A characterization of unsteady effects for transonic turbine airfoil limit loading

To better understand the effect of vortex shedding on the nature of the trailing edge shock system during airfoil limit loading a computational fluid dynamic investigation was performed for a transonic turbine airfoil at sublimit, limit and supercritical conditions. Four modeling strategies were employed: steady state RANS, unsteady RANS, DDES, and turbulence model free. The influence of transient modeling approaches on the predicted mass-flow averaged total pressure loss coefficient, mass-flow averaged flow angles, and on the limit loading pressure ratio were found to be insignificant with the exception of the URANS model during critical loading. It was found that the URANS modeling approach failed to predict the transition from near trailing edge dominated vortex formation to base pressure vortex formation resulting in a drastic rise in predicted total pressure loss. Surface isentropic Mach distributions were predicted similarly for all modeling strategies, with the exception of the trailing edge base pressure region and points of shock impingement along the suction surface. A detailed review of the boundary layer states at the trailing edge was performed. It was found that all of the modeling approaches predicted laminar boundary layer profiles along the pressure surface trailing edge and turbulent profiles along the suction surface. The predicted base pressure distributions were also reviewed, showing the base pressure to decrease with increasing pressure ratio. The unsteady simulation approaches consistently predicted lower average surface pressures than the steady state RANS simulations. Qualitative images of the numerical Schlieren contours were presented and reviewed showing large differences in the prediction of vortex shape, size, and subsequent shock influence.

Automated summary

A computational fluid dynamic investigation was conducted to study the effect of vortex shedding on the trailing edge shock system of an airfoil under different loading conditions. Four modeling strategies were employed, and it was found that the transient modeling approaches had insignificant influence on various parameters except for critical loading. The URANS model failed to predict the transition from near trailing edge dominated vortex formation to base pressure vortex formation, resulting in a significant increase in predicted total pressure loss. The prediction of vortex shape, size, and shock influence varied greatly among the different modeling strategies.