Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Quantifying Correction Curve Uncertainty Through Empirical Methods

[+] Author Affiliations
Christopher R. Bañares, Thomas P. Winterberger

General Electric Power & Water, Schenectady, NY

Thomas P. Schmitt

General Electric Power & Water, Fairview, NC

Evan E. Daigle

General Electric Power & Water, Ann Arbor, MI

Paper No. POWER2014-32187, pp. V002T13A006; 8 pages
  • ASME 2014 Power Conference
  • Volume 2: Simple and Combined Cycles; Advanced Energy Systems and Renewables (Wind, Solar and Geothermal); Energy Water Nexus; Thermal Hydraulics and CFD; Nuclear Plant Design, Licensing and Construction; Performance Testing and Performance Test Codes; Student Paper Competition
  • Baltimore, Maryland, USA, July 28–31, 2014
  • Conference Sponsors: Power Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-4609-4
  • Copyright © 2014 by ASME


The accuracy of a thermal performance test is typically estimated by performing an uncertainty analysis calculation in accordance with ASME PTC 19.1 or equivalent. The resultant test uncertainty estimate is often used as a key factor in the commercial contract, in that many contracts allow a test tolerance and define the test tolerance to be equal to the test uncertainty. As such, the calculated test uncertainty needs to accurately reflect all of the technical factors that contribute to the uncertainty. The test uncertainty is a measure of the test quality, and, in many circumstances, the test setup must be designed such that the uncertainty remains lower than test code limits and/or commercial tolerances.

Traditional uncertainty calculations have included an estimate of the measurement uncertainties and the propagation of those uncertainties to the test result. In addition to addressing measurement uncertainties, ASME PTC 19.1 makes reference to other potential errors of method, such as “the assumptions or constants contained in the calculation routines” and “using an empirically derived correlation”. Experience suggests that these errors of method can in some circumstances dominate the overall test uncertainty. Previous studies (POWER2011-55123 and POWER2012-54609) introduced and quantified a number of operational factors and correction curve factors of this type.

To facilitate testing over a range of boundary conditions, the industry norm is for the equipment supplier to provide correction curves, typically created using thermodynamic models of the power plant to predict the response of the system to changes in boundary conditions. As noted in various PTC codes (PTC-22, PTC-46, and PTC-6) it is advisable to run the test at conditions as close to the rated conditions as possible to minimize the influence of the correction curves. Experience suggests that large deviations from rated conditions, and the associated influence of the correction curves, can result in decreased accuracy in the final corrected result. A discussion of these types of situations via case studies is discussed, as well as a means by which to reduce the uncertainty contributions from correction curves considerably.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Uncertainty



Interactive Graphics


Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In