Experimental analysis reveals how suction-side fences reduce vortex penetration in turbine cascades, implying improved flow uniformity.
This work presents an extensive experimental and numerical analysis, aimed at investigating the impact of shelf-like fences applied on the suction side of a turbine nozzle guide vane. The cascade is constituted of vanes characterized by long chord and low aspect ratio, which are typical features of some LPT first stages directly downstream of an HPT, hence presenting high channel diffusion, especially near the tip. In particular, the present study complements existing literature by highlighting how blade fences positioned on the suction side can reduce the penetration of the large passage vortex. This is particularly effective in applications where flow turning is limited, the blades are lightly loaded at the front, and the horseshoe vortex is weak. The benefits of the present fence design in terms of losses and flow uniformity at the cascade exit plane have been demonstrated by means of a detailed experimental campaign carried out on a large-scale linear cascade in the low-speed wind tunnel installed in the Aerodynamics and Turbomachinery Laboratory of the University of Genova. Measurements mainly focused on the characterization of the flow field upstream and downstream of straight and fenced vane cascades using a five-hole pressure probe, to evaluate the impact of the device in reducing secondary flows. Furthermore, experiments were also adopted to validate both low-fidelity (RANS) and high-fidelity (LES) simulations and revealed the capability of both simulation approaches to accurately predict losses and flow deviation. Moreover, the accuracy in high-fidelity simulations has enabled an in-depth investigation of how fences act mitigating the effects of the passage vortex along the blade channel. By comparing the flow fields of the configurations with and without fences, it is possible to highlight the mitigation of secondary flows within the channel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bologna et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: