Proceedings of ICFD11:

Proceedings of ICFD11:
Eleventh International
Eleventh International ConferenceConference of
of Fluid Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics
December 19-21, 2013, Alexandria, Egypt
December 19-21, 2013, Alexandria, Egypt
ICFD11-EG-4XXX

Design and Optimization of a Multi-Stage Axial-Flow Compressor
Prof. Dr. Atef M. Alm-Eldien
Mech. Power Eng. Dept.
Faculty of Eng.
Vice-president
for Students Affairs
Port-Said University, Egypt
atef_alameldin@yahoo.com
ICFD11-EG-4103
Prof. Dr. Ahmed F. Abdel Gawad Prof. Dr. Gamal Eng. Mohamed G. Abd El Kreim
Mech. Power Eng. Dept., Faculty of Eng., Hafaz M.Sc. in Mech. Power Eng.
Zagazig Univ., Egypt Mech. Power Eng. Dept.
Currently: Faculty of Eng. Steam Turbine Maintenance Engineer
Mech. Eng. Dept. Abou Sultan Power Plant
College of Eng. & Islamic Architecture Port-Said University
Umm Al-Qura Univ., Saudi Arabia Egypt East Delta Electricity Production Company
Egyptian Electricity Holding Company
Fellow IEF, Assoc. Fellow AIAA
Egypt
Member ASME, ACS, SIAM, AAAS
mgaber_eg@hotmail.com
afaroukg@yahoo.com

I. INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT I.1 Previous Investigations

The objective of this paper is to define a methodology
for the design and analysis of multistage axial-flow
compressors. A numerical methodology is adopted for
optimizing the efficiency at the design point of a fifteen-
stage axial-flow compressor with inlet guide vanes (IGV).
The calculations are carried out along the mean streamline
using the principals of thermodynamics and aerodynamics.
A computer program was developed that simulates the
compressor model. By specifying the geometry
specifications (tip clearance, aspect ratio, thickness-chord
ratio, blockage factor, etc.) and design parameters (mass
flow, rotational speed, number of stages, pressure ratio,
etc.), an accurate numerical model can be generated. This
modeling technique is much simpler than the usual
computational methods that need much more
modeling/programming effort and computer run-time.
Starting from a newly-designed axial-flow compressor, an
optimized version is obtained with improved design-point
efficiency. So, once we get the optimized geometry of the
compressor, the original geometry is altered to maximize
the efficiency at the design-point. Concerning the optimized
version, analytical relation between the isentropic
efficiency of the compressor and the flow coefficient, the
work coefficient, the flow angles and the degree of reaction
are obtained.
KEYWORDS
Axial-flow compressor, Efficiency, Performance
optimization.
There is a large volume of literature on compressor
design and its design parameters. However, the design
method is different from one research to another. The
intention of this review is to show the reader the related
work and to orient the reader where the current work stands
in relation to the literature.
Barbosa [1] used a streamline curvature for the flow
calculation along a multi-stage axial compressor of known
geometry. In his work, many streamlines are adopted from
hub to tip of the blades and divided in sections applied at
the inlet and outlet of each row. Hence, all flow properties
can be determined at each point of the intersection among
the sections of the cascade and the streamlines forming
control surfaces. Teinke [13] used a mean-line stage
stacking method for axial-compressor prediction. In his
method, the calculations are based on the mean streamline
of the axial-compressor channel. The flow properties such
as temperature, pressure, velocity and the dimensions of the
equipments including the balding angles are determined at
half blade. He stated that his method, when simulated in
computer, presented fast numeric convergence and
sufficient accurate results for a first analysis of the
compressors performance. Casey [3] presented a
computational program to calculate the efficiency of a
single-stage axial compressor to analyze the one-
dimensional condition with a pressure ratio of 1.2. The
author described the importance of analyzing the incidence,
deviation, profile losses, secondary losses and boundary-
layer limits from hub tip related with the tip clearance in
order to predict the axial-compressor performance. The
deviation angle was obtained through Carter's rule [2]. He
used Lieblein's model [10] to calculate the profile losses.
The effect of the relative Reynolds number corrections to
the friction losses was calculated by Koch's model [8] and

1
the Mach number correction was done by Jansen, and
Moffatt procedure [7]. Seyb [12] presented a program for
the design and prediction of an eight-stage, constant outer-
diameter, axial compressor.
As can be seen from the above literature survey, there is
a real need for a better direct method for the design and
optimization of the multi-stage axial compressor. The
method should consider all the parameters that affect the
compressor performance and be reliable for all the
compressor stages.
Therefore, a new method is introduced in this paper to
achieve these objectives. The method is fully explained in
the following sections.

I.2 Present Study

This paper is divided in two main parts. The first part
concerns the design of the axial-flow compressor. A
computer program is developed for this purpose by the
commercial software "Visual Basic". Figure 1 shows a
layout of the program window. The input data are typed in
the left portion of the window. The program uses
"Engineering Equation Solver (EES)" [15] to obtain air
properties at different steps of calculation. The program is
developed using the thermodynamics and aerodynamics
correlations. The results of the program represent an
important preliminary design-step that can be further tuned
using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
simulations. When the program finishes calculation, three
graphs are obtained. The upper graph illustrates the
variation of geometry over the length of the compressor.
The lower-left graph shows the velocity diagrams
(triangles) in a particular stage. The third graph (lower-
right) is to check the surge situation. The user can choose
the stage that he wishes to check. The results of the
program were validated using the data of reference [6]. The
validation covers the data of a fifteen-stage axial-flow
compressor. Generally, good agreements were achieved for
the geometry and dimensions as well as gas parameters.
Fig. 2 Layout of the optimizing program window after
finishing calculation.
The second part of this paper is devoted to the
optimization of design-point efficiency. A second program
was developed to maximize the efficiency at design-point
according to some constraints. So, the geometry of the
compressor that is obtained by the first program is fed to
the second program, where an analytical relation between
the efficiency and different design parameters is obtained.
II. ANALYSIS
II.1 Axial-Flow Compressor Design
The design process starts with the calculation of the
areas at the channel inlet and exit to accommodate the
desired mass flow-rate and pressure ratio. Then, the
calculation of both the total pressure and total temperature
at the inlet and outlet of each stage is carried out.
Consequently, velocity triangles, blade angles and losses
are calculated to end up with an estimation of the design
performance. The calculation process is divided into
separate modules. Figure 3 illustrates the overall structure
of the calculation process for the whole compressor.

Fig. 1 Layout of the program window after finishing

calculation.

Fig.3 Overall structure of the calculation process

for the whole compressor.
2
 Cx
• Assumptions
1. Two-dimensional flow.

2. Identical balding (α1 = α3) at the mean radius.

3. Constant mean radius.

As the fluid is taking its way towards the end of the

compressor, boundary layer starts to grow on the
compressor housing. This results in narrowing the path of
the fluid flow. This phenomenon is accounted for by the
introduction of a suitable blockage factor.

To achieve a prescribed duty case, the calculation

process encompasses the following steps:
1. Selection of the duty coefficients (Ø) and number of
stages to achieve the specified compressor design flow-
rate and pressure ratio.

2. Calculation of the air angles for each stage at the mean

radius.

3. Determination of the variation of the air angles from

root to tip.

4. Blade pitch chord ratio may then be selected to satisfy

aerodynamic loading parameters such as lift coefficient
and diffusion factor.

Fig.5 Assembled velocity triangles for a stage.

• Dimensionless velocity triangles

Fig.4 Meridional view of a multi-stage compressor.
Considering the velocity triangle of a single stage,
Fig. 3, we can see that the overall shape of the velocity
triangles is governed by the three velocities Cx, ΔCθ and U.
We can show that Cx, and ΔCθ are related to the flow
coefficient φ and work coefficient ψ as follows:

φ = c x from which we get

The meridional view of a multi-stage compressor that is U
shown in Fig. 4 illustrates the main features of blading and cx = φ U (1)
annulus:
Δ
1. An inlet guide vane blade row to provide pre-whirl ψ = h2o
into the first stage. U
From Euler pump, Eq. 3, we get
2. A set of repeating stages, each comprising a rotor Δ h o = U( c θ 2 − c θ1 ) = UΔ cθ
followed by a stator.
From which we get Δ c θ = ψU (2)

3
 To make the velocity triangles dimensionless, we divide ⎛1⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞ Inflow angle (14)
all velocities by the blade speed U. The outcome of this is α =α1 3
= arctan ⎜⎜ ⎜ 1 − R − ψ ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝φ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠
shown in Fig. 4 from which important results is obtained. ⎛1⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞ Outflow angle (15)
α = arctan ⎜⎜ ⎜ 1 − R + ψ ⎟ ⎟⎟
2
⎝φ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠
⎛1⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞ Relative inflow angle (16)
β 1 = arctan ⎜⎜ ⎜ R + ψ ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝φ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠
⎛1⎛ 1 ⎞⎞ Relative outflow angle (17)
β 2 = arctan ⎜⎜ ⎜ R − ψ ⎟ ⎟⎟
φ
⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠
2
w1 = φ 2 + ⎛ R + ψ ⎞ Rotor relative inflow velocity (18)
⎜ ⎟
U ⎝ 2 ⎠
2
w2 = ⎛ ψ⎞ Rotor relative outflow velocity (19)
φ 2 + ⎜ R− ⎟
U ⎝ 2⎠
2
c 1 = c 3 = φ 2 + ⎛ 1− R − ψ ⎞ Rotor entry and stage exit
⎜ ⎟
U U ⎝ 2 ⎠

Fig.6 Dimensionless velocity triangles for a stage. velocities (20)

2
Swirl velocities Wθ2 and Cθ1 can be related to φ ,ψ and c 2 = φ 2 + ⎛ 1− R + ψ ⎞ Stator inflow velocity (21)
⎜ ⎟
U ⎝ 2 ⎠
R as follows
−
R = h 2 h1 (3) • Lift and drag coefficients in terms of duty coefficients
−
h 3 h1 The dimensionless parameters that indicate profile
Since the stages are repeating for which entry and aerodynamic quality are the lift and drag coefficients CL
leaving velocities are identical, C3 = C1, the denominator of and CD. It is important therefore to express CL and CD in
Eq. 3 may be simplified to terms of the duty coefficients which have a total control
⎛
⎜ c 3 ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜
2
c 1 ⎞⎟
2
(4) over the shape of the velocity triangles. Lift coefficient for
h 3
− h 1
=
⎜ h 03
−
2 ⎟
−
⎜ h 01
−
2 ⎟
= h 03
− h 01
= Δ h 0
a cascade can be expressed in terms of the relative inflow
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Then, the numerator is written as and outflow angles β1 and β2, the vector mean of them β∞
⎛ 2
⎞ ⎛ 2
⎞ and the pitch to chord ratio, t/l as follows:
= ⎜ h 02 − c 2 ⎟ − ⎜ h 01 − c 1 ⎟ =
(5)
h h h h C = 2 (tan β − tan β )cos β − C tan β
− − t (22)
2 1 ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 ⎟ 02 01 L
l 1 2 m D m
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
But since there is no work or heat input through the But we have
stator, h02 = h03 and thus h02 - h01 = h03 - h01 = Δh0. Also, 1⎛ 1 ⎞, 1⎛ 1 ⎞ (23)
tan β = ⎜R + ψ ⎟ tanβ = ⎜ R − ψ ⎟
since the axial velocity is assumed to be constant, we have φ⎝ 2 ⎠ 2 φ
⎝ 2 ⎠
( ) ( )
1

2 2 2 2 2 2 Hence,
c 2 − c1 = c x + c θ 2 − c x + c θ 1 =
(6)
c θ 2 − c θ 1 = (c θ 2 − c θ 1 )(c θ 2 + c θ 1 ) ( β β )= φ
2 2 1 R (24)
tan β m
=
2
tan
1
+ tan
2

Introducing Eq. 6 into Eq. 5, we have

Δ h0 Substituting these into Eq. 22, we have the alternative form
h 2 − h1 = Δ h 0 − (c θ 2 + c θ 1 ) (7)
for CL involving the duty coefficients ( φ , ψ):
2U
So, the reaction R becomes
1 (25)
R = 1− (c + c ) (8) ⎛t ⎞⎢
⎡
2ψ
⎤
⎥ R
2U θ 2 θ 1 C = 2⎜ ⎟⎢
⎠ ⎢ 4 2 + 1 ⎥⎥
− ( )C D
φ
φ ⎦
L
⎝l
From which ⎣

cθ 2 + cθ 1 = 2U (1 − R ) (9)
Thus, we have Considering the drag coefficient, defined by
cθ 1 = 1 − R − 1 ψ (10) (26)
U 2 D ⎛t⎞
CD = 1 = ζ ∞ ⎜ ⎟ cos β ∞
2
ρ w∞ l ⎝l⎠
cθ 2 = 1 − R + 1 ψ (11) 2
U 2
wθ 1 = 1 − cθ 1 = R + 1 ψ (12) Where, the cascade loss coefficient is based on the vector
U 2 U mean velocity w∞
wθ 2 = 1 − cθ 2 = R − 1 ψ (13)
U U 2 (Δ p0)loss (27)
ζ∞=
We note that the dimensionless velocity triangles and 1 2
ρW ∞
hence the blade shapes required to achieve them are totally 2

determined by the stage duty coefficients φ ,ψ and R. Since, Δ poR & Δ p os (28)
ζR= ζs=
It follows that all angles and velocities may be expressed 1
ρ W 12
1
ρ C 22
as functions of φ andψ as follows: 2 2

4
Where, ζR,ζs are the rotor and stator loss coefficients
expressed in terms of the exit velocities C2 and w3 relative
to the blade rows.
Hence, we get
2
Δ poR ⎛ w∞ ⎞
2
⎛ cos β 1 ⎞ (29)
ζR= 1
= ζ ∞ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ζ ∞ ⎜⎜ cos β ⎟⎟
ρ W 12 ⎝ 1⎠
w ⎝ ∞⎠
2

So that CD becomes

⎛ ⎞
C D = ζ 1⎜ l ⎟
t cos β ∞
3
⎛ t ⎞ 2φ 4 φ + (1 + φ )
= ζ 1⎜ ⎟
2 2
( ) (30)
⎝ ⎠ cos 2 β 1
( )
3
⎝l⎠
4φ 2 +1 2

From the definition of diffusion factor (DF), Lieblein et al.

[10], we have

β1 β1⎛t ⎞
DF = 1 −
cos
+
cos
(
⎜ ⎟ tan β 1 − tan β 2 ) (31)
cos β2 2 ⎝l⎠

The rotor and stator blade rows will have different profile
geometry. In order to select suitable values of pitch/chord
ratio t/l to control aerodynamic loading, we have for the
rotor
4φ + (1−ψ ) (32)
2 2
t ψ ⎛ ⎞
DF = 1− +⎜ ⎟
R
4φ +
2
(1−ψ ) 2
φ
⎝l⎠ 4 2+
(1−ψ )2

And for the stator, we have

cos α 2 ⎞ cos α 2 ⎛ t
Fig.7 Flowchart showing the iterative process for axial
(33)
DF S
= 1−
cos α 2
⎜ ⎟ (tan α − tan α )
+ 2 3 velocity.
⎝l ⎠
3
s

φ + (1− R −ψ / 2 ) + 1 ⎛ t ⎞ • Calculation of static properties

2 2
ψ
= 1− ⎜ ⎟
φ (1− R −ψ / 2 ) ⎝ l ⎠ φ + (1− R +ψ / 2 )
2 2
+ 2 2 2
s

Before the calculation begins, the inlet geometry must

be determined. To be able to find the inlet geometry, the
inlet flow velocity Cm must be known. Since this velocity is
unknown, an iterative process is made to find Cm. With the
help of mass continuity, a new flow velocity is calculated.
This value is then used to start over the calculation until
convergence is accomplished. The first step is to get the
thermodynamic properties at the inlet of the compressor.
The ambient pressure and temperature are known and from
them Cp and γ are determined. With these properties are
known, the iteration process can begin, Fig. 7.

Fig.8 Compressor stage (T-S) diagram.

5
• Calculation of static pressure and temperature at • Calculation of the equivalent diffusion ratio (Deq*)
rotor inlet (P1, T1)
1. From EES, find h01, S01, K01 and Cp01 using (P01, T01). cos(β 2) ⎡ cos (β1)
2 ⎤
2. Find h1 = h01 - C12/2. Deq* = cos( ) ⎢1.12 + 0.61 (tan(β 2) − tan(β1))⎥⎥ (35)
β1 ⎢ ⎣
σ
⎦
3. From EES, find ρ1, Cp1, k1 and μ1 using (h1, S1 = S01).
4. Find T1 = T01 - (C12/2 × Cp1).
⎛ k ⎞
⎜ 1 ⎟
⎛ ⎞⎜ k −1 ⎟ • Calculation of the compressor losses
5. Find p = p ⎜ T 1 ⎟⎝ 1 ⎠
1 01 ⎜ ⎟ • Profile loss model
⎝ T 01 ⎠
• Calculation of static pressure and temperature at The profile loss model used is a modified version of the
rotor outlet stator inlet (P2, T2) two-dimensional low speed correlation of Lieblein
et al. [10], Fig. 9.
1. Find compressor exit temperature
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ k −1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎜ 01 ⎟
Te =T
01
(π ) ⎜ η ⎟⎜ k
⎝ p ⎠⎝ 01 ⎠
⎟

2. Find stage temperature rise ΔT=(Te-T01)/n_stg

3. Find T03 = T01 + ΔT
⎛ k1 ⎞
⎜ k −1 ⎟⎜ ⎟
4. Find p = p ⎡1+ η p Δ T ⎤ ⎝ 1 ⎠
03 01
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ T 01 ⎦⎥
5. P02 = P03, T02 = T03
6. From EES find h02, S02 using P02, T02
7. Find h2 = h02- C22/2
8. From EES find ρ2, Cp2, k2, μ2 using h2, S2 = S02
9. Find T2 = T02 - (C22 / 2 × Cp2)
⎛ k ⎞
⎜ 2 ⎟

10. Find p = p ⎛⎜ T 2 ⎞⎟ ⎝ k 2 ⎠
⎜ −1 ⎟

2 02 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ T 02 ⎠ Fig. 9 Profile loss parameter with variation of Mach
• Calculation of static pressure and temperature at number [10].
stator outlet (P3, T3)
1. From EES find h03, S03 using P03, T03
2. Find h3 = h03 - C32/2 The profile loss parameter is expressed as
3. From EES find ρ3, Cp3, k3, μ3 using h3, S3 = S03
4. Find T3 = T03 - (C32/2 × Cp3) 2
⎛ k ⎞ ζ p
0.5 v12 cs(α 2) = f ( M 1 , D eq ) (36)
⎜ 3 ⎟
v2
⎛ ⎞ ⎜ k −1 ⎟
5. Find p = p ⎜ T 3 ⎟⎝ 3 ⎠
3 03 ⎜T ⎟ A fourth-order polynomial fitting method has been used to
⎝ 03 ⎠ interpret the graph that has the form
The above calculation process is repeated for each stage
f ( x) = a 0 + a1 x + .... + a n −1 x n −1 + a n x n
noting that:
The starting rotor inlet-conditions will have the same
velocity and radius outlet of the previous stage and the • The polynomial coefficients are listed below
stagnation properties is taken from the previous stage.
rm,1 = rm,3(i-1), Cm,1 = C m,3(i-1), α1 = α3(i-1)
M1 a0 a1 a2 a3 a4
0.3 -8.26097e-02 2.62982e-01 -2.66675e-01 1.14774e-01 -1.61839e-02
P01 = P03 (i-1), T01 = T03 (i-1), h01 = h03 (i-1), S01 = S03 (i-1)
0.7 -1.30107e-01 3.68490e-01 -3.56939e-01 1.48500e-01 -2.08264e-02

• Calculation of the pitch-chord ratio (s/c) 1.0 -1.36535e-01 3.78126e-01 -3.66336e-01 1.52219e-01 -2.13465e-02

The calculation of the pitch-chord ratio is based on the

diffusion ratio. The input parameters consist of the relative
inlet and outlet flow angles, the different axial velocities • End-wall loss
and radiuses and also the diffusion factor A correlation is used to determine the end-wall losses
based on a numerous sets of compressor data where the
parameters, tip clearance, aspect ratio, and mean-line
(β 1 , β 2 , c m1 , c m2 , r m1 , r m2 , DF ) loading where systematically varied. These parameters can
be correlated as in Fig. 10, [4].
S ⎛⎜
= DF − 1 +
w 2 ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ r1 + r 2 ⎞
⎟ (34)
C ⎜⎝ ⎟ w1 ⎜
w1 ⎠ ⎝ r 2 wθ 2 − r 1 wθ 1 ⎟⎠
6
 dynamic head, the minimum dynamic head and the
dynamic head at zero axial velocity as given by the
following equation, Fig. 11.

2 2
C + 2 .5 C min + 0 .5 U 2 (40)
F ef =
4C 2
2
C min =
sin (α + β ), if (α + β ) ≤ 90 and β ≥ 0
2
2
C
2
C min = 1, if (α + β ) > 90
2
C
2 2
C min = U 2 if β < 0
2 2
C C

Fig. 10 End-wall loss parameter with variation of tip

clearance.

The end-wall loss parameter is expressed as

h 2 ⎛ε ⎞
ζ e v12 = f ⎜ , DF ⎟ (37)
c v2 ⎝C ⎠

A fourth-order polynomial fitting method has been used to

interpret the graph it has the form
f ( x) = a 0 + a1 x + .... + a n −1 x n −1 + a n x n

• The polynomial coefficients are listed below

Tip
Clearance a0 a1 a2 a3 a4
0.0 3.23881e00 -3.66895e01 1.60855e02 -3.14825e02 2.32625e02 Figure.11 Diagram giving definition of Fef.
0.02 2.86933e00 -3.18679e01 1.36001e02 -2.58533e02 1.85224e02
Figure 12 shows a correlation of stalling pressure-rise
coefficient (CpD) and of diffusion-length to exit passage-
0.04 -2.00381e-01 1.04984e00 3.12191e00 -2.0345e01 2.48570e01
width (L / g2).
0.07 8.18792e-01 -8.62635e00 3.57996e01 -6.61454e01 4.61697e01
L σ (41)
=
0.1 2.38135e-01 -2.36201e00 1.01622e01 -1.92343e01 11.36794e01 g2 ( ) ⎛θ ⎞
cos β b 2 cos⎜ ⎟
⎝2⎠

• Calculation of the stall/surge

A relationship created by Koch [8] is used to determine
how close a stage to stall/surge. By calculating the static
pressure rise coefficient, Cp, based on pitch-line dynamic
head, and comparing it to the maximum static pressure rise,
Cp,max, a good indication of how close a stage is toward stall
is given. The static pressure-rise coefficient and the
maximum pressure-rise coefficient are as follows:
⎡ k −1
⎤
⎢⎛
c p T 1 ⎢⎜⎜
p3 ⎞
⎟
k⎥
− 1⎥ −
(U 22 − U 12 )
⎢⎝ p 1 ⎟⎠ ⎥ 2
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ (38)
cp =
( 2
W1 −C2
2
)
2

⎛ Cp ⎞ ⎛ Cp ⎞ ⎛ Cp ⎞ (39)
Cp,max= CpDFef ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ CpD⎠Re⎝ CpD⎠ε ⎝ CpD⎠Δz Fig.12 Correlation of stalling pressure-rise
coefficient (CpD).
Where, Fef is the effective dynamic-pressure coefficient that
is represented by a weighted-average of the free-stream

7
A fifth-order polynomial fitting method has been used to
interpret the graph that has the form
f ( x) = a 0 + a1 x + .... + a n −1 x n −1 + a n x n

• The polynomial coefficients are listed below

a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
7.6431e-02 4.916e-01 -2.5166e-01 9.1688e-02 -1.9627e-02 1.7779e-03

Figure 13 shows the effect of tip clearance on stalling

pressure-rise coefficient (CpD).

g=
( ( )
π r m cos β b1 + cos β b2 ( )) (42) Fig. 14 Effect of axial-spacing on stalling pressure-rise
Z coefficient (CpD).
Where, Z denotes the number of blades in one row.
Figure 15 shows the effect of Reynolds number on stalling
pressure-rise coefficient (CpD).
• The polynomial coefficients are listed below

a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
1.1191e00 -6.1567e-01 9.6073e-01 -2.2107e-01 -7.4519e-01 5.1421e-01

Fig. 15 Effect of Reynolds number on stalling pressure-

rise coefficient (CpD).

A function of the type f (x ) = a x b + C is used for

Fig. 13 Effect of tip clearance on stalling pressure-rise the interpretation of Fig. 15. The coefficients of the
coefficient (CpD). function are:

Figure 14 shows the effect of axial-spacing on stalling

pressure-rise coefficient (CpD). a b c

-101.8 -0.6767 1.041

• The polynomial coefficients are listed below

a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 • Calculation of blade angles

1.21683e00 -1.00986e01 2.424416e02 -3.38124e03 2.20418e04 -5.35103e04 Various angles at the inlet and outlet of the blade are
shown in Fig. 16.

The axial-spacing between rows is given by:

ΔZ = 0.2 C (43)

8
 Ksh Blade Type

0.7 DCA

1.0 65-SERIES

1.1 C- SERIES

2 3
⎛t⎞ ⎛t⎞ ⎛t⎞ (45)
k it = −0.0214 + 19.17⎜ c ⎟ − 122.3 ⎜ ⎟ + 312.5 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝c⎠ ⎝c⎠

i 010 = (0.0325 − 0.0674σ ) + (− 0.002364 + 0.0913σ )α 1

+ (1.64e − 05 − 2.38e − 04σ )α 12

n = (− 0.063 − 0.02274σ ) + (− 0.0035 + 0.0029σ )α 1

− (3.79e − 05 + 1.11e − 05σ )α 12
Fig. 16 Various angles at the inlet and outlet
of the blade. • Calculation of the deviation angle
It is the difference between outlet blade-angle and outlet
flow-angle. It arises from a combination of two effects.
• The blade angles are First, the flow is decelerating on the suction surface and
α'1 = α1 – γ accelerating on the pressure surface as it approaches the
trailing edge. As a result of that, the streamlines are
α'2 = α2 – γ diverging on the suction surface and converging on the
Where, α1 is the blade inlet angle and α'1 is the flow pressure surface so that the mean flow-angle is less than the
inlet angle, α'2 is the blade outlet angle, α2 is the flow outlet blade angle. Second, the rapid boundary-layer growth on
angle and γ is the stagger angle. the suction surface towards the trailing edge pushes the
streamlines away from the surface. The correlation for the
i = α1- α'1 deviation angle is given by:
δ= α'2- α2 θ
δ = mc + x (46)
Where, i is the incidence angle which is the difference σ
between the flow inlet angle and the blade inlet angle, δ is (i 010 θ ) (47)
δ (i = i ref ) = k sh k δ t δ 010 + mθ
the deviation angle which is the difference between the
2
flow outlet angle and the blade outlet angle. ⎛t ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ (48)
k δ t = 0 . 0142 + 6 . 172 ⎜ c ⎟ + 36 . 61 ⎜ ⎟
The fluid deflection and the camber angles are defined by ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ c⎠

θ = α'1 + α'2 δ 010 = (0.0443 + 0.1057 σ ) + (0.0209 − 0.0186 σ )α 12

(− 0.0004 + 0.00076 σ )α 13
ε = α1+ α2 = (i + α'1) + (α'1 – δ) = ( α'1 + α'2) + (i - δ) '
=(θ + i -δ) m = m (49)
b
2
b = 0 . 9655 + 2 . 538 e − 03 α 1 + 4 . 221 e − 05 α 1
• Calculation of the incidence angle − 1 . 3 e − 06 α 3
1
Incidence is the difference between the inlet blade-angle m' is different based on the blade type, DCA, C-series or a
and the inlet flow-angle. As the fluid flows towards the 65-series
leading edge, it experiences "induced incidence". There is a
pressure and a suction surface at a given blade. This For a 65-series
difference of pressure changes the ingoing flow angle as it
m = 0.17 − 3.33e − 04(1− 0.1α1)α1
'
approaches the leading edge. The correlation for the (49.a)
incidence angle is given by:
For DCA, C-series
i ref = k sh k it i 010 + n θ (i 010 , θ ) (44)
' 2
m = 0 . 249 + 7 . 4 e − 04 α 1 − 1 . 32 e − 05 α 1 (49.b)
Ksh and kit are corrections factors for blade shape and
thickness, respectively, Ksh differs whether the blade is a
3 . 16 e − 07 α 13
DCA,65-series or a C series [4].

9
II.2 Design Optimization of Axial-Flow Compressor By applying Buckingham's π-theorem and applying
dimensional analysis, Eq. 50 may be simplified to the
Once we get the geometry supplied by the program of
following dimensional form:
the axial-flow compressor design-point efficiency, its
geometry is altered to maximize efficiency at the design- ⎛ ⎞
η tt = f ⎜⎜ φ ,ψ , R , w1 , c 2 , M 1 , M 2 , R em , ζ , ζ s ⎟⎟ (51)
point. The structure of the optimizing program is shown in ⎝ U U R
⎠
Fig. 17. Where M1 and M2 are the rotor and stator exit mach
numbers that are defined as:
W1
M1=
a1

C2 (52)
M2 =
a2
Rem is the stage Reynolds number based on mean radius
U rm (53)
Rem = υ
ζ R ζs
, are the rotor and stator loss coefficients expressed
in terms of the exit velocities C2 and w3 relative to the blade
rows.
Δp
ζ R = 1 oR
ρ W 12
2

Δ pos (54)
ζs= 1
ρ C 22
2

φ , ψ are the flow and work coefficients defined as

φ = Cx
U

Ψ= Δ ho (55)
U
Fig.17 Structure of the optimizing program of the axial- • Independent design variables
flow compressor.
The designer is free to select the design duty
By applying dimensional analysis for a single stage and coefficients ( φ , ψ). As these duty coefficients have a
making the following assumptions: profound effect upon the stage efficiency ηtt even with
optimum aerodynamic design. φ and ψ control the shape of
1. Constant axial velocity Cx.
2. Constant mean radius rm = 1/2(rh + rt). the velocity triangles and thus the flow environment within
3. Identical velocity vectors C1 and C3 at entry to and exit which the blades operate. Also, the degree of reaction (R)
from the stage at the mean radius rm. has a direct control over velocity triangle shape and hence
efficiency.
The efficiency ηtt of this stage is dependent upon the
following variables, [9]: • Dependent design variables affecting (ηtt)
⎛ Δ h o , h1, h 2 , h 3 ω , r m , c x , w 3 ,⎞ (50)
η = f⎜ ⎜c2,μ,ρ,a
⎟
Experimental cascade tests show that the loss
tt
⎝ 2 ,a3,Δ p or , Δ p os ⎟⎠
coefficients ζ R , ζ s are themselves dependent upon blade
• Thermodynamic variables. The stage stagnation enthalpy-
row Reynolds number and inlet Mach number. We would
rise Δho determines the specific work input and signifies
also expect that loss levels to be directly influenced by the
stage loading. The specific enthalpies h1, h2 and h3 typify
velocity triangle environment within which the blades have
the progression in energy transfer through the stage. All
to operate and hence to depend upon φ , ψ and R. We can
four are independent variables.
• Speed and size. Both are independent variables. express this through [9],
• Velocity triangles. Four velocities are required to = f 1 (φ ,ψ , R , Re R , M 1)
ζ
determine the shape of the velocity triangles these are the R

blade speed U = rm ω, Cx as an independent variables, C2, (56)

ζ s
= f 2
(φ ,ψ , R , Re s , M 2 )
W1 are dependent variables.
• Properties of working substances. The dynamic viscosity Where, the blade row Reynolds numbers ReR and Res
μ, density ρ and speeds of sound a1, a2 depend on the are based on rotor and stator blade chords lR and ls.
physical and thermodynamic properties of the gas. W 1l R
Re R = υ
• Losses. The stator and rotor losses from all sources
(profile drag, tip clearance loss, etc.) are lumped into C2 ls (57)
Res = υ
stagnation pressure losses Δpos and Δpor.

10
Equation 51now is simplified into
η tt =1−
1 ⎛ 2 1
⎜φ + (1+ψ )2 ⎞⎟ (ζ R + ζ s ) (64)
η tt = f (φ ,ψ , R , , ζ R , ζ s )
2ψ ⎝ 4 ⎠
(58)
Equation 64 is equivalent to the parametric Eq. 58
Thus, the efficiency of an axial-compressor stage
derived from the dimensional analysis for a 50% reaction.
depends upon five dimensionless parameters which are
But it is in the much more useful explicit form of an
sufficient to account for all the 15 items listed in Eq. 50Of
analytical relationship which shows how ηtt depends upon
these parameters, just three may be independently selected
the various dimensionless groups. From this, we can deduce
by the designer, namely φ , ψ and R. The loss coefficients
that the efficiency of a 50% axial-compressor stage is
themselves are also dependent upon the duty parameters φ , dependent upon two main factors:
ψ and R but in addition are influenced by Reynolds number
1. The stage duty coefficients ( φ , ψ).
and Mach number.
2. The blade-row loss-coefficients ζ R and ζ s (i.e., blade-
• Simple analytical formulation for the total to total row aerodynamic).
efficiency of a compressor stage The initial selection of the stage duty coefficients ( φ ,
Equation 58 can be converted into a more useful ψ) is crucial. Thus, we could rewrite Eq. 64in the form
η tt = 1 − f c (φ ,ψ )(ζ R + ζ s )
analytical form. By assuming for the moment a fixed
(65)
reaction value R = 0.5. From h0 – S diagram, Fig. 18, by
defining the stagnation enthalpy loss due to irreversibility
into Where, the loss-weighting coefficient ( fc) is given by
1 ⎛ 2 1
f c (φ ,ψ ) = ⎜φ + 1+ψ
2ψ ⎝ 4
( )2 ⎞⎟ (66)
⎠

ζ R and ζ s are normally used to represent cascade loss

coefficients. We need to pin into all other frictional losses
such as tip leakage and secondary losses related to the rotor
and stator. From the stage performance analysis, the
inherent aerodynamic loss character tics of the blades can
be summarized [9]. From Eq. 66 fc depends upon duty
coefficients ( φ , ψ) and thus the velocity triangle
environment into which the blades are immersed. fc is called
a "Weighting Coefficient" as it gives weight to the
aerodynamic loss coefficients ζ R and ζ s which can be
Fig. 18 T-S and h0-S diagrams for
minimized by the careful blade profile design unless the
an axial-compressor stage.
duty coefficients ( φ , ψ) and velocity triangles are badly
(Δ h 0 )loss = h 03 − h 03 s (59) chosen in the first place, resulting in an excessive value of
fc.
The stage stagnation enthalpy rise is given by • Stage losses and efficiency
Δ h0 = h03 − h01 (60) The loss coefficients for the rotor ζ R and stator
ζ s have been defined by Eq. 54 and the total stage loss
From the conventional definition of ηtt (Δp)loss, Eq. 63 Substituting the value of W1/U and C2/U into
= stagnation enthalpy rise for an ideal stage/stagnation Eq. 63, we have
enthalpy rise for the actual stage
(Δ p 0 )loss 1 ⎛ w1 ⎞
2
1 ⎛C ⎞
2

Hence, the total to total efficiency. 2

= ζ R ⎜ ⎟ + ζ s⎜ 2 ⎟ = (67)
ρU 2 ⎝U ⎠ 2 ⎝ U ⎠
⎡ 2 ⎡ 2⎤⎤

h −h (Δ h0)loss (Δ p0)loss 1 ⎛⎜ (Δ p0)loss ⎞⎟ (61) 1

ζ R
⎢φ 2 + ⎛ R + ψ ⎞ + 1
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ζ s
⎢φ 2 + ⎛⎜ 1 − R + ψ ⎞⎟ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎥⎥
η tt = 03s 01 = 1 − = 1− = 1− 2
⎣⎢
⎝ 2 ⎠ 2
⎣ ⎝
h03 − h01 Δ h0 ρ Δh0 ψ ⎜ ρU2 ⎟ ⎦
⎝ ⎠
The total to total efficiency then follows by substituting into
Since, (Δ p 0) = (Δ p 0 R ) + (Δ p 0 s ) (62) Eq. 61 to get
loss loss loss

Substitution of Eq. 54 in Eq. 61results in the dimensionless ⎧ ⎡ 2⎤ ⎡ 2⎤ ⎫

η tt = 1 −
1 ⎪
⎨ζ ⎢φ 2 + ⎛⎜ R + ψ ⎞⎟ ⎥ + ζ ⎢φ 2 + ⎛⎜1− R + ψ ⎞⎟ ⎥ ⎪⎬ (68)
loss. 2ψ ⎪ R⎢
2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ s⎢
2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎩ ⎣ ⎝ ⎣ ⎝ ⎭

(Δ p0)loss = 1 2 2
⎛ w1 ⎞ 1 ⎛ C2 ⎞ ⎛⎜ ζ R + ζ s ⎞⎟⎛ 2 1 2⎞ (63) Eq. 68 is consistent with Eq. 61 as a result of linking stage
ζ R⎜ ⎟ + ζ s⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟⎜⎝φ 4 (1+ψ ) ⎟⎠
+
ρU2 2 U
⎝ ⎠ 2 U
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ duty ( φ , ψ) and reaction R to velocity triangles and thus to
stage aerodynamics and thermodynamics.
Introducing Eq. 63 into Eq. 61,we have

11
• Optimum reaction III. Results and Discussions
III.1 Results of Design Program
For any prescribed ( φ , ψ) duty, we may estimate the
stage reaction R, which will produce maximum efficiency. At first we summarize the main steps in the design
Eq. 68 can be written as. procedure described in the analysis section. Having made
appropriate assumption about the axial velocity, it is
η tt = 1 − L (69)
possible to calculate the annulus area at the inlet and outlet
Where, L is given by of the compressor and calculate the air angles required for
each stage at the mean diameter. Then, by the use of vortex
⎧ ⎡
ψ ⎞ ⎤⎥ ⎡
ψ ⎞ ⎤⎥ ⎫⎪
2 2
1 ⎪ ⎢ 2 ⎛ 2 ⎛ (70) theory, the air angles can be calculated at various radiuses
L= ⎨ζ φ ⎜+ R + + ⎢
⎟ ζ s ⎢φ ⎜+ 1− R + ⎟ ⎬
2ψ ⎪ R ⎢ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪ from root to tip. Throughout this work, there was a
⎩ ⎣
⎝ ⎣ ⎝ ⎭ limitation on blade stresses; rates of diffusion and Mach
number that were not exceeded. The results of the program
The minimum loss and therefore maximum efficiency were validated using the data of Ref. [6]. The compressor
with respect to reaction R follows from of the present study is a 15-stage axial compressor with
⎧ ∂L ⎫ (71) 122 kg/s of air at ambient pressure of 1.013 bar and
=0 ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ∂R ⎭φ ,ψ temperature 288 K, pressure ratio 20 and polytropic
efficiency of 90%. Tables 1-5 show the present calculated
Where φ and ψ are kept constant. If we assume that the values and the relative differences in comparison to the data
of Ref. [6]. There is a good agreement as far as dimensions
loss coefficients are weak function of R and may be are concerned and a reasonable agreement in the other
assumed constant also, then Eq. 71 yields to parameters. This may be attributed to some difference in
design assumptions. The biggest differences between the
ψ
(ζ s − ζ R )+ ζ s present results and those of Ref. [6] are noticed in Table 5.
R optimum = 2 (72) The difference in the inlet stator angle may reach about 7%.
ζ s +ζ R Figures 19 and 20 show the rise of both the static
One possible solution to this which is true for all values pressure and temperature through the compressor stages,
of ψ is R = 0.5 and ζ s = ζ R . Although the stator and rotor respectively. Figures 21-23 show the variation of air angles,
degree of reaction, rotor/stator exit Mach number from root
velocity triangles are identical for this condition of 50%
to tip for a selected stage (stage 10). In Fig. 21, the radial
reaction, in reality there will be a difference in the two loss
variation of air angles of the rotor shows a change in fluid
coefficients. Even so the strong indication is that 50%
deflection for a considerable twist along the blade height to
reaction will be close to optimum [9].
ensure that the blade angles are in agreement with the air
• Optimum ψ for a given φ and R angles. In Fig. 22, the stator deflection is less in comparison
to the rotor deflection due to the nature of building-up
Alternatively, we may search for ψ value leading to pressure in stator blades. In Fig. 23, the degree of reaction
minimum loss for given φ and R values by writing increases from root to tip, which indicates a high mass
⎧ ∂L ⎫ (73) flow-rate per unit blade-height and thus plays an important
⎨ ⎬ =0 role in to raising the stage efficiency. Figures 24 and 25
⎩ ∂ψ ⎭φ , R
show the rotor and stator end wall, profile and total losses.
Resulting in Profile losses are contributed to boundary-layer separation
1 (74) while end-wall losses are mainly due to secondary flow
ψ φ + R (R − 1 )
2
= 2 +
optimum 2
effects and mixing for the rotor. The profile and end-wall
Where, we have also assumed that ζ s and ζ R are losses increase through the stages with the result of an
independent of ψ. Two stages of special interest are the increase in total losses due to the increase in the work that
50% reaction stages which we have already considered and is required to accomplish fluid turning and raising the
the 0% reaction or "impulse stages". For these two pressure through different stages as well as the generation
reactions Eq. 74 becomes of entropy. At the stator, the end-wall and profile losses
2 (75) decrease, resulting in a decrease in total losses due to the
ψ = 4φ + 1 optimum
diffusing working nature of the stator blades.

2
ψ optimum = 4φ + 2 Table 1: Comparison of the present (AFCP) results and
the data of Ref. [6] for the compressor tip radius.
In practice the stator and rotor loss coefficients ζ s and

ζ R do vary with both φ and ψ and form experimental tests Compressor Tip Radius (mm)
Present
the sensible design for ψ lies between the two values. Stage Row
(AFCP)
Ref. [6] Diff. (%)
2 (76)
ψ = 0 .185 4 φ + 1
opt ., exp 1 0.524 0.528 0.773
ψ max = 0 .32 + 0.2φ 1 2 0.513 0.513 0.024
3 0.505 0.507 0.416
1 0.505 0.507 0.416
2 2 0.496 0.5 0.799
3 0.490 0.494 0.749
3 1 0.490 0.494 0.749

12
 2 0.483 0.489 1.187 3 0.362 0.372 2.763
3 0.479 0.484 1.023 1 0.362 0.372 2.763
1 0.479 0.484 1.023 7 2 0.367 0.375 2.247
4 2 0.473 0.480 1.405 3 0.369 0.378 2.545
3 0.470 0.476 1.221 1 0.369 0.378 2.545
1 0.470 0.476 1.221 8 2 0.373 0.380 1.982
5 2 0.471 0.474 0.66 3 0.374 0.383 2.402
3 0.468 0.470 0.357 1 0.374 0.383 2.402
1 0.468 0.470 0.357 9 2 0.377 0.385 2.008
6 2 0.464 0.467 0.665 3 0.378 0.387 2.250
3 0.462 0.464 0.441 1 0.378 0.387 2.250
1 0.462 0.464 0.441 10 2 0.381 0.389 1.986
7 2 0.458 0.462 0.83 3 0.382 0.390 2.032
3 0.457 0.460 0.723 1 0.382 0.390 2.032
1 0.457 0.460 0.723 11 2 0.385 0.392 1.871
8 2 0.453 0.457 0.784 3 0.385 0.393 1.967
3 0.452 0.455 0.599 1 0.385 0.393 1.967
1 0.452 0.455 0.599 12 2 0.388 0.394 1.633
9 2 0.449 0.453 0.79 3 0.388 0.395 1.768
3 0.449 0.452 0.768 1 0.388 0.395 1.768
1 0.449 0.452 0.768 13 2 0.390 0.396 1.501
10 2 0.446 0.450 0.884 3 0.391 0.397 1.664
3 0.445 0.449 0.816 1 0.391 0.397 1.664
1 0.445 0.449 0.816 14 2 0.392 0.397 1.201
11 2 0.443 0.448 1.094 3 0.393 0.398 1.387
3 0.443 0.447 0.991 1 0.393 0.398 1.387
1 0.443 0.447 0.991 15 2 0.394 0.398 0.975
12 2 0.441 0.446 1.215 3 0.394 0.399 1.177
3 0.440 0.445 1.084
1 0.440 0.445 1.084 Table 3: Comparison of the present (AFCP) results and
13 2 0.438 0.444 1.265 the data of Ref. [6] for root-mean-square radius.
3 0.438 0.443 1.111
1 0.438 0.443 1.111 Compressor Root Mean Square Radius (mm)
14 2 0.437 0.443 1.48 Stage Row
Present
Ref. [6] Diff. (%)
3 0.436 0.442 1.308 (AFCP)
1 0.436 0.442 1.308 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
15 2 0.435 0.441 1.644 1 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.435 0.441 1.457 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.415 0.421 1.445
Table 2: Comparison of the present (AFCP) results and 2 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
the data of Ref. [6] for the compressor hub radius. 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.415 0.421 1.445
Compressor Hub Radius (mm) 3 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
Present 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
Stage Row Ref. [6] Diff. (%)
(AFCP) 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.264 0.274 3.614 4 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 2 0.285 0.300 5.142 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.299 0.310 3.604 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.299 0.310 3.604 5 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
2 2 0.314 0.321 2.329 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.323 0.332 2.923 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.323 0.332 2.923 6 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 2 0.333 0.339 1.792 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.339 0.346 2.065 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.339 0.346 2.065 7 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
4 2 0.347 0.351 1.159 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.351 0.357 1.664 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.351 0.357 1.664 8 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
5 2 0.350 0.360 2.767 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.354 0.364 2.905 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
1 0.354 0.364 2.905 9 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
6
2 0.359 0.368 2.365 3 0.415 0.421 1.445
13
 1 0.415 0.421 1.445
10 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 Table 5: Comparison of the present (AFCP) results and
1 0.415 0.421 1.445 the data of Ref. [6] for the compressor inlet blade angle.
11 2 0.415 0.421 1.445
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 Inlet Blade Angle
1 0.415 0.421 1.445 Present
Stage Row Ref. [6] Diff. (%)
12 2 0.415 0.421 1.445 (AFCP)
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 Rotor 51.275 54.542 6.372
1 0.415 0.421 1.445 1
Stator 46.29 49.051 5.965
13 2 0.415 0.421 1.445 Rotor 52.625 53.109 0.919
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 2
Stator 48.942 51.052 4.311
1 0.415 0.421 1.445
14 2 0.415 0.421 1.445 Rotor 53.896 54.290 0.732
3
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 Stator 49.367 52.069 5.473
1 0.415 0.421 1.445 Rotor 55.095 55.395 0.544
15 2 0.415 0.421 1.445 4
Stator 49.721 53.026 6.647
3 0.415 0.421 1.445 Rotor 57.325 56.448 -1.531
5
Stator 50.253 53.722 6.903
Table 4: Comparison of the present (AFCP) results and
the data of Ref. [6] for the De Haller Parameter. Rotor 57.325 57.187 -0.242
6
Stator 51.253 54.356 6.054
De Haller Parameter Rotor 58.370 57.864 -0.867
7
Stage Row
Present
Ref. [6] Diff. (%) Stator 52.443 54.932 4.746
(AFCP) Rotor 59.375 58.484 -1.500
Rotor 0.739 0.739 0.000 8
1 Stator 54.589 55.455 1.586
Stator 0.77 0.808 4.935
Rotor 60.342 59.053 -2.136
Rotor 0.734 0.744 1.362 9
2 Stator 54.693 55.925 2.253
Stator 0.765 0.752 -1.699 Rotor 61.275 59.575 -2.774
Rotor 0.73 0.744 1.918 10
3 Stator 55.758 56.686 1.664
Stator 0.761 0.752 -1.183
Rotor 62.174 60.238 -3.114
Rotor 0.726 0.745 2.617 11
4 Stator 55.784 57.396 2.890
Stator 0.756 0.753 -0.397
Rotor 63.042 60.962 -3.300
Rotor 0.721 0.746 3.467 12
5 Stator 55.772 58.155 4.273
Stator 0.751 0.750 -0.133 Rotor 63.880 61.752 -3.331
Rotor 0.717 0.741 3.347 13
6 Stator 55.722 58.962 5.815
Stator 0.746 0.745 -0.134
Rotor 64.688 62.613 -3.208
Rotor 0.717 0.737 2.789 14
7 Stator 58.632 59.821 2.028
Stator 0.746 0.740 -0.804
Rotor 65.468 63.545 -2.937
Rotor 0.713 0.732 2.665 15
8 Stator 58.504 59.314 1.385
Stator 0.741 0.735 -0.810
Rotor 0.709 0.727 2.539
9
Stator 0.736 0.730 -0.815
Rotor 0.705 0.723 2.553
10
Stator 0.73 0.728 -0.274
Rotor 0.701 0.722 2.996
11
Stator 0.725 0.726 0.138
Rotor 0.697 0.721 3.443
12
Stator 0.72 0.723 0.417
Rotor 0.693 0.719 3.752
13
Stator 0.714 0.720 0.840
Rotor 0.69 0.717 3.913
14
Stator 0.709 0.716 0.987
Rotor 0.686 0.715 4.227
15
Stator 0.703 0.700 -0.427

14
 Fig.19 Static pressure rise through the compressor.

Fig.23 Stage (10), reaction and rotor/stator exit Mach

number.

Fig.20 Static temperature rise through the compressor.

Fig.21 Stator angles and deflection of stage (10).

Fig.24 Rotor profile, end-wall and total losses.

Fig.22 Rotor angles and deflection of stage (10).

Fig.25 Stator profile, end-wall and total losses.

III.2 Results of the optimizing Program.
15
 Table 6 summarizes the results that were obtained by
the optimizing program using Eq. 76 for the selected values
of ψ for φ =0.65.

Table 6: Results of optimizing program.

Pressure Efficiency
Case Ψ
Ratio (%)
Max. 0.45 23.02 86.92
Optimum 0.3 15.35 70.86
Design 0.391 20 81.14
Arbitrary 0.35 17.9 76.73

Figures 26 and 27 show the variation of isentropic

efficiency and compressor pressure-ratio versus selected
values of work coefficient. It can be seen that the isentropic
efficiency and compressor pressure-ratio increase with the
increase in work coefficient up to a certain limit. Further
increase in wok coefficient causes the compressor stages to Fig.27 The pressure ratio versus work coefficient.
stall due the increased lading capacity of stages. Figures 28
and 29 show comparisons of total losses through
compressor stages for different values of work coefficients
for the rotor and stator, respectively. Generally, total losses
decrease with the increase of the wok coefficient. Figures
30 to 33 illustrate the margin to surge for different values of
work coefficient. It is shown that there is a reduction in the
margin to surge with increase in work coefficient. The
decrease is due to raising the loading capacity of stages
with the increase in work coefficient. Figure 34
demonstrates increase in pressure ratio of compressor
stages with the increase in the value of work coefficient due
to the increase in loading capacity of stages. Figures 35 and
36 show the increase in camber angle with increase in work
coefficient in the rotor and stator. The more the increase in
work coefficient, the more the turning is required to control
fluid deflection through the blades. Figures 37 and 38
illustrate improvements in the incidence angle in the rotor Fig.28 Rotor total losses for all the compressor stages
and stator with the increase in work coefficient. for different work coefficients.
As the work coefficient increases, the margin to surge
decreases. This is also illustrated in the deviation angle
across the rotor and stator in Figs. 21 and 22.

Fig.29 Stator total losses for all the compressor stages

for different work coefficients.

Fig.26 The isentropic efficiency versus work coefficient.

16
 Fig.33 Koch surge limit for the compressor, ψ = 0.45.
Fig.30 Koch surge limit for the compressor, ψ = 0.3.

Fig.34 Pressure ratio of the compressor stages for

Fig.31 Koch surge limit for the compressor, ψ = 0.35. different values of work coefficient.

Fig.32 Koch surge limit for the compressor, ψ = 0.391. Fig.35 Rotor camber variation for different values of
work coefficient.

17
 Fig.39 Rotor-deviation variation for different values of
Fig.36 Stator camber variation for different values of the work coefficient.
the work coefficient.

Fig.40 Stator-deviation variation for different values of

Fig.37 Rotor incidence variation for different values of the work coefficient.
the work coefficient.
IV Conclusions
Two computer programs have been developed for the
design and optimization of an axial-flow compressor
through a meridional analysis of the flow though the
compressor with the assumption of axi-symmetric flow
properties. These properties such as pressure, temperature
and velocity are defined along streamlines at the entry and
exit of each stage. The objective is to determine the shape
of the flow passage, blade losses and blade angles given air
mass flow, pressure ratio, number of stages, rotational
speed and the geometrical data such as tip clearance, aspect
ratio, thickness chord ratio, etc. Validation was carried out
using the data of Ref. [6]. Generally, good agreement is
achieved. The second program is a complement to the first
program with the objective to maximize efficiency using
the output data of the first program. An analytic relation
between isentropic efficiency of the axial-flow compressor
and the flow coefficient, the work coefficient, degree of
Fig.38 Stator incidence variation for different values of reaction and different design parameters is obtained. The
the work coefficient. programs can be generalized of any type of axial-flow
compressors. The results give general guidance for the
optimum design of the axial-flow compressors.
18
 ζR : Rotor loss coefficient
Nomenclature
Symbol Unit Description ζs : Stator loss coefficient
A [m2] Area
a [m/s] Speed of sound Ø : Duty coefficient
C [m/s] Absolute velocity φ : Flow coefficient
CD [-] Drag coefficient
CL [-] Lift coefficient γ : Stagger angle
Cm [m/s] Meridional velocity
Cp [-] Static pressure rise μ : Dynamic viscosity
coefficient ω : Angular velocity
Cθ [m/s] Tangential absolute
velocity ρ : Density
c [m] Chord
cp [kJ/kg K] Specific heat at
constant pressure Abbreviations
cv [kJ/kg K] Specific heat at AFCP : Axial-Flow Compressor Program
constant volume CFD : Computational Fluid Mechanics
Deq [-] Equivalent diffusion DF : Diffusion Factor
ratio EES : Engineering Equation Solver
fc [-] Weighting coefficient IGV : Inlet Guide Vanes
H [m] Blade height
h [kJ/kg] Static enthalpy
h0 [kJ/kg] Stagnation enthalpy Acknowledgments
i [°] Incidence angle
l [m] Chord The fourth author expresses his thanks to his
M2 [-] Rotor exit Mach supervisors for their encouragements, advices and
number help to complete this work.
M3 [-] Stator exit Mach
number
Ma [-] Mach number References
m [kg/s] Mass flow
N [rev/s] Rotational speed [1] J. R. Barbosa, "A Stream Line Curvature Computer
p [bar] Static pressure Program for Performance Prediction of Axial Flow
p0 [bar] Stagnation pressure Compressors", Ph. D. Thesis, Cranfield Institute of
R [J/kg K] Gas constant Technology, England, 1987.
Re [-] Reynolds number
[2] A. D. Carter, S. Hughes, and P. Hazel, "A Note on the
r [m] Radius
High Speed Performance of Compressor Cascades",
S [kJ/kg] Entropy
NTGE, December 1948.
s [m] Staggered spacing
T [K] Static temperature [3] M. V. Casey, "A Mean-Line Prediction Method for
T0 [K] Stagnation temperature Estimating the Performance Characteristic of an Axial
t [m] Maximum blade Compressor Stage", Institution of Mechanical Engineers
thickness Conference Proceedings, Switzerland, C264/87, 273-
U [m/s] Blade velocity 285, 1987-6.
W [m/s] Relative velocity
[4] J. D. Denton, Turbomachinery Course, Whittle
Wθ [m/s] Tangential relative
Laboratory, Deparment of Engineering, University of
Velocity
Cambridge, 2004.
[5] S. L. Dixon, "Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of
Greek Turbomachinery", 5th Edition, Elsevier Butterworth–
Heinemann, 2004.
α1, α3 : Inflow angle
[6] N. Falck, "Axial-Flow Compressor Mean-Line Design",
α2 : outflow angle Master Thesis, Lund University, Sweden, 2008.

β1 : Relative inflow angle [7] W. Jansen, and W. C. Moffatt, "The off-Design

Analysis of Axial-Flow Compressors", Journal for
β2 : Relative outflow angle Engineering for Power, Vol. 89, No. 4, 1967.
δ : Deviation angle [8] C. C. Koch, "Stalling Pressure Rise Capability of Axial-
Flow Compressor Stages", Aircraft Engine Group,
ψ : Work coefficient
General Electric Co., 1981.
ηtt : Stage efficiency
[9] R. I. Lewis, "Turbomachinery Performance Analysis",
1st Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
19
[10] S. Lieblein, F. C. Schwenk, and R. L. Broderick,
"Diffusion Factor for Estimating Losses and Limiting
Blade Loadings in Axial-Flow-Compressor Blade
Elements", NACA RM E53DO1, 1953.
[11] H. I. H. Saravanamuttoo, G. F. C. Rogers, H. Cohen,
and P. Straznicky, "Gas Turbine Theory", 5th Edition,
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2001.
[12] N. Seyb, "Design and Prediction of Axial
Compressor", Cranfield University, 2001.
[13] R. J. S. Teinke, "STGSTK - A Computer Code for
Predicting Multistage Axial-Flow Compressor
Performance by A MeanLine Stage-Stacking Method",
Paper 2020-NASA, 1982.
[14] P. I. Wright, and D. C. Och Miller, "An Improved
Compressor Performance Prediction Model, ACGI,
DIC", Rolls-Royce, Derby, 1991.
[15] Softwaretopic.informer.com

20