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

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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