Talk:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 17, 2012 and August 17, 2014.|
- 1 Editing problems
- 2 Russian version of the article
- 3 GES?
- 4 Image problem
- 5 Possible cause
- 6 Translation
- 7 Pictures
- 8 Output
- 9 Wikisourced Russian version of the investigation report
- 10 Turbine failure or poor management decisions?
- 11 Propose amendment to title: incident instead of accident
- 12 Oh rilly.
- This is highly unlikely, Zosma - I am able to edit everything, should be a problem on your end. --Gimlei (talk to me) 09:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Russian version of the article
Russian version of the article has more information on the aftermath, subdivided into various sections: social, ecological, etc, which actually makes a lot of sense if sufficient information is available for each. Should the same be done in the English version, and would borrowing and translating parts from the Russian one (keeping the proper references of course) be ok? --Gimlei (talk to me) 09:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. That would be great if you are able to translate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
By Ростехнадзор, there were seismic vibrations with frequency 14-18 Hz 15-45 minuts before the accident and it is speculated that the seismic activity also may be was the reason Zosma (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because it hasn't been uploaded to English Wikipedia like the others. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw photography showing No.2 spiral case completely destroyed and nearly untouched turbine block(consisting of head cover, and complete distributor with guide vanes)lying 90 degrees turned in the middle of the former spiral. According to leaflet of the turbine producer the steel spiral case of this HPP was designed as acting jointly with the reinforcement of the concrete block. Common practice is that spiral case is capable to bear full pressure without taking into account any influence of surrounding concrete. So the possible cause of the failure could be either alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete or corrosion of reinforcing bars, both weakening the concrete, or fatigue failure of several stay vanes or the spiral case hand in hand with pressure surge. HUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC) May be I dont understand all your explanation, but if to look available video material about turbines and machinery hall it can be seen that turbines are destroyed at the moment when their rotors were spun. The supporting arms are twisted around turbine shaft. I shohws that the reason of breakage was high speed spinning until the spinning rotor hooked to stator and the inertia forces wrenched turbine to break its fixtures and releasing it after which ca 20 bar pressurized water was able to eject turbine parts and flood all..Zosma (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
An article in Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 23, 2011, pp 43-44 says: "An employee of the Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station used a cybernetwork to remotely, and accidentally, activate an unused turbine with a few errant keystrokes. The offline turbine created a "water hammer" that flooded and then destroyed the plant and killed dozens of workers, says Edward Timperlake, a defense analyst and former Pentagon director of technology assessment and international technology security." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- That mean "Hydrotechnical construction", which is a name of the journal published in Russian. However, more precise information concerning the exact article in this journal is needed. Beagel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it's that this ain't Russian and/or Ukrainian. Most likely it's complete nonsense.
As a retired hydro operator, I was advised this unit had a new govenor that probably did NOT prevent an overspeed after unit breaker tripped. Destroying the unit and powerhouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
clearly a key feature of this disaster was the exceptionally high output of the dam, 6th in the world, and the fact that it represented a high proportin of the demand on the grid. By no stretch of the imagination can the output figure be regarded as irrelevant.Engineman (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikisourced Russian version of the investigation report
Wikisourced at: http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D1%82_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%93%D0%AD%D0%A1_17_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0_2009_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Turbine failure or poor management decisions?
It seems to me that the turbine failure at Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam was caused by poor management decisions to continue use of Turbine 2 without regard to the excessive vibration history. The entry on the List of hydroelectric power station failures, says "due to turbine failure" but if turbine 2 was not used, it would not have failed. The section on Turbine 2 at 2009 Sayano-Shushenskaya hydro accident shows how management took risks with this turbine, leading to an astonishing catastrophic failure of the turbine and very substantial damage to the dam. There are doubts about the continuing risks of a catastrophic dam failure as a result of the damage caused by the turbine failure. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Propose amendment to title: incident instead of accident
I think that use of the term accident in failure investigations implies at least some degree of inevitability: oops, sorry, nothing could have been done. This was an incident with a root cause, not an unfortunate accident.
Those familiar with and supporting NASA's Normal Accident Theory may disagree (accidents happen in spite of our best efforts) however High Reliability Organisations like electricity generators and spacecraft operators must always strive for the elimination of events of this nature. Note that NASA and BP have both been criticised for a "failure to learn" from previous mistakes. For more information, please see two books by Andrew Hopkins: "Lessons from Longford" and "Failure to Learn". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"President Vladimir Putin personally switched turbine 6 to the load. Turbine 5 was brought under load on 22 March 2010"
The last paragraph from the article is ridiculous, above all when the journalist says "probably", so he is not sure. It can be for any other reason why he was beaten. Anyway, it is not serious to include it on a technical article about the accident and reconstruction.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)