2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aerodynamic performance of transonic axial compressor with a casing groove combined with blade tip injection and ejection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
16
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Model 1 and model 2 stall margin is increased by 6.62 % and 4.45 % respectively. The stall margin achieved in the present study is higher than the stall margin reported by [33] and [11]. The bar chart of the adiabatic efficiency for models 1-2 and smooth wall casing is shown in Figure 13.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Model 1 and model 2 stall margin is increased by 6.62 % and 4.45 % respectively. The stall margin achieved in the present study is higher than the stall margin reported by [33] and [11]. The bar chart of the adiabatic efficiency for models 1-2 and smooth wall casing is shown in Figure 13.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…The efficiency of models 1-2 is reduced by 0.79 percent and 1.08 percent respectively. The adiabatic efficiencies achieved by model 1-2 is higher than the adiabatic efficiencies investigated by [33] and [11].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The experimental near stall point was at 0.925 of normalized mass flow rate, while the numerical near stall point was 0.921 of normalized mass flow rate, which was 0.43% of relative error. However, the numerical results using the two-equation k- turbulence model [15], [16] showed a very good agreement with the experimental data, where the relative errors between numerical and experimental results for total pressure ratio and efficiency were only 1% and 2%, respectively, and the relative error for the near-stall point between numerical simulation and experimental data was only journal.ump.edu.my/jmes ◄ 0.12%. So, the two-equation k- turbulence model with a scalable wall function was selected with y + values of the first nodes near the walls in a range from 20 to 100.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Three parameters, i.e., the total pressure ratio (PR), adiabatic efficiency (η), and stall margin (SM), were used to assess the aerodynamic performance and operational stability of the transonic compressor with and without the casing treatment [29,33,34]:…”
Section: Performance Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%