0
Research Papers

The Effect of Airfoil Thickness on the Efficiency of Low-Pressure Turbines

[+] Author and Article Information
Diego Torre, Guillermo García-Valdecasas

Industria de Turbopropulsores S.A.,
Madrid 28830, Spain

Raúl Vázquez

Industria de Turbopropulsores S.A.,
Madrid 28830, Spain;
Universidad Politécnica,
Madrid 28040, Spain

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 14, 2012; final manuscript received July 22, 2013; published online October 23, 2013. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(5), 051014 (Oct 23, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1218; doi: 10.1115/1.4025163 History: Received November 14, 2012; Revised July 22, 2013

The effect of airfoil thickness on the efficiency of low-pressure (LP) turbines has been investigated experimentally in a multistage turbine high-speed rig. The rig consists of three stages of a state of the art LP turbine. The stages are characterized by a very high hade angle, reverse cut-off design, very high lift, and very high aspect ratio airfoils. Two different sets of stators have been designed and tested. The first set of stators is made of airfoils with a thickness to chord ratio around 10% along the span with the exception of a small areas close to the end walls. In those areas, the thickness has been increased above the previous value to reduce the secondary flows. These types of airfoils have been referred to in the literature as “spoon” airfoils. The second set of stators has been designed to have the same spanwise distribution of pressure coefficient (Cp) on the suction surface than the first set. However, the thickness to chord ratio was increased along the span up to values around 20% to raise the velocity of the flow and to remove any separation bubble on the pressure side. The resulting shape of the profiles is representative of “hollow” airfoils. The velocity triangles, chord distribution, leading and trailing edge locations, and flowpath have been maintained between both sets. They have been tested with the same blades and at the same operating conditions with the intention of determining the impact of the profile thickness on the overall efficiency. The turbine characteristics: sensitivity to speed, specific work, Reynolds number, and purge flows have been obtained for both sets. The comparison of the results suggests that the efficiency of both types of airfoils exhibit the same behavior; no significant differences in the results can be distinguished.

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

References

Brear, M. J., Hodson, H. P., and Harvey, N. W., 2002, “Pressure Surface Separations in Low Pressure Turbines—Part 1 of 2: Midspan Behaviour,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124, pp. 393–401. [CrossRef]
Hodson, H. P., and Dominy, R. G., 1987, “The Off-Design Performance of a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109, pp. 201–209. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, A., and Nouse, H., 1988, “Effects of Incidence on Three-Dimensional Flows in a Linear Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 110(4), pp. 486–496. [CrossRef]
He, L., 1998, “Unsteady Flow in Oscillating Turbine Cascades: Part 1—Linear Cascade Experiment,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, pp. 262–268. [CrossRef]
González, P., Ulizar, I., Vázquez, R., and Hodson, H. P., 2002, “Pressure and Suction Surfaces Redesign for High Lift Low Pressure Turbines,” J. Turbomach., 124, pp. 161–166. [CrossRef]
Brear, M. J., Hodson, H. P., Gonzalez, P., and Harvey, N. W., 2002, “Pressure Surface Separations in Low-Pressure Turbines—Part 2: Interaction With the Secondary Flow,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(3), pp. 402–409. [CrossRef]
de la Rosa Blanco, E., Hodson, H. P., Vázquez, R., and Torre, D., 2003, “Influence of the State of the Inlet Endwall Boundary Layer on the Interaction Between the Pressure Surface Separation and the Endwall Flows,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 217, pp. 413–420. [CrossRef]
de la Rosa Blanco, E., Hodson, H. P., and Vázquez, R., 2005, “Effect of Upstream Platform Geometry on the Endwall Flows of a Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68938 [CrossRef].
de la Rosa Blanco, E., Hodson, H. P., and Vázquez, R., 2009, “Effect of the Leackage Flows and the Upstream Platform Geometry on the Endwall Flows of a Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 131(1), p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Vázquez, R., Antoranz, A., Cadrecha, D., and Armañanzas, L., 2006, “The Influence of Reynolds Number, Mach Number and Incidence Effects on Loss Production in Low Pressure Turbine Airfoils,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-91121 [CrossRef].
Haselbach, F., Schiffer, H.-P., Horsman, M., Dressen, S., Harvey, N., and Read, S., 2001, “The Application of Ultra High Lift Blading in the BR715 LP Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(1), pp. 45–52. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, A., Tominaga, J., Matsunuma, T., and Outa, E., 1994, “Detailed Measurements of Three-Dimensional Flows and Losses Inside an Axial Turbine Rotor,” ASME Paper No. 94-GT-348.
Hodson, H. P., and Addison, J. S., 1988, “Wake-Boundary Layer Interactions in an Axial Flow Turbine Rotor at Off-Design Conditions,” ASME Paper No. 88-GT-233.
Scrivener, C. T. J., Connolly, C. F., Cox, J. C., and Dailey, G. M., 1991, “Use of CFD in the Design of a Modern Multistage Aero Engine LP Turbine Design,” Report No. C423/056.
Ulizar, I., and González, P., 2001, “Aerodynamic Design for a New Five Stage Low Pressure Turbine for the Rolls-Royce Trent 500 Turbofan,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-440.
González, P., Lantero, M., and Olabarria, V., 2006, “Low Pressure Turbine Design for Rolls-Royce Trent 900 Turbofan,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-90997 [CrossRef].
Vázquez, R., Iturregui, J. J., Arsuaga, M., and Armañanzas, L., 2003, “A New Transonic Test Turbine Facility,” Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines (ISABE), Cleveland, OH, August 31-September 5.
Vázquez, R., and Sánchez, J. M., 2003, “Temperature Measurement System for Low Pressure Ratio Turbine Testing,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38685. [CrossRef]
Vázquez, R., Quintana, P., and Partida, F., 2006, “Miniaturised 5-Hole Fast Response Probes for Annular Cascade Testing on Transonic Conditions,” Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Turbomachinery Transonic and Supersonic Flow in Cascades and Turbomachines, Thessaloniki, Greece, September 21–22.
ANSI/ASME, 2006, “Test Uncertainty,” ASME Standard No. PTC-19.1-2005.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Predicted streamlines and negative velocity contours at pressure side of NGVs of rig-E

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Predicted streamlines and negative velocity contours at pressure side of NGV2 of rig-D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Predicted contours of isentropic velocity around the leading edge for profile A (left) and profile B (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Predicted streamlines profile A (left) and profile B (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometry comparison of two thin solid airfoils with different design style

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Predicted streamlines at midspan section of NGV2 of rig-D (left) and rig-E (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Efficiency versus specific work at nominal shaft speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Radial distribution of efficiency at design conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Delta efficiency with design conditions versus Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Measured and predicted Cp distributions for 25% (a), 50% (b), and 75% (c) span locations of NGV3 at design conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Measured and predicted midspan Cp distributions of NGV2 (a) and NGV3 (b) at design conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured and predicted midspan Cp distributions of NGV2 (a) and NGV3 (b) at nominal shaft speed and 70% specific work

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Measured and predicted midspan Cp distributions of NGV2 (a) and NGV3 (b) at nominal shaft speed and 40% specific work

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Efficiency versus specific work at 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% of the nominal shaft speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Measured midspan Cp distributions of NGV3 at 60% shaft speed and 40% (a) and 70% (b) specific work

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Delta efficiency with purge flow injection

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