NASA/TM—2009-215604 AIAA–2009–1059

U.S. ARMY

®
jai

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Unsteady Full Annulus Simulations of

a Transonic Axial Compressor Stage
Gregory P. Herrick
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Michael D. Hathaway
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Jen-Ping Chen
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

May 2009
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The papers from scientific and technical
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.
this important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices technical, or historical information from
of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, NASA programs, projects, and missions, often
organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates concerned with subjects having substantial
NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access public interest.
to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and
its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
Server, thus providing one of the largest collections language translations of foreign scientific and
of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.
Results are published in both non-NASA channels
and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which Specialized services also include creating custom
includes the following report types: thesauri, building customized databases, organizing
and publishing research results.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of
completed research or a major significant phase For more information about the NASA STI
of research that present the results of NASA program, see the following:
programs and include extensive data or theoretical
analysis. Includes compilations of significant • Access the NASA STI program home page at
scientific and technical data and information http://www.sti.nasa.gov
deemed to be of continuing reference value.
NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal • E-mail your question via the Internet to help@
professional papers but has less stringent sti.nasa.gov
limitations on manuscript length and extent of
graphic presentations. • Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk
at 301–621–0134
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific
and technical findings that are preliminary or • Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 301–621–0390
reports, working papers, and bibliographies that
contain minimal annotation. Does not contain • Write to:
extensive analysis. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)
7115 Standard Drive
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hanover, MD 21076–1320
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 AIAA–2009–1059
U.S. ARMY

®
^, ►^ - 4•
jai
RESEARCH LABORATORY

Unsteady Full Annulus Simulations of

a Transonic Axial Compressor Stage
Gregory P. Herrick
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Michael D. Hathaway
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Jen-Ping Chen
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Prepared for the

47th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Orlando, Florida, January 5–8, 2009

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

May 2009
 This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program
at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management.

Available from
NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service

7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076–1320 Spring Þeld, VA 22161

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

 Unsteady Full Annulus Simulations of
a Transonic Axial Compressor Stage
Gregory P. Herrick
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Michael D. Hathaway
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Jen-Ping Chen
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

Abstract
Two recent research endeavors in turbomachinery at NASA Glenn Research Center have focused on
compression system stall inception and compression system aerothermodynamic performance. Physical
experiment and computational research are ongoing in support of these research objectives. TURBO, an
unsteady, three-dimensional, Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics code commissioned and
developed by NASA, has been utilized, enhanced, and validated in support of these endeavors. In the
research which follows, TURBO is shown to accurately capture compression system flow range—from
choke to stall inception—and also to accurately calculate fundamental aerothermodynamic performance
parameters. Rigorous full-annulus calculations are performed to validate TURBO’s ability to simulate the
unstable, unsteady, chaotic stall inception process; as part of these efforts, full-annulus calculations are
also performed at a condition approaching choke to further document TURBO’s capabilities to compute
aerothermodynamic performance data and support a NASA code assessment effort.

Introduction
Turbomachinery generates power and propulsion for a wide variety of applications. Regardless of
application, it is imperative that the turbomachinery perform reliably and efficiently. A major focus of
research within NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program concerns efficient, highly-loaded
turbomachinery. An essential part of the research is the development and validation of high-fidelity
computational design and analysis tools. Many computational tools have been commissioned, developed,
and validated by NASA, and an effort has been undertaken to assess these various tools.
Concurrent with NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics goal for efficient, highly-loaded turbomachinery,
the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has a vested interest in reliable, efficient turbomachinery for the
power plants used within the Army’s helicopters, tanks, and uninhabited aerial vehicles, inter alia.
Reliable, efficient performance of the gas turbine power plant depends on reliable, efficient performance
of the turbomachinery compression system. In pursuit of this goal, ARL has conducted extensive research
in compression system stall inception and stall control, both experimentally and computationally.
In support of NASA and ARL objectives, an extensive research effort has been performed on the
NASA Stage 35 single-stage transonic axial compressor. Physical experiments have been performed on
Stage 35 at Glenn Research Center, and computational research has advanced using several computational
fluid dynamics codes developed by NASA. In the research which follows, the TURBO code is applied to
simulate three-dimensional, full-annulus, unsteady, time-accurate simulations of Stage 35, with the

NASA/TM—2009-215604
inclusion of a temporally accurate, spatially precise sliding interface as well as gridded rotor tip
clearances. Such simulations—expending tremendous quantities of computational resources for long
periods of time—are necessary when attempting to capture the three-dimensional, unsteady, aperiodic
flow preceding and undergoing rotating stall. In other research efforts supporting these NASA and ARL
objectives, these large-scale TURBO simulations have provided valuable insight into the stall inception
process, though never intended to explicitly replicate the stalling process of Stage 35 per second. This
research documents TURBO’s performance in capturing mass-flow and pressure-ratio performance of the
Stage 35 transonic axial compressor for flow conditions from choke to stall, with additional investigation
of aerothermodynamic performance approaching choke.

Flow Solver
TURBO is a physics-based simulation tool for multistage turbomachinery. The solver computes the
fluid conservation laws without ad hoc modeling of any flow phenomena other than models required for
turbulence. This code solves the unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations and a decoupled
k-g turbulence model developed by Zhu and Shih (Ref. 1). To facilitate the rotor-stator interaction studied
in this effort, TURBO employs a sliding interface technique implemented by Chen and Barter (Ref. 2) in
which conservative variables are interpolated across blade row interfaces. The code is implemented in a
portable, scalable form for distributed-memory parallel computers using MPI message passing. The
parallel implementation employs domain decomposition and supports general multiblock grids with
arbitrary grid-block connectivity. The solution algorithm is a Newton iterative implicit time-accurate
scheme with characteristics-based finite-volume spatial discretization. The Newton subiterations are
solved using a concurrent block-Jacobi symmetric Gauss-Seidel (BJ-SGS) relaxation scheme. Because all
of the fundamental fluid mechanics are computed, the code is capable of capturing the nonlinear
characteristics of the flow fields of interest. With the actual modeling of the grid movement of the blade
rows in relative motion, this code is capable of computing the unsteady interactions between blade rows.
Details of the flow solver are given by Chen and Whitfield (Ref. 3). The approach to parallelization for
large-scale, complex problems is discussed by Chen and Briley (Ref. 4).

Stage 35 Transonic Axial Compressor Stage

The NASA single-stage research compressor Stage 35, which is representative of an advanced
transonic compressor core, is studied in this research. A schematic of the Stage 35 test rig is pictured in
Figure 1 and the compressor geometry is depicted in Figure 2. The design parameters for Stage 35 are
listed in Table 1. Stage 35 produces a total-to-total pressure ratio of 1.8 at a mass flow rate of 20.2 kg/s at
the design speed of 17189 rpm. Details of the design, geometry, operating conditions, and early
experimental results are available from Reid and Moore (Ref. 5).

Computational Grid
This effort follows previous TURBO research studies on Stage 35 by Hathaway et al. (Ref. 6) and
Chen et al. (Refs. 7 and 8). For this effort, following the previous TURBO stall inception research on
Stage 35, three blade rows are gridded. In addition to the rotor and the stator of the turbomachinery
compression system, an inlet row precedes the rotor here. This inlet row allows for the activation of
injectors to introduce additional (air) flow for purposes of stall control. In this study, the “injectors” are
inactive, and the inlet blade row merely provides valuable additional ducting volume to better, but not
completely, replicate the geometry of the physical Stage 35 test rig.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 2
 TABLE 1.—STAGE 35 DESIGN PARAMETERS
Rotor speed at 100 percent speed 17188.7 rpm
Tip speed at 100 percent speed 454.456 m/s
Hub/tip radius ratio 0.7
Rotor aspect ratio 1.19
Stator aspect ratio 1.26
Rotor blade count 36
Stator vane count 46

NASA/TM—2009-215604
 Full Annulus Grids
From experimental research on the Stage 35 test rig, Bright et al. (Ref. 9) concluded that, “... our
high-speed stage under normal stalling condition is considered a “modal” machine, since modal
instabilities dominate the pre-stall behavior with some added “pip” instabilities present just before stall.”
Near the stall boundary, the flow field becomes inherently three-dimensional, unsteady, and aperiodic.
The physical machine stalls in response to both long-wavelength circumferential modes and higher-
frequency perturbations. Consequently, Stage 35 is resolved herein using full annulus grids. These full
annulus grids are depicted in Figure 3; a clearer picture of the grids for single inlet/injector, rotor, and
stator passages follows in Figure 4.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 4
 Tip Clearance Grids
Differentiating this work from prior research by Chen et al. (Refs. 7 and 8) and Hathaway et al.
(Ref. 6) is the inclusion of gridded rotor tip clearance regions here. Previous stall inception research on
Stage 35 using TURBO has employed modeled, periodic rotor tip clearance models like those described
by Kirtley et al. (Ref. 10) Much previous research has shown tip clearance flow phenomena to be highly
relevant to the stall inception process for many compression systems, and this has motivated gridding
these regions to better resolve their flow characteristics. However, limited computational resources and
previous software infrastructure issues have effectively prohibited gridding these regions in previous
research efforts. The rotor tip clearance grids used in this study are pictured in Figure 5 (plan view of
leading edge), Figure 6 (plan view of trailing edge), and Figure 7 (plan view of mid-chord). A summary
of Stage 35 grid parameters is provided in Table 2.

NASA/TM—2009-215604
 TABLE 2.—STAGE 35 CFD GRID PARAMETERS
Entity NI NJ NK Axial partitions Quantity
Inlet/injector 51 71 166 2 12
Rotor passage 151 71 56 2 36
Rotor tip clearance 81 11 13 2 36
Stator passage 141 71 79 3 46

In the previous Stage 35 stall inception work using TURBO, boundary-layer near-wall packing was
employed on grids near the casing. When gridding volume in the tip clearance region “below” the casing
and “above” the blade tip, the previously-appropriate unidirectional boundary-layer near-wall packing
must be altered. The pitchwise view of the tip clearance grids, shown in Figure 8, reflects the revised grid
spacing, with the outer eight grids equally spaced to accommodate tip clearance grids for the downstream
stator and the next two grids then (independently) equally spaced above the rotor tip.

TURBO Solution/Boundary Conditions

The TURBO simulations documented herein employed the following execution and boundary
conditions.

Inlet Boundary Condition

At the inlet, an isentropic condition (Ref. 3) is applied, whereby a prescribed spanwise total condition
is maintained. This boundary condition preserves the upstream total conditions at the levels of the test
facility, but it can potentially adversely reflect outbound pressure waves back into the computational
domain (Ref. 11).

Exit Boundary Condition

At the exit plane of a compressor operating at a stable condition, prescribing radial equilibrium with a
specified hub (or casing) static pressure works well. However, this boundary condition’s declared exit
pressure is unable to match the drops in static pressure recovery associated with rotating stall. Therefore,
a new “choked” throttle model is used. This boundary condition extrapolates temperature, pressure, and
tangential components of velocity to match the compressor exit mass flux corrected to the exit total
condition (Ref. 7).

Solution Parameters
Throughout this study, second-order temporal accuracy and second-order spatial accuracy are applied.
As has been done in prior research by Chen et al. (Refs. 7 and 8) and Hathaway et al. (Ref. 6), three
Newton subiterations are applied with six symmetric Gauss-Seidel sweeps per subiteration. Previous
research using these solution parameters has yielded valuable insight into the stall inception process in
somewhat reasonable (computational) time.

Overall Performance: Speedlines

To gauge the overall performance of the machine and to assess the accuracy of simulations of the
compressor, it is useful to plot speedline characteristics. Figure 9 shows the total-to-static pressure ratio
performance versus physical mass throughflow at 100 percent speed with a tip clearance of 1 percent chord
for several TURBO simulations compared to the physical experiment by Weigl (Ref. 12). In the test rig, this
curve results from incrementally closing the throttle from choke to stall. The corrected mass flow exit
boundary condition employed in the TURBO simulations emulates a throttle and facilitates a similar
procedure for drawing a total-to-static pressure speedline.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 6
 Speedlines are plotted from three TURBO simulations/configurations a 328-block configuration with
periodic rotor tip clearance regions, a 234-block configuration with periodic rotor tip clearance regions, and
a 306-block configuration with gridded rotor tip clearance regions. The 328-block configuration, run first by
Chen and Hathaway on 328 processes, features boundary-layer near-wall grid packing along the casing wall,
as it was not originally intended to include gridded rotor tip clearance regions; this grid has exactly the same
unpartitioned computational extents as listed here in Table 2 but without gridded rotor tip clearances. The
234-block configuration run in this effort on 234 processes is based upon the 328-block grid of Chen and
Hathaway, but it is repartitioned into 234 blocks (to conform to smaller computational cluster queues) with
equal spacing between casing wall and rotor tips (to facilitate seamless addition of rotor tip clearance grids).
The 306-block configuration consumed equal process-time as the 234-block configuration while providing
the additional gridding in the rotor tip clearance regions; recent enhancements to the code enabled this
efficient computational performance with additional gridding.
Detailed information on TURBO executions near stall is listed in Table 3. In this table, Throttle Exit
BC provides the exit corrected mass flow in kg/s (corrected to exit total conditions); Casing Grid may be
Boundary Layer (casing-biased) or Evenly Spaced; Mass Flow is listed in kg/s; Seed Flow indicates the
initial flow condition used to initiate the flow field at the new throttle setting; Flow Condition may be
Stable, at the Precipice to Stall (i.e., mass flow and static pressure recovery are about to plummet at this
operational condition), or exhibiting potential of going Unstable.

TABLE 3.—DETAILED PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TURBO SIMULATIONS NEAR STALL

Point Throttle exit BC Rotor clearance Casing grid Block Mass flow Pse/Pti Seed flow Flow
count condition
C1 14.60 Periodic Boundary layer 328 19.34 1.490 -- Stable
C2 14.07 Periodic Boundary layer 328 18.76 1.500 C1 Stable
C3 13.80 Periodic Boundary layer 328 18.30 1.492 C2 Precipice
C4 13.60 Periodic Boundary layer 328 18.00 1.500 C2 Precipice
P1 14.40 Periodic Evenly spaced 234 19.16 1.496 -- Stable
P2 14.10 Periodic Evenly spaced 234 18.17 1.492 P1 Unstable?
P3 14.00 Periodic Evenly spaced 234 18.55 1.491 P2 Precipice
G1 14.40 Gridded Evenly spaced 306 19.01 1.486 -- Stable
G2 14.10 Gridded Evenly spaced 306 18.58 1.481 G1 Precipice

NASA/TM—2009-215604 7
 As shown in Figure 9, TURBO exhibits similar, but slightly higher, choking mass flow rates as
experiment. TURBO’s choking mass flow rate and choking pressure ratio are identical for the 234-block
simulations with periodic tip clearances and the 306-block simulations with gridded tip clearances. Chen
and Hathaway did not document as deep a choked condition. Throttling down from choke, the 306-block
gridded tip configuration of the present study shows a general trend toward very slight reductions in mass
flow and pressure ratio in comparison with the original 328-block periodic tip configurations of Chen and
Hathaway; these deviations represent nominal, minimal improvements in TURBO’s predictions versus
experiment. As the throttle is closed, the current 234-block simulation employing periodic rotor tip
clearances has point P1 lying nearly collinear between points C1 and C2 from the original 328-block
simulations, also employing periodic rotor tip clearances, implying that the enhanced code is maintaining
the numerical performance of the original code and that the slight differences in gridding near the case are
inconsequential at this stable flow condition. The current 306-block simulation employing gridded rotor
tip clearances has point G1 lying between C1 and C2 in mass flow but with slightly reduced—and slightly
closer to experiment—static pressure recovery.
In the original TURBO simulations of Stage 35 by Chen and Hathaway, the last stable point (C2)
exhibits a virtually identical mass flow rate with the last stable point observed in experiment (E1);
TURBO’s prediction of static pressure recovery is higher than experiment. In the present TURBO
simulations of Stage 35, no definitively stable operating condition is found near the stalling mass flow
rate of experiment (E1) and previous TURBO simulation (C2). The simulations yielding G2 (gridded tip)
and P3 (periodic tip) operate quasi-stably in this vicinity for quite awhile before weakening and stalling,
and the simulation yielding P2 appears to be weakening as the simulation is suspended due to time and
resources constraints. Points P2 and P3 of the current 234-block periodic tip simulations are showing
reductions in static pressure recovery in comparison with C2 and C3 from the previous 328-block
periodic tip simulations, presumably due to the differences in casing boundary layer gridding.
Though at a lower mass flow rate than experiment (E1), points G2 and P3 do show good agreement
with one another with regard to stalling mass flow and stalling pressure recovery. This inspires
confidence that the TURBO-predicted stalling condition for this compressor is unaffected by the slight
differences in handling of the rotor tip clearance regions. However, points P3 and G2 represent different
throttle settings and the lengths of their stall-inception transients differ. Additionally, point P2 has the
same throttle setting as G2, yet the different treatments of rotor tip clearance flow are clearly yielding
differing performances over time for these two simulations. For a given exit boundary condition
(prescribed exit corrected mass flow), the gridded tip clearance configurations tend to allow less
throughflow and facilitate less static pressure recovery, presumably due to additional blockage in the rotor
tip clearance region.

Aerothermodynamic Performance Approaching Choke

It is also instructive to investigate TURBO’s capabilities for predicting aerothermodynamic
performance of this compression system. Aerothermodynamic performance data for Stage 35 was
collected and documented by Reid and Moore (Ref. 5). This experimental data was collected at discrete
locations and mass-averaged about the annulus to determine aerothermodynamic compressor performance
parameters. Four performance parameters are of primary interest for current NASA research efforts
validating computational simulations of compressors: total pressure ratio, total temperature ratio,
adiabatic efficiency, and exit flow angle.
Because TURBO is a time-accurate, unsteady CFD code, it captures a multitude of flow features and
perturbations of varying frequency inherent in turbomachinery flows. Due to the nature of physical
experiment and measurement, test data collected and interpreted for Stage 35 depict a temporally and
spatially averaged representation of the flow rather than the “instant in time”, “point in space” data
interrogation possible with TURBO. Because the primary objective of low flow condition simulations
focuses on capturing the temporal and spatial evolution of stall inception, time-averaged simulation
solution data is not collected and analyzed for the low flow, near stall conditions. The flow approaching

NASA/TM—2009-215604
choke also exhibits temporal and spatial variation, but to a much lesser degree; time-averaged solution
data for flow approaching choke is collected and analyzed here.
The speedline characteristics comparing TURBO versus Reid and Moore experiment on total-to-total
pressure ratio are shown in Figure 10. TURBO simulations are executed with exit boundary conditions of
20.00 kg/s corrected mass flow, yielding a mass flow similar to Reid and Moore’s point 4004. As shown in
Table 4, this TURBO simulation at near-choke is indeed very close to the experimental data point in terms
of mass flow, total temperature ratio, total pressure ratio and adiabatic efficiency. TURBO’s deviation in
this simulation is within the bounds of experimental uncertainty cited by Reid and Moore (Ref. 5).

TABLE 4.—STAGE 35 AEROTHERMODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE APPROACHING CHOKE

Parameter Experiment point TURBO near-choke Experiment uncertainty, TURBO deviation,
4004 Percent Percent
Stage total pressure ratio 1.714 1.689 1.9 1.5
Stage total temperature ratio 1.198 1.193 0.46 0.42
Stage adiabatic efficiency 0.841 0.837 0.99 0.48
Mass flow, kg/s 20.95 20.86 1.4 0.4

Beyond the stator exit in the physical experiment, two combination probes were traversed
circumferentially among nine locations within the stator gap, while two wedge probes were separately
located and diametrically opposed at stator midgap. Four static pressure taps were mounted on the hub
surface, and an additional four static pressure taps were mounted on the casing surface beyond the stator
exit. Forward of the rotor, two combination probes were diametrically opposed, and one wedge probe was
used. As with the stator exit, four static pressure taps were placed on the hub and casing surfaces alike.
All combination and wedge probes were sequenced through nine radial positions to gather spanwise data
of total pressure, total temperature, and flow angle.
With TURBO, similar data may be extracted with much finer geometric precision: The TURBO grid
contains 70 volumes between hub and case (including 10 volumes spanwise in the tip gap) and
78 volumes between adjacent vane surfaces. As was done with the coarser grid from the experiment,
TURBO data is mass averaged to calculate appropriate aerothermodynamic performance parameters.
Total pressure data is plotted in Figure 11. As was the case for the overall total pressure ratio (across the
full inlet and exit planes), TURBO is again generally predicting somewhat low, but the trends of total
pressure ratio from hub to case are very well captured by TURBO; TURBO’s maximum deviation from
experimental point 4004 is about 2 percent.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 9
 In Figure 12, stage total temperature ratio data is plotted. TURBO is predicting slightly lower total
temperature ratio than the experimental data purports. TURBO and experiment show different trends from
15 percent span to 30 percent span, where experiment revealed an increase in total temperature ratio
versus the near-hub regions but TURBO shows total temperature ratio to be rather constant in this region.
TURBO captures well the trend of total temperature ratio from 30 to 70 percent span. TURBO’s
maximum midspan deviation is about 1 percent.
Adiabatic efficiency is easily derived from total pressure ratio and total temperature ratio. The radial
distribution of stage adiabatic efficiency is shown in Figure 13. TURBO agrees very well with experiment
in magnitude and trend throughout the span, though TURBO is about 2.5 percent high at 50 percent span.
Results for Stator Exit Flow angle follow in Figure 14. TURBO is underpredicting flow angle by about 3 °
throughout the span; similar computational results have been demonstrated with other CFD codes,
prompting questions about the experimental results (measurements and post-processing). This flow angle
deviation exceeds the experimental uncertainty of ± 1 °.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 10
 Conclusions and Recommendations
A two-pronged computational research endeavor has been completed with the TURBO code. For
each task, TURBO results have been compared and validated with relevant experiments. While
overpredicting static pressure recovery slightly, TURBO reveals a very accurate flow range from choke to
stall, and TURBO captures the unstable, temporally unsteady, spatially aperiodic flows associated with
stall inception in high-speed transonic compressors when such fidelity is required. In analyzing
fundamental aerotheromodynamic compressor performance at a near choke condition, TURBO only
slightly underpredicts total pressure ratio and total temperature ratio. TURBO’s predictions of adiabatic
efficiency are quite accurate for most of the span. TURBO’s underprediction of stator exit flow angle
corroborates similar results from other CFD codes; exceeding experimental uncertainty, this common
discrepancy should be investigated.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 11
 The TURBO simulations, employing full annulus geometry, are quite computationally costly. These
simulations have proven reliable in investigating unsteady, aperiodic, chaotic, complicated flow physics;
these simulations have also proven nicely accurate for fundamental aerothermodynamic performance
analysis, though results of similar quality may be attained with other CFD codes at much reduced
computational cost.

References
1. Zhu, J. and Shih, T.H., “CMOTT Turbulence Module for NPARC,” Tech. Rep. CR–204143, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aug. 1997.
2. Chen, J.-P. and Barter, J., “Comparison of Time-Accurate Calculations for the Unsteady Interaction
in Turbomachinery Stage,” Tech. Rep. AIAA–1998–3292, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1998.
3. Chen, J.-P. and Whitfield, D.L., “Navier-Stokes Calculations for the Unsteady Flowfield of
Turbomachinery,” Tech. Rep. AIAA–1990–0676, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1993.
4. Chen, J.-P. and Briley, W.R., “A Parallel Flow Solver for Unsteady Multiple Blade Row
Turbomachinery Simulations,” Tech. Rep. 2001–GT–0348, ASME TURBO Expo, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 2001.
5. Reid, L. and Moore, R.D., “Performance of single-stage axial-flow transonic compressor with rotor
and stator aspect ratios of 1.19 and 1.26, respectively, and with design pressure ratio of 1.82,” Tech.
Rep. TP–1338, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1978.
6. Hathaway, M.D., Chen, J., Webster, R.S., and Herrick, G.P., “Time Accurate Unsteady Simulations
of the Stall Inception Process in the Compression System of a U.S. Army Helicopter Gas Turbine
Engine,” 2004 DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program Users Group
Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, June 2004.
7. Chen, J.-P., Webster, R.S., Hathaway, M.D., Herrick, G.P., and Skoch, G.J., “Numerical Simulation
of Stall and Stall Control in Axial and Radial Compressors,” Tech. Rep. AIAA–2006–0418,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
8. Chen, J.-P., Hathaway, M.D., and Herrick, G.P., “Pre-stall Behavior of a Transonic Axial Compressor
Stage via Time-Accurate Numerical Simulation,” Tech. Rep. 2007–GT–29627, ASME Turbo Expo
2007, May 2007.
9. Bright, M.M., Qammar, H.K., and Wang, L., “Investigation of Pre-Stall Mode and Pip Inception in
High-Speed Compressors Through the Use of Correlation Integral,” ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, vol. 121, 1999, pp. 743–750.
10. Kirtley, K.R., Beach, T.A., and Adamczyk, J.J., “Numerical Analysis of Secondary Flow in a Two-
Stage Turbine,” Tech. Rep. AIAA–1990–2356, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1990.
11. Chen, J.-P., Hathaway, M.D., and Herrick, G.P., “Prestall Behavior of a Transonic Axial Compressor
Stage via Time-Accurate Numerical Simulation,” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 130, 2008.
12. Weigl, H.J., Paduano, J.D., Frechette, L.G., Epstein, A.H., Greitzer, E.M., Bright, M.M., and
Strazisar, A.J., “Active Stabilization of Rotating Stall and Surge in a Transonic Single Stage Axial
Compressor,” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 120, 1998, pp. 625–636.

NASA/TM—2009-215604 12
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB
control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
01-05-2009 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Unsteady Full Annulus Simulations of a Transonic Axial Compressor Stage
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Herrick, Gregory, P.; Hathaway, Michael, D.; Chen, Jen-Ping
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 561581.02.08.03.21.03
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NUMBER
John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field E-16895
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ACRONYM(S)
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA; ARL; AIAA
and 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
U.S. Army Research Laboratory REPORT NUMBER
Adelphi, Maryland 20783-1145 NASA/TM-2009-215604; AIAA-2009-
1059
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Categories: 02 and 07
Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301-621-0390

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
Two recent research endeavors in turbomachinery at NASA Glenn Research Center have focused on compression system stall inception and
compression system aerothermodynamic performance. Physical experiment and computational research are ongoing in support of these
research objectives. TURBO, an unsteady, three-dimensional, Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics code commissioned and
developed by NASA, has been utilized, enhanced, and validated in support of these endeavors. In the research which follows, TURBO is
shown to accurately capture compression system flow range-from choke to stall inception-and also to accurately calculate fundamental
aerothermodynamic performance parameters. Rigorous full-annulus calculations are performed to validate TURBO’s ability to simulate the
unstable, unsteady, chaotic stall inception process; as part of these efforts, full-annulus calculations are also performed at a condition
approaching choke to further document TURBO’s capabilities to compute aerothermodynamic performance data and support a NASA code
assessment effort.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Turbomachinery; Compressor; Stage; Transonic; Rotor; Stator; Navier-Stokes; CFD; Unsteady; Full annulus

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF STI Help Desk (email:[email protected])
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U PAGE 18 301-621-0390
U
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18