Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Compounding of steam turbines
View on WikipediaThis article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (June 2020) |
In steam turbine design, compounding is a method of extracting steam energy in multiple stages rather than a single one. Each stage of a compounded steam turbine has its own set of nozzles and rotors. These are arranged in series, either keyed to the common shaft or fixed to the casing. The arrangement allows either the steam pressure or the jet velocity to be absorbed incrementally.[1][2]
Purpose
[edit]Compounded steam turbines are used to reduce rotor speeds to achieve optimal operating revolutions per minute. The steam produced in the boiler has sufficiently high enthalpy when superheated. In all turbines the blade velocity is directly proportional to the velocity of the steam passing over the blade. Now, if the entire energy of the steam is extracted in one stage, i.e. if the steam is expanded from the boiler pressure to the condenser pressure in a single stage, then its velocity will be very high. Hence the velocity of the rotor (to which the blades are keyed) can reach to about 30,000 rpm, which is too high for practical uses due to very high vibration. Moreover, at such high speeds the centrifugal forces are immense, and can damage the structure. Hence, compounding is needed. The high velocity steam just strikes on a single ring of rotor that causes wastage of steam ranging 10% to 12%. To overcome the wastage of steam, compounding of steam turbines are used.
Types
[edit]In an impulse steam turbine, compounding can be achieved in the following three ways:
- Velocity compounding
- Pressure compounding
- Pressure-Velocity Compounding
In a reaction turbine, compounding can be achieved only by pressure compounding.
In general, the types of steam turbine include:
Velocity compounding of impulse turbine
[edit]
The velocity compounded Impulse turbine was first proposed by C.G. Curtis to solve the problem of single stage Impulse turbine for use of high pressure and temperature steam.
The rings of moving blades are separated by rings of fixed blades. The moving blades are keyed to the turbine shaft and the fixed blades are fixed to the casing. The high pressure steam coming from the boiler is expanded in the nozzle first. The Nozzle converts the pressure energy of the steam into kinetic energy. The total enthalpy drop and hence the pressure drop occurs in the nozzle. Hence, the pressure thereafter remains constant.
This high velocity steam is directed on to the first set (ring) of moving blades. As the steam flows over the blades, due to the shape of the blades, it imparts some of its momentum to the blades and loses some velocity. Only a part of the high kinetic energy is absorbed by these blades. The remainder is exhausted on to the next ring of fixed blade. The function of the fixed blades is to redirect the steam leaving from the first ring of moving blades to the second ring of moving blades. There is no change in the velocity of the steam as it passes through the fixed blades. The steam then enters the next ring of moving blades; this process is repeated until practically all the energy of the steam has been absorbed.
A schematic diagram of the Curtis stage impulse turbine, with two rings of moving blades, and one ring of fixed blades is shown in figure 1. The figure also shows the changes in the pressure and the absolute steam velocity as it passes through the stages.
Where:
- = pressure of steam at inlet
- = velocity of steam at inlet
- = pressure of steam at outlet
- = velocity of steam at outlet
In the above figure there are two rings of moving blades separated by a single of ring of fixed blades. As discussed earlier the entire pressure drop occurs in the nozzle, and there are no subsequent pressure losses in any of the following stages. Velocity drop occurs in the moving blades and not in fixed blades.
Velocity diagram
[edit]As shown in the above diagram there are two rings of moving blades separated by a ring of fixed blades. The velocity diagram in figure 2, shows the various components of steam velocity and the blade velocity of the moving blades.
Where:
- = absolute velocity of steam
- = relative velocity of steam
- = Blade velocity
- = Nozzle angle
- = Blade entrance angle
- = Blade exit angle
- = fluid exit angle
From the above figure it can be seen that the steam, after exiting from the moving blades, enters into the fixed blades. The fixed blades redirect the steam into the next set of moving blades. Hence, steam loses its velocity in multiple stages rather than in a single stage.
Optimum velocity
[edit]It is the velocity of the blades at which maximum power output can be achieved. Hence, the optimum blade velocity for this case is:
where is the number of stages.
This value of optimum velocity is 1/n times that of the single stage turbine. This means that maximum power can be produced at much lower blade velocities.
However, the work produced in each stage is not the same. The ratio of work produced in a 2-stage turbine is 3:1 as one move from higher to lower pressure. This ratio is 5:3:1 in three stage turbine and changes to 7:5:3:1 in a four-stage turbine.
Disadvantages of velocity compounding
[edit]- Due to the high steam velocity there are high friction losses.
- Work produced in the low-pressure stages is much less.
- The designing and fabrication of blades that can withstand such high velocities is difficult.
Pressure compounding of impulse turbine
[edit]
The pressure compounded Impulse turbine is also called a Rateau turbine, after its inventor. This is used to solve the problem of high blade velocity in the single-stage impulse turbine.
It consists of alternate rings of nozzles and turbine blades. The nozzles are fitted to the casing and the blades are keyed to the turbine shaft.
In this type of compounding, the steam is expanded in a number of stages, instead of just one (nozzle) in the velocity compounding. It is done by the fixed blades which act as nozzles. The steam expands equally in all rows of fixed blade. The steam coming from the boiler is fed to the first set of fixed blades i.e. the nozzle ring. The steam is partially expanded in the nozzle ring. Hence, there is a partial decrease in pressure of the incoming steam. This leads to an increase in the velocity of the steam. Therefore, the pressure decreases and velocity increases partially in the nozzle.
This is then passed over the set of moving blades. As the steam flows over the moving blades, nearly all its velocity is absorbed. However, the pressure remains constant during this process. After this it is passed into the nozzle ring and is again partially expanded. Then it is fed into the next set of moving blades, and this process is repeated until the condenser pressure is reached.
This process has been illustrated in figure 3 where the symbols have the same meaning as given above.
It is a three-stage pressure compounded impulse turbine. Each stage consists of one ring of fixed blades, which act as nozzles, and one ring of moving blades. As shown in the figure, pressure drop takes place in the nozzles and is distributed in many stages.
An important point to note here is that the inlet steam velocities to each stage of moving blades are essentially equal. It is because the velocity corresponds to the lowering of the pressure. Since, in a pressure compounded steam turbine, only a part of the steam is expanded in each nozzle. The steam velocity is lower than in the previous case. It can be explained mathematically from the following formula i.e.
where,
- = absolute exit velocity of fluid
- = enthalpy of fluid at exit
- = absolute entry velocity of fluid
- = enthalpy of fluid at entry
One can see from the formula that only a fraction of the enthalpy is converted into velocity in the fixed blades. Hence, velocity is less as compared to the previous case.
Velocity diagram
[edit]
The velocity diagram shown in figure 4 gives detail about the various components of steam velocity and Blade velocity.
where, symbols have the same meaning as given above.
An important point to note from the above velocity diagram is that the fluid exit angle (δ) is 90⁰. This indicates that the whirl velocity of fluid at exit of all stages is zero, which is in compliance with the optimum velocity concept (as discussed earlier).
The ratio of work produced in different stages is similar to the above type.
Disadvantages of pressure compounding
[edit]- Since there is pressure drop in the nozzles, it has to be made air-tight.
- They are much larger at 34 inches
Pressure-velocity compounded impulse turbine
[edit]
It is a combination of the above two types of compounding. The total pressure drop of the steam is divided into a number of stages. Each stage consists of rings of fixed and moving blades. Each set of rings of moving blades is separated by a single ring of fixed blades. In each stage there is one ring of fixed blades and 3–4 rings of moving blades. Each stage acts as a velocity compounded impulse turbine.
The fixed blades act as nozzles. The steam coming from the boiler is passed to the first ring of fixed blades, where it gets partially expanded. The pressure partially decreases and the velocity rises correspondingly. The velocity is absorbed by the following rings of moving blades until it reaches the next ring of fixed blades and the whole process is repeated once again.
This process is shown diagrammatically in figure 5.
where, symbols have their usual meaning.
Pressure compounding of reaction turbine
[edit]
As explained earlier a reaction turbine is one in which there is pressure and velocity loss in the moving blades. The moving blades have a converging steam nozzle. Hence when the steam passes over the fixed blades, it expands with decrease in steam pressure and increase in kinetic energy.
This type of turbine has a number of rings of moving blades attached to the rotor and an equal number of fixed blades attached to the casing. In this type of turbine the pressure drops take place in a number of stages.
The steam passes over a series of alternate fixed and moving blades. The fixed blades act as nozzles i.e. they change the direction of the steam and also expand it. Then steam is passed on the moving blades, which further expand the steam and also absorb its velocity.
This is explained in figure 6.
where symbols have the same meaning as above.
Velocity diagram
[edit]
The velocity diagram given in figure 7 gives a detail about the various components of steam velocity and blade velocity (symbols have the same meaning as above).
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Bag, S (2023). "A REVIEW ON COMPOUNDING OF STEAM TURBINE" (PDF). International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science. 5 (8). Retrieved 1 March 2024.
- ^ Mazur, Z (2008). "Steam turbine blade failure analysis". Engineering Failure Analysis. 15 (1): 129–141. Retrieved 1 March 2024.
- Jachens, W. B. (March 1966). "Steam turbines - Their construction, selection and operation" (PDF). Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association. SASTA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-03-21. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
- "Study of Turbine - Exercise" (PDF). pacetmechanical.weebly.com. PA College of Engineering and Technology.
Further reading
[edit]- Venkanna B.K., Fundamentals of Turbomachinery, PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, 2011.
- Yahya S. M., Turbines, Compressors and Fans (Fourth Edition), Tata Mcgraw Hill Education Private Limited, New Delhi, 2011.
- El-Wakil M. M., Powerplant Technology, Tata Mcgraw Hill Education Private Limited, New Delhi, 2010.
- M.S.GOVINDE GOWDA : MM PUBLISHERS DAVANGERE,KARNATAKA,INDIA
- Singh Onkar, Applied Thermodynamics, New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2009.
Compounding of steam turbines
View on GrokipediaPurpose and Fundamentals
Purpose of Compounding
Compounding in steam turbines refers to the process of dividing the total expansion of steam—either through pressure drops or velocity reductions—across multiple stages rather than a single stage, allowing for more controlled energy extraction. This method arranges the steam's expansion or the utilization of its kinetic energy in several successive rings of nozzles and blades, enabling the turbine to operate at practical rotational speeds while capturing a greater portion of the available energy.[4] Single-stage steam turbines, such as the impulse design pioneered by Gustaf de Laval in 1884, face significant limitations when handling high-pressure steam, as the large pressure drop in one stage generates extremely high steam velocities, resulting in rotor speeds exceeding 20,000 to 30,000 rpm. These excessive speeds lead to intense mechanical stresses, including high centrifugal forces, vibrations, and potential structural damage, while also causing inefficiencies like steam wastage of 10% to 12% due to incomplete energy transfer in a single rotor ring. Additionally, such high speeds necessitate complex reduction gearing, which introduces further energy losses and limits applicability to low-power uses.[5][6][7] The introduction of compounding addressed these challenges by enabling multi-stage designs that became practical for higher power outputs and broader industrial applications, building on early innovations like de Laval's single-stage turbine and Charles Parsons' 1884 reaction turbine. By the late 1890s, engineers such as Charles G. Curtis and Auguste Rateau developed compounding techniques that reduced rotor speeds to more manageable levels, around 1,000 to 3,000 rpm in early commercial units, making steam turbines viable for electricity generation and marine propulsion.[4][5] Compounding enhances overall turbine efficiency by allowing each stage to operate closer to optimal conditions, where steam velocities match blade speeds more effectively without resorting to supersonic flows that erode blades and reduce performance. This staged approach minimizes energy losses from friction and turbulence, leading to lower specific steam consumption—typically reducing it by enabling more complete expansion and heat utilization—compared to single-stage designs, which achieve relatively low efficiency. As a result, compounded turbines support higher pressure ratios from modern boilers while improving thermodynamic reversibility and reducing operational costs through better fuel economy.[4][6][2]Impulse and Reaction Turbines
Impulse turbines operate on the principle where steam expands fully in stationary nozzles, converting thermal energy into kinetic energy that impinges directly on the rotor blades, with no further pressure drop occurring across the moving blades themselves.[8] This design results in the rotor blades primarily deflecting the high-velocity steam jet to extract momentum, akin to a series of curved buckets receiving an impulsive force from the incoming flow. The impulse turbine was pioneered by Gustaf de Laval, who introduced the first practical single-stage version in 1884 using converging-diverging nozzles to accelerate steam efficiently. Later developments, such as Charles G. Curtis's velocity-compounded impulse stage in the 1890s, built on this foundation to address speed limitations through multiple blade rows.[9] In contrast, reaction turbines function by allowing steam to expand partially in the stationary nozzles and continue expanding within the rotor blades, generating a reaction force similar to a rocket nozzle effect, with pressure drops occurring across both fixed and moving blade passages.[8] The rotor blades in this configuration act as expanding nozzles, accelerating the steam and producing a rearward force that drives the turbine, much like the symmetrical flow through alternating stator and rotor channels. This type was invented by Charles Algernon Parsons in 1884, marking the debut of the multi-stage reaction turbine that emphasized gradual energy extraction.[10] Key differences between impulse and reaction turbines include the velocity ratios, where impulse designs typically require higher steam-to-blade velocity ratios for optimal performance, leading to simpler sealing arrangements due to minimal pressure differentials across the rotor.[11] Reaction turbines, however, achieve higher efficiency at lower rotational speeds through distributed expansion but necessitate more numerous blades to manage the continuous pressure gradient.[11] These distinctions make impulse turbines particularly suitable for velocity and pressure compounding methods to mitigate excessive single-stage speeds, while reaction turbines primarily rely on pressure compounding for their inherent gradual expansion process.[12]Velocity Compounding
Principles in Impulse Turbines
Velocity compounding in impulse turbines involves a single pressure drop across an initial set of fixed nozzles, producing high-velocity steam that then passes through multiple rows of moving blades alternated with fixed guide blades (reversing vanes), gradually absorbing the kinetic energy without further pressure reduction in the moving blades.[13] This method, known as the Curtis stage, limits the blade speed to a fraction of the steam jet velocity, typically one-fourth for two blade rows, making it suitable for high-velocity applications while keeping rotor speeds practical.[14] The configuration features one row of fixed nozzles followed by two or more rows of moving blades on the same rotor disk, with inter-row fixed guide vanes that redirect the steam flow to impart whirl velocity for the next moving row without additional nozzles. Steam enters the nozzles at high pressure, expands fully to achieve supersonic velocities (often 700-1000 m/s), impinges on the first moving blades to transfer momentum, exits with reduced velocity, is turned by the fixed vanes, and then enters the second moving blades for further energy extraction. This setup extracts work via the impulse principle, where the total enthalpy drop occurs in the nozzles, and blades deflect the flow with minimal pressure change.[13] Invented by Charles Gordon Curtis and patented in 1896, velocity compounding addressed the high rotor speeds of single-stage de Laval turbines by distributing velocity absorption across multiple blade rows, enabling larger power outputs and applications in early electrical generation and marine propulsion. The first commercial vertical Curtis turbine, a 500 kW unit, was installed in 1903. The work extracted per stage follows the impulse-momentum principle, given by , where is the blade speed, and , are the inlet and outlet whirl components; for multiple rows, this sums the contributions, with efficiency optimized by matching blade speeds to progressive velocity reductions.[5][13] Unlike pressure compounding, which stages the pressure drop across multiple nozzle sets to control velocities, velocity compounding uses a single expansion but multiplies blade rows to manage high initial speeds, resulting in higher friction losses but fewer stages and a more compact design.[15]Velocity Diagrams and Analysis
In velocity-compounded impulse turbines, the velocity diagram for the stage shows a high absolute inlet velocity from the nozzles at angle , resolving into whirl and flow . For the first moving blade row, the relative inlet velocity is (vectorially), and assuming frictionless blades, the relative outlet has the same magnitude but changed direction, leading to absolute outlet velocity with whirl often negative (opposing rotation). The fixed guide vanes then redirect to with restored whirl but reduced magnitude for the second row, where similar triangles apply, further reducing exit velocity . This multi-triangle diagram ensures cumulative across rows contributes to torque, with total work .[13] Analysis across the stage reveals a halving of steam velocity per moving row ideally, with inlet velocities decreasing downstream due to energy extraction, optimizing for blade speeds around 200-400 m/s while handling jet speeds up to 1000 m/s. The stage efficiency is , accounting for kinetic energy input, though actual values drop due to friction (nozzle efficiency , blade ). Compared to single-stage, this distributes velocity changes, allowing pressure ratios up to 10:1 per stage without excessive rotor speeds (e.g., 3000-5000 rpm).[14] Enthalpy-entropy diagrams show the full isentropic expansion in the initial nozzles (single step on h-s chart), followed by constant-pressure kinetic energy absorption in blades, with residual exit kinetic energy often carried to the next stage. Losses primarily stem from blade path friction accumulating over rows and incomplete whirl recovery in guides, rather than nozzle inefficiencies; for two rows, diagram symmetry assumes (blade angles), minimizing relative velocity losses. Multi-row vector summation thus balances high initial extraction with practical mechanics.[13]Advantages, Disadvantages, and Optimization
Velocity compounding in impulse turbines reduces blade tip speeds to approximately 250-400 m/s, compared to 500-1000 m/s in single-stage designs, lowering centrifugal stresses and enabling direct coupling to generators at 1500-3600 rpm while extracting significant work from high-velocity steam.[15] This method is effective for initial or control stages handling large enthalpy drops, requiring fewer stages (e.g., one Curtis stage replaces 3-4 pressure stages), resulting in compact, cost-effective designs suitable for low-pressure sections or small turbines.[13] However, the high steam velocities cause increased friction losses in multiple blade rows (up to 20-30% efficiency penalty), blade erosion from wet steam droplets, and higher noise from supersonic flows. It is less efficient for large overall expansions, as later rows extract diminishing work, and requires precise blade profiling to avoid flow separation.[15] Optimization focuses on the velocity ratio , ideally for two rows (or for n rows), derived by maximizing via , with nozzle angle . This yields peak efficiency around 80-85%, as shown in performance curves, but drops if due to excessive exit whirl losses. Designs limit to 2-3 rows to curb friction; in practice, velocity compounding is applied in high-flow, low-pressure turbine sections for balanced performance.[13][14]Pressure Compounding
Principles in Impulse Turbines
In pressure compounding for impulse turbines, the total pressure drop of the steam is divided across multiple stages, each consisting of its own set of fixed nozzles and moving blades. This mechanism allows for partial expansion in each nozzle row, which converts a portion of the steam's enthalpy into kinetic energy at a controlled velocity, rather than a single large expansion that would produce excessively high speeds. By staging the pressure reduction, the inlet velocity to each subsequent stage remains manageable, preventing the structural challenges associated with supersonic flows in a single nozzle.[16][17] The configuration typically employs Rateau staging, featuring alternating rings of fixed nozzles (diaphragms) and moving blades mounted on the rotor, with interstage seals to minimize leakage. This approach, developed independently by Auguste Rateau and Robert Zoelly in the late 1890s and early 1900s, marked a significant advancement in turbine design. In this setup, steam enters the first nozzle ring at high pressure, expands partially to accelerate, impinges on the moving blades to impart momentum, and then proceeds to the next nozzle for further expansion. The pressure ratio per stage is designed approximately as the overall inlet-to-outlet pressure ratio raised to the power of 1/n (where n is the number of stages) to achieve balanced enthalpy drops, ensuring consistent work extraction across stages. This arrangement, sometimes combined with Parsons-like elements in hybrid designs, facilitates efficient energy transfer while maintaining blade speeds within material limits.[16][13][18] Rateau's multi-stage impulse turbine, patented around 1896-1898, addressed the limitations of single-stage de Laval turbines by distributing the expansion, thus allowing for larger, more powerful units suitable for industrial and marine applications, enabling the handling of higher inlet pressures, such as those up to around 10-15 bar typical in the early 20th century, without inducing prohibitive velocities or centrifugal stresses on the blades. The work extracted per stage follows the impulse-momentum principle, given by the enthalpy drop , where is the blade speed and , are the whirl components of the absolute and relative velocities, respectively; this is averaged over stages to optimize overall performance.[19][20][13][21] Unlike velocity compounding, which relies on a single pressure drop followed by multiple blade rows to re-impart and absorb kinetic energy, pressure compounding emphasizes staged enthalpy drops to control initial velocities from the nozzles, resulting in fewer friction losses but requiring more stages and precise sealing. This focus on pressure staging enhances efficiency for high-pressure applications by avoiding the energy dissipation inherent in repeated velocity additions.[16][17]Velocity Diagrams and Analysis
In pressure-compounded impulse turbines, the velocity diagram for each stage resembles that of a single-stage impulse turbine but features a reduced inlet steam velocity due to the partial pressure drop allocated across multiple nozzles rather than a full expansion in one nozzle. The diagram typically consists of velocity triangles at the inlet and outlet of the moving blades, where the absolute inlet velocity is directed at a nozzle angle , resolving into whirl component and flow component . As steam passes through the blades, the relative velocity remains constant in the ideal case (no friction), but the whirl component changes to at the exit, with the absolute exit velocity carrying residual kinetic energy that is redirected by the subsequent fixed nozzles to re-accelerate the steam for the next stage. This staged vector summation ensures that the change in whirl velocity per stage contributes to torque without excessive blade speeds.[22][23] The overall analysis of these diagrams across multiple stages reveals a progressive decrease in nozzle angles and inlet velocities downstream, as the available enthalpy drop diminishes with each partial expansion, optimizing energy extraction while minimizing losses from high-velocity impacts. The work output per stage is given by , where is the blade speed, and the total turbine efficiency is expressed as \eta = \sum \frac{u \Delta V_w}{\Delta h_{\text{[stage](/page/The_Stage)}}}, summing contributions from all stages and accounting for a reheat-like effect where recovered kinetic energy in inter-stage nozzles partially reheats the steam flow, improving thermodynamic recovery. This multi-stage vector approach contrasts with single-stage designs by distributing the velocity changes, allowing for higher overall pressure ratios without prohibitive rotor velocities.[22][24] Enthalpy-entropy (h-s) diagrams, such as Mollier charts, illustrate the staged expansion process in pressure compounding, showing discrete pressure drops across each nozzle (isentropic lines) followed by constant-pressure lines through the blades, with the total expansion path approximating the isentropic curve through incremental steps. This visualization highlights how partial expansions reduce entropy generation compared to a single large drop. The primary losses in this configuration arise from nozzle inefficiencies, such as friction that reduces the actual kinetic energy output below the isentropic value (, adjusted for nozzle efficiency ), rather than dominant blade friction losses seen in other compounding methods; blade losses are secondary as relative velocities are symmetric in impulse stages. Multi-stage summation of vectors thus emphasizes cumulative whirl changes for balanced efficiency.[23][22]Advantages and Disadvantages
Pressure compounding in impulse turbines enables efficient handling of high pressure ratios by dividing the total expansion into multiple stages, each with a smaller pressure drop. This reduces steam velocities entering the blades, minimizing friction losses and erosion on turbine components. Additionally, lower blade speeds decrease centrifugal stresses, enhancing structural integrity and safety. The equal distribution of work across stages further improves thermodynamic performance, allowing stage efficiencies up to 85% in well-designed multi-stage configurations.[16][22] Despite these benefits, pressure compounding presents notable drawbacks. It demands precise inter-stage seals, such as labyrinth seals, to minimize steam leakage between pressure stages, which can significantly degrade efficiency if not properly maintained. This sealing challenge is particularly pronounced in condensing turbines, where low-pressure stages operate under vacuum conditions that amplify potential losses from imperfect seals. The requirement for numerous stages also increases design complexity, elevates initial manufacturing costs, and extends the turbine's axial length, complicating installation and maintenance.[16][25] Optimization of pressure compounding involves selecting the number of stages to balance efficiency and practicality, typically aiming for a stage pressure ratio of 2–3. The approximate number of stages can be estimated as where and are the inlet and outlet pressures, ensuring near-equal work extraction per stage for peak overall efficiency. In practice, pressure compounding dominates high-pressure industrial turbines, where its efficiency advantages justify the added complexity in large-scale power generation.[26][16]Combined Compounding Methods
Pressure-Velocity Compounding
Pressure-velocity compounding represents a hybrid approach in impulse steam turbines, where energy extraction occurs through an initial series of pressure stages followed by velocity stages within each group. This method divides the total enthalpy drop across multiple pressure levels, with each pressure stage incorporating a velocity-compounded Curtis stage typically consisting of one set of nozzles and two rows of moving blades separated by stationary reversing blades. For example, configurations often feature 2-3 pressure stages, each followed by a Curtis velocity stage to handle the kinetic energy remaining after the initial expansion.[27][28] In this multi-group configuration, pressure compounding manages the high initial pressure differential (ΔP) by expanding steam through successive nozzle rows, reducing the velocity at entry to subsequent stages and minimizing blade speeds. Velocity compounding then extracts the residual kinetic energy in the low-pressure sections without additional pressure drops, using multiple blade rows on a single wheel to redirect and absorb steam momentum efficiently. This design balances the advantages of both methods, allowing for compact construction suitable for high-power applications while reducing mechanical stresses from excessive speeds.[27][13] The concept originated with Charles G. Curtis' 1896 patent for the velocity-compounded stage, which was later integrated into hybrid designs combining pressure and velocity compounding to enhance overall performance. In modern implementations, such turbines achieve stage efficiencies exceeding 90% by optimizing velocity ratios around 0.25 for the Curtis stage, enabling effective energy conversion across the groups.[13][29][28] The total work output in pressure-velocity compounding is calculated as the sum of contributions from pressure and velocity stages, based on the Euler turbomachinery equation applied to each blade row: where is the blade speed, and is the change in whirl velocity component across each row. This additive approach ensures comprehensive energy extraction without deriving full velocity diagrams here.[13]Pressure Compounding in Reaction Turbines
In pressure compounding for reaction turbines, steam undergoes a gradual pressure drop across successive pairs of fixed stator blades and moving rotor blades, with each stage serving as a combined nozzle-blade pair that converts both pressure and kinetic energy into mechanical work. The fixed blades accelerate the steam, while the moving blades further expand it, producing a reaction force due to the momentum change in both components. This staged expansion allows for efficient energy extraction without excessive blade speeds.[2] The classic configuration is the Parsons turbine, which maintains a 50% degree of reaction by ensuring equal pressure drops across the fixed and moving blades, achieved through symmetrical blading where the blade angles and shapes are identical for both sets. Multiple identical stages are arranged in series on a common shaft, enabling progressive expansion while minimizing axial thrust through balanced forces. This design, patented by Charles Parsons in 1884, revolutionized turbine technology by enabling higher rotational speeds and power outputs compared to earlier reciprocating engines. For complete expansion from high inlet pressures around 100 bar to condenser vacuum, 20-30 stages are typically employed to limit the pressure ratio per stage and maintain efficiency.[24][30][31] For a Parson's turbine with symmetrical blading, the maximum blade efficiency is given by , where is the absolute flow angle at inlet to the fixed blades, achieved when the blade speed to absolute steam velocity ratio .[32] Unlike pressure compounding in impulse turbines, reaction designs eliminate discrete nozzles, instead relying on continuous expansion through the blade passages, which minimizes shock losses by avoiding abrupt velocity changes.[33]Comparison and Efficiency
Comparison of Compounding Types
Compounding types in steam turbines differ primarily in how they manage steam pressure and velocity drops across stages, impacting efficiency, design complexity, and operational suitability. Velocity compounding relies on absorbing kinetic energy through multiple blade rows at constant pressure, leading to high steam speeds but significant friction losses. Pressure compounding divides the total pressure drop across multiple nozzle stages, reducing velocity per stage and minimizing losses. Combined (pressure-velocity) compounding integrates both approaches for balanced energy extraction, while pressure compounding in reaction turbines distributes pressure drops across both fixed and moving blades for smoother flow. These variations allow tailoring to specific operational needs, with selection often guided by inlet pressure ratios (higher ratios favoring pressure methods) and required power output (higher outputs suiting reaction designs).[2][22] The following table summarizes key differences:| Compounding Type | Design Characteristics | Efficiency Considerations | Suitability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Velocity (Impulse) | High-speed steam, few stages, erosion risk from high velocities | Stage efficiency ~70% due to friction; overall ~70-80% in multi-stage setups | Low-pressure (LP) sections; compact, low-cost applications with moderate power needs |
| Pressure (Impulse) | Low-speed per stage, many stages, dependent on seals | Stage efficiency ~80%; overall ~80-85%, higher than velocity due to reduced losses | High-pressure (HP) sections; efficiency-focused industrial setups |
| Combined (Pressure-Velocity) | Balanced stages, moderate complexity | Overall >85%, combining benefits for optimized extraction | Marine and industrial turbines requiring balance of size and performance |
| Reaction Pressure | Smooth flow, pressure drop in blades, high blade loading | Stage efficiency ~90%; overall ~88-92%, aided by suction effects | Power generation plants with high output and continuous operation |
