0
Research Papers

Using Shock Control Bumps to Improve Transonic Fan/Compressor Blade Performance

[+] Author and Article Information
Alistair John

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
e-mail: a.john@sheffield.ac.uk

Ning Qin

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
e-mail: n.qin@sheffield.ac.uk

Shahrokh Shahpar

Rolls-Royce,
Derby DE24 8BJ, UK
e-mail: shahrokh.shahpar@rolls-royce.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received September 25, 2018; final manuscript received February 14, 2019; published online March 2, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 141(8), 081003 (Mar 02, 2019) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-18-1271; doi: 10.1115/1.4042891 History: Received September 25, 2018; Accepted February 14, 2019

Shock control bumps can help to delay and weaken shocks, reducing loss generation and shock-induced separation and delaying stall inception for transonic turbomachinery components. The use of shock control bumps on turbomachinery blades is investigated here for the first time using 3D analysis. The aerodynamic optimization of a modern research fan blade and a highly loaded compressor blade is carried out using shock control bumps to improve their performance. Both the efficiency and stall margin of transonic fan and compressor blades may be increased through the addition of shock control bumps to the geometry. It is shown how shock-induced separation can be delayed and reduced for both cases. A significant efficiency improvement is shown for the compressor blade across its characteristic, and the stall margin of the fan blade is increased by designing bumps that reduce shock-induced separation near to stall. Adjoint surface sensitivities are used to highlight the critical regions of the blade geometries, and it is shown how adding bumps in these regions improves blade performance. Finally, the performance of the optimized geometries at conditions away from where they are designed is analyzed in detail.

Copyright © 2019 by Rolls-Royce plc
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ginder, R., and Calvert, W., 1987, “The Design of an Advanced Civil Fan Rotor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(3), pp. 340–345. [CrossRef]
Cumpsty, N. A., 1989, Compressor Aerodynamics, Longman Scientific & Technical, New York.
Prince, D. C., 1980, “Three-Dimensional Shock Structures for Transonic/Supersonic Compressor Rotors,” J. Aircraft, 17(1), pp. 28–37. [CrossRef]
John, A., Shahpar, S., and Qin, N., 2017, “Novel Compressor Blade Shaping Through a Free-Form Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 139(8), 081002. [CrossRef]
Tai, T. C., 1977, “Theoretical Aspects of Dromedaryfoil,” Technical Report, DTIC Document.
Ashill, P. R., Fulker, J. L., and Shires, J. L., 1992, “A Novel Technique for Controlling Shock Strength of Laminar-Flow Aerofoil Sections,” DGLR BERICHT, pp. 175–183.
Drela, M., and Giles, M. B., 1987, “Viscous-Inviscid Analysis of Transonic and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils,” AIAA J., 25(10), pp. 1347–1355. [CrossRef]
Sommerer, A., Lutz, T., and Wagner, S., 2000, “Design of Adaptive Transonic Airfoils by Means of Numerical Optimisation,” Proceedings of ECCOMAS, Barcelona.
Colliss, S. P., Babinsky, H., Nubler, K., and Lutz, T., 2016, “Vortical Structures on Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps,” AIAA J., 54, pp. 2338–2350. [CrossRef]
Stanewsky, E., 2002, Drag Reduction by Shock and Boundary Layer Control: Results of the Project EUROSHOCK II. Supported by the European Union 1996–1999, Vol. 80, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
Qin, N., Wong, W., and Le Moigne, A., 2008, “Three dimensional Contour Bumps for Transonic Wing Drag Reduction,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng., 222(5), pp. 619–629. [CrossRef]
Mazaheri, K., and Khatibirad, S., 2017, “Using a Shock Control Bump to Improve the Performance of an Axial Compressor Blade Section,” Shock Waves, 27(2), pp. 299–312. [CrossRef]
Hicks, R. M., and Henne, P. A., 1978, “Wing Design by Numerical Optimization,” J. Aircraft, 15(7), pp. 407–412. [CrossRef]
Suder, K., and Celestina, M., 1996, “Experimental and Computational Investigation of the Tip Clearance Flow in a Transonic Axial Compressor Rotor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 118(2), pp. 218–229. [CrossRef]
Reid, L., and Moore, R. D., 1978, “Performance of Single Stage Axial-Flow Transonic Compressor With Rotor and Stator Aspect Ratios of 1.19 and 1.26, Respectively, and With Design Pressure Ratio of 1.82,” NASA-TP-1659.
Hah, C., 2009, “Large Eddy Simulation of Transonic Flow Field in NASA Rotor 37,” 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 1061.
Dunham, J., 1998, “CFD Validation for Propulsion System Components [la validation CFD des organes des propulseurs],” Technical Report, DTIC Document.
Chima, R., 2009, “Swift Code Assessment for Two Similar Transonic Compressors,” 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 1058.
Denton, J., 1997, “Lessons From Rotor 37,” J. Therm. Sci., 6(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Cumpsty, N., 2010, “Some Lessons Learned,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(4), 041018. [CrossRef]
Seshadri, P., Parks, G. T., and Shahpar, S., 2014, “Leakage Uncertainties in Compressors: The Case of Rotor 37,” J. Propul. Power, 31(1), pp. 456–466. [CrossRef]
Lapworth, L., 2004, “Hydra-CFD: A Framework for Collaborative CFD Development,” International Conference on Scientific and Engineering Computation (IC-SEC), Singapore, June, Vol. 30.
Shahpar, S., and Lapworth, L., 2003, “PADRAM: Parametric Design and Rapid Meshing System for Turbomachinery Optimisation,” ASME Turbo Expo 2003, Collocated With the 2003 International Joint Power Generation Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 579–590.
Shabbir, A., Celestina, M., Adamczyk, J., and Strazisar, A., 1997, “The Effect of Hub Leakage Flow on Two High Speed Axial Flow Compressor Rotors,” ASME 1997 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
John, A., Qin, N., and Shahpar, S., 2018, “The Impact of Realistic Casing Geometries and Clearances on Fan Blade Tip Aerodynamics (gt2017-64403),” ASME J. Turbomach., 140, 061002. [CrossRef]
Duta, M. C., Shahpar, S., and Giles, M. B., 2007, “Turbomachinery Design Optimization Using Automatic Differentiated Adjoint Code,” ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 1435–1444.
Kulfan, B. M., and Bussoletti, J. E., 2006, “Fundamental Parametric Geometry Representations for Aircraft Component Shapes,” 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Vol. 1, sn, pp. 547–591.
Toropov, V., van Keulen, F., Markine, V., and de Boer, H., 1996, “Refinements in the Multi-Point Approximation Method to Reduce the Effects of Noisy Structural Responses,” 6th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, p. 4087.
Polynkin, A., Toropov, V., and Shahpar, S., 2008, “Adaptive and Parallel Capabilities in the Multipoint Approximation Method,” 12th AIAA-ISSMO MDO Conference, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September, pp. 10–12.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of shock structures: (a) datum and (b) s-shaped design. From Ref. [4].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Datum geometry and optimized shock control bumps on the midsection of NASA Rotor 67. From Ref. [12].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The R37 CFD domain used

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mesh independence for the R37 blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Simulated characteristics versus experimental data [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Radial profiles versus experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) 3D separation shown by isosurface of zero axial velocity on the R37 geometry (flow right to left) and (b) relative Mach number contour at 60% span (flow left to right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The CFD domain used for RR-FAN (not representative of the actual fan geometry)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Mesh independence for the RR-FAN blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the simulation results for the RR-FAN related blade with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Radial profiles for the RR-FAN related blade at the design point: (a) PR and (b) efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

RR-FAN PR characteristic operating points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The region of interest (shock region) presented in further RR-FAN figures (not representative of the actual fan geometry)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Shock region flow features for RR-FAN at points (a) A, (b) B, (c) C, (d) D, (e) E, and (f) F. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

R37: (a) adjoint sensitivity and (b) 3D streamlines and reverse flow shown by isosurface of zero axial velocity. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

RR-FAN: (a) shock region adjoint surface sensitivity and (b) flow separation near to stall (point D). Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Example 2D CST bump (solid line) and the four polynomials used to construct it (dashed lines)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a) Example individual bump geometry and (b) example continuous bump geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

A spanwise slice of the datum and optimized R37 geometries at 60% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Optimized R37 bump added to the datum blade geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Datum (left) and optimized (right) Rotor 37 static pressure contours. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Datum (left) and optimized (right) Rotor 37 separated flow isosurfaces of zero axial velocity. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Datum (left) and R37 optimized (right) margins have been modified at other rotor speeds due to the throat. Flow features at 50% span.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Lift plots for the datum and optimized geometries at 60% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

R37 optimized characteristic versus datum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Static pressure contour on the RR-FAN suction surface and the region within which bumps are positioned

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

The datum (left) and optimized RR-FAN (right) geometries at point D, with separation shown by isosurfaces of zero axial velocity. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Relative Mach number contours at 80% span (at operating point D), showing the datum (top) and optimized RR-FAN (bottom) geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Blade wakes for the datum and optimized geometries measured at 80% span and 0.1 chord downstream of the trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

PR and efficiency characteristics for the datum and optimized geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Flow separation near stall for the datum and optimized RR-FAN designs at (a) B, (b) C, and (c) D operating conditions. Flow direction is right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Relative Mach number contours at 80% span (at operating point H), showing the datum (left) and optimized RR-FAN (right) geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

PR and efficiency characteristics for the datum, point D optimized, and point B optimized geometries

Tables

Errata

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