NASA-CR-19629b

¢ALSPAN

_N MR
)
/ r
/

FINAL REPORT FOR NASA GRANT NAG3-581--

EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL
ANALYSIS RELATED TO GAS TURBINE HEAT
TRANSFER :
PART I : TIME-AVERAGED HEAT-FLUX AND
SURFACE-PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS ON THE
VANES AND BLADES OF THE SSME FUEL-SIDE
TURBINE AND COMPARISON WITH PREDICTION

AND

PART II : PHASE-RESOLVED SURFACE-PRESSURE

AND HEAT-FLUX MEASUREMENTS ON THE FIRST
O,

@,
BLADE OF THE SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE
_O

I co
U
0_ C o
O

,,t

CUBRC FINAL REPORT NO. 640II

MAY 1994

PREPARED FOR:
NASA LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER
21000 BROOKPARK RD.
CLEVELAND, OH 44135

CALSPAN-UB RESEARCH CENTER P.O. BOX 400, BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14225 TEL. (716) 631-6900 FAX (716) 631-4166
 CALSPAN

PART I: TIME-AVERAGED HEAT-FLUX AND SURFACE-PRESSURE

MEASUREMENTS ON THE VANES AND BLADES OF THE SSME FUEL SIDE

TURBINE AND COMPARISON WITH PREDICTION

by

M.G. Dunn and J. Kim

Calspan-UB Research Center

Buffalo, NY 14225

CUBRC Report No. 6401

Prepared for the

NASA Lewis Research Center

21000 Brookpark Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44135

March, 1992

CALSPAN-UBRESEARCHCENTERP.O,BOX400, BUFFALO,NEWYORK14225 TEL, (716) 631-6900 FAX(716) 631-4166

 ABSTRACT

Time averaged Stanton number and surface-pressure distributions are reported for

the first-stage vane row, the first stage blade row, and the second stage vane row of the

Rocketdyne Space Shuttle Main Engine two-stage fuel-side turbine. Unsteady pressure

envelope measurements for the f'u'st blade are also reported. These measurements were

made at 10%, 50%, and 90% span on both the pressure and suction surfaces of the first

stage components. Additional Stanton number measurements were made on the first

stage blade platform, blade tip, and shroud, and at 50% span on the second vane. A shock

tube was used as a short duration source of heated and pressurized air to which the

turbine was subjected. Platinum thin-film heat flux gages were used to obtain the heat-

flux measurements, while miniature silicon-diaphragm flush-mounted pressure

transducers were used to obtain the pressure measurements. The f'u'st stage vane Stanton

number distributions axe compared with predictions obtained using a version of STAN5

and a quasi-3D Navier-Stokes solution. This same quasi-3D N-S code was also used to

obtain predictions for the first blade and the second vane.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was performed by the Calspan UB Research Center under support

of the NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, Grant No. NAG3-581. The authors

gratefully acknowledge the contributions made to the success of this program by the

contract monitors K.C. Civinskas and Dr. R. Gaugler of the NASA Lewis Research

Center. Thanks are also extended to R. J. Boyle and K.C. Civinskas for performing the

predictions to the data upon which we heavily depended. This work would have not been

possible without the contributions of the many Calspan engineers and technicians,

especially John R. Moselle, Robert M. Meyer, Shirley J. Sweet, Jeffrey L. B,'u-ton, and

Robert M. Field.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF FIGURES V

LIST OF TABLES vii

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

SECTION 2: DESCRWI'ION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE, THE

TURBINE FLOW PATH, AND THE INSTRUMENTATION 6

2.1 The Experimental Technique 6

2.2 The SSME Turbine 8

2.3 The Turbine Nov., Path 11

2.4 Heat-Flux Instrumentation 17

2.5 Pressure Instrumentation 18

2.6 High Speed Data Acquisition 22

SECTION 3: EXPERDCIENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH PREDICTIONS 23

3.1 First Vane and First Blade Surface Pressure Results 26

3.2 First Vane Surface Stanton Number Results 34

3.3 First Blade Surface Stanton Number Results 41

3.3.1 Discussion of blade data 41

3.3.2 Blade surface roughness considerations 47

3.4 Second Vane Surface Stanton Number Results 50

3.5 Blade Platform, Blade Tip and Shroud Results for Design

Speed Condition 52

iii
 3.6 VaneandBladeSurfaceResultsfor Off-DesignSpeed
(68%DesignSpeed) 57

3.7 BladePlatform,Tip andShroudResultsfor Off-Design Speed 65

SECTION4: CONCLUSIONS 70

REFERENCES 72

APPENDIX 76

A.1 Vane and Blade Coordinates 77

A. 1.1 First Nozzle Coordinates 77

A. 1.2 First Rotor Coordinates 84

A. 1.3 Second Nozzle Coordinates 91

A.2 Listing of Instrumentation Locations 98

A.3 Listing of Data: Pressure and Stanton numbers 106

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

2.1.1 Sketch of the SSME turbine stage located in the shock-tunnel.

2.1.2 Photograph of Calspan's shock-tunnel facility for turbine research.

2.1.3 Sketch of a typical shock-tube wave diagram.

2.2.1 Photograph of SSME fuel-side turbine first stage vane, front view.

2.2.2 Photograph of SSME fuel-side turbine first stage vane, rear view.

2.2.3 Photograph of SSME fuel-side turbine first stage rotor, front view.

2.2.4 Photograph of SSME fuel-side turbine second stage vane, front view.

2.2.5 Photograph of SSME fuel-side turbine second stage vane, rear view.

2.2.6 Enlarged photograph of first blade surface roughness.

2.2.7 Profilometer scan of blade surface.

2.3.1 Sketch of device housing SSME turbine stage.

2.4.1 Button-type heat-flux gages on first-stage blade pressure surface.

2.4.2 Photograph of leading-edge insert heat-flux gages on first-stage blade.

2.5.1 Photograph of pressure transducers at 10% span on flu'st-stage blade surface.

2.6.1 High-speed pressure record (pressure transducer mounted on first-stage blade).

3.1.1 Pressure distribution at 10% span on fin'st vane.

3.1.2 Pressure distribution at 50% span on first vane.

3.1.3 Pressure distribuuon at 90% span on first vane.

3.1.4 Pressure distribuuon at 10% span on In'st blade.

3.1.5 Pressure distribuuon at 50% span on first blade.

3.1.6 Pressure distribution at 90% span on first blade.

3.2.1 Stanton number distribution on fast vane, 50% span, Re~140,000.

3.2.1 Stanton number distribution on fast vane, 50% span, Re~250,000 results.

3.2.3 Stanton number distribution on fast vane, 10% span. closed symbols:
Re-140,000 data, open symbols: Re-250,000 data

3.2.4 Stanton number distribution on fast vane, 90% span. closed symbols:
Re-140,000 data, open symbols: Re~250,000 data

V
 Stanton number distribution on first blade, 50% span, Re-140,000.

Stanton number distribution on first blade, 50% span, Re-250,000. Comparison

with predictions for various roughness heights.

3.3.3 Stanton number distribution on fast blade, 10% span. closed symbols:
Re~140,000 data, open symbols: Re-250,000 data

3.3.4 Stanton number distribution on fast blade, 90% span. closed symbols:
Re~140,000 data, open symbols: Re~250,000 data

3.4.1 Stanton number distribution on second vane, 50% span. closed symbols:
Re-140,000 data, open symbols: Re~250,000 data

3.5.1 Stanton number distribution on the blade platform, Re-140,000.

3.5.2 Stanton number distribution on the blade platform, Re-250,000.

3.5.3 Stanton number distribution on the blade tip, Re-140,000.

3.5.4 Stanton number distribution on the blade tip, Re-250,000.

3.5.5 Stanton number distribution on the blade shroud, Re-140,000.

3.5.6 Stanton number distribution on the blade shroud, Re-250,000.

3.5.7 First blade tip, shroud, and platform, Re-140,000 (Runs 5, 6, 12, and 13).

3.5.8 First blade tip, shroud, and platform, Re-250,000 (Runs 7, 8, and 11).

3.6.1 Stanton number distribution at 50% span on f'n'st vane, Re-250,000, comparison
with off speed data.

3.6.2 Stanton number distribution at 50% span on f'ast blade, Re-250,000, comparison
with off speed data.

3.6.3 Stanton number distribution at 50% span on second vane, Re-250,000,

comparison with off speed data.

3.7.1 Stanton number distribution on the blade platform, Re-250,000, comparison with
off speed data.

3.7.2 Stanton number distribution on the blade tip, Re-250,000, comparison with off
speed data.

3.7.3 Stanton number distribution on the blade shroud, Re-250,000, comparison with
off speed data.

A.I.1 First nozzle: tip, midspan, and hub.

A.1.2 First rotor: tip, midspan, and hub.

A.1.3 Second nozzle: tip, midspan, and hub.

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

1 Summary of flow parameters.

2a Measured interstage pressures. Static pressures were measured at the outer

shroud.

2b Component pressure ratios. Static pressures were measured at the outer shroud.

A.2.1 Heat flux instrumentation, first stage nozzle guide vane, pressure side.

A.2.2 Heat flux instrumentation, first stage nozzle guide vane, suction side.

A.2.3a Heat flux instrumentation, first stage rotor.

A.2.3b Heat flux instrumentation, first stage rotor (cont'd).

A.2.3c Heat flux instrumentation, first stage rotor (cont'd).

A.2.4a Pressure instrumentation, first stage rotor.

A.2.4b Pressure instrumentation, first stage rotor (cont'd).

A.2.5a Pressure instrumentation, fhst stage vane.

A.2.5b Pressure instrumentation, fin'st stage vane (cont'd).

A.2.5c Pressure instrumentation, first stage vane (cont'd).

A.3.1 Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.2 Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 50% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.3 Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 90% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.4 Pressure ratio distribution, first rotor, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.5 Pressure ratio distribution, first rotor, 50% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.6 Pressure ratio distribution, first rotor, 90% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

vii
A.3.7 Stanton number distribution, first vane, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.8 Stanton number distribution, first vane, 50% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.
A.3.9 Stanton number distribution, First vane, 90% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.10 Stanton number distribution, first blade, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.11 Stanton number distribution, f'trst blade, 50% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.12 Stanton number distribution, fast blade, 90% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

A.3.13 Stanton number distribution, second vane, 50% span. % wetted distances less
than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on
suction surface.

,o0

VIII
 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The results described in this document are a summary of the work performed

under support of NASA Lewis Research Center Grant No. NAG3-581. This program was

initiated in 1986 with the purpose of providing fundamental data that could be used to

validate predictive codes that would be used to predict the heat u-ansfer distributions and

pressure loadings for the SSME fuel-side turbopump. Prior to the time that a full scale

pump became available, the Garrett TFE 731-2HP turbine was used to develop techniques

for obtaining the basic data of interest and for investigating the applicability of various

predictive techniques. The results of this effort have been reported in Dunn, 1986, Dunn

et al., 1986, Raeet al., 1988, Taulbee, Tran, and Dunn, 1988, Dunn, et al., 1989, Dunn,

1990, Tran and Taulbee, 1991, and George, Rae and Woodward, 1991. Once the SSME

turbine stage became available, all attention focused on that machine with the purpose of:

(a) providing experimental information for code validation to the turbopump consortium,

and (b) to provide comparison data for a blowdown test rig at Marshall Space Flight

Center which uses the same multi-stage turbine. The program was structured so that

time-averaged, time-resolved, and phase-averaged data were to be obtained.

The results of several previous measurement programs that utilized many of the

same diagnostic techniques as used here, but for different turbine stages, have been

reported in Dunn and Stoddard, 1979 (Garrett TFE 731-2); Dunn and Hause, 1982

(Garrett TFE 731-2); Dunn, Rae, and Holt, 1984 (Garrett TFE 731-2); Dunn, Martin, and

Stanek (Air Force LART), 1986; Dunn and Chupp, 1988 (Teledyne 702); Dunn and

Chupp, 1989 (Teledyne 702); and Dunn, Bennett, Delaney, and Rao, 1990 (Allison Test

Turbine). The short-duration facility used for the experiments reported here is the same

one used to obtain the results reported in Dunn, Bennett, Delaney, and Rao, 1990.
 The flow andheattransferthatoccurin a turbinestage(or stages)representoneof

the most complicatedenvironmentsseenin any practical machine: the flow is unsteady

(especiallyin therotor), canbetransonic,is generallythree-dimensional,andis subjected

to strong body forces. Despite theseproblems,satisfactorydesignsand expansionsof

operatingenvelopeshavebeenachievedover theyearsdueto thedevelopmentof a sound

analyticalunderstandingof the flow andheat-transfermechanicsthat define performance

andto advancesin materialsandmanufacturingprocesses.The analyticaldevelopments
weremadepossibleby a seriesof approximations,in which the level of detail retainedin

the modeling was sufficient to reveal important physical effects, while still allowing
solutionsto befoundby availableanalytical/numericalmethods.

The major milestones in the development of these methods have been the

approximationsthat flow through eachblade row is steadyin coordinatesfixed to the

blades,that three-dimensionalitycan be handledby treatinga seriesof two-dimensional

flows in hub-to-shroudand blade-to-bladesurfaces,andthat the effects of viscosity can

be estimated by non-interacting boundary-layer calculations and by loss models to

accountfor secondary flow.

This technology base is surrounded by many analyses and numerical codes which

can treat the flow on higher levels of approximation, and which are used from time to

time to provide refined estimates of the flowfield and heat transfer, typically near a design

point. Three-dimensional and unsteady flow effects are two areas where recently

developed computational tools can provide useful information on the flow conditions, at

least for the first stage of a multistage turbine. However, in the second and subsequent

stages, these effects become more pronounced. The current state-of-the-art analyses can

predict reasonably well the second stage vane pressure distribution but the predicted heat-

flux levels on the second vane are not as good as desired as illustrated by Blair, Dring,

and Joslyn, 1988. These analyses are probably not adequate for the second rotor row, but

experimental data have not been generally available for comparison with the prediction.
 The resultspresentedin this report contributeheat-fluxdatafor the midspanregionof the
secondstagevane.

Unsteadinessandthree-dimensionalityaredirect consequences
of the interaction

of blades moving through vane wakes and the impact of multiple blade rows. The

environment associatedwith the SSME fuel side turbine lends itself to a multistage

analysis. Until very recently,suchananalysiswould havebeenenvisionedasa complete,

time-accurate,fully three-dimensionaldescription of the flowfield. Some first steps

toward the calculation of suchflows can be seenin the work of Rai, 1987and Rai and

Madavan, 1988,but it is clear that the computationalcostsof this approachcould very

quickly becomeprohibitive. An alternativeto the Raiapproachis that describedby Hah,

1984. Metzger, Dunn, and Hah, 1990(a),useda flowfield defined using the calculated

technique described in Hah, 1984 to perform turbine tip and shroud heat-transfer

predictions for a Garrett TFE 731 HP turbine stage. Thesepredictions were shown to

comparefavorablewith experimentalresults. Anotherapproachto the problemis the one

proposedby Giles, 1988,which hasalsobeenappliedto turbine dataobtainedin a short-

durationfacility for a Rolls-Royceturbineby Abhari,Guenette,Epstein,andGiles, 1991.

Another approachto the problem is that describedby Rao and Delaney, 1990,
which until the presenttime, has only been applied to a single stage. The method
proposed by these authors solves the quasi-three-dimensionalEuler/Navier-Stokes

equationsusing the explicit hopscotchscheme.The full stagecomputationis performed

by coupling vane andblade solutions on overlappingO-type grids. In Dunn, Bennett,

Delaney, and Rao, 1990,comparisonsare given betweenthe predictions of Rao and

Delaney, 1990,andexperimentaldatathatwereobtainedfor a full-stage turbine usingthe

sameexperimentaltechniquesdescribedin this paper. Comparisonsarepresentedfor the

time-averagedsurfacepressure,the unsteadyenvelopeof the surfacepressure,and the

phase-resolvedsurfacepressurenearthe trailing edgeof the vaneand on the blade. The

agreementbetweenthe predictions and the measurementswas found to be very good.

 Detailedheat-fluxdataof the sametype mentionedabovewerealsoobtainedandwill be
presentedin the openliteraturein the nearfuture.

An alternateapproachthat is receivingcurrentattentionis basedon a formulation

of the passage-averaged
equationsof Adamczyk, 1985 and 1986,which until now have

beenusedonly as ananalysistool. It is apparentthat this techniqueholds promiseasthe

basis of a design method whose physical basisis considerably advancedbeyond the

currentstateof the art, andwhosenumericalimplementationis simple enoughto achieve

without the needfor excessivehoursof supercomputertime. The formulation of closure

models necessaryto exploit Adamczyk'sformulation relies on the availability of time-

resolved flowfield data. Some of this information can be obtained from the work of

Dring and Joslyn, 1986,who haveprobed the flow field within and arounda one-and-

one-half stagerotatingturbine.

Civinskas, Boyle, and McConnaughey, 1988, have previously presentedan

analysisof the first stagebladeof the turbine usedhere. The predictionspresentedhere

are a continuation of that work. The Navier-Stokesanalysisof heat transfer wasdone

usinga modified versionof the quasi-3Dthin layercodedevelopedby Chima, 1986. The

modificationsareexplainedin Boyle, 1991. An additionalchangefor thepurposesof this

paperhas beento incorporatethe transition model of Mayle, 1991 for the first vaneand

the intermittencymodelof Mayle andDullenkopf, 1989,1990,for the first blade and the

second vane. In addition to the quasi-3D Navier-Stokes analysis, the STAN5 (Crawford

and Kays, 1976) boundary layer analysis, as modified by Gaugler, 1981 was used. Both

the Navier-Stokes and boundary analyses used the MERIDL hub-to-shroud analysis of

Katsanis and McNally, 1977 to determine the stream tube variation at appropriate

spanwise locations. The edge conditions for the STAN5 boundary layer analysis were

obtained using the TSONIC analysis of Katsanis, 1969.

The rotor blade tip of a gas turbine engine moves in close proximity to the outer

stationary shroud. Typically, the gap between blade tip and shroud is kept as small as
 possiblein order to reducelosses. Active control of the gapis difficult and, even under

the best of conditions, doesnot reduce the gap to zero. It would not be desirable to

reducethis tip gaptoo muchbecauseduring transientengineexcursionsa rotor rub might

occur which may be more detrimental to the engine than the tip losses are to the

performance. It is commonpracticefor the turbine tip gapto be on the order of 1% to

1.5%of the bladeheight. The leakageflow is driven by the higherpressureon the blade
pressuresurfaceforcing fluid throughthe gap towardsthe suctionsurfaceandcan result

in relatively large heattransferlevelson the bladetip andon the bladesuction surfacein

the vicinity of 90% to 100% spannear the trailing edge. Heat transfer levels on the

stationaryshroudarealsorelatively large by comparisonto blademidspanlevels,but not

aslarge ason the tip.

Many authors have studied the flow in the tip gap region: e.g., Allen and

Kofskey, 1955; Booth, Dodge and Hepwonh, 1982; Mayle and Metzger, 1982; Wadia

and Booth, 1982; Bindon, 1986; Moore and Tilson, 1988; and Metzger and Rued, 1989.

Heat-transfer measurements on the moving blades and the stationary shroud have been

made by Dunn, Rae and Holt, 1984(a) and 1984(b), Dunn, Martin and Stanek, 1986,

Dunn, 1989 and by Epstein, 1985 on the stationary shroud. Metzger, Dunn and Hah,

1990 applied the results of a three-dimensional Navier-Stokes solution (technique

described in Hah, 1984) obtained for the actual experimental conditions and turbine

(Garrett TFE 731-2-HP) to exercise a simple model of the tip flow and estimate the local

heat flux levels for comparison with the experimental results.

In the remainder of this report, Section 2 provides a description of the

experimental technique, the turbine flow path, and the instrumentation. Section 3

presents the experimental results and a comparison with predictions. Section 4 presents

an estimate of the turbine efficiency based on the measured heat-flux distributions and the

flowpath measurements. The appendicies provide information regarding the airfoil

coordinates, the instrumentation locations, along with a tabular listing of the data.
 SECTION 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE, THE TURBINE

FLOW PATH, AND THE INSTRUMENTATION

2.1 The Experimental Technique

The measurements are performed utilizing a shock-tunnel to produce a short-

duration source of heated and pressurized gas that passes through the turbine. Air has

been selected as the test gas for these experiments. A schematic of the experimental

apparatus illustrating the shock tube, an expansion nozzle, a large dump tank and a device

that houses the turbine stage and provides the flow path geometry is shown in Figure

2.1.1. The shock tube has a 0.47-m (18.5-inch) diameter by 12.2-m (40-feet) long driver

tube and 0.47-m (18.5-inch) diameter by 18.3-m (60-feet) long driven tube. The driver

tube was designed to be sufficiently long so that the wave system reflected from the

endwall (at the left-hand end of the sketch) would not terminate the test time prematurely.

At the flow conditions to be run for these measurements, the test time is very long for a

shock tunnel facility being on the order of 40 milliseconds.

In order to initiate an experiment, the test section is evacuated while the driver,

the double diaphragm section, and the driven tube are pressurized to predetermined

values. Pressure values are selected to duplicate the design flow conditions. The flow

function _'X/_/8, wall-to-total temperature ratio (Tw/To), stage pressure ratios, and

corrected speed are duplicated. The shock-tunnel facility has the advantage that the value

of T o can be set at almost any desired value in the range of 800 °R to 3500 °R (Shock

tubes obviously can operate at higher T o values than 3500 °R, but at the expense of test

time. Test time is a parameter that one does not sacrifice easily), and the test gas can be

selected to duplicate the desired specific heat ratio. The pressure ratio across the turbine

is established by the throat area of the flow control nozzle located at the exit end of the

device housing the turbine. It is desirable to locate this throat as close to the turbine exit

6
 r

_1
Z
Z
3
I--
I

o{: (J
<{:-
O
,.>,_ {J)
LU
"r
I--
Z

| I / t.-
¢3
iii

I11
/ 0 _
,,_z
<{
(J
z ,\ 0
J
I.LI
N

Z,- I--
(_
i,i
Z

rr
=
p-
LU
Z
0
..J

o
0.D LU
x_ .T.
z_
W--

0
"ai
e_,.,
(J

E
V)

L
=,J

L U.

_0
tu _

ne '
 as is practical to reduce the time required to fill the cavity between the rotor exit and the

choke. The model (shown later in Figure 2.3.1) is currently being redesigned to move the

throat closer to the turbine exit. Simple one-dimensional calculations provide a good fin-st

estimate of the necessary exit area. Another characteristic of this facility is that the total

pressure (or the Reynolds number) at the entrance to the vane row can be changed by

moving the inlet to the device housing the turbine axially in the expanding nozzle flow so

as to intercept the flow at a different freestream Mach number. If this doesn't provide

sufficient range, then the reflected-shock pressure can be increased or the total

temperature can be decreased in order to increase the Reynolds number, which was the

approach taken in these tests.

Figure 2.1.2 is a photograph of the facility illustrating many of the components

described in the preceding paragraph. Figure 2.1.3 is a wave diagram for the shock tube.

The gas that subsequently passes through the turbine has been processed by both the

incident and the reflected shock shown in Figure 2.1.3. The reflected-shock reservoir gas

is expanded in the primary nozzle which has the effect of increasing the flow velocity,

decreasing the total pressure and maintaining the total temperature at the reservoir value.

The device housing the turbine will not pass all of the weight flow available in the

primary nozzle, so the inlet must be carefully located in order to avoid a hammer shock.

That is, there must be sufficient flow area for a normal shock to establish outside the inlet

and for the remainder of the flow not passed through the turbine to pass between the lip of

the inlet and the nozzle wall. If the inlet is placed too far into the nozzle, the nozzle flow

will be blocked and very large short-duration forces will be exerted on the device with

potentially disastrous effects. The flow downstream of the inlet normal shock is subsonic

at a pressure determined by the shock strength at the particular pick-off location in the

expansion.

2.2 The SSME Turbine

© I
0
n-

l,J
cO
w
n"
l,i
Z
m
n_

F-
n-
O
u.

li
...I
w
Z
Z

0
0
-r"

11.
if)
....1

0
"l-
a.

n-

o
-r
cL

,r-

.--
u.
 TRANSMITTED WAVE .---.-_

TIME REFLECTED WAVE--.-.-t \

./
I

/
a'
i
,.' \

\ \ I /-..__RAREFACTION .._

RAREFACTION ._._
HEAD

-X L

DRIVER TUBE 0 DRIVEN TUBE

Figure 2.1.3 SKETCH OF A TYPICAL SHOCK-TUBE WAVE DIAGRAM

]0
 Photographs of the first stage vane row (41 vanes), the f'trst stage rotor row (63

blades), and the second stage vane row (39 vanes) are shown on Figures 2.2.1-2.2.5. The

second stage rotor (not shown) has 59 blades. The tip/shroud clearance for the first stage

rotor at the design speed condition is -0.015 inches or 1.6% of blade height. Figures

2.2.1 and 2.2.2 show photographs of the front and rear view of the first-stage vane row

illustrating a cut-back (which was accounted for in the analysis to be described later) of

the vane near the hub endwall trailing edge. It can be seen that the surface finish of the

vane row is much smoother than it is for the blades. An enlarged photograph of the blade

surface qualitatively illustrating the surface roughness on the blade is shown on Figure

2.2.6. The surface roughness for this blade has been measured" and a typical

profilometer scan of the blade surface is given in Figure 2.2.7. The results shown in this

figure suggest an rms roughness of about 150,000/_, which was used in the analysis of the

heat-transfer data. Figures 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 are photographs of the second vane illustrating

a surface finish comparable to the fin'st vane and the absence of a cut-back at the trailing

edge. The vane and blade coordinates are listed in the Appendix in section A. 1.

2.3 The Turbine Flow Path

Figure 2.3.1 is a drawing of the turbine stage illustrating the extent to which the

flowpath of the SSME hardware has been reproduced. The preburner dome and bolt, the

13 struts upstream of the first-stage vane, the 12 flow straighteners, and 6 struts

downstream of the second rotor have been included. At the exit of the model is a flow

choke which is used to control both the mass flow through the turbine as well as the

turbine exit pressure. The choke area computed using a one-dimensional approximation

to the flow yielded exit areas very close to those required.

Roughness measurements were performed at the United Technologies Research Center and supplied to
CUBRC courtesy of M. Blair. Figure 4(0) has been reproduced here with permission of M. Blair.

11
 Figure 2.2.1 PHOTOGRAPH OF SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE FIRST STAGE VANE, FRONT VIEW

CUT BACK OF VANE

i !

Figure 2.2.2 PHOTOGRAPH OF SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE FIRST STAGE VANE, REAR VIEW

12
13
Figure 2.2.4 PHOTOGRAPH OF SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE SECOND STAGE VANE, FRONT VIEW

Figure 2.2.5 PHOTOGRAPH OF SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE SECOND STAGE VANE, REAR VIEW

14
 Figure2.2.6 ENLARGED
PHOTOGRAPH
OF FIRSTBLADESURFACE
ROUGHNESS

1_,! I !
I .lil 400.000

r_• t jl. I ;tJIJI V

l
I /,"1,/t,k/1
ri
1

II
l"l i 3oo.oo
!

1,1
it/ ",i'ti_
I I'
i
!
200,000
I00,000 co

='
! 11 .,I_
•:
" -''
.iJ,'I,
'-_
•
il
'
,'1 !'f I'!
_,,1i ik' LII,' I''i' ri, I
II il/'q _I11 i
'- i i
"."I o
* "
oif"
l'--

i' p iI
i-

r
i I

,J
_iJJ[
iN' II r i
Ji_.P.
i !,
-200,000 <
, i I -300,000

,_! i , • J -400,000
I'1 I
'"1. t, i, RMS FOR THIS SCAN = 153,586 ANGSTROMS
i % ,dsI :: = 0.0015 cm (0,00059 in.)
I I I [ [ I [
-500,000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

MICRONS

Figure 2.2.7 PROFILOMETER SCAN OF BLADE SURFACE

15
 uJ

I,U
Z
II1

I-

Z
Z

ul
0
u)
<
I.u
i
Ill >

U_ It
LL_
rr 0
G.

i
X

16
 Mounted onto the forwardendof the drive motor shaftis a 1000pulse/revolution

Hewlett Packard HEDS 5000 shaft encoder from which turbine speed and angular

position is determined. This unit outputs a TrL pulse every 360°/1000=0.36 ° and a

second TrL pulse once every revolution (the zero-crossing pulse). The shaft encoder was

initially aligned such that the zero-crossing pulse occurred when the stagnation point of

the first stage rotor blade containing the leading e,dge insert (heat-transfer) gage described

in the next section was 12.2 ° CCW from TDC of the first stage vane. The pulses from the

shaft encoder are used to trigger the dam recording system. Since the turbine speed is not

kept constant during the run, a 25 MHz timing pulse in the form of a ramp signal is fed

into one channel of the high frequency data recorder to determine the arrival time of each

encoder pulse. Mounted on the downstream end of the shaft is a 200 channel, freon/oil

cooled, slip ring unit.

2.4 Heat-Flux Instrumentation

The heat-flux measurements were performed using thin-film resistance

thermometers. These devices represent an old and very well established technology that

was developed as part of the early hypersonics flow research work in the late 1950's for

measurement of heat-flux distributions in short-duration facilities. The thin-film gages

are made of platinum (-100/_ thick) and are hand painted on an insulating Pyrex (7740)

substrate in the form of a strip that is approximately 1.02 x 10-4-m (0.004-in) wide by

about 5.08 x 10-4-m (0.020-in) long. The response time of the elements is on the order of

10 -8 s. The substrates containing the heat-flux gages are Epoxied within the base metal

throughout the turbine stage. The substrate onto which the gage is painted can be made in

many sizes and shapes.

Both button-type gages and the contoured leading-edge inserts were used for this

work. The first stage vane and blade row were instrumented using both types of

instrumentation along the 10%, 50%, and 90% span locations. Some gages were installed

17
 in the In'st stage blade shroud, blade platform, and blade tip. The second stage vane had

button gages only along the 50% span. The locations of the heat transfer instrumentation

are summarized in the Appendix in section A.2. Figure 2.4.1 is a photograph of a rotor

blade that has been instrumented with button-types gages and Figure 2.4.2 is a

photograph of a blade containing a contoured leading-edge insert. Each of the gages has

two lead wires. The wires from the gages on the rotor are routed through the hollow shaft

to the slip-ring unit.

2.5 Pressure Instrumentation

Measurements were also obtained using miniature silicon diaphragm pressure

transducers located on the first-stage vane and the first-stage blade. The particular gages

being used are Kulite Model LQ-062-600A with an active pressure area of 0.64 mm by

0.64 mm, and a frequency response of about 100 kHz in the installed configuration.

Twenty-eight pressure transducers were installed on the vanes and twenty-four were

installed on the blades. The pressure transducers were placed at 10%, 50%, and 90%

span on the first vane and blade stages, and were distributed over several different vanes

and blades so as to not disturb the integrity of the surface. No pressure transducers were

installed in the second stage vane. The location of the surface mounted pressure

transducers are summarized in the Appendix in section A.2. Figure 2.5.1 is a photograph

of several of these transducers located at 10% span on the suction surface of the blade.

Each of these transducers has four leads--two power leads and two output leads. The

wires from the gages on the rotor are routed through the hollow shaft to the slip-ring unit.

Flowpath static pressure was measured on the outer wall of the turbine model at

the inlet and exit to the turbine stages and between each blade row. The upstream static

pressure was nearly equal to the upstream total pressure because the inlet Mach number

was low (on the order of 0.1). The inlet Mach number was calculated and the inlet total

18
Figure 2.4.1 BUTTON-TYPE HEAT-FLUX GAGES ON FIRST-STAGE BLADE PRESSURE SURFACE

]9
 THIN-FILM GAGES ON INSERT AT 50% SPAN

Figure 2.4.2 PHOTOGRAPH OF LEADING-EDGE INSERT HEAT-FLUX GAGES ON FIRST-STAGE BLADE

ZO
 _Io% SPAN_

PRESSURE TRANSDUCERS

Figure 2.5.1 PHOTOGRAPH OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCERS AT 10% SPAN ON

FIRST-STAGE BLADE SURFACE

2]
pressure was obtained from the isentropic flow relationship. Total pressure was also

measured in the passage downstream of the second rotor using two rakes of transducers.

2.6 High Speed Data Acquisition

An attempt was made to obtain time resolved data for selected heat transfer and

pressure gages on the f'u'st stage rotor using a bank of 24 programmable, high-speed data

recording units (Datalab DL6010 and DL6020). These units were configured so that a

sample was recorded whenever a pulse was output by the shaft encoder, i.e., once every

0.36 °. A separate timer box was used to measure the recording time after trigger. The

data obtained using this bank of high-speed recorders were, however, contaminated with

noise that was inadvertently introduced into the system. The unsteady pressure and heat

transfer envelopes therefore could not be obtained. This problem will be rectified by start

of the second phase of this program.

22
 SECTION 3

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH PREDICTIONS

A total of thirteen runs were made during which several model configurations

were used. Of these thirteen runs and different model configurations, eight runs produced

data that could be used for the intentions of this research program. Some of the runs that

did not produce useable data were lost because of shock-tube diaphragm failures. The

remainder were lost in experimenting with the configuration of the model inlet duct.

Table 1 summarizes the reflected shock conditions, the flow conditions at the turbine

inlet, and the turbine speed for the eight runs to be discussed herein. Two shock tube

conditions were run for these experiments; the first at a reflected-shock pressure and

temperature of approximately 6.2 x 103 kPa (900 psia) and 544 K (980 °R), respectively,

and the second at a reflected-shock pressure and temperature of approximately 10 x 103

kPa (1445 psia) and 602 K (1084 °R), respectively. For a given test condition, the range

in reflected-shock pressure shown in Table 1 is the result of attempting to increase the test

time by changing the relative amount of helium in the driver gas which also influences

the incident shock Mach number and hence the reflected shock conditions. The two

reflected-shock conditions result in first vane inlet Reynolds numbers (based on first vane

chord) of approximately 1.4 x 105 and 2.5 x 105, respectively. Table 2(a) gives the

measured upstream, interstage, and exit pressures, and Table 2(b) provides the pressure

ratios for each of the vane and blade rows. The area of the downstream flow choke was

changed so that data could be obtained at two values of stage pressure ratio, for each test

condition. Measurements were obtained with the turbine speed set at 100%_+1% of the

design value or at approximately 103% of the design value. Limited data were obtained

at off-design speed.

23
Run Re[ Actual % Design
PT, in I Ps,in Reflected Reflectezl VC
]Ibm/s] [psia] shock shock speed**
(x10"5)* [rpm]
P s, out [ pressure temp.
stage [psia] UR]

1 9.52 90 865 949 2.39 6100 68

5 5.59 1.66 46.6 900 995 1.39 9075 99
6 5.81 1.65 48.3 929 990 1.44 9468 103
7 10.2 1.48 86 1519 1112 3.00 9612 99
8 9.74 1.38 89 1442 1084 2.69 9690 101
11 10.0 1.42 98 1369 1057 2.40 9585 101
12 5.83 1.54 48.3 925 981 1.45 9380 103
13 5.51 1.54 45.3 878 970 1.38 9365 103

*Reynolds number based on vane chord and vane inlet conditions.

** N corr= 291. 4 rpm /

Table 1--Summary of flow parameters.

24
Run Pt into Ps Ps Ps Ps Pt
1st exiting exiting exiting exiting exiting
I st vane 1st rotor 2 nd vane 2 nd rotor PT, in [ PT, in
vane 2 nd rotor
(psia) (psi,a) (psia) (psia) _ia) (psha) Ps, out stage PT, out stage

1 90.0 78.5 67.6 m m

5 47.1 40.4 34.3 30.5 28.3 29.1 1.66 1.62

6 48.9 43.0 36.4 32.5 29.7 30.4 1.65 1.61
7 86 77 70 63 58.3 59.9 1.49 1.45
8 89 82 75 68 64.3 64.4 1.40 1.40
11 98 90 79 71.5 69.0 67.5 1.44 1.47
i

12 48.8 43.3 37.3 34.1 31.7 32.2 1.54 1.52

13 45.8 40.3 34.7 32.0 29.7 30.2 1.54 1.52

Table 2a--Measured interstage pressures. Static pressure were measured at the outer shroud.

Run First vane First stage Second vane Second rotor

P
PT, in PT, in Ps, in s, in

Ps, out 'p

Ps, out Ps, out S, OUl

1 1.15 1.o3 m

5 1.17 1.37 1.12 1.08

6 1.14 1.34 1.12 1.09
7 1.] 3 1.24 1.11 1.08
8 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.06
11 1.10 1.26 1.10 1.04
12 1.13 1.31 1.09 1.08
13 1.14 1.32 1.08 1.08

Table 2b--Component pressure ratios. Static pressures were

measured at the outer shroud.

25
 The Stanton number results presented here for both of the vane rows and the first

blade row are based on conditions at the first vane inlet. The relationship used to evaluate

the Stanton number was

_itT)
St =
(_VIA)[Hoffo)- H w(T)] (I)

The value of A used forthisevaluationwas 1.73 x 10-2m 2 (0.186 ft2),

and corresponds to

the annular area upstream of the firststage vane. In thisformulation,the heat flux and the

wall cnthalpy arc both evaluated at the same temperature,T. If thc cold-wall heat flux,

_l(Tw),is desired,then itcan be obtained by multiplying the given Stanton number by

(_V / A)[H o(To) - H w(Tw)]. The greatestcontributorto the uncertaintyin Stanton

number is the uncertaintyin the weight flow, W. For these experiments, the weight flow

was found from an experimentally determined flow calibrationcurve supplied by NASA

MSFC which plotted the flow function as a functionof the totalto staticpressure ratio

across the firststage nozzle. The uncertainty in the vane row pressure measurement

_'anslatcintoan uncertaintyin the flow functionand the weight flow. An unccrtaintyof

approximately 10% in the weight flow was found. Assuming an uncertaintyin the heat

flux and temperature measurements to be 5%, the expected error in the Stanton numbers

can be calculatedusing themethodology of Kline and McClintock, 1953 to bc 12%.

3.1 First Vane and First Blade Surface Pressure Results

The measured surface pressure distributions on the first vane at 10%, 50%, and

90% span along with the predicted pressure distributions are presented on Figures 3.1.1-

3.1.3. These results are presented for two stage pressure ratios, approximately 1.54 and

1.65. The agreement between the data and the prediction at all three spanwise locations is

not particularly good. The cause of the disagreement is in large part attributable to the

uncertainty in the pressure measurement. Prior to the initial experiment, the pressure

26
 L

°I / A _
,,..,.

I ,I

A
I

/
i /
=_
./t

.I
:10 C a
°i
i !

o_

w / _._. _ _'. __ _
°m II II _".."
I
II II II II _ _ ' ._

L_.
m

J _
I

......................................... ====g_

I,,)

0 I_ O I • o <
" 2
I

i
r
I

, _
I
i

_ m p_

u!'_cl/U!'Sc[

2.7
uT'ld/U!'S d

28
_m

om

II II II .-
II II II II . _ . I-
I
i

i..

h
: ___Z I

.O_@leO< i

i
'' _1' ''1 _'''! .... _'
i

- _ _ _

Lit'] UI'$

29
transducers were calibrated over the range from vacuum to 1.48 MPa (215 psia). During

and after the experiments, they were calibrated again from vacuum to 0.655 MPa (95

psia). These latter calibrations were done by pressurizing the dump tank housing the

turbine stage (see Figure 2.1.1). The pressure readings were recorded using the entire

data recording system that is used during the experiment. For a given transducer, a linear

fit was obtained for each data set over the pressure range of these experiments. The slope

of the calibrations for most of the transducers was reproducible to within 3%. For a few

others, the slope varied by as much as 5%. The pressure drop across the first vane row

and the ftrst blade row is relatively small for this turbine, being on the order of 10% to

15% of the inlet total pressure, which makes the uncertainty in the slope of the transducer

calibration an important consideration. If a pressure measurement uncertainty of 3% due

to variations in the slope of the calibration equation is assumed, along with a 2%

uncertainty due to shock-tunnel reproducibility, the expected error in the normalized

pressures (P/P'r) may be calculated using the methodology of Kline and McClintock

(1953) to be 4.7%. The difficulty encountered here with the pressure measurements was

unanticipated. A previous measurement program reported in Dunn, Bennett, Delaney,

and Rao, 1990(a) demonstrated much better agreement between measurements and

prediction. The calibration technique was the same in that work as used here. However,

the transducers used in Dunn, et al., 1990a were 0 to 100 psia units while those used in

this work were 0 to 600 psia units.

Figures 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6 present the measured surface pressure distributions

on the f'u'st blade at the 10%, 50% and 90% locations at both values of stage pressure

ratio. The same difficulties encountered with the vane pressure data described above

were also encountered with the blade data. The disagreement between the measurements

and the prediction are felt to be due to inaccuracy in the pressure measurement rather than

problems with the prediction.

3O
 • o °

II II U II

i Z r
m __=_<
i ! _ u

:1 .£

/ i _
L
:\ i

o_
_m 0_- < o / ' 0_

w G •

om
m
/
w
w

I
b===*

C_
_,,.o

m
==d
_0
oe F.
o_

N
!

u:'_d/u;'s
d

31
 g

"_ --" -''_ I II II .0 !

i II II In l, '_'_'_'_ i .:::)_4 !

- • e._: .
"_
t+_ ° °.---.---
"_ ":-"-"""" E. _.._. _
i ,,,_l o •

[!'o_...o<I'
I _'
i
,,., /:o0 .. i

=
o,,,= ,
I

'i" ; I _
";'._

b:

".t'_cTu/U!'Set

32
u!'_d/U!'S d

33
 3.2 First Vane Surface Stanton Number Results

Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 present the measured Stanton number distributions for the

vane at 50% span for Reynolds numbers of 140,000 and 250,000, respectively. Figure

3.2.3 presents the Stanton number data for both Reynolds numbers at 10% span and

Figure 3.2.4 presents data for both Reynolds numbers at 90% span. The low Reynolds

number data were obtained at stage pressure ratios of 1.54 and 1.65 while the higher

Reynolds number data were obtained at about 1.4 and 1.48. Inspection of the data

suggests that the stage pressure ratio, in general, has little influence on the Stanton

number distributions for the vane locations at which measurements were obtained.

The experimental results for the first vane presented in Figure 3.2.1 illustrate a

rapid decrease in Stanton number on the suction surface from the stagnation point to

about 15% wetted distance followed by a sharp increase near this location, then a peak at

about 50% wetted distance. On the pressure surface, the data fall sharply from the

stagnation point reaching a minimum at about 25% wetted distance, then increases

steadily towards the trailing edge. This trend in the pressure surface data is consistent

with that seen previously for the Garrett TFE731-2 HP turbine (Dunn, Rae and Holt,

1984), the Air Force LART (Dunn, Martin and Stanek, 1986) the Teledyne 702 turbine

(Dunn and Chupp, 1988), as well as two other unpublished Calspan data sets. The peak

Stanton number is shown to occur at the stagnation point and the maximum value reached

on the suction and pressure surfaces are comparable with each other and equal to a little

more than half of the stagnation value. Similar trends are seen at high Reynolds numbers

(Figures 3.2.2) but with the minimums occurring closer to the stagnation point.

Furthermore, the maximum in the suction surface data also occurs closer to the stagnation

point.

Figure 3.2.1 also compares vane midspan experimental results with four

predictions. Two of the predictions are for fully turbulent flow. The third and fourth

predictions incorporate transition models. The two fully turbulent predictions were done

34
 g

Q
0

r,PD

0
0

e'-

I-,

.0

.m

m Q _

c,i
m

u i u i
g
¢

0
q
_
g•
0

_ltunu uolt_l$

35
 _8
N

g
o
hO

t¢3

G
e-

>

I,.-
"0
e-
G

O
°_

g
he.
o_

L-- o_o
..o
E a
C
e.-
c-
O

m.

hO

{
c-i
¢,%

i.,.,

i ! i i i_' ! i ! i i i
8
111 I !

cxl

_. . °

j0qtunu u01u_

36
 .... II II II
g
0 0 0 0 _ _ _ _ ,_--r-

___---- 111
m

_C_ ======= -- / ? i
___zz / _ i o
r.j

O _ 0 _ D • # ............_..._
..........................
_.........................

..................
i .£

oE
,- >._
_ ..,..
°_ t""

i ! \i
°m 0
L_

L"C_

o&
,_=_ o

DO

fl
! ,
i i i i
8

q q

._ltunu umtr_ S

37
¢,,.j
I::I."0

_C.,l

i-. cm
oE
c_ o

.l....

°_

_. ,.¢

I
I
f..)
0(] r. _II
I

,,_ .c,,_i l
i I

! ,

l I I I I I I I l l I I I , l I
!

•
- . . .

._qtunu uoltr_s

38
using the quasi-3D Navier-Stokes analysis described by Boyle (1991) and Gaugler's

modified version the STAN5 boundary layer analysis of Crawford and Kays (1976). The

predictions including transition were obtained by incorporating the transition model of

Mayle, 1991 and the transition model due to Dunham, 1972 into the just noted Navier-

Stokes analysis. Of the two fully turbulent predictions, the STAN5 prediction illustrates

better overall agreement with the data. On the suction surface, the STAN5 prediction

doesn't fall as low as the data in the vicinity of 15% wetted distance, and it doesn't climb

as high as the data beyond 50% wetted distance. On the pressure surface, both of the

fully turbulent predictions agree with the data reasonably well from the stagnation point

to about 40% wetted distance. The data points at 60% and 80% wetted distance are

significantly greater than the prediction. It was noted earlier in this section that this trend

has been seen previously for full-stage turbines. This same trend was noted by Nealy, et

al., 1984 for a vane ring downstream of a combustor. However, the Navier-Stokes

analysis used here was applied to those data (Boyle, 1991) and reasonably good

a_eement between data and prediction was obtained. It is felt that the relatively high

upstream turbulence in itself is not sufficient to account for the high pressure surface heat

transfer, since the local turbulence level decreases significantly as the flow accelerates

through the vane passage. The good agreement between the STAN5 boundary layer

prediction and the Navier-Stokes fully turbulent analyses suggests that the numerical

solutions of the analyses are not the source of the disagreement with the experimental

data.

For the calculation incorporating the Dunham, 1972 transition model, transition

occurs midway along the suction surface. However, the prediction is not in good

agreement with the experimental data from about 7% wetted distance to 50% wetted

distance. This analysis predicts Stanton numbers along the pressure surface that are

generally in agreement with STAN5 over the initial 50% of that surface. Beyond 50%,

the shape of the Dunham prediction deviates from the other two and falls below them and

39
well below the data. This is because the flow never becomes fully turbulent with this

model. Also included on Figure 3.3.1 is the Navier-Stokes prediction with the Mayle,

1991 transition model incorporated. This prediction is in much better agreement with the

data than is the other prediction incorporating transition. Overall, the Navier-Stokes

prediction which includes the Mayle transition model appears to be in better agreement

with the data than any of the other predictions.

Figure 3.2.2 presents a comparison between the high Reynolds number data and

the same four predictions described above. There is very little difference among the

predictions at this higher Reynolds number except in the vicinity of the stagnation point

and in the region of 5% to 20% on the suction surface. Both the N-S and the STAN5

solutions predict the stagnation region data reasonably well. The N-S solution with the

Mayle transition model predicts the 5% to 20% wetted distance region better than the N-S

solution with the Dunham model. On the pressure surface, all of the predictions are in

reasonably good agreement with each other and all fall below the data from the stagnation

point to about 40% wetted distance. The experimental results at 60% and 80% wetted

distance are underpredicted by a significant amount by all four solutions. In summary,

the predictions shown in Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 show best agreement with the data when

a fully turbulent analysis is used, even for the low Reynolds number cases. The transition

models of both Mayle and of Dunham are highly dependent on the freestream turbulence

intensity. Previous measurements gave an intensity of about 6% at the turbine inlet. At

the low Reynolds number, Dunham's model predicts the start of transition too far

downstream on the suction surface. Mayle's model agrees better with the data. At the

high Reynolds number, transition occurs close to the leading edge, and there is little

difference among the predictions.

Figures 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 present the In'st vane Stanton number results at 10% and

90% span, respectively. Both sets of Reynolds number data are included on these figures.

The N-S prediction with the Mayle transition model has been selected for comparison

4o
with the experimentaldata. It would be anticipatedthat the high Reynoldsnumberdata

set should be consistently lower than the low Reynolds number data by about 15%

((2)0.2=1.15).Thereis sufficient uncertaintyin the Stantonnumberresultsas described

in Section4 that generally,the datasetsappearto overlap. The agreementbetweenthe

suctionsurfaceprediction andthe datais not asgood asit wasat midspanfor either 10%

or 90% span. In general,beyond50% wetteddistance,the predictionfell well abovethe

data on the suction surface. The data point at 60% wetted distance is above the

prediction,but no more so than the suctionsurfacedatapoints arebelow the prediction.

The pressuresurfacedataat90% spanarein asgoodagreementwith the predictionashas

beenseenat any locationon this vane.

3.3 First Blade SurfaceStantonNumberResults

3.3.1 Discussionof bladedata

Figures3.3.1 and 3.3.2presentthe measuredStantonnumberdistributionsfor the

f'trstbladeat midspanfor Reynoldsnumbersof 140,000and250,000,respectively. The

Reynoldsnumberdata setsare both given on the samefigure for the 10% span(Figure

3.3.3) andthe 90% span(Figure 3.3.4)locations. The heat-flux valuesin the vicinity of

the leading-edgeregionare known to be sensitiveto incidenceangle. However, therotor

speedrangeover which data weretakenin theseexperiments(99% to 103% of design)

was sufficiently small that it is unlikely that incidence angle had a significant effect.
Likewise, the local Stanton number is sensitiveto stagepressureratio becauseof the

changein incidence angle associatedwith the higher axial velocity (increasedweight

flow) atthe lower value of pressureratio. From the weight flow datapresentedin Table 1
it was difficult to obtain an estimateof the incidence anglevariation resulting from the

differencein pressureratio. The experimentaldata(runs5, 6, 12,and 13) at the 10%and

90% spanwiselocations areconsistentwith eachother nearthe leading edgein that the

Stantonnumbersfor runs 5 and6 areconsistentlygreaterthanthosefor runs 12 and 13.

41
 '-' '-' I

__ _ ,

_ |_._.=._ool ,/ ,,:!m _
.....i _- _- - - _ ,,,=_ _ • ..........
_;U",'ili .........
_.......................,,',
/_,_.=._>->1 _\,-' i .-

_/..,..I _'1 t":' i

_-______.,__. _.,,. ,,,! ..,

t_
0

c_

-!
0_

IIII "]'T , ,
8
M
!

.z;>C:l_nu
uo_u-_S

42
 ¢J

oe-,
0

I_. e..J

G_

¢p

°--
"tD
O

._o
¢.J

U
e-. e-,

i/_ I.)

0
0
a-

I,,,,,,,

¢xO
0_
[._

8
c
• , •

Joqtunu uolu_

43
 li

/
!

...... _D.. ........................................

o" c,_
G
°_
tI
4.1
o')

,i
oE . ° oi o_

C i m_O
I

E_

I=--
G l
o

o
m.E
;r

8
!

Joqtunu u01u_ S

44
 _ _." ! "_"
_1 /'_,_ i
,,Cugooo_.,_- _v'_ UlQ

:_,I p i "'. ' _:

_ °°°°°°° i'*,
',,l/ °
_-_ ':1 I' i: •
=° _,_ ., o_o.. i/_'".-_"
o_ I '.'" i °°

I_'C_

E_
,,....
iI
i,
i, o
t.;
<a
li

/i

|11 III , ,
/'
i I '
//

' ' I ! I
"r

• •

._OClUmUuolu_ S

45
However, the trend in the Sta.nton number results from these same runs at midspan are

opposite to that observed at 10% and 90% suggesting that if there was an influence, it

didn't occur all along the leading edge. Another interpretation of the data would be that

within the uncertainty of the data, no significant influence of pressure ratio or speed was

observed for the range of conditions used here. Beyond 50% wetted distance, the results

illustrate little influence on the Stanton number distribution for either the pressure or

suction surface. Returning for a moment to the midspan results presented on Figure

3.3.1, at the stagnation point the experimental results are in agreement with each other,

but immediately thereafter (from 0% to 15% wetted distance) on the suction surface and

in the vicinity of 12% wetted distance the data do not coalesce. Three of the runs (run 6,

12, and 13) shown on this figure were for nominally 103% of design speed, and the other

(run 5) for 99% of design speed. Two of the runs at 103% of design speed were for a

stage pressure ratio of 1.54 (runs 12 and 13) while the other two runs were at a pressure

ratio of about 1.65 (runs 5 and 6). At the 12% wetted distance location, two of the 103%

speed points (runs 12 and 13 for the same stage pressure ratio) are in good agreement

while the other one (run 6, higher pressure ratio) is low. Also note that runs 5 and 6,

which are for the same stage pressure ratio but different speeds (99% and 103%), are in

reasonably good agreement with each other suggesting that for this speed variation the

influence on Stanton number distribution is not large.

The experimental data presented on Figure 3.3.1 show that the Stanton number

fell rapidly from the stagnation point to about 10% wetted distance followed by a rapid

increase, reaching a maximum value for the suction surface at about 25% wetted distance.

On the pressure surface, the Stanton number increases from a minimum value in the

vicinity of 15% wetted distance to a maximum near 90% wetted distance. The maximum

values occurring on these two surfaces are comparable and well below the stagnation

point value. Included on Figure 3.3.1 are two fully turbulent Navier-Stokes predictions,

one for a rough airfoil and the other for a smooth airfoil, and a N-S prediction, with the

46
Mayle and Dullenkopf, 1989, 1990intermittency model included, for a smooth airfoil.

The STAN5 boundarylayeranalysisshowedseparationfor the midspanpressuresurface

using the predicted inviscid flow field for a boundary condition and, therefore, the

STAN5 prediction could not be obtainedfor the blade. The Navier-Stokesanalysesdo

not indicatea significantincreasein heattransferdueto bladesurfaceroughness. Onthe

pressure surface both of the fully turbulent analysesare in good agreementwith the

experimental data. However, on the suction surface these same predictions fall
consistentlyabovethe data. The third prediction includedon Figure 3.3.1 is in essential

agreementwith the fully turbulent predictions on the pressuresurface. On the suction

surface,it also overpredictsthe data, but is closer than the fully turbulent predictions.

The predictedheattransferat the leadingedgeis higherthanthe experimentaldata. The

average augmentation of the heat transfer in the laminar region was calculated assuming a

turbulence intensity of 10%. The transition model used a background turbulence intensity

of 2%. The intermittency model overpredicted the heat transfer at the leading edge by

about 33%. This indicates that the augmentation due to freestream turbulence was

excessive. The Froessling number at the stagnation region was calculated from the

experimental results for this case, and using the cylinder in cross flow correlation of Traci

and Wilcox, 1975 a freestream turbulence intensity of about 7% was estimated.

Along the entire pressure surface the fully turbulent predictions are nearly

identical, and agree well with the experimental data. These predictions for the rotor are in

contrast with those for the vane, where the pressure surface heat transfer exceeded the

fully turbulent prediction. The transitioning prediction, which includes the effect of

freestream turbulence, overpredicts the pressure surface heat transfer. The largest source

of uncertainty in the heat transfer predictions is due to the uncertainty in the freestream

turbulence for the augmentation of the laminar viscosity due to this freestream turbulence.

3.3.2 Blade surface roughness considerations

47
 The first stage blade of this turbine appeared to be rough and there was concern

that the roughness may enhance the heat transfer. Blair and Anderson, 1992 have

illustrated that this enhancement can be significant. The influence of surface roughness

on the blade data presented herein was therefore investigated.

Boyle and Civinskas, 1991, investigated the influence of surface roughness on the

predicted heat transfer to the surface. The effective roughness height was strongly

dependent on both the roughness and the density. The roughness density can be found

from the trace shown in Figure 2.2.7. In this figure, the horizontal axis is compressed by

more than a factor of ten over the vertical axis. Even though the blade shown in Figure

2.4,1, 2.4.2, and 2.5.1 are visibly rough, the peaks are not spaced closely together.

Comparing the two analyses shows that the effect of surface roughness is very

small. This was not unexpected. The insensitivity to surface roughness is the result of

both the low Reynolds number, and the effect of surface roughness density. In the

Navier-Stokes analysis a reference y+ was used for an a priori determination of the grid

spacing. This reference value is given by

Y+REF = (1 17y Re 0" 9/s0" 1

where y is the distance from the surface, Re is the exit Reynolds number per unit length,

and s is a characteristic distance.

An analogous reference roughness height is

k +REF = 0. l"/k Re 0" 91 s 0.1

For the low Reynolds number case the exit unit Reynolds number was 1.28 x

107/m (3.9 x 106/ft).

48
 The roughness height, k, in the above equations is not the actual roughness height,

but rather the equivalent roughness height. The equivalent roughness height was

estimated using the approach taken by Boyle and Civinskas, 1991 to be less than 0.3 of

the actual roughness height. Even though the actual roughness height was -150,000/_,
+

(590 microinches), the value of kRE F was calculated to be only 2.7. This value of the

reference roughness height is only approximate since it is based on a friction factor for a

smooth flat plate. Nonetheless, the value of k ÷ is less than the value of 5 for a

hydraulically smooth surface. Consequently, the rough and smooth heat transfer

predictions are nearly identical. It should be noted that blades with this surface

roughness, when operated in the SSME environment, are no longer hydraulically smooth

due to the much higher Reynolds number of the actual engine. Calculations showed an

increase in heat transfer of up to 25% due to surface roughness at the SSME operating

conditions for K=0.3. The parameter K represents the ratio of the equivalent roughness

height (k) to the actual roughness height.

Figure 3.3.2 presents the first blade midspan Stanton number data for the high

Reynolds number case. Also included on this figure are three N-S predictions which

were performed for different surface roughness heights. The N-S turbulent prediction

with K=0 is consistently above the N-S prediction with the Mayle and Dullenkopf

intermittency model. The value of Stanton number at the stagnation point is predicted

reasonably well by the N-S solution. On the suction surface, the N-S turbulent prediction

for a smooth surface (K=0) is consistently above the data. The prediction for K=0.3 is

about 12% higher over the initial 50% of the surface, then about the same over the

remainder of the surface. The prediction for K=I.0 represents a significant enhancement

and is well above the data over the entire surface.

On the pressure surface of the blade, Figure 3.3.2 illustrates that the shape of the

predictions is consistent with the data. The predictions for K=0 and K=0.3 both fall

49
below the data. The predictionfor K=I.0 is in reasonablegood agreementwith the data

over the entirepressuresurface.

Figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 presentthe experimental data and comparisons with

predictions for the 10% spanand the 90% span locations, respectively. Both setsof

Reynoldsnumber data are included on thesefigures. Figure 3.3.3 includes the fully

turbulent N-S predictions for both Reynoldsnumbersand the N-S prediction with the

Mayle andDullenkopf intermittencymodel for the low Reynoldsnumber. At the high

Reynoldsnumber,this predictionis essentiallythe sameas the correspondingN-S fully

turbulent prediction. For the suctionsurface,there is very little difference among the

threepredictions. The databetween5% and15%wetteddistanceare substantiallybelow

the predictions, while the data between50% and 80% are below, but in reasonable

agreementwith the predictions. For the pressuresurface,the fully turbulent prediction is

generally below the data while the intermittency model provides a reasonable

representationof the data. The comparisonpresentedin Figure 3.3.4 for the 90% span

locationdemonstratesreasonablygoodagreementbetweenthedataandthe interrrtittenc',,

model prediction for the suction surfaceand correspondingly good agreementon the

pressuresurfacefor the N-S fully turbulentprediction.

3.4 SecondVaneSurfaceStantonNumberResults

The secondvane Stantonnumbermeasurements are shown in Figures 3.4.1 for

both Reynolds number cases and both stage pressure ratios. For the second vane, only

midspan heat-flux data were taken. Figure 3.4.1 also includes the predicted midspan

Stanton number distributions. A fully turbulent and an intermittency model prediction are

shown. The high Reynolds number intermittency prediction provides a good prediction at

the stagnation point. On the suction surface, the fully turbulent and the low Reynolds

number intermittency model predictions are conservative over the entire surface. The

high Reynolds number intermittency model prediction is a better representation of the

50
 0 .' / ,

..... c_ '-" -_ ! II :
_ _ _ _ _ _'T _ i 'I i_

"_ _-, _- " .... _.,_, k", - i

G_A = = = = = = -" -_ t ,I !
,e ,'¢ ,'," _ ,,,' ,'," ,'," Z Z Z li _" • "" .."
,: )i: "'-, i
¢.,,., r._
0 t""
"'°_°"1" (i' : _ _

.........................
i..,,.....-:._..._.
......
_i" ":; ....... -": .......................
!.......................... _ _

==__., ! i i ,i,'

} ! ,'
i I,'

_ ,...)
i I,'

I ! I ! ! I -- ! I I I I I ! I I

¢"q ,,,D ¢".4 oo _

, • • •

.]oqttmu uoltrels
data. On the pressure surface, both the fully turbulent and the low Reynolds number

intermittency models provide reasonable predictions of the data. The high Reynolds

number intermittency model prediction on this surface is lower than the other two

predictions by about 15% as would be anticipated.

3.5 Blade Platform, Blade Tip and Shroud Results for Design Speed Condition

Figures 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 present the blade platform Stanton number distribution for

the low and high Reynolds number conditions, respectively, at three values of overall

stage pressure ratio. At the higher Reynolds number, the data for the values of stage

pressure ratio are in reasonable agreement. The low Reynolds number results presented

in Figure 3.5.1 also suggest that the influence of pressure ratio is small. Further, the

influence of Reynolds number appears to be small. For both Reynolds number cases, the

trend of the data is to show a relatively small Stanton number increase in the chordwise

direction. However, with only two measurement locations, it is difficult to determine

anything more than this trend. The platform Stanton number values are of the same order

as the blade rnidspan values.

Figures 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 present the Stanton number results obtained from the

gages located in the blade tip atthe low and high Reynolds number condition,

respectively. The high Reynolds number results of runs 7, 8 and run 11 (Figure 3.5.4)

were obtained at values of pressure ratio ranging from 1.38 to 1.48. The results of run 11

are shown to consistently fall below those of run 8. Run 7, which was performed at the

larger value of stage pressure ratio, produced results at the 75% chord location which are

not consistent with a well defined influence of pressure ratio on the tip Stanton number.

There also appears to be a rather wide range in Stanton number value at the 39% tip-

region measuring station. The low Reynolds number experiments (which were run at

stage pressure ratios of 1.54 and 1.65) illustrate even a more pronounced variation in

results at the 18% measuring station (shown on Figure 3.5.3) than was shown at 39% tip

52
0

e-.

e- ...............................
_O .....................................
0
c- I <_ E3 X
O
e"
0 E
W-

°m

E
e-
c-
o
e-

r_
C

vi

°_

d Q o o. .

j_qwnu uolu_s

53
 i

e- e- e-

XOO

0
,,E
G _J

C
E
L_

°i

(-_

v"-.

e..O
°_

lilt

q q . .

Joclmnu uolu_ S

$4
0 _. _...: ...:
II
m

¢D

°_
m m
e_ II e'. ¢- ¢- g_
"o
m

ro
t-
0 .,_ ID X

o
m 0
o
°_

°_
e"

wo
°m

$..

E • a

e..
o
v-

d q o. .
0 0 0 0

a0quanu uoltr_s
 8

C
t_d

eXO h- _ .

m
Q--

.............................................................................................
XlO
I 0
C
°_

°_

'E

X • 0

t/'-_
c_

I-.

|11 iii iii Iii iii

• , °
0 0 _

_qmnu uo_u_s

56
chord. There does not appear to be definitive influence of either Reynolds number or

stage pressure ratio on the heat transfer results. For both Reynolds number cases, the tip

region Stanton number values start out at small chord values with a rather wide variation,

but converge near midchord. At chord values less than 40%, the tip Stanton numbers are

on the order of the blade midspan values, but at large chord values the tip Stanton

numbers rapidly approach the blade stagnation point value.

Figures 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 present the Stanton number distributions on the stationary

shroud. The high Reynolds number data presented on Figure 3.5.6 illustrate a relatively

high value of Stanton number over the entire region for which data were obtained. Stage

pressure ratio does not appear to influence the results. Figure 3.5.5 presents

corresponding results for the low Reynolds number test case. The results for both

Reynolds numbers appear to be relatively independent of both Reynolds number and

stage pressure ratio. For both Reynolds number cases, the shroud Stanton numbers are

not as large as the blade stagnation point or tip values, but they are larger than the values

measured at other blade locations.

Figures 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 are composite plots of the platform, tip and shroud Stanton

number data as a function of blade chord. The root and tip locations are noted on the

abscissa. For the data presented in both of these plots, the tip data are shown to be

generally greater than either the platform or shroud data. The shroud data fall between

the tip and the platform levels.

3.6 Vane and Blade Surface Results for Off-Design Speed (68% Design Speed)

Figures 3.6.1-3.6.3 plot the Stanton number distributions for the 50%, high

Reynolds number runs on the f£rst vane, first blade and second vane, respectively. These

are included to complete the comparison between full speed and off-design speed data.

As would be expected, speed has relatively little influence on the f£rst vane for the vane

pressure ratio of this turbine (Figure 3.6.1). Figure 3.6.2 presents the first blade data and

57
 o

0
t--
00
• °

c.)

I,,,,
e- 0
c .=
r-
o
.i

O,_DX
.£ m

e-
0
e-

_J "KO
m

L--

°_

w "'I"---

o ° ° °

Joqtunu uoltrelS

58
0 cc e¢ .,_,-

('4

0
0C

o
L.

(XO
_,, ,..,,, _,,,
¢'_
m
XoO
o

0
o
t,J
C °_
°_

L_

°_
""--!

L__

X
E

t.-.
0

10
(..,...
o

°_

0
0 _ ,-- 0 0
d q o o. o.
0 0 0 0

a_ltunu uoltrels

59
 0

t#'i

I
..................................................................................... m .....................................

L-

0
x-,
P_...

°_

I..._.
°_

o._m mm
o

°m "B
IIIllllll

c
0 - g

J_qtunu uolu_ S

6O
 o

.=_ _

t.,...
[.-,

0
0_

• OO ,,,:_,_

c+

• ie
................................................... _ ......................... mm ............................................

,t,-

,,__+

0
I.,.,.
+.,.

°_

I.-,
°_

t
_+

o. m
m
i

IIIIIiiii

¢N
0

JOclwnu uolu_ S

61
_5
i

o
......,,,,=_#==_ ,.. °_
"5
t-" . 1 (,o
oe::

P-.....--

0 ".z'.
aO
i aO
t i

O_

._ "r-
=&

Eu f,,)

e-
¢-
o
t-.

i
i

,d
t"¢",

I
,,=o
e/?

ii1 iii iii i11 i1!

8
!

_5 o o. o. g.
o o o o

1oqrunu uolu_ S

62
 8

l.r',

J • 0

m
,m

0_
I.-
°_

o_

°_

i i

m
• []

.i

o
E v
N

0
I-

{'N
_D
¢¢-,

l-
m

°_

I I I
lllllll "2
o
o
,- ,- _

aoqmnu uolu_ S

63
 o_

t_ _- ................................
0o_........................ 0

,m

: OO _P

_p

_'_

0
E _
e.-
e-
G
g
m _
1

°--

i i i i i i i i i 1 1 ! i i i
8
!

° ° . .

Joqmnu uoltml$

64
illustrates that in the vicinity of the leading edge, incidence angle has a noticeable

influence on the magnitude of the Stanton number. Beyond 20% wetted distance on the

pressure surface the influence of incidence angle is shown to be relatively small. For the

suction surface at wetted distances less than 30%, the trend is not consistent apparently

because of the transition location. At 50% wetted distance and beyond, the off-speed data

are generally above the design speed data. Figure 3.6.3 presents the second vane Stanton

number results. In the immediate region of the leading edge (5% to 10%), the off-design

turbine speed appears to have an influence on the second vane Stanton number

distribution. If there was going to be an influence, it is in this region that one would

expect it to occur. However, on the second vane, the influence dies out much more

rapidly than it did for the first blade, being essentially gone by about 5% wetted distance

on the pressure surface and by 20% wetted distance on the suction surface.

3.7 Blade Platform, Tip and Shroud Results for Off-Design Speed

Figures 3.7.1 -3.7.3 present a comparison of the off speed (68% of design value)

data with the design speed data for the blade platform, blade tip and the shroud,

respectively. The data presented were obtained at the high Reynolds number at a stage

pressure ratio of approximately 1.4 and 1.5. The results presented on Figure 3.7.1 for the

platform illustrate that at each of the locations, the Stanton number results do not appear

to be influenced by rotor speed. This is not surprising since both locations are

sufficiently far from the stagnation point that incidence angle should not be important.

Figure 3.7.2 compares the off speed and design speed tip region data. For this region,

Metzger and Rued, 1989 have shown that blade relative motion should not have a

significant influence on the average tip region heat transfer. At two measuring stations,

the off speed results fall above the design speed values. However, at the third station, this

is not true and thus the results are inconclusive. Figure 3.7.3 presents the time averaged

shroud heat transfer results. The Stanton number is shown to have an increasing trend

65
 • o 0
C_-

°N m

o "

I<

I11! 111 Ill III

a_lttmu uoltrels

66
o I
(',,I

@< 0 [@ _ 0 0

,_r--

om

L_

E _ ..............................
_'.....................
• .....................
_..................................................
=E
°
0

r_
d

°_

._zqtunu uoltrms

67
 g

o
0

o
00

0 r_
t-- • C_

.,0"_
I:°o
0

°_
°_

"0

.0

c_

EE

0
t-

0_
L_

0
_--_ ill it! ill

0 , • •
0 0 0 0

Joqtunu uolu_ S

68
towardsthe blade wailing edge as would be anticipated because of the increasing driver

pressure on the flow through the tip in moving from the leading edge towards the trailing

edge. For a reduced rotor speed, a particular gage in the shroud would be exposed to the

tip gap flow for a longer period of time (per rotor revolution) but it is also clear of the

rotor tip for a longer period of time. The fraction of time for which the shroud gage is

covered by the tip is the same as it is for the higher speed. If the gap flow is the same,

then one would not expect to see a significant influence on Stanton number. However,

because the influence of rotor speed on the blade surface pressure distribution in the tip

region was not measured it is not possible to be certain that the tip flow was the same for

both speeds and thus it is difficult to close the discussion of this point.

69
 SECTION 4

CONCLUSIONS

Surface pressure and Stanton number distributions have been measured at selected

locations on the f'u'st vane, fin'st blade and second vane of a full two-stage turbine. The

fu'st vane and f'wst blade pressure measurements have been compared with the prediction,

but the agreement was not particularly good because of difficulties with the measurement.

The measured Stanton number distributions at midspan for the first vane and the first

blade have been compared with predictions obtained using a quasi-3D N-S code and a

modified STAN5 technique. For the f'trst vane, comparisons were presented for the fully

turbulent case and for the transition case using two transition models (Mayle, 1991 and

Dunham, 1972). At the low Reynolds number, the Mayle transition model and the full)'

turbulent prediction provided good agreement with the suction surface data. The full),

turbulent, the Mayle transition model, and the Dunham transition model all provided

good agreement with the suction surface data for the high Reynolds number case. The

first vane pressure surface data were consistently underpredicted by all of the predictions.

The sensitivity of the predictions to flow parameters such as turbulence intensity, coupled

with the lack of agreement for the vane pressure surface heat transfer illustrates the

importance of correctly modeling the actual flow field in any heat transfer analysis.

The fu'st blade data were compared to N-S turbulent and N-S with the Mayle and

Dullenkopf, 1989, 1990 intermittency model predictions. There is very little difference

between the results of these two predictions. For the blade suction surface, the

predictions were consistently above the data. The agreement between data and prediction

for the pressure surface was reasonably good.

The surface of the blade used in these experiments appeared to be very rough.

However, when the roughness density was accounted for, the analysis showed only a

small increase in blade heat transfer due to surface roughness. The relatively good

7O
agreement between the measured and predicted rotor heat transfer supports this

conclusion. In the analysisthe effect of surfaceroughnessis strongly dependenton

Reynoldsnumber. Consequently,for the actual SSMEengineoperatingconditionsthe

analysispredictsa significantincreasein bladeheattransferdueto surfaceroughness.

The secondvanedata were comparedwith N-S fully turbulent calculationsand

with a N-S solution including the Mayle and Dullenkopf intermittency model. For the

suctionsurface,both calculationsweregenerallyconservative.However, for the pressure

surface, the predicted Stantonnumber distributions were in good agreementwith the

experimentaldata.

The tip region was shownto exhibit high heat-transferrates by comparisonwith

the blade stagnation-pointvalue. The shroud Stantonnumbervalues were less thanthe

tip values, but higher than the platform values. Data were presentedto illustrate the

influence of off-design rotor speedon the vaneandbladeStantonnumber distributions.

The first vane Stantonnumberdistribution was alsonot influenced by rotor speed. The

tip and shrouddistributionswere not significantly influencedby rotor speed. However,

both the first bladeandthe secondvanewereinfluencedby rotor speedin the vicinity of

the leadingedge. This influencepersistedon the first bladeover a greaterportion of the

surfacethanit did on thesecondvane.

71
 REFERENCES

Abhari, R.S., Guenette, G.R., Epstein, A.H., and Giles, M.B., 1991, "Comparison of
Time-Resolved Turbine Rotor Blade Heat Transfer Measurements and Numerical
Calculations," ASME Paper No. 91-GT-268.

Adamczyk, J.J., 1985, "Model Equation for Simulating Flows in Multistage

Turbornachinery," ASME Paper No. 85-GT-226.

Adamczyk, J.J., 1986, "A Model for Closing the Inviscid Form of the Average-Passage
Equation System," ASME Paper No. 86-GT-227.

Allen, H.W. and Kofskey, M.G., 1955, "Visualization Study of Secondary Flows in
Turbine Rotor Tip Regions," NACA TN 3519.

Bindon, J.P., 1986, "Visualization of Axial Turbine Tip Clearance Using a Linear
Cascade," Report No. CUED/A-Turbo TR122, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge
University, United Kingdom.

Blair, M.F., Dring, R.P., and Joslyn, H.D., 1988, "The Effects of Turbulence and
Stator/Rotor Interaction on Turbine Heat Transfer, Part I: Design Operating Conditions,"
ASME Paper No. 88-GT-125.

Blair, M.F. and Anderson, O.L., 1989, "The Effects of Reynolds Number, Rotor
Incidence Angle and Surface Roughness on the Heat Transfer Distribution in a Large-
Scale Turbine Rotor Passage," UTRC Report No. UTRC-R89-957852-24.

Blair, M.F. and Anderson, O.L., 1992, "An Experimental Study of Heat Transfer in a
Large Scale Turbine Rotor Passage," 37th International Gas Turbine Conference, Paper
GT-92-.

Booth, T.C., Dodge, P.R. and Hepworth, H.K., 1982, "Rotor-Tip Leakage: Part I - Basic
Methodology," Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 104, pp. 154-161.

Boyle, R.J., 1991, "Navier-Stokes Analysis of Turbine Blades Heat Transfer," Journal of
Turbomachinery, pp. 392-403.

Boyle, R.J. and Civinskas, K.C., 1991, "Two-Dimensional Navier-Stokes Heat Transfer
Analysis for Rough Turbine Blades," AIAA/SAE/ASME 27th Joint Propulsion
Conference, Paper No. AIAA-91-2129.

Chima, R.V., 1986, "Development of an Explicit Multigrid Algorithm for Quasi-Three-

Dimensional Flows in Turbomachinery", AIAA Paper No. 86-0032, NASA TM-87128.

Civinskas, K.C., Boyle, R.J. and McConnaughey, H.V., 1988, "Impact of ETO
Propellants on the Aerothermodynamic Analyses of Propulsion Components,"
AIAAIASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference, Paper No. AIAA-88-3091.

Crawford, M.E. and Kays, W.M., 1976, "STAN5 - A Program for Numerical
Computation of Two-Dimensional Internal and External Boundary-Layer Flows," NASA
CR-2742.

72
Dring, R.P. and Joslyn, H.D., 1986, "Through-Flow Analysis of a Multi-Stage
Compressor, Part I - Aerodynamic Input," ASME Paper No. 86-GT- 13.

Dunham, J. 1972, "Predictions of Boundary Layer Transition on Tubomachinery

Blades", AGARD-AG- 164.

Dunn, M.G. and Stoddard, F.J., "Measurement of Heat Transfer Rate to a Gas Turbine
Stator," ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 101, No. 2, April 1979.

Dunn, M.G. and Hause, A., 1982, "Measurement of Heat Flux and Pressure in a Turbine
Stage," ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 104, pp. 215-223.

Dunn, M.G., Rae, W.J. and Holt, J.L., 1984a, "Measurement and Analysis of Heat Flux
Data in a Turbine Stage: Part I: Description of Experimental Apparatus and Data
Analysis," Journal of Engineering for Power, Trans. ASME, Vol. 106, pp. 229-240.

Dunn, M.G., Rae, W.J., and Holt, J.L., 1984, "Measurement and Analyses of Heat Flux
Data in a Turbine Stage: Part II - Discussion of Results and Comparison with
Predictions," ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 106, pp.
234-240.

Dunn, M.G., Martin, H.L., and Stanek, M.J., 1986, "Heat-Flux and Pressure
Measurements and Comparison with Prediction for a Low Aspect Ratio Turbine Stage,"
ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 108, pp. 108-115.

Dunn, M.G., 1986, "Heat-Flux Measurements for the Rotor of a Full-Stage Turbine: Part
I - Time-Averaged Results," Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 108, pp. 90-97.

Dunn, M.G., George, W.K., Rae, W.J., Woodward, S.H., Moller, J.C., and Seymour, P.J.,
1986, "Heat-Flux Measurments for the Rotor of a Full-Stage Turbine: Pan II-Description
of Analysis Technique and Typical Time-Resolved Measurements", Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 108, pp. 98-107.

Dunn, M.G. and Chupp, R.E., 1988, "Time-Averaged Heat-Flux Distributions and
Comparison with Prediction for the Teledyne 702 hp Turbine Stage," ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 110, pp. 51-56.

Dunn, M.G. and Chupp, R.E., 1989, "Influence of Vane/Blade Spacing and Injection on
Stage Heat-Flux Distributions," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 5, No. 2,
pp. 212-200.

Dunn, M.G., Seymour, P.J., Woodward, S.H., George, W.K., and Chupp, R.E., 1989,
"Phase-Resolved Heat-Flux Measurements on the Blade of a Full-Scale Rotating
Turbine", Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 111, pp. 8-19.

Dunn, M.G., Bennett, W., Delaney, R., and Rao, K., 1990(a), "Investigation of Unsteady
Flow Through a Transonic Turbine Stage: Data/Prediction Comparison for Time-
Averaged and Phase-Resolved Pressure Data," AIAA/SAEIASME/ASEE 26th Joint
Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, AIA.A Paper No. 90-2409 (see also ASME J. of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 114, pp. 91-99).

Dunn, M.G., 1989, "Phase and Time-Resolved Measurements of Unsteady Heat Transfer
and Pressure in a Full-Stage Rotating Turbine," ASME Paper 89-GT-135.

73
Dunn,M.G. 1990,"HeatTransferandPressureMeasurements for the SSME Fuel-Side
Turbopump", Proceedings of the NASA 1990 Earth-to-Orbit Conference, Marshall Space
Flight Center, AL.

Epstein, A.H., Guenette, G.R., Norton, R.J.G. and Yuzhang, C., 1985, "Time Resolved
Measurements of a Turbine Rotor Stationary Tip Casing Pressure and Heat Transfer
Field," AIAA Paper No. 85-1220.

Gaugler, R.E., 1981, "Some Modifications to, and Operating Experiences with, the Two-
Dimensional Finite-Difference, Boundary-Layer Code STAN5," ASME Paper No. 81-
GT-89.

George, W.K., Rae, W.J., and Woodward, S.H., 1991, "An Evaluation of Analog and
Numerical Techniques for Unsteady Heat Transfer Measurements with Thin-Film Gauges
in Transient Facilities", Experimental Thermal and Fluid Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 333-342.

Giles, M.B., 1988, "Calculation of Unsteady Wake Rotor Interaction," AIAA Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 356-362.

Hah, C., 1984, "A Navier-Stokes Analysis of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Flows Inside
Turbine Blade Rows at Design and Off-Design Conditions," Journa! of Engineering for
Power, Trans. ASME, 106, pp. 421-429.

Katsanis, T., 1969, "FORTRAN Program for Calculating Transonic Velocities on a

Blade-to-Blade Stream Surface of a Turbomachine," NASA TN D-5427.

Katsanis, T and McNally, W.D., 1977, "Revised FORTRAN Program for Calculating
Velocities and Streamlines on the Hub-Shroud Mid-Channel Stream Surface of an Axial-,
Radial-, or Mixed-Flow Turbomachine or Annular Duct," Vol. I, User's Manual, Vol. II -
Programmer's Manual," NASA TN D-8430, 8431.

Kline, S.J. and McClintock, 1953, "Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sampled

Experiments", Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 75, pp. 3-8.

Mayle, R.E., 1991, "The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Gas Turbine Engines",
paper presented at the 36 th Imemational Gas Turbine Conference, Paper No. 91-GT-261,
Orlando, FL.

Mayle, R.E. and Dullenkopf, K., 1989, "A Theory of Wake Induced Transition", ASME
J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 112, pp. 188-195.

Mayle, R.E. and Dullenkopf, K., 1990, "More on the Turbulent-Strip Theory for Wake
Induced Transition", paper presented at the 35 th International Gas Turbine Conference,
Paper No. 90-GT- 137, Brussels, Belgium.

Mayle, R.E. and Metzger, D.E., 1982, "Heat Transfer at the Tip of an Unshrouded
Turbine Blade," Proceedings, Seventh International Heat Transfer Conference, Vol. 3, pp.
87-92.

McFarland, E.R., 1984, "A Rapid Blade-to-Blade Solution for use in Turbomachinery
Design," Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 376-
382.

74
Metzger, D.E., Dunn, M.G., and Hah, C., 1990, "Turbine Tip and Shroud Heat Transfer,"
Paper presented at the 35th ASME International Gas Turbine and Aerospace Congress,
Paper No. 90-GT-333, Brussels, Belgium.

Metzger, D.E. and Rued, K., 1989, "The Influence of Turbine Clearance Gap Leakage on
Flowpath Velocities and Heat Transfer, Part I: Sink Flow Effects on Blade Pressure
Sides," Journal of Turbomachinery, Trans. ASME, Vol. 111, pp. 284-292.

McNally, W.D., 1970, "Fortran Program for Calculating Compressible Laminar and
Turbulent Boundary Layers in Arbitrary Pressure Gradients," NASA TND-5681.

Moore, J. and Tilton, J.S., 1988, "Tip Leakage Flow in a Linear Turbine Cascade,"
Journal of Turbomachinery, Trans. ASME, Vol. 110, pp. 18-26.

Nealy, D.A., Milele, M.S., Hylton, L.D., and Gladden, H.J., 1984, "Measurements of
Heat Transfer Distribution Over the Surfaces of Highly Loaded Turbine Nozzle Guide
Vanes", J. of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 106, pp. 149-158.

Rae, W.J., Taulbee, D.B., Civinskas, K.C., and Dunn, M.G., 1988, "Turbine-Stage Heat
Transfer: Comparison of Short Duration Measurements with State-of-the-Art
Predictions", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 541-548.

Rai, M.M., 1987, "Navier-Stokes Simulations of Rotor/Stator Interaction Using Patched

and Overlaid Grids," Journal of Propulsion, No. 3, pp. 387-396.

Rai, M.M. and Madavan, K.K., 1988, "Multi Airfoil Navier Stokes Simulation of Turbine
Rotor-Stator Interaction," AIAA Paper No. 88-0361.

Rao, K.V. and Delaney, R.A., 1990, "Investigation of Unsteady Flow Through a
Transonic Turbine Stage, Part I - Analysis," AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint
Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, AIAA Paper No. 90-2408.

Taulbee, D.B., Tran, L., and Dunn, M.G., 1988, "Stagnation Point and Surface Heat
Transfer for a Turbine Stage: Prediction and Comparison with Data", ASME 33rd
International Gas Turbine Conference, Paper 88-GT-30, Amsterdam.

Traci, R.M. and Wilcox, D.C., 1975, "Freestream Turbulence Effects on Stagnation Heat
Transfer," AIAA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 890-896.

Tran, L and Taulbee, D.B., 1991, "Prediction of Unsteady Rotor-Surface Pressure and
Heat Transfer from Wake Passings", ASME 36th International Gas Turbine Conference,
Paper No. 91-GT-267, Orlando, Florida.

Wadia, A.R. and Booth, T.C., 1982, "Rotor-Tip Leakage: Part II - Design Optimization
Through Viscous Analysis and Experiment," Journal of Engineering for Power, Trans.
ASME, Vol. 104, 1982, pp. 162-169.

75
APPENDIX

76
A.1 Vane and Blade Coordinates

A.I.1 First Nozzle Coordinates

First nozzle, hub 46 0.49647 0.62627

47 0.51336 0.61539
x [in] y[m] 48 0.53024 0.60410
1 0.00013213 0.85099 49 0.54713 0.59240
2 0.00052741 0.84738 50 0.56401 0.58027
3 0.0011839 0.84380 51 0.58090 0.56769
4 0.0020981 0.84027 52 0.59778 0.55464
5 0.0032653 0.83683 53 0.61467 0.54110
6 0.0046793 0.83347 54 0.63155 0.52705
7 0.0063326 0.83023 55 0.64844 0.51244
8 0.0082165 0.82712 56 0.66532 0.49727
9 0.010321 0.82415 57 0.68220 0.48148
10 0.012636 0.82134 58 0.69909 0.46504
11 0.015147 0.81870 59 0.71597 0.44791
12 0.017843 0.81626 60 0.73286 0.43004
13 0.020710 0.81402 61 0.74974 0.41137
14 0.023731 0.81199 62 0.76663 0.39184
15 0.026891 0.81018 63 0.78351 0.37136
16 0.030173 0.80861 64 0.80040 0.34986
17 0.033561 0.80728 65 0.81728 0.32721
18 0.037036 0.80620 66 0.83417 0.30331
19 0.040580 0.80538 67 0.85105 0.27798
20 0.057465 0.80198 68 0.86794 0.25103
21 0.074350 0.79836 69 0.88482 0.22221
22 0.091235 0.79453 70 0.90171 0.19120
23 0.10812 0.79048 71 0.91859 0.15755
24 0.12500 0.78620 72 0.93547 0.12064
25 0.14189 0.78169 73 0.95226 0.079845
26 0.15877 0.77696 74 0.95938 0.061524
27 0.17566 0.77199 75 0.96650 0.043204
28 0.19254 0.76678 76 0.97361 0.024884
29 0.20943 0.76133 77 0.98073 0.0065631
30 0.22631 0.75564 78 0.98230 0.0038427
31 0.24320 0.74969 79 0.98463 0.0017172
32 0.26008 0.74349 80 0.98750 0.00039538
33 0.27697 0.73703 81 0.99063 4.5100e-06
34 0.29385 0.73031 82 0.99374 0.00058252
35 0.31074 0.72331 83 0.99652 0.0020755
36 0.32762 0.71603 84 0.99872 0.0043429
37 0.34451 0.70847 85 1.0001 0.0071712
38 0.36139 0.70062 86 1.0006 0.010294
39 0.37828 0.69246 87 1.0006 0.011143
40 0.39516 0.68401 88 1.0005 0.011986
41 0.41205 0.67523 89 1.0003 0.012818
42 0.42893 0.66613 90 1.0001 0.013632
43 0.44582 0.65670 91 0.98945 0.044610
44 0.46270 0.64692 92 0.97884 0.075588
45 0.47959 0.63678 93 0.96823 0.10657

77
94 0.95762 0.13754 148 0.36250 0.98585
95 0.94701 0.16852 149 0.35056 0.98708
96 0.93640 0.19950 150 0.33862 0.98796
97 0.92579 0.23047 151 0.32668 0.98848
98 0.91517 0.26145 152 0.31474 0.98865
99 0.90456 0.29243 153 0.30462 0.98856
100 0.89579 0.31792 154 0.29439 0.98827
101 0.88691 0.34341 155 0.28417 0.98779
102 0.87803 0.36860 156 0.27395 0.98712
103 0.86915 0.39346 157 0.26373 0.98626
104 0.86027 0.41799 158 0.25351 0.98521
105 0.85139 0.44216 159 0.24329 0.98396
106 0.84251 0.46596 160 0.23307 0.98252
107 0.83363 0.48935 161 0.22285 0.98088
108 0.82475 0.51232 162 0.21263 0.97903
109 0.81587 0.53485 163 0.20241 0.97698
110 O.8070O 0.55689 164 0.19219 0.97472
111 0.79812 0.57842 165 0.18197 0.97224
112 0.78924 0.59939 166 0.17174 0.96954
113 0.78036 0.61975 167 0.16152 0.96661
114 0.76852 0.64546 168 0.15130 0.96344
115 0.75657 0.66951 169 0.14108 0.96003
116 0.74463 0.69194 170 0.13086 0.95635
117 0.73269 0.71293 171 O.12064 0.95241
118 0.72075 0.73262 172 0.11042 0.94819
119 0.70881 0.75107 173 O.10020 0.94367
120 0.69686 0.76840 174 0.089978 0.93883
121 0.68492 0.78470 175 0.079757 0.93365
122 0.67298 0.80004 176 0.069536 0.92810
123 0.66104 0.81450 177 0.059316 0.92215
124 0.64910 0.82813 178 0.049095 0.91577
125 0.63716 0.84099 179 0.038874 0.90891
126 0.62521 0.85311 180 0.028653 0.90151
127 0.61327 0.86455 181 0.018432 0.89349
128 0.60133 0.87533 182 0.016656 0.89197
129 0.58939 0.88549 183 0.014952 0.89037
130 0.57745 0.895O5 184 0.013325 0.88869
131 0.56551 0.90404 185 0.011778 0.88693
132 0.55357 0.91249 186 0.010314 0.88511
133 0.54162 0.92041 187 0.0089374 0.88322
134 0.52968 0.92783 188 0.0076500 0.88126
135 0.51774 0.93476 189 0.0064551 0.87925
136 0.5O580 0.94121 190 0.0053553 0.87719
137 0.49386 0.94720 191 0.0043528 0.87507
138 0.48192 0.95275 192 0.0034499 0.87292
139 0.46998 0.95787 193 0.0026486 0.87072
140 0.45803 0.96256 194 0.0019505 0.86849
141 0.44609 0.96683 195 0.0013573 0.86622
142 0.43415 0.97070 196 0.00087012 0.86393
143 0.42221 0.974t 8 197 0.00049012 0.86163
144 0.41027 0.97726 198 0.00021811 0.85930
145 0.39833 0.97997 199 5.4660e-05 0.85697
146 0.38638 0.98230 2OO 1.4000e-07 0.85463
147 0.37444 0.98426

78
First nozzle,midspan 52 0.62117 0.56245
53 0.63877 0.54814
x [m] y[m] 54 0.65637 0.53329
1 0.00013143 0.87560 55 0.67397 0.51789
2 0.00052459 0.87200 56 0.69157 0.50191
3 0.0011775 0.86843 57 0.70917 0.48530
4 0.0020869 0.86491 58 0.72677 0.46804
5 0.0032478 0.86147 59 0.74437 0.45009
6 0.0046542 0.85813 60 0.76197 0.43139
7 0.0062986 0.85489 61 0.77957 0.41189
8 0.0081725 0.85179 62 0.79717 0.39153
9 0.010266 0.84882 63 0.81477 0.37025
10 0.012568 0.84602 64 0.83237 0.34795
11 0.015066 0.84339 65 0.84997 0.32454
12 0.017748 0.84094 66 0.86757 0.29991
13 0.020599 0.83870 67 0.88517 0.27391
14 0.023603 0.83667 68 0.90277 0.24636
15 0.026747 0.83486 69 0.92037 0.21706
16 0.030012 0.83329 7O 0.93796 0.18573
17 0.033381 0.83195 71 0.95556 0.15198
18 0.036838 0.83086 72 0.97316 0.11533
19 0.040363 0.83003 73 0.99066 0.075653
20 0.057963 0.82639 74 0.99808 0.058299
21 0.075563 0.82253 75 1.0055 0.040945
22 0.093164 0.81843 76 1.0129 0.023591
23 0.11076 0.81408 77 1.0203 0.0062364
24 0.12836 0.80950 78 1.0219 0.0036896
25 0.14596 0.80467 79 1.0242 0.0016451
26 0.16356 0.79959 8O 1.0271 0.00037010
27 0.18117 0.79426 81 1.0302 6.9900e-06
28 0.19877 0.78868 82 1.0333 0.00059956
29 0.21637 0.78283 83 1.0360 0.0020971
30 0.23397 0.77673 84 1.0382 0.0043615
31 0.25157 0.77035 85 1.0396 0.0071818
32 0.26917 0.76370 86 1.0401 0.010294
33 0.28677 0.75678 87 1.0400 0.011221
34 0.30437 0.74957 88 1.0399 0.012141
35 0.32197 0.74207 89 1.0397 0.013047
36 0.33957 0.73427 90 1.0394 0.013931
37 0.35717 0.72618 91 1.0284 0.043257
38 0.37477 0.71778 92 1.0173 0.072584
39 0.39237 0.70906 93 1.0063 0.10191
40 0.40997 0.70002 94 0.99527 0.13124
41 0.42757 0.69065 95 0.98424 0.16056
42 0.44517 0.68093 96 0.97320 0.18989
43 0.46277 0.67087 97 0.96217 0.21921
44 0.48037 0.66044 98 0.95113 0.24853
45 0.49797 0.64964 99 0.94010 0.27786
46 0.51557 0.63846 100 0.93097 0.30205
47 0.53317 0.62687 101 0.92174 0.32639
48 0.55077 0.61488 102 0.91250 0.35059
49 0.56837 0.60246 103 0.90327 0.37464
50 0.58597 0.58959 104 0.89403 0.39854
51 0.60357 0.57627 105 0.88480 0.42227

79
106 0.87557 0.44583 160 0.24168 1.0127
107 0.86633 0.46921 161 0.23105 1.0109
108 0.85710 0.49239 162 0.22042 1.0088
109 0.84786 0.51537 163 0.20979 1.0065
110 0.83863 0.53813 164 0.19916 1.0040
111 0.82940 0.56065 165 0.18853 1.0012
112 0.82016 0.58292 166 0.17789 0.99829
113 0.81092 0.60474 167 0.16726 0.99509
114 0.79861 0.63284 168 0.15663 0.99166
115 0.78619 0.65993 169 0.14600 0.98797
116 0.77377 0.68587 170 0.13537 0.98403
117 0.76134 0.71073 171 0.12474 0.97981
118 0.74892 0.73442 172 0.11411 0.97532
119 0.73650 0.75655 173 0.10348 0.97052
120 0.72408 0.77724 174 0.092848 0.96541
121 0.71166 0.79658 175 0.082217 0.95996
122 0.69924 0.81467 176 0.071586 0.95414
123 0.68681 0.83160 177 0.060955 0.94792
124 0.67439 0.84745 178 0.050325 0.94126
125 0.66197 0.86227 179 0.039694 0.93412
126 0.64955 0.87615 180 0.029063 0.92642
127 0.63713 0.88912 181 0.018432 0.91809
128 0.62471 0.90125 182 0.016656 0.91656
129 0.61229 0.91258 183 0.014952 0.91496
130 0.59987 0.92316 184 0.013325 0.91328
131 0.58745 0.93301 185 0.011778 0.91153
132 0.57503 0.94219 186 0.010314 0.90970
133 0.56261 0.95072 187 0.0089374 0.90781
134 0.55019 0.95863 188 0.0076500 0.90586
135 0.53777 0.96595 189 0.0064551 0.90385
136 0.52535 0.97271 190 0.0053553 0.90178
137 0.51293 0.97894 191 0.0043528 0.89967
138 0.50051 0.98465 192 0.0034499 0.89751
139 0.48809 0.98986 193 0.0026486 0.89532
140 0.47567 0.99460 194 0.0019505 0.89308
141 0.46325 0.99888 195 0.0013573 0.89082
142 0.45083 1.0027 196 0.00087012 0.88853
143 0.43840 1.0061 197 0.00049013 0.88623
144 0.42598 1.0091 198 0.00021811 0.88390
145 0.41356 1.0117 199 5.4660e-05 0.88157
146 0.40114 1.0140 200 1.4000e-07 0.87923
147 0.38872 1.0158
148 0.37630 1.0173
149 0.36388 1.0185
150 0.35146 1.0193
151 0.33904 1.0197
152 0.32662 1.0199
153 0.31609 1.0197
154 0.30546 1.0194
155 0.29483 1.0188
156 0.28420 1.0180
157 0.27357 1.0170
158 0.26294 1.0158
159 0.25231 1.0144

80
Firstnozzle,tip 52 0.64454 0.57030
53 0.66286 0.5552O
x [m] y [m] 54 0.68117 0.53957
1 0.00013073 0.90027 55 0.69949 0.52337
2 0.00052177 0.89667 56 0.71780 0.50657
3 0.0011712 0.89311 57 0.73612 0.48915
4 0.0020757 0.88961 58 0.75443 0.47107
5 0.0032303 0.88618 59 0.77275 0.45229
6 0.0046291 0.88284 60 0.79106 0.43276
7 0.0062647 0.87961 61 0.80938 0.41243
8 0.0081285 0.87651 62 0.82769 0.39125
9 0.010211 0.87355 63 0.84601 0.36915
10 0.012500 0.87075 64 0.86432 0.34606
11 0.014985 0.86812 65 0.88264 0.32188
12 0.017652 0.86568 66 0.90095 0.29652
13 0.020488 0.86344 67 0.91927 0.26984
14 0.023476 0.86140 68 0.93759 0.24171
15 0.026603 0.85959 69 0.95590 0.21192
16 0.029850 0.85801 70 0.97422 0.18026
17 0.033202 0.85667 71 0.99253 0.14642
18 0.036639 0.85557 72 1.0108 0.11002
19 0.040145 0.85472 73 1.0291 0.071462
20 0.058460 0.85086 74 1.0368 0.055074
21 0.076775 0.84674 75 1.0445 0.038686
22 0.095090 0.84237 76 1.0522 0.022298
23 0.11341 0.83774 77 1.0599 0.0059098
24 0.13172 0.83285 78 1.0615 0.0035365
25 0.15004 0.82769 79 1.0638 0.0015731
26 0.16835 0.82227 80 1.0666 0.00034483
27 0.18667 0.81658 81 1.0697 9.4700e-06
28 0.20498 0.81062 82 1.0728 0.00061660
29 0.22330 0.80438 83 1.0755 0.0021187
30 0.24161 0.79786 84 1.0777 0.0043802
31 0.25993 0.79105 85 1.0791 0.0071925
32 0.27824 0.78395 86 1.0795 0.010294
33 0.29656 0.77656 87 1.0795 0.011300
34 0.31487 0.76887 88 1.0794 0.012297
35 0.33319 0.76087 89 1.0791 0.013276
36 0.35150 0.75256 9O 1.0788 0.014229
37 0.36982 0.74393 91 1.0673 0.041904
38 0.38813 0.73498 92 1.0558 0.069580
39 0.40645 0.72570 93 1.0444 0.097256
40 0.42476 0.71607 94 1.0329 0.12493
41 0.44308 0.70610 95 1.0215 0.15261
42 0.46139 0.69577 96 1.0100 0.18028
43 0.47971 0.68507 97 0.99853 0.20796
44 0.49802 0.67400 98 0.98707 0.23564
45 0.51634 0.66254 99 0.97561 0.26331
46 0.53465 0.65068 100 0.96612 0.28622
47 0.55297 0.63840 101 0.95653 0.30942
48 0.57128 0.62570 102 0.94694 0.33264
49 0.58960 0.61255 103 0.93735 0.35589
50 0.60791 0.59895 104 0.92776 0.37916
51 0.62623 0.58487 105 0.91816 0.40247

81
106 0.90857 0.42580 154 0.31652 1.0506
107 0.89898 0.44917 155 0.30548 1.0499
108 0.88939 0.47258 156 0.29444 1.0490
109 0,87980 0.49602 157 0.28340 1,0479
110 0.87020 0.51950 158 0.27236 1.0465
111 0.86061 0.54302 159 0.26132 1.0448
112 0.85102 0.56657 160 0.25028 1.0430
113 0.84143 0.58987 161 0.23924 1.0409
114 0.82864 0.62037 162 0.22820 1.0386
115 0.81574 0.65049 163 0.21716 1.0361
116 0,80284 0,67992 164 0.20612 1.0333
117 0.78994 0.70864 165 0,19507 1.0303
118 0.77705 0.73632 166 0.18403 1.0271
119 0.76415 0.76214 167 0.17299 1.0237
120 0.75125 0.78617 168 0.16195 1.0200
121 0.73835 0.80855 169 0.15091 1.0160
122 0.72545 0.82939 170 0.13987 1.0118
123 0.71255 0.84878 171 0.12883 1.0073
124 0.69966 0.86684 172 0.11779 1.0025
125 0.68676 0.88363 173 0.10675 0.99746
126 0.67386 0.89925 174 0.095713 0,99208
127 0.66096 0.91376 175 0.084673 0.98635
128 0.64806 0.92724 176 0.073633 0.98026
129 0.63516 0.93974 177 0.062593 0.97377
130 0.62226 0.95133 178 0.051553 0,96683
131 0.6O936 0.96205 179 0.040513 0.95940
132 0.59647 0.97195 180 0.029472 0.95141
133 0,58357 0.98109 181 0.018432 0.94276
134 0,57067 0.98949 182 0.016656 0.94123
135 0.55777 0.99722 183 0.014952 0.93963
136 0.54487 1.0043 184 0.013325 0.93795
137 0.53197 1.0107 185 0.011778 0.93619
138 0.51907 1.0166 186 0.010314 0.93437
139 0.50617 1.0219 187 0,0089374 0.93248
140 0.49327 1.0267 188 0.0076500 0.93053
141 0,48038 1.0310 189 0.0064551 0.92851
142 0,46748 1.0348 190 0,0053553 0.92645
143 0.45458 1.0382 191 0.0043528 0.92434
144 0,44168 1.0411 192 0.0034499 0.92218
145 0.42878 1.0436 193 0.0026486 0,91998
146 0.41588 1.0457 194 0.0019505 0,91775
147 0.40298 1.0475 195 0.0013573 0.91548
148 0.39008 1.0489 196 0.00087013 0.91320
149 0.37718 1.0499 197 0.00049013 0.91089
150 0.36429 1.0506 198 0.00021811 0.90856
151 0.35139 1.0511 199 5.4670e-05 0.90623
152 0.33849 1.0512 200 1.5000e-07 0.90389
153 0.32756 1.0510

82
 1.2 •
j

-0.2
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I 1.2

x [inl

Figure A..1.1--Fi_rst nozzle: tip, midspan, and hub

83
A. 1.2 First RotorCoordinates
49 0.62869 0.063833
First rotor, hub 50 0.64159 0.072549
51 0.65449 0.081985
x [in] y[in] 52 0.66739 0.092182
53 0.68029 0.10319
1 0.12085 0.22903 54 0.69319 0.11508
2 0.12139 0.22218 55 0.70609 0.12791
3 0.12192 0.21942 56 0.71899 0.14177
4 0.12246 0.21733 57 0.73189 0.15679
5 0.12299 0.21558 58 0.74479 0.17309
6 0.12352 0.21406 59 0.75759 0.19071
7 0.12406 0.21270 60 0.76711 0.20483
8 0.12459 0.21146 61 0.77662 0.21971
9 0.12513 0.21031 62 0.78613 0.23524
10 0.12556 0.20943 63 0.79565 0.25133
11 0.13846 0.18586 64 0.80516 0.26791
12 0.15136 0.16523 65 0.81468 0.28492
13 0.16426 0.14691 66 0.82419 0.30232
14 0.17716 0.13049 67 0.83371 0.32006
15 0.19007 0.11568 68 0.84322 0.33812
16 0.20297 0.10227 69 0.85273 0.35647
17 0.21587 0.090094 70 0.86225 0.37509
18 0.22877 0.079021 71 0.87176 0.39394
19 0.24167 0.068951 72 0.88128 0.41303
20 0.25457 0.059799 73 0.89O79 0.43232
21 0.26747 0.051497 74 0.90030 0.45180
22 0.28037 0.043990 75 0.90982 0.47147
23 0.29327 0.037227 76 0.91933 0.49130
24 0.30617 0.031170 77 0.92885 0.51130
25 0.31907 0.025784 78 0.93826 0.53123
26 0.33197 0.021040 79 0.93867 0.53225
27 0.34487 0.016912 80 0.93897 0.53331
28 0.35777 0.013379 81 0.93915 0.53439
29 0.37067 0.010424 82 0.93921 0.53549
30 0.38357 0.0080306 83 0.93879 0.53836
31 0.39648 0.0061865 84 0.93756 0.54099
32 0.40938 0.0048812 85 0.93563 0.54316
33 0.42228 0.0041060 86 0.93316 0.54468
34 0.43518 0.0038545 87 0.93035 0.54543
35 0.44808 0.0041218 88 0.92745 0.54534
36 0.46098 0.0049050 89 0.92470 0.54442
37 0.47388 0.0062027 90 0,92233 0.54274
38 0.48678 0.0080152 91 0.92053 0.54046
39 0.49968 0.010344 92 0.90538 0.51508
40 0.51258 0.013194 93 0.89012 0.49148
41 0.52548 0.016569 94 0.87486 0.46955
42 0.53838 0.020478 95 0.85960 0.44909
43 0.55128 0.024929 96 0.84435 0.42991
44 0.56418 0.029933 97 0.82909 0.41190
45 0.57708 0.035504 98 0.81383 0.39494
46 0.58998 0.041659 99 0.79857 0.37895
47 0.60288 0.048416 100 0.78331 0.36386
48 0.61579 0.055799 101 0.76806 0.34960

84
 102 0.75280 0.33613 156 0.14851 0.25838
103 0.73754 0.32339 157 0.14698 0.25832
104 0.72228 0.31135 158 0.14544 0.25820
105 0.70703 0.29999 159 0.14390 0.25799
106 0.69177 0.28927 160 0.14237 0.25771
107 0.67651 0.27916 161 0.14083 0.25734
108 0.66125 0.26964 162 0.13929 0.25687
109 0.64599 0.26071 163 0.13776 0.25631
110 0.63074 0.25233 164 0.13622 0.25565
111 0.61548 0.24451 165 0.13468 0.25486
112 0.60022 0.23721 166 0.13315 0.25393
113 0.58496 0.23045 167 0.13161 0.25285
114 0.56971 0.22420 168 0.13007 0.25158
115 0.55445 0.21845 169 0.12854 0.25008
116 0.53919 0.21322 170 0.12700 0.24830
117 0.52393 0.20849 171 0.12546 0.24612
118 0.50867 0.20425 172 0.12393 0.24334
119 0.49342 0.20051 173 0.12239 0.23944
120 0.47816 0.19727
121 0.46290 0.19452
122 0.44764 0.19228
123 0.43238 0.19054
124 0.41713 0.18931
125 0.40187 0.18860
126 0.38661 0.18841
127 0.37135 0.18875
128 0.35610 0.18964
129 0.34084 0.19109
130 0.32558 0.19311
131 0.31032 0.19572
132 0.29506 0.19895
133 0.27981 0.20281
134 0.26455 0.20734
135 0.24929 0.21257
136 0.23403 0.21852
137 0.21878 0.22526
138 0.20352 0.23282
139 0.18826 0.24127
140 0.17300 0.25067
141 0.17157 0.25157
142 0.17003 0.25247
143 0.16849 0.25330
144 0.16696 0.25406
145 0.16542 0.25476
14_ 0.16388 0.25540
147 0.16234 0.25597
148 0.16081 0.25649
149 0.15927 0.25694
150 0.15773 0.25733
151 0.15620 0.25767
152 0.15466 0.25794
153 0.15312 0.25814
154 0.15159 0.25829
155 0.15005 0.25837

85
First rotor,midspan 51 0,66155 0.074794
52 0.67315 0.085889
x [in] y[m] 53 0.68476 0.097967
54 0.69636 0.11116
1 0.17979 0.15760 55 0.70796 0.12560
2 O. 18048 0.15051 56 0.71956 0.14120
3 0.18117 0.14765 57 0.73117 0.15788
4 0.18186 0.14549 58 0.74277 0.17563
5 0.18255 0,14370 59 0.75428 0.19430
6 0.18325 0.14215 60 0.76284 0.20889
7 0.18394 0.14077 61 0.77140 0.22401
8 0,18463 0.13953 62 0.77996 0.23958
9 0,18532 0.13838 63 0.78851 0.25556
10 0.18588 0.13752 64 0.79707 0.27189
11 O. 19747 0.11992 65 0.80563 0.28854
12 0.20907 0.10432 66 0.81418 0.30549
13 0.22066 0.090363 67 0.82274 0.32269
14 0.23226 0.077786 68 0.83130 0.34014
15 0.24386 0.066406 69 0.83986 0.35780
16 0.25546 0.056082 70 0.84841 0.37567
17 0.26706 0.046707 71 0.85697 0.39373
18 0.27866 0.038194 72 0.86553 0.41197
19 0.29026 0.030473 73 0.87408 0.43037
20 0.30186 0.023488 74 0.88264 0.44893
21 0.31346 0.017191 75 0.89120 0.46763
22 0.32506 0.011543 76 0.89975 0.48647
23 0.33667 0.0065094 77 0.90831 0.50544
24 0.34827 0.0020632 78 0.91677 0.52432
25 0.35987 -0.0018200 79 0.91715 0.52530
26 0.37147 -0.0051603 8O 0.91742 0.52631
27 0.38308 -0.0079749 81 0.91759 0.52735
28 0.39468 -0.010278 82 0.91764 0.52839
29 0.40628 -0.012082 83 0.91722 0.53127
30 0.41789 -0.013396 84 0.91598 0.53391
31 0.42949 -0.014227 85 0.91403 0.53608
32 0.44109 -0,014583 86 0.91154 0.53760
._._ 0.45269 -0.014466 87 0.90871 0.53833
34 0.46430 -0.013880 88 0.90578 0.53822
35 0.47590 -0.012825 89 0.90301 0.53725
36 0.48750 -0.011300 90 0.90061 0.53550
37 0,49911 -0.0093034 91 0.89881 0.53307
38 0.51071 -0.0068301 92 0.88521 0.50815
39 0.52231 -0.0038744 93 0.87153 0.48428
40 0.53392 -0.00042857 94 0.85784 0.46148
41 O...,",. -.,- 0.0035173 95 0.84416 0.43968
42 0,55712 0.0079753 96 0.83047 0.41879
43 0.56873 0.012960 97 0.81679 0.39876
44 0.58033 0.018489 98 0.80310 0.37956
45 0.59193 0.024584 99 0.78942 0.36116
46 0.60353 0.031268 100 0.77573 0.34353
47 0,61514 0.038571 101 0.76205 0.32665
48 0.62674 0.046529 102 0.74836 0.31053
49 0.63834 0.055183 103 0.73468 0.29513
50 0,64995 0.064584 104 0.72099 0.28046

86
105 0.70731 0.26652 159 0.20126 0.18689
106 0.69362 0.25330 160 0.19983 0.18645
107 0.67994 0.24079 161 0.19840 0.18594
108 0.66625 0.22899 162 0.19697 0.18535
109 0.65257 0.21790 163 0.19554 0.18466
110 0.63888 0.20751 164 0.19411 0.18387
Ili 0.62520 0.19783 165 0.19268 0.18297
112 0.61151 0.18884 166 0.19124 0.18194
113 0.59783 0.18053 167 0.18981 0.18077
114 0.58414 0.17291 168 0.18838 0.17943
115 0.57046 0.16596 169 0.18695 0.17787
116 0.55677 0.15967 170 0.18552 0.17605
117 0.54309 0.15404 171 0.18409 0.17386
118 0.52940 0.14905 172 0.18265 0.17113
119 0.51572 0.14468 173 0.18122 0.16736
120 0.50204 0.14094
121 0.48835 0.13781
122 0.47467 0.13527
123 0.46098 0.13331
124 0.44730 0.13193
125 0.43361 0.13111
126 0.41993 0.13085
127 0.40624 0.13113
128 0.39256 0.13194
129 0.37887 0.13328
130 0.36519 0.13515
131 0.35151 0.13754
132 0.33782 0.14044
133 0.32414 0.14387
134 0.31045 0.14782
135 0.29677 0.15230
136 0.28309 0.15731
137 0.26941 0.16288
138 0.25572 0.16900
139 0.24204 0.17572
140 0.22836 0.18304
141 0.22703 0.18375
142 0.22559 0.18445
143 0.22416 0.18507
144 0.22273 0.18564
145 0.22130 0.18614
146 0.21987 0.18658
147 0.21844 0.18696
148 0.21701 0.18728
149 0.21558 0.18754
150 0.21415 0.18775
151 0.21271 0.18790
152 0.21128 0.18799
153 0.20985 0.18802
154 0.20842 0.18799
155 0.20699 0.18790
156 0.20556 0.18775
157 0.20413 0.18753
158 0.20270 0.18724
First rotor, tip 51 0.66861 0.067602
52 0.67892 0.079595
x [m] Y Ira] 53 0.68922 0.092741
54 0.69953 0.10724
1 0.23860 0.086311 55 0.70983 0.12330
2 O.23945 0.078986 56 0.72014 0.14063
3 0.24030 0.076022 57 0.73044 0.15898
4 0.24115 0.073796 58 0.74075 0.17816
5 0.24200 0.071961 59 0.75098 0.19790
6 0.24285 0.070380 60 0.75858 0.21295
7 0.2437o 0.068984 61 0.76618 0.22830
8 0.24455 0.067731 62 0.77378 0.24392
9 0.24540 0.066594 63 0.78138 0.25979
10 0.24609 0.065741 64 0.78898 0.27588
11 0.25639 0.054062 65 0.79658 0.29217
12 0.26670 0.043481 66 0.80418 0.30866
13 0.27700 0.033867 67 0.81178 0.32532
14 0.28731 0.025118 68 0.81938 0.34215
15 0.29762 0.017155 69 0.82698 0.35913
16 0.30792 0.0099103 70 0.83458 0.37626
17 0.31823 0.0033318 71 0.84218 0.39353
18 0.32853 -0.0026254 72 0.84978 0.41092
19 0.33884 -0.0079985 73 0.85738 0.42844
20 0.34914 -0.012819 74 0.86498 0.44607
21 0.35945 -0.017113 75 0.87258 0.46381
22 0.36975 -0.020902 76 0.88O18 0.48165
23 0.38006 -0.024207 77 0.88778 0.49959
24 0.39036 -0.027043 78 O.8953O 0.51744
25 0.40067 -0.029424 79 O.89564 0.51837
26 0.41098 -0.031360 8O 0.89588 0.51933
27 0.42128 -0.032861 81 0.89603 0.52032
28 0.43159 -0.033935 82 0.89608 0.52131
29 0.44189 -0.034587 83 0.89565 0.52421
30 0.45220 -0.034822 84 0.89440 0.52685
31 0.46250 -0.034641 85 0.89244 0.52903
32 0.47281 -0.034047 86 0.88993 0.53054
33 0.48311 -0.033039 87 0.88708 0.53126
34 0.49342 -0.031615 88 0.88413 0.53112
35 0.50372 -0.029772 89 0.88133 0.53011
36 0.51403 -0.027506 90 0.87892 0.52829
37 0.52434 -0.024810 91 0.87709 0.52569
38 0.53464 -0.021675 92 0.86506 0.50124
39 0.54495 -0.018093 93 0.85295 0.47709
40 0.55525 -0.014051 94 0.84083 0.45343
41 0.56556 -0.0095350 95 0.82872 0.43028
42 0.57586 -0.0045274 96 0.81661 0.40767
43 0.58617 0.00099160 97 0.80449 0.38564
44 0.59647 0.0070458 98 0.79238 0.36419
45 0.60678 0.013663 99 0.78027 0.34338
46 0.61708 0.020877 100 0.76815 0.32321
47 0.62739 0.028727 101 0.75604 0.30373
48 0.63770 0.037260 102 0.74393 0.28494
49 0.64800 0.046534 103 0.73181 0.26689
50 0.65831 0.056619 104 0.71970 0.24960

88
105 0.70759 0.23308 140 0.28362 0.11554
106 0.69547 0.21736 141 0.28238 0.11607
107 0.68336 0.20245 142 0.28105 0.11656
108 0.67125 0.18837 143 0.27972 0.11698
109 0.65913 0.17513 144 0.27840 0.11735
110 0.64702 O.16274 145 0.27707 0.11765
111 0.63490 0.15119 146 0.27574 0.11789
112 0.62279 0.14051 147 0.27442 0.11808
113 0.61068 O.13067 148 0.27309 0.11821
114 0.59856 0.12168 149 0.27176 0.11829
115 0.58645 0.11352 150 0.27044 0.11831
116 0.57434 0.10618 151 0.26911 0.11828
117 0.56222 0.099647 152 0.26778 0.11819
118 0.55011 0.093900 153 0.26646 0.11804
119 0.53800 0.088917 154 0.26513 0.11784
120 0.52588 0.084676 155 0.26381 0.11758
121 0.51377 0.081152 156 0.26248 0.11726
122 0.50166 0.078319 157 0.26115 0.11688
123 0.48954 0.076149 158 0.25983 0.11644
124 0.47743 0.074617 159 0.25850 0.11593
125 0.46532 0.073693 160 0.25717 0.11536
126 0.45320 0.073351 161 0.25585 0.11471
127 0.44109 0.073563 162 0.25452 0.11398
128 0.42898 0.074301 163 0.25319 0.11316
129 0.41686 0.075540 164 0.25187 0.11225
130 0.40475 0.077254 165 0.25054 0.11124
131 0.39264 0.079418 166 O.24921 0.11011
132 0.38052 0.082008 167 0.24789 0.10885
133 0.36841 0.085002 168 0.24656 0.10743
134 0.35630 0.088377 169 0.24523 0.10582
135 0.34418 0.092112 170 0.24391 0.10396
136 0.33207 0.096189 171 0.24258 0.10177
137 0.31996 O.10059 172 0.24125 0.099068
138 0.30784 0.10529 173 0.23993 0.095429
139 0.29573 0.11028

89
 1.2

I....Tip I
O.g ...................
].... MJdspan |....................................
!.......................
T.......................................
" I.......
_°_ I i i
0.6
m

°".......................
i.............
iiiiiii
....................
i...................
ii17:_I.'_:I .......................
o ......................._....................._'-'_
i
i : i
.-0.2

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2

Figure A. 1.2--First rotor: tip, midspan, hub.

90
A.1.3 Second Nozzle Coordinates
49 0.48530 0.61780
Second nozzle, hub 50 0.50310 0.60810
51 0.52100 0.59770
x [in] y[m] 52 0.53890 0.58670
53 0.55680 0.57510
1 0.067200 0.71990 54 0.57470 0.56290
2 0.067500 0.71690 55 0.59260 0.55000
3 0.068000 0.71390 56 0.61050 0.53650
4 0.068700 0.71100 57 0.62840 0.52230
5 0.069500 0.70800 58 0.64630 0.50740
6 0.070600 0.70520 59 0.66410 0.49180
7 0.071800 0.70240 60 0.68200 0.47560
8 0.073100 0.69970 61 0.69990 0.45860
9 0.074700 0.69710 62 0.71780 0.44080
10 0.076400 0.69460 63 0.73570 0.42220
11 0.078300 0.69220 64 0.75360 0.40290
12 0.080300 0.68990 65 0.77150 0.38260
13 0.082400 0.68780 66 0.78940 0.36150
14 0.084700 0.68580 67 0.80730 0.33940
15 0.087100 0.68390 68 0.82510 0.31630
16 0.089600 0.68220 69 0.84300 0.29210
17 0.092200 0.68070 70 0.86090 0.26680
18 0.094900 0.67930 71 0.87880 0.24020
19 0.097700 0.67810 72 0.89670 0.21230
20 0.10060 0.67710 73 0.91460 0.18290
21 0.10350 0.67630 74 0.93250 0.15180
22 0.10650 0.67560 75 0.95040 0.11890
23 0.10950 0.67520 76 0.96830 0.083800
24 0.11250 0.67490 77 0.98610 0.046300
25 0.11550 0.67480 78 1.0039 0.0060000
26 0.11850 0.67490 79 1.0046 0.0048000
27 0.12150 0.67520 80 1.0054 0.0036000
28 0.12450 0.67570 81 1.0064 0.0026000
29 0.12750 0.67640 82 1.0075 0.0017000
30 0.14540 0.68050 83 1.0087 0.0010000
31 0.16330 0.68380 84 1.0101 0.00050000
32 0.18120 0.68620 85 1.0115 1.O000e-04
33 0.19900 0.68770 86 1.0129 0.0000
34 0.21690 0.68850 87 1.0143 1.O000e-04
35 0.23480 0.68850 88 1.0157 0.00040000
36 0.25270 0.68780 89 1.0170 0.00080000
37 0.27060 0.68630 90 1.0183 0.0015000
38 0.28850 0.68410 91 1.0194 0.0024000
39 0.30640 0.68130 92 1.0205 _.vv34000
40 0.32430 0.67780 93 1.0213 0.0045000
41 0.34220 0.67360 94 1.0220 0.0057000
42 0.36000 0.66880 95 1.0225 0.0071000
43 0.37790 0.66340 96 1.0228 0.0085000
44 0.39580 0.65730 97 1.0229 0.0099000
45 0.41370 0.65070 98 1.0229 0.010300
46 0.43160 0.64340 99 1.0229 0.010600
47 0.44950 0.63550 100 1.0229 0.011000
48 0.46740 0.62690 101 1.0228 0.011400

91
102 1.0227 0.011800 156 0.39660 0.91970
103 1.0227 0.012100 157 0.38200 0.92000
104 1.0226 0.012500 158 0.36740 0.91970
105 1.0225 0.012800 159 0.35270 0.91890
106 1.0223 0.013200 160 0.33810 0.91740
107 1.0047 0.062800 161 0.32350 0.91540
108 0.98700 0.11240 162 0.30890 0.91270
109 0.96930 0.16200 163 0.29430 0.90930
110 0.95160 0.21160 164 0.27960 0.90530
111 0.93400 0.26120 165 0.26500 0.90060
112 0.91630 0.31070 166 0.25040 0.89520
113 0.89860 0.36030 167 0.23580 0.88910
114 0.88090 0.40990 168 0.22110 0.88210
115 0.86320 0.45950 169 0.20650 0.87430
116 0.8582O 0.47360 170 0.19190 0.86560
117 0.85300 0.48760 171 0.17730 0.85590
118 0.84790 0.50150 172 0.16270 0.84520
119 0.84280 0.51510 173 0.14800 0.83320
120 0.83760 0.52840 174 0.13340 0.8200O
121 0.83250 0.54140 175 0.11880 0.80520
122 0.82730 0.55420 176 0.10420 0.78880
123 0.82220 0.56680 177 0.089600 0.77030
124 0.81700 0.57900 178 0.074900 0.74920
125 0.81190 0.59100 179 0.073300 0.74660
126 0.80670 0.60260 180 0.071900 0.74380
127 0.80160 0.61400 181 0.070700 0.74100
128 0.7964O 0.62500 182 0.069600 0.73810
129 0.79130 0.63580 183 0.068700 0.73520
130 0.77680 0.66370 184 0.068000 0.73220
131 0.76210 0.68850 185 0.067500 0.72910
132 0.74750 0.71090 186 0.067200 0.72610
133 0.73290 0.73110 187 0.067100 0.72300
134 0.71830 0.74950
135 0.70360 0.76640
136 0.68900 0.78200
137 0.67440 0.79630
138 0.65980 0.80960
139 0.64520 0.82190
140 0.63050 0.83320
141 0.61590 0.84370
142 0.60130 0.85340
143 0.58670 0.86230
144 0.57210 0.87050
145 0.55740 0.87800
146 0.54280 0.88480
147 0.52820 0.89100
148 0.51360 0.89660
149 0.49900 0.90150
150 0.48430 0.90580
151 0.46970 0.90960
152 0.45510 0.91280
153 0.44050 0.91540
154 0.42580 0.91740
155 0.41120 0.91880

92
 Secondnozzle,midspan 51 0.51540 0.65420
52 0.53520 0.64120
x [in] y[in] 53 0.55490 0.62760
54 0.57470 0.61330
1 0.022600 0.81050 55 0.59450 0.59830
2 0.022900 0.80750 56 0.61420 0.58270
3 0.023300 0.80450 57 0.63400 0.56640
4 0.024000 0.80160 58 0.65370 0.54950
5 0.024800 0.79880 59 0.67350 0.53180
6 0.025800 0.79600 60 0.69320 0.51340
7 0.026900 0.79320 61 0.71300 0.49430
8 0.028300 0.79050 62 0.73270 0.47440
9 0.029800 0.78800 63 0.75250 0.45370
10 0.031400 0.78550 64 0.77220 0.43220
11 0.033200 0.78310 65 0.79200 0.40980
12 0.035200 0.78090 66 0.81170 0.38650
13 0.037300 0.77870 67 0.83150 0.36230
14 0.039500 0.77670 68 0.85120 0.33710
15 0.041800 0.77490 69 0,87100 0.31080
16 0.044200 0.77320 70 0.89080 0.28330
17 0.046800 0.77160 71 0.9105O 0.25460
18 0.049400 0.77020 72 0.93030 0.22460
19 0.052100 0.76900 73 0.95000 0.19310
20 0.054800 0.76800 74 0.96980 0.15990
21 0.057700 0.76710 75 0,98950 0.12490
22 0.060500 0.76640 76 1.0093 0.087800
23 0.063400 0.76580 77 1.0290 0.048200
24 0.066300 0.76550 78 1.0487 0.00590OO
25 0.069300 0,76530 79 1.0493 0.0046000
26 0.072200 0.76530 8O 1.0501 0.0035000
27 0.075100 0.76550 81 1.0511 0.0025000
28 0.078000 0.76590 82 1.0522 0.0017000
29 0.080900 0.76640 83 1.0535 0.0010000
30 0.10060 0.77000 84 1,0548 0.000400OO
31 0.12040 0.77260 85 1.0562 1.O000e-04
32 0.14010 0.77410 86 1.0576 0.0000
33 0.15990 0.77460 87 1,0590 1,O000e-04
34 0.17960 0.77420 88 1.0604 0.000400O0
35 0.19940 0.77300 89 1.0617 0.00090000
36 0.21910 0.77090 90 1.0630 0.0015000
37 0.23890 0.76800 91 1.0641 0.0024000
38 0.25860 0.76430 92 1.0651 0.0034000
39 0.27840 0.75990 93 1.0660 0.0045000
40 0.29820 0.75480 94 1,0667 0.0057000
41 0.31790 0.74900 95 1.0672 0.0071000
42 0.33770 0.74240 96 1.0675 0.0085000
43 0.35740 0.73520 97 1.0676 0.0099000
44 0.37720 0.72730 98 1.0676 0.010300
45 0.39690 0.71880 99 1.0675 0.010700
46 0.41670 0.70960 100 1.0675 0.011100
47 0.43640 0.69980 101 1.0674 0.011500
48 0.45620 0.68940 102 1.0674 0.011900
49 0.47590 0.67830 103 1.0673 0.012400
50 0.49570 0.66660 104 1.0672 0.012800

93
 105 1,0670 0.013100 159 0.33530 1,0036
106 1.0669 0.013500 160 0.31930 1.0032
107 1.0476 0.062100 161 0,30340 1.0021
108 1.0282 O.11070 162 0.28740 1.0002
109 1.0089 0.15930 163 0.27140 0.99770
110 0.98960 0.20780 164 0.25540 0.99440
111 0.97030 0.25640 165 0.23950 0.99030
112 0.95100 0.30500 166 0.22350 0.98540
113 0.93170 0.35350 167 0.20750 0.97970
114 0.91240 0.40210 168 0.19150 0.97310
115 0.89310 0.45070 169 0.17560 0.96560
116 0.88750 0.46450 170 0.15960 0.95710
117 0.88190 0.47850 171 0.14360 0.94750
118 0.87630 0.49230 172 0.12760 0.93690
119 0.87070 0.50610 173 0.11170 0.92500
120 0.86510 0.51970 174 0.095700 0.91180
121 0.85940 0.53320 175 0.079700 0.89710
122 0.8538O 0.54660 176 0,063700 0.88070
123 0.84820 0.55980 177 0.047800 0.86240
124 0.84260 0.57290 178 0.031800 0.84180
125 0.83690 0.58570 179 0.029900 0.83900
126 0.83130 0.59830 180 0.028200 0.83610
127 0.82570 0.61070 181 0.026700 0.83310
128 0.82010 0.62290 182 0.025400 0.82990
129 0.81440 0.63480 183 0.024400 0.82670
130 0.79860 0.66660 184 0.023500 0.82350
131 0.78260 0.69630 185 0.023000 0.82020
132 0.76660 0,72370 186 0.022600 0.81680
133 0.75060 0.74880 187 0.022500 0.81350
134 0.73470 0.77190
135 0.71870 0.79310
136 0.70270 0.81280
137 0.68670 0.83110
138 0.67080 0.848OO
139 0.65480 0.86380
140 0.63880 0.8785O
141 0.62280 0.89210
142 0.60690 0.90480
143 0.59090 0.91660
144 0.57490 0.92760
145 0.55890 0.93770
146 0.54300 0.94700
147 0.52700 0.95560
148 0.51100 0.96340
149 0.49510 0.97050
150 0.47910 0.97680
151 0.46310 0.98250
152 0.44710 0.98750
153 0.43120 0.99180
154 0.41520 0.99540
155 0.39920 0.99840
156 0.38320 1.0007
157 0.36730 1.0023
158 0.35130 1,0033

94
 Secondnozzle,tip 51 0.50980 0.71070
52 0.53150 0,69570
x [m] y [m] 53 0.55310 0.68000
54 0.57470 0.66370
1 -0.022100 0.90100 55 0.59630 0.64660
2 -0.021800 0.89810 56 0.61790 0.62900
3 -0.021400 0.89520 57 0.63950 0.61060
4 -0.020800 0.89230 58 0.66120 0.59150
5 -0.020000 0.88950 59 0.68280 0.57170
6 -0.019000 0.88670 60 0.70440 0.55120
7 -0.017900 0.88400 61 0.72600 0.53000
8 -0.016600 0.88140 62 0.74760 0.50790
9 -0.015100 0.87880 63 0.76930 0.48510
10 -0.013500 0.87640 64 0.79090 0.46150
11 -0.011800 0.87400 65 0.81250 0.43700
12 -0.0099000 0.87180 66 0.83410 0.41150
13 -0.0079000 0.86970 67 0.85570 0.38250
14 -0.0058000 0.86770 68 0.87730 0.35780
15 -0.0035000 0.86580 69 0.89900 0.32940
16 -0.0012000 0.86410 70 0.92060 0.29980
17 0.0013000 0.86260 71 0.94220 0.26900
18 0.0038000 0.86120 72 0.96380 0.23680
19 0.0064000 0.85990 73 0.98540 0.20320
20 0.0091000 0.85880 74 1.0071 0.16800
21 0.011800 0.85790 75 1.0287 0.13090
22 0,014600 0.85710 76 1.0503 0.091700
23 0,017400 0.85650 77 1.0719 0.05000O
24 0,020200 0.85610 78 1.0934 0.0057000
25 0.023000 0.85580 79 1.0941 0.004500O
26 0.025900 0.85570 8O 1.0949 0.0034000
27 0.028700 0.85580 81 1.0958 0.0025000
28 0.031500 0.85600 82 1.0970 0.0016000
29 0.034200 0.85640 83 1.0982 0.00090000
30 0.055900 0.85950 84 1.0995 0.0O0400O0
31 0.077500 0.86130 85 1.1009 1.O000e-04
32 0.099100 0.86190 86 1.1023 0.0000
33 0.12070 0.86140 87 1.1037 1.O000e-04
34 0.14230 0.85990 88 1.1051 0.00040000
35 0.16390 0.85740 89 1.1064 0.00090000
36 0.18560 0.85400 90 1.1077 0.0015000
37 0.20720 0.84970 91 1.1088 0.0024000
38 0.22880 0.84450 92 1.1098 0.0034000
39 0.25040 0.83850 93 1.1107 0.0045000
40 0.27200 0.83180 94 1.1113 0.0058000
41 0.29370 0.82430 95 1.1118 0.0071000
42 0.31530 0.81600 96 1.1121 0.0085000
43 0.33690 0.80700 97 1.1122 0.0099000
44 0.35850 0.79740 98 1.1122 0.010300
45 0.38010 0.78700 99 1.1122 0.010800
46 0.40170 0.77590 100 1.1122 0.011200
47 0.42340 0.76420 101 1.1121 0.011700
48 0.44500 0.75180 102 1.1120 0.012100
49 0.46660 0.73880 103 1.1119 0.012600
50 0.48820 0.72510 104 1.1117 0.013000

95
 105 1.1116 0.013400 147 0.52580 1.0201
106 1.1114 0.013900 148 0.50850 1.0302
107 1.0905 0.061400 149 0.49120 1.0394
108 1.0695 0.10900 150 0.47380 1.0478
109 1.0486 0.15650 151 0.45650 1.0554
110 1.0276 0.20410 152 0.43920 1.0622
111 1.0067 0.25170 153 0.42180 1.0682
112 0.98570 0.29920 154 0.40450 1.0735
113 0.96480 0.34680 155 0.38720 1.0780
114 0.94380 0.39430 156 0.36990 1.0817
115 0.92290 0.44190 157 0.35250 1.0847
116 0.91690 0.45550 158 0.33520 1.0869
117 0.91080 0.46940 159 0.31790 1.0883
118 0.90470 0.48320 160 0.30060 1.0889
119 0.89860 0.49720 161 0.28320 1.0888
120 0.89250 0.51110 162 0.26590 1.0878
121 0.88640 0.52500 163 0.24860 1.0860
122 0.88030 0.53900 164 0.23120 1.0834
123 0.87420 0.55300 165 0.21390 1.0799
124 0.86810 0.56690 166 0.19660 1.0756
125 0.86200 0.5806O 167 0.17930 1.0703
126 0.85590 0.59420 168 0.16190 1.0641
127 0.84980 0.60760 169 0.14460 1.0568
128 0.84370 0.62080 170 0.12730 1.0486
129 0.83760 0.63380 171 0.11000 1.0392
130 0.82040 0.66970 172 0.092600 1.0286
131 0.80300 0.70410 173 0.075300 1.0168
132 0.78570 0.73660 174 0.058000 1.0036
133 0.76840 0.76660 175 0.040600 0.98890
134 0.75110 0.79430 176 0.023300 0.97260
135 0.73370 0.81990 177 0.0060000 0.95450
136 0.71640 0.84370 178 -0.01130O 0.93440
137 0.69910 0.86580 179 -0.013600 0.93150
138 0.68170 0.88650 180 -0.015500 0.92830
139 0.66440 0.90570 181 -0.017300 0.92510
140 0.64710 0.92380 182 -0.018800 0.92180
141 0.62980 0.94060 183 -0.020000 0.91830
142 0.61240 0.95630 184 -0.020900 0.91480
143 0.59510 0.97100 185 -0.021600 0.91120
144 0.57780 0.98470 186 -0.022000 0.90760
145 0.56050 0.9974O 187 -0.022200 0.90390
146 0.54310 1.0092

96
 1.2

0.8
....................
..i:......
:.;...-.:.:ii.!.i_.i.-
.......
_..i
.........
il..i.i..::..:i:.:.:.,.,i.,
........
i.......................
_.......................
0.6
.'-g=
0.4

0.2

............. i i

-0.2

-0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1_ I

x ltn]

Figure A. 1.3--Second nozzle, tip, midspan, hub.

97
A.3 Listing of Instrumentation Locations

Position No. Location Y g/_ % Wetted Distance

44 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.426 0.091 6.38

45 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.426 0.173 12.13
46 Pressure, 90%, S T - 1.426 0.543 38.08

47 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.426 0.872 61.15

48 Pressure, 90%, ST = 1.426 1.096 76.86

80 Pressure, 50%, S T - 1.386 0 0

81 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.0385 2.78
49 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.070 5.05
82 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.123 8.87
50 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.125 9.02
83 Pressure, 50%, ST = 1.386 0.173 12.48
84 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.244 17.61
85 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.3235 23.34
51 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.477 34.42
52 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 0.821 59.24
53 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 1.048 75.61

54 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.386 1.119 85.86

55 Pressure, 23%, S T = 1.374 1.244 90.54

56 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 0.084 6.55

57 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 0.164 12.79

58 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 0.496 38.69
59 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 0.802 62.56
60 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 1.047 81.67
61 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.282 1.169 91.19

Table A.2.1--Heat flux instrumentation, first stage nozzle guide vane, pressure side.

98
 Position No. Location Z L2/C % Wetted Distance

62 Suction, 90ck, S T = 1.726 0.095 5.50

63 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.726 0.376 21.78
64 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.726 0.809 46.87
65 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.726 1.127 65.30
66 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.726 1.435 83.20

80 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.000 0

86 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.0585 3.43
67 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.060 3.52
87 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.1385 8.12
88 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.215 12.60
89 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.285 16.71
90 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.363 21.28
68 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.381 22.33
69 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 0.603 35.35
70 Suction, 50%, ST = 1.706 0.857 50.23
71 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 1.090 63.89
72 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.706 1.385 81.18

73 Suction, 31%, S T = 1.685 1.579 93.71

74 Suction, 19%, S T = 1.609 1.489 92.54

75 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.580 0.085 5.38

76 Suction, 10ck, S T = 1.580 0.367 23.23

77 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.580 0.567 35.87

78 Suction, 10%, ST= 1.580 1.177 74.49

79 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.580 1.357 85.89

Table A.2.2--Heat flux instrumenatation, first stage nozzle guide vane, suction side.

99
Position No. Location %WeaedD_tance

33 Tip, ST = 0.985 0.1665 16.9

34 Tip, ST = 0.985 0.379 38.48

35 Tip, ST = 0.985 0.563 57.16

36 Tip, ST = 0.985 0.702 71.27

12 Suction,90%,ST = 1.101 0.075 6.81

13 Suction,90%,ST = 1.101 0.509 46.23
37 Suction,90%,ST = 1.101 0.632 57.40

38 Suction,90%, ST = 1.101 0.767 69.66

14 Suction,90%, ST = 1.101 0.900 81.74
39 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.101 0.991 90.01

1 Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.898 0.043 4.79

2 Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.898 0.406 45.21
3 Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.898 0.561 62.47

20 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.232 0.090 7.31

21 Suction. 10%, S T = 1.232 0.198 16.07
"1")
Suction, 10%, S T = 1.232 0.636 51.62
23 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.232 0.988 80.19

9 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.955 0.052 5.45

10 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.955 0.464 48.59
11 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.955 0.622 65.13

Table A.2.3a--Heat flux instrumentation, f'trst stage rotor.

lOO
PositionNO. Location % Wetted Distance

24 Platform 0.222 22.05

25 Platform 0.595 59.09

26 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0 0

30 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.067 5.79

31 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.137 11.83

32 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.205 17.71

15 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.330 28.51
16 Suction 50%, ST = 1.158 0.560 48.38

17 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.742 64.10

18 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 0.949 81.99

19 Suction 50%, S T = 1.158 1.074 92.79

27 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.919 0.080 8.71

28 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.919 0.148 16.10

29 Pressure, 50%, ST = 0.919 0.201 21.87

4 Pressure, 50c_, S T = 0.919 0.217 23.61

5 Pressure, 50%, ST = 0.919 0.409 44.50

6 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.919 0.556 60.50

7 Pressure, 50%, ST = 0.919 0.669 72.80

8 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.919 0.806 87.70

Table A.2.3b--Heat flux instrumentation, first stage rotor (cont'd).

101
Position No. Location % Wetted Distance

91 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 0.016 1.15

92 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 0.101 7.26
93 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 0.168 12.07
94 Pressure, 50%, S T "-"1.392 0.514 36.93
95 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 0.707 50.79
96 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 0.855 61.42
97 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.392 1.071 76.94

98 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.00 0

99 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.137 7.92
100 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.375 21.69
101 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.545 31.52
102 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.893 51.65
103 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 0.975 56.39
104 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 1.155 66.80
105 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 1.302 75.30
106 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 1.369 79.18
107 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.729 1.546 89.42

Table A.2.3c--Heat flux instrumentation, first stage rotor (cont'd).

102
Position No. Location % Wetted Distance

PI Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.891 0.044 4.94

P2 Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.891 0.403 45.23
P3 Pressure, 90%, S T = 0.891 0.563 63.19

P4 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.125 0.068 6.00

P5 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.125 0.187 16.62
P6 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.125 0.875 77.78

P7 Pressure, 50%, ST = 0.921 0.040 4.34

P8 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.921 0.125 13.57
P9 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.921 0.402 43.65
PI0 Pressure, 50%, S T = 0.921 0.670 72.75

PI 1 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.065 5.54

P12 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.141 12.06
P13 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.214 18.37
P14 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.296 25.41
PI5 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.534 45.84
P16 Suction, 50%, ST = 1.165 0.702 60.26
P17 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.165 0.925 79.40

Table A.2.4a--Pressure Instrumentation, first stage rotor.

PI8 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.948 0.047 4.96

PI9 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.948 0.445 46.94
P20 Pressure, 10%, S T = 0.948 0.593 62.55

P21 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.215 0.083 6.83

P22 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.215 u.231 19.01

P23 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.215 0.594 48.89

P24 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.215 0.896 73.74

Table A.2.4b--Pressure Instrumentation, f'u-st stage rotor (cont'd).

103
Position No. Location % Wetted Distance

P25 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.433 0.068 4.75

P26 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.433 0.528 36.85
P30 Pressure, 90%, S T = 1.433 1.064 74.25

P33 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.425 0.108 7.58

P34 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.425 0.218 15.30

P35 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.425 0.518 36.35

P36 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.425 0.860 60.35
P37 Pressure, 50%, S T = 1.425 1.031 72.35

P45 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.241 0.061 4.92

P46 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.241 0.480 38.68

P47 Pressure, 10%, S T = 1.241 1.023 82.43

Table A.2.5a--Pressure Instrumentation, first stage vane.

Position No. Location y g/£ % Wetted Distance

P28 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.662 0.100 6.02

P29 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.662 0.367 22.08
P30 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.662 0.775 46.63
P31 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.662 1.088 65.46
P32 Suction, 90%, S T = 1.662 1.359 81.77

P38 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 0.114 6.60

P39 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 0.252 14.58

P40 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 0.400 23.15

P41 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 0.592 34.26
P42 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 0.847 49.02

P43 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 1.108 64.12

P44 Suction, 50%, S T = 1.728 1.491 86.28

P48 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.568 0.091 5.80

P49 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.568 0.354 22.58

P50 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.568 0.563 35.91

P51 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.568 1.148 73.21
P52 Suction, 10%, S T = 1.568 1.333 85.01

Table A.2.5b--Pressure Instrumentation, first stage vane (cont'd).

104
Position No. Location
P53 Hub wall, near midpassage, 0.062 aft of leading edge
P54 Hub wall, 0.145 from suction surface, 0.062 aft of leading edge
P55 Hub wall, 0.604 from leading edge, near pressure surface of vane
#1

P56 Hub wall, 0.575 from leading edge, near pressure surface of vane
#7

P57 Hub wall, 0.086 from trailing edge, near pressure surface of vane
#7 (in region where vane trailing edge has been removed

Table A.2.5c--Pressure Instrumentation, first stage vane (cont'd).

105
A.4 Listing of Data: Pressure and Stanton numbers

% wetted Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run I1 Run 12 Run 13

distance
-82.4 0.88276 0.86732 0.90313 0.91504 0.90972 0.82652 0.79142
-38.7 1.0000 1.0000 0.94244 0.96289 1.0049 1.0000 l.O000
-4.9000 0.96158 0.92878 0.99996 1.0000 1.0000 0.95414 0.94347
5.8000 0.95961 0.93366 0.98175 0.99316 0.98234 0.93519 0.93470
22.600 0.91330 0.88780 0.93381 0.94922 0.93719 0.90828 0.89376
73.200 0.78621 0.77951 0.86190 0.87598 0.85672 0.74576 0.78070
85.000 0.77438 0.74829 0.77274 0.78320 0.79293 0.75972 0.77778

Table A.3.1--Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction surface.

% wetted Run 5 Run 6 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

distance Run 7

-72.400 0.86831 0.83445 0.89595 0.89234 0.88943 0.85020 0.84981

-60.400 0.85767 0.83254 0.85645 0.87585 0.87378 0.83929 0.83624
-36.400 0.99996 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
-15.300 0.99319 0.96172 0.98844 1.0000 0.99804 0.98611 0.99031
-7.6000 0.95931 0.93971 0.94798 0.94277 0.94423
34.300
64.100 0.77442 0.76364 0.75723 0.76431 0.77397 0.75099 0.78488
74.700 0.81410 0.85742 0.79094 0.80213 0.83659 0.79663 0.85659

Table A.3.2--Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 50% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction surface.

%wened Run5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 [ Run 12 Run 13

distance I
-36.800 1.0000 1.0000 0.99998 1.0000 1.0000
-4.7000 0.89197 0.85129 0.93754 0.92958 0.91932 0.93100 0.83100
6.0000 0.86042 0.74738 0.88826 0.87242 0.68900 0.70700
22.100 0.72753 0.72164 0.74183 0.73709 0.72889 0.74900 0.76500
46.600 0.62141 0.62726 0.60763 0.61502 0.62101 0.64200 0.68600
65.500 0.78967 0.78646 0.76420 0.76526 0.77205 0.77000
81.800 0.97514 0.89609 0.99718 0.99624 0.98030

Table A.3.3--Pressure ratio distribution, first vane, 90% span. % wetted distances less
than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

106
 % wetted Run 5 Run 6 Run 8 Run I1 Run 13
distance Run 7 I Run 12
-62.600 0.91500 0.89200 0.75936 0.82600 0.83500 0.79187 0.82190
-46.900 0.91000 0.93600 0.97700 0.95800 0.92170 0.90000
-5.0000 0.97900 0.99823 0.99978
6.8000 0.98300 0.95300 1.00103 0.97000 0.96500 0.87711 0.90190
19.000 0.81900 0.82500 0.72097 0.78800 0.80000 0.74628 0.77429
48.900 0.81100 0.81200 0.77809 0.83600 0.83000 0.78989 0.77714

Table A.3.4--Pressure ratio distribution, first blade, 10% span. % wetted distances less
than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

%weued Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

_stance

-72.700 0.83400 0.88400 0.90100 0.89000 0.89900 0.86200 0.88500

-13.600 0.83200 0.85100 0.73400 0.76500 0.87200 0.79600
5.6000 0.72000 0.74000 0.70000 0.70200 0.71300
12.100 0.81800 0.82500 0.89800 0.90700 0.91800 0.81900 0.84500
18.400 0.76000 0.78500 0.71100 0.68100 0.67400 0.75200 0.70900
25.400 0.79600 0.81800 0.79200 0.79100 0.76800 0.80700 0.76300
45.800 0.78300 0.77900 0.79200 0.79100 0.79700 0.76700 0.77800
60.300 0.67200 0.70300 0.63200 0.68600 0.71700 0.69000 0.72200
79.400 0.79000 0.80800 0.77400 0.82000 0.82500 0.77600 0.79500

Table A.3.5--Pressure ratio distribution, first blade, 50% span. % wetted distances less
than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

% wetted Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

distance
.-45.200 0.91200
-4.9000 0.89400 0.86700 0.90700 0.88200 0.88500 0.87600 0.88100
6.0000 0.91700 0.96700 0.85700 0.87600 0.91100 0.84100 0.87900
16.600 0.80500 0.82300 0.77400 0.77500 0.79900 0.75700 0.78600
77.800 0.80300 0.79400 0.75200 0.78900 0.85300 0.72700 0.75400

Table A.3.6--Pressure ratio distribution, ftrst blade, 90% span. % wetted distances less
than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction
surface.

107
%wetted Run I Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run I I Run 12
distance Run 13
-91.190 0.013191 0.015026 0.015452 0.013966 0.014661 0.016170 0.015130 0.014617
-81.670 0.022809 0.025479 0.025560 0.027150 0.023096 0.021765
-62.560 0.0079545 0.0082174 0.0083739 0.0084706 0.0087706 0.0092800 0.0086087 0.0079565
-38.690 0.0055909 0.0040957 0.0040435 0.0063529 0.0064862 0.0068700 0.0039043 0.0035913
-12.790 0.0070364 0.0058348 0.0057652 0.OO69832 0.0073486 0.0073000 0.0057043 0.0053565
-6.5500 0.0088909 0.0070870 0.0070870 0.0079160 0.0082569 0.0082500 0.0072000 0.0068783
5.3800 0.0075000 0.0067043 0.0066957 0.0077983 0.0076147 0.0079500 0.0058870 0.0056783
23.230
35.870 0.010964 0.011009 0.010870 0.010866 0.010798 0.011440 0.010800 0.0093739
74.490 0.0060455 0.0056522 0.0058435 0.0052941 0.0050550 0.0051300 0.0058000 0.0056609
85.890 0.0063000 0.0058870 0.0059913 0.0056050 0.0055229 0.0056800 0.0060609 0.0057565

Table A.3.7--Stamon number distribution, first vane, 10% span. % wetted distances
less than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on
suction surface.

% wetled Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

distance
-75.610 0.010036 0.010365 0.010522 0.0096639 0.010037 0.010320 0.010200 0.010252
-59.240 0.0095000 0.0088522 0.0091304 0.0093697 0.0096789 0.010020 0.0090087 0.0088348
-34.420 0.0061182 0.0050174 0.0054000 0.0054622 0.0059725 0.0063300 0.0049304 0.0044348
-23.02O 0.0032087 0.0032696 0.0052941 0.0056239 0.0057500 0.0035304 0.0035826
-17.360 0.0036522 0.0038609 0.0055210 0.0058073 0.0061600 0.0039478 0.0039304
-12.300 0.0054545 0.0041652 0.0041565 0.0056555 0.0058624 0.0063000 0.0042957 0.0042696
-9.0200 0.0081182 0.0078870 0.0076696 0.0076975 0.0080092 0.0081100 0.0068870 0.0063130
-8.7500 0.0054636 0.0047478 0.0047391 0.0050420 0.0059174 0.0063300 0.0048174 0.0048348
-5.0500 0.0099091 0.0067565 0.0068870 0.0086555 0.0085780 0.0089400 0.0068087 0.0064261
-2.7400 0.0076636 0.0099739 0.0098783 0.0097647 0.010385 0.010960 0.010078 0.0100000
0.0000 0.014504 0.014522
3.4100 0.0086273 0.0097826 0.0097652 0.0092773 0.010780 0.0091400 0.010217 0.010191
3.5200 0.0092818 0.0091391 0.0092087 0.0090336 0.0092661 0.0093739 0.0087826
8.0700 0.0057818 0.0057913 0.0057043 0.0058235 0.0O68440 0.0065700 0.0059217 0.0059217
12.520 0.0053909 0.0042870 0.0042435 0.0055462 0.0060826 0.0063300 0.0043913 0.0043652
16.600 0.0036522 0.0041130 0.0067143 0.0070917 0.0075300 0.0043130 0.0042696
22.330 0.010345 _0.0070435 0.0068348 0.010151 0.010275 0.010620 0.0077913
35.350 0.0084727 0.0070435 0.0072348 0.0082941 0.0089633 0.0089500 0.0075304 0.0068174
50.230 0.0088273 0.0096000 0.0098174 0.0082017 0.0087156 0.0088200 0.0098435 0.0097217
63.890 0.0080727 0.0085217 0.0086696 0.0076134 0.0082018 0.0083600 0.0089565 0.0088696
81.180 0.0078091 0.0084609 0.0086957 0.0074538 0.0080459 0.0083100 0.0087826 0.0086609

Table A.3.8--Stanton number distribution, fast vane, 50% span. % wetted distances
less than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on
suction surface.

108
 % wetted Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run ? Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
distance

-76.860 0.0081364 0.0082087 0.0084957 0.0093277 0.0088991 0.0080100 0.0085739 0.0085130

-61.150 0.0092545 0.0086435 0.0088783 0.0094958 0.010303 0.0083200 0.0096435 0.0089652
-38.080 0.0070545 0.0056087 0.0058696 0.0073445 0.0071101 0.0063900 0.0061913 0.0060435
-12.130 0.0076909 0.0048870 0.0039304 0.0056723 0.0059083 0.0055500 0.0055304 0.0050435
-6.3800 0.010009 0.0055565 0.0058174 0.0075882 0.0081284 0.0077900 0.0075391 0.0059217
5.5000 0.0090727 0.0075826 0.0081478 0.0091933 0.0098440 0.010710 0.0080783 0.0078783
21.780 0.0079565 0.0081217 0.0096975 0.010009 0.010340 0.0092261 0.0085043
46.870 0.0060000 0.0062087 0.0062696 0.0054706 0.0054954 0.0061600 0.0061565 0.0059391
65.300 0.0054545 0.0046522 0.0048696 0.0048487 0.0049817 0.0074000 0.0048609 0.0030174
83.200 0.0073909 0.0062522 0.0061739 0.0063361 0.0070367 0.0079000 0.0073739 0.0044522

Table A.3.9--Stanton number distribution, first vane, 90% span. % wetted distances less than zero
are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction surface.

% wetted Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

distance
-65.130 0.0071273 0.0068261 0.0071739 0.0091597 0.011275 0.0069300 0.0069652 0.0067391
-48.590 0.0066455 0.0060522 0.0065913 0.0067815 0.0071376 0.0066600 0.0063304 0.0058870
-5.4500 0.010309 0.0089739 0.0098870 0.010588 0.011028 0.0090900 0.0099913 0.0089826
7.3100 0.010482 0.0053304 0.0046870 0.0035882 0.0044128 0.0048500 0.0041304 0.0036696
16.070 0.0074091 0.0050870 0.0046000 0.0035714 0.0047431 0.0047400 0.0052783 0.0051739
51.620 0.0065652 0.0064348 0.0072353 0.0077064 0.0070000 0.0065913 0.0064261
80.170 0.0068727 0.0069391 0.0063130 0.0066387 0.0067982 0.0060300 0.0069478 0.0067043

Table A.3.10--Stanton number disu'ibution, fffst blade, 10% span. % wetted distances less than
zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero are on suction surface.

109
 % wetted Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
distance
-87.700 0.0076000 0.0077739 0.0079739 0.0081008 0.0087431 0.0078200 0.0080957 0.0079652
-72.800 0.0075455 0.0068348 0.0070087 0.0071513 0.0076514 0.0067000 0.0070435 0.0067652
-60.500 0.0070455 0.0066174 0.0066348 0.0071092 0.0076697 0.0068300 0.0067043 0.0065217
-44.500 0.0056727 0.0052522 0.0051652 0.0056471 0.0058440 0.0051700 0.0052783 0.0051391
-23.610 0.0059000 0.0055478 0.0058609 0.0059580 0.0058899 0.0053900 0.0058087 0.0055217
-21.870 0.0060364 0.0053217 0.0055043 0.0059832 0.0062202 0.0057100 0.0054261 0.0054261
-20.200 0.0064182 0.0056435 0.0057043 0.0057059 0.0061284 0.0054600 0.0057652 0.0058957
-16.100 0.0062182 0.0051826 0.0059304 0.0061345 0.0064679 0.0062100 0.0053739 0.0055391
-12.300 0.0087909 0.0048000 0.0052087 0.0080348 0.0045739
-8.7100 0.0065909 0.0051217 0.0050522 0.0055378 0.0058349 0.0056100 0.0053043 0.0050609
0.0000 0.015782 0.016539 0.016365 0.014429 0.015321 0.013980 0.016800 0.016478
5.7000 0.0061545 0.0053565 0.0053739 0.0070420 0.0084954 0.0073300 0.0069217 0.0060957
11.830 0.010255 0.0037478 0.0028522 0.0040504 0.0049541 0.0055900 0.0060348 0.0059652
15.000 0.0080182
17.710 0.0080364 0.0065130 0.0057478 0.0065378 0.0072936 0.0072700 0.0088870 0.0088870
24.200 0.0065455
28.510 0.0054636 0.0078957 0.0080522 0.0073109 0.0074587 0.0071800 0.0078174 0.0076609
48.380 0.0087273 0.0072957 0.0072870 0.0066471 0.0071009 0.0066600 0.0072522 0.0070870
64.100 0.0062182 0.0056435 0.0056609 0.0052689 0.0056422 0.0052900 0.0058870 0.0057652
81.990 0.0054091 0.0049130 0.0050522 0.0045882 0.0048624 0.0044600 0.0052000 0.0049826
92.790 0.0053273 0.0047652 0.0048348 0.O045546 0.0047431 0.00445OO 0.0050870 0.0048261

Table A.3.1 l--Stanton number distribution, fLrst blade, 50% span. % wetted
distances less than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero
are on suction surface.

%wened Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13

distance
-62.470 0.0073455 0.0066696 0.0065217 0.0070084 0.0075413 0.0062500 0.0066348 0.0064087
-40.420 0.0053913 0.0054174 0.0055294 0.0058165 0.0050300 0.0054522 0.0054087
•.4.7900 0.0099545 0.0086522 0.0085391 0.0085505 0.0074300 0.0086174 0.0084783
6.8100 0.0077818 0.0093478 0.0090609 0.0098151 0.010606 0.0085800 0.0083391 0.0079826
46.230 0.0084364 0.0080087 0.0077391 0.0082017 0.0086147 0.0070200 0.0080348 0.0076000
57.400 0.0074545
69.660 0.010464
81.740 0.0088545 0.0098783 0.0098783 0.0094118 0.0099358 0.0088400 0.010017 0.0098609
90.010 0.0079000 0.0080696 0.0081913 0.0076891 0.0081743 0.0071200 0.0085391 0.0081913

Table A.3.12--Stanton number distribution, first blade, 90% span. % wetted

distances less than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero
are on suction surface.

110
 %wetted Run 1 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 11 Run 12 Run 13
distance
-76.940 0.0056091 0.0046087 0.0047217 0.O049580 0.0052385 0.00551O0 0.0046348 0.0046870
-61.420 0.0061000 0.0054087 0.0056000 0.0059412 0.0061101 0.0065100 0.0056696 0.0056435
-50.790 0.0055455 0.0046348 0.0044783 0.0052941 0.0056239 0.0061200 0.0048348 0.0048783
-36.930 0.0048364 0.0O42783 0.O038435 0.0047899 0.0049450 0.0051600 0.0042348 0.0041043
-12.070 0.0055818 0.0046435 0.0047130 0.0050336 0.0051376 0.0051600 0.0049826 0.0045130
-7.2600 0.0068636 0.0055130 0.0054696 0.0058403 0.0060000 0.0059800 0.0057391 0.0053130
-I.1500 0.011309 0.0084000 0.0080000 0.0081597 0.0079083 0.0081300 0.0091739 0.0082435
0.0000 0.013000 0.0082348 0.0082522 0.0088319 0.0085596 0.0088900 0.0095217 0.0091130
7.9200 0.0097091 0.0063304 0.0062087 0.0068571 0.0074037 0.0075400 0.0065391 0.0063130
21.690 0.0048545 0.0053391 0.0053043 0.0049664 0.0052018 0.0055200 0.0053652 0.0051478
31.520 0.0036545 0.0039391 0.0040609 0.0044790 0.0047339 0.0049700 0.0039043 0.0037739
51.650 0.0055000 0.0054522 0.0057739 0.0055210 0.0056697 0.0060200 0.0055130 0.0052783
56.390 0.0039909 0.0038261 0.0037913 0.0040588 0.0043028 0.0045000 0.0037478 0.0038696
66.800 0.0033273 0.0033565 0.0034174 0.0032605 0.0034404 0.0036200 0.0033826 0.0033913
75.300 0.0039636 0.0037913 0.0038087 0.0039412 0.0041560 0.0043200 0.0037130 0.0037478
79.180 0.0046273 0.0047826 0.0047739 0.0045966 0.0047890 0.0050400 0.0046348 0.0043478
89.420 0.OO44818 0.0046261 0.0047043 0.0040000 0.0041193 0.004.4700 0.0042348 0.0041304

Table A.3.13--Stanton number distribution, second vane, 50% span. % wetted

distances less than zero are on pressure surface, % wetted distances greater than zero
are on suction surface.

111
 ¢ALSPAN

PART II: PHASE-RESOLVED SURFACE-PRESSURE AND

HEAT-FLUX MEASUREMENTS ON THE FIRST-STAGE VANE

AND BLADE OF THE SSME FUEL-SIDE TURBINE

by

M.G. Dunn and C.W. Haldeman

Calspan-UB Research Center

Buffalo, New York 14225

CUBRC Final Report No. 640 II

Prepared for:

NASA Lewis Research Center

21000 Brookpark Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44135

May 1994

CALSPAN-UBRESEARCHCENTERP.O.BOX400, BUFFALO,NEWYORK14225 TEL (716) 631-6900 FAX(716) 631-4166

 ABSTRACT

Time-averaged surface pressure and heat-flux distributions have been measured for the

first-stage vane, the first-stage blade, and the second-stage vane of the SSME fuel-side turbine.

The previously obtained time averaged results are presented in Part I of this report. Part II will

concentrate on the recent phase-resolved surface pressure, phase-resolved heat-flux, and unsteady

pressure and unsteady heat-flux loading measurements for the first-stage blade row.

Measurements were made at 10%, 50%, and 90% span on both the pressure and suction surfaces

of the blade. For the results described herein, five separate experiments were performed at a single

operating condition: turbine inlet total pressure of 345.6 kPa (50.5 psia), turbine inlet total

temperature of 513 K (923 R ), turbine corrected speed of 101%, and a total-to-total stage pressure
ratio of 1.41.

A shock tube is used as a short-duration source of heated and pressurized air to which the

turbine is subjected. Miniature silicone-diaphragm pressure transducers are used to obtain the

pressure measurements and platinum thin-film gauges are used to obtain the heat-flux

measurements. The measured unsteady pressure envelope is compared to the results of two

separate prediction techniques: (a) a Rocketdyne (turbine manufacturer) prediction and (b) a NASA
Lewis prediction.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported under Grant NAG3-581 and monitored by Dr. Raymond

Gaugler and Mr. Kas Civinskas of the NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio. The

authors would like to extend our appreciation to Tony Eastland, of the Rocketdyne Division of
Rockwell International, and to Eric McFarland, of the NASA Lewis Research Center, for

providing us with the unsteady pressure-envelope predictions. This work would not have been

possible without the contributions of the many Calspan engineers and technicians, especially John

R. Mosselle, Jeffrey L. Barton, and Robert M. Field.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 112

SECTION 2: DESCRIFHON OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE,

THE TURBINE FLOW PATH AND THE INSTRUMENTATION 116

2.1 The Experimental Technique 116

2.2 The Turbine Flow Path 116

2.3 Surface-Pressure Insu'umentation 117

2.4 Heat-Flux Instrumentation 117

2.5 Pressure-Transducer Calibration Technique and Results 118

2.6 Experimental Conditions 120

SECTION 3: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 122

3.1 Reservoir and Flow Path Pressure Histories 122

3.2 Blade Time-Averaged Surface Pressure Results 122

3.3 Blade Phase-Resolved Surface-Pressure Results 123

3.4 Unsteady Pressure Envelope on First Blade 125

3.5 Blade Time-Resolved Heat-Flux Results 126

3.6 Blade Unsteady Heat-Flux Envelope 127

SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS 128

SECTION 5: REFERENCES 130

o°°

Ul
 LIST OF FIGURES

1 Sketch of the SSME turbine stage located in the shock-tunnel

2 Sketch of device housing SSME turbine stage

3 Photograph of first stage vane showing cut back

4 Photograph of pressure transducers at 90% span on first-stage blade suction surface

5(a) Button-type heat-flux gages on first-stage blade suction surface

5(b) Photograph of leading-edge insert heat-flux gages on first-stage blade

6 Long-range drift in scale factors of flow path, f'u'st-stage blade, and pressure-rake
transducers (variation is described as a percent of reading from test to test)

7 Calibration accuracy range (95% or +2a), positive side shown

8(a) Reflected-shock pressure history

8(b) Static pressure at outer wall just upstream of first vane

8(c) Static pressure at outer wall between first vane and first blade

8(d) Static pressure at outer wall between f'LrStblade and second vane

8(e) Static pressure at outer wall downstream of second vane

9 Comparison of predictions for 10, 50, and 90% spans for SSME first-stage blade

10 SSME first-stage blade surface pressure vs. wetted distance at 90% span

11 SSME first-stage blade surface pressure vs. wetted distance at 10% span

12 SSME fh-st-stage blade surface pressure vs. wetted distance at 50% span

13 Pressure history on first blade at 10% span

14 Pressure history on first blade at 50% span

15 Pressure history on first blade at 90% span

16 FFT of blade pressure data

17 Location of instrumentation relative to index pulse

18 Ensemble average of pressure over various number of revolutions

19 Ensemble average of pressure at 18.37% on suction surface

20 Ensemble average of pressure at 45.84% on suction surface

iv
21 Ensemble average of pressure data at 48.89% and 90% span on suction surface

22 Comparison of measured and predicted unsteady pressure envelope for first-stage blade

23 Heat-flux history during test time

24 FFT of blade heat-flux data

25 Comparison of phase-resolved heat flux and surface pressure on the blade at a wetted
distance of approximately 18%

26 Comparison of phase-resolved heat flux and surface pressure on the blade at wetted
distance of approximately 47%

27 Unsteady hot-flux envelope on SSME first stage blade

 LIST OF TABLES

Summary of flow parameters.

Component pressure ratios.

vi
 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The time-averaged surface-pressure and heat-flux results for this turbine were previously

presented by Dunn, Kim, Civinskas, and Boyle, 1992 and are described in detail in Part I of the

final report for Grant NAG3-581. The results reported in Part II represent a data set that is in

addition to the one reported in Part I. This report includes an updated time-averaged surface-
pressure data set for the first blade. However, because the time-averaged heat-flux results obtaind

for these measurements were nearly identical to those reported earlier, they will not be presented

again. The intent of this measurement program was to obtain the unsteady heat-flux loading and to

significantly improve the accuracy of the surface-pressure measurements in order to be able to

obtain phase-resolved (unsteady) surface-pressure data on the fh'st blade. The second blade row

was not instrumented. Because there is a small pressure change across each vane or blade row for

this particular turbine, careful calibration of the pressure transducers was an important issue in this

measurement program. As will be demonstrated, the transducer calibration accuracy for this set of

experiments is very good.

The flow and heat transfer that occur in a turbine stage represent one of the most

complicated environments seen in any practical machine: the flow is always unsteady, can be

transonic, is generally three-dimensional, and is subjected to strong body forces. Despite these

112
problems,satisfactorydesignshavebeenachievedoverthe yearsdueto advancesin materialsand
manufacturingprocesses,aswell asto thedevelopmentof a soundanalyticalunderstandingof the
flow andheat-transfermechanicsthatdefineperformance.Theseanalyticaldevelopmentswere
madepossibleby a seriesof approximations,in which the level of detail retainedin the modeling
was sufficientto reveal importantphysicaleffects,while still allowing solutionsto be found by
availableanalytical/numerical
methods.
The major milestonesin the developmentof thesemethodshavebeenthe approximations
that flow through each blade row is steady in coordinates fixed to the blades, that three-
dimensionallycanbe handledby treatinga seriesof two-dimensionalflows in hub-to-shroudand
blade-to-bladesurfaces,and that the effects of viscosity can be estimatedby non-interacting
boundary-layercalculationsandby lossmodelsto accountfor secondaryflow.
During the pastseveralyears,therehasbeensignificantprogressmadein developmentof
analytical methodsto describethe unsteadyflow existing in a compressoror turbine stage.
Calibration of theseanalytical methodsso that modelsdescribing the fluid dynamics can be
developedis dependentuponhavingarepresentative experimentaldatabase.
The unsteadyinternalflow of a gasturbinehasbeenthe subjectof severalexperimentaland
analytical investigations during the time that the associatedanalytical methodswere being
developed.The problemis obviouslyavery difficult oneto solverequiring significantinteraction
betweentheexperimentalandanalyticalcommunities.Justastherearemanydifferent analytical
toolsthatcanbe usedto attackthis problem,therearealsomanydifferentexperimentalfacilities.
The methodof attacking the problemfrom an experimentalviewpoint is subdivided by those
groupsusing full-scale engine-likehardwareandthosegroupssimulating the physics by some
othermeans.The facilities thatcanaccommodate engine-likehardwarecanbefurther dividedinto
two classes;(1) long duration,incompressibleflow facilities or (2) short duration, compressible
flow facilities. Examples of long-duration facilities are; (a) the large low speed rig at United

Technologies Research Center (UTRC) in which some of the pioneering rotor/stator interaction
research (referenced below) was performed, and (b) the more recent blow-down facility at

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Examples of short-duration (those with run times less than
a second or two) facilities in approximate ascending order of test time are; (c) the shock-tunnel

facilities at Calspan, (d) the isentropic light-piston compression tube at Oxford, (e) the isentropic

light-piston compression tube at VKI, (f) the blow-down facility at MIT, (g) the large isentropic

light-piston compression tube at Pyestock, and (h) the large blow-down facility at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base.

Test time and turbine hardware alone are not the important parameters on which to make a

decision regarding choice of facility for a measurement program. Each of these experimental
facilities has associated with it a suite of instrumentation, instrument calibration technique, and

113
other capabilities that may or may not be applicable to and/or available at other facilities. The

choice of which facility and instrumentation package is most appropriate depends upon the

particular application and must be made by the user.

The UTRC low speed rotating rig has been utilized to obtain unsteady pressure and heat
transfer data as reported by Dring, Blair, and Joslyn, 1980; Dring and Joslyn, 1981; and Dring,

Joslyn, Hardin, and Wagner, 1982; and Blair, Dring, and Joslyn, 1988. The facility at MSFC has

been used to obtain performance measurements for the SSME turbine stage (a machine essentially

the same as the one used for the experiments reported in this paper) as reported by Hudson,

Gaddis, Johnson, and Boynton, 1991. Additional information regarding this facility can be found

in Bordelon, Kauffman, and Heaman, 1993.

The short-duration shock-tunnel facilities at Calspan have been used for several previous

measurement programs to obtain time-resolved heat-flux or surface-pressure data on the blade of a

high-pressure turbine at high rotational speed, but for different turbine stages, e.g., Dunn, et al.

1986; Dunn, et al., 1988; Dunn, 1989; Dunn, Bennett, Delaney, and Rao, 1990. This last

reference concentrated on time-resolved surface-pressure measurements for the blade of a high-

pressure turbine and comparison of the data with prediction. More recently, Rao, Delaney, and

Dunn, 1994 have extended the analysis and presented a further comparison of the time-resolved

pressure data (Part I) and a comparison with the time-resolved heat-flux data (Part II).
Researchers at the MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory have developed a blow-down turbine

facility and have been actively investigating the unsteady flow within a high-pressure turbine stage

at high rotational speed. Several papers have appeared in the literature describing their work, e.g.

Epstein, Guenette, Norton, and Cao, 1985; Abhari, Guenette, Epstein, and Giles, 1991; and

Abhari and Epstein, 1992.

Oxford University and Pyestock researchers have also been active in the general area of

unsteady turbine flows. As was noted above, the facility of choice for both of these groups is the

isentropic light-piston compression tube. Results of some of their work relevant to unsteady flow

in turbines are given in the following references ; Hilditch and Ainsworth, 1990; Ainsworth,
Dietz, and Nunn, 1991; Dietz and Ainsworth, 1992; and Sheard, Dietz, and Ainsworth, 1992.

The Von Karman Institute also has an isentropic light-piston compression tube that is used

to create a source of heated and pressurized gas that can be used to supply incoming flow to a

turbine cascade or stage. Time-averaged results from VKI have been reported by Consigny and

Richards, 1982, by Camci and Arts, 1985, and by Arts and Bourguignon, 1989 to note but a few.

Another facility that is now becoming operational is the Advanced Turbine Aerothermal

Research Rig (currently referred to as the Turbine Research Facility) at Wright Patterson Air Force

Base. This facility is a large blow-down type that is capable of handling a full-stage turbine with a

114
rotor diameteron the orderof 1-meter.A descriptionof this facility is given in Haldeman,Dunn,
MacArthur, andMurawski, 1992.
An alternateexperimentaltechniquethat hasbeen usedby severalgroups to study the
physicsof the unsteadyrotor-statorinteractionis the rotatingbar technique. This techniqueis
relatively inexpensive,the interactionproducedis readily amenableto many different diagnostic
tools,andit illustratessomeof thebasicphysicsknown to bepresentin a turbine stage. Someof
theearliestreportedwork usingtherotatingbar techniqueis thatof Pfeil, Herbst,andSchroeder,
1982;Doorly and Oldfield, 1985;and Doorly, Oldfield, and Scrivener,1985. More recently,
several other groups built similar units and reported their results, e.g. O'Brien, Simoneau,
LaGraff, andMorehouse,1986;O'Brien,1988;Dullenkopf, Schulz,andWittig, 1990;Ou, Han,
andMehendale,1993.

115
 SECTION 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE, THE

TURBINE FLOW PATH AND THE INSTRUMENTATION

2.1 The Experimental Technique. The measurements are performed utilizing a reflected-

shock tunnel to produce a short-duration source of heated and pressurized gas that subsequently

passes through the turbine. Air was used as the test gas for these experiments. A schematic of the

experimental apparatus illustrating the shock tube, an expansion nozzle, a large dump tank and a

device that houses the turbine stage and provides the flow path geometry is shown in Figure 1.

The shock tube has a 0.47-m (18.5-inch) diameter by 12.2-m (40-feet) long driver tube and 0.47-

m (18.5-inch) diameter by 18.3-m (60-feet) long driven tube. The driver tube was designed to be

sufficiently long so that the wave system reflected from the driver endwall (at the left-hand end of

the sketch) would not terminate the test time prematurely. At the flow conditions to be run for
these measurements, the test time is very long for a short-duration shock-tunnel facility being on

the order of 35 milliseconds. Depending upon the size and configuration of the turbine stage and

the associated hardware that houses the turbine, the time required to establish steady flow in the

turbine may be on the order of 5 to 10 milliseconds which leaves ample time to complete the
measurements.

In order to initiate an experiment, the test section is evacuated while the driver, the double

diaphragm section, and the driven tube are pressurized to predetermined values. Pressure values
are selected to duplicate the design flow conditions. The flow function (_k]/-0/8), wall-to-total

temperature ratio (Tw/To), stage total to total pressure ratio, and corrected speed are duplicated.

The shock-tunnel facility has the advantage that the value of To can be set at almost any desired

value in the range of 800°R to 3500°R, and the test gas can be selected to duplicate the desired

specific heat ratio. The design pressure ratio across the turbine is established by altering the throat
diameter of the flow-control nozzle located downstream of the turbine exit. A geometry difference

between this set of experiments and the ones previously reported is that the flow-control nozzle for
this series of measurements was moved much closer to the turbine exit as is illustrated in Figure 2.

2.2 The Turbine Flow Path. Figure 2 is a sketch of the turbine stage illustrating the new

position of the flow control nozzle mentioned above and the extent to which the flow path of the

SSME hardware has been reproduced. One of the requirements of the experiment was that the as-

flown geometry of the turbine be faithfully reproduced. The first stage vane row (41 vanes) and
the first stage rotor row (63 blades), as well as the second stage vane row (39 vanes) and the

second stage rotor row (59 blades) are shown. The first stage vane has a significant cut back at the

trailing edge which extends from the hub to about 35% span as illustrated in the photograph of

Figure 3. The pre-burner dome and bolt, the 13 struts upstream of the first-stage vane, the 12

116
flow straighteners,and6 strutsdownstreamof the secondrotor havebeenincluded. Flow path
static pressurewas measuredon the outer wall at the inlet and exit to the turbine stagesand
betweeneachbladerow. Examplesof theseinterstagepressuremeasurements will be shownlater
in thepaper. SincetheMachnumberof theflow upstreamof the first vane is on the order of 0.15,
the measured upstream static pressure is nearly equal to the upstream total pressure. The inlet

Mach number was calculated and the inlet total pressure was obtained from the isentropic flow

relationship. Total pressure was measured downstream of the second rotor using 7 pressure
transducers across the passage. The reader is referred to Dunn and Kim, 1992 for details of the

configuration and the coordinates of the vanes and blades.

2.3 Surface-Pressure Instrumentation. Surface-pressure measurements were obtained

using twenty-four miniature silicon diaphragm pressure transducers mounted in the blade skin and

flush with the contour of the blade. The particular transducers being used are Kulite Model LQ-

062-600A with an active pressure area of 0.64 mm by 0.64 mm and a frequency response of about

100 kHz in the installed configuration. Only the active chip is installed in the blades, thus there is

no cavity or screen over the chip. These chips are installed approximately 0.2 mm below the
surface and are covered with a layer of RTV (a silastic material) to make them flush with the

surface. The thin layer of RTV acts both as a thermal barrier and as a particle barrier to protect the
chip from damage. As demonstrated by the fast response of the transducer to flow (see Figures

13-15), the dynamic response of the sensor has not been compromised. External temperature

compensation was used with these transducers.

For the particular measurement program reported here, one would not have selected 600 psi

transducers if one had the option of designing the instrumentation for the experiment reported.
However, the 600A transducers were selected because the measurement program was designed to

be extended to an inlet pressure consistent with the 4,137 kPa (600 psi) value. The pressure

transducers were placed at 10%, 50%, and 90% span at the locations given in Dunn and Kim,
1992, and were distributed over several different blades (at relative positions with respect to a stage

index marker that will be described later) so as to not disturb the integrity of the surface. Figure 4

is a photograph of several transducers located on the suction surface of a blade at 90% span.
2.4 Heat-Flux Instrumentation. The heat-flux measurements were performed using thin-

film resistance thermometers. The thin-film gauges are made of platinum (~100 A thick) and are

hand painted on an insulating Pyrex 7740 substrate in the form of a strip that is approximately 1.02
x 10-4-m (0.004-in) wide by about 5.08 x 10"4-m (0.020-in) long. The response time of these
thin films is on the order of 10 -8 s (Vidal, 1956). The substrate onto which the gauge is painted

can be made in many sizes and shapes. The substrates are held within the base metal of the turbine

stage by use of epoxy.

117
 Both button-type gauges and contoured leading-edge inserts were installed on the vane and

blade of the SSME turbine. Figure 5(a) is a photograph of a rotor blade that has been instrumented

with button-types gauges and Figure 5(b) is a photograph of a blade containing a contoured

leading-edge insert. A detailed listing of the gauge locations is given in Dunn and Kim, 1992.

The heat-flux gauges were calibrated and reduced using standard Calspan techniques

(Vidal, 1956). In essence, there is a calibration which converts the resistance change in the heat-

flux sensor to temperature. This calibration is updated every run by recording the resistance of the

sensor, and scaling the calibration factor by any increase in resistance. Since the thermal properties

of the substrate are well known, the heat-flux can be determined from the temperature-time trace

using a semi-infinite model (Cook-Felderman, 1966). The accuracy of the heat-flux data reported
herein is on the order of +2.5%.

2.5 Pressure-Transducer Calibration Technique and Results

The blade, flowpath, and flowpath rake pressure transducers were calibrated

simultaneously through the entire data acquisition system prior to each run. In general, one run

was done each day, and the pre-run calibration served as the post-run calibration for the previous

run. Although there was one occasion where two runs were done on one day and the pre-run

calibration done at the beginning of the day served both runs. The pressure standard used was an

Omega transducer which had been calibrated several times over the previous year against an NIST

traceable, 1379 kPa MKS Baratron unit. The total variation in the Omega was less than the

_+0.7 kPa calibration accuracy over this time span.

Pressure data obtained during the experiments is converted to engineering units using a

relative scheme where the only important calibration constant is the scale of the transducer (output

in kPa/volt). In this type of system, the base-line at the beginning of a run is averaged to create a

set voltage level, and a secondary pressure measurement system (the Omega transducer) provides a

pressure measurement in the test section immediately before a run. The voltage readings are
converted to pressure by subtracting the base-line voltage from the voltage at any point in time,

multiplying this voltage difference by the scale factor, and then adding the measured offset

pressure (which is generally quite close to zero).

This system is more impervious to electronic drift, but does require good calibrations over

the entire pressure range from vacuum to maximum anticipated pressure and not just over the

pressure range expected on the blade surfaces. For these measurements, the pressure fluctuations

were expected to vary between 140 and 345 kPa. Because there was a chance that experiments

would be run at a higher pressure condition, the calibration was done from 0 to 483 kPa. The

calibration was performed by pressurizing the test section (see Figure 1), and then opening a small
valve and allowing the tank to bleed while sampling the transducers at fixed time intervals

(generally 5 seconds). Each of these data points is the average of 100 data points sampled at 1 kHz

118
for 0.1 seconds (although these values can be changed by the user). Several different types of

calibrations were done to examine the effects of different procedures on the calibration results,

several pressurization and de-pressurization cycles were checked at levels both above and below

atmospheric conditions. Some hysteresis was noted in the system, but it was on the order of the
calibration accuracy. Generally, several hundred data points were used. Calibration was done by

performing a linear least-squares regression on the data and plotting the residuals.

Calibration accuracy can be shown in two forms. Figure 6 is a plot of how the best
estimate of the scale factor changed from run to run. This is shown as a percent of reading. One

can see that for a majority of the transducers fall within a _+0.5% of reading span, and that these

transducers are relatively tight, indicating that little is changing in the transducer. Figure 7 shows

the 95% range of the absolute values of the deviation from the measured pressure standard for each
calibration. For every calibration, the deviations are averaged and the standard deviation (t_) is

generated. Assuming that the distribution is Gaussian, then 95% of the data should exist within
+_2_. Figure 7 represents the positive side of this data.

Comparing figures 6 and 7, one can see that the deviation of the calibrations is by far the

largest contributor to the overall uncertainty of the pressure measurements, and that in fact, the

variation in the scale factor is probably largely due to the deviations of these calibrations. It is

however, quite important to realize that even for the bad sensors (4 kPa variations), this is an

overall accuracy of _+0.1% of full-scale for the transducers, and that for the majority of the sensors
which have accuracy's of + 1 kPa, this is an overall accuracy of _+0.02% of full-scale reading.

In addition to the pressure calibrations just described, at the end of the experiments checks

were performed on the system by examining the effects of rotation on the pressure transducers and

the effects of temperature. Some of the transducers were found to have had the protective RTV

coating compromised during the testing sequence. This has probably been the single most

important cause in the long-term drift of the pressure-transducers. The overall effect of this

accuracy on the experimental results presented is not significant since any temperature effects

would only change the DC level of the transducer readings and not the unsteady component.

119
2.6 Experimental Conditions

Table 1 provides a summary of the reflected-shock conditions, the full turbine total-to-total
pressure ratio, the turbine weight flow, the average speed during the data collection period, and the

percent of corrected turbine speed. These experiments were performed at a reflected-shock

pressure and temperature of approximately 6.44 x 103 kPa (936 psia) and 513°K (923°R),

respectively. This reflected-shock condition results in a first vane inlet Reynolds numbers (based
on first vane axial chord) of approximately 1.4 x 105. Measurements were obtained with the

turbine speed set at 101% + 1% of the design value. For this turbine, the corrected speed is

291.36 rpm as indicated below Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of flow parameters.

Full turbine Reflected Reflected Average % Design

e/', in
shock shock Speed spe_d **
Run #
(kgm/s) PT, OWl
pressure temperature (rpm) (%)
(kpa) (OK)
22 2.34 1.42 6412 507 9000 102

24 2.54 1.46 6855 521 8991 101

26 2.10 1.39 6228 510 9031 102

27 2.26 1.40 6438 514 8885 100

28 2.25 1.38 6289 512 9010 102

* obtained from vane flow rig data at experimental value of PT, in / PS, out
for first vane (see Table 2)

** Ncorr =Nphyl 4_r = 291.36 rpm

Table 2 presents the inlet total pressure, the first vane total-to-static pressure ratio, the first
stage total-to-static pressure ratio, and the overall turbine total-to-total pressure ratio. The average

inlet total pressure for the 5 runs was 346 kPa, the average first vane pressure ratio was 1.11, the

average first stage pressure ratio was 1.24, and the average total-to-total pressure ratio was 1.41.

The target pressure ratio was 1.45, which could have been achieved by altering the flow-control

nozzle throat area. However, for the purposes of this measurement program, it was not necessary

to make a throat area change. The fh'st blade tip clearance was 2.14% of blade height (0.0187 in.).

120
 Table2 Componentpressureratios.

PT into Firstvane* First stage Full turbine

1st vane PT, in T, in eT, in **
Run# (kpa) PS, OUl PS, O_t PT, out

22 345 1.11 1.25 1.42

24 366 1.12 1.27 1.46

26 334 1.10 1.22 1.39

27 348 1.11 1.23 1.40

28 335 1.11 1.22 1.38

* Static pressures were measured at the outer shroud.

** PT, out is average pressure from 7 flowpath transducers

121
 SECTION 3

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

This portion of the final report will concentrate on the following; (a) the time-averaged

surface-pressure data at 10%, 50%, and 90% span on the blade, (b) the ensemble averaged surface

pressure on the blade as it passes through a vane passage, (c) the unsteady envelope of surface

pressure on the blade, (d) the ensemble averaged surface heat flux on the blade as it passes through
a vane passage, and (e) the unsteady envelope of surface heat flux on the blade.
3.1 Reservoir and Flow Path Pressure Histories. Prior to presenting the time-averaged

pressure results for the blade, the time-resolved blade surface pressure, and the time-resolved heat-
flux measurements for the blade, the uniformity of the reservoir being used to feed the turbine

flow, and the uniformity of the turbine stage pressure field for the time during which the
measurements to be described were obtained will be demonstrated. Figures 8 (a) through (e) are

pressure time histories sampled at a frequency of 100 kHz with an anti-aliasing Bessel filter at 40
kHz for the following locations in the experiment: 8(a) the shock tube reflected-shock reservoir;

static pressure measurements taken at the outer wall along the flow path at the following locations,

8(b) just upstream of the vane entrance, 8(c) between the first vane and the first blade, 8(d)
between the first blade and the second vane, and 8(e) downstream of the second blade. On Figures

(b) through (e) the time required to establish local steady flow is noted on the figure. During the

flow establishment time, the wave system being established between the flow-control nozzle and

the inlet which determines the turbine weight flow and the bypass flow can be clearly seen in the

pressure data. A one dimensional calculation can be performed to demonstrate that the wave

system moves through the stage at approximately the local speed of sound. After flow has been
established in the stage, the interstage pressure remains relatively uniform. The occasional spike
on the trace is the result of electronic interference which does not affect the result, but could not be

eliminated from the electrical circuit without excessive filtering, which was not desirable.

3.2 Blade Time-Averaged Surface-Pressure Results. Blade surface-pressure

measurements were obtained at 10%, 50%, and 90% span. Figure 3 illustrated that there is a

significant cut back of the first vane that extends from the hub to nearly 35% of the span. This
feature of the vane appears to have a significant influence on the vane pressure at the 10% span

location and perhaps some influence on the midspan results as will be demonstrated in this section.

The surface-pressure measurements are compared with both the Dunn, Kim, Civinskas, and

Boyle, 1992 and the Boyle, 1994 predictions. The technique used to obtain the 1994 predictions is

reported in Boyle and Giel, 1994. Their analysis uses a steady-state, three-dimensional, thin-layer
Navier-Stokes code developed by Chima, 1991 and Chima and Yokota, 1988. The code, known

122
as RVC3D,usesanexplicit time marchingalgorithm,employingimplicit residualsmoothing. A
four-stageRunge-Kuttaschemeis usedin thecalculation. The predictionof Boyle for the SSME
configurationincludesthe influenceof thevanecut back.
Figure 9 is a comparisonof the 1992prediction (seePartI of this report) with the 1994
prediction. In general,the previouspredictionsarelower thanthemorerecentones,but not by a
significant amountfor the purposesof this comparison. Figure 10presentsa comparisonof the
pressuremeasurements andthe 1994predictionfor the 90% spanlocation. This figure contains
boththe currentexperimentaldataandthosereportedin the previouspublication. The measured
andpredictedpressurelevelsareshownto bein reasonableagreementfor this particular location.
Figure 11presentsa comparablecomparisonfor the 10%spanlocation. This comparisonis not
nearly as good as was demonstratedfor the 90% spanlocation. The reasonfor this lack of
agreementis felt to bethe resultof the vanecut back illustratedin Figure3. This disturbancein
vanecontouris in the immediateupstreamproximity of the bladetransducers.For example,at the
70%wetteddistancelocationon the suctionsurfacethedisagreementbetweenthe prediction and
the datais significant. The datafrom all five runsare plotted andshownto be very repeatable.
The calibration of all of the transducersfrom which data were obtainedfor this figure were
carefullycheckedandfoundto beconsistentwith the resultsof Figures6 and7 andwereverified
notto be sensitiveto eitheraccelerationeffectsor diaphragmheatingeffects. The dataarefelt to be
correctandthe deviationfrom thepredictionis felt to betheresultof thevanegeometry. Figure12
presentsthecomparisonbetweentheexperimentaldataandtherecentprediction. The datapointat
55% on the suctionsurfaceis particularlyinterestingsincethe calibration is good,the data are
repeatable,the transduceris not sensitiveto eitheraccelerationor heatingeffectsandstill thereis a
significantdisagreementbetweenthedataandtheprediction. The reasonfor this disagreementis
notclear,but it is possiblethatthevanecutbackis havinganinfluenceon the mid spandata.
3.3 Blade Phase-Resolved Surface-Pressure Results. Phase-resolved measurements
aretaken by describing the circumferentialposition of the bladeleading edge within the vane
passage.Phase-averaged resultsarepresentedas a percentageof the passagefrom 0 to 100%,
where 100%would correspondto 8.78degrees.
Figures13, 14,and 15presenttime historiesof bladepressureat 10%span(48.9%wetted
distance),50% span(45.8%wetteddistance),and90%span(16.6%wetteddistance)from which
the phase-resolvedpressurehistoriesto be presentedin this sectionhavebeenderived. These
pressuretransducershavebeensampledat a frequencyof 100kHz with a 40 kHz anti-aliasing
Besselfilter and no other filtering hasbeendone to thesetraces. Once again, the occasional
electricalspikementionedin thepreviousparagraphappearsin the datatrace.
Figure 16 is an FFT for a bladepressuretransducer(run 27) located at mid spanon the
suctionsurfaceat 18.37%wetteddistance. The rotor speedfor this run was 8885 rpm which

123
corresponds to a passage cutting frequency of 6.07kHz. Figure 16 illustrates the presence of vane

passage cutting at this frequency, but the harmonic at 12.14 kHz is buried in the background

signal. The signature at 6.07 kHz suggests that the unsteady component of the blade pressure
signal is the result of vane passage cutting. Because of the relatively small magnitude of the

unsteady pressure signal for this particular turbine, the FFT is not sharp and clean as was shown

for the previous experiments reported by Dunn et al., 1990 for which the magnitude of the

unsteady pressure signal was more than an order of magnitude greater than it was for this turbine.

Before discussing the phase-resolved data, it is important to note that the pressure and heat-

flux instrumentation is distributed among several different blades and that in order to compare

phase-resolved data from different blades, the relative location of this instrumentation must be

indexed to a common reference point in the turbine. To accomplish this, a once per revolution

marker is derived from the shaft encoder which is initially adjusted to correspond to the time at
which the blade containing the contoured leading edge heat-flux gauge insert (blade no. 1) is

aligned with the trailing edge of a vane as illustrated in Figure 17. The vane pitch is 8.7805* and

the blade pitch is 5.714". This figure also provides a listing by blade number of the remaining

blade instrumentation. The information provided on this figure was used to reference all of the

phase-resolved pressure and heat-flux data to a consistent passage location.

Blade surface-pressure data similar to those presented in Figures 13-15 were used to obtain

passage average pressure profiles and the corresponding unsteady pressure envelope. In ensemble
averaging the blade data, the blade pressure histories (traces similar to those presented in Figures

13-15) were filtered at 20 kHz (approximately three times the vane passage cutting frequency).

For many cases, the surface-pressure data were sufficiently steady to allow the ensemble average

to be performed over a time period corresponding to one, two, three, or four revolutions.
However, it was found in performing the data analysis that ensemble averaging over one or two

revolutions provided essentially the same result as averaging over four revolutions as is illustrated

in Figure 18 for the blade pressure data at a position of 90% span at 16.6% wetted distance. The
unsteady pressure variation (maximum minus mimimum pressure at the particular location) is

plotted as a function of percent of vane passage with 0% and 100% corresponding to the vane

trailing edge as illustrated in Figure 17. A revolution of the rotor requires approximately 6.7

milliseconds to complete which corresponds to a vane-passage cutting frequency of about 6.15

kHz. It was noted earlier that the rotor speed increases by about two per cent over the entire test

time. The initial rotor speed is set so that the speed during the test time is the desired speed +1%

which results in a change in the incidence angle. The results presented in Figure 18 reflect this

change in incidence angle.

Figures 19, 20, and 21 are three additional ensemble averaged surface pressure results for
two locations at mid span and another one at 90% span. On all three of these figures the data from

124
all five runs havebeen included. The ordinate on thesefigures is tha difference betweenthe
maximumandthe minimumpressureat theparticularlocation. Becausethe individual runshavea
slightly different vane inlet total pressure,only the unsteadycomponent of the pressureis
presentedin thesefigures. For the results presentedin Figure 19 the run-to-run variation in
ensembleaveragedpressureis relatively small and the resultsfrom individual runs are in good
agreementexceptfor the resultsof run 24. It shouldbe notedthat run 24 was performed for the

largest mass flow and the largest pressure ratio and when this is accounted for, the results are

consistent. Figure 20 is a corresponding plot for a location further along the suction surface at mid
span. In general, the ensemble averaged pressure at this location over the duration of the

measurement program are in reasonably good agreement with each other. Figure 21 presents the

ensemble averaged pressure data at 48.89% wetted distance and 90% span on the suction surface.

The passage averaged pressure shown in these figures is reasonably consistent from run to run.
3.4 Unsteady Pressure Envelope on First Blade. Figure 22 presents the measured first-

stage blade unsteady pressure envelope compared to the mid span prediction supplied by Eastland,

1994. The prediction was made by Chen using an unsteady potential flow panel method (Chen,

1989) with the upstream blade wake modeled with the wake profile of Lakshminarayana and
Davino, 1980, and the effect of the downstream blade row included in a quasi-steady fashion. The

comparison presented here is a blind comparison since this envelope was available well in advance

of the measurements having been performed. No attempt has been made by Chen to refine the

calculations for the various parameters within his calculation which could be varied to obtain a

better agreement with the experimental result. The ordinate of this plot is the maximum pressure

minus the minimum pressure divided by the first vane inlet total pressure and the abscissa is the

wetted distance along the blade surface. Experimental data from all spanwise locations have been

included on Figure 22.

A second prediction provided to us by McFarland (1994) is also included on Figure 22 for

comparison with the experimental data. This prediction was obtained using a multi-blade, multi-

stage panel method as described in McFarland (1993). The calculation is for a steady inviscid flow

and includes potential interference effects from all four blade rows. Viscous wake effects were not
included which would tend to result in a lower than anticipated unsteady pressure envelope. The

blade count for the calculation was changed from 41:63:39:59 to 3:2:3:2. Figure 22 illustrates that

the experimental data are bound almost entirely by these two predictions.

It was mentioned earlier in the report that there is relatively little pressure change across the

various components of this turbine which results in the magnitude of the unsteady pressure

envelope being small and difficult to measure. By comparison, the magnitude of the unsteady

pressure envelope for the measurements (using an Allison turbine with a vane exit Mach number

greater than one ) reported in Dunn, et al. 1990 was more than fifty times larger. On the pressure

125
surfaceof thebladethe magnitudeof theunsteadypressureis predictedby Chento beon theorder
of 1.4%to 2% with a peak of 2.6% occurringat the 95% spanlocation where there was not a
pressuretransducerlocated. The magnitudeof the unsteadyenvelopeon the suction surfaceis
predictedto bein thevicinity of 2% at5% wetteddistanceandthedatasuggesta valueon theorder
of about1.5%. At 10%wetteddistance,the predictedvalue is on the orderof 1.2%and the data
clusteraround0.8%. A suctionsurfacepeakis predictedto occur around35% wetteddistance,
but a pressuretransducerwasnot locatedat thisparticularlocation. At about50%,the envelopeis
predictedto fall to about 1.5%and the datasuggesta value on the orderof 1%. Beyond 50%
wetteddistance,the predictedenvelopeincreasesin value whereasthe dataremain at about the
0.5% level out to the 75% wetted distanceposition which is the farthest location at which a
pressuretransducerwaslocated. The unsteadyenvelopeis predictedto increasegreatlybeyond
90%wetteddistance. Overall,consideringthatthe predictionwasperformedwell in advanceof
the experimentand that there hasbeenno attemptby Chen to legitimately improve upon the
agreement between the predicted and measured unsteady envelope, it is concluded that the

agreement presented is reasonably good.

Concerning the prediction of McFarland, on the suction surface at wetted distances less

than 40% the predicted magnitude of the unsteady envelope is about as much below the data as the

prediction of Chen is above the data. From 40% wetted distance on, the McFarland prediction is in

reasonably good agreement with the experimental data. For the pressure side of the blade, the

McFarland prediction is consistently below the data, but it is a bit closer the measured values than

is the Chen prediction. The McFarland prediction does not include the potential influence of the
pressure field fluctuations caused by the viscous wakes. For this reason it is felt that the

McFarland technique will generally under predict the magnitude of the unsteady pressure envelope.

Overall, it was concluded that the McFarland prediction, like the Chen prediction, also provided a

reasonably good representation of the experimental data. The experimental results are shown to be
bounded by the results of the two predictions.

3.5 Blade Time-Resolved lteat-Flux Results Figure 23 illustrates the surface heat flux

(for run 27) on the suction surface of the blade at mid span and 17.71% wetted distance for a time

period of a little over two revolutions of the rotor. Thin-film gauges were placed at 10%, 50%,

and 90% span and in the tip of the blade. The heat-flux history for each gauge was calculated
from the temperature-time history of the thin-film gauge (which is derived from the gauge voltage

history and the gauge calibration data) using a technique described by Cook and Felderman, 1966.

The thin-film gauge voltage history was recorded at a sampling frequency of 100 kHz. The

resulting temperature history was then filtered at 20 kHz prior to calculating the heat-flux history

which was subsequently used to obtain the unsteady heat-flux envelope and the phase-resolved

heat-flux profile for selected locations on the blade as a function of position within the passage.

126
The magnitude of the time-averaged heat flux shown in Figure 23 is consistent with the results of

the earlier measurements reported by Dunn et al., 1992. The spikes in the trace seen at

approximately 31.5 ms, 33.6 ms, 38.8 ms, and 43.5 ms are electrical interference and are not
associated with the turbine aerodynamics.

Two specific locations were selected at the mid span location on the suction surface of the

first-stage blade in order to compare the qualitative behavior of the phase-resolved surface pressure

with the surface heat flux; one position in a region of a strongly favorable pressure gradient for this

turbine (approximately 18% wetted distance) and a second position in a region of a mildly
unfavorable pressure gradient (approximately 47% wetted distance). The predicted mid span

pressure distribution for this blade is given in Figure 5 of Dunn, Kim, Civinskas, and Boyle, 1992

and that figure illustrates that the pressure gradient is mildly favorable over that portion of the
suction surface from 0% to 33% wetted distance, and unfavorable from 33% to 100% wetted

distance on the suction surface. The vane exit Mach number is subsonic (on the order of 0.5 or

less). There are a large number of upstream struts associated with this engine configuration which

tend to confuse the issue a little. However, the FFT of the blade surface-pressure (see Figure 16)

and heat-flux (see Figure 24) data suggest that the unsteady behavior on the blade for this turbine is

dominated by the vane wakes. For these turbine conditions, one would anticipate that the
influences of the inviscid flow field would b e transmitted through the boundary layer with little or

no phase lag and thus one should anticipate the phase-resolved pressure and heat-flux profiles to be

qualitatively similar.
Figure 25 presents a comparison of the phase-resolved heat flux with the corresponding

phase-resolved surface pressure at the 18% wetted distance location which is in the region of a

strong favorable pressure gradient on the suction surface of the blade. This comparison indicates

that the pressure and heat flux are qualitatively in phase. The heat-flux data point at about 61% of
the vane exit passage is higher than would have been anticipated.

Figure 26 is a similar comparison between the phase-resolved heat flux and the phase-

resolved surface pressure for a location a little further along on the blade where the pressure

gradient is unfavorable instead of favorable. With the exception of the data point at approximately

50% of the passage, the two profiles are in qualitative agreement with each other. Comparisons

similar to those shown in Figures 25 and 26 were found generally to have a point within the

passage that didn't line up to give unequivocal agreement between the two profiles. This is felt to
be due to the small reaction of the individual blade rows of the SSME turbine which produces

relatively small unsteady effects which, in turn, make resolution of the events difficult.

3.6 Blade Unsteady Heat-Flux Envelope Figure 27 presents the unsteady heat-flux

envelope for the first blade. This figure presents the maximum minus the minimum heat flux

normalized by the stagnation value for the particular run as a function of wetted distance on the

127
blade. Data from all five runs and 10%, 50%, and 90% span are included on this plot. These

results were obtained from data records like that presented in Figure 23. The magnitude of the

unsteady envelope on the suction surface is relatively independent of location on the blade and

reflects the unsteady pressure envelope results presented earlier on Figure 22. For the pressure
surface, the unsteady heat-flux envelope appears to be rather small (by comparison with the suction

surface) in the region from 0% to 30% wetted distance and then becomes of comparable magnitude

from 40% to 70% wetted distance. Beyond 70% wetted distance on the pressure surface, the

magnitude of the unsteady heat-flux envelope is small by comparison to any other location on the

blade. Whereas an average value for the unsteady pressure was less than 1%, the average of the

unsteady heat flux is on the order of 10%. This result is qualitatively consistent with the results of

the measurement program for the much more reactive Allison turbine that are reported in Rao,

Delaney and Dunn, 1994.

SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS

Time histories of the reservoir of gas reservoir and the turbine flow path pressures have

been presented to demonstrate the flow environment within which the data were obtained. The
interstage pressure histories illustrate the initial flow establishment time within the turbine and the

uniformity of the turbine pressure field during the test time. The measurements were performed at

the design flow function, stage pressure ratio, and corrected speed.

The unsteady envelope of surface pressure and heat flux along with the corresponding

phase-resolved (in moving through a vane passage) pressure and heat-flux profiles have been

measured for the first blade of the SSME fuel-side two-stage turbine. The unsteady pressure

envelope was found to be bounded by the predictions of Chen and McFarland. A prediction of the

unsteady hot-flux envelope was not available, but the relative magnitude of the heat-flux envelope

was found to be significantly larger than the pressure envelope which is consistent with previous
measurements.

Measurements obtained at several different blade locations were presented to demonstrate

that the ensemble average of the phase-resolved surface pressure data was well defined and the

run-to-run variation at a given location on the blade was relatively small.

Representative comparisons between the phase-resolved surface pressure and heat-flux

have been obtained for two locations on the blade suction surface; one in the region of a favorable

pressure gradient and the other in a region of an unfavorable pressure gradient. For this subsonic
turbine, these two quantities are qualitatively in phase with each other.

128
 The measurements described here were capable of resolving the unsteadiness associated

with the first stage vane-blade interaction. More importantly, the variation within the experimental

data is completely within the band predicted by two different calculations. While some increase in

accuracy of the measurement could be achieved by replacing the pressure transducers with ones

more aligned with the expected pressure level on the blade, the experimental inaccuracies are felt to
be less than the numerical ones.

129
 SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abhari, R.S. and Epstein, A.H., 1992, "An Experimental Study of Film Cooling in a Rotating

Transonic Turbine," ASME paper no. 92-GT-201 (see also ASME Journal of Turbomachinery,
Vol. 116, pp.818-827, Jan. 1994).

Abhari, R.S., Guenette, G.R., Epstein, A.H., and Giles, M.B., 1992, "Comparison of Time-

Resolved Measurements and Numerical Calculations," ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 114,

pp.818-827.

Ainsworth, R.W., Dietz, A.J., and Nunn, T.A., 1990, "The Use of Semi-Conductor Sensors for

Blade Surface Pressure Measurement in a Model Turbine Stage," ASME paper no. 90-GT-346.

Arts, T. and Bourguignon, A.E., 1989, "Behaviour of a Two Rows of Holes Coolant Film Along

the Pressure Side of a High Pressure Nozzle Guide Vane," ASME paper no. 89-GT-186.

Blair, M.F., Dring, R.P., and Joslyn, H.D., 1988, "The Effects of Turbulence and Stator/Rotor

Interaction on Turbine Heat Transfer: Part II - Effects of Reynolds Number and Incidence," ASME

paper no. 88-GT-5.

Bordelon, W.J., Kauffman, W.J., and Heaman, J.P., 1993, "The Marshall Space Flight Center

Turbine Test Equipment; Description and Performance," ASME paper no. 93-GT-380.

Boyle, R. J, 1994, private communication R. Boyle to M. Dunn.

Boyle, R.J. and Giel, P.W., 1992, "Three-Dimensional Navier-Stokes Heat Transfer Predictions

for Turbine Blade Rows," AIAA paper no. AIAA-92-3068

Camci, C. and Arts, T., 1985, "Experimental Heat Transfer Investigation Around the Film-Cooled

Leading Edge of a High-pressure Gas Turbine Rotor Blade," ASME paper no. 85-GT-114.

Chen, S.H., 1989, "Turbomachinery Unsteady Load Predictions with Non uniform Inflow,"

AIAA paper no. 89-0450 (see also AIAA J. of Propulsion and Power, pp 667-673, May-June

1992).

130
Chima, 1991, "Viscous Three-Dimensional Calculations of Transonic Fan Performance," AGARD

Propulsion and Energetics Symposium on Computational Fluid Mechanics for Propulsion, San
Antonio, TX.

Chima, R.V. and Yokota, J.W., 1988, "Numerical Analysis of Three-Dimensional Viscous

Internal Flows," AIAA paper no. AIAA-88-3522, (also NASA TM-100878)

Consigny, H. and Richards, B.E., 1982, "Short Duration Measurements of Heat-Transfer Rate to

a Gas Turbine Rotor Blade," ASME J. of Engineering for Power, Vol. 104, pp.542-551.

Cook, W.J. and Felderman, E.J., 1966, "Reduction of Data From Thin-Film Heat-Flux Gages: A

Concise Numerical Technique," AIAA Journal, pp 561-562.

Dietz, A.J. and Ainsworth, R.W., 1992,"Unsteady Measurements on the Rotor of a Model

Turbine Stage in a Transient Flow Facility," ASME paper no. 92-GT-156.

Doorly, D.J. and Oldfield, M.L.G., 1985, "Simulation of the Effects of Shock Wave Passing on a

Turbine Rotor Blade," ASME paper no. 85-GT-112.

Doorly, D.J., Oldfield, M.L.G., and Scrivener, C.T.J., 1985, "Wake Passing in a Turbine Rotor

Cascade," Heat Transfer and Cooling in Gas Turbines, AGARD Conf. preprint no. AGARD-CP-
390.

Dring, R.P., Blair, M.F., and Joslyn, H.D., 1980, "An Experimental Investigation of Film
Cooling on a Turbine Rotor Blade," ASME J. of Engineering for Power, Vol. 102, pp. 81-87.

Dring, R.P. and Joslyn, H.D., 1981, "Measurement of Turbine Rotor Blade Flows," ASME J. of

Engineering for Power, Vol. 103, pp.400-405.

Dring, R.P., Joslyn, H.D., Hardin, L.W., and Wagner, J.H., 1982, "Turbine Rotor-Stator

Interaction," ASME J. of Engineering for Power, Vol. 104, pp. 729-742.

Dullenkopf, K., Schulz, A., and Wittig, S., 1990, "The Effect of Incident Wake Conditions on the

Mean Heat Transfer of an Airfoil," ASME paper no. 90-GT-121.

131
Dunn, M.G., George, W.K., Rae,W.J., Woodward, S.H., Moiler, J.C., and Seymour, P.J.,
1986, "Heat-Flux Measurements for the Rotor of a Full-Stage Turbine: Part II- Description of

Analysis Technique and Typical Time-Resolved Measurements," ASME paper no. 86-GT-78 (see

also ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 108, pp.98-107, 1986).

Dunn, M.G., Seymour, P.J., Woodward, S.J., George, W.K., and Chupp, R.E., 1988, "Phase-

Resolved Heat-Flux Measurements on the Blade of a Full-Scale Rotating Turbine," ASME paper

no. 88-GT-173, (see also ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 111, pp. 8-19, 1989.

Dunn, M.G., 1989, "Phase and Time-Resolved Measurements of Unsteady Heat Transfer and

Pressure in a Full-Stage Rotating Turbine," ASME paper no. 89-GT-135 (see also ASME J. of

Turbomachinery, Vol. 112, pp. 531-538, 1990)

Dunn, M.G., Bennett, W., Delaney, R., and Rao, K., 1990, "Investigation of Unsteady Flow

Through a Transonic Turbine Stage: Part II - Data/Prediction Comparison for Time-Averaged and

Phase-Resolved Pressure Data," AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint Propulsion Conference,

Orlando, FL, AIAA Paper No. 90-2409, (see also ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 114, pp.
91-99, 1992)

Dunn, M.G., Kim, J., Civinskas, K.C., and Boyle, R.J., 1992 (a), "Time-Averaged Heat

Transfer and Pressure Measurements and Comparison With Prediction for a Two-Stage Turbine,"

ASME paper no. 92-GT-194, (see also ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 116, pp. 14-22, 1994)

Dunn, M.G. and Kim, J., 1992(b), "Time Averaged and Phase-Resolved Heat-Transfer and

Pressure Measurements for the Turbine of the SSME Fuel Side Turbopump," CUBRC Report No.
6401.

Eastland, A., 1994, Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, private communication with
M.Dunn.

Epstein, A.H., Guenette, G.R., Norton, R.J.G., and Cao, Y., 1985, "Time-Resolved

Measurements of a Turbine Rotor Stationary Tip Casing Pressure and Heat Transfer Field," AIAA

paper no. AIAA-85-1220.

132
Haldeman, C.W., Dunn, M.G., MacArthur, C.D., and Murawski, C.G., 1992, "The USAF

Advanced Turbine Aerothermal Research Rig (ATARR)," Conf. preprint for the 1992 AGARD

Meeting on Heat Transfer and Advanced Cooling for Gas Turbine Engines, AGARD-CP-527.

Hilditch, M.A. and Ainsworth, R.W., 1990, "Unsteady Heat Transfer Measurements on a

Rotating Gas Turbine Blade," ASME paper no. 90-GT-175.

Hudson, S.T., Gaddis, S.W., Johnson, P.D., and Boynton, J.L., 1991, "Cold Flow Testing of

the Space Shuttle Main Engine High Pressure Fuel Turbine Model," AIAA paper no. 91-2503.

Lakshminarayana, B. and Davino, R., 1980, "Mean Velocity and Decay Characteristics in the
Guidevane and Stator Blade Wake of an Axial Flow Compressor," Journal of Engineering for

Power, Vol. 102, pp. 50-60.

McFarland, E.R., 1994, NASA Lewis Research Center, private communication with M.Dunn.

McFarland, E.R., 1993, "An Integral Equation Solution for Multi-Stage Turbomachinery Design

Calculations," ASME paper no. 93-GT-41.

O'Brien, J.E., 1988, "Effects of Wake Passing on Stagnation Region Heat Transfer," paper

presented at the Heat Transfer in Gas Turbine Engines and Three-Dimensional Flows Conference,

ASME Winter Annual Meeting.

O'Brien, J.E., Simoneau, R.J., LaGraff, J.E., and Morehouse, K.A., 1986, "Unsteady Heat

Transfer and Direct Comparison to Steady-State Measurements in a Rotor-Wake Experiment,"

NASA Technical Memorandum 87220.

Ou, S., Han, J.C., and Mehendale, A.B., 1993, "Unsteady Wake Over A Linear Turbine Blade

Cascade With Air and CO2 Film Injection:Part I- Effects on Heat Transfer Coefficient," ASME

paper no. 93-GT-210.

Pfeil, H., Herbst, R., and Schroeder, T., 1982, "Investigation of the Laminar-Turbulent

Transition of Boundary Layers Disturbed by Wakes," ASME paper no. 82-GT-124.

133
Rao, K.V., Delaney, R.A., and Dunn, M.G., 1994, "Vane-Blade Interaction in a Transonic
Turbine, PartI - AerodynamicsandPartII - HeatTransfer," to be publishedin the AIAA J. of
PropulsionandPower.

Sheard,A.G., Dietz, A.J., andAinsworth,R.W., 1992,"The Dynamic Characteristicsof a High

PressureTurbineStagein a TransientWind Tunnel,"ASME paperno. 92-GT-166.

Vidal, R.J., 1956,"Model InstrumentationTechniquesfor HeatTransferandForceMeasurements

in a HypersonicShockTunnel", ComellAeronauticalLaboratoryReportAD-917-A-1.

134
 ]

o
0

'o

m
o
_o
o

o_

ffl

W m

0
¢r 1-

.,.1
6 "1"

121
W _
 I
I

I|

A
0 ID
Z 0'1
m

Eo W

C
O9

if)

I-

if)

U.

I I
 &

qtm
0

r-
a.
CU
LL
C_
0

0
.C
n

C_

14.
 90% SPAN

Fig. 4 Photograph of pressure transducers at 90% span on first-stage blade suction surface
Fig. 5(a) Button-type heat-flux gages on first-stage blade suction surface
!ii! i !i ¸

Fig. 5(b) Photograph of leading-edge insert heat-flux gages on first-stage blade

 ....... _............. o....... DO_._- ........ _............ +............ m
L.

.......
_.............
_--0
---'a-;.-.-.
_--.-._
...........
_ ...........
i i i i i r_
..o
.......
_.............
_.......
o-_-..<-
.......
i........
i............

.....................
_..a)_ ......................
-._ ...........
........................ •(X_A ..................................

_10 X 0
...
.................... D .........
OX .......
_; ............
-;.
............ - E
.......... i.............
:.--X_]--O_
.............
_...........
.-
...........-- '_

............
;........................
_.........
a.i
.........
o-_<.
.......
-_...........
-........... _
........... •_........... ."-----O---_-............ _........ 0(4 ....... ,,_--._........... _............ ,r-._

.....................
o-_...........
o ......................................
i.......
x.-.:
............
=" _
............
"............
_............
_.-'.X
.......
,............
_.........
"_';'--O'-----¢-"E}
.......
_ • . ._'_
i i ! i
_ =_=._=
'-
......................................
_i
............
_i
............
i_t_
...............................
!............
"............
............
": ._ i!.............
i • ...................................
i
_...........
_-._ i ]--= ,u

............
i............
t............
i.............
i
........
_---_'
.........
_...........
_............
............
-............
_...........
_............
i.....o...._...._.....!
............
-............
I-_-
= i-:I_
_ ==_
_ _.
..................................................................
............
"-.--o--.-'=-_
-.......
i---_
.......
i.............
!.............
!.-_
........
-.............
= _ .=.
............
.=.
............
i............
-.........
,_o....o..i..-.x.....!
............
i.............
_ _ ",-
......................... _---.D-O-...'..,O
......... i ........................................ ÷X-.......... oo
i =" ¢I "_
.....................................................
_.--K-
........
_......
_-.D........................
u'3
...........................................
o----.i
.......
ox.!
...........
._
.........................
-
............................................
o-----_>
........
x.i
.............
i,=
.........
_............. __, "=',
• "'=

....... io.....x-.i
........
._._
............. t,,,
o.........................................................
¢I
........... _ ............ _"............ _............. !.-D O.X--._ ........... _............ _ .............

......................................
_.............
!......
G[---_-
...........
_............
_.
............
_ ,.-",

.........................
_"
............
i..........
o_ ..........
_ ...........
_..........................

......................................
.............
!----.=v.<
........................................

.................................................... :'D-O-.)<._:. ..................................... t_.

............
"T.'
...........................................
"DO(.,_
.............
:............
-'
.............
_,
i ="
............
._
.............................................
£X:_-..i_
......................................
i
'l I I I I I I I I II | I I I I I i II $ I I JI i I I II I I | iI I I |

_" _ _. " _. _ _. "7' _.

(_u!pea_I jo %) uo!lu!au A
 ...........
!..........................................
!.=_ ..........

' .....................
........... _ ..............
<O-_}---,_-II.........

...................................................
i.......
_ .......
..................................
._...................
!...o...<E_I
I.......

o
.................................................................
._}...O.o...i...
_...............

ti

...............................
•.........
i..................
[:3_.4
Qal

....................................
-._.-i
...........
O---m---_
o,
..................................................................
f.............
O.i------'Q
...........
i i
.................................................................
_.....................
_---0-_ ........
÷

o
.................................................................
".............
m-----i-._.. ........
.....................................................................................
.D"_--'Q ....
.............
0 ..........................
-_ ...............
_, !

.........................................................................
[]"_o*i
....................
_ ..............
D--._...............................
• i L

..............................................................................
D_'_ ......... * .......

...........................................
!.....................
_.................
Oi......_.-.B--.

...................................
_D! ................
oii
...........................................
_.....................
-.................................
_,.

..................... ; ..................... i ........................................... i..-_ .............

lu
ii
............................. _ ......... iO ............ I.,_.
i q2
........................................................................................
i"_ ..........
.......................................................................................
i.........<i3,..
II

...................... _........................................... . ..................... , .......... _ ....

ed_i' uo!le!_oO
 ....................................
7ooo_ i_
.........................................................
_..................................................
ii

(3
13..
v 4000 t ................................................................................................................

2 3000 ......................_ ....._..............................................................................................

2000 ............................. _ ....................................................... - .........................................

3000-_ .........................................................................................................................

0.020 0.028 0.036 O.OUU 0.052 0.060

Time, sec

Fig.8(a) Reflected-shock pressure history

 400-

350-
I

300"

2S0-

Test Time _.
0
O.
v

m
r_

I00-
Flow Establishment
Time

50-

O-

-5O ! I I I I I I I

20 25 30 35 4O 4S 50 S5 60
Time, m sec

Fig. 8(b) Static pressure at outer wall just upstream of first vane
0
Test Time

m
Q.

Flow Establishment
Time

I I I I I i
30 35 '40 45 SO 6O

Time, m sec

Fig. 8(c) Static pressure at outer wall between first vane and first blade
 Test Time

O
Q_

Q.

Establishment--.-
Time

I
6O

Fig. 8(d) Static pressure at outer wall between first blade and second vane
 3001

., Test Time
0
cL

Q.

-5( I I I I I I I I

20 25 30 35 ,4o _5 50 55 60

Time, m sec

Fig. 8(e) Static pressure at outer wall downstream of second vane

 C_
I.

I.

Im

o
Illll

emil

Im

IN

0
0
0

0 Im
0

I
_u i_l+u
om
o_ _o d r-- d
d o d d d

('d/'d)
oJnssoJd l+lOJ+ lOlUl/oJnssoad o!l+lS i+_o"1
 e_

em

em

r_ t_
oi

t_

r._

t_

_m

t_ r_

t_

t_

r_

IN

8
!

d o , d d
dd/d)
o._nsso._d lelO_L ]OlUl/OJnsso._d _.nlelN ie_ol
 8 c_
Q,
u,2

- \ c_

_d

¢1

"0
: : : : :_ i_r._0
"0

v;

t_

t_.

4)
¢J

t_

"¢=
c_
i

oi

INO
<l II

=,
t_

[/2

I _D oum_o_

I nell i uilu i ill! lull .... I .... I .... 0

('d/d)
;).=nss;)ad lelO,l, l;)lUI/;)anss;)ad :)!lelS le:)o_
 tt_

omm

_mm

¢d

t_

0
t_.

¢d

t_

,mm
m

Ii
o

!-

t..

8 v,m¢
v-¢
!
ol

d o d o d d

('d/'d)
oJnssoJd le_O,l. _OlUl/O.mssoJd :).tlelS leOOl
 400-

350-

300-

250-

0
EL

Suction Surface
10% Span
48.89% Wetted Distance
L_

100-

50-

O"

-5O I I I I I I I I

20 25 3O 35 ,-I0 45 50 55 60
Time, m sec

Fig.]3 Pressure history on first blade at 10% span

 _00-

350-

300"

250-

O
n ,r 50% Span .

45.84% Wetted Distance

o.

100-

50-

0-

I
-SO ! I I I I I I I

10 1S 2O 25 30 35 qO _5 SO
Time, m sec

Fig. 14 Pressure history on first blade at 50% span

 350-

300"

250-

200-

0
90% Span
16.62%Wetted Distance
150-

100"

50-

O-

-5O I I I I I I

_0 25 30 35 4O 45 50 55 60

Time, m sec

Fig. 15 Pressure history on first blade at 90% span

 3.o
t,.............................
...........................
.......................
i,...................
................
suet,on's
k,
2.s-_..................................................
._:_.._._._._.o._e._ .i_ ...................
=..............
_ s_n ...............
"
Frequency 18.37%Wetted Distonce

D
1
D
"13
O

Harmonic

O°S

1000 3000 SO00 7000 gO00 11000 13000 IS000

Frequency, Hz

Fig. 16 FFT of blade pressure data

 Blade# 63

Blade# 1
OncePerRevolutionIndex
OccursatThisLocation
Blade# 2

1st Vane
(41)
-!l-- 1st Blade
(63)
Rotor/Stator Spacing at Midspan
is 0.30 of Vane Chord

Blade #

Leading edge heat-flux gauges insert is on blade Q

Button gauges on pressure surface 50% span are on blade (_

Button gauges on suction surface 50% span are on blade (_

Pressure transducers on pressure surface 50% span are on blade (_

Pressure transducers on suction surface 50% span are on blade (_

Pressure transducers on pressure surface 10% span are on blade (_

Pressure transducers on suclJonsurface 10% span are on blade (_

Pressure transducers on pressure surface 90% span are on blade (_)

Pressure transducers on suction surface 90% span are on blade (_

Fig. 17 Location of instrumentation relative to index pulse

_13/1
 i_<_

J
IK,,Q ._ i
i ii

............... _ ............... 0 ................ • ............... _ ............... !.°. m

0
!_
m X!D ,i
0
°_
i_

............... I. ............... ¢ ................ I ............... .I ................ I ....

0
ii
t_

IX_D t_

ll_OXO I_

.............
• .........
Xf"_ .........................
_ ......i.... i_
L

s._
I>0<9
(09
ei

<_ _)_I_ r_

oi

oil

IIII IIII
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1Bd_l' UOlll_U_A 0anssaa d _p_0]su_

 04_ •

0 o4 •
('4 ¢4 1"4 (",_ ('4

• [] _ @ •
n ,a I 0
_mm

_J

r_

............... • ................ o ................ ,I ................. X,................ ,I ................ ._ ................

r.-
e%

qbm)
• ,_]o 4

,ira)

¢0)
_J
I_
o • I _li

I.,
0 • !I_I

S
i

r!.
0 E

°ml

wq

o ,o _.I
elm

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
i,_ , ,i ,_] , 0

ed_' ;):)u;)J;)jj!O ;).nnss;),j

 )
i

'4O 4n

ra I • :a
_O

d L_,

c_
@
im

@
• • _ •

0n_

• om ._ •

I_
Ul d m
t_
@

)
• oo*
I

m
C_I C4 C4 C_I C_4

m._ u

40_0I

Jm

I u u u g I ! u n I ! m o

t_d_l' o_uaaajj!G o.mss;_a d

 I1

I I

,4 0 '_ • • ..................... _-0 ........ O'" ............ II-÷ ................

in m
=
• Ii ¢)

>

d_
L
0 i • <_ •

+ L,

0 iI _l !
II<3

niin

d =

0._

.,ml

: !

;)3u;)J_JJ!(I _Jnss;)J d
 I..

8 i_

G,I

O
+m

l..,

=
.mll

.m
I=.
o

I_

O,,l

.ml
1_
I O
I
I r_
I

l' I
I I
I !m,,,
m

I
I
I

8
I

o
o o . o q o
o d o d o d

'+'d/(""d-'"d)
odOiaAU_ o.mssaJd _fpvolSU_l
 X3OXX5

Suction Surface
....................................................................... 50% Span
17,71% Wetted Distance

<
E
2_

:I=

1 -

I
0.033 0.036 0.039 0.042 0.0'45
Time, sec

Fig. 23 Heat-flux history during test time

 Vane Passoge Cutting
i Frequency
!
!

l
i i
....
.
•
+
!

1 i
t
;
!
|

0o0 J i ; i J i
0 2 8 10 12 lq 16 1B 20

Frequency, _-tz

Fig. 24 FFT of blade heat-flux data

 Difference in Heat Rate (W/M 2)
.ca)

"O
,me
,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,I,,, , i i [ | | ,

oiiii41 , ii
J
• i O

t_

....... 4............. ) ............ 4............. _............ 1,1

g:.

_J

t._
ra

;G "O
rl
g:.
................................................................... _............ , ............. _............ o

_J
qm)
(..,.
O

_J
_, w-I
O
u
t_ _)

.[: o,m
gl. _<
_.. t_

O.
('.1 O
oa. O
t-1 t_

E =
.._
n "0
t_

....... 4 .... J .... I .... J .... I .... J ....

.._ _

Ud)l' 3anssaad u! 3_u;)'3JJ!O

 Difference in Heat Rate (W/M _)

i-1

I t..

es_

r_ ..... :............... _............................. :,-....12......." .............. _. _ 0

o "_..

4 _J

E
0 _
1:2

|lJJiltl; .... I .... I .... I .... I''' !

tt_

(Ud_l) o.mss;;a d u! o:_uo._oJJ!(I