, N66 32334

OLCCESSlOI_I KUMB_R)

_s_

"C_ _u _
(NASA ¢R OR TMX O_ AD NUMBERI

NASA CR .54822
AGC 8800-08

HYDRAULIC DESIGN
f
OF THE
M-I LIQUID HYDROGEN TURBOPUMP

GPO PRICE $

By CFSTI PRICE(s) SL

J. Farquahr Hard COpy (HC)__

B. K. Lindley
Microfiche (MR_
,_7_
n 8s3 J_v ss

Prepared for

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

+ Contract NAS 3-2555

AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
 NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored

work. Neither the United States, nor the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), nor any person acting on
behalf of NASA:

A.) Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or

implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness,
or usefulness of the information contained in this
report, or that the use of any information, apparatus,
method or process disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately owned rights, or

B.) Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of,

or for damages resulting from the, use of any infor-
mation, apparatus, method or process disclosed in
this report.

As used above, "person acting on behalf of NASA" includes

any employee or contractor of NASA, or employee of such con-
tractor, to the extent that such employee or contractor of NASA,
or employee of such contractor prepares, disseminates, or
provides access to, any information pursuant to his employment
or contract with NASA, or his employment with such contractor.

Requests for copies of this report should be referred to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Attention: AFSS-A
Washington, D. C. 20546
 NASA CR-_
AGC 88OO-68

TECHNOLOGY R_RT

HYDRAULIC DESIGN
0FTHE
M-I LIQUID HYIIROG_ TURBOPUMP

Prepared for

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

15 July 1966

CONTRACT NAB 3-2555

Prepared by: Technical Management:

AEROJET-G_ERAL CORPORATION NASA LEdlS RF__EARCH CENTER

LIQUID ROCKET OPERATIONS CLEVELAND, OHIO
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORS _ J. Farquahr TECHNICAL MANAGER: W. W. Wilcox

B. K. Lindley

APPROVED: W o E° Watters APPROVED: W. W. Wilcox

Manager M-I Project Manager
M_l Turbopump Project
 ABSTRACT

This report presents the design method and resulting design details as well as
performance predictions for a ten-stage, axial flow, hydrogen pump for the M-1 oxygen/
hydrogen liquid rocket engine. The pump is designed to supply 600 lb/sec of hydrogen
at a pressure rise of 1890 psi. The pump stage complement consists of a low hub ratio
inducer stage with untwisted rotor blading followed by a lightly-loaded stage, called
the transition stage, and eight main stages. The main stages are designed for free
vortex head generation, with 50% reaction at the blade rest and a tip diffusion factor
of 0.4. The transition stage is designed to provide uniform radial head distribution
for the first main stage. A C-4, or modified C-4 circular arc blading is utilized
for all blade rows with the exception of the inducer rotor and discharge housing tur-
ning vanes.

PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED.

iii
 TABLE OF CONT_WTS

Io SUMMARY 1

II. INTRODUCTION 1

III. HYDRAULIC D_IGN 12

A. INDUCER STAGE 16

I. Inlet Rye Diameter 21

2. Blade Inlet Geometry 21

3. Head Rise and Hub Shape 22

4. Suction Performance 22

5. Type of Analysis 22

6. Losses and Deviation Angles 27

7. Stator 27

B. TRANSITION STAGE 31

C. MAIN STAGE 31

lo Blade Design Parameters 37

2. Method of Analysis 4o

D. DISCHARGE DIFFUSER VANES AND HOUSING 42

E. 0FF_DESIGN ANALYSIS 42

1. Inducer Stage 42

2. Transition and Main Stages 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APP_DICES

Ae Summary of M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Pump Hydraulic Design Data

iv
 TABLE OF CONT_TS

APP_DICES (continued)

Be
Hydraulic Performance Analysis, M-1 Liquid Hydrogen
Pump Inducer Stage

Ce
Off-Design Loss Coefficient Analysis, M-1 Liquid
Hydrogen Pump Inducer Stage

De
Hydraulic Performance Analysis (Design and Off-Design),
M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Pump, Transition Stage and Main Stages

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Pa__m

Ie
M-1 Fuel Pump Hydraulic Design Requirement for Liquid Hydrogen 9

II. M-1 Fuel Design Point 13

LIST OF FIGURES

le
M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump (Cut-Away Isometric) 2

2. M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump Assembly 3

3. M-1 liquid Hydrogen Pump Rotor Assembly 4

4. M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Pump Stator Assembly 5

5. M-1 Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump Nomenclature and Material 6

6. Over-All Performance (Normalized Pump Head Rise and Efficiency 7

vs. Normalized Pump Flow Rate)

1
Over-All Performance (Normalized Pump Required Torque vs. 8
Normalized Pump Flow Rate)

e
Comparison of Pumps (M-l, J-2, RL-IO, NERVA); Pump Pressure ll
Rise vs. Pump Weight Flow Rate

e
Pump Rotor Internal Flow and Thrust Balance System Flow 14

v
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

No.._._. Title

lO. Bearing Coolant Flow Systems 15

ll. Hydraulic Passage Contour 17

12. Inducer Rotor PTofile 18

13. Inducer Rotor Blade Angle, Thickness, and Wrap Angle 19

vs. Axial length

14. Inducer Rotor leading Edge Trim, Full and Pmrtial 2O

Blades_ Radius vs. Wrap Angle

15. Inducer Rotor Through Flow Area 23

16. Inducer Rotor One-Dimensional Head Riso; Tip, Mean, Hub 24

17. Pump Suction Performance; Head Loss vs. Suction Specific Speed a5

18. Pump Suction Performance; Torque L_ss vs. Suction Specific Speed 26

19. Losses in Several Inducers 28

20. Inducer Stator Casting 29

21. Inducer Stator Blade Shape 3O

22. Inducer Stator Fluid Velocity vs. Axial length; Tip, Mean, Hub 32

23. Inducer Stator Separation Parameter vs. Axial length; Tip, Mean, 33
Hub

24. C-4 Blade Properties for Inducer Stator, Transition Stage, and 34,35,36
Main Stages (3 Pages)

25. Typical Rotor Blade 38

26. _-pical Stator Blade 39

27. Total Pressure Loss Parameter 41

28. Diffuser Vane Profile 43

vi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

No_...%. Title

Blade Angle and Blade Thickness vs. Length 44

29.

30. Velocity vs. Length; Tip, Mean, Hub 45

31. Inducer Rotor and Stage Head Rise; Efficiency vs. Flow Rate 47

32. Pressure Loss Coefficient 48

33. Comparison of Off-Design Performance 49

vii
I. SUMMARY

This report presents the results of the hydraulic design effort for the liquid
hydrogen pump of the 1,500,O00 lb thrust M-1 liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket
engine. The pump was designed to produce a total pressure rise of 1890 psi at a
flow rate of 600 lb/sec, while operating at a maximum suction specific speed of
20,000 and a speed of 13,225 rpm. The pump suction was sized to permit eventual
upgrading to satisfy a suction specific speed requirement of 40,000.

One-stage centrifugal, two-stage centrifugal and multiple staged axial flow

pumps were considered. The axial flow pump was selected primarily because of its
upgrading capability and weight considerations. The pump consists of an inducer
stage, a lightly=loaded axial transition stage, and eight axial main stages.

Figure No o 1 is cut-away sketch of the turbopump while Figure No. 2 shows the
completed turbopump assembly. A main-stage rotor assembly is shown in Figure No. 3
and a stator assembly in Figure No. 4. The component parts of the turbopump are
illustrated in Figure No, 5 along with the materials of construction.

Blading design and pump off-design performance predictions were calculated

using blade element techniques that considered the effect of radial equilibrium,
losses, fluid-to-blade flow deviations, and fluid density variations. The pre-
dicted performance is shown in Figures No. 6 and No. 7.

II. INTRODUCTION

The M-I liquid hydrogen pump is the result of an effort, started in April
1962, to design a pump for a large liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen rocket engine.
The initial application was for a 1,200,000 lb thrust level for the second-stage
engines in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's first moon landing
vehicle. In July 1962, the requirement for the M-1 engine in this vehicle was
eliminated because of the decision to use the rendezvous technique for the mission.
At this time, a study of new missions and associated engine concepts was started.
This study resulted in the establishment, in November 1962, of a requirement for a
1,500,000 lb thrust level engine incorporating concepts that would allow eventual
thrust upgrading to 1,800,O00 lb. The pump design described in this report is for
this latter application. The pump hydraulic design requirements are shown in
Table I°

An analysis of alternative turbopump concepts was conducted in parallel with

the mission and engine analyses discussed above. One-stage and two-stage centri_
fugal pumps and multi-stage axial pumps were considered. Turbopump weights and
vehicle performance parameters for a typical second-stage application (ten F-1 first-
stages, two M=l second-stages of 1,500,000 lbs thrust each and one J-2 third-stage
escape vehicle) are compared below:

Page 1
h

rl

5
M
.ri

Page 2
 figure 2

M-1 L i q u i d Hydrogen Turb pump Assembly

Page 3
 Figure 3

P?-1 Liquic? FIydrogen Pump Rotor Assembly

page b
Page 5
 \
i1)

NI

t_
o

._

._1

r-I
/ I
>4

k
\\

P_e6
 " .+;+4 ........ 4_-:: ::::::::::::::::::::: .... ::-+_-_::_%_::.:i::::_.:::H. : + : i : , + ', t .; ,-

4 l ' l t -L_ I

iiii+
Li+,

(Normalized Pu_p _ead Rise and Efficle_cy vs. Normalized Pump Flow Rate)

Page 7

L
 Figure 7

Over-All Performance
(Normalized Pump Required Torque vs. Normalized Pump Flow Rate)

Page S
 TABLE I

M-I FUEL PUMP HYDRAULIC DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR LIQUID HYDROG_

W (Inducer Stage) lb/sec 6OO

* W (T._ansition & Main Stages) Ib/sec 64O

Discharge Pressure psia 1800

Speed RPM 13,225

** NPSP (Minimum) psi lO

Inlet Temperature (Min.) OF -423.5

Inlet Temperature (Nom.) °F -421.0

Inlet Temperature (Max.) °F -418.o

OFF-DESIGN RANGE:

Flow Coefficient % +13

Speed % • + lO

Includes Balance Piston and Bearing

Recirculating Flow

Final Flight Design

Page 9
 Change in Change in
Engine Specific Escape Vehicle Turbopump
Impulse Payload Weight
Type of Pump (Sec) (_) (lb)

Two-Stage, Centrifugal Not Calculated Not Calculated 5350

Single-Stage,
Centrifugal Reference Reference 3350

Multi-Stage, Axial + 0.4 + .30 to + .32 2850

(2 sec start
transient)

Multi-Stage, Axial + 0.4 + .09 to .19 2850

(5 sec start transient)

The figures for the axial pump specific impulse and payload are differentials
between the single-stage centrifugal pump figures (used as a datum) and the axial
pump figures. The twomstage centrifugal pump was eliminated because of excessive
weight and no comparative vehicle performance figures were obtained. A start
duration of two seconds was used in initial computations; however, the effect of a
longer start transient (five seconds) was also considered for the axial pump. It
was believed that a longer transient would be required to prevent axial pump stall.
The variation in the payload figures for a given case reflects the estimated pos-
sible variation in engine performance and weight.

The variations in vehicle performance between the single-stage centrifugal

and multi-stage axial pumps were small; however, the requirement for growth to a
1,80090OO lb thrust engine by increasing engine pressures imposed a severe struc-
tural requirement upon the single-stage, aluminum centrifugal pump impeller.
Analyses indicated that available aluminum alloys would have marginal structural
capability at the higher tip speeds required to generate the larger discharge pres-
sures (1900 psia to 2000 psia). Titanium alloys offered some promise for upgrading
pump discharge pressure; however, the development of such alloys and fabrication
techniques for those alloys was judged to be inadequate to permit the fuel pump
design to be connected to a centrifugal concept. Consequently, the multi-stage
axial concept was selected.

It should be emphasized that the philosophy in selecting the axial flow pump
was to incorporate a pump design concept which could be utilized for larger thrust
level engines without any change in concept (i.e., from centrifugal to axial flow
pumps) when engine thrust is upgraded by increasing engine pressures. However, the
specific design presented in this report was not required to meet specifications for
the 1,8OO,000 lb thrust level, either hydraulically or mechanically.

Figure No. 8 is a comparison between the M-1 engine hydrogen pump estimated
performance with those for three other current liquid rocket engine hydrogen pumps.
The NERVA nuclear rocket pump is a single-stage centrifugal pump, the RL-IO is a

Page i0
 Ii; !_
_i_ _
!!i!,iiiiiii i;; ii

ii ii
i

i}i
ii'
i:: ilil ;i:,i i_:i

til _i:iil;,!it
'_' _iii ii!i !!!
I! 11_ ilil i _

;; !!}:, !!17 !1:

,, ; it =}! !! il
'_ '.!!! i_ii !!i
: ii ,,ii ;i ,, Ii

ii 14-

Ii

i! ,,
ii [i
!! !;

_i i I

iil ,,
!! ii

!! !!

ii

ii ;;
'i
? ii
i
,; ii
ri J_

Figure 8

Comparison of Pumps (M-l, J-2, RL-IO, NERVA);

Pump Pressure Rise vs. Pump Weight Flow Rate

Page ii
two-stage centrifugal pump, and the J-2 is a multiple-stage axial flow pump. It can
be noted from Figure No. 8 that the M-1 pump flow rate is an order of magnitude
larger than any other existing rocket engine hydrogen pump.

III. HYDRAULIC DESIGN

The selected pump design point specifications are shown on Table II. With
the exception of the pump pressure or head rise, the specifications are identical
to those for the design requirement shown in Table I. The pump was designed for
more pressure rise than the requirement to provide contingency for achieving design
objectives. The design suction specific speed was 43,000 which includes an allow-
ance for a recirculation flow caused by tip clearance leakage in the inducer. Five
percent of the total pump flow rate was assumed to recirculate. The pump transition
stage and main stages were designed to accept engine inlet flow plus 40 lb/sec of
additional flowo This additional flow includes bearing coolant flow, internal
leakage, and leakage around the thrust balance piston as shown by Figures No. 9 and
No. 10.

The operating speed of the turbopump was determined by pump cavitation per-
formance limitations. A suction specific speed of 43,0OO was estimated to be an
approximate maximum for reliable pump operation based upon the demonstrated capa-
bilities of inducers. No allowance was made for thermodynamic effects in hydrogen
which permit considerably higher suction specific speeds. Although reliable hy-
draulic performance of a 43,OO0 suction specific speed inducer was judged feasible,
a survey of possible inducer designs, materials, methods of fabrication, and stress
analysis techniques indicated that there were uncertainties regarding the structural
integrity of a 43,000 suction specific speed design. A more lightly-stressed 20,000
suction specific speed design was incorporated for initial testing. This design is
referred to as an "interim" design in this report because it would be replaced by a
high performance design during the final phases of engine development.

The pump speed and suction eye diameter were based upon the design suction
specific of 43,0OO_ however, the design presented in this report is for the interim
inducer designed for a maximum suction specific speed of 20,000. The basic dif-
ferences between the two designs are inlet blade angle and blade hub thickness.
The interim design was intended for use in turbopump and engine static tests during
the early phases of the engine development program where operation at low suction
pressures would not be required.

The hydraulic design of the pump and much of the mechanical design of the
entire turbopump was largely dependent upon the number of main stages selected as
well as the diameter and hub/tip diameter ratio of these stages. A parametric
study of these variables was conducted using the following criteria:

The design point rotor tip diffusion factor would be 0.4.

The stator tip diffusion factor should not exceed 0.6.
At the minimum flow coefficient (87% of the design flow coefficient), the
rotor tip and hub diffusion factors should not exceed values of 0.44 and 0.47,
respectively.

Page 12
 TABLE II

M-IF_LPUMPD_I_ _INT

Propellant IH 2

oF -421
Propellant Inlet Temperature

Propellant Inlet Density lb/ft3 4.33

Shaft Speed RPM 13,225

Total Discharge Pressure (Cavitating) psia 1920

Total Suction Pressure psia 30.6

Total Pressure Rise (Cavitating) psi 189o

Total Head Rise (Cavitating) ft 59,500

lh/sec 600
Weight Flow Rate

GPM 62,300
Capacity

Efficiency 79

Fluid Horsepower (Cavitating) HP 65,000

Shaft Horsepower (Cavitating) SHP 82,000

Net Positive Suction Head ft 333

RPM x GR_ 43,000

* Suction Specific Speed

Final Flight Design

Page 13
 Figure 9

PumpRotor Internal Flow and Thrust Balance System Flow

Page 14
 J

Figure i0

Bearing Coolant Flow Systems

Page 15
 The design point head operation should be essentially of a free vortex type
(uniform radial distribution of theoretical head)°

Using the above criteria, to achieve maximum head rise per stage, with high
efficiency, it was necessary to have approximately 50% reaction at the blade root.

Axial stages with tip diameters varying from 14-ino to 18-ino were considered.
The factors influencing the selection of the final configuration were: turbopump
weight; turbopump critical speed margin; pump efficiency; and depth of the stall
point head discontinuity°

The 14-ino diameter rotor required an excessive number of stages to generate

the required pressure, based upon the prescribed blade diffusion factor limits°
The large number of stages resulted in critical speeds that were too low and close
to the selected operating speed° The 18-ino diameter rotor resulted in a heavier
turbopump, the savings in the number of stages did not compensate for the weight
increase resulting from the greater diameter°

In addition9 the large hub-to=tip diameter ratio required to stay within the
blade loading limits resulted in lower blade aspect ratios and reduced efficiency
for the 18-ino diameter rotor° The relatively short blading would also result in a
steep stall point discontinuity because of the tendency for the entire blade to
stall within a relatively narrow range of flow coefficient° The 16-in. diameter
machine was selected as optimum based upon weight_ stall margin, and critical speed
considerations_

Preliminary analyses indicated that an inducer stage could supply l_ to 15%

of the total pump head rise_ however, such a stage would not supply uniform head
and axial velocities for the main stages° A lightly-loaded "transition" stage was
designed to supply approximately five percent of the total pump head rise° The
primary purpose of this stage was to convert the non-uniform head discharging from
the inducer stage into a uniform head distribution for the first main stage° To
satisfy the blade loading requirements, eight main stages were required for the
16-ino diameter configuration in addition to the inducer and transition stages°
Figure Noo ll shows the resulting pump flow pa_ho The following sections describe
the design of the various stages and discharge housing as well as the off-design
analysis° The hydraulic characteristics of all stages at the design condition are
summarized in Appendix Ao

A. INDUCER STAGE

The geometry of the inducer design is shown in Figures No° 12_ Noo 13,
and Noo 14o The speed and tip diameter of the inducer are based upon a suction
specific speed of 40_OOO (neglecting recirculating flows)_ a net positive suction
pressure of 10 psi and a hub/tip diameter ratio of 0°4. The blading shown in the
figures is for the interim inducer design with a hub/tip ratio of 0°45 and thick
blades°

Page 16
 Figure Ii

Hydraulic Passage Contour

Page 17
 r-.-

! r-i
.H

\ N_. q_
o

C,I
\
rt
\ m (i) o
..p
o
r_
.rt
!

(D
0

¢ !

Page 18
I

U_3

.r-I

cD
r--I

H
(D r_

_D
-4
¢3

r--I

(1)
'cS
cd
f-¢
m

c)

Page 19

L-II
 -70 °

10

Figure l_

Inducer Rotor Leading Edge Trim s Full and Partial Blades_ Radius vs. Wrap Angle

Page 20
 Because some of the bearing coolant flows and leakage flows were to
enter the pump passages at the transition stage, the inducer discharge static pres-
sure was designed to be in excess of the fluid critical pressure (187.6 psia) to
prevent choking in the return flow passages. A total head rise through the inducer
stage of 9500 ft was used as a design point to allow for some off-design capability
as well as the uncertainty of the losses in the unconventional inducer stator.

1. Inlet E2e Diameter

The inlet eye diameter was determined by a method (1) where the
optimum value results when the inlet velocity head of the fluid is approximately
one-third of the net positive suction head. No allowances were made for the thermo-
dynamic effects of liquid hydrogen. The estimated 75 ft to lO0 ft of thermodynamic
head obtainable was left as a margin to allow for dimensional variations and up-
grading potential; therefore, excluding thermodynamic effects.

VZ2 Inlet 2/g = 1/3 NPSH (V Z = axial velocity)

NPSH = 333 ft (design requirement)

V Z Inlet = 84.0 ft/sec

g = 32.2 ft/sec 2 (acceleration due to gravity)

Q = 62,300 + 5% for tip leakage through clearances

= 65,500 gpm

= .4 = hub to tip diameter ratio

= 19.5 in. = tip shroud diameter

2. Blade Inlet Geometry

The blade inlet tip angle was determined from a study of the
cavitation performance of existing Aerojet-General pumps at various fluid-to-blade
incidence angles. Test data from the NERVA, MARK III, Mod 3 nuclear rocket pump
(Contract SNP-1) and the Integrated Components Program fuel and oxidizer chemical
rocket pumps (Contract AF04(647)-548 were examined. The test data for these pumps,
which have slightly cambered inducer blades, indicated that adequate performance to
achieve 20,000 suction specific speed (interim inducer design) could be obtained
down to incidence-to-vane angle ratios of 0.15. Fairly severe deterioration of

(1) Ross, C. C. and Banerian, Go, Some Aspects of High Suction Specific Speed
Pump Inducers, Trans, AGME, Vol. 78, No. 8, November 1956, pp 1715-1721

Page 21
performance occurs at values lower thou 0o15o The fluid incidence is defined as
the difference between the fluid relative flow angle and the blade angle_ assuming
uniform axial velocity and nc tangential veloci_ in the suction eye; the blade
angle and fluid angles measured from tre plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Because _he pumpwas reouired to operate at 113%of the nominal
flow coefficien%_ the blade tip angle was set so that the o15 incidence-to-vane
angle ratio would c¢cur at this higher flow condition° This resulted in a ratio of
approximately 0°25 at the design point°
Because of the high tip speeds of the inducer (llOO ft/sec at the
design speed) stress considerations determined the vane cant and taper requirement.
The vanes are canted forward three degrees on the blade centerline at the leading
edge to offset flui_ 0ending loads with centrifugal bending loads° A maximumblade
thickness at the tip of 0o250-ino was used to facilitate fabrication while providing
a reasonably thin section for good suction performance° Stress calculations dic-
tated a requirement for a blade maximumroot Thickness of loO-ino The blade tip
was swept back 120 degrees from the hub in the radial plane view to reduce stresses
resulting from blade o_erh_ng as shown in Figure Noo la_

3o Head Rise and Huo Shap_9

The inducer mus_ provide a transition from the low flow coeffi-
cient at the inlet to %ne higaer flo_ coefficients of the transition and main stages
while supplying _he ne_'esaary head rise° These _wo requirements were considered in
establishing the indu_er blade angle dlstriou_ion_ partial vane location, and hub
contoum_shapeo The desigr head rlse results in _ inducer specific speed of 3400
rDm gDm_o The one dimensional flow area _d Euier_s head rlse at tip, mean_ and

ft3/4
hub are given in Figares Noo 15 and Noo 16o

Th,e design of the s,_<:%ion and of the Mo_i interim inducer rotor
was very similar <o the [n_:egra_,ed Ccmpc.nen_s pumps? therefore_ the predicted suction
performance _,as [ased upon data from these pumps° The _otal pump head loss and
pump torque loss s', [hree i'i-_ coefficients (design_ 87% design_ and 113% design)
are shown as _ fur_._<ion cf st_,:tlo_ spe'ifi. _ spee_i in Figures No° 17 and No° 18o

Jo Type of Ana i2sis

The inducer non-<_av_<ating performance_ head rise_ and discharge

velocity dis_ritu<ion was determined by a two dimensional axi-symmetric solution
where simple radial eq=il[_><iu_ is assumeo to exist (see Appendix B,)o This assum-
ption appears %o be ]us,_lfied in [his desmgn because _he streamline curvature is
small near the discharge (Figaro Noo I_}o The solution of the radial equilibrium
equation was Lerformed inside ,he Olade where the fluid angle is assumed to be

Page 22
 Figure 15

Inducer Rotor Through Flow Area

Page 23
 ÷.

:-7--
:+_ -+_+7 : 4 ::¢ -; $ .-.;

:_! i!! ._{] :c--: _:-:::

i i

_:L _I
7-++ iTi i :r
.:T - i:g:7.i
_L:S T'7+_ w -

fii<
; .7
,17_ <i! 7i7 _17-7; :i:_!l_l-. :?:i:::i
..... + <i-:
::: _:
" .i :iii:i:?'-
;:_t;;AL
:;:l: :
77{ :_:7-.7: ::-_-:;:i
SL.:
14:-2:

-_
• _iI i i :77!L:-2
:_-.-:r:_= ! ii:i
ii!i_=i ii: I x_,_:'::

.7777,77!:.if777 1}[1;;:
:77 Z-:_; - --'_ .... 77:i!:5i
..... # .... ;7::T-:-;: :::i:;:;

..... : :;t:: "

::7t :. _
l_ [Z....
L::
::7t .... _ - I '
: :L:::
i!i:.::
5:! fiii
:r: ::ii!:i! =:: :::j!::
::1 £:: k:
x:::! ::ct .!
:::!:ii ::72 r:_:;:

7717
. : : .h::! ..:! ::
_i..:7 :l!: :

2:±! 511:I :L:_ ---f:+.:

:_ :' ::::l-:::
_f:: :fii
::7_++_:
:-

_=!!:!!

_.: -÷*k!ii :<i:

:4
:2: t;:::

:lit:i! _!!i::i:
;;:'<:A:
:L2_::2:

;;:h.*
i :=:: _f:i:<:l 7!!!:7
:iiH:l
t_t:

fii: :Li!l ::77_

_+m:l:::_!

m= =:! t=!
i+:-: '2:7:
it ......

+ .......

.... ?.:.7
........
-::
;7..
:::_
= _ii! I!-- n::

ll-:_: 111: 7-7i:12

:r e .
;':it17 : i:!:l :
!:!] !t_
._i:! i

!7; :7:7:77
........ :::ki::::
f:::!;;;

Figure 16

Inducer Rotor One-Dimensional Head Rise; Tip, Mean, Hub

Page 24
 "rT:-':_

o
-rl
.rl

0
_-44 -rl

co

I',,--
,-I

'.1111 0
,.a

b_ "0
-,-4

o
iiiii!i

Page 25
 !i:ii: :i

i:i

Figure 18

Pump Suction Performance; Torque Loss vs. Suction Specific Speed

Page 26
equal to the blade angle. Outside of the blade, it is assumed that thec_u_gular
momentum remains constant as the fluid leaves the blade. Another study_'has
shown that deviating from a radial blade element design to one where the blade is
generated by a straight cutter, but not otherwise restricted, does not result in
significant improvement in discharge head distribution if uniform axial velocities
are maintained. Consequently, the inducer stator was required to accept a non-
uniform radial head distribution°

6. Losses and Deviation Angles

A survey of flat plate inducer traverse data was made(3)(4)(5)to""

establish the inducer losses and deviation angles versus discharge radius. These
data indicate that, independent of blade lead angle_ the deviation angle varies
almost linearly from the tip to the hub, while the loss coefficient was approxi-
mately .22 at the hub, .12 near the mid streamlines, and .46 at the tip. These are
the values assumed for this design (Figure No. 19).

7. Stator

The inducer stator design serves three functions, as hydraulic

guide vanes, as structural support members for the pump bearings, and as a passage
through the vanes for bearing coolant flow. The stator casting and blade shapes
are shown in Figures No. 20 and Noo 21.

It was observed during the stator design that because of the high
heads generated at the inducer tip, high decelerations of the tip axial velocity
would result as the rate of fluid turning in the stator was increased. Therefore,
to minimize this adverse effect, the turning was kept at a minimum which resulted
in low blade loading. As a result of the extremely long blade cords, which are
caused by the structural requirement, a velocity distribution analysis was per-
formed to determine if critical areas exist where boundary layer separation could
occure The analysis indicated that this was not the case and the static pressure

(a) Knuth, W., M=I Fuel Pump Tandem Inducer Design Investigation, Aerojet-General
Report Noo 0153 (Rotating Machinery Department, LRO), 16 December l963

(3) Mullen_ P. J-9 An Investigation of Cavitating Inducers for Turbopumps, MIT Gas
Turbine laboratory Report No. 53, MaY 1959

(4) Montgomery, J. C., Analytical Performance Characteristics and Outlet Flow

Conditions of Constant and Variable Lead Helical Inducers for Cryogenic Pumps,
NASA TN D-583, 1961

(5) Sandercock, D. Mo and Crouse, Jo Eo, Design and Over-All Performance of a Two-
Staged Axial-Flow Pump with Tandem Row Inlet Stage, NASA TN D-2879

Page 27
 0
44_4_
+_

_2
t_
_i_¸
_144 4_

44_

IIII
_llli
n,
H

!]1
II

4!11_

_-i-t¢

÷.

_q
'+_
I rl
f,1 ff]

t:,i ID
O

c
i!
o',
:11 r-_ r-I

t!:r :il
!i: :ii
ii,,

o
: r
t'rr

.,_-_.
:it
: ,,

: i

:i:i
'!i
ti1
111
'r!

: i

i:

_'i {{

,,0 ul

Page 28
 Figure 20

Inducer S t a t o r C a s t i n g

Page 29
 //

PASSAGE THROUGH
FOP. BEARING COOLANT

HUB

ROTATION

PASSAGE THROUGH FOR INSTRUMENT _.CIRES

Figure 21

Inducer Stator Blade Shape

Page 30
gradients on the suction surface were far below critical separation values (Figures
No. 22 and 23). The less-than-optimum loading of the vane results in excessive
losses; however, they had to be accepted to provide the necessary vane cross-
sections for internal flow paths.
The British C-4 airfoil was selected for the inducer stator and
the succeeding stages of the fuel pumpdesign for two basic reasons: (1) it has
characteristics similar to the successful NACA65 (A10) series and double circular
arc blades at low MachNo. and (2) the larger area of the C-4 blade vs NACA65 (Alo)
and double circular arc reduces the stresses by approximately 20%. The blade
bending stress is approximately 80%of the total static stress in the mainstage
rotors. The blade section properties are given in Figure No. 24.

The i_dence and deviation angles were determined using previ-

ously developed methods_V/although the losses were adjusted to higher values than
would result from using these methods° This was done because of the low aspect
ratio design_ which results when hub and shroud losses become the larger percentage
of the over-all blade losses°

B. TRANSITION STAGE

The transition stage compensates for the non-uniform head generated by

the inducer stage. To achieve this, the transition rotor adds sufficient energy
to each streamline to produce a relatively constant inlet head to the first main
stage rotor° In addition, the design is lightly-loaded to assure a broad opera-
ting range which minimizes the effects of any mismatch occurring under inducer
stage outlet conditions°

The design criteria for establishing incidence angles, deviation angles,

and loss coefficients is identical to that discussed in the following section, which
discusses the main stages.

C. MAIN STAGES

The main stages of the fuel pump consist of eight identical high pres-
sure stages, except for the blade heights which were reduced by decreasing the out-
side diameter to compensate for a 6°5% increase in fluid density. The reduction
which corresponds to a 16oO0-ino to 15o84-ino diameter decrease occurs linearly
between the third main stage stator discharge and the fifth main stage rotor dis-
charge. This results in a reasonably constant design flow coefficient for all main
stages.

The design is essentially free vortex, with a constant net energy

(6) Aerodynamic DesiKn of Axial Flow Compressors, Vol. II, NACA RM-E56BO3a,
1 August 1956

Page 31
 Figlme 22

Inducer Stator Fluid Velocity vs° Axial Length_ Tip_ Mean_Hub

Page 32
 Figure 23

Inducer Stator Separation parameter vs. Axi_l Length; Tip_ Mean_ Hub

Page 33
 BLADESECTION
PROPERTIES
- C-4 TYPE

Direction

of Rotation

\
\ \

Stagger Angle _ - Blade Inlet Angle

Camber Angle _ - Blade Outlet Angle

Figure 24 (Page i of 3)

C@4 Blade Properties for Inducer Stator,

Transition Stage, and Main Stages

Page 34
 BLADE SECTION PROPERTIE_

RADIAL CAMBER STAGGER CHORD RADIUS OF THKMA x

BLADE
STATION ANGLE ANGLE LENGTH CURVATURE CHORD
m

Main Stage Rotor 8.0 18.5o 51.17 1.0695 3.327 .o75

47 Blades 7.8 19.3o 49.50 1.1015 3.286 .0824
Drawing #286325 7.6 20.42 47.45 1.1370 3.207 .090
7.4 _.86 45.02 1.1755 3.1OO .0974

7.2 23.60 42.32 1.2155 2.972 .1050

7.0 25.60 39.44 1.2575 2.838 .1125

6.8 27.86 36.39 1.3020 2.704 .120

_in Stage Stator 8.0 37.56 34.12 ,,8818 1.3696 .lO •

57 Blades 7.8 33.84 34.45 .9097 1.%3 .Io •
Drawing _710905 7.6 31.25 34.83 .9391 1.743 .io *
7.4 29..57 35.27 .9682 1.897 .10 •
7.2 28.30 35.74 .9980 2.041 .lO •
7.0 27.14 36.26 1.0275 2.190 .10 •
6.8 26.04 36.83 1.O%5 2.345 .10 •

Inducer Stage Stator 8.80 27.60 62.20 8.164 17.n3 .i0

ii Blades 8.55 27.05 56.20 8.164 17.454 .i0

Drawing #286342 8.30 26.47 51.4o 8.164 17.830 .10

8.o5 25.97 48.1o 8.164 18.167 .IO

7.80 25.5O 45.90 8.164 18.496 .lO

7.55 25.04 43.80 8.164 18.830 .i0

7.30 24.60 44.60 8.164 19.162 .i0

7.05 24.15 45.40 8.164 19.513 .iO

6.80 23.75 47.45 8.164 19.837 .iO

6.55 23.35 51.70 8.164 2o.172 .iO

Blade surfaces were moved apart to give thickness 50% greater than shown

Figure 24 (Page 2 of 3)

C-4 Blade Proper%les for Inducer Stator, Transition Stage, and Main Stages

Page 35
 BLADE SECTION PROPERTIES

(cont'd)

RADIAL CAMBER STAGGER CHORD RAD_UB OF TKKMAX

STATION ANGLE ANGLE LENGT______H CURYATU_ CHORD
BLADE

8.03 3. 40 59.20 1.200 20.225 .O70

Transition Stage Rotor
7.91 6.70 58.00 1.223 10.465 .075
31 Blades
7.79 9.15 56.67 1.246 7.811 .080
Drawing #289537
7.66 11.o3 55.50 1.269 6.590 .085

7.5_ 12.45 5_.3o 1.292 5.958 .o9o

7.41 13.85 53.10 1.315 5.453 .095

7.29 15. OO 51.98 1.338 5.125 .XOO

7.17 16.10 50.80 1.361 4.859 .105

7.05 17.20 49.70 1.384 4.628 .110

6.92 18.32 48.50 1.407 4.419 .115

6.80 19.30 47.30 1.430 4.261 .120

8.00 43.60 39.90 .991 1.334 .08

Transition Stage Stator
7.88 33.9O _.50 .991 1.7OO .O8
51 Blades
7.76 27.70 3_._O .991 2.070 .O8
Drawing #286551
7.64 23.05 ))._O .991 2.480 .08
7.52 19.95 )2.98 .991 2.861 .08
7.40 17.50 32.72 .991 ).257 .o8
7.28 15.70 )2.60 .991 3.628 .08
7.16 14.90 )2.6_ .991 ).82 .O8
7.0_ 14.60 52._) .991 3.900 -08
6.92 14.50 33.10 ._i 3.926 .08
6.80 I_.6o ))._o .99_ _.9Oo .08

Figure 24 (Page 3 of 3)

C-4 Blade Properties for Inducer Stator, Transition Stage, and Main Stages

Page 36
addition to each streamline and has an approximately 50%reaction at the hub. Rotor
and stator blade sketches are shown in Figures No. 25 and No. 26, respectively.
The design objective was to limit the tip diffusion parameter "D" to .4 or less at
the rotor tip which results in "D" values of a_Droximately the same magnitude for
the remainder of the blade. The di_fusibn limit for the stator was setat .6, or less;
however, the rotor tip limit resulted in stator "D" values of less than .47. A
flow coefficient of .431 was selected to supply the necessary head for the eight,
16-in. diameter stages while restricting the tip and root diffusion factors at the
minimum (87%) flow coefficient to maximum values of 0.44 and O.47, respectively.
These values were selected as desirable limits based upon the correlations previ-
ously cited Q7) •

The main stages are designed to have axial clearance between blade rows
(at the blade root) of .155-in. for the rotor trailing edge/stator leading edge
clearance and .173-in. for the stator trailing edge/rotor leading edge clearance.
These dimensions are somewhat larger than those used in compressor design practice
but they are necessary because of turbopump mechanical design constraints. However,
it is expected that this will have very little affect upon performance. The sel-
ected nominal operating clearances of .020-in. for the rotor tip and .049-in. be-
tween the stator inner platform and rotor drum are conventional and no attempt was
made to evaluate the affect of these clearances upon pump performance.

i. Blade Design Parameters

The blade solidities and maximum chord-to-thickness ratios were

established primarily by the maximum allowable stresses at the blade root; however,
the blade solidity and chord-to-thickness ratio values are in the range of normal
design practice.

The blade properties are shown on pages 2 and 3 of Figure No. 24.
The rotor blade foils are C-4 type. The main stage stator blades were originally
designed to be C-4 foils with a constant thickness-to-chord ratio of .lO. The
affect of pressure loading upon the blade inner platform was neglected in arriving
at the 10% thickness value and resulted in an overstressed blade. This blade over-
stress was not discovereduntil the tooling for the 10% blade was fabricated. In
the interests of both time and cost, ithicker blades corresponding to a maximum
thickness equal to 15% of the chord were fabricated by spreading the 10% thickness
inside form and back form surfaces apart. This resulted in a blade with thicker
sections than a 15% C-4 section in the leading and trailing edge regions. The per-
formance predictionsshown in this report are for the standard C-4 stator of 10%
thickness. The blading modifications are estimated to result in a 2.2 point loss
in pump efficiency at the design point together with a 3.2% reduction in pump head
rise. The reduction in performance is primarily attributed to increased trailing
edge thickness with the increase in maximum thickness having a secondary affect.
It was assumed that the increase in leading edge thickness would have a negligible
affect. It was planned to have standard C-4 thin trailing edge stator blades for
the final pump design.

(7) ibid.

Page 37
I.$28

610

Figure 25

Typical Rotor blade

Page 38
 Figure 26

Typical Stator Blade

Page 39
 The incidenoe and deviation angles were determined by the pre-
viously cited me_,hods(8)for C-4 blade settings at the minimum loss condition
established by two dimensional cascade data. Three-dimensional corrections were
not applied because information (9) indicated that in the cited methods (10) derived
from compressor data did no_ apply for an incompressible fluid_ however, no other
convenien_ correction was available° The losses9 except fgr _inor modifications
near the tip_ were also determined using the cited method, (II) wherein the fluid
diffusion, fluid tu_ning_ blade solidily and fluid exit angle are related to losses.
The tip losses were reduced slighLly based upon the reported test resultso (12)(13)
A smoother transition between the tip losses and the remaining streamline losses
was also included_ as shown in Figure Noo 27°

2. Met.hod of Analysis

• The streamline analysis that was used was obtained from existing
literature°(1A_(15
_ _ _• mathematical model taken from this literature was formulated
into a computer prcgram_ Aeroje%_General Corporation Job Noo lO001, and used to
establish the transition stage and main stage blade geometry. The basic assumptions
made in this analysis are_

ao Flow is steady and axially symmetric°

b_ Flow is two-dimensional and satisfies simple radial

equilibrium.

:o Shearing effects of viscosity between blade rows is neglected.

(8) ibid

(9) Crouse_ Jo Eo_ Soltis_ Ro Fo_ and Montgomery, Jo Co_ Investigation of the
Performance of an Axial-Flow Pump Designed_by the Blade-Element Theory-
Blade-Elemen_ Data_ NASA TN D_IIO9_ Detember 1961

(i0) NACA RM_=E56B 03a_ Voio II_ Opo Oito

(ii) ibid

(12) Crouse_ Jo Eo_ e t; al_ NASA TN D=II09_ opo cito

(13] Crouse9 Jo Eo and Sandercock_ Do Mo_ Investisation of an Axial Flow Pump Rotor
with a 0_7 Ha o=Ti_Radius Ratio and Blade Tip Diffusion Factor of °43 -, Blade
Element Performance_ NACA _1968

(Ia) NACA RM-E56BO3a_ Opo _it_

(15) Lieoleln_ So_ Analysis of Experimental Low Speed Loss and Stall Characteristics
of Two_Dlmensional Compressors Blade Cascades_ NASA RM-E57A28'

Page 40
 IIi _'
_!II ii
!if!
li !i
iiii
iI '_ 't![ !_

i_ii il
]III

ii ii
!!!!

i:i! i!
t!_t

i_! ii

fill

ii i,

'i!i _'

!, ii
!ii
!111 rrl! _'

0
!ili _!il ,i

!!ii
i_i i!

!!i! j
• " i
r-I
¢0
1
0

i!i!

kt. _-

:!
r

"1!-c

4V_ V
Z_ZZ 2Z

Page 41
 do Heat transfer is neglected°

e. Losses and fluid-to-blade flow deviations effects

are considered.

D. DISCHARGE DIFFUSER VANES AND HOUSING

A pump discharge pipe diameter of 12-in. was defined by engine design

considerations° A conical diffusing section with a constant half angle of approxi=
mately 4.5 degrees was incorporated between the discharge pipe and the constant
velocity volute° Engine design constraints limited the length of this section so
that a lO®ino diameter volute discharge section was required, which resulted in a
volute velocity of 250 ft/seco

The housing vanes are non-airfoil sections that are designed to provide
a smooth transition from the entrance velocity of approximately 500 ft/sec to the
volute velocity of approximately 250 ft/seco The profile of the passage is shown
in Figure No. 28° The root_ tip9 and mean passage vane angle distributions are
shown in Figure No. 29. Essentially_ the hub vane angle distribution was selected
to provide a free vortex velocity distribution. To simplify pattern making, the
vanes were generated by straight line elements that are approximately normal to the
root (back shroud) contour° The resultant velocity distribution is shown in Figure
No. 30°

The pressure loss based upon a one-dimensional analysis indicates the

diffuser losses will be approximately 50 psi or approximately 2°5% of the total
pump pressure rise°

E. OFF=DESIGN ANALYSIS

l° Inducer Stage

To predict the off=design performance of axial flow pump by the

blade element method9 the fluid deviation angle and loss coefficient must be known
or assumed for each radial streamline on the blade at each off-design flow condition°
The inducer off,-design deviation angles were assumed to be unchanged from those at
the design point because for high solidities other investigators (_6)(17) show that
the deviation is little affected by the inlet fluid flow angle° The inducer rotor
off©design loss coefficient was determined by assuming the performance would be

(i6) ibid

(17) Shigeo_ Kutota_ CasCade Performance with Accelerated or Decelerated Axial Flow,
MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory Report No° 56, September 1959

Page 42
 ÷+.++ _+-.-
_d- d

i_i ]i!
!ii ;;_ :ill i:

_+-_

ii i!!
._+=+ +
,-+-++
LL l!s_

+_.,_.+_

_: +-++-
::I

_+ !!i
÷-+-+-
....il
11 ii i,
_i ili !i! ti

_! !ii !!!
i
i

i!i, iiii _ ]
iil !ii i_ii
!tl ! +ii !_!!
!!! !!!!! +iii ?
iLt +ilii iiii
iiI_Ii_,!I i _,i!1
• _!_,
+il _i I i++_
+.+++
111 llii _!][
_!_ i;ii !!ii

!!! _!_i! iiii

_I_ i!! iiii
ptt it<iI,iii
l ,,
ii!i !iil
ill ii_ i
?
4 i] iii !
t;!i +:
2
:
,,i! iii_

..........
! ii ;
!! !
':ii! _
ii!i !I

2_.4

i!i!
,! ! i!
_iii ii
i !!_t i÷
1:,21
!
:¢:4
d_ i !! ,,
1:11 i t I

_5
&
Tt
Figure 28

Diffuser Vane Profile

Page 43
 _T1-
i! l ,,

1-I-
?T _- "P n'7

II

_L
bl
+

-U

_J
T_

z:
d .s
Z4
,!T _T_-

J_

:-f
i

!"

ID
T[k Ill
etO
;L [i'

F7:

i •
• _"L7,
Z m
$ ......

• 21

,I
" 7N}
i

X_

_t
_ T2

2;

2: {-T.:
T T7 T Ti

.L:Z
1Lif
I_ i IT
4f I _N::
_f

Page 44
 ¢
G_

&

Page 45
 (!8)
similar to a turbine_Irire:_ inducer which has the same specific speed° The
method for determining %k.e inducer off-,design loss coefficients is described in
Appendix Co

The rctcr cff_des:ign performance was computed in the same manner

as the design p¢i_< peuz<.,_mam::._ , (Appendix B)o The starer off,_des:_._n performance
was computed in .+.hesa_,-.,._
_ _,_me:;_ a_ _he design point perfor_mn,3eo Rotor and stage
off-design performan:e :is _:¢w_:, in Figure Noo 31o

Th= o_,",_:_:_:!_, pe:_formanae analysis of these more conventional

axial-flew stages _a._ per'_<:i_J!, using two methods° The first method was one_dimen=
sional wherein _he de';;:iation ang,le ,_as assumed to be constant while the off-design
loss characteri.st:i:'_ _e,re sim'_l_r _,o %hose of cascade tests (see Figare No° 32) but
at a higher level t_ a_<;_un" .fc,
r '::iwleakage and h_b boundar_ i.ay_r losses° The
second was a tw:._imer,slor, al tla..:ieelement, methodo (19) The de_ia_ion angle varia_
tion, stall _ °_ _
,_rl_e__a_ anQ ._ :s_ ,? ;_,er_,a' at stall in this method ha'_e been detailed
by Liebleino (2u) TDe equat :,n_ a_,d +;heir: numerical form are shown in the off-design
section of Appendix Do S<_.ll wa.s assumed to occur when the of/,,design losses were

twice those at the des,_g_, pc.in <F_gure NOo 3,_.2

) correspondin_ [;o a 9a!ue of two
for the equivalen_ d:if_,/sl;_Olpar.emeter "Deqo i)

The ;_esui_-s of _.he of f ,=design analysis are shown in Figure No. 33

for the one_,dime_,_:.:_',_
'. a:::d __ o,dh_,ensional studies° It can b_ seen that Method
two substantiates M_'h,:e cne_ b_:, g_ves a slightly steeper head _ersus flow curves
with stall o,t,
currin_ a_,,89_ ,,)fdesign flowo However_ the pre_i_-[:ed per_orman(':e
(Figures No° 6, a.<a 9c o _> ie ka_e,,_,].po_. the one-dimensional analysis _22) where the
stall margin occu:_ a" a i we:; flow coefficient° It appeared _.ha_ _he one-dimen-
sional analysis *,as m,::_= rel-_hie than the two_dimensional pred1':;_:ions for a ten
stage machine because the :0 :,.dlmensianal analysis requires accurate radial loss
predictions t,o a'_o_i large rad.ia[ flow shifts while the one-dimensional analysis
does not have th_ _,r_o_ie_Zo

(i---_- (u) The Design sn_ E:ai,._- __,'_ o_ a L_w Sn_e_a H,y.drauli.c_ Tu'_b_ne_Driven Pum__
_-5:' _ : S _a_e _ Aerojet o_Oeneral
Discharg=c..F._i__;_/) Cor'po (LRO'! ,_Final Report
Phase __ I _ Czn_.:o_., AFO,_',, 611,_ 74agConfo_
_: )

(19) Serovy_ Go Ko a,,.,:,

T,_:,._ _,o",.o_'_Prediction of Axial. _i_ Turtomachine
Performan,'e :._ B_aa_ .....................
6!eme_ '_ M e ____
;._.ods_
.....
__ ASME Paper No o 61 WA,,.!_4

(2O) Lieblel_: So_ Opo <!. o

(21) ihid

(22) Final ]_<.r_' _ Po,a_. .... _ " _ ........

,,a_,, _ AF
a .... ,3'÷(611 )_'?_e6 _ opo <;]-!!;

Page 46
r

Figure 31

Inducer Rotor and Stage Head Rise; Efficiency vs. Flow Rate

Page 47
 0

°I-'_

o
.H

oJ Q)
o_ 0
c..)
Q)

ID

Page 48
 Figure 33

Page 49

i ii
 The effect of the non-standard main stage stator blades was esti-
mated to be a one percent to two percent decrease in stall margin° This analysis
(flow coefficient margin to stall) predicted the performance change would be caused
by the increased thickness at the trailing edge; the thicker leading edge was assumed
to have no effect°

A one percent pressure loss at design flow was predicted because

of the untwist of the rotor blades° This prediction was based upon a calculated
one degree untwist at the tip caused by blade loading and centrifugal loading.
This effect was not considered in the design predictions shown in this report.

Page 50
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

l@
Crouse, J. E. and Sandercock, D. M., Investigation of am Axial Flow Pump
Rotor with a 0.7 Hub-Tip Radius Ratio and Blade Tip Diffusion Factor of
.47 - Blade Element Performance, NACA E-1968

@
Crouse9 Jo E., Soltis, R. F., and Montgomery, J. C., Investigation of the
Performance of an Axial Flow Pump Sta_e Designed b? the Blade-Element Theor 7 -
Blade Element Data, NASA TN D-IIOg, December 1961

.
Inouye, F.T., Subscale Fuel Inducer, Aerojet-General Report FA 64-360,
31 July 1964

@
Knuth, Wo, M-I Fuel Pump Tandem Inducer Design Investigation, Aerojet-General
Corporation Report No. 0153 (Rotating Machinery Department, LRO)
16 December 1963

e
Lieblein, S., Analysis of Experimental Low Speed Loss and Stall Characteristics
of Two-Dimensional Compressor Blade Cascades, NACA RME57A28.

.
Montgomery, J. C., Analytical Performance Characteristics and Outlet Flow
Conditions of Constant and Variable Lead Helical Inducers for Cryogenic Pumn_,
NASA TN D-583, 1961

@
Mull,n, P. J., An Investigation of Cavitatin S Inducers for Turbopumps, MIT
Gas Turbine laboratory Report No. 53, May 1959

@
Ross, C. C. and Banerian, G., Some Aspects of Hish Suction Specific Speed
Pump Inducers, Trans. ASME, Vol. 78, No. 8, November 1956, pp. 1715-1721

o
Sandercock, D. M. and Crouse, Jo E., Design and Over-All Performance of a
Two-Stased Axial-Flow Pump with Tandem Row Inlet Stage, NASA TN D-2879

lO. Serovy, G. Ko and Tysen, J. C., Prediction of Axial Flow Turbomachine

Performance by Blade Element Methods, ASME Paper No. 61 WA-134

ll. Shigeo, Kubota, Cascade Performance with Accelerated or Decelerated Axial

MIT Gas Turhiae laboratory Report No. 56, September 1959

2o
Aerodynamic Design of Axial Flow Compressors, Vol. II, NACARM-E56BO3a,
1 August 1956

13. (U) The Design and Evaluation of a Low-Speed I Hydraulic Turbine-Driven Pump
Discharge Fed Inducer Stase, AGC, LRP Final Report Phase II, Contract
_FOh(611)-7446 (Confidential)

14. M=I Design Information Report, Section P. I0, Contract NAS3-2555 (Conf.)

Page 51
APP_DICES
 APP]9_DIX A

SUMMARY OF M-I LIQUID HYDROG_ PUMP DESIGN DATA

 SYMBOL NOM]_CIATURE

RADIUS IN.

U BLADE SPEED

_/ ABSOLUTE FLUID VELOCITY FT./SEG.

V_ AXIAL FLUID VEIDCITY FT./SEC.

VT ABSOLUTE TANGenTIAL FLUID VELOCITY ./sEG.

W RELATIVE FLUID VELOCITY FT ./SEG.

RELATIVE FLUID ANGLE DEGREES

ABSOLUTE FLUID ANGLE DEGREES

6 SOLIDITY

D DIFFUSION PARAMETER

TOTAL PRESSURE LOSS COEFFICIENT

H_ HEAD LOSS rw@

INCID_CE ANGLE DEGREES

DEVIATION ANGLE DEGREES

C CHORD IN.

THICKNESS IN.

AH ROTOR HEAD RISE FT.

EFFICIENCY

¢ FLOW COEFFICIenT

V HEAD COEFFICIENT @ 8.0-in. radius

FLUID DENSITY @ 8.O-in. radius L_./_. 3

ACTUAL HEAD, STAGE FT.

IDEAL HEAD, STAGE FT.

Page A-I

II i
 SYMBOL NOMENCLATURE (Cont' d)

_o
/_A MASS AVERAGED ACTUAL HEAD

MASS AVERAGED EFFICIENCY

MASS AVERAGED FLOW COEFFICI_T

1 m m

MASS AVERAGED HEAD COEFFICIENT

-_ MASS AVERAGED WEIGHT FLOW LB/SEC.

H P Ho_s_mow_m

SUBSCRIPTS

io ROTOR INLET

2. ROTOR EXIT AND/OR STATOR INLET

3. STATOR EXIT

Page A_2
VECTOR DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL FLUID VELOCITI_
, , m, |

UI

u_

Page A-3
H (r_

_Z

0
• cO _)
,..4

oO
oo
oO cO O_ O_ r-I

i O_ co
[_ _ oo .t 0 r_
• • LO r-I 0
D" [_ CO O_

o_ • cO _ _"
0
cO

0
uh _ _'h _ ,-_
• • _- LP_
o4 _h _ LI_ oO _ID • _ oO cO • •
Z
H

_-
0
O_ H H 0 O_ ,-I _D ,-4
__ _1 O _1
o_o
_D I_
Cm
£_0o_ • _ _ °

i Um
• 0,1 0"_ OO _ _ -_"
_r_ _0
_ __ -;
_ •
_ _A__°oo
co _. _.

u'_ 0
(_J co _0
•
0
_D
n..I
_D mm _-; _ ._ _ _

Page A-4
 O
H

_1 E-4

0 O_ ...I"
_R. _ D,- 0
0

h'h

0
E_
0

Page A-5
 INDUCER STATOR

STA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO ii

1o75 6°99 7°23 7°48 7.72 7°96 8.20 8°44 8°68 8°92
r2 6 o51
6°94 7°08 7o21 7°35 7°49 7.63 7.77 7.90 8°04 8o18
r3 6 °80
159 185 199 206 206 203 188 160 115 36
V_2 llO
258 255 265 274 285 296 319 358 422 529
V_3 280
426 397 381 375 378 389 424 492 601 794
VT2 476
202 193 197 201 209 218 240 279 346 468
VT3 228
455 438 430 428 431 439 464 517 612 794
V2 488
326 320 330 339 354 357 401 454 545 706
V3 362
69°5 65.0 62°4 61o2 61o4 62.5 66ol 72°0 79°2 87.3
_2 77°0
38ol 37.1 36°6 36°2 36°3 36.4 37.0 37°8 39°4 41o5
_3 39°2
dr 2 °20 2o12 2°04 1o98 lo91 1o85 1o80 1o76 1o69 1.65 1o60

D °428 °434 o431 °426 .421 o418 o412 °407 o413 °420 °427

-W- .243 o213 o197 °182 o182 o182 .182 o182 o182 o198 •213

_1_o5_ 400 325 305 320 320 310 310 320 360 550 1050

.Z 7o8 10o2 7°6 5°2 4ol 3°7 2°8 3°5 3°6 5°9 7.0

3°7 3°9 3°9 3°9 4°2 4.9 4°8 4°3 3°8 4°4 4°9

P 4.37 4o38 4o38 4o38 4.38 4o38 4.38 4o38 4.33 4°30 4o24
3
NUMBER OF BLADES ll

TYPE OF BLADES C-4

BLOCKAGE FACTOR °O4

INDUCER STAGE

ZkH. 10_830 10,100 9,760 9_710 9,900 10,350 ll,OOO 12,370 14,800 18_640 25,350
l

A I_
A 898o 89405 8,385 8,440 8,550 8,740 8,940 99400 10,260 11,930 15,460

83 83 86 87 86 85 81 76 69 64 61

°303 °279 °276 °287 °296 °308 °320 °345 .389 .456 °572

f °338 o317 o316 o318 °322 °330 °337 °354 °387 °450 °583

,&H, 9540

78°5
°370

°360

,'k) 6OO

HP 1320

Page A-6
i:

o_
E-I

1.-I

r.-i

Page A-7
 0
o _
° 0 c_l 0 Ox _ 0
f-I 8 r-I o o o

o o 0 Im_._oo I_ 0
o ,-4 _1 o o o

(J_ t_ r-4
o o e

',D

o o o

,--I

o o o

o o o

o_

o o o

a
o_ oo
_ r_
o o o

E'_
_.i- _.i- .4-
Fth [_- Lth
t/h 0
! 0 D.- _ I_ _-I 0
_D O_ oO O 0 Fth o o o
0_ _

O'x oO
Ox _ r-t
o o o

L'_ L'_
0
o o e

PQ
d
o
_ l_" je 1_'3
E_

Page A-8
 o
O_

Ox

-_ 0 oO 0'_ S _ _ 0"_ r-I u%

oo

C'-

0
0 -_ oO I<_ oO r-I k_D 0 le_ D'- ,-4

',,+.0 -:I- +..,,-toO ("u ,-I _++ -.,-I- 0", o , 0 _ _ Pe_ oo oO o -i-
r_ c.-- D..-- _ I'_ (X.J l',r'X -.,I" Lf_ ('%1 .-_ r--_ o " _ '_D LI"x I_

0
I--I

5-+

S ",,.0 _ Lt_ -..-,-,-t .-_ 0'_ I'_ LI_ O0

0 O_ C_l 0 U_ kC) _C) r-I E'- _ CO -_" O0 o ..:p

c_J _ _ L._ ',.0 O0 0 t2,.- oo _-I e-I

0"_ 0'_ oO -:1" _ oO "+,.D 0 o o ,--I C'-- 1'_ _0 +-..I C',.- o -:t"
o _ _D +-4 Ox r-'l .-_ 0 D+ _ I+_ 0 ["- o t'_

1 0
cO
0
oo 0 _D oO kD ,--I C_
f_l
• +
_ ox
_1
o,I
C_
oJ
I,_ ,--I +0
,,
_-i
0
_
o
0

Page A-9
 0 Lr_

C',I nd - •

CO 0 _
d d- 0 0 L)
l_ rkl 0 :J "

L__ 0 _ 3'\

E'-- v'_ 0 I- . 1
,oh • • •

oO ,--I _" nd 0 ['--

oo 0 oo -.t c_ ..:f rH
T _ • • •

co oO _1 0 E_

,.-I *_o _ oo
oo _'_ o_ _ o_ E_

0
H
co E_ _D 0 _h 0", Ch
0 H
o_ L_ .T • • •

q'- ,--I O_ c,,J 0 _ _h

0 _0 _ O_ cO _ • • • _.0 -_ _h

_h d • • •
-d
uh I 0
c) •
_0 _0 cO
co O_ _0 _ oO O0
0 0 _- o_ _h
L_ _ • • •

co

0
--.1" • • •
5
m
0
_ r5

_ o

Page A-lO
 o
O'_

_lr._

I::::) z
O
0 _ cO _ ',..O 13% cO ',..D O'_
o o Ckl ckl o o I/_ (%1 c_J ---I"oO O'x _ O_ O_ L_ r-i o
oO cO 0"_ O_ _ _ _ _ C'd u'_ D,- --I- kO _ • o o c,J

cO

c',-.

O
E-4
O

L_
Z

,...1 _q r'-t _--I ',O _-..D _ _ _ _ r-I _ -.1- U_ o o _ --..t .-_ 0

'_ --.-I" o o 04 _kl o o ',,D 0 ,-4 0 H _-I _ oO o ...,t 0 o
H

E_

o o O'_ O_. o Lr_ 0 ,--I _1 _) _ O0 _.._ --._ 0 o

0 0 0 _ '.D _ I'_ oo O_ -.._-

oO co L_ L_ _ -.t- 0 L_ CO Ox _--I O_ o o -..dr- .._ -.:t-
H o o oO oO o o ',,0 0 ,--t (%1 C_ D-- D-- O,J o -_ 0 o

I_ ,-I oJ _i Od
,.., c_J _o,1 151 E..,_ C-.I

Page A-II
 ,--I U_ ._- O_ '_:)
P-+ -el" r--I -_- 0+_
o 0 _ O0 I+_
o _ o o o

o t',-
o
oo
0
L_-
0
O_
oO
0'_
I,_
E_-
c_l

oO oO O_ ,-I
o'_ o 0 oo O_ ..el- CxJ
_- o _1_ o o o

O0 cO O_ 1,_
oo o O O0 0"_ -_- C_l
O0 o _D o o o

P,r,x _ 0 _o

cO o '_0 o o o
0

oO _ 0 0
t.Ox _ _ I._ _ "_0
o 0 0 O_ _
cO o _ o • o

°!°
E--I
-r+l

Z CO C_I oO r-I
0 L_ C_- 0 _0 _ I_ C_-
o _I 0 O_ -_" C_I
CO • I_ • o o

_o ..el- ,-1
,-I o,I I,_ _ C,- 0
,--I _0 r-I _ '..0 _-I 8 0 ,..-I O_ .._ cq -.-t"
0 0 0 _ N_. b_- _._ o o o _O
H_ -.'I- o ;--I +_I O_ -el- C_l
0"_ o E".- • + o

+--I e"l -._ i'_

m'3
o :-'l O,,J O_ _ OJ
o _ o o o

Ch LI_ --_ +,_'- cO

o ,--I _ O_ -cP'
Ch o b,.- o o o

0
oo 0 E_- Lr_ oO
,--I

0
c5

o
+m <_

Page A-12
 ,,,.

0
0

0
0

,--I
• _ _ _ a-,I
_ L'",- 0% _
o _ • • •

tt'% ,-4
,_ o _
t-4
_ • • •
0

,-4

o,,I ,'-4

Page A-14
H_

Page A-13
 APP_DIX B

HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

M-I LIQUID HYDROG_ PUMP
INDUCER STAGE
I. Inducer Rotor Analysis

The M-I inducer impeller was designed with radial blade elements, and blade
angles satisfying the relation,

tan _/ = r tan _t where

r.

_/is the blade angle to the axis, and subscript t refers to any point at the
same axial station where the blade angle is known.

Preliminary investigation of the inducer performance indicated that the

velocity and pressure distributions at the impeller exit plane would not provide
reasonable design conditions for the design of the inducer stage stator or tran-
sition stage° In order to reduce the work done on the fluid at the impeller tip,
and thereby "flatten the hub to tip total pressure distribution, it was suggested
that the impeller vane be trimmed back at the exit plane.

a. Impeller Geometry

For the analysis, the trimmed portion of the impeller was divided into
eleven equally spaced axial stations, A through K; and at each axial station, the
passage was divided into eleven equally spaced radial stations, one through eleven.
In this way an eleven by eleven grid was formed, with points on the principal dia-
gonal corresponding to split point at each axial station between in-blade and out-
of-blade flow.

b. Equations

Under the imposed geometrical conditions, velocity and pressure dis-

tributions could be determined by successive solution of the equations of simple
radial equilibrium and continuity at each axial station.

The radial equilibrium equation,

g dh =re 2
d-_
"_ r

g = Ac:eleration of Gravity

h = Static Pressure

r = Radius

VO = Fluid Tangential Velocity

Page B-I
 If the axial velocity distribution does not satisfy continuity, the
initial guess for hub velocity is revised, and a new axial distribution is computed.
This iteration process is continued until the continuity condition is satisfied.

Referring hack to the section on geometry, it can be observed that the

equation for VZ(n+l) can be used exclusively only at axial station A; at succeeding
stations_ _he fluid has passed all or in part out of the blade. If it is assumed
that the fluid tangential velocity remains constant after the fluid leaves the blade,
the complete flow solution n_y be readily determined.
As t_e fluid passes from axial station A to B one radial station is out
of the blade9 one at the split point_ and the remaining stations are within the
blade. As each successive axial station is reached an additional radial station is
out of the blade_ and _be split point movedone station closer to the hub. If then,
the tangential velocity at radial station eleven (tip) determined at axial station
A is assumedcon_tanb as the fluid passes from A to B_ a solution can be had for the
flow outside the blade°

Using the previously stated radial equilibrium equation, and the ex-
pression for statis head_ an expression for VZ n+ 1 is again found.

- U(n)V@ (n)
VZ(n+I) : _2S(n) + 2g ..HL(n+l) + Hl(n) + U(n+I)V@ (n+l)
g

2
V@ (n+l) (n) - (n) /k
2g
+re2 2g ve2
rg

Using the first V_ n+l equation to compute the velocity distribution to

the split point, and the above V_ n+l equation above the split point, the flow
distribution at sll stations can be successively determined°

2. Stator Analysis

The statcr design and off design conditions were computed by solving the
equation of simple radial equilibrium° The analysis consisted of first determining
the blade angles required to satisfy conditions of design; having thus selected the
blade inlet and outlet angles_ it was then only necessary to hold these blade angles,
and study the effect a* (the stator outlet) of varying inlet velocity and head pro-
files, and flow ra_eso

Beginning again with the equation of simple radial equilibrium,

2
g d_ = Ve
dr r

Page B=2
may be used to solve for axial velocity V_ , distribution when either the
tangential fluid velocity is known_or the fluid angle is known. For this case
the fluid angle can be estimated knowing the blade angle, and using an approximate
in-blade deviation angle° Then at axial station, A, the axial velocity distribution
can be determined_ knowing only the fluid angles.
2
gdn =V@
dr r

Ve = u = _= u + V_. tan
2 2

h : H1 o H2 + u(vs-
Ve) - ve _ v_
g 2g 2g

H L = Head Loss

U = Blade Speed

= Fluid Angle Relative to Blade

H 1 = Inlet Head = 0 (Assumed)

V_ _ = inlet Tangential Velocity = 0 (Assumed)

2.

The equations above may be combined and expressed in finite difference from

U2+2UV_ tan_ + V_2tan_

rg _ r

This equation may be solved explicitly for V9 at radial station n+l, as a

function of known values at radial stations n, and n+l, i.e.,

VZ(n+I) = _l al2_ _z2(l+tan2_ (n)) + 2g (-HL(n+l) + HL(n)+

+t (n+l)

(n+l) = U2(n) = (n) + 2U(n)VE(n)tan_(n) + Vg2(n)tan2_ (n)

U2 U2 r_}
2g 2g rg

If an initial estimate is made for the axial velocity at the hub, the velo-
city distribution may be determined using the expression above. The velocity dis-
tribution so determined is then checked against the continuity equation)

Q = Volume Flow Rate : ip

v_ rdr

Page B=3
at the design point, the effect of various outlet tangential velocity distributions
were studied to select the outlet V@ distribution that would best satisfy the de-
sign conditions. The equation expressed explicitly in terms of axial velocity is

VZ(n+I) = Z_n) + 2H2(n+l)-2H2(n) - g (n+l) - g_ (n)-

Y2
r
( V_
@ n+l

r(n+l)
+
v2
__
_ (n ..

H 2 = Outlet head

Ve = Outlet tangential velocity

V 2 = Outlet axial velocity

r = Radius

subscript n = i_xial station

To determine off-design conditions, V_ in the equation above was required by

Ve = V._ tan_"

-_= Fluid angle

The equation, again explicitly solved for

Vz(n+l) = 2 Z (n) + -
_a n2 +l f_.2 (tan2_
2 (n)-!) H2(n+l)-H2(n)
/(n+l)

Vz2(n)r(n)tana_(n) Ar__ g2

Using these equations and the equation of continuity, the performance of the
stator may be determined

Page B-4
 APPENDIX C

OFF-DESIGN IOSS COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS

M-1 LIQUID HYDROG_ PUMP
INDUCER STAGE
 The expression above for head loss at any off-design point is a function of
design head (HD), design efficiency C'l(D),and C1 and C2 determined from the per-
formance curve of the turbine-driven inducer.

Using the off-design head loss so determined, the off-design loss coefficients
can be determined, and a complete off-design analysis of the inducer rotor can be
obtained.

The inducer stator off-design loss coefficients were assumedto be equal to

the design point loss coefficients. This assumption was madebecause magnitude of
the stator losses was small comparedto the total head, so that a significant in-
crease in the stator losses would not be important in changing the outlet total
dynamic head.

PageC-2
 INDUCER STAGE

0FF-DESIGN LOSS COEFFICIENT

The loss coefficients for the rotor off-design were determined by assuming
that the M=l fuel inducer performance would be similar to the performance of another
Helical inducer of approximately the same specific speed, ioe., the turbine-driven
inducer°*

Let C1 = percent of design head at any off-design point.

C2 = percent of design efficiency at any off-design point;

Then if

H = head

_= efficiency

subscript L = head lost

subscript K = off-design point

subscript D = point

I = ideal head_

C 1 : __HE = HL K -HL K
HD HD

i- HLK

HI K
C 2 =_K

These equations may be combined to solve for H_

H_ = HDC I _DC2

* Shigeo, Kubota_ Cascade Performance with Accelerated or Decelerated Axial Flow_

MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory Report Noo 56, September 1959

Page C-I
i

APPENDIX D

HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

(DESIGN AND OFF-DESIGN)
M-I LIQUID HYDROGEN PUMP
TRANSITION STAGE AND MAIN STAGES
I. PROBL_4 TO BE SOLVED

A. COMPUTATION

This program calculates design and off-design performance for a multi-

stage axial flow pump of given geometry.

The program is equipped to handle incompressible flow as well as com-

pressible para-hydrogen.

The flow solution is two-dimensional and incorporates NACA, low mach

number cascade loss data.

mo INITIAL INFORMATION

I@ Inlet velocity distribution.

2. Inlet density distribution when flow is compressible.
3. Inlet head distribution when flow is incompressible.
4. Inlet temperature distribution when flow is compressible.
5. Inlet pressure distribution when flow is compressible.
6. Flow rate and shaft speed.

C. SOLUTION

1. Physical Theory

For a complete discussion refer to NACA Research Memorandum No.

E56BO3a "Aerodynamic Design of Axial-Flow Compressors - Volume II dated
August l, 1956.

2. Methematical Formulation (AGC Computer Program 10039)

See Section IV

D. RESTRICTIONS

I. The flow satisfies radial equilibrium conditions.

2. The pressure and temperature ranges are as follows:

36.0001 °R _---temperature ___--lO0°R

147 psia _ pressure __ 5000 psia

II. INPUT

A. DISCUSSION

Three input sheets have been constructed for this program:

Page D-1
 The first page contains the basic data for each case such as option
flags, flow rate, blockage factor, etc. including the inlet conditions and geo-
metry for Stage Noo1.

The second page contains the pumpgeometry for each succeeding stage.

The third page contains the data necessary to run the off-design portion
of the program. Normally, only the PDESQ coefficients will be required input as
the program stores all the design point data on tape and it is read as needed. In
the event different inlet conditions are desired at Stage l, fill out the other
lines on the sheet and set the value of KI corresponding to PDESQ I equal to 1.
Any number of cases maybe stacked_ however, each case must be complete.
B. DATANEEDED

The following is a list of the data required to run one case:

Input Symbol Description

NSL Number of streamlines

NS Number of stages

T BLADE TYPE:

T = 1 if C-4
T = 2 if DCA
W = 3 if NACA-65

FLOW Incompressible flow flags:

FLOW = 1 if incompressible
FLOW = O if compressible
O

W Flow rate9 lbs/sec

RPM Shaft speed, revolutions per minute

blockage factor

DFS Diffusion at stall

R°
mgH (i = 1_2_3) Hub radius at station i, inches

R
I_T (i = 1_2,3) Tip radius at station i_ inches

Rotor hub thickness to chord ratio

(t/c)R, H

Page D-2
 Input S_mbol Description

Stator hub thickness to chord ratio

(t/C)s ,H

Rotor tip thickness to chord ratio

(t/ClR, T

Stator tip thickness to chord ratio

(t/cls, T

O" R,H Rotor blade solidity

CY S,H Stator blade solidity

Radius ratio _xponent

XR

as Radius ratio exponent

Rotor blade camber angle, degrees

_ Rotor

Stator blade camber angle, degrees

_ Stator

Rotor Rotor blade stagger angle, degrees

Stator Stator blade stagger angle, degrees

Represents one of the following:

T1

density lbs/ft 3 when flow is incompressible

temperature °R when flow is compressible

Represents one of the following:

T2

head, ft when flow is incompressible

pressure, psia when flow is compressible

Axial component of fluid velocity, ft/sec

VZ

Tangential component of fluid velocity, ft/sec

Fraction of design flow rate to be used for

PDESQI (I = 1,2,..o6)
off-design calculations

KI (I = 1,2,...6) A flag corresponding to each PDESQ I indicating

whether additional input is required:

Page D-3
 Input Symbol Description

K I = 1 for additional input

KI = 0 for no additional input

Same as T1

Same as T2

Co INPUT FORMAT

Card 1

Symbol Card Column

NSL 1-2
NS 3-5
T 6
FLOW 2o=22
o

W 27-34
RP_I 35-42
43®50
DFS 59-67

Card 2

Slrmbol Card Column

R19}_ 1-12

R29H 13-24

R3_H 25_36

R1 _,
T 37-48

R2 _T 49-60

R3 _T 61-72

Card

S_bol Card Column

(t/c) R _H 1=8
(tic)s_H 9-16

(t:./¢:)p, _T 17-24

Page D-4
 Card Column

(t/C)s ,T 25-32
_" R,H 33-40
O_ S ,H 41-48

xR 49-56
xs 57-6
Cards numbering 4 through (NSL + 4) contain:

Card Column

(_ Rotor 1-8
Stator 9-16
C( Rotor 17-24
O_Stator 25-32
FIXDEV 33-40

T1 41£48

T2 49-56

VZ 57-64

VT 65-72

The remaining (NS - i) sets of cards will each contain (NSL _ 2) cards
the first two of which repeat the format of cards 2 and 3 followed by NSL cards
with the following:

Card Column

_Rotor i_8
Stator 9-16
Rotor 17-24
Stator 25_32

The last card of sets of cards will contain off-design data (see third
page of sample input sheets).

D. RESTRICTIONS

I. NSLmust be odd and less than or equal to eleven (ii).

2. See Section I. D. 2.

E. TIME

No specific formula for computing execution time is available; however,

Page D-5
time required for the test cases run where as follows_

4 mir for 8 stages with ll streamlines and 4 off-design points

1 min for 3 stages with ll streamlines and 2 off-design points

III. OUTPUT

A. DISCUSSION

Each set of output will consist of 6 pages for each stage°

The first page contains the basic pumpdata_ inlet conditions and geo-
metry for Stage lo The second, third and fourth pages contain the data obtained
at stations l_ 2 and 3o The fifth and sixth pages contain the data pertaining to
the rotor and statoro
B. DATAOUTPUT

The following is a list of all the data output_

Symbol Description

ALPHA blade stagger angle, degrees

ALPHAR rotor blade stagger angle, degrees

ALPHAS stator blade stagger angle, degrees

BETA(1) fluid inlet angle relative to blade,

degrees

B_TA (2) fluid outlet angle relative to blade_

degrees

BLADE TYPE

BLOCKAGE FACTOR

DEV deviation angle_ degrees

D * equivalent diffusion ratio

Dr* diffusion factor

E enthalpy_ btu/lb

ETA efficiency

Page D-6
S_bol Description

FLOW Compressible or incompressible

FLOW RATE Flow rate, lbs/sec

H HEAD, feet

HEAD LOSS Head loss, feet

INC Incidence angle, degrees

K Number of streamlines

NS Number of stages

P Pressure, psia

PS Static pressure, psia

PHI Blade camber angle, degrees

PHIS Stator blade camber angle, degrees

PHIR Rotor blade camber angle, degrees

Gamma (2) Fluid angle relative to housing at station

2, degrees

Gamma (3) Fluid angle relative to housing at station

3, degrees

R Coordinate in radial direction, inches

2H (I) Hub radius at station l, inches

_H (2) Hub radius at station 2, inches

RH (3) Hub radius at station 3, inches

Density, lbs/ft 3

aT (1) Tip radius at station l, inches

aT (2) Tip radius at station 2, inches

RT (3) Tip radius at station 3, inches

Page D-7
S__vmbol Description

S Entropy, BTU/Ib°R

SHAFT SPEED Shaft speed, revolutions/minute

SIGMA d
TCRH
(t/c)R, H

TCSH
(t/C)s ,H

TCRT
(t/c)R, T

TCST
(t/C)s, T

T Temperature

T/C Blade solidity

U Blade speed

V Fluid velocity relative to pump housing,

ft/sec

VT Fluid tangential velocity relative to

pump housing, ft/sec

VZ Axial component of fluid velocity, ft/sec

W Fluid velocity relative to blade, ft/sec

X (Rotor) Radius ratio exponent

X (Stator) Radius ratio exponent

Page D-8
i)
1,n KI_ 'H/Ri'T +i Ri'H
Ri, H/Ri, T

2) U. = R. (RPM/9.549)
1 ,n 1 ,n

3) (n-l)
(T/C)R, n = (T/C)R, H + (T/C)RrT- (T/C)R, H
K-I

4)

5)
= Arctan (VTl,n/VZl,n)

6)
WTI,n = Ul,n - VTI,n

7)

8)

9) hl,n Hl,n -
2g

io)
Arctan
(Wl n)
ll) Set DAC = i.I for blade type C-4
= 0.7 for blade type DCA
= 1.O for blade type NACA-65

DAC
A. B = [.i197 + 3o871 (T/C)R,n + 50 (T/C)2,n ]

Bo M = .252 - .1045 x IO-3_ + .192 x i0-_ 2

1,n 1,n

-4 2
C. b = .954 + .873 x iO-3_ -
i J-,n .929 x lO W_l, n

D. NN n = f (_i ,n, OrR,n )

E. (_o)lO,n = f (_l,n, (_R,n)

= B (_) + m_R,n + FIXD_

n
F. _ n o lO,n O.-R6n

Page D-9
 i + _R,_I21
Go i n l,n

Satisfy radial equilibriUm for rotor:

12) 2 )TV
= I C ,l-
A. V_2,1

B. Seth =l
. VZ tan _ 2,n
= U2_n 2,n
C. VT2 ,n

V2 + _, /_/2
D. V2in = I T2'n Z2in)

vm )/g
- 1,n Ii n
Zo _Hi,n = CU2'_C2_n

Fo Calculate WR,n

G. Calculate _2,n
2
+ AHi, n " WR, nWl'n/2g
H o _2 _n = _l ,n

If n = K go to step 13, otherwise continue

V 2 /R2 ,n
To TD = T2_n

= WR
Je %_R_n+l _n

2g (Hl,n.l " H2_ n)

V?_ = cos _ 2,n+l
2_n+l - 2 _ RTD

2 _ 2Ul _n+iVTl,n+l
+U2 _n+l + V 2 ,n+l

-W R _n+l_ 21 _n+l I y2

VT 2 _n+l = U2'n+l "VZ2'n+l tan {3 2,n+l

+ VT 2 /R 2in+l ) /2
TD = (VT22,n /R2, n 2,n+l
_e

Page D-lO
 No Return to K two times, then proceed to O.

Oe Increase n by i and return to D.

13) "
Wc:2_ (i- _) vZ2,n P2,n _

14) Define: Check = (W- W )

C

15) If/check/--_=.O05, go to 25, otherwise proceed to 16,

16) If this is the first iteration go to 17, if not go to 22.

17) If check is negative set F = .95

If check is positive set F = 1.05

18) Chec_ = check

19) VEL= VZ2,1

20)
V_,I = VZ2,1 ° F

el) If the number of iterations performed is less than or equal to 30, go

to !2)B otherwise halt.

a2) If (check)(check l) ___ O, go to 18

CO, go to 23

23) VZ2,1 = (cheCklVZ2,1 - check -VEL)/(check I - check)

a4) Go to 21o

a5) (T/C)s, n = (T/C)s, H + (T/C)s T - (T/C)s,H (n-l)

IK-1)

a6) = S
_s,n _H (Ri,H/Ri,n) X

27) = Arctan ( )
2,n VT2,n/VZ2,n

a8) A. B = .1197 + 3.871 (T/C) + 50 (T/C) 2 DAC

s ,n s,n

Page D-II
 2
Bo M = ,252 - oi045 X I0-3_2, n + .192 X 10-4 0 2,n

2
Co b = °954 + °873 X i0-3_2, n - °929 X i0-4_ 2,n

De
n ,n_

(_°)lO,n = f (_2,n , _s,n )

F° S = J_ ,_o)lO_n + m_ + FIXDEV n
n _sbn

G. in : _"
2,n
-(d s,n
+_ s,n/ 2)

Ho _'3,n = (_s,n - _s,n/2 +_n

29) Satisfy radial equilibrium for stator:

A. °
VZ3, I = W/ _ 2,1 (i_2,T 2
- R2,H) fV

B. Set n = i

C° i n =
VI3, VZ 3 _n tan _ 3_n

D° V 3 _n = (VT3,n + VZ3,n )_

Eo Calculate W and
s,n 3,n

Fo H3,n = H2,n "_ s,n 2_/2g

V2

_e If n = K go to step 30, otherwise go to H.

2
Ho
TD = VT3_n/R3_ n

I, W = W
s _n+l s _n

Je F -H 3 )-TD (AR)] 2
L g (II2_n+l ,n +V3,n
VZ3 _n+l [

=%_n+iV2_n+l _ Y_ Cos _3,n+l

..J

Page D-12
 Ko VT3,n+ 1 = VS,n+ 1 3,n+l

L. Calculate W
s ,n+l

M. Return to J two times, then proceed to N.

N. Increase n by 1 and return to D.

o. w = 2 fF(l- -h)
c ,n VZ3,n _3,n dr

5
P. Define: Check = (W - W)_
C

Q. If/check/ __ .OO5, go to 30
.005, go to R

R. If this is the first iteration go to S, if not go to 29.X

So If check > 0 , set F = .95

0 , set F = 1.05

T. Chec_ = check

U. VEL= VZ3,1

V. VZ3,1 = VZ3,1 F

W@
If the number of iterations performed is less than or equal to
30 go to 29.B, otherwise halt.

Xo
If (check)(check l) >--_0 , go to T
_0 , go to Y

Y- VZ3,1 = (checklVZ3,l-Check • VEL)/(checkl-Check)

Zo Go to W

30) W2,n = VZ2,n/c°s _ 2 ,n

31) HLOSSR, M = WR, n ,n/2g

Page D-13
52) 5LOSSs ,n

l) E(IDEAL) 2 _n ,n
,--- 2 _/2g x 778
E(IDEAL) 2,n " wR W
2) E2 _n

= f(E2_n , Sl,n )
3) P2 ,n
P2 ,n )
; f (E(TDEAL) 2,n
$2 ,n

B(ST_TIC) 2 _n
5)
, $2 ,n
-- f(E(STATIC) 2,n
6) _D2, n

- f(E (sTATIC)2,n _ s2'n

7) T2 ,n

p (sTATIC) 2 _n = P2,n 2g 144

8)
- Z l,n )
. El,n)/(g (IDEAL)z,n
- (_2,n
9) _ R,n

3
l) E3,n = E2 _n s _n
)
S1 _n
2) P3_n = f CE_'n '

= f (E (IDF-AL)2_n ' P3'n)

3) S3_n
V_ nl2g x 778
_) s (sTATiC)
} _n = Z3,n ,
S3 ,n)
= f (E (sTATICJ_n

p (sTATIC)3_n = P3_ n " 2g

7)
9

E1 _n)/(E (IDF_L) 2 _n
8) = (E}_ n
_S_n

page D-14

/
CALCULATION OF D_SITY AT STATION i, STAGE i

i) E1,n= f (P1,n , TI, )

2) Sl,n = f (Pl,n , Tl,n)

3) E (STATIC)I, n = El, n - (VZ2 n + V_I,n)/50062.744

4) _l,n = f (E (STATIC)l, n , S1, n)

5) Hl,n = Pl,n " 144/_Dl,n

6) P(STATICll,n = Pl,n - 2_
144

CALCULATION OF W R _n =

cos249
= , .12 + .61
Cos 492, n VZ 1 n ll (VI,nWTI,n
DR'n cos _l,nVZ2, n _R,nVl,nVZl,n

-Va,n WT2,n)_

D** = 1 - + V I,nWTI In - V 2 InWT2 In

R,n
W1 ,n (Vi, n+V2, n )°ra ,nWl ,n

Rotor n = f (D'")
R,n
~ 2
WR, n = R1n n
Cos 4_ 2,n

COMPUTATION OF W =
s_n

Ds,n* = CosCos_0{
_,n VZ2_n _.12 + .61 _F
C°s2_2,n (V2, n VT2, n
V VZ
2,n VZ3,n u s,n 2,n 2,n

-V 3 ,nVT 3 ,n)_

D*" = 1 - _V3 n
s,n + V2'nVT21n - V_'nVT_'n
V2,n (V2, n + V3, n) C_3,nV2,n

Page D-15
 STATOR= f (D**)
n sgn
"_ 2 _ STATOR
W = s_n n
s_n Cos V3, n

CALCULATION OF Zi_ :
ns

A = Cos _2,nVZ2,n

Cos _-i ,nVZ19n

B = lol2 + o61 C°s2_Rl,n

(Vl,nWTl,n - V2,nWT2,n)
V1 ,n U"R, nVZ1 ,n

-
where a = °007 if C-4 blade type

a = 1 if DCA blade type

a = oOll7 if NACA-65 blade type

CALCULATION OF _ Yns:

A = Cos _c_nVZ_n

Cos _2 _nVZ29n

B lol2 + 61 C°s2 _2
= o _n (V2,nVT2,n -V 3 ,nVT3,n )
V29n s,nVZ2,n

/_ns = _a1 ( DFSA -B)_ .699

Page D®16
 RI_RT NASA CA _4822 DIST_IBL"_ION lIST

Chemic_l Propulsion J.ufo1_mation

w. w. Wilcox (5 co_es) _brary (1 C_)
NASA Agency (i Copy)
National _er_tios and Space A_t_ti_
John Hopkins University
Le_ Research Center Western Operations
150 Pico Boulevard Applied Physics Laboratory
21000 Broo_ Road
Santa Monica, California 90406 8621 Georgia Ave.
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Silver Spring, iaryland
P_eil Stop 500-305
Library (i Copy)
E_. G. Wialicenus (i Copy)
W. F. _aukhoff (I COVJ) Jet Propulaic_ laboratory
Penn State University
4800 Oak Grove Drive
_il Stop 3-13
Naval Ordnance laboratory
Pasadena, California 91103
University Park, Pennsylvania
H. H. Hinckley, (! COI_3)
A. O. Tiechler (i Copy)
s_ 5oo-21o Dr. M. Vavra (i Copy)
Code RP
_val Post Graduate School
laves Library (a _es)
Monterey, California 93900
Stop 60-3 Washington, D. C. 20546

Dr. George Serowy (i Copy)

M. J. Bartmsan (1 Copy) E, W. G0mersall (i Copy)
Iowa State University
NASA
Mail Stop 5-9
Ames, Io_ 50010
Mission Analysis Diviaioa
Office of Advanced Research and
J. C. Montgomery (1 Copy)
Technology
}_Lil Stop 501-1
Moffett Field, California 94035

Office of Reliability and Quality

Assurance (i Copy) F. C. Schwenk (i Copy)
Code NPO
Mail. Stop 500-203
NJUaA

F. J. Dutee (I Copy) Washingt0m, D. C. 20546

Mail Stop 25-I

Dr. E. B. Konecci (1 Copy)
l_tional Aeronautics and Space
D. F. L_ge (1 Copy)
Council
Mall Stop 501-1
Executive Office of the President

Patent Counsel (i Copy) z_xecutive Office Building

Washington, D. C.
Mail Stop 77-1

H. V. Main (1 Copy)
Lewis Technical Information
Divisi_ (i Copy) Air Farce Rocket Propulsion
laboratory
Mail Stop 5-5
Edwards Air Force Base

Robert Connelly (I Copy) Edwards, California

Y_il Stop 5-9

T. lura (i Copy)

AFSC Liaison Office Aeros;ace Corporltion

2400 Fast E1 Segundo Blvd.
}_jor E. H. Karalis (i Copy)
p. o. Box 95o85
Mail Stop 4-1
Los Angeles, California 90045

NASA (6 Copies)
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft
Scientific and Technical Infor,mtion
Corporation (I Copy)
Facility
Florida Research and Development
Box 5700
Center
Bethesda, Maryland
P. O. Box 2691
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Library (i Copy)
NASA
Ames Research Center Dr. Kurt Rothe (I Copy)

Moffett Field, California 9J_O35 Rocket dyne

(I./.brax'y _pt. 586-306)
Division of North American A_-lation
Library (1 Copy)
NASA 6633 Camoga Avenue
Canoga.Palnk, California 91304
Flight ResearCh Center
P. O. Box 273
Edwards AFB, California 95523 Arnold Engineering Development
Center (i Copy)
,Arnold Air Force Station
Library (i Copy)
NASA Tullahoma, Tennessee

Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. K. Boyer (I Copy)
I Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

Library (l Copy) CMF-9

NASA P. 0. Box 1663
Los Alamos, New Mexico
Langley Research Center
langley Station
Dr. A. Acosta (I Copy)
Hampton, Virginia 23365
California Institute of Technolo_

1201 East California Street

Library (I Copy)
NASA Pasadena, California

Manned Spacecraft Center

Aercaautical Systems Division (I Copy)
Houston, Texas 77058
Air Force Systems Command
Wright Patterson Air Force Base
J. W. Thomas, Jr. (5 Copies)
I-E-E Dayton, Ohio 45433

NASA

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama 35812