GER-25338, HEAT RATE PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR STEAM TURBINE-GENERATORS R. C. Spencer and J. A. Booth Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the AMERICAN POWER CONFERENCE April 23-25, 1968 Chicago, Illinois 1HEAT RATE PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR STEAM TURBINE-GENERATORS .C, Spencer and J. A. Booth General Electric Company INTRODUCTION The thermodynamic performance of steam power plants is customarily expressed in terms of ‘heat rate’, Heat rate is the ratio of heat supplied to the cycle divided by the power output and is a function of both the performance of the turbine-generator and of the cycle in which it is applied. The major cycle parameters influencing heat rate are initial pressure, initial moisture content or superheat, the feedwater heating cycle characteristics and ar- rangement, intermediate (crossover) pressure, whether steam reheaters are used, and exhaust pressure, The major turbine-generator perform- ance parameters are size (volume flow), last-stage bucket annulus area, and type of steam admission. The aim of this paper is to show the effect on heat rate of variations in these major cycle and turbine-generator parameters for units operating with saturated or low-superheat initial steam con- ditions. Each variable has been considered individually, but the combined effect of several variables maybe approximated by summing the individual effects. BASIS OF CALCULATIONS In this paper the turbine section efficiencies, to- gether with the losses associated with the turbine- generator such as exhaust loss, mechanical losses, and generator losses, and the performance charac- teristics of the intermediate system have been de- termined by a previously published American Power Conference paper. Differences in net heat rate from a base cycle have been used as the measure of change in per- formance to include the effect of changes in feed- pump power, Base nonreheat, one-stage and two-stage steam- reheat eycles were selected, each having a reactor thermal output of 2500 MWt (approximately 800 MWe) and a tandem-compound turbine-generator with 500 square feet of last-stage bucket annulus area, The initial steam conditions chosen were 1000 psia dry and saturated and with a near op mum final feedwater temperature (FFWT) using six heaters, an intermediate pressure of 20 percent of initial pressure, and an exhaust pressure of 1.5 inches Hga. These parameters were selected to be reasona- bly close to the center of the range of variation studied in order to minimize the magnitude of the average correction. In determining the effect of a variable, the re- actor thermal power has been held constant. Ex- cept for variations in initial steam conditions, this is the case most commonly encountered in practice; therefore it was considered to be the most useful. CYCLE EFFECTS OF MOISTURE One of the most difficult problems associated with a nuclear turbine-generator is the high moisture content produced by the low initial conditions. Some of this moisture in the steam path collects into rela- tively large droplets which have much lower veloci- ties than the steam, so that they impinge on the leading edge of the buckets. This impingement can cause erosion of the latter stage buckets andacts as a drag which reduces stage efficiency at the rate of approximately 0.9 percent per 1 percent average moisture. If steam were allowed to expand from typical initial conditions, with none of the moisture being removed, the moisture content at the exhaust would be in excess of 20 percent. With a moisture loss of 0.9 percent/percent and an average moisture con- tent in excess of 10 percent, it is evident that com- plete removal of moisture as soon as it is formed would improve performance by approximately 10 percent, Unfortunately, it is not technically feasible to achieve complete moisture removal. However, since there is such a large potential improvement in performance, ways of reducing average moisture have become of primary importance and the follow- ing methods are currently employed:1, Stage moisture removal. 2, External moisture separator in the intermedi- ate system, 3, Steam reheating after the separator in the in- termediate system. Nonreheat cycles employ methods 1 and 2 and reheat cycles use all three methods .... with the reheating done in one stage using initial steam or in two stages using extraction steam from the high- pressure section, followed by initial steam. Figure 1 shows expansion lines for both nonreheat and re- heat cycles on an enthalpy-entropy, or Mollier dia- gram. The expansions in the high-pressure sections are identical, expanding from the saturation line down to approximately 200 psia with a moisture content of 12 percent. Most of this moisture is re- moved by the separator in the intermediate system and a small amount of superheat is produced by the NON-REHEAT CYCLE ENTHALPY ENTROPY Mollier diagram for nonreheat and reheat cycles Figure 1. reheater in reheat cycles, Since the low-pressure section expansion line for the reheat cycle is moved to the right on the Mollier diagram, it has a lower average moisture content and therefore amore effi- cient expansion. This improvement in expansion efficiency more than compensates for the thermo- dynamic losses involved in the heat transfer pro- cess and the pressure drop in the reheater to pro- duce a net gain for the reheat cycle. At the lower end of both expansion lines the effect of stage mois- ture removal is shown as zig-zags. RESULTS INITIAL CONDITIONS Not surprisingly, initial pressure and initial moisture content or superheat have been foundtobe of primary significance in determining performancevariations between nuclear cycles as well as the performance difference compared to fossil-fuel cycles. As initial pressure (and temperature) are in- creased along the saturation line, there is an in- crease in available energy down to exhaust pres- sure, There is also a corresponding increase in INITIAL_ PRESSURE moisture content which detracts from this increase in available energy; but, as shown in the upper curve of Figure 2, there is a net gain for increase in initial pressure, Since the reheat cycle has a lower average moisture content, the effect of in- creased moisture is minimized and so the gain ior a reheat cycle is greater than for anonreheat cycle. 10 q 82 6Ze ow ae 25 o~ 1200 1400 _1600 400. 600800 (0 : INITIAL PRESSURE {Psial-o RON AREHER TSS LOR 2 _gl_STAGE REHEAT P= ww INITIAL MOISTURE =a 04 m7 22%] EE NON-REHEAT ae =203 1 oe Be gol _|bOR 2STAGE REHEAT 250. nem) Zoe 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 = INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA) INITIAL SUPERHEAT w 702 eee eel Be LOR 2-STAGE REHEAT ~€ Eq — = ost at 4m a MW 25 — wy -04 Sa NON-REHEAT a2 ZX. = .05) 400 600 600 1000 1200 1400 1600 INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA) Figure 2. Etfect of I conditionsThe center and lower curves on Figure 2 show the effect on performance of changes in initial moisture and initial superheat respectively. With increase in initial moisture content, the expansion moves to the leit on the Mollier diagram, giving less available energy and a greater average mois- ture content, On the other hand, with increasing initial superheat the expansion moves to the right with an increase in available energy and adecrease in average moisture content. Thus, for changes in initial moisture and superheat the effects of availa~ ble energy and average moisture are additive. In both cases the effect on a reheat cycle is less than on a nonreheat cycle since reheat again reduces the effect of changes in moisture content. The effect on heat rate of initial moisture changes decreases with pressure while the effect of superheat increases, Without resorting to the underlying thermodynamic principles, these results can best be visualized by reference to the Mollier diagram. Here, as pressure increases, the con- stant moisture content lines converge — giving less change in available energy — while constant super- heat lines diverge — giving a greater change in available energy. In round numbers an increase of about 1 percent in initial moisture increases heat rate by 0.3 per- cent, and an increase in initial superheat of 10 F decreases the heat rate by the same amount. FEEDWATER HEATING The value of regenerative feedwater heating has been recognized for many years and is a feature of all present-day utility steam cycles. Many authors have analyzed the effect on heat rate of variations in the feedwater heating system. In particular, Salisbury(2) developed a comprehensive analysis of the variations due to the number of heaters and the final feedwater temperature. In this paper the variation in final feedwater temperature and num- ber of heaters has been restricted to the area of interest to designers of modern nuclear power plants. Similarly to Salisbury's analysis, feed water temperature has been expressed here in di- mensionless terms as the ratio of temperature rise in the feedheaters to the maximum possible tem- perature rise. Figure 3 shows the effect on heat rate of variation in feedwater temperature for five, six and seven heaters and the inset gives a multi plying factor to correct for initial pressure. The optimum feedwater temperature rise is found to be about 80 percent for five heaters and increases slightly as more heaters are added. ‘These curves have been prepared assuming that the temperature rise is divided equally between the heaters. This is difficult to achicve in practice since the actual temperature rises in the heaters are determined by the extraction locations available in the turbine. As a result, the gains due to addi- tional heaters typically may be only about one half the theoretical value with secondary effects on the optimum final feedwater temperature. ~ EXTERNAL MOISTURE SEPARATION AND REHEATING If it were not for the fact that moisture reduces the efficiency of a turbine expansion, external moisture separation would not improve cycle effici- ency, and steam reheating, as discussed earlier, would result in a poorer heat rate. It follows that the performance gains for each should be a function of the average moisture content of their respective cycles. The change in average moisture content due to the external moisture separator (and steam reheaters if included) approaches zero as the inter- mediate pressure approaches either initial pressure or exhaust pressure, It then follows that changes in average moisture content and the resulting perform- ance gains due to separation or steam reheating are both a function of intermediate pressure. The heat rate improvements for external mois- ture separation alone, and for separation in com- bination with single- and two-stage steam reheat relative to a cycle without separation or reheating are shown as a function of intermediate pressure on curves 1, 2 and 3 respectively of Figure 4. Curves 4 and 5 show the gain for single-stage reheat over nonreheat and two-stage over single-stage. Since intermediate pressure is expressed as apercentage of initial pressure, the multiplying factor of Figure 3 can be used to correct for initial pressure. It can be seen that the optimum intermediate pressures for nonreheat, single-stage and two- stage reheat cycles are approximately 10, 20 and 15 percent of initial pressure respectively; how- ever, since the cost of intermediate systems in- creases with decreasing pressure level, the eco- nomic optimum intermediate pressure will normally be higher than the thermodynamic optimum. It is of interest (if only academic) to note that at intermediate pressures below about 5 percent of initial pressure the performance of a single-stage steam reheat cycle becomes poorer than that of a nonreheat scheme (curve 4). Tt has been found that the performance of two- stage reheat units is only a minor function of the extraction pressure to the first-stage reheater with the optimum occurring at the midpoint of the high- pressure section expansion. Since practical turbine designs usually allow extraction at or near the mid- point, it was not considered worthwhile to present the effect of variation in this parameter.14 <2 & 10 5 = 08 0.6 400 1000 1600 ~ INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA) z “a NUMBER OF S| FEEDWATER HEATERS 7 5 gi< | 5 *le bee 6 =5 whe O}-4 7 S| | [| 7 5 -l 50) GO e957 0 peer COjpeees 90 pe ges/00 TEMPERATURE RISE Figure 3. LAST-STAGE BUCKET (LSB) LOADING AND EXHAUST PRESSURE One of the major turbine parameters influencing heat rate is the last- stage bucket (LSB) annulus area. With constant exhaust pressure and reactor thermal power output, a variation in annulus area will change exhaust loss, electrical output, and therefore heat rate. This effect is shown in the lower part of Figure 5, where change in heat rate is plotted against LSB loading, expressed as gen- erator output per square foot of annulus area mul- tiplied by Factor B, the correction for initial pres- sure, As expected, this curve has the shape of an exhaust loss curve. When exhaust pressure is varied, the total effect on heat rate results from changes in available en- IN_ FEEDWATER HEATERS MAXIMUM POSSIBLE TEMPERATURE Effect of feedwater heating RISE (%) ergy, in steam extracted to the bottom heater, and in exhaust loss. Since this change in exhaust loss depends upon the LSB annulus area, it follows that the total effect on heat rate will be a function of LSB loading. This correction for exhaust pressure from a base of 1.5 inches Hga is shown in the fa miliar form on the upper part of Figure 5, where curves have been presented for various LSB load- ings, expressed in the same terms as before. ‘The LSB loading and exhaust pressure correction curves have been prepared on the assumption that there is no change in expansion efficiency in the turbine up to the last stage. To make these curves more general, a 'size' effect has been shown in the center of Figure 5, which presents a correction to heat rate to allow for the change in expansion effi- ciency resulting from variations in the volume flowCURVE : | NON-REHEAT VS. NO. SEPARATOR 21ST “ vs." " 32-816" vs. " . 4 [sto * VS. NON - REHEAT 52S16 “VS. LSTG 7 2 0 z 5 5 4 é a\* -4 | \ - | 2/5 mM le -6 Biz 2 3 3 2 5 10 20 50 700 INTERMEDIATE PRESSURE (% INITIAL PRESSURE) Figure 4. Effect of external moisture separation and reheating of the steam. 'Size' has been expressedas genera- tor output divided by initial pressure. Factor B, the correction to LSB loading for vari- ation in initial pressure, is also shown inthe center of Figure 5. The use of all of these curves is illustrated in the appendix. PART LOAD PERFORMANCE ‘There are two methods which have been widely accepted for controlling the steam flow into a tur- bine-generator unit. The first method is full throttling, in which all the control valves move to- gether. ‘The other method is partial admission, in which the first-stage nozzle area is divided into seg- ments, each of which is supplied with steam by its own control valve. As load is reduced, each valve is closed in sequence and the losses in available energy due to throttling are considerably reduced, The improvement in performance for partial ad- mission must be balanced against the increased duty and complexity of the inlet and first-stage parts. These problems become greater with increasing in- let volume flow, which is an inverse function of initial pressure as well as a direct function of unit rating. Because of these problems and the rela- tively high-capacity factors expected of nuclear units, typical designs employ three admissions in the smaller sizes with full throttling in the largest. The heat rate variation across the load range for a full throttling unit is provided in the upper portion of Figure 6. This curve isbasedon an initial pres- sure of 1000 psia, an exhaust pressure of 1.5 inches Hga and an LSB loading of 1800 kW/ft2 at the valves- wide-open condition. Variations in initial pressure can be corrected for by Factor C and variations in exhaust pressure and LSB loading by the method of Figure 5, ‘The gain for partial admission can be obtained from the lower part of Figure 6 where the differ- ence in heat rate between a hypothetical machineEXHAUST PRESSURE __ 12 500 = 10 — 8 1000 a ZE6 we gu 4 500 1500 32 2 ot, 05 I) 0 ae oe 1000) i 30 35 =2 EXHAUST PRESSURE. (INS. HG.ABS) I NULUS AREA) X FACTOR B £00 FT) SE = 04 BS 02 zu 0 — mae Be02 2)» 400@=a00 = 1200 1600 &S “GENERATOR OUTPUT (KW) INITIAL PRESSURE LAST- STAGE BUCKET LOADING arn PRESSURE (PSIA) (AT 15_INS. HG. ABS) on = b HEAT RATE ( % nN “CHANGE IN a 0 2000 (OUTPUT/ANNULUS AREA) X FACTOR B (KW/FT2) Figure 5. Effect of exhaust pressure, last-stage bucket loading and size(%) CHANGE IN HEAT RATE FACTOR C (%) CHANGE IN HEAT RATE FACTOR C ny oS PART LOAD — SINGLE ADMISSION oll « \ St0 ei Ko9 re “40 1000 0 10 160 INITIAL PRESSURE ( PSIA) PREC 20 40 60 80 00 LOAD (% OF VWO) PARTIAL ADMISSION 1 I 22 Ss 3 8 = a a 4s 3 = 2 s S| nN | 20 40 60 80 100 LOAD (% OF VWO) Figure 6. Effect of part loadCURVE : | SEPARATOR EFFECTIVENESS, NON-REHEAT — % /% H é bsTG -—- 2st6 8 OU PRESSURE DROP IN INTERMEDIATE SYSTEM — " REHEATER TERMINAL DIFFERENCE, SINGLE STAGE AND SECOND OF 2-STAGE — %/IOF Onun — 6 REHEATER TERMINAL DIFFERENCE, FIRST STAGE OF 2- STAGE 7 %/\OF .I6 hm MN 14 <—Ns 13 yw = 10 = = 08 Le = wy = Z | 8 ghee 5 | Trt te ry 113 02 == 0 400 600 800 1000 200 1400 1600 INITIAL PRESSURE —(PSIA) Figure 7. Effect of changes in intermediate systemwith an infinite number of admissions and a four- valve machine with one, two, three and four admis- sions is plotted across the load range. These curves were plotted on a locus of valve-best-point basis and again Factor C is used to compensate for initial pressure. INTERMEDIATE SYSTEM Parameters in the intermediate system which affect heat rate are pressure drop andthe perform- ance of the external moisture separator and reheat- ers. The selection of these parameters will influ- ence not only the cost of the intermediate system, but also the cost of the associated turbine and cycle equipment and is thus a complex optimization problem. For the purposes of the base cycle used in the derivation of the previous figures, intermediate system parameters as defined in reference (1) have been used. However, correction factors for varia- tions in these parameters have been derived and are shown on Figure 7 plotted against initial pres- sure, An intermediate pressure of 20 percent of initial pressure was used and the results are some- what influenced by this choice, CONCLUSIONS This paper has presented the effect on heat rate of a wide range of variations in the steam conditions and major cycle parameters. While it is not in- tended to be a complete estimating system, the performance for various units may be determined by starting from a known base. The information presented will be useful in the optimization of present and future nuclear cycles. It must be remembered, however, that the selection of cycle parameters in actual cases must repre- sent a balance between these thermodynamic effects and the economics of achieving such performance levels. WAPPENDIX The following examples are presented to assist the reader in the use of the information contained in this paper, USE OF FIGURE 2 Find the effect on heat rate of changing initial conditions 740 psia, 0.76 percent moisture to 1370 psia, 36 F superheat for a nonreheat cycle: (a) Initial moisture correction — 740 psia, 0,76 percent M to 740 psia, 0 percent M Correction factor = - [S578 = 0.9974 100 (b) Initial pressure correction — 740 psia, 0 percent M to 1370 psia, 0 percent M 100 - 3.4 Correction factor = 7594-3 = 0, 9262 (c) Initial superheat correction - 1370 psia, 0 percent M to 1370 psia, 35 F superheat _ | B5/0) x 0.432) _ 9 o549 Correction factor 100 Total correction factor = 0, 9974 x 0, 9262 x 0, 9849 = 0, 9098 or improvement in net heat rate = (1 - 0, 9098) x 100 = 9. 02 percent. USE OF FIGURE 3 Find the effect of change from five feedwater heaters with a final feedwater temperature of 400 F to seven heaters and a feedwater temperature of 370 F with a throttle pressure of 700 psia and an exhaust pressure of 2.0 inches Hga: Saturation temperature of initial pressure = 503.1 F Saturation temperature of exhaust pressure = 101.1 F Temperature rise in feedwater heaters: 400 - 101.1 (a) For 400 F, s93-7~ 01.1 74,4 percent 370 - 101.1 () For 370, so3.1 = 101.1 66. 9 percent Factor A for 700 psia = 0. 83 Change in heat rate/Factor A: (a) For 5 heaters and 400 F = +0. 68 percent 12(>) For 7 heaters and 400 F = -0, 35 percent (c) For 7 heaters and 370 F = +0. 06 percent 100 - 0.35 x 0.83 _ 9 gis ‘Theoretical correction factor for 5 to 7 heaters at 400 F FFWT = = Actual correction factor for 5 to 7 heaters (assuming gain is only 50 percent of theoretical) = (1 = 0.9915) _ 9 9957 2 ~ 100 + 0, 06 x 0,83 Correction factor for 400 F to 370 F with 7 heaters = 777+ SF = 1. 0034 Total correction factor = 0.9957 x 1. 0034 = 0, 9991 or decrease in net heat rate = (1,0 - 0, 9991) x 100 = 0, 09 percent. USE OF FIGURE 4 Find the effect of change from a nonreheat cycle to a 2-stage reheat cycle with an initial pressure of 1180 psia and an intermediate pressure of 200 psia: Intermediate pressure a 6.9 percent Factor A for 1180 psia = 1. 10 (From Figure 3) Change in heat rate/Factor A relative to a cycle with no separator or reheaters: (a) Nonreheat (curve 1) ~4, 29 percent (b) 2-stage reheat (curve 3) -6. 56 percent _ 100 - 6,56 x 1,10 Total correction factor = 99 —g-y5-= 4-40 = 0- 9738 or improvement in net heat rate = (1 - 0.9738) x 100 = 2.6 percent. USE OF FIGURE 5 Find the effect of change from a unit with an output of 400 MW, LSB annulus area of 350 ft? at 1.0 inches Hga to one with 750 MW output 500 ft? annulus area at 2,5 inches Hga, both with 700 psia initial pressure and all other cycle parameters identical: Factor B for 700 psia = 1.137 (Output /Annulus area) x Factor 400, 000 x 1, 137 (a) For 400 Mw, 350 ft? a = 1300 Kw/t? (bv) For 750 Mw, 500 ft? = 150.000 1137 = 1710 kW/tt? 13Generator output /initial pressure: (a) 400 Mw: aa = 570 kW/psia 750, 000 () 750 Mw: Toy = 1070 kW/psia Correction factors: (a) 1300 kw/tt? - 1.0 inches Hga to 1.5 inches Hga = 1 - 0.5/100 = 0.9950 100 TOO - 3.0 ~ ** (b) 1300 kw/tt? to 1710 kW/ft? at 1.5 inches Hga = 0258 (c) Mo Kw/tt? - 1.5 inches Hga to 2.5 inches Hga = 1 + 0.9/100 = 1.0090 100 - 0.05 _ 100 + 0.11 ~ (a) 'Size' - 400 MW to 750 MW at 700 psia = . 9984 Total correction factor = 0, 9950 x 1, 0258 x 1, 0090 x 0, 9984 = 1.028 or increase in net heat rate = (1.028 - 1.0) x 100 = 2,8 percent. USE OF FIGURE 6 Determine the increase in heat rate relative to VWO at 75, 50 and 25 percent of VWO output for a unit with 800 psia initial pressure with four valves and three admissions: LSB loading at VWO of 1800 kwW/ft2 and 1,5 inches Hga exhaust pressure: Factor C at 800 psia = 1.032 Load — percent VWO 25 50 5 100 A. Full throttling: Change in NHR/Factor C % +20. 4 +70 42.4 0 Change in NHR % 421.1 +12 42.5; 0 Correction factor 1.211 1.072 1, 025 1.0 B. Change to three admissions: Change in NHR/Factor C % -3,95 -3..75 -2,70 0 Change in NHR % 4, 08 -3,87 -2..79 0 Correction factor 0, 9592 0. 9613 0, 9721 1.0 Total correction factor 1, 162 1,031 0.996 1.0 Change in net heat rate +162 +3.1 -0.4 Base 14@) (2) REFERENCES “Predicting the’ Performance of Large Steam Turbine-Generators Operating with Saturated and Low Superheat Steam Conditions," by F. G. Baily, K. C. Cotton and R. C. Spencer. Abstracted in American Power Conference, April 25-27, 1967, Complete text available as GER-2454A from General Electric Co,, Schenectady, New York, “Steam Turbines and Their Cycles" by J. Kenneth Salisbury, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1950, 15