Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2014
June 16 – 20, 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany

GT2014-26868

SIEMENS SGT5-4000F: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND VALIDATION OF DESIGN

TOOLS

Mirko Restemeier Tobias Buchal

Siemens AG Siemens AG
Berlin, Germany Mülheim / Ruhr, Germany

Thomas Biesinger** Grzegorz Popiolek

Siemens AG Siemens AG
Mülheim / Ruhr, Germany Mülheim / Ruhr, Germany

ABSTRACT
NOMENCLATURE
The leading technology of the Siemens SGT5-4000F
heavy duty gas turbine is demonstrated through recent engine EOHs Equivalent Operating Hours
measurements at customer sites. The 4000F fleet comprises FEM Finite Element Method
more than 240 engines that exceed performance targets FlowS2m Throughflow Code (Siemens)
because of well established, non-heuristic design processes GGI Generalized Grid Interface
that are continuously enhanced. ID Inner diameter
On-site measurements of pressure, temperature and flow OD Outer diameter
were performed at various locations in the flow path of the 4- Ps Static Pressure
stage turbine to support validation of Siemens’s proprietary TC Thermo Couple
3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis suite. UC Use Case, see Table 1
Despite inherent but well understood modeling deficiencies, y+ Dimensionless wall distance
these advanced CFD prediction capabilities surpassed other
tools and increased the accuracy of the overall turbine design
process. INTRODUCTION
The performance of each turbine stage and flow features
related to the exhaust diffuser were captured by the The SGT5-4000F gas turbine is a highly sophisticated
calculations. Overall performance characteristic shapes engine offering robust component design and service
coincided with heat balances based on measurements. Radial friendliness. It ensures world class reliability, proven by a
traverses at the turbine exit, static pressure along the engine large operating fleet experience of more than 240 engines
axis, and temperature sensors were matched well. The level of installed with 8.600.000 EOHs. With electrical power output
accuracy in delta predictions exceeded industry standards. around 292 MW, electrical efficiency of almost 40 % (ISO
The design suite was able to predict performance conditions), and innovative design features, the engine still
parameters prior to measurement within respective confidence keeps a leading position in a highly competitive market.
levels. Therefore, this advanced 3D CFD design suite,
validated with the test data, will form the basis for future
turbine development programs.

**
Currently at Borg Warner Turbo Systems GmbH,
Kirchheimbolanden, Germany 1 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.
FIGURE 1: SIEMENS GAS TURBINE .F-CLASS SCHEMATIC
The 4 stage turbine is aft-loaded to exploit the better
efficiencies of the non-cooled high aspect ratio blades in the
rear stages. The exhaust diffuser contains 5 inclined profile
exit guide vanes to increase the pressure recovery and flow
stability. The front five blade rows are made of high grade
alloys, including single crystal for the first blade, which has
additional ceramic coating. Thermal stresses are minimized by
efficient vortex, convection and impingement cooling schemes
in the airfoil interior, and film cooling on the airfoil surfaces.
The turbine cooling air is supplied by 2 extractions in the
compressor rotor, and 3 tunable extractions in the compressor
casing. Recent engine versions also feature hydraulic turbine
blade tip clearance control for optimized radial clearance and
hence maximum performance.
To support the further improvement of the Siemens fleet
in terms of performance and component lifing, the design
processes and tools are continuously improved and aligned to
measured engine data. Due to improvement of computational
resources in recent years, it is now possible to include detailed
modeling of the whole turbine with 3D CFD in the standard
design process. This includes a detailed rendition of the
component’s film cooling.
In this publication whole turbine CFD models of differing
fidelity are described and compared to measurements of real
engine data. Thermal evaluations of turbine components and
detailed aerodynamic investigations of turbine and diffuser are
made. This present work focuses on turbine aerodynamics,
since it has a direct impact on engine performance.
ENGINE INSTRUMENTATION
The engine instrumentation consisted of static wall
pressure measurements and rake probes connected to a data
acquisition system.
Static pressure taps were installed in the turbine flow path
at 8 different axial locations (see Figure 2). The taps were
2 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.
located close to the leading and trailing edges of the vanes at
hub and shroud, with 3 instrumented vanes distributed around
the circumference of each axial row. This ensures redundant
measurement data, the ability to identify full wheel pressure
asymmetries and implausible values which could be caused by
leaks in the pressure taps.
For radial distributions, 9-hole rake probes according to
Figure 3 were used to measure total pressure, static pressure,
total temperature, and circumferential flow angle. The rakes
are located one axial chord downstream of the last rotor blade.
The 3D flow structure with complete velocity and flow angle
measured circumferential flow angle is 1°. The uncertainty
distribution could not be recorded. The uncertainty for the
for total pressure was 150 Pa while the static pressure
uncertainty was substantially higher due to lateral flow
separation around the probe shaft. The same holds true for the
measured Mach number, which is also not considered. Total
temperature is measured in the rakes by thermocouples near
the stagnation point in axial flow direction. Since the flow
direction and thermal conduction through the shaft will
temperature is assumed on the order of 5K. Rake traversing
influence the results, uncertainty for the measured flow total
was also performed simultaneously at two circumferential
locations downstream of the last turbine blade to account for
the upstream blockage effect of the struts holding the hub.
In addition to component-specific test instrumentation, all
parameters for calculation of overall engine performance were
measured with calibrated measuring devices in compliance
with the customer’s standards for verifying thermodynamic
guarantees. The gas turbine inlet and outlet pressure and
temperature, fuel mass flow, and fuel composition were
recorded continuously. All test instrumentation fulfilled the
requirements for instrument uncertainty in the relevant test
codes ISO2314 and PTC22. Typical uncertainties (U95) at
reference conditions were 0.3% for power, 0.5% for efficiency,
and 0.8% for exhaust mass flow.
 All operating points were recorded with activated hydraulic
∑=120xPs clearance control to ensure comparable radial tip gaps and hub
2x3=6xPs
cavity clearances. As the measurements were conducted at a
3x4=12xPs 1xPs (Diffusor exit) customer engine connected to the European electrical grid, the
test schedule was limited to 5 operating points, lying on a
6x9=54xPs
3x4=12xPs
single speed line.
6xThermocouple

TEST DATA EVALUATION

3x5=15xPs 3x4=12xPs The goal of the data analysis was the calibration and
Rake plane validation of the in-house design tool chain. Radially
1!x2x4=8xPs (Diff LE-TE) distributed and integral aerodynamic performance parameters
were compared to a 2D through-flow code and the advanced
FIGURE 2: TEST INSTRUMENTATION OVERVIEW 3D CFD process.
The accuracy of a performance prediction is determined
The instrumentation used for performance calculation was by the capability of the calculation process itself, the accuracy
located at suitable positions according to the standards for of the input conditions, and the reliability of the test
acceptance testing e.g. temperature grid measurements in the measurements to which the calculations are compared.
air intake. The pressure rise in the diffuser was measured at Therefore, state of the art solvers are used, simulation inputs
several locations in the circumferential direction, so that the are conditioned accordingly (this means all inputs, like
average diffuser inlet static pressure could be determined leakage flows for instance, are cross checked with simulations
despite the bow wave effect of the diffuser struts. of other components and available measurements), and proven
measurement procedures were employed throughout this
work.
OD
THROUGHFLOW CODE
FLOWS2M is a proprietary two-dimensional (2D)
9x Ps
90% aerodynamic through-flow code which plays a key role in the
design of gas turbines at Siemens Energy. The equations of
1x TC fluid flow conservation are solved in conjunction with the
75% radial equilibrium on meridional flow sections to obtain the
streamline curvature. Specific extensions for blade row losses
Direction and a radial mixing feature illustrate continuous improvement.
of flow FLOWS2M calculates flow properties at axial and radial
50% positions within the turbine, taking cooling and leakage flow
injection into account. By covering all blade rows, it is
capable of predicting the turbine performance and efficiency
for both new turbines (design mode) and existing turbine
(analysis mode). The two-dimensional data is reduced to one-
25%
dimensional values by consistently averaging all conservation
equations of mass, momentum and energy.
10%
WHOLE TURBINE CFD
ID Three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (3D
9xPs@180° CFD) is more expensive in terms of CPU usage than
throughflow simulations, but it can model flow features more
FIGURE 3: PRESSURE RAKE FOR RADIAL TRAVERSING
physically. Its application to the entire turbine of a gas turbine
has become feasible over the past years due to improvements
The tip gap of each blade row is known as a function of
in both CFD codes and computational resources [5]. Steady
operating conditions through measurements at four
state single passage models with mixing planes are industry
circumferential locations with capacitance sensors. This data is
standard and feature built-in calibrations developed by code
supported by FEM based transient calculations of the whole
vendors over decades. These models can capture film cooling,
engine.
leakage, and flow over rim cavities and tip gaps to a sufficient
extent.
TEST SCHEDULE AND EXECUTION
The turbine CFD simulation presented herein is based on
Data acquisition was performed for engine operation at
a standardized CFD process chain for generating the
baseload and several steady partload operating points (90%,
computational grid, setting up all boundary conditions and
80%, 70% and 60% of GT load). Steady state operation is
post-processing the results. It is based on a design system as
determined as a period with constant compressor exit
described below that encompasses all relevant data such as
temperature.
geometry and boundary conditions supplied by various design

3 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.

tools. The process is highly automated and to large extent for continuous adjustment of the numerical constants of the
independent from the individual user, ensuring comparability used CFD solver itself.
of different calculations. A fast and reliable CFD tool chain
enables results at the push of a button, see Figure 4. Heat transfer predictions with diabatic walls and
conjugate problems are not within the scope of this work.
1. Automated Gas- 2: Preprocessing
2: Add Cavity 3: Simulation & 4: Standardized However, this will be subject to future publications. The
Path Meshing (Boundarys,SAS)
Models Convergence ctrl. Post-processing present study focuses on bulk aerodynamic effects and
therefore assumes adiabatic walls throughout.

COMPUTATIONAL MESH
The structured computational mesh was generated using

 Matching periodics and non-matching tip gaps

FIGURE 4: SIEMENS AUTOMATED CFD TOOL CHAIN common turbomachinery best practices [10], such as:

A parametric sensitivity study on different modeling  Low-Reynolds-number wall resolution (y+ ~1 and

 Reasonable skewness and aspect ratios

approaches for cooling and leakage flows, including film expansion ratios <1.2)
cooling, trailing edge cutbacks, tip ejection, hub and shroud
cavities, and different boundary conditions was performed by
Zwiener [3]. These results were used to improve the in-depth Using NUMECA Autogrid as grid generator, numerous
understanding of the CFD setup. The commercial flow solver mesh incidence and sensitivity studies were conducted
ANSYS CFX 14.5 using the SST turbulence model without showing small but acceptable dependencies. Therefore mesh
transition was used throughout this study. Omitting the templates were developed that provide topologically
transition model is reasonable while there are at least three equivalent meshes during small geometry changes. The overall
effects which are unknown to a certain degree and would mesh statistics are typical for today’s turbomachinery
otherwise heavily affect the results: Inlet turbulence intensity applications.
is just a best guess value, interaction of filmcooling flows with
the transition process and the very high but undefined surface
roughness of the airfoils in heavy duty operation.
The parameters of the flow solver and default values
were not modified since these have turned out to be the best
compromise to produce repeatable results across code updates
and retain solver stability. Discretization of the advection and
turbulence terms used the 'high resolution' scheme.
In gas turbine applications CFD typically over predicts
aerodynamic efficiency due to inherent modeling deficiencies
in complex internal flows. Today’s turbulence modeling and
geometric modeling deficiencies such as the exact modeling of
tip gap features, and small kinks or notches in the flow path FIGURE 5: SETUP WITH SIMPLYFIED HUB CAVITYS
preclude a prediction of precise absolute values. Nevertheless, (GGI CONNECTION) AND SHROUD LEAKAGES (UC3)
whole engine model FEM-based analyses are employed to
provide the appropriate hot running (but still circumferentially
uniform) geometries for the CFD simulation. Surface
roughness effects could be estimated and full wheel geometric
asymmetries have a quantitatively unknown influence on the
efficiency and thus could not be accounted for. All of these
issues introduce uncertainties into the results, and it is
common turbomachinery practice not to consider their
influence in the simulation. Unsteady effects [1] and annular
non-uniformities [11] of flow boundary conditions are also
significant but exceed practical computational model size in
industry.
However, if the systematic deviation to the experiment is
quantified, the CFD code is capable of predicting the impact
of typical design changes accurately enough, Denton [4]. FIGURE 6: CFD SETUP INCLUDING ALL COOLING
Once an alignment of the CFD efficiency prediction with HOLES (UC4)
measurement data is achieved, it has to be checked and
adjusted periodically to make sure that matching is maintained BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
throughout code updates or changes in the CFD process tool Appropriate specification of boundary conditions at the
chain. This approach is used in the Siemens turbine design combustion interface, the cavity inlet and the exit plane, and
since the introduction of 3D CFD and also prevents the need an accurate trailing edge model are most crucial to the success

4 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.

of CFD predictions in heavy duty gas turbines. The airfoils of
the investigated machine feature a trailing edge cutback which
means the trailing edge flow is ejected through pocket like
slots on the pressure side, affecting the effective throat area of
the passage and forming a shear layer in the wake region.
Total pressure inlet conditions were derived by aligning
the pressure profile shape from a combustion CFD model to
measurement points. During the simulation these were
modified to match inlet total pressure of within 0.1% of the
measured value my means of a software controller during run
time. The controller is developed in CFX User Fortran for its
effectiveness to automatically steer the CFD.
The static pressure at the turbine exit is also set by a
similar controller to achieve the measured exit total pressure
downstream the exhaust diffuser for a given diffuser loss
coefficient. The effect of exit static pressure on the mass flow
is small since the last turbine blade is usually close to choked
flow conditions
The conical exhaust diffuser is modeled by an axial and a
tangential total pressure loss coefficient characteristic which
has been calibrated on numerous measurements. This is also a
reasonable simplification since steady Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes (RANS) CFD with validated two equation
turbulence models is not appropriate to simulate separated
diffuser flows.
MODELING FIDELITY
With respect to cooling and leakage air modeling, three
levels of model fidelity are defined as use cases (UC): Use
case 2 (UC2) is a very fast and stable design setup. UC3 has
added important geometric features for leakage flows and
UC4 is the highest fidelity approach with detailed cooling
injection for each cooling hole.
The starting configuration, UC2, includes all cooling
flows injected uniformly into the complete volume of each
blade row domain by a volume source term (Volume Sources).
No explicit cavity or leakage strip is modelled. The next case,
UC3, features parametric hub cavities & shroud leakage strips
to refine the modeling These are shown in Figure 5. The real
hub cavities are shown schematically in Figure 7. In the
highest fidelity case UC4, the complete film cooling and
trailing edge ejection is modeled explicitly on all solid wall
boundaries by use of numerically boundary sources. Boundary
TABLE 1: LEVELS OF CFD MODELING RESOLUTION (USE CASES)
UC2
No.Hub/Shroud Leakages 0/0
Hub Cavity Model – Swirl
Film Cooling Volume Sources
Blade Tip Volume Sources
Trailing Edge Volume Sources
Mesh Size 14 Million nodes
rel. CPU time / deg. of automation 1 / fully automated
sources allow adding a defined flux (source per unit area) to
boundary conditions like a defined region on the blade surface
and thus a representation of a single cooling hole, for instance.
In each approach mass flow and energy balances are double
checked in pre- and post-processing. Table 1 provides an
overview of the modeling approaches. Cavity swirl ratios were
set to obtain average values at the GGI interface in agreement
with more detailed studies ([7],[8]). Thus, the secondary flow
vortex system is driven by a realistic amount of streamwise
vorticity or skew in the inlet boundary layer. For all airfoils
with ejection at the trailing edge, the cutback is modeled by
splitting the ejected cooling air into two parts, injected
upstream and downstream of the throat. This enables a
simultaneous match of pressure ratio and inlet mass flow by
precisely matching the flow capacities of the real geometry.
Boundary sources are a more numerically stable method of
modeling cooling holes than source points. The source is
added at a cell vertex on the right side of the discretization
matrix. A sophisticated mapping algorithm is used to conserve
the injection momentum, mass flow and temperature for a
given computational mesh. This procedure requires meshes
with a large number of points in the radial direction, and
occasional adjustment of cooling hole areas to obtain correct
overall flow physics.
A constant composition exhaust gas model, with
properties dependent on temperature and pressure, was used
throughout the simulation, Northall [6]. This is a
simplification over multiple species simulations that account
for compressor bleed air properties. The increased complexity
in the CFD chain (including post-processing) variable
composition models would require justifies this simplification,
which does not add to much uncertainty to the results.
CODE EXECUTION
Overall convergence by at least 3 orders of magnitude in
average root mean squared residuals is considered to be
acceptable. Small oscillations in the steady state computations
were still observed, even at the largest time step and highest
damping, due to the time-dependent nature of flow solvers.
However, their effect on integral values such as efficiency was
well below the magnitude of measurement accuracy.
UC3 UC4
9/9 9/9
Swirl
Volume Sources Boundary Sources
Volume Sources Boundary Sources
Volume Sources Boundary Sources
16 Million nodes 16 Million nodes
6.5 / partly manual 20 / mostly manual
5 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.
 features, as shown in the next section. It would be possible to
adjust flows2m in such a way to match the measurements in
BLADE VANE every used data point, but it is decided to adapt only loss
BLADE
characteristics with additional physical justification, so small
deviations are accepted.
For the complete load range, difference from the
measurements is also driven by the diffuser correlation. Even
though thoroughly validated, the remaining uncertainty is the
same order as the scatter in the CFD results. This effect is
most pronounced in deep part-load operation and is the main
cause for the remaining difference in shape of the turbine
characteristic.

FIGURE 7: SCHEMATIC OF RIM SEAL GEOMETRY 0.5%

Isentropic turbine efficiency [-]

COMPARISON TO ENGINE MEASUREMENTS

The 1D cycle deck performance, 2D through flow and

3D CFD tools - amongst others - are an integral part of the
Siemens Integrated Design (SID) approach, see Figure 4. A
single dataset is accessed by the tools to avoid errors due to
redundancy and incompleteness. The information retrieved
thus enables a consistent comparison of computation and
measurement. If not stated otherwise, turbine ISO efficiencies
[2] are quoted for the turbine including the exhaust diffuser.

TURBINE CHARACTERISTIC
Five operating conditions at 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%
(partload) and 100% (baseload) are investigated. A higher FIGURE 8: TURBINE MAP OF TEST DATA SETS
resulting mass flow for a given inlet total pressure is found for
UC2 and UC3, Figure 8. The lower aerodynamic blockage of
the uniform volume sources and the lack of a suitable trailing
edge ejection model with respect to the throat of Vane 1 is
Isentropic turbine efficiency [-]

responsible for this behavior. The highest fidelity case UC4

matches the measured mass flow or blockage very well
(within 0.1%) due to the trailing edge cutback model.
The turbine map shows a drop of aerodynamic efficiency
for lower mass flows caused by increased incidence angles.
The slight drop in efficiency at higher mass flows is a direct
consequence of Mach numbers above the original design
values for the first SGT5-4000F turbine variant.
CFD captures the shape of the characteristic while over
0.5%
predicting the measured efficiency by 1.2%-pts. This behavior
is, to the authors’ knowledge, common for uncalibrated CFX
simulations of turbine stages operating at an elevated level of
surface roughness and partly unknown hot running geometric
details like axial gaps and end wall steps. By shifting the FIGURE 9: TURBINE MAP WITH CFD UNIFORMLY
characteristic (Figure 9), alignment to the measurement data is SHIFTED TO MEASUREMENT
obtained. Interestingly, the low fidelity UC2&3 models
provide results of similar accuracy. This is plausible because STATIC PRESSURES
of the comparable Mach numbers, Reynolds numbers, and A comparison of predicted and measured wall static
incidence angles in all UC which are the main drivers for pressures near the blade leading and trailing edges at inner
losses. The detailed resolution of the cooling flows is thus not diameter (ID) and outer diameter (OD) is provided in Figure
of 1st order significance when aiming for prediction of 10. The overall agreement is good while some distinct
machine efficiency. With respect to the measurement accuracy deviations are observed. The measurement of a representative
of efficiency all UC are equivalent. static pressure in the environment of a heavy duty gas turbine
Flows2m using adapted loss characteristics closely by means of static pressure taps is a complex task with many
matches the absolute values whilst only resolving bulk flow influencing factors. So the correct knowledge of

6 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.

circumferential pressure distribution is as important as the
geometric shape and inclination of the pressure holes to the
streamline. Modeling of the coolant ejection at the trailing
edge has a direct influence on the simulated exit flow angle
and thus on the platform static pressures.
The mean deviation to the measurement is -2.5% with a
scatter of +/- 2.5% of the measured value. The mean deviation
is most likely a consequence of the inlet total pressure
measurement, which uses a value taken at a different axial
position than the CFD boundary condition. The influence of
the modeling of the hub cavity flows is visible in large
differences of the relative static pressures between UC2 and
UC3/4 at the stator 2-4 leading edge ID, see Figure 10. In
contrast to the ID values, all use cases show nearly identical
values at the outer diameter. Shock configuration plays a role
for the deviation of measured pressure and CFD in stage 4.
CFD modeling is not the only lever to get agreement to the
measurements in this case. There are other systematic errors
which are the subject of current investigation. Reduction of
the remaining scatter between methods by improving cavity
injection modeling is ongoing work.
FIGURE 10: COMPARISON OF STATIC WALL PRESSURES
WITH MEASUREMENTS AT BASELOAD
RADIAL TRAVERSING
The complex shock structure downstream the last rotor
poses a potential problem for both measurement and CFD.
However, it is well captured and free from unfavorable
reflections at the boundary conditions in these simulations.
A comparison of circumferentially averaged radial flow
distributions at one axial chord downstream of the last rotor
blade (see Figure 2) is presented in Figures 11-13. Two
7 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.
partload (60%, 80%) and the baseload (100%) cases are
selected. The agreement of the measurement data from rake
traverses with Flows2m is limited to bulk flow features, as is
expected from a meridional flow solver without 3D flow
structure, wall boundary layers, or accurate tip gap flows.
The averaged deviation of measurements and UC4 CFD
results is shown in Table 2. Except for the 70% partload case,
all deviations are slightly greater than the accuracy of the
measurement equipment. If taking additional sources of
uncertainty like full wheel asymmetry into account, very good
agreement is assumed.
TABLE 2: AVERAGE DEVIATION (MEASUREMENT-CFD
UC4)
GT Load [%] Flow angle [deg] P total [Pa]
100 -0.84 566
90 -1.99 476
80 -1.64 180
70 0.48 1863
60 -1.33 463
For baseload conditions, the radially averaged CFD
results (Figure 11) show especially good agreement in total
pressure at the hub and tip regions. Whereas at midspan, CFD
is under predicting total pressure by 1000 Pa. This again is a
consequence of the diffuser correlation influencing the
simulation’s exit total pressure, with better agreement of UC3
and UC4’s resolved cavities. The benefit of adding cavities at
the rotor-stator rims and shrouds is most pronounced in the
baseload total pressure distribution from 0-20% span.
For flow angle distribution, good agreement with
experiment is achieved for the different CFD options.
Although the bow wave effect of the struts located further
downstream has a heavy impact on the measured flow angles
(see the scatter at partload conditions in Figures 12 and 13) the
inclination of the angle profile is sufficiently well simulated.
Better agreement of UC3 and UC4 can be presumed, which
feature a more realistic radial cooling flow distribution. In all
use cases the flow angle shows vanishing of the tip jet with
decreasing turbine load, since the last blade is unloaded.
Looking at the total temperature radial distribution, the
most detailed cooling configuration (UC4) yields the best
agreement to the measured values. The biggest difference
between the use cases is located from 0-30% relative span,
where the uniform cooling air distribution into the whole
domain of UC2 introduces the highest deviation from
measurement. The same applies for the through-flow code
where radial mixing is crudely modeled. Having hub cavity
flows correctly modeled greatly reduces deviation from the
measurements. Also in all partload operating points, the UC4
CFD resolves the absolute temperature level and shapes of the
radial distributions very accurately.
 10000Pa 5°

Total Pressure [Pa] Flow Angle [deg] Total Temperature [K]

FIGURE 11: Radial profiles at rake plane for total pressure (a) flow angle (b) and total temperature (c) at baseload operating
conditions.

10000Pa 5°

Total Pressure [Pa] Flow Angle [deg] Total Temperature [K]

FIGURE 12: Radial profiles at rake plane for total pressure (a) flow angle (b) and total temperature (c) at 80% part load conditions.

10000Pa 5°

Total Pressure [Pa] Flow Angle [deg] Total Temperature [K]

FIGURE 13: Radial profiles at rake plane for total pressure (a) flow angle (b) and total temperature (c) at 60% part load conditions.

8 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.

CONCLUSIONS
Detailed field measurements of a Siemens SGT5-4000F
heavy duty gas turbine have been used to validate the
prediction capability of an integrated simulation tool chain for
the aerodynamic design of turbine components.
Measurements of pressure, temperature and flow angle
were performed at various locations in circumferential and
radial directions of the turbine flow path. The number of
sensors and operating points were limited by the requirements
of testing at a customer’s site. Although comparison of sparse
datasets with predictions is always challenging, the overall
agreement is excellent and thus enables further development
of high performance designs.
State-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics tools can
not only be used for extensive verification simulations, but
also in the design phase.
3D CFD as shown is capable of predicting the turbine
characteristic both qualitatively and quantitatively, since the
systematic offset of efficiency is known to a sufficient extent.
The best agreement to measurements is obtained with the
highest fidelity model. The models with less resolution also
give good agreement, and can be used throughout the design
phase where turnaround time is most important and detailed
film cooling data is not yet available.
The leading technology of the Siemens SGT5-4000F fleet
was demonstrated on the basis of recent test data. The 4-stage
turbine has a proven track record of high performance.
Validated tools for future designs now include advanced 3D
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of the
entire turbine component. The level of accuracy and delta
prediction capabilities were shown to exceed industry
standards. In the future additional measurements will enable
more detailed comparisons and ensure the continuous validity
of the used design tools.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of Siemens AG to publish this paper is
gratefully acknowledged. The help of Kim Zwiener and Jens
Gollasch with the preparation of the data and execution of the
CFD code is highly appreciated. The authors also wish to
acknowledge the extraordinary support for the Measurements
by T. Nogat and A. Berz. N.V. Nuon Energy, operator of the
Hemweg plant is gratefully acknowledged for their support
during the test.
PERMISSION FOR USE
The content of this paper is copyrighted by Siemens AG
Energy Sector and is licensed to ASME for publication and
distribution only. Any inquiries regarding permission to use
the content of this paper, in whole or in part, for any purpose
must be addressed to Siemens AG Energy Sector directly.
9 Copyright © 2014 by Siemens Energy, Inc.
REFERECES
[1] M. Restemeier, Y. Guendogdu, P. Jeschke, J. Gier
„Numerical and experimental analysis of the effect of
variable blade row spacing in a subsonic axial turbine”
In: ASME J. Turbomach.: Vol. 135, No. 2 (2013), doi:
10.1115/1.4006587, pp. 021031-1-9.
[2] ISO2314 “Gas turbines - Acceptance tests” Third
edition, 2009-12-15.
[3] K. Zwiener “Application of Multistage Turbine CFD to
Large Gas Turbine Frames” Master Thesis, University
of Hannover, 2013.
[4] J. D. Denton “Some Limitations Of Turbomachinery
CFD” proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010, paper
No. GT2010-22540.
[5] J. Bigalk, T. Biesinger, M. Broeker, T. Buchal, D.
Nuernberger and M. Schmidt “SGT5-8000H
Experimental Test Results and Validation of High
Fidelity 3D CFD” proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
2012, paper No. GT2012-69621.
[6] J. D. Northall “The Influence of Variable Gas
Properties on Turbomachinery Computational Fluid
Dynamics” In: ASME J. Turbomach. Vol. 128, No.4,
pp. 632-638, 2006.
[7] I. Mahle “Improving the Interactions between Leakage
Flows and Main Flow in a Low Pressure Turbine”
proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010, paper No.
GT2010-22448.
[8] M. Rabs, F.-K. Benra, O. Schneider “Emergence of
Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities in gas turbine rim
cavities - a parameter study” ASME Turbo Expo 2012,
paper No. GT2012-68834.
[9] VDI 4675 Blatt 1:2012-09 “Balance-based averaging
of inhomogeneous flow fields – Introduction”.
[10] Casey M., Wintergerste T. (eds) “ERCOFTAC Special
Interest Group on Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD -
Best Practice Guidelines” 2000, ERCOFTAC
Publications (http://www.ercoftac.org).
[11] T. Belamri, P. Galpin, A. Braune and C. Cornelius
“CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor: Part II
– Results” ASME Turbo Expo 2005, paper No.
GT2005-68262.