-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 93
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Steam Turbine with wet expansion #602
Conversation
…or superheated states
# Conflicts: # src/tespy/tools/fluid_properties/wrappers.py
Hello @tlmerbecks! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:
Comment last updated at 2025-01-26 15:19:14 UTC |
Good day Tristan, and nice to see your suggestions! I will have a closer look later today and give you feedback on the implementation. Best! |
@fwitte I have looked through the changes and agree with the simplification of the residual and the introduction of the I'll have a look at the remaining tests that are still failing later. Is there anything else you would like to see added/implemented for this? |
@tlmerbecks, nothing to implement from your side right now, but I'd have two questions. I have implemented additional tests, and was curious about the following:
I guess in both cases we could argue, the method is not applicable here? Or we could make a check, where the inlet and the outlet are (two-phase or gas) and depending on that use one or the other method for expansion? What do you think? |
And, should we add a reference to the original research, that would be "Baumann, K.: Some Recent Developments In Large Steam Turbine Practice. Engrg. Vol. Ill (1921)" I guess? |
Ciao @fwitte , I have found a quiet moment :) to answer your questions: The method is only really applicable if the fluid is water, this is because the correction is entirely based on empirical data on the performance of steam turbines. With this is mind, given the shape of water's vapour dome in the Ts domain it is unnecessary to check for retrograde behaviour. That being said, perhaps the first check should be whether the phase of the fluid is different between the inlet and outlet. So in the case where the outlet conditions are just above saturation, the fluid enters and exits the turbine as vapour so no correct needs to be applied. So basically what you already suggested :p As for the reference, the one you gave is the original one used everywhere, though it is not that easy to track down. One other resource that really helped me with this was:
|
General
With this PR I would like to submit a new turbine component, which accounts for wet expansion effects using the empirical Baumann correlation.
The expansion of saturated steam (e.g. geothermal or nuclear power applications) inevitably enters the vapour dome and two-phase effects lead to a reduction in the isentropic efficiency. The empirical Baumann rule effectively corrects the dry isentropic turbine efficiency with the average wetness across the turbine.
SteamTurbine
component. I chose to make this a separate component (inheriting fromTurbine
) to avoid confusion - though theSteamTurbine
behaves exactly like aTurbine
unless theeta_dry_s
attribute is setCoolPropWrapper
Q_ph
function so that it now returns a meaningful value forQ
when the fluid is single phase (i.e. 0.0 for liquid and 1.0 for vapour)Documentation
This is still work in progress... I was not quite sure what would be the mvp for this
Testing
This is still work in progress... I was thinking to shadow the testing for the regular
Turbine
componentComments and suggestions are welcome :)