Next Article in Journal
Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control for Electric Spring in Microgrids with Distributed Renewable Energy
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Undergraduates’ Environmentally Friendly Behavior: Case Study of Tzu Chi University Environmental Education Program
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimal Design of a Dual-Pressure Steam Turbine for Rankine Cycle Based on Constructal Theory

1
Institute of Thermal Science and Power Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China
2
College of Power Engineering, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China
3
Hubei Provincial Engineering Technology Research Center of Green Chemical Equipment, Wuhan 430205, China
4
School of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(13), 4854; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134854
Submission received: 29 May 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2022 / Published: 1 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Energy Saving and Energy Efficiency Technologies)

Abstract

:
A one-dimensional dual-pressure steam turbine (ST) model for the marine Rankine cycle is built in this paper. Based on constructal theory, the optimal design of the dual-pressure ST is performed with a fixed total volume of the high- and low-pressure STs. The total power output (PO) of the dual-pressure ST is maximized. Seventeen parameters, including the dimensionless average diameters (DADs) of the stages, steam inlet angles (SIAs) of the stages, average reaction degrees (ARDs) of the stages, and volume ratio of the high-pressure ST are taken as optimization variables. The optimal structure parameters of the stages are gained. It reveals that the total PO of the dual-pressure ST is increased by 2.59% by optimizing the average diameter of the Curtis stage, and the change in the total PO is not obvious by optimizing the average diameter of the third stage of the low-pressure ST. Both the total PO and the corresponding efficiency of the dual-pressure ST are increased by 10.8% after simultaneously optimizing 17 variables with the help of the Matlab optimization toolbox. The novelty of this paper is introducing constructal theory into turbine performance optimization by varying seventeen structure, thermal and flow parameters, and the result shows that the constructal optimization effect is remarkable. Optimal designs of practical STs can be guided by the optimization results gained in this paper.

1. Introduction

The steam turbine (ST) [1,2] is an important component for the energy conversion process of a steam Rankine cycle, which converts the thermal energy of the steam into kinetic energy and mechanical energy in turn. There are many parameters for a complex multistage ST, and parameter optimization is one effective way to elevate the performance of the ST.
Many scholars have conducted various performance optimizations for STs. Chen et al. [3] performed multi-optimization of a marine ST stage and analyzed the effect of stage number on the ST efficiency. Qin et al. [4] maximized the stage efficiency of an axial flow ST by varying the geometric and steam flow parameters of the flow passage section and elevated the stage efficiency by up to 1.8%. Ni et al. [5] built a segemented lumped parameter model for a dual-pressure ST (DPST) and compared the simulation and measured results to validate its correctness. Abadi et al. [6] built a turbine blade cascade model with two-phase flows and augmented its efficiency by up to 2.1% after optimization. Anđelić et al. [7] analyzed the performance of a marine ST under different loads and found that the losses and efficiency of the ST augmented with the augment of the turbine load. Zhao et al. [8] considered the guide ring in a low-pressure 300MW ST model and pointed out that the eddy current was abated, and the efficiency of the low-pressure cylinder was augmented by introducing the guide ring. Vedran et al. [9] calculated the energy efficiency of a three-cylinder ST and pointed out that the energy efficiencies of the three cylinders were 95.08%, 95.02% and 94.92% sorted by the reduction of the cylinder pressure. Moreover, the performance of turbines with organic working fluids has also been investigated by some scholars [10,11,12,13].
In the engineering field, constructal theory [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] provides a new idea for the optimal design of various transfer systems. For power plants, this theory has been used in the structure optimizations of boilers [27,28,29,30,31], evaporators [32,33,34,35], condensers [36,37,38,39], regenerators [40,41], turbines [42,43,44,45,46,47] and whole systems [48,49,50]. In the constructal research of the turbines, Kim et al. [42] studied the weight distribution problem of a DPST for land power plants with a fixed total weight and gained the maximum power output (PO) and optimal weight distribution. Beyene and Peffley [43] applied constructal theory to the design of a low-speed wind turbine and gained an optimal trailing edge angle, leading to maximizing the PO of the turbine. Feng et al. [44] sought the minimum thermal resistance of a gas turbine blade and reported that a multi-scale structure exhibited good thermal performance. Stanescu et al. [45] built a constructal cooling model for a gas turbine and compared the turbine performances of fog cooling and inter-stage water spraying cooling by numerical calculations. Wu et al. [46] performed a structure design for an ammonia radial turbine and augmented its PO by 2.02% after optimization. Chen et al. [47] built an R245fa axial flow turbine model and sought the optimal volume and inlet pressure of the turbine to elevate its PO.
The essence of constructal theory is constructal law, which can be described as follows: “For a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must change in time such that it provides easier and easier access to its currents” [14,15]. Structure optimization based on constructal law is called constructal optimization. Different from land turbines, both PO and finite volume should be considered in the design of marine turbines. For this paper, according to the constructal law, in the condition of the fixed total volume (finite size) of the DPST, structure optimization of the ST will be conducted with multi-variable optimization. The PO of the DPST will be maximized. The optimal design variables will be obtained. From this point of view, this paper belongs to constructal design work. In addition, Bejan and colleagues performed similar work [42]. This work is inspired by [42].
This is the biggest difference between this paper and the existing literature. The marine turbine is always composed of two STs with different pressures, and it is important to elevate turbine performance by optimizing its structure under finite size. Based on Refs. [46,47], a one-dimensional DPST model for the marine steam Rankine cycle will be built in this paper. Based on constructal theory, with a fixed total volume of the high- and low-pressure STs, the optimal design of the DPST will be conducted by varying the structure parameters of the stages to search for the maximum PO. The optimization results of the DPST gained by single- and multiple-variable optimizations will be compared. The first novelty of this paper is the introduction of constructal theory into turbine performance optimization. Another novelty of this paper is optimizing the multistage DPST by simultaneously varying seventeen structure, thermal and flow parameters. The performance of the multistage DPST is hoped to be improved by applying these methods.

2. Marine DPST Model

Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of a marine one-dimensional DPST. The ST is composed of high- and low-pressure axial flow STs in series. The superheated steam generated by a boiler successively enters the high- and low-pressure STs to do work, and finally, the torque generated by the STs is transmitted to the propeller through the reduction gear and shaft. The high-pressure ST is an impulse internal bypass composed of a Curtis stage and nine single-stage STs [5]. The design point condition of the STs is considered in this paper, and only the Curtis stage and the last three single stages are working at this condition. The low-pressure ST is an impulse double-path one, which is composed of five impulse stages in each path [5]. The low-pressure ST is symmetrical, and exhaust steam is discharged into the condenser from its middle. It is assumed that the stable flow in the ST is insulated from the environment and that the parameters of the steam are only changed along the axis. Thus, the steam in the ST can be viewed as a one-dimensional steady adiabatic flow.

2.1. ST Model with Axial Flow

The stage is the smallest unit for the axial flow ST to work. Figure 2 shows the thermodynamic process diagram of a single stage.
Points 0 (pressure p 0 ) and 0 * (pressure p 0 * ) are the state points of the steam at the normal and stagnation states in front of the nozzle, respectively. Points 1 (pressure p 1 ) and 2 (pressure p 2 ) are the state points of the steam at the inlet and outlet of the rotating blade. The ideal stagnation enthalpy drop of the steam in the whole stage and ideal enthalpy drops of the steam in the nozzle and rotating blade are Δ h t , Δ h n and Δ h b , respectively.
The average reaction degree (ARD, Ω m ) of the single stage is the ratio of the ideal enthalpy drop ( Δ h b ) in the rotating blade to the ideal stagnation enthalpy drop ( Δ h t * ) in the whole stage, i.e.,
Ω m = Δ h b Δ h t * = Δ h b Δ h n * + Δ h b
where Δ h n is the ideal stagnation enthalpy drop of the steam in the nozzle.
Figure 3 further shows the thermodynamic process diagram of a Curtis stage with a certain reaction degree. Each thermodynamic process of the Curtis stage is similar to that of the single stage, which is not repeated here.

2.1.1. Expansion Process of the Steam in the Nozzle

The ideal velocity ( c 1 t ) of the steam flow at the nozzle outlet is
c 1 t = 2 Δ h n *
when the steam flows through the nozzle, its actual outlet speed ( c 1 ) is less than the ideal speed ( c 1 t ) due to the friction and vortex in the nozzle, i.e.,
c 1 = φ c 1 t
where φ is the nozzle velocity coefficient, whose variation range is from 0.92 to 0.98.
The energy loss ( Δ h n , l ) of the nozzle with the actual flow is equal to the kinetic energy at the nozzle outlet under the ideal condition minus that under the actual condition, i.e.,
Δ h n , l = 1 2 ( c 1 t 2 c 1 2 ) = 1 2 c 1 t 2 ( 1 φ 2 ) = ( 1 φ 2 ) Δ h n *

2.1.2. Flow and Energy Conversion Processes of the Steam in a Rotating Cascade

The circumferential velocity ( u ) at the average diameter ( D b ) of the rotating cascade is
u = π D b n 60
where n is the rotational speed of the ST.
Figure 4 shows the velocity triangle of the single stage. The relative velocity ( w 1 ) and relative inlet angle ( β 1 ) of the steam flow at the inlet of the rotating blade can be calculated according to the velocity triangle.
w 1 = c 1 2 + u 2 2 u c 1 cos α 1
β 1 = arcsin c 1 sin α 1 w 1 = arctan c 1 sin α 1 c 1 cos α 1 u
where α 1 is the absolute angle of the steam flow at the inlet of the rotating blade.
According to the energy balance equations of the inlet and outlet of the rotating blade, the ideal relative velocity ( w 2 t ) of the steam flow at the outlet of the rotating blade can be calculated as
w 2 t = 2 ( h 1 h 2 t ) + w 1 2
where h 1 h 2 t is the ideal enthalpy drop ( Δ h b ) of the rotating blade. Subsisting Δ h b = Ω m Δ h t into Equation (8), one has
w 2 t = 2 Ω m h t + w 1 2 = 2 h b
where Δ h b ( = Δ h b + 0.5 w 1 2 ) is the ideal stagnation enthalpy drop of the rotating blade.
The absolute velocity ( c 2 ) and absolute angle ( α 2 ) of the steam flow at the outlet of the rotating blade can be given as
c 2 = w 2 2 + u 2 2 u w 2 cos β 2
α 2 = arctan w 2 sin β 2 w 2 cos β 2 u
where w 2 and β 2 are the ideal relative velocity and relative angle of the steam flow at the outlet of the rotating blade, respectively.
Similarly, energy loss exists when steam goes through the rotating cascade. The actual relative velocity ( w 2 ) at the rotating blade outlet is less than the ideal relative velocity, i.e.,
w 2 = ψ w 2 t = ψ 2 h b
where ψ is the speed coefficient of the rotating blade, whose variation range is from 0.85 to 0.95.
The energy loss ( Δ h b , l ) of the steam going through the rotating blade, named the rotating blade loss, can be expressed as
Δ h b , l = ( w 2 t 2 w 2 2 ) / 2 = ( 1 ψ 2 ) Δ h b
The residual speed loss ( Δ h c 2 ) of the steam flow caused by the kinetic energy of the exhaust steam is
Δ h c 2 = c 2 2 / 2
where c 2 is the absolute speed at the outlet of the rotating blade.
In the multistage ST, the kinetic energy carried by the residual speed can be used by the next stage, and its degree of utilization can be expressed by the utilization coefficient μ ( 0 μ 1 ) of the residual speed.
After considering the energy losses of the nozzle, rotating blade and residual speed, the effective specific enthalpy ( Δ h u ) of a turbine stage is expressed as
Δ h u = μ 0 c 0 2 / 2 + Δ h n + Δ h b ( Δ h n , l + Δ h b , l + Δ h c 2 )
where μ 0 is the utilization coefficient of the residual speed.
Figure 5 further shows the velocity triangle of the Curtis stage, and its velocity relationship is similar to Figure 4, which is not repeated here.

2.1.3. Loss Model in the Stage

In addition to nozzle loss, rotating blade loss and residual speed loss, there exist other losses in the stage, such as spanwise loss, sector loss, impeller friction loss, partial inlet steam loss, steam leakage loss and wet steam loss.
(1) Spanwise loss ( Δ h l )
The spanwise loss is the additional loss along the height of the blade, which is often calculated by the semi-empirical formula [51], i.e.,
Δ h l = a l Δ h u
where the empirical coefficient a is usually 1.2 for the single stage and 2.0 for the Curtis stage; the cascade height l is the nozzle height for the single stage and the average height of the cascades for the Curtis stage; Δ h u is the effective specific enthalpy drop of the stage.
(2) Sector loss ( Δ h θ )
Sector loss is the additional loss caused by the deviation from the design condition, which is often calculated by the semi-empirical formula [51], i.e.,
Δ h θ = E 0 ζ θ
ζ θ = 0.7 ( l b D b ) 2
where l b is the height of the rotating blade, and E 0 is the ideal energy of the stage.
(3) Impeller friction loss ( Δ h f )
The impeller friction loss is the additional loss caused by the friction movement between the impeller surface and steam, which is often calculated by the semi-empirical formula [51], i.e.,
Δ h f = 3600 Δ p f m ˙ s t
Δ p f = k 1 ( u 100 ) 3 D m 2 1 v
where Δ p f is the friction power consumption of the impeller, m ˙ s t is the steam mass flow rate of the stage, k 1 is the empirical coefficient, D m is the average diameter of the stage, and v is the average specific volume of the steam.
(4) Admission loss ( Δ h e )
The admission loss is composed of the blast loss ( Δ h w ) and steam rejection loss ( Δ h s ). Δ h w can be calculated as [51]:
Δ h w = B e 1 e ( 1 e 0.5 e c ) E 0 x a 3
where e c is the ratio of the arc length of the protective cover to the whole circumference length; e is the admission degree; and the stage type coefficient ( B e ) of the ST is set as 0.15 for the single stage and 0.55 for the Curtis stage. Δ h s can be calculated as [51]:
Δ h s = c s 1 e Z n D n E 0 x a
where Z n is the group number of the nozzles; D n is the average diameter of the stationary cascade; and the coefficient ( c s ) related to the stage type of the ST is set as 0.012 for the single stage and 0.016 for the Curtis stage.
Therefore, the total admission loss in this stage is:
Δ h e = Δ h w + Δ h s
(5) Steam leakage loss ( Δ h δ )
The steam leakage loss is composed of the partition leakage loss ( Δ h p ) and blade top leakage loss ( Δ h t ). The leakage mass flow rate ( Δ m p ) of the steam from the partition is given as [51]:
Δ m p = μ p A p 2 Δ h n v 1 t z p
where μ p is the discharge coefficient of the steam seal, A p is the clearance area of the steam seal, v 1 t is the ideal specific volume of the steam at the outlet of the steam seal teeth, and z p is the teeth number of the steam seal.
Δ h p can be calculated as [51]:
Δ h p = Δ m p m s t Δ h u
The leakage mass flow rate ( Δ m t ) of the blade top is given as [51]:
Δ m t = e μ t π ( D b + l b ) δ t ¯ 2 Ω t Δ h t ν 2 t
where μ t is the discharge coefficient of the blade top clearance, μ n is the discharge coefficient of the nozzle, Ω t is the reaction degree of the blade top, and δ t ¯ is the equivalent clearance of the blade top for steam leakage.
Δ h t can be calculated as [51]:
Δ h t = Δ m t m t Δ h u
Therefore, the total steam leakage loss ( Δ h δ ) in the stage is:
Δ h δ = Δ h p + Δ h t
(6) Wet steam loss ( Δ h x )
When the steam flows into the last few stages of the turbine, a wet steam area is generated. The wet steam loss is usually calculated using the following empirical formula [51]:
Δ h x = ( 1 x m ) Δ h u
where x m is the average steam dryness.

2.1.4. Internal Power of the Stage

According to the internal losses of the stage, the effective enthalpy drop ( Δ h i ) of the stage can be given as
Δ h i = Δ h u ( Δ h l + Δ h θ + Δ h f + Δ h e + Δ h δ + Δ h x )
The calculation process of the internal power of the stage is shown in Figure 6. Finally, the internal power ( P i ) of a stage is given as
P i = m ˙ s t Δ h i
To illustrate the ST model more intuitively, the loss models and internal power of the stage are further listed in Table 1.

2.1.5. Volume of the DPST

The average stage diameters ( D m ,   j , j = H, L) of the high- and low-pressure STs are calculated as
D m ,   j = D 1 ,   j + D z ,   j 2   ( j = H ,   L )
where D 1 ,   j and D z ,   j are the average diameters of the first and last stages, respectively. For simplification, the average diameters of the stationary cascade and rotating cascade are approximately equal to those of the stage.
The average diameters ( D a ,   j , j = H, L) of the turbine casing and maximum lengths ( L a ,   j , j = H, L) of the high- and low-pressure STs can be approximately gained based on the empirical coefficients.
D a ,   j = β j D m ,   j   ( j = H ,   L )
L a ,   j = α j L sp ,   j   ( j = H ,   L )
where L sp ,   j is the flow passage length of the ST, and β j and α j are the coefficients of the average diameter and length, respectively.
The volumes ( V HT and V LT ) of the high- and low-pressure STs can be approximately calculated as
V HT = π ( D a ,   H ) 2 4 L a ,   H
V LT = π ( D a ,   L ) 2 4 L a ,   L
The total volume ( V T ) of the DPST is
V T = V HT + V LT

2.2. Performance of the DPST

The new steam generated by the boiler enters the high- and low-pressure STs to do the work. Under the design point working condition, the steam only goes through the Curtis stage and last three single stages in the high-pressure ST. Therefore, the PO ( P T ,   H ) of the high-pressure ST is the sum of the POs of these four stages.
P T ,   H = P i ,   DSH + P i ,   H 1 + P i ,   H 2 + P i ,   H 3
The low-pressure ST is symmetric. Therefore, the PO ( P T ,   L ) of the low-pressure ST is the sum of the POs of all symmetric stages.
P T ,   L = 2 ( P i ,   L 1 + P i ,   L 2 + P i ,   L 3 + P i ,   L 4 + P i ,   L 5 )
The calculation process of the PO of the DPST is shown in Figure 7. The total PO ( P t ) of the multistage ST is the sum of the POs of the high- and low-pressure STs.
P t = P T ,   H + P T ,   L
The theoretical PO ( P the ) of the ST is defined as the energy released by the steam.
P the = m ˙ st ( h 0 * h out ,   L 5 )
where h 0 * and h out ,   L 5 are the steam stagnation enthalpy at the inlet of the high-pressure ST and steam enthalpy at the outlet of the low-pressure ST, respectively.
The thermal efficiency ( η t ) of the DPST is defined as the ratio of the total PO to the theoretical PO.
η t = P t P the

3. Optimal Design of the DPST Based on Constructal Theory

In this section, with a fixed total volume of the DPST, the constructal design of the double-pressure ST will be conducted subjected to the geometric constraints of increasing dimensionless average diameters (DADs) of the stages along the direction of steam flow. The dimensionless average diameter is defined as the ratio of the current value of the average diameter to its initial value. The effects of the DADs and steam inlet angle (SIA) of the stages on the total PO of the DPST will be analyzed first, and the results can guide the following multivariable optimization. To illustrate the multi-variable optimization problem more intuitively, the constant parameters, design variables, optimization objective, and constraints of the model are listed in Table 2. Then, the total PO will be optimized by simultaneously varying the design variables in Table 2. Due to the parameter settings and geometric constraints of the DPST, the available variation range of one parameter will be different in the following figures. Moreover, the difference between the theoretical and actual total POs of the DPST under the initial parameters is 0.3%, which validates the correctness of the theoretical model.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   DSH ) of the Curtis stage of the high-pressure ST. Figure 8 shows that when the SIA ( α 1 ,   DSH ) of the first row of the rotating blade is 14 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   DSH , P ˜ t first abates and then augments. This is because when D ˜ m ,   DSH changes from 0.820 to 0.831, the PO of the high-pressure ST continuously abates, and its decrement is bigger than the PO increment of the low-pressure ST. Finally, the total PO of the ST shows an abating trend. When D ˜ m ,   DSH changes from 0.831 to 0.845, the POs of the high- and low-pressure STs augment, so the total PO shows an augmenting trend. When α 1 ,   DSH = 14 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   DSH determined by the geometric constraints of the stages, P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t , max ) at 1.0259, and the corresponding optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   DSH ,   opt ) is 0.845. The total PO of the DPST is augmented by 2.59% after optimization. In addition, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   DSH , P ˜ t augments with the abatement of α 1 ,   DSH .
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   H 1 ) of the third stage from the last of the high-pressure ST. As shown in Figure 9, when the SIA ( α H 1 ) of this stage is 12 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   H 1 , P ˜ t continuously abates. When α H 1 = 12 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   H 1 , P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t ,   max ) at 1.0227, and the optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   H 1 ,   opt ) is 0.68. The total PO of the DPST is augmented by 2.27% after optimization. In addition, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   H 1 , P ˜ t augments with the augment of α H 1 .
Figure 10 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   H 3 ) of the last stage of the high-pressure ST. As shown in Figure 10, when the SIA ( α H 3 ) of this stage is 12 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   H 3 , P ˜ t first abates and then augments. When α H 3 = 12 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   H 3 , P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t ,   max ) at 1.0264, and the optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   H 3 ,   opt ) is 1.17. The total PO of the DPST is augmented by 2.64% after optimization. In addition, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   H 3 , P ˜ t augments with the augment of α H 3 , but the increment gradually becomes small.
Figure 11 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 1 ) of the first stage of the low-pressure ST. As shown in Figure 11, when the SIA ( α L 1 ) of this stage is 23 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   L 1 , P ˜ t first augments and then abates. When α L 1 = 23 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   L 1 , P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t ,   max ) at 1.0016, and the optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 1 ,   opt ) is 0.984. The total PO of the DPST is only augmented by 0.16% after optimization, which shows that the optimization effect is not obvious. Furthermore, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   L 1 , P ˜ t augments with the abatement of α L 1 .
Figure 12 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 4 ) of the fourth stage of the low-pressure ST. As shown in Figure 12, when the SIA ( α L 4 ) of this stage is 23 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   L 4 , P ˜ t continuously augments. When α L 4 = 23 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   L 4 , P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t ,   max ) at 1.0007, and the optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 4 ,   opt ) is 1.01. The total PO of the DPST is only augmented by 0.07% after optimization, which shows that the optimization effect is also not obvious. Furthermore, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   L 4 , P ˜ t augments with the abatement of α L 4 .
Figure 13 shows the relationship between the dimensionless total PO ( P ˜ t ) of the DPST and DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 5 ) of the fifth stage of the low-pressure ST. Figure 13 shows that when the SIA ( α L 5 ) of this stage is 23 ° , with the augment of D ˜ m ,   L 5 , P ˜ t continuously abates. When α L 5 = 23 ° , within the discussed variation range of D ˜ m ,   L 5 , P ˜ t reaches the maximum ( P ˜ t , max ) at 1.012, and the optimal DAD ( D ˜ m ,   L 5 ,   opt ) is 1.16. The total PO of the DPST is only augmented by 1.2% after optimization. Furthermore, for a fixed D ˜ m ,   L 5 , P ˜ t augments with the augment of α L 5 .
The single variable optimizations of D ˜ m ,   DSH , D ˜ m ,   H 1 , D ˜ m ,   H 3 , D ˜ m ,   L 1 , D ˜ m ,   L 3 , D ˜ m ,   L 4 and D ˜ m ,   L 5 are conducted in the above discussions. For the DPST, many parameters can be taken as optimization variables. As listed in Table 3, seventeen parameters will be considered in the following constructal optimization with multiple variables to elevate the PO of the DPST. The seventeen parameters include the DADs ( D ˜ m ,   DSH , D ˜ m ,   H 1 and D ˜ m ,   H 3 ) of the Curtis stage, third stage from last and last stage of the high-pressure ST, the DADs ( D ˜ m ,   L 1 , D ˜ m ,   L 3 , D ˜ m ,   L 4 and D ˜ m ,   L 5 ) of the first, third, fourth and fifth stages of the low-pressure ST, SIAs ( α 1 ,   DSH and α 3 ,   DSH ) of the first and second rows of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage, SIAs ( α H 1 and α L 1 ) of the third stage from last of the high-pressure ST and first stage of the low-pressure ST, ARDs ( Ω b 1 and Ω b 2 ) of the first and second rows of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage, ARD ( Ω gb ) of the guide vane for the Curtis stage, ARDs ( Ω H and Ω L ) of the single row stages for the high- and low-pressure STs as well as volume ratio ( x v ) of the high-pressure ST. Among these, the form of the DAD for each stage is dimensionless, which is divided by its initial value. The selected optimization variables and their variation ranges are listed in Table 3. The Matlab software function of “fmincon” is applied to search for the maximum total PO, and the “interior-point” algorithm is adopted in this function. Both the total tolerances of the variables and the optimization objective are set as 10−20. The maximum iteration number is set as 200. Figure 14 shows the relationship between P ˜ t and iteration number with different initial values in the function of “fmincon”. This indicates that the optimization results are slightly influenced by the initial values. For this reason and the local optimization solver of the “fmincon” function, different initial variable values are tried to ensure the stability of the optimization results.
After simultaneously optimizing the above seventeen variables, the dimensionless maximum PO and the corresponding results of the DPST are obtained, which are listed in Table 4. In Table 4, after constructal optimization, both the total PO and the corresponding efficiency of the DPST are augmented by 10.8%. This reveals that the structure parameter optimization with multiple variables significantly improves the performance of the DPST compared to that with a single variable.

4. Conclusions

A one-dimensional model of a marine dual-pressure axial flow ST is researched in this paper. With fixed total volume of the high- and low-pressure STs, constructal design of the DPST is implemented by altering the DADs, SIAs and ARDs of the stages. The maximum total PO and the corresponding optimal construct of the DPST are gained. The results are summarized as follows:
(1) For the single-variable optimization, within the discussion scopes of the DADs of the stages, the total PO of the DPST is augmented by 2.59% after optimizing the DAD of the Curtis stage, and the change in the total PO is not obvious after optimizing the DAD of the third stage of the low-pressure ST. Within the certain variation ranges, the total PO of the DPST can be further improved by abating the SIA of the first row of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage and SIA of the last stage of the high-pressure ST and augmenting the SIAs of the third, fourth and fifth stages of the low-pressure ST, respectively.
(2) For the multiple-variable optimization, both the total PO and the corresponding efficiency of the DPST are augmented by 10.8% after simultaneously optimizing 17 variables. This reveals that the structure parameter optimization with multiple variables significantly improves the performance of the DPST compared to that with a single variable.
The DPST model with various loss items is considered in this paper. The loss items and volume of the DPST are estimated by the empirical formulas. A more practical model of the DPST will be established in the future, and more practical guidelines will be offered for the optimal designs of axial flow STs to enhance the energy saving and consumption reduction of marine steam power plants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.F. and L.C.; Data curation, W.T. and Y.G.; Funding acquisition, L.C.; Methodology, H.F., L.C., W.T. and Y.G.; Software, H.F. and W.T.; Supervision, L.C.; Validation, W.T. and Y.G.; Writing—Original draft preparation, H.F. and W.T.; Writing—Reviewing and Editing, L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52171317, 51779262, 51979278).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their careful, unbiased and constructive suggestions, which led to this revised manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

a Empirical coefficient
B e Stage type coefficient
c Absolute velocity (m/s)
D a Average diameter of the turbine casing (m)
D b Average diameter of the rotating cascade (m)
D m Average diameter of the stage (m)
D n Average diameter of the stationary cascade (m)
e c Length ratio
k 1 Empirical coefficient
L a Maximum length of the ST (m)
l Cascade height (m)
l b Height of the rotating blade (m)
m ˙ s t Steam mass flow rate of the stage (kg/s)
n Rotational speed (Revolutions/s)
P i Internal power (kW)
P T ,   H Power output of the high-pressure ST (kW)
P T ,   L Power output of the low-pressure ST (kW)
P t Total power output of the multistage ST (kW)
P the Theoretical power output of the ST (kW)
p 0 Pressure (Pa)
u Circumferential velocity (m/s)
V HT Volume of the high-pressure ST (m3)
V LT Volume of the low-pressure ST (m3)
V T Total volume of the dual-pressure ST (m3)
v Average specific volume of the steam (m−3)
w Relative velocity (m/s)
x m Average dryness of the steam
x v Volume ratio of the high-pressure ST
Z n Group number of the nozzles
Greek symbols
α Absolute angle (degree)
β Relative angle (degree)
η t Efficiency of the dual-pressure ST
μ Utilization coefficient
μ p Discharge coefficient
φ Nozzle velocity coefficient
ψ Speed coefficient
Δ h n Enthalpy drop (kJ)
Δ m p Leakage mass flow rate of the steam (m/s)
Δ p f Friction power consumption of the impeller (kW)
Ω m Average reaction degree
Superscript
~ Dimensionless
*Stagnation state
.Rate
Subscripts
bRotating blade
DSHCurtis stage of the high-pressure
HHigh-pressure
iInternal
LLow-pressure
mMiddle
maxMaximum
nnozzle
TTotal
theTheoretical
0State point at the inlet of the nozzle
1, 2State points at the inlet and outlet of the rotating blade
Abbreviations
ARDAverage reaction degree
DADDimensionless average diameter
DPSTDual-pressure steam turbine
POPower output
SIASteam inlet angle
STSteam turbine

References

  1. Saito, E.; Matsuno, N.; Tanaka, K.; Nishimoto, S.; Yamamoto, R.; Imano, S. Latest technologies and future prospects for a new steam turbine. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. Tech. Rev. 2015, 52, 39. [Google Scholar]
  2. Shibaev, T.L. A review of trends in development of cogeneration steam turbine units. Thermal Eng. 2020, 67, 903–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, L.G.; Zhang, J.M.; Wu, C.; Sun, F.R. Analysis of multi-objective decision-making for marine steam turbine stage. Int. J. Power Energy Syst. 1998, 18, 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  4. Qin, X.Y.; Chen, L.G.; Sun, F.R.; Wu, C. Optimization for a steam turbine stage efficiency using a genetic algorithm. Appl. Thermal Eng. 2003, 23, 2307–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ni, H.; Xiao, H.; Zeng, F.M.; Sun, F.R. Segmented lumped parameter modeling of steam turbine based on cascade calculation. J. System Simul. 2014, 26, 294–299. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Abadi, S.M.A.N.R.; Ahmadpour, A.; Abadi, S.M.N.R.; Meyer, J.P. CFD-based shape optimization of steam turbine blade cascade in transonic two phase flows. Appl. Thermal Eng. 2017, 112, 1575–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Anđelić, N.; Mrzljak, V.; Lorencin, I.; Baressi Segota, S. Comparison of exergy and various energy analysis methods for a main marine steam turbine at different loads. Pomor. Zb. 2020, 59, 9–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhao, X.D.; Li, A.; Zhang, Y.J.; Ma, L.Q.; Ge, Z.H.; Du, X.Z. Performance improvement of low-pressure cylinder in high back pressure steam turbine for direct heating. Appl. Thermal Eng. 2021, 182, 116170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vedran, M.; Jasna, P.O.; Igor, P.; Ivica, G. Energy evaluation of a steam turbine from solar-based combined cycle power plant. Mach. Tech. Mater. 2022, 16, 86–89. [Google Scholar]
  10. Klonowicz, P.; Lampart, P.; Suchocki, T.; Zaniewski, D.; Klimaszewski, P. Optimization of an axial turbine for a small scale ORC waste heat recovery system. Energy 2020, 205, 118059. [Google Scholar]
  11. Klun, M.; Guzović, Z.; Rašković, P. Innovative small axial multistage turbine with partial admission for bottoming ORC. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 9069–9093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Symes, R.; Djaname, T.N.; Deligant, M.; Sauret, E. Design and optimization of a radial inflow turbine for use with a low temperature ORC. Energies 2021, 14, 8526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grönman, A.; Uusitalo, A. Analysis of radial-outflow turbine design for supercritical CO2 and comparison to radial-inflow turbines. Energy Convers. Mgmt. 2022, 252, 115089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bejan, A. Street network theory of organization in nature. J. Adv. Transp. 1996, 30, 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bejan, A. Constructal-theory network of conducting paths for cooling a heat generating volume. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 1997, 40, 799–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bejan, A.; Lorente, S. Design with Constructal Theory; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, L.G. Progress in study on constructal theory and its applications. Sci. China: Tech. Sci. 2012, 42, 505–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, L.G.; Feng, H.J. Multi-objective Constructal Optimization for Flow and Heat and Mass Transfer Processes; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, L.G.; Feng, H.J.; Xie, Z.H.; Sun, F.R. Progress of constructal theory in China over the past decade. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 130, 393–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, L.G.; Wu, W.H.; Feng, H.J. Constructal Design for Heat Conduction; Book Publisher International: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hajmohammadi, M.R.; Bahrami, M.; Ahmadian-Elmi, M. Thermal performance improvement of microchannel heat sinks by utilizing variable cross-section microchannels filled with porous media. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 126, 105360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhu, H.W.; Chen, L.G.; Ge, Y.L.; Feng, H.J. Constructal entropy generation rate minimization of heat conduction for leaf-shaped quadrilateral heat generation body. Euro. Phys. J. Plus 2022, 137, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gungor, S.; Cetkin, E.; Lorente, S. Canopy-to-canopy liquid cooling for the thermal management of lithium-ion batteries, a constructal approach. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2022, 182, 121918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sun, K.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Ge, Y.L. Constructal design of a cooling channel with semi-circular sidewall ribs in a rectangular heat generation body. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 2022, 134, 106040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bejan, A. Heat Transfer: Evolution, Design and Performance; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bejan, A.; Gunes, U. Virus spreading and heat spreading. Int. J. Thermal Sci. 2022, 174, 107433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xie, Z.J.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X. Constructal design for supercharged boiler evaporator. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 138, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Feng, H.J.; Xie, Z.J.; Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X.; Xia, S.J. Constructal design for supercharged boiler superheater. Energy 2020, 191, 116484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tang, W.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Xie, Z.J.; Shi, J.C. Constructal design for a boiler economizer. Energy 2021, 223, 120013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guarino, F.; Cellura, M.; Traverso, M. Costructal law, exergy analysis and life cycle energy sustainability assessment: An expanded framework applied to a boiler. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2063–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Xie, Z.J.; Tang, W.; Ge, Y.L. Multi-objective constructal design for a marine boiler considering entropy generation rate and power consumption. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 1519–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nejad, A.H.; Ekici, K.; Sabau, A.S.; Bejan, A.; Arimilli, R.V. Counter cross-flow evaporator geometries for supercritical organic Rankine cycles. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 135, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X.; Xie, Z.J. Constructal design of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger for organic fluid evaporation process. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 131, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, Z.X.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Xie, Z.J.; Cai, C.G. Pumping power minimization of an evaporator in ocean thermal energy conversion system based on constructal theory. Energy 2019, 181, 974–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cai, C.G.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X.; Xie, Z.J. Constructal design of a shell-and-tube evaporator with ammonia-water working fluid. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 135, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bejan, A.; Lee, J.; Lorente, S.; Kim, Y. The evolutionary design of condensers. J. Appl. Phys. 2015, 117, 125101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Feng, H.J.; Cai, C.G.; Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X.; Lorenzini, G. Constructal design of a shell-and-tube condenser with ammonia-water working fluid. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transf. 2020, 118, 104867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, Z.X.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Ge, Y.L. Performance optimization of a condenser in OTECS based on constructal theory and multi-objective genetic algorithm. Entropy 2020, 22, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feng, H.J.; Tang, W.; Chen, L.G.; Shi, J.C.; Wu, Z.X. Multi-objective constructal optimization for marine condensers. Energies 2021, 14, 5545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bejan, A.; Lorente, S.; Kang, D.H. Constructal design of regenerators. Int. J. Energy Res. 2013, 37, 1509–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hajabdollahi, H.; Dehaj, M.S. Rotary regenerator: Constructal thermoeconomic optimization. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2020, 113, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, Y.S.; Lorente, S.; Bejan, A. Distribution of size in steam turbine power plants. Int. J. Energy Res. 2009, 33, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beyene, A.; Peffley, J. Constructal theory, adaptive motion, and their theoretical application to low-speed turbine design. J. Energy Eng. 2009, 135, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Xie, Z.H.; Sun, F.R. Constructal design for gas-turbine blade based on minimization of maximum thermal resistance. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 90, 792–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stanescu, G.; Barbu, E.; Vilag, V.; Andreescu, T. Constructal approach on the feasibility of compressed air temperature control by evaporative cooling in gas turbine power plants. Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A 2018, 19, 201–206. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wu, Z.X.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Xie, Z.J.; Cai, C.G.; Xia, S.J. Optimal design of dual-pressure turbine in OTEC system based on constructal theory. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 201, 112179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, L.G.; Wu, Z.X.; Feng, H.J.; Ge, Y.L. Constructal design for dual-pressure axial-flow turbine in organic Rankine cycle. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, Z.X.; Feng, H.J.; Chen, L.G.; Tang, W.; Shi, J.C.; Ge, Y.L. Constructal thermodynamic optimization for ocean thermal energy conversion system with dual-pressure organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 210, 112727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Feng, H.J.; Wu, Z.X.; Chen, L.G.; Ge, Y.L. Constructal thermodynamic optimization for dual-pressure organic Rankine cycle in waste heat utilization system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 227, 113585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wu, Z.X.; Chen, L.G.; Feng, H.J.; Ge, Y.L. Constructal thermodynamic optimization for a novel Kalina-organic Rankine combined cycle to utilize waste heat. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 6095–6106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xiao, Z.H.; Sheng, W. Steam Turbine Equipment and System; China Electric Power Press: Beijng, China, 2008. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a marine DPST model.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a marine DPST model.
Energies 15 04854 g001
Figure 2. Thermodynamic process diagram of a single stage.
Figure 2. Thermodynamic process diagram of a single stage.
Energies 15 04854 g002
Figure 3. Thermodynamic process diagram of the Curtis stage.
Figure 3. Thermodynamic process diagram of the Curtis stage.
Energies 15 04854 g003
Figure 4. Velocity triangle of a stage.
Figure 4. Velocity triangle of a stage.
Energies 15 04854 g004
Figure 5. Velocity triangle of a Curtis stage.
Figure 5. Velocity triangle of a Curtis stage.
Energies 15 04854 g005
Figure 6. Calculation process of the internal power and steam outlet parameters of the stage.
Figure 6. Calculation process of the internal power and steam outlet parameters of the stage.
Energies 15 04854 g006
Figure 7. Calculation process of the power output and efficiency of the DPST.
Figure 7. Calculation process of the power output and efficiency of the DPST.
Energies 15 04854 g007
Figure 8. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   DSH with different α 1 ,   DSH .
Figure 8. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   DSH with different α 1 ,   DSH .
Energies 15 04854 g008
Figure 9. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   H 1 with different α H 1 .
Figure 9. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   H 1 with different α H 1 .
Energies 15 04854 g009
Figure 10. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   H 3 with different α H 3 .
Figure 10. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   H 3 with different α H 3 .
Energies 15 04854 g010
Figure 11. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 1 with different α L 1 .
Figure 11. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 1 with different α L 1 .
Energies 15 04854 g011
Figure 12. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 4 with different α L 4 .
Figure 12. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 4 with different α L 4 .
Energies 15 04854 g012
Figure 13. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 5 with different α L 5 .
Figure 13. Relationship between P ˜ t and D ˜ m ,   L 5 with different α L 5 .
Energies 15 04854 g013
Figure 14. Relationship between P ˜ t and iteration number with different initial values.
Figure 14. Relationship between P ˜ t and iteration number with different initial values.
Energies 15 04854 g014
Table 1. Lists of the loss models and the internal power of the stage.
Table 1. Lists of the loss models and the internal power of the stage.
ItemsExpressionsEquation Numbers
Nozzle energy loss Δ h n , l = 1 2 ( c 1 t 2 c 1 2 ) = 1 2 c 1 t 2 ( 1 φ 2 ) = ( 1 φ 2 ) Δ h n * Equation (4)
Rotating blade loss Δ h b , l = 1 2 ( w 2 t 2 w 2 2 ) = ( 1 ψ 2 ) Δ h b Equation (13)
Residual speed loss Δ h c 2 = 1 2 c 2 2 Equation (14)
Spanwise loss Δ h l = a l Δ h u Equation (16)
Sector loss Δ h θ = E 0 ζ θ Equation (17)
Impeller friction loss Δ h f = 3600 Δ p f m ˙ s t Equation (19)
Admission loss Δ h e = B e 1 e ( 1 e 0.5 e c ) E 0 x a 3 + c s 1 e Z n D n E 0 x a Equation (23)
Steam leakage loss Δ h δ = Δ m p m s t Δ h u + Δ m t m t Δ h u Equation (25)
Wet steam loss Δ h x = ( 1 x m ) Δ h u Equation (29)
Effective enthalpy drop of the stage Δ h i = Δ h u ( Δ h l + Δ h θ + Δ h f + Δ h e + Δ h δ + Δ h x ) Equation (30)
Internal power ( P i ) of the stage P i = m ˙ s t Δ h i Equation (31)
Table 2. Constant parameters, design variables, optimization objective, and constraints of the model.
Table 2. Constant parameters, design variables, optimization objective, and constraints of the model.
ItemsContents
Constant parametersSteam mass flow rate ( m ˙ st ), pressure ( p 0 ), temperature ( T 0 ),
total volume ( V T ) and rotational speed ( n )
Design variablesDADs ( D ˜ m ,   DSH , D ˜ m ,   H 1 , D ˜ m ,   H 3 , D ˜ m ,   L 1 , D ˜ m ,   L 3 , D ˜ m ,   L 4 and D ˜ m ,   L 5 ), SIAs ( α 1 ,   DSH , α 3 ,   DSH , α H 1   and α L 1 ), ARDs ( Ω b 1 , Ω gb , Ω b 2 , Ω H and Ω L ) and volume ratio ( x v )
Optimization objectiveTotal PO ( P t ) of the multistage DPST
ConstraintsTotal volume ( V T ) of the DPST and increasing average DADs of the stages along the flow direction
Table 3. Optimization variables of constructal design for a DPST.
Table 3. Optimization variables of constructal design for a DPST.
NumberVariablesNames of the VariablesVariation Ranges
1 D ˜ m ,   DSH DAD of the Curtis stage0.69~1.32
2 D ˜ m ,   H 1 DAD of the third stage from last of the high-pressure ST0.69~1.32
3 D ˜ m ,   H 3 DAD of the last stage of the high-pressure ST0.67~1.27
4 D ˜ m ,   L 1 DAD of the first stage of the low-pressure ST0.86~1.36
5 D ˜ m ,   L 3 DAD of the third stage of the low-pressure ST0.80~1.26
6 D ˜ m ,   L 4 DAD of the fourth stage of the low-pressure ST0.76~1.20
7 D ˜ m ,   L 5 DAD of the fifth stage of the low-pressure ST0.70~1.0
8 α 1 ,   DSH SIA of the first row of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage8~25°
9 α 3 ,   DSH SIA of the second row of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage8~25°
10 Ω b 1 ARD of the first row of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage0.05~0.2
11 Ω g b ARD of the guide vane for
the Curtis stage
0.05~0.2
12 Ω b 2 ARD of the second row of the rotating blade for the Curtis stage0.05~0.2
13 α H 1   SIA of the third stage from last of the high-pressure ST8~25°
14 α L 1 SIA of the first stage of the low-pressure ST8~25°
15 Ω H ARD of the single row stage for the high-pressure ST0.05~0.2
16 Ω L ARD of the single row stage for the low-pressure ST0.05~0.2
17 x v Volume ratio of the high-pressure ST0.05~0.4
Table 4. Multiple-variable optimization results of the DPST.
Table 4. Multiple-variable optimization results of the DPST.
Optimization Objectives
and Variables
Before OptimizationAfter Optimization
P ˜ t 1.01.108
η t 0.8750.97
D ˜ m ,   DSH 1.00.69
D ˜ m ,   H 1 1.00.69
D ˜ m ,   H 3 1.00.77
D ˜ m ,   L 1 1.00.86
D ˜ m ,   L 3 1.01.24
D ˜ m ,   L 4 1.01.18
D ˜ m ,   L 5 1.01.1
α 1 ,   DSH 14°
α 3 ,   DSH 23.4°
Ω b 1 0.120.05
Ω gb 0.120.05
Ω b 2 0.120.05
α 1 ,   H 12°25°
α 1 ,   L 23°25°
Ω H 0.120.2
Ω L 0.120.2
x v 0.160.08
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Feng, H.; Chen, L.; Tang, W.; Ge, Y. Optimal Design of a Dual-Pressure Steam Turbine for Rankine Cycle Based on Constructal Theory. Energies 2022, 15, 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134854

AMA Style

Feng H, Chen L, Tang W, Ge Y. Optimal Design of a Dual-Pressure Steam Turbine for Rankine Cycle Based on Constructal Theory. Energies. 2022; 15(13):4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134854

Chicago/Turabian Style

Feng, Huijun, Lingen Chen, Wei Tang, and Yanlin Ge. 2022. "Optimal Design of a Dual-Pressure Steam Turbine for Rankine Cycle Based on Constructal Theory" Energies 15, no. 13: 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134854

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop