L. E.

BROWN
Senior Engineer, Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wood-Ridge, N. J. Mem. ASME

Axial Flow Compressor and Turbine Loss Coefficients: A Comparison of Several Parameters
Many loss parameters are used in the turbomacMnery field for correlating the effects on losses of numerous geometric and aerodynamic variables associated with blade rows. The parameter most common to these correlations is the ratio of a loss parameter to a velocity parameter, here called the loss coefficient. Such loss coefficients of different forms used for compressors by Howell and the NA CA and those used for turbines by Ainley and Soderberg, plus an additional one, are compared explicitly for possible use in both compressors and turbines. Over a range of Mach numbers, loss coefficient values are compared with loss levels fixed and for representative blading cascade test data, and pressure recoveries and stage efficiencies are compared with loss coefficient values fixed. It is shown that for a low Mach number the different parameters are equal and interchangeable; however, as the Mach number increases, differences appear and grow larger, so that a given combination of loss coefficient value and Mach number implies different entropy-rise values depending upon which parameter is being used. The criteria used here for comparing the different parameters are that one loss coefficient is better than another a if its loss coefficient values corresponding to test data vary less over a significant range of Mach number, and b if the stage efficiency implied by a fixed loss coefficient value varies in a more realistic way over a range of Mach number. The Soderberg parameter was found to be better for both compressors and turbines than the other loss coefficients investigated.

It is fair to note that some of these parameters originated in particular places out of the special backgrounds and needs of men ODAY'S working loss coefficient parameters for many for whom the Mach number working range was smaller then than organizations were chosen some time ago, when the organization it is for many today. When these parameters were selected, the wgan its work on turbomachinery, and were taken from the best background information was less extensive in many ways than information available at that time. The parameters that most today, and there were fewer parameters to choose from. Yet Wgineers know best are those of their company and of the com- even though a better selection might be made today, it cannot be ponent which has become their speciality. For some gas turbine claimed that there is a real working advantage for one parameter *gineers, the Y parameter which Ainley and Mathieson used for over another, once an analysis system has been established, since turbines, and the Z parameter which Howell used for compressors, any of the loss coefficient parameters must be correlated for the frne as basic inheritance from Europe and Whittle and the effects of Mach number. For this reason, few organizations will "GTE. For some in the compressor field, the co parameter used change parameters that have had long use, even though a better ty the NACA became natural. For others in the turbine field, parameter may be advocated. "le parameter of Soderberg, based on steam turbine velocity Nevertheless, there are strong reasons for scrutinizing and ^efficients, became the accepted loss coefficient. comparing the parameters which we have gained from the geniuses and accidents of the past. For if these parameters are all equal and interchangeable, we should benefit from that equality. Any similarities between parameters, or between the parameters Contributed by the Gas Turbine Division and presented at the of turbine and compressor, will help to unify the turbomachinery ? s Turbine and Fluids Engineering Conference and Products field. But, if they are not equal, then one parameter must be ?w, San Francisco, Calif., March 26-30, 1972, of THE AMERICAN better than another and, unless the advancement of turbomachine *CIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at ,! technology has now ended, we should be interested in improving >ME Headquarters, December 3, 1971. Paper No. 72-GT-18.

Journal of Engineering for Power

Copyright 1972 by ASME

JULY

1 9 7 2 / 193

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

o u r t o o l s . A b e t t e r tool m a y serve us more safely as we enter into n e w fields. Also, if the parameters are not equal, any differences gain i m p o r t a n c e when we are presented d a t a in terms of an unfamiliar p a r a m e t e r or if we get the opportunity to work with ano t h e r t y p e of machine and its unfamiliar loss coefficients. Let us, t h e r e f o r e , briefly consider how two of the parameters are rel a t e d t o t h e correlations of turbine losses. I n reference [ l ] 1 J. H . Horlock provides a comprehensive review of loss coefficients used for turbines. He gives definitions of loss coefficients, blade row efficiencies, turbine efficiencies, and r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n them, and he summarizes available d a t a which show h o w losses 'are affected by m a n y design and operating p a r a m e t e r s . Concerning the effects of Mach number, he shows t y p i c a l d a t a from Kraft for steam turbine nozzles (Fig. 1) to r e p r e s e n t t h e situation t h a t " t h e velocity coefficient is constant over a wide range, from exit Mach numbers in t h e order of 0.6 up t o well b e y o n d t h e sonic speed," and, therefore, t h a t " t h e loss coefficient is c o n s t a n t " while " t h e loss coefficient Y. . .will not be c o n s t a n t b u t will v a r y with the Mach number." T h e r a t h e r simple basic criterion of this paper is t h a t is better t h a n Y if over a range of the Mach number " is constant" and Y is n o t . I n other words, if a single value of represents accurately t h e experimental losses for a given blade section, other p a r a m e t e r s being fixed, over a wide range of the Mach number, t h e n does a superior job of normalizing velocity effects on loss. F o r b o t h compressors and turbines, the loss coefficients Y, Z, co, , a n d e are defined and compared against this criterion over a range of M a c h numbers and loss levels in terms of loss coefficient ratios, pressure recoveries, and stage efficiencies.

S0.92 '30.90

- 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 Isentropic Velocity, ft/sec

3000

Fig. 1 Nozzle velocity coefficient (Kraft)

hv

= V*/2g = h0

(2)

The losses apply to fluid moving through a blade row from inlet to outlet along a given axisymmetric stream surface. I t is as. sumed t h a t no heat is transferred into or out of the fluid. Plow is assumed to be steady. Static pressure m a y increase or decrease. The relative stagnation enthalpy changes as the fluid passes through a rotor if the radius of the streamsurface, r changes between inlet and outlet, as follows: hm = ^oi +

Ofo2 - n 2 )
2?

(3)

Assumptions and Notation

As a background for defining loss coefficients, the assumptions and n o t a t i o n s of this paper are discussed in some detail. I t is possible t o use t h e same loss coefficient equation for rotor and stator, w i t h a saving in space, if the convention is adopted t h a t all velocities and stagnation state conditions are considered to be relative to t h e blade row in question. Thus the velocity symbol V is used here to refer either to stators where it is usually called absolute velocity, or to rotors where it is usually called velocity relative t o rotor. T h e definition of stagnation enthalpy is then: h, = h + V*/2g from which we define velocity enthalpy:
1

where 0 is shaft speed in radians per second and g is the acceleration of gravity. Fig. 2 shows, in entropy-enthalpy coordinates, the notation used for the loss process. I n stagnation conditions the fluid passes from inlet a t 01 to outlet a t 02, and in static conditions from inlet a t 1 to outlet a t 2. At inlet, a single entropy value holds for static conditions and stagnation conditions both absolute and relative, and another higher entropy value holds for all outlet conditions. The entropy increase is the necessary and sufficient measure of loss in adiabatic flow with or without the addition of work. Some insight into loss coefficient definitions can be gained by deriving the loss parameters from the following entropy-rise equation for the perfect gas: S2 S1 cp \n{h/h{) + R ln(Pi/P2)

(1)

The logarithm terms here may be replaced by the first term of a series, which is accurate for values close to unity, ln(x) x - 1, to give: & - & c(fe - h)/h + 5 ( P i - P2)/Pi (4a)

Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

"Nomenclaturea speed of sound, fps cT specific heat at constant pressure, ft/deg F cv = specific heat a t constant volume, ft/deg F e = loss coefficient, To(2 Si)/hv g acceleration of gravity, ft/sec/sec h = enthalpy, ft J = work equivalent of heat, ft l b / B t u M = Mach number P = pressure, l b / s q ft q incompressible velocity pressure, 2 P F / 2 , lb/sq ft r = radius, ft R = gas constant, ft/deg F RS = product of rotor and stator pressure recoveries < = entropy, ft/deg F S T = temperature, deg R U = rotor blade speed, fps V = gas speed related to rotor or stator, fps Y = turbine loss coefficient, (Pms Pos)/g2 Z = compressor loss coefficient, (P02S - Po2)/gi p = w t / u n i t volume/^, lb sec 2 /ft 4 y = specific heat ratio, cp/cv = loss coefficient, (J12 hiS)/hv% 0 = shaft speed, radians/sec co = loss coefficient, (Pms Po2)/(Poi -Pi) q = efficiency <j> = velocity coefficient 1 = absolute velocity a t rotor inlet, velocity diagram 2 = leaving blade row 2 = relative velocity at rotor inlet, velocity diagram 3 = relative velocity at rotor exit, ) velocity diagram ~ , 4 = leaving stage _ ' 4 = absolute velocity at rotor exit, .; velocity diagram c = compressor 0 = stagnation condition 8 = ideal condition, see Fig. 2 ' t = turbine 1 V = velocity 9 = velocity component in direction < j rotation _1 ad = adiabatic !, poly = poly tropic . E = blade row exit location ''

Subscripts

1 = entering blade row 1 = entering stage

194 /

JULY

1972

Transactions of the

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

I t is thus shown t h a t the entropy rise is a function of the ratio of stagnation pressure drop to stagnation pressure, and t h a t this is true because the term cp ln(hoi/hois) is equal to zero. Similarly, one may measure loss in terms of h if one makes the term R l n ( P i / P 2 ) equal to zero. In Fig. 2 this is done for turbines by choosing a point 2S where S 2 s = Si and static pressures P 2lS and P% are equal. Then, using equation (4b), S 2 - Si cp(h - his)/th (8)

T h e term (hi his) is interpreted as a loss of potential kinetic energy, because hi his = (hoi his) (hi hi) = hvis hn (9)

Entropy, S Fig. 2
t

Loss process notation

Si - Si cp(fa - hi)/h

+ R{Pi - Pi)/Pi

(4b)

where hvis is the kinetic energy for expansion to P 2 without loss. The loss parameter hi hiS is used by Soderberg [1], Equation (9) has been used for measurement of losses in steam turbine cascades as discussed below. The loss in terms of static enthalpy makes no use of stagnation conditions, so the special case of rotors with changing streamsurfaee radius need not be considered. The loss (h% his) is expressed in outlet conditions appropriate for turbine analysis, but for compressors a reference to inlet conditions is desired. To obtain this, the point IE is located in Fig. 2 at a point where SIE = Si and static pressures PIE and Pi are equal. Using equation (4a), Si - St = SIB - Si ~ cp(hiE - hi)/hi (10) The term (hie hi) may be interpreted as a loss of inlet kinetic energy which would otherwise be available for diffusion, as follows : his hi = (hi h) (hoi his) = hVi hviE (11)

iThis form of the equation leads quite directly to the most widely, used loss parameters. Equation (4o) has denominator terms with (subscripts of 1, denoting inlet conditions, and is compatible to i this extent with usual compressor analysis practice which takes inlet velocity as a reference. Equation (4b), with denominator subscripts of 2 denoting outlet conditions, is likewise suited to turbine analysis. The approximation to the series become poor if the ratios in (4) differ much from unity, b u t often the losses are small and the ratios are close to unity. For small losses the righthand sides of the equations agree well with each other and with . the entropy rise. 1 The stagnation pressure loss coefficient is widely used in the I gas turbine field, its values being based on direct measurements of stagnation pressures. However, a problem appears if there is |variation of stagnation enthalpy across a rotor, as described in jequation (3). Accordingly, in Fig. 2 the point 01 has a higher lenthalpy t h a n point 02. Intuition insists t h a t with a difference , in stagnation enthalpy between inlet and outlet, t h e difference in stagnation pressures is not simply a loss term but reflects an elejment of work as well. "Radial pumping" is one term that de- scribes such work. Therefore, to remove this element of work, a 1 point 02S is artificially placed in Fig. 2 to define an ideal outlet J pressure; it is located so t h a t Sois = Si and hois = hoi. Using {equation (4), f Soi - SMS = 0 = 0,, \n(hm/hns) + R la(Po 2 s/Poi) (5)

where hvis is kinetic energy available for diffusion because losses occur. Another loss parameter, used here in entropy terms as a medium for comparison, is expressed in terms of stagnation enthalpy, b y keeping stagnation pressure constant. Thus, in Fig. 2, a point 01E is located so t h a t SOIB = Soi and stagnation pressures POIB and P0is are equal. Then equation (4b) gives: Si Si cp(hoiE hoi)/h02 (12)

T h e term (hois hoi) can be interpreted as an increment in the difference between actual and ideal enthalpy. I t is analagous to the stagnation pressure loss. I n summary, the loss expressions can be slightly modified to give the following loss parameters in ratio form: Stagnation pressure loss (P02S Poi)/P<as (Si Si)/R (Po2s - Po2)/Po2 (Si - Si)/R Velocity Enthalpy loss (hE hi)/h (hi - h2S)/hi (Si Si)/cp ~ (Si - Si)/cp compressors turbines (14a) (14b) compressors turbines (13a) (13b)

j Therefore, J P2S = Poi(hi/hoiV^~l (6)

Stagnation enthalpy loss (entropy rise) (Si - Si)/cp (hois - hoi)/hoi (15)

For the process from 01 to 02, using (4): j So2 - Soi = C l n ( W M + R(Poi/Poi)

'Adding this to (5) gives: S02 S0i = Si Si = cp \n(h0i/hois) + R ln(P02s/Poi)

Pbce hoi = hois, equations (4a) and (4b) then give: 1 'j <S2 Si ~ R(Pois Pm)/P<as S% - Si R(Po2S - Poi)/Poi for compressors for turbines (7a) (7b)

Velocity parameters are required as denominators for loss parameters, to form dimensionless loss coefficients. The dimensionless velocity parameters given here are functions of the Mach number. Their own pressure or enthalpy denominators are selected to match those of the loss parameters, either inlet or outlet, static or stagnation, as required. Velocity pressure q/Po pVi2/2Pt>i = qi/Poi p!V/2Po2 = qi/Pn Compressible velocity pressure JULY 1 9 7 2 / 195 compressor turbine (16a) (16b)

I'fte term (P02S P<re) is the stagnation pressure loss widely used ^ gas turbine practice, and Po2,s is the ideal outlet stagnation ' Assure.

^urnal of Engineering for Power

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

(Pol -

Pi)/Poi =

Pvi/Pm Pvi/Pm

compressor turbine

(17a) (176)

= (his hi)/hyi ^ Ti(S2 Si)/hvi i = {hi hts)/hvi = Ti(Si Si)/hVi

for compressors for turbines

(23) (24.)

(P02 P2VP02 = y enthalpy (hm (hi hi)/hi hi)/ht

= hyi/hi = hifi/hi = hvi/hoi = hvi/hfa

compressor turbine compressor turbine

(18a) (186) (18c) (18d)

This loss coefficient has been derived from the turbine nozzlo velocity coefficient or a turbine cascade efficiency. The nozzle velocity coefficient cj)Nis given by Horlock from Kearton as' <j>x = v (hoi h)/'(hoi his) I t is a ratio of the attained outlet velocity to the isentropic outlet velocity. The cascade efficiency is defined as follows:
1 hi hoi 1 his hoi 1 -- (P2/P01) 1 -- (P2/P02) T-l 1 7-1 i"

(/loi hi) /hi (Ao2 h)/hoi

Each loss coefficient definition given below may be obtained by dividing one of the loss parameters (13a)-(15) by an appropriate velocity parameter from (16a)-(18d). The only exceptions are compressor pressure loss coefficients. Thus, a loss coefficient may be formed as the ratio of parameters (13a) and (17a), giving:
(PowPM)/PVI)-(PI/PMS)

^02 ~

hi

hoi hi

V =

hoi his

If (Poi/Pms) is equal to unity then the definition of co in (21) is obtained. This condition is required for both (19) and (21) to obtain the definitions used in practice. When Poi and Pms actually differ, the values assigned to loss coefficients in (19) and (21) imply that the entropy rise is multiplied by the ratio Pais/Poi because the alternative of redefining the Mach number is usually prohibited explicitly. There are ways to eliminate this ratio by redefining the loss coefficient, if it should be regarded as important. Perhaps the simplest way is to define an artificial outlet stagnation pressure Puis for compressors such t h a t hois = hoi and Sois = Sm, making the loss parameter, from (4a), equal to (Pm Pois)/Poi- A widely used concept must be revised for this, and the issue is avoided in this paper by comparing the loss coefficients with the condition t h a t Poi and Po2g are equal. In reviewing the loss parameters (13a)-(15) in entropy terms, one sees t h a t there is one entropy term, (Si Si)/R, to go with two pressure loss terms and only one entropy term to go with four enthalpy loss terms. Also, t h a t these two entropy terms differ by a constant factor. Among the velocity parameters, on the other hand, there are four distinct types each applied to inlet for compressor and to outlet for turbine. The differences between loss coefficients thus arise mainly from the characteristics of the velocity parameters. The differences which appear between turbine and compressor loss coefficients having the same velocity parameters arise because errors from the approximation "In (x) ~ x 1" in equations (4a) and (46) increase as loss levels increase.

(25) then:

f = - -

his hv

hoi hi hvi

hi his hv
(26)

In both equations above, since these are nozzles, hoi = hoi. Values of velocity coefficients are determined for cascades by measuring inlet stagnation temperature, inlet stagnation, and outlet static pressures, and impulsive force against a plate which is in the p a t h of the outlet jet. Values of cascade efficiency arc also determined by measuring the discharge stagnation pressure instead of impulsive force, as indicated by the last term of equation (25). A loss coefficient referred to stagnation enthalpy loss, as discussed previously, is defined as follows: e = Toi(Si e = T<n(S, Si)/hvi Si)/hVi for compressors for turbines (27) (28)

This loss coefficient is used below as a reference for comparing the others. The definitions of loss coefficients can be translated into other terms as required. For gas turbine component analysis, the following perfect gas equations and Mach number relations are often used:
P = cp gpRT R 4- c = cP/cv R Ti) HP2/P1)
T

(29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

Definitions of Loss Coefficients

The definition of stagnation pressure loss coefficient is:
h -

hi = cp(Ti

Z = (P02S Poi)/qi Y = (Ps P02VC2

for compressors for turbines.

(19)
2 S i = cp ln(Ti/Ti)

(20)
-i
r

Long used in the aircraft gas turbine field for both turbines and compressors, these loss coefficients can be determined from pressures measured in an airfoil cascade tunnel. The denominator comes from the aeronautical background of lift and drag coefficients. Changing the denominator to Py gives the following loss coefficients : U = (P02S w, = (P02S Po2)/Pn Po 2 )/Py for compressors for turbines. (21) (22)

for Si = Si,

Ti/Ti

= (P2/P1)

(3-1) (35) (36) (37)

a = M =

VygRT V/a

To/T "= 1 + ^ M*

Table I gives loss coefficient equations in terms of Mach numbers, 7 , and the outlet stagnation pressures, ideal and actual* The ideal exit stagnation pressure is defined as follows: Poi(T 02 /Toi) T ~ (381

This might be called a compressible pressure loss coefficient, because the denominator is larger than q at higher Mach numbers where the fluid is compressible. I t is the parameter used in much of the NACA compressor work, for example, Reference [3]. A loss coefficient referred to velocity enthalpy loss is the following:
196 / JULY 1 972

As shown in equation (3), the inlet and outlet stagnation enthalpies and temperatures, are equal unless the blade row is , : rotor with changing streamsurface radius. I t may be noted t n *

Transactions of the ASMl

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

the equations for e, only, have the same form for compressors and turbines, a result of using entropy as a measure of loss. The equations for and Y were rearranged by Horlock in reference [1] to give:

Table 1

Perfect gas equations for loss coefficients

02S "

.i [Vol] '-'
,,

CTOB..

- [ 1+
Y/i* 1+

7 - 1

M2

7/(7-1)

(39)

Vk.

fc-W-'M]

-h

* P

it2

f<

ffhich gives the ratio of loss coefficients, 71

-37/(7-1)

M.A

(40)

fer--a "
-[ > K
VI

.2S

J--1

I*1

: This equation showns plainly that for constant, Y increases with the Mach number. Here, similar comparisons of loss coefficients are made, but for four loss coefficients as used for both turbine and compressor, 1 which is a rather large number of comparisons. A graphical I presentation has been chosen so that many comparisons can be presented at one time. The first to be presented rests on the I assumption of a reference loss level and compares loss coefficient ratios, as suggested by Horlock's equation above previously.

fed:
,. W W
i.^z V
' ^

VI

Ratios of Loss Coefficients I, Y, , and f to e

The combination of a given loss level and a given Mach number implies a corresponding value for each of the loss coefficients. A way of comparing the loss coefficients is to take ratios of values of one coefficient to those of another. Here the loss coefficient e is the reference value used to form the ratios Y/e, Z/e, co/e, and
{/

Advantages for using e for this purpose are two: first, that e serves as a bridge between compressors and turbines because its values are the same for both if M and Pais/Poi have the same values; and second, that e is not used in practice, to the author's knowledge, and, therefore, the three coefficients which we used are compared in an equal way, pictorially. A simplified condition is for zero loss, for which the loss coefficient values become zero. The ratios of the coefficient values for zero loss are evaluated as the ratios of their derivatives with respect to pressure ratio, according to de l'Hospital's rule, resulting in the following: Z_
e

actual inlet stagnation pressure is identical with the ideal outlet pressure, as discussed previously. The use of e as reference shows how much the others differ between compressors and turbines. For o> in Fig. 3(c) and Z or Y in Fig. 3(b), the differences are greatest and, for both, a given loss value implies a higher loss coefficient for turbine than for compressor. For the difference is smaller and a given loss implies a lower loss coefficient for turbine than for compressor. These differences between compressor and turbine are attributed to error in the approximation ln(x) x 1 implicit in equations (4a) and (4b). Enthalpy ratios used for are nearer to unity than corresponding pressure ratios used for Y, Z, and co, making approximations better for . For example: V W = (Po2s/Po2)(T -D/7
(44)

Y_
e

7 - 1

r_ V-i
MZ

1l +

f01 Zel l0SS (41

' '

-*

y 7 - 1 w e

1 1 7 - 1 1 + M2

= 1 + ^M2
7/(7-1)

for zero loss (42)

At sonic speed, the difference is about 1 percent, probably an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty which is entailed in the difficult process of measuring losses. The comparison of loss coefficient ratios shows that for higher Mach numbers, a lower loss coefficient value for a given loss will be computed for than for e, u, Z, or Y in succession. This comparison is made from the viewpoint of constant loss level, and the results, though broad and general, are also very abstract. Another perspective can be gained by assuming constant loss coefficient values and comparing the pressure recovery values that are implied. Perhaps pressure recovery is the parameter which provides the most straight forward approach to correlation of losses and Mach number.

Pressure Recoveries
(43)

7 - 1 1 + L~M*

for zero loss

jlhe ratio equations at zero loss are the same for turbine and compressor because this is really a comparison of the denominator number functions. j pig- 3(a) compares the loss coefficient ratios for the zero loss condition as functions of the Mach number. At zero Mach numJK the ratios are equal to 1.0 and the several loss coefficients are Aial and interchangeable. As the Mach number increases, differences appear and grow in magnitude. The coefficients Y and ."have the highest values, and w the next highest, followed by e *fa unity) and . j The effect of varying loss levels (over a range normally encoun<ted in practice) is shown in Figs. 3(b)-3(d). A condition for this jWoulation and hence forward is that P01 = Pws, i.e., that the

Pressure recoveries, Pm/Pms, were computed from equations in Table 2 for a constant loss coefficient value of 0.1. The equations are derived directly from those of Table 1. The results are plotted in Fig. 4 against Mach number for each of the loss coefficients. Below a Mach number of 0.3, the differences in recovery are small, and this observation is confirmed by the loss coefficient ratios of Fig. 3, which approach unity at the Mach number of 0. In the high Mach number region, a higher recovery is computed for Y and Z than for u, e, or in succession. Differences between compressor and turbine recoveries are most apparent for 01 and Z, with lower recoveries for compressors. An interesting feature of Fig. 4 is the upward turn of the Z-Y curves in the sonic region, which is attributed to the characteristic of the denominator Mach number function. The differences in pressure recovery imply differences in stage efficiencies. In Table 3, equations for adiabatic and polytropic stage efficiency are given in terms of inlet and exit stagnation temperature and of a product of pressure recovei'ies of the blade
JULY 1972 / 197

'ournal of Engineering for Power

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

2.0,

2.5 Y / e/Z

I' z
1

1 5

{2.0

11//
Y, Turbines

'1.0

ml.
' ?

yyy^1

Compressor

0.5 1.0 15 . Mach Number a) Z,Y, w and p- Loss Coefficients at Zero Loss

05 .

S
0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach Number b) Z and Y Loss Coefficients at Varied Loss

1.0

431.0
2.0
A)

2 0.9
e
i TUT bine

^ 5 ^

Compressor

" %
Turbine '

fe^
X

./,

rS1.5

3-0.7 t! 0.6
o' e

Compressor 31.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach Number , c) S3 Loss Coefficients at Varied Loss
Fig. 3

'H

0.5 0

0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach Number d) p Loss Coefficients at Varied Loss

Ratios of loss coefficient values for equal loss

Table 2

Pressure recovery formulas for po2,5 Poi

1.00

,0.98

5^
\ ,
Loss Coefficient

/p

. l-<w

0.96

\
*$
V p o2-" w | P=I

'

0.94

V
Vcv = 1.4
\

VWH"fe
0.92

\e

/t c
0.90 rows in the compressor or turbine. I t is of interest to see how efficiencies vary with Mach number as loss coefficient values are held constant. 0 0.5 1.0 Mach Number
Fig. 4

V\

' 1.5

Pressure recoveries at a loss coefficient value of O.I

Efficiency Effects of Loss Coefficients

Turbomachinery efficiency measures the balance between work done and losses suffered, both of which are strongly influenced by velocity as well as many other factors including the type of design, the details of geometry, and the proximity of operation to design-point conditions. To isolate the effects of loss coefficient
198 / JULY 1972

types, extremely simplified compressor and turbine stage? "Vl defined by the velocity diagrams shown in Fig. 5, where nurf'1:;!:" show the comparative sizes of vectors. Velocities for these si :"-'\ are varied simply by scaling all vectors in proportion to a sel":llJ vector which is keyed to the Mach number. For the compr'--~the rotor inlet Mach number M 2 is the key, and for the tu>'";u

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 3
jfficiei

Efficiency Formulas

\JT

jdlabatic

*
< All

(r a

.O| / V..-iL

c-w/>-

1^
jy1^
U,2<fT

\ '

polytroplc

?poly- l+^lnOaO/l-fWV

W^^y]/^^,

RS = product o rotor recovery and stator recovery. Tn refers to stage inlet or exit absolute temperature.

T01= 519UR, R=53.35, r = 1.4 ajCompressor: Loss Coefficient =0.05 for rotor=0.06 for stator

| jt is the stator outlet Mach number Mi. Keeping triangles simile, while velocity changes, prevents keeping downstream Mach numbers in the same proportion, because the rotor work changes ' outlet temperatures. Compressor stator inlet Mach numbers rise more slowly, and turbine rotor outlet Mach numbers rise more j quickly, than the key Mach numbers, but results for all loss [coefficients are affected in the same way, so t h a t comparison is

I validJ Loss coefficient values assigned to rotors and stators are given 'in Fig- 5; with values of inlet temperature, gas constant, and ! specific heat ratio. These values were kept constant for all loss coefficients and over the full range of Mach numbers. | At several points over a range of Mach numbers, absolute stagnation temperature change across the stage was computed from the Euler turbine equation with constant blade speed, as follows: T<n Tm U[VH Vsd/gc, (45)

T 01 = 2000R, R = 53.3, Y= 1.33 b) Turbine: Loss Coefficients.078 for nozzle = 0 . 1 for rotor
Fig. 5 Stage velocity diagrams

r^^

plade row pressure recoveries were calculated from equations given in Table 2, and efficiencies were calculated from equations given in Table 3. The results show how efficiencies would vary if each loss coefficient were perfect in normalizing velocity effects. One loss i coefficient may be judged to be better than another if the effifeiency patterns t h a t result from its use agree better with experiteuce of actual machines. The resulting adiabatic and polytropic efficiencies are shown J for compressor in Fig. 6 and for turbine in Fig. 7. At zero Mach number for turbine or compressor, efficiencies are the same for all jloss coefficients; here the loss coefficients are equal and inter-ichangeable. As the Mach number increases the efficiencies differ more and more. T h e loss coefficient predicts a decrease of effijdency with increasing Mach number. The other loss coefficients

all predict increases of efficiency as the Mach number increases, t h e greatest for Y or Z and less for u> and e in succession. The author feels t h a t the only Fig. 6 pattern of efficiency which follows the behavior of real machines is t h a t produced by ; viz, t h a t real machines, except where stage-matching effects intervene, tend to have efficiency decreasing as Mach number increases. This suggests t h a t may serve at least for compressor analysis better than the other parameters, Z and u>, which are more commonly used. Some limitations of these efficiency comparisons are t h a t they use particular velocity diagrams and particular values of loss coefficients. A number of velocity diagrams were investigated in this way for the turbine loss coefficient Y, and the efficiency trends were consistently like those of Y in Fig. 7. An advantage of over Y for turbine analysis is suggested in reference [1] by review of cascade data. I t is, therefore, of interest to see what can be found by reviewing a few cascade d a t a for turbine and compressor in terms of several of the loss coefficients.

94
l o s s coe f f i c i e n t s .rotor - O.OS s t a t o r - 0.06 / 1 /

94

1 ' loss coefficients r o t o r - .05 / s t a t o r - .06 /

/z
LO

^92 &

ft 92

s^CU e

90 m
e

90

T
\
86
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach Number a) Compressor adiabatic efficiency

0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach Number b) Compressor polytropic efficiency

Fig. 6 Compressor stage efficiency with constant loss coefficients

Journal of Engineering for Power

JULY

1972

/ 199

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

96

Ti nf

loss Totor'

coefficients - 0.1 '

" 94 n o z z l e - - 0.078
H

() a ID
O

m ID
(i
H P

92

a 90

rt

0.5 1,0 Mach Number a) Turbine a d i a b a t i c e f f i c i e n c y

b

0.5 1.0 Mach Number ) Turbine p o l y t r o p i c efficiency

1.5

Fig. 7 Turbine stage efficiency with constant loss coefficients

0.20

.ID

and

ux.
->
^~J-\

0.15

(3.10
4->

t! 0.10

H O rl

s
fl
t

^ II

0.05

coej
</>

=<td
'0 3 0.5 1.0 I n l e t Mach. number

"
0.5 1.0 Outlet Mach Number
8

1.5
Fig. 9

Kraft turbine cascade data of Fig. 1 in loss coefficient form

Briggs compressor cascade date plotted against a> and

0.25

0.25

0.20

0.20

M
13 0.15
0.6

lp 0.7
0.8

^0.15
M

l = .7; ,0.8

,0.6

^0.10

10.10

So.5
0.05 0. 4
^ ^ ^

< ^
'0.05

So.5
0.4

KJ
5 degrees 10

.0

-5 0 Incidence angle a) Plotted in terms of 0)

Fig. 10

-10

5 degrees

10

-5 0 Incidence angle b) Plotted in terms of

-10

Todd compressor cascade data for sharp-nosed blades

/ J U L Y

1972

Transactions of the

ASlff

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

For this purpose, the coefficient has been given the following definition, which has been discussed previously:

T(Si - Si) hv

ln(P 0 2s/Po2) M2

(46)

p0i' compressors, T, hv, and M are referred to inlet and for turbines, to outlet. T h e coefficient values are substantially equal o those of the original definition; however this definition appeals to the author because it is simple and has the same form for comDressors and turbines, and also because it uses entropy explicitly.

Turbine Cascade Data in Loss Coefficient Form

cag(!ade,

increase with Mach number, even at the five-degree incidence angle where change is minimal, b u t the loss coefficient values vary less for than for co. For any loss coefficient to reduce the variation further than does, its curve in Fig. 3 must have a more negative slope than t h a t of . However, the most negative Fig. 3 slope belongs to , and therefore normalizes the d a t a better than any of the other loss coefficients compared here. The degree of improvement effected in Figs. 9 and 10 by using instead of co may seem rather small, even though it is consistent. The improvement gains significance, however, in the light of Fig. 6, which shows significantly different efficiency trends for and co as the Mach number increases. From the evidence examined here it seems clear t h a t is the best of these loss coefficients for normalizing velocity effects on axial compressor performance.

The data in Fig. 1, from Kraft [2] for a steam turbine nozzle have been converted to terms of the exit Mach number T h e steam was assumed aIid the loss coefficients of this paper. to be a perfect gas with these constants: R = 85.8 7 = 1-31

Summary
T h e loss coefficients Z, Y, co, e, and for axial flow compressors and turbines have been defined and compared. I t is shown t h a t for incompressible flow, i.e., zero Mach number, the coefficients are equal and interchangeable. This is important because, for compressors especially, many d a t a have been obtained from incompressible cascades and correlated [3]; any low speed data which have been correlated in terms of one loss coefficient can be directly applied to any of the others. I t is shown t h a t as the Mach number increases the several loss coefficients differ more and more. For a given combination of loss level and Mach number values, the greatest loss coefficient value is implied by Y, followed in succession by Z, co, e, and . Conversely, for a given combination of loss coefficient and Mach number values, the highest pressure recovery and efficiency values are implied by Y, followed in succession by Z, co, e, and . A sample of the Kraft turbine cascade d a t a has velocity effects normalized best by the loss coefficient e, but other Kraft data are normalized best by . T h e compressor cascade d a t a of Briggs and Todd have velocity effects normalized best by the loss coefficient . Complete normalization is not obtained for either compressor or turbine, because losses rise rapidly after the local Mach number exceeds unity on the surface of the blades. However, for Mach numbers below Mach = 1.1 for turbines and M = 0.8 for compressors, reasonable predictions of efficiency effects of velocity may be obtained with the use of coefficients.

A. sonic speed of 1750 ft/sec was then found to correspond to a stagnation temperature of 978 deg R. The pressure recovery was calculated from (2), (36), (26), and equations in Table 2, and then loss coefficient values were calculated from equations in Table 1, except for which was calculated from (46). The results are shown in Fig. 8, as a graph of loss coefficient versus Mach number for each of the loss coefficients studied. At low Mach number all will have a single value, but as the Mach number increases the values of Y and co, increase steadily and the value of decreases. The value of e, however, remains fairly constant up to the Mach number of approximately 1.1, where it begins to rise sharply, and therefore it is concluded t h a t e best normalizes velocity effects for these data. However, velocity coefficient data which Kraft presented [2] for other configurations show slight variations in slope in the subsonic and transonic regions, and for many, a practically flat slope, which would be normalized better by than b y e, replaces t h e small positive slope of Fig. 1. In all cases, i; gives better normalization than Y, as suggested by Horlock.

Compressor Cascade Data in Loss Coefficient Form

Many data for compressor losses are presented by S. Lieblein in reference [3]. From them, two figures have been selected to illustrate the effects of using instead of to for compressor analysis. T h e entropy rise form of , equation (46), is used here as it is for the turbine cascade data above. Fig. 9, from Fig. 153(a) in [3], is taken from W. B . Briggs [4] and shows the loss pattern which is characteristic of a conventional subsonic cascade with incidence fixed near minimum loss as Mach number varies. D a t a are plotted for loss coefficients co, as given in [3], and . I t is shown t h a t up to the critical Mach number, where the curve turns sharply upward, values of both loss coefficients increase slightly, to more than , and t h a t the corresponding points of always lie below those for to, though b y a Very small amount at M = 0.2. Fig. 10, from Fig. 130(d) in [3], is taken from K. W. Todd [5]. It shows the variation of loss with incidence angle for a cascade of sharp-nosed blades run a t various Mach numbers. I n Fig. 10(a) the data are plotted for co as in [3], whereas in Fig. 10(6) they are plotted for . In both parts of Fig. 10 the loss coefficient values

Acknowledgment
The assistance of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation in releasing this work for publication is greatly appreciated, as is the encouragment of many colleagues including F . Sisto, J. O. Wiggins, E . F . Pierce, and R. W. Cole.

References
1 Horlock, J. H., "Review Losses and Efficiencies in Axial-Flow Turbines," International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. Vol. 2, 1960, pp. 48-75. 2 Kraft, H., "Reaction Tests of Turbine Nozzles for Subsonic Velocities," TBANS. ASME, Vol. 71, p. 781. 3 Lieblein, S., "Experimental Flow in Two-Dimensional Cascades', Aerodynamic Design of Axial-Flow Compressors, chap. 6, NASA Sp-36, NASA, Washington, D. C , 1965. 4 Briggs, W. B., "Effect of Mach Number on the Flow and Application of Compressibility Corrections in a Two-Dimensional Subsonic-Transonic Compressor Cascade Having Varied Porous-Wall Suction at the Blade Tips," NASA T N 2649, 1952. 5 Todd, K. W., "An Experimental Study of Three-Dimensional High-Speed Ah- Conditions in a Cascade of Axial-Flow Compressor Blades," R&M 2792 British ARC, Oct. 1949.

Journal of Engineering for Power

JULY

1 9 7 2 / 201

Downloaded 01 Feb 2011 to 130.237.29.138. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm