See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306077584

Influence of the Coriolis Force on the Flow in a Low Pressure Turbine Cascade
T106

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/GT2016-57399

CITATIONS READS
6 835

3 authors, including:

Denis Koschichow Jochen Fröhlich

CGNEV Dresden GmbH Technische Universität Dresden
10 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS 369 PUBLICATIONS 6,783 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Denis Koschichow on 12 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition
GT2016
June 13- 17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea

GT2016-57399

INFLUENCE OF THE CORIOLIS FORCE ON THE FLOW IN A LOW PRESSURE

TURBINE CASCADE T106

Oliver Baum, Denis Koschichow∗ and Jochen Fröhlich

Institute of Fluid Mechanics
Technische Universität Dresden
George-Bähr-Straße 3c
01062 Dresden, Germany
Email: denis.koschichow@tu-dresden.de

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
The paper presents numerical investigations of a model 1, 2 Indices identifying inlet, outlet
setup conceived to investigate the influence of the Coriolis force α Angle of incidence
on the secondary flow in a low pressure turbine cascade. It ad- δ Boundary layer thickness
dresses the question in which sense and by how much results in ζ2 Stagnation pressure loss coefficient, (P1 − P2 )/(0.5ρu22 )
a linear cascade may differ from the situation in a rotating cas- ν Kinematic viscosity
cade. For this purpose highly resolved Direct Numerical Simu- ρ Density
lations of the flow within a T106A passage close to the end- τw Wall shear stress
wall were conducted for two cases with and without rotation and hΦi Time averaged quantity
hence with and without Coriolis force at a Reynolds number of Ω Angular velocity
20, 000. Comparing non-rotating and rotating turbine passage, cax Axial chord length
several effects are detected: First, the Coriolis force causes tran- Cp Static pressure coefficient, (p − p2 )/(P1 − p2 )
sition of the horseshoe vortices, so that the region between the D Dean number
blades becomes much more turbulent and an explanation for the f Body force vector
destabilization is provided. Second, the strong radial flow caused LE, TE Leading edge, trailing edge
by the Coriolis force suppresses the laminar separation of the p Static pressure
boundary flow at the suction side. Third, in the case with rota- P Stagnation pressure
tion, the large-scale secondary motion creates higher stagnation t Time
pressure loss than in the reference case and is responsible for a Ta Taylor Number
complete redistribution of the flow field in the passage. An ad- u Velocity vector
ditional test case with opposite rotation was computed for com- ux , uy , uz Velocity components in x-, y-, z-direction
pleteness. u∞ Inflow velocity outside boundary layer
x, y, z Axial, pitchwise, spanwise/radial direction

∗ Address all correspondence to this author.

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Introduction
Besides investigations of rotating systems, numerical and
experimental investigations of linear cascades represent an im-
portant topic in turbomachinery research. The model of the lin-
ear cascade is commonly used because it offers many advantages
over a rotating machine. The major ones are an easy accessibility
during experimental measurements and an operational simplicity
for numerical issues. According to Todd et al. [1], the first studies
dealing with a linear cascade of blades date back to the late twen-
ties [2, 3]. The linear cascade was designed for investigations of
two-dimensional flow as it predominates in the midspan region
of a real turbine or compressor stage. In the last four decades,
the experimental and numerical studies on the linear model have
made great advances so that most of the effects in the midspan
region were understood and could be directly transferred to real
machines. As the secondary flow generates between 30% and
50% of the total aerodynamic losses [4,5] there is still a potential
for optimization. Due to good experiences with the linear cas-
cade it seems plausible to use this model also for investigating
the secondary flow. In the past, numerous experimental and nu-
merical studies considered the three-dimensional secondary flow
in both the linear turbine cascade and the linear compressor cas-
cade [6–9]. Some interesting effects of the rotor-stator interac-
tion could be shown. However, a link to the real machine or a
transfer of the data to a rotating system are missing. The reason
is that the complex, highly three-dimensional secondary flow in
a linear cascade differs from that in an axial stator [10]. Signifi-
cant differences of the stagnation pressure loss and the exit flow
deviation could be found between the planar cascade and annular
cascade [11]. Furthermore, additional effects of the centrifugal
force and Coriolis force should be taken into account if a swirl
flow is considered in its relative frame of reference.
At first sight, the principal influence of the centrifugal force
in a rotating row is simple and well-known. The centrifugal
force causes a radial pressure gradient. The velocity inside the
boundary layer is lower than outside. A secondary flow and a ra-
dial migration of the boundary layer is generated due to a radial
imbalance between the centrifugal force and pressure gradient in
the boundary layer [12,13]. While in a stator, the boundary layer
moves to the hub region, it moves towards the blade tip in a ro-
tor [13]. Since, the Coriolis force does not only appear in the
profile boundary layer but also in the endwall region, where the
boundary layers undergo changing and the secondary flow arises
between the pressure and suction side of two adjacent profiles,
the situation is very complex. In fact, any deviation of the flow
from a uniform rotating motion in the entire flow field leads to
a contribution of the Coriolis force. In particular, the impact of
the Coriolis force on the direction of the flow and the level of
turbulence is practically relevant, as these issues are relevant for
pressure losses and heat transfer. Here, the question of whether
and how information from a linear cascade can be transferred to
the rotating configuration is of major concern.
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
The present paper considers a model configuration of a lin-
ear low pressure T106A turbine cascade. To allow exact com-
parison of the flow with and without rotation the geometry is left
unchanged when introducing rotation. This constitutes an easy
and illustrative way of separating the influence of the Coriolis
force from all other issues and is one of the originalities of the
paper.
Equations and numerical method
A flow of an incompressible fluid trough a passage of a lin-
ear cascade can be computed using the Navier-Stokes equations.
Simulating the flow in the reference system of a rotating blade
requires accounting for the apparent forces caused by the rota-
tion of the reference frame, i.e. the Coriolis force and the cen-
trifugal force. For incompressible flow the centrifugal force does
not affect the velocity field as it can be expressed as the gra-
dient of a potential and can therefore be assigned to a reduced
pressure [14], here still denoted p. The resulting equations for
constant density and constant viscosity read
∂u 1 1
+ (uu · ∇) u = − ∇p + ν∇2 u + f cor , (1)
∂t ρ ρ
∇·u = 0, (2)
where u is the velocity in the rotating frame of reference. The
Coriolis force is given by [15]
f cor = −2ρ (Ω
Ω × u) . (3)
A rotation of the system around the x-axis, i.e. Ω = (Ω; 0; 0)T
with constant angular speed Ω leads to the simplification

T
f cor = 2ρ Ω 0; uz ; −uy . (4)
The in-house code LESOCC 2 (Large Eddy Simulation on
Curvilinear Coordinates version 2) [16] was used to solve (1),(2),
and (4) employing a cell-centered finite volume method of sec-
ond order with central schemes for the convective and the dif-
fusive fluxes. Block-structured grids with hexagonal cells were
used. Time advancement in the code was performed by a sec-
ond order three-stage Runge-Kutta scheme with a pressure cor-
rection in the last sub-step. The solver was validated in a large
number of earlier studies [16–18]. In [6, 7, 19] the method was
successfully employed for DNS of the flow in a linear turbine
cascade near the endwall, even with incoming turbulent wakes,
and showed good agreement with the corresponding experimen-
tal data. For the present study, the code was supplemented with a
Coriolis force term. This was thoroughly validated as described
in the following section.
Validation 1 1 ~
x
A suitable configuration for validating the additional Cori-
olis body force term in (1) is the Dean flow in a rotating pipe, us
0.5
shown in Fig. 1. It was selected since it covers the same effects 0.5 11.832
11.7
as addressed later on with both the curvature of the streamlines

LESOCC 2
10.5
and the Coriolis force generating the secondary flow in the pipe, 0 9
7.5
so that this problem is physically close to the main configuration 6

x
~
investigated below. 0 4.5
3
-0.5 1.5
0
~
-0.5 y
us u ̃y
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u x̃
s ~

Daskopoulos and Lenhoff [21]

y
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
z r

x
y
Ω
x
Ω
a R x̃
z y ̃y

FIGURE 1. ROTATING PIPE FLOW CONFIGURATION FOR

VALIDATION. FIGURE 2. 2D RESULTS FOR ROTATING PIPE FLOW: AXIAL
VELOCITY us AND STREAMLINES OF THE SECONDARY FLOW
WITH D = 100 AND Ta = −1000 AND COMPARISON WITH REF-
ERENCE DATA FROM [21].
The setup consists of a circular pipe with the radius of cur-
vature R much larger than the cross section radius a, such that
κ = a/R  1. Density and viscosity are supposed constant. The LESOCC2
Daskopoulos & Lenhoff
flow is driven by imposing a Poiseuille flow at the inlet and com- 12

puted until full development in s (Fig. 1). The curvature of the Ta = +500
streamlines in the pipe generates a positive radial pressure gradi-
ent ∂ p/∂ r leading, when fully developed, to a two-dimensional
8
secondary flow in the cross section of the pipe (Fig. 2). Without Ta = +1000
rotation of the pipe the flow
√ is characterized by the Dean number
uy~

D = −(∂ p/∂ s) a3 /(ρν 2 ) 2κ [20], and a value of D = 100 was

chosen here. Ta = 0
4
This configuration is then extended by rotating the pipe
around the x-axis with constant angular speed Ω, so that the
Coriolis force has a major impact on the secondary flow pat-
tern. This was characterized
√ in [21] using the Taylor number 0
Ta = (2aΩR/ν) 2κ, which can be seen as a non-dimensional -1 -0.5 0 ~ 0.5 1
y
measure of rotational speed, with Ta = 0 identifying the steady
curved pipe described first. Several cases with D = 100, R/a = FIGURE 3. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FOR ROTATING PIPE
100, and different values of Ta (−1000, 0, 500, 1000) were com- FLOW WITH D = 100 AND Ta ≥ 0 AND COMPARISON WITH REF-
puted. The section covered in s was 0◦ . . . 50◦ . The grid contained ERENCE DATA FROM [21].
5, 445 points in the cross section and 1, 750 points in s direction.
Perfect agreement with the reference data of [21] was achieved
as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Turbine configuration simulated
As motivated above, the goal of the present work is to high-
light the differences to be expected when inferring from the situa-
tion in a linear cascade, featuring secondary flow, to the situation
in the corresponding rotating machine. To meet this objective
the well investigated linear low pressure turbine (LPT) cascade
T106A [6,8] is assumed to be a rotor (Fig. 4). A simulation of the
linear case is conducted and compared to a simulation in a frame
of reference rotating with constant angular velocity Ω around an
axis parallel to the x-axis. The rotational frequency was cho-
sen to be N = 3, 000 rpm which can be seen as a lower limit for
stationary gas turbines. The frequency is made dimensionless ac-
cording to Ω = −2πNcax /u∞ , yielding a value of Ω = −0.337.
The minus sign results from the definition of the coordinate sys-
tem and the technically correct sense of rotation of a turbine.
This case (labeled Rotating) is compared to the reference case
without rotation, Ω = 0, (labeled Non-Rotating). Another case
of the same rotation rate but in opposite direction (labeled In-
verse) was computed as well for illustration. Figure 4 shows the
investigated passage with the coordinate system and information
on the geometry and boundary conditions. The x-axis is parallel
to the machine axis, which is also the axis of rotation. The y-
axis points in circumferential direction. The blades are assumed
being mounted on the hub.
All given lengths or positions are normalized by the ref-
erence length Lref := cax ≈ 85.88mm, which is defined by the
physical axial chord length cax . The height of the computational
domain is cax , with a symmetry condition imposed at this posi-
tion to limit the computational cost. A no-slip condition is ap-
plied at the endwall located at z = 0. Furthermore, a periodic
boundary condition in the pitchwise direction y and a convective
boundary condition at the outlet at x = 2 cax are applied.
The geometry described is the one of the linear cascade fea-
turing parallel blades. In a rotating machine the blades would be
positioned at an angle pointing in radial direction. In the present
study the geometry is not altered between the Non-Rotating and
the Rotating case. This corresponds to the limit of very large
hub radius. Note that the Coriolis force term does not contain
the radius as an input. Hence, any difference in the flow is only
caused by the Coriolis force without interference with geomet-
rical changes. Maintaining the geometry, is seen as a particular
advantage here as it allows clean conclusions and easy reproduc-
tion by others.
In the same spirit, the inlet velocity is imposed independent
of the rotation rate at x = −0.7 cax
u|1 = (cos α |uu|1 , sin α |uu|1 , 0)T , (5)
where α denotes the inflow angle. For the T106A turbine profile
with a stagger angle of 59.28◦ , zero incident flow is obtained with
α = 37.7◦ . The absolute inflow velocity is made a function of the
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
u∞ α
c
endwall
δ z
y x
c ax
FIGURE 4. GEOMETRY OF T106A TURBINE PASSAGE.
wall-normed direction z. A laminar boundary layer is prescribed
at the inlet according to

z  z 3  z 4
|uu|1 (z) 2 − 2 + for z ≤ δ
= δ δ δ (6)
u∞ 1 for z > δ ,
which is a good approximation of the Blasius boundary layer
with boundary layer thickness δ [22]. Here, u∞ represents
the freestream velocity. Velocity values are normalized by this
freestream velocity i.e. uref := u∞ = 80.0m/s. At this point,
the value δ is chosen to ensure that significant secondary flow
is generated, in particular the horseshoe vortex. Moreover, the
boundary layer thickness is chosen representative for existing en-
gines, here δ = 14.6mm = 0.17 cax . By doing so, the displace-
ment thickness and the momentum thickness are δ1 = 0.051 cax
and δ2 = 0.02 cax , respectively. The Reynolds number based on
the axial chord length and the inlet freestream velocity equals
20, 000. This is lower than in actual machines but allows per-
forming DNS, which is necessary to resolve the transitional flow
in this setting at reasonable cost. Figure 5 depicts the numerical
grid. The total number of the finite volume cells equals approxi-
mately 59 million. The wall resolution in wall units at the suc-
tion side is n+ + +
1 < 0.30, ∆t < 0.6, and at the endwall z1 < 0.58
+
at the inlet and z1,max = 4.00 the maximal value in the passage.
Here, the index 1 identifies the distance of the cell center of the
wall-adjacent cell from the wall, while ∆t + refers to the cell size
in tangential direction, and n to the normal direction along the
blade. The mesh generator developed by Wu [23] was used to
generate this grid.
For the case Non-Rotating, a start-up period of eleven pas-
sage flow-through times (cax /u∞ ) was computed. The statistics
 1 pletely. Near the endwall, the plot of the TKE reveals that the
0.5
y/cax
0 A and B are observed. Only close to B slight perturbations can
-0.5
-0.5 0 0.5 x/cax 1 1.5 2 tices A and B which turn around each other and eventually merge
FIGURE 5. NUMERICAL GRID FOR TURBINE PASSAGE, WITH
ONLY ONE OUT OF EIGHT GRID LINES PLOTTED.
were collected over a period of twelve flow-through times. The
time step was determined dynamically to satisfy a CFL number
smaller than 0.6 yielding ∆t ≈ 3.0 · 10−4 cax /u∞ . This simula-
tion consumed 77 hours wall clock time on a high-performance
system with 336 cores (Intel E5-2690, Sandy Bridge). The re-
sults of the simulation Non-Rotating were used as initial con-
dition for both cases Rotating and Inverse. In these cases, the
simulation was conducted for seven flow-through times as well
before time averaging was, again, performed over twelve passage
flow-through times.
Vortex systems
Figure 6 provides an overview over all three cases computed
showing instantaneous vortex structures by means of the λ2 -
criterion [24] and near-wall Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE).
The case Non-Rotating, shown in Fig. 6(b) and 6(e) is taken as
a reference. Two dominant vortices, labeled A and B, rotate
counter-clockwise with respect to their flow direction. They both
represent the pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex generated
by the incoming boundary layer. Due to the vicinity of the end-
wall, vortex A and vortex B induce tertiary vortices upstream of
their position. The values of λ2 for the iso-surface was chosen
so as to provide a clear view, which does not, on the other hand
detect weaker vortices. A closer analysis (not shown here) iden-
tifies the horseshoe vortex as a system of even more vortices, also
observed by Wang et al. [25]. Both vortices, A and B, are trans-
ported towards the suction side by the secondary cross flow at the
endwall which is generated by the pressure gradient in pitchwise
direction. Vortex A is lifted along the profile and away from the
wall in addition. Vortex B remains closer to the endwall and does
not interact with vortex A until it reaches the suction side of the
adjacent blade. Hence, although the horseshoe vortex occurs as a
single effect, the behavior of its individual parts can differ com-
5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
turbulence is only generated by the mutual interaction of parts
of the horseshoe vortex, the secondary cross flow and the inflow
boundary layer. Upstream and downstream of the near-wall re-
gion, influenced by the horseshoe vortex, no TKE generation can
be detected. The upstream flow and the boundary layer are lami-
nar so that before transition only little fluctuations around vortex
be seen near the leading edge. The same holds for the corner
region at the suction side related to the other leg of the horse-
shoe vortex. Further downstream, around x ≈ 0.5 cax . . . 0.6 cax ,
massive turbulent fluctuations are observed in the region of vor-
(Fig. 6(e)). The resulting turbulent vortex as a whole is further
lifted away from the wall and impacts on the suction side over a
broad range. Still further away from the endwall the flow along
the suction side of the blade remains laminar almost until the rear
end of the blade. Here, the adverse pressure gradient causes an
open separation. The separated flow is unstable and undergoes
transition. Due to the relatively low Reynolds number the flow
does not attach again.
Figures 6(a) and 6(d) depict the case Rotating with activated
Coriolis force. Here, the secondary flow pattern differs consid-
erably from the case Non-Rotating. The two stable parts of the
horseshoe vortex seen in Fig. 6(b) are transformed into a single
large turbulent structure (Fig. 6(a)). The position of the pressure
side leg of the horseshoe vortex A in the passage is similar to the
corresponding vortex A in the reference case, and the vortex is is
larger. A comparison between Fig. 6(d) and 6(e) shows that the
vortex system impinging on the suction side is lifted up towards
the midspan region compared to the case Non-Rotating. As an
additional result of this lift up, the near-wall fluid is less turbu-
lent from the center of the passage even until the wake region of
blade.
Finally, Fig. 6(c) and 6(f) show the same data for the case
Inverse. A rotation of the turbine in opposite direction is tech-
nically not realistic but addressed here for illustration. Figure
6(c) and 6(f) for Ω > 0 show exactly the opposite tendency com-
pared to the same rotation rate in the other direction (Fig 6(a)
and 6(d)): Turbulence is largely reduced apart from the endwall.
Furthermore, the vortex system is pushed towards the endwall, so
that the near-wall TKE magnitude increases, which is detectable
again even in the wake region, seen in the picture.
Mechanism of vortex destabilization
The marked effect which the Coriolis force has on the tran-
sition of the horseshoe vortices can be explained as follows using
the sketches in Fig. 7. Assume the axis of the vortex being in x-
direction. Then, it is parallel to the axis of rotation of the system.
According to (3) the resulting Coriolis force is perpendicular to
the axis of rotation and the velocity of the horseshoe vortex. In
 Z

X
uz/uref TKE/uref
2
Y
1.4 0.07
1.0 0.06
0.6 0.05
0.2 0.04
A -0.2 B 0.03
0.02
B

__
-0.6

__
__

0.01

__
-1.0

__
__

0.00

_
_
__
__

___ ___
A A
(a) Rotating: Ω < 0 (frontal view) (b) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (frontal view) (c) Inverse: Ω > 0 (frontal view)

X
Y

2(
w⃗
2 ( ×ω
w⃗ × ⃗ )
B ω
⃗)

A B A
___

__
_
_
(d) Rotating: Ω < 0 (lateral view) (e) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (lateral view) (f) Inverse: Ω > 0 (lateral view)

FIGURE 6. TWO VIEWS OF THE COHERENT VORTEX STRUCTURES REPRESENTED BY THE λ2 -CRITERION (TOP ROW: FRONTAL
VIEW; BOTTOM ROW: LATERAL VIEW). THE ISOSURFACE λ2 = −500 IS COLORED BY THE SPANWISE VELOCITY uz . A PLANE NEXT
TO THE ENDWALL SHOWS NEAR-WALL TKE BY A CONTOUR PLOT AND FLUID MOTION VIA SURFACE STREAMLINES. THE PRES-
SURE SIDE SURFACE OF THE PROFILE AND BLOCKS DOWNSTREAM OF THE PASSAGE ARE REMOVED FOR BETTER OVERVIEW.
VORTICES A AND B ARE DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT.

the case Rotating the Coriolis force always points outwards in

Vortex
Vortex
centrifugal direction. It thus induces an expansion of the vortex,
reduces the pressure on the axis of the vortex and destabilizes it
such that transition is supported (Fig. 7(a)). As a result the vortex Vortex
Vortex f fcorcor f corf cor
becomes turbulent much earlier. In contrast, Fig. 7(b) shows the
case with opposite rotation of the vortex and the frame of ref-
erence. Here, the Coriolis force acts in centripetal sense. This
causes the stabilization and the compression of the vortex. In-
deed, the eddies shown in Fig. 6(c) and 6(f) for the case Inverse Ω<0 Ω>0
Ω>0
Ω<0
are very stable. They only destabilize after interaction with the (a) (b)
boundary layer of the suction side of the adjacent profile. Figure
6 shows that the horseshoe vortices are not perfectly aligned with FIGURE 7. SKETCH OF THE IMPACT OF THE CORIOLIS
the x-axis, but they have a substantial component in this direction FORCE ON A VORTEX IN DIRECTION OF THE AXIS OF ROTA-
so that the argument holds. TION.

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1
<uz>/uref
0.8 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.6

z/cax
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.4
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 0.2
-0.4
-0.5

0
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
y/cax
(a) Rotating: Ω < 0 (b) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (c) Inverse: Ω > 0

FIGURE 8. STREAMLINES OF THE MEAN SECONDARY FLOW, AS DEFINED IN THE TEXT, IN THE PLANE x = 0.5 cax FOR THE THREE
CASES INVESTIGATED. THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS VELOCITY CAN BE ASSESSED BY THE VALUES OF THE VERTICAL COMPONENT
< uz > SHOWN IN FORM OF A CONTOUR PLOT IN ALL GRAPHS.

Large-Scale secondary flow
The displacement of the vortices discussed in relation to
Fig. 6 is due to a large-scale secondary motion induced by the
Coriolis force illustrated in Fig. 8. This figure shows streamlines
of the secondary flow (< uy >sec , < uz >sec ) with
< uy >sec = < uy > − < uy >midspan ,
< uz >sec = < uz > , (7)
where < uy >midspan is the value of < uy > of the case Non-
Rotating at z ≈ cax and a function of y. Figure 8(b) shows the
situation for the case Non-Rotating. Apart from the localized
vortex, centered around y ≈ 0.36 cax and z ≈ 0.11cax , at this ax-
ial position no large-scale motion is seen. For the case Rotating,
instead, large-scale motion is seen, albeit at an intensity smaller
than the localized vortex. This flow lifts up vortex A such that its
center now occurs at y ≈ 0.37 cax , z ≈ 0.15 cax .
Figure 8(c) shows that the position of the horseshoe vortex
has changed to y ≈ 0.32 cax , z ≈ 0.07 cax at x = 0.5 cax . Further-
more its size is smaller and the intensity lower. Also, the large-
scale secondary flow determined according (7) turns in opposite
direction compared to Fig. 8(a).
Flow near solid surfaces
The magnitude of the wall shear stress and associated
streamtraces on pressure side, suction side, and endwall are
shown in Fig. 9. The suction side is discussed first: For the case
Non-Rotating, Fig. 9(e), the region where the horseshoe vortex
impinges on the suction side is clearly recognizable by the de-
viation of the wall streamlines. The shear stress has its maxi-
mum in this area. Further away from the endwall, the horizon-
tal streamlines confirm a mostly undisturbed flow, terminated by
the separation at x ≈ 0.75 cax . The separation is laminar (hence
not visible in Fig. 6(e)) with subsequent transition and turbulence
only close to the trailing edge. This is a consequence of the low
Reynolds number here. For the case Rotating (Fig. 9(d)) the re-
gion of distorted fluid motion near the suction side is significantly
increased in spanwise direction. Additionally, the streamlines
here experience an upward deflection, caused by the large-scale
flow discussed above (Fig. 8). For inverted rotation (case In-
verse), Fig. 9(f) depicts a downward redirection of the near-wall
flow beyond x ≈ 0.5 cax . The strong spanwise secondary flow
suppresses the separation of the flow on the suction side in both
cases with rotation.
Now the situation on the pressure side is discussed. In
Fig. 9(b), considering the case Non-Rotating, again a small area
of flow separation is visible in the corner of leading edge and
endwall (red line). In the case Rotating the near-wall flow along
the pressure side at the leading edge is in upstream direction. In
the case Inverse practically no separation occurs at the leading
edge. For both rotating cases the radial deflection of streamlines
is inverted compared to the suction side. Additionally, Fig. 9(c)
shows the influence of the upper symmetry boundary condition
for span heights above z > 0.9 cax .
Figures 9(g) - (i) show the magnitude of the mean wall
shear stress, τw , at the endwall in the passage together with wall
streamlines. Near the suction side the level of τw is small in the
case Rotating, larger in the case Non-Rotating, and still larger
in the case Inverse. This is due to the different spanwise lift-up
of the horseshoe vortex in the different cases (Fig. 6). Remote
from this area the level of τw behaves similarly, which is due
to reduced near-wall mean velocity in the case Rotating (and in-
creased in the case Inverse), as seen in Fig. 13(a), (b) below. Also
the streamlines show that the flow near the endwall changes when
the Coriolis force is present. In the case Non-Rotating (Fig. 9(h))

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 LE 7E LE Z
TE LE TE
X
Y

(a) Rotating: Ω < 0 (pressure side) (b) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (pressure side) (c) Inverse: Ω > 0 (pressure side)

LE 7E LE Z
TE LE TE
X
Y

(d) Rotating: Ω < 0 (suction side) (e) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (suction side) (f) Inverse: Ω > 0 (suction side)
Y

SP2 SP1
SP1 SP1 Z
X
_____

_____
_____
_____

_____

_____
_____
_____

X
_

X
_

X X

(g) Rotating: Ω < 0 (endwall) (h) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (endwall) (i) Inverse: Ω > 0 (endwall)


w 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

FIGURE 9. AVERAGE FLOW: MAGNITUDE OF THE WALL SHEAR STRESS, τw , AND SURFACE STREAMLINES AT THE PROFILE
SURFACE AND AT THE ENDWALL. THE RED CONTOUR LINES IN (a) - (f) INDICATE WHERE THE x-COMPONENT OF THE MEAN
WALL SHEAR STRESS VANISHES. IN THE VIEWS OF THE ENDWALL, THE DOMAIN WAS DUPLICATED.

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

a saddle point can be located at x ≈ −0.38 cax , y ≈ 0.72 cax
(SP1). Regarding the case Rotating, the saddle point SP1 moves
away from the leading edge (x ≈ −0.4 cax , y ≈ 0.68 cax ) and
additionally a second saddle point is formed at x ≈ −0.03 cax ,
y ≈ 0.79 cax (SP2). In contrast, for the case Inverse, the saddle
point SP1 shifts towards the leading edge, here to x ≈ −0.31 cax ,
y ≈ 0.77 cax .
Losses
The stagnation pressure loss coefficient is one of typical per-
formance criteria. For an incompressible fluid, it can be writ-
ten as ζ2 = (P1 − P2 )/(0.5ρu22 ), where P = p + 0.5ρu2 is the
stagnation pressure. Here, ζ2 is defined in the relative frame of
reference to be consistent between the three different cases pre-
sented. The comparison of the loss coefficient in Fig. 10 reflects
the massive differences caused by the Coriolis force. In the case
Non-Rotating (Fig. 10(b)), the wake of the profile is broad due to
the separation at the suction side. The interaction of the horse-
shoe vortex, the secondary cross flow and the boundary layer
result in a core of increased losses in the region z ≈ 0.2 . . . 0.5 cax
and y ≈ 0 . . . 0.5 cax . Below the core, a small region in the wake
with lower stagnation pressure losses appears because the lami-
nar secondary flow predominates between the core of the vortex
and the endwall, i.e. for z ≈ 0.05 . . . 0.2 cax and y ≈ −0.2 cax . . . 0.
Closer to the endwall, losses increase again due to the corner
vortex between the endwall and the suction side. ζ2 is relatively
small outside the wake, because no further effects appear.
Figure 10(a) depicts the effects of the large-scale secondary
motion induced by the Coriolis force in the case Rotating. The
pressure loss core is shifted towards midspan. It is stronger
and its size is larger than in the Non-Rotating case due to in-
creased secondary flow and earlier transition of the horseshoe
vortex. The large-scale motion (Fig. 8(a)) generates the trailing
edge vortex behind the profile via the strong opposite flow along
the rear part of the blade, positive in z on the suction side, neg-
ative on the pressure side. It yields higher losses in the region
z ≈ 0.05 . . . 0.3 cax and y ≈ −0.20 . . . 0.05 cax . The level of ζ2
outside the regions affected by the wake is higher than in the
reference case because of the large-scale secondary motion.
Again, in the case Inverse (Fig. 10(c)), the Coriolis force has
the opposite effect compared to the case Rotating. The region of
higher ζ2 is due to the horseshoe vortex and remains near the end-
wall. Closer to the wall, the trace of the corner vortex is visible.
Since no separation occurs, the wake can be clearly identified in
ζ2 and is thin compared to the other two cases.
Span- and pitchwise averaged values of ζ2 are 0.06, 0.13 and
0.12 for the cases Non-Rotating, Rotating, and Inverse, respec-
tively. The flow of the case Non-Rotating generates the smallest
stagnation pressure losses, despite the fact that the flow sepa-
rates at the suction side for this case only. The large-scale mo-
tion caused by the Coriolis force leads to the disappearance of
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
the separation at the suction side. However, the strong secondary
flow generates more losses than the open flow separation in the
case without the Coriolis force. Finally, an analysis of the exit
flow angle (not presented here) depicts that the entire exit plane
is affected by the large-scale secondary motion in the case Ro-
tating and the deviation from the design exit flow angle can be
observed at each z-location. For the case Inverse, in contrast, the
influence on the exit flow angle is confined to the endwall region
and the upper boundary.
Pitchwise averaged statistics
Temporal and pitchwise averaged results are shown in
Fig. 11 - 13. Here, velocity components, the magnitude of the
velocity, the Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) and the static pres-
sure are presented for the three cases studied. Figures 11, 12 and
13, depict the same data at different locations in the flow, x = 0,
x = 0.5 cax and x = cax , respectively.
In Fig. 11, the deviation of the data for the case Rotating
from those of the reference case Non-Rotating can be observed
for all values reported. The Coriolis force occurs upstream the
passage due to the velocity component uy (Fig. 11(b)) according
to (3). It generates a spanwise velocity uz (Fig. 11(c)), which
is up to 10% of the velocity magnitude. Due to the symmetry
condition at midspan, the Coriolis force then indirectly causes a
radial redistribution of the flow. For the case Rotating, the axial
velocity undergoes a deceleration in the region of the boundary
layer and an acceleration in the midspan area, as shown in the
Fig. 11(a). A further effect of the Coriolis force can be ob-
served in Fig. 11(f). A positive radial pressure gradient occurs
for the case Rotating. It is created by the velocity in pitchwise
direction, uy , according to ∂p/∂t ≈ −2Ωuy with its bulk value
−2Ωuy ≈ 0.24. In the region beyond the boundary layer and
the secondary flow, the radial pressure gradient is in the range
of ±[0.25 . . . 0.4], with positive values for the case Rotating and
negative values for the case Inverse. Recall that the centrifugal
force was not retained in the simulation as it has a potential and
then is compensated by an additional hydrostatic pressure gra-
dient without inducing a corresponding flow. This was verified
numerically by a test with the centrifugal term retrained yielding
exactly the same
flow as without in the validation exercise de-
scribed above. The origin of the horseshoe vortex is a wall nor-
mal gradient of the stagnation pressure along the leading edge of
the blade, generated by the boundary layer velocity profile. The
additional radial pressure gradient created by the Coriolis force
(Fig. 11(f)) now adds up to the former and can influence the gen-
eration of the horseshoe vortex at the leading edge. Quantifica-
tion of this effect is difficult, though. Hence, the Coriolis force
has not only a direct impact on the horseshoe vortex as shown
in Fig. 6 and described above, but also an indirect effect by the
influence of the radial pressure gradient.
 2

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(a) Rotating: Ω < 0 (b) Non-Rotating: Ω = 0 (c) Inverse: Ω > 0

FIGURE 10. STAGNATION PRESSURE LOSS COEFFICIENT ζ2 DOWNSTREAM THE PASSAGE AT x = 1.2 cax .

1 1

0.8 0.8
Non-Rotating
Rotating 0.6

z / cax
0.6
z / cax

Inverse

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
<ux>/uref <uy>/uref <ux>/uref <uy>/uref

(a) (b) (a) (b)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6
z / cax

0.6
z / cax

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
<uz>/uref <|u|>/uref <uz>/uref <|u|>/uref
(c) (d) (c) (d)
1 1
Non-Rotating
0.8 0.8
Rotating
Inverse
0.6 0.6
z / cax
z / cax

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
TKE / u ref2 <p> TKE / u ref2 <p>
(e) (f) (e) (f)

FIGURE 11. RADIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIME- AND PITCH- FIGURE 12. RADIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIME- AND PITCH-
WISE AVERAGED QUANTITIES AT x = 0: (a) - (c) VELOCITY WISE AVERAGED QUANTITIES AT x = 0.5 cax : (a) - (c) VELOC-
COMPONENTS, (d) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE, (e) TKE AND (f) ITY COMPONENTS, (d) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE, (e) TKE AND
STATIC PRESSURE. (f) STATIC PRESSURE.

10 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1
In the cases investigated a laminar boundary layer was im-
posed at the inlet. The Turbulent Kinetic Energy can hence only 0.8
be generated by the breakdown of the large horseshoe vortex
0.6

z / cax
structures, by the dynamic motion of them, or by transition in
boundary layers. The plot in Fig. 11(e) supported by Fig. 6 shows 0.4
that the TKE increases in the region of the horseshoe vortex. In
0.2
the case Rotating, it breaks down at a very early stage. Hence, the
TKE increases very fast in the leading edge region. In the case 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1
Inverse, the horseshoe vortex remains stable over a long stretch. <ux>/uref <uy>/uref
Compared to the reference case Non-Rotating the maximal value (a) (b)
of the TKE in Fig. 11(e) is increased by a factor of 1.3 for the 1
case Rotating and decreased by a factor of 3 for the case Inverse.
When passing the passage, the flow pattern becomes much 0.8

more complicated, so that the distinction between the cause and 0.6

z / cax
the effect becomes more difficult. Figures for the radial veloc-
0.4 Non-Rotating
ity at the middle of the passage (Fig. 12(c)) and of the trailing Rotating
edge (Fig. 13(c)) show an upward radial flow for the case Rotat- Inverse
0.2
ing and a downward flow for the case Inverse. These radial flows,
0
also seen in Fig. 8, are the reason for the different radial loca- -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
<uz>/uref <|u|>/uref
tions of secondary flow structures shown in Fig. 6(d-f) discussed
above. The persistent radial flow results in larger deviations of (c) (d)
the axial velocities of cases Rotating and Inverse from the case 1
Non-Rotating as shown in the Fig. 12(a). The position of the lo-
0.8
cal minimum of the static pressure in Fig. 12(f) corresponds to
the location of the horseshoe vortex. This graph, hence, clearly 0.6
z / cax

demonstrates the impact of the Coriolis force on the radial dis- 0.4
placement of the vortex discussed above with Fig. 6. In Fig. 12(e)
a marked increase of the TKE can be observed for the case Non- 0.2
Rotating at z ≈ 0.08 cax . Figure 6(e) illustrates that at this axial 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
position the transition of the vortex to turbulence occurs. TKE / u ref2 <p>
At the outlet x = cax (Fig. 13), the radial distribution of the
(e) (f)
axial and pitchwise velocities are affected by the Coriolis force
but in a very complicated way so that a detailed discussion is te- FIGURE 13. RADIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIME- AND PITCH-
dious. However, the radial distributions of the TKE and the static WISE AVERAGED QUANTITIES AT x = cax : (a) - (c) VELOCITY
pressure confirm the observations made above. In the case Non- COMPONENTS, (d) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE, (e) TKE AND (f)
Rotating, a double peak of the TKE reveals the position of the STATIC PRESSURE.
horseshoe vortex. The fairly constant, elevated level of the TKE
beyond z ≈ 0.8 cax results from the transition of the separated
boundary layer flow at the suction side of the profile discussed Surface pressure on the blade
above. In fact, the boundary layer even separates in this region. Figure 14 shows the different pressure distributions on the
For the case Rotating the double peak in the TKE is observed blade for all three cases at a span height of z = 0.1 cax , 0.4 cax ,
further away from the wall. A small region of the turbulent flow and 0.8 cax . The plotted static pressure coefficient is computed as
is observed in the upper part, certainly influenced by the condi- Cp = (p − p2 )/(P1 − p2 ), where p is the local static pressure on
tion at the upper boundary, though. In this case separation of the the blade, p2 the pitchwise and spanwise averaged static pressure
boundary layer along the suction side wall is suppressed as dis- at the outlet of domain and P1 the average total pressure at the
cussed before with the wall shear stress in Fig. 9. For the case inlet of domain. Note that for Cp the same discussion applies as
Inverse the TKE profile shows a lower position of the vortex. for ζ2 on page 9. All considerations only refer to the relative
Furthermore, the suction side boundary layer remains fully lami- frame of reference, so the dynamic pressure contribution in P1
nar and attached in the wide range of span z > 0.35 cax . Similarly does not account for the rotational velocity, which is present in
as with Fig. 12(f), the local minimum in the mean static pressure both rotating cases.
of Fig. 13(f) relates to the vortex center, again illustrating the dis-
location.

11 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1 1 1

Non-Rotating
0.5 0.5 Rotating 0.5
Inverse
Cp

Cp

Cp
0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/cax x/cax x/cax

(a) z = 0.1 cax (b) z = 0.4 cax (c) z = 0.8 cax

FIGURE 14. WALL STATIC PRESSURE COEFFICIENT AROUND THE PROFILE AT THREE DIFFERENT z-POSITIONS.

In all three cases the Cp distribution on the pressure side is
quantitatively the same and just shifted between the cases. On the
contrary, there is a significant change on the suction side: in the
case Rotating the average level of the wall pressure coefficient
decreases with z. For inverse rotation the trend is the opposite.
This leads to an increased blade load on the upper part of the
blade in the case Rotating and on the lower part of the blade in
the case Inverse.
Conclusions
To assess the impact of the Coriolis force on the secondary
flow in a linear turbine cascade three cases were investigated and
compared. Starting from a reference case without Coriolis force
(Ω = 0) two additional cases with rotation (Ω < 0) and counter
rotation (Ω > 0) of the passage were computed and a substantial
change of the flow with rotation was observed.
Altogether, the Coriolis force is of major importance for the
secondary flow at the endwall and the whole passage. Further-
more, the transition behavior of the horseshoe vortex is changed
substantially. As a result, the internal structure of the horseshoe
vortex is changed between the Non-Rotating and the Rotating
case. A consequence of all these effects is also that the horseshoe
vortex is lifted with rotation and that separation and transition on
the suction side are altered. Specifically, the stronger transition
of the horseshoe vortex yields an overall increased level of losses.
Although the detailed interaction between all involved flow fea-
tures is hard to analyze and to quantify, the differences between
the cases examined are so significant that the simulations truly
demonstrate the impact of the Coriolis force on the secondary
flow pattern and the losses in a turbine passage. This sheds new
light on the correspondence between linear cascade and rotating
turbine stage. Hence, while two-dimensional flow in a rotating
machine can well be modeled with a linear cascade, the present
study shows that issues related to secondary flow can perhaps
not be represented well. Beyond the induced secondary flow, the
transition behavior of coherent vortices is substantially altered
with rotation.
The paper provides a simple yet instructive test case high-
lighting the phenomenon. This setup together with the numerous
statistical data provided constitutes an efficient validation case
for other methods, such as RANS or hybrid models. In future
work, a geometry closer to the annular cascade will be simulated
with more realistic inlet boundary layers, free stream turbulence
and with higher Reynolds numbers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The present work is funded by the German Research Foun-
dation (DFG) under grant FR 1593/6-2. The computations were
performed on a Bull Cluster at the Center for Information Ser-
vices and High Performance Computing (ZIH) at TU Dresden.
The authors also thank S. Heitkam for helpful comments on the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] Todd, K., Eng., M., and A.M.I.Mech.E., 1947. “Practical
aspects of cascade wind tunnel research”. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 157, pp. 482–497.
[2] Stodola, A., 1927. Steam and Gas Turbines. McGraw-Hill.
[3] Habris, R. G., and Fairthorne, R. A., 1928. “Reports and
memoranda, no. 1206”. Aeronautical Research Committee,
1(33), p. 286.
[4] Fottner, L., 1989. “Review on turbomachinery blading de-
sign process”. AGARD Lecture Series: Blading Design for
Axial Turbomachines, 167.

12 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 [5] Sharma, O., and Butler, T., 1987. “Predictions of endwall Mathematics and Mechanics, 13, pp. 311–312.
losses and secondary flows in axial flow cascades”. Journal [20] Daskopoulos, P., and Lenhoff, A., 1989. “Flow in curved
of Turbomachinery, 109, pp. 229 – 236. ducts: bifurcation structure for stationary ducts”. Journal
[6] Koschichow, D., Kirik, I., Fröhlich, J., and Niehuis, R., of Fluid Mechanics, 203, pp. 125–148.
2014. “DNS of the flow near the endwall in a linear low [21] Daskopoulos, P., and Lenhoff, A., 1990. “Flow in curved
pressure turbine cascade with periodically passing wakes”. ducts. part 2. rotating ducts”. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
ASME Paper GT2014-25071. 217, pp. 575–593.
[7] Koschichow, D., Ciorciari, R., Fröhlich, J., and Niehuis, R., [22] Pohlhausen, K., 1921. “Zur näherungsweisen Integration
2015. “Analysis of the influence of periodic passing wakes der Differentialgleichung der laminaren Grenzschicht”.
on the secondary flow near the endwall of a linear LPT cas- ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics
cade using DNS and U-RANS”. ETC2015-151, Proceed- (in German), 1(4), pp. 252–290.
ings of the 11th European Conference on Turbomachinery [23] Wu, X., and Durbin, P., 2001. “Evidence of longitudinal
Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics. vortices evolved from distorted wakes in a turbine passage”.
[8] Kirik, I., and Niehuis, R., 2015. “Experimental investiga- Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 446, pp. 199–228.
tions on effects of unsteady wakes on the secondary flows [24] J.Jeong, and Hussain, F., 1995. “On the identification of a
in the linear T106 turbine cascade”. ASME Paper GT2015- vortex”. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 285, pp. 69–94.
43170. [25] Wang, H. P., Olson, S. J., Goldstein, R. J., and Eckert, E.
[9] Krug, A., Busse, P., and Vogeler, K., 2015. “Experimental R. G., 1997. “Flow visualization in a linear turbine cascade
investigation into the effects of the steady wake-tip clear- of high performance turbine blades”. Journal of Turboma-
ance vortex interaction in a compressor cascade”. Journal chinery, 119(1), January, pp. 1–8.
of Turbomachinery, 137, June.
[10] Cumpsty, N. A., 1989. Compressor Aerodynamics. Long-
man Scientific and Technical.
[11] Moustapha, S. H., Paron, G. J., and Wade, J. H. T.,
1985. “Secondary flows in cascades of higly loaded tur-
bine blade”. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, 107, October, pp. 1031–1038.
[12] Scholz, N., 1965. Aerodynamik der Schaufelgitter. Braun
Verlag.
[13] Amecke, J., and Kost, F. “Rotating annular cascade”. Ad-
vanced Methods for Cascade Testing, AGARD-AG, 328.
[14] Greenspan, H., 1990. The Theory of Rotating Fluids. At
the University Press.
[15] Vavra, M., 1974. Aero-thermodynamics and flow in turbo-
machines. R.E. Krieger Pub. Co.
[16] Hinterberger, C., Fröhlich, J., and Rodi, W., 2008. “2D
and 3D turbulent fluctuations in open channel flow with
Reτ =590 studied by Large Eddy Simulation”. Flow, Tur-
bulence and Combustion, 80(2), pp. 225–253.
[17] Wang, P., Fröhlich, J., Michelassi, V., and Rodi, W., 2007.
“Large Eddy Simulation of variable density turbulent ax-
isymmetric jets”. In Proceedings of 5th Int. Symp. on Tur-
bulent Shear Flow Phenomena, R. Friedrich, N. Adams,
J. Eaton, J. Humphrey, N. Kasagi, and M. Leschziner, eds.,
pp. 1049–1054.
[18] Wissink, J., and Rodi, W., 2008. “Numerical study of the
near wake of a circular cylinder”. International Journal of
Heat and Fluid Flow, 128(4), Oktober, pp. 668–678.
[19] Koschichow, D., Fröhlich, J., Ciorciari, R., Kirik, I., and
Niehuis, R., 2013. “Numerical and experimental investi-
gation of the turbulent flow through a low-pressure turbine
cascade in the endwall region”. Proceedings in Applied

13 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

View publication stats