A Three-Dimensional Shock Loss Model Applied to an Aft-Swept, Transonic Compressor Rotor

[+] Author and Article Information
S. L. Puterbaugh, W. W. Copenhaver

Wright Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45432

C. Hah

NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH 44135

A. J. Wennerstrom

Engineering Consultant, Hot Springs Village, AR 71909

J. Turbomach 119(3), 452-459 (Jul 01, 1997) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2841144 History: Received February 01, 1996; Online January 29, 2008


An analysis of the effectiveness of a three-dimensional shock loss model used in transonic compressor rotor design is presented. The model was used during the design of an aft-swept, transonic compressor rotor. The demonstrated performance of the swept rotor, in combination with numerical results, is used to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the model. The numerical results were obtained from a fully three-dimensional Navier–Stokes solver. The shock loss model was developed to account for the benefit gained with three-dimensional shock sweep. Comparisons with the experimental and numerical results demonstrated that shock loss reductions predicted by the model due to the swept shock induced by the swept leading edge of the rotor were exceeded. However, near the tip the loss model underpredicts the loss because the shock geometry assumed by the model remains swept in this region while the numerical results show a more normal shock orientation. The design methods and the demonstrated performance of the swept rotor are also presented. Comparisons are made between the design intent and measured performance parameters. The aft-swept rotor was designed using an inviscid axisymmetric streamline curvature design system utilizing arbitrary airfoil blading geometry. The design goal specific flow rate was 214.7 kg/s/m2 (43.98 lbm/sec/ft2 ), the design pressure ratio goal was 2.042, and the predicted design point efficiency was 94.0. The rotor tip speed was 457.2 m/s (1500 ft/sec). The design flow rate was achieved while the pressure ratio fell short by 0.07. Efficiency was 3 points below prediction, though at a very high 91 percent. At this operating condition the stall margin was 11 percent.

Copyright © 1997 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.






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