AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.

2018-2125
8–12 January 2018, Kissimmee, Florida
2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring of Front-Loaded

High-Lift Low Pressure Turbines
Jacob Dickel1, Christopher R. Marks2, John Clark3, and Rolf Sondergaard4
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7542

Mitch Wolff5
Wright State University, Fairborn, Ohio 45435

Various approaches have been used to shape the geometry at the endwall region in order
to reduce the endwall losses in high-lift low pressure turbine passages. This paper will detail
a non-axisymmetric endwall contour design for a front loaded high lift research profile. The
contour was developed as a test case of a numerical design workflow in order to verify that it
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

could be used for a future optimization study. The non-axisymmetric endwall contour was
defined using a series of Bezier curves across the passage to create a smooth contoured surface.
A parametric based approach was used to develop the contour shape with a goal of directing
incoming endwall flow at the leading edge towards the suction side of the blade. A commercial
RANS flow solver was used to model the flow through the passage. The contour design was
tested in a low speed linear cascade wind tunnel to verify that the numerical tools adequately
captured the necessary endwall flow physics. The numerical model showed excellent
agreement of total pressure loss and endwall flow structure compared with experimental
measurements.

Nomenclature
Cx = Axial chord Y = Total Pressure Loss Coefficient,
Cp = Coefficient of Pressure, P −P
Y = t,in 2t
𝑃𝑠 −𝑃𝑠 ,𝑖𝑛 0.5ρU
𝐶𝑝 = Yps = Area Averaged Passage Total
0.5𝜌𝑈 2
FSTI = Free Stream Turbulence Intensity Pressure Loss Coefficient
H = Span Y2D = Area Averaged Total Pressure Loss
Ps = Static Pressure Coefficient across one pitch
Pt = Total Pressure Zw = Zweifel Loading Coefficient
Q = Q-Criterion γ = Transformed Spanwise Direction
Re = Reynolds number based on inlet ξ = Transformed Pitch Direction
velocity and axial chord ρ = Density
S = Pitch χ = Transformed Chord Direction
U = Mean Velocity in x-direction ωCx = Axial Component of Vorticity,
u, v, w = x, y, z velocity components 𝜕𝑤 𝜕𝑣
𝜔𝐶𝑥 = −
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧

I. Introduction
The Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) in modern high bypass ratio aero-engines is a vital component central in
determining overall engine performance and efficiency. Howell et al. 1 reported that the LPT-driven fan produces up
to 80% of engine thrust and the LPT can contribute as much as a third of the overall engine weight. By increasing the
aerodynamic loading of LPT blades, the weight of the LPT section could be reduced. An increase in aerodynamic
loading, however, results in more highly curved airfoils that potentially have stronger adverse pressure gradients on
the suction surface, causing stall Reynolds numbers to increase. The challenge is to reduce the blade count in the LPT
while maintaining good efficiency over the operational Reynolds number range.

1
Graduate Student Researcher, Aerospace Systems Directorate , Student Member AIAA
2
Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Systems Directorate, Senior Member AIAA
3
Principal Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Systems Directorate, Senior Member AIAA
4
Principal Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Systems Directorate, Associate Fellow AIAA
5
Professor, Department of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Associate Fellow AIAA

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
This material is declared a work of the U.
S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
 Since LPT airfoils tend to have large aspect ratios (AR, span to axial chord ratios), there has been significant
research focused on high lift LPT profile (midspan) performance. Good low Reynolds number performance has been
achieved with high lift designs by using more front-loaded pressure distributions (see for example Ref. 2), but
increasing the loading level can lead to unacceptably high endwall losses. Mitigating endwall losses associated with
these blades relies on understanding the flow physics that is generating these losses.
Various methods have been used to control the losses associated with the endwall region of low pressure turbines.
There are generally two different approaches to controlling endwall losses; passive techniques, which are
modifications to the blade and endwall geometries to improve passage loss values, and active flow control techniques,
which include momentum addition or subtraction along the endwall and blade surfaces to manipulate the flow and
reduce losses.
Benton et al.3 used suction surface blowing on a front loaded blade to reduce the interaction of the passage vortex
with the suction surface. This resulted in a very large reduction in passage total pressure loss (~40%). Using unsteady
jets and less holes reduced the amount of mass flow required to manipulate the flow. Lyall et al.4 showed that the
endwall losses of a front loaded high lift blade can be reduced by contouring the blade shape near the endwall with a
low stagger angle profile. Praisner et al.5 performed a study on high-lift (Zw=1.4) and conventional lift blades with
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

and without non-axisymmetric endwall contouring to compare the benefits of using endwall contouring. Ultimately,
the study was an attempt to reduce the losses of the high-lift blades to the same level of the conventionally lifted
blade.5 The endwall contours were produced in an optimization routine using sequential quadratic programming with
the design goal of reducing row total pressure loss. They found non-axisymmetric contouring had less benefit on an
aft-loaded blade compared to a front-loaded blade. The front-loaded blade had a reduction in row losses of 12%
predicted and 13.3% experimentally. The conventionally lifted blade had amplitudes for the peak hill and valleys at
7.1% and 4.7% axial chord, respectively.6 The front loaded, high lift airfoil had a more extreme contoured shape
compared to the aft-loaded one.
Other studies that use non-axisymmetric endwall contouring with conventionally loaded blades show varying
results. Researchers7-8 have focused on reducing the cross-passage pressure gradient and secondary kinetic energy
(SKE) and have gained a significant reduction in loss. Ingram et al.9 focused on reducing SKE and had drastically
reduced the SKE with little to no row loss reductions.
The previous studies mentioned above show that both blade profiling and endwall contouring are capable of
reducing endwall losses through high-lift blade passages. Both a better fundamental understanding of how these
contouring approaches reduce loss producing mechanisms and accurate numerical design tools are required to move
forward with improved high-lift turbine designs. In this paper, a non-axisymmetric endwall contour for a front loaded,
high lift blade profile is developed and compared with measurements in a low speed linear cascade of LPT blades.
The endwall contour shape was designed and modeled using a commercial RANS computational fluid dynamics code.
The numerical results are compared with experiment to verify that the workflow is capable of adequately developing
and modeling endwall surface shapes for use in future 3-D endwall optimization studies.

II. Endwall Flow Description

A front loaded LPT research profile called the L2F is used for the study. The L2F is part of a family of research
profiles developed at AFRL with the same design gas angles as the Pratt & Whitney Pack B.10 The loading of the high
lift (Zw =1.59) L2F geometry is compared with the other research profiles in Figure 1. The peak loading for the L2F
occurs near 25% axial chord, which results in a more gradual pressure recovery along the remaining 75% of the chord.
McQuilling2 found that the blade has excellent midspan performance at low Reynolds numbers. However, the L2F
along with other high lift front-loaded blades develop a large amount of endwall losses which makes them undesirable
for immediate usage in the LPT.
Several recent investigations11-14 of high-lift LPT endwall aerodynamics were accomplished with the L2F
geometry in a low-speed linear cascade wind tunnel. An accompany Implicit Large Eddy Simulations (ILES) was
developed and described in Ref 15. The experiments and simulation together provide a very detailed understanding
of the endwall flow structures and loss generation through the passage. This new knowledge of the L2F endwall loss
development is used in the current paper to develop a non-axisymmetric endwall contour.
Figure 2 shows isosurfaces of Q-criterion from the ILES of the flow through an L2F blade passage. The view is
from downstream looking upstream towards the suction side trailing edge. The view shows the dominant vortical
structures within the passage of the L2F. Q-criterion is a method of vortex identification that compares vorticity
magnitude and shear strain rate.16 Positive values of Q-criterion represent regions where rotation is dominant and
vortices are present. The isosurfaces in Figure 2 have been colored by axial vorticity to indicate the rotational direction.
The color blue reflects a clockwise (relative to the view) or negative rotation; whereas, the red is counterclockwise or
positive rotation.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The ILES results show several vortical endwall structures through the passage. The passage vortex (PV) extends
across the passage and interacts with a strong corner separation. A rotational region develops in the corner near the
pressure minimum and extends toward the trailing edge. The vortical structure has the same direction of rotation as
the PV and is referred to as the suction side corner separation vortex (SSCSV). The interaction between the PV and
the SSCSV generates loss due to having the same rotational direction. The flow at the interaction locations is rotating
in opposite directions which slows the flow down. This shear causes the structures to grow larger and climb up the
suction side blade surface, thereby affecting more of the flow inside the passage thus generating even more losses.
The shed vortex (SV) is formed in the wake of the blade. The positive rotation is created by endwall flow in both
passages having a clockwise rotation. The corner vortex (CV) is formed due to the lift off of the PV and SSCSV from
the endwall. Prior research discusses how each of these flow structures generate losses in more detail. 14

SV
SSCSV PV
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

CV
Figure 1. LPT blade loading for the L2F geometry Figure 2. Isosurfaces of Q-criterion colored by
compared with other research profiles.17 axial vorticity from ILES of flow through the
passage at ReCx = 100,000 15.

III. Design Methodology

Optimizing LPT turbines requires a robust system which can create and process LPT blade rows with a large
number of design parameters. The Turbine Design and Analysis System (TDAAS) has been developed by AFRL to
design turbine profiles and geometry. TDAAS employs the Wildcat code of Dorney and Davis18 coupled with the
separated flow laminar-turbulent transition model of Praisner and Clark19 for calculating the performance of design
iterations. In addition, 3-D Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) analysis is performed using the Aerodynamic
Solutions, Inc. solver LEO.20 The LEO code was used to model the endwall flow through a passage and develop a
non-axisymmetric contoured design. TDAAS capabilities have been enhanced under this effort to provide the ability
to modify endwall shapes. A non-axisymmetric contoured endwall was designed using TDAAS, fabricated, and
installed in a low speed linear cascade in order to verify that the RANS based design tools adequately model the
changes in the endwall flow. In future work, the endwall shape will be optimized using a genetic algorithm method
similar to the HPT vane film cooling optimization accomplished by Johnson et al.21
A non-axisymmetric endwall contour was designed with the aforementioned tools to verify that the process could
be used to develop an endwall contour with reduced losses. The contour was designed for the L2F profile at baseline
flow conditions of ReCx = 100k and AR = 4.17. The contoured endwall design was produced using a manual gradient
based approach using total pressure loss in the downstream plane as a cost function. The intent of the shape was to
force low speed flow near the leading edge of the endwall towards the suction side of the blade before it enters the
passage. This would decrease the size and strength of the pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex while strengthening
the suction side leg of the horseshoe vortex. The pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex develops into the PV so the
interaction downstream in the passage would be weakened. The best endwall shape was fabricated and tested in a low-
speed linear cascade wind tunnel for experimental validation.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 A tool has been created to generate contoured endwall surfaces based on an initial (baseline) planar (or radial)
endwall generated by TDAAS. The contoured endwalls for this study were generated using a design grid with a limited
number of control curves. The steps to create the non-axisymmetric endwall contour for this study are shown in Figure
3 to Figure 6. Figure 3 is an example design grid for this study with six pitchwise control curves. A series of Bezier
curves (shown in Figure 4) are used to define the contoured endwall shape. The design grid is used to specify the
respective height (spanwise values) for the grid used in the flow solver. Once the height is specified on the design
grid, the mesh grid is transformed to the same coordinate system as the design grid. This conversion from real
coordinates to the design space is simplified by only needing to make the real coordinates into a rectangular grid. Once
both the design grid and mesh grid are on the same coordinate system, a cubic interpolation is performed to apply the

χ γ
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

ξ ξ
Figure 3. Design Grid for Endwall Figure 4. Bezier Curves with Control Points

contour from the design grid to the mesh grid points. Lastly, the mesh grid is converted back into real coordinates and
the non-axisymmetric endwall contour is obtained (Figure 6).
Figure 6 shows the finalized contour applied to the original mesh coordinates. This contour is now ready to be
applied to the baseline planar mesh. An AFRL developed mesh morphing tool (MORPH)22 is used to deform the
planar endwall of the baseline 3-D mesh generated by TDAAS into the contoured surface. The MORPH code uses a
spring analogy to deform the mesh resulting in a high quality deformed mesh with minimal skewing of cells. 22 The
new endwall deformation tool for TDAAS allows contoured endwall surfaces to be applied to any blade and the
capability to study accurately the flow field within.

ξ
Figure 5. Transformed mesh grid with Figure 6. Original mesh grid with contour
contour applied applied

A. Experimental Verification
ARFL’s Low Speed Wind Tunnel Facility (LSWT) was used to verify that the contour design produced a
reduction in passage loss similar to the numerical prediction. The low-speed linear cascade test section (Figure 7) is
configured with seven L2F blades. A turbulence grid is installed upstream of the test section to increase the FSTI to
3.1%. The test section includes a splitter plate which creates an artificial endwall with a clean incoming boundary
layer. The splitter plate surrounds the blades and extends upstream and downstream of the blade row. The splitter plate
configuration used in the experiments resulted in a boundary layer thickness of 2.24% span (9.3% Cx) at the baseline
Reynolds number of 1.0 x 105. The blades have a 6-inch axial chord, pitch/axial chord spacing of 1.221, and an AR
of 4.17. Table 1 summarizes these quantities.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The contoured endwalls were printed out of plastic using an additive manufacturing technique. They were created
in several pieces so that the endwall could be reconfigured as a flat or contoured endwall without removing the blades.
The part labeled “splitter plate” in Figure 8 is the base
endwall with the valley (concave) regions removed. The
“filler piece” fits inside the concave region of the endwall
and is inserted to create the flat endwall configuration. The
third “positive piece” is used to create the raised region of
the contour. Both setups for a planar endwall and contoured
endwall are shown in Figure 8.
Experimental data acquisition was performed using
LabVIEW. Several 0-1 inch H2O AllSensor transducers
were used to measure the total pressure loss between an
upstream total probe and downstream Kiel probes in a
custom five probe rake. A single inline Kiel probe was used
for in-passage total pressure loss measurements. A 0-0.4
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

inch H2O Druck pressure transducers was used to measure

the incoming dynamic pressure and velocity. Figure 7. LSWT Test Section

Figure 8. Endwall Splitter Plate Design

for Planar and Contoured Endwalls
Table 1. Linear Cascade Properties
# of Blades 7
Axial Chord (Cx) 6 [in]
Pitch/Axial Chord (S/Cx) 1.221
Span/Axial Chord (H/Cx) 4.17
ReCx 1.0 x 105
Boundary Layer Thickness (δ99%) 0.56 [in]
Free Stream Turbulence Intensity (FSTI) 3.1%
B. Computational Verification
The Aerodynamic Solutions, Inc. mesh generator code WAND was used for creating the original grid. Figure 9
is an example of the grid generated by Wand with the different boundary conditions used in the simulation. One full
pitch of the linear cascade was modeled. The grid was a structured OHH grid where the O-grid wraps around the blade
surface, the H-grid is used in the majority of the passage, and an additional H-grid extends up to the leading and
trailing edges. A mesh convergence study is shown in Figure 10. A grid independent solution was determined by
comparing Yps of each grid size with the average Yps of the three largest grids shown in the figure. Grid independence
was obtained at 770,000 points and used for this study due to accuracy of results and quick simulation run times. The
grid independent solution was compared to both experimental and ILES data to determine the solution convergence.
Solution convergence is dependent on matching the boundary conditions and using an accurate turbulence model. The
Reynolds number was matched to the experiments (ReCx=100k); however, the Mach number was increased to 0.15
to improve convergence. Wilcox’s k-ω turbulence model was used for closure. A turbulence intensity of 3.1% and a
length scale of 0.01 inches were used. The FSTI matched the experiment but the length scale was varied to produce a
better agreement in total pressure losses with experiment.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 9. WAND Generated Planar Grid
with Boundary Conditions
Figure 10. Grid Independence Study
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

Figure 11 shows both the 150% Cx total pressure loss coefficient obtained using the RANS code compared to the
experimental total pressure loss and the pitchwise averaged total pressure loss coefficient up to 50% span. Figure 11
shows the CFD results have a narrower wake compared to the experimental, but has a higher peak within the loss
region. The CFD also has a higher 2-D loss compared to the experimental. Overall, the RANS code over predicted the
passage total pressure loss coefficient by 13.8% to experimental.
Figure 12 shows Q-criterion flooded by axial vorticity in a similar view as was shown in Figure 2. The major
vortical flow structures shown in the ILES simulation are captured by the RANS code. The rotational directions are
consistent between the two as well as the locations of each. There is also good agreement for the PV location in the
RANS compared with the ILES. Both having the same rotational direction and location. The SSCSV’s rotational
direction and location match in the RANS and ILES. The SV also has the same rotational direction and location
between the RANS and ILES. The general trends for the different flow features and changes to those features are
captured. This makes it sufficient for use with endwall contouring.
Y

a.) b.) Figure 12. RANS Q=5 Isosurfaces Flooded by

axial vorticity
Figure 11. Experimental vs RANS Total
Pressure Loss Comparison

IV. Results
After running several contours through the flow solver, the best one was fabricated and tested in the low speed
linear cascade. Both the CFD and experimental cases are discussed in this section.
The maximum and minimum amplitudes of the final contour for this study are 10.9% and 13.5% axial chord,
respectively. Figure 13 shows the endwall contour and the inlet flow direction. The amplitudes for the peaks and

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 valleys discussed in Knezevici et al.23 for the high-
lift front-loaded blade were at 10.1% and 7.2%
axial chord, respectively.
The area averaged total pressure loss through
the passage was calculated in a plane 150%Cx
downstream from the leading edge. The predicted
reduction in the area averaged passage total
pressure loss coefficient was 8.2% for the
contoured compared with flat endwall. This
reduction in loss in a high AR passage is on the
order of other studies. The endwall loss reduction
is predicted at 22.9%.
Figure 14 shows contours of total pressure
loss at the 150% Cx plane. The wake loss is shown
to be narrower and closer to the endwall in the
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

contoured case compared with the planar case. The Inlet flow direction
downstream pitchwise averaged total pressure loss
is plotted along the span in Figure 15. The loss core Figure 13. Inlet view of contoured endwall
is lowered closer to the endwall. This shows the 2-
D region of the loss wake extends further down the
span. The lower loss core is also diminished in strength with an increase in loss adjacent to the endwall. Knezevici et
al.6 proposed that keeping the flow near the endwall close to the endwall was important for reducing secondary losses.
Experimental total pressure loss coefficient was measured in a plane 150% C x downstream of the leading edge.
The measurements were made across one pitch and up to 40% span. From 40% to midspan the loss was relatively
constant. The area averaged passage total pressure loss was calculated and compared to the RANS simulation. The
reduction in total pressure loss at 150% Cx is 7.8% and the endwall loss reduction is 19.9%. This agrees with the CFD
predictions. As shown in Figure 16, the experimental total pressure loss contours resemble the same trends that the
CFD predicted. The overall loss wake is narrower and
Y Contoured Endwall Y pushed down closer to the endwall. The peak loss core
Planar Endwall
in the planar case is lowered from z/H=0.15 to
z/H=0.125. Although, the passage loss is reduced
with the application of non-axisymmetric endwall
contouring, a region at z/H<0.05 has an increase in
loss. These results are in agreement with the findings
of Knezevici,23 whose total pressure loss contours
show a lowering of the higher loss core by a similar
amount.
The pitchwise averaged total pressure loss
against the span also shows similarities to the CFD
(Figure 15b). The upper loss core is brought lower to
the endwall and there is a rise in loss closest to the
endwall. The difference between CFD and
experimental results is that the lowering of the upper
loss core is not the main factor contributing to the
a.) b.) reduction in loss. The lower loss core pertaining to the
PV is contributing more to the loss reduction in the
Figure 14. CX150% RANS Total Pressure experimental case.
Loss Comparison Further analysis using planes of Q-criterion
within the CFD simulation (Figure 17), shows that the
passage vortex is greatly reduced in strength and size. The PV is caught inside the valley of the endwall contour and
does not leave the valley with any substantial size or strength. This keeps the SSCSV closer to the endwall, but it is
also increased in strength. This contrasts the observation of Knezevici et al. that the PV splits into two weaker
magnitude vorticies with the application of a non-axisymmetric endwall contour.23 In the present case, the PV does
decrease in strength, but it does not split into two and the SSCSV increases in strength. Stereo Particle Image
Velocimetry (SPIV) inside the passage (Figure 18) shows the movement of the PV from y’/Cx =0.3 and z/Cx =0.075
(Figure 18a) to being inside the contour valley at y’/Cx =0.25 (Figure 18b). Benton et al.3 forced the PV away from

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a.) b.)
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

a.) b.)
Figure 16. CX150% Experimental Total
Figure 15. Pitchwise Averaged Pressure Loss Pressure Loss Comparison
Distribution
the suction surface to reduce losses. The opposite is shown here with endwall contouring to reduce loss. The PV is
closer to the suction surface inside of the valley of the contour. In the SPIV measurement plane the SSCSV is relatively
small and forming in the corner junction of the blade endwall. The SSCSV appears to be slightly smaller in the case
of the contoured endwall.
Figure 19 shows experimental total pressure loss development for the planar and contoured endwall cases at the
95%, 105%, 125%, and 150% axial planes. In Figure 19b, the higher loss cores near the exit of the passage are
increased in magnitude. However, the overall area of these loss regions is smaller and the loss region associated with
the PV is weaker with the contoured endwall. The losses in the region of the SSCSV are increased in strength with
the contoured endwall. The strengthening of the SSCSV and weakening of the PV has resulted in higher losses along
the suction surface where the endwall flow interacts with the suction surface flow.
The CV is shown to produce more loss in the contoured case than in the planar case. Knezevici proposed that the
increase in loss occurs due to a reduction in spanwise flow pulling loss away from the endwall and up further into the
passage.23 While overall passage loss decreased in the case of the contoured endwall, there is potential for further
reductions in endwall losses by reducing the strength of and losses in the region of the SSCSV and CV.
A view of the flow in the area of the leading edge is shown in Figure 20. The differences in the pressure and
suction side legs of the horseshoe vortex are revealed. In the planar case, the pressure side leg of the horseshoe vortex
Q-criterion
a.)
PV

b.)

PV

a.) b.)

Figure 17. RANS Passage Q-Criterion Development

Figure 18. SPIV Q-Criterion in-passage plane

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 has negative vorticity and becomes the PV as it progresses across the passage. The suction side leg of the horseshoe
vortex has a positive vorticity in the axial direction, but dissipates quickly as it moves through the passage. The SSCSV
begins in the region where the suction side leg ends. When non-axisymmetric endwall contouring is applied, the
suction side leg of the horseshoe vortex extends a bit further into the passage. This is due to more flow going towards
the suction side rather than the pressure side. The so called passage vortex is much weaker and moves across the
passage much further upstream than in the case of the planar endwall. The SSCSV appears larger and stronger in the
contoured case.
Y
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

a.) b.)
Figure 19. Experimental measurements of total pressure loss coefficient through the exit
and downstream of the passage for the a.) planar and b.) contoured endwalls.

a.) b.)
Figure 20. Leading Edge RANS Q=5 Isosurfaces Flooded by axial vorticity comparison

Figure 21. CFD Variation of Aspect Ratio Results

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Loss reductions due to implementing non-axisymmetric endwall contouring is dependent on what AR is used.
Non-axisymmetric endwall contouring effectively reduces the amount of loss at the endwall, but the effects can be
confounded with a low AR. At lower AR the endwall flow has a stronger effect on the midspan region. Figure 21
shows a plot of percent changes for area-averaged total pressure loss in CFD by only changing the AR. As the AR is
decreased, the percent reduction in area-averaged total pressure loss increases. The endwall contour for this study can
have the effects amplified by decreasing the AR.

V. Conclusions
Non-axisymmetric endwall contouring is a very effective method of reducing endwall losses in LPT blades. In
the case of the front loaded L2F profile, a contoured endwall resulted in a 7.8% experimental reduction in passage
total pressure losses through a low speed linear cascade of turbine blades. The experimentally measured loss reduction
was in close agreement with a numerical prediction (-8.2%) using a commercial RANS solver. The endwall loss
reductions for the RANS solver and experimental were 22.9% and 19.9% respectively. The maximum and minimum
amplitudes of the endwall were on the order of other researchers at 10.9% and 13.5% axial chord.
A design grid along with Bezier curves were used to define endwall shapes with smooth surfaces. The contoured
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

endwalls were applied to a 3-D RANS mesh using an AFRL mesh morphing tool. The morphing tool allowed for a
high quality deformed mesh to test the performance of a non-axisymmetric endwall contour. The best endwall contour
was fabricated using additive manufacturing for use in the tunnel without the removal of the linear cascade blades.
The endwall contour effectively decreased the strength of the PV and losses generated by it. The contour obtains
this decrease in strength and loss by trapping the PV inside the valley of the contour, greatly diminishing the PV effect
on the passage. The upper loss core pertaining to the SSCSV was brought closer to the endwall due to the reduced
interaction with the PV. The SSCSV was also increased in strength for the contoured case.
For this test case, it is shown that the CFD predicted the loss trends very well and should work sufficiently well
inside of an optimization loop. It is expected that running the different control parameters for a contour through a
genetic algorithm will further increase the benefits of the endwall contour.
Future work will be to run the contour through an optimization process. This optimized shape can then be
combined with another method of flow control such as endwall blowing. Another test is to see how this endwall
performs with an unsteady perturbation upstream.

Acknowledgements
This paper has been cleared for public release, case number: 88ABW-2017-5926. This material is based upon
work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-15RQCOR106. Any
opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Air Force.

VI. References
1
Howell, R.J., Hodson, H.P., Schulte, V., Stieger, R.D., Schiffer, H., Haselbach, F., and Harvery, N.W.,
“Boundary Layer Development in the BR710 and BR715 LP Turbines—The Implementation of High-Lift and
Ultra-High-Lift Concepts,” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 124, pp. 385-392, 2002.
2
McQuilling, M. "Design and Validation of a High-Lift Low-Pressure Turbine Blade." Ph.D. Dissertation. Wright
State University, 2007
3
S. Benton, C. Bernardini, J. Bons and R. Sondergaard, "Parametric Optimization of Unsteady End Wall Blowing
on a Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine," ASME J. of Turbomachinery, vol. 136, no. GT2014-071013, 2014.
4
Eric Lyall MM, King PI, Clark JP, Sondergaard R. Endwall Loss Reduction of High Lift Low Pressure Turbine
Airfoils Using Profile Contouring—Part I: Airfoil Design. ASME. J. Turbomach. 2014;136(8).
5
T. J. Praisner, E. Allen-Bradley, E. A. Grover, D. C. Knezevici and S. A. Sjolander, "Application of
Nonaxisymmetric Endwall Contouring to Conventional and High-Lift Turbine Airfoils," ASME J. of
Turbomachinery, vol. 135, no. GT2013-061006, 2013.
6
Knezevici, D. C., Sjolander, S. A., Praisner, T. J., Allen-Bradley, E., and Grover, E.A., 2008, “Measurements of
Secondary Losses in a Turbine Cascade With the Implementation of Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring,”
ASME Paper No. GT2008-51311.
7
Harvey, N. W., Rose, M. G., Taylor, M. D., Shahpar, S., Hartland, J. C., and Gregory-Smith, D. G., 2000,
“Nonaxysymmetric Turbine End Wall Design—Part I: Three-Dimensional Linear Design System,” ASME J.
Turbomach., 122, pp.278-285.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 8
Yan, J., Gregory-Smith, D. G., and Walker, P. J., 1999, “Secondary Flow Reduction in a Nozzle Guide Vane by
Non-Axisymmetric End-Wall Contouring,” ASME Paper No. 99-GT-339.
9
Ingram, G., Gregory-Smith, D. G., and Harvey, N. W., 2004, “Investigation of a Novel Secondary Flow Feature
in a Turbine Cascade With End Wall Profiling,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53589.
10
Schmitz JT, Morris SC, Ma RR, et al. Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine: Design, Numerical, and
Experimental Analysis. ASME. Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Volume 7: Turbomachinery, Parts A,
B, and C GT2010-23591.
11
K. Sangston, M. Lyall, J. Little, and R. Sondergaard, “Endwall Loss Reduction of High Lift Low Pressure
Turbine Airfoils Using Profile Contouring – Part II: Validation”, J. Turbomachinery. 2014;v136(8).
12
Marks, C. R., Sondergaard, R., Bear, P. S., Wolff, M., “Reynolds Number Effects on the Secondary Flow of
Profile Contoured Low Pressure Turbines,” AIAA Paper 2016-0114, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
SciTech, San Diego, CA, Jan. 3-8, 2016.
13
Bear, P., Wolff, M., Gross, A., Marks, C. R., Sondergaard, R., “Secondary Loss Production Mechanisms in a
Low Pressure Turbine Cascade,” AIAA Paper 2016-4554, 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference,
25-27 July, 2016, Salt Lake City, UT.
Downloaded by AUBURN UNIVERSITY on January 29, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2125

14
Bear P, Wolff M, Gross A, Marks CR, Sondergaard R. Experimental Investigation of Total Pressure Loss
Development in a Highly Loaded Low Pressure Turbine Cascade. ASME. Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and
Air, Volume 2A: Turbomachinery GT2017-64684.
15
Gross, A., Marks, C. R., Sondergaard, R., Bear, P., Wolff, J. M., “Experimental and Numerical Characterization
of Flow through Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade,” AIAA J. of Propulsion and Power, May 29,
2017.
16
Holmén V. “Methods for Vortex Identification”. PhD Thesis, Lund University, Sweden, 2012
17
Lyall, M. E., “Effects of Front-Loading and Stagger Angle on Endwall Losses of High Lift Low Pressire Turbine
Vanes,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2012.
18
Dorney, D., and Davis, R., “Navier-Stokes Analysis of Turbine Blade Heat Transfer and Performance,” ASME J.
of Turbomachinery, Vol. 114, pp. 795-806, 1992.
19
Praisner, T.J., and Clark, J.P., “Predicting Transition in Turbomachinery – Part I: A Review and New Model
Development,” ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 129, pp. 1-13, 2007.
20
Ni, R. H., "Advanced Modeling Techniques for New Commercial Engines," XIV ISOABE Conference, Florence,
Italy, 5-10 September, 1999.
21
Johnson, J., King, P., Clark, J., and Ooten, M., "Design Optimization Methods for Improving HPT Vane Pressure
Side Cooling Properties Using Genetic Algorithms and Efficient CFD," AIAA Paper 16-4554, 50th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nashville, TN, Jan. 9-12, 2012.
22
Kaszynski AA, Beck JA, Brown JM. Experimental Validation of a Mesh Quality Optimized Morphed Geometric
Mistuning Model. ASME. Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Volume 7A: Structures and Dynamics
GT2015-43150.
23
Knezevici, D. C., Sjolander, S. A., Praisner, T. J., Allen-Bradley, E., and Grover, E. A., 2009, “Measurements of
Secondary Losses in a High-Lift Front-Loaded Turbine Cascade With the Implementation of Non-Axisymmetric
Endwall Contouring,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59677.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics