1. &o4-3
2. 4-3 CO
3. igSCD 4-3 CO 85 85 85
4. 836 20.93 -0.14 -0.45% -0.54% -0.69% -0.45% -0.67% and interpolated with spline functions. Within the mass flow range from 0.96 up to 1, differences between the constant speed lines are minimal. At lower mass flow rate, the graph corresponding to mesh G3 declines and finishes earlier. The remaining graphs are in good agreement with experimental data. Thereby, Gl slightly underpredicts it. The Peak pressure rise for Gl, G2, and G4is located at the same normalized mass flow of about 0.915 ra/ramax. Overall adiabatic efficiencies are underestimated (Fig. 5). This could be a result of the adiabatic boundary condition at solid walls. Obviously, graph G3 is underneath the remaining lines which are nearly congruent. Summarizing the overall performance, the flow prediction based on mesh G3 is not adequate due to insufficient spherical discretization over the tip gap.
5. E § O 1-9 Experiment Calculation, G1 Calculation,G2 Calculation, G3 Calculation, G4 0.9 0.925 0.95