Implementation of Rotor-Stator Interfaces in Openfoam: F. Blaim, O. Borm, T. Fröbel, H.-P. Kau

Technische Universitt Mnchen
Implementation of Rotor-Stator Interfaces in OpenFOAM
F. Blaim, O. Borm, T. Frbel, H.-P. Kau

Institute for Flight Propulsion
OpenFOAM Conference 10. - 11. July 2008
Outline Introduction Mixing Plane in OpenFOAM Requirements Mixing Plane Implementation Comparison Set of Experiments Comparison pictures Outlook Conclusion Future tasks
Introduction
Rotor Stator Interfaces
Steady Rotor Stator Interfaces Frozen Rotor

Solution is position dependent. Rotor and stator must have the same pitch.
Mixing Plane
Solution is not position dependent. Rotor and stator pitch can be different.
Introduction
Rotor Stator Interfaces
Unsteady Rotor Stator Interfaces Domain Scaling

Pitch of rotor and stator must be the same. In comparison to frozen rotor modell the time varying position of rotor and stator blade is resolved. Pitchwise periodicity in ow eld supposed.
Phase Lagged
Additionally Storage management but feasible. Pitch of rotor and stator can be arbitrary.
F. Blaim, O. Borm, T. Frbel, H.-P. Kau OpenFOAM Conference 10. - 11. July 2008
Mixing Plane Implementation

Basic Problem
Major Requirements Computation of the circumferential average in a discrete way. Different meshes on the rotor and stator patch should be handled. Different pitches of the rotor and stator should be handled.

Idea for Averaging
Necessary Steps
1
The values are interpolated with the GGIinterpolation onto the virtual patch and than averaged circumferentially on that patch. The averaged values are exchanged to the neighbour virtual patch. Then interpolated with the GGIinterpolation to the corresponding original patch.

Face Generation
The min border points deliver the radius values. The Rmax border points are used to generate the corresponding values for the new points.
After the new points are generated they are connected by lines to triangle faces. The mixing plane patch must be a surface of revolution.

Detail Description of Step 1
Values are transferred onto a virtual patch. Which is optimized for the circumferentially averaging.
Mixing Plane
Theoretical Idea
Idea Averaged over time, the blade row sees only blurred values of the ow variables. Simulating this effect numerically by using a circumferential average of the ow variables. Formulas Averaging of extensive state quantities, e.g. the velocity vector Ai i (ni ui )u elements, are done by mass weighted averaging u = Ai i (ni ui ) i . Averaging of intensive state quantities, e.g. the pressure, are Ai done by area weighted averaging p = Api . i

Detail Description of Step 2
The transfer by the use of GGIinterpolation is not possible, because of the uncovered part.
Solution : Usage of a list storing the averaged values for the communication between the patches.

Upstream and downstream BC
Supersonic The downstream patch receives all the mixed ow values from the upstream patch. The upstream patch acts like a zero Gradient Boundary condition. Subsonic The downstream patch receives the averaged velocity values from the upstream patch, for the pressure it acts like a zero gradient boundary condition. The upstream patch receives the averaged pressure from the downstream patch and acts like a zero gradient boundary condition for the velocity.
Comparison With Commercial Codes

Generic Testcase
Description Unsymmetric velocity step inlet prole 0.44 m (pink) and s m 0.88 s (red). The outlet has a constant pressure of 101325Pa The rest of the patches are made out of solid walls. Laminar case Re = 1121 Generic test case. No rotation. No cyclic passage boundaries.

Boundary vs Cell Values
Boundary Patch Stator
Downstream 1st cell value Stator
Downstream boundary values calculated by the mixing plane.

Interpolated values from the rst inner cell.

Numeca vs OpenFOAM Pressure at Cutting Plane
Numeca
OpenFOAM
Pressure gradients are small.
Very small distance from block to interface leads to a high potential effect.

CFX vs OpenFOAM Pressure at Cutting Plane
CFX
OpenFOAM
Shows a pressure difference at the R/S interface.


Numeca vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Cutting Plane
Numeca
OpenFOAM
Strain effects between the two velocity proles in the rotor increasing maximum value.
Seperated ow around block.

CFX vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Cutting Plane
CFX
OpenFOAM
Flow eld in stator is more homogenous. But the maximum velocity near the interface is lower.

Numeca vs OpenFOAM Static Pressure at Downstream Interface
Numeca
OpenFOAM
Potential effect of the stator block.
Comparable pressure eld.

CFX vs OpenFOAM Static Pressure at Downstream Interface
CFX
OpenFOAM
Potential effect of the jamming body is less signicant.


Numeca vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Downstream Interface
Numeca
OpenFOAM
Velocity peaks near hub and shroud in circumferential velocity prole.


CFX vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Downstream Interface
CFX
OpenFOAM
Potential effect of the stator is bigger than in OpenFOAM.


Numeca vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Upstream Interface
Numeca
OpenFOAM
Displacement through the boundary layers near the walls, leads to a rise in the upper and lower part.
Comparable results.

CFX vs OpenFOAM Velocity at Upstream Interface
CFX
OpenFOAM
General good agreement, but abs, min and max values are slight different.
Conclusion
Mixing Plane and OpenFOAM has shown that it delivers comparable results to commercial codes. There are slight differences to the Numeca solution. Pressure and velocity are very simmilar. In comparision with CFX there are markable differences in the pressure eld. Right now no radial and mixed ow testcase have been set up. Testing of unstructured grids are currently in progress.
Outlook
Immediate tasks Checking the code for the style guidlines. Sharing the code with the community. Intensive testing of the mixing plane and the domain scaling interface. Future Implementation of the phase lagged rotor stator interface. Testing of the phase lagged interface. Maybe improving the geometry handling.
Appendix
Literature
Bibliography
1
Mohamad Sleiman, Simulation of 3-D Viscous Compressible Flow in Multistage Turbomachinery by Finite Element Methods, Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 1999 J.D. Denton and U.K. Singh, Time Marching Methods For Turbomachinery Flow Calculation, Von Karman Institute For Fluid Dynamics, 1979-7 Dipl. Ing. Kai Uwe Markus Ziegler, Experimentelle Untersuchung der Laufrad-Diffusor-Interaktion in einem Radialverdichter variabler Geometrie, Rheinisch Westflische Technische Hochschule Aachen

Implementation of Rotor-Stator Interfaces in Openfoam: F. Blaim, O. Borm, T. Fröbel, H.-P. Kau

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Implementation of Rotor-Stator Interfaces in Openfoam: F. Blaim, O. Borm, T. Fröbel, H.-P. Kau

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Technische Universitt Mnchen