Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Experimental and Analytical Assessment of Cavity Modes in a Gas Turbine Wheelspace

[+] Author and Article Information
Rachel A. Berg, C. S. Tan

MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory,
Cambridge, MA 02139

Zhongman Ding

GE Power,
Greenville, SC 29615

Gregory Laskowski

GE Aviation,
Lynn, MA 01905

Pepe Palafox, Rinaldo Miorini

Niskayuna, NY 12309

1Present address: GE Aviation, Lynn, MA 01905.

2Corresponding author.

3Present address: GE Aviation, Evendale, OH 45215.

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received August 3, 2017; final manuscript received September 5, 2017; published online January 17, 2018. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(6), 062502 (Jan 17, 2018) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1432; doi: 10.1115/1.4038474 History: Received August 03, 2017; Revised September 05, 2017

Fast response pressure data acquired in a high-speed 1.5-stage turbine hot gas ingestion rig (HGIR) show the existence of pressure oscillation modes in the rim-seal-wheelspace cavity of a high pressure gas turbine stage with purge flow. The experimental results and observations are complemented by computational assessments of pressure oscillation modes associated with the flow in canonical cavity configurations. The cavity modes identified include shallow cavity modes and Helmholtz resonance. The response of the cavity modes to variation in design and operating parameters are assessed. These parameters include cavity aspect ratio (AR), purge flow ratio, and flow direction defined by the ratio of primary tangential to axial velocity. Scaling the cavity modal response based on computational results and available experimental data in terms of the appropriate reduced frequencies appears to indicate the potential presence of a deep cavity mode as well. While the role of cavity modes on hot gas ingestion cannot be clarified based on the current set of data, the unsteady pressure field associated with turbine rim cavity modal response can be expected to drive ingress/egress.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Scobie, J. A. , Sangan, C. M. , Owen, J. M. , and Lock, G. D. , 2016, “Review of Ingress in Gas Turbines,” ASME J Gas Turbines Power, 138(12), p. 120801. [CrossRef]
Wang, C. Z. , Mathiyalagan, S. P. , Johnson, B. V. , Glahn, J. A. , and Cloud, D. F. , 2013, “Rim Seal Ingestion in a Turbine Stage From 360 Degree Time-Dependent Numerical Simulations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(3), p. 031007. [CrossRef]
Jakoby, R. , Zierer, T. , Lindblad, K. , Larsson, J. , deVito, L. , Bohn, D. , Funcke, J. , and Decker, A. , 2004, “Numerical Simulation of the Unsteady Flow Field in an Axial Gas Turbine Rim Seal Configuration,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53829.
Daniels, W. , Johnson, B. , Graber, D. , and Martin, R. , 1992, “Rim Seal Experiments and Analysis for Turbine Applications,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114(2), pp. 426–432. [CrossRef]
Green, T. , and Turner, A. B. , 1994, “Ingestion Into the Upstream Wheelspace of an Axial Turbine Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 116(2), pp. 327–332. [CrossRef]
Bohn, D. , Rudzinski, B. , Surken, N. , and Garter, W. , 2000, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Influence of Rotor Blades on Hot Gas Ingestion Into the Upstream Cavity of an Axial Turbine Stage,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-0284.
Teramachi, K. , Hamabe, M. , Manabe, T. , and Yanagidani, N. , 2003, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Sealing Performance of Turbine Rim Seals,” International Gas Turbine Congress (IGTC), Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 2–7, Paper No. IGTC2003Tokyo TS-025. https://nippon.zaidan.info/seikabutsu/2003/00916/pdf/igtc2003tokyo_ts025.pdf
Sangan, C. M. , Pountney, O. J. , Scobie, J. A. , Wilson, M. , Owen, J. M. , and Lock, G. D. , 2013, “Experimental Measurements of Ingestion Through Turbine Rim Seals, Part 3: Single and Double Seals,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(5), p. 051011. [CrossRef]
Balasubramanian, J. , Junnarkar, N. , Zhou, D. W. , Roy, R. P. , Kim, Y. W. , and Moon, H. K. , 2011, “Experiments on Aft-Disk Cavity Ingestion in a Model 1.5-Stage Axial Flow Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45895.
Zhou, D. W. , Roy, R. P. , Wang, C. Z. , and Glahn, J. A. , 2011, “Main Gas Ingestion in a Turbine Stage for Three Rim Cavity Configurations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(3), p. 031023. [CrossRef]
Roy, R. P. , Feng, J. , Narzary, D. , and Paolillo, R. E. , 2005, “Experiment on Gas Ingestion Through Axial-Flow Turbine Rim Seals,” ASME J Gas Turbines Power, 127(3), pp. 573–582. [CrossRef]
Barringer, M. , Coward, A. , Clark, K. , Thole, K. A. , Schmitz, J. , Wagner, J. , Alvine, M. A. , Burke, P. , and Dennis, R. , 2014, “The Design of a Steady Aero Thermal Research Turbine (Start) for Studying Secondary Flow Leakages and Airfoil Heat Transfer,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25570.
Palafox, P. , Ding, Z. , Bailey, J. , Vanduser, T. , Kirtley, K. , Moore, K. , and Chupp, R. , 2013, “A New 1-1/2 Stage Turbine Wheelspace Hot Gas Ingestion Rig (Hgir)—Part 1: Experimental Test Vehicle, Measurement Capability and Baseline Results,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-96020.
Ding, Z. , Palafox, P. , Moore, K. , Chupp, R. , and Kirtley, K. , 2013, “A New 1.5-Stage Turbine Wheelspace Hot Gas Ingestion Rig (HGIR)—Part II: CFD Modeling and Validation,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-96021.
Krishnamurty, K. , 1955, “Acoustic Radiation From Two-Dimensional Rectangular Cutouts in Aerodynamic Surfaces,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Technical Note 3487.
Plumblee, H. E. , Gibson, J. S. , and Lassiter, I. E. , 1962, “A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Acoustic Response of Cavities in an Aerodynamic Flow,” Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Marieta, GA, Technical Report No. 61-75. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0277803
East, L. , 1966, “Aerodynamic Induced Resonance in Rectangular Cavities,” J. Sound Vib., 3(3), pp. 277–287. [CrossRef]
Rossiter, J. , 1964, “Wind Tunnel Experiments on the Flow Over Rectangular Cavities at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds,” Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, Report No. 3438.
Sarohia, V. , and Massier, P. , 1977, “Control of Cavity Noise,” J. Aircr., 14(9), pp. 833–837. [CrossRef]
Sarno, R. , and Franke, M. , 1994, “Supression of Flow-Induced Pressure Oscillations in Cavities,” J. Aircr., 31(1), pp. 90–96. [CrossRef]
Sarohia, V. , 1977, “Experimental Investigation of Oscillations in Flows Over Shallow Cavities,” AIAA J., 15(7), pp. 984–991. [CrossRef]
Gharib, M. , and Roshko, A. , 1987, “The Effect of Flow Oscillations on Cavity Drag,” J. Fluid Mech., 177, pp. 501–530. [CrossRef]
Rockwell, D. , and Naudascher, E. , 1978, “Review—Self-Sustaining Oscillations of Flow Past Cavities,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 100(2), pp. 152–164. [CrossRef]
Komerath, N. , Ahuja, K. , and Chambers, F. , 1987, “Prediction and Measurement of Flows Over Cavities—A Survey,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-87-0166.
Ingard, U. , 1953, “On the Theory and Design of Acoustic Resonators,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 25(6), pp. 1037–1061. [CrossRef]
Alster, M. , 1972, “Improved Calculation of Resonant Frequencies of Helmholtz Resonators,” J. Sound Vib., 24(1), pp. 63–85. [CrossRef]
Hills, N. J. , Chew, J. W. , and Turner, A. B. , 2002, “Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Turbine Rim Seal Ingestion,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(2), pp. 306–315. [CrossRef]
Julien, S. , Lefrancois, J. , Dumas, G. , Boutet-Blais, G. , Lapointe, S. , Caron, J. , and Marini, R. , 2010, “Simulation of Flow Ingestion and Related Structures in a Turbine Disk Cavity,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22729.
Cao, C. , Chew, J. W. , Millington, P. R. , and Hogg, S. I. , 2004, “Interaction of Rim Seal and Annulus Flows in an Axial Flow Turbine,” ASME J. Gas Turbines Power, 126(4), pp. 786–793. [CrossRef]
O'Mahoney, T. , Hills, N. , Chew, J. , and Scanlon, T. , 2011, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Rim Seal Ingestion,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C, 225(12), pp. 2881–2891.
Boudet, J. , Hills, N. , and Chew, J. , 2006, “Numerical Simulation of Flow Interaction Between Turbine Annulus and Disc Cavities,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-90307.
Abrahamson, S. D. , Eaton, J. K. , and Koga, D. J. , 1989, “The Flow Between Shrouded Co-Rotating Disks,” Phys. Fluids A: Fluid Dyn., 1(2), pp. 241–251. [CrossRef]
Cheah, S. C. , Iacovides, H. , Jackson, D. , Ji, H. , and Launder, B. E. , 1994, “Experimental Investigation of Enclosed Rotor-Stator Disk Flows,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 9(4), pp. 445–455. [CrossRef]
Serre, E. , del Arco, E. C. , and Bontous, P. , 2001, “Annular and Spiral Patterns in Flows Between Rotating and Stationary Discs,” J. Fluid Mech., 434, pp. 65–100. [CrossRef]
Schouveiler, L. , LeGal, P. , and Chauve, M. P. , 2001, “Instabilities of the Flow Between a Rotating and a Stationary Disk,” J. Fluid Mech., 443, pp. 329–350. [CrossRef]
Czarny, O. , Iacovides, H. , and Launder, B. , 2002, “Precessing Vortex Structures in Turbulent Flow Within Rotor-Stator Disc Cavities,” Flow Turbul. Combust., 69(1), pp. 51–61. [CrossRef]
Welch, P. , 1967, “The Use of Fast Fourier Transform for the Estimation of Power Spectra: A Method Based on Time Averaging Over Short, Modified Periodograms,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust., 15(2), pp. 70–73. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Wheelspace coolant path and nomenclature for wheelspace between turbine disk and stator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Canonical Helmholtz resonator and equivalent spring-mass system and (b) turbine rim buffer cavity with corresponding parameter cavity volume V, neck area A (seal clearance), and physical neck length L (tip size of angel wing body) for determining Helmholtz resonance frequency given in Eq. (2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometrical parameters in turbine rim-cavity system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Meridional section of HGIR turbine with main auxiliary components adapted from Ref. [13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Static pressure tap locations on HGIR stator surface. Pss1–Pss3 indicate the static pressure taps located behind the NGV TE and in the trench cavity and are currently used for assessing the circumferential pressure variation [13].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Summary of stator side instrumentation at radial and circumferential locations with respect to engine centerline and NGV trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Kulite locations on HGIR rotor surface. There are a total of 30 dynamic Kulites in the trench cavity, five dynamic Kulites in the buffer cavity, and two static Kulites in the inner wheelspace. Ten of the Kulites in the trench cavity are located on the stator side of the trench cavity at the same radial location [13].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Representative responses from a set of kulites at various circumferential locations within rim cavity; the different color lines refer to response from kulite at each corresponding circumferential location. The overlapping of all responses implies axisymmetry of modal response.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Configurations for assessing Helmholtz mode response: configuration 2 has a narrower buffer cavity than configuration 1, and configuration3 has a shorter buffer cavity that eliminates the distinct volume apparent in configurations 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Hypothesized Helmholtz response is measured at 0.305 of blade passing frequency for configuration 1: blue line is measured response while broken red line is nonrunning rig response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Helmholtz response is absent for configuration 3, as hypothesized: blue line is measured response while broken red line is nonrunning rig response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Configurations for assessing cavity mode response: configuration 2 has a trench cavity width equal to half that of configuration 1, hence an expected shift in shallow cavity mode response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Hypothesized shallow cavity modes 1 and 2 response measured at 0.74 and 1.17 of blade passing frequency compared to corresponding computed response range for configuration 1: blue line is measured response, vertical red bar is computed response range while broken red line is nonrunning rig response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Computational model setup with BL trip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Selected parametric values for computational assessment of cavity mode response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Cavity-width-based reduced frequency variation with cavity AR: computational results compared to data [15,17] for shallow and deep cavity modes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Cavity-depth-based reduced frequency variation with cavity AR: computational results compared to data [15,17] for shallow and deep cavity modes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Effect of cavity purge flow on flow field in cavity. Streamlines are presented along with contours of the pressure coefficient, C−p=(Ps−Ps∞)/((1/2)ρ∞U∞2)). The single vortex in the cavity is visibly being pushed out of the cavity when purge flow is added with a BR of 0.35. At higher BRs, the flow exiting the cavity does not allow a vortex to form. The unsteadiness in the shear layer continues to be present.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of flow angle on flow field in cavity. Streamlines are presented along with contours of the pressure coefficient, C−p=(Ps−Ps∞)/((1/2)ρ∞U∞2)). The single vortex expands lengthwise in the cavity as flow angle is increased, with no detectable unsteady response for 60 deg.




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