0
Research Papers

Numerical Investigations of the Efficiency of Circulation Control in a Compressor Stator

[+] Author and Article Information
Arne Vorreiter1

Institute of Turbomachinery and Fluid Dynamics, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germanyvorreiter@tfd.uni-hannover.de

Susanne Fischer

Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technische Universitaet Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germanys.fischer@tu-braunschweig.de

Horst Saathoff

Siemens AG, Energy Sector, 45473 Muelheim an der Ruhr, Germanyhorst.saathoff@siemens.com

Rolf Radespiel

Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technische Universitaet Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germanyr.radespiel@tu-braunschweig.de

Joerg R. Seume

Institute of Turbomachinery and Fluid Dynamics, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germanyseume@tfd.uni-hannover.de

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 134(2), 021012 (Jun 27, 2011) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003286 History: Received October 08, 2010; Revised November 12, 2010; Published June 27, 2011; Online June 27, 2011

Airfoil active flow control has been attempted in the past in order to increase the permissible loading of boundary layers in gas turbine components. The present paper presents a stator with active flow control for a high-speed compressor using a Coanda surface near the trailing edge in order to inhibit boundary layer separation. The design intent is to reduce the number of vanes while—in order to ensure a good matching with the downstream rotor—the flow turning angle is kept constant. In a first step, numerical simulations of a linear compressor cascade with circulation control are conducted. The Coanda surface is located behind an injection slot on the airfoil suction side. Small blowing rates lead to a gain in efficiency associated with a rise in static pressure. In a second step, this result is transferred to a four-stage high-speed research compressor, where the circulation control is applied in the first stator. The design method and the first results are based on steady numerical calculations. The analysis of these results shows performance benefits of the concept. For both the cascade and the research compressor, the pressure gain and efficiency are shown as a function of blowing rate and jet power ratio. The comparison is performed based on a dimensionless efficiency, which takes into account the change in power loss.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Four-stage axial compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cascade wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Characteristics at midspan: turning and losses versus blowing rate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Characteristics at midspan: pressure rise and axial velocity ratio versus blowing rate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Topology of the cascade grid

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Midspan-view of 3D-CFD-mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Influence of the grid resolution on jet flap efficiency at midspan for a blowing rate of ṁj/ṁ1=0.5% at design operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Profile pressure distribution for cascade and compressor—design

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Profile pressure distribution for cascade and compressor—off-design

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Streamlines and total pressure distribution at the trailing edge for off-design

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Jet-to-inlet total pressure ratio and momentum coefficient versus blowing rate (solid symbols—cascade; open symbols—compressor)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Changes in turning, pressure, and losses due to blowing (solid symbols—cascade; open symbols—compressor)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Total pressure distribution—cascade and compressor, design, ṁj/ṁ1=0.5%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Total pressure ratio in the wake (cascade, off-design)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Efficiency and change in pressure rise versus jet power ratio (solid symbols—cascade; open symbols—compressor)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Momentum coefficient and jet-to-inlet total pressure ratio at design (top) and off-design (bottom) operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Total pressure losses at design (top) and off-design (bottom) operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Efficiency of active flow control versus jet power ratio at design (top) and off-design (bottom) operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Static pressure rise normalized with jet power ratio versus jet power ratio at design (top) and off-design (bottom) operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Radial distribution of total pressure loss at design (top) and off-design (bottom) operation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Relative Mach number at casing, midspan, and hub sections at design operation: (a) ṁj/ṁ1=0.0%, (b) ṁj/ṁ1=0.5%, and (c) ṁj/ṁ1=1.0%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Relative Mach number at casing, midspan, and hub sections at off-design operation: (a) ṁj/ṁ1=0.0%, (b) ṁj/ṁ1=0.5%, and (c) ṁj/ṁ1=1.0%

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