0
Research Papers

Time-Accurate Predictions for a Fully Cooled High-Pressure Turbine Stage—Part I: Comparison of Predictions With Data

[+] Author and Article Information
S. A. Southworth, M. G. Dunn, C. W. Haldeman, J.-P. Chen

 The Ohio State University, Enarson Hall, 154 W 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210

G. Heitland, J. Liu

 Honeywell Aerospace, Phoenix, AZ 85072

J. Turbomach 131(3), 031003 (Apr 07, 2009) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2985075 History: Received April 25, 2007; Revised January 17, 2008; Published April 07, 2009

The aerodynamics of a fully cooled axial single stage high-pressure turbine operating at design corrected conditions of corrected speed, flow function, and stage pressure ratio has been investigated. This paper focuses on flow field predictions obtained from the viewpoint of a turbine designer using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes Numeca’s FINE/TURBO and the code TURBO . The predictions were all performed with only knowledge of the stage operating conditions, but without knowledge of the surface pressure measurements. Predictions were obtained with and without distributed cooling flow simulation. The FINE/TURBO model was run in 3-D viscous steady and time-accurate modes; the TURBO model was used to provide only 3-D viscous time-accurate results. Both FINE/TURBO and TURBO utilized phase-lagged boundary conditions to simplify the time-accurate model and to significantly reduce the computing time and resources. The time-accurate surface pressure loadings and steady state predictions are compared to measurements for the blade, vane, and shroud as time-averaged, time series, and power spectrum data. The measurements were obtained using The Ohio State University Gas Turbine Laboratory Turbine Test Facility. The time-average and steady comparisons of measurements and predictions are presented for 50% span on the vane and blade. Comparisons are also presented for several locations along the blade to illustrate local differences in the CFD behavior. The comparisons for the shroud are made across the blade passage at axial blade chord locations corresponding to the pressure transducer locations. The power spectrum decompositions of individual transducers (based on the fast Fourier transform (FFT)) are also included to lend insight into the unsteady nature of the flow. The comparisons show that both computational tools are capable of providing reasonable aerodynamic predictions for the vane, blade, and stationary shroud. The CFD model predictions show the encouraging trend of improved matching to the experimental data with increasing model fidelity from mass averaged to distributed cooling flow inclusion and as the codes change from steady to time-accurate modes.

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 19

Frequency content at 40.3% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at 71.2% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Frequency content at 15.5% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at 23.5% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Frequency content at 23.5% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Frequency content at −43.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Turbine cooling paths

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Blade tip clearance, cap, and cavity blocks

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Entire meshed model including blocks for the inlet, vane, blade, and tip

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

2D Slice of the grid used for fine/turbo

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Predicted static pressure loading, vane at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Mach number contours at 50% span using a steady-state (mixing-plane) analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Mach number contours at 50% span from unsteady results

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 36

Unsteady static pressure fluctuation on the shroud (59.1% axial blade chord)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 37

Shroud frequency content at 59.1% axial blade chord

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 38

Unsteady static pressure fluctuation on the shroud (78.5% axial blade chord)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 39

Shroud frequency content at 78.5% axial blade chord

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Vane at 50% span, prediction data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Predicted static pressure loading, blade at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at 40.3% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Blade at 50% span differences, prediction data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Computational envelopes, blade at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at 6% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Frequency content at 6% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at 15.5% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Frequency content at 71.2% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at −26.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Frequency content at −26.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at −35.9% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Frequency content at −35.9% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at −43.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Blade at 50% span time-resolved pressure data and prediction comparisons at −52.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Frequency content at −52.8% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 30

Time averaged and steady uncooled static pressure loading predictions on the shroud with the stream-tube analysis and picture of blade tip

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 31

Blade/shroud predictions and data differences

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 32

Unsteady static pressure fluctuation on the shroud (2.8% axial blade chord)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 33

Shroud frequency content at 2.8% axial blade chord

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 34

Unsteady static pressure fluctuation on the shroud (21.4% axial blade chord)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 35

Shroud frequency content at 21.4% axial blade chord

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

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