This paper studies different acceleration techniques for unsteady flow calculations. The results are compared with a nonaccelerated, fully explicit solution in terms of time-averaged pressure distributions, the unsteady pressure and entropy in the frequency domain, and the skin friction factor. The numerical method solves the unsteady three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations via an explicit time-stepping procedure. The flow in the first stage of a modern industrial gas turbine is chosen as a test case. After a description of the numerical method used for the simulation, the test case is introduced. The purpose of the comparison of the different numerical algorithms for explicit schemes is to facilitate the decision as to which acceleration technique should be used for calculations with regard to accuracy and computational time. The convergence acceleration methods under consideration are explicit time-stepping with implicit residual averaging, explicit time-consistent multigrid, and implicit dual time stepping. The investigation and comparison of the different acceleration techniques apply to all explicit unsteady flow solvers. This paper also examines the influence of the stage blade count ratio on the flowfield. For this purpose, a simulation with a stage pitch ratio of unity is compared with a calculation using the real ratio of 78:80, which requires a more sophisticated method for periodic boundary condition treatment. This paper should help to decide whether it is crucial from the turbine designer’s point of view to model the real pitch ratio in unsteady flow simulations in turbine stages. [S0889-504X(00)00702-9]

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
flow simulation, pressure, entropy, Navier-Stokes equations, gas turbines, numerical analysis
Topics:
Blades, Entropy, Pressure, Rotors, Stators, Fluctuations (Physics), Flow (Dynamics), Algorithms, Turbines
1.
Davis, R. L., Shang, T., Buteau, J., and Hi, R. H., 1996, “Prediction of 3-D Unsteady Flow in Multi-Stage Turbomachinery Using an Implicit Dual Time-Step Approach,” AIAA Paper No. 96-2565.
2.
Janssen, M., Zimmermann, H., Kopper, F., and Richardson, J., 1995, “Application of Aero-Engine Technology to Heavy Duty Gas Turbines,” ASME Paper No. 95-GT-133.
3.
Zeschky
,
J.
, and
Gallus
,
H. E.
,
1993
, “
Effects of Stator Wakes and Spanwise Nonuniform Inlet Conditions on the Rotor Flow of an Axial Turbine Stage
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
115
, pp.
128
–
136
.
4.
Merz, R., Kru¨ckels, J., Mayer, J. F., and Stetter, H., 1995, “Computation of Three-Dimensional Viscous Transonic Turbine Stage Flow Including Tip Clearance Effects,” ASME Paper No. 95-GT-76.
5.
Merz, R., 1998, “Entwicklung eines Mehrgitterverfahrens zur numerischen Lo¨sung der dreidimensionalen kompressiblen Navier–Stokes Gleichungen fu¨r mehrstufige Turbomaschinen,” Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 7—Stro¨mungstechnik, No. 342.
6.
Jung, A. R., Mayer, J. F., and Stetter, H., 1996, “Simulation of 3D-Unsteady Stator/Rotor Interaction in Turbomachinery Stages of Arbitrary Pitch Ratio,” ASME Paper No. 96-GT-69.
7.
Walraevens, R. E., Gallus, H. E., Jung, A. R., Mayer, J. F., and Stetter, H., 1998, “Experimental and Computational Study of the Unsteady Flow in a 1.5 Stage Axial Turbine With Emphasis on the Secondary Flow in the Second Stator,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-254.
8.
Merz, R., Meyer, J. F., and Stetter, H., 1997, “Three-Stage Steam Turbine Flow Analysis Using a Three-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Multigrid Approach,” 2nd European Conference on Turbomachinery—Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics, Antwerpen.
9.
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, E., 1981, “Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge–Kutta Time-Stepping Schemes,” AIAA Paper No. 81-1259.
10.
Giles, M. B., 1991, “UNSFLO: A Numerical Method for the Calculation of Unsteady Flow in Turbomachinery,” GTL Report No. 205, MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory.
11.
Giles, M. B., 1988, “Non-reflecting Boundary Conditions for the Euler Equations,” TR 88-1, MIT Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
12.
Saxer, A. P., 1992, “A Numerical Analysis of 3-D Inviscid Stator/Rotor Interactions Using Non-reflecting Boundary Conditions,” GTL Report No. 209, MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory.
13.
Jorgenson, P. C. E., and Chima, R. V., 1989, “An Unconditionally Stable Runge–Kutta Method for Unsteady Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 89-0295.
14.
He, L., 1996, “Time-Marching Calculations of Unsteady Flows, Blade Row Interaction and Flutter,” von Ka´rma´n Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Lecture Series 1996-05, Rhode Saint Gene`se, Belgium.
15.
Jung, A. R., 1997, private notes.
16.
Jameson, A., 1991, “Time Dependent Calculations Using Multigrid, With Applications to Unsteady Flows Past Airfoils and Wings,” AIAA Paper No. 91-1596.
17.
von Hoyningen-Huene, M., and Hermeler, J., 1999, “Comparison of Three Approaches to Model Stator–Rotor Interaction in the Turbine Front Stage of an Industrial Gas Turbine,” Paper No. C 557-18, 3rd European Conference on Turbomachinery—Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics, London.
18.
von Hoyningen-Huene, M., and Hermeler, J., 1999, “Time-Resolved Numerical Analysis of the Aerodynamics in the First Stage of an Industrial Gas Turbine for Different Vane-Blade Spacings,” ASME Paper No. 99-GT-102.
19.
Arnone
,
A.
, and
Pacciani
,
R.
,
1996
, “
Rotor–Stator Interaction Analysis Using the Navier–Stokes Equations and a Multigrid Method
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
118
, pp.
679
–
689
.
Copyright © 2000
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.