Proceedings

of ASME
TurboSea
Expo
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
2010: Power
for Land,
and2010
Air
Power for Land, Sea and Air, GT2010
GT2010
June 14-18,
14-18, 2010,
2010, Glasgow,
Glasgow, UK
UK
June

GT2010-
GT2010-22165
AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OF TRANSONIC TIP SECTIONS
A. Stein, D. C. Hofer
General Electric Global Research Center
Niskayuna, New York 12309 USA

V. Filippenko
General Electric Europe
Moscow, 115280 Russia

J. Slepski
General Electric Energy
Schenectady, New York 12345 USA

ABSTRACT
This paper systematically explores the aerodynamic design
space of transonic tip sections for large steam turbines. The
sections studied in this work have subsonic inlet relative Mach
numbers, and supersonic exit Mach numbers up to 1.75. Twodimensional CFD evaluations using numerical solvers MISES
and TACOMA are used to assess the performance impact of
design parameters. Geometric features including subsonic
overlap, supersonic overlap, trailing edge thickness, trailing
edge wedge angle and camber distribution are evaluated for
their effect on the section performance. An optimal geometry
is then generated incorporating the best features from each of
the individual parameter studies.

paths. The result is a design with the largest possible annulus

areas. The desire to increase annulus area while maintaining
synchronous rotating speed of 3000 or 3600 RPM results in
rotor tip speeds as high as 680 m/s [2] for steel blades and 1020% higher for Titanium blades. The speed of sound in steam
at the thermodynamic conditions present at the exit annulus of
a typical low pressure turbine is approximately 390 m/s [3]
resulting in tip Mach numbers of up to 2.0. To achieve
reasonable exit swirl values it is necessary to have flow
velocities of the same magnitude as the wheel speed Mach
numbers. These high Mach numbers drive the current interest
in transonic tip section design.

INTRODUCTION

COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE

Steam turbines have played a significant role in generation of

electric power since the late 19th century. While the primary
energy source for electric power generation has evolved from
exclusively coal to include nuclear fission and natural gas
consumed in a gas turbine topping cycle, the majority of new
thermal electric power generating plants installed today
include a steam turbine. Since the conception of the steam
turbine power plant, engineers have sought to increase the
power density and thermal efficiency of these turbines.

Two flow solvers were used in the present work to compute the
flow field through transonic airfoil cascades. The first flow
solver was the blade-to-blade solver MISES [4] (Multiple
Blade Interacting Streamtube Euler Solver). The code employs
a strongly coupled inviscid-viscous algorithm. The inviscid
flow is calculated using steady state 2-D Euler equations on
the axisymmetric flow surface of varying thickness and radius.
The viscous flow zone (boundary layers and wakes) is
modeled using integral boundary layer theory. The MISES
software comes with a preprocessor that generates the
computational meshes for use in the MISES flow solver. Offset
I-type grids were used to discretize the computational domain.
A typical MISES mesh is shown in Figure 1. It has
approximately 5,000 grid nodes.

In steam power plants, heat is rejected from the cycle by

condensing the steam after it has passed through the turbine.
Due to the properties of water, the saturation pressure at
typical heat rejection temperatures is low, between 0.04 and
0.12 bar absolute. This low pressure results in a low density
and a high volumetric flow. The high volumetric flow of the
exhaust steam results in the need for large annulus areas and
multiple parallel flow paths to minimize the kinetic energy in
the exhaust flow [1]. Increasing the power density and thus
reducing the cost of the steam turbine and the power plant
drives the design toward the minimum number of parallel flow

The second flow solver used is the General Electric

proprietary code TACOMA (Turbine and Compressor
Analysis). TACOMA is a 3D multiblock, block-structured nonlinear Navier-Stokes flow solver for turbomachinery blade
rows [5]. The equations solved in TACOMA are the 3D
Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS) with a

Copyright 2009 by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

solver were carried out as part of this study. Comparisons over

a range of exit Mach numbers were completed for a variety of
publicly available transonic airfoil sections. One such
comparison is shown in figure 2. The airfoil section displayed
in this figure was taken from [9]. It is the tip section of the last
stage bucket of a 300 MW steam turbine. The chord length of
this airfoil is about 110 mm.

Angle_exit, deg

The generation of block-structured computational grids for the

TACOMA flow solver was done using the commercial grid
generation
package
ANSYS
ICEM
CFD
(http://www.ansys.com/products/icemcfd.asp).
A
special
meshing template was developed for use on airfoil sections
with a large degree of stagger angle. Conventional blockstructured gridding approaches (H-mesh, OH-mesh) on such
airfoils produce significant grid shear and are not
recommended for CFD analysis of highly staggered transonic
airfoil sections. Low-quality grids with significant grid shear
tend to smear out shocks over several grid elements thus
giving rise to solution inaccuracies. A picture of the
computational meshes used for the TACOMA flow solver is
shown in Figure 1. It has approximately 70,000 grid cells. The
special blocking topology employed in the grid generation
produces a high quality mesh thus enabling the accurate
capturing of shock waves and wakes.
Both flow solvers are run in quasi-3D mode. This requires the
specification of the streamtube height. The streamtube height
is typically extracted from a throughflow solution and input as
a function of axial location. In the case of the TACOMA flow
solver the streamtube height is specified in the grid generation
process while MISES requires the streamtube height to be
input as part of the solver.

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10

18

EXP

16

EXP

MISES

14
12

MISES

Losses, %

two-equation k- Wilcox turbulence model [6, 7]. More

details of the TACOMA flow solver are contained in [8].

10
8
6
4
2
0

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9
1.1
1.3
exit Mach

1.5

1.7

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

exit Mach

Figure 2: Comparison of MISES predicted exit angle and loss

coefficient vs measurements. Airfoil section taken from [9]

Inlet boundary conditions for both flow solvers were also

extracted from the throughflow solution.

The same figure shows a comparison of the predicted exit flow

angle against measurements over exit Mach numbers ranging
from 0.4 to 1.7. The MISES results are in good agreement with
the measured data over the entire range of exit Mach numbers.
LOSS SOURCES IN TRANSONIC TIP SECTIONS
The aerodynamic design of transonic tip sections is a
challenging task with the presence of a number of potential
loss sources. The transonic nature of the flowfield results in a
unique combination of loss sources, which need to be closely
monitored in the design of the tip sections. It is the
responsibility of the aerodynamic design engineer to properly
balance these loss sources and to minimize the overall airfoil
section loss. This requires an understanding of which
geometric feature contributes to each individual loss source.
The parametric studies and design rules described in this work
were aimed at understanding the relationship between
geometric features and losses. Figure 3 presents an overview
of the loss sources present in transonic tip sections.

Figure 1: Block-structured meshes used for the TACOMA (left)

and MISES (right) flow solvers

The key loss components and flow features are

Profile loss (other than shock/BL component) most
sensitive to exit Mach number
TE loss (other than shock loss) most sensitive to TE
blockage and exit Mach number
SS shock increasing intensity and contribution to
total loss with higher Mach number and higher TE
wedge angle

VALIDATION OF FLOW SOLVER

While the TACOMA flow solver has been extensively
validated in [5, 8] select validation runs for the MISES flow
2
2

Copyright 2010 by ASME

PS shock decreasing in intensity and contribution

with higher Mach number and lower TE included
wedge angle
Reflected PS shock follows PS shock intensity
(unless it is too close to the TE and can generate
extended separation bubble).
PS shock/BL interactions follows PS shock
intensity

A
A

Throat

Since the RANS flow solver uses a computational mesh that

resolves the round trailing edge it is expected that TACOMA is
able to capture all loss components listed above. The MISES
flow solver incorporates a blunt trailing edge model with an
open cusp to account for TE losses. Drela et al [4] indicate that
this model may underpredict the TE losses for certain
configurations.

A PM
PM expansion
wave wave
A
expansion
B PS
PS oblique
shockshock
B
oblique
C reflected
PS shock
reflected
PS shock
C
D SS
shockshock
D
SSoblique
oblique
E airfoil
airfoil wake
wake
E

Mach
contours

It is important to note that transonic tip sections with exit

Mach numbers in excess of 1.3 typically use convergentdivergent airfoil sections [10]. This is done to minimize
mixing losses downstream of the trailing edge. These mixing
losses are responsible for the sharp drop in performance in
convergent-flatback sections operating at supersonic exit Mach
numbers. Since convergent-divergent sections exhibit
minimum losses at supersonic exit Mach numbers they are
typically preferred for sections with no (or negative) flow
turning in high tip speed sections. The convergent part of the
flowpath is formed upstream of the throat between the LE and
the rear part of the pressure side. The suction side and the
trailing edge wake of the neighboring airfoil form the
divergent part of the section. Conventional inviscid supersonic
nozzle theory states that there is a unique combination of the
Area ratio A/A* and the nozzle pressure ratio that yields a
perfectly expanded flow through the convergent-divergent
nozzle. The designer has direct control over the area ratio via
detailed contouring of the suction side camber distribution.
However, the design of transonic tip sections is typically not a
single point design. An important design goal is to achieve
optimal performance over a range of pressure ratios resulting
from backpressure variations experienced by the section. Since
the wake orientation changes with backpressure it is
impossible to achieve isentropic expansion ratios across all
operating conditions.

Char.
waves

Figure 3: Loss sources in transonic tip sections

The main motivation for the work in the present study was to
understand and quantify the impact of key geometrical features
on the aerodynamic performance of transonic tip sections. The
geometrical features investigated in this work are:
Overlap downstream of the throat (supersonic
overlap)
Overlap upstream of the throat (subsonic overlap)
TE wedge angle
TE thickness
SS curvature distribution

SUBSONIC OVERLAP
The following sections contain a number of guidelines for the
design of transonic tip sections. In each section an attempt is
made to explain the relationship between the respective
geometrical feature and its effect on the flow field as well as
the overall airfoil losses.
The first geometrical feature under investigation is the amount
of subsonic overlap between two adjacent tip sections as
shown in Figure 4. By definition, the amount of subsonic
overlap is the distance (often expressed in terms of
overlap/pitch ratio) upstream of the throat by which two
adjacent cascade airfoils overlap. It is important to note that
this geometric dimension also forms the convergent part of the
passage. One key aspect in the design of convergent-divergent
sections is the need for sufficient subsonic overlap margin.
Due to the water droplet erosion of blade leading edges
observed during normal machine operation it is possible to
experience a decrease in overlap over time. Unless the airfoil
section has sufficient overlap margin a complete loss of the
convergent section accompanied by a large reduction in
section efficiency could occur.

As the overall pressure ratio varies the losses due to the

pressure side and the suction side shocks vary in strength.
Operating conditions with higher exit Mach numbers
experience greater expansion of the flow through the divergent
section, thus the A/A* area ratio increases and the wake moves
further away from the suction side of the neighboring blade. In
that case the trailing edge suction side shock increases in
strength while the trailing edge pressure side shock is
weakened. A perfect balancing of the two shocks across a
range of operating conditions is a difficult task.

3
3

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Mach lines as computed by the Method of Characteristics. A

characteristic wave plot is useful for identifying expansion and
compression waves (or shocks) present in the flow field. The
Mach contours indicate that the pressure side shock is
significantly stronger in the maximum overlap case relative to
the minimum overlap case. This difference is caused by the
actual aerodynamic throat of the maximum overlap section
moving further upstream towards the leading edge.

case5
case4

Location of the
geometric throat
kept fixed

case3

The effective flow area is the total flow area less the boundary
layer thickness. In essence, by allowing more subsonic overlap
in case 5 the actual throat moved further upstream thus
allowing the flow to expand immediately downstream of the
throat. This leads to increased TE Mach numbers which in turn
creates a stronger pressure side shock accompanied by more
wave drag.

case2
Case1
(baseline)

Figure 4: Transonic tip section with various degrees of

subsonic overlap

The airfoil section used in this analysis has a wedge TE design.

The pressure side wedge allows for rapid expansion of the
flow leading to increased TE Mach numbers. Due to
constraints in the choice of stagger angle it may be very
difficult to design a section with increased subsonic overlap.
Conceptually, this might be done by adding positive camber to
the rear part of the section or by decreasing the stagger angle
which in turn may result in less than optimal incidence angles.
Poor LE incidence angles can cause over-acceleration around
the leading edge and even cause the formation of leading edge
shocks thus reducing the section efficiency.

Figure 5 shows the results of a parametric study with varying

degrees of subsonic overlap. The study was carried out with
the MISES flow solver analyzing a standard tip section with
three different inlet Mach numbers. The labels case1, case2,
etc. correspond to the 5 overlap variations displayed in Figure
4. Case 1 is the minimum overlap (ol/pitch = 0.013) and case 5
is the maximum overlap (ol/pitch = 0.153). The results at all
three inlet Mach numbers clearly show that more overlap
decreases the section efficiency over the whole range of exit
Mach numbers. The most efficient section is the one operating
with minimum overlap.
Min=0.83

Min=0.93
1 pt

eff

1.3 Mex 1.5

Case1
Case2
Case3
Case4
Case5

2 pt

eff
More overlap

case1
case2

More overlap

1.1

Another reason for reduced Mach numbers in the min overlap

design is evident from the characteristic waves plot. The
expansion fan generated by the flow around the LE hits the
pressure side in the max overlap case where it passes
downstream of the TE in the min overlap case. When this
expansion hits the pressure side, the Mach number upstream of
the pressure side shock is increased thus increasing the wave
drag loss.

1.7

ol/pitch
0.013
0.048
0.083
0.118
0.153

case1
case2

case3
case4

1.9

case5

1.1

case3
case4

1.3 Mex 1.5

1.7

throat

1.9

case5

throat

throat

Min=1.03
1 pt

eff
Min
overlap
case1
case2

More overlap

1.1

1.3 Mex 1.5

Max
overlap

Min
overlap

Max
overlap

case3
case4
1.7

case5

1.9

Figure 6: Mach contours and characteristic waves

Figure 5: Parametric study with various degrees of subsonic
overlap

It is evident from the maximum of the overlap Mach contours

that extra losses not only exist from the increased pressure side
shock strength but also from the reflection of this shock on the
suction side of the adjacent blade. This shock/boundary layer
interaction produces adverse pressure gradients along the
suction side and can lead to complete separation of the
boundary layer. Separation of the suction side boundary layer

Figure 6 provides an explanation for the reduced efficiency at

increased subsonic overlaps. The left two plots show Mach
number contours over the supersonic range between 1.0 and
2.0. The two plots on the right hand side of the figure show the
characteristic waves (both compression and expansion) present
in the flow passage. The characteristic waves are C+ and C4
4

Copyright 2010 by ASME

baseline solution and blue indicates the max overlap case ol4.
The Mach contour plots in the center illustrate the different
shock strengths at different operating conditions. When
operating at high exit Mach number the suction side shock is
stronger than the pressure side shock while at low exit Mach
number the pressure side shock is stronger than the suction
side shock. At high exit Mach numbers the wake turns away
from the suction side to open up the nozzle area and allow
more acceleration of the flow.

will add additional aerodynamic losses to the section

performance.
The following list summarizes the main implications of
subsonic overlap on the design of transonic tip sections:
Need for sufficient overlap margin to protect against
loss of the convergent passage due to LE erosion.
Too much subsonic overlap causes the suction side
LE expansion fan to intersect the pressure side near
the TE leading to higher TE Mach numbers on the
pressure side and increased shock strength.
Choose amount of subsonic overlap such that LE
expansion waves pass downstream of the TE without
intersecting the pressure side.

Mex=1.75

Supersonic overlap is the distance two adjacent airfoil sections

overlap downstream of the throat. The supersonic overlap
region creates the first portion of the divergent passage
immediately downstream of the throat. It is often expressed in
terms of the non-dimensional overlap/pitch ratio.
Figure 7 shows a tip section with various amounts of
supersonic overlap. The labels ol2, ol3 and ol4 correspond to
configurations with increased supersonic overlap relative to
the baseline airfoil. The case labeled ol1 has slightly less
overlap compared to the baseline section. The label ol4
corresponds to the case with the maximum amount of overlap
(at/pitch = 5%). Due to the change in overlap the difference in
TE area ratios A/A* between cases ol1 and ol4 is about 0.5%.
This corresponds to a change in TE Mach number of about
delta-Mach = 0.01, a negligible amount with respect to the
overall tip section performance. The change in section
efficiency as a function of exit Mach number is shown in
Figure 7.

base
ol4

0.2

1.0

0.2

0.0

0.1

Distance across SS shock

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

1.0

Mach

Mach

1.625
1.6
1.575
1.55
1.525
1.5
1.475
1.45
1.425
1.4

base
ol4

0.0

Distance across PS shock

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

1.525
1.5
1.475
1.45
1.425
1.4
1.375
1.35
1.325
1.3
0.2
1.0

base
ol4

0.0

Distance across SS shock

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

1.0

Figure 8: Mach number across TE shocks at two operating

conditions: Mex=1.75 (top) and Mex=1.35 (bottom)
Comparison between max overlap (ol4) and baseline (base)

efficiency

ol3

Distance across PS shock

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

base
ol4

Mex=1.35

0.2

ol4

0.0

1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5

Mach

1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0

Mach

SUPERSONIC OVERLAP

ol2

0.05
baseline
ol1

Case ol/pitch
Case1 0.01
Case2 0.0075
Case3 0.015
Case4 0.025
Case5 0.05

1.1

1.3

With regards to the effect of various amounts of supersonic

overlap on the section performance, it is clear from the line
plots that the main effect of supersonic overlap is to shift the
airfoil section peak efficiency to higher exit Mach numbers. At
high exit Mach numbers the suction side shock strength is
reduced for airfoils with increased overlap while at low exit
Mach numbers the trend is reversed.

ol1
ol2
ol3
ol4
baseline

1.5

Mex

1.7

1.9

The bottom row plots show that the ol4 airfoil has a slightly
stronger pressure side shock, which in turn results in reduced
section efficiencies. The pressure side shock strength
significantly increases due to intentional shock re-balancing
from supersonic overlap, the suction side shock/boundary
layer interactions may produce an adverse pressure gradient
strong enough to separate the suction side boundary layer. In
that case the low-Mex performance may drop more sharply

Figure 7: Supersonic Overlap, impact on section efficiency

Figure 8 shows a comparison of relative Mach number across
the pressure side and suction side shocks at the trailing edge.
The top row focuses on a low backpressure operating
condition with high exit Mach number while the bottom row
solution was run at a high backpressure operating condition
with a low exit Mach number. In all line plots, red indicates the
5
5

Copyright 2010 by ASME

and the trade between different operating conditions may not

be desirable.

1 pt

The following list summarizes the main implications of

supersonic overlap on the design of transonic tip sections:
Supersonic overlap allows re-balancing of suction
side and pressure side shocks.
Increased supersonic overlap shifts peak performance
to higher exit Mach numbers.
Exercise care in re-balancing PS and SS shocks.
Stronger than anticipated PS shocks may cause
shock/boundary layer interactions and lead to
separation of the suction side boundary layer.

efficiency

min TE thick (0.5%)

medium TE thick (1.5%)

0.5%
1.5%
2.5%

max TE thick (2.5%)

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

Mex

Figure 9: Impact of TE thickness on section efficiency

At high exit Mach numbers the pressure side shock is
significantly weaker which reduces additional viscous losses in
the suction side boundary layer. As a result, the efficiency of
the transonic section at high exit Mach number is relatively
insensitive to the amount of TE thickness.

TRAILING EDGE THICKNESS

Supersonic flow around the trailing edge of transonic tip
sections is sensitive to the formation of suction side and
trailing edge shocks. These shocks are a function of the TE
thickness and the TE wedge angle. The latter is discussed in a
subsequent section. It is well established that the most aeroefficient solution is a razor-sharp trailing edge. This is
unrealistic from a manufacturing standpoint. Typical trailing
edge thicknesses of industrial turbine steam tip sections vary
from 0.5 to about 3 percent of the pitch.

The following list summarizes the main effects of trailing edge

thickness on the design of transonic tip sections:
Best aerodynamic performance is achieved with thin
trailing edges.
Manufacturing constraints determine smallest
possible TE thickness.
Increased trailing edge thickness at low exit Mach
numbers strengthens pressure side shock leading to
higher shock losses and additional viscous losses due
to shock/boundary layer interactions.
Negative impact of increased trailing edge thickness
small at high exit Mach numbers.

Figure 9 shows the results of a MISES study where the trailing

edge thickness was parametrically varied from 0.5%
thick/pitch to 2.5% thick/pitch. All three airfoil sections were
designed with identical throats. The trailing edge wedge angle
in all three cases was 13 degrees. In order to compare three
airfoil sections with different trailing edge thickness/pitch
ratios at identical levels of unguided turning (3 degrees) the
airfoil stagger angle was adjusted in each case.

TRAILING EDGE WEDGE ANGLE

The trailing edge wedge angle is another tip section property
that is subject to manufacturing constraints. It is actually the
combination of wedge angle and trailing edge thickness that
determines the manufacturing constraint. Mechanical design
typically requires that the airfoil section have a certain trailing
edge thickness measured at a certain distance away from the
TE meanline pierce point. Trailing edges with larger wedge
angles are more likely to satisfy this constraint.

The MISES results shown in the plot of Figure 9 indicate that

the effect of increased trailing edge thickness is predominant at
low exit Mach numbers. At this operating condition the thicker
trailing edge reduces the section efficiency. At exit Mach
numbers ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 the performance penalty due
to tripling the trailing edge thickness is worth about 1 pt in
section efficiency. At high exit Mach numbers of (Mex > 1.6)
the sensitivity due to different trailing edge thickness
diminishes.

Referring to Figure 11 it is essential to note that the wedge

angle also sets the trailing edge installation angle. This angle is
important in that it determines the channel flowthrough area
downstream of the throat and has a direct impact on the
amount of flow acceleration through the divergent part of the
passage. The installation angle is measured between the engine
centerline and the pressure side of the TE wedge

Figure 10 illustrates the flow field features contributing to

these effects. At low exit Mach numbers the PS shock is the
dominant feature in terms of wave drag losses while at high
exit Mach numbers the trend reverses and the suction side
shock dominates. The pt0/pt0 contours shown in Figure 10
are a measure of aerodynamic losses and pinpoint regions of
high and low losses. It is clear from these plots that at low exit
Mach numbers the pressure side shock is strengthened leading
to increased shock losses. In addition a secondary effect of the
pressure side shock is to reflect off the suction side of the
adjacent blade and thicken the suction side boundary layer
giving rise to additional viscous losses. This effect is more
dominant for sections with thicker trailing edges.
6
6

Copyright 2010 by ASME

pt0/pt0
0.5%

Mach
0.5%

pressure loss contours at Mex = 1.15 emphasize that the PS

shock is stronger in airfoil sections with greater wedge angles
than it is in sections with more moderate trailing edge wedge
angles. This is caused by the larger wedge angle allowing more
expansion of the flow between the throat and the trailing edge
thus increasing the local Mach number of the flow right at the
trailing edge where the flow has to turn due to the presence of
the wake. The increased PS shock strength gives rise to greater
shock losses and additional viscous losses in the suction side
boundary layer due to shock/boundary layer interactions.

pt0/pt0
2.5%

Mach
2.5%

Mex =1.15

TE Wedge Angle (0.5% thick/pitch)

TE Wedge Angle (1.5% thick/pitch)

efficiency

Mach
0.5%

pt0/pt0
0.5%

Mach
2.5%

min TE wedge (0.0)

medium TE wedge (6.5 deg)
max TE wedge (13 deg)

pt0/pt0
2.5%
1.1

Mex=1.6

1.3

1.5
Mex

1.7

1.9

TE Wedge Angle (2.5% thick/pitch)

1 pt

efficiency

efficiency

min TE wedge (0.0)

medium TE wedge (6.5 deg)
max TE wedge (13 deg)
1.1

1.3

1.5
Mex

1.7

1.9

min TE wedge (0.0)

medium TE wedge (6.5 deg)
max TE wedge (13 deg)
1.1

1.3

1.5
Mex

1.7

1.9

Figure 12: Impact of TE wedge angle on section efficiency

The flow field at high exit Mach numbers is relatively
insensitive to the trailing edge wedge angle. This is evident
from the bottom row contours plots in Figure 13. At this
operating condition the suction side shock dominates, and its
strength is virtually independent of the trailing edge wedge
angle.

Figure 10: Contours of Mach number and pt0/pt0 at low exit

Mach (top row) and high exit Mach (bottom row) for 0.5%
thickness/pitch and 2.5% thickness/pitch.
Figure 12 shows the results of a parametric MISES. Results
are plotted for three different wedge angles: 0 degrees, 6.5
degrees and 13 degrees. Each chart contains results for a
different trailing edge thickness. The MISES results clearly
indicate that small to moderate TE wedge angles (0 to 6.5
degrees) yield more optimum section efficiencies over the
whole range of exit Mach numbers than airfoil sections with
larger wedge angles. This result is relatively independent of
the respective trailing edge thickness for a given airfoil
section.

The following list summarizes the main effects of trailing edge

wedge angle on the design of transonic tip sections:
Trailing edge wedge angle and installation angle are
inversely proportional.
Best aerodynamic performance is achieved with
moderate trailing edge wedge angles.
Increased trailing edge wedge angle at low exit Mach
numbers strengthens the PS shock, leading to higher
shock losses and additional viscous losses due to
shock/boundary layer interactions.
Negative impact of reduced trailing edge wedge angle
is reduced at high exit Mach numbers

Wedge
angle

CAMBER DISTRIBUTION
Due to relatively small thickness distributions used on
transonic tip sections, the shape of such airfoils has similarities
with airfoil shapes used for compressor blades. The maximum
thickness to chord ratio (Tm/C) of typical transonic tip
sections ranges from 3% to 5%, which is comparable to Tm/C
values for transonic compressor blades. A compressor
aerodynamic designers focus is devoted to finding the
optimum meanline angle distribution. The same is true for the
aerodynamic designer of transonic tip sections.

Inst. angle

0
6.5
13

Figure 11: Schematic for TE wedge angle and installation

angle

Careful contouring of the airfoil suction side is key to

achieving the most efficient flow expansion/acceleration
downstream of the throat and for minimizing trailing edge
shock losses. Figure 14 shows the results of a sensitivity study
with varying camber distributions. The sections labeled

The reason for this result is evident from the contour plots for
Mach number and total pressure loss, pt0/pt0, shown in
Figure 12. As discussed in the section on the performance
impact of trailing edge thickness the dominant flow feature at
low exit Mach numbers is the PS trailing edge shock. The total
7
7

Copyright 2010 by ASME

camber1 section has the weakest suction side and pressure side
shocks of all sections. It is also the section with the highest
efficiency at that exit Mach condition. A more front-loaded
section (like camber1) combined with a thin, no-wedge trailing
edge produces high efficiency flow at this operating condition.
Including more rear camber (like camber2 and camber3) loads
up the trailing edge portion of the airfoil section thus
producing more inefficient airfoil sections with stronger
shocks.

camber1, camber2 and camber3 have different amounts of

camber.

Mach
13

pt0/pt0
13

Mach
6.5

pt0/pt0
6.5

0.970

Mex=1.15

0.960
efficiency
0.950
eff 0.940

1 pt

0.930
camber1
camber2
camber3

0.920
0.910
Mach
13

pt0/pt0
13

Mach
6.5

pt0/pt0
6.5

0.900
1.100
1.1

1.300
1.3

1.500 1.7
1.5
1.700
M2
Mex

1.900
1.9

2.100
2.1

Mex=1.6

Figure 13: Contours of Mach number and pt0/pt0 at low exit

Mach (top row) and high exit Mach (bottom row) for 13 and
6.5 wedge angle
The TACOMA flow solver was chosen for this comparison
over the MISES flow solver due to the fact that more flexible
CFD postprocessing was available in TACOMA a feature
needed to make detailed line and contour plots like the one
shown in Figure 15. The TACOMA efficiency predictions of
the three sections show significant differences in performance.
Comparing the efficiency results for sections camber1 and
camber3 indicates better performance of the camber1 section
at low exit Mach numbers (+3.0 pts). At high exit Mach
numbers the camber3 section has slightly better efficiency
(+0.5 pts). Plots of the three airfoil sections in Figure 14 show
that the camber1 section is more front-loaded while the
camber3 section has more rear-camber. This difference in
camber-distribution has direct impact on the trailing edge
shock structure, which in turn determines the loss breakdown
at various operating conditions.

Figure 14: Effect of camber distribution on section efficiency

Figure 15 shows line-plots of relative Mach number across the

suction side and pressure side shocks. The two plots on the left
show data along a line of constant axial location near the
suction side of the section (as depicted in the contour plot).
The two plots on the right show Mach numbers along a line
that cuts through the middle of the passage. The top row plots
correspond to low exit Mach operation (Mex = 1.2) while the
bottom row plots refer to high exit Mach operation (Mex =
1.7).

The following list summarizes the main effects of using

camber on the design of transonic tip sections:
Negative camber in transonic airfoil sections allows
careful contouring of the airfoil suction side thus
controlling the amount of flow expansion. This has a
direct impact on the trailing edge shock system.
More front-cambered sections unload the airfoil rear
portion at low exit Mach numbers thus producing
more efficient conditions with weaker trailing edge
shocks.
Aft-cambered sections lead to more efficient
conditions at high exit Mach numbers with weaker
trailing edge shocks.

The trend reverses at high exit Mach numbers as shown in the

two bottom plots of Figure 15. The more front-loaded camber1
section has slightly stronger suction side and pressure side
shocks than the more aft-loaded sections labeled camber2 and
camber3. Thus the camber1 section efficiency is about 0.5 pts
lower than the section efficiency of sections camber2 and
camber3.
As a result of this study the airfoil designer has to make a
trade-off decision weighing requirements at various operating
conditions against each other. The amount of camber and the
camber distribution (front-loaded versus aft-loaded) are
parameters the designer can use to balance the shock losses at
different operating conditions.

Focusing first on the low exit Mach line-plots and comparing

the shocks of the three cambered sections shows that the
8
8

Copyright 2010 by ASME

OPTIMIZED TIP SECTION DESIGN

camber1
camber2
camber3

1.7

1.8

Mex=1.2

1.5

1.6

rth

PS refl. shock
SS shock

1.3

1.4

SS shock

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

MREL

Transonic tip sections in the last stage buckets of large steam

turbines operate at supersonic exit relative Mach numbers of
up to 2.0. At these conditions shocks form at the leading edge
and the trailing edge of these airfoil sections. The parametric
studies carried out in this paper focused on airfoil section
features that directly impact the shock strength and other shock
related losses. The features found to be most sensitive to shock
strength and thus section efficiency were section overlap
(between two adjacent blades), TE wedge angle, TE thickness
and SS camber distribution. Modification of these parameters
for optimal aerodynamic performance of the airfoil yields an
efficiency vs Mach number curve that performs well over a
range of exit Mach numbers. Figure 16 shows the efficiency of
an optimized airfoil section in comparison to the efficiencies
of other sections analyzed as part of this study. The optimized
design was biased towards exit Mach numbers > 1.5 in
alignment with the expected operating range of this turbine.

-1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

RTH

2.25

2.5

Mex=1.2
camber1
camber2
camber3

1.75

PS shock PS refl. shock

1.25
1

MREL

1.5

SS shock

0.25

0.5

0.75

This plot shows that for a given exit Mach number the range of
section efficiencies varies by up to 4 pts. This result highlights
the sensitivity of tip section performance with respect to the
geometrical features investigated in this paper. It is imperative
for the design engineer to have a good understanding of the
flow physics that govern tip section aerodynamics.

-2

-1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Length

2.75

camber1
camber2
camber3

PS refl. shock

1.75
1.5

MREL

2.25

2.5

rth

efficiency
efficiency

Mex=1.7

PS shock

1.25

PS shock

1 pt

0.5

0.75

Optimized section
Analyzed designs

8
RTH

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1.1

17

2.75
2.5

PS shock

2.25

1.5
Mach_exit

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.75

CONCLUSIONS
A detailed study was carried out to derive a set of guidelines
and design rules applicable to the design of transonic tip
sections in large steam turbine last stage buckets. These
guidelines should provide the following results:
optimum aerodynamic performance
robust performance over a range of operating
conditions
insensitive to variations in manufacturing tolerances
insensitive to (small) variations in airfoil section
geometry due to (normal, expected) wear of the blade
during operation.

1.25

1.5

MREL

1.4

SS shock

0.75
0.5

-2

1.3

Figure 16: efficiency for optimized section in comparison to

other analyzed designs.

camber1
camber2
camber3

PS refl. shock

1.2

Mex

Mex=1.7

-1

-1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Length

Figure 15: Mach number across suction side and pressure side
shocks at two operating conditions.

9
9

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Steel 48/40 inch Steam Turbine LP End Bucket Series,

International Conference on Power Engineering (ICOPE03), Kobe, Japan, November 2003.
3. Parry, W., Bellows, J., Gallagher, J., Harvey, A., ASME
International Steam Tables for Industrial Use, ASME
Press CRTD-Vol. 58, 2000.
4. Drela, M., Youngren, H., "Viscous/Inviscid Method for
Preliminary Design of Transonic Cascades", AIAA-Paper
91-2364, Sacramento, CA, USA, 1991.
5. Holmes, D. G, Mitchell, B. E, and Lorence, C. B, 1997,
Three Dimensional Linearized Navier-Stokes Calculation
For Flutter and Forced Response, ISUAAT Symposium,
Sweden.
6. Wilcox, D. C, 1988, Reassessment of the scale
determining equation for advance turbulence models,
AIAA J., 28, pp 1299-1310.
7. Wilcox, D. C, 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW
Industries, La Canada, California.
8. Kapetanovic, S., Felten, F. N., Holmes, D. G. and
Ostrowski,
M.,
Impact
of
Combustor
Exit
Circumferential Flow Gradients for Gas Turbine
Prediction, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Heat and Mass Transfer, Canmore,
Canada, 2007.
9. Turbine Profile Atlas, MPEI, Moscow, 1976, p. 254.
10. Sieverding, C. H., Aerodynamics of Low Pressure Steam
Turbines and Condensers, M. Moore and C. Sieverding,
Eds. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.

A second objective of this study was to gain an increased

understanding of the underlying flow physics and their
relationship to certain geometric features of the airfoil section.
The derived design rules cover geometric features and their
effect on airfoil performance such as the airfoil camber
distribution, trailing edge thickness, trailing edge wedge angle
and the amount of airfoil section overlap between two adjacent
last stage buckets.
The methods applied in this study for deriving these design
rules rely on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Two CFD
codes for aerodynamic analysis of turbomachinery components
were used to analyze flow in transonic tip sections.
The results of this study show that the section efficiency is
strongly dependent on the shock structure that forms as a result
of transonic flow in these tip sections. Both TE pressure side
and suction side shocks are principal contributors to the total
aerodynamic section loss. Therefore some of the design rules
described in this paper are aimed at weakening the trailing
edge shock system in an attempt to optimize section
performance. It was found that airfoil sections that have a thin
trailing edge, no trailing edge wedge and moderate amounts of
negative camber achieve best performance over a wide range
of operating conditions. Such airfoil sections perform
extremely well at high exit Mach numbers (Mexit > 1.5).
Another key finding of this study is that there are certain
section parameters the aerodynamic designer can use to trade
suction side shock strength versus pressure side shock
strength. Trade-offs between flow features at various operating
conditions must be understood to achieve peak efficiencies at
the desired design operating point while achieving acceptable
performance over a wide range of off-design conditions.
It is important to note that the design guidelines described in
this report are solely based on numerical studies. Additional
experimental cascade testing of the aforementioned transonic
airfoil sections is needed to aid the understanding of flow
through transonic tip sections.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the General Electric Company
for permission to publish this paper, and thank our many
colleagues at GE Energy who have made many contributions
to this paper.

REFERENCES
1. Mujezinovic, A., Hofer, D., Barb, K. Kaneko, J, Tanuma,
T., Okuno, K., Introduction of 40/48 Inch Steel Steam
Turbine Low Pressure Section Stages, Power Gen Asia,
Singapore, Oct 2002.
2. Hofer, D., Slepski, J., Tanuma, T., Shibagaki, T, Naoki, S,
Tsuguhisa, T., Aerodynamic Design and Development of
10
10

Copyright 2010 by ASME