The First 500-KilowattCurtis Vertical Steam Turbine

Placed into Commercial Servicein Newport, Rhode Island,

February, 1903

An International Historic MechanicalEngineering Landmark

July 23, 1990

Indianapolis Power & Light CompanyE.W. Stout Generating Station

Indianapolis, Indiana

345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017

The American Society ofMechanical Engineers

Curtis Vertical Steam Turbine Recognizedas an Engineering Milestone

n the 1880s, streetcars were pulledby mules. Horses and buggies wereI everywhere. Lighting was provided

by gas, kerosene and candles. Heatcame from coal, wood and kerosene.

But within the primitive confines ofthis early life-style were the begin-nings of some of the world’s greatestdiscoveries -- discoveries that wouldradically change the course of history.

In New York, September 1882,Thomas A. Edison opened the first

The first vertical Curtis turbineplaced in commercial service is now

on permanent display at IPL’sE.W. Stout Generating Station

in Indianapolis.

central electric - light power plant inthe world--the famous Pearl Streetplant. Alexander Graham Bell had justa few years earlier said, “Watson,come here. I want you,” the first mes-sage transmitted by electric waves anddistinctly heard by an assistant. And inGermany, engineers Karl Benz andGottlieb Daimler completed automo-biles with internal combustion en-gines, vastly accelerating the develop-ment of the modern day automobile.

It was during this inventive period,in 1896, that Charles Gordon Curtis(1860-1953) patented two turbineconcepts (Curtis 1896 a,b) that wouldeventually lead to the commercialproduction of low-cost, single-cylin-

der turbines to provide the electricityso much in demand in America duringthe early 1900s.

According to Euan F. C. Somer-scales, associate professor of me-chanical engineering at RensselaerPolytechnic Institute, and chairman ofthe American Society of MechanicalEngineers’ National History and Heri-tage Committee, “The Curtis verticalsteam turbine was the vehicle bywhich the electric power supply sys-tem grew at an astonishingly rapid rateduring the first two decades of thetwentieth century. It is difficult tobelieve that any contemporary turbineof any other type or form could havesupported this growth rate.”

Remarkably, the first vertical Cur-tis turbine placed in commercial serv-ice survives. Because of the historicinterests of Harry T. Pritchard, a for-mer president of Indianapolis Power &Light Company (IPL), the first Curtisvertical steam turbine was moved toIndianapolis for preservation. At thetime of the move, Pritchard was an of-ficer for a number of electric utilities,including the Newport Electric Corpo-ration where the first Curtis turbineproduced power from 1903 until 1927.He recognized the engineering signifi-cance of the vertical Curtis turbine as amajor milestone in the technology ofelectrical generation. And, after theturbine had served its purpose power-ing the streetcar operations of theNewport and Fall River Company,Pritchard had the machine placed onpermanent display in Indianapolis in1931. It can be seen at IPL’s E.W.Stout Generating Station, 3700 SouthHarding Street, in Indianapolis, andevery year hundreds of visitors to thestation view the Curtis vertical steamturbine and are educated about its his-torical significance. It serves as amonument to the engineers who builtthe machine and to the thousands ofelectric utility employees who dedi-cated their hard work and time to makeelectricity for a growing America.

Development of the Curtis Vertical Steam TurbineWas a Long and Arduous Process

It began, as all inventions, with theinitial idea and then steadily evolvedinto a practical and cost-efficient

model with commercial applicationsthat would revolutionize the genera-tion of electricity.

Charles G. Curtis patented his tur-bine designs some 13 years afterSwedish engineer Gustav de Lava1(1845-1913) first demonstrated a

Illustration of Gustav de Laval’s1882 turbine design.

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968.

simple turbine design in 1882. Curtis’patents overcame many of the limita-tions of the de Lava1 turbine. And oneof the two new designs offered a radi-cally different concept, now known asvelocity compounding. In velocitycompounded steam turbines, thesteam speed, not the pressure, de-creases in steps as it passes through theturbine from inlet to outlet.

This type of turbine requires farfewer wheels and therefore a shortershaft than earlier turbine models. Italso was somewhat less efficient thanearlier turbine designs. Curtis, recog-nizing that limitation, placed two or

more turbines in a series.With patent in hand, the construc-

tion of a practical, commerciallyviable machine was still some yearsoff. Curtis knew that the engineeringchallenges of his turbine concept weregreat. Because of the speeds, tempera-tures and pressures that the machinerywould be exposed to, substantial re-sources would be required to developthe project.

Curtis proposed his ideas to severalcompanies with no success, until hemet E.W. Rice (1862-1935), vicepresident of manufacturing and engi-neering for General Electric (GE).Rice was interested in Curtis’ turbine,and in 1897 an agreement was reachedby Curtis and General Electric. Curtiswould receive the necessary facilitiesand personnel to develop the turbinefor commercial use, and General Elec-tric would have the rights to manufac-ture the turbine.

Development began that same yearat General Electric’s SchenectadyPlant in New York. Experiments wereobserved by GE representative JohnKruesi, one-time manager of the fac-tory in Schenectady. From 1897 until1901, three horizontal shaft experi-mental turbines were constructed: a50-kilowatt unit; a two-stage, 200-horsepower machine; and a two-stagemachine designed for flexibility intesting. Specially designed waterbrakes were used to provide a genera-tor-like load, since there were no gen-erators available at that time capableof operating at the speeds attained bythe turbines.

By 1901, many tests had beencompleted, but reports submitted byKruesi and other General Electric rep-resentatives were not very optimistic.Despite skepticism by Kruesi and theothers, Rice still believed the Curtisturbine had a great deal of merit, bothcommercially and technically. As aresult, Rice asked W.L.R. Emmet(1859-1941), who at that time was incharge of the General Electric Light-ing Department, to review Curtis’

2

the first production turbine. a 500-

work. Emmet submitted a favorable of the moving and stationary partsreport and, as a consequence, Rice would be more definitely fixed by theplaced Emmet in charge of develop- step bearing at the base of the machine.ment. Curtis severed his direct con- Emmet’s decision was based on thenection with the experiments. experimental testing he had done with

Shortly thereafter, Emmet create vertical shaft turbines driven by thewaters of Niagara Falls. In these ver-

kilowatt ma-ch ine , tha tconsisted ofa horizontalshaft and twomultiple rowwheels inseparate cas-ings con-netted by apipe that ranbeneath thef loor . Thismachine wasused to gen-erate powerfor the Sch-e s e c t a d yp l a n t . Asimilar ma-c h i n e w a sbuilt in 1902for use at theLynn, Mas-sachuse t t s ,loca t ion ofthe GeneralE l e c t r i cC o m p a n y . Basement view of the Newport andCommercial Fall River Company Generating Station.produc t ionbegan soonthereafter, and a 1,500-kilowatt, hori- tical machines, the weight was carriedzontal turbine was delivered to the on a footstep bearing lubricated by oilPort Huron Power and Light Company under pressure.in 1902. Thus, production began on the Cur-

Even though commercial produc- tis vertical steam turbine, and manu-tion of the horizontal steam turbine facturing of the horizontal steam tur-was well underway, Emmet decided to bine was discontinued.shift the design of the turbine to a In February 1903, the first verticalvertical configuration. Emmet be- Curtis turbine, a 500-kilowatt unit,lieved, despite objections from Curtis, was supplied to the Newport and Fallthat turbines with a vertical shaft had a River Company in Newport, Rhodenumber of advantages over the con- Island. Because there is no record of aventional horizontal turbine. He as- prototype machine being built for shopserted that there were two distinct testing, this may have been the firstadvantages: first, the machines would vertical Curtis turbine completed. Itoccupy less floor space than a horizon- certainly was the first machinetal turbine, and second, the positions shipped for commercial use. The

3

machine supplied power power to the New- be used in the construction of the interport and Fall River Company’s street- nal buckets and wheels.car operations for 24 years, until June During the decade following the1927 completion of the first Curtis vertical

Over the next ten years, an esti- steam turbine, technical advancesmated 1,000 Curtis vertical steam tur- were rapid, For instance, the firstbines were produced and sold to com- 5,000-Kilowatt machines shipped topanies in the United States. Commonwealth Electric Company in

Interestingly, apredecessor companyof IPL, the MarionCounty Hot WaterHeating Company,purchased the firsttwo turbo-generatorsin Indianapolis -- two2,500-kilowatt verti-cal steam turbines in1903 for use at itsplant at 18th Streetand Mill Street in In-dianapolis. It is be-lieved these turbineswere of the Curtisdesign, but no recordof that has yet beenfound. Later , theIndianapolis Lightand Heat Company(which evolved fromthe Marion CountyHot Water HeatingCompany in 1905),purchased two 5,000-k i lowat t ve r t i ca ls t e a m t u r b i n e s ,which we know to beCurtis, one in 1909and the other in 1911,again for the MillStreet GeneratingStation.

The Curtis steamturb ine made themore commonly used reciprocatingsteam engines obsolete almost over-night for large power generationCurtis steam turbine had tremendous

Newport and Fall River CompanyGenerating Station, Newport,

Rhode Island.

Chicago in 1903 were about half as ef-ficient, in terms of kilowatt producedper pound of steam pressure as theCurtis vertical turbines in use at com-

capacity in a small space. The ma- monwealth Electric in 1909. The dif-chine was lower in cost than its com- ference was so striking that Samuelpetitor, the Parsons turbine, and be- Insull (1859-1938), president of thecause it was shorter than the Parsons Commonwealth Electric Company,turbine, it was less susceptible to dis- described the first turbines “as pipestortion of the central shaft. Finally, it that passed steam.”could operate at lower rotational Despite these technical advances,speeds, so lower grade materials could General Electric decided sometime in

4

1908 to produce horizontal turbine,and in 1913 production of the verticalsteam turbine was abandoned. Tur-bine speeds had increased radicallyfrom the 500 revolutions per minute(rpm) in the early 5,000-kilowatt tur-bines to 1,800 rpm in the later verticalturbines. Speeds as high as 3,600 rpmwere considered, but these higherspeeds required a stiffer structure,which could not be provided by thevertical turbines without additionallateral support from the power stationbuilding itself. Also, at the time of thechangeover, steam turbines were get-ting longer as their power output in-creased and as more expansion stageswere added to improve efficiency.

In addition to the Curtis verticalsteam turbine at IPL’s E.W. StoutGenerating Station, there are sevenother Curtis vertical steam turbinesstill in existence. All are located in theUnited States.

The first 5,000-kilowatt turbineproduced, which generated electricityfrom 1903 until 1909 at the Fisk StreetGenerating Station of CommonwealthElectric Company (later Common-wealth Edison Company), is now ondisplay in front of the Steam TurbineGenerator Product DevelopmentLaboratory at the General ElectricPlant in Schenectady, New York.

There are three Curtis vertical tur-bines -- 15,000 kilowatts each -- whichare located in the South Boston Stationof the Massachusetts Bay Transit Au-thority. These turbines were taken outof service in 1950.

The Georgetown Generating Plantin Seattle, Washington, has two well-preserved Curtis vertical steam tur-bines -- a 3,000-kilowatt and an 8,000-kilowatt version -- which were in useas late as 1964 and remained onstandby status until 1977 as part of aregional power reserve for emergencysituations.

Finally, the youngest of the surviv-ing Curtis vertical steam turbines is a15,000-kilowatt unit at the L StreetStation of the Boston Edison Com-pany. The L Street Station ceasedoperations in 1967, but this 15,000-kilowatt unit, originally installed ei-ther in 1913 or 1914, was retained as alandmark in the history of electricpower generation.

Although the life of the Curtis tur-bine was short lived, its impact on theelectric utility industry was immense.Indeed, many historians believe theelectric utility industry was revolu-tionized by the Curtis steam turbine.

The Curtis Steam Turbine Technical Background

The simplest form of steam tur-bine was demonstrated by theSwedish engineer Gustav de

Laval about 1883. It was constructedwith a single rotating wheel attachedto a shaft. Steam under high pressurepassed through a number of nozzles di-rected at “blades,” “buckets” or“vanes” attached to the outer circum-ference of the wheel. In passingthrough the blades, which were spe-cially shaped to achieve this objective,the steam caused the wheel to turn.This type of steam turbine was actu-ally less efficient than contemporarysteam engines, but that was not ofparticular concern to de Laval whowanted to spin a cream separator at a

very high speed. His steam turbine didjust that; under conditions of maxi-mum efficiency the turbine wheel ro-tated at speeds between 20,000 and25,000 revolutions per minute. Inmost situations where a steam turbinewould be useful, particularly in driv-ing electrical generators, such highspeeds could only be used by arrang-ing a speed-reducing gear box be-tween the steam turbine and the gen-erator that was being driven by the tur-bine. However, gear boxes are not onehundred percent efficient. Their effi-ciencies at the time that de Lavalwould have been interested in usinghis turbine for electrical generationwere far less than today. Even so, the

5

invention of a suitable steam turbinewith the potential to rotate at muchlower speeds and having a better effi-ciency than the de Laval turbine wasnot long delayed.

In 1884 British engineer Charles A.Parsons (1854-1931) designed a steamturbine, now called a reaction turbine,with a number of bladed wheels ar-ranged along the length of the turbineshaft. Steam admitted at the inlet tothe turbine had to pass through eachwheel before it left the turbine. In thisway the pressure decreased from theinlet to the outlet in small steps in eachone of the wheels. Stationary bladeswere arranged in rows around the in-side of the cylindrical turbine case,with each such stationary row betweena pair of rotating bladed wheels. Thestationary blades were designed sothat some of the pressure drop oc-curred both in them and in the bladesattached to the rotating wheels. Ar-ranging for the steam pressure to de-crease in small steps, rather than onelarge step (as in de Laval’s turbine), re-sulted in a significant improvement tothe turbine’s energy efficiency andpracticality.

Experience soon showed that forthe best efficiency the Parsons turbinehad to have many wheels attached toits shaft. As new turbines were builtwith higher steam pressure to increasethe turbine power output, the numberof wheels increased. The turbine shafthad to likewise increase in overalllength with the result that, if a slightbend occurred in the shaft, the outerend of the blades on the rotating wheelcould rub the turbine casing and de-stroy the machine.

Another major participant in the de-velopment of the turbine was A.C.E.Rateau (1863-1930) who, independ-ently of Parsons, designed a turbine inwhich the pressure drop also occurredin small steps. He, however, designedhis turbine in such a way that thepressure drop only took place in thestationary blades attached to the tur-bine case. This small, but significant,difference simplified turbine designand operation because it avoided theefficiency-reducing leakage around

the rotating wheels, which is a prob-lem in the Parsons turbine. The Rateauturbine today is known as a pressure-compounded turbine.

A key event in the development ofthe turbine came when Charles Curtispatented two concepts that, like theinventions of Parsons and of Rateau,overcame the comparatively poor effi-ciency of the de Laval turbine, but alsoavoided the very long shaft that wasrequired in the Parsons turbine. Cur-tis’ first patented design was essen-tially the same as the idea behind theRateau turbine, but his second patentdealt with a radically different con-cept, known as velocity compounding.In a velocity compounded steam tur-bine it is the steam speed, rather thanthe pressure, that decreases in steps asit passes through the turbine from inletto outlet. This type of turbine requiresfar fewer wheels, and hence a shortershaft, than the Parsons turbine. Also,because Curtis designed the turbine sothat the steam only decreases in pres-sure in the nozzle where it enters theturbine, there is no need to worry aboutthe leakage problem that occurs in theParsons turbine around the outside ofthe rotating wheels. In spite of theseadvantages, the Curtis turbine is not asefficient as the Parsons and Rateau tur-bines, but it is mechanically muchsimpler and significantly more rug-ged.

Curtis undoubtedly recognized atthe time he conceived it that his veloc-ity compounded turbine was poten-tially not as efficient as the Parsonsturbine, so he arranged for two of themto be connected together. The steamfrom the first turbine was then sup-plied to the second. The turbine shaftswere also connected together end-to-end. This arrangement was known aspressure compounding, and the earli-est designs of the Curtis turbine allused both velocity compounding andpressure compounding in the samemachine. As an example, the 500-kilowatt Newport turbine has twostages of pressure compounding, eachconsisting of three velocity com-pounded stages. This means that sixrows of blades rotated on the periphery

6

of turbine wheels when the machine consequence of their holding patentwas operating. rights or exclusive licenses. From this

Development of the Curtis vertical point of view, it is clear that the inven-turbine, both to increase its power tion and patenting of the Curtis turbineoutput, as well as its efficiency, oc- allowed the General Electric Com-curred at a hectic pace after the com- pany to enter the turbine field in thepletion of the first machine -- the 500- United States. The field had beenkilowatt turbine that was shipped to dominated by Westinghouse MachineNewport, Rhode Island. Very little in- Company, which held the U.S. manu-formation is available onthe exact nature of thetechnical improvements,but considering both themeager published dataand the later history of thesteam turbine, it seemslikely that the next signifi-cant advances were con-nected with reducing thefluid friction and turbu-lence, as well as generally“smoothing” the flow ofsteam through the turbine.In particular, it was foundthat reducing the numberof stages of velocity com-pounding was beneficial.When it reached its finalform, the Curtis verticalturbine employed up tosix stages of pressurecompounding (the num-ber depended on thepower output of the tur-bine), with two stages of Vertical section through the 500-kW vertical Curtis steamvelocity compounding in turbine supplied by the General Electric Company to theeach pressure stage. To Newport and Fall River Company (later the Bay Streetcut down friction between Railway Company) for installation in the Newport stationthe rotating wheel and the in May 1903. The turbine has two pressure compoundsteam, the two rows of stages, each consisting of a nozzle, two rows ofrotating blades forming a stationary guides and three rows of moving, bucketss ing le ve loc i ty-com- attached to individual wheels.p o u n d e d s t a g e w e r eattached to the peripheryof a single wheel (for obvious reasons facturing rights to the Parsons turbine.this was called a double-row wheel). As the various steam-turbine patents

While the previous paragraphs have expired, the different manufacturersdescribed the technical advantages incorporated the best features of eachand disadvantages of different types of type of turbine into their designs. Con-steam turbines, it is undoubtedly true sequently, the modern steam turbine,that another, and possibly more impor- regardless of manufacturer, is a hybridtant, incentive for designing different using concepts originally invented byforms of turbines was to allow individ- de Laval, Parsons, Rateau and Curtis.that another, and possibly more impor-tant, incentive for designing differentforms of turbines was to allow individ-

7

Specifications of the 500-kW Curtis Vertical Steam Turbine

Type: 2 stages of pressure com-pounding, 3 stages ofvelocity compounding perpressure stage.

Power Output:

Speed: 1800 rpm

Steam pressure:

Steam temperature: 350 F°

Exhaust pressure:

Frequency and phase: 60 Hertz, 3 phase

500 kW

150 psig

28.5 - 29 in. Hg.

Voltage: 2300

Wording of the Plaque designating the 500-kW CurtisVertical Steam Turbine Generator as an ASME

International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark.

International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark500-kW Curtis Vertical Steam Turbine Generator

Indianapolis, Indiana1903

This, the first Curtis vertical turbine built, was constructed bythe General Electric Company for the Newport & Fall RiverStreet Railway Co. It operated in the Newport, R.I., generat-ing station unitil June 1927. To preserve this historic machine,it was transferred for display to the Indianapolis Power & LightCompany’s E.W. Stout Generating Station.

Charles G. Curtis (1860-1953) - InventorW.L.R. Emmet (1859-1941) - Designer and Developer

American Society of Mechanical Engineers-1990

8

Biographies of Charles Gordon Curtis, William Le Roy Emmetand Edwin Wilbur Rice

C harles Gordon Curtis wasborn April 20, 1860 in Boston,Massachusetts. He graduated

from Columbia University with a civilengineering degree in 1881. He alsostudied law at the New York LawSchool and graduated in 1883. Forseveral years, Curtis was a patentlawyer, but decided to give up hispractice in 1891 to organize the C & CElectrical Motor Company to manu-facture electric motors and fans.

Charles Gordon Curtis(1860 - 1953)

In 1896 Curtis patentedtwo concepts of the steamturbine, and in 1899 he pat-ented the first American gasturbine. This was recog-nized by the American Soci-ety of Mechanical Engi-neers in 1948 when he re-ceived the first annualaward of the Gas TurbineDivision. During the 1920s,Curtis studied the scaveng-ing — the removal of burnedgases from cylinders — oftwo-stroke diesel engines

and patented the Curtis system of scav-enging in 1930. Historians also creditCurtis with inventing the propulsionmechanism used in certain naval tor-pedoes.Curtis died at Central Islip, NewYork, on March 10, 1953.

The practical development of theCurtis turbine is due to William Le

Roy Emmet. Born July 10,1859 on Travers Island,New York, Emmet gradu-ated from the United StatesNaval Academy in 1881.Emmet served during theSpanish-American War as anavigator and during WorldWar I as a member of theNaval Consulting Board.

Edwin Wilbur Rice(1862 - 1935)

From 1883 until 1891Emmet worked at variousjobs related to the expand-ing electrical industry. In1891 he joined Edison Gen-eral Electric Company

(a predecessor of the General ElectricCompany) in Chicago. When theGeneral Electric Company wasformed in 1892, Emmet was moved toSchenectady, New York, where hespent the rest of his career.

Emmet began working with CharlesCurtis and the steam turbine around1901 and is credited with makingCurtis’ ideas work in the production ofelectricity.

He died in Erie, Pennsylvania, onSeptember 26, 1941.

Edwin Wilbur Rice was born onMay 6, 1862 in Lacrosse, Wisconsin.

After moving in 1870 to Philadel-phia, Rice attended Central HighSchool and was graduated in 1880.

O n e o f h i s t e a c h e r s , E l i h uThompson, later became a scientificadvisor and inventor of electric appa-ratus and Rice became his assistant.Together, they manufac-tured arc lamps and dyna-mos at the American Elec-tric Company in New Brit-ain, Connecticut. Rice re-mained with the companyas it changed its name to theThompson-Houston Com-pany where he was pro-moted to plant supervisor,and then later to the GeneralElectric Company in amerger with Edison GeneralElectric Company.

At General Electric, Riceclimbed the corporate lad-der from technical director to vicepresident. It was at this time that Ricemet Charles Curtis.

Interested in Curtis’ ideas, Ricedrew up the initial agreement betweenGeneral Electric and Curtis. In 1913Rice became president of GeneralElectric Company and was later madean honorary chairman of the com-pany’s board of directors. Rice hasmore than 100 patents to his name. Hedied November 25, 1935.William Le Roy Emmet

(1859 - 1941)

9

AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Euan F. C. Som-

merscales, associate professor of me-chanical engineering at RensselaerPolytechnic Institute, and chairman ofthe American Society of MechanicalEngineers’ National History and Heri-tage Committee. Most of the informa-tion contained in this brochure comesfrom his research paper, “The CurtisVertical Turbine,” presented in the

ASME National OfficersArthur E. Bergles, PresidentHarold E. Monde Jr., Vice President,

Region VIThomas H. Fehring, History &

Heritage Chairman, Region VIR. Stephen Schermerhorn, Chairman,

Council on Public Affairs

ASME Central Indiana SectionMahmood Naim, ChairmanNancy DentonPeggy SimsDick TrippettCalvin Emmerson

ASME Power DivisionR.K. Mongeon, ChairmanJ.W. StantonJ.G. Mounts

History and Heritage session at theWinter Annual Meeting of ASME inChicago, Illinois, November 28-December 2, 1988. Additional textalso was written for the technical sec-tion of this brochure. Thanks also toRuth Shoemaker of the Hall of HistoryFoundation for her assistance in locat-ing photographs.

George A. Jacobson, Vice President,Board on Public Information

David L. Belden, Executive DirectorArthur W. Ebeling, Director, ASME

Midwest Region

Marty IwamuroDon LemenChandran SantanumLisa A. JonesJames M. Forry

David PrechtKlaus UllmanScott A. Patulski

ASME National History and Heritage Committee

Euan F. C. Somerscales, Chairman John H. LienhardRobert M. Vogel, Secretary Joseph P. Van Overveen, P.E.Robert B. Gaither R. Carson Dalzell, P.E., ChairmanRichard S. Hartenberg, P.E. EmeritusJ. Paul Hartman, P.E. Carron Garvin-Donohue, ASME StaffJ.L. Lee, P.E. Liaison

Indianapolis Power & Light Company

John R. Hodowal, Chairman and Robert A. McKnight Jr., Vice Presi-Chief Executive Officer dent, Engineering and Construction

Ramon L. Humke, President and Chief Robert W. Rawlings, Vice President,Operating Officer Electric Production

Gerald D. Waltz, Senior Vice Presi- Stephen M. Powell, Manager, Powerdent, Engineering and Operations Production Operations

Jerry L. Chambers, Superintendent,E.W. Stout Generating Station

10

The History and Heritage Program of the ASME

(Photograph courtesy of General

11

The ASME History and HeritageRecognition Program began in Sep-tember of 1971. To implement andachieve its goals, ASME formed a His-tory and Heritage Committee, initiallycomposed of mechanical engineers,historians of technology and (ex-offi-cio) curator of mechanical engineer-ing at the Smithsonian Institution. TheCommittee provides a public serviceby examining, noting, recording and

Designation

The 500-kilowatt Curtis verticalsteam turbine is the 30th InternationalHistoric Mechanical EngineeringLandmark to be designated. Since theASME Historic Mechanical Engineer-ing Recognition Program began in1971, 137 Historic Mechanical Engi-neering Landmarks, five MechanicalEngineering Heritage Sites and twoMechanical Engineering HeritageCollections have been recognized.Each reflects its influence on society,either in the immediate locale, nation-wide, or throughout the world.

An ASME landmark represents aprogressive step in the evolution ofmechanical engineering. Site desig-nations note an event or developmentof clear historical importance to me-chanical engineers. Collections markthe contributions of a number of ob-jects with special significance to thehistorical development of mechanicalengineering.

The ASME Historic MechanicalEngineering Recognition Program il-luminates our technological heritageand serves to encourage the preserva-tion of the physical remains of histori-tally important works. It provides anannotated roster for engineers, stu-dents, educators, historians and travel-ers. It helps establish persistent re-minders of where we have been andwhere we are going along the diver-gent paths of discovery.

acknowledging mechanical engineer-ing achievements of particular signifi-cance. The History and HeritageCommittee is part of the ASME Coun-cil on Public Affairs and Board onPublic Information. For further infor-mation, please contact the Public In-formation Department, American So-ciety of Mechanical Engineers, 345East 47th Street, New York, NY10017, (212) 705-7740.

ASME Book HH0690

Turbine testing department at theSchenectady Works of the General

Electric Company circa 1904.

Electric Company)

References

American Society of Mechanical Engi-neers. “The 5000 kW Vertical CurtisSteam Turbine-Generator at the Sch-enectady Plant of the General ElectricCompany.” Landmark Brochure inhonor of its designation as a NationalHistoric Mechanical Engineering Land-mark. May 1975.

Bowden, A.T. “Charles Parsons -- Pur-veyor of Power.” The Great Masters.pp. 139-144.

“Charles G. Curtis.” Diesel Power. May25, 1947, p. 77.

Electrifying Indianapolis: A History ofIndianapolis Power & Light Companyand Its Predecessors. IndianapolisPower & Light Company, December1960.

Gibson, Geo. H. “A Pioneer in High-Pressure Steam.” Power. November 6,1928, pp. 762-764.

James, E.T., ed. Dictionary of AmericanBiography, Supplement 3 1941-1945.New York: Scribners, 1973, pp. 25l-52.

Mechanical Engineering. May 1930, p.571.

Somerscales, Euan F.C., Presentationpaper for Winter Annual Meeting,American Society of Mechanical Engi-neers, September 1988.

Starr, H.E., ed. Dictionary of AmericanBiography Vol. 1, Supplement 1. NewYork: Scribners, pp. 627-28.

Who’s Who in America. Chicago, Ill.:Marquis, 1960, Vol. 3 1951-1969,p. 202.

The following are references used in the1988 Somerscales presentation papernoted above:American Society of Mechanical Engi-

neers. Georgetown Steam plant bro-chure, prepared in connection with itsdedication as a National Historic Me-chanical Engineering Landmark, 1980.

Anonymous. “Latest Development inCen t r a l -S t a t i on Eng inee r ing i nC h i c a g o , ” Western Electr ic ian.Vol. 32, May 23, 1903, pp. 395-402.

Anonymous. “Recent Developments inthe Chicago Edison and CommonwealthElectric Systems,” Electrical World.Vol. 41, 1903, pp. 863-869.

Anonymous. “New Power Station ofBoston Elevated Railway Company,”Electrical World. Vol. 59, 1912, pp.637-640.

Anonymous. “Plan Open House at PowerPlant,” The Indianapolis Sunday Star.November 29, 1931.

Curtis, C.G. Elastic Fluid Turbine, U.S.Patent No. 566, 968, September 1, 1896.

Curtis, C.G. Elastic Fluid Turbine, U.S.Patent No. 566, 969, September 1, 1896.

Dunsheath, P. A History of ElectricalPower Engineering. Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press, 1962.

Hammond file, n.d., General ElectricCompany Main Library, Schenectady,N.Y., items L725, L772, L3217, L3440,L2660 and X14-32.

Howry, J.C. “Powering the T -- EarlyPower Stations of Boston’s Rapid Tran-sit System.” Paper prepared for presen-tation at the 13th Annual Conference ofthe Society for Industrial Archeology,Boston, Mass., June 14-17, 1984.

Insull, S. “Developments in Electric Util-ity Operating,” Public Utilities inModern Life. Chicago, Ill.: Privatelyprinted, 1924, pp. 108-132.

McDonald, F. Insull. Chicago, Ill.: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1962.

National Electric Light Association. 1905Report of the Committee on SteamTurbines, Proceedings, Vol. 2.

National Electric Light Association. 1907Report of the Committee on SteamTurbines, Proceedings, Vol. 4.

Pinnick, D.E. and J.M. Forry. 1987Nomination of the 500-kW NewportSteam Turbine as a National HistoricMechanical Engineering Landmark.Public Information Department, Ameri-can Society of Mechanical Engineers,New York, N.Y.

Robinson, E.L. “The General Trend ofSteam Turbine Development by theGeneral Electric Company,” GeneralElectric Review. Vol. 32, 1929, pp. 638-643.

Robinson, E.L. “The Steam Turbine in theUnited States, III -- Developments bythe General Electr ic Company,”Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 59,1937, pp. 239-256.

Somerscales, E.F.C. “Two Historic PrimeMovers,” ASME Paper 84-WA/HH-2.

Somerscales, E.F.C. “Power: Steam andInternal Combustion Engines,” Ency-clopedia of the History of Technology.Ian McNeil, ed., London: Longmans,1990.

Wise, G. Private communication, July 19,1977.

12

J.E. Housley (right), while president ofthe American Institute of Electrical Engi-neers, congratulates H.T. Pritchard, thenpresident of Indianapolis Power & LightCompany, for preserving the first 500-kilowatt Curtis vertical steam turbine

used in commercial service.