0
Research Papers

Endwall Loss in Turbine Cascades

[+] Author and Article Information
John D. Coull

Whittle Laboratory,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB3 0DY, UK
e-mail: jdc38@cam.ac.uk

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received October 24, 2016; final manuscript received December 16, 2016; published online March 15, 2017. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(8), 081004 (Mar 15, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1281; doi: 10.1115/1.4035663 History: Received October 24, 2016; Revised December 16, 2016

Prior to the detailed design of components, turbomachinery engineers must guide a mean-line or throughflow design toward an optimum configuration. This process requires a combination of informed judgement and low-order correlations for the principle sources of loss. With these requirements in mind, this paper examines the impact of key design parameters on endwall loss in turbines, a problem which remains poorly understood. This paper presents a parametric study of linear cascades, which represent a simplified model of real-engine flow. The designs are nominally representative of the low-pressure turbine blades of an aero-engine, with varying flow angles, blade thickness, and suction surface lift styles. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) calculations are performed for a single aspect ratio (AR) and constant inlet boundary layer thickness. To characterize the cascades studied, the two-dimensional design space is examined before studying endwall losses in detail. It is demonstrated that endwall loss can be decomposed into two components: one due to the dissipation associated with the endwall boundary layer and another induced by the secondary flows. This secondary-flow-induced loss is found to scale with a measure of streamwise vorticity predicted by classical secondary flow theory.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Secondary flow in a turbine cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Designs with varying flow angles, see Table 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mises Cp distributions for the designs in Fig. 2: (a) relative to outlet pressure and (b) relative to trailing edge pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Typical CFD domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mesh sensitivity for a single design (α1 = 30 deg, α2=−65 deg, and Tmax/Cx  = 0.15)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

CFD and experimental endwall losses [27,28]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Geometric parameters for the designs in Fig. 2: (a) suction surface length versus axial chord, (b) pitch versus axial chord, (c) pitch versus suction surface length, and (d) suction surface length versus effective throat

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) Zweifel lift coefficient [29] and breakdown (a) Zweifel lift coefficient [29] and breakdown: pressure-side integral ((b), (c)) and suction-side integral ((d), (e))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Mises Cp versus x/Cx for the designs in Fig. 2: (a) relative to outlet pressure and (b) relative to trailing edge pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Circulation lift coefficient [14] and breakdown: pressure-side integral ((b), (c)) and suction-side integral ((d), (e))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Leading edge incidence (difference between the inlet flow and metal angles) and (b) deviation (Mises)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Trailing edge Mach number (Mises); (b) uncovered turning angle; (c) codependence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Definition of uncovered turning angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Fully turbulent profile loss for the designs shown in Fig. 2: (a) RANS; (b) Mises; (c) Eq. (7) for Mises

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Breakdown of loss contributions in Eq. (7) for fully turbulent Mises calculations: (a) momentum deficit; (b) blockage; (c) base pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Endwall entropy loss coefficients

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Estimated background dissipation loss: (a) ratio of endwall and exit flow area; (b) midspan velocity ratio; (c) simple estimate; (d) integrated estimate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a) Estimated contributions from secondary-flow-induced loss and (b) the SKE factor of Ref. [34] (Eq. (12))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Vorticity amplification factors, after Hawthorne [2]: (a) passage vortex, (b) counter vortex, (c) shed vorticity, and (d) total

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Vorticity amplification factors, after Marsh [35]: (a) passage vortex, (b) counter vortex, (c) shed vorticity, and (d) total

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Comparison of estimated secondary-flow-induced loss and the summed amplification factor of Hawthorne [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of estimated secondary-flow-induced loss and the summed amplification factor of Marsh [35]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Mises Cp distributions for the thinner designs: (a) relative to outlet pressure and (b) relative to trailing edge pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Endwall loss: simple model versus CFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Free-vortex model for the covered turning region: (a) geometric approximation, (b) free-vortex, and (c) pressure distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Free-vortex model of CP−PS for the thin (a) and thick (b) sets of blades

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Pressure-side circulation integral for the thin (a) and thick (b) sets of blades, from Mises design calculations

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