0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Heat Transfer

Effects of Purge Jet Momentum on Sealing Effectiveness

[+] Author and Article Information
Kenneth Clark

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: kpc139@psu.edu

Michael Barringer

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: mbarringer@psu.edu

Karen Thole

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: kthole@engr.psu.edu

Carey Clum

Pratt & Whitney,
East Hartford, CT 06118
e-mail: carey.clum@pw.utc.com

Paul Hiester

Pratt & Whitney,
East Hartford, CT 06118
e-mail: paul.hiester@pw.utc.com

Curtis Memory

Pratt & Whitney,
East Hartford, CT 06118
e-mail: curtis.memory@pw.utc.com

Christopher Robak

Pratt & Whitney,
East Hartford, CT 06118
e-mail: christopher.robak@pw.utc.com

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 6, 2016; final manuscript received July 22, 2016; published online October 4, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(3), 031904 (Oct 04, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1313; doi: 10.1115/1.4034545 History: Received July 06, 2016; Revised July 22, 2016

Driven by the need for higher cycle efficiencies, overall pressure ratios for gas turbine engines continue to be pushed higher thereby resulting in increasing gas temperatures. Secondary air, bled from the compressor, is used to cool turbine components and seal the cavities between stages from the hot main gas path. This paper compares a range of purge flows and two different purge hole configurations for introducing the purge flow into the rim cavities. In addition, the mate face gap leakage between vanes is investigated. For this particular study, stationary vanes at engine-relevant Mach and Reynolds numbers were used with a static rim seal and rim cavity to remove rotational effects and isolate gas path effects. Sealing effectiveness measurements, deduced from the use of CO2 as a flow tracer, indicate that the effectiveness levels on the stator and rotor side of the cavity depend on the mass and momentum flux ratios of the purge jets relative to the swirl velocity. For a given purge flow rate, fewer purge holes resulted in better sealing than the case with a larger number of holes.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

START facility layout

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test turbine cross section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Test turbine nomenclature and geometric parameter definitions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Test turbine instrumentation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

First vane aerodynamic loading at 50% span compared to CFD pretest predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressures on vane trailing edge, platform trailing edge (22% Cx downstream of vane trailing edge), and in rim seal (8% Cx upstream of vane trailing edge) for the no leakage case compared to CFD pretest predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Swirl Mach number in the trench region and the rim cavity for a range of purge flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Circumferential uniformity of concentration effectiveness for 150 purge holes for multiple purge flows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Concentration effectiveness for 150 purge holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Circumferential variation of concentration effectiveness for 16 purge holes on the stator side of the rim cavity at the purge hole radius for multiple purge flows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Variation of concentration effectiveness with purge flow rate on the stator side of the rim cavity at the purge hole radius for 16 purge holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Averaged concentration effectiveness for 16 purge holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Concentration effectiveness for mate face gap leakage flow only (no purge)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Circumferential variation in concentration effectiveness on the stator and rotor sides of the rim cavity for 16 purge holes and the mate face gap leakage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Concentration effectiveness for 150 purge holes and 16 purge holes with varying purge flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Mass flux ratio, M, and momentum flux ratio, I, for 150 purge holes and 16 purge holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Concentration effectiveness for 150 purge holes and 16 purge holes plotted against blowing ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Concentration effectiveness for 150 purge holes and 16 purge holes plotted against momentum flux ratio

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