An Empirical Prediction Method for Secondary Losses in Turbines—Part I: A New Loss Breakdown Scheme and Penetration Depth Correlation

[+] Author and Article Information
M. W. Benner1

National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canadamichael.benner@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

S. A. Sjolander

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada

S. H. Moustapha

 Pratt and Whitney Canada, Ltd., Longueuil, PQ, J4G 1A1 Canada

To maintain a given airfoil loading while increasing the chord requires a proportional increase in the airfoil spacing.


Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Turbomach 128(2), 273-280 (Feb 01, 2005) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2162593 History: Received October 01, 2004; Revised February 01, 2005

Despite its wide use in meanline analyses, the conventional loss breakdown scheme is based on a number of assumptions that are known to be physically unsatisfactory. One of these assumptions states that the loss generated in the airfoil surface boundary layers is uniform across the span. The loss results at high positive incidence presented in a previous paper (Benner, M. W., Sjolander, S. A., and Moustapha, S. H., 2004, ASME Paper No. GT2004-53786.) indicate that this assumption causes the conventional scheme to produce erroneous values of the secondary loss component. A new empirical prediction method for secondary losses in turbines has been developed, and it is based on a new loss breakdown scheme. In the first part of this two-part paper, the new loss breakdown scheme is presented. Using data from the current authors’ off-design cascade loss measurements, it is shown that the secondary losses obtained with the new scheme produce a trend with incidence that is physically more reasonable. Unlike the conventional loss breakdown scheme, the new scheme requires a correlation for the spanwise penetration depth of the passage vortex separation line at the trailing edge. One such correlation exists (Sharma, O. P., and Butler, T. L., 1987, ASME J. Turbomach., 109, pp. 229–236.); however, it was based on a small database. An improved correlation for penetration distance has been developed from a considerably larger database, and it is detailed in this paper.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Cascade geometry and measurement locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Loss decomposition using the conventional loss breakdown scheme for (a) LS3, (b) LS2 (reproduced from Benner (2))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Suction surface definition for the new loss breakdown scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Loss decomposition using the new loss breakdown scheme for (a) LS3, (b) LS2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of the mixed-out secondary losses at off-design incidence for LS2 and LS3 as obtained from the new loss breakdown scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Evaluation of the penetration depth correlation of Sharma and Butler

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Evaluation of the new penetration depth correlation





Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In