Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea and Air

GT2010
July 14-18, 2010, Glasgow, UK

GT2010-22743

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF LEAKAGE AND POWER LOSS FOR DIFFERENT

SEAL TYPES IN TURBINE STAGE ENVIRONMENT

Rui YANG Jiandao YANG

Shanghai Power Generation Equipment CO., Shanghai Power Generation Equipment CO.,
LTD. LTD.
3rd floor, Building 6, Zizhu Info Digital Harbor,555 3rd floor, Building 6, Zizhu Info Digital Harbor,555
Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, China Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, China
yangrui@shanghai-electric.com yangjd@shanghai-electric.com

Mingxu QI Liqun SHI Zeying PENG

Institute of Mechanical and
Vehicle Engineering, School of
Beijing Institute of Technology
NO.5, South Street,
Zhongguancun, Haidian District,
Beijing, China
qimx@bit.edu.cn
Shanghai Power Generation
Equipment CO., LTD.
3rd floor, Building 6, Zizhu Info
Digital Harbor,555
Dongchuan Road, Shanghai,
China
shilq@shanghai-electric.com
Shanghai Power Generation
Equipment CO., LTD.
3rd floor, Building 6, Zizhu Info
Digital Harbor,555
Dongchuan Road, Shanghai,
China
pengzy@shanghai-electric.com

ABSTRACT seals and honeycomb seals researched, results show that

In this study, a turbine stage together with diaphragm seals
and shroud seals were chosen for numerical investigation. As
the baseline design, labyrinth seals’ leakage and blade stage
efficiency were analyzed firstly. The results illustrates that as a
custom seal, although simplicity, reliableness, and easy
replacement make labyrinth seals widely used in steam and gas
turbine, but additional power loss caused by excessive leakage
flow affects the efficiency of turbine. In order to enhance the
efficiency of the turbine stage by leakage reduction, the
labyrinth seals at diaphragm and shroud were replaced by brush
seals and honeycomb seals respectively. Porous medium
method was used to simulate the flow in bristle pack of brush
seals, and the pressure drop in bristle was explored by Darcy
law. Pressure distribution and flow field details of honeycomb
seals were also researched by CFD method. Radial clearance
has a direct influence on leakage, so the clearance effect was
analyzed in this paper. Lastly, for the stage together with brush
comparing to custom labyrinth seals, the reduction leakage was
approximate 30% and the improvement of stage efficiency was
0.6%.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with the increasing demands of energy
conservation, the efficiency of the turbomachinery is improved
by new design method and new material technology. The cycle
efficiency could be enhanced by increasing cycle initial
pressure and temperature [1-3]. However, restriction by the
investigation cycle of the material technology, new material
development and research often need a long time period, then
improve new structure to replace custom element could
improve the performance rapidly and effective.
There are many factors influence the efficiency of the
turbine. One of them is the leakage flow between the rotating
and stationary components [4]. Usually, sealing gland is used to
keep a relevance clearance to reduction the leakage flow by its

1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 thermodynamic characters. As a custom sealing, labyrinth seal H hp Length of heading plate of brush seal
use most widely in steam turbine and gas turbine for its simple,
low cost characters [6]. However, limit to the hard material, H fh Fence height of brush seal
comparing to honeycomb seals and brush seals, labyrinth seals’ P Pressure
clearance are larger and therefore have higher leakage rates.
With the development of sealing technology and impulse V Magnitude velocity
by the demands of low fuel cost, honeycomb seal and brush K Permeability of bristle pack
seal were designed and used in turbomachinary in recent years. ε Porosity of bristle pack
Comparing to labyrinth seal, honeycomb seal could reduce the
leakage rate by clearance reduction for the honeycomb soft v xyz
Absolute velocity vectors
material character. Additional, the strong turbulent flow in wxyz
honeycomb also was validated the reason of leakage rate Relative velocity vectors
reduction by weakening the flow over the circumferential η *
u
Isentropic efficiency
direction.
Brush seals consist of a dense pack of bristles sandwiched ACRONYMS
between a heading plate and a backing plate. The bristles are DS Diaphragm seal
oriented to the shaft at a lay angle (generally 45 to 55degrees) SS Shroud seal
that points in the direction of rotation. A primary attribute of
the brush seal is its ability to accommodate transient shaft CALCULATION DESCRIPTION
excursions and return to small running clearances, unlike Fig. 1 shows the three-dimensional view of the calculation
labyrinth seals that wear to the full radial excursion opening turbine stage which consists of 102 pieces of stator blades and
large leakage paths [4-6]. 80 pieces of rotor blades. The turbine stage together with
During a long time, experiment analysis is the major labyrinth seals at diaphragm and shroud is presented in fig. 2.
method for sealing leakage investment measure for its direct,
reliable characters. However, experiment often needs long time
and spends much money. With the development of
computational fluid dynamics, more and more research
institutes choose numerical simulation as the sealing leakage
investigation measure. Comparing to experiment, numerical
simulation could shorten the products design period, thus
making the products more competitive.
In this paper, the leakage flow of the seals in one blade
stage was analyzed by numerical simulation. Considering the
boundary condition of the sealing flow has strong relationship
with the blade mainstream flow, such as the inlet pre-swirl
flow, the blade stage which connects with sealing element was
also chosen as computational domain. Moreover, comparing to
calculate seal flow alone, the seal flow coupled mainstream
flow investigation was more similar with real physical Fig. 1.Three-dimensional view of the calculation turbine stage
phenomena.
The leakage rates of labyrinth seal, honeycomb seal and
brush seal used in diaphragm seal were analyzed respectively.
And the stage efficiency was also compared for estimating the
performance of different sealing types.
NOMENCLATURE
Δhu*
Actual enthalpy drop
Δh *
s Ideal enthalpy drop
*
h0 Inlet stagnation enthalpy
*
h2 outlet stagnation enthalpy（actual process） Fig. 2.Three-dimensional view of turbo stage together with
*
h 2s outlet stagnation enthalpy（isentropic process）
labyrinth seals (at diaphragm and shroud)
Labyrinth seal

2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Perhaps the single most common flow path seal used over
turbine machine history is the labyrinth seal. The labyrinth seal
consists of multiple knife edges run in close clearance to the
rotor (0.25-0.5mm.), depending on location. Labyrinth seal
pressures in current engines can be as high as 2.7 MPa
depending on location. Seal temperatures are generally 1300
°F or less. Labyrinth seals are used for surface speeds up to
450 m/s. Labyrinth seals are clearance seals and therefore have
high leakage rates. Labyrinth seals are used as shaft seals and
as inner flow seals, sealing the rotor-stator clearance inter-stage
locations [4].
In this study, as the baseline design seal type, the labyrinth
seal is make up of two long teeth (9.6mm length) and two short
teeth(4.8mm length ). Steam flows in the inlet from the radial
direction, then flows through the radial clearance (0.75mm)
between the teeth and shaft.
Fig. 2-fig. 4 show the labyrinth seal two-dimensional flow
path and the teeth geometry details:
Outlet
Inlet
Diaphragm
Fig. 3.Two-dimensional labyrinth seal in diaphragm flow path
Outlet
Shroud
Inlet
Fig. 4.Two-dimensional labyrinth seal in shroud flow path
Fig. 5.Labyrinth seal teeth geometry dimension
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Honeycomb seal
The honeycomb seal, whose inner bore consists of many
hexagonal, was originally introduced in the 1960’s as a
replacement for aluminum labyrinth seals, which were being
eroded by processing fluids [2]. In recent years, there exist
many publications on the flow fields in the honeycomb seals
using CFD simulation and experimental investigation [7, 8-13,
16, 17]. Schramm et al. [7] obtained CFD results from a
commercial code showing the leakage flow entering the
honeycomb cells. They also found agreement with LDV
measurements regarding the presence of a three-dimensional
velocity field near the tooth tips. Li et al. [9, 10] utilized the
commercial CFD software FLUENT to investigate the flow
fields in the straight-through honeycomb seal and the stepped
labyrinth seal. Choi and Rhode [11] introduced a new approach
for employing a two-dimensional CFD model to approximately
compute a three-dimensional flow field in a honeycomb
labyrinth seal. A numerical study for worn and unworn
labyrinth seals with honeycomb land at different radial
clearances using the commercially CFD code CFX was
presented [12].
In this study, the flow field of honeycomb seals in shroud
flow path by replacing the labyrinth seals was investigated by
numerical simulation.
Fig. 6 shows the three dimensional view of the improved
honeycomb seals in shroud flow path. The length of a
hexagonal side is 2.8mm, and the height of the honeycomb is
9.8mm. Three radial clearance lengths (0.75mm, 0.5mm, and
0.25mm) are selected for simulation.
Fig. 6 Three- dimensional honeycomb seal in shroud flow
path
Brush seal
A brush seal is a circular seal used for fluid sealing in
rotating machinery especially in gas turbines between rotating
and stationary parts. It is made of three main components;
bristle pack, heading plate and backing plate (Fig. 7). It is easy
to divide the free bristle pack domain into two parts: upper
region and fence height [21]. The upper region is the free
bristle between inter diameter of heading plate and backing
plate, and fence height is the radial height between bristle tips
and backing plate inner diameter (Fig. 7).
3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Fig. 7 Brush seal geometry and boundary conditions.
The advantages of using brush seals in turbine engines
were reported by Ferguson (1988). Compared with a
conventional finned labyrinth seal, the brush seal offers a
dramatic improvement (by five to ten times) in sealing. The
compliance of the bristles also allows this improvement to be
maintained when there are differential movements between
shaft and seal casing, e.g., during engine transients [22].
In this paper, to decrease the leakage rate in the diaphragm
flow path, a bristle pack was put into custom labyrinth seals by
replacing a long tooth (Fig. 8).
Bristle pack
Fig. 8 Three-dimension of brush seal
NUMERICAL APPROACH
All configurations of the baseline labyrinth seals and
improved honeycomb seals and brush seals were analyzed by
CFD to predict leakage rate at different seal clearance and
structure parameters. The flow field details were also discussed
to obtain pressure distribution and sealing effects of seals.
Mesh Generation
All blades and seals structure meshes were generated in
AUTOGRID5 and IGG of commercial software NUMECA.
Considering the axi-symmetric, only one periodic blade and
seal mesh was generated. Total mesh size for blades was
approximately 1 million nodes. Approximately 10000 nodes
were specified with in one honeycomb and 14000 nodes in
bristle pack domain. All blades together with honeycomb seals
in shroud flow path and brush seals in diaphragm flow path
mesh sizes were approximately 4 million. The y+ values near
the solid were below 15. For accelerating the computation
convergence, multi-grid technology was used in all calculation
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
mesh. A grid refinement study was also done for all types seal
configurations.
Boundary Conditions
All three dimensional computation domains of blade stage
and seals were analyzed using the finite volume CFD code
(NUMECA). Total pressure and temperature were specified at
the blade path inlet. Average static pressure was specified at the
blade stage outlet. Rotationally periodic conditions were used
at the symmetry faces. In design-cycle, requiring quick
turbulence calculation, one equation turbulence model Spalart-
Allmaras model available in NUMECA was used in all the
simulation. Adiabatic and non-slip wall boundary condition
was set for all solid boundaries.
Convergence Information
In this paper, all computations’ convergence criteria were
set as the global residual dropped under 10-6. And the mass
flow error between the inlet and outlet was minimum value to
insure the calculation convergence (0.0009% in Fig. 9).
(a) Mass flow
(b) Efficiency
Fig.9 Computational convergence information
Porous Medium Model
The bristle pack in a brush seal forms a porous medium. To
estimate leakage and pressure load of brush seals, three
categories flow models are developed, cross flow analysis
through voids among bristles, BULK flow models, and porous
medium models. The porous medium approach is basically
solving the Navier-Stokes equation with the additional flow
resistances due to friction between flow and bristles. For the
highly resistive porous media, this equation is simplified by
neglecting the inertial and viscous terms, which yields a
balance equation between pressure gradient and flow resistance
terms. This approach has been successfully applied for brush
seals [23-26]. Dogu’s analysis results [22，24] prove that the
4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 brush seal is well represented as a porous medium. Based on 1.3
the porous medium model, characteristic flow and pressure 1.2
fields in the entire bristle pack have been explored. 1.1
Three porous media model are available in NUMECA code 1

Leakage Rate(kg/s)
[24], namely the Darcy law, the Ergun law and an Integral law. 0.9
0.8
In this paper, Darcy law is implemented to simulate the
0.7
flow in the bristle pack [25]. In the Darcy law, the pressure
0.6
drop is given by the following relation: 0.5
dp μ
− =
0.4
ui (1) 0.3
dxi K i 0.2

Where μ and u represent the viscosity and velocity 0.1

0
respectively, K is the permeability of bristle pack，which is blade stage+DS blade stage+SS
Calculation Domain
given by the Carman-Kozeny relation:

ε 3d 2 Fig. 10 Leakage rate of labyrinth seals in diaphragm (DS) and

K= (2) shroud (SS)
(1 − ε )180
Where, ε and d are the porosity and the mean
0.95
0.9475
diameter of the inclusion, respectively. 0.945

Efficiency
0.9425
Where the mean diameter of the inclusion d is given by 0.94
the following formula: 0.9375
d = 6/ A (3) 0.935
0.9325
Where, A is the ratio of the Volume of an inclusion to its 0.93
surface. For a spherical inclusion, the mean diameter is the blade stage blade stage+DS blade stage+SS blade

diameter of the sphere. The porosity ε is defined as the

stage+DS+SS
Calculation Domain
volume ratio of void to the total volume.
Fig 11 Efficiency of blade stage and blade stage with labyrinth
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS seals
Blade Stage and Labyrinth Seal Leakage flow Flow field
Leakage and efficiency Fig. 12 and fig. 13 show the static pressure distribution in
labyrinth seals. By the labyrinth teeth’ throttling effect, the
*
ηu represents the isentropic efficiency of the turbo stage, pressure drops along the sealing cavities shaped by the teeth
and shaft. From pressure drop curves of the seals at diaphragm
equals the ratio of actual enthalpy drop to ideal enthalpy drop:
and shroud, they illustrate the pressure drops four times in the
Δh* h* − h*
η u* = u* = *0 *2 (4) flow path, so the number of the teeth is the pressure drop times.
Δhs h0 − h2 s
Where, the enthalpy of the working steam was checked in
the water steam table (IAPWS95).
As the baseline design, the blade stage efficiency and
leakage of labyrinth seal were computed firstly. The leakage
rate in labyrinth seals is 2.1kg/s, which is about 0.83% of the
main steam flow (254.35kg/s).
Fig. 10 illustrates the leakage rates of labyrinth seals in
diaphragm and shroud, the amount of leakage in labyrinth seals
at shroud is 47.13% larger than in diaphragm. Fig. 11 shows
isentropic efficiency of the stage without any seals is 94.55%, X
while blade stage with labyrinth seals isentropic efficiency is
93.46%; hence the efficiency loss caused by leakage flow in Fig. 12 Pressure distribution in labyrinth seals (diaphragm)
this stage is 1.09%.

5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 0.9
0.8

Leakage rate(kg/s)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
labyrith seals brush seals
Seal types

Fig. 16 Leakage comparison between labyrinth seals and

Fig. 13 Pressure distribution in labyrinth seals (shroud)
Fig 14 shows the flow lines at axial cutting plane of
labyrinth seals. In sealing flow path, caused by strong turbulent
effect, many large eddies filled the flow area, so the actual flow
area is smaller. This flow phenomenon is helpful to reduce
leakage flow.
The velocity vectors between the long tooth and short
tooth in labyrinth seals are shown in fig.15. Because of the
fluid viscosity and step blocking effect, stream presents many
vortexes, the kinetic energy of stream changes to heat energy in
the sealing cavities.
brush seals
Clearance effect
A primary attribute of the brush seal is its ability to
accommodate transient shaft excursions and return to small
running clearances, unlike labyrinth seals that wear to the full
radial excursion opening large leakage paths. Brush seals are
designed initially with a small radial interference (≤0.1mm) to
accommodate seal-to-shaft centerline manufacture variations
[18].
In this study, five clearances of brush seals are chosen for
simulation (Fig. 17 and fig. 18). The leakage rate decreases
with the radial clearance reduction, so the stage efficiency
increases, and the relationship is more likely a linear trend.
0.55
0.5
Leakage rates (kg/s)

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Clearance(mm)

Fig. 17 Leakage comparison between labyrinth seals and

(a) Diaphragm (b) Shroud
brush seals
Fig. 14 Flow lines in labyrinth seals
0.944
0.94375
0.9435
0.94325
Efficiency

0.943
0.94275
0.9425
0.94225
0.942
0.94175
0.9415
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Clearance(mm)

Fig. 18 Efficiency comparison between labyrinth seals and

Fig. 15 Velocity vectors in labyrinth seals
Brush seals’ leakage flow
Fig. 16 compares leakage rate of brush seals to labyrinth
seals. It is clear that the brush seals leakage is less than the
labyrinths seals by clearance decreases to 0.25mm, and the
reduction mass leakage flow is up to 36.1%.
brush seals
Plate height effect
The free bristle pack between the heading plate and shaft
clearance could be divided to two parts: the upper region and
fence height. The upper region is subject to more stiffening due
to backing plate support while fence height region is free to
spread and bend in the axial direction. It is found that flow

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 resistance for upper region should be 20% higher than fence
height region in order to match the experimental pressure
within the bristle pack [8].
In this paper, three fence heights (fig. 19) are defined to
simulate the leakage rate of the brush seal at the same
clearance. The results illustrate the fence height has a close
relation ship with leakage. With the fence height increases from Upstream
1.4mm to 2.2mm, the leakage of bristle pack also increases
rapidly.
0.15 X
0.14
Leakage rate(kg/s)

0.13
0.12
0.11 Fig. 21 Radial pressure distribution in bristle pack
0.1 For brush seals, the interior domain of bristle pack’ flow
0.09
0.08 condition is not the major problem concerned. However, the
0.07 flow field which close to the heading plate and backing plate is
0.06
0.05 usually chosen for analyzing sealing effect. The flow lines in
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 these domains are presented in fig. 22. Stream flows into fence
Fence height(mm) height domain by the axial and radial pressure impulse, and
Fig. 19 Leakage rate of brush seals in different fence height pressure drop mainly occurs in fence height, pressure in upper
Flow Field region of bristle pack almost equals to the upstream pressure.
The axial pressure distribution in bristle pack is presented Comparing to the fence height, the axial velocity in the upper
in fig. 20. The different color lines represent the axial pressure region is lower. Under the backing plate, steam accelerates
distribution from the upstream side to the downstream side at because the flow area decreases. After flowing through the
different radial height. The results are reasonable similar with backing plate, the stream expands to a larger vortex in the
the Dogu’s [23] investigation. Pressure changes little in the cavity near the backing plate. This vortex could decrease the
upper region of bristle pack, and the downstream pressure equivalent flow area which helpful to leakage rate reduction.
almost equals to the upstream, pressure mainly loads on the
backing plate. In the fence height, the inertial momentum of
flow hitting to bristles face diffuses into the bristle pack
without any accumulation, unlike the upper region. Thus, axial
pressure drops mainly in the fence height, and this high
pressure drop may cause the bristle “blow-down” during
operation. Fig. 21 illustrates pressure distribution in radial
direction. In fence height region, the radial pressure is almost
uniform, then, rapidly reaches the upstream pressure close to
backing plate tip.

Fig. 22 Flow lines in brush seals

Honeycomb Seals’ Leakage Flow
Leakage and efficiency
The leakage comparison between improved honeycomb
seals and custom labyrinth seals is presented in Fig. 23. Lack of
the labyrinth seals’ step blocking effect, strong stream straight
Upstream flow exists in the clearance between the honeycomb band and
rotating shaft. So in the same radial clearance (0.75mm), the
leakage in honeycomb seals is larger than labyrinth seals.
Z However, the honeycomb seals’ leakage decreases as the racial
clearance reduction. The CFD results predict the reduction in
Fig. 20 Axial pressure distribution in bristle pack seal leakage is up to 30%, 70% at radial clearance 0.5mm and
0.25mm respectively. Fig. 24 shows the leakage rate and stage
efficiency in the honeycomb seal at different radial clearance.

7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1.6
1.4
Leakage rate(kg/s)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
labyrith seal honeycomb seal honeycomb seal honeycomb seal
0.75 0.75 0.5 0.25

Fig. 23 Comparison leakage rate between labyrinth seals and

honeycomb seals Fig. 25 Three-dimension view of honeycomb seals cutting
1.55 plane
1.35
Leakage rates(kg/s)

1.15

0.95

0.75

0.55

0.35
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Clearance(mm)

(a) Leakage
0.944

0.943
Fig. 26 Two-dimension Flow lines in honeycomb seals
Fig. 27 illustrates static pressure distribution from the inlet
Efficiency

0.942 of the honeycomb to the outlet of the honeycomb. As expected,

0.941
the pressure drops along the arranged honeycomb. In the
clearance, the steam pressure also drops along the honeycombs
0.94 one by one.
0.939
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Clearance(mm)

(b) Efficiency
Fig.24 Honeycomb seals’ leakage and stage efficiency
Flow field
Fig. 25 and fig. 26 show pressure distribution and flow
lines at honeycomb seals’ axial cutting plane. Steam flows into
the honeycombs, with the high turbulent effect, many vortexes
are formed. The each honeycomb is more like the teeth of the
labyrinth seals. However, every honeycomb is separated from
other honeycombs by the solid wall, which will slow down
flow velocity in circle direction, and thus reduce the leakage Fig. 27 Static pressure in the honeycomb seal
flow. (clearance=0.5mm)
In order to research the flow field in the honeycomb, one
honeycomb in the honeycomb band is chosen for analyzing
(fig. 28). Fig. 29 demonstrates the velocity vectors in the axial
cutting plane. A larger eddy occupies the full area of the
cutting plane. At the bottom of the honeycomb where close to
the clearance, the magnitude of velocity is up to 50m/s,
whereas at the center of the eddy, the magnitude of flow speed
is below 10m/s.
Fig. 30 shows the relative velocity vectors at different
radial height of honeycomb. At 10% radial height, the flow

8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 direction is along axial direction (Z), and the magnitude of
some velocity vectors is up to 50 m/s. At 20% height, the flow
direction is still along Z, but the magnitude of velocity all
decrease below 30m/s. At 30%-50% height, the flow separates
and some velocity vectors flow direction reverses, this is
because the axial pressure gradient increases and the
magnitude of velocity reduces larger. It is more obviously at
the 70% and 90% height, almost all velocity vector flow along
reverse Z direction, and the magnitude is most below 20m/s.
Fig. 28 The honeycomb which chosen for velocity vector
analysis
Fig. 29 Velocity vectors in axial cutting plane
(10%) (20%)
(30%) (50%)
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
(70%) (90%)
Fig. 30 Velocity vectors at different radial height（10%-90%）
CONCLUSION
The leakage in the custom labyrinth seals has been
analyzed in a turbine stage environment by numerical
investigation. As the baseline design, calculated values show
that the leakage in labyrinth seals accounted for 0.83% of the
main stream flow and the efficiency loss caused by leakage
flow is 1.09%. In order to improve the stage efficiency by
leakage reduction, brush seals and honeycomb seals have
been researched by replacing labyrinth seals at diaphragm and
shroud respectively. As for brush seals, porous medium model
have been used to simulate the flow and pressure drop in
bristle pack. The results show that in brush seals the pressure
drop mainly occurs in fence height of bristle, by contrast, in
the upper region of bristle the pressure almost equal to the up
stream’s pressure. It has been verified leakage flow decreased
with the fence height reduction. In honeycomb seals, pressure
drops along the arranged honeycombs row by row. One
honeycomb in the honeycomb band has been chosen for flow
field analysis. Results show that in the axial cutting plane a
large eddy has been shaped which almost filled all space of
honeycomb. Velocity vectors at six radial heights illustrated
the flow condition and the eddy shaped process in
honeycomb. Radial clearance effect on brush seals and
honeycomb seals’ leakage has been discussed in this study
too. The clearance’s influence on leakage is obvious and the
slope-change trend is more like linear variation.
At last, CFD results predicted that through replacing
labyrinth seals by brush seals and honeycomb seals at
diaphragm and shroud respectively, the reduction leakage in
this turbine stage was approximate 30% and the improvement
of stage efficiency was 0.6%.
In this study, the research method has been validated by
many publications. And the results are reasonable reliability,
they can aid in designing low leakage seals to enhance the flow
efficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Shanghai Power
Generation Equipment CO., LTD. for supporting this
investigation. Special thank goes to Mr. QI (from Beijing
Institute of Technology) for his contribution in this work..
REFERENCES
[1] Stoff, H., Incompressible Flow in a Labyrinth Seal,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1980, 100: 817-829.
9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 [2] Stocker H. L., Cox, D. M., Holle, G. F., Aerodynamic
Performance of Conventional and Advanced Design
Labyrinth seals with Solid-Smooth, Abradable and
Honeycomb Lands, NASA CR-135307, 1977.
[3] Bruce M. S., and Robert C. H, Engine Seal Technology
Requirements to Meet NASA’s Advanced Subsonic
Technology Program Goals, NASA Technical
Memorandum 106582, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 1994
[4] Gul K. A., Margaret P.P., JTAGG Brush Seal Test Results,
NASA Technical Memorandum 107228, Seattle,
Washington, USA, 1997
[5] Bruce M. S., Shawn T., Seal Investigation of an Active
Clearance Control System Concept, NASA/TM-2006-
214114, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2006
[6] Schramm, V., Willenborg, K., Kim, S., and Wittig, S.;
Influence of a Honeycomb Facing on the Flow through a
Stepped Labyrinth seal, ASME Paper 2000-GT-0291,
Proceedings of ASME TURBOEXPO 2000, Munich,
Germany, 2000
[7] Wittig S, Schelling U, Jacobsen K, and Kim S., 1987,
Numerical predictions and measurements of discharge
coefficients in labyrinth seals[R]. ASME Paper 87-GT-
188, USA.
[8] Jun Li, Qinghua Deng, Zhenping Feng, Numerical
Investigations of the Flow Characteristics in the Straight-
through Honeycomb Seal. Proceedings of ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Conference, 2005
Sumposia, FEDSM2005, 2005, p1565-1571
[9] Li Jun, Yan Xin, Feng Zhenping, Effects of Pressure
Ratio and Fin Pitch on Leakage Flow Characteristics in
High Rotating Labyrinth Seals, GT2006-91145,
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2006, Power for Land,
Sea, and Air, May 6-9, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN
[10] Choi, D.C., Rhode, D. L., Development of a Two-
Dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics approach for
Computing Three-Dimensional Honeycomb Labyrinth
Leakage, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, 2004, 126: 794-802.
[11] Chougule, H. H., Ramerth, D., Ramchandran, D., et al.
Numerical Investigation of Worn Labyrinth Seals,
GT2006-90690, Proceedings of GT2006, ASME Turbo
Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air, May 6-9, 2006,
Barcelona, SPAIN
[12] Chochua, G., Shyy, W., Moore, J., Computational
Modeling for Honeycomb-Stator Gas Annular Seal,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2002,
45: 1849-1863
[13] Willenborg, K., Kim, S., Wittig, S., Effects of Reynolds
Number and Pressure Ratio on Leakage Loss and Heat
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/20/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Transfer in a Stepped Labyrinth Seal, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, 2001, 123: 815-822
[14] Denecke, J., Schramm, V., Kim, S., et al. Influence of
Rub-Grooves on Labyrinth Seal Leakage, ASME Journal
of Turbomachinery, 2003, 125: 387-393.
[15] Willenborg, K., Schramm, S., Kim, S. and Wittig, S.,
Influence of a Honeycomb Facing on the Heat Transfer in
a Stepped Labyrinth Seal, ASME Paper 2000-GT-0290,
Proceedings of ASEM TURBOEXPO 2000, Munich,
Germany, 2000
[16] Denecke, J., Dullenkopf, K., Wittig, S., et al.
Experimental Investigation of the Total Temperature
Increase and Swirl Development in Rotating Labyrinth
Seals, GT2005-68677, Proceedings of GT2005, ASME
Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air, June 6-9,
2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA.
[17] Hasham H. C., Douglas R. Dhinagaran R., Low leakage
Designs for Rotor Teeth and Honeycomb Lands in
Labyrinth Seals, ASME paper 2008-GT-51024, Berlin,
Germany, 2008
[18] Luis S. A., Jose B. Measurements of Leakage and Power
Loss in a Hybrid Brush Seal, ASME paper 2008-GT-
50532, Berlin, Germany, 2008
[19] Ahmed M. G., John M. V., Labyrinth Seal Leakage Test:
Tooth Profile, Tooth Thickiness, And Eccentricity Effect,
ASME paper 2007-GT-27223, Montreal, Canada.
[20] Matthias N., Erik S., Norbert S. Jan W., Design Features
and Performance details of brush seals for turbine
applications, ASME paper 2006-GT-90404, Barcelona,
Spain.
[21] Yahya, D, Investigation of Brush Seal Flow
Chatacteristics Using BUlK Porous Medium Apporch,
ASME paper 2003-GT-38970, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
[22] Yahya D. Mahmut F.A. Brush Seal Temperature
Distribution Analysis, ASME paper 2005-GT-69120,
Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA, 2005
[23] Nouredine H., Implementation of Porous Medium Models
in EURANUS, NUMECA user manual, Brussels,
Belgium, 1999
[24] Cesare G., John W. C., Numerical Simulation of 3D
Brittle Bending in Brush Seals, ASME paper 2004-GT-
53176, Vienna, Austria, 2004
[25] F. J. Bayley, C. A. Long, A Combined Experimental and
Theoretical Study of Flow and Pressure Distributions in a
Brush Seal, ASME paper Vol. 115, 2003
10 Copyright © 2010 by ASME