Research Papers

Aerodynamic Interaction Between an Incoming Vortex and Tip Leakage Flow in a Turbine Cascade

[+] Author and Article Information
Kai Zhou

Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China
e-mail: kinozhou@pku.edu.cn

Chao Zhou

Turbomachinery Laboratory,
College of Engineering; BICESAT,
Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China
e-mail: czhou@pku.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 6, 2018; final manuscript received September 13, 2018; published online October 8, 2018. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 140(11), 111004 (Oct 08, 2018) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-18-1235; doi: 10.1115/1.4041514 History: Received September 06, 2018; Revised September 13, 2018

In turbines, secondary vortices and tip leakage vortices form in the blade passage and interact with each other. In order to understand the flow physics of this vortices interaction, the effects of incoming vortex on the downstream tip leakage flow are investigated by experimental, numerical, and analytical methods. In the experiment, a swirl generator was used upstream of a linear turbine cascade to generate the incoming vortex, which could interact with the downstream tip leakage vortex (TLV). The swirl generator was located at ten different pitchwise locations to simulate the quasi-steady effects. In the numerical study, a Rankine-like vortex was defined at the inlet of the computational domain to simulate the incoming swirling vortex (SV). The effects of the directions of the incoming vortices were investigated. In the case of a positive incoming SV, which has a large vorticity vector in the same direction as that of the TLV, the vortex mixes with the TLV to form one major vortex near the casing as it transports downstream. This vortices interaction reduces the loss by increasing the streamwise momentum within the TLV core. However, the negative incoming SV has little effects on the TLV and the loss. As the negative incoming SV transports downstream, it travels away from the TLV and two vortices can be identified near the casing. A triple-vortices-interaction kinetic model is used to explain the flow physics of vortex interaction, and a one-dimensional mixing analytical model are proposed to explain the loss mechanism.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Tallman, J. , and Lakshminarayana, B. , 2001, “ Numerical Simulation of Tip Leakage Flows in Axial Flow Turbines, With Emphasis on Flow Physics—Part I: Effect of Tip Clearance Height,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(2), pp. 314–323. [CrossRef]
Tallman, J. , and Lakshminarayana, B. , 2001, “ Numerical Simulation of Tip Leakage Flows in Axial Flow Turbines, With Emphasis on Flow Physics—Part II: Effect of Outer Casing Relative Motion,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(2), pp. 324–333. [CrossRef]
Denton, J. , 1993, “ Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME Paper No. 93-GT-435.
Li, Y. , Li, X. , and Ren, X. , 2016, “ Aerodynamic Optimization of a High Expansion Ratio Organic Radial-Inflow Turbine,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 30(12), pp. 5485–5490. [CrossRef]
Key, N. , and Arts, T. , 2006, “ Comparison of Turbine Tip Leakage Flow for Flat Tip and Squealer Tip Geometries at High-Speed Conditions,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(2), pp. 213–220. [CrossRef]
Yaras, M. , and Sjolander, S. , 1991, “ Effects of Simulated Rotation on Tip Leakage in a Planar Cascade of Turbine Blades. Part I: Tip Gap Flow,” ASME Paper No. 91-GT-127.
Yaras, M. , and Sjolander, S. , 1991, “ Effects of Simulated Rotation on Tip Leakage in a Planar Cascade of Turbine Blades. Part II: Downstream Flow Field and Blade Loading,” ASME Paper No. 91-GT-128.
Heyes, F. , Hodson, H. , and Dailey, G. , 1991, “ The Effect of Blade Tip Geometry on the Tip Leakage Flow in Axial Turbine Cascades,” ASME Paper No. 91-GT-135.
Schabowski, Z. , and Hodson, H. , 2007, “ The Reduction of Over Tip Leakage Loss in Unshrouded Axial Turbines Using Winglet and Squealers,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27623.
Harvey, N. W. , and Ramsden, K. , 2001, “ A Computational Study of a Novel Turbine Rotor Partial Shroud,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(3), pp. 534–543. [CrossRef]
Zhou, C. , and Zhong, F. , 2017, “ A Novel Suction-Side Winglet Design Philosophy for High-Pressure Turbine Rotor Tips,” ASME J. Turbomach., 139(11), p. 111002. [CrossRef]
Volino, R. , Galvin, C. , and Brownell, C. , 2014, “ Effects of Unsteady Wakes on Flow Through High Pressure Turbine Passage With and Without Tip Gaps,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-27006.
Payne, S. , 2001, “ Unsteady Loss in a High Pressure Stage,” Ph.D. dissertation, University Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Binder, A. , 1985, “ Turbulence Production Due to Secondary Vortex Cutting in a Turbine Rotor,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107(4), pp. 1039–1046. [CrossRef]
Binder, A. , Forster, W. , Mach, K. , and Rogge, H. , 1987, “ Unsteady Flow Interaction Caused by Stator Secondary Vortices in a Turbine Rotor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(2), pp. 251–256. [CrossRef]
Sharma, O. P. , Butler, T. L. , Joslyn, H. D. , and Dring, R. P. , 1985, “ Three-Dimensional Unsteady Flow in an Axial Flow Turbine,” AIAA J. Propul. Power, 1(1), pp. 29–38. [CrossRef]
Sharma, O. , Renaud, E. , Butler, T. , Milsaps, K. , Dring, R. , and Joslyn, H. , 1988, “ Rotor-Stator Interaction in Multi-Stage Axial-Flow Turbines,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-88-3013.
Pullan, G. , and Denton, J. D. , 2003, “ Numerical Simulations of Vortex-Turbine Blade Interaction,” Fifth European Turbomachinery Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, Mar. 7–11, pp. 1049–1059.
Walraevens, R. , Gallus, H. , Jung, A. , Mayer, J. , and Stetter, H. , 1998, “ Experimental and Computational Study of the Unsteady Flow in a 1.5 Stage Axial Turbine With Emphasis on the Secondary Flow in the Second Stator,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-254.
Schlienger, J. , Kalfas, A. , and Abhari, R. , 2005, “ Vortex-Wake-Blade Interaction in a Shrouded Axial Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 127(4), pp. 699–707. [CrossRef]
Chaluvadi, V. , Kalfas, A. , and Hodson, H. , 2003, “ Blade Row Interaction in a High-Pressure Steam Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 125(1), pp. 14–24. [CrossRef]
Yoon, S. , Vandeputte, T. , and Mistry, H. , 2015, “ Loss Audit of a Turbine Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 138(5), p. 051004. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, A. , 1988, “ Interaction Mechanisms Between Tip Leakage Flow and the Passage Vortex in a Linear Turbine Rotor Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 110(3), pp. 329–338. [CrossRef]
Zhou, C. , Hodson, H. , Tibbott, I. , and Stokes, M. , 2013, “ Effects of Winglet Geometry on the Aerodynamic Performance of Tip Leakage Flow in a Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(5), p. 051009. [CrossRef]
Schulte, V. , and Hodson, H. P. , 1994, “ Wake-Separation Bubble Interaction in Low Pressure Turbines,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-94-2931.
Menter, F. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J, 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. , Kuntz, M. , and Langtry, R. , 2003, “ Ten Years of Experience With the SST Turbulence Model,” Turbulence Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 4, Begell House, Danbury, CT, pp. 625–632.
Zhou, K. , and Zhou, C. , 2016, “ Unsteady Aerodynamics of a Flat Tip and a Winglet Tip in a High-Pressure Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2016-56845.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental facility: (a) layout of the cascade, (b) illustration of the relative position of swirl generator and blade, and (c) measurement location for endwall inlet boundary layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometry of swirl generators: (a) PSG, (b) NuSG, and (c) NSG

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Distribution of stagnation pressure coefficient and velocity vector, 0.18Cx downstream of the swirl generator: (a) PSG, (b) NuSG, and (c) NSG

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Streamwise vorticity for PSG, 0.18Cx and 0.27Cx downstream of the swirl generator: (a) 0.18Cx and (b) 0.27Cx

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Computational domain and mesh: (a) computational domains and (b) mesh near tip gap A and trailing edge B

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Tangential and axial velocity of the vortex model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Circulation at different locations downstream of the swirl generator and CFD dissipation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Nondimensional streamwise vorticity, circulation and streamwise velocity on the monitor plane for CFD and experiment: (a) CFD, (b) EXP, (c) circulation, and (d) streamwise velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cp around the blade surface at middle Span, the case with uniform inlet condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

CP0 at cut plane 2, the case with uniform inlet condition: (a) EXP and (b) CFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mass-weighted averaged CP0 along the spanwise direction, the case with uniform inlet condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Definition for phase of the swirl generators

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CP0 on the plane 2, the case with PSG, Exp: (a) φ = 1/10, (b) φ = 3/10, (c) φ = 5/10, (d) φ = 7/10, and (e) φ = 9/10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

CP0 on the plane 2: case with (a) PSG, (b) NuSG, and (c) NSG at φ = 9/10, Exp

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Mass-weighted-averaged CP0 along the spanwise direction at phases of max and min TLV loss

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

CP0 on the plane 2, incoming positive vortex, CFD: (a) φ = 1/10, (b) φ = 3/10, (c) φ = 5/10, (d) φ = 7/10, and (e) φ = 9/10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

CP0 along streamwise direction, incoming PSV: (a) φ = 5/10 and (b) φ = 9/10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The vortex transportation of incoming SV at phase φ = 9/10, Isosurface of scalar Ω = 0.2: (a) positive swirling flow and (b) negative swirling flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Relative CP0 along spanwise direction in several axial locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Instantaneous time for the locations of four ribbons, phase φ = 9/10: (a) PSG, (b) NSG, and (c) view angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Nondimensional streamwise vorticity distribution, incoming positive swirling flow: (a) φ = 5/10 and (b) φ = 9/10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Mixed-out loss for different inlet conditions, CFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Schematic of a triple-vortices-interaction kinetic model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Schematic of 1D mixing model of two square wake deficits

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

The difference in loss ΔEk(%) for two different mixing ways, VTLV = 0.36 and VSV = 0.85



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