Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1996 Sieverding

    Uploaded by

    M usman qureshi
    9 views10 pages

    Original Title

    1996-Sieverding

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views10 pages

    1996 Sieverding

    Uploaded by

    M usman qureshi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    Investigation of the Flow Field Downstream of a Turbine Trailing Edge Cooled Nozzle Guide Vane A trailing edge cooled low aspect ratio transonic turbine guide vane is investigated ln the VKI Compression Tube Cascade Facility at an outlet Mach number Mss, 1.05 and a coolant flow rate nicinig = 3 percent. The outlet flow field is surveyed by combined total-directional pressure probes and temperature probes, Special em- Phasis is put on the development of low blockage probes. Additional information is ©. H. Sieverding T. Arts R, Dénos von Karman Inti fr Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-Saint-Genise, Belgium sie Matelll I ovided by ol low nsalcatons ant mumeria flow vinalzatons Wiha ree. iesiyal Ftc, inensincl Navier-Stokes cade, The tet rests describe the sro diferences tt the axial evolution of the hub and tip endwall and secondary flows and demonstrate the self-similarity of the midspan wake profiles. According to the total pressure and temperature profiles, the wake mixing appears to be very fast in the nearswake but very slow in the far-wake region. The total pressure wake profile appears to be litle affected by the Coolant flow ejection. Introduction {In recent years the turbomachinery community has focused its ultemtion increasingly on she unsteady effects in turbine and. ‘compressor stages resulting from the interference of rotor blades, with the pressure and temperature gradient fields of the precod- ing stator blade row or vice versa (Sharma et al., 1992). The intensity of the interaction depends of course on the strength of the pressure and temperature gradients in the interblade row space; these in tum are functions of the blade loading and the aspect ratio of the upstream blade row a8 well as of the outlet ‘Mach number and the axial distance, Ia turbines the interference is particularly complex in the HP stages where the flow patterns are often dominated by secondary and tip clearance flows. The axial evolution of the interblade row flow field is a combined dlffusionconvection process in which radial and circumferen- tinl pressure gradients as well as a complex vortex system, generated by the upstream blade row, play equally important roles. ‘Systematic measurements ofthe axial evolution of the down- stream flow fleld behind turbine blade rows are rather scarce. Nearly all investigations are done on low-aspect-ratio high turn- ing nozzle guide vanes. Binder and Romey (1983) were proba- Diy tho first to study in grvat detail Uae vutlt flow field bein ‘an annolar stator blade row. The authors used the Laser-2-Focus technique to determine the velocity field in several axial planes. ‘They derived from the yaw angle distribution the location of vortices as well as their type. The downstream mixing process was largely attributed to the action of these vortices. Sieverding ct al, (1984) surveyed the outlet flow field of a low-speed annular cascade with four-hole pressure probes at three axial locations and gave a detailed account ofthe radial migration of low-momentum boundary layer material through the wake re- gion under the influence of the radial pressure gradient. These results confirmed previous observations by Rohlik etal. (1954) ‘Crue bythe Ineasonl Gat Tain Init ao psu tthe 35th Intsmatoal Gas Turbine and Acoeagne Congress and Exposition, The ago, The Nees, Tne 13-16, 1994, Manascape rected 9y the Inerntonl (Gs Taine nests Feary 19, 1994, Paper No, 9-07. 209, Assoie es "Etor FM, Greist, Journal of Turbomachinery in a ransonic guide vane. Yamamoto and Yanagi (1985), ear- tying out very similar measurements to those of Sieverding et al, added further information on the radial redistribution of losses through the action of the trailing edge vorticity. William- son and Moustapha (1986) reported test results on 2 highly loaded transonic three-dimensional guide vane with endwall, contraction for mean outlet Mach numbers from Ms ~ 0.65 to 1.04. Similarly tothe other authors, they found the hub endwall tosses significantly higher than the tip region losses. The higher ‘nub losses were attributed to the higher adverse pressure gradi- cents downstream of the throat— 1.12 from tip to hub. Therefore, it appears reasonable to neglect this parameter in the following discussion. "Near the endwalls, Mach number effects are masked by sec ondary flow effects. As indicated by the oil low visualizations in Fig, 7, the extension of the secondary flow zone is larger at the tip than at the hub. At the trailing edge this zone covers about 10 pefcent of the span at the hub and 20 percent of the ‘pan atthe tip. With increasing distance the secondary flows will Continue to expand radially thanks to the continuously growing tendwall boundary layer, the radial pressure gradient, and the APRIL 1996, Vol. 118 / 295 nemo 2 koeai=1.09 "80 “ea 200 ces) wo 00 “0 ‘oo Ea toe Fig. 8 Spanwise lose dietributions in downstream planes combined action of passage and wailing edge vortex (sum of ‘wailing filament vortices and trailing edge shed vorticity). The overall aspect ofthe loss distribution in the planes x/eay = 0.25, and 0.54, Fig. 8, follows the typical pater: atthe endwall high losses due to the endwall boundary layer; at some distance from the endwall a relative loss maximum (secondary loss core) associated withthe passage vortex; beyond that, a slow decrease down to the level of profile Iosses. The secondary loss core at the tip is not very prominent and the position of its maximum is not well defined. The secondary loss maximum exceeds the profile losses hardly by one point. The maximum moves from bout y/h = 0.85 in the axial plane ¥/¢q, = 0.25 to yh = 0.8 and. (075 atthe downstream planes x/¢y, = 0.54 and 1.0, Contrary to the tip, at the bub one observes a very prominent loss core. Its extension grows from y/h = 0.15 at the plane x/eu, ~ 0.25 to yh = 025 at x/cq, = 0.54. The big difference Between hub ‘and tip is explained at least partially through the action of the dial pressure gradient, which causes a radial migration of low- ‘momentum boundary layer from tip to hub through the trailing edge base low region. Such a radial migration was observed by many researchers as described in the introduction and ap- pears also very clearly on the flow visualization in Fig. 9, ob- tained with a Navier—Stokes for the present cascade, In the plane 1/¢ye = 1.0, Fig. 8, the loss distribution at the ‘nab has takea a parabolic shape, extending from the hub endwall ‘to midspan. Obviously the endwall boundary growth has be- ‘come the dominating factor. One of the reasons for the strong ‘change in the hub loss profile may be looked for in the evolution of the static pressure field. Plane x/ces | Fa] Fos The tip [bub _| tip |" hub T0325 [0.550_ | 0.4548 [0.967 | L128 2 0.54 | 0.5426 | 0.4562 | 0.97 | 1.121 31.0 _| 0.5345 | 0.4824 | o.9e7 | 1.076 Beoween x/ca, = 0.25 and 0.54, the pitch-averaged pressure at the hub remains nearly identical, but between s/c = 0.54 ‘and 1.0 the pressure rises by almost 6 percent. AC the tip the pressure change is only 1.5 percent over the same axial distance, Contrary tothe experiments Navier-Stokes calculations show that the spanwise pitch-averaged static pressure distribution is nearly identical in all thtee measurement planes. The reason for the pressure rise at the hub is therefore most probably to be atiibuted to the upstream influence of the constant pressure field at the exit of the cylindrical low duct; see Fig. 2 The effect of Mach number variation on the spanwise Loss distribution is best observed in the measurement planes x/¢u, (0.25 and 0.54. Minimum profile losses occur atthe spanwise 296 / Vol. 118, APRIL 1996 Fig.9 Flow visualization of the blade suction sie obtained from thres- mensional Navier=- Stokes soNer position »/h = 0.6. (This position of minimum losses is eon firmed also by other tests, e-g., measurements in plane x/em. = 110.) AL this spanwise positon, the mean isentropic Mach mum- ber is May = 1.03 and the losses at x/¢qe = 0.25 amount to f = 28 percent. From y/h = 0.6 downward, there isa slow linear increase in losses up to G = 4 percent at y/f = 0.15, From y/ 0.6 upward, the losses also rise slowly, but when accounting for some secondary losses, the profile losses will never exceed 3.2 percent. At no place does one observe a sudden strong increase ofthe Iosses with Mach number, as found inthe straight cascade tests at DLR, where the losses undergo a sudden rise from § = 3.5 percent at Mz,,= 1.0 to £ = 7 percent at My, 1.08; See Kapteijn et al. (1994), The most likely explanation ‘or this difference are strong three-dimensional flow effects in the trailing edge region, already referred to, with possible effects on the trailing edge base pressure und the shock intensity. AS regards the latter, the oil flow visualization in Fig, 7 suggests ‘that the suction side shock boundary layer interaction is weak over the entire span. Figure 10 presents the blade losses in plane X/Cx = 0.54 betwen 20 and 80 percent blade height with and without cool- ant flow ejection. Except at Y/h = 0.7 and 0.8, the ejection of ‘coolant flow results in & reduction of the profile losses and this ‘eduction increases toward the hub, ic, t0 the region of higher ‘Mach numbers, The higher losses at zero coolant flow rate are to be attributed to the backward-facing step on the rear pressure side. At chocked conditions, the corner Will produce a strong PrandtlMeyer expansion, followed by a reattachment shock at short distance form the comer. On the suction side the flow will experience first a strong acceleration due to the Praadil-Meyer ‘expansion from the pressure side comer and then undergo, one after the other, the corner shock and the trailing edge shock. ‘The ejection of coolant will reduce the effective step height. ‘Hence both the comer expansion and the intensity of the reat= tachment shock will diminish and the blade losses will be re- ced. ‘The lower losses at zero coolant flow ejection at ¥/h = 0.7 and 0.8 are difficult to understand. The radial migration of low- 10 os 06 = on oot dy 94, 200 wo Se) ig, 10. Comparison offossos at zero and percent jection nthe plane XD y= 058 Bo oo 8S TO Heo mo ‘Transactions of the ASME Fig. 1(b) Carpet lose plot at downstream plane X/C, = 0.88 LoLT Fig. 11(e) Carpet loos plot at downstream plane X/Cu = 4.0 ‘moméatum flow in the separated region behind the backward- facing step could have an effect similar to a coolant flow ejee- tion. Differences in secondary flows with and without coolant ejection may be another possibility “Fie Tons eat pls forthe three downstream moaourement planes are presented in Figs. 11(a), (b), (c). Due to problems with the opto-electronie enceder for the angular displacement, the probe position is mezsured within an accuracy of 0.5 dog only. In the axial plane x/cq, = 0.25 the wake covers about 445-50 percent of the blade pitch, except near the endvrlls Secondary flows are not very important. The only distinct see- ‘ondary loss core appears atthe hub, with its peak nearly in the center of the wake. Outside of the wake the end-wall boundary layer is extremely thin, At tho axial distance x/cq, = 0.54 the wake has broadened and the hub secondary loss core has taken ‘considerable proportions. The secondary loss core at the tip, appears like an island in the wake center at some distance from the endtvall, Right at the endwall appears a new loss maximum, in the following downstream plane at x/¢q = 1.0 the upper secondary loss island has migrated further towand midspan. At the casing the endwall boundary layer appears to be sucked in the wake by the action of the radial pressure gradient. Outside Journal of Turbomachinery the wake the encwall boundary layer remains thin. In the lower half, the flow field bas completely changed. The wake and/or the hub endwall boundary layer have spread over the entire passage. The secondary loss core has entirely merged with the fendwall boundary layer. As pointed out before, the strong in- crease of the hub endiwvall boundary layer between 2/¢y. = 0.54 fand 1.0 is probably related to the significant static pressure rise for s/eu > 054 caused by the uniform far downstream, conditions. Wake Profile, Let us at present consider more closely the downstream evolution of the midspan blade wake. There are {ifferent wayo of describing the wake profile. In low-speed flow the wake mixing behind cylinders is looked at in terms of the wake velocity distribution. This is not appropriate forthe wake behind blades with transonic and supersonic outlet flow condi- tions, because the static pressure feld is strongly nonuniform, with the consequence thatthe wake crosses a constantly varying statie pressure field, Hence, the loeal velocity in the wake does ‘depend not only on the wake diffusion process but also on the Tocal static pressure. Of course, the same is to be said when ‘describing the wake by its kinetic energy loss profile. Therefore, the evolution of the wake shapo will be studied with regard to its total pressure profile, 1 — Pp/Pa.. Figure 12(a) presents, these profiles for midblade height at the 3 axial positions x/¢m = 0.25, 0.54, and 1.0, The profiles in the first two planes were obtained by averaging over three wakes, the last by averaging, lover two wakes. The gradual lateral spreading of the wake, ‘accompanied by a progressive reduction of the wake depth, indicates a rather slow mixing process. It is worth noting that, the wake profiles do not show any noticeable signature of the pressure side coolant flow ejection. “The ttal pressure profiles were also approximated by Gaussian distribution functions. The distribution parameter 0, characterizing the wake shape, was calculated for the two cases by using either a single symmetric distribution curve or an asymmetric distribution with different shape parameters o for the suction side and pressure side of the wake, Fig. 12(b). The comparison of the measured and the Gaussian wake profiles show an excellent agreement, Fig. 12(a) ‘Using the reduced variable w= (y ~ ¥)/o the distribution law 90) = pare (- =") can be waiten as 2.0) =gew(-4) ‘This is the standardized normal distribution; the variable has fa nutl meu value and « alaulard deviation equal 10 ono. Thio ‘means that choosing an appropriate reduction for a set of Gaussian curves with different values will lead to collapse them in @ unique curve. This is presented ia Fig. 12(c). The figure demonstrates that the total pressure Toss curves are self similar. Tt is evident that the wake profiles will not conserve their self-similarity in regions of strong secondary and endwall flows. Outlet Flow Angle. The spanwise variation of the outlet ffow angle is presented in Fig. 13. In the section “Pressure Probes,” it was stated that angle measurements for wall dis- tances <5 percent were not to be trusted and therefore any data ‘within this zone are omitied from the angle plots. As to the remaining data, the accuracy is estimated to be of the order of “0.5 to 0.8 deg, based on previous experiences with similar probes in two-dimensional transonic fow measurements. An Exact error estimation is not possible. The pressure gradient APRIL 1996, Vol, 118 / 297 010 0.02 9504-05-02 01 09 04 Reduced tance ° 02 03 04 05 Fla 120) Comparison of meaeured and Goussion weke profes oz ore os Zar 06 +0npcune ing icin se G Presta se xeon Fig, 4210) Evolution of wake shape parameter for Gaussian distibue tion sab = nex 028 We oncaxlase = wea 100 = Gausin "ed 45-10 3 as 30 ASB ‘esevte) Fa. 12(¢)_Salt-simiarity of total pressure loss profes flelds are too complex to evaluate the measurements ertors re- ated to the probe head size for all conditions. ‘The outlet low angle curves for the planes at x/ca = 025 ‘and 0.54, are the most important from the point of view of turbine design. The overall differences between the two curves are small. Except near hub and tip where maximum local iffer- fences of the order of 1 deg are recorded, the angles differ by Tess than 0.5 deg over the major part of the span. The ay angle varies from about 71 deg at the tip to 73 deg at the hub. The ‘angle variation in the upper half span is more important than in the lower half span. The nearly constant as in this region is possibly a Mach number effect (supersonic deviation for a 298 / Vol. 118, APRIL 1996 convergent blading), which compensates at least partially for the change in the gaging angle a1 = arecos o/g which increases, from tip to hub. The typical under- and overturning near the

    You might also like