Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power for Land, Sea and Air
May 14-17, 2007, Montreal, Canada
Proceedings of GT2007
ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power for Land, Sea and Air
May 14-17, 2007, Montreal, Canada
GT2007-27064
GT2007-27064
This paper proposes a unified slip model for axial, radial, and
mixed flow impellers. For many years, engineers designing
axial and radial turbomachines have applied completely
different deviation or slip factor models. For axial applications,
the most commonly used deviation model has been Carters
rule or its derivatives. For centrifugal impellers, Wiesners
correlation has been the most popular choice. Is there a
common thread linking these seemingly unrelated models?
This question becomes particularly important when designing a
mixed flow impeller where one has to choose between axial or
radial slip models.
The proposed model in this paper is based on blade loading,
i.e., the velocity difference between the pressure and suction
surfaces, near the discharge of the impeller. The loading
function includes the effect of blade rotation, blade turning, and
the passage area variation. This velocity difference is then
used to calculate the slip velocity using Stodolas assumption.
The final slip model can then be related to Carters rule for
axial impellers and Stodolas slip model for radial impellers.
Subscripts:
1: impeller inlet
2: impeller exit
p: pressure side of the blade
s: suction side of the blade
This new slip model suggests that the flow coefficient at the
impeller exit is an important variable for the slip factor when
there is blade turning at the impeller discharge. This may
explain the interesting slip factor trend observed from
experiments, such as the rise of the slip factor with flow
coefficient in Eckardt A impeller. Some validation results of this
new model are presented for a variety of applications, such as
radial compressors, axial compressors, pumps, and blowers.
INTRODUCTION
For an impeller with an infinite number of blades, the exit flow
angle should be the same as the exit blade metal angle. In the
real world, however, the exit flow angle deviates from the blade
guidance at the impeller exit due to the finite number of blades.
Correctly predicting flow deviation is a critical task in meanline
and throughflow modeling because the exit flow angle is
directly related to the work input and the pressure rise across
the impeller.
NOMENCLATURE
= flow angle, positive if same as rotation direction
b = blade metal angle
= blade camber angle
d/dm = blade turning rate
= deviation angle
= 2b 2
(1)
Obviously, the Wiesner slip factor does not vary with any flow
parameters; however, according to Equation (6), is a
function of the exit flow coefficient even though is constant.
For a backswept blade with 2b < 0 , , it would decrease with
= 1
C slip
U2
(2)
(3)
(4)
C 2
C 2
(5)
For a no inlet swirl case, this value is the ratio of the actual
impeller work input to the ideal impeller work input with no slip.
= 1
1
1 + 2 tan 2b
(6)
= 1
cos 2b
Z 0 .7
(7)
a
s cos 2b
= = 2
2
2
C slip = F * {
(8)
(10)
= 1
t2
s2 cos 2 b
Z2
Z2
F cos 2 b sin 2
Z2
(15)
(16)
where
= 1
(12)
sin(
U2
(11)
C slip
Fs 2 2 d
F 2 s 2 sin 2 b d b
4 cos 2 b dm 2
4 2b2
dm 2
Ws W p
F = 1 sin
(14)
DC = F * s2
W 2 s 2 d
4 dm 2
W 2 s 2 sin 2 2 b d b
}
8 2 b2
dm 2
= 2 sin cos
DC
d cos sin db
W (
)
dm
dm
b
C slip =
s 2 cos 2 b sin 2
radial =
F cos 2b sin 2
Z2
(16a)
+ 2 b ) cos 2 b sin 2
(13)
turn =
Fs22 d
4 cos 2b dm 2
(16b)
passage =
F2 s2 sin 2b db
4 2b2
dm 2
(16c)
M =
Z2
sin 2
(17)
= 1
cos 2b
(18)
Z2
and
2
the shape factor F is set to 1.0. Furthermore, if Z 2 in equation
(18) is replaced by M in equation (17), Stodolas model
becomes identical to 1 radial , provided that F = 1.0.
R1
<F
R2
(20)
On the other side, the slip velocity caused by turning can also
be estimated from equation (14).
Cslip =
FC2 m s2 d
4 cos 2b dm 2
(21)
2b
dm
c cos
(19)
4
4
c cos
dm
F cos 2b
=
( s2 / c)
4 cos
(22)
the partial success that some slip models, such as the one by
Wiesner, have enjoyed with radial impellers. Once again we
should be careful with the slip factor definition convention.
Even though the slip factor based on the American convention
(equation [2]) is constant when the turning term is negligible,
the slip factor based on the European-convention (equation [5])
always varies with the flow rate when the exit blade angle is
not zero according to equation (6). Therefore, one should
never attempt to apply a European slip factor correlation that
does not include a flow parameter, such as the ones by
Stanitz, Balje [15], etc. for impellers with non-radial exits.
= m( s2 / c) n
(23)
F cos 2 b
F cos( + 2 b 0 )
=
4 cos
4 cos
(24)
Carter's m-factor
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Current Model
Carter
0.05
0
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
Stagger angle
linearly with the exit flow coefficient. The direction and the
slope of the variation are determined by the blade-turning rate
near the impeller discharge.
the data, the new model was slightly on the low side while the
Wiesner model was a little on the high side. Stodolas model
under-predicted the slip factor by a significant margin.
The test data showed a visible downward trend with the exit
flow coefficient. This may have been indicating a slight positive
flow turning near the discharge, which could have been a result
of the large wake region presented at the impeller exit. If the
blade-turning rate was set to be 5.0m-1, which corresponded to
0.29 of turning per mm of length, a better match could be
obtained, as represented as a solid line in Figure 3B (note that
to obtain this better match, the F factor had to be reduced
from its default value to 0.65).
Parameters
Values
R2(m)
0.2
2b(degree)
2(degree)
0
90
Parameters Values
Z2
F
d/dm(m-1)
20
0.86
0
2b(degree) -30
2(degree) 90
R2(m)
0.2
Z2
20
F
0.72
d/dm(m-1) -9
0.95
0.95
Slip Factor
0.9
0.85
RPM=10000
RPM=12000
RPM=14000
RPM=16000
RPM=18000
Current Model (no turning)
Current Model (with turning)
Wiesner
Stodola
0.8
0.75
0.9
0.85
R PM =10000
R PM =12000
R PM =14000
R PM =16000
C urrentM odel
W iesner
Stodola
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
The new model did a good job matching the test data, and the
same can be said about Wiesners correlation. Compared with
The current slip model matched the data very well in this case.
The negative blade-turning rate was obviously responsible for
the upward trend of the slip factor. Wiesner and Stodolas
models both failed badly for this case they both predicted an
opposite
downward
trend.
This
case
emphatically
demonstrated that the blade-turning rate could be an important
factor in the slip factor calculation. This was also the first time
that a slip factor model could be used to explain the unusual
upward trend of the slip factor for this famous impeller.
10
9
8
deviation angle
7
6
5
4
100%
90%
70%
Current Model
Carter
0
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
The NASA Rotor 37 (Figure 5A) was chosen for the study
because of its detailed measurement of the flow field at the
impeller exit [18]. In a way, it was not an ideal case for the
deviation angle study because the presence of the shock
structure may have significantly altered the flow direction.
Nevertheless, the study demonstrated the main points that the
authors wanted to make.
0.95
slip factor
0.9
For this case, the blade-turning rate near the discharge was
estimated to be 17.0m-1, corresponding to 0.97 per mm of
meridional length. The default F-factor was 0.998. The radial
term contribution to the slip factor, in this case, was zero.
0.75
0.7
0.2
-38.9
0
36
0.998
17
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Parameters Values
2b(degree)
2(degree)
Z2
F
d/dm(m-1)
0.25
Figure 5C shows the slip factor vs. the exit flow coefficient. The
test data showed an obvious downward trend in this plot as the
flow coefficient increased. The current model predicted a linear
decrease of the slip factor because of the positive bladeturning rate. If you take out the 100% supersonic speedline,
which potentially has the shock wave altering the flow
direction, the rest of data points follow the predicted trend quite
well. Carters rule also predicted the slip factor would decrease
with the flow coefficient, but the scale was on the high side.
0.218
100%
90%
70%
Current Model
Carter
0.8
Figure 5B plots the deviation angle vs. the exit flow coefficient.
The data are scattered without any apparent upward or
downward trend. The scattering of the data is somewhat
disappointing, which may have been caused by the presence
of the shock structure in the flow passage. As stated earlier,
the deviation model based on the current slip model was not a
function of flow conditions and it appears on the plot as a flat
line. In the calculation based on Carters rule, the m-factor was
estimated as 0.33. Carters deviation angle did not vary with
the flow coefficient either. Although scattered, most of the data
points laid in the range of 1.5 of the current model prediction,
which was close to the angle measurement error margin of 1
in the test.
R2(m)
0.85
This case was typical for most of the pump cases we had
studied, which usually required an increase of the blade turning
rate value to obtain a good match. One of the differences
between a compressor and a pump is the working fluid. For a
pump, it is usually water and the viscosity of water is much
larger than that of air. It could be argued that the friction force
in the volute was responsible for reducing the impeller exit
tangential velocity, thus increasing the slip velocity and causing
the slip factor to drop as the flow increased. Although the
mechanism for the extra deviation was uncertain, it was
interesting to note how we could artificially adjust the bladeturning rate to match the test data, which was important in
establishing a meanline model for an impeller.
Parameters Values
Parameters Values
R2(m)
R2(m)
0.232
2b(degree)
2(degree)
Z2
F
d/dm(m-1)
-58.5
90
9
0.63
13.12
0.073
2b(degree) -60
2(degree) 90
0.9
Z2
7
F
0.52
d/dm(m-1) 4.92
Slip Factor
0.8
0.7
Data
Current Model
0.6
Weisner
Stodola
0.5
1
0.4
0
0.95
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Current Model
Weisner
Stodola
0.9
Slip Factor
0.05
Data
0.85
0.8
0.75
CONCLUSIONS
0.7
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APPENDIX:
FACTOR- F
Introduction
OF
THE
SHAPE
REFERENCES
[1] Japikse D., Baines N. C., 1994,
Turbomachinery, Concepts ETI, Vermont.
CALCULATION
to
2
Z2
AB = 2 R2 sin
2
Since OBA =
, therefore
ABC = OBA 2b =
2b
2
+ 2b
BC = AB cos(ABC ) = AB sin
2
= 2 R2 sin
+ 2b cos( 2b )sin 2
sin
2 2
= R2 1 2 sin sin
+ 2b cos( 2b )sin ( 2 )
Z
Z
2 2
DC = OC *
t2
cos 2b
t2
+ 2b cos( 2b )sin 2
F = 1 2 sin sin
Z
Z
s
cos
2b
2
2 2
10