THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

345 E. 47 St., New York, N.Y. 10017

91-GT-123
The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in papers or in dis-
cussion at meetings of the Society or of its Divisions or Sections, or printed in its publications.
m Discussion is printed only if the paper is published in an ASME Journal. Papers are available
]/( from ASME for fifteen months after the meeting.
Printed in USA.
Copyright 1991 by ASME

Similarity Transformations for Compressor Blading

N. G. ZHU, L. XU, M. Z. CHEN
Jet Propulsion Department
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Beijing 100083, China

Summary
Improving the performance of high speed axial compressors
through low speed model compressor testing has proved to be economi-
cal and effective (Wisler, 1984). The key to this technique is to design
low speed blade profiles which are aerodynamically similar to their high
speed counterparts. The conventional aerodynamic similarity transfor-
mation involves the small disturbance potential flow assumption there-
fore its application is severely limited and generally not used in practical
design. In this paper, a set of higher order transformation rules are pres-
ented which can accommodate large disturbances at transonic speed and
are therefore applicable to similar transformations between the high
speed HP compressor and its low speed model. Local linearization is
used in the nonlinear equations and the transformation is obtained in
an iterative process. The transformation gives the global blading
parameters such as camber, incidence and solidity as well as the blade
profile. Both numerical and experimental validations of the transforma-
tion show that the nonlinear similarity transformations do retain satis-
factory accuracy for highly loaded blades up to low transonic speeds.
Further improvement can be made by only slightly modifing profiles
numerically without altering the global similarity parameters.
Nomenclature
C. Axial chord of blade (p Disturbance pontential
Cp Pressure coefficient a Incidence or inlet flow angle
d Pitch or stream tube thickness /3 Stagger angle
k Constant y Specific heat ratio
M Mach number c Solidity of cascade
u disturbance velocity
V Velocity Subscripts
v Disturbance velocity o Vector averaged
m Number of blade I Inlet flow condition
r 2 Outlet flow condition
x Coordinate directions
y Superscripts
z ' Incompressible condition
1. Introduction
The development of the modern aeroengine compressor in the last
two decades shows a trend of using increasingly highly loaded and low
aspect ratio blading to achieve high stage performance. This leads the
designer to pay more attention to the blade end regions where flow three
dimensionality is predominantparticularly for the rear stages of a high
pressure (HP) compressor. Many efforts have been made in order to un-
derstand the nature of the complex flow and to reduce the high loss con-
centrated in the region. The fact that the flow is viscous and fully three
dimensional greatly complicates numerical simulations and detailed
measurement of the flow structures is almost impossible for rear stages
because it is extremely difficult to instrument such tiny geometries. To
get out of this dilemma, Wislcr presented a successful approach which
uses a large scale low speed research compressor to simulate the rear
stages of the high speed compressor to be studied and improved. This
technique enables a remarkable reduction of loss in the end wall region
and flow separation at blade corners, and a substantial increase in stall
margin. Compared with the high speed test, the low speed simulation has
the advantages of greater accuracy, low cost, and low risk (Wisler, 1984).
In order to achieve a correct simulation, the low speed model
compressor should be aerodynamically similar to the high speed
compressor stages to be studied. When the problem regions in the low
speed compressor are detected in testing and removed by customtail-
oring the blade shape, these modifications to the low speed blade can be
transformed back to its high speed counterpart. Wisler specified solidity,
aspect ratio, velocity triangles, reaction, Reynolds number, airfoil sur-
face pressure (coefficient) distribution, clearanceblade height, and axial
spacingtochord ratio as the similarity parameters and made them the
same for the high and low speed compressors.
Aerodynamic similarity has long been used for two geometrically
similar bodies at the same aerodynamic conditions such as Reynolds
number, Mach number, incidence, etc. to achieve similar aerodynamic
forces as, eg., a scaled wind tunnel testing. However, if aerodynamic

Presented at the International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition
Orlando, FL June 3-6, 1991
This paper has been accepted for publication in the Transactions of the ASME
Discussion of it will be accepted at ASME Headquarters until September 30, 1991

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 force similarity between two bodies is to be achieved, the geometrical Y n=3
similarity has to be relaxed in some manner analogous to the way iso-
lated aerofoil profiles are according to PrandtlGlauert rules (Von M=2

Karmann, 1947). Woolard (1950) developed a set of similarity transfor- N

mation rules for aerofoils in cascades at different speeds. However, be- m=1
s
cause it was based upon linear small disturbance potential equations, its e

use was strictly limited. For the modern high pressure compressor with
high stage loading, it is obvious that the linear assumption is no longer
valid. Hence, Wisler had to use a numerical approach for the low speed
compressor blade design in stead of a similarity transformation which
would have reduced the design work significantly.
In this paper, a set of similarity transformation rules of different or-
ders of approximation are ranging from an improved (over Woolard's)
transformation based on the linear small disturbance potential equation
to that for the nonlinear full disturbance potential equation. The three
dimensional effect can also be accounted for by a similar transformation
of the stream tube contraction in the meridional plane. Because the
higherorder nonlinear terms are taken into account in the transforma-
tions, they can be used for blades of high speed and loading and are
therefore applicable to the transformation of high speed HP compressor
and low speed model blading. Both numerical and experimental
validations for the transformations have been made and it is shown that
a satisfactory accuracy can be obtained even for highly loaded blades.
The advantage of using this similarity transformation in the low
speed simulation technique is not only that it is fast and simple, but also
that it may cope with the very complex flows in the endwall regions.
Conventional two / quasi three dimensional now calculations may fail in
these regions and give erroneous results. With the assumption that
viscous behaviour is controlled by similar pressure distributions if other
aerodynamic parameters are the same, two aerodynamically similar
blades should exhibit similar boundary layer behaviour. Therefore, the
viscous effects are implicitly taken care of by the inviscid similarity trans-
formation. Further more, because the governing equations are valid at
every point in the flow field, the transformation is a pointtopoint one
(in a sense). Therefore, it can still be used (with degraded accuracy) in
cases where three dimensionality is strong and two / quasi three
dimensional calculations are no longer trustworthy.
2. Similar transformation of different levels
It has been shown that only for linearized two dimensional flows
does there exist exact similarity and analytical transformations between
flows become possible (Zhu, 1990). Therefore, efforts have concentrated
on the study of linearized / locally linearized potential flows. It is obvi-
ous that the accuracy of the simulation is tied to the order of approxima-
tion of the governing equations of the flow. Therefore, different levels of
complexity of the governing equations are considered and presented in
order of complexity. The derivation of the similarity rules is based on
two dimensional flows and variations of the height and thickness of the
stream tube can be accounted for by a separate two dimensional similari-
ty consideration.
2.1 Subsonic small disturbance case
A linearized small disturbance potential equation (SDP) can be used
for thin and slightly cambered blades. A coordinate system is chosen as
shown in Fig.1 where the xaxis coincides with the vector averaged flow
^^ [ X
a^ o
M= 2 d^ N V,
YZ
Fig.l Definition of Cascade parameters
and coordinate system
direction which is defined as the main flow direction. In this sense, the
far field parameters such as M and V. are defined as the vector aver-
aged inlet and exit values and all variations in the flow are regarded as
disturbances superimposed on this main flow. The SDP equation has the
form of (1Ma) q+ q= 0 , (eg. Kuethe and Chow, 1986) where rp is
the disturbance potential and M is the vector averaged Mach number.
Following to Woolard (1950), the transformation can be effected accord-
ing to PrandtlGlauert rule:
I x' =x
y'=S2y (1)
(p'=kN
where k is a constant to be determined and f2 = 1 M o
Then we have the transformation to an incompressible flow field
where the corresponding disturbance velocity components are:
c u' =ku (2)
v' _ (k / fl)v
If the pressure coefficient Cp is chosen as the similarity criterion, to
the first order it can be expressed as
C= 2u / V (3)
v
For the CDs at corresponding points in two flow fields to be identi-
cal, the velocity ratio should be equal, ie.
u'/V' =u/V (4)
It follows that k is equal to the ratio of the main flow velocity magni-
tudes of the two flows:
k=V' /V (5)
If the coordinates of two blades are expressed as
Y' =.f [x'mh' tg(fl'+a') ]+mh'
Y m =g [xmh tg(/l+a) ]+mh (6)
Where m = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... etc, is the ordinal number of the blades in
cascade, then to a first order approximation, the tangents of the blade
surfaces are
dY dg( v
dx dx l V ) y _ m
(7)
d Y' _ dl _ v' ( l
dx' dx' ~ \ V' ) y _ ,,,,,
From equation (2) we have the blade shape relation
d.f/ dx = (1 / S))dg / dx (8)
and the similarity relation between the incidences (inlet flow angle) im-

- 2

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 mediately follows: expressed as:
tga' o = (1 / fl)tga o (9)
L32cpxf + (42= RHS (17)
yy
Equation (8) also gives the transformation relation for blade thick- where
ness and camber angle of two sets of blades. 2M2(, !_ )(
/^zy
According to eq.(1)
RHS =
mh' = flmh (10) )z+y+l ( v )z
rl 1Mz __ (-'
] _M z, [ y-1
and the stagger angles are related by
and
'[S2tg (fl+a)] a' o (11)
Q =tg
1Mo(yI)Mov for eq.(16)
and the pitch should be transformed accordingly
Std cos (13+a o )=d'cos (/3'+a' . ) (12) z z z u r
z y+l u l z y-1 r v l z
S2 = 1M(Y+1)M.V M,
L 2 (V. + 2 \V e / ]

: r y-1 ( u l z y+1 r v l z
The solidity of the transformed cascade turns out to be
z u
T'= T (13)
2
[1(Y-1)M,Vo]Ma
L 2 \V. + 2 \V.
o ,/ S2 + tg 2 (13+ a ' )
cos (/3+a).
(18)
for eq. (17)
With these relations, we have (eg. Kuethe and Chow, 1986), Note that here f2 is no longer a constant
C' P (ji', a' o , i')=C,(Q, a . , r, M.) (14) over the whole flow field but rather a point function in the flow field,
This means that for a compressible cascade in a flow field at a mean L1=1l(x,y). In order to obtain an analytical solution, it is necessary to
Mach number M oand at mean incidence a 0 , with cascade stagger angle 0 maintain the problem at the onedimensional level. Therefore, pitchwise
and solidity t, and for a cascade in an incompressible flow field of which averaging is applied to the field variables (u / V0) and (v / V0)
the parameters /3', -r' and a' 0 etc. are determined by equations (8), (9), (u l_ 1
PWh U
dy
(11) and (13) respectively, the pressure coefficient (defined as eq.(3)) dis- \ V o / Pitch ^ o \ V o )
(19)
tributions of the two are the same, and all other aerodynamic force
Pe
parameters of two cascades are the same as well. Thus, the above equa-
( l _r ( )
1

dY
V. itch,) V.
P o
tions give the transformation rules between cascades in subsonic
and when these pitchwise averaged values are substituted equation (18),
compressible and incompressible flows under small disturbances.
Q becomes a function of x only, ie, .Q = 12(x). Thus it is possible to write
If the two flows in question are both compressible but with different
out the transformations
vector mean Mach number M., and M oe , then for the two to be
=x
aerodynamically similar, the following should be satisfied: (20)
Y ' = O(x) Y
d fi S2, d.f2
(15.1) W'=k W
dx 12 z dx
and to substitute these into equations (16) and (17) respectively. Notice
t has different expressions for these two equations (eq. (18)). The trans-
tga' =L (15.2)
tga" o S2 2 formed equations can be written as
0 for eq.(16)
a"o ( 21 )
{

2 tg (Q'+a')
/3"=tK - ^ a (15.3) ^ +q '
, y for eq.(17)
RHS'
i
In order to obtain the form of the Laplace equation which is essen-
T 1' = t/ z (15.4)
tial for similarity transformation, we have to drop the RHS' term in the
cos (/1'+a') +tg z (Q'+a' o ) second equation of eq. (21). Doing this inevitably introduces error into
z
the transformation and the exact second order accuracy is lost.
where S2 = I M o c1 z = 1 _ M a z However, since in the linearized equation the cross term rp xy = dv / dx is
It should be noted that the transformation rules (15) not only guar- locally frozen and is of the same order of the disturbance velocity v in
antee the similarities of the equation and the blade surface boundary general, the RHS' term is actually of second order therefore its neglect is
conditions, but also those of periodicity and inlet and exit boundary partially justified.
conditions. Further more, the definition of Cp here is based upon the With the original equations (16) and (17) transformed into the form
vector averaged mean velocity but not inlet velocity, which is the com- of the Laplace equation (equation (21)), the same steps outlined in sec-
mon practice in compressor design. However, it has been shown (Zhu, tion 2.1 can be taken and the transformed blade geometry can be ob-
1990) that, under the small disturbance assumption, if Cp distributions tained according to equation (8). However because ip is locally linearized
based upon the vector mean velocity are the same, those based upon in- and varies with x, the similarity of the two flow fields is only true in a
let velocity are also the same. correspondendingly small region ox, ie, the flows are similar in
piecemeal. In order to obtain the overall blade parameters such as stag-
2.2 Nonlinear disturbance cases ger angle, solidity, etc as well as inlet flow angle a using equations (9)
More generally, the transonic small disturbance potential (TSD) through (13), a global rather than piecemeal S2 is needed. To achieve this,
equation has the form an average along the axial chord for f2(x) is performed. For (v / V 0 )
S2 z ^p^^+( =0 (16) and (u / V 0 ) obtained in equation (19), a further average is made:
and the second order full disturbance potential (FDP) equation can be

3--

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 f `
C
where g'(z) and g(z) represent the stream surface coordinates for
Vo) dz
o s
incompressible and compressible flow fields respectively. In term of the
(22)
c_ streamtube thickness ratio, the following relation is obtained:
- ) = j o \V) dx (25)

The results are substituted into equation (18) to obtain an averaged Because it is assumed that the disturbances in two orthogonal sur-
D. faces are independent, equation (25) is also applicable for the flow des-
The final obstacle to the nonlinear transformation is that in gener- cribed by the TSD or FDP equations.
al the disturbance velocities it and v are unknown beforehand. For the It is interesting to notice that equation (25) actually says that for a
results presented in this paper, the following approach has been adopted: low speed compressor, in order to achieve a similar pressure distribution
In the transformation from an incompressible flow to a high speed at the edges of a streamtube (casing and hub as the extremes), the latter
one, the linear transformation of section 2.1 is used first to get an ap- should converge more than its high speed counterpart. This is against the
proximate cascade, an inviscid flow field calculation is then performed common practice as the low speed compressor usually has the constant
for this cascade to get u and v, these are substituted in equations (19)
casing and hub. Therefore, in this kind of simulation, the pressure distri-
and (22) and the similarity rules to obtain a new cascade for which the
butions at the end walls cannot be simulated according to the similarity
effect of the disturbance velocities has been taken into account. Then a
rules; instead, this is relaxed to achieve the similarities of other more im-
new flow field is calculated and a new transformation is made and the
portant parameters as pointed out by Wisler (1984). The significance of
iteration is continued until f2 converges. In practice the numerical results
the above transformation on the meridional plane is that it presents a re-
show that the convergence is very rapid and only two iterations are suffi-
lation for AVDRs at different speeds. Therefore, the effect of the
cient. For the case of the high speedtoincompressible transformation,
nonsimilar endwall transformation on the pressure distributions of
the components of the disturbance velocity can be obtained from direct
the bladetoblade flow surface can be accounted for.
calculation of the high speed cascade; therefore no iteration is needed.
It should be noted that the transformations of SDP and TSD are
3. Numerical validation of the transformation rules
exact in the sense that both the equation and the Cp are approximated to
first order. However, that of FDP is actually not exact because, while the
The transformation rules obtained in the previous sections have
final form of the equation (with nonhomogeneous RHS neglected) still
been examined numerically for their validity and applicability. In doing
retains most of the second order terms, the similarity parameter Cp is
this, Denton's inviscid two or quasithree dimensional time dependent
only of first order approximation. Therefore, the transformation cannot
method (Denton, 1982) was used. There are good reasons for choosing
attain the accuracy indicated by the equation. Nevertheless, some higher
an inviscid code for the validating purpose. Firstly, because the trans-
order influences can be included in the equation to improve the quality formation is of the potential type, an Euler code, which in shockless
of the transformation as shown later in the section on numerical
flows involves virtually the same approximations to the flow, is better
validation.
for validations than a viscous one. Secondly, although the development
The present similarity transformations are for plane cascades. The
of the boundary layers on the blade surfaces is an important issue to
extension to annular cascades is straight forward and the transformation
consider in the design, it is expected that under similarity transforma-
rules retain exactly the same form as those for the plane cascade. This is
tions, the behaviour of the boundary layers should also be similar at dif-
because the term containing quasithree dimensional effects variations
ferent speeds. Indeed it has been verified that at the same Reynolds
of thinckness and height of streamtube all go to the nonhomogeneous
number and free stream turbulence, the Cp distribution on the blade sur-
RHS of equation 17 and are dropped in the transformation. These
faces is the predominant factor in boundary layer development (Zhu and
quasithree dimensional effects are grossly ignored in the transforma-
Xu 1990).
tion based on SDP, but for those based on TSD and FDP those effects
can be included in iterative calculation of.Q(x,y).
-1.00
M,=0.4
NACA16-0808
2.3 Quasithree dimensional case
0
^y -0.60
In a real compressor, because of the existence of the streamtube J, '^^^

0
thickness and radius variations, the effect of axial velocity density ratio
(AVDR) on the transformation should be considered. Based on the fact
that in a high pressure compressor the streamtube variation is not very
large, two basic assumptions are made: that in the meridional surface the 0.20
linearized small disturbance equation can be used and that the disturb-
ance on this surface has no correlation with that on the bladetoblade m
0.60 4 22e20 M,=0.40
surface. Then, in the meridional surface, the small disturbance potential

M 1 =0.60
sooMO75
equation can be written as
1
0.00 2 ( M )W+p=0 (23) 0.25
-..-
0.90 0.75 i 00
axial chord
and taking the same procedure as in section 2.1, the similarity transfor-
mation between stream tube coordinates can be obtained Fig.2 SDP linear transformation from
low speed to different high speeds
dg'(z)/dz'=(1/12)dg/dz (24)

4-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 Fig.2 - 4 show the sample transformations for different levels of
approximations for two NACA 16 series aerofoil cascades. Fig.2 illus-
trates the SDP transformation from low speed to high speeds (M = 0.4 to
M=0.6 and to M=0.75) for a cascade of thin aerofoil (8%
thickness / chord) with a small stagger angle of 20 0 and a moderate in-
let flow angle of 35 0 Although in general the Cp distributions agree well
on the suction surface, the transformation accuracy deteriorates at high-
er Mach number, as the flow non-linearity increases and the linear as-
sumption involved in the transformation becomes unrealistic. This is es-
pecially true at the leading edge where the disturbance is expected to be
the largest and is also seen on the pressure surface. To increase the cam-
ber and stagger angle will make it even worse. Thus a non-linear trans-
formation is necessary in the cases of high speed or large disturbance.
-1.50
transformed M,=0.60 ( linear)
of- transformed M,=0.60 (nonlinear)
i ZO original M 1 =0.20
a -0.00
- -0.60 -zs
U -0.30
w ^^
C 0.00
V 0.30
sponding adjustment for streamtube contraction produces a much poor-
er result.
In summary, the numerical validation for the transformations of
different levels shows that the accuracy of the transformation is associ-
ated with the approximation of the governing equation to the actual
flow to be transformed. In general, the transformation based on the full
disturbance potential (FDP) equation is found to be the most accurate
and suitable for the most situations but it involves more calculations.
The transformations based upon the analytical similarity rules prove to
be an effective and fast means to obtain the similar aerofoil coordinates
and cascade parameters although it is seen throughout the numerical
validation that there still exists some discrepancies in the Cp distribu-
tions. These discrepancies may come from the difference between the
Euler approximation used in the numerical scheme and the linear or lo-
cally linear approximation used in the transformations, but mostly result
M,=0.20
from the one dimensional approximation involved in the transformation
NACA16-(12)12
T=1.2
which is inherent in the an analytical approach. To achieve higher accu-
racy, some kind of numerical correction (inverse method for blade de-
a=55
sign) can be used to generate more accurate blade shapes (Zhu, 1990).
However, this inevitably takes more computer time yet is often
unnecessary for most cases encountered in engineering design practice.

M 0.60 4. Experimental validation of the transformations

V
s^
p 0.90
A set of cascade tests were designed to verify the transformation
1.20 --'T-r- ^r^ ----r ---- r - 1
000 0.50 1 nt rules in real flow situations, including the viscous effect which is assumed
Axial chord (x/c) to be modelled implicitly in the analytical similarity transformation by
Fig.3 Comparison of the transformations keeping Reynolds number, free stream turbulence and pressure
of different levels
coefficient distributions on the blade surfaces the same. The high speed
Fig.3 gives an example for a cascade with a thicker aerofoil (12% thick- original cascades were taken from the literature: a NACA65 series cas-
ness / chord), larger stagger angle (30 ) and inlet flow angle (55 ) from cade tested by Williams (1952) at an inlet Mach number of 0.71 and a
incompressible flow to M = 0.6. It can be seen that the non-linear trans-
formation (FDP) improves the solution remarkably compared with that
- TT
of SDP. Fig.4 shows the effect of the quasi-three dimensional considera- aao

tion on the transformation. The original cascade has an AVDR of 0.85 A 0.20

at M = 0.4; when transformed to M = 0.6, an AVDR of 0.91 is obtained

via the transformation on the meridional flow surface. The parameters -0.10
0.00 0.20 0.10 J-60.80j00
for the high speed aerofoil are obtained from the SDP transformation on x
the blade-to-blade surface. The Cp transformations for the two blades (a) Unstaggered and staggered profile

can be seen to agree very well. The calculation without the corre-
-1.00
ed (m
a original1)
_ 100 1 Transform etl (M,=0.10)
M,=0.4p
nnc - N ACA65.-(12)1O
=28
a - 0.60 0 =28.5
o.ao U IX 45
T=1.O

ON Q, -0.20

U ^ d
0.20

V 0.20 J$. _~^`^ ^

NA 20 0 -OkQ[i
N 0.60 q _

0.60 _1 n o
r. .,
a... J:)10
s.tr=0.85(out; 'in), R - C
!.DO
- _ 0.00 025 0.50 225
r -- r T
^o ^ z5 0.0 00 luo percentage of chord
axial chord (b) pridicted surface Cp distributions
Fig.4 Example of the meridianal surface Fig. 5 Comparison of p re- and post-
similar transformation transformed NACA65-( 12)10 profile

-5-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term



If the errors in Cp caused by the various factors mentioned above

- -transformed

o.w
(and others left unmentioned) can be separated out, the following rela-
0 2D tion should be valid:
OCp = 6Cp o -
o.00
0.
-0.10
0. 5 D.
a
0 5 1
SCp uo is the measured Cp difference between the original and
(a) Unataggered and staggered profiles transformed blades at a particular point on the blade surfaces and
-0.90 Y dCp i is the summation of discrepancies from all sources. For the ideal
,e-es original (M,=0.601 situation, n Cp would equal zero. It has been estimated that viscous
^a transformed(M0.10)
effects are not significant on the surface pressure distributions in the
-o.ao DCA present cases whilst there are two effects related to the transformation
and the numerical scheme which can be accounted for, ie, AVDR and
y y^ -r=2.2222
the implicit discrepancy between the transformation and the numerical
calculation. The former is estimated by calculating the 6Cps between the
high speed original and a high speed cascade with an AVDR which when
v transformed to low speed will equal that of the low speed experiment.
N
0.40
For example, the AVDR in the low speed experiment of the transformed
a
NACA65 profile is 1.23. When transformed to its high speed
counterpart, the latter should have an equivalent AVDR of 1.13. Since
O 5 -t ----- t - -T------r--^
0.00 0 25 0 50 0.75 1 00 the original high speed test of Williams was two dimensional,
percentage of chord SCPAVDR CPAVDR_l CPAVDR=1.13 accounts for the discrepancy caused
- -

(b) Predicted surface Cp distributions by AVDR differences in the two tests.

Fig.6 Comparison of p re- and post- Table.l The Parameters of pre- and post transformed cascades
-

transformed DCA profile

Cascade NACA65-(12)10 DCA
double circular arc aerofoil (DCA) cascade tested by Hoheisel and Seyb
Parameters Original ransformed Original fransformed
(1986) at an inlet Mach number of 0.6. The cascades were transformed
Airfoil NACA65-(12)10 DCA
into their incompressible counterparts using the FDP transformation
Inlet Mach No. 0.71 0.10 0.60 0.10
and tested in a low speed blowdown linear cascade wind tunnel at the Jet
Incidence 16.5 19.610 30.3 32.54
Propulsion Department, BUAA. The air supply of the tunnel is from a
Stagger angle 28.5 30.51 19.2 19.7
blower driven by a 40 kW DC motor, and the air speed at the inlet of the
Inlet flow angle 45 50.12 49.5 52.2
cascade ranges continuously from zero to 34 m / s. The tunnel has a Outlet flow angle 23.2 25.12 0.07 0.94
working cross section of only 124mm X 250mm. So in order to achieve Solidity 1.0 1.0662 2.222 2.28
the closest possible Reynolds number to those of the high speed tests on-
The latter effect, ie., the numerical and transformation error, is
ly a few blades can be used, viz 5 for the transformed NACA65 cascade
more complex. Fig.9 shows the calculated and measured Cp
and 6 for the transformed DCA cascade. This sacrifices the periodicity
distributions of the DCA cascade of Hoheisel and Seyb at an inlet Mach
of the cascades yet the Reynolds number achieved is still only half that
number of 0.6. Although in general the agreement is good, the
of the high speed tests (Re= 2.4 X 10 5 in the present test). A compari-
discrepancies at leading edge and on the pressure surface are of the same
son of the cascade parameters of pre- and post- transformation can be
order as those that appeared in the low-to-high speed transformations.
seen in Table 1. The surface static pressure distribution is read from a
In incompressible now calculations such discrepancies arc expected to be
manometer which is connected to pressure tap on the blade surface. The
larger. If the Cp distributions of the corresponding low and high speed
accuracy of the pressure readings is within 0.5mm alcohol height,
equivalent to A Cp= 0.020 . Figs 5 and 6 show the pre- and aeaao W0l0ms(2D, M,=0.71 ,x=45.0 ) .

post-transformed blade profiles and the predicted blade surface pressure

coefficient distributions for the two profiles respectively. The same trend
-0-so
of high speed to low speed transformation caused in blade shape as out- 02

lined by Wisler (1984) can be seen here: i.e. increases of blade thickness,
C
camber and stagger angle and flow incidence. However, as seen in figs 7 -0.20
V
and 8 for the two profiles respectively, the measured surface Cp distribu-
Y
tions show remarkable discrepancies for both cascades. A close examina- 0 ago
o
tion of test conditions reveals several differences which could contribute
to the discrepancies: Reynolds number and turbulence intensity, which U,
0.60
affect boundary layer behaviour; the small number of blades, which may a.
result in lack of periodicity; and axial velocity density ratio (AVDR), as
i^
a result of different aspect ratios, which has a strong influence on the
surface Cp distributions. All of these are fixed by the configuration of percentage of chord
the test facility so other remedies should be sought in order to make a Fig.7 Experimental Cp distributions
fair and sensible comparison.

-6-

I
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term
 -o80 ca o Hoheisel & Seyb (AVDR= 1.275, M,=0.60, a=49.5 ) 5. Discussions and Concluding Remarks
Esp. (AVDR=1.396, Low speed, a=52.0 )

6/ \
^ DCA cascade With the introduction of local linearization in obtaining the similar
U -0.4a 6 equation, a set of higher order similarity transformation rules have been
q \\ derived and the severe restrictions imposed upon the conventional
a
similarity transformations have been removed. These rules provide a
0.00 very efficient means of designing similar blades with an acceptable
v I
o I\\ `
accuracy. In the FDP case the expression for the similarity parameter Cp
contains only first order term whilst the governing equation retains most
y 0.40
of the second order terms (only the non-homogeneous term in equation
(17) has been discarded). Thus although it is not a second order
transformation in an exact sense, it does get rid of the restrictions
025 0.50 0.7 imposed by the SDP and TSD equations and can therefore be used
percentage of chord universally up to low transonic speeds.
Fig.S Experimental Cp distributions The similarity rules of Equations (10) through (13) give the global
cascade transformation parameters such as camber angle, incidence,
-0,80
= Prediction(Q3D+B.L)
solidity, etc. In design practice, solidity is an important parameter in loss
t!I5 Exp (Hoheisel & 5eyb)
Cal. !Hoheisel & <_ e ^. n , correlations and should be dictated by the similarity of loss. However,
M,=0.60
neither criterion is exercised precisely because in practice the meanline
as
-0.40
^-
A =49, se
AVOP 1.20
diameter of the low speed model compressor and the number of the
V DCA cascade
blades determines the solidity although the number of the blades can be
adjusted to approach the closest value possible for the target solidity.
oo
Fortunately, the variation of solidity given by equation (13) is usually
o
U ^ '
^' very small. Typical values can be seen in the examples presented in the

aeaee Prediction ( AVDR=1.0)

-1.00 1a Prediction (AVDR=1.13)

ti
a=45.0 ..
1 NACA65-(12)10
II{' . \
I

---r-_ -0.60
aoo ,.25 o.s0 u.-`.. i uo

percentage of chord
-0.20
Fig.9 Comparison of measured and
calculated Cp distributions of DCA cascade
o
vo \\
o.2a^
^ ue--.
cascades are calculated and a SCp a m is defined as
SCP,um = Cp s; Cp low at corresponding points on the blade surfaces, this 0.50
SCp a m accounts for the relative errors in numerical calculation and
analytical transformation. ,.00 - t --- T -
0.75
0.00
Thus the comparison is made based upon the relative scale, ie, 0.25 0.50

percentage of chord
LsCP = 6 CPrz, - SC PAVDR - SCPnum (26)
Fig.10a Predicted Cp distributions
rather than the Cp distribution itself. It represents the error in two
aerodynamically similar cascades with the same AVDR, but for which -0.60 '-,

viscous effect is not included. Figs 10 and 11 show the calculated Cp
distributions at high speed for different AVDR5 and the chordwise LCp
distributions defined in equation (26) respectively for both cascades
tested. From Fig.l l it is seen that after the AVDR and numerical effects
have been deducted, the discrepancy between high and low speed tests is
reduced remarkably; Cp falls within 0.05 which is of the same order
__ Prediction ( AVDR =1,296)
v Prediction (AVDR =1.275)
a 49.5
GL M,=0(60
U -0.40 , DCA :asrcde
v ,
w o.00 _^^

as of the analytical transformation. 0

U

From this indirect comparison it is seen that the similarity a^

w
transformation can be used despite of the existence of viscous effects. ^
ry
N
0.40
N
Just as in the present experiment, the viscous effect only contributes part a^
of the residual o Cp and therefore should be very small. Thus the
0.80 -I'
applicability of the similarity transformation is verified in a broader I
0.00 0.25 0.50 CO

sense. percentage of chord

Fig. IOb Predicted Cp distributions

-7-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term

 redesign, the similarity of the flow may be easily overwhelmed by the
three dimensional effects.
0.0
- 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the preceding two sections it was illustrated that the higher order
Pressure surface
transformation in general can provide satisfactory transformation
accuracy. However, there is still room for improvement especially at the
MCP= 6 CP..c 6 CPnwa 6CP
w blade leading edge region. If further improvement must be made, this
6CP=CP o. 9 "ai - Cp e",eo.m"a
transformed profile can be used as the starting profile for an inverse
Suction surface
NACA65-(12)10
design. Because only very small amounts of correction are to be made in
order to achieve an exact match of the Cp distribution from this starting
0.05
0.0
profile, the inverse design calculation can be numerically very efficient if
-0.05 a simple iteration inverse-direct method based on residual correction,
n.75
such as that of Miton et al (1984), is used. By using such kinds of profile
0.00 0.25 n.50 7.0
Chord-wise modification a cascade with both correct global similarity parameters
Fig. Ha
a bCp distributions and exact surface Cp distributions can be obtained.

o.os - --
- e References
0.0
Denton, J. D. , " An Improved Time Marching Method for
0,05
-0.05 .
Turbomachinery Flow Calculation", ASME 82-GT-239, 1982
Pressure surface
Hoheisel, H. and Seyb, N. J. , The Boundary Layer Behaviour of
AC P=6CPe,p - 6CPawa -6 C PrnOm
a
Highly Loaded Compressor Cascade at Transonic Flow
v 6CP=CP o. 9 "ai - Cp e.o"^m.m^e Conditions", AGARD-CP-401-4, 1987
Suction surface Miton, H., Sankale, H. and Chuvin, J. , "Design of Highly Loaded
DCA
Blade Profiles Using an Iterative Inverse-Direct Computational
Procedure", ASME 84-GT-22 (1984)
0.0 von Karmann, Th., " Simliarity Law of Transonic Flow" , Journal of
0.05
Math. Phys. Vol.26, 1947
Kuethe, A.M. and Chow, C.Y., " Foundations of Aerodynamics"
Chord-wise
Fourth Ed. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 1986
Fig. lib LCp distributions
Wadia, A. R. and Beacher, B. F. ," Three-Dimensional Relief in
preceding section. The variation presented in Wisler's low speed Turbo machinery Blading", ASME 89-GT-151, 1989.
modelling (Wisler, 1984) is seen to be of the same order and the William, B. B. , "Effect of Mach Number on the Flow and Application
numerical experiment has shown that such a small difference in solidity of Compressibility Corrections in a Two-Dimensional
will have very little effect on blade surface pressure distributions. Subsonic-Transonic Compressor Cascade Having Varied
Therefore it is concluded that the transformation gives only a reference Porous-Wall Suction at the Blade Tip", NACA TN-2649, 1952
value for solidity which is not necessarily modelled precisely. Wisler, D. C. ,"Loss Reduction in Axial-Flow Compressors Through
One of the advantages of the similarity transformation over a purely Low-Speed Model Testing", ASME 84-GT-184, 1984
numerical inverse design is that it gives the global cascade parameters as Woolard, H. W.,"A Note on the Subsonic Compressible Flow about
well as the blade profile. The velocity triangles at different radii come Airfoils in a Cascade", Journal of Aero. Science, June 1950
out of the transformation rather than from an iterative meridional flow Zhu N. G. , "Theoretical, Numerical and Experimental Investigations on
calculation prior to the blade profile design. This not only avoids the Similar Transformations for High Pressure Compressor
arbitrary artificial adjustment of the radial flow angle distribution, the Blading" , PH.D Thesis, Beijing University of Aero- and
outcome of which may not conform with the similarity requirements, Astronautics, 1990
but also automatically ensures similarity of the radial static pressure Zhu N. G. and Xu L. , " The Effects of Inlet Mach Number on
distributions, which is very important when there exists a radial pressure Development of Boundary Layer on Turbomachinery Blade', J.
gradient in the gap between blades. Recent studies of the three of Aerospace Power, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1990 (In Chinese)
dimensional effects on optimal blade design (eg Wadia and Beacher,
1989) show that the rapid adjustment of radial pressure gradient in the
gaps between blade rows (typically near the end regions) can
significantly alter the flow angle distributions specified by the
two-dimensional calculation. From this point of view it is expected that,
if the radial pressure distributions are similar for two compressors, even
though the flow angles may turn out to be different from design intent,
the real flow deviating from design should be similar, i.e. the flows
maintain similarity (although of an unexpected value)! However if the
similarity of the radial pressure distribution is overlooked in a numerical

8-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/82846/ on 01/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/term