Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Fluids Engineering Summer Meeting
FEDSM2012
STUDY OF FLOW CONTROLLING ON LP TURBINE AT DIFFERENT REYNOLDS
NUMBER
Muhammad Aqib Chishty
Research Centre for Modeling & Simulation
National University of Sciences & Technology
Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
Khalid Parvez
Research Centre for Modeling & Simulation
National University of Sciences & Technology
Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
ABSTRACT
Active and passive techniques have been used in the past,
to control flow separation. Numerous studies were published on
controlling and delaying the flow separation on low pressure
turbine. In this study, a single dimple (i.e. passive device) is
engraved on the suction side of LP turbine cascade T106A. The
main aim of this research is to find out the optimum parameters
of dimple i.e. diameter (D) and depth(h) which can produce
strong enough vortex that can control the flow either in
transition or fully turbulent phase. Furthermore, this optimal
dimple is engraved to suppress the boundary layer separation at
different Reynolds number (based on the chord length and inlet
velocity). The dimple of different depth and diameter are used
to find the optimal depth to diameter ratio. Computational
results show that the optimal ratio of depth to diameter (h/D)
for dimple is 0.0845 and depth to grid boundary layer (h/δ) is
0.5152. This optimized dimple efficiently reduces the
normalized loss coefficient and it is found that the negative
values of shear stresses found in uncontrolled case are being
removed by the dimple. After that, dimple of optimized
parameters are used to suppress the laminar separation bubble
at different Re~25000, 50000 and 91000. It was noticed that the
dimple did not reduce the losses at Re~25000. But at
Re~50000, it produced such a strong vortex that reduced the
normalized loss coefficient to 25%, while 5% losses were
reduced at Re~91000. It can be concluded that the optimized
dimple effectively controlled flow separation and reduced
normalized loss coefficient from Re 25000 to 91000. As the
losses are decreased, this will increase the low pressure turbine
efficiency and reduce its fuel consumption.
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 8-12, 2012, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico
FEDSM2012-72094
Hossein Raza Hamdani
Research Centre for Modeling & Simulation
National University of Sciences & Technology
Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
Muhammad Nafees Mumtaz Qadri
Research Centre for Modeling & Simulation
National University of Sciences & Technology
Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
Low pressure turbine plays a vital role in increasing the
effectiveness of engine. Many researches were carried out to
investigate the boundary layer separation in LP turbine. This
separation occurs at any place on the wings, airfoils, or in
engine inlets where the pressure gradient is high. When the
Reynolds number is low the velocity of fluid particles near the
wall surface decreased so much that reversal of the flow is
being done on that point which we generally called the
separation. This separation directly affects the efficiency of low
pressure turbine and increase the fuel consumption. It has been
perceived that 1% improve in efficiency will reduce the fuel
cost of 0.5 to 1% [1].
Turbine is designed to operate efficiently at high Reynolds
number but at higher altitude, this Reynolds number decrease to
25000 due to the low air density [2]. Sharma [3] observed that
300% increase in loss coefficient if the gas turbine Reynolds
number reduces to 95000 or below. This decrease Reynolds
number result in higher pressure gradients. Due to these
pressure gradients, shear wall stress at wall approaches to zero
and flow starts to separate with a formation of laminar
separation bubble (LSB) on the suction side of LP turbine that
may or may not attach with the blade surface as reported by
Luo et al [4]. The size of separation bubble has direct relation
with the aerodynamics performance formulated by Mayle [5].
Turbulent flow is more energetic flow and is more resistant
over pressure gradient in comparison with the laminar flow.
Due to this advantage, different flow control devices are to use
to suppress the boundary layer separation or trip the incoming
laminar flow into turbulent. The parameters which directly
affect the transition are free stream turbulence intensity,
turbulent length scale, pressure gradient and roughness of blade
 surface [6]. Different works have been done to investigate the transient effects are captured through Gamma theta SST
re-attachment of boundary layer to blade surface and showed transition model that give the confined features of flow over the
that separated flow is fully turbulent [5,7]. cascade and inside the dimple at different Reynolds numbers.
Almost, all the separation control techniques involve the Pressure distribution plot over the pressure and suction side of
stream wise vortices in some form. Well known active cascade is plotted along with the boundary layer profiles; also
techniques used for flow controlling include: plasma actuators normalized loss coefficient is computed in each case. The cases
[2], suction or blowing [8], MEMS devices [9] and actively and techniques discussed in this paper are only applicable for
forced flows [10]. Passive techniques include: roughness, 2D analysis and for the blade of different turbines which are
grooves, riblets [11], turbulent trips [10, 11], bump [12], similar in shape to the cascade T106A.
dimples [13, 14] and Large Eddy Breakup Devices (LEBU‟s).
Passive devices do not require any external energy to drive NOMENCLATURE
them. Also, passive devices control the flow at low Reynolds Re Reynolds number
number and they have no adverse effect on high Reynolds C Chord length
number. Due to these advantages of passive devices, one can Cax Axial chord length
use dimple (i.e. passive device) to control the flow separation p Static pressure
on low pressure turbine. Lake [15] reported that dimple Pt Total pressure
energizes the flow and force the early transition acting like a Pdyn Dynamic pressure
vortex generator. Lake [16] also tested the effectiveness of Cp Pressure coefficient, (Pt-p)/Pdyn
dimples and v-grooves for flow controlling. Vincent [17] also h Depth of dimple
suggested that dimple acts as vortex generator and aid to mix D Diameter of dimple
the low energy boundary layer with the high energy free stream h/D Depth to Diameter ratio
flow. δ Grid Boundary Layer
Bearman [13] used the shallow spherical dimple in which h/ δ Depth to Grid Boundary Layer ratio
depth to surface diameter ratio of dimple is (h/D) is 0.1. They γ Intermittency
concluded that concave dimples reduced the drag penalty and 𝑈 Local velocity
caused early transition. Figure 1 shows the schematic view of 𝜃 Momentum thickness
dimple in which depth, diameter and grid boundary layer are 𝜌 Density
shown. Bearman [18] also showed that shallow dimples 𝜇 Molecular viscosity
(h/D=0.088) reduce drag more effectively as compared to 𝜇𝑡 Eddy viscosity
smooth cylinder dimples. LSB Laminar separation bubble
T.K.E Turbulent kinetic energy
ω = (Pin-Pout)/Pdyn in Loss coefficient
Pγ = f (Flength, Fonset) Transitional sources
h Eγ = f (Flength, Fonset) Destruction sources
PΘt = f (ReΘt) Source term
Flength Influences the transition length
Fonset Controls the starting of the transition
ReΘt Transition Reynoldsnumber
URANS Unsteady Reynolds Navier Stroke‟s equation
δ COMPUTATIONAL SETUP
D The detail investigation of unsteady boundary layer
development has been conducted on the T106A LP Turbine.
The details of geometry are extracted from Steiger [19] and
Table 1 shows the specifications of this geometry. The 2D
geometry is made using pre-processor mesh generation
FIGURE 1: SCHEMATIC VIEW OF DIMPLE software Gambit® according to the specifications mention in
the Table 1. Due to the presence of periodicity, translational
In this paper, dimple of different depths and diameters are periodic conditions are applied to model only one blade to
engraved on the suction side of LPT cascade T106A to control conserve the computational power. Figure 2 shows the
the flow separation at different Reynolds numbers. 2D geometry which is designed according to the parameters given
simulations are run to captured the flow physics over the in the Table 1. The axial chord and chord are mentioned in the
cascade. Shape of dimple is shown in Fig. 1. From the Fig. 2. while, the inlet angle is 37.7o and the designed exit flow
literature, there exists a relationship between the dimple depth angle is 63.2o. The inlet Reynolds number depends upon the
(h), diameter (D) and grid boundary layer (δ) [14]. The exit Reynolds number and the chord length.

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1: CASCADE T106A SPECIFICATION SST Gamma Theta model has few advantages over the
other turbulence models. In this model transition correlations
Number of blades 5 onset is improved, which helps to predict the natural and bypass
Inlet angle(o) 37.7 transition more accurately. Secondly, near the separation point
Blade Stagger(o) 30.7
early transition is caused, which is solved by a modifying the
Length of suction surface(mm) 264.7
separation induced transition modification in it. Thirdly, this
Flow angle at exit(o) 63.2
Outlet Reynolds number 1.6×105
Chord(mm) 198
Axial chord(mm) 170
Pitch(mm) 158
Length of pressure surface(mm) 230.0

FIGURE 3: 2D MESH AROUND T106A CASCADE

FIGURE 2: T106A LP TURBINE CASCADE

GRID GENERATION
Figure 3 shows 2D mesh around the T106A cascade in
which the seal view of leading and trailing edge are also shown.
Laminar boundary layer is created around the cascade by using
the formula [20] while the unstructured meshing is used in the
rest of the flow domain. Grid points are converged close to
cascade surface which guarantees the y+ remains below 1.
Velocity inlet is used in each case while the pressure outlet at
the exit. In the Fig. 1., graphical smooth edge shallow dimple is
shown while the mesh around this shallow dimple is shown in
the Fig. 4.
ANSYS Fluent® finite vloume based CFD commerical FIGURE 4: MESH AROUND THE DIMPLE
code is used for computations. The pressure based solver is
used because Re is low and due to locally un-steadiness in the model explain the better flow history on the location of
flow, transient case is run. In viscous model, the SST transition transition onset by correcting of the model coefficients [21].
or Gamma-Theta [21] is used for the transient case which is The transport equations of Gamma Theta Model are:
accurate for the prediction of transition. PISO algorithm is used
in the pressure-velocity coupling scheme as it is recommended 𝜕(𝜌𝛾) 𝜕(𝜌𝑈𝑖 𝛾) 𝜕 𝜇𝑡 𝜕𝛾
for transient flow calculations, especially for large time step- + = 𝑃𝛾 − 𝐸𝛾 + 𝜇+ (1)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜎𝑓 𝜕𝑥𝑖
size. Least Squares Cell-Based Gradient Evaluation is used
instead of Node-Based Gradient, as it is computationally less 𝜕(𝜌ReΘt ) 𝜕(𝜌𝑈𝑖 ReΘt ) 𝜕 𝜕ReΘt
intensive and the accuracy of both is comparable in + = 𝑃Θt + 𝜎 𝜇 + 𝜇𝑡 (2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 Θt 𝜕𝑥𝑖
unstructured meshing. Second order upwind scheme is used for The first equation is used to solve intermittency γ and second
the computations. Net mass flow rate is taken as a convergence one is designed for momentum thickness Reynolds number
criteria and it is computed up to 10-7kg/s. ReΘ. At the inlet intermittency (γ) is fixed to 1 and due to the
normal flux γ is taken as zero at walls. For the conservation of

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the original model FST decay rate, γ is set to be equal to 1. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
These transport equations do not model the physics of transition A. Diameter Variation Analysis with Fixed Depth and
process but form a frame work for implementation of transition Location at Re~91000
correlations into general purpose CFD methods [21]. The inlet First task is to figure out the best diameter (D) of the
velocity is calculated from outlet Re~1.6×10 5where the flow is dimple. We use the rule of thumb from Robarge[22] that depth
coming at an angle of 37.70 with free stream turbulence (h) to grid boundary layer (δ) ratio used at that time is 0.6 to 1.0
intensity (FSTI) of 0.4%. and depth (h) to diameter (D) ratio is 0.1 to 0.15. In our case
h/δ = 0.6 is used and that will remain constant and h/D is varied
CFD VALIDATION to get the best D. Different diameter of dimple is implied from
The effects of grid size and time step study are considered D = 10mm to D = 30mm at 65%Cax to control the separation at
to match the experimental results. For the cascade T106A, grid Re~91000. Table 2 shows the data of different diameter of
resolution and time independence study were done at Re 91000. dimple used in this study.
Grid independence study is done for 40000, 70000 and 90000
cells. 70000 and 90000 cells grid are giving much better and TABLE 2: DIAMETER VARIATION DATA WITH FIXED h/δ
similar results in comparison with the experimental data. 90000
cells grid is much computationally intensive in contrast with δ (mm) h (mm) D (mm) h/δ h/D
70000 cells grid, so 70000 cells grid is used to decrease the
computational power. For time sensitivity study, three different 3.2804 2 10 0.6 0.2
time steps were used 0.01s, 0.001s and 0.0001s. The result of 3.2804 2 12.5 0.6 0.16
0.001s is same in comparison with the 0.0001s, so 0.001s is
3.2804 2 15 0.6 0.133333
taken for further study.
The Cp plots of the CFD and the available experimental 3.2804 2 17.5 0.6 0.114286
data are compared for validation. While comparing similar
3.2804 2 20 0.6 0.1
geometries, the important thing is to maintain consistency
between the meshes created for different conditions. The mesh 3.2804 2 22.25 0.6 0.089888
size that produced adequate grid independent results is in 3.2804 2 25 0.6 0.08
computational setup section. Figure 5 shows the comparison of
co-efficient of pressure of Steiger (experimental) and Gamma-
Theta model (numerical) having an exit Re=1.6×10 5. The Figure 6 shows the normalized Loss coefficient plot in
numerically computed plot is in good agreement with the which „h/δ‟ is fixed and „h/D‟ is varied at 65%Cax. The best
Steiger‟s experimental plot. Suction and pressure side of blade depth to diameter ratio (h/D) which can be used for the dimple
are shown in the Fig. 5. for steady state simulation. The peak is 0.1, as the normalized loss coefficient is lowest of 0.986.
value occur on suction side at x/Cax=0.60. LSB start building
From this ratio, table 2 specify that the D = 20mm.
around x/Cax=0.78 and continues till x/Cax=0.90 and flow
reattaches at x/Cax=0.96.
Normalized Loss Coefficient

1.06
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
0.07 0.12 0.17 0.22
h/D

FIGURE 6: NORMALIZED LOSS COEFFICIENT PLOT WITH

DIFFERENT h/D RATIOS

Figure 7 represents the clear visualization of flow inside

the dimple. Flow is captured inside the dimple and due to this,
FIGURE 5: CFD VALIDATION PLOT vortex generator (VG) is formed which forced the flow to
remain attached to the blade surface. So, just after the dimple,

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 flow is completely attached and LSB is removed. Due to this, 3.2804 3 20 0.914523 0.15
normalized loss coefficient is reduced 2% from the base case. If
we further decrease the h/D ratio, much bigger vortex is created Figure 9 represents the normalized loss coefficient
inside the dimple because the diameter of dimple is increased. plotted against the different depth to diameter ratio (h/D).
Due to this, large vortex formed inside the dimple which
increases the loss coefficient.

FIGURE 8: DIMPLE OF DIFFERENT DEPTHS

From this plot in starting when h/D = 0.05, normalized loss

coefficient is low, but it increase with the increase in h/D ratio.
As the h/D = 0.0845, normalized loss coefficient reduced to
0.956. But after that point if h/D is increased more, normalized
loss coefficient also increased. The best h/D specified from
results was 0.0845, as the normalized loss coefficient is reduced
FIGURE 7: STREAMLINES PLOTTED FOR DIMPLE OF
20mm DIAMETER to 5% from the baseline case, that is 3% more than previous
study in which h/D = 0.1. The depth found from this h/D ratio
is 1.69mm. These two studies were done on the 65%Cax.
B. Depth Variation Analysis with Fixed Diameter and 1.4
Location at Re~91000
Normalized Loss Coefficient

1.3
In the second study we aim to find out the finest depth
1.2
(h) of the dimple where separation losses are minimum and
flow is better controlled. Diameter (D) of the dimple is found in 1.1
early section which is 20mm, so after this all geometries are 1
built with this diameter. In this study h/D ratio is varied by
keeping the D constant i.e. 20mm from where we find the 0.9

optimal h at Re~91000. Table 3 shows the data of different 0.8

depths of dimple used in this study. Figure 8 shows the
0.7
different depths of dimple used in the study.
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
h/D
TABLE 3: DEPTH VARIATION DATA
FIGURE 9: NORMALIZED LOSS COEFFICIENT WITH
δ (mm) h (mm) D (mm) h/δ h/D DIFFERENT h/D RATIOS
3.2804 1 20 0.304841 0.05
3.2804 1.25 20 0.381051 0.0625 Figure 10 represents the comparison of baseline case with
3.2804 1.5 20 0.457261 0.075 dimple case of depth h = 1.69mm i.e. h/D = 0.0845. The dotted
line case is baseline case, in which peak value of Cp occurs at
3.2804 1.69 20 0.515181 0.0845
x/Cax = 0.60 and the separation peak is lie at x/Cax = 0.78 and it
3.2804 2 20 0.609682 0.1 will continue till x/Cax = 0.96. This interval of separation shows
3.2804 2.54 20 0.774296 0.127 the presence of high pressure gradient which decelerate the
flow and produce losses. The solid line represents the dimple

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 case with h/D = 0.0845 (D = 20mm and h = 1.69mm) at
65%Cax, the separation peak is removed by the vortex created
inside dimple and the spike in dimple Cp plot is representing its
axial location i.e., 65%Cax. The real phenomenon is this; the
fluid near wall has low energy as compared to the upper layer
of fluid. Dimple captured this low energy flow inside it and the
upper layers follow their path, so a turbulent layer is created
above the dimple and flow is attached due to this layer. So,
dimple has detached the separation and high pressure gradient
region is removed.
11 (a) h = 1mm 11 (b) h = 1.25mm

11 (c)h = 1.5mm 11 (d) h = 1.69mm

FIGURE 10: Cp PLOT COMPARISON OF BASELINE CASE

WITH h/D = 0.0845

Figure 11 shows the streamlines inside the dimple of

11 (e)h = 2mm 11 (f) h = 2.54mm
different depths at 65%Cax. The main aim of this vortex
generator is that, it captured the incoming laminar flow and
forced to trip it into the turbulent flow. In Fig. (a), the small
vortex is seen inside the dimple and rest of the flow is
following its path. The vortex try to trip the incoming flow but
it is not strong enough to do that. In 1mm depth, vortex
generator inside the dimple small while at 1.5mm there are two
vortices inside the dimple disturbing the flow. It is seen from
the Fig. (a) that as the depth is increased, the size of vortex
inside the dimple is also increased. At the particular h =
1.69mm, losses are minimum in comparison with other depths
11 (g) h = 3mm
of dimple. Reason is that at h = 1.69mm, enough amount of
energy is generated by the dimple by capturing the low FIGURE 11: STREAMLINES VIEW INSIDE THE DIMPLE OF
energized flow that separation will be removed and losses are DIFFERENT DEPTHS
reduced at Re~91000. As we increased depth further from h =
1.69mm, losses are again increased due to large vortex formed Figure 12 (a) and (b) show comparison of the streamlines
inside the dimple. In Fig. (e), (f) and (g), the vortex generator of baseline case and dimple with h/D = 0.0845. In Fig. 12(a),
produced inside the dimple is much bigger than the prior depths flow separation point and its reattachment point is shown, also
and much larger in size. This large vortices inside the dimple LSB is also point out. In Fig. 12(b), shows the schematic view
result in loss, so that they cross the baseline threshold value. of dimple in which upcoming low energy flow is trapped inside
From the above discussion, it is concluded that the dimple of h the dimple and after the dimple this low energized flow is
= 1.69mm at 65%Cax is the optimal depth of the dimple. converted into the high energy flow. This high and low

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 energized flow can be specified by shear stress values. Flow is
attached just after the dimple, and separation is also removed in
that case.
Boundary layer profiles are made for the best case of
dimple at 65%Cax with h/D = 0.0845. Figure 13 shows the plot
of normalized velocity and velocity gradients at different axial
location of the blade. From the normalized velocity plot in Fig.
13(a) it shows that a point of inflection is there in dimple case
and shear stresses are decreasing, but actually this is the region
where the dimple is engraved. This inflection is due to the
vortex generated inside the dimple and that‟s why velocity
gradient is decreased in 65%Cax in comparison with the
baseline case shown in Fig. 13.
FIGURE 12(a): STREAMLINES PLOTTED FOR BASELINE
CASE
FIGURE 12(b): STREAMLINES ARE PLOTTED FOR DIMPLE
OF 1.69mm DEPTH
7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Figure 13 (b) shows the plot at 75%Cax, where normalized
velocity plots show that there is no inflection point is present in
dimple case in comparison with the baseline case. Also a
favorable pressure gradient is present in dimple case. High
values of velocity gradient in Fig. 13 (b) shows that flow is
attached with the surface. There is no separation in case of
dimple till now. In the baseline velocity gradient has dropped to
3600 and but in dimple case, flow is energized that‟s why the
values are approach to 6000 and a favorable pressure gradient
exists in dimple case. The layer shear thickness is increased in
the dimple case.
FIGURE 13(a): 65%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
FIGURE 13(b): 75%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
In the Fig. 13 (c), normalized velocity plot of baseline case
shows that a small separation bubble is generated. The small
curve in the normalized velocity plot of baseline case represents
small separation bubble. The negative values of velocity
 gradient also clarify that the flow is separated. The comparison
of normalized velocity plot of dimple case with baseline case
show that flow is completely attached to the surface of blade
and the separation bubble peak is also removed. It is also
confirmed from the velocity gradients graphs that there is no
negative value of shear wall stress is present in dimple case. As
the flow moves toward the downstream the separation bubble
grows in size and this is shown in Fig. 13 (d) baseline case. The
negative values of shear wall stresses also point towards onset
of separation. The comparison of baseline case with dimple
case shows that flow is completely attached at 95%Cax and
there is point of inflection.
FIGURE 13(c): 85%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
FIGURE 13(d): 95%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
Figure 13 (e) shows the plot of normalized velocity and
pressure gradients plot. The boundary layer is thick in dimple
case at 100%Cax in comparison with baseline case which shows
that flow is turbulent. The values of velocity gradient are
8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
doubled in dimple case representing the high shear stresses near
the wall surface which forced the flow to attach with the
surface.
C. Reynolds Number Study
From the above two studies, it was found that the best
parameters for dimple at 65%Cax is h/δ = 0.5152 and h/D =
0.0845. Using these parameters, different Reynolds numbers
(i.e., 25000 and 50000) were studied to control the flow
separation. Table 4 shows the normalized loss coefficient
FIGURE 13(e): 100%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
FIGURE 13: BOUNDARY LAYER PROFILES AND VELOCITY
GRADIENT PROFILES FOR MODIFIED T016A BLADE USING
DIMPLE
comparison at different Reynolds numbers. It can be seen from
the table 4 that the dimple did not reduce the losses at
Re~25000. But at Re~50000, it produced such a strong vortex
that reduced the normalized loss coefficient to 25%, while 5%
losses were reduced at Re~91000. It can be concluded that the
optimized dimple effectively controlled flow separation and
reduced normalized loss coefficient in the range of Re 25000 to
91000. As the losses are decreased, this will increase the engine
efficiency and reduce fuel consumption of the turbine.
TABLE 4: NORMALIZED LOSS COEFFICIENT Vs
REYNOLDS NUMBERS
Reynolds Number Normalized Loss Coefficient
91000 5%
50000 25%
25000 1%
Figure 14 represents the comparison of Cp plots of
baseline case with the dimple case at Re 50,000. In the baseline
 case, the flow is detached around x/Cax = 0.74 and it remains
till the trailing edge, while in dimple case it produced, a vortex
at 65%Cax which suppressed the boundary layer separation. The
separation is not completely removed but dimple energized the
flow and increase the Cp, which enhanced the efficiency of LP
Turbine.

FIGURE 15(a): 65%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE

FIGURE 14: Cp PLOT COMPARISON OF BASELINE CASE

WITH DIMPLE CASE AT RE~50,000

Boundary layers are made for the baseline case at

Re~50,000 and the dimple case with the optimal parameters(i.e.
h/δ = 0.5152 and h/D = 0.0845). Figure 15 shows the
normalized velocity plots and velocity gradients plots of both
cases at different axial location. In Fig. 15(a), it is clear from
the normalized velocity plots the in both cases flow is attached
and velocity gradients profiles of baseline case shows that shear
FIGURE 15(b): 75%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
stresses are decreasing and flow is about to separate, while the
similar flow phenomenon is visible in the dimple case as the
As the flow moves downstream, the separation bubble
location of dimple is 65%Cax.
grows in size which is visible in the normalized velocity plot of
Figure 15(b) shows the normalized velocity plots and
baseline case. The separation peak in normalized velocity plot
velocity gradients plots at 75%Cax of both baseline and dimple
at 95%Cax is bigger than the peak at 85%Cax. While in the
case. In the baseline case, normalized velocity plot shows that
dimple case the separation is present but this peak is small in
there is a small inflection point is present and the velocity
comparison with the baseline case. The velocity gradient value
gradient plot shows that shear stresses are decreasing and un-
decreased to -180 in the baseline case, but in the dimple case,
favorable pressure gradient is present. In the dimple case, flow
first it goes to zero and after reaching to -100, it again starts to
is attached; however, the velocity gradients are also decreasing
increase and favorable pressure gradient exists in the dimple
and approach to 600.
case.
Flow behavior at 85%Cax is visible in the Fig. 15(c), in
which the normalized velocity plot of baseline case shows a Similar flow has been noticed at 100%Cax which is shown
small separation peak while the negative values of velocity in the Fig. 15(e). The separation peak in baseline case is visible
gradients also confirms that the separation is started. The in normalized velocity plot while the velocity gradients values
normalized velocity plot of dimple shows an inflection point at decreased to -600 which represent the adverse pressure
85%Cax, its mean that flow is about to separate as it moves gradient. While in dimple case, separation peak is also present,
towards the trailing edge of blade. From the velocity gradient as dimple energized the flow but not too much to suppressed
plot of dimple case, no such negative values exist that are
present in the baseline case.

9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the boundary layer separation at 100%Cax.Negative values of
pressure gradients also confirm the separation in dimple case.
FIGURE 15(c): 85%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
FIGURE 15(d): 95%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
CONCLUSION
In this study, computations were performed on the T106A
LP turbine cascade and the smooth shallow dimple was used to
control the flow separation. For this, the dimple of different
depths and diameters were engraved on the suction of the
cascade. It was found after computation that the dimple at 65%
Cax with depth to grid boundary layer (h/δ) of 0.5152 and depth
to diameter (h/D) of 0.0845 reduced the normalized loss
coefficient to 5% at Re~91,000. After that, the dimple of above
specification was used to control the flow separation at
different Re (i.e. 25,000 and 50,000). It was noticed that the
dimple did not reduce the losses at Re~25000. But at
Re~50000, it produced such a strong vortex that reduced the
normalized loss coefficient to 25%, while 5% losses were
reduced at Re~91000. It can be concluded that the optimized
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
dimple effectively controlled flow separation and reduced
normalized loss coefficient within the range of Re 25000 to
91000. As the losses are decreased, this will increase the
turbine efficiency and reduce the fuel consumption.
FIGURE 15(e): 100%Cax DIMPLE AND BASELINE CASE
FIGURE 15: BOUNDARY LAYER PROFILES AND VELOCITY
GRADIENT PROFILES FOR BASELINE CASE AND DIMPLE
CASE AT Re~50,000
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to thank Principal RCMS Engr.
Sikandar Hayat Mirza for providing excellent research
atmosphere in the center. We are also grateful to Mr.
SijalAhmed, Aamer Shehzad, Amaar Mushtaq and Muhammad
Nafees Mumtaz Qadarifor their valuable inputs and discussions
during this research work.
REFERENCES
[1] Chishty, M.A., Hamdani,H. R., Parvez, K., “Comparison
of Passive Devices for Flow Controlling on Low Pressure
Turbine Cascade,” Proceedings of ICAMS2011, Pakistan, Nov
28-30, 2011.
[2] Huang, J., “Separation Control over Low Pressure Turbine
Blades using Plasma Actuators,” PhD Thesis, University of
Notre Dame, Indiana, July, 2005.
[3] Sharma, “Impact of Reynolds Number on Low Pressure
Turbine Performance,” NASA CP-1998-206958, 65-70, 1998.
[4] Luo, H., Qiao, W., Xu, K., “Passive Control of Laminar
Separation Bubble with Spanwise Groove on a Low-speed
Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine Blade,” J. ThermSci Vol.
18, No. 3, pp. 193-201, 2009.
[5] Mayle, R. E., “The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition
in Gas Turbine Engines,” ASME Journal of Turbo machinery,
Vol. 113, Issue 4, pp. 509-537, 1991.
[6] Schlichting, H., “Boundary Layer Theory,” 7 th Ed,
McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1979.
Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 [7] Qui, S., Simon, T.W., “An Experimental Investigation of
Transition as Applied to Low Pressure Turbine Suction Surface
Flows,” International Gas Turbine Institute and Aeroengine
Congress and Exposition, Orlando, FL, 1997.
[8] Wu, J., Lu, X., Denny, A., Fan, M., Wu, J., “Post-Stall
Flow Control on an Airfoil by Local Unsteady Forcing,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol 371, 1998, pp. 21-58.
[9] Lofdahl, L., Gad-el-Hak, M., “MEMS applications in
turbulence and flow control,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences
35, 1999, pp. 101-203.
[10] Saric, W., Reed, H., Mehregany, M., Reshotko, E.,
“Control of Transition in Swept-Wing Boundary Layers Using
MEMS Devices as Distributed Roughness,” AFOSR
Contractor‟s Meeting on Turbulence and Internal
Flows/Unsteady Aerodynamics, 1998, pp361-366.
[11] Walsh, M., “Riblets,” Viscous Drag Reduction in
Boundary Layers, edited by, Bushnell and Hefner, Vol 123,
1990, pp. 203-261.
[12] Chishty, M. A., Hamdani, H. R., Parvez, K., “Comparison
of Passive Devices for Flow Controlling on Low Pressure
Turbine Cascade”, ICAMS2011, Pakistan, 2011.
[13] Bearman, P. W., Harvey, J. K., “Golf Ball Aerodynamics,”
The Aeronautical Quarterly, 27(2), 1976, pp 112-122.
[14] Chishty, M. A., Parvez, K., Ahmed, S., Hamdani, H. R.,
Mushtaq, A., “Transition Prediction in Low Pressure
Turbine(LPT) using Gamma Theta Model & Passive Control of
Separation,” IMECE2011-62148, Denver, Colorado, 2011.
[15] Lake, J. P., “Flow Separation Prevention on a Turbine
Blade in Cascade at Low Reynolds Number,” PhD Thesis, Air
Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio,
1999.
[16] Lake, J. P., P. I., Rivir, R. B., “Reduction of Separation
Losses on Turbine Blade with Low Reynolds Number,” AIAA
Paper 99-0242, 1999.
[17] Vincent, Maple, R. C., “CFD Investigation of Laminar
Flow Over a Dimpled Surface Indentation,” AIAA Paper 2006-
3912, 2006.
[18] Bearman, P. W., Harvey, J. K., “Control of Circular
Cylinder Flow by the use of Dimples,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 31,
No 10, pp. 1753-1756, 1993.
[19] Stieger, R., Hollis, D., Hodson, H., “Unsteady Surface
Pressures Due to Waked Induced Transition in a Laminar
Separation Bubble on a LP Turbine Cascade,” Proceedings of
ASME Turbo Expo 2003, GT2003-38303, 2003.
[20] Anderson J. D., Emeritus, “Fundamental of
Aerodynamics,” McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, pp 809, Chap
18, 2001.
[21] Langtry, R. B., Menter, F. R., “Transition Modeling for
General CFD Applications in Aeronautics,” AIAA paper 2005-
522, 2006.
[22] Robarge T. W., Stark A. M., Ki Min, S., Khalatov, A.,
Byerley, A. R., “Design Considerations for Using Indented
Surface Treatments to Control Boundary Layer Separation,”
Proceedings of 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, AIAA 2004-425, Reno, Nevada, Jan 2004.

11 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use