2006-681: LABORATORY-SCALE STEAM POWER PLANT STUDY -- RANKINE

CYCLER EFFECTIVENESS AS A LEARNING TOOL AND A COMPREHENSIVE

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

Andrew Gerhart, Lawrence Technological University

Andrew Gerhart is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Lawrence Technological
University. He is actively involved in ASEE, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and
the Engineering Society of Detroit. He serves as Faculty Advisor for the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Student Chapter at LTU and is the Thermal-Fluids Laboratory
Coordinator. He is on the ASME PTC committee on Air-Cooled Condensers.

Philip Gerhart, University of Evansville

Philip Gerhart is the Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science and a professor
of mechanical and civil engineering at the University of Evansville in Indiana. He is a member of
the ASEE Engineering Deans Council. He is a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers and serves on their Board on Performance Test Codes. He chairs the PTC committee
on Steam Generators and is vice-chair of the committee on Fans.

Page 11.862.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006

 Laboratory-Scale Steam Power Plant Study – Rankine CyclerTM
Effectiveness as a Learning Tool and a Comprehensive
Experimental Analysis.

Abstract

The Rankine Cycler™ steam turbine system, produced by Turbine Technologies, Ltd., is a table-
top-sized working model of a fossil-fueled steam power plant. It is widely used by engineering
colleges around the world.

This is the second paper about the Rankine Cycler, continuing the work started in 2004-05. In
the first paper two important objectives were met. First, to determine the effectiveness of the
Rankine Cycler as a learning tool, an indirect assessment was performed (i.e., a measure of
student opinion). The results were positive. Second, a parametric study of the effects of
component losses on Rankine Cycler thermal efficiency was performed. The results showed that
the range of component losses used in the parametric study accurately reflect experimental
thermal efficiencies, and pointed to future experimental work.

For this paper, two more objectives are met, contributing to the conclusions and
recommendations from the first paper. First, a direct assessment (and further indirect
assessment) of the Rankine Cycler as a learning tool is performed. Student’s laboratory reports
were evaluated, so that ultimately the equipment can be used in the undergraduate curriculum in
the best possible manner.

Inevitably, when a power generation plant is scaled-down and it has few efficiency-enhancing
components (e.g. lack of feedwater heaters, etc.), energy losses in components will be magnified,
substantially decreasing the cycle efficiency. Although the Rankine Cycler is a useful tool for
teaching fundamentals of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and instrumentation
systems in an undergraduate laboratory, a comprehensive analysis of the equipment had not been
completed. This analysis can be useful to faculty and students who use the equipment and can
also be useful to potential customers of Turbine Technologies. Therefore, as a second objective,
faculty and students at two different universities have continued a comprehensive analysis of the
Rankine Cycler. Significant experimental work was performed to characterize the Rankine
Cycler. Multiple steady state runs were performed to determine the optimum operating point
(i.e., load at which turbine/generator performance is optimum). Also, methods for accurately
measuring steam flow were studied. Finally, future work is outlined to complete a
characterization of the Rankine Cycler.
Page 11.862.2
1. Introduction

At colleges around the world, each mechanical engineering student is required to learn
something about the thermodynamic cycle known as the Rankine cycle. Plants using this cycle
with steam as the working fluid produce the majority of the electricity in the U.S. For many
students, this is simply a pencil-and-paper exercise, and only ideal or theoretical Rankine cycles
are analyzed. Therefore, unfortunately, many mechanical engineering graduates have only a
vague understanding of this nearly ubiquitous method of power generation.

One of the best ways to enhance student learning about the steam power cycle is to visit an actual
power plant and perhaps analyze some data from the plant. Many students do not have the
option of visiting a power plant (because of location, time, or class size constraints), so the next
best option is to operate a working model of a steam power plant in a laboratory. There are
various arrangements of educational steam power generating laboratory models available, but all
but one of these operate with a reciprocating piston engine instead of a turbine. These
educational units employing a piston are very costly and often too large for many university
laboratories. The “Rankine Cycler”, produced by Turbine Technologies Ltd. of Chetek,
Wisconsin (hereinafter called the “RC”), is a tabletop steam-electric power plant that looks and
behaves similarly to a real steam turbine power plant (see Figure 1). It also has the advantage of
relatively low-cost. About the size of an office desk, the plant contains three of the four major
components of a modern, full-scale, fossil fuel fired electric generating station: boiler, turbine,
and condenser. Using only propane and water, the plant will actually generate electricity. Note
that the RC does not operate in a true cycle (there is no pump); it is a once-through unit (see
Figure 2). Nonetheless, many of the key issues regarding steam power generation are illustrated
by the device.

The RC is outfitted with sensors to measure key properties. The data is displayed in real time on
a computer so that students can instantaneously observe the behavior of the plant under differing
scenarios. The unit operates by burning propane to convert liquid water into high pressure, high
temperature steam (over 450°F and 120 psia) in a constant volume boiler (see Figure 3). The
steam flows into a turbine causing it to spin (see Figure 4). The turbine is attached to a generator
which produces electricity when spun. The generator can produce up to approximately 4 Watts.
The steam, after it has used up some of its energy to spin the turbine/generator, leaves the turbine
and flows into a condenser which operates at atmospheric pressure and condenses about 1/6th of
the steam into liquid water. The remaining steam is vented to the atmosphere. Because of the
small scale of the unit, overall efficiency is inherently very low (on the order of a few hundredths
of one percent). Page 11.862.3
 Condenser Boiler

Turbine
(beneath round knob)
Generator

Figure 1. The Rankine Cycler. Note that newer models include a USB port data
acquisition system and laptop computer that is mounted to the tabletop1.

Turbine Inlet Temperature

& Pressure

Steam Admission Valve Ws out

TURBINE GENERATOR

Boiler Temperature
Turbine Exit Temperature
& Pressure

BOILER AMPS VOLTS

C
Boiler Pressure O
N
D Variable Resistive Load
E
BURNER N
S -Qc
Fuel flow sensor E
R

LP / NATURAL GAS
TANK

CONDENSATE COLLECTION
TANK
Page 11.862.4

Figure 2: Schematic of the Rankine Cycler1.

Figure 3. The dual pass, flame-through tube type (constant volume) boiler, with super heat
dome1. See Appendix A for more details.

Figure 4. Axial flow impulse steam turbine outside of its casing1. See Appendix A for more
details.

A. Previous Study and Current Objectives

Lawrence Technological University (LTU) and the University of Evansville (UE) want to ensure
that each graduating mechanical engineer has a good understanding of power generation. To
accomplish this goal, both schools use the Rankine Cycler in an upper-level laboratory course,
and have initiated a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the RC. This is the second
paper, continuing the work started in 2004-05. In the first paper2, two important objectives were
met. First, to determine the effectiveness of the RC as a learning tool, an indirect assessment
was performed ; students were surveyed to assess the RC as a learning tool. Preliminary results
showed that the RC and the associated calculations and reports performed quite well as a
learning tool, according to the students. They reported that their knowledge of the Rankine cycle
Page 11.862.5

(and its associated thermodynamic concepts) increased. They indicated that discussing and
operating the RC are more valuable than performing calculations with the data. The level of the
material was appropriately challenging for upper-level engineering students. A few keys to
successful use of the RC were also given in the paper.

Second, a parametric study of the effects of component losses on RC thermal efficiency was
performed. The results showed that the range of component losses used in the parametric study
accurately reflects experimental thermal efficiencies, and the results pointed to future
experimental work that can be accomplished with the RC. The overall conclusion of the paper
was that the benefits of the RC seem to outweigh the idiosyncrasies of the device. For its
relatively low cost, the RC is useful in a mechanical engineering curriculum.

There are two objectives of the current paper which extend and support the conclusions and
recommendations from the first paper. First, assessment of the RC’s effectiveness as a learning
tool is continued. The indirect assessment of the first paper is extended through more student
surveys, and a more direct assessment is performed based on graded student reports. These
assessment results help decide how the equipment can be used in the best possible manner in the
undergraduate curriculum.

A second objective of the current paper is to extend the comprehensive technical analysis of the
RC. Significant experimental work was performed to characterize the RC and its components.
Multiple steady state runs were performed to determine the optimum operating point (i.e., the
load at which turbine/generator performance is optimum). Also, methods for measuring steam
flow more accurately were studied. Finally, future work is outlined to complete a
characterization of the RC.

B. Background

At LTU and UE, all mechanical engineering students learn about the Rankine cycle in their
required Thermodynamics course during their sophomore or junior year. During their junior
year (at UE) or senior year (at LTU), the students put the theory into practice by operating the
RC in a required laboratory course. Consequently, it is hoped that every graduating mechanical
engineering student will learn and understand electricity generation in fossil fueled plants.

2. Rankine CyclerTM Effectiveness as a Learning Tool

While the RC is the only cost-effective laboratory equipment on the market to introduce students
to Rankine cycle power equipment similar to that they may encounter in practice (i.e., containing
a turbine), it was unknown if the equipment is a good learning tool. A study has been completed
to determine if the RC is a worthwhile and practical tool for the students to study fossil-fueled
electricity generation and cycle efficiencies. Both indirect and direct assessments were
performed.

A. Indirect Assessment (Student Survey) Results

The RC was first evaluated as a learning tool based on an indirect assessment (i.e., a survey of
student opinions). Various questions were asked of students on a survey after the laboratory
Page 11.862.6

exercises and subsequent written reports had been completed (but before they were graded).
Prior to distributing the survey, the instructors did their best to stay opinion-neutral toward the
students as to the effectiveness of the RC as a learning tool; the students were made aware that
this was a testing phase of the RC. Much of the survey was quantified using a 5-point Likert
scale, but written responses were also gathered. While many different experiments are possible
with the RC (see LTU sample laboratory assignment in Appendix B), the survey is general
enough that it is likely applicable to any college using the unit. Questions asked on the survey
are shown in Appendix C. The results compiled in this paper are derived from 19 LTU student
surveys and 20 UE student surveys. The results are an indirect assessment because they indicate
student perceptions based on self-surveys.

As shown in Table 1, before performing the RC exercise in lab, students felt fairly comfortable
with the concepts related to the Rankine cycle. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “strongly
disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree,” the average student response was 3.59. The median was 4
with a standard deviation of 1.21.

Also shown in Table 1, after completing the RC exercise (including the calculations), the
students gained a slightly better understanding of the Rankine cycle, scoring an average of 3.82,
a median of 4, and a standard deviation of 0.885.

no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree
Before performing the Rankine Cycler exercise in lab, I felt
5.1 20.5 7.7 43.6 23.1
comfortable with the concepts related to the Rankine cycle
After completing the Rankine Cycler exercise (including
the calculations), I have a better understanding of the 2.6 2.6 25.6 48.7 20.5
Rankine cycle

Table 1. Percentage of students agreeing with the statements concerning their

understanding of the Rankine cycle before and after using the Rankine CyclerTM

After rating each part of the exercise, putting a 1 next to the most beneficial, a 2 next to the next
beneficial, and a 3 next to the least beneficial, the average results are as follows:

Seeing real (lab-scale) components and their operation – 1.74

Discussing and using the RC with the instructor – 1.79
Performing the calculations/analysis – 2.29

Based on these results, the students did not believe they benefited as greatly from the
calculations and analysis as they did from the in-lab exercise. This result is not surprising for
three reasons. First, most of the students have already performed the required calculations in
their Thermodynamics course. Second, the numbers calculated from the laboratory data are not
representative of full-size plant data or of the values that appear in typical textbook exercises and
Page 11.862.7

therefore have little meaning to the students; possibly the results seem contradictory.
Considering that most students do not have an intuitive feel for quantities calculated from real
power plant data, the numbers that they generate have no significant meaning. Third, many
students do not enjoy detailed “theoretical” calculations; they are looking for hands-on
application. One student recommended “less calculations and more how does it work and why.”

For the calculations and analysis ratings (students put a 1 next to the most beneficial, a 2 next to
the next beneficial, and so on, up to 7), the results are shown in Table 2. The number in
parenthesis indicates rank.

average analysis exercise

3.1 (1) T-s diagram generation
3.9 (5) turbine isentropic efficiency
3.8 (4) first law analysis
3.6 (3) Thermal efficiency / heat rate
5.0 (6) condensing tower efficiency
3.2 (2) power and energy
5.4 (7) suggest methods to increase thermal efficiency

Table 2: Calculation / Analysis Ranking Results

As shown on Table 3, the students found the RC as experimental equipment as a useful tool for
learning thermodynamics. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly
agree,” the average student response was 3.74, the median was 4.0 and the standard deviation
was 1.08.

Also shown on Table 3, the students found the in-lab procedure for using the RC was a useful
exercise for furthering their knowledge and understanding of Thermodynamics with an average
score of 3.79, a median of 4 and a standard deviation of 1.03.

Finally from Table 3, the students found the analysis and calculations associated with the RC
exercise were useful for furthering their knowledge and understanding of thermodynamics with
an average score of 3.69, a median of 4, and a standard deviation of 0.893.
no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree

The Rankine Cycler as experimental equipment is a useful

2.6 13.2 18.4 39.5 26.3
tool for learning thermodynamics
The in-lab procedure for using the Rankine Cycler was a
useful exercise for furthering my knowledge and 2.6 10.3 17.9 43.6 25.6
understanding of Thermodynamics
The analysis and calculations associated with the Rankine
Cycler exercise were useful for furthering my knowledge 2.6 7.7 20.5 56.4 12.8
and understanding of Thermodynamics

Table 3. Percentage of students agreeing with the statements concerning the aspects of the
Page 11.862.8

Rankine CyclerTM
As a basis for ensuring that the quality of instruction was sufficient and that the equipment was
being used in a worthwhile manner, the students rated the instructor’s use of the RC. The results
are shown in Table 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “unsatisfactory” and 5 is “excellent,” the
average student response was 4.20, the median was 4, and the standard deviation was 0.731.

unsatisfactory

satisfactory

Excellent
good
poor
How do you rate the instructor’s use of the Rankine Cycler? 0 0 18.9 43.2 37.8

Table 4. Percentage of students rating the instructor’s use of the Rankine CyclerTM

As shown on Table 5, the level of material covered with the RC exercise was rated as just barely
advanced with an average score of 2.77, where 1 is “too advanced,” 3 is “just right,” and 5 is
“too easy.” The median was 3 and the standard deviation was 0.583.

too advanced

advanced

just right

too easy
easy
The level of material covered with the Rankine Cycler
0 30.8 61.5 7.7 0
exercise was:

Table 5. Percentage of students rating the level of material covered with the Rankine
CyclerTM

Finally the students found the RC exercise slightly increased their interest in the thermal-fluid
sciences (see Table 6). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly
agree,” the average student response was 3.33. The median was 3 and the standard deviation
was 1.03. By their senior year, students have already decided where their interests and/or
strengths lie. A single laboratory exercise is unlikely to change their perception. Therefore it is
pleasantly surprising that 10.3% of the students “strongly agreed” that the exercise increased
their interest in Thermal-Fluid Sciences.
no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree

The Rankine Cycler exercise increased my interest in the

7.7 7.7 38.5 35.9 10.3
thermal-fluid sciences.
Page 11.862.9
 Table 6. Percentage of students agreeing with the statement concerning their interest in
the thermal-fluid science field due to the RC.

Overall, the RC and its associated calculations and reports performed quite well as a learning
tool, according to the students. They reported that their knowledge of the Rankine cycle (and its
associated thermodynamic concepts) increased. They found discussing and using the RC more
valuable than performing calculations with the data. In addition, the level of the material was
appropriately challenging for upper-level engineering students.

The survey results were also compared from university-to-university (LTU vs. UE). These
results are useful for two reasons. First, the thermodynamics courses and thermal-science
laboratory courses have different formats between LTU and UE. One of the goals for the UE
thermal-science laboratory is for the students to perform a preliminary theoretical prediction
exercise for the equipment. This allows the students time to review the RC and aspects of its
performance before any experiments are performed. Additionally, the students at UE have more
coverage of the Rankine cycle in their Thermodynamics course and the laboratory course is
taken one semester after the Thermodynamics course, whereas at LTU, the laboratory is typically
taken a year or more after Thermodynamics. Therefore the UE students would be expected to
have a better understanding of the process and procedures before the experiment and data
analysis. A final difference is that at UE, a complete uncertainty analysis is required with the
final report.

Second, a comparison is useful because of the differing regions in which the universities are
located. Evansville, Indiana is in the heart of a major Midwestern coal mining region, on the
Ohio river, and coal-fired steam power plants are an integral part of the engineering landscape.
Some of the UE students have had co-op or internship experience at a power plant. As a result,
the UE students, in general, seem to be more “power plant savvy”. Industry in Southfield,
Michigan (i.e., Detroit) is dominated, not by the Rankine cycle, but by different types of power
cycles; the Otto and Diesel cycles take lead roles in the Southeastern Michigan engineering
landscape because of the auto industry. LTU students tend to be less interested in coal-fired
steam power generation and more interested in internal combustion engines.

As shown in Table 7, the UE students were more comfortable with the Rankine cycle before
completing the RC exercises (as expected), while the LTU students were split fairly evenly. This
is also shown in the average scores where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree;” UE
students scored an average of 4.1 whereas LTU students scored an average of 3.1. Nevertheless,
students from both universities found that using the RC increased their understanding of the
Rankine cycle with a UE average score of 3.9 and an LTU average score of 3.8.

After rating each part of the exercise, putting a 1 next to the most beneficial, a 2 next to the next
beneficial, and a 3 next to the least beneficial, the average results for each university are shown
in Table 8. The LTU students found the discussion and use of the RC of greatest benefit and UE
students found the visualization of the component operations most beneficial. Both student
groups found the calculations and analysis least beneficial (it should be noted that calculations
were more extensive at UE, with a pre-lab theoretical prediction and an uncertainty analysis
Page 11.862.10

incorporated in the data analysis). The students likely ranked the calculations lowest, because
the quantities calculated are not comparable to full-scale Rankine power plants and because they
are considered tedious.

no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree
LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE
Before performing the Rankine Cycler
exercise in lab, I felt comfortable with the 10.5 0 36.8 5 0 15 36.8 50 15.8 30
concepts related to the Rankine Cycle
After completing the Rankine Cycler
exercise (including the calculations), I have 5.3 0 5.3 0 21.1 30 42.1 55 26.3 15
a better understanding of the Rankine cycle

Table 7. Percentage of LTU and UE students agreeing with the statements concerning
their understanding of the Rankine Cycle before and after using the Rankine CyclerTM

LTU UE
Discussing and using the RC with the
1.53 2.05
instructor
Seeing real (lab-scale) components and their
1.63 1.84
operation
Performing the calculations/analysis 2.47 2.11

Table 8. LTU and UE student ranking of the Rankine CyclerTM laboratory exercises

For the calculations and analysis ratings, ( 1 = most beneficial, 2 = next beneficial, and so on, up
to 7) the results are shown in Table 9. The number in parenthesis indicates rank. The most
notable differences are that the UE students ranked the power and energy calculation as most
beneficial, while LTU students ranked it 3rd, and the UE students ranked the first law analysis 5th
while LTU students ranked it 2nd. Both groups of students considered the condenser efficiency
calculation and speculating on methods for increasing thermal efficiency to be least beneficial.
This result is not surprising. The condenser is not comparable to full-scale condensers and has a
very low efficiency. Also, the “condenser efficiency” calculated for the experiment does not
correspond to any parameter used in the power generation industry. The methods to increase
thermal efficiency are useful for the RC, but not particularly useful to an actual full-scale
Rankine cycle power plant. One student commented that methods of increasing the heat rate
“seemed very obvious and logical,” and another simply stated, “was simple”; both students
therefore ranked it least beneficial. The fact that the students recognize that it is obvious how to
increase the RC efficiency indicates its benefit to students learning Thermodynamics! Of course,
student suggestions were often comments like “increase the efficiency of the turbine”. While
obvious at this level, how to actually accomplish an efficiency increase is not so obvious.

Table 10 indicates that both groups of students believe that the RC is a useful learning tool, and
Page 11.862.11

that the in-lab procedure and data analysis are useful. Note that the LTU students showed a
stronger agreement for the RC usefulness. This likely reflects their somewhat more limited prior
exposure to power generation and the longer elapsed time between their classroom study and the
RC experiment.

LTU average UE average analysis exercise

3.0 (1) 3.1 (2) T-s diagram generation
4.0 (5) 3.8 (4) turbine isentropic efficiency
3.3 (2) 4.2 (5) first law analysis
3.9 (4) 3.4 (3) Thermal efficiency / heat rate
4.1 (6) 5.8 (7) condensing tower efficiency
3.7 (3) 2.8 (1) power and energy
5.9 (7) 4.9 (6) suggest methods to increase thermal efficiency

Table 9. LTU and UE student comparison of calculation / analysis ranking

no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree
LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE
The Rankine Cycler as experimental
equipment is a useful tool for learning 5.6 0 11.1 15 16.7 20 33.3 45 33.3 20
thermodynamics
The in-lab procedure for using the Rankine
Cycler was a useful exercise for furthering
5.3 0 10.5 10 10.5 25 31.6 55 42.1 10
my knowledge and understanding of
Thermodynamics
The analysis and calculations associated
with the Rankine Cycler exercise were
5.3 0 10.5 5 15.8 25 52.6 60 15.8 10
useful for furthering my knowledge and
understanding of Thermodynamics

Table 10. Percentage of LTU and UE students agreeing with the statements concerning the
aspects of the Rankine CyclerTM

Both LTU and UE students agreed that the quality of instruction for the RC was sufficient and
that the equipment was being used in a worthwhile manner (see Table 11).
no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree

LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE

How do you rate the instructor’s use of the
0 0 0 0 16.7 21.1 27.8 57.9 55.6 21.1
Rankine Cycler?
Page 11.862.12

Table 11. Percentage of LTU and UE students rating the instructor’s use of the Rankine
CyclerTM
As shown in Table 12, both groups of students found the level of material between “just right”
and “slightly advanced” (with an average LTU score of 2.79 and an average UE score of 2.75,
where 1 is “too advanced,” 3 is “just right,” and 5 is “too easy”).

advanced

advanced

just right

too easy
Easy
too
LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE
The level of material covered with the
0 0 31.6 30 57.9 65 10.5 5 0 0
Rankine Cycler exercise was:

Table 12. Percentage of LTU and UE students rating the level of material covered with the
Rankine CyclerTM

Finally most students found the RC exercise slightly increased their interest in the thermal-fluid
sciences (or kept it the same) (see Table 13). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “strongly disagree”
and 5 is “strongly agree,” the average LTU student response was 3.11, and the average UE
student response was 3.55.

no opinion
disagree

disagree
strongly

strongly
agree

agree
LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE LTU UE
The Rankine Cycler exercise increased my
15.8 0 10.5 5 26.3 50 42.1 30 5.3 15
interest in the thermal-fluid sciences.

Table 13. Percentage of LTU and UE students agreeing with the statement concerning
their interest in the thermal-fluid science field due to the RC.

In general, students from two different regions ranked the RC and its exercises very similarly.
These results indicate that the RC can be a useful learning tool for a varying student base. In
addition, students who feel that they have a firm understanding of the Rankine cycle before
performing experiments feel that use of the RC is nevertheless beneficial.

B. Student Comments

Students had several worthwhile suggestions (written on the survey). One student commented,
“It would be more beneficial to discuss [the RC equipment] after the [completion of the
laboratory report], as the knowledge has sunk-in and [had already been] applied.”

Another student who found the operation of the RC as the most beneficial aspect of the exercise
commented, “A picture or model is worth a lot.” That same student found the calculations and
Page 11.862.13

analysis least beneficial and commented, “Doing the calculations was aggravating. Units should
all be [in the] same [unit system]. It’s one thing to see and read the theory and another to make
sense of a mess of data….”

A student who found the generation of a T-s diagram most beneficial commented, “This shows
the most information for the amount of work. If you understand the chart it can show
(somewhat) most of the other information.” This student found the condensing tower calculation
least beneficial and added the comment, “The tower is not very accurate and doesn’t work well.”

Nine students commented that a pump should be added to complete the cycle. This is not
feasible for the current RC configuration. First, all or most of the steam would need to be
converted to liquid. Any condenser that could do this would be too large to be table-top sized
and would require external cooling (e.g., fans or pumped cooling water). External cooling would
require an external power source, which is counterproductive for studying the small-scale power
cycle. Also the pump itself would require an external power source. Suddenly, the power
produced by the turbine/generator would seem trivial. Also seven students commented that the
condenser needed improvement. Again this would require an external cooling source and
possibly a larger condenser that would not fit the nicely sized workbench.

A student noted that the equipment should have a method of viewing what is happening inside
the components. The student commented, “need see-through panels or cut-aways of a model to
see what is really happening inside. I would bet most students could not tell you what the
turbine looks like and how it works. One needs to know how it works to understand the
process.” It would therefore be useful for Turbine Technologies, Ltd. to make available extra
turbine rotors and/or boiler cut-aways that instructors could show and discuss with the students.

One student suggested that a better method of measuring water consumption was needed. This
will be addressed later in this paper.

A student commented, “Rather than using the RC, the class could obtain real data from a [full-
scale] power plant; this would give realistic results and provide a more useful experience.”
Another student suggested getting “data from an actual plant.” While this may be true, the data
alone does not show the operation of the components. A tour of a plant with a schematic would
need to accompany the data.

One student noted that the equipment should more closely match real-world conditions and was
“disappointed in the engineering of the test equipment.” On the other hand this same student
gave very high marks for the learning experience and his/her level of interest in thermal-fluid
sciences strongly increased. The fact that the RC does not closely replicate actual plant
conditions may actually benefit student learning, because it forces the student to think about
power cycles and their application.

A student realized that, “The boiler efficiency is impossible to [calculate using standard
methods] with the data recorded.” Because the boiler is pre-filled and pre-heated and since it is
not fed condensate, boiler efficiency as determined in a full-scale plant cannot be calculated by
the students. Student calculation of boiler efficiency would require additional equipment such as
Page 11.862.14

oxygen and exhaust gas temperature sensors.

Another student suggested to “reuse wasted heat from [exhaust] stack.” This, of course, would
require additional piping and the heat gained would likely not compensate for the additional pipe
pressure drop. Asking students how to use this waste heat would be a good exercise.

There is some concern that the equipment is not a particularly active exercise for a group of
students; the RC only requires one or two students to operate. A student commented, “I am an
active learner and [RC use and instruction] is…passive learning.” Unfortunately, most thermal-
fluids laboratory exercises are fairly passive with minimal user interaction. The only remedy to
this problem would be to have lab groups of only 2 or 3 students, which is often impossible due
to time constraints.

In contrast, many student comments are laudatory and reinforce the reason to include hands-on
teaching. One student commented, “I learn better when I ‘see for myself’ instead of being taught
concepts.” Another stated, “Bringing numbers and diagrams to a hands-on experiment is key to
learning.” A third student commented, “Seeing these physical plants is enjoyable which
encourages learning.”

C. Direct Assessment

Multiple direct assessments were performed which evaluate students’ understanding of the
Rankine cycle after using the RC and evaluate the value of the RC as a learning tool. First,
direct assessment was performed by evaluating answers to final exam questions. At LTU, a final
exam is given at the end of Thermal Science Laboratory course. The exam consists of 30
concept questions, of which each student must answer 20 of his/her choosing. Although the
exam is closed book and closed notes, the exam questions are distributed a few days before the
exam is administered, so that the students can investigate the questions ahead of time.

The two questions on the final exam pertaining to the Rankine Cycler are as follows:

1) “Without modifying the equipment whatsoever, what is a simple method to improve the
power generating performance? Explain why.”

2) “With your 2 to 3 minutes of data, you calculated thermal efficiency and/or heat rate. With
our equipment, the resulting values are never a true measure of efficiency/heat rate. Why?
(HINT: Something besides the pump was neglected that contributes a significant source of
error.)”

Each question is graded out of a possible 10 points. Over the course of two semesters, twenty-
eight students answered the first question, and fifteen students answered the second question.
Table 14 shows the results.
Page 11.862.15
 Question 1 Question 2
Average score 8.6 4.7
Median score 9 4
Standard deviation 1.5 3.3

Table 14. Student final exam scores relating to the Rankine CyclerTM.

The standard deviation of question 2 is high because three of the students received 0 points and
two of the students received 10 points. Based on the average score of question 1, the students
tend to understand the Rankine Cycler and its inherently low efficiencies due to the small plant
size. Based on the average score of question 2, the students do not seem to fully understand how
the RC compares to a full-sized power plant. This conclusion is debatable considering the small
sample size and the limited focus of the question.

Besides examining the average scores, a target score of 7 (out of 10) was established for each
problem; 89% of the students obtained this score for question 1, while only 27% of the students
scored a 7 on question 2.

The second method of direct assessment was to evaluate the graded laboratory reports. Although
the data reduction and performance calculations are the same between LTU and UE students,
parts of the lab reports have differing objectives and formats. While LTU reports are concerned
with collecting experimental data and analyzing it, UE reports also require uncertainty analysis
and pre-lab predictions of performance. Also each LTU lab report is generated by an entire team
of 2 to 5 students, although a set of sample calculations are performed by each student. UE
reports are the work of each individual student (although the experimental work was completed
as a group). For the current assessment, there are 15 LTU student lab reports, 4 UE student lab
reports, and 47 LTU student sample calculations. This sample size is fairly small but it
constitutes the work of 60 students. More direct assessment including more reports will be
evaluated for a future paper.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the scores for the laboratory reports. The average score is
86.7%, the median is 87.5% , and the standard deviation is 7.0%. A target score of 77.5% was
established; this target score was chosen because this is the logical minimum score which
constitutes above-average work (i.e., a C+ or B-). Assessment determined that 94.4% of the
reports reached this target. These data indicate that the students gain a firm understanding of the
Rankine cycle concepts through use and analysis of the RC. Upon inspection of the reports, the
calculations, plots, and supporting text are typically well established by the students and the RC
appears to be a good learning tool for the steam power cycle. Note that, in general, the scores
reflect the work of groups of students (i.e., not individual work). A weaker student can lean on
the support of the stronger student. Therefore it is worthwhile to assess individual student
sample calculations.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the scores for the sample calculations. The average score is
77.9%, the median is 80%, and the standard deviation is 18%. A target score of 77.5% was
Page 11.862.16

again established; 57.4% of the students reached this target. As noted, the data from the sample
calculations may be more indicative of the RC as a learning tool since they represent work from
individual students. The wide score distribution and standard deviation of 18% indicates the
wide range of scores, and little more than half of the students earned better than a C+. This is not
necessarily an indication that the RC does not reinforce the concepts of the steam power cycle or
the concepts of thermodynamics. It more likely indicates that some students are less interested in
the thermal-fluids aspects of engineering or that some students are not putting forth a best effort.

8
7
number of reports

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
70-79 80-89 90-100
laboratory report score (%)
Figure 5. Distribution of students’ RC laboratory report scores.
(Note that there were no scores less than 70%)

12
number of graded assignments l

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
>40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
sample calculations score (%)
Page 11.862.17

Figure 6. Distribution of students’ sample calculation scores.

Evaluation of the UE reports indicates that students are most capable of reducing data and using
data to make performance calculations. Numerical results of pre-laboratory performance
predictions do not agree well with actual performance because students do not realize how
inefficient the small-scale equipment actually is. Also, the required uncertainty analysis is much
less sophisticated than the performance calculations.

D. Keys to Meaningful Instruction

There are a few potential pitfalls to avoid when using the RC as a learning/teaching tool. First,
the instructor should gauge the amount of Rankine cycle coverage that the students received in
their Thermodynamics course. At a smaller college where all of the students have had the same
instructor for Thermodynamics, this is a simple task of asking the instructor or looking at the
syllabus. At a college where multiple sections of Thermodynamics are offered each semester
with a variety of instructors, this task may be more difficult. If the students received very little
instruction on the Rankine cycle in Thermodynamics, the terminology and experimental process
becomes intimidating. Be sure to allow ample laboratory class time to describe and use the RC if
this is the case.

The condenser looks very similar to a hyperbolic natural draft cooling tower. Convey to the
students that it is not a cooling tower but a very simple atmospheric baffle condenser. It is
shaped like a cooling tower for visual impact, and the shape has little to no impact on the heat
transfer occurring within the tower. (By the way, the hyperbolic shape of an actual natural draft
cooling tower also has little impact with the heat transfer occurring within the tower. They are
built that way “to offer superior strength and resistance to ambient wind loadings3.”)

While heat rate is more commonly used in the (U.S.) power industry as a measure of plant and
cycle performance, Thermodynamics texts and instructors typically spend more time discussing
thermal efficiency. If the students will be using heat rate, be sure to properly introduce the
concept and its meaning. The heating value of propane may be useful for this calculation.

One of the most tedious tasks for the students while doing the calculations is determining steam
properties. Usually students only have access to steam tables in the back of a text book. These
tables are sufficient for classroom calculation, but for actual data, a significant of amount of
interpolation is necessary. The excessive interpolation is tedious and not particularly
meaningful. Therefore, the students should have access to accurate electronic tables . This is
also a good opportunity to introduce students to “professional level” data sources such as the full
ASME Steam Tables.

All of the RC pressure measurements are reported in gage pressure. The students often forget or
do not know that steam tables are based on absolute pressure. Forewarn the students of this.

If the students are plotting their results on a T-s diagram, they will have some difficulty. The T-s
diagrams that they experienced in their Thermodynamics course have greatly exaggerated scales
making them easier to visualize.
Page 11.862.18
Finally, the steam exiting the turbine is sometimes wet (a mixture). Since only pressure and
temperature are measured at the turbine outlet, there is no way to determine the steam quality
and therefore no way to determine the enthalpy and entropy. It may be best to use settings that
ensure superheated steam is exiting the turbine.

3. Experimental and Analytical Study to Characterize the Rankine CyclerTM and its
Components

The RC has several significant differences from both an ideal and a real-world full-sized plant.
One of the most significant is the fact that the RC does not use a pump. This means that truly
cyclic operation is not possible. It is possible, however, to obtain (limited time) nearly steady-
state flow operation of the turbine and generator. Another significant difference lies with the
boiler. The water is heated at constant volume by a flame fueled with liquid propane (LP). The
heat addition process under constant volume conditions causes a pressure increase in the boiler.
The steam flow from the boiler can be maintained for some time period until the boiler pressure
falls below an acceptable level. It is important to note that this “no-pump” feature of the RC
makes it different from the real-world power plant as well as the ideal cycle.

The other ways that the RC differs from the ideal cycle also show up as differences between the
ideal cycle and actual operating power plants. In almost all cases, these are “non-ideal” effects
that cause the efficiency (or heat rate) of the real RC to be poorer (lower efficiency or higher
heat rate) than the ideal model. A partial catalog of these effects was given in the previous
paper2. The results from that paper of a parametric study of the effects of component losses on
RC thermal efficiency helped to pinpoint what combinations of various component losses
account for the poor performance (i.e., low thermal efficiency or high heat rate) of the RC. The
greatest RC losses were attributed to boiler-to-turbine line pressure drop and poor
turbine/generator efficiency (perhaps only 5% to 10%). The parametric study gave the authors a
rough guide for the limitations of the RC, so that the proper experimental work could be
performed.

A. Optimum Operating Point

Typical ranges of data gathered from the RC are shown in Table 15. Because the RC has several
significant differences from and is much smaller than both an ideal and real-world full-sized
plant, the efficiencies calculated from the data are inherently low. It would therefore be most
beneficial for the students to use the RC at its highest overall efficiency or optimum operating
point.

Boiler Turbine Inlet Turbine Outlet

Pressure (psia) 90 – 120 20 – 25 17 – 18
Temperature (˚F) 350 – 600 300 – 450 275 – 390
Steam mass flow (lb/sec) 0.006 – 0.013
Fuel flow rate (lb/sec) 0.00038
Generator power (W) 2-4
Page 11.862.19

Table 15. Typical ranges of RC experimental data.

Multiple steady state runs were carefully performed to determine the optimum operating point
(i.e., turbine/generator performance versus load). There are multiple experimental parameters to
investigate to determine optimum operating point. Figures 7 through 9 display three variations.
Figure 7 shows overall efficiency (generator power divided by fuel energy input) plotted against
generator power output. The relationship appears linear, so a straight line has been fit to the
data. The linear equation is shown on the figure along with the Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient (also known as the “r-squared value” which gives an indication of the
quality of the line fit with 1.0 being a perfect fit). The figure implies that there is not an
optimum point at which to operate the RC; it should simply be run at the highest possible load.
However, at some power output, the efficiency would begin to drop. The data collected may not
have covered the maximum operating load (according to generator manufacturer’s
specifications) which may be the point at which the generator RPM is nearly 4500. The data
shown only covers a range up to 3400 RPM. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to maintain a
generator RPM over 3500 and maintain steady state conditions. The RC runs to date have
proven attaining 4000 RPM is difficult. Continued higher load RC runs will be attempted as a
supplement to the current data sets. At present, this data would indicate that the RC should be
operated at the highest achievable steady power output.

0.040 %Efficiency = 0.0119(Power) - 0.0004

2
R = 0.9977
0.035
Overall Efficiency (%) l

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Generator Power Output (W)
Figure 7. Overall Efficiency vs. Power Output

Figure 8 shows overall efficiency plotted against generator voltage. Generator RPM is implicitly
indicated since it is related to DC output voltage by RPM = 366.7 V (information supplied by
Turbine Technologies, LTD.). The efficiency vs. voltage trend is similar to the one in Figure 7
but not as distinct. This reinforces the idea that the RC should be run at maximum loading
Page 11.862.20

(maximum speed) for optimum conditions.

Figure 9 shows efficiency plotted with isentropic enthalpy drop from turbine inlet to atmospheric
outlet. The increasing trend is very faintly indicated with one obvious outlier near 41 BTU/lb.

0.040

0.035
Overall Efficiency (%) l

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Voltage (RPM = 366.7 V)
Figure 8. Overall Efficiency vs. Voltage/RPM
0.040

0.035
Overall Efficiency (%) l

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Isentropic enthalpy drop from turbine inlet to atmospheric outlet (BTU/lb)
Page 11.862.21

Figure 9. Overall Efficiency vs. Isentropic Enthalpy Drop from turbine inlet to
atmospheric outlet
B. Using Turbine Exhaust Tube Pressure Drop to Measure Steam Flow

Possibly the least satisfying aspect of running an experiment with the Rankine Cycler is
determining the steam flow rate. This requires marking the boiler water level (using a sight-
glass) at the beginning and end of the data collection period, waiting a few hours for the system
to cool, then draining and refilling the boiler, noting the volume of water added to move the level
between the two points on the sight-glass. The volume flow rate for the test is then determined
by dividing the make-up water volume by the elapsed time for the run; mass flow would then be
obtained by multiplying by liquid water density. Steam mass flow rate determined by this
method is highly inaccurate because of the uncertainty involved in marking the water level, in
draining and refilling the boiler, and in the differences in density between hot and cold water.
The uncertainty in steam flow rate is likely no better than 10% - probably higher when
inexperienced students are making the measurements. Steam flow measurement may be the
largest contributor of error in the analysis of the RC data. Clearly, a more direct and real-time
steam mass flow measurement is highly desirable.

Possible approaches to obtaining such measurements would involve the installation of a small-
scale flow meter such as an orifice or turbine meter. This would be problematic because it would
require purchasing another instrument and would introduce yet another pressure drop into an
already highly inefficient system. Such devices would also require calibration, especially a
turbine meter which would be required to operate at elevated temperatures in the steam
environment.

An alternate approach that shows considerable promise is to use the turbine-to-condenser exhaust
line pressure drop to indicate the steam flow rate. The exhaust tube is a surprising 88
centimeters long and contains several bends, making the effective length about 1.4 m. The steam
pressure drop along the tube is the order of 4 lb/in2 (28 kPa). In a typical experimental run, the
steam at the turbine exit is superheated, and the pressure drop along the tube ensures that it
remains superheated – facilitating modeling the steam as a gas. In addition to giving a
potentially reliable measurement of steam flow, the evaluation of the flow rate requires students
to apply methods from fluid mechanics (compressible or incompressible), providing one more
link between the laboratory and the classroom.

Experimental measurements required to estimate steam mass flow from exhaust tube pressure
drop are turbine outlet pressure and temperature (already available from the standard RC data)
and the atmospheric pressure. Physical measurements required are the tube length (about 88
cm), tube inside diameter (about 0.8 cm), and the number and types of bends (five 90o bends and
two 45obends, all with r/D ≈ 4). Other information required is the equivalent length for the
bends and the friction factor for the tube (available from fluid mechanics texts or handbooks;
perhaps requiring iteration because of Reynolds number dependence).

At least four different models can be used to evaluate the steam flow from the data. In
increasing order of complexity (and increasing order of accuracy), they are:
Page 11.862.22
 • Model as incompressible flow, using steam density determined from turbine exhaust
conditions
• Model as incompressible flow, using steam density averaged between tube inlet (turbine
exhaust) and tube exhaust conditions. This requires using the energy equation to
determine tube exhaust temperature, use of the steam tables, and a couple of cycles of
iteration.
• Model as compressible, adiabatic, frictional flow (Fanno flow); treat steam as an ideal
gas
• Model as compressible, adiabatic, frictional flow (Fanno flow); treat steam as a real gas,
using the adiabatic exponent from steam tables and a compressibility factor (pv = ZRT)

Preliminary calculations with all of these methods indicate that results agree within a few
percent, especially among the latter three methods. In addition, the calculations yield values
comparable to the standard Rankine Cycler “boiler refilling” method (that were carefully
controlled and monitored).

A critical factor effecting the accuracy of the steam flow evaluated from exhaust tube pressure
drop is the friction parameter for the exhaust tube, fLeq/D, where f is the Darcy/Moody friction
factor, Leq is the equivalent length of the tube and D is the inside diameter. All calculations to
date have used the Colebrook-White formula for f (equivalent to the Moody Chart), the actual
tube geometry, and standard tables for equivalent length of bends. Accuracy of this method can
easily be improved by determining the effective friction parameter by calibrating the tube. The
most effective method would be to derive the entire parameter (fLeq/D) rather than, say, f and Leq
separately. Because the Mach numbers involved are low (on the order of 0.3) an incompressible
flow calibration of the tube, using cold water or air, should be sufficient. Such calibrations will
be investigated during Spring semester 2006 at the authors’ institutions and results should be
available with the presentation of this paper, and in a subsequent follow-up paper.

It is expected that using the exhaust tube pressure drop method together with a calibrated value
for the friction parameter will yield “real-time” steam mass flow data with an uncertainty the
order of 1%; a full order of magnitude better than the “cool, drain, and refill” method currently in
use.

C. Turbine Calculations Compared to Generator Output Power

It should be noted that the power output from the generator is an order of magnitude lower than
the power calculated from the enthalpy drop and steam flow rate through the turbine (e.g.,
Pgen ≈ 3W, while Penthalpy drop ≈ 150 W ). Initially, there was some concern that kinetic energy
change (i.e., velocity change) of the steam flow should be taken into account when an energy
balance is performed on the turbine. Investigation revealed that the sensors for turbine inlet
steam properties ( p, T ) and outlet steam properties (p, T ) are located in (relatively) large
volume “plenum” regions. The inlet and outlet properties are nearly stagnation properties, so
kinetic energy change does not account for the discrepancies. Until further investigative work is
completed, the differences between enthalpy drop work/power and generator values are assumed
Page 11.862.23

to be due to heat loss to the relatively massive turbine housing and the surroundings, together
with mechanical and generator inefficiency. (Significant heat loss would be another obvious
discrepancy between the RC and a real-world power plant.)

4. Future Work

Some experimental work remains to complete a characterization of the RC. This experimental
work will be an important contribution to potential customers of the unit, faculty/technicians
using the equipment with students, students performing experiments, and for future upgrades by
Turbine Technologies, LTD. The following four studies would enhance the usefulness of the RC
to determine parameters such as output, efficiency, and flow rates.

1. Component Performance: Experiments should be performed on individual components of the

RC. Specifically, boiler efficiencies should be determined for various operating conditions.
Boiler efficiency determination will require exhaust gas temperature and oxygen (O2)
measurements. An investigation of generator efficiency, separate from the turbine should be
made. In addition, the turbine and generator interaction should be investigated to characterize
any discrepancies in power output.

2. Steam flow measurement: As stated above in Section 4B, the turbine exhaust tube can be
calibrated to allow determination of steam flow rate from exhaust line pressure drop.

3. Second Law Analysis: An exercise of considerable educational value would be to conduct a

Second Law analysis of the unit. Because of its small scale, and high losses together with the
rather complete set of thermodynamic data available, the RC is an excellent device for
performing a second law analysis. Not only would the students benefit from performing a
second law analysis (a topic that receives little or no coverage in the required Thermodynamics
courses at LTU and UE), it would also give a better understanding of scaling drawbacks and help
identify the major sources of losses.

4. The fuel (LP) flow is measured by a pre-installed turbine meter. Calibration of the meter may
be problematic because it is performed on air prior to installation so an independent verification
of fuel flow is desirable. UE will investigate using a scale under the propane tank in an attempt
to verify the fuel flow measurement by cross-checking against a mass used divided by elapsed
time measurement.

In addition, continued experimental runs will be performed with the RC to include higher
voltages (or generator RPM) to attempt to identify, or verify the lack of, an optimum operating
point. Also, additional student surveys, calculations, reports, and exam questions will be
assessed to determine the effectiveness of the Rankine Cycler as a learning tool.

5. Conclusion

Students were surveyed to indirectly assess the RC as a learning tool. Overall, the RC and its
associated exercises performed quite well as a learning tool, according to the students. They
reported that their knowledge of the Rankine cycle (and its associated thermodynamic concepts)
Page 11.862.24

increased. They found discussing and using the RC hardware more valuable than performing
calculations with the data. The level of the material was appropriately challenging for upper-
level engineering students. Students from different universities and geographic/economic
regions ranked the RC and its exercises very similarly. These results indicate that the RC can be
a useful learning tool for a varying student base. In addition, students who feel that they have a
firm understanding of the Rankine cycle before performing experiments feel that use of the RC is
nevertheless beneficial. Students that have used the RC and performed its associated analysis
gave multiple suggestions for equipment improvements and commented on the RC’s educational
value.

Multiple direct assessments were performed to evaluate students’ understanding of the Rankine
cycle after using the RC and to evaluate the value of the RC as a learning tool. Based on
laboratory final exam scores, the students understand the Rankine Cycler equipment and that its
efficiency is inherently low due to the small plant size, but they do not seem to fully understand
how the RC compares to a full-sized power plant. More assessment will be performed to
confirm these conclusions. Based on laboratory report scores, the students gain a firm
understanding of the Rankine cycle concepts through use and analysis of the RC. Upon
inspection of the reports, the calculations, plots, and supporting text are typically well established
by the students and the RC appears to be a good learning tool for the steam power cycle. Based
on individual student sample calculations scores, the RC reinforces the concepts of the steam
power cycle and/or the concepts of thermodynamics for the majority of students (although it is
apparent that some students are less interested in the thermal-fluids aspects of engineering or that
some students are not putting forth a best effort).

In addition to assessment, a few keys to successful use of the RC were noted.

Multiple experimental parameters were investigated in an attempt to determine an optimum

operating point of the RC. The analysis implies that an optimum point at which to operate the
RC is not attainable with current component limitations. The RC should simply be run at the
highest possible load (i.e., wattage, voltage, etc.).

Four methods for accurately determining steam flow rate using the measured turbine exhaust
pipe pressure drop were suggested. Preliminary calculations with all of these methods indicate
that results agree within a few percent. In addition, the calculations yield values comparable to
the currently used steam flow rate determination method. The new methods of steam flow rate
calculation are expected to improve uncertainty. A cold fluid calibration of the friction
parameter for the exhaust tube is being contemplated.

Future work is outlined to complete a characterization of the Rankine Cycler. In conclusion, the
educational benefits of the RC seem to outweigh the idiosyncrasies of the device. For its
relatively low cost, the RC is useful to the mechanical engineering curriculum. Further
experimental and analytical work is being performed to fully characterize the RC so that it can be
used most effectively for the students.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Turbine Technologies, Ltd.; Wolfgang Kutrieb, Perry Kuznar,
Page 11.862.25

and Toby Kutrieb for their helpfulness, insights, and contributions to ensuring a smooth running
device; and Juan Neira (LTU), Jonathan Corbett (UE), and Jesse Kahle (UE) for their
experimental work and initial set-up of the analysis Excel spreadsheets.

References
1. Turbine Technologies, Ltd., Steam Turbine Equipment, 2002.
2. Gerhart, A. L. and Gerhart, P. M., 2005, “Laboratory-Scale Steam Power Plant Study – Rankine CyclerTM
Effectiveness as a Learning Tool and its Component Losses,” Proceedings of the 2006 American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.
3. Black and Veatch, Edited by Drbal, L.F., Power Plant Engineering, 1996, Chapman & Hall, NY, p. 363.

Appendices

A. Experimental Apparatus Descriptions1

The experimental hardware (Rankine Cycler™) consists of multiple components that make up
the necessary components for electrical power generation (utilizing water as the working fluid).
These components include:

1. Boiler
A stainless steel constructed, dual pass, flame-through tube type boiler, with super heat dome,
that includes front and rear doors. Both doors are insulated and open easily to reveal the gas
fired burner, flame tubes, hot surface igniter and general boiler construction. The boiler walls
are insulated to minimize heat loss. A side mounted sight glass indicates water level.

2. Combustion Burner / Blower

The custom manufactured burner is designed to operate on either LP or natural gas. A solid-state
controller automatically regulates boiler pressure via the initiation and termination of burner
operation. This U.L. approved system controls electronic ignition, gas flow control and flame
sensing.

3. Turbine
The axial flow steam turbine is mounted on a precision-machined stainless steel shaft, which is
supported by custom manufactured bronze bearings. Two oiler ports supply lubrication to the
bearings. The turbine includes a taper lock for precise mounting and is driven by steam that is
directed by an axial flow, bladed nozzle ring. The turbine output shaft is coupled to an AC/DC
generator.

4. Electric Generator
An electric generator, driven by the axial flow steam turbine, is of the brushless type. It is a
custom wound, 4-pole type and exhibits a safe/low voltage and amperage output. Both AC and
DC output poles are readily available for analysis (rpm output, waveform study, relationship
between amperage, voltage and power). A variable resistor load is operator adjustable and
Page 11.862.26

allows for power output adjustments.

5. Condenser Tower
The seamless, metal-spun condenser tower features 4 stainless steel baffles and facilitates the
collection of water vapor. The condensed steam (water) is collected in the bottom of the tower
and can be easily drained for measurement/flow rate calculations.

6. Data Acquisition (Note: Newer RC models have an updated system that will operate through
the USB port of any newer PC.)
The experimental apparatus is also equipped with an integral computer data acquisition station,
which utilizes National Instruments™ data acquisition software (modified 2004 models).

The fully integrated data acquisition system includes 9 sensors. The sensor outputs are
conditioned and displayed in “real time”- on screen. Data can be stored and replayed. Run data
can be copied off to floppy for follow-on, individual student analysis. Data can be viewed in
Notepad, Excel and MSWord (all included).

The system is test run at the factory prior to delivery and the “factory test run” is stored on the
hard drive under the “My documents” folder. This file should be reviewed prior to operation, as
it gives the participant an overview of typical operating parameters and acquisition capability.

7. Sensors
Nine (9) sensors are installed at key system locations. Each sensor output lead is routed to a
centrally located terminal board. A shielded 64-pin cable routes all data to the installed data
acquisition card. This card is responsible for signal conditioning and analog to digital
conversion. Software and sensor calibration is accomplished at the factory prior to shipment.

Installed sensor list includes:

• Boiler pressure
• Boiler temperature
• Turbine inlet pressure
• Turbine inlet temperature
• Turbine exit pressure
• Turbine exit temperature
• Fuel flow
• Generator voltage output
• Generator amperage output

8. Overall System Dimensions

Length: 48.0 inches (122 cm)
Width: 30.0 inches (77 cm)
Height: 58.0 inches (148 cm)

B. LTU laboratory exercise calculations/analysis

Page 11.862.27

After completing a 2 or 3 minute steady state run at around 3 to 4 Watts, the following data
reduction is completed by the students:
1. The measured or weighted re-fill mass of water represents the boiler’s total steam production
during your run. This can be correlated as the steam rate by dividing the weight of the water
replaced by the time duration of your run.
2. Create a T-s diagram showing the actual cycle and the ideal Rankine cycle for
the steady-state process.
3. Provide a first law analysis of each stage of the actual process.
4. Calculate the isentropic efficiency for the turbine.
5. Calculate the thermal efficiency for the entire process. Also calculate the heat rate for the plant
during your experiment. You will need the heating value of propane and the fuel flow rate.
6. Calculate the tower efficiency. The purpose of the tower is to reclaim the working fluid (in this case
water). In other words, the amount of condensate collected, minus the starting amount of water, gives
an indication of the effectiveness of the cooling tower, or tower efficiency. What was the condensing
tower efficiency for your experiment?
7. You were able to record the instantaneous values of voltage and amperage. What is the
average power produced? What is the total energy that was produced during your experiment?
8. Suggest some practical methods to increase the thermal efficiency of the apparatus (with little
to no expense (money or power)).

C. Student Survey Sample

Following is the survey/questionnaire distributed to the laboratory students.

The following survey is used purely for assessment. It will remain confidential and will not
contribute to your grade. Be honest in your responses. The goal of this survey is to assess the
effectiveness of the Rankine Cycler as a learning tool. The equipment, the experimental process,
and the analysis/calculations will be assessed.

I took Thermodynamics in: Fall Spring Summer of (year) _________ Grade: ____

I took Fluid Mechanics in: Fall Spring Summer of (year) _________ Grade: ____

I took Heat Transfer in: Fall Spring Summer of (year) _________ Grade: ____

The Rankine Cycle was covered in my Thermodynamics course. Yes ____ No _____

The Rankine Cycle was covered in my Thermodynamics course. Yes ____ No _____

Before performing the Rankine Cycler exercise in lab, I felt comfortable with the concepts
related to the Rankine Cycle:
Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

After completing the Rankine Cycler exercise (including the calculations), I have a better
understanding of the Rankine Cycle.
Page 11.862.28

Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Rate each part of the exercise that you found most beneficial. Put a 1 next to the most beneficial,
a 2 next to the next beneficial, and a 3 next to the least beneficial.

_____ Seeing real (lab-scale) components and their operation

_____ Discussing and using the Rankine Cycler with the instructor
_____ Performing the calculations/analysis

For your most beneficial aspect listed above, why was it most beneficial?

For your least beneficial aspect listed above, why was it least beneficial?

Rate the analysis/calculation parts of the exercise that you found most beneficial. These are
found in the hand-out under “Data Reduction” and are listed as 2 through 8 (#1 is not included
here as it is simply an essential.). Put a 1 next to the most beneficial, a 2 next to the next
beneficial, etc.
_____ 2. T-s diagram
_____ 3. first law analysis
_____ 4. isentropic efficiency
_____ 5. thermal efficiency / heat rate
_____ 6. condensing tower efficiency
_____ 7. power and energy
_____ 8. decreasing heat rate

For your most beneficial aspect listed above, why was it most beneficial?

For your least beneficial aspect listed above, why was it least beneficial?

What analysis/calculations should be added, if any?

The Rankine Cycler as experimental equipment is a useful tool for learning thermodynamics.
Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

Suggested changes?

The in-lab procedure for using the Rankine Cycler was a useful exercise for furthering my
knowledge and understanding of Thermodynamics.
Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

Suggested changes?

The analysis and calculations associated with the Rankine Cycler exercise were useful for
Page 11.862.29

furthering my knowledge and understanding of Thermodynamics.

Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

Suggested changes?

How do you rate the instructor’s use of the Rankine Cycler?

Unsatisfactory poor satisfactory good excellent
1 2 3 4 5

The level of material covered with the Rankine Cycler exercise was:
Too advanced just right Too easy
1 2 3 4 5

The Rankine Cycler exercise increased my interest in the thermal-fluid sciences.

Strongly disagree disagree no opinion agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

The students were also asked for “Additional comments/observations.”

Page 11.862.30