New Observations from Comparison between the Benner et al. and the Ainley and Mathieson Models for Profile Losses

Abstract:

Based on the inspection of the Ainley and Mathieson and the Benner et al. models for profile losses, the two models are compared through numerical simulations. The discrepancies between them are examined and discussed with new observations. It is observed that the stalling incidence predicted by the Benner et al. model is smaller than that predicted by the Ainley and Mathieson model. And also, the Benner et al. model demonstrates that profile losses experience three evidently different regimes, say, insensitive to incidence or the ratio of incidence to stalling incidence from-3.0 to +0.65, sensitive from +0.65 to +2.0, and very sensitive beyond +2.0, but the Ainley and Mathieson model does not. In particular, the third regime had not been covered by the Ainley and Mathieson model. The Benner et al. model is superior to the Ainley and Mathieson model both in preciseness and coverage in that the former is developed through a series of improvements to fit the existing measurements.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 565)
• Pages: 173-178
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.565.173
• Online since: June 2014
• Authors: Zhen Wei Yuan*, Dong Shuai Zhu, Jun Zhang
• Keywords: Comparison, Incidence, Incidence Correction Factor, Observation, Prediction Models, Profile Losses

References

[1] D.G. Ainley, and G.C.R. Mathieson. An examination of the flow and pressure losses in blade rows of axial flow turbines. British Aeronautical Research Council, R and M 2891, (1951).

[2] D.G. Ainley, and G.C.R. Mathieson. A method of performance estimation for axial flow turbines. British Aeronautical Research Council, R and M 2974, (1951).

[3] W.L. Stewart, W.J. Whitney, R.Y. Wong. A study of boundary layer characteristics of turbomachine blade rows and their relation to overall blade loss. Transactions of the ASME, 1960, 82: 588-592.

DOI: 10.1115/1.3662671

[4] H.R.M. Craig, and H.J.A. Cox. Performance estimation of axial flow turbines. Proceedings Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1971, 185(32): 407-424.

DOI: 10.1243/pime_proc_1970_185_048_02

[5] J.D. Denton. Loss mechanisms in turbomachinery. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 1993, 115: 621-656.

[6] J. Dunham, and P.M. Came. Improvements to the Ainley-Mathieson method of turbine performance prediction. ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, 1970, 92: 252-256.

DOI: 10.1115/1.3445349

[7] S.C. Kacker, and U. Okapuu. A mean line prediction method for axial flow turbine efficiency. ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, 1982, 104: 111-119.

DOI: 10.1115/1.3227240

[8] S.H. Moustapha, S.C. Kacker, and B. Tremblay. An improved incidence losses prediction method for turbine airfoils. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 1990, 112: 267-276.

DOI: 10.1115/1.2927647

[9] M.W. Benner, S.A. Sjolander, and S.H. Moustapha. Influence of leading-edge geometry on profile losses in turbines at off-design incidence: Experimental results and an improved correlation. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 1997, 119: 193-200.

DOI: 10.1115/1.2841101

[10] M.K. Mukhtarov, and V.I. Krichakin. Procedure of estimating flow section losses in axial flow turbines when calculating their characteristics. Teploenergetika, 1969, 16(7): 76-79.

[11] M.W. Benner, S.A. Sjolander, and S.H. Moustapha. An empirical prediction method for secondary losses in turbines—Part I: A new loss breakdown scheme and penetration depth correlation. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 2006, 128: 273-280.

DOI: 10.1115/1.2162593

[12] M.W. Benner, S.A. Sjolander, and S.H. Moustapha. An empirical prediction method for secondary losses in turbines—Part II: A new secondary loss correlation. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 2006, 128: 281- 291.

DOI: 10.1115/1.2162594

[13] Sun Da-wei, Qiao Wei-yang, Xu Kai-fu, and Li Wei. Influence of different incidences on loss in turbine cascade. Journal of Aerospace Power, 2008, 23 (7): 1232-1239.