School of Aerospace Engineering

Computational Analysis of Stall and

Separation Control in
Centrifugal Compressors
A Thesis Proposal
Presented By

Alexander Stein
School of Aerospace Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology

Supported by the U.S. Army Research Office Under the Multidisciplinary

University Research Initiative (MURI) on Intelligent Turbine Engines
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Outline of Presentation
•Research objectives and motivation
•Overview of surge phenomenon
•Introduction of numerical tools
•Viscous flow solver (GTTURBO3D)
•Eigenmode analysis code (GTSYS3D)
•Simulation results (low & high speed impeller)
•Validation at design conditions
•Surge control using air injection
•Conclusions and proposed work

2
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Motivation and Objectives

• Use CFD to explore and Lines of
Desired Extension Constant
understand compressor stall of Operating Range Efficiency

and surge

Total Pressure Rise

• Develop and test control Lines of
Constant
strategies (air-injection) for Rotational
Speed
centrifugal compressors

• Apply CFD to compare low-

speed and high-speed Flow Rate
configurations
3
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Motivation and Objectives

Compressor instabilities
can cause fatigue and
damage to entire engine

4
 School of Aerospace Engineering
What is Surge?
Mild Surge Deep Surge
Mean
Pressure Operating Point Pressure Peak
Rise Rise Performance

Limit Cycle
Oscillations

Flow Rate Flow Rate

Period of
Mild Surge Cycle Period of Deep
Flow Flow
Surge Cycle
Rate Rate

Flow
Time Reversal
Time
5
 School of Aerospace Engineering

How to Control Surge (Passive Control)

• Diffuser bleed valves
•Pinsley, Greitzer, Epstein (MIT)
•Prasad, Neumeier, Haddad (GT)
Bleed Valves

• Movable plenum wall

•Gysling, Greitzer, Epstein (MIT)
Movable
• Guide vanes Plenum Walls
•Dussourd (Ingersoll-Rand Research Inc.)

• Air-injection Guide Vanes

•Murray (CalTech)
•Fleeter, Lawless (Purdue)
•Weigl, Paduano, Bright (MIT & NASA Lewis)
Air-Injection
6
 School of Aerospace Engineering

How to Control Surge (Active Control)

Bleed Air
Controller
Unit

Pressure
Air Sensors
Injection

7
 School of Aerospace Engineering
The Present Approach

Air-injection control

GTTURBO3D GTSYS3D Experiments

Viscous flow solver Eigenmode solver Work at MIT, CalTech, NASA Lewis
- Simulate & analyse flow field - evaluate system eigenvalues - validate flow solver
- Identify separation regions - analyse system stability - correlate injection results

Understanding of stall onset Improved injection schemes

Improved blade design Develop injection criteria

The tools
The results
8
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Numerical Formulation (GTTURBO3D)

Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations in finite volume
representation:


t  ˆ ˆ ˆ

 ˆ
 ˆ ˆ 

qdV   Ei  Fj  Gk  n dS   Ri  Sj  Tk  n dS

where:
•q is the state vector
•E, F, and G are the inviscid fluxes
•R, S, and T are the viscous fluxes

The viscous fluxes are computed to second order spatial

accuracy.
9
 School of Aerospace Engineering
Numerical Formulation (GTTURBO3D)
A Four Point Stencil is used to compute the inviscid flux terms
at the cell faces according to Roe’s formulation:
Stencil for q left Stencil for q right

Left Right
Third-order
* * * * accurate in
i-1 i i+1 i+2 space

Cell face i+1/2

• Turbulence is modeled by one-equation Spalart-Allmaras model
• Code can handle multiple computational blocks and rotor/stator-
interaction
10
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Boundary Conditions (GTTURBO3D)

Periodic Boundary
at clearance gap Solid Wall Boundary
at impeller blades

Solid Wall Boundary

at compressor casing

Inflow
Boundary
Periodic
Boundary
at diffuser
Solid Wall Boundary
at compressor hub

Periodic Boundary Outflow boundary

at compressor inlet (coupling with plenum)
11
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Outflow BC (GTTURBO3D)
Plenum Chamber
•u(x,y,z) = 0
•pp(x,y,z) = const. Conservation
•isentropic
.
mt
of mass:
ap, Vp
dp p a 2p
.
mc   c m
(m  t)
dt Vp

Outflow Boundary

12
 School of Aerospace Engineering
Eigenmode Analysis (GTSYS3D)
• Calculates eigenvalues/-vectors of the compression
system matrix

• Based on small perturbation Euler model:

q = q0 + dq

• The resulting form is:

d/dt(dq) = Adq

where: - dq is the state vector of small perturbations

- A is the system matrix of size
5N1N2N3 x 5N1N2N3
13
 School of Aerospace Engineering

Compressor Configurations Studied

Centrifugal Compressor CFD Configurations

NASA Low Speed Allison 4:1 DLR 4.7:1

Centrifugal Compressor Centrifugal Compressor Centrifugal Compressor

Grid-Generation Grid-Generation Grid-Generation

(supplied by NASA Lewis) (Ellipt. Grid by Gridgen V. 10) (Ellipt. Grid by Gridgen V. 10)
385581 Grid Points 400000 Grid Points 230000 Grid Points
Single Block Three Blocks Single Block

Code Validation Code Validation Code Validation

vs. Experimental Data vs. Experimental Data vs. Experimental Data
- Design Operation - Design Operation - Design Operation
- Off-Design Operation Diffuser Geometry unknown

Control Scheme 1: Postponed Control Scheme 1:

Steady Bleed Valve Steady Air-injection
Result: Result:
Increased Surge Margin Increased Surge Margin

Control Scheme 2: Postponed Control Scheme 2:

Steady Air-injection Unsteady Air-injection
Result: To be done
Increased Surge Margin
14
 School of Aerospace Engineering

DLR High-Speed Centrifugal Compressor

•Designed and
tested by DLR
•High pressure ratio
•AGARD test case

40cm

15
 School of Aerospace Engineering

DLR High-Speed Centrifugal Compressor

•24 main blades
•30 backsweep
•CFD-grid 141 x 49 x 33
(230,000 grid-points)

Design Conditions:
•22360 RPM
•Mass flow = 4.0 kg/s
•Total pressure ratio = 4.7
•Adiab. efficiency = 83%
•Exit tip speed = 468 m/s
•Inlet Mrel = 0.92
16
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Design Conditions)
Static Pressure Along Shroud
3
Excellent
Local Static Pressure, p/pstd

2.5 Experiment
agreement
2 CFD
between CFD
and
1.5 experiment
1

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Meridional Chord, S/Smax
17
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Design Conditions)
Velocity Vectors Colored by Total Pressure

Same
momentum
deficit as in
LSCC

18
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Off-Design Conditions)
Performance Characteristic Map
5.2 Unsteady
5 fluctuations
4.8
are denoted
Total Pressure Ratio

4.6
4.4
by size of
4.2 circles
4
3.8
3.6 Experiment Fluctuations
3.4
3.2 CFD at 3.1 kg/sec
3 are 30 times
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 larger than at
Mass Flow (kg/s) 4.6 kg/sec
19
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Surge Conditions)
Mild surge
cycles
develop

Surge
amplitude
grows to 60%
of mean flow
rate

Surge frequency = 94 Hz (1/100 of blade

passing frequency)
20
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Surge Conditions)

Mild surge cycle

colored by Mrel

Flow field vectors

show two separation
zones:
• near leading edge
• in the diffuser

21
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Surge Conditions)
Stagnation pressure contours

Direction
of rotation

•Vortex shedding causes reversed flow

•Origin of separation occurs at leading edge pressure side
22
 School of Aerospace Engineering

DLRCC-Results (Eigenvalues)
System-eigenvalues at stable condition (4.6 kg/sec)
9x4x3 18x7x5
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Im

Im
0 0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6
Re Re

•Mostly acoustic modes with Re < 0 (damping, stable)

•Complex conjugate pairs are oscillatory
•Simple poles (Im = 0) near origin are unstable
23
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Eigenvalues)
System-eigenvalues during surge cycle
At beginning of After 25% of
0.08 0.08
surge cycle surge cycle
0.04 0.04 •Most acoustic
(damping)
Im

Im
0 0
-1 -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 0 -0.04 modes have
-0.04
vanished
-0.08 -0.08
Re Re
After 50% of After 75% of •Simple pole at
0.08 0.08
surge cycle surge cycle origin
0.04 0.04
destabilizes
Im

Im

0 0 system
-1 -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 0
-0.04 -0.04

-0.08 -0.08
Re Re
24
 School of Aerospace Engineering

LSCC-Results (Air-Injection)
Casing
0.04RInlet

5°
Impeller
RInlet

Rotation Axis

Injection angle,  = 5º
3 to 10% injected mass flow rate
25
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Air-Injection)
Different yaw angles, 3% injected mass flow rate
Positive
yaw angle
is measured
in positive
direction of
impeller
rotation

Yaw angle directly affects the unsteady leading edge vortex shedding
26
 School of Aerospace Engineering
Literature Survey on Air-Injection
Ref # of Yaw Injector Inject. Design Design RPM Results
blades angle type location mdot dp (improvement in
(deg) (kg/s) surge margin)
MIT+ 36 15 12 sheet 1.1 20.2 1.5 17160 5.8% inj. => 10% ext
NASA or 3-hole Chords 3.6% inj. => 4.3% ext
MIT+ 36 15 12 sheet 1.1 20.2 1.5 17160 4% inj. => 9.7% ext
NASA or 3-hole Chords
NASA N/A 20-35 N/A N/A 22.96 1.47 7550 N/A

CalTech 14 27-40 3 valves 1 tip 0.19 960 Pa 6000 5% inj. (-35 deg yaw) =>
radius 10.5% ext
5% inj. (30 deg yaw) =>
13.1% ext
Purdue 23 N/A 12 valves N/A N/A N/A 1790 0.4% inj. (unsteady) =>
6% ext
MIT 58 N/A 12 valves N/A N/A N/A 3000 8% inj. => 9% ext

27
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Air-Injection)
Velocity vectors
colored by Mrel

Leading edge
separation
suppressed due to
injection

28
 School of Aerospace Engineering

DLRCC-Results (Air-Injection)

Growth of
reversed flow
regions

29
 School of Aerospace Engineering
DLRCC-Results (Air-Injection)
Different yaw angles, 3% injected mass flow rate
-25
Reduction in Surge Amplitude

25
(in %)

50

75

100
-20 0 20 40 60
Yaw Angle (in Degrees)
30
 School of Aerospace Engineering

NASA Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor

•Designed and tested by
NASA Lewis
•Mild pressure ratio
•Ideal CFD test case

31
 School of Aerospace Engineering

NASA Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor

•20 main blades
•55 backsweep
•CFD-grid 129 x 61 x 49
(400,000 grid-points)

Design Conditions:
•1862 RPM
•Mass flow = 30 kg/s
•Total pressure ratio = 1.19
•Adiab. efficiency = 92.2%
•Tip speed = 492 m/s
•Inlet Mrel = 0.31
32
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Design Conditions)
Blade Pressure Computations vs. Measurements
5% Blade Span From Hub 49% Blade Span From Hub
1 1

0.98 0.98
p/pstd

0.96 0.96

0.94
suction side-cfd 0.94
pressure side-cfd
0.92 suction side-exp 0.92
pressure side-exp
0.9 0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Meridional Distance Meridional Distance

Good Agreement Between CFD and Experiment

33
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Design Conditions)
Blade Pressure Computations vs. Measurements
79% Blade Span From Hub 97% Blade Span From Hub
1 1

0.98 0.98

0.96 0.96
p/pstd

0.94 0.94

0.92 0.92

0.9 0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Meridional Distance Meridional Distance

Slight discrepancies between CFD and experiments near

shroud due to clearance gap flow 34
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Design Conditions)
Velocity Vectors in Meridional Planes
Clearance gap
flow produces Trailing Edge
velocity deficit

Leading Edge Same phenomenon

was observed
experimentally
Wake-like
momentum
deficit

35
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Off-Design)

% of Total Pressure
1.25 Experiment 2

Fluctuations
Stall, Unstable
B Stable Operation CFD A 1
Total Pressure Ratio

1.2
0
-25 -15 -5 5
A -1
1.15
-2
% of Mass Flow Rate Fluctuations
1.1

% of Total Pressure
Design Point
2

Fluctuations
1.05 B 1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
Mass Flow (kg/s)
-25 -15 -5 5
-1

-2
% of Mass Flow Rate Fluctuations
Stable operation near design conditions (A)
Fluctuations are 3 to 4% near onset of stall (B)
Experiments reported audible instabilities at Point B
36
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Uncontrolled)
Unstable condition
blades stall after
3 rotor revolutions

0 At

Percent Immersion
Beginning
25 After 1
Cycle
50 After 2
Cycles
After 3
75
Reversed flow regions Cycles (t*)
near LE grow spatially 100
and temporally -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Normalized Axial Velocity, Vn/Ut
37
 School of Aerospace Engineering

LSCC-Results (Uncontrolled)
Velocity vectors
at midpassage Trailing Edge
Growing
reversed flow

Unstable condition,
blades stall after
3 cycles

Leading Edge
38
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Air-Injection)
Injected Air (10%)
Controlled, stable
operation

Percent Immersion
25

50 No Injection

75 5% Injection
Injection suppresses
10% Injection
stalled reverse flow 100
regions near leading edge -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Normalized Axial Velocity, Vn/Ut
39
 School of Aerospace Engineering
LSCC-Results (Air-Injection)
1.25 Experiment
1.23 Stall, Unstable CFD
Total Pressure Ratio

1.21 10% Injection

% of Total pressure
1.19 2
5% Injection
C C

Fluctuations
1.17
1
1.15
1.13 Controlled 0
1.11 Air Injection -25 -5
1.09 -1
Design Point
1.07
-2
1.05 % of Mass Flow Rate
5 15 25 35 45 Fluctuations
Mass Flow (kg/s)

Controlled operation with 10% air injection

Fluctuations are decreased to 2~3%
Extension of useful operating range (60% below design)
40
 School of Aerospace Engineering
Conclusions
•Two numerical codes have been developed to investigate
centrifugal compressor instabilities:
•3-D viscous flow solver
•Eigenmode analysis code

•The CFD-tools have been applied to obtain a detailed

understanding of surge phenomena in centrifugal
compressors

•Air-injection has been numerically analyzed as a compressor

control scheme:
•Surge margin extension was achieved for high- and low-
speed compression systems
•The proper application of air-injection is sensitive to the
injection-parameters (e.g. yaw angle) 41
 School of Aerospace Engineering
Proposed Work
•Complete the air-injection analysis for the high-speed system
(DLRCC) for different injection rates, yaw angles, etc.

•Apply unsteady air-injection, sinussoidally varying the

injection rate using the computed mild surge frequency.

•Develop criteria for the minimum amount of injected mass

needed to avoid surge and recover from mild surge:
•use CFD simulations to test criteria
•compare findings with external injection studies

•If time permits, derive a general theory to predict the success

of injection control for a given compressor configuration
using dimensional and regressional tools.
42