~~- ' - .

--

NASA/TM-2000-210S21 / /V/ V' 1

"'~././I /} V-:;,.2-

Investigation of Flow Separation in a

Transonic-Fan Linear Cascade Using
Visualization Methods

Jan Lepicovsky
Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., Brook Park, Ohio

Rodrick V. Chima, Thomas A. Jett, Timothy J. Bencic, and Kenneth E. Weiland

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

December 2000
 The NASA STI Program Office ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
the advancement of aeronautics and space papers from scientific and technical
science. The NASA Scientific and Technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
Information (STI) Program Office plays a key part meetings sponsored or cosponsored by
in helping NASA maintain this important role. NASA.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

Langley Research Center, the Lead Center for technical, or historical information from
NASA's scientific and technical information. The NASA programs, projects, and missions,
NASA STI Program Office provides access to the often concerned with subjects having
NASA STI Database, the largest collection of substantial public interest.
aeronautical and space science STI in the world.
The Program Office is also NASA's institutional • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
mechanism for disseminating the results of its language translations of foreign scientific
research and development activities. These results and technical material pertinent to NASA's
are published b y NASA in the NASA STI Report mission.
Series, which includes the following report types:
Specialized services that complement the STI
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of Program Office's diverse offerings include
completed research or a major significant creating custom thesauri, building customized
phase of research that present the results of data bases, organizing and publishing research
NASA programs and include extensive data results ... even providing videos.
or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations
of significant scientific and technical data and For more information about the NASA STI
information deemed to be of continuing Program Office, see the following:
reference value. NASA's counterpart of peer-
reviewed formal professional papers but • Access the NASA STI Program Horne Page
has less stringent limitations on manuscript at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
length and extent of graphic presentations.
• E-mail your question via the Internet to
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific help@sti.nasa.gov
and technical findings that are preliminary or
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release • Fax your question to the NASA Access
reports, working papers, and bibliographies Help Desk at 301-621-0134
that contain minimal annotation. Does not
contain extensive analysis. • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at
301-621-0390
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored • Write to:
contractors and grantees. NASA Access Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
NASA/TM-2000-210S21

Investigation of Flow Separation in a

Transonic-Fan Linear Cascade Using
Visualization Methods

Jan Lepicovsky
Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., Brook Park, Ohio

Rodrick V. Chima, Thomas A . Jett, Timothy J. Bendc, and Kenneth E. Weiland

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Prepared for the

9th International Symposium on Flow Visualization
sponsored by the Heriot Watt University
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, August 22- 25,2000

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

December 2000
 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge many useful discussions with Dr. E.R McFarland and Mr. J.R Wood and
engineering support provided by Mr. R Torres of NASA Glenn Research Center. This program was supported
by NASA Glenn Research Center under the Smart Green Engine program managed by Mr. RD. Corrigan.

Available from
NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service
7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076 Springfield, VA 22100
Price Code: A03 Price Code: A03

Available electronically at http: // gltrs.grc.nasa.gov I GLTRS

 INVESTIGATION OF FLOW SEPARATION IN A TRANSONIC-FAN
LINEAR CASCADE USING VISUALIZATION METHODS
1. Lepicovsky
Dynacs Engineering Compa11Y, Inc.
Brook Park, Ohio 44142

R.Y. Chima, T.A. lett, T.l. Bencic, and K.E. Weiland

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

ABSTRACT
A n extensive study into the nature of the separated flows on the suction side of modern
transonic fan airfoils at high incidence is described in the paper. Suction surface flow separation
is an important flow characteristic that may significantly contribute to stall flutter in transonic
fans. Flutter in axial turbomachines is a highly undesirable and dangerous self-excited mode of
blade oscillations that can result in high cycle fatigue blade failure. The study basically focused on
two visualization techniques: surface flow visualization using dye oils, and schlieren (and
shadowgraph) flow visualization. The following key observations were made during the study. For
subsonic inlet flow, the flow on the suction side of the blade is separated over a large portion of the
blade, and the separated area increases with increasing inlet Mach number. For the supersonic
inlet flow condition, the flow is attached from the leading edge up to the point where a bow shock
from the upper neighboring blade hits the blade surface. Low cascade solidity, for the subsonic
inlet flow, results in an increased area of separated flow. For supersonic flow conditions, a low
solidity results in an improvement inflow over the suction surface. Finally, computational results
modeling the transonic cascade flowfield illustrate our ability to simulate these flows numerically.
List of symbols
c [rnm] blade chord (89.2 rnm)
h [rnm] blade height (95.9 rnm)
i GM [dg] geometric flow incidence angle (10.0 dg)
MaIN [1] inlet Mach number
s [rnm] blade pitch (58.4 rnm)
x [rnm] axial distance (cascade)
y [rnm] pitchwise distance (cascade)
r [dg] blade stagger angle (60.0 dg)
n es [1] cascade pressure ratio
e [dg] leading edge camber angle (-9. 5 dg)
q> [rnm] chordwise distance (airfoil)

1 BACKGROUND
Flutter in axial turbomachines is a highly undesirable and dangerous self-excited mode of
blade oscillation. Modem turbine engines employ transonic fan stages with high aspect ratio blades
that are prone to flutter and consequently suffer high cycle fatigue. Therefore, it is imperative to
understand the origins of flutter for reliable and safe operation of these engines. Flutter can occur
in several different operating regimes [1]. High subsonic and transonic torsional stall flutter, which
occurs near the fan stall limit line at speeds up to about 80% of the design speed and with high

NASAlTM- 2000-210521
incidence, has been particularly difficult to model with analytical prediction methods. Previous
investigations focused on instability of local supersonic regions on the blade suction surface that
are terminated with nonnal shocks [2, 3]. It was assumed that under certain conditions the shock
wave motion can introduce an additional contribution to the fluctuating forces on the airfoil and
thus influence the stability of the system. Follow up investigations, however, showed that the
shock wave dynamics associated with transonic stall flutter was insufficient to imply instability in
the cascade based on the simple shock motion model [4].
The latest view of the transonic stall flutter origin is that the blade oscillations are triggered
by high frequency changes in the extent of the partially separated area on the airfoil suction side.
This is supported by the fact that for some of the modem tip-section airfoils at large incidence
(about 10 dg), the shock waves do not appear until very high subsonic inlet Mach numbers have
been reached (above 0.95). These inflow conditions are actually at the very upper end of the inlet
Mach number range where transonic stall flutter is observed and therefore it is unlikely that flutter
is caused by oscillating shocks. Modem transonic airfoils, however, exhibit separated flow regions
for subsonic inlet conditions with high incidence [5, 6]. There is a lack of experimental data
describing the separated flow characteristics of modem airfoils for transonic fans. The present
study has been carried out to fill in this gap.

2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
An important unresolved question involving the flow over the suction side of a modem
airfoil for transonic fans is the extent of the separated flow region for a subsonic inlet condition
with high incidence. Transonic fan airfoils are designed for precompression, and therefore they
have a sharp leading edge, a concave suction surface just downstream of the leading edge, and a
very low overall camber. The airfoils are prone to flow separation at off-design conditions. It is
very difficult to determine the presence and extent of the separated flow zone just from static
pressure measurements on the airfoil surface. The separated flow region is at best recognizable
through a plateau in the static pressure distribution that can be detected only by comparison with a
static pressure distribution for attached flow. The extent of the flow separated zone can be
determined reliably either by directly measuring the flow velocity distribution just above the
surface in question or by applying one of the surface flow visualization techniques. Direct velocity
measurement, however, requires extensive probe traversing and can be quite expensive and time
consuming. Two visualization experimental techniques were used to detennine flow behavior on
the suction side of an airfoil. They included: (1) surface flow visualization using dye oils, and (2)
schlieren and shadowgraph flow visualization. Before describing the experimental techniques, the
test facility will be introduced.
2.1 NASA transonic flutter cascade facility
The NASA transonic flutter cascade facility has already been described in detail in several
publications [2 through 6]; only a brief description is given here for completeness. A schematic
diagram of the cascade facility is given in Fig. 1. Room air enters the bell mouth (top left), passes
through the test section (inserted photograph), and exits through a diffuser (bottom right) into a low
pressure exhaust system. The facility operates in a continuous mode. The test section consists of
nine blades. The setting angle of the inlet duct is 20.0 dg, and the blade-setting angle is 30.0 dg;
this results in 10.0 dg chordal incidence for the airfoils. The exit channel is set at an angle of 24.0
dg. This configuration assures a nearly identical flow periodicity for six blades in the cascade
(from blade B2 to blade B7; counted from left to right). A complete analysis of the cascade steady
state flow periodicity is given in references 6 and 7. Airfoil geometry and cascade geometry is
given in Fig. 2 [5, 6]. Flow rate through the cascade (inlet Mach number) is controlled by valves
located downstream of the exit diffuser. All the experiments described in this paper were carried
out for steady state conditions. It should also be stated here that no boundary layer bleed was
employed during this study.

NASNTM-2000-21 0521 2
 ·f ~:.r-
" .
/ /' ........ "'; j";'T

,,'- ,
I . .
I INLET WALL
\. ANGLE 20 d91- ".·..,":<:;;;;;;i:;;;,o;;;;;';;;;~;;.:;,;,;,;~~;;;;

"., i I './
•• ,' ' BLADE
. SETTING----- ~ .
-. '-~< ANGLE 30 dg-----___ ~ PITC>fNISE QlRECTlON

r: ..,... -I' I '. EXIT W;~~-----__ EXIT +y

V. V'. . - ,.'".,.." { \.. II i'.'i'.' ANGLE 24 dg -----_
.. oj

Fig. 2. Airfoil and cascade

Fig. 1. NASA GRC transonic flutter cascade cool'dinate system

2.2 Dye-oil surface flow visualization

Surface flow visualization teclmiques are based on a dye, which is of a liquid or a solid
form, being smeared over the surface by flow. Dye dots or lines are made on the test surface just
before the test facility is started. This is relatively simple and straightforward. However, very
often, it is difficult to distinguish which of the resulting dye traces were made during the facility
start-up process and which were made while running at the test conditions. The shut-down
transient is usually no problem because the facility can run until the dye traces are sufficiently dry.
To avoid the start-up confusion, some researchers add solid particles in the flow after the test
conditions have been established and rely on particle deposition on the test surface [8]. The
heaviest depositions are usually along the line of flow reattachment or in the regions of high
turbulence intensity. The other approach is to make marks on the test surface with an easily soluble
color and then to spray a solvent in the flow at desired operating conditions. Both approaches were
tried but without success and therefore an old-fashioned, reliable dye-oil technique was employed.
Using the dye-oil technique, droplets of colored oil are deposited on the test surface and the
facility is started. Very often, particularly for low viscosity oils and a slow facility start-up, the
recorded flow picture captures the transient flow patterns that occur .during the tunnel start-up
phase rather than the test flow condition pattern. To avoid this problem, two aspects must be
resolved: (1 ) very short facility start-up time, and (2) a dye-oil mixture of suitable viscosity (in
conjunction with small dye-oil marks on the test surface). To minimize the start-up times, the
cascade facility operating conditions were set up using the control valves as usuaL Then, while the
control valves stayed open, the facility was turned on and off using the main shut-off valve only.
Through this procedure, the maximum Mach number of 1.2 was reached within 6 s from the time
the main shut-off valve started to open. This extremely short start-up time caused vibrations in the
facility and should not be overused; however, so far no detrimental effects on the facility have been
noticed. Commercial oil-based paints were mixed with automotive oil viscosity SAE 85W140.
The oiVpaint mixture ratio was between 3:2 and 2: 1, depending on the paint color. The right
mixture ratio was determined for each color by testing the color mark fluidity. Color dots 2 to 3
mm in diameter were made on a test surface, and the surface tilted in the vertical direction. Oil was
added to the mixture until the color marks started to run after the test surface was tilted.
In preparation for tests, color dots were made on a test blade mounted in the cascade. The
blade-setting angle was 30.0 dg with respect to the horizontal direction. For the high solidity
cascade, the spacing between the blades is quite smalL The dots were made using a l-mm-
diameter copper wire that was dipped in the mixture. The color marks on the cascade sidewall
were made on a segment that was removed from the wall as shown in Fig. 3. Behavior of the color
dots during the facility start-up procedure was observed to verify that the recorded flow pattern is
not contaminated by the transient phenomenon. As mentioned above the flow in the cascade
reached the test condition in 6 s. During this period, and for an additional 10 to 15 s, the fluid in
the dots was pushed to the downstream side of the dot. Approximately 20 to 25 s after flow onset
the color dots started to break and thin streaks ran over the blade surface. It took about 3 minutes

NASN TM- 2000-210521 3

for all the fluid from the dot to smear onto the blade surface. The flow was maintained at the test
condition for 15 mllutes in order to dry the paint. Only one color or one line of dots was made at a
time on the blade tested. Each of the multicolor surface flow pictures to be discussed below was
completed in 5 or 6 consecutive runs. The consistency of the flow pattern for different colors
proves that the flow in the cascade is very stable and repeatable. Also, it proves that the recorded
pictures are of the flow at the steady state conditions and that the pattern is not affected by any
tunnel start-up flow transients. After the test was completed, the blade was dismounted from the
cascade and photographed to record the surface flow pattern.

SPHERICAL
WINDOW MIRROR

LIGHT SOURCE

Fig. 4. Double-pass schlieren system

Fig. 3. Color dots being made on a test article

2.3 Flowfield visualization

The double-pass schlieren system used in thjs study is depicted in Fig. 4 [2, 4]. The blades
are mounted between end walls with a mllror on one side and optical quality glass window on the
other side. The mirror and the window comprise a part of the schlieren system. The limitation in
the region of flow visualization over the airfoil surface is due to the large blade trunillon and the
blade end fillets. Difficulties were experienced with the alignment of the schlieren system. A
perfect alignment of the knife-edge before the test would rapidly deteriorate once the flow started.
It is believed that thjs was caused by mllute deflections of the facility walls due to the pressure
difference across the tunnel walls. Also, there was a noticeable unsteadiness in the image position
at the knife-edge location. For this reason, most of the pictures with shock wave structures present
were acquired as shadowgraphs. The flow images were recorded either on a 35-mm camera or a
CCD can1era with resolution of 512 by 512 pixels.

3 SURFACE FLOW VISUALIZATION RESULTS

Solidity is an important parameter in cascade design. It is defined as a ratio of blade chord
and pitch. In turbomachinery, high solidity is used to reduce loading and confine the flow, which
reduces separation. However, high solidity increases wetted area and losses in a cascade, therefore
there is an optin1Um for solidity of each cascade. The effects of solidity on surface flow pattern are
discussed next.

3.1 High solidity cascade

The effects of the inlet Mach number on the evolution of the surface flow pattern on the
airfoil suction side are shown in Fig. 5. The results are for the high solidity cascade of cis = 1.52.
For subsonic Mach numbers of 0.5 and 0.8, the flow exhibits a large separated region that starts
immediately at the leading edge and extends, at midspan, down to 47% and 52% of the blade
chord, respectively. A schematic diagram explaining the flow pattern for subsonic conditions is
shown in Fig. 6. For inlet flow at the low supersonic Mach number of 1.18 (Fig. 5), the surface
flow pattern is completely different. First, starting from the leading edge, the flow is attached to
the blade surface down to approximately 32% of the chord. Then, there is a separated flow region,

NASAlTM-2000-21 0521 4
 INLET
FLOW HIGH SOLI DITY
CASCADE
INLET FLOW cIs = 1.52

MaiN = 0.50

MaiN = 0.80 MaiN = 1.00 MaiN = 1. 18

Fig. 5. Effects of inlet Mach number on suction surface flow pattern fo r high solidity cascade

in which ai r mo ves in the direction against the inlet flo w. Finall y, at a locati on 62% of the bl ade
chord, the flow attaches back to the blade surface . The fl ow behav ior can be understood better in
Fig. 7, where there is a co mb ination of shadowgraph and surface fl ow visualization pictures.
Starting with the shadowgraph pi cture, three types of shock waves can be detected here. First,
there is a lip (obl ique) shock, attached to the blade leading edge. This shock is a consequence of
flow overex pansion aro und the leading edge and adj usts the flow directi on along the blade suction
surface. As wi ll be shown later, thi s shock depends solely on the fl ow conditions at the blade
leading edge. The second shock, the bow shock, in particular its location, depends strongly on the
inlet Mach number and the cascade so lidity. Fin all y, the trai ling edge shock depends on the
pressure ratio across the cascade. The oversized blade end fill et bl ocks the view of the bow shock
at the blade sucti on surface . The proj ected impact point of the bow shock on the blade surface is
indicated by the red-line extension of the shock (the fact that the shock most likely splits into a
lambda pattern is igno red here for simplicity) . The location of the bow shock impact is redrawn in
scale on to the surface fl ow pattern from the shadowgraph picture. The exce llent agreement with
the line of flow separation is cl early demonstrated here. The fl ow se parates slightly upstream of
the shock due to the secondary boundary layer fl ow ' under the shock' . The pos ition of the
reattachment line (at 62% of the blade chord) is estimated from the surface fl ow picture.
3.1.1 Subsonic inlet Mach numbers
The effects of cascade so lidity on the extent of flow separation were investigated for a high
subsonic in let Mach number of about 0.8. The results are shown in Fig. 8. For the hi gh so lid ity
cascade, the fl ow on the airfoil suction side is separated at the midspan up to approxim ate ly 52% of
the airfoi l chord. The separated region is restricted to a parabola, whi ch is symmetric a long the
blade midspan line and extends to the blade upstream comers. Two sw irling traces fo rm ed
downstream of the blade leading edge co mers and rotating in opposite directions are clearly visib le
here.
The cascade so lidity was lowered to 0.76 by removing the even number blades (the cascade
was now composed of fi ve airfo il s only), and the experim ent was repeated. On co mparing the
results with the previous case, it is obvious that fo r the lower cascade so lidity the separated region
is larger and extends down to approximate ly 65% chord at the blade midspan. Furthermore, even

ASAlTM- 2000-21052 1 5

i
 SUBSONIC ~ though the boundary Iine of the entire separated region
INLET
FLOW seems to be symm etric along th e blade midspan line, a
AT HIGH closer look reveals that there is an asymmetry in flo w
SEPARATED FLOW ZONE
traces on the blade. There is an add itiona l swirling
pattern in the upper right region that rotates counter
c lockwise (left of the co mer sw irling trace that rotates
in the clockwise sense). Clear ly, there is no symmetry
of the fl ow pattern within the separated fl ow region.
Finally, the experim ent at a hi gh subsoni c inlet
Mach number was carried out for a single a irfo il (bl ade
85 only) . The separated flow region now covers most
of the blade suction surface and extends down to the
airfo il trailing edge. Only the downstream blade
SECONDARY A TTACHED SECONDARY corners show small regions of attached fl ow. There are
FLOW ZONE FLOW FLOW ZONE
agai n onl y two co unter-rotating swirling traces in the
Fig. 6. Surface flow pattern on blade upstream (leadin g edge) corners, sim ilar to the high
suction side for subsonic flo w soli dity cascade case. The boundary of the se parated

BLADE B5 TOPVIEW ___ _

CASCADE SIDEVIEW
INLET
INLET FLOW
FLOW
~HOCK
LIP
>
/ B OW SHOCK

BOW SHOCK REA TTACHMENT

@ O.32 * C LINE @ O. 62 * C

Fig. 7. Surface flow pattern for supersonic inlet flow, MaIN = 1. L8

region, however, is not symm etric along the blade mid span line. The separated fl ow region IS
skewed to the left (in the sense of the in fl ow direction).
3. 1.2 Supersonic inlet Mach numbers
The results fo r the supersonic inlet Mach numbers are depi cted in Fig. 9. As already
indicated in Fig. 5, the surface flow pattern fo r supersonic inlet fl ow fo r the hi gh so lidity cascade is
dramatica lly diffe rent fro m the subsonic inl et conditions. The features of the flow patte rn for
supersonic inlet and the high so lidity cascade were di scussed in detail in Fig. 7. For the low
so lidity cascade (see Fig. 9) the fl ow pattern is essentially similar to the hi gh so lidity case with the
diffe rence that now the bow shock imp inges on the blade surface very cl ose to the trailing edge .
The traces of fl ow separation caused by the shock wave / boundary laye r interaction are visible at
about 93% of the blade chord. It should be noted that the shock impingement on the bl ade is
visibl e only on l 8% of the bl ade span (in comparison 56% for the high so lidity cascade). The fl ow
is attached on most of the blade suction surface, with secondary fl ow zones visibly migrating close
to the blade midspan line.
The last flow pattern in Fig. 9 is for the case of a single airfo il. Clearly the flow is attached
over the entire blade surface . There are no traces of flow separation visibl e. The secondary fl ow
regions migrate toward the blade center in a similar manner to the two previous cases. While in the

NAS N TM- 2000-2 10521 6

 previous two cases the flow pattern was symmetric along the blade midspan line, for the single
airfoil the fl ow pattern is skewed to the left (in the flow di rection), as it was for the case of the
subson ic inlet flow.

INL ET FLOW INLET FLOW IN LET FLOW

HIGH SOLIDITY LOW SOLIDITY SINGLE

=
cIs 1.52 cIs = 0.76 AIRFOIL

MaiN = 0.80 MaIN = 0.81 MaiN = 0.85

Fig. 8. Effects of cascade solidi ty for subso nic inlet fl ow conditions

INLET INLET
HIGH SOLIDITY FLOW LOW SOLIDITY FLOW
SINGLE
cIs = 1.52 cIs = 0.76 AIRFOIL

MaiN = 1. 18 MaIN = 1.26 MaiN = 1.28

Fig. 9. Effects of cascade solidi ty for sup er so nic inlet fl ow conditions

4 SHOC K WAVE STRUCTURE

The goa l of the flow visuali sation experiment was to determine the onset of shocks in the
flo w for an increasing in let flow Mach number and to observe the changes in shock wave structure.
The experiments were carried out for a range of in let Mach numbers starting at 0.6. Three basi c
configurations were tested: ( I) high so lidity cascade, cis = 1.52; (2) low solidity cascade, cis = 0.76 ;
and (3) a single airfo il.
4.1 High solid ity cascade
The sequence of photographs in Fig. 10 shows the results for the case of the hjgh solidity
cascade. For the subson ic Mach numbers of 0.6 and 0.9 (Fig. 10a,b) there are no shocks present in
the flow . Obviously, the critical Mach number for this cascade is above Mach number 0.9. Local
regions of high and low pressure in the vicinity of the blade leading edges are visible here (l ight

AS TM- 2000-21052 1 7
and dark areas) . Also, the regions of separated flow on the suction surface, just downstream of the
leading edges, can be detected. Wakes downstream of the blades are clearly visible.
The first appearance of shock waves in the flow occurs for the inlet flow Mach number of
1.0 I (Fig. 10c). As seen here, the shock structure is not periodic; each blade shows a different

MaIN =0.60 1Ccs = 1.036 MaIN = 1.12 1Ccs = 1. 120

MaIN =0.90 1Ccs = 1.089

MaIN = 1.01 1Ccs = 1. 116 MaIN = 1.21 7rcs = 0.869

g.
J
MaIN = 1.05
Cascade solidity cis = 1.52
Incidence I GM = +10.0 dg

Fig. 10. High solidity cascade shock

patterns

shock pattern. Blades B4 and B5 generate simple normal shocks, whereas on blades B6 and B7 the
shock structure appears to consist of an ob lique shock fo ll owed by a bow shock. The location of
the bow shock, particularly on blades B6 and B7 varies significantly. Direct obse rvation of the
shock structure for thi s inlet Mach number revealed that the shock structure was highly unstable
and varied rapidly. Once the inlet Mach number was raised to 1.05, the shock structure noticeably
stabilized and exh ibited the pattern shown in Fig. 10d. The shock pattern appears to be periodic
with a period equal to two bl ade pitches. Even blades (B4 and B6) generate normal shocks at 40%
of the blade chord, whereas odd blades (B5 and B7) clearly show a horizontally located oblique
(lip) shock attached to the blade leading edge and a normal shock (bow) at 25% of the blade chord.

ASAlTM- 2000-21 0521 8

 ----- -_. -- - , ~~~~ " -~---

For the inlet Mach numbers of l.l2 and higher (Fig. IOe,f,g) the shock structure is highly periodic
with the period of one blade pitch. Additional increase of the inlet Mach number to 1.17 (Fig. lOt)
slightly shifts the bow shock in the flow direction. Also, the slip lines separating two subsonic
flow streams of different velocity and entropy become clearly visible. Finally, at this operating
condition one can observe the fomlation of trailing edge shocks on blades B5 and B6. At the last
test condition (Mach number 1.21 , Fig. 109) the flow in the cascade is choked and the cascade does
not generate any pressure increase. The shock wave pattern at the cascade inlet does not change.
The shocks in the trailing edge region become more intense and extend more deeply into the
flowfield .
4.2 Low solidity cascade
The evolution of the shock structure for the low solidity cascade with increasing inlet Mach
number (Fig. 11 ) exhibits some features that are similar to the high solidity case. The shocks
appear for the fust time in the flow for an inlet Mach number of 0.97 (Fig. Ila). Blade B5 exhibits
a bow shock whereas blade B7 still seems to be shock-free. Separated flow is traceable on both
blades just downstream of the leading edges. At the inlet Mach number of 1.02 (Fig. 11 b), a
combination of a lip and a bow shock is generated on blade B5. There is no flow separation at the
blade leading edge of blade B5. Blade B7 shows traces of unstable shocks above the suction
surface and the flo w is visibly still separated at the blade leading edge. A gradual increase of the
inlet Mach number (Figs. 1 Ic,d,e) stabilizes the shock pattern in the cascade. Both blades show a
combination of lip and bow shocks. On all of these figures, the shock system on blade B7 always
appears weaker, as though blade B7 was facing a lower inlet Mach number than blade B5. An
interesting shock formation can be detected for the inlet Mach number of 1.19 (Fig. 11 t) and higher
(Figs. 11g,h). First, a trailing edge shock appears on the pressure side of the airfoil, and with an
increasing inlet Mach number this trailing shock penetrates more deeply into the flowfield.
Second, and more interestingly, there seems to be an additional oblique shock generated at
midchord on the suction side. This shock interacts with the lip shock for inlet Mach numbers of
1.19 and higher. The interaction is manifested by a sudden direction change of the lip shock line.
4.3 Single airfoil
The last sequence of pictures presented in Fig. 12 shows the flowfield evolution for a
single airfoil. Flow is separated over the airfoil suction side at least up to the inlet Mach number of
0.97 (Fig. 12a). The transition to the lip-shock / bow-shock combination seems to be quite rapid;
for the inlet Mach number of 1.04 (Fig. 12b) the combination is already in place. Also, the trailing
edge shock waves appear at a lower inlet Mach number than was the case for the low and high
solidity cascades; first on the airfoil pressure side at a Mach number of 1.09 (Fig. 12c), and then
also on the suction side starting at a Mach number of 1.13 (Fig. 12d,e,t). As the inlet Mach number
is raised, the suction side bow shock moves in the downstream direction toward the trailing edge
(Fig. 12g). There is a visible interaction of the lip shock with an oblique shock from the blade
suction surface starting at the inlet Mach number of 1.20 (Fig. 12t). This is similar to the case of
the low solidity cascade as shown in Fig. 11g,h. For the highest inlet Mach numbers (1.26 and
higher), the only change in the shock wave structure is a decreasing angle of the trailing edge shock
waves as the inlet Mach number is raised.

5 COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
A numerical investigation was also carried out in parallel with the experimental effort.
Even though the computational methods and results are not the topic of this paper, the following
illustrates some of our capabilities and accomplishments.
Two computational fluid dynamics codes have been used to analyze the blades described
here. The fust code, RVCQ3 D [9] analyzes viscous flow around an isolated blade on a two-
dimensional blade-to-blade plane. The second code, Swift [10] analyzes fully three-dimensional
blades using a multiblock grid. Both codes solve the Navier-Stokes equations using an explicit
finite-difference scheme and an algebraic turbulence model.

NASA/TM-2000-21 0521 9
 - -- - - - -
l

Ma'N = 0.97 1CGS = 1.155 Ma'N =1 .16 1CGS = 1.152

Ma'N =1.02 1CGS =1.146 Ma'N = 1.19 1CcS = 1.144

.• '(.
b.

~ c.
1CGS = 1. 159

d.

Fig. 11. Low solidity cascade shock patterns

Figure 13 shows a solution computed by RVCQ3D for an inlet Mach number of 1.2 and an
incidence angle of 9.0 dg. The figure shows contours of the magnitude of the density gradient,
which may be compared to the experimental shadowgraph photo shown in Fig. 109. A strong bow
shock wave stands far ahead of the leading edge and hits the neighboring blade normal to the
suction surface, separating the boundary layer. A weak lip shock is generated at the leading edge
where the blade curvature changes from round to concave on the suction surface. A weak slip line
is barely visible where the two shocks intersect at mid passage. Figure 14 shows a solution
computed using Swift for a Mach number of 1.10 and an incidence angle of 10.0 dg. The figure
shows particle traces just above the suction surface, which may be compared to the experimental
surface oil flow patterns shown in Fig. 5 (MaIN = 1.18). The flow is from top to bottom. The
supersonic inflow expands around the leading edge and remains attached (red.) The flow separates
at the shock (red-blue) and reattaches near mid chord (blue-white.) Secondary flows between the
separation bubble and sidewall fIllets are also seen (white).

NASA/TM- 2000-21 0521 10

 MaIN =0.97 Jies =1. 155 MaIN = 1.20 Jies = 1.199

a.
MaIN = 1.04 Jies = 1.186 MaIN = 1.24 Jies = 1. 144

b. g.

MaiN = 1.09 Jies = 1.201 MaIN = 1.26 Jies = 1.099

c. h.

MaIN = 1. 13 Jies = 1.211 MaIN = 1.29 Jies = 0.946

•d.

MaIN = 1. 17 MaIN = 1.30 Jies = 0.892

Fig. 12. Single airfoil shock patterns

ASNTM- 2000-210521 II
 Fig. 14. Computed surface flow
Fig. 13. Computed density gradient pattern pattern for the inlet flow
for the inlet Mach number of 1.2 Mach number of 1.1 and
and incidence of 9.0 dg incidence of 10.0 dg

6 CONCLUSIO NS
Several key observations were made during the course of thi s study. They can be
summarized as fo llows .
• For the subson ic inlet flow at the incidence of 10.0 dg, the fl ow on the suction side of the bl ade
is separated over a large portion of the blade surface . The size of the separated area increases
with the increas ing subsonic inlet Mach number. For the supersonic inlet Mach number the
flo w is attached from the leading edge up to the point whe re a bow shock hits the bl ade surface .
The bow shock interaction w ith the blade boundary layer results in a relative ly short separati on
bubble. For the sonic inlet Mach number, the surface fl ow pattern on the front half of the
suction surface exhi bits a h igh degree of randomness that indi cates instabili ty of the local
shocks generated in thi s area.
• The effects of cascade so lidity are diffe rent fo r subsonic and supersoni c inlet conditi ons. A
low cascade so lidity, fo r the subsonic inlet fl ow, results in an increased area of separated flow.
For a single airfoil, the fl ow is separated over 80% of the suction surface . At midspan, the
separation extends up to the airfoil trailing edge . Fo r supersonic fl ow conditions, low so lidity
results in an impro vement in fl ow over the suction side because the bow shock moves in the
downstream di rection, and consequently the separati on bubble caused by the bow shock
impingement is reduced in size. For the iso lated airfo il , the fl ow is attached over the entire
suction surface .
• Local shocks over the suction surface of the hi gh so lidity cascade do not appear until a
re lative ly high subsonic inlet fl ow Mach number of 0 .95. The shock structure fo r the range of
inlet Mach numbers from 0.95 to L. 05 is very unstable and not periodic. Above a Mach
number of L.05 , the shock structure is sta ble and periodic. Generally, the shock structure
consists of a lip (oblique) shock and a bow (termination) shock. It appears that the lip shock
angle, once the shock is set, is independent of the inlet Mach number (at least fo r the ran ge
tested). The bow shock moves in the downstream direction as the inlet Mach number increases
(that is, as the back pressure drops). Trailing edge shocks appear for inl et Mach numbers
hi gher than I . 15. Similar observations were made a lso for the cases of low cascade so lidity
and a single airfoil.
• Computational res ults showed a good agreement with experim ental results for the shock
structure in the fl ow fo r the hi gh so lidity cascade, particularly on the upstream face of the
cascade . The trailing edge shocks were not captured by the calculations. The predi ction of
flo w separation fo r the supersonic inlet conditions agrees qualitati ve ly w ith experiment. It
appears that the separation bubble in the calculati ons starts closer to the leading edge than is
seen in the experimental data.

NAS N TM- 2000-2 10521 12

 REFERENCES
[1] Carta, F.O.: Aeroelasticity and Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aircraft Propulsion System Technology and Design, edited
by G.C. Oates, AlAA Education Series, Chapter 7, 1989.
[2] Boldman, D.R., Buggele, A.E., and Michalson, G.M.: Stall Flutter Experiment in a Transonic Oscillating Linear
Cascade, NASA TM-82655, 198!
[3] Goldstein, M.E., Braun, W., and Adamczyk, J.1. : Unsteady Flow in a Supersonic Cascade with Strong In-passage
Shocks, Journal ofFluid Mechanics, Vol. 83, pp. 569-604, 1977.
[4] Shaw, L.M., Boldman, D.R, and Buggele, A.E.: Unsteady Pressure Measurements on a Biconvex Airfoil in a
Transonic Oscillating Cascade, NASA TM-86914, 1985.
[5] Buffum, D.H., Capece, V.R., King, A.1., and El-Aini, Y.M.: Oscillating Cascade Aerodynamics at Large Mean
Incidence, NASA TM-1 07247, 1996.
[6] Lepicovsky, J., McFarland, E.R, Chima, RV. , and Wood, J.R.: On Flow Periodicity in the NASA transonic Flutter
Cascade, Part I - Experimental Snldy, NASA TM-2000-209934,2000.
[7] Chima, R.V., McFarland, E.R., Wood, J.R., and Lepicovsky, J.,: On Flow Periodicity in the NASA transonic Flutter
Cascade, Part I - Numerical Study, NASA TM-2000-209933, 2000.
[8] Bradshaw, P.: Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press Ltd. , 1970.
[9] Chima, R V.: Explicit Multigrid Algorithm for Quasi-Three-Dimensional Viscous Flows in Turbomachinery, AIAA
1. Propulsion and Power, Vol. 3, pp.397-405 , 1987.
[10] Chi ma, R V. : Calculation of Tip Clearance Effects in A Transonic Compressor Rotor, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 120,pp 131-140, 1998.

NASNTM- 2000-21 0521 13

 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden , to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Repons, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704·0188) , Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12. REPORT DATE REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
/3.
December 2000 Tec hrU ca l ~emorand um
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Investigation of Flow Separation in a Transonic-Fan Linear

Cascade Using Visualization ~ethods
VVU-523-26-13-00
6. AUTHOR(S)

Jan Lepicovsi.)" Rodrick V. Chima, Thomas A. Jett, Timothy J. Bencic,

and Kenneth E. Weiland

7 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field E- 12488
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
ational Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA TM-2000-21OS21

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for the 9th International Symposium on Flow Visualization sponsored by the Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh,
Scotland, United Kingdom, August 22- 25, 2000. Jan Lepicovsky, Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., 2001 Aerospace
Parkway, Brook Park, Ohio 44142 (work funded by NASA Contract NAS3- 98008); Rodrick V. Chima, Thomas A. Jett,
Timothy J. Bencic, and Kenneth E. Weiland, NASA Glenn Research Center. Responsible person, Jan Lepicovsky,
organization code 5810, 216-977-1402.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Categories: 02 and 07 Distribution: Nonstandard
Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/GLTRS
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301-621-0390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

An extensive study into the nature of the separated flows on the suction side of modem transonic fan airfoils at high
incidence is described in the paper. Suction surface.flow separation is an important flow characteristic that may signifi-
cantly contribute to stall flutter in transonic fans. Flutter in axial turbomachines is a highly undesirable and dangerous
self-excited mode of blade oscillations that can result in high cycle fatigue blade failure. The study basically focused on
two visualization techrUques: surface flow visualization using dye oils, and schlieren (and shadowgraph) flow visualiza-
tion. The following key observations were made during the study. For subsonic inlet flow, the flow on the suction side
of the blade is separated over a large portion of the blade, and the separated area increases with increasing inlet Mach
number. For the supersonic inlet flow condition, the flow is attached from the leading edge up to the point where a bow
shock from the upper neighboring blade hits the blade surface. Low cascade solidity, for the subsonic inlet flow, results
in an increased area of separated flow. For supersonic flow conditions, a low solidity results in an improvement in flow
over the suction surface. Finally, computational results modeling the transonic cascade flowfield illustrate our ability to
simulate these flows numerically.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

19
Transonic airfoil; Flow separation; Surface flow visualization; Shock wave structure 16. PRICE CODE
A03
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 ( Rev. 2 -89)
Prescrib ed by A N S I Std. Z39·18
298· 102