0
Research Papers

Aerodynamic Interactions Between a High-Pressure Turbine and the First Low-Pressure Stator

[+] Author and Article Information
Pierre Gougeon

Safran Group—Snecma,
Laboratoire de Mécanique des Fluides
et d'Acoustique—UMR CNRS 5509,
École Centrale de Lyon, Université de Lyon and INSA Lyon,
36 Avenue Guy de Collongue,
Ecully, Cedex 69134, France
e-mail: Pierre.Gougeon@ec-lyon.fr

Ghislaine Ngo Boum

Laboratoire de Mécanique des Fluides
et d'Acoustique—UMR CNRS 5509,
École Centrale de Lyon,
Université de Lyon and INSA Lyon,
36 Avenue Guy de Collongue,
Ecully, Cedex 69134, France
e-mail: Ghislaine.Ngo-Boum@ec-lyon.fr

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 28, 2013; final manuscript received October 3, 2013; published online January 2, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(7), 071010 (Jan 02, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1202; doi: 10.1115/1.4025955 History: Received August 28, 2013; Revised October 03, 2013

The accurate prediction of turbines performance and flow fields requires the assessment of unsteady numerical simulations. This paper presents a numerical study on the interaction between a single-stage high-pressure turbine and the first vane row of a low-pressure turbine. It focuses on the simulation of the flow within the interturbine duct and the loss generated in the downstream low-pressure vane. Former experiments provided steady and unsteady measurements in the interturbine duct and after the low-pressure vane. A 3D unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) approach with phase-lagged boundary conditions is used to characterize the unsteady periodic effects in the interturbine channel and downstream in the low-pressure vane. For the numerical study, two different configurations are considered: a single-stage high-pressure turbine configuration and a high-pressure rotor coupled with a low-pressure vane. For the second one, two inlet boundary conditions are implemented upstream of the rotor: a circumferentially uniform boundary condition and a circumferentially nonuniform rotating boundary condition. The resulting flow fields are compared within the intermediate duct. A harmonic Fourier analysis is carried out to underline the effects of the high-pressure rotor. An unsteady Adamczyk decomposition of the flow field within the duct gives the influence of the different components and the levels of unsteadiness. Comparisons with experimental data show a reasonable good agreement.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cross-sectional schematic view of the experimental facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Blade-to-blade overview of the one and a half stage HPT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Total pressure evolution on the two meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mass flow rate convergence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the different turbulence models on entropy rise

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Blade-to-blade extraction at midspan for the HPT simulation A

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Blade-to-blade extraction at midspan for the interturbine simulation B

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Helicity in plane 1: comparison between HPT simulation A (left) and interturbine simulation B (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison between HPT simulation A results and experimental results in plane 1 for total pressure, total temperature, and yaw angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison between experimental, steady and unsteady results (simulations A, B, and C) in plane 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Frequency distribution for a probe taken at midspan in plane 1 for two azimuthal positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Adamczyk analysis on static pressure in plane 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Adamczyk analysis on velocity in plane 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between rms of Adamczyk components for Ps (top) and V (bottom) in the interturbine duct

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between rms of Adamczyk components for Ps and V at the HPV-HPR interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison to experimental data of steady and unsteady results on plane 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of steady and unsteady results on the two configurations with respect to experiment on plane 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Loss generated in the LPV

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