4.3 Article

A Code for the Preliminary Design of Cooled Supercritical CO2 Turbines and Application to the Allam Cycle

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4052146

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a mean-line model for the preliminary design of multistage axial turbines with blade cooling. The model provides an estimate of turbine efficiency by computing the stage-by-stage design and cooling requirement. The study reveals that cooled sCO2 turbines are not suitable for a repeated stage configuration, film cooling is less effective compared to conventional gas turbines, and increasing the number of stages and rotational speeds can improve efficiency.
This paper documents a thermo-fluid-dynamic mean-line model for the preliminary design of multistage axial turbines with blade cooling applicable to supercritical CO2 turbines. Given the working fluid and coolant inlet thermodynamic conditions, blade geometry, number of stages and load criterion, the model computes the stage-by-stage design along with the cooling requirement and ultimately provides an estimate of turbine efficiency via a semi-empirical loss model. Different cooling modes are available and can be selected by the user (stand-alone or combination): convective cooling, film cooling, and thermal barrier coating. The model is applied to attain the preliminary aero-thermal design of the 600 MW cooled axial supercritical CO2 turbine of the Allam cycle. Results show that a load coefficient varying from 3 to 1 throughout the machine, and a reaction degree ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 lead to the maximum total-to-static turbine efficiency of about 85%. Consequently, as opposed to uncooled CO2 turbines, a repeated stage configuration is an unsuited design choice for cooled sCO(2) machines. Moreover, the study highlights that film cooling is considerably less effective compared to conventional gas turbines, while increasing the number of stages from 5 to 6 and adopting higher rotational speeds leads to an increased efficiency.

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

4.3
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