Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Original Russian Text E.V. Mayorskiy, B.I. Mamaev, 2015, published in Teploenergetika.
Moscow Power Engineering Institute National Research University, Krasnokazarmennaya ul. 14, Moscow, 111250 Russia
b
Siemens, Bolshaya Tatarskaya ul. 9, Moscow, 115184 Russia
email: boris.mamaev@siemens.com
AbstractAn intricate nature of the pattern in which working fluid flows over transonic blade cascades gen
erates the need for experimentally studying their characteristics in designing them. Three cascades having
identical main geometrical parameters and differing from one another only in the suction side curvature in
the outlet area between the throat and trailing edge were tested in optimizing the rotor blade cascade for the
reduced flow outlet velocity 2 1. In initial cascade 1, its curvature decreased monotonically toward the
trailing edge. In cascade 2, the suction side curvature near the trailing edge was decreased, but the section near
the throat had a larger curvature. In cascade 3, a profile with inverse concavity near the trailing edge was used.
The cascades were blown at 2 = 0.71.2 and at different incidence angles. The distribution of pressure over
the profiles, profile losses, and the outlet angle were measured. Cascade 1 showed efficient performance in
the design mode and under the conditions of noticeable deviations from it with respect to the values of 2 and
incidence angle. In cascade 2, flow separation zones were observed at the trailing edge, as well as an increased
level of losses. Cascade 3 was found to be the best one: it had reduced positive pressure gradients as compared
with cascade 1, and the relative reduction of losses in the design mode was equal to 24%. The profiles with
inverse concavity on the suction side near the trailing edge were recommended for being used in heavily
loaded turbine stages.
Keywords: blade cascade, profile, suction side, curvature, concavity, transonic velocity, streamlining pattern,
efficiency
DOI: 10.1134/S0040601515050080
329
330
MAYORSKIY, MAMAEV
, %
()
x
r1
2, deg
1
1
c
1
1
2
34
32
30
a2
s
10, 1/mm 1
r2
0 1
(b)
x
3
2
30
38
42
28
50 1, deg
46
1b
A
2
10, 1/mm 1
34
0 1
2b
Vol. 62
No. 5
2015
2, deg
38
3
4
5
36
1
34
32
2
0
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
30
1.1
1.2
()
(b)
1.2
331
1
2
3
4
1.2
1.0
1.0
5
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 4. Velocity distribution over the profile of investigated cascades at 2 = 1. (a) Cascade 1 and (b) cascade 2. Values of 1, deg:
(1) 29, (2) 35, (3) 41, and (4) 51, (5) calculation at 1 = 41, and (6) throat.
THERMAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 62
No. 5
2015
332
MAYORSKIY, MAMAEV
(a)
(b)
1.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.2
(c)
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 5. Velocity distribution over the profile at 1 = 41. (a) Cascade 1, (b) cascade 2, and (c) cascade 3. Values of 2: (1) 0.7,
(2) 0.9, (3) 1.0, (4) 1.07, (5) 1.11, (6) 1.2, (7) calculation at 2 = 1.0, and (8) throat.
Vol. 62
No. 5
2015
333
(b)
x
A
x
r2
2
1
t
0 0.5
Fig. 6. Profile rear part (a) and suction side outline curvature in the outlet area between the throat and trailing edge (b).
(1) Cascade 1 and (2) cascade 3.
Vol. 62
No. 5
2015
334
MAYORSKIY, MAMAEV
Translated by V. Filatov
THERMAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 62
No. 5
2015