Startseite A Novel Quasi-3D Method for Cascade Flow Considering Axial Velocity Density Ratio
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

A Novel Quasi-3D Method for Cascade Flow Considering Axial Velocity Density Ratio

  • Zhiqiang Chen , Ming Zhou , Quanyong Xu EMAIL logo und Xudong Huang
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 15. Februar 2018
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

A novel quasi-3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method of mid-span flow simulation for compressor cascades is proposed. Two dimension (2D) Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) method is shown facing challenge in predicting mid-span flow with a unity Axial Velocity Density Ratio (AVDR). Three dimension (3D) RANS solution also shows distinct discrepancies if the AVDR is not predicted correctly. In this paper, 2D and 3D CFD results discrepancies are analyzed and a novel quasi-3D CFD method is proposed. The new quasi-3D model is derived by reducing 3D RANS Finite Volume Method (FVM) discretization over a one-spanwise-layer structured mesh cell. The sidewall effect is considered by two parts. The first part is explicit interface fluxes of mass, momentum and energy as well as turbulence. The second part is a cell boundary scaling factor representing sidewall boundary layer contraction. The performance of the novel quasi-3D method is validated on mid-span pressure distribution, pressure loss and shock prediction of two typical cascades. The results show good agreement with the experiment data on cascade SJ301-20 and cascade AC6-10 at all test condition. The proposed quasi-3D method shows superior accuracy over traditional 2D RANS method and 3D RANS method in performance prediction of compressor cascade.

Acknowledgements

AnPing Hou is greatly appreciated for supplying experimental instrument and permission to use cascade SJ301-20.

Nomenclature

AVDR

Axial Velocity Density Ratio

RANS

Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes

CFD

Computational Fluid Dynamics

SST

Shear Stress Transport

FVM

Finite volume method

APG

Adverse Pressure Gradient

F,G,H

Face flux vectors of finite volume method

Q

Conserved variable vector

n

Normal unity vector

ρ

Density

u,v,w

Cartesian velocities

p

Pressure

δ

Boundary layer thickness

δ

Boundary layer displacement thickness

x,y,z

Cartesian coordinates

hspan

Cascade span height

i

Incidence angle

β

Flow angle

c

Cascade chord length

t

Cascade pitch distance

m˙1

Mass-flow of airflow at inlet

m˙2

Mass-flow of airflow at outlet

P2

Static pressure at outlet plane

Pt1

Total pressure at inlet plane

Tt1

Total temperature at inlet plane

ζ

Overall total pressure loss coefficient

References

1. Denton JD. Some Limitations of Turbomachinery CFD, 2010.10.1115/GT2010-22540Suche in Google Scholar

2. Calvert WJ. Application of S1BYL2 to the AGARD WG18 compressor test cases. AGARD, CFD Techniques for Propulsion Applications, 1992.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Hoeger M, Broichhausen KD. Prediction of 2D Viscous Transonic Flow in Compressor Cascades Using a Semi-Empirical Shock/Boundary-Layer Interaction Method. International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition: ASME, 1992.10.1115/92-GT-277Suche in Google Scholar

4. Fottner L. Test Cases for Computation of Internal Flows in Aero Engine Components, Propulsion and Energetics Panel Working Group, 1990.10.1115/89-GT-46Suche in Google Scholar

5. Calvert WJ. Application of an inviscid-viscous interaction method to transonic compressor cascades, DTIC Document, 1983.Suche in Google Scholar

6. Schreiber HA, Starken H. Experimental cascade analysis of a transonic compressor rotor blade section. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1984;106(2):288–94.10.1115/83-GT-209Suche in Google Scholar

7. Song B, Ng W. Influence of axial velocity density ratio in cascade testing of supercritical compressor blades. Proceedings of 40th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2004.10.2514/6.2004-3414Suche in Google Scholar

8. Senthil Kumaran R, Kamble S, Swamy K, Nagpurwala QH, Bhat A. Effect of axial velocity density ratio on the performance of a controlled diffusion airfoil compressor cascade. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 2015;32(4):305–17.10.1515/tjj-2014-0036Suche in Google Scholar

9. Fottner L. Analytical approach for the loss and deflection behavior of cascades in transonic flow including axial mass flow variation. AGARD-AG-164, Paper I-7, 1972:119–39.Suche in Google Scholar

10. Stark U, Hoheisel H. The combined effect of axial velocity density ratio and aspect ratio on compressor cascade performance. ASME 1980 International Gas Turbine Conference and Products Show: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1980.10.1115/80-GT-138Suche in Google Scholar

11. Starke J. The effect of the axial velocity density ratio on the aerodynamic coefficients of compressor cascades. Gas Turbine Conference & Products Show, New Orleans, ASME, 1980.10.1115/80-GT-134Suche in Google Scholar

12. Song B, Ng WF. The role of AVDR in linear cascade testing. J Aerosp Power 2007;22(6):933–44.Suche in Google Scholar

13. Schmidt E. Computation of supercritical compressor and turbine cascades with a design method for transonic flows. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1980;102(1):68–74.10.1115/1.3230236Suche in Google Scholar

14. Sanger NL, Shreeve RP. Comparison of calculated and experimental cascade performance for controlled-diffusion compressor stator blading. J Turbomach 1986;108(1):42–50.10.1115/1.3262023Suche in Google Scholar

15. Weber A, Faden M, Starken E, Jawtusch V. Theoretical and experimental analysis of a compressor cascade at supercritical flow conditions. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 1990;7:69–82.10.1115/87-GT-256Suche in Google Scholar

16. Cebeci T. Analysis of turbulent flows with computer programs, 2013.10.1016/B978-0-08-098335-6.00010-0Suche in Google Scholar

17. Vatavuk P. Viscous-inviscid interaction for the solution of the flow about airfoils, 2005.Suche in Google Scholar

18. Williams BR, Lock RC. Viscous-inviscid interaction schemes for external aerodynamics, 1987.Suche in Google Scholar

19. Degrez G. Two-dimensional boundary layers, 2012.Suche in Google Scholar

20. Tulapurkara EG, Khoshnevis AB, Narasimhan JL. Wake-boundary layer interaction subject to convex and concave curvatures and adverse pressure gradient. Exp Fluids 2001;31(6):697–707.10.1007/s003480100337Suche in Google Scholar

21. Dickens M, Read A. http://uriah.dedi.melbourne.co.uk/w/index.php/AC_6-10. Application Challenge AC6-10. Last modified September 26, 2011.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;32(8):1598–605.10.2514/3.12149Suche in Google Scholar

23. Ren Y. A robust shock-capturing scheme based on rotated Riemann solvers. Comput Fluids 2003;32(10):1379–403.10.1016/S0045-7930(02)00114-7Suche in Google Scholar

24. van Leer B. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. J Comput Phys 1997;135(2):229–48.10.1006/jcph.1997.5704Suche in Google Scholar

25. Shu C, Osher S. Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes. J Comput Phys 1988;77(2):439–71.10.1007/978-3-642-60543-7_14Suche in Google Scholar

26. Chen S, Hou A, Zhou S. Frequency domain analysis of unsteady separation flow in two dimensional subsonic compressor cascade. Hangkong Dongli Xuebao/J Aerosp Power 2003;18(3):336–42.Suche in Google Scholar

27. Hou AP, Zhou S. A study on vortex shedding frequency of blade profile and cylinder in cascade tunnel. Acta Aerodyn Sin 2004;22(1):101–8.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-4-25
Accepted: 2016-5-24
Published Online: 2018-2-15
Published in Print: 2018-3-26

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 23.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/tjj-2016-0025/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen