[dre]

No, I haven't. Unfortunately, I don't have turbogrid.

[Far]

turbogrid geometry is attached at Post # 11 in this thread.

[olegmang]

In fact, I have coordinates in more convenient format for you (see attached). I've already extracted them from turbogrids rotor for each section and put into separate .txt files that you can easily import to SolidWorks and then loft a surface.

[tauqirnawaz]

Originally Posted by dre

I just constructed rotor 37 again using solidWorks only. I assume, that the reason for the differences are the creation of the radii at the leading and trailing edge.

I imported all points into SolidWorks. Afterwards I created an arc at the tailing and leading edge with the last and first point of the manufacturing coordinates as maximum and minimum, respectively. Then, I use splines to connect both arcs using the rest of the imported points:



Acctually, the length of the rotor is given by the manufacturing coordinates. So there should be no variations.

There is an easier way to do this;
1. Copy the points of each profile in a text file and name it i.e. Profile1.txt
2. use Insert>Curve>Curve Through XYZ Points
3. Browse the profile text file and click OK
4> Use surface loft

[Far]

This thread is becoming more and more informative, interesting and highly technical. This information, being discussed here, is very rare and mostly unknown except major companies.

[dre]

Thanks for your idea, tauqirnawaz. I'll try the turbogrid data and compare it to my rotor created with the manufacturing data.

Right now I just have the problem, that I can only use IGES to import the geometry to ICEM CFD (better data formats like *.sat and paraSolid are not working for me). Unfortunately, there are some surface errors and I have problems with the meshing.

At the moment, I created a quite coarse structured grid with about 350.000 cells for the rotor. I will start a first run tomorrow.

How about the tip clearance (0.1mm) and rotor hub radii (2.5mm)? Do you consider these?

[olegmang]

Originally Posted by tauqirnawaz

There is an easier way to do this;
1. Copy the points of each profile in a text file and name it i.e. Profile1.txt
2. use Insert>Curve>Curve Through XYZ Points
3. Browse the profile text file and click OK
4> Use surface loft

Haven't I said the same in post before and even provided the .txt files?

[dre]

Of course, you are right. I misunderstood you. I thought, I needed the CFD-Turbogrid software to assemble the rotor. I didn't think about using the data for SolidWorks :-) My bad!

[olegmang]

Originally Posted by dre

Thanks for your idea, tauqirnawaz. I'll try the turbogrid data and compare it to my rotor created with the manufacturing data.

Right now I just have the problem, that I can only use IGES to import the geometry to ICEM CFD (better data formats like *.sat and paraSolid are not working for me). Unfortunately, there are some surface errors and I have problems with the meshing.

At the moment, I created a quite coarse structured grid with about 350.000 cells for the rotor. I will start a first run tomorrow.

How about the tip clearance (0.1mm) and rotor hub radii (2.5mm)? Do you consider these?

In report on Stage 37 there was tip clearance of 0.356mm and I'm not sure about rotor hub radii. And what about your geometry? Will you share it with everyone in general and with me specifically. I want to compare it with my and turbogrid geometries very much.

[Far]

later it was modified to 0.4 instead of 0.356 mm.

[dre]

Sorry, I didn't mean the tip clearance, I ment the tip radius of the blade with 0.1mm.

I'll compare my geometry to the turboGrid data tomorrow and post my geometry in this thread. Hopefully, we can figure out the right rotor 37 geometry :-)

[olegmang]

I can't wait to see the results

[olegmang]

Unfortunately more then 2 weeks has passed and there is no results of geometry comparison from dre. I'm afraid that, at least I, wont ever know the truth

But the miracles do happen. Don't they?!

[dre]

Sorry for the late reply, but unfortunately I was involved in another project...

However, I have compared the rotor geometry from the turboGrid tutorial and the measurements from 1978. There are some differences regarding the blade angle (see picture 1). Another Problem of the measurement data is the leading and trailing edge, which doesn't look very smooth (see picture 2).

I think it should be possible to generate a new bladeGen file for TurboGrid with the measurement points. This way, we could still use Turbogrid for mesh generation. Furthermore, TurboGrid interpolates a different number of blade layers, so maybe the trailing and leading edge can be smoothened.

Otherwise, I have no idea what to do with the two geometries (or which geometry to choose). I think a simulation comparison would be good. Maybe the performance map for both geometries compared to the experimental results?

I have also attached the blade geometry from both for icem cfd.

Picture 1:


Picture 2:

[olegmang]

dre thank you for your persistence. Unfortunately we didn't get the final results. But i can say that i've built the geometry in a different way. So it would be very interesting to see the results of your geometry calculation comparison with the experiment.

Regards, Oleg

[olegmang]

dre thank you for your persistence. Unfortunately we didn't come to the final conclusion (what is the right geometry). But i can say that i've built the geometry in a different way. So it would be very interesting to see the results of your geometry calculation comparison with the experiment.

Regards, Oleg

[dre]

Does anyone have a clue about the second profile curve file in the TurboGrid rotor 37 dictionary? Is it the stator geometry, or maybe something else? I'm at home right now, so I cannot compare it to the measurement data.

Regarding my simulation results: I want to simulate this case with OpenFOAM. However, I think I will need another week or so until I can get some results. It would me great to compare these afterwards :-)

Regards

[zjvskobe]

The link is ok, but can't get the right file...

Originally Posted by olegmang

Hi guys. After my bloody struggle with Stage 37 I want to share with you results that I've got and, maybe, discuss them (if someone obtained something else)

First of all is 3D geometry of Stage 37.

http://uploading.com/files/1be6418c/Geometry.zip/
Geometry.zip - 421.4 KB
<a href="http://uploading.com/files/1be6418c/Geometry.zip/">Geometry.zip - 421.4 KB</a>

I'm not sure what link should I post so I've put all of them.

Hope that this will be useful because when I started this project I haven't found 3D blades geometry. So, geometry of rotor and stator was created in Solid Works 2010 basing on report NASA TP-1337. I took all points from the report, created curve from them and lofted a surface on those curves. You can look for details in files.

Second is performance curve comparison. I've compared experimental curve with the calculated one and found that it had lower pressure ratios and MFRs. And, of course, I thought that I've done something wrong. But, after I found an article "CFD SIMULATION OF FOULING ON AXIAL COMPRESSOR STAGES" from ASME Turbo Expo and there they got similar results (i attached screenshot with comparison of experimental performance with the one from the article and my one). As you can see the article authors got almost the same results as I did.

What do you think about these results? Maybe someone got better coincidence with experiment?

Regards,
Oleg