Proceedings of ASME/IGTI Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition
Turbo-Expo 2002
LOW SPEED STUDIES OF SWEEP AND DIHEDRAL EFFECTS
ON COMPRESSOR CASCADES
Bhaskar Roy
Vishal Borikar
Aerospace Engineering Department, IIT Bombay, Mumbai - 400 076, India
e-mail: aeroyia@aero.iitb.ac.in
ABSTRACT
The use of three dimensional blade designs incorporating
end bend, sweep and dihedral to reduce secondary flow related
losses, improve efficiency and stable operating range has
gained ground in the recent years. In the present study a straight
cascade, a swept cascade, and a dihedral cascade have been
considered. Effects of sweep and dihedral along the span are
studied at 0o and +20o stagger. The study shows that both the
sweep and the dihedral have lower end-wall losses compared to
the straight cascade. However, lower losses are accompanied
with lower diffusion factors. At mid-span also the lowering of
losses is achieved along with some lowering of diffusion factor.
While the dihedral seems to contribute for stable operation
more near the end-wall, the swept blade contributes more near
the mid-span. The swept blade is able to sustain the flow at
higher angles of attack. While the end-wall loss benefits are
welcome with lower loading, at mid-span lower loading
obtained may need to be corrected by increasing the design
angle of incidence.
NOMENCLATURE
Cp Coefficient of Static Pressure
= (plocal –p1)/(½ ρ1V12).
DF Diffusion Factor,
(Vmax - V2 )/ Vmax
p Static pressure
P Total Pressure
P Pitch-wise Integrated Pressure
P Pitch-wise and Span-wise Integrated Pressure
q Dynamic head , ½.ρ.v12
V Velocity
α, AOA Angle of Attack
June, 3-7, 2002, Amsterdam
GT-2002-30441
P A Laxmiprasanna
Amit Batra
ρ Density
θ Stagger Angle
ω Loss Coefficient, (P2 –P1 )/q1
ω Pitchwise Integrated Loss Coefficient,
( P -P1)/q1
ω Pitchwise and Spanwise Integrated Loss
Coefficient, ( P - P1)/q1
Y Pitch-wise distance
SUBSCRIPTS
1 inlet
2 outlet
max maximum
INTRODUCTION
Recent research in axial compressor has focused, to a large
extent, on understanding the loading characteristics and loss
mechanism in the 3-D blade designs incorporating dihedral,
sweep and end bends to achieve improvements in efficiency
and/ or stable operating ranges.
The stable condition at off-design operations depends on
boundary layer separation and the behavior and turning
characteristics of the blade sections. In order to improve
performance, stage loading must rise and the boundary layers
on the blades, especially near the end-walls must be controlled.
Whether higher loading can be achieved along with higher
surge margin or that one may be achieved at the expense of the
other has been the focus of attention for quite some time.
The incorporation of end-bends involves a certain degree
of local aerofoil lean. During the last few years the deliberate
use of local aerofoil lean in compressor has generated
1
interesting performance results. The early end-bend concepts
were based on two-dimensional approach although aimed at
three-dimensional flow problem. The problem of lean can be
described by sweep and dihedral, both the terms being
borrowed from aircraft wing aerodynamics. The implication of
sweep and dihedral are two-fold in axial compressor
application – the end-wall related 3-D flow benefits and the 2-
D sectional flow effects.
This study is aimed at improving the understanding of the
fundamental mechanism of effects of curvilinear stacking lines
on the blade sectional characteristics (chord-wise blade
loading) and sectional loss characteristics, using swept and
dihedral blades in linear compressor cascade arrangements.
Both the span averaged and the section-wise loss characteristics
are studied at zero stagger, and at 20o stagger with varying
inflow angles. No attempt is made to study the secondary flow,
which admittedly is an important function of these new shapes.
LITERATURE SURVEY
Low Speed Cascade Studies
Compressor cascade blades, installed in a low speed wind
tunnel constitutes a low speed compressor cascade testing
facility, at Mach numbers corresponding to incompressible
flows. Compressor cascade studies, experimental or numerical,
form the basis of aerodynamic design of turbo-machine blades.
It is desired that the flow over the cascade blades be two-
dimensional but after entry into the cascade the flow acquires
three dimensionality due to the presence of boundary layers on
the end-walls of the tunnel and on the blade surfaces.
Definition of Sweep and Dihedral
Blades are said to have sweep when flow direction is not
perpendicular to the span wise direction and dihedral when the
blade surface is not perpendicular to the end-wall [Smith and
Yeh, 1963]. In practical cases such as the entrance region of the
axial compressors and nozzle of the steam turbines, there is
often a large slope given to the axial flow track. Thus sweep
may be present even when the blade itself is radial. Sasaki et al
[Sasaki and Breugelmans, 1998] have given a definition of
sweep and dihedral. According to them lean/dihedral is
introduced by moving the center of gravity of the end-wall
section of a blade in a direction normal to the chord line as
shown in fig.1. Lean is ‘positive’ if the suction surface makes
an obtuse angle with the end-wall and ‘negative’ if it makes
acute angle with the end-wall. Sweep is introduced by moving
the center of gravity of the end-wall section of a blade along the
chord line. Sweep is said to be ‘positive’ or ‘forward’ when the
end-wall section is upstream of the adjacent inboard section and
‘negative’ or ‘backward’ if the end-wall section is downstream
of the adjacent inboard section (fig. 1,3).
Effects of Dihedral and Sweep
Dihedral and sweep have been known for their ability to
improve the radial distribution of velocity and minimize
separation and losses by imparting some radial acceleration to
the flow in a prescribed fashion [Smith and Yeh, 1963]. The
benefit appears to be that by use of positive sweep the boundary
layers are transported away from the unstable end-wall region,
which improves the stall margin; the negative sweep having the
opposite effect. Positive dihedral provides a means of reducing
the magnitude of the peak suction pressure over a limited range
of span near the end-wall and of locally reducing the blade
force per unit span while maintaining flow deflection. It thus
reduces corner separations near fixed blade ends in a stator and
tip leakage flows at clearance end of a rotor. In general,
staggering of swept blades would introduce dihedral and
staggering of dihedral blades would introduce sweep [Sasaki
and Breugelmans, 1998].
Previous Work
Bruegelmans et al. [Bruegelmans, Charles, and Demuth,
1984] have reported the dihedral effects on a rectilinear
compressor cascade. The blades used were NACA 65-12A10-
10 with a chord of 100 mm, solidity and aspect ratio of unity, a
stagger angle of 28.9° and a nominal air inlet angle of 45°,
corresponding to an incidence angle of –1.1° when dihedral is
zero. The effect of dihedral is investigated from 0° to 35°
dihedral angle. A small amount of dihedral (15°) produces a
sufficient span-wise pressure gradient to suppress almost
completely the development of a large loss zone in the large
corner.
Lyes et. al., [Lyes and Ginder, 1999] have described two
design /testing activities that have been carried out on a 4-stage
low speed research compressor at Cranfield University. It was
observed that the low speed environment was representative
and that the modeling was adequate. Low speed blading aims to
have similar aerodynamics to ‘equivalent’ high-speed (but still
predominantly subsonic) blading by designing for similar blade
surface velocity distribution and hence similar boundary layer
behavior. In the second phase, 3-D redesign in the areas of high
loading and high incidence, flow separation and high loss was
done. These areas were off-loaded by restacking the blades
using lean and sweep, and also by incorporating extra camber
near the leading edges. Most of the study involved using of a
symmetrical ‘bowed’ (dihedral) stacking line formed by a
parabola. For the rotor, a combination of lean and sweep was
found best, giving predicted losses reduction of about 10%. For
the stator, the optimum case corresponded closely to tangential
displacement of stacking axis (positive lean and sweep), but the
loss reductions were smaller. The low speed design shows an
efficiency improvement of 1.5% over the datum case near the
design flow coefficient; larger improvements in efficiency are
apparent at lower flows, and these contribute to considerable
strengthening of the pressure characteristics that is evident
towards the stall. Stable operating range is increased
significantly.
Sasaki et al. [Sasaki and Breugelmans, 1998] studied a
controlled diffusion airfoil blade by using different stacking
lines i.e., one straight blade, four swept forward, one backward
swept and four positive dihedral blades. The blade
configurations were symmetrical about the mid-span and
consisted of a straight middle portion and swept or leaned
portions towards the end-wall. The experimentation consisted
of collecting data at 15 different axial planes, with traverses at
13 span-wise locations, most of them near the end-walls, at
2
each axial plane. The total pressure loss coefficients are pitch-
wise averaged and given as ω . In order to evaluate the actual
generation of loss along the passage, averaging over both pitch-
wise and spanwise directions is done to define an overall net
loss coefficient at each axial plane. This is given as ω . (See
nomenclature). The results of the parametric study showed that
the forward swept blades generate less loss and backward swept
blades generate more loss at lower inlet angles. These
definitions have been used in the present investigation also for
the data analysis.
Use of sweep and dihedral in compressors
Wadia et al, in pursuit of reducing the overall length of
F118-GE-100 engine, have used non-axisymmetric stator
configuration ahead of the fan frame struts. They used swept
and leaned OGV (outlet guide vane) frame splitter system. The
primary benefit of the tangential lean in the OGV hub trailing
edge is lowering the OGV hub exit Mach number, thus
reducing the duct velocity diffusion ratio. Sweeping aft of the
airfoil was done to move the trailing edge meridional projection
at mid-span further aft relative to the OGV hub trailing edge.
This helps prolong the benefit due to lean (lowering the inlet
mach no.) further downstream from the OGV hub trailing edge
and thereby providing better control of the core hub duct
diffusion. Due to the lean imparted to the more then one OGV
crosses the leading edge of the strut [Wadia, et. al., 1999].
In many cases the use of sweep and dihedral may be
caused by annulus contraction or flare or simply the need to
install blading in a region of changing radius. One such
example is the inner fan second stator of CF6 engine where it
was necessary to induce the flow from high fan radius into the
inboard location of the gas generator inlet [Weingold et al,
1995]. The solution adopted was to use stators having suitable
sweep and dihedral to impart radially inward body force into
the flow. The existing blading was swept forward one with
respect to the incoming flow; the result was that separated
boundary layer tended to drift towards the hub region impairing
the ability of the blading to sustain high loading.
Benefits of Sweep and Dihedral
From the survey of previous research [Sasaki and
Breugelmans, 1998] the benefits of sweep and dihedral may be
listed as:
1. Positive dihedral and positive sweep are effective in
controlling the local pressure gradient within the passage.
2. While sweep is mainly used to control the chord-wise
loading distribution and to some degree span-wise loading,
dihedral is often used to influence the span-wise pressure field.
3. The regions of sharp transition between the leaned end-wall
portion (positive sweep or positive dihedral) and the
conventionally stacked portion of the blade can be avoided as
they are similar to the configurations of the negative sweep or
dihedral, which produce increased aerodynamic loading and
loss.
4. Using the sweep and dihedral profiles in combination avoids
the kink section (transition from swept end to the radial blade
portion), where increased loading and loss were observed.
As pointed out by Cumpsty [Sasaki and Breugelmans,
1998] only a full 3-D N-S solver and an inverse design
methodology can address the problems of 3-D blade design.
This has been attempted and reported in some detail by
Gummer et al [Gummer, Wenger, and Kau, 2001] for CDA
blades for redesigning a stator.
Breugelmans et al [Breugelmans, Charles and Demuth,
1984] conducted tests on circular stacking line of dihedral.
They have suggested an optimum positive dihedral angle of 15o
to 25o for the best loss improvement performance. Sasaki et al.
[Sasaki and Breugelmans, 1998] have reported that for 15o
positive dihedral gives best results for loss improvement and
30o positive sweep gives the best results. Lyes et al [Lyes and
Ginder, 1999] have used parabolic variation of stacking lines in
their parametric study
In the present work, parabolic stacking lines have been
used to impart forward sweep of 30o and to impart positive
dihedral of 15o. Low speed cascade studies have been done at
0o stagger and later at 20o stagger. The present study, thus, starts
from pure sweep and pure dihedral, and then adds the effects of
angle of attack and stagger angle to understand, in a step-by-
step manner, the change in sectional characteristics. The studies
were later extended to +20o stagger to introduce diffusive
(compressor) passage effects. The angle of attack was varied
from –10o to +20 in the 0o stagger cascade and then from 0o to
35° in the 20° stagger cascade.
As the sweep/dihedral is distributed across the span in
parabolic curvilinear planes, the sectional characteristics are
studied at five span-wise sections from the end-wall to the mid-
span section. As the end-wall flows are not the focus of
attention, closely packed sectional study near the end-walls is
not attempted.
As the sweep/dihedral is distributed across the span in
Table 1: Cascade Configuration
Chord length 100 mm α, AOA -10° to 25°,
(200 mm) (0°, 20°)
Number of blades 10 (5) Stagger angles 0o, 20 °
Leading edge 1.2% chord Solidity 1.75
radius
Trailing Edge 0.6% chord Aspect ratio 1.5 (1.75)
radius
Max thickness 10% chord Airfoil camber 30o
The numbers in parenthesis refer to larger cascades used for
boundary layer studies.
3
 parabolic curvilinear planes, the sectional characteristics are
studied at five span-wise sections from the end-wall to the
mid-span section. As the end-wall vortex flows are not the
focus of attention, closely packed sectional study near the
end-walls is not attempted.

CASCADE DESIGN AND FABRICATION

Cascade Design
The three cascades - straight, 30o forward swept, and 15o
positive dihedral (of identical size - chord=100mm;
span=150mm) were prepared for comparative studies between
the three blade shapes and the effect of stacking line. Large
bladed cascades were made for boundary layer studies. Since
the blades were to have curvature for their stacking line, the
definition of sweep and dihedral angle used are slightly
different from that given in the literature [Sasaki and
Breugelmans, 1998]. These definitions are as illustrated in the
Fig. 1. Sweep angle is the angle made by the line joining the
end point and mid-point of the stacking line with the normal
Fig. 1: Definition of sweep and dihedral. to the end-wall, whereas in literature since the stacking line is
straight, it is the angle between stacking line and the normal
to the end-wall. Dihedral angle is also defined in a similar
manner. In the case of forward swept blades the end-wall
sections meets the incoming flow earlier than the mid-span
section. In forward swept blade, the aerofoil sections move
along the chord line while in dihedral the aerofoil sections
move normal to chord line (fig. 1,3).
Fig. 2: C4 Circular Arc Airfoil To generate the profile of the cascade, a code was developed
based on the definitions of sweep and dihedral given in
preceding paragraph. The code generates 3-D wire-meshed
drawings of the blades in *.dxf format which is compatible
with AutoCAD. The program is capable of giving positive
a. Straight b. Forward c. Positive sweep/dihedral profiles of circular or parabolic curvature. The
Sweep dihedral choice of circular or parabolic curvature can be made
independently for sweep and dihedral. The drawings shown in
Fig.3: Three Dimensional isometric views of Fig. 3 were generated using this code. The airfoil used for the
Straight, Swept and Dihedral blades blades is the C4-series airfoil with circular arc camber (fig. 2).
The camber was chosen to be 30o with maximum thickness as
10% of chord. The leading edge radius is 1.2% of chord and
the trailing edge radius is 0.6% chord. The chord of the three
small blades, were 100 mm and the span lengths, were 150
mm where as the large blade had 200 mm chord and 350 mm
span, airfoil data remaining the same. The solidity of both
small and large bladed cascades were maintained constant at
1.75.

LOW SPEED CASCADE WIND TUNNEL

The low speed cascade wind tunnel at the Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, permits testing of cascade at low speed with a
maximum attainable velocity of 60 m/s. The working velocity
however is limited to about 20 to 30 m/s due to noise
problems. The diffuser with large divergent angle of 46° has
four splitter plates to ensure even distribution of airflow into
the settling chamber. The settling chamber has a honeycomb
(a) 0° Stagger (b) 20° Stagger of 250 mm length followed by four stainless steel mesh
screens to reduce the free stream turbulence. The contraction
Fig. 4: Cascade Details and Measurement Locations

4
section has contraction ratio of 12:1 that feeds a jet of uniform
velocity profile into the test section. The tunnel sidewall
boundary layers are bled out with the help of slits just ahead of
the cascade section. The test section has the facility of variable
incidence angle (or angle of attack), which can be obtained by
rotating the circular disk, on which the cascade is mounted. The
tunnel has been calibrated for flow non-uniformity, which is
found to be 1% for velocity profile and 0.8% for pressure
profile at the cascade inlet. All the probes used were calibrated,
in a separate low speed calibration tunnel, at same velocities for
directional sensitivity. The shielded total pressure probe showed
insensitivity of ±35° yaw angle.
The inlet and outlet parameters measured during
experiments include inlet velocity and inlet and exit total
pressures (pitch-wise averaged) and static pressure distribution
on both the surfaces. The instrument used includes digital
micro-manometer with an accuracy of 1%. The measured
turbulence level of the cascade inlet is 0.87% and that of the
cascade outlet is 12.37%. The details of the measurement
locations are given in fig. 4 and the schematic of the test facility
is given in fig. 5.
Traversing Mechanism and instrumentation
A 1-D traverse mechanism was used for downstream total
pressure measurement was also designed and fabricated. It has
maximum traverse of 150 mm along the screw length, keeping
in view the need to be able to traverse two blade passages. The
probes used are standard pitot static probe (at upstream
sections), shielded total pressure probe for loss measurement at
the downstream section, and flat nosed boundary layer probe (1
mm thick at L.E.) for boundary layer studies. The
(a) Wind tunnel
(b) Large test section (c) Small test section
Fig. 5: Low speed cascade wind tunnel
measurements are taken with digital micro-manometer. Overall
accuracy of the various parameters, measured and computed,
was within 2.5% error band; the results have a 97.5%
confidence level. Boundary layer estimation is within ± 10%.
Blade Fabrication
For each set of cascade of airfoils, blades were fabricated
from epoxy resins. The two innermost blades were equipped
with static pressure taps. The airfoil thickness requires the
instrumentation of two separate airfoils rather than just one.
Both the pressure and suction surface tapped airfoils were
arranged in cascade to record the flow within a common
passage.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparative cascade study at 0o stagger blade setting
The Cp distributions for the three blades at the five span-
wise sections with the blades set at 0o stagger angle and 0o AOA
are given in figs 6(a, b, c). Fig. 7 gives the Cp distribution
along the 5 span-wise sections (Section 1 to 5) for straight,
swept and dihedral blades for 0o stagger and α=00. For straight
blade in fig. 7(e) it can be seen that peak suction pressure at
section 5 is higher and it decreases to minimum at end-wall
section 1 in Fig. 7(a); consequently (at α=00) the chord-wise
pressure gradient (acceleration and deceleration) is higher at the
mid-span (section 5) than near the end-wall (section 1). In
comparison with the straight blade, in the swept blade (fig. 6 &
7), at the front portion of the blade (at 5% to 65% chord), there
is a larger chord-wise pressure gradient near the end-wall than
that of the straight blade. This zone of pressure gradient is
gradually reduced at sections near the mid-span. At the aft
portion the chord-wise pressure gradient is reduced (flattened)
to a great extent at end-wall sections, but the mid-span sections
show significant loading of the aft portion of blades. The
dihedral blade, as seen in fig. 6 & 7, shows lower chord-wise
gradient near the end-wall and an increase in the chord-wise
pressure gradient at the mid-span.
It can be seen from the figures 6 & 7, that at all the span
wise sections there is a reduction in the chord-wise pressure
gradient as compared to the straight blades. Swept blades show
a reduction in chord-wise pressure gradient (i.e. less overall
acceleration and deceleration) at all the sections.
Fig. 8 gives the diffusion factor variation for all the 3
blade shapes at α=0°. Dihedral is seen to produce higher
diffusion factor than the swept blade at the end-wall. However
towards the mid-span the swept cascade provides better
diffusion factor than the dihedral. The straight blade holds the
diffusion factor, highest amongst the 3 shapes, till the mid-span;
the high diffusion is also seen in the Cp plots (fig.6 & 7). The
effect of sweep is seen over the entire span, while the effect of
dihedral in lowering the blade loading is seen only at the end-
wall.
The diffusion factor characteristics at 20o AOA (fig. 9)
provide some more indication of the nature of variation of
blade loading at high angle of attack. At α=+200 all the blades,
as expected, produced higher diffusion factor at all the sections.
The dihedral shape is effective in off-loading at only the
5
 0.00
0.00
0.00
(a) Section 1

oefficientofPressure(Cp)
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
Coefficient of Pressure (Cp)

C oefficient of Pressure (C p)
-1.00

C
-1.00 -1.00 -1.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord
0.00

CoefficientofPressure(Cp)
-1.50 -1.50
b) Swept -0.50
a) Straight blade, 0° AOA
blade, 0° AOA
-1.00
-2.00 -2.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (b) Section 2
% Chord % Chord
-1.50
0.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord
0.00
Symbols used in

Coefficient of Pressure(Cp)
0.00 Fig. 6
-0.50
Coeficient of Pressure (Cp)

Section 1(Suction Surface)

-0.50 Section 1 (Pressure Surface)
-1.00
Section 2 (Suction Surface)
Section 2 (Pressure Surface) (c)Section 3
-1.00 -1.50
Section 3 (Suction Surface) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord
Section 4 (Suction Surface) 0.00

Section 3 (Pressure Surface)

p)

-1.50
oefficient ofPressure(C

c) Dihedral Section 4 (Pressure Surface)

-0.50
blade, 0° AOA Section 5 (Suction Surface)
-2.00 Section 5 (Pressure Surface)
-1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord
C

Fig. 6 Chord-wise CP distribution at 0° (d)Section4

-1.50
AOA for different blade shapes 0 10 20 30 40 50
% Chord
60 70 80 90 100

near end-wall sections and maintains same loading throughout 0.00

the span. The straight blade gives highest diffusion factor at all
Coefficient ofPressure(Cp)

the span wise positions with an increment of about 100% over -0.50

the 0o AOA setting. The swept blade produces sharp decrease in

diffusion factor near the end-wall compared to the straight blade. -1.00

However, by mid-span its diffusion factor rises close to that of

-1.50
the swept blade. The swept blade shows almost 400% and the
dihedral blade shows 250% increase across the span. The (e)Section 5
-2.00
lowering of blade loading with introduction of sweep and 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord
dihedral needs to be studied in conjunction with lowering of loss,
as the two of them together decide the blade efficiency. Straight Blade (Suction Surface)
Straight Blade (Presssure Surface)
Swept Blade (Suction Surface)
Table 2: Percentage reduction in losses over straight Swept Blade (Presssure Surface)
0 Dihedral Blade (Suction Surface)
blades at various angles of attack: 0 stagger
Dihedral Blade (Presssure Surface)
Blades α=-10o α=0o α=10o α=20o
Dihedral 16.54 18.35 11.75 4.77
Fig. 7: Chord-wise Cp distribution at all
Swept 29.2 38.68 43.44 9.7
sections for 0o stagger and 0o AOA.

6
 Straight Blade

Swept Blade

Dihedral Blade

a) AOA=0o

Fig. 8: Diffusion factor, DF at θ=0o and 0o AOA.

b) AOA=20o

Fig. 11 Span-wise loss coefficients, ω AOA

Fig. 9: Diffusion factor, DF at θ=0°
and 20o AOA. for θ=0o

0.045 blades. This is due to the high losses at the end-wall. Cp

0.040 distribution along the span (fig. 6 & 7) for swept blade at this
0.035
Total Loss Factor

particular angle of attack indicates a larger chord-wise pressure

0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015 Straight Blade
0.010
Dihedral Blade
0.005 Swept Blade
0.000
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
Angle of Attack
Fig. 10: Loss factor, ω variation with angle of
attack for straight, swept and dihedral blades.
Fig. 10 gives the total (span averaged after pitch-wise
averaging) loss coefficient variation at the four angles of attack.
All the blades show that their respective minimum loss at α=00,
with the swept blade having the lowest loss across all the angles
of attack. The percentage reduction in the total loss coefficient
at the four angles of attack for both the dihedral and the swept
blades is shown in table 2. It can be seen that the greatest
improvement is with swept blades is at 10o.
The total losses occurring at a positive/negative angle of
attack is a combination of sweep or dihedral effects and of the
airfoil sections. At non-zero angles of attack aerodynamic
losses are higher than at 00 angle of attack for all the three blade
shapes. At α=200, there is a sharp increase in losses for swept
gradient at the end-wall to which the high losses can be
attributed.
Fig. 11 gives the pitch-wise averaged loss characteristics,
at various sections from end-wall to mid section. It is observed
that span-wise loss variation changes with angle of attack. As
AOA is increased from 0o to high positive angles the loss at the
end-wall increases and loss at the mid-span remains almost
same for all the three shapes. However the end-wall losses are
lowest for the swept blades, which also show continuous
variation from end-wall to mid-span.
CASCADE STUDIES AT 20° STAGGER
Cp Characteristics: The end-wall studies have been done in
some detail by earlier researchers [Sasaki and Breugelman,
1998; Peng et al, 1991; Weingold et al, 1995; Smith and Yeh,
1985; Gummer, Wenger & Kau, 2001]. Most of this earlier
work focused on the end-wall effects. The present study
however is focused on determining the effect of shape on the
sectional characteristics.
The mid-span Cp curve shows higher acceleration as the
angle of attack is increased. The acceleration is pronounced
from the leading edge to 20% chord axial location that can be
observed by steep slopes (Fig 12 a to d). However at higher
angles of attack (α=35°) straight and dihedral blades are totally
stalled, showing flat Cp curve (Fig. 12 d). Results observed for

7
 Straight Blade (Suction Surface) 1.00

Straight Blade (Presure Surface)

Swept Blade (Suction Surface)
Swept Blade (Presure Surface) 0.00

Dihedral Blade (Suction Surface)

0.00 Dihedral Blade (Presure Surface)

Cp
-1.00

-0.40
-2.00 (a) 0° AOA
-0.80
Cp

-3.00
-1.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
X
% chord
-1.60 (a) 0o AOA 1.00

-2.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.50
% chord

Cp
-1.00
0.00

-0.50
(b) 15° AOA
-2.00
Cp

-1.00

(b) 15o AOA -3.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-1.50
X
% chord
1.00
-2.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
% chord
0.00
0.00
Cp

-1.00
-1.00
Cp

-2.00
(c) 25o AOA (c) 25° AOA
-2.00

-3.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-3.00
X
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 % chord
% chord
0.50
1.00

0.00 (d) Near Stall AOA

(d) 35o AOA 0.00
-0.50
Cp
Cp

-1.00

-1.00
-1.50

-2.00 -2.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
% chord
% chord

Fig. 12: Cp distribution at section 5 (mid-span) for Fig. 13: Cp Distribution for Section 1 (End-
θ=20o at various AOA. wall) for 20° Stagger for Various AOA

swept blades show off-loading compared to the straight blade at
all angles of attack especially at 35° (Fig. 12 a to d). The swept
blade shows marked off-loading on suction surface in Cp
characteristics especially from leading edge (LE) to
approximately 40% of chord (Fig 12 a to 12 c). This shows
reduction in magnitude of acceleration at the front portion of
the blade as compared to the other blade shapes, which means
less probability of early flow separation over swept blade. The
comparison between the Cp plots of the three cascades at
various angles of attack (Fig. 12 a to d) show moderate levels
of acceleration followed by sustained diffusion was achieved by
swept blades. This indicated reduction in gradient of
acceleration with respect to the other two blades. Dihedral
cascade has steeper Cp characteristics than straight blades at

8
 ( g gg )
Straight Blade at 0 Stagger
Swept Blade at 0 Stagger
0.60 Dihedral Blade at 0 Stagger 0.25 0.25
Straight Blade at 20 Stagger Loss Coefficient Loss Coefficient
Diffusion Factor

Swept Blade at 20 Stagger 0.20 0.20

0.40 Dihedral Blade at 20 Stagger
0.15 0.15
0.20
0.10 0.10

0.00 0.05 0.05

-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
AOA
0.00 0.00
Fig. 14: Comparison of diffusion factor, DF at -4.00 0.00 4.00 Y -4.00 0.00 4.00 Y
θ = 0o and θ=20o at the mid-span.
(a) Straight (b) Swept
0.16 0.25
Average Total Pressure Loss

Loss Coefficient
0.20
0.12 0 deg. AOA
0.15
15 deg. AOA
0.08
25 deg. AOA
0.10 35 deg. AOA
Dihedral
0.04 0.05
Swept

Straight 0.00
0.00 -4.00 0.00 4.00 Y
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Angle of Attack (c) Dihedral

Fig. 15: Total loss factor, ω at θ=20o Fig. 16: Loss Coefficient, ω at Section 5, θ=20°

lower angles of attack, whereas the acceleration gradient over Comparison between mid-span (fig. 12) and near end-wall
straight cascade at high angle of attack is higher. The (fig. 13) Cp characteristics show that at mid-span, acceleration
comparison between 0° stagger and 20° stagger Cp plots show and deceleration are more pronounced than near end-wall. The
increase in maximum Cp for all the configurations, however straight and dihedral blades show sharper initial acceleration
most pronounced off loading with increased stagger appear to and stronger diffusion characteristics at mid-span. The swept
be for the swept blade. At α=35°, all the three blades show blade, on the other had, shows a more muted acceleration-
separation characteristics. The swept blade has a small attached deceleration characteristic. Thus the swept blade is expected to
flow zone over first 25% chord, showing some initial give lower loss characteristic as found in fig. 15.
acceleration and steep deceleration, at which point the flow
separated on the suction surface. TOTAL PRESSURE LOSS CHARACTERISTICS AT 20°
Fig. 13 shows the Cp characteristics at section 1 (near end- STAGGER
wall) from 0° to 25° AOA and at near-stall AOA for the The total pressure loss characteristics at 20° stagger for all
individual blades. As expected, the maximum Cp increases with the cascades (fig.15), as expected, shows increase in loss
α and progressively shifts towards the leading edge. compared to those at 0° stagger (fig. 10). The total pressure loss
Amongst the three blade shapes, the swept blade shows surveys (fig. 16) show lower losses for the swept blades at
more controlled deceleration (after the initial acceleration) even angles of attack from 0° to 25°. However after that the losses
at high angles of attack. With increasing AOA, the acceleration rises sharply. On the other hand, the losses for straight and
around the leading edge increases. At 30o and higher AOA, dihedral blades start rising (sharply for straight blades but
high initial acceleration causes the straight blade to experience gradually for dihedral blades) at around 15° angle of attack.
stall. The dihedral blade shows sharp diffusion at 25o and 30o Highest losses were observed in the case of straight blades. The
AOA. Because of the gentler diffusion character of the swept averaged loss coefficient (fig. 15) summarizes the loss survey,
blade, it delays stall to about 35o AOA. However, it stands to and indicates better prospect for the swept blade.
reason that swept blade yields lower diffusion factor as found in
Fig. 14.

9
 16.00
at 94 % chord

Distance fromthe surface

(a) Section 1 12.00
(end-wall) (a) Section 1

8.00
at 67.5 % chord
4.00

0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Loss Coefficient
20.00

Distance fromthe surface

16.00 (b) Section 5
(b) Section 5
(mid-span) 12.00

8.00 at 94 % Chord

4.00
at 51.5 % Chord
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Loss Coefficient

Fig. 17: Loss, ω profile at 67.5% and 94%
chord for dihedral cascade at θ= 0o and 0o
AOA.
20.00
Distance from the Surface (in mm)
Fig. 18: Loss, ω Profiles for Swept Cascade, θ=0°,
0° AOA
Swept Blade (94 % Chord) Table 3: Boundary layer thicknesses at low

Swept Blade (67.5 % Chord)

Dihedral Blade (94 % Chord) AOA
16.00
Dihedral Blade (67.5 % Chord)
(1) 0° Stagger Angle ( 0° AOA)
12.00
Sections Dihedral Blade Swept Blade
%Chord 67.5 94 - 94.0
8.00 1 2.5 5.0 6.0 14.0
(67.5%c)
4.00 5 2.5 7.0 9.0 14.0
(51.5%c)
(2) 20° Stagger Angle (20° AOA)
0.00
%Chord 67.5 94 67.5 94.0
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 5 4.0 12.0 7.0 14.0
Loss Coefficient
Fig. 19: Loss, ω profiles, section 5
(mid-span) at 20o stagger, 20o AOA.

The swept blade is effective in maintaining low average losses for
large range of angle of attack (up to +25°) than the other two
blades.
The advantages of the swept blade can also be seen from
blade diffusion factor limit (at which complete separation occurs)
is higher (α=35°) compared to the other two blades, but the losses
are already rising sharply. The dihedral blade can also achieve
higher diffusion compared to the straight blades especially at
lower AOA (0° - 15°). Between 15° and 25°, the straight and
dihedral blade offers higher diffusion than the swept blade, but
with a loss penalty (Fig. 17). The drastic rise fall in the diffusion
factor of the straight and dihedral blade (Fig. 18) is accompanied
by sharp rise in losses (Fig.17) indicating approach of stall.
CONCLUSIONS FOR 20° STAGGER
The Cp characteristics of swept blades are devoid of any high CP
gradient thus avoiding the tendency of separation. The swept
blades allow smooth mild acceleration and deceleration, which
can be seen from the CP characteristics up to high angles of attack
(25°). The diffusion factor characteristics of the dihedral blades
are nearly similar to the straight blades. Similar characteristics of
swept blades have been reported through experimental and
analytical results [Koller et al, 1998].

10
 End-Wall Section at 52.5 % chord

DistanceFromtheSurface(mm)
m
)
End-Wall Section at 72.5 % chord
m

DistanceFromtheSurface(m
Distancefromthesurface(m

End-Wall Section at 96.0 % chord 20.00 20.00

20.00
16.00 16.00
16.00

12.00 12.00
12.00

8.00 8.00 8.00

4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00
Loss Coefficient Loss Coefficient Loss Coefficient

(a) Straight Blade Midspan (c) Swept Blade Midspan (e) Dihedral Blade
at 31° AOA at 34° AOA Midspan at 30° AOA

DistanceFromtheSurface(mm)
m)
m)

DistanceFromtheSurface(m
DistanceFromtheSurface(m

20.00 20.00
20.00
16.00 16.00
16.00
12.00 12.00
12.00

8.00 8.00
8.00

4.00 4.00 4.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00
Loss Coefficient Loss Coefficient Loss Coefficient

(b) Straight Blade Endwall (d) Swept Blade Endwall (f) Dihedral Blade
at 31° AOA at 34° AOA Endwall at 30° AOA

Fig. 20. Boundary Layer Profile at Near Stall Angles for Straight, Swept and Dihedral Blades

Table 4: Boundary layer profiles obtained at near-

The swept blades are more efficient in terms of
stall AOAs at 20o stagger.
avoidance of separation as compared to straight and
dihedral blades. The effectiveness of the dihedral blade in
(1) Straight Blade (thickness in mm) lowering blade loading is observed to be less than that of
Section
End-wall Mid-span the swept blades. The swept blades can be used over high
(Section 1) (Section 5) range of angle of attack as compared to the other two
%chord 52.5 72.5 96.0 52.5 72.5 96.0 profiles.
position %c %c %c %c %c %c
α = 30° 3 6 8 3 6 12 BOUNDARY LAYER STUDY
4 8 14 3 6 14
Using the similar procedure detailed earlier, cascades of
α = 31°
large shapes (chord=200 mm; span=350 mm) were used
(2) Swept Blade (thickness in mm) for boundary layer studies. A larger test section was used
to study their respective boundary layer characteristics.
Section
End-wall Mid-span
(Section 1) (Section 5)
The objective here was to study the boundary layer profiles
%chord 52.5 72.5 96.0 52.5 72.5 96.0
on the suction surface of the dihedral and the swept blades
position %c %c %c %c %c %c at different chord-wise positions. The results are plotted in
6 8 10 6 8 16 the form of loss coefficient, ω variation with pitch-wise
α = 30°
distance from the suction surface of the blade. The
α = 32° 6 9 12 4 12 14 boundary layer is read from the distance at which the loss
α = 34° 8 10 12 8 12 16 does not change any more. The accuracy of measurement
is estimated to be ±1 mm.
(3) Dihedral Blade (thickness in mm) Thicker boundary layer can be seen at all of the span-
End-wall Mid-span wise sections for the swept blades at 94% chord (Fig. 18);
Section
(Section 1) (Section 5)
at 94% chord, boundary layer thickness observed is same
%chord 52.5 72.5 96.0 52.5 72.5 96.0 at the end-wall as at mid-span. Even at the mid-chord
position %c %c %c %c %c %c
positions (Table. 3) the swept blade shows greater
α = 29° 6 10 12 3 5 14
boundary layer development than the dihedral blades. The
α = 30° 8 12 16 4 6 16 thicker wakes of swept blades at 20O stagger has been
α = 33° - 12 - - 6 -
recorded in Fig. 16 b. It is also seen that losses in the wake
are more for the swept blade. However, the lower passage
α = 34° - 12 - - 7 -

11
losses in the swept blades bring down the overall pitchwise
averaged losses (Fig.15) to lower than those of the dihedral
blades at α > 25°.
The boundary layer thickness increases with stagger and
angle of attack (Fig. 17, 18 &19) at the mid-span section. The
dihedral blades show greater effect of stagger (and AOA) than
the swept blades in which the boundary layer thicknesses are of
the same order as at zero stagger-zero-AOA (Table 3).
BOUNDARY LAYER STUDY AT HIGH AOA (AT 20O
STAGGER)
The table 4 summarizes the overall boundary layer
thicknesses as read off from the boundary layer profiles
recorded in Fig. 20. The straight blade shows the thinnest
boundary layer, both at the end-wall as well as the mid-span at
30o AOA (approx. 12o angle of incidence). The swept blade
shows much lower chord-wise boundary layer growth at end-
wall compared to the dihedral blades. At mid-span, the
boundary later on both the blade shapes shows similar thickness
near the trailing edge. At 30o AOA, it is also observed that the
swept blade produces thinner boundary layer near end-wall
than at the mid section; for dihedral blade, boundary layer
growth at mid-span is half of that near end wall up to 72.5%
chord. Boundary layer growth on dihedral blade at mid-span
over the last 25% chord is significantly stronger than the swept
blade.
The swept blade shows sustained attached flow till 35o
AOA. The straight and dihedral blades stall at 31o and 34o AOA
respectively. Above 30o AOA boundary layer measurement over
the dihedral blade could not be done owing to difficulty in
probe traversing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Both the swept and the dihedral shapes have some
beneficial and some adverse effects. Both the shape effects
show significant change in sectional characteristics at various
span-wise locations. This change in airfoil character may be
attributed to span-wise flow induced by the respective shapes.
2. The effect of positive parabolic sweep in comparison
with the straight blade is three fold. Firstly, the chord-wise
pressure gradient (diffusion) on the suction surface is reduced
all over the span. Hence, even as the swept blades show thicker
boundary layers than the dihedral blades overall losses are
lower. Secondly, the span-wise pressure gradient is stronger at
the front portion of the swept blade near the end-wall, whose
intensity decreases gradually towards the mid-span. Thirdly,
The maximum velocity on the suction surface rises and shifts
towards leading edge at mid-span. This results in longer
diffusion and thicker boundary layer at mid-span than at the
endwall.
3. The effect of positive parabolic dihedral is also three
fold. Firstly the chord-wise pressure gradient is reduced in
comparison with the straight blade but to a lesser extent than
that of the swept blades. Secondly the span-wise pressure
gradient near the mid-span region is reduced. Thirdly the chord-
wise pressure gradient near the mid-span is increased, which
increase losses. As a result even with somewhat thinner
boundary layer profiles compared to the swept blades, the
dihedral blades end up with higher losses.
4. Both the swept and the dihedral blades have shown loss
reduction compared to the straight blade. Dihedral blades have
lesser ability to reduce losses than the swept blades.
5. Even though swept and dihedral blades show thicker
boundary layer than the straight blades, their losses are lower.
While sweep has a general sobering effect on the boundary
layer and losses, it tends to shift the boundary layer growth
towards the mid-span; while dihedral delays the boundary layer
growth and shifts it towards the chord-wise rear positions.
6. The higher stall angle for the swept blade is obtained by
avoiding separation at higher angles of attack but with a penalty
of sectional blade loading at all the angles of attack. If this is
true, the blades with sweep would be required to be designed
with higher local angle of incidence at the sections away from
the end-wall to recover some the sectional blade loading, while
the end-wall sectional incidences may be left as it is to enjoy
the benefits of sweep and dihedral shapes.
REFERENCES
Breugelmans, F. A. H., Carles, Y., and Demuth, M.,
1984, “Influence of Dihedral on the Secondary Flow in a Two
Dimensional Compressor Cascade,” Transactions of ASME
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbine and Power, Vol. 106,
pp. 574-584.
Gostelow, J.P., 1984, “Cascade Aerodynamics,” Pergamon
Press, Oxford, England.
Gummer, V., Wenger, U., and Kau, H. P., 2001, “Using
Sweep and Dihedral to Control Three-Dimensional Flow in
Transonic Stators of Axial Flow Compressor,” ASME Journal
of Turbomachinery, Vol. 123, pp. 40-48.
Johnsen, I. A., and Bullock, R. O., 1965, “Aerodynamical
Design of Axial Flow Compressor,” NASA SP-36.
Koller, U., Monig, R., Kusters, B., and Schreiber, H. A.,
1998, “Development of Advanced Compressor Aerofoils For
Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines Part I: Design and Optimization, “
ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 122, pp. 397-405.
Koller, U., Monig, R., Kusters., B., and Schreiber, H. A.,
1998, “Development of Advanced Compressor Aerofoils for
Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines Part II: Experimental and
Theoretical Analysis,” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol.
122, pp. 406-415.
Langstone, L. S., Nice, M. L., and Hooper, 1977, “Three
Dimensional Flow Within a Turbine Cascade Passage,”
Transaction of ASME Journal of Engineering and Power, Vol.
99, p. 21.
Lyes, P. A., and Ginder, R. B., 1999, “Low-Speed
Compressor Test of Swept and Bowed Blade Designs",
Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Air
Breathing Engines, Florence, Italy.
Peng, Z., Wu, G., Yan, M., and Ren, L., 1991, “An
Experimental Investigation of Technologies of End-wall Flow
Control in a Compressor Plane Cascade,” AIAA paper no. 91-
2005.
12
 Sasaki, T. and Breugelmans F., 1998, “Comparison of
Sweep And Dihedral Effects On Compressor Cascade
Performance,” Transactions of ASME Journal of
Turbomachinary, Vol. 120, pp. 454-463.
Smith, L. H. Jr., and Yeh, H., 1963, “Sweep and Dihedral
Effects in Axial Flow Turbomachinery,” Transaction of ASME
journal of Basic Engineering, p. 401.
Ucer, A. S., Stow, P. and Hirsch, C., 1985,
“Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics of Turbomachinery,”
Volume II, NATO ASI Series, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Wadia, A. R., Szuchs, P. N., and Gundy-Burlet, K. L.,
1999, “Design and Testing of Swept and Leaned Outlet Guide
Vanes to Reduce Stator-Strut-Splitter Aerodynamic Flow
Interactions,” Transactions of ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 121, pp. 416-427.
Wallis Allan R., 1983, “Axial Flow Fans & Ducts,”
Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Weingold, H. D., Neubert, R. J., Behike, R. F., and
Potter, G. E., 1995, “Reduction of Compressor Stator End-wall
Losses Through the Use of Bowed Stators,” ASME Paper
Number 95-GT-380.

13