Axial Compressor Design

Part II

Onur Tuncer

Istanbul Technical University

Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Maslak, Istanbul 34469
tuncero@itu.edu.tr

December 7, 2011
Outline

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 2/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Angle of Attack

= 1

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 3/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Incidence Angle

i = 1 1

Deviation Angle

= 2 2

Fluid Turning

 = 1 2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 4/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Cascade Geometry and Performance Parameters

Lift Coefficient for NACA Airfoils

tan(/4) = 0.05515Cl0 /(a/c)

Camber Angle

= 1 2

Solidity

= c/s

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 5/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

= [3.6Ksh Kt,i + 0.3523(a/c)0 .25] e

tb /c = 0.1, Kt,i = Ksh = 1, a/c = 0.5.

e = 0.65 0.002
O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 6/1
 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Thickness Correction

Kt,i = (10tb /c)q

q = 0.28/[0.1 + (tb /c)0.3 ]

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 7/1
 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Design Incidence Angle

An equivalent circular arc is used for the NACA-65 series blades as the
basis for defining the incidence angle (Lieblien, 1960).

i = Ksh Kt,i (i0 )10 + n

Correlation of Johnsen and Bullock (1965)

1p
(i0 )10 = 0.1 3 exp[(1 70)/4]
5 + 46exp(2.3)

p = 0.914 + 3 /160

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 8/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Zero Camber Design Incidence Angle

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 9/1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Design Incidence Angle Slope Factor

(1 /90)(1+1.2)
n = 0.025 0.06
1.5 + 0.43

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 10 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Angle of Attack or Incidence Angle

Pseudo Blade Inlet Angle for NACA A4 K6 Guide Vanes and

Parabolic Arc Blades

1 = || + 1/2
This angle is used to calculate a pseudo-design incidence angle using
Liebliens correlation. The design angle of attack for the actual blade is
adjusted by,

= 1 + i || + (a/c 0.5)
The actual design incidence angle is given by,

i = + 1
However note that design angle of attack model provides more accurate
predictions.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 11 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Deviation Angle

Design Deviation Angle

= Ksh Kt, (0 )10 + m

(0 )10 = 0.011 + [0.74 1.9 + 3](1 /90)(1.67+1.09)

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 12 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Deviation Angle

Design Deviation Angle Slope Factor

m1.0 : Slope factor for solidity 1.0.

Solidity correction,

m = m1.0 / b
Defining x = 1 /100.
Slope factor for NACA-65 series camberline,

m1.0 = 0.17 0.0333x 0.333x 2

Slope factor for circular arc camberlines,

m1.0 = 0.249 + 0.074x 0.132x 2 + 0.316x 3

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 13 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Deviation Angle

Design Deviation Angle Exponent

b = 0.9625 0.17x 0.85x 3

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 14 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Deviation Angle

Thickness Correction for

Kt, = 6.25(tb /c) + 37.5(tb /c)2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 15 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Deviation Angle

Extension to NACA A4 K6 Guide Vanes and Parabolic Arc

Blades

Howells (1945) Modified Design Deviation Angle Correlation

Liebleins design deviation angle model does not apply to NACA A4 K6
guide vanes and parabolic arc camberlines.

0.92(a/c)2 + 0.0022
= + (Ksh Kt, 1)(0 )10
1 0.002/
Above equation is also used for all inlet guide vanes, regardless of
camberline and profile type.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 16 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Loss coefficient is related to the wake momentum thickness.

 2
w W2
= 2
c cos 2 W1
Wake momentum thickness is primarily a function of blade surface skin
friction and blade surface velocity distribution.
The amount of decelaration or diffusion of surface velocity determines
wake momentum thickness.
For irrotational flow Stokes theorem may be applied. As a result,

W W1 + f [(W2 W1 )/]

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 17 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Typical Blade Loading Diagram

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 18 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Diffusion Factors

D-Factor, Lieblein et al. (1953)

D (Wmax W2 )/W1

W2 Wtheta1 W2
D =1 +
W1 2W1

De q, Lieblein (1959)

Wmax
Deq =
W2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 19 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Diffusion Factors (Continued)

Loss Factor Correlations

 2
cos 2 W1
= f (D)
2 W2
or,

cos 2
= f (D)
2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 20 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Loss Coefficient as a Function of D (At the Design Point)

cos 2
= 0.0035[1 + 3.5D + 37(D )4 ]
2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 21 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Equivalent Diffusion Factor at Minimum Loss (At the

Design Point)

For NACA-65 series and C.4 circular arc blades,

Wmax cos2 1
 
= 1.12 + 0.61 [tan 1 tan 2 ]
W1
Hence,
 
W1 cos 2 Wm1
 
Wmax Wmax
Deq = =
W1 W2 W1 cos 1 Wm2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 22 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Loss Coefficient as a Function of Deq (At the Design Point)

2
cos 2 W1


= 0.004[1 + 3.1(Deq 1)2 + 0.4(Deq 1)8 ]
2 W2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 23 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Off Design Deq for i i

Wmax cos2 1
= 1.12 + 0.61 [tan 1 tan 2 ] + (i i )1.43
W1
(
0.0117 NACA-65 Series
=
0.007 C.4 Circular Arc Blades
A more general form that accounts for meridional velocity changes and
blade circulation applicable to both on and off-design conditions,

Wmax cos2 1 r1 C1 r2 C2
= 1.12 + 0.61 + (i i )1.43
W1 r1 Cm1

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 24 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Other Sources of Total Pressure Loss

I Tip clearence
I Stator shroud leakage
I End wall boundary layers
I Mach number effects
I Reynolds number effects
I Secondary flows

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 25 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Howells Model (1945) for Additional Losses

In terms of drag coefficient,

= CD cos2 1 / cos3

tan = (tan 1 + tan 2 )/2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 26 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

Howells Model (1945) for Additional Losses

End Wall Drag Coefficient

CDa = 0.02s/h
h: Blade height

Secondary Flow Drag Coefficient

CDs = 0.18CL2

CL = 2 cos (tan 1 tan 2 )/

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 27 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Design Loss Coefficient and Diffusion Factors

General Form of Loss Models

cos 2
= K1 [K2 + 3.5D + 37(D )4 ]
2

cos 2 W1 2
 
= K1 [K2 + 3.1(Deq 1)2 + 0.4(Deq 1)8 ]
2 W2
K1 , K2 empirical constants.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 28 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Positive and Negative Stall Incidence Angles

Positive and Negative Stall Incidence Angles

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 29 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Positive and Negative Stall Incidence Angles

Stall Angles of Attack for NACA 65 Series

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 30 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Positive and Negative Stall Incidence Angles

Stall Angles of Attack for NACA 65 Series

"  0.48 #
30
c = 9 + 1
1c 4.176
 
1s
s = 10.3 + 2.92
15.6 8.2

1 = +
In practice,

1c 20

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 31 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Mach Number Effects

Mach Number Effects

Low Loss Working Ranges for Low Speed Cascades

Rc = c = i ic
Rs = s = is i

Mach Number Corrections (For All Blade Types)

ic = i Rc /[1 + 0.5M103 ]
is = i + Rs /[1 + 0.5(Ksh M103 )]

Ksh 1.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 32 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Mach Number Effects

Mach Number Corrections (Continued)

Inlet Flow Angle Corresponding to Choke

Assuming a constant stream sheet thickness, from conservation of mass,

1 W1 s cos 1choke = o W
This imposes a lower limit on the negative stall incidence angle.

ic 1choke 1 + 1
The approach to choked flow where i ic is associated with large and
rapidly increasing losses.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 33 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Mach Number Effects

Mach Number Corrections

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 34 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Mach Number Effects

Mach Number Corrections (Continued)

Minimum Loss Incidence Angle

im = ic + (is ic )Rc /(Rc + Rs )

For moderate Mach number blade profiles far from the choke limit im = i .
For higher Mach number profiles, im > i .

Off Design Loss Coefficient for ic < i < is

(
m + m [(i im )/(ic im )]2 i im
=
m + m [(i im )/(is im )]2 i im

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 35 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Mach Number Effects

Mach Number Corrections (Continued)

Minimum Correction Required for Minimum Loss Coefficient

m = [1 + (im i )2 /Rs2 ]

Critical Mach Number

Mc0 = M10 W /Wmax

m = [1 + (im i )2 /Rs2 ] + Ksh [M 0 /Mc0 1)W /W1 ]2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 36 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Mach number corrections DO NOT account for shock wave losses!

Supersonic expansion over the suction side of the blade.

Expanded higher Mach number flow passes through the stronger normal
shock.
O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 37 / 1
 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Assumptions
I Blade surface Mach number is modeled as a simple Prandtl-Meyer
expansion.
I Passage shock calculated using an upstream Mach number that is the
average of blade inlet Mach number and expanded blade surface
Mach number.
I The flow is assumed to approach the blade row at a flow angle
tangent to blade suction surface.
I Narrow incidence angle operating range for supersonic flow makes this
assumption reasonable.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 38 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Flow must expand through an angle along the suction surface.
Expansion Angle Geometry

2Ru /c = sin(u /2)

2bu /c = tan(u /4)
O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 39 / 1
 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades (Continued)

Similarly for circular arc,

2R/c = sin(u /2)

2b/c = tan(u /4)

: True camber angle

R: Camberline radius of curvature
b: Analogous to bu but for the mean camberline.
Since, bu b = tb /2 then,

tan(u /4) = tan(/4) + tb /c

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 40 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades (Continued)

For a circular arc, the angle of the arc with the chord line at the inlet is
given by,

u1 = u /2
Since the flow angle is assumed to be equal to the suction surface inlet
angle,

1 = 90 = u /2 +

= 90 u /2 = 90 u /2 1 + /2
Using law of sines,

s cos
tan =
s sin + Ru

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 41 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Prandtl Meyer Isentropic Expansion

Z WS p dW
= M 02 1
W1 W
For thermally and calorifically perfect gases, this equation can be
integrated analytically and expressed in terms of Prandtl-Meyer angle
usually designated as v (M).
Numerical integration requiried to accommodate any equation of state.
Shock wave total pressure loss calculated for a normal shock wave at an
inlet Mach number of,
q
0
Min = M10 MS0

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 42 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shock Wave Loss for Supersonic Cascades

Conservation Equations Across a Shock Wave

(W )in = (W )out
(P + W 2 )in = (P + W 2 )out
Hin = Hout
sout sin

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 43 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

I 2-D cascade measurements are usually performed far downstream

(where blade wake and flow distortion is minimal).
I Strong interaction between successive blade rows.
I 2-D cascade tests cannot predict rotating stall.
I Flow is far from two dimensional!
I Need EXPERIMENTAL data and calibration!

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 44 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Off-Design Deviation Slope




= [1 + ( + 0.25 4 )(1 /53)2 .5]/exp(3.1)
i

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 45 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Correction due to Pollard and Gostelaw (1967)





= + (i i ) + 10(1 Wm2 /Wm1 )
i

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 46 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Schematic of 2 vs. 1 in Cascades

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 47 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Off-Design Loss Coefficient

Normalized Incidence Angle Parameter

(
(i im )/(is im ) i im
=
(i im )/(im ic ) i < im

Loss Coefficient
Designating the upstream shock wave loss coefficient by s (if any),

2 2 1
s + m [1 + ]

= s + m [5 4( + 2)] < 2

s + m [2 + 2( 1)] > 1

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 48 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Off Design Loss Coefficient

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 49 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Off-Design Cascade Performance Correlations

Off-Design Wake Blockage

(
0 Deq 2
Bwake =
1 (2/Deq )0.9 Deq > 2

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 50 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Blade Tip Clearence Loss

Blade Tip Clearence Loss

The pressure difference across the two sides of the blade must balance the
blade torque.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 51 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Blade Tip Clearence Loss

Blade Tip Clearence Loss

The pressure difference across the blade must balance the blade torque.
For the clearence gap,

= c [(r Cm )1 + (r Cm )2 ][
Average pressure difference across each blade row,

P = (Zrtip c c cos ) (1)

Z: Number of blades

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 52 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Blade Tip Clearence Loss

Blade Tip Clearence Loss (Continued)

Velocity of leakage,
p 0.2
Uc = 0.816 2P//Nrow
Leakage mass flow rate,

mc = Uc Z c c cos
Clearence gap total pressure loss for the entire blade row,

Pt = P mc /m

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 53 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shroud Seal Leakage Loss

Shroud Seal Leakage Loss

The seal allows larger clearences between the shroud band and the shaft to
be used without causing excessive leakage.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 54 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Shroud Seal Leakage Loss

Shroud Seal Leakage Loss

The total pressure loss due to shroud leakage is that given by the leakage
mass flow and the pressure difference across the blade row,

Pt = P mleak /m
Leakage mass flow through the labyrinth seal (Egli, 1935),

mleak =

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 55 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Implementation, Extensions and Alternate Methods

Implementation, Extensions and Alternate Methods

Implementation of empirical models into performance analysis is a

non-trivial task.
For the sake of completeness parameters K1 and K2 should be defined.

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 56 / 1

 Empirical Performance Models Based on 2-D Cascade Tests Implementation, Extensions and Alternate Methods

Reynolds Number Effect

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 57 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis

Meridional Through Flow Analysis

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 58 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Meridional Coordinate System

Meridional Coordinate System

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 59 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Inviscid Adiabatic Flow on a Quasi Normal

Inviscid Adiabatic Flow on a Quasi Normal

Conservation of mass along a quasi-normal,

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 60 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Linking Quasi Normals

Linking Quasi Normals

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 61 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Repositioning the Stream Surfaces

Repositioning the Stream Surfaces

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 62 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Full Normal Equilibrium Solution

Full Normal Equilibrium Solution

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 63 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Simplified Forms of the Through Flow Analysis

Simplified Forms of the Through Flow Analysis

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 64 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Annulus Sizing

Annulus Sizing

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 65 / 1

 Meridional Through Flow Analysis Numerical Approximations

Numerical Approximations

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 66 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis

End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 67 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis

Displacement Thickness Data

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 68 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis

Tangential Force Defect Data

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 69 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis End Wall Boundary Layer Eqauations

End Wall Boundary Layer Eqauations

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 70 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis End Wall Boundary Layer Eqauations

End Wall Boundary Layer Eqauations (Continued)

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 71 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis Boundary Layer Velocity Profile Assumptions

Boundary Layer Velocity Profile Assumptions

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 72 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis Empirical Models for Entrainment and Wake Shear Stress

Empirical Models for Entrainment and Wake Shear Stress

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 73 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis Boundary Layer Jump Conditions

NACA 8-Stage Compressor Blockage

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 74 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis Boundary Layer Jump Conditions

NACA 10-Stage Compressor Blockage

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 75 / 1

 End-Wall Boundary Layer Analysis Boundary Layer Jump Conditions

NACA 5-Stage Compressor Blockage

O. Tuncer (ITU) Axial Compressor December 2011 76 / 1