THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

345 E. 47th St, New York, N.Y. 10017

The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in papers or discussion at meetings of the
Society or of Its Divisions or Sections, or printed In its publications. Discussion is printed only if the paper is published 95-GT-440
in an ASME Journal. Authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under circumstance not
falling within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act is granted by ASME to libraries and other users registered with
the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service provided that the base fee of $0.30 per page
is paid directly to the CCC, 27 Congress Street, Salem MA 01970. Requests for special permission or bulk reproduction
should be addressed to the ASME Technical Publishing Department.
Copyright © 1995 by ASME All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021

Numerical Simulations of Advanced Transonic Compressor Stages
Using an Unsteady Quasi-Three -Dimensional Flow Solver

Gerald J. Micklow, J. Paul Sauve and Karthikeyan Shivaraman

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

ABSTRACT the latest and most advanced turbomachinery designs, efforts

This study presents the results of numerical simulations of
single stage transonic axial-flow compressors. The numerical
scheme used solves the unsteady quasi-three-dimensional thin-
layer Navier-Stokes equations. In the first part of the study, the
validation of the numerical scheme for advanced transonic axial-
flow compressor stages is presented. The results of a numerical
simulation are compared to an experimentally tested transonic
compressor stage of DFVLR. Further simulations are
performed on an advanced transonic compressor stage design
to investigate the effect of airfoil geometry re-scaling, in order
to save computing time, on the numerical results. Two cases are
simulated: a modified geometry where less stator blades are
simulated and an exact geometry where the exact geometry is
modeled. Good agreement is obtained between the
experimental and numerical results for the first test case,
indicating the validity of the quasi-three dimensional method.
The last two simulations show that any significant re-scaling of
the stage geometry will have an adverse effect on overall results.
All of the simulations show that the unsteady rotor-stator
interactions have a significant effect on stage performance.
INTRODUCTION
The numerical analysis of fluid flow through turbomachinery
such as axial-flow compressors and turbines poses a challenging
problem to the computational fluid dynamics community. The
flow field inside these machines is very complex, characterized
by regions of subsonic, transonic, and supersonic flow. Complex
flow phenomena such as shock waves, shock/boundary layer
interaction, three-dimensional boundary layer growth, and the
effects of blade row interaction are present. The majority of
numerical techniques that are presently in use are cascade
calculations based on the assumption that the interaction effects
between adjacent blade rows is small and can be neglected. In
have been made to minimize the engine size and weight, and
maximize the work output and efficiency. These restrictions in
size and weight of the engine leads to reduced axial gaps
between the blade rows and higher stage loadings. In these
designs the flow field is highly unsteady and the airfoil
interaction effects can not be neglected. The rotor and stator
airfoils must be treated as a system to correctly model the true
behavior of the flow field, accurately capturing the interaction
effects between the blade rows.
Numerical flow solvers must be capable of simulating multiple
blade rows along with the associated complex geometry. A
numerical scheme that simulates the unsteady flow phenomena
capturing the effects of rotor-stator interaction has been
developed by Rai(1987,1989). Several investigations into the
two- and three-dimensional simulation of single and multiple
stage axial turbomachinery has been performed using this
unsteady approach.
Both a two- and three-dimensional single passage (one
stator/one rotor) simulation of a turbine stage with an inlet
Mach number of 0.07 was performed by Rai(1987,1989) to
validate the numerical method. Though the simulations
compared favorably with experimental data, the author stated
that several problems needed to be addressed, one being a
more accurate modeling of the geometry (i.e. a multi-passage
simulation). In an extension of Rai's work, Madavan et
al(1991), performed a three-dimensional multi-passage (three
stator/four rotor) simulation of the same turbine stage. The
results of this simulation agreed much better to the
experimental data than the single-passage simulation. A two-
dimensional single-passage simulation of a low speed low
pressure rise two-stage axial compressor was performed by
Gundy-Burlet et al(1991). Results of both surface pressure and
wake profiles compared very well with experimental data.

Presented at the International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition
Houston, Texas - June 5-8, 1995
 Rangwalla et al(1992) simulated the performance of an
advanced transonic turbine stage using the multi-passage two-
dimensional code which included the three-dimensional effect
of stream-tube contraction. The simulation clearly resolved a
shock in the axial gap due to the unsteady interactions of the
rotor and stator airfoils. A slight increase in the axial gap lead
to the elimination of the shock. Using a multi-passage quasi-
three dimensional approach where the effects of stream-tube
contraction was modeled, Micklow and Sauve(1994) simulated
of the airfoils. For the second simulation, Case 2, the exact
geometry is modeled, leading to a simulation of two rotors and
five stators. Periodicity is again used to account for the
remainder of the airfoils.
For all of the simulations, the outer rotor grids had 70 points
in the transverse direction and 110 points in the axial direction.
The outer stator grids had 35 points in the transverse direction
and 100 points in the axial direction. The inner grids had 151
points in the circumferential direction and 31 points in the

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021

the performance of an advanced high pressure rise transonic
compressor stage. The numerical results compared well to
experimental data, validating the approach. Further simulations
were made to determine how stage performance is affected by
the axial gap.
In the present work, the numerical scheme is validated by
comparing the results of a simulation to experimental data for
a transonic compressor stage tested at DFVLR(Dunker(1990)).
Comparisons are made between the relative Mach number
distribution, the isentropic stage efficiency, and the stator total
loss coefficient. Further simulations are performed on an
advanced highly loaded transonic stage to determine the effect
of geometry rescaling on the numerical results. Two simulations
are performed: a modified geometry case where less stator
blades are simulated, and an exact case where the exact
geometry is modeled. Results are presented in the form of
instantaneous pressure and entropy contours, as well as the
isentropic stage efficiency and the stator total loss coefficient.
All time averaging is performed over one rotor cycle after the
solution became periodic in time. The rotor cycle refers to the
time it takes the rotor airfoil to move a distance equal to its
pitch.
STAGE GEOMETRY AND GRID SYSTEM
The system of patched grids used to discretize the flow field
for this calculation can be seen in Fig. 1. Each blade has an
outer and an inner grid. The outer grids are algebraic H-type
normal direction.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The numerical method used in this investigation solves the
unsteady quasi-three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations for
a compressible fluid. Modifications to Rai's ROTOR2
code(1987) were made to account for the effects of streamtube
contraction following the work of Chima(1987) The equations
are as follows:
a Q+ (E-E,J+ (F-F^J+ h dh(E-E,)- h dxG=O
ax
where Q is the dependent variable vector. E and F are the
inviscid flux vectors. E„ , F, and G are the viscous flux vectors.
The dependent variable vector and the inviscid flux vectors are
defined as
P Pu Pv
pv
Q= pu puv
E='' F=
p+pv
puv z
e (e+P)u (e+P)v
where p, u, v, e, and p are the density, rectilinear velocity
components, energy, and pressure. Utilizing ideal gas
relationships the pressure is related to the energy by
P=P(Y - 1) e- (u 2 +v2)
-

J
grids. The inner grids are elliptic 0-type grids. The inner and The viscous flux vectors are given as
outer grids share a common boundary at the outer boundary of 0 0(0
the inner grid. The outer grids also share a common boundary
F- E v= T , TX' G= (P - T)
which is capable of moving, simulating the motion of the rotor '

xr yy
airfoils past the stator airfoils. These zonal boundaries are used R x Ry 0
to transfer information between the grids.
In the experimental compressor stage there are 28 rotor The shear stress and viscous terms in the above flux vectors are
airfoils and 60 stator airfoils. A numerical simulation of this defined as follows
many airfoils would be extremely time consuming. For the r 2 c7u _ 2 ( au +u l dh + ov 3

numerical simulation the number of stator airfoils was modified ^- µ ax 3 ax h dx äy

to 56 which leads to a simulation of one rotor and two stator
airfoils. To ensure the same blockage in the numerical _ 2 ( au +u +
ldh
i2 -
simulation the stator airfoil is scaled by a factor of 60/56 (1.07), »- 3 µl
ax h dxav )
keeping the pitch to chord ratio the same. Periodicity is used
to account for the remainder of the airfoils. This slight
ti Xy =i—+—
µ)
modification to the geometry is not expected to significantly t ax
influence the flow field properties.
In the advanced compressor stage, there are 12 rotor airfoils
and 30 stator airfoils. For the first simulation, Case 1, the _Yµ 7 P +wr +vt
number of stator airfoils was modified to 24, leading to a x( Y 1)pr axp
p )

simulation of one rotor and two stator airfoils. The stator

airfoil is scaled by a factor of 30/24 (1.25) to ensure the same _ Yµ
a
blockage and periodicity is used to account for the remainder Ry (y -1 )Pr cay p
 T=2gu l dh_2 µ au +u i ah + av
h dx 3 ax h dx ay
where g, y, and Pr are the coefficient of viscosity, ratio of
specific heats, and Prantl number, respectively. The additional
terms in the equation are associated with the stream tube
contraction, where h is the normalized area of the stream tube.
The input distribution for the normalized stream tube height
was obtained by using a high order polynomial curve fit. No
account was made for endwall boundary layer growth. Since
the grids were constructed for a constant value of radius, the
equations contain no dependence on radius. It can also be seen
that for a constant value of h the system of equations resort
back to the unsteady two-dimensional Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes equations.
The above equations are nondimensionalized and transformed
to a generalized time dependent curvalinear coordinate system
where the thin-layer approximation is made. The unsteady
quasi-three-dimensional thin-layer Navier-Stokes equations are
solved using an upwind biased finite difference scheme based on
the Osher upwind algorithm(Rai and Chakravarthy(1986)). The
scheme is third order accurate in space and second order
accurate in time. At each time level several Newton-Raphson
iterations are performed, reducing linearization and
factorization errors and ensuring that the fully implicit finite
difference equations are solved. The turbulent eddy viscosity is
determined using the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model(Baldwin
and Lomax(1978)). The viscous terms were only evaluated in
the inner grids since the viscous effects are weak in the outer
grids away from the airfoil surfaces. Further details of the
method can be found in Rai(1987).
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The boundary conditions for this type of calculation are
classified into two categories. The first are the natural
boundary conditions imposed at the airfoil surfaces and the
outer boundaries of the computational grid. The second are the
zonal boundary conditions imposed at the intersections of the
different grids (see Figure 1). Treatment of the zonal
boundaries is detailed in Rai(1986). The natural boundary
conditions imposed will be briefly discussed below.
Inlet Boundary
For subsonic inlet flow, three quantities need to be specified
These three quantities are the Riemann invariant
RI=u+ 2c
y-1
the total pressure
y to the upstream pressure, p, and density, p m which leads to
P.m! Pinler(l + y21M) y-1
and the inlet flow angle, which leads to
V r =0
The fourth quantity (which is needed to update the points at
this boundary) is also a Riemann invariant that is extrapolated
from the interior and is given by
3
2c
y-1
where c is the local speed of sound.
Exit Boundary
For subsonic exit flow, one quantity needs to be specified.
The flow quantity specified in this case was the exit static
pressure. To completely specify the flow at this boundary three
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021
other quantities need to be extrapolated from the interior.
These quantities were the Riemann invariant
R1=u+ 2c
Y -.1
the entropy
s= -E-.
pr
and the y-component of velocity.
Airfoil Surface
At the airfoil surfaces the "no-slip" condition and adiabatic
wall condition are imposed. For the case of the rotor, "no-slip"
implies zero relative velocity at the blade surface. Finally, the
pressure derivative in the normal to the blade surface is set to
zero.
Upper and Lower Grid Boundaries
Since a simulation of the correct number of airfoils would be
very expensive, rescaling the rotor-stator geometry is performed
in order to obtain a ratio of one rotor airfoil to two stator
airfoils. The periodicity condition is imposed in a
straightforward manner to the upper and lower grid system
boundaries to account for the rest of the airfoils.
RESULTS
Results for the transonic compressor stage simulations are
presented below. The first section is concerned with a
comparison of the numerical simulation and the experimental
data of DFVLR(Dunker(1990)). In the second section,
comparisons are made between the modified and exact
geometry simulations.
Validation of the Numerical Method
To validate the numerical method for advanced transonic
axial-flow compressor stages, comparisons are made between
the baseline simulation and the experimental results. The
comparisons include relative Mach number contours, the
isentropic stage efficiency, and the stator total loss coefficient.
The dependent variables are nondimensionalized with respect
U = M„ V=0
where M,,=0.48 is the inlet Mach number. The pressure ratio
across the stage ( it / P,",^ ;",e,) is 1.588. The midspan
rotor velocity was calculated from the operating condition of
20,260 rpm. The Reynolds number was calculated from free
stream conditions and is 500,000/inch. Three Newton-Raphson
 iterations were performed at each time step. After the initial
solution start-up, a constant time step of about 0.001 was used.
The relative Mach number distribution from the numerical
simulation is compared with the experimental results in Figure
2a and 2b. Acceptable agreement between the numerical
simulation and the experimental results for both the Mach
number distribution and the inlet shock location is found. It
should be noted that the simulation is performed at 50% span
while the experimental results are for 45% span.
rotor velocity was calculated from the operating condition of
49,500 rpm. The Reynolds number was calculated from free
stream conditions and is 500,000/inch. Three Newton-Raphson
iterations were performed at each time step. After initial
solution start-up, a constant time step of about 0.001 was used.
The overall stage efficiency, which was previously defined, for
the modified and exact geometry simulations is shown below.
Simulation n (%)

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021

The isentropic efficiency (rl) for the compressor stage is
defined as modified 82.4
Y1 exact 83.1
PT eut jY —1
'1 = PT inlet It is seen that the exact simulation leads to a higher efficiency.
TT«it -1 A comparison of the stator total loss coefficient, which was
TT inlu previously defined, is shown below.

where PT is the total pressure and T T is the total temperature, Case (0

averaged over one cycle. The efficiency comparison is shown
m below. odified .0203
Case n (%)
simulation 83.9
experiment 84.4
The calculated efficiency is within one percent of the
experimental efficiency.
The stator total loss coefficient (w) is defined as
exact .0191
The value for the exact simulation is slightly lower than that for
the modified simulation.
Pressure contours are used to show the inviscid nature of the
flow field. The viscous nature of the flow field can be visualized
using entropy contours. Figures 3a thru 4b show the
instantaneous pressure and entropy distribution comparisons
between Case 1, the modified geometry, and Case 2, the exact

HI geometry. Figure 3a and 3b show the instantaneous pressure

Y

T y-1-P T contours for the two cases. On comparison, it is seen that there
-LT wit
(P r iakt
where PT is the total pressure, P is the static pressure, T T is the pressure fluctuations in the axial gap and stator inlet region are
total temperature, and T is the static temperature. All
quantities are averaged over one cycle. The loss coefficient
comparison is shown below.
Case 0)
simulation .049
experiment .047
Good agreement is found between the numerical and
experimental values.
Effect of Airfoil Geometry Rescaling
To show the effect of geometry rescaling, comparisons are
made between Case 1, the modified geometry simulation and
Case 2, the exact geometry simulation for the advanced
compressor stage design. The comparisons include isentropic
stage efficiency, stator total loss coefficient, and instantaneous
pressure and entropy contours.
The dependent variables are nondimensionalized with respect
to the upstream pressure, p,, and density, p„ which leads to
U, =MJ V =0
where M,=0.60 is the inlet Mach number. The pressure ratio
across the stage ( ,;c;t / Pia, ;,) is 1.725. The midspan
is very little pressure variation at the stage inlet. The inlet
shock location for Case 1 is slightly upstream of that in Case 2
and not detached from the leading edge of the rotor. The
noticeably higher for Case 1, especially on the pressure side of
the stator. Figures 4a and 4b show the entropy contours in the
flow field. The rotor wake can be clearly seen interacting with
the stator airfoils. It is important to note the thickening of the
high entropy fluid layer on the stator suction side blade surface
is greater for Case 1. The separated flow region along the
suction side of the stator is increased in Case 1, leading to an
expected decrease in overall stage performance. The stator
wakes show vortex shedding which is noticeably larger for Case
1. The stator wake diffuses rapidly as it propagates from the
inner to the outer grid at the stator trailing edge which is due
to the coarseness of the outer grid. In figure 4b for case 2, a
vortex not found in the calculations for case 1 with the scaled
geometry is seen moving through the stator blade passage. The
interaction with the between this vortex and the viscous layer is
believed to be the reason for the decreased thickness of the
stator suction side boundary layer thickness and the increased
predicted efficiency for case 2. Such a phenomena has been
described theoretically by Smith(1993).
Computing Time Requirements
For the validation simulation and the modified geometry
simulation, there were approximately 25,000grid points. After
the initial start-up, 1000 time steps per cycle was used. The

4
solution became periodic in time after approximately 10 cycles.
For these parameters the solution took approximately 4.3
seconds per time step, or 1.2 hours per cycle on a CRAY-XMP
supercomuter. For the exact simulation, there were
approximately 60,000grid points. The solution became periodic
in time after approximately 10 cycles. For these parameters the
solution took approximately 6.1 seconds per time step, or 1.7
hours per cycle on a CRAY-YMP supercomputer.
CONCLUSIONS
The unsteady flow field in a transonic compressor stage has
been modeled using a quasi-three-dimensional numerical
scheme. The computational results are in good agreement with
experimental data. The effect of geometry rescaling was
investigated. The results consisted of the isentropic stage
efficiency, the stator total loss coefficient, and the instantaneous
flow field contours of pressure and entropy for the different
geometries. The results show that the rescaling of stage
geometry to save cpu time, leads to the prediction of greater
unsteady interaction effects and increased losses resulting in
lower stage performance.
It is concluded that to correctly model the unsteady
interaction effects in transonic compressor stages, accurate
representation of the actual geometry with minimal re-scaling
is important. Numerical methods capable of predicting these
effects should be a valuable tool in the design process of
advanced stages.
REFERENCES
1. Baldwin, B. and Lomax, H., 1978, "Thin-Layer
Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent
Flows,"AIAA Paper 78-257.
2. Chima, R. V., 1987,"ExplicitMultigrid Algorithm for Quasi-
Three-Dimensional Viscous Flows in Turbomachinery," AIAA
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 3, No.5, Sept.-Oct.,
pp.397-405.
Figure 1 Grid system for DFVLR compressor stage showing zonal boundaries
3. Dunker, R. P., 1990, Test Cases for Computation of Internal
Flows: V 1.4 Test Case E/CO-4, Nasa, Washington D.C.
4. Gundy-Burlet, K. L., Rai, M. M., Stauter, R. C., and Dring,
R. P., 1991, "Temporally and Spatially Resolved Flow in a Two-
Stage Axial Compressor: Part 2 - Computational Assessment,"
ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 113,April, pp. 227-232.
5. Madavan, N. K., Rai, M. M., and Gavali, S., 1991, "A Multi-
Passage Three-Dimensional Navier-Stokes Simulation of
Turbine Rotor-Stator Interaction," AIAA Paper 91-2464.
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021
6. Micklow, G. J. and Sauvb, J. P., "Quasi-Three-Dimensional
Calculation for the Effect of Axial Gap Variation on the
Performance of an Advanced Compressor Stage," AIAA Paper
94-0150.
7. Rai, M. M., 1986, "An Implicit, Conservative, Zonal-
Boundary Scheme For Euler Equation Calculations," Computers
& Fluids, Vol.14, No. 3, pp. 295-319.
8. Rai, M. M., Chakravarthy, S. R., 1986, "An Implicit Form for
the Osher Upwind Scheme,"AIAA Journal, Vol.24,No.5,May,
pp.735-743.
9. Rai, M. M., 1987, "Navier-Stokes Simulations of
Rotor/Stator Interaction Using Patched and Overlaid Grids,"
AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept.-
Oct., pp.387-396.
10. Rai, M. M., 1989, "Three-Dimensional Navier-Stokes
Simulations of Turbine Rotor-Stator Interaction; Part I -
Methodology, Part 2 - Results," AIAA Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 5, No. 3, May-June, pp. 305-319.
11. Rangwalla, A. A., Madavan, N. K., and Johnson, P. D.,
1992, "Application of an Unsteady Navier-Stokes Solver to
Transonic Turbine Design," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Vol.8, No.5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 1079-1086.
12. Smith,L.H., 1993, "Wake Ingestion Propulsion Benefit",
AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol 9, Number 1, Jan-
Feb., pp 74-82.
Inner
grid
Zonal
boundary
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021
Fig. 2a Numerical relative Mach number distribution for DFVLR rotor blade
at 50% span and peak efficiency

Fig. 2b Experimental relative Mach number distribution for DFVLR rotor blade
at 45% span and peak efficiency

6
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021

/
Figure 3b. Instantaneous Pressure Contours - Case 2
Figure 3a. Instantaneous Pressure Contours - Case 1
/

1'\

7
J
I
Y? 4/

/
)

/
/

U4

ILi
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1995/78781/V001T01A105/2405792/v001t01a105-95-gt-440.pdf by guest on 05 January 2021

Figure 15b. Instantaneous Entropy Contours - Case 2

Figure 4a. Instantaneous Entropy Contours - Case 1

Imc

Ili
I aos

QS4
;—^ aso