• Advances in aircraft and spacecraft science
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.415-431
• /
• 2022

Secondary flows have a huge impact on losses generation in modern low pressure gas turbines (LPTs). At design point, the interaction of the blade profile with the end-wall boundary layer is responsible for up to 40% of total losses. Therefore, predicting accurately the end-wall flow field in a LPT is extremely important in the industrial design phase. Since the inlet boundary layer profile is one of the factors which most affects the evolution of secondary flows, the first main objective of the present work is to investigate the impact of two different inlet conditions on the end-wall flow field of the T106A, a well known LPT cascade. The first condition, labeled in the paper as C1, is represented by uniform conditions at the inlet plane and the second, C2, by a flow characterized by a defined inlet boundary layer profile. The code used for the simulations is based on the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) formulation and solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations coupled with the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model. Secondly, this work aims at estimating the influence of viscosity and turbulence on the T106A end-wall flow field. In order to do so, RANS results are compared with those obtained from an inviscid simulation with a prescribed inlet total pressure profile, which mimics a boundary layer. A comparison between C1 and C2 results highlights an influence of secondary flows on the flow field up to a significant distance from the end-wall. In particular, the C2 end-wall flow field appears to be characterized by greater over turning and under turning angles and higher total pressure losses. Furthermore, the C2 simulated flow field shows good agreement with experimental and numerical data available in literature. The C2 and inviscid Euler computed flow fields, although globally comparable, present evident differences. The cascade passage simulated with inviscid flow is mainly dominated by a single large and homogeneous vortex structure, less stretched in the spanwise direction and closer to the end-wall than vortical structures computed by compressible flow simulation. It is reasonable, then, asserting that for the chosen test case a great part of the secondary flows details is strongly dependent on viscous phenomena and turbulence.

• Korean Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.169-176
• /
• 2021

This study aimed to fundamentally understand structural changes of zeolite under pressure and in the presence of different pressure-transmitting media (PTM) for application studies such as immobilization of heavy metal cation or CO₂ storage using pressure. High-pressure X-ray powder diffraction study was conducted on the zeolite-W (K_6.4Al_6.5Si_25.8O₆₄× 15.3H₂O, K-MER) to understand linear compressibility and the bulk moduli in different PTM conditions. Zeolite-w is a synthetic material having the same framework as natural zeolite merlinoite ((K, Ca_0.5, Ba_0.5, Na)₁₀ Al₁₀Si₂₂O₆₄× 22H₂O). The space group of the sample was identified as I4/mmm belonging to the tetragonal crystal system. Water, carbon dioxide, and silicone-oil were used as pressure-transmitting media. The mixture of sample and each PTM was mounted in a diamond anvil cell (DAC) and then pressurized up to 3 GPa with an increment of ca. 0.5 GPa. Pressure-induced changes of powder diffraction patterns were measured using a synchrotron X-ray light source. Lattice constants, and bulk moduli were calculated using the Le-Bail method and the Birch-Murnaghan equation. In all PTM conditions, linear compressibility of c-axis (𝛽^c) was 0.006(1) GPa^-1 or 0.007(1) GPa^-1. On the other hand, the linear compressibility of a(b)-axis (𝛽^a) was 0.013(1) GPa^-1 in silicone-oil run, which is twice more compressible than the a(b)-axis in water and carbon dioxide runs, 𝛽^a = 0.006(1) GPa^-1. The bulk moduli were measured as 50(3) GPa, 52(3) GPa, and 29(2) GPa in water, carbon dioxide, and silicone-oil run, respectively. The orthorhombicities of ac-plane in the water, and carbon dioxide runs were comparatively constant, near 0.350~0.353, whereas the value decreased abruptly in the silicone-oil run following formula, y = -0.005(1)x + 0.351(1) by non-penetrating pressure fluid condition.