Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. 98-Mar-B5 Fluid Machinery,
National Examinations December 2017 — three hours, closed book. Section A is
calculative (Questions 1–5) and Section B descriptive (Questions 6–8); the rubric asks for
four of Section A and two of Section B, six questions of ten marks each for a sixty-mark paper.
Reference data for individual questions are supplied as Attachments (pages 10–17) and a general
nomenclature/constants/equations sheet occupies pages 18–22. All eight questions are
solved here, because the set is a study resource rather than a timed attempt.
Reference texts.
S. L. Dixon & C. A. Hall, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery, 7th ed.;
R. K. Turton, Principles of Turbomachinery, 2nd ed.;
H. Cohen, G. F. C. Rogers & H. I. H. Saravanamuttoo, Gas Turbine Theory, 6th ed.;
F. M. White, Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed.;
R. W. Fox, A. T. McDonald & P. J. Pritchard, Introduction to Fluid Mechanics, 9th ed.;
Y. A. Çengel & M. A. Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 9th ed.
Constants are those printed on page 19 of the paper
(g = 9.81 m/s², ρwater = 1000 kg/m³,
ρair = 1.21 kg/m³ at 15 °C and 1.19 kg/m³
at 20 °C, cp = 1.005 kJ/kg°C, cv = 0.718 kJ/kg°C,
patm = 100 kPa, pvapour = 1.71 kPa at 15 °C).
Every reference equation quoted below is one of those printed on pages 20–22, and is identified
as such where it is first used.
Subject note. Although this paper is listed under “Marine Control Systems”, page 1 of the examination itself reads 98-MAR-B5, FLUID MACHINERY, and every question is a turbomachine question with zero marine-control-systems content. The solutions below answer the paper as printed, citing turbomachinery texts rather than any control-systems reference. The three Canadian hydro stations named in
Questions 1 and 2 (Mactaquac, Churchill Falls) are used by the examiner as settings for stated
“hypothetical measurements”; the numbers solved here are the paper's, not plant
records.
Question 3: Curtis Type Impulse Turbine (10 marks)
Given. A two-row velocity-compounded (Curtis) impulse wheel:
Quantity
Symbol
Value
Nozzle exit steam velocity
VS1
1411 m/s
Nozzle angle to the plane of rotation
θ
20°
Moving rows
n
2, both symmetrical
Fixed (guide) row
—
symmetrical, one row
Friction in nozzles and blades
—
zero
Steam mass flow
M
100 kg/s
Find. The blade speed that minimises the exit kinetic energy, the full set of
absolute and relative velocities and blade angles for both rows drawn to scale, the work of each
stage, the total power and the blade efficiency.
Approach. The optimum blade speed for an n-row velocity-compounded
wheel follows from maximising w = ΣVB
ΔVw; with that speed fixed, the two combined velocity diagrams
close by themselves because zero friction plus symmetrical blades means each row returns the
relative velocity unchanged in magnitude and reversed in swirl. Work per row is then
VBΔVw and the blade efficiency
is the total work divided by the nozzle kinetic energy.
Part (a) — optimum blade velocity. Writing the total tangential momentum
change of n symmetrical frictionless moving rows in terms of the blade speed and
differentiating gives the standard result that the optimum blade-speed ratio is
VB/VS1 = cosθ/2n. With
two rows,
$$V_B=\frac{V_{S1}\cos\theta}{2n}=\frac{1411\cos 20^{\circ}}{4}=\frac{1325.9}{4}
=\boxed{331.5\ \text{m/s}}$$
Compare a single-row (De Laval) wheel, where the optimum is
VS1cosθ/2 = 663 m/s. Halving the blade speed is
exactly why Curtis compounding exists: 1411 m/s of steam can be absorbed at a rim speed a
conventional disc can survive.
Part (b), (c) — resolve the nozzle jet and close the stage-1 inlet triangle.
The axial component is set by the nozzle angle and never changes thereafter, because a frictionless
symmetrical blade only reverses the swirl:
$$V_a=V_{S1}\sin\theta=1411\sin 20^{\circ}=482.6\ \text{m/s},\qquad
V_{w1}=V_{S1}\cos\theta=1325.9\ \text{m/s}$$
Subtracting the blade speed from the whirl gives the relative velocity entering row 1:
$$V_{R1}=\sqrt{(V_{w1}-V_B)^2+V_a^2}=\sqrt{994.4^{2}+482.6^{2}}=1105\ \text{m/s}$$
at a blade angle, measured from the plane of rotation, of
$$\phi_1=\tan^{-1}\!\left(\frac{482.6}{994.4}\right)=25.9^{\circ}$$
Because the row is symmetrical and frictionless, that same angle and the same 1105 m/s describe the
flow leaving it.
Part (c) — steam leaving row 1 and entering row 2. Adding the blade
velocity back to the reversed relative whirl gives the absolute velocity leaving row 1:
$$V_{w2}=-(V_{w1}-V_B)+V_B=-994.4+331.5=-662.9\ \text{m/s}$$
$$V_{S2}=\sqrt{662.9^{2}+482.6^{2}}=820.0\ \text{m/s},\qquad
\delta=\tan^{-1}\!\left(\frac{482.6}{662.9}\right)=36.1^{\circ}$$
The negative whirl says the steam is now moving against the direction of blade motion,
which is precisely what the fixed row is there to correct. Being symmetrical and frictionless, the
fixed blades return the steam at the same 820.0 m/s and the same 36.1°, but with the swirl
restored to the direction of rotation.
Part (c) — close the stage-2 diagram. Repeating the construction with
VS3 = 820.0 m/s and whirl +662.9 m/s:
$$V_{R3}=\sqrt{(662.9-331.5)^{2}+482.6^{2}}=\sqrt{331.5^{2}+482.6^{2}}=585.5\ \text{m/s}$$
$$\phi_2=\tan^{-1}\!\left(\frac{482.6}{331.5}\right)=55.5^{\circ}$$
and the absolute velocity leaving the second moving row has whirl
$$V_{w4}=-331.5+331.5=0$$
so the steam leaves purely axially at 482.6 m/s. That is the signature of correct Curtis
design at the optimum blade speed: all the useful swirl has been taken out, and the residual is the
unavoidable axial component the nozzle angle imposed at the start.
The two combined velocity diagrams, drawn to a common scale with the same blade speed and the same axial component. Stage 2 is visibly the smaller triangle — hence the three-to-one work split.
Part (d) — work done by each row. Euler's turbine equation for an axial
machine gives the specific work as the blade speed times the change in absolute whirl:
$$w=V_B\,\Delta V_w$$
For the first row, the whirl swings from +1325.9 to −662.9 m/s, a change of 1988.8 m/s:
$$w_1=331.5\times 1988.8=659\,260\ \text{J/kg}=\boxed{659.3\ \text{kJ/kg}}$$
For the second row, the swing is from +662.9 to 0:
$$w_2=331.5\times 662.9=219\,750\ \text{J/kg}=\boxed{219.8\ \text{kJ/kg}}$$
Total w = 879.0 kJ/kg. The ratio is exactly 3 : 1, which is the classical Curtis result for
two rows and a useful arithmetic check: an n-row wheel at its optimum speed splits the work
in the odd-number ratio (2n − 1) : (2n − 3) : … : 1.
Part (e) — total power. Page 21 gives
P = wM, so at 100 kg/s of steam
$$P=879.0\times 100=87\,900\ \text{kW}=\boxed{87.9\ \text{MW}}$$
Part (f) — blade (diagram) efficiency. Blade efficiency compares the work
extracted with the kinetic energy the nozzles delivered:
$$\eta_b=\frac{w}{V_{S1}^{2}/2}=\frac{879\,010}{1411^{2}/2}=\frac{879\,010}{995\,460}
=\boxed{0.883\ \ (88.3\ \text{per cent})}$$
The frictionless theory says this must equal cos²θ at the optimum
blade speed, and cos²20° = 0.8830 — agreement to four figures,
which confirms every velocity in the table above. The missing 11.7 per cent is the residual axial
kinetic energy, 482.6²/2 = 116.4 kJ/kg, and 879.0 + 116.4 = 995.5 kJ/kg
recovers the nozzle kinetic energy exactly.