22-Mec-B3 Energy Conversion and Power Generation · May 2014
Question 3 of 6: Steam Turbine Operational Conditions
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. Closed book, three hours. Two sections: Section A
(Calculative) Questions 1–4 and Section B (Descriptive) Questions 5–6. Candidates
answer three questions from Section A and one from Section B; four questions of 15 marks each
constitute a complete 60-mark paper. Reference data for particular questions are bound in as
pages 10–17, reference formulae and constants as pages 18–21, and the steam tables
from Granet & Bluestein are supplied. All six printed questions are solved below.
Reference texts for 22-Mec-B3 Energy Conversion and Power Generation
Granet, I. and Bluestein, M., Thermodynamics and Heat Power, 6th ed. — the source of
the steam tables (Tables A.1–A.4 SI) bound into this paper.
El-Wakil, M. M., Powerplant Technology — steam-station cycles, heat balance
diagrams, gas turbines, wind and solar conversion (Figure 5.6 of this text is paper page 14).
Çengel, Y. A. and Boles, M. A., Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 9th ed.
— Rankine, Brayton, Otto, Diesel and combined cycles.
Fox, R. W., Pritchard, P. J. and McDonald, A. T., Introduction to Fluid Mechanics,
10th ed. — the energy equation and head-loss accounting used for the hydro station.
Rayaprolu, K., Boilers for Power and Process — boiler efficiency and heat-rate
conventions.
Units and conventions used throughout. The paper's own constant sheet (page 19)
is used without substitution: $g = 9.81\ \text{m/s}^2$, $c_p$ air $= 1.005\ \text{kJ/kg}\cdot
\text{K}$, $c_v$ air $= 0.718\ \text{kJ/kg}\cdot\text{K}$, $c_p$ water $= 4.190\ \text{kJ/kg}
\cdot\text{K}$, $\rho_{\text{water}} = 1000\ \text{kg/m}^3$, $p_{\text{atm}} = 100\ \text{kPa}$.
Monetary amounts are in Canadian dollars, as the paper is an Engineers Canada national
examination.
Find. The shaft power at three throttle pressures, and the condenser temperature
profile and pressure that each of the two reduced loads produces.
Check: two inconsistencies in the printed paper, resolved as follows. The
question page (page 4) sets part (b) at an inlet throttled to 1 MPa, while the
worksheet (page 12) heads its parts (d) and (e) "when throttled to 4 MPa". Four
megapascals is the full-load throttle pressure, so "part load at 4 MPa" is self-contradictory
and the worksheet caption is a leftover; parts (d) and (e) are answered at 1 MPa, consistent with the
question's own instruction to use "part load conditions as defined in (b) above". Second, the
full-load cooling-water inlet and outlet temperatures are not tabulated anywhere — they must be
scaled off the page-12 graph. Read there as 13.0 °C and 23.0 °C, a 10 K rise; the same graph
puts the exhaust steam at 32.9 °C, which agrees with $T_{\text{sat}}$ at 0.005 MPa to
0.02 °C and confirms the scaling.
Figure 3.1 — the three cases on the h–s plane. Throttling is
horizontal (constant enthalpy) and moves the state to the right; the available isentropic drop
shrinks as it does, which is the whole mechanism of throttle governing. Case C ends above the
saturation line, so the zero-load exhaust is slightly superheated.
Approach. Each case is the same three-step calculation: throttle at constant
enthalpy to the new inlet pressure to find the new entropy, expand isentropically to 0.005 MPa and
multiply the drop by $\eta_i$, then multiply by the flow that the pressure-proportional law allows.
For the condenser, fit $UA$ and the water flow to the full-load profile and hold both constant while
the duty falls.
Part (a) — full-load power. At 4 MPa and 400 °C the tables give
$h_1 = 3213.6$ kJ/kg and $s_1 = 6.7690\ \text{kJ/kg}\cdot\text{K}$. Expanding isentropically to
0.005 MPa ($s_f = 0.4764$, $s_{fg} = 7.9187$, $h_f = 137.82$, $h_{fg} = 2423.7$):
$$x_{2s} = \frac{6.7690 - 0.4764}{7.9187} = 0.7947
\;\Rightarrow\; h_{2s} = 137.82 + 0.7947 \times 2423.7 = 2063.9\ \text{kJ/kg}$$
The internal efficiency converts that into the real drop:
$$\Delta h = \eta_i (h_1 - h_{2s}) = 0.80 \times 1149.7 = 919.8\ \text{kJ/kg}$$
$$P = \dot m \Delta h = 24 \times 919.8 = \boxed{22\,074\ \text{kW} = 22.07\ \text{MW}}$$
The exhaust enthalpy is $3213.6 - 919.8 = 2293.9$ kJ/kg, a dryness fraction of 0.890. Eleven per cent
moisture at the last stage is about the practical limit before erosion of the moving blades becomes a
maintenance problem, which is one reason real plant reheats.
Part (b) — power with the throttle closed to 1 MPa. A throttle valve is
adiabatic and does no work, so the enthalpy is unchanged at 3213.6 kJ/kg while the pressure falls to
1 MPa. Interpolating the 1 MPa superheat table between 350 °C ($h = 3157.7$, $s = 7.3011$) and
400 °C ($h = 3263.9$, $s = 7.4651$):
$$f = \frac{3213.6 - 3157.7}{3263.9 - 3157.7} = 0.526
\;\Rightarrow\; T = 376.3\ ^{\circ}\text{C},\quad s = 7.3874\ \text{kJ/kg}\cdot\text{K}$$
Expanding from that entropy to 0.005 MPa,
$$x_{2s} = \frac{7.3874 - 0.4764}{7.9187} = 0.8727
\;\Rightarrow\; h_{2s} = 2253.3\ \text{kJ/kg},\quad
\Delta h = 0.80 \times 960.3 = 768.3\ \text{kJ/kg}$$
The flow follows the inlet pressure, so
$$\dot m_b = 24 \times \frac{1}{4} = 6\ \text{kg/s}
\qquad P_b = 6 \times 768.3 = \boxed{4\,610\ \text{kW} = 4.61\ \text{MW}}$$
Quarter flow has given not a quarter of the power but 20.9 % of it, because throttling also destroyed
16 % of the available enthalpy drop. That loss is the reason throttle governing was abandoned for
nozzle-group governing on large machines.
Part (c) — power at zero generator output. Throttling to 0.1 MPa at
constant enthalpy, and interpolating the 0.1 MPa table between 300 °C ($h = 3074.3$,
$s = 8.2158$) and 400 °C ($h = 3278.2$, $s = 8.5435$):
$$f = \frac{3213.6 - 3074.3}{3278.2 - 3074.3} = 0.683
\;\Rightarrow\; T = 368.3\ ^{\circ}\text{C},\quad s = 8.4397\ \text{kJ/kg}\cdot\text{K}$$
This entropy exceeds $s_g = 8.3951$ at 0.005 MPa, so the isentropic end state is superheated
rather than wet. Treating low-pressure steam as an ideal gas with $c_{pv} \approx 1.9\ \text{kJ/kg}
\cdot\text{K}$ from the saturated-vapour point,
$$T_{2s} = 306.03 \exp\!\left(\frac{8.4397 - 8.3951}{1.9}\right) = 313.3\ \text{K}\ (40.1\ ^{\circ}
\text{C})$$
$$h_{2s} = 2561.5 + 1.9 \times (40.1 - 32.88) = 2575.3\ \text{kJ/kg}$$
With the reduced internal efficiency and the pressure-proportional flow,
$$\Delta h = 0.70 \times (3213.6 - 2575.3) = 446.8\ \text{kJ/kg}
\qquad \dot m_c = 24 \times \frac{0.1}{4} = 0.6\ \text{kg/s}$$
$$P_c = 0.6 \times 446.8 = \boxed{268\ \text{kW}}$$
So 268 kW of bearing friction and generator windage — 1.2 % of the full-load rating — is
what the machine consumes to spin at synchronous speed with the breaker open. That is the right order
for a 22 MW set, and it is the quantity that sets the minimum steam admission needed to keep a unit
on turning gear or in spinning reserve.
Part (d) — condenser temperature profiles at part load: fitting the full-load
condition first. The duty at full load is the exhaust steam condensed to saturated liquid:
$$\dot Q_{\text{full}} = \dot m (h_2 - h_f) = 24 \times (2293.9 - 137.8) = 51\,745\ \text{kW}$$
The circulating-water flow that produces the observed 10 K rise is
$$\dot m_w = \frac{\dot Q_{\text{full}}}{c_p \Delta T_w} = \frac{51\,745}{4.190 \times 10}
= 1\,235\ \text{kg/s}$$
Using the average temperature difference the question stipulates rather than the log mean,
$$\theta_{\text{full}} = T_s - \tfrac{1}{2}(T_{w,\text{in}} + T_{w,\text{out}})
= 32.88 - \tfrac{1}{2}(13.0 + 23.0) = 14.88\ \text{K}$$
$$UA = \frac{\dot Q_{\text{full}}}{\theta_{\text{full}}} = \frac{51\,745}{14.88}
= \boxed{3\,477\ \text{kW/K}}$$
Both $UA$ and $\dot m_w$ are fixed hardware — the tube surface does not change and the
circulating pumps run at constant speed — so they carry over unchanged to every other load.
Part (d) continued — the part-load profile. At 6 kg/s the exhaust enthalpy
is $3213.6 - 768.3 = 2445.3$ kJ/kg. Three equations close the problem: the duty
$\dot Q = \dot m (h - h_f(T_s))$, the water rise $\Delta T_w = \dot Q / (\dot m_w c_p)$, and the
transfer equation $\dot Q = UA\,[\,T_s - (T_{w,\text{in}} + \Delta T_w/2)\,]$. Solving them together
(the saturation enthalpy $h_f$ makes it mildly implicit, so it converges in two passes):
$$\dot Q_b = 14\,207\ \text{kW},\qquad \Delta T_{w,b} = 2.75\ \text{K},\qquad
\theta_b = 4.09\ \text{K}$$
$$T_{s,b} = 13.0 + \tfrac{2.75}{2} + 4.09 = \boxed{18.5\ ^{\circ}\text{C}}$$
so the profile to plot is exhaust steam flat at 18.5 °C with cooling water rising from
13.0 °C to 15.8 °C. Both curves collapse towards the water inlet temperature, and the gap
between them narrows from 14.9 K to 4.1 K, because the same surface now has only 27 % of the duty to
pass.
Part (e) — condenser pressure at part load. The condenser pressure is
simply the saturation pressure at the exhaust-steam temperature just found. Interpolating the
saturation table between 15 °C (1.705 kPa) and 20 °C (2.339 kPa):
$$p_b = p_{\text{sat}}(18.5\ ^{\circ}\text{C}) = \boxed{2.14\ \text{kPa} = 0.00214\ \text{MPa}}$$
The vacuum has deepened from 5 kPa to 2.1 kPa purely because the load fell. This is the mechanism
behind the familiar observation that a condensing turbine's heat rate improves slightly at part load
even as its throttle loss worsens: the back pressure follows the duty down, and every kilopascal of
recovered vacuum is worth roughly 1 % on the low-pressure enthalpy drop.
Part (f) — condenser pressure at zero load, estimated without further
calculation. The reasoning is the limit of step 5. At 0.6 kg/s the duty is only about
1 600 kW — 3 % of full load — so both the water temperature rise ($\approx 0.3$ K) and
the mean temperature difference ($\approx 0.5$ K) become negligible, and the exhaust steam
temperature must fall to within about a degree of the cooling-water inlet temperature:
$$T_{s,c} \approx T_{w,\text{in}} + 0.6 \approx 13.6\ ^{\circ}\text{C}
\;\Rightarrow\; p_c \approx p_{\text{sat}}(13.6\ ^{\circ}\text{C})
= \boxed{1.6\ \text{kPa} = 0.0016\ \text{MPa}}$$
In other words, at no load the condenser pressure is pinned by the cooling-water inlet temperature
alone, and 13 °C water sets a floor of about 1.5 kPa. In service that floor is never reached,
because air in-leakage and the finite capacity of the air-removal equipment hold the back pressure
somewhat higher; a real machine on no load would sit nearer 2.5–3 kPa.
Figure 3.2 — the answer to part (d), with the full-load profile read from
page 12 and the two computed profiles superimposed. The dashed lines are the condensing steam and the
solid lines the cooling water; both the water rise and the terminal temperature difference shrink in
proportion to the duty.
Part
Quantity
Result
(a)
Full-load power (4 MPa, 24 kg/s)
22.07 MW ($\Delta h = 919.8$ kJ/kg, $x = 0.890$)
(b)
Power throttled to 1 MPa (6 kg/s)
4.61 MW ($\Delta h = 768.3$ kJ/kg)
(c)
Power at zero generator output (0.1 MPa, 0.6 kg/s)