0
Research Papers

Blade Loading and Its Application in the Mean-Line Design of Low Pressure Turbines

[+] Author and Article Information
John D. Coull

e-mail: jdc38@cam.ac.uk

Howard P. Hodson

e-mail: hph1000@cam.ac.ukWhittle Laboratory,
University of Cambridge,
1 J.J. Thomson Ave,
Cambridge CB3 0DY, UK

For a high speed datum turbine, this effect is slightly magnified due to the high Mach numbers in this region of the Smith chart.

Note that these designs have low flow turning, so for a constant circulation they must have a high pitch-to-chord ratio.

It should be noted that Ainley and Mathieson account for the machine hub-to-tip ratio rather than the aspect ratio.

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 24, 2011; final manuscript received October 6, 2011; published online November 8, 2012. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(2), 021032 (Nov 08, 2012) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-11-1192; doi: 10.1115/1.4006588 History: Received August 24, 2011; Revised October 06, 2011

In order to minimize the number of iterations to a turbine design, reasonable choices of the key parameters must be made at the preliminary design stage. The choice of blade loading is of particular concern in the low pressure (LP) turbine of civil aero engines, where the use of high-lift blades is widespread. This paper considers how blade loading should be measured, compares the performance of various loss correlations, and explores the impact of blade lift on performance and lapse rates. To these ends, an analytical design study is presented for a repeating-stage, axial-flow LP turbine. It is demonstrated that the long-established Zweifel lift coefficient (Zweifel, 1945, “The Spacing of Turbomachine Blading, Especially with Large Angular Deflection” Brown Boveri Rev., 32(1), pp. 436–444) is flawed because it does not account for the blade camber. As a result the Zweifel coefficient is only meaningful for a fixed set of flow angles and cannot be used as an absolute measure of blade loading. A lift coefficient based on circulation is instead proposed that accounts for the blade curvature and is independent of the flow angles. Various existing profile and secondary loss correlations are examined for their suitability to preliminary design. A largely qualitative comparison demonstrates that the loss correlations based on Ainley and Mathieson (Ainley and Mathieson, 1957, “A Method of Performance Estimation for Axial-Flow Turbines,” ARC Reports and Memoranda No. 2974; Dunham and Came, 1970, “Improvements to the Ainley-Mathieson Method of Turbine Performance Prediction,” Trans. ASME: J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, July, pp. 252–256; Kacker and Okapuu, 1982, “A Mean Line Performance Method for Axial Flow Turbine Efficiency,” J. Eng. Power, 104, pp. 111–119). are not realistic, while the profile loss model of Coull and Hodson (Coull and Hodson, 2011, “Predicting the Profile Loss of High-Lift Low Pressure Turbines,” J. Turbomach., 134(2), pp. 021002) and the secondary loss model of (Traupel, W, 1977, Thermische Turbomaschinen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin) are arguably the most reasonable. A quantitative comparison with multistage rig data indicates that, together, these methods over-predict lapse rates by around 30%, highlighting the need for improved loss models and a better understanding of the multistage environment. By examining the influence of blade lift across the Smith efficiency chart, the analysis demonstrates that designs with higher flow turning will tend to be less sensitive to increases in blade loading.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Smith, SF., 1965, “A Simple Correlation of Turbine Efficiency,” J. R., Aeronaut. Soc., 69, pp.367–370.
Zweifel, O., 1945, “The Spacing of Turbomachine Blading, Especially with Large Angular Deflection” Brown Boveri Rev., 32(1), pp.436–444.
Ainley, D. G., and Mathieson, G. C. R., 1957, “A Method of Performance Estimation for Axial-Flow Turbines,” ARC Reports and Memoranda Paper No. 2974.
Dunham, J., and Came, P. M., 1970, “Improvements to the Ainley-Mathieson Method of Turbine Performance Prediction,” Trans. ASME:, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, July, pp.252–256.
Kacker, S. C., and Okapuu, U., 1982, “A Mean Line Performance Method for Axial Flow Turbine Efficiency,” J. Eng. Power, 104, pp.111–119. [CrossRef]
Coull, J. D., and Hodson, H. P., 2011, “Predicting the Profile Loss of High-Lift Low Pressure Turbines,” J. Turbomach., 134(2), pp.021002-1– 021002-14. [CrossRef]
Traupel, W, 1977, Thermische Turbomaschinen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Haselbach, F., Schiffer, H. P., Horsman, M., Dressen, S., Harvey, N., and Read, S., 2002, “The Application of Ultra High Lift Blading in the BR715 LP Turbine,”ASME J. Turbomach.124(1), pp.45–51. [CrossRef]
Craig, H. R. M., and Cox, H. J. A., 1971, “Performance Estimation of Axial Flow Turbines,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 71, pp.1970–1971.
Coull, J. D., Thomas, R. L., and Hodson, H. P., 2010, “Velocity Distributions for Low Pressure Turbines,” J. Turbomach., 132(4), pp.041006-1–041006-13. [CrossRef]
Gier, J., Franke, M., Hübner, N., and Schröder, T, 2008, “Designing LP Turbines for Optimized Airfoil Lift,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-51101.
Horlock, J. H., 1966, “Axial Flow Turbines: Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics,” SBN 0-88275-097-6.
Denton, JD, 1993, “Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), p.621–656. [CrossRef]
Ainley, D. G., and Mathieson, G. C. R., 1951, “An Examination of the Flow and Pressure Losses in Blade Rows of Axial-Flow Turbines,” ARC Reports and Memoranda Paper No. 2891.
Carter, ADS, 1948, “Three-Dimensional Flow Theories for Axial Compressors and Turbines,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 159(1), pp.255–268. [CrossRef]
Thwaites, B., 1949, “Approximate Calculation of the Laminar Boundary Layer,” Aeronaut. Q., 1, pp.245–280.
Benner, M. W., Sjolander, S. A., and Moustapha, S. H., 2006, “An Empirical Prediction Method For Secondary Losses In Turbines – Part II: A New Secondary Loss Correlation,” J. Turbomach., 128(2), pp.281–291. [CrossRef]
Vera, M., Hodson, H. P., and Vazquez, R., 2003, “The Effect of Mach Number on LP Turbine Wake-Blade Interaction” 9th ISUAAAT, Sept.4–8 , Lyon, France
Marconcini, M., Rubechini, F., Pacciani, R., Arnone, A., and Bertini, F., 2010, “Redesign of High-Lift LP-Turbine Airfoils For Low Speed Testing” ASME Turbo Expo, Glasgow, UK, 14–18 June, ASME Paper No. GT2010-23284.
Praisner, T. J., Grover, E. A., Knezevici, D. C., Popovic, I., Sjolander, S. A., Clarke, J. P., and Sondergaard, R., 2008, “Towards the Expansion of Low-Pressure-Turbine Airfoil Design Space,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50898.
Hodson, H. P., and Dominy, R. G., 1987, “The Off-Design Performance of a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade” ASME J. Turbomach.109(2), pp.201–209. [CrossRef]
Vázquez, R., Torre, D., Partida, F., Armañanzas, L., and Antoranz, A., 2011, “Influence of Surface Roughness on the Profile and End-Wall Losses in Low Pressure Turbines,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46371.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Turbine stage efficiency normalized for zero tip gap, 50% reaction designs, Smith [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Velocity triangles and angle conventions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Calculated flow and geometry parameters across the design space: (a) stator exit velocity; (b) mean span; (c) ratio of S0/Cx; (d) Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Geometry estimation using a parabolic camberline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Sample surface velocity distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Low speed definition of: (a) Zweifel lift coefficient Zw (Eq. (19)); (b) Circulation coefficient Co (Eq. (21))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Predicted efficiency for constant Zw=1.10 using the models of Refs. [6] and [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Diffusion factor for constant Zw=1.10 using the models of Refs. [6] and [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Predicted stage efficiency for constant circulation coefficient Co=0.70 using the models of Refs. [6] and [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Predicted lost efficiency due to profile loss for Co=0.70: (a) Denton [13]; (b) Coull and Hodson [6]; (c) Ainley and Mathieson [3]; (d) Dunham and Came [4]; (e) Kacker and Okapuu [5]; (f) Craig and Cox [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Predicted lost efficiency due to secondary loss for Co=0.70, according to: (a) Craig and Cox [6]; (b) Ainley and Mathieson [3]; (c) Dunham and Came [4]; (d) Kacker and Okapuu [5]; (e) Traupel [7]; (f) Benner et al. [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Predicted lost efficiency with increasing lift for the datum flow angles (φ=0.9, ψ=2).: (a) Profile Loss; (b) Secondary Loss

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Predicted lost efficiency with varying Reynolds number for the datum turbine: (a) profile loss; (b) secondary loss

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Reynolds number lapse for varying lift, showing efficiency when considering profile loss alone [6], secondary loss alone [8] and the overall efficiency; datum flow angles (φ=0.9, ψ=2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of experimental and predicted efficiency lapse rates using the profile loss model of Coull and Hodson [6] Traupel [7] secondary loss model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Efficiency contours for three lift coefficients (Co=0.70, 0.75 0.80), using the profile loss model of Coull and Hodson [6] and secondary model of Traupel [7]

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.

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