Research Papers

Blade–Row Interactions in a Low Pressure Turbine at Design and Strong Off-Design Operation

[+] Author and Article Information
Martin Lipfert

Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems,
Stuttgart University,
Pfaffenwaldring 6,
Stuttgart D-70569, Germany
e-mail: lipfert@ila.uni-stuttgart.de

Jan Habermann, Martin G. Rose, Stephan Staudacher

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

Yavuz Guendogdu

MTU Aero Engines,
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 June 30, 2014; final manuscript received July 10, 2014; published online August 26, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(11), 111002 (Aug 26, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1102; doi: 10.1115/1.4028213 History: Received June 30, 2014; Revised July 10, 2014

In a joint project between the Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems (ILA) and MTU Aero Engines, a two-stage low pressure turbine is tested at design and strong off-design conditions. The experimental data taken in the Altitude Test Facility (ATF) aims to study the effect of positive and negative incidence of the second stator vane. A detailed insight and understanding of the blade row interactions at these regimes is sought. Steady and time-resolved pressure measurements on the airfoil as well as inlet and outlet hot-film traverses at identical Reynolds number are performed for the midspan streamline. The results are compared with unsteady multistage computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions. Simulations agree well with the experimental data and allow detailed insights in the time-resolved flow-field. Airfoil pressure field responses are found to increase with positive incidence whereas at negative incidence the magnitude remains unchanged. Different pressure to suction side (SS) phasing is observed for the studied regimes. The assessment of unsteady blade forces reveals that changes in unsteady lift are minor compared to changes in axial force components. These increase with increasing positive incidence. The wake-interactions are predominating the blade responses in all regimes. For the positive incidence conditions, vane 1 passage vortex fluid is involved in the midspan passage interaction, leading to a more distorted three-dimensional (3D) flow field.

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


Lipfert, M., Marx, M., Rose, M. G., Staudacher, S., Mahle, I., Freygang, U., and Brettschneider, M., 2013, “An LP Turbine at Extreme Off-Design Operation,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(3), p. 031018. [CrossRef]
Moustapha, S. H., Kacker, S. C., and Tremblay, B., 1990, “An Improved Incidence Losses Prediction Method for Turbine Airfoils,” ASME J. Turbomach., 112(2), pp. 267–276. [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]
Broszat, D., and Korte, D., 2011, “Validation of an Integrated Acoustic Absorber in a Turbine Exit Guide Vane,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-2915. [CrossRef]
Kachel, C. E., and Denton, J. D., 2006, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Unsteady Surface Pressure in a Three-Stage Model of an Axial High Pressure Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(2), pp. 261–272. [CrossRef]
Kemp, N. H., and Sears, W. R., 1955, “The Unsteady Forces Due to Viscous Wakes in Turbomachines,” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 7(22), pp. 478–483. [CrossRef]
Grollius, H.-W., 1981, “Experimentelle Untersuchung von Rotor-Nachlaufdellen und deren Auswirkungen auf die dynamische Belastung axialer Verdichter- und Turbinengitter,” Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Hodson, H., 1985, “Measurements of Wake-Generated Unsteadiness in the Rotor Passages of Axial Flow Turbines,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power, 107(2), pp. 467–476. [CrossRef]
Dénos, R., Arts, T., Paniagua, G., Michelassi, V., and Martelli, F., 2001, “Investigation of the Unsteady Rotor Aerodynamics in a Transonic Turbine Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(1), pp. 81–89. [CrossRef]
Miller, R. J., Moss, R. W., Ainsworth, R. W., and Harvey, N. W., 2003, “Wake, Shock, and Potential Field Interactions in a 1.5 Stage Turbine—Part II: Vane–Vane Interaction and Discussion of Results,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125(1), pp. 33–47. [CrossRef]
Stieger, R. D., Hollis, D., and Hodson, H. P., 2004, “Unsteady Surface Pressures Due to Wake-Induced Transition in a Laminar Separation Bubble on a Low-Pressure Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(4), pp. 544–553. [CrossRef]
Buffum, D., 1993, “Blade Row Interaction Effects on Flutter and Forced Response,” NASA Technical Memorandum, Vol. 106438, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.
Kazin, S., 1975, “Turbine Noise Generation, Reduction and Prediction,” AIAA Paper No. 75-449. [CrossRef]
Marx, M., Lipfert, M., Rose, M. G., Staudacher, S., and Korte, D., 2013, “Unsteady Work Processes Within a Low Pressure Turbine Vane Passage,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-94234. [CrossRef]
Schinko, N., Kürner, M., Staudacher, S., Rose, M. G., Gier, J., Raab, I., and Lippl, F., 2009, “Das ATRD-Projekt—Ein Beispiel für die Zusammenarbeit von Industrie und Universität zur Förderung der Grundlagenforschung,” DGLRK 2009, DGLR, Aachen, Germany, Paper No. DLR-2009-1156.
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. [CrossRef]
Kürner, 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]
Gostelow, J., 1977, “A New Approach to the Experimental Study of Turbomachinery Flow Phenomena,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 99(1), pp. 97–105. [CrossRef]
JCGM, 2008, “Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement,” Joint Committe for Guides in Metrology, Sèvres, France.
Eulitz, F., Engel, K., Nuernberger, D., Schmitt, S., and Yamamoto, K., 1998, “On Recent Advances of a Parallel Time-Accurate Navier Stokes Solver for Unsteady Turbomachinery Flow,” 4th European Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference (ECOMAS), Athens, Sept. 7–11.
Franke, M., Kuegeler, E., and Nuernberger, D., 2005, “Das DLR-Verfahren TRACE: Moderne Simulationstechniken für Turbomaschinenströmungen,” DGLR Congress 2005, Bonn, Paper No. DGLR-2005-211.
König, S., 2006, “Untersuchung des Einflusses überlagerter Stator- und Rotornachl¨aufe auf den Clocking-Effekt an einer 1.5-stufigen axialen Gasturbine,” Ph.D. thesis, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Menter, F. R., Kuntz, M., and Langtry, R., 2003, “Ten Years of Industrial Experience With the SST Turbulence Model,” Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th ed., K. Hanjalic, Y. Nagano, and M. Tummers, eds., Begell House Inc., West Redding, CT, pp. 625–632.
Malan, P., Suluksna, K., and Juntasaro, E., 2009, “Calibrating the Re–θ Transition Model,” ERCOFTAC Bull., 80(1), pp. 52–57. [CrossRef]
Weber, A., 2008, “3D Structured Grids for Multistage Axial Turbomachines and Linear Cascades,” DLR, Braunschweig, Germany, Paper No. DLR IB-325-07-08.
Yang, H., Nuernberger, D., Nicke, E., and Weber, A., 2003, “Numerical Investigation of Casing Treatment Mechanisms With a Conservative Mixed-Cell Approach,” ASME Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, June 16–19, ASME Paper No. GT2003-38483. [CrossRef]
Yang, H., Nuernberger, D., and Weber, A., 2002, “A Conservative Zonal Approach With Applications to Unsteady Turbomachinery Flows,” DGLR Congress 2005, Stuttgart, Germany, Paper No. DGLR-2002-073.
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]
Biester, M. H.-O., Henke, M., Gündogdu, Y., Engel, K., and Seume, J., 2012, “Unsteady Wake–Blade Interaction: A Correlation Between Surface Pressure Fluctuations and Loss Generation,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68906. [CrossRef]
Mailach, R., and Vogeler, K., 2004, “Rotor–Stator Interactions in a Four-Stage Low-Speed Axial Compressor—Part I: Unsteady Profile Pressures and the Effect of Clocking,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(4), pp. 507–518. [CrossRef]
Durali, M., and Kerrebrock, J. L., 1998, “Stator Performance and Unsteady Loading in Transonic Compressor Stages,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120(2), pp. 224–232. [CrossRef]
Lefcort, M., 1965, “An Investigation Into Unsteady Blade Forces in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 87(4), pp. 345–354. [CrossRef]
Hodson, H. P., and Addison, J. S., 1989, “Wake–Boundary Layer Interactions in an Axial Flow Turbine Rotor at Off-Design Conditions,” ASME J. Turbomach., 111(2), pp. 181–192. [CrossRef]
Schneider, C. M., Schrack, D., Rose, M. G., Staudacher, S., Guendogdu, Y., and Freygang, U., 2013, “On the Unsteady Formation of Secondary Flow Within a Rotating Turbine Blade Passage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(6), p. 061004. [CrossRef]
Horlock, J., 1979, Unsteady Flow in Turbomachines, von Karman Institute, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium.
Naumann, H., and Yeh, H., 1973, “Lift and Pressure Fluctuations of a Cambered Airfoil Under Periodic Gusts and Applications in Turbomachinery,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 95(1), pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Meridional view of the ATRD-rig annulus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

NGV2 midspan—incidence definition and Kulite-positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

NGV2 midspan—lift distribution; lines indicate CFD-results; symbols mark the measured data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

NGV2 Inlet—variation of incidence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental results of unsteady lift coefficient distribution on NGV2 midspan streamline for all operating points. (a) Off-design i = +18 deg, (b) ADP, and (c) off-design i = −18 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Numerically predicted results of unsteady lift coefficient distribution on NGV2 midspan streamline for all operating points. (a) Off-design i = +18 deg, (b) ADP, and (c) off-design i = −18 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Range of NGV2 lift coefficient cp; lines indicate CFD-results; (solid line) average; (dashed–dotted) minimum; (dashed line) maximum. (a) Off-design i = +18 deg, (b) ADP, and (c) off-design i = −18 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

NGV2 passage characteristics at positive incidence operation i = +18 deg; lines indicate wake fluid. (a) t/τR1=0.5, (b) t/τR1=0.75, and (c) t/τR1=0.85.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

NGV2 outlet—variation of axial Mach number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

NGV2 outlet—variation of turning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

NGV2 midspan—unsteady lift

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

NGV2 midspan—unsteady axial thrust




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