0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Surface Roughness Effects on Turbine Blade Aerodynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Frank Hummel, Michael Lötzerich

 ALSTOM Power (Switzerland), Brown Boveri Strasse 7, CH-5401 Baden, Switzerland

Pasquale Cardamone

 Institut für Strahlantriebe, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, D- 85577 Neubiberg, Germany

Leonhard Fottner1

 Institut für Strahlantriebe, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, D- 85577 Neubiberg, Germany

1

Deceased.

J. Turbomach 127(3), 453-461 (Mar 01, 2004) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1860377 History: Received October 01, 2003; Revised March 01, 2004

The aerodynamic performance of a turbine blade was evaluated via total pressure loss measurements on a linear cascade. The Reynolds number was varied from 600 000 to 1 200 000 to capture the operating regime for heavy-duty gas turbines. Four different types of surface roughness on the same profile were tested in the High Speed Cascade Wind Tunnel of the University of the German Armed Forces Munich and evaluated against a hydraulically smooth reference blade. The ratios of surface roughness to chord length for the test blade surfaces are in the range of Rac=7.6×10067.9×1005. The total pressure losses were evaluated from wake traverse measurements. The loss increase due to surface roughness was found to increase with increasing Reynolds number. For the maximum tested Reynolds number of Re=1200000 the increase in total pressure loss for the highest analysed surface roughness value of Ra=11.8μm was found to be 40% compared to a hydraulically smooth surface. The results of the measurements were compared to a correlation from literature as well as to well-documented measurements in literature. Good agreement was found for high Reynolds numbers between the correlation and the test results presented in this paper and the data available from literature.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Test blade geometry and design operating condition

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Surface isentropic Mach number distribution for β1=133.3deg, Ma2,th=0.75 in dependence on Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Surface isentropic Mach number distribution for β1=133.3deg, Ma2,th=0.85 in dependence on Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Surface isentropic Mach number distribution for β1=143.3deg, Ma2,th=0.75 in dependence on Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Surface isentropic Mach number distribution for β1=143.3deg, Ma2,th=0.85 in dependence on Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 1, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=600000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 1, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=900000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 1, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=1200000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 2, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=600000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 2, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=900000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Total pressure loss from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 2, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75, β1=133.3deg, Re2,th=1200000

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Total pressure loss coefficient from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe for test blade 1, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75 in comparison to 5-hole probe traverse results for the assumed hydraulically smooth test blade. FLS: 5-hole probe, DP: double pitot.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Total pressure loss coefficient from wake traverse measurements of the double pitot probe (DP) and five-hole probe (FLS) for test blade 2, rough part compared to smooth part. Ma2,th=0.75 and Ma2,th=0.85.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Row efficiency change due to surface roughness for loss model according to Eq. 1. Parameter Ra∕ks variation.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Row efficiency change due to surface roughness from loss model according to Eq. 1. Parameter ks∕Ra=5.2, comparison to experimental data.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The test facility (HGK) at UniBw Munich

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Test blades with surface finish treatment

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Position of double pitot probe behind test blade 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Wake traverse measurements of total pressure for test blade 2, rough part under nominal boundary conditions. Comparison between five-hole probe (FLS) and double pitot (DP).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In