0
Research Papers

Temperature Predictions and Comparison With Measurements for the Blade Leading Edge and Platform of a 1 1/2 Stage Transonic HP Turbine

[+] Author and Article Information
Randall M. Mathison

Gas Turbine Laboratory, The Ohio State University, 2300 West Case Road, Columbus, OH 43235mathison.4@osu.edu

Mark B. Wishart

Gas Turbine Laboratory, The Ohio State University, 2300 West Case Road, Columbus, OH 43235wishart.6@osu.edu

Charles W. Haldeman

Gas Turbine Laboratory, The Ohio State University, 2300 West Case Road, Columbus, OH 43235haldeman.5@osu.edu

Michael G. Dunn

Gas Turbine Laboratory, The Ohio State University, 2300 West Case Road, Columbus, OH 43235dunn.129@osu.edu

J. Turbomach 134(1), 011016 (May 27, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002992 History: Received July 01, 2010; Revised July 06, 2010; Published May 27, 2011; Online May 27, 2011

A series of computational predictions generated using FINE/TURBO are compared with data to investigate implementation techniques available for predicting temperature migration through a turbine stage. The experimental results used for comparison are from a one-and-one-half stage turbine operating at design-corrected conditions in a short-duration facility. Measurements of the boundary conditions are used to set up the computational models, and the predicted temperatures are compared with measured fluid temperatures at the blade leading edge and just above the blade platform. Fluid temperature measurements have not previously been available for these locations in a transonic turbine operating at design-corrected conditions, so this represents a novel comparison. Accurate predictions for this short-duration turbine experiment require use of the isothermal wall boundary condition instead of an adiabatic boundary condition and accurate specification of the inlet temperature profile all the way to the wall. Predictions using the harmonic method agree with the temperatures measured for the blade leading edge from 65% to 95% span to within 1% normalized temperature data. Agreement over much of the rest of the leading edge is within 5% of the measured value. Comparisons at 5–10% span and for the blade platform show larger differences up to 10%, which indicates that the flow in this region is not fully captured by the prediction. This is not surprising since the purge cavity and platform leading-edge features present in the experiment are treated as a smooth hub wall in the current simulation. This work represents a step toward the larger goal of accurately predicting surface heat-flux for the complicated environment of an operational engine as it is reproduced in a laboratory setting. The experiment upon which these computations are based includes realistic complications such as one-dimensional and two-dimensional inlet temperature profiles, a heavily film-cooled vane, and purge cooling. While the ultimate goal is to accurately handle all of these features, the current model focuses on the treatment of a subset of experiments performed for a one-dimensional radial inlet temperature profile and no cooling.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
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

Blade thermocouple locations (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematics of (a) computational domain, (b) coarse grid at midspan, and (c) fine grid at midspan (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Change in temperature with height above surface for a typical measurement location (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Influence of extraction height for radial profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Influence of extraction height for uniform profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Predicted temperatures for different boundary condition treatments for a radial profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Predicted platform temperatures for different boundary condition treatments, radial profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Influence of boundary condition on leading-edge total temperatures, uniform profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Influence of wall boundary condition on platform temperatures, uniform profile (coarse grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

(a) Inlet temperature profile specification and (b) differences of profile from original shape

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Surface pressure at midspan (fine grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Blade leading-edge total temperatures (fine grid)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Normalized absolute total temperature at midspan for harmonic solution (geometry not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Platform temperatures (fine grid)

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