0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Alternatives for Two-Dimensional Linear Cascade Facilities

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul M. Kodzwa, Amanda Vicharelli, Gorazd Medic, Christopher J. Elkins

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Flow Physics and Computation Division, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

John K. Eaton1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Flow Physics and Computation Division, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305eatonj@stanford.edu

Gregory M. Laskowski

Energy and Propulsion Technology Laboratories, General Electric Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY 12309

Paul A. Durbin

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 131(3), 031001 (Apr 02, 2009) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2985073 History: Received December 09, 2006; Revised July 26, 2008; Published April 02, 2009

This paper presents two low-cost alternatives for turbine blade surface heat transfer and fluid dynamics measurements. These models embody careful compromises between typical academic and full-scale turbomachinery experiments and represent a comprehensive strategy to develop experiments that can directly test shortcomings in current turbomachinery simulation tools. A full contextual history of the wide range of approaches to simulate turbine flow conditions is presented, along with a discussion of their deficiencies. Both models are simplifications of a linear cascade: the current standard for simulating two-dimensional turbine blade geometries. A single passage model is presented as a curved duct consisting of two half-blade geometries, carefully designed inlet and exit walls and inlet suction. This facility was determined to be best suited for heat transfer measurements where minimal surface conduction losses are necessary to allow accurate numerical model replication. A double passage model is defined as a single blade with two precisely designed outer walls, which is most appropriate for flow measurements. The design procedures necessary to achieve a desired flow condition are discussed.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Three arbitrary blades from an idealized 2D infinite cascade with representative computational domains. (b) Single arbitrary blade with periodic boundary conditions at midpitch. (c) Blade passage with inlet and outlet periodic boundary conditions.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Blade passage with inlet and outlet periodic boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Experimental single passage model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Experimental double passage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Computed isentropic Mach number distributions for experimental turbine blade geometry using Chen variant of the k‐ε turbulence model (Refs. 53,55)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Definition of axial location

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Mach number contours for 2D infinite cascade viscous simulation and (b) streamlines from infinite cascade simulation as calculated and rotated by inlet angle for implementation in passage models

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of Mis distributions for Buck and Prakash (43) and new single passage design approaches demonstrating the effect of bleed geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of Mach number for ideal single passage model and single passage model with periodic tailboards

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Computed trailing edge streamlines from single passage calculation with periodic exit boundaries. These are used to design the tailboards.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Definition of rotation angles for pressure and suction side blade surfaces. Complete blades are shown in this figure for ease of identification.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of Mis distributions for various pressure tailboard angles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Measurements of Mis for low turbulence condition for a single passage model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Flow model for a double passage model design (from Laskowski (53))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Separation zone along the pressure side wall of double passage (from Laskowski (53))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

(a) Final wall shapes for the double passage model and (b) comparison between the computed double passage design and infinite cascade Mach number contours (from Laskowski (53))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Measurements of Mis for low turbulence condition for the double passage model (from Laskowski (53))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of Mis distributions at Z′=0.0 (centerline), Z′=−0.375, and Z′=−0.5 (endwall)

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