0
Research Papers

Steady Vortex-Generator Jet Flow Control on a Highly Loaded Transonic Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade: Effects of Compressibility and Roughness

[+] Author and Article Information
Chiara Bernardini

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
2300 West Case Road,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: bernardini.3@osu.edu

Stuart I. Benton

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
2300 West Case Road,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: benton.53@osu.edu

John D. Lee

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
2300 West Case Road,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: lee.30@osu.edu

Jeffrey P. Bons

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

Jen-Ping Chen

Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
201 W 19th Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210
e-mail: chen.1210@osu.edu

Francesco Martelli

Professor
Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via di S. Marta, 3,
Firenze, Italy
e-mail: francesco.martelli@unifi.it

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 3, 2014; final manuscript received July 16, 2014; published online August 26, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(11), 111003 (Aug 26, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1111; doi: 10.1115/1.4028214 History: Received July 03, 2014; Revised July 16, 2014

A new high-speed linear cascade has been developed for low-pressure turbine (LPT) studies at The Ohio State University. A compressible LPT profile is tested in the facility and its baseline performance at different operating conditions is assessed by means of isentropic Mach number distribution and wake total pressure losses. Active flow control is implemented through a spanwise row of vortex-generator jets (VGJs) located at 60% chord on the suction surface. The purpose of the study is to document the effectiveness of VGJ flow control in high-speed compressible flow. The effect on shock-induced separation is assessed by Mach number distribution, wake loss surveys and shadowgraph. Pressure sensitive paint (PSP) is applied to understand the three dimensional flow and shock pattern developing from the interaction of the skewed jets and the main flow. Data show that with increasing blowing ratio, the losses are first decreased due to separation reduction, but losses connected to compressibility effects become stronger due to increased passage shock strength and jet orifice choking; therefore, the optimum blowing ratio is a tradeoff between these counteracting effects. The effect of added surface roughness on the uncontrolled flow and on flow control behavior is also investigated. At lower Mach number, turbulent separation develops on the rough surface and a different flow control performance is observed. Steady VGJs appear to have control authority even on a turbulent separation but higher blowing ratios are required compared to incompressible flow experiments reported elsewhere. Overall, the results show a high sensitivity of steady VGJs control performance and optimum blowing ratio to compressibility and surface roughness.

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

References

Coull, J. D., Thomas, R. L., and Hodson, H. P., 2010, “Velocity Distributions for Low Pressure Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(4), p. 041006. [CrossRef]
Hansen, L., and Bons, J. P., 2006, “Flow Measurements of Vortex Generator Jets in Separating Boundary Layer,” J. Propul. Power, 22(3), pp. 558–566. [CrossRef]
Khan, Z. U., and Johnston, J. P., 2000, “On Vortex Generating Jets,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 21(5), pp. 506–511. [CrossRef]
Sondergaard, R., Rivir, R. B., and Bons, J. P., 2002, “Control of Low-Pressure Turbine Separation Using Vortex-Generator Jets,” J. Propul. Power, 18(4), pp. 889–895. [CrossRef]
Bons, J. P., Sondergaard, R., and Rivir, R. B., 2002, “The Fluid Dynamics of LPT Blade Separation Control Using Pulsed Jets,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(1), pp. 77–85. [CrossRef]
Jouini, D. B. M., Sjolander, S. A., and Moustapha, S. H., 2002, “Midspan Flow-Field Measurements for Two Transonic Linear Turbine Cascades at Off-Design Conditions,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(2), pp. 176–186. [CrossRef]
Vazquez, R., and Torre, D., 2012, “The Effect of Mach Number on the Loss Generation of LP Turbines,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68555. [CrossRef]
Delery, J., Marvin, J. G., and Reshotko, E., 1986, Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction, AGARD, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France, Paper, No. AGARD-AG-280.
Delery, J. M., 1985, “Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction and its Control,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 22(4), pp. 209–280. [CrossRef]
Souverein, L. J., and Debiève, J. F., 2010, “Effect of Air Jet Vortex Generators on a Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction,” Exp. Fluids, 49(5), pp. 1053–1064. [CrossRef]
Pearcey, H. H., Rao, K., and Sykes, D. M., 1993, “Inclined Air-Jets Used as Vortex Generators to Suppress Shock-Induced Separation,” Computational and Experimental Assessment of Jets in Cross Flow, AGARD, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France, AGARD-CP-534, Paper No. 40.
Wallis, R. A., and Stuart, C. M., 1962, “On the Control of Shock-Induced Boundary-Layer Separation With Discrete Air Jets,” Aeronautical Research Council, London, Report No. ARC CP, 595.
Szwaba, R., 2013, “Influence of Air-Jet Vortex Generator Diameter on Separation Region,” J. Therm. Science, 22(4), pp. 294–303. [CrossRef]
Gomes, R. A., and Niehuis, R., 2012, “Aerothermodynamics of a High-Pressure Turbine Blade With Very High Loading and Vortex Generators,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(1), p. 011020. [CrossRef]
Bons, J. P., 2010, “A Review of Surface Roughness Effects in Gas Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(2), p. 021004. [CrossRef]
Vera, M., Zhang, X. F., Hodson, H., and Harvey, N., 2007, “Separation and Transition Control on an Aft-Loaded Ultra-High-Lift LP Turbine Blade at Low Reynolds Numbers: High-Speed Validation,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129(2), pp. 340–347. [CrossRef]
Leipold, R., Boese, M., and Fottner, L., 2000, “The Influence of Technical Surface Roughness Caused by Precision Forging on the Flow Around a Highly Loaded Compressor Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(3), pp. 416–425. [CrossRef]
Boyle, R. J., and Senyitko, R. G., 2003, “Measurements and Predictions of Surface Roughness Effects on Turbine Vane Aerodynamics,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38580. [CrossRef]
Suder, K. L., Chima, R. V., Strazisar, A. J., and Roberts, W. B., 1995, “The Effect of Adding Roughness and Thickness to a Transonic Axial Compressor Rotor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 117(4), pp. 491–505. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, R. J., Eckert, E. R. G., Chiang, H. D., and Elovic, E., 1985, “Effect of Surface Roughness on Film Cooling Performance,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107(1), pp. 111–116. [CrossRef]
Korakianitis, T., 1993, “Hierarchical Development of Three Direct-Design Methods for Two-Dimensional Axial-Turbomachinery Cascades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(2), pp. 314–324. [CrossRef]
Coull, J. D., and Hodson, H. P., 2013, “Blade Loading and Its Application in the Mean-Line Design of Low Pressure Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(2), p. 021032. [CrossRef]
Bernardini, C., Carnevale, M., Manna, M., Martelli, F., Simoni, D., and Zunino, P., 2012, “Turbine Blade Boundary Layer Separation Suppression Via Synthetic Jet: an Experimental and Numerical Study,” J. Therm. Sci., 21(5), pp. 404–412. [CrossRef]
Bons, J. P., Pluim, J., Gompertz, K., Bloxham, M., and Clark, J. P., 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]
Juliano, T. J., Kumar, P., Peng, D., Gregory, J. W., Crafton, J., and Fonov, S., 2011, “Single-Shot, Lifetime-Based Pressure-Sensitive Paint for Rotating Blades,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 22(8), p. 085403. [CrossRef]
Schreiber, H. A., and Starken, H., “An Investigation of a Strong Shock-Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction in a Supersonic Compressor Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114(3), pp. 494–503. [CrossRef]
Kalkhoran, I. M., and Smart, M. K., 2000, “Aspects of Shock Wave-Induced Vortex Breakdown,” Progr. Aerosp. Sci., 36(1), pp. 63–95. [CrossRef]
Hummel, F., Lotzerich, M., Cardamone, P., and Fottner, L., 2005, “Surface Roughness Effects on Turbine Blade Aerodynamics,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(3), pp. 453–461. [CrossRef]
Peng, D., Jensen, C. D., Juliano, T. J., Gregory, J. W., Crafton, J. W., Palluconi, S., and Liu, T., 2013, “Temperature-Compensated Fast Pressure-Sensitive Paint,” AIAA J., 51(10), pp. 2420–2431. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Transonic cascade schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Transonic cascade operating map

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Machis distribution CFD/experiments comparison: Machin 0.43, Re 8.5· × 105

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Machis distribution: smooth surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Shadowgraph: smooth surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Wake loss coefficient: smooth surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Integral wake loss coefficient: Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Machis distribution: rough surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Shadowgraph: rough surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

PSP Machis distribution: rough surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

PSP Mach number ensemble-average distributions over four hole pitches for nine different blowing ratios: rough surface, Machin 0.43

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Traces of Mach number distribution from PSP at locations shown in Fig. 11. Dashed–dotted line: z/D = −3.33; bold line: z/D = 0; dotted line: z/D = 3.3. Rough surface, Machin 0.43.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Machis distribution: rough surface, Machin 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Integral wake loss coefficient and jet Mach number: rough surface, Machin 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Shadowgraph: rough surface, Machin 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

PSP Machis distribution: rough surface, Machin 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

PSP Machis ensemble average distributions over four pitches for seven different blowing ratios: rough surface, Machin 0.20

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