Research Papers

Experimental and Computational Analysis of a Multistage Axial Compressor Including Stall Prediction by Steady and Transient CFD Methods

[+] Author and Article Information
Christian Cornelius, Thomas Biesinger

Siemens AG,
Energy Sector,
Fossil Power Generation Division,
Mellinghofer Str. 55,
Mülheim an der Ruhr 45473, Germany

Paul Galpin

ANSYS Canada Ltd.,
283 Northfield Drive E, Unit 21,
Waterloo, ON N2J 4G8, Canada

André Braune

ANSYS Germany GmbH,
Staudenfeldweg 12,
Otterfing 83624, Germany

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 4, 2013; final manuscript received July 18, 2013; published online November 28, 2013. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(6), 061013 (Nov 28, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1134; doi: 10.1115/1.4025583 History: Received July 04, 2013; Revised July 18, 2013

Siemens Energy has commissioned an extensive multiyear experimental and numerical (computational fluid dynamics (CFD)) project to improve its ability to design for and predict compressor stall. The experimental test rig is a half scale six stage axial compressor. The goal of this work is to provide insight into how best to predict the compressor performance map and in particular the stall point by applying state-of-the-art multiple blade row CFD simulation tools. A preliminary CFD analysis quantified numerical, model, and systematic error on the first stage of the compressor. Subsequent steady (mixing plane) and transient (time transformation) CFD simulations of the entire six stage compressor are compared to each other and to experimental data. Both the steady and transient simulations are shown to be computationally efficient and in very good agreement with the experimental data across the full performance map, up to stall inception on multiple speedlines. Physical explanations of the key flow features observed in the experiment, as well as of the differences between the predictions and experimental data, are given.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Belamri, T., Galpin, P., Braune, A., and Cornelius, C., “CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor Part I: Methods,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68261. [CrossRef]
Ikeguchi, T., Matsuoka, A., Sakai, Y., and Sakano, Y., “Design and Development of a 14-Stage Axial Compressor for Industrial Gas Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68524. [CrossRef]
Mailach, R., and Vogeler, K., 2007, “Unsteady Aerodynamic Blade Excitation at the Stability Limit and During Rotating Stall in an Axial Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129, pp. 503–511. [CrossRef]
Camp, T. R., and Day, I. J., 1998, “Study of Spike and Modal Stall Phenomena in a Low-Speed Axial Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, 393–401. [CrossRef]
Courtiade, N., and Ottavy, X., “Experimental Study of Surge Precursors in a High Speed Multistage Compressor,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68321. [CrossRef]
Köller, U., Mönig, R., Küsters, B., and Schreiber, H. A., 2000, “Development of Advanced Compressor Airfoils for Heavy Duty Gas Turbines—Part I: Design and Optimization,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 397–405. [CrossRef]
Küsters, B., Schreiber, H. A., Köller, U., and Mönig, R., 2000, “Development of Advanced Compressor Airfoils for Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines—Part II: Experimental and Theoretical Analysis,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 406–415. [CrossRef]
ANSYS CFX Version 14.5, 2012, Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Raw, M. J., “Robustness of Coupled Algebraic Multigrid for the Navier-Stokes Equations,” 34th Aerospace and Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 15-18, AIAA Paper No. 96-0297. [CrossRef]
Galpin, P. F., Broberg, R. B., and Hutchinson, B. R., 1995, “Three-Dimensional Navier Stokes Predictions of Steady State Rotor/Stator Interaction With Pitch Change,” Third Annual Conference of the CFD Society of Canada, Banff, Canada, June 25-27.
Giles, M., 1988, “Calculation of Unsteady Wake/Rotor Interaction,” J. Propul. Power, 4(4), pp. 356–362. [CrossRef]
Connell, S., Braaten, M., Zori, L., Steed, R., Hutchinson, B., and Cox, G., “A Comparison of Advanced Numerical Techniques to Model Transient Flow in Turbomachinery Blade Rows,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45820. [CrossRef]
Biesinger, T., Braune, A., Campregher, R., Cornelius, C., Godin, P., Rube, C., Schmid, G., and Zori, L., 2010, “Unsteady CFD Methods in a Commercial Solver for Turbomachinery,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22762. [CrossRef]
He, L., 1990, “An Euler Solution for Unsteady Flows Around Oscillating Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 12, pp. 714–722. [CrossRef]
Adamczyk, J. J., 1985, “Model Equation for Simulating Flows in Multistage Turbomachinery,” ASME Paper No. 85-GT-226.
Hall, K., Thomas, J., and Clark, W. S., 2002, “Computation of Unsteady Nonlinear Flows in Cascades Using a Harmonic Balance Technique,” AIAA J., 40(5), pp. 879–886. [CrossRef]
ERCOFTAC, 2013, “The ERCOFTAC Best Practice Guidelines for Industrial Computational Fluid Dynamics,” European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, Brussels, Belgium.
Menter, F. R., 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R., Langtry, R., and Völker, S., 2006, “Transition Modelling for General Purpose Codes,” J. Flow Turb, Combust., 77(1–4), pp. 277–303. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R., and Egorov, Y., 2005, “A Scale-Adaptive Simulation Model Using Two-Equation Models,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-1095. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Meridional view of the Siemens PCO rig (1/2) scale six stage axial compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Multistage transient model using time transformation for each stage, connected with profile transformation interfaces (light rotors, dark stators, location of hub leakages, and shroud bleed also shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domain for IGV+R1 analysis on the medium mesh density

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Zoom-in of leading edge and fillet area of rotor 1 (TurboGrid, fine mesh, distorted view)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

IGV+rotor 1 performance map (85%, 100%, 120% speedlines) for three mesh densities. Rotor suction side separated flow (black) is shown for three points on the 100% speedline. Experimental data for the six stage compressor is plotted for the 85% speedline (stall set by the 1st stage on this speedline).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of SST (solid) to k-ε (dashed) turbulence versus mesh refinement (100% speedline, IGV+R1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Differences in convergence rates near design point (A), near stall (B), and stalled (C) for IGV+R1 simulations. The rms mass equation residuals are plotted versus iteration.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Differences in convergence rates near design point (A), near stall (B), and stalled (C) for IGV+R1 simulations. The evolving pressure ratio is plotted versus iteration.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of SST to SST+RM turbulence model as a function of mesh refinement (100% speedline, IGV+R1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Sensitivity to tip gap uncertainty comparing nominal gap to +/−25% gap (100% speedline, medium mesh, IGV+R1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of steady (mixing plane) to transient (time transformation) simulations for IGV+R1+S1. The trace of the transient variation over several blade passings is superimposed (thin black lines) to show extent of oscillations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Sensitivity of simulation to time step size shown, plotting the pressure ratio signal for several cycles, for three time step sizes (25, 50, and 100 time steps per rotor 1 pitch)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Six stage compressor, pressure ratio versus mass flow. Steady CFD, transient CFD, and experimental data (black, error bars) are compared for 85%, 100%, and 120% speedlines.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Zoom-in of 100% speedline, pressure ratio versus mass flow for six stage compressor. Transient CFD signal is plotted (dashed line) for a few blade passings to indicate the extent of the oscillations (growing towards stall).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Six stage compressor map of efficiency versus mass flow. Steady CFD (gray lines), transient CFD (dashed line) and experimental data (black, error bars) are compared for 85%, 100%, and 120% speedlines.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Time history of the CFD pressure ratio signal as it evolved from steady CFD initial conditions through more than three full revolutions, for six stage compressor (100% speedline, best efficiency point)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Radial profiles of Ptotal (top) and Ttotal (bottom) for 100% speedline at best efficiency point, measured midway between rotor and stator. Steady and transient CFD results are compared to experimental radial profiles (black, error bars).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Radial profiles of Ptotal (top) and Ttotal (bottom) for 100% speedline at peak pressure ratio, measured midway between rotor and stator. Steady and transient CFD results are compared to experimental radial profiles (black, error bars).




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