Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

W. R.

Davis 1
Research Division,
A Comparison of the Matrix and
Carrier Corp.,
Syracuse, N, Y.
Streamline Curvature Methods of
D. A. J. Millar
Professor,
Carleton University,
Axial Flow Torbomachinery Analysis,
Ottawa, Ontario

From a Usefs Point of View


In recent years two general methods for flow analysis in turbomachinery have been de-
veloped, one generally called the Streamline Curvature Method, the other the Matrix
Through-Flow Method. Both methods solve the same flow equations but the differences
in technique introduce different operational constraints and difficulties. A comparative
assessment of the relative merits of the two methods has been difficult because the vari-
ous authors did not use similar cascade models to represent cascade loss and deviation, a
necessary adjunct to each technique. This paper outlines the two methods, and a com-
mon cascade model for both, and compares two programs written to implement the two
techniques for ease of use, computer time and storage requirements, flexibility and in-
herent limitations.
The programs are used to compute the flow field in three axial flow compressor appli-
cations: an interconnecting duct, a transonic fan, and three stage axial compressor. The
predicted performance for the above machines was fairly good, although no attempt was
made to "tune" the cascade model for the specific type of machine, as the relative merits
of each method were of interest.
It is concluded that there is a small operational advantage to the matrix method.

1 Introduction other, first developed by Wu [5] and recently implemented by


Marsh [6], uses a matrix method for solving for the stream func-
In recent years, a number of papers have described various nu- tion on a curvilinear grid on the meridional plane. As is shown by
merical techniques for solving the equations of flow in turbomachi- Davis and Millar [8], the method is a powerful one and is readily
nery. The methods are also approximate in that they are restricted adapted to the blade-to-blade problem once the principles are
to two-dimensional flows. To calculate a three-dimensional flow clearly understood.
field, it is necessary to solve two sets of equations, one dealing with Each of the above techniques has its own advantages and limita-
axisymmetric flow in the meridional plane, the other with the tions, and both require a significant manpower input to imple-
"blade-to-blade" flow on a stream surface of revolution. In this ment, even when a suitable program deck is available. Consequent-
paper, two different methods for calculating the meridional flow ly, it is worthwhile examining these limitations and advantages
patterns are compared from the point of view of a user who wishes critically before committing this level of effort to implementing
to select one for development or implementation. one or the other of them. In this paper, the authors, who have de-
Two distinct types of meridional flow analysis methods have veloped both methods to the operational stage, compare them on
been developed. The one most commonly used is the so-called the bases of their inherent limitations, ease of use, computer time
Streamline Curvature Method (SCM), described by Novak [l], 2 and computer storage requirements. Each method is described
Jensen and Moffatt [2], Frost [3], and Davis [4] among others. The briefly, together with the cascade loss and deviation correlation
used; several applications are examined, and the computed solu-

1
Formerly Consulting Engineer, Ottawa, Canada.
Contributed by the Gas Turbine Division and presented at the Winter
Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y. November 17-22,1974, of THE AMERI-
CAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at
ASME Headquarters August 2,1974. Paper No. 74-WA/GT-4. 2
Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

Journal of Engineering for Power Copyright 1975 by ASME OCTOBER 1975 / 549

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


tions are compared to each other, and to measurements where is used to solve the equations of motion. This yields a better esti-
these were available. mate of the velocity field, and the cycle is repeated until the solu-
tion converges within some prescribed tolerance.
Both methods are subject to instabilities which may cause the
technique to diverge during this iterative process. To avoid this
2 Turbomachinery Analysis
possibility, it is in general necessary to apply a "damping factor"
The analysis methods described below involve the solution of less than unity from iteration to iteration. This factor is applied to
the equations of motion for the velocity components and fluid the change in the stream function field in the MTFM, and to the
properties in a turbomachine. Viscous effects are lumped into a streamline position shift in the SCM, and its numerical value must
total pressure loss across blade rows and a displacement thickness decrease as the equations become more nonlinear (i.e., as the ve-
at the hub and shroud boundaries. This requires a combination of locity increases).
empirical pressure-loss correlations and exact or numerical mathe-
It should be stressed that an attempt to model a real flow by a
matical techniques. Since both the Matrix Through-Flow Method
combination of an axisymmetric, inviscid flow model and a cascade
(MTFM) and the Streamline Curvature Method (SCM) give nu-
loss-and-deviation model will fail no matter how accurately the in-
merical solutions of the axisymmetric, inviscid flow equations,
viscid flow equations are solved when the cascade model is inade-
they necessarily require additional models to attempt to represent
quate.
accurately the complex viscous flow field within turbomachinery.
2.1 The Matrix Through-Flow Method. The matrix
Thus the methods have much in common with each other. These
through-flow method (so called because it calculates the flow with-
common features are first discussed below, followed by a brief de-
in or through the blade row) has been described in detail elsewhere
scription of each technique.
(references [6, 7, 8]) so only an outline is given here. The equations
Both numerical techniques assume the equivalent of axisymme- solved are presented in Appendix I.
tric inviscid flow, and, for given inlet total or stagnation fluid The matrix technique involves covering the region of interest
properties and machine geometry, solve the radial component of with a fixed irregular grid (Fig. 1(a)), and writing a finite differ-
the Navier-Stokes equation for the density and velocity field ence approximation to the principal equation (equation (Al)) at
which satisfies the continuity equation. every interior grid point.
The net effects produced by blade rows are assumed to be a de-
flection of the air and a total pressure loss. These effects are calcu- d2tj> 8 if! 8 if>
lated as a function of blade geometry and loading and are the out- 3y2"
(Al)
put of a cascade model which is described later.
The boundary layer growth along the end-walls is specified as a This will result in one algebraic equation for every interior grid
blockage factor which effectively gives a new hub and shroud point in terms of the stream function at that and neighboring
shape. The SCM program incorporates an end wall boundary cal- points. This system of equations can be expressed in matrix form
culation procedure but it was not used for the results described in as
this paper, since the M T F M program which we have developed [AM = [Q] (1)
may use specified blockage factors only.
Both methods require an iterative procedure in which the veloci- where [A ] is the coefficient matrix derived from replacing the dif-
ty field is estimated, fluid properties (pressure and enthalpy) are ferential operator V2( ), [4] is the vector of unknown stream
related along streamlines (using the cascade model to pass through function values, and [Q] is the vector of the quantities q(x,y) from
blade rows), and one of the numerical methods (MTFM or SCM) equation (Al) and the boundary values.

Nomenclature"
Re No. loss exponent (equation
p = static pressure
(A12))
Po = stagnation pressure
[A] MTFM finite difference coef- orthogonal directions
[Q], q = R H S of principle equation
ficient matrix * = stream function
for MTFM
b mean stream surface thickness ui = rotational speed
R = radius from axis of rotation
parameter C> = total pressure loss coefficient
R = fractional blade height
Ci,C2 variable coefficients of SCM
Re = Reynold's number
velocity gradient equation Subscripts
5 = specific entropy
D diffusion factor 0 = stagnation conditions
SCM = abbreviation for Streamline
DeQ equivalent diffusion factor 1 = cascade inlet
Curvature Method
F force vector in MTFM 2 = cascade exit
T = temperature
go dimensional constant 1-if -^2 (t/c)m = maximum blade/chord thick- 2-D = two-dimensional, low speed
N s
Ho stagnation enthalpy per unit ness ratio r, S,z = cylindrical coordinate system
mass of fluid [U] = M T F M factored coefficient components
i incidence angle matrix (Upper) m = meridional component
I relative enthalpy, or rothalpy V = absolute velocity x, y = orthogonal coordinate system
curvature of the meridional W = relative velocity components
km streamline /? = angle between air velocity and s = quasi-orthogonal component
MTFM factored coefficient axial direction crit = critical inlet conditions
[L] matrix (Lower) 6 = deviation angle
rh mass flow rate = angle between the normal and Superscripts
M Mach number quasi-orthogonal directions * = minimum total pressure loss
MTFM abbreviation for Matrix p = density condition
Through-Flow Method a = solidity of cascade (c/s) ' = prime, relative to rotating co-
exponent in .loss curve (equa- 0 = streamline slope ordinate system
tion (AH)) ' \j/ = angle between radial and quasi- = denotes a vector quantity

550 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Since the right hand side of equation (1) is a function of i/< and as is done for the matrix method. This was not done here because
its derivatives, the system of equations is nonlinear and must be one of the main advantages of the SCM is its simplicity and small
solved iteratively, that is, by first estimating [tp], computing [Q], (relative to MTFM) core store requirements.
and then repeatedly solving equation (1) for [\p]. The value for [Q] The main disadvantages of the SCM are the difficulty of calcu-
is improved each iteration using the previous value of [\p\. lating accurate curvatures and the large number of iterations
Since [A ] is a function of the grid shape only, it need be comput- (outer) required to obtain convergence.
ed and inverted only once. This is done by factoring [A ], which is a 2.3 Inherent Limitations. Transonic flows are a common oc-
square banded matrix, into triangular matrices [L] and [U] and currence in turbomachinery. Such flow patterns are characterized
saving these matrices on tape or disc. They can then be used for by the presence of adjacent subsonic and supersonic regions, and
successive iterations and different boundary conditions. This fea- the governing partial differential equations are of mixed hyper-
ture saves computer time when successive calculations with differ- bolic-elliptic type. It is well known that separate finite difference
ent flow rates or conditions must be made with a fixed geometry of procedures are required to solve elliptic and hyperbolic equations.
machine, such as in calculating a compressor map. The derivatives in elliptic equations are replaced by centered finite
This method Offers fast convergence, second or third order accu- difference formulae, whereas for hyperbolic equations, the deriva-
racy, and stability at high flow rates and machine speeds. tives in the axial direction must be replaced by a one-sided (back-
2.2 The Streamline Curvature Method. The streamline ward) finite difference scheme. Specifically, if the flow in the me-
curvature method (SCM), also called the stream filament method, ridional plane is locally supersonic (M m > 1), the derivatives of the
has been used often (references [1, 2, 3,4]) and offers an intuitively differential equation at a grid point in this region may not be re-
based numerical method for solving fluid dynamic problems. That placed by an elliptic-type centered finite difference formula, since
is, streamlines or streamtubes are traced through the duct, and re- this would permit a downstream point to influence the upstream
positioned at each iteration on the basis of recalculated fluid prop- point, which is contrary to our physical knowledge of supersonic
erties. Hence, the grid (Fig. 1(b) ) changes after every iteration. flow.
The radial component of the Navier-Stokes equation is ex- Thus, strictly speaking, both the SCM and the M T F M must be
pressed in terms of the fluid properties and streamline geometry restricted to subsonic Mach numbers if the solution is to be valid,
and solved in a specified direction, either along a quasi-orthogonal since neither method makes any attempt to incorporate separate
or a radial line, for the meridional velocity. The form of the equa- finite difference schemes for supersonic flow. In the analysis of the
tion solved for an arbitrary quasi-orthogonal direction s, is given flow through turbomachinery, this limitation takes two forms de-
by pending on whether the tangential velocity (angular momentum)
or the flow angle (relative or absolute) is fixed in the region of cal-
dVm culation. If the tangential velocity is fixed, the meridional compo-
C i ( s ) ] - [C2(s, Vm)]Vm (2) nent of the velocity must remain subsonic (Mm < 1), whereas if the
ds ' m
flow angle is fixed, the absolute, or the relative, Mach number
must remain subsonic, for absolute or rotating coordinate systems
and can be written in a rotating coordinate system (equation (A3)) respectively. That is,
or an absolute coordinate system (equation (A4)).
Since equation (2) requires a constant of integration, it must be for Ve fixed, Mm < 1
solved in conjunction with the continuity equation (equation
(A5)), for the velocity along the specified quasi-orthogonals. for /3 fixed, for a s t a t o r r o w M a b s < 1
Thus, there are two levels of iteration in the SCM; the outer ite-
ration changes streamline position based on the velocity distribu- for a r o t o r r o w M r e l < 1
tion at each station, and the inner iteration computes a velocity
distribution which satisfies the continuity condition at each speci- Transonic compressors may be analyzed if the rotor inlet station
fied quasi-orthogonal (from the fluid properties and streamline po- is considered in an absolute coordinate system (and RVg speci-
sition). fied). In the M T F M there must be enough turning before the first
It should be noted that although the results described in this internal grid points that the relative Mach number becomes sub-
paper were obtained from a computer program which has quasi- sonic before the first relative coordinate station is encountered.
orthogonals located outside blade rows, Frost [3] has shown that The grid for many fans must therefore be quite coarse.
equation (A3) can be applied within the blade row by making simi- 2.4 The Cascade Model. Experience with compressor perfor-
lar assumptions with respect to the stream surface in the blade row mance prediction using these methods has shown that the design
point analysis of even a single stage axial flow compressor, using

Quasi-Orthogonal

Fig. 1(a) Matrix grid and coordinate system Fig. 1(6) Streamline grid and coordinate system

Journal of Engineering for Power OCTOBER 1975 / 551

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


empirical cascade correlations to calculate the pressure loss and been used in the computer program are given in Appendix II.
deflection through the blade rows, is extremely sensitive to those 2.5 The End-Wall Boundary Layer. Annulus end-wall
correlations. Off-design prediction is even more difficult to boundary layer calculation is very important in the prediction of
achieve. For this reason, a significant effort has been devoted to the overall performance of turbomachinery. The system suggested
examing available experimental data and correlations, so that a by Stratford [15] has been used with the SCM to compute the end-
cascade model could be developed which will predict the perfor- wall boundary layer development for axial flow compressors with
mance, in a compressor, of any one of a variety of compressor cas- moderate success. The SCM has the capability of computing dis-
cades at both design and off-design conditions. placement thickness using the Stratford method, or alternatively
The procedure followed was to first define the factors which the end-wall blockage may be specified by means of an input
have been shown to be important, and then to search the literature blockage factor. For the purpose of this paper, end-wall blockage,
for results which appeared to account best for the effects of these factors were specified for both the SCM and the MTFM. That is,
factors on cascade behavior. A tentative model was then formed as since in the program the effect of the end-wall boundary layer is to
a computer subroutine for the compressor analysis program. The effectively displace the annulus boundaries, it was felt that a more
inputs required by the model are the cascade geometry and the meaningful comparison of the inviscid flow techniques could be
fluid inlet conditions, and the output is the total pressure loss and achieved by using identical blockage factors for each. In addition
fluid deflection produced. convergence problems are sometimes encountered in the SCM due
The compressor analysis program was then run for a variety of to boundary layer/inviscid flow interaction.
compressor types at design and off-design conditions with the cas- The loss due to the end-wall boundary layer was accounted for
cade model continually being modified so that better agreement indirectly, as opposed to the relatively detailed approach of Han-
was achieved between predicted and experimental results. A uni- ley [16]. The Monsarrat [12] total pressure loss correlation de-
versally applicable cascade model appears to be out of reach at this scribes the blade row loss as a function of radial position, and the
time. A "standard compressor cascade model" was achieved which loss increases near the end-wall region.
yielded quite reasonable agreement with measured performance
for quite widely differing compressors, and by slight tailoring of
this final model for the particular compressor type, very good
agreement can be achieved. Since the purpose of this paper was to 3 Applications
compare two numerical techniques, this standard cascade model Three typical applications of the meridional flow calculation
was used throughout, although the two compressors used as test were chosen to test the two programs and to provide a basis for
cases differed significantly. comparison which would be of meaning to any potential user. The
three applications were an intercompressor duct, a single transonic
The cascade model has two distinct parts; one is used for the de-
compressor rotor, and a three-stage transonic compressor. In each
sign, or minimum total pressure loss, operation of the cascade, and
case, limited experimental data were available which permitted a
the other is used for off-design operation. At the design condition
comparison between computed and measured flow behavior. When
the cascade operates at an incidence, i*, which produces the lowest
assessing these comparisons, it is important to realize that dis-
pressure loss for the flow deflection required. To determine i*, the
crepancies between computed and measured flows arise from a
cascade solidity, blade profile, and the air inlet velocity and angle
lack of fidelity in either or both of two modelsthe inviscid flow
must be specified. It must be noted however, that although this
model and the cascade loss-and-deviation model. In the inter-com-
value of incidence, i*, is unique for low speed, incompressible two-
pressor duct case, the first is the primary source of error, while in
dimensional flow, it will be modified by the different conditions
the compressor cases the main error arises from the cascade model.
which will be found in a compressor. In particular, compressibility
and three-dimensional effects, and the axial velocity ratio (AVR) 3.1 Intercompressor Duct With Struts. The simplest case to
across the cascade, have a significant effect on i *. The total pres- which these methods can be applied is that of a duct with essen-
sure loss coefficient and deviation, at optimum incidence, will be tially axial, nonswirling flow. Though simple, this case is not trivi-
influenced by inlet Mach number, Reynold's number, AVR, and al, as the performance of the downstream compressor depends on
three-dimensional effects. the correct matching of the blading to the flow leaving the duct.
Thus, the design section of the cascade model must be subdivid- For this duct, experimental data in the form of wall static pres-
ed to correct low speed, two-dimensional values for these effects, sures were available.
so that the values computed for i*, 5*, and d>* apply to the particu- The duct boundaries are depicted in Fig. 2, which also shows the
lar cascade operating in the compressor environment. location of the leading and trailing edges of the six struts, and of
For a compressor operating at off-design conditions the actual the calculation stations for both the streamline curvature (SCM)
incidence, i, for any particular cascade in it will in general be dif- and matrix (MTFM) methods. The results of the flow analysis are
ferent from i*. The loss and deviation values appropriate to this shown in Fig. 3, which shows computed and experimental wall
incidence and to the corresponding Mach number, Reynold's static pressures, and in Fig. 4, which shows the computed velocity
number, and axial velocity ratio, are obtained in the "off-design" profiles at various axial stations through the duct.
part of the cascade model. These values are obtained in the form of The agreement between the experimental and computed pres-
corrections to the "design" loss and deviation. sures is good except for the SCM results downstream of the strut
The correlations used assume these corrections to be functions trailing edge. It has been found before that the SC method is very
of Mach number and the Equivalent Diffusion Factor, D e q - Off- sensitive to wall curvatures, and Wilkinson [9] has recently shown
design correlations are unfortunately of dubious validity and the that the spline-fit technique used here is a relatively poor method
use of the Equivalent Diffusion Factor is really a matter of conve- to use to determine curvatures. The effect of the strut "running-
nience rather than rationality. It should be noted that the original out" will have an effect similar to a sudden wall expansion and this
development of the diffusion factor for loss and deviation correla- will have a more adverse effect on the SC than on the matrix calcu-
tion assumed that at the minimum loss condition a specific shape lations. A generally smoother behavior of the matrix method is ap-
of blade pressure distribution would exist. This shape will change parent in this case and seems to be typical. A contributing factor to
as operation is extended away from the design point, so that the the lack of smoothness in the pressure distribution calculated by
diffusion factor loses its value as an indicator of the adverse pres- the SC method is the necessity to iterate on mass flow rate at each
sure gradients on the blade surfaces and, consequently, of the loss axial station and to set a tolerance which produces acceptable ac-
and deviation to be expected. In the absence of any better correla- curacy yet keeps computing time within reason. Here a tolerance
tion parameter, however, it was retained despite these shortcom- of 1 percent of input flow was used, and at the higher velocity
ings. end of this duct this can produce apparent variations of pressure
The functional relationships for the correlations which have ratio of about 0.01 from station to station.

552 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


not used.
Monsarrat presents correlations for the design pressure loss in
reference [12] for both rotors and stators of the form
or
RVg = c o n s t , a l o n g a s t r e a m l i n e w*=/(D*,). (All)

Equations (A'6) and (A7) are used to relate properties along These correlations seem unique in that they increase the loss
streamlines or constant <p lines throughout the turbomachine. toward the hub and tip of the blade, as opposed to increasing loss
The SCM is described in detail in reference [4]. in the tip region only (i.e., reference [11]).
A blade chord Reynold's number correction of the form
APPENDIX I I
u* = ^ * [ 3 ^ 5
]' Re s 3 x 10 5 (A12)
Cascade Correlations
(i) Minimum Total P r e s s u r e Loss Operation. Reference is applied for low Reynold's numbers. Justification for this may be
[11] presents low speed, two-dimensional cascade pressure loss and seen in reference [11], Figs. 151 and 152.
deviation data in the form of curves showing the effect of solidity For inlet relative Mach numbers greater than unity, that is, su-
and inlet angle, with corrections for thickness/chord ratio. personic flow relative to the blading, a normal shock is assumed to
Curve fits to the correlations of reference [11] yield low speed, stand between the leading edge of one blade and the suction sur-
2-D values of the form face of the adjacent blade and a total pressure loss computed using
i*2.D=f(0i*>a>lt/c)*)> (A8) the model presented by Miller et al. in reference [13], which as-
sumes a Prandtl-Meyer expansion over, the suction surface' from
and the leading edge to the shock, the strength of which depends upon
6 * 2 . D = / ( ( 3 ] * , ( T , (t/c)m) . (A9) the inlet Mach number and the blade geometry.
(ii) Off-Design Operation. The minimum loss values of 5*
The design incidence, J'*2-D, is corrected for compressibility ef-
and <o* are corrected using correlations of the form
fects by using the suction surface tangent as the design inlet angle
for M'i = 1.0, with a sinusoidal variation between the value for low 5 - 8* =fi[(DK - D^*f, Mj'] , (A13)
speed value and that for Mi = 1.0.
The deviation angle is corrected for compressibility effects using and
a relation from reference [2] w - w* = / 2 [ ( D e , - Deq*Y, M / ] (A14)
6*-5*2.D=/(M-MoHt) (A10)
The deviation is taken directly from Swan's paper [14]; however,
The existing corrections for axial velocity ratio and radial posi- only the form of his loss curves was retained, since in this correla-
tion were not considered adequate for the model, and thus were tion minimum loss condition is defined differently.

DISCUSSION , is used to satisfy momentum and continuity principles. For the


SCM,
D. Japikse 3
V +
^f C2(s,VJVj-Ci(s)=0
1 Introduction
and
The authors are to be strongly congratulated for conducting and J p_Vm Rcos (<p + ip) ds - m/2n.
s
presenting this systematic comparison of the two leading classes of i
turbomachinery flow calculations. Their finding that neither tech-
nique can be strongly preferred (relative to the other) at this time, which is a first order, integro-differential system of equations in-
and the careful details backing this claim, forms a focal point for tended to satisfy momentum and continuity principles. A quick re-
other workers now and in the future. In this light, a number of ob- view of the definition of elliptic equations shows that only the first
servations and questions can be voiced drawing on similar experi- method is elliptic.
ence at Creare. In principle, equations of the SCM type could be solved without
any downstream condition. However, some downstream condition
There is a strong need to carry on this precedent of comparison
is always used, for two reasons. First, we consider such flow fields
for some years. Hence the authors should encourage the future use
to be "elliptic in nature" and hence choose to apply a restraint
of their test cases by indicating the expected accuracy of the data
from downstream flow field knowledge or a specific physical condi-
itself and by identifying the source of the intercompressor duct
tion must be met there (such as constant static pressure when the
data. Specifically, what are the inlet conditions and actual geome-
flow dumps to a plenum). Second, with the exception of Stuart and
try?
Hetherington's [17]4 approach, streamlines must be specified and
this requires fixing coefficients for the streamline fit near the end
2 Comparative Background of the streamline.
During the authors' paper presentation, it was stated that both
This difference may be significant. In cases where downstream
the M T F M (Matrix Throughflow Method) and SCM (Streamline
effects are vital, the SCM may be comparatively weak. On the
Curvature Method) equations are elliptic. This belief apparently
other hand, this difference may contribute to the speed and flexi-
underlies Section 2.3. However, it is not correct. For the MTFM, bility of the SCM. Considering now the intercompressor duct case,
Poisson's equation is the difference in downstream behavior due to the downstream
boundary condition? What conditions were used for each method
V2i/> = q

4
Numbers in brackets designate Additional References at end of discus-
3 sion.
Creare Inc., Fluids Engineering Division, Hanover, N. H.

558 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


S.CM. Stations

-.400
E

"350
a:
=>300-
a
<
c
250--

200

150

@ @ @ @ M.T.F. M. Stations

r i 1 ( ( . -i 1 1 1 1 h-
-300-250-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
(mm)
Fig. 5 NASA transonic rotor geometry

lent agreement can be achieved by using a loss and deviation most of the difference between the two calculations has been elimi-
model which produces values which agree with the measured ones. nated. Nevertheless, this interaction appears to be inherent in the
However, this cascade model was found to be unsuitable for other SC method and has been found to be severe enough at high Mach
compressors for which performance data were known, and the number flows to prevent the calculation from converging.
model used here was the one found to give reasonably good results The computed compressor characteristics agree quite well with
for a wide variety of compressors. Despite this built-in error, the each other, and with the measured characteristics. A better "fit" to
computed velocity profiles show good general agreement with mea- the measured data could again be achieved by suitably modifying
surements. The differences between the two numerical methods, the loss correlation and by making a more realistic estimate of the
which are particularly noticeable at the rotor inlet, seem to be due end-wall boundary layer thickness through the compressor for
to the hub curvature effects in the SC method. each characteristic point.
3.3 Three-Stage Transonic Compressor. The compressor
annulus geometry for this compressor is shown in Fig. 8, and the 4 Computer Considerations
compressor characteristics are given in Fig. 9. The computed veloc- One criterion by which a potential user of any compressor ana-
ity, pressure, and temperature profiles at the outlet of two of the lytical technique must judge a new method is the computer re-
rotors, at the condition marked A on Fig. 9, are given in Fig. 10. quirements. That is, it may be necessary to use an inferior tech-
Results for the third rotor are similar to those shown for the sec- nique if that technique is the only one which will, first, fit on his
ond rotor. computer, and second, require a reasonable execution time.
The profiles computed by the two methods are quite similar ex- For this reason, a detailed account was kept of computer time,'
cept near the annulus walls. Here the primary cause of the discrep- storage, and convergence behavior while obtaining the results pre-
ancy appears to be ah interaction between the cascade loss calcula-
tion, which is strongly dependent on the cascade axial velocity
ratio, and the axial velocity calculation, which in turn is sensitive
to the radial entropy gradient caused by radial loss variations. To
check this, the SC calculation was run in the "design mode," using
input loss factors which were those computed in the matrix pro-
gram. The result, plotted for the second rotor only, shows that

N = 70% design
m = 79.6 kg/s

Legend
p -9 Experimental
A a Streamline Curvature Method
o o Matrix Method

40 50 60 70 60 90 100 120

Mass Flow Parameter (KQ/s) DO Radius (mm)

Fig. 6 NASA transonic rotor characteristics Fig. 7(a) NASA rotor traverse data (70 percent N)

554 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Legend
v v Experimental

Ill *^ N = 110% design


m = 102 Kg/s
2.6

2.5

2.4
^
0
^ Streamline Curvature Method
0 Matrix Method

2v <S>
2.3 \ \
^Ovxi
"Nx
T\J
>"-NS\
^
'
^^^

if:
2.2

2.1 = - > *

~* V"" 39000r.p.m.
2.0 34000 t, 37500

= ^32000 36000

1.8

.1.7

2^5- (Kg/sl
o

Q...-0-D Experimanlol Fig. 9 3-Stage compressor characteristics


a .&-*> Matrix

260 2aO 3^0 3^0 43b 4!>0 500 the techniques used in each program are relatively standard and
the main point to be made is t h a t neither method is clearly superi-
Fig. 7(6) NASA rotor traverse data (110 percent N)
or with respect to computer time.
A distinct advantage of the M T F M is the small number of itera-
tions required for convergence relative to the SCM. Neither meth-
od optimizes the damping or relaxation factor, and it is expected
sented in Section 3. Both methods are programmed in FORTRAN that both methods could benefit from this addition. Generally
IV for a modern digital computer, specifically the Xerox Sigma 9 speaking, as the average velocity increases, the damping factor
with approximately 40K words of core storage and high speed aux- must decrease.
iliary storage (disk). This machine is comparable, from a FOR- 4.2 Streamline Curvature Program. The streamline curva-
TRAN user's point of view, to an IBM 360/65. ture method is very straightforward and so is the computer pro-
Each of the computer programs will now be discussed with refer- gram. The core storage requirements are less than the matrix pro-
ence to Table 1, which is a summary of the computer times for gram, partly because there are fewer quasi-orthogonals, as these
each method averaged over a large number of runs. are placed between blade rows only. If core storage is not a restric-
4.1 Matrix Program. The matrix program requires more tion, the quasi-orthogonals can be put within the blade row, as in
core storage than the streamline curvature program (50K words of Frost's method [3].
memory) and it may be necessary to overlay it in smaller comput- However, a prime reason for not doing this may be the tendency
ers. to instability of the streamline curvature calculations. As can be
A large reduction in computer time can be achieved by perma- seen from Table 1, the streamline curvature takes 40-60 iterations
nent storage of the finite difference coefficient matrices, L and U, to converge for the test cases of Section 3, using the same damping
for a given machine geometry. factor as in the matrix program. Experience has shown that de-
It should be noted that the number of iterations to convergence creasing the spacing of the quasi-orthogonals in many cases makes
and the computation times are a function of the numerical proce- the calculation much less stable. Also, Wilkinson has recently
dures used and would differ from one streamline curvature pro- shown [9] that for a two-dimensional plane flow model, decreasing
gram to another or from one matrix program to another. However, the ratio of the wavelength of the streamline to the axial spacing

d @@ cafcutaL

O @@

Fig. 8 3-Stage transonic compressor geometry

Journal of Engineering for Power OCTOBER 1975 / 555

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


( I * 1 ROTOR EXIT) (2"<J ROTOR EXIT)

^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^
Legend
a
"<* Strtomline Cur
\ ooo Matrix Method
\s^
is: ""'^"S*,
^^"~~^*^^- . ^

Fig. 10(a) 3-Stage compressor traverse data (1st rotor exit) Fig. 10(b) 3-Stage compressor traverse data (2nd rotor exit)

reduces the accuracy of the second derivative calculation. He has mensioned for the matrix method.
developed an expression for an optimum damping factor and an The output of the streamline curvature program is slightly more
optimum streamline curvature computation procedure for this appealing physically, since the properties are printed at the
two-dimensional case. His results appear so promising that the ex- streamlines. This format of output could be provided with a suit-
tension to axisymmetric flow is currently being developed and in- able interpolation routine for the matrix method, with little in-
corporated into the streamline curvature program discussed here. crease in computer time and storage.
The calculation of streamline curvatures is traditionally the An interesting observation can be made from Table 1 with re-
prime cause of trouble with this method. T h e large number of iter- spect to the time required by each method. It has been generally
ations reported here are in part due to the fixed damping factor, believed t h a t the M T F M required much longer computer times
and many users have improved on this by optimization techniques. than the SCM. However, the total times to convergence of the two
4.3 Discussion. In the light of the above arguments, a clear methods, without the storage of L and U (row B + E), are of the
operational advantage is not enjoyed by either method. T h e differ- same order of magnitude, and if intermediate storage is used, the
ence in effort involved in implementing either program on a mod- M T F M is three to eight times faster than the SCM.
ern digital computer is not significant, although the matrix pro-
gram does require more care since it involves auxiliary storage and 5 Concluding Remarks
an overlay structure in any but a very large, computer. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions on the absolute merits
The stability of the matrix technique is a definite advantage, as of either of these methods because each one is completely depen-
is the increased accuracy and definition due to a finer grid. One dent on the cascade model used. As was pointed out in the discus-
should note that the matrix method is a third order numerical sion of the three-stage compressor analysis, stability problems are
technique for uniform axial spacing. generated by the interaction of the loss model and the inviscid flow
The input preparations for the two methods are very similar model calculations. This has been avoided in previous papers on
since a large portion of the data deck consists of the definition of this topic because the cascade models were considerably simpler,
the geometry of the blade rows which is identical for both. The but were also less realistic.
only difference is the larger number of stations which must be di- Given the destabilizing influence of the cascade model, the au-

Table 1 Computer time comparison


Matrix Program Streamline curvature Program
Inter- Inter-
3-Stage NASA T r a n - Compressor e NASA T r a n - Compressor
Compressor sonic Rotor Duct Compre s o n i c Rotor Duct
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
L_s^,* io_ s ^
A No. of Grid P o i n t s 266 126 324 126 180 100 160
S e t - u p Time
B UA],[I.],[IJ]> 100. 0 36.0 105.0 - - " "
(sec)
Time
C per i t e r a t i o n
(sec) 6.0 4.0 6.4 2.0 2.5 1.2 1.6

Number of
D Iterations
( t o 1%) 6 5 2 45 41 45 60+
T o t a l time
E p e r mass flow
(sec) 36.0 20.0 12.8 90.0 100.0 54.0 96.0
Peak3 Core s t o r a g e
F ( 1 0 words) 39 39 39 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2

* S.L. = streamlines

556 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


thors tend to favor the matrix method, though not with absolute sor Performance," JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR POWER, July
conviction. Both programs predicted the flow field in the test cases 1961, pp. 322-330.
15 Stratford, B. S., "The Use of Boundary Layer Techniques to Calcu-
fairly accurately, and if computer size was of major importance, late the Blockage From the Annulus Boundary in a Compressor," ASME
the SCM would offer fewer problems. It would be considered pru- Paper No. 67-WA/GT-7.
dent to devote significant effort toward optimizing the damping 16 Hanley, W. T , "A Correlation of End Wall Losses in Plane Compres-
factor and the curvature calculation if the SCM were to be used sor Cascades," JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR POWER, TRANS.
ASME, July 1968, pp. 251-257.
operationally.
At high flow rates the effect of local choking of the flow, with re- APPENDIX I
sulting streamline shifts, needs to be included in these programs if
realistic performance predictions are to be made. This has been Matrix and Streamline Curvature Equations
implemented for the SCM, with some difficulty, but the matrix The matrix method combines the equation of motion and the
program does not lend itself as well to such a change. While this is continuity equation by the use of the stream function, to obtain
a minor disadvantage for compressor analysis, it may be quite seri- the following principal equation for an arbitrary set of coordinate
ous for turbine performance prediction. So far, the authors have axes, x and y, in the meridional plane.
modified only the SCM program for turbine analysis and once a 2.1, 8 )/)
again have found that a lack of good cascade correlations is a (Al)
handicap.
An advantage of the MTFM, discussed in reference [8], is the where
adaptability of the one basic program to a variety of configura- 3i/) 3i/)
tions. The same basic routines can be used for flow calculations in dx [ln<rM]+|*-[ln<*P)]
the meridional and the blade-to-blade surfaces and should be
readily adaptable to axisymmetric intakes and other shapes. rbp r 3 /
+
To conclude, it appears that the advantage lies marginally with Wxl9y 8y r a / "' yi
'
the matrix through-flow method, provided a machine of the size and derivatives are special derivatives taken on the mean stream
discussed here is available, primarily because of the greater stabili- surface (i.e., Wu's S2 surface).
ty and accuracy of the calculation. Meanwhile, developments along Also
other lines, such as methods using the time-dependent flow equa-
tions, which can deal with mixed subsonic-supersonic flow fields, = rbpWx (A2a)
may make both these methods obsolete. ~dy
and
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to United g=-rbPW, (A26)
Aircraft of Canada Ltd. for permission to use their data in this
paper, and to members of their engineering staff for many fruitful The computer program results described in the paper were ob-
discussions in the course of the work described. We also thank the tained by assuming a radial S2 surface (Fy = 0) for which the flow
National Research Council of Canada for financial support over angle ((! = t a n - 1 (Wg/Wx)) was known. The derivation and solu-
several years under operating grant A1676. tion of these equations are given in detail in reference [3].
The streamline curvature method utilized two forms of the radi-
References al equilibrium equation; one for a rotating (relative) coordinate
1 Novak, R. A., "Streamline Curvature Computing Procedures," system, in terms of the relative flow angle /?', written as
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR POWER, TRANS. ASME, Series A,
9 V", sine9V m
Vol. 89, No. 4, Oct. 1967, pp. 478-490. 9s =MB0'tf-rH]* 1 [*.COB v, dm
2 Moffatt, W. C , and Jensen, W., "The Off-Design Analysis of Axial-
Flow Compressors," ASME Paper No. 66-WA/GT-l.
3 Frost, D. H., "A Streamline Curvature Through-Flow Computer Pro-
gram for Analyzing the Flow Through Axial Flow Turbomaehines," A.R.C.
+tan ^ ( i ( ^ ) + [ t a n ^ + ^ ] ^ ) ] U , (A3)
R & M No. 3687, Aug. 1970.
4 Davis, W. R., "A Computer Program for the Analysis and Design of and one for the absolute coordinate system, given by
TurbomachineryRevision," Carleton University Report No. ME/A 71-5.
5 Wu, C. H., "A General Theory of Three-Dimensional Flow in Sub- 9V, 1 r, sine3V m
L
sonic and Supersonic Turbomaehines of Axial-, Radial-, and Mixed-Flow 3s 3s 3sJ
Types," NASA T N 2604, Jan. 1952.
6 Marsh, H., "A Digital Computer Program for the Through-Flow 1 v, (Hr,)lTr (A4)
Fluid Mechanics in an Arbitrary Turbomachine, Using a Matrix Method," RVJ 3s J m
A.R.C. R & M No. 3509,1968.
7 Davis, W. R., and Millar, D. A. J., "Axial Flow Compressor Analysis Equation (A3) is used at blade row exit stations, where the rela-
Using a Matrix MethodRevision," Carleton University Report No. ME/A tive flow angle is known, and equation (A4) is used in duct regions.
73-1.
8 Davis, W. R., and Millar, D. A. J., "A Discussion of the Marsh Matrix
The SCM requires, in addition, the continuity equation, given
Technique Applied to Fluid Flow Problems," C.A.S.I. Transactions, Vol. 5, by
No. 2, Sept. 1972.
f "tip ,
9 Wilkinson, D. H., "Stability, Convergence and Accuracy of Two-Di-
mensional Streamline Curvature Methods Using Quasi-Orthogonals," Insti- m = 2-nJ pVmR c o s (I/J + <p)ds (A5)
tution of Mechanical EngineersThermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics
Convention, Paper 35,1970. Note that s is the direction of the arbitrary quasi-orthogonal, at
10 Seyler, D. R., and Gostelow, J. P., "Single Stage Experimental Evalu- some angle ^ to R.
ation of High Mach No. Compressor Rotor Blading, Part 2Performance of
Rotor I B , " NASA CR-54582, Sept. 1967. Both methods required the following forms of the energy and
11 "Aerodynamic Design of Axial Flow Compressors," NASA Lewis Re- angular momentum conservation equations:
search Centre, NASA SP-36,1965.
12 Monsarrat, N. T., Keenan, M. J., and Tramm, P. C , "Design Report
Single Stage Evaluation of Highly-Loaded High-Mach No. Compressor am '
Stages," NASA CR-72562,1969. or
13 Miller, G. R., Lewis, G. W., and Hartmann, "Shock Losses in Tran-
sonic Compressor Blade Rows," JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR Ai70 = u [ ( B 7 , ) j - (RVe)\ ; (A6)
POWER, July 1961, pp. 235-242.
14 Swan, W. C , "A Practical Method of Predicting Transonic-Compres- and

Journal of Engineering for Power OCTOBER 1975 / 557

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


not used.
Monsarrat presents correlations for the design pressure loss in
reference [12] for both rotors and stators of the form
or
RVg = c o n s t , a l o n g a s t r e a m l i n e w*=/(D*,). (All)

Equations (A'6) and (A7) are used to relate properties along These correlations seem unique in that they increase the loss
streamlines or constant <p lines throughout the turbomachine. toward the hub and tip of the blade, as opposed to increasing loss
The SCM is described in detail in reference [4]. in the tip region only (i.e., reference [11]).
A blade chord Reynold's number correction of the form
APPENDIX I I
u* = ^ * [ 3 ^ 5
]' Re s 3 x 10 5 (A12)
Cascade Correlations
(i) Minimum Total P r e s s u r e Loss Operation. Reference is applied for low Reynold's numbers. Justification for this may be
[11] presents low speed, two-dimensional cascade pressure loss and seen in reference [11], Figs. 151 and 152.
deviation data in the form of curves showing the effect of solidity For inlet relative Mach numbers greater than unity, that is, su-
and inlet angle, with corrections for thickness/chord ratio. personic flow relative to the blading, a normal shock is assumed to
Curve fits to the correlations of reference [11] yield low speed, stand between the leading edge of one blade and the suction sur-
2-D values of the form face of the adjacent blade and a total pressure loss computed using
i*2.D=f(0i*>a>lt/c)*)> (A8) the model presented by Miller et al. in reference [13], which as-
sumes a Prandtl-Meyer expansion over, the suction surface' from
and the leading edge to the shock, the strength of which depends upon
6 * 2 . D = / ( ( 3 ] * , ( T , (t/c)m) . (A9) the inlet Mach number and the blade geometry.
(ii) Off-Design Operation. The minimum loss values of 5*
The design incidence, J'*2-D, is corrected for compressibility ef-
and <o* are corrected using correlations of the form
fects by using the suction surface tangent as the design inlet angle
for M'i = 1.0, with a sinusoidal variation between the value for low 5 - 8* =fi[(DK - D^*f, Mj'] , (A13)
speed value and that for Mi = 1.0.
The deviation angle is corrected for compressibility effects using and
a relation from reference [2] w - w* = / 2 [ ( D e , - Deq*Y, M / ] (A14)
6*-5*2.D=/(M-MoHt) (A10)
The deviation is taken directly from Swan's paper [14]; however,
The existing corrections for axial velocity ratio and radial posi- only the form of his loss curves was retained, since in this correla-
tion were not considered adequate for the model, and thus were tion minimum loss condition is defined differently.

DISCUSSION , is used to satisfy momentum and continuity principles. For the


SCM,
D. Japikse 3
V +
^f C2(s,VJVj-Ci(s)=0
1 Introduction
and
The authors are to be strongly congratulated for conducting and J p_Vm Rcos (<p + ip) ds - m/2n.
s
presenting this systematic comparison of the two leading classes of i
turbomachinery flow calculations. Their finding that neither tech-
nique can be strongly preferred (relative to the other) at this time, which is a first order, integro-differential system of equations in-
and the careful details backing this claim, forms a focal point for tended to satisfy momentum and continuity principles. A quick re-
other workers now and in the future. In this light, a number of ob- view of the definition of elliptic equations shows that only the first
servations and questions can be voiced drawing on similar experi- method is elliptic.
ence at Creare. In principle, equations of the SCM type could be solved without
any downstream condition. However, some downstream condition
There is a strong need to carry on this precedent of comparison
is always used, for two reasons. First, we consider such flow fields
for some years. Hence the authors should encourage the future use
to be "elliptic in nature" and hence choose to apply a restraint
of their test cases by indicating the expected accuracy of the data
from downstream flow field knowledge or a specific physical condi-
itself and by identifying the source of the intercompressor duct
tion must be met there (such as constant static pressure when the
data. Specifically, what are the inlet conditions and actual geome-
flow dumps to a plenum). Second, with the exception of Stuart and
try?
Hetherington's [17]4 approach, streamlines must be specified and
this requires fixing coefficients for the streamline fit near the end
2 Comparative Background of the streamline.
During the authors' paper presentation, it was stated that both
This difference may be significant. In cases where downstream
the M T F M (Matrix Throughflow Method) and SCM (Streamline
effects are vital, the SCM may be comparatively weak. On the
Curvature Method) equations are elliptic. This belief apparently
other hand, this difference may contribute to the speed and flexi-
underlies Section 2.3. However, it is not correct. For the MTFM, bility of the SCM. Considering now the intercompressor duct case,
Poisson's equation is the difference in downstream behavior due to the downstream
boundary condition? What conditions were used for each method
V2i/> = q

4
Numbers in brackets designate Additional References at end of discus-
3 sion.
Creare Inc., Fluids Engineering Division, Hanover, N. H.

558 / OCTOBER 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/01/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms