Download - Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Transcript
Page 1: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Final ReportNCC3-719

CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTICANALYSIS CODE

submitted to

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field

Cleveland, Ohio

Dr. Theo G. Keith, Jr.

Distinguished University Professor

Dr. Rakesh Srivastava

Senior Research Associate

Department of Mechanical Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringThe University of Toledo

Toledo, Ohio 43606

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20020087580 2018-06-12T10:27:32+00:00Z

Page 2: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC

ANALYSIS CODE

Introduction

Centrifugal compressors are very widely used in the turbomachine industry where low mass flow

rates are required. Gas turbine engines for tanks, rotorcraft and small jets rely extensively on

centrifugal compressors for ragged and compact design. These compressors experience

problems related with unsteadiness of flowfields, such as stall flutter, separation at the trailing

edge over diffuser guide vanes, tip vortex unsteadiness, etc., leading to rotating stall and surge.

Considerable interest exists in small gas turbine engine manufacturers to understand and

eventually eliminate the problems related to centrifugal compressors. The geometric complexity

of centrifugal compressor blades and the twisting of the blade passages makes the linear methods

inapplicable. Advanced computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods are needed for accurate

unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic analysis of centrifugal compressors. Most of the current

day industrial turbomachines and small aircraft engines are designed with a centrifugal

compressor. With such a large customer base and NASA Glenn Research Center being the lead

center for turbomachines, it is important that adequate emphasis be placed on this area as well.

Currently, this activity is not supported under any project at NASA Glenn.

Centrifugal compressors experience essentially the same problems associated with unsteadiness

as axial compressors. Separated flows lead to a significant drop in performance. Problems

associated with stall futter lead to blade loss that further deteriorates the performance. Because

of the complex shape, a CFD based aerodynamic solver is needed to accurately calculate the

unsteady airloads. Further, since the primary instability is either stall flutter or surge, the

aeroelastic solver requires viscous analysis capabilities.

A viscous aeroelastic or unsteady aerodynamic analysis capability will help design safer, lighter

and more reliable engines. Because of a more accurate estimate of the unsteady aerodynamic

forces improved blades can be designed that will help move instability boundaries away from the

engine operating range. The increased safety margin will allow operation at higher efficiencies

resulting in lower fuel consumption and reduction in exhaust gas pollutants such as CO2, NOx

Page 3: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

andhydrocarbons.A betterbladedesignwill reduceor eliminatetheflutter andforcedresponse

problemsresultingin lower maintenancecostsandlessrisk of bladefailure.

Currentlythereareno viscousaeroelasticanalysiscodesfor centrifugalcompressorgeometries

availableto industryusers. Industry,especiallythe small enginemanufacturers,areextremely

interestedin obtaing the capability of unsteadyaerodynamicand aeroelasticanalysesof

centrifugal compressor. Under the cooperative agreement with NASA (NCC3-719),

developmentof a tool basedon a viscous aerodynamicanalysiscode, TURBO [1], wasundertakento addressthis shortcoming and provide industry userswith a robustaeroelastic

_,,_h,_;_codefor ....,,,_,,,.4_,,,,,_,_,,,_,_,,,compressors, r,,.._,L_.... m" funding by almost 50 percent for the last two,.AA l _4.x ,_ olto

years of the project and unforeseen additional code modifications, restricted us from completely

accomplishing the final objective. However, significant progress was made in developing an

unsteady aerodynamic solver applicable to impeller geometry. The TURBO-AE code [2], an

aeroelastic analysis code for axial turbomachinery geometry, based on the TURBO code, was

successfully modified for analysis of centrifugal impellers with and without splitters. The code

was validated by applying it to a Low Speed Centrifugal Compressor (LSCC) geometry. Results

showed good agreement with measured data. Also, the modifications made to the code were

furnished to researchers at Mississippi State University (MSU), the developers of the TURBO

code, to incorporate the modifications into later versions of the code.

Accomplishments

The goal of this effort was to suitably modify and extend the capabilities of the TURBO-AE

aeroelastic code for application to centrifugal compressors. The TURBO-AE code is a viscous

aeroelastic program for axial turbomachinery components. It has been developed with funding

from the AST program. Further development of the TURBO-AE code is continuing with

funding from the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) and the Quiet Aircraft Technology

(QAT) programs. The modified TURBO-AE code was applied to the LSCC geometry for

validating the code modifications.

The TURBO and the TURBO-AE codes have been developed for axial flow turbomachinery

configurations and as such possess several inherent assumptions that would not allow a solution

of a centrifugal geometry. The codes, for example, assume the flow to be predominantly in the

axial direction with the in-flow and out-flow boundaries being nearly perpendicular to the flight

direction. This assumption is used to simplify the inlet and exit boundary conditions. Also, the

Page 4: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

orientationof the boundary plane is used in defining the deformations to simulate the blade

vibrations. This dependence on the orientation of the exit plane had to be modified to make the

code compatible with centrifugal compressor geometry. Further, the interpolations of mode

shapes from structural to aerodynamic grids assume the blades to be more or less planar. This is

not the case for centrifugal compressors, which require a more sophisticated interpolation

program. Also, since the basic grid layouts are significantly different from the axial flow

geometry, dynamic grid deformation routines - used to simulate blade flexibility, had to be

modified as well.

aa_u_.latcu withI1_ t'_ _.¢ ".o U I. S _,_ bl,l.l 0 .LJ JL _..*eJ %_" %.' t" , 0 _..- ¥ _v.qL (_LI K./LII_'ID_,,n e the ..... of ,h; .... ;,_,-, ....... 1 ,,,_,,,,- problems were encountered

coding issues. For example, the code did not have the capability of using multiple blocks per

blade passage. This became an issue with larger grids. Further, the coding did not permit leading

or trailing edges to have different indices for different blades. This prohibited the analysis of

impellers with splitter blades. Both of these issues required significant code modifications that

were not anticipated at the beginning of the work. Because of reductions in funding, all of the

required modifications could not be completed. However, in the following, tasks that were

accomplished during the project will be described.

Code Modifications

The following major modifications were made to the TURBO-AE code to allow for the analysis

of a centrifugal impeller.

Flow Initialization: TURBO code initializes the flowfield based on the starting condition for the

flow condition. If a flow solution is available, it is used to initialize the flowfield for further

analysis. In the absence of an existing solution, the flowfield is initialized with uniform far field

conditions. For axial flow configuration the flow through the turbomachine is primarily axial,

however, for the centrifugal machines the flow turns by 90 deg with the exit flow being dis-

charged with a significant radial velocity component. Initializing the flow with uniform axial

flow field caused numerical problems in starting the analysis. This required modification of flow

initialization for the centrifugal impeller geometry. The modifications were made by initializing

the flow conditions to be parallel to the hub and casing and normal to blade passage at each flow

location, keeping the total flow conditions the same as the farfield conditions. The passage nor-

mal was determined by taking the area normal of the plane formed at the constant/-plane. How-

ever, no account was made for the pressure rise due to radial displacement because of change of

radial location in the flow path.

Page 5: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Splitter Geometry: Significant effort was required to adapt the coding to handle a splitter blade.

Most CFD codes inherently assume the/-indices for leading and trailing edges for all blades to

be same for a blade row. This built-in assumption within the TURBO-AE code had to be modi-

fied in order to enable the analysis of geometries with splitter blades. Further, the TURBO-AE

code solves the flowfield of one blade passage with the blade surfaces located at the two ends of

the passage. This meant that the leading and trailing edge indices for the two surfaces across the

same passage needed to differ from one another. This flexibility of indices has implications on

the application of the surface or fluid passage boundary condition since the indices define the.... ,,In

t.,UUUsolid _,,,-e.... of the blades. This required __Az¢.,z _ _:_:,':. ............ ,.u,.,._n_ _,_,_-,-,_., portions of the to allow

for blade passage and surface dependent solid surface definition and indices.

Another significant modification dictated by the need for handling splitter geometry was the fact

that the grid for one blade passage would be too large and thereby poses a problem with com-

puter resources. Consequently, the original passage had to be split into at least two passages.

The TURBO code assumed that a single blade passage constituted a single analysis block. This

required modifying the code to allow for the analysis of multiple blocks per blade passage. Sig-

nificant effort was required in making modifications to the code to permit this change. The modi-

fications were restricted to two blocks per blade passage to keep the modifications to a mini-

mum. More blocks per passage would have required modifying the boundary layer application

routines resulting in significantly more code modifications. Multiple blocks per passage re-

quired modifications to boundary condition applications, performance calculations, distance to

wall calculation for viscous analysis, and so forth.

Exit Boundary: The most significant modifications were required for the implementation of exit

boundary conditions. The TURBO code applies characteristics boundary conditions at the exit

plane in Cartesian coordinates. The exit grid plane is assumed to be normal to the x-axis to sim-

plify the boundary conditions. For a radial machine, neither the exit plane is normal to x-axis,

nor is it Cartesian. This required the development of characteristic boundary conditions in radial

coordinates simplified by the assumption of the exit plane grid being in the radial plane.

For subsonic exit flow boundary conditions, four characteristics are extrapolated from inside the

flow domain with the fifth characteristic being fixed at the boundary. For a supersonic exit

boundary, all five characteristics are extrapolated from inside the domain. The characteristics at

the boundary are obtained as follows

4

Page 6: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

lWkln+l=(Wk/nT)b _, J )b

-A k_k

d)

where, W k is the characteristic, J is the Jacobian, Vz is the time step, A k is the eigenvalue, n

is the iteration counter, and subscript b refers to the boundary. For the five characteristics -WkJ

and g- are defined as followsJ

W 2

k _ u x andJ

W3 - -u 0 andJ

4 lp____0

Wk_ 1 p

J _f2 +Ur

Wk5 1( p

j - 4_p0c °

g__L2=0J

g3 UrU0

J r

/and 4'i 1i i-_ u_ _u_-xPPoCo

Urt and rPlT- ra(u --ooco

where, u x , u r, and u 0 are velocity components in the axial, radial and tangential directions,

respectively, 13 is the fluid density, p is the pressure, c is the speed of sound, r is the radius,

and 5' is the gas constant. The subscript 0 refers to reference quantities.

For a subsonic exit boundary condition application, the exit static pressure is fixed based on the

pressure ratio of the operating condition and the first four characteristics are extrapolated to the

boundary using Eq.(1). The characteristic values are converted to primitive variables using he

definition provided above. For a supersonic exit boundary all five characteristics are extrapo-

lated. The primitive variables obtained in cylindrical coordinates at the exit plane are then con-

vened back to the Cartesian coordinates.

Page 7: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Post Processing: A significant effort was also devoted to developing post processing capabilities

in order to compare the calculated results with measured data. Fluid velocity and blade surface

pressure have been measured at various locations with measurement planes being normal to the

mean flow direction. This required development of interpolation routines to transfer calculated

flow properties from the aerodynamic grid onto the plane of measurement. Since the flow path

is highly three-dimensional, special attention had to be paid to finding the correct set of points

from which to interpolate. Further, the measured static surface pressure has been reduced to ac-

count for the centrifugal force exerted on the fluid. In order to compare the pressure with meas-

ured data, the following normalization was used based on the formulation described in Ref. [3]

Y

/ 2r2/Pr p h-_- y-1- (2)

Pstd P std h

where, Pr is the reduced pressure, Pstd is a reference pressure, p is the calculated pressure, h

is enthalpy, co is the rotational speed, and r is the radius.

The code modifications to TURBO were made in modular form without disturbing the original

computational capabilities.

A grid generation program entitled TIGER [6] was also evaluated for use with grid generation of

a centrifugal geometry. However, the program was found to be difficult and cumbersome to use

for grid generation of LSCC. This program was abandoned in favor of a grid generation

program available at NASA Glenn.

MSU researchers are currently involved in developing a parallel version of the TURBO code.

The modifications made to the TURBO-AE code were forwarded to researchers at MSU to

import the appropriate modifications into the parallel code. This will enable industry users to

employ one code for various turbomachinery applications.

Code Validation

The modified code was tested and validated for aerodynamic analysis capability by applying the

code to analyze the Low Speed Centrifugal Compressor (LSCC). This compressor impeller has

been thoroughly tested in a NASA Glenn wind tunnel [4], and provides for an excellent test case

to verify and validate the modified code for performance calculations.

Page 8: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

The LSCCis anaxial flow impeller with 20 blades,tip diameterof 1.524m anda backsweep

angleof 55deg.Theimpellerwastestednearits designedoperatingpointwith amassflow of 30

kg/sanda rotationalspeedof 1,862rpm.Thetestconditionsweresuchthattheflow wasentirely

subsonicthroughthe impeller.The testwasconductedusinga vanelessdiffuser that generated

an axisymmetricoutflow boundarycondition,desirablefor CFD analysisof an isolatedbladerow. The analysisusingthemodifiedTURBO-AE codewascarriedout usinga grid with 129

grid points in the flow direction(m-direction),61 grid pointsbetweenthe hub and the casing

(span-direction),and41 grid pointsin theblade-to-bladedirection(tht-direction).Becauseof theb_au_passagein thesiT,_._of th,_..._e,-d, -,,_ _,._,j _,_ ,.,,._.... ,.,,,,,,.,., out using two grid "'-_'-_u,u_._per ' "-

blade-to-blade direction.

Figure 1 shows the impeller analyzed with pressure contours on its solid surfaces. The casing of

the impeller is not shown for sake of clarity. Comparison of blade surface static pressure is

shown in Figure 2. The pressure was normalized using Eq.(2) for comparison with experimental

data. This normalization removes the pressure rise due to increase in the radius as the fluid

travels from the leading edge to the trailing edge and provides the pressure variation because of

blade passage diffusion. Very good agreement of the surface pressures with measured data was

found. Also, shown on this figure is the comparison of performance characteristics of the

impeller as compared with experimental measurements. Once again excellent agreement was

obtained.

Figures 3 through 10 show comparisons of the velocity distributions. Comparisons are shown for

the variation of the three velocity components (axial, radial, and tangential) normalized by the

impeller tip speed at three span locations. The variation is shown for the blade passage at each

streamwise location with suction surface being at 0 and pressure surface being at 100 on the

horizontal axis. Flow velocity predictions were found to be in good agreement with measured

values, however the comparisons of the velocities in the wake were found to possess only

qualitative agreement. It is believed that the differences in the wake velocities were due to the

use of the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model in the code. This turbulence model does not

accurately capture the characteristics of the blunt trailing edge of the blades. This resulted in the

calculated flow leaving the surface at a slightly different angle than experimentally observed.

Nevertheless, overall the agreement of the flow velocity was found to be good.

7

Page 9: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Concluding Remarks

A viscous analysis code applicable to centrifugal impeller geometry was developed and validated

using experimental data. The code was developed by modifying the TURBO-AE code, which is

applicable to axial flow turbomachinery components. The exit flow boundary conditions were

developed and implemented in the TURBQ-AE code along with several other modifications.

Significant effort was expended to modify the code architecture to allow analysis with multiple

blocks per blade passage and to allow for different i-indices for the leading and trailing edges of

different blades. Predicted values manifested good agreement with measured data of surface

pressure, performance quantities, and velocity components. However, the comparison of velocity

distribution in the wake was found to be fair to poor, espccially in the area near the casing. It was

determined that the differences in the wake velocity predictions were primarily due to the

inadequacy of the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model. It is suggested that the k-e turbulence

model be added to the code to improve the velocity predictions. Also, further validation of a

high-speed impeller geometry should be carried out.

References

1. Janus, J. M., "Advanced Three-Dimensional CFD Algorithm for Turbomachinery," Ph.D.

Dissertation, Mississippi State University, May 1989.

2. Bakhle, M., Srivastava, R., Keith, T. Jr., Stefko, G. L., "A 3D Euler/Navier-Stokes

Aeroelastic Code for Propulsion Applications," A!AA Paper 97-2749, 33rd Joint Propulsion

Conference and Exhibit at Seattle, WA, July 1997.

3. Rautaheimo, P., Salminen, E., Siikonen, T., "Numerical Simulation of the Flow in the

NASA Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor", Report 119, Helsinki University of

Technology, Helsinki, Finland.

4. Hathway, M. D., Chriss, R. M., Strazisar, A. J., and Wood, J. R., "Laser AnemometerMeasurements of the Three-Dimensional Rotor Flow Field in the NASA Low-Speed

Centrifugal Compressor.

5. Skoch, G. J., Prahst, P. S., Wernet, M. P., Wood, J. R., and Strazisar, A. J., "Laser

Anemometer Measurements of the Flow Field in a 4:1 Pressure Ratio Centrifugal Impeller",

NASA TM 107541, June 1997.

6. Shih, Ming-Hsin and Chen Yen-Sen, "TIGER Grid Generation Code," Final Technical

Report for NASA Contract Number NAS-3-2775, ESI-TR-97-07, September 1997.

Page 10: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

g_

Oo

P'l

o"

o

0

0

0

t_

]0

Page 11: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

Calculated: Adlab. Eff.=0.916, Mass Avg. Temp Ralio=1.041, Energy Avg. Press. Ratlo=1.138Measured: Adlab. Eff.=0.922, Mass Avg. Temp Ratlo=1.042, Energy Avg. Press. Ratio=1.141

1r

098

098

Q.0 92

ng

068

-- TURBO I

l " "="_!

span=5%

I I025 05

m/m=

I I075 I

09

o96

a.0, 92

09

088

Span=49%

I I0.25 05

m/m,_73

1

o98

098

092

-- TURBO

• MeemlltKI

09

089

Span=94%

lr

098

0.96

_.0 94

O,.092

0.9

0.86

I -- = ._JP,,BO ]

I " --==1

Span=20%

I I0 2.5 05

m/m=

I I075 1

1

098

096

l 094

a.

088

TURBO

• MeetZUl,lZd

Span=79%

I I025 05

m/m,070

1

o.ge

095

:i

o 93.

o.9

0Be

TURBO

Span=98%

I I I I o2s os o?s

o25 o5 o7s , m/m=m/m,

Figure 2. Comparison of blade surface static pressure for the LSCC at design condition at

various span locations.

10

Page 12: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

03S f 0

m=-O 038, s=20 '/o

02S[

Cht

016 f o

m=-O 038, s=20 '/o

= o_ t ' I

o%[ " L ; 'o gtht

032 J_J

thl

012

.... ./. -. )°°9

_t

m= 0 038, s=50%

2o ' " ' & ' io ' ,L

03,¢

o3e

.o _8

)-04

• m=-O 038, s=50%

•o " Jo '. ,o'o_t

°_I°'2 m=-O 038, s=90% oo.....

\ "

_t

m=-O 038, s=90%

tht

•a 4S

m=-O 038, s=90%

\I, /

_t

Figure 3. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

3.8 percent of chord length upstream of the blade at 20, 50 and 90 percent span stations. ----

Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

11

Page 13: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

O5

04

m=O.03, s=20%

/03! z.... ; , ,o r , , ,_ ,

tht

,,=

m=O.03, s=50%

oe

_5

_4

_3

az

o_

m=O.03, s=90%

.[)

c

lht

m=O.03, s=20% ....

-02

i [ .... -03

11 .04

,I

.05

' '_ _ 'o , '_ ' Io ' ,_ ....tht

m=O.03, s=50%

Q2

3

: -_ " ------ - _ ..... -- -_ _ "_r -'_- - _-o_.

05

' 'o ' " ' _' ' Io ' ,'o -°'mt

m=O.03, s=90% ....

_3

-04

Tm=O.03, s=20%r

I

J _I o

tht

m=O.03, s=50%

m=O.03, s=90%

, / ° , 10 , / , / _ I ° , / , slo , / ,

thl lht

,_o

Figure 4. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

3.8 percent of chord length downstream of leading edge of the blade at 20, 50 and 90 percentspan stations. ---- Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

12

Page 14: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

• . .. m

O7

OB

05

)O4

m=0.396, s=20%

.... Jo • • jo' ,,_Ult

03

o i_

a

m=0.396, s=50%

tht

m=0.396, s=90%

'o ' • ' 'o ' 'o _,_otht

m=0.396, s=20%

"--= • • _-- _--_Q-IIIN

tht

,'oo

15

I

)a5

o

_5

m=0.396, s=50%

4-*

IDDtht

)

m=0.396, s=90%

o

o15

.o._

m=0.396, s=20%

F

°_f , , . ......o o 5o so _oo

tht

.o3

)-04_

OS

"01

_2

_04

_5

i 2_ k _Q i _ i _0 i !_

tht

m=0.396, s=90%

mt tht

Figure 5. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

39.6 percent of chord length downstream of blade leading edge 20, 50 and 90 percent spanstations. ---- Measured velocities, m predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

13

Page 15: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

a3

O2

01

05

04

O3

O2

01

=

o

-01

m=0.644, s=20%

Ult

• m=0.644, s=50%

1 • 4_ _ _ a_e_ I_jB'j_,

20 _o SO eO t O0

tht

O5

-O5

O5

_3

_2

m=0.644, s=20%

mt

m=0.644, s=50%

tht

I

I i i_o

o_

02

-03

0

o2

03

-04

-0_

,. -. _m=0"644' s=90% °_I m_°644' s=90%

/

.oa

' Io ' 41o ' Io ' II_ ' ?o oI , I , I , I , I , ', I _o ....o zo ao so ao i• t _t

m=0.644, s=20%

Ult

m=0.644, s=50% i" r-"

I

I

I /

II

b_t

m=0.644, s=90%

, , , ,,o , _,o , , , ,_oO'tt

Figure 6. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

64.4 percent of chord length downstream of blade leading edge at 20, 50 and 90 percent span

stations. ---- Measured velocities, m predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

14

Page 16: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

O3

02

01

m=0.852, s=20%

•o . ?o • • , ,_

-0

m=0.852, s=20%

- = _

tht

.01

-o2

.03

-O4

-O5

oB_

m=0.852, s=20%

,o .,o ,_ . • ,_

O7"5

oS

025

5

a25

-o5

• m=0.852, s=50%

tht

OO

O_

_ O3

o15

m=0.852, s=50%

L 'e-_4

, /o , - ,o _,o,_otht

-03

_o45

-oe

_o't5

m=0.852, s=50% ,'I

-o,_ , ,o . :o /o . ,_o_t

m=0.852, s=90%

I I

M _h

' " ' 'o ' 1o ' : ' ,_°_t

Figure 7. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

85.2 percent of chord length downstream of blade leading edge at 20, 50 and 90 percent span

stations. ---- Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

15

Page 17: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

o_

O2

o

_ o_

04

m=0.960, s=20%

_ ' " ' " ' io ' ,_tht

°"--_ m=0.960, s=20%

02

'101 r i

:l

-o ' Jo ' 2o ' _ ' Io ' ,__t

-O3

oa,_

•og i

m=0.960, s=20% 1

,F

kr

_o I _ ' _ B _ I _

Ult

o°il m=0.960, s=50% o.,°_

o h 2lo , / , efo , / r ,_0 O_

m=0.960, s=50%

' :o ' " ' 'o ' _', ,,t_o

tht

-03

-0 75

-og

•1 05 _

mt

oa

oe

. 04

_e

m=0.960, s=90% t _'°,I, -. m=0.960,,, s=90% ...._o_

II

m=0.960, s=90%

I t

" ' ,'= ' ,'= ' ,' ' ,o'o_t

Figure 8. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

96 percent of chord length downstream of blade leading edge at 20, 50 and 90 percent span

stations. ---- Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

16

Page 18: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

°' Im=1.081, s=20%005

_ ,, ,+,; +

.ol r_,'

I, . , ,o , . . ,o , ,tht

0275

025

O225

+02

0175

015_

m=1.081, s=20%

• *_ -o +75

_,t/ / +• ill +i

_, .0575

-OB

tht

I'_ m=1.081, s=20%

/ _"m. "+" +"_"+_

t_t

oi

015

42

m=1.081, s=50% _ °°I "'"""m=1.081, s=50% .o,

0275 I ! -o ,I._.

.... +.q( t

, 21 I 10 I 10 , / ' 11 ...... I0 ' /0 ' 20 , / ° I _fO i ,_o oo_

bht f_

., m=1.081, s=50%

' _'o ' "o ' 'o ' ,' ,_'oUlt

oa

os

O4

=

OZ

0

-o1

m=1.081, s=go% =_ii! m=1.081 , s=90% i "'°°''

• = • : _ o -orI

' "o ' _o ' 'o ' 'o ' ,'.......... °'tht _t

m=1.081, s=90%

' " ' '= ' 'o ' +' ' I_ofllt

Figure 9. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passage at

8.1 percent of chord length downstream of blade trailing edge at 20, 50 and 90 percent span

stations. ---- Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

17

Page 19: Final Report NCC3-719 CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR … CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS CODE ... CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AEROELASTIC ... performance calculations, ...

oi

Do5

.oi

o05

.005

5]

.o i

.o 15

o2

, os

o os

ol

.a_s

"m=1.094, s=20%

Ult

m=1.094, s=50%

= = =---!...

IL__,

°_"I m=1.094, s=20% o,_

°o.._Ii,::' ''""=%°

.... ; ' Io ' ; ' ,'o ' 'Ult

m=1.094, s=50 %

o2e _ _ 045

tht

m=1.094, s=90% °"

Y I' :+,: _oo

' _ ' I, ' ,=o ' Io ' ,,_o °"

-O4

m=1.094, s=90%

_t

r_ m=l 094, S=20%

, / ° , / ° , _ , I , ?oo

tht

m=1.094, s=50%

_t

m=1.094, s=90%

/ / \' _ 1o ' Io ' elo ' ,Io

fJlt

Figure 10. Comparison of axial, tangential and rotational velocity components in blade passageat 9.4 percent of chord length downstream of blade trailing edge at 20, 50 and 90 percent spanstations. ---- Measured velocities, -- predicted TURBO predicted velocities.

18