NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL - CORE · comparisonofq3dflo-81andqsonic 36. listoftables...

LIBRARY

RESEARCH REPORTS DIVISION

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940

NPS67-84-005


Monterey, California

APPLICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT CODE Q3DFL0-81TO TURBOMACHINERY FLOW. FIELDS

H. D. SCHULZ

F. NEUHOFF

CH. HIRSCH

R. P. SHREEVE

SEPTEMBER 1984

Interim Report for Period 1 October 1983-September 1984

FedDocsD 208.1M/2NPS-67-84-005

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

Prepared for:

Naval Air Systems Command

Washington DC 20361


Monterey, California

Rear Admiral R. H. Shumaker D. A. SchradySuperintendent Provost

The work in this report results directly from the appointment of Dr. Ir.

Charles Hirsch, who is Professor and Head of the Department of Fluid Mechanics

at Vrije Universiteit , Brussel, Belgium, as the Naval Air Systems Command

Visiting Research Professor in Aeronautics during FY84. This appointment,under the cognizance of Dr. G. Heiche (Air 03D), was funded by the Naval Air

Systems Command Air-Breathing Propulsion Research Program.

Professor Hirsch read his finite element computer program Q3DFLO-81 into the

NPS IBM 370 system and subsequently instructed Turbopropulsion Laboratorystudents and researchers in its use.

The results herein are collected from applications of the code in severalindependent, but technically related, research programs. In particular, a

program to examine controlled-dif fusion blading designs for compressorcascades is acknowledged. Support for this exploratory development programwas provided by Naval Air Systems Command under the cognizance of G. Derderian(AIR310E).

Appreciation is expressed to Professor Hirsch for the use of his code and for

his contributions to the research programs.

Reproduction of all or part of this report is authorized.

This report was prepared by:

UNlLASSlr-ItD»tt [lH\1Y ('l ASSlfH-'-i HON Of fH.<\ PAufc"

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARYMAV/AI Pr>.QTYSPAm l&TC SffWV

la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIED.0 RES.R.CT.VE MARKiNGfoo^EpEY QA 93943.5^

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

2b. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

J DlSTRlBUTION/AVAILABlLIIY OF REPORT

Approved for Public Release;distrubution is unlimited.

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

NPS67-84-005

5 MONlTOHING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Turbopropulsion LaboratoryNaval Postgraduate School

6b OFFICE SYMBOL(If applicable)

67Sf

7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

6c ADDRESS (Cry, State, and ZIP Code)

Monterey, CA 93943-51007b ADORESS (Gfy. Sfafe. and ZIP Code)

8a. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORINGORGANIZATION

Naval Air Systems Command

8d OFFICE SYMBOL(It applicable)

AIR310E

9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

N0001984WR 41099N0001984WR 41134

8c ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code)

Washington, DC 2036110 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAMELEMENT NO

WR024

PROJECTNO

03

TASKNO.

001

WORK UNITACCESSION NO

11 TITLE (include Security Claudication)

APPLICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT CODE Q3DFL0-81 TO TURBOMACHINERY FLOW FIELDS(UNCLASSIFIED)

12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)H. D. SCHULZ, F. NEUHOFF , CH. HIRSCH and R. P. SHREEVE

> TYPE OP REPORTInterim

13b TIME COVEREDfrom SEP 83 to SEP 84

14 DATE OF REPORT {Year. Month. Day)

September 198415 PAGE COUNT

53

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17 COSATI CODES

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP

18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverie it necessary and identity by block number)

Finite Element CodeTurbomachinery Flow FieldsThrough-Flow Calculations

19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

Through-flow and blade-to-blade calculations were made in association with anumber of experimental research activities at the Turbopropulsion Laboratory,Naval Postgraduate School. The Q3DFL0-81 code was operated on an IBM 370-3033mainframe computer. The flow through a single stage axial research compressorwas computed and compared with both probe survey and stage performance mapmeasurments. Swirling flow produced by a vaned out-flow generator for aradial diffuser test facility was calculated for both large low-speed andsmall-scale high-speed versions of the device. Flow through a two-dimensionalcompressor cascade of "controlled-dif fusion" blade shapes was calculated andthe results compared with experimental data, and with predictions obtainedusing the NASA code QSONIC.

20 DiSTRiSuTlON/AVAiLABlLlTY OF ABSTRACT

^UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED SAME AS RPT D DTlC USERS

21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIEDNAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL

R. P. SHREEVE22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

(408)646-259322c OFFICE SYMBOL

67Sf

DDFORM 1473, 84 mar 83 APR edition may be used until exnausted

All other editions are obsoleteSFCURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

ABSTRACT

Through-flow and blade-to-blade calculations were .made in association

with a number of experimental research activities at the Turbopropulsion

Laboratory, Naval Postgraduate School. The Q3DFLO-81 code was operated on an

IBM 370-3033 mainframe computer. The flow through a single stage transonic

axial research compressor was computed and compared with both probe survey and

stage performance map measurements. Swirling flow produced by a vaned

out-flow generator for a radial diffuser test facility was calculated for both

large low-speed and small-scale high-speed versions of the device. Flow

through a two-dimensional compressor cascade of "controlled-dif fusion" blade

shapes was calculated and the results compared with experimental data, and

with predictions obtained using the NASA code QSONIC.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. THROUGH FLOW CALCULATION 3

A. Axial Compressor 3

B. Low Speed CDTD 6

C. High Speed CDTD 7

III. BLADE TO BLADE CALCULATION 8

A. NASA Controlled Diffusion Blades 9

B. Comparison With Finite Volume Code QSONIC 11

IV. CONCLUSION 13

FIGURES 14

REFERENCES 37

DISTRIBUTION LIST 38

in

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Transonic compressor cross-section 14

2. Compressor computational mesh 15

3. Absolute flow angle vs. % distance from hub 16

4. Axial velocity vs. % distance from hub 16

5. Radial velocity vs. % distance from hub 17

6. Absolute Mach Number vs. % distance from hub 17

7. Absolute total pressure vs. % distance from hub 18

8. Absolute total temperature vs. % distance from hub 18

9. Incidence angle vs. % distance from hub ...19

10. Deviation angle vs. % distance from hub 19

11. Loss coefficient vs. % distance from hub 20

12. Static pressure vs. % distance from hub 20

13. Absolute tangential velocity vs. % distance from hub 21

14. Absolute total velocity vs. % distance from hub 21

15. Relative Mach Number vs. % distance from hub 22

16. Relative flow angle vs. % distance from hub 22

17. Calculated and measured compressor performance maps at 60%,and 70% design speed 23

18. Calculated compressor performance map 24

19. CDTD test section cross section 25

20. Spanwise distribution of flow properties as a function of

flow station 26

21. Boundary layer development as a function of flow station ... 27

22. Comparison of predicted and measured flow angles 27

23. High speed CDTD streamlines 28

IV

24. High speed CDTD flow properties 29

25. NASA CD blade profile 30

26. NASA CD blade finite element mesh 31

27. Plot of streamlines through the cascade 32

28. Predicted and measured surface pressures 33

29. AVDR vs. air inlet angle 34

30. AVDR vs. static pressure rise coefficient 35

31. Comparison of Q3DFLO-81 and QSONIC 36

LIST OF TABLES

1. TABLE I - CD COMPRESSOR CASCADE PARAMETERS 37

2. TABLE II - CD BLADE COORDINATES 37

VI

I. INTRODUCTION

Attempts to model the complex three-dimensional flow in turbomachines

have resulted in the development of various quasi three-dimensional numerical

techniques.

Most methods follow the work of Wu (Ref. 1), wherein the fully 3D flow is

resolved into a succession of 2D-calculations. The flow is solved on

meridional surfaces (S2), and blade to blade surfaces (SI). In general, the

intersection of an SI surface and an S2 surface is a twisting line with three

dimensional variations. The interaction of the two families of surfaces can

be quite complicated. However, if an axisymmetric assumption is made, the S2

surfaces will become identical to the meridional plane. An important drawback

in this method is the lack of knowledge on the degree of approximation which

is made by assuming axisymmetry.

The program used in the present study, therefore, follows another

approach where the S2-surface calculation is replaced by the calculation of

the flow in the true meridional section (R-2 plane), based on Che solution of

exact pitch averaged equations. The numerical method used to solve the

equations in the meridional and blade to blade plane is the finite element

method. An interconnection of the meshes allows for a consistent interaction

to be defined in the calculation.

Q3DFLO-81 is only valid in the absence of backflow and hence does not

handle separation regions or secondary flow. The calculations are based on

the existence of an inviscid core flow, but accommodates empirical input with

regard to loss levels, slip factors and axial-velocity-density ratio (AVDR)

,

or superimposes a two dimensional boundary layer calculation. The program is

-1-

described in References 2 and 3. The procedure to run the code on the Naval

Postgraduate School (NPS) computer is given in Reference 4. The present

report describes the application of this code to various turbomachinery flow

fields. Results from applying the through-flow calculation to a transonic

axial compressor and to a novel radial cascade are given in Section 2. In

Section 3 results from the blade to blade calculations applied to a controlled

diffusion compressor stator section are compared with measurements taken in a

linear cascade and with the results from the finite difference code QSONIC.

The conclusions drawn from these applications are given in Section 4.

-2-

II. THROUGH FLOW CALCULATION

A. Axial Compressor

A single stage, small diameter (11 inches) high speed axial flow

compressor, of in house design, was investigated (Fig. 1). Test data from

radial surveys at different axial locations and overall machine performance at

various stage conditions were compared with results of corresponding computer

runs. Furthermore, a compressor performance map for machine speeds higher

than those already tested was calculated to estimate the machine conditions at

higher speeds. Figure 2 shows the calculation mesh for the compressor.

Thirteen streamlines run from three rotor tip chord lengths upstream of the

rotor leading edge to about 2 rotor tip chord lengths downstream of the rotor

trailing edge. Station lines 5, 8 and 13 are placed axially in a way that

they coincide with probe traverse locations. The rotor leading edge

corresponds to station 9, trailing edge to station 12, and the stator leading

edge is located at station 15, with its trailing edge at station 18. Rotor

and stator geometry input is limited to blade inlet and outlet angles, maximum

relative blade thickness, solidity, chord length and leading edge radius.

These quantities have to be given for a number of blade cuts at different

radii. They must also be parallel to the centerline. This made a

recalculation of the blade profile coordinates necessary, since in the

original design they were specified on conical surfaces. The cross-section of

stage inlet and outlet up and downstream of the regime shown in Fig. 2 is

constant and cylindrical. A small fillet at the tip of the rotor spinner was

incorporated in the geometry input to eliminate the blunt stagnation point

singular condition. Using the mesh shown in Fig. 2, calculations were

performed in which input quantities (besides the geometry) were taken from a

-3-

compressor test run. This test run provided results from three radial surveys

at locations corresponding to calculation stations 5, 8 and 13. These

stations serve to evaluate flow into and out of the rotor. Stator outlet

measurements were not available. Figures 3 through 16 show comparisons of

measured and calculated radial distributions. In Fig. 3 fair to good

agreement is shown for the absolute flow angle. The axial velocity component

(Fig. 4) does not agree too well for the lower portion (40%) of the channel

height at station 5. The change in geometry used in the calculation is

probably the cause for this variation.

In the following figures, comparisons are shown only for calculation

stations 8 and 13 and the corresponding test results, since the main purpose

of the investigation was to evaluate the compressor rotor. The radial

velocity component (Fig. 5) seems to have rather large discrepencies for

station 8 (rotor inlet), especially in the hub region. If, however, the

radial velocity component is converted to flow pitch angle, the difference

shown represents an error of no more than four degrees. In Fig. 6 the

absolute flow Mach number for rotor inlet and outlet are compared. The

discrepencies in the tip areas, also apparent in Figures 3 and 4, are the

result of a measurement error due to a casewall effect on the probes used.

For the evaluation of the rotor performance, total pressure (Fig. 7) and total

temperature (Fig. 8) at the inlet and outlet were observed. The total

pressure distribution measured is constant over the blade span. A distinct

increase of the outlet total temperature was calculated in the tip region.

Variations in total temperature measurements are known to reflect changes in

ambient conditions. Thus a temperature differential calculated between rotor

inlet and outlet would not show the variations of those in Fig. 8. Further

-4-

evaluating the stage flow, Figures 9 through 11 show incidence angle,

deviation angle and loss distributions, hub to tip. Again, for the rotor a

comparison between measurement and calculation is given. The discrepencies in

rotor incidence angle at the hub and tip are rather large while the stator

shows good agreement near the tip and qualitative agreement along the span

(Fig. 9). The rotor deviation angle also shows disagreement near hub and tip.

The stator deviation angles predicted by the program appear to be fairly

large, especially in the tip region. No test data are available for

comparison, but the magnitudes used in the design of the blading were similar

to those in Fig. 10. Figures 12 through 16 show distributions of other flow

quantities calculated for the same axial positions.

For the compressor stage, the performance was carefully measured for the

full throttle range at 60% and 70% of design speed. The program calculates

the overall stage performance data. In Fig. 17, calculated and measured

compressor performance are compared. The agreement in the total pressure

ratio is quite good. Two efficiencies calculated by the program are shown.

The total efficiency takes the casewall boundary layer and the losses

associated with it into account, while the adiabatic efficiency excludes case

wall effects. The discrepency between measured and calculated total efficiency

is quite large and has yet to be explained.

In order to estimate the compressor performance for higher speeds,

calculations were carried out for 80, 90 and 100% of design speed for a

variety of flow rates. Uncertainties in the efficiency calculation were

accepted. In Fig. 18, the predicted performance map is shown. It can be

observed, that the efficiency curves drop off more drastically for higher flow

-5-

rates at high speeds. This is typical for high speed compressors. The

calculated pressure ratio of 1.715 at 100% design speed is considerably higher

than the value expected in the design process (1.5-1.6), and the referred flow

rate of 19.7 lbs /sec is somewhat lower than the design value of 21.24 lbs /sec.

However , this is the first attempt to predict the performance of the

compressor hardware, as built, and the differences may well be explained by

an error which was built in to the rotor blade setting angles (Ref 5)

.

B. Low Speed CDTD

A large scale subsonic radial cascade wind tunnel has been designed at

the Turbopropulsion Laboratory (TPL) at NPS to investigate flow phenomena in

and the performance of radial diffusers (Ref. 6). Various approaches to

analyze the aerodynamic operating conditions and the flow at the test section

inlet of the Centrifugal Diffuser Test Device (CDTD) have been conducted (Ref.

7).

Q3DFLO-81 accepts cylindrical inlet flow planes and was applied to the

CDTD geometry. Figure 19 shows a plot of streamlines and a cross section of

the axisymmetric flow channel between the inlet "swirl vane cylinder" (station

1) and diffuser-vane leading edge (station 18). The flow is introduced almost

tangentially along the inlet plane at a radius of 19 inches, and then passes

outward through an angular contraction to the test section inlet at a radius

of 25 inches. The flow however, does not follow the physical contour of the

wall (see Fig. 19) and separates in the corners between station 4 and

station 6. The corner shape of the flow channel had to be approximated by a

smooth contour in order for the code to operate.

Q3DFLO-81 accommodates a very versatile post processor and delivers

printouts and plots of the calculated flow properties at every required flow

-6-

station. Figure 20 shows plots of spanwise distribution of axial velocity,

Mach number, static pressure and flow angle for the different flow stations

shown in Fig. 19.

The plots represent the inviscid solution of the core flow, considering a

blockage factor determined by the end wall boundary layer calculations for hub

and tip. It can be seen that the influence of the strong curvature in the

contraction region (stations 7-15) has almost decayed at the test section

inlet (station 18), and the flow properties are almost evenly distributed over

the span. Figure 21 shows a boundary layer thickness of 20% at the test

section. The boundary layer also experiences a strong acceleration in the

contraction region. The velocities in the boundary layers are smaller, and

more nearly tangential. Figure 22 is a comparison of predicted and measured

spanwise flow angle distribution. The solid line represents the predicted

flow angle for the inviscid solution as in Fig. 19. The circle indicates the

calculated boundary layer thickness and the maximum angle at hub and tip. The

triangles are data acquired by the first author (Ref 7). The plot shows good

agreement of predicted and measured flow angles. The deviation in the mass

averaged measured and calculated flow angles is only 0.5%.

C. High Speed CDTD

One of the main objectives of the low speed cascade was to examine the

design concepts with a view to applying them to the design of a transonic

device; the high speed CDTD.

Q3DFL0-81 is capable of calculating transonic flow in a meridional

through flow calculation as long as the meridional velocity remains subsonic.

A high speed cascade has been proposed with a nearly tangential Mach number of

1.48 and a total pressure of 1.6 bar at the inlet plane. The geometry of the

-7-

flow channel is qualitatively similar to that of the low speed cascade. The

dimensions are smaller to reduce the massflow required to obtain higher

velocities and the curvatures are reduced to avoid flow separation. Figure 23

shows the flow channel geometry which was analyzed. Station 1 is at a radius

of 10 inches. Station 12 is at a radius of 12 inches.

The results obtained by applying Q3DFL0-81 to the high speed CDTD are

shown in Fig 24. Shown are results for the inviscid core flow, including

spanwise distributions of static pressure, Mach number, flow angle and

meridional velocity. Even though the Mach number of the overall velocity was

always supersonic, the meridional velocity remained subsonic. Consequently,

shocks should not appear in the flow into the test section.

-8-

III. BLADE TO BLADE CALCULATION

The blade to blade calculation of the code Q3DFLO-81 is used in the

quasi-3D calculation for turbomachinery blade rows as described in Section

2.1 or for isolated blade-to-blade calculations. The application to linear

cascades will be described in this section.

A. NASA Controlled Diffusion Blade

A numerical optimization technique to design a controlled diffusion blade

shape was developed by NASA (Ref. 8). It allows analytical design

of airfoils which are shock, free at transonic Mach numbers and avoids suction

surface boundary layer separation for the range of inlet conditions necessary

for stable compressor operation.

The on- and off- design performance of one design of such blades have

been measured in a subsonic linear wind tunnel. The facility is described in

detail in Ref 9 . The tests conducted with a controlled diffusion blading

section designed for a compressor stator at mid-span are described in Ref. 10.

Cascade configuration parameters are given in Table I. Table II presents the

coordinates of the test blades.

Q3DFLO-81 was used to calculate the blade surface pressure distributions

to compare with measurements. Figure 25 shows the blade shape and Fig. 26

shows a typical finite element mesh for the blade to blade calculation. In

order to avoid the sharp increase in velocity, due to the potential flow

effect around a thick trailing edge, the trailing edge radius was removed.

The inviscid flow in fact does not see the trailing edge radius due to the

viscous behavior and thus the geometry should be modeled in this way. The

strong curvature at the leading edge of the blade also caused peaks in

velocity, as the inviscid flow negotiates the large curvature from stagnation

point to suction surface. To calculate such a leading edge shape, the mesh

-9-

has to be much finer around the leading edge than Q3DFL0-81 is able to produce

(due to a restriction in the number of mesh points). The leading edge,

therefore, also had to be adapted to this situation. The remainder of the

flow field should be reliable since the occurance of velocity peaks seldom

invalidates more than a few grid points in their vicinity. Particularly with

these compressor blade geometries, the adverse pressure gradient tends to

discourage the velocity variation from propagating very far or reflecting off

the downstream boundaries. The influence of the flow at 5% of chord

downstream of the leading edge, and 5% of chord upstream of the trailing edge

is only 0.1%, therefore the calculation is accurate for 90% of the chord.

Figure 27 is a plot of streamlines which shows that the flow tangency

condition is very well satisfied along the blade surface and no flow

separation is encountered. Figure 28 is a comparison of predicted and

measured pressure coefficients along the blade surface for different inlet air

angles. Very good agreement is achieved for high inlet angles (38.9°, 42.9°,

45.9°). The two smaller values at the suction side between 60% and 80% chord

are errors in the measurements, probably due to plugged pressure taps. For

smaller inlet air angles (24.4°, 28.0°, 32.95°) the measured values are

slightly smaller than those predicted by Q3DFLO-81. The highest deviations

are noticed at 32.95° incidence. Figure 29 is a plot of the measured AVDR

versus inlet air angle. It is noted that the AVDR does not depend simply on

the static pressure rise as is shown in Fig. 30. The AVDR in the tests

reported in Ref. 10 was determined by measuring and integrating mass flux

distributions at raidspan upstream and downstream of the blade row. The

technique is described in detail in Ref. 11. In the present calculations the

AVDR was assumed to be constant from the measuring plane upstream of the blade

-10-

row to the leading edge, and from the trailing edge to the downstream

measuring plane, and to have a linear distribution along the chord. The AVDR

is input to Q3DFL0-81 to account for quasi-3D-ef fects. The assumed

distribution of the AVDR along the chord of the blade might not be

sufficiently representative of the experimental conditions and this could be

responsible for "the observed deviations.

B. Comparison with Finite Volume Code QSONIC

QSONIC is a FORTRAN computer code developed by NASA and is described in

detail in Ref. 12. It is capable of calculating the flow field about a

cascade of arbitrary 2-D airfoils and approximating the three-dimensional flow

in turbomachinery blade row by correcting for streamtube convergence (AVDR)

and radius change in the through flow direction. The program uses a

conservative solution of the full potential equation combined with the finite

volume method on a body-fitted periodic mesh. It is capable of calculating

through weak, shocks (peak relative Mach number less than 1.4) by introducing

an artificial density in the transonic regions. The code has been adapted to

the NFS computer (Ref. 13) and was used for comparison with 03DFLO-81.

Q3DFLO-81 and QSONIC are both inviscid codes and solve the potential flow

equations. In the Mach number range of the linear cascade (the Mach number of

the flow at the inlet to the blade row is 0.25), they were expected to give

basically the same results. Figure 31 compares the results of both codes with

measurements from Ref. 10. They are in good agreement and show the same

limitations for the calculation of the flow around the leading and trailing

edges.

Even though grid generator and flow solution runs can be separated while

operating QSONIC, it requires 12 minutes CPU time for the flow solution

-11-

while Q3DFLO-81 requires only eight seconds. For applications at low Mach

numbers Q3DFLO-81 is much faster for the same degree of accuracy. It also

provides a convenient post-processor which produces plots of mesh, blade shape

and the calculated results. QSONIC should be used for Mach numbers on the

blade surface from 1.0 to 1.4.

-12-

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The experience of applying the computational code Q3DFLO-81 to several

turbomachinery flow problems allowed the following conclusions to be drawn:

1. Despite the apparent complexity of the geometry, the application of

the code to the transonic compressor stage was straight-forward. The

mesh was simple and resulted in very modest CPU times.

2. In the compressor stage analysis, the inlet flow to the rotor wasvery well predicted. Flow incidence angles were computed well except

near the hub. Deviation angles from the rotor were within 3° of the

measured values with the largest departures near hub and tip. The

computed rotor losses agreed qualitatively with measured distributionsbut were smaller in magnitude. The stage efficiency was computed to be

lower than the measured values, suggesting an inconsistency which must

yet be explained.

3. Application of the code to the swirling flow generation within a

centrifugal diffuser test device (CDTD) required only that minor

geometrical approximations be introduced. Inlet and outlet boundaryconditions were within the capability of the existing code.

4. In the low speed CDTD, the computed spanwise distribution of flowproperties at the outlet did not agree with the measured valuessuggesting the importance of viscous effects. The mass-averaged outletflow properties agreed quite well.

5. The code was applied with apparent success to calculate transonicswirling flow within a high-speed CDTD, and could therefore be used to

design a suitable channel shape.

6. The prediction of the code in blade-to-blade calculations agreed wellwith measurements made in a linear subsonic cascade. Leading and trail-ing edges of the blades had to be modified to avoid non-physical velocitypeaks, but the influences of the modifications were negligible 5% chorddownstream of the leading edge and 5% chord upstream of the trailingedge.

7. Excellent agreement was obtained with the blade-to-blade predictionsof NASA's code QSONIC at a test Mach number of 0.2. However, the

Q3DFLO-81 code required 8 seconds of CPU time compared to 12 minutes for

QSONIC.

Overall, the experience of the individual investigators was that the code

could be applied successfully with limited guidance from the code's author.

The post processor package was extremely valuable, and was implemented without

difficulty on the NPS computer.

-13-

co•H+JUQJWI

WCO

2u

MOenen

2

o•Hcoen

Eh

-H

14

C\J

x:

CD

mco-H4J

(0

paeou

uoin

(/)

0)

aEou

CM

pCn•H

15

ZDcc

0CLUQ_

o>

."-^T

O ZlU1

<n to VI

O <_J

(33S/W) JUI3Q13A "ibUti

1

1 1

,1

1 1 1 1

b ii <

| 1

O < H

i O <1 H

Q <1 H

11 Q <1 H

<1 H

1

|

O P

jC>i+J 6•HO 5-1

4-1

CD a)

> uc

i—

1

rd

rd +J

•H WX •H

< TS

up

•HEn

|, . M , , . , , . ; . , , . | , , , rr-tf^n^L=r

\ XOvJ JZD • 3 (s p

az +'\

- :iu_ac +i t< ji

LU +

,

Q_ +/" +

'

o - + /

co £ + '

T jz cc - + 1

-

X. ex o t \

1— £ u

/. ... 1 ..1-dj,—

J

LD -)

CJ30J itjnm Muid 3imoidb

en

>

0)

1

|

1 1

i i 1 X,- 4 r-H P

1

i i

i tT> sz1

1 K «l C1 '

Fl 4 rd Ei

!i 4

f 4 £ M1

1

i

t •1M-l

fl 4 11—

I

£, 4 + ^ <L>

i 1 i « UCD C+J rd

nj en P +J

j „j UJ i—

I

CO

a a: cz cr » > > •H^ LJ ^J LJ c en T3i^ JO —i en ° " "-* X!

2 J. r J. x: r t < o\°

D CJ C O~* ™ '

EC T. IT

a a cr x a a a

rn ^ (,, m uj UJ UJ•

0)

PCnHfa

16

mO i-

UUGkfiN H3dW 3imOS8«

V> on i/i <ji ^cr a cr a >CJ i_» *-» u <T

J1 o h*> o> 4_.

z z z z ro o o o —

<x a a cr a.

co

>

H .

CD SiXI 36 x:3z e

£ mu M-l

<TJ

s (I)

U0) c+J <d

a -PH W

•H03 T3X!< o\°

>^3

CD

u

Cn•Hfa

, T 1 T . | 1 1 . 1 , - 1 . . 1

zr vsoj.—

i

_

Z> /i/

- /J -

cr // 0<jijj / (o <V

C7> - 7 '

I y _""

/ f <a - 7 xPL^7

c^ wco Sz cr

U 2 u

>< cr oI— Wl u.

i . • . . i ./, . /. i . . . .

I33S/H1 X1I3013A "lblCJOU

o\°

11 1 1

CO #

G « > £3

1 I

G « ai G 4 >1 x:Q < 4-1

1« •H 6

Q •« O1

|

Q 4 s-i

1 G « 1—

1

M-l

1 iQ « CD

I Q « > QJ

Ur—

1

c(0 fO

UJ UJ •H 4-1^J toa: a

mcc

UJ UJ> 3* T3 CO

C-J LJ w *-»

-1 -J (ti •HU*} CD en a\ l_) *_l Pi TS

z z Z z x x:o o 1

1

auC CCUJ UJ

O" CI a- u-

VI ifi to tn ij 2 LT)

cd

MPCJ-

•Hfa

17

o >-OD d

(X "0301 3uniuu3a^3i idiot aimosau

^/l <r> t/i ^/i uj j.

<x ac cx cc > =•

'_ t J ._> <_J iE T

Z Z Z Z X X

tx <x a a: a. c

</> <n (/» in uj u.

CD

U3 •

P £1fl 3u JZCD

Cu gaCD U-P M-l

rH CD

03 O+J c

rC

+J 4J

WCD -H4-> T32H o\°

en •

Xi CO

< >

00

CD

S-i

enHfa

-f| r ' • * *

rT ' '

i• '

A*=r ft J(\J £ V— -

. % ) 1 J -

z. !. i

1

ID•ar

<3 ]

4 /( D

\- V J -

u_ <]<

cc 4

O 4

G 4

O 4

Q 4a 4

c: a x tx > -f- _. -i ^-i x .r

ui b ^ <n u u

.z z z z r r

a: a <r a a. a_

CD X2M 2S <—•

en

to £=

CD

fH Ua 4-1

.—

i

CD

rC u4-> c

rd

P 4J

CO

CD •HP TS3rH o\°

m •

X! cn

rtl >

r~

CD

U3tJ>

•Hfa

18

1030) N0I1H1A3Q

tn in uja a: >(_j (_* CE

ovo

> X!P

a> JG

tjl 6cfO M

co•H

fd

•H>

a

enH

a)

ucrd

w•HT3

e <\i — —

1 'O ' "l '

; «j

o ^ »oc a

U w. "v - o — x -

,1./' Q- . 1 . .

<]

/

;

/

/

1

—1 1 1 1 1 1 1

103GI 33N30I3NI

rfll

ai tn w wa: a: >• »lj <—> a: a:

3 -J

<r tr — —

o\°

U) •

> -Q3

<D rCi-H

tP £Chj U

U-l

CD

U <u

c<D cT3 fd

•H +J

U to

c •H

QJ

M

•rH

T3

19

.

,, ,....,., , ill 1'

((

=rr\j

\\<—

i

I'

-2L1 \

ID1

az/

/

Li- 1 1 y

ce1

/

LD 1 \ /Q_

\ / /

Ol

| ;X \ /

. o 2|

\ / /

CD £ \ / /v) <d mz cr

1 /

c_j 2 u 1

\ /

/

>- H tn i - tX a d\ \ /

I

1— in u.1

1

, , /, , i . , , A i / . . . /. 1 , ,

IUU9) 3UnSS3Ud DlidiS

o\o

w •

> X53

•i

•

CD JZ1

1i

ui

i P ei i

to

l

1

|

en uQ) 4-1

l

|! U

l

ia CD

Ul 1 1 u cH ra

+j 4->

-• — -* — td 0)

+j •Hin in in in cn T1(x a: cr cro u o i_)

in co m cn

z z z zO o CL o

a a a: a:

en in tn tn

CN

U3cn•Hfa

=r^V^ , 1 1 1 1

1 1

II1

f\J

>—

1

_ _

Q \ 1

cc \ 1X\ 1

La-

ceLUQ_

,

TXC

go:

BLADE

ROWS

12

FLOW

CASES

§. . . . \ . .

-

ui in uja: cr ;>

u u cc

1N3 1G I J J30D SSCn

o\°

cn

>

+J

cCD

HO•H4-1

4-1

CD

Ou

en

cn

o

CD

5-1

3Cn•Hfa

D.3£6O

4-1

CD

UC<ti

4-1

cn

•HT3

20

'' ' "

,,,,,,,,,,

ZT\ .

CM \ I—>

11

-z. I /1

3/'

\

cc \

\i I

Ll_ i \az

i \LU / '

\ V1 \\ \07.

P

13

19

/ 1

ID £l/l CD COZ CC

X ^5"1 V» U-

/ 1

/ 1

\ \

\ \\ \

. 1 . . . . \ . .

O i-

I33S/MI UI3CH3A IbiOi 3iniOS8d

>i+J

•HUOHCD

>

O

0)

+J

HOCO

XI

•Hfa'

p

eoS-i

4-1

CU

uc03

+J

to

•H

CO

>

V ','

'

=r\

r\j \ . 1

—

•

\ -

n 1 1

/ccV

/

Li_

/arLlJ

/ >

11

/ '

/ 1

/ 1

/\

t

7.

P

13

19

•

co cd inz a:

u 2 u^ »- en 3 ~

r~ in u_

-

1 . ./, , 1 , . . . 1 , . . . 1 , , , 1.

ID3S/W] JUI3013A 1bIJ.N3DNHl 3imQSgtl

CO CD OT

D D O D

cr a cr ain v> en m

>i+J

•HUOrH

>

+J

CCU

tncrd

4-1

CU

p

CO

CD

up

Hfa

X!PX!

OS-I

4-1

CU

ocf0

4->

CO

•H

o\°

lu uj uj uj fnin in t;) (n w^cr a a: a: f}

< >CO

21

T—r r^TI

1 1 I . | - I . 1 | I I i i

zr \ 1

r\j\ '

z V 1

ZD\

cc1

1

- / 1

\Ll_ /•

'

LC1 [

LU I 1

Q_ 1

(71

/ '

.

Xo 2 / 1

CD E 1

in co m2 a

1 1

c_> 2 u \ '

v- »- Ul X —-?S (T O \

1

i— Si. ...» 1 .... 1 ..... 1 ... 1.

(93Q) 310NH M01J 3Ailti13U

en

>

CO .QH 3!T> £C

i

•03 g

1

11

2 Mm

. |H

l1

1

i i .

<+A CO

u'

1

0) cI

i > UJ

i i i

•H -pI 1 1 -P w

fd •HH T3

_. — —. —CO

UJ UJ LU UJin in in in

OS 0\°

cr ex cr crcj u <_/ LJ

m cd i^ en

o o okO

a a cr crCO

in ui in io MaCP•Hfa

'

' ' ' \ .

'

''

1

CD

< \ 1

zr1 ,

i

OJ1 o*~~*

i 1 <r>

ZZL ' / 1

Z)'/ '

cc\

' < \ o

/'1 \

U3

Li-

arLU

/' V

CL- ' \ oot '

1 1 \ zr

V, "' \

O £/ '

' \CO 2i/i co inZ (X

CJ 2 tJ ! \ \ O

->v. cr o' ' \1— m u_

. . /. . . 1. . . i . . . \ .

O

H38WnN H3dW 3AI1U13U

a: en a exu u u u

o o o ot- t- I— t—n cr a: cr

in in in in

en

>

uCO

X!g3

ufXJ

aCD

>H-Prd

c-H

CO

05

Lf)

CO

oCP•Hfa

gouM-l

0)

uc

-uen

H

22

0.9"

u

J 0.8.uHM-l

pa

0.7--

x

-K

1.4-

-p

H 13wen

0)

<T5

Jf 1.2-oEh

1.110

%

.+

$J^s'o %—^x—*^x

.+",+

^+.+..+-++—1+++ -+"

X Adiabatic efficiency (calculated)

4- Total efficiency (calculated)

^7 Total pressure ratio (calculated)

O Test data

*-$--52.

57-

G v

'&-&W&^o

itLI 12 13

Referred flow rate (lb/sec)

15

Figure 17. Calculated and measured compressor per-

formance maps at 60% and 70% design speed

23

0)

c•H>-Ho

CM CQJ

S-i

PQ

z-S

Cu Oj

CO « C<—

1

S o•H

^-s 0) ua o •H,

S-i a<o a) 0) c<-H •u a, a)

03 •HS-i M CJ

O •H

3 Cfl M-l

o en <4-l

T—

1

QJ 0)

M-l S-i

a JHT3 S cfl^ QJ o 0)

r—

I

S-I o aS-i

QJ T3 w4-1 QJ QJ

QJ 4-1 •H

Pd CO U-J

1—1 •H

3 •U

o c1—1 QJ

CO XlCN c_> H

00

0)

M300•Hfa

o o oOT^BJ 3jnSS9Jd

24

Pd

CDa

ii

CD

o COCO LlJ

oH4->

o(1)

en

I

Wen

os~i

o

co•rH

4->

ucu

en

-Pen

CD

-P

aQU

<Xi

p

•H

CO

J

cren Lar— aca h-c_j en

25

CDTD JWS = 8 Bl = 2.6STATIONS

2 5 12 IB

FLOW CASES

1

~~T 1 1 i

~

V -""

. / /

// -

?'--'.

1I 1

i

10.0

.0

•10.0

20 HO 60 80 100

0/0 OISTHNCE FROM HUB OF STATION

CDTD JW5=8.0 Bl=2.6STATIONS

2 5 12 Ifl

FLOW CBSES

1

-r ~r

_i_ _L _I_

.98

.97

.96

.95

20 40 60 BO 100

O/fl OISTANCE FROM HUB OF STATION

CDTD JHS=8.0 81=2.6STATIONS

2 5 12 18

FLOW CBSES1

1 r

_i_

rz 4.00 10

3.75

-1

3.50

. 3.25

20 40 60 SO 100

0/0 OISTANCE FROM HUB OF STATION

CDTD JWS=B.O Bl =2. 6STATIONS

2 5 12 If

FLOW CASES1

~r - 90.

_L_

_ eo.

75.

_ 70.

20 40 60 80 ICO

0/0 OISTHNCE FROM HUB OF STATION

STATION 2 CASE I

STATION 5 CASE I

STATION 12 CASE 1

STAIION 18 CASE 1

Figure 20. Spanwise distribution of flow properties

as a function of flow station.

26

' iO —i—, . .

y.'

CD < /OJ 

in <\

CDTDSTATIONS

ISFLOW

CASE

<

1 o 'V

O <1

o <

o <

O 4O <

O <

Q <S

Q 4

Q 4

Q <

—• — eg

CE > >i_> a: a:

GO CJ (_l

oE Xa: rx

a. a.

(030) 3"IDNd M01J simosaa

wT3 <D

OJ rH-U Cn

C•H 10

T3OJ 55-1

0, rHm

4-1

T3OJ

c 5-1

3w 0]

•H (0

S-l (U

fO ea,6 T3

Cu 03

CN<N

0)

u

en

CD >\^OJ V

II - \r-H 1

CD\

O\

• \

CO1

II Jen So. ^^2 u" <c^^~

)" _~^^~-uj mi/i UJ

[ J <r> a> cc ^r- S?" "•""""^

Q E g-t_> fe i

- i1 .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 .

tD a.=3 —X I-

(W3) SS3NX3IH1 IbOISAHd

+J 1

c fd

cu -P

S CO

a5

rH O0) H> 4-1

CD

T5 M-l

OM0J C>irrj •rH

H HO

>i G5-1 3fC 4-1

T3 •

C rtJ G3O CO HPQ rcj +J

CN

OJ

5-1

O^-Hfa

27

2!UJ

CDCD<r3

r\j o -sWXJs

CD

OC_J

COQ LjJ

UJ ZLJ i—

i

a_ _JCO Z>1

exX LiJ

CD cc

in

28

HIGH SPEED CDTDSTATIONS

2 5 a 12

FLOW CASES

I

.it,,.

\ -

i i i

\

V

/'

\

" /

1'

1

\

\-

fV

l 1 1 1

.550

.500

.USO

. .UOO

20 10 60 80 100

0/0 DISTANCE FROM HUB OF STATION


2 5 8 12FLOW CASES

1

1 I1 T

\

[ \

: \\

r

y

1.55

1.50

: 1.45

1.40

1.35

20 40 60 80 1 GO


STATION 2 CASE 1

STATION 5 CASE 1

STATION 8 CASE 1

STATION 12 CASE 1


2 S 8 12.FLOW CASES

1

/\

s

_1_

80.0

70.0

_ 60.0

D 20 40 60 80 100



2 5 8 12

FLOW CASES

1

T "I-

V J

_!_ _1_ _1_ _L_

200.

150.

100.

50.0

20 40 60 80 100

0/0 DISTANCE FYrCM HUB OF STATION

Figure 24. High speed CDTD flow properties

29

UJ

oCDCC

O_lQ_

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

LiJ

Qcn [±j

_J Q_CD CT

1 XQ cn(_J

L±J

(X CDCO CE(X _J^ GO

o

0)

to

au<:CO

<2

mCN

a)

•HEn

30

oCD

LO

OQ_

^C\J

az

en

zzenLU

a ujce 2:_J UJCQ _J

I UJQCJ UJ

(Xincr

w

g

-p

c

eQ)

•Hc•HIH

(U

QU<

2

CN

CD

UP

31

oCDaz3 j^ ^ ^^ Am

CM

_iQ_

t t t t t

t t t t t

t ^ <\

I

V\—\ V-* 11

az

en

a

en

en

uj enCD UJ

CDCJ

enCE UJ

CL \—^ CD

32

1

e.rin

1O)i !

cmm )W

ii

_i ) V

cr -, \^

i—LU

' V3

D \<

a -

J

u5 s t) jfl

CE B SCT> o ° 1El /«cx --3-

h/j>

-—e

—

JSn ...1N3I313J303 3unSS3dd iN3l3Iii303 3U(1SS3U.J

to

<d

to

CO

a)

5-1

'

' ga- 1

' '

oh

1O «

• <

CO!.

«

CM 4

it

(

(

flO «

o <

4

,_, <

cx f «

i—i

4

LUcn

.r

— m

Q i P sC_) c

z »i

a3 3

CX £ a1h i

U~> a °/

CX ". o r%4-z. o ^ §£ ss

._^--*a.n.

, . . . . .

1NJ13UJ303 3UI1SS3UJ

'

~3r> . •

O) iCM \-

Jt!

zrt \

ii

!

CX .)

\

LU < 3

\COt D

{a < Du 5 - \x s s L LCT) o "

i rcx --5" A i.

z - i V i. . Jj tj^

iN3131di303 ]yr,;ijdd

CD

UfO

M-l

uoCO

T3CD

UoCO

(fl

CD

e

C

CD

4-»

CJ

•HTJ"CD

LUCO

a

cx £en ocx ~

-e-=*4<€^.

——1 1 « -g ' T—• ' • '

en

CO -

ro

(>ii

( )

cx ( )

»—( )

cn( D fl

Q ()

C_) c

CI £ S LCO a "cx --S-

"la-. ...... i

00CN

CD

HDCn•HEm

mini 3 HOD lanssiad 1N3I3I i J303 3HnSS3UJ

33

in

-

c cc cc cr*l ccc oLn vX3

V V0J aPS K£

VC

c cc c;<r or^ o-i

<r vJ3

OD

. ,^r

CM

O CD VO CM

t

O CDO

0)

o m*3°

^_

^

4->

. CD (fl (1)

rn8

r-H

C-H

•m t: !-l

•H

<Dr-t

T C7i•

en q CO

<< >

u &CM3 Q

>-p <a

o c ,m 1—

I

CTi

CM

CO (U

„"M

Cn•H

<o faCM

TCM

OU3O O CMO oa

HOAV

34

o

c co cc c(—> cao CNun MDV V<y CJ

K cc

& V

O co o<r cr^ m^T vO

on

in 4-1n C•

o 00

HU•H<4-l

ma)

omo <D

CO4Jc<1J

•H)-l

•HU QJ•-I

>_iin u_iPCN U-i

08CO

CO

U Q)

5-1

a2

•Hcn a +J

• u (0a 4-1

.enCO

au •

CU CO

>in -^ «

o2 Q>

CQ <

O ro1—

t

• CDOS-i

DCT>

Hfa

in

oo

orsi

00 vo cm COo U3O fMO OO

HOAV

35

inen

c\j

m

cr

UJId

ol_)

CIencc

CE

- UJ Q

o3" O

1N313I3330D 3unSS3dd

r5K-

'J

I

&>ffl.F) , , i

Q >.31 O

w ,—

>

Q wH QCO Hatf 2D OCO Hw Hw uptj D04 CO'—

'

1—

'

H < < uCC Eh Eh M

1 < < zC u Q Q oK- M COCn s Eh Eh aC o CO COn co w W 13a Eh Eh c

fO

X a 4

X G 4 1—

1

X Q 4 CO

X 4 1

X G 4 UX G 4 \1

EnX G 4 nX G 4 roX G 4 OX G 4

C

cn

H

e

u1N3I3I333Q0 3UflSS3dd

OJ

CCh-UJmaCJ e

z

CC DCO D

j o"T" >—1 a

s&-r-^'X-

mQ)

Cn-Hfa

1N3I3I J.J30 3 3tinSS3Ud

36

TABLE I - CD COMPRESSOR CASCADE PARAMETERS

Blade type CD

Number of blades 20

Spacing (inches) 3.0

Solidity 1.67

Thickness (% chord) 7.0

Stagger angle - 14.27

TABLE II - CD BLADE COORDINATES

Y-PRESS. Y-SIJCT,

0.045 0.0450.084

0.0020.044 0.1960.101 0.3070.155 0.4030.207 0.1880.255 . 0.5G10.299 0.6210.330 0.6630.350 0.6910.359 0.7050.359 0.7080.352 0.701

0.342 0.6810.331 0.6500.317 0.6100.301 0.5630.281 0.5100.257 0.1530.227 0.1930.191 0.1320.146 0.2700.089 0.2080.019 0.1450.004

0.1220.062 0.U62

37

X-COORD

0.

0. 022

0. 057

0. 222

0. 444

0. 6660. 8881. 110

1. 3321.,554

1.,776

1.,998

2.,220

2.,442

2,,664

2 .886

3 .108

3..310

3 .552

3 .774

3 .996

4 .218

4 .440

4 .662

4 .884

4 .9254 .964

5 .010

REFERENCES

1. Wu, C. H. , "A General Theory of Three Dimensional Flow in Subsonic and

Supersonic Turbomachines of Axial-Radial and Mixed Flow Type," NACA, TN

2604, 1952.

2. Hirsch, CH. and Warzee, G. , "A Finite Element Method for Through FlowCalculations in Turbomachines," ASME Journal of Fluid Engineering,

pp. 403-421, September 1976.

3. Hirsch, CH. and Warzee, G. , "An Integral Quasi-3D Finite ElementCalculation Program for Turbomachinery Flow," ASME Journal of Engineering

for Power, Vol. 01, pp. 141-148, January 1979.

4. Schulz, H. D. , "Guide to Using the Finite Element Code Q3DFLO-81 on the

NPS IBM 370," Naval Postgraduate School, Turbopropulsion LaboratoryTechnical Note TPL-TN-84-01 , June 1984.

5. Erwin, J. R. , "A Review of the Design of the NPS/TPL TransonicCompressor," Contractor Report NPS67-83-004CR, Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey, CA, March 1983.

6. Erwin, J. R. , Phillips, R. , Schulz, H. D. and Shreeve, R. P.,

"Development of a Centrifugal Diffuser Test Device, Part I - Design and

Construction of Low Speed Aparatus," Naval Postgraduate School ProjectReport, NPS67-84-003PR, September 1984.

7. Schulz, H. D. and Shreeve, R. P., "Development of a Centrifugal DiffuserTest Device, Part II - Initial Measurements and Flow Analysis," Naval

Postgraduate School Project Report, NPS67-84-004PR, September 1984.

8. Sanger, N. L. , "The Use of Optimization Techniques to Design ControlledDiffusion Compressor Blading," NASA Technical Memorandum 82763, Lewis

Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 1982.

9. Rose, C. C. and Guttormson, D. L. , "Installation and Test of a

Rectilinear Cascade," Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey, California, 1964.

10. Koyuncu, Y, "Report of Tests of a Compressor Configuration of CDBlading," Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,California, 1984.

11. Himes, S. J., "Report of Tests of a Compressor Configuration of DCABlading," Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,California, 1983.

-38-

REFERENCES

12. Farrell, Ch. , "Quasi-3D Full Potential Transonic Blade-to-Blade-Code ,

"

NASA Hand out, Draft of Technical Paper, Conference on TurbomachineryFlow Analysis Methods—A Status Report on Maturing Codes, Conference at

NASA Lewis Research Center, 14-15 October 1981.

13. Molloy, Jr., W. D. , "Preliminary Measurements and Code Calculations of

Flow Through a Cascade of DCA Blading at a Solidity of 1.67," Master'sThesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 1982.

-39-

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1

.

CommanderNaval Air Systems CommandWashington, DC 20361Attention: Code AIR 310 1

Code AIR 310E 1

Code AIR 320D 1

Code AIR 530 1

Code AIR 536 1

Code AIR 00D 14

Code AIR 03D 1

2. Office of Naval Research800 N. Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22217

Attention: Dr. A. D. Wood 1

Dr. M. K. Ellingsworth 1

3. Commanding OfficerNaval Air Propulsion Center

Trenton, NJ 08628Attention: G. Mangano, PE-31 1

4. Commanding Officer 1

Naval Air Development CenterWarminster, PA 19112Attention: AVTD

5. Library 1

Army Aviation Material LaboratoriesDepartment of the ArmyFort Eustis, VA 23604

6. Dr. Arthur J. Wennerstrom 1

AFWAL/POTXWright-Patterson AFBDayton, OH 45433

7. Air Force Office of Scientific Research 1

AFOSR/NABoiling Air Force BaseWashington, DC 20332Attention: Mr. James Wilson

-40-

8. National Aeronautics & Space AdministrationLewis Research Center21000 Brookpark RoadCleveland, OH 44135Attention: Chief, Internal Fluid Mechanics Division 3

Library 1

9. Library 1

General Electric CompanyAircraft Engine Technology DivisionDTO Mail Drop H43Cincinnati, OH 45215

10. Library 1

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft GroupPost Office Box 2691

West Palm Beach, FL 33402

11. Library 1

Pratt-Whitney Aircraft GroupEast Hartford, CT 06108

12. Library 1

Curtis Wright CorporationWoodridge, NJ 07075

13. Library 1

AVCO/Lycoming550 S. Main StreetStratford, CT 06497

14. Library 1

Teledyne CAE , Turbine Engines1330 Laskey RoadToledo, OH 43612

15. Library 1

Williams InternationalP. 0. Box 200

Walled Lake, MI 48088

16. Library 1

Detroit Diesel Allison Division G.M.C.P. 0. Box 894Indianapolis, IN 46202

17. Library 1

Garrett Turbine Engine Company111 S. 34th StreetP. 0. Box 5217

Phoenix, AZ 85010

-41-

8. Professor J. P. GostelowSchool of Mechanical EngineeringThe New South Wales Institute of TechnologyNew South WalesAUSTRALIA

19. Dr. G. J. WalkerCivil and Mechanical Engineering

DepartmentThe University of TasmaniaBox 25 2C

GPO Hobart, Tasmania 7110AUSTRALIA

20. Professor F. A. E. BreugelmansInstitut von Karman de la Dynamique

des Fluides72 Chausee de Waterloo1640 Rhode-St. GeneseBELGIUM

21. Professor Ch. HirschVrije Universiteit BrusselPleinlaan 2

1050 BrusselsBELGIUM

22. DirectorGas Turbine EstablishmentP. 0. Box 305

Jiangyou CountySichuan ProvinceCHINA

23. Professor C. H. WuP. 0. Box 2706

Beijing 100080CHINA

24. Director, Whittle LaboratoryDepartment of EngineeringCambridge UniversityENGLAND

25. Professor Jacques ChauvinUniversite d'Aix-Marseille1 Rue Honnorat

MarseilleFRANCE

-42-

26. Mr. Jean Fabri

ONERA29, Ave. de la Division Leclerc92 ChatillonFRANCE

27. Professor D. AdlerTechnion Israel Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringHaifa 32000ISRAEL

28. Dr. P. A. ParanjpeHead, Propulsion DivisionNational Aeronautics LaboratoryPost Bag 1700

Bangalore - 17

INDIA

29. Dr. W. SchlachterBrown, Boveri Company Ltd.Dept. T-TP. 0. Box CH-5401 BadenSWITZERLAND

30. Professor Leonhard FottnerDepartment of Aeronautics and AstronauticsGerman Armed Forces UniversityHochschule des BundeswehrWerner Heisenbergweg 39

8014 Neubiberg near MunichWEST GERMANY

31. Professor Dr. Ing. Heinz E. GallusLehrstuhl und Institut feur Strahlantiebeund TurbourbeitsmashinenRhein.-Westf . Techn. Hochschule AachenTemplergraben 55

5100 AachenWEST GERMANY

32. Dr. Ing. Hans -J. HeinemannDFVLR-AVABunsenstrasse 10

3400 GeottingenWEST GERMANY

33. Dr. H. WeyerDFVLRLinder Hohe505 Porz-WahnWEST GERMANY

-43-

34. Dr. Robert P. Dring 1

United Technologies Research CenterEast Hartford, CT 06108

35

.

Chairman 1

Aeronautics and Astronautics Department31-265 Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, Massachusetts 02139

36. Dr. B. Lakshminarayana 1

Professor of Aerospace EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State University233 Hammond BuildingUniversity Park, Pennsylvania 16802

37. Mr. R. A. Langworthy 1

Army Aviation Material LaboratoriesDepartment of the ArmyFort Eustis, VA 23604

38. Professor Gordon C. Oates 1

Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington 98105

39. Mechanical Engineering DepartmentVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State UniversityBlacksburg, VA 24061

Attn: Professor W. O'Brian 1

Professor H. Moses 1

40. Professor T. H. Okiishi 1

Professor of Mechanical Engineering208 Mechanical Engineering BuildingIowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa 50011

41. Dr. Fernando Sisto 1

Professor and Head of MechanicalEngineering Department

Stevens Institute of TechnologyCastle PointHoboken, NJ 07030

42. Dr. Leroy H. Smith, Jr. 1

Manager, Compressor and FanTechnology Operation

General Electric CompanyAircraft Engine Technology DivisionDTO Mail Drop H43Cincinnati, OH 45215

-44-

43. Dr. W. Tabakoff 1

Professor , Department of AerospaceEngineering

University of CincinnatiCincinnati, OH 45221

44. Mr. P. Tramm 1

Manager, Research LabsDetroit Diesel Allison DivisionGenteral MotorsP. 0. Box 894

Indianapolis, IN 46206

45. Mr. P. F. Yaggy 1

DirectorU. S. Array Aeronautical Research LaboratoryAMES Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035

46. Library 2

Code 1424

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93943

47. Office of Research Administration 1

Code 012Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93943

48. Defense Technical Information Center 2

Cameron StationAlexandria, VA 22314

49. Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93943Attn: Professor M. F. Platzer (67PL) 1

Turbopropulsion Laboratory (67Sf) 20

-45-

DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY

3 2768 00340217 3

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL - CORE · comparisonofq3dflo-81andqsonic 36. listoftables...

Documents

Transcript of NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL - CORE · comparisonofq3dflo-81andqsonic 36. listoftables...