Research Papers

Loss Mechanisms of Interplatform Steps in a 1.5-Stage Axial Flow Turbine

[+] Author and Article Information
Robert Kluxen

Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery,
RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen 52062, Germany
e-mail: robert.kluxen@mtu.de

Stephan Behre

Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery,
RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen 52062, Germany
e-mail: behre@ist.rwth-aachen.de

Peter Jeschke

Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery,
RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen 52062, Germany
e-mail: jeschke@ist.rwth-aachen.de

Yavuz Guendogdu

MTU Aero Engines,
Dachauer Strasse 665,
Munich 80955, Germany
e-mail: yavuz.guendogdu@mtu.de

1Present address: MTU Aero Engines, Munich 80995, Germany.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 6, 2016; final manuscript received September 22, 2016; published online November 16, 2016. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(3), 031007 (Nov 16, 2016) (14 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1226; doi: 10.1115/1.4034848 History: Received September 06, 2016; Revised September 22, 2016

In this paper, the detailed steady and unsteady numerical investigations of a 1.5-stage axial flow turbine are conducted to determine the specific influence of interplatform steps in the first stator—as caused by deviations in manufacturing or assembly. A basic first stator design and a design consisting of a bow and endwall contours are compared. Apart from step height, the position and geometry of the interplatform border are varied for the basic design. To create the steps, every third stator vane was elevated, together with its platforms at hub and shroud, such that the flow capacity is only little affected. The results show that the effects of steps on the platform borders in front and aft of the first stator can be decoupled from those occurring on the interplatform steps. For the latter, being the main contributor to the additional loss, the intensity of recirculation zones and losses increase substantially when the platform border is located close to the suction side. Using a relative step height of 1.82% span, the entropy production doubles when compared to a position close to the pressure side, which can be explained by differences in local flow velocity level. Regarding a circular-arc-shaped platform, the losses can be more than halved—mainly due to lower included angles between step and endwall flow streamlines. The findings can be explained by a nondimensional relation of the local entropy production using local values for step height and characteristic flow quantities. Furthermore, a reduction in step height leads to an attenuation of the otherwise linear relationship between step height and entropy production, which is mainly due to lower local ratio of step height and boundary layer thickness. In the case of laminar or transitional flow regions on the endwall, typical for turbine rigs with low inlet turbulence and low-pressure turbines under cruise conditions, the steps lead to immediate local flow transition and thus substantially different results.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Sieverding, C. H. , 1985, “ Recent Progress in the Understanding of Basic Aspects of Secondary Flows in Turbine Blade Passages,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107(2), pp. 248–257. [CrossRef]
Langston, L. S. , 2001, “ Secondary Flows in Axial Turbines—A Review,” Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 934, pp. 11–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grewe, R. P. , Miller, R. J. , and Hodson, H. P. , 2014, “ The Effect of Endwall Manufacturing Variations on Turbine Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25326.
Colban, W. F. , Thole, K. A. , and Zess, G. , 2002, “ Combustor Turbine Interface Studies—Part 1: Endwall Effectiveness Measurements,” ASME Paper No. GT2002-30526.
Colban, W. F. , Lethander, A. T. , Thole, K. A. , and Zess, G. , 2003, “ Combustor Turbine Interface Studies—Part 2: Flow and Thermal Field Measurements,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125(2), pp. 203–209. [CrossRef]
Chyu, M. K. , Hsing, Y. C. , and Bunker, R. S. , 1998, “ Measurements of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Gap Leakage Around a Misaligned Component Interface,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-132.
Zhang, L. , and Moon, H. K. , 2004, “ Turbine Nozzle Endwall Inlet Film Cooling: The Effect of a Back-Facing Step and Velocity Ratio,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2004-59117.
Cardwell, N. D. , Sundaram, N. , and Thole, K. A. , 2006, “ Effect of Midpassage Gap, Endwall Misalignment, and Roughness on Endwall Film-Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(1), pp. 62–70. [CrossRef]
Cardwell, N. D. , Sundaram, N. , and Thole, K. A. , 2007, “ The Effects of Varying the Combustor-Turbine Gap,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129(4), pp. 756–764. [CrossRef]
Hada, S. , and Thole, K. A. , 2011, “ Computational Study of a Midpassage Gap and Upstream Slot on Vane Endwall Film-Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(1), p. 011024. [CrossRef]
Ranson, W. W. , Thole, K. A. , and Cunha, F. J. , 2005, “ Adiabatic Effectiveness Measurements and Predictions of Leakage Flows Along a Blade Endwall,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(3), pp. 609–618. [CrossRef]
Piggush, J. D. , and Simon, T. W. , 2005, “ Flow Measurements in a First Stage Nozzle Cascade Having Endwall Contouring, Leakage and Assembly Features,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68340.
de la Rosa Blanco, E. , Hodson, H. P. , and Vazquez, R. , 2005, “ Effects of Upstream Platform Geometry on the Endwall Flows of a Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68938.
Kluxen, R. , Terstegen, M. , Behre, S. , Jeschke, P. , and Guendogdu, Y. , 2014, “ Effects of Platform Misalignment in a 3D Designed 1.5 Stage Axial Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-26378.
Harrison, S. , 1989, “ Secondary Loss Generation in a Linear Cascade of High-Turning Turbine Blades,” ASME Paper No. 89-GT-47.
Vera, M. , de la Rosa Blanco, E. , Hodson, H. P. , and Vazquez, R. , 2009, “ Endwall Boundary Layer Development in an Engine Representative Four-Stage Low Pressure Turbine Rig,” ASME J. Turbomach., 131(1), p. 011017. [CrossRef]
Poehler, T. , Niewoehner, J. , Jeschke, P. , and Guendogdu, Y. , 2015, “ Investigation of Nonaxisymmetric Endwall Contouring and Three-Dimensional Airfoil Design in a 1.5-Stage Axial Turbine—Part I: Design and Novel Numerical Analysis Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 137(8), p. 081009. [CrossRef]
Niewoehner, J. , Poehler, T. , Jeschke, P. , and Guendogdu, Y. , 2015, “ Investigation of Nonaxisymmetric Endwall Contouring and Three-Dimensional Airfoil Design in a 1.5 Stage Axial Turbine—Part II: Experimental Validation,” ASME J. Turbomach., 137(8), p. 081010. [CrossRef]
Herwig, H. , and Kock, F. , 2007, “ Direct and Indirect Methods of Calculating Entropy Generation Rates in Turbulent Convective Heat Transfer Problems,” Heat Mass Transfer, 43(3), pp. 207–215. [CrossRef]
Röber, T. , Kozulovic, D. , Kügeler, E. , and Nürnberger, D. , 2006, “ Appropriate Turbulence Modelling for Turbomachinery Flows Using a Two-Equation Turbulence Model,” New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics V, Springer, Berlin, pp. 446–454.
Nürnberger, D. , and Greza, H. , 2002, “ Numerical Investigation of Unsteady Transitional Flows in Turbomachinery Components Based on a RANS Approach,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 69(3), pp. 331–353. [CrossRef]
Kügeler, E. , Weber, A. , and Lisiewicz, S. , 2001, “ Combination of a Transition Model With a Two-Equation Turbulence Model and Comparison With Experimental Results,” 4th European Turbomachinery Conference, Florence, Italy, Mar. 20–23, Paper No. ATI-CST-076/01.
Restemeier, M. , Jeschke, P. , Guendogdu, Y. , and Gier, J. , 2013, “ Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Variable Blade Row Spacing in a Subsonic Axial Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(2), p. 021031. [CrossRef]
Langtry, R. B. , and Menter, F. R. , 2009, “ Correlation-Based Transition Modeling for Unstructured Parallelized Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes,” AIAA J., 47(12), pp. 2894–2906. [CrossRef]
Herbst, F. , Kožulović, D. , and Seume, J. R. , 2013, “ Transition Modeling for Vortex Generating Jets on Low-Pressure Turbine Profiles,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(1), p. 011038. [CrossRef]
Mayle, R. E. , 1991, “ The 1991 IGTI Scholar Lecture: The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Gas Turbine Engines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 113(4), pp. 509–537. [CrossRef]
Eaton, J. K. , and Johnston, J. P. , 1981, “ A Review of Research on Subsonic Turbulent Flow Reattachment,” AIAA J., 19(9), pp. 1093–1100. [CrossRef]
Denton, J. D. , 1993, “ Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]
Schlichting, H. , and Gersten, K. , 2006, Grenzschichttheorie, Überarbeitete Auflage, Vol. 10, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Selby, G. V. , 1982, “ Phenomenological Study of Subsonic Turbulent Flow Over a Swept Rearward-Facing Step,” Ph.D. thesis, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Hao, J. , 2014, “ Aeroacoustics of Small Gaps and Steps in Low-Mach-Number Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Platform geometry and modifications: (a) basic geometry and parameters and (b) modifications

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Basic and fully three-dimensional blading: (a) BSCV1 and BSCB1; (b) F3DV1 and EWCB1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Step configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

First vane numerical grid: (a) blade-to-blade view, hub and (b) grid detail F3D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

V1 BSC endwall flow: (a) hub, hrel = 1.82%, (b) hub,−1.82%, and (c) shroud, 1.82%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

First vane hub vorticity structures, BSC: (a) flat passage (view from vane C to A), (b) suction side passage (view from vane A to B), and (c) pressure side passage (view from vane B to C)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Entropy rise in V1 with step height: (a) integral loss, mass flow-averaged and (b) radial distribution, BSC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Entropy differences at interplatform and back steps with respect to the flat endwall flow: (a) axial distribution of entropy difference and (b) integral loss

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Local entropy production at the steps, BSC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

V1 BSC hub surface flow, hrel = 1.82% (elevation): (a) EPRa transitional, (b) EPRa turbulent, and (c) intermittency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Flow field (left) and entropy production (right) for 2D forward-facing step flows with varying h/δ: (a) h/δ = 5.88, (b) h/δ = 5.88, (c) h/δ, and (d) h/δ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Flow field (left) and entropy production (right) for 2D backward-facing step flows with varying h/δ: (a) h/δ = 8.16, (b) h/δ = 8.16, (c) h/δ, and (d) h/δ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Projection of hub entropy production rate for varying step heights: (a) hrel = 0.91%, (b) hrel = 1.82%, and (c) hrel = 3.64%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Loss coefficients for two-dimensional step flows with varying h/δ: (a) log–log and (b) linear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Prediction of entropy production along the interplatform steps using dimensional analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Axial distribution of 1D entropy production rate and characteristic flow quantities for the local step flow: (a) entropy production rate, (b) velocity, (c) included angle, and (d) height ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Projection of hub entropy production rate for varying platform geometry at hrel = 1.82%: (a) Δθ = 0 deg, (b) Δθ = −0.5 deg, (c) Δθ = 1.5 deg, and (d) CircArc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Axial distribution of 1D entropy production rate and characteristic flow quantities for the local step flow: (a) entropy production rate, (b) velocity, (c) included angle, and (d) height ratio




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