0
Research Papers

FLOvane: A New Approach for High-Pressure Vane Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Dingxi Wang

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd.,
Waterside South,
Lincoln LN5 7FD, UK
e-mail: dingxi_wang@nwpu.edu.cn

Francesco Ornano

Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford,
Parks Road,
Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

Yan Sheng Li

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd., Waterside South,
Lincoln LN5 7FD, UK

Roger Wells

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd.,
Waterside South,
Lincoln LN5 7FD, UK

Christer Hjalmarsson, Lars Hedlund

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB,
Finspong SE-612 83, Sweden

Thomas Povey

Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford,
Parks Road,
Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK
e-mail: thomas.povey@eng.ox.ac.uk

1Present address: School of Power and Energy, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, China.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 25, 2016; final manuscript received October 25, 2016; published online February 1, 2017. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(6), 061002 (Feb 01, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1171; doi: 10.1115/1.4035232 History: Received July 25, 2016; Revised October 25, 2016

This paper presents a new unconventional philosophy for high-pressure (HP) vane design. It is proposed that the most natural design starting point for admitting and accelerating flow with minimum loss and secondary flow is a trumpet-shaped flow-path which gradually turns to the desired angle. Multiple trumpet-shaped inlets are seamlessly blended into the (annular or partitioned) combustor walls resulting in a highly lofted flow-path, rather than a traditional flow-path defined by distinct airfoil and endwall surfaces. We call this trumped-shaped inlet the fully lofted oval vane (FLOvane). The purpose of this paper is to describe the FLOvane concept and to present back-to-back CFD analyses of two current industrial gas turbines with conventional and FLOvane-modified designs. The resulting designs diverge significantly from conventional designs in terms of both process and final geometric form. Computational fluid dynamic predictions for the FLOvane-modified designs show improved aerodynamic performance characteristics, reduced heat load, improved cooling performance, improved thermal–mechanical life, and improved stage/engine efficiency. The mechanisms for improved performance include reduction of secondary flows, reduced mixing of coolant flow with the mainstream flow, reduced skin friction, and improved coolant distribution. In the two current industrial gas turbine engines, the absolute (percentage point) improvement in stage isentropic efficiency when the FLOvane design was included was estimated at 0.33% points and 0.40% points without cooling flow reduction, and 1.5% points in one case and much more is expected for the other case when cooling flow reductions were accounted for.

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

References

Povey, T. , 2010, “ Vane Assembly for an Axial Flow Turbine,” Patent No. US2013195641.
Horlock, J. H. , Watson, D. T. , and Jones, T. V. , 2001, “ Limitations on Gas Turbine Performance Imposed by Large Turbine Cooling Flows,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123(3), pp. 487–494. [CrossRef]
Reed, R. C. , 2006, The Superalloys Fundamentals and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Haller, B. , 1997, “ Full 3D Turbine Blade Design,” Secondary and Tip Clearance Flows in Axial Turbines, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Belgium.
Thole, K. , 2006, “ Airfoil Endwall Heat Transfer,” The Gas Turbine Handbook, National Energy Technical Laboratory, Morgantown, WV, pp. 353–361.
Yan, J. , 1999, “ The Effect of Endwall Profiling on Secondary Flow in Nozzle Guide Vanes,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Ingram, G. L. , 2003, “ Endwall Profiling for the Reduction of Secondary Flow in Turbines,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Bagshaw, D. A. , 2009, “ Passage Shaping in Axial Flow Turbines,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Rosic, B. , and Xu, L. , 2011, “ Blade Lean and Shroud Leakage Flows in Low Aspect Ratio Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(3), p. 03100.
Pullan, G. , and Harvey, N. , 2006, “ The Influence of Sweep on Axial Flow Turbine Aerodynamics at Midspan,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129(3), pp. 591–598. [CrossRef]
Pullan, G. , and Harvey, N. , 2008, “ The Influence of Sweep on Axial Flow Turbine Aerodynamics in the Endwall Region,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(4), p. 041011. [CrossRef]
Saha, R. , 2012, “ Aerodynamic Investigation of a High Pressure Turbine Vane With Leading Edge Contouring at Endwall in a Transonic Annular Sector Cascade,” Ph.D. thesis, Royal Institute of Sweden, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
Simon, T. , and Piggush, J. , 2006, “ Turbine Endwall Aerodynamics and Heat Transfer,” J. Propul. Power, 22(2), pp. 301–312. [CrossRef]
Harisson, S. , 1992, “ The Influence of Blade Lean on Turbine Losses,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114(1), pp. 184–190. [CrossRef]
Zess, G. , and Thole, K. , 2002, “ Computational Design and Experimental Evaluation of Using a Leading Edge Fillet on a Gas Turbine Vane,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(2), pp. 167–175. [CrossRef]
Shih, T. I.-P. , and Lin, Y.-L. , 2004, “ Controlling Secondary Flow Structure by Leading-Edge Airfoil Fillet and Inlet Swirl to Reduce Aerodynamic Loss and Surface Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125(1), pp. 48–56. [CrossRef]
Lethander, A. T. , Thole, K. A. , Zess, G. , and Wagner, J. , 2003, “ Vane-Endwall Junction Optimization to Reduce Turbine Vane Passage Adiabatic Wall Temperatures,” J. Propul. Power, 20(6), pp. 1096–1104. [CrossRef]
Han, S. , and Goldstein, J. , 2005, “ Influence of Blade Leading Edge Geometry on Turbine Endwall Heat (Mass) Transfer,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(4), pp. 798–813. [CrossRef]
Mahmood, G. I. , and Acharya, S. , 2006, “ Experimental Investigation of Secondary Flow Structure in a Blade Passage With and Without Leading Edge Fillets,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 129(3), pp. 253–262. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2013, “ ANSYS CFX Introduction, Release 15.0©,” SAS IP, Canonsburg, PA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Axial cross sections as output from FLOvane design software, showing characteristic trumpet-shaped inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Spanwise cross sections as output from FLOvane design software, showing departure from conventional aerodynamic design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of typical cross section through the leading edge of a (a) conventional HP vane and (b) FLOvane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

FLOvane showing characteristic saddle-shaped leading edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

FLOvane showing characteristic trumpet-shaped inlet the internal cooling system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Meridional view through the axis and the LE center of a conventional HP vane and FLOvane and (b) comparison of axial distribution of axially projected passage area for a typical conventional HP vane and FLOvane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of conventional HP vane from the GT1 test case: (top) original and (bottom) FLOvane counterpart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Computational grid generated for the vane domain (top) and mesh details on TE and casing cooling slots (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of conventional HP vane from the GT2 test case: (top) original and (bottom) FLOvane counterpart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Inlet total pressure and total temperature boundary conditions for the GT1 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Inlet total pressure and total temperature boundary conditions for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Radial profiles of total pressure: comparison between original and FLOvane designs (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Radial profiles of nondimensional total temperature: comparison between original and FLOvane designs (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Radial profiles of nondimensional absolute flow angle: comparison between original and FLOvane designs (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Static pressure distributions on vane surface: comparison between original and FLOvane design (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Static pressure distributions on rotor blade surface: comparison between original and FLOvane design (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

(a) GT1 aerodynamic loading coefficient comparison and (b) GT1 nondimensional total pressure comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of flow streamlines on wetted surfaces between the original vane (top) and the FLOvane (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Nondimensional adiabatic wall temperature comparison (GT1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of the spanwise distribution of (a) area-averaged adiabatic wall temperature, (b) wall heat flux, and (c) heat load between the original vane surface and the FLOvane surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Comparison of the streamwise distribution of wall heat flux between the original vane and the FLOvane for the GT1 case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Total-to-static isentropic efficiency of the FLOvane stage as a function of percentage of the nominal TE cooling flow for the GT1 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Radial profiles of total pressure: comparison between original and FLOvane designs for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Radial profiles of nondimensional total temperature: comparison between original and FLOvane designs for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Radial profiles of nondimensional whirl angle: comparison between original and FLOvane designs for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Static pressure streamwise distributions on the vane surfaces: comparison between original and FLOvane designs for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Static pressure streamwise distribution on the rotor blade surface for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

(a) Aerodynamic loading coefficient comparison and (b) nondimensional total pressure comparison for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Comparison of flow streamlines on wetted surfaces for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Nondimensional adiabatic wall temperature comparison for the GT2 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Comparison of heat transfer for GT2 and FLOvane-modified GT2: (a) area-averaged adiabatic wall temperature, (b) wall heat flux, and (c) heat load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Comparison of streamwise wall heat flux distribution between the original vane and the FLOvane for the GT2 test case

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