Research Papers

High-Fidelity Simulations of Low-Pressure Turbines: Effect of Flow Coefficient and Reduced Frequency on Losses

[+] Author and Article Information
V. Michelassi

General Electric Global Research,
Garching bei München D-85748, Germany
e-mail: vittorio.michelassi@ge.com

L. Chen, R. Pichler, R. Sandberg

Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Research Group, Faculty of Engineering
and the Environment,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

R. Bhaskaran

General Electric Global Research,
Niskayuna 12309, NY

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received February 10, 2016; final manuscript received March 1, 2016; published online May 17, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(11), 111006 (May 17, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1041; doi: 10.1115/1.4033266 History: Received February 10, 2016; Revised March 01, 2016

Large eddy simulations validated with the aid of direct numerical simulation (DNS) are used to study the concerted action of reduced frequency and flow coefficient on the performance of the T106A low-pressure turbine profile. The simulations are carried out by using a discretization in space and time that allows minimizing the accuracy loss with respect to DNS. The reference Reynolds number is 100,000, while reduced frequency and flow coefficient cover a range wide enough to provide valid qualitative information to designers. The various configurations reveal differences in the loss generation mechanism that blends steady and unsteady boundary layer losses with unsteady wake ingestion losses. Large values of the flow coefficient can alter the pressure side unsteadiness and the consequent loss generation. Low values of the flow coefficient are associated with wake fogging and reduced unsteadiness around the blade. The reduced frequency further modulates these effects. The simulations also reveal a clear trend of losses with the wake path, discussed by conducting a loss-breakdown analysis that distinguishes boundary layer from wake distortion losses.

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


Haselbach, F. , Schiffer, H. P. , Horsman, M. , Dressen, S. , Harvey, N. , and Read, S. , 2001, “ The Application of Ultra-High Lift Blading in the BR715 LP Turbine,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0436.
Gier, J. , and Ardey, S. , 2001, “ On the Impact of Blade Count Reduction on Aerodynamic Performance and Loss Generation in a Three-Stage LP Turbine,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0197.
Coull, J. D. , Thomas, R. L. , and Hodson, H. P. , 2010, “ Velocity Distributions for Low Pressure Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(4), p. 041006. [CrossRef]
Stadtmüller, P. , 2001, “ Investigation of Wake-Induced Transition on the LP Turbine Cascade T106A-EIZ,” DFG-Verbundprojekt Fo 136/11 Version 1.1.
Michelassi, V. , Chen, L. , Pichler, R. , and Sandberg, R. D. , 2015, “ Compressible Direct Numerical Simulation of Low-Pressure Turbines: Part II—Effect of Inflow Disturbances,” ASME J. Turbomach., 137(7), p. 071005. [CrossRef]
Opoka, M. M. , Thomas, R. L. , and Hodson, H. P. , 2008, “ Boundary Layer Transition on the High Lift T106A Low-Pressure Turbine Blade With an Oscillating Downstream Pressure Field,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(2), p. 021009. [CrossRef]
Halstead, D. E. , Wisler, D. C. , Okiishi, T. H. , Walker, G. J. , Hodson, H. P. , and Shin, H.-W. , 1997, “ Boundary Layer Development in Axial Compressors and Turbines: Part 3 of 4—LP Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(2), pp. 225–237. [CrossRef]
Schulte, V. , and Hodson, H. P. , 1998, “ Unsteady Wake-Induced Boundary Layer Transition in High Lift LP Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120(1), pp. 28–35. [CrossRef]
Schobeiri, M. T. , and Ozturk, B. , 2004, “ Experimental Study of the Effect of the Periodic Unsteady Wake Flow on Boundary Layer Development, Separation, and Re-Attachment Along the Surface of a Low Pressure Turbine Blade,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53929.
Medic, G. , and Sharma, O. P. , 2012. “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Flow in a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68878.
Mahallati, A. , and Sjolander, S. A. , 2013, “ Aerodynamics of a Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers—Part II: Blade-Wake Interaction,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(1), p. 011011. [CrossRef]
Smith, L. H. , 1966, “ Wake Dispersion in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Basic Eng., 88(3), pp. 688–690. [CrossRef]
Hoffenberg, R. , and Sullivan, J. P. , 1998, “ Measurement and Simulation of Wake Deceleration,” AIAA Paper No. 98-0522.
Praisner, T. J. , Clark, J. P. , Nash, T. C. , Rice, M. J. , and Grover, E. A. , 2006, “ Performance Impacts Due to Wake Mixing in Axial-Flow Turbomachinery,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-905.
Stieger, R. D. , and Hodson, H. P. , 2004, “ The Transition Mechanism of Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(4), pp. 536–543. [CrossRef]
Michelassi, V. , Wissink, J. , and Rodi, W. , 2002, “ Analysis of DNS and LES of Flow in a Low Pressure Turbine Cascade With Incoming Wakes and Comparison With Experiments,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 69(3), pp. 295–329. [CrossRef]
Sandberg, R. D. , Pichler, R. , Chen, L. , Johnstone, R. , and Michelassi, V. , 2015, “ Compressible Direct Numerical Simulation of Low-Pressure Turbines: Part I—Methodology,” ASME J. Turbomach., 137(5), p. 051011. [CrossRef]
Nicoud, F. , and Ducros, F. , 1999, “ Subgrid-Scale Stress Modelling Based on the Square of the Velocity Gradient,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 62(3), pp. 183–200. [CrossRef]
Denton, J. D. , 1993, “ Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mass-averaged inlet and exit flow angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

DNS and LES of bar wakes (section 1, left) and turbine profile wakes (section 2, right), Cp (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Computational domain and block decomposition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Phase-lock averaged turbulent kinetic energy snapshots for the eight LES cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Minimum and maximum velocity across two sections (left column: x = −0.05 and right column x = 0.95) for eight combinations of Φ, Fred

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Minimum and maximum turbulent kinetic energy across two sections (left column: x = −0.05 and right column x = 0.95) for eight combinations of Φ, Fred

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Space–time plot of LES wall shear stress and comparison with DNS time-averaged wall shear stress, 2B1U

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Kinetic loss profiles 1.26% chord downstream of the trailing edge for the eight LES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Minimum, average, and maximum normalized pressure from phase-lock averages for 1B1U and 1B3U

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Top: LES and DNS mixed-out loss, ωM, as function of reduced frequency for different flow coefficients. Bottom: wake distortion losses, ωwake.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Top: control-volume based profile losses from Denton. Bottom: contribution from each of the three terms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Difference between mixed-out and control-volume losses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Top: definition of Lw/C and Gw/C. Bottom: Gw/C and Lw/C trends.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Mixed-out losses as a function of Lw/C and Gw/C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Top: wake distortion losses. Bottom: mixed-out to control-volume losses deviation.



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