Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2016
June 13 – 17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea

GT2016-56027

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF COMPRESSOR BLADE FOULING

Rainer Kurz Grant Musgrove Klaus Brun

Solar Turbines Incorporated Southwest Research Institute Southwest Research Institute
San Diego, CA, USA San Antonio, TX, USA City, San Antonio, TX, USA

adherence of particles is impacted by oil or water mists. The

ABSTRACT result is a build-up of material that causes increased surface
Fouling of compressor blades is an important mechanism roughness and to some degree changes the shape of the airfoil
leading to performance deterioration in gas turbines over time. (if the material build up forms thicker layers of deposits). The
Experimental and simulation data are available for the impact adherence of small particles to airfoils, i.e. the fouling of their
of specified amounts of fouling on performance, as well as the surfaces, will cause a performance deterioration of these
amount of foulants entering the engine for defined air filtration airfoils. The deterioration in this case is usually reversible, as
systems and ambient conditions. the particles can be removed through water washing [1].
This study provides experimental data on the amount of
foulants in the air that actually stick to a blade surface for The distinction is important, because the economic implications
different conditions of the blade surface. Quantitative results of recoverable and non-recoverable degradation have different
both indicate the amount of dust as well as the distribution of economic impacts: Fouling can be removed by off line water
dust on the airfoil, for a dry airfoil, as well as airfoils that were washing and slowed down by online water washing.
wet from ingested water, as well as different types of oil. The Theoretically, the engine can be kept at a very small
retention patterns are correlated with the boundary layer shear degradation level at all times, if it is frequently washed on-line,
stress. The tests show the higher dust retention from wet and the cost (due to lost production) of shutting the engine
surfaces compared to dry surfaces. They also provide down for water washing (typically half a day) is carried. The
information about the behavior of the particles after they impact decision to shut the engine down for off line washing is a
on the blade surface, showing that for a certain amount of wet balance between lost production due to the lower power versus
film thickness, the shear forces actually wash the dust the lost production for shutting the engine down for a certain
downstream, and off the airfoil. Further, the effect of particle amount of time.
agglomeration of particles to form larger clusters was observed,
which would explain the disproportional impact of very small The reversal of non-recoverable degradation requires the engine
particles on boundary layer losses. to be overhauled. Therefore, operators likely will allow much
larger levels of non-recoverable degradation before they take
action.
INTRODUCTION
Fouling of compressor blades is an important mechanism Industrial gas turbines can afford very effective inlet filtration
leading to performance deterioration in gas turbines over time systems. Modern systems can virtually eliminate the ingestion
[1]. Fouling is caused by the adherence of particles to airfoils of particles into the engine compressor that can cause erosion
and annulus surfaces. Particles that cause fouling are typically (Figure 1). Different filtration systems provide different levels
smaller than 2 to 10 microns. Smoke, oil mists, carbon, and sea of filtration efficiency (Figure 1),but they also differ in weight,
salts are common examples. Fouling can be controlled by size, cost and pressure loss. Thus, the selection of the air
appropriate air filtration systems, and can often be reversed to filtration system requires trade-off considerations between these
some degree by detergent washing of components. The features. More efficient systems are often bigger, and heavier,

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

or cause a higher pressure loss than systems with a lower FOULING MECHANISMS
filtration efficiency [2,3]. The discussion about fouling mechanisms has to address three
issues:
- Entrainment Mechanisms: How do particles of
various sizes reach blade and wall surfaces?
- Sticking Mechanisms: When do particles that reach
the surface actually stick to it?
- What is the impact of particles on the blade surface or
the walls on the compressor performance?
Particles can reach the surfaces by one of the following
mechanisms [7], which are well researched in the context of
inlet air filtration [2]:

-Settling
-Inertial impaction
-Interception
-Diffusion
-Electrostatic Forces
Figure 1: Comparison of fractional efficiency for filter elements
from different suppliers and different face velocities in new and
dirty conditions [4].

Schroth et al [5] report on a comparison of gas turbine power

loss for two different air filtration systems used on 165MW gas
turbines. The filtration systems are either a 2 stage or a 3stage
system. The 3 stage system causes a significant reduction in
finer particles entering the engine. Power loss after 3000 hours
of operation was 4% with the 2 stage system and 2% with the 3
stage system. If an engine ingests 100kg/year of contaminants
if there were no filtration system in a typical off shore
application, an F51 filter would reduce this to about 21kg/year,
an F61filter to 6kg/year, a F7/H101 filter system to 0.2kg/year
and a F7/F9/H101 system to as little as 0.05 kg/year. This
indicates two conclusions: While large particles have some
impact on fouling degradation, a significant amount is due to
the finer particles. The overall contaminant ingestion can be
influenced by several orders of magnitude by using an
appropriate air filtration system. Also, with filtration systems of Figure 2: Filtration Mechanisms
this type, there are virtually no particles larger than a few
microns entering the engine.
Figure 2 shows the collection efficiency for the different
The type of foulants entering the compressor vary widely from mechanisms as a function of particle size. For the particle sizes
site to site. Deposits of oil and grease are commonly found in responsible for fouling, impaction, interception and diffusion
industrial locations as a result of local emissions from refineries mechanisms have to be considered. In particular, diffusion
and petrochemical plants, or from internal lube oil leaks [1,3]. mechanisms are very important for sub-micron particles.
These type deposits act as “glue” and entrap other materials Electrostatic forces, while important for inlet air filtration, play
entering the compressor. Lube oil ingested into the flow path is no role in compressor fouling.
spread by centrifugal and aerodynamic forces and generates a
film on the blades that allows even larger particles to stick to The degradation of gas turbines has been researched in a large
the surface. number of articles. Many articles provided data on the rate of
Coastal locations usually involve the ingestion of sea salt, degradation are referenced in [1]. The effect of performance
desert regions attract dry sand and dust particles, and a variety deterioration of components on overall engine performance is
of fertilizer chemicals may be ingested in agricultural areas. discussed in [8]. Many, but not all forms of performance
degradation, are the result of small particles sticking to airfoils
[1]. In particular the compressor of the gas turbine is subject to
1
fouling by small particles. A number of publications have
Per EN 779[6]

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

addressed the fouling of the engine compressor [1,3,8,9,10,12]. 1.5
The fouling of the gas turbine compressor is a major
contributor to gas turbine performance deterioration, and is

Normalized velocity [-]

caused by small particles that come into contact with the
surface of the airfoils, and stick there. The smaller the particle, 1.0
the easier it sticks to the blade surface, but wet surfaces (from
water or oil) allow larger particles to stick. Simulations by
Morini[11] and Aldi[12] showed that the biggest impact on
performance is from particle sticking to the suction side of the 0.5
airfoil. Kurz et al [1] pointed out that only very small particles
can reach the suction side of the airfoil, because the mechanism Vertical
has to be mainly from turbulent diffusion, but not from Horizontal
impaction. Another proposed effect was the washing of 0.0
particles from the leading edge towards the trailing edge if a 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.4 0.5
liquid film on the airfoil is present. Simulations by Suman et Horizontal or Vertical Location [m]
al[13,14,15] identified the likely areas where small particles
Figure 4. Normalized inlet dynamic pressure along the vertical
would hit the surface depending on their size. They also
calculated the likelihood of these particles sticking to the and horizontal directions from the wind tunnel centerline
surface, based on their impact angle, velocity and size. The airfoil has a NACA 0012 cross-section with a chord
A missing piece of information is experimental data on the length of 0.27m (10.5″) and height 0.53m (21″). The airfoil is
location and amount of particles that stick on a dry and wet manufactured of Nylon 6 material using a rapid-prototyping
airfoils. method, and re-enforced with steel spars to limit the deflection
during testing. The airfoil is located in the center of the test
DESCRIPTION OF TEST RIG section, 4.5 Dh downstream of the wind tunnel inlet section and
An open-loop wind tunnel is used to provide ambient air 4.5Dh upstream of the diffuser section. Transparent,
flow over an airfoil to measure particle deposition on the airfoil polycarbonate windows are placed at the airfoil location to
surface. Ambient air flows left to right through the wind tunnel observe the flow of particles around the airfoil, as shown in
in Figure 3, flowing through the inlet section, test section, Figure 5. All tests are conducted at an airfoil chord Reynolds
transition cone, and finally exiting through the fan. The wind number of 700,000 and zero angle of attack with an average
tunnel inlet includes a 100 mm (4″) thick honeycomb flow flow velocity of 45 m/s in the test section.
straightener to condition the entering flow. The flow entering
the wind tunnel test section is verified to be uniform across the
cross-section to within 10% of the centerline velocity, as shown
in Figure 4. The increasing velocity values moving away from
the centerline is caused by the axial fan downstream of the
wind tunnel. The fan is 1 m (36″) in diameter with variable
blade angle from 30° to 50°, providing up to 45,000 SCFM.
The test section that contains the airfoil has a square cross-
section measuring 0.53m x 0.53m (21″x21″) to provide a
Reynolds number of 1,400,000 based on the test section width.

Figure 5. Multiple windows are placed around the airfoil to

allow flow visualization

To coat the airfoil with water prior to a test, nozzles are

located upstream of the airfoil to spray water into the wind
Figure 3. Open-loop wind tunnel is used for the fouling tests tunnel. The water is controlled manually to stop the water flow
while injecting solid particles into the wind tunnel.

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

 Since the amount of injected dust is several orders of Figure 7 shows the initial particle deposition distribution
magnitude larger than the dust load of the ambient air, the on an airfoil with a dry surface. Major depositions are around
impact of ambient dust was neglected for the purpose of this the leading edge, but there are some depositions over the entire
study. depth of the airfoil. The results in Figure 7 show particle
depositions under the assumption that the particles that stick to
the airfoil stay at the location that they initially hit.
AIRFOIL BOUNDARY LAYER THICKNESS AND
SHEAR STRESS PREDICTIONS
Figure 6 shows friction factor and displacement thickness of the TEST PARAMETERS
airfoil under investigation. The transition from laminar to The test object is an airfoil, located in a wind tunnel at zero
turbulent boundary layer upstream of x/c =0.6 is characterized incidence. The airfoil was subjected to diatomaceous earth
by a local minimum in shear stress. The high shear stress near (DE), also known as kieselguhr. DE is a chalky sedimentary
the leading edge, and after the laminar-turbulent transition will material, comprised of the skeletal remains of prehistoric water
reduce the chance for particles to stick permanently. It would microorganisms (single-celled algae) , called diatoms. They are
also be expected that particles hitting the airfoil surface would characterized by size in the range from under 5 to over 100 µm
be washed downstream. and porous structure with openings as small as 0.1 µm in
diameter (Petrovic et al [17]). The values given are roughly
consistent with the minimum and maximum sizes seen in the
images of particles sticking to the airfoil.

Table 1: Test Object

velocity: 35.8 m/s

Air temperature: 8.3º C (47ºF)
elevation: 200 m
airfoil chord length: 266.7 mm (10.5 in)
airfoil height: 533.4 mm (21.0 in)
Cross section: NACA 0012
Reynolds number 780,000

Figure 6: Friction Factor and Displacement Thickness for a The Stokes number St describes the capability of particles to
NACA0012 Section at Re=540,000 [16]. follow the streamlines around an airfoil (Fig. 8).

The relevant Stokes number is

  ∙

  (1)


with particle diameter Dp and density ρp ( ρp = 2000 kg/m3), U1

flow velocity upstream of the airfoil, µ the viscosity of the air
(17.6 * 10-6 Pa s), and Lx the airfoil chord length. The
parameter σ, with


 
(2)


where Rel is the Reynolds number of the airfoil, and ρp/ρ the
ratio between particle and air density, plays only a minor role.

Fig 7: Particle deposition (Particle size 0.15 µm) for a For the conditions of the present test, Table 2 outlines the range
subsonic compressor airfoil, concerning the 2nd, 6th and 10th of the Stokes number:
strips (14 %, 50 % and 86 % of the blade span respectively)
[13].

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

Table 2 : Particle Diameter and Stokes number This means that the particles used in the present test fall in the
same range that would be found for dirt particles entering a gas
Dp *106 St turbine compressor, after filtration through a state of the art
industrial air filter. In particular, the test particle sizes of 5 to 10
5 0.021 µm behave similar to the particle size that is responsible for
fouling in industrial gas turbine compressors regarding
10 0.085 impacting the surface due to inertial forces. In particular, since
the particles in the test are very porous, the deviation between
50 2.12 the particle path and the air path is probably smaller than for
droplet shaped particles at similar Stokes numbers. On the
other hand , surface impact due to diffusion follows different
similarity laws ([1],[7]). Since the test does not allow to
influence the diffusion constant, and in particular the turbulent
diffusion, the particle size for the test would have to be
significantly smaller than used in this test, or test air velocity
or the size of the test airfoil would have to be increased.

It also should be noted that the results in this test are for a n
essentially two dimensional flow, and thus the impact of three
dimensional flow structures, such as secondary flows, are not
captured.

TEST PLAN
The test were conducted by mixing a known amount of DE into
the airflow upstream of the wind tunnels flow straightener.
Four different states of the air foil were considered:

1- Dry Airfoil
2- Airfoil wetted with water
3- Airfoil wetted with light oil (5W 20)
4- Airfoil wetted with heavy oil (20W 50)
5- Airfoil wetted with heavy oil (20W50) and wiped clean,
leaving a very thin layer of oil on the airfoil.
Figure 8: Particle trajectories in a turbine cascade for Stokes After each run, the airfoil was removed from the wind tunnel,
flow (σ 0) and for σ=5600 at Stokes numbers of St= 0.0035, and photos were taken. The airfoil was weighed before and
0.35 and 3.5[18]. after the test. Additionally, dust samples were taken from the
The Stokes number allows comparisons with findings of other airfoil to determine the state of the dust.
researchers (Dring et al [18]). The Stokes number of the smaller
TEST RESULTS
particles fall well within the range where the particles follow
The test results are summarized in Table 4. The highest weight
the air stream without slip. For an airfoil in a gas turbine
increase due to dust gathered was for tests 3 and 4, where the
compressor, with flow velocities near the speed of sound, and a
airfoils were wetted with oil, even after allowing for the extra
smaller airfoil (Lx=100mm, µ=15 e-6Pa s), the stokes number
weight of the oil remaining on the airfoil. The weight increase
of different particle sizes is shown in Table 3:
due to dust gathered was very similar for the cases for a dry
Table 3: Stokes number range of dirt particles for a Gas airfoil, an airfoil wetted with water, and the airfoil with a very
Turbine Compressor air foil thin layer of oil. The latter gathered only slightly more dust
than for the two former tests. The mass of injected DE powder,
Dp *106 St was the same for all cases.
During the test, the following observations were made (Figure
0.1 0.0003 9):
1 0.0252 All Particle deposits indicate that there was no flow
separation on the airfoil. Given the 0 degree incidence, and a
10 2.52 well designed airfoil, at a Reynolds number of 780,000, this
was to be expected. It is not clear whether the turbulent inlet
flow (due to the honeycomb flow straightener in the tunnel

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

inlet), or the trip strips on the airfoil, caused turbulent flow
along most of the airfoil. No boundary layer separation or
laminar-turbulent transition areas were identifiable. They would
show characteristic traces, as can be seen as results of flow
visualization studies using oil with suspended solids [19].
For the light oil (5W-20), the entire blade was coated with oil
using a paintbrush. When the tunnel started, the oil flowed
along the blade and shed from the trailing edge.
Dust deposited near the leading edge only, where the oil layer c)
appeared to be thinnest.

Table 4: Test results

Test Con Mass of Oil Airfoil Air Sam

dition Powder (g) Mass Mass(befo foil ple#
Num Appli re test,g) Mass
ber ed (after
(g) Test,g)
1 Dry 376.0 - 4630.6 4632.0 2
2 Water 376.2 - 4630.4 4630.7 3 d)
3 Light 376.4 19.5 4631.1 4641.5 4
Oil(5W2
0)
4 Heavy 374.6 17.7 4631.4 4646.7 5
Oil
(20W50)
5 Heavy 376.3 - 4632.4 4634.2 6
Oil
(20W50)
wiped
dry

e)

a)

f)

Figure 9: Fouling of the test airfoil. Arrow indicates flow

direction: a) clean before test, b) dry, c) airfoil wet with water,
d) airfoil wet with 5W viscosity oil layer, e) airfoil wet with
20W viscosity oil layer, f) airfoil wet with thin layer of 20W
viscosity oil after oil was wiped off.

b) The particle deposition pattern was very different compared to

the dry and water tests, where deposits were found over the
entire airfoil surface. For the test with light oil however, the

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

deposits were concentrated near the leading edge only. The dust
coating on the leading edge was also significantly thicker than
the accumulations seen for the dry and water tests.
For the test with heavy oil (20W-50), again he entire blade
was coated with oil using a paintbrush. Similar to the light oil,
the oil flowed along the airfoil surface after the wind tunnel
was turned on. However, there appeared to be less movement
of the heavy oil than the light oil.
When dust was injected, the dust was visibly entrained in
the oil as there were dust-laden oil droplets moving along the
blade - like a rolling ball of oil-dust. Compared to the light oil a)
test, much more dust (in large agglomerations) were present
along the airfoil surface towards the trailing edge. The dust
layer near the leading edge appeared much thicker than for the
light oil test.
The last test was performed with the entire blade coated
with heavy (20W-50) oil. The oil was wiped off, leaving a very
thin oil layer. The wind tunnel then was run for 5 minutes
before dust was injected to allow excess oil to shed from the
airfoil.

b)

a)

c)

b)

Figure10: Select leading edge details: a) airfoil wet with water

(test 2), b) airfoil wet with thin layer of 20W viscosity oil, oil
wiped off (test 5) d)
Figure 11: Dust samples from the airfoil surface. a)
reference sample from dust feed ,b) after test 1, c) after test 2,
After dust was injected, images were taken of the airfoil d) after test 5, agglomeration similar to other tests with oil.
while it was in the wind tunnel. The dust accumulation is much
more similar to the dry test, where the dust over the entire mid Dust accumulated on the airfoil, but not in the locations
section of the airfoil. Next, additional dust was added. where there were oil streaks. The traces indicate that the flow
still washed some of the dust along the layer of oil.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

Figure 10 shows typical details of the dust sticking to the Because it was possible to observe the dust build up
leading edge of the airfoil. In all cases, the leading edge itself through an observation window in the tunnel, it became also
showed dust accumulations. However, the case with water as clear that the dust build up on the airfoil does not increase once
well as the dry case had very little dust accumulated it reaches a certain level of build-up.
downstream of the leading edge, while the thin oil layer
One of the mechanisms observed was particles hitting the
apparently captured dust even in that region. Tests 3 and 4
leading edge, and subsequently being transported downstream.
(Figure 7 d and e) showed heavy accumulation at the leading
In all wet cases, the particles were washed downstream by the
edge, and about 25% chord downstream
action of shear forces. The distribution of particles for the dry
surface are qualitatively confirming the simulation of Suman et
After each test, particle samples were taken from the airfoil
al.[13].
surface (Figure 11). The particles attached to the airfoil seem to
have coagulated (both wet, oily and dry). Tests 3,4 and 5, i.e.
the tests using an oily surface, showed the most significant CONCLUSIONS
coagulation. The dust particles were significantly harder to The tests described in this paper yield a number of hitherto not
remove from the wet or oily surfaces, compared to the dry published findings, and answer questions regarding the fouling
surface. behavior of the airfoils in gas turbine compressors.
The range of particle sizes for this test, about 10 to 40
microns, represents particles of 0.5 to 2 microns for a gas
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
turbine compressor airfoil (Tables 3 and 4). It is thus the size
The test results showed distinctly different dust capturing
that is responsible for compressor fouling .
patterns depending on the state of the airfoil surface. The
boundary layer of the airfoil immediately downstream of the
leading edge imposes high shear stresses on the flow, so only in
cases where the surface was very sticky (Test 3, 4, and 5) the 1- The particle distribution on the dry airfoil qualitatively
particles that hit the blade surface in that region were able to matches predictions.
stick there. In other words, a dry airfoil, and even an airfoil
wetted with water will not see significant dust accumulation 2- The sticking of particles is greatly influenced by
close to the leading edge. Only the oil film allowed the particles wetness of the airfoil. If the airfoil is only covered by a
to stick. It also caused significant particle coagulation, not seen very thin layer of oil, the amount of dust stuck to the
in the other cases. The fouling patterns experienced resemble airfoil is maximized. Large amounts of wetness, on the
the patters observed in [1] for compressor airfoils that were dry other hand, will cause the fluid, together with the dust,
or wetted with water. We see relatively little dust accumulation to be washed downstream, and off the airfoil.
in the front part (about the first 20% chord) of the air foil, with
subsequent substantial amounts of accumulation all the way to 3- Viscosity of the wetting agent will also affect the
the trailing edge. This is explained by the high shear stress and results.
thin boundary layer of the airfoil closer to the leading edge, the
reduced shear stress in the middle, and a moderate shear stress 4- Beyond a certain level of saturation, dust does not
with a relatively thick boundary layer towards the trailing edge. further accrue on the airfoil surface.

In the same paper [1] a compressor with oily airfoils is 5- Large particles can stick to the surface if it is wet, and
also discussed. The patterns observed in that case resemble the allows to form adhesive mixtures..
patterns in Test 5, including the observed streaks of oil.
6- the effect of particle agglomeration of particles to form
Tests 3 and 4 assume oil layer thicknesses that are
larger clusters was observed, which would explain the
probably not found in actual turbomachinery cases. However,
they show several interesting features, namely the fact that disproportional impact of very small particles on
except for the first about 25% of chord length, practically no boundary layer losses.
dust was found. In the region where the dust actually was able
The tests thus provide valuable qualitative and quantitative
to stick we find significant coagulation, and the mixture of oil
insights into the problem of compressor fouling, considering
and dust almost acts like a glue. It was indeed hard to remove
both wet and dry surfaces.
after the test. Visual observation during the test shows that oil,
with dust dissolved was continuously washed downstream, and
off the airfoil. In other words, the shear forces in the boundary Future tests can be envisioned to provide more detail on
the deposition patterns on the airfoil, by measuring the amount
layer were strong enough in all sections to wash oil and dust off
of deposition at the leading edge, center, and trailing edge
the airfoil, except were coagulated dust and the oil formed a
separately.
sticky, very adhesive, mixture.

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated

REFERENCES Axial Compressor Blade’, Journal of Engineering for Gas
[1] Kurz, R. , Brun,K.,, 2012, ‘Fouling Mechanisms in Axial Turbines and Power, 138, 012603.
Compressors’, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
[14] Suman, A., Kurz, R., Aldi, N., Morini, M., Brun, K.,
Power, 134, p. 032401.
Pinelli, M., and Spina, P. R., 2014, “Quantitative CFD
[2] Wilcox, M., Baldwin, R., Garcia-Hernandez, A., Brun, K., Analyses of Particle Deposition on a Transonic
2010, Guideline for gas turbine Inlet Air Filtration Systems, AxialCompressor Blade, Part I—Particle Zones Impact,”
Gas Machinery Research Council, Dallas,Tx. Journal of Turbomachinery,137(2), p. 021009.
[3] Orhon,D., Kurz,R., Hiner,S., Benson,J.,2015,’Gas Turbine [15] Suman, A., Morini, M., Kurz, R., Aldi, N., Brun, K.,
Air Filtration Systems for Offshore Applications’, Pinelli, M., and Spina, P. R.,2014, “Quantitative CFD Analyses
Turbosymposium, Houston,Tx. of Particle Deposition on a Transonic Axial Compressor Blade,
Part II—Impact Kinematics and Particle Sticking Analysis,”
[4] Brekke,O., Bakken, L.E., 2010,’Performance Deterioration
Journal of Turbomachinery, 137(2), p. 021010.
of Intake Air Filters for Gas Turbines in Offshore Installations’,
ASME GT2010-22454. [16] Nowak,L., 1992, Computational Investigations of a NACA
0012 Airfoil in Low Reynolds Number Flows, Thesis N9455,
[5] Schroth, T., Rothmann,A., Schmitt,D., 2007, Nutzwert eines
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,CA
dreistufigen Luftfiltersystems mit innovativer Technologie fuer
stationaere Gasturbinen, VGB Powertech,Volume 87, pp48-51. [17] Petrović, D.V., Mitrović, Č.B., Trišovic, N.R., Golubović,
Z.Z., 2011,’On the Particles Size Distributions of
[6] EN 779 Particulate Air Filters for General Ventilation –
Diatomaceous Earth and Perlite Granulations’, Strojniški
Determination of the Filtration Performance.
vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 57(2011)11, 843-
[7] Fuchs, N.A., 1964, “The Mechanics of Aerosols, Pergamon 850.
Press, Oxford, UK.
[18] Dring, R.P., Caspar, J.R., Suo, M.,,1979, ‘Particle
[8] Kurz, R., Brun, K., Wollie,M. 2009, “Degradation Effects Trajectories Turbine Cascades’, AIAA J. of Energy, Vol. 3,
on Industrial Gas Turbines”, Journal of Engineering for Gas No.3,1979.
Turbines and Power, 131, p. 062401 (12 pages)
[19] Kurz, R., 1990, ‘The Gas Flow Behind a Cascade with
Nonuniform Pitch’, ASME FED-Vol.101.
[9] Syverud,E., Bakken,L.E., 2006, The Impact of Surface
Roughness on Axial Compressor Deterioration, ASME paper
GT2006-90004

[10] Meher-Homji, C. B., Chaker, M., Bromley, A. F., 2009,

“The Fouling of Axial Flow Compressors- Causes, Effects,
Susceptibility and Sensitivity”, ASME Paper No: GT2009-
59239.

[11] Morini, M., Pinelli, M., Spina, P. R., Venturini, M., 2011,
“Numerical Analysis of the Effects of Non-Uniform Surface
Roughness on Compressor Stage Performance”, Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 133(7), 072402 (8
pages)

[12] Aldi, N., Morini, M., Pinelli, M., Spina, P. R., Suman, A.,
Venturini, M., 2014, “Performance Evaluation of Non-
Uniformly Fouled Axial Compressor Stages by Means of
Computational Fluid Dynamics Analyses”, Journal of
Turbomachinery, 136, pp. 021016 (11 pages)
[12] Vigueras Zuniga, M. O., 2007, “Analysis of Gas Turbine
Compressor Fouling and Washing on Line,” Ph.D. thesis,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK.
[13] Suman, A., Kurz, R., Aldi, N., Morini, M., Brun, K.,
Pinelli, M., Spina, P.R., 2016, ’Quantitative Computational
Fluid Dynamics Analyses of Particle Deposition on a Subsonic

9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME and Solar Turbines Incorporated