You are on page 1of 7

Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113 119

www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

A metastable wet steam turbine stage model


Wageeh Sidrak Bassel *, Arivaldo Vicente Gomes
Instituto de Pesquisas Energeticas e Nucleares, Tra6essa R 400 -Cidade Uni6ersitaria, CEP 05508 -900 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Received 17 April 2001; received in revised form 6 November 2001; accepted 10 January 2002

Abstract

A model for the prediction of the efficiency of axial flow steam turbine stage is described, where the flow through
turbine cascade is considered non-homogeneous and metastable. At the exit an oblique shock brings it to equilibrium.
The losses in the cascade are expressed according to Dunham and Came (Trans. ASME (1970)) and Kacker and
Okapuu (J. Eng. Power (1982)) which is imprivemente of Ainley and Mathieson (1951) method. Two phase flow
frictional multiplier is used as a correction factor for pressure coefficient. The model is compared with data of
performance evaluation of large steam turbines of PWR power plants and results shows a good agreement. 2002
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction bine cascade flow. According to Cofer (1996), the


application of similar method for two phase flow
The performance of axial flow turbine was de- of wet steam turbine not yet established up to
termined by means of loss model first deduced by now.
The present work is simple and can be used for
Ainely and Metheison (1951). The work has been
wet steam turbine stage with adequate accuracy.
revised by Dunham and Came (1970) and later by
The model is based upon system of non-linear
Kacker and Okapuu (1982). The loss model is algebraic conservation equations of mass, mo-
widely used in gas turbine and the efficiency can mentum in axial and tangential directions, energy
be determined within accuracy of 1.5%. The appli- and loss model. In these equations it is considered
cation of this method in steam turbine results of slip between vapor and liquid phases and the loss
higher errors. Craig and Cox (1971) proposed 1% model is corrected by two phase flow frictional
less of efficiency for each 1% of mean stage multiplier. Since the residence time of steam when
wetness. passing through blade row in the order of 0.1 ms,
The solution of three dimensions Navier it is assumed that there is no heat transfer be-
Stokes equation by numerical method for tween the two phases and there is no sufficient
compressible single phase was developed for tur- time for formation of new liquid drops so both
the vapor and liquid phases are in metastable
* Corresponding author. state. The metastable state is transformed in sta-
E-mail addresses: wsbassel@net.ipen.br (W.S. Bassel), ble equilibrium state at the entrance of new subse-
avgomes@net.ipen.br (A.V. Gomes). quent row by means of oblique equilibrium shock.

0029-5493/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 6
 
114 W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119

1 x2
mug2 x2 +
S2
V 2g2
(CL cos im CD sin im )chmzg2

 
2
1 x1
= mug1 x1 + . (3)
S1
Equation of conservation of energy:

V 2g2
x2
1x2
2
+ H2 =
V 2g1x1
1x1 + H 1,

2 S2 2 S 21
(4)
H2 = x2Hg2 + (1 x2)Hl2, (5)
V =6 +u ,
2
g2
2
g2
2
g2 (6)
Fig. 1.
mean flow angle im :

tan im =

1 ug1 ug2
+ .
 (7)
2 6g1 6g2
The exit flow angle i2:
2. Governing physical equations
ug2
tan i2 = . (7a)
Fig. 1 shows steam turbine blade terminology 6g2
used in this work. The governing physical equa- The inlet flow angle i1:
tions which describes the flow for fixed and mov-
ing blades are the conservation equations of mass, ug1
tan i1 = . (7b)
momentum and energy, pressure loss coefficient 6g1
and equation of state. Equation of conservation The pressure loss coefficient Ybifasic is defined by,
of mass:

6g2sh2 h2zg2 +
(1 h2)zl2  Ytwo phase =
p1 + (1/2)zg1V 21 (p2 + (1/2)zg2V 22)
(1/2)zg2V 22
,

 
S2 (8)
(1h1)zl1
= 6g1sh1 h1zg1 + . (1) where
S1
Ytwo phase = Y, (8a)
Equation of conservation of momentum in axial
direction: where is the two phase frictional multiplier, and

p2sh2 +m6g2 x2 +
1 x2  Y= Yp + Ysec + Ytet + Ytc. (8-b)
S2
Yp is the profile loss coefficient, Ysec secondary
V2 loss coefficient, Ytet trailing edge coefficient and
+ (CLsin im + CDcos im )chmzg2 g2

 
2 Ytc tip clearance coefficient. These coefficients are
1 x1 determined according to Dunham and Came
=p1sh1 +m6g1 x1 + , (2) (1970), Kacker and Okapuu (1982).
S1
The two phase frictional multiplier is the
where hm = (h1 +h2)/2. ratio of the two phase pressure drop estimated by
Equation of conservation of momentum in tan- Friedel correlation to vapor phase pressure drop
gential direction: estimated at blade inlet.
W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119 115

The equations of state, enthalpy and entropy in between as the two phases and no formation of
metastable state are estimated by curve fitness new liquid drops it can be assumed:
from data of Keenen and Keys steam table as
x2 = x1,
follows.Equation of state:
Hl2 = Hl1,
p2
= 1+zg2B(T) + z 2g2C(T), (9) zl2 = zl1,
zg2RT2
il2 $ il1.
B(T)
The solution of non-linear system of algebraic
= 0.076898+0.074717 103/T2 0.020749
equations from Eq. (1) to Eq. (14) gives the
106/T 22, (9a) numerical values of the following variables:
C(T)= 0.0017310.000834 103/T2, (9b) (6g2, ug2, Vg2, p2, T2, zg2, CL, CD, Hg2, H2, ig2, i2, S2,
h2).
where p is the pressure in Pa; z, density in kg
m 3; T, temperature in K; R, gas constant for The flow, after exit plane of the blade, suffers
steam, equal 461.5 J kg 1 K. from obstacle represented by the subsequent blade
The enthalpy in kJ kg 1 is: row, due to this it is assumed that an oblique
shock is established in plane parallel to exit blade

!
Hg2 =H0
plane transforming the flow to stable equilibrium
RT2 dB(T) conditions.
+ z (B(T) T2)
1000 g2
"
dT The governing physical equations for the equi-
librium shock are: the tangential velocities, rela-
dC(T)
+z 2g2(C(T) 12T2) , (10) tive to the shock plane, before and after the shock
dT are equal.
H0 = 2369.1311.231567 T2 +0.008379 T 22
ugs = ug2, (15)
0.000007455 T 32. (10a)
conservation of mass:
The entropy in kJ kg 1 K is:

ig2 = io +
R !
p
ln 25 +T2zg2
dB(T)
+ 2zg2B(T)2
mgs + mls = m,
mls = 6gs(1hs)sh2zls/Ss,
(16)
(17)

"
1000 10 dT
mgs = 6gshssh2zgs. (18)
dC(T)
2zg2C(T)+2zg2T2 , (11)
dT Equation of conservation of momentum:
io = 4.927682+0.007063 T2 +0.000001462 T 22 pssh2 + mgs6gs + mls6gs/Ss
7.28440110 9 T 32, (11a) = p2sh2 + mg26g2 + ml26g2/S2. (19)

   
i2 = x2 ig2 +(1x2)il2, (12) Equation of conservation of energy
the slip ratio S2 is given as 6 2gs 62
mgs Hgs + + mls Hls + gs2

   
0.33 2 2S s
S2 = (zl2/zg2) , (13)
6 2g2 6 2g2
and void fraction h2 is given as: = mg2 Hg2 + + ml2 Hl2 + 2 . (20)
2 2S 2
1
h2 = . (14) The equations from Eq. (16) to Eq. (20) joint
1+((1 x2)/x2)(zg2/zl2S2)
with the seven equations of pressure as a function
In the above system of equations the inlet flow of temperature, and density, enthalpy and entropy
velocity and all the thermodynamic properties are of liquid and vapor phase as a function of temper-
known. Considering that there is no heat transfer ature too, in thermodynamic equilibrium state,
116 W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119

Table 1 Table 3
Characteristics of turbine stage illustrative example Exit flow conditions of fixed blades

Description Fixed blade Moving blade Exit conditions before shock plane
Frictional two phase flow multiplication 1.4
Spacing (s, mm) 29.6 49.4 factor ()
Cord (c, mm) 51 90 Two phase flow pressure drop coefficient 0.1228
Inlet blade height (h1, 182 208 (Ytwo phase)
mm) Exit axial velocity (62, m s1) 80.9
Exit blade height (h2, 195 235 Exit tangential velocity (u2, m s1) 261.92
mm) Exit velocity (V2, m s1) 274.13
Main radius (mm) 1405 1419 Exit static pressure (p2, bar) 1.9492
Exit flow angle () 73 73.3 Static temperature (T2, C) 107.55
Number of blades 298 180 Vapor phase density (zg2, kg m3) 1.141
Velocity at mean radius 264.82 Lift coefficient (CL) 0.6786
(m s1) Drag coefficient (CD) 0.0395
Type Unshrouded Vapor phase enthalpy (Hg2, kJ kg1) 2680.15
Mixture enthalpy (H2, kJ kg1) 2629.75
Vapor phase entropy (ig2, kJ kg1 C) 7.07014
Mixture entropy (i2, kJ kg1 C) 6.94178
Slip ratio (S2) 9.1548
forms a system of non-linear algebraic equations, Void fraction (h2) 0.99973
where the solution gives
Conditions after shock plane
(mgs, mls, hs, 6gs, ps, Ts, Hgs, Hls, zgs, zls, igs, ils).
Vapor phase mass rate of flow (mgs, kg 0.521873
The work done is given by the equation: s1)
Liquid phase mass rate of flow (mls, kg 0.01856
W= U DF, (21) s1)
Steam quality (xs) 0.96565
where U is mean radius speed, DF is the change of Void fraction (hs) 0.999615
the tangencial momentum of the moving blade, Slip ratio (Ss) 9.27
based on absolute velocity, that is given by the Vapor phase axial velocity (6gs, m s1) 82.029
equation: Static pressure (ps, bar) 1.9498
Static temperature (Ts, C) 119.38
Vapor phase enthalpy (Hgs, kJ kg1) 2705.43
Liquid phase enthalpy (Hls, kJ kg1) 501.024
Vapor phase density (zgs, kg m3) 1.1017
Table 2 Liquid phase density (zls, kg m3) 943.3
Inlet flow conditions Vapor phase entropy (igs, kJ kg1 C) 7.13657
Liquid phase entropy (ils, kJ kg1 C) 1.52089
Mass flow rate (m, kg s1) 161.05 Mixture entropy (is, kJ kg1 C) 6.94368
Static pressure (p1, bar) 2.393
Steam quality (x1) 0.9766
Vapor phase enthalpy (Hg1, kg kg1) 2714.93
Liquid phase enthalpy (Hl1, kJ kg1)
Mixture enthalpy (kJ kg1)
Vapor phase entropy (ig1, kJ kg1 K)
529.13
2663.78
7.0678

DF = x2(ug2 U)+ (1 x2)
 ug2
U
n

S2 moving
Liquid phase entropy (il1, kJ kg1 K)
Mixture entropy (i1, kJ kg1 K)
Vapor phase density (kg m3)
1.5918
6.9395
1.3347
u
+ xs ugs + (1 xs) gs
n . (22)
Liquid phase density (kg m3) 937.9
Ss fixed

Mixture density (m3 kg1) 1.3666 The dynamic enthalpy drop is given by:
Inlet axial velocity (61, m s1) 73.37
Inlet tangential velocity (u1, m s1) 9 DHdynamic = DHstatic + KEinlet KEexit, (23)
Slip ratio (S1) 8.69
Void fraction (h1) 0.9997 where DHdynamic is the dynamic enthalpy drop,
DHstatic is the static enthalpy drop, KEinlet is the
W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119 117

kinetic energy of inlet flow based upon absolute Table 5


velocity, KEexit is the kinetic energy of exit flow Comparison between metastable and homogeneous equi-
librium models (case 1)
based upon absolute velocity.
Parameter Metastable Homogeneous
p = W/DHdynamic, (24)
model equilibrium
where p is the stage efficiency. model

Inlet pressure (bar) 16.143 16.143


Inlet steam quality 90.2 90.2
3. Illustrative example (%)
Two phase frictional 1.47 Not applicable
The above model was applied in the analysis of multiplier for stator
Pressure loss 0.1164 0.0792
steam turbine stage of a low pressure turbine of a
coefficient Y for
stator
Two phase frictional 1.47 Not applicable
Table 4 multiplier for rotor
Exit flow conditions of moving blades Pressure loss 0.1557 0.1059
coefficient Y for
Exit conditions before shock plane rotor
Frictional two phase flow multiplication 1.47 Exit stage pressure 13.75 13.85
factor () (bar)
Two phase flow pressure drop coefficient 0.25463 Exit stage steam 89.28 89.27
(Ytwo phase) quality (%)
Exit axial velocity (62, m s1) 82.3 Stage efficiency 0.865 0.941
Exit tangential velocity (u2, m s1) 274.39 Stage efficiency after Not applicable 83.8
Exit velocity (V2, m s1) 286.46 correction
Exit static pressure (p2, bar) 1.5162 Estimated stage 85
Static temperature (T2, C) 98.96 efficiency from heat
Vapor phase density (zg2, kg m3) 1.1055 balance
Lift coefficient (CL) 0.6313
Drag coefficient (CD) 0.0637
Vapor phase enthalpy (Hg2, kJ kg1) 2667.31
Mixture enthalpy (H2, kJ kg1) 2592.9
Vapor phase entropy (ig2, kJ kg1 C) 7.148967
Mixture entropy (i2, kJ kg1 C) 6.95565
Slip ratio (S2) 9.8864
nuclear power plant. Table 1 shows the stage
Void fraction (h2) 0.99966 specification, Table 2 shows inlet flow conditions,
Table 3 shows the result of calculation of the fixed
Conditions after shock plane
blades. Table 4 shows the result of calculations of
Vapor phase mass rate of flow (mgs, kg s1) 0.85409 the moving blades.
Liquid phase mass rate of flow (mls, kg s1) 0.040625 The calculated results are as follow:
Steam quality (xs) 0.95459
Void fraction (hs) 0.999563 W= 68.2 kJ/kg (specific work done),
Slip ratio (Ss) 10.02
Vapor phase axial velocity (6gs, m s1) 84.38 p=88.55% (efficiency).
Static pressure (ps, bar) 1.5173
Static temperature (Ts, C) 111.68 The estimated stage efficiency, obtained during
Vapor phase enthalpy (Hgs, kJ kg1) 2693.94 performance evaluation of steam turbine, by mea-
Liquid phase enthalpy (Hls, kJ kg1) 468.37 suring exit power and exit enthalpy indirectly, was
Vapor phase density (zgs, kg m3) 0.8724 86.3%; the difference is due to some other types of
Liquid phase density (zls, kg m3) 949.4
losses, like leakage in the stator blades and losses
Vapor phase entropy (igs, kJ kg1 C) 7.2202
Liquid phase entropy (ils, kJ kg1 C) 1.437 due to expansion of steam from exit fixed blade to
Mixture entropy (is, kJ kg1 C) 6.9576 inlet moving blades, that was not considered in
this calculation.
118 W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119

Table 6 Table 7
Comparison between metastable and homogeneous equi- Comparison between metastable and homogeneous equi-
librium models (case 2) librium models (case 3)

Parameter Metastable Homogeneous Parameter Metastable Homogeneous


model equilibrium model equilibrium
model model

Inlet pressure (bar) 2.393 2.393 Inlet pressure (bar) 0.2017 0.2017
Inlet steam quality 97.65 97.65 Inlet steam quality 0.922 0.922
(%) (%)
Two phase frictional 1.4 Not applicable Two phase frictional 1.24 Not applicable
multiplier for stator multiplier for stator
Pressure loss 0.12228 0.08709 Pressure loss 0.281 0.227
coefficient Y for coefficient Y for
stator stator
Two phase frictional 1.47 Not applicable Two phase frictional 1.24 Not applicable
multiplier for rotor multiplier for rotor
Pressure loss 0.25463 0.1732 Pressure loss 0.285 0.255
coefficient Y for coefficient Y for
rotor rotor
Exit stage pressure 1.5173 1.64 Exit stage pressure 0.077 Note 2
(bar) (bar)
Exit stage steam 95.46 95.66 Exit stage steam 88.5 Note 2
quality (%) quality (%)
Stage efficiency (%) 88.5% Near 100% Stage efficiency (%) 0.778 note 1 Note 2
Stage efficiency after Not applicable 97.34 Stage efficiency after Not applicable Note 2
correction correction
Estimated stage 86.3 Estimated stage 0.71
efficiency from heat efficiency from heat
balance balance

The above calculations was repeated using con- Note 1


cept of thermodynamic equilibrium between
phases, vapor and liquid, during flow through the Case 3 represents the final stage of low pressure
blade rows. Correlations of enthalpy, entropy, steam turbine, the exit kinetic energy is completely
specific volume of saturated vapor and saturated lost, so the efficiency in this case is expressed by
liquid, also the pressure temperature relationship the work done divided by the isentropic static
of saturation state was developed. These correla- enthalpy drop. The rotor blade is highly tapered
tions substituted the Eqs. (9) (11) of metastable by reducing the blade cord and thickness from
state. The pressure loss coefficient Y is used hub to tip, in order to improve the mechanical
without multiplication of two phase frictional vibration aspect. Due to blade taper the estimated
efficiency at midline estimated by the present work
multiplier. Thus represents the treatment of the
is 9% greater than the real mean blade efficiency.
problem by the same method used in gas turbine,
yielding homogeneous equilibrium solution of wet
steam turbine stage. Carig and Cox suggested Note 2
reduction of 1% of efficiency for each 1% mean
humidity. Three real cases were analyzed with The calculated exit conditions of the stator of
both methods, the metastable and homogeneous equilibrium homogeneous model had no physical
equilibrium for comparison, the results are shown meaning even the mathematical solution con-
in Tables 57. verged thus there were negative change in en-
W.S. Bassel, A.V. Gomes / Nuclear Engineering and Design 216 (2002) 113119 119

tropy, negative absolute pressure and tempera- Subscript


ture. The expected exact solution is flow with 1 blade inlet
stationary or moving shock within the blade row. blade exit before shock plane
The treatment of such phenomena is out of scope s blade exit, after shock plane
of this work. g1 vapor phase at blade inlet
l1 liquid phase at blade inlet
g2 vapor phase at blade exit
Appendix A. Nomenclature l2 liquid phase at blade exit
gs vapor phase after shock plane
ls liquid phase after shock plane
c cord (m)
CD drag coefficient
CL lift coefficient
h blade height (m)
H enthalpy (kJ kg1) References
m mass flow rate through one blade
Ainley, D.G., & Mathieson, G.C.R. A method of performance
spacing (kg s1) estimation for axial flow turbine. British ARC, R&M 2974,
p static pressure (N m2) 1951.
s spacing (m) Cofer, J.I., 1996. Advances in steam path technology. Journal
S slip ratio of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 118.
x steam quality Craig, H.R.M., Cox, H.J.A., 1970. A performance estimation
of axial flow turbines. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engnr. Vol 185,
V relative flow velocity (m s1) 1970 1971 pp 407 424.
6 component of V in axial direction Dunham, J., Came, P.M., 1970. Improvment to the Ainley-
(m s1) Mathieson method of turbine performance prediction
u component of V in tangential di- method. ASME Trans. Series A J. Engineering for Power,
Vol. 92 no. 3, July 1970 pp 252 256.
rection (m s1)
Kacker, S.C., Okapuu, U., 1982. A mean line prediction method
h void fraction for axial flow turbine efficiency. ASME Trans. Series A J.
i flow angle (with axial direction) Engineering for Power, Vol. 104 no. 1, Jan. 1982 pp
z density (kg m3) 111 119.

You might also like