The Effects of Trailing Edge

Thickness on the Losses

Chao Zhou1
State Key Laboratory for Turbulence
and Complex Systems,
College of Engineering,
Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China
e-mail: czhou@pku.edu.cn
Howard Hodson
Whittle Laboratory,
Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB3 0DY, UK
Christoph Himmel
Whittle Laboratory,
Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB3 0DY, UK
of Ultrahigh Lift Low Pressure
Turbine Blades
Experimental, numerical and analytical methods were used to investigate the effects of
the blade trailing edge thickness on the profile loss of ultrahigh-lift low-pressure turbine
blades. Two cascades, the T106C and the T2, were studied. The loss obtained based on
the data at the blade trailing edge plane and the plane 0.3 Chord downstream of the trail-
ing edge agree with each other for T106C blade with and without upstream wakes at dif-
ferent Reynolds numbers. The blade profile losses were broken down as the suction
surface boundary loss, the pressure side boundary loss and the mixing loss downstream
of the trailing edge for six Reynolds numbers. Trailing edge thicknesses varying from
1.4% to 4.7% pitch were investigated at a Reynolds number of 210,000. It was found that
the flow distributions across the passage at the trailing edge planes were highly nonuni-
form. In particular, and as a result, the trailing edge base pressure was higher than the
mixed-out static pressure, so the contribution of the base pressure to the mixing loss
downstream of the trailing edge plane was to reduce the loss. When the trailing edge
thickness increases, there are three main effects: (1) the area with high base pressure
region increases, which tends to reduce the downstream mixing loss; (2) the base pres-
sure reduces, which tends to increase the loss; and (3) the flow diffusion downstream of
the trailing edge, which tends to increase the loss. The overall result is the combined
effect. For the T106C cascade, increasing the trailing edge thickness from 1.9% pitch to
2.8% pitch has a small effect on the loss. Further increasing the trailing edge thickness
increases the loss. The T2 blade has a higher lift than the T106C blade, so the effects of
the base pressure in reducing the mixing loss downstream of the trailing edge is more evi-
dent. The experimental results show that the profile loss first decreases and then increases
as the trailing edge thickness increases. CFD, using the transition k-x SST model and the
k-x SST model, provides good predictions of the aerodynamic performance. It was used
to study the cases with trailing edge thicknesses of 1.4% pitch and 2.9% pitch. The profile
loss is almost the same for these two trailing edge thickness. The results show that it is
possible to use thicker blade trailing edges in low pressure turbines without aerodynamic
penalty. This can lead to benefits in terms of mechanical integrity and manufacturing cost
reductions. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4026456]

1 Introduction requires a thick trailing edge (Zhou et al. [5]). In high pressure
turbines, the base pressure is much lower than the mixed-out static
The profile loss of a low pressure turbine blade is associated
pressure, so a thick trailing edge creates a large blockage loss,
with the blade surface boundary layers, the effects of the trailing
which is due to the mixing and flow diffusion downstream of the
edge, and flow mixing downstream of the trailing edge. Quite a
blade trailing edge.
few publications studied the boundary layers of high and ultra-
In low pressure turbines, the trailing edges are thinner than
high lift low pressure turbine blades, e.g., Zhang and Hodson [1]
those in high pressure turbines, and the trailing edge loss was
and Stieger and Hodson [2]. In these studies, the effects of Reyn-
found to be lower than the blade boundary layer loss. For a low
olds number and freestream turbulence intensity on the character-
pressure turbine blade with a Zweifel coefficient of about 0.9,
istics of the blade boundary layer, such as transition, were
Roberts [6] found that the trailing edge loss is approximately one
investigated. Hodson and Howell [3] reviewed the process of
third of the blade profile loss. Curtis et al. [7] studied two low
wake-induced boundary-layer transition and how this has enabled
pressure turbine blade profiles with equal loading. They found
successful development of ultrahigh-lift low-pressure turbines. In
that although the blade with the entirely laminar boundary layers
contrast, there are few open publications which specifically focus
had a lower boundary layer loss than the blade with a more turbu-
on the issue of the effects of the trailing edge on the profile loss of
lent boundary layer, the reduction in overall loss was much less
high or ultrahigh-lift low-pressure turbine blades.
than the reduction in the suction side boundary layer loss. This
In a high pressure turbine, the loss due to the blade trailing
highlights the importance of the effects of the blade trailing edge
edge could be higher than the boundary layer loss (Xu and Denton
and base pressure on loss.
[4]). This is because the cooling configuration of the blade
To predict the blade trailing edge loss, a control volume method
was proposed by Denton [8]. In this model the velocity (also the
1
Corresponding author. static pressure) was assumed to be uniform across the throat. If
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 6, 2013;
the trailing edge base pressure is lower than the mixed-out static
final manuscript received December 14, 2013; published online February 12, 2014. pressure, the trailing edge creates a loss. In general, the value of
Editor: Ronald Bunker. the base pressure must be obtained from empirical data. Hart et al.

Journal of Turbomachinery Copyright V

C 2014 by ASME AUGUST 2014, Vol. 136 / 081011-1

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1 Parameters of the low speed linear cascade

Parameter T106C T2

Chord (C) (mm) 198 172.4

Axial chord (Cx) (mm) 170 124
Pitch (s) (mm) 189.6 189.6
Span (h) (mm) 375 375
Baseline TE thickness (mm) 3.6 2.8
Suction surface length (mm) 264.7 243.7
Pressure surface length (mm) 230 193.8
Design inlet flow angle 32.7 32.7
Design exit flow angle 60.4 64.1
Zweifel lift coefficient 1.3 1.39

Fig. 1 Layout of cascade (Zhang [9])

[10] developed an empirical method of estimating the value for

the base pressure coefficient based on a large number of steam tur-
bine cascade tests.
For high-lift turbine blades, the velocity is highly nonuniform
across the pitch (Coull and Hodson [11]). If the base pressure is
lower than the mixed-out static pressure, increasing the trailing
edge thickness increases the loss (Herman et al. [12]). However,
for the ultrahigh-lift turbine blades studied in this paper, it is
found that the high blade lift (or circulation), which is associated
with significant uncovered turning, results in relatively low pres-
sure in the middle of blade passage near the exit plane and rela-
tively high pressure near the blade trailing edge. Therefore, it is
possible that the base pressure can be higher than the mixed-out
static pressure. This would reduce the mixing loss downstream the
trailing edge.
In this paper, experimental, numerical and analytical methods
are used to investigate the effect of the blade trailing edge thick-
ness on the profile losses of two ultrahigh-lift low-pressure turbine Fig. 2 Schematic of the T106C blade passage and measure-
ment planes
blades. A detailed investigation into the trailing edge plane flow
field is presented and used as basis for a breakdown of the profile
loss. The effects of the blade trailing edge thickness on the base
pressure coefficient, the profile loss and the mixing loss down- A moving bar wake generator was used to simulate unsteady
stream of the blade trailing edge are discussed in detail. wake passing conditions. The current bars were held between two
nylon belts. The nylon belts run on two sets of pulleys, driven by
a DC motor. The bar speed was monitored using a reflective opto-
2 Experimental Methods switch that was connected through a trigger box. The bars run in a
An open circuit wind tunnel in the Whittle Laboratory of Cam- plane parallel to the cascade inlet plane.
bridge University was used for the experiments. The ambient air The center blade was instrumented with surface static pressure
was sucked into the tunnel by a centrifugal fan and diffused over a tappings. A calibrated Neptune probe was used to measure the
series of splitter plates into a constant area duct. The air passed flow at the blade trailing edge plane in the pitchwise direction, as
through a honeycomb and a series of grids and gauzes to create shown in Fig. 2. The Neptune probe is shown in Fig. 3. The two
uniform flow. Near the exit of the wind tunnel, which is also the side ports (PY1 ,PY2 ) have an angle of 45 deg on each side of the
entrance to the cascade, there is a contraction of about 4:1 area- probe central plane. They are sensitive to the Yaw angle variation.
ratio that accelerates the flow. This contraction further smoothed The center port (PYC ) is used to measure the “total pressure.” The
the flow and reduced the turbulence intensity. The free stream tur- Neptune probe measures the stagnation pressure, the static pres-
bulence intensity at the exit of the tunnel is about 0.4%. sure and the yaw angle of the flow. The static port (PYS ), is located
The cascades used in the current study were used in quite a few apart from the other three ports. This Neptune probe measures the
previous studies, e.g., Stieger and Hodson [2] and Zhang and Hod- stagnation pressure, the static pressure and the yaw angle of the
son [1]. It has five blades. The layout of cascade is shown in flow at blade midspan.
Fig. 1. The main parameters of the T106C and the T2 are shown Very close to the blade surface, where the Neptune probe could
in Table 1. not be used due to its finite dimension, a hotwire probe was used

081011-2 / Vol. 136, AUGUST 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 3 Schematic of the Naptune probe
Fig. 4 Changing the thickness of blade trailing edge
instead to complete the velocity distribution. The remainder of the
pressure field was then estimated by means of a simple linear fit
between the blade surface values and nearest available Neptune
probe pressure value. The error introduced by this procedure is
very small as the estimations apply to only 4% of the pitch. The
Neptune probe also measures the flow at plane ‘2’ in Fig. 2, which
located 30% Chord downstream of the trailing edge.
The trailing edge thickness was changed by attaching a thin
insert on the blade pressure side near the trailing edge, as shown
in Fig. 4. Pieces with different thickness were used to simulate
different trailing edge thicknesses. The attached pieces were made
using a rapid prototyping technique, so that the insert nicely fol-
lowed the profile of the blade pressure side. The insert was
blended into the pressure side surface about 20% chord upstream
of the trailing edge. The Trailing edge pieces were attached using
glue and thin tape. It is noted that a slight change in the throat
area is introduced by the inserts. The profile of the blade suction
side surface remains unchanged to minimize the change of the
suction side surface boundary layer, which is the main contributor
to the profile loss. The loss due to the boundary layer on the blade
pressure side surface is small. During the experiment, the trailing
edge thicknesses of the bottom four blades in Fig. 1 were set to be
the same.
The base pressure is measured by a static pressure tapping
located on the blade trailing edge, which is indicated in Fig. 4.
The static pressure tapping is located on the center of the blade
trailing edge, when no piece was attached to thicken the trailing
edge. When pieces were used on the blade pressure side surface to
simulate thicker trailing edges, this static pressure tapping was
still used to measure the base pressure. With the attached piece,
the trailing edge is closer to, but no longer truly circular. The mea-
surement point will become closer to the suction side. Based on
the CFD simulation, the error in the base pressure measurement
will introduce a maximum error of 62% in the magnitude of pro-
file loss coefficient, which is about 0.03. This results in an uncer-
tainty of 60.0006 in the profile loss, which is small.
3 Uncertainty Analysis
A Pressure System Inc. (PSI) Pressure Scanner 9016 was used
to measure the mean pressure. The accuracy of the pressure read-
ings was validated by Druck DPI 520. The combined uncertainty
of both the random and the systematic uncertainty were better
than 0.2 Pa for the current measurement. The variation of exit
Reynolds number in the experiments was less than 0.5%.
The Neptune probe was calibrated at Reynolds number corre-
sponding to velocities of 30 m/s and 15 m/s. The difference in the
calibration maps of the two velocities is negligible. All of the
Journal of Turbomachinery
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 5 Midspan Cp distribution of T106C blade, Re 5 210,000,
exp.
velocities measured in the current study are within this range. The
uncertainty of the static and stagnation pressure measured by the
Neptune probe is about 0.3 Pa. The error bar is used later in this
paper to indicate the uncertainty of the loss measurement.
4 Results and Discussions
4.1 T106C Cascade
4.1.1 Blade Surface Static Pressure Coefficient. The surface
static pressure coefficient is defined as
P01  P
Cp ¼ (1)
P01  P2
where P01 is the upstream stagnation pressure, P is the local static
pressure and P2 is the averaged cascade exit static pressure.
Figure 5 shows the measured static pressure coefficient for the
T106C blade with the standard blade trailing edge thickness
(1.9% s) and double trailing edge thickness (3.8% s). The abscissa
is the fraction of the surface length. A separation bubble occurs on
the suction side surface at around 55% of the suction surface
length. The flow then reattaches at about 70% of the suction side
surface length. The five taps located from 80% s to 100% s on the
blade pressure surface are not plotted for the case with a trailing
edge thickness of 3.8% s, because the insert covers them.
As the trailing edge thickness increases, the throat area is
reduced, so the mass flow rate and the overall loading decrease.
As a result, increasing the trailing edge thickness slightly reduces
the peak Cp on the suction side. Nevertheless, this effect is small.
The base pressure coefficient is defined as
Pb  PM
Cpb ¼ (2)
P01  PM
where Pb is the base pressure and PM is the mixed-out static
pressure.
The measured static pressure distribution at the trailing plane of
the cascade is normalized in the same way as the base pressure
coefficient and is presented in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, a negative value
means that the static pressures at these locations are lower than
the mixed-out static pressure. For the T106C cascade, this area
extends from 14% to 67% of the pitch. Near the blade surfaces,
the static pressure is higher than the mixed-out static pressure.
This pressure difference accelerates the low velocity flow near the
trailing edge. This effect reduces the loss in the downstream mix-
ing process (Denton [8]).
4.1.2 Reduction of Loss. The mixed-out loss can be derived
from the measured data either at the trailing edge plane or 30%
chord downstream of the cascade in either case by using a
AUGUST 2014, Vol. 136 / 081011-3
 Fig. 6 Trailing edge plane normalized static pressure distribu-
tion of T106C, TE 5 1.9% s
constant area mixing calculation (Greitzer et al. [13], and Denton
[8]). For an incompressible flow, this involves assuming that the
mass flow rate and the momentum in the axial and tangential
directions are constant as the flow develops and mixes with a con-
stant area. The overall loss coefficient is defined as

P01  P0;M Fig. 7 Comparison of the mixed-out loss (Yp) calculated from
Yp ¼ (3)
P01  PM measurements in the trailing edge plane and in a plane 0.3 C
downstream of the trailing edge
where P0;M and PM are mixed-out stagnation and static pressure.
To breakdown the profile loss, the loss due to the blade surface distribution at the trailing edge plane (e.g., Denton [8]) cannot be
boundary layer can be obtained in the following way. The entropy used in this case. The analytical method used in this paper con-
generation within the boundary layer can be derived based on the ducts constant area mixing calculation (Greitzer et al. [13]) based
hotwire measurement as (Schlichting [14]) on the flow data measured on the trailing edge plane, the base
ð TE pressure and the trailing edge thickness.
q
S_BL ¼ S_A dS ¼ ðU 3 dE ÞTE (4)
LE 2T 4.1.3 Profile Loss of Standard Trailing Edge. A comparison
between the mixed-out total pressure loss coefficient values calcu-
where S_A is the rate of entropy production per surface area, U is lated from the traverses at the trailing edge plane and the traverses
the outer velocity of the boundary layer and dE is the Energy performed at a plane 0.3 C downstream of the trailing edge is pre-
thickness of the blade surface boundary layer at the blade trailing sented in Fig. 7. The ratio of the standard trailing edge thickness
edge. to pitch is 1.9%s. The Reynolds numbers of low pressure turbine
Using the method proposed by Greitzer et al. [13], the entropy blades range from about 0:5  105 in the final stage at high alti-
generation can then be related to the loss coefficient. tude in small business jet applications to about 5  105 at sea level
    takeoff in the first stage of the largest turbofans. (Hodson and
dE U3 P0;M  PM Howell [3]); when the Reynolds number is higher than 2  105 ,
Yp;BL ¼ 3
(5)
s cosðaM Þ VM TE P01  PM the effects of the Reynolds number on the loss become small. So,
in the current study, measurements were made at six Reynolds
In this calculation, the parameters of the energy thickness of the numbers of 0:5  105 , 0:7  105 , 0:9  105 , 1:2  105 , 1:5  105
boundary and the boundary layer edge velocity at the trailing edge and 2:1  105 . The dashed line is based on the measurement at six
were all measured. Using this method, the loss due to the blade Reynolds numbers. The loss coefficient reduces with increasing
pressure side boundary layer and suction side boundary layer can the Reynolds number. The effects of the Reynolds number on the
be derived, respectively. loss are mainly related to the flow separation and transition on the
The mixed-out loss coefficient can be broken down into two blade suction side surface, and are beyond the scope of the current
terms: the loss of stagnation pressure in the blade passage paper. Interested readers can refer to Zhang and Hodson [1] and
upstream of the trailing edge and the loss downstream of the cas- Mahallati and Sjolander [15].
cade as For the steady flow condition, it was decided only to consider
the trailing edge measurements down to a Reynolds number of
P01  P0;TE P0;TE  P0;M 120,000. For lower Reynolds numbers, where an open separation
Yp ¼ þ (6) increasingly occurs in steady flow conditions, the agreement
P01  PM P01  PM
between the measurements was not very good because of the
where P0;TE is the mass averaged stagnation pressure at the trail- reversed flow at the trailing edge, which could not be properly
ing edge plane. The first term on the right hand side is mainly due evaluated. However, excellent agreement for the mixed-out loss
to the boundary layers on the blade surface, the second term on coefficient was found over the entire Reynolds number range
the right hand side is the mixing loss, in which the base pressure under unsteady flow conditions because the flow is always
has an effect. The second term is the mixing loss downstream of attached at the trailing edge. This provides confidence in the anal-
the trailing edge plane. ysis that follows later in this paper.
Base pressure coefficient values reported in the literature are
P0;TE  P0;M commonly based on far downstream or mixed-out reference val-
Yp;M ¼ (7)
P01  PM ues. Values reported in the literature range between 0.1 and
0.2 (e.g., 0.13 by Hart et al. [10]). The base pressure coeffi-
The static pressure distribution at the trailing edge plane is highly cient calculated using the measured mixed-out values is presented
nonuniform, so the methods suggest a uniform static pressure in Fig. 8. In contrast to typical values reported in the literature, the

081011-4 / Vol. 136, AUGUST 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 8 Base pressure coefficient (Cpb ) development based on
mixed-out reference values
base pressure coefficient is positive over the entire Reynolds num-
ber range for this ultrahigh-lift blade. The static pressure far
downstream is lower than the trailing edge base pressure. Under
steady and unsteady flow conditions the base pressure coefficient
values are similar. The base pressure coefficient decreases with
decreasing Reynolds number. This is a consequence of the thick-
ening boundary layers leading to a lower base pressure at the trail-
ing edge. For a Reynolds number of 210,000, its value is 0.07,
while it is 0.024 at a Reynolds number of 50,000.
The breakdown of the profile loss is shown in Fig. 9 for the
entire Reynolds number range under consideration. The blade pro-
file loss is obtained from Eq. (4), and the trailing edge mixing loss
is obtained from Eq. (7). At higher Reynolds numbers, although,
the suction surface remains the greatest contributor over the entire
Reynolds number range, there is a distinct reallocation of the rela-
tive loss contribution. The contribution of the suction side bound-
ary layer to the overall profile loss increases and the downstream
mixing loss decreases. At a lower Reynolds number, the increas-
ingly incomplete transition process upstream of the blade trailing
edge and an increasing strength, size and failure to breakdown of
wake-induced vortices up stream of the trailing edge increases the
downstream mixing loss. This observation is consistent with the
study of Mahallati and Sjolander [15]. These effects lead to a
decrease of the suction surface contribution to the profile loss
from 70% at a Reynolds number 210,000 to 55% at a Reynolds
number of 50,000, while simultaneously the mixing contribution
to the profile loss increases from 25% to 41%, respectively. At a
Reynolds number of 50,000, the boundary layer on the blade pres-
sure side is thin and only accounts for 4% of the total loss.
4.1.4 Effects of Blade Trailing Edge Thickness. The effect of
trailing edge thickness was studied at a Reynolds number of
210,000 with steady upstream flow conditions without using the
wake generator bars. At a Reynolds number of 210,000, the
unsteadiness has a small effect on the profile loss (Fig. 7) and the
base pressure coefficient (Fig. 8). This is because the separation
bubble is small and the flow is always attached at the trailing edge
for all cases studied. The standard trailing edge thickness was
increased to investigate the effects of trailing edge thickness. Six
blade trailing edge thicknesses were studied, which were 1.9% s,
2.4% s, 2.8% s, 3.3% s, 3.8% s, and 4.8% s.
Figure 10 shows the effects of the trailing thickness on the base
pressure coefficient. As the trailing edge thickness increases, the
measured base pressure coefficient decreases almost linearly. This
will reduce the beneficial effect at the trailing edge due to the
Journal of Turbomachinery
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 9 Loss break down of T106C, Re 5 50,000, exp.
Fig. 10 Effects of TE thickness on Cpb , T106C, Re 5 210,000,
exp.
increased base pressure. When the trailing edge thickness
increases to 4.7%s, the measured base pressure is still slightly
higher than the mixed-out static pressure.
The high base pressure accelerates the flow in the wake and
reduces the mixing loss downstream of the blade trailing edge.
When the trailing edge thickness increases, there are three main
effects: (1) the area with high base pressure region increases,
which tends to reduce the downstream mixing loss; (2) the base
pressure reduces, which tends to increase the loss; and (3) the
flow diffusion downstream of the trailing edge, which tends to
increase the loss. The overall result is the combination of these
effects. As a result of the combined effects, Fig. 11 shows that the
measured loss remains almost unchanged as the trailing edge
thickness increases from 1.9% s to 2.8% s. Any further increase in
the trailing edge thickness significantly reduces the beneficial
effects of the base pressure but increases the diffusion of the flow.
So, when the trailing edge thickness increases beyond 2.8% s, the
loss increases.
A mixing calculation was also used to study the effect of thick-
ening the blade trailing edge. For cases with different trailing
edge thicknesses, the pitch increases by the same amount of the
increase in the trailing edge thickness. It is assumed that the width
of the blade passage at the trailing edge, as well as the flow distri-
bution at the trailing edge plane remains unchanged. The meas-
ured flow data in the blade passage for the blade with standard
trailing edge thickness were used for the mixing calculation. This
is a reasonable approximation. The measured base pressure coeffi-
cients of the blade with different trailing edge thicknesses were
used in the mixing calculation to examine the effects of the
increased trailing edge thickness.
AUGUST 2014, Vol. 136 / 081011-5

Fig. 11 Effects of TE thickness on mixed-out profile loss,
T106C, Re 5 210,000
Fig. 12 Cp distribution, T2, TE 5 1.4%s, Re 5 210,000
The effect of trailing edge thickness on the loss predicted by
the mixing calculation is shown in Fig. 11. For trailing edge thick-
nesses lower than 2.8% s, the change of the trailing edge thickness
has a marginal effect on the loss and the predicted results agree
with the experimental results. Further increase of the trailing edge
thickness increases the loss, but the magnitude is lower than that
shown in the experiment. In the experiment, the change of the
throat area reduces the mass flow rate and increases the exit angle
of the flow. These effects are not considered in the calculation.
4.2 The T2 Casade. The high speed version of the T2 profile
was designed at the von Karman Institute within the European
research project Unsteady Transitional flows in Axial Turboma-
chines (UTAT); Arts and Houtermans [16]. The T2 blade profile
used in this paper is the low speed redesign of high speed version
of the T2 profile. Similar to the T106C cascade, the T2 cascade is
a two-dimensional extrusion of the blade profile. The results based
on the T2 cascade presented in this paper were all obtained with
steady upstream flow conditions without using the wake generator
bars.
The Zweifel lift coefficient of the T2 Cascade is 1.39, which is
higher than the value of 1.3 in the case of the T106C cascade. The
effects of trailing edge thickness were studied at the exit Reynolds
number of 210,000. The flow attached at the trailing edge for all
cases studied. Experimental and analytical study were carried out
for six blade trailing edge thickness of 1.5%s, 1.9% s, 2.4% s,
2.9% s, 3.4% s, and 4.3% s for the T2 blade.
In addition to the experimental and analytical (i.e., mixing
calculation) methods, CFD was also used. The aerodynamic
081011-6 / Vol. 136, AUGUST 2014
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 13 Cp distribution, T2, CFD, Re 5 210,000
Fig. 14 Pressure distribution at trailing edge plane of T2 blade
(normalized as Cpb ), Re 5 210,000
performance of the T2 blade with standard trailing edge thickness
(1.4% s) and double thickness (2.9% s) were simulated.
The commercial code FLUENT was used to solve steady
RANS equations. ICEMCFD was used to create structured meshes
of the 2D cascade. The average blade surface Yþ is 0.42. The con-
vergence level of the continuity was better than 2  105 . The
convergence level of other parameters, such as velocity, is better
than the continuity. The change of loss was required to be less
than 0.01% over 2000 iterations. The boundary conditions were
set as in the experiment.
The turbulence models of Spalart–Allmaras, standard k-e, k-x
SST (2-equation) and transition k-x SST (4-equation) were used.
It was found that the Spalart–Allmaras model and the k-e model
over predicted the loss significantly, so the predicted results with
these models are not used. The k-x SST model and the transition
k-x SST mode produced good predictions and their results will be
presented.
4.2.1 Static Pressure Distributions. The measured and pre-
dicted distributions of the static pressure coefficient on the T2
blade surface are shown in Fig. 12. A separation bubble occurs
from about 50% S0 and reattaches at 70% S0. For all of the blade
trailing edge thicknesses that were investigated, the flow on the
suction side surface reattaches upstream of the blade trailing edge.
The CFD prediction with both the k-x SST model and the transi-
tion k-x SST agree well with the experimental results. The transi-
tion k-x SST model produces the best prediction in terms of the
separation and reattachment on the blade suction side surface, so
its result will be presented later in this paper unless specified
otherwise.
Figure 13 shows the predicted static pressure coefficient distri-
bution for the T2 with trailing edge of 1.4% s and 2.9% s. This
figure shows that the static pressure coefficient near the trailing
edge is lower than the static pressure coefficient downstream,
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Effects of trailing edge thickness on Cpb Table 3 Experimental and CFD results of mixed-out profile
loss using two turbulence models
Exp. k-x SST Transition k-x SST
k-x SST Transition k-x SST Exp.
TE ¼ 1.4% s 0.2 0.14 0.2
TE ¼ 2.9% s 0.14 0.14 0.15 TE ¼ 1.4% s 0.0308 0.0296 0.032
TE ¼ 2.9% s 0.0298 0.0305 0.032
Increment 0.001 0.0009 0
Percentage 3% 3% 0

Table 4 Mixing loss downstream of the trailing edge

Mixing loss downstream of TE

TE ¼ 1.4% s, SST 0.0116

TE ¼ 2.9% s, SST 0.0098
TE ¼ 1.4% s, transition k-x SST 0.0098
TE ¼ 2.9% s, transition k-x SST 0.0092

Fig. 15 Effects of trailing edge thickness on the mixed-out pro-

file loss, T2 blade, Re 5 210,000

which means the base pressure is higher than the downstream

static pressure. Increasing the trailing edge thickness does not
have a big effect on the static pressure distribution.
Figure 14 shows the pressure distribution at the trailing edge
planes of the two cascades. Due to a high Zweifel lift coefficient,
the pressure near the blade trailing edge of the T2 cascade is
much higher than the mixed out static pressure, especially on the
suction side. Therefore, increasing the blade trailing edge thick-
ness is more beneficial for the T2 cascade than the T106C cascade
in terms of downstream mixing loss. Despite the fact that the CFD
slightly under predicted the value of the pressure, the overall
distribution agrees well with the experimental data.
As shown in Table 2, when the trailing edge thickness
increases, the measured base pressure coefficient is reduced. The
prediction of the Transition k-x SST model agrees with the exper-
imental result and predicts a similar reduction of the base pressure
coefficient. However, the k-x SST model did not predict a reduc-
tion of the base pressure coefficient. The Cp distributions are simi-
lar for both cases, except for the regions near the trailing edge.
This may require an investigation into the numerical methods,
which is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, the analysis
based on the CFD results improved the understanding of the
effects of blade trailing edge thickness.
4.2.2 Loss. In Fig. 15, the experimental results show that as
the trailing edge thickness of the T2 cascade increases, the loss
first reduces and then increases, due to the combined effect when
the trailing edge thickness increases.
Mixing calculations were carried out for the T2 cascade in the
similar way to the T106C cascade. The result shows that the loss
first decreases and then kept almost constant. Similar to the
T106C cascade, the difference may be associated with the effect
of the reduced throat area as the trailing edge thickness increases.
Table 3 shows the measured profile loss of the T2 blade along
with CFD results using different turbulence models. The SST k-x
model and the transition ST k-x model achieve close prediction
of the magnitude of the blade profile loss. When the trailing edge
thickness doubles, the SST k-x model predicts a reduction of loss
of 3% and the transition k-x SST model predicts a loss increase of
3%.
A reduction of the base pressure coefficient increases the mix-
ing loss downstream of the blade trailing edge. For the k-x SST
Fig. 16 Effect of trailing edge thickness on base pressure
coefficient of T2 blade, exp., Re 5 210,000
model, the increase of the trailing edge thickness did not change
the base pressure, as shown in Table 2. For the Transition k-x
SST model, the base pressure coefficient reduces as the trailing
edge thickness increases. This results in a slight increase of the
loss. Nevertheless, a 3% change of the profile loss is small and
within the measurement uncertainty.
Table 4 shows the mixing loss downstream of the trailing edge
plane, which is obtained by subtract the mass averaged stagnation
pressure coefficient at the blade trailing edge plane from the
mixed-out loss. Both turbulence models predict a mixing loss
reduction when the trailing edge thickness increases. The Transi-
tion k-x SST model predicted a loss reduction of 0.0006 when the
trailing edge thickness increases. k-x SST model predicts more
loss reduction of 0.0018. This is because, as shown in Table 2, the
transition k-x SST model predicted that the base pressure coeffi-
cient reduced by 0.05 when the trailing edge thickness doubles,
but the k-x SST model predicts the same value for both trailing
edge thicknesses. This causes a difference of 0.0012, which is 4%
of the profile loss, and is small.
4.2.3 Effects of Base Pressure Coefficient. Figure 16 shows
that the base pressure coefficient reduces as the blade trailing
edge thickness increases. For the T2 blade, even for the thickest
trailing edge, the measured base pressure is still much higher than
the mixed-out static pressure.
To examine the effects of the base pressure coefficient, a mix-
ing calculation was conducted for different blade trailing edge
thicknesses using different base pressure coefficient. The results
are shown in Fig. 17. The loss variation against the base pressure
coefficient is larger for a thicker trailing edge.

Journal of Turbomachinery AUGUST 2014, Vol. 136 / 081011-7

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 17 Sensitivity of mixing loss prediction to variations in
Cpb for T2 blade, mixing calculation based on measured data at
trailing edge plane, Re 5 210,000
Fig. 18 Effects of trailing edge thickness on exit angle of the
T2 blade, exp., Re 5 210,000
Table 5 Effects of changing the pitch by 1.7% s, transition k-x
SST, Re 5 210,000
Mixed-out profile loss Exit flow angle
TE ¼ 1.4% s 0.0296 62.8
TE ¼ 2.9% s, standard pitch 0.0305 63.6
TE ¼ 2.9% s, increased pitch 0.0303 63.2
4.2.4 Effects of the Size of the Pitch. In the experiment, when
the thickness of the blade trailing edge increases, the pitch of the
cascade was not changed. This results in a reduction in the ratio of
the throat to the pitch. As a result, the exit angle increases slightly
and the mass flow rate per passage reduces. Figure 18 shows that
when the trailing edge thickness increases from 1.4% s to 2.9% s,
the exit angle increases by about 0.7 deg. The CFD method under
predicted the magnitude of the exit flow angle, as shown in Table
5. However, as the trailing edge thickness increases from 1.4% s
to 2.9% s, the CFD predicts that exit angle increases by 0.8 deg,
which is similar to the value obtained by experiment.
The CFD results show that the mass flow rates per passage
reduce by 2% when the trailing edge thickness increases from
1.4% s to 2.9% s. Numerical simulations were carried out by fix-
ing the trailing edge thickness to 2.9% s and increase the original
pitch by 1.7% s, so that the exit mass flow rate is the same as the
case with the trailing edge thickness of 1.4% s if the pitch is not
changed. As shown in Table 5, the exit angle decreases, because
the throat to pitch ratio reduces slightly and the boundary layer
thickens on the blade suction side surface. The loss is almost
unchanged as the pitch increases.
081011-8 / Vol. 136, AUGUST 2014
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
5 Conclusions
Experimental, numerical and analytical methods were used to
investigate the effects of the blade trailing edge thickness on the
profile loss of ultrahigh-lift low-pressure turbine blades. Two cas-
cades, the T106C and the T2 cascade, were studied. The mixed-
out profile loss obtained based on the data at the blade trailing
edge plane and the plane 0.3 chord downstream of the trailing
edge agree with each other for T106C blade with and without
upstream wakes at different Reynolds numbers. For T106C cas-
cade, the profile loss reduces with increasing Reynolds number
and with unsteady upstream wakes. At higher Reynolds numbers,
although, the suction surface remains the greatest contributor over
the entire Reynolds number range, there is a distinct reallocation
of the relative loss contribution. The contribution of the suction
side boundary layer to the overall profile loss increases and the
downstream mixing loss decreases. These effects lead to a
decrease of the suction surface contribution to the profile loss
from 70% at a Reynolds number 210,000 to 55% at a Reynolds
number of 50,000, while simultaneously the mixing contribution
to the profile loss increases from 25% to 41%, respectively. At a
Reynolds number of 50,000, the boundary layer on the blade pres-
sure side is thin and only accounts for 4% of the total loss.
It is found that the flow distributions at the trailing edge plane
are highly nonuniform due to the ultrahigh lift design. A striking
observation is made regarding the base pressure, which is higher
than the mixed-out static pressure and reduces the mixing loss
downstream of the cascade. Based on this new finding, the effects
of trailing edge thickness on the profile loss were studied at a
Reynolds number of 210,000, when the flow attaches on the trail-
ing edge and the effects of unsteadiness is small. When the trail-
ing edge thickness increases, there are three main effects on the
loss: (1) the area with high base pressure region increases, which
tends to reduce the downstream mixing loss; (2) the base pressure
reduces, which tends to increase the loss; (3) and the flow diffu-
sion downstream of the trailing edge, which tends to increase the
loss. The net result is the combination of these effects.
For the T106C cascade, experimental results show that increas-
ing the trailing edge thickness from 1.9% s to 2.8% s has a small
effect on the blade profile loss. Further increases of the trailing
edge thickness will increase the loss.
For the T2 blade, which has a higher Zweifel lift coefficient
than the T106C blade, the beneficial effect of the base pressure is
more evident. It is found that the SST k-x model and the transi-
tion SST k-x model achieve good predictions compared to the ex-
perimental results. When the trailing edge thickness increases,
experimental results show that the loss first reduces, and then
increases. When the trailing edge thickness increases from 1.4% s
to 2.9% s, the SST k-x model predicts a reduction of loss of 3%
and the transition SST k-x model predicts a loss increase of 3%.
A 3% change of the profile loss is within the measurement uncer-
tainty. As the trailing edge thickness increases from 1.4% s to
2.9% s, the CFD results show that the mixing downstream of the
trailing edge reduces slightly. The study also showed that the
value of the base pressure coefficient has a larger effect for a
thicker blade.
Nowadays, it is generally accepted that a thinner trailing edge
results in less loss for turbine blades. The findings in his paper
show that for an ultrahigh lifted design, the loss will not be very
sensitive to moderate increases of the blade trailing edge thickness
within certain range. In some cases, using a thicker trailing edge
may even reduce the loss. Using a thicker trailing edge may bring
benefits in terms of structural integrity. Using a thicker trailing
edge or allowing a higher tolerance of deviations in the blade trail-
ing edge thickness will also reduce the manufacturing cost.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Yong-Sang Yoon
for his help during the experiment. The authors would also
Transactions of the ASME
 acknowledge the technique staff in the Whittle Laboratory, espe- q ¼ density
cially Mr. John Saunders, for their support of the experiment. The s ¼ tip gap height
first author would like to thank the support of the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC), Grant No. 11202008, and
the Supported of Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace
Subscripts
Power Systems (No. APS-2013-01). is ¼ Isentropic condition
M¼ mixed-out exit condition
1¼ cascade inlet free stream
Nomenclature 2¼ cascade exit (30% C downstream of blade trailing edge)
C¼ blade chord References
Cp ¼ surface static pressure coefficient [1] Zhang, X. F., and Hodson, H., 2010, “Effects of Reynolds Number and Free-
Cpb ¼ base pressure coefficient, Eq. (2) stream Turbulence Intensity on the Unsteady Boundary Layer Development on
Cx ¼ blade axial chord an Ultra-High-Lift Low Pressure Turbine Airfoil,” ASME J. Turbomach.,
Cy ¼ blade tangential chord 132(1), p. 011016.
[2] Stieger, R. D., and Hodson, H. P., 2004, “The Transition Mechanism of Highly
fr ¼ reduced frequency¼ ðUb CÞ=ðsb V2;is Þ Lift Low-Pressure Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(4), pp.
h¼ span 536–543.
m_ ¼ mass flow rate [3] Hodson, H., and Howell, R., 2005, “Bladerow Interactions, Transition, and
P¼ static pressure High-Lift Aerofoils in Low Pressure Turbines,” Ann. Rev., 37, pp. 71–98.
[4] Xu., L., and Denton, J. D., 1988, “The Base Pressure and Loss of a Family of
Pb ¼ base pressure
Four Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 110(1), pp. 9–17.
PM ¼ mixed out static pressure [5] Zhou C., Chang, H., Cui, D., and Mao, J., 2006, “Numerical Investigation of
PY1 ¼ side port 1 of the Neptune probe the Cooling Flow Downstream of a Turbine Guide Vane Trailing Edge Slot,” J.
PY2 ¼ side port 2 of the Neptune probe Aerosp. Power, 21(2), pp. 268–274.
[6] Roberts, Q., 1997, “The Trailing Edge Loss of Subsonic Turbine Blades,”
PYC ¼ center port of the Neptune probe Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
PYS ¼ static pressure port of the Neptune probe [7] Curtis, E. M., Hodson, H. P., Banieghbal, M. R., Denton, J. D., Howell, R. J.,
P0 ¼ stagnation pressure and Harvey, N. W., 1997, “Development of Blade Profiles for Low-Pressure
P2 ¼ averaged cascade exit static pressure Turbine Applications,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(3), pp. 531–539.
Re ¼ Reynolds number ¼ qCV2;is =l [8] Denton, J., 1993, “Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbom-
ach., 115(4), pp. 621–657.
s¼ pitch [9] Hart, M., Hall, D. M., and Singh, G., 1991, “Computational Methods for the
S¼ surface coordinate Aerodynamic Development of Large Steam Turbines,” IMechE Paper No.
sb ¼ bar pitch C432/009.
S_A ¼ rate of entropy production per surface area [10] Coull, J., and Hodson, H., 2012, “Predicting the Profile Loss of High-Lift Low
Pressure Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(2), p. 021002.
S_BL ¼ total rate of entropy production per length in boundary [11] Prust, H. W., Jr., and Helon, R. M., 1972, “Effect of Trailing-Edge Geometry
layer and Thickness on the Performance of Certain Turbine Stator Blading,” NASA
S0 ¼ suction surface length Paper No. TN D-6637.
T¼ temperature [12] Greitzer, E. M., Tan, C. S., and Graf, M. B., 2005, Internal Flow Concepts and
Applications, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
TE ¼ trailing edge [13] Schlichting, H., 1979, Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
U¼ outer edge velocity York.
Ub ¼ bar velocity [14] Mahallati, A., and Sjolander, S. A., 2007, “Aerodynamics of a Low Pressure
Turbine Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers. Part 2: Blade-Wake Interactions,”
V¼ velocity ASME Paper No. GT2007-27348.
V2;is ¼ isentropic exit velocity [15] Arts, T., and Houtermans, R., 2005, “High Speed T2 Cascade Tests at VKI,”
Yp ¼ overall profile loss coefficient ((Eq. (3)) Unsteady Transitional Flows in Axial Turbomachines (UTAT) Project Report
a¼ angle No. R-D2.3.9-P11/05.
dE ¼ energy thickness [16] Zhang, X., 2005, “Separation and Transition Control on Ultra-High-Lift Low
Pressure Turbine Blades in Unsteady Flow,” Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge
l¼ dynamic viscosity University, Cambridge, UK.

Journal of Turbomachinery AUGUST 2014, Vol. 136 / 081011-9

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms