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

Figures

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. 2

Rotor of the two-stage turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The rotor of the three-stage turbine

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. 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. 7

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

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)

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