AHS2011 HECC Design Final PDF
AHS2011 HECC Design Final PDF
AHS2011 HECC Design Final PDF
E.A. Lurie, P.R. Van Slooten, G. Medic, J.M. Mulugeta, B.M. Holley, J. Feng, O. Sharma
United Technologies Research Center
East Hartford, CT
[email protected]
R. Ni
AeroDynamic Solutions, Inc.
Current and envisaged future airport congestion levels motivate the need for increased use of high-performance rotorcraft and
rotary wing aircraft. The turboshaft engines that power these aircraft must have high power density, fuel efficiency, and wide
operability. The lower physical flows associated with turboshaft engines for rotorcraft, and the high overall pressure ratios
(OPRs) required for performance, motivate the use of centrifugal compressors as the last stage of compression. This paper
describes the design of a high efficiency, compact centrifugal stage scaled for use as a measurement test bed that is
representative of a state of the art compressor stage in rotorcraft engines. In addition to the design activity, this paper
outlines the development of the rig instrumentation layout through inspection of CFD results. The instrumentation layout
contains high density static and dynamic pressure measurements, to be used for validating design and analysis tools, and for
acquiring physics insight to enhance centrifugal compressor design and performance capability. The fabrication of this stage
is underway for initial test entry in 2011.
INTRODUCTION1
Centrifugal compressors have been extensively used
in a variety of products over the last century and in
rotorcraft engines over the last 60 years. These devices
provide reliable compression in very compact
configurations. Extensive databases, design rules, and
criteria are available in most of the design and
manufacturing organizations to allow development of these
machines. These design processes are highly empirical,
utilizing scaling strategies, and rely on prototype testing to
achieve design goals. This design process reflects the fact
that the flow in these machines is highly complex and
dominated by three-dimensional, viscous, and unsteady
mechanisms, and results in conservative designs to limit
engine program risks. Managing this complex flowfield is
a primary limitation to high efficiency designs. Over the
past decade, CFD-based tools have begun to be utilized to
assess configurations during the detailed design phase. To
date these tools have been validated largely by utilizing
system level performance metrics. There is a need to
validate these tools by utilizing data that elucidates physics
of loss generation mechanisms in these machines, to ensure
these tools can be used to define the details of the loss
reduction concepts with added confidence.
A second limitation to high efficiency centrifugal
compressor designs is that the close spacing of the rotating
impeller and stationary diffuser rows can cause
performance and durability issues. Matching a vane
diffuser to an impeller is a nontrivial task due to the
complicated flow mechanics involved and the absence of
1
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The intent of the design effort is to develop a
centrifugal stage that is representative of the final stage of
an axi-centrifugal compressor for rotorcraft applications.
To that end, the performance requirements at engine scale
and at rig scale are shown in Table 1. Also included are
values for the existing CC3 rig. The rig is geometrically
scaled twice as large, approximately, as the engine scale,
making it easier to accommodate dense levels of
instrumentation. The geometric scale factor varies as [7]:
Lengine
Lrig
m engine
m rig
(1)
The engine-scale compressor exit temperature of 9501000oF corresponds to an overall pressure ratio of 25-30,
which is typical of current turboshaft engines. Also, for a
multistage turboshaft engine, the mechanical layout would
typically drive the impeller geometry to have impeller inlet
hub to shroud radius ratio R1H/R1S of about 0.6-0.7 and
impeller inlet shroud to tip diameter ratio R1S/R2 of about
0.6. When scaling to the rig environment, these radius
ratios should be maintained. In order to minimize changes
to the existing rig hardware, however, this requirement was
relaxed and the original ratios were held, at nominally 0.4
and 0.5, respectively. The effect of not holding inlet radius
ratios on performance will be addressed in the section on
scaling from rig to engine.
Engine
4.0 - 5.0
Rig
4.0 - 5.0
0.7 - 0.8
2.6 - 3.1
(Existing
rig)
4
3.1
0.6 - 0.75
0.6 - 0.7
0.6
88%
88%
86%
950-1000
350-410
425
Dmax/ D2
Stability Margin
Geometric Similitude
Tip Clearance (mil)
1.45
1.45
1.87
13%
13%
13%
6.6
12
12
27/82
50/150
50/150
.03
.06
.06
Engine Relevance
Exit Mach Number
0.15
0.15
0.15
15
15
60
0.6
0.38
0.39
0.6
0.5
0.49
Fillets (mil)
DESIGN STRATEGY
4.5
3.5
Data
Steady
Unsteady
2.5
0.86 9
9.5
10
10.5
11
0.84
0.82
0.8
0.78
Data
Steady
Unsteady
0.76
0.74
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
1200
1000
VtAbs
ft/sec
800
Vx
|VtAbs|
Vr
600
400
Vr
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Span
60
70
80
90
100
Impeller Design
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
PT ratio
5.2
5
initial design
4.8
+ elliptical TE
4.6
+ elliptical LE
4.4
+ incidence mod
4.2
4
6 927.5
5.8 90
8.5
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
PT ratio
adiabatic efficiency
5.6 88
5.4
5.2
84
4.8
4.6
86
82
initial design
design
initial
80
elliptical TE
TE
++ elliptical
elliptical TE
LE
++ elliptical
4.4 78
incidence mod
mod
++ incidence
4.2 76
shroud height
height mod
mod
++ shroud
4 74
7.5 7.5 8
8 8.5 8.5 9
corrected
mass
flow
(lbm/s)
corrected
mass
flow
(lbm/s)
M-Isen
number
Isentropic Mach
10% span
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
original
redesign
M-Isen
number
Isentropic Mach
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
xi / C
Normalized
chord length
0.9
50% span
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
original
redesign
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
M-Isen
number
Isentropic Mach
/C
Normalizedxichord
length
90% span
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
original
redesign
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
C
Normalizedxi /chord
length
Dmax/D2=1.87
Dmax/D2=1.45
0.4
CC3 hub
0.35
CC3 shroud
HECC hub
(p-ps
p-ss/ )/Qtip
Qtip
- p-ps)
(p-ss
0.3
HECC shroud
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
xi / C
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 20. Blade pressure loading for original CC3 (solid) and
redesigned HECC impeller (symbols), for the same total
pressure ratio.
Baseline
Reduced thickness
Diffuser Design
In order to reduce the maximum diameter of the
compressor while increasing overall total-to-static
efficiency, alternative topologies to the wedge diffuser were
considered. A view of the target flowpath is shown in
Figure 21; the reduction of maximum diameter lowers the
available lossless pressure recovery by about 30%. Careful
tailoring of the diffuser geometry is needed to maximize
pressure recovery. As a first step, alternative topologies at
the same maximum diameter as the original CC3 were
considered in order to identify the highest recovery layout,
Figure 22. Vane diffusers with splitters were found to
maintain total-to-static efficiency with 5% increased
pressure recovery, and were selected to be considered for
the final reduced diameter design. In order to balance the
pressure recovery through both side of the splitter passage,
the splitter was positioned off the midpassage centerline
and at a slight stagger angle, to match each sides length to
width and area ratios, by reference to classic diffuser maps
[11]. By shifting the splitter in this manner, an additional
+0.3% total-to-static efficiency is gained over the
midpassage splitter placement. Also, compared to the
original surface pressure distributions, the shifted splitter
configuration creates more balanced loading between the
two elements for radius R>10.5 inches, Figure 23.
Reduced thickness
with splitter
Reduced thickness
with splitter/fewer vanes
1
0.9
0.8
M-Isen
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
midpassage splitter
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.1 9
9.5
11
11.5
main blade
splitter blade
0.9
0.8
M-Isen
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
shifted splitter
0.2
0.1
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
R (inches)
0.017
EGV1,
EGV1,
EGV1,
EGV2,
EGV2,
EGV1,
EGV2,
0.016
0.015
1 - PT-out / PT-in
0.014
solid=2.0,
solid=2.0,
solid=2.8,
solid=2.0,
solid=2.8,
solid=2.8,
solid=2.8,
NB=80
NB=60
NB=80
NB=60
NB=80
NB=60
NB=60
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.008
0
10
15
20
25
30
0.06
EGV
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
% pitch relative to starting point
Entropy contours,
EGVs at 0.25 pitch
Entropy contours,
EGVs at 0.75 pitch
5.2
Contours of TT polytropic
efficiency
Total pressure ratio
4.8
4.6
4.4
Steady
Unsteady
4.2
4
889.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
12
12.5
86
Total - total adiabatic efficiency
84
82
80
Steady
Unsteady
78
76
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
NASA CC3
UTRC HECC
1 engine
1 rig
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
redesign
72
original
70
2
2.5
3.5
Re rig
Re
engine
0.1
(2)
s 0.6
1.8
R1h/R1s=0.37
87
85
Reynolds number
efficiency gain
89.5%
83
R1h/R1s=0.60
81
79
77
89.0%
Engine scale
polytropic
efficiency is
estimated as
87.9 - 88.5%
88.5%
88.0%
87.5%
87.0%
86.5%
86.0%
75
12
90.0%
TT polytropic efficiency
89
11
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
Inlet corrected
flow
[lbm/sec]
Corrected Flow
12
increase inlet
radius ratio
INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
65
60
p [psi]
55
50
45
40
35
Choke
30
25
70
65
CONCLUSIONS
55
p [psi]
60
50
Near-stall
45
40
endwall/airfoil interface
taps
35
2
3
4
arclength from main blade LE [inches]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for their support
under contract NNC08CB03C, as part of management of the
Subsonic Rotary Wing vehicle project within the NASA
Fundamental Aeronautics Program.
Thanks are also
extended to Dr. Gerald Welch, Dr. Michael Hathaway, Mr.
Edward Braunscheidel, and Mr, Mark Stevens of NASA
Glenn Research Center. Finally, authors acknowledge the
contributions by Xiangyang Deng and Aamir Shabbir of
UTRC and Tony Jones of Hamilton Sundstrand-Power
Systems.
REFERENCES
Peeters, M., and Sleiman, M., A Numerical
Investigation of the Unsteady Flow in Centrifugal
Stages, ASME Paper 2000-GT-0426, International Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition,
Munich, Germany, May 811, 2000.
2. Shum, Y. K. P., Tan, C. S., Cumpsty, N. A., ImpellerDiffuser Interaction in a Centrifugal Compressor,
Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 122, October 2000.
3. Trebinjac, I., Kulisa, P., Bulot, N., and Rochuon, N.,
Effect of Unsteadiness on the Performance of a
Transonic
Compressor
Stage,
Journal
of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 131, October 2009.
4. McKain, T.F. and Holbrook, G.J. Coordinates for a
High Performance 4:1 Pressure Ratio Centrifugal
Compressor. NASA CR 204134, July 1997.
5. Skoch, G. J., Prahst, P. S., Wernet, M. P., Wood, J. R.,
Strazisar, A. J. Laser Anemometer Measurements of
the Flow Field in a 4:1 Pressure Ratio Centrifugal
Impeller. ASME Paper 97-GT-342, International Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition,
Orlando, FL, June 2-5, 1997.
6. Larosiliere, L. M., Skoch, G. J., Prahst, P. S.,
Aerodynamic Synthesis of a Centrifugal Impeller
Using
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
and
Measurements, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.
15, (9), Sept-Oct 1999.
7. Cumpsty, N.A., Compressor Aerodynamics, Krieger
Publishing Company, 2004.
8. Ni, R. H., A Multiple-Grid Scheme for Solving the
Euler Equations, AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, (11), 1982.
9. Wilcox, D.C, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW
Industries, Inc., 1993.
10. Japikse, D., Centrifugal Compressor Design and
Performance, Concepts ETI, Inc., 1996.
11. Runstadler, P.W. and Dolan, F.X., Diffuser Data
Book, Creare Inc. TN 186, May 1975.
12. Rodgers, C., and Brown, D., High Hub/Tip Centrifugal
Compressors, GT2009-59012, Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo 2009, Orlando, FL, June 8-12, 2009.
1.