Esplora E-book

Categorie

Esplora Audiolibri

Categorie

Esplora Riviste

Categorie

Esplora Documenti

Categorie

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

7 visualizzazioni89 pagine© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

7 visualizzazioni89 pagine© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 89

FACOLTÀ DI INGEGNERIA

Tesi di laurea in

INGEGNERIA MECCANICA

TURBOCOMPRESSORI CON APERTURE DI INSUFFLAGGIO

DI SUPERFICIE

INVESTIGATION OF COMPRESSOR AEROFOILS

FEATURING SURFACE BLEED PASSAGES

RELATORE: CANDIDATO:

INDICE

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

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

CAPITOLO 1 ....................................................................................................... 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

2.2 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

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

1.2 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

2.2 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

3.2 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”.

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.

5

INTRODUZIONE

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:

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;

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:

interaction between the flow and the machine components and description of

parameters usually utilized in this sector;

design process and the new procedure;

8

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

9

CHAPTER 1

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 ) ;

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ) ;

⎛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 ;

X /s =

1

2

( )

ρ V12 − V22 − Δp0 ,

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

Y = ρVx s(V y1 − V y 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 .

Δp0 sin α m

CL =

L

=

2

[tan α1 − tan α 2 ]casα − ,

1

ρVm2c σ m

1

ρVm

2 σ

2 2

The drag force:

D = Y sin α m − X cos α m ,

that reduces to

D = sΔp0 cosα m .

D Δp0 cosα m

CD = = .

1 2 1 2 σ

Vm c Vm

2 2

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

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:

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 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.

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).

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,

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.

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

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:

• 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:

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’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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

(

q = q x 1 + tan 2 α + tan 2 β )

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

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.

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.

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

boundary:

prescribed exit pressure profile

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

0 ! Desired number of surface triangles (0=off)

1.8 ! Stretching ratio (1.5-2.1)

1.0 ! Scaling parameter (0.25-4.0)

1.81177 ! Initial/Constant spacing value

0.07549 ! Minimum Length scale for analytic 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

0.4 ! Proportion of gaps to be filled by tets (0.2 - 0.8)

0 ! No. of passes for extending cavity area (0-4)

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

0.056 ! Initial layer thickness (case dependent)

1.25 ! Stretching factor (1.1-1.5)

0.0024 ! Minimum layer thickness (case dependent)

Casename.tin

F ! Restarting (T/F)?

2.0 ! Stretching ratio (1.5-2.1)

1.0 ! Scaling parameter (0.25-4.0)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.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. 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.

56

Figure 2.d: splitting result.

Figure 2.c: trimming planes.

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

2:SS-TE segm.1

7:Duct bottom

1:LE

8:SS-TE orig.rotor

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

59

1 2

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.u: wake mesh obtained by wake surfaces.

63

Figure 2.w: Padram wake mesh.

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).

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

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.

69

TARGET FLOW

SS

SU

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

70

TARGET FLOW

SS

SU

TARGET FLOW

SS

SU

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.

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%

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

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.

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

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

85

α2 flow outlet angle (measured from the axial direction)

V1 inlet flow velocity

V2 outlet flow velocity

β2 flow outlet angle (measured from the axial direction)

W1 inlet flow velocity

W2 outlet flow velocity

Subscripted velocity

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 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

- I METODI PER LA QUALITÁ IL D.O.E.I METODI PER LA QUALITÁ IL D.O.E.Giuseppe Alberti
- Guida_Appre_I_III_Abruzzo_allegata_DGRGuida_Appre_I_III_Abruzzo_allegata_DGRGennaro
- Manual e Cds WinManual e Cds WinPeppe Bencivenga
- SpalleSpallemassimiliano
- studio GTSTRUDL1studio GTSTRUDL1giging
- 91214 Faini Federico91214 Faini FedericoFederico Faini
- 1`1`Mircea Alexandru Visan
- Esapro Pid v8Esapro Pid v8alessio
- 2013_12__Capra2013_12__CapraDomenico Tatangelo
- Manuale Cablaggio Reti.pdfManuale Cablaggio Reti.pdffabius1
- Gas-Brennwertgerät_WTC-GW_80-A_und_WTC-GW_100-A_I2020-08 (3)Gas-Brennwertgerät_WTC-GW_80-A_und_WTC-GW_100-A_I2020-08 (3)Marco De Santis
- 42901775.pdf42901775.pdfHassan Halawi
- magnano_biogas_sitomagnano_biogas_sitoErnesto Salzano
- 0176-8_abstract-normale0176-8_abstract-normaleMario Rossi
- Claudia Bandini TesiClaudia Bandini TesiTOLUN VURAL
- ManualeBlumatica Pitagora.pdfManualeBlumatica Pitagora.pdfarchmaugod
- Rinforzo strutturale 2013Rinforzo strutturale 2013arancione123outlook.it
- Manuale_CORUS_MID_GUIDE_V21.pdfManuale_CORUS_MID_GUIDE_V21.pdfAlexandre Penna
- TARATURA DI BRACCI ARTICOLATI DI MISURATARATURA DI BRACCI ARTICOLATI DI MISURACDELVO1382
- Modelli Esplosion iModelli Esplosion ialessandroleonardi
- ImpalcatoImpalcatomassimiliano
- GiordanoDaniele_TesiDottoratoGiordanoDaniele_TesiDottoratotrisino
- 294E F Instruction Manual Ita Eng294E F Instruction Manual Ita EngWilly Calsina Miramira
- Manuale Disegno Assistito Al CalcolatoreManuale Disegno Assistito Al CalcolatoreAntonio Bevilacqua
- Murat UraMurat UraEleonora Rossetti
- Guida Python 3Guida Python 3Marco Tentori
- Modellazione danneggiamento da creep.pdfModellazione danneggiamento da creep.pdfgiovanni
- TesiTesinik300706
- La Tecnica Del Soil Mixing Per La Cinturazione Di Siti Contaminati-MarzanoLa Tecnica Del Soil Mixing Per La Cinturazione Di Siti Contaminati-MarzanoMarco Ciriani
- Snichelotto Giovanni 1137645Snichelotto Giovanni 1137645Jonathas Henrique
- VALUTAZIONE_SISMICA_DI_PONTI_AD_ARCO_IN_MURATURA_TRAMITE_METODO_CINEMATICO_-_Michele_BassoVALUTAZIONE_SISMICA_DI_PONTI_AD_ARCO_IN_MURATURA_TRAMITE_METODO_CINEMATICO_-_Michele_BassoMassimo Latour
- Relazione COSTRUZIONI IN ZONA SISMICARelazione COSTRUZIONI IN ZONA SISMICAanna
- 2022.10.13_03 PFTE(firmato).pdf2022.10.13_03 PFTE(firmato).pdfPaola Papalini
- 621588 FATICA621588 FATICARiccardo
- 276-6276-6Riccardo Bucciantini
- TESI_MAGISTRALE_Stefano_Ferraro.pdfTESI_MAGISTRALE_Stefano_Ferraro.pdfandrew wallen
- Analisi Strutturale Di Coperture in LegnoAnalisi Strutturale Di Coperture in LegnoDanilo Catania
- Manuale_SISMICA_compilatoreManuale_SISMICA_compilatoreFederico Piccoli
- Manuale Del DisegnatoreManuale Del Disegnatorealberto4lasagn4
- REGOLE_APPLICATIVE_DM_5_maggio_2011_25_06_2012_rev3REGOLE_APPLICATIVE_DM_5_maggio_2011_25_06_2012_rev3Spalletti NB5
- Scarica LibrettoScarica LibrettoHaznard Chavez
- tesitesiGiovanni Govdòn Bugli
- Brushless V_3.5Brushless V_3.5snow69y
- 88-277-0212-388-277-0212-3Mario Rossi
- LIBRO_CADLIBRO_CADAngelo Mascolo
- IstrOp_ANSFISA_LLGGPontiIstrOp_ANSFISA_LLGGPontiGalileo
- Impianti meccanici (appunti ufficiali Massi)Impianti meccanici (appunti ufficiali Massi)Matteo Bonetti
- REFERENCE GUIDE-ITA-M 18REFERENCE GUIDE-ITA-M 18JERRY
- IT - Teoria - Paratie Plus.pdfIT - Teoria - Paratie Plus.pdfLudovicoVico
- appunti_completi_20-21appunti_completi_20-21Giovanni
- Relazione_di_calcolo.pdfRelazione_di_calcolo.pdfAnonymous nOn32Us
- 81320561_FLYNET_EntryDiade_IT81320561_FLYNET_EntryDiade_ITAlessandro Amadio
- Esapro Iso v8Esapro Iso v8alessio
- Man Ita Mov11.6 Guida Alla Programmazione Di MoviconMan Ita Mov11.6 Guida Alla Programmazione Di MoviconMarco Zambelli
- 3-93-9Ale
- DCR 107 Allegati_220475DCR 107 Allegati_220475ciao10
- TP_05_-_discp_FpO_c.aTP_05_-_discp_FpO_c.aEva Zanette
- Le attività occasionali nelle imposte sui redditi dell’ordinamento giuridico italiano. Analisi comparata della tassazione del collezionista in Italia e all’estero.Le attività occasionali nelle imposte sui redditi dell’ordinamento giuridico italiano. Analisi comparata della tassazione del collezionista in Italia e all’estero.Davide Simioni
- Misteri D'italiaMisteri D'italiaDavide Orella
- Esercizi di ElettrotecnicaEsercizi di ElettrotecnicaMassimo Panella
- Van Vogt, Alfred E. - Crociera Nell'Infinito (Urania - ITA) F174Van Vogt, Alfred E. - Crociera Nell'Infinito (Urania - ITA) F174ultimoutente
- SONAR 8 Guida Dell'UtenteSONAR 8 Guida Dell'UtenteEdivaldo Calde
- TRIMARCHI Istituzioni Di Diritto Privato CopiaTRIMARCHI Istituzioni Di Diritto Privato CopiaLuca
- Osho Rajneesh Meditazione Passo Dopo Passo.docOsho Rajneesh Meditazione Passo Dopo Passo.docfoxpro123
- Il Gen. Della RovereIl Gen. Della RovereAndrea Matteuzzi
- La Gazzetta Dello Sport 11.08.11La Gazzetta Dello Sport 11.08.11NeXr0x
- Interrogazione n. 5-06751Interrogazione n. 5-06751ugo
- Uomini LucertolaUomini LucertolaTommaso Leso