Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative experimental analysis of two unsteady flow control methods in a highly loaded compressor cascade

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experiments in Fluids Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comparative experimental analysis is performed on pulsed suction (PS) and pulsed blowing (PB) used to control flow separations in a highly loaded compressor cascade. The effectiveness of the control methods is assessed via oil-flow visualization and steady and unsteady pressure measurements. Firstly, the control effect of the PS is evaluated by comparing the conventional steady continuous suction (SCS). A more efficient control effect is achieved by the PS compared to the SCS. Additionally, in order to further explore the potentials of the PS and PB and gain some insight into their controlling mechanisms, some important excitation parameters including excitation location, momentum coefficient and frequency are comparatively investigated in detail. It is found that the PS and PB are both able to improve the cascade performance by effectively suppressing the passage vortex. With the excitation location moving downstream, the almost opposite change trends for the PS and PB on the total pressure loss and energy efficiency are shown. The PS has an advantage over the PB in improving the cascade performance at the same average excitation momentum. But there is a slighter change of the losses for the PB cases at different excitation frequencies relative to the PS ones, indicating that the PB is more insensitive to the excitation frequency. Based on the optimal excitation parameters, the total pressure loss coefficients for the PS and PB are reduced by 11.3% and 10.3%, respectively. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the PS and PB is also corroborated at a larger incidence angle.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CSV:

Concentrated shedding vortex

FFT:

Fast Fourier transformation

PB:

Pulsed blowing

PS:

Pulsed suction

PV:

Passage vortex

SCB:

Steady continuous blowing

SCS:

Steady continuous suction

A :

Area of the cascade inlet plane

c :

Chord

C μ :

Average excitation momentum coefficient

C μ _max :

Maximum excitation momentum coefficient

e :

Pitch

f :

Excitation frequency

H :

Shape factor

h :

Span

i :

Incidence angle

\(\overline{m}\) :

Average mass flow rate

\(m\) :

Mass flow rate

p :

Mass-averaged static pressure

p* :

Mass-averaged total pressure

\(\overline{U}\) :

Normalized velocity (ratio of local velocity to inlet velocity at middle span)

\(\overline{u}\) :

Average excitation velocity

\(u\) :

Excitation velocity

\(\overline{Vz}\) :

Normalized axial velocity (ratio of local axial velocity to inlet velocity at middle span)

\(W_{{\text{F}}}\) :

Mechanical energy delivered by the actuator to the flow field

\(W_{{\text{G}}}\) :

Energy gain

\(\delta^{ * }\) :

Displacement thickness of the inlet boundary layer

\(\delta^{ * * }\) :

Momentum thickness of the inlet boundary layer

\(\eta_{{{\text{Energy}}}}\) :

Energy efficiency

θ 1 :

Inflow angle

θ 2 :

Outflow angle

∆θ :

Turning angle

γ :

Stagger angle

ω :

Total pressure loss coefficient

∆ω :

Relative total pressure loss coefficient

b:

Blowing

in:

Inlet plane

max:

Maximum value for the excitation signal in a period time

out:

Outlet plane

s:

Suction

References

  • Bernardini C, Benton SI, Chen J, Bons JP (2014) Pulsed jets laminar separation control using instability exploitation. AIAA J 52(1):104–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunscheidel E, Culley D, and Zaman K (2008) Application of synthetic jets to reduce stator flow separation in a low speed axial compressor. AIAA, p 602

  • Chen S, Sun S, Xu H, Wang S (2013) Experimental study of the impact of hole-type suction on the flow characteristics in a high-load compressor cascade with a clearance. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 51:220–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Chen F, Yu J (2018) Experimental investigation of end-wall VGJs in a compressor cascade. Appl Therm Eng 145:386–395

    Google Scholar 

  • De Giorgi MG, De Luca CG, Ficarella A, Marra F (2015) Comparison between synthetic jets and continuous jets for active flow control: application on a NACA 0015 and a compressor stator cascade. Aerosp Sci Technol 43:256–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans S, Hodson H (2012) Separation-control mechanisms of steady and pulsed vortex-generator jets. J Propuls Power 28(6):1201–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • Fottner L (1980) Theoretical and experimental investigations on aerodynamically highly-loaded compressor bladings with boundary layer control. AIAA, p 7032

  • Gbadebo SA, Cumpsty NA, Hynes TP (2005) Three-dimensional separations in axial compressors. J Turbomach 127(2):331–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Gbadebo SA, Cumpsty NA, Hynes TP (2008) Control of three-dimensional separations in axial compressors by tailored boundary layer suction. J Turbomach 130(1):011004

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenblatt D, Wygnanski IJ (2000) The control of flow separation by periodic excitation. Prog Aerosp Sci 36(7):487–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Gümmer V, Goller M, Swoboda M (2008) Numerical investigation of end wall boundary layer removal on highly loaded axial compressor blade rows. J Turbomach 130(1):011015

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Lu H, Chen F, Wu C (2013) Vortex control and aerodynamic performance improvement of a highly loaded compressor cascade via inlet boundary layer suction. Exp Fluids 54(7):1570

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecklau M, Wiederhold O, Zander V, King R, Nitsche W, Huppertz A, Swoboda M (2011) Active separation control with pulsed jets in a critically loaded compressor cascade. AIAA J 49(8):1729–1739

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y, Wang S, Zhang L, Ding J (2014) Aerodynamic design of a highly loaded supersonic aspirated axial flow compressor stage. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 228(3):241–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Wang R, Li R, Wu P (2017) Effects of slot jet and its improved approach in a high-load compressor cascade. Exp Fluids 58(11):155

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbal M, Liddle SC, Crowther WJ (2010) Active flow control systems architectures for civil transport aircraft. J Aircraft 47(6):1966–1981

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang S, Hirsch C (1991) Three dimensional flow in a linear compressor cascade at design condition. ASME paper no. GT-1991-114.

  • Li Y, Wu Y, Zhou M, Su C, Zhang X, Zhu J (2010) Control of the corner separation in a compressor cascade by steady and unsteady plasma aerodynamic actuation. Exp Fluids 48(6):1015–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Jiang S, Yu Y, Zhang D, Chen H (2017) Secondary flow control using endwall jet fence in a high-speed compressor cascade. J Mech Sci Technol 31(10):4841–4852

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerger D, Saathoff H, Radespiel R, Gümmer V, Clemen C (2012) Experimental investigation of endwall and suction side blowing in a highly loaded compressor stator cascade. J Turbomach 134(2):021010

    Google Scholar 

  • Postl D, Balzer W, Fasel HF (2011) Control of laminar separation using pulsed vortex generator jets: direct numerical simulations. J Fluid Mech 676:81–109

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Qin Y, Wang R, Song Y, Chen F, Liu H (2016) Active flow control on a highly loaded compressor stator cascade with synthetic jets. ASME paper no. GT-2016-56830

  • Saul AJ, Ireland PT, Coull JD, Wong TH, Li H, Romero E (2019) An experimental investigation of adiabatic film cooling effectiveness and heat transfer coefficient on a transonic squealer tip. J Turbomach 141(9):091005

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun M, Hamdani H (2001) Separation control by alternating tangential blowing/suction at multiple slots. AIAA J 39(4):735–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Svorcan J, Stupar S, Trivković S, Petrašinović N, Ivanov T (2014) Active boundary layer control in linear cascades using CFD and artificial neural networks. Aerosp Sci Technol 39:243–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Traficante S, De Giorgi MG, Ficarella A (2015) Flow separation control on a compressor-stator cascade using plasma actuators and synthetic and continuous jets. J Aerospace Eng 29(3):04015056

    Google Scholar 

  • Volino RJ, Kartuzova O, Ibrahim MB (2011) Separation control on a very high lift low pressure turbine airfoil using pulsed vortex generator jets. J Turbomach 133(4):041021

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Lu X, Denny AG, Fan M, Wu J (1998) Post-stall flow control on an airfoil by local unsteady forcing. J Fluid Mech 371:21–58

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Chen S, Meng Q, Wang S (2018a) Flow separation control using unsteady pulsed suction through endwall bleeding holes in a highly loaded compressor cascade. Aerosp Sci Technol 72:455–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Chen S, Gong Y, Wang S, Wang Z (2018b) Combined application of negative bowed blades and unsteady pulsed holed suction in a high-load compressor in terms of aerodynamic performance and energy efficiency. Appl Therm Eng 144:291–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Chen S, Gong Y, Wang S (2018c) Flow control using unsteady pulsed holed suction with different excitation models in a highly loaded compressor cascade. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 232(6):593–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Chen S, Gong Y, Wang S (2019) A comparison of different unsteady flow control techniques in a highly loaded compressor cascade. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerospace Eng 233(6):2051–2065

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng X, Zhou X, Zhou S (2005) Investigation on a type of flow control to weaken unsteady separated flows by unsteady excitation in axial flow compressors. J Turbomach 127(3):489–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z, Chen S, Li W, Wang S, Zhou X (2018) Experiment study of aerodynamic performance for the suction-side and pressure-side winglet-cavity tips in a turbine blade cascade. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 90:220–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Zong H, Kotsonis M (2017) Experimental investigation on frequency characteristics of plasma synthetic jets. Phys Fluids 29(11):115107

    Google Scholar 

  • Zong H, Wu Y, Li Y, Song H, Zhang Z, Jia M (2015) Analytic model and frequency characteristics of plasma synthetic jet actuator. Phys Fluids 27(2):027105

    Google Scholar 

  • Zong H, van Pelt T, Kotsonis M (2018) Airfoil flow separation control with plasma synthetic jets at moderate Reynolds number. Exp Fluids 59(11):169

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51776048).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Energy Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Hongxin Zhang & Shaowen Chen

Authors
  1. Hongxin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaowen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaowen Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, H., Chen, S. A comparative experimental analysis of two unsteady flow control methods in a highly loaded compressor cascade. Exp Fluids 61, 132 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-020-02976-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-020-02976-w

Search

Navigation