0
Research Papers

Effect of Ice and Blade Interaction Models on Compressor Stability

[+] Author and Article Information
Swati Saxena

GE Global Research Center,
One Research Circle,
Niskayuna, NY 12309
e-mail: saxena@ge.com

George T. K. Woo, Rajkeshar Singh

GE Global Research Center,
One Research Circle,
Niskayuna, NY 12309

Andrew Breeze-Stringfellow, Tsuguji Nakano, Peter Szucs

GE Aviation,
1 Neumann Way,
Evandale, OH 45215

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 29, 2016; final manuscript received October 6, 2016; published online December 21, 2016. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(4), 041001 (Dec 21, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1216; doi: 10.1115/1.4034983 History: Received August 29, 2016; Revised October 06, 2016

As air traffic continues to increase in the subtropical areas where high moisture laden air is present at subfreezing conditions, engine icing probability increases. It has been shown that compressor stages rematch under icing conditions—front stages are choked, while rear stages throttle due to ice melting and evaporation. Such an analysis uses various empirical models to represent ice-breakup and water-splash processes as ice/water particles interact with rotors/stators. This paper presents a compressor stall sensitivity analysis around different splash models. The effect of droplet splash at both rotor and stator blades, blade solidity effect, and trailing edge shed effect is modeled. A representative ten-stage high-speed compressor section operating near design point (100% Nc) is used for the study. Results show that the temperature drop at high-pressure compressor (HPC) exit and the overall compressor operability are functions of evaporating stages, and droplet–blade interaction models influence them. A comprehensive compressor stability envelope has been evaluated for different models. It is observed that the droplet–blade interaction behavior influences overall compressor stability and the stall-margin predictions can vary by as much as 25% with different models. Therefore, there is a need for better calibration and continual improvement of empirical models to capture compressor interstage dynamics and stage rematching accurately under ice/water ingestion.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the compressor model. Flow solved along mean pitch-line radius (rm) and blades and bleed flows modeled as source terms in the governing equations [18].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic showing ice fragmentation, melting, and water splash as they impinge on blades along the compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Model A: Droplet-flat plate splash model based on Mundo's empirical correlation [8]. Number of child droplets as a function of Mundo's parameter K (Eq. (14)).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Model C: Linear relation between child droplet Dfinal (after impact) and parent droplet Dinitial (before impact)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Water-splash modeling at rotor and stator leading edge and trailing edge shed modeling at stator trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Total temperature drop at stage inlet normalized against its dry value evaporation only case (no splash). Compressor operating at 100% Nc.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normalized stage pressure ratio and normalized ΔTT along the compressor for 1% SH water ingestion. Three splash models are used with breakup at rotor leading edges only. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) PRwet/PRdry and (b) %ΔTT/TTdry.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized flow coefficient and water vapor fraction along the compressor for 1% SH water ingestion. Three splash models are used with breakup at rotor leading edges only. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Δϕ/ϕdry and (b) water vapor fraction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized axial flow coefficient along the compressor for 1% water ingestion. Three splash models are used with different breakup configurations. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Model A: Δϕ/ϕdry, (b) model B: Δϕ/ϕdry, and (c) model C: Δϕ/ϕdry.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized TT drop along compressor for 1% water ingestion. Three splash models are used with different breakup configurations. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Model A: %ΔTT/TTdry, (b) model B: %ΔTT/TTdry, and (c) model C: %ΔTT/TTdry.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Water vapor fraction along the compressor for 1% water ingestion. Three splash models are used with different breakup configurations. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Model A: water vapor fraction, (b) model B: water vapor fraction, and (c) model C: water vapor fraction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normalized TT drop (ΔTT/TTdry) along compressor for different water ingestion rates. Case 2 (model A: w/RLE and SLE breakup) and case 9 (model C: w/RLE breakup) splash models are used. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Case 2: Model A w/RLE and SLE breakup and (b) case 9: model C w/RLE breakup.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Water vapor fraction plotted along compressor for different water ingestion rates. Case 2 (model A: w/RLE and SLE breakup) and case 9 (model C: w/RLE breakup) splash models are used. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Case 2: Model A w/RLE and SLE breakup and (b) case 9: model C w/RLE breakup.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Normalized TT drop along compressor for different water ingestion rates. Case 2 (model A: w/RLE and SLE breakup) and case 9 (model C: w/RLE breakup) splash models are used. Compressor operating at 100% Nc. (a) Model A w/RLE and SLE breakup: Δϕ/ϕdry and (b) model C w/RLE breakup: Δϕ/ϕdry.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total temperature drop at HPC exit normalized against its dry value for three splash model variations, steady energy balance (using Eq. (12)), and evaporation only predictions (no droplet breakup). Water ingestion rates: 1%, 2%, 2.5%, and 2.75% SH. Compressor operating at 100% Nc.

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