Turbulence model sensitivity on steady state mapping of a

very high pressure ratio compressor stage

Valeriu Drăgan1, a), Oana Dumitrescu2, Ion Mălael3, Ionuţ Porumbel4, Bogdan
Gherman5, Cristian Puşcaşu6
1
Romanian Institute for Gas Turbine Research and Development,Comoti, Iuliu Maniu 220D Bucharest, Romania
a)
Corresponding author: valeriu.dragan@comoti.ro

Abstract. The current paper concerns the development of a very high pressure ratio single stage centrifugal compressor.
Several research questions: assessing the design point of the impeller, behavior towards stall and surge as well as the
turbulence model sensitivity under RANS assumptions. Three turbulence models, k-omega SST, Spalart Allmaras RC
and Reynolds Stress Model, were assessed over the design speed line through a grid sensitivity test. All grids maintain
the same first cell size, insuring a y+<1 and are fully conformal in order to minimize artificial entropy and interface
reflections. Findings show that mesh convergence depends highly on the operating point, with increased density being
needed close to choke. Near stall, the behavior depends significantly on the averaging method for the outlet parameters,
particularly due to flow patterns emerging from the very shallow tangential streamlines. The paper sets the scene for
more elaborate simulations such as DES or URANS helping make decisions on the meshing strategy and turbulence
modeling for modern day centrifugal compressors.

INTRODUCTION

Higher pressure ratios have been reported in the literature as far back as the mid 1970s, as is the case with the
10:1 pressure ratio compressor designed and tested by [1], however the limitations of the design methods lead to
serious limitations in terms of efficiency, stability and range. Because of the already high inlet Mach number, the
choke limit is very close to the nominal operation point, leading to a narrow margin of operation.
The results of CFD simulation using the Spalart-Allmaras model [2] has been used successfully compared with the
experimental results the flow inside an 8:1 centrifugal compressor stage[3].
A relatively new generation of single stage high pressure ratio compressors [4] of similar performance was made
possible by implementing modern CFD techniques.
A recent comparison between numerical and experimental results reveals that the SA turbulence model
implemented by Numeca's Fine/Turbo [5] is in good agreement with the experimental measurements on the entire
nominal speed line presented. In small, turbocharger size, compressors the SA model has been reported to slightly
over predict the pressure ratio across the nominal speed line [6] but the steady state simulation maintained its
stability well into the low mass flow region approaching the compressor stall.
The tendency of over predicting the pressure ratio at the nominal speed line has been observed in other turbulence
models as well. In [7], a high-performance tandem rotor centrifugal compressor design [8] is tested using both the
SST model and experimental data. Although in good agreement in the lower speed lines, the SST resulting speed
lines at and above nominal appear to be shifted to the right-hand side. Since the rotor blades are positive backswept,
the rise-to-surge behavior means that the speed line will always have a higher pressure ratio to the lower mass flow
regions (left side of the curve), thus explaining the observed overestimation of the pressure ratio. The paper also
shows that this right shift tendency diminishes if the SST is used for URANS simulations, rather than the steady-
state. Similar conclusions were obtained by [9] using the SST on NASA's CC3 compressor and by [10], in the surge
inception study using the unsteady SA model on an industrial compressor designed by Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse
SAS.
 Another case study comparing Ziegler's experimental results with the SA and SST steady and unsteady CFD
cases is reported by [11]. Both models behaved well, including the flow details such as total pressure and relative
velocity distribution for the nominal operating point even for the steady simulations. However the SA model turned
out results which were closer to the experimental measurements. The most significant discrepancies were observed
in the lower mass flow regions of the compressor map where the SST model over predicted the total-to-total
pressure ratio by ~3% whereas the SA did not appear to deviate from the measured value. The same authors also
present a case where the walls are not considered to be adiabatically, instead accounting for the combined heat
transfer between the hot and cold flow regions by conduction through the rotor's metal [12]. Under these
circumstances, the SST performed closer to the experimental results than the SA model.
Furthermore, a comparison between the SST and k-epsilon turbulence model against experimental results is
provided by [13], revealing significant performance on the part of the SST model, including the particular flow
details (i.e. velocity distribution). The paper considers the experimental results of Ziegler and the NASA low speed
rotor [14].
The low speed rotor was more recently tested [15] using the EARSM implemented in Numeca Fine/Turbo [16].
Plotting the pressure coefficient distribution across the compressor's diffuser, the EARSM model outperformed the
SST in both trend shape and actual values, although slightly under predicting the Cp value. The normalized axial
velocity distribution was also analyzed at five stations across the diffuser, again the EARSM behaving well both
qualitatively and quantitatively as opposed to the SST and v2f models which predicted less diffusion in the far out
regions of the diffuser. The study concluded that the EARSM model behaves significantly better than the SST in
flows subjected to strong adverse pressure gradients, particularly if flow separation occurs.
A recent paper [17] also confirms the accuracy of this implementation of the EARSM on a compressor stage with
moderate pressure ratio and high flow coefficient, designed using CFD input for the Aachen University, a slight
overestimation of the pressure ratio - due to the curve shifting to the right-hand side of the map - can be observed
but is less than 2% in all reported speed lines. Also a comparison between the measured and computed outflow
angles across the nominal speed lines reveals the numerical values to be consistently below the actual averaged flow
angles by about 2% while maintaining the correct trend line.
Explicit Algebraic RSM methods have been reported to be accurate in comparison with experimental data [18]
for both global and detail parameters of the flow inside the centrifugal compressor stage reported by [19]. Further
support in favor of the EARSM method accuracy in the case of centrifugal compressors is provided by [20] where
several turbulence models were compared against the experimental data obtained for a centrifugal stage. This study
is relevant for the current paper since it deals with a complete speed line of the compressor. Although the EARSM
method performed substantially better than the k-omega SST model, both models overestimated the choke margin
by ~4%. Also both models overestimated the efficiency by 1-2% in the case of EARSM and by as much as 10% in
the case of the SST. Considering that the RANS models did not differ significantly from one another, in terms of
pressure ratio, a logical conclusion would be the underestimation of entropy generation from the SST, compared
with the EARSM.
In terms of the time scale, a CFL condition of one unit was considered on all simulations, regardless of the
turbulence model. An argument for this is given in [21] as a means for insuring that the differential equations will
only depend on a domain spanning the space of the numerical domain used to discretised them.

CASES SETUP

Due to the inherent instability caused by the proximity to the choke line, the outlet boundary is static pressure
instead of mass flow because for very similar mass flows the pressure ratio is significantly variable. Single operating
point comparison between cases is difficult because of this and hence the requirement of sweeping the entire
speedline stable operating range. All cases were simulated under RANS assumptions, turbulence modeling: Spalart
Allmaras / SST/ EARSM, mesh sizes: 0.7 mil / 1.2 mil / 5 mil / 9 mil. In all cases and configurations, the first cell
size was set to 0.5 micron (growth ratio 1.05:1), spatial discretization: central with a CFL:1. Boundary conditions:
Inlet: ISA+15 K, outlet static pressure (variable across the speedline), rotating reference frame: 58000 RPM
In order to improve the mesh quality, a blocking structure was used with a full o-grid around the blades and splitters.
Fillet radii were defeatured out of the model. As it can be seen, the y+ distribution near design point is below 1 unit
across the surfaces of the impeller. The mesh featured here is 5 mil cells per passage. The highest density mesh was
not depicted due to practical, illustration clarity issues.
FIGURE 1. Leading and trailing edge details of the impeller (top) dimensionless y+ distribution near the impeller walls (bottom)

RESULTS

In all tested turbulence models, little differences could be observed after 0.7 mil cells in terms of speed line
mapping of total pressure ratio. We will later see that this is not necessarily the case with static pressure ratio. What
is striking is the differences in stability from one mesh to another as well as from one turbulence model to another.
Spalart Almaras performed the most stable across all meshes and outlet pressures, while the SST failed close to the
choke line particularly with the finer meshes. EARSM model is a special case, as the diffusion is grossly
exacerbated when compared to the other two models. This results in greater than usual static outlet pressure and
hence in the tested range, the lower mass flows could not be captured. A cause for this is the intrinsic lacking when
it comes to boundary layer modeling – which results in lower separation bubbles.

.
 19
19
18 SST 18 EARSM

Total pressure ratio

Total pressure ratio

17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
13
0.7 mil 12
12 0.7 mil
1.2mil
11 1.2mil
11 5mil
10
10 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 1.8
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Mass flow [kg/s]
Mass flow [kg/s]

20
S-A
Total pressure ratio

18

16

14 0.7mil
1.2mil
12 5mil
9mil
10
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Mass flow [kg/s]
FIGURE 2. Pressure ratio grid sensitivity study for the three turbulence models

85
85
SST EARSM
Isentriopic efficiency

Isentropic efficiency

83
83

81
81

79
0.7 mil 79

77
1.2mil 0.7 mil
5mil 77
9mil 1.2mil
75
75
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 1.8
Mass flow [kg/s] Mass flow [kg/s]
 20
S-A

Total pressure ratio

18

16

14
0.7mil
12
1.2mil
5mil
9mil
10
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Mass flow [kg/s]
FIGURE 3. Isentropic efficiency grid sensitivity study for the three turbulence models

A paradoxical result is that, again the mesh size appears to only affect the stability of the case. Surprisingly, the
EARSM does not overpredict efficiency, only diffusion – leading to the conclusion that the losses in the far field are
greater than with the SST and SA, compensating for the lack of boundary layer separation.

FIGURE 4. Relative Mach contours for the three turbulence models teste at p_out=761300, SST 1.633 kg/s, SA 1.683 kg/,
EARSM 1.771 kg/s

At 90% span, the differences are already visible between the models. SA underpredicts the massflow but this
alone cannot explain the differences in streamline curvature acceleration at the leading edge (since the incidence
should be even greater in the SA case – which should lead to even greater relative Mach number). The RSM case
shows greater flow acceleration because, by comparison, the massflow at this outlet pressure is much greater than in
both SA and SST.
From the meridional section we can see that all models are within the expected range (no obvious significant
differences).
 1.8 83.5 15.8
Mass flow Isent. eff. Press. ratio
1.75 83 15.7
15.6
1.7 82.5
15.5
1.65 82
15.4
1.6 81.5 15.3
1.55 81 15.2
SST5
RSM0.7
RSM1.5
SA 0.7
SA 1.5

SST1.5
SA 5
SA 9
SST0.7

SST0.7
SST1.5
SA 0.7
SA 1.5

SST5
RSM0.7
RSM1.5
SA 5
SA 9
SST0.7
SST1.5
SA 0.7
SA 1.5

SST5
RSM0.7
RSM1.5
SA 5
SA 9
FIGURE 5. Histogram of the three main interest parameters at the designated outlet static pressure of p_out=761300, accross
mesh sizes and turbulence models

Mass flow estimation appears to vary insignificantly with the mesh size but greatly with turbulence modeling.
The SST appears to slightly under appreciate diffusion compared to the SA while the EARSM on account of its
inability to estimate diffusion leads to significant mass flow overestimation. Corroborating the mass flow chart with
the pressure ratio and efficiency, we can see that diffusion alone is not sufficient to explain the differences between
SA and EARSM but the rest of the synergistic particularities of both models are difficult to extricate and generalize.
Surprisingly, SST over appreciates efficiency while under appreciating pressure ratio. In comparison with the SA,
this is because the streamline curvature acceleration is lower in the SST than in SA.
Correlated with the pressure ratio and efficiency, the torque (power) specific to the rotor is almost exclusively
dependent on the turbulence model and invariant with mesh size.
In the axial thrust, however, significant differences can be observed from one mesh size to another irrespective of
the model used. Note how for this particular global parameter the mesh convergence is still not confirmed for the 9
mil cell per passage mesh.
Reiterating the pressure ratio comparison, it can easily be seen how the SA model is significantly more stable across
the map and mesh sizes while consistently over predicting the pressure ratio.
Efficiency is less dependent on the turbulence model when viewed across the speedline but in the histograms before
the operating point shifts from one model to another because of the Boundary conditions (i.e. static outlet pressure)
which corresponds to a slightly different mass flow.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of further work, it is clear that the benefit of having a very high pressure ratio, >8:1 per stage, is almost
always associated with the penalty of having a reduced operation range. Hence, a possible improvement is to use
active passive or even reactive flow control methods to keep the rotor from incepting a stall-type instability.
Extensive work presented in the literature point to the possibility of using time accurate URANS, LES or hybrid
DES in order to predict low flow instabilities. Conventional recirculation channels can be optimized [22] while
passive circulation controls using trailing edge devices have been reported to increase pressure ratio and range, or
active flow control.
The summation of this paper's findings can be made as follows:
- Across the speedline tested, SA model overpredicted the pressure ratio while SST overpredicted the
isentropic efficiency
- The EARSM model performed in the least realistic way, overpredicting both diffusion and pressure ratio
while underpredicting flow separation (on the main blade in particular)
- Mass flow estimation was invariant with mesh size but instead varied significantly with turbulence model
Of all the global parameters tested, axial thrust was slowest to converge across grid dependency
 REFERENCES

1. W. McAnUf, 10:1 Pressure ratio single-stage centrifugal compressor program, usaamrdl technical report 74-15,
1975.
2. Spalart - Numeca
3. T. Sugimoto, T. Kawanishi, H. Kumamaru, Y. Tohbe, Performance investigation into supersonic diffuser for a
high pressure centrifugal compressor, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine Technical Conference
and Exposition GT201, June 16 – 20, 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany
4. V. I. MILESHIN, A. N. STARTSEV and I. K. OREKHOV, CFD Design of a 8:1 Pressure Ratio Centrifugal
Compressor, Proceedings of the International Gas Turbine Congress 2003 Tokyo November 2-7, 2003
5. X. Zheng and C. Lan, Improvement in the performance of a high-pressure-ratio turbocharger centrifugal
compressor by blade bowing and self-recirculation casing treatment, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering January 2013 DOI:
10.1177/0954407013502328
6. Y. Mingyang, Z. Xinqian, Z. Yangjun, B. Takahiro, T. Hideaki, H. Joern, LI Zhigang, Stability improvement
of high-pressure-ratio turbocharger centrifugal compressor by asymmetric flow control——Part I: non-
axisymmetric flow in centrifugal compressor, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea,
and Air GT2010, GT2010 – 22581
7. M. Ding, C. Groth, S. Kacker, R. Douglas, CFD Analysis of Off-design Centrifugal Compressor Operation and
Performance
8. D. A. Roberts and S. C. Kacker. Numerical investigation of tandem-impeller designs for a gas turbine
compressor. Report 2001-GT-324, Pratt and Whitney Canada for ASME, 2001.
9. G. Fan, Michael Ni, Fast and Cost Effective Compressor Map Generation of a Using Cloud-Based CFD
Simulation, 2013
10. Y.Bousquet, X. Carbonneau, G. Dufour, N. Binder, I. Trebinjac, Analysis of the Unsteady Flow Field in a
Centrifugal Compressor from Peak Efficiency to Near Stall with Full-Annulus Simulations
11. O. Borm, Hans-Peter Kau, Unsteady aerodynamics of a centrifugal compressor stage – validation of two
different CFD solvers, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012 GT2012, June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen,
Denmark
12. O. Borm, B. Balassa, Hans-Peter Kaum, Comparison of different numerical approaches at the centrifugal
compressor radiver, ISABE-2011-1242, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011
13. A. Jaatinen, Performance Improvement of Centrifugal Compressor Stage with Pinched Geometry or Vaned
Diffuser, Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensisuser, ISBN 978-952-214-820-9, 2009
14. M. Hathaway, R. Chriss, A. Strazisar and J. Wood, Laser Anemometer measurements of Three-Dimensional
Rotor Flow Field in the NASA Low-Speed Centrifugal Compressor. Technical report, NASA Technical Paper
3527
15. O. Z. Mehdizadeh, L. Temmerman, B. Tartinville, Ch. Hirsch, APPLICATIONS OF EARSM TURBULENCE
MODELS TO INTERNAL FLOWS, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, GT2012 June 11-15, 2012,
Copenhagen, Denmark GT2012-68886
16. F. Menter, A. Garbaruk and Y. Egorov, “Explicit algebraic reynolds stress models for anisotropic wallbounded
flows”. In 3rd European Conference for Aero- Space Sciences, July 6-9th 2009 Versailles, p. 14
17. H. Franz, C. Rube, M. Wedeking, P. Jeschke, Numerical investigation of the return channel of a high-flow
centrifugal compressor stage, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical Conference and
Exposition GT2015 June 15 – 19, 2015, Montréal, Canada, GT2015-43640
18. B. Wickerath, R. Niehuis, A study of nonlinear eddy-viscosity models in a flow solver for turbomachinery,
25th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES
19. K. U. Ziegler, Experimentelle Untersuchung der Laufrad-Diffusor-Interaktion in einem Radialverdichter
variabler Geometrie, Dissertation RWTH Aachen, 2003.
20. T. Syka, R. Matas, and O. Luňáček, Numerical and experimental modelling of the radial compressor stage, AIP
Conference Proceedings 1745, 020059 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4953753
21. C. Hirsch, Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics, second edition, ISBN: 987-0-7506-6594-0,
Wiley& Sons, 2007
22. V. Dragan, Aerodynamic reconfiguration and multicriterial optimization of centrifugal compressors-a case
study, INCAS Bulletin Vol.6, Iss.4, 2014 pp 41-49