0
Research Papers

Secondary Flow Loss Reduction Through Blowing for a High-Lift Front-Loaded Low Pressure Turbine Cascade

[+] Author and Article Information
Stuart I. Benton

Graduate Fellow
e-mail: benton.53@osu.edu

Jeffrey P. Bons

Professor
e-mail: bons.2@osu.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
2300 West Case Road,
Columbus, OH 43235

Rolf Sondergaard

Aerospace Engineer
Propulsion Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory,
1950 Fifth Street,
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 
e-mail: rolf.sondergaard@wpafb.af.mil

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received July 2, 2012; final manuscript received July 25, 2012; published online November 5, 2012. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(2), 021020 (Nov 05, 2012) (8 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4007531 History: Received July 02, 2012; Revised July 25, 2012

Efforts to increase individual blade loading in the low pressure turbine have resulted in blade geometries optimized for midspan performance. Many researchers have shown that increased blade loading and a front-loaded pressure distribution each separately contribute to increased losses in the endwall region. A detailed investigation of the baseline endwall flow of the L2F profile, which is a high-lift front loaded profile, is performed. In-plane velocity vectors and total pressure loss maps are obtained in five planes oriented normal to the blade surface for three Reynolds numbers. A row of pitched and skewed jets are introduced near the endwall on the suction surface of the blade. The flow control method is evaluated for four momentum coefficients at the high Reynolds number, with a maximum reduction of 42% in the area averaged total pressure loss coefficient. The same blade is also fitted with midspan vortex-generator jets and is tested at a Reynolds number of 20,000, resulting in a 21% reduction in the area averaged total pressure loss.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Weiss, A., and Fottner, L., 1995, “The Influence of Load Distribution on Secondary Flow in Straight Turbine Cascades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 117(1), pp. 133–141. [CrossRef]
Zoric, T., Popovic, I., Sjolander, S.Praisner, T., and Grover, E., 2007, “Comparative Investigation of Three Highly Loaded LP Turbine Airfoils—Part I: Measured Profile and Secondary Losses at Design Incidence,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2007-2753.
Rivir, R., Sondergaard, R., Bons, J., and Lake, J., 2000, “Passive and Active Control of Separation in Gas Turbines,” AIAA Fluids 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Paper No. AIAA-2000-2235.
Sondergaard, R., Rivir, R., and Bons, J., 2002, “Control of Low-Pressure Turbine Separation Using Vortex-Generator Jets,” J. Propul. Power, 18(4), pp. 889–895. [CrossRef]
Bons, J., Sondergaard, R., and Rivir, R., 2001, “Turbine Separation Control Using Pulsed Vortex Generator Jets,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(2), pp. 198–206. [CrossRef]
Volino, R., 2003, “Separation Control on Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoils Using Synthetic Vortex Generator Jets,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125(4), pp. 765–777. [CrossRef]
McQuilling, M., 2007, “Design and Validation of a High-Lift Low-Pressure Turbine Blade,” Ph.D. thesis, Wright State University, Dayton, OH.
Bons, J. P., Pluim, J., Gompertz, K., Bloxham,M., and Clark, J., 2008, “The Application of Flow Control to an Aft-Loaded Low Pressure Turbine Cascade With Unsteady Wakes,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2008-50864.
Bons, J., Pluim, J., Gompertz, K., Bloxham, M., and Clark, J., 2012, “The Application of Flow Control to an Aft-Loaded Low Pressure Turbine Cascade With Unsteady Wakes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(3), p. 031009. [CrossRef]
Bons, J., Hansen, L., Clark, J., Koch, P., and Sondergaard, R., 2005, “Designing Low-Pressure Turbine Blades With Integrated Flow Control,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2005-68962.
Lyall, M. E., King, P. I., Sondergaard, R., Clark, J. P., and McQuilling, M. W., 2011, “An Investigation of Reynolds Lapse Rate for Highly Loaded Low Pressure Turbine Airfoils With Forward and Aft Loading,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(5), p. 051035.
Praisner, T., Grover, E., Knezevici, D., Popovic, I., Sjolander, S., Clark, J., and Sondergaard, R., 2008, “Toward the Expansion of Low-Pressure-Turbine Airfoil Design Space,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2008-50898.
Sauer, H., Muller, R., and Vogeler, K., 2000, “Reduction of Secondary Flow Losses in Turbine Cascades by Leading Edge Modifications at the Endwall,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(2), pp. 207–213. [CrossRef]
Chung, J., Simon, T., and Buddhavarapu, J., 1991, “Three-Dimensional Flow Near the Blade/Endwall Junction of a Gas Turbine: Application of a Boundary Layer Fence,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. 91-GT-45.
Chung, J., and Simon, T., 1993, “Effectiveness of the Gas Turbine Endwall Fences in Secondary Flow Control at Elevated Freestream Turbulence Levels,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. 93-GT-51.
Harvey, N., Rose, M., Shahpar, S., Taylor, M., Hartland, J., and Gregory-Smith, D., 2000, “Non-Axisymmetric Turbine End Wall Design—Part I: Three-Dimensional Design System,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(2), pp. 278–285. [CrossRef]
Gbadebo, S., Cumpsty, N., and Hynes, T., 2008, “Control of Three-Dimensional Separations in Axial Compressors by Tailored Boundary Layer Suction,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(1), p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Bloxham, M., and Bons, J., 2010, “Combined Blowing and Suction to Control Both Midspan and Endwall Losses in a Turbomachinery Passage,” ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2010-23552.
Hecklau, M., Zander, V., Peltzer, I., Nitsche, W., Huppertz, A., and Swoboda, M., 2010, “Experimental AFC Approaches on a Highly Loaded Compressor Cascade,” Active Flow Control II, NNFM, Vol. 108, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 171–186.
Hecklau, M., Zander, V., Nitsche, W., Huppertz, A., and Swoboda, M., 2010, “Active Secondary Flow Control on a Highly Loaded Compressor Cascade by Periodically Pulsating Jets,” Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics VII, Vol. 112, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 199–207.
Nerger, D., Saathoff, H., Radespiel, R., Guemmer, V., and Clemen, C., 2012, “Experimental Investigation of endwall and Suction Side Blowing in a Highly Loaded Compressor Stator Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(2), p. 021010. [CrossRef]
Aunapu, N., Volino, R., Flack, K., and Stoddard, R., 2000, “Secondary Flow Measurements in a Turbine Passage With Endwall Flow Modification,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(4), pp. 651–658. [CrossRef]
Evans, S., Hodson, H., Hynes, T., Wakelam, C., and Hiller, S.-J., 2008, “Controlling Separation on a Simulated Compressor Blade Using Vortex Generator Jets,” AIAA 4th Flow Control Conference, Paper No. AIAA-2008-4317.
Bae, J., Breuer, K., and Tan, C., 2005, “Active Control of Tip Clearance Flow in Axial Compressors,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(2), pp. 352–362. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pressure coefficients at the Reynolds numbers of interest

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Location and domain of the measurement planes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Normalized midspan loss versus the Reynolds number of the present study compared to the experimental data of Lyall et al. [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The PIV velocity vectors overlaid on contours of the total pressure loss coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Distance between the vortex core and the blade suction surface for the baseline cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic of the loss decomposition process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Decomposed endwall and midspan area-averaged losses as a fraction of the total area-averaged loss

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The CAD model showing flow control placement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Total pressure loss coefficient and streamwise-normal velocity vectors in the outlet plane for the baseline case: Re = 80,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Total pressure loss coefficient and streamwise-normal velocity vectors in the outlet plane for the controlled case of Cμ = 4%: Re = 80,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mass averaged values as a function of the span: Re = 80,000. Exit angle (left) and total pressure loss coefficient (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Distance between the vortex core and the blade suction surface: Re = 80,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The PIV velocity vectors overlaid on contours of the in-plane velocity magnitude at plane NP1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Area-averaged total pressure loss coefficient in the outlet plane for the controlled cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total pressure loss coefficient in the outlet plane for the baseline case: Re = 20,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Total pressure loss coefficient in the outlet plane for the controlled case of Cμ,EW = 4% and BMS = 2.1: Re = 20,000

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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