0
Technical Briefs

Isothermal Boundary Condition at Casing Applied to the Rotor 37 Transonic Axial Flow Compressor

[+] Author and Article Information
Dario Bruna

NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, OH 44135
e-mail: dariobruna@fastwebnet.it

Mark G. Turner

University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 4522
e-mail: mark.turner@uc.edu

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 14, 2011; final manuscript received June 25, 2012; published online March 25, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

J. Turbomach 135(3), 034501 (Mar 25, 2013) (4 pages) Paper No: TURBO-11-1205; doi: 10.1115/1.4007569 History: Received September 14, 2011; Revised June 25, 2012

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are presented with an isothermal boundary condition at the casing for running NASA Rotor 37. The casing temperature is set to the inlet total temperature. Relative to the adiabatic simulations, the comparison to experimental efficiency is much improved for the 100% speed line. The efficiency difference between the isothermal and adiabatic solutions is about 1%, and matches the low-flow test condition. The profiles of total temperature with the isothermal boundary condition match the data near the casing. The adiabatic simulation has a total temperature overshoot that has been consistently part of any data comparison of CFD with this data set, and is typical of most compressor calculations. The efficiency profile has a similar improvement in matching the data because of its relationship to temperature. The real rig is not isothermal at the casing and may require more complex simulations such as a conjugate heat transfer approach to truly match the physics. However, the isothermal boundary condition is more accurate and more realistic than the adiabatic boundary condition.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Denton, J. D., 1997, “Lessons From Rotor 37,” J. Therm. Sci., 6(1), p. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Dunham, J., 1998, “CFD Validation for Propulsion System Components,” AGARD Advisory Report 355.
Shabbir, A., Celestina, M. L., Adamczyk, J. J., and Strazisar, A. J., 1997, “The Effect of Hub Leakage Flow on Two High Speed Axial Flow Compressor Rotors,”, ASME Paper No. 97-GT-346.
Denton, J., 2010, “Some Limitation of Turbomachinery CFD”, ASME Turbo Expo, Glasgow, UK, June 14–18, ASME Paper No. GT2010-22540. [CrossRef]
Chima, R., 2009, “Swift Code Assessment for Two Similar Transonic Compressors,” NASA/TM-2009-215520, also AIAA-2009-1058.
Ameri, A. A., and R. S.Bunker, 2000, “Heat Transfer and Flow on the First-Stage Blade Tip of a Power Generation Gas Turbine: Part 2—Simulation Results,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 272–277. [CrossRef]
Reid, L., and Moore, R. D., 1978, “Design and Overall Performance of Four Highly Loaded, High Speed Inlet Stages for an Advanced High-Pressure Ratio Core Compressor,” NASA TP-1337.
Moore, R. D., and Reid, L., 1980, “Performance of Single-Stage Axial Flow Transonic Compressor With a Rotor and Stator Aspect Ratios of 1.19 and 1.26, Respectively, and With a Design Pressure Ratio of 2.05,” NASA TP-1659.
Suder, K., 1996, “Experimental Investigation of the Flow Field in a Transonic, Axial Flow Compressor With Respect to the Development of Blockage and Loss,” NASA TM-107310.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

NASA Rotor 37 test facility and flowpath

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Compressor rotor map—total pressure ratio (PR)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Compressor rotor map—efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Total PR profiles comparison—high flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Total TR profiles comparison—high flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Efficiency profiles comparison—high flow

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