0
Research Papers

On the Reliability of RANS and URANS Numerical Results for High-Pressure Turbine Simulations: A Benchmark Experimental and Numerical Study on Performance and Interstage Flow Behavior of High-Pressure Turbines at Design and Off-Design Conditions Using Two Different Turbine Designs

[+] Author and Article Information
M. T. Schobeiri

e-mail: tschobeiri@tamu.edu

S. Abdelfattah

Turbomachinery Performance and Flow
Research Laboratory,
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 19, 2011; final manuscript received May 10, 2013; published online September 13, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Matthew Montgomery.

J. Turbomach 135(6), 061012 (Sep 13, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-11-1208; doi: 10.1115/1.4024787 History: Received September 19, 2011; Revised May 10, 2013

Improved computational fluid dynamics tools based on Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations have shown that the behavior of simple flow cases can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Their predictive capability, however, substantially diminishes whenever major secondary vortices, adverse pressure gradients, and wake-boundary layer interactions are present. Flow through high-pressure (HP) turbine components uniquely incorporates almost all of the above features, interacting with each other and determining the efficiency and performance of the turbine. Thus, the degree of accuracy of predicting the flow through a HP turbine can be viewed as an appropriate benchmark test for evaluating the predictive capability of any RANS-based method. Detailed numerical and experimental investigations of different HP turbines presented in this paper have revealed substantial differences between the experimental and the numerical results pertaining to the individual flow quantities. This paper aims at identifying the quantities whose simulation inaccuracies are pre-eminently responsible for the aforementioned differences. This task requires (a) a meticulous experimental investigation of all individual thermofluid quantities and their interactions resulting in an integral behavior of the turbomachine in terms of efficiency and performance, (b) a detailed numerical investigation using appropriate grid densities based on simulation sensitivity, and (c) steady and transient simulations to ensure their impact on the final numerical results. To perform the above experimental and numerical tasks, two different HP turbines were investigated: (1) a two-stage turbine with moderately compound-leaned stator blades and (2) a three-stage turbine rotor with compound-leaned stator and rotor blades. Both turbines have been thoroughly measured and numerically simulated using RANS and URANS. Detailed interstage radial and circumferential traversing presents a complete flow picture of the second stage. Performance measurements were carried out for design and off-design rotational speeds. For comparison with numerical simulations, the turbines were numerically modeled using a commercially available code. An extensive mesh sensitivity study was performed to achieve a grid-independent accuracy for both steady and transient analysis. Comparison of RANS/URANS results with the experimental ones revealed differences in total pressure for the two-stage turbine of up to 5%. A significantly lower difference of less than 0.2% is observed for the three-stage turbine with specially designed blades to suppress the secondary flow losses. Analyzing the physical background of a RANS-based solver, it was argued that the differences of individual quantities exhibited in the paper were attributed to the deficiencies in dissipation and transition models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Schobeiri, M., 2005, Turbomachinery Flow Physics and Dynamic Performance, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Schobeiri, M. T., 2012, Turbomachinery Flow Physics and Dynamic Performance, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Denton, J. D., 1993, “Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115, pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]
Sieverding, C. H., 1985, “Recent Progress in the Understanding of Basic Aspects of Secondary Flows in Turbine Blade Passages,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107, pp. 248–257. [CrossRef]
Langston, L. S., 2001, “Secondary Flows in Axial Turbines—A Review,” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 934, pp. 11–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gerolymos, G., Neubauer, J., Sharma, V., and Vallet, I., 2002, “Improved Prediction of Turbomachinery Flows Using Near-Wall Reynolds-Stress Model,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124, pp. 86–99. [CrossRef]
Gerolymos, G. A., and Vallet, I., 2007, “Robust Implicit Multgrid Reynolds-Stress Model Computation of 3D Turbomachinery Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 129(9), pp. 1212–1227. [CrossRef]
Dorney, D. J., and Davis, R. L., 1992, “Navier–Stokes Analysis of Turbine Blade Heat Transfer and Performance,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114, pp. 18–26. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., Gilarranz, J., and Johansen, E., 1999, “Final Report on: Efficiency, Performance, and Interstage Flow Field Measurement of Siemens-Westinghouse HP—Turbine Blade Series 9600 and 5600,” Technical Report.
Schobeiri, M. T., Gillaranz, J. L., and Johansen, E. S., 2000, “Aerodynamic and Performance Studies of a Three Stage High Pressure Research Turbine With 3-D Blades, Design Point and Off-Design Experimental Investigations,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2000, Munich, May 8–11, ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-484.
Treiber, M., Abhari, R. S., and Sell, M., 2002, “Flow Physics and Vortex Evolution in Annular Turbine Cascades,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–6, ASME Paper No. GT2002-30540. [CrossRef]
Brennan, G., Harvey, N. W., Rose, M. G., Fomison, N., and Taylor, M. D., 2001, “Improving The Efficiency of the Trent 500 HP Turbine Using Non-Axisymmetric End Walls: Part 1 Turbine Design,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2001, New Orleans, LA, June 4–7, ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0444.
Harvey, N. W., Rose, M. G., Brennan, G., and Newman, D. A., 2002, “Improving Turbine Efficiency Using Non-Axisymmetric End Walls: Validation in the Multi-Row Environment and With Low Aspect Ratio Blading,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–6, ASME Paper No. GT2002-30337. [CrossRef]
Germain, T., Nagel, M., Raab, I., Schuepbach, I., Abhari, R. S., and Rose, N., 2008, “Improving Efficiency of a High Work Turbine Using Non-Axisymmetric End Walls Part I: Endwall Design and Performance,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Orlando, FL, June 8–12, ASME Paper No. GT2008-50469. [CrossRef]
Snedden, G., Dunn, D., Ingram, G., and Gregory-Smith, D., 2009, “The Application of Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring in a Single Stage, Rotating Turbine,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2009, Barcelona, Spain, May 8–11, ASME Paper No. GT2009-59169. [CrossRef]
Snedden, G., Dunn, D., Ingram, G., and Gregory-Smith, D., 2010, “The Performance of a Generic Non-Axisymmetric End Wall in a Single Stage, Rotating Turbine at On and Off-Design Conditions,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010, Glasgow, UK, June 14–18, ASME Paper No. GT2010-22006. [CrossRef]
Wissink, J. G., 2003, “DNS of Separating Low Reynolds Number Flow in a Turbine Cascade With Incoming Wakes,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 24, pp. 626–635. [CrossRef]
Michelassi, V., Wissink, J. G., Frohlich, J., and Rodi, W., 2003, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Flow Around Low-Pressure Turbine Blade With Incoming Wakes,” AIAA J., 41, pp. 2143–2156. [CrossRef]
Chibli, H., Abdelfattah, S., Schobeiri, M. T., and Kang, C., 2009, “An Experimental and Numerical Study of the Effects of Flow Incidence Angles on the Performance of a Stator Blade Cascade of a High Pressure Steam Turbine,” ASME Turbo Expo 2009, Orlando, FL, June 8–12, ASME Paper No. GT2009-59131. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., 2012, Turbomachinery Flow Physics and Dynamic Performance, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Kline, S. J., and McKlintock, F. A., 1953, “Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments,” Mech. Eng. (ASME), 75, pp. 3–8.
Ansys, Inc., 2009, ansys-cfx Release Documentation, 12.0 ed., Ansys, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Denton, J., 1992, “The Calculation of Three-Dimensional Viscous Flow Through Multistage Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114(1), pp. 18–26. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., and Pappu, K., 1999, “Optimization of Trailing Edge Ejection Mixing Losses Downstream of Cooled Turbine Blades: A Theoretical and Experimental Study,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 121, pp. 118–125. [CrossRef]
Chakka, P., and Schobeiri, M. T., 1999, “Modeling of Unsteady Boundary Layer Transition on a Curved Plate Under Periodic Unsteady Flow Condition: Aerodynamic and Heat Transfer Investigations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121, pp. 88–97. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., and Chakka, P., 2002, “Prediction of Turbine Blade Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics Using Unsteady Boundary Layer Transition Model,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 45, pp. 815–829. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., and Radke, R. E., 1994, “Effects of Periodic Unsteady Wake Flow and Pressure Gradient on Boundary Layer Transition Along the Concave Surface of a Curved Plate,” International Gas Turbine and Aero-Engine Congress and Exposition, Hague, The Netherlands, June 13–16, ASME Paper No. 94-GT-327.
Schobeiri, M. T., Read, K., and Lewalle, J., 2003, “Effect of Unsteady Wake Passing Frequency on Boundary Layer Transition, Experimental Investigation and Wavelet Analysis,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 125, pp. 251–266. [CrossRef]
Wright, L., and Schobeiri, M. T., 1999, “The Effect of Periodic Unsteady Flow on Boundary Layer and Heat Transfer on a Curved Surface,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 120, pp. 22–33. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., Öztürk, B., and Ashpis, D., 2005, “On the Physics of the Flow Separation Along a Low Pressure Turbine Blade Under Unsteady Flow Conditions,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 127, pp. 503–513. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., and Öztürk, B., 2004, “Experimental Study of the Effect of the Periodic Unsteady Wake Flow on Boundary Layer Development, Separation, and Re-Attachment Along the Surface of a Low Pressure Turbine Blade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(4), pp. 663–676. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., Öztürk, B., and Ashpis, D., 2005, “Effect of Reynolds Number and Periodic Unsteady Wake Flow Condition on Boundary Layer Development, Separation, and Re-Attachment Along the Suction Surface of a Low Pressure Turbine Blade,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68600. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., Öztürk, B., and Ashpis, D., 2005, “Intermittent Behavior of the Separated Boundary Layer Along the Suction Surface of a Low Pressure Turbine Blade Under Periodic Unsteady Flow Conditions,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68603. [CrossRef]
Öztürk, B., and Schobeiri, M. T., 2006, “Effect of Turbulence Intensity and Periodic Unsteady Wake Flow Condition on Boundary Layer Development, Separation, and Re-Attachment Over the Separation Bubble Along the Suction Surface of a Low Pressure Turbine Blade,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-91293. [CrossRef]
Menter, F., 1993, “Zonal Two Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 93-2906. [CrossRef]
Menter, F., 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32, pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T., 2011, Fluid Mechanics for Engineers, A Graduate Text Book, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Menter, F., 2008, private communication.
Langtry, R. B., and Menter, F. R., 2005, “Transition Modeling for General CFD Applications in Aeronautics,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-522. [CrossRef]
Bradshaw, P., and Perot, J. B., 1993, “A Note on Turbulent Energy Dissipation in the Viscous Wall Region,” Phys. Fluids A, 5, p. 3305. [CrossRef]
Jones, W. P., and Launder, B. E., 1972, “The Prediction of Laminarization With a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15, pp. 301–314. [CrossRef]
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1974, “The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3, pp. 269–289. [CrossRef]
Launder, B. E., Reece, G., and Rodi, W., 1975, “Progress in the Development of a Reynolds Stress Turbulence Closure,” J. Fluid Mech., 68, pp. 537–566. [CrossRef]
Hanjalic, K., and Launder, B. E., 1972, “A Reynolds Stress Model of Turbulence and Its Application to Thin Shear Flows,” J. Fluid Mech.52(4), pp. 609–638. [CrossRef]
Rodi, W., and Mansour, N. N., 1993, “Low Reynolds Number k-ε Modeling With the Aid of Direct Simulation Data,” J. Fluid Mech., 250, pp. 509–529. [CrossRef]
Kolmogorov, A. N., 1941, “Local Structure of Turbulence in Incompressible Viscous Fluid for Very Large Reynolds Number,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 30, pp. 299–303.
Wilcox, D., 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, La Canada, CA.
Schobeiri, M. T., and Handler, R., 2012, “Boundary Layer Transition, Separation and Re-Attachment Subject to Periodic Unsteady Inlet Flow Condition, A Combined Experimental and DNS-Study,” NSF (submitted).
Mansour, N. N., Kim, J., and Moin, P., 1988, “Reynolds-Stress and Dissipation-Rate Budgets in a Turbulent Channel Flow,” J. Fluid Mech., 194, pp. 15–44. [CrossRef]
Kim, J., Moin, P., and Moser, R., 1987, “Turbulence Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number,” J. Fluid Mech., 177, pp. 133–166. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Positions of the three five-hole probes for radial and circumferential traverse of the flow field downstream of the first rotor, second stator, and second rotor. The probes are positioned in such a way that their wakes do not interfere with each other. (b) Interstage measurement including radial and circumferential traverse of the flow field. The stations are the same for the two- and the three-stage turbine.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The rotor of the three-stage turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Rotor of the two-stage turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) The TPFL research turbine facility with its components; the circumferential traversing system (9) is driven by another traversing system sitting on a frame and is perpendicular to this plane. (b) Detailed picture of the TPFL research turbine components with subcomponents: the radial and circumferential traversing system, clocking system, the integrated heater-inlet, torque meter, flexible couplings, and dynamometer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Change of residual values as a function of blade passage period for URANS simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Numerical analysis mesh (mesh 4 shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Change of residual values as a function of iteration number for RANS simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the measured total pressures at stations 3, 4, and 5 (▾, ♦, ▴) with the RANS and URANS computational results (solid, dashed curves) for two-stage (top) and three-stage (bottom) turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of the measured static pressures at stations 3, 4, and 5 (▾, ♦, ▴) with the RANS computational results (solid, dashed curves) for two-stage (top) and three-stage (bottom) turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the measured absolute flow angles of two-stage turbine (top) and three-stage turbine (bottom) with the RANS and URANS computational results (solid, dashed curves)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the measured total-to-static ηt-s efficiency with the RANS computational results for two-stage turbine (top) and three-stage turbine (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the measured absolute Mach number for two-stage turbine (top) and three-stage turbine (bottom) at stations 3, 4, and 5 (▾, ♦, ▴) with the RANS computational results (solid, dashed curves)

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