Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20150004725

High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor for Rotorcraft Applications

Gorazd Medic·Om P Sharma·Joo Jongwook·Larry W Hardin·Duane C McCormick·William T Cousins·Elizabeth A Lurie·Aamir Shabbir·Brian M Holley·Paul R Van Slooten
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The report "High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor for Rotorcraft Applications" documents the work conducted at UTRC under the NRA Contract NNC08CB03C, with cost share 2/3 NASA, and 1/3 UTRC, that has been extended to 4.5 years. The purpose of this effort was to identify key technical barriers to advancing the state-of-the-art of small centrifugal compressor stages; to delineate the measurements required to provide insight into the flow physics of the technical barriers; to design, fabricate, install, and test a state-of-the-art research compressor that is representative of the rear stage of an axial-centrifugal aero-engine; and to acquire detailed aerodynamic performance and research quality data to clarify flow physics and to establish detailed data sets for future application. The design activity centered on meeting the goal set outlined in the NASA solicitation-the design target was to increase efficiency at higher work factor, while also reducing the maximum diameter of the stage. To fit within the existing Small Engine Components Test Facility at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) and to facilitate component re-use, certain key design parameters were fixed by UTRC, including impeller tip diameter, impeller rotational speed, and impeller inlet hub and shroud radii. This report describes the design effort of the High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor stage (HECC) and delineation of measurements, fabrication of the compressor, and the initial tests that were performed. A new High-Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor stage with a very challenging reduction in radius ratio was successfully designed, fabricated and installed at GRC. The testing was successful, with no mechanical problems and the running clearances were achieved without impeller rubs. Overall, measured pressure ratio of 4.68, work factor of 0.81, and at design exit corrected flow rate of 3 lbm/s met the target requirements. Polytropic efficiency of 85.5 percent and stall margin of 7.5 percent were measured at design flow rate and speed. The measured efficiency and stall margin were lower than pre-test CFD predictions by 2.4 percentage points (pt) and 4.5 pt, respectively. Initial impressions from the experimental data indicated that the loss in the efficiency and stall margin can be attributed to a design shortfall in the impeller. However, detailed investigation of experimental data and post-test CFD simulations of higher fidelity than pre-test CFD, and in particular the unsteady CFD simulations and the assessment with a wider range of turbulence models, have indicated that the loss in efficiency is most likely due to the impact of unfavorable unsteady impeller/diffuser interactions induced by diffuser vanes, an impeller/diffuser corrected flow-rate mismatch (and associated incidence levels), and, potentially, flow separation in the radial-to-axial bend. An experimental program with a vaneless diffuser is recommended to evaluate this observation. A subsequent redesign of the diffuser (and the radial-to-axial bend) is also recommended. The diffuser needs to be redesigned to eliminate the mismatching of the impeller and the diffuser, targeting a slightly higher flow capacity. Furthermore, diffuser vanes need to be adjusted to align the incidence angles, to optimize the splitter vane location (both radially and circumferentially), and to minimize the unsteady interactions with the impeller. The radial-to-axial bend needs to be redesigned to eliminate, or at least minimize, the flow separation at the inner wall, and its impact on the flow in the diffuser upstream. Lessons were also learned in terms of CFD methodology and the importance of unsteady CFD simulations for centrifugal compressors was highlighted. Inconsistencies in the implementation of a widely used two-equation turbulence model were identified and corrections are recommended. It was also observed that unsteady simulations for centrifugal compressors require significantly longer integration times than what is current practice in industry.

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Gorazd Medic, Om P Sharma, Joo Jongwook, Larry W Hardin, Duane C McCormick, William T Cousins, Elizabeth A Lurie, Aamir Shabbir, Brian M Holley, Paul R Van Slooten. 2014-11-01. High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor for Rotorcraft Applications. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150004725

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

vaned diffuser↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

centrifugal compressor↗
NASA NTRS2026

Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Phase 1 3-Stage Compressor Rig Final Report - Unlimited Rights

The HyTEC Phase 1 3-Stage Compressor Rig project was conducted to mature and validate front-stage aerodynamic technologies in support of HyTEC Phase 2 and GEA’s Compact Core compressor. Building on the prior ERA Phase 2 Baseline Rig, GEA and NASA collaborated on the design and testing of the HyTEC rig, incorporating advanced technologies such as increased radius ratio, higher aerodynamic loading, and advanced casing treatment. The HyTEC test campaign leveraged similar design and instrumentation philosophy, test execution approach, and the same facility (NASA W-7) to enable clear comparison with the legacy ERA rig results. The HyTEC rig was designed to deliver benefits in efficiency, tip loading, operability, and aeromechanics, with success measured against defined TPMs that were anchored to the ERA baseline rig data.

Axial Compressors↗