0
Research Papers

Influence of Prehistory and Leading Edge Contouring on Aero Performance of a Three-Dimensional Nozzle Guide Vane

[+] Author and Article Information
Ranjan Saha

Heat and Power Technology,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm SE-100 44, Sweden
e-mail: ranjan.saha@energy.kth.se

Boris I. Mamaev

Energy Oil & Gas Design Department,
Siemens LLC,
B. Tatarskaya Street, 9,
Moscow 115184, Russia

Torsten H. Fransson

Heat and Power Technology,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm SE-100 44, Sweden

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 4, 2013; final manuscript received November 8, 2013; published online January 2, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(7), 071014 (Jan 02, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1250; doi: 10.1115/1.4026076 History: Received November 04, 2013; Revised November 08, 2013

Experiments are conducted to investigate the effect of the prehistory in the aerodynamic performance of a three-dimensional nozzle guide vane with a hub leading edge contouring. The performance is determined with two pneumatic probes (five hole and three hole) concentrating mainly on the end wall. The investigated vane is a geometrically similar gas turbine vane for the first stage with a reference exit Mach number of 0.9. Results are compared for the baseline and filleted cases for a wide range of operating exit Mach numbers from 0.5 to 0.9. The presented data includes loading distributions, loss distributions, fields of exit flow angles, velocity vector, and vorticity contour, as well as mass-averaged loss coefficients. The results show an insignificant influence of the leading edge fillet on the performance of the vane. However, the prehistory (inlet condition) affects significantly in the secondary loss. Additionally, an oil visualization technique yields information about the streamlines on the solid vane surface, which allows identifying the locations of secondary flow vortices, stagnation line, and saddle point.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of wind tunnel arrangement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Upper image shows “fence” and lower images shows “pb turbulence grid”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic design and geometrical parameters of the studied fillet; (a) side view: (1) vane, (2) leading edge, and (3) endwall, and (b) top view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

ASC with LE fillet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Axial-section view of ASC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Energy loss coefficient contour for the baseline case using the fence at reference operating point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Midspan total pressure distribution at different Mach numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Energy loss coefficient contour for the filleted case using the pb grid at reference operating point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Energy loss coefficient contour for the filleted case using the fence at reference operating point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Profile Miso distribution at 25% span for the baseline and filleted case using the fence at different operating points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Profile Miso distribution at different spans for reference Mach number for baseline and filleted case using fence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Profile Miso distribution at 25% span for the pb grid and the fence case at baseline configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Upstream turbulence intensity (Tu)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Upstream total pressure measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Pitch-averaged exit flow angle distribution at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Pitch-averaged exit flow angle distribution at different operating points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Vorticity and flow vector distribution for the filleted case using the fence at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Vorticity and flow vector distribution for the baseline case using the fence at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Vorticity and flow vector distribution for the filleted case using the pb grid at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Vorticity and flow vector distribution for the filleted case using the pb grid at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.7)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Vorticity and flow vector distribution for the filleted case using the pb grid at reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Mass-averaged kinetic energy loss distribution for different cases at the reference exit Mach number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Mass-averaged kinetic energy loss distribution at different operating points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

(a) Initial oil spreading on LE, SS, and PS end walls of NGV0, (b) flow visualization during operation, (c) view from upstream after operation for the baseline case, and (d) view from upstream after operation for the filleted case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Velocity streamlines for (a) baseline and (b) filleted case at hub and blade view (left) and blade-to-blade cut (hub) view (right)

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