0
Research Papers

A Low Pressure Turbine at Extreme Off-Design Operation

[+] Author and Article Information
Martin Lipfert

e-mail: lipfert@ila.uni-stuttgart.de

Stephan Staudacher

Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems,
University of Stuttgart,
Pfaffenwaldring 6,
Stuttgart D-70569, Germany

Markus Brettschneider

MTU Aero Engines GmbH,
Dachauer Strasse 665,
Munich D-80995, Germany

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 11, 2013; final manuscript received July 26, 2013; published online October 25, 2013. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(3), 031018 (Oct 25, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1149; doi: 10.1115/1.4025592 History: Received July 11, 2013; Revised July 26, 2013

In a cooperative project between the Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems and MTU Aero Engines GmbH, a two-stage low pressure turbine with integrated 3D airfoil and endwall contouring is tested. The experimental data taken in the altitude test-facility study the effect of high incidence in off-design operation. Steady measurements are covering a wide range of Reynolds numbers between 40,000 and 180,000. The results are compared with steady multistage CFD predictions with a focus on the stator rows. A first unsteady simulation is taken into account as well. The CFD simulations include leakage flow paths with disk cavities modeled. Compared to design operation the extreme off-design high-incidence conditions lead to a different flow-field Reynolds number sensitivity. Airfoil lift data reveals changing incidence with Reynolds number of the second stage. Increased leading edge loading of the second vane indicates a strong cross channel pressure gradient in the second stage leading to larger secondary flow regions and a more three-dimensional flow-field. Global characteristics and area traverse data of the second vane are discussed. The unsteady CFD approach indicates improvement in the numerical prediction of the predominating flow-field.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Broszat, D., and Korte, D., 2009, “Validation of Turbine Noise Prediction Tools With Acoustic Rig Measurements,” AIAA Paper No. 2009-3283. [CrossRef]
Broszat, D., and Korte, D., 2011, “Validation of an Integrated Acoustic Absorber in a Turbine Exit Guide Vane,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-2915. [CrossRef]
Ainley, D., and Mathieson, G., 1957, “A Method of Performance Estimation for Axial-Flow Turbines,” British Aeronautical Research Council R&M Paper No. 2974.
Ainley, D., and Mathieson, G., 1955, “An Examination of the Flow and Pressure Losses in Blade Rows of Axial-Flow Turbines,” British Aeronautical Research Council R&M Paper No. 2891.
Moustapha, S., Kacker, S., and Tremblay, B., 1990, “An Improved Incidence Losses Prediction Method for Turbine Airfoils,” ASME J. Turbomach., 112(2), pp. 267–276. [CrossRef]
Benner, M., Sjolander, S. A., and Moustapha, S., 1997, “Measurement of Secondary Flows in a Turbine Cascade at Off-Design Incidence,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(2), pp. 193–200. [CrossRef]
Hodson, H., and Dominy, R., 1986, “The Off-Design Performance of a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(2), pp. 201–209. [CrossRef]
Perdichizzi, A., and Dossena, V., 1993, “Incidence Angle and Pitch-Chord Effects on Secondary Flows Downstream of a Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(3), pp. 383–391. [CrossRef]
Duden, A., 1999, “The Secondary Flow Field of a Turbine Cascade With 3D Airfoil Design and Endwall Contouring at Off-Design Incidence,” ASME Paper No. 99-GT-211.
Gier, J., and Ardey, S., 2001, “On the Impact of Blade Count Reduction on Aerodynamic Performance and Loss Generation in a Three-Stage LP Turbine,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0197.
Haselbach, F., Harvey, N., Read, S., Schiffer, H.-P., Horsman, M., and Dressen, S., 2002, “The Application of Ultra High Lift Blading in the BR715 LP Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(1), pp. 45–51. [CrossRef]
Howell, R., Hodson, H., and Schulte, V., 2002, “Boundary Layer Development in the BR710 and BR715 LP Turbines—The Implementation of High-Lift and Ultra-High- Lift Concepts,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(3), pp. 385–392. [CrossRef]
D'Ovidio, A., Littlewood, L., and CongiuF., 2008, “Comparison Between Hot Wire and 5-Hole Pressure Probe Traverse Data in a Variable Density Two-Stages Air Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50753. [CrossRef]
Gier, J., Franke, M., Hübner, N., and Schröder, T., 2008, “Designing LP Turbines for Optimized Airfoil Lift,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-51101. [CrossRef]
Küner, M., Schneider, C., Rose, M.G., Staudacher, S., and Gier, J., 2010, “LP Turbine Reynolds Lapse Phenomena: Time Averaged Area Traverse and Multistage CFD,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-23114. [CrossRef]
Kürner, M., Reichstein, G. A., Schrack, D., Rose, M. G., Staudacher, S., Gier, J., and Engel, K., 2011, “LP Turbine Reynolds Lapse: Secondary Vortices,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45557. [CrossRef]
Schinko, N., Kürner, M., Staudacher, S., Rose, M., Gier, J., Raab, I., and Lippl, F., 2009, “Das ATRD-Projekt—Ein Beispiel für die Zusammenarbeit von Industrie und Universität zur Förderung der Grundlagenforschung,” DGLR-Congress 2009, Paper No. DGLR-2009-121156.
Pretzsch, P., 1986, “Drucksonden,” Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
JCGM, 2008, “Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement,” Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology Paper No. JCGM 100:2008.
Eulitz, F., Engel, K., and Nuernberger, D., 1998, “On Recent Advances of a Parallel Time-Accurate Navier Stokes Solver for Unsteady Turbomachinery Flow,” 4th ECOMAS Proceedings in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 1(1), Part 1, K.Papailiou, ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Franke, M., Kuegeler, E., and Nuernberger, D., 2005, “Das DLR-Verfahren TRACE: Moderne Simulationstechniken fur Turbomaschinenstromungen,” DGLR Congress 2005, Paper No. DGLR-2005-211.
Roe, P., 1997, “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., 135(2), pp. 250–258. [CrossRef]
Davidson, L., 2011, “An Introduction to Turbulence Models,” Chalmers University—Department of Thermo and Fluid Dynamics, Göteborg, Sweden, Paper No. Publication 97/2.
Röber, T., Kožlović, D., Kügeler, E., and Nürnberger, D., 2007, “Appropriate Turbulence Modelling for Turbomachinery Flows Using a Two-Equation Turbulence Model,” New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics V, Springer, New York, pp. 446–454. [CrossRef]
Weber, A., 2008, “3D Structured Grids for Multistage Axial Turbomachines and Linear Cascades,” Paper No. DLR IB-325-07-08.
Yang, H., Nuernberger, D., and Nicke, E., 2003, “Numerical Investigation of Casing Treatment Mechanisms With a Conservative Mixed-Cell Approach,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38483. [CrossRef]
Kozulovic, D., and Röber, T., 2006, “Quasi-Unsteady Transition Modelling of Periodic Wakes,” Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Begell House, New York.
Yang, H., Nuernberger, D., and Weber, A., 2002, “A Conservative Zonal Approach With Applications to Unsteady Turbomachinery Flows,” DGLR Congress 2005, Paper No. DGLR-2002-073.
Volino, R., 2010, “Separated Flow Measurements on a Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoil,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(1), p. 011007. [CrossRef]
Kürner, M., Rose, M., Staudacher, S., Gier, J., Fiala, A., and Patzer, B., 2012, “Surface Thin Film Gauge Measurements in a Two-Stage Low Pressure Turbine at Low Reynolds Number,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68906. [CrossRef]
Truckenbrodt, E., 1980, Fluidmechanik, 2nd ed., Springer, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Meridional view of the ATRD-Rig annulus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Airfoil pressure distribution of NGV1. Experimental results as indicated; steady CFD results indicated with (- -) for ReV1 = 40 k; (- ·) for ReV1 = 75 k; (…) for ReV1 = 100 k; (-) for ReV1 = 180 k: (a) ReV1 = 40 k – experiment; (b) ReV1 = 40 k to 180 k – off-design only.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Airfoil pressure distribution of NGV2. Experimental results as indicated; steady CFD results indicated with (- -) for ReV1 = 40 k; (- ·) for ReV1 = 75 k; (…) for ReV1 = 100 k; (-) for ReV1 = 180 k: (a) ReV1 = 40 k – experiment; (b) ReV1 = 40 k to 180 k – off-design only.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of steady and time averaged unsteady airfoil pressure distribution: (a) NGV1 off-design – ReV1 = 75 k; (b) NGV2 off-design – ReV1 = 75 k

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stage degree of reaction against Reynolds number; lines indicate steady CFD results: (- ·) off-Des.;St.1; (- ··) off-Des.;St.2; (-) design;St.1; (- -) design St.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Normalized isentropic efficiency against Reynolds number; lines indicate steady CFD results, (-): design; (- -): off-design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normalized turbine capacity against Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Blockage factor at NGV exit against Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Radial distribution of circumferential average loss coefficient ζ of NGV2: (a) ReV1 = 75 k – off-design to design; (b) off-design Reynolds lapse - experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

NGV2 flow field distortion at design (left) and off-design operation: (a) design – ReV1 = 40 k – experiment; (b) off-design – ReV1 = 40 k – experiment

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