Research Papers

On the Prediction and Theory of the Temperature Increase of Low Pressure Last Stage Moving Blades During Low Volume Flow Conditions, and Limiting it Through Steam Extraction Methods

[+] Author and Article Information
Adam Beevers

Alstom Power (Switzerland),
Baden 5400, Switzerland
e-mail: adam.beevers@power.alstom.com

Said Havakechian, Benjamin Megerle

Alstom Power (Switzerland),
Baden 5400, Switzerland

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received October 16, 2014; final manuscript received March 17, 2015; published online May 12, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 137(10), 101002 (May 12, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1271; doi: 10.1115/1.4030258 History: Received October 16, 2014

During extreme low volume flow conditions, the last stages of a low pressure steam turbine operate in ventilation conditions that can cause a significant temperature increase of critical regions of the last stage moving blade (LSB). Under some conditions, the blade temperature may rise above a safe operating temperature, requiring the machine to be shut down. Limiting the heating effect on the LSB increases the allowable operating range of the low pressure turbine. One common method is to spray water droplets into the low pressure exhaust. As the length of LSBs continues to increase, this method reaches its limit of practical operating effectiveness due to the amount of water required and its impact on the erosion of the LSB. An investigation into complimentary solutions to limit the temperature increase was conducted using CFD. An appropriate CFD setup was chosen from a sensitivity study on the effects from geometry, mesh density, turbulence model, and time dependency. The CFD results were verified against steam turbine data from a scaled test facility. The proposed solutions include low temperature steam extraction, targeted for critical regions of the moving blade. From the test turbine and CFD results, the drivers of the temperature increase during ventilation conditions are identified and described.

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


Troyanovskii, B. , Lagun, V. , Maiorskii, E. , Noiman, K. , and Simoyu, L. , 1970, “Designing Steam Turbine Last Stages,” Teploenergetika, 17, pp. 16–20.
Lagun, V. , Simoyu, Z. , Frumin, Y. , Povolotskii, L. , and Sukharev, F. , 1971, “Features of Operation of a Turbine Stage With Low DML Ratio Under Conditions of Low Loads,” Teploenergetika, 18, pp. 21–24.
Shnee, Y. , Ponomarev, F. , Fedorov, M. , and Bystritskii, L. , 1971, “Features of Operation of a Turbine Stage With Low DML Ratio Under Conditions of Low Loads,” Teploenergetika, 18, pp. 39–42.
Teufelberger, A. , 1980, “Ventilation von Dampfturbinen bei Schwachlast, Leerlauf und Leistungsaufnahme,” VDI Ber., 361, pp. 145–152.
Sigg, R. , Heinz, C. , Casey, M. V. , and Sürken, N. , 2009, “Numerical and Experimental Investigation of a Low-Pressure Steam Turbine During Windage,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 223(6), pp. 697–708. [CrossRef]
Gloger, M. , Neumann, K. , and Termuehlen, H. , 1986, “Design Criteria for Reliable Low-Pressure Blading,” ASME Paper No. 86-JPGC-Pwr-42.
Megerle, B. , Rice, S. , McBean, I. , and Ott, P. , 2013, “Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamic Excitation of a Model Low-Pressure Steam Turbine Stage Operating Under Low Volume Flow,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(1), p. 012602. [CrossRef]
Usachev, I. , Efimenko, E. , Il'inikh, V. , Kolyasnikov, V. , and Neuimim, V. , 1981, “Excitation of Axial Oscillations of Steam Turbine Rotors Under Operating Conditions,” Energomashinostroenie, 3, pp. 5–9.
Truckenmüller, F. , 2002, “Untersuchung zur Aerodynamisch Induzierten Schwingungsanregung von Niederdruck-Laufschaufeln bei Extremer Teillast,” Dr.-Ing., ITSM, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Gerschütz, W. , 2006, Experimentelle Untersuchung von Rotierenden Strömungsinstabilitäten im Betriebsbereich der Ventiation Einer Niederdruck-Dampfturbine, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Queune, O. , and He, L. , 2001, “Experimental Study of 3D Unsteady Flow Around Oscillating Blade With Part-Span Separation,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(3), pp. 519–525. [CrossRef]
Filippenko, V. , Frolov, B. , Chernobrovkin, A. , Zhou, B. , Mujezinovic, A. , and Slepski, J. , 2011, “Analyses of Temperature Distribution on Steam Turbone Last Stage Low Pressure Buckets at Low Flow Operations,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46858.
Traupel, W. , 1977, Thermische Turbomaschinen, Bd. 1, 3rd ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Bergmann, D. , Gloger, M. , Gartner, G. , and May, G. , 1985, “High Temperature Control in High Backpressure LP Turbines,” 47th American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, Apr. 22–24, pp. 219–229.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Circumferential position of upstream and downstream temperature measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Location of thermocouple mounted on the LSB (circled)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Temperature measurement traverse positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

LP flow structure during very low flow conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

CFD geometry for full annulus cases (3–6)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

CFD geometry for single passage cases (1 and 2), including the computational walls (shown as shaded) placed at the exhaust outlet of case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of upstream flow temperatures for cases 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of downstream flow temperatures for cases 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of vortices in the diffuser and exhaust when the swirl component of the flow is reduced

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of blade temperatures for cases 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of upstream and downstream CFD data sampling (solid) with the measurement (dashed)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Measured and computed flow temperatures upstream of LSB for case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Measured and computed flow temperatures downstream of LSB for case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

LSB blade temperatures profiles for case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

LSB circumferential and time and circumferentially averaged blade temperatures for case 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of measured and CFD blade temperatures for cases 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of measured blade temperature and CFD prediction (case 1) for a range of operating points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of the difference between measured and computed blade temperatures at the thermocouple on the pressure surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Comparison of spanwise blade temperatures for the range of CFD cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of upstream flow temperatures of all the CFD cases and measurement data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of downstream flow temperatures of all the CFD cases and measurement data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Meridional velocity vectors of flow in the upper spans of the last stage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Streamlines showing angular momentum in the upper span regions of the last stage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Circumferentially averaged angular momentum in the last stage. Last stage blading is outlined.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Blade to blade plot of turbulence kinetic energy and velocity vectors in the last stage at 95% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Predicted maximum temperatures for a range of LSBs. Length normalized by the length of the shortest LSB.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Entropy generated at the trailing edge of the last stage guide. High entropy regions (dark regions near casing) represent the stall cells present.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Comparison of spanwise difference in LSB maximum temperature between baseline and the extraction cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Streamline plots showing absolute total temperature for cases A, C, and D. Extraction positions shown in shaded boxes. (a) Baseline, (b) case A, (c) case C, and (d) case D.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Comparison of LSB LE relative flow angle and delta axial velocity for the baseline and extraction cases A and C




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