, you know that the null bias
current is the current required to overcome the null bias spring
tension. So, if the current required to overcome the spring
tension changes, it would seem that either something is
making the spring tension change or something is causing the
coil resistance to change.
Servo valves are about the most misunderstood device I've

ever run across. They're nothing more that electromagnets
which produce small amounts of torque. They're just coils of
wire through which DC current is applied; the polarity and
magnitude of the current causes the direction and amount of
torque to change. How can they be so complicated? They're
not.
The overwhelming cause of "failure" is oil cleanliness and oil

temperature. There's just not much more to them than that.
Very tiny, orifice-like passages and clearances which are very
susceptible to dirt and varnishing.
Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature?
I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used as
the "pressure regulators" for the hydraulic pump. This causes
excessive flow through the hydraulic pump.
The hydraulic system of a GE-design heavy duty gas turbine is

basically a static system, meaning that under steady-state
operating conditions there is no flow. There is only flow when a
valve or the IGVs are being commanded to move.
I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not properly
in service. This also causes the flow through the hydraulic
pump to be excessive which could be a cause of high oil
temperature.
Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the

TSVOs? And all the configuration settings on the VSVOs? Of the
unit with the problem vs. a unit without the problem? What is
the dither set to on the unit with the problems vs. a unit which
seems to be running well (not the one with the whacko null
bias value).
It just doesn't seem like the servos can be the problem here,
especially if all of them on one unit are behaving similarly.
There's something else that's common to the servos that the
problem.
Another couple of months and I should be in a position to

make my bid for Moog. The way these things get changed on a
whim, they must be raking in the cash! I just want to buy the
GE-design heavy duty gas turbine line, and I'll be paying my
business loan off very early--I'm sure of that.
The 125 VDC battery supply voltage is converted to voltages by

the rack power supplies which are then used by the VSVOs to
drive the servos. It wouldn't seem likely that a problem with
125 VDC battery voltage would manifest itself in the servo
outputs.
There's something different about the hydraulic system of that

unit. Or, possibly even and, there is some configuration and/or
jumper settings that are not correct. But, for a Moog servo to
be changing its null bias spring tension requiring on-line null
bias current changes? That's just pretty not right.
Anyway, that's about all I can think of. To address what I

thought the problem was. Now, I'm not so sure.
One thing's for sure though: When I own that piece of Moog, I'
won't be contributing to threads like this on control.com. I
know better than to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
Thank you CSA for your reply.
>You say you have four turbines and you're only having a
problem with one. Or at least that's what it sounds like. <
Actually we have problem with two servos:

1. On one machine the SRV changes it's Null Bias mostly after
restart (I have greased the stem already and stroke after many
times, result the same, so it's probably not the friction). This
Moog creates error >3%, to avoid trip exceeding 5% value we
just downloaded recalculated null bias. This really drops the
error to zero. Because of production I can't just stop the
machine to do it off-line. (I'm aware about on-line software
download, but hardware, single VSVO I tried many times with
no bad luck).
2. Another machine GCV has positive Null Bias (MKVI
RegNullBias =-11.96), and it's not the polarity.
Investigating these two issues I trended all machines and

found interesting fact that I shared on previous post.
>You haven't told us what Diagnostic Alarms are present when

this happens, or before this happens. <
The only alarm we have is the increased position error that can
lead to turbine trip. Again, it's not the machine with positive
NullBias value.
>Do these units have IS barriers? <
Yes we have the barriers on SRV and GCV (some MTL-7765ac),

none for IGV. I have it planned to run the machine bypassing
them, what do you think? Especially, that two other barriers for
seismics on the same machine had failed.
>Is there possibly a problem with oil temperature? <
I'm going to trend all servo currents with oil temperature

starting this afternoon. Right now (2:42PM) the header
temperatures are 57 to 58 deg C, outside ambient 46 deg C
(air oil cooler).
>I have seen units with the relief valves set improperly, used
as the "pressure regulators" for the hydraulic pump. This
causes excessive flow through the hydraulic pump. <
That's another good hint you gave me. I found our technician
resetting hydraulic pressure on the PSV instead of using pump
PCV. I will check remaining units.
>I've also seen units with the hydraulic accumulator not

properly in service. <
No accumulators here.
>Have you compared all the hardware ("Berg") jumpers on the
TSVOs? And all the configuration settings on the VSVOs? Of the
unit with the problem vs. a unit without the problem? <
All TSVO the same (jumpers), all MKVI hardware configs the
same (to be sure, I have also compared m6b with the MKVI).
Dither Amplitude 2.0, Freq 100hz on all Moogs (including IGV),

on all units.
The SRV/GCV we have is the old design, containing both valves

in one body, don't think we have to disable the dither as
someone posted dither disabling is recommended for new
types of valves.
Regards!
By CSA on 18 July, 2009 - 4:39 pm
One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop. Even if

the LVDT calibration is WAY off, the pressure loop is going to
put the valve at the position required to make the actual P2
pressure equal to the P2 pressure reference. It doesn't make
any difference if the valve thinks it's at 35.4% and it thinks it
should be at 28.4% or 44.4%, or if it's actually at 31.4% stroke
(physical measurement) and it thinks it should be at 37.1% and
the LVDT feedback says it's at 35.9%. As long as the actual
P2 pressure is equal to the P2 pressure reference,
everything is perfectly okay. When it's not perfectly okay is
when the unit is a TMR panel and the three servo currents are
not fairly equal; THAT'S a problem.
I'll bet any amount of money the differential is related to the

calibration method of that combined SRV/GCV assembly.
Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the
servos? For all of the turbines? A simple chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4

Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null
Bias/Gain
SRV
GCV
IGV
I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark

VI panels; if so, please remind me.
As far as dither goes, my personal belief is that none is needed

with most of these legacy-style actuators.
I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems over

the years. They appear to be fine, but they're not. Also, some
seem to be temperature and current sensitive when they start
"failing."
Dear CSA,
Thank you this time for your reply!
> One more time: The SRV regulator is a pressure loop.

---- snip ----
As long as the actual P2 pressure is equal to the P2
pressure reference, everything is perfectly okay. When
it's not perfectly okay is when the unit is a TMR panel and the
three servo currents are not fairly equal; THAT'S a problem. <
Thanks for reminding that. The above was also mentioned
many times on this forum. Although it's pressure control loop
our concern is not to be tripped by position error.
>Would you list the servo gains and null biases for all of the
servos? For all of the turbines? A simple chart:
GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4

Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/Gain Null Bias/
SRV 2.4/1.8 3.9/1.8 3.2/1.8 -11.69/1.
GCV 3.3/1.8 3.1/1.8 3.3/1.8 2.65/1.8
IGV 2.61/6.8 2.67/6.8 2.82/6.8 3.1/6.8
The way we calibrate these valves is to lift the stem and insert
and leave filler gauge to get rid of the gap between the
actuator and valve stem. This way the valve is still closed and
LVDT indicates 2.5% difference from its rest position.
Hope this is the way.
> I don't believe you told us if these are TMR or SIMPLEX Mark
VI panels; if so, please remind me. <
TMR, sorry, should have mention that at the beginning.
>I have seen barriers cause all manner of strange problems

over the years. They appear to be fine, but they're not. Also,
some seem to be temperature and current sensitive when they
start "failing." <
Can I bypass these barriers? I know it's for EEX zone but I do
not recall (I'm not 100% sure) seeing them on 9E turbine in
Europe for example.
After trending the servo currents jumps together with Oil

Temperature no relation could be observed (during night when
temperature decreases, the frequency of jumps seems to be
the same)
Can anyone trend servo currents for at least 12hours to
observe if these jump like it happens here? I do not understand
why three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all
machines but at different times. We have running hrs varying
from 6000 hrs to 12000 hrs and we have never change the
lube oil. I wonder if these jumps happen anywhere else?
Regards!
By CSA on 19 July, 2009 - 8:09 pm
You have a TMR control system. That means that each control
processor has it's own gain and null bias for each coil of the
servo valve.
Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each
servo of each turbine?
One thing all manufacturers do is to "copy" functions to similar

applications, like the LVDT position error check. Since the
position isn't the problem for the SRV (the inability to control
P2 pressure is the problem), do you think it makes sense to use
the same settings for the SRV as for, say, the IGVs or the GCV?
I'm still confused about how the position error can start out at
one value (even if it's zero) and then change when the unit is
running. And I'm confused when you say you download new
null bias value(s). Do you download a new value to one
processor? Or to all three processors, one at a time?
As MIKEVI says, there might be a problem with one of the

processors thinking that the P2 pressure isn't the same as the
other processors, and that would cause that processor to
change its current output and the other processors would have
to change theirs to counteract the other. This happens a LOT,
and if you have three P2 pressure transducers and one of them
drifts or has a leak or a wiring problem, that can cause a
problem like this.
How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have?

One or three or ????
Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to

see what they're doing before and after this problem?
When you put the feeler gauges into the gap prior to
performing the calibration of the SRV and GCV, that's to PUT
them in their true zero position. When you remove the feeler
gauges and the valve stems drop and the indication goes
negative, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen.
The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't held
open by the actuator bottoming out. Some places it's called
"closed end overtavel". The true zero stroke position for these
valves is NOT with the valve stem fully down when the valve is
closed; in that position the valve stem is not touching the
bottom of the valve plug.
The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and
the valve stem is touching the bottom of the plug, and that's
what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in
contact with the bottom of the valve plug when the valve is
closed and ensure that at the end of the calibration procedure
that the valve will return to the same position as when it
started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs
when run).
The use of barriers is entirely a function of the code and

requirements of the country or regulatory agency where the
unit is installed, OR the policy of the company which is
operating the unit. There are thousands of units operating in all
manner of applications around the world which do not and
have never had IS barriers installed.
So, only you can decide if you can operate without the barriers.
We don't know the application or the site conditions so we
can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if the IS barriers
are installed on the LVDTs or the servo-valve outputs.
When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the

temperature of the hydraulic pump discharge. You're trending
the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the hydraulic pump.
I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think I'm
getting a handle on it, you say "... I do not understand why
three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all
machines but at different times...." By "three" servos do you
mean all the coils of a single servo valve? Or do you mean all
the servos on all the machines? You say it's only on the SRV,
but then you say it happens on three servos on all machines at
different time. Is this happening on the SRV of all machines at
different times?
Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would
change during operation, or why the coil resistance would
change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be the
most likely cause for either, but I've never heard of this
problem, or a problem described like this.
And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone

attributes an occurrence to this reason or that reason without
any real evidence that this reason or that reason is causing the
problem.
You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null

bias spring tension is changing.
All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing)

and that you can change (reduce) the position error by
changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the Mark
VI" and we don't know if you're downloading the change to one
VSVO or to all three VSVOs one at a time.
I would really like to help solve this problem, but, again, every
time I think I'm understanding what's happening then I re-read
the posts and I get confused even more.
I really think MIKEVI has suggested a good course of action,

and that you need to also trend the P2 pressures of all the
processors to try to understand what's happening.
You should be trending the P2 pressure of each processor, the

LVDT feedback from both LVDTs as read by each processor,
and the servo current outputs from each processor.
I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the
outrageous null bias current. You say you've replaced this servo
and the new one still behaves the same way???? And you've
tested the servo current polarity under the individual control of
each processor for this device (GCV or SRV or ???) and it will
closely maintain the position with only one processor????
I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've previously

said that the GCV of one unit is the one with the outrageous
null bias. We really need to know what the running servo
currents for each processor are for the servo with the
outrageous null bias value.
Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the actuator
of the device which this servo is installed on?
I apologize if my response seems a little "random" but I'm

really baffled by this and at the same time very interested to
solve these problems.
You should know this: On every GE-design heavy duty gas

turbine operating anywhere in the world, there is likely some
error in position feedback vs. position reference on one or more
servo outputs. Some more than others. But, they are all
running.
And we're only talking about position feedback vs. position

reference. I have been to more sites that have incorrectly
calibrated LVDT feedback so that the actual physical position is
way off from the indicated LVDT feedback. And the turbines
still run. And run well.
I heard a former colleague say once a long time ago about GE-
design heavy duty gas turbine control, "This ain't rocket
science." And he was very correct. If it were rocket science, GE
would have been out of business a long time ago because if
every servo output had to operate with zero error the units
wouldn't run. But they do run, and they run very well.
Sure, in a perfect world we'd all like the position error to be

zero, and it should be zero. But, it doesn't have to be zero.
What counts is: Is the position error increasing or decreasing?
This has been said many times before on control.com: The

value of something today isn't really informative. It's the value
today vs. the value last hour or yesterday or two days ago or
one week ago or one month ago or six weeks ago, and
whether or not that value has changed in that time and how
fast it has been changing.
Sure, a L.O. header temperature value of 90 deg C isn't good,

but if the unit has been running for four years with an indicated
L.O. Header temperature of 90 deg C, would you say it's been
running incorrectly? Or would you go to find another way to
verify that reading?
In your case, the position reference error seems to be changing

relatively quickly and then remaining relatively constant. From
what we can understand. Which changes with every reading.
Sorry; I'm both perplexed and intrigued. And, I'm a very literal
person (but you couldn't tell that could you?).
CSA,
thanks for your post. I appreciate your time spent at the

computer.
> Can you please list the null bias for each processor for each
servo of each turbine?
The NullBias values I gave are the same in each processor for
each servo coil (RST). You confused me a little with this
question. Using Toolbox I have (v11.02.09), when I select
Download Configuration, it goes directly to all three VSVO
cards, with no possibility of selecting destination processor (R,
S or T). It could be only possible if all three VSVOs are in
Simplex config like for example Thermocouple VTCC cards. To
set-up hardware config you only have one common field, not
three separate fields for R/S/T.
To have different NullBias values in each R/S/T card, the only

way that comes to my mind is to remove Ethernet cables
during download. Have you heard about MKVI having different
NullBias values for coils on the same servo? What is your way
to achieve that?
Gains are of course the same for R/S/T as NullBias and the rest
of the HW config.
More on that, I confirmed the config with TSM, gain and null
bias values are the same in all three processors.
What I found using TSM checking regulators (command

A*pplications -> R*egultors) and then servos (commands S1
for SRV, S3 for GCV and S4 for IGV) : G1/G2/G4 have
parameter FIX 1 and FIX 2 equal to zero (for all three
GCV/SRV/IGV servos) and MKVI LVDT Min/Max (0/100%
position) values at LIMIT HI VOLTS and LIMIT LO VOLTS. The
G3, the one that must have had SRV Null Bias corrected after
two last restarts has MKVI values of SRV and GCV LVDT
min/max in FIX 1/FIX 2 fields and LIMIT HI VOLTS and LIMIT
LO VOLTS are different by around +-0.100 (FIX 1 + 0.100, FIX
2 - 0.100). IGV is the same as G1/G2/G4. I'm not sure if you
are familiar with this part of TSM. I found it today looking for
any unusual thing. It may be that someone here started the
calibration and haven't fix Min/Max value - have no idea. Can
only check on stopped unit. Also TSM has a lot of stuff that can
be checked.
> do you think it makes sense to use the same settings for the
SRV as for, say, the IGVs or the GCV? <
For some reason we have it (5% position error trip), I can't

think of the situation that this protection is needed, but as it is
know that SRV is fuel gas pressure controlled valve, its LVDT is
used as a feedback for VSVO card (SRV VSVO regulator type is
2_LVPosMax), so loosing the LVDT the card probably doesn't
know how to adjust servo current (what direction to go).
Am I close?
> Do you download a new value to one processor? Or to all

three processors, one at a time? <
OK. See the trend I have uploaded below:

The whole story started there

You can see that one day we started having the error. Servo
command had to be higher then the position required to drive
SRV to desired position. Suddenly either SRV position increased
by overcoming the friction or the moog current increased for
some reason and then MKVI reduced SRV command and so we
got both value (position and command) at the same level. I'm
not sure what was the reason I can only speculate as above (as
I said I greased the SRV/GCV stems with the same result after
restart). Then I started my research and found such Moog
current step changes on all machines (but again, on other
machines the do not cause an position error). Once again, on
each machine. lets say on GT1, all three moogs SRV/GCV/IGV
indicates the step change at the same time.
Please see the trend I included in my first post. I highlighted
each GT set of moogs with different color.
Again, in my post I wanted to confirm if anyone has ever

observed these step changes, I had mention GT3 servo
problem as an origin.
So, If you help me with all my problems I will be very grateful.
>As MIKEVI says ----snip----
>How many P2 pressure transducers does each turbine have?

One or three or ????
>Have you trended the P2 pressures for all three processors to

see what they're doing before and after this problem? <
I have just trended P2 (R/S/T) and see nothing (flat lines

during the step change that just happened on GT1 and GT3).
Will include it in GT3 trend at next start-up.
> When you remove the feeler gauges and the valve stems
drop and the indication goes negative, that's what's SUPPOSED
to happen. <
Yes, that's right (the value (negative) is from 3% to 2.5%

depending on machine).
>The purpose for the gap is to ensure that the valves aren't
held open by the actuator bottoming out. <
That is exactly how I understand the valve. I'm assuming the
gap is for safety if the seat is worn and no gap the valve will
leak. Also the drawing say to check that gap is within desired
limits and if no grind the piston rod to obtain it.
> The true zero stroke position is when the valve is closed and
the valve stem is touching the bottom of the plug, and that's
what the feeler gauges do: They keep the valve stem in
contact with the bottom of the valve plug when the valve is
closed and ensure that at the end of the calibration procedure
that the valve will return to the same position as when it
started (which is one of the checks that AutoCalibrate performs
when run). <
No doubt about it.
>The use of barriers is entirely a ----snip----.
> So, only you can decide if you can operate without the
barriers. We don't know the application or the site conditions
so we can't tell you to bypass them. We don't know if the IS
barriers are installed on the LVDTs or the servo-valve outputs.
<
Thanks for advice. I will feel more confident doing it.
>When you're trending oil temperature, you're not trending the

temperature of the hydraulic pump discharge. You're trending
the oil temperature of the oil at the inlet to the hydraulic pump.
<
No other option for me right now.
> I really don't understand this whole thing; just when I think
I'm getting a handle on it, you say "... I do not understand why
three servos jump at the same time and it happen on all
machines but at different times...." By "three" servos do you
mean all the coils of a single servo valve? Or do you mean all
the servos on all the machines? You say it's only on the SRV,
but then you say it happens on three servos on all machines at
different time. Is this happening on the SRV of all machines at
different times? <
Again, as stated the thing above (it's really difficult to me to

explain it as English is not my native language).
What I can trend, is jump/step change up/down/up/down (and

so on) of the total current of each Moog. But I observed
looking at card points ServoIOutxNVR/S/T that it happens also
in the same direction on all three coils (second screenshot I
attached, you can call it static observation). So, on one single
turbine, the change happens at the same time on all 9 coils
(3xSRV, 3xGCV, 3x IGV), and you can observe the same on all
machines but from machine to machine it's not synchronized.
Please see again the trend and color marked GT's.
>Again, I can't imagine why the null bias spring tension would
change during operation, or why the coil resistance would
change during operation. Heat would seem to me to be the
most likely cause for either, but I've never heard of this
problem, or a problem described like this.
>And, a lot of times that is a part of the problem: Someone

attributes an occurrence to this reason or that reason without
any real evidence that this reason or that reason is causing the
problem.
>You don't know if the coil resistance is changing or if the null

bias spring tension is changing. <
I agree, I don't want to risk and disconnect servo coils one by

one online. What I found after stop that the current is different
each time (I register in Excel sheet all NullBias calculations),
not resistance. It stays on all machines 1200- 1300ohm on all
machines (barriers give additional resistance, I think I checked
that a year ago).
> All you know is that a position error is changing (increasing)

and that you can change (reduce) the position error by
changing the null bias current value downloaded to "the Mark
VI" and we don't know if you're downloading the change to one
VSVO or to all three VSVOs one at a time. <
All three at one time. Simply calculation, have all three

resistance noted before the start last month, I measure the
voltage for each coil separately, divide V/R, summarize all three
results and finally divide by three to get average (negative
result must be placed as positive in MKVI config and so on).
This is the GE calculation way given by the ControlSpec and it
works (offline :), for me also online)
>I'm also keenly interested to try to solve the problem with the
outrageous null bias current. You say you've replaced this servo
and the new one still behaves the same way???? <
Actually It has been replaced by GE TA, that left it saying it's

fine. They just wanted to leave the place :))))
> I think there's a typo in your chart, because you've

previously said that the GCV of one unit is the one with the
outrageous null bias. We really need to know what the running
servo currents for each processor are for the servo with the
outrageous null bias value. <
I wrote G4 - on the trend you will find G4\signal - that was the
reason I used it instead of GT4. Affected valve is SRV.
> Are you sure there's not an oil leak somewhere in the
actuator of the device which this servo is installed on? <
I will check, I have to re-read your posts guys and prepare a

checklist)
Finalizing the story: you can see that we have two major
problems - very high positive null bias on one machine running
relatively good - position error that disappear after start-up or
we have to help it disappears changing NullBias value (we did it
last time instead of waiting).
...And one minor that is servos current step changes on all

machines that I accidentally discovered.
It took all day to think about answers also have a headache.

Sorry if I messed something again.
Regards
By CSA on 21 July, 2009 - 12:42 am

0 out of 1 members thought this post was helpful...
In the early days of Toolbox, it was possible to download to

individual VSVOs. Maybe that's not the case any longer; I
haven't seen a Mark VI in a couple of years.
I have never seen trends like this. My initial reaction is that

there is something about/with the IS barriers, but that's just
because I don't have a lot of experience with them and the
experiences I have had have not been very good.
As for the friction comment, when I have seen friction on a gas

valve (SRV or GCV) the effect has been that the servo current
increases with no change in position until the device "jumps"
usually to a position past the reference and then the current
changes to try to drive device back to the reference with no
change in position until it "jumps" to a position past the
reference and this continues and in some cases gets worse. So,
the valve behavior was jumpy and erratic. On either side of the
sticky portion of the valve stems, the action was normal. But
where the shaft was worn and scored (on a couple of turbines)
or where the cylinder walls were scored (on a couple of
turbines) the behavior was jumpy and erratic.
From what you describe, it seems that the current just "jumps"
and without seeing the valve position feedback at the time the
current jumps, it's difficult to say what's happening.
I don't recognize the IS barriers you cited. Have you reviewed

the manufacturer's manuals/documents to see if these are
properly applied?
I would like to know how the *circuit* resistance changes

when this phenomenon occurs. It would be very interesting to
monitor the voltages of each servo coil and see what happens.
A change in voltage would be indicative of a change in circuit
resistance. Would it be possible to monitor the voltage across
the IS barrier and the voltage across the servo coil?
I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but I've

been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. I have seen Moog
provide some very good troubleshooting assistance when asked
to get involved. I know they are slow to respond, but when
they do get involved they are pretty helpful.
I don't believe the null bias spring tension is changing.
Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? And
agglomeration (I think that's what it's called)? Some of the
newer formulations of turbine lube oils seem to be causing lots
of problems for servos. I think BP has a formulation that has
been used successfully by a lot of heavy duty gas turbine
users.
When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine

power output change? Does the unit continue to run normally
or does an operator have to make a change to keep the unit
running as desired?
If the AHJ (Agency Having Jurisdiction (thanks for that Phil
Corso!)) would permit a test with the servo IS barriers
disconnected it would be very interesting to see what happens.
I'd really like to know what happens to the position feedback at

the time the current jumps.
That's about all I can think of.
By CSA on 21 July, 2009 - 10:48 pm
The more I think about this the more I think if you're seeing it
on all the servos on all the units at your site, the one thing
that's common to the gas valves is the IS barriers. I also
wonder if they're also affecting the other servo outputs on the
VSVO, such as the IGVs.
I did some checking on the MTL site, and it says the

MTL7765ac is primarily for high frequency low voltage
applications. Hmmmm..... I also wonder about the resistance
readings you mentioned, which seem much higher than those
listed in the tables in Sect. 8 of the manual.
CSA,
I had opportunity to shutdown GT1 and found something

interesting.
It seems that "jumps" are not caused by the hydraulic part of
the system as these also exist during cool down and after when
Auxiliaries are off.
Trend with some description added (trip occured :) ).
Will try today to bypass barriers and trend again.
> It would be very interesting to monitor the voltages of each

servo coil and see what happens. <
The voltage changes for sure, I had usual average value of

around -0.320V after last calibration, then when I started the
machine and found the position error, I made another
measurement of coil voltages and as described before
recalculated the NullBias and downloaded new VSVO config
(average voltage this time -0.490V).
> I do NOT believe the servo coil resistance is changing, but

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. <
I hope barriers is the reason. Could it be changing MKVI

cabinet inside temperature affecting them? I wonder if it's
sync'ed with the cabinet fan switching on/off (I can simply
check it by keeping all fans on for few hours.
> Have you had your Lube Oil tested for contaminants? <
Yes we have it tested, but we are trying to make it more often

(monthly). Nothing unusual last time, let's see next time.
> When these jumps in current take place, does the turbine
power output change? <
Nothing unusual I have trended DWATT as well.
> test with the servo IS barriers disconnected it would be very

interesting to see what happens. <
Yep, this I will provide soon.

I have to find some extra terminals for barriers bypassing.
Cheers!
By CSA on 22 July, 2009 - 2:17 pm
This is troubleshooting: Understanding the possible causes of a

problem and working to eliminate them one at a time or to
narrow the field of possibilities down to a very few.
I think it's very telling that when these "jumps" occur when the
turbines are running that there is no change in power output.
The Mark VI is fast enough to maintain steady and stable
power output in the face of whatever is causing the servo
current to have to change. And, even if the position error
increases (for whatever reason) the Mark VI is automatically
"compensating" and keeping the turbine operation stable and
steady.
You have not provided any information on specifically what's

happening to the LVDT feedback when these jumps are
occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback also have
IS barriers. If so, what is the manufacturer/part number?
And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is not
the changing servo currents, but the changing LVDT feedback.
You say that the position error changes, and when that
happens the servo current would change to try to maintain the
error closer to zero. Right?
Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current,

and the LVDT feedback from each LVDT would be the best to
trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the unit is not
running.
It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature to

be changing very much. It should be located in a temperature-
and humidity controlled environment, the emphasis is on
control. Are you saying the temperature in the Mark VI panel,
or wherever the IS barriers are located, changes? If so, by how
much during the course of the day? Are there fans controlled
by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not unheard of, but not
typical.
I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive" devices

and don't require bus power, but the manufacturer instruction
book is really unclear on these particular barriers. If they are
powered, where do they receive their power from?
What IS barriers are used for the LVDTs? Do all the LVDTs
have IS barriers?
Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000 ohm

resistors (heat dissipation) and connecting them directly to the
TSVO in place of the barriers and then trending the servo
current. (This would have to be done when the unit is not
running.)
If the current still changes, then I would suggest removing the

IS barriers from the LVDT circuits and monitoring the individual
LVDT feedbacks and the servo currents.
This also happens sometimes in troubleshooting: The focus

gets placed on the effect rather than the "affect" (the cause).
The whole servo regulator loop needs to be considered: the
reference, the feedback, the output.
Let's not drop the theory that the servo barriers may be the
problem, but let's not lose sight of the other possible
contributing factors. You have addressed the hydraulic
possibility pretty conclusively. But, servos do get very warm in
the environments they are placed in.
Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of the
L.O. reservoir/tank, where the vapors collect. The L.O. in the
tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled).
The IGV servo is usually located in the turbine compartment,

which experiences large temperature swings during starting,
operation, and shutdown.
By minister on 23 July, 2009 - 12:26 pm
Thanks CSA for you input:
Post update:
>You have not provided any information on specifically what's
happening to the LVDT feedback when these jumps are
occurring, and if the LVDT excitation and/or feedback also have
IS barriers. If so, what is the manufacturer/part number? <
No barriers at LVDT at all. Summarizing we have only 6 barriers

installed for SRV and GCV.
I have used terminal block to bypass the barriers and during

last 12 hours "jumps" occurred again. We can exclude IS
barriers from servo current change phenomena, but still have
to take them into account for two running units, (position error
and high positive null bias).
Let's keep in mind, that the offline unit is the one controlled
"perfectly" (only servo current jumps" are observed). So let's
concentrate on servo current jumps.
> And here's where I'm going to suggest that the problem is
not the changing servo currents, but the changing LVDT
feedback. You say that the position error changes, and when
that happens the servo current would change to try to maintain
the error closer to zero. Right? <
Right. This gave in another suggestion as the error appears

some time after restart. It can be possible that we loose one
LVDT by vibrations while running unit (e.g.. loose wiring) or we
are getting the LVDT back by the same reason.
> Please trend the LVDT feedback as well as the servo current,
and the LVDT feedback from each LVDT would be the best to
trend, not the high-selected value. Even when the unit is not
running. <
Trend set-up and running. A hint for people that want to trend
LVDT's. You have to turn Monitors on (we have it unused, but I
met the feature used on some sites). Select 1_LVposition as
monitor type, select LVDT you want to monitor (see your
Regulator), fill in Mn and MxLVDT1_Vrms with data you have in
your Regulator. Keep in mind that Regulators use usually two
LVDT's, and you have to separate them using two Monitors.
After the config is downloaded you will see each LVDT value in
VSVO Card Point section under MON1, MON2....MON12
(depending of your set-up)
> It would be unusual for the Mark VI enclosure temperature

to be changing very much. It should be located in a
temperature- and humidity controlled environment, the
emphasis is on control. Are you saying the temperature in the
Mark VI panel, or wherever the IS barriers are located,
changes? If so, by how much during the course of the day? Are
there fans controlled by temperature? If so, that's unusual, not
unheard of, but not typical. <
We have HVAC unit for the MKVI room so we have quite good
environment.
And yes, we have fans controlled by thermostats, I was aware
of this as very often we have to clean cabinet ventilation inlet
filters and fan outlet filters from accumulated fine desert sand.
After trending servo currents yesterday afternoon with all of
fans running the servo current phenomena still exists. The
average temperature measured using TBTC cold junction is 30
deg C (IS barriers are mounted on the back side of the cabinet
where TBTC are mounted, also fans are on MKVI terminal
board side only)
> I think the barriers you listed are considered "passive"

devices and don't require bus power, but the manufacturer
instruction book is really unclear on these particular barriers. If
they are powered, where do they receive their power from? <
Passive barriers.
> Another possible test would be to take suitably sized 1000

ohm resistors (heat dissipation) and connecting them directly
to the TSVO in place of the barriers and then trending the
servo current. (This would have to be done when the unit is
not running.) If the current still changes, then I would suggest
removing the IS barriers from the LVDT circuits and monitoring
the individual LVDT feedbacks and the servo currents. <
Will add to the plan.
> Sometimes, the gas valve servos are located at the top of
the L.O. reservoir/tank, where the vapours collect. The L.O. in
the tank is hotter than the L.O. header (which is cooled). The
IGV servo is usually located in the turbine compartment, which
experiences large temperature swings during starting,
operation, and shutdown. <
That's the case we have, valve servos are mounted inside the
tank underneath the valve. IGV in turbine compartment. As the
unit will stay some days, temperature should come down and
we will see possible effect on the trend.
After all day trending:
Please find another trends (40ms sample time), this time also
one toolbox .trn file.
1) change observed only on GCV/SRV (I was measuring coil

resistance a while before it happened. Resistance stays always
the same):
2) GCV/SRV/IGV jump (see signal description in first file, scale

for some signals is different, color the same)
"Jump" UP
"Jump" DOWN:
I'm trying try do the same with dither off. (As dither is an AC
on the DC command signal, can it induct something in the
circuit?):
After switching dither off, I observed that all current signals

(SRV R/S/T, GCV R/S/T, IGV R/R/T) have moved in the middle
of the "jump high" and "jump low" servo current values. It's
moved down by 2% from the high value or 2% up from the
low value.
Is it coincidence, when the dither amplitude is also 2%?
Please see dither off trend:

These 4% current switches seems odd when I have checked

servo currents loading the machine by 1MW (around +2% GCV
and SRV) and couldn't even indicate the difference on the
trend. If it's not the coil resistance that changes, is it whole
circuit loop resistance I mean inside MKVI hardware? The
dither seems to be the one not explored :)))
Another experiment: On running unit I have gradually changed
dither amplitude for GCV from 2.0 to 0.2% (by 0.2 % step) ,
and observed servo current travelling from -7 % to -5%
without load or position change.
Again, not to confuse you guys, these are trend taken on the
offline machine, the machine that has no problems with
position error. I will troubleshoot affected unit ASAP (read
when available after shutdown - software modification needed
to trend LVDT's and servo outputs separately).
At the end of the post, after 4 hrs of trending servos with

removed dither I can confirm no jumps on offline GT so far
(have to finish my shift). Tomorrow morning I will updated
whether jump occurred or not.
CSA, please share your thoughts and suggestions for next

checks.
Cheers!
I was thinking in my bed about this changes of the servo

current. It's not the resistance that changes, but the voltage
and then current had to compensate the change for the servo
to do the same work (Power = U*I = const).
(I recall having sometime unusual higher voltage across coils

during NullBias verification, I think I wrote the value before).
Ok have to go to sleep
Update:
After switching the dither off I haven't observed any more

jumps last night.
I'm going to do another experiment, put all three servos on

different dither frequency and amplitude trend. As MKVI fastest
sample time is 40ms I should see oscillation at least on 12.5Hz
and 25Hz dither trend. I want to check if there is a relation
between jumps and dither frequency.
I suspect that these jumps are just recorded extrema of the

oscillation signal when its frequency is higher than the sample
rate. The trending tool gets periodically unsynchronized with
the servo current oscillation generator.
Catch you later.
Update 2:
I can observe full curve oscillation for servo currents with 12.5
Hz and 33Hz frequency dither.
The 25Hz (40ms) dither as being the same as trend sample

could be catched only as shown on attached the screenshot:
Well, now I will focus on the other two issues I have here. I will
write more when I have a chance to make more tests on these
machines
Regards
By CSA on 24 July, 2009 - 1:08 pm
This explanation would make more sense, especially because

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

manufacturer's. Technology is great, but, digital technology has
its limits, and this is one of them. An old-fashioned pen-and-ink
chart recorder had its limits as well. In general, and this case is
probably a great exception because of the variable frequency
rates for the dither option, the GE Trending tools are pretty
good because the execution rate is not generally higher than
the fastest trending rate. But, again, this could be an exception
because of the rate issue. Very highspeed toggling of discrete
inputs is also hard to catch on GE Trending tools.
This explanation also makes more sense because of the

repeatable nature of the "jumps". They never seem to increase
or decrease by more than the same amount, at least from the
trends you've sent.
But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good trend
of, is still puzzling.
> But, the position error, which I haven't really seen a good
trend of, is still puzzling. <
Please see another trend I found in my collection for the

position error. http://www.speedyshare.com/900781673.html
The error wasn't so high that time and went back to normal by
itself. (I only changed NullBias having the alarm above 3%).
Odd is, the step change is recorded at the same moment, it
could be that what caused the error created also a delay
(momentary desync) for trending tool (???)
(what happens during that moment can be seen on this

zoomed trend: http://www.speedyshare.com/585332895.html)
Looking at the trend and step changes, the overall picture is

very confusing - that's why I wanted to raised the step changes
issue.
The dither on this machine has been disabled yesterday
(machine online).
What I need for my tests is to set-up servo currents and

LVDT's to be trended all separately.
Regards
By minister on 27 November, 2009 - 6:25 am
An update (sorry for not updating for so long)
1) The turbine with reversed (positive null bias, negative as a

value for MKVI config).
I managed to do some tests:
- barrier bypass - no change
- swapping the MKVI hardware, SRV and its LVDT's connected

in place of GCV equipment - no change
This gives me a hint to look at the field hardware, as I haven't

witnessed the previous MOOG replacement I'm not sure if it's
true there was a replacement.
I noticed that error on SRV position (positive one) of the value

+1.4% is may cause a fired trip although the turbine is running
fine on load as the position is not considered in the process
control loop (as we know the SRV reference will try to maintain
the interstage pressure proportional to the turbine speed
regardless the LVDT feedback, at least on my machine where
it's only used by VSVO hardware and HMI).
What has happened here was the valve being open during
shutdown by the given above 1.4% while the command was
0% from the MKVI.
This resulted in gas leak through SRV (Exhaust went up to 500
deg C!) with GCV being still open at about 6% and the speed
at about 20%. Then the protection tripped the turbine
(shutdown exceeded the given period of time)
Funny, next day the position and the feedback
after the restart were correct.
I will have to work on this valve later.
This is just an information (useful I think) what may happened

with an error on the valve.
2) The other machine with jumping error that could be

corrected adjusting the Null Bias online.
I have the LVDT's and moog currents setup in the MKVI to be

able to trend as separate signals for each coil and LVDT, but
the turbine is running fine since. Nothing unusual trending
LVDT's or the moog servo current.
I will update the thread with any news I find.
Regards!
By MIKEVI on 18 July, 2009 - 3:04 pm
Dear Minister,
I offer this suggestion as something to trend, although from

your post it is difficult to tell if this is happening on one gas
control valve only or multiple valves. And if the problem is on
one unit or multiple units.
Anyway I had an issue recently with a frame 7ea machine. We

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

else you can check. Lastly this assumes that your MKVI is a
TMR system, and not a simplex.
Dear MIKEVI
Thank your for reply.

I have read your post about the servo current trend 40ms
before. I have this it in my plans but have to wait for scheduled
shutdown to create new signal PINs.
Good idea with testing another VSVO. I realized I have one
unused VSVO (R/S/T) and two terminal boards.
minister
By MIKEVI on 20 July, 2009 - 10:55 am
Minister,
the great thing about GE's control systems are that they have
lots of great tools to use for diagnosing problems. The
downside is that all the same tools are not given to all the
customers (some .m6b have pins, some don't etc.) I am not
sure where the ball gets dropped, either during commissioning
or straight from Salem. But no matter, we have this forum full
of knowledgeable people to take advantage of. And best of all
we have a participant such as yourself that provides the
information we need to try and help solve a problem, and
hopefully we all learn something in the process. I wish you
continued luck with your issue, and look forward to you
resolving the problem.
MIKEVI
The forum is great thing, I agree with you.

I will update my post if I get any new information.
By RVT on 6 June, 2010 - 9:52 am
Great reading, was looking for this information for a very long
time. thanks guys.
By minister on 25 November, 2010 - 10:38 am
Latest (very late, sorry) update:
1) The turbine with reversed (positive null bias, negative as a

value for the MKVI config):
Should have done that test before: I decided to check the

behavior of the SRV (I think I made a mistake stating it was
the GCV in previous posts) having all three coils disconnected
from the MKVI. The valve went fully open instead close. So,
either the Moog is installed incorrectly supplying the oil from
the opposite port or the hydraulic block between the Moog and
the actuator is installed incorrectly (if possible), or something
else inside the Moog. Unfortunately I have no detail drawing
for the system and have to compare to another machine when
possible.
Surprisingly GE left us the machine with servo working in such

an unsafe setup.
2) The other machine with jumping error that could be

corrected adjusting the Null Bias online.
I think I have finally solved this one. One day we couldn't

restart the machine, SRV didn't open. We found that 20HD
solenoid didn't work correctly - stuck. The WD40 wash helped.
I think, before the trip solenoid valve was closing but being
sticky was not providing enough oil to the valve actuator (still
draining some amount) when energized. Then after like two
hours running on-line the situation changed, the trip solenoid
valve fully closed providing all the oil to the actuator (pressure
changed) and we had to change the NullBias to correct the
new (described above in previous posts) situation.
I suspect, that before the cleaning of the trip solenoid valve,
after a shutdown when we were recalibrating the SRV, the
sticky trip solenoid made us the same condition (draining some
oil to the tank) so we got the wrong null bias again.
Regards
minister
By CSA on 25 November, 2010 - 7:40 pm
Thanks for the feedback!
Have you checked the servo valve part number against the
appropriate parts list for the gas valve assembly? Are you sure
the servo is the correct one for the application?
A lot of people think that all the servos on some GE-design

heavy duty gas turbines are interchangeable, and while some
are, many are not.
I've seen incorrect servos been used in dire circumstances,

forcing some rash things to be done to make them work. I've
also seen them left in service for so long because, well, they're
working! And, then when they finally get around to replacing
the servo (either because it fails or because of valve
refurbishment) everyone associated with the initial effort
develops amnesia and a lot of blame gets misdirected. I'm
*NOT* saying that's what happened at your site, but I've seen
similar things happen during commissioning as well. There is a
popular sentiment amongst some TAs, especially when a job is
over schedule and/or over budget to do whatever it takes to
get finished and get off site. The best intentions are to send
the right part back to site, but sometimes others in the
decision-making chain have this same mentality, "It's working!
If it's not broke, don't fix it!"
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
By minister on 7 December, 2010 - 9:35 am
Thanks CSA,
I haven't checked the part number as I believed the TA during

commissioning, that he replaced it with another one taken from
the spares, having similar result in operation after. I will try to
schedule the check and inform you.
Regards to all of you guys and Merry Christmass

Moog Valve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moog Valve

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moog Valve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current

SERVO VALVE NULL Bias Current

By saha on 24 February, 2009 - 11:06 am

For GE Gas turbine Frame 5 controlled by Mark 5 TMR system,

By CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 12:40 am

In the Speedtronic turbine control panel, the error between a

Null bias current is the value of current that is added to the

In the Mark V, servo current is expressed as a percent of full-

And this is done by each control processor independent of the

When the regulator feedback is different from the reference,

For example, consider the GCV servo output. The GCV

If you changed the null bias current value in the I/O

But it should be clear that unless all three control processors

The amount of null bias current required to overcome the fail-

The regulator feedback is compared to the reference 128 times

By Jeff Ladwig on 9 February, 2010 - 9:28 am

R active: 0.290 vdc, 0.280 mA

This calculates to a null bias of 2.79%, the I/O configurator

By CSA on 9 February, 2010 - 12:23 pm

Did you, or based on the as-found conditions do you, feel it

The three null bias currents are summed in the servo-valve to

2.79% vs. 2.67% is a negligible difference, in my personal

By Jeff Ladwig on 10 February, 2010 - 9:25 am

PM2 is also about 2% off from reference online.

If I replace a servo, is it recommended to change the null bias

By CSA on 11 February, 2010 - 1:00 am

It would sound as if there's something amiss with the null bias

I am not a fan of the null bias calculation procedure in the

If Moog is providing null bias currents with their servo-valves, it

By Jeff FLadwig on 12 February, 2010 - 4:12 pm

I have not measured the actual position.

I measured PM1 servo currents at 50%, following the GE

By CSA on 12 February, 2010 - 6:21 pm

I've seen three-inch stroke dial indicators for about GBP50.00

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

In general: Internal mechanical failure in the servo will lead to

Good Luck...Tempus Fugit...

By CSA on 25 February, 2009 - 4:23 pm

There is only *ONE* fail-safe spring, so changing the null bias

If all three control processors have basically the same feedback

Also, a single open-circuit in one of the three coils of a servo-

A. Oztas brings up another issue which has been reported by

And usually when they're trying to adjust the spring tension,

As I've said before, I'm saving my pennies to buy Moog. These

By sd on 25 February, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Wonder why my earlier reply is not shown here.

>Well.. I think you observed is actually some optical illusion.. ;)

From the fourth paragraph of the first response:

-0.267 mA would be represented as -2.67%.

I just looked through several ACALIB.DAT files, from early Mark

ACALIB.DAT is an ASCII text file that ACALIB.EXE uses to

My suspicion is that someone found the TCQA RAM address for

By Walter on 13 March, 2009 - 2:26 pm

According to this explination we tried to compare the current

For the SRV (as seen on interface)

Then checking in the file TC2kReport and we found the screw

or we are measuring in a wrong place?

Thanks very much in advance.

SVO1 is usually assigned to the Stop/Ratio Valve of a gas fuel

There is only ONE fail-safe spring, so changing the null bias

You have NOT provided all the information asked of you.