CFD - As calculations become less and less feasible by hand, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) becomes a necessity.

STAR-CCM+ was used to determine velocity and pressure distributions across several different scenarios that were under question. The main question CFD answered was the relative disturbance on the flow that a probe will introduce. This was started with four rough trials creating a general volume (21 mm x 21mm x 50mm) to encase a stator and probe. The large length (50mm) was chosen because there must be time for the flow to develop before interacting with a body; therefore there was 20mm of space left in front of the stator for flow development. This length was also needed for behind the stator and probe, because the flow must have adequate space to settle and not be affected prematurely by a wall. A stator was generalized as a rectangular block (7mm x 20mm x 4mm) in order to acquire a basic understanding of the flow without overcomplicating the simulation. The stator was set 20mm behind the front wall of the volume and positioned in the middle of the width of the volume. All simulations were given the same physics initial conditions, Velocity = [170,0,0] m/s, Pressure = 101,300 Pa, and Static Temperature = 274.476 K. The volume inlet was set as a mass flow inlet, with a value of 0.092 kg/s. The volume outlet being set as a stagnation inlet was given values of total pressure at 132179.674 Pa as well as a total temperature of 314.544 K. All simulations were ran using the K- Meshing was done with the purpose of keeping areas of interest quite fine while areas with less significance having a coarser mesh. The mesh of the free stream setup can be seen below in Figure m.

Figure m Volumetric Mesh for Free Stream Simulation

This setup of volume and stator was used in the first rough simulation ran as the free stream, probeless flow. From this simulation, a baseline can be set to establish an understanding of the flow under normal conditions. After 1000 iterations, velocity and pressure plots across the length of the volume gave maximum values of 131.32 m/s and 145.62 kPa, respectively. The values that will be examined most closely will be downstream of a potential probe. In this location on the free stream simulation, the velocity was approximately 26 m/s.

Figure p Free stream Velocity and Pressure Measurements

Once a free stream simulation had been completed, three baseline probed simulations were then able to be started. Three separate probe simulations were run, all with the same volume and stator conditions as the free stream. Each probe was set in the middle of the width of the volume as well as 1mm behind the stator. All of the three probes were modeled 0.1mm from the volume bottom. The first probe to be introduced into the program was the Limmat Scientific 0.9mm cobra probe. This was done as it was the only readily available consumer five hole probe within the size limit. The 1000th iteration velocity and pressure values are shown in Figure .

Figure k 0.9mm Cobra Probe Velocity and Pressure Measurements

As can be seen when comparing free stream velocity versus the 0.9mm probed flow, the flow was disturbed past the stator, once the flow interacts with the cobra probe. Flow speed roughly doubles in magnitude to about 54 m/s downstream past the probe. Stagnation build up can be seen around the cobra neck as well. The next probe simulated was the 0.635mm probe from United Sensor Corporation (USC). This probe produced similar results as the Limmat probe just with more desirable numbers. The disturbance was much less than the Limmat probe. With an increase of roughly 10 m/s at a maximum downstream of the probe, these results prove that a 0.9mm probe is much less desirable than a 0.635mm probe of the same type. Velocity and pressure plots for the USC/MEMS probe can be seen in Figure .

Figure q 0.635mm Cobra Probe Velocity and Pressure Measurements

The final probed simulation done in the baseline simulations was with a simple 0.635mm stem neck. The disturbed flow was very similar to the Limmat probe, most noticeably the downstream velocity increase. The velocity downstream was roughly 51 m/s, which was around double that of the free stream. These plots are shown in Figure .

Figure r 0.635mm Stem Probe Velocity and Pressure Measurements

The data provided in these baseline trials output some interesting conclusions, mainly that the 0.635mm USC probe proved to be the least disturbing to the flow with only an increase of roughly 10-15 m/s while the larger Limmat probe as well as the 0.635mm stem probe provided an increase of about 25-30 m/s. Although measured velocity does not correspond exactly with calculated velocities, this can be attributed to the increase in entire channel area. Also, the velocity increase through the channel was not of a large magnitude as can be shown through the continuity equation. The percent decrease of the channel due to the probe is 0.105% as can be shown through Equation f. As shown by continuity, Equation g, the velocity past the stator with the probe is 170.179 m/s, an increase of 0.179 m/s. This shows that the velocity should not increase by a drastic number in the CFD as the flow passes by the stator and the probe. (f)

( ( ) ( (

) )

( (

) )
) (g)

) (

With a few baseline simulations completed and a general understanding of the flow phenomena under consideration, a more complex volume was constructed and a few more design conscious probes were made. The main concern of the second round of CFD was to look at the performance of the commercial probe body from Limmat and the performance characteristics associated with varying head shapes. A new volume was constructed with a rounded floor and offset walls to more accurately mimic a slice of the compressor however the physics and environmental continua were kept the same. First, various probe diameters were again introduced into the volume to determine the noticeable downstream effects associated with each probe body. A sample disturbance pattern can be seen below in figure A for the Limmat Scientific 0.9mm probe body with a stem neck.

Figure A Downstream effects from Limmat Scientific 0.9mm stem probe The Limmat Scientific 0.9mm stem probe proved to be the most disruptive to the flow based on its downstream effects. As trials continued, it was obvious that downstream effects favored probes of smaller diameter. The simulations were compiled and delivered to Siemens only to understand that downstream effects were no longer an issue as they were looking to use the probe solely in the test rig and not an operational compressor. With downstream effects no longer driving a smaller probe diameter, many more options were available from a manufacturing standpoint. The focus of CFD simulations then fell on a comparison of head shapes rather than probe diameters. A handful of probe head shapes were taken into consideration including pyramid, conical and wedge styles. Figure y below depicts a pressure gradient developed on a conical head during simulation.

Figure y Uniform pressure gradient across conical probe face For uniformity all probe heads were created on a 0.9mm diameter probe body. Each probe head was able to form a uniform pressure gradient across its face as depicted in the figure above. Head styles the like wedge however created a far greater downstream disturbance. There were many conclusions that could be drawn from the baseline and modified CFD trials. However, the overarching result derived from CFD was that the negation of downstream effects drove the probe diameter, head shape and neck style to favor manufacturing ease and cost. This was of great advantage to the team as it opened many doors to new design consideration and the possible implementation of commercial components into a semi-custom probe body.