Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012
GT2012
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF LEADING EDGE CONTOURING INFLUENCE ON
SECONDARY LOSSES IN TRANSONIC TURBINES
Ranjan Saha, Jens Fridh, Torsten Fransson
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
Heat and Power Technology
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Boris I. Mamaev
Siemens LLC Energy Oil & Gas Design Department Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB
B. Tatarskaya str.,9, Moscow, 115184, Russia
ABSTRACT
An experimental study of the hub leading edge contouring using
fillets is performed in an annular sector cascade to observe the
influence of secondary flows and aerodynamic losses. The investigated
vane is a three dimensional gas turbine guide vane (geometrically
similar) with a mid-span aspect ratio of 0.46. The measurements are
carried out on the leading edge fillet and baseline cases using
pneumatic probes. Significant precautions have been taken to increase
the accuracy of the measurements. The investigations are performed
for a wide range of operating exit Mach numbers from 0.5 to 0.9 at a
design inlet flow angle of 90°. Data presented include the loading,
fields of total pressures, exit flow angles, radial flow angles, as well as
profile and secondary losses. The vane has a small profile loss of
approximately 2.5 % and secondary loss of about 1.1%. Contour plots
of vorticity distributions and velocity vectors indicate there is a small
influence of the vortex-structure in endwall regions when the leading
edge fillet is used. Compared to the baseline case the loss for the
filleted case is lower up to 13 % of span and higher from 13% to 20 %
of the span for a reference condition with Mach no. of 0.9. For the
filleted case, there is a small increase of turning up to 15 % of the span
and then a small decrease up to 35 % of the span. Hence, there are no
significant influences on the losses and turning for the filleted case.
Results lead to the conclusion that one cannot expect a noticeable
effect of leading edge contouring on the aerodynamic efficiency for the
investigated 1st stage vane of a modern gas turbine.
INTRODUCTION
Secondary flows are complex three-dimensional flows that arise
in a cascade of turbine vanes or blades. Such fluid flows exist in all
axial flow turbines, machines that are used to produce most of the
world’s electricity and provide thrust for most of its aircrafts. The
secondary flow is considered detrimental to the performance of gas
turbines. This is due to the fact that the secondary flow causes total
pressure drop and increase the entropy. In some cases it can account
for 30-50% of the total aerodynamic losses in a blade or vane row
(Sharma and Butler [1]).
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark
GT2012-68497
Mats Annerfeldt
SE-612 83 Finspong, Sweden
The flow through a turbine cascade has been widely studied,
documented and verified by many experiments (Langston [2],
Sieverding [3], Langston [4], Wang et al. [5], Acharya and Mahmood
[6], Eckerle and Langston [7]). The secondary flow is generated due to
the inlet boundary layer splitting in front of the leading edge coupled
with the passage pressure gradient between pressure side and suction
side of a turbine vane or blade passage. When the inlet boundary layer
approaches a leading edge, a total pressure gradient occurs along the
spanwise direction. As the flow stagnates at the leading edge, the total
pressure gradient then becomes a static pressure gradient along the
span. This spanwise static pressure gradient then causes the boundary
layer fluid to flow towards the endwall. As the flow turns upstream, it
rolls into a vortex or system of vortices that wrap around the body,
forming the well-known horseshoe (HS) vortex, which has two distinct
legs, known as the suction side HS vortex and pressure side HS vortex
(Langston [2]). The pressure side HS vortex then mixes with the
endwall flow (due to the pressure gradient inside the passage) and
grows in size and migrates towards the suction side, creating a passage
vortex. This HS vortex produces large-scale, low-frequency bi-stable
unsteadiness in the leading edge region (Devenport et al. [8]).
The secondary flow deteriorates the aerodynamic performance of
the turbine, which worsens as the blade loading is increased and the
blade aspect ratio is decreased (Mobarak et al. [9]). The secondary
flow depends on the prehistory (Herzig and Hansen [10]). The
secondary flow with trailing legs persists very far downstream, with
non-uniformities that strongly affect next blade rows (Devenport et al.
[8]).
There are few studies in the open literature reporting methods for
reducing secondary losses. Leading edge (LE) contouring near the
endwall is one of the methods that show potential to decrease
secondary losses. Moreover, the similar application is well established
in the aviation industry at the wing/body junction since many years.
Many of the previous studies focused on the wing/body junction where
only the horseshoe vortex presents. Very few studies have reported the
use of leading edge fillets in turbine cascades, where there are not only
horseshoe vortices but also passage vortices. Sauer and Wolf [11] and
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 Sauer et al. [12] studied various differently sized leading edge bulbs D Diameter [mm]
(convex connection between the LE and platform) in a linear cascade. h Vane height at trailing edge [mm]
Sauer and Wolf [11] reported a reduction of 25% in the secondary M Mach number [-]
losses using bulbs. Devenport et al. [8] reported that the horseshoe Miso3 Isentropic exit Mach number [-]
vortex structure is altered when fillets or fairings are employed in a psc Stagnation chamber total pressure [kPa]
two dimensional wing. Zess and Thole [13] investigated an p20 Upstream total pressure [kPa]
asymmetric elliptical leading edge fillet with height and length p30 Downstream total pressure [kPa]
proportional to the incoming boundary layer in a linear cascade. The p30s Downstream static pressure [kPa]
results from Zess and Thole indicate that the leading edge fillet R Radius [mm]
decreases the generation of the HS vortex and also delays the Re Reynolds number [-]
development of the passage vortex. They also reported a significant s Pitch [mm]
reduction of the turbulent kinetic energy levels and the streamwise u Velocity [m/s]
vorticity level, which are contributors to aerodynamic losses in a x, y, z Axial, pitchwise and spanwise [mm]
turbine vane passage. distance respectively
Becz et al. [14, 15] compared the leading edge bulb and fillet and α Exit flow angle [º]
reported obtaining a reduction of 7.3% [15] in the mass-averaged total α0 Inlet flow angle [º]
loss with the fillet and no loss reduction from the bulb, although Becz α0m Inlet metal angle [º]
[14] previously reported obtaining a reduction of 8% in the area- αef Average Effective Exit Angle [º]
averaged total loss using both the small bulb and the fillet. β Radial flow angle [º]
Additionally, Becz [15] mentioned finding an increased exit flow angle δ Uncovered turning angle [º]
for the filleted case compared to the baseline case. κ Specific heat ratio [-]
Mahmood et al. [16] and Saha et al. [17] investigated endwall Δ Difference [-]
heat transfer measurement for four different fillet profiles in a linear ξ Stagger angle [º]
cascade and reported finding the lowest heat transfer for a fillet with a ω Vorticity [1/s]
parabolic profile. Mahmood et al. [18] found a reduction of secondary ζ Energy loss coefficient [-]
flows, vortices and kinetic energy for a filleted case compared to a
baseline case. In all measurements [16, 17, 18] the suction side
extension of the fillet was more pronounced than the pressure side to Subscripts and Abbreviations
reduce extra vortices. Shi et al. [19] numerically investigated the ASC Annular Sector Cascade
aerodynamic influence of rotor blade fillets on a turbine stage, and CAD Computer Aided Design
found that the fillet is capable of restraining the flow separation near HPT High Pressure Turbine
the leading edge of the rotor blade. However, the fillet radius has little HS Horseshoe
influence on the efficiency of the turbine stages. KTH Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (in Swedish)
As can be seen in the above review, leading edge fillets show LE Leading Edge
potential for reducing the secondary loss. However, previous bulb and NGV Nozzle Guide Vane
fillet investigations have been performed in linear cascade. It is PS Pressure Side
reported by Deich [20] and Moustapha et al. [21] that there is a SLA Stereo Lithography Apparatus
considerable difference in the secondary flows in a linear cascade SS Suction Side
compared to those in an annular cascade. Therefore, annular cascade TE Trailing Edge
investigations are necessary to fully explore the effects of leading edge ax Axial Reference
fillets on the secondary flow. This is due to the fact that annular av Average
cascades are more analogous to a real engine. Furthermore, most of the ef Effective
previous studies of fillets have been performed as a low speed case in exit Exit
a big scale model. The secondary flow depends strongly on the Mach hub Hub
number and secondary flow losses decrease as the Mach number in Inlet
increases. The high pressure turbine (HPT) vane is normally operated iso Isentropic
in the transonic range (Mach no. 0.7-1.0). Therefore, it is necessary to iso3 Exit Isentrpoic
perform experiments on the transonic case. The previous studies were kg Kilogram
performed mostly with 2D profiles while it is well known that the kin Kinetic
secondary flow is a highly three-dimensional phenomenon. Therefore, Max Maximum
it is necessary to test the secondary flow in a three dimensional vane. mid Midspan
Furthermore, the previous studies perform the comparison between the pb Parallel Bar
leading edge fillets and a baseline case where there is absolutely no s Static
fillet. It is well known that, in the real case, a certain degree of fillet sec Second
always exists. Therefore, this study has been performed with a leading thr Throat
edge fillet together with the existing real fillet in a transonic annular tip Tip
sector cascade to investigate whether a LE fillet is beneficial to Tu Turbulence Intensity
increase the efficiency of a turbine. 20 Upstream Total and Static Pressure Plane Position
30 Downstream Total Pressure Plane Position
NOMENCLATURE 31 Downstream Hub Static Pressure Tap Plane Position
A Area [mm2]
c Chord length [mm]

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Airfoil Geometry : The reference nozzle guide vane (NGV)
design parameters are listed in Table 1. The investigated NGV is a
cooled gas turbine vane (geometrically similar) with a three-
dimensional design (Figure 1). The present investigation is performed
without cooling. This vane was designed with similar profiles along
the full height and the ratio Dav/h was very high (≈ 21.6). This means
that all relative geometrical parameters and angles (s/c, α0, δ and so
on) are correspondingly the same. The leading edge (LE) shows a
slight forward sweep and the trailing edge (TE) has a circumferential
positive lean of 4º at the midspan. The tip platform has an axis-
symmetric S-shaped endwall contouring to reduce the secondary flow:
it increases acceleration close to the tip, thus thinning the boundary
layer and reducing the HS vortex (Diech [20]). Finally, two typical
fillets with variable radii (average value 5 mm) are placed at the
junction of the vane and the lower and upper endwall to provide a
smooth transition between them.
Figure 1: CAD model of the reference vane with conventional fillet
without LE fillet
Figure 2: CAD model of LE fillet
The design of the leading edge fillet (Figure 2) is based on the
work reported in [13-18]. The recommended design criteria from the
literature [17-18] are taken to design the LE fillet. Their main design
criteria have been used here: the maximum height of the fillet is one
3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
boundary layer thickness of the inlet flow. Some modifications have
been implemented to use the LE fillet in the annular sector cascade. In
the real engine the inlet condition in the NGV varies based on the
vane-combustor interfaces; in the experiment it varies based on the
inlet flow field, for instance due to a turbulence grid. Since boundary
layer thickness depends on the inlet condition and varies with different
turbulence grids, the maximum fillet height is taken as 10% of the inlet
span of the NGV. This is due to the fact that the inlet boundary layer
thickness is 10% of the inlet span when a parallel bar turbulence grid
is used. The suction side downstream extension is more pronounced
than the pressure side to prohibit the extra vortices due to the insertion
of the LE fillet as refereed by Zess and Thole [13]. Based on the
literature [17-18], the upstream extension of the fillet from the LE
stagnation point is taken as about 30% of cax,hub whereas the suction
side downstream extension is 56.6% of cax,hub and pressure side
downstream extension is about 32.2% of cax,hub from the LE stagnation
point. The height of the fillet varies linearly from blade surface to the
endwall. The instrumented NGVs and LE fillets (figure 3) are
manufactured using a stereo lithography rapid prototyping technique
(SLA). The LE fillets are inserted as plastic add-ons to the NGVs.
Table 1: Geometric parameter of NGV
Design Parameter Value
True chord (c) 129 mm
Axial chord at hub radius (cax,hub) 62.5 mm
Pitch-to-chord ratio at midspan (TE) (s/c) 0.826
Hub radius at exit (RTE,hub) 615.3 mm
Tip radius at exit (RTE,tip) 675.1 mm
Tip-to-hub ratio at exit (RTE,tip/RTE,hub) 1.097
Aspect ratio based on TE vane height (h/c) 0.463
Average effective exit angle (αef) (αef = arcsin(Athr/Aax)) 16.5º
Stagger angle (ξ) 33.3º
Leading edge radius (RLE) 13.8 mm
Uncovered turning angle (δ) 19º
Inlet metal angle (α0m) 120º
LE fillet
Figure 3: ASC with LE fillet
Experimental Facility and Cascade Arrangement: The
annular sector cascade (ASC) facility was designed to provide a test
facility for different kind of experimental investigations to improve the
efficiency of modern gas turbines. It is installed at the Division of Heat
and Power Technology at KTH, Sweden. A schematic representation of
the wind tunnel arrangement is shown in figure 4.
 monitoring at the settling chamber where a pitot tube is used to obtain
the settling chamber total pressure. Previously, a relation has been
saved between the settling chamber total pressure and upstream
mipspan total pressure at section ‘20’.

NGV -1 NGV 0 NGV +1

Figure 4:Schematic of wind tunnel arrangement

Exit
Air is supplied by a twin screw compressor which is powered by a 1
MW electric motor. Since the compressor exit air temperature is about
180°C, an air cooler is used to cool the air to 30°C. At this condition,
the maximum continuous air flow is about 4.7 kg/sec at 4 bars. The
mass flow to the ASC facility is controllable using two inlet valves and
two bypass valves. The exhaust part consists of one outlet valve and Inlet
one exhaust fan, which can be used for adjusting the outlet pressure to
set the operating point. The incoming air (figure 5) first enters the Figure 6: Radial section view of the test section with LE fillet and
settling chamber which consists of a honeycomb and five mesh screens outlet volume
to smoothen the flow. After the settling chamber there is a straight
circular section before the cross-sectional area changes from the
circular shape to the annular sector shape in a first contraction. This
contraction is followed by a changeable turbulence grid. In the present
study, a parallel bar (pb) turbulence grid with a turbulence intensity of
1.5% (Putz [22]) is used. The test section has an opening of 36º. The
cascade consists of 3 airfoils and two side walls (figure 6).

(1) Inflow, (2) Settling chamber, (3) First radial contraction, (4) Turbulence grid (5) Second
radial contraction, (6) Test sector with NGVs and 7(Outflow)
Figure 7: Axial section view of test sector with LE fillet through
NGV0
Figure 5: Annular sector cascade arrangement
Pneumatic pressure taps are located at 55.7% cax,hub upstream
The ASC is equipped with a fully automatic traverse mechanism
from the NGV leading edge in the upstream casing. The downstream
which is able to scan the upstream and downstream flow field. The
traverse arc is located at 127.5% cax,hub downstream from the NGV
flow temperature is measured by a platinum resistance temperature
leading edge. The endwall pressure measurements are performed at the
sensor (Pt100) which has an accuracy of ± 0.15°C at 0°C. The
hub by 9 pressure taps at 136.5% cax,hub downstream from the NGV
temperature sensor is placed in the settling chamber and connected to a
leading edge denoted by ‘31’ in figure 7. The downstream
Keithley 2701 data acquisition and logging unit. An axial cross
measurements are performed by a 5-hole L-probe (figure 8) which is
sectional view of the test sector is depicted in figure 7. It shows all
calibrated for the Mach number range of 0.1 to 0.95. The same parallel
main locations. The inlet measuring plane is located at 55.7% cax,hub
bar turbulence grid (figure 9) with turbulence intensity (Tu) of 1.5%
upstream from the NGV leading edge denoted by ‘20’ in figure 7. The
(Putz [22]) is used for the filleted and the baseline case. The 5-hole
inlet total pressure is measured by a 3-hole cobra probe which has
probe is an L-probe and the tip is positioned at 108.6° from the axial
been calibrated before the run to get the inlet total pressure profile and
direction. Therefore, the actual probe tip traverse plane is at 107.1%
this inlet total pressure profile is used for the downstream loss
cax,hub and all the downstream measurements are performed at 107.1%
calculation. However, this inlet measuring plane is not used while
cax,hub. Each full area traverse of the 5-hole probe represents 1170
running the downstream area traverse in order to avoid the upstream
measurement points with 39 tangential and 30 radial points between
disturbance. Instead, the inlet total pressure is derived with the data
0% and 100% span for one pitch. All three NGVs are equipped with

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1
pressure taps of 0.4 mm diameter perpendicular to the surface at 25%,
50% and 75% span. NGV0 has 45 taps, NGV-1 has 43 taps and 0.9
NGV+1 has 29 taps. Flow and leakage tests were performed prior to
0.8

Normalized spanwise location

the final installation of the vanes in the test section.
Pneumatic pressure measurements are averaged from 60 0.7
sequenced scans with a PSI pressure scanner (PSI 9116). The PSI 9116
0.6
pressure acquisition unit features an accuracy of ±0.05% of its full
scale which corresponds to ±51.75 Pa and ±103.5 Pa for the relevant 0.5
channels. The Solartron barometer has been used to measure the
0.4
barometric pressure in the experimental room with an accuracy of
0.01% to its full scale, which corresponds to ±11.5 Pa. The overall 0.3
averaged uncertainty of the mass averaged energy loss coefficient is
0.2
calculated to ∆ξkin = ± 0.16% (Putz [22]) at the exit Mach number of
0.9. The angle measurements have an accuracy of ±0.6°. Most of the 0.1
measurements are performed twice in order to check the repeatability.
0
Since both the baseline and filleted cases are performed using same 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
instruments, the relative error between cases is lower. Normalized inlet total pressure, (p20-p20s,av)/(psc- p20s,av)

Figure 10: Inlet total pressure profile at 55.7% cax,hub upstream of

LE

0.9

0.8
Mach number

0.7
Figure 8: View of 5-hole Figure 9: A parallel bar turbulence
probe grid
0.6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To investigate the influence on the LE contouring by the fillet,
load distributions along the vane profile and the downstream flow field
are measured for both the filleted cases and baseline cases. The
investigations are performed for a wide range of operating exit Mach
number (Miso3 = 0.9, 0.7 and 0.5) for the design inlet flow angle of 90°.
The inlet total pressure is measured by a 3-hole cobra probe; the
normalized total pressure distribution is illustrated in figure 10. The
parallel bar turbulence grid produce a hub total pressure gradient up to
about 10% of the LE height. The inlet measurements are performed for
different exit Mach numbers which reveal that the radial total pressure
distribution does not vary with the operating point. The total pressure
does not vary tangentially. This radial total pressure distribution is
used for the downstream kinetic energy loss calculation.
The periodicity of the flow field in the ASC is confirmed by
investigating the midspan isentropic Mach number for the baseline
case. The outcome (figure 11) shows that the periodicity is of a
satisfactory level. Three passages are covered in this measurement.
The lowest values on the Mach number curves correspond to a probe
position behind the NGV trailing edge where the flow is dominated by
the trailing edge wake.
0.5
0.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Linear traverse position
Figure 11: Mach number distribution at 50% of span
Load Measurement Comparisons: Static pressure
distributions along the vane surfaces at different operating points give
information about the aerodynamic performance of the vanes, and
allow conclusions to be drawn on the flow field inside the passages.
For the load distribution, the isentropic Mach numbers are used along
the NGV surfaces at 25%, 50% and 75% span (figure 12). The local
isentropic Mach number distributions along the vane profile are based
on the total pressure measured at the inlet of the test section, and on
the static pressure measured on the surfaces of the vanes.
The Miso distribution shows a typical load distribution for a
conventional design in both the baseline and filleted cases, for all
operating points. There is no sign of flow separation for any of the
cases. The exit diffusion factor is low (~ 0.1 for Miso = 0.9) and
identical for the three different spans. As can be seen from figure 12,
there is almost no difference for the baseline and filleted case for 25%,
50% and 75% span for the reference operating point (Miso = 0.9)
except the region of the maximum velocity near the TE of the suction
side. Similar behavior is obtained for low Mach number cases (figure
13). Figure 13 illustrates also the effect of off-design performances in

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the 25% span profile. Increasing the exit Mach numbers results in a dark black line starting from 0 to upward direction is the TE location
more aft-loaded loading distribution. Similar behavior is found for the of NGV0.
50% and 75% span. It is also seen that the peak Mach number position
at the suction side of the profile is equal for different Mach numbers. In broad terms, the total pressure distributions for the baseline and the
filleted cases are very similar. A strong decrease in total pressure can
Baseline(25% span) be observed in the wake region behind the TE, whereas the total
Fillet(25% span) pressure remains constant in the mainstream flow.
1 Baseline(50% span)
Fillet(50% span)
Isentropic Mach number, Miso

Baseline(75% span)
0.8 Fillet(75% span) 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

0.6 0.4

0.35
TE of NGV 0
0.4

Spanwise location, z/h

0.3

0.25
0.2

SS

PS
0.2

0 0.15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalized surface length, x/cax 0.1

0.05
Figure 12: Profile Miso distribution at different spans for filleted and
baseline case at operating point Miso3= 0.9 0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Pitchwise location, s/s
Baseline,Miso=0.90
Fillet,Miso=0.90 Figure 14a: Normalized total pressure (p30/p20) distribution for
1
Baseline,Miso=0.70 baseline case at Mach number Miso3= 0.9
Isentropic Mach number, Miso

Fillet,Miso=0.70
0.8 Baseline,Miso=0.50 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Fillet,Miso=0.50

0.6
0.4

0.35
0.4 TE of NGV 0
Spanwise location, z/h

0.3

0.2 0.25
SS

PS

0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.15
Normalized surface length, x/cax
0.1

0.05
Figure 13: Profile Miso distribution at 25% span for baseline and
filleted case at different operating points 0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Pitchwise location, s/s
From the flow field picture, it can be concluded that the NGV has a
smooth acceleration for all exit Mach numbers. The acceleration
increases with the increase of the exit Mach number. The maximum Figure 14b: Normalized total pressure (p30/p20) distribution for
velocity in the suction side is close to the trailing edge. This essentially filleted case at Mach number Miso3= 0.9
means that one can expect a small level of secondary loss.
Unfortunately, the loading near the hub endwall cannot be captured As the probe is traversed at 107.1% of cax, there is a minor phase
below 25% with the instrumented vane. shift in the positive circumferential direction between the wake
location and the vane trailing edge. Above 30% span, the wake is
Field of Total Pressure: Figures 14a and 14b display contour straight with clearly defined borders which are basically regions of the
plots of total pressure at the downstream plane for the baseline and the profile losses for both cases. However, some interesting secondary
filleted cases, respectively, at the reference operating point (Miso3 = flow phenomena, which can be attributed to the presence of LE fillet,
0.9). The horizontal axis corresponds to the normalized pitchwise are found between the hub endwall and 25% span. The dark blue total
location whereas the vertical axis corresponds to the normalized span. pressure loss core can be observed at about 13% span for the baseline
The total pressure is normalized by the upstream total pressure. The case (figure 14a) and at about 16% span for the filleted case (figure

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 14b). These loss cores can be attributed to the hub endwall passage there is no significant change of the turning over the full span for the
vortex. These are further described using vorticity distributions in a filleted case compared to the baseline case.
later section. As expected, the pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex For the filleted case at the reference operating point (Miso3= 0.9)
of the NGV+1 migrates over the passage and hits the suction side of (figure 16a), there is a small increase in turning up to 15 % of the span
the NGV0. Furthermore, the boundary layer cross-flow from the and then a small decrease up to 35 % of the span. However, the
pressure side of the NGV+1 to the suction side of the NGV0 as well as average value of the exit flow angle in the secondary flow region is
the corner vortex of the NGV0 is also present. All these phenomena approximately 17.9° which is same both for the baseline and filleted
add together to form the secondary flow loss. A closer investigation of cases. For lower exit velocity (Miso3= 0.7, Miso3= 0.5) the turning
the flow near the endwall reveals a wider zone of total pressure loss increases slightly (less than 0.25°) for the baseline case compared to
for the suction side of the baseline case (up to Δs/s = -0.14) compared the filleted case. It should be mentioned here that the exit flow angle is
to the filleted case (up to Δs/s = -0.04). However, the opposite flow decreased with decreasing the exit Mach number.
picture is found on the pressure side where a slightly wider zone of
total pressure loss is found for the filleted case (up to Δs/s = 0.13) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
compared to the baseline case (up to Δs/s = 0.12). Nevertheless, the
total pressure drop in this very small region is insignificant compared
to the major loss cores like the passage vortex. Unfortunately, the 1
boundary layer flow cannot be completely captured, as a certain safety

24
clearance has to be kept between the probe head and the endwall. A
0.8

Spanwise location, z/h

32
certain distance from the wall to the probe head is also necessary to
avoid the wall proximately effect (Treaster and Yocum [23]).

12

24
0.6

SS

PS
Exit Flow Angle Distributions: The exit flow angle

22
14
TE of NGV 0
0.4
distributions give information about the flow turning, which is a very

16
14

18
important design criterion of a nozzle guide vane. Lower values of exit

20
24
22
TE of NGV +1

V -1
flow angle (α) means higher turning. 0.2

14

TE of NG
34
12
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pitchwise location, s/s

1 Figure 15a: Exit flow angle distribution for filleted case at exit Mach
number Miso3= 0.9
0.8
Spanwise location, z/h

22

1
24

0.6 0.9
12
SS

PS

TE of NGV 0 0.8
20

14
18
16
16 20
22

0.4
14

Spanwise location, z/h

0.7
14
TE of NGV +1

24 0

V -1

0.2 0.6
TE of NG
3

Baseline, Miso3=0.90
14

30 0.5
Fillet, Miso3=0.90
0
0.4
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Pitchwise location, s/s 0.3

0.2
Figure 15a: Exit flow angle distribution for baseline case at exit
Mach number Miso3= 0.9 0.1

0
In general, a very similar picture is acquired for the baseline 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5
(figure 15a) and the filleted (figure 15b) cases, although some local Exit flow angle [°]
variation is found. In the free stream, the exit flow angles remain
unaffected by the use of the LE fillet. The nature of the exit flow angle Figure 16a: Comparison of pitch-averaged exit flow angle
can be explained by the pressure gradient between the suction and distribution at exit Mach number Miso3 = 0.9
pressure side, sucking the flow towards the adjacent suction side. Very
high deviations from the mean exit flow angle can be observed in the
vortex regions where areas of both very high and very low exit flow
angles collide with each other. The phenomenon of underturning and
overturning in these secondary flow regions causes significant losses.
In figure 16a-16c, comparisons of the pitch-averaged exit flow angle
distribution along the span are depicted. As can be seen in the figures,

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
0.9

0.8
1
Spanwise location, z/h

0.7
0
2

-4
0.8

Spanwise location, z/h

0.6
Baseline, Miso3=0.70
0.5 TE of NGV 0
0.6
Fillet, Miso3=0.70

SS

PS
-6

-2
0.4
0.4

-4

-2
0.3

-6
TE of NGV +1

TE of NGV -1
0.2

0
0.2 -1-1 0

-4
-2
2
6
-2-4

-6
0.1

0
0
0
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Exit flow angle [°] Pitchwise location, s/s

Figure 16b: Comparison of pitch-averaged exit flow angle Figure 17a: Radial flow angle distribution for baseline case at exit
distribution at exit Mach number Miso3 = 0.7 Mach number Miso3= 0.9

0.9 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

0.8
Spanwise location, z/h

0.7 1

0.6
0.8
Spanwise location, z/h

4 0
Baseline, Miso3=0.50
0.5
Fillet, Miso3=0.50 TE of NGV 0
0.6
0.4

SS

PS
0.3

-6
-2
0.4

-6

-4

-2
0.2
TE of NGV +1

TE of NGV -1
0

0.2 -8
0.1 6
0
0

0
-2
0 0
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5
Exit flow angle [°] -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Pitchwise location, s/s
Figure 16c: Comparison of pitch-averaged exit flow angle
distribution at exit Mach number Miso3 = 0.5 Figure 17b: Radial flow angle distribution for filleted case at exit
Mach number Miso3= 0.9

Radial Flow Angle Distributions: The radial flow angle (also
known as the pitch angle), together with the exit flow angle, form the
structures of the flow: when the radial flow angle is negative, the flow
is a downward-directed flow. Similar to the exit flow angle
distribution, the radial flow angle distribution remains unaffected by
the use of a LE fillet. In the mainstream flow, especially close to the
suction side, the radial flow angle is around 0°. Close to the pressure
side (Δs/s = 0.1 to 0.4), both figures (figure 17a and 17b) show a
downwash, which is most likely caused by the tip endwall contouring.
The regions of secondary flow are strongly influenced by the radial
flow. Changes in the endwall regions are discussed in the vorticity
analysis.
Vorticity and Velocity Vector Distribution: The three-
dimensional velocity vectors are calculated in a Cartesian coordinate
system.
The components uy and uz can be calculated from the velocity vector
together with exit flow angle (α) and radial flow angle (β) according to
the following equations:
(1)
(2)
The axial component of the vorticity (ωx) can be calculated as:

(3)

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 18a and 18b show contour plots of the exit plane vorticity present, which is a trailing edge shed vortex. The shed vortex is
distribution overlaid with velocity vectors for the reference exit Mach generated due to the shear layer that is formed in the wake region
number Miso = 0.9. For flow vector analysis, the radial and together with the radial flow angle difference on the suction and
circumferential parts of the velocity vector are used. The vorticity in pressure sides. The flow vectors clearly show that such radial flow
the nominal direction is used for the secondary flow analysis. This angle differences exist. The radial angle differences can also be seen in
implies that when looking upstream, a positive vorticity means a the radial flow angle distributions (figure 17a and 17b). This shed
counter-clockwise rotating vortex and vice versa. The unit for the vortex stretches all the way up to the tip secondary flow. It can be
vorticity scale is 1/s. As described previously, the coordinate Δs/s = 0 concluded that the effect on the secondary flow field after putting the
represents the axial projection of the trailing edge of NGV0. In order LE fillet that the changes are small and mostly below 15% span.
to obtain greater accuracy in the results, repeat tests are performed to
confirm the repeatability. In general, the vorticity distribution is of the
same nature for the baseline and filleted case. However, some _ -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
particularities are found upon a closer investigation of the endwall +
region. At the hub endwall (from 0 to 10% span), between Δs/s= -0.5

SS

PS
and 0, a clearly visible counter-clockwise rotating passage vortex (A) 0.35
is present for both the filleted and the baseline cases. As discussed in 0.3

Spanwise location, z/h

TE of NGV 0
E
the total pressure distribution section, this vorticity is basically the 0.25
pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex of the NGV+1 that migrates 0.2
towards the suction side of the NGV0 and is intensified due to the 0.15
D C
crosswise pressure gradient inside the passage.

TE of NGV +1
0.1

TE of NGV -1
A
0.05 B
0
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 -0.05
_
+ -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Pitchwise location, y/s
0.6 0.8 1

Δs/s
SS

PS

0.35
TE of NGV 0
0.3 E Figure 18b: Vorticity and flow vector distribution for filleted case at
Spanwise location, z/h

0.25 exit Mach number Miso3= 0.9

0.2
0.15 C
D
Aerodynamic Losses: The kinetic energy losses are calculated
TE of NGV +1

0.1
TE of NGV -1

0.05 A B using the following equation:

0
-0.05
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (4)
Pitchwise location, s/s
Δs/s 1
Figure 18a: Vorticity and flow vector distribution for baseline case at
exit Mach number Miso3= 0.9 1

0.9
However, the intensity of the vorticity contour is slightly smaller
in this region (A) for the filleted case compared to the baseline case. 0.8
Similar trends are observed in the total pressure contour (figure 14a
Spanwise location, z/h

0.7
and 14b) and also in the exit flow angle distribution where a small
increase in the turning is found for the filleted case. Directly right of 0.6
this region, a clockwise rotating vortex is found for both cases (B). Baseline, Miso3=0.90
0.5
This vortex originates from the suction side leg of the horseshoe Fillet, Miso3=0.90
vortex of the NGV0. An interesting phenomenon is found right above 0.4
the clockwise rotating vortex. Two small counter-rotating corner
0.3
vortices (C and D) are found for the baseline case, one with higher
intensity (counter-clockwise) (C) and another one with lower intensity 0.2
(clockwise) (D). The counter-clockwise rotating corner vortex (C)
0.1
might be a part of the passage vortex that is swept up due to the
suction side leg of the horseshoe vortex of the NGV0. The clockwise 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
rotating corner vortex (D) might be induced by the passage vortex as
 kin.energy [%]
described by Wang et al. [6]. The intensity of the clockwise rotating
corner vortex (D) is slightly smaller for the filleted case compared to Figure 19a: Mass-averaged kinetic energy loss distribution at exit
the baseline case. However, the spanwise extension of the corner Mach number Miso3= 0.9
vortices is smaller for the baseline case compared to the filleted case.
This essentially implies that the LE fillet moves the position of the Figure 19a-19c illustrates the mass averaged kinetic energy loss
corner vortices. Above 13% span for the baseline case and 15% span distribution over the full span in the downstream plane. Both the
for the filleted case, a clearly distinct clockwise rotating vortex (E), is baseline and filleted cases give similar results at the mid-span. In

9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 general, a very similar picture of the loss coefficients over the span can
be observed at the three different operating points. Losses from 30% to
70% span are indicative of the profile losses which account for
approximately 2.5% for the reference operating point (Miso = 0.9). The
extra losses below 30% span and over 70% span are the secondary
losses. The small differences in the distribution are indicative of the
changes that are apparent in the contour plots of the total pressure
fields (figure 14a and 14b) and the vorticity distributions (figure 18a
and 18b). The tip secondary loss remains the same for the baseline and
filleted case. From the hub loss distribution at the reference operating
point (Miso = 0.9), it is observed that the hub secondary loss is higher
for the baseline case up to 13% span compared to the filleted case. On
the contrary, the hub secondary loss is lower for the baseline case from
14% to 20% span compared to the filleted case. The combined effects
are same for the baseline and the filleted cases.
In general, there is no significant difference found when using a
LE fillet. The secondary loss for the baseline case and filleted case is
found to be approximately 1.1% for the reference operating point (Miso
= 0.9). For lower inlet velocities (figure 19b and figure 19c), the
filleted cases actually show slightly higher secondary losses compared
to the baseline case.
1
0.9
0.8
Spanwise location, z/h
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE WORK
Measurement results have been presented to demonstrate the
effect of hub leading edge contouring using fillets on the secondary
flow and aerodynamic losses in an annular sector cascade. The tested
reference nozzle guide vane is a high performance vane with a positive
tangential lean and a tip endwall contouring. Results are presented for
both the baseline and filleted cases for a wide range of operating Mach
number from 0.5 to 0.9. The experimental results include blade
loading, fields of total pressures, exit flow angles, radial flow angles,
as well as profile and secondary losses. Results from the key
observations suggest the following conclusions:
 There is no significant influence of the LE fillet in all investigated
flow performance. The reason why the LE fillet does not affect
the losses might be the use of a three-dimensional vane with an
existing typical fillet over the full hub and tip profile. It is already
proven that a typical fillet has an aerodynamic benefit. The
previous authors obtained the loss reduction comparing a LE fillet
with the baseline case having absolutely no fillet in low speed
cases. In the present investigation, the comparison has been done
between the LE filleted case and a baseline case having a small
fillet all the way towards trailing edge. Furthermore, the present
investigation is performed in the annular sector cascade of a
transonic wind tunnel.
 From load measurements, it can be concluded that the LE fillet
has no noticeable effect on the load distribution at the measured
spans (75%, 50% and 25% span). It would, however, be
interesting to investigate below the 25% span.

0.7
 A closer investigation of the flow near the endwall reveals a
0.6
Baseline, Miso3=0.70
wider zone of total pressure loss for the suction side of the
0.5 baseline case (up to Δs/s = -0.14) compared to the filleted case
Fillet, Miso3=0.70
(up to Δs/s = -0.04). However, the opposite flow picture is found
0.4
on the pressure side where a slightly wider zone of total pressure
0.3 loss is found for the filleted case (up to Δs/s = 0.13) compared to
the baseline case (up to Δs/s = 0.12). The maximum total pressure
0.2
loss core can be observed at about 13% span for the baseline case
0.1 whereas at about 16% span for the filleted case.
0
 From the exit flow angle distribution, it can be concluded that
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 there is no major change in the turning over the full span for the
 kin.energy [%] filleted case compared to the baseline case, although some local
Figure 19b: Mass-averaged kinetic energy loss distribution exit variations do exist. For the filleted case there is a small increase
Mach number Miso3= 0.7 of turning up to 15 % of the span and then a small decrease up to
35 % of the span.
1  The radial flow angle distributions downstream of the vane
0.9
remain unaffected by the use of the LE fillet.
 From the vorticity distribution the passage vortex, the suction side
0.8 leg of the HS vortex, two counter-rotating corner vortices and the
trailing edge shed vortex are found with only little difference in
Spanwise location, z/h

0.7
intensity for the filleted case compared to the baseline case in the
0.6 suction side. The passage vortex intensity is slightly smaller for
Baseline, Miso3=0.50
0.5
the filleted case compared to the baseline case. However, the
Fillet, Miso3=0.50 spanwise extension of vortices is slightly higher for the filleted
0.4 case compared to the baseline case. This essentially implies that
0.3
the LE fillet shifts the position of the vortices. However, the
changes in the overall vortex structure are very small.
0.2  A very similar picture of the kinetic energy loss coefficients over
0.1
the span can be observed at the three different operating points for
the baseline and the filleted cases. Losses from 30% to 70% span
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 indicate that it is the profile loss which accounts for
 kin.energy [%] approximately 2.5% whereas the secondary loss is about 1.1% for
the reference operating point (Miso3 = 0.9). The secondary loss in
Figure 19c: Mass-averaged kinetic energy loss distribution at exit the hub region is higher for the baseline case up to 13% span
Mach number Miso3= 0.5 compared to the filleted case whereas it is lower from 13% to

10 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 20% span compared to the filleted case. The combined effects are
same for the baseline and the filleted case. The influence of Mach
number is small.
 The structure of the downstream plane signifies that the next
blade row will not be influenced by the vane leading edge fillet.
In the present study, one fillet shape has been used to perform all
the filleted cases with one inlet condition. It would be important to
investigate the fillet influence with other inlet conditions. For better
understanding it would be interesting to investigate the vane loading
below 25% span and perform flow field measurements using probes
which can approach more closely to the endwall (for instance 3-hole
probes with a small diameter) where the secondary flow exists
strongly. Therefore, further experiments should be performed under
different inlet conditions using different probes. A 3D CFD calculation
would be helpful to understand the flow structure very close to the
endwall. But, it is clear that the CFD will not change the main
conclusions from the experiment. It should be also noted that the
investigated vane has a low level of losses. It would be interesting to
observe whether an improvement could be seen for a vane row with a
larger baseline secondary loss.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been funded by the Swedish Energy Agency,
Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB, Volvo Aero Corporation AB
and the Royal Institute of Technology through the Swedish research
program TURBOPOWER, the support of which is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Sharma, O.P., and Butler, T. L.; 1987, “Prediction of Endwall
Losses and Secondary Flows in Axial Flow Within a Turbine
Cascade Passage”, ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 109,
pp.229-236.
[2] Langston, L.S.; 1980, “Crossflows in a Turbine Cascade
Passage”, ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, vol.102, pp.
866-874.
[3] Sieverding, C.H.; 1985, “Recent Progress in the Understanding
of Basic Aspects of Secondary Flows in Turbine Blade
Passages”, ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, vol. 107,
pp. 248-257.
[4] Langston, L.S.; 2001, “Secondary Flows in Axial Turbines- A
Review”, Heat Transfer in Gas Turbine Systems, Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 934, oo11-26.
[5] Wang. H.P., Olson, S.J., Goldstein, R.J., Eckert, E.R :G.; 1995,
“Flow Visualization in a Linear Turbine Cascade of High
Performance Turbine Blade”, ASME paper 95-GT-7.
[6] Acharya, S., and Mahmood, G.I.; 2006, “Turbine Blade
Aerodynamics”, The Gas Turbine Handbook, National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL)-DOE, vol. 1.0, Chap.4.3.
[7] Eckerle W.A., and Langston, L.S. ; 1987, “Horseshoe Vortex
Formation Around a Cylinder”, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, vol. 109, pp. 278-286.
[8] Devenport, W.J., Agarwal, N.K, Dewitz, M.B., Simpson, R.L.,
and Poddar, K.; 1990, “Effects of a Fillet on the Flow Past a
Wing-body Junction”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 28, No. 12: 2017-
2024.
[9] Mobarak, A., Khalafallah, M.G., Osman, A.M. and Heikal, H.A.;
1988, “Experimental Investigation of Secondary Flow and
Mixing Downstream of Straight Turbine Cascades”, ASME
Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 110, No. 4, pp.497-503.
11
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[10] Herzig, H.Z. and Hansen, A.G.; 1955, “Visualisation studies of
secondary flow with applications to turbomachines”,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 77, No. 3.
[11] Sauer, H., Wolf, H; 1997, ‘‘Influencing the Secondary Flow in
Turbine Cascades by the Modification of the Blade Leading’’,
2.European Conference of Turbomachinery, Antwerpen.
[12] Sauer, H., Mueller, R., and Vogeler, K.; 2000, ‘‘Reduction of
Secondary Flow Losses in Turbine Cascades by Leading Edge
Modifications at the Endwall’’, ASME Paper, 2000-GT-0473.
[13] Zess, G. A., and Thole, K. A.; 2001, “Computational Design and
Experimental Evaluation of Using a Leading Edge Fillet on a
Gas Turbine Vane”, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT-
2001-0404.
[14] Becz, S., Majewski, M. S., and Langston, L. S.; 2003, “Leading
Edge Modification Effects on Turbine Cascade Endwall Loss”,
Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT-2003-38898.
[15] Becz, S., Majewski, M. S., and Langston, L. S.; 2004.., “An
experimental Investigation of Contoured Leading Edges for
Secondary Flow Loss Reduction”, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo,
Paper No. GT-2004-53964.
[16] Mahmood, G. I., Gustafson, R., and Acharya, S.; 2005,
“Experimental Investigation of Flow Structure and Nusselt
Number in a Low Speed Linear Blade Passage With and Without
Leading Edge Fillets”, ASME J. Heat Transfer, 127, pp. 499–
512.
[17] Saha, A.K., Mahmood, G. I., and Acharya, S.; (2006), "The Role
of Leading-Edge Contouring on End-wall Flow and Heat
Transfer: Computations and Experiments", Proc. ASME Turbo
Expo, Paper No. GT2006-91318.
[18] Mahmood, G. I., and Acharya, S.; (2007), "Experimental
Investigation of Secondary Flow Structure in a Blade Passage
With and Without Leading Edge Fillets", Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 129, pp 253-262.
[19] Shi, Y., Li, J., and Feng, Z.; 2010, “Influence of Rotor Blade
Fillets on Aerodynamic Performance of Turbine Stage”, Proc.
ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT-2010-23721.
[20] Deich, M.E; 1961, “Technical Gas Dynamics”, 2nd Edition, M.-
L., SEP. 672 p.p (in Russian).
[21] Moustapha, S.H., Paron, G.J. and Wade, J.H.T.; 1985,
“Secondary Flows in Cascades of Highly Loaded Turbine
Blades”, ASME Tran. J. Engr, Gas turbine and Power, vol. 107,
pp. 1031-1038.
[22] Putz, F.M.; 2010, “Load, Secondary Flow and Turbulence
Measurements on Film Cooled Nozzle Guide Vanes in a
Transonic Annular Sector Cascade”, Msc Thesis, EGI-2010-067
MSC, EKV 806, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
[23] Treaster, A.L. and Yocum, A.M.; 1979, “The Calibration and
Application of Five-hole Probes”, ISA Transactions, Vol. 18,
No.3.
Copyright © 2012 by ASME