IMPROVED BLADE PROFILES FOR HIGH LIFT LOW

PRESSURE TURBINE APPLICATIONS

P. Gonzlez*, I.Ulizar*, H.P.Hodson**
*

ITP, Industria de Turbo Propulsores, SA.

Parque Empresarial San Fernando
Avda. Castilla N.2, Edificio Japn, 28830 Madrid, SPAIN
paloma.gonzalez@itp.es, inaki.ulizar@itp.es
**

Wittle Laboratory
University of Cambridge, Madingley Road
Cambridge, CB3 ODY, UK.
hph@eng.cam.ac.uk
1. ABSTRACT
Nowadays, there is a significant effort aimed toward improving LP turbine efficiency. This
is because of the large effect that the efficiency of the LP turbine has on the SFC in
comparison to the other modules in the engine. Low pressure turbines already operate at
efficiencies well above 90% which makes the challenge of reducing the losses even more
difficult. The loss generation processes basically depend on the suction surface boundary
layers, the pressure surface boundary layers and the three dimensional regions of the flow. To
date, the pressure surface has received very little attention.
The dependence of the profile losses on the behaviour of the pressure surface flows has
been investigated for the case of a high lift design that is representative of a modern civil
engine LP turbine. Two profiles with different pressure surfaces were designed and tested
over a range of conditions. The first profile is a thin-solid design. This profile has a large
pressure side separation bubble extending from near the leading edge to mid-chord. The
second profile is a hollow design. It has the same suction side as the thin-solid design, but
there is no pressure side separation bubble. The study is part of a wider on-going research
programme covering the effects of the different design parameters on losses.
This paper describes the experiments conducted and the results obtained in a low-speed
linear cascade facility. Steady state two-dimensional measurements are presented in the form
of isentropic surface velocity distributions and wake traverses downstream the cascade. It is
shown that the thick profile generates only around 90% of the losses of a thin-solid profile.
Nomenclature:
1
2
Cax
I
LP

Inlet angle.
Outlet angle.
Axial chord.
Incidence.
Low Pressure.

Re
Red
s
SFC
solidity
V
V2

Reynolds number based on true chord at exit conditions.

Design Reynolds number based on true chord at exit conditions.
Surface length.
Specific Fuel Consumption.
Pitch to axial chord ratio.
Local velocity.
Exit velocity.

2. INTRODUCTION
The modern large civil aero-engine LP turbines consist of several stages. This makes not
only the efficiency but also the weight and manufacturing cost important parameters in the
design process. SFC is highly influenced by the LP turbine efficiency, the weight of the LP
turbine represents over 20% of the engine weight and the cost could be up to 15% of the
whole engine total cost. In order to reduce weight and cost without penalising the efficiency,
the number of aerofoils has been reduced in recent years as a result of increases in the lift
coefficient, leading to the so called high lift profiles. The development of these profiles is
supported by computational studies and experimental evidence [2], [8]. High lift profiles have
been introduced into the latest LP turbines for civil applications such as the BR715 and Trent
500 engines [6],[7].
Profile losses are greatly dependant on the development of the blade surface boundary layer
[1], [4]. Due to the large aspect ratios existing in LP turbines, the aerofoil loss is by far
the largest percentage of the total loss, accounting for up to 80% of the profile loss according
to [2]. Furthermore, reducing the 2D losses by 10% to 90% of their former value, can raise the
efficiency of the LP turbine by approximately 0.5%. Therefore, it is important to be able to
predict such changes as accurately as possible in order to control the loss generated.
Two very different profile design options are available for use in engines today, either thin
solid or hollow aerofoils. Hollow aerofoils are lighter, more efficient, mechanically more
robust at large aspect ratios but they are more expensive because of the increased
manufacturing complexity. The current LP turbine design philosophy is based on thin-solid
profiles but LP turbines using thick hollow aerofoils have accumulated around 100 million
hours of successful operation over the last thirty years.
Turbine aerofoils are typically optimised for their design point, but the profiles do not
always operate at their design conditions. Incidence, Reynolds number and Mach number
vary across the operating range. This study is an attempt to define the differences between
thin-solid and thick hollow aerofoils. The objective is to discover by which mechanisms and
by how much the thickening of the profile influences the aerodynamic behaviour of the
aerofoil. This is assessed in terms of changes in the losses, the boundary layer behaviour and
tolerance to changes in incidence.
This paper describes the experiments conducted in a low speed linear cascade in order to
improve the understanding of the differences between using thin solid and thick hollow
aerofoils in the LP turbine.
3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP.
The experiments were conducted in a low-speed cascade wind tunnel in the Whittle
Laboratory, Cambridge University. Figure 1 shows the test section and some profile details.

Static pressure tapping

at 25% and 50% axial
chord downstream
trailing edge

352),/( '(7$,/6



&D[
VROLGLW\



PP


1
2
FLOW

Instrumented aerofoil
Inlet static pressure
tapping

Figure 1. Test section of the low-speed cascade.

The cascade consists of six aerofoils with constant section. Two highly loaded profiles were
tested. Each has the same lift coefficient, around 1. Both profiles have physically identical
suction surfaces but different pressure surfaces. Profile F is a thin-solid high lift profile
following the current LP turbine design philosophy. Profile G is the redesign of Profile F. It is
a thick high lift profile representative of a hollow blade. Profile G was designed by thickening
Profile F to the point that the pressure side bubble was just suppressed. The pressure surface
was not modified close to the leading edge and trailing edge so as not to modify the overall
behaviour of the profile.
For the purposes of testing, Profile G was created by adding metal inserts to Profile F to fill
in the profile on the pressure side. Special attention was paid to the junction near to the
leading edge so that the boundary layer was not tripped in this area.
Three different incidences were tested ( 0, +10 and 20) to study the off-design
behaviour. This range is representative of some operating conditions in the turbine.
Instrumentation:
The stagnation temperature at inlet to the cascade was measured using a thermocouple that
was placed in the upstream plenum. The inlet stagnation pressure was measured upstream of
the leading edge of the blades. A Pitot probe was placed at mid-pitch 33% Cax upstream of
each blade passage. Static pressure tappings were located in the same positions but in the
opposite side-wall. The average values of inlet static pressure and inlet stagnation pressure
were determined using the values provided by the above instrumentation. Static pressure
tappings were also placed at mid-pitch behind each blade passage at 25% Cax and 50% Cax
downstream of the trailing edge plane.
One of the central two blades is instrumented with static pressure tappings at mid-span. A
total of forty four tappings were used to measure the static pressure distribution over the
surface. The locations of the measuring points are shown in figure 2. The tappings were

placed closer together on the suction side near to the leading edge in order to detect if a
separation bubble is formed at positive incidence. Similarly, the tappings were placed closer
together in the region of the separation bubble that was expected to form downstream of the
throat on the suction surface in order to locate the separation and reattachment points.

V/V2

TAPPING
PROFILE G
PROFILE F
MISES

%Cax

Figure 2. Static pressure tapping location & isentropic surface velocity

distributions: Profile F and Profile G at Red.
Downstream of the cascade, a 4-hole Neptune probe was used to measure the exit flow
field. The probe was operated in a fixed orientation with its axis parallel to predicted flow
direction.
The local mean flow angle, static pressure and stagnation pressure were
determined from the calibration of the probe. Integration of these local values was then
carried out and a constant area mixing calculation was used to provide the mixed-out values
of the cascade loss, exit flow angle and exit velocity. The traverse plane was located 0.25 Cax
downstream the trailing edge plane of the cascade. Some data were also acquired 0.5 Cax
downstream although they are not presented in this paper because there is no significant
difference between the mixed out values at the two locations.
4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION.
Profile F and Profile G were tested over a range of chord-based exit Reynolds numbers from
0.8105 to 3.2105 and at three different incidences (0, +10 and 20) under steady-state
flow conditions. Unsteady measurements were conducted to study the suction surface
behaviour but they are not included in the paper. Inlet turbulence level in the experiments is
given by the characteristics of the tunnel, around 0.5%.

Isentropic surface velocity distributions:

The static pressure data are presented in terms of the normalised velocity coefficient (V/V2).
In the majority of the figures, the data are plotted against the normalised surface length (%s)
since it is the development of the boundary layers that is of particular interest.
Figure 2 presents the isentropic surface velocity distributions for Profile G and Profile F
plotted against the percentage of axial chord at the design representative Reynolds number of
approximately 2105 (Red). These profiles were designed following the high lift design
philosophy developed in former studies [2], [8]. The experimental results verify that the
profiles fulfil the intentions of the design. There is a smooth acceleration over the leading
portion of the suction side. The maximum Mach number is located close to 70% C ax. The
strong deceleration on the suction surface leads to a separation of the laminar flow.
Transition occurs in the separated flow region and as a result, the flow reattaches before the
trailing edge.
Figure 2 also shows that both profiles have essentially the same suction surface velocity
distribution. The only noticeable difference in the suction side behaviour is that the velocity is
slightly higher on the front part of the suction surface of Profile G as a result of the blockage
caused by the thickening of the profile on the pressure side. On the pressure surface, the
behaviour of the profiles is very different as was intended.
In addition to the measurements, figure 2 also presents a prediction, obtained using the
Mises code [8] for Profile G. This shows that there is a good agreement between
computational and experimental data. The experiments show that for profile F there is a very
large separation bubble which reattaches at about 70% Cax. This large separation bubble does
not exist when the pressure side is filled in.

Re=1.0E5

V/V2

Re=2.2E5
Re=3.0E5
PROFILE G

PROFILE F

0
0

%s

100

Figure 3. Isentropic surface velocity distributions at three

Reynolds numbers.

Figure 3 presents the isentropic velocity distributions of both profiles at three chord-based
exit Reynolds numbers. Tests were conducted at about eight Reynolds numbers, but only
three are shown for the sake of clarity. It has already been shown that the suction side
distributions are very similar for both profiles. Therefore, the suction side distributions for
only one profile have been plotted in this figure.
The Reynolds number affects the evolution of the boundary layer on the suction surface and
in particular the characteristics of the suction side bubble. Increasing the Reynolds number
reduces the length to transition and causes earlier reattachment of the separated shear layer.
While the reattachment point varies its location, the separation point essentially remains
constant as expected from theoretical considerations. On the pressure surface, it seems that
there is no noticeable effect of the Reynolds number on the behaviour of the separation
bubble. In all cases, separation has occurred before the first measurement point and
reattachment appears to take place as the free-stream flow begins to reaccelerate toward the
trailing edge.

+10 degrees
0 degrees
-20 degrees
Profile G
Profile F

V/V2

0
0

% s

100

PRESSURE SURFACE
SEPARATED REGIONS
Profile G:
+10 No bubble
+0 No bubble
-20 0-45% S
Profile F:
+10 0-40% S
+0 0-55% S
-20 0-75% S

Figure 4. Isentropic surface velocity distributions at three

incidences for Profile F and G.
Figure 4 shows the isentropic velocity distributions of profiles F and G at different inlet
flow angles. The incidence influences both the pressure and the suction sides. Three different
incidences were tested (0, +10 and 20). Only the results obtained at the design Reynolds
number are presented. The results at other Reynolds numbers are very similar to those
presented in figure 4. As is usually the case, changing the incidence affects the suction side
velocity distribution over the front part of the aerofoil between the leading edge and the
location of maximum velocity. It also affects the pressure side by reducing the deceleration of
the flow and so the size of the pressure bubbles when it is positive and increasing or

Loss coefficient

Loss coefficient

sometimes generating pressure side bubbles if it is negative. There is always a pressure

surface bubble in Profile F. At an incidence of 20, this separation bubble is extremely long.
Its extent is around 75 percent of the surface length, which is more than 80 percent of its axial
chord. At +10 of incidence, the size of this bubble is reduced on Profile F but it is not
suppressed. No bubble appears for Profile G when operating at the design incidence or at
positive incidence. Operation at negative incidence provokes the separation of the flow on the
pressure surface but the separation bubble is much shorter than on Profile F.

Profile F
Profile G
Trend lines are curve fits to the experimental data
5

10 Reynolds number

0,0

3,3

%Pitch

0.0

Lo ss coefficient

L o s s c o e ffic ie n t

Figure 5. Profile F and G design incidence losses distributions: (a) Variation of

stagnation pressure loss coefficient with Reynolds number. (b) Stagnation
pressure loss coefficient profile downstream of the cascade at Red.

+1 0
0
-2 0
Tre n d lin e s a re cu rve fits to th e e xp e rim e n ta l d a ta
5

1 0 R e y n o ld s n u m b e r

3.3

% Pitch

Figure 6. Profile G: Incidence influence in losses: (a) Variation of stagnation

pressure loss coefficient with Reynolds number. (b) Stagnation pressure loss
coefficient profile downstream of the cascade at Red.
Losses:
Figures 5,6 and 7 summarise the loss data obtained for the two cascades. In each figure, the
variation of the profile loss coefficient with the chord based exit Reynolds number is shown
together with the pitchwise variation of loss downstream of the cascade at Red.
Figure 5(a) shows how the stagnation pressure loss coefficient of Profile F and Profile G
varies with Reynolds number at the design incidence. Both trend lines are almost parallel. As
the Reynolds number is reduced, the stagnation pressure loss coefficients of both profiles
increase, as is usually the case. At the lowest Reynolds number, the velocity distributions of
figure 3 indicate that the suction side boundary layer is still attached at the trailing edge. As
the Reynolds number is increased, the reattachment of the suction side separation bubble
occurs further from the trailing edge and the losses are substantially lower. Figure 3 also
shows that the laminar length of this separation bubble does not change very much between a
Reynolds number of 2.2x105 and 3x105. Over the same range of Reynolds numbers, the
stagnation pressure loss coefficients are almost constant.

L o s s c o e ffic ie n t

L o s s c o e ffic ie n t

The only physical difference between Profile F and Profile G is the shape of the pressure
surface as shown in figure 2. Therefore, if there is any difference in the losses of the two
profiles, it must be due to the changes made to the pressure surface. It has already been noted
that the suction side velocity distributions are subtly different as a result of the different
geometries and pressure side blockage. However, figure 5(b) shows that this is not only
reason for the difference in the losses of the two profiles. This plot shows how the stagnation
pressure loss varies with pitchwise distance at the design Reynolds number. The wakes from
the two central blades of the cascade are presented. The pressure side of each wake is to the
right. The plot clearly shows that there is a so-called "loss tail" on the pressure side of the
wake extending into the freestream in the case of Profile F. An assessment of the losses in this
region reveals that they are of a similar order to the differences in the loss coefficients of the
two profiles. Figure 5(a) shows that the stagnation pressure loss coefficients of Profile G are
approximately 90 percent of those of Profile F at a wide range of Reynolds number around
Red as it is shown in figure 8. This difference is reduced to 5% at the lowest Reynolds
number. The very weak dependence on Reynolds number arises because, as figure 3 shows,
changing the Reynolds number does not significantly alter the characteristics of the pressure
side separation bubble.

+10
0
-2 0
Tre n d lin e s a re cu rve fits to th e e xp e rim e n ta l d a ta

0.0

1 0 R e y n o ld s n u m b e r

3.3

% P itc h

Figure 7. Profile F: Incidence influence in losses: (a) Variation of stagnation

pressure loss coefficient with Reynolds number. (b) Stagnation pressure loss
coefficient profile downstream of the cascade at design Red.
Figures 6 and 7 present the off-design behaviour of Profile G and Profile F. The variation
of the stagnation pressure loss coefficient with the chord-based exit Reynolds number is
presented in Figure 6(a) and figure 7(a). The wake of profiles are shown in the lower plot of
each figure. Figure 6 presents the results for Profile G at the three incidences. Figure 7
presents the results for Profile F. Both figures show that, for a given profile, there is no
significant change in the stagnation pressure losses between zero and positive incidence. In
fact, the losses of Profile G increase very slightly whereas those of Profile F remain constant.
This is because the increased loss that arises from changes on the suction surface is offset by
the reduction in the length of the pressure side bubble as shown in figure 4. In the case of
Profile G, as the Reynolds number is reduced, the losses increase at positive incidence more
than at zero incidence. As a result, the differences between the two profiles are reduced
especially at positive incidence. When both profiles are operated at negative incidence, there
is a substantial increase in the profile losses of about 30%. This is a direct consequence of the
pressure side separation bubble which now exists on Profile G and which has grown much
larger in extent on Profile F. The loss tail associated with this additional loss is very clearly
visible in the wake profiles. This relatively large deterioration in performance at -20of
incidence means that the inclusion of hollow aerofoils in the LP turbine will not lead to an
unexpected over-speed problem ( in case of shaft failure a higher efficiency leads to a larger

(loss esF-los sesG )/los sesF %

terminal speed ). Hodson and Dominy [5] have also reported the presence of a significant
pressure side loss tail behind a cascade of LP turbine blades at -20of incidence.

10

0
0,0E +00

105Reynolds number
Re

3,3E +05

Figure 8. Difference in stagnation pressure loss coeficient

between Profile F and Profile G vs. Reynolds number.
Future work could include the testing of these profiles when they are subjected to the
simulated wakes of an upstream bladerow. The unsteadiness which arises is known to affect
the suction surface boundary layer development, thus modifying the losses [1],[2],[4]&[7].
However, experiments of this type and cold flow rig data indicate that the unsteadiness has no
significant effect on the static pressure distribution along the pressure surface. Therefore, it is
expected that the results from these steady-state experiments are directly applicable to the
engine environment.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Two sets of cascades, a thin-solid one ( Profile F ) and a thick one ( Profile G ) were
manufactured to study the pressure side influence in losses. Both of them have physically
identical suction surfaces but different pressure surfaces; the pressure surface were modified
without modifying the suction surface aerodynamic behaviour. As a result, the pressure side
separation bubble which exists on the thin-solid profile at zero and positive incidence has
been suppressed. Suppressing this pressure surface bubble, without modifying anything else,
reduces the profile losses by approximately 10%. Due to the large aspect ratios existing in LP
turbines, the profile loss is the largest portion of the total loss. If profile loss is reduced by
10%, the target of increasing efficiency is achieved. The result is approximately a 0.5%
improvement in efficiency.
The off-design behaviour of the profile is not penalised by the thickening of the profile. At
negative incidence, the relative increase in the losses is similar for both profiles. At positive
incidence, the difference in the losses of the two profiles is slightly reduced especially at
lower Reynolds numbers were losses of Profile G increase more.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank all of the staff at the Whittle Laboratory and particularly
T.Chandler for their help and also ITP for its support of the project and the permission to
publish this paper.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Banieghbal, M.R., Curtis, E.M., Denton, J.D., Hodson, H.P., Huntsman, J., Schulte, V..
(1995). Wake passing in LP turbines. Paper No.23, AGARD Conference. Loss
Mechanisms and unsteady flows in turbomachinery, Derby, May.
[2] Curtis, E.M., Hodson, H.P., Banieghbal, M.R., Howell, R.J., and Harvey, N.W.. (1997),
"Development of Blade Profiles for Low Pressure Turbine Applications", ASME Jnl. of
Turbomachinery, Vol 119, Jul.
[3] Denton, J.D.. (1999), State of the art and future of turbine technology. Proceedings of
the International Gas Turbine Congress. Kobe. Pg. 27-37.
[4] Engber, M., Fottner, L.. (1995), The effect of incoming wakes on boundary layer
transition of a highly turbine cascade. Paper No.21, AGARD Conference. Loss
Mechanisms and unsteady flows in turbomachinery, Derby, May.
[5] Hodson, H.P., Dominy, R.G.. (1987), "The Off-Design Performance of a Low Pressure
Turbine and Cascade", ASME Jnl. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 109, Apr.
[6] Harvey, N.W., Schulte, V., Howell, R.J., and Hodson, H.P.. (1999), "The Role of Research
in the Aerodynamic Design of an Advanced Low Pressure Turbine ", 3rd European Conf.
on Turbomachinery, IMechE, London, Mar.
[7] Howell, R.J., Ramesh, O.N., Hodson, H.P., Harvey, N.W., Schulte, V.. (2000), "High Lift
and Aft Loaded Profiles for Low Pressure Turbines", ASME Paper No 2000-GT-0261,
ASME Turbo Expo 2000, Munich, May.
[8] Schulte, V., and Hodson, H.P.. (1998), Unsteady wake-induced boundary layer
transition in high lift LP turbines, ASME Jnl of Turbomachinery, Vol 120, Jan
[9] Giles, M., and Drela, M.. (1995) Two Dimensional Transonic Aerodynamic Design
method, AIAA Journal, Vol.25, No9, Pg 127-134.