In the previous studies, the proposed method for gooseneck geometric modeling employed two polynomials to construct the inner-wall and area distribution curves. The inflection point location served as the variable to control the inner-wall polynomial curve, and the peak point location and peak value to control the area distribution polynomial curve. In the effort to be quickly located, the control variables were provided with more geometric meaning. 3D numerical simulations indicated that there existed a total pressure recovery island for given solution area of the three control variables. Consequently, the relationships between the geometric parameters and the total pressure loss were set up.

This paper focused on the 2D simplifications to quickly address the control variables for the total pressure island. The studies were conducted in three aspects. First, the simplified model took the constructional blocking effects of struts into account. The baseline of the 2D simplified modeling was set at 30% spanwise near the hub through comparisons of different settings. Therefore, 70% blocking area compensated to outer-wall and 30% to inner-wall along the normal direction of the baseline. The 2D simulation results indicated that the static pressure distribution was consistent with the 3D results, but waves exited at the end walls of both leading and trailing edges due to the geometric changes. Second, the simplification considered the blocking effects of the wake. The wake was converted to boundary layer thickness, and moreover, compensation to the end wall was similar with the constructional blocking of struts. The simulation results revealed that wake blocking had very small impacts to the simplification, although the peak values of static pressure slightly increased at the end wall. Third, smoothing treatments were done for both inner-wall and outer-wall after the above compensating transformations. The results showed that smoothing treatments were very necessary and improved the waves located at end wall on the static pressure distribution which was nearly the same with 3D results. After all the simplifying treatments above, the final 2D results had almost the same total pressure loss distributions with the 3D results, and could save at least 40% calculation time as a quick assessment used to search the reasonable geometric solution areas of inflection point location and peak point location for minimum total pressure loss of the gooseneck.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.