Research Papers

A Global Approach to Turbomachinery Flow Control: Passage Vortex Control

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew J. Bloxham

e-mail: mbloxham@gmail.com

Jeffrey P. Bons

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

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received March 11, 2013; final manuscript received April 23, 2013; published online September 26, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 136(4), 041003 (Sep 26, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1036; doi: 10.1115/1.4024686 History: Received March 11, 2013; Revised April 23, 2013

A flow control scheme was implemented in a low-pressure turbine cascade that simultaneously mitigated profile and endwall losses using midspan vortex generator jets (VGJs) and endwall suction. The combined system had an approximate zero-net mass flux. During the design, a theoretical model was used that effectively predicted the trajectory of the passage vortex using inviscid results obtained from two-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The model was used in the design of two flow control approaches: the removal and redirection approaches. The emphasis of the removal approach was the direct application of flow control along the passage vortex (PV) trajectory. The redirection approach attempted to alter the trajectory of the PV with the judicious placement of suction holes. A potential flow model was created to aid in the design of the redirection approach. The model results were validated using flow visualization and particle image velocimetry (PIV) in a linear turbine cascade. Detailed total pressure loss wake surveys were measured while matching the suction and VGJ mass flow rates for the removal and redirection approaches at ReCx = 25,000 and blowing ratio, B, of 2. When compared with the no control results, the addition of VGJs and endwall suction reduced the wake losses by 69% (removal) and 68% (redirection). The majority of the total pressure loss reduction resulted from the spanwise VGJs, while the suction schemes provided modest additional reductions (<2%). At ReCx = 50,000, the endwall control effectiveness was assessed for a range of suction rates without midspan VGJs. Area-averaged total pressure loss reductions of up to 28% were measured in the wake at ReCx = 50,000, B = 0, with applied endwall suction (compared to no suction at ReCx = 50,000), at which point the loss core of the PV was almost completely eliminated.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Sharma, O., and Butler, T., 1987, “Predictions of Endwall Losses and Secondary Flows in Axial Flow Turbine Cascades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109, pp. 229–236. [CrossRef]
Sabatino, D. R., and Smith, C. R., 2007, “Boundary Layer Influence on the Unsteady Horseshoe Vortex Flow and Surface Heat Transfer,” ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power by Land, Sea, and Air, Montreal, Canada, May 14–17, ASME Paper No. GT2007-27633. [CrossRef]
Langton, L. S., Nice, M. L., and Hooper, R. M., 1977, “Three-Dimensional Flow in a Turbine Cascade Passage,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 99, pp. 21–28. [CrossRef]
Palafox, P., Oldfield, M. L. G., LaGraff, J. E., and Jones, T. V., 2008, “PIV Maps of Tip Leakage and Secondary Flow Fields on a Low-Speed Turbine Blade Cascade With Moving End Wall,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130, p. 011001. [CrossRef]
Langston, L. S., 1980, “Crossflows in a Turbine Cascade Passage,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 102, pp. 866–874. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, R. J., and Spores, R. A., 1988, “Turbulent Transport on the Endwall in the Region Between Adjacent Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 110, pp. 862–869. [CrossRef]
Wang, H. P., Olson, S. J., Goldstein, R. J., and Eckert, E. R. G., 1997, “Flow Visualization in a Linear Turbine Cascade of High Performance Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119, pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
Becz, S., Majewski, M. S., and Langston, L. S., 2004, “An Experimental Investigation of Contoured Leading Edges for Secondary Flow Loss Reduction,” ASME Turbo Expo 2004: Power by Land, Sea, and Air, Vienna, Austria, June 14–17, ASME Paper No. GT2004-53964. [CrossRef]
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, pp. 207–213. [CrossRef]
Zess, G. A., and Thole, K. A., 2002, “Computational Design and Experimental Evaluation of Using a Leading Edge Fillet on a Gas Turbine Vane,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124, pp. 167–175. [CrossRef]
Muller, R., Sauer, H., and Vogeler, K., 2002, “Influencing the Secondary Losses in Compressor Cascades by a Leading Edge Bulb Modification at the Endwall,” ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power by Land, Sea, and Air, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–6, ASME Paper No. GT2002-30442. [CrossRef]
Devenport, W. J., Agarwal, N. K., Dewitz, M. B., Simpson, R. L., and Poddar, K., 1990, “Effects of a Fillet on the Flow Past a Wing-Body Junction,” AIAA J., 28(12), pp. 2017–2024. [CrossRef]
Devenport, W. J., Simpson, R. L., Dewitz, M. B., and Agarwal, N. K., 1992, “Effects of a Leading-Edge Fillet on the Flow Past an Appendage-Body Junction,” AIAA J., 30(9), pp. 2177–2183. [CrossRef]
Chung, J. T., Simon, T. W., and Buddhavarapu, J., 1991, “Three-Dimensional Flow Near the Blade/Endwall Junction of a Gas Turbine: Application of a Boundary Layer Fence,” ASME Paper No. 91-GT-45.
Chung, J. T., and Simon, T. W., 1993, “Effectiveness of the Gas Turbine Endwall Fences in Secondary Flow Control at Elevated Freestream Turbulence Levels,” ASME Paper No. 93-GT-51.
Harvey, N. W., Rose, M. G., Shahpar, S., Taylor, M. D., Hartland, J., and Gregory-Smith, D. G., 2000, “Non-Axisymmetric Turbine End Wall Design: Part I- Three-Dimensional Design System,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 278–285. [CrossRef]
Ingram, G., Gregory-Smith, D., Rose, M., Harvey, N., and Brennan, G., 2002, “The Effect of End-Wall Profiling on Secondary Flow and Loss Development in a Turbine Cascade,” ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–6, ASME Paper No. GT-2002-30339. [CrossRef]
Aunapu, N. V., Volino, R. J., Flack, K. A., and Stoddard, R. M., 2000, “Secondary Flow Measurements in a Turbine Passage With Endwall Flow Modification,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 651–658. [CrossRef]
Doerffer, P., Flaszynski, P., and Magagnato, F., 2003, “Streamwise Vortex Interaction With a Horseshoe Vortex,” J. Therm. Sci., 12(4), pp. 304–309. [CrossRef]
Rehder, H. J., and Dannhauer, A., 2007, “Experimental Investigation of Turbine Leakage Flows on the Three-Dimensional Flow Field and Endwall Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129, pp. 608–618. [CrossRef]
de la Rosa Blanco, E., Hodson, H. P., and Vazquez, R., 2006, “Effect of the Leakage Flows and the Upstream Platform Geometry on the Endwall Flows of a Turbine Cascade,” ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Barcelona, Spain, May 8–11, ASME Paper No. GT-2006-90767. [CrossRef]
Philips, D. B., Cimbala, J. M., and Treaster, A. L., 1992, “Suppression of the Wing-Body Junction Vortex by Body Surface Suction,” J. Aircr., 29(1), pp. 118–122. [CrossRef]
Gummer, V., Goller, M., and Swoboda, M., 2008, “Numerical Investigation of End Wall Boundary Layer Removal on Highly Loaded Axial Compressor Blade Rows,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130, p. 011015. [CrossRef]
Gbadebo, S. A., Cumpsty, N. A., and Hynes, T. P., 2008, “Control of Three-Dimensional Separations in Axial Compressors by Tailored Boundary Layer Suction,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130, p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Johnson, M., Ravindra, K., and Andres, R., 1994, “Comparative Study of the Elimination of the Wing Fuselage Junction Vortex by Boundary Layer Suction and Blowing,” 32nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno NV, January 10–13, AIAA Paper No. 94-0293. [CrossRef]
Barberis, D., Molton, P., and Malaterre, T., 1998, “Control of 3D Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation Caused by a Wing-Body Junction,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 16, pp. 54–63. [CrossRef]
Seal, C. V., and Smith, C. R., 1999, “The Control of Turbulent End-Wall Boundary Layers Using Surface Suction,” Exp. Fluids, 27, pp. 484–496. [CrossRef]
Volino, R. J., 2003, “Separation Control on Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoils Using Synthetic Vortex Generator Jets,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125, pp. 765–777. [CrossRef]
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., 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 2008: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Berlin, Germany, June 9–13, ASME Paper No. GT2008-50864. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Representation of the passage vortex system by Langston et al. [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematics of the L1A cascade and VGJ orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematics of splitter plate hole pattern (a) and the removal (b) and redirection (c) approach hole patterns

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The computational domain and boundary conditions used to solve the inviscid flow field (top). The inviscid static pressure contour (bottom-left) and streamline (bottom-right) results obtained from fluent.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Theoretical model particle path predictions for initial velocities of 0.5Uin (black vectors) and 0.75Uin (gray vectors)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The percent reduction of angle deviation as a function of the number of active holes and total suction rate. The vertical dashed line denotes the number of suction holes used in the redirection study.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Theoretical model velocity vector fields with and without endwall control (redirection approach)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Overlay of PIV (black vectors) and model velocity vectors (grey vectors) for Γ = 0 and 0.7 (SR = 29%)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Turbine cascade schematic of the total pressure data location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Total pressure loss wake surveys with (right) and without (left) steady VGJ actuation. ReCx = 25,000, SR = 0. (PTinPT)/ (PTinPSin).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Total pressure loss wake surveys. Baseline (top), removal approach (bottom left), and redirection (bottom right). ReCx = 25,000, SR = 9.7%, B = 2. (PTin – PT)/(PTinPSin).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Total pressure loss wake surveys. Baseline (top), removal approach (bottom left), and redirection approach (bottom right). ReCx = 50,000, SR = 11.3%, B = 0. (PTinPT)/(PTinPSin).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Normalized PT losses for the removal and redirection approaches at ReCx = 25,000 and 50,000. (PTinPT)/(PTinPT)SR=0.




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