0
Research Papers

A Robust Mixing Plane and Its Application in Three-Dimensional Inverse Design of Transonic Turbine Stages

[+] Author and Article Information
Saurya Ranjan Ray

Senior CFD Developer
Advanced Design Technology,
Dilke House, 1 Malet Street,
London WC1E 7JN, UK
e-mail: saurya_ray@yahoo.co.uk

Mehrdad Zangeneh

Professor of Thermofluids
University College of London,
London WC1E 7JN, UK
e-mail: m.zangeneh@adtechnology.co.uk

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 5, 2014; final manuscript received July 9, 2014; published online September 4, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 137(1), 011004 (Sep 04, 2014) (16 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1113; doi: 10.1115/1.4028216 History: Received July 05, 2014; Revised July 09, 2014

A robust mixing plane method satisfying interface flux conservation, nonreflectivity and retaining interface flow variation; valid at all Mach numbers and applicable for any machine configuration is formulated and implemented in a vertex based finite volume solver for flow analysis and inverse design. The formulation is based on superposing perturbed flow variables derived from the three-dimensional (3D) characteristics obtained along the flow direction on the exchanged mixed out averaged quantities. The method is extended for low speed applications using low Mach number preconditioning. Subsequently, inverse design runs over a single stage transonic low pressure (LP) turbine configuration conducted at a fixed mass flow boundary condition and spanwise loading condition similar to the baseline generates optimized configurations providing performance improvement while achieving prespecified target meridional load distribution.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Giles, M., 1988, “Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions for the Euler Equations,” MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, MA, Paper No. CFDL-TR-88-1.
Denton, J., and Singh, U., 1979, Time Marching Methods for Turbomachinery Flow Calculation, von Karman Institute, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium.
Holmes, D. G., 2008, “Mixing Plane Revisited: A Steady State Mixing Plane Approach Designed to Combine High Levels of Conservation and Robustness,” ASME Turbo Expo, Berlin, Germany, June 9–13, ASME Paper No. GT2008-51296. [CrossRef]
Hanimann, L., Mangani, L., Casartelli, E., Mokulys, T., and Mauri, S., 2013, “Development of a Novel Mixing Plane Interface Using a Fully Implicit Averaging for Stage Analysis,” ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, TX, June 3–7, ASME Paper No. GT2013-94390. [CrossRef]
Moraga, F., Vysohild, M., Smelova, N., Mistry, H., Atheya, S., and Kanakala, V., 2012, “A Flux-Conservation Mixing Plane Algorithm for Multiphase Non-Equilibrium Steam Models,” ASME Turbo Expo, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 11–15, ASME Paper No. GT2012-68660. [CrossRef]
Saxer, A., and Giles, M., 1991, “Quasi-Three-Dimensional Nonreflecting Boundary Conditions for Euler Equations Calculations,” J. Propul. Power, 9(2), pp. 263–271. [CrossRef]
Anker, J., Schrader, B., Seybold, U., Mayer, J., and Casey, M., 2006, “A Three-Dimensional Non-Reflecting Boundary Condition Treatment for Steady-State Flow Simulations,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-1275. [CrossRef]
Páscoa, J. C., Xisto, C. M., and Göttlich, E., 2010, “Performance Assessment Limits in Transonic 3D Turbine Stage Blade Rows Using a Mixing-Plane Approach,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 24(10), pp. 2035–2042. [CrossRef]
Tiow, W. T., and Zangeneh, M., 2002, “A Novel 3D Inverse Method for the Design of Turbomachinery Blades in Rotational Viscous Flow: Theory and Applications,” Task Q., 6(1), pp. 63–78.
Tiow, W. T., and Zangeneh, M., 2002, “Application of a Three Dimensional Viscous Transonic Inverse Method to NASA Rotor 67,” J. Power Energy, 216(A3), pp. 243–255. [CrossRef]
TURBOdesign Suite, 2013, TURBOdesign2, Version 5.2.1, Advanced Design Technology Ltd, London.
Demeulenaere, A., and Van den Braembussche, R., 1996, “Three-Dimensional Inverse Method for Turbomachinery Blading Design,” ASME 41th International Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibit, Birmingham, UK, June 10–13, ASME Paper No. 96-GT-39. [CrossRef]
Rooij, M., and Medd, A., 2012, “Reformulation of a Three-Dimensional Inverse Design Method for Application in a High-Fidelity CFD Environment,” ASME Turbo Expo, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 11–15, ASME Paper No. GT2012-69891. [CrossRef]
Arbabi, A., and Ghaly, W., 2013, “Inverse Design of Turbine and Compressor Stages Using a Commercial CFD Program,” ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, TX, June 3–7, ASME Paper No. GT2013-96017. [CrossRef]
Page, J. H., Hield, P., and Tucker, P. G., 2013, “Inverse Design of 3D Multi-Stage Transonic Fans at Dual Operating Points,” ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, TX, June 3–7, ASME Paper No. GT2013-95062. [CrossRef]
Weiss, J., and Smith, W., 1995, “Preconditioning Applied to Variable and Constant Density Flows,” AIAA J., 33(11), pp. 2050–2057. [CrossRef]
Darmofal, D., and Siu, K., 1999, “A Robust Multigrid Algorithm for the Euler Equations With Local Preconditioning and Semi-Coarsening,” J. Comput. Phys., 151(2), pp. 728–756. [CrossRef]
Hall, M. G., 1985, “Cell-Vertex Multigrid Schemes for Solution of the Euler Equations,” Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, K. W.Morton, and M. J.Baines, eds., Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Tiow, W. T., 2000, “Inverse Design of Turbomachinery Blades in Rotational Flow,” PhD thesis, University College, University of London, London.
Denton, J., 1986, “The Use of a Distributed Body Force to Simulate Viscous Effects in 3D Flow Calculations,” ASME 31st International Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibit, Düsseldorf, Germany, June 8–12, ASME Paper No. 86-GT-144. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, E., 1981, “Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge–Kutta Time Stepping Schemes,” AIAA Paper No. 81-1259. [CrossRef]
Swanson, R. C., Radespiel, R., and Turkel, E., 1998, “On Some Numerical Dissipation Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., 147(2), pp. 518–544. [CrossRef]
Chima, R. V., 1998, “Calculation of Multistage Turbomachinery Using Steady Characteristic Boundary Conditions,” AIAA Paper No. 98-0968. [CrossRef]
TURBOdesign Suite 2013, Turbodesign CFD 5.2.0, Advanced Design Technology, London.
ANSYS, 2011, ANSYS CFX 14.0, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Diagrammatic representation of the modification to the flow variables at the exit boundary

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of the numerical data exchange at the interface in mixing plane modeling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Block structured sheared mesh with local grid clustering in the stator and rotor domains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the absolute Mach number at the interface on a nonmatching grid interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Relative Mach number variation at the interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the interface flux

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure contours in blade-to-blade plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of TD2 and ansys CFX solutions at the interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Mach number contours in rotor and diffuser domains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Spanwise variation of Mach number and cumulative mass flow rate across the interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Variation of absolute Mach number at the interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the performance characteristic of the single stage LP turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Surface distribution of the inviscid Mach number and meridional loading at different span heights on the stator vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Surface distribution of the inviscid Mach number and meridional loading at different span heights on the rotor blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Expansion ratio and stage reaction at different span heights of the baseline configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Variation of relative Mach number in the passage near the nozzle hub and rotor tip sections showing shock structures (the range is set from 0.6 to 1.25)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison between the baseline, target, and achieved loading in stator vane at 10% and 70% span heights

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison between the baseline, target, and achieved loading in stator vane at different span heights

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of the performance characteristics of the baseline and redesigned configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Normalized spanwise variation of angular momentum of the flow at the stage interface and stage reaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Performance comparison of the baseline and redesigned configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of spanwise variation in nozzle and blade efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Inviscid Mach number variation on the baseline and optimized blade suction surfaces showing reduced shock strength near tip flow of the redesigned rotor blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Inviscid Mach number variation on the baseline and optimized nozzle suction surfaces showing reduced shock strength near hub flow of the redesigned stator vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Comparison of the mass averaged aerodynamic loss based on entropy

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