Abstract
Based on the inspection of the Ainley and Mathieson and the Benner et al. models for profile losses, the two models are compared through numerical simulations. The discrepancies between them are examined and discussed with new observations. It is observed that the stalling incidence predicted by the Benner et al. model is smaller than that predicted by the Ainley and Mathieson model. And also, the Benner et al. model demonstrates that profile losses experience three evidently different regimes, say, insensitive to incidence or the ratio of incidence to stalling incidence from-3.0 to +0.65, sensitive from +0.65 to +2.0, and very sensitive beyond +2.0, but the Ainley and Mathieson model does not. In particular, the third regime had not been covered by the Ainley and Mathieson model. The Benner et al. model is superior to the Ainley and Mathieson model both in preciseness and coverage in that the former is developed through a series of improvements to fit the existing measurements.
Publisher
Trans Tech Publications, Ltd.
Reference13 articles.
1. D.G. Ainley, and G.C.R. Mathieson. An examination of the flow and pressure losses in blade rows of axial flow turbines. British Aeronautical Research Council, R and M 2891, (1951).
2. D.G. Ainley, and G.C.R. Mathieson. A method of performance estimation for axial flow turbines. British Aeronautical Research Council, R and M 2974, (1951).
3. W.L. Stewart, W.J. Whitney, R.Y. Wong. A study of boundary layer characteristics of turbomachine blade rows and their relation to overall blade loss. Transactions of the ASME, 1960, 82: 588-592.
4. H.R.M. Craig, and H.J.A. Cox. Performance estimation of axial flow turbines. Proceedings Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1971, 185(32): 407-424.
5. J.D. Denton. Loss mechanisms in turbomachinery. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 1993, 115: 621-656.