0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Heat Transfer

Numerical Characterization of Flow and Heat Transfer in Preswirl Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Riccardo Da Soghe

Ergon Research SRL,
via Campani 50,
Florence 50127, Italy
e-mail: riccardo.dasoghe@ergonresearch.it

Cosimo Bianchini, Jacopo D'Errico

Ergon Research SRL,
via Campani 50,
Florence 50127, Italy

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received August 30, 2017; final manuscript received October 10, 2017; published online April 20, 2018. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(7), 071901 (Apr 20, 2018) (12 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1485; doi: 10.1115/1.4038618 History: Received August 30, 2017; Revised October 10, 2017

This paper deals with a numerical study aimed at the validation of a computational procedure for the aerothermal characterization of preswirl systems employed in axial gas turbines. The numerical campaign focused on an experimental facility which models the flow field inside a direct-flow preswirl system. Steady and unsteady simulation techniques were adopted in conjunction with both a standard two-equation Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)/unsteady RANS (URANS) modeling and more advanced approaches such as the scale-adaptive-simulation (SAS) principle, the stress-blended eddy simulation (SBES), and large eddy simulation (LES). Overall, the steady-state computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions are in reasonable good agreement with the experimental evidences even though they are not able to confidently mimic the experimental swirl and pressure behavior in some regions. Scale-resolved approaches improve the computations accuracy significantly especially in terms of static pressure distribution and heat transfer on the rotating disk. Although the use of direct turbulence modeling would in principle increase the insight in the physical phenomenon, from a design perspective, the trade-off between accuracy and computational costs is not always favorable.

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

References

Wilson, M. , Pilbrow, P. , and Owen, M. J. , 1997, “ Flow and Heat Transfer in a Preswirl Rotor-Stator System,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(2), pp. 364–373. [CrossRef]
Karabay, H. , Pilbrow, R. , Wilson, M. , and Owen, M. J. , 2000, “ Performance of Pre-Swirl Rotating-Disc Systems,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 122(3), pp. 442–450. [CrossRef]
Dittmann, M. , Geis, T. , Schramm, V. , Kim, S. , and Wittig, S. , 2001, “ Discharge Coefficients of a Pre-Swirl System in Secondary Air,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0122.
Yan, Y. , Gord, M. , Lock, G. D. , Wilson, M. , and Owen, M. , 2003, “ Fluid Dynamics of a Pre-Swirl Rotor-Stator System,” ASME. J. Turbomach., 125(4), pp. 641–647.
Chew, J. , Hills, N. , Khalatov, S. , Scanlon, T. , and Turner, B. , 2003, “ Measurement and Analysis of Flow in a Pre-Swirled Cooling Air Delivery System,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38084.
Lock, G. , Yan, Y. , Newton, P. , Wilson, M. , and Owen, J. M. , 2005, “ Heat Transfer Measurements Using Liquid Crystals in a Preswirl Rotating-Disk System,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 127(2), pp. 375–382. [CrossRef]
Lewis, P. , 2008, “ Pre-Swirl Rotor-Stator Systems: Flow and Heat Transfer,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Javiya, U. , Chew, J. , Hills, N. , Zhou, L. , Wilson, M. , and Lock, G. , 2010, “ CFD Analysis of Flow and Heat Transfer in a Direct Transfer Pre-Swirl System,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22964.
Karnahl, J. , von Wolfersdorf, J. , Tham, K. M. , Wilson, M. , and Lock, G. , 2011, “ CFD Simulations of Flow and Heat Transfer in a Pre-Swirl System: Influence of Rotating-Stationary Domain Interface,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45085.
Bianchini, C. , Andreini, A. , Andrei, L. , and Facchini, B. , 2013, “ Numerical Benchmark of Non Conventional RANS Turbulence Models for Film and Effusion Flows,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(4), p. 041026. [CrossRef]
Da Soghe, R. , Bianchini, C. , Andreini, A. , Mazzei, L. , and Facchini, B. , 2015, “ Heat Transfer Augmentation Due to Coolant Extraction on the Cold Side of Active Clearance Control Manifolds,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 138(2), p. 021507. [CrossRef]
Owen, J. M. , and Rogers, M. , 1989, Flow and Heat Transfer in Rotating-Disk Systems (Rotor–Stator Systems), Vol. 1, Wiley, New York.
Arolla, S. , and Durbin, P. , 2013, “ Modeling Rotation and Curvature Effects Within Scalar Eddy Viscosity,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 39, pp. 78–89. [CrossRef]
Elena, L. , and Schiestel, R. , 1996, “ Turbulence Modeling of Rotating Confined Flows,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 17(3), pp. 283–289. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2016, “ ANSYS CFX 17 Modelling Guide,” ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Gupta, K. , Ramerth, D. , and Ramachandran, D. , 2008, “ Numerical Simulation of TOBI Flow—Analysis of the Cavity Between a Seal-Plate and HPT Disk With Pumping Vanes,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50739.
Benim, A. C. , Cagan, M. , Bonhoff, B. , and Brillert, D. , 2005, “ Simulation of Flow in Gas Turbine Pre-Swirl Systems With Emphasis on Rotor-Stator Interface Treatment,” IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Corfu, Greece, Aug. 20–22, pp. 206–211.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of the test-rig [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Numerical domain and BCs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Adopted mesh details

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369): swirl number profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369): total pressure coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369): static pressure coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369): wall heat flux

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effects of turbulent flow parameter on swirl profile at Reφ = 0.78 × 106 (case 1 λt = 0.127, case 4 λt = 0.235, and case 7 λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effects of turbulent flow parameter on static pressure coefficient at Reφ = 0.78 × 106 (case 1 λt = 0.127, case 4 λt = 0.235, and case 7 λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effects of rotational Reynolds number on swirl profile at λt = 0.36 (case 7 Reφ = 0.79 × 106, case 8 Reφ = 0.97 × 106, and case 9 Reφ = 1.18 × 106)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effects of rotational Reynolds number on static pressure coefficient at λt = 0.36 (case 7 Reφ = 0.79 × 106, case 8 Reφ = 0.97 × 106, and case 9 Reφ = 1.18 × 106)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Discharge coefficient over the swirl number at receiving holes radius

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Discharge coefficient over the turbulent flow parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Static pressure coefficient profiles for RANS and URANS approach: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total pressure coefficient profiles for RANS and URANS approach: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Total pressure contours on interdisk midplane: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369): (a) RANS frozen rotor interface and (b) instantaneous URANS sliding interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Tangentially averaged wall heat flux on rotating disk for RANS and URANS approach: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Resolved to total turbulent kinetic energy on interdisk midplane for SAS: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Static pressure coefficient for URANS and SAS: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Total pressure coefficient for URANS and SAS: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Instantaneous wall heat flux on rotating disk for SAS: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Tangentially averaged wall heat flux on rotating disk for URANS and SAS: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Static pressure coefficient for URANS and SAS: case 1 (Reφ = 0.78 × 106, λt = 0.127)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Tangentially averaged wall heat flux on rotating disk for URANS and SAS: case 1 (Reφ = 0.78 × 106, λt = 0.127)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Resolved to total turbulent kinetic energy on interdisk midplane for LES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Static pressure coefficient for SAS and LES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Tangentially averaged wall heat flux on rotating disk for SAS and LES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Taylor criterion close to the rotor disk wall: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Near stator wall turbulent viscosity ratio for URANS, SAS, LES, and SBES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Resolved to total turbulent kinetic energy on interdisk midplane SBES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Static pressure coefficient for SAS and SBES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Tangentially averaged wall heat flux on rotating disk for URANS, SAS, LES, and SBES: case 7 (Reφ = 0.79 × 106, λt = 0.369)

Tables

Errata

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