Experiments in Fluids

, 60:96 | Cite as

Experimental investigation of shock-induced separation and flow control in a transonic compressor cascade

  • Joachim KlinnerEmail author
  • Alexander Hergt
  • Sebastian Grund
  • Christian E. Willert
Research Article


 The influence of transition control on shock-induced flow separation was investigated in a highly loaded transonic compressor cascade at an inlet Mach number of 1.21 and a chord-based Reynolds number of \(1.4 \times 10^6\). Transition was influenced by raising the free-stream turbulence from 0.5 to 2.5%. Two further cases employed either air-jet vortex generators (AJVG) or a surface roughness patch as transition control devices. Velocity fields in the vicinity of the unsteady transonic separation were captured by particle image velocimetry (PIV). Blade flexure induced by the unsteady aerodynamic loading was tracked for each image and compensated individually prior to PIV processing. The captured flow fields indicate shape variations of the separation region, while the shock foot moves within a range of up to 20% of chord. The frequency of separation for each investigated case was assessed on the number of vectors with negative velocity in each PIV sample. To further quantify the size of the separation region, the statistically independent PIV samples were conditionally averaged for various passage shock positions at a resolution of 1% chord length. Insight to the dynamics and frequency of the passage shock motion was further provided by high-speed shadowgraphy. Large bubble separation occurs if the turbulence of the incoming flow is low. The size of separation region decreases when AJVGs are applied but still exhibits bubble separation as the passage shock moves downstream. The size of the separation region is significantly reduced either if a roughness patch is applied or if the turbulence level of the incoming flow is high. The flow conditions showing bubble separation in the mean flow also exhibit distinct spectral peaks indicating periodic shock oscillations.

Graphical abstract



Part of the work presented herein is supported by the EU research project TFAST (Transition Location Effect on Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction, project no. 265455) of the 7th Framework Programme whose support is gratefully acknowledged. We thank our reviewers for their constructive remarks and detailed discussion on the content of the earlier version of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

348_2019_2736_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (519 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (mp4 519 KB)
348_2019_2736_MOESM2_ESM.mp4 (614 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (mp4 613 KB)


  1. Babinsky H, Harvey JK (eds) (2011) Shock wave-boundary-layer interactions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Brion V, Dandois J, Mayer R, Reijasse P, Lutz T, Jacquin L (2019) Laminar buffet and flow control. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Délery JM, Bur RS (2000) The physics of shock wave/boundary layer interaction control: last lessons learned. In: European Congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering, ECCOMAS, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  4. Délery JM, Marvin J (1986) Shock-wave boundary layer interactions. AGARDograph 280, AGARDGoogle Scholar
  5. Dolling DS (2001) Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J 39(8):1517–1531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dussauge JP, Piponniau S (2008) Shock/boundary-layer interactions: possible sources of unsteadiness. J Fluids Struct 24:1166–1175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald EJ, Mueller TJ (1990) Measurements in a separation bubble on an airfoil using laser velocimetry. AIAA J 28(4):584–592. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flaszynski P, Doerffer P, Szwaba R, Kaczynski P, Piotrowicz M (2015) Shock wave boundary layer interaction on suction side of compressor profile in single passage test section. J Therm Sci 24(6):510–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giannelis NF, Vio GA, Levinski O (2017) A review of recent developments in the understanding of transonic shock buffet. Prog Aerosp Sci 92:39–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giepman RHM, Schrijer FFJ, van Oudheusden BW (2015) High-resolution piv measurements of a transitional shock wave-boundary layer interaction. Exp Fluids 56(6):113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartmann A, Feldhusen A, Schröder W (2013) On the interaction of shock waves and sound waves in transonic buffet flow. Phys Fluids 25(2):026,101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartmann A, Klaas M, Schröder W (2012) Time-resolved stereo PIV measurements of shock-boundary layer interaction on a supercritical airfoil. Exp Fluids 52(3):591–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hergt A, Grund S, Steinert W (2016) Webpage of the transonic cascade wind tunnel.
  14. Hergt A, Klinner J, Grund S, Willert C, Steinert W, Beversdorff M (2019) On the importance of transition control at transonic compressor blades. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo Phoenix, Arizona, GT2019-90440Google Scholar
  15. Hergt A, Klinner J, Wellner J, Willert C, Grund S, Steinert W, Beversdorff M (2018) The present challenge of transonic compressor blade design. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo Oslo, Norway, GT2018-75528Google Scholar
  16. Jacquin L, Molton P, Deck S, Maury B, Soulevant D (2009) Experimental study of shock oscillation over a transonic supercritical profile. AIAA J 47(9):1985–1994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klinner J, Hergt A, Willert C (2014) Experimental investigation of the transonic flow around the leading edge of an eroded fan airfoil. Exp Fluids 55(9):1800. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee B (2001) Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog Aerosp Sci 37(2):147–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer R, Knobloch K, Linden J (2010) Hot-wire measurement in a high speed counter rotating turbo fan rig. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo Glasgow, UK, GT2010-22569Google Scholar
  20. Raffel M, Willert C, Scarano F, Kähler C, Wereley S, Kompenhans J (2017) Particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluid Mech. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ragni D, Schrijer F, van Oudheusden B, Scarano F (2011) Particle tracer response across shocks measured by PIV. Exp Fluids 50(1):53–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sartor F, Losfeld G, Bur R (2012) PIV study on a shock-induced separation in a transonic flow. Exp Fluids 53(3):815–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scarano F (2002) Iterative image deformation methods in PIV. Meas Sci Technol 13(1):R1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Szwaba R (2011) Comparison of the influence of different air-jet vortex generators on the separation region. Aerosp Sci Technol 15(1):45–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Szwaba R (2013) Influence of air-jet vortex generator diameter on separation region. J Therm Sci 22(4):294–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Szwaba R, Kaczynski P, Doerffer P (2019) Roughness effect on shock wave boundary layer interaction area in compressor fan blades passage. Aerosp Sci Technol 85:171–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tejero F, Doerffer P, Szulc O (2015) Shock wave induced flow separation control by air-jet and rod vortex generators. TASK Q Sci Bull Acad Comput Centre Gdansk 19(2):167–180.
  28. Welch P (1967) The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 15(2):70–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willert C, Mitchell D, Soria J (2012) An assessment of high-power light-emitting diodes for high frame rate schlieren imaging. Exp Fluids 53:413–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Propulsion Technology, Measurement Technology, Linder HoeheGerman Aerospace Center (DLR)CologneGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Propulsion Technology, Fan and Compressor, Linder HoeheGerman Aerospace Center (DLR)CologneGermany

Personalised recommendations