0
Research Papers

# Effect of Scaling of Blade Row Sectors on the Prediction of Aerodynamic Forcing in a Highly Loaded Transonic Compressor Stage

[+] Author and Article Information
María A. Mayorca, Damian M. Vogt, Torsten H. Fransson

Royal Institute of Technology, Heat and Power Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

Laboratorio de Conversión de Energía Mecánica, Universidad Simón Bolívar, 1080 Sartenejas, Miranda, Venezuela

Hans Mårtensson

Volvo Aero Corporation, S-461 81 Trollhättan, Sweden

J. Turbomach 133(2), 021013 (Oct 22, 2010) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000579 History: Received July 21, 2009; Revised July 30, 2009; Published October 22, 2010; Online October 22, 2010

## Abstract

An investigation of the sensitivity of a geometrical scaling technique on the blade forcing prediction and mode excitability has been performed. A stage of a transonic compressor is employed as a test object. A scaling ratio is defined, which indicates the amount of scaling from the original geometry. Different scaling ratios are selected and 3D Navier–Stokes unsteady calculations completed for each scaled configuration. A full-annulus calculation (nonscaled) is performed serving as reference. The quantity of interest is the generalized force, which gives a direct indication of the mode excitability. In order to capture both up- and downstream excitation effects, the mode excitability has been assessed on both rotor and stator blades. The results show that the first harmonic excitation can be predicted well for both up- and downstream excitations using moderate amounts of scaling. On the other hand, the predictions of second harmonic quantities do show a higher sensitivity to scaling for the investigated test case.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Investigated compressor stage

Figure 2

Compressor map (18); selected operating point for unsteady analysis highlighted

Figure 3

Block numbers of one passage

Figure 4

FE mesh of rotor and stator blades; restrain boundary conditions highlighted

Figure 17

rms deviation of normalized generalized force on stator; second harmonic (46EO)

Figure 16

Normalized generalized forces of the first 15 stator modes; second harmonic (46EO)

Figure 15

rms deviation of normalized generalized force on stator; first harmonic (23EO)

Figure 14

Error in the prediction of normalized generalized force on stator of mode 2; first harmonic excitation (23EO)

Figure 13

Normalized generalized forces of the first 15 stator modes; first harmonic

Figure 12

rms deviation of normalized generalized force on rotor; first harmonic (51EO)

Figure 11

Error in the prediction of normalized generalized force on rotor of mode 6; first harmonic excitation (51EO)

Figure 10

Normalized generalized force for the first 28 rotor modes; first harmonic excitation (51EO)

Figure 9

Rotor (left) and stator (right) loadings at 10%, 50%, and 90% span from top to bottom

Figure 8

Unsteady calculation convergence; rotor (above) and stator (below); convergence samples highlighted

Figure 7

Pressure and suction sides; steady state static pressure

Figure 6

Steady state Mach number contours at different spans; nonscaled model

Figure 5

Multiblock mesh at tip of scaled configuration R3S7 for unsteady calculations

Figure 18

Pressure amplitude at different rotor spans; first harmonic; nonscaled model

Figure 19

Distributed generalized force contours; first harmonic forces projected on rotor mode 6; pressure side

Figure 20

Pressure amplitude at different stator spans; first harmonic; nonscaled model

Figure 21

Generalized force contours from the first harmonic forces on the stator; mode 2

Figure 22

Space-time map at 50% span; nonscaled

Figure 23

Space-time map at 50% span; case R4S9; relative phase of different scaled cases indicated

## Errata

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 Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections