Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1081–1091 | Cite as

Flow computations of multi-stages by URANS and flux balanced mixing models

  • YaLu Zhu
  • JiaQi LuoEmail author
  • Feng Liu


The quasi-steady methods based on mixing models have been widely applied to flow computations of turbomachinery multistages in aerospace engineering. Meanwhile, the unsteady numerical simulation has also been used due to its ability in obtaining time-dependent flow solutions. In the paper, two different mixing treatments and the corresponding flux balanced ones are presented to exchange the flow solutions on the interfaces between adjacent blade rows. The four mixing treatments are then used for flow computations of a subsonic 1.5-stage axial turbine and a quasi-1.5-stage transonic compressor rotor. The results are compared with those by unsteady numerical method, which is implemented by using the sliding mesh technique. The effects of the quasi-steady and unsteady computation methods on the conservation of flow solutions across the interfaces are presented and addressed. Furthermore, the influence of mixing treatments on shock wave and flow separation of the transonic compressor rotor is presented in detail. All the results demonstrate that the flux balanced mixing treatments can be used for multi-stage flow computations with improved performance on interface conservation, even in the complex flows.


computational fluid dynamics multi-stage mixing model flux balance unsteady flow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wu C H. A general theory of three-dimensional flow in subsonic and supersonic turbomachines of axial-, radial-, and mixed-flow types. NASA TN 2604, 1952Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denton J D. The calculation of three dimensional viscous flow through multistage turbomachines. ASME, 1990. 90-GT-19Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adamczyk J J. Model equation for simulating flows in multistage turbomachinery. ASME, 1985. 85-GT-226Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adamczyk J J, Mulac R A, Celestina M L. A model for closing the inviscid form of the average-passage equation system. ASME, 1986. 86-GT-227Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erdos J I, Alzner E, McNally W. Numerical solution of periodic transonic flow through a fan stage. AIAA J, 1977, 15: 1559–1568CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giles M B. Calculation of unsteady wake/rotor interaction. J Propul Power, 1988, 4: 356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall E J. Aerodynamic modelling of multistage compressor flow fields Part 1: Analysis of rotor-stator-rotor aerodynamic interaction. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G-J Aerosp Eng, 1998, 212: 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis R L, Yao J. Prediction of compressor stage performance from choke through stall. J Propul Power, 2006, 22: 550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gourdain N, Wlassow F, Ottavy X. Effect of tip clearance dimensions and control of unsteady flows in a multi-stage high-pressure compressor. J Turbomach, 2012, 134: 051005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu Y, Yu X, Liu B. Turbulence models assessment for large-scale tip vortices in an axial compressor rotor. J Propul Power, 2008, 24: 15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    You D, Wang M, Moin P, et al. Effects of tip-gap size on the tipleakage flow in a turbomachinery cascade. Phys Fluids, 2006, 18: 105102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    You D, Wang M, Moin P, et al. Large-eddy simulation analysis of mechanisms for viscous losses in a turbomachinery tip-clearance flow. J Fluid Mech, 2007, 586: 177–204CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu Y, Yan H, Lu L, et al. Investigation of vortical structures and turbulence characteristics in corner separation in a linear compressor cascade using DDES. J Fluids Eng, 2017, 139: 021107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan H, Liu Y, Li Q, et al. Turbulence characteristics in corner separation in a highly loaded linear compressor cascade. Aerosp Sci Tech, 2018, 75: 139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saxer A P, Giles M B. Predictions of 3-D steady and unsteady inviscid transonic stator/rotor interaction with inlet radial temperature nonuniformity. ASME, 1993. 93-GT-10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chima R V. Calculation of multistage turbomachinery using steady characteristic boundary conditions. AIAA, 1998. 98–0968Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanimann L, Mangani L, Casartelli E, et al. Development of a novel mixing plane interface using a fully implicit averaging for stage analysis. J Turbomach, 2014, 136: 081010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holmes D G. Mixing planes revisited: A steady mixing plane approach designed to combine high levels of conservation and robustness. ASME, 2008. GT2008-51296Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang D X. An improved mixing-plane method for analyzing steady flow through multiple-blade-row turbomachines. J Turbomach, 2014, 136: 081003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ning F. MAP: CFD package for turbomachinery flow simulation and aerodynamic design optimization. ASME, 2014. GT2014–26515Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Du P, Ning F. Validation of a novel mixing-plane method for multistage turbomachinery steady flow analysis. Chin J Aeronaut, 2016, 29: 1563–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rai M M. Navier-Stokes simulations of rotor/stator interaction using patched and overlaid grids. J Propul Power, 1987, 3: 387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    He L, Ning W. Efficient approach for analysis of unsteady viscous flows in turbomachines. AIAA J, 1998, 36: 2005–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall K C, Clark W S, Thomas J P. Computation of unsteady nonlinear flows in cascades using a harmonic balance technique. AIAA J, 2002, 40: 879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spalart P A, Allmaras S R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. AIAA, 1992. 92–0439Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jameson A, Schmidt W, Turkel E. Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time stepping schemes. AIAA, 1981. 81–1259Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoon S, Jameson A. Lower-upper symmetric-Gauss-Seidel method for the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA J, 1988, 26: 1025–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vasanthakumar P. Three dimensional frequency-domain solution method for unsteady turbomachinery flows. Doctoral Dissertation. Durham: Durham University, 2003Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jameson A. Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings. AIAA, 1991. 91-1596Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rai M M. A conservative treatment of zonal boundaries for Euler equation calculations. J Comput Phys, 1986, 62: 472–503MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rai M M. A relaxation approach to patched-grid calculations with the Euler equations. J Comput Phys, 1986, 66: 99–131MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutherland I E, Hodgman G W. Reentrant polygon clipping. Commun ACM, 1974, 17: 32–42CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Luo J, Zhou C, Liu F. Multipoint design optimization of a transonic compressor blade by using an adjoint method. J Turbomach, 2014, 136: 051005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang X, Luo J, Liu F. Aerodynamic shape optimization of a transonic fan by an adjoint-response surface method. Aerosp Sci Tech, 2017, 68: 26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Urasek D C, Gorrell W T, Cunnan W S. Performance of two-stage fan having low-aspect-ratio first-stage rotor blading. NASA Technical Report 1493, 1979Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strazisar A J, Wood J R, Hathaway M D, et al. Laser anemometer measurements in a transonic axial-flow fan rotor. NASA Technical Report 2879, 1989Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stephan B, Gallus H E, Niehuis R. Experimental investigations of tip clearance flow and its influence on secondary flows in a 1–1/2 stage axial turbine. ASME, 2000. 2000-GT-613Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations