0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Averaged and Time-Dependent Aerodynamics of a High Pressure Turbine Blade Tip Cavity and Stationary Shroud: Comparison of Computational and Experimental Results

[+] Author and Article Information
Brian R. Green, John W. Barter

 GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, OH 45215

Charles W. Haldeman, Michael G. Dunn

Gas Turbine Laboratory, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43235

J. Turbomach 127(4), 736-746 (Mar 01, 2004) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1934410 History: Received October 01, 2003; Revised March 01, 2004

The unsteady aero-dynamics of a single-stage high-pressure turbine blade operating at design corrected conditions has been the subject of a thorough study involving detailed measurements and computations. The experimental configuration consisted of a single-stage high-pressure turbine and the adjacent, downstream, low-pressure turbine nozzle row. All three blade-rows were instrumented at three spanwise locations with flush-mounted, high-frequency response pressure transducers. The rotor was also instrumented with the same transducers on the blade tip and platform and the stationary shroud was instrumented with pressure transducers at specific locations above the rotating blade. Predictions of the time-dependent flow field around the rotor were obtained using MSU-TURBO, a three-dimensional (3D), nonlinear, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. Using an isolated blade-row unsteady analysis method, the unsteady surface pressure for the high-pressure turbine rotor due to the upstream high-pressure turbine nozzle was calculated. The predicted unsteady pressure on the rotor surface was compared to the measurements at selected spanwise locations on the blade, in the recessed cavity, and on the shroud. The rig and computational models included a flat and recessed blade tip geometry and were used for the comparisons presented in the paper. Comparisons of the measured and predicted static pressure loading on the blade surface show excellent correlation from both a time-average and time-accurate standpoint. This paper concentrates on the tip and shroud comparisons between the experiments and the predictions and these results also show good correlation with the time-resolved data. These data comparisons provide confidence in the CFD modeling and its ability to capture unsteady flow physics on the blade surface, in the flat and recessed tip regions of the blade, and on the stationary shroud.

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

Blade and blade tip grids for the flat and recessed tip O–H–O grids

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

O–H–O mesh at approximately mid-span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Time-averaged surface pressures at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Surface pressure perturbations for vane passing frequency at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Surface pressure perturbation phase angle for vane passing frequency at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Recessed blade tip Kulite locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Time-average comparisons for the blade tip designated by gage number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Surface pressure fluctuations for the recessed tip at (a) PRT62, (b) PRT63, (c) PRT64, and (d) PRT65

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Shroud Kulite sensor locations in the experimental rig

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Time-average comparisons for the stationary shroud

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Surface pressure fluctuations for the stationary shroud at (a) −7%, (b) 30.2%, (c) 60.4%, and (d) 94.2% wetted distance of the rotor blade above the flat tip

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Time-averaged tip comparisons of the flat and recessed tip analytical solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Relative Mach numbers entering the recessed and flat tip regions on a single tangential plane

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Surface pressure fluctuation comparisons for the flat and recessed tip at (a) PRT62, (b) PRT63, (c) PRT64, and (d) PRT65

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Instantaneous contours of static pressure and entropy at 98% span in the recessed tip solution with the instantaneous position of within the recessed and Flat Tip PRT65 time-series solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Time-averaged surface pressure comparisons for the flat and recessed tip analytical solutions on the stationary shroud

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Surface pressure fluctuation comparisons for the flat and recessed tip analytical solutions on the stationary shroud at (a) −7%, (b) 30.2%, (c) 60.4%, and (d) 94.2% wetted distance of the rotor blade

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Static pressure contours on an axial plane at (a) −7%, (b) 30%, (c) 60%, and (d) 94% wetted distance, forward looking aft for the recessed (1) and the flat (2) tip

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