Università degli Studi della Basilicata

FACOLTÀ DI INGEGNERIA

Tesi di laurea in

INGEGNERIA MECCANICA

Progettazione Termofluidodinamica delle Macchine

STUDIO NUMERICO DI PALETTATURE PER

TURBOCOMPRESSORI CON APERTURE DI INSUFFLAGGIO
DI SUPERFICIE

GEOMETRY GENERATION AND NUMERICAL

INVESTIGATION OF COMPRESSOR AEROFOILS
FEATURING SURFACE BLEED PASSAGES

RELATORE: CANDIDATO:

Prof. Ing. Vinicio MAGI Francesco Paolo NETRI

Anno Accademico 2007/2008

INDICE

RINGRAZIAMENTI………………………………………………………………………………5

INTRODUZIONE.............................................................................................................. 8

CAPITOLO 1 ....................................................................................................... 10

1.1 IL COMPRESSORE ASSIALE ........................................................................ 10

1.2 FLUSSO BIDIMENSIONALE........................................................................... 12
1.2.1 SUPERFICI PER L’ANALISI BIDIMENSIONALE A RAGGIO VARIABILE................................ 13
1.2.2 PARAMETRI GEOMETRICI ...................................................................................................... 13
1.2.3 PARAMETRI AERODINAMICI................................................................................................... 14
1.2.4 PALETTETURA E FLUSSO....................................................................................................... 17
1.2.5 COEFFICIENTE DI PORTATA ................................................................................................. 18
1.2.6 CARICO PALARE E DI STADIO................................................................................................ 19
1.3 CARICO PALARE ........................................................................................... 19

CAPITOLO 2 ....................................................................................................... 22

2.1 SVILUPPO DEL METODO .............................................................................. 22

2.2 PADRAM ......................................................................................................... 23
2.3 RISOLUTORE NUMERICO HYDRA ............................................................... 24
2.3.1 JM52........................................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 JM56........................................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.3 “MESH POST-PROCESSOR” JL09 NON STRUTTURATO...................................................... 26
2.3.4 CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO NON LINEARI .......................................................................... 27
2.3.5 DEFINIZIONI DELLE CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO................................................................ 27
2.3.6 PROFILO PER LE CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO.................................................................... 28
2.3.7 SETTAGGIO CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO COSTANTI ......................................................... 28
2.3.8 CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO SU SUPERFICIE...................................................................... 28
2.3.9 CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO PER INGRESSO SUBSONICO ............................................... 29
2.3.10 CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO PER USCITA SUBSONICA...................................................... 31
2.3.11 CONDIZIONI AL CONTORNO RADIALI PER USCITA SUBSONICA ...................................... 32
2.3.12 “MIXING PLANES” ..................................................................................................................... 32
2.4 CODICE MATLAB ........................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 LETTURA DEL “BLADE DEFINITION FILE” ............................................................................ 34
2.4.2 SUDDIVISIONE DELLA SEZIONE IN SEGMENTAZIONI......................................................... 34
2.4.3 MODIFICHE DELLE SEGMENTAZIONI.................................................................................... 34
2.4.4 SEZIONI INTERPOLATE........................................................................................................... 34
2.4.5 DEFINIZIONE DELLE REGIONI SEGMENTATE...................................................................... 35
2.4.6 ESPORTAZIONE DELLA GEOMETRIA.................................................................................... 35
2.5 UNIGRAPHICS................................................................................................ 35
2.5.1 ELABORAZIONE DELLA GEOMETRIA .................................................................................... 35
2.5.2 MIGLIORAMENTO DELLA SUDDIVISIONE DELLA GEOMETRIA .......................................... 36
2.5.3 SUPERFICIE DI SCIA................................................................................................................ 37
2.6 CENTAUR ....................................................................................................... 38
2.6.1 PREPARAZIONE DELLA GRIGLIA DI CALCOLO IN “SETUPGRID”....................................... 38
3.6.2 CREAZIONE DELLA GRIGLIA DI CALCOLO PER LA GEOMETRIA SUDDIVISA .................. 39
3.6.3 INFITTIMENTO DELLA GRIGLIA DI CALCOLO PER LE SUPERFICI INGRESSO/USCITA .. 41
3.6.4 PARAMETRI GLOBALI.............................................................................................................. 41

1
 CAPITOLO 3………….....……………………………………………………………….39

CALCOLO: FLUIDODINAMICA COMPUTAZIONALE ...................................... 44

3.1 INTRODUZIONE ALLA FLUIDODINAMICA COMPUTAZIONALE (CFD) ....... 44

3.2 OGGETTO DELLO STUDIO ........................................................................... 44
3.3 VALIDAZIONE DI CENTAUR .......................................................................... 45
3.4 MODIFICHE ALLA PALETTATURA STATORICA........................................... 45
3.4.1 PALETTATURA ORIGINARIA ................................................................................................... 46
3.4.2 PROFILO PARZIALMENTE “REAR LOADED” ......................................................................... 46
3.4.3 PROFILO “REAR LOADED” ...................................................................................................... 47
3.5 CONCLUSIONI................................................................................................ 48
3.6 STUDIO DELLA PALETTATURA ROTORICA ................................................ 49
3.7 CONCLUSIONI................................................................................................ 50

BIBLIOGRAFIA……………………….……………………………………………….………..51
INDICE DELLE FIGURE…...…………………………………………………………..……...52
ELENCO DEI SIMBOLI………………………………………………………………………...85

2
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………….……………………………………..5

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................ 10

1.1 THE AXIAL COMPRESSOR ........................................................................... 10

1.2 BLADE TO BLADE FLOW............................................................................... 12
1.2.1 NON CONSTANT RADIUS BLADE TO BLADE SURFACES ................................................... 13
1.2.2 GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS.................................................................................................... 13
1.2.3 AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS............................................................................................... 14
1.2.4 BLADES AND FLOW ................................................................................................................. 17
1.2.5 FLOW COEFFICIENT................................................................................................................ 18
1.2.6 STAGE AND BLADE LOADING ................................................................................................ 19
1.3 BLADE LOADING............................................................................................ 19

CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................ 22

2.1 METHOD DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 22

2.2 PADRAM ......................................................................................................... 23
2.3 THE HYDRA SOLVER .................................................................................... 24
2.3.1 JM52........................................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 JM56........................................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.3 THE JL09 UNSTRUCTURED MESH POST-PROCESSOR ..................................................... 26
2.3.4 NON-LINEAR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS................................................................................ 27
2.3.5 SETTING THE BOUNDARY TYPE............................................................................................ 27
2.3.6 PROFILE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 28
2.3.7 SPECIFYING UNIFORM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .............................................................. 28
2.3.8 WALL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 28
2.3.9 SUBSONIC INFLOW BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .................................................................... 29
2.3.10 SUBSONIC OUTFLOW BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ................................................................ 31
2.3.11 SUBSONIC OUTFLOW WITH RADIAL EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS..................................... 32
2.3.12 MIXING PLANES ....................................................................................................................... 32
2.4 MATLAB CODE............................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 BLADE DEFINITION FILE LOADING ........................................................................................ 34
2.4.2 SPLIT A SECTION INTO SEGMENTS...................................................................................... 34
2.4.3 MODIFYING SEGMENTS.......................................................................................................... 34
2.4.4 INTERPOLATE SECTIONS....................................................................................................... 34
2.4.5 DEFINE THE SEGMENTED REGIONS .................................................................................... 35
2.4.6 EXPORT THE GEOMETRY....................................................................................................... 35
2.5 UNIGRAPHICS................................................................................................ 35
2.5.1 FEATURES OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 35
2.5.2 SPLITTING IMPROVEMENT..................................................................................................... 36
2.5.3 WAKE SURFACE....................................................................................................................... 37
2.6 CENTAUR ....................................................................................................... 38
2.6.1 DEFINING THE GRID IN SETUPGRID ..................................................................................... 38
3.6.2 SPLITTED PANELS MESHING ................................................................................................. 39
3.6.3 INLET/OUTLET SURFACES CLUSTERING............................................................................. 41
3.6.4 GLOBAL PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................... 41

3
 CHAPTER 3………………...……………………...…………………………………….39

CFD CALCULATION........................................................................................... 44

3.1 COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD)................................................ 44

3.2 INVESTIGATION OBJECT.............................................................................. 44
3.3 CENTAUR VALIDATION ................................................................................. 45
3.4 STATOR AEROFOIL MODIFICATIONS.......................................................... 45
3.4.1 ORIGINAL AEROFOIL............................................................................................................... 46
3.4.2 PARTIAL REAR LOADED AEROFOIL ...................................................................................... 46
3.4.3 REAR LOADED AEROFOIL ...................................................................................................... 47
3.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 48
3.6 ROTOR AEROFOIL INVESTIGATION ............................................................ 49
3.7 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………...…………………………..51
TABLE OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….52
NOMENCLATURE………………………………………………………………………...…..85

4
RINGRAZIAMENTI
Vorrei ringraziare il Dott. Volker Guemmer il quale mi ha dato la possibilità di scrivere la mia
tesi di laurea specialistica presso la Rolls-Royce Deutschland. Sono grato a lui per la pazienza
e per indicazioni che mi ha dato.

Nel periodio trascorso all’interno del dipartimento “ Compressor and Fan Aerodynamics” ho
conosciuto persone gentilissime. Devo ringraziare il mio amico Domenico Berterame per
avermi aiutato.

Voglio esprimere la mia sincera gratitudine al Prof. Vinicio Magi, ordinario presso
l’ Università degli Studi della Basilicata per la fiducia riposta in me. Nel corso dei miei studi
universitari mi è stato possibile imparare molto da lui ed apprezzare il suo “humour”.

Il mio migliore amico Davide Lapenna ha contribuito a questo mio traguardo.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to thank Dr. Volker Guemmer who gave me the opportunity to write my master
thesis in Rolls-Royce Deutschland. I am grateful for his patience and guidance.

During the time I have spent in Compressor and Fan Aerodynamics department I met very
kind people. Gratitude is due my friend Domenico Berterame for his help.

I express my right and dutiful thanks to Prof. Vinicio Magi , Full Professor at University of
Basilicata, for the confidence he placed in me. During my studies at university I had the
possibility to learn so much from him and to appreciate his sense of humour.

My best friend Davide Lapenna contributed to make me what I am today.

5
INTRODUZIONE

Il presente lavoro è stato sviluppato durante I mesi trascorsi in Rolls-Royce

Deutschland. La compagnia ospitante è leader nel mondo per la progettazione e
produzione di motori per applicazioni stazionarie navali ed aeronautiche; opera in
quattro mercati globali: civile, aerospaziale, difesa aerospaziale, navale ed energetico.
Rolls-Royce Deutschland è consociata con Rolls-Royce plc che produce motori per
aerei con laboratori a Dahlewitz nelle vicinanze di Berlino ed a Oberusel vicino Frankfurt
am Main.
Attualmente la maggior parte dei motori per aereo adopera compressori assiali che
hanno il grande vantaggio di elaborare un’ elevata portata. Questo tipo di
turbomacchina dispone di più stadi dal momento che l’incremento di pressione fornito
da ciascuno di essi è assai ridotto. Uno stadio è composto da una palettatura rotorica
seguita da una statorica in grado di impartire forza e momento al flusso.
Nella progettazione dei compressori assiali la tendenza è quella di ridurre sia le pale
che il numero di stadi. Una conseguenza di ciò è l’incremento del carico della singola
pala che diviene sempre più piccola con una riduzione dello sviluppo radiale in favore di
un accresciuto sviluppo assiale. Tali aspetti impongono una maggiore attenzione ai
fenomeni 3D ed agli effetti del flusso secondario.
Per poter affrontare tale problema esistono tecniche di progettazione convenzionali per
l’intera macchina e tecnologie innovative che permettono di ottenere un miglioramento
delle prestazioni.
Il presente lavoro di ricerca tenta di effettuare un’ indagine preliminare riguardo ad una
di queste soluzioni innovative. Lo scopo è quello di evitare il distacco dello strato limite
nel caso di profili fortemente caricati, energizzando il flusso sulla superficie per mezzo
di un getto ad alta velocità. Esso è realizzato non per via attiva, prelevando una
porzione di flusso dall’ intradosso ed accelerandolo in un condotto convergente
realizzato nello spessore della pala.
Dal momento che la procedura convenzionale di progettazione dei profili palari,
sviluppata in Rolls-Royce, non era idonea per lo studio della geometria appena
descritta, metà del tempo trascorso in azienda è stato impiegato per lo sviluppo e la
validazione di una nuova procedura che alla fine ha dimostrato di fornire risultati
realistici.
Si è effettuata, infine, una serie di calcoli CFD i cui risultati mostrano che la tecnologia,
oggetto dello studio, ha effetti positivi: nel caso della palettatura statorica si è riusciti a
mantenere inalterata l’efficienza a fronte di una riduzione del 35% del numero di pale.
Nello studio effettuato sul rotore si sono ottenuti importanti miglioramenti in termini di
riduzione del vortice in punta della pala.
Tale tecnologia, evidentemente promettente, prima dell’impiego effettivo, necessita di
ulteriori studi. Si è giunti ad una buona conoscenza dei fenomeni fisici che hanno luogo
e sono stati posti importanti cardini nelle regole di progettazione.
Il presente elaborato è diviso in tre capitoli:

• capitolo 1: breve spiegazione dei concetti base e nozioni relative all’interazione

tra il flusso ed i componenti della macchina con descrizione dei parametri
solitamente utilizzati in questo ambito;

6
• capitolo 2: si affronta la questione riguardante il metodo con descrizione della
procedura sviluppata nel corso dei mesi trascorsi in Rolls-Royce e di quella
convenzionale adoperata;

• capitolo 3: selezione delle configurazioni oggetto di indagine maggiormente

degne di nota e conclusioni.

7
INTRODUCTION

The present work has been developed during an internship at Rolls-Royce Deutschland.
The host company is a world-leading provider of power systems and services for use on
land, at sea and in the air, operates in four global markets: civil aerospace, defence
aerospace, marine and energy. Rolls-Royce Deutschland is a subsidiary of aircraft
engine maker Rolls-Royce plc with facilities at Dahlewitz outside Berlin and at Oberursel
near Frankfurt am Main.
Nowadays the most aircrafts engine utilizes axial flow compressors having the big
advantage of the high flow rate per unit area. This kind of turbo-machine is a multi-stage
unit as the amount of pressure increase by each stage is small. A stage consists of a
row of rotating blades followed by a row of stator vanes able to impart force and
moment to the flow.
The latest trend in axial compressors design has been going towards a reduction of
both the number of stages and blades. A consequence of this is an increase of the
loading of each aerofoil, which now looks smaller and smaller, with a reduction of the
span wise dimension towards a higher axial development, and this imposes greater
attention to the 3D phenomena and to the secondary flow effects.
To handle these issues, there are conventional design techniques for the whole
machine, but also new technologies that allow subsequently improving the performance.
The present research work tries indeed to have a preliminary investigation about one of
these innovative solutions. The idea is to avoid the boundary layer detachment in highly
loaded aerofoil, energizing the surface flow by a high velocity jet, which is created in a
passive way, taking a portion of the air from the pressure side of the blade and
accelerating it in a convergent duct through the blade thickness.
Since the conventional Rolls-Royce aero-design process is not containing proper
capabilities for such an investigation, almost half of the internship timescale has been
spent for developing and validating a new procedure, which in the end has been proved
to deliver reliable results.
Afterward a CFD campaign has been carried out and the outcome of this analysis
shows that the considered technology could be quite beneficial: in the case of stators it
was possible to keep the efficiency level unless a blade number decrease by 35% and
also for rotors interesting improvements were achieved in terms of tip vortex reduction.
Obviously further studies are needed before a concrete use of this kind of devices, but
so far the idea itself seems to be promising, some knowledge about the physical
phenomena has been achieved and important milestones about the design rules have
been fixed.
The present work is divided in three chapters:

• Chapter 1: short explanation of basic concepts and notions inherent the

interaction between the flow and the machine components and description of
parameters usually utilized in this sector;

• Chapter 2: method issues and description of both the conventional Rolls-Royce

design process and the new procedure;

8
• Chapter 3: results about a selection of the investigated cases and conclusions.

9
CHAPTER 1

1.1 THE AXIAL COMPRESSOR

Axial compressors are rotating, aerofoil based compressors in which the working fluid
principally flows parallel to the axis of rotation. They are usually employed in aeronautic
engines, since for aircraft propulsion the high flow rate per unit area of the axial is a big
advantage.
Each stage of this kind of turbo-machines is composed by a row of rotating blades
followed by a row of stator vanes able to impart force and moment to the flow and
generate an increase of pressure, which is normally quite small. As a consequence of
this, axial compressors are generally multi-stage units to achieve the design pressure
ratios, but this means many problems in matching the stages in order to assure that the
outlet flow from one stage is acceptable to the next.
For an axial machine whenever the inlet and outlet radii are equal, it is quite common to
overlay the inlet and outlet triangles (Fig.1.a). In this way, the distance separating the
two peaks gives a measure of the work done by the rotor. In general the axial velocity is
not equal upstream and downstream of the blades, but simple analyses of performance
are made so much easier if the velocity is constant. Furthermore it is generally true that
the variation in the axial velocity about a mean is kept small for good aerodynamic
reasons for most blade rows in a compressor.
Considering a cross-section through a rather unusual but general mixed-flow blade row
(Fig.1.b), the flow enters at radius r1 with tangential (or whirl) velocity Vθ1 and leaves at
r2 with tangential velocity Vθ2. The moment of momentum about the compressor axis of
fluid entering is r1Vθ1 per unit mass and r2Vθ2 leaving. The torque required to produce
this change for a flow rate m [kg/s] is:

T = m(r2Vϑ 2 − r1Vϑ1 ) ;

the work input per unit mass flow is:

W = ω (r2Vϑ 2 − r1Vϑ1 ) .

This, or its derivatives below, is known as the Euler equation for turbo-machinery.
Sometimes it is written in terms of the local blade speed:

W = U 2Vϑ 2 − U 1Vϑ1 ;

And for the special case of axial machines where the flow enters and leaves at the
same radius:

W = U (Vϑ 2 − Vϑ1 ) = UΔVϑ .

10
In special cases, for example when there is casing treatment to delay the stall, there
may be large effective stresses at the walls and an expression such as the equation
above may give a misleading estimate for the blade work.
In an axial compressor it is often possible to consider flows in rotor passages by merely
adopting a moving frame of reference.
The objective of a compressor is usually to raise the static pressure and this means that
there must be a rise in static enthalpy.
if U1=U2, as it might in an axial machine, then it follows that:

h2 − h1 =
2
(
1 2
W1 − W22 ; )
as is usual for any stationary passage or diffuse. The corresponding expression for the
static pressure rise only valid for loss-free incompressible flow is:

p 2 − p1 =
1
2
(
ρ W12 − W22 . )
If there are losses in incompressible flow the static pressure rise can be written as:

p 2 − p1 =
1
2
(
ρ W12 − W22 − Δploss . )
for compressible flow more care is necessary and it is convenient to begin with the
thermodynamic relation:

dp
dh = + Tds ;
ρ

so that on integrating:

2 dp 2
h 2 − h1 = ∫1 ρ
+ ∫
1
Tds .

The losses for adiabatic flow are contained in the entropy rise.
The process can be shown graphically; fig.1.c is for an axial blade row in which (h0)rel is
constant. With no losses the compression is isentropic and the outlet static pressure is
p2s; with losses the static pressure at outlet will be lower at p2. The losses, by which is
meant the rise in entropy, are produced by processes associated with flow, mainly
shear work (sometimes called viscous dissipation) and mixing of the flow.
In the case U2>U1 some of the static enthalpy and pressure rise comes only from the
( )
term U 22 − U 12 / 2 and since this is unconnected with the flow process it does not have
loss-making processes associated with it and gives rise to no losses and no entropy
increase. The losses tend to increase as the amount of deceleration of the relative flow
is increased and also in proportion to the cube of the relative velocity; in other words the

11
 ( )
loss may be expected to be related fairly directly to W22 − W12 / 2 and not to the overall
change in static enthalpy h2-h1. The significance of this is that is that part of enthalpy
( )
rise attributable to the change in blade speed, U 22 − U 12 / 2 , is essentially loss free.
Furthermore this can be increased without aerodynamic limit, unlike the enthalpy rise
produced by decelerating the relative flow where excessive reductions in velocity lead to
flow separation. It is these two factors which have favoured the use of radial
compressors: if most of the static enthalpy rise is attributable to the change in blade
speed between inlet and outlet the expected pressure rise will be obtained and the
efficiency will be reasonably high even if the aerodynamic behaviour is poor with large
regions of separated flow. In fact the principal limit on the maximum pressure rise from
radial compressors is the strength of the material from which the impeller is made.
On axial machines radius changes may have important effects as well. For a typical
axial compressor stage the static enthalpy Δh might be approximately 0.4U2, where U is
the local blade speed. Suppose that between inlet and outlet to the rotor the distance of
the streamline from the compressor axis increases by 10%. Than it follows that the
( )
quantity U 22 − U 12 / 2 increases by about 10% of U12 too. In other words a small change
in radius can produce “free” changes in static enthalpy of the same order of magnitude
as those produced by the deflection and deceleration of the flow in the blades.
The changes are free because they are without losses and do not contribute to the
tendency of the boundary layer fluid to separate. This often has led to a pronounced
effect at the hub of axial compressors.

1.2 BLADE TO BLADE FLOW

The blade-to-blade surface description of the blades of an axial compressor is a familiar
and seemingly natural way to describe the flow. Fig.1.d shows the geometry and
defines the appropriate notation. The chord line is a straight line through the LE and the
TE of the blade, while the camber line is curved and runs down the middle of the profile.
The camber line and chord line meet at LE and TE. For a rotor blade the angle and
magnitude of flow velocities relative to the blades would be denoted by β and W
respectively but here we can use α and V for both. The blade-to-blade surface suggests
modelling as linear (or two dimensional) cascade and this has been widely adopted both
experimentally and theoretically. The decision to describe the flow in this way is only a
model and is approximate, since the real flow is three-dimensional and the neglect of
three-dimensionality may have serious consequences. There is a fundamental
difference between a cascade flow and the blade-to-blade flow in a compressor. In the
cascade the outlet flow direction and the static pressure rise are determined by the
cascade geometry and by the inlet flow, principally the inlet flow direction. For the blade-
to-blade surface at a particular spanwise position the local blade shape does not fix the
outlet direction or pressure rise; these are determined by the whole blade and not just
by the spanwise section being considered.
To some extent the performance is also determined by the adjacent blade rows. The art
of design is therefore to select blade shape compatible with the flow produced by the
blade section surrounding it. The real use of two-dimensional information such as that
12
derived from cascade tests is to provide the information on what turning, static pressure
rise and stagnation pressure loss are realistic design inputs and what blade shapes are
needed to achieve these.

1.2.1 NON CONSTANT RADIUS BLADE TO BLADE SURFACES

For complicated geometries, like the front stages of multistage axial compressors,
where the hub radius changes rapidly in the axial direction, it is usual to take blade-to-
blade surface to be a surface of revolution which projects as a straight line in the
meridional plane (i.e. the r-x plane) meeting the mean streamlines at the LE and TE.
Suppose that at the LE of a blade the mean streamline in the meridional plane is
inclined at an angle φ1 to the axial direction, with the LE of the blade sloping back in this
plane at an angle γ1 to the radial direction. Further suppose that LE has an inclination
(or lean) ε1 to the radial direction in the r-θ plane. Then denoting the blade inlet angle on
the stream surface by (χ1)s and the blade inlet angle on a cylindrical surface by (χ1)c, the
two can be related geometrically:

cos (γ 1 + φ1 )
tan (χ 1 )s = tan (χ 1 )c − sin φ1 tan ε 1
cos γ 1

Clearly an exactly equivalent expression can be created for the trailing edge or for flow
angles. This expression is solely a geometric relation and gives no consideration to the
fluid mechanism.

1.2.2 GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS

In the blade-to-blade surface the following may be considered the geometric variables
for aerofoils specified with profile families:

• stagger ξ
• solidity σ
• camber angle θ
• camber line shape (usually a circular arc)
• thickness-chord ratio t/c
• thickness-distribution

The succinctness of the term solidity, more common in American usage, makes it
preferable to the equivalent pitch-chord ratio, s/c=σ -1.
The most important variables are the first two, followed by the camber angle. The last
three only become very important for the overall performance as the inlet Mach number
rises and the flow starts to have supersonic patches. An additional geometric variable
that is sometimes important is the surface roughness, characterized by the roughness
height ks. The LE radius may be thought of as a part of the definition of profile shape but

13
sometimes it is considered as a separate variable. It has a large effect at high Mach
numbers.
Although at the TE the direction of the blade is denoted by χ2; the flow does not leave in
this direction. The deflection ε =α1-α2 is then smaller than that which would be implied
by the blade exit angle. The loss in deflection is usually referred to as deviation that is
defined by:

δ = α2 − χ2 ;

this quantity has the advantage for correlation purposes of being fairly small. Defined
in the same way but with very different significance, is the incidence.

i = α1 − χ1 ,

being the angle between the mean flow direction into the blade and the projection of the
camber line at the LE. This is not the same as the definition of incidence used in
aeronautics, referred to here as the angle of attack A, which is the angle between the
inlet flow direction and the chord line. The chord line is inclined to the axial direction by
the stagger angle ξ so it follows that:

A = α1 − ξ

If the camber angle of a blade θ is known or can be estimated and if the camber line can
be approximated by a circular arc, then it is easy to see that the incidence can be found
from i=A-θ/2.

1.2.3 AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS

The principal aerodynamic inputs may be summarized as the inlet flow direction α1, the
inlet Mach number M1, and the Reynolds number based on blade chord and inlet
velocity, ρ1V1c/μ. There is another very important aerodynamic input that is the ratio of
the axial velocity out of and into the blade Vx2/Vx1. Vx2/Vx1>1 implies that the conditions
are relieved, Vx2/Vx1<1 implies that they are worsened. For flows where density changes
are significant it is the axial velocity-density ratio,

AVDR = ρ 2V x 2 / ρ1V x1 ,

which matters. This abbreviation is used even when the density change is negligible.
Given these aerodynamic inputs or constraints it is possible to decide what is
acceptable or realistic value of outlet flow angle, α2, and the deflection, ε = α1-α2. From
this, it is possible to make decisions about solidity, stagger and camber, as well as
thickness and the distribution of thickness and camber.
The object of the blades is to produce a rise in static pressure or a deflection of the flow
and normally one effect is necessary for the other. The rise in static pressure may be
convenient non-dimensionalized by the dynamic pressure to the blade row:

14
c p = ( p2 − p1 ) / ( p01 − p1 ) ;

or, for incompressible or low Mach number flow:

⎛1 ⎞
c p = ( p 2 − p1 ) / ⎜ ρV12 ⎟ .
⎝2 ⎠

Neither the deflection nor the pressure rise coefficient is itself a sufficient description of
the blade loading: blades of high stagger can produce little deflection but large pressure
rise whereas for blades of very low stagger a high deflection can be accompanied by
almost no pressure rise.
For all blades there is a loss in stagnation pressure and it is again convenient to non-
dimensionalize the loss by the inlet dynamic pressure so that:

ω1 = ( p 01 − p 02 ) / ( p 01 − p1 ) ;

where p02 denotes the average stagnation pressure measured a short distance
downstream from the blades (usually the mass average value of p02 is used). For most
purpose the blade losses are not of first importance. What matters far more is that the
blades should produce the deflection specified so that the flow leaves the blade inclined
at the desired outlet angle α2.
The universal use of lift and drag coefficients in aeronautics led to their employment in
compressor cascades and fig.1.e shows an isolated blade row whit the axial and
tangential forces on the blade shown as X and Y respectively.
It is assumed that the fluid can be treated as incompressible and the axial velocity in
and out taken as equal. Conservation of momentum then shows that the axial force
applied by the blade to the gas is:

X = ( p 2 − p1 )s ;

and application of Bernoulli’s theorem gives:

X /s =
1
2
( )
ρ V12 − V22 − Δp0 ,

where Δp0 is the loss in stagnation pressure.

The tangential force Y can also be found from conservation of momentum as:

Y = ρVx s(V y1 − V y 2 )

Y / s = ρVx2 (tan α 1 − tan α 2 )

With constant axial velocity it makes sense to define mean direction and velocity by:

15
Vm = V x sec α m ,

1 ⎛ V y1 + V y 2 ⎞ 1
tan α m = ⎜ ⎟⎟ = (tan α 1 + tan α 2 ) .
2 ⎜⎝ V x ⎠ 2

By analogy with isolated aerofoil theory the lift force L can then be defined as the
resultant force perpendicular to the mean velocity and the drag force D as that parallel
to the mean velocity. Thus:

L = X sin α m + Y cos α m .

By the equations above and rearranging one obtains:

L = ρsVx2 secα m [tan α1 − tan α 2 ] − sΔp0 sin α m ,

and for the lift coefficient is:

Δp0 sin α m
CL =
L
=
2
[tan α1 − tan α 2 ]casα − ,
1
ρVm2c σ m
1
ρVm
2 σ
2 2

where σ = c/s the cascade solidity.

The drag force:

D = Y sin α m − X cos α m ,

that reduces to

D = sΔp0 cosα m .

The drag coefficient is then given by:

D Δp0 cosα m
CD = = .
1 2 1 2 σ
Vm c Vm
2 2

However it is conventional to express the loss in terms of the inlet velocity:

V1 = Vm cos α m / cosα1.

Hence:

16
 Δp0 1 cos3 α m ω cos3 α m
CD = = .
2 σ cos α1 σ α
2 2
1 cos
ρV1 1
2

The lift coefficient may be rearranged with Δp0 replaced by CD so that:

CL =
2
[tan α1 − tan α 2 ]casα − CD tan α m .
σ m

Since CL/CD is typically greater than 40, and tanαm is not very different to unity, it often
suffices to neglect the last term in the equation above. With the loss small, i.e. CD«CL,it
is also easy to show that :

CL = (2 / σ )(ψ / φ )cos α m ,

where ψ = Δh0/U2 and Φ = Vx/U are the stage loading and flow coefficients. By
considering a closed contour around a blade it is easy to see that the circulation around
an individual blade in the cascade is found to be:

Γ = ∫ V ⋅ dl = (Vy1 − Vy 2 )s = Vx (tan α1 − tan α 2 )s .

With the restriction of constant axial velocity and the neglect of the total pressure loss
term it is possible to write for the lift:

L = ρVm Γ ,

the Kutta Joukowski formula derived in isolated aerofoil theory.

The aim in the specification or design of a blade row is to achieve the turning with the
least loss and the largest tolerance to incidence changes, but there are often varying
strategies to be used. For example the flow may be turned by a cascade of aerofoils
with low camber operating at moderate positive incidence, or with aerofoils of higher
camber and zero or negative incidence. Alternatively one could use a high solidity
cascade showing small deviation or with lower solidity cascade with higher camber
blades to offset the higher deviation. In designing for the blade row is important to be in
mind that each blade section should be chosen to be compatible with the whole blade
since the actual performance is the composite of the whole.

1.2.4 BLADES AND FLOW

The blades fortunately are able to tolerate like the wings a range of inlet flow angles. In
addition a first approximation the outlet flow angle remains constant because of the
constraint of the bladed assembly. For an axial turbomachine usually there is a

17
difference between the outlet flow angle α2 and the blade outlet angle χ2 referred to as
the deviation defined by δ= α2 – χ2 (Fig.1.d).
The deviation is predominantly inviscid effects to which the boundary layer fluid makes
only a small additional contribution. Out across the passage the flow is inclined to this
direction, the sense of the inclination being that reduces the force on the blades. For
axial blades the deviation is given approximately by δ= 0.3θ√(s/c) where θ is the
camber, s is the blade pitch and c is the chord. The expression for deviation allows
some simple generalization for axial blading. The outlet flow direction is given by:

α2 = ξ– θ/2+ δ;

where ξ is the blade stagger, the inclination to the axial direction of the chord, the line
joining the LE and the TE. Introducing the estimate for the deviation for a solidity c/s ≈
1.0 gives:

α2 = ξ– θ/2+ 0.3θ;

so that:

α2 = ξ – 0.2θ.

In other words the outlet flow direction depends to only a fairly small extent on the
camber whereas it is the stagger angle ξ, which really has a big effect. At low inlet mach
numbers most axial blades area able to tolerate quite a large incidence range, so again
the camber is of secondary importance. At high inlet Mach numbers the blade
performance is strongly affected by incidence and the overriding dependence on
stagger to the relative excursion of camber is no longer so true. Stagger remains a very
important variable at high Mach numbers.
For most purposes it is possible to ignore the unsteadiness by working in a frame of
reference fixed to the component under consideration: for stator blades a coordinate
system is used which is stationary (absolute frame) and for rotor blades the frame of
reference moves at the local blade speed (relative frame).

1.2.5 FLOW COEFFICIENT

The work input to a stage depends on the flow through it and for an axial stage it is easy
to show that ψ is related to Vx/U, the ratio of axial velocity to the blade speed often
called the flow coefficient and denoted by φ. Similarly the flow coefficient determines the
incidence into the first rotor and then in turn into the blade row downstream. For a
particular stage the incidence is one of the crucial flow quantities in determining the
performance of a blade row. The flow coefficient therefore effectively determines the
performance of the stage. As φ is reduced the incidence rises, bringing changes in the
blade operation. Most axial compressors are designed to have φ in the range 0.3-0.9,
with the lower end of this range being more common.

18
1.2.6 STAGE AND BLADE LOADING
The enthalpy rise of a stage is related to the square of the rotational speed Δh/U2 where
U can either be taken at the blade tip speed or the speed at mid-radius, the latter being
quite common for axial machines. The enthalpy change can be the static or stagnation
enthalpy, depending on the context, though stagnation is more common. For
compressors in which the pressure rise is small compared to the absolute pressure,
such as low-speed machines, the density may be reasonably approximated as constant
and it is convenient to define the pressure rise coefficient:

Δp/ρU2,

with ½ sometimes put into the denominator. It is a common convention to define:

ψ=Δh/U2;

although sometimes ψ is used for Δp/ρU2, it follows that for incompressible operation:

Δp/ρU2 = ηΔh/U2,

where η is the efficiency, and both non-dimensional groups are very similar in
magnitude and often in their trends. The ratios Δh/U2 or Δp/ρU2 provide a measure of
the actual input to the potential work available, i.e. to U2. Clearly the demand on the
stage is more taxing if a large enthalpy input is required from a low blade speed
machine than a high-speed one and the magnitude of ψ gives a measure of this.

1.3 BLADE LOADING

Criteria have to be chosen for satisfactory blade loading, pressure rise at the walls and
maximum Mach number. The blade loading is now usually assessed by diffusion factor
or alternatively equivalent diffusion ratio. The first one essentially relates empirically the
peak velocity on the suction surface of the blade to the velocity at the TE, with one
component due to the one-dimensional deceleration of the flow and the second due to
the turning of the flow. The term related to the turning introduces the blade solidity. For
a simple two dimensional geometry the diffusion factor reduces to:

V2 ΔVϑ
DF = 1 − +
V1 2σV1

where V1,V2 are the average velocities into and out of a blade row in a frame of
reference fixed to the blade, ΔVθ is the change in whirl velocity in the row and s is the
solidity, equal to blade chord/blade pitch. Values of DF in excess of 0.6 are thought to
indicate blade stall and a value of 0.45 might be taken as a typical design choice. Over
the last few years attention has been focussed more on the endwall region as the limit

19
for loading and the weight given to the diffusion factor has decreased. The criterion to
be
adopted for endwalls loading or pressure rise is less clear, mainly because the fluid
mechanics is still not understood.
Methods analogous to that produced by de Haller (1953) are still current; de Haller
deduced that the velocity out of a blade should not be less than about 0.75 times the
inlet velocity in the performance is to be satisfactory. This is equivalent to requiring that
the static pressure rise at the wall should not exceed about 0.44 times the dynamic
pressure into the a blade row. The de Haller criterion has not been found to be entirely
satisfactory. A more recent method relates the pressure rise capability to the mean
height (i.e. mid-span) solidity averaged over the stage; it is based on a large number of
measurements in multistage compressors.
The most common method of assessing what is acceptable loading at the wall is
probably by reference back to previous designs by the same manufacturer, it is now
very rare for an organization to be designing an axial compressors for the first time. The
general view seems to be that a stage pressure rise not exceeding about 0.4rU2 is
reliable.
The limit on the maximum Mach number is flexible and depends to a large extent on the
balance between high efficiency and high pressure ratio per stage being sought. The
loss in the efficiency with Mach number is nowhere near as a serious as was once
thought. As the Mach number is increased the operating range reduces, i.e. the
difference between the mass flow for choke and surge is reduced. An important reason
for keeping the speeds of industrial compressors down is to maintain the widest
possible operating range.
Decisions have to be taken regarding the blade chord and the number of blades.
Increasing the chord reduces the aspect ratio (height/chord) and increases solidity
(chord/pitch) for the same annulus and number of blades. These trends are evident in
Fig. 1.f. The rise in solidity and fall in aspect ratio can both be attributed in the main to a
rise in chord length. With these trends for aspect ratio and solidity there is the striking
rise in pressure rise per stage and the increase in the overall pressure ratio possible
and utilizable for a single compressor.
It should be emphasized that the single most important decision in the design process is
the choice of a realistic stage loading. An over-ambitious choice may lead to untold
problems later with possibility of actually achieve the combination of efficiency, pressure
ratio, mass flow and range originally intended.
Back in the 1950s it was believed that the trend would be towards high aspect ratio
blades to give a short compressor, mainly, it seems, because the blade behaviour well
away from the endwalls was comparatively well understood and this was the direction of
development which consideration of the blades seems to indicate. The trend was
reversed mainly because large chord blades are more effective in the endwall regions
and it is these regions which are crucial in determining both the efficiency and the stall
point.
High aspect ratio blades were long and thin and had atrocious vibration problems.
The change towards low aspect ratios was not the result of an understanding of the
processes involved but consideration of the trends for performance of different designs.
There are several performance goals to be compared, in particular pressure rise,
efficiency and operating range (operating range might be defined as the ratio of the
difference between maximum and minimum mass flow to the design value).

20
The evidence suggests that for a good compressor near the design point the efficiency
tends to be slightly lower if the solidity is on the high side (and the aspect ratio low) but
the pressure rise and operating range are greater.
The major trend over the last 30 years has shown a rise in efficiency but a more marked
rise in overall pressure rise.
There are special problems that arise from combining stages to form multistage
compressor, usually referred to as matching. The ability to handle the matching of
compressor and the operation of several rows of variable stagger stator blades has
made possible the very large increase over the years in the pressure ratio for a single
compressor spool.
Increasing Mach number by increasing rotational speed can lead to mechanical
problems. The limiting condition for a compressor with large pressure ratio is normally
reached at the rear hub; this is largely a materials problem connected with the high
temperatures. High solidity blading exacerbates the problem because of its greater
mass of blade metal.
Increased rotational speed makes it possible to increase the flow per unit area. With the
emphasis on blade design for an axial compressor it is easily overlooked that the overall
meridional flowpath (that is the flowpath in a longitudinal cross-section showing axial
and radial components) has a crucial effect on the design and the performance of a
compressor. The aerodynamic problems are, for example, greatly relieved if the hub
radius can increase from front to back, whilst they are made worse if the annulus area is
too large towards exit.
Fundamental to all the aerodynamic design are the basic decisions of an aerodynamic
nature. At the blade mid-height (sometimes known as the pitch-line radius) a choice
must be made for the local flow coefficient Φ=Vx/U and the stage loading ψ=Δh0/U2 (or
alternatively Δp0/ρU2). Sometimes the degree of reaction R=Δhrotor/Δhstage (or the
equivalent in terms of static pressure rise) is treated as important too. Such decisions
are separate from choice of solidity, blade section etc., although solidity does have a
marked effect on the choice of loading.

21
CHAPTER 2

2.1 METHOD DEVELOPMENT

Rolls-Royce has created and validated a proper method for CFD studies on given
compressor geometries, employing the home-made tools contained in the HYDRA
package. The typical procedure features the following steps:

• Storing the geometry in a so called “Blade_Definition” file;

• Generating a structured mesh of a single blade for each compressor row by the
grid generator PADRAM;
• Defining the boundary conditions and initializing the flow field by JM52;
• Merging together all the row meshes by JM56;
• Run the computations employing the HYDRA solver;
• Post-processing the results by Jl09 and PL2d.

This approach was designed and developed for conventional compressor geometries,
therefore is not showing enough capabilities for the actual study, which intends to
investigate the effect of slots on the blade surfaces.
In order to introduce this kind of devices, create a new 3D shape of the aerofoil and grid
the resulting geometry, has been necessary to substitute the first two steps of the
previously described method by the following operations:

• Importing the information contained in the “Blade_Definition” file in a specific

home-made MATLAB code able to split the aerofoil in several segmentations,
drive the user in the slot shape design and save the created geometry in a
“knowledge fusion script” format.
• Read this new file in Uni-Graphics and generate an IGES file containing the final
3D design;
• Grid the geometry using an commercial unstructured mesh generator called
CENTAUR able to treat such a complex geometries.

Later on, after carrying out this last point, it has been possible to go back to the
traditional path staring from the third step.
The features of each program involved in both procedures will be analyzed in the details
thought the following paragraphs.
Obviously running computations based on grids obtained with different mesh
generators, jumping from a structured approach to an unstructured one, could have an
effective influence on the final results and drive to significant discrepancies. As reported
in the following chapters, sensitivity studies about this issue have been also produced
and calculations were made on the same geometry meshed by the two considered
programs. The outcome of such an investigation shown minor differences in the CFD
predictions, therefore the proposed modification to the traditional method was
considered absolutely reliable and validated.

22
2.2 PADRAM
Padram stands for “Parametric Design and Rapid Meshing”. It is able to change
parametrically the geometry and rapidly mesh it. There are two methods used to
produce suitable computational grids for the geometry that is changing during an
optimization process.
In the first one the mesh is perturbed to accommodate the new geometry whilst the
second approach relies on a completely new mesh to be generated. Although, the
former is quite popular, it is the author’s experience that producing good quality viscous
meshes in three-dimensions for large assemblies is very difficult. This is particularly true
when the geometry is changing significantly from its datum shape for example as part of
a heuristic optimization run. When generating new meshes not only the topology but
also the grid density needs to be kept as close as possible to the original geometry in
order to minimize the errors in computing the flow sensitivities. This is particularly
difficult to control when using unstructured grid generators.
Furthermore, both the aforementioned techniques require a relatively long
computational time to generate large meshes for complex three dimensional geometries
making them unsuitable for the inclusion in automatic optimization loop. Padram allows
obtaining a good quality viscous mesh by an automatic methodology. It requires few
minutes. Padram makes uses of both transfinite interpolation and elliptic grid generators
to create hybrid “C-O-H meshes” (Figure 2.cc, Figure 2.dd), which means structured O-
meshes around the blade surface and unstructured meshes in the other grid blocks. An
orthogonal body-fitted “O-mesh” (Figure 2.ee) is used to capture the viscous region of
an aerofoil whilst an “H-mesh” is used near the periodic boundaries and where
stretched cells are required for example in the wake. The mesh is independently
generated for every stream section, hence no mapping is required to transfer the
meshes radially. This ensures the good quality meshes are created at every height even
if the geometry is considerably changing from hub to tip.
The “O-mesh” is primarily used for the blade and in particular should be extended to
capture the viscous regions of the aerofoil. The “C-mesh” is used for splitter, and semi-
infinite bodies, such as the Pylon and RDF. The “H-mesh” is used in the passage to link
the “O-mesh” to the periodic boundaries and is used for the upstream and the
downstream blocks.
Padram generates a mesh on the unwrapped-plane (θ-m plane) of each stream-section
that is read in and then stack-up in the radial direction to produce the so-called “master
mesh”. The CFD mesh is then interpolated from the “master mesh” to achieve a
particular number of radial planes.

23
2.3 THE HYDRA SOLVER
Is useful give an overview of the HYDRA user suite. The main elements of this suite
are:

• JM52 for pre-processing mesh files and setting up HYDRA input files;
• JM54 for generating multi-grid levels;
• JM56 for multi-passage and multi-stage applications including casing treatment;
• JL09 for post-processing and extracting quantitative data from unstructured mesh
solutions.

There is also a Visual 3 based post-processor directly linked to HYDRA called “spy”.
JL09 is the preferred post-processor, but spy is able to access a small number of data
arrays (e.g. y+) that are not currently available within JL09.
The following sections give a brief summary of each of the main codes in the HYDRA
suite.

2.3.1 M52
JM52 is the primary preprocessing tool for the HYDRA suite. The program may be run
interactively using the “Graphical User Interface” (GUI) or in script mode, which enables
commands to be defined in a simple text file, which controls the execution of the
program written using a simple scripting command structure. The scripting option is
particularly powerful for driving the HYDRA calculations through an optimizer or a job
scheduling script.
The main function of JM52 is to translate meshes from a number of in-house and
commercial mesh formats into HYDRA format for subsequent use in JM56. The data
formats that can be read by JM52 are: SLIQ, CFDS, JH01, AU3D, SC03 (.ffm files),
CINDY, ITP g2d, DPLOT, JA63, Fluent (v5.6), HYDRA, Centaur, Plot3D, CGNS,
Triangle, UNSFLO and NEWT (.mcv files). In addition to the HYDRA grid format, mesh
data may be output in a number of alternate formats: CGNS, Plot3D, JH01 and
Fieldview Unstructured. Plot3D and JH01 files may only be created for structured grid
data.
JM52 may also be used to initialize the flow data. A number of different options are
available; a simple 1D axial profile defined by the user, a uniform flow condition defined
by the user, linear interpolation from an existing SWIPE Boundary Conditions file or by
reading an existing flow solution from one of the data formats defined above.
Flow solver control parameters such as CFL number, number of multigrid levels,
number of multigrid cycles, etc. may be defined. JM52 recognizes the multi-zone
structure used by HYDRA for multi-stage and multi-component calculations and allows
the flow to be initialized either on a zone by zone basis or for the entire mesh. The mesh
can be checked using the JM52 diagnostic checks. These diagnostics check for
negative cell volumes, cell degeneracies (i.e. cells with multiple entries of the same
node index in their connectivity table), mesh periodicity (for periodic boundary cases
only), cell connectivity (i.e. all cells are a valid part of the mesh having only one
neighbouring cell or boundary face for each individual cell face) and for point
24
redundancy. In GUI mode, a mesh viewer is available. Meshes may be rescaled in any
direction by a user defined factor and the rotation axis of the system may be changed.
HYDRA requires that axis of rotation is the x-axis and it may be necessary to change
the system axis to conform to this convention.
JM52 is used to define the boundary conditions for the solver run. This includes the
definition of the boundary surface types as inviscid or viscous walls, inflow or outflow,
periodic surfaces, etc. Boundary conditions such as fixed wall temperatures and relative
rotational speeds, inflow and outflow boundary profiles can also be defined or may be
taken from previously generated boundary condition files or directly from SWIPE
Boundary Condition data. For structured grids j-periodicity may be enforced to ensure a
perfectly periodic mesh.
Circumferential lines for radial equilibrium and/or mixing plane calculations in HYDRA
can be generated within JM52. The distinction between JM52 and JM56 is that JM52 is
primarily a single passage/component tool for setting up and initializing HYDRA using a
variety of mesh formats. At the end of JM52, a complete set of input for running the
steady HYDRA solver is generated and the user is able to launch the calculation.
JM56 is the multistage/multicomponent design system. It works entirely within the
HYDRA data structures using constituent meshes and flow files that have been pre-
processed by JM52. JM56 reads all the HYDRA input files directly and so accesses all
the HYDRA multi-grid mesh levels and flow field with a single command. At the end of
JM56, a complete set of input for running steady multi-stage calculations with mixing
planes or unsteady stage calculations with sliding planes is generated.
JM52 also provides the facility for setting up flutter, forced response and acoustic
calculations, defining wake shapes from existing profiles and mode shapes. JM52 also
sets up the input needed to run the adjoint version of HYDRA.
The meshes that are written by JM52 contain only the primitive mesh connectivity data.
The derived data, such as the edge connectivity and edge weights, are computed in
JM56. Hence, even for ingle component meshes, JM56 must be executed after JM52.
The version 6.05 for JM52 and 6.07 for JM56 must be used since the following versions
of are not able to write a proper HYDRA mesh matching PADRAM and CENTAUR
output meshes.

2.3.2 JM56
For all meshes, JM56 is employed to compute:

• Derived connectivity data, such as edge connectivity and edge weights, needed
by HYDRA.
• Sequence of coarser meshes for the multigrid solver.

JM56 is also the cornerstone of the HYDRA multistage/multi-component system.

JM56’s main functions, at present, are to build multipassage and multistage meshes for
steady mixing plane and unsteady sliding plane calculations and, to generate meshes
for treated casings. Mesh and flow solution files for single row, single passage HYDRA
computations can be imported into JM56 and joined through a simple series of steps
using the JM56 “Graphical User Interface” (GUI).

25
HYDRA mesh and flow solution files are read into JM56. The graphics window for JM56
displays the surface mesh for the grid which has been read and any other meshes
already imported into the system.
After reading the mesh the user may import it into JM56, this two step process allows
the user an opportunity to check that the mesh that has been read is the correct data,
until it is imported the mesh is not part of the multistage geometry and may be rejected.
Once meshes have been imported, the user is then able to build multistage models by
importing further meshes into JM56 and is also able to construct multipassage models.
File output is controlled by the user. The user must actively select which mesh zones
are to be written.
JM56 will strip-out a user specified number of K-planes from the original structured grid
lying between the outer casing wall and the blade tip.
The interface region between the two mesh regions is designated as a Sliding Plane
boundary condition.

2.3.3 THE JL09 UNSTRUCTURED MESH POST-PROCESSOR

JL09 is a general post-processing utility for CFD data. JL09 can read both structured
and unstructured data from a number of in-house and commercial CFD solvers: JH01,
CINDY, Fluent (v5.6), UNSFLO,UNSTREST, JA63, HYDRA, SLiQ, SC03 (.ffm files),
Centaur, AU3D, CGNS, MULTIP and Plot3D.
Mesh data may be read in without the need of a flow solution for visualization. JL09 has
two main modes of operation, graphical and script.
The graphical option is written using the Visual3 library developed by Dr R.Haimes at
MIT. Using the graphical option the CFD solution data can be interrogated using any of
a wide variety of programmed cut planes and data extraction probes, including line,
radial, point and boundary layer probes. The solution data are displayed graphically for
the user using contoured 3D and 2D data as well as simple 1D graphs. Full user control
over the visualisation is possible and the model may be viewed from any angle.
A comprehensive range of flow variables may be visualized together with grid data, flow
vectors and streamlines. JL09 has a particle tracking capability for massless and sand
(weighted) particles, enabling surface erosion to be determined.
The data extraction is controlled by the user through a simple script file in which the
user specifies, through an ordered set of simple line commands, the type and amount of
data to be extracted. The script mode allows full data extraction from both single and
multirow CFD solutions where applicable.
A user defined cut plane may be used to extract a plane of data for subsequent plotting,
the choice of cut plane is determined by the type of data (structured grids allow the
extraction of I,J and K grid plane data in addition to the X,Y,Z,R, Theta and stream
surface cut planes available for unstructured grids).
Massflow data may also be calculated.

26
2.3.4 NON-LINEAR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
There are 3 ways of specifying boundary conditions for non-linear HYDRA calculations:

1. Global values specified directly in the input.dat file.

2. Profiles specified through a separate boundary condition file.

3. Prescribed values at every boundary node using the array boundary conditions
stored on the initial solution file (this corresponds to the internal HYDRA array
qb).

Global values are used in 2D cases or for freestream boundaries where the boundary
conditions are uniform over the boundary. Profiles are the standard boundary conditions
for 3D calculations and allow the boundary conditions to vary as a function of one of the
coordinate directions. Prescribing boundary conditions at every node on one or more of
the boundaries is available through JM52 and allows conditions that are not simple 1-D
profiles (e.g. 2-D profiles) to be defined.

2.3.5 SETTING THE BOUNDARY TYPE

The generic type of each boundary group is stored on the mesh file within the array
surface groups. This array is created by JM52 based on input from the user. The array
surface group gives a sequential list of all the boundary groups from 1 to the total
number of groups; a user defined name for each group (up to 19 characters); and, a
single key character giving the group type. The list of boundary groups is repeated in
the input.dat file where the exact type of the group is defined (for example there are
several types of inflow and outflow boundary which are of the same generic type on the
mesh file but the particular condition to be used at run time is specified in input.dat) and
any boundary conditions are supplied. The boundary group types are specified via a
single integer value.
The integer data generally applies to paired boundaries such as mixing planes and
shroud leakages and identifies the group to which the current boundary is paired. The
real data is typically information such as the flow rate for fixed flow rate boundary
conditions. The approach adopted in hydra is to add a new integer type for each new
boundary condition. In general, the various inflow, outflow and freestream boundaries
are the same generic type and can be changed by hand, providing the accompanying
boundary condition files are changed to provide any new boundary information that is
needed. Boundary types that cannot be changed solely via input.dat are: inviscid walls,
viscous walls, symmetry planes, periodic boundaries, sliding planes and actuator disks.
This is because these boundaries require additional topological information that is
stored on the mesh file.
Since not all the boundary conditions above have been used for set the calculation, in
following paragraphs are described only the boundary condition usually utilized.

27
2.3.6 PROFILE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The standard 3D boundary conditions are defined as functions of one of the coordinate
directions and are specified using a separate file. The data contained on the file
depends on the type of boundary condition to be applied. However, the principle behind
the file format and the way it is handled within hydra is common.

2.3.7 SPECIFYING UNIFORM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

For 3D calculations, the syntax expected by hydra is that the boundary conditions will
be specified via file or through the array boundary conditions on the initial flow file. The
exceptions are walls and freestreams. However, to specify, say, an inlet with uniform
boundary conditions, the usual format of data file must be used. Moreover, the
boundary data must contain at least 2 profile points.

2.3.8 WALL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The type of a wall cannot be switched simply by changing the type index in input.dat.
This is because parameters such as distance to the wall (for viscous walls) and the wall
normal direction (for inviscid walls) are pre-computed in JM52 and depend on the
combination of wall types that have been selected.

2.3.8.1 INVSICID WALLS

Inviscid walls are identified by setting the group type value in input.dat to 1. Inviscid
walls do not require any boundary conditions and so they are specified by a single line
in input.dat. Inviscid walls do require the definition of the direction normal to the wall in
order to apply the flow tangency condition. The array of normal vectors is pre-computed
in JM56 and stored on the mesh file.

2.3.8.2 VISCOUS WALLS

Viscous walls are identified by setting the group type value in input.dat to 2.
When checking the values of y+ it should be remembered that this is a function of near-
wall velocity and so checking the initial y+ field is highly dependent on the initial guess
(in fact if the initial guess has zero velocity, then the initial y+ values are also zero).
However, a check of the initial y+ field can often reveal disparities in the near-wall mesh
spacing on different surfaces (e.g. blade and endwalls). A similar near-wall spacing on
all viscous surfaces leads to mesh cells at the junction of two viscous surfaces which
have an aspect ratio close to unity. Aspect ratios much bigger than unity at corners (e.g

28
blade and endwall or blade surface and blade tip) have been observed to cause
convergence problems in hydra.
Must be checked that on viscous walls the distance is zero and close to a viscous wall
the contours follow the shape of the viscous wall.

2.3.9 SUBSONIC INFLOW BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

For the standard (i.e. pressure, temperature and flow angle) inlet boundary conditions,
the group type value in input.dat should be set to 4.
For 3D calculations, the standard 1D profile of subsonic inflow conditions is specified via
an ASCII file. For turbomachinery cases, this file would, typically, be created by JM52
using data from a through-flow solution. In other cases, it may be necessary to create
this file by hand.

2.3.9.1 INFLOW TOTAL TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE

For 3D annular calculations, the inflow total temperature and pressure are specified in
the frame of reference defined by omega_bc on the input.dat file. This is relative to the
rotation of the zone to which the boundary belongs. For 2D and 3D non-annular
calculations the inflow total temperature and pressure are specified in the absolute
frame. For calculations using SI units, the total temperature must be specified in
degrees K and the total pressure in Pascal; otherwise, they are non-dimensional.

2.3.9.2 INFLOW TURBULENCE PROPERTIES

For inviscid or laminar calculations the only inflow conditions needed are total
temperature and pressure and the two flow angles. For calculations using the Spalart-
Allmaras turbulence model, the user must prescribe inflow values of the Spalart variable
at each point on the profile. The Spalart variable is the last variable on each line of
the inflow file. The value typically chosen is 0.17616E-03; this corresponds to an inflow
turbulent viscosity which is 10 times the laminar viscosity.
For calculations using the k–ε turbulence model, the user must prescribe inflow values
of k and ε at each point on the profile. k and ε then are the last variables on each line of
the inflow file.

2.3.9.3 INFLOW ANGLES

For Cartesian cases, the inflow angles are specified using the same convention as for
freestream boundaries. The annular test cases (or Cartesian cases with the inlet profile

29
specified as a function of radius) the inlet flow angle is specified in terms of a tangential
(or whirl) angle, α and a radial (or pitch) angle, β (Figure 2.ff).These angles are in the
frame rotating at -zone + -bc. The whirl angle is the angle in the x-y plane (or x-µ plane
for annular cases) between the velocity vector and the x-axis. The pitch angle is the
angle in the x-z plane (or x-r plane for annular cases) between the velocity vector and
the x-axis. Within hydra, α corresponds to the variable atinl and β corresponds to the
variable arinl. Important: the sign convention for α is opposite to the convention for θ.
This is to be consistent with the standard conventions used in the ROLLS-ROYCE
system. Hence, if qx is the axial component of velocity,

q y , qϑ = q x tan α
q z , qr = q x tan β

and the total velocity magnitude is:

(
q = q x 1 + tan 2 α + tan 2 β )

hence, the direction cosines for the inlet velocity are:

1
cx =
1 + tan α + tan 2 β
2

tan α
cϑ =
1 + tan 2 α + tan 2 β
tan α
cr =
1 + tan 2 α + tan 2 β

With some rearrangement these can be written as:

cos α cos β
cx =
cos 2 β + cos 2 α sin 2 β
sin α cos β
cϑ =
cos β + cos 2 α sin 2 β
2

cos α sin β
cr =
cos 2 β + cos 2 α sin 2 β

30
hydra solves internally using Cartesian coordinates the direction cosines in the r and µ
directions, are converted into y and z direction cosines at each boundary node, using
the following expressions:

ycr + zcϑ
cy =
r
− ycϑ + zc r
cz =
r

where y, z and r are the coordinates at each boundary node. This is simply the
expression for the transformation of velocity components, but with the sign of the µ
component reversed to match the convention for the sign of the whirl angle.

2.3.10 SUBSONIC OUTFLOW BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

For the standard (i.e. prescribed static pressure) outflow boundary conditions, the group
type value in input.dat should be set to 5.
For 3D calculations, the standard 1D profile of subsonic outflow conditions is specified
via an ASCII file. If the reverse flow total temperature is to zero, the current temperature
at the outflow is retained. For turbomachinery cases, this file would, typically, be created
by JM52 using data from a through-flow solution. In other cases, it may be necessary to
create this file by hand.

2.3.10.1 SUBSONIC OUTFLOWS WITH FIXED MASS FLOW RATES

There are four options for fixing the mass flow through either an inflow or outflow
boundary:

• Fixed mass outflow maintaining prescribed exit pressure profile

• Fixed mass outflow maintaining a radial equilibrium pressure profile

• Mass outflow as a fixed percentage of another boundary’s flow rate, maintaining

prescribed exit pressure profile

• Mass outflow as a fixed percentage of another boundary’s flow rate, maintaining

a radial equilibrium pressure profile.

31
When specifying a fixed flow rate for multistage turbomachinery calculations, the value
should correspond to the flow per passage (or the number of passages used in the
calculation if there are more than one).
Fixed mass outflow with prescribed exit pressure: in input.dat, the boundary type must
be set to 19 for boundary group(s) with fixed mass outflow and a prescribed pressure.
Fixed mass outflow with radial equilibrium pressure: In input.dat the boundary type must
be set to 22 for boundary group(s) with fixed mass outflow and a radial equilibrium
pressure profile.
Fixed mass flow guidelines: it is not well-posed to use solely fixed mass inflows and
outflows, even if the specified mass flows match exactly, in a calculation. There must be
at least one standard inflow or outflow in order to establish a pressure level in the
calculation. Specifying a fixed mass flow boundary type is best done using JM52.
However, the fixed mass flow boundaries do not require any additional topological
information and so existing inflow or outflow boundaries can be converted to fixed mass
boundaries by modifying the input.dat and boundary condition files.

2.3.11 SUBSONIC OUTFLOW WITH RADIAL EQUILIBRIUM

CONDITIONS
To use radial equilibrium to set the outflow boundary conditions, the group type value in
input.dat should be set to 15. This boundary condition is only available for 3D annular
calculations and an outflow boundary condition is required. However, this should now
contain only 1 profile point at the radius at which the pressure is known. The pressure
can be specified at any radial location that lies within the boundary group. Radial
equilibrium will be used to calculate the exit pressures at the radii above and below the
specified radius. Specifying a radius corresponding to one of the endwalls is also
acceptable.

2.3.12 MIXING PLANES

Mixing plane boundaries generally pair the outflow from one blade passage with the
inflow of the downstream passage. The pairing is usually set-up by JM56 and there is
no need for the user to explicitly set this information.

2.3.12.1 MIXING PLANE IMPLEMENTATION

The hydra formulation of the mixing plane boundary condition works in terms of primitive
variables. Circumferentially flux averaged values of density, axial velocity,

32
circumferential velocity, radial velocity and static pressure are transferred from the
inflow boundary of the mixing plane to the nodes on the outflow boundary and vice
versa. At the nodes on both boundaries the perturbations of the transferred flux
averaged primitive variables from their local values are transformed into perturbations in
the 1D characteristic variables using the following equation.

Where un and ut are the normal and tangential velocities to the boundary. On the inflow
boundary the fourth characteristic is an outgoing wave so its perturbation is set to zero
and on the outflow boundary the first three characteristics are outgoing waves so their
perturbations are set to zero. The modified perturbations in characteristic variables are
then transformed back into perturbations in primitive variables using the following
equation.

These perturbations are then added to their local values to set primitive variables at the
boundary nodes which are then used to calculate boundary fluxes.

2.3.12.2 STANDARD MIXING PLANE

As given, the mixing plane boundary types are 11 and 12 for the standard mixing plane.
The language convention used by hydra is that boundary type 11 corresponds to the
mixing plane at the inflow boundary to a blade row. Similarly, boundary type 12 is the
mixing plane at the outflow to a blade row. The boundary indices in input.dat identify the
type of a mixing plane, but do not pair the inflow and outflow planes. The pairing is
defined via the separate boundary condition files for each group.
It is, therefore, important that the pairing indices in the input.dat file are modified
accordingly. In general, it is better to let JM56 create a new set of input files than to
make all the changes manually.

33
2.4 MATLAB CODE
The Matlab code, completely programmed at Rolls-Royce Deutschland, is capable to
read in the so called “Blade_Definition” file, traditionally employed in the company’s
methods for storing the geometry information, split each section profile in a number of
arbitrary segmentations chosen by the user, drive him/her through the slots definition
and save the outcome in the ”Knowledge fusion” format.
In the following paragraphs is proposed a briefing description on how those functions
are implemented by the code.

2.4.1 BLADE DEFINITION FILE LOADING

The modification process starts by loading a Blade Definition file, then it is possible
choosing the regions in which is needed the blade to be segmented and where not.
It automatically saves progress to a file called “progress.mat” and is usually found in the
segment subfolder. Right after the file was read, the mean camber line of each section
is calculated. The plot area displays the streamline sections of the blade loaded (figure
2.a).

2.4.2 SPLIT A SECTION INTO SEGMENTS

It is possible to create several independent segmentations and working on them
separately.
The number of segments to create goes from two to nine. It is possible to specify the
range of each segment along the true chord line. It is advised to let the first segment
start at the TE position of the original aerofoil and let the last segment end at the TE
position for a steady transition from original blade to segmented blade at the leading
and trailing edges.
The result visualization is done by the 3D view on the whole blade with its segments
and by a 2D view on the modified sections or a side view of the blade.

2.4.3 MODIFYING SEGMENTS

There are 24 parameters that describe each individual segment. In order to simplify the
modification of these, they are placed into five different modification types that can be
accessed by the modification submenu.

2.4.4 INTERPOLATE SECTIONS

In order to avoid extrapolation the Matlab code is able to interpolate segmented
sections if at least the first and last section are already segmented.

34
The algorithm behind does not actually interpolate sections but in fact the segment
parameters. This is achieved by an explicitly defined polynomial for each of the 24
parameters of every segment. Depending on the number of sections utilized by the
interpolation process, the order of the polynomial is increased. If are used only the first
and last section as nodes, results in a polynomial of the first order (straight line). Using
n nodes, results in a polynomial of the order n-1.

2.4.5 DEFINE THE SEGMENTED REGIONS

Only if every section of the blade was segmented, it is possible to assign the resulting
geometry to a region of the blade in which there is a change from original blade. After
entering new segmentation limits, a side view on the blade is displayed, giving an
overview of the blade regions (figure 2.b). Selecting one of the regions by entering its
number it is possible to assign a segmentation to it. However, this configuration has no
effect on the outcome; only the segmentation limits have direct influence.

2.4.6 EXPORT THE GEOMETRY

It is possible to export the regions and segmentations to a Knowledge Fusion file. This
file is loaded into Unigraphics to create surfaces. It does not contain geometric
descriptions of the surfaces but instructions as to how Unigraphics is supposed to
generate them.
The Centaur limitations sometimes imposed to change the geometry of the
segmentation created in the Matlab code. In this case all the Matlab procedure needed
to be restarted. In this way not all the possible configurations could be investigated.

2.5 UNIGRAPHICS
Unigraphics, well known commercial CAD software, is employed in the actual method
for generating the final 3D slotted geometry to be meshed starting from the
segmentations created by the Matlab code and saved in the ‘knowledge fusion’ format.
The following paragraphs give a detailed description of the necessary operations.

2.5.1 FEATURES OPERATIONS

After importing the ‘knowledge fusion’ file, since is necessary only a certain part of the
segmentations created by the Matlab code, it is useful to cut off the unwanted regions
employing the trimming planes (figure 2.c), simple surfaces that follow the streamlines.
In order to create slots in a proper position, it is needed to use the split operation, which
unfortunately always removes the parametrization from the object it is applied to. The
outcome will be the intended surfaces and some additional planes that can be manually

35
deleted.
Sometimes the operation does not only split a surface but also deletes one of the
resulting parts. A solution to this is to use a different sequence of segments for the split
operation (figure 2.d). Another bug that occurs occasionally is the creation of a set of
surfaces instead of several single surfaces. The problem with this is the absence of the
possibility to delete single surfaces. Also the boundaries of the surrounding control
volume need to be changed.
As in every aerodynamic study, the solid we wish to create is not the blade itself but the
a volume with the blade inside as a cavity. To achieve this we need to create a hole in
the casing and/or hub surfaces (figure 2.e). Using the available surfaces for this will not
succeed (no continuous intersection). It is more practical to use splines that were
created to form the surface at the hub and casing and extrude them in radial direction
(figure 2.f).
At this point a number of additional operations can result beneficial for preparing the
geometry for the next step, the grid generation by Centaur . This software is unable to
mesh a body that contains surfaces with very high curvature and cope with surfaces
that describe a loop.
As a consequence of this, it is necessary to split in (at least) two parts the original blade
and all the segmentations. The easiest way for that is to employ a surface provided by
default which roughly follows the mean camber lines of every section (figure 2.g) and is
extended beyond the profiles in such a way to allow an intersection with the blade itself
and also an optional fillet.
The first thing that has to be checked is the existence of every surface that is needed to
perfectly describe a solid body. Large gaps or surfaces poking out are not allowed. The
unity of all surfaces has to create an absolutely watertight domain.
Sometimes is necessary increase slightly the tolerance in the sewing dialog, but this
can cause many problems in the mesh generation process. There is a global option that
might prevent solid bodies from being created. Increasing the tolerance is a quick
solution but not the best one. This step is important to avoid curves and surfaces
interfering with the mesh generation.

2.5.2 SPLITTING IMPROVEMENT

In order to generate by Centaur a mesh fairly similar to the Padram’s one and thus
reliable CFD results, it is recommended to prepare the geometry in UG splitting the
blade surface in several panels, with the aim to better control the number of cells in
critical zones. There are two possibilities for doing this:

• use four panels at LE, TE, PS, SS: in this case it is possible to split the blade by
a Unigraphics tool that allows an isoparametric trim along the splines which
defines the radial sections and obtaining a proper panel overlapping in Centaur.
The main problem of this procedure is that not all Unigraphics tools can be
utilized to modify the geometry, because many of them produce the disappearing
of some panels when the IGES file is loaded in Centaur. In theory the mesh
generator should be able to create new panels using the contour lines but usually
they create problems in the griding process. In the end this restrictions impose to

36
 create many intersections and new surfaces by extrusion useful for the trim tool
(figure 2.j, figure 2.k).
• use three panels at LE, PS, SS: this way is much easier. Using the Isoparametric
Trimming tool, the PS and SS surfaces are created by a plane generated in the
Matlab code. This plane follows the mean camber line of each radial section.
Sometimes it creates problems in the TE smoothness as a consequence of a not
proper panels overlapping. The increase in cells number of this area has been
obtained by a Centaur tool.

Depending on the segmentations geometry to be treated, which from time to time

features high curvature locally, it could be useful employ further customized
preparations for the Cad model, in order to obtain a better mesh later on. For instance it
is often necessary replacing bad quality segmentations areas with portions of surface
cut out from the original blade (figure 2.l). A whole view of the resultant geometry is able
to show how many panels are needed to obtain proper mesh by the mesh generator
(figure 2.m).

2.5.3 WAKE SURFACE

With the aim to get a proper description of the flow field in one of the most critical zones,
the blade wake, it is obviously necessary to locally increase the number of cells. The
Centaur package contains a specific feature for solving this issue, which requires the
creation of a ghost panel. After investigating possible solutions, it was chosen a plane
going from the blade TE to the outlet surface (figure 2.n) and intersecting the endwalls
too. Anyway, a Centaur restriction imposes that each line must be shared between two
panels, therefore it is necessary splitting all surfaces intersecting the wake plane. To do
this, a new plane going through all the control volume has created using several
Unigraphics tools (figure 2.o). In this case the surfaces to be split have a low curvature
and usually no problem occurs in the mesh generation.
Before defining the wake plane position, preliminary considerations on the flow field
must carried out, in order to understand how the blade wake is supposed to develop
and thus find out a proper outlet angle for the ghost panel, which has to follow the
aerodynamics phenomenon without actively influencing them. Also adjustment could be
necessary for running CFD computations in conditions far from the design operating
point.
Furthermore method issues have to be considered too, since the grid generator could
show up problems from exit angles which differ form 90°. A quick solution for that is to
generate two different planes (figure 2.p), the first of them with a rotating angle of 0° and
the second one has a rotating angle equal to the deviation.

37
2.6 CENTAUR
Why Hybrid Grids? Traditional approaches to mesh generation have been via block-
structured (usually composed of hexahedra) or unstructured (tetrahedra) techniques.
There are pros and cons to both approaches and thus the strategy chosen has been
dependent on the particular application. The Centaur grid generator combines the both
techniques via a hybrid (prismatic/hexahedral/pyramidal/tetrahedral) meshing strategy.
The prismatic and hexahedral elements are utilized in regions of high solution gradients,
and tetrahedra are utilized elsewhere with pyramids utilized in some locations to allow
for a transition between the prisms/hexahedra and the tetrahedra. The main advantages
of the hybrid system are summarized below:

• The prismatic or hexahedral layers close to wall surfaces exhibit good

orthogonality and clustering capabilities characteristic of structured mesh
generation approaches;
• The structured nature allows for the implementation of multigrid convergence
acceleration schemes, implicit methods, and also results in memory savings;
• The use of tetrahedra to fill the rest of the domain allows single-block generation
for extremely complex geometries since the tetrahedron is the simplex element in
3-D;
• The unstructured tetrahedral elements are well suited for cell adaptation, thus
allowing the resolution of active features in the domain;
• The flexibility of the hybrid mesh generation approach automates an otherwise
highly interactive procedure;
• The hybrid prismatic/hexahedral/tetrahedral strategy requires no solution
interpolation or grid interfacing techniques as in the traditional block-structured
approach.
• The prismatic and hexahedral portions of the grid reduce the memory
requirements when compared with an all tetrahedral grid of the same resolution,
and also reduces grid generation time substantially.

Centaur is an automated unstructured grid generator. It consists of several tools

responsible for different tasks. First Setupgrid is utilized to clean the IGES geometry
and define the grid we wish to have (figure 2.q). Makegrid uses the output of Setupgrid
and generates the unstructured grid based on these conditions. The grid can then be
converted into a Fluent grid so it can be utilized inside Hydra.

2.6.1 DEFINING THE GRID IN SETUPGRID

The Setupgrid component represents the first step in the mesh generation by Centaur.
Its aim is to clean up the geometry produced by Unigraphics (stored as an IGES file)
and define the user local grid parameters.
The tolerance utilized in Setupgrid is different from the default value considered by the
IGES file, because it is too low and will result in Setupgrid recognizing two lines where
there actually only is supposed to be one line. This is a serious problem since is not

38
possible to merge every pair of curves with one another.
Setting the tolerance to 1e-02 seems to be the right choice. For each case must be
defined the inlet, outlet, viscous walls, wake and periodic surfaces.
Once the output files are written coming back to Setupgrid only if errors occur or some
regions require adjustment, is the iterative process that allows of obtaining a proper
grid.
Several global parameters for the mesh are stored within the files casename.sin,
casename.pin and casename.tin. The mentioned values may change during the
refinement process. As the present ones still do not produce a reliable mesh, must be
modified to create a reasonable one.
Starting Makegrid should be possible to create the mesh an then it is possible to convert
the casename.hyb file to a Fluent case using the hybconvert tool.
To make sure that the Fluent case file is free from errors and unnecessary information,
it is possible run Fluent.

2.6.2 SPLITTED PANELS MESHING

The default mesh global and local parameters have to be modified in order to obtain a
proper grid quality and the requirements depend on how panels are overlapping each
other. As previously mentioned, two different strategies have been considered for the
geometry splitting featuring four or three panel. Different tools of the mesh generator
can be used depending on each case and a briefing description of the procedures is
now proposed.

• Four panels splitting: in this case to obtain a satisfactory smoothness of TE and

LE comparable with the one given by Padram, the best way seems to fix an
absolute value for the size of triangle utilized to overlap TE and LE surfaces. In
most of cases this value is 0.05 mm. Padram utilizes rectangular elements to
overlap these surfaces and the longer side goes along the span (figure 2.r).
Usually this side is as long as the distance between two radial sections and it
seems to be the main reason of the lower number of cells in the structured mesh;
only near to hub and tip the number of cells in the span is increased to
investigate the boundary layer. The attempt to do something similar in the
unstructured mesh by using an unisotropic mesh failed because of the incapacity
of the mesh generator to create the tetrahedral mesh (figure 2.s). A stretching
factor about 8 is needed to obtain a result similar to the Padram mesh but the
maximum factor equal to 3 has been utilized. Otherwise it requests some hours
to reach the 3D mesh. The number of layers necessary to investigate the
boundary layer in the Centaur mesh can be easily changed. The number of cells
and their size on PS and SS has been controlled by customized sources and
rarely changing the global parameters because these have usually a huge
influence on the total amount of cells.

• Three panels splitting: this solution has been useful when Centaur has been not
able to join properly between each other the SS, PS and TE panels because the
curvature in the connecting areas was lost. To obtain the same smoothness of

39
 the previous case, a Centaur curve source has been utilized. Not using this
option the transition from high clustering area (TE) to low clustering area (PS or
SS) results more gradual.

2.6.2.1 SPLITTING OF SEGMENTATION PANELS

Sometimes the TE or LE radius of the blade segmentations has really low values. In this
case obviously the cells size in these areas must be smaller than the other ones on the
TE and LE of the original blade. It means also that the curvature gradients are more
pronounced with a high probability of a bad quality mesh in the connecting zones of the
panels. In order to avoid this issue just one panel has been utilized to overlap e.g. SS
and TE of the segmentation one (figure 2.t).
When it is intended to open slots which cover a considerable percentage of the blade
height, it is likely to get an increase of the grid number of cells. Whether going back to
reasonable mesh dimensions is required, it is necessary to stretch in span direction the
cells inside the duct too.

2.6.2.2 WAKE SURFACE AND FITTING VOLUME

As previously mentioned one of the most sensible areas in the flow field is the blade
wake, because in this zone most of the losses and vortexes are generated, therefore a
proper description of what is happening is strictly necessary. Small changes in the grid
could drive to effective changes in CFD results. Centaur is able to generate a wake
mesh with prismatic elements grown on both sides of the wake surface allowing for the
transition from the boundary layer to the wake region to be modelled accurately. The
wake surface boundary condition is a special setting that allows for prismatic elements
to be grown from both sides of the panel. The geometry is automatically modified to be
topologically valid (each curve is attached to 2 panels, etc.) in the area of the wake
panel. This boundary condition is specified just like any other boundary condition when
the group is created.
The dip in prism thickness at the trailing edge is due to aspect ratio issues that can be
corrected: the asp section of the expert grid generator file controls automatic prismatic
pullback due to high aspect ratio (tall) prisms created during the process. By default the
prismatic generator will locally reduce prism thickness to ensure the prisms are not
overly thick. This ensures that the tetrahedra will easily generate a good quality mesh
near the outer prismatic surface.
While the default values will typically generate a good quality hybrid grid, for some
cases, it is necessary to limit the prisms to only grow to a different aspect ratio. This will
allow for an even higher quality tetrahedral grid for these cases.
In other cases, the aspect ratio constraint can cause the prisms to be overly constrained
and appear to not be thick enough to resolve the desired flow features. In this case, the
aspect ratio constraints may need to be raised to allow for taller prismatic elements on
the final prismatic layer. Care must be taken to not raise these parameters to too high a
value or the tetrahedra will have difficulty generating in that region.

40
Although for the actual grid the result has been not fully satisfying, it seems reasonable
to exclude any possibility to obtain a further enhancement. Without going in the details,
the main reason of this is a TE surface described in 2D by a circular arch. All features in
Centaur user-guide refer to a sharpened TE. Many parameters have been forced to
obtain a mesh similar to Padram O-mesh and Padram wake mesh (figure 2.u).
As a consequence of that, the grid containing the so defined wake surface has shown a
bad convergence in CFD calculations made on blade configuration with high slots: in
these cases a fitting volume for locally changing the size of tetrahedric elements at the
blade outlet has been employed (figure 2.v).
This solution is more similar to the Padram one because in the wake zone there are no
cells with a size comparable to the o-mesh cells utilized for investigating the boundary
layer. The main problem, which occurs when a fitting volume is utilized (figure 2.x), is
the low control in cells amount. Is not possible obtain a gradual cells size growth from
the middle of the wake to the transition zone (figure 2.w)

2.6.3 INLET/OUTLET SURFACES CLUSTERING

In order to properly follow the mixing plane shape it is necessary to increase the number
of cells on the inlet surface. The same operation has to be done also on the outlet
surface in order to have a gradual transition of the cell density from the wake zone. All
panels set as viscous wall have also an effect on the adjacent panels in a small area
due to the prismatic layers (figure 2.y, figure 2.z) because more nodes are locally set by
default.

2.6.4 GLOBAL PARAMETERS

The default global parameters fixed by Centaur have been modified to obtain a proper
mesh (figure 2.aa, figure 2.bb). For all the geometric parameters has been tried to use
values as similar as possible for both the cases: conventional and segmented one.
Sometimes small changes were done between them to avoid negative volumes
especially in the slot area. These parameters can be set in the four following files:

Casename.sin

1 ! Output Level(0-none, 1-normal, 2-detailed)

0 ! Desired number of surface triangles (0=off)
1.8 ! Stretching ratio (1.5-2.1)
1.0 ! Scaling parameter (0.25-4.0)

F ! Use constant spacing

1.81177 ! Initial/Constant spacing value

3.62354 ! Length Scale in absence of any features

0.07549 ! Minimum Length scale for analytic curvature clustering

T ! Activate interpanel curvature clustering

160. 8. ! Angle and factor for interpanel curvature clustering

41
4. ! Factor for analytic curvature clustering interior to panels
2. ! Factor for proximity clustering
2. ! Factor for CAD clustering

Casename.pin

1 ! Output Level (0-none, 1-normal, 2-detailed)

F ! Read in prismatic gap/cavity detection file (T/F)

0.4 ! Proportion of gaps to be filled by tets (0.2 - 0.8)
0 ! No. of passes for extending cavity area (0-4)

T ! Automatic curve pullback activation(T/F)

100. 0.7 ! Min. angle(degrees) at curve for activation; ratio

5.0 ! Ramp angle(deg)-- growth rate on final layer (5-30)

15 ! No. of prismatic layers to be generated (5-30)

0.056 ! Initial layer thickness (case dependent)
1.25 ! Stretching factor (1.1-1.5)

F ! Chop prismatic layers (T/F)

0.0024 ! Minimum layer thickness (case dependent)

Casename.tin

1 ! Output Level(0-none, 1-normal, 2-detailed)

F ! Restarting (T/F)?
2.0 ! Stretching ratio (1.5-2.1)
1.0 ! Scaling parameter (0.25-4.0)

F ! Limit maximum tetrahedral size

5.37538 ! Maximum tet. length scale (if limit is True)

0.5 ! Thickness matching ratio(0.-1.)

1.5 ! Tet./prism interface ratio(1.-3.)

5 ! Tet. Grid Quality (1-lowest -- 10-highest)

Casename.egg

adp 2
T
T
asp 3
2
2
15
smo 2
20
2

wak 1
20

42
By the first file is possible control the surface mesh generation process but usually also
surfaces sources are useful to improve the grid in critical areas. The second one
controls the prismatic mesh generation avoiding an excessive pull-back between
surfaces with angles less of 90°, but the main target is a properly grid generation in the
boundary layer as by Padram. The casename.tin file controls the tetrahedral mesh
generation. The last one is able to modify particular features of the mesh generator.

43
CHAPTER 3
CFD CALCULATION

3.1 COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD)

The physical aspects of any fluid flow are governed by three fundamental principles:
mass is conserved, Newton's second law and energy is conserved. These fundamental
principles can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations, which in their most
general form are usually partial differential equations. Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of
fluid flow whilst advancing the solution through space or time to obtain a numerical
description of the complete flow field of interest.
The governing equations for Newtonian fluid dynamics, the unsteady Navier-Stokes
equations, have been known for over a century. However, the analytical investigation of
reduced forms of these equations is still an active area of research as is the problem of
turbulent closure for the Reynolds averaged form of the equations. For non-Newtonian
fluid dynamics, chemically reacting flows and multiphase flows theoretical developments
are at a less advanced stage.
Experimental fluid dynamics has played an important role in validating and delineating
the limits of the various approximations to the governing equations. The wind tunnel, for
example, as a piece of experimental equipment, provides an effective means of
simulating real flows. Traditionally this has provided a cost effective alternative to full
scale measurement. However, in the design of equipment that depends critically on the
flow behaviour, for example the aerodynamic design of an aircraft, full scale
measurement as part of the design process is economically impractical. This situation
has led to an increasing interest in the development of a numerical wind tunnel.
The steady improvement in the speed of computers and the available memory size
since the 1950s has led to the emergence of computational fluid dynamics. This branch
of fluid dynamics complements experimental and theoretical fluid dynamics by providing
an alternative cost effective means of simulating real flows. As such it offers the means
of testing theoretical advances for conditions unavailable on an experimental basis.
The role of CFD in engineering predictions has become so strong that today it may be
viewed as a new third dimension of fluid dynamics, the other two dimensions being the
above stated classical cases of pure experiment and pure theory.
The development of more powerful computers has furthered the advances being made
in the field of computational fluid dynamics. Consequently CFD is now the preferred
means of testing alternative designs in many engineering companies before final, if any,
experimental testing takes place.

3.2 INVESTIGATION OBJECT

The numerical investigations has been run on a single stage configuration (rotor+stator)
and the considered geometry is a mid stage of a six stages compressor (Figs 3.a, 3.b).

44
In the computational domain, mixing plane, inlet and outlet surfaces have been placed
approximately at mid-distance between two consecutive blades.
As inlet conditions, radial profiles taken from the throughflow were used, while for the
outlet a radial equilibrium was fixed and calculations with different back-pressures were
run in order to get a full stage-characteristic for each different configuration.

3.3 CENTAUR VALIDATION

The aim of the first set of CFD calculations has been the validation of Centaur as mesh
generator. As mentioned, in the usual Rolls-Royce approach the tool employed for
creating the grid is Padram, which is trusted to be reliable. Based on that assumption,
the first step of the CFD campaign has been the comparison between results of
computations made on the same base geometry meshed with the two different
software. Obviously in order to carry out a fair analysis, similar grid parameters (such as
y+, cells dimension etc.) were used.
The results obtained from such a study shown a good matching between the solutions.
Of course some discrepancies are still existing, but they could be considered absolutely
acceptable, therefore centaur has been employed with a good level of confidence.
A more detailed comparison concerning sensible physical parameters is proposed in the
following table (resuming results contained in figs 3.c, 3.d, 3.e).

Rotor Inlet Rotor Exit Stator Inlet Stator Exit

Parameters ΔMIN % ΔMAX % ΔMIN % ΔMAX % ΔMIN % ΔMAX % ΔMIN % ΔMAX %
Static Pressure 0.07 0.1 0.0 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.0 0.06
Axial Velocity 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.6
ΔMIN % ΔMAX %
Efficiency 0.05 0.1
Pressure Ratio 0.4 0.5

3.4 STATOR AEROFOIL MODIFICATIONS

Designing an aerofoil which is featuring slots going from the pressure to the suction side
is a definitively hard task, since the number of geometrical parameters that could be
changed is huge. The issues are not only related to the definition of slot shape itself, but
it results absolutely necessary to have a tailored blade, which is fitting with that kind of
device.
During this study the rotor have been kept unchanged while many configurations for a
slotted stator have been tested, with the aim of getting familiar with the flow phenomena
related to such a geometry, understanding their reasons and solving the problems in
order to let the system work.
The most relevant cases investigated are reported and briefly described in the following
paragraphs.

45
3.4.1 ORIGINAL AEROFOIL
Compressor stator 5 row is featuring 114 blades. Unless the general performance could
be considered quite satisfactory, since a previous design and optimization process on it
has been already carried out, the CFD investigation shown significant losses at the
casing zone, generated by some secondary flow. Based on that it was thought to open
a slot right at the blade tip in order to clean it out the separation.

3.4.1.1 SLOT ON THE ORIGINAL AEROFOIL

As first change to the original stator, a slot was positioned at the casing zone in the front
portion of the blade (from 25% to 50% of the chord), extending from 90% to 100% of
the span (Figure 3.f), with the aim to locally reduce the loss level. As mentioned, the
purpose is to take a portion of the flow from the PS and accelerate it in a convergent
duct in order to obtain a jet energizing the low Mach number flow area on the SS.
The results related to such a geometry show a small decrease of the stage efficiency
(figure 3.g), which is also confirmed by the losses radial distribution plot (Figure 3.h).
The reasons for this bad outcome is that the slot is not properly working, since no jet at
its exit is generated, and the only effect of that device is having a thicker blade wake
due to the presence of two trailing edges in the geometry.
An explanation for this could be that in this preliminary case the slot was designed in a
wrong way, first of all because it was positioned where there was not a proper pressure
delta between the slot inlet and exit, able to generate a jet on the stator suction side
(figure 3.i). In other words it was realized that the slot position and the axial Mach
number distribution (Figure 3.f) were not fitting with each other, since not all the velocity
peak difference between the two stator surfaces were used.
Furthermore the purpose to generate a jet on the front portion of the suction side
seemed to be not suitable, since normally the detachment of the boundary layer to be
cleaned happens in the rear part of an aerofoil, close to the trailing edge.
Based on this concern, it was clear that the original aerofoil shape had to be changed,
designing a rear loaded tip section and shifting the slot towards the second half of the
blade chord.

3.4.2 PARTIAL REAR LOADED AEROFOIL

The second step of this study thus has been represented by the design of a kind of
hybrid stator (fig. 3.j), featuring a fully rear loaded tip section (fig. 3.k), an unchanged
geometry from the hub to the 75% of the span and a transition zone elsewhere with a
variable radial camber style distribution, which have been necessary for smoothly
connecting the two different parts of the stator. As mentioned the purpose of this
tailored aerofoil was to locally modify the blade loading at the casing, having the
maximum pressure difference between suction and pressure side in the rear part of the
tip section (fig. 3.l), where opening a slot able to generate a jet strong enough to
energize the boundary layer and reduce separation and losses.

46
In order to better catch this effect, it was considered to have a variable position for the
slot in span direction (fig. 3.j), since as a consequence of the variable camber style of
the transition zone of the blade, the pressure delta peak was corresponding to different
values of the chord for each radial section (fig. 3.l). Also the dimension of the slot itself
was increased and the current one goes from 75% to 100% of the span (fig. 3.j).
The overall performance of such a design are quite promising (figure 3.m), since a
minor improvement at high flows making a comparison with the original stator is
achieved. It is interesting to see the loss radial profile at blade exit (fig 3.n), which
surprisingly shows a worsening at the casing and improvements from 10% to 30% and
form 60% to 75% of the span. Analyzing the flow flied (fig. 3.o) the following reasons for
such a behavior were estimated:

• The slot is not properly generating a jet at the blade tip, where the flow field is
featuring low velocity due to viscous effects due to the endwall, which are here
prevailing;
• The presence of a double trailing edge is widening the blade wake increasing the
loss level at the tip;
• The slot is somehow decreasing the secondary flow and this allows a drop of the
losses from 60% to 75% of the span;
• As a consequence of the higher blockage at the casing the flow is pushed to go
though the lower part of the stator and this brings a decrease of the losses at the
hub.

Although this configuration achieved a general improvement of the performance, the

flow field showed that the slot was still not working in a suitable way and indeed it was
necessary to apply further changes. The main achievement concerning the
phenomenon understanding has been that slot could not be employed at its best close
to the endwalls, since the viscosity drops the flow velocity and thus represent a
prevailing obstacle for the generation of a jet on the suction side.

3.4.3 REAR LOADED AEROFOIL

At this point of the analysis, based on the previous results it has been possible to fix the
following design constrains:

• The slot has to be positioned in the rear part of the blade, where the boundary
layer detachment occurs;
• The slot has to be axially positioned where there is the maximum difference
between the pressure on suction and pressure side, in order to achieve a strong
jet at its exit;
• As a consequence of the first two points, a proper rear loaded blade has to be
designed;
• The slot loses its efficiency at the endwalls where the viscous effects are
prevailing.

47
According to these constrains, an iterative process were implemented in order to
optimize both the blade design, paying main of the attention to the camber distribution,
and the slot shape and positioning. In the meanwhile also a progressive reduction of the
number of blade was carried out, since as mentioned this represents the main target of
this approach.
The outcome of this procedure has been a stator extremely different from the starting
one and featuring the following solutions:

• Number of blades reduction by 35%, from 114 to 74. As a consequence of this

the nominal stator loading has increased and the diffusion factor has raised by
20% (fig. 3.p);
• Fully rear loaded blade style (fig. 3.q), with a new camber axial distribution kept
constant along the span. With such a design there is a high pressure difference
between SS and PS until the 60-65% of the chord and a significant drop happens
only in the latest 30% of the aerofoil (fig. 3.r);
• Higher bow applied to the blade stacking in order to download the endwalls.

Obviously this kind of stator could never be working without a proper slot, since the
separation due to the high loading and to the unconventional caber style would
generate huge losses (fig. 3.s).
Therefore a slot was positioned in the rear part of the aerofoil and opened from 5% to
95% of the span (fig 3.r). The results of such a design showed a proper working of the
slot itself, but nevertheless a decrease of the performance making a comparison with
the original compressor, since the efficiency has dropped by 0,30%. Certainly a reason
for that was the reduced number of blades, but actually the main portion of the losses
has been a consequence of the vortexes generated at the endwalls for viscous reasons.
What is happening there? The air coming out from the slot is much faster than the flow
at casing and hub, therefore curls are provoked by the viscosity drag (figure 3.t). This
unexpected behavior suggested a step back to the configuration featuring an open slot
also at the endwalls, because it was estimated that in a trade off between the two
possible solutions, the old one would have a minor impact and would have been less
painful for the efficiency.
A fully slotted stator was indeed designed (fig. 3.r), which was now featuring two
completely separated and axially overlapped segmentations. The performance of such
a stator were better than the previous one and still worst than the base case, but the
gap has been now reduced to 0,18% (fig. 3.u). Once again the reason for that is the
high losses level at the enwalls, where as expected the slot is working at its best.
Instead it looks absolutely interesting the behavior at mid-height, where the latest
version is better than the original one, unless the lower number of blade.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS
The study carried out has got as main achievement the definitions of some fundamental
milestones for the design of stators featuring slots taking a portion of the flow from the
PS and accelerating it in a convergent duct in order to obtain a jet energizing the

48
boundary layer on the SS. The most important concepts of the achieved knowledge can
be summarized as following:

• Slots must be positioned in the rear part of the aerofoil, where normally
separations occur, in order to energize the boundary layer and reduce losses.
For doing this a proper rear loaded blade has to be designed, since for
generating a suitable jet at slot exit, the maximum pressure difference between
the suction and pressure side has to be in the second half of the chord;
• Slots are properly working at mid-span and this allow a reduction of the number
of blades;
• Slots lose efficiency at the endwalls where the viscous effects are prevailing;
• In the connection zone between a slotted section and a conventional one, the
radial velocity gradients could generate vortexes.

The final design of the study could be considered definitively positive and promising,
since the performance of a conventional optimized stator were barely matched with a
blade reduction by 35%.
Obviously further studies have to be carried out, because it seems likely that further
margins for improvement are existing. Especially at the endwalls the phenomena are
not fully understood and high losses are still generated, therefore a better design has to
be found.

3.6 ROTOR AEROFOIL INVESTIGATION

A preliminary investigation concerning the possibility to have a slotted rotor has been
also carried out. This analysis focused its attention on the most sensible part of the rotor
flow field, the tip clearance. A characteristic property of rotor tip clearance flows in
turbo-machineries is the fact that these flows form a shear layer with the incoming
casing wall boundary layer that subsequently rolls up into the so–called tip clearance
vortex. These vortices exist in pumps, fans and compressors. They are in every respect
detrimental to the performance of turbo-machineries because they cause losses, block
passages and modify outlet angles. Even though there has been intense research on
the topic of tip clearance flows it has not been until the late 1990s that it was found that
the tip clearance vortex can break down, similar to the flow above delta wings, as the
compressor approaches the stall limit.
The idea has been thus to try to break down the mentioned tip vortex by opening a slot
in the front part of the blade tip, which was extending 10% in span.
Once again, as baseline geometry the fifth stage of the HPC has been considered
(Figure 3.x).
The results of the CFD computations concerning such geometry in terms of overall
performance (fig 3.y) showed a small increase of the efficiency, but minor decrease of

49
the pressure ratio characteristic and a worsening of the stall margin too. The estimated
reasons for this behavior could be resumed as following:

• The rotor casing is generating more losses (fig. 3.z) and this drops pressure
ratio and stability. Such a result is not fully understood, since the contour plots
of that area (fig. 3.aa) show a visible improvement in term of reduction of the
tip vortex;
• It is interesting to see that the stator casing is now working better and this
drives a general improvement of the stage efficiency.

3.7 CONCLUSIONS
The preliminary investigation on the slotted rotor has showed once again that using
such a device could be beneficial for the performance. Obviously further analysis,
similar to what carried out for in the case of the stator, are necessary, but the contour
plots taken at the clearance zone show a promising reduction of the tip vortex and it is
easy to estimate that an optimization process of the slot shape and position could likely
bring bigger benefits.

50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] “Compressor Aerodynamics” N.A. Cumpsty.

[2] “The jet Engine” © Rolls-Royce plc 1986 Fifth edition Reprinted 1996 with revisions.

[3] Hydra Documentation © 2008 Rolls-Royce plc.

[4] Padram Introduction and User Guide; Author: S.Shshpar (February 2004).

[5] Centaur Online User’s Manual 2008.

[6] Unigraphics NX 2.0.1 User’s Guide.

[7] “How to Split Regions of a Compressor Blade into Several Segments”,

Author: S.Lächele. (March 2008)

51
 TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. a: velocity triangles into and out of an axial rotor row ......................... 54
Figure 1. b: Idealized rotor. Flow enters at radius r1 and leaves at r2. ................ 54
Figure 1. c: enthalpy diagram for axial rotor with equal blade speed at inlet and
outlet. ............................................................................................... 54
Figure 1. d: blade-to-blade geometry and notation. ............................................ 55
Figure 1. e: momentum balance about a blade in cascade................................ 55
Figure 1. f: trend in compressor geometry (solidity and aspect ratio) and
performance (stage loading and spool pressure ratio) with time. ..... 55

Figure 2. a: streamline sections of the blade. .................................................... 56

Figure 2.b: overview of the blade regions. ......................................................... 56
Figure 2.c: trimming planes................................................................................ 57
Figure 2.d: splitting result.................................................................................... 57
Figure 2.e: surrounding control volume............................................................... 57
Figure 2.f: extruded splines................................................................................. 57
Figure 2.g: planes on the mean camber lines. ................................................... 57
Figure 2.h: 4 panels splitting. .............................................................................. 57
Figure 2.i: 3 panels splitting. .............................................................................. 58
Figure 2.j: additional surfaces created. ............................................................... 58
Figure 2.k: additional surfaces created. ............................................................. 58
Figure 2.l: portions of the original surface. ......................................................... 58
Figure 2.m: one slot rotor surfaces. .................................................................... 59
Figure 2.n: wake surfaces (red). ........................................................................ 59
Figure 2.o: splitting planes (red)......................................................................... 59
Figure 2.p: two wake surfaces. ........................................................................... 60
Figure 2.q: Centaur Setupgrid ............................................................................ 60
Figure 2.r: cells distributions in span for Structured and unstructured mesh...... 61
Figure 2.s: effect of the anisotropic mesh on the LE surface ............................. 62
Figure 2.t: example of SS and TE overlapped by one panel.............................. 62
Figure 2.u: wake mesh obtained by wake surfaces. .......................................... 63
Figure 2.v: wake mesh obtained by a fitting volume. ......................................... 63
Figure 2.w: Padram wake mesh......................................................................... 64
Figure 2.x: Centaur fitting volume. ..................................................................... 64
Figure 2.y: In-out surfaces and prismatic layers on viscous walls....................... 65
Figure 2.z: effects example of the viscous wall setting on several surfaces. ...... 65
Figure 2.aa: prismatic layers on the blade surface (X-Cut plane). ...................... 66
Figure 2.bb: prismatic layers on the blade surface (Z-Cut plane). ...................... 66
Figure 2.cc: Padram hybrid C-O-H mesh............................................................ 67
Figure 2.dd: Padram aerofoil mesh..................................................................... 67
Figure 2.ee: Padram O-mesh ............................................................................. 67
Figure 2.ff: angles used to define inlet velocity direction..................................... 68
Figure 2.gg: definition of inlet pitch angle in case of zero axial flow component. 68

Figure 3. a: stage 5, side view. .......................................................................... 69

Figure 3. b: 3D view of stage 5. .......................................................................... 69
Figure 3. c: results comparison between structured (SS) and unstructured (SU)
case ............................................................................................................. 70

52
Figure 3. d: structured-unstructured pressure radial distribution for several back
pressures. .................................................................................................... 71
Figure 3. e: structured-unstructured axial-velocity radial distribution for several
back pressures. ........................................................................................... 71
Figure 3. f: modified blade (left); Mach number vs. %axial chord (right); ............ 72
Figure 3. g: comparison of overall performance between the base case and the
modified aerofoil. ......................................................................................... 72
Figure 3. h: losses radial distribution for the base case and the modified aerofoil
at several back pressures. ........................................................................... 73
Figure 3. i: Mach number contour plots at 95% in span and at TE, at 335.000 Pa
back pressure for the original aerofoil (left) and for the modified aerofoil
(right). .......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3. j: partial rear loaded profile with slot going from 75% to 100% along the
span............................................................................................................. 74
Figure 3. k: sections 21 comparison between original aerofoil e partial rear loaded
aerofoil. ........................................................................................................ 74
Figure 3. l: Mach number vs. %axial chord at three positions along the span in the
rear loaded area. ......................................................................................... 75
Figure 3. m: comparison between aerofoils performance with and without slot. . 75
Figure 3. n: losses radial distribution for the partial rear loaded case and the
modified aerofoil at several back pressures................................................. 76
Figure 3. o: Mach contour plots at 80% (top), 90% in span and at TE for partial
rear loaded blade (left) and slotted blade (right). Back pressure of 350.000
Pa. ............................................................................................................... 77
Figure 3. p: DF/DF* (where DF* is the DF value for the original aerofoil at section
11) comparison between original stator and fully rear loaded stator........ 78
Figure 3. q: sections 21 comparison between original aerofoil and fully rear
loaded aerofoil. ............................................................................................ 78
Figure 3. r: Mach number vs. %axial chord (left), modified aerofoil by partial slot
and full slot (right). ....................................................................................... 79
Figure 3. s: Mach number contour plots for fully rear loaded blade without any
slot; .............................................................................................................. 79
Figure 3. t: Mach number contour plots for partial slot going from 5% to 95% in
span (top), and full slot. Back pressure: 335.000 Pa. Radial cuts (left) at 50%
in span. X-cuts at TE (right). ........................................................................ 80
Figure 3. u: overall performance comparison between original aerofoil case, rear
loaded aerofoil with slot from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back
pressures. .................................................................................................... 81
Figure 3. v: losses comparison at H05SE between original aerofoil case, rear
loaded aerofoil with slot from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back
pressures. .................................................................................................... 81
Figure 3. w: losses comparison at H05SE between original aerofoil, rear loaded
aerofoil with slot from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back
pressures. .................................................................................................... 82
Figure 3. x: modified aerofoil of stage 5. ............................................................. 82
Figure 3. y: overall performance comparison between base case and rotor with
slot case. ..................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3. z: losses comparison between base case and rotor with slot case...... 83
Figure 3. aa: radial cuts at 95% in span (top), at 98% (bottom). Back pressure:
340.000 Pa. ................................................................................................. 84

53
Figure 1. a: velocity triangles into and out of an axial rotor row

Figure 1. b: Idealized rotor. Flow enters at radius r1 Figure 1. c: enthalpy diagram for axial
and leaves at r2. rotor with equal blade speed at inlet and
outlet.

54
 Figure 1. e: momentum balance about a
Figure 1. d: blade-to-blade geometry and notation.
blade in cascade.

Figure 1. f: trend in compressor geometry (solidity and aspect ratio) and performance (stage
loading and spool pressure ratio) with time.

55
Figure 2. a: streamline sections of the blade.

Figure 2.b: overview of the blade regions.

56
 Figure 2.d: splitting result.
Figure 2.c: trimming planes.

Figure 2.e: surrounding control volume. Figure 2.f: extruded splines

Figure 2.g: planes on the mean camber lines. Figure 2.h: 4 panels splitting.

57
Figure 2.i: 3 panels splitting. Figure 2.j: additional surfaces created.

Figure 2.k: additional surfaces created. Figure 2.l: portions of the original surface.

58
 5:PS-TE orig.rotor

4:LE-PS segm.2

3:PS-TE segm.1 6:LE-PS segm.2

2:SS-TE segm.1
7:Duct bottom

1:LE
8:SS-TE orig.rotor

Figure 2.m: one slot rotor surfaces.

Figure 2.n: wake surfaces ( red). Figure 2.o: splitting planes (red).

59
 1 2

Figure 2.p: two wake surfaces.

Figure 2.q: Centaur Setupgrid

60
Figure 2.r: cells distributions in span for Structured and unstructured mesh.

61
Figure 2.s: effect of the anisotropic mesh on the LE surface

Figure 2.t: example of SS and TE overlapped by one panel.

62
Figure 2.u: wake mesh obtained by wake surfaces.

Figure 2.v: wake mesh obtained by a fitting volume.

63
Figure 2.w: Padram wake mesh.

Figure 2.x: Centaur fitting volume.

64
Figure 2.y: In-out surfaces and prismatic layers on viscous walls.

Figure 2.z: effects example of the viscous wall setting on several surfaces.

65
Figure 2.aa: prismatic layers on the blade surface (X-Cut plane).

Figure 2.bb: prismatic layers on the blade surface (Z-Cut plane).

66
 RHS H-mesh
Upper Periodic boundary Tip-Gap
θ Upper–H-mesh mesh

LHS H-mesh
O-mesh

Aerofoil
Lower–H-mesh
OGV Corners
r Points Lower Periodic boundary
Axial Chord
z-direction

Figure 2.cc: Padram hybrid C-O-H mesh.

Figure 2.dd: Padram aerofoil mesh. Figure 2.ee: Padram O-mesh

67
Figure 2.ff: angles used to define inlet velocity direction

Figure 2.gg: definition of inlet pitch angle in case of zero axial flow component.

68
Figure 3. a: stage 5, side view.

Figure 3. b: 3D view of stage 5.

69
 TARGET FLOW
SS
SU

Figure 3. c: results comparison between structured (SS) and unstructured (SU) case

70
 TARGET FLOW
SS
SU

Figure 3. d: structured-unstructured pressure radial distribution for several back pressures.

TARGET FLOW
SS
SU

Figure 3. e: structured-unstructured axial-velocity radial distribution for several back pressures.

71
Figure 3. f: modified blade (left); Mach number vs. %axial chord (right);

Figure 3. g: comparison of overall performance between the base case and the modified aerofoil.

72
Figure 3. h: losses radial distribution for the base case and the modified aerofoil at several back
pressures.

Figure 3. i: Mach number contour plots at 95% in span and at TE, at 335.000 Pa back pressure
for the original aerofoil (left) and for the modified aerofoil (right).

73
 Figure 3. j: partial rear loaded profile with slot going from 75% to 100% along the span.

ORIGINAL TIP SECTION

REAR LOADED TIP
SECTION

Figure 3. k: sections 21 comparison between original aerofoil e partial rear loaded aerofoil.

74
Figure 3. l: Mach number vs. %axial chord at three positions along the span in the rear loaded
area.

TARGET FLOW
NO SLOT
SLOT_75%-100%

Figure 3. m: comparison between aerofoils performance with and without slot.

75
 TARGET FLOW
NO SLOT
SLOT_75%-100%

Figure 3. n: losses radial distribution for the partial rear loaded case and the modified aerofoil at
several back pressures.

76
Figure 3. o: Mach contour plots at 80% (top), 90% in span and at TE for partial rear loaded blade (left) and
slotted blade (right). Back pressure of 350.000 Pa.

77
 DF vs. span sections

1,30

1,25

1,20

1,15
Original Newak
1,10 Rear Loaded Newak
DF/DF*

1,05

1,00

0,95

0,90

0,85

0,80
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
sections
Figure 3. p: DF/DF* (where DF* is the DF value for the original aerofoil at section 11) comparison
between original stator and fully rear loaded stator.

ORIGINAL AEROFOIL

FULLY REA LOADED

Figure 3. q: sections 21 comparison between original aerofoil and fully rear loaded aerofoil.

78
Figure 3. r: Mach number vs. %axial chord (left), modified aerofoil by partial slot and full slot (right).

Figure 3. s: Mach number contour plots for fully rear loaded blade without any slot;

79
Figure 3. t: Mach number contour plots for partial slot going from 5% to 95% in span (top), and full slot.
Back pressure: 335.000 Pa. Radial cuts (left) at 50% in span. X-cuts at TE (right).

80
 MRTP-MM{inp}[IN]

Figure 3. u: overall performance comparison between original aerofoil case, rear loaded aerofoil
with slot from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back pressures.

Figure 3. v: losses comparison at H05SE between original aerofoil case, rear loaded aerofoil with
slot from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back pressures.

81
Figure 3. w: losses comparison at H05SE between original aerofoil, rear loaded aerofoil with slot
from 5% to 95% and “full slot” case for several back pressures.

Figure 3. x: modified aerofoil of stage 5.

82
 TARGET FLOW
NO SLOT
SLOT

Figure 3. y: overall performance comparison between base case and rotor with slot case.

TARGET FLOW
NO SLOT
SLOT

Figure 3. z: losses comparison between base case and rotor with slot case.

83
Figure 3. aa: radial cuts at 95% in span (top), at 98% (bottom). Back pressure: 340.000 Pa.

84
85
NOMENCLATURE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
RR Rolls-Royce
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
PS Pressure Side
SS Suction Side
LE Leading Edge
TE Trailing Edge

VARIABLES USED

Geometric Variables
c Blade chord
d,D Diameter
g Staggered gap, pitch resolved normal to the flow direction
h Blade height
m Distance in meridional direction
r,R Distance in radial direction
s Blade pitch
s Distance along streamlines
t Blade thickness
x Distance in axial direction
y Distance in the pitchwise direction
z Distance normal to x and y
σ Solidity c/s

Angles Relating to Blading

ε angle between a blade filament and the radial direction in axial view (blade lean)
ξ stagger (angle of chord line measured from the axial direction)
θ camber
θ angle in circumferential direction
χ1 blade inlet angle (measured from the axial direction)
χ2 blade outlet angle (measured from the axial direction)

Flow Variables

Stationary frame of reference

α1 flow inlet angle (measured from the axial direction)

85
α2 flow outlet angle (measured from the axial direction)
V1 inlet flow velocity
V2 outlet flow velocity

Rotating frame of reference

β1 flow inlet angle (measured from the axial direction)

β2 flow outlet angle (measured from the axial direction)
W1 inlet flow velocity
W2 outlet flow velocity

Subscripted velocity

Vθ1 tangential component of velocity into blade row

VR1 radial component of velocity into blade row
Vx1 axial component of velocity into blade row
Vm meridional component velocity

Special angles

i incidence (angle between inlet flow direction and blade inlet direction)
A angle of attack (angle between inlet flow direction and the chord line)
δ deviation (angle between outlet flow angle and blade outlet angle)

General Variables

A streamtube cross-sectional area

a velocity of sound
a* velocity of sound at condition when flow sonic
AVDR axial velocity –density ratio
CD dissipation coefficient
cp specific heat capacity at constant pressure
cp static pressure rise coefficient
DF diffusion factor
h specific enthalpy
h0 specific stagnation enthalpy
m mass flow rate
M Mach number
p static pressure
p0 stagnation pressure
Q volume flow rate
R gas constant
R degree of reaction
s specific entrophy
86
T static temperature
T0 stagnation temperature
U blade speed
η efficiency
γ ratio of specific heat capacities
ρ density
σ slip factor
Φ flow coefficient
Ψ loading
ω loss coefficient
ω angular velocity

87