0
Research Papers

The Impact of Casing Groove Location on Stall Margin and Tip Clearance Flow in a Low-Speed Axial Compressor

[+] Author and Article Information
Du Juan

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
11 Beisihuanxi Road,
Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China;
Institute of Turbomachinery and Fluid Dynamics,
Leibniz University of Hanover,
Hannover D-30167, Germany
e-mail: dujuan@iet.cn

Li Jichao

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
11 Beisihuanxi Road,
Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: lijichao@iet.cn

Gao Lipeng

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
11 Beisihuanxi Road,
Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: gaolipeng@iet.cn

Lin Feng

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
11 Beisihuanxi Road,
Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: linfeng@iet.cn

Chen Jingyi

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
11 Beisihuanxi Road,
Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: cjy@iet.cn

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received April 9, 2015; final manuscript received April 11, 2016; published online June 22, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Michael Hathaway.

J. Turbomach 138(12), 121007 (Jun 22, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1066; doi: 10.1115/1.4033472 History: Received April 09, 2015; Revised April 11, 2016

In this study, the impact of single grooves at different locations on compressor stability and tip clearance flow are numerically and experimentally investigated. Initially, the numerical stall margin improvement (SMI) curve is examined using experimental data. Then, the evolution of the interface between the tip leakage flow (TLF) and the incoming main flow (MF) in the prestall and stall inception processes for two typical grooves, i.e., the worst and the optimal grooves in terms of their SMI, are compared with the smooth casing. The results show two different interface behaviors throughout the throttling process. The compressor with the worst single groove casing first experiences a long-length-scale disturbance after the interface near the blade suction side spills in front of the rotor leading-edge plane, and then goes through spikes after the whole interface spills. With the smooth casing and the optimal single groove near midchord, the interface reaches the rotor leading edge at the last stable operating point and spikes appear once the whole interface spills over the rotor leading edge. A model that illustrates the spillage patterns of the interface for the two stall precursors is thus proposed accordingly and used to explain their effectiveness in terms of the SMI. At last, the relevance of these results to the preliminary selection of groove locations for multigroove casing treatments (CTs) is verified by test data and discussed.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

SMI trend as a function of groove center location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Static pressure coefficient contours on shroud at point NSexp for smooth wall, G1, and G4 grooved casings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Characteristic lines for smooth wall, G1, and G4 grooved casings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domains and mesh distribution for the ten-passage model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Layout of the pressure transducers in chordwise direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Circumferentially averaged axial shear stress curves versus axial location for smooth casing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Circumferentially averaged interface location (Xzs/Cax) as a function of flow coefficient for smooth wall, G1, and G4 grooved casings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cross-sectional diagram of the low-speed axial compressor rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Calculated stall inception process for G1 grooved casing (a) calculated static pressure traces obtained from pressure transducers at ten circumferential locations at the relative reference frame (b) entropy contours at 99.5% span at time instants T1, T2 and T3 (c) static pressure contours at 99.5% span at time instant T3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Calculated axial velocity contours at 99.5% span for smooth wall, G1, and G4 grooved casings at point NS1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Three-dimensional flow structures in tip clearance region with G1 groove casing at point NS1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Calculated relative velocity vectors and axial velocity contour at 99.5% span for G1 grooved casing at point NS1 and time instant T1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Schematic of interface spillage patterns for the long-length-scale wave and spikes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured RMSP contours at the casing for smooth wall, G1, and G4 grooved casings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Stall inception traces obtained from pressure transducers located 9% downstream of the rotor leading-edge plane at eight circumferential locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Nomenclature and geometry for multigroove configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The graph (a) showing the SMI data generated by multiple grooves located in the wide region and the graph (b) showing the effect of the G1 groove on the SMI of multigroove CTs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Cumulative axial momentum distribution of TLF as a function of axial coordinate for smooth wall and G4 grooved casings at point NSsc

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