archives

of thermodynamics
Vol. 42(2021), No. 1, 35–55
DOI: 10.24425/ather.2021.136946

Computational fluid dynamics analysis of

1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries

ARKADIUSZ KOPROWSKIa∗
ROMUALD RZADKOWSKIa,b

a
Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery Polish Academy of Sciences,
Fiszera 14, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland
b
Air Force Institute of Technology, Księcia Bolesława, 6, 01-494 Warsaw,
Poland

Abstract This paper analyses the influence of three different ring-type

inlet duct geometries on the performance of a small 1 MW backpressure
steam turbine. It examines the efficiency and pressure drop of seven turbine
variants, including four spiral inlet geometries and three stages with a mass
flow rate around 30 t/h. A one-pipe and two-pipe inlets are analysed from
aerodynamical point of view, taking into account stator and rotor blades in
three stages without the outlet. An outlet is added to the best variant. Also
analysed is the occurrence of vortices in the inlets of the studied variants
1–7 as well as the efficiency, drop pressure, turbine power and mass flow.
Finally, the best inlet for a 1 MW steam turbine is suggested.

Keywords: CFD analysis; Steam turbine; Inlet

1 Introduction
One of the main aims in designing a steam turbine is to increase its effi-
ciency. This can be done by minimizing flow losses. The flow losses in the
stator and rotor blades without an inlet chamber have been analysed in
many papers, e.g. [1]. The inlet of a steam turbine generally consists of in-
let boxes with partial admission together as well control and shut-off valves
∗
Corresponding Author. Email: akoprowski@imp.gda.pl
36 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

at the front of the turbine. Unsteady forces acting on rotor blades caused
by partial admission are analysed in [1, 2].
In small turbines, the design of the inlet is simplified to lower production
costs. Only a few analyses of the inlet chamber appear in the literature.
Van den Braembussche shows that the flow angle distribution at the inlet
chamber exit has to be uniform to ensure a high stator blade efficiency [3].
A large vortex around the rotor axis might appear if the inlet duct has
no splitter plate installed. This large vortex leads to higher losses and an
irregular mass flux distribution in front of the blade rows. Drexler proposes
an evenly distributed mass flux upstream the stator blades to minimize
mixing losses [4]. In order to reduce flow separation losses in the inlet cham-
ber, Traupel [5] and Van den Braembussche [3] recommend maximizing the
ratio between the inlet and outlet areas. Kovats argues that minimizing
separated flow areas can reduce overall inlet losses by 30% [6]. Flow mea-
surements in inlet ducts have been made by Lüdtke [7]. In the observed
duct, two large vortices were detected opposite the radially arranged inlet
pipe, which increased the losses. The inlet chamber of a double-flow low
pressure turbine with one radially arranged inlet pipe was studied numeri-
cally by Sievert using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations [8].
A swirling flow field was calculated within the inlet chamber resulting in
increased pressure loss and high incidence angles in front of the stator rows.
US patent [9] shows four pipe inlet chambers in a turbine. It also describes
necessary changes of nozzle profiles.
Škach et al. [10] studied the design procedure of special stator blades for
a single-pipe spiral inlet. Such inlets are used in high pressure and interme-
diate pressure steam turbines. The analysis showed improvement in steam
flow uniformity and a reduction of aerodynamic losses in the blades. The
spiral inlet calculations were analytical. The losses in inlet spiral, however,
were not analysed. Hecker et al. [11] numerically analysed a ring-type inlet
duct comprising two opposite pipes in one plane. The optimization of the
inlet was carried out to minimize the loss of total pressure in the inlet duct
and stator blades. The rotor and stator blades were not taken into account.
Aerodynamic and mechanical analyses of the inlet and casing were done.
Gao et al. [12] proposed a new type of 300 MW control stage inlet chamber
which can reduce local aerodynamic exciting forces using 3D unsteady flow.
This inlet chamber only has a slight influence on the overall performance.
Engelmann et al. [13] analysed the flow in T-junction pipes in order to
calculate secondary losses. Presented was a numerical prediction of two typ-
ical steam admission branches: rotational symmetrical constructions with
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 37

spiral or circumferential slots and semi-detached branches. T-junction com-

putations were used to determine additional secondary losses caused by
steam admission.
This paper analyses the efficiency and pressure drop of seven steam
turbine variants comprising three stages and four spiral inlet geometries
that were designed to be around 1 MW with the flow around 30 t/h for
the assumed inlet and outlet pressure values and the inlet temperature.
Single-pipe and two-pipe inlets are analysed aerodynamically for the first
time, taking into account the stator and rotor blades in three stages to
find the best variant. The last variant includes turbine outlet together with
a two-pipe inlet and three stator-rotor stages. The efficiency, pressure drop,
turbine power and mass flow of all seven variants were analysed and com-
pared.

2 Numerical analysis
The steady viscous calculations of the 3 inlets and 3 stages (32 stators
and 99 rotor blades in each stage) was carried out using commercial, high-
performance, general purpose computational fluid dynamics software Ansys
CFX [16, 20]. The geometry of the blades and turbine inlets and outlet was
carried out using the Design Modeller [19]. The blade mesh was prepared
in a commercial software Ansys TurboGrid [18] and the inlet in Ansys
Meshing [17].
The inlet pressure was 900 kPa, temperature 493.15 K (220◦ C), and the
outlet pressure was 400 kPa. The efficiency, pressure drop, turbine power
and mass flow of all seven variants were analysed and compared.

2.1 Variant 1
In [10], an inlet spiral and inlet with circular cross-sections were analysed.
Analysed here is a spiral inlet with a nearly rectangular cross-section and
an inlet with a circular cross-section. The circular pipe is connected to the
rectangular channel at a slight angle. The spiral outlet is shaped as a ta-
pering ring (Fig. 1a) that leads the steam to stator blades. The rectangular
channel is separated from the ending of the spiral by a wall (Fig. 1b). The
inlet is oriented so that the flow is perpendicular to pressure side of the
first stage stator blades and the angle of attack is below 90◦ . The profile of
the first stator is S-9012A [14] and the number of the stators blades is 32.
38 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: Variant 1 inlet geometry.

In Fig. 2, the distribution of total pressure in the tapered ring is shown. The
distribution is not axisymmetric due to the separation of the inlet channel
from the ending of the spiral and the asymmetry of the spiral. The maximal
difference between total pressures is about 20 kPa.

Figure 2: Total pressure in the inlet spiral, variant 1.

Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 39

In order to locate the formation of the losses in the inlet geometry, the
distribution of entropy was analyzed. As shown in Fig. 3 the entropy is
highest at the end of the spiral, where it is separated by a wall (Fig. 1b).
The high entropy values also occur near the inner wall of the spiral. These
values reveal the presence of a vortex (see Fig. 4). Figure 4 also show that
the pressure on the outer surface of the inlet is higher than on inner surface
due to centrifugal forces.

Figure 3: Entropy in inlet of variant 1.

Figure 4: Pressure and streamlines in radial cross-section of variant 1 inlet spiral.

The flow in the turbine blades is presented in Fig. 5, which shows that the
velocity is perpendicular to the pressure side of first stage stator blades.
40 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

This phenomenon in connection with the appearance of vortices in the

inlet spiral (Fig. 4), lowers the efficiency to 86.17%. The turbine power was
1.368 MW and the mass flow 9.78 kg/s (35.21 t/h). The pressure drop in
the inlet was 5.64 kPa as a result of friction loss and local losses.

Figure 5: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 1.

2.2 Variant 2
Variant 2 had the same inlet spiral geometry as variant 1, but a different
first stator profile (S-5515A [14]), which was introduced in order to pre-
vent the flow from being perpendicular to the pressure side of the 1st stage
stator blades. Additionally, the number of the stator blades was changed
to 39. These changes did not noticeably alter the inlet flow. The pressure
distribution and streamlines shapes were almost identical to those of vari-
ant 1 (Figs. 6 and 7). However, the new stator blade profiles increased the

Figure 6: Total pressure in tapering ring, variant 2.

Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 41

mass flow as well as the velocity in the inlet, which in turn increased the
pressure drop. The pressure drop in the inlet was 6.55 kPa and therefore
higher than in variant 1.

Figure 7: Pressure and streamlines in radial cross-section of variant 2 inlet spiral.

With the new stator profile, the flow in the stator region was not perpen-
dicular to the pressure side of the stator blade (Fig. 8). Changing the first
stator profile increased the efficiency from 86.17% to 86.9% and allowed for
the steam to flow more in parallel to the pressure side. The turbine power
was 1.516 MW and the mass flow was 10.73 kg/s (38.64 t/h). The efficiency
was 86.9%.

Figure 8: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 2.

42 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

2.3 Variant 3
In variant 3 the tapering ring was not applied. The wall between the ini-
tial channel and ending of spiral (Fig. 1b) was removed and the circular
inlet pipe was now fully connected to the spiral (Fig. 9). In contrast to
inlet geometry analysed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, where the initial channel
was connected at a slight angle to the spiral, here the initial channel was
connected to the spiral perpendicularly to the turbine axis. The profile of
the first stator was S-9012A [14] and the number of stators was 32. As in
variants 1 and 2, the flow was perpendicular to the pressure side of the first
stage stator blades and the angle of attack is below 90◦ .

Figure 9: The geometry of the turbine inlet, variant 3.

Despite the connection between the inlet pipe and spiral ending, the flow
at the entrance to the first stator row was not uniform. Figure 10 shows

Figure 10: Total pressure near the first stage of turbine, variant 3.
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 43

that there is a region of lower values of total pressure near the ending of
the spiral. At about 50 kPa, the maximal difference of total pressure is even
higher than in variants 1 and 2.
As in variant 1, here entropy distribution was calculated to identify the
most important local losses (Fig. 11). The highest entropy value occurs in
the connection between the inlet pipe and spiral ending. As in variant 1,
other high values appear near the inner surface of the spiral. Figure 12 shows

Figure 11: Entropy in inlet geometry, variant 3.

Figure 12: Pressure and streamlines in radial cross section of inlet spiral of variant 3.
44 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

that the vortex in this case is more intensive and has a larger diameter,
due to lack of tapering. In order to enter the first stage, the flow must turn
rapidly, which causes vortices around the first stage stator blade root and
tip. The pressure drop in the inlet was 21.15 kPa and was higher than in
variants 1 and 2.
As in variant 1, here the S-9012A first stage stator profile was used. This
again resulted in a flow perpendicular to the pressure side of first stage sta-
tor blades (Fig. 13). The higher pressure drop in the inlet worsened the
influx at the roots and even more at the tips of the stators (Fig. 14), result-
ing in lower turbine efficiency, which was reduced to 83.7%. The turbine
power was 1.293 MW and the mass flow was 9.50 kg/s (34.21 t/h).

Figure 13: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 3.

Figure 14: Velocity field in 0.9 length stator blade, variant 3.

Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 45

2.4 Variant 4
The inlet geometry of variant 4 was the same as in variant 3. The profile
of the first stator (S-5515A [14]) was changed to prevent the perpendicular
flow on the pressure side of first stage stator (Fig. 15). The number of stator
blades was increased to 39. However, vortices still appeared around the
stator blade tip and root regions due to the rapid change of flow direction
out of the inlet. The turbine power was 1.458 MW and mass flow was
10.49 kg/s (37.75 t/h). The pressure drop at the inlet was 24.49 kPa and
higher than in variant 3 as a result of higher mass flow. Changing the stator
profile in variant 4 increased the turbine efficiency from 83.7% to 85.69%.
Similar changes appeared in variant 2 in contrast to variant 1.

Figure 15: The velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 4.

2.5 Variant 5
The inlet spiral in variant 5 caused the flow almost parallel to the pressure
and suction sides of the stator blades and the angle of attack was above
90◦ . The spiral geometry is shown in Fig. 16. The profile of the first sta-
tor (S-9012A [14]) was shorten from 0.0625 m to 0.056 m and the number
of stators was 32. The stator blades in other stages were the same as in
variants 1 to 4.
The total pressure distribution near the entrance to the first stage in vari-
ant 5 is shown in Fig. 17. The maximal circumferential difference in pressure
is about 50 kPa. The streamlines in the inlet geometry were slightly changed
(Fig. 18). Turbine power was 1.373 MW and the mass flow 9.68 kg/s
46 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

Figure 16: Geometry of the turbine inlet, variant 5.

Figure 17: Total pressure near the first stage of turbine, variant 5.

Figure 18: Pressure and streamlines in radial cross-section of inlet spiral, variant 5.
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 47

(34.86 t/h). The pressure drop in the inlet was 20.99 kPa. Changing the
inlet in variant 5 increased the turbine efficiency from 85.7% to 87.3% due
to the flow being more parallel to the pressure and suctions of the stator
blades Fig. 19.

Figure 19: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 5.

2.6 Variant 6
In this case, in contrast to variants 1–5, two inlet pipes were used instead
of one. The reason for this configuration was to split the admission mass
flow as in [11]. Also changed were the connections between the spirals and
inlet pipes (Fig. 20). Also in contrast to the previous cases, where the steam
flowed out near the middle of spiral, here the steam flowed out near the
inner surface of the spiral. The stator blades were the same as in variant 5.

Figure 20: Geometry of the turbine inlet, variant 6.

Figure 21 shows that the distribution of total pressure in this inlet is ax-
isymmetric and nearly uniform. The maximal difference in total pressure
values is about 10 kPa, and such differences occur only pointwise.
48 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

Figure 21: Total pressure near the first stage, variant 6.

The major regions of high entropy in this case occurred on outer surface
of the spirals (Fig. 23). The lack of high entropy values in regions where
the spirals were connected to the inlet pipes means that this solution is
optimal and allows for the minimization of losses. Figure 23 shows that the
regions of high entropy in Fig. 22 are vortices. In this case, the vortices

Figure 22: Entropy in inlet geometry, variant 6.

Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 49

occur further away from the first stage than in the previous variants. It
would probably be possible to prevent the vortices from forming in this
case, if an additional oblique wall were to be added to the inlet.

Figure 23: Pressure and streamlines in radial cross-section of inlet spiral, variant 6.

The turbine power was 1.178 MW and the mass flow was 8.21 kg/s
(29.31 t/h). The pressure drop in the inlet was 1.24 kPa and considerably
smaller than in variants 1 to 5. Changing the inlet geometry in variant 6
increased turbine efficiency from 87.3% to 88.87%. The introduction of two
pipes in the inlet results in a higher efficiency and smaller pressure drop
in the inlet and is therefore recommended for 1 MW steam turbines. In
this case, there was no tapering channel outlet to the stator blades as in
variant 1. There was also no wall between inlet pipe and inlet spiral. The
spiral with two inlet pipes did not direct the flow perpendicularly to the
first stator blade pressure sides. They increased turbine efficiency and de-
creased the pressure drop. There was no boundary layer separation in the
turbine flow in (Fig. 24). Therefore, this variant is recommended for 1 MW
steam turbine inlet.
50 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

Figure 24: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 6.

2.7 Variant 7

In this case, the outlet of the turbine was included to show the basic turbine
parameters. Variant 7 had the same inlet as variant 6 and three stages,
but also an outlet (Fig. 25). The profile of the 1st stator was modified
S-9012A [14]. The turbine power was 1.1 MW and the mass flow was equal
to 7.99 kg/s (28.76 t/h). The pressure drop in the inlet was 1.18 kPa even
lower than in variant 6 because of the lower mass flow. The calculations
of the steady flow that included the outlet showed that the efficiency is
generally lower than in the simpler models and it was 85.31%. However
the optimal case with the highest efficiency is still the variant 6. The flow
velocity in the turbine stages is shown in Fig. 26. As in variant 6, there
was no boundary layer separation. The outlet area caused the flow to whirl
in many places (Fig. 27), which decreased the turbine efficiency. A flow
optimization of the outlet is necessary.

Figure 25: Geometry of the turbine inlet, 3 stages and outlet, variant 7.
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 51

Figure 26: Velocity field in 0.5 length stator blade, variant 7.

Figure 27: Streamlines in outlet.

3 Summary
Several small turbine inlets were analysed. Single-pipe and two-pipe inlets
are analysed aerodynamically for the first time, taking into account the sta-
tor and rotor blades in three stages to find the best variant. The geometries
of the inlets and stator blades were changed to obtain the maximal turbine
efficiency. Also analysed for the first time is the occurrence of vortices in
the inlets of the studied variants 1–7. Table 1 provides a general description
of the inlet geometries presented in this paper.
52 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

Table 1: Inlet geometry.

Inlet 90◦ Position of Two Pressure Turbine

Variant Tapering pipe-spiral angle of flow to turbine inlet drop in inlet, efficiency,
connection attack first stage pipes kPa %
wall at inlet
1 yes pipe-spiral below middle no 5.64 86.17
connection
wall at inlet
2 yes pipe-spiral below middle no 6.55 86.90
connection
3 no no wall below middle no 21.15 83.70
4 no no wall below middle no 24.49 85.69
5 no no wall above middle no 20.99 87.30
both ends
6 no of spiral above inner surface yes 1.24 88.87
connected to
inlet pipes

In variant 1, a circular inlet pipe was connected to the rectangular spiral

channel at a slight angle for a smoother flow. The spiral outlet was in the
form of a narrowing diffuser leading to the stator blades. The rectangular
channel was separated from the ending of the spiral by a wall. The inlet
spiral directed the flow at a less than 90◦ angle of attack in relation to
the first stator blades. A stall flow region was visible in the inlet pipe area
and spiral and in the stator blades. The velocity was perpendicular to the
pressure side, which reduced efficiency to 86.17%. The turbine power was
1.368 MW and the mass flow was 9.78 kg/s (35.21 t/h). The pressure drop
in the inlet was 5.64 kPa as the result of converging ring.
Variant 2 had the same inlet spiral geometry as variant 1, but a different
1st stator profile was introduced to change the flow direction, and a number
of stator blades was increased to 39 on account of the changed stator profile.
With the profile change, the flow in stator region did not stall and the
velocity vector was not perpendicular to the pressure side. The inlet spiral
caused a reversal of the flow direction in the first stator blades. The turbine
power was 1.516 MW and mass flow respectively was 10.73 kg/s (38.64 t/h).
The efficiency was 86.9%. The pressure drop in the inlet was 6.55 kPa and
was higher than in variant 1 as a result of higher velocity and mass flow.
Changing the 1st stator profile in variant 2 increased the efficiency from
86.17% to 86.9% and allowed for the steam to flow in the stator without
stalling.
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 53

In variant 3, a tapering ring was not applied. The wall between the
initial channel and ending of spiral was replaced by a connection between
them. The pressure drop in the inlet was 21.15 kPa and was higher than in
variants 1 and 2. The efficiency in this case was 83.7%. The turbine power
was 1.293 MW and the mass flow was 9.50 kg/s (34.21 t/h).
The inlet geometry of variant 4 was the same as in variant 3. The only
change was the profile of the first stator (S-5515A [14]). The number of
stator blades was increased to 39. The turbine power was 1.458 MW and
the mass flow 10.49 kg/s (37.75 t/h). The pressure drop in the inlet was
24.49 kPa and was higher than in variant 3 as a result of higher mass flow.
Changing the stator profile in variant 4 increased the turbine efficiency
from 83.7% to 85.69%. A similar change appeared in variant 2 in relation
to variant 1.
The inlet spiral in variant 5 directed the flow at a higher than 90◦ angle of
attack in relation to the 1st stage stator blades. In all the previous variants,
the angle of attack was below 90◦ . The profile of the first stator (S-9012A)
was shorten from 0.0625 m to 0.056 m and the number of stators was 32.
The stator blades in other stages were the same as in variants 1 to 4. The
turbine power was 1.373 MW and the mass flow 9.68 kg/s (34.86 t/h). The
pressure drop in the inlet was 20.99 kPa. Changing the inlet in variant 5
increased the turbine efficiency from 85.7% to 87.3% as a result of the flow
angle of attack being above 90◦ .
In variant 6, in contrast to variants 1–5, two inlet pipes were used instead
of one. The reason for this was to split the mass flow. The turbine power
was 1.178 MW and the mass flow 8.21 kg/s (29.31 t/h). The pressure drop
in the inlet was 1.24 kPa and was considerably smaller than in the variants
1 to 5. Changing the geometry of the inlet in variant 6 increased the turbine
efficiency from 87.3% to 88.87%. The use of two pipes in the inlet resulted
in higher efficiency and a smaller pressure drop in the inlet, which suggests
that it is optimal for 1 MW steam turbines. In this case there is no outlet
in the form of tampering the channel leading the steam to the stator blades
as in variant 1.
In variants 1–5, vortices occurred in the region of connection between
the spiral and the inlet pipe. In variant 6, these vortices were eliminated.
A possible reason for this was the removal of the inlet pipe-spiral connection
wall and the gap it created. The flow from the inlet pipe was now smoothly
connected with the spiral. Additional analyses should be carried out in
order to determine the exact impact of the inlet pipe-spiral connection on
turbine efficiency. The rectangular cross-section spiral causes vortices. In
54 A. Koprowski and R. Rzadkowski

variants 1–5, these vortices appeared on the inner surface of the spiral due
to centrifugal forces, but in variant 6 the vortices occurred on the outer
surface because the higher inner diameter of the spiral caused the outflow
to be level with the first stage. The application of an oblique wall could
possibly prevent vortices from forming in variant 6. The vortices were an
important part of energy losses in the inlet of variants 1–5. The tapering
channel presented in variants 1 and 2 did not prevent the vortices from
forming, but it did lower the pressure drop. It also ensured the smooth flow
into the first stage, but such a solution increases the length of the turbine,
which is a disadvantage in small steam turbines.
The most uniform distribution of pressure in front of the first stage was
obtained when the spiral had two inlet pipes. However, further analyses
need to be done in order to indicate whether the similar level of uniformity
can be obtained with a single inlet pipe, because the losses due to inlet
pipe-spiral inlet connection could be a significant factor. It is worth noting
that the first stage stator blade profiles had a barely noticeable influence
on the distribution of pressure in front of the first stage. This leads to the
conclusion that the turbine stages have little effect on the distribution of
pressure in the inlet spiral.

Acknowledgement The authors wish to acknowledge NCBiR for the

financial support of this work (POIR.04.01.04-00-0116/17).

Received 13 August 2020

References
[1] Bellucci J., Rubechin F., Arnone A.: Modeling partial admission in control
stages of small steam turbines with CFD. In: Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, June 11-15
2018 Oslo, GT2018-76528, 2018.
[2] Lampart P., Szymaniak M., Rzadkowski R.: Unsteady load of partial admission
control stage rotor of a large power steam turbine. In: Proc. ASME Turbo EXPO
2004, Power for Land, Sea and Air, June 14–17, 2004, Vienna, ASME GT-2004-
53886, 2004.
[3] Van den Braembussche R.A.: Flow and loss mechanisms in volutes of centrifugal
pumps. Educational Notes. In: Design and Analysis of High Speed Pumps (12-1–12-
26). Educational Notes RTO-EN-AVT-143, Neuilly-sur-Seine, RTO, 2006 (available
from: http://www.rto.nato.int/abstracts.asp).
[4] Drexler C.: Strömungsvorg ange und Verlustanteile in ungleichformig beauf-
schlagten Turbinenstufen. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen 1996.
Computational fluid dynamics analysis of 1 MW steam turbine inlet geometries 55

[5] Traupel W.: Thermische Turbomaschinen (4th Edn.). Springer, 2001.

[6] Kovats A.: Effect of non-rotating passages on performance of centrifugal pumps
and subsonic compressors. In: Proc. Winter Annual Meeting, New York 1979.
[7] Lüdtke K.: Centrifugal process compressors – radial vs. tangential suction nozzles.
In: ASME Paper 85-GT-80, 1985.
[8] Sievert R.: Analyse der Einflussparameter auf die Strömung im Eintritt von
Niederdruck-Dampfturbinen. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum 2006
(in German).
[9] Maier W.: Inlet casing for a turbine. US Patent US5927943A, 1999.
[10] Škach R., Uher J.: Spiral Inlets for Steam Turbines. AIP Conf. Proc. 1889, 020038,
2017.
[11] Hecker S., Rohe A., Stoff H.: Steam turbine inlet geometry from a structural
and fluid dynamics point of view. In: Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2012, GT2012-68678,
2012, 487–495.
[12] Gao K., Wang C., Xie Y., Zhang D.: Effects of inlet chamber structure of the
control stage on the unsteady aerodynamic force. In: Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, Oslo,
June 11–15 2018, GT2018-76632, 2018.
[13] Engelmann D., Schram A., Polklas T., Mailch P.: Losses of steam admission
in industrial steam turbines depending on geometrical parameters. In: Proc. ASME
Turbo Expo, Dusseldorf – Oslo, June 16-20 2014, GT2014-25172, 2014.
[14] Dejch M.,E., Filippov G.A., Lazarev L.Ja.: Collection of Profiles for Axial
Turbine Cascades. Machinostroienie, Moscow 1965 (in Russian).
[15] Kietliński K., Czerwiński P.: Retrofit of 18K370 steam turbine on the units 7–12
at Belchatow Power Plant. Arch. Energ. XLI(2011), 3-4, 77–96.
[16] Ansys CFX, Release 18.2.
[17] Ansys Meshing, Release 18.2
[18] Ansys TurboGrid, Release 18.2
[19] Ansys DesignModeller, Release 18.2
[20] Ansys CFX, Release 18.2, CFX documentation. Ansys, Inc.