0
Research Papers

Comparison of Harmonic and Time Marching Unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics Solutions With Measurements for a Single-Stage High-Pressure Turbine

[+] Author and Article Information
Brian R. Green

GE Aviation,
Cincinnati, OH 45215
e-mail: brian.green@ge.com

Randall M. Mathison

e-mail: mathison.4@osu.edu

Michael G. Dunn

e-mail: dunn.129@osu.edu
Gas Turbine Laboratory,
The Ohio State University,
2300 West Case Rd.,
Columbus, OH 43235

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received June 22, 2012; final manuscript received May 23, 2013; published online September 20, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 136(1), 011005 (Sep 20, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1075; doi: 10.1115/1.4024775 History: Received June 22, 2012; Revised May 23, 2013

The unsteady aerodynamics of a single-stage high-pressure turbine has been the subject of a study involving detailed measurements and computations. Data and predictions for this experiment have been presented previously, but the current study compares predictions obtained using the nonlinear harmonic simulation method to results obtained using a time-marching simulation with phase-lag boundary conditions. The experimental configuration consisted of a single-stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) and the adjacent, downstream, low-pressure turbine nozzle row (LPV) with an aerodynamic design that is typical to that of a commercial high-pressure ratio HPT and LPV. The flow path geometry was equivalent to engine hardware and operated at the proper design-corrected conditions to match cruise conditions. The high-pressure vane and blade were uncooled for these comparisons. All three blade rows are instrumented with flush-mounted, high-frequency response pressure transducers on the airfoil surfaces and the inner and outer flow path surfaces, which include the rotating blade platform and the stationary shroud above the rotating blade. Predictions of the time-dependent flow field for the turbine flow path were obtained using a three-dimensional, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. Using a two blade row computational model of the turbine flow path, the unsteady surface pressure for the high-pressure vane and rotor was calculated using both unsteady methods. The two sets of predictions are then compared to the measurements looking at both time-averaged and time-accurate results, which show good correlation between the two methods and the measurements. This paper concentrates on the similarities and differences between the two unsteady methods, and how the predictions compare with the measurements since the faster harmonic solution could allow turbomachinery designers to incorporate unsteady calculations in the design process without sacrificing accuracy when compared to the phase-lag method.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Adamczyk, J. J., 1985, “Model Equations for Simulating Flows in Multistage Turbomachinery,” NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, NASA-TM-86869.
Verdon, J. M., and Caspar, J. R., 1982, “Development of a Linear Unsteady Aerodynamic Analysis for Finite-Deflection Subsonic Cascades,” AIAA J., 20(9), pp. 1259–1267. [CrossRef]
Verdon, J. M., and Caspar, J. R., 1984, “A Linearized Unsteady Aerodynamic Analysis for Transonic Cascades,” J. Fluid. Mech., 149, pp. 403–429. [CrossRef]
Hall, K. C., and Crawley, E. F., 1989, “Calculation of Unsteady Flows in Turbomachinery Using the Linear Euler Equations,” AIAA.J, 27(6), pp.777–787. [CrossRef]
Hall, K. C., Clark, W. S., and Lorence, C. B., 1994, “A Linearized Euler Analysis of Unsteady Transonic Flows in Turbomachinery,” ASME J. Turbomach., 116(3), pp. 477–488. [CrossRef]
Ning, W., and He, L., 1998, “Computation of Unsteady Flows Around Oscillating Blades Using Linear and Nonlinear Harmonic Euler Methods,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, pp. 508–514. [CrossRef]
He, L., and Ning, W., 1998, “Efficient Approach for Analysis of Unsteady Viscous Flows in Turbomachines,” AIAA J., 36(11), pp. 2005–2012. [CrossRef]
Chen, T., Vasanthakumar, P., and He, L., 2001, “Analysis of Unsteady Blade Row Interaction Using Nonlinear Harmonic Approach,” J. Propul. Power, 17(3), pp. 651–658. [CrossRef]
Vilmin, S., Lorrain, E., Hirsch, C., and Swoboda, M., 2006, “Unsteady Flow Modeling Across the Rotor/Stator Interface Using the Nonlinear Harmonic Method,” ASME Turbo Expo, Barcelona, Spain, May 8–11, ASME Paper No. GT2006-90210. [CrossRef]
He, L., 2010, “Fourier Methods for Turbomachinery Applications,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 46, pp. 329–341. [CrossRef]
Erdos, J. I., Alzner, E., and McNally, W., 1977, “Numerical Solution of Periodic Transonic Flow Through a Fan Stage,” AIAA J., 15(11), pp. 1559–1568. [CrossRef]
Rai, M. M., 1987, “Navier–Stokes Simulations of Rotor-Stator Interaction Using Patched and Overlaid Grids,” J. Propul. Power, 3, pp. 387–396. [CrossRef]
Rai, M. M., 1989, “Three-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Simulations of Turbine Rotor-Stator Interaction; Part I—Methodology,” J. Propul., 5(3), pp. 305–311. [CrossRef]
Dring, R. P., Joslyn, H. D., Hardin, L. W., and Wagner, J. H., 1982, “Turbine Rotor-Stator Interaction,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 104, pp. 387–396. [CrossRef]
Rai, M. M., 1989, “Three-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Simulations of Turbine Rotor-Stator Interaction; Part II—Results,” J. Propul., 5(3), pp. 312–319. [CrossRef]
Arnone, A., and Pacciani, R., 1996, “Rotor-Stator Interaction Analysis Using the Navier–Stokes Equations and a Multigrid Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 118, pp. 679–689. [CrossRef]
Rao, K. V., Delaney, R. A., and Dunn, M.G., 1990, “Investigation of Unsteady Flow Through Transonic Turbine Stage Part I: Analysis,” AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, July 16–18, AIAA Paper No. 90-2408. [CrossRef]
Dunn, M. G., Bennett, W., Delaney, R. A., and Rao, K.V., 1990, “Investigation of Unsteady Flow Through a Transonic Turbine Stage: Part II—Data/Prediction Comparison for Time-Averaged and Phase-Resolved Pressure Data,” AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, July 16–18, AIAA Paper No. 90-2409. [CrossRef]
Dunn, M. G., Bennett, W. A., Delaney, R. A., and Rao, K. V., 1992, “Investigation of Unsteady Flow Through a Transonic Turbine Stage: Data/Prediction Comparison for Time-Averaged and Phase-Resolved Pressure Data,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114, pp. 91–99. [CrossRef]
Giles, M., and Haimes, R., 1993, “Validation of a Numerical Method for Unsteady Flow Calculations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115, pp. 110–117. [CrossRef]
Venable, B. L., Delaney, R. A., Busby, J. A., Davis, R. L., Dorney, D. J., Dunn, M. G., Haldeman, C. W., and Abhari, R. S., 1999, “Influence of Vane-Blade Spacing on Transonic Turbine Stage Aerodynamics: Part I—Time Resolved Data and Analysis,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121, pp. 663–672. [CrossRef]
Busby, J. A., Davis, R. L., Dorney, D. J., Dunn, M. G., Haldeman, C. W., Abhari, R. S., Venable, B. L., and Delaney, R. A., 1999, “Influence of Vane-Blade Spacing on Transonic Turbine Stage Aerodynamics: Part II—Time Resolved Data and Analysis,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121, pp. 673–682. [CrossRef]
Barter, J. W., Vitt, P. H., and Chen, J.P., 2000, “Interaction Effects in a Transonic Turbine Stage,” ASME Turbo Expo, Munich, Germany, May 8–11, ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-0376.
Van Zante, D., Chen, J. P., Hathaway, M., and Chriss, R., 2008, “The Influence of Compressor Blade Row Interaction Modeling on Performance Estimates From Time-Accurate, Multistage, Navier–Stokes Simulations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(1), p. 011009. [CrossRef]
Green, B. R., Barter, J. W., Dunn, M. G., and Haldeman, C.W., 2005, “Averaged and Time-Dependent Aerodynamics for a High-Pressure Turbine Blade Tip Cavity and Stationary Shroud: Comparison of Computational and Experimental Results,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127, pp. 736–746. [CrossRef]
Crosh, E. A., Haldeman, C. W., Dunn, M. G., Holmes, D. G., and Mitchell, B. E., 2010, “Investigation of Turbine Shroud Distortions on the Aerodynamics of a One and One-Half Stage High-Pressure Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(3), p. 031002. [CrossRef]
Haldeman, C. W., 2003, “An Experimental Investigation of Clocking Effects on Turbine Aerodynamics Using a Modern 3-D One and One-Half Stage High Pressure Turbine for Code Verification and Flow Model Development,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Dunn, M. G., Moller, J. C., and Steel, R. C., 1989, “Operating Point Verification for a Large Shock Tunnel Test Facility,” Paper No. WRDC-TR-2027.
Dunn, M. G., 1986, “Heat-Flux Measurements for the Rotor of a Full-Stage Turbine: Part 1—Time-Averaged Results,” ASME J Turbomach., 108, pp. 90–97. [CrossRef]
Dunn, M. G., and Haldeman, C. W., 1995, “Phase-Resolved Surface Pressure and Heat-Transfer Measurements on the Blade of a Two-Stage Turbine.” ASME J Fluid. Eng., 117, pp. 653–658. [CrossRef]
Green, B. R.Mathison, R. M., and Dunn, M. G.2012. “Time-Averaged and Time-Accurate Aerodynamic Effects of Forward Rotor Cavity Purge Flow for a Modern, One and One-Half Stage High-Pressure Turbine—Part I: Analytical and Experimental Comparisons,” ASME J. Turbomach., (in press). [CrossRef]
Green, B. R.Mathison, R. M., and Dunn, M.G.2012. “Time-Averaged and Time-Accurate Aerodynamic Effects of Rotor Purge Flow for a Modern, One and One-Half Stage High-Pressure Turbine—Part II: Analytical Flow Field Analysis,” ASME J. Turbomach., (in press). [CrossRef]
FINE/Turbo User's Manual, 2007, “User Manual: FINE/Turbo v8 (Including Euranus) Flow Integrated Environment,” NUMECA International, Brussels, Belgium.
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, E.1981. “Numerical Solution of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge–Kutta Time Stepping Schemes,” AIAA Paper No. 81-1259. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R.1992. “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 92-0439. [CrossRef]
Chen, J. P., Celestina, M. L., and Adamczyk, J. J., 1994, “A New Procedure for Simulating Unsteady Flows Through Turbomachinery Blade Passages,” ASME Paper No. 94-GT-151.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Grid resolution for the (a) high-pressure vane, (b) the high-pressure blade, and (c) the low-pressure vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Harmonic convergence history for (a) RMS and max residuals and (b) inlet and outlet mass flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Phase lag convergence history for (a) inlet and outlet mass flow rates (b) the 36th and 37th period

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Uncooled, steady, stage computational contour plots at 50% span for (a) normalized total pressure, (b) normalized total temperature, and (c) Mach number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental FFT of Kulite data located (a) at 70% wetted distance and 50% span on the high-pressure vane and (b) at 20% wetted distance and 50% span on the high-pressure blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Plot of the (a) HP vane total pressure wake and (b) the HP blade static pressure bow wave

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of predicted and measured unsteady pressure for the shroud at (a) −7% wetted distance, (b) 30% wetted distance, (c) 60% wetted distance, and (d) 94.4% wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of predicted and measured time-averaged static pressure for the high-pressure blade surface at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of predicted and measured first harmonic of unsteady pressure on the high-pressure blade surface at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of unsteady pressure on the high-pressure blade surface at (a) 20% WD and (b) −20% WD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of time-averaged static pressure for high-pressure vane surface at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of predicted and measured first harmonic of unsteady pressure for the high-pressure vane surface at (a) 15% span, (b) 50% span, and (c) 90% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Vane inner and outer end wall pressure transducer locations (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of predicted and measured pressure for the high-pressure vane hub surface for (a) time-averaged and (b) the first harmonic of unsteady pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of prediction and measurement for the high-pressure vane shroud surface (a) time-averaged and (b) first harmonic of unsteady pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Blade platform pressure transducer locations (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparisons of predicted and measured static pressure on the high-pressure blade platform surface for (a) average pressure and (b) first harmonic of unsteady pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of predicted and measured unsteady pressure on the blade platform for location (a) PRP50, (b) PRP51, (c) PRP52, (d) PRP53, and (e) PRP54

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of predicted and measured stationary shroud for (a) average pressure and (b) first harmonic of unsteady pressure

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 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