0
Research Papers

Effects of Vortex Generator Application on the Performance of a Compressor Cascade

[+] Author and Article Information
Alexander Hergt

e-mail: alexander.hergt@dlr.de

Robert Meyer

German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Institute of Propulsion Technology,
51147 Cologne, Germany

Karl Engel

MTU Aero Engines,
GmbH Dachauer Str. 665,
80995 Munich, Germany

1Corresponding author. Present address: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Propulsion Technology, 51147 Cologne, Germany.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 11, 2011; final manuscript received November 25, 2011; published online November 8, 2012. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(2), 021026 (Nov 08, 2012) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-11-1126; doi: 10.1115/1.4006605 History: Received July 11, 2011; Revised November 25, 2011

The performance of a compressor cascade is considerably influenced by secondary flow effects, like the cross flow on the end wall as well as the corner separation between the wall and the vane. An extensive experimental study of vortex generator application in a highly loaded compressor cascade was performed in order to control these effects and enhance the aerodynamic performance. The results of the study will be used in future projects as a basis for parameterization in the design and optimization process for compressors in order to develop novel nonaxisymmetric endwalls as well as for blade modifications. The study includes the investigation of two vortex generator types with different geometrical forms and their application on several positions in the compressor cascade. The investigation includes a detailed description of the secondary flow effects in the compressor cascade, which is based on numerical and experimental results. This gives the basis for a specific approach of influencing the cascade flow by means of vortex generators. Depending on the vortex generator type and position, there is an impact on the end wall cross flow, the development of the horse shoe vortex at the leading edge of the vane, and the extent of the corner separation achieved by improved mixing within the boundary layer. The experiments were carried out on a compressor cascade at a high-speed test facility at DLR in Berlin at minimum loss (design point) and off-design of the cascade at Reynolds numbers up to Re = 0.6 × 106 (based on 40-mm chord) and Mach numbers up to M = 0.7. At the cascade design point, the total pressure losses could be reduced by up to 9% with the vortex generator configuration, whereas the static pressure rise was nearly unaffected. Furthermore, the cascade deflection could be influenced considerably by vortex generators and also an enhancement of the cascade stall range could be achieved. All these results will be presented and discussed with respect to secondary flow mechanisms. Finally, the general application of vortex generators in axial compressors will be discussed.

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

References

Herzig, H. Z., Hansen, A. G., and Costello, G. R., 1953, “Visualization of Secondary Flow in Compressor Cascades,” NACA Technical Report No. 1163.
Schlichting, H., and Das, A., 1966, “Recent Research on Cascade-Flow Problems,” ASME J. Basic Eng., 88(1), pp. 221–228. [CrossRef]
Gbadebo, S. A., Cumpsty, N. A., and Hynes, T. P., 2005, “Three-Dimensional Separations in Axial Compressors,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(2), pp. 331–339. [CrossRef]
Costello, G. R., Cummings, R. L., and Servoy, G. K., 1952, “Experimental Investigation of Axial Flow Compressor Stator Blades Designed to Obtain High Turning Angles by means of Boundary Layer Suction,” NACA Research Memorandum No. RM E52D18.
Peacock, R. E., 1965, “Boundary-Layer Suction to Eliminate Corner Separation in Cascades of Airfoils,” Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda No. 3663.
Loughery, R. J., Horn, R. A., and Tramm, P. C., 1971, “Single-Stage Experimental Evaluation of Boundary Layer Blowing and Bleed Techniques for High Lift Stator Blades,” NASA Contractor Report No. CR-54573.
Culley, D., Bright, M., Prahst, P., and Strazisar, A., 2004, “Active Flow Separation Control of a Stator Vane Using Embedded Injection in a Multistage Compressor Experiment,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(1), pp. 24–34. [CrossRef]
Gbadebo, S. A., Cumpsty, N. A., and Hynes, T. P., 2008, “Control of Three-Dimensional Separation in Axial Compressors by Tailored Boundary Layer Suction,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(1), p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Weingold, H., Neubert, R., Behlke, R., and Potter, G., 1995, “Reduction of Compressor Endwall Losses through the Use of Bowed Stators,” ASME Turbo Expo, Houston, Texas, June5–8 , No. 95-GT-380.
Weingold, H., Neubert, R., Behlke, R., and Potter, G., 1997, “Bowed Stators an Example of CFD Applied to Improve Multistage Compressor Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(2), pp. 161–166. [CrossRef]
Lyes, P. A., and Ginder, R. B., 1999, “Compressor Test of Bowed and Swept Blades,” ISABE Paper No. 99-7048.
Fischer, A., Riess, W., and Seume, J. R., 2004, “Performance of Strongly Bowed Stators in a Four-Stage High-Speed Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(3), pp. 333–338. [CrossRef]
Dorfner, C., Nicke, E., and Voss, C., 2007, “Axis-Asymmetric Profiled Endwall Design by Using Multiobjective Optimisation Linked With 3D RANS-Flow-Simulations,” ASME Turbo Expo, Montreal, Canada, May14–17 , No. GT2007-27268.
Dorfner, C., 2009, Entwicklung Eines Verfahrens zur Konstruktion Nichtrotationssymmetrischer Seitenwandkonturen in Axialen Verdichtern, DLR Forschungsbericht, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Dorfner, C., Hergt, A., Nicke, E., and Mönig, R., 2009, “Advanced Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring for Axial Compressors by Generating an Aerodynamic Separator Part I: Principal Cascade Design and Compressor Application,” ASME Turbo Expo, Orlando, FL, June8–12 , No. GT2009-59383.
Hergt, A., Dorfner, C., Steinert, W., Nicke, E., and Schreiber, H. A., 2009, “Advanced Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring for Axial Compressors by Generating an Aerodynamic Separator Part II: Experimental and Numerical Cascade Investigation,” ASME Turbo Expo, Orlando, FL, June8–12 , No. GT2009-59384.
Hergt, A., Steinert, W., Dorfner, C., Nicke, E., and Beversdorff, M., 2009, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of a Novel Compressor Endwall Design,” 7th World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Krakow, Poland, June28–July 3 .
Meyer, R., Bechert, D. W., and Hage, W., 2003, “Secondary Flow Control on Compressor Blades to Improve the Performance of Axial Turbomachines,” 5th European Turbomachinery Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, March18–21 .
Hergt, A., Meyer, R., and Engel, K., 2006, “Investigation of Flow Control in Compressor Cascades,” ASME Turbo Expo, Barcelona, Spain, May8–11 , No. GT2006-90415.
Hergt, A., Meyer, R., and Engel, K., 2007, “The Capability of Influencing Secondary Flow in Compressor Cascades by Means of Passive and Active Methods,” 1st CEAS, Berlin, Germany, Sept. 10–13 , No. CEAS2007-216.
Hergt, A., Meyer, R., Müller, M., and Engel, K., 2008, “Loss Reduction in Compressor Cascades by Means of Passive Flow Control,” ASME Turbo Expo, Berlin, Germany, June9–13 , No. GT2008-50357.
Liesner, K., and Meyer, R., 2008, “Experimental Setup for Detailed Secondary Flow Investigation by Two-Dimensional Measurement of Total Pressure Loss Coefficients in Compressor Cascades,” XIX Biannual Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Turbomachinery Transonic and Supersonic Flow in Cascades and Turbomachines, VKI, Rhode-St-Genése, Belgium, April7–8 .
Lighthill, M. J., 1963, “Attachment and Separation in Three-Dimensional Flows,” Laminar Boundary Layer, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 72–82.
Dallmann, U., 1983, “Topological Structures of Three-Dimensional Flow Separation,” DFVLR-AVA Tech. Rep. Bericht No. 221-82 A 07.
Pearcey, H. H., 1961, Shock-induced Seperation and Its Prevention in Boundary Layer and Flow Control, Its Principles and Application, Boundary Layer and Flow Control, Vol. 2, G.V. Lachmann, ed., Pergamon, New York.
Schubauer, G. B., and Spangenberg, W. G., 1960, “Forced Mixing in Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 8(1), pp. 10–33. [CrossRef]
Lin, J. C., 2002, “Review of Research on Low-Profile Vortex Generators to Control Boundary Layer Separations,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 38, pp. 389–420. [CrossRef]
Wennerstrom, A. J., 1987, “Some Experiments with a Supersonic Axial Compressor Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(2), pp. 388–397. [CrossRef]
Wetzel, K., and Farokhi, S., 1996, “Interaction of Riblets and Vortex Generators on an Airfoil,” 14th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA, June18–20 , No. AIAA-96-2428.
Böhle, M., and Stark, U., 2007, “A Numerical Investigation of The Effect of End-Wall Boundary Layer Skew on the Aerodynamic Performance of a Low Aspect Ratio, High Turning Compressor Cascade,” 7th European Turbomachinery Conference, Athens, Greece, March5–9 , No. 195.
Hergt, A., 2011, “Über Grenzschichtbeeinflussende Maßnahmen in den Randzonen von Verdichtergittern,” Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Schulze, G., Blaha, C., Hennecke, D. K., and Henne, J. M., 1995, “The Performance of a New Axial Single Stage Transonic Compressor,” 12th International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, Melbourne, Australia, Sept. 10–15 , No. ISABE 1995-7072.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Blade profile and calculated Mis distribution at midspan of the baseline cascade (ADP), M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

High-speed cascade wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Test section and cascade parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Oil-flow visualization on endwall and blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Numerical streak lines on endwall and blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Sketch of flow field topology on endwall and blade suction side with critical points and highlighted separation lines (SL) and attachment lines (AL) at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Numerically simulated secondary flow vectors at 0.78% of chord at ADP, M1 = 0.66 (viewing direction: upstream)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Sketch of the resulting main vortex structure in the cascade at ADP, M1 = 0.66 (rotational sense of the vortices is valid for right side wall blade combination with upstream viewing direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Total pressure loss distribution of the baseline cascade at MP2, ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Definition of vortex generator type

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Definition of vortex generator geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Definition of vortex generator configurations and placement in the cascade (rotational sense of the vortices is valid for right side wall blade combination with upstream viewing direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Oil-flow visualization of configuration A on endwall and blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Oil-flow visualization of baseline cascade and configuration A on blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total pressure loss distribution of baseline cascade and configuration A at MP2, ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Oil-flow visualization of baseline cascade and configuration B on blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Total pressure loss distribution of baseline cascade and configuration B at MP2, ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Oil-flow visualization of baseline cascade and configuration A/B on blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Total pressure loss distribution of baseline cascade and configuration A/B at MP2, ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Oil-flow visualization of configuration C version 3 on endwall and blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Oil-flow visualization of baseline cascade and configuration C version 3 on blade suction side at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Total pressure loss distribution of baseline cascade and configuration C version 3 at MP2, ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Mass-flow averaged spanwise pressure loss distribution of baseline cascade and configuration A, B, A/B, and C at ADP, M1 = 0.66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Total pressure loss coefficient ω0 of the baseline cascade (top) and difference of the total pressure loss coefficient Δω between configuration A, B, A/B, and C and baseline normalized by baseline ω0 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Difference of the diffusion factor ΔDF at midspan between configuration A, B, A/B, and C and baseline normalized by baseline DF0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Difference of the cascade deflection Δɛ at midspan between configuration A, B, A/B, and C and baseline normalized by baseline ɛ0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Difference of the static pressure rise coefficient ΔΩ at midspan between configuration A, B, A/B, and C and baseline normalized by baseline Ω0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Isentropic efficiency η at different engine speed n normalized by peak efficiency at 100% engine speed [31]

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