0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Turbomachinery

Investigations on the Effects of Inflow Condition and Tip Clearance Size to the Performance of a Compressor Rotor

[+] Author and Article Information
Chenkai Zhang

College of Energy and Power Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Yudao Street,
Nanjing, China
e-mail: zckkite2006@126.com

Jun Hu

College of Energy and Power Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory
of Aerospace Power System,
Yudao Street,
Nanjing, China;
Co-Innovation Center for Advanced Aero-Engine,
Beijing, China

Zhiqiang Wang

College of Energy and Power Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory
of Aerospace Power System,
Yudao Street,
Nanjing, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Turbomachinery Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received May 10, 2014; final manuscript received June 12, 2014; published online July 15, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 136(12), 122608 (Jul 15, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1230; doi: 10.1115/1.4027906 History: Received May 12, 2014; Revised June 12, 2014

To clearly clarify the effects of different upstream boundary layer thickness and tip clearance size to the detailed tip flow field and flow mechanism, numerical simulations are performed on a subsonic compressor rotor, which is used for low-speed model testing of a rear stage embedded in a modern high-pressure compressor. First, available experimental data are adopted to validate the numerical method. Second, comparisons are made for tip leakage vortex (TLV) structure, the interface of leakage flow/mainflow, endwall loss, isentropic efficiency and pressure-rise among different operating conditions. Then, effects of different clearance sizes and inflow boundary layer thicknesses are investigated. Finally, the self-induced unsteadiness at one near-stall (NS) operating condition is studied for different cases. Results show that the increment of tip clearance size has a deleterious effect on rotor efficiency and pressure-rise performance over the whole operating range, while thickening the inflow boundary layer is almost the same except that its pressure-rise performance will be increased at mass flow rate larger than design operating condition. Self-induced unsteadiness occurs at NS operating conditions, and its appearance largely depends on tip clearance size, while the effect of upstream boundary layer thickness is little.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Different distributions of inlet total pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Spanwise distributions of azimuthal-averaged flow parameters (design mass flow). (a) Normalized absolute tangential velocity; (b) normalized axial velocity; (c) absolute flow angle; and (d) relative flow angle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Spanwise distributions of azimuthal-averaged flow parameters (large-mass flow). (a) Normalized absolute tangential velocity; (b) normalized axial velocity; (c) absolute flow angle; and (d) relative flow angle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Rotor performance curves. (a) Total pressure rise characteristics and (b) isentropic efficiency characteristics.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparisons of casing static pressure coefficient contour at design point. (a) BL0, (b) BL10, and (c) BL20.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparisons of normalized leakage velocity and leakage angle along chordwise direction at design point. (a) Normalized relative leakage velocity and (b) leakage angle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparisons of 3D streamlines for different upstream conditions at design point. (a) BL0, (b) BL10, and (c) BL20.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Spanwise distributions of relative total pressure loss coefficient at design point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Blade tip static pressure coefficient contour for different time steps (20%_BL, NS1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

FFT analysis results for static pressure at different locations (NS1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

rms results for static pressure at blade tip (NS1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Flow structure at t = 0/20T0 near tip region (NS1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Velocity field at t = 0/20T0 near blade tip (NS1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparisons of static pressure contour near the blade tip for different tip clearances at design point. (a) tc = 0.8 mm, (b) tc = 2 mm, and (c) tc = 3 mm.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In