Which country are you in?

NFPA 37 covers this in the USA

http://hamyarenergy.com/static/fckimages/files/NFP...

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

Hi guys, thanks for your comments. I'm looking at a new gas turbine facility in Australia.

The NFPA standard provides good guidance on fire protection for enclosures and gas turbines. I was more thinking about protection from catastrophic failures such as disc failures. Do designers site gas turbine facilities with any consideration to the public risk from very rare, but catastrophic failures?

Sitting on a aeroplane next to a gas turbine engine, these questions do seem a little theoretical. However, the risk is real, just the frequency is very low. My clients are still asking how we manage this risk when the gas turbine installation is in industrial areas and adjacent to major roads.

Appreciate any ideas.

Turbine cases are designed to prevent LOC (loss of containment) failures.
Land based turbines are much more robust in this regard than aero engines.
The greater concern in the fire that follows a catastrophic failure.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

I would have thought that relevant council zoning and building approval would have some bearing on the actual location of the turbine, which, of course, would vary based on the relevant local government authority. I've not looked into it in any great detail though.

EDMS Australia

Hi,

I wasn't aware that the turbine casings of the land based GT's were any different from their flying cousins. Would you have any information on the improvement in performance with disc failures and reduction in risk? I haven't found any useful statistics on frequency of GT turbine failure and breach of containment.

Freddie, the local council zoning provides for general location requirements but no specific risk analysis for very rare, catastrophic events and public safety.

Appreciate your comments.

Peckett,

Compare an aero-derivative and an industrial GT and you'll see a massive difference in construction. A big industrial machine will have a casing several inches thick, while an aero-derivative will be well under an inch. There's not a huge difference between the aircraft engine and the aero-derivative in terms of casing design, other than not being flight-qualified. Casing breaches on industrial machines are virtually unheard of.

What engine type are you considering here?

Hi Scotty,

Thanks for your comments. LM6000 or similar. So aero derivatives with limited or no containment of rotor failure.

noise levels are typically the major drivers for distance to public areas.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick