0
Research Papers

Effects of Suction and Injection Purge-Flow on the Secondary Flow Structures of a High-Work Turbine

[+] Author and Article Information
P. Schuepbach1

Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, LEC, Laboratory of Energy Conversion, ETH Zurich, Zurich CH-8092, Switzerlandschuepbach@lec.mavt.ethz.ch

R. S. Abhari

Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, LEC, Laboratory of Energy Conversion, ETH Zurich, Zurich CH-8092, Switzerland

M. G. Rose

Institute of Aeronautical Propulsion, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

T. Germain, I. Raab, J. Gier

 MTU Aero Engines GmbH, Dachauer Strasse 665, 80995 München, Germany

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 132(2), 021021 (Jan 21, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000485 History: Received August 20, 2008; Revised August 29, 2008; Published January 21, 2010; Online January 21, 2010

In high-pressure turbines, a small amount of air is ejected at the hub rim seal to cool and prevent the ingestion of hot gases into the cavity between the stator and the disk. This paper presents an experimental study of the flow mechanisms that are associated with injection through the hub rim seal at the rotor inlet. Two different injection rates are investigated: nominal sucking of −0.14% of the main massflow and nominal blowing of 0.9%. This investigation is executed on a one-and-1/2-stage axial turbine. The results shown here come from unsteady and steady measurements, which have been acquired upstream and downstream of the rotor. The paper gives a detailed analysis of the changing secondary flow field, as well as unsteady interactions associated with the injection. The injection of fluid causes a very different and generally more unsteady flow field at the rotor exit near the hub. The injection causes the turbine efficiency to deteriorate by about 0.6%.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

FFT of the raw voltage signal of the frap probe at 16% span and −12.5% pitch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Illustration of leakage path

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Mass-averaged relative flow angle traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Mass-averaged total-to-total efficiency traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Relative total pressure for blowing IR=0.9% at traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

rms of random part of total pressure at traverse plane R1ex (Pa)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Relative flow angle traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Pitch angle at traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Time-averaged relative total pressure in the rotor frame of reference at traverse plane R1ex

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Time-averaged and circumferentially mass-averaged in the rotor frame of reference relative total pressure loss at traverse plane R1ex (%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Time-averaged streamwise vorticity in the rotor frame of reference at traverse plane R1ex (1/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Time-averaged rms of random part of total pressure in the rotor frame of reference at traverse plane R1ex (Pa)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Time-averaged D parameter in the rotor frame of reference at traverse plane R1ex (%/s)

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