Research Papers

Quantifying Loss Mechanisms in Turbine Tip Shroud Cavity Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Timothy R. Palmer

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 31-267,
Cambridge, MA 02139

Choon S. Tan

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 31-267,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: choon@mit.edu

Humberto Zuniga

Siemens Energy, Inc.,
4400 Alafaya Trail,
Orlando, FL 32826
e-mail: humberto.zuniga@siemens.com

David Little

Siemens Energy, Inc.,
4400 Alafaya Trail,
Orlando, FL 32826

Matthew Montgomery

Siemens Energy, Inc.,
1680 South Central Boulevard, Suite 103,
Jupiter, FL 33458-7395

Anthony Malandra

Siemens Energy, Inc.,
4400 Alafaya Trail,
Orlando, FL 32826
e-mail: anthony.malandra@siemens.com

1Corresponding author. Currently at ATA Engineering, Inc., 13290 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92128. E-mail: tpalmer@ata-e.com

2Currently at ATA America, 11360 N. Jog Road, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418. E-mail: matthew.montogery@doosan.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 4, 2015; final manuscript received December 7, 2015; published online April 12, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(9), 091006 (Apr 12, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1246; doi: 10.1115/1.4032922 History: Received November 04, 2015; Revised December 07, 2015

Numerical calculations, steady as well as unsteady, of flow in a turbine stage with a tip shroud cavity elucidate that the loss-generating flow features consist of tip seal leakage jet, the interaction of cavity exit flow with main flow, the partially recirculating cavity inlet flow interaction with vane wakes, and injection of leakage flow into the shroud cavity. The first two flow features, namely, the tip seal leakage flow and mixing of cavity exit flow with main flow, dominate while the injection of leakage flow plays an indirect role in affecting the loss generation associated with cavity exit flow. The tip shroud cavity flow essentially consists of a system of toroidal vortices, the configuration of which is set by the cavity geometry and changes when subject to unsteady vane–rotor interaction. The role which the toroidal vortices play in setting the cavity inlet recirculating flow pattern and loss generation is delineated. It is suggested that there exists a link between the inlet cavity sizing and the toroidal vortical structure. The computed results appear to indicate that the main flow path approximately perceives the presence of the tip shroud cavity as a sink–source pair; as such a flow model based on this approximation is formulated. Loss variations with tip gap height and leakage flow injection are assessed. Results show that the expected loss due to mixing has a functional dependence on the square of the difference in their velocity magnitude and swirl. The tip seal leakage jet loss scales approximately linearly with the corrected mass flow rate per unit area over the range of tip gaps investigated.

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


Denton, J. D. , 1993, “ Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]
Hunter, S. D. , and Manwaring, S. R. , 2000, “ Endwall Cavity Flow Effects on Gaspath Aerodynamics in an Axial Flow Turbine: Part I—Experimental and Numerical Investigation,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-0651.
Gier, J. , Engel, K. , Stubert, B. , and Wittmaack, R. , 2006, “ Modeling and Analysis of Main Flow–Shroud Leakage Flow Interaction in LP Turbines,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-90773.
Wallis, A. M. , Denton, J. D. , and Demargne, A. A. J. , 2001, “ The Control of Shroud Leakage Flows to Reduce Aerodynamic Losses in a Low Aspect Ratio, Shrouded Axial Flow Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(2), pp. 334–341. [CrossRef]
Rosic, B. , and Denton, J. D. , 2008, “ Control of Shroud Leakage Loss by Reducing Circumferential Mixing,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(2), p. 021010. [CrossRef]
Gao, J. , Zheng, Q. , Yue, G. , and Sun, L. , 2012, “ Control of Shroud Leakage Flows to Reduce Mixing Losses in a Shrouded Axial Turbine,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C, 226(5), pp. 1263–1277. [CrossRef]
Rosic, B. , Denton, J. D. , and Curtis, E. M. , 2007, “ The Influence of Shroud and Cavity Geometry on Turbine Performance-An Experimental and Computational Study,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27769.
Abhari, R. S. , Barmpalias, K. G. , Kalfas, A. I. , Shibukawa, N. , and Sasaki, T. , 2012, “ The Impact of Rotor Inlet Cavity Volume and Length Scale on Efficiency,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68076.
Pau, M. , Cambuli, F. , and Mandas, N. , 2008, “ Shroud Leakage Modeling of the Flow in a Two Stage Axial Test Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-51093.
Pfau, A. , Schlienger, J. , Rusch, D. , Kalfas, A. I. , and Abhari, R. S. , 2005, “ Unsteady Flow Interactions Within the Inlet Cavity of a Turbine Rotor Tip Labyrinth Seal,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(4), pp. 679–688. [CrossRef]
Barmpalias, K. G. , Kalfas, A. I. , Abhari, R. S. , Hirano, T. , Shibukawa, N. , and Sasaki, T. , 2011, “ Design Considerations for Axial Steam Turbine Rotor Inlet Cavity Volume and Length Scale,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45127.
Pfau, A. , Kalfas, A. I. , and Abhari, R. S. , 2004, “ Making Use of Labyrinth Interaction Flow,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53797.
Zlatinov, M. B. , Tan, C. S. , Montgomery, M. , Islam, T. , and Harris, M. , 2012, “ Turbine Hub and Shroud Sealing Flow Loss Mechanisms,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(6), p. 061027. [CrossRef]
Cumpsty, N. A. , and Horlock, J. H. , 2005, “ Averaging Non-Uniform Flow for a Purpose,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68081.
Greitzer, E. M. , Tan, C. S. , and Graf, M. B. , 2004, Internal Flows, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Cunningham, R. G. , 1951, “ Orifice Meters With Supercritical Compressible Flow,” Trans. ASME, 73, pp. 625–638.
Curtis, E. M. , Denton, J. D. , Longley, J. P. , and Rosic, B. , 2009, “ Controlling Tip Leakage Flow Over a Shrouded Turbine Rotor Using an Air-Curtain,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59411.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Axial variation in loss from reference steady baseline value for three basic situations. The profile with circular markers is the unsteady baseline with no cavity. The profiles with square markers represent the case with a cavity but no injected sealing flow.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Regions of high loss production identified with the volumetric entropy generation rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Computational domain and nomenclature for cavity domain regions and features. Stage features upstream stator, rotor with tip shroud and cavity, and downstream diffuser section.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of division of subdomains to localize change in loss between major cases. The stator domain includes the interface between stator and rotor (i.e., it contains the mixing plane).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Differences in efficiency debit from the baseline (no cavity) case for different injected leakage mass flow rates. Difference in efficiency debit is normalized to the total difference in loss of the no leakage case (0.4%).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Variation of loss in the tip seal leakage jet due to rapid expansion and mixing as a function of the corrected mass flow rate per unit area

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Variation of mixing loss between injected sealing flow and cavity flow as injecting sealing mass flow rate is increased

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Change in relative flow angle between injected leakage flow and the cavity flow prior to mixing in the cavity exit region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variation of the relative angle between the gas exiting the cavity and the main flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variation of mixing loss between the cavity exit and main flows as a function of the difference in swirl. Fit is a quadratic polynomial.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Schematic of the sink–source model for the generic cavity with single radial sealing fin. The black circle represents a sink; the white, a source.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Change in mass flux for the nominal tip gap with respect to the baseline case, mixing plane approximation, (b) change in mass flux for the 1.8× tip gap with respect to the baseline case, mixing plane approximation, and (c) change in mass flux for nominal tip gap with respect to the baseline case, unsteady

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Contours of differences in volumetric entropy generation rate, comparing the unsteady, time-averaged 1.8× tip gap with the nominal tip gap. The values of the contours represent the 1.8× values minus the nominal values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Percentage of mass flow which enters the cavity, circulates around the inlet toroidal vortex, and re-enters the main gas path as a function of tip gap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Contours of circumferential vorticity for the unsteady no leakage, nominal tip gap case. Vorticity is normalized to blade angular velocity. Positive vorticity is directed into the page.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contour of difference in circumferential vorticity between the 1.8× tip gap and nominal tip gap cases (1.8× minus nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Variation of recirculating mass fraction in the cavity inlet as a function of the average vorticity of the inlet toroidal vortex




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