0
Research Papers

Effect of Temperature Nonuniformity on Heat Transfer in an Unshrouded Transonic HP Turbine: An Experimental and Computational Investigation

[+] Author and Article Information
Imran Qureshi1

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UKimran.qureshi@eng.ox.ac.uk

Andy D. Smith

 Rolls-Royce PLC, Turbine Sub-Systems, Moor Lane, Derby DE24 8BJ, UK

Kam S. Chana

 QinetiQ Limited, Cody Technology Park, Farnborough GU14 0LX, UK

Thomas Povey

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 134(1), 011005 (May 25, 2011) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002987 History: Received July 01, 2010; Revised July 04, 2010; Published May 25, 2011; Online May 25, 2011

Detailed experimental measurements have been performed to understand the effects of turbine inlet temperature distortion (hot-streaks) on the heat transfer and aerodynamic characteristics of a full-scale unshrouded high pressure turbine stage at flow conditions that are representative of those found in a modern gas turbine engine. To investigate hot-streak migration, the experimental measurements are complemented by three-dimensional steady and unsteady CFD simulations of the turbine stage. This paper presents the time-averaged measurements and computational predictions of rotor blade surface and rotor casing heat transfer. Experimental measurements obtained with and without inlet temperature distortion are compared. Time-mean experimental measurements of rotor casing static pressure are also presented. CFD simulations have been conducted using the Rolls-Royce code HYDRA and are compared with the experimental results. The test turbine was the unshrouded MT1 turbine, installed in the Turbine Test Facility (previously called Isentropic Light Piston Facility) at QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK. This is a short duration transonic facility, which simulates engine-representative M, Re, Tu, N/T, and Tg/Tw to the turbine inlet. The facility has recently been upgraded to incorporate an advanced second-generation temperature distortion generator, capable of simulating well-defined, aggressive temperature distortion both in the radial and circumferential directions, at the turbine inlet.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of QinetiQ turbine test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Turbine inlet total temperature profile with (a) uniform inlet conditions and (b) with inlet EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of circumferentially averaged inlet temperature with and without EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Turbine inlet total pressure profile with (a) uniform inlet conditions and (b) with inlet EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of circumferentially averaged inlet pressure with and without EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) Heat flux measured using gauge model point 5152 during test run-3891. (b) Temperature reconstructed from measured heat flux. (c) Heat flux plotted against reconstructed temperature to obtain Taw by extrapolation. (d) Nusselt number obtained using the evaluated Taw.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Rotor casing heat transfer measurements with uniform inlet conditions: (a) measurement points and interpolation grid, (b) area plot of Nusselt number, and (c) area plot of computed adiabatic wall temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Rotor casing heat transfer measurements with EOTDF: (a) measurement points and interpolation grid, (b) Nusselt number, assumed to be the same as with uniform inlet conditions, and (c) adiabatic wall temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Circumferentially averaged Nusselt number (exp); assumed the same for uniform and EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of circumferentially averaged Taw(exp); with and with out EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Rotor casing heat transfer CFD predictions with uniform inlet temperature: (a) computed Nusselt number from predicted heat flux and (b) predicted adiabatic wall temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Rotor casing heat transfer CFD predictions with inlet EOTDF: (a) computed Nusselt number from predicted heat flux and (b) predicted adiabatic wall temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Rotor casing circumferentially averaged Nusselt number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Rotor casing circumferentially averaged adiabatic wall temperature (CFD)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Surface plots for predicted casing heat transfer coefficient: (a) uniform and (b) EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of predicted surface flow pattern for uniform inlet and EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Rotor casing measured static pressure with uniform inlet and with inlet EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Rotor casing predicted static pressure with uniform inlet and with inlet EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Rotor surface measured heat flux at 10% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Rotor surface measured heat flux at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Rotor surface measured heat flux at 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Rotor surface heat transfer coefficient at 10%, 50%, and 90% spans (uniform)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Comparison of rotor surface Taw at 10% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Comparison of rotor surface Taw at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Comparison of rotor surface Taw at 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Comparison of rotor surface heat transfer coefficient CFD predictions at 10%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Comparison of rotor surface heat transfer coefficient CFD predictions at 50%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Comparison of rotor surface heat transfer coefficient CFD predictions at 90%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Predicted rotor surface adiabatic wall temperature distribution; uniform

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 30

Predicted rotor surface adiabatic wall temperature distribution; EOTDF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 31

Comparison of experimental and predicted rotor surface Taw at 10% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 32

Comparison of experimental and predicted rotor surface Taw at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 33

Comparison of experimental and predicted rotor surface Taw at 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 34

Hot-streak migration through vane passage; total temperature (K) plots

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 35

Comparison of (a) isentropic Mach number at NGV exit. (b) Total temperature (absolute frame) at NGV exit.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 36

(a) Comparison of vane exit total temperature at midheight. (b) Total temperature (rotor relative) at NGV exit.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 37

(a) Comparison of predicted rotor relative inlet whirl angle. (b) Difference in rotor relative inlet whirl angle.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 38

(a) Comparison of rotor relative inlet total pressure. (b) Percent difference of rotor relative inlet total pressure between uniform and EOTDF.

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