0
Research Papers

Turbine Tone Noise Prediction Using a Linearized Computational Fluid Dynamics Solver: Comparison With Measurements

[+] Author and Article Information
Adolfo Serrano González

ITP Industria de Turbo Propulsores S.A.,
Alcobendas, Madrid 28108, Spain
e-mail: adolfo.serrano@itp.es

José Ramón Fernández Aparicio

ITP Industria de Turbo Propulsores S.A.,
Alcobendas, Madrid 28108, Spainy
e-mail: joseramon.fernandez@itp.es

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 16, 2015; final manuscript received December 2, 2015; published online February 9, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(6), 061006 (Feb 09, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1264; doi: 10.1115/1.4032285 History: Received November 16, 2015; Revised December 02, 2015

The capability of a linearized computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method for predicting turbine tone noise is investigated through comparison with measurements. To start with, a benchmark problem on flat plates is presented, and results are put together with those published by other authors. Then, numerical predictions are compared with measurements from two low-pressure turbines (LPTs), which have been tested in different facilities. The first specimen is a three-stage cold flow rig, noise tested in the Centro de Tecnologías Aeronáuticas (CTA) facility (Bilbao, Spain) in 2012 and funded by the Clean Sky EU Program. The second is the advanced near-term low emissions (ANTLE) LPT rig, full-scale, cold flow, noise tested in the twin shaft test facility (TSTF) in Rolls-Royce (Derby, UK) in 2005 and funded by the SILENCE(R) EU Funded Program. The comparison includes multistage effects, clocking sensitivities, and acoustic scattering through outlet guide vanes (OGVs).

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test case 1: instantaneous axial velocity (left) and pressure (right) contours

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Flat-plate computational domain and grid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normalized Cmn amplitude for upstream waves upstream the stator (mode 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Normalized Cmn amplitude for downstream waves downstream the stator (mode 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Modal energy for 1LPT1–mode B1–2V2/3 at 95% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Modal energy for 1LPT2–mode B2–V2/3 at 95% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Modal energy for 1LPT3–mode B3–V3 at 95% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Modal energy for 1LPT1–mode B1–2V2/3 at 120% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Modal energy for 1LPT2–mode B2–V2/3 at 120% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Modal energy for 1LPT3–mode B3–V3 at 120% NSS. CFD (left) versus experiment (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Schematic view of the TSTF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Normalized unsteady pressure jump over the stator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic view of the noise instrumentation build

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured versus predicted modal energy for 1LPT1, 1LPT2, and 1LPT3 at various shaft speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Test case 3: instantaneous velocity contours at rotor inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Test case 2: instantaneous axial velocity contours of stator 2 wake at 95% NSS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Unsteady pressure module as a function of clocking between S2 (center vane) and S3 (vanes on both sides of the picture), at LPT exit. 1LPT1 tone, B1–2V2/3 mode at 95% NSS. Dashed lines represent the eight clocking positions tested.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Unsteady pressure module as a function of clocking between S2 (center vane) and S3 (vanes on both sides of the picture), at LPT exit. 1LPT1 tone, B1–2V2/3 mode at 120% NSS. Dashed lines represent the eight clocking positions tested.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Unsteady pressure module of mode B1–2V2/3 for four of the eight clocking position tested. Results at LPT outlet for 95% NSS (left) and 120% NSS (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Test case 3: instantaneous pressure contours at OGV inlet, midspan, and exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

2LPT4 tone evolution: measured versus predicted

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

2LPT4 modal content at OGV exit at approach conditions: CFD (left) and measurements (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

2LPT4 modal content at OGV exit at cutback conditions: CFD (left) and measurements (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