4.7 Article

Wet steam flow and condensation loss in turbine blade cascades

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.116748

关键词

Wet steam; Nonequilibrium condensation; Condensation loss; Steam turbine; Turbine blade; Trailing edge

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [792876, 778104]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51876143]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A wet steam modeling was developed to solve the phase change process in steam turbine blade cascades, with results showing wet steam model is more accurate than dry gas model, and an appropriate trailing edge cutback can improve flow conditions.
This study develops a wet steam modelling to solve the phase change process inside the blade cascade of a steam turbine. The comparative study is carried out to understand the impact of the dry gas model and wet steam model on predicting the flow behaviours in a steam turbine. The effect of the cutback of the trailing edge on the flow structure and nonequilibrium condensation is evaluated in blade cascades. The results show that the dry gas assumption without considering the phase change process predicts fraudulently flow separations near the trailing edge to induce oblique waves. The maximum liquid fraction can reach approximately 0.051 based on the wet steam flow modelling. The condensation-evaporation processes in the blade cascades cause a condensation loss of 0.118 MW. The stronger expansion flow is obtained to induce the earlier onset of the homogeneous nucleation process with an increasing cutback of the trailing edge. The 21% cutback of the trailing edge leads to strong flow separations on the suction side to severely deteriorate the flow condition in blade cascades. It suggests that the cutback of the trailing edge by 14% is acceptable to repair damaged blades considering the flow structure, nonequilibrium phase change and condensation loss.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据