1

Forced Response Predictions in Modern Centrifugal Compressor Design

- A Progress Report Presented at 10
th
National Turbine Engine HCF Conference -

C. Smythe
MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory

J. Liu
Honeywell Engines, Systems, & Services

C. S. Tan
MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory

1.0 Motivation and Background

Unsteady aerodynamic phenomena, acting as a source of excitation of blades, are
a key element in the prediction of high cycle fatigue (HCF). It is well-known that air
loads in turbomachines, axial as well as centrifugal, are inherently unsteady; however,
discussions at an AFOSR workshop in 1995 [1] emphasize that it remains unclear if all
excitation mechanisms have been identified. The complexity of the flow features in a
modern, high performance centrifugal compressor stage (for aircraft turbine engines)
raises the following question: What key physical flow effects must be included in an
analytical/computational model in order to obtain a useful and adequate characterization
and prediction of the unsteady loads that can lead to aeromechanic difficulties? Thus an
objective of this work is to evaluate a system of CFD (MSU Turbo [2]) and structural
dynamics analysis (ANSYS) as a tool for forced response predictions in modern
centrifugal compressor design. Often aeromechanic difficulty arises out of design steps
taken to raise the performance level. Therefore, the issue of sensitivity of the physical
flow effects that impact aeromechanic behavior to incremental design changes (made to
achieve centrifugal compressor stage performance enhancement) is of engineering
significance. An evaluation of the predictive capability of MSU Turbo in combination
with ANSYS for forced response and an interrogation of the flow effects is performed
using two nearly identical centrifugal compressor stage configurations. The enhanced
design with improved performance is similar to the production design, the most notable
aerodynamic difference being that the enhanced design has a smaller impeller-diffuser
gap than the production design; however, the two designs exhibit distinctly different
aeromechanic behaviors.

2.0 Scope of Paper and Statement of Key Results

This paper describes the progress towards evaluating the system of tools
consisting of MSU Turbo and ANSYS for predicting the forced responses observed in the
production and the enhanced designs alluded to in Section 1.0, focusing on the
implications of the unsteady aerodynamics results from CFD analysis. The computations
that have been implemented on both designs serve to generate (unsteady) flow fields
from which the following are extracted: (i) the corrected speedline at 96.2% for the
enhanced design; (ii) the corrected speedlines at 96.2% and 102% for the production
design; (iii) the unsteady loading characteristic on the impeller main and splitter blades
for analysis and to be used as the forcing function for the follow-up ANSYS calculations;
2
(iv) flow events that drive the observed performance changes in the enhanced and the
production design. The computed results from (i) to (iii) have been assessed against the
data from the aerodynamic test rig and will be assessed against the strain gauge data. The
computed results from (i) and (ii) were also compared with the flow fields previously
computed using ADPAC [3] based on a blade count of 16 impeller main blades, 16
splitter blades and 24 diffuser vanes instead of the actual blade count of 17 impeller main
blades, 17 splitter blades and 25 diffuser vanes. The modified blade count was chosen for
implementation in ADPAC to avoid modeling the entire impeller wheel and the entire
diffuser so as to diminish the requirements for computational resources.

Overall, the results from MSU Turbo appear to be in accord with both
aerodynamic and structural test data on a preliminary basis (this comparison is beyond
the scope of this paper and will be reported in further detail in future works). In addition,
the following specific observations can be inferred from the computed results: (1)
unsteady pressure waves emanating from the diffuser leading edge plane appear to be
stronger than in the enhanced design, and the pressure wave pattern of the two designs
differs; (ii) the diffuser pressure recovery for both the enhanced and production designs
are similar; (iii) the computed unsteady loading is confined to the last 10 to 15% of the
impeller main and splitter blades and the level of unsteadiness increases toward the hub
region; (iv) the level of computed unsteadiness appears stronger on the impeller pressure
surface and on the splitter suction surface; (v) the fundamental vane passing frequency is
dominant ; (vi) there appears to be a distinct difference between the response of the
splitter blades in the enhanced design and that of the splitter blades in the production
design.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 3.0 presents the key results from post-
processing of unsteady computed flow fields in the two nearly identical centrifugal
compressor stage designs to support the observations stated above. An overall summary
is given in Section 4.0.

3.0 Results

Representative results are presented to elucidate the effect of marginal change in
impeller-diffuser gap (from the production to the enhanced design) on time-averaged
compressor performance and on the unsteady loading characteristics of impeller main and
splitter blades. The characterization of unsteady loading on impeller main and splitter
blades should be viewed as preliminary.

3.1 Characterization of Computed Time-average Performance

MSU Turbo has been implemented to obtain several sets of unsteady three-
dimensional flow in the impeller-diffuser stage of both the production and the enhanced
design. These sets of computed results have been post-processed to obtain the
performance characteristics at a corrected speed of 96.2 % for both the production and
the enhanced design as well as at a corrected speed of 102 % for the production design.
These computed performance characteristics are shown in Figure 1. Both the corrected
mass flow (abscissa) and the pressure ratio (ordinate) have been appropriately
normalized. The results in Figure 1 show that for the range of computed corrected mass
3
flow the pressure ratio of the enhanced design is higher than that of the production
design; this observation is in accord with the design intent as well as with the test data.

The time-averaged performance at a similar normalized corrected mass flow for
the two designs at 96.2 % corrected speed is tabulated in Table 1. It is seen that the
diffuser pressure recovery in the two designs are nearly identical, though the computed
loss in stagnation pressure is higher in the diffuser passage of the production design (i.e.
flow in the production has more loss). The impeller of the enhanced design has a higher
(adiabatic) efficiency than that of the production design by about 2 %.

3.2 Unsteady Aspects of Computed Flow

The sets of computed flow alluded to above have not been exhaustively post-
processed and interrogated to identify the flow process/processes responsible for the
observed change in performance (see above) and the observed difference in forced
response (see below) in the two designs. Nevertheless certain aspects of the unsteadiness
have been examined and these are described in this section.

Selected results based on CFD results from ADPAC [3] are presented first and
these are shown in Figures 2 to 4. Figure 2 constitutes a snapshot of unsteady Mach
number contour s (Figure 2a) and unsteady static pressure contour s (Figure 2b) at one
time instant. These contours were taken at the mid-span plane from upstream of the
impeller to downstream of the diffuser for both the production and enhanced design. It is
deduced from these sets of time-varying Mach number and static pressure contours that
unsteady pressure waves emanating from the diffuser leading edge plane are stronger and
of a different pattern in the enhanced design than in the production design. The blade
static pressure distributions corresponding to maxima (red), time-averaged (green) and
minima (blue) are shown in Figure 3a for the impeller main blade and Figure 3b for the
splitter blade. It can be inferred from Figure 3 that the unsteady loading is confined to the
last 10 to 15% of the impeller main and splitter blades and that the level of unsteadiness
increases toward the hub region; it is also seen that the level of unsteadiness appears
stronger on the impeller main and splitter blade pressure surfaces, though there is
appreciable unsteadiness on the splitter suction surface. Figure 4 shows the time variation
of static pressure at 95% meridional distance for three spanwise locations (10%, 50% and
90% span) on the splitter blade of the enhanced design and the corresponding power
spectrum analysis. The results in Figure 4 again reflect the inference made above. Power
spectrum analysis, shown only for the pressure surface of the enhanced splitter blade
pressure surface, of unsteady loading on the impeller main and splitter blades indicates
that the 3rd harmonic of the 3 diffuser vane computational sector corresponds to
fundamental vane passing excitation frequency in the ADPAC solutions.

Selected results from MSU Turbo solutions (at a normalized corrected mass flow
of 1.018) are shown in Figure 5 to 7. Figure 5 and 6 show respectively the impeller exit
static pressure contours and entropy contours at three time instants over a period of time
variation in these variables. One might deduce that the difference in the static pressure
contour distribution in the two designs implies a difference in the unsteady loads in the
trailing edge region of the splitter and impeller main blades (this aspect will further be
assessed in the future for its implication in the observed difference in forced response
4
between the two designs). One would infer from the impeller exit entropy distribution
contours in Figure 6 that the production design appears to have a higher level of entropy
production. This decrease in entropy production from the production to the enhanced
design is reflected in the improvement in the enhanced impeller performance over that of
the production impeller. In an attempt to rationalize the difference in the computed
compression wave pattern from the diffuser into the impeller trailing edge region, we
examine the (time-averaged) flow incidence angle distribution into the diffuser vane
passage. This is shown in Figure 7 at three spanwise locations (10%, 50% and 90% of
span) on the leading edge plane of the diffuser. While there is a difference in the time-
averaged incidence angle distribution for the two designs, a connection between this
difference and the observed difference in compression wave pattern propagating
upstream into the impeller blade region cannot yet be made. If this connection can be
established, then a design guideline to avoid forced response difficulty in the enhanced
design can be put forward.

4.0 Overall Summary

MSU Turbo has been used successfully (contingent upon the availability of good
initial flow conditions to ensure robust implementation of MSU Turbo) to generate
performance characteristics of two nearly identical centrifugal compressor designs
referred to as production and enhanced design. The observed improvement in the
computed time-averaged performance of the impeller for the enhanced design with a
smaller impeller-diffuser gap is in accord with the results of Shum [4] and Murray [5];
this is also in accord with the aerodynamic design intent. It is suggested that the
observed difference in the forced response for the two designs could be associated with
the difference in the impeller exit flow delivered to the diffuser; this difference in
impeller exit flow results in a difference in the diffuser inlet flow incidence angle and
hence in the compression wave pattern into the impeller blade region.
Based on preliminary computed results (not reported here), a system of tools
consisting of the CFD code MSU Turbo and the structural analysis code ANSYS appears
to be a promising predictive scheme for forced response in modern centrifugal
compressor design.


5.0 References

1. AFOSR Workshop. Basic research issues in aerodynamics, structure dynamics and
control of high cycle fatigue. MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory, October 1995.
2. Chen, J. P., Briley, W.R., A Parallel Flow Solver for Unsteady Multiple Blade Row
Turbomachinery Simulations, Proceedings of ASME TURBO Expo 2001, New
Orleans, LA, June 4-7, 2001.
3. Mansour, M., Kruse, M., Time Unsteady Impeller-Diffuser Interaction in Gas
Turbine Engines, Proceedings of the 5
th
National Turbine Engine High Cycle
Fatigue (HCF) Conference, Chandler, AZ, March 7, 2000.
4. Shum, Y.K., 2000, Impeller-Diffuser Interaction in Centrifugal Compressors, PhD
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5. Murray, N.P., 2003, Effects of Impeller-Diffuser Interaction on Centrifugal
Compressor Performance, Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5

Acknowledgement

This research has been sponsored by GUIDE III Consortium with Dr. C. Cross as Contract
Monitor and with Dr. J. Griffins as subcontract monitor via Carnegie-Mellon University. We are
grateful to the following people that provide help in enabling the successful execution of MSU
Turbo on the MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory Computer System: Dr. J. P. Chen and his colleagues
of MSU, Dr. S. Gorrell and Mr. D. Car of CARL AFRL, Mr. R. Haimes of MIT ACDL and Mr.
P. Warren of MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory. We are also grateful to Dr. M. Mansour of
Honeywell ES&S for his contributions to the ADPAC analysis and to Dr. J. Panovsky for his
advice and for facilitating the entire project.



6.0 Figures and Tables
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1
normalized mcorr
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o
Enhanced96%
Production96%
Production102%

Figure 1 - Computed Speedlines using TURBO
6

Figure 2a - Absolute mach contours at 50% span for the Production at 102% speed and Enhanced at
96.2% speed Results from ADPAC



Figure 2b - Static Pressure Contours at 50% for the production at 102% and Enhanced at 96.2%
Speed - Results from ADPAC

Production
Enhanced
Mach contours range from 0 to 1.34
Production
Enhanced
Pressure contours range from 0 to 3.3
7
Enhanced
0
2.5
5
Production
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance
0
2.5
5
9
0
%

S
p
a
n
5
0
%

S
p
a
n
1
0
%

S
p
a
n
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance
0
2.5
5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 3a - Unsteady static pressures on the impeller main blade for the Production at 102% and
Enhanced at 96.2% speed




0
2.5
5
Production Enhanced
0
2.5
5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance
0
2.5
5
9
0
%

S
p
a
n
5
0
%

S
p
a
n
1
0
%

S
p
a
n
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance
Pressure Surface Suction Surface
T.E. L.E. T.E.
% Meridional Distance

Figure 3b - Unsteady Static pressures on the impeller splitter blade for the Production at 102% and
Enhanced at 96.2% speed

8
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
9
0
%

S
p
a
n
5
0
%

S
p
a
n
1
0
%

S
p
a
n
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
0
6
12
0
6
12
0
6
12
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Figure 4 - Static pressure vs. time and power spectrum analysis for the enhanced splitter blade
pressure surface at 95% meridional distance




Production
Time = to
Time = 0.8T
Time = 0.4T
Enhanced
Time = to
Time = 0.4T
Time = 0.8T

Figure 5 - TURBO results: Impeller exit plane static pressure contours at 3 time instants within one
period, T, for the Enhanced and Production designs at 96.2% speed



9
Production
Time = to
Time = 0.8T
Time = 0.4T
Enhanced
Time = to
Time = 0.4T
Time = 0.8T

Figure 6 TURBO results: Entropy contours at impeller exit plane at 3 time instants within one
period, T, for the Production and Enhnaced designs at 96.2% speed.


-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
pitchwise distance
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e

a
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
Prod 10% Span
Enh 10% Span
Prod 50% Span
Enh 50% Span
Prod 90% Span
Enh 90% Span

Figure 7 - Diffuser inlet incidence angle for the Production and Enhanced Designs at 96.2% speed


10
Production 96.2% Enhanced 96.2%
Normalized Cp diffuser 1.0 1.0

p
t
impeller (normalized) 1.04 1.06
p
t
vaneless space (normalized) 0.21 0.21
p
t
diffuser (normalized) 0.22 0.21
p
t
stage (normalized) 0.95 0.98

Impeller efficiency (normalized) 1.0 1.02
Table 1 - Normalized Pressure Recovery, Pressure Rise, and Efficiency for the Production and
Enhanced designs at 96.2% speed