0
Research Papers

Desensitization of Axial Compressor Performance and Stability to Tip Clearance Size

[+] Author and Article Information
Engin Erler

Bombardier Aerospace,
2351 Boulevard Alfred Nobel,
Saint-Laurent, QC H4S 2A9, Canada
e-mail: engin.erler@aero.bombardier.com

Huu Duc Vo

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
École Polytechnique de Montréal,
2900 Boulevard Edouard-Montpetit,
2500 Chemin de Polytechnique,
Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada
e-mail: huu-duc.vo@polymtl.ca

Hong Yu

Pratt & Whitney Canada,
1801 Courtneypark Drive East,
Mississauga, ON L5T 1J3, Canada
e-mail: hong.yu@pwc.ca

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 9, 2015; final manuscript received September 21, 2015; published online December 22, 2015. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(3), 031006 (Dec 22, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1177; doi: 10.1115/1.4031865 History: Received August 09, 2015; Revised September 21, 2015

This paper presents a computational and analytical study to identify and elucidate fundamental flow features associated with the desensitization of performance and aerodynamic stability of an axial compressor rotor to tip clearance change. Parametric studies of various design changes to a baseline double circular arc airfoil axial rotor led to the identification of two flow features associated with reducing sensitivity to tip clearance, namely, high incoming meridional momentum in the tip region and reduction/elimination of double tip leakage. Numerical experiments were subsequently performed on the baseline rotor geometry to validate these two flow features and explain the associated flow physics by variations in incoming meridional momentum and pitch size. Finally, two designs were proposed, namely, a full forward chordwise sweep (FFCS) rotor and a rotor with gradual stagger angle reduction in the outer span, to exploit these flow features. The results indicated that both designs produce the intended flow effects and exhibit lower sensitivity of performance and aerodynamic stability to tip clearance.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Interface location through nondimensional entropy contours at the rotor tip for SM evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Boundary conditions: (a) radial view and (b) meridional view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational mesh: (a) tip clearance mesh and (b) blade tip mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

BASE rotor: (a) 3D view and (b) tip profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Camber line variation: (a) baseline (BASE), (b) forward camber (FC), and (c) rear camber (RC)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Axial sweep variation: (a) baseline (BASE), (b) back axial sweep (BAS), and (c) forward axial sweep (FAS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Lean variation: (a) baseline (BASE), (b) back lean (BL), and (c) forward lean (FL)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Chordwise sweep variation: (a) baseline (BASE), (b) aft chordwise sweep (ACS), and (c) forward chordwise sweep (FCS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Dihedral variation: (a) baseline (BASE), (b) negative dihedral (ND), and (c) positive dihedral (PD)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of camber line change on tip loading and tip clearance flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of camber line change on performance and stability sensitivity to tip clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Segregation of DL from standard TL through entropy and flow angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Properties associated with different spanwise meridional momentum profiles at nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow: (a) total pressure profiles, (b) incoming velocity profiles at LE plane, and (c) spanwise loading distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of meridional momentum change on performance and stability sensitivity to tip clearance, and SM of VHMMT versus BASE blade (for confirmation of interface position comparison)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

DL proportion versus tip clearance for VHMMT at different pitch sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Drop in performance versus DL proportion for VHMMT at different pitch sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Velocity components of regular TL flow versus DL flow at a particular blade chord position

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Schematic of increase of DL extent with tip clearance size: (a) spanwise increase and (b) streamwise increase

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Streamlines at blade tip for BASE and HMMT cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Reduction of DL by increased incoming tip meridional momentum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Schematic of analytical tip blockage generation/development model proposed by Khalid et al. [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Predicted effect of increased incoming meridional momentum in tip region on parameters affecting performance and SM from model of Khalid et al. [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Dihedral view of BASE rotor blade (left) and FFCS rotor (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Spanwise distribution of meridional momentum (a) and loading (b) of FFCS rotor versus other previous designs at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

DL variation with tip clearance for FFCS rotor versus other designs at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Sensitivity results for FFCS rotor versus other designs at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow and SM of FFCS versus BASE blade (for confirmation of interface position comparison)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Three-dimensional view of PLS and BASE blades

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

DL variation with tip clearance (a) and spanwise distribution of meridional momentum (b) for PLS rotor versus other designs at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Spanwise distribution of loading for PLS rotor versus BASE rotor at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Sensitivity results for PLS rotor versus other designs at BASE nominal peak-efficiency corrected mass 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