Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

An efficient winglet coverage for aeroengine turbine blade flat tip and its
loss map
Jae Sung Jeong, Seon Woo Bong, Sang Woo Lee *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, 61 Daehak-ro, Gumi, Gyeongbuk, 730-701, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The stage efficiency of an axial-flow turbine is influenced considerably by the leakage loss over its blade tip. The
Aeroengine turbine blade objective of this experimental study is (i) to find the best winglet coverage for the blade flat tip in an aeroengine
Flat tip turbine cascade of strong reaction and (ii) to know its full aerodynamic performance. In order to do this,
Tip clearance gap
aerodynamic losses for seven different winglets of new streamlined design are measured and then the loss map
Winglet coverage
Winglet width
for the best winglet is completed with the variations of h/s (tip gap-to-span ratio) and w/p (winglet width-to-
Loss map pitch ratio) for the first time, by employing five-hole probe measurement system. The result shows that
double-sided winglets lead to lower loss than single-sided ones and the double-sided winglet covering pressure-
side and upstream suction-side is found to be the best one. The loss map for the best winglet reveals that higher
h/s leads to higher loss for any w/p, and higher w/p results in lower loss for any h/s. With increasing h/s, the loss
reduction by the best winglet of w/p = 5.0% becomes more considerable and is closer to that by the one of w/p =
10.0%. Regardless of h/s, the present best winglet tip has lower loss than the full squealer tip that is widely
employed in modern gas turbines.

1. Introduction
Gas turbines have two major categories of application: aircraft pro­
pulsion and electric power generation. Many modern high-performance
gas turbines are equipped with an axial-flow turbine. In the axial-flow
turbine, its stage efficiency is related closely to aerodynamic loss gen­
erations within vane and blade flow passages. As for the blade having a
clearance gap over its tip surface, the mass-averaged loss coefficient for
a tip gap-to-span ratio of h/s = 1.0% is higher than the one with no tip
gap by about 1.5 times, due to the existence of additional tip leakage loss
[1]. This study aims at the tip leakage loss reduction by installing
various kinds of winglets on a simple flat tip.
For the flat tip, its heat transfer and leakage flow were studied by
many research groups. Yamamoto [2] studied the loss generation by the
interaction between passage and tip leakage vortices for different in­
cidences and concluded that the contribution by the tip leakage vortex is
more considerable at the design condition. In a turbine blade row,
Bindon [3] investigated tip leakage flow and identified the losses by tip
gap shear flow, by mixing, and by secondary flow. Bunker et al. [4]
measured flow and tip thermal load in a turbine blade row with casing
recess and found a “sweet spot” which has less severe heat transfer. Azad
et al. [5] carried out thermal measurements with the change of h/s and
showed that low thermal load exists in the frontal tip area on the suction
side, but high thermal load is found near the pressure side. Tallman and
Lakshminarayana [6] conducted numerical computation on leakage
flow physics for different h/s. They explained detailed flow physics over
the blade tip. Matsunuma [7] investigated h/s effects on aerodynamic
loss in an annular turbine cascade and found that inlet turbulence and
Reynolds number alter local flow field but have no influence on
mass-averaged loss. Through the tip flow visualizations and mass/heat
transfer measurements, Lee et al. [8] proposed leakage flow structures
for high and low h/s. Wheeler et al. [9] carried out CFD works for low
and high velocity turbine passage flows and showed that the latter is less
affected by turbulent dissipation than the former and is less dependent
upon CFD turbulence model. Zhang et al. [10] found that tip surface heat
transfer is not influenced apparently by inlet boundary layer thickness as
well as by inlet turbulence, whereas near-tip flow over the suction sur­
face is influenced strongly by both of them. Gao et al. [11] explored
impacts of incoming flow condition on the breakdown of tip leakage
vortex. Lee et al. [12] identified tip gap flow and heat transfer which are
periodically altered along the camberline in the frontal area of the flat
tip, and Jeong and Lee [13] found that this periodic flow phenomenon

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: swlee@kumoh.ac.kr (S.W. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125153
Received 5 May 2022; Received in revised form 10 July 2022; Accepted 12 August 2022
Available online 19 August 2022
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.S. Jeong et al.
results from the repetitive change of separation bubble thickness along
the pressure side. For a rounded flat tip, Hong et al. [14] reported tip
heat transfer distributions. They revealed that the rounded tip edge has
no flow separation and its average tip heat transfer decreases signifi­
cantly compared to the normal tip one, when h/s ≤ 1.5%.
For the enhancement of turbine stage efficiency, various blade tip
geometries were proposed and tested. Squealers and winglets are typical
examples of them. The squealers are usually normal to the tip surface
and are in the form of a partial fence or a full fence along the blade tip
perimeter [15]. For instance, the full squealer tip is shown on the upper
right side of Fig. 1. The squealer height and thickness are designated by
hst and tst, respectively. The previous researches for squealer tips were
reviewed in detail by Jeong and Lee [1]. On the other hand, the winglet
(partial shroud) tip has a full-perimeter or a partial-perimeter extension
of tip surface, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In this paper, the winglet thickness
and width are designated by t and w, respectively.
There were numerous researches for turbine blades equipped with
the winglet since several pioneering ones [16–18] and their summary
[19]. In an aero gas turbine, Harvey and Ramsden [20] performed CFD
computations for the both-side winglet with a camberline gutter. This
winglet had much narrower area than the ordinary full shroud. They
found that the winglet-gutter tip decreases leakage flow and loss
considerably. Papa et al. [21] measured tip thermal load distributions of
the full squealer tip and of the tip having both an inlet edge winglet and
an exit edge squealer. For a suction-side squealer tip, a full squealer tip,
and a flat tip, Saha et al. [22] carried out numerical studies about the
impact of pressure-side winglet on thermal load and loss. They
concluded that the suction-side squealer tip with pressure-side winglet
has 5.5% and 26% reductions in the thermal load and loss, respectively.
O’Dowd et al. [23] carried out an aerothermal research on the
winglet-gutter tip with an additional pressure-side recess. They showed
that tip gap flow and thermal load are significantly affected by shock
Fig. 1. Design of streamlined winglets.
2
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
waves. Lee et al. [24] investigated flows over the winglets existing along
the flat tip inlet, and they found that there is almost no loss reduction by
the winglets, when w/p (winglet width-to-pitch ratio) ≤ 10.55%. Seo
and Lee [25] measured aerodynamic data for the flat tip with two
different suction-side winglets, and they revealed that when w/p ≤
10.55%, these suction-side winglets have no benefit in reducing the loss.
For the blade tip tested by O’Dowd et al. [23], Zhou et al. [26] studied its
geometry effect on flow and loss. They disclosed that larger edge radius
of the pressure-side winglet leads to higher loss. Schabowski and Hodson
[27] tested three squealer-winglet tips and found that the tip having
both-side overhangs and squealers with leading and trailing-edge
openings delivers the lowest loss. Lee et al. [28] measured the loss
behind the flat tip with a full-coverage winglet for varying w/p. Their
results revealed that as w/p increases, the loss tends to decrease and then
becomes nearly unchanged. Through extensive CFD investigations with
a parameterization method for the winglets installed on the flat tip,
Coull et al. [29] showed that both-side winglets have higher efficiency
but suction-side winglets have lower thermal load. For a full winglet
squealer tip, Cheon and Lee [30] concluded that its loss is higher than
that without winglet when w/p ≤ 5.28% but becomes lower than that
without winglet when w/p ≥ 7.92%. For a full winglet flat tip, Kang and
Lee [31] and Seo and Lee [32] conducted thermal load measurements on
its bottom and tip surfaces, respectively. They disclosed that total
thermal load onto the pressure-side overhang or the leading edge
overhang is more severe than that onto the suction-side one. Zhou and
Zhong [33] carried out aerothermal CFD investigations for the squealer
tip having a suction-side winglet. They showed that for h/c = 1.4%, its
stage efficiency grows by 0.9% in comparison with the one without
winglet. For the full winglet squealer tip, Joo and Lee [34] and Lee and
Joo [35] reported the winglet top surface and tip floor thermal loads,
respectively. They concluded that the floor average thermal load is al­
ways higher than the winglet top surface one, but the gap between them
becomes smaller, as h/s grows. For h/s = 1.36%, Cheon and Lee [36]
reported losses for the flat tip with different winglet geometries in a
turbine cascade of very weak turbine reaction (exit-to-inlet velocity
ratio, VR = 1.2), and they revealed that for the full winglet, larger offset
distance and thicker winglet increases its loss, and longer double-sided
winglet results in less loss. Jiang et al. [37] conducted computations
on the performance of the full squealer tip with a suction-side, a
pressure-side, or a both-side overhang. Each overhang had a full-size
cavity on it. Compared to the one without winglet, they showed that
the three of them reduces tip thermal load, and the suction-side over­
hang has the largest loss reduction. In the same cascade as Cheon and
Lee [36], Seo and Lee [38] reported the losses of several winglets
mounted on the full squealer tip and found for h/s = 1.36% that in the
loss reduction, the suction-side overhang works positively but the
pressure-side overhang works negatively. Recently, Nakhchi et al. [39]
performed direct numerical simulations (DNS) of flow over a wind tur­
bine blade. They showed that with increasing attack angle, vortex
structures shed from the trailing edge of the blade and pressure fluctu­
ation increases considerably. Using DNS, Naung et al. [40] studied
flutter effects on aeroelasticity and flow structure in an advanced aer­
oengine low-pressure turbine. They also proposed a three-dimensional
frequency domain model based on harmonic balance method.
The above previous researches suggest that major parameters influ­
encing aerodynamic performance of the winglet tip are a winglet
coverage along the tip perimeter, a winglet width-to-pitch ratio (w/p),
and a tip gap-to-span ratio (h/s). In order to know the efficient winglet
geometry and its performance for the flat tip, first of all, the best winglet
coverage needs to be selected. Then, its full loss data with the simulta­
neous changes of h/s and w/p (or loss map) should be obtained. How­
ever, there appears to be no previous open literature that achieved this
goal.
In this experimental study, (i) the best winglet for the flat tip in an
aeroengine turbine blade row of strong reaction (exit-to-inlet velocity
ratio, VR = 2.01) is selected by comparing aerodynamic loss data among
J.S. Jeong et al.
seven different winglets of new streamlined design and (ii) the loss map
for the best winglet is completed with the changes of h/s and w/p for the
first time, employing the five-hole probe measurement system. In
addition, near-wall flow visualizations are carried out for typical winglet
coverages.
Fig. 2. Seven tested winglets.
3
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
2. Design of streamlined winglets
Figs. 1 and 2 show the seven winglets tested in this study. All the
present winglets are in unique streamlined designs and are made of
aluminum. The four single-sided winglets designated by “P”, “S”, “DS”,
and “US” winglets in Fig. 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d have coverages only along
the pressure side, suction side, downstream suction side, and upstream
suction side, respectively. The three double-sided winglets named as
“PS”, “PDS”, and “PUS” winglets in Fig. 2e, 2f, and 2g have the suction
side, downstream suction side, and upstream suction side coverages,
respectively, in addition to the pressure-side one.
The P winglet is designed to be tangential to the leading edge. Its
local width increases gradually from zero to w and remains constant up
to the trailing edge. The S winglet is also designed to be tangential to the
leading edge. Its local width increases from 0 to w and then is kept
constant. The DS winglet starts at x/b = 0.25 and is tangential to the
suction surface at the starting point. Its local width increases from 0 to w
and then remains constant. The US winglet is the same as the S winglet in
the frontal region but ends at x/b = 0.75 as in Fig. 1. Each winglet in
Fig. 2 has a constant thickness of t/s = 1.41% for two widths of w/p = 5%
and 10%.
3. Experimental method
3.1. Blade row test facility
The present blade row test facility is shown schematically in Fig. 3.
The uniform flow from the blowdown wind tunnel is converted to tur­
bulent boundary layer flows inside the inlet duct in the presence of sand
paper trips, and then enters the five flow passages formed by six large-
scale aluminum blades. Two side walls behind the blades #1 and #6
can be adjusted for the periodic passage flows.
The blades in Fig. 3 have the tip profile of first-stage turbine blades in
an aeroengine [12] and are made five times as big as the real engine one.
Fig. 4 shows the details of the blade row and the present xyz coordinate
system. The ym-coordinate is an additional one defined at x/b = 1.3 as in
Fig. 4. Key blade row dimensions are shown in Table 1. The present
blade row has moderate turning and low aspect ratio flow passages of
(β1 − β2 ) = 94.1 deg and s/c = 1.09 with strong acceleration (reaction) of
U2M/U1M (= L1/L2) = 2.01.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the blades #1 and #6 are fixed to the hub
and casing, and hence they have no tip gap. On the other hand, the
blades #2, #3, #4, and #5 in the middle are inserted into the corre­
sponding slots to form tip gaps near the top plate (casing).
3.2. Five-hole probe and its calibration procedure
Multi-hole pressure probes are the sole means of measuring local
static pressure, total pressure, pitch angle, and yaw angle in a compli­
cated three-dimensional flow region. In this study, the five-hole probe as
in Fig. 4 is employed, and it has a straight body of 762 mm in length and
a conical tip of 3.2 mm in diameter. This customized straight probe is
manufactured by United Sensor and has no need of an additional slot for
probe insertion. It can also leave minimal flow disturbance and blockage
in the turbine flow passage in comparison with a cobra-type probe.
The present non-nulling calibration of five-hole probe [41] is con­
ducted at a uniform velocity of U2M for the minimization of the probe
Reynolds number effect [42]. Calibration intervals of pitch and yaw
angles are 5.0 deg and their full range is from − 40 deg to 40 deg. As a
result of the non-nulling data reduction process, five pressures are
converted into local static and total pressures and two flow angles. Three
local velocity components can be obtained from the local pressures and
flow angles. The non-nulling calibration method was explained in detail
by Treaster and Yocum [41] and by Lee and Jun [42].
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Fig. 3. Turbine cascade wind tunnel facility.

3.3. Measuring devices point, (iv) the wind tunnel is turned on, and finally (v) the measurement
begins. At the initial point, five pressures are measured in sequence, and
The five-hole probe measurement system has a multi-function DAQ then the probe moves to the next point. Under the control of a stand­
card plugged in a computer, a xyz probe moving unit, a pressure scanner, alone program written in LabView, this procedure is repeated 525 times
and a precision pressure measuring device. The PCI-6036E plug-in card for the entire grid points in Fig. 5.
is made by National Instrument and its Digital I/O lines have a role to
supply TTL pulses to stepping motor drivers for the actuation of linear 3.4. Aerodynamic losses
motion guides in the probe moving unit. With the FCS-421 pressure
scanner provided by Furness Controls, five pressure holes can be The total pressure loss coefficient, CPt, in Eq. (1) represents a non-
switched sequentially by the computer through the RS-232 port. The dimensional local total pressure drop. Pt stands for local total pres­
precision pressure measuring device consists of a 698A11TRC trans­ sure, and Pt,1M is an inlet reference total pressure.
ducer and a 670BD21 display unit, and both of them are supplied by
Pt,1M − Pt
MKS. Their analog output is monitored with a digital voltmeter and then CPt = 2
/ (1)
ρU2M 2
is stored in the computer via the second RS-232 port. The measurements
of inlet velocity/total pressure and inlet turbulence level are conducted
CPt,z in Eq. (2) stands for the one mass-averaged only in the ym-direction
with a Pitot-static probe made by United Sensor and with a hot-wire
anemometer supplied by Kanomax, respectively. over a blade row pitch (p). Thus, CPt,z is useful to see the loss variation in
The present flow/loss measurements are carried out at x/b = 1.3 as in the z-direction
Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 5, its measurement grid, which covers a pitch (p) ∫ 0.9p
ρUCPt dym
from ym/p = − 0.1 to 0.9 and a span (s) from z/s = 0.0 to 1.0, has 21 − 0.1p
CPt,z = ∫ 0.9p (2)
points in the ym-direction and has 25 points in the z-direction. The grid is − 0.1p
ρUdym
designed to be dense not only near the hub and casing but also in the
region of tip leakage flow. The points near the walls are chosen in such a CPt in Eq. (3) is the one mass-averaged throughout the grid in Fig. 5, and
way to minimize the wall proximity effect [43]. hence it is a representative value of the loss generated within a turbine
Each five-hole probe measurement has the following steps: (i) the blade passage.
test winglets are mounted on the blades #2 to #5, (ii) their tip gaps are
adjusted properly, (iii) the five-hole probe is positioned at the initial

4
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Fig. 4. Details of turbine blade row.

Table 1
Specifications of present turbine blade row.
Chord (c) 195.6 mm
Axial chord (b) 143.6 mm
Span (s) 213.2 mm
Pitch (p) 151.3 mm
Blade maximum thickness (tmax) 39.1 mm
Blade inlet flow angle (β1) 29.7 deg
Blade exit flow angle (β2) − 64.4 deg
Blade turning angle (β1 - β2) 94.1 deg
Exit Reynolds number (=U2Mc/ν) 3.78 × 105
Exit-to-inlet velocity Ratio (U2M/U1M) 2.01
Blade maximum thickness ratio (tmax/c) 0.20
Aspect ratio (s/c) 1.09
Solidity (c/p) 1.29

∫s ∫0.9p
ρUCPt dym dz
(3)
0 − 0.1p
CPt =
∫s ∫0.9p
ρUdym dz
0 − 0.1p

In Eqs. (2) and (3), U represents a local velocity component in the x-

direction.

3.5. Oil-film method

Fig. 5. Measurement grid at x/b = 1.3.

In this study, flow patterns on the casing are visualized with the
mixture of carbon powder and kerosene [44]. These casing flow visu­
alizations are found to be more informative than the tip surface ones, winglets of w/p = 10.0% when h/s = 1.0%. In addition, surface flow
because they can provide near-wall flow traces inside and outside the tip traces without winglet is also reported for h/s = 0.0%.
gap including tip leakage inflow and outflow patterns. In order to
remove the gravitational effect, the flow visualizations are carried out in 4. Test conditions and experimental uncertainties
the blade row where tip gaps are positioned near its bottom plate,
contrary to the tip gaps near the top plate for the loss measurements in The inlet mid-span freestream velocity (U1M) and turbulence level
Fig. 4. The present casing visualization is carried out for the P, S, and PS are kept as 15 m/s and 0.3%, respectively. The exit mid-span potential

5
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

velocity (U2M), which is obtained using the relation of U2M = (L1/L2) ×

U1M (Fig. 4), is 30.2 m/s. The Reynolds number of blade row is calcu­
lated as Re = U2M c/ν = 3.78 × 105. Fig. 6 shows the boundary-layer
velocity distribution and its thicknesses at the center of the inlet duct
[1]. The mid-span loading information of the present blade row without
tip gap is presented in Fig. 7 [12].
The first stage of this study is to determine the best winglet coverage
among the seven different winglets installed on the flat tip. In this stage,
all the tests are carried out in the case of h/s = 1.0% and w/p = 10%. In
the second stage, full loss data for the best winglet are obtained in the
cases of both w/p = 5% and 10% for h/s = 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0%.
In this study, measurement errors are estimated at a 95% level of
confidence according to Abernethy et al. [45]. As for the probe location,
its uncertainty interval is evaluated to be ±0.1 mm. Excluding the ef­
fects of local turbulence and velocity gradient, uncertainty intervals for
the pitch angle, yaw angle, static pressure, and total pressure are esti­
mated as ±0.78 deg and ±0.85 deg, ±1.01% of ρU22M/2, and ±1.24% of
ρU22M/2, respectively, as shown in Table 2. The present repeatability test
for h/s = 1.0% confirms that the value of CPt falls within 1.1% of it. Fig. 7. Distribution of potential velocity on the blade surface [12].

5. Test results and discussions

Table 2
5.1. Determination of the best winglet coverage Uncertainty intervals.
Pitch angle Yaw angle Static pressure Total pressure
5.1.1. Mass-averaged loss coefficients ±0.78 deg ±0.85 deg ±1.01% of ρU22M/2 ±1.24% of ρU22M/2
Fig. 8 reports the results of CPt (total pressure loss coefficient mass-
averaged all over the measurement area) for the flat and full squealer
tips with no winglet [1] as well as for the present seven winglets
installed on the flat tip (Fig. 2). In Fig. 8, “NW” stands for the flat tip with
no winglet and “SQNW” means the full squealer tip with no winglet. The
loss reduction ratio (LRR) for each h/s is calculated in the following way.
{ }/
LRR ​ (%) ​ = ​ 100 × (CPt ​ )NW ​ − ​ CPt ​ (CPt ​ )NW (4)

(CPt )NW is found to be highest in Fig. 8, so that the values of LRR in Fig. 8
are always positive. The value of CPt for SQNW is the one obtained for
the best squealer height-to-span ratio of hst/s = 1.88% [1].
Four single-sided winglets (P, S, DS, and US winglets) in Fig. 2a - 2d
have very different values of CPt in Fig. 8. The P winglet has a LRR value
of 1.5%, which shows that in the loss reduction, the winglet along the
pressure side as in Fig. 2a has only a little benefit. The S and US winglets
have relatively higher LRR values of 8.2% and 8.7%, respectively,
although the US winglet has smaller coverage than the S winglet. On the
contrary, the LRR value for the DS winglet is as low as 2.9%. This LRR
value is not so different from that of the P winglet, but it is certainly
Fig. 8. Comparisons of CPt for the flat tips equipped with seven
different winglets.

Fig. 6. Velocity profile of inlet boundary layer [1].
lower than that for the S or US winglet. These facts suggest that the
suction-side winglet coverage near to the leading edge has an important
role in reducing CPt . It is also noted in Fig. 8 that the flat tip equipped
with the S or US winglet performs better than the best full squealer tip
with no winglet in the reduction of CPt .
The three double-sided winglets (PS, PDS, and PUS winglets) in
Fig. 2e - 2g are always equipped with the P winglet. Fig. 8 shows that the
LRR values for the PS, PDS, and PUS winglets are 12.4%, 6.7%, and
13.0%, respectively. These LRR values are always higher than the ones
for the S, DS, and US winglets, respectively. Therefore, it can be said that
in reducing CPt , the double-sided winglet performs better than the cor­
responding single-sided one. The differences in the LRR value between
the S and PS winglets, between the DS and PDS winglets, and between
the US and PUS winglets are calculated to be 4.2%, 3.8%, and 4.3%,
respectively, and these differences are not very different from each
other. This result assures that additional loss reductions by adding the
pressure-side coverage to the S, DS, and US winglets are almost same,

6
J.S. Jeong et al.
irrespective of suction-side winglet geometry.
Fig. 8 demonstrates that among the seven different winglets installed
on the flat tip (Fig. 2), the PS and PUS winglets have the largest loss
reductions. Considering that the PUS winglet has smaller coverage than
the PS winglet, the PUS winglet can be selected as the best one. Fig. 8
also shows that LRR for the best (PUS) winglet installed on the flat tip is
around 1.8 times as high as that of the best full squealer tip of hst/s =
1.88% with no winglet (SQNW).
5.1.2. Effects of the P, S, and PS winglets on local flow and loss
In order to understand the reason why the values of CPt for the single-
sided P, S, and PS winglets installed on the flat tip are different in Fig. 8,
the profiles of CPt,z (total pressure loss coefficient mass-averaged in the
pitch-wise direction) are introduced in Fig. 9, and in addition, the dis­
tributions of CPt and secondary flow are also presented in Figs. 10–13.
Fig. 9 presents the profiles of CPt,z for the baseline no winglet case [1]
as well as for the present P, S, and PS winglets. In Fig. 9, CPt,z for the P
winglet is a little bit lower in the lower casing passage vortex (CPV)
region of 0.5 < z/s < 0.7, higher in the upper CPV region of 0.7 < z/s <
0.9, and lower in the tip leakage vortex (TLV) region of z/s > 0.9, in
comparison with the no winglet case. When z/s < 0.5, however, there is
almost no discrepancy in CPt,z even in the hub passage vortex (HPV)
region. These facts show why the P winglet has a very low LRR value of
1.5% in Fig. 8. The trends of CPt,z for the no winglet case and for the P
winglet in Fig. 9 are closely related to the contour plots of CPt in Figs. 10a
and 11a, respectively. A little bit lower CPt,z in the lower CPV region and
higher CPt,z in the upper CPV region for the P winglet in Fig. 9 result from
a little bit weaker and stronger local secondary flows in the corre­
sponding areas of Fig. 11b, respectively, in comparison with Fig. 10b.
Lower CPt,z in the TLV region for the P winglet arises from the weaker
TLV in Fig. 11b compared to Fig. 10b. From the P winglet data in Fig. 9,
it is true that the P winglet has a role to decrease the loss in the TLV
region and to increase the net amount of loss in the CPV region.
In Fig. 9, CPt,z for the S winglet is higher in the TLV region but is
much lower in the CPV region, compared to the no winglet case. When
z/s < 0.5, there is almost no discrepancy in CPt,z . This tendency can also
be observed in Figs. 10a and 12a. The loss increase in the TLV region and
the loss decrease in the CPV region for the S winglet in Fig. 9 are
attributed to stronger TLV and much weaker CPV in Fig. 12b, compared
to Fig. 10b. From the S winglet data in Fig. 9, it is evident that the
amount of loss decrease in the CPV region by the S winglet is larger than
the amount of loss increase in the TLV region by the S winglet, so that the
S winglet has a relatively high LRR value of 8.2% in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9. Profiles of CPt,z for the P, S, and PS winglets in the case of h/s = 1.0%.
7
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
Compared to the no winglet case, the PS winglet has a role to reduce
CPt,z in both the TLV and CPV regions in Fig. 9, contrary to the loss
reduction only in the CPV (TLV) region for the S (P) winglet. This is why
the PS winglet has a very high LRR value of 12.4% in Fig. 8. Figs. 10a and
13a also show the loss reduction by the PS winglet in both the TLV and
CPV regions. In the TLV region, CPt,z in Fig. 9 (secondary flow in
Fig. 13b) for the PS winglet is somewhat higher (stronger) than that in
Fig. 9 (Fig. 11b) for the P winglet but is far lower (weaker) than that in
Fig. 9 (Fig. 12b) for the S winglet. In the CPV region, CPt,z in Fig. 9
(secondary flow in Fig. 13b) for the PS winglet is much lower (weaker)
than that in Fig. 9 (that in Fig. 11b) for the P winglet but is slightly
higher (stronger) than that in Fig. 9 (Fig. 12b) for the S winglet.
Figs. 10b–13b show that in general, TLV is more wall-jet-like than CPV
and HPV. From Fig. 9, it can be concluded that in the loss reduction, the
PS winglet tends to keep not only the benefit by the P winglet in the TLV
region but also the benefit by the S winglet in the CPV region.
5.1.3. Flow visualizations for the P, S, and PS winglets
Fig. 9 shows that in the TLV region, CPt,z for the PS winglet is
somewhat higher than that for the P winglet and far lower than that for
the S winglet. In the CPV region, however, CPt,z for the S or PS winglet is
much lower than that for the P winglet. In order to explain these ten­
dencies, flow visualizations are carried out for the P, S, and PS winglets
installed on the flat tip.
Figs. 14–16 are the casing flow traces when h/s = 1.0% for the P, S,
and PS winglets of w/p = 10.0%, respectively. In these figures, each
white arrow simply indicates a local flow direction, and the black lines
denote the projection of blade and winglet on the casing. There exist a
leakage flow zone and a passage flow zone on the casing. The attach­
ment line (white dotted line) in each figure is a boundary of them. The
distance from the attachment line to the inlet tip edge, which is desig­
nated by “d” in each figure, is known to be proportional to tip leakage
inflow rate [46]. The leakage inflow entering the tip gap is separated
from the tip surface and then reattaches to it. This separa­
tion/reattachment leaves unique flow traces on the casing along the
white dot-and-dash line. After the reattachment, the tip gap flow ad­
vances toward the exit and is finally discharged to the adjacent flow
passage. The white dash line in each figure is a penetration limit of
leakage outflow. Higher leakage outflow rate tends to push the pene­
tration limit farther away from the blade, so that it leads to higher CPt,z
in the TLV region. At the blade row exit, the distance between the
trailing-edge center and the limit of leakage outflow is designated by “D”
in each figure.
Figs. 14–16 reveals that there is no appreciable difference between dP
for the P winglet (Fig. 14) and dPS for the PS winglet (Fig. 16), but dS for
the S winglet (Fig. 15) is definitely larger than dP or dPS. These facts
imply that the leakage inflow rate for the S winglet is higher than that for
the P or PS winglet. Furthermore, DP, DS, and DPS in Figs. 14–16 have a
relation of DS > DPS > DP. Thus, downstream of the blade row, the S, PS,
and P winglets have the widest, second widest, and narrowest tip
leakage flow areas, respectively, which matches well with the ym-
directional (pitch-wise) extents of TLV for the S winglet (Fig. 12b), PS
winglet (Fig. 13b), and P winglet (Fig. 11b). The relations of dS > dP (or
dPS) and DS > DPS > DP in Figs. 14–16 can give a good explanation of the
reason for (CPt,z )S > (CPt,z )PS > (CPt,z )P in the TLV region of Fig. 9.
Fig. 17 presents the casing flow visualization for h/s = 0.0%. It is
known that the pressure-side leg of a pair of horseshoe vortices formed
around the leading edge near the bottom plate is an origin of the passage
vortex [47]. The pressure-side leg develops roughly in the direction of a
big white arrow in Fig. 17. Even if initial oil-film coating is applied only
on the bottom plate (casing), oil film climbs onto the blade suction
surface. This strong upwash flow trace on the suction surface in the
direction of a big yellow arrow in Fig. 17 clearly shows how and where
the pressure-side leg is converted to the passage vortex. The upwash
flow found in Fig. 17 would be still existent even in the presence of tip
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Fig. 10. Results for flat tip with no winglet (h/s = 1.0%) [1], (a) contours of CPt,; (b) secondary flow vector plot.

Fig. 11. Results for flat tip with P winglet of w/p = 10.0% (h/s = 1.0%), (a) contours of CPt; (b) secondary flow vector plot.

8
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Fig. 12. Results for flat tip with S winglet of w/p = 10.0% (h/s = 1.0%). (a) Contours of CPt; (b) secondary flow vector plot.

Fig. 13. Results for flat tip with PS winglet of w/p = 10.0% (h/s = 1.0%), (a) contours of CPt; (b) secondary flow vector plot.

9
J.S. Jeong et al.
Fig. 14. Casing flow visualization for flat tip with P winglet of w/p = 10.0% for
h/s = 1.0%.
Fig. 15. Casing flow visualization for flat tip with S winglet of w/p = 10.0% for
h/s = 1.0%.
gap. The S, US, PS, and PUS winglets in Fig. 2b, 2d, 2e, and 2g can
suppress the development of the casing passage vortex due to their
suction-side coverage ahead of the mid-chord, whereas the DS and PDS
winglets in Fig. 2c and f as well as the P winglet in Fig. 2a can hardly
affect it. This seems to be why in Fig. 8, the LLR values of the single-sided
S and US winglets are higher than those of the single-sided P and DS
winglets, and the LLR values of the double-sided PS and PUS winglets are
higher than that of the double-sided PDS winglet.
5.1.4. Effect of suction-side winglet geometry on local loss
Fig. 18 shows how the single-sided S, DS, and US winglets change the
10
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
Fig. 16. Casing flow visualization for flat tip with PS winglet of w/p = 10.0%
for h/s = 1.0%.
Fig. 17. Casing flow visualization for flat tip with no tip gap (h/s = 0.0%).
profile of CPt,z . In general, these three winglets have much higher CPt,z in
the TLV region and much lower CPt,z in the CPV region, compared to the
no winglet case, but they have almost the same CPt,z in the region of 0.0
< z/s < 0.5. Fig. 18 reveals that in both the TLV and CPV regions except
for the region of 0.75 < z/s ≤ 0.85, the CPt,z value for the S or US winglet
is quite lower than the one for the DS winglet. Therefore, in Fig. 8, the
loss for the S winglet (LRR = 8.2%) or for the US winglet (LRR = 8.7%) is
lower than that for the DS winglet (LRR = 2.9%).
Fig. 19 demonstrates how the double-sided PS, PDS, and PUS
winglets influence the profile of CPt,z . The comparison between Figs. 18
and 19 reveals that in the TLV region, the CPt,z values for the PS, PDS,
and PUS winglets are always lower than those for the S, DS, and US
winglets, respectively. Thus, the addition of the P winglet coverage on
the single-sided S, DS, and US winglets leads to a noticeable loss
reduction in the TLV region, regardless of suction-side winglet
J.S. Jeong et al. Energy 260 (2022) 125153

Fig. 18. Profiles of CPt,z for three different suction-side winglets in the case of
h/s = 1.0%.
Fig. 19. Profiles of CPt,z for three different both-side winglets in the case of h/s
= 1.0%.
Fig. 20. Loss map for flat tip with PUS winglet as a function of w/p.
when 0.0% < w/p ≤ 5.0% but milder when 5.0% < w/p ≤ 10.0%. For the
widest tip gap (h/s = 2.0%), CPt decreases most steeply and then de­
creases most mildly in Fig. 20.
As h/s grows, the loss reduction by the PUS winglet of w/p = 5.0%
becomes more considerable and is closer to that by the PUS winglet of w/
p = 10.0%. Therefore, for a wide tip gap, the PUS winglet of w/p = 5.0%
would be preferred to that of w/p = 10.0%, because (i) the former has
less structural and thermal defects due to its narrower width and (ii) its
loss is close to that for the latter.
Fig. 21 is a loss map as a function of hst/s for the full squealer tip [1],
and the blade row and test conditions for Fig. 21 are the same as the ones
in this study. The definitions of hst and tst are shown on the upper right
side of Fig. 1. Regardless of h/s, CPt in Fig. 21 has a tendency to decrease,
to be minimal when hst/s = 1.88%, and then to increase, as hst/s in­
creases. This trend is totally different from the simple decrease of CPt
with w/p in the present loss map for the PUS winglet in Fig. 20. Fig. 21
suggests that irrespective of h/s, the full squealer tip of hst/s = 1.88% is
the best one.
The present CPt data for the PUS winglet are shown in Fig. 22 with
the change of h/s. In Fig. 22, the loss data for hst/s = 1.88% in Fig. 21 are
also included for comparisons. Fig. 22 clearly shows that higher h/s
leads to higher CPt for any w/p, and higher w/p results in lower CPt for
any h/s. CPt for the flat tip with no winglet and its slope are found to be

geometry. In the CPV region, however, the effect of the P winglet

addition to the single-sided S, DS, and US winglets is not so simple as
that in the TLV region, and the P winglet addition to them leads to a
relatively small net change in CPt,z . For these reasons, the LRR values for
the PS, PDS, and PUS winglets are higher than the ones for the S, DS, and
US winglets by 4.2%, 3.8%, and 4.3% in Fig. 8, respectively. In Figs. 9,
18 and 19, the profiles of CPt,z in the range of 0.0 < z/s < 0.5 assures that
the present measurements with the five-hole probe have a good
repeatability.

5.2. Loss map for the best winglet installed on the flat tip

On the basis of the loss data in Fig. 8, the PUS winglet is found to be
the best one in the loss reduction. Fig. 20 is a loss map as a function of w/
p for the PUS winglet. Each percentage in Fig. 20 also represents the LRR
value defined in Eq. (4). This loss map shows that regardless of h/s, CPt
decreases with the increase of w/p, but irrespective of w/p, CPt increases
with increasing h/s. For h/s = 0.5% in Fig. 20, CPt decreases mildly as w/
p changes from 0% to 5.0%, but it decreases steeply as w/p changes from
5.0% to 10.0%. With increasing h/s, the slope of CPt becomes steeper Fig. 21. Loss map for full squealer tip of tst/s = 1.69% as a function of hst/s [1].

11
J.S. Jeong et al.
Fig. 22. Full loss data for flat tip with PUS winglet as a function of h/s.
highest and steepest, respectively, and the gap in CPt between the PUS
winglets of w/p = 5.0% and 10.0% becomes smaller, as h/s increases.
Irrespective of h/s, CPt for the PUS winglets of w/p = 5.0% and 10.0%
are always lower than that for the best full squealer tip of hst/s = 1.88%.
Especially for an actual engine tip gap of h/s = 1.0%, for instance, the
LRR values for the PUS winglets of w/p = 5.0% (LRR = 8.6%) and 10.0%
(LRR = 13.0%) are higher than that for the best full squealer tip (LRR =
7.2%). It is noteworthy that regardless of h/s, the present best winglet tip
has better performance in the loss reduction than the full squealer tip
that is widely employed in modern gas turbines.
6. Concluding remarks
In this study, (i) the best winglet in an aeroengine turbine blade row
of strong reaction is selected for the flat tip by comparing aerodynamic
loss data and coverage area among seven different winglets of new
streamlined design and (ii) its loss map is completed with the variations
of h/s (tip gap-to-span ratio) and w/p (winglet width-to-pitch ratio) for
the first time.
The conclusions about the determination of the best winglet
coverage for h/s = 1.0% and w/p = 10.0% can be listed as below.
(1) The single-sided winglet along the pressure side (P winglet) has a
little (1.5%) loss reduction, compared to the no winglet case.
Both the single-sided winglets along the suction side (S winglet)
and covering only upstream suction side (US winglet) have
considerable (8.2% and 8.7%) loss reductions, respectively,
whereas the single-sided winglet covering only downstream
suction side (DS winglet) has a relatively small (2.9%) loss
reduction. These facts suggest that the suction-side winglet
coverage near to the leading edge has an important role in the
loss reduction.
(2) The double-sided PS, PDS, and PUS winglets have 4.2%, 3.8%,
and 4.3% larger loss reductions than the corresponding single-
sided S, DS, and US winglets, respectively. Thus, additional loss
reductions by adding the pressure-side coverage to the S, DS, and
US winglets are almost same, irrespective of suction-side winglet
geometry.
(3) Among the seven different winglets installed on the flat tip, the PS
and PUS winglets have the largest loss reductions of 12.4% and
13.0%, respectively. Considering that the PUS winglet has
smaller coverage area than the PS winglet, the PUS winglet can be
regarded as the best one.
(4) The P winglet has a role to decrease the loss in the tip leakage
vortex (TLV) region, whereas the S winglet has a role to decrease
12
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
the loss in the casing passage vortex (CPV) region. The PS winglet
tends to keep not only the benefit by the P winglet in the TLV
region but also the benefit by the S winglet in the CPV region.
The conclusions for the loss map of the best PUS winglet installed on
the flat tip can be summarized in the following ways.
(5) The loss map for the best PUS winglet reveals that higher h/s
leads to higher loss regardless w/p, and higher w/p results in
lower loss irrespective of h/s. The loss map for the full squealer tip
[1] shows that regardless of h/s, its loss has a tendency to
decrease, to be minimal, and then to increase, as hst/s (squealer
height-to-span ratio) increases. This trend is in contrast to the
simple decrease of loss with w/p for the present best PUS winglet.
(6) With increasing h/s, the loss reduction by the PUS winglet of w/p
= 5.0% becomes more considerable and is closer to that by the
PUS winglet of w/p = 10.0%. Therefore, for a wide tip gap, the
PUS winglet of w/p = 5.0% would be preferred to that of w/p =
10.0%, because (i) the former has less structural and thermal
defects due to its narrower width and (ii) its loss is close to that
for the latter.
(7) Regardless of h/s, the present best winglet tip has better perfor­
mance in the loss reduction than the full squealer tip that is
widely employed in modern gas turbines.
Credit author statement
Jae Sung Jeong: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Data curation, Visualization. Seon Woo Bong: Software, Valida­
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Visualization. Sang
Woo Lee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Orig­
inal Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision, Project adminis­
tration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.
2021R1F1A1046030).
References
[1] Jeong JS, Lee SW. Full aerodynamic loss data for efficient squealer tip design in an
axial flow turbine. Energy 2020;206:118170.
[2] Yamamoto A. Interaction mechanisms between the tip leakage flow and the
passage vortex in a linear turbine cascade. ASME J Turbomach 1988;110:329–38.
[3] Bindon JP. The measurement and formation of tip clearance loss. ASME J
Turbomach 1989;111:257–63.
[4] Bunker RS, Bailey JC, Ameri AA. Heat transfer and flow on the first-stage blade tip
of a power generation gas turbine: part 1-experimental results. ASME J Turbomach
2000;122:263–71.
[5] Azad GmS, Han J-C, Teng S, Boyle RJ. Heat transfer and pressure distributions on a
gas turbine blade tip. ASME J Turbomach 2000;122:717–24.
[6] Tallman J, Lakshminarayana B. Numerical simulation of tip leakage flow in axial
flow turbine, with emphasis on flow physics: part 1-effect of tip clearance height.
ASME J Turbomach 2001;123:314–23.
[7] Matsunuma T. Effects of Reynolds number and free-stream turbulence on turbine
tip clearance flow. ASME J Turbomach 2006;128:166–77.
J.S. Jeong et al.
[8] Lee SW, Moon HS, Lee SE. Tip gap height effects on flow structure and heat/mass
transfer over flat tip of a high-turning turbine rotor blade. Int J Heat Fluid Flow
2009;30:198–210.
[9] Wheeler APS, Atkins NR, He L. Turbine blade tip heat transfer in low speed and
high speed flows. ASME J Turbomach 2011;133:041025.
[10] Zhang Q, He L, Rawlinson A. Effects of inlet turbulence and end-wall boundary
layer on aerothermal performance of a transonic turbine blade tip. ASME J
Turbomach 2014;136:052603.
[11] Gao J, Zheng Q, Xu T, Dong P. Inlet conditions effect on tip leakage vortex
breakdown in unshrouded axial turbines. Energy 2015;91:255–63.
[12] Lee SW, Jeong JS, Hong IH. Chord-wise repeated thermal load change on flat tip of
a turbine blade. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2019;138:1154–65.
[13] Jeong JS, Lee SW. Repetitive tip convective transport and its flow physics in a
large-scale turbine cascade. Int Commun Heat Mass Tran 2021;126:105346.
[14] Hong IH, Choi SK, Lee SW. Thermal load distributions on the large-scale turbine
blade tip with a rounded inlet edge. Int Commun Heat Mass Tran 2022;131:
105829.
[15] Jung J, Kim I, Joo JS, Lee SW. Experimental study on aerodynamic loss and heat
transfer for various squealer tips. ASME J Turbomach 2021;143:051002.
[16] Partel KV. Research on a high work axial gas generator turbine. SAE 1980:800618.
[17] Booth TC, Dodge PR, Hepworth HK. Rotor-tip leakage: part1-basic methodology.
ASME Paper 81-GT-7 1981.
[18] Yaras MI, Sjolander SA. Measurement of the effect of winglets on tip-leakage losses
in a linear turbine cascade. ISABE 1991;91:7011.
[19] Vki Ls 2004-02. Turbine blade tip design and tip clearance treatment. Von Kaman
Institute for Fluid Dynamics; 2004.
[20] Harvey NW, Ramsden K. A computational study of a novel turbine rotor partial
shroud. ASME J Turbomach 2001;123:534–43.
[21] Papa M, Goldstein RJ, Gori F. Effects of geometry and tip clearance on the mass/
heat transfer from a large-scale gas turbine blade. ASME J Turbomach 2003;125:
90–6.
[22] Saha AK, Acharya S, Bunker RS, Prakash C. Blade tip leakage flow and heat transfer
with pressure-side winglet. Int J Rotating Mach 2006;2006:1–15.
[23] O’Dowd DO, Zhang Q, He L, Oldfield MLG, Ligrani PM, Cheong BCY, Tibbott I.
Aerothermal performance of a winglet at engine representative Mach and Reynolds
numbers. ASME J Turbomach 2011;133:041026.
[24] Lee SW, Kim SU, Kim KH. Aerodynamic performance of winglets covering the tip
gap inlet in a turbine cascade. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2012;34:36–46.
[25] Seo YC, Lee SW. Tip gap flow and aerodynamic loss generation in a turbine cascade
equipped with suction-side winglets. J Mech Sci Technol 2013;27:703–12.
[26] Zhou C, Hodson H, Tibbott I, Stokes M. Effects of winglet geometry on the
aerodynamic performance of tip leakage flow in a turbine cascade. ASME J
Turbomach 2013;135:051009.
[27] Schabowski Z, Hodson H. The reduction of over tip leakage loss in unshrouded
axial turbines using winglets and squealers. ASME J Turbomach 2014;136:041001.
[28] Lee SW, Cheon JH, Zhang Q. The effect of full coverage winglets on tip leakage
aerodynamics over the plane tip in a turbine cascade. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2014;
45:23–32.
13
Energy 260 (2022) 125153
[29] Coull JD, Atkins NR, Hodson HP. Winglets for improved aerothermal performance
of high pressure turbines. ASME J Turbomach 2014;136:091007.
[30] Cheon JH, Lee SW. Tip leakage aerodynamics over the cavity squealer tip equipped
with full coverage winglets in a turbine cascade. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2015;56:
60–70.
[31] Kang DB, Lee SW. Heat/mass transfer over the plane tip equipped with a full
coverage winglet in a turbine cascade: part 1 – winglet bottom surface data. Int J
Heat Mass Tran 2015;88:965–73.
[32] Seo YC, Lee SW. Heat/mass transfer over the plane tip equipped with a full
coverage winglet in a turbine cascade: part 2 – tip surface data. Int J Heat Mass
Tran 2015;88:974–81.
[33] Zhou C, Zhong F. A novel suction-side winglet design philosophy for high-pressure
turbine rotor tips. ASME J Turbomach 2017;139:111002.
[34] Joo JS, Lee SW. Heat/mass transfer over the cavity squealer tip equipped with a
full coverage winglet in a turbine cascade: part 1 – data on the winglet top surface.
Int J Heat Mass Tran 2017;108:1255–63.
[35] Lee SW, Joo JS. Heat/mass transfer over the cavity squealer tip equipped with a
full coverage winglet in a turbine cascade: part 2 – data on the cavity floor. Int J
Heat Mass Tran 2017;108:1264–72.
[36] Cheon JH, Lee SW. Winglet geometry effect on tip leakage loss over the plane tip in
a turbine cascade. J Mech Sci Technol 2018;32:1633–42.
[37] Jiang S, Li Z, Li J. Effects of the squealer winglet structures on the heat transfer
characteristics and aerodynamic performance of turbine blade tip. Int J Heat Mass
Tran 2019;139:860–72.
[38] Seo YC, Lee SW. Aerodynamic losses for squealer tip with different winglets.
J Mech Sci Technol 2019;33:639–47.
[39] Nakhchi ME, Naung SW, Rahmati M. High-resolution direct numerical simulations
of flow structure and aerodynamic performance of wind turbine airfoil at wide
range of Reynolds numbers. Energy 2021;225:120261.
[40] Naung SW, Nakhchi ME, Rahmati M. Prediction of flutter effects on transient flow
structure and aeroelasticity of low-pressure turbine cascade using direct numerical
simulations. Aero Sci Technol 2021;119:107151.
[41] Treaster AL, Yocum AM. The calibration and application of five-hole probes. ISA
Trans 1979;18:23–34.
[42] Lee SW, Jun SB. Reynolds number effects on the non-nulling calibration of a cone-
type five-hole probe for turbomachinery applications. J Mech Sci Technol 2005;19:
1632–48.
[43] Lee SW, Yoon TJ. An investigation of wall-proximity effect using a typical large-
scale five-hole probe. KSME Int J 1999;13:273–85.
[44] Jeong JS, Lim SK, Lee SW. Aerodynamic performance of suction-side squealer tip in
impulse/reaction turbine blade rows. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2022;136:110666.
[45] Abernethy RB, Benedict RP, Dowdell RB. ASME measurement uncertainty. ASME J
Fluids Eng 1985;107:161–4. 1985.
[46] Lee SW, Kim SW. Tip gap height effects on the aerodynamic performance of a
cavity squealer tip in a turbine cascade in comparison with plane tip results: part 1
– tip gap flow structure. Exp Fluid 2010;49:1039–51.
[47] Goldstein RJ, Spores RA. Turbulent transport on the endwall in the region between
adjacent turbine blades. ASME J Heat Transf 1988;110:862–9.