0
Research Papers

Unsteady Aerodynamic Interaction in a Closely Coupled Turbine Consistent With Contrarotation

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael K. Ooten

Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
e-mail: michael.ooten@us.af.mil

Richard J. Anthony, Andrew T. Lethander, John P. Clark

Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 13, 2015; final manuscript received November 30, 2015; published online February 9, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Turbomach 138(6), 061004 (Feb 09, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1259; doi: 10.1115/1.4032284 History: Received November 13, 2015; Revised November 30, 2015

The focus of the study presented here was to investigate the interaction between the blade and downstream vane of a stage-and-one-half transonic turbine via computation fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis and experimental data. A Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) flow solver with the two-equation Wilcox 1998 k–ω turbulence model was used as the numerical analysis tool for comparison with all of the experiments conducted. The rigor and fidelity of both the experimental tests and numerical analysis methods were built through two- and three-dimensional steady-state comparisons, leading to three-dimensional time-accurate comparisons. This was accomplished by first testing the midspan and quarter-tip two-dimensional geometries of the blade in a linear transonic cascade. The effects of varying the incidence angle and pressure ratio on the pressure distribution were captured both numerically and experimentally. This was used during the stage-and-one-half post-test analysis to confirm that the target corrected speed and pressure ratio were achieved. Then, in a full annulus facility, the first vane itself was tested in order to characterize the flowfield exiting the vane that would be provided to the blade row during the rotating experiments. Finally, the full stage-and-one-half transonic turbine was tested in the full annulus cascade with a data resolution not seen in any studies to date. A rigorous convergence study was conducted in order to sufficiently model the flow physics of the transonic turbine. The surface pressure traces and the discrete Fourier transforms (DFT) thereof were compared to the numerical analysis. Shock trajectories were tracked through the use of two-point space–time correlation coefficients. Very good agreement was seen when comparing the numerical analysis to the experimental data. The unsteady interaction between the blade and downstream vane was well captured in the numerical analysis.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Midspan (left) and quarter-tip (right) blade packs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Midspan pressure distribution for varying incidence angles at exit Mach and Reynolds numbers of 1.30 and 1.30 × 106, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Quarter-tip pressure distribution for varying incidence angles at exit Mach and Reynolds numbers of 1.45 and 1.00 × 106, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Midspan pressure distribution for varying exit Mach numbers, at design incidence and exit Reynolds number of 1.30 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Quarter-tip pressure distribution for varying exit Mach numbers, at design incidence and exit Reynolds number of 1.00 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

First vane (left) and blade (right) schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Cooled pressure loadings of the vane-only annular cascade and comparison with numerical simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Percent power of the unsteadiness at 46E on the blade pressure (left) and suction (right) sides

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Static pressure trace (top) and DFT analysis (bottom) for geometric convergence study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Differences of the normalized DFT at 46E of the full-wheel simulation and each sector as a percentage of the maximum unsteadiness of the full-wheel simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

HIT research turbine: inlet guide vane (top left), blade wheel (top right), and downstream vane (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Blade unsteady pressure envelopes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Downstream vane unsteady pressure envelopes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Predicted time-accurate flowfield at 50% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Shock impact trajectories on the pressure side of the downstream vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Shock impact trajectories on the suction side of the downstream vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Experimental and predicted pressure traces and DFT magnitude on blade suction side, 15% span, 87.7% axial chord

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Experimental and predicted pressure traces and DFT magnitude on blade suction side, 49.5% span, 88.1% axial chord

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