0
Research Papers

Computational Simulation of Deposition in a Cooled High-Pressure Turbine Stage With Hot Streaks

[+] Author and Article Information
Robin Prenter

Aerospace Research Center,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: prenter.1@osu.edu

Ali Ameri

NASA Glenn Research Center,
Cleveland, OH 44135;
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43210

Jeffrey P. Bons

Aerospace Research Center,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: bons.2@osu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received January 18, 2017; final manuscript received February 7, 2017; published online April 11, 2017. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(9), 091005 (Apr 11, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-17-1010; doi: 10.1115/1.4036008 History: Received January 18, 2017; Revised February 07, 2017

Ash particle deposition in a high-pressure turbine stage was numerically investigated using steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navie-Stokes (URANS) methods. An inlet temperature profile consisting of Gaussian nonuniformities (hot streaks) was imposed on the vanes, with vane cooling simulated using a constant vane wall temperature. The steady case utilized a mixing plane at the vane–rotor interface, while a sliding mesh was used for the unsteady case. Corrected speed and mass flow were matched to an experiment involving the same geometry, so that the flow solution could be validated against measurements. Particles ranging from 1 to 65 μm were introduced into the vane domain, and tracked using an Eulerian–Lagrangian tracking model. A novel particle rebound and deposition model was employed to determine particles' stick/bounce behavior upon impact with a surface. Predicted impact and capture distributions for different diameters were compared between the steady and unsteady methods, highlighting effects from the circumferential averaging of the mixing plane. The mixing plane simulation was found to generally under predict impact and capture efficiencies compared with the unsteady calculation, as well as under predict particle temperature upon impact with the blade surface. Quantitative impact and capture efficiency trends with the Stokes number are discussed for both the vane and blade, with companion qualitative distributions for the different Stokes regimes.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Vane inlet total temperature profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Computational domain and mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pressure traces at midspan of the vane and blade, comparing experimental data to mixing plane and unsteady predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contours of number impact efficiency (top) and number capture efficiency (bottom) on the vane for various Stokes regimes (mixing plane)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contours of number impact efficiency (top) and number capture efficiency (bottom) on the blades for various Stokes regimes (mixing plane)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Average radial impact location as a percentage of the blade span versus Stokes number, from mixing plane simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Vane number impact efficiencies versus Stokes number from the mixing plane simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Cumulative size distribution of JBPS ash, with sampled diameters indicated

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Contours of total temperature in a midspan slice from the mixing plane simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Contours of total temperature at the vane inlet, vane outlet, and rotor inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Contours of blade surface temperature from mixing plane simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Blade number impact efficiencies versus Stokes number, from the mixing plane simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Number impact efficiency for the vane and blade from the mixing plane and unsteady simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Distributions of particles at the vane outlet plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Number impact and capture efficiency contours for the blade from the unsteady simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Snapshots of particle locations at four different time steps for two different particle sizes, colored by particle velocity magnitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Number impact efficiency for the blade from the mixing plane and unsteady simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Number capture efficiency for the blade from the mixing plane and unsteady simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Blade temperatures from the unsteady simulation at different timesteps

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Average particle temperature upon impact for the steady and unsteady cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Sticking efficiency versus Stokes for the blade from the steady and unsteady simulations

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