Research Papers

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

[+] 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 July 5, 2012; final manuscript received May 23, 2013; published online September 20, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 136(1), 011009 (Sep 20, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1130; doi: 10.1115/1.4024776 History: Received July 05, 2012; Revised May 23, 2013

The detailed mechanisms of purge flow interaction with the hot-gas flow path were investigated using both unsteady computationally fluid dynamics (CFD) and measurements for a turbine operating at design corrected conditions. This turbine consisted of a single-stage high-pressure turbine and the downstream, low-pressure turbine nozzle row with an aerodynamic design equivalent to actual engine hardware and typical of a commercial, high-pressure ratio, transonic turbine. The high-pressure vane airfoils and inner and outer end walls incorporated state-of-the-art film cooling, and purge flow was introduced into the cavity located between the high-pressure vane and disk. The flow field above and below the blade angel wing was characterized by both temperature and pressure measurements. Predictions of the time-dependent flow field were obtained using a three-dimensional, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes CFD code and a computational model incorporating the three blade rows and the purge flow cavity. The predictions were performed to evaluate the accuracy obtained by a design style application of the code, and no adjustment of boundary conditions was made to better match the experimental data. Part I of this paper compared the predictions to the measurements in and around the purge flow cavity and demonstrated good correlation. Part II of this paper concentrates on the analytical results, looking at the primary gas path ingestion mechanism into the cavity as well as the effects of the rotor purge on the upstream vane and downstream rotor aerodynamics and thermodynamics. Ingestion into the cavity is driven by high static pressure regions downstream of the vane, high-velocity flow coming off the pressure side of the vane, and the blade bow waves. The introduction of the purge flow is seen to have an effect on the static pressure of the vane trailing edge in the lower 5% of span. In addition, the purge flow is weak enough that upon exiting the cavity, it is swept into the mainstream flow and provides no additional cooling benefits on the platform of the rotating blade.

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



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Instantaneous radial velocity contours on the purge flow cavity and main gas path interface for (a) t = 0, (b) t = 0.055, (c) t = 0.11, (d) t = 0.167, (e) t = 0.22, (f) t = 0.278, (g) t = 0.33, (h) t = 0.389, (i) t = 0.44, and (j) t = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Purge flow forward progressing streamlines for the time-averaged harmonic solution for (a) top looking down view, (b) side view, and (c) forward looking aft side view (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Rim seal time-averaged vector field (a) aligned with ingestion zone and (b) away from ingestion zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Time-averaged cavity streamlines (a) aligned with and (b) away from ingestion zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Stationary and rotating instrumentation locations in the purge flow cavity (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Static pressure for HP blade at 2% span for (a) the full wetted distance, (b) the first 30% of the wetted distance, and (c) leading edge stagnation points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Measured and predicted stationary cavity unsteady static pressure for the (a) PV104 and PV105 location and the (b) PV107 and PV108 location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured and predicted stationary cavity unsteady static pressure for (a) the PRW70 location, (b) the PRW71 location, and (c) the PRW72

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Instantaneous static pressure contours on the radial planes of the upper stationary and rotating Kulite gauge locations for time steps 0–0.5 ((a)–(j))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Vane exit profiles forward and aft of the cavity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Vane hub surface static pressure at 2% span for (a) full wetted distance and (b) aft 40% of wetted distance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Vane trailing edge hub static pressure comparison between run 22 and run 28




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